Archive for the ‘RPG Hub’ Category

harvestmen

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

Have you guys heard the term “harvestmen”?

“Harvestman” seems to be a folk name for what I always called a daddy long-legs: a scarier, more awesome name, I think. It’s ominous even before you know that harvestmen are giant freaky spider-things.

The name “harvestmen” practically comes with a built-in adventure. Imagine a village where people keep on warning the PCs about the coming of the Harvestmen. Maybe no one in the village is older than 30. Then these leggy spider guys finally show up. They’re harvesting the older villagers, including any older PCs.

Real harvestmen have a stink attack that they use when threatened, and their legs continue to twitch after they are severed, which in D&D terms means, I think, that severed legs attack independently.

By the way, harvestmen reproduce sexually. Maybe only female villagers are harvested. Creepy!

The Completely Unofficial Errata and House Rules for Gamma World

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

It’s no secret that Gamma World is due for some Errata. 4e Gamma World did a great job of updating the rules on its predecessor while still capturing the wacky fun that (I imagine) made the original Gamma World so fun to play!

However, several powers in the core book and in the expansion, Famine in Far-Go, have action types (minor, standard, move) and usage types (at-will, encounter) that are downright strange, and if taken at face-value, make the game a lot less fun to play! Furthermore, I think there are some pretty easy tweaks that can be made to the game system to increase balance and enjoyability!

Quick Note: I really appreciate the wackiness of Gamma World, but I think a certain balance in class powers is essential towards keeping up the fun atmosphere that this game encourages. For example, if I roll up a thematically interesting character but dread playing them because their powers are worse than useless, that hurts everyone’s game experience! So my goal with these errata and house rules is to make as many wacky combinations fun and playable as possible:

1. All [W] single target attack powers (not bursts or blasts) add + TWICE LEVEL to damage instead of + LEVEL. This includes basic melee and ranged attacks.
-Weapon powers fall way behind in damage at higher levels.

2. All [W] attack powers that can target multiple targets (including bursts and blasts) add + LEVEL to damage instead of not adding + LEVEL to damage.
-Weapon powers fall way behind in damage at higher levels.

3. All Novice Powers are STANDARD actions.
-Lodestone Lure is way too powerful as a minor action.

4. All Novice Powers are AT-WILL powers.
-Some powers are listed as Encounter for no obvious reason!

5. The Alien Engineering Power (Famine in Far-Go Page 9) adds 5 + INT + TWICE LEVEL extra damage instead of 5 + INT + LEVEL extra damage.
-This power needs to be updated to reflect change #1.

6. Nuke it From Orbit targets REFLEX instead of DEXTERITY.
-Clearly just a mixup.

7. Big Scary Monster (Famine in Far-Go Page 24) adds +2 to the attack roll vs AC. Multiplicitiy (Core Book Page 38) adds +2 to the attack roll vs AC. Power Dive (Core Book Page 44) adds +2 to the attack roll vs AC.
-Nonweapon attacks versus AC need a bonus, since AC tends to be higher than other defenses.

8. Expert Ape Training (Famine in Far-Go Page 25) DOES NOT have the +2 bonus to attack rolls. Exploit Weakness (Core Book Page 45) DOES NOT have the +2 bonus to attack roles.
-These already have appropriate bonuses to hit and in both cases it looks like the +2 bonus was placed on the wrong side of the page.

legal battles on the battlegrid

Tuesday, January 4th, 2011

Let’s say you’re running a city campaign, and you decide (for whatever reason) that you don’t want your players to treat your city like a dungeon with no roof, kicking in every door and murdering indiscriminately. On the other hand, everyone likes a fight, and you want to pack in at least one combat per game session! This can send mixed signals to a player. How will they know when it’s “this guy is dangerous, but we can’t just murder him” time and when it’s “kill the threat to the city and get a medal” time?

Bring law onto the battle grid. Historically (or at least historical-fictionally), dangerous cities had codes of acceptable violence. Dueling laws separated honorable heroes from murderers.

The laws don’t have to be complete, and they don’t even have to make much sense. There’s just one quality they need: they must be SHORT. Players don’t have space in their brain for a whole new legal system. The entire law code should be no longer than, say, a feat description.

Here’s one potential law system, or at least the part that’s relevant to players:

The Blood for Blood Law
If you kill someone who has not physically injured you or an ally, you are guilty of murder.

Make this a strict rule in your city. Anyone who breaks it (with witnesses) will face serious consequences. Let the players know that this is the rubric for when they are not allowed to kill people within city limits. (There are other laws, of course. An assassin who is injured by his mark doesn’t get off scot free. At the very least, he’s breaking and entering.)

The lawmakers’ intent behind the Blood for Blood Law was to prevent murders masquerading as duels. If an adventurer forces a shopkeeper into a duel, and kills him, is it a fair fight? If the shopkeeper got in a hit, maybe it is. If the adventurer beats the shopkeeper without taking a scratch, that suggests that the adventurer was far more skilled than the shopkeeper, and it’s MURDER.

Say the PCs are attacked by their enemies: enemies who could be… awkward if left alive. Are the PCs allowed to kill them? Not until the enemies get some hits in. Once they smack a PC for a few points of damage, they become fair game. Also: that guy in the back, shooting arrows at the PCs and missing every time? He’ll have to be dealt with nonlethally. Or you can make a Bluff check to blame a self-inflicted wound on him.

Does it make sense? Not really. But it’s the law of the land. And it works better with D&D than more sensible rules: it doesn’t forbid combat, it just saddles it with arbitrary restrictions.

blog of holding’s first year

Thursday, December 30th, 2010

We’ve been blogging since mid-February 2010, and in that time we’ve written almost 250 posts. At first, we were posting once or twice a week. There have been occasional hyper moments: sometimes when we went to Gencon or liveblogged Essentials we posted up to 8 posts a day. In recent months, though, we’ve been posting pretty steadily about 4 or 5 posts a week.

Along the way, we’ve done a couple things I’m proud of: put the Monster Manual 3 on a business card, gotten a favorable review from Mike Mearls, re-invented a seminal RPG, and fixed 4e.

All of this supports my theory that Blog of Holding is a bunch of badasses. You can bounce a nickel of the rock hard abs of our RPG musings. And the nickel will come back a dime.

Next year, the goals are: 1) hit 500 posts, and 2) be mentioned favorably in a press conference by the President of the United States.

Also, tour the world with our rock band, “Blog of Holding Dot Com”.

the elves of the ruins

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

The Zimbabwe plateau is filled with monumental stone structures, built during the European medieval and renaissance period. Archaeologists don’t really know what people built them. In the 19th century, archaeologists found that the people currently living in the ruins didn’t know who had built them either, or what they were for. They had just moved into some empty ruins.

African Civilizations by Graham Connah

African Civilizations by Graham Connah

OK, so it would be cool to have a people living in and among the ruins of an unidentified higher civilization. Who should the current inhabitants be?

Old-school elves are surprisingly good candidates.
(more…)

christmas ghost stories

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

Christmas-day passed as it generally does in the country, that is to say, in a most jovial, social way; and after fun, frolic, sport, pastime, forfeit, dance, and cards, I stood once more within the haunted chamber with the strange sensation upon me, that though I had met with nothing so far to alarm me – this night, a night when, of all nights in the year, spirits might be expected to break loose, I was to suffer for my temerity.

(“Haunted by Spirits”, by George Manville Fenn, 1867)

It may seem strange to us today, but in the Victorian era, Christmas was a traditional time for ghost stories. A Christmas Carol is really the only one that’s survived, but there were lots more. (Also note the peculiar line in “It’s The Most Wonderful Time of the Year:” “There’ll be scary ghost stories and tales of the glories of Christmases long, long ago.”)

If your D&D group isn’t on holiday break, maybe you should continue this Victorian tradition by running a ghost-story one-shot.

Here’s a prompt: Write a ghost story in which one of the characters is named Tiny Tim. Charles Dickens wrote one such story. There are other possibilities. And in many of them, Tiny Tim is terrifying.

the magic king

Friday, December 17th, 2010

I’ve mentioned before that in a D&D world, where magic works, we should trust ceremony. One ceremony I haven’t discussed yet is the anointing of a king. In Africa this was apparently very important: African Civilizations mentions that all the African civilizations studied in the book appear to use religious ideology to support the power of its ruling class. In some places in central Africa, kings were worshiped as recently as the 20th century.

African Civilizations by Graham Connah

African Civilizations by Graham Connah

D&D, and fantasy in general, tends to be deeply conservative, in that its heroes tend to be the type who support the status quo, or want to return a recent status quo. They oppose evil forces who want to change things for the worse. (Liberal fantasy would be, I guess, about educating the peasants or something: change would generally be regarded in a more positive light.)

Because fantasy is conservative, it idealizes the institution of kingship. The rules of monarchy have the power of natural law.

A king has a lot of political powers, but in a magical world, I think a king has some magical powers too.

a) A king’s blood is sacred. A subject who kills his rightful king will fall under a curse, probably for many generations.

b) A king has ritual powers. A king can perform “speech acts”: appointing people knights and nobles, and probably performing weddings and funerals, too, like the captain of a boat.

b) A king has healing powers. In medieval England, for instance, a king’s touch was supposed to cure tuberculosis. Between this and the ritual powers, a king basically has all the powers of a cleric. Makes sense, since if a king is not in the “leader” role, who is?

c) A king has powers related to national defense. Many kingdoms probably have some magic items or rituals usable only by the true king in defense of the kingdom. Excalibur comes to mind.

name day: Bright

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Who, or what, is named Bright?

My first thought is that it’s an ironic name for something dark. Maybe there’s an assassins’ guild where every assassin’s on-the-job pseudonym is Bright, the way clients are all named Johnson in Shadowrun.

Hmm… that’s OK, but maybe it feels a little too much like an acronym, like THRUSH from Man from Uncle or KAOS from Get Smart.

Any other ideas?

(By the way, my group recently played a game of Shadowrun where my character was a Russian celebrity. The GM decided that my client was named Ivanovich. If that’s an old gag, it’s new to me.)

let’s drop the 4e level bonus!

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

So, several years after 4e came out, how is “+1 to everything every two levels” level bonus working out for everyone?

Every time you gain an even level, you have to do a lot of writing on your character sheet (or, more likely, print out a new sheet). You have to add the +1 level bonus to the attack rolls on all of your power cards, add 1 to your defenses and initiative, and update every. single. skill.

I’m starting to wonder whether you couldn’t scrap this level bonus, and just let characters’ abilities climb based on attribute boosts, enhancement bonuses, and other perks.

The level bonus has NO EFFECT on level-appropriate challenges, since the bonuses are applied to attacks and defenses (or skill bonuses and DCs). The main effect of the bonus is to make levels more meaningful. If characters or monsters have a few levels between them, they can’t reasonably compete against each other. Does this make things more fun? Let’s examine every aspect of the level-bonus rule separately.

Attack rolls and defenses: These march in lockstep, so let’s examine them together. The design intent of 4e was that monsters’ defenses would increase by 1 point every level; PC attacks would also increase by 1 every level, .5 from the level bonus and .5 from everything else (ability bonuses, enhancement bonuses, and misc etc). (In fact, the original math was slightly wrong, which means that we’re saddled with the Weapon Expertise fix.)

I don’t actually love the rapid increase of attack bonuses and defenses. Experience with 4e shows that it tends to make the most exciting fights – those against high-level opponents – drag on through miss after miss.

Is that really a fun way to handle a very tough battle? No, it isn’t, as 4e designers recognized. That’s why they developed Elite and Solo monsters, who have the increased HP and damage output of higher-level opponents, but the attacks and defenses of level-appropriate opponents.

What if we removed the level bonus from PC attacks and defenses? (We’d also have to subtract 1 point per two levels from monster attack bonuses and defenses.) Higher-level monsters would still have more HP and do more damage than lower-level foes, but their defenses wouldn’t recede quite as fast into unhittability. We’d effectively be turning every high-level monster into something more like an Elite or Solo monster.

Also, does it make fantasy-logic sense that powerful enemies are unhittable? Maybe a little bit – ogres with thick skin or fast duelists are hard to hurt. But an orc champion might not be much dodgier than an orc grunt. He can just take more damage, and behead you before you get a second attack.

Let’s try removing it!

A level 1 fighter with a +7 attack bonus (+4 strength, +3 weapon proficiency) attacks a level 8 orc. Without the level bonus, the orc’s AC is maybe 18 instead of 22. The PC hits on a 11 or better, instead of a 15 or better.

The orc strikes back! Instead of having a +13 attack bonus, he has a +9, so he hits the fighter’s AC 18 with a roll of 9 instead of needing only a 5.

Suddenly, instead of having a dull, foregone-conclusion combat round, we have some excitement around the combat rolls. Of course, the orc is still going to win the combat, because he hits like a jackhammer. His attacks still do an average of 16+ damage per attack, meaning he can bloody the fighter with one hit: while the fighter, doing possibly 9 or 10 damage per hit, is going to take a while to carve through the orc’s 90 HP. This, to me, seems like a more exciting way to model a one-sided battle.

Skills

Character skill bonuses get higher as characters gain levels, which makes sense: higher-level characters are more competent. However, the current 4e skill paradigm is that skill DCs are relative to the characters’ level anyway. A Hard climb check is always a Hard climb check, no matter the character level: there are only a handful of fixed DCs, like those for jump distance, at which higher-level characters actually improve.

If characters always face level-appropriate skill DCs, what’s the point of laboriously adding 1 to every skill bonus and DC every two levels? Let’s just forget that rigmarole and let PC skills slowly improve as they accrue attribute bonuses and skill-boosting items. We’ll subtract half-level from the giant skill DC chart as well.

This change has no downside (since it actually has virtually no mechanical effect at all), and would save a lot of erasing/reprinting of the character sheet.

Initiative

Since initiative rises steeply with level, it becomes an inevitable part of combat that higher-level opponents go before you. Does this make any sense? Why does a high-level zombie, with a speed of 4, necessarily beat you to the punch?

Also worth noting are the important areas where the level bonus is not used:

Damage Although, for instance, Strength checks and Strength-based skills increase by one point every two levels, Strength-based damage does not (which confused me when I started 4e, and probably confuses other new players). Damage increases are, instead, cooked into attacks: higher-level attacks let you roll more dice.

Hit points Characters and monsters get HP per level via a separate subsystem. The extra HP and damage given to monsters and characters, plus the non-level bonuses to other attributes, might make for more entertaining encounters between opponents of different level.

combat in Mazes and Monsters (including, of course, maiming and slaughter)

Monday, December 13th, 2010
This entry is part 18 of 34 in the series Mazes and Monsters

Last week we started work on the Mazes and Monsters combat system, figuring out HP and damage. That was the easy part: hit rolls are really the central feature of combat.

Let’s use RONA for this. As you may remember, using RONA, you roll a D12 and try to hit a target number. If you have an applicable trait, you roll 2d12 and take the highest number.

Wimpy monsters require an Easy Rona (a roll of 3 or more on an exploding d12); middle-range monsters Average (6) and tough or well-armored foes Hard (9).

Characters don’t necessarily get much better at hitting as they level. As soon as they get a trait that lets them roll 2d12 for their attack, they’re as good as they’ll ever be.

This is a departure from fantasy RPGs like D&D, which give the PCs (and monsters) steadily increasing hit chances as they level. Mazes and Monsters, on the other hand, provides steadily increasing damage; we don’t need to double-dip.

Armor

Armor in Mazes and Monsters is very limited! Iglacia the Fighter has listed among her possessions “armor”, “shield”, and “helmet”. No “leather”, “chain”, or “plate”; no armor+1. Just “Armor”.

Let’s say that hitting an unarmored character requires an Average success: in essence, you need to roll a 6 to hit them. We’ll give each of Armor, Helm, and Shield a +1 to that number, so a fully-armored character like Iglacia requires a 9 to hit: a Hard RONA.

Is there anything on Iglacia’s character sheet to bear out this theory?

Well, there is a stat right below H.P. I can’t make out the acronym: it’s two letters, and its value is 10. If I had to guess, I’d say that the letters were “P.T.” or “T.P.” or “B.R.” or something like that. Since I can’t figure out what it is, I’m going to declare that it’s “P.R.”, “Protection RONA”. It’s 10, instead of 9, which gives Iglacia a better defense than we theorized! Maybe Armor grants +2 P.R. while the helm and shield grant +1 each.

Weapons

Iglacia has a couple of weapons on her character sheet: mace, axe, and the Talking Sword of Loghri. She must have had some reason for keeping her mace even after she got her Talking Sword of Logrhi. How are we going to differentiate these weapons?

I’m tempted to adopt the D&D3 solution of giving monsters resistances and weaknesses to bashing, piercing, or slashing weapons. We can extend that to spells, too: maze mummies are weak to fire, for instance.

Actually, given that the only type of armor is “armor”, the list of weapons in Mazes and Monsters probably isn’t very long. No footman’s mace or Bohemian earspoon here. Instead of dividing weapons into categories, we can just give monsters resistances to specific weapons.

While we’re here, let’s come up with the weapons list. It probably looks something like

sword
mace
axe
spear
dagger
bow
staff

Let’s handle monster weaknesses and resistances by adjusting the monster’s P.R. (Protection RONA): +3 for resistances and -3 for weaknesses. For instance:

Mystic Skeleton
PR: 6 (9 vs arrows, swords and daggers)

Maiming and Slaughter

We’ve already come up with a colorful Maiming table. We can now tie that to the RONA system. If you (or a monster) get a critical success (10 higher than the RONA target number) you can roll on the maiming table. If you happen to roll a double crit (20 higher than the RONA) let’s say you kill your target instantly. We’ll call that a slaughter because that’s the sort of term that probably would have distressed 80s parents.

Say, what are the odds of having a character get Slaughtered by a freak roll of the dice?

I tend to think that monsters always roll 1d12s: the extra d12 from Traits are one of the ways that players have an advantage over their environment. In order to Slaughter an unarmored character with a RONA of 6, a monster needs a 26. That means rolling 12 twice, and then rolling a 6 or higher. The odds of this are about 1 in 300.

How many times is a character attacked between level 1 and level 9? Well, earlier we decided that it takes 70 game sessions to get to level 9. Let’s conservatively guess that there are two combats per session. Unarmored characters try to stay out of the way, but they probably get attacked at least once per battle. Over 9 levels, that’s about 300 attacks: you’ve got an even chance of being Slaughtered before you get to level 10. Add to that the chances of death by HP depletion, traps, tricks, and Maze-related madness, and it’s obviously quite an accomplishment to make it to the level-10 cap.

Fumbling

If there’s a special chart for critical hits, there needs to be a chart for critical failures too. If you roll ten less than a target Protection RONA, you have to roll on the Fumble Chart.

Fumble Subtable
1: The character impales himself with his or another’s weapon. Character rolls damage on himself.
1: The character makes the same attack again, this time on an ally.
3: The character’s weapon or spell breaks.
4-5: The character’s weapon or spell flies across the room.
6-7: The character leaves himself open. One opponent may make a free attack.
8-9: The character falls down. He loses his next turn.
10-11: The character misses spectacularly. No other effect.
12: If there is another enemy in range, the character automatically hits that enemy.

On a double fumble (20 lower than the target’s P.R.) the character kills himself with his own weapon.

OK, our combat system is pretty solid. We maybe erred in basing it on the same mechanic as everything else in the game; to maintain fidelity to 80’s RPG style, we should have had it be a whole separate subsystem. But at least we jammed in a few unnecessary charts.

Next week we’ll finish off whatever odds and ends of rules we haven’t addressed yet. The Mazed condition springs to mind. Then, the week after: the official release of Mazes and Monsters 1st Edition, just in time for Christmas!

Edit: We won’t do that. Instead, next time: we’ll get mazed!