Microlite20 : the smallest thing in gaming

kensanata said:
BTW that is another instance where thinking in terms of elegance and symmetry is a mistake: We could have listed more or less races – do I hear somebody asking for orcs? – and it would not have made much of a difference. Having four of them in the Core is just cute, not necessary.

I'm sure you have an argument to back this position up, but just telling someone their idea is cute and not necessary leaves us in the dark as to the content of that argument. It sounds like you were aiming for an insightful remark that cuts to the heart of the issue - but there just isn't enough explanation there to understand what you're getting at (apart from not liking the proposed suggestions). I could be mistaken, but I don't think that people who are trying to simplify D&D generally think elegance is a principle that should be rejected out of hand.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think there's some great suggestions here, but again, I had the impression that it's too late in the game for these kind of suggestions to make it into m20, which has already become its own beast, I think.
 


Conversion Examples

Hello folks. Congratulations on all of the work that you've done with m20. I've been following this thread for about a month and finally have some input.

Can anyone offer guidance on converting existing characters and monsters with full stat blocks for use in an m20 game? The wiki page d20 Conversion Example briefly covers the topic, but it seems written by and for more experienced DMs and isn't particularly helpful for those of us with less experience. In that example, the actual conversion isn't really discussed, it's just presented, so those of us who don't have a deep grasp of the game are left to guess as to why, say, INT was chosen for the MIND stat instead of WIS or, as discussed above, CHA.

Not to dwell on that example, but I guess what I'm getting around to is another vote for documentation of the game design decisions. I think that that documentation would be well served by several explanatory examples for PC, NPC and monster conversions. As a new DM, I don't yet have the insight to know how my judgment calls will affect the game balance. Or perhaps that's more telling of my `new DM-ness', that I'm more worried about game balance than actually just playing the game.

Thanks again for all of the great work!
 

rycanada said:
I think there's some great suggestions here, but again, I had the impression that it's too late in the game for these kind of suggestions to make it into m20, which has already become its own beast, I think.
Not everyone in this thread is necessarily trying to make m20 better specifically. This thread has become a refuge for all moderately d20 based rules reductions. And, for example, just because I post something incompatible with m20 (I continue to refer to the standard d20 6 abilities) doesn't mean someone couldn't lift it for use with m20's reduced number of abilities.

Likewise, there will eventually be a m20 2nd edition which I'm sure will polarize the m20 grognards* versus those who've only recently discovered m20. (Hopefully PirateCat doesn't ban me for starting an edition war. :) )

*defined as someone who's been playing m20 since October, of course.
 

For better or worse, 'wulf is sort of the benevolent dictator of the project, so I'm going to wait and see how he weighs in.
 

I think I should stop posting late at night. My last post did not come across as intended, and for that I am sorry. :(

Larcen said:
If you drop the base scores its still a simple matter to plug in stuff from other games. Just dont copy over the base scores, keep only the bonuses. And I am not sure what MIND has to do with this particular point, so...

Well, you are right when it comes to combat stats, and these do make up the bulk of it all. When reading d20 source material mentioning a poison or a spell that does ability damage, there's an additional step required for the GM. You dismiss this extra step:

Larcen said:
I am not seeing how all positive base scores affects the level increase rules, or the poison rules. They would continue to work fine just as they are. Backwards compatibility is an issue yes, but easily solved by adding +5 to all listed DCs. And all future modules for this game can be written to take that into consideration anyway.

I think that's where we differ. As little work as possible for DMs, and the use of lots of unchanged d20 material are my working assumptions. If we don't share these assumptions, then we'll probably reach different conclusions. Adding design notes which would include such assumptions made into the Macropedia would be a good first step.

In fact, we could have the Core rules with one set of assumptions, lots of option pages like we already have, and additional "Option Set" pages which list the options to use if you wanted to run a game with a different set of assumptions. Basically these option set pages could feature a copy of the M20 rules with the suggested changes already applied. We only have one page to start with, so it won't be much work. These could be considered variants or spin-offs or derived works (meaning: inspired by M20). The Macropedia provides us with a place to keep all this material together, which is a big plus, I think.

But back to what you wrote: I mentioned MIND in my comment to point one because there's a slight contradiction in what I'm saying: On the one hand I want it to be compatible with very fast conversion, but on the other hand we have only three abilities instead of six. So I felt I needed to illustrate that the drawback of not using the same number of abilities was not a problem. Basically I map CON to STR and WIS/INT/CHA to MIND, which is fast, and has not yet led to any problems. That's what I was trying to say.

Larcen said:
I am just looking at how I will go about selling this to old hands at my gaming table. "Ok, first we drop CON and WIS. CON is now HPs, and WIS is now, uh, YOU guys." […]

Haha! :) Good point. If your players want it, then you should give it to them. And somebody else already reintroduced CHA into their M20 game, so I bet it would be no problem at all to return back to six ability scores.

Larcen said:
Not fair to your players. Just like you can't expect most people to roleplay a 20 INT properly, you shouldn't ask an introverted player to roleplay a high CHA. For that matter, can a forceful and/or likeable roleplayer in your group use a 5 CHA character to convince a whole town to follow him? I would rather let the in-game stats do the work.....with the help of roleplaying.

Also a good point. Basically I've never had a player fail to roleplay bad ability scores. That's easy to do, in my experience. High ability scores are not a problem as long as they translate to dice rolls, eg. combat. That leaves two ability scores that are problematic when high in my experience: INT and CHA.

Here's how I think of CHA:

  • For leaders: If a village needs to be evacuated because of an impeding invasion, I either wing it, or my characters have a fake ability called Prestige that floats: It goes down if they abandon friends and betray allies, it goes up for honorable deeds. That would also work to determine the number of retainers, or their morale.
  • For cheaters: If trying to fasttalk a merchant into a deal, I find that a skill like Subterfuge works just as well. Basically for these situations I just need CHA or Subterfuge, but in M20, skills are basically the same as your level/HD, and fast-talking is something I see as getting better with every level – much faster than an ability increase on average. So I'm happy with Subterfuge, ergo I don't need CHA…

Basically this ties in with the last point about the usefulness of CHA:

Larcen said:
We use CHA all the time...pretty much everytime PC to NPC interaction happens where the PC wants somethign from the NPC. Look at all the skills that use CHA too. Also, using MIND to include CHA means you cant have a stupid charistmatic leader in M20...which is a shame since they seem to run rampant in real life. :D

I like the point about leaders in real life. :) I usually think that the ones we think of as charismatic but stupid are really just cunning bastards: Appealing to the masses by making foolish mistakes, but raking in the dough because they make sure their friends profit from the wars they start, from the mergers they support, and so on. At it's core, these people are playing dumb because that's the smart thing to do.

So yes, my games don't feature charismatic stupid people.

As for a substitute to roleplaying (shy players wanting to play charismatic leaders): I've never seen that in real life. I think that in real life, the player would be dominated by the others at the table anyway, to be honest. But should a situation arise where the player cannot roleplay something that his character would do, players simply tell me their intentions, and I provide the necessary results. That works for me.

High INT used to be problem. In the early days, players would complain about riddles in my game, and tell me that realistically, their INT 18 characters should have been able to solve it immediately. That's why my games no longer have such riddles. :)

Larcen said:
I still want to dodge fireballs with my DEX and use my STR to free myself from a Bigby's hand spell or a Web, not a D20 + level.

Well, the fireball and any hands spells trying to hit you are taken care of by using AC, I think, since that takes DEX bonus into account. As for a web, once it is created, I'd treat it like an ordinary web. How to free yourself from such a web is not in the rules, but I'd assume some sort of physical+STR vs DC 15 or 20.

Larcen said:
I agree that the spell HP cost can balance this out. I am just suggesting that this is a good way to throw the fighters (and possibly the rogue) a bone if research proves them weaker than desired.

Definitely something to keep in mind when looking at higher level fighters.

Again, sorry if I came across as overly negative.
 

rycanada said:
For better or worse, 'wulf is sort of the benevolent dictator of the project, so I'm going to wait and see how he weighs in.

Hey, who said I was benevolent? I never said I was benevolent! Shoot him! :D

As it stands with Microlite20, the Core Rules are designed to be the bare miniumum needed to be able to play the game and still be mostly d20 compliant. By all means, add anything you need to make the game better fit your needs, and share what you've done with the rest of us too. We like to know how you think, and might even steal your ideas too. Theft is good. Change stuff too if you want. Microlite20 is a jumping off point, so jump!

Think of it like this.

D&D is like a car (ok, it's more like an 18-wheeler with no brakes, but run with me on this one). Microlite20 is more like a bicycle. It's got two wheels, pedals, brakes and a seat, and that's all. If you want to add a basket, or change the size of the wheels, go ahead. It's yours :)

Bear in mind though that if you add an extra set of wheels, an engine, extra seats and luggage space, you've got a car again. Maybe a slightly different style car, but still a car.

Take stuff away from Microlite20 and you'll end up with a unicycle, and probably fall over unless you're very experienced. Ultramicrolite20 is the unicycle.

As a consequence there's no such thing as "not compatible" with Microlite20. If you want to add stats back in, go ahead. Change MIND to INT, Will or IQ if it suits your idea of the game better. Put BAB in if you like; I think the game plays just fine without it, but that's me. What do I know?

As an aside, we've playtested this thoroughly at all levels from 1st (actually, 0th, but that's another story) to 20th, and all the classes scale just fine, but not in the same way that D&D scales. I think that's a Good Thing, personally. A 20th Level Fighter will outstrip ANY character of equal level in melee combat in Microlite20. They get +5 to attack and damage to start with which likely gives them an extra attack each round above any other class. Add in their likely obscene STR stat from level advancement, and he's a total tank.

Here's a 20th level Dwarven Fighter, for example:

Derek "The Voice of the Mountain" Littlethorpe, Dwarf Fighter-20
STR 24 DEX 15 MIND 12
Phys +23, all others @ +20
HP 88, AC 18 (Plate + Shield)
Battle axe +37/+32/+27/+22/+17/+12/+7/+2 1d8+17

That's without magic items of any kind.

In comparison, here's an Elven Rogue-20

Aeiaeio Walker by Day, Elven Rogue-20
STR 15, DEX 24, MIND 12
Sub +23, all others @ +20
HP 80, AC 23 (Studded Leather)
Composite Longbow +32/+27/+22/+17/+12/+7/+2 1d8+2 (first attack: 1d8+25 if Sneak attack)
Paired shortswords +30/+30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5 1d6+2 (first attack: 1d6+25 if Sneak attack)

Again, sans magic items.

Wow. A system where I can create 20th level characters in my head! Just how cool is that??!!

Dunno what you think, but I'd say those two would be a fair fight for each other. The elf would likely get the drop on the Dwarf and pepper him with arrows taking (say) three-quarter of his HP before the Dwarf acts like a blender and chews the Elf up in a dervish of blood and guts. He'd get at least 5 hits on the Elf easily in one round (probably more) doing an average of 21hp damage each. That's over a 100hp damage. Take off Derek's shield and give him a two-handed waraxe (x2 STR damage). Ouch.

Of course, in another situation (ambush!), the Elf would win before the Dwarf so much as lifted his axe.

OK, it' might not be perfect, but it's balanced enough for me. Just like a bicycle.

The same holds true with spellcasters. At high levels they're lethal, but their likely rapidly decreasing HP means they are VERY vulnerable in a fight. Just as it should be, regardless of level.

In unrelated news: I've posted up my New Gods Campaign Setting which provides a D&D-style backdrop that's just a bit different to your usual fayre. Enjoy.

Oh, and I'm still ploughing on with the Big Shiny pdf. It's up to 26 pages, has all the Combat House Rules, Mass Combat, information about making your own campaign setting, the New Gods above (as I was working on that at the same time so it was an easy copy-and-paste) and more. The table still need dropping in, and I need to pull in everything from the adventures, other campaign settings, magic, etc. It's about a third of the way there, I'd guess.

And I promise.... promise.... that there'll be Design Considerations there so you can understand how this dictator thinks. I'll post them in the Macropedia too, ok?

Benevolent? Pah.

EDIT: A system where I can create 20th level characters in my head and get the math wrong! Just how dumbass is that??!! Fixed now. That'll teach me to add up without caffeine.
 
Last edited:

It occurs to me that if we were all put into a locked room and told to come up with one set of relatively agreed upon rpg rules we would probably all end up in a giant brawl or worse. I would like to have been a fly on the wall when the guys came up with Chainmail.


Pilsnerquest
 

greywulf said:
Hey, who said I was benevolent? I never said I was benevolent! Shoot him! :D
Here's a 20th level Dwarven Fighter, for example:

Derek "The Voice of the Mountain" Littlethorpe, Dwarf Fighter-20
STR 24 DEX 15 MIND 12
Phys +23, all others @ +20
HP 88, AC 18 (Plate + Shield)
Battle axe +37/+32/+27/+22/+17/+12/+7/+2 1d8+17

That's without magic items of any kind.

In comparison, here's an Elven Rogue-20

Aeiaeio Walker by Day, Elven Rogue-20
STR 15, DEX 24, MIND 12
Sub +23, all others @ +20
HP 80, AC 23 (Studded Leather)
Composite Longbow +22/+17/+12/+7/+2 1d8+2 (first attack: 1d8+25 if Sneak attack)
Paired shortswords +20/+20/+15/+10/+5 1d6+2 (first attack: 1d6+25 if Sneak attack)

Again, sans magic items.

Wow. A system where I can create 20th level characters in my head! Just how cool is that??!!

Dunno what you think, but I'd say those two would be a fair fight for each other. The elf would likely get the drop on the Dwarf and pepper him with arrows taking (say) three-quarter of his HP before the Dwarf acts like a blender and chews the Elf up in a dervish of blood and guts. He'd get at least 5 hits on the Elf easily in one round (probably more) doing an average of 21hp damage each. That's over a 100hp damage. Take off Derek's shield and give him a two-handed waraxe (x2 STR damage). Ouch.

Of course, in another situation (ambush!), the Elf would win before the Dwarf so much as lifted his axe.

OK, it' might not be perfect, but it's balanced enough for me. Just like a bicycle.

Benevolent? Pah.

My concern is that either way, combat is only lasting 1 round. While I hate d20 combat of 200 rounds and 6 full gamings sessions of rolling dice to complete just 1 combat...I want it to last more than a round.
With only 1d6 HP, and a level 20 guy having only about 80 HP, but doing 100+/rd, it seems like whoever wins init is (almost) always going to be the winner.
Scary thought.
 

Remove ads

Top