Last week I started running my game again. That was cool.
I also have been doing a lot of rules-brewing/synthesis and world-building. I've almost finished mixing ACKS Elf classes with the Theorems & Thaumaturgy Fey Elf idea and my own contributions.
So let's see if I can get back in the swing of things at all. For today, Random Wizard has posted ten questions that I'm going to answer about my game.
(1). Race (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) as a class? Yes or no?
No, but I do love the ACKS idea of demi-humans having their own classes. So we use that.
(2). Do demi-humans have souls?
Elves are Fey, so they probably don't have souls. Dwarves are mortal, so they probably do. I keep everything pretty ambiguous and not spelled out; there are even some sects that don't believe Men have souls.
(3). Ascending or descending armor class?
Ascending. My players threatened to revolt when I mentioned considering switching to descending, and it just works well for us so I've worried about messing with other rules areas.
(4). Demi-human level limits?
Probably, maybe? We haven't hit any yet, so it's kind of up in the air.
(5). Should thief be a class?
I actually really like my Scoundrel class. And what this guy said.
(6). Do characters get non-weapon skills?
I have this great d12 skill system that both my players and I really like… that never gets used in play. I've been strongly considering switching to ACKS proficiencies, or scrapping them altogether.
(7). Are magic-users more powerful than fighters (and, if yes, what level do they take the lead)?
At some point, probably, since we're playing S&W. My players haven't gotten there yet.
(8). Do you use alignment languages?
Nope.
(9). XP for gold, or XP for objectives (thieves disarming traps, etc...)?
XP for playing, which I'm strongly considering ending, save for my fear of player revolt, and XP for gold spent.
(10). Which is the best edition; ODD, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia, 1E ADD, 2E ADD, 3E DD, 4E DD, Next ?
Probably ODD, just for its incompleteness. Home-brewing is a big thing for me, and it's an attitude that it took me a while to acquire; being forced to make decisions helped a lot with that.
Bonus Question: Unified XP level tables or individual XP level tables for each class?
With my latest round of rules revisions, we're moving from unified XP tables to ACKS individual XP level tables for each class.
Exploring games that were published before I was born - and the games inspired by them.
Showing posts with label Thieves/Rogues/Specialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thieves/Rogues/Specialists. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The DMG, Section by Section, Part 7: Character Classes - Spying, Thief Abilities, Setting Traps and Assassination Experience Points
Spying
In contrast to ACKS, in which spying and other hijinks are usually carried out by the followers of a PC, in AD&D they are carried out by NPCs that are hired, if the PCs don't want to do it on their own in the first place. Gary provides a table for determining the success of a mission, modified by whether the mission is simple, difficult or extraordinary. There is always a chance of discovery, modified by the length of the mission and how well guarded the target is against spying. If the spy is unsuccessful, or if the spy is discovered, you roll on the Spy Failure Table, which determines the fate of the spy. Altogether, I prefer the simplicity of the ACKS system, which takes care of all of these issues with a single die roll (up to capture, when some more rolls are required).
Thief Abilities
Gary expounds on Thief abilities for the purpose of preventing abuse, which mainly means that he lists the limits and time consequences of Thief abilities - Thieves cannot backstab opponents who are aware of their presence, opening locks takes 1-10 rounds (though usually 1-4), and so on. Gary emphasizes rolling all the dice to determine success or failure in secret so that the player will not know whether his character has successfully hid in shadows or moved silently or whatever. The two abilities he singles out as the most abused are hide in shadows and climbing walls. Hide in shadows is not possible if a character is already being observed, and a hiding character is still susceptible to being detected as if he were invisible. Gary provides a matrix that lays out how quickly a Thief can climb, from non-slippery to slippery surfaces and from smooth to very rough surfaces. Gary states that most dungeon walls are on the rougher side but are also slippery from dampness and slime growth.
Thieves and Assassins Setting Traps
Thieves and Assassins get a chance to set traps that is based off of the Thief's chance to detect traps (Assassins get a chance as if they were Thieves of two levels higher than their actual level). They must have access to the components of the traps, having to hire a specialist to provide special components, and the player has to provide the DM with a drawing of the trap. Even if the PC sets the trap successfully, there is a chance (the inverse of the chance to set the trap correctly) that the trap will accidentally go off and hurt the PC while he is setting it. This all seems over-complicated to me; I imagine that this level of work for setting one trap will discourage players from setting any traps at all, which is the exact opposite of what I'd like in my games. I do like the idea of PCs setting traps, though, so I'll probably try to inform players of that possibility in my games in the future, but I'll probably just require a verbal description of the trap similar to, but with fewer requirements than, the ones I use for my Tuesday Traps series and handwave the chances of failure, at least unless the trap is being set up in a hurry.
Assassination Experience Points
On top of the normal XP gained for killing the target of an assassination, an Assassin gets XP for having assassinated the target, based on the level of the target and modified the Assassin's level and the difficulty of the job. The Assassin also receives XP for the fee he is paid, meaning that an Assassin gets XP in three different ways every time he assassinates someone! This seems to incentivize assassination to a degree I'm not sure I want in my game; I do suppose that if Assassins don't make up the majority of the party, the rest of the party probably won't go for assassination missions every session, and if the majority of the party is made up of Assassins then it's already basically an assassination campaign, so I needn't worry too much. Still, what feels to me like disproportionately rewarding assassination rubs me the wrong way.
In contrast to ACKS, in which spying and other hijinks are usually carried out by the followers of a PC, in AD&D they are carried out by NPCs that are hired, if the PCs don't want to do it on their own in the first place. Gary provides a table for determining the success of a mission, modified by whether the mission is simple, difficult or extraordinary. There is always a chance of discovery, modified by the length of the mission and how well guarded the target is against spying. If the spy is unsuccessful, or if the spy is discovered, you roll on the Spy Failure Table, which determines the fate of the spy. Altogether, I prefer the simplicity of the ACKS system, which takes care of all of these issues with a single die roll (up to capture, when some more rolls are required).
Thief Abilities
Gary expounds on Thief abilities for the purpose of preventing abuse, which mainly means that he lists the limits and time consequences of Thief abilities - Thieves cannot backstab opponents who are aware of their presence, opening locks takes 1-10 rounds (though usually 1-4), and so on. Gary emphasizes rolling all the dice to determine success or failure in secret so that the player will not know whether his character has successfully hid in shadows or moved silently or whatever. The two abilities he singles out as the most abused are hide in shadows and climbing walls. Hide in shadows is not possible if a character is already being observed, and a hiding character is still susceptible to being detected as if he were invisible. Gary provides a matrix that lays out how quickly a Thief can climb, from non-slippery to slippery surfaces and from smooth to very rough surfaces. Gary states that most dungeon walls are on the rougher side but are also slippery from dampness and slime growth.
Thieves and Assassins Setting Traps
Thieves and Assassins get a chance to set traps that is based off of the Thief's chance to detect traps (Assassins get a chance as if they were Thieves of two levels higher than their actual level). They must have access to the components of the traps, having to hire a specialist to provide special components, and the player has to provide the DM with a drawing of the trap. Even if the PC sets the trap successfully, there is a chance (the inverse of the chance to set the trap correctly) that the trap will accidentally go off and hurt the PC while he is setting it. This all seems over-complicated to me; I imagine that this level of work for setting one trap will discourage players from setting any traps at all, which is the exact opposite of what I'd like in my games. I do like the idea of PCs setting traps, though, so I'll probably try to inform players of that possibility in my games in the future, but I'll probably just require a verbal description of the trap similar to, but with fewer requirements than, the ones I use for my Tuesday Traps series and handwave the chances of failure, at least unless the trap is being set up in a hurry.
Assassination Experience Points
On top of the normal XP gained for killing the target of an assassination, an Assassin gets XP for having assassinated the target, based on the level of the target and modified the Assassin's level and the difficulty of the job. The Assassin also receives XP for the fee he is paid, meaning that an Assassin gets XP in three different ways every time he assassinates someone! This seems to incentivize assassination to a degree I'm not sure I want in my game; I do suppose that if Assassins don't make up the majority of the party, the rest of the party probably won't go for assassination missions every session, and if the majority of the party is made up of Assassins then it's already basically an assassination campaign, so I needn't worry too much. Still, what feels to me like disproportionately rewarding assassination rubs me the wrong way.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 15: Some Loose Ends
So, it's kinda nice to be on this side of all that work. I now have 12 Scoundrel abilities and seven skills, available to all classes. Nice.
Also nice, in my opinion, is how easy this system is to adjust. As the ref, do you not like a few of the abilities? Strike 'em; there's plenty more, so there will be plenty of choices left over. Want other abilities? Add 'em. Don't like d12s? The skill system will work well with most dice, I think. d4s and d% probably wouldn't be so great, but I think the skill system would probably be viable with anything from a d6 to a d30. Don't want the skill system at all? There are enough Scoundrel abilities that a ref could, if he wanted to, yank the skills and still have plenty of choices for viable Scoundrels. (Of course, he'd have to find another way to adjudicate things like picking locks… but we've already had that discussion.)
Anyway, I think I'm almost done, but there are at least two items I still need to address. The first is how to adjudicate abilities. I really like the mechanic I proposed for the magic scrolls in an earlier post: to succeed at the ability, roll at or under the relevant attribute + character level +/- relevant modifier. Of course, refs could substitute their own methods of adjudicating, ranging from harder methods to just ruling that the Scoundrel succeeds whenever attempting an ability. Personally, I'd probably use a mix of automatic success and the attribute+level+/-modifier system. Backstab, for example, should always be automatic, while there should always be a chance of failure for using magic. In between those ends of the spectrum, I would probably rule that ability success is automatic when not trying to do something super-hard or super-quick or with resistance. For example, letting a Scoundrel automatically succeed in doing first aid on another character after they are safely back in town, and when the character was only down to 80% of their hit points in the first place is something I'd see as reasonable, while trying to keep a character from dying in the middle of a battle when they just had their leg chopped off because they rolled poorly on the Table of Death and Dismemberment would require a roll, I think. As another example, earning a little money on the side with sleight-of-hand when not adventuring should be automatically successful, while keeping a ring hidden from some guards that are searching the Scoundrel should require a roll to succeed.
The second is what happens when a Scoundrel fumbles when trying to use magic. Going the way of DCC and having a chart for each spell is… for more dedicated men than me. I'm thinking a simple chart could work for most, if not all, spells. Something like…
1: Roll again on table 1d4 times and combine results
2: Change target to self/enemy as appropriate
3: Change target to ally/enemy/self as appropriate
4: Increase scale of spell effect
5: Humorous effect only thematically related to spell
6: Reverse spell effect
Actually, let's stop here and open this table up for some Gygaxian Democracy. Post other very, very general ways that spells could go wrong in the comments and I'll (probably) include them (and credit you) in the final result.
Also nice, in my opinion, is how easy this system is to adjust. As the ref, do you not like a few of the abilities? Strike 'em; there's plenty more, so there will be plenty of choices left over. Want other abilities? Add 'em. Don't like d12s? The skill system will work well with most dice, I think. d4s and d% probably wouldn't be so great, but I think the skill system would probably be viable with anything from a d6 to a d30. Don't want the skill system at all? There are enough Scoundrel abilities that a ref could, if he wanted to, yank the skills and still have plenty of choices for viable Scoundrels. (Of course, he'd have to find another way to adjudicate things like picking locks… but we've already had that discussion.)
Anyway, I think I'm almost done, but there are at least two items I still need to address. The first is how to adjudicate abilities. I really like the mechanic I proposed for the magic scrolls in an earlier post: to succeed at the ability, roll at or under the relevant attribute + character level +/- relevant modifier. Of course, refs could substitute their own methods of adjudicating, ranging from harder methods to just ruling that the Scoundrel succeeds whenever attempting an ability. Personally, I'd probably use a mix of automatic success and the attribute+level+/-modifier system. Backstab, for example, should always be automatic, while there should always be a chance of failure for using magic. In between those ends of the spectrum, I would probably rule that ability success is automatic when not trying to do something super-hard or super-quick or with resistance. For example, letting a Scoundrel automatically succeed in doing first aid on another character after they are safely back in town, and when the character was only down to 80% of their hit points in the first place is something I'd see as reasonable, while trying to keep a character from dying in the middle of a battle when they just had their leg chopped off because they rolled poorly on the Table of Death and Dismemberment would require a roll, I think. As another example, earning a little money on the side with sleight-of-hand when not adventuring should be automatically successful, while keeping a ring hidden from some guards that are searching the Scoundrel should require a roll to succeed.
The second is what happens when a Scoundrel fumbles when trying to use magic. Going the way of DCC and having a chart for each spell is… for more dedicated men than me. I'm thinking a simple chart could work for most, if not all, spells. Something like…
1: Roll again on table 1d4 times and combine results
2: Change target to self/enemy as appropriate
3: Change target to ally/enemy/self as appropriate
4: Increase scale of spell effect
5: Humorous effect only thematically related to spell
6: Reverse spell effect
Actually, let's stop here and open this table up for some Gygaxian Democracy. Post other very, very general ways that spells could go wrong in the comments and I'll (probably) include them (and credit you) in the final result.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The Scoundrel, part 14: Miscellaneous Skills
Last set! Almost done with the Scoundrel class/skill system!
Street Lore: Knowing the current ins and outs of the underworld, or just the word on the street, as well as the going prices for gems and sundry treasure and where to find hirelings, etc. I'm thinking that this can be roleplayed, handwaved or flat out given by the ref if the character's background merits it. Verdict: Out
Hear Noise: Seeing whether your character hears something. Like Hear Noise through Door, I don't really get this one. I'll give particular events, NPCs or items a chance to make audible noise, not characters a chance to hear it. Verdict: Out
Tracking: Following some sort of quarry based on clues it leaves behind. Seems like this should be at least as available to fighters as scoundrels, and should improve with practice. Verdict: Skill
Minstrelsy: Singing and playing instruments, reciting lays and sagas, etc., usually to some effect, whether to make some silver, distract the crowds from what the rest of the party is up to, win an antagonistic NPC over, drum up the party's reputation or just entertain a tavern-ful of patrons for flavor and roleplaying's sake. I don't really see fighters, magic-users or clerics engaging in this kind of bardery, nor do I really want this to be something that works on a scale of improvement. Verdict: Ability
Foraging and Hunting: Generally being able to find good, wholesome food in the wilderness, and water, and firewood, etc. Sounds like a good way to abstract out hunting in the wilderness, but I'm not sure that's going to be common enough that it needs to be a skill. I don't plan on keeping meticulous-enough track of this to have it be a skill, anyway, though I may use Raggi's charts for determining how successful a hunt was. Verdict: Out
First Aid: This was the one ability that I threw in that wasn't in any of the classes and skill systems I referenced. The rangers I'm using in my current campaign can heal, and I've been borrowing from ranger classes, so I threw this in, since I was casting a wide net. Not really sure how I would adjudicate this as a skill, though I could see it as a useful ability for a scoundrel that's in and out of trouble a lot to have. I also try to spread the healing ability around, since I don't have clerics in my current campaign. Verdict: Ability
Street Lore: Knowing the current ins and outs of the underworld, or just the word on the street, as well as the going prices for gems and sundry treasure and where to find hirelings, etc. I'm thinking that this can be roleplayed, handwaved or flat out given by the ref if the character's background merits it. Verdict: Out
Tracking: Following some sort of quarry based on clues it leaves behind. Seems like this should be at least as available to fighters as scoundrels, and should improve with practice. Verdict: Skill
First Aid: This was the one ability that I threw in that wasn't in any of the classes and skill systems I referenced. The rangers I'm using in my current campaign can heal, and I've been borrowing from ranger classes, so I threw this in, since I was casting a wide net. Not really sure how I would adjudicate this as a skill, though I could see it as a useful ability for a scoundrel that's in and out of trouble a lot to have. I also try to spread the healing ability around, since I don't have clerics in my current campaign. Verdict: Ability
The Scoundrel, Part 13: Acrobatics
I'm indebted to Gavin for making these skills/abilities available to me, as I don't have a copy of Unearthed Arcana, or any other way to reference a thief-acrobat.
Tightrope Walking: Cool. I like this. Definitely not something a burly fighter or a cloak-encumbered mage would be doing, but it makes for great heist possibilities. Verdict: Ability
Tumbling: Dodging attacks and reducing damage from falls. I like this, especially when I use ChicagoWiz's grappling rules, which treats grapple attempts like regular attacks (kinda). Also, brings back memories of The Castle in the Attic. So cool. Verdict: Ability
Jumping: Jumping extra-far and extra-high, especially with a pole to vault with. Eh, not really seeing it as worth the extra calculation, but it sounds cool… I'm on the fence with this one. Maybe this should be a skill? Help me out here. Verdict: Out
Tightrope Walking: Cool. I like this. Definitely not something a burly fighter or a cloak-encumbered mage would be doing, but it makes for great heist possibilities. Verdict: Ability
Tumbling: Dodging attacks and reducing damage from falls. I like this, especially when I use ChicagoWiz's grappling rules, which treats grapple attempts like regular attacks (kinda). Also, brings back memories of The Castle in the Attic. So cool. Verdict: Ability
Jumping: Jumping extra-far and extra-high, especially with a pole to vault with. Eh, not really seeing it as worth the extra calculation, but it sounds cool… I'm on the fence with this one. Maybe this should be a skill? Help me out here. Verdict: Out
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 12: Languages and Magic
With this post, we'll sort language and magic skills and abilities.
Memorize Spells: Scoundrels would, of course, have a much slower advancement rate for spell memorization, and maybe they should have a chance to mess this up as well. Anyway, this isn't without precedent, either in the literature (I seem to remember the Gray Mouser casting a spell- without a scroll- in an escape he made before he met up with Fafhrd) and in gaming, as Mountebanks, a type of rogue in the Majestic Wilderlands, can cast spells. Verdict: Ability
Use Magic Scrolls: As Delta recently pointed out, this has great precedent in the literature. It's very important to have a chance of failure, but I don't think this should be available to any other class. I'd say that a scoundrel succeeds if the player rolls a d20 and meets or is below the character's INT+character level-spell level. Verdict: Ability
Ancient Lore: Basically, you get to know stuff, like ancient prophesies, identifying legendary weapons and rare mythical creatures, etc. I don't see why this should be limited to scoundrels. Magic-users and clerics should totally have access to this as a skill, and fighters could conceivably study this as well, especially if they hail from cultures with strong oral traditions. Verdict: Skill
Read Languages: Being able to puzzle out something written in a language you don't know. This also seems like something other classes should have access to, especially magic-users and clerics, especially if you're running a game where there's an ancient dead language that most languages descend from and that religion and scholarship still use, like Latin in medieval Europe. Verdict: Skill
Thieves' Cant: A thieves' secret language, so full of slang and jargon that others can't understand it, with roots in historical fact. This seems like a very setting-specific thing to me. I'd either leave it out entirely or make it an automatic feature of every character with a certain background- namely, a member of the Thieves' Guild. Verdict: Out
Memorize Spells: Scoundrels would, of course, have a much slower advancement rate for spell memorization, and maybe they should have a chance to mess this up as well. Anyway, this isn't without precedent, either in the literature (I seem to remember the Gray Mouser casting a spell- without a scroll- in an escape he made before he met up with Fafhrd) and in gaming, as Mountebanks, a type of rogue in the Majestic Wilderlands, can cast spells. Verdict: Ability
Ancient Lore: Basically, you get to know stuff, like ancient prophesies, identifying legendary weapons and rare mythical creatures, etc. I don't see why this should be limited to scoundrels. Magic-users and clerics should totally have access to this as a skill, and fighters could conceivably study this as well, especially if they hail from cultures with strong oral traditions. Verdict: Skill
Read Languages: Being able to puzzle out something written in a language you don't know. This also seems like something other classes should have access to, especially magic-users and clerics, especially if you're running a game where there's an ancient dead language that most languages descend from and that religion and scholarship still use, like Latin in medieval Europe. Verdict: Skill
Thieves' Cant: A thieves' secret language, so full of slang and jargon that others can't understand it, with roots in historical fact. This seems like a very setting-specific thing to me. I'd either leave it out entirely or make it an automatic feature of every character with a certain background- namely, a member of the Thieves' Guild. Verdict: Out
The Scoundrel, Part 11: Being Sneaky
These skills and abilities deal with sneaking around, getting into or out of difficult places and situations and not getting caught.
Stealth/Move Silently: The ability to move without making a sound. Quite useful for sneaking up behind someone to backstab them, or when making good an escape. Not something other classes would be trained for. Verdict: Ability
Hide in Shadows: Being able to hide even though the searcher can see you, as long as you're covered in shadows. I don't see why this shouldn't be an ability. Verdict: Ability
Pickpocket: Stealing something that someone else is carrying on their person without them noticing. Should be limited to Scoundrels, I think. Verdict: Ability
Disguise: I'm not totally sure about this one, but I think it should be available to everyone. I can see warriors (they're called "Veterans" at level one in OD&D, I should emphasize) carrying out commando raids in disguise, and I can see magic-users being able to disguise themselves as well, possibly with minor magic (and wasn't Gandalf pretty good at disguising himself, both when he infiltrated the Necromancer's lair and when everyone thought he was dead?). Verdict: Skill
Climb: At first, I had trouble seeing other classes, say, scaling a castle wall, but this is growing on me as something every class should be able to do, at least if they aren't encumbered. I know some versions of this specify that this is "extraordinary climbing" of sheer surfaces, but that feels too much like Spiderman to me… I'm still somewhat on the fence on this one, and input is extra-welcome. Verdict: Skill
Escape: Basically, this lets your character get loose when tied up, and could conceivably have implications for grappling. This is something I can see every class needing, and getting better at progressively. Verdict: Skill
Sleight of Hand: The ability to make things disappear in your hands, or appear. Think of making flowers appear, or the old trick of hiding a pea under three hats and moving the hats around, or keeping guards from finding something while you're being searched. Sounds like a fun, flavorful thing for a scoundrel to be able to do. Verdict: Ability
Wary: An improved chance not to be surprised. This makes sense as an ability, I think, because Scoundrels will have more often been in situations where they need to be constantly listening for a guard that is sneaking up on them. Verdict: Ability
Stealth/Move Silently: The ability to move without making a sound. Quite useful for sneaking up behind someone to backstab them, or when making good an escape. Not something other classes would be trained for. Verdict: Ability
Hide in Shadows: Being able to hide even though the searcher can see you, as long as you're covered in shadows. I don't see why this shouldn't be an ability. Verdict: Ability
Pickpocket: Stealing something that someone else is carrying on their person without them noticing. Should be limited to Scoundrels, I think. Verdict: Ability
Disguise: I'm not totally sure about this one, but I think it should be available to everyone. I can see warriors (they're called "Veterans" at level one in OD&D, I should emphasize) carrying out commando raids in disguise, and I can see magic-users being able to disguise themselves as well, possibly with minor magic (and wasn't Gandalf pretty good at disguising himself, both when he infiltrated the Necromancer's lair and when everyone thought he was dead?). Verdict: Skill
Climb: At first, I had trouble seeing other classes, say, scaling a castle wall, but this is growing on me as something every class should be able to do, at least if they aren't encumbered. I know some versions of this specify that this is "extraordinary climbing" of sheer surfaces, but that feels too much like Spiderman to me… I'm still somewhat on the fence on this one, and input is extra-welcome. Verdict: Skill
Wary: An improved chance not to be surprised. This makes sense as an ability, I think, because Scoundrels will have more often been in situations where they need to be constantly listening for a guard that is sneaking up on them. Verdict: Ability
The Scoundrel, Part 10: Damage
These skills and abilities affect damage being done to other characters. One of the important concerns when dealing with these is going to be making sure that Scoundrels can't out-fight Warriors, usurping their role as The Ones Who Solve Problems By Fighting.
Backstab: Basically, if some level of surprise or flanking is achieved by the character, they can increase the amount of damage they do. I've seen different mechanics for this, and I don't have an objection to this, I don't think. It does need to be limited, though; none of this "I'm flanking for the eighth combat round in a row so I still get to backstab" nonsense. I figure letting a Scoundrel that chooses this as an ability double their damage during a surprise round. When the surprise round is over, they're back to normal damage. Practically speaking, this will only be a good ability for a Scoundrel to have if they also put resources into being stealthy, making this ability almost cost double. I say that if a player wants to have his Scoundrel backstab badly enough to invest in both backstabbing and being stealthy, let him have his backstab. Verdict: Ability
Backstab: Basically, if some level of surprise or flanking is achieved by the character, they can increase the amount of damage they do. I've seen different mechanics for this, and I don't have an objection to this, I don't think. It does need to be limited, though; none of this "I'm flanking for the eighth combat round in a row so I still get to backstab" nonsense. I figure letting a Scoundrel that chooses this as an ability double their damage during a surprise round. When the surprise round is over, they're back to normal damage. Practically speaking, this will only be a good ability for a Scoundrel to have if they also put resources into being stealthy, making this ability almost cost double. I say that if a player wants to have his Scoundrel backstab badly enough to invest in both backstabbing and being stealthy, let him have his backstab. Verdict: Ability
Assassination: Basically, if your character surprises someone, they get a chance, based off of 50%, with adjustments based on your character's level and your character's targets' level, to flat out kill the target, with massive damage resulting if your character fails. All of this automatically, with no roll to hit. Raiiiiiiiiight. That's a nice talent for the Fifth Circle of a Glantri style Assassin prestige class, maybe, but not something I want available outside of that kind of situation. Verdict: Out
Two-Handed Fighting: I've seen various mechanics for this, and don't have a problem with this either. I don't see why it should be reserved for Scoundrels, though. A fighter should be able to do this, and I don't really see a problem with a two-dagger-wielding magic-user either, for that matter. I'd put this in combat rules, not skills or thiefly abilities. Verdict: Out
Poison Use: Basically, a skill that keeps your character from accidentally poisoning himself, and also allows him to identify poisons. I'm willing to grant that PCs are generally competent enough to not poison themselves, generally speaking, and bundle identifying poisons in with poison brewing. Verdict: Out
Poison Brewing: Brewing poisons and their antidotes. I'm inclined to relegate this to an alchemist and/or assassin prestige class, though I'm more on the fence with this one than I have been with most of these other skill/ability candidates. Verdict: Out
Think this is letting Scoundrels be too powerful in combat? Not powerful enough? Think poison should be more available to players? How do you use poison in your games, anyway? Let me know!
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 9: Door Skills
On to door-related skills!
Lockpick: This won't be roleplayed out concretely at my table in the near future, and I want every class to be able to do this, and to have some chance of failure with it. Verdict: Skill (see, I told you there would be verdicts other than "Out.")
Force Door: This is, from what I understand, for when doors are stuck. I believe that, originally, characters had a 1/6 chance of forcing a door each time they attempted it, each attempt taking one turn. I don't see why stuck doors shouldn't, at their simplest, just require a Strength check, perhaps with a modifier, or maybe just the combined effort of more than one character with a sum of Strength scores above a certain number. I think this is more about strength than skill, though I'll admit that what little I know about forcing doors tells me that some amount of skill is involved. Verdict: Out
Notice Secret Door: This is passively noticing a secret door, an Elf ability in certain iterations of D&D. Like I mentioned with Notice Traps in my last post, I hate passive "Notice ________" checks because I hate forgetting to roll them, which I do. So I'm going the route of Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands and taking this ability away from even Elves. They can have perks that don't make me have to remember to roll secret dice behind the screen. Verdict: Out
Find Secret Door: This is actively searching for a secret door, usually along a stretch of wall a certain length long and usually taking a turn to search that stretch. I've had middling results with players making abstract decisions to examine the walls of a room, splitting the stretches of walls between them to make the job quicker so there would be less wandering monster rolls, or going over each others sections, to double-check their fellow PCs. That's making decisions about resources in play, and that's good, but this still rubs me the wrong way. I figure that roleplaying through secret doors is going to be more fun than that, and both Al and Courtney have provided tables that could just as easily be used for generating ideas for secret door mechanisms instead of disarming traps. Verdict: Out
Hear Noise Through Door: Success when listening through a door. I'm not sure exactly what this is other than putting your head up against a door and listening to see if you can hear any orcs playing cards or poking a prisoner in a cage with sticks or something. If so, I'm not sure why even thieves and demihumans would only get a 2/6 chance at beginning levels to be able to hear through a door. Any insight to this from my readers would be greatly appreciated. Until I'm told that I'm misunderstanding this, though, it seems to me like this should just be something where success is automatic for everyone. Verdict: Out
Have some insight into hearing noises through doors, or another one of these options? Think one of my verdicts is wrong? Let me know- I'm eager to learn more and, as with any good home-brewing, nothing's final here.
Lockpick: This won't be roleplayed out concretely at my table in the near future, and I want every class to be able to do this, and to have some chance of failure with it. Verdict: Skill (see, I told you there would be verdicts other than "Out.")
Force Door: This is, from what I understand, for when doors are stuck. I believe that, originally, characters had a 1/6 chance of forcing a door each time they attempted it, each attempt taking one turn. I don't see why stuck doors shouldn't, at their simplest, just require a Strength check, perhaps with a modifier, or maybe just the combined effort of more than one character with a sum of Strength scores above a certain number. I think this is more about strength than skill, though I'll admit that what little I know about forcing doors tells me that some amount of skill is involved. Verdict: Out
Notice Secret Door: This is passively noticing a secret door, an Elf ability in certain iterations of D&D. Like I mentioned with Notice Traps in my last post, I hate passive "Notice ________" checks because I hate forgetting to roll them, which I do. So I'm going the route of Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands and taking this ability away from even Elves. They can have perks that don't make me have to remember to roll secret dice behind the screen. Verdict: Out
Find Secret Door: This is actively searching for a secret door, usually along a stretch of wall a certain length long and usually taking a turn to search that stretch. I've had middling results with players making abstract decisions to examine the walls of a room, splitting the stretches of walls between them to make the job quicker so there would be less wandering monster rolls, or going over each others sections, to double-check their fellow PCs. That's making decisions about resources in play, and that's good, but this still rubs me the wrong way. I figure that roleplaying through secret doors is going to be more fun than that, and both Al and Courtney have provided tables that could just as easily be used for generating ideas for secret door mechanisms instead of disarming traps. Verdict: Out
Hear Noise Through Door: Success when listening through a door. I'm not sure exactly what this is other than putting your head up against a door and listening to see if you can hear any orcs playing cards or poking a prisoner in a cage with sticks or something. If so, I'm not sure why even thieves and demihumans would only get a 2/6 chance at beginning levels to be able to hear through a door. Any insight to this from my readers would be greatly appreciated. Until I'm told that I'm misunderstanding this, though, it seems to me like this should just be something where success is automatic for everyone. Verdict: Out
The Scoundrel, Part 8: Trap Skills
So, now we've hit the part where I go through each chunk of prospective skills and sort them as either Out, a Skill or an Ability. Let's start with trap-related skills…
Notice Traps: This is a passive skill; "I'm just traipsing through this dungeon and I spotted that tripwire" kind of a thing, sort of like an Elf passively sensing a secret door in some iterations of D&D. If I were to include this, that would mean rolling dice in secret, because we obviously can't have automatic passive trap detection. Having tried to do that for Elf characters when they pass secret doors, I've found that I tend to forget to roll passive checks for my players half the time. Other refs may also have the problem of players figuring out what they are rolling for and taking the hint to actively look for something. (I roll for wandering monsters regularly, and have been known to roll my dice just to make sure my players don't try to figure out why I'm rolling my dice, so that's not a huge problem for me.) Besides the fact that I hate passive rolls that I have to make because I hate forgetting them, I feel that this will cut down on trap-finding roleplaying; every trap that is passively noticed is one less trap that the players find through roleplaying and one more time that they are rewarded for not roleplaying. Verdict: Out
Find Traps: This is active. "I'm looking for traps, probably poking around with a pole or something, and just found that tripwire." I figure this can be roleplayed without a problem, and I'm willing to allow players to find traps with no chance of failure, provided that the way they describe their character's actions would reasonably reveal a trap. So, a PC that's probing ahead with a 3-meter pole would find a pit trap without a problem, but, if only concentrating on the ground, would miss the scything blade trap from the ceiling that's activated by the stylized magic eye in the wall. Anyway, I'm willing to trade fail-proof trap detection for good roleplaying, even if it means that less traps will actually go off. I've found that, as a ref, I gain as much, if not more, pleasure seeing my players creatively get around a problem as I do in watching their characters die because of creative traps. Verdict: Out
Disable Small/Mechanical Traps: This, the way I understand it, is an attempt to keep thieves from being able to abstractly deal with all traps, but still keep mechanical traps of some sort, like poison needle traps or traps with clockwork or dart-shooting traps, as something that can quickly be dealt with by thieves. I don't like that because I think players are perfectly capable of roleplaying this kind of thing out. I also think this is the kind of thing any class should be able to do, and don't like the idea of having high chances of failure when attempting this- in fact, I'm pretty comfortable with just letting a player succeed in doing what he concretely describes with at least all but the most difficult mechanical traps. Verdict: Out
Disable Traps: I really don't like this one, which you could probably figure out by the way I rejected Disable Small/Mechanical Traps. I'm a big fan of roleplaying trap disabling. The important thing to remember in rejecting this as a skill or ability, though, is that, when placing traps, you have to think through at least one way that the trap can reasonably be avoided or disabled by the PCs. Courtney's got some resources for doing that here and here. I've found the first one helpful and just discovered the second. Verdict: Out
Well… that's… consistent… I really do plan on a verdict other than "Out" for other skill/ability candidates, I promise.
Think I've got something wrong, or just misunderstood something, for one of these? Let me know! Next time: skill/ability candidates loosely related to doors.
Notice Traps: This is a passive skill; "I'm just traipsing through this dungeon and I spotted that tripwire" kind of a thing, sort of like an Elf passively sensing a secret door in some iterations of D&D. If I were to include this, that would mean rolling dice in secret, because we obviously can't have automatic passive trap detection. Having tried to do that for Elf characters when they pass secret doors, I've found that I tend to forget to roll passive checks for my players half the time. Other refs may also have the problem of players figuring out what they are rolling for and taking the hint to actively look for something. (I roll for wandering monsters regularly, and have been known to roll my dice just to make sure my players don't try to figure out why I'm rolling my dice, so that's not a huge problem for me.) Besides the fact that I hate passive rolls that I have to make because I hate forgetting them, I feel that this will cut down on trap-finding roleplaying; every trap that is passively noticed is one less trap that the players find through roleplaying and one more time that they are rewarded for not roleplaying. Verdict: Out
Find Traps: This is active. "I'm looking for traps, probably poking around with a pole or something, and just found that tripwire." I figure this can be roleplayed without a problem, and I'm willing to allow players to find traps with no chance of failure, provided that the way they describe their character's actions would reasonably reveal a trap. So, a PC that's probing ahead with a 3-meter pole would find a pit trap without a problem, but, if only concentrating on the ground, would miss the scything blade trap from the ceiling that's activated by the stylized magic eye in the wall. Anyway, I'm willing to trade fail-proof trap detection for good roleplaying, even if it means that less traps will actually go off. I've found that, as a ref, I gain as much, if not more, pleasure seeing my players creatively get around a problem as I do in watching their characters die because of creative traps. Verdict: Out
Disable Small/Mechanical Traps: This, the way I understand it, is an attempt to keep thieves from being able to abstractly deal with all traps, but still keep mechanical traps of some sort, like poison needle traps or traps with clockwork or dart-shooting traps, as something that can quickly be dealt with by thieves. I don't like that because I think players are perfectly capable of roleplaying this kind of thing out. I also think this is the kind of thing any class should be able to do, and don't like the idea of having high chances of failure when attempting this- in fact, I'm pretty comfortable with just letting a player succeed in doing what he concretely describes with at least all but the most difficult mechanical traps. Verdict: Out
Disable Traps: I really don't like this one, which you could probably figure out by the way I rejected Disable Small/Mechanical Traps. I'm a big fan of roleplaying trap disabling. The important thing to remember in rejecting this as a skill or ability, though, is that, when placing traps, you have to think through at least one way that the trap can reasonably be avoided or disabled by the PCs. Courtney's got some resources for doing that here and here. I've found the first one helpful and just discovered the second. Verdict: Out
Think I've got something wrong, or just misunderstood something, for one of these? Let me know! Next time: skill/ability candidates loosely related to doors.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 7: Prospective Skills
So, the way I see it, the next step in creating my skill system and making my Scoundrel class is to go through as many possible skills and abilities as I can and sort them into three categories:
- Out: These are skills or abilities that I don't think would be conducive to playing the game according to the philosophy I've laid out so far in this series. Whatever these were meant to cover will just be roleplayed out or ignored.
- Skills: These are skills that I think every character class should be able to use and to improve in with the system.
- Scoundrel Abilities: These are abilities that I think should be exclusively available to Scoundrels. This category should mostly include things that don't require die rolls to adjudicate.
I've compiled a list of skills and abilities that need sorting. I'm sure there are more, and I'd appreciate you pointing out any and every gap you find in my lists, both of sources and actual skills. Suggestions that are original to you instead of coming from a written source are also welcome.
Here are the sources I consulted in looking for prospective skills to go in this skill system.
- James Maleszewski's S&W Thief
- Philotomy Jurament's OD&D Thief
- James Raggi's LotFP:WFRP Specialist and skill system
- Al's Megadungeon Explorer
- Fr Dave's Burglar
- Telecanter's Choose-Your-Own Rogue
- Jovial Priest's Old School Thief
- Dyson Logos' d6 and 2d6 Thief
- JB's tweaking to the B/X Thief
- Robert Fisher's musings on Thief skills
- OD&D's skills via Sham's Dungeon Tasks (On the Left)
- OSRIC's Assassin, Thief and Ranger abilities
- Gavin's Expanded Thief Class
Here are all the skills and abilities I found. I've loosely grouped them together by theme, not in any exact way, but just to make them a bit easier to work with.
- Notice Traps
- Find Traps
- Remove Small/Mechanical Traps
- Remove Traps
- Lockpick
- Force Door
- Notice Secret Door
- Find Secret Door
- Hear Noise Through Door
- Backstab
- Assassination
- Two-Handed Fighting
- Poison Use (added thanks to Gavin)
- Poison Brewing (added thanks to Gavin)
- Stealth/Move Silently
- Hide in Shadows
- Pickpocket
- Disguise
- Climb
- Escape
- Sleight of Hand
- Wary
- Memorize Spells
- Use Magic Scrolls
- Ancient Lore
- Read Languages
- Thieve's Cant
- Street Lore
- Hear Noise
- Tracking
- Minstrelsy
- Foraging and Hunting
- First Aid
- Tightrope Walking (added thanks to Gavin)
- Tumbling (added thanks to Gavin)
- Jumping (added thanks to Gavin)
OK, so what am I missing?
The Scoundrel, Part 6: A Skill System
I'll cut straight to the chase with this post: we're going to make a skill system.
I'm basing this skill system off of the d12. Any die type will pretty much do, but I like d12s, they don't get a lot of use and I think they'll provide about the right level of probability jumps for the feel I'm going for.
I would probably record these skills on a character sheet by listing the skills and having 12 open circles in lines after each skill. Players can fill these in as their skills improve. I'm going to call the circles that players fill in to represent the chances of success in a particular skill "pips."
 |
| Grouping the pips in fours like this makes it easy to tell at a glance how many pips you have. |
Much like James Raggi's skill system, low rolls will mean success and high rolls will mean failure. Each character will start off with a 1/12 chance of success in each skill. (If the referee feels this is too harsh, characters can start off with 3/12 or 6/12 chances. I haven't play tested this, so I don't know if this is too harsh for my tastes, but I doubt it will be.)
Whenever a character rolls to use a skill and rolls a natural 1, the player makes a tally for that skill. When five tallies for that skill have been tabulated, the character receives another pip. In this way, characters improve their skills slowly as they use them. (This idea is stolen from Sham's skill system.)
Each first level character gets three "pips" to allocate to any skills their player chooses. In this way, then, the party magic user or fighter may very well be a better lockpick than the party scoundrel, which keeps the scoundrel from monopolizing skills.
Whenever a character levels up, they receive two pips that they may allocate to any skill.
Whenever a character levels up, they receive two pips that they may allocate to any skill.
The Scoundrel will be a class with many abilities to choose from. One of these abilities will be to receive an extra pip during character generation (so, four pips at level one instead of the standard three) and whenever leveling up (so, three more pips at level two instead of two more pips at level two). This ability can be chosen more than once, so it is possible, say, for a Scoundrel to have few other abilities, but to receive six pips at level one and five pips each time he levels up.
Variant: The Scoundrel chooses one skill for each non-skill ability not chosen. The Scoundrel allocates one pip to that skill each time he levels up. This is in addition to the standard two pips that can be allocated to any skill whenever he levels up.
Variant: The Scoundrel chooses one skill for each non-skill ability not chosen. The Scoundrel allocates five extra pips (bringing the chance for success up to 6/12 = 1/2) to that skill during character generation. After character generation, these skills can only be improved by adding regular pips earned by leveling up and by using them and rolling natural 1s, the same way skills are improved by every other class.
Variant: The Scoundrel chooses one skill for each non-skill ability not chosen. The Scoundrel allocates one pip to that skill each time he levels up. This is in addition to the standard two pips that can be allocated to any skill whenever he levels up.
Variant: The Scoundrel chooses one skill for each non-skill ability not chosen. The Scoundrel allocates five extra pips (bringing the chance for success up to 6/12 = 1/2) to that skill during character generation. After character generation, these skills can only be improved by adding regular pips earned by leveling up and by using them and rolling natural 1s, the same way skills are improved by every other class.
Friday, June 24, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 5
So, having established that skill systems are not inherently evil, nor inherently anti-Old School, and that they, at some level of granularity, are necessary for D&D, if not all RPGs, we move now to the objection to thieves that we've been leading up to for a while: thief classes necessitate skill systems.
We've already established, however, that skill systems are in D&D from the beginning, even before thieves show up in (I think, from what I've read) Greyhawk. So we're going to have to modify this objection some. I think that this objection has more to do with thieves necessitating, or at least encouraging, skill systems that do what I described in this post, that is, that the existence of thief classes necessitates the existence of a skill system that encourages players to solve problems with abstract dice throwing and not concrete creativity.
The question, then, becomes how we can create a skill system that encourages concrete creativity and not abstract dice throwing. I think there are at least two ways to do this.
One is to go the route of Rob Conley in the Majestic Wilderlands: abstract, general skills. He creates a skill system with a bit more granularity than mere attribute checks; that is, each attribute is divided up into a few broad skills, each of which may receive bonuses based on class or some other factor. For example, Dexterity is divided into Climbing, Legerdemain (manual dexterity- pickpocketing, sleight-of-hand, disarming traps), and Stealth. (I assume that any Dexterity-based actions that don't fall under these broad categories would just get straight attribute checks.) These abstract skills encourage concrete descriptions in the same way that just using skill checks does: the skills are so abstract that the player isn't exactly sure how the ref will adjudicate what he wants to do, so he describes his actions concretely and lets the ref figure out what dice to roll against what number. This is all well and good, but it's not to my personal taste right now; I'm enjoying how well attribute checks work for me in this way at the moment and don't really see the need to split them up like this in my own game.
The other way of designing a skill system that encourages concrete description is to use skills that are for concrete, exact tasks, but to ensure that these tasks are tasks that can't (or won't) be described easily at the table.
For example, a skill system like this might include a "Lockpick" skill because (unless you want to add a mini-game or have a lock at the table or are familiar enough with picking locks that you can easily have a conversation about picking an imaginary lock) that's not something that can easily be modeled at the table: it's not the focus of the game and, like combat, it's much easier to abstract the details away and move on to further exploration.
By contrast, this kind of skill system would probably not include a "Find Traps" or "Disable Traps" skill. These are things that are easily described in concrete ways by your average player: "Grom prods the floor all around with his 10 foot pole," "Bill shines his bullseye lantern around the ceiling, looking for anything unusual," "Robert looks the chest over carefully and scrapes off the grime you mentioned from around the lock to check for any holes for poison needles," "Grom cuts the tripwire and carefully ties it to a stake he's hammered into the ground but out of the way," "Bill sets the end of his rope on fire and catches it on the rope of the pendulum trap to catch that rope on fire and destroy the trap," "Robert takes some large wooden splinters and stuffs them into the poison needle hole he's found," etc., etc.
This is the way I want to go with the Scoundrel: Each Scoundrel will have a collection of abilities and skills that the player has chosen from many options. This will allow for both the ability to shape Scoundrels to each player or ref's concept (a ref can disallow certain abilities or skills to fit his vision for the campaign or for the Scoundrel), and the fact that the archetype I'm going for here is one that picks up, opportunistically, whatever skills and abilities he can as he goes along; by the very nature of the Scoundrel, there is no defined path to stay on by discipline and will power because Scoundrels are opportunistic and almost always undisciplined. Abilities will, like with all classes, be exclusive to the Scoundrel, while skills will, by definition, be available to all classes; in fact, I would argue that each character, regardless of class, should start with a base chance of success in each skill. Just as fighters have better chances of hitting opponents in fighting but everyone has some chance, though, Scoundrels will be allowed to progress is skills more quickly than other classes if they so choose.
The main work, then, of creating the Scoundrel will be figuring out the mechanics of the skill system and figuring out what abilities and skills should be available. I've got some help on both of these tasks from around the OSR blogosphere that will prove invaluable as I go about doing this. Next time, we'll see if we can hammer out a good skill system mechanic.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 4: In Defense of Skill Systems
So, to get this out of the way, my take on Dungeon Crawl Classics is that I love the art, the extra dice are awesome, I'd love to be a player in a game or maybe a campaign some time, but I haven't seen anything yet that makes me want to switch over to it for the games I run.
Also, to transition to the subject at hand, in the section on skills, there's this: “Skill checks are designed for use when a system of abstract rules is necessary to adjudicate a situation. Only make a skill check when practical descriptions by the players will not suffice.”
Now go read this. Trollsmyth, by the way, is awesome, though he seems to have slowed down in his blogging recently, which is really too bad. One could do a lot worse than reading through his old posts.
So, after reading that, I'm going to argue two things.
- We can define skills as abstractions of actions the characters engage in, usually meshed with dice rolls to quickly determine success or failure.
- Skills are used to quickly move past parts of the characters' lives that are not what the particular game is about, but that are necessary supports for the parts of the characters' lives that the game is about.
Using this definition, and this purpose statement, we can see that skill systems in Dungeons and Dragons aren't a question of presence/non-presence but a question of where we're falling on a spectrum of skill systems.
For example, while I haven't actually read 0e, Sham tells me this on his old houserules site for his Solstice setting (click "Dungeon Tasks" on the left): “In OD&D, the following tasks were defined: Find Secret Passage(Door), Elf Sense Secret Door, Listen (Hear) at Door, and Force Open Door.”
These are all "abstractions of actions that characters engage in," adjudicated by dice rolls. For that matter, combat, turning undead and learning new spells (in systems that make you roll for that) are all skills. The game isn't about eavesdropping techniques, SWAT door-busting techniques, medieval combat techniques against imaginary monsters, relationships with imaginary gods that allow sending the undead to their graves, or learning arcane imaginary magical spells. All of these things are activities that are necessary for our PCs to engage in to support their dungeoneering or adventuring, so they need to be a part of the game, but they aren't what the game is about, and they are cumbersome or impossible, for the most part, to act out at a gaming table, so we assign values to chances of success and let the dice, more or less, do the rest.
This, as anyone who has played D&D knows, is both OK and necessary to the game.
Moving, perhaps, up the spectrum a bit, we also see a very loose and informal skills system with attributes. It's what I referenced in my last post: a PC attempts something and the ref decides that the task attempted falls under one or more of the PC's attributes. The PC's player then has to roll the applicable attribute score or under in order to succeed. This is very common in Old School play, from what I understand. It's suggested on pages 10 and 18 of Michael Shorten's Swords and Wizardry Quickstart.
Moving up the spectrum a bit more, we see that the Majestic Wilderlands contains a very simple skill system which has essentially, as I understand it, split each attribute up into smaller domains of actions that are still very, very general. In this way, PCs can have different levels of proficiency in different areas that fall under the same attribute score.
No one argues that Rob Conley and the Majestic Wilderlands aren't Old School. The Majestic Wilderlands are, after all, houserules for a retro-clone of 0e for a campaign setting that is the descendent of the first published D&D setting, and the product of three decades of continuous gaming in that setting, though not all with D&D, so far as I understand, I'll admit.
Moving even farther up the spectrum, and out of the realm of D&D (into other games that I know much less about, so please correct me if I'm wrong) we find that some other games out there that are "Old School" have skill systems. The first edition of Pendragon, for example, includes 36 conventional skills on its character sheet. It instructed me to add three more when I rolled up a character while trying to learn how to play. Not only that, but it includes skill categories for 12 personality traits and a varying number of strong emotions, all of which are assigned numbers and which are used, in conjunction with dice, to determine things in the game. This is the game that James Maliszewski describes as "to be frank, the most perfect out-of-the-box RPG I have ever played." (I'd also talk about Traveller, which, from what I understand, is far enough up the spectrum that you could call it "skill-based" instead of "class-based," since it doesn't even have classes, but I haven't studied Traveller like I've studied Pendragon, so I won't.)
We can move up the spectrum even more, but I become less and less familiar with what I'm talking about, and the games further up the spectrum generally don't get considered Old School with the same unanimity as the ones I've described. I also think I've made my point: skills, as I've defined them, are compatible with, and even necessary to, Old School D&D and, to an even greater degree, other Old School RPGs. Skills are important for adjudicating actions that aren't what the game is about but that are necessary for what the game is about to be possible for the PCs. Even traveling along the spectrum of "skillsiness" doesn't automatically disqualify a game or house rule from being Old School, as my examples show.
So far as being Old School goes, then, skill system inclusion isn't a binary question, but a question of execution. How is the skill system designed and how does it mesh with the other parts of the game, both with design and actual play? That's the important thing, not whether or not a skill system is included in the game because, if it's a table-top RPG, it has a skill system (except maybe for some of those diceless RPGs, but I'm not even sure about those, since I haven't read them).
Friday, June 10, 2011
Why Skills are Dangerous: A Prelude
So, we had a really awesome session tonight. My players, for the first time, made it into the second level of Matt Finch's excellent The Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom. The players seem to be getting the hang of the changes to the combat system that I enacted recently, throwing lots of waterskins full of flaming oil to kill things very quickly. Even so, we had two rolls on the Table of Death and Dismemberment, but with the worst to happen being a broken bone.
My players really did me proud this session. Examining some fungus-cages, they tried using crowbars and 3 meter poles to pry them open enough for those inside to get out. When that didn't work, they used potions of diminuation to shrink the captives enough to let them out.
When trying to destroy a machine that was basically a wood-chipper for people, they started dismantling it and then stuck a corner of one of the fungus-cages, which they had been unable to destroy so far, into it and jammed the machine until it broke.
When trying to get past some minions of the Shroom that was chasing them, they pointed to the half-transformed-into-a-podman-minion guy they had rescued and told the podmen that they were clearly friends, I had one player roll under his PC's charisma, with a bonus of +2 to his roll for creativity, and he succeeded… three times.
When faced with a 50-foot tall water-fall they had to scale, one player had his PC tie a loose knot by the grappling hook on a long length of rope and then loop the eye formed by the knot over the end of a 3-meter pole. Swinging the pole like a trebuchet, he sent the grappling hook and line flying. I had him roll under his strength score to get the hook 50 feet high and under his dexterity to actually hook it on anything. It took his PC three tries, and cost a wondering monster check, but it worked.
What do all of these scenarios have in common? They are all scenarios where a later edition of D&D probably would have trained my players to ask to make a skill roll to attempt to achieve their goals. If I had been running a later-edition game tonight, I would have probably still had a fun time- I greatly enjoy my friends, after all- but I would have missed out on the fun I had during these scenarios tonight.
I should emphasize that my players did roll to resolve some of these scenarios. They didn't only roll, though, and they couldn't have rolled without roleplaying first. With the bluffing past the podmen minions, I wouldn't have let the party roll to bluff the podmen until the player who came up with the idea told me what he was going to try to do. Then, after he told me concretely what he was trying to do, I let, no, had him roll. He, the player, told me concretely what he was trying to do; I the referee, told him his chances for success.
My player at the waterfall at first said, "we'll throw a grappling hook up to the top of the waterfall." I asked, "how are you going to throw the grappling hook up 50 feet?" and he came up with his answer, which was creative, entertaining, and plausible enough for me to let him try it, so I told him how to roll. Again, he gave me something concrete for his PC to try and I gave him targets to roll under to succeed.
In both cases, my players asked to do concrete things. They didn't ask to roll the dice- I told them to. That meant that, when they came to a problem, they didn't reach for the dice. Instead, they approached the problems creatively. Once they had figured out how to make problems I had no idea how they were going to get past solve-able, I assigned chances to their success. This process made it so that we all had the immense pleasure of witnessing or practicing creativity. That's one of my favorite parts of roleplaying, and it's especially a pleasure, as I'm refereeing, when my players defeat problems in creative ways I didn't see coming.
And this is why skill systems are dangerous. I'm going to argue in the next few days that skill systems aren't inherently bad or anti-Old School. The important nuance, though, is that skill systems are also dangerous if not handled properly. If I had been using a more invasive skill system tonight, we all could have missed out on a lot of fun. I'm going to argue that a skill system doesn't necessarily have to preclude the kind of fun we had tonight. What's important when designing a skill system, though, is that the designer (and the referee) makes sure that the skill system doesn't train the players to approach concrete problems the PCs face in an abstract way, reaching for the dice, knowing what skill they are going to use.
Training players to use concrete creative problem-solving skills is good. Training players to roll the dice as the only part of problem-solving they engage in is, in my very strong opinion, bad. Any skill system I approve of will have to pass this litmus test.
My players really did me proud this session. Examining some fungus-cages, they tried using crowbars and 3 meter poles to pry them open enough for those inside to get out. When that didn't work, they used potions of diminuation to shrink the captives enough to let them out.
When trying to destroy a machine that was basically a wood-chipper for people, they started dismantling it and then stuck a corner of one of the fungus-cages, which they had been unable to destroy so far, into it and jammed the machine until it broke.
When trying to get past some minions of the Shroom that was chasing them, they pointed to the half-transformed-into-a-podman-minion guy they had rescued and told the podmen that they were clearly friends, I had one player roll under his PC's charisma, with a bonus of +2 to his roll for creativity, and he succeeded… three times.
When faced with a 50-foot tall water-fall they had to scale, one player had his PC tie a loose knot by the grappling hook on a long length of rope and then loop the eye formed by the knot over the end of a 3-meter pole. Swinging the pole like a trebuchet, he sent the grappling hook and line flying. I had him roll under his strength score to get the hook 50 feet high and under his dexterity to actually hook it on anything. It took his PC three tries, and cost a wondering monster check, but it worked.
What do all of these scenarios have in common? They are all scenarios where a later edition of D&D probably would have trained my players to ask to make a skill roll to attempt to achieve their goals. If I had been running a later-edition game tonight, I would have probably still had a fun time- I greatly enjoy my friends, after all- but I would have missed out on the fun I had during these scenarios tonight.
I should emphasize that my players did roll to resolve some of these scenarios. They didn't only roll, though, and they couldn't have rolled without roleplaying first. With the bluffing past the podmen minions, I wouldn't have let the party roll to bluff the podmen until the player who came up with the idea told me what he was going to try to do. Then, after he told me concretely what he was trying to do, I let, no, had him roll. He, the player, told me concretely what he was trying to do; I the referee, told him his chances for success.
My player at the waterfall at first said, "we'll throw a grappling hook up to the top of the waterfall." I asked, "how are you going to throw the grappling hook up 50 feet?" and he came up with his answer, which was creative, entertaining, and plausible enough for me to let him try it, so I told him how to roll. Again, he gave me something concrete for his PC to try and I gave him targets to roll under to succeed.
In both cases, my players asked to do concrete things. They didn't ask to roll the dice- I told them to. That meant that, when they came to a problem, they didn't reach for the dice. Instead, they approached the problems creatively. Once they had figured out how to make problems I had no idea how they were going to get past solve-able, I assigned chances to their success. This process made it so that we all had the immense pleasure of witnessing or practicing creativity. That's one of my favorite parts of roleplaying, and it's especially a pleasure, as I'm refereeing, when my players defeat problems in creative ways I didn't see coming.
And this is why skill systems are dangerous. I'm going to argue in the next few days that skill systems aren't inherently bad or anti-Old School. The important nuance, though, is that skill systems are also dangerous if not handled properly. If I had been using a more invasive skill system tonight, we all could have missed out on a lot of fun. I'm going to argue that a skill system doesn't necessarily have to preclude the kind of fun we had tonight. What's important when designing a skill system, though, is that the designer (and the referee) makes sure that the skill system doesn't train the players to approach concrete problems the PCs face in an abstract way, reaching for the dice, knowing what skill they are going to use.
Training players to use concrete creative problem-solving skills is good. Training players to roll the dice as the only part of problem-solving they engage in is, in my very strong opinion, bad. Any skill system I approve of will have to pass this litmus test.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 3
I know last time I said that I'd post about skill systems, but I'm still cold-addled and don't think I can give that topic the clear thinking it deserves. It will have to wait, but I wanted to get this post out, partly because I'm curious what others will say on this particular issue and if I take advantage of the spike in attention I got today, I may get more answers to my question.
I've read about this objection multiple times:
Now, call me naive, but, so far as inter-party conflict goes, this seems pretty cut-and-dry. I'm personally more concerned with the way a party splits up loot (do magic items count as a part of the pot that we split or do we just give them to a PC that can use them since they help all of us? do we give loot to a PC that wasn't there when the loot was looted?), as that's what I've actually seen cause inter-party conflict. (The best answer for the loot, by the way, seems to be having the party decide the answers before there is actually any loot to fight over.) Of course, I've never actually seen a party member steal from another party member, so I might somehow be wildly underestimating this.
Have you ever seen this in a game you played in or refereed? How did it get resolved? Was it that big of a deal?
Thieves encourage conflict within the party by stealing from other PCs.This is the objection, in contrast to my last post, that I understand the least. As a player, if a thief steals from my PC, my PC will retaliate, and I assume that the rest of the party will back me up. As a referee, I don't see any reason why I should stop that. If the thief's player pulls some "that's what my PC would do" spiel, well, that's also exactly what the other PCs would do too, now isn't it? The thief is outnumbered and out-matched in combat, if not against the fighter, then definitely against the wizard. The player, and the PC, are going to learn a quick, hard lesson about stealing from the other PCs. If the party turns the thief over to one or the other elements I control as a referee, I would probably make sure the book got thrown at the thief PC. If the thief's player wants to bring that kind of thing into my game, they should know that there are consequences.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 2
So, today let's continue with working on the Scoundrel class… We've got two objections to address today:
I'll defend my use of skills in my next Scoundrel post, but for now let's just say that abilities are actions that are available to one class and not to others and that they are usually binary- you can either do them or you can't. Skills are actions that are available to every class (though some classes may have advantages in them) and they are scaled- you can increase your chances of success in one way or another.
So, with this dichotomy, which I'll argue exists among most, if not all, other classes, we can make sure that the Scoundrel doesn't impinge upon another class' roles by making sure that anything that I want another class to be able to do that I want the Scoundrel to be allowed to do is made a skill instead of an ability. Picking locks? A skill. Picking pockets? A skill.
On the other hand, actions that I want exclusive to the Scoundrel will be abilities. The ability for Scoundrels to use some arcane magic from scrolls, for example, would be an ability and would not be open to other classes.
This kind of intentionality also addresses our second objection for this post. Fighting can be seen as a skill in which Fighting Men get an advantage. Their ability to use two-handed weapons, the heaviest armor and the ability to whomp on under-1HD monsters are abilities, exclusive to their class. A Scoundrel class, then, needs to first of all leave these abilities and fighting advantage alone: Scoundrels can never fight as well as Fighting men, nor can they do things that only Fighting Men can do. To-hit bonuses won't advance as quickly as for Fighting Men.
There is one other option concerning Scoundrels and fighting, though. Scoundrels can be given abilities that pertain to fighting that Fighting Men don't have. This allows for Scoundrels to keep violence as one of the many tools they keep at their disposal as they solve problems with their wits. The classic thiefly ability in this area is backstabbing/sneak attacking, where thiefly character gets massive damage whenever they attack under certain circumstances. That's all well and good, I think, so long as we don't get ridiculous about it. For example, in 3.5, I believe that any flanking allowed this kind of damage multiplication, meaning that a Rogue of the same level as a fighter could easily do more damage than the fighter if they were on both sides of an enemy. That's lame and it doesn't make sense. I would suggest, instead, something like a Scoundrel doing double damage during a surprise round, then reverting back to normal damage. Not only does the Scoundrel only have a single round in which he could potentially out-fight a fighter, but he has to work for it, getting a surprise round, probably by sneaking… hence the whole "sneak attack" name for this in the first place. That both keeps the Scoundrel from usurping the place of the Fighting Man and it, you know, actually makes some sense.
That, I think, addresses these two objections as well as my cold-addled brain can at the moment. What do you think? Do you buy these fixes?
Next time, I'll address the idea of using a skill system.
- Thieves make it so that other classes can't do what they do. Before Thieves came along, all the characters had to pull their weight doing thiefly things like disarming traps and picking locks and pockets.
- Thieves can infringe on the proper role of fighting men.
Both of these objections have to do with our thiefly class usurping another class' role. The first objection is mostly about things that are stereotypical of thieves, like picking locks, and the second has to do with being so good at fighting that a fighting man gets serious competition.
The first objection is, honestly, the objection that makes me most open to leaving out a thief class in my games. I don't want any particular class to become absolutely necessary to a party, nor do I want the existence of one class to mean that other classes become more limited than they were. If I have to choose between using a thief class and preventing these things from happening, so long thief class!
I'm not convinced that I have to make this decision, though. Here's how I think my Scoundrel can address this objection:
The Scoundrel is going to be made up of numerous options that can be chosen by a player, a la Telecanter's Choose You Own Rogue, and some of them are going to be abilities and some are going to be skills.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Scoundrel, Part 1
So, let's see if we can get back into figuring out this thief/rogue/trickster class, shall we? From delving into discussions about thieves from the past, and my last post about objections to thieves, I think I've got six objections to a thief class. Thanks to Talysman, Dan, J.D., 1d30, and Theodoric for commenting on that post and helping me figure things out some more. If I'm going to consider myself successful in crafting a new thiefly class, I'm going to have to address these six objections:
- Thieves don't have an established archetype like the other classes do. All the characters, whatever their class, are thieves, or at least "rogues."
- Thieves make it so that other classes can't do what they do. Before Thieves came along, all the characters had to pull their weight doing thiefly things like disarming traps and picking locks and pockets.
- Thieves encourage skill systems and skill systems are (or at least can easily be) bad.
- Thieves are more likely to fail at their special skills than other character classes.
- Thieves can infringe on the proper role of fighting men.
- Thieves encourage conflict within the party by stealing from other PCs.
I'm going to address the first objection in this post.
I'm thinking of two ways to establish an archetype. The first is to point out a bunch of cool, iconic examples and see if they all roughly seem to "fit." Here goes:
- Cugel the Clever
- The Gray Mouser
- Bilbo Baggins
- Han Solo
- Anansi the Spider
- Coyote
- Reynard the Fox
- Puss-in-Boots
- Tom Sawyer
My lack of familiarity with Appendix N material is showing here, so other examples, especially from Appendix N, would be appreciated in the comments. I do think that this short list is enough to establish some kind of unifying, underlying idea that establishes an archetype. I agree with multiple people, though, that the name for this archetype really shouldn't be "thief." Thief is too specific a term for what this archetype is. Yes, examples of this archetype steal, but that's certainly not all they do. I'm not really happy with some of the other names that have come up as alternatives: specialist, rogue, trickster… I can see why these are all good names, but they just aren't as… evocative as I want. So, taking a cue from Han Solo, I think I'll name my new class the "Scoundrel". It evokes ideas like being out for one's self, twisting the rules, using trickery, etc., that I want someone who plays a scoundrel to immediately understand.
Talysman gave me a great second way to think about classes and archetypes when he commented:
I express archetypes as "I solve problems by ____". You can theoretically be any profession, but still be recognizable as a Fighter (solve problems by fighting back) or a Magic-User (solve problems by using magic.)So, how do thieves solve problems? I'm inclined to say they solve problems by their wits. For example:
- When Cugel wants a wizard's collection of magic items, he tricks him into breaking his sword right before he's set upon by multiple attackers avenging their friend's death. When the wizard is cut to pieces, Cugel nonchalantly picks up the wizard's bag with said magic items and walks away.
- When Cugel wants a private room in the inn, but the one private room is occupied, Cugel lures the occupant to an out-building and locks him inside it, and then takes the room for himself.
- When Han Solo is being chased by an Imperial fleet, he locks the Millennium Falcon to the hull of the flagship so that it can't be detected, then lets go when they dump their trash before jumping into hyperspace.
- When the Millennium Falcon is being searched on the Death Star, Han hides everyone in the secret compartments he uses for smuggling.
- When Puss-in-Boots wants a giant's castle for his master, he tricks the giant into turning himself into a mouse and then eats him, freeing the castle up for his master.
- When Tom Sawyer doesn't want to whitewash a fence, he tricks other boys into paying him for the privilege of whitewashing the fence for him.
There is some stealing in these examples, but, even when there is, that isn't the whole story. Stealing is only a part of the character using his wits to get what he wants. This supports the idea that "thief" is too specific a term for this archetype or class, and supports the idea that this archetype can be seen as solving problems with their wits.
Now, does this mean that they don't solve problems with violence? By no means! But it's not their first resort and they tend to use violence in underhanded ways. When Han is held at gunpoint by Greedo, he tries to talk Greedo out of taking him to Jabba, Han shoots him from under the table (and first). When Puss wants to take the giant's castle, he tricks him into becoming a mouse before he attacks him. Cugel gets others to kill the wizard for him. Scoundrels aren't unwilling to use violence, but they know that they stand a good chance of getting hurt or killed whenever violence is used so they avoid it when they can and stack the deck in their favor when they can't. This will be important later when we talk about the relationship between Scoundrels and Fighting men.
So, I think this pretty firmly establishes that, while all the character classes in DnD are, on some level, thieves and grave-robbers, not all of them are Scoundrels because Scoundrels rely first on their wits to solve problems, not violence or magic, though Scoundrels won't hesitate to include violence, magic and thievery into their solutions to problems.
Next time I'll try to address the problem of Scoundrels taking roles away from other PCs.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Objections to Thieves
So, I've been pondering Thieves lately, and it seems like others have been too. It's been a while since there was a lot of talk about thieves in the OSR blogosphere, so I'm glad that it's coming up again. I like revisiting some of the same conversations over again because I think we get a chance to learn something new and develop existing ideas when we do.
I was just starting to lurk when they was a lot of discussion about them in the OSR, but discussion seemed to peter out when James released LotFP:WFRP and it included the Specialist class. Other bloggers that created "Old School" thief classes were James Maliszewski, Dyson and Telecanter.
I've been using a mash-up of Telecanter's Rogue and James' Specialist in my game, since Telecanter's Rogue doesn't include a system for adjudicating most of his skills, but it hasn't worked out as well as I would have liked. In retrospect, it was a good start, but it was pretty crudely hacked together, and it's time to try again.
So I've got a question for everyone. I've identified four Old School objections to thieves so far. They are:
I was just starting to lurk when they was a lot of discussion about them in the OSR, but discussion seemed to peter out when James released LotFP:WFRP and it included the Specialist class. Other bloggers that created "Old School" thief classes were James Maliszewski, Dyson and Telecanter.
I've been using a mash-up of Telecanter's Rogue and James' Specialist in my game, since Telecanter's Rogue doesn't include a system for adjudicating most of his skills, but it hasn't worked out as well as I would have liked. In retrospect, it was a good start, but it was pretty crudely hacked together, and it's time to try again.
So I've got a question for everyone. I've identified four Old School objections to thieves so far. They are:
- Thieves don't have an established archetype like the other classes do. All the characters, whatever their class, are thieves, or at least "rogues."
- Thieves make it so that other classes can't do what they do. Before Thieves came along, all the characters had to pull their weight doing thiefly things like disarming traps and picking locks and pockets.
- Thieves encourage skill systems and skill systems are (or at least can easily be) bad.
- Thieves are more likely to fail at their special skills than other character classes.
I'd like to be sure that my Thief class answers all, or at least most, of the OSR's objections so that it can be useful to others as well. Are there any other objections that I'm missing?
[And, yeah, go figure that I post something like this right after I announce a hiatus. I really will have limited time this next week or two, so I'll just be reading any conversation you all decide to contribute in the comments, and probably asking a few questions. I won't have any more posts about this until after the semester's coming to a close, most likely.]
[And, yeah, go figure that I post something like this right after I announce a hiatus. I really will have limited time this next week or two, so I'll just be reading any conversation you all decide to contribute in the comments, and probably asking a few questions. I won't have any more posts about this until after the semester's coming to a close, most likely.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)