Behaviours

There appears to have been some major changes to the good old alignment system, which appears to have at least quieted down arguments about how to interpret it. Much like some other changes, however, it seems less than well-reasoned.

Naturally, some of the confusion deals with strict interpretations of Law and Chaos. Mostly, those are thought of as law-abiding and anarchistic. While that is a broad interpretation, I think it falls well short of the panoply of nuance available. Additionally, with a modern view of 'good' and 'evil', it can seem contradictory at times. How can one be Lawful, as in law-abiding, and Evil, as in spurning societal norms, at the same time? In the same way, how can one be Good (promoting the common weal) and Chaotic (disruptive of laws)? How can one be Neutral in regards to either?

This is where a more flexible interpretation is helpful. We can start with Law being dedication to the group over the individual. In that case, someone who is aligned with Law would be someone who strives to maintain a community or party, sometimes at the expense of an individual, or smaller group. As long as that group has a voice in the process, they are part of the collective whole, and the whole is stronger for it. Chaos, then, is the exaltation of the individual more than the group. The focus of someone aligned with Chaos would hold the belief that the smaller group or individual should be allowed to decide for themselves what is appropriate, without interference from the larger group. Each voice has its own quality, regardless of the notions of the group, and this adds to the richness of the tapestry of life.

Alternately, Law can be seen as 'organization' or 'hierarchy'. Each has their place in the great machinery, and society works because everyone has their job to perform. Structure informs everyone's day, task, family, or any other aspect of their lives, which keeps society running smoothly. Chaos would be more akin to the disorganized mess of individual effort, leading to unbounded creativity, each reaping the benefits of one another's unrestricted expression.

It's not all wine and roses, of course. In the first example, excessive adherence to the principles of the whole over the smaller group can easily lead to oppression, cold indifference, or even antipathy for the smaller group. Generally, the smaller group would eventually be exiled; either by the leaders or themselves. In extreme cases, the smaller group may be eliminated by the larger, as their refusal to adhere to the mores of the group are considered a disease that threatens the whole. Conversely, too much focus on the smaller groups leads to a mass of bickering factions, each of which struggling for power while people are starving in the streets.

In all these cases, there are beneficial and harmful aspects to a particular ethos. Those are where the morality of 'good' and 'evil' influence the expression of an ethos. Of course, the ethos can also influence the expression of the morality, wherein the good Ranger tends to help out a few people at a time, as they don't seem able to gather enough forces to themselves to ride against the evil necromancer directly. Or, the evil inquisitor brings every legal nuance to bear against the hapless political opponent accused of heresy.

Alignment is a very useful tool in fleshing out a character, and providing a background for their motivations. It can, and has, been subverted into a mechanic to lash PCs, to be sure. It certainly isn't the necessary outcome, however. A bit of flexibility, and alignment can set the stage for epic quests and everyday behaviours alike, without forcing unnatural responses from the players.

Resources

Resources are an important part of Olde School gaming, the most important part, according to some. Many game elements revolve around resource management. Wandering monsters harry the characters, wasting spells, wand charges, and hit points. Traps force them to find a different, usually longer, way to their objective, which can mean more wandering monster checks. Traps and wandering monsters are also typically treasure light, so you don't even get a decent reward for defeating them. Several of these in a row by a party that tarries or consistently finds the wrong rooms can even lead to the death of one or more characters.

Recent iterations of D&D have eschewed 'save or die' effects for a similar reason. No one wants to lose a character to a string of bad rolls, but even less so to one bad roll. But here is the problem: from that same side of the argument, we also hear that raise dead and the like are too cheap, to where it is only a minor speed bump for mid- to higher level characters. Hence, it was hard coded into the new rules that death is a minor speed bump at higher levels. Bringing someone back from death was a minor inconvenience, with a moderately steep price tag. Now, even the price isn't all that steep.

There are many effects under the 'save or die' rubric, naturally, including petrification and the like, where you aren't killed outright, but certainly aren't in the action anymore. Few effects short of a deck of many things or certain artifact level powers will outright permanently kill a character. There is a chance you could fail your resurrection survival roll, and Constitution placed a hard limit on the number of times you could be raised. Death was supposed to be so harrowing, in fact, a point of Constitution was to be deducted permanently for each raising. I recall our group didn't deduct the point, but we did keep the number of previous raises in mind. Naturally, if your group wasn't keeping track of the to hit bonuses for certain weapons versus AC, or the weapon speed of their ranseur, checking for resurrection survival was likely forgotten by the wayside as well.

And why not? Taking the broader view, 'save or die' was just another resource to manage. You weren't earning xp while the others hauled your carcass around, and just try to argue for a full share of treasure when your big contribution for half the adventure was 300lbs less gold to haul away. I don't see it really matters how often someone gets raised, really. In and of itself, that will act as its own penalty on advancement, without having the possibility of permanent retirement. Perhaps keep the hard limit on the number of times they can be raised, just so they don't get careless. Unless your DM was a complete hardcase, there really wasn't a lack of money, so it would be difficult limiting things that way.

I don't find resources like money or land to be very effective limitations anyway. Why would anyone want to be an adventurer if they were getting the equivalent of a 5gp per month stipend? When your income is no better than a common labourer's, the incentive to go out tomb raiding is lacking. Naturally, you want to make sure players don't haul out enough to demolish the economy of any region smaller than a kingdom, but fistfuls of gold are the best reason to kick the dust of the farm off your boots and pick up a sword. Severely limiting gold is worse than limiting magic items.

Raise Dead and Resurrection are both spells, of course, which are another resource. Once the party Cleric can cast those, you no longer have to seek out a town, but you still need a pile of diamonds on hand. So, it isn't really simple matter of just casting a spell to retrieve the character from the last save point. Depending on the adventure at hand, they may not even be the best choice for spells.

As any Magic User or Cleric player will tell you, spell selection can make or break the adventure. This is another resource that must be carefully monitored, as the daily selection of spells is pretty limited until somewhere above mid-level. Naturally, this is what makes playing a spell-caster so attractive for a certain type of player. It is probably one of the longest range strategy elements in Olde School play, and requires careful deliberation. There is no perfect mix of spells that will get the party out of every situation. Non-spellcasters have to monitor their hit points and ammunition, which can be as detailed, but rather more immediate.

With the power creep that seems to invariably follow each new release, these kinds of resource management seem to be progressively stripped away. For myself, the resource management is precisely what keeps me interested in Olde School games. It can get too fiddly at times, but nothing beats hashing out spells, torches and wineskins as a party while preparing for the assault on the well defended subterranean financial opportunity. It largely defines the 'game' part of role-playing game for me. It is also what I find distinctly lacking in most current RPG design.

Kubuntu

I was playing around with several different Kubuntu distros, among them 8.04 with KDE4. Man, was that a pile of turd.

I mean, it's not bad enough they use the same colours as Vista, it uses just about the same layout, too. It's just ugly, all the way down. The K-menu updates look OK, but the cascading menu takes a bit to get used to. I'm not sure it is an improvement, per se, more of a compacting of the regular menu items spawning sub-menus external to the list. A bit less cluttered on the screen, perhaps, but moving between sub-menus is a matter of a few seconds anyway.





Sure, I get it. Familiarity with the interface makes the transition less troublesome. I think it is time to start showing some real innovation, however. For most people, Vista is made of epic fail. Copying the windows manager is not a good move in this case. Great things could have been done to keep the windowing simple, yet add features. I'm not 100% convinced there is really a need for a gadget bar or OSX-like dock. But certainly, they could have been done with more elegance than a ham-handed attempt to clone the features as directly as possible.

Linux is on the ascent. People are aware of it, but a second hand rip-off of Vista is not the way to take advantage of that. Come on, KDE Team, grab some innovation; start with the 3.5 interface and improve on that. Trying to copy what the 'cool kids' are doing isn't going to convince anyone to transition. No one seems to like what the cool kids over at Microsoft are doing anyway. There is a solid kernel under there, you don't have to worry about integration or software compatibilities. You can spend all your time on the interface itself.

Please, fork Plasma to an alternate build, and go back to the 3.5 interface for development.

Structure

Further reflection, and some feedback from theRPGsite, led me to formulate these rough ideas:

Man-at-arms
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Cavalier
&c.
Arcanist
Magic User
Sorcerer
Alienist
Wu Jen
&c.
Hieratic
Cleric
Druid
Exemplar
Shukenja
&c.
Freeboot (rogue?, picaroon?, scoundrel?)
Thief
Assassin
Monk
Bard
&c

I will expand on the list in later posts.

Having a class that fits into more than one category will be tricky, but not impossible. Using kits as a guideline, it may not even be necessary. For example, a Magic User character would take the Soldier kit, claiming to be from a Sparta-like society. They would get use of a short or long sword, perhaps, get the Soldier kit level bonuses, but still use the attack and saves chart for Magic Users.

Kits wouldn't modify class abilities or features that are extant, but would provide a certain bonus to them. To Hit and Damage bonuses, or save bonuses, but the base class would still be used for attacks, hit points, level progression and so on. The listing would note this:

Man-at-arms
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Soldier (kit)
Guard (npc)
Slayer (NPC) or (epic)
&c.

Additionally, the (npc) designator would indicate a class that is better suited for use as an NPC, hence, they would have a smaller hit die than the base class, or a worse attack and save matrix. So, a Guard may use the attack matrix and hit die for Clerics, but still save as a Fighter. Also, they could be used for a low powered campaign, so spell kits would have a slower spell progression, or be limited in spell level. Alternately, the class may be too powerful or unbalancing for PCs, hence an epic level villain to challenge the players at any level. Such an NPC would have additional attacks per round, large bonuses to hit and damage, a greater amount of hit points, or high AC bonuses. These could be designated by (NPC) or (epic).

Therefore, if you are looking for that kit, you will generally know the section in which to find it. Also, this would prevent having a separate set of kits for each base class, as there is nothing inherently flawed about having a Fighter with the Soldier kit, or a Magic User with the Hedge Wizard kit, as they will only provide minor bonuses. These would be offset by an xp or other penalty, so they don't become standard for every character.

These kits could also have a variable degree, so Hedge Wizard might grant an additional spell or two per level, which would be the only spells a non-spell casting base class would know, while the Self-Taught Magician kit would allow spell casting at half the base class level. A 16th Thief who has Self-Taught Magician would cast spells as an 8th level Magic User, but no other save benefits, spell specialization or the like. Probably, a quarter the base class level would be more appropriate.

Of course, there is always the odd-ball that crops up, like Psionicist, but that kind of thing may be more appropriate as a kit anyway. I was never terribly keen on the idea that any bundle of abilities or special powers should be shunted off to its own class. There are even a few classes that could have some excess trimmed off for use as kits; Assassin, for example. It is tempting to trim just about everything back to four base classes and use kits to add on the other special abilities for the classes, but that would be straying too far from the original intent to be the standard. Perhaps as a class-building optional ruleset at some point in the future, or in an appendix of Alternate Character Sets with other character options.

The issue with making something like Psionicist into a kit is that an extensive list of psionics would overwhelm the kit idea, and make it into a virtual class anyway. A fairly broad list of categories, such as the original WEG d6 Star Wars had for Jedi powers would likely be more appropriate. Generally, this seems to be the problem with other classes-as-kits as well. A Druid kit would require a large list of appropriate spells, pushing it back into the class category again. A Psionicist kit would therefore have Telekinesis, or Telepathy, or something chosen at first level, which would increase as levels are gained. Attack and defense modes would likewise be gained by level, and their potency would increase.

Paramount in all this is that the methods be as clear as possible. I would prefer to set up a set of well written guidelines that everyone can use to extend their game as they wish, and simply use the system to create a good range of examples in Alternate Character Sets. Above all, I want a supplement that will assist people with creative endeavours, not have the final say on what is permissible. I plan on providing a large number of examples, but of course, any list created by one person won't be anywhere near exhaustive. Putting the tools to create in the hands of the players is my goal.

Illusion(ists)

I was pondering a few things about 1st edition AD&D, among them the sub-class of Illusionist. Sub-classes are not a bad idea, in and of themselves, and could have been expanded on for greater flexibility in 2nd Edition, had Mr. Gygax been around for that. You can see the direction he was going in the Unearthed Arcana. So the pieces were in place in 1st edition and expanded on in 2nd edition. History tells the rest of that sordid tale. I am planning on expanding on this idea in Alternate Character Sets for OSRIC; beforehand, I believe an exploration of the concept is in order.

The four classes have endured the test of time, and are quite sturdy for the task to which they have been employed. Contemporary sword and sorcery literature had protagonists beating the crap out of someone (Conan), exploring the deepest mysteries of the arcane (Ged), and stealing treasure for glory and monetary gain (Grey Mouser). Clerics have few direct counterparts in genre literature, if any, but the germ can be seen in numerous Arthurian rounds and other Medieval depictions of holy knights in the crusades. The Grey Mouser had some magical training, but this was more of a plot device than a reflection of the character.

Four genre appropriate archetypes, then. How do the sub-classes fit into all of this? Looking back through the years, they actually don't seem to fit very well at all. As a container (in programming terms), classes and sub-classes aren't very effective. It would appear they were made to be extensible (again with the programming!), but little was done with that, and even the Unearthed Arcana rules switched Paladins over to the new Cavalier class, adding another grouping of classes with one sub-class, along with Cleric, Magic User and Thief. As a grouping or container system, then, classes and sub-classes were less than efficient. It was perhaps slightly easier to annotate magic items with who could use them, but there were few items that were restricted by class and needed to be indicated in this manner. And even so, using (F, P, R) is hardly more space consuming on the handful of items to which it applies than (F).

2nd Edition AD&D introduced the idea of spell schools and specialization. Which is all Illusionists were to begin with, really; a Magic-User without access to the general spells available to Magic Users. In fact, they only got first level Magic User spells as a seventh level spell selection, indicating that Illusionists are somehow inferior to Magic Users, or a lead up to real magic use. They didn't use a different form of magic, like Sorcerers or Warlocks in later editions. The only thing keeping them seperate is that they couldn't read each other's magic notes. Not a particularly good impetus to make them a sub-class, mechanically or descriptively. That their maximum spell level is seven also demonstrates they were inferior to magic users. Taking all this into account, they were a good mecanical implementation of a sub-class, in that they were sub-ordinate to the Magic-User class. Still, with the introduction in 1st edition of spell types, it seems relegating Illusionists to a sub-class is redundant.

However, the Fighter sub-classes don't seem quite as sub-ordinate. Paladins and Rangers both got spell use at higher levels, and had other abilities as well that put them above their base class. In that regard, they are the opposite of a 'sub-class'. Additionally, the Paladin is a bit of a contradiction under the Fighter class anyway. Where the Ranger has thief-like abilities when in the woods, they aren't quite close enough to say that the Ranger is a Fighter/Thief. The Paladin, on the other hand, is fairly well emulated by a Lawful Good Fighter/Cleric. There are a few abilities they don't get, like laying on hands, immunity to disease, and so forth. Nonetheless, should the Paladin be a Fighter sub-class, or a Cleric sub-class? Certainly, the primary role of the Paladin seems to be fighting, but most Clerics were on the front lines as well. A mace or a flail may not have quite the damage capacity of a longsword, but a few magical plusses and spells to boot meant the Cleric was just as deadly. The Paladin appears to fall just about equally into both camps, which makes it difficult to justify assigning to one or the other.

The whole thing is a bit muddy. No clear cut distinctions in all cases, and the sub-classes don't even really derive much from the parent or base class. Paladins use d10 for hit points, but Rangers use 2d8 at 1st level, and d8 after that. Barbarians use d12. Clerics can only use blunt weapons, but druids are allowed scimitars and sickles. Monks have Thief abilities and a d4, but aren't a sub-class of Thief. Magic Users and Illusionists are the closest to being a true base/child classification, but their spells are different only in the language used to read or write them. Mechanically, Illusionist and Magic User spells are in all ways identical. Of course, the spell listings in general are all standardized, so the same could be said of Clerical and Magic User spells; the underlying source of the magic was different, however, where Illusionist spells were not. Similarly, Druids recieved their spells from a divine source, the same as Clerics, so suffer from a similar blurring of the lines of distinction. In many ways, a Druid is as much a specialized Cleric as an Illusionist is a specialized Magic User. Rangers and Paladins, however, are not quite specialized Fighters in the same manner, while Monks are more of a specialized Thief than a distinct class.

The base classes should have a minimal amount of information which would be inhereted by the sub-classes, and then extended upon. Rarely should the base class information be replaced by the sub-class. Rangers have, on average, four-and-one-half more hit points at first level than a Fighter or Paladin, after which they are a hit point behind on average per level. When they both reach name level, the Ranger is four-and-one-half hit points behind. Overall, a rather trivial amount, considering the Ranger has few other restrictions, and spell casting at the higher levels. The Paladin has the same hit points, on average, as the Fighter, and has additional abilities to boot. The Charisma and alignment requirements are supposed to make them rarer, but in practice, it isn't much of a restriction. In this regard, Clerics and Magic Users fit the description fairly well, but perhaps not by design. Rather, it seems to be that the Illusionist and Druid were simply not radically different enough, being virtual clones of the base class.

Additionally, the base class should see as little use as possible; instead, the sub-classes should be extended to fit the need, and some small-ish number of characteristics inhereted from the base. Therefore, 'Fighter' should be a container for classes that are primarily trained in the use of weaponry. Under that, you would want the basic man-at-arms inheriting most of the Fighter base class characteristics, such as hit die, attack matrix, saving throws and so on. Very little would need to be added; perhaps weapon specialization not available to other Fighter types, or a level based bonus to AC or attacks. Instead of the base class pulling double duty as a playable class as well as a template for the sub-classes (and as we have seen, rather poorly), the base class would simply act as a template for future additions. It could be arranged in a manner such as:

FIGHTER
Hit Die: d10
Attack: Fighter
Saves: Fighter
Armour: Any
Weapon: Any
Race: Any
Spells: No

The basic man-at-arms or warrior would add 'Weapon Specialization: 3rd level' and 'Attack Bonus: +1 / 4 levels' or somesuch, the details to be elaborated in the descriptive text. The Ranger might have a line that superceeds the base class thus: 'Spells: Arcane and Divine (delayed)', while a Barbarian would have 'Hit Die: d12', as examples. Care must be exercised, however. It is far too easy to replace everything for the base class and add on besides.

I believe a method such as this will help in maintaining focus in character creation, as well as providing interesting things for players to do while adventuring. Additionally, it provides more options for tailoring character classes to a specific campaign beyond simple exclusions like 'no Clerics'. You could simply change the Cleric base class to say 'Spells: No' and generally leave the rest of the sub-classes intact. And of course, these restrictions need not apply equally for PCs and NPCs. NPCs may be wholly unrestricted in class and race combinations, for whatever reason. So, 'disabling' spell casting for the Cleric template may only mean that no PCs can cast spells, but temple priests or other NPC Cleric types have no such limitation.

For Alternate Character sets, I will be looking at some of these to provide more options in character generation. For example, Paladins will be a kind of Exemplar, which will end up under Clerics. Additionally, Magic Users will likely end up under a parent class of Arcane Casters or somesuch, with Illusionists and Conjurers as specialization options, with Sorcerers and Alienists casting a different type of magic, hence different classes. I am hoping to present several spell casting options, such as spell points and rune magic. Additionally, I am planning on adding options for the other classes as well; specialty priests, Divine magic domains, Arcane magic spheres, Thieves' organizations and guilds, Fighter techniques and schools, and others as they occur to me. Hopefully as a framework so others can more easily create and add on to OSRIC or 1st Edition AD&D for thier own campaigns, or to share with others.

I am sure I will talk more about this later, so until then!

PGP Public Key

Due to the unchangeable width of the blog area, the whole key isn't visible, but it does show up correctly when copy-and-pasted.

If you want to send me encrypted email, please mark the subject line as:

Encrypted: <subject>

I have a 2048 key and a 4096 key if anyone wants even more security. Let me know and I can mail those to you.

If you don't already have software, you can get GnuPG from their downloads page. Binaries for Linux are listed towards the bottom, as well as Mac OS X versions.

Please don't encrypt comments, I don't have the time to decrypt and re-post those. They will be deleted.

pub 1024D/0C1D9D4E 10 Oct 08 StormBringer (Small Key) 
    Primary key fingerprint:  45A1 20D2 7441 595A 123A 6F27 26C9 EE07 0C1D 9D4E 

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
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=gSg6
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----