[Engines & Empires] New Update

[Jack Daniel]

Update: 7 Mar 07

Well, I've finally, finally finished weeding through the combat rules and effecting all the changes that I wanted to make. Most of it is the same as d20/3e combat, so it's not worth slogging through everything if you do actually mean to read what I've posted here. Major differences between my combat system and 3rd edition D&D boil down to initiative (I go back to using group initiative, like basic D&D did), the elimination of full attacks and attacks of opportunity, and major overhauls of grappling, charging, and two-weapon combat. Oh, and I suppose the capacity to move some or all of your speed before, during, or after your actions (essentially giving everyone Spring Attack by default) is worth mentioning.

Next on the list... magic! (Hey, I've only got magic and technology to finish up, and then the "player's handbook" half of the book is done! Hard to believe I'm already so close to doing up "dungeon master's guide" stuff... whew.)

http://mypage.iusb.edu/~jodhiggi/Basic_E&E.pdf

= = = = =

Original Post, 25 Jan 07:

The problem I seem to have with "retro" gaming is that for most, "retro" means AD&D 1st edition. Everything about Castles & Crusades, for example, screams "1e groupie". It's very unsatisfying for those of us who are 2e and OD&D groupies. True 20 is interesting, but it just doesn't "do it" for me -- like they went one step too far in moving away from roll-playing and some of D&D's sacred cows (ability scores, leveled spells) for me to feel comfortable playing it.

So I've decided to try my hand at the retro remix. And a remix it is indeed, because what I seem to be doing is patching together a veritable Frankenstein monster of cross-edition D&D conventions. I have OD&D-style level advancement (and the Rules 'Cyclopedia is informing every aspect of how I organize the book I'm writing), AD&D 1st-edition style magic (even if the spell names sound more like something out of Final Fantasy), 2nd-edition style combat, and 3rd edition style multi-classing and die-rolling (with the exception of task resolution itself, which I've adapted from C&C's SIEGE engine).

And the weird thing is, it's working. It's actually shaping up to be a coherent RPG that just might be playable when all is said and done. And best of all, it's exactly what I've always wanted D&D to be. Which, I hope, is why any of us homebrew and hose-rule in the first place. Anyhow... take a look.

http://mypage.iusb.edu/~jodhiggi/EnEpt1_preview.pdf

I'd just like some opinions and criticism. Do the rules (what's there so far, anyway) look like they work? Does it feel appropriately "OD&D"ish?

 

[Greg K]

I don't consider True20 an attempt to be retro. I consider it the next step in the evolution of d20 not an attempt to recapture oD&D or 1e.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yep. True20 ain't oldschool, by any means.

C&C (for example) is more AD&D than d20. True20 is more d20 than d20.

Something like that.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Maybe OSRIC? Haven't tried it, but it appears to emulate the "old schoolness" well. Should be a link somewhere around here to the latest version... looking for it now.

 

[Jack Daniel]

::Rolls eyes::

I know True20 isn't retro. My problem with True20 is that it's too... I don't know, not-dungeon-crawl-hack-n-slashy enough. It's like playing Vampire: The Masquerade with d20s instead of d10s.

And OSRIC is just 1st edition AD&D with a different name. Me = not a 1e fan. By any stretch. If there were an OSRIC for OD&D or 2e, I'd be all over that $#!@, but as it is, all OSRIC is is Castles & Crusades with even less to like about it.

The point is, none of the retro-gaming attempts (C&C, OSRIC) have the right retro feel for me and my group, and none of d20 system simplification attempts (C&C, True20) have the right balance between mechanical simplicity and "D&D-ish feeling" that I had hoped from them.

 

[Aus_Snow]

::Rolls eyes::

I know True20 isn't retro.

Hm, let's see. . .

The problem I seem to have with "retro" gaming is that for most, "retro" means AD&D 1st edition. Everything about Castles & Crusades, for example, screams "1e groupie". It's very unsatisfying for those of us who are 2e and OD&D groupies. True 20 is interesting, but it just doesn't "do it" for me -- like they went one step too far in moving away from roll-playing and some of D&D's sacred cows (ability scores, leveled spells) for me to feel comfortable playing it.

So I've decided to try my hand at the retro remix. (. . .)

The claim you made in your most recent post did not appear to be at all clearly supported, on reading your original post (as the section I've quoted illustrates, I think). But it is, of course, entirely possible that I am seeing ambiguity where there is none.

 

[Xyanthon]

There is an OSRIC of sorts for the "Basic Style" (meaning the D&D line from the boxed sets to the Rules Cyclopedia). It was done by Chris Gonnerman over at Dragonsfoot and called the Basic Fantasy Roleplaying System. It may be along the lines of what you are looking for. I can't get to Dragonsfoot from work so I can't provide a link but I will later if you are interested. They even have some supplements and modules for the system over at Dragonsfoot. Might be worth your while to check it out.

 

[Vigilance]

I think the real problem with a lot of the current "retro recreations", like C&C, for me, is that the originals HAVENT GONE ANYWHERE.

If I'm in the mood for retro, why would I not just play 1e? Or if I'm in even more retro a mood, why not break out the Rules Compendium?

OSRIC isn't really a system. It's a vehicle to allow new 1e material to get out there via the SRD.

But C&C never grabbed me cause I don't need a new game to go old school.

 

[Turanil]

I'd just like some opinions and criticism. Do the rules (what's there so far, anyway) look like they work? Does it feel appropriately "OD&D"ish?

Some comments of mine:

1) I like the idea of Clerics being practioners of "white magic". However, names for practioners of "black magic" would sound better as Sorcerer (or Wizard) and Witch than Mage and Psychic.

2) BAB: if OD&Dish, I am in favor of only one attack per round at any level. Only Fighters should get additional attacks, one every two rounds at 7th level, and two per round at 13th level, no more, but otherwise weapon specialization (only available to them) brings an additional attack once every two rounds. Note that doing this will let you use monsters from AD&D 1e and C&C, which otherwise would be largely underpowered.

3) Spellcasting: this is unclear. Do I must understand that spellcasters cast the same way a d20 sorcerer casts? (even if they could know more spells).


Overall, this looks interesting, but there is too much text for me to read at length. As such, I can't discern if the classes are balanced or not.

 

[teitan]

How do you get it to work with OD&D progressions and 3e style multiclassing? How would the saves stack for example. I suppose you could use the C&C style of saving throw and combine the levels to determine saving throw bonuses but how do you handle the disparative requirements for experience points and level bumps?

Jason