|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 2, 2021 11:38:29 GMT -5
Looking at it harshly, I didn't like it. I think what turned me off was the remarks of making M-Us weaker at 1st level and rubberizing towns (0 levels) and low level monsters:
Would it be like playing a better "edition D&D" game? Probably. See how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 2, 2021 11:50:54 GMT -5
I will have to re-read it. I remember not liking, but it's been a long time. Seemed too linear and too fiddly to implement.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 2, 2021 12:38:09 GMT -5
Too fiddly -- Yes, I agree. I also agree about making magic-users, 0-levels and 1-2 hp monsters worse... There is no need for that. I think I'm just going to do a simplified version of "You get the 5% increment the level below you would normally get the 10% increment." Fighters improve their hit rolls by 1 every level instead of 2 every other level. That way there is no need for a new set of charts. Monster charts will stay as-is.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 2, 2021 14:35:42 GMT -5
Who is worse? Lakofka or Mentzer? Seriously, I see a lot of energy coming off Lakofka enough to make the "archer" an early magazine favorite amongst players but he couldn't muster curb appeal beyond the superfluous illustration here and there (WOG gods, etc). I always read his stuff like "you're not going to get anything new" in mind. Even the "L" series is full and empty at the same time. We should retroactively call his "LEOMUND'S TINY HUT" Dragon articles "EXPERT-USER-END'S MINUTIA HUT"... Seriously, this is the way that I see Lakofka: he contributed tangentially, as a regular D&D tournament player (And fellow Diplomacy enthusiast with Gary), with outstanding comments to the Dungeon Master's Guide (Mentioned by Gary in DRAGON #28 AUG 1979) and that, I assume, is why he got the Lich (DRAGON MAGAZINE #26 JUNE 1979) and Vampire (DRAGON MAGAZINE #30 OCTOBER 1979) articles. Which led to the start of LEOMUND'S TINY HUT as an almost regular series of articles (DRAGON MAGAZINE #31 NOV 1979 to DRAGON MAGAZINE #108 APR 1986) and him having a full plate and scrounging for material. Also starting with the BEST OF DRAGON #2 (1981) his articles were made prominent by the editors. He was designated for "World of Greyhawk" along with Rob Kuntz and Frank Mentzer with sketchy results from all of them (The Lakofka Suel gods seemed cool upon release but I got fatigued on them after a while.). Once the money left town so did Lakofka because aside from a few latter day efforts it seems like he was only there for the free cheese (Corporate perks).
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 2, 2021 18:48:14 GMT -5
Frank and Len both leaned in the direction of rules mechanics and balance concerns, and of course they didn't have EGG's imagination. Not many do! But I appreciated their attempts to clarify and logically expand on the rules, even if sometimes it got a bit dry. And I did enjoy some of their creative efforts... I liked Frank and Len's modules "To the Aid of Falx" and "The Assassin's Knot" and I liked the Death Master class. Frank and Len both had the honor of being invited onto Oerth with their campaigns set there as Aqua-Aerdy and Lendore Isle, which is pretty damn cool!
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 2, 2021 22:31:02 GMT -5
It seemed like Kuntz, Mentzer and Lakofka were not associated at all (Even though Mentzer and Kuntz were standing together right in front of me it was like they weren't associated. Almost like unrelated cousins associated by marriages.). Which is weird. I had used Mentzer's THE BOOK OF MARVELOUS MAGIC but the reaction that people have for him is harsh. If I was going to pinpoint a big dud it was THE NEEDLE (1987) which was finished without him I believe but that I had associated with him for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 3, 2021 7:38:17 GMT -5
Rob, Frank and Len each had strong associations with EGG but perhaps not with each other... Rob had strong associations with EGG during the formation of D&D in the early 70's and became his co-DM and a TSR employee in the mid 70's, and after that there was a time when Rob was gone from the scene. Len did a lot of work on AD&D with EGG in the mid to late 70's but was a free lancer. Frank came on board TSR as an editor in early 1980 and his main distinction seems to be winning the first "DM Invitational" contest during the height of the tournament play boom, and working as an editor with EGG and later being handed Basic D&D and T1-4. So, they each worked closely with EGG at different times. What they have in common is that they were all invited by EGG to have parts of the World of Greyhawk to develop and DM for. EGG seemed to think highly of all three.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 3, 2021 9:01:07 GMT -5
I still rank the controversial Ernie over all three of them!
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 3, 2021 9:20:58 GMT -5
I'm always interested in what the old guard may be up to, creatively speaking. And of course I'm interested in their memoirs about the old days. I'm not interested in controversy, political opinions, scandals, or waxing philosophical about game design theory and such stuff... That all seems like a waste of time. When I finally get to Lake Geneva I definitely plan to swing by the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum and hope to get in some gaming with Ernie. That would be awesome. As far as the "new (and controversial) TSR Games" goes, I have wait and see approach. Ultimately, their products will either be good or not, they'll have to stand on their own merits. This has been like watching someone throw the anchor out of their boat while it is still being towed down the road and before it is even in the lake!
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 3, 2021 11:36:26 GMT -5
As we've been getting sidewound by me mostly, I've been thinking about what specific house rule that is a variant. I'd say higher level games are Chainmail rules for a battle with troops. Maybe referencing Swords &Spells otherwise it's AD&D overlap for Man to Man.
For traps, it is always subjective to the trap.
If players keep talking, I assume that is character talk and they are distracted.
No doubled up combat powers (fight and gate, etc) unless it's related to armor and to hit in place.
Leader and/or caller and mapper.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 3, 2021 12:48:44 GMT -5
I allow in-game chatter and I also count it as characters taking up time. The torches are burning! If someone drank a potion and they are talking about what to do, the planning in real time counts towards game time and potion duration. This came up in the last game session.
I've been asking for a volunteer to be the mapper and/or builder of terrain as we go. More complex dungeons require actual mapping by the players or they can get lost. Players lost = characters lost.
The larger the party the more likely I am to make use of a caller. We had seven players last time and it was orderly enough going around the table to determine actions that I didn't assign a caller.
For the past year or so, I've gone back to strict XP by the book in AD&D rules. But lately, I'm starting to give XP for overcoming other obstacles like traps and tricks. I think it is still in the spirit of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 3, 2021 13:21:00 GMT -5
The Caller is a funny thing. It was included in multiple editions of the game, but you never hear of one being used in any play report.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 3, 2021 13:41:45 GMT -5
It must have been for those super large player groups common in the 1970's and all but non existent since then. I seem to remember EGG and Rob talking about that. It may also be a good method of imposing an order on a loud, chaotic group ("Whatever the caller says you do is what you do, so make sure get the details straight with him!").
Occasionally, some player becomes de facto leader simply by virtue of being more engaged.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jul 25, 2022 12:00:42 GMT -5
I am play-testing another house rule which is that any cleric, or druid, or class that can cast such spells (such as a paladin or ranger) may swap out any prayed for spell for a cure wounds spell of the same level or lower. For example, a 1st level cleric who prayed for command may cast it as command or at any time cast it as a cure light wounds (same level swap). A 3rd level cleric who prayed for spiritual hammer may cast it as a spiritual hammer or at any time cast it as a cure light wounds (lower level swap). A 7th level cleric who prayed for neutralize poison may cast it as a neutralize poison or cast it as a cure serious wounds (same level swap). The swapping only requires a brief prayer that does not need to be spoken aloud... I haven't decided whether it is instantaneous or may require a swapping time (such as a certain number of segments or a round). This option does not allow swaps to other cure spells that do not specifically cure wounds, such as cure blindness or cure disease. The purpose of this house rule is to allow clerics more versatility in their spell selection. I am tired of seeing clerics pray for CLW, CLW, CLW, CLW... I don't blame cleric players for doing this since CLW is probably the best overall 1st level utility spell that clerics have access to. But I think they often feel obligated to take them for the rest of the party, and so cleric players may not get to try casting the other spells as much. I'd like to see more use of spells like resist cold, remove fear, command, light, etc. Also, I do not think this option unbalances anything. It makes the party a bit more versatile and survivable. It also makes clerics more appealing. I want people to feel excited about playing their cleric, and not always feel like it's a compromise ("Okay... We need a cleric, so I'll be the medic.").
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 25, 2022 13:04:14 GMT -5
That's a fairly common house rule and it may even be BTB now, but I'm not a big fan. Maybe as a unique ability for clerics of specific gods, but not across the board. I like the strategic approach that goes with good spell selection. I have put some effort into getting clerics to diversify. I've intentionally started placing more healing potions and scrolls with CLW spells on them around the starting areas of the newer dungeons I've worked on. A lot of the 1st level cleric spells are very event specific, so if they don't know they are going to need them it's almost a waste to memorize them and not another CLW. I don't know if that's an issue specific to the 'your turn to be the medic' players. I've DMed a few players that love playing clerics over the past few years, and unless they know something is up, they usually max out on the CLWs and a Sanctuary.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jul 25, 2022 14:36:02 GMT -5
I've never allowed that but players have asked.
I think necessities of healing like that line of thinking comes from 2 factors the "no treasure" campaign and the "putz around talking/skilling" campaign.
Which ever one that potion of healing isn't coming soon enough, because those are usually DMs that do not use random treasure rolls at all.
Potion of healing is the most easily acquired potion if rolled on chart 3 MAGIC ITEMS on the DMG treasure rolls (20%). On the POTIONS chart 3A the potion of healing is 6% while everything else is 3% (or rarely 2%).
I would not go by price for rarity because I think its only factored for normals buying the "whoop-di-doo" magic item but between us "dungeon beings" its more like carrying around a power bar.
Potions are also very prominent on the treasure maps charts.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 25, 2022 21:29:42 GMT -5
Oh yeah, alchemists sell potions of healing. In my City of Greyhawk in the Old City I've added an apothecary where players can buy cheap half strength healing potions. Most of these changes were started when I was running an OD&D game where 1st level clerics had no spells, and I just carried them over into AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jul 26, 2022 8:29:25 GMT -5
I've been on the fence about this house rule for a while, as I also like the strategic approach for spell selection as an important part of the game. But in practice, I've seen players just load up on the same spells over and over again. Even when I give them potions of healing and scrolls with a variety of cleric spells including CLW, they tend to hoard the potions and scrolls and still load up on CLW as their prayed for spells. I'm looking at this as a play test, to see if I can rattle their cage and change certain behaviors. Something else I am play testing is that if a cleric is in their god or saint's good graces, they may occasionally get portents in the form of dreams or visions when they pray. My cleric players have been very good about tithing their temples and churches, and going above and beyond being generous and helpful to beggars, the poor, refugees, etc. I feel like that sort of behavior deserves some in-game benefit... Nothing huge, but occasional helpful hints or guidance such as in the form of quoted scripture or riddling language.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jul 26, 2022 10:15:00 GMT -5
When we had the BARBARIAN WARS (1983-1987) in Connecticut, every army had one shaman which could collect the dead and bring them back to the main hill to be revived but when the numbers of overall participants went down (After the divorce of the organizers) it was game changing with resurrected immediately coming back on hard won victories and no one there to refigure the rules. Yeah its kind of annoying when its all on the cleric. I think players are more amped to panic that the game that they are going to play is not going to be a rubberized 2E where monsters hit less. There is a feeling with older players that its going to be a tight ship and this DM will make us die in a snap with players greasing up that potion bottle in their sweaty palms and asking, "What happens if I just take a sip?"* In my memory, prior to 1986 not a single player asked for first aid. The common mentality in lets say 1984 when I met Taylor was "How many potions do we have left?" and the cleric was the emergency back up. *Another common phrase which became a D&D cliche for me was "I nock an arrow". As if the four other professional fighters in the party no longer know how to use a bow. I was waiting for "I cock a sword" but unfortunately 2E didn't last long enough.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 26, 2022 11:16:36 GMT -5
You know not letting players max out on Cure spells every time would be BtB. PH: "While the deity may grant such spells full willingly, a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required. The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric some other spell (or none at all)." I don't like to remove player agency, so this is not something I would do without some other prompting first. I have recently been thinking about the relationship between clerics and their deities. It's an area I've neglected. The cleric is part of the deity's marketing. What the cleric does is selling the deity. It's reasonable to think that a god would not be happy with the party 'medic' reputation and would want their clerics to be more dynamic. Using protection from evil, command, etc. might help the cleric play a bigger role in defeating the BBG and getting the bigger accolades that would result. I wouldn't do it often, but maybe some feeling of displeasure the 14th day in a row the cleric prays for all CLW spells. If the player continued to ignore, I might have the god do an occasional switcharoo on what was requested.
|
|