Last time in this series we talked about how 4E is TOO balanced for its own good, and I promised to talk about how to put some fear back in your players' hearts. To recap: the "balanced encounter" paradigm fosters a sense of entitlement in players and strains the bounds of verisimilitude.
How do we fix this? Can it be fixed? 4E D&D has a lot riding on big "set piece" battles. It rewards tactical thinking and battlefield stategery. Some might argue that, as a system, it doesn't support Old-School type gameplay, as it doesn't emphasize exploration, player inquiry into the environment, or randomness. On the first two points, I call Shenanigans. There is no reason a 4E game can't emphasize exploration or player inquiry and ingenuity. Hell, there's no reason you can't implement a hex-based wilderness sandbox grid in a 4E game.
In fact, I would argue that 4E would be great for that type of game! It would require a good chunk of DM prep ahead of time, but it can be done. Random charts for each hex, different warbands ready to go when rolled upon, with a range comprising the entirety of the heroic tier. Randomness is what allows a DM to Bring the Pain! Let the dice fall where they may. If the dice call for a pack of gnolls three levels tougher than the heroes, so be it. Throw it at the players. Beat the crap out of them! Once they learn they can't expect everything to be fair and balanced, they'll start thinking outside the dice. And isn't that kind of the point?
And... I just had a devil's advocate moment. In old-school mega-dungeons, wasn't it generally expected that the first level of the dungeon would contain first level monsters, and second level monsters for the next level down, and so on and so forth. Isn't that completely arbitrary, in pretty much the same way 4E pushes its "balanced encounters"? Do old-school DMs still run Dungeons like that? Just curious!
The final Big Thing about Old School Gaming is Resource Management. This is something that 4E can fully support, as long as that's how your DM runs the game. 4E actually has a lot of different resources that must be managed during play, both in combat and in exploration. The most recent Dark Sun offering is probably the best example of just how well 4E does resource management.
Anyway, this post has given me some inspiration to start building a hex-based sandbox for a 4E campaign. Gonna need a good map...
New-School Rules, Old-School Style
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
4E meets AD&D, Part 5: Heroic, not SuperHeroic, and Forget Balance!
So far in this series, we've been looking at what defines "Old School Gaming" and figuring out some ways to apply these maxims to the 4th Edition game. We've examined "Rulings, not Rules" and "Player Skill over Character Abilities", and so far I have found no reason whatsoever that 4E cannot be played in an Old School style.
Next on the list is "Heroic, Not Superheroic". In the Old-School Gaming Primer, the author makes the comparison of Batman to Superman to explain the difference between Heroic and Superheroic type gaming. Superman's actions can regularly change the world. Batman's influence is generally limited to Gotham City.
I will be the first to admit, when I first read through the 4E ruleset, I thought Epic Tier play would be kind of dumb. It's way too over the top. If I wanted to play a Superheroes game, I would play Mutants and Masterminds or Champions or even Heroes Unlimited or maybe Rifts. I just don't think fantasy gaming should be about getting your character to ascend to godhood.
The story of the common man who overcomes terrible odds to triumph over evil is way more interesting than the story of an awesome dude who became more awesome and more awesome and more awesome, ad nauseum. Yawn. PCs shouldn't have to automatically start out a "Cut Above" the common man. They should be the common man! Or woman.
Anyway, this can only really be achieved in 4E if you limit your campaign to the first 15 levels or so. Once you get to the end of the Paragon Tier, you're really looking and superhuman abilities for all characters, and monsters to match.
Ahh, there's the kicker. "Monsters to Match." This brings up the issue of balance. The Dungeon Master's Guide states in no uncertain terms how to build successful encounters to challenge your players. I think it's all honky. The whole thing is designed like World of Warcraft, to only throw monsters at you that you have a good chance to defeat, and the only time there's a threat of character death is when they've made a critical mistake with their resources (ie powers, items, etc).
The problem is that the game is designed to ensure that a player will almost always hit the bad guy on a D20 roll of 13 or higher, and quite often on a roll of 10 or more. All the way through the game, 1st level to 30th, that's how it's built, if the DM builds the encounters "correctly".
It is patently absurd to think that the only monsters a group of heroes should encounter are ones that they will be regularly able to defeat. This instills in players a sense of invulnerability and even righteous indignation at the possibility of an "unfair" fight. There is no reason players should expect a fair fight. Ever. They should be able to have the option of escaping, most of the time, if they find themselves over their heads. But if a group of greenback level 1 characters stumble their way into a dragon's lair, that dragon ought to be a big bad-ass dragon that cooks them up for dinner, not a "wyrmling". 4E players are missing out on a critical skill that is deeply ingrained in OSR gaming, and that is knowing when to stay and fight and when to run.
How can we introduce this to the 4E game, though? Ahh, grasshopper, we'll explore that a big more in the next post in this series!
Next on the list is "Heroic, Not Superheroic". In the Old-School Gaming Primer, the author makes the comparison of Batman to Superman to explain the difference between Heroic and Superheroic type gaming. Superman's actions can regularly change the world. Batman's influence is generally limited to Gotham City.
I will be the first to admit, when I first read through the 4E ruleset, I thought Epic Tier play would be kind of dumb. It's way too over the top. If I wanted to play a Superheroes game, I would play Mutants and Masterminds or Champions or even Heroes Unlimited or maybe Rifts. I just don't think fantasy gaming should be about getting your character to ascend to godhood.
The story of the common man who overcomes terrible odds to triumph over evil is way more interesting than the story of an awesome dude who became more awesome and more awesome and more awesome, ad nauseum. Yawn. PCs shouldn't have to automatically start out a "Cut Above" the common man. They should be the common man! Or woman.
Anyway, this can only really be achieved in 4E if you limit your campaign to the first 15 levels or so. Once you get to the end of the Paragon Tier, you're really looking and superhuman abilities for all characters, and monsters to match.
Ahh, there's the kicker. "Monsters to Match." This brings up the issue of balance. The Dungeon Master's Guide states in no uncertain terms how to build successful encounters to challenge your players. I think it's all honky. The whole thing is designed like World of Warcraft, to only throw monsters at you that you have a good chance to defeat, and the only time there's a threat of character death is when they've made a critical mistake with their resources (ie powers, items, etc).
The problem is that the game is designed to ensure that a player will almost always hit the bad guy on a D20 roll of 13 or higher, and quite often on a roll of 10 or more. All the way through the game, 1st level to 30th, that's how it's built, if the DM builds the encounters "correctly".
It is patently absurd to think that the only monsters a group of heroes should encounter are ones that they will be regularly able to defeat. This instills in players a sense of invulnerability and even righteous indignation at the possibility of an "unfair" fight. There is no reason players should expect a fair fight. Ever. They should be able to have the option of escaping, most of the time, if they find themselves over their heads. But if a group of greenback level 1 characters stumble their way into a dragon's lair, that dragon ought to be a big bad-ass dragon that cooks them up for dinner, not a "wyrmling". 4E players are missing out on a critical skill that is deeply ingrained in OSR gaming, and that is knowing when to stay and fight and when to run.
How can we introduce this to the 4E game, though? Ahh, grasshopper, we'll explore that a big more in the next post in this series!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
D&D the CCG: Refigured
I'll have another couple posts concerning 4E meets AD&D over the course of the next week, but this afternoon I wanted to give an update on my little D&D the CCG project that I've been pondering for the last few months.
Epiphany!
Yup, I had a bit of an epiphany the other day, and realized that I was generally going about things all wrong. Attempting to fit WotC's 4E ruleset onto cards works in certain situations, as part of a 4E game, but you can't do it all.
See, the whole point, really, of having the cards is ease of use. No more lugging around a ton of books, no more looking up rules in said books, etc. It wants to be easily portable, so you can sit down with some friends for an hour (like at lunch, perhaps?) and have a good bit of D&D right there. So you want a simple core mechanic, with simple rules right there on the cards for everything your character can do. I've take a liberal amount of inspiration from both 4E and the OSR as I have cobbled this all together, and have made significant progress over the past 5 days or so on how it should all work. Hopefully I'll be able to begin some playtesting on my family pretty soon.
Basics
It's basically a D10 system. Characters have your standard D&D stats (STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA), each of which is rolled for randomly on a D10. Choice of race from among human, half elf, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, and half-orc, and all of them except humans and half-elves get choices for a boost and a penalty to their stats (example: Elf +2 Dex or Int, -2 Con or Str). Any action a character takes in a game boils down to a D10 roll, plus the relevant Statistic, plus any conditional modifiers (based on cards in hand), and attempting to beat a target number. For example, my big dumb fighter with a STR of 9 and an INT of 2 wants to hit the orc. Roll d10, add 9 for STR, add 2 for training with his sword, and try to beat the Orcs AC of 14. In this example, he'll score a hit 80% of the time. However, if he's trying use his wits, he's pretty much going to have to roll a 10 to accomplish anything of even average difficulty.
I will not include a whole ton of tactical combat rules. We're going old-school, abstract, use your words and your mind to visualize the situation here. Cinematic descriptions are way better than counting squares.
Playtest, Anyone?
I should have some basic play-test cards ready by this evening, as I have already gotten most of my chores done for the day. If anyone is interested in playtesting this, I would be more than happy to make available what I have.
Also, just as a little note, I've started using Springpadit.com to get this whole thing organized and OH MY GOD IT'S AWESOME. I've only used it for taking notes so far and it's been a huge help for tracking thoughts and putting things together.
Epiphany!
Yup, I had a bit of an epiphany the other day, and realized that I was generally going about things all wrong. Attempting to fit WotC's 4E ruleset onto cards works in certain situations, as part of a 4E game, but you can't do it all.
See, the whole point, really, of having the cards is ease of use. No more lugging around a ton of books, no more looking up rules in said books, etc. It wants to be easily portable, so you can sit down with some friends for an hour (like at lunch, perhaps?) and have a good bit of D&D right there. So you want a simple core mechanic, with simple rules right there on the cards for everything your character can do. I've take a liberal amount of inspiration from both 4E and the OSR as I have cobbled this all together, and have made significant progress over the past 5 days or so on how it should all work. Hopefully I'll be able to begin some playtesting on my family pretty soon.
Basics
It's basically a D10 system. Characters have your standard D&D stats (STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA), each of which is rolled for randomly on a D10. Choice of race from among human, half elf, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, and half-orc, and all of them except humans and half-elves get choices for a boost and a penalty to their stats (example: Elf +2 Dex or Int, -2 Con or Str). Any action a character takes in a game boils down to a D10 roll, plus the relevant Statistic, plus any conditional modifiers (based on cards in hand), and attempting to beat a target number. For example, my big dumb fighter with a STR of 9 and an INT of 2 wants to hit the orc. Roll d10, add 9 for STR, add 2 for training with his sword, and try to beat the Orcs AC of 14. In this example, he'll score a hit 80% of the time. However, if he's trying use his wits, he's pretty much going to have to roll a 10 to accomplish anything of even average difficulty.
I will not include a whole ton of tactical combat rules. We're going old-school, abstract, use your words and your mind to visualize the situation here. Cinematic descriptions are way better than counting squares.
Playtest, Anyone?
I should have some basic play-test cards ready by this evening, as I have already gotten most of my chores done for the day. If anyone is interested in playtesting this, I would be more than happy to make available what I have.
Also, just as a little note, I've started using Springpadit.com to get this whole thing organized and OH MY GOD IT'S AWESOME. I've only used it for taking notes so far and it's been a huge help for tracking thoughts and putting things together.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
4E meets AD&D, pt 4: Player Skill, not Character Abilities
So, we have started to take a look at some of the core ideals of Old-School Gaming, and how they can be applied to the modern, 4th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. In part 3 we talked about Rulings, not Rules; I believe that the rules in 4E are solid and provide a great foundation for the game, and if you know them well, you can make consistent on-the-fly rulings for whatever action your players might want to take. Now, in part 4, we will look at the next Old-School maxim: Player Skill, not Character Abilities.
This is a big part of what defines Old-School Dungeons and Dragons. The Players' ability to ask the right questions as they explore their environment is a huge part of this. Also falling under this category would be things like solving puzzles and riddles, mapping the dungeons as it is explored, and dealing with NPCs. Probably the best and most infamous example of this would be the classic "Tomb of Horrors" dungeon. It is notorious for an abundance of "save or die" traps, and for being generally exceedingly difficult. However, what's so important about that module is that character level and ability is generally unimportant. The difficulty lies not in the strength of the dungeon's monsters (of which there are very few), but in the deviousness of its traps. It is perfectly possible for a group of very clever, low-level heroes to defeat Acererak.
Now, obviously, some Character Abilities have to be defined and have a mechanical function in the game. This should largely be limited to combat maneuvers and spells. When a player is allowed to just make a "Streetwise" check to gather information when they arrive in a town, instead of meeting various NPCs and doing the questioning themselves, something very intrinsic to the game is lost.
Now, I'm not advocating for eliminating 4E's skill system. Far from it. I'm just saying that's it's often misused. In fact, it could be used to great effect in an old-school style. Take the previous Streetwise example. Instead of just handing out information because a player made a good roll of the ole D20, instead, they learn just enough to know who they need to go talk to in order to get the information they're really looking for... and then that scene can get role-played out, for better or for worse.
Ditto for 4E's "Skill Challenge" mechanic. The Skill Challenge should be a framework for role-playing out a scene. It shouldn't replace role-playing at all! Unfortunately, that is how it is often played, and the game is poorer for it.
So, the trick is to bring player skill to the forefront and let the mechanical character skills operate in the background, as support. Force the characters to interact with their environments beyond the rolls of dice. That's old-school.
This is a big part of what defines Old-School Dungeons and Dragons. The Players' ability to ask the right questions as they explore their environment is a huge part of this. Also falling under this category would be things like solving puzzles and riddles, mapping the dungeons as it is explored, and dealing with NPCs. Probably the best and most infamous example of this would be the classic "Tomb of Horrors" dungeon. It is notorious for an abundance of "save or die" traps, and for being generally exceedingly difficult. However, what's so important about that module is that character level and ability is generally unimportant. The difficulty lies not in the strength of the dungeon's monsters (of which there are very few), but in the deviousness of its traps. It is perfectly possible for a group of very clever, low-level heroes to defeat Acererak.
Now, obviously, some Character Abilities have to be defined and have a mechanical function in the game. This should largely be limited to combat maneuvers and spells. When a player is allowed to just make a "Streetwise" check to gather information when they arrive in a town, instead of meeting various NPCs and doing the questioning themselves, something very intrinsic to the game is lost.
Now, I'm not advocating for eliminating 4E's skill system. Far from it. I'm just saying that's it's often misused. In fact, it could be used to great effect in an old-school style. Take the previous Streetwise example. Instead of just handing out information because a player made a good roll of the ole D20, instead, they learn just enough to know who they need to go talk to in order to get the information they're really looking for... and then that scene can get role-played out, for better or for worse.
Ditto for 4E's "Skill Challenge" mechanic. The Skill Challenge should be a framework for role-playing out a scene. It shouldn't replace role-playing at all! Unfortunately, that is how it is often played, and the game is poorer for it.
So, the trick is to bring player skill to the forefront and let the mechanical character skills operate in the background, as support. Force the characters to interact with their environments beyond the rolls of dice. That's old-school.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
DDI Article and 4E meets AD&D part 3
Combat Velocity
A couple things today. I haven't reviewed a Dungeons and Dragons Insider Article review in a good long minute, but there was a pretty interesting one published today behind the subscription paywall concerning some things you can do to speed up combat in your 4E game.
Wait, didn't the D&D 4E blogosphere hash this all out a few months ago? Why, yes, yes we did. All over the place! Seemed like everyone except WotC had some suggestions on how to speed up combat. It's about time they got on the bandwagon. Their suggestions are: roleplaying(!), doubling PC damage, doubling all damage, using average damage instead of rolling dice, using fewer monsters, and limiting character options. I think every single one of those options has been bandied about the interwebs at length and ad nauseum. However, there was a really interesting article over at Campaign Mastery last week where Johnn used a timer on all the participants and discovered that, by a significant amount, the DM (himself) was the biggest time-thief at his table.
My Suggestions
Referee, know thy monsters. Use simple ones. Save the one with all the fun tricks to be the boss.
Players, know thy characters. Have a plan of attack in combat. Know what the different funny sized dice are. Know how your powers work.
And here's one that's out of left field: change daily powers (class and magic item) to be 1x per encounter powers. Make red encounter powers usable twice per encounter. This will eliminate a lot of player waffling over which power to use, is it worth it to spend the daily now, should I save it, I don't know...
That was just a thought I had yesterday. Gonna playtest it soon, see how the players like it. I'll have a more in-depth article on that soon.
Now, back to the Old-School stuff.
Rulings, Not Rules
Of all the Old-School maxims, this is one I often have the most difficulty with. And not because I'm averse to making rulings at the table in any given situation. As I read through my old-school rulebooks, the rules are convoluted and often confusing. Some actions require a D100 roll, some a D20, and still others a D6!
There is no real core mechanic to the system.
For the game to work with "rulings" instead of "rules", the rulings must be able to be applied fairly to all players, given the circumstances. No DM is perfect, of course. We all make mistakes.
4th Edition's Core Mechanic, however, allows for more consistent rulings to be applied by the DM in any given situation. Understanding the rules and the system is key to making rulings. A judge in a courtroom knows the law; that's how she became a judge. Her understanding of the law allows her to make rulings that are consistent with precedent. At the gaming table, the rules are there to help the DM make consistent rulings. If you have to keep looking up rules at the table, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! Set a level-appropriate target, have them roll a D20, add the appropriate modifer, and get on with the game. Tie goes to the players. Know (or have an easily accessed cheat sheet) for all the rules you regularly need to reference. The biggest part of that particular trick is knowing your PC's abilities and powers, and knowing the same for your monsters and villains.
One complaint I see old-schoolers make about 4E again and again is that the system limits players with set powers in combat. However, if the DM won't allow a PC to attempt something because he doesn't have the right power, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!
That's right. Now, everyone take a deep breath, and if you really want to get a firm grasp on the rules and learn how to make better rulings in any given situation, for anything the PCs want to try, go read At-Will. This website should be required reading for every 4e DM. If you haven't spent a good chunk of time reading his stuff, you are behind the curve. And the webchat there is awesome! Hope to see you there!
A couple things today. I haven't reviewed a Dungeons and Dragons Insider Article review in a good long minute, but there was a pretty interesting one published today behind the subscription paywall concerning some things you can do to speed up combat in your 4E game.
Wait, didn't the D&D 4E blogosphere hash this all out a few months ago? Why, yes, yes we did. All over the place! Seemed like everyone except WotC had some suggestions on how to speed up combat. It's about time they got on the bandwagon. Their suggestions are: roleplaying(!), doubling PC damage, doubling all damage, using average damage instead of rolling dice, using fewer monsters, and limiting character options. I think every single one of those options has been bandied about the interwebs at length and ad nauseum. However, there was a really interesting article over at Campaign Mastery last week where Johnn used a timer on all the participants and discovered that, by a significant amount, the DM (himself) was the biggest time-thief at his table.
My Suggestions
Referee, know thy monsters. Use simple ones. Save the one with all the fun tricks to be the boss.
Players, know thy characters. Have a plan of attack in combat. Know what the different funny sized dice are. Know how your powers work.
And here's one that's out of left field: change daily powers (class and magic item) to be 1x per encounter powers. Make red encounter powers usable twice per encounter. This will eliminate a lot of player waffling over which power to use, is it worth it to spend the daily now, should I save it, I don't know...
That was just a thought I had yesterday. Gonna playtest it soon, see how the players like it. I'll have a more in-depth article on that soon.
Now, back to the Old-School stuff.
Rulings, Not Rules
Of all the Old-School maxims, this is one I often have the most difficulty with. And not because I'm averse to making rulings at the table in any given situation. As I read through my old-school rulebooks, the rules are convoluted and often confusing. Some actions require a D100 roll, some a D20, and still others a D6!
There is no real core mechanic to the system.
For the game to work with "rulings" instead of "rules", the rulings must be able to be applied fairly to all players, given the circumstances. No DM is perfect, of course. We all make mistakes.
4th Edition's Core Mechanic, however, allows for more consistent rulings to be applied by the DM in any given situation. Understanding the rules and the system is key to making rulings. A judge in a courtroom knows the law; that's how she became a judge. Her understanding of the law allows her to make rulings that are consistent with precedent. At the gaming table, the rules are there to help the DM make consistent rulings. If you have to keep looking up rules at the table, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! Set a level-appropriate target, have them roll a D20, add the appropriate modifer, and get on with the game. Tie goes to the players. Know (or have an easily accessed cheat sheet) for all the rules you regularly need to reference. The biggest part of that particular trick is knowing your PC's abilities and powers, and knowing the same for your monsters and villains.
One complaint I see old-schoolers make about 4E again and again is that the system limits players with set powers in combat. However, if the DM won't allow a PC to attempt something because he doesn't have the right power, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!
That's right. Now, everyone take a deep breath, and if you really want to get a firm grasp on the rules and learn how to make better rulings in any given situation, for anything the PCs want to try, go read At-Will. This website should be required reading for every 4e DM. If you haven't spent a good chunk of time reading his stuff, you are behind the curve. And the webchat there is awesome! Hope to see you there!
Spike in Hits?
So, I'm a bit OCD about keeping track of hits to my blog, and something strange happened today. Around 9:45 last night (Central Standard Time US) I had a 155 hit spike out of Russia. Seems to be primarily Windows operating systems running Internet Explorer (from what I can figure looking at the stats, anyway). This is the second time this has happened. None of the hits seem to be from links or to specific posts, so it must be just the main page. Any thoughts, apart from "Damn Commies"?
Monday, May 30, 2011
4E meets AD&D (pt 2), or, What is Old-School?
Levels vs Point-Buy
The biggest hurdle with my D&D CCG project is the fact that is it basically a point-buy char-gen system. You spend your accumulated experience points to buy skills and feats to add to your character. Of course, this is completely opposite of the level-based system that has always been core to the D&D experience. When I was a kid, our fantasy gaming system of choice was "Dragonquest", which is a point-buy d100 system. I really loved that system, for a lot of reasons, even though at times it could be kind of clunky.
So really, it doesn't make sense to try to shoe-horn D&D's level progression into a point-buy system. It will only further encourage min-maxing, which is something I want to avoid. Granted, there is still a place for the different cards for characters, but not in the CCG-type of way I had been toying with originally.
What is Old-School, Anyway?
So just what is "Old-School Gaming", anyways? Honestly, that's a question that has been tossed around and debated for a while now. There are a whole shit-load of blogs dedicated to the topic, and I have been reading a lot of them, but from what I can gather, every one of those bloggers seems to have their own particular brand of old-school gaming, be it their retro-clone or heavily house-ruled originally D&D system, the only thing Old School Games seem to have in common is a reliance on a ten-foot pole.
Sorry, that was a cheap shot. But there is a grain of truth in there. One of the most commonly referenced documents is Matthew Finch's Old-School Gaming Primer, which I have read a few times and I think is generally pretty spot on (though I have my own issues with it). But these are the basics.
1) Rulings, not Rules. I go back and forth on this one. A good DM should have a firm enough grasp on the rules of the system that he can make consistently fair rulings. Wasting time looking up rules is not a good thing at all and needs to be avoided, but when you're just learning the game, it's unavoidable. However, 4E is actually incredibly versatile with regard to letting players try anything. Understanding how to apply the rules to different situations is key here. You cannot make a fair ruling without an understanding of the rules in the first place. 4E has plenty of rules that apply to combat, and once you know how they work, you can make fair, consistent rulings. This is how any role-playing game ought to work.
2) Player Skill, not Character Abilities. Yes. Relying on a dice roll to solve a puzzle is boring and is not what the game should be reduced to. But, giving a player a hint because they made a good dice roll on their "spot check" or what-have-you shouldn't be considered out-of-bounds.
3) Heroic, not Superheroic. Again, yes. Honestly, I'm not all that interested in epic-level 4th Edition gaming. Overthrow the evil king? Good. Save the world: well, maybe. Killing gods? A bit over the top, I think.
4) Forget "Game Balance": And again, yes. The "balanced" encounter is boring and predictable and not at all within the realms of verisimilitude. There is no reason for anyone to expect that every encounter they run into will be tailor made for their skill level. (At the same time, any DM who unleashes a Tarrasque on a group of 1st-level adventurers because a random chart told him to is just an asshole).
5) Resource Management. Players keeping track of the resources they have and making decisions based on that is a big part of the game. Do we have enough food/lantern oil/hit points to go further into the dungeon? Do we waste money staying in the Inn again?
These things are all pretty well accepted as the "Way" of the OSR, and generally consistent within the AD&D ruleset. For the rest of the week, I'll be looking at how to implement these things in your Old-School Style 4th Edition D&D game.
The biggest hurdle with my D&D CCG project is the fact that is it basically a point-buy char-gen system. You spend your accumulated experience points to buy skills and feats to add to your character. Of course, this is completely opposite of the level-based system that has always been core to the D&D experience. When I was a kid, our fantasy gaming system of choice was "Dragonquest", which is a point-buy d100 system. I really loved that system, for a lot of reasons, even though at times it could be kind of clunky.
So really, it doesn't make sense to try to shoe-horn D&D's level progression into a point-buy system. It will only further encourage min-maxing, which is something I want to avoid. Granted, there is still a place for the different cards for characters, but not in the CCG-type of way I had been toying with originally.
What is Old-School, Anyway?
So just what is "Old-School Gaming", anyways? Honestly, that's a question that has been tossed around and debated for a while now. There are a whole shit-load of blogs dedicated to the topic, and I have been reading a lot of them, but from what I can gather, every one of those bloggers seems to have their own particular brand of old-school gaming, be it their retro-clone or heavily house-ruled originally D&D system, the only thing Old School Games seem to have in common is a reliance on a ten-foot pole.
Sorry, that was a cheap shot. But there is a grain of truth in there. One of the most commonly referenced documents is Matthew Finch's Old-School Gaming Primer, which I have read a few times and I think is generally pretty spot on (though I have my own issues with it). But these are the basics.
1) Rulings, not Rules. I go back and forth on this one. A good DM should have a firm enough grasp on the rules of the system that he can make consistently fair rulings. Wasting time looking up rules is not a good thing at all and needs to be avoided, but when you're just learning the game, it's unavoidable. However, 4E is actually incredibly versatile with regard to letting players try anything. Understanding how to apply the rules to different situations is key here. You cannot make a fair ruling without an understanding of the rules in the first place. 4E has plenty of rules that apply to combat, and once you know how they work, you can make fair, consistent rulings. This is how any role-playing game ought to work.
2) Player Skill, not Character Abilities. Yes. Relying on a dice roll to solve a puzzle is boring and is not what the game should be reduced to. But, giving a player a hint because they made a good dice roll on their "spot check" or what-have-you shouldn't be considered out-of-bounds.
3) Heroic, not Superheroic. Again, yes. Honestly, I'm not all that interested in epic-level 4th Edition gaming. Overthrow the evil king? Good. Save the world: well, maybe. Killing gods? A bit over the top, I think.
4) Forget "Game Balance": And again, yes. The "balanced" encounter is boring and predictable and not at all within the realms of verisimilitude. There is no reason for anyone to expect that every encounter they run into will be tailor made for their skill level. (At the same time, any DM who unleashes a Tarrasque on a group of 1st-level adventurers because a random chart told him to is just an asshole).
5) Resource Management. Players keeping track of the resources they have and making decisions based on that is a big part of the game. Do we have enough food/lantern oil/hit points to go further into the dungeon? Do we waste money staying in the Inn again?
These things are all pretty well accepted as the "Way" of the OSR, and generally consistent within the AD&D ruleset. For the rest of the week, I'll be looking at how to implement these things in your Old-School Style 4th Edition D&D game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)