Old School D&D Campaign .. interest check

[shadowheart]

Note: the poll is closed, as four players have expressed interest.  AD&D, 1E has won, and will be the system used.  Keeping the other details open, as I may want to refer to them later.  Please navigate to the OOC thread to discuss the game further, and any one else who is interested in playing is more than welcome!


I have a campaign in mind, now I just want to know what everyone (or everyone interested) might like to play.  Brief summaries of each ruleset are below:

OD&D:  This is the original game as created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.  It is primitive by almost any standard, but has a nostalgic appeal for many .. and those who wish to experience the game as Gary originally intended and wrote it should jump at this opportunity.  Note however, some rules from the four expansions and the medieval miniatures game Chainmail would be used, as would some houserules .. but as several D&D forums point out Mr Gygax was hardly a "play it my way or buy another game" sort of designer.  For those afraid of trying this ruleset due to its obscurity, no worries. RPGNow has the entire set for sale in cheap, PDF format http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?filters=0_0_1340   and Paizo http://paizo.com/store/downloads/wizardsOfTheCoast/classicDAndD/rulebooks has Chainmail and the four expansions also in PDF format for a little less (though not the original ruleset).

[shadowheart]

Holmes Basic D&D and expansion: 

This is the Blue cover book, that covers 1st thru 3rd level, and Meepo's Companion rules http://meepodm.googlepages.com/holmes.pdf expanding the rules up to level 9, which should be more than sufficient for the campaign I have in mind.  Also available at RPGNow and Paizo, this rulebook may be in some people's collections here, and it is further relatively easy-playing and the rules are probably not 100% necessary to own.

[shadowheart]

1st Edition AD&D:

Does this edition need an explanation?  I would be using PHB, DMG, and MM, with some of MMII and FF thrown in as well.  Magic users, illusionists and clerics would be free to use spells from UA if found, but the races and classes from that book would most emphatically not be allowed.

[shadowheart]

BECMI AD&D:

Probably least old school of the group, this is the 1983 edition (the 1981 edition of B/X is not legally available for download, regrettably, so is not up for consideration).  Also available, as are the AD&D 1E books at both RPGNow and Paizo, players could again likely get by without owning the rulebooks.  I personally own the PDFs for Basic, Expert, and Companion, and strongly doubt that the game would go past that point.  I am not adverse to investing in the Master rules as well if it comes to that, but I don't really like the idea of the Immortals rules.  Once characters get to that point its time to retire them (or arguably long past!) and start fresh with new level 1 PCs  (in my opinon of course :) )

[shadowheart]

One last note.  The campaign is still in development so it will be a little while before it gets going, but at this stage I'd like to gauge interest.  The ruleset used will effect some of my planning. 

Regardless of the ruleset used, this is an old school game, so no non-combat proficiencies would be involved.  If a character was ever anything other than their current class, that is background material, and might allow an attribute check (late 1E/2E edition sure, but it is workable for all editions) to see if something can be done.  Also, looking to restrict classes to the basics, fighting man/woman (fighter in later editions), cleric, magic user, thief, and the sub-classes ranger, paladin, illusionist, and druid for certain rules-sets.  Races allowed would also depend on the rules-set, so bear that in mind when voting if you are interested in participating.

I am eventually looking to run about 4-8 players more or less, and there will be a mix of TSR modules, later modules produced in the current old-school renaissance, and original dungeon and wilderness adventures.  There will be no railroading, instead players will get to choose what path to pursue.  I would be looking at a leisurely posting pace, and am as interested in role playing (vs roll playing) so would expect good character backgrounds vs. min/max characters tweaked to be optimal combat/magic artillery/what have you.

[WyzardWhately]

I'm most likely in.  I have a love for the old-school D&D games, and I've been considering trying to convince someone here to run one.  I'm actually okay with any of those rules sets, I've played all of them at one point or another.  I'm likely the most partial to 1E, which I love for the flavor, although it has a few things in the system that require a little patchwork.  So, I'm very interested in any further details about your campaign that you'd like to share, especially how adult you expect the tone to be.

[RubySlippers]

I wish I had a 1E rulebook around but I played this some, when not sure do a fighter!

Nothing wrong with double weapons specialization in a BIG weapon. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr  Half-orc warrioress with a huge weapon and armor and really really good with a big weapon. The easiest class to do in Old School without the rules.

If you want a set of rules everyone can use free try www.basicfantasy.org, they released the 2nd edition and its FREE. Sort of a blend of the old school which I love and some newer mechanics implimented in the d20 system. And lots of free optional rules. If not I vote for 1E.

[WyzardWhately]

If we're that far into it, I'm probably going to play a magic-user.  And go as sword-and-sorcery as I possibly can with it.  I will use Charm Person to represent my mesmeric powers over the princess, and bend her to my twisted will!  Etc., Etc. 

[shadowheart]

Well, being Elliquiy, adult situations would be a-ok, but not the specific focus of the game.

BFRPG is a good ruleset, but I'm leaning toward true old-school.  Still, I can certainly make that one work too.

and re: RubySlippers, Paizo sells a good PDF pf the PHB for $4.  It has all that you'd need, minus the weapon specializations you're referring to which are in UA.  Double specialization I can probably be convinced to allow, since it helps balance out fighters as levels go up.  Just don't ask to be a barbarian or cavalier :P

WyzardWhatley: magic users are fine, of course, and charm person is reasonable to have in a beginning spellbook. 

As in additional note, I would allow any alignment but prefer good, neutral, or at least lawful evil.  Chaotic neutral and evil tend to cause rifts in party cohesion ... which is an ok thing if the player in question's a good role-player. :) 

[WyzardWhately]

WyzardWhatley: magic users are fine, of course, and charm person is reasonable to have in a beginning spellbook. 

I was really just tossing that out as an example.  I'm pretty flexible about what spells I can have fun with, so I'm not going to bitch if you go random with it.  Err, I'm just saying that's not like a *request* or anything. 

[shadowheart]

*gryns*

It's no problem, I am flexible ... besides right now I am gathering info and interest.  The campaign will happen if I can get enough interest, no fears there, just not ready just yet to roll up characters and such.

[shadowheart]

Added: Retro-Clone ruleset.   As RubySlippers mentioned above, Basic Fantasy RPG is free and is a close 'clone' of old school games using the OGL to create new content with old-school feel and have it be legal and OK by Wizards of the Coast.

BFRPG, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, are all retro-clones. 

[RubySlippers]

Well I own the BFRPG so that is a plus since I run the game locally, I even ordered the cute 2nd edition in hardbound to show my players the power I wield. mwhahahahahahaha

And there is plenty of extra material like a simple weapons specialization rule for straight up fighters.

[OldSchoolGamer]

First Edition all the way!

No wimpy limits on dice for fireballs and magic missiles!  YEAH BABY YEAH BABY!

All the way back to grammar school for me!  Eighties rock!   ;D

[JadeCore]

I'd be interested, assuming it gets run. I'd play any rule set.

[shadowheart]

Four players, three votes.  Need a couple more players before I'm certain that there will be enough.  Have a campaign almost entirely fleshed out, enough for the first few levels in any case, and starting small-scale so it can expand.

And, the idea works in any version of the rules.  I have a few Basic D&D, a few AD&D 1E modules, and a few written for retro-clones lined up, (ready to be converted to whatever ruleset is finally chosen) plus of course plenty of original ideas.  Again, players will have the choice of what to do, initially within the frame-work of being sent to the Marches of a kingdom that is seeing an increase in humanoid and bandit activity.  Demi-humans are from allied demi-human regions or live within that kingdom.  Plenty of scope for the players to branch out from there, and plenty of pre-printed material in case the party does something unexpected :)

[WyzardWhately]

Well, you can count me as totally stoked.  I'm certain we can find another player or two.  I hope you don't mind if I interrogate you some...  Are you basing your campaign setting on anything published, or just using published modules?  If it's not a published setting, what's the tone and milieu like?  What methods do you plan to use regarding character generation?  Starting level, generation and distribution of ability scores, determination of hit points? 

[shadowheart]

All good questions.

The setting is essentially original, though based on elements of campaigns published or implied in modules.

It's a pseudo-feudalistic setup, based upon a kingdom with its assorted Duchies, Baronies, Counties, etc.  The "enough of a railroad to get everyone together" if you will is based on the idea of increased raids along the Marches of the kingdom, whether from the King himself or from his various allies .. to account for Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, and of course humans that are not from the central Kingdom.

Again, the push of the campaign has to do with humanoid and bandit raids and attacks.  The kingdom has become somewhat ineffective militarily, and to compensate the adventurers (in the main party and others) are commissioned as Royal Agents to go in and see what can be done.

Happy to answer other questions if that doesn't answer any given questions anyone has.
Starting level is level 1 regardless, beginning with suitable low-level adventures and ramping up as characters gain experience.  Character creation is going to depend on the system, but most likely will be 4d6, drop lowest, in published ability order (dependent on edition, since there are some differences).  Regardless of system initial hit points will be maximum for the character at first level, and standard rolls thereafter.  I will likely use training rules in any case, so level increases are dependent upon both having the experience points, gold to train, and availability of a trainer.

As I said before, characters will be 'railroaded' into initial position, then from that starting-point are free to go where they will.  Noting, the expectation of the Royal Court to 'make some kind of difference' on the Marches. 

Going beyond this point, I am wanting good roleplay, since this is Elliquiy.  I'd like fairly developed characters, with of course the pride in advancement, sorrow in loss, that would go along with it.  Adult content isn't the focus, but I'd probably place it in NC-E to be safe.  Y'all know how Orcs are after all *heh*

[WyzardWhately]

Ah.  Thank you kindly.  I'm not wildly enthused about strictly in-order attribute generation...would you be willing to consider any of the intermediate steps between in-order and arrange-to-taste?  Maybe roll in order, then switch any two scores.  Something like that.

Well, it sounds cool anyway, so I'm in.

[RubySlippers]

It just comes down to me do I have the rules or not I don't own DnD 1E at all, I do own the BFRPG, so it all depends.

[WyzardWhately]

It just comes down to me do I have the rules or not I don't own DnD 1E at all, I do own the BFRPG, so it all depends.

If you know D&D at all, there isn't a serious amount of difference.  Depending on the class you play, you might not need the books.  A spellcaster would probably want them, a fighter or thief could get by without them.

I'm actually flexible about edition, I just like 1E best for the flavor.

[shadowheart]

I am flexible too honestly.  I prefer 1E myself, but have BFRPG.

As Wyzard says though, depends on your class and race .. I won't file-share (a personal thing) but I will help extensively with character generation.

Also, to Wyzard, I am flexible on that point too.  Roll stats straight down, with 4d6, dropping the lowest, and we'll see what we come up with .. if a stat or two needs to be swapped to get the character you want to play, that is fine.

Same goes for anyone else.  Will help with characters, and will be flexible with attribute rolling ... after all -this is supposed to be fun- and if it isn't what's the point? :)

[RubySlippers]

Well I played 1E and was thinking of buying the system ,I prefer it to 4th edition by far, I just don't have the books at this time. Fortunately your right unless I roll and get psionics or something its not that complicated really.

[shadowheart]

OMG!!!  did you say ....


Psionics??

Ruby, with all due respect, there is -no danger- of that!

I -despise- psionics!!  I don't use it, never will.

(wellll .. maybe some monsters might need the rules ;)  )  but .. no.

Nope.

Suppose I should've said that up-front but .. gah!!

[RubySlippers]

Well say what you want 1E had it all in one big package psionics, MEGA-SUPER bards and lots of subclasses some nice ones added in from fans in various source books and articles.

[shadowheart]

Well, I don't like psionics, so that is out .. plus they are optional rules, eh?  And not very fantasy, at that.

Bards are ok, but won't come into play for about 5 levels or so.

Also, Monks are disallowed in my campaign.  Cause I say so.  Don't like 'em so don't use 'em.

Besides, we haven't -decisively- said we're using 1E yet, though seems most likely.  Hence, haven't posted my alloweds, not alloweds, and house-rules for 1E.

Anyone like psionics or monks?  To me they just don't fit....

[RubySlippers]

Well 1E bards take too long to become one but are godly when done if you make it, monks suck, psionics suck other than that some classes are fun like the 1E barbarian. And the Cavalier. Well a barbarian and cavalier at least make sense as fantasy characters a monk doesn't. Unless in an oriental campaign of course.

I would allow for single class demihumans getting an added two maximum levels  though it makes sense since they are specialists and can devote more time to one class, and thieves I think are not restricted.

Psionics were always funny though you either were shitty at them or godly there never seemsed a happy medium, but they still sucked. lol

[shadowheart]

Barbarians and Cavaliers are out, as are the races found in UA.  Sorry to burst that bubble.  :)  Thief-acrobats, like Bards, seem ok, but that option won't exist for a few levels anyway.  For Bards and Thief-acrobats, I generally have a character start as fighter (for bard) or thief (for thief-acrobat) and they have to declare their intention to switch, -and find a trainer who can train them in the new specialty-.

As for level limits, if it comes to that point, I will allow PC demihumans to continue gaining levels after their limit but at a significantly increased XP cost, usually twice listed value.  Idea being, I can think of other play balance mechanisms, and PCs are intended to go beyond the norm ... an average adventuring demihuman retires to do dwarfy or elfy things at that point, but a PC should be able to go on.

And my mechanism automatically adjusts for dual classed demihumans having a rougher time, since they split their XP between each class anyway .. also meaning a demihuman magic-user/thief will start to advance faster in their thiefly skills once they have passed the MU level limit, even though the MU levels still increase.  For example.

[RubySlippers]

Sure I can be a barbarioan its called taking a Fighter or Ranger and being from a Barbarian culture and role-playing the part.  ;D

That is how old school game barbarians are role-playing the part.

Same with Caveliers its a Fighter (maybe a Paladin) with a code of honor and the right attitude, maybe knighted in the service of a ruler, noble house or major church.

As for the +2 level bonus I just suggest if a demihuman is not multiclassed it might be nice to stay off extra xp costs to advance for two extra levels in this case, frankly I rarely multiclass them. And since they are not multiclassed they should be a little better than another multiclassed member of their race having more dedication to their craft.

[shadowheart]

Agreed!!  A barbarian is a background not a class. :)

And the way I tend to view it, that background would then give the character some edges sometimes, not in combat unless they had something else to back it up of course.

And a knight, again, is a background.  Or more accurately an earned honor.  Paladins should really be handled the way they are in BECMI in some ways, as in a fighter can choose to become one after reaching level 9 (or what have you) if they can convince a religious order to take them in.  I don't insist on that house-rule, but I think it makes a bit more sense.

And I can see your point now about non-multiclassed demihumans getting more of a bonus .. is that not in UA?  Will have to look .. I do like how UA ties level limits to the main stat for all demihuman classes.

[RubySlippers]

Well it is an optional rule but they did beef up the class levels a little to so it all evens out, just a single class half-elf or elf magic-user should maybe advance farther before having trouble over a fighter/m-u just to give the more selective character attractive a bit more. And I do like the new spells they added for illusionists Chromatic Orb it gave my gnome illusionist one offensive spells that could do real damage. And weapon-specialization made fighters at least more useful and only applied to single class fighters so there. lol

I'm not sure what I'll be need to roll stats first.

[shadowheart]

*nod*

The UA spells are good, I include them.  Weapon specialization is also ok.

And before we can roll up characters, I need to make sure how many we have.  Have had 4 so far say they are interested:

RubySlippers
WyzardWhately
TyTheDnDGuy
JadeCore

Might be ok to start, but kind of pushing things for some of the adventures.  I can roll up a couple of NPCs to help the group out, and there's always retainers (if you can find and afford 'em.)

Also, we have only 3 votes, two for 1E AD&D, 1 for retro-clone, specifically BFRPG if I don't miss my guess :)

Was hoping to get a little more interest generated.  Tomorrow will post the specifics on creating a character, 1E+houserules style.  Only a couple houserules, no big deal, a few have already been mentioned in fact.  But, will give it another day in case we get a sudden rush of votes for another system, or more interested parties.

[WyzardWhately]

Uhh, I like monks.  And they're not that unprecedented.  Conan fought some kind of a wizard/monk dude in one of REH's stories.  But it doesn't matter, as it's kinda hard to hit the numbers you need to play one. 

[OldSchoolGamer]

Psionics were, IMHO, a complication and a too-easy path to munchkinism.

Monks were overpowered.  Not a bad concept, but some of their "touch-of-death" powers were, frankly, overwrought.

I do have a couple questions, to wit:

How will clerics be handled?  I do hope you will allow specialty priests...the idea of tailoring a priest's powers and rules to the specific deity worshiped is instrumental in helping that class move beyond the "walking Band-Aid" limitations imposed by the basic ruleset, and actually acting like, well, a priest (trying to convert others, taking specific steps and actions in service to his/her deity, etc.).

What gear will we start with?

[RubySlippers]

1E clerics didn't specialize, so its up to the DM but you might just have to role-play serving the God of Horney Orgies if that is what you want to be a cleric of. lol Who says you have to be a walking band aid if you want to lean to summoning or some other magic do so.

As for monks they are goo but hard to survive with at low levels in 1E and it takes a long time to get to real powers.

[shadowheart]

Full-out cleric specialization isn't a rule I care for, but that being said I agree with Ty 100%.  Clerics choose a patron deity, and the nature of that deity influences one's spells and occasionally has a few other quirky effects ... the goddess of death in this game-world's pantheon, for example, is violently opposed to undead (the souls and bodies are hers, as she sees it) and therefore, though she is Neutral (with slight evil tendencies) all her clerics regardless of alignment turn undead as though they were good-aligned clerics.

If more details of the pantheon are needed I can provide them, though admittedly some details are works-in-progress, and I am flexible if someone is interested in a god or goddess that I don't describe.

Also, however, this means that a cleric is not -restricted- to the spells he or she can get, the way a 3E is by choosing specific domains.  This allows the gifting of spells based on what the cleric may encounter, and what the god or goddess is willing to grant in response.

Further house-rule (based on a similar rule from 1E) is Divine Intervention, allowing a cleric, once per day, to petition his or her god(dess) for a spell that is really needed right then, even if it wasn't prayed for or granted at the beginning of the day.  Of course, the cleric must have an uncast spell/slot that the spell prayed for can replace, or the cleric is SOL.

Gear is purchased based on PHB rates.  If you really want something from another source, like UA, or wilderness or dungeoneers survival guide, that is ok too.  All characters will start with 120 GP as a tangible benefit of the Royal Commission that brings everyone together into one group.  No magical items to begin with, however.

And as far as Monks go, I can see your point about them being an interesting character class, but in honesty place them with barbarians and cavaliers in terms of being classes that don't quite seem to fit .. in my opinion of course.

[OldSchoolGamer]

One of the beautiful things about First Edition (at least in the games I played way back in my early teens) was that, because the rules were sparse and general, most DMs bent them to allow characters to be customized.  Rather than cookie-cutter "kits" that you had to conform your character to, your character could color "outside the lines" on a case-by-case basis (with DM blessing, of course).

Another feature of my D&D games when I DMed is I would give characters traits based on actions taken and role-playing style.  For instance, there was a dwarven warrior who always charged headlong into battle.  At 2nd level, I gave the dwarf a trait called "Hard Charger," which gave the dwarf +1 to hit and +1 to damage on his first round of melee combat during a battle, but also assigned a penalty of 1 to his A.C. for that round.  In other words, he focused on offense and sacrificed a little defense in the process.  He kept up his headstrong ways, so at 4th level I advanced the trait a notch to "First in Battle," which gave +2 to hit and +2 on damage during that first round, but a penalty of 2 to A.C.

This made the system a little more flexible, adding some panache and "flavor" to characters.  Most had 3 traits or so by 4th level.  Traits didn't have to be combat-oriented--one character who grew up in the slums had a "Common Touch" trait that gave him a +20% reaction adjustment from commoners and poor, but -10% to reaction from merchants and aristocrats.

[shadowheart]

Interesting idea, Ty.  I agree, the nice thing about the old school D&D games are their flexibility. 

And, I agree entirely too that players should be happy with their characters.  I am willing to work with anyone to get what they want with their characters .. long as it isn't -too- unbalancing that is :)

[OldSchoolGamer]

Interesting idea, Ty.  I agree, the nice thing about the old school D&D games are their flexibility. 

And, I agree entirely too that players should be happy with their characters.  I am willing to work with anyone to get what they want with their characters .. long as it isn't -too- unbalancing that is :)

What, you mean my warrior can't have that plasma rifle with the 40-watt range?   :o

[shadowheart]

Nope, he'll have to put up with a laser rifle in the 2.5 watt range, sorry to burst your bubble :P

[RubySlippers]

I have an idea for secondary skills why not let people choose one thing they learned growing up sort of a profession and you can wing it. Like if a thief had a father who was a jest he might be trained as a Jester but take up thief as his class. No reason to make this complicated and us all sorts of proficiencies and the like. You might allow two or three a profession they learned as a young person just in case things didn't work out and a hobby or two.

[shadowheart]

Ruby:  I am asking for decent backgrounds for characters, and that serves the same kind of idea.  Characters are professionals, in their classes.  A fighter has been training with that since a young lad (or lass) same with a magic user, thief, etc.  If he (or she) had a blacksmith as a father for instance, he might have picked some things up ... or if his master illusionist that he apprenticed with also had a fondness for glass blowing, he (or again she) would have some competency with it as well.

No need to "pick one profession," in my opinion.  Then again, if a player wants to define their character in that way that's fine too.

[shadowheart]

The OOC and character thread is up!

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=19604.msg760324#new

[shadowheart]

Still looking for more characters.  We have three PCs, and I've written up one NPC to join the party.  Will write up one more.  We may have one more PC.  That would give 6 (4 PCs 2 NPCs) and I figure two more (8 total) would be comfortable.

Will be starting soon (ish) but still time, as you can easily join the party even once they set off for the Borderlands.

[shadowheart]

Along the Borderlands has started, but there is still room for 2 more characters.  If interested see the OOC thread for details.