Saturday, April 30, 2016

Z is for Zweihander of Zeal

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

Z is for Zweihander of Zeal. 

The zweinhander is the two-handed greatsword popular with Swiss and German mercenaries of the 16th century. For B/X play it is treated as a standard two-handed sword in all respects.

The zweihander of zeal empowers its wielder, transforming her into a nigh unstoppable force. In combat, the wielder is unaffected by mind control (like sleep, charm, and hold spells) and is immune to any type of paralysis or petrification effect. Even the complete reduction of her hit points will not stop the wielder of the zweihander of zeal; she will continue to fight until her body is completely destroyed (reduced to -10 or less hit points)...mangled and hewn to pieces.

When combat ends, the animating effects of the zweihander of zeal fades. If its wielder's hit points are zero or less when this occurs, she collapses and dies.

The final word in melee combat.

Friday, April 29, 2016

Y is for Yari of Yowling Spirits

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

Y is for Yari of Yowling Spirits. 

The yari is a Japanese spear, and one of the premier weapons of the ancient samurai; from what I've read its mastery was considered #2 in the ol' book of bushido, a bit behind the yumi (#1) and a bit ahead of the katana (#3)...but katanas get all the love because they're, like, the samurai's soul, right?

Personally, I prefer the yari...they're awesome. But I'm weird.

Anyway...the B/X yari is treated in all ways as a standard spear (though I hope you'll treat it with respect...). The yari of yowling spirits is a ghost slaying weapon: any incorporeal creature (shadows, wraiths, specters, or vampires) struck by the weapon takes double damage and must make a save versus spells as if targeted by a dispel evil spell (including the -2 penalty). Failure to save results in most spirits' ties to the material world being cut and their "bodies" harmlessly dissipating (for all intents and purposes killing the creature). Vampires are a special case: a failed save reduces the creature to zero hit points, forcing it to assume mist form.

Spirits that observe a fellow spirit's disruption at the hands of the yari of yowling spirits must make a morale check (with a +4 penalty!) or flee the vicinity of the weapon's wielder.

So simple. So effective.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

X is for Xiphos of Exasperation

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

X is for Xiphos of Exasperation.

The xiphos is an ancient blade that perfectly fits the bill for "short sword," being under 60cm in length and having a one-handed grip. For B/X purposes, it is treated as a short sword in all ways.

The xiphos of exasperation was crafted for a gladiator that was renowned for both his prowess and his cruelty when it came to toying with his opponents. No damage dice need be rolled for the weapon; it is enchanted such that it never inflicts more than minimum damage (2 points, including its +1 value), though any damage bonus for high strength is also added on a successful hit, accounting other punching, gouging, head-butts, etc. that might occur in the thick of melee. The original owner wanted to ensure (magically) that he would always exercise maximum restraint in his fights, drawing combats as long as possible to better entertain his admirers.

In addition, in any round where its current wielder inflicts damage (i.e. makes a successful attack roll), the xiphos of exasperation confers a limited immunity to its owner: the opponent damaged by the blade automatically misses any attacks aimed at the sword's wielder. This special protection only lasts until the end of the round in which the xiphos struck...in other words, it is only effective if the wielder of the xiphos of exasperation both gains initiative (gets first attack) and lands a blow (makes a successful to hit roll). If the xiphos strikes at the end of the round, it does not confer immunity in the following round.

Similar to a Roman gladius, at least in form.

Back to the Beginning

Do you ever feel like you're getting stupider?

I'm not talking about the senility that sometimes accompanies the aging process...more that
"over-thinking" can lead one to forget the epiphanies of the past. This is (perhaps) a standard problem of writing a long-running blog: after nearly seven years of posts, I can read back over the archives and see that many of my earlier thoughts and ideas were "smarter" than my later ones.

Of course, this isn't always the case. Enough so that I've come to the conclusion that every time I want to write on a particular topic, it would probably be wise to take a good, hard look at what I've written before. Especially with regard to gaming and design.

But that's not really what I wanted to write about (nor the reason for the title of this post). No, I've been thinking a lot lately about the origins of this hobby...and of my personal history with the hobby...and how I want to proceed with it going forward. And when I say "hobby" I'm not just talking  about playing RPGs in general or D&D specifically; I'm talking about the whole blogging/designing thing which is part (and a serious part) of the hobby.

I keep coming across little design notes to myself, stashed in various corners of my laptop hard drive, that all say the same thing. There's a pattern here: things I think about, ruminate on, jot down, and promptly forget for weeks or months or years...until the next time I start thinking about (or over-thinking) the same system or mechanic or game element. It's irritating. I'm not usually a "forgetful" person (well, my wife might disagree), but I'm often so focused or preoccupied with one line of thought that...well, shit, maybe I am forgetful. Stuff just gets pushed out of the forefront of my brain and falls out my ears.

With regard to gaming (and design), I think that this stems from two issues:

1) I'm not gaming. I haven't been gaming, certainly not on a regular basis for 3+ years. Living in Paraguay has been a real bitch in this regard. The fact that I'm not gaming...that I can't game...means I'm not "in the thick of it." I'm not practicing my own stuff...I'm not able to test the practicality of ideas and concepts. I'm not "in touch" with how the game works, how it plays, how it runs. If I ever get back to a gaming table, I'm sure I'll be rusty as hell. And while I'd almost be willing to turn to on-line gaming to get back on track, the timezone thing is just a really crappy deal. My evenings are not free...period. But who's available to hop on-line at 9am (U.S. time) in the middle of the work week? I suppose there's someone living in the middle of Asia who'd be on board, but my ability to even schedule a decent chunk of time is...well, it's really tough.

2) Too much "testing." Even before I moved to Paraguay I was spending too much time play testing my own designs. Testing is a good thing, it's a necessary thing (when designing), but the fact is I'm not a guy who has a bunch of time for gaming and "testing;" it's really just one or the other. And the fact that most of the folks I gamed with were looking to play, not test some new concept...well, I know it put a strain on the folks at the table, constantly "shifting gears" and preventing any real continuity for occurring/developing. They didn't sign on to be guinea pigs.

At the moment, I've got a couple-few thoughts buzzing in my head of what I'd like to do moving forward. This has nothing to do with "writing projects" I'm currently working on, by the way (I hope to get some of those completed eventually), but rather how I want to approach my "hobby:"

  • I want to create a baseline set of rules. This is nothing so elaborate as a retro-clone or new version of D&D Mine (FHB). I'm talking about a document along the lines of Philotomy's Musings or Original Edition Delta...something that simply establishes the D&D edition I intend to use as a base (yes, Im going waaaay back to the beginning) and any house rules to the edition that I want to cull from this blog or elsewhere. It may be a "living" document (that is, something that develops and changes over time), but I want to have it...a gaming Bible of sorts that I can simply refer to rather than over-analyzing the same shit over-and-over. 
  • I want to develop a world setting for play. When I look around the hobby (whether at published products or the various blogs), I find the best settings...the best games...come from folks who have created intensely personal worlds that cater to their own vision of "what is fun." I haven't done this. My campaigns have sometimes had elaborate geographies, histories, rule variations, or whatnot, but they weren't created with the purpose of pleasing myself for long-term play; instead they were aimed at being "interesting," or developing cosmologies that justified the inconsistencies of D&D, or that catered to a particular style, or were supposed to test certain rule principles. An lo and behold, none of 'em lasted...regardless of whether I put a lot of prep into 'em or not (trying to grow the thing "organically"). The fact is, I didn't have enough passion for my worlds...certainly, I had passion for some of the adventures I wrote, but I had (purposefully or not) avoided creating attachment to the setting itself.

Which is kind of a recipe for failure. Look at Gygax's Greyhawk. Look at Arneson's Blackmoore. Look at Barker's Tekumel. Look at Kyrinn's Urutsk. Look at Hill Cantons and Gus L's Fallen Empires and Alexis's Europe and Raggi's weird New World. These are all wonderful, lovingly created settings because they mean something to their creators. They are personal to their creators. Those of us who have had the pleasure of exploring these worlds (through play or reading) have found ourselves intrigued or tickled or amazed just at the amount of soul that's been invested in these worlds. Their creators have not felt the need or desire to create new campaigns, to play/run in other worlds, because their worlds have been specifically built to create and meet their individual creator's needs. That's what I need to do.

  • I want to keep using this blog for something, but I'm not sure what. Hawking books I suppose. Airing my thoughts on various subjects, surely. But I'm not sure if I want to continue it in the same way I've done. I'm not sure if these first two points (establishing a baseline system, establishing a baseline world) are going to be best described here...I'm even considering a new blog...but I don't want to shut down Ye Old B/X Blackrazor. I said in the beginning that this was partly supposed to be something of a memoir, something of a snapshot showing my development and "gaming evolution" over time. That work will continue (so long as blogger remains free to use), though I'm not sure it will be as interesting to others as it is to myself.
  • Finally, I think I'd like to have a different medium from which to hawk my various gaming wares: an actual web site with links and forums for discussion. I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to make any real money (i.e. "livable wage") off of writing and selling books...not unless I learn to draw and do my own illustration...but the links to various products are getting a might crowded over on the side of the blog. There's definitely some sort of clean-up/reorganization that needs to occur, if I'm going to continue pursuing the design part of this hobby.

All right...now y'all know where my head's at. Expect the latest alpha posting sometime this afternoon or evening.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

W is for Whip of Wounding

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

W is for Whip of Wounding.

This flexible weapon can be used by any character class save magic-users. It inflicts only minimal damage (1D4 points) and no adjustments are applied for strength. Attack rolls with a whip are modified by a wielder's dexterity instead of strength, though it is only used in melee.

Damage from a whip of wounding fester painfully and cannot be healed except by magical means (cure spells, potions of healing, etc.). The weapon is single-tailed and approximately 7' in length.

Good weapon for evil clerics.

Thrones of Chainmail

I have a lot of stuff on my mind (as usual) and no idea how to go about blogging it, nor why I have no idea. I suppose I'll just say that when you've been out of practice posting (the A-Z stuff really doesn't count...really), and your mind has a constant influx of thoughts and concepts, it just creates a logjam that's kind of the opposite of "writer's block." Perhaps the solution would be to simply post and post and post random shit until my mind gets "emptied" again, but...well, I'm not sure if that's really the best way to go about my business.

[my "business"...ha! That's a funny one]

*AHEM* Still, before I get to more serious topics (or not), let's start with something easy and (for me anyway) more recent. Had a chance to catch episode 1 of the new Game of Thrones season Monday night. I'm aware that a lot of folks find the series (and the books) disagreeable for one reason or another...I've written myself about how I find the novels a depressing slog that I'm not interested in finishing. But Martin's world is deep, richly textured, and interesting, and the GoT show is what I call "television crack," no different from Sex and the City (which series I've viewed in its entirety) or True Blood (which I watched with reckless devotion until the birth of my first child made late night viewing something that neither my wife, nor I, had the energy to pursue). I could do without the soft-porn fan-service that that the creators insist on including in every episode, but the writing is interesting, the acting is excellent, the production values are spectacular, and the subject matter...courtly intrigue and medieval warfare in a fantasy world...is right in my wheelhouse.

As a result, I'm a fan of the show, and as a long-time acknowledged "killer" or "adversarial" Dungeon Master, I take a perverse enjoyment in the way beloved characters get killed/maimed/degraded with rather reckless abandon. To be clear, I'm not especially happy when one of my favorites gets the ol' "Charley Manson Special" but at least its a refreshing change of pace to know that the protagonists are operating without the magical shield of "plot immunity." It's a schtick, sure, and one we've seen before (the reimagined Battlestar Galactic, which also made for compelling television BTW) if not quite so brutally.

I've lost more than one character to PVP.
[oh, and just so everyone knows, I am aware there are far more important things to talk about in the world today, like Venezuela's current economic collapse. But that shit is absolutely depressing. However, I might make some observations about Argentina in a later post, just to "keep it real"]

D&D, of course, is neither television nor literature and longtime players are probably inured to the idea of a protagonist being slain by bow or blade. How many times have we not seen our own "main character" fall beneath the spears of gibbering goblins or cackling kobolds? And though Game of Thrones IS television, presumably following an overarching plot of some sort (though the casual viewer might be forgiven for not being able to make heads and tail of it), it's hard NOT to equate the game with a fantasy RPG, seeing as how it shares so many tropes found in the hobby...unsurprising given the current state of fantasy these days (largely inspired by D&D and its associated fiction) nor the fact that its author (Martin) has a background in gaming.

[rangers? come on, man]

I've also written before (after my first exposure to the Game of Thrones series) that while some aspects of it are reminiscent of of my old, latter day AD&D campaign, it's hard to imagine anyone using the D&D system (any edition) to run a campaign truly resembling A Song of Ice and Fire...which is probably why Green Ronin (the series's license holder) opted for a completely new system when developing the RPG, rather than building on D20 or something. Heck, that's the main reason I was 'porting the setting into the Pendragon system last year (see my Buckets of Blood posts if you missed 'em)...a little side project that, at this point, I'm not terribly interested into getting back into, new GoT season or not.

[though someday I probably should get around to posting the last couple pages of notes concerning the alternate ASOIAF timeline that's supposed to be used in place of the Pendragon Arthurian/Camelot one. *sigh* if only I slept LESS hours in the night, right?]

Ah...civilization.
Thing is, I was considering that, all soap opera bits aside, a lot of Game of Thrones resembles a war-game campaign more than anything else. Pretty obvious considering Martin cites the English War of the Roses as a major inspiration for his novels. There's a number of large-scale battles in the series, and this is yet another reason why the story seems like a poor fit for a D&D system, where combat is prevalent but based on small scale skirmishes in subterranean environments...NOT open warfare on the field of battle.

And yet...

And yet, I can't help but consider that D&D itself has its roots in a war-game, specifically CHAINMAIL, and how much of the setting...much of the story...could be modeled fairly easily using a Chainmail system with only slight tweaks. Chainmail may have billed itself as "rules for medieval miniatures," but its system encompassed a historic range that encompassed about 1000 years (from the 400s to 1500s).  This could easily be tightened up to account for the specific ASOIAF setting. And if one replaced the Tolkien-based Fantasy Supplement with one based on Martin's supernatural elements (easy enough as they are so few), it's easy to imagine a tabletop campaign based in large part on Martin's books. Just imagine an army of 15mm knights painted in Lannister gold and crimson riding out to battle the armies of the North...

Throw in some Braunstein-like sub-plots and secret missions involving special "character" figures and...well, with a few random tables, one could probably recreate a pretty reasonable facsimile of the series.

It's actually a pretty interesting idea for a gaming project (I've never written/designed an actual war-game before, though I've played more than a few)...especially given my recent research/interest in the origins of the hobby (not yet blogged about) and some thoughts I have on "forward compatibility" (as opposed to backwards compatibility).

But I'll write about that more later. Time to get the kid for soccer practice!

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

V is for Voulge of Venom Venting

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

V is for Voulge of Venom Venting.

A voulge is yet another medieval pole arm and, in B/X terms, is treated as a standard pole arm in all respects (cost, encumbrance, variable weapon damage, etc.).

The voulge of venom venting was created specifically to combat creatures of poisonous nature. Any such monster (giant snakes, spiders, medusae, etc.) struck by the weapon in melee must save versus spells or permanently lose their ability to poison creatures (a remove curse spell will restore the victim's natural venom).

In addition, the weapon can be used to remove venom from any individual suffering from a poisonous attack (i.e. any creature that has failed a save versus poison), by drawing the edge of the blade across the wound. While this inflicts 1 point of damage, it acts as a neutralize poison spell, saving the victim from the effects that would normally be suffered. As with the neutralize poison spell, the voulge of venom venting must be used within 10 rounds of the target being afflicted in order to prevent the poison from working its mischief.

Pretty sure this is a voulge.

Monday, April 25, 2016

U is for Urumi of Unholy Unction

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

U is for Urumi of Unholy Unction.

The urumi is a long, flexible "whip-sword" used in the martial arts of southern Asia (specifically India and Sri Lanka); it is flexible enough to curl tight or wear as a belt. In B/X terms it has the same cost as a (normal) sword, but the encumbrance value of a dagger. It is light enough to be used by dwarves and halflings (despite its length), but its edge prevents clerics form using the weapon. Urumis are often "dual-wielded" (one in each hand).

Unlike a normal melee weapon, strength plays little part in the use of this finesse weapon. Wielders of an urumi should use their dexterity bonus (or penalty) as an adjustment to their melee attack rolls in place of strength; no damage bonus is added at all (if variable weapon damage is used, the urumi inflicts 1D8 damage). The urumi can be as dangerous to its wielder as to others; on any missed attack roll, the wielder must make a save versus wands or take damage as if struck by the urumi.

The urumi of unholy unction, is an evil weapon crafted to convert individuals to its blasphemous religion. Any opponent struck by the weapon must save versus magic or have their alignment shifted one step towards chaotic (lawful to neutral; neutral to chaotic). A chaotic individual that fails her save becomes a faithful servant of the weapon's demonic deity, and immediately surrenders to the wielder. The wielder of the urumi may take such an individual as a faithful slave and servant, if her allotment of retainers (per charisma) has not yet been exceeded. A remove curse spell restores a victim of the urumi of unholy unction to its natural alignment and/or religious worship. Clerics ensorcelled to serve the evil weapon will not be granted spells by their patron gods.

Yes, some urumi have multiple blades. Not all do.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

T is for Trident of Torturous Tears

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

T is for Trident of Torturous Tears.

A trident is a two- or three-pronged spear, wickedly barbed. In most ways, it conforms exactly to a B/X spear (although, it costs five gold pieces to purchase); it may be thrown and is sometimes equipped with a line to retrieve the weapon; however, this is usually removed by adventurers as it is easily tangled in the cramped, close-quarters combat of a dungeon expedition.

Any attack roll with a trident that exceeds the target "to hit" number by 4 or more results in the weapon being firmly lodged within the target. While the weapon can be broken off and easily removed once the combat is finished, removing the barbed weapon quickly during a fight requires a successful open doors roll and results in the target taking an additional 1D6 damage (the same rules apply for an attacker who wishes to dislodge the weapon, though if removing a trident from a dead opponent there is no need to break the tines...the dead don't mind chunks of flesh being pulled from their corpse).

The trident of torturous tears is the weapon of a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain and agony. Any damage roll of 3 or more indicates the target has suffered a painful, bleeding laceration that burns like fire. In addition to losing one extra hit point per round from blood loss, the victim must save versus paralysis or advance through one of the following stages of pain, suffering the listed results:

  • Stage 1 - Extreme Discomfort: character suffers -1 penalty to attacks and saving throws until finding time to bind wounds (after combat) or receiving magical healing.
  • Stage 2 - Distracting Pain: characters suffers a -2 penalty to attacks and saving throws; NPCs must pass a morale check or break off from combat. Spell-casters lose concentration of sustained spells.
  • Stage 3 - Burning Agony: character must make a save versus paralysis to take any action at all; those that do face the same penalties as for distracting pain. NPCs must pass a morale check (at -1) or surrender.
  • Stage 4 - Excruciating Torment: character falls writhing to the ground. No action possible.

Please note: in order for a victim to progress to ANY of the stages (including Stage 1) two things must happen: the wielder of the trident must inflict a wound in which the damage roll is 3+ AND the target must fail a save versus paralysis. Each application of magical healing (even a cure light wounds spell) will reduce the pain by one stage, or by all stages if the magical healing takes the victim to full hit points. Alternatively, once a victim is removed from combat, she may make a full recovery from any stage of pain with liberal application of wine (both ingested and to her wounds) and wrapping the injuries with clean bandages.

The scratches and cuts from the trident of torturous tears leave permanent scars, even if magically healed.

Ideally, this would be covered all
over with fantasy barbs and spikes.

Friday, April 22, 2016

S is for Scythe of Swift Slaying

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

S is for Scythe of Slaying [aka the Scythe of Smug Smiting]

A scythe is a weaponized version of an ancient farming implement. In combat it handles like a battle axe with respect to encumbrance and damage (and, as it is a two-handed weapon, it always strikes last in melee except when facing zombies). The weapon, however, is cheap to purchase, costing the same as a spear. A scythe is fairly long and unwieldy, and may only be used by fighters, elves, and thieves.

This scythe of swift slaying may have been forged by The Reaper himself. On any attack roll of 19 or 20 (before adjustments for strength and enchantment), the defender must make a save versus death ray or die. This power only functions against humanoid monsters of nine hit dice or fewer (though including humans and demihumans of any level). It has no effect on undead, constructs, or plants, nor will it effect creatures from other planes (djinni, demons, etc.).

Unlike a non-magical scythe, the scythe of swift slaying moves quickly and easily in the hands of its wielder, and does not suffer the normal two-handed weapon penalty of striking last in the round. What's more, if its wielder kills an opponent (whether through its slaying enchantment or normal damage) she may make an immediate additional melee attack against any opponent within 10'. If this additional attack downs its opponent, the wielder may make an additional attack against a third opponent, though no more than three opponents can be so targeted in a single round (or four if acting under the effects of a haste spell or potion of speed).

Victims of the scythe of slaying may be raised as normal.

Something scary looking, like this.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Prince R.I.P.

Prince..the musician, the virtuoso, the genius...died today.

The first album I purchased with my own money was Purple Rain (on cassette), many years ago. The last actual CD I purchased (probably 7 or 8 years ago) was one of his later albums. My best friend growing up (and co-DM of my longest running AD&D campaign) was a die-hard Prince fan...she used to give me all the latest gossip on his life. The girl I used to kill half racks of beer with in college while playing Super Tecmo all night was a slavering Prince fan who had bootleg copies of his "experimental films" that we used to watch when we were absolutely hammered.

He was a nut job, but he was perhaps the greatest musical performer of...well, I don't know where or how to rank him. He could dance as well as Michael Jackson, but I never saw Michael play guitar like Prince. And he made some really great music over the years. Really great.

Gosh. Bowie and Prince in the same year. But Prince was really too young. I suppose they both were. Sad news for the world. Will purple ever be as vibrant again?

[writing from Buenos Aires on my phone]

R is for Rapier of Reckless Ripostes

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

R is for Rapier of Reckless Ripostes.

The rapier is a specially designed dueling sword, made to pierce an opponent through a vital organ by concentrating force into the tiny pointed tip. In this way, it was similar to the estoc, though many possessed an edge (and least the latter half of the blade) and the weapon was of lighter construction than the robust estoc, allowing for finer manipulation and swordplay. In B/X terms, it has the same stats as a normal sword (though it inflicts 1D6+1 damage if using variable weapon damage) and is much too long to be used by a halfling (though they shorties could use the similar smallsword...treat as a short sword but with variable weapon damage of D4+1).

The rapier of reckless ripostes heightens the speed of its wielder's hand and footwork such that when ever the opponent misses an attack roll in melee, she is allowed an immediate bonus attack against the faltering opponent. This bonus attack does not take the place of the character's normal attack, it represents an aggressive, lightning-fast lunge at an opponent whose blade has missed the mark or been deftly parried. Unfortunately, the riposte is indeed reckless: if the riposte misses the defender, then the defender is allowed an immediate bonus attack against the wielder of the rapier of reckless ripostes...she has left herself wide-open to an easy counter-strike. If this follow-up attack misses, the rapier wielder does not make another riposte; no more than one reckless riposte is allowed in a single combat round.

The weapon's enchantment only function against opponents that wield a melee weapon, never against an unarmed combatant or monster using claws and bites.

Such a beautiful weapon.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Q is for Quarterstaff of Quieting

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

Q is for Quarterstaff of Quieting

The quarterstaff is different from the staff found in the B/X (Expert set) rules, being a true weapon, sometimes even capped in iron, though the bulk of its 6'-9' length is carved from hardwood. While it is a two-handed weapon, it is quick to use and does not suffer the normal two-handed weapon penalty (i.e. it does not require its wielder to strike last). Because of its length, it may not be used by dwarves or halflings (and never by magic-users); if using variable weapon damage it inflicts D4+1 in addition to any bonuses for strength and enchantment.

It is quite possible that the quarterstaff of quieting was created by a cleric, for it appears to incorporate a very localized version of the spell silence 15' radius. Any opponent struck in combat will find herself completely silenced (though there is no extended radius) and unable to speak for six turns. The weapon is thus extremely useful against spell-casters, who must speak to perform their magic.
A very effective weapon, historically.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

P is for Poleaxe of Powerful Penetration

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

P is for Poleaxe of Powerful Penetration.

The poleaxe is yet another example of a two-handed pole arm purposefully designed to pierce heavy armor. For many knights of the plate armor era in Europe, it was the heavy melee weapon of choice. In B/X, the weapon is treated as a pole arm in all respects.

The poleaxe of powerful penetration has been magically enchanted to tear and rend armor like a hot knife through a kicking, shrieking victim. Every successful attack roll against an armored opponent reduces the value of armor worn by two points (so plate mail would be reduced from AC 3 to AC5 on a successful attack); a shield-using opponent may choose to sacrifice her shield to the poleaxe instead. Against opponents in magical armor, the poleaxe of powerful penetration removes one "+" from the armor's value with each hit (again, the defender may choose whether this comes from the shield or suit, if both are magical), and armor is only reduced after all enchantments have been removed. This destruction is permanent.

In addition, if the damage roll comes up the maximum number on an attack (a "6," or "10" if using variable weapon damage), the attacker may roll an additional die (without bonuses) and apply the roll as extra damage. If the second roll comes up with the maximum number, roll a third dice (though no more than three total).

[I will be traveling to Argentina tomorrow, but I will schedule my A-Z posts to roll out over the next few days]

Yeah, yeah...they don't all look like this.

Monday, April 18, 2016

O is for Otsuchi of Obvious Opulence

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

O is for Otsuchi of Obvious Opulence.

Hammer time.
The otsuchi or o-tsuchi is a two-handed wooden war mallet used in ancient Japanese warfare. Statistically, it can be used for any similar sledgehammer like weapon. For B/X play, it has the same cost and encumbrance as a battle axe, and it may be used by any class but the magic-user and halfling. If variable weapon damage is used, it inflicts 2D4-1 points of damage on a successful hit; as with all two-handed weapons, it strikes last in melee unless fighting zombies.

The otsuchi of obvious opulence appears encrusted with precious stones, inlaid with gold leaf and silver wire, and handsomely carved with all sorts of martial figures. Though it would seem to be of incredible value as a treasure item, these are simple illusions, and no amount of prying and gouging can remove the "treasure" from the weapon.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

N is for Nunchaku of No Worries

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

N is for Nunchaku of No Worries.

Nunchaku are very similar to the morning star in both form and function, but they are composed of hard wood (sometimes reinforced with metal or rivets) and are lighter in weight than the heavier morning star. With the exception of magic-users, any character class can use nunchaku; however, characters with a dexterity less than 13 have a chance to injure themselves with the weapon (any attack roll of "1" before modification results in the wielder taking damage). If using variable weapon damage, nunchaku inflict 1D4+1 points on a successful attack roll.

The wielder of the nunchaku of no worries is immune to any and all magical fear effects.

[finished my tax return for 2015. No worries]

Flogging the heck out of my financial records.

Friday, April 15, 2016

M is for Morning Star of Malevolent Maiming

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I am sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I will try to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

M is for Morning Star of Malevolent Maiming.

The morning star has been (historically speaking) an ill-defined weapon. For purposes of B/X play, the morning star is considered to be a spiked ball or weight, attached to a long handle by a length of chain. Because of its length and size, halflings and dwarves may only use the weapon with two hands (and suffer the normal penalty for using a two-handed weapon when wielding a morning star). Due to the spikes and their purpose of drawing blood, clerics are restricted from using the morning star at all, as are magic-users due to the usual taboos. For those who can wield the weapon, they find it frightfully effective, dealing 1D6+1 points of damage on a successful attack (the damage is the same even with the variable weapon damage rule).

The morning star of malevolent maiming is a vicious weapon, enchanted to inflict terrible, permanent injury on an opponent. Whenever its wielder inflicts maximum damage (a D6 roll of "6"), the DM should roll an additional D8 to determine the specific type of permanent injury its victim suffers:

1-2 Severe ugly facial scarring (-1 penalty to reaction rolls with humans)
3 Loss of an ear (-1 penalty to listen checks)
4 Loss of an eye (-2 penalty to missile attacks)
5 Loss of 1D4 fingers from one hand
6 Loss of hand at the wrist
7 Loss of nose (-3 charisma)
8 Kneecapped! (permanent movement reduction of 3")

There is no saving throw against the malevolent maiming of the weapon, though non-humanoids and incorporeal creatures (like specters and vampires) will be unaffected by its power. As with the axe of indifference, some kind-hearted DMs may allow the effects of the weapon to be healed with a cure serious wounds spell; otherwise, victims of the morning star of malevolent maiming will need a wish spell to recover their lost appendages.

Not a clerical weapon.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

L is for Lance of Lancing

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

L is for Lance of Lancing.

This weapon is awesome. You should totally get one.

Sorry. I'm just really tired of doing these. Did you see Dae-Ho Lee's walk-off homer in the 10th inning yesterday to break the Mariner's five-game losing streak and record their first win at Safeco this season? It was great. I love that baseball players can look like any shlub on the barstool next to you, squeezed into an ill-fitting uniform, and still possess the hand-eye coordination to his at off-the-belt, 97mph fast ball, and just clock it straight into the cheap seats (where there were approximately a dozen fans). I watched this video half-a-dozen times which, after a train wreck of a game, is just a bit of much-needed catharsis...I mean...well, never mind. Living with the M's as your home team for forty years is an endurance test I wouldn't wish on any baseball fan. It's nice to see a little excitement in the team and the 62 fans that cared enough to show up for the game. Anyway, I can't actually watch games or anything, seeing as how Paraguay could give two shits about baseball, so highlight videos and (sloooow) running internet updates are about the only way I can suffer the season with other Seattle-ites.

I think I may be suffering from depression at the moment. That is, I may have been suffering from it for a while. Or something. My mind's not really in the blogging game. Yes, I still put out ridiculous, rambling posts, that are too long for folks to read, but...

Really, I just want to go away for a while.

I spent a lot of time reading old retrospective posts on Grognardia the last couple days. It's not a substitute for actual gaming. I spent a bunch of time reading my own posts the last couple days (1770 posted since 2009. Incredible). It's not a substitute for gaming. I considered purchasing and downloading a bunch of PDFs. Didn't...that's not a substitute for gaming either.

It's not the lack of gaming (or the lack of Mariners broadcasts, for that matter) that leads to depression. But even as I've written before that I have anxiety about the future, I've started to really, really dislike the present. This country...I keep finding myself thinking that I cannot wait till I can wipe my feet on the doormat of my final exit from this place. Over lunch today, my wife (who usually tells me I'm too negative...go figure), just unleashed a torrent on how much she hates this "upside-down land" (as she calls it). I just listened to her. When she first proposed the idea of us moving the family down here, I told her "sell me on Paraguay." She said, "they have great juices." I said, "anything else?" She said, "the people are really nice."

I think her opinions on both counts have changed since then.

And yet, this is The Happiest Country In The World. Though I'm not sure what they use as their criteria. Satisfaction with infrastructure can't be part of it. Incidence of child rape can't be part of the equation. Poverty level? Homelessness? Medical malpractice? There have been thousands of folks in downtown Asuncion protesting having to pay taxes the last two weeks (not an increase in taxes or an exorbitant tax rate...just the fact that they have to pay taxes at all)...they don't seem to be particularly happy.

Maybe the poll only reached people with land lines. They sure didn't ask me.

*sigh* I'm irritable again (one of the several signs of depression...I exhibit most if not all of them). I'm going to go eat some Indian food now. Spend some time with my family. Get away from the computer. I don't know if I'm going to keep doing this A-Z thing. I need a break.

Just...a break.

Re-Tooling Combat (for FUN!)

Another "thought exercise;" AKA Putting Off The Taxes.

Part of the problem with addressing a single element of RPG combat (like the form and function of armor mechanics) is that you're messing with a complex system that's elements have been designed to work in tandem. At best, it's a "patch" that (often) causes other problems to raise their head, not the least of which might be an impact on that all important playability (making a system clunkier in play, reducing the overall "fun level"). At worse, a change in a single element might cause the whole system to fall apart, and/or wreck playability to a point where it's more fun to not play (or play something different).

"Ooo, how melodramatic, JB." Look, folks...I'm not saying you can't tinker. But I'd guess there are other folks out there (like myself) who have tried other RPGs and simply found they disliked their mechanics for one reason or another, and have set aside a system completely because of it. In fact, I know there are, judging by the blog posts I've read around the internet of people adapting specific game settings to their own favorite system rather than use the system intended by a game's designer. Sometimes a "patch" just doesn't work...and people have different preferences when it comes to the games they play. It happens.

ANYway...when it comes to a complex game system (like combat), tinkering with important elements of said system simply to match your "world view" can have problematic consequences. To really make your system work, sometimes you've got to go for a complete rebuild...if only to ensure that all the different interconnected elements are working together.

FOR EXAMPLE: say you're using the standard D&D combat chassis. You roll a D20 and compare the result to your probability of hitting based on two parts: your character's class/level, and the defender's "armor class." Simple enough, right? But if you restructure "armor" to act as a form of damage reduction (as many game systems do), then what are you rolling against? A reduced "AC" based solely on dexterity and/or magical bonuses? As the alternate rules in Dawn of the Emperors points out, this will result in "a lot more hitting" with less damage being inflicted (at least against armored types). Perhaps this will appeal to some folks ("hey, I whiff less often!"), but it feels like it would simply draw out a fairly simple (often uninteresting) combat system.

There are other alternatives: Saga Star Wars bases a target's AC (I think it might be called "defensive class") on the defender's level of experience (higher level characters are harder to hit), and something like that might be adapted. Games where combat rolls are unopposed skill checks (like Chaosium's base system) only tracks the attacker's proficiency ("If I roll under 75% I hit, and then your armor reduces damage!"), but doesn't account for the defensive ability of the opponent except as an additional system (parry skill, dodge skill) made to resist. Palladium kind of splits the difference: melee rolls use a D20 and any roll over 5 "hits" (yay!), but then needs to exceed a defender's defensive roll (parry/dodge) IF the defender chooses to do so, and THEN perhaps another roll to reduce damage (roll with blow), before finding out how armor reduces damage (which is dependent on the initial roll and the armor's Armor Rating and Structural Damage Capacity).

Palladium system's are over on the extreme side of granularity in combat (though I'd argue against them modeling any type of "reality") but they're certainly not the MOST granular. That distinction belongs to The Riddle of Steel, whose system I won't bother to detail here, as it's system mastery requirements are a bit outside the pay range of myself and most of the dudes I play with.

Instead, let's just stick with D&D for the moment. What's nice about D&D (for me) is it's ABSTRACT nature. In a ten second round, my mind's eye imagines two combatants attacking back and forth and the success of their attacks can all be boiled down to a couple D20 rolls. Still, though, there are aspects that bug me: should a 1st level cleric really have the same chance to damage a 3rd level fighter, given that they're both wearing plate-&-mail and they're weapons do D6 damage? Should a wizard really be wicked in a knife fight? I had the chance to watch a midnight showing of The Revenant last Friday (need to write about THAT), and the whole climactic battle I'm thinking, who the hell thought it was a good idea to make the dagger the go-to weapon of a spindly academic?

SO (just to keep going with the thought exercise), if we take armor out of the equation, and we decide we want to leave combat abstract (unlike the multiple maneuver monstrosity of TROS), how can we determine if a character's attack is successful? Well, just looking at man-to-man...er, human-to-human combat for the moment, let's consider perhaps the concept that (given both individuals are aware of each other and fight-worthy) the chance of inflicting mortal injury comes down to your own combat ability in relation to your opponent. In other words, if you're a better fighter than your opponent, you'll have an easier time, and if not, you'll have a harder time.

Sound good? Well, I'm going with it anyway. Exactly what determines "combat ability" is pretty easy with respect to humans: training and experience (i.e. class and level) with fitness/athleticism (ability bonuses) playing some part, too...perhaps as a bonus or penalty. It would be a ridiculous exercise in "clunk" for me to do up tables cross-referencing every level of every class against every other level of every class, so what I need is some sort of short-hand for cross-referencing. For example, what level of experience would a cleric need to be to have the same combat ability as a 4th level fighter? 7th? 9th? In B/X a cleric of levels 5-8 have the same attack abilities of a fighter of levels 4-6, and while I may not agree with the scale of B/X, I do agree that when determining combat proficiency, there should be tiers of ability, with each tier containing a range of levels. It's not just as simple as "gain a level, earn a +1 base attack bonus."

[of course, that's my own bias when it comes to modeling. For me, there just shouldn't be much difference between a 4th level fighter and a 6th level fighter when it comes to attack ability...we tend to learn in stages and have sudden "leaps" of realization. In my experience fencing, I can easily take apart someone who has little or no experience, but would be hard-pressed against people of equal experience unless I had some advantage in athleticism (not bloody likely). Meanwhile, I might score a few touches against an opponent with a couple more years of experience, but would be hard pressed to win...and against my old instructor (only a few years older than myself) I probably wouldn't score even a point. And he wasn't even in the same league as individuals who pursue the sport on a national or international level...]

So, strike bands (as in bandwidth)...that's what I'm calling my "tiers of combat ability." Consider a range of about five bands (labeled A-E), with A being your average "normal, non-combatant trying to fight" and E being reserved for truly legendary fighters (and non-fighters being limited to D as their maximum ability). Strike bands would be cross referenced to find the target number needed for an attack to succeed, with two opponents of equal ability having a 50% of succeeding on an attack and success being adjusted upwards (and downwards) from that baseline.

It's not really a new concept...very similar to Warhammer (the war-game's) comparison of WS versus WS in melee combat to determine the number needed on a D6 (WS stands for "weapon skill" and represents hand-to-hand ability). My initial thought would be to have the percentages scale like: 95% (the maximum...for an attacker with 3+ strike bands more than the opponent), then 85%, 75%, 50% (even ability), 25%, 15%, 5% (the minimum...against a defender with 3+ strike ranks more than the attacker).

[there is a degree of diminishing returns. I would fare no better against an Olympic-level fencer than I would against my instructor (at least, back when we were both in our primes)...but I'd fare no worse, either. I mean, how do you do worse than "losing quickly and embarrassingly?"]

The neat thing about the strike band idea is that it's fairly easy to slide them up or down to account for  specific circumstances. A fighter using a shield increases her strike band by one when defending (for example). A magic weapon increases a strike band by one (when attacking). Characters using missile weapons would simply use strike band A, and then range would be considered for defense (with A, B, and C corresponding to short, medium, and long). Specialist marksmen could increase their missile strike band to B. Cover could increase range by one step (to a maximum of D).

Monsters would be assigned strike bands based on their size, speed, and general ferocity. I can see something like:

A: used for creatures who are small (kobolds) or slow (skeletons and zombies)
B: used for man-killers (orcs, tigers, etc.)
C: used for exceptionally large monsters (ogres, trolls, etc.)
D: used for incredibly fast, strong critters (dragons, bloodthirsters, tyrannosaurus rex, etc.)

You could even combine it with 5E's advantage/disadvantage mechanic. A (slow) giant might use strike band D with disadvantage, while super heroic types (vampires, wraiths) might use strike band C with advantage. Ability bonuses (for strength and dexterity) would still add to the D20 roll (yes, I'd change those percentages into D20 target numbers) rather than shifting strike bands.

Anyway...that's just one idea. I'm sure there are others. Now, I really need to get back to my taxes.

+1 Strike Band (offense AND defense)
when attacking unmounted opponents

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

K is for Katar of Karma Killing

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

J is for Katar of Karma Killing.

The katar is the infamous Indian "punch-dagger;" it is useless for throwing (i.e. cannot be used in missile combat), but is extremely effective in hand-to-hand fighting, receiving a +1 bonus to damage rolls in addition to any bonuses for strength and enchantment (if variable weapon damage is used it inflicts 1D4+1).

The katar of karma killing is even more deadly as it drains the luck and good fortune from its victims. On a successful attack roll, the victim suddenly finds her spirit crushed, and her energy ebbing; she  immediately loses additional hit points equal to her own level of experience, and suffers a -1 penalty to all saving throws. Further strikes from the magical katar will increase the saving throw penalty by a cumulative -1 per successful attack, in addition to inflicting normal weapon damage.

The magical effects of the katar of karma killing (both the saving throw penalty and the level-based hit point loss) are permanent until a remove curse spell has been cast on the victim. The damage inflicted by the weapon itself can be healed and/or recovered as normal.

I've always loved the katar.

Armor Thoughts

The following is a bit of a thought exercise.

There are lots of different ways to handle personal (body) armor in an RPG. Most folks probably already get that, but...well, it feels like a necessary disclaimer before I start. D&D's "armor class" concept is a popular one (at least judging by the number of system knock-offs that continue to use it), despite certain problematic aspects of the mechanic.

Conceptually, personal armor is supposed to prevent personal injury. The usual way this gets modeled in a fantasy game includes one (or some combination) of the following mechanics:

  1. Reducing the chance that an opponent can inflict injury at all.
  2. Reducing the actual injury inflicted by an opponent's successful attack.
  3. Providing additional "health levels" (whatever form that takes) to the person wearing it.
  4. Providing a "saving throw" against damage to the person wearing it.

Additional considerations include how the use of a shield or personal agility/prowess might factor into armor, the deterioration of armor from wear-n-tear, specific hit locations versus general defense, and the usefulness of armor in preventing non-combat type injuries (like falling off a cliff, or protecting its wearer from traps and hazards).

[I may be forgetting something...it's 2:30am my time...but that's about all the iterations I can think of at the moment]

All armor systems "work" (i.e. they are functional game mechanics), but folks have different preferences when it comes to picking a specific system. System preference is based (or, IMO, should be based) on a combination of two things: personal perception of armor (perhaps changing with regard to genre), and playability (how easily it works as a game mechanic).

D&D's system (a "Type 1" mechanic) has a long history of eliciting gripes and complaints from people who have a different perception of armor and how armor should function/model. However, D&D's system is eminently playable...from a mechanic standpoint, it is incredibly simple to use in play, incredibly easy to grasp (even for new players), and incredibly quick to resolve. Its playability...and familiarity...are what has led to its staying power and proliferation across other fantasy RPGs.

Heck, its playability is probably what led to it supplanting the Chainmail combat system as the default combat system for D&D; the "D20-versus-AC" system was an alternate combat system in the pages of Men & Magic, remember? But Chainmail's personal combat system was an add-on to a mass combat war game...an afterthought for occasional "small battles and castle sieges" (when, I presume, you would have narrow battlements ramparts to defend).

But let's, for a moment, consider another fantasy RPG with war-game roots that does armor in a different flavor: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Where "dungeon crawl" =
"pub crawl" + weapons
While WFRP contains elements of Dungeons & Dragons, I think it's pretty clear it's descended from different roots than Chainmail/D&D. Sure it has elves and dwarves and halflings and orcs...these are things taken from Tolkien (the same place D&D gets them). But nearly all of its systems come from (or have their genesis in) the Warhammer Battle war game, just as D&D takes its cues from Chainmail (including magic, saves, attacks, monsters, etc.). Combat in WFB is D6 based and WFRP is D% + D6 based (if I'm remembering correctly). However, it has quite a few steps compared to the standard attack mechanic of D&D. Whereas D&D does an attack roll + damage roll (if successful), sometimes followed by a saving throw (for certain special attacks), Warhammer goes:

  • Roll to attack
  • (if successful) Roll to wound (Strength versus Toughness)
  • (if successful) Defender rolls to save (using armor)

And there are sometimes additional effects that need to be determined; in some editions, a failed save requires a random number of wounds (damage) to be rolled, depending on the strength of the weapon. While it seems like a lot of steps, in practice it's fairly quick and easy because of the limited range of probabilities and the ease of rolling multiple D6s and removing "dead" models. Playability, again, makes it a popular system for wargaming. The translation to RPG is a bit more clunky in execution, but because combat tends to be over quickly (with a high degree of lethality), it's fairly forgivable.

The "armor as saving throw" is the part that I find most interesting, as well as its translation to the RPG. In WFB the armor save is (was? I haven't kept up on recent editions):

  • 6 for light armor
  • 5-6 for heavy armor
  • +1 if using a shield
  • +1 if unit is mounted

That means a guy using plate and shield has a 50% chance to resist (D6 roll of 4+) any wound that would otherwise by inflicted on the character...unless struck by a weapon that ignores or penalizes the armor save (some magical or especially strong attacks).

WFRP does not have an armor save; instead armor worn reduces damage inflicted to the tune of 1 point for light armor and 2 points for heavy armor. It seems like a strange choice (to interpret the save in this way) until you consider that damage in WFRP is on a 1D6 scale...which is to say that, like OD&D (or Holmes or default B/X), all weapons in WFRP do 1D6 points of damage towards a target's wound total (hit points). If you subtract 1 point from the D6 roll (as with light armor) that means you have a 1 in 6 chance of taking no damage; if you subtract 2 points, that chance of "no damage" goes up to 2 in 6...both of which matches the save percentages of light and heavy armor.

'Course it also has the benefit of reducing damage from the blows that do land which, coupled with the multiple wounds PCs carry in WFRP, gives characters a chance to show-off some of that "heroic sticking power," even if its not as much as your typical D&D character (characters in WFRP have nowhere near as many hit points as even a mid-level PC from D&D).

Had some neat ideas.
D&D has, on occasion, provided similar alternate armor rules where armor reduced damage sustained rather than chance to hit (see the BECMI Gazetteer Dawn of the Emperors: Thyatis and Alphatia, for one example. I believe I've also seen something in a past Dragon magazine). But doing this...removing the "armor" part from "armor class"...really requires a re-tooling of the whole combat system from the ground-up. And THAT is something I haven't seen for D&D.

WFRP, like other systems that use armor as "damage reduction," has a straight skill roll based on a person's combat ability...you see similar systems like Chaosium's BRP (Stormbringer, ElfQuest, and Pendragon as three variant examples). But those systems also get caught up in granularity...the one attack equals one swing thing (followed by a defensive dodge or parry...and possibly a riposte). While that way lies madness (I'm not interested in that type of granular scale for D&D) the point is somewhat moot, as D&D does not measure combat ability as a skill in the same way as, say fire-building or rope-tying or whatever. Not even in later editions.

Do I have a problem with the D&D combat system, with the way armor is handled? I'm not sure I do. I do like the idea of making armor a bit more important, as the ability to wear heavy armor is one of the fighter's main advantages in early editions of the game. And there are problematic aspects of the AC-system (which I've written about before). Still...this is just "thinking out loud" at this point. I'm certainly not interested in sacrificing playability, just to skew a system to match my own perception of how armor should function.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

J is for Ji of Jelly Juggling

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

J is for Ji of Jelly Juggling.

The ji is a Chinese pole arm, a cross between a spear and a dagger-axe. For B/X purposes, the weapon is treated as a standard pole arm in all respects.

The ji of jelly juggling is a weapon designed for utility in the dungeon environment...specifically, for herding and manipulation of the various slimes, oozes, puddings, and jellies that tend to infest the subterranean underworld. The enchantment on the weapon renders it impervious to the corrosive properties of such creatures, and can be used to push them aside and manipulate them with the scraping blades at the end of the pole.

With time and patience, a practiced wielder can use the ji of jelly juggling as a goad and engage in simple training techniques with the creatures. The monsters exhibit a reluctance to attack the wielder of such a weapon, though whether out of fear or respect is a matter of debate.

Sorry...this is the best pic I could find.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Musty Tomes

Let's just fire this one off.

I mentioned in a recent post that I find M.A.R. Barker's Tekumel setting to be an "infuriating" one; that is to say, "it makes me angry." Anger is perhaps, too strong of a word, but irritating certainly fits the bill. And why does it irritate? Because of its weird linguistic mumbo-jumbo? Because of its lack of elves? Because of its mix of science fiction and fantasy?

NO. It is irritating because it is too good; too excellent...so much so that most any cool campaign setting one wants to create is going to feel trite and/or derivative after reading Tekumel.

At least, any campaign setting that aspires to the depth of quality and cultural/historical weight that Barker creates. What he does in a dozen pages of descriptive text (and then backs up with setting-based systems) is simply remarkable, a true high-water mark for high fantasy. Which means, dear readers, that anyone interested in...say...writing something similar for publication is going to have a helluva' time doing anything close to as cool.

Which is a bit depressing. I don't particularly want to run a campaign set in Tekumel (though I sure wouldn't mind visiting as a player), but to develop something with the same depth as Barker? Well, he started working on his "world" in high school, putting me about 25 years behind the curve if I was to even start today. And he already ripped off many of the best parts of Mesoamerican and (ancient) Mid East cultures...what's left for me to do? China I suppose...but (even if I had an interest in their multi-millenial history, which I don't) anything I did with that still living culture would probably end up looking like a lot of appropriation.

Aside from which, I am incredibly shallow in comparison to the esteemed Mr. Barker: I'm no linguist to develop my own unique languages! Even when doing Five Ancient Kingdoms (which, as a setting, has some concepts reminiscent of Barker's EPT...though that was unintentional) about all I could manage was anagrams and pseudo-anagrams of real word terms and places. That's about as ambitious as I get with "developing linguistic concepts."

SO...very rough going to do anything like Empire of the Petal Throne now that Empire of the Petal Throne already exists. Sure, not everyone is familiar with it...but I am. I can't "un-see" what I've seen. I can only strive to make something that is, well, as neat (or close to) without being derivative. Which is tough. But I had an idea and I started working on it...

...and then I realized it wasn't really something I really wanted to put the effort into. Dammit...it's not something I would have ended up playing. Which is kind of the point, right? I mean, in addition to exercising our creativity and making a buck, actual play is the reason we're in this hobby, yeah?

Yeah. And I realized something yesterday, something that's been lacking for me for a while now (we're talking years) something that even B/X has been unable to give me, despite the ease and beauty and familiarity of its system. I miss the style, the implied setting and cosmology, of early D&D...specifically the setting depicted in the adventures and artwork of product pre-B/X...pre-1981, in other words.

Actually, "style" may not be the right word. How about "tone." There is a tone in old AD&D (and to be clear, I am talking about AD&D here) which I use in both the visual and musical sense...something that sets up a resonance in the fibers of my being. While Moldvay/Cook/Marsh were my first steps into the realm of Dungeons & Dragons, it was those musty old AD&D tomes...acquired from used bookstores or the older siblings/relatives of friends who had "grown out of the hobby"...that truly fired my imagination. Just paging through the old DMG, it is illustrations like the ones on page 24, 31, 48, and 68 that have stayed with me for years (not to mention Emirikol the Chaotic). But it really is the adventures...the old adventure modules, that is...and the potential adventures to be found using the monsters and treasures of the Monster Manual and DMG (and, yes, the Fiend Folio) that excites me in a way little else can.

I came to this realization when reading Tim's posting on the Bloodstone modules, and examining my (fairly negative) feelings towards these adventures that I've never run nor played. I've read them, I've heard about them (from players who ran and played in them), but I have no first hand knowledge of how they play...I only know that I find nothing in them that inspires me. And while Tekumel is incredibly awesome and inspiring as a piece of work (and, let's be honest, as a creative piece of art), it doesn't inspire me to run a campaign in its world.

You know what inspires me? This does:
You know what else? This passage:

"...and the two strong slaves lifted it [the Codex] from the back of the Beast. Thereupon I commanded the Brazen Portals to be brought low, and they were wrenched from their hinges and rang upon the stone. The Efreet howled in fear and fled when I caused the page to be read, and the Beast passed into the City of Brass. Now was I, Tzunk, Master of the Plane of Molten Skies. With sure hand I closed Yagrax's Tome [the Codex], dreading to -- "

- from the AD&D DMG, Codex of the Infinite Planes, page 156

This fragment that describes the final actions taken by the High Wizard-Priest of the Isle of Woe prior to his mysterious disappearance...well, do you really need to hear anything besides "High Wizard-Priest" and "Isle of Woe?" I don't.

Look, folks: I have no intention or desire to go back to playing AD&D...it's a rotten system in a lot of ways. And despite my recent love affair with "Holmes-ian theory," I have some serious issues with some of its mechanics (like individual initiative). But I guess I AM finally starting to get old and nostalgic...and I'm looking at "nostalgia" as an indicator of where my interest lies...at the direction I need to take that will inspire me to hang on for the long haul. That will allow me to enjoy a style or tone (or whatever) of play that appeals to my psyche. Who cares if it's "bankable?"

[that is, who cares if there's a way to make a buck off it?]

Remember this little system?
If the name of a particularly powerful demon is spoken there is a chance that he will hear and turn his attention to the speaker. A base 5% chance is recommended to the referee. Unless prepared to avoid such attention -- or to control the demon -- the demon will thereupon immediately kill, by whatever means are most expeditious, the one pronouncing his name.
- from the AD&D Monster Manual, page 16

Now there's a good way to get a demon prince into your boring little campaign...just chant his name a few times until he shows up. See, there was a time when Orcus wasn't just another Big Boss for high level characters to team-up against in some set-piece combat. There was a time when players wouldn't even dare speak his name...

My Orcus. Just feels right.
I miss stuff like that...the horror, not of an eldritch, Lovecraftian, tentacled-type (though of course that's in there, too) but of a Satanic, Saturday Night B-Movie, black-Mass-and-bloody-candle type. The kind of horror that needs to be hewn with axe and sword...

*sigh* I know, I know...I'm probably being silly and I'll probably snap out of this "nostalgia funk" and get back to work on trying to make something "new" and "innovative" in a few days rather than desperately attempting to conjure the shadows of the past (if only there was a way I could). But that's where my head's at, right this moment anyway.

More later.