|
Post by notARobot on Oct 9, 2017 17:39:07 GMT -8
As you all may be aware, recently there's been a proliferation of "retro-clone" tabletop RPGs being published (both as physical books and PDFs) with the intent of emulating the mechanics and flavor of older editions of D&D, with varying degrees of fidelity. The popular term OSR ("Old School Revival" or "Old School Renaissance") has emerged to refer to this class of games collectively. I've been investigating some of these games recently -- many of them are either free in PDF form or at least offer an abbreviated "preview" ruleset -- and was disappointed to learn that the vast majority of them seem to focus on either OD&D (the original Dungeons and Dragons, which I believe was published under "Basic" and "Expert" variants and has come to be referred to "D&D B/X") or AD&D 1st Edition. I've come across two OSR-inspired systems that focus on recreating AD&D 2nd Edition: For Gold & Glory and Myth & Magic. FG&G seems like a pretty straightforward adaptation...they've revamped the non-weapon proficiency system into a subtly different skill framework, but for the most part it looks more or less identical rules-wise to the original source material, just neatly reformatted with the PHB/DMB/Monstrous Manual all rolled into one book. Myth & Magic takes a more radical approach, so I thought it would be more interesting to bring to the attention of this little community of old-school gamers and solicit your thoughts on the subject. I haven't bought the full version of the Player's Guide, but I've read over their free version ( Player's Starter Guide, linked to above) and...well, I find myself inclined to agree with the author's summary from the introduction: "it can be summed up as a game built from the core and ideals of the 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game with a few modern gaming standards from the OGL version of the Dungeons & Dragons game and also peppered with a few innovative gaming upgrades to make the Myth & Magic Experience unique". Basically, they've kept most of the "fluff" of AD&D 2E and left the combat system more-or-less unchanged, but they've taken a few mechanics from later editions (mostly 3E, I think) and retrofitted them to simplify some of the clunkier aspects of the game. For instance, checks against your primary ability scores are made with a d20 roll where higher is better, and a universal modifier (-7 to +8, assuming scores between 3 and 18) is added to the die roll and compared against a difficulty threshold (what they call "Target Complexity" number, equivalent to DC in D&D3.x). Races have been tweaked a bit -- ability score modifiers and special abilities have a more "modern" feel. Classes are likewise slightly modified; thief abilities have been folded into to the non-weapon proficiency system, instead of having their own subsystem, and wizards now get bonus spells for high INT like clerics get for WIS. The biggest change, apart from the overhaul on ability score checks, is probably the replacement of saving throws with Will/Reflex/Fortitude. Also, there's a feat system -- which they call "talents" -- although it looks a lot more modest than what 3.x and later editions would use (admittedly, I know very little about those editions). Myth & Magic was originally funded as a Kickstarter project, which wound up turning into a big fiasco with lots of backers claiming the products they were promised never got shipped (or in some cases shipped very, very late). I didn't find out about this game until way after all of that was said and done, so I don't have particularly strong feelings on that aspect of the game; I have read over some rather long forum posts on the subject that were made around that time (~2012, I think), and found them mildly entertaining in a horrifying sort of way. Sadly, what this means in the here-and-now is that the hardcover books will probably never be available, unless you happened to find them used via Amazon/EBay or worked something out with one of those print-on-demand services. If any of you share my love of reading RPG rulebooks, and feel like giving this one a gander -- care to chime in with your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 9, 2017 17:52:08 GMT -8
I heard that Castles and Crusades was meant to be a d20 version of 2E, although I never got around to checking it out. I think, for me, I just found it easier to modify 2E to be what I want than finding a retro-clone. D&D has the power of the namebrand, and I already had all of the books, so... Haha, yeah. Most of the newer players don't know this, but 2E was considered the black sheep of the old school family. It wasn't until 3E came out that the grognards of 1E and OD&D finally stopped picking on us and moved on to the new kids. I've met a number of grognards who still insist 2E is 'the worst,' the 'beginning of the end' for the franchise, the point where 'everything went wrong.' Anyway, that's mostly why there aren't as many retro-clones for 2E. Most of the grognards hate it.
|
|
|
Post by notARobot on Oct 9, 2017 18:14:01 GMT -8
For the record, I love the word "grognard". If only I could figure out how to work it into day-to-day conversation more My working theory (well, not mine...I mean I'm certainly not the first person to come up with it) is that everyone falls in love with whatever version of D&D they learned/started playing first, and regard all subsequent versions as perversions and systematic progressions into decadence. The webcomic Penny Arcade actually dedicated one of their strips to this phenomenon...ah yes, here we go. This is so strange to me...1E and 2E are so damn similar! Especially contrasted with the changes that happened between any other two editions. I can only assume a lot of it comes from hurt feelings over what happened between E. Gary Gygax and TSR, right before 2E was released. Then again...maybe it's as simple as "grognards gonna grognard" (I did tell you how much I love that word, right?).
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 9, 2017 18:27:07 GMT -8
That was more or less what happened to me. I started with 2E. I hated 3E with a passion when it was released. Then 4E was released, and I howled with glee as I watched all the 3E'ers go through what I went through. By the time 5E came out, I realized how stupid edition wars were and had stopped caring by that point. Live and let live.
That was part of it. Gygax is treated like a god by some of them.
It was also philosophical differences over mechanical ones, as the two are rather similar mechanically. The grognards didn't like that 2E sanitized a lot of stuff to be more family friendly due to the big 'D&D is Satanic' scare of the 80's (e.g., removing nude pictures from the MM, referring to demons and devils as Tanar’ri and Baatezu, removing Assassins from the core classes, etc.). They didn't like the 'all settings combined' aspect of Spelljammer and Planescape. They didn't like the increased emphasis on things like story and characterization (2E was arguably the most 'fluff' heavy of all the editions).
But yeah, a lot of it was also just the idea that they felt like the gatekeepers of the game, and saw 2E as a 'dumbing down' of things to bring in more 'filthy casuals.' Basically what the videogame community does all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Jherek Everfull on Oct 9, 2017 18:37:02 GMT -8
I'm readin Myth & Magic right now...seems very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Nuke on Oct 9, 2017 18:53:03 GMT -8
To be fair, I didn't even read the entire posts, but 1E, 2E or OSRIC, I don't wanna deal with another rule set.
|
|
|
Post by Ezeze on Oct 11, 2017 6:11:52 GMT -8
My working theory (well, not mine...I mean I'm certainly not the first person to come up with it) is that everyone falls in love with whatever version of D&D they learned/started playing first, and regard all subsequent versions as perversions and systematic progressions into decadence. I started Dungeons and Dragons on edition 3.5. Lost Souls is my first introduction to any earlier edition. I like 2nd ed. Specifically I think the Non-Weapon Proficiencies are way better than the Skill Points of 3.5. It's a little ridiculous that skill training increases so linearly in 3.5 - how does one become so trained in "spot" that they get a +12 bonus? I prefer it to 4th ed's "trained vs untrained" as well, though, because it does offer some ability to specialize which is lacking in that edition. That being said, I am missing Feats from 3.5, Action Points from 4th ed and the truncated skill list from Pathfinder, so I suppose every edition has its strengths and weaknesses? I liked 4th end, but that might be partially because when it rolled out I was DMing a lot and it's just so easy to DM! I hate 5th ed. It's built to make characters interchangeable and to encourage use of purchased modules, which is antithetical to everything I love about Dungeons and Dragons. League is just awful. I tried it once. I jumped into a group I'd never met before at my local gaming store, and because I was the only girl there and because I asked a few mechanics questions about the new edition one of the guys decided that I clearly didn't know how to play at all and tried to dictate all of my actions to me, to the point of lying to me about what I mechanically could and could not do. I will not be playing League again, ever.
|
|
|
Post by notARobot on Oct 11, 2017 8:21:12 GMT -8
Ugh...yeah, that does sound like an awful experience. Reminds me a lot of a phrase Daos used earlier in this thread -- how some players decide to appoint themselves as "gatekeepers" of the hobby. I don't know much about this League apart from that one anecdote you just shared, but I can definitely see how something like that would permanently put you off of the whole thing.
As someone who has experimented with the full range of recent additions, you'd probably be a good person to ask about this, then: what do you think about Myth & Magic's NWP system, compared with other skill/proficiency variants in D&D?
I've barely done more than glance over the rulebooks of 3E, 4E, and 5E, but M&M's approach looks to me like a hybridization of 2E and 3E's method of handling skills.
Instead of strictly categorizing them by class, the way 2E does, M&M's proficiencies are broken down by subject matter ("General", "Academic", "Nature", "Craft", and "Rogue"). Mechanically, proficiency checks are made very similarly to attribute checks -- a d20 is rolled, the relevant attribute modifier and proficiency bonus are added to the result, and that number is compared against a predetermined difficulty target. There's five ranks of proficiency, from "Basic" to "Legendary", and by allotting more points into a given proficiency you can increase your bonus. Another interesting feature they've got going on here is that tasks with a difficulty rating below your proficiency rank give you an automatic success -- i.e. someone with "Superior" proficiency at Athletics doesn't need to bother with a dice roll for tasks that are rated "Basic" or "Average" difficulty.
I personally think this system is an improvement over 2E's way of doing things, but it's not without its own problems. I think the way they simplified the proficiency list was probably a step in the right direction -- for example, Endurance, Jumping, and Running all got lumped into an Athletics proficiency -- but I'm afraid the authors took things a little too far in that regard (Artistic Ability is no longer available!). My biggest problem with how 2E handles proficiencies is how their use boils down to a slightly-dressed-up attribute check: putting more NWP slots into a proficiency gives you a mere +1 bonus per additional slot, by-the-book. I can't help interpret this as "attributes matter much more than skill level", which strikes me as silly. Myth & Magic is only a little better about this, but the graduated proficiency ladder at least makes it a bit easier to introduce house rules that would allow someone with average innate abilities but well-honed expertise to outperform a newbie with only one rank in the proficiency and an 17 or 18 in the relevant ability score (I'd say halving the ability modifier or doubling the proficiency bonus -- or maybe some combination of those -- would make a good starting point for experimentation).
That turned into more of a rant than I intended...anyways, what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Ezeze on Oct 11, 2017 9:07:23 GMT -8
It's sounds more like 2nd ed meets Pathfinder than 2nd ed meets 3.5 - the skill list in 3.5 is long, the skill list in Pathfinder is much more truncated.
I understand your point about natural aptitude vs training. Honestly my favorite system for skill checks isn't Dungeons and Dragons at all - it's Legend of the Five Rings.
Have you played that one? It uses a really interesting roll/keep system using ten-sided dice.
Attributes tend to range from 1-5, with '2' being base and '5' being the maximum for a mortal.
Then Skills range from 0-10 with 0 being 'no training at all' and 10 being 'honored master.'
So lets say you wanted to perform a tea ceremony. That works off the Tea Ceremony skill and the Void attribute. Let's assume you have a Void of 2, and 3 ranks in "Tea Ceremony"
You add the skill and the attribute together, to get how many dice you roll - in this case, 5.
You roll 5 dice, then choose to keep a number equal to your Attribute - in this case, 2.
You add the numbers rolled on the two dice you picked together and compare it to a target difficulty.
So if you rolled a (2), (9), (13)*, (6), (5) you would probably pick the (13) and (9) for a total of 22.
*(possible because on a roll of 10 a dice 'explodes' - you roll it again and add the second result to the first)
It takes a lot less XP to increase a Skill than an Attribute, but there are only 9 attributes and dozens of skills.
So the mechanics enforce that 'training' and 'natural aptitude' have multiplicative effects on each other rather than linear like in D&D - the more natural aptitude you have (via higher attributes) the better use you can make of training (higher skill points), but only to a certain point (it doesn't matter how many '10's you roll - you can only keep so many!)
In addition there are some rolls - especially rolls relating to magic - where getting a final result that is a lot higher than your target number can be just as bad as getting a final result that is lower. If you've got a lot of natural aptitude but not a lot of training some things will blow up in your face.
They also use the roll/keep system to determine damage done, which leads to interesting outcomes if you are trying to wound but not kill someone (fairly common in the game universe, where honor duels are common and usually to 'first blood' rather than to the death, and in fact killing your opponent can be very very bad) - because if you are very strong but not very skilled in your weapon, you could wind up in a situation where you accidentally kill someone you did not want to.
Unfortunately the whole system is very tied to its own lore and not really portable to other settings, so this information doesn't actually help you - I just got an opportunity to babble about a cool dice roll system and how pretty the math behind it is
|
|
|
Post by notARobot on Oct 11, 2017 9:32:08 GMT -8
Holy smokes -- that sounds really cool! I have mixed feelings about systems that rely on dice pools, generally...but I really like how you describe L5R as combining dice pools with a traditional "roll under/roll over target number" mechanic. Someone who is highly skilled gets the advantage of lots of dice to skew the probabilities heavily in favor of their success, but ultimately there's a ceiling on what kind of challenges they can reliably overcome based on their innate abilities. That sounds closely analogous to how things typically work in real life, and it's all handled so elegantly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention -- I really want to check that system out now!
I don't see any reason why one couldn't just steal that dice mechanic, and ignore all the fluff it's connected to...in the context of D&D, though, at the very least I suppose you'd have to scrap the 3-18 ability score range and replace it with something more in line with the 1-5 range you mentioned, in order to make the dice-keeping part work. At which point, I guess it could be argued, your system starts looking very un-D&D-like very quickly. Still, it's fun to think about!
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 11, 2017 10:57:46 GMT -8
Of all of the D&D editions, I just like 2E best. Granted, I've still heavily modified it anyway, but it better suits my tastes than any others. I find 1E and OD&D too restrictive and too lacking. But on the flip side, I find 3E and Pathfinder way too rules heavy and requiring player mastery to make it work. I don't really know anything about 4E at all. And 5E is okay...but I don't like the advantage/disadvantage system. Too many dice rolls.
I have to admit to having never even heard of League.
The only non-D&D system I've ever tried is Green Ronin's AGE system, which I used to run a brief Dragon Age game. I liked it, but the Stunt mechanics (which basically replace critical hits) consumes way too much time on a pbp game.
This is total speculation on my part, but I suspect the reasoning behind the way the NWP system works is to specifically discourage specialization. I'm surprised they bothered even allowing you to put more than one slot into the same proficiency, because the payoff is so little and the cost so great. It's like they want you to spread your points out as evenly as possible. I don't know, maybe they were worried if you were too good at blacksmithing, you'd just stop adventuring and go work at a smithy full time? But a lot of 2E's more archaic rules have similar reasoning behind them--to discourage or encourage specific behavior among players (e.g., level limits)--so that's my guess.
|
|
|
Post by Ezeze on Oct 11, 2017 11:22:50 GMT -8
Here's a link to Wizards of the Coast's information about Dungeons and Dragon's Adventure League Play: dnd.wizards.com/playevents/organized-playA little bit of background: Wizards of the Coast (WotC) owns both Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) and Magic the Gathering (MtG). In recent years, for a variety of factors, MtG has been much more profitable. One of MtG's big strengths is its connection to Gaming Stores. Every time a new set comes out (which happens twice per year) stores will have big events that draw in lots of players. So the idea behind Adventure League is getting Gaming Stores involved in promoting D&D the way they promote MtG - by having big, easy to join events. To make the events big and easy to join WotC has gone out of their way to standardize a lot of D&D play. This means, among other things - Every Adventure League game is in the Forgotten Realms setting.
- Every player creates one character. They are encouraged to take this one character between games - even when different games are played by different groups.
- Your character will only gain equipment and experience if they participate in WotC-published modules run by WotC-recognized DMs.
- Your DM has to record the equipment and experience you get, or else it doesn't count.
- WotC recognizes DMs the same way they recognize MtG Judges; you've got to go to your local gaming store and get approved.
- In order to incentivize DMing, WotC-recognized DMs earn additional experience and gear for their characters.
All of 5th ed was specifically designed to work with Adventure League. From a Business standpoint it's working - 5th edition books and materials are selling much better than 4th edition ever did. But even though I like MtG, I really can't stand Adventure League or 5th edition.
|
|
|
Post by Ezeze on Oct 13, 2017 6:20:58 GMT -8
If you are interested in trying L5R there are two different games recruiting on the GitP forums right now.
|
|
|
Post by notARobot on Oct 13, 2017 7:26:16 GMT -8
Hmm...I'll take a look, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by notARobot on Oct 13, 2017 19:23:01 GMT -8
If you are interested in trying L5R there are two different games recruiting on the GitP forums right now. I gave 'em a looksee, but after some consideration I think I'm going to put off diving into the world of L5R right now. The fact that I don't have any of the rulebooks is a factor, but honestly it's more about me being intimidated by the idea of trying to learn completely-unfamiliar rule system and a completely-unfamiliar setting simultaneously in a short amount of time (...pretty much everything I know about feudal Japan, I learned from Samurai Champloo). I will say, though -- the enthusiastic back-and-forth between you and TrueMane over there was particularly entertaining to read I definitely intend to read up on the game at some point, but I've got enough going on right now that it's looking like more of a "sometime in the next year" thing than a "sometime in the next few weeks" thing.
|
|