And by players I also mean DMs.
I like alot of things about 5e. But I started with D&D B/X in the early 1980's, so something like The Keep on the Borderlands is quintessential D&D for me. Venturing into monster-filled dungeons for fortune and glory, with resource management and player ingenuity playing a big part of whether your PC survives. Not saying you can't do this in 5e, but its built for more heroic play, and tends to hand-wave some of the struggles a PC would encounter in the older versions. Which might be a good or a bad thing, depending upon what you want from the game.
So B/X is probably my favorite version. What is your favorite version of D&D, and why?
I swing between becmi and b/x i like a lot of the becmi additions but 36 levels is a bit much. Thankfully its easy to mix and match. 5e is fine though, just there are systems i like a lot more so i dont usually feel like playing it instead.
Quote from: Slambo on January 24, 2021, 01:55:06 PM
I swing between becmi and b/x i like a lot of the becmi additions but 36 levels is a bit much. Thankfully its easy to mix and match. 5e is fine though, just there are systems i like a lot more so i dont usually feel like playing it instead.
This matches my feelings almost exactly. I like the lower level limit, but some of the b/x advancement/progression schedules are a bit wonky
I'm currently running 5e & 1e - in the same setting & time period (Damara, Faerun 1359 DR). Both have their strengths & weaknesses, and it really depends most on what the players prefer/are familiar with. The 1e game is play-by-post and I do think the 1e AD&D combat system with action declarations then roll init & resolve is much better for that than the 5e (or 3e & 4e) system.
Quote from: Crusader X on January 24, 2021, 01:49:32 PM
So B/X is probably my favorite version. What is your favorite version of D&D, and why?
2nd Edition. Like you, I started with B/X and Advanced and had a lot of fun with them, but 2nd edition is when we hit our stride and some of the best games I played/gmed were under that system. It's the sweet spot between complexity and simplicity for me. It's not perfect, I think a "perfect" system for me would be some kind of 2.5 hybrid, and last time I gmed 2nd I used house rules to make it more like that hybrid.
I've never needed or desired another D&D than 1st edition AD&D
I can't really think of any older version that I'd rather play over 5e (for various reasons). That said, there's so many games I'd rather play before settling on 5e that what I'm giving barely even qualifies as faint praise.
I would prefer to play any older version then 5e. I would DM any older edition then 4e.
I prefer original or 1e AD&D over 5e. I didn't see anything that 5e brought to the table that would make me want to switch.
I prefer older TSR versions, namely 2e, because of the baseline toned-down heroics while still organizing and cataloging optional material to build up your own table's style.
5e is good for WotC, but there are a lot of assumptions baked into the cake that I have to take out beforehand. It's like the raisin toast of D&D: functionally similar but often needs some doctoring to get it to my preferred baseline state.
Quote from: Opaopajr on January 24, 2021, 04:03:30 PM
I prefer older TSR versions, namely 2e, because of the baseline toned-down heroics while still organizing and cataloging optional material to build up your own table's style.
5e is good for WotC, but there are a lot of assumptions baked into the cake that I have to take out beforehand. It's like the raisin toast of D&D: functionally similar but often needs some doctoring to get it to my preferred baseline state.
Whats your problem with raisin toast? Y
My first exposure to D&D was 2e and I have an ongoing soft spot for it. I've run OD&D most of any edition because it feels like an easy framework to build my own D&D on. Jumped on 5th bandwagon when it came out but it just left me cold.
I started writing my own game system I disliked the direction of the 5e playtest so much.
4E was by far my favorite edition of D&D (the first time I could ever run the character concepts I wanted to play without massive house rules) and even that started to break down by mid-paragon (just one of the reasons my own system caps at level 15 and advancement really slows down starting at level 11). Complexity actually isn't nearly as bad as some people think if you actually ditch the character builder programs (people tend to self-select for the Essentials core feats; because they're solid and easy to find; and those from the specific books the race/class appears in if you have to do it by hand) and a lot of the Essentials era classes pick up non-combat options that make them less combat exclusive in their focus.
Outside of my own system, my second choice for a D&D-like system would be Palladium Fantasy 1e (2e adds physical skill nonsense and other later Rift-isms that make it way too fiddly for my tastes).
My favorite has always been AD&D 2E.
I DM almost exclusively, and the worlds of TSR are my playground. 1E books were exceedingly rare here in Brazil (to the point where the only ones I actually saw during my youth were xeroxed copies), and 2E dominated the market and the gaming tables (challenged only by Vampire/Werewolf, which were wildly popular in their heyday).
5E seems to me to be a bland mix of 3E and 4E and though I liked 3E after a while, 4E is the devil. The stench of its bones is still present in some parts of 5E. I bought the core books, read them, and decided it would be best to just play anything else (my current campaigns are a TOR one with my experienced group and a Basic Fantasy one with beginners...I try to mix Call of Cthulhu in whenever possible).
It's exceedingly difficult to convince anyone to play 2E though, so my last campaign using the ruleset was a few years ago.
1E or 2E for me. 1E for Gary's writing and the atmosphere, 2E for the cleaned up rules.
Original or swords & wizardry
There is no edition but 1st edition and Gygax is its prophet.
1st edition is the most compatible with an open game table (https://vikinghatgm.blogspot.com/2021/01/ad-open-game-table.html).
5E because it is easier to run. 1E because it was the very first rpg I played even with Gary Gygax piss poor in the DMG. 2E because of the cleaned up rules and the sourcebooks were the most flavorful.
I feel 2e struck the right balance for everything. Plus tons of options and modularity for as simple or complex a system as you want.
B/X.
The best system for exploration without years of accumulated cruft.
It's also just so refreshing to take out all the Paladins and Rangers and Sorcerers and Hexblades and boil it down to the core concepts.
I've tried 5e. It's not so much that it's bad, as that it's muddled and really doesn't know what it's for.
If you imagine a point somewhere near halfway between BEMCI/RC and 5E, you'll be the closet to what I like in my D&D. In fact, no matter what version I've run (even 4E), I tend to twist it in that direction. I was reasonably happy with running 5E with some of the defaults scaled way back to closer to BEMCI/RC or AD&D. I'd be reasonably happy taking a tweaked BEMCI/RC and adding something to it. The problem was that "reasonably happy" wasn't good enough anymore.
My biggest issue is that I do want just a touch of "skills" and a tad more mechanics than the B/X style. I not only don't want race as class but also have never exactly reconciled to D&D races having cultural things embedded in the package. I'm not exactly comfortable with "class as archetype" and merely make another class as soon as you want a new spin on the archetype. I'm just not wired that way when I GM. I'm also tired of the other extreme, the generic Hero System or GURPs approach, or even the bastard GURPs/D&D approach of the 3E framework with a lot of specifics layered on top. There are some thing in BEMCI/RC that are kind of clunky. However, from my point of view, the WotC editions and even 2E in a lot of ways goes too far the other way.
I'm doing my own version now. WotC shenanigans pushed me over the edge but this has been brewing for years. I took the BEMCI/RC framework, lopped off the upper end, embedded a handful of customization options, changed the ability scores around to suit me, flattened and shortened the power curve, introduced a handful of modern mechanics to simplify it, and have gotten off to the races. Every time I had a question of compatibility with D&D or making it work the way I wanted, I took the latter. That meant rewriting every damn spell but so be it. Two successful play tests so far and organizing a longer game. Sure, the thing has been stretched and twisted so much that I doubt three people here would call it D&D. You can kind of see that it is distantly related. You could get something approximating the kind of game I'm running by tweaking BEMCI/RC or AD&D, but this approach was easier and more fun in the long run.
If I were just forced at gunpoint to pick a version and stick with it? Moldvay/Cook B/X with my own house rules.
It's what I started on, and it's what I have a lot of fun memories of using. 8)
I'm on the fence still.
I find 5E more accessible and I like ascending AC, save versus stat, and a couple of other things. It is currently easier to get players for 5E. And 5E can be modified enough to bring it inline with my tastes (Five Torches Deep, etc.).
BECMI is what I would probably prefer to play due to art, tone, and style. This is what I have been pulling out to try and teach the kids. Plus a few of the systems such as morale I have to port into 5E anyhow.
My three go to rpgs are 5E, B/X Based(OSE, SWN ), and Savage Worlds
I will pretty much play/run them without prejudice for one over the other.
I will also like Five Torches Deep - takes the good parts from 5E and OSR
Life is too short to play/run one rpg system
Quote from: Crusader X on January 24, 2021, 01:49:32 PM
What is your favorite version of D&D, and why?
Palladium Fantasy 1e.
:)
Quote from: Crusader X on January 24, 2021, 01:49:32 PM
What is your favorite version of D&D, and why?
AD&D 1st Edition because I don't take D&D seriously.
B/X. I've only run it by way of OSE though.
After years of reading through 5e forums I became exhausted with its mother-may-I BS where everything needed to be codified in the rules in order to exist in the game. Endless character and race options bloat also put me off, and it was with much happiness that I found the relative simplicity of B/X.
Varies over time. Right now I would like to try one of various OD&D versions I've come across.
Interested to see all the love for 2e. BTW I noticed WotC recently put up this kind-of 2e starter set for free.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/284581/Dungeons--Dragons-Adventure-Game?src=newest
One of the strangenesses about it is it's date-stamped 1999, which is right before 3e. Maybe it was a marketing attempt to shift some 2e stock before the changeover.
No rules for character creation, but includes a folio of Level 2 characters and enough rules to take them to Lvl 5. Uses a single saving throw, and THAC0.
There's an old-school feel to it, e.g. the sample adventure DM guidance includes advice on what to do if the players try to negotiate with the monsters vs what to do if they attack, with explicit advice to just make it up if you either can't remember a rule or there isn't a rule.
Personally, I don't know at this point but through pure iteration and time its D&D 3e.
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 25, 2021, 02:53:03 AMAfter years of reading through 5e forums I became exhausted with its mother-may-I BS where everything needed to be codified in the rules in order to exist in the game.
I'd say that's more opposite. 'Mother May I' refers to the players asking permission for the GM for everything. And Id say 5e is not a game thats even close to being demanding of rules following since its like 50% unfinished.
Original (in it's Swords and Wizardry incarnation), but would happily play any pre AD&D option.
I started in the late 80's with AD&D and later a few sessions on 2e.
Then the group tried about anything else that came around the corner (RQ, CoC, MERP, D6 Star Wars, Shadowrun, JB007, Gurps 3, Savage Worlds, Toon, etc..)
When 3e came out, we played until level 7 or 8, but I dropped it when 3.5 was announced.
We played a lot of 4E and enjoyed it, but after a few years swithced to a WH3rd campaign.
I played some PF1, which was indeed a lot like 3.*
And now we're playing 5e for a bit over a year.
My preference? 4E, with 5e a close second. Fuck silex and rubbing sticks together, when you can use a lighter or matches.
Both.
I like BX and AD&D and have DMed those a long time. But 5e works for me and its easy to get new players into as basic is free.
I'm mostly player of 3,5/Pathfinder mix.
I have lot of beefs with this system.
I like 2ed cRPGs, but they seems even clunkier and less rounded than 3e.
TBH I'd probably have to do my own version - sort of grimmer darker more deadly mix of all D&D's - but also with lot of customisation options from newer editions.
And definitely - monsters working on the same level as PC's like in 3.
Quote from: Omega on January 25, 2021, 07:39:12 AM
But 5e works for me and its easy to get new players into as basic is free.
There are a load of free rulesets for earlier editions, too. Swords and Wizardry, OSRIC, Lab Lord, For Gold & Glory, Basic Fantasy etc.
All I need:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51jfxcIacTL._AC_SY780_.jpg)
"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good." - G. Gygax (R.I.P.)
This Gygax quote is so, so bad.
AD&D. 1e as the base, with 2e materials as optional and supplemental.
I prefer my OD&D/S&W variant/hack, 4E , C&C , and 13th Age. All of which *I* consider D&D. 13th Age is my personal fave to run. C&C and my OD&D/S&W hack are preferred by my players.
5E is a good set of rules, IMO. My players like it, but don't prefer it. I don't find it brings much to the table other games have not already, nor does the product model/line get me excited in the least to run it.
If we went back to playing D&D then it would be 2nd ED. I have a lot of 2nd ED stuff. Never bought 4th or 5th ED.
Either Rules Cyclopedia with the Gazs or 3.5E/Pathfinder (I still think that the fluff in 3/3.5E is the best in all D&D and quite underrated).
QuoteAnd yet it is true...
Nope. Especially beginning and end.
I go with Old School Essentials which is B/X.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 25, 2021, 06:01:48 PM
Nope. Especially beginning and end.
Seconded.
Gygax rant has not aged well imo and it shows.
I will play any version of D&D with a decent group of people. The only version I've never played is 2e and that's just for lack of opportunity. I've played 2e adventures, and I own a bunch of 2e rulebooks, and it's a perfectly fine edition too.
Quote from: Theory of Games on January 25, 2021, 10:00:16 AM
All I need:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51jfxcIacTL._AC_SY780_.jpg)
I have to say, despite my love of AD&D2E, if I ever had to pick
one book to play for the rest of my life, RC would be it.
My preferred edition of d&d is a blend between 1st and 2nd edition, although I'm a big fan of the Rules cyclopedia as well. 5E is probably my favorite out of the wizards of the coast versions, but even that becomes a superheroic high powered slog around 6th level or so.
My preferred games in general are OSR. My favorites being Astonishing Swordsmen and Soecerers of Hyperborea, Crypts and Things, and Dungeon Crawl Classics.
2nd Edition is my favorite edition. To me, it's got everything I want. I'd play it, any day, given the choice of editions. 5e is an okay system, and it does exactly what the WotC wanted it to do. To me, it feels a bit too homogenized for my tastes.
Yes, pin me down and make me a pick a published edition, it will be Rules Cyclopedia.
My favorite is some house-rulesd version of B/X or 5e.
I think 5e is better than most editions, but Moldvay's basic is really great, it contains so much in so little space.
2e has awesome settings, OD&D and AD&D the have the seeds of everything we like about AD&D, etc.
But yeah, if you have to pick one single book, the RC rules.
QuoteDon't see anything in there to argue with.
Of course there is. Let's comment each singular option:
QuoteThe new D&D is too rule intensive.
Utterly subjective opinion.
QuoteIt's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game.
Generally speaking being master of the game means controlling enviroment, NPC's, storyflow, occurences, random events and so on, and so on. There are some games that limits DM more, but it's rare. Using rules according to the book, does not take control out of GM - because well he decides what sort of trials put before a team, and can use both light and crunchy mechanics to craft proper scale for his taste. Leaving holes in rules, and saying - each GM should use his own judgement in otherwise quite crunchy game is not really that good of design. Me having to invent enviromental rules for various combat situation is not necessary what I want.
One can argue that heavy rules can be bit of chore for a DM and with that I can agree. We run two PF1/3,5 campaigns and it's quite chore for me, while my mathematically aligned, economics pHD GM who runs second one flows through intricacies without much problem, as it's definitely simpler that market of corn syrup.
QuoteIt's done away with the archetypes,
Allowing to play non-exactly archetypical fantasy - putting aside fact that well fantasy is living literature and new popular archetypes appears.
And while Gygax started with only few archetypes, then thief was added (even if he was archetypical from the get go), more knight types, Tolkienic archetypes, and so on.
I'd say each of 12 core classes in D&D 5e is very archetypical - partially because D&D give all it's classes sort of d&D archetypism over early sources.
Druid archetype is now D&D archetype, having little to do with Celtic priestly classes, same with bard (also Celtic priestly profession).
Quotefocused on nothing but combat and character power,
D&D are game derived from wargames. They were always quite combat heavy. There were always power creep.
And well later editions added skills which allows characters to aside war - serve different social and exploratory roles.
Your wizard can also be wanna be survivalist and tracker if you lack ranger, your druid can be diplomat who speak for a trees.
Quotelost the group cooperative aspect,
Good job winning any decent fight in later systems without cooperation. Control spells, buffs, flanking, positioning and so on - tactical element was uplifted.
Quotebastardized the class-based system,
By making them less all-fighters are the same. Yes. And that's good thing. Meanwhile - basic roles both in fight and outside are still kept, still necessary for most games to procure - you need various fighting roles: tanks, strikers, artillery, controllers, buffers, you need various social options, and you need competent skills to survive in various enviroments.
Quoteand resembles a comic-book superheroes game
Indeed, on later levels yes. It goes from common heroics to greek heroes to wuxia to superheroes.
Quotemore than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."
I see no reason why modern D&D would force you to play LG. If anything zeitgeist promotes CG characters because muh freedom.
And srsly Gary - it was you who invented stupid descriptions of alignments that are used since you added Good-Evil axis, that makes CN and CE almost unplayable as a sociopaths, you basically described Chaotic as equivalent of low Wisdom score, you made Paladin so uber-and-over LG (even though it's based on elite French knights not saints) that we needed several editions to get proper variants for non LG divine champions of various causes.
Quote from: RandyB on January 25, 2021, 11:02:05 AM
AD&D. 1e as the base, with 2e materials as optional and supplemental.
Now if OSR and retroclones are also in scope, ACKS is in a dead heat with the above.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 26, 2021, 09:37:31 AM
QuoteDon't see anything in there to argue with.
Of course there is. Let's comment each singular option:
QuoteThe new D&D is too rule intensive.
Utterly subjective opinion.
QuoteIt's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game.
Generally speaking being master of the game means controlling enviroment, NPC's, storyflow, occurences, random events and so on, and so on. There are some games that limits DM more, but it's rare. Using rules according to the book, does not take control out of GM - because well he decides what sort of trials put before a team, and can use both light and crunchy mechanics to craft proper scale for his taste. Leaving holes in rules, and saying - each GM should use his own judgement in otherwise quite crunchy game is not really that good of design. Me having to invent enviromental rules for various combat situation is not necessary what I want.
One can argue that heavy rules can be bit of chore for a DM and with that I can agree. We run two PF1/3,5 campaigns and it's quite chore for me, while my mathematically aligned, economics pHD GM who runs second one flows through intricacies without much problem, as it's definitely simpler that market of corn syrup.
QuoteIt's done away with the archetypes,
Allowing to play non-exactly archetypical fantasy - putting aside fact that well fantasy is living literature and new popular archetypes appears.
And while Gygax started with only few archetypes, then thief was added (even if he was archetypical from the get go), more knight types, Tolkienic archetypes, and so on.
I'd say each of 12 core classes in D&D 5e is very archetypical - partially because D&D give all it's classes sort of d&D archetypism over early sources.
Druid archetype is now D&D archetype, having little to do with Celtic priestly classes, same with bard (also Celtic priestly profession).
Quotefocused on nothing but combat and character power,
D&D are game derived from wargames. They were always quite combat heavy. There were always power creep.
And well later editions added skills which allows characters to aside war - serve different social and exploratory roles.
Your wizard can also be wanna be survivalist and tracker if you lack ranger, your druid can be diplomat who speak for a trees.
Quotelost the group cooperative aspect,
Good job winning any decent fight in later systems without cooperation. Control spells, buffs, flanking, positioning and so on - tactical element was uplifted.
Quotebastardized the class-based system,
By making them less all-fighters are the same. Yes. And that's good thing. Meanwhile - basic roles both in fight and outside are still kept, still necessary for most games to procure - you need various fighting roles: tanks, strikers, artillery, controllers, buffers, you need various social options, and you need competent skills to survive in various enviroments.
Quoteand resembles a comic-book superheroes game
Indeed, on later levels yes. It goes from common heroics to greek heroes to wuxia to superheroes.
Quotemore than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."
I see no reason why modern D&D would force you to play LG. If anything zeitgeist promotes CG characters because muh freedom.
And srsly Gary - it was you who invented stupid descriptions of alignments that are used since you added Good-Evil axis, that makes CN and CE almost unplayable as a sociopaths, you basically described Chaotic as equivalent of low Wisdom score, you made Paladin so uber-and-over LG (even though it's based on elite French knights not saints) that we needed several editions to get proper variants for non LG divine champions of various causes.
So, basically, you admit that everything Gary said was accurate, you just disagree that it's a bad thing. This has to be one of the biggest self-owns I think I've ever seen...
Quote from: Gary Gygax
The new D&D is too rule intensive.
Gary have you never seen the ADnD Books? ???
Gary is guilty of the sin of stating his beliefs without endlessly qualifying them to allow for contrary beliefs. Which always draws contrarians out of the wood work in a way unique to him, while his detractors state their own beliefs as certainly, and allow others to state beliefs just as certainly, without challenge or qualification.
But for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 02:58:22 PM
Quote from: Gary Gygax
The new D&D is too rule intensive.
Gary have you never seen the ADnD Books? ???
;D
QuoteSo, basically, you admit that everything Gary said was accurate, you just disagree that it's a bad thing. This has to be one of the biggest self-owns I think I've ever seen...
Let's say. Gary Gygax's statement consisted of 8 elements that should be judged independently.
Of those I quite blatantly disagreed with 5.
Maybe I should be less polite about it :P
QuoteBut for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored
Ah, yes. Famous - if you react to statement you disagree with, you prove they were right - fallacy.
This is discussion board, sir.
QuoteGary have you never seen the ADnD Books? ???
:D
Quote from: BronzeDragon on January 25, 2021, 09:42:38 PM
I have to say, despite my love of AD&D2E, if I ever had to pick one book to play for the rest of my life, RC would be it.
For a single volume set of rules, I'd prefer the OSRIC hardback over the RC. Honorable mentions to AS&SH and the BRP Gold Book.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 26, 2021, 07:50:13 PM
QuoteBut for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored
Ah, yes. Famous - if you react to statement you disagree with, you prove they were right - fallacy.
This is discussion board, sir.
The only thing proven so far is you're hallucinating sentences not written. My post is still right up there for reference. Should people hallucinating sentences into a fallacy debate the writings they read? That's an interesting question.
2e was my favorite. But that was the first edition that I really got heavily into, so I'm sure that biases my opinion. I liked all the settings. If you were into lore, campaign settings, and novels etc, 2e was simply the best. I might be one of the few people who didn't hate THAC0. (what I DID hate was having to constantly remember all the bonuses or penalties you had to apply to attack rolls etc. That got pretty full on at times)
I started playing 5e on Fantasy Grounds after buying the Solasta pc game early access, which uses the 5e (SRD) rules. So far (only level 2 party) I mostly like the 5e rules. It's definitely catered to the special snowflake crowd though. Just about every PC is basically an olympic athlete at level 1, compared to a common NPC. In older games, a level 1 PC wasn't too much different from a common peasant. I think we've all seen the 1 hp wizard with 1 spell before. Character attributes are higher all around in 5e. I don't think I've seen a character yet that didn't have at least a 17 in their primary attribute at level 1, thanks to dice rolling methods and adding points from backgrounds, classes etc. If you want to play a game where the PCs are the "specialist" of the special, 5e is your game. If you want to play a game where your PCs are average people who get thrust into a hero's journey, then play 1e, 2e, or OSR.
Although it is nice for a level 1 spellcaster to have more than 1 spell now. And I like the cantrips too, even if spamming some of them every round is basically the same as shooting a crossbow.
I hate how WOTC have perverted all the classic archetypes, particularly in the artworks used in the books. You won't find a Sir Lancelot stand-in anymore, instead you'll get some African woman cosplaying in plate or chainmail. Half-orcs can now be Paladins. (WTF?) Remember in the 80's when moms were scared that DnD was Satanic, because players could fight devils? Well now they'd actually have more reason to think that, since you're now playing as the devils. (Tieflings) Again, WTF?
Then of course there's the barrage of SJW crap they have to throw in everywhere... I was reading through Rime of the Frostmaiden the other day, and every few pages, they'd smash me in the face with either some SJW crap or stuff that didn't feel like DnD. There's a passage in there virtue signaling about how there were people from Chult (black Africans) who were some of the first settlers of Ten-Towns in the Icewind Dale area. None of them were ever mentioned in past editions of DnD, and I don't recall them ever mentioned in RA Salvatore's Crystal Shard trilogy.
We also find in one town, a female leader, that they make a big point about her being the first woman to hold that job... Remember back in the 2e days, where powerful women were everywhere in the novels, lorebooks, campaign settings etc? Everywhere you'd look there'd be a strong woman, and yet, they didn't hit you over the head with feminism and social justice like they do now.
Last thing about Rimemaiden, it really jarred me to see portraits of NPCs in the book, of creatures that looked like Satan, or anthropomorphic dragons, just living in the town of mostly humans like it was perfectly normal. (I'm not religious by the way, I just don't like the idea of tieflings and the dragonfolk or whatever they are)
Anyway, rant over. I guess my perfect DnD would be a hybrid of 2e and 5e. Some of the rules that make life a little easier or more fun from 5e, mixed with the settings, lore, and lack of social justice from 2e.
When we played AD&D, we wound up playing a very gonzo campaign. Sort of open table, with rotating DMs, and we didn't care two whits what you played. We brought in Boot Hill and Gamma World characters. (remember when the games had conversion sections for playing those characters in D&D? Yeah, we ran with that.)
Dragonborn and Tieflings are weak sauce compared to our roster of freaks and wierdos. Mutant rabbits and adult dragons as PCs. Spaceships and dungeons and Zap! Pow! Zowie!
We grew out of it, but I still have fond memories of being 12 years old and just having silly fun with the game. A part of me wants to run a game like that again, just for the hell of it.
Quote from: Staff of Morning Wood +5 on January 26, 2021, 09:27:51 PM
I might be one of the few people who didn't hate THAC0.
I have been remembering old 2e games in a sort of crazy ex-girlfriend sex kind of way but I dont have the time I used to have to mitigate the craziness that used to drive me insane.
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
The math is pretty simple, you don't need a whole system, unless there's more you want to see changed.
Subtract AC from 20 to determine ascending armor class.
Subtract THACO from 20 to determine Attack Score.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
The math is pretty simple, you don't need a whole system, unless there's more you want to see changed.
Subtract AC from 20 to determine ascending armor class.
Subtract THACO from 20 to determine Attack Score.
There is also the change to the silver backed economy system.
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 11:16:33 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
The math is pretty simple, you don't need a whole system, unless there's more you want to see changed.
Subtract AC from 20 to determine ascending armor class.
Subtract THACO from 20 to determine Attack Score.
There is also the change to the silver backed economy system.
Ah. First I've heard of that change. Does that mean OSR games that use the silver piece as the baseline coin?
Quote from: EOTB on January 26, 2021, 03:49:02 PM
Gary is guilty of the sin of stating his beliefs without endlessly qualifying them to allow for contrary beliefs. Which always draws contrarians out of the wood work in a way unique to him, while his detractors state their own beliefs as certainly, and allow others to state beliefs just as certainly, without challenge or qualification.
But for some reason Gygax statements hit their Id in a way that can't be ignored
Truth. There's nothing people hate more than confidence. Especially when it is deserved...
Greetings!
I currently play D&D 5E, though I also love AD&D 1E. I'm a grognard, so I started playing with OD&D and then AD&D 1E. I like D&D 5E very much. It would take some work to somehow get my players to abandon 5E and just play AD&D though, I'm sure.
I sometimes wonder though, if I am weird for having crazy thoughts of saying "Fuck it!" and demanding my players all just switch over entirely to AD&D. WOTC's continuous antics into SJW lala land inspire in me a nagging desire to become a sadistic retro bastard. Simplified old school everything, racial class limits, all the limitations, including sex-based ability modifiers, 3d6 straight down.
That's right. Wallow in the mud, crushed in poverty and oppression of every kind. Racism, sexism, hatred, war, corruption and brutality everywhere. *Laughing*
I'm so sick and tired of all of these whining crybabies.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For anyone that might be interested heres a set of rules that blends 5th edition and AD&D 1st edition very elegantly.
http://scruffygrognard.com/
The PDFs are all listed here and free to download.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 11:31:08 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 11:16:33 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
The math is pretty simple, you don't need a whole system, unless there's more you want to see changed.
Subtract AC from 20 to determine ascending armor class.
Subtract THACO from 20 to determine Attack Score.
There is also the change to the silver backed economy system.
Ah. First I've heard of that change. Does that mean OSR games that use the silver piece as the baseline coin?
I have a feeling ACKs uses the Silver standard.
Quote from: deathknight4044 on January 27, 2021, 03:34:43 AM
For anyone that might be interested heres a set of rules that blends 5th edition and AD&D 1st edition very elegantly.
http://scruffygrognard.com/
The PDFs are all listed here and free to download.
Thanks! Interesting stuff.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
The math is pretty simple, you don't need a whole system, unless there's more you want to see changed.
Subtract AC from 20 to determine ascending armor class.
Subtract THACO from 20 to determine Attack Score.
Another option that only requires shifting the approach, without any recalculation: Roll 1d20+target's AC. If you beat your THAC0, you hit. This does mean players have to know the target's AC, though.
Quote from: Shasarak on January 27, 2021, 03:57:53 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 11:31:08 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 11:16:33 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 26, 2021, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 26, 2021, 10:29:10 PM
OSR folks, which one is the cleaned up non-THAC0 version of 2e that you would recommend?
The math is pretty simple, you don't need a whole system, unless there's more you want to see changed.
Subtract AC from 20 to determine ascending armor class.
Subtract THACO from 20 to determine Attack Score.
There is also the change to the silver backed economy system.
Ah. First I've heard of that change. Does that mean OSR games that use the silver piece as the baseline coin?
I have a feeling ACKs uses the Silver standard.
Nope. ACKS uses a gold standard for coinage. In the background of the economics, it's a "bushel of grain" standard.
Re: the Gygax quote. Which editions was he referring to?
Quote from: Aglondir on January 27, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Re: the Gygax quote. Which editions was he referring to?
3rd Edition.
I'd say the Gygax quote is mostly in-line with my experience and opinion on early vs. later D&D editions.
I like D&D with a very class/level/archetype kind of approach. I dislike general skill systems in D&D (including the ones introduced in late 1e, classic, and 2e), and other similar subsystems that cut across classes (e.g., feats and such). I dislike subsystems that dilute the class/level concept in D&D. I dislike attempts to apply the game rules as if they were "natural laws" which apply to the world as a whole, defining how it works (especially for monsters, NPCs, et cetera). I see things like class/level/XP as game mechanisms that are there for PCs: those mechanisms need not apply to the world as a whole (although sometimes it's convenient to describe an NPC or whatever using those mechanisms).
To me, it's also not necessarily about the quantity of the rules, but how those rules apply to the setting and within the game. The more the rules attempt to define "how the world works at large," as if they're "laws of nature" rather than conveniences to facilitate play, the less I'm inclined to like them. For example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting at when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."
Of course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I know that, initially, I thought that sounded like a good idea. Running with those rules made me realize it wasn't a good thing for the kind of D&D that I enjoy. As always with opinions, mileage may vary.
Edited to correct typo
1E. It's where I started actually playing; whereas with Basic I did some playing, but not much. 1E had so many more gizmos and stuff.
QuoteRemember in the 80's when moms were scared that DnD was Satanic, because players could fight devils? Well now they'd actually have more reason to think that, since you're now playing as the devils. (Tieflings) Again, WTF?
Dude. Primo tieflings are not devils. Tieflings are mortal races with some lower plane ancestor once upon a time. Second tieflings are a thing thanks to your favourite 2 edition, whole Planescape vibe. In popular cRPGs based on 2e 20 years ago you had Anna and Haer'daelis - tieflings both and Fall-from-Grace literal succubus as NPCs.
QuoteHalf-orcs can now be Paladins. (WTF?)
Tieflings too ;)
QuoteLast thing about Rimemaiden, it really jarred me to see portraits of NPCs in the book, of creatures that looked like Satan, or anthropomorphic dragons, just living in the town of mostly humans like it was perfectly normal. (I'm not religious by the way, I just don't like the idea of tieflings and the dragonfolk or whatever they are)
You had various races living along more or less since old time of D&D. And it was usually not that realistically described in D&D.
But seriously tieflings are old as Hell, and dragon humanoids are around at least since Dragonlance. This is all inheritance of 2 edition - people liked it so it become more prominent. If it was me, you'd get goblins, hobgoblins and orcs as core races in a way of Eberron :P
QuoteThat's right. Wallow in the mud, crushed in poverty and oppression of every kind. Racism, sexism, hatred, war, corruption and brutality everywhere. *Laughing*
Play Warhammer.
Quoteracial class limits
Racial class limits are the worst. Elves and dwarves should clearly be superior to man as Professor Tolkien taught.
QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."
Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.
QuoteOf course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing
Well I agree as simulationist I like certain uniformity of rules for PCs and world. Especially since it well makes PCs less special snowflakes.
In terms of DMs desires, I think well I'm definitely in "DM is obliged by rules just as players" basket. However I find rules of any D&D editions to be extremely wide and giving large freedom for DM to craft world for players. But having monsters work like PC's give me sort of more fun when running encounters with my PCs. (Now of course on the other side - rules of 3,5/PF can make crafting those encounters a terrible chore - that's another problem.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM
QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."
Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.
I don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.
I pretty freely modify monsters and NPCs. I consider MM entries to be "some sage's idea of what a typical example might be" rather than a perfect, set definition for the game world. And with NPCs, I give them the abilities I want them to have. For example, there could be a 0-level NPC shopkeeper who has learned to throw knives with the ability of a 7th level fighter. Or a 0-level high priest who is not a cleric, but can cast raise dead if the appropriate ritual and sacrifices are performed within the temple. And so on.
When rules to govern such things exist, there's an expectation that the DM will apply those rules. That's why (in the 3e era) you'd see reviews of adventure modules which criticized the product for not giving such-and-such monster the right number of skill points, or calculating the template wrong, or not using the template at all when one was available, etc. I prefer to avoid all of that, and don't see that I lose anything by avoiding it. On the other hand, I gain by not having another set of rules to apply and worry about.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM
QuoteOf course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing
Well I agree as simulationist I like certain uniformity of rules for PCs and world. Especially since it well makes PCs less special snowflakes.
In terms of DMs desires, I think well I'm definitely in "DM is obliged by rules just as players" basket. However I find rules of any D&D editions to be extremely wide and giving large freedom for DM to craft world for players. But having monsters work like PC's give me sort of more fun when running encounters with my PCs. (Now of course on the other side - rules of 3,5/PF can make crafting those encounters a terrible chore - that's another problem.
I agree that there needs to be some degree of uniformity to the rules -- it's a question of which rules should apply universally and which rules need not. The reason I draw a distinction between how PCs are "built" vs. how monsters (and many NPCs) are "built" is because the monsters and NPCs don't need a system for tracking advancement, etc. (This is probably why D&D started off with the separation between class/level on the one hand vs. just hit dice on the other). They need game numbers and such that "make sense" in the framework of the rules (e.g., for running encounters), but I don't think they need defined rules for building and advancing those numbers. A good DM can give them what they require without any of that. For me, that's way faster and easier.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 27, 2021, 07:18:29 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM
QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."
Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.
I don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.
I pretty freely modify monsters and NPCs. I consider MM entries to be "some sage's idea of what a typical example might be" rather than a perfect, set definition for the game world. And with NPCs, I give them the abilities I want them to have. For example, there could be a 0-level NPC shopkeeper who has learned to throw knives with the ability of a 7th level fighter. Or a 0-level high priest who is not a cleric, but can cast raise dead if the appropriate ritual and sacrifices are performed within the temple. And so on.
When rules to govern such things exist, there's an expectation that the DM will apply those rules. That's why (in the 3e era) you'd see reviews of adventure modules which criticized the product for not giving such-and-such monster the right number of skill points, or calculating the template wrong, or not using the template at all when one was available, etc. I prefer to avoid all of that, and don't see that I lose anything by avoiding it. On the other hand, I gain by not having another set of rules to apply and worry about.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM
QuoteOf course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing
Well I agree as simulationist I like certain uniformity of rules for PCs and world. Especially since it well makes PCs less special snowflakes.
In terms of DMs desires, I think well I'm definitely in "DM is obliged by rules just as players" basket. However I find rules of any D&D editions to be extremely wide and giving large freedom for DM to craft world for players. But having monsters work like PC's give me sort of more fun when running encounters with my PCs. (Now of course on the other side - rules of 3,5/PF can make crafting those encounters a terrible chore - that's another problem.
I agree that there needs to be some degree of uniformity to the rules -- it's a question of which rules should apply universally and which rules need not. The reason I draw a distinction between how PCs are "built" vs. how monsters (and many NPCs) are "built" is because the monsters and NPCs don't need a system for tracking advancement, etc. (This is probably why D&D started off with the separation between class/level on the one hand vs. just hit dice on the other). They need game numbers and such that "make sense" in the framework of the rules (e.g., for running encounters), but I don't think they need defined rules for building and advancing those numbers. A good DM can give them what they require without any of that. For me, that's way faster and easier.
The idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics. No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one. But they can make good DMs worse...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 08:51:32 PM
The idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics. No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one. But they can make good DMs worse...
They can also be tools to be sure the GM knows what they're doing.
As a GM I am absolutely free to throw Demogorgon at a bunch of 1st level PCs. BUT I want to know ahead of time that I am throwing Demogorgon at the PCs, not have rules so unclear that you could accidentally throw something just as unbeatable for 1st level PCs at your party while thinking you were throwing something they'd easily overcome.
While GMs will eventually get a feel for what PCs can and cannot handle and which monsters cause more problems than they're worth, a good set of monster building mechanics (i.e. ones that allow you to easily judge performance relative to the PCs) are an ideal way to impart that information to new GMs who are just getting started and don't have that ability to go off their gut yet.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 08:51:32 PM
The idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics. No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one. But they can make good DMs worse...
They can also be tools to be sure the GM knows what they're doing.
As a GM I am absolutely free to throw Demogorgon at a bunch of 1st level PCs. BUT I want to know ahead of time that I am throwing Demogorgon at the PCs, not have rules so unclear that you could accidentally throw something just as unbeatable for 1st level PCs at your party while thinking you were throwing something they'd easily overcome.
While GMs will eventually get a feel for what PCs can and cannot handle and which monsters cause more problems than they're worth, a good set of monster building mechanics (i.e. ones that allow you to easily judge performance relative to the PCs) are an ideal way to impart that information to new GMs who are just getting started and don't have that ability to go off their gut yet.
There's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters
must follow the same building rules as players." One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run. Screw that!
Edit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything. You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...
I prefer OD&D and Basic as a GM. I told my group at the end of our last campaign that I have "retired" from running 5e. That was about a year ago.
Nothing wrong with it, and I still play 5e as a player, but it has been well over half a decade now and I have done all I want to with it as a GM.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 27, 2021, 07:18:29 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM
QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."
Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.
I don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.
Exactly, my feeling is who needs a template, just use your brain.
However clearly some do prefer the more rigid template approach.
No doubt I'm oversimplifying but my (fairly limited) experience of the 3.5E style of play is that players do (a significant amount of) their gaming in advance by optimising character build. The goal of this is to achieve success within the framework of the game's mechanics. In that case, you want monster builds to be tightly defined because that is "fair". If the DM just makes something up, that's like moving the goalposts.
The OSR style of play is that players do their gaming at the table, reacting to the DM's description of the world and submitting to on-the-hoof but (hopefully) broadly fair and reasonable adjudication where the course of events isn't obvious from common sense.
Not saying you can't play OSR style using 3.5 rules or vice versa, of course, although I wonder why you would want to.
My read of the Gygax quotation is that he was criticising a drift towards the style of play I'm characterising above as 3.5. Which I file under "different strokes for different folks".
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:29:07 PM
There's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players." One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run. Screw that!
Edit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything. You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...
No disagreement with you then, but I've run into a number of old school GM's over the years who rail at even having something like CR to "restrain" them (something to do with the rules mentioning that you shouldn't throw more than CR X at a party of level Y and expect them to survive keeping them from being able to use what they want).
Basically there are some GMs out there who hate build guidelines because those keep them from being able to disguise their passive aggressiven dick behavior. "Oh, I had no idea that monster would TPK the party... curse these shoddy rules!"
That's where CR/build rules can be useful too. Because dick GMs at least have to be honest that they know they're deliberately TPKing their party rather than hiding behind shoddy rules.
As for my preferred monster building... in terms of D&D I prefer 4E by a wide margin. They aren't built like PCs and you can pretty much build the monster however you want.
Yes, there are limits on things, but those are tied to the monster's level. If you want it stronger just up the level until you can give it the stats you want*, but you can't pretend that you don't know you're throwing a level 10 monster at a level 1 party.
That's pretty much the system I use for my own game system. You pretty much just pick whatever you want the critter to be and use the level you select to determine its hit points and damage.** There's an optional set of rules for GMs who want to build opponents just like PCs are built, but those are really recommended only for opponents you intend to be recurring characters and want a little more complexity for them outside of combat... the screaming cult priest who goes down in the same encounter you meet him should just be a standard critter.
* This also works pretty well in reverse too... set your monster's abilities wherever you want then compare it to the level guidelines and either take the average (ex. Comparing says its a level 5 for damage, a level 4 for defenses and a level 6 for hit points... call it level 5 and you're done) or tweek the numbers a little to fit (ex. the monster is mostly a level 7, but it's defenses are in line with a level 10... so drop those a couple points so they're more like level 8 and call it good).
** My system is deliberately very flat on to-hit and defenses since its built with mass combat in mind where you don't need to make any conversions to use PCs and big monsters for it... attack modifiers range from about 4-10 and defenses from about 10-20 (though most fall towards the middle of those).
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:29:07 PM
There's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players." One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run. Screw that!
Edit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything. You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...
No disagreement with you then, but I've run into a number of old school GM's over the years who rail at even having something like CR to "restrain" them (something to do with the rules mentioning that you shouldn't throw more than CR X at a party of level Y and expect them to survive keeping them from being able to use what they want).
Basically there are some GMs out there who hate build guidelines because those keep them from being able to disguise their passive aggressiven dick behavior. "Oh, I had no idea that monster would TPK the party... curse these shoddy rules!"
That's where CR/build rules can be useful too. Because dick GMs at least have to be honest that they know they're deliberately TPKing their party rather than hiding behind shoddy rules.
As for my preferred monster building... in terms of D&D I prefer 4E by a wide margin. They aren't built like PCs and you can pretty much build the monster however you want.
Yes, there are limits on things, but those are tied to the monster's level. If you want it stronger just up the level until you can give it the stats you want*, but you can't pretend that you don't know you're throwing a level 10 monster at a level 1 party.
That's pretty much the system I use for my own game system. You pretty much just pick whatever you want the critter to be and use the level you select to determine its hit points and damage.** There's an optional set of rules for GMs who want to build opponents just like PCs are built, but those are really recommended only for opponents you intend to be recurring characters and want a little more complexity for them outside of combat... the screaming cult priest who goes down in the same encounter you meet him should just be a standard critter.
* This also works pretty well in reverse too... set your monster's abilities wherever you want then compare it to the level guidelines and either take the average (ex. Comparing says its a level 5 for damage, a level 4 for defenses and a level 6 for hit points... call it level 5 and you're done) or tweek the numbers a little to fit (ex. the monster is mostly a level 7, but it's defenses are in line with a level 10... so drop those a couple points so they're more like level 8 and call it good).
** My system is deliberately very flat on to-hit and defenses since its built with mass combat in mind where you don't need to make any conversions to use PCs and big monsters for it... attack modifiers range from about 4-10 and defenses from about 10-20 (though most fall towards the middle of those).
That's pretty much how I see it, too. I just don't think any mechanics can rein in a dick GM. So CR, build-rules, whatever, doesn't matter if the DM is going to be lousy.
Though I will say that not every encounter should be a combat one. I run monsters the players can't beat all the time. I lament that most 5e wandering monster tables are based on level/CR and not terrain. Sometimes the fun is in the negotiating (with intelligent critters) or the escape...
My favorite is BECMI
I really loved 5th edition as well, before WOTC pandered to social justice warriors and started changing everything, now in the new Unearthed Arcana they even said that from now on races will be built using Tasha's rules.
I grew up in Italy with Becmi and AD&D II: theese are the games that I like best (Becmi, in particular).
Anyway, I recently played BX (Old School Essentials, actually) and 5E.
BX is good, but the differences with Becmi are so minimal that they're the same game.
5E is somewhat ok, I just find the manual so boring.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2021, 11:11:49 AM
I just don't think any mechanics can rein in a dick GM. So CR, build-rules, whatever, doesn't matter if the DM is going to be lousy.
I agree. Individual DMs may find other forms of value in such things or not, but no set of rules will shield players from a poor DM.
QuoteI don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.
For me benefit is coherence. That's maybe because I'm more worldbuilder than gamist or narrativist - while I agree with OSR crowd about railroading and storytelling being problematic, too much abstraction is also bad for me. Consistency is a virtue upon itself for me, a having clear rules is good for me.
I can mod template, housre-rule it to form I prefer - too for instance move 13 clans of Masquerade to D&D world, though making 13 subtly different vampire templates - but homemade or original I just want to have clear notion - not just "it will be a fun to do it".
Quote
And with NPCs, I give them the abilities I want them to have. For example, there could be a 0-level NPC shopkeeper who has learned to throw knives with the ability of a 7th level fighter. Or a 0-level high priest who is not a cleric, but can cast raise dead if the appropriate ritual and sacrifices are performed within the temple. And so on.
Which would be no problem in any skill based setting. Damn in skill-based setting you could easily play shopkeeper who is excellent knife-thrower without caring a little bit about fitting it into class/level concept.
QuoteWhen rules to govern such things exist, there's an expectation that the DM will apply those rules. That's why (in the 3e era) you'd see reviews of adventure modules which criticized the product for not giving such-and-such monster the right number of skill points, or calculating the template wrong, or not using the template at all when one was available, etc. I prefer to avoid all of that, and don't see that I lose anything by avoiding it. On the other hand, I gain by not having another set of rules to apply and worry about.
Imagine caring about authists reviewing of D&D adventures.
QuoteThe idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics. No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one. But they can make good DMs worse...
I definitely disagree. That's maybe because in my group like half of group DM's one after another, but overall as much as I like to joke about God syndrome, I consider DM to be "master of a game" in applied role sense, not in hierarchy role. This is like you know social contract in philosophy - my position is based on agreement between members of my group. I may be in position of power, but there is still Law, still Constitution, or maybe I should say - still Logos without which my position means nothing.
And if we agree to play narrativist drama, simulationist survival, gamist dungeon crawl, or do we agree between strict rules on inventing things on spot - one way or another, we are bound by mutual agreement. Some rules can be unspoken - but they are still there, whether party members know it or no, and if there are no rules, then there is Chaos which ends with players leaving bullshiting DM, DM throwing asshole players from table. Sometimes it's unavoidable personal conflict - sometimes it could be solved, if players and DM have prep-session or mail discussion rather than just go with "let's play whatever" attitude.
Now also reason why I like templates and monster rules and so on is because I often make random encounters using some Excel made monster/class/template combinations - and I like being surprised with results - which would be well impossible if I base it just on my imagination. Same way why I prefer random character generation TBH - brick build monster nature is more consistent with it I'd say.
QuoteThere's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players." One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run. Screw that!
Thankfully my players are rather oblivious to that (and well I often randomly pick pre-made beings which makes things easier) - I'd say problem with PF is not it's uniformity of rules, but more that rules are so complex it can turn to a chore. I mean even playing non-casting PCs of high levels from PC perspective can be sometimes like a chore in PF.
QuoteEdit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything. You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...
I mean it does not bind anyone in 3,5 as well. Otherwise you'd not have this hilarious table of proposed XP reward which included reward for 1st level party for defeating CR 20 ;)
QuoteExactly, my feeling is who needs a template, just use your brain.
Well it's easier generally. And uniform - so allows for better consistency.
I mean I'm all for tweaking and hruling templates don't get me wrong - I'm not like - game needs to be in slavery towards officially published templates.
But as you have a game with vampires and have a few templates for let's say "reinfields", "spawn", "vampire" and "vampire lords" then it's just simple matter of using them on basic creature.
Which is also quite sensible - as vampirism is sort of template within world - added to some being, right?
QuoteIn that case, you want monster builds to be tightly defined because that is "fair". If the DM just makes something up, that's like moving the goalposts.
I think as long as reward in XP is proper there is nothing unfair in creating challenges that are not best CR crafted. I mean party can always avoid such challenges.
Unless you drop Demon Lord on them...
QuoteNot saying you can't play OSR style using 3.5 rules or vice versa, of course, although I wonder why you would want to.
To have more rounded tacical elements in challenge - when it cames to fight. And eventually to split Fighting / Exploring / and Social elements of Class by adding skills - this way you're 10 level Fighter can be Urban Detective in Exp side of game, and he can be Bully Intimidator in Social situation, or he can be Sailor Captain in Exp and Dashing Bravo in Social, bit different than Old School which AFAIR assumed certain more specific for instance social adjustments for leveling in Fighter.
QuoteI agree. Individual DMs may find other forms of value in such things or not, but no set of rules will shield players from a poor DM.
That I generally agree. I find templates and stricter rules more useful from my perspective as GM than as a shield for players.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2021, 11:11:49 AM
That's pretty much how I see it, too. I just don't think any mechanics can rein in a dick GM. So CR, build-rules, whatever, doesn't matter if the DM is going to be lousy.
Though I will say that not every encounter should be a combat one. I run monsters the players can't beat all the time. I lament that most 5e wandering monster tables are based on level/CR and not terrain. Sometimes the fun is in the negotiating (with intelligent critters) or the escape...
Its less about reining in dick GM's as about making clear to everyone that they're being a dick. Some systems by their lack of guidelines could easily see the PCs put up against a monster they have no chance of beating without the GM realizing it ahead of time... and accidents happens so its hard to tell whether it was an accident or a GM being a dick.
When you have the clear guidelines though, it makes it more obvious there's a problem. When the party can't hit the monster with anything but a natural 20 and its dealing out enough damage to straight kill a PC in a single hit you KNOW they're using a monster way above the recommended CR and its not an accident and the players know its not an accident and can respond accordingly.
The deadly monster was placed deliberately, but if there were also warnings that it was coming (possibly only recognized in hindsight, but regardless allowing you to retreat before ever encountering it if you'd recognized them) and/or opportunities to flee/negotiate with the deadly monster then you know GM is just running a deadly campaign where you'll need to pay attention and react quickly to survive... all is well.
If there was neither warning nor chance to negotiate or escape the monster and because of the system you know that a monster certain to be deadly was placed deliberately then you know they're a dick (or at least having a bad day).
* * *
I'm also all for impossible to beat monsters; though I prefer to have the players learn they're going to be impossible before it kills a PC. I made a point in my own system of setting damage such that a PC will almost certainly survive ONE attack from even much stronger monsters (a level 1 PC has 25-30 hp; a level 8 monster does 24-ish damage with an attack)... so that groups who DO stumble onto something they can't handle, and don't have the system knowledge to fire off game stats of every monster, still have ONE chance to recognize they're hopelessly outmatched (i.e. when the first hit smacks a PC from full health to almost dropped because I also don't have 5e's ridiculous no consequences zero hit point yo-yo) and still be able to run like hell.
But that has to do with my system default also being in the vein of "Big Damn Heroes"... there's plenty of things that can kill you, but turning a PC into Tasha Yar isn't any fun for anyone. I at least want a PC to have a chance to save themselves from something they didn't have a choice about (if they don't choose to run like hell after that first hit though... their PC's death is on their own heads).
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 05:44:30 PM
For me benefit is coherence.
Fair enough. If you find value in it and it works for you, it works for you.
QuoteWhich would be no problem in any skill based setting. Damn in skill-based setting you could easily play shopkeeper who is excellent knife-thrower without caring a little bit about fitting it into class/level concept.
For what it's worth, I like skill-based RPGs, too. I play a lot of BRP-based games, for example. I just don't like skill systems grafted onto the class/level approach in D&D.
That said, I don't find things like the "0-level merchant who can throw knives like a 7th level fighter" to be a problem in purely class/level D&D, either. I mean, that one phrase pretty much defines it without any fuss. :shrugs:
I mean for NPC who's build is whatever indeed it has no fuss. For PC - it's impossibility.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 09:37:43 PM
I mean for NPC who's build is whatever indeed it has no fuss. For PC - it's impossibility.
Ah, I see. If you're looking to *play* a character (especially long-term/ongoing) who is "just a shopkeeper" but can throw knives really, really well I'd say D&D (and its archetype/class/level approach to PCs) is probably not the game system to choose. I'd pick a different system that better suits what you're after and save D&D for the kind of games that D&D does well.
Knife-throving shopkeepers needs to become next big class/archetype for D&D though. Like bards and warlocks become.
I'd call them dagger peddlers.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 11:19:20 AM
Knife-throving shopkeepers needs to become next big class/archetype for D&D though. Like bards and warlocks become.
I'd call them dagger peddlers.
This is why I separated combat from non-combat elements in my system into class and background respectively.
Background determines your skills and various background related boons ("Better Bargaining" being one for Artisans and Travelers, the two backgrounds most likely to be merchants that gives bonuses for negotiating costs when buying or selling goods).
Combat ability is entirely determined by class and if you don't want to be either a warrior or spellcaster, the combat class for your adventuring peddler in my system would be the Mastermind, who uses their intellect, wits and presence to distract foes and create openings for their allies.
They could be good at throwing knives too, nothing precludes a mastermind from being a competent warrior (though not on the level of a fighter generally), but their combat focus is mainly on encouraging their allies.
As I've seen it expressed... The Barbarian hits an enemy with his axe, the Mastermind hits his enemy with the Barbarian.
So something a bit like 4e Warlord?
QuoteThis is why I separated combat from non-combat elements in my system into class and background respectively.
I have bit mixed feelings about it - but then it's usual D&D thing right.
One person here said about his games that it's characters have like 3 roles each: Combat, Explorator and Social, that was sort of neat idea - as equivalent of unified skill system.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 01:03:05 PM
So something a bit like 4e Warlord?
More specifically a fully supported version of the Lazylord build (the warlord proper is represented by the Captain path for the Fighter). Basically, a combat class for those whose concept involves specifically NOT being particularly good at combat or magic, but still gives them something to do when a combat does break out.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 01:03:05 PM
QuoteThis is why I separated combat from non-combat elements in my system into class and background respectively.
I have bit mixed feelings about it - but then it's usual D&D thing right.
One person here said about his games that it's characters have like 3 roles each: Combat, Explorator and Social, that was sort of neat idea - as equivalent of unified skill system.
The main thing splitting combat class and background (and making background as mechanically weighty as the class half) does for me is allow my system to express way more concepts in a smaller space.
For example, one of my backgrounds is Barbarian. Combine it with one set of fighter options (daring focus, berserker style, ravager path) and you have a 3e style barbarian. Combine it with swift wary striker fighter and you've got a ranger. Combine it with the Mystic class and you can get various flavors of druid, shaman, etc. Swap out Barbarian for Outlaw and those same combos give you a underworld Pit Fighter, a two-weapon rogue and a mystic from a land where their beliefs are persecuted.
Between the Fighter's paths (brigand, captain, defender, disabler, ravager, sentinel, sharpshooter and striker) and the backgrounds (arcanist, aristocrat, artisan, barbarian, commoner, entertainer, military, outlaw, religious and traveler) alone you've got 80 possible combinations that would have otherwise been separate classes (or just not expressed at all for most), but with the split are encapsulated by 18 entries.
Now throw in the mastermind class and the paths for the gadgeteer, mystic, theurge and wizard classes (abjurer, benedictor, empowered, interdictor, maledictor and summoner) and that's hundreds of concepts that can be expressed by the combination of a few smaller data sets.
Or, short version; adding a third data point to the usual race/class set adds enough extra concepts to be worth the marginal increase in complexity.
If I may so: how many races / classes (I assume each of Fighter paths is a class on it's own) / Backgrounds you have in total?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 28, 2021, 07:51:09 PM
For what it's worth, I like skill-based RPGs, too. I play a lot of BRP-based games, for example. I just don't like skill systems grafted onto the class/level approach in D&D.
I understand your sentiment. To offer a different perspective, the problem I had when I wanted to share or publish the stuff I been doing with the Majestic Wilderlands is rooted in the fact that I let players "trash" my setting. Become a landed lord, a magnate, or even king displacing those who in those positions already.
I found when one focus on that, things other than fighting or spellcasting become important. I made do with AD&D 1e but my frustrations built up until I found Fantasy HERO and switched to it. Later I switched to GURPS for three editions and two decades.
In hindsight I gravitated to those system for two reasons one is not relevant to this thread, the other is the fact those and the other played in those decades allowed character to be better at things outside of combat and spellcasting. And because the end goals were so varied, becoming the king in one campaign became building an inn in another. Having a party with characters filling different roles didn't always cut it for what the players wanted to do. And what they needed to do and what they need to have at the start wasn't quite what they needed to succeed in the final steps towards goal.
Skill based systems solved this issue.
But doing this in the skill based system I liked and sharing what I did with other either non-commercially or commercially wasn't really an option. There wasn't any kind of 3PP opportunity or license I could take advantage of. But there was on for D&D but I wasn't interested in 3.X either. Then came along the OSR and now I had access for a variety of classic edition.
Swords & Wizardry Core was the closest to what I considered to an ur-system. In that it had all the elements that people considered to be the classic edition in their most basic forms. So I got to work. One of the first issues I tackled is not just allowing character to do things outside of combat or spellcasting. The popularization of rulings not rules that taking hold in after 2008 took care of that. The primary issue how to have some characters be better at doing certain things outside of combat and spellcasting.
So I came up with a skill system. I also didn't regulate to a handful of related classes either. But even a fighter, magic-user, or cleric on their way to their endgoal found being better something outside of combat or spellcasting useful to that goal. Although their primary focus still is what it is their class can do.
I called it an ability system because the spirit of the editions I started with was that any character can attempt anything outside of combat or spellcasting. There wasn't the sense like in GURPS if you didn't have the skill you could do it or were really crappy at it. So with the ability system I said any character can attempt any ability except some are better at certain abilities than other. So Fighters had a bonus to Athletics, while Magic-User had a bonus to Thaumatology. And often had a decent chance of succeeding (1d20+ability modifier + assigned ability bonus>= 15).
Now I have my bias, I jettisoned the Thief because I felt how the class worked was an afterthought and not very D&Dish. In it place I created a series of Rogue classes starting with the Burglar. What distinguished the Rogue classes was the fact they were better than other character doing things outside of combat or spellcasting as represented by the ability system.
As for the question of template, in my Majestic Fantasy rules, the classes are in essence the templates I used when running GURPS. Just detailed in a way that is consistent with the classic editions.
I am going into detail about this because sometimes some tweaking is all one needs to make a system work with how one wants to run a campaign. In my case "trashing" the setting.
And I recently repeated much of this with 5th edition as well.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 07:00:58 PM
If I may so: how many races / classes (I assume each of Fighter paths is a class on it's own) / Backgrounds you have in total?
Ten Races (well, species, as I've pointed out my issues with it given the variety available... I can also justify it due to the post-apocalypse of a magitech utoptia; arcane magic has a very "sufficiently advanced technology" vibe to it, but its not overtly stated so the GM can run it any which way they prefer.
Beastmen covers an array of species (including centaurs, crocodin, goblins, kobolds, minotaurs and wolfen among many others) created as slaves by the First Empire. Through revolution and an alliance with the Astral Gods they won their freedom and have maintained their fierce independence ever since.
Dwarves are descended from Men warped into a slave race ideal for the hellish mines of the Demon Empire. The process was effective, but unstable, as limbs and organs withered at different rates. The dwarves invented arcane magic and prosthesis to counteract this flaw and used their wonders to aid Men and the primal spirits in driving the demons from the world.
Eldritch are primal spirits who were too cowardly to take a side in the war between the victorious primal spirits and their fallen brethren. For their cowardice, they were exiled to the Mortal World until they can prove worthy of being a protector of Creation. Locked into forms ranging from humans with elemental features, to talking beasts, sprites and even giants and dragons, they have lived at the fringes of the world since the dawn of history. Over the ages many Eldritch gave up all hope of returning to the Primal Realms and seek their own ends in the Mortal World, yet some of the greatest heroes of any age are those Eldritch who still take up the cause of redemption.
Elves entered the Mortal World during the Cataclysm that shattered the barriers between realms. They hail from the Astral Realms where they were the embodiments of Men's dreams of themselves. More comely and possessed of astral abilities, many elves believe they are Men perfected, but they are just as flawed as the dreams they once embodied. Most live in a rigid caste-based society echoing their existence in the Astral Realms. Those who reject their place are labeled Dark Elves; casteless outcasts worthy only of scorn (at least by other elves).
Fetches are the shadowy spirit servants of the goddess of death and transition. They travel the world in wandering clans using their shadow-touched abilities to give comfort to the sick and dying and to destroy the undead.
Gnomes hail from the same Dream realm as the Elven peoples, but while elves were the embodiments of the dreams of Men, gnomes embody the dreams of children. They resemble elven children, but like Peter Pan and his Lost Boys, they never grow up and most live ageless carefree lives in the wilds of the world. Those who do take up the life of an adventurer do so for the sheer joy of seeing new things and accomplishing the impossible.
Golems are 'living' relics of the Praetorian Empire. Opting not to create sapient slaves who could rebel, the Praetorian Empire instead created artificial beings of metal and other materials programmed to serve them. The Praetorian Empire was wiped away with the Cataclysm and with it, the ability to reset the golems' programming that kept them from evolving sapience. Now free of those limits, free-willed golems now seek to find their own place in the world in addition to fulfilling the purposes for which they were created.
Humans are the natural native inhabitants of the Mortal World and their history is one of successive rises and falls of mighty empires each seeming to reach higher only to fall further than the one that preceded it. Over time they have bred with their cousins, shadows, reflections and even Eldritch to create bloodlines with dwarven, eldritch, elven, fetch and mutant traits.
Malfeans are the cursed descendants of demons and mortal women. The first were born in the Demon Empire and used by their demonic parents as overseers of their slave legions. Even millennia after the empire's fall, their descendants still bear the demonic taint as strongly as the first of their line and suffer the ancient blood debts many still feel they owe. At best they are regarded with distrust. More often, they are feared, hated, enslaved or even hunted to pay for the sins of their ancestors and so regard survival as their primary virtue.
Mutants are the result of the terrible energies unleashed by the Cataclysm. Both man and beast were twisted into fearsome creatures whose mutations persisted from generation to generation. Those who kept their reason and intellect live on the fringes of society and are often pitied for their deformities or feared for the instability of their forms and, sometimes, their mind (these include orcs, ogres, trolls, ettins, cyclops and troglodytes).
* * * *
There are six playable classes (and two non-playable in the default setting, those who want a world with different metaphysical rules could also play a Necromancer or Diabolist... both of which destroy the free will of the practitioner in the default setting... fine for NPC villains, not so fine for PCs, even villainous PCs);
Fighters use their training and innate strength of mind and body to overcome their foes. They are knights, soldiers, mercenaries, hunters, brigands and many others. Regardless, they use martial prowess to protect and aid allies and to outmaneuver and defeat foes for any cause they choose to fight for. Fighters select a
combat style (strong, swift or berserker), a
combat focus (daring, tactical or wary), and a
path;
- Brigand: Your skill in combat lies in seeking the openings in your foes' defenses that your allies cannot see and exploiting them by whatever means necessary.
- Captain: You are skilled combatant and leader of men whose clever tactics and inspiring words allow your allies to pull off heroic feats they never believed themselves capable of.
- Defender: In the line of battle, you are the shield that stands between your allies and your foes, using your prodigious skill at arms to hold the line and push your foes back.
- Disabler: You use rapid and precise strikes to hinder and disable multiple enemies in close combat.
- Ravager: You are a hero who relies upon force of arms to become a veritable wall of destructive force.
- Sentinel: You are a skilled watchman who provides covering fire to allies and pins down his foes.
- Sharpshooter: You have trained to pull off amazingly precise attacks with ranged weapons that allow you to harry, harass and incapacitate your foes.
- Striker: You use your precision and speed in conjunction with offhand strikes to quickly bring down even the largest of foes.
Masterminds focus on finding ways to aid their allies in combat while rarely engaging in combat directly themselves. While they can be passable in combat, their greatest strengths are in creating openings for allies to act and motivating them to push harder than they knew they were capable of to achieve success. Masterminds also select a
combat focus (daring, tactical or wary).
Gadgeteers interface with magic through complex formulas encoded into custom-built devices that allow spell effects to be produced at the press of a few buttons if you have studied the arcane principles necessary to do so. Gadgeteers further define themselves by their
focus (big lug, monkeywrencher, mad genius, or troubleshooter) and their
spellcasting path (see below).
Mystics seek spiritual union with the primal power of The Source and, in so doing, gain supernatural gifts. While most come to this by adhering to the tenants of The Covenant, others, called Sorcerers, have an innate connection. Mystics choose an
inner spirit (clever, logical, potent or swift) and a
spellcasting path (see below).
Theurges gain supernatural abilities by forming pacts with one or more astral powers such as the astral gods. Those who seek pacts outside official religions are often labeled 'Warlocks' and hunted down by agents of those faiths. Theurges choose an
astral focus (faithful, militant or zealous) and a
spellcasting path (see below).
Wizards work magic through the Arcane Web; a network of power that can be directed by complex formulas entered into it through implements, spoken words and gestures. Wizards choose a
focus (lore, social or war) and a
spellcasting path (see below).
The spellcasting classes share paths because while the routes are different, what people try to use magic for falls into some pretty definable patterns;
- Abjurer: You specialize in creating magical wards to protect yourself and your allies from harm.
- Benedictor: You are a specialist in using spells to magnify the abilities of yourself and your allies.
- Empowered: You have focused your ability to wield magic inward, enhancing your personal abilities and allowing you to pummel your foes in close combat as easily as you can at a distance.
- Interdictor: You specialize in producing and shaping a wide range of spell effects that confound, impair and disable multiple foes at time.
- Maledictor: You specialize in blasting multiple foes with the most painful of magical effects.
- Summoner: You are an expert at summoning creatures to fight for you and can call forth creatures of far greater ability than other spellcasters (yes, other spellcasters can summon, summoners just do it WAY better).
* * * *
Lastly, there are 10 backgrounds;
Arcanists are students of arcane magic who employ variety of useful spells. You probably started as an apprentice to another arcanist or perhaps taught yourself how to perform magic after finding an old spellbook in a dusty ruin or even puzzled out some spells on your own after a talent for magic emerged. The spells an arcanist focuses on aren't useful to attack with (that's what the arcane classes focus on), but they offer a lot of boon to an arcanist's capabilities.
Aristocrats were born into a wealthy and powerful family; a noble, merchant prince or court official. Though not automatically heir to wealth or titles, being part of the upper classes confers both advantages and duties upon their lives that few others enjoy. Some become adventurers as sport or see it as a duty to their realm or family. Others might be fleeing unpleasant duties or their family was overthrown or lost its fortune due to mismanagement or treachery and becoming an adventurer is the only hope of regaining what was lost.
Artisans were craftsmen, inventors, artists or sages before even before they started down the path of becoming an adventurer. Your talents may be derived from practical hands-on experience on your own or as an apprentice or by extensive book learning; you may have even picked up a smattering of minor arcane spells along the way, but first your talents relate to finding practical applications to the knowledge in your head.
Barbarians hail from the regions beyond the walled towns and farmlands most think of as civilization. Your people gather in clans or tribes led by chiefs, elders and wise men or women. Your abilities are focused on survival in the wilds and some are even able to form connections to the primal spirits that dwell there.
Commoners were peasants, villagers and others of low birth before they took up the path of adventure. They often struggle to survive inside a system designed to exploit them and learn talents that help them do so. For all its danger, a single adventure might bring you more wealth than most other commoners would earn in a year of backbreaking labor and those commoners who survive such things often become folk-heroes to other commoners.
Entertainers were actors, acrobats, bards or other types of performers before they became adventurers. You learned all manner of talents to distract people from their dreary existences, even if for a moment. Doing so can earn you the funds you need to survive and that doesn't hurt either. Entertainers most likely become adventurers either as a means of supplementing their modest incomes or in order to find new epic stories to share with their patrons.
Military backgrounds are extremely common among adventurers. You may have been a professional soldier, an officer or a mercenary, but when there's not a war to be fought, there's very little other use for the mastery of weapons, tactics and strategy than to find your own cause to fight for. Or perhaps you were once a guard who decided they could make a better living elsewhere. Regardless, you have learned to apply your talents to support your comrades.
Outlaws are anyone who has no legal protections within society, even to their own persons. You might be a criminal, an escaped slave, a rebel against the current ruler or just someone whom a corrupt ruler took disfavor too. Regardless, you've had only your wits and luck on your side and your talents mostly revolve around surviving in a world where anyone has the right to kill you in your sleep without fear of punishment. Those who survive as an outlaw for any length of time often become legends in their own right.
Religious are the ordained followers of a religion and act as intermediaries between the common man and the worlds beyond. Depending on their faith, they might be priests, religiously sworn knights or shamans and spirit talkers. They learn the deepest secrets of their faith and how to call upon astral or primal power to achieve miracles for their fellow believers.
Travelers are merchants, sailors, vagabonds and others who don't spent much time in one place but travel well beyond the borders most common people know on a regular basis. Without the ties to any one place, the wandering life of many adventurers feels natural to you. Your talents aid you in your travels, survival skills, languages, seamanship and knowledge of distant places.
* * * *
If you have any further questions, lemme know.
I started with becmi, most of my dnd playing/dm'ing was 2e FR & ravenloft, about equal parts 1e and 3e bracketing that; never tried 4e or 5e, and do only D6 system now. I list as a dm 3e as my favorite of dnd editions, but in a general sense and only due to things such as unified roll high d20 mechanic, saves reworked into 3 simple categories(is a wand of paralysis a save vs wands or a save vs paralysis?), status effects and stacking logic being nailed down, etc...if i was a pedantic computer logic reader of the rules i would hate 3e as being broken and caster-centric, which were only problems if one was slavishly devoted to raw.
I realize all the pepperoni and stormfart fallacies etc; but i still hold the reason we are tabletop and not vidya is precisely because human adjudication cannot and should not ever be separated or automated from the experience; i don't care how monty or skip worded it you can chop your way free of the tentactles and evard can get rectally probed, i'm sorry that whoever wrote the spell you copied into your book was subtely wrong about its operation, it happens a lot with a copy of a copy of a copy kid.
I thought templates were a great innovation, and feats were a great attempt but should have instead been written as exceptions into the standard rules at the point in the rules that said rules are described; exceptions that any character can utilize for some type of xp cost or metacurrency on the fly.
At present in playing with D6 system I convert a lot from older D&D products, but generally use 3e as a basis because 3e gave us the ability scores of critters and in D6 all things flow as skills or powers from the base attribute of charisma or agility or such. Thus when consuming osr things, or things from 1e/2e, i must first convert to 3e before applying my translative formula for D6. I've not even attempted to convert anything from 4e or 5e.
Recently fiddling with converting osr content has given me a boner for the hexcrawl, and i'm presently learning to utilize hexographer and worldographer before committing to purchase the full package, especially since I'd dreamed up a viable mass battle system for D6 system and the hexcrawl and the domain management angle are always captivating for me as either player or dm. I've not yet put font to screen, only pen to scrapbook, as to a codifed system for domain managment in D6 to dovetail the mass battle system i've nearly completely contrived, but things such as rules cyclopedia, becmi's companion/master portion, 3e's stronghold builders guidebook, birthright setting, and the classic age of kings-stronghold2-stronghold legends video games are all things i am trying to channel for that purpose, and to a large degree pundits' dark albion and chaos cults books have been very inspiring as well.
Thanks to the creative, mechanical, and philosophical sparks lent me by Durran and Grimace over at a now seemingly defunct D6 forum, I've pieced together a formula/operation for smooth 3e to D6 conversion that would allow one to very smoothly operate from the 3e books on the mechanical framework of D6, using D6 resolution methods with all numbers and such being directly transferrable. While some might consider that a form of ambrosia in itself, I feel I must go further, as the direct transference brings with it inherent mechanical imbalances native in 3e wrt casters for example.
I must run it all one more time through a D6 distillation filter if you will to make it "run better" to suit my personal preference. The direct transference gives you D6 system 3e rather than d20 3e; and that would be great for say a FR campaign set in ancient netheril with its flying cities and rampant spell flinging, but for something more semi-historical/medieval authentic (which would take best advantage of D6 system mechanics/resolution methods for magic over the dnd vancian model) you would want to for example do away with spell memorization/spell slots that auto-work and are a free daily resource, thus curbing caster power.
Typical steps in the base transference process are :
1) convert ability scores to equivalent D6 attributes, including static whole numbers like str18 to physique 4D via the durran method (theres a chart). Racial ability modifiers become pip adjustments under D6, a +4 to str for say, an ogre or something would become a 1D+1 bonus to physique attribute.
2) Use similar chart to convert skill names from dnd to D6, treating ranks as pip-above-attribute increases as per normal D6. Adopt the class and level concept, replacing normal D6 character point expenditure for skill increase with lvl based skill ranks from 3e treated as pip increases. Treat xp from 3e as 25 per character point, ergo making 40 character points required to purchase lvl up from first to second lvl; enforcing 3e's max skill rank concept (ignore cross-class concept) means purchasing lvl up is still desired even if normal cp expenditure for skill increase is allowed. DO GOLD FOR XP; BY MY MATH 5 GOLD PER XP AND 25 XP PER CHARACTER POINT WORKS QUITE SMOOTHLY IN PLAY TEST. (one could adopt the spells known/memorized/spell slots concept too if, for example running a high magic game in netheril)
3) BaB of 3e becomes pip-above-attribute increases to combat skills, iterative attacks denoting primary/secondary/tertiary/quaternary preference among the default D6 combat skills (melee combat, fighting, thrown, marksmanship) in the order the player prefers. (so +20/+15/+10/+5 for a fighter20 would become +20 pips(6D+2) above base attribute applied to one D6combat skill, +15 pips(5D) to another, and so on)
4) Base Saves become a whole number modifier to attribute resist rolls ( do not utilize skills such as dodge or mettle to function as reflex or will save equivalents)
5) AC converts straight by simply removing AC bonuses for size(use D6 system scale concept instead) and bonuses for hardness/toughness/natural armor like scales or chainmail over to D6's damage resist function of combat resolution (as either whole number bonuses or pips as you prefer), leaving you with the default printed D6 to-hit difficulty for someone not dodging or parrying (which is a base 10 modified by proximity). Should a 3e ability modifier become an important part of calculation, the D6 equivalent is 1 per full die of relevant ability score/attribute.
6) caster lvl checks become in D6 system a roll of casting attribute (which is the extranormal attribute under D6 if not doing a netheril style game, or using charisma/intellect/acumen as in a straight conversion) +1 per caster level.
7) save dc's become either an opposed roll under normal D6 system rules (for a lower powered campaign) or are 10+spell lvl +1 per die of skill or attribute that governs casting if you want a more strict straight transference of what is written in 3e books, such as for a high magic netheril campaign. most spell damage listings are just shunted over into normal D6 dice, the weakest magic missile uses 3e stated damage calculation but replaces d4 with d6, 20d8 damage becomes 20D damage, and so on.
8 ) Many feats (intact only in direct transference but likely treated as universally available via meta currency like fate points elstwise once you run another layer of filter/conversion such as if you do not have a player insisting strictest conversion) convert right over as written, others have to bend to D6 systems resolution method, for example two weapon fighting can be converted to delaying D6 multiple action penalties or adding weapon damage to the to-hit roll since D6 doesn't use such a byzantine formula as 3e for such.
All that having been said for illustrative purposes, I state now that I prefer at present 3e, but as you can see it is largely because of my ongoing personal projects which are greatly aided by 3e' attempt at standardization which is required for conversion to be possible. As stated things from other editions I have been converting to 3e first.
This doesn't mean in any way that I would flat prefer to run or play 3e over other editions; to me, each edition has a different "feel" and my mood will dictate which is my favorite to use at any given moment.
ETA
ATTEMPTED EDITS FOR CLARITY UPON RE-READ, IGNORING RULES LIKE GRAMMAR AND PRONUNCIATION AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS LIKE THE TRUE ANARCHIST I INNATELY AM.
jesus i ramble don't I? lol
B/X...what my brother and I taught ourselves to play with. Have started running it again since the lockdown started for the 2 or 3 players that can get together...Plus the Gazateers are awesome.
1e/2e...I actually like these a little better than B/X because I prefer the race/class split. 2e had cool campaign worlds...(Planescape and Birthright)
I've become very bored with 5e...will still play, but just not as fun.
Won't go back to 3/3.5/PF...I enjoy character 'building' and crunch but if I am going to do it I will be using a decent system like Hackmaster.
QuoteIf you have any further questions, lemme know.
Seems very cool overall. So overall amount of basic builds (individual variety aside) is quite astounding.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 07:10:22 AM
QuoteIf you have any further questions, lemme know.
Seems very cool overall. So overall amount of basic builds (individual variety aside) is quite astounding.
Well, the idea is a "one-and-done" core book for players and one for GMs because I figure the best model to follow as an indy producer is how TSR c. 1974-1979 got D&D off the ground as an indy publisher (i.e. after the core, focus on solid adventures and GM support because character options are useless without a GM to run the game).
Trying some sort of "edition churn" or "ocean of splats" to release player options after the fact just isn't viable for a small publisher starting out.
That said, I had two other goals in my project that interact with this.
First, the project began as a pushback against 5e once it became clear that it was throwing 4E under the bus (the preferred edition of players in my circles) so one of goals was "if you can play it in 4E, there's a version of it here." Being able to combine class and background was the most efficient way to do that and, as a result of ensuring those options were available, a whole bunch of others ended up popping up as a result of other ways the combos could be joined.
The second goal was, having played 4E, I've experienced firsthand what it's like to wade through an ocean of splats looking for what are really pretty basic build options. You CAN do it without a builder program (as I've had to for a recent campaign because the cbLoader software died with my old laptop), but it's a pain that really does cause you to limit your options to things that are easily found.*
It was also damned expensive to collect it all (which was great in the short term for WotC, but edition fatigue is a thing).
So, the second goal... get ALL the player options into a single book with a low cost of entry (which is why I'm doing two soft bound 6x9 core books; Player's Guide and GM's Guide; instead of a single more expensive hardback with the contents of both). The idea is that a player will only ever need this one book to play without worrying you're missing some option hidden away in a later supplement.
So, I wanted to certain I packed as many possible options into that core book for them as you can see from the potential combos above.
Now, I don't expect every option to be used at every table. It's meant to cover an entire world (of which I focus on only a singe region about a hundred miles across in the default setting... the rest is unmapped by design) and some things just aren't found in some parts of it. GMs can also build their own worlds where, for example, there's only humans and no or limited magic (or no humans and everything magic).
But it's way easier to trim down than it is to build new. If you want a Basic D&D experience, it's easy enough to say the player options are Fighter (human military strong tactical striker fighters), Thief (human outlaw swift daring brigand fighters), Cleric (human religious militant benedictor theurges), Magic-User (human arcanist lore wizard interdictor), Elf (elf barbarian war wizard maledictor), Dwarf (dwarf artisan strong wary defender fighters) and Halfling (human [pygmy-sized] traveler wary masterminds) and disallow everything else (throw in the 0-level optional rule if you want a more zero-to-hero feel as well).
By contrast, starting with just Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling and trying to have GMs and players figure out how to cover all the other concepts themselves would be a lot of work for them. Unless the mode of play covered by those specific options is exactly what they're looking for they're not going to be a potential customer.
So, options, and the GM and/or group itself establish what, if any, limits they want.
Also worth noting in terms of options though is that the default setting isn't medieval fantasy, it's Thundarr the Barbarian. So the level of background weirdness is expected to be a bit higher than a lot of D&D (how to tune it to anything from Post-Roman collapse Dark Ages to Star Wars-ish science fantasy is discussed in the GMs Guide).
* Conversely, this supplied a lot of insight into how Essentials would have worked without everyone pulling from the original more unbalanced options. Essentials-only is actually a pretty slick game that does play more like older D&D.
Coming a little late to the party.
Anyway, AD&D 2E is my favorite edition to this day, because:
It's the first iteration of the game I've played and the only edition I run.
I've been playing since early 90s, so I know the rules like the back of my hand (most of them, at least).
It's a great toolkit RPG for playing D&D, and made it clear that's what it was.
In that same vein, it's very customizable, rules-wise, not only because of the almost infinite smorgasbord of optional rules (core optional rules, kits, player's option, etc.), but especially because it is so easy to implement your own house rules without breaking the game.
Most of the settings were superb, like al-Qadim, Dark Sun and Ravenloft. And I know some people will hate this, but I loved "From the Ashes" Greyhawk (Carl Sargent was one of my favorite RPG authors).
Having said that, I love the 1E Dungeon Master Guide, and use it often.
Also, I think grey box Forgotten Realms and the setting's first supplements (like "Waterdeep and the North" and "The Savage Frontier") were vastly superior to 2E FR and a real toolbox for Dungeon Masters.
Last, but not least, I also like BECMI as a player (but have never DMed it).
EDIT: I never jumped into the 3.0/3.5 bandwagon. It had some good ideas, but the emphasis on crunch (feats, prestige classes and character building) and the "you can't do it if it's not in the character sheet" attitude killed it for me. Ditto for its clone/simulacrum, Pathfinder.
Also never played and never will play 4th. Have no interest in what I see as a tabletop version of a MMORPG.
And regarding 5e, it has a nice system despite the power bloat. Howerver, I simple refuse to give a single penny to WotC. If I wanna play a modern version of AD&D I'd use Castles & Crusades, which I like a lot.
ruins of zhentil keep, netheril, undermountain 1 and 2 box sets are all of FR that I retain for use, sold the rest, and I had most of it, before giving away all my non-six siders to be handed out to newbs coming into 5e.
The maps from the waterdeep box set I sometimes miss, but you can still get them online to study or chop up for your table. I actually retain but do not have installed the 2e core rules cdrom and the FR atlas.
Those 2e boxed sets and their maps were quite addictive but I recently rediscovered the old mystara style hex maps and really really like the vibe. Bought the worldographer bundle and am playing with making maps in that mystara style hexcrawl.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on February 10, 2021, 12:32:13 AM
ruins of zhentil keep, netheril, undermountain 1 and 2 box sets are all of FR that I retain for use, sold the rest, and I had most of it, before giving away all my non-six siders to be handed out to newbs coming into 5e.
The maps from the waterdeep box set I sometimes miss, but you can still get them online to study or chop up for your table. I actually retain but do not have installed the 2e core rules cdrom and the FR atlas.
Those 2e boxed sets and their maps were quite addictive but I recently rediscovered the old mystara style hex maps and really really like the vibe. Bought the worldographer bundle and am playing with making maps in that mystara style hexcrawl.
Although my current FR campaign is set in the grey box era (before Time of Troubles and 2E official material) I still check later material from time to fill in the blanks, setting-wise. Including the 3e campaign setting book, which is very well written and full of good fluff.
But, yes, TSR usually had very high production values during the late 80s and the 90s. The al-Qadim small "sourceboxes" are simply fantastic (
Caravans has a huge poster of a fortune-telling magic carpet that is incredible).
I feel a bit torn between various versions of 3rd Edition (which I lump into the same broad category) and 5th Edition. I started with 2nd Edition AD&D and it still has a special place in my heart and I love the artwork from that era and much of the flavor in the books, probably more than any of the more modern editions, but I have to say from a rules perspective that both 3.x and 5 are superior.
In 3.x and Pathfinder, there are so many different options for class, feats, and character design: all of which I like. On the other hand, 5th more probably a better rule set on the foundational level, being both simple and elegant, even if there are a few quirks that I'm not crazy about and the fact that there are fewer character options, which is good in some ways such as fewer but more useful feats.
I've been mostly playing D&D with the same group of people for the last 20 years. We have traditionally played 3.x and have mountains of house rules we've created over the years and so much history with that system, including other games ported into d20, that my preference might still be with 3.x
Though if I were going to recommend an edition for someone just getting into the hobby, I would probably recommend 5th Edition.
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 10, 2021, 09:44:27 AM
But, yes, TSR usually had very high production values during the late 80s and the 90s. The al-Qadim small "sourceboxes" are simply fantastic (Caravans has a huge poster of a fortune-telling magic carpet that is incredible).
Alas, from what I hear, it's one of the big things that hurt them at the end--products were overproduced/underpricing, since they were getting bad quotes from their printer.
WotC destroyed D&D. They removed level limits, eliminated racial limits that made playing a human key, reversed THACO, and added Feats that became superpowers for Characters.
And no one talks about this. They talk about races and magic but avoid the deaper mechanical aspects. AD&D is a completely different game to Third Edition. And Fifth edition is just the Fifth edition of that madness (3, 3.5, 4, Pathfinder).
WotC doesn't know how to design D&D. They can't incorporate all the SJW bs into the game and still make it consumer worthy. Yes, many publishers have found ways to make money on the label, but WotC hasn't.
When Gary ran a movie and a Saturday cartoon for D&D, it meant a lot. It moved the brand. Can WotC do the same?
Quote from: Theory of Games on February 10, 2021, 01:19:11 PM
WotC destroyed D&D. They removed level limits, eliminated racial limits that made playing a human key, reversed THACO, and added Feats that became superpowers for Characters.
And no one talks about this. They talk about races and magic but avoid the deaper mechanical aspects. AD&D is a completely different game to Third Edition. And Fifth edition is just the Fifth edition of that madness (3, 3.5, 4, Pathfinder).
WotC doesn't know how to design D&D. They can't incorporate all the SJW bs into the game and still make it consumer worthy. Yes, many publishers have found ways to make money on the label, but WotC hasn't.
When Gary ran a movie and a Saturday cartoon for D&D, it meant a lot. It moved the brand. Can WotC do the same?
Those mechanical changes that you don't like aren't related to SJWs or anything though. Thac0 and feats are completely a-political ideas. Not to say that the politics of WotC doesn't influence the products, it does, but I don't think it influences many of the mechanical changes. Believe me, I'm as opposed to SJWs as anybody, but I think its a mistake to blame them for game mechanic changes that you don't like.
As for the particular issues you bring up, some of them are just making the rules simpler and more consistent. The fundamental way that you roll to hit things hasn't changed, but replacing Thac0 with a hit bonus and making higher AC better just makes the system more intuitive and less convoluted without fundamentally changing the nature of game play. I think that feats are cool, they allowed people to customize their characters. You had something like feats in AD&D with weapon proficiencies, weapon specialization, and fighting styles. I do think that there were some problems with 3.x feats - not that they are superpowers but because a lot of them weren't really that good but then you had these convoluted builds where you had to have your feat selections planned out for 15 levels. I didn't like that, but I think that 5th Edition fixed that feat problem. In 5th you can customize your character with feats but each feat is useful, you don't really have to combine them in special ways, there aren't mountains of boring feats that you have to take, and you usually don't have to take feats to have a certain kind of build.
Did anybody ever use racial class limits? I know that none of the AD&D I was ever involved in did. I think that they were seldom used because they are a terrible way to balance races. You choose a race with all kinds of special powers but then you hit maximum level and you are stuck there forever, that ruins so much of the fun. It's a problem for elves to be better at humans at character creation and it's a problem if elves can't advance past level x when human characters can: two wrongs don't make a right. 3rd (and subsequent) editions greatly improved this issue by giving humans some abilities that make them desirable to play, so that the elf and human players can both have fun whether they are at level 1 or 20.
Quote from: ShieldWife on February 10, 2021, 02:39:56 PM
Did anybody ever use racial class limits?...I think that they were seldom used...
Still do. Everyone I've gamed with over the last several decades uses them, so I wouldn't consider them "seldom used." I suppose opinions and experiences with race-based level limits vary, like everything else.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on February 10, 2021, 02:44:36 PM
Quote from: ShieldWife on February 10, 2021, 02:39:56 PM
Did anybody ever use racial class limits?...I think that they were seldom used...
Still do. Everyone I've gamed with over the last several decades uses them, so I wouldn't consider them "seldom used." I suppose opinions and experiences with race-based level limits vary, like everything else.
Well, maybe I'm wrong then. It might be hard to get any kind of statistics on that.
Do you have AD&D campaigns that go to high levels? If so, what do the demihuman players do?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on February 10, 2021, 02:44:36 PM
Quote from: ShieldWife on February 10, 2021, 02:39:56 PM
Did anybody ever use racial class limits?...I think that they were seldom used...
Still do. Everyone I've gamed with over the last several decades uses them, so I wouldn't consider them "seldom used." I suppose opinions and experiences with race-based level limits vary, like everything else.
I used the optional rule (think it's from 2e, note sure) that level advancement past the racial limit costs x2 xp.
It never sat right with me that any character should have a level cap while others don't.
Quote from: Theory of Games on February 10, 2021, 01:19:11 PM
WotC destroyed D&D. They removed level limits, eliminated racial limits that made playing a human key, reversed THACO, and added Feats that became superpowers for Characters.
And no one talks about this. They talk about races and magic but avoid the deaper mechanical aspects. AD&D is a completely different game to Third Edition. And Fifth edition is just the Fifth edition of that madness (3, 3.5, 4, Pathfinder)
Wait, you say
Feats are superpowers and
magic is just some kind of shallow mechanic?
Remind me which Feat lets my human character Fly again?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 10, 2021, 11:05:05 AMAlas, from what I hear, it's one of the big things that hurt them at the end--products were overproduced/underpricing, since they were getting bad quotes from their printer.
More or less.
The issue was more overordering. They did have issues with overproducing some content (Jeff Grubb detailed how Al-Qadim had very high production values but was supposed to be a short run, that instead got extended and screwed up the economics of such high production values with products that were not as viable as the early run), but they
massively overordered almost every product.
The system they had in place was kind of weird, where they actually got paid for copies shipped, instead of copies actually sold. So they shipped tons and tons of product, got their advance payments, and then watched in horror as returns kept rising (thus eating back most of the original "profit"). The result was warehouses overflowing with excess materials that got ordered, shipped, then returned.
Quote from: ShieldWife on February 10, 2021, 09:58:07 AM
I feel a bit torn between various versions of 3rd Edition (which I lump into the same broad category) and 5th Edition. I started with 2nd Edition AD&D and it still has a special place in my heart and I love the artwork from that era and much of the flavor in the books, probably more than any of the more modern editions, but I have to say from a rules perspective that both 3.x and 5 are superior.
In 3.x and Pathfinder, there are so many different options for class, feats, and character design: all of which I like. On the other hand, 5th more probably a better rule set on the foundational level, being both simple and elegant, even if there are a few quirks that I'm not crazy about and the fact that there are fewer character options, which is good in some ways such as fewer but more useful feats.
I've been mostly playing D&D with the same group of people for the last 20 years. We have traditionally played 3.x and have mountains of house rules we've created over the years and so much history with that system, including other games ported into d20, that my preference might still be with 3.x
Though if I were going to recommend an edition for someone just getting into the hobby, I would probably recommend 5th Edition.
Hi, ShieldWife.
I agree with you that the d20 system is superior to the Advanced rules, if only for the fact that it uses a unified rules system. In fact, the system itself is quite elegant and intuitive. And its one of the reasons I also like Castles & Crusades a lot (my go-to modern fantasy system)!
The problem I have with 3.0/3.5 is of an excessive focus on published products on "crunch" which, in turn, led to a change in many players' mindset, too. For instance, I've seen players focused on "creating character builds" instead of just "creating characters". It seems that the d20 system with its focus on feats, prestige classes and combos was turning everyone into a min/maxer.
Of course I can be wrong, but that was my perception and experience at the time.
Regarding character customization, if you take into account all the kits and optional rules and subsystems (from the
Player's Option series, 2E is not too far behind).
I haven't played 5e, I've only read the books. The rule system seems quite good, despite its power bloat (5e first-level characters are as tough as 2e fifth-level characters... and don't get me started on the killer zero-level cantrips. LOL!) However I really dislike the current attitude of WotC and its developers, so I won't touch it with a ten-foot-pole. ;D
Quote from: Theory of Games on February 10, 2021, 01:19:11 PM
WotC destroyed D&D. They removed level limits, eliminated racial limits that made playing a human key, reversed THACO, and added Feats that became superpowers for Characters.
I partially agree with you here, ToG.
I find the d20 system itself very good, and in the late 90s the 2e rule set was already quite outdated. Many of the new things were quite good. A unified system, ascending AC, zero-level spells, standardized effects (
incapacitated and
stunned now always meant the same things instead of varying from one designer to another), and so on.
The problem was the new mindset introduced with such a crunchy system. Creating a character became an "optimization mini-game" in and of itself. As I said above, players (at least the ones that started playing with 3.0) seemed more preoccupied with the perfect character build and cool feats than with just creating a good character and having fun. The designers, in trying to make a game impervious to bad DMing they greatly reduced the DM's fiat.
Also, designing NPCs in 3.5 was a nightmare... a puny goblin shaman stat bloc occupied almost an entire A4 sheet of paper, while in 2e it took, what? Four to five lines, at most. All of a sudden, it was GURPS all over again.
One of the reasons I find Castles & Crusades the legit "spiritual successor" to old TSR games is that while it uses a modern, unified system, it still keeps the same mindset of previous editions without what I consider "crunch bloat".
Don't get me wrong, I love it and still run 2e games to this day, warts and all, but I can appreciate what I see as the good points of the d20 system.
I vacillate between Rules Cylcopedia, which seems to continue edging out ahead as my favourite, and B/X which wins serious points for simplicity. But here I am running 5th edition, because what I like and what my players want out of a game is different. You make concessions for friends, and work on campaigns to run on roll20 for one's own sanity.
We play 5e. It's what our kids play, what they saw with Critical Role (which I won't put down because it brought people into the hobby). 5e is what is played in the high school where the kids go. I have fun running and playing it. As for preferred? I'd have to say like others 2e. I ran that inside and out. But it's just not practical for the group I play with (might be a generational thing, idk). And I'm okay with that.
QuoteWotC destroyed D&D. They removed level limits, eliminated racial limits that made playing a human key, reversed THACO, and added Feats that became superpowers for Characters.
Yes. And it was awesome.
QuoteAnd no one talks about this.
Whole OSR movement is mostly about it.
QuoteThey talk about races and magic but avoid the deaper mechanical aspects.
Because they are awesome :3
QuoteAD&D is a completely different game to Third Edition. And Fifth edition is just the Fifth edition of that madness (3, 3.5, 4, Pathfinder).
And Warhammer 3ed is completely different game to 2 edition. And that's GOOD. Editions that are just small erratas are lazy and spare.
QuoteYes, many publishers have found ways to make money on the label, but WotC hasn't.
WoTC is making money on 5e, as probably no publisher of any RPG made in history. Wait, not, not probably - bascially certainly.
QuoteStill do. Everyone I've gamed with over the last several decades uses them, so I wouldn't consider them "seldom used." I suppose opinions and experiences with race-based level limits vary, like everything else.
In Day of the Judgement Professor Tolkien shall return from Heavens in his glorious Celestial Somma Uniform and Smite You All With Rain Of Holy Bullets for Nerfing the Elves. Mind my words, heathens.
QuoteRemind me which Feat lets my human character Fly again?
Celestial Wings aasimar racial feat.
QuoteThe problem I have with 3.0/3.5 is of an excessive focus on published products on "crunch" which, in turn, led to a change in many players' mindset, too. For instance, I've seen players focused on "creating character builds" instead of just "creating characters". It seems that the d20 system with its focus on feats, prestige classes and combos was turning everyone into a min/maxer.
I mean I won't deny there's some shift, but I also remember 3.0/3.5 Faerun lorebooks and there was shitton of them.
QuoteThe designers, in trying to make a game impervious to bad DMing they greatly reduced the DM's fiat.
Well yes. And that's a good thing generally, problem is as you pointed out - too much crunch.
My favorites are still Original D&D or the B/X set or the rules cyclopedia. I am playing in a 5 E campaign right now but it does not feel like the D&D I grew up with.
Best ruleset for me is Becmi/Rules Cyclopedia, the one I grew with.
Also, BX which is so close to it (basically the same game).
Retroclones: Lion & Dragon, Ose, SWN e and ACKS. They're all awesome.
I've also played a lot of 2nd Edition (mainly the core rulebooks) and it's ok for me.
3.x: no: too crunchy. I'd play Gurps anyday, instead.
4: don't know what we're talking about.
5e: jury still out. Sure as hell I find the writing style awful, it kills the will to play it.
@Estar, I'm curious: what kinds of skills did you use for kings and innkeepers?
Not to bump off Estar, who's welcome to reply when he wants... I played OD&D, 1e and 5e (quite the shift!) and I think I do like the older editions better. The game got a little too easy...you get all your hitpoints back after resting one day? Using hit dice as a free healing ability? Oh well. A spectre comes out of a well and I freak out...turns out you lose maximum HP for a while if it hits you now. They were all rather amused to learn you permanently lost two levels if it hit you back in the day.
Doesn't really matter as long as you're having fun, but for me it feels like a bit more of a superhero game now. Oh well.
Quote from: ShieldWife on February 10, 2021, 02:57:47 PM
Do you have AD&D campaigns that go to high levels? If so, what do the demihuman players do?
I guess it depends on what you consider "high levels." I'd consider name level and above to be high level (so around 9th level or so, although it varies slightly by class). And yes, I've had campaigns that go into those levels, although I don't recall any PCs that ever went beyond 14 or so.
Players of demihuman PCs just keep playing their PCs. (And they often have a thief class in there which is unlimited even if their other classes have hit max.)
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 10, 2021, 06:44:08 PM
In Day of the Judgement Professor Tolkien shall return from Heavens in his glorious Celestial Somma Uniform and Smite You All With Rain Of Holy Bullets for Nerfing the Elves. Mind my words, heathens.
My D&D campaigns aren't very Tolkienish, in any case. I prefer a more "swords-n-sorcery" feel (i.e., more Howard or Moorcock or Leiber) than a Tolkien feel.
That said, I'm a big fan of Tolkien's books and stories. And I've run some Middle Earth campaigns, too, but D&D wouldn't be my first choice of system for that. Or, if I use D&D for Middle Earth, I'd house rule it pretty extensively, changing the magic system, details of the races, and so on.
Then just cut elves out of your system rather than leaving their gygaxian-heretical-Jehovah-Witnessey travesties, good sir!!!
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 13, 2021, 11:17:57 AM
Then just cut elves out of your system rather than leaving their gygaxian-heretical-Jehovah-Witnessey travesties, good sir!!!
My elves dropped the nature/arcane magic fetish to be the devoted servants of the Astral Gods, complete with a caste-based theocratic society where the nobility and priesthood were one and the same and those elves who refused their allotted place in Elven civilization were declared anathema; relegated to the Dark caste of unpersons; and hunted by their Inquisitors so that their souls could be reincarnated back into their proper positions within the Elven hierarchy.
They also have utter disdain for non-elves since non-elves were not created to be the perfect servants of the gods (indeed, humans are said to have been created by the primal spirits who are kin to demons and this tragically inferior and so very mortal... not even capable of reincarnation).
Obviously, way more elves on the crap end of the hierarchy ("your place in every incarnation is to clean up after the nobles' filth") decide to say "Screw it" and take a chance on freedom. The whole "elves live in hidden communities in the woods" thing is because those who flee are hunted outlaws... they live in the woods for the same reason Robin Hood does. Many of these become PCs.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 13, 2021, 12:15:22 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 13, 2021, 11:17:57 AM
Then just cut elves out of your system rather than leaving their gygaxian-heretical-Jehovah-Witnessey travesties, good sir!!!
My elves dropped the nature/arcane magic fetish to be the devoted servants of the Astral Gods, complete with a caste-based theocratic society where the nobility and priesthood were one and the same and those elves who refused their allotted place in Elven civilization were declared anathema; relegated to the Dark caste of unpersons; and hunted by their Inquisitors so that their souls could be reincarnated back into their proper positions within the Elven hierarchy.
They also have utter disdain for non-elves since non-elves were not created to be the perfect servants of the gods (indeed, humans are said to have been created by the primal spirits who are kin to demons and this tragically inferior and so very mortal... not even capable of reincarnation).
Obviously, way more elves on the crap end of the hierarchy ("your place in every incarnation is to clean up after the nobles' filth") decide to say "Screw it" and take a chance on freedom. The whole "elves live in hidden communities in the woods" thing is because those who flee are hunted outlaws... they live in the woods for the same reason Robin Hood does. Many of these become PCs.
I don't know anything about astral gods or see a need to unite the nobility and priesthood, but I really like the rest. The caste system and outlaws works well for a high/wood elf divide. The high elves would have a Vadhagh feel, with grand past of high culture and empire, now in decline. They've mostly retreated to ancient bastions, or citadels, where the remaining high elves have mostly lost themselves in decadence and inward-looking politics and religious concerns, with the occasional hunt against the outlaws (wild elf hunt, if you will) by a warrior caste similar to inquisitors. The wood elves would live in hidden communities deep in the forest, and would be known to be very reticent and adept at vanishing.
Quote from: Pat on February 13, 2021, 01:00:57 PM
I don't know anything about astral gods or see a need to unite the nobility and priesthood, but I really like the rest.
Astral Gods is the term I use inside my system to distinguish between the more D&D standard polytheistic gods whose realms are connected to the astral plane (in my case the realms of these gods are visible in the night sky as stars and constellations... hence 'Astral') and the monotheistic God referred to as The Source who resides at the heart of Creation (there is significant debate between religions over whether The Source is a sapient entity or just a cosmic force akin to the Big Bang and whether the Astral Gods are their own entities or just reflected aspects of The Source akin to the motes of a mirror ball... and, unlike most D&D worlds, the spirit world/afterlife is completely unreachable save by death so you can't just plane shift to Mount Celestia and ask).
Short version; I needed to distinguish between pagan gods (Astral) and Judeo-Christian God (The Source) and I've been hip deep in my project for so long I use the term by habit.
As to merging the nobility and priesthood, that's a function of trying to properly present a truly polytheistic society (versus the default D&D henotheism) where, with few exceptions, the king was also chief priest (i.e. the bridge between the people and their gods) and the nobility also functioned as lesser priests.
This was true in Babylon/Assyria, Egypt and even Rome... often times even assigning divine status to the king (the Pharaoh was the embodied Horus and in death becomes Osiris... Roman emperors were deified in death).
The elves embody this; the high elves are the nobility because they are closer to their gods and have greater innate divine power than lesser elves. Part of their role as rulers is to commune with their gods so as to properly carry out the will of the gods in the Mortal World. All beneath them must serve in the role they were born to because the caste they were born into was the will of the gods.
If this sounds like some sort of theocratic nightmare cult, well, welcome to most religions in history. They weren't made to get the faithful common folk to Paradise (nope they all ended up in the same bleak netherworld regardless), they were tools to enforce a social order and raise up the rulers to immortal glory.
The whole "be you king or slave, we're all equal in Christ and all can be saved" thing was as radical and dangerous as fuck to the ruling powers of the age.
So, for my elves, being the servants of the pagan gods, it made sense to me to play the pagan religion straight and place the elves under god-kings.
QuoteMy elves dropped the nature/arcane magic fetish to be the devoted servants of the Astral Gods, complete with a caste-based theocratic society where the nobility and priesthood were one and the same and those elves who refused their allotted place in Elven civilization were declared anathema; relegated to the Dark caste of unpersons; and hunted by their Inquisitors so that their souls could be reincarnated back into their proper positions within the Elven hierarchy.
They also have utter disdain for non-elves since non-elves were not created to be the perfect servants of the gods (indeed, humans are said to have been created by the primal spirits who are kin to demons and this tragically inferior and so very mortal... not even capable of reincarnation).
Obviously, way more elves on the crap end of the hierarchy ("your place in every incarnation is to clean up after the nobles' filth") decide to say "Screw it" and take a chance on freedom. The whole "elves live in hidden communities in the woods" thing is because those who flee are hunted outlaws... they live in the woods for the same reason Robin Hood does. Many of these become PCs.
So it's bit like Tolkien Elves but also Evil Stalinist Vedic India right?
(TBH how does it works after yer great Cataclysm that killed 99% of living beings around - are Elves just reincarnated and dominated the world by sheer numbers?
QuoteIf this sounds like some sort of theocratic nightmare cult, well, welcome to most religions in history. They weren't made to get the faithful common folk to Paradise (nope they all ended up in the same bleak netherworld regardless), they were tools to enforce a social order and raise up the rulers to immortal glory.
I'd definitely not go so grimdark.
I mean you've chosen very strict structure akin to Vedism (ironically enough one where priest caste was divided from nobility) and very dark look of human religious needs.
I'd argue however that those bleak religions still came from certain sort of instinctual I'd say platonic instinct "as below, as above" where our world is deemed to be lesser reflection of higher reality, and was genuinely seek by people to explain reality for them.
(Not to mention pagans were also much more prone to Mandate of Heaven social philosphy - Tengrism would be very good example - if you kill god-kings and take their stuff, you are the god king now, clearly heavens wants it - so even if you are just gardener for Sumerian nobles you can build first great Semetic Empire, or from minor cheftain you can conquer half of northern Eurasia and China, and so on, and people will buy it. Ironically if anything (maybe aside of Japan) Christianity created much more stricter rules of king's legitimacy than most cruel pagans, and after wars of Dark Ages waned, and before revolutions just thrown down thrones and turned them into puppets - the kings positions turned out to be exceptionally stable and consistent in Europe - and aside of few sucession crisis that lead to more mayor wars - like two Roses, 100 years wars, or war of Spanish sucession - in most wars which war multiple in this period of mature medieval-pre-revolution-modern-times in most cases, warring kings would never even imply robbing defeated enemy of their throne).
So that's kinda important question - how is Mandate of Heavens philosophy working among elves.
You know - like in China, sure Emperor is sacred but if he's asshole, we gonna make peasant rebelion, eat the Emperor, and crown our peasant leader as new Emperor. Works very well ;)
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 13, 2021, 03:27:46 PM
So it's bit like Tolkien Elves but also Evil Stalinist Vedic India right?
(TBH how does it works after yer great Cataclysm that killed 99% of living beings around - are Elves just reincarnated and dominated the world by sheer numbers?
It works primarily in that the elves were only pulled into the Mortal World BY the Cataclysm. It literally ripped the barriers between life and death apart and dragged a number of the elves from their astral paradises into the Mortal World. Because of their nature as spirits created by the astral gods, the number of spirits that exist in the Mortal World was fixed by the number who were initially trapped in it. The Elven population can never grow past that number and the only way for a new elf to be born is for another to die (at which point its soul moves to the womb of an elf of the appropriate caste).
This is why they hunt their heretics so incessantly; every one who abandons their place in the caste hierarchy is one that cannot be replaced. The only way to do so is either convince the Dark elf to repent and return to their place or to execute them so their soul will be reborn within elven society. If enough escape, the souls of fallen elves may even be born among the Dark Elves, robbing their divinely ordered society of even greater numbers.
That the primary focus of the hierarchy is ensuring that the elven priest-kings live in the same luxury they did in their astral paradises (where divine power alone enabled food, drink and every luxury imaginable to appear at a whim); every elf of the lower castes who abandons their place makes maintaining the façade that much harder and so causes the upper castes to make those of the lower castes who remain to work ever harder (which in turn causes even more to attempt to flee).
So, while the elves started the immediate aftermath of the Cataclysm in a commanding situation (in the setting's starting region they numbered 60,000 to the few thousand scattered humans), the two centuries since has seen their situation ever deteriorating as the human populations grow and more elves abandon their castes.
Basically, they're doomed and their leadership is ever more desperate to maintain the status quo which is what makes the kingdom of El-Phara so dangerous and why in the GM's Guide section on the default region they are described as a hostile realm (El-Phara translates to "The Place of The People". Their endonym for themselves is El... The People. The terms Elf and Elven are human contractions of El-Pharan, i.e. people from El-Phara).
QuoteI'd definitely not go so grimdark.
It's only really the elves whose religion is grimdark. Even the orcish religion isn't as grim. Only demon worship earns you a bleaker fate than the faith of the Elven Court (which, if it has an upside, is that worship of the Elven Court is forbidden to non-elves... non-elves aren't even worthy of worshipping the true gods; they are inferior beings condemned to eventual death by their very natures).
The Big Good of religions in the setting is the Old Faith that worships The Source and whose beliefs can be summed up with one of their common professions of faith...
"You are all the beloved children of The Source. Love one another. The world is a gift from your loving Creator. Care for it as you would a treasured heirloom." Their view of the afterlife is that all who are faithful will return to and be embraced by The Source as His beloved children and heirs. That said, the Old Faith has been unpopular and even persecuted since the fall of The First Empire to its Beastmen slaves and their astral gods.
When their slaves rose up against them, their prayers to The Source went unanswered. Rather than blame themselves for committing grave sins against The Source by enslaving sapient beings, they blamed The Source for not saving them from the consequences and turned to the worship of the gods of the Beastmen who defeated them and eventually split off their own variant of that, the Via Praetorum. Only various remnant groups, mostly barbarian tribes who had abandoned The First Empire because of its many sins, still practice the Old Faith today; though in the wake of the Cataclysm it has been on the rise as human memories are short, the gods of the Via Praetorum failed utterly in the face of the Cataclysm and followers of the Old Faith escaped many of the Cataclysm's horrors that consumed so many others.
The runner-up in the good religions category is the Via Praetorum which is Roman-themed and teaches that right living will earn everyone who is faithful a place in Paradise, but still holds that the position you have in Paradise will be in line with your place in life (i.e. a peasant will still be a peasant, but the soil will always be rich, the weather always fair, the roof never leaks and the crops always abundant and easy to harvest). The orcish religion is actually a variant of the Via Praetorum with the main negative being that because they enslave anyone who isn't an orc the "Paradise in line with your place in life" translates to "if you're not an orc, you'll be a well treated slave in the afterlife."
QuoteIt works primarily in that the elves were only pulled into the Mortal World BY the Cataclysm. It literally ripped the barriers between life and death apart and dragged a number of the elves from their astral paradises into the Mortal World. Because of their nature as spirits created by the astral gods, the number of spirits that exist in the Mortal World was fixed by the number who were initially trapped in it. The Elven population can never grow past that number and the only way for a new elf to be born is for another to die (at which point its soul moves to the womb of an elf of the appropriate caste).
So it's like sort of Virgin Conception - every elf restored into proper womb or is there a biological element. What if all female elves of higher caste were all murdered at the same time?
Also TBH if this reincarnarion works in that way - that seems that asshole stalinist elves are right - this is proper metaphysical order of elfishness. Weird ;)
QuoteThat the primary focus of the hierarchy is ensuring that the elven priest-kings live in the same luxury they did in their astral paradises (where divine power alone enabled food, drink and every luxury imaginable to appear at a whim); every elf of the lower castes who abandons their place makes maintaining the façade that much harder and so causes the upper castes to make those of the lower castes who remain to work ever harder (which in turn causes even more to attempt to flee).
Is there any biological / mechanical difference between castes aside of womb you were born from?
QuoteBasically, they're doomed and their leadership is ever more desperate to maintain the status quo which is what makes the kingdom of El-Phara so dangerous and why in the GM's Guide section on the default region they are described as a hostile realm (El-Phara translates to "The Place of The People". Their endonym for themselves is El... The People. The terms Elf and Elven are human contractions of El-Pharan, i.e. people from El-Phara).
Clever (Place of the People reminds this randist weirdo Goodkind evil Mongol-Stalinist-Catholic setting where capitol was also called something like that I think). In setting I was planning I simply decided to drop traditional names for various races and just forge new ones (as each species used certain amount of languages which are sort of fake real life languages - unfortunatelly I'm not good enough conworlder to tolkien out original ones - I just went with specific names derived either from original languages, or from nicknames species give each other - and do fake-Greek (for human (idumi) civilisation of Idum) and kudeyan (for hairy bear-lion like hobgoblins who rule empire - ergo fake-Turko-Mongolic) terms.
QuoteIt's only really the elves whose religion is grimdark. Even the orcish religion isn't as grim. Only demon worship earns you a bleaker fate than the faith of the Elven Court (which, if it has an upside, is that worship of the Elven Court is forbidden to non-elves... non-elves aren't even worthy of worshipping the true gods; they are inferior beings condemned to eventual death by their very natures).
Well but then I'd expect elves to consider their situation to be not-permanent - but more, we have to reclaim our place among stars? I mean there are concious what happened to them, and that their material non astral existence is off right? And fate of lower elven spirits in their homeland - was it as grim as well, or they are just extra fucked by being trapped in matter's cage (inb4 gnostic vibe).
Also - those Astral Gods existed for long millenia right - from your first Apocalypse time - so they were known to mortal beings right, so what is human pagans stance of 40 000 lesser angels dropped in pointy-eared bodies in a middle of Apocalyptic wasteland???
QuoteThe runner-up in the good religions category is the Via Praetorum which is Roman-themed and teaches that right living will earn everyone who is faithful a place in Paradise, but still holds that the position you have in Paradise will be in line with your place in life (i.e. a peasant will still be a peasant, but the soil will always be rich, the weather always fair, the roof never leaks and the crops always abundant and easy to harvest). The orcish religion is actually a variant of the Via Praetorum with the main negative being that because they enslave anyone who isn't an orc the "Paradise in line with your place in life" translates to "if you're not an orc, you'll be a well treated slave in the afterlife."
OK and for all those people - (orcs are human mutants right) - Astral Gods are real stuff, and elves were Astral Gods angels basically. So aside of being almost extinct like all people - how to they cope with elves prancing around.
Great job on the elves imho, many try to do elves differently and wind up with normal elves but wings, or an extra eye or a tail, you've world built them in such a way as to explain the average human perception of them and I dig it.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 13, 2021, 11:17:57 AM
Then just cut elves out of your system rather than leaving their gygaxian-heretical-Jehovah-Witnessey travesties, good sir!!!
Don't fret, I've got it covered in my games.
ETA: Holy Wall of Text, Batman! Apparently I had a lot to say and I apologize in advance for the length.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 13, 2021, 05:39:22 PM
So it's like sort of Virgin Conception - every elf restored into proper womb or is there a biological element. What if all female elves of higher caste were all murdered at the same time?
Theoretically, you might prevent them from being able to reincarnate, but it'd be a tall order as the elves are scattered across the globe. Leaving aside the number of people who have genocide in them, 3000 female high elves in El-Phara is one thing, 500,000 around the world is quite another.
Of course, this could be wrong, and new high elves would be born from the lower castes, but with the traits of the higher castes.
QuoteAlso TBH if this reincarnarion works in that way - that seems that asshole stalinist elves are right - this is proper metaphysical order of elfishness. Weird ;)
Well, the High Elves seem to think so, but the Low Elves might disagree.
The High Elves get to live as close to their lives in the Astral Paradises as possible. The lower castes must labor in varying degrees based on their place in the hierarchy much as humans do to grow food and wines and produce luxuries for the elites when, in the Astral Paradises they were able to do their duties for the gods as assigned by the higher ranks (for example, delivering the effects of an astral spell cast by a mortal who made a pact with their god), but enjoying the same luxuries as those above them.
QuoteIs there any biological / mechanical difference between castes aside of womb you were born from?
Not to seem too Invader Zim, but height is one of the most obvious signs. Mechanically, I define three types; Low Elves, Common Elves and High Elves. Low elves are about six inches shorter than the average human (4' 6" - 5' 6"), common elves are roughly man-sized (5'-6'), and high elves about six-inches taller than the average human (5' 6" - 6' 6").
In addition, some of the high elves are able to manifest more divine aspects than is typical in their exile. Some retain the divine mutability that allowed them manifest in forms comfortable and familiar to mortals and are referred to by humans as Changelings for their most common roles these days are as spies and assassins.
Others are able to manifest wings of astral light (i.e. they're not biological parts of them) and are known as Archons (closest to the gods) and the highest can even manifest auras related to their patron god's aspects.
QuoteClever (Place of the People reminds this randist weirdo Goodkind evil Mongol-Stalinist-Catholic setting where capitol was also called something like that I think).
One of my many passions is etymology (the origin of words) and this is really just how names work. Endonyms (what people call themselves) almost end up being some variant of "the People" in their own language. Similarly, a lot of exonyms (what people call other people) end up being either "outsider" or "others from [place]."
Places also ultimately tend to boil down to very basic things; the local name for a hill is "The Hill" in their own tongue. Their name for the place they control is often just "The Land" or "The Place" as well. Outsiders then borrow that word when describing that place to their own people. Over successive generations and peoples migrating in and out of places the name sticks, but the original meaning is lost and so you end up with places that are named Torpenhow Hill (Tor meaning "hill" in one language, then a new group came in and their word for hill was "pen" so they called Tor Pen... Tor Hill to them, this got repeated with How, that language's word for hill, for Torpen How and finally into English with Torpenhow Hill or "Hill Hill Hill Hill").
So my specific reasoning with the elves is that, because they basically dropped in without any history in the region and the region itself being greatly depopulated, they named things entirely using basic endonyms. They are the People and their lands are the Place/Lands of the People.
Humans encounter them and hear them call themselves El and their lands as El-Phara. A little linguistic drift over two centuries like the default human plural adding an -s and it goes El > Els > Elfs > Elves and El-Phara > El-Pharan > Elfan > Elven.
QuoteWell but then I'd expect elves to consider their situation to be not-permanent - but more, we have to reclaim our place among stars? I mean there are concious what happened to them, and that their material non astral existence is off right? And fate of lower elven spirits in their homeland - was it as grim as well, or they are just extra fucked by being trapped in matter's cage (inb4 gnostic vibe).
They initially considered it temporary, but every effort to reopen the barriers between worlds ended in failure (the afterlife being an unreachable mystery one must take on faith is a big part of maintaining the versimiltude of the setting by ensuring that PCs think in ways like we do vs. being able to just planeshift and go visit you father in the afterlife and high five your god while you're visiting).
Even then though they hoped that by ending their mortal existence their spirits would return to the astral realms... until the first of them killed was reincarnated in the mortal world. That was when they realized that whatever the Cataclysm was that had befallen them had also bound their spirits to the Mortal World. They were stuck.
That was when the High Elves asserted their authority and structured their society to facilitate those "closest to the gods" being able to maintain an existence as close to the one they had in the astral realms as possible and that it was the duty of those elves beneath them to maintain it.
QuoteAlso - those Astral Gods existed for long millenia right - from your first Apocalypse time - so they were known to mortal beings right, so what is human pagans stance of 40 000 lesser angels dropped in pointy-eared bodies in a middle of Apocalyptic wasteland???
Well, the first thing to realize is that the elves aren't the first time celestial beings have ended up in the Mortal World.
The dawn of recorded history began when an army of primal spirits (elemental beings who formed the Mortal World in the first place; as servants of The Source according to the Old Faith, for their own ends according to the astral faiths) descended upon the tribes of human hunter-gatherers and enslaved them; gathering them into cities and forcing them to labor for the benefit of their masters.
These primal spirits came to be called Demons and the civilization they created The Demon Empire. They bred with mortal women to create the Malfeans, overseers for their human slaves. They turned the Mortal World into a fortress filled with human hostages for they had rebelled against the greater number of primal spirits (who profess the Mortal World was created for Men at the behest of The Source).
In the end, an alliance of humans (including the dwarves the demons created from them and some say even a few rebellious malfeans) and primal spirits drove out the demons and banished them forever to the Outer Darkness (except when foolish mortals let them in), but in the war between the primal spirits and their fallen brethren a full third of their number were too cowardly to pick a side and so the victorious primal spirits exiled their cowardly kin to the Mortal World where they would be forced to reside in mortal forms (sylphs, undine, dryads, sprites, unicorns, giants, dragons, etc.) until they had proven themselves worthy protectors of the Mortal World.
These beings collectively came to be called the Eldritch.
So this isn't exactly the first time it's happened and the arrivals not been quite as great as advertised.
* * * *
Second, the other thing about the elves is that their religion doesn't exactly line up with any of the mortal astral god focused religions.
From the earliest astral religion to the more modern offshoots, there have been certain commonalities suggesting a shared deeper truth; twelve gods including a Sky Father as it's head, an Earth Mother as his wife, and a goddess of death; typically appearing with animal heads (akin to the Egyptians) and distinctions regarding good and evil (the earliest astral religion depicted the gods as possessing both positive and negative aspects of their domains; ex. a god of rulership and the sky; while more recent ones divided these up into a pantheon of a dozen good gods; ex. god of just rule and good weather; who are worshipped and a dozen evil ones who are worshiped against; ex. god of tyranny and storms).
By contrast, the Elven religion acknowledges only eleven gods (the goddess of death is absent), claims the Moon Goddess is the high queen and mother of the other ten gods (with the sky god as her consort) and that all the gods cycle through two aspects (called seelie and unseelie; positive and negative aspects of their portfolios) in accord with the phases of the moon.
The theologians of the Via Praetorum have therefore proclaimed as dogma that the elves are not the servants of the true gods, but the misguided children of the goddess of dreams (who is associated with the moon) and that the elven gods are not the true astral gods, but the dreams of Men about the gods.
Basically, the human religions have declared the elves to be heretics (albeit presently quite powerful and dangerous heretics) and that worship of the elven pantheon endangers the eternal souls of Men.
The elves obviously consider humans to be fools who worship falsely and that the "demon" Men worship as the goddess of death is proof of their folly.
And don't get the elves or the pontiffs of the Via Praetorum started on the followers of The Old Faith who regard the primal spirits (actual kin to demons) as their spiritual brothers and worship a force they can't even prove is a sapient entity as their God.
So, the short version... religions are complicated.
QuoteOK and for all those people - (orcs are human mutants right) - Astral Gods are real stuff, and elves were Astral Gods angels basically. So aside of being almost extinct like all people - how to they cope with elves prancing around.
Well, real in the sense that you can make ritual pacts with them and gain supernatural powers, but it's not like anyone living has seen them and, as has been mentioned previously, there is no planar travel to enable anyone to go check for sure.
There's also a couple of different religions based on the astral gods with slightly different beliefs about their nature (think Protestantism).
There's even groups, particularly arcane spellcasters, who deny the gods even truly exist... that they are just "AI's" existing within the Arcane Web and their "divine" magic is just arcane magic performed by these AIs running in system. They further point to the now lost magics of biomancy and the creation of sapient golems as proof that arcane magic could once create artificial life forms (which they claim the elves are).
Throw in the "elven heretics" from above and let reality ensue... i.e. there is no one consensus about the elves among humans other than "they're here and real enough to poke us with pointy things if provoked."
Even the elves don't entirely agree or there wouldn't be Dark Elves... and among the exiles there is real debate between continuing to worship the elven gods, adopt the human gods or say "there's no eternal paradise waiting no matter what I do so screw the gods."
Basically, I don't want there to be clean and easy answers to these questions. One of the biggest disconnects between real people and those of many D&D settings is that real people don't have the answers there in concrete form.
Gods don't manifest in mortal form down the street and we can't cast plane shift, walk up to a god and ask them which interpretation of their religion is correct or be certain of our afterlife because that same plane shift can allow us to meet our ancestor's soul as they're chilling in one of the god's realms.
I can't even begin to describe how alien that certain knowledge would make the typical D&D setting; but most just gloss it over and pretend the values and culture would still be mostly the same as here where all of that just has to taken on faith and now divine being is going to drop out of the sky to clarify any disputes.
Imagine what history would look like if, just before the first clash between Christians and Islam, God came down from heaven and said "Woah! Why are you attacking each other? X's interpretation is correct and you're both wrong about Y!"
That's your average D&D world in relation to religion.
So, in order to have a setting more in line with real people... all those things are mysteries with a lot of potential answers, but no one who can prove it... so, for the most part, you have to take which religion is true and what happens after you die on faith.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on February 13, 2021, 11:52:10 PM
Great job on the elves imho, many try to do elves differently and wind up with normal elves but wings, or an extra eye or a tail, you've world built them in such a way as to explain the average human perception of them and I dig it.
Thanks, I've put a LOT of work into putting together a coherent setting where all the pieces fit despite it being a kitchen sink setting.
It was also less about making elves different as it was trying to be true to the mythology of the "fair folk" (so called because people were terrified of possibly insulting them) while still allowing playable elves as PCs.
My elves as a whole are quite alien, especially compared to contemporary values, but the exiles likely to be PCs have necessarily adapted to better live among non-elves and so would be easier to roleplay. The fact that their rulers are also desperate to maintain their power and positions makes them very dangerous potential enemies as well without being just "we worship evil" types.
QuoteWell, the High Elves seem to think so, but the Low Elves might disagree.
The High Elves get to live as close to their lives in the Astral Paradises as possible. The lower castes must labor in varying degrees based on their place in the hierarchy much as humans do to grow food and wines and produce luxuries for the elites when, in the Astral Paradises they were able to do their duties for the gods as assigned by the higher ranks (for example, delivering the effects of an astral spell cast by a mortal who made a pact with their god), but enjoying the same luxuries as those above them.
Ok, but High Elves also were Astral God flunkies just for more important jobs so... dunno they seems very commonly demoralized.
I'd expect at least some important sects to centre their effort to return to Astral Realm rather than trying to pretend nothing happened.
QuoteNot to seem too Invader Zim, but height is one of the most obvious signs. Mechanically, I define three types; Low Elves, Common Elves and High Elves. Low elves are about six inches shorter than the average human (4' 6" - 5' 6"), common elves are roughly man-sized (5'-6'), and high elves about six-inches taller than the average human (5' 6" - 6' 6").
In addition, some of the high elves are able to manifest more divine aspects than is typical in their exile. Some retain the divine mutability that allowed them manifest in forms comfortable and familiar to mortals and are referred to by humans as Changelings for their most common roles these days are as spies and assassins.
Others are able to manifest wings of astral light (i.e. they're not biological parts of them) and are known as Archons (closest to the gods) and the highest can even manifest auras related to their patron god's aspects.
OK, that's cool.
QuoteOne of my many passions is etymology (the origin of words) and this is really just how names work. Endonyms (what people call themselves) almost end up being some variant of "the People" in their own language. Similarly, a lot of exonyms (what people call other people) end up being either "outsider" or "others from [place].
In old times it see, but most of modern nations and tribes have names reestabilished so many times it sort of faded it seem.
Like I mean almost any Slavic or Germanic language will have simmilar word for "people" but most stopped using such even towards themselves.
Especially among people who had many tribes and were not isolated specific tribes could boast some honorific which later could evolve into specific nation name. So ironically I'd expect most of advanced people that left isolated tribe status thousands years ago to loose simple "The People" meaning - now of course your Elves have not went so far - though of course question is considering they are astral spirits for whom incarnation is still relatively young - how it relates to their pre-Cataclysm astral ways of communication.
(And then of course there is effect of multiple shifts between many nations that makes it even funnier.
Like Polish word for Italians - Włosi is derived from Polish word for Romanians - Wołoszyni - which is derived from Germanic Vlachi/Valachi - which indeed means foreigner and on the other side of Europe - Wales/Welsh is the same word just in English version.)
QuoteThey initially considered it temporary, but every effort to reopen the barriers between worlds ended in failure (the afterlife being an unreachable mystery one must take on faith is a big part of maintaining the versimiltude of the setting by ensuring that PCs think in ways like we do vs. being able to just planeshift and go visit you father in the afterlife and high five your god while you're visiting).
OK, I get it with mortals. But elves are not mortals. They know what they are - metaphysically - so it's hardly the afterlife for them - it's more this world is prison for them.
QuoteThat was when the High Elves asserted their authority and structured their society to facilitate those "closest to the gods" being able to maintain an existence as close to the one they had in the astral realms as possible and that it was the duty of those elves beneath them to maintain it.
TBH I'm surprised considering their initial position - they have not decide to enslave mortals instead. I mean most mortals worshipped Astral Gods IIUC, and elves served as angelic spirits so they should be "so you puny mammals were serving our boss here right, good now you gonna serve us instead as we're here or smth".
QuoteSo this isn't exactly the first time it's happened and the arrivals not been quite as great as advertised.
Well but astral spirits and primal spirits are not the same it seems, right? I mean Astral Faiths differentiates it IIUC.
QuoteBy contrast, the Elven religion acknowledges only eleven gods (the goddess of death is absent), claims the Moon Goddess is the high queen and mother of the other ten gods (with the sky god as her consort) and that all the gods cycle through two aspects (called seelie and unseelie; positive and negative aspects of their portfolios) in accord with the phases of the moon.
The theologians of the Via Praetorum have therefore proclaimed as dogma that the elves are not the servants of the true gods, but the misguided children of the goddess of dreams (who is associated with the moon) and that the elven gods are not the true astral gods, but the dreams of Men about the gods.
OK, that makes great sense.
But now the question is - who is... more right. Like objectively considering inner dealing of Astral Pantheon.
From what you wrote so far I'd guess 12 is more or less real number (question of them being shards or reflections of Source aside) - but servants of Death Goddess were separated from Elves from some reason, so Elves do not know her, and Fetches are generally her elves for lack of better words, which would make them simmilar beings in metaphysical descriptor though of course with different accidents.
QuoteSo, the short version... religions are complicated.
Good.
I must say as much I'm not that big into BIG FUCKING HERO gameplay method I'd really like to see your setting printed.
QuoteIt was also less about making elves different as it was trying to be true to the mythology of the "fair folk" (so called because people were terrified of possibly insulting them) while still allowing playable elves as PCs.
OK last question - because you once said - now it seems it changed a bit - elves were meant to be embodiment of human dreams and gnomes of children dreams - I assume that's Praetorian perspective on them. But assuming they are real fallen/trapped angels and fetches are their equvialent on court of 12th goddess - what that makes gnomes?
Also what is fetch perspective on this considering their being presumably Psychopomp Astrals?
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 14, 2021, 05:09:29 PM
Ok, but High Elves also were Astral God flunkies just for more important jobs so... dunno they seems very commonly demoralized.
I'd expect at least some important sects to centre their effort to return to Astral Realm rather than trying to pretend nothing happened.
After a century of beating their heads against the wall with no discernible progress even the devoted tend to bow to reality and better use of resources. Not that they wouldn't jump at the chance to go home if it presented itself; but no one's even sure what the Cataclysm actually was, much less all the things it changed alongside all the destruction.
And rather than the high elves being easily demoralized, I was shooting for powerful and decadent with zero regard for murdering those who don't comply to recycle them into a new life that is hopefully more compliant to their whims.
To put it in perspective; the monster entry for elves includes Archon Sky Knights (think airborne cavalry with flechettes to harass the enemy before making their dive bomb-like spear charge), House Guards (their infantry), Changeling Assassins, Inquistors and Illusonists.
The High Elves who rule El-Phara are NOT nice. Indeed, they're probably more wicked than the Orcs. It's why I make a distinction between the elves humans generally come into contact with (i.e. those who've fled and hide in the wilds) and the ones who conducted regular Wild Hunts against the weaker barbarian tribes for their sport.
QuoteIn old times it see, but most of modern nations and tribes have names reestabilished so many times it sort of faded it seem.
Your examples are largely contemporary European though. This is more akin to European colonists c. AD 1500 naming settlements in the New World... only the elves were basically an unchanging monoculture for several millennia before that.
Also, linguistic drift is much less of a thing when it's been the same elves the whole time.
QuoteOK, I get it with mortals. But elves are not mortals. They know what they are - metaphysically - so it's hardly the afterlife for them - it's more this world is prison for them.
Yup. The Cataclysm did a number on Creation.
According to the Fetches HALF their number were pulled into the Mortal World and one of their main jobs in the afterlife was hunting the damned souls who gave themselves to The Shadow before they could escape into the Mortal World. The number of undead has been on the rise in the 200 years since.
Ultimately, it comes down to a setting conceit. I don't want there to be easy answers about the afterlife for ANY PCs because such firm absolute answers utterly destroy the ability to honestly identify with characters residing in the fantasy world.
Most fantasy settings just pretend such knowledge wouldn't change anything about civilization in the same way they pretend a henotheistic pantheon of good and evil gods is going to produce a culture and values identical to Medieval Europe, just without the Christianity part.
Western civilization was built on the foundations of Christianity. It was extremely counter to cultures that preceded it and the only thing keeping our post-Christian secular society from collapsing into a Might Makes Right/Law of the Jungle dystopia is the inertia of the Christian civilization that preceded it and you can see Western civilization coming apart at the seams as that inertia runs out.
Now, go in the opposite direction and think about what this world would REALLY look like if we knew for certain that, say, the Catholic Church's was 100% right and every other religion was false and whenever anyone even started to try and put forth a heresy that an 100' tall gleaming white angel of the Lord would appear and announce that the heretic's beliefs were false.
That's what ANYONE being able to go into the Otherworlds and return does to a setting. There are no wars over which interpretation of the Biblical God claimed by Jews, Christians and Muslims is correct (so vast chunks of European history just don't happen).
Further, you also KNOW without doubt exactly what it takes to get into eternal paradise. No doubts. No "maybe this isn't really a sin", "I think that verse really means..." or "maybe it's all a crock invented by the hierarchy to maintain their own power." You KNOW. Who in their right mind is going to deviate from the known path in that situation?
For that matter, where is the need to innovate. If you know this world is just a brief pit stop before eternity why devote any time to improving living conditions here? Stone tools are good enough to plow the soil to get enough food to sustain the body until you enter paradise. Why go looking for copper or learn to forge bronze or smelt iron?
A world without the uncertainty of the afterlife and the truth of God/the gods' existence is simply too alien and I don't want my setting to be like every other shoddy D&D that pretends objective truth of gods and the afterlife wouldn't actually change anything.
So the elves are ultimately stuck because it makes a better campaign world.
QuoteTBH I'm surprised considering their initial position - they have not decide to enslave mortals instead. I mean most mortals worshipped Astral Gods IIUC, and elves served as angelic spirits so they should be "so you puny mammals were serving our boss here right, good now you gonna serve us instead as we're here or smth".
Oh, they did try. The main heroic realm now called the Free Cities was made an "Elven Protectorate" not five years after the Cataclysm.
The problem as I alluded to before is numbers. A few thousand humans (all that survived the Cataclysm in the default campaign region) isn't enough to support 60,000 elves in the lifestyles they'd been accustomed to. So the high elves also enslaved their low and common elves.
After 125 years the human population of the Free Cities was finally reaching a level where using them to replace the low elves might be practical, but by then the elves were facing invasion by the seemingly unstoppable orcish Bloodspear Empire (think Roman Legions not barbarians) and opted instead to pull their finite troop numbers from the Free Cities back to protect the El-Pharan heartland and left the Free Cities to the mercies of the orcs.
It was another 40 years before the orc onslaught was halted by the death of their Emperor and civil war between his four children for the throne began. By then the Free Cities (in a case of adapt or die) had established their own armies and were too strong to reconquer.
This is what happens when you're dicks to everyone weaker than you if you can't actually keep pace with their growth.
QuoteWell but astral spirits and primal spirits are not the same it seems, right? I mean Astral Faiths differentiates it IIUC.
Everyone in the setting differentiates. Primal spirits are elemental (air, earth, fire, water, plants, metal, ice, beasts) in nature and even the astral faiths acknowledge they built the Mortal World (primal comes from the fact they were around first; they just regard them the way Greek myth regarded the Titans.
Astral spirits by contrast embody ideas and concepts; rulership, justice, knowledge, love, war, manhood, womanhood, dreams, fortune, etc.
Regardless though, in relation to the point... beings from outside the Mortal World winding up in the world isn't unheard of and neither the demons nor the Eldritch were exactly paragons. Throw in their alien religion and it was pretty easy for human theologians to lean people towards the idea that the elves were not benevolent bringers of wisdom.
QuoteBut now the question is - who is... more right. Like objectively considering inner dealing of Astral Pantheon.
Officially? It's up to the GM.
I have a version that's canon for tables I run, but the entire point of including theological mysteries in the setting isn't to provide a concrete answer; it's to have the same sort of unanswered questions that afflict the real world. That's why there's contradictory evidence that supports any of the religions or even the atheists.
[/quote]From what you wrote so far I'd guess 12 is more or less real number (question of them being shards or reflections of Source aside) - but servants of Death Goddess were separated from Elves from some reason, so Elves do not know her, and Fetches are generally her elves for lack of better words, which would make them simmilar beings in metaphysical descriptor though of course with different accidents. [/quote]
Well, there's all sorts of weirdness about the goddess of death, winter and transition. Her most common epithet is The Grey Huntress and she is either the oldest of the gods (by up to a millennia) and unlike the other astral gods the manner in which she is depicted hasn't shifted across the two major historical periods of astral religion.
As mentioned previously, different astral faiths approach the duality of the aspects of the gods in different ways. The oldest versions say that each of the 12 embody both the good and the bad and are basically beyond morality. Modern versions instead claim this was a mistaken interpretation and there are actually twelve good gods who protect mankind from the twelve evil gods.
The thing about The Grey Huntress is that while all the other gods were split in two (ex. Rulership into just rule and tyranny), instead a new evil god associated with the undead and disease was created as her opposite number (whereas even the oldest tales recorded The Grey Huntress as the enemy of the undead and one who came to relieve suffering not to inflict it).
And on top of that The Grey Huntress is also acknowledged in The Old Faith, but as a powerful primal spirit associated with winter and transition. In the aftermath of The First Empire's fall, the Speakers of The Old Faith have claimed that it was not enough for the Grey Huntress that the primal spirits stand aside and allow the First Empire to be destroyed for its sins; instead she joined the young astral gods in bringing it to its well deserved end and afterwards became an honorary member of the pantheon.
There are some astral sects who also believe this general story but claim The Grey Huntress saw the wickedness of the primal spirits and abandoned them, transforming herself into an astral god.
Which of these tales is true is left to the GM, but if you must know my personal headcanon; none of the astral religions are true; the Old Faith is. The astral gods are the result of the spiritual damage to the mortal world in the war with the demons.
Originally, the world was meant to perfectly reflect the spiritual light of The Source, but the spiritual corruption of the demons shattered its perfect surface and scattering the spiritual light like a mirror ball across the dome of the sky. Where this spiritual energy pooled it gained thought and eventually became the astral gods.
Realizing that they could gain strength by promoting aspects of reality related to their particular mote of spiritual light; they approached the enslaved Beastmen and formed the first astral pacts with them, trading pursuit of the gods' interests for magic to break the hold the biomancers of the first had upon them.
In my personal headcanon, The Grey Huntress is indeed a primal spirit who sided with the astral gods against the First Empire and afterwards maneuvered her way into the pantheon to continue to fulfill her role in shepherding the souls of Men to their proper places in the afterlife even if they had turned their back on The Old Faith.
And in answer to the last question about the Fetches, it's again up to the GM, but my headcanon is that they're NOT astral beings at all. The Huntress' Grey Host are souls undergoing a sort of purgatory to earn remittance for sins committed in life before sending them on to their final reward. The Cataclysm has complicated things, but ultimately even the biggest delay relative to eternity is trivial so when they first arrived in the Mortal World they chose to continue their duties as best they could; hunting the undead and delivering comfort to the sick and dying. Because of the hostile and dangerous life they lead, virtually every Fetch has reincarnated at least once and has no direct memories of existence in the otherworlds, just the stories passed on to them.
The Fetches are essentially the flip side of the elves; same situation as them, but opposite reaction (continue the mission even in changed circumstances vs. abandon the mission to maintain their comfortable circumstances).
The gnomes are the embodied dreams of children vs. the elves who embody the dreams of men (the low elves were once the dreams of peasants and serfs... they are smaller because the self-image of many serfs is similarly diminished by their circumstances. Similarly, the high elves are the embodied dreams of nobles and aristocrats who view themselves as larger than life.
They differ from elves mostly in degree rather than kind and because I literally wrote them up to be playable for my young (8-11) godkids with literally the softest death option of any species... if killed their body turns to mist and they emerge from the mists of the fey crossing they first entered the Mortal World through, but with no memories of their adventures (they have to start fresh unless you find them and use a particular ritual that's as costly/difficult as raise dead to restore the lost memories.
But throwing ALL of that up in the air is the Blood Spear (for which the orc empire is named); a miles tall fortress believed to predate even the arrival of the demons who introduced civilization to the human hunter-gathers... if true then all of the above is wrong.
OK, this go definitely way too offtopic, so I shall restrain my OCD a little bit:
1. In terms of languages that was of course more wide approach, not criticism of specifically elven situation (if anything I was always bit surprised how Tolkien elven languages evolved into quite different forms despite elven immortality).
2. Overall I don't think it's impossible to identify with people who KNOWS about afterlife. I think it can be done, but it demands certain mental exercise, and most of D&D players sort of ignores this, and problems rising from it, so it's not well solved - aside of Eberron, but then Eberron has objective Limbo for souls, so it simply puts most religious elements outside of sphere of afterlife.
And of course it's a bit like your Angel smiting Marthin Luther situation - with this difference that you have multiple sides in eternal conflict, so still it's not like The Truth - but more - choose a side you wanna align your soul with after your dead - bad choice and you can be eaten and anihilated utterly, good choice and you can become celestial badger. Maybe. So afterlife being unholy clusterfuck of Outer Planes is adding certain dimension that even with nature of Planes being known - there is still not like Objective Order there, more... Objective War.
And there will be people who'd prefer take risk to rise in Hellish hierarchies rather than go being archon's flunkie in Celestia - because it's still objectively plausible for earthly tyrant to rise to position of power in Hell.
3. Overall political situation seems finer with every detail. Orcs are IIRC - human mutated by demons for warfare, right? Or by Cataclysm?
4. In terms of Grey Huntress - it's a loose idea, but considering how fracture is this world - I'd definitely include somewhere heresies of Astral that dualised her as well. While undead stance seems to be quite easy to put beyond it - I mean undeath is not mere seelie/unseelie aspects of reality - it is abomination against reality - but faith in her as winter goddess I think supernatural divisions aside should be prone to evolve into such way - bit like Queen Mab of Dresden Files - many aspects of winter. (And winter gods often were kinda assholes in real pagan religions, distrusted and demonised). But that's - just idea.
5. OK I'm still bit confused with elves/gnomes situation. Are they created specifically as servants by Astral Gods to suit their needs, or they manifested on their own from mortal dreams (in which case what about all abstract and weird nightmares?) and they were just appropriated by Astral Gods? In your true!vision of course.
6. Generally I very much like your metaphysics, it's probably my top 10 of published and unpublished wordbuilding efforts in this regard. So I much say I'm more interested in how this world works in this regard, than in - how beings inside have no real idea - could be problem if I ever play it - I mean knowledge of Chaos Gods before I played Warhammer certainly lessered their impact in actual gameplay, simmilarily Cthulhu bestiary is not really genuinely scary these days ;) - but good concept for metaphysics is its own reward anyway.
QuoteBut throwing ALL of that up in the air is the Blood Spear (for which the orc empire is named); a miles tall fortress believed to predate even the arrival of the demons who introduced civilization to the human hunter-gathers... if true then all of the above is wrong.
7. I mean sure it adds extra ancient secret - but still all this history you told me from demon invasion, First Empire, rise of Astral Gods, Cataclysm - all of those could be true, with some extra ancient history forgotten even by those with proper knowledge of demon war times. I mean it's not like demons attacked creation from the get go - so there was time for all kinds of wild forgotten shenanigans.
Off-topic to the thread, but still on the topic of RPGs and grown organically from it so, at least for the moment I feel comfortable continuing. Since your primary interest is the metaphysics, I'll try to address your questions without direct quotes to keep things more concise.
First and foremost is that there is no official right answer in my system for me to spoil should you ever play. This is because pretty much the entire first chapter of my GM's Guide is about how to make the game and setting your own. One subsection lists each of the major questions posed by the setting (which religion is correct, what caused the Cataclysm, etc.) and proposes several possibilities for the GM can pick from for their campaign (or make up their own).
One potential answer is even all the gods are false, all the magic is really sufficiently advanced technology and the world itself is Earth 250 million years from now after the original humans evolved into the "primal spirits" and seeded future Earth with a new evolution of humanity (and other animals) so their ancestral home wouldn't be left empty.
Another section discusses how to present the world fluff ranging from civilization/technology on par with the European Dark Ages (c. AD 650), to a default high fantasy world, to a modern post-apocalypse with magic (direct homage to Thundarr the Barbarian with that version), to a science fantasy setting akin to post-apocalyptic Star Wars (The Source? The Force? What's the difference?).
I WANT GM's to be able to make the game their own. Even the "Big Damn Heroes" is merely a default; the first chapter includes suggestions and optional rules to tune their game to be anything from a silly Saturday morning cartoon to serious survival horror.
BDH also doesn't mean superheroes; it just means not starting at zero. If you put PCs on a linear scale in my system where a peasant conscript is a 1 and an average soldier is a 2, then a starting PC is a 5 (as would be a vetern soldier), a mid-level PC is a 10 and a max level PC is a 20. A dozen soldiers (2x12=24) remain a grave threat to a lone PC even if that PC is max level. An elite soldier (10) would be dangerous even to a pair of starting PCs and lethal to a lone starting PC (and the most dangerous monsters go past 80 on the linear scale).
Tangent aside, you wanted my personal choices for the metaphysics though so I'll endeavor to comply.
The first thing to understand of my personal metaphysical preferences is that I am VERY Catholic to the point of not being comfortable even pretending to worship a made-up god in most D&D worlds.
Evil in my metaphysics is not the opposite of Good, it is the absence of Good. Hell is not someplace where one can rule, it is the Outer Darkness into which you choose to be cast rather than embrace the light; the black winter night beyond the safety of hearth and home. Only the demons trapped there and whispering to foolish mortals to be let in from the cold however briefly sell the lie that one could rule in the Abyss.
My Devil expy; the Demon Emperor once called Lightbringer; came to so hate the life and light of The Source that he devised a scheme by which he would allow himself to be annihilated and his spiritual power transformed into The Shadow World, existing forever in the spiritual shadow of the Mortal World where no light or life can reach and which seeps into and poisons lost souls to twist them into the undead.
Yes, the undead of my setting are actually considered more horrible than even the demons. They are the anathema of all life and exist only to destroy Creation as the Demon Emperor's final act of spite against the mortals The Source so dearly loved.
A related and important point of the cosmology too is that the soul is inviolate; no one can damn a soul save for the soul itself and souls cannot be destroyed or consumed. This is perhaps one of the areas I've hated most about the cosmologies of many fantasy settings where the soul seems little more than a fuel source and the threat of obliteration cheapened from the true cosmic horror if such a thing were possible to a cheap bit of drama.
You just can't have an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God in any sort of setting where one can be damned to Hell or annihilated through no fault of your own. It just doesn't work. So, in my setting, while the body might be reanimated by as a soulless vessel by a necromancer, they have no purchase on a soul that does not wish to become undead. It also means that the most wicked horrors do NOT just kill their victims; that would allow their soul to escape; instead they keep them alive in order to torment them and hopefully drive them to the hatred and despair that would allow them to become an undead... but also gives heroes the time to rescue someone taken before that occurs which just makes for better adventure hooks.
Sidebar: you mentioned astral heresies involving merging the Grey Huntress with her undead counterpart; well, in addition to the above "anthema to all that lives" bit, I'd also suggest that, at least in my headcanon, all such movements met quick and grisly ends before they could gain any traction because invoking the goddess of destroying the undead while trying to create undead strikes me as akin to an ice cube asking for attention from a flamethrower.
This also corresponds to my headcanon answer that Venetrix, The Grey Huntress, is really a primal spirit allowing herself to be worshipped as an astral goddess in order to fulfill her role as The Angel of Death (akin to Michael in Catholic theology who appears to mortals at the hour of death in order to give them one last chance at repentance, thus thwarting the intentions of the Devil). The Fetches are souls saved from damnation by Ventetrix and serving a time in purgatory by making the same offers of redemption to others in Venetrix's stead.
As to the gnomes/elves thing... I've gone back and forth on whether the gnomes should even be a separate species from the elves, with the final decision coming down to my aforementioned "pre-built for my 8-11 year old godkids to enjoy" winning out over their metaphysical commonalities with elves.
Headcanon time... in my headcanon the best analogy for the astral gods is this; The Source is sunlight and the Mortal World a fractured prism where instead of the colors forming a clear spectrum of one color into the next, they were scattered across the dome of the sky. In this analogy the Sky Father is the patch of blue that reaches its zenith in the sky during the spring equinox while Bellos (god of strength and just war) is the red star in ascent in mid summer after the solstice.
Each is a fraction of the infinite spiritual energy of The Source and because they are sparks of the divine (as are human souls) they developed intellects and free will (albeit with an obsessive focus on the spiritual aspect they embody). Lesser astral servitors are basically the reflections of the reflections; motes of divine power affiliated with a particular astral god, but independent of them.
The elves in my headcanon are the motes connected to the most prominent astral reflection; the moon Arcadia that is the spiritual reflection of dreams. Because dreams are so diverse it's more akin to a pale array of the full color spectrum instead of the single colors of the other gods. This makes elves far more nuanced in their personalities than most astral spirits (enough so that they can be PCs... whereas most servitors lack the ability; a succubus could not take an action meant to evoke lust in someone anymore than we could will our hearts to stop beating). Their role in the spirit world was to visit mortals in their sleep to create the dreamscapes they explored and take on the roles of anyone appearing within them... essentially the ultimate improv actors.
What are now the elves did this for adults and the castes correspond to the people they supplied dreams to (high elves supplying mighty and glorious dreams, low elves the small and humble dreams). Gnomes enacted the dreams of children; a very specialized subset as young children's imaginations are more vivid and their dreams don't even require sleep (think "imaginary friend" and you're in the ballpark).
By nature of their tasks the gnomes were so free-spirited they simply could not be constrained by something as stultifying as the elven castes; the dreams of children could be grander than the mightiest king's and humbler than the lowliest peasant's at the same time. So while the elves exiled to Earth organized into their castes and communities, the gnomes scattered into the wilds where they live like the Lost Boys in Peter Pan and don't even have a concept of sex (and, to be honest, find even romantic kissing kind of icky, though oddly intriguing... kinda like a train wreck); when one is killed their body turns to mist and at the location they first entered the Mortal World they walk out of the mists there absent only any memories since they last emerged from the mists.
[looks at questions] Lastly, orcs were humans mutated by the Cataclysm into hyper-predators. They are stronger, faster and possess sharper senses than humans while being equally intelligent and only hindered by heightened levels of adrenaline pushing them to action when others would be cautious.
Of particular note, the orc who united the various bands into an Empire claimed to be the blood heir of the last Praetorian Emperor (and thus rightful ruler of all the lands once controlled by the Praetorian Empire). He risked the dangers of the ancient tower called the Blood Spear and returned with a mighty artifact (called the Bloodspear for which he named his Empire) that made him invincible in battle and threatened El-Phara, the feudal kingdom of Ironhold, the Mercantile Republic of Riverhold and the lands that are now the Free Cities.
But being invincible in battle did not save him from more subtle forms of assassination. His dying breath was the command that his true heir would be the one worthy of wielding the artifact that came to symbolize his rule, but it disappeared with the Emperor's last breath leaving four children each with a valid claim but no way to prove they were the one worthy save by destroying their siblings. Thus did the Bloodspear Empire fall into civil war that continues to this day even though the Emperor's four children are now grandparents themselves.
If someone could unite them the Bloodspear Empire could be the most dangerous force on the continent; so it's in the best interests of everyone to keep them squabbling among themselves.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2021, 02:32:51 PM
Basically, I don't want there to be clean and easy answers to these questions. One of the biggest disconnects between real people and those of many D&D settings is that real people don't have the answers there in concrete form.
From what I have seen of real people is that having answers in concrete form does not stop them from doing or believing anything.
QuoteSidebar: you mentioned astral heresies involving merging the Grey Huntress with her undead counterpart; well, in addition to the above "anthema to all that lives" bit, I'd also suggest that, at least in my headcanon, all such movements met quick and grisly ends before they could gain any traction because invoking the goddess of destroying the undead while trying to create undead strikes me as akin to an ice cube asking for attention from a flamethrower.
Oh, no, no, no - that was most definitely not intention my mine. I totally get undead lord being anathema beyond any rules. I was thinking about something else.
I mean seelie Ruler is Justice while unseelie Ruler is Tyranny. But anarchy is anathema to both of them, and if there was anarchic force both aspects would be all for kicking his ass.
Venetrix aspects dead and winter - have for mortals very dark connotations. I do not consider potential unseelie Venetrix (even as false belief of various sects - and yes I know seelie/unseelie is elven term but you get what I mean) as undead rotting abomination - God of Undeath is (which I guess is memory/aspect of Lucifer himself right?) but more you know Mab from Dresden Files. Cruel, life engstinguishing, predatory Winter (and I mean she is huntress so there is quite easy potential for it). Lady Reaper - but not Rob Zombie. So false and fake yet plausible division would be between protection in midst of winter, protection from undead, midviwe to death and suffering reliever and dark aspect - cruelty of winter, lady reaper who take pneumonia ridden small kids in middle of postapocalyptic forest community, wolves harassing caravans in middle of winter night, and so on.
From pagan perspective I can see it seen as well certain necessary cruelty of natural order. Meanwhile undead are not just - those are bad gods, undead is something MUCH WORSE.
QuoteFrom what I have seen of real people is that having answers in concrete form does not stop them from doing or believing anything.
Yeah to some degree it's right and sort of goes in counter to Chris' argument about how knowledge would change reality - because in the end in classic D&D setting (though some were oversaturated with too many high level NPCs maybe) - number of people KNOWING what's going on is limited, I mean even powerful outsiders are limited often to own domain. Numbers of people who can meet their grandpa in afterlife and return is really really small. And various planes, gods, outsiders are warring with each other - before Faerun, and Krynn get's own planes - Great Wheel was meant to be afterlife for infinite number of prime material planes.
So it's absolute Chaos - and while sure existence of something is well proven, the details are unholy mess, almost certainly.
Now of course - while that how it should be for normal mortals of the world - PCs unfortunately could read books, so they were treated this knowledge bit differently.
Quoteby which he would allow himself to be annihilated
But if he also was soul / spirit of Source ... How?
AD&D1e. 3d6 down the line is the right and proper way to play. Gygax was soft.
https://www.thevikinghatgm.com/2021/02/ad-character-generation.html
I have lots of fantastic memories of ADnD wayback when it was the current version.
I hated 2nd ed, it was a mess and the Skill rules etc were just tacked on.
Basic DnD and the follow on boxed sets were fun for a certain style of play (and still is good if you're looking for that now)
I never played v3 or v3.5, although enjoyed Pathfinder 1st ed, which is apparently a lot like 3.5
4th Ed was a horrible version made to appeal to the MMO crowd.
So whilst I had lots of fun with ADnD, 5e is overall better really than all but maybe ODnD and its modern derivatives in OSR, which are great if you're looking for a play and go simple style gaming.
QuoteAD&D1e. 3d6 down the line is the right and proper way to play. Gygax was soft.
Depends of convention. But I think fgr newbies it's not a bad idea.
Kinds late to this thread but here's my pedigree, so to speak...
I started with OD&D, then BX, then 1e for years. Then 2e for slightly less years as I was in the military for most of that time, then 3e. Bought 4e boxed set and said wtf is this game and thought I'd never play D&D again until 5e came out. Been playing 5e a lot.
If I were to pick my favourite it would be 1e followed by BX, then 2e. 1e because we played the hell out of that version and I have so many good memories of it.
I like 5e too as it's brought a lot of people into the hobby and RPG'S in general but I am beginning to dislike it for the growing wokeness and sjw BS. I hate being told how racist and sexist and everything else I am by people that only know one edition and have no clue about the history of the game and the people who played it before they were even born. Someone mentioned how 2e FR had so many examples of strong women in power in the many towns, cities, kingdoms, etc and the current dross from wotc needs to make a big issue of pointing out women in power now whereas previously it was just a given and accepted already... but that apparently never existed. I realise that's not a rules issue
moreso than a culture issue but it's really leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Like Pundit says, why buy products from people that hate you?
@ Samsquantch
Oh I agree I don't like where it's going and has been going for some time politically.
The books I own are older ones though, so if newer editions have been altered to satisfy a PC agenda, then I'm not affected at this time.
I did get sick of 5e after about 11th level. It suffers the same fate of other editions of DnD and just becomes unwieldy over time with abilities to track etc.
Quote from: danskmacabre on February 16, 2021, 05:37:10 PM
@ Samsquantch
Oh I agree I don't like where it's going and has been going for some time politically.
The books I own are older ones though, so if newer editions have been altered to satisfy a PC agenda, then I'm not affected at this time.
I did get sick of 5e after about 11th level. It suffers the same fate of other editions of DnD and just becomes unwieldy over time with abilities to track etc.
I haven't purchased anything new from WotC since the Abyss book came out (can't recall the name atm) for that reason. I want gaming books from a company, not a lecture on why I am bad Nazi man for how I was born.
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 17, 2021, 02:21:42 AM
I haven't purchased anything new from WotC since the Abyss book came out (can't recall the name atm) for that reason. I want gaming books from a company, not a lecture on why I am bad Nazi man for how I was born.
I recently got the Eberron 5e sourcebook, as I wanted to run a Warforged in some games that were set up recently after work in our office.
I doubt I'll be running Eberron, but I do like the setting and the book is a fun read too.
I haven't particularly noticed a PC agenda in this book, but then I'm not really looking very hard either.
Still, it's been years since the 5e book purchase before that (probably Volo's guide I guess).
When I ran DnD, I used mostly my own content for background and game worlds, so I had no need to buy background books.
Quote from: danskmacabre on February 17, 2021, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 17, 2021, 02:21:42 AM
I haven't purchased anything new from WotC since the Abyss book came out (can't recall the name atm) for that reason. I want gaming books from a company, not a lecture on why I am bad Nazi man for how I was born.
I recently got the Eberron 5e sourcebook, as I wanted to run a Warforged in some games that were set up recently after work in our office.
I doubt I'll be running Eberron, but I do like the setting and the book is a fun read too.
I haven't particularly noticed a PC agenda in this book, but then I'm not really looking very hard either.
Still, it's been years since the 5e book purchase before that (probably Volo's guide I guess).
When I ran DnD, I used mostly my own content for background and game worlds, so I had no need to buy background books.
Since the late 80's my campaign has been set in a semi customised Forgotten Realms setting so I have tended to buy the products as them came out for every edition, in fact some of the only 4th ed stuff I bought was just for setting. I did the same for 5th since 4th edition nearly killed D&D for me and now, the more the lecturing and SJW aspects are coming out the more I am thinking of moving my setting out of FR and just going back to a proper homebrew like it was in the beginning. I will admit though, the fancy maps and products of FR and Greyhawk were a powerful lure for a still young gamer and lot less work (in some ways) than full homebrew. But you can't beat homebrew when it doesn't require reading a thick book to know what's going on since you made it up from the beginning...
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 02:09:38 PM
Since the late 80's my campaign has been set in a semi customised Forgotten Realms setting so I have tended to buy the products as them came out for every edition, in fact some of the only 4th ed stuff I bought was just for setting. I did the same for 5th since 4th edition nearly killed D&D for me and now, the more the lecturing and SJW aspects are coming out the more I am thinking of moving my setting out of FR and just going back to a proper homebrew like it was in the beginning. I will admit though, the fancy maps and products of FR and Greyhawk were a powerful lure for a still young gamer and lot less work (in some ways) than full homebrew. But you can't beat homebrew when it doesn't require reading a thick book to know what's going on since you made it up from the beginning...
I'm running 5e D&D in 1e-era Forgotten Realms, using the Grey Box & Bloodstone Lands. Works great and no problems with Political Correctness.
Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2021, 02:39:08 PM
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 02:09:38 PM
Since the late 80's my campaign has been set in a semi customised Forgotten Realms setting so I have tended to buy the products as them came out for every edition, in fact some of the only 4th ed stuff I bought was just for setting. I did the same for 5th since 4th edition nearly killed D&D for me and now, the more the lecturing and SJW aspects are coming out the more I am thinking of moving my setting out of FR and just going back to a proper homebrew like it was in the beginning. I will admit though, the fancy maps and products of FR and Greyhawk were a powerful lure for a still young gamer and lot less work (in some ways) than full homebrew. But you can't beat homebrew when it doesn't require reading a thick book to know what's going on since you made it up from the beginning...
I'm running 5e D&D in 1e-era Forgotten Realms, using the Grey Box & Bloodstone Lands. Works great and no problems with Political Correctness.
Bloodstone... A name I haven't heard in quite some time... Brings back good memories.
Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2021, 02:39:08 PM
I'm running 5e D&D in 1e-era Forgotten Realms, using the Grey Box & Bloodstone Lands. Works great and no problems with Political Correctness.
Unlike what one sees on SJW forums most rpg tables usually do not have political correctness. Some rules in place such as no sexual assault etc.. Other than that most are their to play rpgs and not worry about that kind of BS/
Quote from: sureshot on February 18, 2021, 05:51:57 PMSome rules in place such as no sexual assault etc..
There's a rule against sexually assaulting your fellow players? Why did no-one tell me this before now?
Quote from: sureshot on February 18, 2021, 05:51:57 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 18, 2021, 02:39:08 PM
I'm running 5e D&D in 1e-era Forgotten Realms, using the Grey Box & Bloodstone Lands. Works great and no problems with Political Correctness.
Unlike what one sees on SJW forums most rpg tables usually do not have political correctness. Some rules in place such as no sexual assault etc.. Other than that most are their to play rpgs and not worry about that kind of BS/
Well my current campaign is online, we've had Lockdowns here since March 2020. But even when I was GMing tabletop my players were not sexually assaulting each other.
My Faerun online game has a fair bit of T&A, but I've not had any complaints. :)
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 02:09:38 PM
Since the late 80's my campaign has been set in a semi customised Forgotten Realms setting so I have tended to buy the products as them came out for every edition, in fact some of the only 4th ed stuff I bought was just for setting. I did the same for 5th since 4th edition nearly killed D&D for me and now, the more the lecturing and SJW aspects are coming out the more I am thinking of moving my setting out of FR and just going back to a proper homebrew like it was in the beginning. I will admit though, the fancy maps and products of FR and Greyhawk were a powerful lure for a still young gamer and lot less work (in some ways) than full homebrew. But you can't beat homebrew when it doesn't require reading a thick book to know what's going on since you made it up from the beginning...
The last time I ran DnD . a year ago I think for some friends, I used a homebrew world. There's plenty of free tools for maps, etc.
I used a series of 1 Page dungeon adventures to string some sort of storyline/campaign together.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/22/need-an-adventure-one-page-dungeon/
It went down quite well and I ended it on a high note with a view to pick it up again with the same characters some time with a new storyline.
Quote from: danskmacabre on February 18, 2021, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 02:09:38 PM
Since the late 80's my campaign has been set in a semi customised Forgotten Realms setting so I have tended to buy the products as them came out for every edition, in fact some of the only 4th ed stuff I bought was just for setting. I did the same for 5th since 4th edition nearly killed D&D for me and now, the more the lecturing and SJW aspects are coming out the more I am thinking of moving my setting out of FR and just going back to a proper homebrew like it was in the beginning. I will admit though, the fancy maps and products of FR and Greyhawk were a powerful lure for a still young gamer and lot less work (in some ways) than full homebrew. But you can't beat homebrew when it doesn't require reading a thick book to know what's going on since you made it up from the beginning...
The last time I ran DnD . a year ago I think for some friends, I used a homebrew world. There's plenty of free tools for maps, etc.
I used a series of 1 Page dungeon adventures to string some sort of storyline/campaign together.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/22/need-an-adventure-one-page-dungeon/
It went down quite well and I ended it on a high note with a view to pick it up again with the same characters some time with a new storyline.
Ah, yes, 1 Page Dungeons are a great resource. I have been using them for a while now..
Quote from: "Chris24601"....The first thing to understand of my personal metaphysical preferences is that I am VERY Catholic to the point of not being comfortable even pretending to worship a made-up god in most D&D worlds.
Evil in my metaphysics is not the opposite of Good, it is the absence of Good. Hell is not someplace where one can rule, it is the Outer Darkness into which you choose to be cast rather than embrace the light; the black winter night beyond the safety of hearth and home. Only the demons trapped there and whispering to foolish mortals to be let in from the cold however briefly sell the lie that one could rule in the Abyss....
AD&D 1e, as written, is not at all disjoint from Christianity, it is jut a matter of adjusting the nomenclature. Religion was intentionally left vague, but the overall structure is implied by clerics and druids.
The devolvement of the cleric into pseudo paganism is likely due to hostility toward Christianity. But it is very clear that clerics, whether good or evil, are monotheists, representing either God or Satan, which are indistinguishable from the good and evil alignments for all intents and purposes because clerics are bound ultimately to those alignments regardless of what "deity" they serve. Druids are very clearly pagans similar to the cult from the Wicker Man (1973), which was a reconstruction of local pagan beliefs.
Some adjustments to nomenclature for clerics:
Good = God
Evil = Satan
Greater deity = archangel or archdemon
Lesser deity = angel or demon
Demigod = mortal creature that has become "god-like"
In other words, good and evil are very real supernatural forces in the game world and are therefore
detectable by spells.
Within Christianity, God and Satan are not on equal terms, but Satan cannot be circumscribed by the game rules, and in any case the rules for alignment vis-à-vis good and evil are the extent to which either interact with the game milieu directly, therefore the issue is immaterial for game purposes. It is enough that the DM understands that good and evil deities are servants of God or Satan.
Druids, and all other pagans, call the creatures or objects that they serve "gods". Clerics should not because they should understand that they serve something higher.
The game alignments good and evil do not map precisely to the real world theological definitions of those words. The alignments of neutrality and evil both correspond to real world evil (i.e. "evil" = "not good"). One must keep that in mind when translating real world concepts into game terms. Druids, who represent game neutrality, are evil in the sense that they do not serve God (good), but instead are very much of the world -- they are materialists first and foremost and worship the dark spirits of the Earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LYxO_LKYq0). Game evil is characterized by the desire to commit the foulest act possible in any given situation (as described by Gygax), aka predatory psychopathy.
In the original PHB there is no true Neutral outer plane, nor should there be one. For me, this means that those of neutral alignment remain on the Prime Material Plane in one form or another after death. Druids themselves believe in and preach reincarnation. In my game, the souls of those who are irreligious and not safe-guarded by druids can sink to the lower planes and become larvae (MM, p. 59).
Objectively speaking, as to whether God is created by Man, or Man is created by God, that is unanswerable. Clerics and druids each have their own subjective view of reality.
Quote from: "Chris24601"....Basically, I don't want there to be clean and easy answers to these questions. One of the biggest disconnects between real people and those of many D&D settings is that real people don't have the answers there in concrete form.
Gods don't manifest in mortal form down the street and we can't cast plane shift, walk up to a god and ask them which interpretation of their religion is correct or be certain of our afterlife because that same plane shift can allow us to meet our ancestor's soul as they're chilling in one of the god's realms....
As pointed out by Gygax in the DMG, "the gods" are not omniscient and therefore can be wrong. Most "gods" are egotistical and arrogant and believe they are the rulers of men, not the dreams of men. And even if a "god" were to manifest, there is no way for mortals to know if it is a god or a demon masquerading as one.
Detection spells can certainly be foiled by more powerful beings, and even a
wish cannot countermand the will of a god-like being. The fog of war should ensure that the PCs have no more concrete knowledge of the mysteries of the universe than anyone in the real world, other than the fact that the supernatural is real.
As I understand it, in the Dying Earth series, few people could travel to the Overworlds physically, they could only visit it mentally, see its wonders and siren-like visions, and pretend that they were there. So no concrete reality.
QuoteAD&D 1e, as written, is not at all disjoint from Christianity, it is jut a matter of adjusting the nomenclature. Religion was intentionally left vague, but the overall structure is implied by clerics and druids.
Dude, there are like srsly like every fantasy aspect makes it problematic in terms of disjointment. Magic-users? What about them? What about their power? Non-human intelligent races? What about them? I mean freaking J.R.R.Tolkien have not made world that is theologically correct so expecting something like this from D&D would be absurd.
And also overall in D&D Law - Chaos axis was originally most important, more important than Good and Evil. Because it was based on dark sword and sorcery books.
QuoteThe devolvement of the cleric into pseudo paganism is likely due to hostility toward Christianity.
Doubt (x).
D&D was from the beginning based mostly on fantasy worlds with various divine and semi-divine powers, godlings, exarchs, and gods. It was rational adjustment of classes to metaphysical descriptions of setting. Greyhawk has multiple pantheons - and it's Gygax's job, not later nasty pagans.
QuoteAs pointed out by Gygax in the DMG, "the gods" are not omniscient and therefore can be wrong. Most "gods" are egotistical and arrogant and believe they are the rulers of men, not the dreams of men. And even if a "god" were to manifest, there is no way for mortals to know if it is a god or a demon masquerading as one. Detection spells can certainly be foiled by more powerful beings, and even a wish cannot countermand the will of a god-like being. The fog of war should ensure that the PCs have no more concrete knowledge of the mysteries of the universe than anyone in the real world, other than the fact that the supernatural is real.
As I understand it, in the Dying Earth series, few people could travel to the Overworlds physically, they could only visit it mentally, see its wonders and siren-like visions, and pretend that they were there. So no concrete reality
Indeed. It's hard to treat adventurer's stories about Outer Planes as revealed strict truth when Outer Planes are MADNESS full of everything, so each story is probably very different from each other.
My solution on squaring my setting's wizards with Catholic theology was to go the Clarke's Law route; wizardry is the application of sufficiently advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic. It is described as "arcane" in the original sense of the term; obscure and hidden knowledge (in this case the knowledge of how to interact with the global system known as the Arcane Web to produce effects - spells are essentially programs written in the Arcanos language; which is described specifically as a 'programming language').
Thus, wizards are no more theologically unsound than physicists and programmers, with the title of wizard perhaps even being recursive from the way we today refer to highly capable experts in the sciences and programming to be "wizards" extended into a post-apocalyptic world where virtually all of that knowledge is lost, save for what the wizards and arcanists have been able to preserve.
* * * *
As to traveling to the Otherworlds, it's worth noting that in general fantasy, myths and legends, the purpose of those places was largely to be a place set aside from the mundane world of the audience where the fantastic could occur.
Narnia, Elfland/Faerie, the Underworld, etc. (even Middle Earth to an extent in that Tolkien separates it from our present age in some sort of forgotten prehistoric realm before the magic faded) exist as places for mortals to visit and experience the fantastic.
But that fantastic world is the default world of most fantasy RPG settings; you're already IN Elfland/Narnia... so what exactly is the setting purpose of what amounts to Elfland+? If you wish to have stories about interacting with the gods, why not just place a physical Mount Olympus or Asgard or Underworld into your setting to begin with?
That's pretty much the approach I use and why their are no Otherworlds reachable by the living. Instead the Mortal World is home to any fantastic beast or environment you'd find in any Otherworld... while the great mysteries beyond the veil can remain obscured.
Because uncertainty is good for versimultude. It's why I include things that don't quite fit all over the place; ex. the Eldritch are tied to the elements, either pure or in combination (ex. cold=air+water, plant=water+earth, metal=earth+fire, beast=air+earth+fire+water), but the combo of air+fire is missing from the options. Why are there none among the Eldritch? It wasn't an oversight on my part; I deliberately left a void to create a question, because things not quite fitting just feels much more true to life than a world where everything fits into place flawlessly.
Life dangles and the best authors are often those that know which things they can leave dangling a bit because they aren't important to the main story and thereby add to the versimultude of the story as a whole by making the world feel more real.
My best advice for people building a fantasy setting is to first ask "what questions about the setting don't need answers for the setting to work?" and don't answer anything that isn't needed.
At least that's the perspective I'm coming from.
QuoteBecause uncertainty is good for versimultude. It's why I include things that don't quite fit all over the place; ex. the Eldritch are tied to the elements, either pure or in combination (ex. cold=air+water, plant=water+earth, metal=earth+fire, beast=air+earth+fire+water), but the combo of air+fire is missing from the options. Why are there none among the Eldritch? It wasn't an oversight on my part; I deliberately left a void to create a question, because things not quite fitting just feels much more true to life than a world where everything fits into place flawlessly.
Simple answer - all surviving phoenixes seeing sheer fuckery of the setting settled on one remote island they turned into highly isolationistic, xenophobic maoist dictature :3
QuoteAs to traveling to the Otherworlds, it's worth noting that in general fantasy, myths and legends, the purpose of those places was largely to be a place set aside from the mundane world of the audience where the fantastic could occur.
Narnia, Elfland/Faerie, the Underworld, etc. (even Middle Earth to an extent in that Tolkien separates it from our present age in some sort of forgotten prehistoric realm before the magic faded) exist as places for mortals to visit and experience the fantastic.
But that fantastic world is the default world of most fantasy RPG settings; you're already IN Elfland/Narnia... so what exactly is the setting purpose of what amounts to Elfland+? If you wish to have stories about interacting with the gods, why not just place a physical Mount Olympus or Asgard or Underworld into your setting to begin with?
Well that depends what those Otherworlds are I think. I mean Narnia is parallel Prime - you can safely have adventures in Narnia with primal spirits and talking animals, not giving a shit to dimension-hopping shenanigans that brought Men to their side of multiverse. Olympus and Asgard in mythos - not in real religion probably but in mythology that survived seems to be not that mystical places and their inhabitants more Superhumans than DIVINE FORCE.
I mean your world is your mundane but it has a lot of fantastic shit within - so you know - sure you cannot meet Angels easily - oh wait their is whole Vedic Caste Society of those assholes called Elves nowadays. Good luck.
QuoteMy best advice for people building a fantasy setting is to first ask "what questions about the setting don't need answers for the setting to work?" and don't answer anything that isn't needed.
I generally agree but the answer for me is - does Creator of setting knows answers or are those just empty places for sake of mystery. I like secrets being hidden, but for istance Pathfinder frustrated me quite a lot, because I had strong feeling they have no coherent vision what really happened to Aroden.
Now TBH I never had much problem with wizards - sure nowadays it was sort of verified that most of esoteric/occult theories were false, but long time ago in ancient and medieval period many were sort of protoscientists in times when people believed world is not as Fallen as it is, and there is still almost physical link between symbolic realms, platonic ideas and so on and mundane.
So in a very very retro-science way, just make them right - and then their powers does not have to came from pacts with demons or whatever unsavory systems you have in your setting. (I mean it's not strictly using archeotech - more natural properties of the world - natural links between mundane and maybe not fully divine but higher realms in their hierarchies.
I know it can sound theologically unsound from perspective of modern Catholic, but hey morally dubious angels turned into pixies to atone for their sins is also not really top notch angelology... :P
Some people in Paizo know what happened to Aroden.
Which is probably why it seems disjointed
Well I hope so. For most time it seems like - we just invented mystery for sake of mystery.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 20, 2021, 05:43:19 PM
Well I hope so. For most time it seems like - we just invented mystery for sake of mystery.
To be fair; I have MY answer to any mystery I deliberately create, but as I explained at a previous point, I prefer presenting GMs with a range of answers so they can pick and choose which they feel is best.
For example, the most mundane answer to where are the air+fire spirits is that air+heat=lightning and are mistaken for as a variety of air elemental (who by default only control wind) by those not up on esoteric Eldritch lore. A more elaborate answer might be that air+heat=radiance and the entire batch decided to take on the role of the Astral Gods for various reasons. A darker answer is that the Demon Emperor Lightbringer was leader of the spirits of radiance and out of loyalty they ALL fell with him becoming demons.
So there ARE answers I've considered, but I leave the definitive one to what the GM thinks will work best for their particular campaign.
QuoteTo be fair; I have MY answer to any mystery I deliberately create, but as I explained at a previous point, I prefer presenting GMs with a range of answers so they can pick and choose which they feel is best.
I get it. It's different thing if you made your setting and by purpose make mysterious things balanced in a way that allows any of basic answers be accepted by other GM as truth, and you put not your objective version up there alone but hidden among many options - I have no doubt answer it there.
With Aroden I'm not so sure. It's not like PAIZO give us 12 possible fates of Aroden for DM's to pick.
Give me a mystery - but not too mysterious!
QuoteGive me a mystery - but not too mysterious!
Well yes indeed, unironically this.
By not too mysterious - I understand - I can plausibly suspect mystery is not here only to titilate readers and cover holes in worldbuilding.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 21, 2021, 04:54:12 PM
Well yes indeed, unironically this.
By not too mysterious - I understand - I can plausibly suspect mystery is not here only to titilate readers and cover holes in worldbuilding.
Another benefit to not definitively answering certain mysteries is that you also prevent unintentional metagaming (and also players getting themselves into pickles because they metagamed off something the GM changed from the usual canon).
One of the jokes I've heard about Forgotten Realms is that it's actual name is "The Fully Mapped Realm" since the years and years of material has left few, if any, mysteries or even places on the map that haven't been fleshed out. It is quite common in my experience for superfans of the Realms to end up referencing things that are supposedly deep secrets of the setting as if they were common knowledge because they were common knowledge to them.
Multiple-choice (and mutually exclusive) answers to various mysteries means the uninspired can still just pick something and yet the players won't know the truth selected any more than the PCs themselves would.
Gonna ignore the multiple walls of text and answer the question directly...
AD&D is my favorite edition, but followed closely by BECMI for nostalgic reasons; I think B/X might be a bit better overall. Oddly enough, I prefer to just run Advanced Labyrinth Lord now, or Castles and Crusades, depending on my mood (usually boiling down to ascending/descending AC).
I am currently playing in a 5th edition game after the inevitable TPK that occurred in a C&C/Castle Zagyg game I was running, but honestly it's too fucking fiddly for me. A LOT of things that I forgot annoyed me about 5th became very apparent, and I also realized nearly all of them were 3rd edition elements. I'll never run 5th again, but playing it...it's okay. I get to drink quite a bit more than when running, so it's tolerable.
I would happily play AD&D 2nd, and keep trying to convince the current DM to run that instead as that is his favorite edition. Gonna keep pushing the issue. I've never played 4th and gave the books away after a quick perusal. Pre-ordered, read through, gave away, maybe two weeks total of ownership. 100% pure trash. Should have been called "The Diablo Emulator RPG" or something. I'll also never play 3rd again, even though I own every single book published for it. Been considering selling them all, might free up some space for more OSR stuff.
Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2021, 07:48:12 PM
A LOT of things that I forgot annoyed me about 5th became very apparent, and I also realized nearly all of them were 3rd edition elements. I'll never run 5th again, but playing it...it's okay.
Yeah, I'm at the same place. But to riff off the popular mantra, I'm starting to wonder if no gaming is better than okay gaming.
Quote from: Aglondir on February 21, 2021, 08:12:45 PM
Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2021, 07:48:12 PM
A LOT of things that I forgot annoyed me about 5th became very apparent, and I also realized nearly all of them were 3rd edition elements. I'll never run 5th again, but playing it...it's okay.
Yeah, I'm at the same place. But to riff off the popular mantra, I'm starting to wonder if no gaming is better than okay gaming.
I'm friends with the group members, so that makes it okay. If it was just acquaintances I would never have played in the first place. Also they're not that serious about it, so again tolerable.
Quote from: ShieldWife on February 10, 2021, 02:39:56 PMAs for the particular issues you bring up, some of them are just making the rules simpler and more consistent.
Simple and consistent rules are always best, as is game balance. Chess would be so much better if all the pieces moved the same way. The queen is so overpowered, and pawns are just useless! All the pieces should be queens who can also move like knights.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 22, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
Simple and consistent rules are always best, as is game balance. Chess would be so much better if all the pieces moved the same way. The queen is so overpowered, and pawns are just useless! All the pieces should be queens who can also move like knights.
False analogy. The players of chess don't just control one piece.
Every piece with its unique moves comprises their options with the only difference between the other player being which side goes first and the position of the king and queen.
QuoteBut to riff off the popular mantra, I'm starting to wonder if no gaming is better than okay gaming.
Without lot of OK-experiences man rarely can achieve any excellent ones.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2021, 08:26:50 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 22, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
Simple and consistent rules are always best, as is game balance. Chess would be so much better if all the pieces moved the same way. The queen is so overpowered, and pawns are just useless! All the pieces should be queens who can also move like knights.
False analogy. The players of chess don't just control one piece.
Every piece with its unique moves comprises their options with the only difference between the other player being which side goes first and the position of the king and queen.
Not really addressing either one of these statements except in an oblique way: the notion of a "unified mechanic" being superior to a set of disparate mechanics is 100% bullshit. In AD&D you roll initiative low on a d6, thief skills use d% under, and attack rolls are a high d20. In 3rd edition everything is a high d20. Which one is better? While I dislike 3rd now, it's perhaps EASIER to grasp at first, but the fiddly bits with the thief skills actually make the class feel mechanically different. So while you gain ease of immediate understanding you tend to lose some flavor. As with anything in life there's a trade-off, so you have to decide exactly what you're trying to achieve. The perfect game doesn't exist except as the ephemeral "fantasy heart-breaker" that nearly everyone who has run games for any length of time eventually tries to create.
This is probably why I waffle between AD&D and Castles and Crusades...I get enamored with the easier mechanics of C&C, but then end up missing some of the flavor provided by AD&D's opaqueness.
Quote from: Brad on February 22, 2021, 09:30:36 AM
Not really addressing either one of these statements except in an oblique way: the notion of a "unified mechanic" being superior to a set of disparate mechanics is 100% bullshit. In AD&D you roll initiative low on a d6, thief skills use d% under, and attack rolls are a high d20. In 3rd edition everything is a high d20. Which one is better? While I dislike 3rd now, it's perhaps EASIER to grasp at first, but the fiddly bits with the thief skills actually make the class feel mechanically different. So while you gain ease of immediate understanding you tend to lose some flavor. As with anything in life there's a trade-off, so you have to decide exactly what you're trying to achieve. The perfect game doesn't exist except as the ephemeral "fantasy heart-breaker" that nearly everyone who has run games for any length of time eventually tries to create.
This is probably why I waffle between AD&D and Castles and Crusades...I get enamored with the easier mechanics of C&C, but then end up missing some of the flavor provided by AD&D's opaqueness.
It's situational, except in the most ivory tower design examples. Unified mechanics simply to have unified mechanics is a bad idea. Different mechanics simply to make everything different is a bad idea. Moreover, different mechanics modeling
essentially the same thing is a bad idea. Unified mechanics modeling
essentially different things is a bad idea.
What makes it situational is that "essentially" the same or different in the model is where the design meets all kinds of issues, including handling time, feel, complexity limits, opportunity costs, etc. For example, the secret door search mechanic is right for AD&D, but not necessarily the best mechanic to extrapolate into a general search option. Depends on what you want to achieve.
My preferences will generally be met if there are 3, 4, 5, or so standard mechanics which are reused where they make sense. Or at least come close enough that I don't mind a little loss of the quirky behavior in order to not have 20 or 30 different mechanics. For a given game, might be a little higher or lower. Depends on how broad the game is. There's always a point where N mechanics was fine and N+1 crosses the line into "We really didn't need that last mechanic when at least 1 of N was close enough."
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 22, 2021, 12:05:33 PM
It's situational, except in the most ivory tower design examples. Unified mechanics simply to have unified mechanics is a bad idea. Different mechanics simply to make everything different is a bad idea. Moreover, different mechanics modeling essentially the same thing is a bad idea. Unified mechanics modeling essentially different things is a bad idea.
What makes it situational is that "essentially" the same or different in the model is where the design meets all kinds of issues, including handling time, feel, complexity limits, opportunity costs, etc. For example, the secret door search mechanic is right for AD&D, but not necessarily the best mechanic to extrapolate into a general search option. Depends on what you want to achieve.
My preferences will generally be met if there are 3, 4, 5, or so standard mechanics which are reused where they make sense. Or at least come close enough that I don't mind a little loss of the quirky behavior in order to not have 20 or 30 different mechanics. For a given game, might be a little higher or lower. Depends on how broad the game is. There's always a point where N mechanics was fine and N+1 crosses the line into "We really didn't need that last mechanic when at least 1 of N was close enough."
Not going to disagree here. I think a lot of modern gamers look at OD&D and point out all the "stupid" design choices, failing to realize most of them made perfect sense within a wargaming context. They get mad that hit points don't actually represent real wounds, or that you need a table for attack rolls, or movement is in inches. None of those things were out of the ordinary for a wargame, and in fact were probably seen as the correct implementation.
To me it seems like the more narrativist the game, the more you can get away with a single mechanic. Simulationist games tend to require more mechanisms, I think. The DM has to interpret the rolls more in the previous case, which puts even more onus on them, in which case you sort of end up arriving at the original referee model of absolute DM fiat. And then you can actually have a simulationist game because the DM can create any sort of mechanic they need to determine the outcome of any situation. So basically make your own game.
Dunno.
Many heavy-skill based games are definitely closer to Sim corner of SGN triangle - and yet they usually use same mechanics for skill resolution for everything - whether it's d100% in Cthulhu or Warhammer or 3d6 in Gurps
The benefit of unfied mechanics is they're easy to learn and easy to remember.
If you're game is simple enough, like for example, B/X it doesn't matter.
If you have 1000 subsystems and they're all different then you have a problem.
There's a dominant core resolution mechanic in AD&D, and that is a % probability with a most likely outcome and a least likely outcome
This is expressed differently for action types by using varied dice, and also whether high/low is "good" from the players POV for reasons of:
1) aesthetics, which analytical philistines largely ignore since it touches them not or very little. It is not an accident that as we've become obsessed with rationality and systems that an overripe banana tacked on to a plain canvas is acceptable as fine art.
2) our mind already associates good with low sometimes, and with high sometimes, on context alone
3) compressing the % into different pip ranges sometimes allows one roll to convey more than one piece of info because the dice expression correlated with a rule having less than one hundred possible outcomes; e.g., the surprise roll result indicating both whether a state of surprise exists, and if so for how long
You do not want to roll percentile dice for attack rolls. It works just fine but doesn't feel right as compared to that rock of hope that rolls pleasingly around the table. Why did top secret never catch on? % dice. Why did Runequest mainly serve as the darling of RPG aficionados instead of 8th grade lunch rooms? % dice.
Likewise, what die have you rolled most often in your life? The d6. What die is the most associated with win-lose gambles of chance? The d6. When daddy needs a new pair of shoes from the craps game in the back alley, what is being rolled? D6. What is the only die that feels right for the opposed gamble that is initiative and surprise? The d6.
When you're at the county fair showing off your muscles to your girl, and trying to win her a giant panda bear at the mallet meter, does it seem right that the plug goes higher if your strong, or that it descends from a height a farther distance toward the ground? It feels right that you make it climb that bitch and ring the bell at the top. The bell is a natural 20, and rolling higher feels right for an attack
Likewise, if someone says "the chance of success is 85%" does your mind think in terms of 01-85, or 16-100? It thinks in terms of 01-85. Higher does not seem better, unlike the mallet meter. You're trying to beat an odds, not do the biggest and best that you can. You're not trying to succeed, you're trying to not fail.
People obsessed with unified mechanics forget they're trying to appeal to brains having bifurcated hemispheres.
Quote from: EOTB on February 23, 2021, 03:06:58 AM
Likewise, what die have you rolled most often in your life? The d6. What die is the most associated with win-lose gambles of chance? The d6. When daddy needs a new pair of shoes from the craps game in the back alley, what is being rolled? D6. What is the only die that feels right for the opposed gamble that is initiative and surprise? The d6.
.
Of course the most rolled die is going to be a d20.
What am I some kind of yahtzee geek?
Quote from: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 04:33:45 AM
Of course the most rolled die is going to be a d20.
What am I some kind of yahtzee geek?
Indeed.
I'll also point out that 3e and 5e both exploded well beyond AD&D and what did they have in common? A unified mechanic of roll high on a d20+mod vs. DC.
Because 1d20 vs. DC 18 (15%) is within 2% of a 1-in-6. (16.67%), and DC 14 (35%) is within 2% of 2-in-6 (33.33%).
In fact, you're no more than 2.5% from any percentage you care to bring in from various other dice chances.
It's got enough granularity to pretty much sub in for any of the odds-based dice rolls without requiring you to read two dice at once like the percentiles that few people enjoy (I'll give EOTB that much).
It's also got a good feel for rolling (d4, d8 and d10 are too pointy, the d12 feels good, but no one likes working with its oddball percentages which is why it mostly only serves as a damage die).
And as EOTB points out, it's got an easy "hit for the fences" roll high is good feel to it.
You can hate on unified mechanics as much as you like (they're mechanics, they don't have feelings), but it's inarguable they played a big role in catapulting WotC-era D&D into the stratosphere. Even it's biggest competition (Pathfinder) used the same basic resolution.
I think the lesson to take from it is that the key to unified mechanics is to pick the right mechanic to unify things with.
The core d20 System mechanic has pretty much the best of all worlds in being almost percentile level granularity, with a flat probability curve with even distributions (each face is 5%) that makes calculating modifer sizes and target numbers to match the desired odds rather intuitive (it doesn't hurt that US currency outside the penny and $1 bill also break on the 5s... counting in 5s is natural to Americans) and married to the "single die that feels good in the hand" advantages of the d6.
The only thing it really doesn't do well is damage because it's range is too high for the numbers to be manageable; which is why the other dice stick around for the job of delivering manageable sized damage numbers without having to use fractions.
First post here. Been lurking a while, finally decided to join.
For me AD&D and 2nd Edition are the best. If I had the opportunity I would play/dm either of those two over anything else. A second choice would be B/X or BECMI. 5e is okay, it just feels kind of watered down compared to the older editions. 3rd and 4th no real desire to play other than as a one shot.
Welcome Nosaje!
I share your opinion on versions preference though I would add 3e into my list of enjoyed versions. 4e was just not D&D at all for me, it was too much like a video game simulator with crappy graphics.
QuoteYou do not want to roll percentile dice for attack rolls. It works just fine but doesn't feel right as compared to that rock of hope that rolls pleasingly around the table. Why did top secret never catch on? % dice. Why did Runequest mainly serve as the darling of RPG aficionados instead of 8th grade lunch rooms? % dice.
Because Americans have no souls, that's why. And in Poland Warhammer rules supereme ;)
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 23, 2021, 12:44:03 PM
4e was just not D&D at all for me, it was too much like a video game simulator with crappy graphics.
You had graphics with yours? Damn, I had to imagine my own.
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 23, 2021, 12:44:03 PM
Welcome Nosaje!
I share your opinion on versions preference though I would add 3e into my list of enjoyed versions. 4e was just not D&D at all for me, it was too much like a video game simulator with crappy graphics.
TY! I'll be honest I played a total of one session of 4e. It was blah. To video gamey as you said. I would only play it if my arm got twisted.
Quote from: Crusader X on January 24, 2021, 01:49:32 PM
And by players I also mean DMs.
I like alot of things about 5e. But I started with D&D B/X in the early 1980's, so something like The Keep on the Borderlands is quintessential D&D for me. Venturing into monster-filled dungeons for fortune and glory, with resource management and player ingenuity playing a big part of whether your PC survives. Not saying you can't do this in 5e, but its built for more heroic play, and tends to hand-wave some of the struggles a PC would encounter in the older versions. Which might be a good or a bad thing, depending upon what you want from the game.
So B/X is probably my favorite version. What is your favorite version of D&D, and why?
At the moment, 3.5 is my favorite version. It's the version I started with and have the most experience with. (I went with Pathfinder when 4th Edition came out because I didn't trust what I was seeing, but boy howdy was I ever ignorant of the wokeness Paizo was harboring.)
3.5 aside, I'm trying to branch out to B/X, 1st Edition, and 2nd Edition. 2nd Edition I know rather well thanks to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, but the others I'm coming into very late through retro clones.
Quote from: Nosaje on February 24, 2021, 05:52:14 PM
Quote from: Samsquantch on February 23, 2021, 12:44:03 PM
Welcome Nosaje!
I share your opinion on versions preference though I would add 3e into my list of enjoyed versions. 4e was just not D&D at all for me, it was too much like a video game simulator with crappy graphics.
TY! I'll be honest I played a total of one session of 4e. It was blah. To video gamey as you said. I would only play it if my arm got twisted.
Well I for one am just glad that you gave it a fair chance.
It's a well known fact that SimCity is 100% the better game than Final Fantasy Tactics. Especially when used on the table top to represent medieval adventurers.
I like 5E. It's a good game. But I prefer pre 3.x
Some of my friends and I were talking about creating kits for a 2E games that would emulate what we like about 5E. That was just an idea.
Quote from: Arnwolf666 on February 25, 2021, 08:51:51 PM
Some of my friends and I were talking about creating kits for a 2E games that would emulate what we like about 5E. That was just an idea.
Actually a pretty good idea. Some of the actual published kits were pretty close to 5e in power anyway. And if you're willing to use the Players Options series I think you're pretty close for a lot of stuff like Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Battlemasters.
Welcome Nosaje, fellow basker in 2e glory! 8) We traipse in yonder unicorn glen with thoughts of chivalry dancing in our heads.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 22, 2021, 09:10:37 AM
QuoteBut to riff off the popular mantra, I'm starting to wonder if no gaming is better than okay gaming.
Without lot of OK-experiences man rarely can achieve any excellent ones.
This is true. Perhaps why they say "5E is everyone's second-favorite system." Actually they used to say that 5 years ago. I imagine that by now, 5E has become the favorite system of many people. To that I say, enjoy.
I played almost no D&D until 3e came along, just tiny bit of 83 Basic and a few 2e games.
I quite enjoyed 3e and some derivatives at the time, but would never go back to it, except maybe something really stripped down like Mongoose Lone Wolf.
I enjoyed 4e at first, but came to despise it as anything other than a pretty good tactical skirmish game.
I ran some 1e dungeon crawling some years back, when OSR was still a fairly new thing, and I quite enjoyed it. This was my first exposure to the true strengths of D&D (IMO). When I started thinking about doing something similar again, I was leaning towards B/X or some derivative, finally settling on ACKS (which I haven't played yet, but plan to after my current game).
If I have to limit myself to the games I've played, 1E wins hands down. If I'm allowed to include games I haven't played yet, it's ACKS (without too much of the stuff that gradually getting added onto it, and which seems will be integrated into 2e, moving it further away from it's B/X roots). B/X or ACKS feels to me like all the upside of 1e, but more streamlined and coherent.
There's nothing I've heard or read about 5e that suggests to me I have any reason to play it over 1e, B/X or ACKS.
Why ACKS? At it's core, it's B/X with a very lightweight feat system, ritual magic rules that let you use higher level spells without ever making them easy, what appear to be some pretty decent domain and campaign activity rules inspired by BECMI, and a pretty good system for building or modifying classes to match whatever setting you want to go for.
Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2021, 07:48:12 PMI would happily play AD&D 2nd, and keep trying to convince the current DM to run that instead as that is his favorite edition. Gonna keep pushing the issue.
He texted me a couple days ago with, "Ok, after much deliberation I think the way forward is 2e using the siege engine and AC system from C&C."
Looks like my arguments worked.
Quote from: Brad on February 26, 2021, 10:01:40 AM
He texted me a couple days ago with, "Ok, after much deliberation I think the way forward is 2e using the siege engine and AC system from C&C."
Looks like my arguments worked.
Another wandering soul is saved by the light of AD&D.
Quote from: deathknight4044 on January 27, 2021, 03:34:43 AM
For anyone that might be interested heres a set of rules that blends 5th edition and AD&D 1st edition very elegantly.
http://scruffygrognard.com/
The PDFs are all listed here and free to download.
Yea, they are a pretty good mix and worth a look. I used to think it was actually the other Chris Perkins who wrote it. heh
For just browsing and reading like a book for fun, 1e set hands down.
As a player with Covid-restricted online play, have to admit that currently playing in a 5e game with the automated D&D Beyond sheet and dice has been really handy and makes the game flow well. Takes away a lot of the ambiguity for players as we can access the reference for every little thing on our sheet to clarify with the DM.
I have OSE and love the B/X but it's more as a keepsake so my kids can see what it was like. Also like to refer to it for the little things missing in 5e for dungeon crawling, etc.
For running a game, current feel is D&D 5e SRD, coupled with the Cubicle 7 Adventures in Middle Earth third-party stuff is a nice blend: it sets a particular setting, limits the races and it all makes sense. With all the extra WOTC crud kept in check and a few house rule limits on resting, it works quite well. If you run the game, you call the shots and can avoid all the 5e bloat, making it work pretty well.
While I would love to run some B/X D&D, Swords & Wizardry, or Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyboria 5E runs pretty darn well and we are heavily invested in it on D&D Beyond. I just bring some Old School sensibilities into my games.
Some days I start planning my next OSR campaign and then I usually remember that I'm enjoying this game because of the people I'm playing with and not the rules we are using.