D&D General Help Me Build the D&D Game I Want to Run

[Reynard]

Love these tools. I use them often.

Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.

I had a complete encounter generator for AD&D I wrote as a program a LONG time ago, but it won't run in Windows past XP.

In all this downtime, maybe I will recreate it in excel.

The problem with generating weather too far in advance is whether or not the PCs remain in the same sort of climate/terrain/etc.

 

[dave2008]

Competence without super heroism. (I LOVE super hero games, just not in my D&D)
Diversity of potential enemies (i.e. low level monsters are still viable and there's a chance against some of the scarier monsters).
Characters can be "important" without being world shaking.

Hmm. Everyone's threshold is different of course, I guess I feel lvl 1 5e characters are fairly competent. Of course I don't know how your house-rules play into that belief.

 

[Lanefan]

To cover it in that much detail you would need to curate the spell list of each class. Not something I would want to do, but could go a long way to get the feel your looking for.

I'd say that's an absolutely essential step: going through every spell in the game and deciding a) whether to keep it at all, b) what class(es) get it, c) at what level does each class get it (a given doesn't have to be the same level for each class), and d) whether it needs rewriting in any way to make it work like you want (e.g. were it me casting times would go back in for every spell).

After that, you'd want to look at the spell list for the system you're trying to emulate and see if any spells that have since come out of the game need to go back in.

And yes, this is very tedious, but it has to be done.

 

[Lanefan]

Weather feels like one of those things you can generate a year in advance. Barring a few powerful magical situations, nothing the players do is going to change it.

The PCs can change it on a whim simply by going somewhere different, particularly once they get access to fast long-range travel.

Weather can be vastly different even relatively close by. For example just yesterday we had very pleasant sun with a few clouds while Seattle - about 80 linear miles away - had thunder, hail and bursts of heavy rain.

I designed my own (over-complicated, of course!) weather tables a long time ago, all based on departures from normal for the area and time of year along with departure from what it was doing yesterday. With this, even if the party have teleport I can quickly figure out what the weather's doing when they arrive; and if they stay put for more than a day the weather follows reasonable day-to-day patterns.

 

[Psikerlord#]

So first, let me describe the game I want to run:

The aesthetic is relatively gritty and "realistic" in the sense that Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings or Abercrombie's worlds are: people need to eat, they get tired, wounds hurt and while fantastical elements exist and may even be prominent and powerful, they aren't common.

The play loop I want is a cycle of: wilderness exploration to the adventuring sight (moderate peril); exploration and problem solving at the adventuring site (high peril); return to the relative safety of civilization where character development and interaction with the world takes precedence (low peril). I use the term "peril" because I don't necessarily mean "deadliness" although that might be included; it is more about lasting negative consequences, from injury to disease to magic curses to losing what one cares about.

Although this main loop is episodic, it should support characters growing over time, discovering more, exploring farther and gaining competence, without necessarily significantly transforming over time (becoming superheroes).Long term stories should emerge from this sort of play and be largely informed by the interactions in civilization based on events that occurred out in the wild or in the dungeons.

Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe edition with the expanded exploration rules does exactly this, both mechanics wise and the adventures are written in this style - travel to site, adventure at site, return to base (see Midlands Low Magic Sandbox Setting for example, or pretty much any of the Adventure Frameworks).

The only issue would be about PCs not changing over time. It's level 1-12, although really 10+ is kind of retired level, but in any event a level 9 PC is very different and much, much stronger than a level 1. There is definitely a dnd style progression to LFG, and it is a "hp attrition" style game. In terms of deadliness it is something between B/X and 5e (at zero, Con check or dead, if not dead, roll on the Injuries & Setbacks table. Also all healing magic at zero hp takes 1d3 minutes instead of instant). PCs tend to accumulate persistent or permanent injuries over time.

 

[dave2008]

I'd say that's an absolutely essential step: going through every spell in the game and deciding a) whether to keep it at all, b) what class(es) get it, c) at what level does each class get it (a given doesn't have to be the same level for each class), and d) whether it needs rewriting in any way to make it work like you want (e.g. were it me casting times would go back in for every spell).

After that, you'd want to look at the spell list for the system you're trying to emulate and see if any spells that have since come out of the game need to go back in.

And yes, this is very tedious, but it has to be done.

I think it is good work, but it doesn't have to be done. In fact, I have never done it and I have had a great time with D&D for 30+ years. For instance, in a previous group the only magic user we had was a druid and in my current group the only magic user is a wizard. There is no need for me to think about any other class spells than wizards and druid. in those respective groups. And though I like the idea of a more specialized class spell list, I'm the DM and my players where fine with the way things are RAW. So we didn't change anything in that regard and it is working great. It may not be my preference, but I don't need to do everything I prefer.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it is good work, but it doesn't have to be done. In fact, I have never done it and I have had a great time with D&D for 30+ years. For instance, in a previous group the only magic user we had was a druid and in my current group the only magic user is a wizard. There is no need for me to think about any other class spells than wizards and druid. in those respective groups. And though I like the idea of a more specialized class spell list, I'm the DM and my players where fine with the way things are RAW. So we didn't change anything in that regard and it is working great. It may not be my preference, but I don't need to do everything I prefer.

Works for you.

I like to prepare for every class including those not currently being played, thus if-when one does get played I'm not scrambling. We'd long since redone the spells and put them in binders as the PH/UA write-ups were so often unclear or incomplete (or just said "look here instead").

Once we got our gaming website going I wanted to put the spells online to get away from the binders, and that forced me to do a to-the-floor rework of them as I was typing them all in longhand anyway and including our rulings etc. built up over the years.

Process took a couple of years, but now it'd done all I ever have to do is add any new rulings, add (or delete) spells as needed, and occasionally tweak anything that raises a problem.

And your current group has no Clerics and just one Wizard? What edition?

 

[Reynard]

So to switch gears a moment, let's say I decided to do it the other way and run AD&D 2E (along with BECMI it is my most formative edition) and add in a couple 5E and other house rules. What works and maintains the feel of 2e.

I would totally keep advantage/disadvantage. It just makes life so much easier from an adjudication standpoint,
I think 2E wizards and clerics need cantrips. Not necessarily combat ones, but magical powers that are just inherent and establish their magicality.
I want to do something for fighters to keep them interesting to play but don't know what.

Thoughts?

 

[Lanefan]

So to switch gears a moment, let's say I decided to do it the other way and run AD&D 2E (along with BECMI it is my most formative edition) and add in a couple 5E and other house rules. What works and maintains the feel of 2e.

I would totally keep advantage/disadvantage. It just makes life so much easier from an adjudication standpoint

If used in moderation, yes. 5e overuses it.

I think 2E wizards and clerics need cantrips. Not necessarily combat ones, but magical powers that are just inherent and establish their magicality.

Wizards yes, Clerics no; Clerics - particularly Druids - already have enough going for them.

I want to do something for fighters to keep them interesting to play but don't know what.

Maybe don't worry about it, and see if they get played anyway. (not all 'interesting' stuff comes from mechanics and numbers)

If after a good run-out you find they're not getting played, then revisit - maybe look at giving them (and only them) some feats or something to spice them up.