So, having made my peace with 4e and moved on to other gaming jazz I come to d6.
Most of my players seemed to like the d6 system I did. Which is good because it was a cosmic butt load of work. Still, I never could get really happy with it and I never got equipment happy. Having some time to not think about it has given me insight to some of the problems that irritated me to no end.
Let's look at those for a second. First, I never was a huge fan of the initiative system. I have come to peace with it, but it feels clunky. I can live with it for what it is though.
The counting of dots just had to go. Yes, I like having big ass numbers too, but counting every damn dot (plus modifiers) was a bitch. The modifiers made it worse too. I never liked 'pips' or 'dots'. Those little numbers are what make d20 the pain in the ass it is. Too many stacking little bonuses. Just roll some damn dice and to hell with the math I say!
So, on the advice of Jonathan and Alice I started tinkering with the d6 rules again. (No, I am not switching this campaign from Savage World to d6. It's not happening. If you begged me to do it I wouldn't). One of the things I decided to do was remove as many static modifiers as I could. I wanted dice to be the thing. I got rid of 'pips' entirely. They are just gone. If something modifies a roll, it does so as a number of dice.
I changed how dice work a little too. Instead of a purely additive roll (roll x dice, add the total, compare to number) I added some rules bulk for what I think will play out on the table better.
Roll X dice, count # of dice rolling 4, 5 or 6 ("successes"), compare successes to a Success number (that is, how many successes you need for whatever to work).
The goal is to save the counting of 37 numbers. I had to redo how damage works and a few other things but so far it's been a pretty easy change.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
three simple steps...then a new room
Making 4e what I want in 3 easy steps.
1. Cut monster HP in half across the board
2. Feats = Gone (maybe allow a few some how, but really, more or less gone).
3. Use the magic item fixes from Essentials (lose the dailies per day by level, lose milestones, introduce rarity/random item).
That will pretty much do it for me.
NEW ROOM
Jonathan was beating me around the ears a bit with my obsession of 'fixing 4e'. I'm glad I have a friend who is into mechanics so I can have those conversations. Plus, even when I don't think he understand what I am talking about, he helps me think up other ideas.
This one relates to Karen's "Roll a crap load of dice" idea too. Jonathan basically suggested that fixing 4e is a waste of time, and fixing up some other system is likely a better plan. I'm not 100% sure I agree to that, but it is a valid thought. I mentioned he may be right, and the main reason I am obsessing on 4e is because so much of it is actually good and there is so little to fix in savage worlds.
He then went on to discuss how the whole d6 thing was pretty good (sans equipment, which I could just not get a solid grip on). It might even make a better base for what I am looking for in general.
So that get's me thinking. Dungeon crawl d6? What if I did take a core mechanic like d6 and did things to make it what I would want to play/run in a dungeon crawl. Something to think about. Now that I found a set of house rules that 'fix' 4e for me, I need a new thing to monkey with. Maybe this will be it.
1. Cut monster HP in half across the board
2. Feats = Gone (maybe allow a few some how, but really, more or less gone).
3. Use the magic item fixes from Essentials (lose the dailies per day by level, lose milestones, introduce rarity/random item).
That will pretty much do it for me.
NEW ROOM
Jonathan was beating me around the ears a bit with my obsession of 'fixing 4e'. I'm glad I have a friend who is into mechanics so I can have those conversations. Plus, even when I don't think he understand what I am talking about, he helps me think up other ideas.
This one relates to Karen's "Roll a crap load of dice" idea too. Jonathan basically suggested that fixing 4e is a waste of time, and fixing up some other system is likely a better plan. I'm not 100% sure I agree to that, but it is a valid thought. I mentioned he may be right, and the main reason I am obsessing on 4e is because so much of it is actually good and there is so little to fix in savage worlds.
He then went on to discuss how the whole d6 thing was pretty good (sans equipment, which I could just not get a solid grip on). It might even make a better base for what I am looking for in general.
So that get's me thinking. Dungeon crawl d6? What if I did take a core mechanic like d6 and did things to make it what I would want to play/run in a dungeon crawl. Something to think about. Now that I found a set of house rules that 'fix' 4e for me, I need a new thing to monkey with. Maybe this will be it.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
hold on, this is better
I'm obsessing on this a little, but I think I have a better plan for 4e magic items.
First, lets just scrap what's already there. They suck and suck some more. Let's keep the levels (and the static bonuses they provide to various numbers) and slots. But let's redefine what they do.
Weapons (including implements) provide attack and damage bonuses and Striker Powers
Armor provides AC bonus and Defender powers
Hands provides Controller powers
Neck provides Leader powers
Feet provides Striker Utilities
Waist provides Defender Utilities
Arms provide Controller Utilities
Rings provide Leader Utilities
Wondrous items (including companion and mount slots) work as is. consumables work as is.
Each item has a rarity based on what power or utility it provides.
Common: at-wills
Uncommon: encounters
Rare: dailies
Very rare: paragon encounters
legendary: paragon dailies
epic: epic destiny daily
Bonuses (to attack, damage, or AC) are based on the items level (as normal 4e). The value (in gp) of an item is based on the level and rarity.
Common -10%
Uncommon -5%
Rare = base
Very Rare +5%
Legendary +10%
Epic +20%
Examples:
Longsword of Nimble Strike. This is a +1 longsword that allows any character to use the Ranger ability “Nimble Strike” as an At-will power. It is a common level 1 item.
Plate Mail of No Mercy. This is a +6 suit of Plate Mail that allows any character to use the Fighter Ability “No Mercy” as a daily power. It is a rare level 29 item.
Fort/Ref/Will bonuses become static and not tied to an item. You just get them.
Making random tables for this is simple. It makes items much more valuable and generally more useful.
First, lets just scrap what's already there. They suck and suck some more. Let's keep the levels (and the static bonuses they provide to various numbers) and slots. But let's redefine what they do.
Weapons (including implements) provide attack and damage bonuses and Striker Powers
Armor provides AC bonus and Defender powers
Hands provides Controller powers
Neck provides Leader powers
Feet provides Striker Utilities
Waist provides Defender Utilities
Arms provide Controller Utilities
Rings provide Leader Utilities
Wondrous items (including companion and mount slots) work as is. consumables work as is.
Each item has a rarity based on what power or utility it provides.
Common: at-wills
Uncommon: encounters
Rare: dailies
Very rare: paragon encounters
legendary: paragon dailies
epic: epic destiny daily
Bonuses (to attack, damage, or AC) are based on the items level (as normal 4e). The value (in gp) of an item is based on the level and rarity.
Common -10%
Uncommon -5%
Rare = base
Very Rare +5%
Legendary +10%
Epic +20%
Examples:
Longsword of Nimble Strike. This is a +1 longsword that allows any character to use the Ranger ability “Nimble Strike” as an At-will power. It is a common level 1 item.
Plate Mail of No Mercy. This is a +6 suit of Plate Mail that allows any character to use the Fighter Ability “No Mercy” as a daily power. It is a rare level 29 item.
Fort/Ref/Will bonuses become static and not tied to an item. You just get them.
Making random tables for this is simple. It makes items much more valuable and generally more useful.
Let's talk 4e
I have a very complex love/hate relationships with it. The basis of the love is a really nice streamlined system that works incredibly well at low levels. The hate basically breaks down to how it becomes after a few levels (beyond 10 is a mess).
The crux of the problem is synergistic effects. That is, everything a player does starts to be effected by far too many options. Multiple feats, magic items, equipment, class choices, etc. all working together. In some cases this is broken, but mostly it is just overwhelming. At the table is means more accounting and math (which other than slowing the game down to a crawl as you total up the bajillion bonuses and effects) and that is boring.
The next problem is encounters take to long. Part of that is because of the first problem, but a larger factor is that hit point totals (for monsters and players, but mostly monster) become really high at some point. This means that players have to optimize to do a ton of damage or the encounter will take forever and get very boring very fast.
The last problem is the effect the first two problems have on the role playing aspect. Because character improvement is driven toward optimization because of high hit point totals, decision are made not for story effects but for game effects. That is not inherently bad, but irksome. Because encounters take forever (in some cases regardless of optimization) the time available for story factors is limited and players (including GM) tend to rush through it to get to the encounter so they can get through the encounter.
I believe these problems may have simple fixes.
The first is caused by too many options that in and of themselves are not broken, but the interaction between them is easily manipulated and the end result is overwhelming. The GM is simply not capable of keeping the vast array of multiple players abilities under any sort of control. There are entire worksheets that describe the interactions of multiple effects into a single ability. This is great for people who enjoy that sort of thing, but many people do not.
The second is just a reflection of an attempt at game balance and a belief of how damage should work and how long encounters should last. I believe a flawed execution and, frankly, easily fixed.
The last problem is one of necessity, easily corrected by correcting the first two problems.
The solution to the first problem is found by examining the source of the problem, that is, an over abundance of options. I personally have no concerns with race, class, or class abilities. There are numerous interactions, but not enough to warrant concern. Feat and equipment (specifically Magic Items) cause the majority of problems in my view.
I propose the following solutions.
Regarding Feats, the PHB (4e) describes feats as providing a small static bonus to some other number already on the character sheet. This is usually true, but not always. Some feats allow access to a new ability (such as certain divine feats) or character option (such proficiency feat or multiclassing feats).
These small static bonuses are part of problem number 1 because numerous small bonus mean numerous little math problems. Example of my meaning. It is easy to add 100 + 100. You do it in one operations. It takes longer to add 100 + 10 + 15 + 3 + 25 + 18 + 4 + 20 + 5. They are effectively the same, but take far longer to reach the same result.
The second concern is the introduction of stacking bonuses. By d20 rules, bonuses of the same type do not stack. Meaning you need to know not only the bonus, but also the type of bonus for any given bonus.
My easy solution to feats is that any feat that provides a static bonus is simply dropped from the game. Leaving only feats that allow new abilities or character options. The first retort to this will be that it will effect balance and the second will be that many classes will have no viable feat options.
My response to the first retort is the solution to balance can be found in my answer to the how magic items should work and my solution to magic items. My answer to the limitation of feat options is a slight change to character advancement. Simply put, feats may be exchanged for class abilities via the following table.
# of feats Exchange for...
1 class At-will power
2 class Encounter power or Class role At-will power (an at-will power from a class of the same role)
3 Class Daily Power or Class role Encounter power
4 Class role Daily power or Any classes At-Will power
5 Any classes Encounter power
6 Any classes Daily power
The option to allow cross-class powers obviously reduces the importance of multi-classing feats and I don’t care.
Regarding magic items, a nearly complete revision of the entire system is required, or a complete elimination of them from the game. Magic items, as written, are almost entirely without merit. As a simple solution that avoids too much revision I propose that magic items serve the role of providing small static bonuses to some other statistic sans any other effect. Some magic items (such as the Holy Avenger) are best revised into artifacts, especially if they are almost required by a given class (such as the Holy Avenger).
The actual execution of this revision is more complicated than I care to address at this point. The main factor being that I do not want items to provide powers (that is the role of a class). Magic items simply make the class powers work better. I am even willing to allow Magic items to provide static bonuses to ability scores to avoid item powers of any kind.
The simplest solution is to ignore the text of any item that requires the use of a daily item power. This will, of course, make numerous items meaningless and greatly disrupt the ‘level’ of many (if not most) other items. In the absence of a complete magic item revision, I accept that as a worthwhile alternative. A quick fix of increasing the items static bonus by some amount would likely correct that in most cases.
The second problem (monster’s with too many hit points) I would be best served with a complete revision of how damage works. As that would require a complete revision of every monster and power in the book...I don’t see it as a viable option. I do suggest 2 options.
Reduce hit point by half across the board. In general, this seems to work.
or
Minions can take 1 hit, Standards can take 2 hits, Elites can take 4 hits, and Solos can take 8 hits.
A hit is any time damage exceeds Constitution + a number based on Monster Role (10 for brutes, 8 for soldiers, skirmishers, or controllers, 6 for lurkers or artillery). If you fail to exceed this number the hit does no damage.
If a character exceeds this number by double, it counts as two hits (or an extra hit for each multiple of this number). Critical hits add 1 to this number.
Healing surges replace 1/4 of total hits. Healing effects replace hits in the opposite way damage takes them, the minimum is always 1.
I prefer the second. It would mean you would need to make 8 successful hits against Orcus (surviving nobody healed him...which is unlikely).
Character’s could survive a number of hits equal to 2 + half their level. The ‘damage threshold’ for characters is Constitution + class hit points per level. This makes players somewhat more resilient than monsters and I am very okay with that. It means less time spent healing up between encounters.
The final problem I believe could be solved by these house rules with no further modification.
The crux of the problem is synergistic effects. That is, everything a player does starts to be effected by far too many options. Multiple feats, magic items, equipment, class choices, etc. all working together. In some cases this is broken, but mostly it is just overwhelming. At the table is means more accounting and math (which other than slowing the game down to a crawl as you total up the bajillion bonuses and effects) and that is boring.
The next problem is encounters take to long. Part of that is because of the first problem, but a larger factor is that hit point totals (for monsters and players, but mostly monster) become really high at some point. This means that players have to optimize to do a ton of damage or the encounter will take forever and get very boring very fast.
The last problem is the effect the first two problems have on the role playing aspect. Because character improvement is driven toward optimization because of high hit point totals, decision are made not for story effects but for game effects. That is not inherently bad, but irksome. Because encounters take forever (in some cases regardless of optimization) the time available for story factors is limited and players (including GM) tend to rush through it to get to the encounter so they can get through the encounter.
I believe these problems may have simple fixes.
The first is caused by too many options that in and of themselves are not broken, but the interaction between them is easily manipulated and the end result is overwhelming. The GM is simply not capable of keeping the vast array of multiple players abilities under any sort of control. There are entire worksheets that describe the interactions of multiple effects into a single ability. This is great for people who enjoy that sort of thing, but many people do not.
The second is just a reflection of an attempt at game balance and a belief of how damage should work and how long encounters should last. I believe a flawed execution and, frankly, easily fixed.
The last problem is one of necessity, easily corrected by correcting the first two problems.
The solution to the first problem is found by examining the source of the problem, that is, an over abundance of options. I personally have no concerns with race, class, or class abilities. There are numerous interactions, but not enough to warrant concern. Feat and equipment (specifically Magic Items) cause the majority of problems in my view.
I propose the following solutions.
Regarding Feats, the PHB (4e) describes feats as providing a small static bonus to some other number already on the character sheet. This is usually true, but not always. Some feats allow access to a new ability (such as certain divine feats) or character option (such proficiency feat or multiclassing feats).
These small static bonuses are part of problem number 1 because numerous small bonus mean numerous little math problems. Example of my meaning. It is easy to add 100 + 100. You do it in one operations. It takes longer to add 100 + 10 + 15 + 3 + 25 + 18 + 4 + 20 + 5. They are effectively the same, but take far longer to reach the same result.
The second concern is the introduction of stacking bonuses. By d20 rules, bonuses of the same type do not stack. Meaning you need to know not only the bonus, but also the type of bonus for any given bonus.
My easy solution to feats is that any feat that provides a static bonus is simply dropped from the game. Leaving only feats that allow new abilities or character options. The first retort to this will be that it will effect balance and the second will be that many classes will have no viable feat options.
My response to the first retort is the solution to balance can be found in my answer to the how magic items should work and my solution to magic items. My answer to the limitation of feat options is a slight change to character advancement. Simply put, feats may be exchanged for class abilities via the following table.
# of feats Exchange for...
1 class At-will power
2 class Encounter power or Class role At-will power (an at-will power from a class of the same role)
3 Class Daily Power or Class role Encounter power
4 Class role Daily power or Any classes At-Will power
5 Any classes Encounter power
6 Any classes Daily power
The option to allow cross-class powers obviously reduces the importance of multi-classing feats and I don’t care.
Regarding magic items, a nearly complete revision of the entire system is required, or a complete elimination of them from the game. Magic items, as written, are almost entirely without merit. As a simple solution that avoids too much revision I propose that magic items serve the role of providing small static bonuses to some other statistic sans any other effect. Some magic items (such as the Holy Avenger) are best revised into artifacts, especially if they are almost required by a given class (such as the Holy Avenger).
The actual execution of this revision is more complicated than I care to address at this point. The main factor being that I do not want items to provide powers (that is the role of a class). Magic items simply make the class powers work better. I am even willing to allow Magic items to provide static bonuses to ability scores to avoid item powers of any kind.
The simplest solution is to ignore the text of any item that requires the use of a daily item power. This will, of course, make numerous items meaningless and greatly disrupt the ‘level’ of many (if not most) other items. In the absence of a complete magic item revision, I accept that as a worthwhile alternative. A quick fix of increasing the items static bonus by some amount would likely correct that in most cases.
The second problem (monster’s with too many hit points) I would be best served with a complete revision of how damage works. As that would require a complete revision of every monster and power in the book...I don’t see it as a viable option. I do suggest 2 options.
Reduce hit point by half across the board. In general, this seems to work.
or
Minions can take 1 hit, Standards can take 2 hits, Elites can take 4 hits, and Solos can take 8 hits.
A hit is any time damage exceeds Constitution + a number based on Monster Role (10 for brutes, 8 for soldiers, skirmishers, or controllers, 6 for lurkers or artillery). If you fail to exceed this number the hit does no damage.
If a character exceeds this number by double, it counts as two hits (or an extra hit for each multiple of this number). Critical hits add 1 to this number.
Healing surges replace 1/4 of total hits. Healing effects replace hits in the opposite way damage takes them, the minimum is always 1.
I prefer the second. It would mean you would need to make 8 successful hits against Orcus (surviving nobody healed him...which is unlikely).
Character’s could survive a number of hits equal to 2 + half their level. The ‘damage threshold’ for characters is Constitution + class hit points per level. This makes players somewhat more resilient than monsters and I am very okay with that. It means less time spent healing up between encounters.
The final problem I believe could be solved by these house rules with no further modification.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Speaking of Old School
I love Hero Quest.
If you don't know, go here, and you suck.
I love the simplicity of it. The heroes are clear. The goal is clear. The rules are clear. Sure, you can do some roleplaying if you want, but in the end...that monster needs to die and that treasure needs looting.
There is not deep story arc. No long character backgrounds. Just a simple plot to explain a simple goal.
"These guys are bad and have stuff the good guys want...go gettim."
How is that not a work of damn art?
Just thinking about it makes me want to play it. Or, if it's just overly simple, play an honest-to-god,beersoda(mo is pregnant)-and-chips, dungeon crawl using just about any system you have.
Maybe it is because the game I am prepping is modern fantasy and very character driven, or maybe I just read to many old school gaming blogs. It is very likely I think about playing Hero Quest to much.
But seriously. One of these days I need a gaming group that would sit down, turn on some pointless anime or movie to half-watch, bust out some high carb food and play a dungeon crawl. I tend to run epic-story-driven games and attract players who love them. But one day I want to emphasize the GAME in role-playing game.
If you don't know, go here, and you suck.
I love the simplicity of it. The heroes are clear. The goal is clear. The rules are clear. Sure, you can do some roleplaying if you want, but in the end...that monster needs to die and that treasure needs looting.
There is not deep story arc. No long character backgrounds. Just a simple plot to explain a simple goal.
"These guys are bad and have stuff the good guys want...go gettim."
How is that not a work of damn art?
Just thinking about it makes me want to play it. Or, if it's just overly simple, play an honest-to-god,
Maybe it is because the game I am prepping is modern fantasy and very character driven, or maybe I just read to many old school gaming blogs. It is very likely I think about playing Hero Quest to much.
But seriously. One of these days I need a gaming group that would sit down, turn on some pointless anime or movie to half-watch, bust out some high carb food and play a dungeon crawl. I tend to run epic-story-driven games and attract players who love them. But one day I want to emphasize the GAME in role-playing game.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Old School
Recently I was reading some old school gaming blogs. Guys who basically play house ruled original D&D, white box. The 1974 version (or older).
I occurred to me I've never seen the OD&D stuff. That's not really a problem, but reading the blogs sparked my curiosity. I suppose I had thought about it previously, but in an age before the internet. I mean really...if it were not for the internet finding a copy of the books (there were 3) would be basically impossible. Out of print doesn't even begin to describe how rare those books are now. It's not like they were well made either.
But, I live in 2011 and I can get pdf of the original rules in under 15 minutes. (I think it took 10). How cool is that? F-ing cool.
So, I started reading the first one.
Ho. Ly. Shit.
Let me quote 6:
"Number of Players: At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts."
Ok. So the MINIMUM is 4 players and the MAXIMUM is 50 (!!!!) and the suggested number of players is TWENTY? (!!!!!)
I once ran a game for 10 guys. It last about 2 hours and nothing got done and we were not following any real rules. We were just screwing around. But 20! Who the hell has ever done that! Is OD&D actually set up to handle that kind of insanity? I seriously doubt it. I have a soft player cap of 7 and a HARD cap of 8. That's using a rules light system. If I were running 4e I'd never (EVER) go over 6 and dread anything more than...well...it's 4e so...I'd just dread it.
Other than that, the rules suggest basically 2 of each dice except for d6s. It suggests (wait for it) 8 to 40 (1) d6s. I want to know when the sweet donkey fuck I will need to roll 40d6! What the hell is the scope of this game?
I occurred to me I've never seen the OD&D stuff. That's not really a problem, but reading the blogs sparked my curiosity. I suppose I had thought about it previously, but in an age before the internet. I mean really...if it were not for the internet finding a copy of the books (there were 3) would be basically impossible. Out of print doesn't even begin to describe how rare those books are now. It's not like they were well made either.
But, I live in 2011 and I can get pdf of the original rules in under 15 minutes. (I think it took 10). How cool is that? F-ing cool.
So, I started reading the first one.
Ho. Ly. Shit.
Let me quote 6:
"Number of Players: At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts."
Ok. So the MINIMUM is 4 players and the MAXIMUM is 50 (!!!!) and the suggested number of players is TWENTY? (!!!!!)
I once ran a game for 10 guys. It last about 2 hours and nothing got done and we were not following any real rules. We were just screwing around. But 20! Who the hell has ever done that! Is OD&D actually set up to handle that kind of insanity? I seriously doubt it. I have a soft player cap of 7 and a HARD cap of 8. That's using a rules light system. If I were running 4e I'd never (EVER) go over 6 and dread anything more than...well...it's 4e so...I'd just dread it.
Other than that, the rules suggest basically 2 of each dice except for d6s. It suggests (wait for it) 8 to 40 (1) d6s. I want to know when the sweet donkey fuck I will need to roll 40d6! What the hell is the scope of this game?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
A few random things
The card I have my WoW account linked to expired. I didn't bother updating Blizz. I hadn't played in like 2 weeks. So I just kinda let it go. It's not that I don't have time, I just don't care. I leveled through the Cata stuff and I was just doing the dailies for gear and running the same random dungeons. It was all super repetitive. I mean WoW is kinda built on doing the same things over and over but end-game cata is more so I think. Just kinda lost interest in running Tol Barad...again.
I thought about giving this Rift game a whirl. People seem to love it. I'd have to run it in boot camp though. That is doable, but meh.
In the mean time I have been working with hexographer and some world building. Once I get the oceans done I might post a graphic of the world.
I also switched my next campaign from a medieval fantasy to a dark 'modern' setting with a heavy horror vibe. I started watching Fringe and the more I watch it the more I think the game is going that direction with a bit of super-natural tossed in for flavor.
I thought about giving this Rift game a whirl. People seem to love it. I'd have to run it in boot camp though. That is doable, but meh.
In the mean time I have been working with hexographer and some world building. Once I get the oceans done I might post a graphic of the world.
I also switched my next campaign from a medieval fantasy to a dark 'modern' setting with a heavy horror vibe. I started watching Fringe and the more I watch it the more I think the game is going that direction with a bit of super-natural tossed in for flavor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)