Lately I’ve had a strong preference for group initiative. Despite individual initiative giving a more fluid and chaotic battlefield, as well as scope for per-character bonuses and penalties, it seems more trouble than it’s worth. Tracking who goes when is a hassle,particularly if you’re tracking each NPC separately, and players seem to get more bummed out when they consistently roll crappily than they are pleased to roll well.
But because I like to tinker, I’m considering the following house rule:
In order of preference each turn initiative goes to:
1. The side that ran away last turn, as long as they’re still running.
2. The side that downed the most foes last turn.
3. The side that hit the most foes last turn (failed saves count as being hit).
4. The side that rolls highest on a d6 plus any CHA bonus for the designated leader.
Apropos of Delta’s discussion of big cats in D&D, I suddenly realized after all these years that a saber-tooth tiger was nearly as many HD as a red dragon.
So, my Monday group has been talking a bit about a post by Ken on running a low-magic, restricted race and class (Human only, Fighter and Thief only) setting. A bunch of my thoughts on “low magic” and what feels magical have appeared on my blog (e.g. Niven’s Law and Low Magic) but I want to offer some further comments.
- I’m in favor of streamlined, quick systems in general, though you can take it too far. E.g. Systems which boil down to one roll for everything are usually too bland; it often ends up feeling like it makes no real difference whether you do something clever or stupid, expected or unexpected, genre-plausible or not: you end up rolling pretty much the same either way.
- Rare != weird or wonderful. It doesn’t matter if it’s the only one in the world, a +1 sword is still dull. Even if something is ubiquitous in the setting, it can still give the players a thrill (e.g. space-ships in an SF game).
- Whether something counts as wonderful or prosaic is entirely based on the players’ experiences, not the typical inhabitants of the setting. A peasant in a no-magic setting might be completely freaked out if somebody actually casts a spell like Levitate; the player of that peasant won’t be. Even if the player roleplays it well, experience with other fantasy outside the campaign is going to color whether the player feels awe.
- Finally, to Ken’s specific idea about a fantastic dungeon in a decidedly non-fantastic world, unless the characters spend a lot of time outside the dungeon, contrast makes little practical difference. I’ve only played a few sessions in Monteporte, but all of them were so far down in the megadungeon the outside world might as well not have existed except as a source of back-story.
This isn’t to say that I’m against the idea of low-magic settings or stripped down character options, but I think to accomplish Ken’s stated goals, it’s best to concentrate on achieving them directly. The bullet points are Ken’s goals, followed by my commentary.
- Focus play on exploration, rather than tactical combat.
Players are goal oriented. E.g. in D&D if you stick closely to OD&D xp (award XP for gold, minimal XP for killing things), or you directly award XP for exploring new areas, players will naturally shift their focus to exploration. Of course, you have to make the exploration itself interesting, with new and startling alien vistas, things to interact with and decisions to make. Resource management can be a big part of this, if you can do it in a non-boring way.
- Focus the players to find different and creative solutions to challenges poised by having such limited options.
I find this to be more a matter of the GM’s openness to out-of-the-box thinking than limiting the mechanical options available to the players. At worst having lots of mechanical options acts as friction, where play slows down for the players to review their options and make sure they haven’t missed any application of mechanics before they start poking at the problem space with off-the-wall thinking. Limiting mechanics can help there, but it doesn’t actually spur the players to creative solutions unless the GM is willing to consider them. I’ve seen plenty of minimalist games bog down with the GM shooting down all the options until the players come up with the solution the GM is looking for.
- Highlight the sense of danger and weirdness with regards to the dungeon.
This is best done by making the dungeon dangerous and weird in comparison to the things the players are familiar with, ignoring whether it would seem weird simply in comparison to the rest of the world or the characters’ expectations. Eliminating PC MUs and Clerics helps establish a certain Conan-esque baseline for the world, but they won’t automatically ooh and ahh if they finally encounter an NPC capable of casting Magic Missile or even Sticks to Snakes. A related point is that in order to establish a contrasting baseline it’s more important how the NPCs behave than what the PC options are. Even if you have a stereotypical anything-goes group of oddball PCs (lizardman, elf, gnome, ninja), as long as the rest of the world treats them like a freakshow you get much the same effect. In Rob’s game playing an elf feels special because the NPCs treat elves like they’re special, even though it sometimes seems like half of all PCs are elves.
- Magic items become highly prized.
Useful and bizarre magic items are highly prized even in high-magic settings; worthless or dull ones aren’t, even if they’re unique. Even if you can buy a +1 sword or a healing potion in Ye Olde Magick Shoppe, a collar that you can wear around your neck that lets you detach your head and fly it around is something the players will covet, (Not a random example, this was something that turned up in my Friday night GM’s game a bunch of years ago, and that particular bit of foolishness is still remembered fondly.) Boots of elven kind that just add 5′ to your speed, not so much.
One last thought. Consider a world (like our own in olden times), where superstition is rife. People will leave milk out for brownies, put horseshoes over their doors for luck, even burn people alive for witchcraft. Is there anything actually to be gained by having it be a no-magic world and telling the players that while their characters probably believe it, it’s all a bunch of hooey? Or is it better to leave it open whether things like charms against the evil eye work, or they need to be careful when travelling through the forest at night lest they meet a Will o’ th’ Wisp or troll? Or even better to have a world where such things are absolutely possible?
My own preferences for a setting that emphasized the weird and dangerous would be to make magic and supernatural creatures real, and potentially lurking around any corner, but have most magic be dangerous and mistrusted, while certain types of superstitions be well-known and effective. I think it’s weirder and scarier when, say, the players feel the need to seek a church-yard when they fear they’re pursued by fey creatures than when they know for a fact that since they’re not in the dungeon those sounds were at worst bandits. Dungeons can be a higher concentration of weirdness and danger, making them strange and spooky places. but leeching that stuff from the world at large in hopes of increasing the impact by contrast doesn’t really pay off But that’s me.
So, a quick analysis of spell costs in TFT vs, HOW. They’re mostly the same, except that all the TFT spells that have a continuing cost have had that cost folded into the casting cost and the duration replaced with IQ + Spell Skill Level in turns, which is a pretty huge power-up. E.g. something like Blur which in TFT costs 1 to cast, and then another 1 for each turn thereafter costs 2 in HOW and lasts for at least 9 turns, assuming you have the minimum IQ needed to cast it and 1 skill. The summoning spells become particularly deadly, since it takes only 3 to summon a wolf to fight for you for at least 10 rounds. Even the optional “lasts until you roll a 6 on a d6” variant is much more powerful than the TFT version.
This seems a little weird to me… for one thing, it’s likely to be more complicated in play. In TFT you’re pretty careful about having too many spells going at once, since it drains you quickly. In HOW you can easily have a bunch, and have to track how long its been since each was cast, or roll a d6 for each if you’re using that variant. It does make it a bit more like D&D, where spell durations are fixed, or at most adjusted for your level, but other than giving a big boost to spell-casters I’m not sure I see the advantage. The tactics involved in deciding how long to spend your ST (or EN in HOW) on maintaining a spell are pretty interesting, in my opinion.
|Name||Cost||Duration (turns)||Notes||HOW costs|
|Drop Weapon||1||I||cost 2 if str > 20||1|
|Magic Fist||1||*||I||1-2 damage per||1||*|
|Clumsiness||1||*||3||-2 DX per||1||*|
|Confusion||1||*||3||-2 IQ per||1||*|
|Dark Vision||3||1 hour||1||*|
|Darkness||1||*||M||cost +1 ST/mh, +1 ST/turn|
|Detect Enemies||3||I||cost +2/mh||1||*|
|Far Vision||1||5 minutes|
|Trip||2||I||cost 4 if > 30 STR||1||*|
|Sleep||3||Special||several hours, or til hit, or shaken awake (2 turns)||1|
|Staff to Snake||3||6||renewable||1|
|Drain ST||*||I||1 ST to wizard/5 drained|
|Fire, 3 Hex||2||12||2|
|Freeze||4||2d6||only on str <=30||4|
|Shadow, 3 Hex||2||12||2|
|Control Elemental||3||1||M||per minute|
|Curse||2||*||P||until remove thrown||3|
|Image, 4 Hex||2||12|
|Wall, 3 Hex||4||12||4|
|Fresh Air||2||1||M||per minute|
|Illusion, 4 Hex||3||12||3|
|Remove Thrown Spell||2||I|
|Summon Lesser Demon||20||12|
|Astral Projection||10||1 hour|
|Create Gate||100||P||50 per side|
|Image, 7 Hex||4||12||3|
|Shadow, 7 Hex||3||12||3|
|Summon Small Dragon||5||1||M|
|Create/Destroy Elemental||5||*||P||cost +1 str per str of elemental||8|
|Create/Destroy Elemental||10||I||destroy any str elemental|
|Death Spell||1||*||I||cost as much as lesser ST||1|
|Fire, 7 Hex||4||12||3|
|Illusion, 7 Hex||5||12||4|
|Long-distance Telepathy||12||I||5 words to any, or 30 seconds between wizards who know each other|
|MegaHex Sleep||8||Special||several hours, or til hit, or shaken awake (2 turns)||6|
|Staff of Power||10||*||P||four weeks @ 10 STR/day|
|Wall, 7 Hex||6||12||6|
|Blast Trap||Special||I||6 for 1+1, 12 for 2+2, 24 for 3|
|Cleansing||20||*||I||per hex, up to 7|
|Dissolve Enchantment||Special||I||100 if greater, 50 if lesser|
|Expunge||Special||P||125 ST/day for 3 weeks|
|Geas||10||P||wish/dissolve enchantment to remove|
|Little Death||1||*||Special||cost +1 per day, until runs out = dead|
|Little Death (part 2)||4||Special||if willing|
|Little Death (part 3)||10||Special||if unwilling|
|Remove Cursed Object||20||I|
|Control Gate||10||P||50 to destroy|
|Lesser Magic Item Creation||Special|
|Shapeshifting||20||P||cost 10 if cast on self||8|
|Wizard’s Wrath||1||*||I||1+1 per ST||1||*|
|Zombie||5||*||cost +1 per ST you give zombie (must be at least 2)|
|Greater Magic Item Creation||Special||P|
|Posession||Special||I||10 to prep, 20 when it goes off if it succeeds, 5 if save is made|
|Word of Command||3||I|
This is just a quick recap of translating D&D attributes into their Heroes & Other Worlds equivalents, if what you care about is how much the attribute adds to the chances of success on a roll. See my previous post on Bell Curve vs. Linear for a deeper explanation of the probabilities involved. It seems to me that chance of success is probably the best way to look at it, since that’s most often what you’re going to be directly testing, at least in HOW. There are other things the attributes are good for (e.g. carrying capacity for STR in D&D), but they seem to me to be relatively minor compared to adjustments to your chance to hit, say. In D&D, particularly old D&D, attributes are much less important than in HOW: the difference between a 12 and a 9 in Basic D&D is almost purely cosmetic, and even the difference between a 3 and an 18 is no more than the difference between a 10 and a 13 in HOW when it comes to applying the bonuses to a d20 roll.
|old D&D||New D&D||HOW|
If the HOW column shows a range, use the lower number if you’re at the lower end of the D&D range, or the higher number if at the higher end. Flip a coin if the number is exactly in the middle.
Update: Since Tim Knight asked, I’m including a little more of the reasoning behind having the D&D stats represent such a tight range of HOW stats… is a stat over 12 in HOW really superhuman?
D&D stats add comparatively little to your abilities. Even in the more generous editions, an 18 is only a +4 bonus… which is +20% on a d20 roll. Starting from a base to-hit of 50% vs. unarmored foes, that gives you a 70% chance of landing a blow. In HOW a score of 12 gives you a 75% chance of landing that same blow.
There are other ways you could look at it. For instance, as a straight roll under stat to see if you succeed, an 18 is 90%, which is equivalent to a HOW score of 14. But by-the-book D&D never employs rolls like that. Instead, where stats matter at all, it’s almost always as the tiny (+/- 20%) bonus.
The systems have pretty different underlying assumptions of competence, but it seems to me that matching bonuses as I did tends to minimize “system shock” where translating a character from one to the other makes it vastly more or less likely to succeed at tasks than in its home system. A beginning HOW character is much more likely to succeed than a beginning D&D character; they’re much closer in competency to a mid-level D&D character, even though HOW being a much more deadly system overall tends to make them feel comparatively fragile. E.g. a beginning thief in D&D has only 15% chance of picking locks or 20% of picking pockets compared to the 50% a 10 DX thief has in HOW. The one thing that D&D characters get a lot better at over time is taking multiple blows, though I haven’t yet tried to factor in the difference between armor as DR and armor as deflection
Here’s a handy little chart showing the difference between a linear distribution like rolling a d20 and a bell curve distribution like 3d6 when it comes to rolling versus a target. The first column is the d20 roll, the second is the approximate percent chance of rolling that or less on d20. That’s pretty obvious, but the next column is what the target number would be on 3d6 to have that chance to succeed (i.e. roll target or under). So a 50% chance is right in the middle of the curve at 10… but by the time the target is 12 you’ve got a 75% chance of succeeding. Next we have columns for a d20 skill roll/Basic Attack Bonus (as in 3e or 5e). The final four columns show THAC0 (to hit AC 0) and what level you would have to be to have that chance of hitting an unarmored person, using the D&D Rules Cyclopedia as a reference point. Hitting an unarmored person is the standard we’re using because that directly translates to scoring a hit in Heroes & Other Worlds/TFT (and similar games like Runequest) where armor reduces damage from a successful hit but does nothing to make success less likely.
From this you can see that, for instance, having a 13 DX in HOW is like being a 10th level Fighter, at least in terms of being able to land a blow. (On the other hand, a 10th level Fighter in D&D can sustain multiple times the damage a HOW fighter could, so you can’t just translate back and forth quite that easily.) Another thing to pay attention to is the s20 skill column, where you can see that in terms of stat bonus, a D&D score of 18 is equivalent to DX 11 (if 18 is +3 as in original D&D), or maybe DX 12 (if 18 is +4 as in later editions). Using the stat bonus in D&D is much more common than a straight roll-under against the stat.
Still, I find thinking of things this way as instructive.
|Roll Under||Rules Cyclopedia|
|d20||Approximate %||3d6||d20 skill/BaB||THAC0||Fighter||Cl/Th/D||MU/Normal|