Search options

Some notes on version 0.04

Am I reading this correctly:

Saving throws are:
Paralyze, Poison, Breath Weapon, Magical Device, Magic. A character's Con modifier improves Save vs. Poison difficulty, his Wis modifier improves Save vs. Cleric spells and his Int modifier improves Save vs. Magic-User (and presumably Elf) spells. The saves versus spells are further modified on a case by case basis by the spellcasters casting stat (Wis and Int respectively). No ability affects the rest of the saves (Paralyze, Breath Weapon, Magical Device). The description makes a reference to "save vs. poison or disease", but the actual saving throw tables make no reference to disease saves.

My thoughts on this:
- The table doesn't need it, but the character sheet probably needs two slots for the save vs. spells. Either that or discard the Int modifier to Magic-User spells and replace it with Wis.
- Save vs. Breath Weapon is about dodging, isn't it? Should a character's Dex modifier affect it?
- Save vs. Magical Device is pretty much a save against a spell as well. Should Wis and Int affect this? Say, a Wand shooting Magic Missiles.
- If you want to include more stats in the saving throws, how about using the Charisma modifier on one of the saves? For instance, have Charisma modify either Paralyze or Magical Device.

I find adding two numbers together to be a LOT easier than asking for a number and then cross-referencing it with another number on a table on my character sheet. In fact, most of the time I don't even use my character sheet during a game, except to record damage and inventory. Numbers I remember, tables of numbers I really don't like at all.

But lets agree to disagree and leave it at that, shall we?

Either you are adding figures in your head since you would have to add your dexterity modifier to your roll anyway, or you'd have to make a table for yourself on your sheet, which would have the armor class and dexterity modifier already added. Neither of these actually requires the game book to have the original table, which would just list base attack bonus (or have the classes with said BAB) on column one, armor class on the top row and required target number to hit cross-referenced.

"Oh, the orc has a chain shirt (+4) and a shield (+1) and my Level 1 Fighter (bab +1) has +1 Dex. I need to roll a 13 to hit."

I really wouldn't call that too difficult. Then again, even though I'm old enough to classify as an old fart, I don't consider myself as one.

As for the desired market, I got the impression that James is aiming for new role-players, current role-players AND the old school scene. The new players would grasp a simpler (e.g. one without a reversed table) much easier, the current role-players would be most familiar with the D&D 3+ style armor class, and the old school scene would just house-rule everything to their liking, since that's what they've been doing for 30 years now anyway.

I just had a quick gander at the rules, and a few things sprung to mind.

Since every edition is different, and even all of the retro-clones have their own peculiarities; the kind of things you have to eyeball when using, say, modules from one version with rules from another edition, why even bother with keeping things just because "it was there in the older editions"?

For instance, you've remarked on having to include halflings just because they are in other games, and at the same time, your own dislike for said class (as a PC class) is quite evident. On the other hand, your rendition on halflings in Insect Shrine is just brilliant, and definitely worthwhile, except they have little or nothing at all to do with the halflings that players play.

Why not do away with halflings as a core race/class altogether and just make them an "NPC-class", with some rules in an appendix for those who really want to run PC halflings?

You're doing away with some of the fiddly bits in some of the older games, like for instance encumbrance, and micro managing item weights and such. Why not do the same to some other parts of the game, which seem to be there just because that's the way its always been done, although there are (in newer versions) better, and easier ways to present the same thing. I'm of course talking about the descending armor class, which, in my opinion, really isn't worthwhile. Its just inelegant when compared to ascending armor class, or some other variations out there, for instance Dragon Age RPG which has an ascending defense value (mainly from Dexterity and shield), and armor that reduces damage (as Damage Reduction in some editions).

You're absolutely correct in that LL isn't really new material as such. Its a pretty faithful version of the Mentzer B/X game. I haven't really done a comparison for the actual differences, although I've been told there are a few small ones here and there.

Yeah, I decided to do just that. So far I've re-read the Mentzer Basic and Expert sets and have started on the Grand Duchy of Karameikos Gazetteer, just to get a feel of the setting for most of these older modules. Next up, I'll probably start perusing the modules, starting with Keep on the Borderlands, and other B Series modules.

Any pointers on where to go for good new material? Anything by Expeditious Retreat Press or other publishers you'd recommend?

If the picture is more exiting than the description in the module, why not just change the description to match the picture?

Anyways, the front cover is what sells the module. It should be as evocative as possible. Matching it up with the actual content is of secondary importance in my opinion. I still remember a lot of those old D&D modules specifically because of the covers.

I'm not sure what you mean by exaggeration impression. Could you elaborate a bit? I'm assuming it has something to do with artistic liberties taken which add to the style or mood, but detract from the functionality as described in the text? Anyway, kind of hard to comment on whether or not this is a problem without knowing what the illustration depicts in the first place.

Ah, well. I'll just wing it. Say its the picture of the main villain's palace. The text says there's a moot and drawbridge, but these are lacking from the picture. I'd still use the picture as reference material in my games. I'd just tell the player's "It looks like this, but there's a moot and drawbridge here." So, the answer would be no, I don't think what you're describing is really a problem at all.

How much setting material do the adventures include? What are the page counts? Can you give us any estimates on how many game sessions or hours worth of material each of these are? Are we talking three, five, or ten game session adventure archs here? Is the material "system-free" in the vein of, say, No Dignity in Death?