Idea: Old School style, new kids mechanics

[Zelkon]

I've been working on an idea for a game system that feels old skool but uses modern mechanics. I'm not just talking Castles and Crusades here, I'm talking full-fleged feat systems, spell points, scene based abilities, and manuvers and stuff for fighters and non-random character generation. Basicly, old D&D with all the stuff to love about today's games. I'm a new gamer myself, so this is somewhat of a passion for me. Anyone on board? Have any ideas?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I've been working on an idea for a game system that feels old skool but uses modern mechanics. I'm not just talking Castles and Crusades here, I'm talking full-fleged feat systems, spell points, scene based abilities, and manuvers and stuff for fighters and non-random character generation. Basicly, old D&D with all the stuff to love about today's games. I'm a new gamer myself, so this is somewhat of a passion for me. Anyone on board? Have any ideas?

I think this is a great idea, and would love to help.

Actually, do you want to share a google doc where we could write this? I have time.

[Zelkon]

I think this is a great idea, and would love to help.

Actually, do you want to share a google doc where we could write this? I have time.

I'd probably be a good idea. With the Holidays coming, my time is increased exponentially.

[Mistwing]

Ohoho. I love this project idea. It's something that's been a long way coming. There's too many extreme's one way or the others. Count me in if there's anything I can do to help.

In general I imagine it'll be about using a system similar to the old but with specifications and process rules from modern standard? It might turn out far less simple than it sounds.

[Zelkon]

Ohoho. I love this project idea. It's something that's been a long way coming. There's too many extreme's one way or the others. Count me in if there's anything I can do to help.

In general I imagine it'll be about using a system similar to the old but with specifications and process rules from modern standard? It might turn out far less simple than it sounds.

We'll be basicly using modern mechanics and concepts mixed with the dungeon- crawling, loose approach. We'll take infamous design concepts and fix em up to modern standards, and in the end, hopefully we can have a Gygaxian that's not a clone and is balanced quite well but still has great "we'll tell stories about this". For example, we remove alignment restrictions, but hevily ingrain it into the system. We'll mix initiative, morale, etc together. Hopefully it'll offer a nice Segway between TSR and WotC players.i admit, it'll be hard to do.

[Amechra]

Tell me, how lethal will the traps be?

Because it won't have old school style unless the trap rules are loose, lethal, and rather unfair to the players.

Also, one thing that has to be maintained to keep Old-School Flair; you have to be able to roll up characters in about 15 minutes; I would actually suggest having it so that low level characters who haven't proved themselves pick from broad templates (so if you want a tough survivalist, you could roll up a Ranger class with the Wildman template, which gives you skill adjustments, a couple feat-like abilities, and so on and so forth.)

And then, once they get to higher levels... bam, they get actual options.

I can help a bit; I'll chime in from time to time, given that I'm going everywhere this break.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Have you heard of Old Schook Hack (http://http://www.oldschoolhack.net) by any chance? You may want to just tweak that game to your preferences instead of making one from scratch, because I'm pretty sure that this...


I'm talking full-fleged feat systems, spell points, scene based abilities, and manuvers and stuff for fighters and non-random character generation. Basicly, old D&D with all the stuff to love about today's games.

...is OSH on the dot. Just maybe not quite as detailed.

[Zelkon]

Have you heard of Old Schook Hack (http://http://www.oldschoolhack.net) by any chance? You may want to just tweak that game to your preferences instead of making one from scratch, because I'm pretty sure that this...



...is OSH on the dot. Just maybe not quite as detailed.

I took a look. Fun read, but not exactly what I'm looking for. I'll probably steal some stuff.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I do request that alignments are VERY optional, and not mechanically reinforced. I personally hate them.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Just some notes.

Design Goals:

Game with new-school options and structure, but old-school simplicity and free-flowing action.
Retro feel, with modern quality control.


Structure:

Presumably based on the d20 SRD.
The traditional six ability scores?
Races, classes, prestige classes, feats, and skills.
Hopefully a wide selection of feats.
Hopefully some optional mechanic similar to the healing surges of D&D Fourth Edition.
Encounter and Daily powers.
I insist on Bounded Accuracy (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604).


Development:

Lets all aim to write 1,000 words a day.



I also made a document. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KAey4doIUC7ObjaZDtABiswb3v2EnyvlJVcY7PNGzis/edit)

[Amechra]

Fun fact: Bounded Accuracy is essentially what THAC0 achieved.

Why?

Because you could be facing monsters with AC 5, say, for your entire career.

I do say that, to keep old-school feel, we can't have healing surges. One of the points of old school crawlin' was that it was lethal as hell; seriously, go pick up a copy of an old TSR module. Count the number of ways that you can die.

You were supposed to survive through guile and skill, rather than because you could refill your HP easily.

We also have to be careful about the Encounterly/Daily powers thing; while we probably will have them, we might want to hide 'em a bit. Also, if we do have Vancian magic, we should have it actually be Vancian (more like Binding than traditional "Vancian" magic, really.)

Really, what we should do before we throw ourselves into this is explain exactly what we mean by "old-style". Because that summons up, for me, hyper lethal dungeon crawling, where low level characters are expendable, and higher level characters are tough enough that they can take on the GODS!

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Fun fact: Bounded Accuracy is essentially what THAC0 achieved.

Why?

Because you could be facing monsters with AC 5, say, for your entire career.

I do say that, to keep old-school feel, we can't have healing surges. One of the points of old school crawlin' was that it was lethal as hell; seriously, go pick up a copy of an old TSR module. Count the number of ways that you can die.

You were supposed to survive through guile and skill, rather than because you could refill your HP easily.

We also have to be careful about the Encounterly/Daily powers thing; while we probably will have them, we might want to hide 'em a bit. Also, if we do have Vancian magic, we should have it actually be Vancian (more like Binding than traditional "Vancian" magic, really.)

Really, what we should do before we throw ourselves into this is explain exactly what we mean by "old-style". Because that summons up, for me, hyper lethal dungeon crawling, where low level characters are expendable, and higher level characters are tough enough that they can take on the GODS!

Healing surges (probably called "vitality points") would be optional. Probably listed as an optional rule in a sidebar. I would want lots of optional rules.

[Yora]

First thing should be pinning down what old-school D&D is and what makes other games stop being old-school.

[Zelkon]

I really am going to insist that bounded accuracy be loose. I'd really like heroes to gain some numerical bonuses over the course of their career. I don't like relying on HP for scaling, especially with a focus on improv.

[Amechra]

I concur.

As I said earlier, old school style games are:


Lethal: They tend to have you dying in traps, and monsters are fully capable of killing a party in a few seconds.
Easy to Build Characters In: This is pretty much the reason for the above; it only takes about 15 minutes to roll up a character, which is why I suggested that starting characters don't actually get access to many options. Since characters are quick and easy to make, you at least don't have the barrier of "it takes over 2 hours to make a decent character" that some modern games have.
Large Amounts of Integration Between the Players and the World: In AD&D, once you exceeded a certain level, BAM! Your Thief was the head of the Thieves' Guild! Your Fighter had his own personal army! Your Wizard got their own tower! Druids actually had to duel other Druids to become Archdruid (i.e., to hit level 20.) Some modern games don't have this level of "you aren't just getting better at swingin' that sword, you know."
Alternate Ways of Accumulating Experience: Not unique to old-school games, but in AD&D, you got experience for how much gold you brought back to town. That is why the stereotype for an adventurer includes "greedy bastard."
Tables! Tables GALORE!: There was a table for anything; you want to see something funny? Here's the random table for Tiefling racial traits from 2e. (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~leirbakk/rpg/adnd/races/adnd_races_planescaperaceslist.html) It's not as bad as some tables, like a couple where you roll to, you know, find out the verdict in the courtroom, with a dozen modifiers and such, but it's still an example of how many freakin' tables are necessary!

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I really am going to insist that bounded accuracy be loose. I'd really like heroes to gain some numerical bonuses over the course of their career. I don't like relying on HP for scaling, especially with a focus on improv.

Okay. But DCs, AC, skills, saving throws, and attacks should scale very slowly.


I concur.

As I said earlier, old school style games are:


Lethal: They tend to have you dying in traps, and monsters are fully capable of killing a party in a few seconds.
Easy to Build Characters In: This is pretty much the reason for the above; it only takes about 15 minutes to roll up a character, which is why I suggested that starting characters don't actually get access to many options. Since characters are quick and easy to make, you at least don't have the barrier of "it takes over 2 hours to make a decent character" that some modern games have.
Large Amounts of Integration Between the Players and the World: In AD&D, once you exceeded a certain level, BAM! Your Thief was the head of the Thieves' Guild! Your Fighter had his own personal army! Your Wizard got their own tower! Druids actually had to duel other Druids to become Archdruid (i.e., to hit level 20.) Some modern games don't have this level of "you aren't just getting better at swingin' that sword, you know."
Alternate Ways of Accumulating Experience: Not unique to old-school games, but in AD&D, you got experience for how much gold you brought back to town. That is why the stereotype for an adventurer includes "greedy bastard."
Tables! Tables GALORE!: There was a table for anything; you want to see something funny? Here's the random table for Tiefling racial traits from 2e. (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~leirbakk/rpg/adnd/races/adnd_races_planescaperaceslist.html) It's not as bad as some tables, like a couple where you roll to, you know, find out the verdict in the courtroom, with a dozen modifiers and such, but it's still an example of how many freakin' tables are necessary!


In order.

With optional reduced lethality.
Yes.
NO! This should be setting and game specific, and determined by the GM. Having this being automatic is bad news. At least by default.
Not sure about this.
Yes.

[Amechra]

The problem is, 3 is pretty damn vital to the feel of older games; I would suggest the following:

A. Balance the classes with and without taking into account that kind of stuff; that way, you can choose to use it or not depending on your setting.

B. Have them do what they were always supposed to do, and have the players work for them (I misspoke when I said "automatic"; I meant that, by the time you hit 10th level, you should be at the point where, in game, any Lord you've pledged yourself to would hand off a castle.) Because, quite frankly, half the feel of advancement in 1e was going from being an Acolyte to a mighty High Priest; it feels more special than going from 1st to 10th levels.

So, in other words, just make it explicit in the game text that, at about this level, you are one of the strongest mofos around, and people should be giving you RESPECT!

Also, we are going to number our Demon types, right?

I actually kinda prefer referring to a "Type VII" demon, now that I think of it...

[UserClone]

I'm just saying. (http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html)

[Zelkon]

I'm just saying. (http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html)

That's actually really helpful, although the writer doesn't really understand how modern games work, unless he's just REALLY exaggerating. The wheels are spinning inside my head. I think we could go with a dice pool mechanic, which is a combination between the "I do this, what do I roll?" and the "I roll this. What do I do?" I was thinking that the more trained a character is, the more dice you roll, but player skill determines what kind of dice and what chance you have. Too complex? Not old school?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

That's actually really helpful, although the writer doesn't really understand how modern games work, unless he's just REALLY exaggerating. The wheels are spinning inside my head. I think we could go with a dice pool mechanic, which is a combination between the "I do this, what do I roll?" and the "I roll this. What do I do?" I was thinking that the more trained a character is, the more dice you roll, but player skill determines what kind of dice and what chance you have. Too complex? Not old school?

Not d20.

:(

[Zelkon]

Not d20.

:(

Well, yeah, but die-pool is more new school than d20 by like, a good number of years, and helps maintain old-school flavor better if it works right.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Well, yeah, but die-pool is more new school than d20 by like, a good number of years, and helps maintain old-school flavor better if it works right.

Okay. I'm open to the idea, but skeptical.

[Zelkon]

Anyone have any ideas for names? It should be something like "blank & blank," IMO.

[Durksmurf]

Ooh, Ooh, I want to help!

I think we need an action point system like 4e, but with them coming as rewards from the DM

Also buff up circumstance bonus's (Boni? Bonuss? Bonuus?)

[Zelkon]

Ooh, Ooh, I want to help!

I think we need an action point system like 4e, but with them coming as rewards from the DM

Also buff up circumstance bonus's (Boni? Bonuss? Bonuus?)

I think an action point system would work well for the kind of augmented improv I'm thinking of.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Okay. I'm open to the idea, but skeptical.
If it helps any, remember that oWoD hails from the 90s; not quite as old-school as AD&D, but still relatively old-school, seeing as that's 20 years ago. And those systems used a dice pool mechanic.

RE: the action point thing, I think it'd be cool to give some of that power to the players, as in Old School Hack and also Tenra Bansho Zero (fantasy romp from Japan, came out in 1997). When you see another player doing something awesome, you can reward them. It takes pressure off the DM, and also helps to avoid the favoritism problem (or even the mere seeming of said problem).

[Durksmurf]

Lots and lots of weapons. There should lots of weapons. If I remember
AD&D had different weapon stats for a trident and a three pronged spear.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Lots and lots of weapons. There should lots of weapons. If I remember
AD&D had different weapon stats for a trident and a three pronged spear.

Perhaps we could have a few weapon templates with names like "one-handed sword" and "crossbow", and then offer tons of customization.

[Durksmurf]

Perhaps we could have a few weapon templates with names like "one-handed sword" and "crossbow", and then offer tons of customization.

Hmm I think I understand. Mind making an example here or on the google doc?

[Zelkon]

Hmm I think I understand. Mind making an example here or on the google doc?

If I understand correctly, it's basically, "Ok, here's a crossbow. It does *this*. Now, it can also do this, this or this, and can do this if you swap this out." With "this" replacing weapon properties.
What are we doing for weapon speed, which, if I am not mistaken, was around well into the 2e era?

[Pyromancer999]

Sort of sounds like Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com) covers what you're looking for, sort of.

[Amechra]

... Legend is absolute crap for giving an old school vibe.

The system is way too kind to the players. And the out of combat stuff doesn't feel related to the in-combat stuff.

It's... weird.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

If I understand correctly, it's basically, "Ok, here's a crossbow. It does *this*. Now, it can also do this, this or this, and can do this if you swap this out." With "this" replacing weapon properties.
What are we doing for weapon speed, which, if I am not mistaken, was around well into the 2e era?

Basically, yeah.

Also, please no weapon speed. I hate it.

[Zelkon]

Sort of sounds like Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com) covers what you're looking for, sort of.

I honestly hope you're kidding. Legend is a fine system, but in no way does it fufill any of our design goals, inluding being the least bit old school.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Interesting idea here, although there isn't anywhere near enough to bite into to see whether or not it is heading in a cool direction. I'll be keeping an eye on this.

[Zelkon]

Ok, just saw the sample character on the document.
What's up with multiclassing? I don't think doing it 3e style is the answer.
Vitality absolutely must do more than healing.
Saves are done in the traditional way, not For, Ref, Will. This is a must
We don't call them feats. We have bonuses able to be gained in a similar way, but in no ways are they feats. The don't resemble feats even.
Silver standard is required.
Mighty deeds sounds fun, though it's looking to be like expertise dice...

[TopCheese]

Basically, yeah.

Also, please no weapon speed. I hate it.

I like the ideas you guys are throwing around, I wanted to add a couple things.

Initiative: 1/combat BUT make the roll a d8. This cuts down on the randomness that has caused rogues and other dex based characters to go last. My heavy armored cleric shouldn't be able to react faster than the party rogue *every time* for a year. (In game experience)

On the subject of weapon speed... It makes more sense that a dagger is easier to attack with and faster than a greatsword.

How about a flat bonus of..

Light Weapons +3 Initiative
One handed weapons: + 1 Initiative
Two handed weapons: +0 Initiative

This would be a basic rule with exceptions such spears which are easier to use and pretty quick.

I have a question though, will you use different exp tables for different classes? One of the cool things about older D&D was that the fighter grew faster than the mage even if the mage became a super power later.. The Fighter was already a Baron and didn't care for adventuering haha.

Also there should be rules for giving awards that are titles, land, medals, and other world connecting but not make a player retire a character because they hit X level.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

What's up with multiclassing? I don't think doing it 3e style is the answer.
Out of curiosity, why not? 3e style, while it had its many faults, WAS easy to understand and easy to implement. Alternatively, what would your suggestion be?


Vitality absolutely must do more than healing.
I almost feel like it should just be cut. If you're aiming for high-lethality old-school games here, don't give the PCs a way to heal themselves without resorting to the friendly neighborhood cleric and/or consumable items. If I were to use any sort of Vitality mechanic in a system like this, it would probably be switched to something that gives bonuses to defenses for a round, so you can MAYBE avoid damage, but there's no way you can head up again. I'd be even more inclined to just cut it completely.
\


Saves are done in the traditional way, not For, Ref, Will. This is a must.
Saves done the traditional way adds more complexity and table-checking than I think you really want to do though. AD&D's method was...clunky, to say the least. The modern Fort/Ref/Will split is much more elegant, and I've recommend using something at least a bit similar to that, as it requires far less table work, and speed of both character creation and play will increase as a result of using a simpler system. Personally, that's a bit of the old-school I wouldn't mind losing, as I don't think the saves table was particularly important in capturing the old-school feel and, although tables were common in old-school games, I feel you should be selective in your use of them since you're aiming for an old-school feel with new kid mechanics. Revise the save system: don't use the old, clunky one.


We don't call them feats. We have bonuses able to be gained in a similar way, but in no ways are they feats. The don't resemble feats even.
Fair enough. Pick a name. :smallbiggrin:


Silver standard is required.
Gold standard was one of the dumbest things ever to hit D&D. Average worker makes 1sp a day, yet prices are in gold? Yeah...because I like saving up a week's worth of work to buy a tea kettle. That's realistic. :smalltongue:


Mighty deeds sounds fun, though it's looking to be like expertise dice...
That was my thought as well, although there are some improvisational systems that include something like a Deeds Die, that is rolled when attempting something extraordinary. 4+ tends to make said action successful, although that seems a little more free-form than what you had intended this system to be.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Ok, just saw the sample character on the document.
What's up with multiclassing? I don't think doing it 3e style is the answer.
Vitality absolutely must do more than healing.
Saves are done in the traditional way, not For, Ref, Will. This is a must
We don't call them feats. We have bonuses able to be gained in a similar way, but in no ways are they feats. The don't resemble feats even.
Silver standard is required.
Mighty deeds sounds fun, though it's looking to be like expertise dice...

What's wrong with Fort, Ref and Will saves? I like those.

Why not 3e-style multitasking? Its a great idea that just needs to polishing.

Fair enough about feats.

Mighty deeds is lifted directly from Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG.

What would vitality do?

[Zelkon]

What's wrong with Fort, Ref and Will saves? I like those.

Why not 3e-style multitasking? Its a great idea that just needs to polishing.

Fair enough about feats.

Mighty deeds is lifted directly from Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG.

What would vitality do?

You're more easy to quote than DiT, so I'll reply to you. Look, I'd love to make a 3.5 heartbreaker. In fact, I already have plans laid for one. However, 4e defenses are actually much more old school than 3.5 saves. 3.5 multiclassing was basically the herald of the modern age. A much more old school approach is 4e hybrids, which gets the flavor of dual progression while not requiring more XP to balance. So far, I see a mishmash of all D&D, which isn't even a good way to build an "all editions" heartbreaker.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

You're more easy to quote than DiT, so I'll reply to you. Look, I'd love to make a 3.5 heartbreaker. In fact, I already have plans laid for one. However, 4e defenses are actually much more old school than 3.5 saves. 3.5 multiclassing was basically the herald of the modern age. A much more old school approach is 4e hybrids, which gets the flavor of dual progression while not requiring more XP to balance. So far, I see a mishmash of all D&D, which isn't even a good way to build an "all editions" heartbreaker.

Why be old school in letter, when you could be old school in spirit? Wouldn't it be better to use new school mechanics that have been tested to be efficient, inside a more old school framework? This is what you said we should do earlier.

Also, 4e defences are not more old school than 3.5 saves. They may appear so at first glance, but in practice, they are arguably less so.

Why isn't a mishmash of all D&D a good way to build an "all editions" heart-breaker? It sounds like the ideal way.

You didn't answer my question about vitality.

[Zelkon]

Why be old school in letter, when you could be old school in spirit? Wouldn't it be better to use new school mechanics that have been tested to be efficient, inside a more old school framework? This is what you said we should do earlier.

Also, 4e defences are not more old school than 3.5 saves. They may appear so at first glance, but in practice, they are arguably less so.

Why isn't a mishmash of all D&D a good way to build an "all editions" heart-breaker? It sounds like the ideal way.

You didn't answer my question about vitality.

Because it's not old school in spirit when you're just porting over mechanics. The thing about an old school game is it's all about feel. That's not using another edition's framework, that's using another edition's mechanics. 4e's defense system is undoubtedly different from but unmistakably similar to BECMI's style of saves.
As for why a mishmash isn't good, just look at DDN without any of the good, new parts.
Vitality, I don't know. I really think it loses the old school style.

[Durksmurf]

I think hybrid style has better old school feel. I dont know about defenses and saves, it could go either way.