It feels so good...
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: the pipe!
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
Well I guess this will be a short entry. As most of you have heard many of my players were concerned about The Game. (As you can see below.) It was such an uprising cry though that I had to do some quick telephone conversations with The Players to ease their minds. And, as most of you have been briefed on all the concerns below and more, and have been beyond satisfied, there is not much to post here at this time. However please continue to post to Walkabout as I would rather post here myself than to call everyone. I would like to say however, that the reaction of my Players was most satisfying. Well met!!! Your Dungeon Master.

Grievance
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: music
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
The last game left me with a very bad taste in my mouth, and not just from all the cigarettes. I have to say that I usually try my best to be a good player and not question the DM's judgment too much, especially when it comes to central campaign-setting stuff like politics and deities. However, after thinking and re-thinking the circumstances of the last game, I find myself needing to express my overall unhappiness with it.

***Please bear in mind that this is not a personal attack on our DM, who has been my best friend for many years***

I feel that the letter of the rule system was stretched to fit a whim which defied the spirit of those rules. I have neither the time nor the patience to write out every single disagreement (of which there are many) that I had with the last game, so I'll attempt to summarize...

First, the critical hit table has GOT to go. There's ample support from Gygax himself on this issue. It's an unbalancing mechanic and an outright campaign killer. A double damage system would be a simplification and a reasonable compromise.

Also, I don't believe that a GOOD aligned deity would murder an entire band of his followers just because the party's cleric caught a stray arrow in the chest from a lucky shot (by a GOBLIN for fuck's sake! -see critical hit table opinion above) and God happened to be in a pissy mood. I think there are plenty of punishments which would have served to maintain the integrity of the campaign, and even added an element of fun. Having the whole party struck down and killed out of hand by Tritherion, for doing absolutely nothing wrong, seems absurd.

Consider also the "three deities per character" rule: after abandoning your 2nd deity, your character is attacked and destroyed utterly by all of the gods collectively. So, in our situation, the party can either be killed by our current deity, thereby ending the campaign, or "choose" to be whisked away to safety by an unknown power who offers assistance (and who just so HAPPENS to end up being an evil vampire god). Now, any characters swearing loyalty to this new power have absolutely NO choice but to follow through as a worshipper for the rest of their life. If they are in alignment conflict or wish not to serve the new deity, they will be stuck down under the "3 deities" rule. This means that there are now characters in our party who no longer have any choice but to follow the evil deity or be destroyed utterly. Since we are a good aligned party, there are bound to be irreducible conflicts.

This has been a great campaign thus far, maybe the best yet in all these years playing in Eric's games. It has been focused, coherent, mature and fun. Until now. Now the party is wandering around in Ravenloft, disoriented and directionless, without a cleric, with half of the party being basically forced to turn evil and the rest of us therefore finding absolutely no direction in the module setting... to fight the obvious antagonist turns us against certain members of our own party.

The "3 deities" rule is obviously put in place to dissuade deity-hoppers who would take advantage of tailoring their powers and patrons to fit their needs(thereby unbalancing the game), and to instill a sense of gravity toward choosing a deity and adhering to the principles of that religion, especially for clerics. However, none of us were guilty of violating these concepts. We followed a religion based on freedom and individuality. Our deity was guilty of extremely tyrannical, even evil, behavior. I mean, for Tritherion to not resurrect the cleric seems obvious. Maybe even get hostile and demand penance of some sort for our "failure" is palatable. But for him to kill the entire party, who was actually doing just fine in spite of our cleric's demise, just because he got a critical hit and died by no fault of his own? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That party had been quite successful in advancing his cause up to that point, and would have certainly continued to do so. Killing everyone is not only wrong, it is unintelligent and irrational of him.

It was clear during the game that I was not alone in my opinion about the unfairness and unlikelihood of our deity's behavior. Upon confronting the DM with these issues, I was given an example of the deity's attitude from a character in a movie. Unfortunately the character who's behavior he cited was an evil character and therefore not a usable as an accurate comparison. After a few more attempts at negotiation with the DM I felt as though I was being stone-walled with "letter of the law" rules and what I felt were attempts to defend a whim. Even if Tritherion's behavior can be supported by a few rules, I think it's a stretch. And why would you stretch the rules in order to support something which punishes everyone and wrecks all these months of fun and hard work advancing the campaign and our characters?

COMBAT? Who goes frist?
Mood:  chillin'
Now Playing: is a good thing.
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
I would say not to worry about spell durations being cut to a 10th of what they were. It all works out the same. If a hast spell would last say 10 rounds,(a spell used primarily for combat purposes) that would be 10 min. or 10 rounds of melee combat. In the new system it would still work for 10 melee rounds (1min.) and would not be hanging around for another 9 min. If you don't cut some spell durations the spells will become way unbalanced from what was intended in mechanics and spirit. However your other statements are entirely correct. It does make Dex VERY important to ALL PCs! That also means that PCs that have to put their scores in Dex. (Thieves, illusionists, monks...) will have an advantage in combat and spell casting. But in most cases that is desirable by the system as Monks and Illusionists should be a notch above the rest of the PCs. I don't think that this system will prove to be to difficult, but it will slow the game down somewhat. In my last blog I showed how to speed that back up and I think that will work. It also allows us to choose the level of detail. I rather like the idea of a 6 sec combat system. Most of our problems come from the 1 min. system. I have looked at other system and most are mathematically tied into PC ability scores which in most other systems are very different from 1st ed AD&D. The new system I'm suggesting is mathmaticly true to the 1st ed AD&D and more over are "Fair" in the sence that no matter if your a spell caster or a fighter or useing a high level spell, or useing a poll arm, you have a chance of being frist. While all of those things I menchend do indeed factor in; If your fast your fast. And if your slow... Well lets just say that most truly slow people won't qualify for classes anyway. Yes it does shift things, but not to much. If we want things to change, then we have to except change. While for the most part I would like us to be able to vote on things, but one thing that is not open to voting is the fact that we need some kind of new system. I will not let another game go by with our current system. Gygax and many others have seen the need for an overhaul of the system. So much so that they all realized that it would be better to move on to a new system. In all of these systems have one thing in common: They all have an in-depth quality to them. All aspects of game play have been expanded. All newer game systems if played by the book, would take longer then the system we play. It is time that we as a group move on to what we are ready for- A game system with more meat! We've all grown up and we are ready for something more sophisticated! Even if everyone read about the new system, most would have to play it through a game or tow to understand it enough to compare it with the one we use. It may not work. They may not like it. Who knows so keep other systems in mind. If you or any one can come up with one for us to try(and can show me the math behind it) we can try it. Personally I think we are ready for MYTHUS, but that just might scare the shit out of some of our players! Anyway, it was good to hear from ya. SMITH.

Clear
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: for keeps.
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
Come come now... This is exactly what we need more of from everyone as was stated in the last thing you wrote. I like hearing others point of view. He he.. yea, I realized that that post did not format well... I have posted a more clarified version at The Summoner's Call. However I offer as a simple recap: You start with your Dex. Subtract from your Dex. your Weapon Speed Factor or Spell Casting Time, and (subtract) a d12 roll. The number you come up with is your initiative score. If this number is 7 or higher you will get more then one action. How many actions you get depends on how high your score is. Of cores there is more to it then that, but that is it in a nutshell. Just 3 things- 1. Dex., 2. Weapon Speed Factor/Spell Casting Time, and 3. a d12 roll. It should take not much longer then what we do- 1. roll a d6, 2. state the casting time or speed factor. And for one more step you get a much better system. For a real large battle, you could just roll once for each side and use that for all other rounds (like in 3.5ed AD&D), and in smaller battles you could reroll every round. I try to get everyone I can to pertcapate here. Maby you could elbow the ones you live with to pertcapate more? Anyway; Take a look at the system where its formatted a little better, and see what you think. Maybe I can test it out at the next game... SMITH.

new initiative system pt2
Mood:  blue
Now Playing: my bass
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
Having now gone over the proposed new system in depth, here are some thoughts on mechanical issues:
As stated in my previous post, one main goal in approaching a new combat/init system is to find one that doesn't infringe upon other independent systems within the game. Unfortunately, this new system does so in a number of profound ways.
In my opinion, the most noticeable effect is on magic users. The duration of spells would be reduced by a factor of TEN! The melee round will be going from 60 seconds down to 6 seconds, meaning spells last 1/10th the duration. Eric's post stated that this system would reduce spell duration, but diminishing duration by a factor of 10 is pretty extreme.
Also, it makes Dex a MUCH more important ability score, especially for mages. Now Dex determines how quickly a spellcaster can cast spells(as to avoid having spells interrupted), as well as giving melee characters better chances for multiple attacks and striking first in a combat round. Being that Dex is already responsible for lower Armor Class, surprise reaction and missile fire, I feel that this makes Dex a lot more vital than any other ability score.
Such a system will also slow gameplay down significantly. It is moving away from a representative 1 minute combat round to a chronological 6 second blow-by-blow combat round, which may prove to be too detailed and time consuming for the players, aside from the obvious mechanical issues. As much as I personally prefer detail and realism in the game, I think that a modified version of our current 60 second representative combat system will be easier to implement and more fun for the other players.
Eric, if you agree with me on this, then we can open a dicussion thread on modifying our current combat system, or at least finding a better one.
Later
-J

new initiative
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: music
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
eek. here we go. i can see the can of worms i've opened by running my big fat mouth/blog.
I, for one, am all about trying a new initiative system. Yes, the system we use now is broken, putting it mildly, especially when it comes to spellcasting and weapon speed. However, I am well aware that many of our players have expressed a reluctance to change the system we play with currently.
Therefore, here are my suggestions:
First of all, Eric, you may want to try explaining the new system more clearly. Your last post was a bit too full of abbreviations and numbers. It reads like a Yamaha user manual.
Secondly, there are numerous functional initiative/combat systems out there. The trick has always been to find one that doesn't take way too long and drag out/over-complicate the game play, as well as a system which doesn't necessitate the change of numerous other pre-existing systems and mechanics.
So, I think the way to go might be a play test with a few players, along with discussion and experimentation on how to slim such a system down to be simpler and faster.
Lastly, it would make a huge difference if Eric and I weren't the only ones posting on this blog.
Later
-J

1st ed. AD&D FRG system (Inish.)
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: 1st ed. AD&D FRPG System
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
Looking on pg 65 of the DMG, 1st col. heading: SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE, sub-heading #2 does not help as it basicly says that any time a spell caster is att. with a weapon, that the attacker will always get a chance to hit the spell caster before the spell caster could get any spell off no matter what the casting time of the spell or weapon speed factor. Looking at pg 66-67 DMG (which is the system we have been useing.)does not help either. If you do the math you will see that in any case (From a casting time of 1 with a loseing int. of 1, to a casting time of 6 with a loseing int. of 5.) the spell caster will win every time if the ave. weapon speed factor of 6 is used. I don't like either one. This is what I do like: The New Int./Combat System. Using this new system will slow down the game somewhat, but will allow for an ind. Int. system that is more realistic without being to slow. A: The Combat Melee Round is now 6 sec. long. The Max. # of atts. Per melee round is 8. Each unit of Spell Casting Time and Weapon Speed Factor is equal to 1 sec. each. Any att. Or action in this system will get you whatever it did under the normal 1st ed. AD&D rules. (i.e. if it took 1 action/round to draw a weapon before, then you could do the same with an action/round in this system.) B: Spells are now quicker to cast but will have their durations shortened in most cases. Any ref. to or inference of the melee round in the spell description will be the melee round of this new system. i.e. 6 sec. Spells 1 round in casting time will occ. At the end of the round together with any other spells with the same casting time. (In this case no D12 roll is needed.) Spells over 1 round in casting time will occ. On the start of or portion of that round which is stated as the casting time of that spell. The System. ADD: Dex., and a +1 for every “+” of a magical weapon. Also add a +5 for every att. Beyond the 1st.* SUBSTRACT: Weapon Speed Factor or Spell Casting Time, and the roll of a D12. This number is when you get your 1st att. In the combat melee round. Subtract 6 from your score to find your 2ed att./action. Continue to subtract 6 to find out if you have any more atts./actions until you can no longer subtract 6 without hitting neg. numbers. Sometimes you will get neg. numbers as your only att./action. In this case you will go last (but still before some spells.) unless someone else has an even lower score. *: Such as a Potion of Speed, a Haste spell, a high level Monk, a high level Fighter or a Fighter striking at a creature with fewer then 1 HD, etc. PC Dex. Vs. Weapon Speed Factor Table PC Weapon Speed Dex. Factor 14 13 13 12 PCs must have a Dex. 12 11 as shown to wiled a 11 10 weapon with the shown 10 9 speed factor. 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 Monster’s Att. Vs. Dex. Table Monster’s # Monster’s Of Atts. Dex. 1 3-8 2 9-10 Use this table as a rough est. 3 11-14 of a monster’s Dex. For cal. 4 15-18 purposes. Also add the +5 5 19-20 for each att. Beyond the 1st. 6 21-22 7 23-24 8 25 I think that this will solve all and if you do the math you will see waht I mean. I would like to use this system so please blog me back and tell me what you think. P.S. Each PC would roll this as would each NPC. The DM would count down from the highest score. SMITH.

More on mechanics
Mood:  hungry
Now Playing: at theaters near you
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
OK then, on experience points:
I agree that this particular system is heavily reliant on the DM's judgment, and I feel that our DM has always done a good job of balancing... however, I was referring to the base values of the system. Even with good DM balancing, I've seen a definite trend over the years of mostly treasure XP gains, comparatively. This is nicely illustrated on our character sheets, now that we're tracking all 3 forms of XP as well as total XP(although the DM or I must have been sloppy somewhere along the line because my categories don't even add up to my total! -srry Eric). Although the DM has been quite generous with respect to Role Playing XP(especially since i started bitching about it), there is still an obvious chasm between the loads of treasure XP and the relatively moderate amounts of combat and role playing XP. It just seems a little illogical that a fighter could stumble across the afore-mentioned 1,000,000g.p. gem and gain enough XP to become a better fighter, whereas slaying a nasty monster like a vampire barely makes a dent in the XP he requires to level. Don't get me wrong, the layout of the modules tend to take this into account and therefor be pretty well balanced in terms of XP gains. It just seems a little silly when your party struggles to kill some heavyweight shit and then receives a negligible drop of XP; meaning that killing/defeating monsters doesn't really help improve your PC's skills as a monster slayer unless you find that monster's treasure. Sometimes it makes me feel like more of a treasure-hunter than a monster-killer.
Well, I really need to find something to eat, so I'll continue with initiative some other time...
Later
-J

Thoughts on speed, time, and X.P.s
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: within the rules.
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
Looking at the X.P. tables for magic items and monsters is misleading. My reading does indicate however that the concept of X.P. is one of the most mutable aspects of the game. However do note that the X.P. tables for magic items show the X.P. value for fully charged and working items, and that you must lower the value in almost all cases as PCs hardly ever find a fully charged rod or wand. Also by the rules you would have to fully understand the function of the device, which by the rules (rules that we changed by vote as a group) is an incredibility difficult thing to do. So in many cases the listed value is not the value the PCs should receive. Also the number of hit points a creature has can change the listed value of X.P. in the DMG, FF, and MM 2. When this is taken into consideration in most cases you will find that the monster value is more than the magic item value. I feel that I do give out a fair amount of role-playing X.P. as that number does tend to come close to the amount you guys get for combat. By my records you guys seem to get a lot of X.P. from treasure. Consider that quite a lot of g.p.s can be racked up in things like gems & jewelry. One gem alone can be worth 1,000,000 g.p.! Now ya know that would get your PC to a new level! Over all of this is what is made clear on pg. 84 of the DMG 2ed column heading EXPERIENCE, sub-heading Adjustment And Division of Experience Points- "The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure." This rule is most likely to change the value for any given encounter. So you can see how the tables can be misleading to the system? Also its worth noting on pg. 85 of the DMG, 1st column under the heading EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN, sub-heading Gold Pieces, 3rd paragraph, last sentence in brackets, shows that the DMG agrees with you that magic items kept means less X.P. In closing on this issue I think if you take a 2ed look at these factors that you will see that the system, in fact works as you feel it should. Its just that it takes a good Dungeon Master to make sure that it does. On the issue of Initiative... The 1st ed. AD&D melee round is one minute long. What your suggesting is fine but the scale of the combat round for the type of int. you suggest would be more on the order of a few seconds at most. To change the scale of the combat system would be to change weapon speed factors, spell casting times, move base, surprise, number of att. for high level monks, fighters, and many monsters, and other things. Whoo!! It would be easer to import a whole new combat system!(Which I would not mind doing but it does seem hard to get the group to learn something new...) To see of what I speak of look on pg. 61 of the DMG, 1st column under the heading COMBAT, sub-heading Encounters, Combat, And Initiative, paragraph 3 and 4. With this in mind you can see why adding speed factors of weapons would be inappropriate for a combat system scaled for 1 minute. I think you like me, would just be happier with a new combat system. Makeing improvements on something you don't really like does'ent help it enough. Maybe the next poll should be on weather or not to change the combat system to a more detailed one. Gygax did not like crits as you can see if you read that last pg. So what do you Jim, and everyone else think about moving to a more in depth combat system? Well, I think I have rambled enough here, later...

Jim's game thoughts...
Mood:  lyrical
Now Playing: with myself
Topic: AD&D 1st ed. FRPG
The blog's a great idea.
A few considerations about game mechanics:

The experience point system is in dire need of an overhaul. More (a LOT more) for monsters, less for items, more for role playing; the monetary system seems pretty balanced - e.g. if u can carry it u earned the exp... the DM's suggested possible solution of simply removing the item XP would only serve to punish the players in an already difficult drudge-fest of advancement; this idea is logical, but instead of redressing the balance it knocks it even further out of whack. This is one of 1E's severe drawbacks, along with initiative, which brings me 2 my next point...

Eric and I have spent much time and consideration discussing 1E's initiative problems. While I like the simplicity of the straight-up d6 system, it makes weapon speed essentially irrelevant. In other words, a player in the know about this system should choose the biggest, slowest weapons to be proficient with, since you're swinging just as often as someone using a dagger, and obviously doing a helluva lot more damage. It seems a weak compromise that speed factor is only considered during a tied initiative role. How about a system wherein group initiative is still used (for speed's sake), and simple individual weapon speed calculations are done off of the group initiative number, in order to determine which weapons strike first? To carry it further, you could determine if fast weapons would get multiple attacks. A d6 could be used for surprise, and a d10 for initiative. Both die could be rolled at once - by the DM and by the PC's group roller, again to facilitate speed. After determining surprise, the PCs each add their individual weapon speed factors to the group initiative roll (d10).The DM does the same for the monsters, announcing the total. Any PC who has a total number 1/2 or less of the monster's total would get an extra attack and strike first with the first of the two (a total 1/3 or less = 3 attacks 1/4 or less = 4 attacks, etc...). The monsters would do the same, comparing totals with whoever they were attacking. Allow me to illustrate: 5 orcs using weapons with a speed factor of 8 roll an 8 on their group-d10 initiative, for a total initiative number of 16. The party rolls a 3 for their group-d10 initiative roll. Griz, using a dagger with a speed factor of 2, has a total initiative number of 5. His 5 goes into the orc's 16 three times, giving him 3 attacks this round against an orc with a slow weapon and a bad initiative roll. If a PC and a monster in combat have initiative numbers that are closer than a factor of 2x difference (which would usually be the case), than the lower number simply attacks first. I think this system would be in keeping with the spirit of Gary Gygax's attempts to balance the weapon types with speed numbers and dmg amounts. This system would be pretty simple and fast, too. It only requires simple addition, multiplication by a factor of 2 or 3, and for everyone to be familiar with their weapon's speed factor. This should not be a problem seeing as most players use the same weapon through most of the game, and many players are generally using common weapon types, such as daggers and swords. I'd bet that a majority of players in this game don't even know their main weapon's speed factor - a testament to the current uselessness of a very meaningful mechanic, one which Gygax obviously put there for a reason.

Well, I've got more to say (if u can believe it), but there's a fighter and a cleric (my wife and roommate) bugging me to make my famous chili-dogs.

Later
-J