The Marches Campaign

Scott · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject:

I'm going to roll and send out new hit point totals for 2nd level for each character. If you've posted an "old school" character sheet, you get to re-roll one die -- presumably the lowest -- and I will do so and send you that result as well.

If the new total is greater than your current total, your hit points go up to the new value. Otherwise, your hit points stay the same.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject:

New hit points are up in the xp and treasure thread, adjusted for CON.

I realize that the treasure haul has been miniscule to date. Part of this is because of the guerrilla-style nature of old-school delving, part is because of the slower pace of PBP, and most of it is because you just haven't wandered into any of the higher treasure areas yet. It isn't the campaign's treasure level in perpetuity.

If you post an old-school character sheet between now and next level, you'll get a reroll at that time.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

WyzardWhately · (Lars) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 260

I'll get an old-school character sheet up tomorrow. I've been engaged in hard-core carpentry this weekend (helped a friend build a big thingy in her back yard), hence my relative silence.

Scott · Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject:

Don't be alarmed if you see your post count or the size of the OOC thread dwindling rapidly. I'm in the process of pruning the OOC thread of assorted stuff that doesn't necessarily need to be memorialized.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject:

Things seem to be have slowed a bit. Hopefully we aren't reaching "that point." Sad

_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:47 am Post subject:

This weekend, one of my little projects will likely be to "standardize" the spell descriptions using the AD&D 1e versions. I've given it a lot of thought (well, some) and believe that the net effect will be positive in that spellcasters will be able to surmise the effects of their spells by looking at the descriptions, rather than relying on my fiat. We're not sitting around a table, so information is not exchanged as quickly, and it's harder to work things out between ourselves on the fly. I suspect charm person issues will arise at some point, as well, and I'd like to avoid the perception that I'm being more arbitrary (than usual).

Comments are always welcome.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject:

How is everyone liking the ruleset? This is my first time running OD&D and while I very much enjoy the "spirit" of the rules (do-it-yourself, very sparse description, etc.), I'm undecided if I like it better than my other favorite editions (Moldvay/Cook B/X and AD&D 1e with core books + Fiend Folio).

What we basically ran when I was a kid was AD&D with a bunch of assumptions ported in from our days playing B/X ... we never used the insane AD&D 1e initiative system, for instance, or weapon adjustments vs. AC type.

If I were to hybridize an "old school D&D" system today, it would probably be AD&D 1e with the 2e initiative system (which preserves speed factors and casting times, but is not demonstrably the work of a madman). I actually would use a weapon vs. AC chart, because some of the weapon stats only really make sense in that context, but I'd greatly simplify it to unarmored/light/medium/heavy armors. I'd also move the rate of fire on missile weapons to 1/round to avoid the AD&D problem of any botched surprise roll vs. archers leading to messy death, however realistic that might be.

I also have a soft spot for B/X, which is usually my "go to" D&D system, so who knows. I think it's a more elegant game but sometimes I actually want the baroque clunkiness of AD&D.

I suspect some of my growing ambivalence towards the OD&D ruleset is simply because I grew up on B/X and AD&D 1e and find myself reflexively looking at the game through those lenses.

So far, how do you feel about your characters, etc. under the old rules?
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject:

Oh, and I decided fuck it, I'm not updating the spell descriptions ... if I'm going to do all that stuff, might as well play AD&D. Sad

_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

WyzardWhately · (Lars) Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 260

There is no way I would play Lars in AD&D. He would suck far, far too much.

I'm having a good time, but I do enjoy more minigame-laden systems. Personally, I have *very* high hopes for HackMaster fifth, due out next year.

Scott · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject:

I'm actually a fan of the OD&D "stats don't matter except for flavor" model, but yeah, 1e is kind of predicated on a swingier bonus/penalty model and low stats do affect survivability. My favorite AD&D stat gen method is 4d6, in order, switch any two, as it allows people to essentially play the kind of character they want but still results in interesting random arrays like strong wizards, etc. and makes it a little harder to qualify for the "strict" subclasses.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

TheMyth · Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:40 am Post subject:

I'm enjoying the flexibility and wonkiness of OD&D.

I've recently acquired the B/X rules...and a copy of Holmes D&D is en route as well...and I am thinking I like these preliminary rulesets better than the Byzantine options of AD&D.

Have you looked at Basic RPG and the Labyrinth Lord retroclones? They're interesting...

Scott · Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:47 am Post subject:

Yeah, I don't really have any use for retro-clones. They don't have the flavor, to me, of the originals, and I think they're largely developed just to give developers a way to publish new adventures for the OOP systems. I'd rather play the original, especially since Moldvay Basic books are available for like $5 on eBay on a regular basis.

I'm not always in the mood for AD&D, and I don't think I've ever run it more than about 75% by the book, and that's being charitable. There's just stuff in there I have no use for. I've played B/X probably 90% by the book every time I've played it in recent memory. It's a much leaner system.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Bhartec Redhands · Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:45 am Post subject:

I'm not sure why you would play AD&D anymore with Hackmaster around. At least then you can blame humor for the various wonkiness. I have little affinity for the actual AD&D rules, although quite a few of the original adventures I still own/run to this day.

B/X I find smooth and intuitive, perhaps since it was my introduction to the game (though I played AD&D much more). It would probably be the rules I would use if I ran a pbp game. Likewise I would probably run it in person if anyone else here had more than a passing interest. Only changes I would make are removing density of 'save or die' and perhaps tweaking the spells some so casters can use the incredibly weak spells for free or something.

4th edition I have played a few times now and its an odd cat. Really if another publisher put it out with a different title and changed some of the names, I don't think it would be confused at all with 'D&D'. It plays more like a supers game now, and combat tends to be more involved and tactical. I'm reserving further judgment until I get a full adventure in at least, and learn the rules properly.

Scott · Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:50 am Post subject:

Hackmaster's a lot more like 2nd edition AD&D ... endless classes, kits, tables, races, proficiencies, specializations, etc. I enjoyed running and reading it for a bit but then reached the opposite conclusion you did -- if I'm going to run something "old school," I'd rather it actually be old school.

The "AD&D" we usually played was really B/X with the "cool parts" from AD&D, completely ignoring a lot of the AD&D systems in favor of just rolling a d6 for initiative or whatever.

Another thing I've considered is running OD&D with the "cool parts" from the various supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.), which ends up looking a lot like a more freeform version of AD&D. If I did something like that, I'd definitely stick with the more simplistic pre-Greyhawk hit die tables, attribute bonuses and penalties, non-variable weapon damage, simplified monster attacks as opposed to "claw/claw/bite/rake/hug/constrict" etc. And possibly still leave out thieves.

Anyway, I have a whole long weekend to mess around with that stuff. I'll probably end up with about a fifty page rules document that looks like OD&D with extra classes, the B/X combat system, and AD&D spell descriptions or something. Or five pages of house rules for AD&D.

It's not likely I'll ever get to use it, anyway, like about 75% of the notes I have scribbled or typed in various places.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.

Scott · Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject:

And there's always The Fantasy Trip, which is about on the same level of complexity as AD&D 1e, but has its own very cool elements. I'm printing out my pdf's today to look over them thoroughly for the first time in about 20 years. As with most FRPGs, if I ever ran it for PBP, most of the rules stuff would be invisible from the player end.
_________________
The penalty for success is to be bored by the people who used to snub you.