Labyrinth Lord
This is the third part of my series of posts on our Roll to Advance alternative experience and advancement system for our fantasy RPG. In short: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances to the next level. Accumulated XP, awarded at a rate of 1 (one) per gaming session, provide a positive modifier to this roll. Traditional experience point awards and tracking are eliminated. We’re using it in our modified Labyrinth Lord game, but it should work similarly in any old-school version of the game.
Part 1 introduced the system and outlined its basic operation. Part 2 looked at the specific numbers for each of the standard character classes. This part looks at racial modifiers to those numbers and the elimination of something I’ve never really liked: the level limit for demi-human characters.
Gamers who like the idea of level limits, and I know that there are at least a few of you out there, could probably just ignore this component of the Roll to Advance system. It’s designed to account for racial abilities and longevity in another manner. Gamers who detest the idea of level limits, and there do seem to be an awful lot of them, may read on.
Basically, every non-human race has a penalty at every level to offset the bonuses and advantages that demi-humans enjoy, including the extended lifespan that conceivably allows them to adventure for many decades or centuries longer than their human counterparts.
The penalties for each race are as follows:
| Dwarf | Elf | Gnome | Halfling | Half-Elf | Half-Orc | Human | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 4 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| 6 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| 7 | 8 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| 8 | 9 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| 9 | 10 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| 10 | 11 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| 11 | 13 | 17 | 11 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
| 12 | 14 | 19 | 12 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 0 |
The appropriate value from this table is added to the standard class target to get the roll to advance number for a demi-human. Please note that, like the class listings, this table shows the number needed to advance from the current level, not to the next level.
Example: A fifth-level dwarf fighter needs a 30 to advance to sixth level, 24 from the class table plus 6 for being a dwarf.
If these penalties seem excessive, remember that demi-human characters will now have no limitation to the level they can reach. And their extended adventuring career, thanks to living so long, will give them the opportunity to reach those levels.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
Yesterday I introduced the Roll to Advance alternative system for character experience and advancement in our classic fantasy game. In short: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances to the next level. Accumulated XP, awarded at a rate of 1 (one) per gaming session, provide a positive modifier to this roll. Traditional experience point awards and tracking are eliminated.
We’re using this system in our heavily house-ruled Labyrinth Lord game, but I see no reason why it wouldn’t work in other similar games.
Below are the rolls needed to advance at each level for each class. (Note that this table shows the number needed to advance from the current level, not to the next level. For example, a 4th level assassin needs to roll a modified 22 to advance to 5th level.)
| Ass | Clc | Drd | Ftr | Ill | M-U | Mnk | Pal | Rng | Thf | |
| 1 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 18 | 17 |
| 2 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 20 | 18 |
| 3 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 22 | 19 |
| 4 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 22 | 24 | 26 | 26 | 29 | 23 | 21 |
| 5 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 28 | 29 | 31 | 25 | 23 |
| 6 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 26 | 28 | 30 | 32 | 33 | 27 | 24 |
| 7 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 36 | 29 | 25 |
| 8 | 28 | 30 | 31 | 29 | 32 | 35 | 36 | 39 | 31 | 27 |
| 9 | 29 | 31 | 33 | 31 | 34 | 37 | 38 | 41 | 32 | 29 |
| 10 | 31 | 33 | 34 | 33 | 36 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 34 | 30 |
| 11 | 33 | 35 | 36 | 35 | 38 | 42 | 44 | 46 | 36 | 31 |
| 12 | 34 | 37 | 38 | 36 | 40 | 44 | 46 | 49 | 38 | 33 |
This table only goes through 12th level. Currently, that is what we’re considering to be our maximum level for any character in our game. Higher levels are possible, but we will essentially deal with that when we get to it, probably with a “high-level adventuring” type supplement to our core rules. The advancement rate for each class continues on in the same pattern it took to reach 12th level.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
Over the past month or so I’ve alluded to a new alternative character experience and advancement system we’re trying out. Over the course of this week, I’m going to run a series of posts describing and explaining it as it stands right now. I will gladly welcome feedback on how to improve the system, as it is still very much a work in progress. It is designed to work with our homebrew version of Labyrinth Lord but should work quite easily with any other old-school version of the game.
I’ll start by stating up front that some, and maybe most, are really going to hate this. It’s a pretty radical departure from the standard “accumulate experience points by defeating monsters and collecting treasure” system that forms the foundation of the level advancement system in D&D. It’s more radical than going back to the 100XP per hit die system of the first version of the original game. It’s more radical than awarding more than 1 XP per gold piece, which is the way we’ve played until recently to avoid needing piles of treasure to advance in level. It’s more radical than only awarding XP for gold which is spent. It’s more radical than awarding XP for “role playing” or “story goals” or “mission success.”
In fact, this system doesn’t award XP for any of those things. Kill lots of monsters or no monsters. Loot piles of gold or no gold. Rescue the princess or don’t. None of that affects a PC’s ability to go up in level.
Here, in a nutshell, is how the system works: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances one level.
Told you you’d hate it.
Anyway, there are a number of reasons we’re going with this “Roll to Advance” system:
- No tracking of XP (in the standard way) is required
- The actual design of the scenario (amount of treasure, number of monsters) doesn’t affect the chance to advance
- Playing is the key element in playing, not the specific in-game results
Point #1, the tracking of XP, refers to the time and effort spent recording every monster, calculating XP values for homemade or specialized versions of monsters, adding up every last gold piece, arguing over the awards for items sold and income from businesses or established strongholds, and working out bonuses for high ability scores. None of that matters any more.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
Now that we’ve more or less settled (for now at least) on our D12 thief skills, I’m going to post our success rates for non-thieves attempting many of the same tasks. Each of these is a normal x-in-6 chance similar to the standard hear noise check. I’m actually pulling them straight from the d6-based White Box Thievery I posted last spring, though I’m not going to allow non-thief characters to remove traps, only find them.
Here they are, with some modifiers and notes:
| Activity | Find Traps | Pick Pockets | Sneak Quietly | Climb Walls | Hide | Hear Noise |
| Chance for success on 1d6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
Find Traps: Dwarves +1, Halflings +1 for snares and traps in woodland settings. This only applies to non-magical traps. A roll of 6 may indicate that the trap has been accidentally sprung.
Pick Pockets: Half-orcs -1. + or – 1 for every three levels the intended victim is above or below the picker’s level. A roll of 6 may indicate that the attempt has been noticed.
Sneak Quietly: Elves and Halflings +1 when in non-metal armor.
Climb Walls: Dwarves -1, Gnomes and Halflings -2. This chance for success applies to walls with sufficient hand- and foot-holds; smooth stone or masonry gives a -2 modifier (at least). A roll of 6 may mean that a fall from near the top has taken place.
Hide: Elves and Halflings +1 in woodlands. Someone already under observation cannot successfully hide.
Hear Noise is the standard ability as described in the rules.
Obviously these all follow, with the exception of climbing walls, the standard 1-in-6 chance that we all know and love. I happen to really like 1-in-6 for difficult tasks, 2-in-6 for hard tasks, 3-in-6 for simple tasks, and 4-in-6 for easy tasks. So x-in-6 is basically the D&D universal task system, and a look around the old rules will show that, with various tweaks here and there, it always has been.
One thing I’m considering is: When a 1-in-6 chance gets a -1 modifier (when a half-orc attempts to pick a pocket, for instance) instead of becoming 0-in-6 the chance for success becomes 1-in-12. It just goes with the “let PCs try anything they want” vibe I go for.
Here is a little more copied from my White Box Thievery rules that will probably be pasted as-is into our growing homebrew Labyrinth Lord rulebook:
Situational bonuses and penalties will, of course, apply as well. An inattentive sentry may give a +2 bonus to characters attempting to sneak past, while a scroll tucked into an inner pocket may give a -1 penalty to a pick pockets attempt. Similarly, the game master may simply rule on certain actions as warranted. A smooth and polished iron tower, for instance, may be declared un-climbable without assistance, while a wall overgrown with vines may not require a climbing roll at all. An attempt to hide in the plain sight of a squad of orcs which have already spotted the PC will certainly fail, but an attempt to hear a loudly snoring giant may always succeed.
Game masters may list common modifiers appropriate for his or her campaign ahead of time, but, whether or not this is done, on-the-fly rulings during play should be expected. These skills, by their very nature, are apt to be used for unusual and unforeseen purposes.
By clearly establishing baseline chances of success for all adventurers, claims that thief skills somehow restrict such activity to thief-specialized characters should be minimized. Everyone will know that their cleric (or fighter or magic-user) can try to pick someone’s pocket or climb a wall, just as everyone already knows that their character can listen for noise or search for a secret door whatever their class.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, thief
For those that are interested, here are the by-the-book Labyrinth Lord thief skills calculated for d12 checks instead of percentile dice. This was made simply by taking the percentage value and multiplying by 12, rounding x.5 up to the next d12 number.
| Lvl | Locks | Traps | Pockets | Move | Climb | Hide | Hear |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 4 |
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 6 |
| 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 6 |
| 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 6 |
| 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 8 |
| 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 8 |
| 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 8 |
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 10 | 10 |
| 12 | 12 | 11 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 10 |
| 13 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 10 |
| 14 | 12 | 12 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 10 |
Dwarf: Locks +1, Traps +1, Climb -1
Elf: Locks -1, Pockets +1, Move+1, Hide +1, Hear +1
Gnome: Locks +1, Traps +1, Move +1, Climb -2, Hide +1
Halfling: Locks +1, Traps +1, Pockets +1, Move +1, Climb -2, Hide +1
Half-Elf: Pockets +1, Hide +1
Half-Orc: Locks +1, Traps +1, Pockets -1, Climb +1
The LL thief table only goes to level 14 despite the game taking classes up to level 20.
Compare these to the higher low level numbers of my game’s thief.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, thief
For our adventures in the Forbidden Jungle, we’ve had to modify our Labyrinth Minions system to include the native tribesmen who are hiring themselves out to hunters, explorers, and adventurers.
There is a steady stream of people from the settled lands across the sea arriving in the crowded town at the mouth of the huge river which snakes up into the Heart of Darkness. Many of these (which we call “old worlders”) arrive with hopes of gold, ivory, and glory but soon find themselves with nothing but a rusty sword and an empty stomach. They are only too willing to hire themselves out as porters, torch bearers, or men-at-arms to an expedition.
Also, the word has spread among the native tribes that gold can be earned by working for these crazy old worlders. So there is usually no shortage of natives looking for work as well. Unlike most campaigns I’ve run, in the Forbidden Jungle there is no shortage of potential hirelings.
And it’s a good thing, as the Forbidden Jungle is a deadly place. The natives know and accept this with a grim determination. The newcomers maybe don’t, but with no family on the continent there is no one to complain if someone heads out on an expedition but never returns. Most of the old worlders who don’t return are never missed by anyone. It’s sad, but the jungle has no sympathy.
Here is the modified version of the Minions sheet:
Jungle Minions
Free PDF
The native tribesmen are more lightly armed and armored than the old-worlders but are a bit hardier in the environment as reflected by their slightly better hit points. The scale mail for the tribesmen can represent either new world scale mail or perhaps some special tribal construction.
Tags: Forbidden Jungle, Kreations, Labyrinth Lord
The comments section on my recent post about the differences between racial abilities in 1e AD&D and the new Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion attracted the notice of Dan Proctor and he weighed in a number of topics, one of them the sheer number of games seeing the light of day now that the Old-School Renaissance seems to be in full swing:
I think the real concern people have but have a hard time putting into words is that it is hard to support every clone (ish) game that is coming out or will come out. Many many more will come out, I have no doubt. I think what people are feeling is “support fatigue.”
How many more of these should we high-five before we say screw it, who cares? That’s a legit question, and I don’t have an answer. Honesty I don’t think any of us should feel an obligation to support every new retro game that comes out…one might ask why support AEC instead of OSRIC. I’m not asking anyone to.
I was thrilled to have Dan leave this comment, as it addresses something I’ve been wanting to write about for some time.
In July I wrote:
I’m also wondering how many people actually play multiple systems. Is it uncommon? With so many retro-clones, spin-offs of retro-clones, and new games out there now, not to mention the originals, do many players utilize several of them? Or do most pick a single system and stick with it?
Personally, I cannot materially support (in terms of purchases) every old-school game out there. I cannot even support every one I think is particularly good. First, the financial commitment would be far greater than I can afford. There is a lot of product being released, much of it of very high quality. I cannot even justify the expense of Labyrinth Lord hardcovers at this time, even though LL is my choice of one game to rule them all. There are a few products I’ve purchased to show my solidarity with the creators, and there will be more in the future. But not very many. If I don’t think I’ll use it at the table, I probably won’t be spending any money on it.
But even more limited than my gold is is my time. I simply don’t have time to play all the games I would like to check out. The whole reason I chose to go All Labyrinth Lord All the Time was that I was having trouble getting anywhere on my proposed S&W White Box game. And it wasn’t a lack of interest, as I was (and still am) very intrigued by the power curve of White Box. But there is only so much time in the day and so many players to play, so I won’t be spreading my effort over a half-dozen cool games. Unfortunately, this means that some games I’d sure like to try, such as Ruins & Ronin and Mutant Future, probably won’t get a chance.
I think most players are in the same boat as I am. I’ve made my choice (at least for now) and others will have to make their own choices based on their own interests. Some will pick multiple games. Some will play one or two but buy material for many others. I don’t know which direction things will take, though it appears that there will be a small number “bigger” games and a large number of “smaller” ones.
I’d hate to see good games struggle because things are so diluted, but the market will have its say. Fortunately, the publishing options available mean that nothing has to permanently “die,” and I think that quality material will always be in demand.
If you write it well, they will play it.
UPDATE: From a comment:
Arguably, extra gaming time is better spent expanding a smaller game than grokking a bigger game. Add to that the ease with which publishers can nuance games with house variants and setting/genre tweaks, and yes, we’ll continue to see more titles than we can keep up with.
But I think you hit the nail on the head: the required number of games is as many as it takes to find one you like.
I don’t think that we’ll reach a state of truly “too many” old-school retro-clones and retro-spin-offs. Such a state would be similar to having “too much” beer or “too many” girlfriends.
But (and this is a big “but”) once one finds the right game, beer, or woman, the others usually sort of fade into the background.
UPDATE 2: Grognardia linked to yesterday’s post with Dan Proctor’s comments. That in itself is cool, but I encourage you to check out what James has to say on the subject.
Here is a summary of the significant changes in character races from the 1e advanced game to Labyrinth Lord’s Advanced Edition Companion:
- Dwarves:
- Lost orcish language
- Lost +1 to-hit vs. half-orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs
- Lost -4 defense bonus vs. ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants, and titans
- Saving throw bonuses vs. magic and poison are handled differently with roughly similar results
- Gained saving throw bonuses vs. breath weapons
- Elves:
- Lost 90% resistance to sleep and charm
- Lost +1 to-hit with bows
- Lost gnome, halfling, hobgoblin, orcish, and gnoll languages
- Gained kobold language
- Lost surprise bonus when alone or with only other elves
- Gained resistance to ghoul’s paralyzation
- Gnomes:
- Gained orcish language
- Lost ability to communicate with burrowing mammals
- Saving throw bonuses vs. magic are handled differently with roughly similar results
- Gained saving throw bonuses vs. poison and breath weapons
- Lost +1 to-hit vs. kobolds and goblins
- Halflings:
- Saving throw bonuses vs. magic and poison are handled differently with roughly similar results
- Gained saving throw bonuses vs. breath weapons
- Lost all racial languages (6 total)…halfings in core LL also list no languages
- Lost infravision (some breeds)
- Lost tunnel observation skills
- Lost surprise bonus when alone or with only other halflings
- Gained ability to hide in wilderness
- Gained ability to hid in shadows underground
- Gained initiative bonus when alone or with only other halflings
- Gained +1 to-hit on all missile attacks
- Half-Elves:
- Lost 30% resistance to sleep and charm
- Gained resistance to ghoul’s paralyzation
- Lost gnome, halfling, and goblin languages
- Half-Orcs:
- Gained ability to detect secret and hidden doors
I haven’t looked at changes to racial level limits or thief skill adjustments yet.
To be honest, now that I look more closely and make a list, the changes are lot more significant than I had thought when I wrote my review. I will add a link to this list from the review. Personally, I don’t really mind seeing what is generally a “powering-down” of the demi-human races, but this seems a bit excessive.
My guess is that it is due to how the race-classes were written up in the 1981 B/X game, which mostly carried over into Labyrinth Lord. When making the AEC races match racial abilities of the core LL race-classes, a lot had to go. Much of it, though nice flavor, isn’t really necessary. But some of it is more than just cosmetic.
This isn’t a knock against LL or the AEC, as I really like the simplified mechanics and write-ups of the basic game. And taking advanced stuff and porting it into a basic game was no mean trick, so this list is meant as an observation, not a criticism. If every little advanced bit was more or less duplicated in the AEC, it wouldn’t be a basic game any more, would it? The beauty of the AEC is that it makes using the advanced stuff in a basic game a snap. And it does it well.
Even if elves don’t get a +1 with bows other than crossbows.
UPDATE: Some seem to have taken this listing as a knock against the AEC for some reason. I haven’t quite figured out how that happened, as it’s merely a quick listing of simple fact and my written conclusion is generally supportive of the decisions made.
I merely thought that a look at some of the details would be interesting. I’ve played LL (and a very little S&W) exclusively over the past year, haven’t played 1e AD&D since 1989 or so, and the differences were greater than I had remembered. I thought others may be interested, too, in a look at some details. I’m mystified how that could bother anyone.
UPDATE 2: Grognardia linked to this post and Dan Proctor’s comments. That in itself is cool, but I encourage you to check out what James has to say on the subject.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord
