Well according to at least one obscure website I am an authority on the criminology of Elizabeth Bathory.
My Elizabeth Bathory page, designed to be used with an RPG mind you, was linked out by Criminal Justice Degrees.com, on their site of the 15 worse female criminals. http://www.criminaljusticedegrees.com/15-most-heinous-women-criminals
Of course this site is nothing more than a means to get people into a name collection system that many online degrees use.
Now my Bathory page gets about 1,500 hits a month with about 1,000 of those being new visitors, and so far this one has only contributed about 24 this week. But I still had to laugh.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Basic Levels: D&D4 by way of D&D Basic
Consider this quote from The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.
Depending on who you ask the raised power structure in D&D 4 is either a feature or it is "broken". D&D 4 characters start out as very capable. They have skills, powers and a variety of things they can do right away. To some this is a great thing, now all characters can do something. To others it is a sign of power creep.
I don't buy the power creep argument. In fact if you compare D&D4 to D&D Rule Cyclopedia you see that they have similar power curves. A 30th level D&D4 Wizard could go toe to toe with a 36th level D&DRC Magic User, and both may be on paths to immortality. In fact D&D 4 seems more like D&D RC IF you look at it from the point of view of D&D4 characters starting at about 4th to 6th level.
Let's compare a bit.
Here are the basic skills and powers of a 1st level D&D Basic/RC character.
Magic-User Level 1
Weapons: Dagger 1d4 (1 per attack)
Spell: Magic Missile (1 per day)
HP: 1d4 + con mod (4 to 7)
Not a lot.
How about 1st level D&D4 character.
Wizard (Mage) Level 1
Weapon: Dagger (1 per attack)
Spells: At will: Suggestion, Ghost Sound, Light, Arc Lightning, Freezing Burst.
Per Encounter: Charm of Misplaced Wrath, Burning Hands.
Daily: Fountain of Flame, Phantom Chasm
Skills: Arcana, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Insight, Religion
HP: 10 + con score (18 to 28 using the default arrays)
9 spells and four skills that this character knows out of the gate. And that is not counting any of the new backgrounds (which gives +2 to a skill or two) or other rules to help out the 4e character further.
Just as a quick and dirty comparison, a D&D RC Magic User would need to be 7th level and be able to cast 1 4th level spell to equal the D&D 4e 1st level Wizard (Mage). Now if you use the cantrip rules I created (or just ignore cantrips) then the character is more of a 5th level Magic User.
Fighters are not much different really.
In Basic/RC the fighter gets a sword and told which end is pointy and which end to hold on to.
In 4e fighters (Knights) get a sword and 3 different battle stances (think of them as advanced fighting techniques) that make them more than a guy with a sword. These stances imply martial training.
So the D&D 4 characters are not just "fresh of the moisture farm", they have training, they have skills. This is something the designers of D&D4 wanted and it was an implicit design philosophy.
But sometimes you want to build up to something special.
People have used this argument as a full on indictment of all of D&D4, but to me that is throwing out too much good stuff, but I also like the feel of the early editions, especially Basic D&D. SO why not have my cake and eat it too.
Basic Training and Levels
Basic levels are the "training" levels for character. They will break up the powers of the 1st level 4e characters into smaller chunks to represent training.
For my Hero's Journey game, the characters will start out exactly like they do for every single edition of D&D. Roll a 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange for 6 stats. I will use the "archetypes" from Basic and 4e and these will be the only characters allowed. So fighter, magic-user, thief, cleric. From here they can move on to other "full" classes. Fighter (and I might even call it "fighting man") wold lead to knights, paladins, rangers, fighters, marshals, and so on. Magic-Users lead to Warlocks, Wizards, mages, sorcerers. You get the idea. Or I could divide them up my how they train for their power, Martial, Divine and Arcane. I like that idea better.
There would be 3 basic levels. I would divide the powers and skills up so they are getting something new each basic level. So new skill, new spell or martial stance. I would include Backgrounds and any other ways to get skills at Basic 1. I would also include all the racial perks.
This is not without precedent, the old Cavalier had levels that came before 1st level so that you had to work your way up to them.
I'd have to put them up in a table so that by the time you completed Basic 3 and then moved to Level 1 you could gain the last powers needed to make Level 1 seem like a big leap.
Basic Levels as Normal People
Having basic levels also make for a good way to represent normal people. The village blacksmith isn't a 0 level human or even a 1st level Knight, he is something in between. Maybe he has some training, and he is certainly stronger than his fellows, so he could be a Martial Class, Basic Level 2. Or something.
This makes for a good way to emulate the NPC classes from the D&D 3.x DMG.
I think this needs more work, but I like what I have so far.
Why Do it?
Other than the reasons mentioned above there is also a pragmatic reason. To play T1, B1 and B2 as intended. Maybe that is what I can do. Not worry about XP, but level up on Basic Level after a completed adventure. I could also pull out the Black Box D&D I got at the last auction as a good intro set.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Then they get to Level 1 and the Adventure arc begins.
ETA: Rob Donoghue had some similar thoughts earlier this month. Please also read his post.
http://rdonoghue.blogspot.com/2011/05/leveling-up-to-1.html
A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.Think of the heroes of modern myth, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, even Bilbo Baggins and the kids from the Narnia books (well the first few). They follow this hero's journey more or less the same way. Even Darth Vader followed the same path, but failed the final tests. The point here though is not the journey (yet) but the beginnings. Anikin began as a slave, Luke a farm boy, Harry a baby and then a 10 year old boy with no idea of his potential. Each were a "chosen one" of their tales, but all had humble beginnings.
I don't buy the power creep argument. In fact if you compare D&D4 to D&D Rule Cyclopedia you see that they have similar power curves. A 30th level D&D4 Wizard could go toe to toe with a 36th level D&DRC Magic User, and both may be on paths to immortality. In fact D&D 4 seems more like D&D RC IF you look at it from the point of view of D&D4 characters starting at about 4th to 6th level.
Let's compare a bit.
Here are the basic skills and powers of a 1st level D&D Basic/RC character.
Magic-User Level 1
Weapons: Dagger 1d4 (1 per attack)
Spell: Magic Missile (1 per day)
HP: 1d4 + con mod (4 to 7)
Not a lot.
How about 1st level D&D4 character.
Wizard (Mage) Level 1
Weapon: Dagger (1 per attack)
Spells: At will: Suggestion, Ghost Sound, Light, Arc Lightning, Freezing Burst.
Per Encounter: Charm of Misplaced Wrath, Burning Hands.
Daily: Fountain of Flame, Phantom Chasm
Skills: Arcana, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Insight, Religion
HP: 10 + con score (18 to 28 using the default arrays)
9 spells and four skills that this character knows out of the gate. And that is not counting any of the new backgrounds (which gives +2 to a skill or two) or other rules to help out the 4e character further.
Fighters are not much different really.
In Basic/RC the fighter gets a sword and told which end is pointy and which end to hold on to.
In 4e fighters (Knights) get a sword and 3 different battle stances (think of them as advanced fighting techniques) that make them more than a guy with a sword. These stances imply martial training.
So the D&D 4 characters are not just "fresh of the moisture farm", they have training, they have skills. This is something the designers of D&D4 wanted and it was an implicit design philosophy.
But sometimes you want to build up to something special.
People have used this argument as a full on indictment of all of D&D4, but to me that is throwing out too much good stuff, but I also like the feel of the early editions, especially Basic D&D. SO why not have my cake and eat it too.
Basic Training and Levels
For my Hero's Journey game, the characters will start out exactly like they do for every single edition of D&D. Roll a 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange for 6 stats. I will use the "archetypes" from Basic and 4e and these will be the only characters allowed. So fighter, magic-user, thief, cleric. From here they can move on to other "full" classes. Fighter (and I might even call it "fighting man") wold lead to knights, paladins, rangers, fighters, marshals, and so on. Magic-Users lead to Warlocks, Wizards, mages, sorcerers. You get the idea. Or I could divide them up my how they train for their power, Martial, Divine and Arcane. I like that idea better.
There would be 3 basic levels. I would divide the powers and skills up so they are getting something new each basic level. So new skill, new spell or martial stance. I would include Backgrounds and any other ways to get skills at Basic 1. I would also include all the racial perks.
This is not without precedent, the old Cavalier had levels that came before 1st level so that you had to work your way up to them.
I'd have to put them up in a table so that by the time you completed Basic 3 and then moved to Level 1 you could gain the last powers needed to make Level 1 seem like a big leap.
Basic Levels as Normal People
Having basic levels also make for a good way to represent normal people. The village blacksmith isn't a 0 level human or even a 1st level Knight, he is something in between. Maybe he has some training, and he is certainly stronger than his fellows, so he could be a Martial Class, Basic Level 2. Or something.
This makes for a good way to emulate the NPC classes from the D&D 3.x DMG.
I think this needs more work, but I like what I have so far.
Why Do it?
Other than the reasons mentioned above there is also a pragmatic reason. To play T1, B1 and B2 as intended. Maybe that is what I can do. Not worry about XP, but level up on Basic Level after a completed adventure. I could also pull out the Black Box D&D I got at the last auction as a good intro set.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Then they get to Level 1 and the Adventure arc begins.
ETA: Rob Donoghue had some similar thoughts earlier this month. Please also read his post.
http://rdonoghue.blogspot.com/2011/05/leveling-up-to-1.html
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Divine Intervention and the Nature of Dieties
How do you do divine intervention in your games?
Following up on the post about Clerics I have thought about how Gods interact with mortals. Typically I give any character a base 1% chance to get divine intervention when they ask for it. This is modified by how well they adhere to the tenets of their faith, the nature of their god, and even level (higher level characters can do more). Of course nothing comes without a price.
In my 4e game coming up I am thinking that that the players will be visited often by the Raven Queen's avatar, in the form of a young girl ala Death from DC's Vertigo line and borrowing heavily from Amber Benson's "Death's Daughter" books. I might even introduce her in the current adventure arc.
Presently the Dragonslayers are going after Tiamat. While they acknowledge that she is the "Goddess of Evil Dragons" to them that just makes her bigger and more powerful to kill. I am thinking I am ok with that for the most part. It could be that Gods in my game are beings that just got really, really powerful.
If that is the case why do they need worshipers? What purpose then is divine intervention for?
I had a character once who I took briefly into the Planescape setting. Basically he was a jerk and didn't think that gods were anything special (sound familiar?), just powerful humans (or humanoids). I later expanded his belief into an entire Plansescape faction, The Hermetic Order of Sigil, though he was not a member.
Interesting that all these years later I am still going back to the basic assumptions of my games and trying to figure out the underlying realities.
Following up on the post about Clerics I have thought about how Gods interact with mortals. Typically I give any character a base 1% chance to get divine intervention when they ask for it. This is modified by how well they adhere to the tenets of their faith, the nature of their god, and even level (higher level characters can do more). Of course nothing comes without a price.
In my 4e game coming up I am thinking that that the players will be visited often by the Raven Queen's avatar, in the form of a young girl ala Death from DC's Vertigo line and borrowing heavily from Amber Benson's "Death's Daughter" books. I might even introduce her in the current adventure arc.
Presently the Dragonslayers are going after Tiamat. While they acknowledge that she is the "Goddess of Evil Dragons" to them that just makes her bigger and more powerful to kill. I am thinking I am ok with that for the most part. It could be that Gods in my game are beings that just got really, really powerful.
If that is the case why do they need worshipers? What purpose then is divine intervention for?
I had a character once who I took briefly into the Planescape setting. Basically he was a jerk and didn't think that gods were anything special (sound familiar?), just powerful humans (or humanoids). I later expanded his belief into an entire Plansescape faction, The Hermetic Order of Sigil, though he was not a member.
Interesting that all these years later I am still going back to the basic assumptions of my games and trying to figure out the underlying realities.
Monday, May 16, 2011
I'm with D&D
This is not a big surprise.
I saw this banner again today on Christian Lindke's Cinerati blog about to uselessness of edition wars. The image is from TheWeem.com and it is to support D&D, any D&D, any edition. Even if your D&D is actually called Basic Fantasy, S&W or Pathfinder.
Enjoy your game!
I saw this banner again today on Christian Lindke's Cinerati blog about to uselessness of edition wars. The image is from TheWeem.com and it is to support D&D, any D&D, any edition. Even if your D&D is actually called Basic Fantasy, S&W or Pathfinder.
Enjoy your game!
Spell Lists, by level or Alphabetical?
I was reading over the newest version of Swords &Wizardry over my brief lunch break today.
It is neat and has some cool ideas but one thing struck me.
Like Basic Fantasy and some others and most notably D&D 3rd Ed and Pathfinder, S&S IV lists all the spells in alphabetical order and not by class and level. While I get this is very good way to organize the spells, it doesn't quite feel old school to me.
For me I guess it is one of tone. If this were a 3.x era book then I would want the spells in that format. If it were an OSR book, then do it like they did it when Gary and Dave were still rollin' 'em.
What are your preferences?
Do you like books were the spells are divided up by cast then level or do you like the alphabetical approach?
It is neat and has some cool ideas but one thing struck me.
Like Basic Fantasy and some others and most notably D&D 3rd Ed and Pathfinder, S&S IV lists all the spells in alphabetical order and not by class and level. While I get this is very good way to organize the spells, it doesn't quite feel old school to me.
For me I guess it is one of tone. If this were a 3.x era book then I would want the spells in that format. If it were an OSR book, then do it like they did it when Gary and Dave were still rollin' 'em.
What are your preferences?
Do you like books were the spells are divided up by cast then level or do you like the alphabetical approach?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)