Mordenkainen

Lawgiver's page

319 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

You can always revert to a really old (1st Ed) method: Roll all 1st level HP normally. After that, each time a character gains a level, instead of rolling a single die and adding in the new amount (along with bonuses) to the old total, roll the appropriate number of dice for the new level, add in the bonuses, then if the new total exceeds the old one, they get the new total.

Example: Grolf, a fighter, just made 6th level. His CON gives him 1pt per die bonus. At 5th, level he had 38 HTK, counting bonuses. Instead of rolling 1d10+1, and stacking it, Grolf roll 6d10+6. Say the roll adds up to 41. Grolf now has 41 HTK at 6th level. If he rolled only 29, he would keep the 38 all the way through 6th to 7th.

This is a form of "averaging" in that multiple dice, when added together, do tend to present the appropriate bell curve. Thus 6d10 would have an "average" roll of 33 (5.5 pts per die x 6 dice = 33). Characters of all classes would tend not to have extraordinarily high HTK most of the time. In the event of an extreme high-curve roll, the character gains the benefit for that level, but as he gains new levels, his HTK will tend to drop back towards the average again.

Play with the math, give it a try. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.


Non H&S games rely on political intrigue, financial malfeasance, social maladjustment and general personal disfunctionality of about everybody the PCs come into contact with. Watch any random Soap Opera (“Daytime Television”) or any themed night time series (CSI [any of them], NYPD Blues [or comparable], The Sopranos, etc.) and take ideas from these to begin building the web of intrigues that can be used for the “clue hunting” necessary to create a non- or reduced-combative adventure. Once you’ve done it a couple of times it gets easier. Frankly, I prefer less combat and more puzzles of various kinds. Characters don’t dies as often and the party can really jell with these kinds of stories in ways they just can’t in a blood-spewing romp.


Keeping in mind that I still only play 2E, not 3x, the only way I've ever allowed or seen firearms in a "fantasy" game was when Gnomes (inventors and mechanics) occasionally "invented" one and needed an adventure group to escort them out to help test the beastie. The problems are predictable but still entertaining.

Other than that, I leave them out of the mix. Game balance may or may not suffer; that's usually a matter of how well the DM handles the rules and such. I always have the most problem with players taking up too much time comparing notes on guns of all sorts, and sometimes taking entire game sesisons arguing the merits of various types of firearms from Saturday Nights Special purse pistols to 16" naval artillery. Very boring, very time consuming and not matter how harsh I treat their characters in game as punishment for it, the players never get the hint...ergo, no guns.


Galdeshere

Just one random name I came up with on the spot. If you want one of your own, try to keep the first syllable beginning with a harsh sound. Classic fiction stories of the past like Barsoom, Kregen, and many of the other fantasy worlds we read about have names that begin with plosives (B, P, T, D, G, J, K, Q, V, Z) that just seem to give the place a more grand-sounding name. You'll find the tendancy is also for some of the better "heroes" to follow the same pattern. So keep it in mind not only for the world but for NPC and even PC characters. Hope that helps.


The difficulty I’ve always had with pre-fabs is that they never cover enough contingencies. I know…even homebrews can’t cover them all, the party can and will go off the deep end at a moment’s notice and you gotta be creative in kicking them back into play. But, pre-fab modules hardly cover anything beyond the minimum for advancing the story line. Following just what’s in the book, you and the party both will feel like you’re being pulled along…no choices, no creative solutions, no odd action to spice the setting. These are things you’ll still have to create yourself.

You’ll know you’ve learned the module well enough when you start coming up with ideas for things to do in addition to what’s written in the module and/or start thinking of ways the party is likely to pooch the action as written and begin designing fixes for it. That’s when the module starts coming to life and begins becoming part of your setting, not a piece of text you’re throwing in just for giggles.

You might want to do like Fatespinner said he does in the “Be your own DM?” thread; run things through solo in hypothetical situations just to test outcomes. That’s one of the best ways I’ve found to uncover flaws in the module and fix them before they do me in at a live table.


Mastermind: Human mages. They’re in the best position to
know a lot,
have the funds to pay for it (or be able to get them),
get around plenty so they can use it,
trick others into thinking they just couldn’t be one, etc.
Otherwise, I use Beholders. They’re just too good…heh.

Cannon Fodder: Any of the Goblin Tribe types: Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, etc. They breed like flies, so there’s no argument about numbers and they’re cheap to equip and replace.

Scapegoat: Definitely, Elves. They’re just too perfect for taking blame, especially if they deserve it.

Mover/Shaker: Drow. These guys just have the knack for affecting things on a large scale.

Player punishment: Magical traps. If characters are off track and I can’t get them back onto the railroad, things start going blooie! with a vengeance. They always curse the bad guys for having such foresight, but they get back to the business at hand fairly quickly.

Beatdown machine: A couple of dozen Fire Giants with a full complement of Hellhounds each. There’s not much that says pain quite like that…unless of course it’s a Catoblepas on Meth…or Trolls with Rings of Fire Resistance…you get the idea…


I'm very much a die-hard (read inveterate) 2nd Ed. AD&Der! But, I already have everything I need (sorry). I agree with the Dragonsfoot.com idea.


Every word (however contradictory seeming) is excellent advice. Moff’s basic list is a very good template to begin working from, with the add-ons from others making good points as well. I always get a little nervous trying to advise new folks, because the nature of the game is so individual. Without experiencing one or more of your games to “assess” your style, skills, knowledge, etc., I can’t give anything more concrete than has already been stated, though I think the most important advice given so far is along the lines of “relax, enjoy yourself, make sure your players are enjoying themselves, and everything else will work itself out”, will sum it up. Enjoy.


Seems like a lot of hullablaloo over a small thing. I wouldn’t have adjudged it “evil”, particularly given all the extenuating circumstances. The key to me is that the action was taken against an evil minion of a major dark deity/devil, etc. There’s not much a non-evil character can do to one of those guys that they themselves haven’t already done to someone else. Almost anything done to them is justifiable, at least from a moral standpoint. Goods (as long as they don’t revel in the pain they’re causing) can look piously down their noses and call it retribution, a small increment of karmic payback, whatever. Neutrals can shrug their shoulders and say/think, “What goes around comes around..” Lawfuls can look at it as justice, at least of a sort, while Chaotics wouldn’t care one way or another.

The NG character doesn’t care about Law/Chaos, so that’s irrelevant. From the Good/Evil side, he didn’t do it maliciously. His intent was not to cause pain for the sake of causing pain. He didn’t do it for self-serving reasons, in that the benefit would have been for the whole party and the larger scope of the good guys “winning”. He was not going to be sole beneficiary at someone else’s expense.

So, no. Not evil. Not by a long shot. I see it perfectly justifiable according to the character’s alignment and your reasoning as given. Throw in the extraneous extenuating circumstances of fractional timing gaffs and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash. You’re good to go in my book.


Only the first 37 volumes were printed for the American release. The last American release was in 1988. I’ve been waiting a long time (almost 20 years) for anything ‘new’ to come out. Recent internet searches have finally revealed a bonanza for me and other Prescott fans. Here’s the salient points, for those who didn’t already know.

1) “Alan Burt Akers”, the name under which the books were printed, was one of many pseudonyms used by H. Kenneth Bulmer, a noted U.K. fiction author.
2) Bulmer died in 2005 at age 84.
3) Bulmer actually had 15 additional Prescott volumes published in Europe.
4) The first 8 of these European printings were e-books only
5) The last 7 were in German only.
6) Mushroom e-books has finalized agreement with Bulmer’s estate (read family) to begin reprinting ALL of the Prescott novels in English (including the e-books and German-only editions) beginning around Jan 2008. They plan to print 3 per month for the first year (or attempting to complete the first 36-37 American volumes that year), then to begin putting out the final 15 volumes at one per month until they’re finished. This would begin the unseen volumes 38+ beginning in Jan 2009 and completing the set around March-April 2010.

For someone like me who always felt the stories halted in mid-stream (like a sneeze that wouldn’t happen) I’m tickled %@itless!

Anyone else excited over the news?


The painting by Dorian-X on the cover of the 2E D&D Complete Set on CD ROM. This is one hot babe, and about as Fantasy RPG as you can get, in more than one way. I can't get a picture to post, even in a "Spoiler". Bummer. If you can find it online, take a gander and then tell me you have something better, 'cause if you do, I wanna see it.


Find something the color you want (doesn't matter what, ink, crayon, whatever) and fill the number with it, but not all the way up to the edge. Then fill the remainer of the slot/groove with clear fingernail polish. This dries to a semi-hard consistency that can take a bit of a beating before it wears and can be touched up without a lot of hassle. Dries to usablility in less than an hour. Or you can try clearcoat varnish or some other very hard clear coat material for paints, stains, etc. They all work to one degree or another. If you really want to get radical (and risk unbalancing the dice) you can use a very fine tipped wood-burning tool or something similar to scorch the numbers in. I've seen them all used with various degrees of success. The key to remember is, if the color is not OEM, it will probably need frequent touchup. *sigh*


bubbagump wrote:
What you're proposing is a method of injecting real-world dynamics and paradigms into a system designed for entertainment and relaxation.

The whole “reality vs. fantasy” argument comes up so often one would think there would be a resolution to it by now. But there isn’t. They are inversely proportional; the more of one, the less of the other. To me, it’s all a matter of comfort levels. The DM and players know what they want, so the amount of “realism” employed is a function of that desire. If I like lots of “realism” and recruit (read: end up with by practice and attrition) players who do as well, then that’s what my games will have. If I can’t find any players who like that level, I have to gear down to their comfort level (or a compromise between) and play there.

Searn and I had a head-butt a while back on this issue and neither of us were really satisfied with the outcome of the basic argument. In our conflict, physics was the issue, but it could be anything else like economics, politics, etc. Though I agree with the basic assertion that quantification of an ever expanding pool of variables quickly approaches impossibility, I can also decide that I do want to use some of them just for that bump of “realism” that helps my players and I “visualize” the activity, or helps make an action seem more “heroic” in its proportions, etc. It’s an individual selection, not an absolute.


Quote from 2E:

“When a wizard casts a sleep spell, he causes a comatose slumber to come upon one or more creatures (other than undead and certain other creatures specifically excluded from the spell’s effects0. All creatures to be affected by the sleep spell must be within 30 feet of each other. The number of creatures that can be affected is a function of Hit Dice or levels. The spell affects 2d4 Hit Dice of monsters. Monsters with 4+3 Hit Dice (4 Hit Dice plus 3 hit points) or more are unaffected. The center of the area of effect is determined by the spellcaster. The creatures with the least Hit Dice are affected first, and partial effects are ignored.

For example, a wizard casts sleep at three kobolds, two gnolls, and an ogre. The roll (2d4) result is 4. All the kobolds and one gnoll are affected. Not that the remainder is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre.”

To me this says that the spell does not “roll on”. It attempts to strike the specified dice of creatures in the specified order. If they save…too bad.

I don’t know what differences there might be in the various 3x incarnations, but from what’s been said so far, I get the idea there have been no major substantive changes. But, this seems to answer it for me.


The last thing I want is for players to distract the table, or zone out with a video game, talk with friends elsewhere, or just plain not be mentally present in whatever way.

I always thought that Pencil and Paper games were actually for using pencil and paper, not computers. Although…I do use computers for pre-game uses, like dungeon creation, character generation, bookkeeping, etc. I try to limit my in-game use of these items to an absolute minimum and players are not allowed access to them in any way unless it is a bonifide emergency.


Rather than actually changing the DC, or coming up with tables and modifications to the basic system, I think the simplest solution to all of this is to look at what 2E has to offer in the way of compensation (because some of this same complaint existed in the same context then).

Here’s some quotes from the 2E Player’s options about this:

{One problem with ability checks as they now stand follows:
“Leon, see if your 17 Muscle fighter can lift that iron chest.”
(rolling a d20) “Missed it. I rolled a 19.”
“Tomas, check if your 6 Muscle wizard can do it.”
“Yes! – I made it with a 4!”

The above reflects that sometimes a character with a high score will fail, only to have a character with a lower score get lucky and succeed. Depending on the number of points in each ability score, the character can make additional attempts at feats. The rule is: for each point in a ability above 15, the player can roll an additional d20 for checks against that ability. For example, because Leon’s fighter has a 17 Muscle, the character can make up to three checks – the initial check, plus two more. So if Leon’s fighter wants to force open a trap door, Leon dolls 3d20. If any of the dice register a successful check, the fighter opens the door. Tomas’ character, with a 6 Muscle only rolls 1d20.

This multiple d20 system does not eliminate the possibility of a character with a low ability score succeeding where a character with a higher ability score fails. But the system does reduce the number of times such an improbably incident will occur.}

Ed. Note: This was actually written in context to sub-abilities (refer to “Old Schooler! 2nd Edition Charisma” thread as well as the “Revamping Abilities” thread for context), but the basic operation also works without sub-abilities.

Giving the character multiple attempts in place of the other suggested changes might work better. I’d be interested to hear if you tried using it and whether it worked out well.


I recommend using extreme care in considering this kind of breakdown in any system other than 2E Player’s Options. They work well in that milieu but might not in another context. Make very sure each sub-stat has a true function in the game. Refer to the “Old Schoolers! 2nd Edition Charisma” thread for more information, particularly the chart that Xellan posted showing the breakdown and how they applied in 2E.


The postings above are generally correct; especially Xellan’s chart. After having done my own additional research as well, I cannot find a thing that specifically mandates an NPC’s action(s) – like give a discount – or the amount of such a discount – specifically; 10%. A high score in general Charisma or in “Appearance” (if using the optional breakdown) only specifies a positive reaction on the first meeting with an NPC or an intelligent creature. There are no specificities regarding that reaction. That’s purely up to the DM, decided situationally.


Everybody’s timing is going to be different. It’s one of those things that depends on the mix of people and play styles. Pre-fab module games will advance at a different rate than homebrew. Powergamers will advance at a different rate than non-powergamers, etc. It’s up to the mix. If you group is comfortable with what’s going on, then it’s “normal”. Don’t sweat it. If the group wants to experiment with faster and/or slower progression pacing, by all means do that. Eventually yall will find a point of equilibrium that’s best for everyone.


Body bags...lots, and lots of body bags.


underling wrote:
…a confrontational campaign could be not only viable, but fun.

Agreed, if that was how the adventure was planned and both “sides” know it in advance, that’s all well and good. But, if I put together a mystery/clue based story and the players want to Ultimate Fight their way through it, that’s a problem. Players and DM both have to be on the same wave length or the experience isn’t going to be good for anybody. Sometimes the trick can be getting everybody on that same wavelength.


The other answers here have all been pretty good. To address some particular comments:

Laeknir wrote:
I'm one of those players/DMs from the olden days, and no one that I know has really ever played that way (i.e. to "beat the DM"). Unfortunately, there are people out there who do make gaming confrontational, and some DMs try to make the game all about themselves or turn it into an effort to kill off as many players as possible. But in my experience this is pretty rare unless the gaming group is rather immature. Those DMs just don't last very long, as players usually get fed up and stop playing.

Excellent point. I’ve told players over the years, “My job is to kill characters, in as fun and fair a manner as possible.” As long as everyone is having fun, the specifics of how that’s happing are of lesser importance. The confrontation is within the scope of the game – character(s) versus situation – not players versus me. If I do my job (create the story) and they do theirs (experience the story), every body benefits. Those that whine because they’re “losing” show their immaturity to everybody, whether they realize it or not and almost always degrade the enjoyment aspect.

Rezdave wrote:
Yes, Killer DMs are still out there, but my attitude has always been "I don't need to try and kill PCs, since Players are pretty good at doing that themselves."

Yup! I’ve frequently told players, “My favorite way of killing characters is to let them to it to themselves.” Player mistakes are usually what gets characters killed. I don’t set up “no-win” situations. There’s always a way out. It’s up to them to find it and exploit it, even if it's not one I thought about in advance. If a situation goes against the group and one or more characters get perma-zorched, that’s the breaks. It can (and does) go the other way too. I’ve had many occasions where carefully planned encounters have ended in a comical debacle because my dice went bad and the baddies just couldn’t hit their own butts with a map, a flashlight and a tour guide. You take the good with the bad, and the game goes on.

MaxSlasher26 wrote:
He told me that I need to be more detailed in what I allow and disallow in campaigns. I generally come up with a few things I've allowed/disallowed, and then decide on whether or not to allow something after a PC brings it up and I take a look at it. He told me that I need to just say what isn't allowed ahead of time and said the quote that titles this thread. And this deeply disturbed me.

Another thing I’ve told my players, “Military axiom – No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.” There is no way to detail, pre-plan, or totally out think an entire group of other people, especially intelligent, imaginative and motivated RPG gamers. You do what you can in advance and wing the rest as situations that need attention come up. This guy is asking too much and obviously does not understand what DMing, or role-playing in general, is about. It’s an attitude I’ve learned to blow off and attempt to weed out of my game group whenever I see it. Some of these kinds can be salvaged and turned in to good RPG gamers, but from my experience the majority of them aren’t, and I won’t have them at my table anymore.


As I explained in another WOT/Jordan related post, Jordan has amaloidosis. This is a very rare blood disease where the amaloids (blood proteins) do weird things. It affects almost every sufferer a little differently, thus making it extremely hard to diagnose until it’s advanced to a very late degree. In Jordan’s case, the blood proteins were attacking the heart wall, weakening it and stiffening it at the same time. In effect, eventually his heart would no longer be able to beat, regardless his other health levels.

He volunteered for an experimental treatment. He had a large amount of bone marrow drawn out (very painful) for “cleaning”, the idea being to get rid of the bad proteins. Then, he underwent chemo-therapy to kill off the rest of the bone marrow (very dangerous). Then, the “cleaned” marrow was reinserted and would hopefully “take root”. Voi la! No more amaloidosis…

Problems. The marrow draw + chemo + reinsertion of cleansed marrow procedure had about a 50/50 chance of survival with only about a 20% chance of success of the procedure.

Normally, from diagnosis to death is about 2 years. With treatment, like the radical one described above, there’s about a 50% chance of extending lifespan by up to 3 more years, making it 5 years from diagnosis. No one with positively identified amaloidosis has survived beyond that 5 year point with anything close to “quality of life” considerations intact. In other words, they’re alive, but in a hell-on-earth, waiting --- perhaps praying --- for death.

In Jordan’s case, he survived everything (so far) and is “recovering’ nicely, at least to this point. He’s on a veritable cocktail of drugs and chemical treatments, but manages to keep a fairly regular schedule now, months after treatment. He’s determined to finish Wheel, no matter what and dedicates the lion’s share of his limited waking time to it.

It will be a shame when he dies. I’ve predicted, many times, that 75 to 100 years from now, Wheel of Time may well supplant Lord of the Rings as the greatest Fantasy Epic ever written. Just my opinion, mind, but in scope, it blows Tolkein away, and I used to be a HUGH LoTR fan.

I’ll pray while he lives and tip one back for him when he’s gone.


How about a magically animated, automated cheese slicer?


On instances when I've painted mini's I've only bought enough paint to get the first 5-6 figures churned out to about 90% finished. This is because I will sometimes change my mind on a color choice and don't want to commit unless I'm sure. I then buy just enough additional paint to get to whatever next stage I'm planning. I go slowly, deliberatley; not rushing, becuase I've seen some prettey hideous results from rush-job painting. ALso, since this is your 1st painting attempt, let me say, do not be overly critical on the results. Practice will refine technique. You will find that later jobs will turn out much more to your satisfaction. Looking back at the early job will cause you some chagrin. Don't sweat it, just keep plugging.

Enjoy.


I’ve frequently toyed with the idea of giving characters max HTK at first level and never giving any more, just rearrange the fighting rules to actively include parrying and intensifying the skill and/or ability models to allow for selecting emphasis on offense or defense each combat round. That way, even a well-placed dagger thrust can still take even a heavily experienced and armored fighter out, if it gets past ALL his defenses. It also turns projectile weapons (bows, x-bow, thrown axes and daggers, etc.) back into serious threats, not the low-grade jokes they’ve become. Of course, it also required re-vamping armor to account for damage soaking on the part of armor, and the record keeping for that lead to cost- per-point repair analyses….

Eventually I blew it off and decided to use the rules as they were. It was a lot easier. Someone else had already done the heavy lifting. After all, once the wheel has been invented, everything else is just a variation on that theme. A new way of rolling is still rolling.


LOTR – Tolkien
Wheel of Time – Jordan
Amber – Zelazny
Dray Prescott – Alan Burt Akers (Very rare, hard to come by – reminiscent of Barsoom –38 volumes to date -- I taught Tegan to appreciate them)


In general, I tend to agree with both Vegepygmy and Jerry. Mac Donald. They’re both essentially right. That seems a conflict, but let me explain. If the DM allows for a third party induced modifier to apply after the save (whether the RAW says it’s OK or not) isn’t that bad an idea, so long as the application can be done in the same round the original effect is applied and the saving throw was rolled. That would eliminate all the trouble Jerry pointed out. If Joe hasn’t acted yet that round, I would probably judge that he would get no action that round at all; he lost it to the original effect and can’t get it back even with the retroactive bonus making the save successful. It took the balance of the round for the conflicting effects to resolve themselves.

Just my 2 cp…


I see some interesting answers so far, and I’ve actually got three that I think pretty much get busted pretty often, sometimes for fair reasons.

1) I’ll go with Sebastian on Encumbrance. It’s such a bookkeeping hassle that rigorous adherence can take up so much time it seems nothing else gets done. Every torch that gets bought or used, every potion that gets found or consumed, every gold piece that gets collected or spent should, by RAW, be accounted for at all times, immediately. Otherwise a character is not laboring under the proper movement strictures. Considering the number of activities (charging, fleeing, climbing, swimming, et al) that can and will be effected by the weight a character is carrying, this rule is very important, but almost always ends up relegated to third-class citizen status in the name of “having fun” or “it’s fantasy” or, blah, blah, blah. No realism allowed, mind; no physics or factual, real-world activity is acceptable. :)p (good natured jibe, Saern).

2) Then I’ll add the weapon length rules. Whether using “speed factors” or not, a weapon’s length can have a direct impact on melee, not only in the first round (longer weapons always goes first) but later on as well as relative lengths, when taken into account by strict RAW can vary melee initiative order drastically. If that’s not enough, long weapon combat in tight quarters (pole arm weapons of any sort in a narrow dungeon hallway, for example) can seriously restrict the user’s ability to wield the weapon effectively. Use of this rule is rare simply because of the slowdown of game play when employed, but even when it is used, it’s almost always broken six ways to Sunday. No surprise given it’s complexity, but it gets broken nevertheless.

3) The third is weapon class/type vs. armor type. Piercing, slashing, bashing, etc., type weapons each have a different level of effectiveness against certain types of armor. Some were even developed to be used specifically against a certain armor type. Using this rule is another one of those serious slowdown things, but it does add realism for those who are willing to tolerate the bookkeeping to get it.

In short, the more “realistic” and game slowing rules are the ones most often “broken”, at least in the games I’ve been involved in. People always turn a blind eye in the name of playability or fun and allow intensely researched and play-balance tested activities to go by the wayside.

There is always an inverse proportion to playability and realism. Most people will lean towards playability (less realistic) because they’re more in to the game for the fantasy and story telling, not the historical recreationism that can go along with it all because they’re not willing to pay the price.


OMFG
ROTFLMAO


If the creature is expected (you design it that way) to speak with the party, it should have some ability to do so. It would seem to me the INT bonus would be the best place to begin. Although, any languages I selected that are not already listed as part of that creature’s repertoire I use in place of one or more of those languages, not in addition to them. That may seem like a “Duh!” kind of notion but I’ve seen the error made and the results were really ludicrous.


Between you and Dragonchess Player, most of the instances when the Higher Ground rules are invoked have already been named. In the final analysis, though, it is you, as the DM, who must judge when the situation warrants invoking the rule.


Ender rpm wrote:
Can you learn to be a DM from the DMG?

No more than you can learn to drive a car by reading the owner’s manual. The book provides information only, not practical application. You can learn what DM’ing entails, but learning how to do it requires that you actually do it.

Ender rpm wrote:
What made you decide to take up the DMing role?

A friend of mine and I talked long and deeply about this. We came up with the basic answer that there are two basic types of gamer: 1) those who want to experience the story, to be there and do, see and feel the story from the inside…and 2) those who want to know all the answers, see all the behind-the-scenes SFX, tell the story, etc. Kind of like the difference between actors and directors. One can do the other’s job, and sometimes even do. But some prefer one over the other. I’m a behind-the-scenes kind of guy for the most part.

Ender rpm wrote:
Is the DMG a huge part of how you "roll", or just a handy reference?

For me, it’s both. I’m not going to try to learn that entire chunk of material, verbatim, cover to cover, so as a reference it’s unbeatable, but it’s also an important tool in game scenario development. Keeping it handy and going over it during scenario development helps keep me focused and away from the tendency to do things that might violate game concept, balance, essential mechanics, etc.


I had a nasty little thought here…are you going to be getting into the Undead? If a party disturbs a tribal burial ground and the sprits get aroused for retribution, are you going to have a separate Order for Excorcists, or just make that a Domain? That one aspect of the game could turn into a real can of worms if not handled very carefully. Just a thought…


Saern wrote:
What where the Ottomans doing in the 16th century? Could be another element of the campaign.

The following is from Wickepedia (again)

"The Ottoman Empire (1299 to 1922), was an ethnically diverse Turkish ruled state which, at the height of its power (16th – 17th centuries), spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar (and in 1553 the Atlantic coast of North Africa beyond Gibraltar) in the west to the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf in the east, from the edge of Austria, Slovakia and parts of Ukraine in the north to Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen in the south. The lands controlled by the Ottoman state were collectively referred to as Turkey. The Ottomans saw themselves as the rulers of a "Universal Empire" and heirs to both Roman and Islamic traditions, hence a "unification of cultures". With Istanbul (or Constantinople) as its capital, the Ottoman Empire was in some respects an Islamic successor to earlier Mediterranean empires — namely the Roman and Byzantine empires.

The empire was at the center of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. In the course of its lifespan, it undertook, more than once, programs of both Islamization and modernization (reform), blurring the difference between the West and the East. The golden age of the Ottoman Empire was during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th Century. This could be observed in many different fields, such as the architectural masterpieces of Koca Mimar Sinan A&#287;a, and the domination of the Mediterranean Sea by the Ottoman navy, led by Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha. The Ottoman Empire reached its territorial peak in the 17th century. It developed its own distinctive culture, from a diverse system of Millets to a multi-ethnic state (see Ottomanism); which was influential in both Europe and the Muslim lands." (emphasis added)

This could make for some really juicy plot twists...hmmmmm, tasty.


Magdalena wrote:
About the Inquisition, I don't know what they were doing at that time

My recollection is that the infamous Torquemada came into power in the late 1400’s (around 1480-1485?) so setting the game in the 1500’s (16th Century) would have the Inquisitions really getting into the historical swing of horrors we’ve all come to know and love.


We had a very poignant moment in a game I ran a few years ago. There was a large cast of NPC’s involved in the game, but one in particular really wormed his way into the party’s hearts. Mok Trollsplitter (Dwarf Fighter/Thief) had a personality I patterned off of Betelgeuse (the Michael Keaton movie). He was abrasive and wholly untrustworthy for the most part, but showed occasional flashes of integrity at the oddest moments. Near the end of the campaign, the party was beset be a cursed sword that had all kinds of nasty properties. They were trying to destroy it (shades of Frodo’s journey). It was revealed that one PC was the only child of one of Mok’s former adventure companions and Mok had been elected as the kid’s godfather. In order to save the kid from the sword’s influence, Mok volunteered to take the whole of the curse from the blade onto himself. The NPC’s death was slow, painful and very heartrending. When he finally kicked the bucket, my daughter cried out “Daddy killed Mok!” and then busted out in tears…along with my wife and another female player at the table. It was all sniffles, boohooing and name-calling at me for about 15-20 minutes before things settled down enough for the game to continue…It was a very touching moment. It has been rare over the years that I’ve managed to get that level of play from my players. I love it when it happens.


Having deliberately not read anything anybody else posted (to avoid cross contamination of ideas), I’ll give you a character type I just finished playing in a shortish campaign.

Remember, I do 2E, so the specifics will have to be tailored over, but…

Baruk Woundedhawk (pronounced; Bare Ook) was of barbarian stock. His grandfather had achieved noble title for service to the crown in warfare, years ago. He was still of enough barbarian stock so that inbreeding had not robbed him of the family chin, but had been raised in a completely “civilized” environment. He was a bit of a dandy and a snob, dressing in fine clothing, but with a temper to eat nails for breakfast and like it. He got involved with a group of other noble’s sons and would go carousing (bar hopping) with them, frequently getting into petty duels of honor. So, he became a bladesman, a duelist, sort of a swashbuckler/gladiator type who would fight at the drop of a hat, but who observed many of the formal rules of dueling (honor, first blood, all that). He was a florentine fighter (two weapon fighting style) and tried to use flash, fancy maneuvers, and psychology (name calling and the like) to undermine opponents’ morale (get them to run or surrender).

He was really fun to play. Hope that helps.


Using the saints for Domain is a good one, but the Brotherhoods also had some strict rules and concepts for their members. Praying to a saint wasn’t restricted to followers of that saint. For example, praying to Saint Benedict was not restricted to Benedictine Monks, nor was praying to St. Augustus limited to the Augustine order. Praying to a saint was more situational, with the saint’s intervention being commensurate the problem encountered. The orders themselves, however, had strict focuses on their works.

In the above example, from Wickipedia:

“Benedict's concerns were the needs of monks in a community environment: namely, to establish due order; to foster an understanding of the relational nature of human beings; and to provide a spiritual father to support and strengthen the individual's ascetic effort and the spiritual growth that is required for the fulfillment of the human vocation, Divinization.”

Whereas Brothers of Christian Instruction of St. Gabriel:

“The order's main concern is Christian education, especially for the poor, orphans and the physically challenged.”

How you would interpret these for Domains would be your thing. Also remember, there are orders of nuns who frequently have the same focus as the male orders, so there could be a great deal of overlap I would recommend limiting the number of orders to save yourself a lot of work.

In addition, there’s also the problem with the Roman Catholic Church vs. the English Anglican Church. That’s an interesting one.

As far as someone’s mention of alignment, the majority of Inquisitors have been shown by history to be right nasty bastiches, and the church turned the inquisitions from its original intent into a property stealing, life destroying, power grubbing, political game-playing machine, so the presumption that they’re all Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral seems rather ludicrous. The majority of the hierarchy of the church of the time was occupied by political appointees and younger son relatives of power connected nobles. They had no monopoly on goodness of any kind and some of them only gave a nod to Lawfulness as a tool for self-preservation and advancement. Lawful Evil, True Neutral and even Neutral Evil would be just as likely, in my estimation.

Here’s a quick link to Wikipedia, which will give a list of all the catholic orders from which you can get a separate link to see what they’re about. Have fun.
Catholic Orders.


This is a matter of opinion and preferences. I’ve gotten hold of (and subsequently gotten rid of) quite a number of the older modules and play aids for 2E. I assume they’re not that different from the 3X stuff you guys are using, at least in essence. As long as the non-official stuff is good, there’s no reason not to use it, unless you find out that something in it will upset game balance/playability, etc. If nothing else, there’s always the fallback position of using information inside as source material for ideas.

As to adding to or subtracting from the system, that would seem to depend on how a DM applies them. Using material specifically as written, without filtering, could open up a big can of worms. Reading, digesting and then editing the material to fit can make almost anything work positively. It’s just a matter of whether one thinks it’s worth the effort.


I think “best” would be determined by what one wants from the system. Having played and DM’d everything from 1E to 3.5, I can say that the later portion of 2E (player’s option rules and all) provides me with the most of what my regular play group and I want. The others are still entertaining, and I might play some 3x occasionally, maybe even retro to some 1E just for the nostalgia, but taking into account 1) my DM style, 2) my player’s expectations from me and the system, 2E is “the best”.

As to “…a grognard like Blackdragon or Lawgiver to come out of the woodwork an stand up for 1e/2e and fire off the old chestnut of "3e is for munchkins/powergamers"…”, I’ve made more specific argument in another thread on that account and won’t get into again here. I will take the reference to the Napoleonic Old Guard as a complement though...


I've been on Paizo about, what...2 months now? As of this post I will have 278, which probably sets a record for alientating the most people in the shortest time...


Dragonchess Player wrote:
…have the foes fight smarter.

Very wise advice... If done well, an adventuring party will very rarely run into an encounter more dangerous to them than another adventuring party. Smart opponents can really make the PC’s life difficult and using tactics (especially unusual ones) can really cause the players (therefore the PC’s) fits adapting to changed circumstances. Monsters (humanoid or not) that don’t always fight to the death, but run to heal and hunt-for-revenge later are much more difficult for a party to deal with (on multiple levels).


Allen Stewart wrote:
I for one believe Clerics to be potentially one of the most powerful classes in the game.

This pretty much sums up my opinion of the class as well. Like I said in another thread somewhere, “When the other classes pray, nobody answers.”

I think another problem (besides what’s already been mentioned above) comes with the intricacies of the cleric’s religion. If a player isn’t familiar with a pantheon or religious background (or just not “seeing” it) they can quickly get overwhelmed with the variety of options and sort of go into shutdown. To avoid this semi-schizophrenic appearance for a character (unless it’s part of your concept), a lot of players will pick the safe roll…the party’s private M*A*S*H unit.

Playing a cleric “right” (very subjective, I understand) still involves so much work that a lot of players don’t understand it, or don’t want to deal with it. After all, you’re playing a character than is roughly the same as doing a Fighter/Mage (in basic essence). They can wear the heavier armors (unless specifically proscribed by their tenets), use good weapons (unless limited by dogma), and can still cast a variety of spells (as pointed out by several other, above). And they get to hold their own 24/7 tent revival with their party members as the next best thing to a captive audience. Hehe…

They’re just so versatile I think the class actually intimidates a lot of people.


Lich-Loved wrote:


How in the name of all that is Beyond Space and Time can we get from At the Mountains of Madness to Happy Feet? Now if the penguins were instead body-melded rugose cones from beyond our galaxy, I could I understand it...

Penguins are immature Yoggoth spawn. They eventually grow large enough to eat polar bears....


firbold wrote:

Lovecraft is seminal to the modern RPG.

I'd also recommend Lovecraft's friend, Clark Aston Smith.

There's also Brian Lumley. If what I've heard is correct (please remember notorious accuracy of "rumors") Lumley was born 9 months to the day after Lovecraft died, he writes not only in Lovecraft's genre, but in Lovecraft's style, he's one of the very few Lovecraftian authors who have actually created new creatures for the mythos that get used by other authors (Hounds of Tindalos for one). Start with Clock of Dreams and work outwards from there.


Sean, Minister of KtSP wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
James Keegan wrote:
My first brush with D&D was while I was heavily into Magic: The Gathering in fourth grade...
I feel very old...
Just pass me some Geritol while I hobble over on my walker to join you and Lady Lena in the Old Folks Corner.

Don't forget my oxygen tent and portable defribilator.

As to old modules and such, if you can get Palace of the Vampire Queen or Thunderhold, they were pretty fun. Note, though; they were for original 1e not the later boxed editions. That may make it even too old for what you're doing. You might be able to adapt them, though.


rezdave wrote:
So far as I'm concerned if you can pull it off at 1st level then be my guest.

I agree…I was pointing out that 2e requires it by that time. If a character hasn’t done it before then, it then becomes mandatory by the rules.


zahnb wrote:
Ok, how do you "low magic" guys handle wizards and sorcs as PC's?

One way I use is to get really anal-retentive and brutally disciplined about time requirements. Whether they’re trying to copy a scroll at 1st or 2nd level, or trying to make a Staff of Wizardry at 25th level, if they’re doing it themselves, there are guidelines about how long it should take. I’m very heavy handed about using that information. Not a lot of people are going to semi-retire their Mage for six months or two years or however long it takes to forge and enchant the +18 Do-Hickey of Rectal Doom and Pot Scrubber. Given the choice, most players will elect to continue adventuring and hope they get something worthwhile on the road. For the occasional ones that put the character aside for the stipulated period, more power to them, that’s why the rules are there. That Do-Hickey is still as subject to all the other travails of an adventuring life as anything the party finds or takes from someone else. The DM’s Ring of Anything I Say Goes is the only truly indestructible item in the game.


Rezdave wrote:
I do strongly agree with … points 1-3, but not so much 4-5 as written.
Rezdave wrote:

I run a silver-standard economy, not a gold one, and have varied the economics of my world to a more feasible model. It all still works with standard rules, but rather than making everything more expensive I pretty much reduce cash-treasure by 90% and allow PCs to sell "used" gear at 5-20% of book value depending upon its condition. This keeps them from amassing too much wealth.

Also, since they don't have the money to buy or make every magic item they want they are forced to use whatever magic they find ...

In reference to #4, your suggestion seems to be merely the opposite of mine of raising prices, so I don’t see the effective difference, but have it your way.

As for #5, it’s just a tool I’ve used and had used on me (mostly as a plot device, but not always). I just tossed it out there to expand the possibilities.

Rezdave wrote:
… in my low-economy world the PCs at about 12th level were rewarded by a regional lord not with treasure but rather with titles and estates. These pay them modest sums but continue over time. Being a feudal system, however, in addition to their title as Sheriffs they are expected to pay him taxes, equip and support their own men-at-arms and so forth. Also, their new positions required them to build new fortified manors.

2E effectively does the same thing, just at lower level. When a character (mostly fighters) reaches 9th level, he’s supposed to establish a keep. If he doesn’t already have the land (awarded or otherwise) he has to buy it. He then has to hire people to help him clear all the land around it – to a certain distance. No untouched dungeons, unexplored ruins, or quaint tribal villages of hostile creatures nestled comfortably beneath the boughs of the Banyan Trees. The initial building costs for this keep can literally go into the millions of GP (check out some of the on-line computation aids available). Acquiring people to live there and maintain the place costs even more. From that point on, the characters is a part of “The System” and expected to comport himself/herself accordingly – you know, upholding the law, blah, blah, blah. 2E’s earlier initiation of this activity is the same kind of aid to governing character progression.

I agree thoroughly that it's the DM's responsibility to manage this whole problem, though. Any "snowball" effect, or other problem that continues to the point of unmanageability, usually points to a need for a DM to reassess his/her methodologies. The first place I would suggest anyone with further problems look is to house rules which have a very nasty habit of distrubing game balance.


Wishlists and Lists

Wishlists allow you to track products you'd like to buy, or—if you make a wishlist public—to have others buy for you.

Lists allow you to track products, product categories, blog entries, messageboard forums, threads, and posts, and even other lists! For example, see Lisa Stevens' items used in her Burnt Offerings game sessions.

For more details about wishlists and lists, see this thread.


Wishlists

Miinai, Priest of the War Gods does not have a wishlist.

Lists

Miinai, Priest of the War Gods does not have any lists.