This one was inspired by a forum post.
Basically, what's the thing with sleeping in armor? Easy, hard, impossible? No penalties, big penalties?
Sleeping in Armor in the RAW
Basic Set doesn't directly address sleeping in armor, or sleep quality.
DF just chucks the idea of a penalty out the window. You can get used to sleeping in armor, adventurers will expect to sleep in armor and thus can just go ahead and do that. It's not unreasonable; if you're in a dangerous area, expecting attack at any time, and will have almost no notice to get ready for violence, you will take less luxury to have more security.
Instant Armor has some rules for sleeping in armor that are a bit more harsh, giving some penalties that are outlined in this thread.
Both of the latter two make the assumption that the rules for sleep and FP assume restful sleep under good conditions. What if we change the baseline to "moderately restful sleep under dangerous conditions?" In other words, let's assume the rules assume sleeping outdoors, in armor, under adventuring conditions. So sleeping without armor, or sleeping in good conditions, is better than the baseline.
Then, we can give a bonus to good sleep.
In other words, if you want PCs to sometimes not sleep in armor, bribe them with a reward for taking that risk.
Here are three options I brainstormed.
More Efficient Sleep
This approach makes sleep without armor more efficient.
Sleeping without armor: Stripped down to soft, weather-appropriate skivvies, etc. with a bedroll and all of that. Sleep counts as 10% longer, round up. (7 hours counts as 8, 5 as 6, etc.)
Sleeping without armor, in a bed: Sleeping in a good bed, with pajamas, etc. the whole thing. Cheap common inn rooms don't count, but private rooms do. +20% sleep value.
Wake Up Refreshed
This approach makes you more awake and alert for a while if you sleep without armor.
Sleeping without armor: +1 to any IQ or Per rolls for 1 hour after waking.
Sleeping without armor, in a bed: +1 to any IQ or Per rolls for 2 hours after waking.
These assume a full amount of sleep (usually 8 hours.)
Wake Up With More Energy
This approach gives you more FP in return for sleeping without armor. Mages will definitely appreciate this, and it encourages less-armored martial artists who depend on FP-based chi powers.
Sleeping without armor: +1 FP over and above your maximum.
Sleeping without armor, in a bed: +2 FP over and above your maximum.
Additional FP last until spent, or until you go to sleep. It is not cumulative from day to day, and assumes a full night's worth of sleep (8 hours unless modified by advantages or disadvantages. So the most you can have is +2 FP, for bed rest.)
I haven't tried any of these - they are mainly just examples of rewarding the behavior you want to see instead of punishing the behavior everyone wants as a default. It encourages people to take the risk of fighting without armor in order to get a reward for doing so.
Skyrim does something like this. You literally never need to sleep. You can stay awake the whole game. But, if you do sleep, for a while afterward your skills improve at a higher rate. If you sleep in a bed you own, especially with your spouse (if you get married), you get an even bigger bonus. One of the downsides to a curse you can pick up in the game is that you can't benefit from sleep.
I've used this approach before with some moderate success. I give bonuses to PCs who spend extra on Carousing rolls or on upkeep in town in my DF game. I give people bonuses for cleaning up and not dressing in full armor when they visit NPCs for a social call. I reward extra bonuses to NPC hirelings with extra Loyalty and more positive feelingsin general. Some of them are also linked to punishments if you undercut the base, just like insufficient sleep is still an issue in GURPS DF even if sleeping in armor is just assumed as a base.
It's just a general approach of rewarding the behavior you want to encourage, instead of inflicting a baseline penalty on something everyone will do anyway.
As always, if you've got a better way to do this, or have tried something with good results (or even bad results), let me know in the comments!
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Another DMG review
Over at Boing Boing there is another good look at the 5th edition D&D DMG:
A look at the new Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide
It says it's a preview, but it's already out. Weird. Is this just old and it just floated to the top of my news feed?
Unlike the (excellent) article at GeekDad, this one has a lot of pictures, which I appreciated. I like to see a well-done, well-illustrated game book like this!
A look at the new Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide
It says it's a preview, but it's already out. Weird. Is this just old and it just floated to the top of my news feed?
Unlike the (excellent) article at GeekDad, this one has a lot of pictures, which I appreciated. I like to see a well-done, well-illustrated game book like this!
Dungeon Delving, US Military Version
My player andi sent me this:
The caption reads:
"Fighter, warrior, bard & ranger prep for an incursion into the dungeon."
I'd say, "Monk" instead of fighter. But yeah, I like it.
Those poor bastards don't even realize they've lost surprise - the orcs can see them through the window!
The caption reads:
"Fighter, warrior, bard & ranger prep for an incursion into the dungeon."
I'd say, "Monk" instead of fighter. But yeah, I like it.
Those poor bastards don't even realize they've lost surprise - the orcs can see them through the window!
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Rules changes I like in DnD
Apropos nothing, here are my favorite changes to DnD systems. I put in parenthesis some systems that do this.
- Unified XP. I don't mind different XP per level for different classes, but I like having a single table. (DnD 3.x)
- Unified Saves. No Death Ray, Paralyization, Spells, etc. split that just got confusing. I like either the fully merged approach (Sword & Wizardry) or the three-fold approach (DnD 3.x). One number is easier, a three-fold approach gives some variety, so you know to use Will-based attacks on thieves and not on wizards, say.
- No Alignment. Honestly, it's just something I put on my character sheet and then try to justify later. I don't enjoy having it around, and I've played too long in a game system that lacks it. (Basic Fantasy Role-Playing)
- Unified bonuses. Much like how B/X D&D does it, I like that stats 13-15, 16-17, and 18 are the break points. I like how 5e does this, too, with its cap at 20. You get a steady climb without the craziness of ST 18, 18/01 - 50, 51-75, etc. up to 18/00 and then 19. Or Stat X giving a bonus at 15 and Stat Y giving no bonus.
- Ascending AC. I find this much easier to deal with. Give me a bonus to my 1d20 roll and then I can tell you what AC or less I hit. Very easy. (Swords & Wizardry does this, as did DnD 3.x)
- Weight not Encumbrance. Just tell me how much it weighs. How annoying it is to carry is a separate issue, and it's hard when systems combine and conflate them. (Swords & Wizardry) Ideally, the weights will be correct (cough, cough, my 10# one-handed sword in S&W).
- Unified dice mechanics. Not a lot of systems do this to a sufficient degree, but I like rolling in one direction - why is a 6 great for initiative and damage on a d6 but terrible for opening doors? Why percentile dice for locks but d6 to hear noise? The more DnD based games go for "roll high is good!" the better, I think - it makes it easier for me, as a player, to parse the results of rolls.
How about you guys? What rules changes do you find especially pleasing, easier to play than the original, or otherwise make the game smoother and better?
- Unified XP. I don't mind different XP per level for different classes, but I like having a single table. (DnD 3.x)
- Unified Saves. No Death Ray, Paralyization, Spells, etc. split that just got confusing. I like either the fully merged approach (Sword & Wizardry) or the three-fold approach (DnD 3.x). One number is easier, a three-fold approach gives some variety, so you know to use Will-based attacks on thieves and not on wizards, say.
- No Alignment. Honestly, it's just something I put on my character sheet and then try to justify later. I don't enjoy having it around, and I've played too long in a game system that lacks it. (Basic Fantasy Role-Playing)
- Unified bonuses. Much like how B/X D&D does it, I like that stats 13-15, 16-17, and 18 are the break points. I like how 5e does this, too, with its cap at 20. You get a steady climb without the craziness of ST 18, 18/01 - 50, 51-75, etc. up to 18/00 and then 19. Or Stat X giving a bonus at 15 and Stat Y giving no bonus.
- Ascending AC. I find this much easier to deal with. Give me a bonus to my 1d20 roll and then I can tell you what AC or less I hit. Very easy. (Swords & Wizardry does this, as did DnD 3.x)
- Weight not Encumbrance. Just tell me how much it weighs. How annoying it is to carry is a separate issue, and it's hard when systems combine and conflate them. (Swords & Wizardry) Ideally, the weights will be correct (cough, cough, my 10# one-handed sword in S&W).
- Unified dice mechanics. Not a lot of systems do this to a sufficient degree, but I like rolling in one direction - why is a 6 great for initiative and damage on a d6 but terrible for opening doors? Why percentile dice for locks but d6 to hear noise? The more DnD based games go for "roll high is good!" the better, I think - it makes it easier for me, as a player, to parse the results of rolls.
How about you guys? What rules changes do you find especially pleasing, easier to play than the original, or otherwise make the game smoother and better?
Monday, December 1, 2014
Geekdad on the AD&D DMG vs. 5e DMG
There is a really good look at the new DMG, though the eyes of someone who played extensively with the old, AD&D DMG. Someone who knows the subject enough to reference the Gary Gygax article in The Dragon #28 where he explains why they needed a DMG. (Short version, because D&D was too freeform and the audience turned out not to just be hardcore minis gamers but also people with no idea what the hell mini gaming was all about.)
First, you might want to read this article:
A Tale of Two Dungeon Master Guides – 1979 AD&D and 2014 D&D
I feel the same way about the original.
It's incredibly amazing as a book. It made me want to run games. It felt like a big, thick, magical tome of awe and wonder.
But it's badly organized, full of strong admonitions against having the wrong kind of fun, subtle slams against "Monty Haul" gaming that instead read more as "don't give anything out, ever," and more.
I learned a lot of good things about gaming, and about writing, from the DMG.
I also learned a lot of bad habits (stinginess, starting with no, lack of writing organization) from it, as well.
It's a love-hate relationship. It's a stunning tome, and I've gotten the $15 worth out of it I paid (probably, my Mom paid) back in the early 80s for the thing. It's the basis of my DMG Rule.* It's good stuff. But it's also so hard to use it. It's so full of half-finished ideas, depth in areas peripheral to most games, and full of tiny, tiny little rules based on unspoken assumptions (like the helmet rule and choosing hit locations) They're thrown in, often seemingly haphazardly, and not always so well explained (such as initiative), and difficult to reference in play unless you memorize where they are.
Inspirational, but I would never organize a book that way.
Reading that review made me want to buy the new book. It's someone who feels the same way about the DMG that I do, but loves the new one. That makes me feel like I'll love the new one, too.
I'd be remiss in not mentioning Rob Conley's ongoing look at the new DMG. Lots of people have posted (usefully) about it, but I like this in-depth look.
* In which I hit players who try to abuse the rules with the DMG, spine first. Rarely needed in reality, often invoked as a threat.
First, you might want to read this article:
A Tale of Two Dungeon Master Guides – 1979 AD&D and 2014 D&D
I feel the same way about the original.
It's incredibly amazing as a book. It made me want to run games. It felt like a big, thick, magical tome of awe and wonder.
But it's badly organized, full of strong admonitions against having the wrong kind of fun, subtle slams against "Monty Haul" gaming that instead read more as "don't give anything out, ever," and more.
I learned a lot of good things about gaming, and about writing, from the DMG.
I also learned a lot of bad habits (stinginess, starting with no, lack of writing organization) from it, as well.
It's a love-hate relationship. It's a stunning tome, and I've gotten the $15 worth out of it I paid (probably, my Mom paid) back in the early 80s for the thing. It's the basis of my DMG Rule.* It's good stuff. But it's also so hard to use it. It's so full of half-finished ideas, depth in areas peripheral to most games, and full of tiny, tiny little rules based on unspoken assumptions (like the helmet rule and choosing hit locations) They're thrown in, often seemingly haphazardly, and not always so well explained (such as initiative), and difficult to reference in play unless you memorize where they are.
Inspirational, but I would never organize a book that way.
Reading that review made me want to buy the new book. It's someone who feels the same way about the DMG that I do, but loves the new one. That makes me feel like I'll love the new one, too.
I'd be remiss in not mentioning Rob Conley's ongoing look at the new DMG. Lots of people have posted (usefully) about it, but I like this in-depth look.
* In which I hit players who try to abuse the rules with the DMG, spine first. Rarely needed in reality, often invoked as a threat.
The 5e Monster Manual is here (+ BF Field Guide!)
I'll try to get a review up soon, but for now, the latest addition to my collection of monster manuals (for games I'm fluent in, anyway.)
So far, it looks pretty cool. Of course I flipped right open to one of those monsters I just don't get the attraction in (the Chain Devil) but whatever. I'll be steadily reading this in my spare moments.
*Oops, spoke too soon. This is the latest addition, arriving just now:
So far, it looks pretty cool. Of course I flipped right open to one of those monsters I just don't get the attraction in (the Chain Devil) but whatever. I'll be steadily reading this in my spare moments.
*Oops, spoke too soon. This is the latest addition, arriving just now:
Sunday, November 30, 2014
This sounds like a job for . . . Player Characters!
Admin note to start: No Felltower today - 3/4 of the players who'd been able to make it had to cancel out, so we decided to postpone.
The players in my DF Felltower game have been thinking about raiding some orcs who've been making a serious nuisance of themselves in the dungeon. They know (thanks to their scout Galen) that the orcs live in a canyon/valley north of the mountain that houses the titular megadungeon of my campaign.
My players basically asked for a complete intelligence report on the orcs. Maps, patrol patterns, water sources, defenses, range of control, armaments, paths to and back, etc. Everything. A hex map they can fill in, with most of the details filled in. They were willing to pay, quite well, for this information.
My response was, basically, NO.
Or rather, No, because that's a job for PCs.
I don't fault them, at all, for asking. It's a valid question - is any of this stuff available? If so, we want it. It's asking, is this the kind of game where we buy this stuff and then go fight, or the kind of game where we go get this stuff on our own?
My answer was the latter - go get it yourself.
I couldn't see random scout types or independent farmers or trappers bringing this kind of complete information back. Or even a Royal or city officer pulling all of that information together, collating and sorting it, and then putting together a cohesive set of documents and maps that convey all of this. As for giving it to the PCs - that's trivial to justify, given the lack of resources for killing the orcs and an ongoing war to the south. It's just the initial work and mapping that's harder to justify.
Why?
Because that's the kind of thing PCs do.
The PCs are the ones making the big, useful, navigable map of Felltower. The bits NPCs have are incomplete, of dubious accuracy, and old. They might have extremely valuable little bits or clues that make the map come together. They might have treasure maps or guide maps or notes that reveal things the players missed.
But the main core of the map is done by the PCs.
Example Starting Map for the PCs:
The PCs kill the tough monsters. The nasty stuff in the dungeons? Any NPCs who run into it end up as picturesque corpses to warn the PCs about the kind of danger ahead. It's up to the PCs to clear the monsters.
The PCs solve the puzzles. The puzzles in the world stay puzzling until the PCs solve them. Clues are out there, but NPCs don't have the answers.
The PCs tame the howling wilderness. The wilderness stays wild until the PCs do something about it. NPCs will help, they'll settle, they pass on information, but it's the PCs that do the real job of making the wilderness into civilization.
The PCs verify or debunk the rumors. NPCs tell the PCs all kinds of crazy stuff about the world and the dungeon. They might be right or wrong, but the PCs are the ones who find out.
Why is that the case?
First, the in-game reasons.
Simply because the number of 250-point people in the world is finite. The number of 125 point people in the world is also finite. Most of the people running around don't quite get to the 62-point bargain henchmen level. So the competence and expertise just isn't there. Where 250+ point Galen Longtread can pretty casually solo explore the forests and avoid and spy on the orcs, a 125-point guy is risking his life and a lesser scout will get killed (or get only basic information before being warded off.) There aren't a big squad of NPC experts out there, doing adventuring-type things. So stuff that is challenging to 250+ point PCs is lethal to most NPCs. The ones better than the PCs are often, like the PCs, wrapped up in their own thing and aren't wandering around looking to upstage the PCs.
The interest in doing so is a little limited. The wilderness is seen, largely, as a useless borderland. It's marginal farming, good for trapping but hey trapping is risky, and has monsters and literally There Be Dragons. Why muck around up there? Nevermind "raid the orcs to take the pressure off Felltower explorers" is of interest to, basically, the PCs and the Cone-Hatted Cultists and a few independents.
The resources aren't really there, either. I didn't create a war in the south because I wanted the PCs to go fight in the war. I created it to make sure the whole northern wilderness is a problem needing a solution and to take away NPC resources from it. When the orcs get out of hand, yeah, well, there is a war going on. If Stericksburg suffers some orc problems for a year or decade or so while the war is going on, that's fine with the King. It's too small of an issue. Even if the orcs besieged and seized Stericksburg, the King can come back and crush them after he's done ensuring he wins his bigger war. At least, that's how they'd see it.
So it's a dangerous task, requires skills that aren't common, is of relatively little interest, and requires resources needed elsewhere.
Next, the out of game reason. There is one big one.
From a purely meta perspective, the game world is there for the players, not the NPCs. The PCs have the most interest, the most resources (man for man), and the most to gain by solving these issues. They are the heavyweights on the scene. They are the ones who, for better or worse, will make the most impact. What's the point of a game world where the PCs are marginal? I'd rather have the world full of opportunities the PCs can take advantage of.
If I hand the PCs a complete map and extensive details on the orcs, what would I be giving them?
If I did so I'd be giving them a set-piece problem to solve, and a big fight. I'd be doing so by taking away adventure. I'd be saying, don't worry that you don't have Druids or Barbarians* or Scouts, I'll give you what their skills would have given you. I wouldn't be putting up a challenge and then seeing what they'd do with it, I'd be giving them a solution. Where is the fun in that?
So deep down, all in-game justifications aside, the north is a wilderness in need of taming by the PCs, and the map of that area is largely sketchy and unknown, because I want the players to be the ones who do that stuff. They aren't SEALs or Delta Force, to go in and strike the baddies after the intelligence guys gathered all the goods they could, with strike aircraft in the air to help them out. They're Lewis and Clark, heading out with a broad mission and little support once they detach from base.
The map is mainly blank because it's the PC's map to fill in.
The adventure is there for the players to experience.
That's gaming, right there.
* Raggi is a barbarian, but he's not a terribly expert woodsman. He's the guy the expert woodsmen brought with them to kill owlbears and merchant caravan guards. He's okay but he's upstaged, easily, by any template-built PC with outdoor skills.
The players in my DF Felltower game have been thinking about raiding some orcs who've been making a serious nuisance of themselves in the dungeon. They know (thanks to their scout Galen) that the orcs live in a canyon/valley north of the mountain that houses the titular megadungeon of my campaign.
My players basically asked for a complete intelligence report on the orcs. Maps, patrol patterns, water sources, defenses, range of control, armaments, paths to and back, etc. Everything. A hex map they can fill in, with most of the details filled in. They were willing to pay, quite well, for this information.
My response was, basically, NO.
Or rather, No, because that's a job for PCs.
I don't fault them, at all, for asking. It's a valid question - is any of this stuff available? If so, we want it. It's asking, is this the kind of game where we buy this stuff and then go fight, or the kind of game where we go get this stuff on our own?
My answer was the latter - go get it yourself.
I couldn't see random scout types or independent farmers or trappers bringing this kind of complete information back. Or even a Royal or city officer pulling all of that information together, collating and sorting it, and then putting together a cohesive set of documents and maps that convey all of this. As for giving it to the PCs - that's trivial to justify, given the lack of resources for killing the orcs and an ongoing war to the south. It's just the initial work and mapping that's harder to justify.
Why?
Because that's the kind of thing PCs do.
The PCs are the ones making the big, useful, navigable map of Felltower. The bits NPCs have are incomplete, of dubious accuracy, and old. They might have extremely valuable little bits or clues that make the map come together. They might have treasure maps or guide maps or notes that reveal things the players missed.
But the main core of the map is done by the PCs.
Example Starting Map for the PCs:
The PCs kill the tough monsters. The nasty stuff in the dungeons? Any NPCs who run into it end up as picturesque corpses to warn the PCs about the kind of danger ahead. It's up to the PCs to clear the monsters.
The PCs solve the puzzles. The puzzles in the world stay puzzling until the PCs solve them. Clues are out there, but NPCs don't have the answers.
The PCs tame the howling wilderness. The wilderness stays wild until the PCs do something about it. NPCs will help, they'll settle, they pass on information, but it's the PCs that do the real job of making the wilderness into civilization.
The PCs verify or debunk the rumors. NPCs tell the PCs all kinds of crazy stuff about the world and the dungeon. They might be right or wrong, but the PCs are the ones who find out.
Why is that the case?
First, the in-game reasons.
Simply because the number of 250-point people in the world is finite. The number of 125 point people in the world is also finite. Most of the people running around don't quite get to the 62-point bargain henchmen level. So the competence and expertise just isn't there. Where 250+ point Galen Longtread can pretty casually solo explore the forests and avoid and spy on the orcs, a 125-point guy is risking his life and a lesser scout will get killed (or get only basic information before being warded off.) There aren't a big squad of NPC experts out there, doing adventuring-type things. So stuff that is challenging to 250+ point PCs is lethal to most NPCs. The ones better than the PCs are often, like the PCs, wrapped up in their own thing and aren't wandering around looking to upstage the PCs.
The interest in doing so is a little limited. The wilderness is seen, largely, as a useless borderland. It's marginal farming, good for trapping but hey trapping is risky, and has monsters and literally There Be Dragons. Why muck around up there? Nevermind "raid the orcs to take the pressure off Felltower explorers" is of interest to, basically, the PCs and the Cone-Hatted Cultists and a few independents.
The resources aren't really there, either. I didn't create a war in the south because I wanted the PCs to go fight in the war. I created it to make sure the whole northern wilderness is a problem needing a solution and to take away NPC resources from it. When the orcs get out of hand, yeah, well, there is a war going on. If Stericksburg suffers some orc problems for a year or decade or so while the war is going on, that's fine with the King. It's too small of an issue. Even if the orcs besieged and seized Stericksburg, the King can come back and crush them after he's done ensuring he wins his bigger war. At least, that's how they'd see it.
So it's a dangerous task, requires skills that aren't common, is of relatively little interest, and requires resources needed elsewhere.
Next, the out of game reason. There is one big one.
From a purely meta perspective, the game world is there for the players, not the NPCs. The PCs have the most interest, the most resources (man for man), and the most to gain by solving these issues. They are the heavyweights on the scene. They are the ones who, for better or worse, will make the most impact. What's the point of a game world where the PCs are marginal? I'd rather have the world full of opportunities the PCs can take advantage of.
If I hand the PCs a complete map and extensive details on the orcs, what would I be giving them?
If I did so I'd be giving them a set-piece problem to solve, and a big fight. I'd be doing so by taking away adventure. I'd be saying, don't worry that you don't have Druids or Barbarians* or Scouts, I'll give you what their skills would have given you. I wouldn't be putting up a challenge and then seeing what they'd do with it, I'd be giving them a solution. Where is the fun in that?
So deep down, all in-game justifications aside, the north is a wilderness in need of taming by the PCs, and the map of that area is largely sketchy and unknown, because I want the players to be the ones who do that stuff. They aren't SEALs or Delta Force, to go in and strike the baddies after the intelligence guys gathered all the goods they could, with strike aircraft in the air to help them out. They're Lewis and Clark, heading out with a broad mission and little support once they detach from base.
The map is mainly blank because it's the PC's map to fill in.
The adventure is there for the players to experience.
That's gaming, right there.
* Raggi is a barbarian, but he's not a terribly expert woodsman. He's the guy the expert woodsmen brought with them to kill owlbears and merchant caravan guards. He's okay but he's upstaged, easily, by any template-built PC with outdoor skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
