More Castles & Crusades details

[Walter_J]

Just a slight observation:

Roger Moore once wrote an editorial in Dragon Magazine (It was either him or Kim Mohan, but I'm inclined to say it was Roger). He discussed the revision of AD&D into a second edition of the game, and one of the topics in his editorial (concerning the "cleaning up and polishing" of the game) was whether AD&D's popularity was in spite of the errors, loopholes, cracks & stress marks, etc. - or in part BECAUSE of them. He recalled a business in his hometown that posted a HORRIBLE advertisement for its store - mismatched columns, poor layout, etc. all in preparation for a large sale. The ad did very well, and they figured when they ran it again, a corrected ad would attract even MORE people. They did, and sales dropped like a stone. It was the haphazard nature of the ad that promised a no-frills atmosphere, a store full of hidden bargains - almost like an "antique shop" atmosphere.

I wonder how much truth is in that editorial when I think about discussions of game balance, of good and poor design, of class/race combos too powerful, etc. In truth, a lot of people LIKE to tinker with their games, look for the loopholes, find the hidden combo that's a little better than the rest. So if there are "hidden" bonuses in playing an elf with odd ability scores, or if there is a class ability that's a bit more powerful, then that's OK. It's part of the charm that there are "hidden goodies" or an unsung advantage. Game balance still has its place, but only inasmuch as making sure that one concept or "combo" does not make the game boring for all the other players.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to get someone interested in a game because it has some hidden rewards.

I can believe that. One of the first times I DM'd AD&D for anyone other than the few people I had started gaming with (16+ years ago) , a few of the players wanted to invite over some gaming friends of their's from another part of town and start up a bigger game. I was all for it and gladly took on the role of DM. Wow, was that a learning experience. These new guys hit me with stuff from Dragon articles and bits and pieces from the rulebooks I had never heard of. I quickly decided that nothing outside of the hardbacks would be used. A few things, such as strength bows and a few other bits from the DMG, still made it in, however. Those new guys figured they had really one uped the DM (me) on power level and assumed they were on their way to becoming the most powerful PCs in the game. That lasted a session or two until they ran into my gnoll longbowman, with strength bows, of course, and an added "to hit" bonus I borrowed from troglodytes and their javelines.
Then there's the time a friend of mine convinced his DM, in a very subtle manner, that Dragons have spellbooks. Of course he was playing an MU at the time and they had just offed a dragon... I don't think the DM ever even realized he was being played like a fiddle.

 

[johnsemlak]

Just a slight observation:

Roger Moore once wrote an editorial in Dragon Magazine (It was either him or Kim Mohan, but I'm inclined to say it was Roger). He discussed the revision of AD&D into a second edition of the game, and one of the topics in his editorial (concerning the "cleaning up and polishing" of the game) was whether AD&D's popularity was in spite of the errors, loopholes, cracks & stress marks, etc. - or in part BECAUSE of them. He recalled a business in his hometown that posted a HORRIBLE advertisement for its store - mismatched columns, poor layout, etc. all in preparation for a large sale. The ad did very well, and they figured when they ran it again, a corrected ad would attract even MORE people. They did, and sales dropped like a stone. It was the haphazard nature of the ad that promised a no-frills atmosphere, a store full of hidden bargains - almost like an "antique shop" atmosphere.

I wonder how much truth is in that editorial when I think about discussions of game balance, of good and poor design, of class/race combos too powerful, etc. In truth, a lot of people LIKE to tinker with their games, look for the loopholes, find the hidden combo that's a little better than the rest. So if there are "hidden" bonuses in playing an elf with odd ability scores, or if there is a class ability that's a bit more powerful, then that's OK. It's part of the charm that there are "hidden goodies" or an unsung advantage. Game balance still has its place, but only inasmuch as making sure that one concept or "combo" does not make the game boring for all the other players.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to get someone interested in a game because it has some hidden rewards.

One point

The increase of options a la 3rd edition gives players more possible combinations which increases their chance of finding that special combination that gives their PC an edge.

 

[Ron]

That's interesting. that option never came up. h,mmmm

You're welcome. Perhaps I'm too lazy to find exactly how to join the playtest. Would you care to give some instructions?

Henry

all right, in a very general way, what is the perfect ranger? and I won't disagree because, as I noted, I don't think it is possible to 'get it right' - but I like it.

As part of my job, I spend a reasonable amount of the time in the wilds. Perhaps because of this, the ranger is my favorite class. The core concept of the ranger class is the fighting woodsman. Everything else is a bonus. That said, I'm not found of the spells in all version in which they appear, as they are hardly of any use. Also, I'm not found of the two weapon fighting thing. Although I can see the rangers as a powerful warrior, I have a hard time imagine him as a sophisticated one. While the fighter can spend his time improving his fighting techique, the ranger, with his broader range of acting, would have less time to improve his. Leave him without special combat effects, with the possible exception on weapons which are normally used for hunting, such as the bows.

One of the best versions I saw is the Woodsman (?) from The Wheel of Time RPG, as most class features are related to the core concept.

 

[Staffan]

I note that in Basic D&D, monsters were never given an intelligence score... until the Master set because there was a spell (Maze, I think) that required you to know it!

Hmm. I thought they had that as early as Basic, because charm person was also based on Intelligence (the smarter you were, the more often you got a new save). However, the Intelligence/Charm Person stuff only mentioned the Int scores of those creatures that were susceptible to Charm Person.

 

[MerricB]

Hmm. I thought they had that as early as Basic, because charm person was also based on Intelligence (the smarter you were, the more often you got a new save). However, the Intelligence/Charm Person stuff only mentioned the Int scores of those creatures that were susceptible to Charm Person.

True (I hadn't caught that before), however in Master they gave intelligence scores to every creature.

Cheers!

 

[cleaverthepit]

Monsters will not be statted except in the most generic of ways. For those that need stats to play, WotC has done a fine job available for free on the SRD or in any number of MM. Saves will differentiate.

We will be posting house rules - lots of them - on the website as it seems a lot of people are already houseruling some. This results from our 'baselining' everything. Sorta of a minimalist approach. We are going to create a whole section of the message boards to houseruling and pull out the best for PDF downloads.

The Ranger is an example of baselining. It is a woodsmen of great power. When designing it, we tried to get a hold on the various interpretation of rangers, distill them and relate them to the ranger as an archetype. Considering the military ranger as an extraordinarily dedicated, well trained soldier who goes in first and deep, strider and then robin hood or daniel boone. The underlying themes are fighting prowess and outdoorsman.So we could figure that in fairly easily. Then comes the difficult part, STRIDER.

Strider had somemagic about him so the ranger should also right. Hmmm, in my opinion no. Strider was Isuldur's heir, a numenorian, he was of a different type than the rest. His magic reside in his heritage rather than in his training. The better example of a ME ranger was Faramir - or so we decided in general (there was and still is disagreement). So we went with a baseline of good warrior and good outdoorsmen.

The final consideration was the mythoDnD ranger. The DnD ranger has taken on a literary and mythological life of its own such that it is an archetype. But, being the natureof a game with many variations, standardizing this archetype is difficult and IMHO,better left to later development. I imagine that an alternate ranger or two or three will show up within days of release.

'Exhumed Esoterica' I don't know, too close to 'Exhumation and Erotica', and smacks of necrophilia

In other news,as soon as I learn to put an image in this post, I will put up the lates rendition of the cover. Should anyone be interested.

 

[Particle_Man]

'Exhumed Esoterica' I don't know, too close to 'Exhumation and Erotica', and smacks of necrophilia

Well, going with the 'C' theme, what about "Creative Concatenations" (heck, that even sounds like something Gary Gygax would write). Or else, Creative Contributions, Creative Constructions, etc.

 

[Greatwyrm]

We are going to create a whole section of the message boards to houseruling and pull out the best for PDF downloads.

Maybe I'm easily impressed, but that sounds like a neat idea.

 

[Ron]

[...]The Ranger is an example of baselining. It is a woodsmen of great power. When designing it, we tried to get a hold on the various interpretation of rangers, distill them and relate them to the ranger as an archetype. Considering the military ranger as an extraordinarily dedicated, well trained soldier who goes in first and deep, strider and then robin hood or daniel boone. The underlying themes are fighting prowess and outdoorsman.So we could figure that in fairly easily. Then comes the difficult part, STRIDER.

Strider had somemagic about him so the ranger should also right. Hmmm, in my opinion no. Strider was Isuldur's heir, a numenorian, he was of a different type than the rest. His magic reside in his heritage rather than in his training. The better example of a ME ranger was Faramir - or so we decided in general (there was and still is disagreement). So we went with a baseline of good warrior and good outdoorsmen.[...]

It appears that I will very pleased with your version of my favorite class.

 

[Frostmarrow]

It appears that I will very pleased with your version of my favorite class.

Yes. I like it too. I just hope they will make the ranger useful whithin the confines of the game. Predicting weather, pass through briars and thorns unscathed, or getting a +2 to saves in an arctic environment, might be cool in the real world but in D&D such qualities aren't exactly up to par. No, I hope they go for combat skills and awareness. Rangers should know how to handle themselves in a fight - and sleep with one eye open. (They should also be dead eye shots).