Kilgore is trying to dust off the cobwebs here. He has some new content but nothing that is quite ready, so go check out the Toad Cloak iat Ancient Vaults and Eldritch Secrets. Exactly the sort of weird-but-cool item that I like to drop into campaigns. The power is fairly limited but the enjoyment level and stories that it generates are more valuable than plusses on saving throws or bonuses to attack rolls.
Kilgore loves the D6. You can never have too many D6s. And while half the fun of casting fireball is the epic damage your magic-user can dish out, the other half is that the player gets to roll tons of D6s.
Unlike many gamers, I’m not super particular about my dice. Of course, I have favorites and want dice to be reasonably well-balanced for random results. But I’m not going to pay a ton for top-shelf dice in order to get Vegas-level randomness. These dice here are from a couple of sets of Liar’s Dice. I love them.
I’ve only glanced at it but Low Fantasy Gaming appears to be a decent take on oldschool sword & sorcery using d20 OGL mechanics.
Low Fantasy Gaming (“LFG”) is a tabletop roleplaying game built for sword & sorcery adventures in low magic worlds.
LFG is rules light, with a heavy emphasis on Games Master (“GM”) rulings. It’s a hybrid of old school and modern game design, based on the 1d20 Open Game Licence.
Fast & Engaging Combat
Combat is designed to be fast and engaging, with minimal waiting between turns. Creativity is encouraged via martial exploits and magic.
Dangerous & Gritty
Battle is genuinely dangerous and every skirmish takes a toll. The threat of serious injury or death is never far away.
A “Realistic” World
LFG worlds tend to mimic our own classical or medieval periods. Humans are the default player race. Magic and fantastic monsters exist, but are very rare.
If anyone has played LFG and has some feedback, particularly about how the game would appeal to oldschool gamers who prefer OD&D, AD&D, or Classic D&D, let me know.
Saw someone on Reddit ask about a house rule where players don’t see the results of perception check rolls so that they don’t know whether or not the PCs succeeded. These types of rolls are a lot more common in newer versions of the games, but they aren’t unheard of in oldschool games, either. Finding traps and searching for secret doors are the first two that come to mind.
It seems obvious to me that players should NOT see the rolls for these sorts of checks. It’s self-evident.
After years of fudging rolls in my younger days, I’ve switched to rolling in the open. This has been accompanied by an increase in PC mortality, but it adds an element of excitement to the game that I feel is missing when players have a sense that the DM is guiding things by fudging. It’s also more fun as the DM, as I can never be quite sure what’s going to happen next.
The problem with rolling in the open, of course, is the above-mentioned perception-style checks. The players should not know whether their attempt to detect whether a rope bridge over a bottomless chasm is an illusion was successful or not. The obvious solution to this is for the DM to make the roll and simply tell the players what their PCs perceive.
Another option, though, would be to make the roll in the open, but obfuscate the result by rolling several dice. This would work best with a single-die roll, such as a d20 attribute check or a d6 roll while searching for secret doors. Roll two or three different-colored dice and use the result from the one determined beforehand. This roll could be made by the players, which would add to their feeling of being in control of their characters rather than at the mercy of someone else’s luck with the dice.
For example: Bob the Barbarian is searching for secret passages. The player rolls 3d6, each of a different color, and the DM chooses which one to count beforehand. The results are red 1, white 4, blue 5. The DM says, “Bob doesn’t find anything.” The player doesn’t know which die counted or if the lack of found doors means that there aren’t any secret passages or if they just failed to find them because it wasn’t the red die that counted.
This can have the added factor of giving the players a better idea of things. Say, for example, that Bob the Barbarian’s player rolled three 1s and the DM still said “Bob doesn’t find anything.” Now the player can have a high degree of confidence that there are no doors to be found. This could be especially applicable if players make the rolls, as they are rewarded for rolling “well.”
Some may argue that letting the players see these rolls will detract from the mystery, and I can see that viewpoint. But it may not be a bad thing. For instance, players already see the results of to-hit rolls. When they roll a 16 and miss, they get a sense of how tough their opponent is. Much more so than if the DM rolled behind the screen and just said “you miss.”
This element could be a way of adding knowledge that is tough to convey. If the PCs were real, they’d have all sorts of input, conscious and subconscious, on which to form opinions. But in the game, the player is basically limited to the words the DM speaks. Players know that their PC searched for secret doors and didn’t find any, but they don’t really have a sense of whether they could have missed one. Seeing the rolls, even when uncertain of which die counted, could help them determine whether or not another search is in order.
It seems that I’ve used this idea a few times in the past for various things, but never as a standard mechanic. I might have to try it to see how it goes. Just a thought.
Things have been pretty quiet for a long time on Kilgore’s game front. Oh, I’ve spent time looking over rules and browsing things daydreaming about games, but actual play sessions have been few and far between. But my daughter continues to be interested and we fired up a new game a few weeks ago. Three sessions in and some good adventure have convinced us to make another go of it, and hopefully we can stay on track until the campaign gets a life of its own.
We started out with 1e AD&D, but I’ve made the decision to shift over to B/X. Despite the nostalgia for 1e and my love of those books, my desire to stick close to BTB and our hope for a quick, easy-playing game with the focus on adventure and fun and less worry about rules and details has convinced me to go all 1981 Basic/Expert. I will freely import monsters and magic from 1e as desired, of course, but I continue to believe that B/X is the best-ever edition of the game and sometimes wish that I’d played it back in the day instead of 1e. Our 1e game played more like B/X than 1e, anyway.
Despite my plan to stick close to the rules as written, however, I cannot help but tweak a few things. First of all, even though I think the B/X rules are the best version, I don’t think they’re perfect. And I have my own sense of the type of game I want to run and how my campaign world looks. I want a little more gritty sword-and-sorcery and a little less high fantasy. Everyone is an “adventurer” first and a specialist second. Plus, with limited playing time and a very limited pool of players, no one is really interested in the long low-level grind. So:
Kilgore’s B/X House Rules
- 4d6 six times, arrange as desired, no point trading
- PCs begin at 3rd level
- Re-roll 1s on hit points
- Custom XP system that uses listed XP to level but dispenses with XP tracking
- Thieves have d6 hit dice and can use a shield
- Magic-users can wear leather armor and can use staff, sling, and club in addition to dagger
- Clerics use the 1983 Mentzer spell progression but don’t get 6th-level spells
- Clerics turn undead as two levels lower on the table
- 2-handed weapons do NOT automatically strike last
- Binding wounds hit point recovery after each combat
There will be some other various minor tweaks. The goal is to have a fast, fun game where combat is quick and deadly but not quite as risky as written. XP accumulation will not depend on killing monsters or accumulating mountains of treasure. I will be putting together Basic versions of some additional classes as needed. Initially, at least, all PCs will be human. Demi-humans exist, but they’re not quite they typical D&D demi-humans. Elves, in particular, are getting a significant makeover.
I want to put the dragons back into Dungeons & Dragons, so I’m working out a method that is sort of similar to the AD&D age system to allow a wide range of dragons to present challenges for a wide range of adventuring parties. I’ll probably write a little about the dragons (and the custom XP system) at some point if the game keeps going and I keep blogging.
Also, druids are not your typical friendly animal-loving defenders of nature. If you aren’t at least a little afraid of druids (and rangers, for that matter), you probably haven’t met any yet. Between the re-worked elves, druids, and rangers, it’s possible that orcs, undead, and dragons may be the least of your problems out in the Wild.