Anyway, my game playing, sadly, runs in the same sort of cycle. When other demands aren’t hogging all of the discretionary time (and then some), we usually make an effort to play more and, as a result, I end up creating all sorts of new material and posting some of it here.

Over the past few years, I’ve waffled on just what we’re going to play when we have time, and just how we’re going to play it. My initial plan to play Labyrinth Lord by the book and Swords & Wizardry White Box heavily house-ruled gave way to reality and the lack of time to play two different systems, let alone one that required a lot of tinkering. So we decided to go All Labyrinth Lord All the Time, with the idea that we’d incorporate a number of house rules and ideas that we had planned to use in our modified S&W White Box game.

My guess is that what happened to us happens to many gamers. Once we started tinkering, we couldn’t stop. A plan to make some adjustments led to the need to create modified rule outlines and accompanying tables, and once we crossed the line into creating our own material we failed our save vs. “houseruling.”

Our separate experiment with Five Color Magic resulting in a desire to incorporate this system into our game, and at that point, needing a fully-written player’s guide, we were looking at a totally separate system. Which is what I had been trying to avoid.

So here we are in 2011 and I am again looking at the options and wondering how to proceed.

Do we play a mostly-by-the-book Labyrinth Lord? If so, with or without the excellent Advanced Edition Companion? The advantage here is that it’s virtually 100% compatible with nearly everything else out there, including most OSR clone material and original TSR D&D material.

Do we play a heavily-modified Labyrinth Lord? If so, do we worry about our modifications breaking easy compatibility with standard LL? Giving thieves d6 hit dice or letting clerics use swords is no big deal. Re-organizing all spellcasters into five color-based classes or changing all monsters to use a one-roll lower-damage attack is. This is closer to what we want but not nearly so compatible.

Or do we play our homebrew Five Color Wizards & Warriors game, with two only two classes and five versions of each? We are 90% done with the rules guide, and we’re liking what we see. The problem, of course, is that no one else plays this game. The only ready material that exists is what we’ve written, and a lot of what I create won’t be terribly useful to blog readers, at least not as-is.

The freedom to create your own professional-looking material is a blessing and a curse. Back when the options to “publish” your own stuff was limited, my willingness to tinker was was limited to a few sheets of houserules that I’d photocopy. Things are so much better now that you can incorporate your changes directly into the text of the rules and print them up nicely, but that capability removes a reason to minimize your alterations.

What’s the best way? Whichever way gets you the game you want to play the most and gets the most use.

For us, that looks like our homebrew game.

We’ll always have the option to play another system, of course, but we’re going to throw our effort into this. Our playing has languished and that needs to change. I think our little creation gives us the best chance to do that, so that’s the plan.

What I post on the blog will probably remain fully-compatible with standard systems so as to be most useful to readers. I’m also left with the dilemma of how to proceed with the Forbidden Jungle. I’ve got a fair amount of work into it already and it’s looking pretty good (if I may say so myself), and I know that there are at least a few readers interested in seeing more FJ material. But how to make that material most accessible to those not playing my own little game? Not to mention the possibility of considering it for publication some day.

We’ll see.

UPDATE: I should add that the dilemma of “which game to play” is sometimes a contributing factor in our lack of playing. Without a clear direction, our effort has sometimes been splintered between things and we haven’t settled down and just done it. Time to do so.

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.

Hit points are re-rolled each time a Player Character advances in level—however, if the re-roll results in a character having fewer hit points for their new level than their previous level, ignore the re-roll and retain the prior amount.

This is obviously different than the “standard” method of simply rolling an HD and adding it to a PC’s previous total at each level advancement, but I’m thinking of using it in my Labyrinth Lord game. I’ve got a few posts on this topic planned for the next few days, but I lucked out when a discussion of this erupted on the Swords & Wizardry board. I encourage you to check it out, starting about here for the in-depth analysis and this thread for an excellent summary.

During the discussion, Random ran one million (!) simulations of the various totals at various levels and posted the results. Using his numbers, I put together a couple of charts to display the curves at 5th and 7th levels for fighters:

Hit Points Standard and Re-Rolled at 5th Level

Hit Points Standard and Re-Rolled at 7th Level

The number on the bottom is the hit point total, the number on the left is the number of times that result came up out of 1,000,000. Keep in mind that S&W WB uses d6 hit dice for fighters. Click the images for a better look.

As you can see, the re-roll method has a slightly sharper curve to the bell and tops out a little higher than the standard method, but not by a whole lot. Random’s simulations showed an average difference of less than 1.88 hit points at 10th level, something I don’t find significant enough to spend any time worrying about.

I like the idea that a “bad” HD roll, say a roll of 1 when advancing from 5th to 6th level, can be “made up” at the next level. The cost, of course, is the fact that hit points may not increase at all if earlier rolls were particularly good. As for narrowing the bell, drawing most characters toward the mean, I don’t see that as a problem, though those who are convinced they can beat the odds and get nearly max hit points each level won’t like it.

Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!

When these are gone there will be no more until November.

Kilgore ordered his.

UPDATE: Alas, it appears that the extra run has also sold out. There are 25 sets in reserve for January 20th, the official release date.

Labyrinth Lord comb-bound full-size and digest

For some time now, my plan has been a two-pronged approach to fantasy gaming. Labyrinth Lord by the book with only a few house rules would be one side of the coin while a totally customized Swords & Wizardry White Box system would provide an outlet for for all sorts of ideas in a game with a simpler foundation and a lower power curve.

However, I’ve been struggling to find any time to spend on the White Box side of things. Heck, I’ve been struggling to find time to spend on any gaming lately. I made the decision some time back to put my Forbidden Jungle sandbox campaign into White Box, but as my work on that has languished Forbidden Jungle has ground to a halt. Looking into my immediate future, I don’t see much realistic chance to spend any amount of time on S&W in the coming two or three months. Considering that I had wanted to have kicked off Forbidden Jungle already, this is not acceptable.

Of late, I’ve been pondering the switch to All Labyrinth Lord All The Time. Despite a lot of coolness in the S&W White Box system and an awesome S&W community online, I’m having trouble justifying splitting my time and effort between two systems, particularly when one of them is going to require a significant amount of work before it’s what I want it to be, and the other is already up, running, and going great.

Since I’m pretty limited for time these days, there’s no real rush to make a final decision on anything immediately.

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?

For a while, there has been a lot of talk on various forums and blogs about the usefulness of having a RPG system in booklet format. The discussion seems centered around utility and a certain rules-light-DIY philosophy, tinged only a bit by nostalgia and novelty. I can see the appeal of having books you can print out at home, keep in a small Munchkin-sized box, and store in your glove box or something for in-promtu gaming purposes. It sure as hell beats lugging around three 400 page hardback books.

Kilgore's WhiteBox

I strongly prefer digest-sized booklets for game use. Yes, there’s certainly some nostalgia there (though I must admit mine is for the black LBBs of Traveller rather than the brown LBBs of OD&D), but I find them easier to use and keep behind the screen while playing.

And, come on, isn’t the nostalgia+utility factor one of the driving ones behind the “old-school renaissance”?

I’ve printed up my Labyrinth Lord PDF digest-sized and used comb binding. I’d prefer coil over comb but a comb punch is available at work. Either one lies nice and flat when open, even with higher page counts than anyone’s LBBs.

I’ve also used digest-sized comb-binding for my Swords & Wizardry White Box rules. My long term plan for S&W is to assemble myself a customized White Box book incorporating all of my house rules plus monsters from the Monster Book.

I print my booklets using Clickbook by BlueSquirrel. It’s got a lot of printing options and allows me to easily combine different formats into one booklet (or other size/style) as needed. It manages the two-sided printing, working with both duplex and standard printers to get your pages sorted and printed as needed. However, it is not free. At $50 it’s not a killer, but if it’s only going to be used a few times it’s probably tough to justify the expense.

A free option is BookletCreator.com. You select a PDF to upload and it sends you back a new PDF with the pages ordered for booklet printing. This leaves you to print the odd-numbered pages, get it back into your printer correctly, and print the even-half in reverse. Though I always seem to need at least two tries at this, the price (free) is right if only a few booklets are going to be printed. I ran up a couple of copies of Dungeonslayers as a test of the service and it worked great. (Just make sure to select “Letter” as your Result Sheet Size for digest booklets.)

[UPDATE: I also think there's a booklet option in recent versions of Adobe Acrobat. I use Foxit, so I'm not sure about it or how it works.]

Another route for limited printing, of course, would be to go down to Staples or Kinkos and get it done there. It’s not free, but the price might be worth the saved hassle. Plus they’ve got a number of binding options available.

Bat, meanwhile, has a nifty little carrier that just begs for digest-sized booklets. I may have to look into something like that.

Before I go any further, I must make a confession: When deciding between Swords & Wizardry (Core) and Labyrinth Lord, the requirement for AAC in S&W was a large part of the reason that I chose LL. I simply wanted nothing to do with AAC, as I considered the standard AC system to work perfectly well.

However, as I prepared for S&W White Box, after about a dozen sessions of LL, I decided that perhaps completely eliminating the combat tables would help me, as the game master, keep things flowing along a bit better. So I’m giving it a try.

Something else that’s swayed my opinion a bit is the reaction that pro-AAC players get from old-schoolers on the various message boards. So many old-schoolers almost sound like broken records with “you can do anything you want in old-school D&D“, “you can do anything you want in old-school D&D“, and “you can do anything you want in old-school D&D” over and over again whenever someone asks about rules or how to handle a particular situation.

Now, I happen to agree that you can do whatever you want in old-school D&D, but I don’t think that saying so is a meaningful answer to a question about how turning is supposed to work in version X of the game, and it’s even less helpful when those parroting the line draw a line at new-fangled stuff like AAC.

The “you can do anything you want in old-school D&D” crowd apparently means “anything” that’s on the pre-approved old-school list of acceptable practices. Though it seems to be a small minority of board posters who stick to this philosophy, they also seem to be a rather vocal bunch. That’s too bad, as I think they do a disservice to the old-school movement.

Now, I certainly will agree that descending AC is the way that it was done in the old days. And if you want to play the original game the way it was originally played, you’ll use descending AC. But all this blathering about how AAC is crossing some sort of line is just silly. If a fighter needs to roll a 14 to hit an orc, it doesn’t matter if you used a combat matrix with descending AC and attacker level, THAC0, or simply the orc’s (ascending) AC to determine that number. 14 is 14. All of these claims that using AAC is somehow “doing it wrong” just mystify me.

All this “openness” of the old rules. A bazillion house rules to fix or improve nearly everything about the original versions of the game. But stating the same thing a bit differently is somehow taboo? A while back I wrote:

I don’t really see a lot of “canonization,” “revisionism,” or “fundamentalism” in the current old-school renaissance, but I see what might be the beginnings of some such activity. I believe that nearly all of it is unintentional and not really worth pointing out.

The reactions that AAC often bring are part of those “beginnings.” I hope that it doesn’t pick up steam.

If the final decision is to stick with AAC, we’ll probably be using it in Labyrinth Lord, too.

7th Level Cleric?

Clerics must be either Lawful or Chaotic (no Neutral clerics allowed), and Chaotic clerics can only memorize the reversed versions of reversible spells (dark instead of light, cause light wounds instead of cure, etc.). Lawful clerics should not cast the reversed versions lest they risk the path to the dark side. Clerical magic originates from a mystic power with lawful and chaotic sides that constantly battle each other for supremacy.

Clerics attempting to cast spells while wearing plate armor must make a saving throw or their spell will fizzle.

Finally, turning undead is no longer an innate ability. Instead, a Lawful cleric may memorize the spell Turn Undead:

Turn Undead (Command Undead)
Spell Level: C1
Range: 120 ft
Duration: 3d6 minutes

This spell causes undead to turn and flee for the duration of the spell based on the results from Table 20: Turning Undead. Undead unable to flee will cower helplessly, though if the caster attacks any turned undead the spell is broken for all those affected.

Chaotic clerics can command undead successfully affected for the duration of the spell in a manner similar to charm person. Mindless undead will obey without question, but those of greater than 5HD may be able to resist commands contrary to their motivations.

A result of ‘D’ on Table 20 indicates that the target undead are destroyed (if the cleric is Lawful) or that the command period lasts for 24 hours rather than 3d6 minutes (if the cleric is Chaotic).

Qui-Gon Jinn from Episode I is the Jedi who immediately springs to mind here. Clerics in the service to various godlings, demons, and other supernatural powers do exist, but the spells of clerics come from the mystical power that binds the universe together.

Kilgore’s been waiting for this because of the focus on thieves in both Swords & Wizardry rulesets. I want to check out what’s included before making final decisions on my own White Box Thief.

Also available is the S&W Monster Book. Though this was created for the S&W Core rules, I picked one up. Conversion to White Box should be a snap, and I’m sure some of the nasty critters will find their way into my Labyrinth Lord game, as well.

Definitely check out these new offerings, as well as everything else at Mythmere’s store. Lots of good stuff.

(The White Box rules are undergoing corrections, so maybe hold off on those if you can. Hate to say it, but I know I’d be unhappy if I ordered something only to see a new and improved version released the following week.)

Here is the system I currently use in both my Labyrinth Lord and S&W White Box games regarding character hit points, death, and dying:

• 0 hp = unconscious for 1d6 turns, will revive with 1 hp
• -1 to -9 hp = save vs. death or die, successful save means 0hp (as above)
• -10 or lower = immediate death, no save

I allow “binding wounds” which is a catch-all for bandaging, drinking water (or something stronger to buck things up), catching breath, rest, and just general regathering of wits. This heals 1d3 hit points, takes 5 minutes, and must be completed within 1 turn of the end of combat. This means that if binding isn’t started within five minutes of the end of combat, it’s forfeited. This allows a bit of “securing the area” or retreat (if necessary). Only damage suffered in that particular combat can be healed by binding.

An unconscious character may have his wounds bound by someone else, which revives him in 5 minutes with 1hp. No further binding for that battle allowed for that character, and the third party who revived him cannot bind his own wounds.

Anyone can bind wounds. I figure every adventurer is either a bit of a combat medic or learns pretty fast.

For recovery, I allow up to 1d3 hp healed per night, depending on conditions. For instance:

While camping:
• Fire AND bedroll: 1d3 hp
• Fire OR bedroll: 1d2 hp
• Neither fire or bedroll: 1 hp

This is open to a wide range of on-the-spot modifiers. Camping with a bedroll during a violent thunderstorm may only allow 1hp recovery. Sleeping in a fine bed after a filling meal and a hot bath may allow for more.

I rule that monsters and non-key NPCs are generally dead a 0 hit points.

This system seems to work pretty well in play. PCs are still quite mortal, but the odds of survival when reduced below zero aren’t terrible. We used to rule that failing the below zero save meant a character was “dying” and would survive for 1 turn before expiring. Only magical healing could revive them, though someone binding their wounds “stabilized” them and allowed for another saving throw. This was a bit cumbersome and not quite lethal enough, so we ditched it.

On a Swords & Wizardry forum thread discussing death and dying, Grim mentioned that he felt if he let characters go below zero and live, he’d have to do the same for monsters. I don’t feel that way at all these days, though at one time I did.

I have no problem with monsters having different rules than PCs. NPC wizards don’t need to follow the rules or spell progressions of PC magic-users if something else will make the adventure better, and in a similar vein I don’t feel that monsters always need to play by the same rules that PCs do.

Though I’m no longer afraid to kill of PCs, I don’t mind giving them a slightly-better-than-normal chance of survival.