Topic: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Some things I'm thinking of for a future 4th R&M printing (current printing is 2/3rds sold). Important considerations are nothing that creates more bookkeeping, nothing that makes statting NPCs more difficult, nothing that's not compatible with existing books.

Misc rules bits:

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points, no matter what your class. Fighters roll twice and keep the highest, Magic-Users roll twice and keep the lowest, Dwarfs roll one die higher and roll three times and keep the highest, that sort of thing.

* Magic saving throws modified by Charisma. It's the force of personality, not intelligence, that powers this stuff!

* Shields should give bonuses to parrying. Also allow a single parry in a round without sacrificing your own attack. (as would a second weapon, but there'd be no bonus to the parry) Shields could also parry non-firearm missile fire. (Fighters get 2x the bonus to parrying that other classes do.)

* Encumbrance should affect initiative in some way. Different encumbrance levels using difference dice is one option but I fear might complicate things. "for every encumbrance dot roll an extra die for initiative, use the lowest of the bunch" might work?

* Not original, but all weapon damage is d8, with the "roll twice, take the lowest/highest" for certain kinds of weapons.

* Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit, we could give Fighters and Magic-Users some skill points to play with while also giving Specialists more points so it's still their thing without maxing the existing skills up faster. Very unsure about this one because it makes NPC statting more complicated and I want to avoid that.

Classes:

* Witch-Hunter: Because thinking of the accompanying illustrations the Fighter has to go to Alice because she's the murderous one. The Flame Princess was originally designated as a Specialist but that doesn't seem right since she was conceived as a Solomon Kane type character. So there's the Witch-Hunter, with the concept being a kinda fightey character whose main thing is being magic-resistant.

(I had the "Inquisitor" idea but that's conceptually really close to the Witch-Hunter, just with magical vs non-magical focus, so doing both sounds stupid - "The Inquisitor is just like the Witch-Hunter but less exciting!")

* Conquistador, basically the explorer-type. ("Explorer" itself being dishwater-dull as a name - legacy naming is useful because everyone recognizes it and little explanation is needed, but if you're adding something, don't let it fade into the background... Buccaneer might work?). Basically a fightey outdoorsey type, or a non-magical Ranger type ("Ranger" as a name being really being the wrong tone for the game).

My problems with those conceptually... yes, the art will be all "1600s western European-focused" in the main rulebooks. It's what excites me and what I think of in my game. Buuuttt, "Fighter" "Magic-User" "Specialist" are themselves universally applicable. If you want your campaign to be Aztec-based, Ottoman-based, Mughal-based, Edo-based, Tokugawa-based, Ming-based, whatever, then those three classes are still applicable. "The ass-kicker, the mystic, the misc. skills."

Not so much "Witch-Hunter" or "Conquistador/Buccaneer".

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Hey Jim smile

I'm a new fan of your work, so it's a bit of an outsider's viewpoint here...

JimLotFP wrote:

* Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit, we could give Fighters and Magic-Users some skill points to play with while also giving Specialists more points so it's still their thing without maxing the existing skills up faster. Very unsure about this one because it makes NPC statting more complicated and I want to avoid that.

Personally, the one thing (beside your quite unique tone and approach) that made LotFP stand out for me from all the ODnD and B/X clones was the highly elegant way you separated character roles. The Fighter fights, the Magic-user uses magic, and the Specialist, well, has skills. If I want every class to have skills, I'll play 3e or OSRIC. wink

I do feel that this extremely "walled" system makes it harder to create characters whose in-game abilities reflect the way they are imagined. If you are tempted to ease up on this, I suggest you should add multi-classing rules.
Currently the biggest hurdle in using multi-classing rules is handling the saving throws in a fair manner that doesn't turn the game into an exercise for Certified Public Accountants.

Also, I personally believe that overbloated skill lists often take something away instead of adding it. For one, with too many character stats, people tend to assume that it's their stats that should be playing instead of them. ("- I search for traps. {diceroll}" as opposed to "I have a close look at the doorway, looking for cracks", "I carefully probe the ground a few feet ahead with my staff", or "I pour some water on the ground and see if it seeps in between the slabs", etc.) In a discussion, I've read an oldschool enthusiast once mention "systems where a character needs a skill not to wet their pants". It's easy to get there, unfortunately.

JimLotFP wrote:

Witch-Hunter: Because thinking of the accompanying illustrations the Fighter has to go to Alice because she's the murderous one. The Flame Princess was originally designated as a Specialist but that doesn't seem right since she was conceived as a Solomon Kane type character. So there's the Witch-Hunter, with the concept being a kinda fightey character whose main thing is being magic-resistant.

I really like this idea.

What I'm not entirely sure about is what archetype I'd most like to see it represented as - a Conan-like hardened warrior slicing up horrors and carving out a kingdom of Men, a holy warrior standing with God against the hordes of darkness, or an anti-wizard, an initiate of the occult who turns against Chaos while being still deeply interlinked with it. I guess it could be any of these.

JimLotFP wrote:

Conquistador, basically the explorer-type. ("Explorer" itself being dishwater-dull as a name - legacy naming is useful because everyone recognizes it and little explanation is needed, but if you're adding something, don't let it fade into the background... Buccaneer might work?). Basically a fightey outdoorsey type, or a non-magical Ranger type ("Ranger" as a name being really being the wrong tone for the game).

I'm not entirely sure about this one. It doesn't feel like it adds anything new, beside maybe an extra stat of Bushcraft in exchange for worse progression in combat stats. I think if you did the multi-classing, this would become wholly redundant.

Last edited by Lepus (2015-01-27 18:45:15)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

I am starting to think that encumbrance should directly and significantly penalize combat stats like attack bonus and saving throws. This is drawn a little out of the 2nd AD&D rules. My thought runs thus: hit players with a penalty in an area they really care about (combat) and they will immediately respond by carrying less gear and making harder choices about what to carry... which is the whole point of encumbrance rules anyway, right?

I think an optional skills section, with a discussion about different skills that could be added to the game and how they might affect the game, would be more useful than just outright adding new skills.

Witch-Hunter concept sounds very interesting. Would you adjust the saving throws or create a subsystem around magic-resistance?

I don't quite see what the Conquistador concept offers that a Bushcraft and Stealth Specialist build wouldn't already offer.

Have you thought about moving demi-humans to the appendix and then using the extra space in the core rules section for a few of these new classes?

What about adding an option for Specialists to increase attack bonus by spending skill points? That allows you to cover all sorts of fighter/specialist hybrids without adding new classes. Fighters would still be unique in having more hit points, better saving throws, and combat options.

Last edited by CironeAE (2015-01-28 01:38:01)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

I like the core mechanics as is and wouldn't want them to change.  However, I've house ruled that non-specialists get a skill point every third level to spend as the players desire.  It lets the players have a bit of an oomph but it's not enough to diminish the Specialist. 

I also allow 3rd Edition style multi-classing.  One of my players has a 3rd level Cleric/1st level Fighter that he runs as a "Paladin specializing in rooting out abominations."

I like the idea of a Witch-Hunter class but an Explorer type can easily be made using the Specialist.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

vfults wrote:

I like the core mechanics as is and wouldn't want them to change. However, I've house ruled that non-specialists get a skill point every third level to spend as the players desire.  It lets the players have a bit of an oomph but it's not enough to diminish the Specialist.

Somehow I like the idea of Specialists being able to "specialize" in fighting among other things better... It just feels like the better compromise for my engineer brain. wink Say, an Attack modifier per 2 (or 3?) skill points, to a maximum of 6.

vfults wrote:

I also allow 3rd Edition style multi-classing.

How exactly do you do that without replacing major part of the system? Given the quite different XP and saving throw progression charts for each class...

Last edited by Lepus (2015-01-28 07:56:16)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

JimLotFP wrote:

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points, no matter what your class. Fighters roll twice and keep the highest, Magic-Users roll twice and keep the lowest, Dwarfs roll one die higher and roll three times and keep the highest, that sort of thing.

Would there still be a minimum hp for each class?  I sometimes wonder why one would have to roll dice at all for hp when it seems like this is the primary function of Constitution (so two humans with the exact same con can have a hp difference of 5?)  Why can't your starting hp just be 1/3 con and then when leveling up roll your class die for hp?

JimLotFP wrote:

* Magic saving throws modified by Charisma. It's the force of personality, not intelligence, that powers this stuff!

I think an argument could be made that almost any stat could be the basis for magic (Hellraiser = you need a strong con or strength to take the beating, Merlin/Gandalf = the wise wizard, Dr. Doom = intelligent...Jesus had the charisma to work his miracles for the masses, etc.)

JimLotFP wrote:

* Shields should give bonuses to parrying. Also allow a single parry in a round without sacrificing your own attack. (as would a second weapon, but there'd be no bonus to the parry) Shields could also parry non-firearm missile fire. (Fighters get 2x the bonus to parrying that other classes do.)

This certainly makes shields more interesting and enticing to carry.  Will there be differences for bucklers, regular shields, etc., or will there just be a standard shield?

JimLotFP wrote:

* Encumbrance should affect initiative in some way. Different encumbrance levels using difference dice is one option but I fear might complicate things. "for every encumbrance dot roll an extra die for initiative, use the lowest of the bunch" might work?

In the current R&M book there is a method (which we use) where each side gets one initiative roll at the beginning of each round (ie, not individual rolls).  How would encumbrance affect a single roll for the entire party?  (Right now, we just force everyone to take a turn and their initiative modifier affects the whole party - so this encumbrance rule could work that way, as well).

JimLotFP wrote:

* Not original, but all weapon damage is d8, with the "roll twice, take the lowest/highest" for certain kinds of weapons.

I've never used this.  Rolling two dice is fun, also rolling different dice is fun.  I honestly have no opinion here - do we know statistically how that would work out?  Which weapons would be which?  Would a d8 weapon kill almost any 1st level character?

JimLotFP wrote:

* Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit, we could give Fighters and Magic-Users some skill points to play with while also giving Specialists more points so it's still their thing without maxing the existing skills up faster. Very unsure about this one because it makes NPC statting more complicated and I want to avoid that.

My feeling on most skill systems is that they make all players feel the same.  If everyone has an architecture skill of 1, that's boring.  Then someone just randomly decides to make that check (or you go through the monotony of everyone doing that, etc.) 

One thing I've experimented with is giving everyone skill points (the specialist gets more) and then having them work out who is going to have extra in what, with specialists getting fist pick/claim over whatever they want.  This way there is definitely someone good at bushcraft, someone who's good at searching, etc.  This not only adds a slight amount of flavor to the characters, it gives everyone another role beyond class. 

I don't think adding a few more skills, or giving fighters/magic-users some points will hurt anything.

I will also say it would impact my statting of NPCs not at all.  I just more or less randomly determine if an NPC is good at something or not and go from there.

JimLotFP wrote:

Classes:

* Witch-Hunter: Because thinking of the accompanying illustrations the Fighter has to go to Alice because she's the murderous one. The Flame Princess was originally designated as a Specialist but that doesn't seem right since she was conceived as a Solomon Kane type character. So there's the Witch-Hunter, with the concept being a kinda fightey character whose main thing is being magic-resistant.

(I had the "Inquisitor" idea but that's conceptually really close to the Witch-Hunter, just with magical vs non-magical focus, so doing both sounds stupid - "The Inquisitor is just like the Witch-Hunter but less exciting!")

* Conquistador, basically the explorer-type. ("Explorer" itself being dishwater-dull as a name - legacy naming is useful because everyone recognizes it and little explanation is needed, but if you're adding something, don't let it fade into the background... Buccaneer might work?). Basically a fightey outdoorsey type, or a non-magical Ranger type ("Ranger" as a name being really being the wrong tone for the game).

My problems with those conceptually... yes, the art will be all "1600s western European-focused" in the main rulebooks. It's what excites me and what I think of in my game. Buuuttt, "Fighter" "Magic-User" "Specialist" are themselves universally applicable. If you want your campaign to be Aztec-based, Ottoman-based, Mughal-based, Edo-based, Tokugawa-based, Ming-based, whatever, then those three classes are still applicable. "The ass-kicker, the mystic, the misc. skills."

Not so much "Witch-Hunter" or "Conquistador/Buccaneer".

The more specific a character type is, the less interesting it is over time (this is why Pathfinder keeps releasing more and more).  Once each player has played as the Conquistador, then it's not as exciting the second time.  In my mind, it feels more like a "thing to try."  (Still fun, but is it core book material?)

I like the Fighter, Magic-User, Specialist (and Cleric) classes b/c they are generic enough that when people say, "I'm a fighter" it's like saying, "I have 10 hp" or "I have a 15 save."  It feels like a descriptive mechanic, and not something that the character in the game world would go around saying.  Once you get to things like Alchemist, Witch-Hunter, Paladin...these sound like a very specific thing that a person might say about themselves...and then you wonder, well, does the specialist walk around saying, "I'm a Specialist"?

Nobody has a specific visual image of the base classes, so then you can add in fluff.  Stuff like the DCC or 5E backgrounds, titles, class/status, etc., that help players tailor their characters how they want.  (Within reason - a few randomized charts and a couple of choices.)  When you say, "Conquistador" and to some extent "Witch-Hunter," it brings up a stronger mental image.

Maybe Pioneer could work?  Although not much more exciting than Explorer...

I think it's cool that when they're sitting around the table, you can't really tell what class the iconic characters in LotFP are.  It's only when they're actually doing stuff that you're like, "Oh yeah, she's the magic-user!"

Final thoughts, if you're still reading:

Honestly, one of the biggest changes I would love to see is a more forceful approach to your desired setting.  I would like to see a pure R&M book that reads exactly the way you want it to, with the the "I want you to use this with every other OSR game and here's how" stuff as a big appendix in the back.  (Then I can just completely ignore that section! smile)

Also, I wish the R&M book had a player advice and tips section.  I think you'd be good at giving some advice for adventurers while not destroying the sense of exploration and mystery that comes with being a new player.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Speaking of taking the largest / smallest of a pool of dice, I've recently been looking into dice roll probability graphs, and other geeky game design stuff... and found THIS here:
Troll dice roll probability calculator

It might be known to everyone, or it might be new, anyway it's very useful in determining the effects of dice rolling mechanisms. Taking the largest of a pool significantly reduces the mean deviation of a throw. If a single die is picked, then the highest probability will be the highest result, while if the largest n dice, (like the 3 largest of a pool of 6), the result is a narrower bell curve skewed to the side.

Syntax examples for the calculator:

Least die of 2d8: least 1 2d8
Largest die of 2d8: largest 1 2d8
Largest 3 dice of 6d6: sum largest 3 6d6
And so on. smile There's also a documentation but it's quite massive. You can simulate entire combat actions and see the probabilities of outcomes.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

vfults wrote:

I also allow 3rd Edition style multi-classing.

Lepus wrote:

How exactly do you do that without replacing major part of the system? Given the quite different XP and saving throw progression charts for each class...

I long ago ditched d20 xp systems based on monsters defeated/treasure recovered and replaced them with a system that rewards attendance and participation in the game session.  the xp needed to level is the same for everyone:

Level   2…XP  5
          3....XP 11
          4....XP 18
          5....XP 26
          6....XP 35
          7....XP 45
          8....XP 56
          9....XP 68
        10..…XP 81
        11..…XP 95
        12....XP 110
              +15 points per level for each level over 12.

Per session XP rewards:
0=No show/no participation
1=Minimal participation/partial session
2=Average participation
3=Epic participation

This may not be mathematically balanced, but my players like it and it cuts down on gm bookkeeping.  Saving throws are by the book with the multi-classed character using the best saving throws of his two classes.

Last edited by vfults (2015-01-28 23:59:21)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

vfults wrote:

This may not be mathematically balanced, but my players like it and it cuts down on gm bookkeeping.  Saving throws are by the book with the multi-classed character using the best saving throws of his two classes.

Best throws at class level or best throws at character level? (Eg. does a Fighter 2 / Magic-User 3 use the best of the Fighter and Magic-User throws at 5th level, or uses the best of Fighter 2nd and Magic-User 3rd throws?)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Lepus wrote:
vfults wrote:

This may not be mathematically balanced, but my players like it and it cuts down on gm bookkeeping.  Saving throws are by the book with the multi-classed character using the best saving throws of his two classes.

Best throws at class level or best throws at character level? (Eg. does a Fighter 2 / Magic-User 3 use the best of the Fighter and Magic-User throws at 5th level, or uses the best of Fighter 2nd and Magic-User 3rd throws?)

The latter.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points.

I assume this is instead of a Con mod? Seems to punish people who have a high Con rather than another stat. Too random.

* Magic saving throws modified by Charisma.

Don’t mind this.

* Shields should give bonuses to parrying.

Might use it if the party was mostly made up of combat junkies, otherwise no.

* Encumbrance should affect initiative in some way.

Don’t have anything against the idea but it’s application could get messy.

* Not original, but all weapon damage is d8, with the "roll twice, take the lowest/highest" for certain kinds of weapons.

No. I like all the dice.

* Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit, we could give Fighters and Magic-Users some skill points to play with…

Tending to the no, fighters are great at fighting, MU’s cast, leave the specialists their deal.

* Witch-Hunter, Conquistador

If they had unique abilities, if your thinking of dropping the races, then maybe yes.

You people are all alike, you march in here, young, try and touch the local things.
I suppose next you'll be spraying me with one of those cans of paint, smearing poor Tubbs here with excrement.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

CironeAE wrote:

Have you thought about moving demi-humans to the appendix and then using the extra space in the core rules section for a few of these new classes?

Not only thought about but long ago decided: Demi-humans and Clerics will go in the appendix, firearms to the main portion of the book, and Cleric spells folded into the MU spell lists.

CironeAE wrote:

What about adding an option for Specialists to increase attack bonus by spending skill points? That allows you to cover all sorts of fighter/specialist hybrids without adding new classes. Fighters would still be unique in having more hit points, better saving throws, and combat options.

I have ideas for a total point buy "everyone is a Specialist" character creation system, but it's not going to be core, and nobody but Fighters will get extra attack bonuses.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Cutter wrote:

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points.

I assume this is instead of a Con mod? Seems to punish people who have a high Con rather than another stat. Too random.

That's kind of the point. One thing I hate about the modifiers is they eliminate the lower possibilities. It's why Strength doesn't modify damage, because doing 1 point of damage should always be on the table.

(One thing I'm going to have in the Ref book is the idea that monsters shouldn't have multiple attacks, nor should their attacks do multiple dice of damage, just so even on a successful attack it's always possible for them to do only 1 point of damage.)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

JimLotFP wrote:
Cutter wrote:

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points.

I assume this is instead of a Con mod? Seems to punish people who have a high Con rather than another stat. Too random.

That's kind of the point. One thing I hate about the modifiers is they eliminate the lower possibilities. It's why Strength doesn't modify damage, because doing 1 point of damage should always be on the table.

(One thing I'm going to have in the Ref book is the idea that monsters shouldn't have multiple attacks, nor should their attacks do multiple dice of damage, just so even on a successful attack it's always possible for them to do only 1 point of damage.)

The lower possibilities are covered by the more likely chance that they didn't roll well enough to get a modifier in the first place.

Don't be a bastard for the sake of it.

You people are all alike, you march in here, young, try and touch the local things.
I suppose next you'll be spraying me with one of those cans of paint, smearing poor Tubbs here with excrement.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

JimLotFP wrote:

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points, no matter what your class. Fighters roll twice and keep the highest, Magic-Users roll twice and keep the lowest, Dwarfs roll one die higher and roll three times and keep the highest, that sort of thing.

While the basic idea is nice I don't really like the idea of rolling multiple dice and choosing best or worst. It is just not... elegant. Also, this idea departs from the basic system in which the only thing you need to know about your character are stat modifiers and character class. Instead, you need to check also his Constitition die. If I'd go with this system I'd probably go with just four different dice: 1d4 (negative Constitution modifier), 1d6 (no Constitution modifier), and 1d8 (positive Constitution modifier). Magic-User would roll one die smaller, Fighter one die higher, and Dwarf two dice higher (so a Dwarf with positive Constitution modifier would roll 1d12).

Also, Magic-Users will have lower hit points than specialists even without specific penalties, as their level progress is slower. Eliminating Constitution modifiers plays in favour of weak characters as even they will get at least 1 HP per level.

Having multiple dice rolled and one choosed also makes it difficult to calculate the probabilities.

JimLotFP wrote:

* Magic saving throws modified by Charisma. It's the force of personality, not intelligence, that powers this stuff!

I like this idea, though it leaves Intelligence rather useless. (At least in our games Charisma has become one of the most important stats, as you will need to hire retainers if you want to survive.)

JimLotFP wrote:

* Shields should give bonuses to parrying. Also allow a single parry in a round without sacrificing your own attack. (as would a second weapon, but there'd be no bonus to the parry) Shields could also parry non-firearm missile fire. (Fighters get 2x the bonus to parrying that other classes do.)

So that you could always choose to gain AC bonus against one attack per round? But wouldn't that make one-on-one combat quite a bit longer? Also, this would greatly harm characters who are facing multiple enemies at once, which means that flashy heroic deeds would be much more uncommon. Personally I like the way in which you just choose your combat style for one round and that's it. Elegant and simple, but still gives some tactical depth.

JimLotFP wrote:

* Encumbrance should affect initiative in some way. Different encumbrance levels using difference dice is one option but I fear might complicate things. "for every encumbrance dot roll an extra die for initiative, use the lowest of the bunch" might work?

I like the idea of having different dice. Having multiple penalty dice, not so much. ENC 0 -> 1d12; ENC 1 -> 1d10, ENC 2 -> 1d8, ENC 3 -> 1d6, ENC 4 -> 1d4, overencumbered -> 1d2. These could be printed in the character sheet along with other encumbrance notes. Simple, fast, and having plenty of dice of different size and shape is always a plus. smile

JimLotFP wrote:

* Not original, but all weapon damage is d8, with the "roll twice, take the lowest/highest" for certain kinds of weapons.

Well, I don't really like having multiple dice rolls. Rolling just one dice is much simpler. Even rolling several dice and totaling them is better than choosing the best or worst from several rolls. And having multiple different dice is always cool.

JimLotFP wrote:

* Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit, we could give Fighters and Magic-Users some skill points to play with while also giving Specialists more points so it's still their thing without maxing the existing skills up faster. Very unsure about this one because it makes NPC statting more complicated and I want to avoid that.

I like the way in which every character class is specialized. That makes every character in the group important. And it is elegant, as are many things in LotFP. Giving skill points to Fighters and Magic-Users would leave Specialist more or less useless.

JimLotFP wrote:

* Witch-Hunter: Because thinking of the accompanying illustrations the Fighter has to go to Alice because she's the murderous one. The Flame Princess was originally designated as a Specialist but that doesn't seem right since she was conceived as a Solomon Kane type character. So there's the Witch-Hunter, with the concept being a kinda fightey character whose main thing is being magic-resistant.

This sounds great! What would that mean, specifically? Good saving throws, at least, but what else? Some kind of counter-magic skills that improve that every level? Something like "Magic-User that tries to cast a spell on Witch-Hunter will take one d6 of damage per Witch-Hunter's level"?

JimLotFP wrote:

* Conquistador, basically the explorer-type. ("Explorer" itself being dishwater-dull as a name - legacy naming is useful because everyone recognizes it and little explanation is needed, but if you're adding something, don't let it fade into the background... Buccaneer might work?). Basically a fightey outdoorsey type, or a non-magical Ranger type ("Ranger" as a name being really being the wrong tone for the game).

Sounds good.

JimLotFP wrote:
CironeAE wrote:

Have you thought about moving demi-humans to the appendix and then using the extra space in the core rules section for a few of these new classes?

Not only thought about but long ago decided: Demi-humans and Clerics will go in the appendix, firearms to the main portion of the book, and Cleric spells folded into the MU spell lists.

Would there be lawful Magic-Users? Or do you have to be chaotic in order to heal someone? Will there be (non-magical) first-aid if clerics are eliminated?

Last edited by Miihkali (2015-02-02 12:54:22)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Miihkali wrote:

While the basic idea is nice I don't really like the idea of rolling multiple dice and choosing best or worst. It is just not... elegant.
...
Having multiple dice rolled and one choosed also makes it difficult to calculate the probabilities.
...
Well, I don't really like having multiple dice rolls. Rolling just one dice is much simpler. Even rolling several dice and totaling them is better than choosing the best or worst from several rolls. And having multiple different dice is always cool.

Elegance is entirely subjective...

As for complexity, I linked a perfect tool for the job above.

And in fact, choosing the best or worst n out of a number of dice yields the most beautiful probability curve. Essentially you can adjust the mean deviation and expected value while maintaining postivie probability across the entire setof values.

Not to mention that choosing the largest or smallest takes zero time and has almost zero chance of error, while totaling is both time-consuming and error-prone.

Miihkali wrote:
JimLotFP wrote:

Not only thought about but long ago decided: Demi-humans and Clerics will go in the appendix, firearms to the main portion of the book, and Cleric spells folded into the MU spell lists.

Would there be lawful Magic-Users? Or do you have to be chaotic in order to heal someone? Will there be (non-magical) first-aid if clerics are eliminated?

Good question. I remember an interview where Jim talked about clerics being sort of anti-magicusers. Is this paradigm going to shift as well?

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Lepus wrote:
Miihkali wrote:

While the basic idea is nice I don't really like the idea of rolling multiple dice and choosing best or worst. It is just not... elegant.
...
Having multiple dice rolled and one choosed also makes it difficult to calculate the probabilities.
...
Well, I don't really like having multiple dice rolls. Rolling just one dice is much simpler. Even rolling several dice and totaling them is better than choosing the best or worst from several rolls. And having multiple different dice is always cool.

Elegance is entirely subjective...

As for complexity, I linked a perfect tool for the job above.

And in fact, choosing the best or worst n out of a number of dice yields the most beautiful probability curve. Essentially you can adjust the mean deviation and expected value while maintaining postivie probability across the entire setof values.

Not to mention that choosing the largest or smallest takes zero time and has almost zero chance of error, while totaling is both time-consuming and error-prone.

Elegance is subjective, but I perceive it as the lowest needed amount of rules, exceptions, and rolls. It is simple to check the amount of dice from your sheet and then roll and pick the lowest or highest result... But it is even simplier to check which die to use and roll just once.

As for the probability machine you linked above, yes, it is easy to use, but I personally want to be able to comprehend probabilities inside my head instead of checking them from a table or something like that.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

One of my favorite dice mechanics was from Avalon Hill's Magic Realm.  You often had to roll two d6, use the highest of the two, but you wanted the lowest roll possible.  Characters who were better than average only had to roll one die!  It made for a brutal game.

(My first time playing, it took about an hour to set up, and then I died within a few minutes! smile)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Miihkali wrote:

Elegance is subjective, but I perceive it as the lowest needed amount of rules, exceptions, and rolls. It is simple to check the amount of dice from your sheet and then roll and pick the lowest or highest result... But it is even simplier to check which die to use and roll just once.

Design is always a compromise between simplicity and functionality. smile

Using a single die will always result in a flat distribution of probability. Using modifiers will always result in a simple shift in that flat distribution, making previously impossible results possible, and previously possible results impossible to attain.

If, as Jim expressed, one wants a system that always allows for a positive probability on all possible results, but shifts the probabilities around, one simply cannot make do with a single die.

Miihkali wrote:

As for the probability machine you linked above, yes, it is easy to use, but I personally want to be able to comprehend probabilities inside my head instead of checking them from a table or something like that.

That is a good personal argument, but hardly an objective one.

The only time you really need to comprehend the exact probability distributions is when you are designing a game (including die throw mechanics), or writing random tables. And you can perfectly afford using a computerized tool to help you in those specific cases.

And as I pointed out above, there is an inevitable compromise to be made between simplicity and functionality. You'd prefer simplicity to reign supreme. I think there is room to add some functionality without sacrificing actual ease of use (ie. how much work and tedium it is to actually play).

Last edited by Lepus (2015-02-09 21:49:31)

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

JimLotFP wrote:

* Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points, no matter what your class. Fighters roll twice and keep the highest, Magic-Users roll twice and keep the lowest, Dwarfs roll one die higher and roll three times and keep the highest, that sort of thing.

I think I'm going to try and start using this in my games. I see it working with 4 die types (d4, d6, d8, and d10) plus the con score mods.

Also, how your class affects the table totally goes with the whole Fighters = good at fighting stuff and everyone else = good with other stuff. Hit points represent your longevity in combat and fighters should always have this advantage.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Pardon the thread necromancy, but I'm late to the game and I have to get this off my chest...

Jim - You aren't seriously considering these rules changes, are you? These seem more like after-the-fact "house rules" applied to what is, in my opinion at least, an already extremely well written and thought-out set of rules.

  * Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points...

I'm not sure how this is any "better" than the current rules. I understand your desire to see more "low" throws for hit dice, but they are there in the current rules... unless one is cheating.

  * Magic saving throws modified by Charisma...

Makes some sense I suppose, if your concept of how magic works in your game is that it is purely a function of the caster's will. But, given that the spell rules are decidedly old-school Vancian, it seems more appropriate to use Intelligence. (Personally I prefer no bonuses at all - use the tables as is. Although, I do like LotFP's take on Wisdom being sort of "luck" bonus for non-magical saves - perhaps have it apply to all saves?)

  * Shields should give bonuses to parrying...

Might be good to add some more options to combat, but I think this needs to be ironed out a bit first. Shields already give a bonus to AC... which is, in essence, a "parry bonus".

  * Encumbrance should affect initiative in some way...

I love the Encumbrance rules in LotFP; they're fast and easy. So why not make this one fast and easy too? Characters that are heavily encumbered or worse go last in the round... period.

  * Not original, but all weapon damage is d8, with the "roll twice, take the lowest/highest" for certain kinds of weapons.

Sort of like the original "all weapons do 1d6", but house-ruled to satisfy those players who complain that a halberd would do more damage than a prison shiv "in real life". I like using lots of different dice for weapon damage myself. One die, one number, done. And it makes the halberd-vs-shiv crowd happy.

  * Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit...

That word. Skillz. Blarg! I love the idea of the Specialist (reminds me of the "Other" career in classic Traveller), but I also like that those "skills" are isolated to the Specialist, and all other classes are 1 in 6 for anything.

On an opinionated side note: I could go on and on about how I feel that the hobby was destroyed in part by the idea of skills and customized characters, but I won't. I'll just say that the most memorable characters for me were not numbers on a character sheet; it was how they were played and how they developed in the campaign that made them memorable.

  * Witch-Hunter, etc...

I think these sorts of things are best left for a supplement. I think it makes it easier for the referee to preclude them if they aren't staring the players in the face on the pages of the core rule book. And for what it's worth, any imagined archetype can be played using just the four core "human" classes. A Witch-Hunter is just a Cleric or Fighter. If I wanted to be a Witch-Hunter, I would roll up a Cleric and say "I hate witches and demons, and I'm going to use a cross-bow... with silver bolts." Same goes for the "explorer", after all, isn't that what all the character do already?

=============
TL/DR section:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

-Fox

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

Instead of making new classes that are 'fightey, but', what about giving fighters 1 point per level which can either go into improving their attack bonus by 1 as usual, or buying other traits at an exchange rate based on how powerful that trait is.

In addition to buying magic resistance, you could let fighters buy up the ability to fire into melee, buy down the AC penalty for press and defend (to -2), or buy up their ability to parry, or whatever else you like.

This gets you out of having to come up with generic names for particular builds.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

foxroe wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's not "broke", per se, but the rules as written no longer reflects how I personally play the game.

I don't use demi-humans or Clerics at all.

So the choices for PCs are Fighters, Magic-Users, and Specialists. Some additional level of customization for PCs seems to be in order when the basic choices are cut down like that.

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

JimLotFP wrote:
foxroe wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's not "broke", per se, but the rules as written no longer reflects how I personally play the game.

I don't use demi-humans or Clerics at all.

Though my hope is that others will still be able to make that choice in any new edition.  Unless you're trying to create your own edition wars or something.

I posted something similar to what I'm about to say in a thread on G+ recently. I'll try to be more direct here. One of the great strengths of LotFP as it's written today is that it's easy to do your own version of James' specific style of campaign, but it's just as easy to do something closer to classic D&D with a weird twist, or something in the middle, or something that goes off in a completely different direction. I feel like the rules today encourage a style of play, but are setting-agnostic. These changes, to my tastes, mostly seem about encouraging a specific setting, which seems limiting.

My suggestion (plea?), is to do these kinds of things the same way you do stuff now. In today's rule set, most setting specific stuff seems to be about taking stuff out of the game, which is great. Taking out dwarfs and clerics if they don't fit your game is really easy. Adding them if they're missing is a huge pain in the ass. The same could be true of Witch Hunters and fiddly weapon damage rules and additional Encumbrance rules and new skills...especially if there were designer notes on what specific pieces could be removed, and how that might effect the gameplay style...

Re: Things I Think Of at Night! (RULES!)

The reprint of the R&M book coming this month is unchanged from the last printing, so no worries for another year or maybe two.

Going forward though there is a serious problem. There are still some outstanding projects in which Clerics, for example, figure strongly into the material, but going forward there are issues when it comes to outside writers and LotFP projects. It's getting a bit tiresome on my end to need to tell people not to write for the rules, and not to use the rules as a basis for setting assumptions.

Fact is that even a tiny project like Idea from Space carries a price tag of thousands of euros. I've been lucky in that no book I've released has been a complete and total flop but the possibility is always there and if I'm risking several months' worth of rent on the low side (and in extreme cases an entire's year worth of income), I'm going to make sure the project aligns with my sensibilities. It'll be bad enough for a project I believe in to be a failure (and it will come, sooner or later); I don't want to find out what it feels like if a thing I didn't even like but produced as a cash grab fails utterly and fucks my life.

Summing up, basically, the audience for LotFP material is me, with the business plan basically being hoping like hell that other people want to come along for that ride. If my tastes and those of the buying public diverge to the point where I can't keep going, that's it. Done. There will be no attempt to chase other peoples' tastes.