4E Muscles, BD&D Bones

[pawsplay]

Thanks! So, I'm guessing General Skills is the rough equivalent of the 4E skill system?

Maybe? They bear a very close resemblance to the 3.0 skill list in spirit and specifics, although they do not scale with ability. On the other hand, a lot of adventuring stuff isn't covered by any skill in BECMI. Like, there is no generic Climb ability.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This would be a huge change from a 4e standpoint, but an interesting one. Right now you've got experience points given out in measured-by-encounter batches for defeating foes and treasure given out in measured-by-level parcels. Messing with one doesn't change the other e.g. if you decide there's going to be no treasure here then so be it, the party still get x.p. for what they beat. But if you bundle x.p. in with the treasure parcels that means a DM would be somewhat obligated to give out treasure no matter what but also means adventures can be designed without such a combat-first background. Hmmm....

How do you handle PCs creating their own items to avoid double-dipping i.e. getting a bunch of x.p. for claiming lots of gold (as opposed to items) then turning around and plowing that gold into item creation, thus ending up with x.p. *and* items?

The simple answer - one I like but not many others seem to - is to simply take item creation out of the PCs' hands. If you want to make an item then fine, but you'll be home for a year or two while your companions keep adventuring...

The XP change is a huge difference from 4E, but remember this is spirit of RC, not spirit of 4E or a blend of the two. 4E is just being mined for mechanics and design. Some of those mechanics will necessarily pull a bit of the 4E spirit into the game, but it has to fit that RC spirit to be included. Some people might disagree, but I don't think it is counter to the RC spirits to ask, say, "How would RC handle skills in a way that fits the rest of the game, if the authors had access to modern game design?" Me, I'd do it something like 4E skills, but that's just one persons' opinion.

As for the treasure, gold and magic, issue, maybe I should explain where I'm coming from with a more direct answer to Dausuul's original question, from the lower level perspective:

I see the spirit of RC as, broadly, that relatively weak adventurers go into a dungeon or the wilderness or a rough town. Through their cunning and power, they defeat the opposition, albeit with a real risk of failure. They get some treasure, and get more power.

In contrast, I see the actual mechanics of RC, as written, as a group of very weak adventurers go into hideously stacked against them environment and perish. Every now and then, they get lucky and clever enough to get some treasure and get more power. Lucky or clever seldom is enough.

4E solves this discrepancy by making the low level guys not so hideously week (relative to the opposition), and by a strong focus on balance.

RC DMs solved this discrepancy in a variety of ways. I'll list a few I used (I played it a lot as Red and Blue box):

1. Heck with the spirit--just play it in the spirit that the mechanics produce. No more discrepancy.

2. Fudge to preserve the spirit.

3. Start higher level, avoid the problem.

4. Make mechanical changes around the edges (max hit points, better stats, and so forth in increasing elaboration).

You might note that none of those are truly acceptable in a modern design. If the spirit of the game--as conveyed in the tone of the characters, background material, etc. is as I've said it is, then characters played by RAW ought to be a bit more survivable. OTOH, spirit is nebulous. So my suggestion is that a modern design should provide a default means for RAW play to get something closer to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, but it should not prohibit something like the original RC played via RAW. I guess I'm saying that the spirit of RC is something of a moving target.

Making power mechanically tied to gold and other non-magical treasure is a way of squaring that circle. (There might be other, better ways to do the same thing.) Leaving the magic items out of the equation prevents the 4E problem of expected equipment, while still allowing the rest of the treasure to drive personal power. You could use the 4E inherent bonus solution, but then that gets into the scaling issue that pawsplay raised. (I agree with him that the scaling should be more constrained.)

I hope that made some kind of sense.

Edit: Realized I didn't finish answering Lanefan's point about magic item creation. I'm envisioning some fairly strict restrictions on item creation, with gold not being the main bottleneck. There would be costs, mainly for flavor and secondary bottlenecks to a flood, but the main resource should be time. For example, to keep it simple, I'd be perfectly fine with something like allowing spellcasters to make any spell into a consumable item, taking one day per spell level to perform, and then requiring 1 week per spell level of "rest" before they can do it again. (Not actual "rest"--just a recharge time on when they can do it again.) Though probably I'd bring in 4E rituals, twist them a bit to fit RC better, and put a similar recharge restriction on them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Thanks! So, I'm guessing General Skills is the rough equivalent of the 4E skill system?

Mechanically, they are closer to the 2E Non-weapon proficiences.

If I had to pick only one or the other, I'd say that the 4E skill system (sans skill challenges), lifted straight, is a better fit for the RC spirit than the original RC skills. RC skills are kind of tacked on. Heck, I'd say leaving them out altogether is also a better fit for the RC spirit.

What would be a significant break in mechanics, not only with RC but all versions of D&D, would be to reproduce the optional RC weapon skills as an imbedded part of the skill system. You'd need a different skill system than has every been used before for D&D to make that work, but if any system could credibly benefit from such, RC is it. The RC spirit on skills is that these things are helpful, but not determinant. (Old pros with RC at higher levels might disagree with me on certain options available to fighters and dwarves. I'll defer, since we never got that high.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

While some of these ideas seem interesting I don't believe the final product will ever be the dreamy ultimate game that everyone seems to be looking for.

Basic D&D and 4E are too far apart in style and philosophy to be merged together without losing the best part of either of them.
Cleaning up the basic combat rules implies expanding the RAW to cover more ground. The more that you rigidly define what a PC can and cannot do the further from Basic D&D you get.

The balance in a basic game comes from the participants not some codified document ever tweaked and updated by some designers somewhere.
The spirit of the game, the "it" factor that makes playing still appeal to
some gamers after all this time is that freedom.
Basic is too loose and "mother may I" in style for some players. 4E is too structured and rules bloated for others.
Attempting to blend the two would IMHO, lead to a lukewarm version of each that enthusiasts of either style would be unsatisfied with.

Even now we have people who are so system particular that they love Basic D&D but like AD&D much less or vice versa and those that favor
essentials over regular 4E. With so many differences of opinion on
comparing systems that are very similar in style going on, how are two games so vastly different going to be accepted by fans of both styles?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[the Jester]

Basic D&D and 4E are too far apart in style and philosophy to be merged together without losing the best part of either of them. Cleaning up the basic combat rules implies expanding the RAW to cover more ground. The more that you rigidly define what a PC can and cannot do the further from Basic D&D you get.

The balance in a basic game comes from the participants not some codified document ever tweaked and updated by some designers somewhere.
The spirit of the game, the "it" factor that makes playing still appeal to
some gamers after all this time is that freedom.
Basic is too loose and "mother may I" in style for some players. 4E is too structured and rules bloated for others.
Attempting to blend the two would IMHO, lead to a lukewarm version of each that enthusiasts of either style would be unsatisfied with.

Even now we have people who are so system particular that they love Basic D&D but like AD&D much less or vice versa and those that favor
essentials over regular 4E. With so many differences of opinion on
comparing systems that are very similar in style going on, how are two games so vastly different going to be accepted by fans of both styles?

The key (IMHO) is to acknowledge that no system is perfect for everyone, but you can certainly achieve the perfect system for you, and hopefully that includes for your group.

I've taken elements of Basic and 4e (and every other version of D&D) for my own homebrew D&D version, and it has been working very well so far. My group has been loving it, despite its unfinished state and lack of a lot of the details and finishing touches.

As a fan of both 4e and BECMI, I have to say that I'm very satisfied with it so far- it is not lukewarm, offers a reasonable level of tactical choice while enforcing a "fast a furious" playstyle.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Basic D&D and 4E are too far apart in style and philosophy to be merged together without losing the best part of either of them.
Cleaning up the basic combat rules implies expanding the RAW to cover more ground. The more that you rigidly define what a PC can and cannot do the further from Basic D&D you get.

I'd agree if that was what was envisioned. I think Dausuul and I are on the same page, but I'm not sure that page is being communicated very well.

This is not a "merge" idea. RC takes priority. Another way of looking at it, a little off I think, but for illustration: D&D has evolved over the years, right? 1E did some things the way it did because OD&D and Basic/Expert had them. Then 2E kept some thing just because they were in earlier versions. And so forth. 3E and 4E both went for increasingly cleaner breaks (at least by intent). However, since their design intents included keeping a similar complexity overall to Advanced D&D, those breaks were not focused on RC very much. Now, I think you can get some RC-entric play in 4E, but I'd never claim that simplicity was a point of similarity.

So now go back and pretend that all you have is RC, and you want to change it (modernize it), but in a different way than the 1E->2E->3E->4E. 4E has some things to tell you, because it did reproduce some of that RC-centric play in a more complex ruleset. Heck, 3E may have some things to tell you, too.

However, I think the main thing you get from 4E is the attitude that sacred cows can be butchered left and right, as long as you don't butcher them all. Ideally, you look at 4E the same way that the 4E designers looked at video games. You don't say, "Hey, WoW has aggro. So we'll just make a poor adapation of that to go in 4E." Rather, you say, "Having looked at aggro, we think we can handle the same problem space in an even better way, taking advantage of the fact that the 4E DM has a brain." So you don't copy, for example, 4E rituals straight. You look at the idea of rituals and what they do, then determine if you can improve upon it in the spirit of RC.

You want it to be as if all you have is RC, but someone gave you the idea of 4E rituals, and now you want to adapt it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As with so many things, the journey may be very much worth it, even if the destination fails to live up to expectations.


RC

Very true. Puttering around and tinkering with systems can be rewarding in itself.

As a fan of both 4e and BECMI, I have to say that I'm very satisfied with it so far- it is not lukewarm, offers a reasonable level of tactical choice while enforcing a "fast a furious" playstyle.

Awesome. Its always a great feeling when a project is successful on some level.

I'd agree if that was what was envisioned. I think Dausuul and I are on the same page, but I'm not sure that page is being communicated very well.

This is not a "merge" idea. RC takes priority. Another way of looking at it, a little off I think, but for illustration: D&D has evolved over the years, right? 1E did some things the way it did because OD&D and Basic/Expert had them. Then 2E kept some thing just because they were in earlier versions. And so forth. 3E and 4E both went for increasingly cleaner breaks (at least by intent). However, since their design intents included keeping a similar complexity overall to Advanced D&D, those breaks were not focused on RC very much. Now, I think you can get some RC-entric play in 4E, but I'd never claim that simplicity was a point of similarity.

So now go back and pretend that all you have is RC, and you want to change it (modernize it), but in a different way than the 1E->2E->3E->4E. 4E has some things to tell you, because it did reproduce some of that RC-centric play in a more complex ruleset. Heck, 3E may have some things to tell you, too.

However, I think the main thing you get from 4E is the attitude that sacred cows can be butchered left and right, as long as you don't butcher them all. Ideally, you look at 4E the same way that the 4E designers looked at video games. You don't say, "Hey, WoW has aggro. So we'll just make a poor adapation of that to go in 4E." Rather, you say, "Having looked at aggro, we think we can handle the same problem space in an even better way, taking advantage of the fact that the 4E DM has a brain." So you don't copy, for example, 4E rituals straight. You look at the idea of rituals and what they do, then determine if you can improve upon it in the spirit of RC.

You want it to be as if all you have is RC, but someone gave you the idea of 4E rituals, and now you want to adapt it.

Go for it! Best of luck.

 

[Dausuul]

So now go back and pretend that all you have is RC, and you want to change it (modernize it), but in a different way than the 1E->2E->3E->4E. 4E has some things to tell you, because it did reproduce some of that RC-centric play in a more complex ruleset. Heck, 3E may have some things to tell you, too.

This is more or less what I had in mind, yes.

To me, the key features of BECMI/RC D&D are these:

• Stripped-down mechanics. The game offers a small array of "defined" tactical choices, with the expectation that the DM and players will build on them through creative and descriptive play. As such, the game is friendly to players who aren't all that into "crunch."
• Quick resolution. There should not be a pile of fiddly little modifiers getting thrown around. BECMI didn't always live up to this ideal, but it tried. (My rule of thumb: No temporary modifier smaller than 3 is worth the bother of tracking it.)
• A limited set of choices at chargen and level up.
• The classes are fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief. Elf, dwarf, and halfling are optional. Variants may exist, especially at high levels, but everything builds on the basic four.
• Low-level PCs are somewhat more fragile than in 4E. (They do not have to be as fragile as they are in straight-up BECMI, however!)
• The scope of the game widens as PCs advance, and the rules support that widening scope. For example: Dungeon adventuring (Basic), to wilderness exploration (Expert), to warfare and becoming vassal to a lord (Companion), to domain rulership and questing for immortality (Master). Master-level PCs still crawl dungeons from time to time, but it's just one part of a much larger world.
• Personal power increases at a fair clip in the first few levels, then plateaus upon reaching "name level." This is the same basic principle underlying the design of E6, and one I want to build on. PCs continue to advance past name level, but a 26th-level PC is not all that much stronger than a 16th-level one in a direct confrontation. The 26th-level PC's main advantage is versatility and a stronger position in the world (followers, allies, strongholds, etc.).

So, that's what I want to keep. I'm also trying to keep a general resemblance to BECMI D&D; 36 levels, 7 levels of cleric spells, 9 levels of M-U spells, all the classes have the same general outlines as the originals. (That said, I'm making Vancian casting an optional variant. The standard casting model will look like the sorceror from 3E. Vancian casting just grinds my gears.)

From 4E, I want to import:

• Balanced combat math. (Happily, my dad was a mathematician...)
• Class balance more or less constant across the level range. Lowbie M-Us are not pathetic weenies. High-level fighters do not become obsolete.
• The standard d20 core mechanic (1d20 + bonus versus DC).
• A small list of predefined conditions: Stunned, blinded, grabbed, etc.
• The scaling back of insta-kill mechanics. I'm not saying there can't be a handful of effects that just kill you dead right there, but they should be rare and fearsome. "Save versus poison or die" is a horrid mechanic that is justified neither by gameplay (instant arbitrary death makes a lousy game) nor by fiction (except cyanide and nerve gas, I don't know any poisons that take effect instantly).
• "Page 42"-type guidelines for handling stunts on the fly.
• Spells that eclipse other classes' abilities or wreak havoc with the game world have their usability limited; e.g., by ritual component costs.
• Special moves/tricks for fighters and thieves. This one I'm on the fence about; after all, I just said one of the attractions of BECMI is stripped-down mechanics! But I do feel that non-casters ought to have some tricks up their sleeves that don't rely on stunts.

So, that's what I'm working with. I've got some ideas for the basics that I'll put up later tonight.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The scope of the game widens as PCs advance, and the rules support that widening scope. For example: Dungeon adventuring (Basic), to wilderness exploration (Expert), to warfare and becoming vassal to a lord (Companion), to domain rulership and questing for immortality (Master). Master-level PCs still crawl dungeons from time to time, but it's just one part of a much larger world...

Special moves/tricks for fighters and thieves. This one I'm on the fence about; after all, I just said one of the attractions of BECMI is stripped-down mechanics! But I do feel that non-casters ought to have some tricks up their sleeves that don't rely on stunts.

How about fudging that first one to handle the second one? That is, if Master-level PCs can crawl, why can't Basic-level PCs dip into vassalage and so forth, if only a little bit? Instead of a stunt, maybe a fighter has a follower? The dominion rules seemed to favor non-casters as a way to keep them competitive. So I don't see any problem with them getting a head start on that.