Castles & Crusades: Save Redux

In C&C, all class abilities and saving throws are resolved with Siege: A stat-based saving-throw and class ability/skill mechanic.

Of your core stats: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, two are primes and the rest are secondaries (there's an option for tertiaries as well; also of note, humans start with three primes). Primes start at 12, secondaries start at 18 (with tertiaries it is 12, 15, 18, a better option in my opinion). These are target numbers -- like classic saving throws.

To make a Siege check, you add your level and your stat bonus to a d20 roll to meet/beat that Siege target number. Further, that target number will probably be modified by the level of the threat, such as saving against a spell cast by a 7th level wizard or disarming a trap set by a 10th level NPC. In many ways, that's logical, but, as you gain levels, you will have to face tougher threats, which leads to the following reality: The more levels you gain, the more skilled you become...and...the more challenging the traps, spells, and locks also become, so... are you really improving? Sure, if you encounter a 1st-level trap, but, this has been a problem since 3rd edition.

The beauty of older systems, with regard to class abilities, is that you actually got better at what you did without the fear of encountering more complicated obstacles. Locks were locks, poison was poison, spells were spells, and traps were traps. Period. Sure, you would occasionally encounter some kind of modifier, e.g., save at -4 against this or that, but that was kind of rare. It was good to know that if you had a 70% chance to disarm a trap... you had a 70% chance to disarm a trap.

Now, I don't want to bash C&C (as I like the game) but Siege can break down, making your base primes unstoppable by around 7-9th level, practically mandating more complex obstacles.

Example: 8th level thief, 18 dex (+3) -- prime (12). That's +11 (level 8, + 3 for dex) to your d20 roll, in essence, the base target number becomes 1 (12 - 8 - 3 = 1) Unless this thief (rogue) meets more complex threats, all successes are automatic, unless you count a natural 1 as an auto-fail. Now the GM, must, to keep things interesting, assign an almost arbitrary difficulty level to your roll. "Oh btw,  that lock was built by a 15th level locksmith!" 

Yeah, no.

Another thing, I know it sounds logical that higher level wizards cast tougher spells, but better saving-throws as you leveled up was a specific counter-weight to the powerhouses that high level wizards became.

• Palladium Fantasy handles this fairly well, with wizards gradually becoming better at casting; their spell's save number improves by 1 every 3 or 4 levels of experience.

And also, should higher level wizards cast tougher spells in a game where each spell is a specific magical formula designed for a specific purpose (Vancian!) regardless of the spell-caster's experience? -- But that's a whole separate topic, because... D&D is actually quasi-Vancian; some spells do in fact scale with caster level. Otherwise, you'd have a 1d6 fireball spell, a 2d6 fireball spell, a 3d6 fireball spell, and so on.

Also, I'm a fan of the notion that if a thief makes his stealth roll, whether moving silently or hiding in shadows, then he succeeds, period. No perception checks. The thief's failure IS the perception check.

And so, here is my Save Redux for C&C (and any version of the game really)...

A more standard saving-throw/ability-check system. The target numbers start the same: Primes: 12, Secondaries: 15, Tertiaries: 18. Subtract any ability modifiers. And those are your fixed saves. These saves improve by 1 every 3 levels. Except for rare circumstances, your roll is NOT affected by caster-level, monster level, or artificially inflated locks/trap levels, etc. See below...

•  0 at levels 1-3
• -1 at levels 4-6
• -2 at levels 7-9
• -3 at levels 10-12
• -4 at levels 13-15
• -5 at levels 16-18
• -6 at levels 19-21
• -7 at levels 22-24

Your Save numbers are frozen at 24th level (and no save can ever go below 2) never to improve (unless your core stats improve, maybe). For any progression beyond this (such as an Immortal system I've fiddled around with for levels 25-36) you would roll with advantage (if for some reason you don't know what advantage is, it's rolling 2d20 and keeping the best result).

We'll use a rogue as an example since they use Siege more than any other class (with comparisons to AD&D saves): 

1st level human rogue...

                                                        New Siege Save                    AD&D

• Str:   12          Tertiary               Siege: 18                  Poison/Death:  13
• Dex: 18 (+3)  Prime                  Siege:   9                  Paralyze/Poly: 12
• Con: 13 (+1)  Secondary           Siege: 14              Rod/Staff/Wand: 14
• Int:   12          Prime                  Siege: 12                             Breath:  16
• Wis:   9          Prime                  Siege: 12                                Spell:  15
• Cha: 14 (+1)  Secondary           Siege: 14

                                                          Average: 13.1                      Average: 14

At 13th level, he looks like this:

• Str:   12          Tertiary               Siege: 14                  Poison/Death:  10
• Dex: 18 (+3)  Prime                  Siege:   5                  Paralyze/Poly:   9 
• Con: 13 (+1)  Secondary           Siege: 10              Rod/Staff/Wand:   8
• Int:   12          Prime                  Siege:   8                             Breath:  13
• Wis:   9          Prime                  Siege:   8                                Spell:   9
• Cha: 14 (+1)  Secondary           Siege: 10

                                                         Average: 9.166                      Average: 9.8

At 24th level, good for sure, but still vulnerable...

• Str:   12          Tertiary               Siege: 11                 Poison/Death:    8
• Dex: 18 (+3)  Prime                  Siege:   2                Paralyze/Poly:    7
• Con: 13 (+1)  Secondary           Siege:   7            Rod/Staff/Wand:    4
• Int:   12          Prime                  Siege:   5                            Breath:  11
• Wis:   9          Prime                  Siege:   5                               Spell:   5
• Cha: 14 (+1)  Secondary           Siege:   7

                                                        Average: 6.166                      Average: 7

Now keep in mind, C&C's saving throws categories are linked to core stats as follows (with some spells affecting different stats):

• Str:    Paralysis, Constriction
• Dex:  Breath Weapon, Traps
• Con:  Disease, Energy Drain, Poison
• Int:    Arcane Magic, Illusion
• Wis:  Divine Magic, Confusion, Gaze, Polymorph, Petrification
• Cha:  Death, Charm, Fear

(I have reworked these saves to my fit own logic, including shifting death saves to your best save and I also reassigned lock-picking and trap-removal to Intelligence; Dex is for avoiding sprung traps). My version with Death being your best save...

• Str:    Paralysis, Constriction
• Dex:  Breath Weapon, Traps
• Con:  Disease, Energy Drain, Poison, Polymorph
• Int:    Arcane Magic, Illusion & Confusion, Lock-Picking, Trap Finding/Removal, Searching
• Wis:  Divine Magic, Fear, Gaze, Petrification
• Cha:  Charm, Loyalty, Morale

C&C gives options for alternate stat bonuses, such as the more modern ones started in 3rd edition. These would only change some numbers by 1.

The above rogue is only slightly better than his AD&D counterpart because of stat bonuses, which other than wisdom, are not applied to saves in AD&D. Your typical fighter would be slightly worse off in Save Redux.

Under Save Redux™ (which can actually be applied to any version of the game) if you want to attempt something that falls under the jurisdiction of another class, like thief abilities, tracking, and other non-mystical stuff, treat all stats like tertiary stats with zero level adjustment; stat bonuses do apply though, so: 18 minus stat bonus. Also, it gets one point harder with every attempt. So a fighter with a +1 Dex bonus (I prefer Int here, but whatever) trying to pick a lock would have to roll a 17+ no matter what his level is. And if he fails, his next attempt is 18+, and if he fails again and tries again, 19+... that would be 30 minutes (3 turns) wasted, and at least one wandering monster check.; (C&C doesn't use "turns" but you probably do). And you could rule that once you hit 20, it ain't gonna happen.

And speaking of monsters...

In C&C, monsters have two saves, physical and mental; one or both can be primary (secondary takes the slot of tertiary). So, that would be 12 or 18 adjusted by the level chart above. Examples...

• Gargoyle (5HD): P:11, M:17
• Young Adult-Adult Green Dragons (10-12HD): P:9, M:9
• Titan (17HD): P:7, M:7
• Goblin (1HD): P:12, M:18

Monsters are slightly more vulnerable under Save Redux™, however, percentage-wise, they're not too far off from AD&D 1st edition.

Now just for fun, I'll take it further and give monsters three saves because a lumbering beast can have loads of fortitude but no agility, so: Fort/Reflex/Will, with varying combinations of primaries, secondaries, and tertiaries. The above four monsters perhaps now look like...

• Gargoyle (5HD): F:11, R:14, W:17
• Young Adult-Adult Green Dragons (10-12HD): F:9, R:12, W:9
• Titan (17HD): F:7, R:10, W:7
• Goblin (1HD): F:15, R:12, W:18

The beauty of Save Redux™ is that it's cleaner; there's no math, and it still gives you that collision of old and new.

All for now.

Another OSRIC Curiosity

The more I look...

Under Charisma, Maximum number of Henchman is now called, "Sidekick Limit".

Sidekick?

Yet, in the paragraph below, sidekick limit is described as the maximum number of "henchman" you can have. The word henchman is used once more. (Further rules for this are probably in the GMs guide).

Why the change? Why the new term "sidekick"? 

If OSRIC is supposed to be an efficient reorganization (clarification) of the original rules, why introduce a new term just to use the old term (twice) to explain the new term?

Table needs centering.

Nobody has 10 "sidekicks".  

The addition of the word "sidekick" is the very definition of unnecessary. You don't need another word to describe one that is already there. You'll only confuse the matter. It is terminology bloat. They clearly want to transition to a new term.

The original Player's Handbook calls henchman non-player characters who will "serve" as permanent retainers. OSRIC 3.0 says a henchman is someone who is "willing to accompany your character", it is a "long-term relationship".

Softening up the language is not rules clarification.

OSRIC is turning into something else.

Just saying.

OSRIC 3.0 Layout...WTF?

The OSRIC 3.0 layout sucks.

I backed this (of course!) and had high hopes that this would be THE definitive reference, even though I own all of the originals in fantastic condition.

I almost never bash other OSR products. From me it's usually praise or silence. I despise making this post, but it must be made. (I'll slaughter WoTC all day long).

Call me crazy, but I expected OSRIC 3.0 to be the most faithful adaption of AD&D 1E possible... with AMAZING layout.

By all that I've heard, Matt Finch is a great guy... so don't take this personal for God's sake! Doing this is no doubt a herculean effort... and it is much appreciated by many!

But I think many are about to be disappointed.

The art is fine. The font is fine. The layout... ugh. 

The center line between columns isn't necessary, unless there's a table on one side. And the columns are far too close together.

The tables are atrocious! They aren't centered properly and they often overlap onto the next page. Tables should always be self contained on one page, I don't care if this leads to white space and more pages. That's what filler art is for. (Weapon and equipment tables can be an exception here). What are you going to reference during play more than tables? They should be a joy to look at. As it stands, joy is not the word that comes to mind.

I was always tempted to purchase the previous OSRIC hardcover, but never did because the layout kind of bugged me. 

This is worse. This is in no way an improvement. Perhaps the rules are more accurate, but they're still not 100%. And the folks who'll buy this already know the rules.

THEY WANT A NICE LAYOUT.

OSRIC 3.0 won't inspire anyone and won't make it easier to play this game, so what's the point?

I hope to God this looks better in physical form, but I would urge serious layout changes be made, even if it takes another year. Treat the latest free release as just another beta. 

We can wait.

So Long Publisher

Microsoft recently announced that by October 2026, Publisher will no longer be supported. If you have a hard copy, you can continue using it without support, if not, too bad.

I'm in the too bad boat. 

Everything I've produced and worked on over the last decade or two, adventures, rules, character sheets, etc., was done with Publisher. I have projects that will never be finished now for sure, because with converting and reformatting, you're pretty much starting from scratch. Yet being realistic, my many little projects mostly served as distractions and were destined to stay that way.

So for now, I have archived some things in PDF form, if only for my own reference and have settled on using Word from here on out after researching and tinkering with a few of the other programs. My initial impression of Word was likening it to B/X whereas Publisher is AD&D. Adobe InDesign is another option but costs twice as much as Publisher did.

Blessing in disguise...

I've been diligently working on a new module that I fully intend to publish in 2026. I'm embracing a simpler, A5 format for this one and I'm becoming increasingly comfortable using Word. The original idea for this sprung a few years ago, but for some reason -- perhaps no more distractions -- I'm off to the races and this one's awesome. I'm basing it on 1st edition rules.

Until the New Year.

TMNT And Other Strangeness Redux Edition!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness, Black, White, & Red Redux Edition, by Palladium Books, originally by Eric Wujcik, updated by Sean Owen Roberson.

Magnificent.

I was worried, can't lie. Usually when a game gets modernized, it loses its edge and becomes soft and glittery. Just look at all the latest versions of all the classic games. Can Palladium modernize their books and still be Palladium?

Yes. 

At least for now...

So, two books, reprinting six...

Other Strangeness contains:

• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness
• Turtles Go Hollywood
• Truckin' Turtles

Transdimensional Adventures contains:

• Transdimensional Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
• The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Guide To The Universe
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures

It's the same basic Palladium layout, just cleaner. Black and white art with a red tinge... incredible! There is a full color version and alternate covers too, but damn, I made the right choice by going for red in the Kickstarter. Look at that art...

If Palladium plans to go full color, this is how they should do it. Stylize it. They already have decades of great and iconic art to work with. Stylize it.

Oh yes... The classic Palladium weapons chart!

Original Laird/Eastman art with a touch of red. Really pops.

Original covers included...

Just cool...

Nice paper, minimum gloss if any, extremely readable.

And it's not just the appearance... it's also the rules. 

Things are cleaner, tidier, simpler. Gone are the multitude of punches and kicks doing various damage. Now there is only unarmed doing 1d4 + strength bonus. Gone are redundant maneuvers, plenty still exist, but they're clarified.

The combat styles, Basic, Expert (sometimes referred to as Elite, typos I'm sure), Martial Arts, Assassin, Ninja, and Feral, are all redone, stating clearly what you start out knowing and what you gain as you level up. Expert is clearly better than basic, and martial arts is clearly better than expert. Simply put, these charts make sense now.

Combat is cleaner. You start with 2 actions. Skills can give you more and more are gained at higher levels. It's basically the same; just explained better.

Skills are listed with starting percentages right next to them and they simply improve by 5% per level. There are Professional skills and amateur skills. Depending on your origin, you get a combo of both. Professional skills allow an IQ bonus. And note: IQ is no longer I.Q., the periods have been removed from the abbreviated attributes.

All weapon proficiencies improve at the same rate: +1 at level 1, and levels 4,7,10, and 13. That's it.

Everyone starts knowing three basic skills:

• Basic Academics: The general info you know.
• Basic Athletics: Climb ,prowl, swim, etc., but at a basic level, actual skills will supersede this.
• Perception: Self explanatory.

Basic and Advanced mathematics still exist if you want them, in fact, the skill list is the exact same.

Character creation is nice and smooth.

This one's a winner.

Seriously, well done Palladium!

 

The White Dwarf Necromancer

White Dwarf  35, November 1982...

No wonder the Satanic Panic happened.

I was introduced to D&D in 1983 at age 10 and wasn't introduced to White Dwarf until much later when it became more or less a Warhammer 40K thing. Not sure how I missed it for so long; it had to be on the shelves here... or was it?

So, I missed this awesomeness completely. And I wonder what I'd have thought if I saw this then. I honestly don't know...

The Necromancer...by Lew Pulsipher (wow... the author's name even sounds Satanic).

A cleric based, 15 level class with a D8 Hit Die, saving throws, attacks, and the level progression of the cleric, with spell-like abilities ranked by "grade" as opposed to "level" and the explicit need to sacrifice living creatures every few weeks (especially human virgins and pregnant women) or lose all powers granted by their Dark God.

• For every level a Necromancer gains, they lose 1 point of charisma. This represents their extreme loner, anti-life nature. Love this. What would zero indicate, undeath appearance?
• They can control undead using the cleric's turn undead matrix.
• They are immune to the nasty effects of undead of a lesser level than themselves, paralysis, level-drain and such.
• Their wounds don't heal naturally, requiring ritual sacrifice to gain 1/2 the victim's hit points. However, if they build a temple of death (at 10th level) they can regenerate there.
• Gains infravision at 2nd level.
• Past 1st level, they return as an undead of similar hit dice if killed.
• May place a curse on their killer as he dies.

Most of their spell-like abilities revolve around summoning or creating undead, speaking with and imitating the dead (feign death, non-corporeality) and can be used only once per day each (more abilities were added in White Dwarf 36). Some actually require ritualistic, black-mass killings, transforming the victims to a state of undeath.

X/times per day has never been a favorite mechanic of mine and I think I'd trade their need to sacrifice to heal wounds for a need to sacrifice to fuel abilities. They would have a black magic pool of sorts and each "grade" would have an associated cost, also, the greater the sacrifice, human virgin vs goat or cat, the greater the points gained. Thus, they may find themselves needing to sacrifice something during an adventure as opposed to off-screen sacrifices. This would certainly lead to memorable moments and clashes as clerics and paladins discover what they're up to.

I love this class. It's steeped in Black Magic (the term is actually used). It would never be published these days... by anyone. Modern Necromancer's are so fucking lame, in fact, the whole modern game is lame. It just shows how D&D has been utterly degraded over the years -- from dark MEDIEVAL slaughter, to WoTC's glitter-fest.

Sad.

And, is it just me, or was White Dwarf much edgier than Dragon?

Marvel Multiverse RPG Random Character Generation

After spending the last couple of months exploring deeply through the Palladium Wilderness, our main protagonist side-trekked once again to the Marvel Multiverse Role-Playing Game where he was found pondering random character generation...

... I hate "building" characters, so much so, that I'll spend hours/days creating a system that lets me generate them randomly.

Such is what I've done for the Marvel Multiverse game.

The tables are a mix of all the classic dice, though primarily percentiles and 3d6 -- the game's core mechanic.

First you roll your rank. There are different tables for how varied you want your power levels to be.

Then you roll your origin and occupation -- these give you your "tags" and "traits" as per the rules.

Then you roll your core stats depending on your rank. For example rank 2 looks like this:

    3-4:  0

    5-8:  1

  9-12:  2

13-15:  3

17-18:  4

The bell curve favors a number equal to your rank and these results tend to give you slightly higher abilities than your starting ability points would normally allow. Example, rank 2 gives you 10 ability points to spend with a ability cap of 5 (so you could have four abilities at 0 and two at 5, extreme but allowed). With 6 abilities (Melee, Agility, Resilience, Vigilance, Ego, and Logic) rolling on the above table would average you a total of 12 (6 2s) not 10.

NOTE: Abilities in this game range from -3 to 9. Negative scores are very rare though. The "typical" person has 0 in all abilities (the game considers the average civilian to be rank 1, but they're really more akin to a rank 0). The way I figure, Marvel Multiverse abilities translate to the old FASERIP system as follows:

-3 -- Shift 0

-2 -- Feeble (2)

-1 -- Poor (4)

 0 -- Typical (6)

 1 -- Good (10)

 2 -- Excellent (20)

 3 -- Remarkable (30)

 4 -- Incredible (40)

 5 -- Amazing (50)

 6 -- Monstrous (75)

 7 -- Unearthly (100)

 8 -- Shift X (150)

 9 -- Shift Y (200)

Rank 2s are given 8 powers. 1 power equals 1 ability point and as per the rules you can mix and match these. Rank 2s total points are 18 (10 ability points + 8 powers). So if you spent 12 points rolling above, now you're only going to have 6 powers. I favor stronger abilities and fewer powers (this game gives A LOT of powers and this can be cumbersome for play -- not remembering what they all do (similar sounding names) and trying to decide which one you should use, although some are never "used" they are simply built in; permanent buffers, such as mighty 1-4 (super-strength that increases your damage multiplier).

NOTE: Not all powers are actual powers, many are basically just maneuvers; feats if you will.

In my random system, when rolling a power, you first roll to see which power set table to roll on, then you go to that table and roll for a power. If you roll a power that has prerequisites, you must take all of them. The one prerequisite I ignore is "rank". So, if you had 6 powers and the first one you roll has 2 prereqs, you must take all 3 and now you only have 3 powers left to roll for. If you don't have enough powers left to cover all of the prereqs, you work backwards to a lesser power that you can afford. Or, you can sacrifice some ability points to make room for more power slots.

You may continue rolling in that power set or roll randomly for a new power set table.

Here's a sample character I rolled up (and a character sheet I made; still tweaking...):

Whyspurr is rank 1.

Origin: Unknown (as opposed to hi-tech, mutant, alien, special training, etc.)

Occupation: Outsider (conveniently, this goes great with her origin)

Tags:

• Mysterious: The character has no idea why or how they have their powers.

Traits:

• Connections--Outsiders: Connections basically allow you to occasionally call in a favor. This one requires a clever explanation as she doesn't know how she has her powers, so who is she calling for favors???
• Fresh Eyes: You have an edge on logic checks when trying something for the first time.
• Stranger: You have "trouble" on checks trying to fit in locally.
• Sneaky: Others have "trouble" trying to spot you if you're hiding.

As a rank 1 character she gets 5 ability points and 4 powers; total value: 9. With my creation tables her abilities add up to 7 so she only gets 2 powers which is MINISCULE for this rpg's intentions, however having a 2 in both resilience and vigilance make her a very durable rank 1, in that her health and focus are both 60 (focus fuels some powers).

I rolled telepathy for her first power set and then cloak for the power. Cloak requires that you have telepathic link (basic telepathy) and that you are rank 2, but, I ignore rank prereqs. So those are her 2 powers. Cloak allows you to hide your presence from someone, but being rank 1 it's not that strong because of her low logic defense (target number: 10 on 3d6 + vigilance score) -- however, she has sneaky as trait which gives people "trouble" (disadvantage) trying to spot her, quite convenient!

So, she's a durable, sneaky telepathic in the most basic sense. Not a scrapper. The most damage she can hope to do is marvel die (d6) x1 +1, so 2-7, or double that on a "fantastic" success. That's... not a lot, but, that's rank 1 for you.

Now, with "building" in mind, would she be better off knocking a couple points off her abilities and grabbing 2 more powers? Maybe, because as she is, she can't do much except sneak around and communicate telepathically -- she'd make a great spy. However, she can sustain a decent amount of damage. 

When "building" heroes for this game, I would always put the most points into resilience and then vigilance. A rank 1 hero could, by-the-book, have the following build: 0,0,0,0,1,4, with the 4 in resilience that would give you 120 health, better than half the Marvel Universe! A clever selection of 4 powers and you've got quite a bad-ass rank 1 hero (except for damage, rank 1 damage is highly limited). Why wouldn't you do this every time? This is why I don't like "point-buy". 

But, let's roll up one more power for her just to see what would happen. Sticking with the telepathy power set, I rolled Mental Punch*, which lets you do focus damage on a melee attack instead of health damage. For this to be worth it, she needs a better melee score, so now I have to take away 2 points from her other stats, one for the power and one to add a point to melee. So I would drop vigilance and agility each down to 1. Now her melee attacks have a x2 multiplier (according to MY HOUSE RULE, not official rules; see below) and can affect health or focus.

*Psylocke's psi-blade is sort of like mental punch. Psylocke also has "telekinetic attack" which stuns as well as damages and can be done from a distance, so this one might in fact be her psi-blade. She also has flight (?). Seems Psylocke's powers have changed somewhat. Traditionally, her psi-blade severely stuns anyone she hits with it; it's a finishing move. These days she can manifest this as a bow and arrow, apparently.

*Another point -- all of the character profiles use these generic power descriptions, e.g., mental punch, telekinetic attack. The term psi-blade is not used anywhere on Psylocke's sheet.

Tying health to one stat might be a system flaw. You could go the FASERIP route and tie health to Melee, Agility, & Resilience, and tie focus to Vigilance, Ego, & Logic. (then x this total by 10). So, Whyspurr would have 50 health instead of 60 and 20 focus instead of 60. Minimum health and focus for anyone would be 10. Spiderman's health would grow from 90 to 150 and his focus would fall from 90 to 70. Flipping through the hero profiles shows that this method would have results that are surprisingly close to the way they are (Spiderman's health jump being one of the more extreme changes).

Another critique...

Damage.

Damage is based on your rank. There are 6 ranks (1-6). Rank 1 is pretty much normal human level hero, rank 6 is cosmic level hero. You have 4 types of attacks: Melee, Agility, Ego, and Logic, all do damage according to your overall rank, not your ability score. So Sue Storm (Invisible Woman) who is rank 4 (with Melee 2, Agility 2) has a baseline of rank 4 damage with all attacks, so her regular punch is as mighty as her telekinesis, and, mightier than most of the Marvel Universe (actually her telekinesis is mightier still because of power boosts). So if she uses a gun she does rank 4 damage. Punisher is only rank 2... see where this is going? 

NOTE: How damage works: All rolls are 3d6. One of those d6 is the Marvel Die. If your attack succeeds, your damage is your Marvel Die x rank + ability score. Damage possibilities. Note: Marvel Die 6 is a Fantastic Success which means double damage or added effect or sometimes both.

• Rank 1: 1-6 + 1    (2-7)
• Rank 2: 2-12 + 2  (4-14)
• Rank 3: 3-18 + 3  (6-21)
• Rank 4: 4-24 + 4  (8-28)
• Rank 5: 5-30 + 5  (10-35)
• Rank 6: 6-36 + 6  (12-42)

My change: Damage multiplier is your individual stat not your overall rank. So, Melee 3 equals a x3 multiplier. Agility 4 equals a x4, Logic 2 equals a x2, and so on. In some cases, some high ranked characters will have up to a x13 multiplier with this ruling, e.g., a 9 melee with mighty: 4, and that's fine. No more Clea (rank 6) or the Invisible Woman (rank 4) kicking the ass of the likes of Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher, etc. (all rank 2) without even using their powers! So the above progression continues as follows:

(Stat) Rank 7: 7-42 + 7  (14-49)

(Stat) Rank 8: 8-48 + 8  (16-56)

(Stat) Rank 9: 9-54 + 9  (18-63)

Minimum multiplier would be 1, even for stats of 0 or less.

Fights in this game can last awhile, so more damage is not a bad thing.

This wouldn't affect Whyspurr really, unless she picked up a gun, then her agility of 2 would give her a x2 multiplier.

So rank still matters the way I do it because lower ranked characters still have lower stats and fewer powers and traits. It doesn't change the game too much, just makes things more logical to my brain.

Of course, you could ignore every mention of the word "rank" all together and roll up your stats simply by rolling a d6 for each, giving results 1 through 6, equivalent to "good" through "monstrous" in the old FASERIP system (by my calculation). Roll for origin and occupation and then roll 1d3 extra traits and 2d6 powers for a true random old-school experience! (Then again, Champions is old-school too and that's as point-buy as it gets... ugh!)

All for now, ideas for XP and advancement, another time.

Meanwhile, my thoughts drift back to Traveller and a certain fantasy offshoot I occasionally work on...

NightLife: The Original World Of Darkness

NightLife: The Role-Playing Game Of Urban Horror.

Published in 1990 by Stellar Games.

I bought this when I was 16 at a place called Comic Kingdom, located around 6 Mile & Gratiot in Detroit. It was mainly a comic store, but had a back room dedicated to RPGs and miniatures. It totally looked like you would imagine a comic store from those days, not the brightly lit affairs of today. I seem to remember faded yellow walls and light bulbs hanging from the ceiling, well that was the vibe anyway. It was only a few miles from us who lived just north of 8 Mile Road, yet a different, seedier world. (I used to occasionally dream of being lost in Detroit and having to find my way home on foot. If you've ever seen the movie Judgement Night... the dreams weren't nearly that exciting).

In NightLife, a game that aims to combine Splatterpunk with sexy monsters, you play as one of the 7 kin: Vampyres, Werewolves, Ghosts, Daemons, Wyghts, Inuits, and Animates. It had a cyberpunk feel to it, in that, style is stressed, drugs are present, and there are skills like skating, seduction, and skateboards, a club called Afterdark owned by the world's oldest vampyre named, Golgotha, factions for how to treat the Herd (Humanity) and a fear of losing one's humanity (thus becoming an NPC). There was a later supplement focusing on rock bands -- perhaps influenced by The Vampire Lestat. There were also supplements for playing sorcerers and an alternate post-apocalyptic setting. 

It was a percentile system, which at the time disappointed me -- I was so burned out on percentiles, having spent most of my non-D&D gaming time on other TSR stuff: Marvel, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, and yes, even Indiana Jones. Much of the 80s was percentile based. I've since come full circle on that mechanic.

Also, NightLife's production quality was clearly Indy. Indy back then meant cheap, and though the game fascinated me enough, I then considered cheap a flaw (no longer of course). The days were also approaching when my interest in the hobby would wane for awhile, so, I never really gave NightLife a chance.

The very next year, Vampire: The Masquerade came out and everyone went gaga for playing the bad guy -- myself not included. But I wonder, what, if any connection NightLife had to the World of Darkness. Was it simply a cheaper version that coincidently came first? Had the masquerade already been conceived? Did they see NightLife and say, cool, but how about this? Or was horror from the monster's point of view simply in the air?

This was certainly apparent in novels. Anne Rice dove into her Vampire Chronicles, the first of which was written back in 1976. There was a book called I, Vampire, by Michael Romkey, that was published in 1990 -- I recall enjoying this one. John Steakley's, Vampire$ also came out in 1990, though this was the outlier as it focused on the hunters. And there were others. Being a monster was certainly in vogue.

To my taste, NightLife was better than the "woe is me" WoD in that it had less self-loathing and damnation, and was punk as opposed to goth. Imagine Billy Idol as a vampire. Punks are energetic, they're loud, they do, they exist, while goths cry, mope, blame, brood, and lament the fact that they exist at all. 

NightLife -- shame, could've and should've had fun with this one.

Just a jaunt down memory lane.

I Search For Treasure

When do you roll for treasure?

For most of you it's probably when you create your dungeon. You follow treasure-type codes, make some rolls and voila -- treasure.

How many of you fudge this roll? 

What if you roll an artifact or some such object of enormous power?

When you pay for an adventure, do you expect the treasure to be listed? And when it is, do you wonder if it was specifically chosen or randomly determined? And if it was random, couldn't you have just done that yourself? Or is it simply a matter of convenience? 

In my published adventures the treasures are almost always specifically tailored for that adventure and most of the magic items are unique, never seen before. I do this because I think it is what people expect when they pay for something -- to see something they wouldn't (or couldn't) have come up with themselves. 

It's funny, because in my mind, the ultimate dungeon is still the stereotypical, randomly created, nonsensical dungeon. Random rooms, random monsters, random treasure, random traps, random, random, random... But, this is not what I create, at least not for sale, anyway. 

These days in OSR products there is sometimes a table called "I Search the Body" (first seen by me in LotFP books). These tables usually cover treasure in its more mundane form -- a dagger, some rations, a few coins, a potion of healing, etc., and are generally meant for the odd corpse here and there. These tables are fun and seem to suggest a more gritty type of game, a game where you're grateful to have a few more torches.

Have any of you ever played the game where treasure was never predetermined, but rather, rolled randomly right there on the spot? 

What if all treasure was: I Search the Body? Where, after a fight or searching an empty room, you open the book and let the players roll. It creates a mini game within the game, a new subsystem to the dungeon crawl, a new excitement for the players. There's a certain psychology and satisfaction when a player rolls to see what they've found, knowing that anything can happen and that it is even out of the DM's control.

Would you be willing to live with said results? No matter the level of the PCs? It takes a certain type of DM and not one who is worried too much about their precious campaign.

Remember DMs, you're not a storyteller, you're a referee. You're not writing a book. You're not even creating a world, the dice are. Sure, you've planted some seeds, but you don't know if they'll grow or even into what. So sorry if your favorite subplot never develops. It's your job to facilitate and interpret results; the dice should surprise you as almost as much as they do the players. Yes, you should be descriptive at times. I've always been known for making combat exciting, dangerous, and fun. After my combats, you feel like you've been in a fight. If an ogre hits you with a large club, I might say you go flying across the room, crashing into a wall, but don't worry, you can get up and do whatever you were gonna do, unless there was a specific die result that states you remain prone. Anyway, back to treasure...

You could have fun with this: Ok, you rolled a weapon... a sword... a two-handed sword... and then, you require a detect magic spell to reveal the exact type, at which point they would make the final roll. BTW, Detect Magic is probably one of the most neglected spells in the game and I am as guilty as anyone. Or you can just tell them exactly what they've found, that's what the vast majority of us have all done throughout the years. Afterall, magic is not mundane, its power should emanate. I'm reminded of Larry Elmore's outstanding painting for the Basic D&D Companion Set, were the knight wields a two-handed sword absolutely overflowing with power. 

More and more I favor random results for everything, I've even been questioning the notion of stratified dungeon levels. 1st levels could be as random and dangerous as the wilderness (though yes, the wilderness is stratified to a degree -- e.g., plains are not as dangerous as forests or mountains, unless there's a dragon flying above...).

I wonder how many randomly created adventures are out there where people thought, My God, this is genius!

I'm not looking for answers, this is just food for thought, a sort of continuation of my previous post -- use your books at the table, they aren't just for prep.

Game on.

Memorial Day 2025

Praise the fighters and the fallen.

Looking Up Rules Is Part Of The Fun!

This notion of rulings not rules...

It is not being applied properly.

It doesn't mean NEVER LOOK UP THE RULES, it means make up your own rules when rules for something don't exist! Then... you make a ruling.

Somehow this has turned into, "Put that book down!"

I believe this is a symptom of the storyteller DM. Egotistical DMs so concerned about their narrative, this grand story they've been dreaming up, oh no, don't you dare interrupt it! I'm on a roll, I'm flowing, don't you dare touch that book!

No, I say pick that beautiful book up!

Reference it damn it. You wouldn't be sitting around playing without it.

The books are great. They are artifacts; wonderous things that got us into the game in the first place. They are fonts of knowledge and inspiration -- especially the one pictured above.

For some gamers the only time they ever got to look at the books was when we were playing. We were always surrounded by D&D books, and other games, it was part of the culture to look at them as we played... and any time we had (or have) a question about the rules you're damn right we looked it up!

Wizards have spell books and gamers have rule books.

This modern notion that rules can't be looked up during play is pure garbage.

The notion that it's not the "OSR way" is also garbage. Although maybe it's true in the sense that the OSR is a modern creation; a modern reinterpretation of the old. There are a lot of myths involved. 

The way people play now is not the way they played then.

It is older people rereading the rules and perhaps coming to a better understanding of them (technically) and then playing the game now, not as they did, but as they wish they had, or as they feel they "should have" and then imposing this falsely as something that always was.

Nope.

There were, and always have been, pauses and interruptions to consult the books; the aversion to it now is repulsive to me. Consulting the very books that the games are based on is an essential part of the experience. I would want it no other way.

In the desire to save the past, the past is being revised.