Retro D&D and the old-school renaissance fascinated me, from a game design perspective. Although I'd say the movement reached critical mass about a year ago (largely fulfilling its need: bring the old versions of D&D to the OGL), there were some noticeable trends that were interesting.
• None of the popular OSR games were actually close-as-possible recreations of the existing games. Most were faithful in spirit, some were close, but none were actually as-close-as-questionably-legally-possible. Even my eventual favorite, Labyrinth Lord, took some liberties with the system it emulated. Some mechanics were adjusted, and some content that had no analogue in the original made it to the print run.
• Despite being tweaked and house-ruled, none of them went so far as to pretend that they were in fact a separate game, or an evolution or refinement of the game they were based on. This is a semantic argument I know, but when compared with the point above, it puts most retro-clones in a sort of middle-space that is neither genuine or inventive.
Of course, inventiveness and authenticity usually wasn't the stated goal; the aim of most OSR products was compatibility. You could write a Labyrinth Lord supplement and players would know that it would fit in their Red Box game. As if the rules themselves were never meant to be played, but could be if needed.
OSR games left the door open for me, as a person who creates content more than buys it, to venture away from the OSR in one of two directions:
1) Go back and find the edition of D&D most like the OSR products I enjoy, or
2) Make my own role-playing game that accomplishes my wants better than any aforementioned game.
Just playing an OSR game didn't really make the list (not that it had to, having reviewed many OSR and AD&D products I've decided that Labyrinth Lord is in fact my favorite published RPG).
I like the classes, and the monsters and spells, and the levels and experience charts. The only gripes I have with most D&D things are fundamental assumptions about settings, and how general mechanics are interpreted.
My ideal D&D-like game would look more like this:
1) Die size corresponds to function. Something like the d20 used for resolving combat and saving throws, d12 for tests of skill, and d10/d8/d6/d4 are used for hit points and damage.
2) Different character class paradigm. However, I have gripes. I don't like Clerics for theme, and I don't like Thieves for mechanics. Some of my favorite tropes are missing. I'd prefer concrete combination classes (like the Elf in Labyrinth Lord and most advanced classes in video games).
3) Tie character advancement rate on race instead of class, or perhaps both.
4) Get rid of the legacy fantasy mish-mash stuff that I don't intend to keep (like halflings in general, or PC gnomes). Additions should more fit common PC archetypes that are usually represented by bends in mechanics and logic (like magic-users that wield weapons, or vagabonds that aren't thieves, or spiritual warriors like berserkers, paladins and samurai).
5) Rework the core stats into a more reasonable split that can more concisely and accurately reflect various character mental/physical archetypes. There's no reason that Strength and Constitution should be separated. Intelligence and Wisdom are largely redundant. Dexterity lumps manual skill and speed together, Agility should be created to factor these two separate concepts apart. Things that consider whole strength-of-person (such as surviving resurrection, for example) might be divorced from stats entirely.
New Stats
STR (Damage rolls, Hit Points)
AGI (Armor Class)
DEX (Attack Rolls, Warrior and Rogue Skills)
INT (Languages, Spell Charges, Saving Throws)
CHA (Reactions, Followers, Priest Skills)
Dice Usage
d4 = Weakest hit point modifications (Priests and mages hp, soft weapon damage)
d6 = Normal hit point modifications (Rogue hp, environmental/magic damage, small weapon damage)
d8 = Strong hit point modifications (Warrior hp, monster hp, heavy weapons)
d10 = Supernormal hit point modifications (two-handed weapons)
d12 = Skill test (Rogue Skills, Priest Skills, Break Down Doors/Lift Gates, Listen, Initiative)
d20 = Attack rolls and saving throws)
Classes
Acrobat (AGI/DEX Skills related to mobility, personality and intrusion)
Avenger (Anti-Paladin, more evil, stronger power, no spells)
Berserker (Similar to 3e Barbarian, but with spiritual/religious servitude/compulsion/possession)
Fighter (Vanilla fighting class, as usual)
Ninja (Acrobat with some Fighter/Assassin/Monk capability)
Paladin (stronger power, no spells)
Priest (Like Magic User, uses Priest spell list)
Thief (AGI/DEX Skills related to stealing and intrusion)
Sage (Like Magic User, uses Druid spell list)
Sorceror (Like Magic User, uses Mage spells)
Wizard (Combination Fighter/Sorceror)
Some classes will be more powerful than others, and progression may be possible, e. g. Acrobat to Ninja, Fighter to Berserker, Sorceror to Wizard.
Races
Human (any class)
Half-Elf (Acrobat, Avenger, Berserker, Fighter, Ninja, Priest, Thief, Sage, Sorceror, Wizard)
Half-Orc or Half-Ogre perhaps (Fighter, Berserker, Thief)
Light Elf (Acrobat, Fighter, Thief, Sage, Sorceror, Wizard)
Dark Elf (Acrobat, Avenger, Berserker, Fighter, Ninja, Sorceror, Wizard)
Dwarf (Fighter, Berserker, Thief)
I like it, though the spit between strength and constitution makes a lot of sense to me. Endurance seems to be quite separate from explosive strength to me, from my experience weight lifting, and there are some people that are tough and never get sick despite being rather weak in terms of muscle. I think this is also reflected in slow-twitch versus fast-twitch muscles.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with having a single "body" score, but allowing the separation permits some interesting character types.
At times I think this way about STR/CON as well, but if you look at the basic D&D game, the CON score is supposed to reflect resistance or endurance but it most often does neither.
DeleteAs far as "getting sick" goes (which in a fantasy game pretty much means crazy stuff like Petrify, Polymorph, Poison, what have you), the older the D&D game, the less high CON helps you. Most diseases afford no means of avoidance at all, and everything even remotely supernatural gets a saving throw. CON doesn't really modify too many saving throws.
As far as endurance goes, real tests of endurance are rare! How often in the lifespan of a D&D character is it tested how far he can swim, or his cross-country capability, or how many hours he can go without water? Questions of food and movement distance on the large scale don't usually factor in CON.
The acute tests of speed and strength, however, happen every session. They are very important. The ability to sprint to the exit, to lift a portcullis, to hold together after being on the business end of a Lucerne Hammer... all very important. From my experience with fitness, with the exception of extreme distance runners (who would not make good adventurers), there is a correlation between muscular strength, endurance and durability. Strong people can take a beating, and can do more before getting tired. Someone with low STR, regardless of how much endurance training they've had, will be very tired after performing a feat of strength. Could a strongman run a marathon well? Probably not, but marathon running isn't fantasy adventuring.
All that being said, you also have to consider what's lost by removing CON and WIS as far as character options goes, and the answer is "not much".
DeleteThe absent-minded professor, the intuitive savant, the hypochondriac strongman and the never-say-die weakling. How often are these desired archetypes versus post-hoc generalizations? Also, aside from the numbers themselves, how often are these archetypes represented mechanically? For example, for the average magic user, there's really no mechanical difference that says high-INT/high-WIS is brilliant while high-INT/low-WIS is absent-minded. They'll function nearly identically out-of-the-gate, without some import (such as skill tests) from the DM. INT and CHA can pick up Wisdom's duties mechanically. The rest was all player/DM fiat anyway. It might be fun to determine your character's level of intuition and perceptiveness randomly, but then why isn't there a check for other important aspects like number-of-legs, vision and hearing capability, or aversion to risky behavior?
I think it all depends on where you want the granularity. For example, you split dex into dex and agility. Dex is enough for me, but I like the strength / constitution divide. Skills & Powers actually breaks each ability score into two sub-scores, and the framework is sort of interesting, though the system is a bit heavier than I would like to actually play with. Consider:
DeleteStrength, Stamina, Muscle
Dexterity, Aim, Balance
Constitution, Health, Fitness
Intelligence, Reason, Knowledge
Wisdom, Intuition, Willpower
Charisma, Leadership, Appearance
Interestingly, they actually put stamina under strength! So I guess they agree with your association more than mine.
I find that lots of players really latch onto things like high int/low wis for roleplaying their characters. I know this could just be something they decided, but relying on the dice can help avoid the "blank page" problem.
@Matt: The whole notion sounds intriguing and it could be fun/interesting to read a rule-set like that. Though I might never use it, simply because I love the little idiosyncrasies of D&D. But it might give inspiration as any RPG related item does.
ReplyDelete@Brendan: Making an endurance score instead of constitution might or might not work, but I like the idea.
Arguably, since rules can not be copyrighted (IANAL but it's obvious that game rules would be a matter of patent law, not copyright law) you can just write up rules that are 100% the same. No "as close as legally possible" needed. Indeed I have even read opinions that, since rules can not be copyrighted, neither can the text that describes them; but I do not think there are many judgements to that effect yet. It kind of makes sense, though. Of course, the less technical your rules text, the better your copyright claim.
ReplyDeleteThat said, why anybody would even want to copy the oD&D 100% (nostalgia aside) is quite beyond me. Frankly they can stand some modernization, editing and fixing.