This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - abcd_z

Pages: [1] 2 3
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028913
See, that's why I would never play a Harry Potter game. No fireball.

Harry Potter doesn't really have a hard spellcasting system.  Spells tend to succeed or fail according to the needs of the plot.  As much as it's disliked in this forum, I'd say the best system for emulating this would be a (*gasp!*) narrative one like Fate Accelerated.

And in a system like that, I don't see anything wrong with a PC casting "Fireball", even if there's no precedent for it in the books/movies.

Quote from: JeremyR;1024757
We saw this in the Xbox and 360 days, too. There were a handful of Burger King games and then Toyota has a "Yaris" game.

I'm still annoyed that my shrink-wrapped Burger King games never increased in value.

The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Mike Mearls is firing you from D&D
« on: January 23, 2018, 06:22:52 AM »
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1021185
Nevermind that a hobby where 90% of the rules center around stabbing people, setting them on fire, and setting angry zombie-spider-wolves upon them to tear their throats out will never reach a point where 50% of its fans are women.

I really don't see why not.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that women are just as good at roleplayed sociopathy as men are.

Well, how hard could that be?  3.5, at least, seems pretty simple to convert. Classes are converted like I said, and monsters shouldn't be that much harder.  

Monster Conversion:

To get OD&D AC, start with d20 AC.  Halve anything after 20, so 22 becomes 21, 30 becomes 25, etc.  If you're using ascending AC, that's the number right there.  If you're using descending AC, subtract the result from 19 (or 20, whichever makes more sense for the edition you're using).

To get OD&D HP, cut the d20 HP in half (rounding up) and cap the results at 40 HP.  This assumes you're using d6 hit dice for monsters.  To bring the converted monsters in line with d8 hit dice monsters, divide the d20 HP by 1.6 instead of by 2 and the cap becomes 50 HP.

Monsters should only have a few special abilities.  Looking at Balor, a CR20 example from 3.5, we'd keep Spell Resistance 28, Entangle, Vorpal Sword, and Flaming Body, and discard all the rest.  

Higher-level monster attacks should get nerfed.  A CR 7 attack (chimera dragon's breath) goes from 3d8 to 3d6 (reducing average damage by 3), and the Balor's flaming body attack goes from 6d6 to 3d6 (reducing average damage by 10.5).  The pattern kind of looks like "reduce attack damage by CR/2" but it's a pattern of only two points, so I can't guarantee anything.

I think that's about all of it.  The number of attacks don't quite match up, but I don't think that really breaks the system.

Did I miss anything?

Ooh, here are two more ideas I have: a spellcaster who can equip like a thief in exchange for limiting his spell memorization abilities (only copies of one spell per level per day), and a mage who can cast spells at-will but they can only be evocation spells.

Quote from: JeremyR;1015704
I've done a bunch.

OTOH, I thought the whole point of playing OD&D was that it's supposed purity, unsullied by the hands of man, only the god Dave Arneson, as channeled by his prophet EGG.

Nope.  In my case it's all about the simplicity.  Once RPG rules pass a certain point I have trouble understanding them, so I want to work with the absolute simplest version of D&D that can still be called D&D.  Even then, I surprised myself when I realized I could understand the rules given in the Swords and Wizardry whitebox edition.

And let's be honest here: nobody plays OD&D strictly by-the-book, because the book itself requires interpretation and encourages house-ruling.

Dunno.  Honestly, I spend a lot of time cobbling together new rules systems based on Fudge, and I just managed to create a conversion system from OD&D to Fudge, so naturally I've started spending time messing around with OD&D systems.  I talk about players, but I don't currently have anybody I'd be running this for.  Mostly a thought-experiment.  Just throwing it out there and seeing if anybody has any feedback.  *shrug*

EDIT: Although I do have a minor concern about one thing.  In some editions, wizards normally get all their first level spells then pick up higher level spells elsewhere.  If we have two spellcasters with different spells, what's to keep them from teaching each other all their first level spells and potentially doubling their spells known?

I was inspired by the Pyrologist character class for OD&D (starts on page 3, though not all of it is readable) and did some number-crunching.  It's surprisingly easy to backport character classes from 3.5 to OD&D.  BAB/1.5 becomes the to-hit bonus, roll the hit dice down by one level to a minimum of d4, and only keep special abilities if they're thematic enough and the character gains them at first level.  So Cleave, Turn Undead, and Backstab/Sneak Attack for the Fighter, Cleric, and Thief/Rogue, respectively.

In the end I decided to convert 3 additional classes, which I may or may not let my players use: the Dread Necromancer, the Beguiler, and the Warlord.  I like the spell selection, though all three are spontaneous casters and I'm not sure if I'll keep that element or make them traditional spellcasters.  If I do let the players take those classes, it will only be after they've encountered an NPC of that class.  Much more fun to hit them with an Orb of Acid when they have no idea something like that is possible.  ;)

At the very least, it'll be a good source of new spells for any spellcasters in the party (assuming they can get their hands on the spellbook).

I'm also thinking of creating a sort of hedge mage who can only cast spells from a specific domain, one spell from each level.  "Watch out for those holly berries!  They explode!"  "Riiiight..."  *BOOM!*

Quote from: Redforce;1008621
Savage Worlds - I like the variety of character options, but the rules themselves seem to be a bit clunky and over-complicated for my tastes (ironic, since SW is billed as Fast! Furious! Fun!, and it really does seem less complex than a lot of other games I have looked at / played)

Quote from: Madprofessor;1010054
I'm pretty much in the OP's boat. [...]  SW was almost "it" for us as it has great, simple character development and options.  You can easily create just about anything you want and have strong mechanical reinforcement for it.  But, there is some real wonkyness in play that killed it for us.

Okay, here's my recommendation: Create characters in Savage Worlds, then play them in Fudge.  It's almost a perfect match, honestly.   Skill dice become Fudge rankings, with d4 being Mediocre, d6 being Fair, etc.  Bennies become Fudge Points.  SW bonuses and penalties are cut in half.  Armor and weapons require a little more effort to convert, but not a lot.

Personally I prefer combat resolution to be as simple as possible so I run Fudge Lite, but Savage Worlds maps a little better to the slightly crunchier original Fudge rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;974996
For as long as I can remember, cheap gamers have been complaining about how expensive D&D was.

Yup.  Here's a copy of a 1974 review of D&D.

Second-to-last paragraph:  

Beyond the problems involved in play (find an intrepid referee), the other discouraging factor is price.  These booklets are roughly comparable to "The Courier" in physical quality, but at $3.50 each are priced rather high.  Worse, all three are necessary.  Graphics, considering the format, are decent, with some excellent illustrations, but some space could have been saved without compromising appearance.

"If you didn't want us to kill it, you shouldn't have written stats for it!"

The problem with AM spells is as follows: Fudge doesn't combine skills very well.  I'm thinking of just giving players access to nouns and verbs, then say that each noun gives full access to all the verbs, and each verb gives access to all the nouns.  So somebody with skill in, say, alteration spells, would be able to alter mind, body, magic, elements, etc; while somebody who is a fire mage would be able to, among other things, create, move, alter, and destroy fire.  In a situation where a player has overlapping skills, they would just use the highest one.  

Here are the verbs I came up with:  


Mental manipulation/control

I'm not as certain about the nouns.  I want to balance them so that they're useful but not overpowered.  Here's what I have for those:

A material (specific physical object or component)
A sense (sight, hearing, etc.)
An element (fire, earth, lightning, acid, sound, light, etc.)

I'm trying to convert D&D to Fudge and I have everything but the spell categories figured out.  Instead of memorizing spells a wizard would just roll their skill against the spell difficulty to see if the spell succeeds.  I want these skills to be roughly balanced against each other, so that no one skill list is obviously more useful than another. I want each skill to be roughly as useful as a melee combat skill or a broad thievery skill (so obviously I can't just put every spell under the same skill).  I don't want a player to have to look anything up.  If a player said, "I specialize in fire spells", that's pretty straightforward.  Their character could probably cast spells like fireball and burning hands, and they wouldn't have to look up any actual spells.  On the other hand, if they said, "I'm an abjuration specialist," I'd probably have to check a list of spells to see what they could actually do with that, which is not what I'm looking for.

Any suggestions?  I've found a few ideas online, but nothing that seems like it would work as a drop-in replacement for a wizard in a dungeon crawl.

Quote from: RunningLaser;955363
A poster mentioned doing this, but wondering if any games forgo initiative and just have both sides go at once?  Only one I can think of is Tunnels & Trolls.

It's not exactly D&D, and it's certainly not OSR, but personally I swear by Dungeon World's initiative system.  Or rather, lack thereof.  There's no initiative; combat is treated the same as any other conflict resolution.  The DM describes the oncoming threats and asks the players how they respond to those threats, shifting the spotlight between players as appropriate.  

It works surprisingly well.

Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Best one-shot rpg
« on: March 08, 2017, 03:39:54 AM »
Quote from: TrippyHippy;949960
Your Favourite System, because lets face it, any game that you are familiar with can be used for a one shot as you wish.

Seconding this.  My Favorite System is perfect for a one-shot game.

Pages: [1] 2 3