A whimsical idea for spellcasting.....
Matt over at The Land of Nod made this post concerning the possible unique qualities of a wizard's brain, both living and dead. I found this to amazingly inspiring. After reading the phrase "..demands chocolate at any price", it struck me. The human brain burns a lot of calories when doing heavy thinking, problem solving and computation in particular. Specifically it burns glucose. What if casting spells burned an incredible amount of calories, so that the caster had to consume mass quantities of food and drink every day, or risk falling into a diabetic coma? I think this could be an interesting way of introducing some non-vancian magic to a campaign. Someday I'll have to develop an actual system around this concept.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
What I learned from LARPing.
I don't know how many people in the OSR have ever participated in a LARP, let alone a combat intensive one. In the early 90's I was heavily involved in "padded weapon" LARPs in the DC area. It was a fun activity, and at times provided some cool stories and excellent roleplaying opportunities, not to mention good exercise. After a few years I got out of it because I had other interests, and was generally tired of the political/personality conflicts in these local groups. But in 4 or 5 years I did discover several things that I can apply to tabletop games as well. Most of what I learned was about social interaction and roleplaying, but some of it can actually be applied to tabletop rules. WARNING: I'm not trying for "silver age" realism here. I am trying to put some "real world" experience to good use. I don't want to add overly complex systems to the game, put I do want to examine existing systems and rules in light of my experience on the padded weapons battlefield.
The first subject might not be that obvious, but I can not emphasize enough the importance of morale. Creatures of any sort of intelligence are not going to get themselves involved in a losing battle, except in extreme circumstances. Let's take a hypothetical. An adventuring party of 6 kicks in a dungeon door. In the room is 4 goblins. Typically you roll for surprise and initiative and then combat begins. If the party attacks first, the goblins will engage in combat. In B/X rules, morale is first checked when the first death on that side occurs. Under 1e, it's checked when the leader is defeated, 25% of the force is eliminated, or when they are facing an obviously superior force ( which is left up to the GM's discretion). From my experience in LARPing, people think twice before engaging in combat (even when it is not life threatening), and only pick fights they think they can win. An outnumbered group is going to retreat or surrender unless those options have been taken away from them, or they are absolutely sure that their opponents are inferior. They also tend to steer clear of the best fighter on the other side, preferring to take out the weaker targets first to get the numbers in their favor. In the above example, the goblins are not going to fight if they see a group of well armed men kicking in their door. On the other hand if they were to see 6 peasants stumble in, the goblins would probably be up for a fight. Of course, this all depends how goblins view themselves in your campaign. Maybe they are chesty little buggers that are always biting off more than they can chew, or maybe they are bullies that quickly turn coward as soon as they are pressed. But no matter what, morale or reaction needs to be considered at the start of the encounter. The takeaway from my experience is that using 1 number to represent a morale rating, or a random roll to determine reaction is probably too simplistic. It's much better for the GM to take the time to think about the psychology and morale of the monsters the players will be encountering, and figure out how they will react to different situations. Less rules and roles, more thinking.
Missile weapons and combat are a dicey thing. It's damn hard to hit a moving target, and anyone with a shield is incredibly hard to hit if they are watching you. Most of the time firing into a melee is pure chance. An archer attacked in melee is screwed. Your best bet as am archer is to shoot at stationary targets that are not paying attention to you, and stay as far away from the melee as possible. This often means targeting other missile weapon users and casters. There are 2 things that I would change in the rules in regards to archery in particular. The first is that shields should count for more than a simple +1 or +2 when attacked from the front. The second is that crossbows are much more simple to use than others bows. It takes 5 minutes to learn how to reload, and then it's point and shoot. I longbow takes a lot of practice before the user can shoot straight on a consistent basis, and would require a decent amount of strength to be effective in combat. I'm still not sure how to represent this in the rules. 3e places them in the simple weapon category, which allows for a wider range of classes to use them. While this makes logical sense, I really don't like the idea of wizards and clerics walking around with crossbows. Thieves would be ok though. The best I can come up with currently is a simple +1 to hit across the board for crossbows. Minimum strength requirements for using regular bows is an option, and could come into play if you use 3d6 in order to generate characters.
I mentioned shields while discussing missile weapons, and this is probably the one area where my experience LARPing changed my thoughts on tabletop rules. Shields are tremendously undervalued in D&D. This difference in attacking a person with and without a shield are night and day. Since 3e was published, I have used the rules for shields found there for all of my games (large shields are a +2, tower shields +4, can provide cover against missile weapons), but even that is not enough in my estimation. However, the one thing I can't judge from LARPing, is how much protection armor provides (that's a whole other debate). Any change in AC bonuses from shields needs to be judged against the AC bonuses that armor provides, and I am hesitant to make shields too powerful, if only for game mechanics. A +2 for small, +3 for medium, +4 for large (tower) system seems to be a good compromise. I haven't included bucklers in the discussion because I think they are special case. I see them more as a specialized tool for parrying, rather than a static defense in the way that armor and shields are considered. Also, as they more properly belong to the renaissance period, I wouldn't use them in my games unless I was doing something in the swashbuckler genre.
Historically, shields are generally made of wood, with metal and leather used to hold it together. As you can imagine, when hit with a sharp heavy weapon swung at high velocity they sometimes break. This is something we simulated in the LARP rules that we used (3 hits to a shield from a polearm destroyed it), but we also encountered actual breakage occurred with shields and weapons. RPG rules don't normally account for weapons shields and armor breaking, unless some sort of critical fumble rules are used. I haven't figure out a simple way to account for breakage yet, as I feel that it probably requires the type of rule that adds more complexity or book keeping.
Something that I learned from LARPing that is often touted by MMA practitioners is that fights often end up on the ground. That isn't to say that grappling becomes a major part of combat, but that in reality people fall down more often than is typically portrayed in tabletop RPG combat. Some editions of the rules have abilities that can cause a a character to trip of fall over, but what I noticed is that people have a tendency to trip over themselves or lose their footing when the ground is uneven. As a GM, you might want to think about what type of surface the combat is occurring on. Something as simple as a forest or a field can be treacherous footing, Consider the dangers of gopher holes, loose rocks, and tree roots sticking above ground.
Closer attention should be paid to the terrain in general when in outdoor environments. For example, small trees, bushes, and other undergrowth can be a real hindrance to movement in a forest, without blocking line of sight for spells and missiles. In my experience, archers and casters had a huge advantage in the forest environment because of this. Larger shields, polearms and packs easily become entangle or blocked by bushes and low hanging branches. Again, this is the sort of thing that should be the GM's call. Not all forests are the same, and neither are all swamps, rivers, hills, grasslands etc.
This post went on a lot longer than expected, but as I was writing, more things kept coming to mind. There's probably more I could come up with, and if I do, I'll post more.
The first subject might not be that obvious, but I can not emphasize enough the importance of morale. Creatures of any sort of intelligence are not going to get themselves involved in a losing battle, except in extreme circumstances. Let's take a hypothetical. An adventuring party of 6 kicks in a dungeon door. In the room is 4 goblins. Typically you roll for surprise and initiative and then combat begins. If the party attacks first, the goblins will engage in combat. In B/X rules, morale is first checked when the first death on that side occurs. Under 1e, it's checked when the leader is defeated, 25% of the force is eliminated, or when they are facing an obviously superior force ( which is left up to the GM's discretion). From my experience in LARPing, people think twice before engaging in combat (even when it is not life threatening), and only pick fights they think they can win. An outnumbered group is going to retreat or surrender unless those options have been taken away from them, or they are absolutely sure that their opponents are inferior. They also tend to steer clear of the best fighter on the other side, preferring to take out the weaker targets first to get the numbers in their favor. In the above example, the goblins are not going to fight if they see a group of well armed men kicking in their door. On the other hand if they were to see 6 peasants stumble in, the goblins would probably be up for a fight. Of course, this all depends how goblins view themselves in your campaign. Maybe they are chesty little buggers that are always biting off more than they can chew, or maybe they are bullies that quickly turn coward as soon as they are pressed. But no matter what, morale or reaction needs to be considered at the start of the encounter. The takeaway from my experience is that using 1 number to represent a morale rating, or a random roll to determine reaction is probably too simplistic. It's much better for the GM to take the time to think about the psychology and morale of the monsters the players will be encountering, and figure out how they will react to different situations. Less rules and roles, more thinking.
Missile weapons and combat are a dicey thing. It's damn hard to hit a moving target, and anyone with a shield is incredibly hard to hit if they are watching you. Most of the time firing into a melee is pure chance. An archer attacked in melee is screwed. Your best bet as am archer is to shoot at stationary targets that are not paying attention to you, and stay as far away from the melee as possible. This often means targeting other missile weapon users and casters. There are 2 things that I would change in the rules in regards to archery in particular. The first is that shields should count for more than a simple +1 or +2 when attacked from the front. The second is that crossbows are much more simple to use than others bows. It takes 5 minutes to learn how to reload, and then it's point and shoot. I longbow takes a lot of practice before the user can shoot straight on a consistent basis, and would require a decent amount of strength to be effective in combat. I'm still not sure how to represent this in the rules. 3e places them in the simple weapon category, which allows for a wider range of classes to use them. While this makes logical sense, I really don't like the idea of wizards and clerics walking around with crossbows. Thieves would be ok though. The best I can come up with currently is a simple +1 to hit across the board for crossbows. Minimum strength requirements for using regular bows is an option, and could come into play if you use 3d6 in order to generate characters.
I mentioned shields while discussing missile weapons, and this is probably the one area where my experience LARPing changed my thoughts on tabletop rules. Shields are tremendously undervalued in D&D. This difference in attacking a person with and without a shield are night and day. Since 3e was published, I have used the rules for shields found there for all of my games (large shields are a +2, tower shields +4, can provide cover against missile weapons), but even that is not enough in my estimation. However, the one thing I can't judge from LARPing, is how much protection armor provides (that's a whole other debate). Any change in AC bonuses from shields needs to be judged against the AC bonuses that armor provides, and I am hesitant to make shields too powerful, if only for game mechanics. A +2 for small, +3 for medium, +4 for large (tower) system seems to be a good compromise. I haven't included bucklers in the discussion because I think they are special case. I see them more as a specialized tool for parrying, rather than a static defense in the way that armor and shields are considered. Also, as they more properly belong to the renaissance period, I wouldn't use them in my games unless I was doing something in the swashbuckler genre.
Historically, shields are generally made of wood, with metal and leather used to hold it together. As you can imagine, when hit with a sharp heavy weapon swung at high velocity they sometimes break. This is something we simulated in the LARP rules that we used (3 hits to a shield from a polearm destroyed it), but we also encountered actual breakage occurred with shields and weapons. RPG rules don't normally account for weapons shields and armor breaking, unless some sort of critical fumble rules are used. I haven't figure out a simple way to account for breakage yet, as I feel that it probably requires the type of rule that adds more complexity or book keeping.
Something that I learned from LARPing that is often touted by MMA practitioners is that fights often end up on the ground. That isn't to say that grappling becomes a major part of combat, but that in reality people fall down more often than is typically portrayed in tabletop RPG combat. Some editions of the rules have abilities that can cause a a character to trip of fall over, but what I noticed is that people have a tendency to trip over themselves or lose their footing when the ground is uneven. As a GM, you might want to think about what type of surface the combat is occurring on. Something as simple as a forest or a field can be treacherous footing, Consider the dangers of gopher holes, loose rocks, and tree roots sticking above ground.
Closer attention should be paid to the terrain in general when in outdoor environments. For example, small trees, bushes, and other undergrowth can be a real hindrance to movement in a forest, without blocking line of sight for spells and missiles. In my experience, archers and casters had a huge advantage in the forest environment because of this. Larger shields, polearms and packs easily become entangle or blocked by bushes and low hanging branches. Again, this is the sort of thing that should be the GM's call. Not all forests are the same, and neither are all swamps, rivers, hills, grasslands etc.
This post went on a lot longer than expected, but as I was writing, more things kept coming to mind. There's probably more I could come up with, and if I do, I'll post more.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
BattleSystem Skirmishes
We've all had this situation in our game. A large party of players, possibly with some NPC help, gets into a fight with a large group of monsters. Suddenly book keeping becomes an issue. Lots and lots of dice are being rolled. What looks like a fun fight at first bogs down and takes far too long. So how do you as a GM deal with battles that aren't full scale warfare, but are larger than your normal encounter?
Back in the early days of 2nd edition, we had BattleSystem Skirmishes. Most of us remember the various versions of the BattleSystem mass combat rules, but BattleSystem Skirmishes was the less popular and now forgotten system that bridged the gap between RPG and tabletop wargame. Skirmishes represents individual models on a 1:1 scale, as opposed to the 10:1 or some larger scale that is used in most wargames. In this way it has more in common with today's pre-painted miniatures games like D&D minis and the Clix games. As a wargame, it really wasn't all that interesting. In fact, I don't recall anyone ever using it as such. However, it did do one thing fairly well, and that was simplifying and speeding up combat for 2e AD&D.
Even though the book goes on and on about the rules of combat, and has good size list of monsters spells and magic items, we only really needed about 2 pages of the book. Those pages provided charts and rules for converting 2e characters to Skirmishes rules, which actually turns out to be a very simple process. Hit points and damage are now represented as hit dice or just "hits". A 1 hit die create from 2e had 1 hit in skirmishes. your standard weapon that would do a d8 damage in 2e did 1 hit. Skirmishes used Thaco and armor class, just like 2e with just a few other modifiers. Other than that, you could just use all of the other standard rpg style rules. I loved this system, because it got rid of the damage roll, and weaker creatures were either alive or dead. You no longer had to keep track of 20 kobolds that had taken wounds. Even creatures with more hits could be tracked with a die or another simple marker (really tiny d6s were great for this).
Even though this was written with 2e in mind, it would work with any old version of D&D once you see how the conversion works.
Appendix N update.
I just saw this article over at Huffington Post that offers some alternatives to John Carter. Since I have started reading blogs devoted to "old school roleplaying" I have seen several references to "Appendix N". I had no idea what anyone was talking about. So I looked it up. Wonderful thing the internet. For those like me that don't know what "Appendix N" is, it is a section of the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide that lists authors and books that inspired Gary Gygax as he created D&D. Now, I've had a DMG since the early 80's. I don't specifically recall this list, but I'm sure I must have read it a few times way back when. I haven't read most of the material on this list, probably because much of it wasn't widely available. If it wasn't in stock at Waldenbooks or in the school library, it was out of my reach. However I did get to read Leiber, Moorcock, Tolkien, and Zelazny.
I've seen a few people post a list of things that would be in their personal version of Appendix N, but I'd like to see what others think should be in sort of "Appendix N Hall of Fame". It would be those books and authors that have been published since the D&D was created that should be added to Gary's original list. Criteria should include popularity, influence, similarity in themes to Gary's original list. For example, Terry Brooks Shannara series might be a good candidate. On the other hand, Mists of Avalon or Harry Potter probably wouldn't be good candidates because of how different they are from the material in Gary's list.
I've seen a few people post a list of things that would be in their personal version of Appendix N, but I'd like to see what others think should be in sort of "Appendix N Hall of Fame". It would be those books and authors that have been published since the D&D was created that should be added to Gary's original list. Criteria should include popularity, influence, similarity in themes to Gary's original list. For example, Terry Brooks Shannara series might be a good candidate. On the other hand, Mists of Avalon or Harry Potter probably wouldn't be good candidates because of how different they are from the material in Gary's list.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
More on Unified XP tables.
In an earlier post I began discussing class balance, unified xp tables, and the reasons for and against bonus XP for high prime requisite scores. In this post I'd like to take some time to discuss the pros and cons of the use of individual xp tables for each class. Most old school gamers like the old individual xp charts, and I certainly don't mind them, but I think that there are some valid reasons for not using them.
I like the old charts because they add a certain flavor to the game. With every class having a different chart, the players are each carefully tracking their xp, anxiously awaiting their next level. Leveling becomes an individual goal, not a group goal. An argument that is often made in favor of individual xp charts is that it allows you to have unbalanced classes within the game, or in other words you can balance a class by making it more or less expensive to level. The classic example is the thief. It can't wear good armor or use a variety of weapons, and gets no spells. The thief's attack tables and HPs are also inferior to all but the Magic-User. It does have a access to thief skills, but these hardly make up for all of the other disadvantages the thief suffers from. Thus the thief levels faster than any other class in the game.
Another aspect of the individual XP charts that should not be overlooked is something that goes beyond class balance. You could call it feel, or difficulty, but it's easier to just explain. Of the base classes Magic-Users require the most xp to level (at least at the lower levels). Why? Because being a wizard is damn tough. Not just anyone can be a wizard. It takes a lot of dedication. Most would say that Magic-Users are underpowered at low levels, particularly when xp cost/level is considered. But they are designed that way for a reason. Not everyone should play a M-U, and not every M-U that is rolled is going to survive the early levels. In contrast, Clerics level a little more quickly than it would seem like they should, but then again they are favored by a god, and they have the thankless responsibility of keeping the party alive with healing spells.
What don't I like about the individual xp charts? Despite everything I just said, I find them to be wildly arbitrary. Just how much xp per level is a d8 instead of a d6 for hit dice worth? Or a better saving throw? Sure people have tried to create class construction engines (such as in the 2E DMG) but one can usually exploit these fairly easily. If you are trying to achieve balance between classes, it seems a little harder to do it with xp. Secondly, the more classes you have, the more charts you need. I like classes. I like sub-classes. Individual xp charts aren't so bad when you have 3 or 4 classes, but what about 15? or 40? (Don't laugh. Look at all of the new classes in the non-core 1e books like UA or OA. Then add in the NPC classes presented in the Dragon.). Charts take up space in the rules and you have to look them up. Minor gripes, but still a negative.
This all leads to a unified xp chart. First, it fixes most of the problems I have with the use of individual charts. As a designer and a GM I like a unified leveling system because that is what I am used to working with. Most RPGs use this sort of system, even if they use a totally different sort of advancement system (FWIW, the MMOs I have worked on and played have also used this system for the most part). I think it is more easy to balance classes with this system, as you can make direct comparisons between the 2 classes. Obviously they are never going to be completely balanced, but a unified xp table gives you a good starting point, and a frame of reference.
For me, the most important aspect of using a unified leveling system is that it allows the group to completely do away with xp as a whole. If everyone earns the same xp per session, and they all use the same xp chart, they will all level at the same time. That being the case, the GM or the group can decide when the PCs level whenever they wish. No need for the GM to calculate xp. No need for the players to track it. No need to figure out how much a new monster or treasure is worth. I have both run and played in games like this before, and it has worked wonderfully, with the right group. Not every group is going to like this system, but I think you could say that about any rule. The major problem comes when you have character deaths, or characters/players that are not present for certain sessions. In this case, you can keep track of the sessions played, and level those characters when they have played an appropriate # of sessions. It isn't an exact science, but that's the point.
Now as some have pointed out, some problems arise when you get rid of xp. Specifically how does one reward individual play. In a future post, I'll explain a few ideas for simple fate/karma system that not only rewards individuals for excellent play, but livens up the game for the whole group.
This all leads to a unified xp chart. First, it fixes most of the problems I have with the use of individual charts. As a designer and a GM I like a unified leveling system because that is what I am used to working with. Most RPGs use this sort of system, even if they use a totally different sort of advancement system (FWIW, the MMOs I have worked on and played have also used this system for the most part). I think it is more easy to balance classes with this system, as you can make direct comparisons between the 2 classes. Obviously they are never going to be completely balanced, but a unified xp table gives you a good starting point, and a frame of reference.
For me, the most important aspect of using a unified leveling system is that it allows the group to completely do away with xp as a whole. If everyone earns the same xp per session, and they all use the same xp chart, they will all level at the same time. That being the case, the GM or the group can decide when the PCs level whenever they wish. No need for the GM to calculate xp. No need for the players to track it. No need to figure out how much a new monster or treasure is worth. I have both run and played in games like this before, and it has worked wonderfully, with the right group. Not every group is going to like this system, but I think you could say that about any rule. The major problem comes when you have character deaths, or characters/players that are not present for certain sessions. In this case, you can keep track of the sessions played, and level those characters when they have played an appropriate # of sessions. It isn't an exact science, but that's the point.
Now as some have pointed out, some problems arise when you get rid of xp. Specifically how does one reward individual play. In a future post, I'll explain a few ideas for simple fate/karma system that not only rewards individuals for excellent play, but livens up the game for the whole group.
Monday, March 12, 2012
0 Level Adventures
I'm guessing that not too many people use 0 level adventures. Up until now I'd be one of them. There are a few published modules that use 0 level, but I don't think I've seen anything that I found to be that interesting. I started thinking about the idea after seeing the DCC RPG beta rules. After giving it some thought I've decided I am going to start my next campaign with 0 level characters. Here are some reasons why.
The chance to explore the transition from "normal" person to adventurer. What makes an individual an adventurer? What events set them on that path? Where did they learn their trade? I want to explore these questions with my group. I also really like the idea of establishing who the character was before they were an adventurer. The DCC RPG uses a table that reminds me of WFRP, where one rolls % dice to see what sort of mundane existence they had before they started wandering around in dungeons. Farmer? Rat Catcher? Mule Skinner? Tanner? All of these are possibilities, and they serve to define what sorts of skills and starting equipment the character has, as well as their place in the world.
I want to have a game with a "tight" economy. Starting characters aren't going to have much in the way of money or belongings. I want the first adventure to explain why these characters have the equipment that they have, because a sword and armor of any sort are extremely expensive. Treasure should actually mean something to the players, and being able to go back to town and get a proper suit of armor and with their first haul should be something to shoot for.
The last reason for me wanting to run a 0 level adventure is a little selfish. I had decided a while ago that if I was going to start a new game, I was going to use "classic" published adventure modules. Still, I'd like to run something of my own creation at some point. Since there aren't any published 0 level adventures that I would consider classics, this gives me the perfect opportunity to interject something that I have designed personally. This also gives me the chance to put to use the wealth of information I have gathered from all the blogs and other resources I have been reading recently. There is a lot more information around today to help GMs build a good adventure than there was 20 years ago, and I plan to put that to good use.
The chance to explore the transition from "normal" person to adventurer. What makes an individual an adventurer? What events set them on that path? Where did they learn their trade? I want to explore these questions with my group. I also really like the idea of establishing who the character was before they were an adventurer. The DCC RPG uses a table that reminds me of WFRP, where one rolls % dice to see what sort of mundane existence they had before they started wandering around in dungeons. Farmer? Rat Catcher? Mule Skinner? Tanner? All of these are possibilities, and they serve to define what sorts of skills and starting equipment the character has, as well as their place in the world.
I want to have a game with a "tight" economy. Starting characters aren't going to have much in the way of money or belongings. I want the first adventure to explain why these characters have the equipment that they have, because a sword and armor of any sort are extremely expensive. Treasure should actually mean something to the players, and being able to go back to town and get a proper suit of armor and with their first haul should be something to shoot for.
The last reason for me wanting to run a 0 level adventure is a little selfish. I had decided a while ago that if I was going to start a new game, I was going to use "classic" published adventure modules. Still, I'd like to run something of my own creation at some point. Since there aren't any published 0 level adventures that I would consider classics, this gives me the perfect opportunity to interject something that I have designed personally. This also gives me the chance to put to use the wealth of information I have gathered from all the blogs and other resources I have been reading recently. There is a lot more information around today to help GMs build a good adventure than there was 20 years ago, and I plan to put that to good use.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Class balance, unified xp, and prime requisites.
While coming up with some house rules that may eventually become a full blown retro-clone, I began to take a serious look at the classes. I quickly realized I was going to have to deal with class balance, and that there are issues with class balance in D&D that I don't have to deal with in MMOs (my day job). The first issue is individual xp charts for each class, and the second the potential for bonus xp if the character has high prime requisite (PR) scores.
I seen a lot written about unified xp charts, so I'll deal with them in another post. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone discuss bonus xp for high PRs. This seems to be something that people tend to overlook a lot of the time. Not that they don't use it, every game I've ever been in has used it, but nobody really stops to think why this rule exists or what purpose it serves in the game.
I first questioned the idea of bonus xp for a high PR score when I saw the suggestion that there be bonus xp given based on how you rolled your stats. (sorry that I can't remember where I saw this) A straight 3d6 would get you a +15%, while the stand 4d6 drop the lowest and arrange to order gets you +0% (there were other options in between). I liked this idea, but realized that it was probably incompatible with the bonus xp from PRs.
It would seem to me that bonus xp from high PR scores is an concept that got its start with OD&D. In the original game it makes sense. High ability scores don't immediately make you much better at anything, but they allow you to advance in your class more quickly. In later editions where ability scores give you bonuses, I don't really see the need for the bonus xp. In fact it creates a situation where the character pretty much has to have those score or they will be gimped. The concept may make logical sense in that a strong person may be able to increase their melee combat skills more quickly, but from a game sense it create a power imbalance between the "haves and have nots". I think that this difference can become magnified if you are dealing with classes that already have high stat requirements to join them, making the chance of having a high enough PR score for bonus xp much smaller.
I've come to the conclusion that I am not going to use the stand bonus xp % in my game. If I was doing a straight OD&D or Swords and Wizardry game, I would include them, but I am using the -3 to +3 bonuses from B/X. Also, I will be making everyone use the same method for rolling stats, so the concept of bonus xp for the method used to generate stats won't be in the game either. By eliminating the bonus xp from my game, I am making the bookkeeping a little easier on everyone. It's a small point, but an important step in my larger plan to provide the option to remove xp from the game. But that's another post.
I seen a lot written about unified xp charts, so I'll deal with them in another post. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone discuss bonus xp for high PRs. This seems to be something that people tend to overlook a lot of the time. Not that they don't use it, every game I've ever been in has used it, but nobody really stops to think why this rule exists or what purpose it serves in the game.
I first questioned the idea of bonus xp for a high PR score when I saw the suggestion that there be bonus xp given based on how you rolled your stats. (sorry that I can't remember where I saw this) A straight 3d6 would get you a +15%, while the stand 4d6 drop the lowest and arrange to order gets you +0% (there were other options in between). I liked this idea, but realized that it was probably incompatible with the bonus xp from PRs.
It would seem to me that bonus xp from high PR scores is an concept that got its start with OD&D. In the original game it makes sense. High ability scores don't immediately make you much better at anything, but they allow you to advance in your class more quickly. In later editions where ability scores give you bonuses, I don't really see the need for the bonus xp. In fact it creates a situation where the character pretty much has to have those score or they will be gimped. The concept may make logical sense in that a strong person may be able to increase their melee combat skills more quickly, but from a game sense it create a power imbalance between the "haves and have nots". I think that this difference can become magnified if you are dealing with classes that already have high stat requirements to join them, making the chance of having a high enough PR score for bonus xp much smaller.
I've come to the conclusion that I am not going to use the stand bonus xp % in my game. If I was doing a straight OD&D or Swords and Wizardry game, I would include them, but I am using the -3 to +3 bonuses from B/X. Also, I will be making everyone use the same method for rolling stats, so the concept of bonus xp for the method used to generate stats won't be in the game either. By eliminating the bonus xp from my game, I am making the bookkeeping a little easier on everyone. It's a small point, but an important step in my larger plan to provide the option to remove xp from the game. But that's another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)