Evil Mastermind posted:

Here's another blank hexishmap I just remembered I had. Unfortunately I don't remember the source, and Googling for "ggmlk" isn't really helping.



Direct link to full-sized version

DalaranJ posted:

No one has answered this yet, so I guess we don't have any chart experts.

Here are the two major things I keep in mind when constructing a chart.
1. Only make a chart if it is going help your game. Generally this means, you need to use the chart in play. Except,
2. A chart tells you about the setting. Anything that is written on a chart is true in your world. The things on the chart occur with the stated probability, so every chart tells you something about the world.

(So, potentially you could draw up a chart that won't get used to remind you of something about your setting, but mostly stick to what you need.)

bongwizzard posted:

I backed the DCC kickstarter when I was hunting for a "D&D how I remembered it" system as there was realistically no way to get 3-4 of my non-gamer friends to learn 1st ed AD&D. From a few times skimming the PDFs it looks more and more like what I was looking for. It looked like a lot of stuff to process but once I got the hang of how all the charts work it seems like with a handful of printouts it should be an easy system to learn/teach. I do the think the 0 level funnel is going to be a tripping point, so I might try and do a 3-4lvl oneoff to get everyone on board.

Moriatti posted:

Dunno if this is the correct thread but...
A friend invited me to a 3.5 game, and while I'm very familiar with both Pathfinder and 4e, my experience in 3.5 is much more limited.

In Pathfinder, I tend to play a buff heavy summoner with an aggressive Eidolon who focuses on aiding other members of the party.

In 4e, I play a bit of everything.

Looking at some class options, Artificer, Sword Sage and Bard all seemed cool to me. This will be a more free form and less combat heavy game then I'm used to, are there any really fun builds with those classes? Not necessarily heavily optimised, but ones that for the few combats that do happen, they can do their fun little tricks?

Glorified Scrivener posted:

Have you checked out the reference booklet here? It's basically all the charts in the core book - I give each player a cut down version of it without the monster stuff.

In tangentially related old D&D stuff the Forestry program here is out trimming branches with what I'd classify as saw toothed bills...

Scyther posted:

Sounds like DCC isn't a downright horrible recommendation that I'd be morally obligated to object to. Thanks everyone.

DalaranJ posted:

Alright, I have a bit of a radical hypothetical.
What is the benefit of attributes in a retroclone?
Why aren't there any (that I know of) retroclones which eschew attributes?

DalaranJ posted:

So, if one somehow knew about RPGs while simultaneously knowing nothing about D&D and wanted to make a game that was about either fantasy overland travel or underground exploration, then conceivably that game might not have a mechanic similar to attributes?

I mean it probably would, because attributes are an extremely easy to come up with and understand gameplay conceit, but it might not?

gradenko_2000 posted:

There's some value to "having stats, period" insofar as it's an at-a-glance measure of relative power in a particular area of specialization, especially in the case of games that advocate a d20-roll-under-attribute task resolution system

There's also some value to "random rolling of stats" as far as providing character idea fodder and quick character creation, provided the numbers are tuned to produce playable characters no matter what.

gradenko_2000 posted:

You're probably going to have attributes no matter what. Even GURPS as a heavily skill based game still has attributes so that the skills, and the untrained tasks, have a base value to work off of. Even Risus has "attributes", even if they're on the scale of "Big Hulking Bruiser 4" and that could mean an entire panoply of core competencies, but as a core building block of game design, you're going to have them.

Might and Magic, Ultima, Diablo, World of Warcraft, Legacy of Grimrock, Final Fantasy, Jagged Alliance, even Out of the Park Baseball all have "attributes" in some form of another.

It's just that they don't use D&D's particular way of expressing them.

DalaranJ posted:

In fact, what I was proposing is like WOW (an unfortunately loaded subject), in that, you don't modify your attributes directly, attributes are simply a result of your class and level modified in some ways by your equipment. (I don't have a lot of experience with WOW so, if that's wrong let's pretend that it's true for the sake of argument here).

gradenko_2000 posted:

That's just one possible answer, though - there is another school of thought where you skip ahead to the derived stats provided by attribute scores and automatically increase those: You don't give a Fighter an 18 STR so that they always have a +4 attack bonus, you give them a +4 attack bonus, and that attack bonus increases of its own volition, and that "frees up" the attribute scores to be whatever you like, with whatever in-game rationalization you want for an 18 INT Fighter or an 18 DEX Fighter dealing damage in a narrative appropriate way.

DalaranJ posted:

Why aren't there any (that I know of) retroclones which eschew attributes?

gradenko_2000 posted:

This is sort of what people mean when they say "Death To Attribute Scores".

DalaranJ posted:

Seems to me that old D&D provided less focus on ability scores then later versions. Which is understandable since it wasn't even clear on what it's resolution mechanic was supposed to be outside of combat. That's what got this train of thought rolling.

Elfgames posted:

This is my preference it seems silly that fighting prowess is usually based on your raw stats in a game where you have experience levels, Experience you gain by fighting and adventuring like to me that should matter way more than stats

Evil Mastermind posted:

In terms of retro-clone-ish games without ability scores, there's also Barebones Fantasy, which takes the core classes (plus a few more) and turns them into skills. So there are eight skills in all: Cleric, Enchanter, Leader, Scholar, Scout, Spellcaster, Thief, and Warrior. Each one gives "class abilities", some of which scale with the skill level.

Kind of? It's not so much that stats wound up with less focus as how the bonuses they provided worked. In Basic and 4e, each stat keyed off the same bonus value table, but each stat applied that bonus to different things. So a 16 in a stat was a +2 bonus, and if it was in STR then it added to your melee to-hit, melee damage, and open doors roll. If the 16 was in your WIS, then the +2 was added to your magic saving throw.

Then you go to AD&D, where each stat has its own unique table for what bonuses it provides, which aren't just "apply this value to X, Y, and Z". A 16 STR now means you get +0 to hit, +1 to damage, +350 coins of encumbrance, a 3 in 6 chance to bash open a door, and a 10% chance to bend bars/lift gates. A 16 WIS doesn't give you jack unless you're playing a cleric, in which case it gives a +1 "magical attack adjustment" (which means a -1 to the target's saving throw), one bonus 2nd level spell slot, and a 0% chance of spell failure.

Then from there we go to 3e and 4e, where we're back at the idea of each stat just giving a flat bonus from a universal table and applied to X, Y, and Z depending on what stat it is.

Evil Mastermind posted:

Then you go to AD&D, where each stat has its own unique table for what bonuses it provides, which aren't just "apply this value to X, Y, and Z". A 16 STR now means you get +0 to hit, +1 to damage, +350 coins of encumbrance, a 3 in 6 chance to bash open a door, and a 10% chance to bend bars/lift gates. A 16 WIS doesn't give you jack unless you're playing a cleric, in which case it gives a +1 "magical attack adjustment" (which means a -1 to the target's saving throw), one bonus 2nd level spell slot, and a 0% chance of spell failure.

DalaranJ posted:

Seems to me that old D&D provided less focus on ability scores then later versions. Which is understandable since it wasn't even clear on what it's resolution mechanic was supposed to be outside of combat. That's what got this train of thought rolling.

DalaranJ posted:

I wish I knew more about the 2nd edition era to know if some of AD&D's excesses directly inspired future mechanical changes.

No Luck Needed posted:

Payndz posted:

I'm so used to Basic's standardised-ish ability score bonuses that I forget AD&D didn't do things the same way, inevitably making things that bit harder for the players. As if adding AC10 to the hit matrix making all attacks against a particular AC 5% harder wasn't bad enough, even STR 16 giving you +0 to-hit rather than +2 means even more chances for "Roll to hit! You miss. Next player...", which to me was the single most boring and frustrating thing about playing D&D. It's the reason why my current retroclone project does away with to-hit rolls entirely; if you make an attack you're always going to do some damage, the question is how much.

DalaranJ posted:

So, I did all that about how there weren't any retro-clones without attributes and then that day I found this: Searchers Of The Unknown

Not exactly my style but it certainly fits the criteria.

Evil Mastermind posted:

WIS doesn't give a bonus until WIS 15, which gives a whopping +1 "magical attack adjustment", which is actually a penalty to the target's saves.

FRINGE posted:

In 2e gives a bonus to your saves against certain "mind magics" and illusions. It was called "Magical Defense Adjustment" and had effects beyond 18. (It slowly made you immune to certain enchantment/illusion-like spells as the chart climbs past 18. I.e. Command, Hold Person, Suggestion, etc)

Arivia posted:

Found another one in the 2e Dungeon Builder's Handbook, so that would be 4. Would people be interested if I worked up an example of each of these and compared them somewhere?