Spes Magna Games

A couple of days ago, I meandered through a post about Negative GMs to reach some basic ideas about a skill system for Swords & Wizardry. By the end of that post, I’d taken some inspiration from Barbarians of Lemuria and had also put together a list of things that a skill system should not include. Here’re what a skill system should be without:

1. Skill lists
2. Heat that melts special snowflakes
3. “No!” as the default answer
4. Any more than minimal modifications to Swords & Wizardry

BoL uses 2d6 for task resolution. The success number is always 9 or better, and certain modifiers apply to the dice, most of the modifiers providing bonuses. The task’s difficulty may apply a negative modifier. On 2d6 without modifiers, about 28% of rolls are going to end up 9 or higher.

For a S&W skill system, I’m leaning toward 2d12 since d12s don’t get enough table time. To get as close as possible to 28% success rate on 2d12 without modifiers, the target number is 16 or 17 or better (25% chance versus 31.25% chance, or a difference of 3% versus 3.25%). Since I like to make tasks easier rather than harder, let’s use 16+ on 2d12 for now.

So far, so good.

But (and There’s Always a Big But)

BoL‘s task resolution modifiers don’t mirror those available in S&W. In the former game, a character’s 2d6 roll will almost always be modified by an ability score and a combat (when fighting) or career rank (when not fighting). That could result in a +6 modifier for even a beginning character (+3 from an ability score and +3 from either combat rank or career rank). For 2d6 aiming at 9+, that’s a huge bonus that bumps the success rate to about 97%.

To mirror the effects of a beginning BoL best case scenario with S&W on 2d12, a 1st-level character would need about a +12 bonus. S&W characters don’t have these sorts of bonuses because S&W isn’t built with the same game engine as BoL. So, what does a 1st-level S&W character have that can be retooled for bonuses?:

1. Ability scores
2. Character class
3. Race

S&W doesn’t have careers like BoL. Character classes are sort of like careers, but not really. Sure, a fighter should be skilled at doing fighter things (such as bivouacking, riding, being intimidating, and repairing armor), but what if your fighter is also a pirate? A noble? For determining what a character can be skilled at, it seems as if character classes are more limiting than careers.

BoL‘s list of careers include alchemist, assassin, barbarian, beggar, blacksmith, dancer, farmer, gladiator, hunter, magician, mariner, merchant, mercenary, minstrel, noble, physician, pirate, priest, serving wench, scribe, sky pilot (!), slave, soldier, thief, torturer, and worker. That’s a pretty exhaustive list.

I like BoL‘s career concept. Every character starts with four careers and four points to divide between those careers. No career starts with more than 3 points allocated to it. A 0 career rank indicates basic training in that career. The careers themselves represent what the character did before he became an adventuring hero. Importing a career system into a game with character classes, however, presents certain difficulties.

For example, could a fighter (character class) have been a thief (career) before he became a fighter? Sure. Does that mean a fighter (character class) with a thief (career) in his past should be as good as a thief (character class) at doing thiefly things? Hardly, because that would melt a special snowflake.

Even if my WIP skill system facilitates a fighter do thiefly things, that thiefly fighter should not be better at those tasks than a thief (character class). A career like magician is even more problematic. I mean, anyone at least try to sneak, but not everyone should be able to cast spells.

I need some time to digest all that thought food.

Task Difficulty & Success

I like having a static target number for task resolution. It seems to make things easier. The player rolls the dice and applies modifiers. Is the total 16 or better? Yes? Success! No? Not success!

Of course, not all tasks are equally easy. A system with a static target number needs difficulty modifiers (which even a system without a static success number is going to have). I’ll take my cue from BoL, adjusting modifiers to account for the change from 2d6 to 2d12:

Difficulty: Modifier
Easy: +2
Moderate: +0
Tricky: -2
Hard: -4
Tough: -8
Demanding: -12

I’m also considering degrees of success based on the task resolution total. Right now, in my mind, the degrees look something like this:

Task Total: Degree of Success
16 or higher: Success. The character does what he set out to do.
14-15: Success, But. The character does what he set out to do, but with a complication, such as the task taking longer.
Below 15: Failure. The character does not do what he set out to do.

I want to introduce critical successes and critical failures as well. I’m looking at a natural 21-22 being a success with a minor benefit, and a natural 23-24 being a success with a major benefit. A natural 2-4 would be a failure with an additional complication. Monte Cook’s interesting Numenera proves inspirational here.

Anyhoo, that’s enough for now. Time for other activities while these ideas simmer beneath the surface.

Tags: Barbarians of Lemuria, game play, Swords & Wizardry

Whew!

I’ve not been this productive with Spes Magna Games in a while, and I’m determined to make more of my week off for Thanksgiving. So far this week, aside from blogposts, I’ve managed to get:

1. Metro Gnomes on-line for sale.
2. The Quid Novi? Collection on-line for sale.
3. Rantz’s Fair Multitude on-line for sale.
4. The Amphitheater of the Continuum on-line for free download.

Next up? Well, I’m going to try and finish Astounding Archetypes: Bloodhand Gang. This PDF will be a return to Pathfinder material for Spes Magna Games. It features five new archetypes, one each for barbarian, fighter, magus, monk, and rogue, plus five villainous NPCs, one for each archetype.

I’d like to have Astounding Archetypes: Bloodhand Gang on-line for sale before Monday, 2 December, but there’re no guarantees. As the number of hours of vacation left to me dwindle, those things I’ve been putting off (such as getting grades into the gradebook and lesson plans) start to become more urgent. Also, I’m running 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars this coming Friday, and I really should finish up the scenario before people show up expecting to play.

Still, this has been a good week for Spes Magna Games. Huzzah!

Ever hang out with a child that has learned that he too can say, “No!”? Delightful, isn’t he? Ever play with a GM that has the same propensity? Fun, huh?

Fortunately, most GMs, like most children, outgrow the “No!” stage. Those that don’t, GMs and children, end up being rather unpleasant as adults, which has its own consequences, such as a lack of players (for GMs) or a lack of friends (for adults in general). Oh, sure, there’re probably players who tolerate Negative GMs, but probably more out of a wrong-headed sense of gamer solidarity than a genuine desire to put up with such nonsense.

I’ve encountered Negative GMs a few times over the years. How about some examples to better illustrate what I’m talking about?

Example the First

Many years ago, I was playing in a Forgotten Realms adventure. The GM described how monsters approached rapidly from a distance, obviously intending to attack us.

“How far away are they?” asked a player.

“Do you have the Estimate Distance nonweapon proficiency?” asked the GM.

None of us had that nonweapon proficiency. I’m pretty sure none of us even knew there was such a nonweapon proficiency.

“No, you can’t tell how far away the monsters are,” the GM said.

Example the Second

Even more years ago, I was playing a 1E game, running my paladin Karras the Damned. We were defending a fort from a horde of evil humanoids, ogres, and giants. We were seriously outclassed, but at least we had the advantage of the fort’s defenses. Even still, the horde eventually battered down the gates and flooded into the yard.

“Karras ducks into that narrow hall and attacks the hill giant after it passes him,” I said.

“No,” said the GM.

“Huh?”

“You’re a paladin. You can’t attack by surprise.”

Example the Third

Just to show that the problem isn’t always the GM, I offer up an example of the Negative Player. I was running a D&D game. The PCs were fighting a pitched battle on the topmost storey of a large tower. Flying monsters were setting fire to the roof over their heads.

“My character wants to get out onto the roof to fight the flying monsters,” said a player.

“Okay,” said I. “How?”

“Um, he could lean out a window, swing his rope and grappling hook up, and try to latch onto the roof. Then, he could climb up.”

“No,” said the Negative Player. “That won’t work.”

“Really?” said I. “How come?”

The Negative Player launched into a pedantic monologue about gravity, arcs, and roofing materials. I felt sorry for asking.

Jim Butcher Weighs In

At the last Space City Con here in Houston, Texas, author Jim Butcher offered a couple of sessions about writing. When deciding the outcome of a conflict in a story, Mr. Butcher opined that there are only four options available to the writer:

1. Yes
2. Yes, But
3. No
4. No, and Furthermore

Since roleplaying games are a form of shared storytelling, it stands to reason that these four options ought to be available to GMs and the other players. Notice how the possibility of three options other than “No!” could apply to each situation above. For example, in the first example, the GM could’ve said, “Yes, you can estimate the distance to the monsters, but your estimation won’t be as accurate as if you had the Estimate Distance nonweapon proficiency.”

So, you might be wondering, what’s the point, Mark?

Skill Checks for Swords & Wizardry

I like Swords & Wizardry. I also like systems for resolving skill checks, such as determining if a PC can jump across a chasm, identify a monster by its tracks, or repair a suit of armor. On the other hand, I don’t like skill lists. Lists, by their very nature, limit options because no list can account for every possibility. The list’s limitations may end up being the PC’s limitations as well (“Sorry, you can’t tell how far away something is because you don’t have the right skill.”).

On the same other hand, I don’t like skill systems that melt a class’s special snowflakeness. Thieves get to be sneaky, pick locks, and find traps. A skill system that lets other classes do those things steps on thieves’ toes. But, that doesn’t mean a fighter or a wizard can’t be sneaky. A GM ought not simply declare, “Your fighter cannot hide in the shadows or move quietly. Those are thief abilities, and fighters don’t have thief abilities.”

Ergo, what I want for Swords & Wizardry is a skill system that:

1. Doesn’t involve skill lists
2. Doesn’t melt special snowflakes
3. Doesn’t say “No!” as the default answer
4. Doesn’t require modifying Swords & Wizardry any more than minimally necessary

Swords & Wizardry, Meet Barbarians of Lemuria

BoL uses a single dice mechanic for all action resolution. For skill-type checks, the player rolls 2d6 + the PC’s relevant ability score + the PC’s relevant career ranks. Any result of 9 or higher is a success. For example, a PC wants to appraise a gem. The player rolls 2d6 and adds the PC’s Mind and merchant career ranks. (BoL includes possibilities for really bad failures as well as really good successes, but I’m not worried about critical results at the moment.)

A PC may also have boons or flaws. These present situations in which a PC is particularly good or noticeably bad at certain tasks. Either way, the player rolls 3d6 instead of 2d6. For a boon, the player picks the two best dice. For a flaw, he picks the two worst dice. Everything else stays the same.

In order start grafting this sort of system onto Swords & Wizardry, it seems as if I need some careers, a dice mechanic (I’m leaning toward 2d10 with a target number of 15+), and perhaps some sort of boon/flaw mechanic. I’ve got some basic ideas, but I need to put some more thought into them before I take this concept any further.

Until then, good gaming!

Tags: Barbarians of Lemuria, game play, Swords & Wizardry

At long last, I purchased Simon Washbourne’s Barbarians of Lemuria. I first encountered this game as its free version. I first played BoL at OwlCon 2013, and I really enjoyed the convention scenario and the system itself.

BoL includes a magic system that is both flexible and customizable. While most magicians appear in sword & sorcery fiction as villains, BoL does offer magician as a heroic career for player characters. Spells cost Arcane Power, which starts equal to the character’s magician rank plus 10. Spells fall into four categories: Cantrips, First Magnitude, Second Magnitude, and Third Magnitude.

A magician casts a spell by deciding on the effect, which determines the spell’s category. The higher the category, the more Arcane Power the spell costs and higher the difficulty of casting the spell (success determined by rolling 2d6 + Mind + magician rank – difficulty modifier and trying to equal to beat a 9).

Cantrips accomplish minor tasks, such as making a coin vanish or causing a rope to slither up a wall. First Magnitude spells are utility spells “that allow the sorcerer to perform activities that anyone with the right training and equipment could manage.” These spells can inflict damage, such as a blast of flame, or let the magician climb like a spider. Cantrip and First Magnitude spells are likely the only types of spells that will commonly see use in the game. Second and Third Magnitude spells are capable of truly mighty effects, such as mind control, destroying a building, or causing a volcano to rise out of the earth and erupt.

All spells except Cantrips require additional casting requirements, such as possession of a special item (like an ancient tome), rare ingredients (like the tongue of a mythical beast), or a ritual sacrifice (including even human sacrifice for Third Magnitude spells). The magician can pile on additional casting requirements to lower the spell’s Arcane Power cost, but each category of spell has a minimum Arcane Power cost regardless of how many additional casting requirements are applied. For example, a First Magnitude spell cost a minimum of 1 Arcane Power, whereas a Third Magntitude spell costs at least 11 Arcane Power.

Here’s a sample Third Magnitude spell to go along with the creepy pictures of spiders taking over the countryside in Australia:

Plague of Spiders
Cost: 15
Requirements: Personal ordeal. The caster must immerse himself in a pit full of biting spiders, crushing and eating hundreds of the spiders as they bite him, in order to achieve the right frame of mind for casting.
Minimum Cost: 11
Difficulty: Demanding (-6)

This horrible spell summons forth millions of spiders that swarm across the land for miles, blanketing everything in their path with webs. Individually, the spiders prove little threat (Size Tiny, Damage 1, Lifeblood 1, Move 15 ft.). They are, however, extremely venomous. The spider’s venom forces a Tricky task roll using Strength to resist or else suffer 1 LB each round until unconscious at 0 LB. This unconscious victim must then make a Hard task roll using Strength to avoid death. A physician can treat the poison, but doing so is Tricky.

Tags: Barbarians of Lemuria, spells

Welcome to Rantz’s Fair Multitude! This Old-School game supplement offers 30 pages of ideas to challenge and reward your players. Among the multitude, you’ll find the following:

* Nine new magic items, including Demon Cymbals and Nails of Prynn
* More than 25 new monsters (with plot hooks), including the book golem, hungry ghosts, and the Seekers of the Eternal Flame
* Six special places you can drop into your campaign, including the Bridge of the Damned and Stadgaar Manor
* Eight new spells, including Arcasparv’s Doomful Gullet and Valfoxell’s Adventitious Pretense
* Brief descriptions for a 12 deity pantheon, including Cro, the God of Truth, Chaos, and Opposites

Rantz’s Fair Multitude can be purchased for $1.50 at DriveThruRPG with special discount.

Tags: monsters, place of power, spells, Spes Magna Products, Swords & Wizardry