REF (Random Encounter Fun): Magic Men

Switching things up from the last REF, I thought we'd go back to the dungeon. A random determination took us to level 3 of the crawl (Moldvay). The result? Medium.

That's right. 1st level magic-user(s). 1d4 of them, actually. I rolled and got a 3.

Three unarmored fellows with daggers and one spell apiece aren't exactly terrifying. Granted, the spells could be a challenge, but if our PCs are 3rd level on average, I doubt they're quaking in their boots, here. I decided to roll randomly for the spells for Huey, Dewey, and Louie. I came up with Read Magic, Protection from Evil, and Light.

Scary? Not so much.

However, there is an interesting wrinkle to Mediums in the monster listings. There is a 50% chance that they are accompanied by a 3rd level MU, like a senior student or teacher. Rolling d100, I got 09, so guess who's coming along?

The conjurer gets two 1st level and one 2nd level spells. Again, rolling randomly, it turns out he has Protection from Evil, Magic Missile, and Web. No wonder he was sent along to watch these three newbies!

There's nothing inherently hostile about this quartet of spell-casters. Maybe they are searching the dungeon for some magic item or a spell scroll. Or maybe they're in the employ of the evil overlord and they are patrolling this sector of the lair. The point is that because of the fact that they are essentially NPCs (as opposed to "monsters"), they can have just as many motivations as the PCs for being in the dungeon.

In my campaign, magic-users and elves need to find spells to fill their grimoires, so this encounter would be a huge potential win for them. Likewise, the mediums (and their 3rd level buddy) might covet the PC spellcasters' books.

Spell Caster House Rules

I had posted this idea a while back in the BX G+ community, but thought I would add it to the blog as that's where I have similar ideas for house rules. The idea is to make the acquiring of spells a bigger part of adventuring as well as giving spell casters a little more magical power by allowing for scroll creation.

• All magic-users and elves have a grimoire. This can be a your classic spell book, a long scroll, a tattooed pelt, scrimshawed bones, or any other means of recording written spells. Casting Detect Magic will distinguish a grimoire from a normal book or object.
• 1st level MU/Elves start with the following spells: Detect Magic, Read Magic, a 1st level spell of their choice, and one random 2nd level spell (a gift from their teacher for when the character is advanced enough to use it.)
• Clerics must choose a designated time of day (or night) in which they pray for their spells. Magic-users and Elves can only replenish a spent spell slot once per day and after a full night's worth of rest (8 hours+). If their rest is interrupted by anything more strenuous than taking a turn at keeping watch, the rest time resets. Unused spells are retained until cast or "traded out" for different ones.
• As the caster goes up in level, spell slots are gained but new spells are not learned automatically. They must be found to add to one's grimoire. Spells can be gained by three methods: spell research (X51), scrolls, another casters’ grimoire
• Copying spells (from another grimoire or scroll) to one’s own grimoire requires use of the Read Magic spell. Once the caster can read the new spell, he must spend the time and purchase special materials to add it to his personal grimoire. The original of the spell is consumed in the process. (This is why wizards typically don’t let other wizards copy directly from their grimoires!) It takes one full day’s work and 100 gp per level of the spell to transcribe it. This requires the caster’s full attention for the duration of the process.
• A magic-user or elf may create a magical scroll from a spell in his grimoire without destroying the original copy. (This is how spells are typically shared.) It takes one day and 500 gp per spell level to create a scroll. The scroll can be used to cast the spell or copy it, but it is consumed in either case. 
• A cleric may create spell scrolls for the same costs in time and money as magic-users or elves, but must prepare -but not cast- the spell for each day he is scribing the scroll.
• If a caster is desperate, he can cast an unprepared spell directly out his grimoire like a scroll, but the copy of the spell is destroyed in the process. 

House Rules for Thief Skills

There have been many posts and discussions about how low level thieves are not particularly good at their jobs. By that I mean their percentages in their class skills are nearly all pretty low. They even appear worse at hearing noises than non-thieves until they gain a few levels.

Along with this criticism has come many attempts to correct this, up to and including new skills tables, new mechanics, or even the whole class being scrapped. So I am suggesting possible ways to address this in my games. Feel free to use or ignore them.

Many of the thief skills are things that any person could reasonable attempt. Anyone can try to move quietly or climb something or hide in the shadows. The rules even allow non-thieves to check for traps and listen for noises. For my games, the only skills and abilities that are reserved as “thief only” are Open Lock, Pick Pocket, and Backstab. The rest allow for at least some chance of success to the non-thief, but thieves do have an edge when attempting them.

Find Trap: Everyone can try to spot simple traps (a trip-wire or snare, a covered pit, etc.). Only thieves can spot complex traps like tiny holes in the wall that shoot darts or vent gas. Thieves can also detect traps of a magical nature if there is something tangible to detect. e.g. a Thief might spot magical runes on a door (even if he can’t tell what they do), but he might not be able to tell there is a spell in effect inside a room.

Remove Trap: Non-thieves might be able to disarm simple devices by a player describing their actions and making a DEX check, like cutting a trip-wire, but a thief can disable a trap without destroying it. He can also disarm more complex traps like poison dart locks on treasure chests.

Move Silently: This isn’t a complicated one. As long as he isn’t wearing heavier than leather armor, any character can attempt to move silently at the same skill level as a 1st level thief. Non-thieves never improve beyond this ability.

Hide in Shadows: Like moving silently, the non-thief gets a base chance equal to a 1st level thief, but does not improve over time.

Climbing Sheer Surfaces: Anyone can climb “normal” surfaces like a steep hill, tree, or a rope. Thieves are the only ones trained in climbing nearly vertical surfaces like walls. In my game, thieves tools include things like “climbing claws” and shoe spikes. If a fighter wants up a cliff, he needs to get someone to lower a rope or find a ladder.

Hear Noise: This one is more about careful reading of the rules as written than an actual house rule. Everyone can roll to listen for noise behind a door (as per the rules on B21), and so can the thief. But the thief can hear noises in other circumstances; eg something slithering up behind them.

I haven’t put these house rules into practice in a game as yet, but they seemed a less invasive way to address low-level thieves lousy odds at success and the idea that other characters can try their hands at being “thiefy.”

Necromancy Arcana for FAGE: My First Take

I decided I wanted to have some rules for necromancers in my game (who doesn't?!), so I worked these up. I tried for more of a witch doctor/shaman vibe as opposed to just "evil with skulls." 

Obviously, like most magic in the book, more powerful versions of the magic might be possible with things like rituals and legendary items.

NECROMANCY ARCANA 

You can pierce the veil between the land of the living and the realm of death.

• Novice: You learn the spells Voices of the Dead and Death Ward. 
• Journeyman: You gain the spell Unbinding. You also gain the focus Intelligence (Necromancy Arcana).
• Master: You learn the spell Animate Corpse. You can also choose one spell stunt you can perform for –1 SP when casting Necromancy Arcana spells.

VOICES OF THE DEAD

Requirements: Necromancy Arcana (Novice)

Spell Type: Utility

MP Cost: 4

Casting Time: 1 minute

Target Number: 13

Test: Willpower (Self-Discipline) vs. Spellpower

You can contact a dead soul and question it. The spell must be cast where the soul died or its resting place (grave). There is no language barrier, but the creature must have been sentient in life. You can ask up to three questions, but the spell fades after one minute. The soul can attempt to resist answering at any point in the process, but only once. A success means it breaks contact without answering any further questions. If you have a piece of the departed's remains (bone, hair, etc.) or know their name, your spellpower is effectively at +2. The soul can only speak to what it knew in life. Its answers may be incorrect (telling what it believes to be true) but it cannot lie. 

DEATH WARD

Requirements: Necromancy Arcana (Novice)

Spell Type: Defense

MP Cost: 4

Casting Time: Major Action

Target Number: 10

Test: Willpower (Courage) vs. Spellpower

You can create a shield of energy, centered on one person within 12 yards of the caster, that holds back the undead, corporeal or otherwise. Spectres, walking dead, and similar creatures must succeed in a Willpower (Courage) or be held back a distance of 4 yards from the target of the spell. The ward does not prevent weapons or magical attacks from getting through (e.g. a spectre's shriek). The spell lasts until the end of the encounter, but if the warded character attacks the undead (magically or otherwise), the spell ends. 

UNBINDING

Requirements: Necromancy Arcana (Journeyman)

Spell Type: Attack

MP Cost: 8

Casting Time: Major Action

Target Number: 14

Test: Constitution (Stamina) vs. Spellpower

A sphere of disruptive energy bursts out from your location in a 10 yard radius. Any undead in the affected area (including flying or underground) take 2d6+1 penetrating damage, a successful CON test reduces the damage to 1d6+1 penetrating. 

ANIMATE CORPSE

Requirements: Necromancy Arcana (Master)

Spell Type: Utility

MP Cost: 10

Casting Time: 1 minute

Target Number: 15

Test: none

You can create a Walking Dead minion (see FAB p. 113). It becomes either a skeleton or zombie, depending on the state of the body. The spell animates one cadaver for each casting, but it can be cast multiple times. The body must be within 10 yards of the caster. The undead will obey your mental commands for 1 hour before de-animating, but you can extend the spell's duration by 1 hour per +5 MP. Regardless of the MP spent, the spell will end at the next sunrise.

Languages in Kelvernia

I've been going back and forth about how to use languages in Kelvernia. One thing I mislike in games (and never use) is the idea of alignment languages. What I do like is the idea that not all humans speak some "Common Tongue" fluently, or that this lingua franca is as detailed as a normal, "native" language. I also like the idea of using languages as a challenge and to add flavor to the game. 

What I don't want to do is make it so players are either: 

1. stuck with all playing characters from the same background or nation, or 
2. unable to communicate with one another in-game

Neither of those sound like they would be much fun over the long haul. 

So here's what I'm thinking of using, house rules-wise.

• All PCs speak their native language AND the Common Tongue.
• As per the LL rules, characters with an INT of 9+ are assumed to be literate.
• "Common" is a pidgin/trade speech which can convey most straightforward ideas and concepts, but is not a great choice for composing epic poetry or making flowery speeches.
• Many NPCs will not know Common.
• Demi-humans gain no automatic bonus languages. (i.e. Kobold for dwarfs, etc.)
• As per rules, High INT gets additional starting languages.
• It is possible for anyone to learn additional languages after start of play, but it takes weeks of study, practice with a fluent speaker, and/or immersion in the language's culture.
• Once per week, the character trying to learn a new language attempts an INT check, three total successes means the character has gained basic fluency. 
• A character cannot learn more languages than a total of half their INT score (rounded up).

In Kelvernia, the people of Cramond, Tyros, Jerimet, and Sulat all speak "New Imperial", a modern form of the old Sulati language. The other nations each have their own languages. Elves and dwarves have the own racial languages. There are also dead languages in Kelvernia also possible to learn.

Since all PCs know the Common tongue, no one is required to go out of their way to learn more languages. It might make some challenges easier if you have someone in the party who can speak Glaw, but no one is pigeonholing a character into it.

("Let's see... How would one decline 'Guisarme' in Ogre?")

Kelvernia: Combat House Rules (a first take)

OK, I want to tread lightly here. What I'm after is to increase the fun but not the overall complexity. At the moment, here are a few things I am considering adding.

Jeff Rient's Big Purple D30 Rule

Once per session each player may opt to roll the Labyrinth Lord’s big purple d30 in lieu of whatever die or dice the situation normally calls for. The choice to roll the big purple D30 must be made before any roll. The d30 cannot be roll for generating character statistics or hit points.

Of course, my d30 isn't purple, but you get the idea.


Critical Hits & Fumbles: I intend to include these. Some people think it ends up screwing over the PCs, but as long as crits and fumbles affect monsters too, I say it's fair. The exact charts are in flux, but criticals will most likely include extra damage, gaining a free attack, and knocking an opponent off his feet. Sample fumbles are things like dropping a weapon, breaking a weapon, or losing your next turn. "Nat 20s" = crits and "Nat 1s" = fumbles. Using the d30 to hit means any roll of 20+ is a critical.

Quaffing: Taking a stiff drink (ale, wine, spirits) can restore temporary hit points, but runs the risk of getting drunk and gaining temporary penalties to attack rolls.

Follow Through: Killing an opponent in melee allows a free "swing through" (cleave) to an adjacent foe. Magic-users, thieves, and clerics lack this ability.

Trained warrior: Fighters (and only fighters) get one attack per level vs. creatures of 1HD or less if they (the fighters) do not move that round.

This list is far from final, but it should give an idea of the direction I'm going with combat.

Kelvernia: The Armory

I can see going one of three basic ways with how I handle weapons and armor in the setting.

(I should mention that in these posts, Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future are the systems I usually mean when I refer to "the rules.")

1. A "refined" list that addresses certain issues that I have with the weapon and armor lists.
2. A more abstract list that addresses the issues in a different way.
3. Just use the list in the rule book and be done with it.

The list from option 1 is something I wrote up a while back. It's not exactly complicated, but it's one more table that isn't in the book that can potentially cause confusion. You can see it below:

Some of the choices made there are for flavor, but I also tried for balance. For example, I wanted the cleric to have a two-handed heavy weapon. I also folded in a couple house rules, like firing twice from a bow if you don't move. I also tweaked the armor list because a few things, like padded and leather giving the same AC, irked me.

Option 2 would take things in a less detailed direction without going all the way to "all weapons deal 1d6" rule. The idea would be there are small, medium, and large weapons (melee) and three different types: axes, blunts, and blades. All small weapons do a d4. Mediums are "hand and a half" weapons, dealing 1d8 one handed and 2d4 two handed. Larges deal 3d4 and are two-handed. Each weapon type has one of each size. The idea would also be that the weapons themselves are somewhat abstract. For example, a medium blunt weapon might be a flail, or a mace, or a hammer, while a small blade might be considered a dagger, or a poignard, or a dirk.

The idea is for the player to not feel "hemmed in" by the weapon stats and feel free to pick something that fits his character type. So the forester/scout might carry a short sword, while the pirate wields a cutlass, but the "meta" is the same. It means a new rule/table as well, but a much shorter/simpler one.

Option 3 just ignores any issues –real or imagined– with the equipment lists and gets on with the game. There's an appeal (for me) to all three possibilities, but I'm still ambivalent on which way feels like the right choice. I suspect that unless I experience a real epiphany about it, I'll opt for #3 and "First: do no harm."

PS- Futuristic weapons and the like will probably make an appearance, but will most likely be treated more like magic items than standard equipment. 

Paying Your Dues

Brian, of Playing DnD with Stuffed Animals, commented on an earlier post about character wealth. He suggested that training/guild fees might be a way to reduce a PC's assets. While not a new idea, I was reminded of it while considering what house rules to use with the Kelvernia setting.

The complaints I most often hear about things like training time and fees is that it's additional bookkeeping and that it penalizes the character by A) costing him hard-looted cash, and B) means he doesn't get to "level up" mid-adventure. Of the two, I more sympathetic to the latter. In some adventures, you might be stuck far from civilization and/or unable to take time off from a quest to train. This means the character (and the player) have done the work, put in the time, made the effort, etc. and are being denied their "reward." They've accrued the X,000 more experience and want their new spells, dammit! This can be felt even more acutely when a "storyline" is building toward some sort of final confrontation, and the player wants his PC to be at full capacity when the caca hits the fan.

Feeling kind of invincible, really.

On the other hand, not only is the idea of training "realistic." It gives the GM a plausible way of relieving a PC of some loot, as well as giving the character a "motivation" for wanting the gold. So, here's the training rule I am considering.

In order to level, PCs must train and study. The cost of training is 1000gp x the new level and takes a week. During that time, characters are doing nothing significant except training (8-10 hours/day+). Clerics fast and pray, rededicating themselves to their faith. Thieves pay guild fees and refine techniques for things like picking locks. Magic-users pay their guild to learn and copy new spells. Fighters work out, practice, and attend vigorous sparring sessions to refine their techniques.

Now, what about the "stuck in the wilderness/hot pursuit" scenarios? Well, here's what I propose. A character that reaches a new level but is not able to formally train still sees some benefit from their accomplishments. Namely, they still gain their new HD and saving throws. (I would give spell casters more spells per day, but that gives the advantage to clerics over MUs, as they don't have to copy new spells to learn more.) Other benefits like improved attacks, skills, new spell slots/levels, etc. have to wait until training occurs.

So, what if –for some reason– the PCs simply cannot get to a place where they can train for an indefinite period? Well, then the PC can train on their own. How does this work? The PC practices/prays/studies on their own for a week, or for 1d3 weeks if they are doing other things like traveling or adventuring while training. At the end of  the time frame, the PC makes an ability check on their prime requisite (classes with more than one prime use the higher score). A success means they have successfully self-trained. A failure means they cannot improve without formal instruction. A PC cannot self-train more than once without having formal training to level up the next time.

Now, this is by no means the only way to handle this. What I'm after here is a specific kind of game. One where the PCs are routinely in places like cities and towns, giving them plenty of opportunities to hear gossip and current events, meet NPCs, gather rumors of new adventures, re-equip, hire retainers, and so forth.

To be fair to the players, such a system certainly wouldn't have things like reduced treasure awards. A typical adventure would have the potential for earning/finding a reasonable bit of change. I could see a megadungeon-based game working well with this system; where player characters frequently return to a "base" after an excursion. In a more open game, where the PCs move about, I would want things like the guilds and training halls to be fairly ubiquitous, so the characters could find one without having to travel halfway around the world. Any good-sized town or city would have these sorts of resources. Is that super-"realistic"? Probably not, but if I'm going to bilk the PCs out of thousands of gold pieces, I'm not going to give them grief by making it hard for them to spend it.

What have other people done about this idea? What are you experiences with training costs, etc. as a GM or a player?

Kelvernia: Taking my bearings

OK, so before I delve any further into this mess, I want to take stock and figure out my goals.

What I want:

• To emphasize fun and creativity for myself and my players.
• To provide a setting with enough detail and hooks to give the campaign a real "home."
• To sprinkle some twists, both fluff and crunch, to add to the fun.
• To provide consequences, but not restrictions.
• A game with "grit" but with "gonzo" too.
• I tend to run "realistic D&D" (whatever that means). I think I want a game that takes me a little bit outside my comfort zone.

What I don't want:

• To design a system for sale or publication. This is for my edification and enjoyment.
• To heavily house rule or change the game beyond recognition. 
• To make a world so detailed that the players (and myself) feel overwhelmed by minutiae. 

With all that said, let's take a look at the map again:

I like this map. The coastlines, etc. were based upon satellite imagery of Saturn's moon, Titan (which amuses me terribly for some reason). I was in a Robert E. Howard kind of mood when I made this and I think it shows to a degree in things like the place names. I wanted a Swords & Sorcery feel to the world, hence lots of seas to sail, wilderness to explore, and several nations to potentially be at one another's throats. I deliberately left off a scale or a hex grid, since I didn't want to get into a lot of fine detail about rates of travel and so forth. The place names and so forth are fine, since they impart very little specifics by themselves.

I originally pictured a low-magic world. Now I am thinking of more standard magic/fantasy levels, and maybe adding a little twist of super-science, like Blackmoor or even Mutant Future. (I'll also have to look at Anomalous Subsurface Environment and Savage Afterworld's World of Thundarr again). 

I had written more here, but it quickly degenerated into quite the ramble. To be continued when I yet again reacquire my bearings...

Papa warned us.

"The first draft of anything is sh*t." 


 -Ernest Hemingway

Ayup. Looking over my Kelvernia setting fluff from 2009, I am rapidly approaching the conclusion that it is pretty much junk. I think I will try to salvage the place names just because I want to keep the map (aka "I am a Lazy Sot"), but most of the written up stuff will need to go.

Why? Well when I wrote this, the setting was heavily house-ruled. This included things like no demi-humans and no clerics. As a result, the way the nations are described reflects this. Soooo, it's time to revise/scrap the old text and try again.

A Small Fish

"Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it."

-Lao Tzu

After playing several different systems in the space of a few days at Garycon, and buying several new shinies to read, I am –of course– pondering new kinds of things to run at my table. 

(We'll now take a brief pause to let readers get over the shock.)

One of the great things about con gaming is not only getting to play games you don't normally play, but also seeing the way people run their games and getting new ideas. Whether it's a different system whose mechanics vary from your standard game, or house rules, the wheels start a-turning.

I spent most of the flight home thinking about different modules I might run and different house rules I might use at the table. I would start to get pretty elaborate, but kept coming back to the idea that You Can't Fix D&D (YCFDD).

Now, at first that seems to say don't house rule anything, don't tweak, add-on, or fiddle with the rules as written. I believe, though, there is a little more (and less) to that idea, though.

My current thought is: Don't try to "fix" the game, but there's nothing wrong with more FUN.

So here's the rule of thumb I'm applying to my current noodling. Go ahead and add to or take away from what's in the book(s), but do it because it makes things fun, not to try and make something "more realistic", or "balanced." That doesn't mean I may not customize some stuff like equipment lists or house rule some stuff, but I will make an effort to tread lightly in those areas. "Fun" does not = "Easy" in this case, but it should be something that make playing the game more interesting. If players are getting confused because they have to keep flipping between your HRs and how its done in the book after the first or second time the rule comes up, you've probably gotten it wrong.

Too often, house rules primarily weaken the PCs. Things like limited spell lists, classes, etc. Anything that makes it harder for a character to survive or succeed is probably bad. At the very least, the rules should apply equally to monsters. Some examples I've fiddled with and seen posted over the years include:

• Forbidden core classes ("No clerics" etc.)
• Limited spell casting/spell failures
• Added skill lists/proficiencies

These sorts of things may add a certain amount of flavor, but they also can make it hard on the players to keep their PCs alive and/or succeed at their goals. Ask yourself, is it really more fun for the 1st level MU's player when his ONE spell for the day fizzles because he rolled a 1? Or when the 3hp PC's player comes up with a clever plan to avoid getting killed, but can't try it because "he doesn't have that skill"? 

I've been looking at a setting I made up a couple years ago (map and all) that was riddled with these kinds of house rules, and now I'm cringing. I suspect that if I want to run it, I should tear everything out but the map. I'm thinking it may be for the best. Even the setting fluff may need to be be subjected to Jeff Rient's Twenty Questions. 

Kelvernia

I may even make this into a series of blog posts as I sift through it and try to come up with something I think is worth playing/running. It is iffy whether the result even get used, but I'm interested in seeing what I can do with it.

(You can just HEAR the "Unfollow" buttons being clicked!)