|
Post by ewookie on Feb 22, 2013 22:44:42 GMT -5
dang man. i'm not gonna ask if you like to kill characters. i'm not gonna ask how many characters you like to kill. i'm not gonna ask if you will kill all characters. instead, i will ask... how long do you make them suffer before they die?
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Feb 23, 2013 3:38:52 GMT -5
Mwa ha hah ! My group are playing a High Fantasy campaign at the moment and I was thinking of ways to dissuade spells that cause direct injury to others because one of the tenets of the setting is that slinging spells like fireball is seen as crude and vulgar. I have imposed a 4/DX to cast unless the wizard has acquired blood, hair or skin from the victim first. But that's High Fantasy and I agree that in S&S it should be more risky so I would employ that table for spells, but allow wizards to perform rituals (without the table) but requiring Alchemy. Rituals could take Spell IQ minus 1d6 Turns to cast, being unpredictable. I suppose you could employ spell delay (which Chainmail used) for spells themselves instead of the table, but my players would hate that. I would alter the spell list for S&S (you want light, use a torch, you wanna fly - ride a roc) so the spells left are foul and forbidden - mostly consisting of summoning the supernatural and otherworldly (risky) -some of whom use magic on the wizards behalf.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 24, 2013 2:58:27 GMT -5
Aw, you don't really mean that do you ewookie? I really don't see these rules that way. I see them as a handicap. Don't use magic unless you really need to. If you are going to harness the power of the supernatural, know that there's a risk and it's use should be worth the risk. Otherwise, stick with the power of steel. I'm not saying I won't change these rules either. I was just banging an idea around that would help create that S&S feel. reading this and your zero level play stuff, yes, i do mean it. seems like a brother would have a hard time surviving in your world!
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 24, 2013 20:27:50 GMT -5
reading this and your zero level play stuff, yes, i do mean it. seems like a brother would have a hard time surviving in your world! Ha ha I'm not sure how old your are, but some might actually choose to describe this as "old school". case in point, Moldvay's Basic rulebook has magic users starting out with only 1d4 hp's and only one 1st level spell. Spells were a "fire and forget" mechanism. A magic user would memorize spells he knew from a spell book. Once he used the spell, he would have to rememorize it to use it again. This could only be done once a day and was suppose to be in a restful concentrated time period. Probably the most offensive used 1st level spell was Magic-missile which only did 1d6+1 damage one time. Fighters faired a little better with 1d8 hp's. But healing potions weren't handed out like cough drops to the Sunday morning choir either. Adventurers had to be cautious and smart in play or things could turn deadly quick (especially for MU's). As far as zero level play goes- yeah, it's deadly. That's the intention. You want the players to run a larger amount of characters and end up with only a couple playable Heroes by the time they reach +1 xp. I'm not a sadist as a GM though. I try to give players other means of overcoming in regular game play. But I don't believe it should be a walk in the park where players don't have to think before they engage in conflict either. i'll be 39 in a few months. i do remember this old school stuff. TPK can be quite fun with the proper humorous spins and shenanigans. while i have accurately expressed my sentiments, they were intended to be humorous. back in the old school days, we never had a lot of players where i live, so everyone always played 2-3 characters. i usually had a fighter and a magic-user. i only allowed myself to emotionally invest in the fighter. the magic-user was always regarded as a terminally ill psychiatric patient. hmm, maybe that was an insensitive thing to say and, therefore, not funny. probably doesn't accurately describe how i played them either. basically, i played the fighter like a jock and the magic-user was his nerdy and expendable pawn.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 25, 2013 20:40:36 GMT -5
i'll be 39 in a few months. i do remember this old school stuff. Get Off My Lawn You Young Whippersnapper! Nah, you're not much younger then me. ;D I'll post some more Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap for your amusement soon dang. i thought i had you beat. i looked at your profile yesterday and thought it said you were 34. i looked again and now your 37. it was number of posts. crap looking forward to more sadist rules hope you are looking forward to having your lawn rolled, old fart
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 17:56:27 GMT -5
Here's what I'm thinking after considering others input. This is a more tame approach to creating that S&S vibe. 1. All characters are Adventurers (no wizards). -spells can be learned, but are at Adventurers costs. 2. All spells require the Alchemy skill to perform. -no charts or tables, simplified 3. EN costs for spells are incurred whether IQ test was successful or not. (I already use this rule in my regular game he-he) 4. A limited spell list to start -lesser image, summon swarm, avert, confusion, enfeeble, shadow,summon wolf, summon spider I was also thinking of incentivising non-magic with a simple EN burning feat option. I haven't given this much thought yet. Is there anything like that already? Was there feats in TFT? i like all of that. especially #1. there were no feats in TFT as far as i have investigated. i have the beginnings of a crazy idea for feats over in the LAW forums. i'll go copy/paste that here. i doubt you'll love it but it might inspire something you like. EDIT: i don't really understand the Alchemy requirement. can you explain? what do you mean by 'no charts/tables'?
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 17:59:14 GMT -5
original here: darkcitygames.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=law&thread=221&post=2796Feats Any character may perform a feat. Martialists roll 1d6 to determine the SP cost of a feat. Mystics roll 2d6 to determine the cost of a feat. Knockdown Disarm Extra Attack Extra Reaction 2-point bonus to hit roll 2-point bonus to damage roll 2-point bonus to skill check i was trying to brainstorm some possible feats. add Knockback to the list. can't think of anymore. i was largely inspired by: www.1km1kt.net/rpg/sword-and-spellEDIT: forgot to explain. SP is what i cooked up in LAW to pay for spells. your Spirit (SP) = IQ/2. you can just pretend it's EN.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 18:19:48 GMT -5
Here's what I'm thinking after considering others input. This is a more tame approach to creating that S&S vibe. 1. All characters are Adventurers (no wizards). -spells can be learned, but are at Adventurers costs. 2. All spells require the Alchemy skill to perform. -no charts or tables, simplified 3. EN costs for spells are incurred whether IQ test was successful or not. (I already use this rule in my regular game he-he) 4. A limited spell list to start -lesser image, summon swarm, avert, confusion, enfeeble, shadow,summon wolf, summon spider I was also thinking of incentivising non-magic with a simple EN burning feat option. I haven't given this much thought yet. Is there anything like that already? Was there feats in TFT? here are some more ideas regarding #1: - let advanced/older characters trade-in some skills/skill levels to help buy these new-fangled spell-thingies they are learning - let advanced/older characters shift some stat points to IQ
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 19:01:12 GMT -5
here are some more ideas regarding #1: - let advanced/older characters trade-in some skills/skill levels to help buy these new-fangled spell-thingies they are learning - let advanced/older characters shift some stat points to IQ you really like your magic ewookie keep in mind, i'm not talking about going from bad-ass warrior to bad-ass wizard over-night. i'm thinking like 1-2 points/levels are allowed to shift between adventures.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 26, 2013 19:38:58 GMT -5
I think there is something there I can use with your feat ideas, but I'll have to read through it and digest it a little- burp. i've heard that in some parts of the world, burping is a compliment to the chef. is this true? (:
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 27, 2013 0:01:18 GMT -5
you really like your magic ewookie keep in mind, i'm not talking about going from bad-ass warrior to bad-ass wizard over-night. i'm thinking like 1-2 points/levels are allowed to shift between adventures. i like low fantasy too. what i was thinking here, with everyone starting as an Adventurer, characters start with stats good for combat. they'll develop skills for combat. this will be necessary to survive long enough to start dabbling with magic. at some point, they will be advanced enough to have the 'pocket money' XP to start dabbling with magic. if you don't let some skills/stats shift, they'll morph into wizards that are really good at physical combat. by letting them shift skills/stats toward magic, they lose combat ability and replace it with magic. may not be the best idea though.
|
|
|
Post by skathros on Feb 27, 2013 11:36:52 GMT -5
i've heard that in some parts of the world, burping is a compliment to the chef. is this true? (: Very true.....but I'm still digesting. These are my thoughts on feats. These are gleaned from Microlite74 where they're called stunts. An adventurer can modify their basic attack by spending EN. The stunt must be described to justify it's use. Hinder: inflict a -2 penalty to targets DX until next turn (knocked off balance or distracted) 2 EN Cleave: hit all adjacent enemies-roll seperate damage 1 EN/target, max 3 EN Aid: give +1 bonus to another characters ATTs 2 EN Xtra Die: roll an extra damage die 2 EN Effect: Extra effect like knocking target back or disarming 2 EN That's all for now. This will have to be fine tuned. EN costs are rough ideas. I very much like this idea, derv!
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 27, 2013 16:16:21 GMT -5
i like low fantasy too. what i was thinking here, with everyone starting as an Adventurer, characters start with stats good for combat. they'll develop skills for combat. this will be necessary to survive long enough to start dabbling with magic. at some point, they will be advanced enough to have the 'pocket money' XP to start dabbling with magic. if you don't let some skills/stats shift, they'll morph into wizards that are really good at physical combat. by letting them shift skills/stats toward magic, they lose combat ability and replace it with magic. I see I'm going to have to re-introduce my spell corruption tables for you ewookie i see i'm going to have to drop this idea because it's not getting any traction
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 28, 2013 19:46:35 GMT -5
i've heard that in some parts of the world, burping is a compliment to the chef. is this true? (: Very true.....but I'm still digesting. These are my thoughts on feats. These are gleaned from Microlite74 where they're called stunts. An adventurer can modify their basic attack by spending EN. The stunt must be described to justify it's use. Hinder: inflict a -2 penalty to targets DX until next turn (knocked off balance or distracted) 2 EN Cleave: hit all adjacent enemies-roll seperate damage 1 EN/target, max 3 EN Aid: give +1 bonus to another characters ATTs 2 EN Xtra Die: roll an extra damage die 2 EN Effect: Extra effect like knocking target back or disarming 2 EN That's all for now. This will have to be fine tuned. EN costs are rough ideas. you may want to consider using XP costs instead of EN. perhaps where you have 2 EN...20 XP....1 EN = 10 XP. using XP would give you a little extra granularity in formulating the costs. i think it balances things better.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Mar 3, 2013 12:18:14 GMT -5
not intimately familiar with Death Test. recently acquired it and glanced over it. seems like it would be a good test.
i like the requirement/caveat that the player must describe their actions and the GM must decide if it's allowed. also like testing for success and paying the cost on success or failure. this is another thing that makes me think XP would be better fuel.
i like the name 'stunt'. i think of these as the 'warrior's spells' also. however, the wizard's spell has to be learned for an XP cost. stunts do not. that's the first reason why i think XP might be the best fuel for stunts. when a wizard casts a spell, he expends EN. that's a good balancing fuel for spells because they tend to be cast from afar. the smart wizard keeps his distance from physical combat to reserve his EN for spell-casting. on the other hand, a warrior is in the fray and is most likely already losing lots of EN. that's the second reason for my XP suggestion. thinking like a warrior, if they are fueled by EN, i'm not likely to use them when i really need them. if they used XP, i would try to refrain from using them because their use prevents me from becoming a better warrior. however, if my life is on the line, it is better to have lost XP and lived to fight another day.
i would not stipulate a minimum ST requirement. it seems some stunts could be pulled off using DX or IQ. it depends on how the player describes/frames it. just make the test against the related attribute. perhaps the minimum ST is an attempt to limit stunts to warrior-type chars? i like your 'everyone is an adventurer' rule and was working under the assumption that it is in play. if it's not in play, i would limit the use of stunts to adventurers or make them cost double for a wizard.
just some thoughts to keep in your back pocket if testing/play doesn't turn out the way you like.
|
|