OpenQuest has a system in which if you take 50% of your total HP in one round (or is it one blow) you take a major wound. There is a fun major wound table and everything. If you are reduced to 0 you die. Black Hack has a Major Wound table as well but it didn't excite me.
There has been debate for ages about at what point a character dies. Do they die at 0, -5, -10?
The range of every characteristic is 3-18. As mentioned in previous post CON acts as a characters flesh & blood. I decided to go with this and instead of remembering when a Major Wound occurred I would have the Major Wound table applied when CON was reduced below 3. CON reduced to 0 equals death. Simple, and it makes sense with the otherwise arbitrary characteristic range.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Monday, September 9, 2019
Fantasy Heartbreaker: Initiative vs Strike Rank
Strike ranks never did it for me. Rolling initiative once and having everyone attack in that order again and again never did it for me either. One minute long rounds seem super-long. Most initiative systems seemed overly complicated.
Back in the day we rolled group initiative every round and it worked very nicely. This gave you the chance to destroy an enemy before they had a turn but made the potential for an enemy to go twice in a row a real possibility which could be a nightmare.
My group took this system over to RuneQuest and HarnMaster in turn. I figured I'd adapt the same system to my heartbreaker except that instead of having the high initiative win I'd go with low initiative wins. We were using a roll under system for skills and all so this would make for better consistency.
I settled on 10 six-second rounds in a minute. Having a six-second round matched the six possible results on the 1d6 which had a nice symmetry and allowed a GM to match each point on the die to a specific second if necessary.
So each side rolls 1d6, lowest roll goes first. Roll again each round.
Quick, uncomplicated, and with serious risks.
Back in the day we rolled group initiative every round and it worked very nicely. This gave you the chance to destroy an enemy before they had a turn but made the potential for an enemy to go twice in a row a real possibility which could be a nightmare.
My group took this system over to RuneQuest and HarnMaster in turn. I figured I'd adapt the same system to my heartbreaker except that instead of having the high initiative win I'd go with low initiative wins. We were using a roll under system for skills and all so this would make for better consistency.
I settled on 10 six-second rounds in a minute. Having a six-second round matched the six possible results on the 1d6 which had a nice symmetry and allowed a GM to match each point on the die to a specific second if necessary.
So each side rolls 1d6, lowest roll goes first. Roll again each round.
Quick, uncomplicated, and with serious risks.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Best of the Web - Cantrips and Liches
Cantrips
Red Dice Diaries has two posts on Cantrips.
Delta's D&D Hotspot has a short discussion of cantrips and other non-combat spells through the various editions of D&D in his post Spells Through the Ages - Unseen Servant and Cantrips. It's a bit older but I know I'll want to find it again so what can you do.
Remixes and Revelations has a nice OSR: Lich Generator to help create interesting and unique liches.
Planet Algol has a post listing the various monsters restricted by the OGL that have been reproduced by OSR products (at least sort of) in Open Content Analogues.of WOTC Non-OGL Classic D&D Monsters.
Hack & Slash has a nice post On Failing High Level Play that has good design ideas for all levels.
Red Dice Diaries has two posts on Cantrips.
- Cantrips in OSR Games in which he provides an overview of Cantrips
- Cantrip comparison in which he compares cantrips against similar low level spells.
Delta's D&D Hotspot has a short discussion of cantrips and other non-combat spells through the various editions of D&D in his post Spells Through the Ages - Unseen Servant and Cantrips. It's a bit older but I know I'll want to find it again so what can you do.
Remixes and Revelations has a nice OSR: Lich Generator to help create interesting and unique liches.
Planet Algol has a post listing the various monsters restricted by the OGL that have been reproduced by OSR products (at least sort of) in Open Content Analogues.of WOTC Non-OGL Classic D&D Monsters.
Hack & Slash has a nice post On Failing High Level Play that has good design ideas for all levels.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Fantasy Heartbreaker: Armor Absorbing, HP & CON
Everyone from the Gygax school of games thinks of AC as armor helps you avoid being hit. Yeah a hundred hits might actually occur but they are misses, because a vulnerable spot wasn't hit the blow just bounced off. Those from the RuneQuest system think of armor as absorbing damage. Hits are more common but the armor absorbs the damage. The real difference is that the Gygax school means a lot of misses and then a blast of damage and the RuneQuest school has lots hits but then the fun is taken away as the armor absorbing it all and you find out you didn't do any damage after all.
OpenQuest use Dodge or Parry to deny a successful hit. Again, it takes away a successful hit. Gygax used HP as an abstract way to represent dodging and increased AC to represent Shield parries. The info was built into the hit or miss roll so that success equaled damage of some sort instead of rolling back the success. The OpenQuest way might be more realistic but it slows combat and I hate when a successful roll is taken away.
Newt Newport (the fellow that wrote OpenQuest) wrote the OSR game Crypts & Things. A version of Swords & Wizardry with a Sword & Sorcery flavor. The two things that jumped out at me in this game were the treatment of spells (I'll cover that later) and the use of CON as the flesh & blood of a person while HP represented dodging, fatigue, and skill of not being hit. Gygax hinted at something similar once while explaining away increasing HP as a character gains levels. The idea of using HP for fatigue and dodging, and CON for flesh and blood is brilliant in that it allows a logical line of where dodging ends and wounds begin. A logical line of what might heal quickly with rest and what will require long term hospitalization.
So you could hit the target and do damage in the name of HP damage, but not actually cut and slice them up. You wear the enemy down, you don't have your success taken away. I liked how that worked.
The only issue with shields. Should a shield increase AC by a point, or by more, as Gygax did? A some point using a shield makes it impossible for damage to get through so that doesn't really work. I decided attacks against a shield would be made at a disadvantage (that is roll twice and pick the worst result). This represents the shield totally blocking some, but doing nothing when improperly placed and prevents the denial after-the-fact of a successful attack. This needs more play testing but like it in theory.
OpenQuest use Dodge or Parry to deny a successful hit. Again, it takes away a successful hit. Gygax used HP as an abstract way to represent dodging and increased AC to represent Shield parries. The info was built into the hit or miss roll so that success equaled damage of some sort instead of rolling back the success. The OpenQuest way might be more realistic but it slows combat and I hate when a successful roll is taken away.
Newt Newport (the fellow that wrote OpenQuest) wrote the OSR game Crypts & Things. A version of Swords & Wizardry with a Sword & Sorcery flavor. The two things that jumped out at me in this game were the treatment of spells (I'll cover that later) and the use of CON as the flesh & blood of a person while HP represented dodging, fatigue, and skill of not being hit. Gygax hinted at something similar once while explaining away increasing HP as a character gains levels. The idea of using HP for fatigue and dodging, and CON for flesh and blood is brilliant in that it allows a logical line of where dodging ends and wounds begin. A logical line of what might heal quickly with rest and what will require long term hospitalization.
So you could hit the target and do damage in the name of HP damage, but not actually cut and slice them up. You wear the enemy down, you don't have your success taken away. I liked how that worked.
The only issue with shields. Should a shield increase AC by a point, or by more, as Gygax did? A some point using a shield makes it impossible for damage to get through so that doesn't really work. I decided attacks against a shield would be made at a disadvantage (that is roll twice and pick the worst result). This represents the shield totally blocking some, but doing nothing when improperly placed and prevents the denial after-the-fact of a successful attack. This needs more play testing but like it in theory.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Fantasy Heartbreaker: Chaos & Alignment
I could be wrong but I believe most D&D games have moved away from the idea of alignment. RuneQuest games never had alignment but they did have an ever present 'Chaos'. I've never liked alignment as a guideline for role playing. I like Alignment as an alliance though. This way we can have Chaos and anybody that has read any Warhammer books knows how much fun Chaos can be. Chaos provides a great villain and awesome reason to adventure. I see the breakdown as follows:
- Law - Civilization. When it comes to religion they tend to be monotheistic and opposed to magic and chaos as disruptive elements. Some might even take that opposition to Spanish inquisition lengths as most believe Chaos threatens entire worlds.
- Neutral - Those that are unaware of the Law vs Chaos dynamic or who think the forces of Law overstate the problem. These last folks will agree that some nasty beasts side with Chaos but not all users of magic want to conquer worlds or tear down the multiverse and bunching them all together is puritanical and wrong. From a religious point of view Neutrals tend to be polytheistic.
- Chaos - Luckily worshipers of chaos rarely get together long enough to form a lasting force. Most folks that side with chaos are nasty things that want to watch the world(s) burn.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Fantasy Heartbreaker: No Classes, Just Skills
As stated in the last Fantasy Heartbreaker post, I don't particularly like classes. After reading a lot of skills for the GLOG game I've changed my mind a bit. It seems that creating the classes has been a big part of the GLOG community. I like how everyone multi classes really easily and how classes have been used for Curses (which could easily be extended to poison or disease in interesting ways).
But I still don't like classes that much. All those wonderful GLOG classes fill the game with mini-sub-systems I prefer to avoid. However, I don't mind previous history the way they did in RuneQuest 2 or Harnmaster. Previous history is a nice way to differentiate characters at the start, by providing a pre-set grouping of skills and perhaps a bit of backstory. Then once the character has started they advance as they please.
I did need one class though. I didn't like the OpenQuest system of everyone starting with magic and felt I needed to limit that. By having previous history set up the characters I could ensure that if you didn't have Wizard as your previous history you weren't going to cast spells. So its a class, but not really. Then by dividing magic into different Domains I could create variety among wizards.
But I still don't like classes that much. All those wonderful GLOG classes fill the game with mini-sub-systems I prefer to avoid. However, I don't mind previous history the way they did in RuneQuest 2 or Harnmaster. Previous history is a nice way to differentiate characters at the start, by providing a pre-set grouping of skills and perhaps a bit of backstory. Then once the character has started they advance as they please.
I did need one class though. I didn't like the OpenQuest system of everyone starting with magic and felt I needed to limit that. By having previous history set up the characters I could ensure that if you didn't have Wizard as your previous history you weren't going to cast spells. So its a class, but not really. Then by dividing magic into different Domains I could create variety among wizards.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Fantasy Hearbreaker: Blending Two Systems
Like everyone else remotely associated with the OSR I've been cobbling together my own version of the different rules. Most games are a stew of parts tossed in and blended to the GMs satisfaction. If we didn't want to tinker we'd be playing Pathfinder or something.
So I thought I'd layout some of the framework and design considerations that I've been working with while creating my Fantasy Heartbreak I call Medieval Mayhem. I think the best place to start would be with the fundamental mechanic of the system.
Originally I used the OpenQuest system. OpenQuest used skills with a roll under percentile system. Percentiles are easy to grasp and OpenQuest had a limited set of fairly broad skills. It was skills done simple. Then I read the Black Hack. It was even simpler, but in a very elegant way.
I didn't like the way Black Hack had skill tests against characteristics and experience increased those characteristics. I prefered the OpenQuest skill list. Skills could be increased through experience while leaving the characteristics themselves alone. The two systems combined beautifully.
OpenQuest was based on RuneQuest, and in RuneQuest type games they have lots of bonuses and penalties to show how difficult some tasks are. OpenQuest simplified this to a broad bonus or penalty which I liked. Black Hack did that one better (well D&D 5e did and Black Hack adopted the system). Instead of having bonuses or penalties you have disadvantages and advantages. If you are at a disadvantage you roll your d20 twice and pick the worst one. If you are at an advantage you roll your d20 twice and pick the best. No math, and easily extendable if you want (severely disadvantaged the GM could have you roll 3 times or 4 times).
I divided skills into primary and secondary (secondary skills are 1/2 the average of two attributes, primary are the average). Depending upon your previous history some skills will be primary, most secondary. I was looking for simplicity and elegance and this was it. As far as experience points both systems simplified things greatly.
There was only one question left. Black Hack uses classes and OpenQuest does not. The idea of classes never sat right. I understand them as a shorthand to make character creation quick, and I understand folks enjoy the leveling up that occurs occasionally (and enjoying creating new classes), but the idea of a class defining a character for the bulk of their career felt artificial and more like a straight jacket and I didn't like it.
In a previous draft of Medieval Mayhem I had it so players could purchase feats to get special abilities. The way I did it was overly complex but the idea was a good one. You could get the same leveling up skill with limited power feats and I could do so without sticking to classes so much.
So I thought I'd layout some of the framework and design considerations that I've been working with while creating my Fantasy Heartbreak I call Medieval Mayhem. I think the best place to start would be with the fundamental mechanic of the system.
Originally I used the OpenQuest system. OpenQuest used skills with a roll under percentile system. Percentiles are easy to grasp and OpenQuest had a limited set of fairly broad skills. It was skills done simple. Then I read the Black Hack. It was even simpler, but in a very elegant way.
I didn't like the way Black Hack had skill tests against characteristics and experience increased those characteristics. I prefered the OpenQuest skill list. Skills could be increased through experience while leaving the characteristics themselves alone. The two systems combined beautifully.
OpenQuest was based on RuneQuest, and in RuneQuest type games they have lots of bonuses and penalties to show how difficult some tasks are. OpenQuest simplified this to a broad bonus or penalty which I liked. Black Hack did that one better (well D&D 5e did and Black Hack adopted the system). Instead of having bonuses or penalties you have disadvantages and advantages. If you are at a disadvantage you roll your d20 twice and pick the worst one. If you are at an advantage you roll your d20 twice and pick the best. No math, and easily extendable if you want (severely disadvantaged the GM could have you roll 3 times or 4 times).
I divided skills into primary and secondary (secondary skills are 1/2 the average of two attributes, primary are the average). Depending upon your previous history some skills will be primary, most secondary. I was looking for simplicity and elegance and this was it. As far as experience points both systems simplified things greatly.
There was only one question left. Black Hack uses classes and OpenQuest does not. The idea of classes never sat right. I understand them as a shorthand to make character creation quick, and I understand folks enjoy the leveling up that occurs occasionally (and enjoying creating new classes), but the idea of a class defining a character for the bulk of their career felt artificial and more like a straight jacket and I didn't like it.
In a previous draft of Medieval Mayhem I had it so players could purchase feats to get special abilities. The way I did it was overly complex but the idea was a good one. You could get the same leveling up skill with limited power feats and I could do so without sticking to classes so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)