Out with the old...
I've downloaded the raw data of my comments and wrote a custom script to display them here on this site. All my old comments are now saved for posterity on this site, and creation of new comments has been disabled. Stay tuned for further changes soon...
Most everyone I know that blogs uses a service like LiveJournal or BlogSpot. Not me, I downloaded the phpblogger script to my own web server and run it myself. Why? I like my bytes where I can see them (and back them up, and know they won't vanish). Services come and go. Heck, try and click that link in the bottom right of this site to phpblogger.com (where I got the scripts from originally) and see what happens. That's right, the site is gone.
Except that 5 years ago when I set this blog up there wasn't a lot of options out there for a system that had a decent photo gallery plugin (yeah, clearly I use that a lot these days). So I had to make trade-offs. With phpblogger, the problem was the comment system. It came with such a simple system with no real security at all, that my comments were quickly swamped with spam. So I swallowed my pride and switched to using a commenting service: HaloScan.
I just got an email from HaloScan, and they're closing up shop. I was able to back up all my comments to date, but now I have a difficult choice to make. I can find some way to upgrade this site, either using a different service (which I'd likely have to pay for) and trying to bring the old phpblogger code up to snuff, or I can simply retire this blog and switch to a different system.
The latter is more attractive at the moment. WordPress seems to have come a long way since 2005, perhaps I will install and play with that software. Though I think I would at least want to write something to display the old comment data even if new comments were disabled so I can keep the old blog present for posterity.
Hmm, what a pain in the ass. I knew I was asking for trouble when I started using HaloScan.
Badge registration opens up tomorrow for GenCon. As I was kicking myself last year for not going, you can be sure I won't make the same mistake this year. It looks to be a small group of us, just four in total, but I'm sure it will still be a total blast. Assuming I survive registration.
Strangely enough, GenCon isn't the only gaming convention on my mind right now. It's not even really in the fore-front of my thoughts, though badge registration is tomorrow, and hotel registration is Tuesday. OK, maybe now it is. But I'm also juggling planning time now for two other conventions.
I decided a while back that I'd like to check out a local convention, and recently pre-reged for Total Con. Actually, I only registered for Saturday, as I'm not sure what to expect from this convention and it's so close, it'll be easy to just swing by for the day. Nobody has mentioned wanting to go with me either, so I suppose just going for a day is probably enough. I'm really hoping to get into one of the AD&D games being run by Frank Mentzer. That would be awesome.
And of course, there's HelgaCon. I actually just sent off the check for the rental -- I'm using the same place we used last year. Still a bit concerned that I haven't seen as many positive responses as I did last year, but hopefully as the event gets closer more folks will come out of the woodwork.
What I really need to do is get some games prepped to run at these things. I promised Dan Proctor I'd run a Labyrinth Lord game at GenCon (I was planning on doing so anyway), and Jenn will be incredibly sad if I don't run a Warhammer game at HelgaCon. I'm thinking of running a game featuring an all skaven party for that. I have to run at least two games at HelgaCon, so I'll probably want to run another D&D game for the second. If I was clever, I'd try and run the same game for both that and for GenCon.
Man, you would think with all this work still to do for these conventions I wouldn't be sitting here wishing it wasn't all still so far away.
Stealth in D&D
In the past, the separation of the thief skills Hide in Shadows and Move Silently has always annoyed me. Why should I have two different skills for sneaking up on someone? Must I roll both, in order to determine if my target first can see me, and second can hear me? I much preferred systems that rolled these skills into a single stealth mechanic.
However, if you look carefully, most descriptions of Hide in Shadows specifically mention that the thief must remain motionless to hide in such a way. I think this is the give-away of the real difference between these two skills. It's not auditory vs. visual, but rather moving vs. stationary.
Hide in Shadows, I believe, is meant to allow the thief to take up a hidden position, even though his target may eventually look directly at said position. It is the mechanic for the lay-in-wait ambush. The thief hides himself, waits for his target to come by, and then jumps out at him (or simply lets him pass before moving on to other business.)
Move Silently, on the other hand, is for when the target is already unaware of the thief, and the thief wishes to get closer to the target while still remaining undetected. This is the skill for your stalking horse manuevres. Or if you're already hidden in the shadows, and that pesky target refuses to come anywhere near you. The thief waits for the target's back to be turned, or distracts him by having a friendly fighter type engage him in combat, then sneaks up behind him and attacks.
These thoughts came to me after a recent session where the thief player twice tried the classic stalking horse maneuvre on an enemy that was already engaged with one of the other party members. In both cases I decided it would take a round for the thief to position himself advantageously such that he could jump out at the target on the following round. I'm not sure if I was gonig to require a Hide in Shadows roll, as in both cases the target was dead by the next round.
In future, I think I will rule such cases like this: The thief must make a Move Silently roll followed by an attack roll. If both succeed, he is allowed to use the backstab mechanic on his target. If the Move Silently fails, then the target notices the thief too late for the thief to course correct, and the attack is treated as a standard attack. In either case, the thief is now considered in melee combat with the target (presuming the target is still alive), and no more backstabbing can be attempted.
XP for Monsters
One thing I'm really terrible about is keeping track of XP awards. Usually either the math is complicated or the award system is so subjective that I have to spend some time thinking about it to figure out the award for an evening's play. Either way it doesn't end up getting done right at the end of the session, and I either email it around between sessions, or I forget and then have to do it just hours before the subsequent sessions.
I was thinking about other stuff I could put on my gaming computer (yeah, I got the tablet netbook I referred to in an earlier post, I'll have more details about it in the future), and I thought it might be nice to have some kind of app that would tally XP for me. Something that I could enter in the party list, and then simply enter monsters killed or treasure found when it happens and it would keep a running XP tally.
I was talking to Delta about this, and he mentioned that it was trivial in OD&D because the XP award is simply 1 xp per gp, and 100 xp per HD of monster killed. That's some very easy math there, no need for a computer program to do it for you! I knew though that in B/X and LL, the XP calculation was more complicated with a table look up based on HD, and then bonus xp per special ability. Also, the amount is much less, for example a 1 HD creature's base XP is 5, and a 6 HD creature's base is around 300. That's 20 times less xp for a 1 HD creature, and half for a 6 HD creature. The charts converge at 10 HD, if you're curious.
I figured the significant difference must be because the XP required to level had changed as well. If you're getting 1/20th the xp at first level, the amount of xp required to get to 2nd level must be 20 times less, right? Wrong.
Comparing the OD&D xp chart to the BX and LL charts, they're nigh identical. In fact, BX and OD&D charts for fighters and clerics are exactly identical, and magic-users only get a slight increase in BX. Of course, the BX charts extend the max level a bit, but for the values listed they remain the same.
Why the sudden drop? It's hard to say. Apparently the change happened as early as Supplement I for OD&D, where Gygax says:
Rather than the (ridculous [sic]) 100 points per level for slain monsters, use the table below dividing experience equally among all characters in the party involved.
The table there-in is pretty much the same as the table used in BX. Not much explanation there, simply that Gygax found the old system 'ridiculous'. Were they blowing through the low levels too quickly? Was this an effort to make treasure rewards that much more significant that monster slain rewards?
Given that in my old lunch time BX game the XP rewards were always deemed to be far too minimal, I think I may give the old system a whirl. Plus, that way I won't have to write a custom app to do the calculations for me.
Computers at the Gaming Table
You may have noticed recently I've been creating a good amount of GM assisting software, including the hypertext module and the hireling generator. This probably begs the question, do I use a computer while GMing? You may be surprised to learn that the answer is no.
I've tried it a couple times, using a laptop as either part of or the entire GM screen. It is nice at a couple things. I enjoy the ability to quickly navigate through documents, like searching PDFs of rulebooks or using a wiki to create my modules. On the other hand, there are some things it's just a terrible replacement for, such as dice rolling. And there are other things like quick note taking or HP tracking in a combat that I suspect it could be good at, but I haven't found any software yet that's faster than a pad of paper and a pencil.
Now I could get behind having a computer and using it for some things and not others, but the form factor is just not really conducive to that. The keyboard and mouse take up too much room, leaving only a small area for paper notes and dice. My laptop battery won't last a full game session, which is often at least 3 hours (my battery usually conks out after 2), so that means clunky power cables draped about.
Recently though, a thought struck me that perhaps this might be an actual good use for a netbook. Those tiny laptop machines may be horribly under-powered, but how much power do you really need to run a web browser and adobe reader? I started looking at netbooks with this use case in mind, and I stumbled on something that I'm now absolutely slavering over. The Asus T91.
It's a netbook, but in tablet form factor. That means you can swivel the screen around and close the lid such that the keyboard is covered with an upward facing screen. And then you control it with a stylus. At about 9' x 7' x 1', it's not much bigger than the steno pad I already use for keeping notes. It can lie flat on the table behind my usual screen, and still leave ample space for dice and other papers and whatnot. I have doubts about how good the OCR might be when writing with the stylus, but if I really need to write a ton of text quickly, I can always flip it back into laptop mode. And it claims to have a 5 hour battery, more than enough time for your average gaming session, so no annoying power cables.
The downside is, it goes for about $500 over at Amazon. That's pretty pricey for a netbook, and comparable non-tablet machines are usually in the $300 range. I could probably convince myself it's worth it, if only I could see and play with one for a little while. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a store that carries them, so my only choice is to buy it blind over the internet.
I may yet still get one. I'll probably wait until after Christmas and see where my finances are at. Who knows, maybe I'll get some Christmas money to offset the price. In the mean time, it's on my Amazon wish list, so I suppose there's always the extremely remote chance I might find one under the tree this year. Yeah, that's really not very likely, but they call it a wish list for a reason, right?
XSL + Tiddlywiki = Hypertext D&D Modules
I was reading an old module recently, and realizing for the umpteenth time how annoying it is to flip back and forth between map and keyed description, when I realized this is exactly what a wiki should be great at. The map could be a nice image map (do html authors really still use those?) and each room could open up the wiki section when you click on it.
Wondering about the whole image map thing, I did a little digging and found a great blog post about making an image map with pure CSS, including a lovely example in the form of a map of the US States. Hmm, a pure CSS solution should work fine in Tiddlywiki, right? I gave it a whirl, and sure enough I could make an entry in Tiddlywiki with the CSS embedded directly into it and get the result I wanted. Perfect. Sort of.
Well, there's an aweful lot of boilerplate CSS you have to write for each area of the map. It seemed to me like it would be pretty painful to mark up an entire dungeon map of the stuff. The only things that really were important was the name of the area being marked (to associate it with a unique entry in the wiki), the rectangle defining the area on the map, and the image to draw on top when you mouse over it. All that should fit in a pretty concise XML document, right?
Hmm, perhaps I could write a XSL style sheet to convert a simple XML document into the CSS format I wanted. Is this getting too technical? Hang on, the pay off is soon! I gave it a whirl. Sure, it worked, but how do you embed both the XML and the XSL style sheet into a tiddlywiki and get it to do the transform? I would need some kind of XSL transform plugin for tiddlywiki.
So yeah, I wrote an XSL transform plugin for tiddlywiki. Turns out, it was pretty easy. If you know XSL, I'm sure you could use this for a thousand cool things. If you don't, that's OK, you can just steal my XSL and all you need to worry about is getting the map graphics ready and defining your rectangles. Here's an example of the system at work in an otherwise blank tiddlywiki:
XSL Image Map in Tiddlywiki
(Demo map unceremoniously stolen from Dyson's blog. Thanks dude.)
You can hover over areas in the map, and if you click them it links to new entries in the tiddlywiki. The file won't let you save any changes you make though, for that you'd have to have a local copy of the file. So here's a zip of the file along with the images I used to make the demo:
If you take the time to learn some Tiddlywiki, it should be pretty easy to start marking up your own maps. Pretty sweet, right?
About Those Small Weapons
One thing I had a little trouble with on those class generating tables was the small weapon restriction for dwarves and halflings. The chart doesn't really categorize small vs. large, but instead shows weapons in somewhat arbitrary groups (axes vs. swords for example). This made it hard to figure out what the impact of the small weapon restriction had on XP charts.
In fact, this sent me diving through a few different sources to try and figure out exactly what weapons dwarves and halflings were not allowed to have. Fortunately, the original BX books are pretty explicit. For both classes, they are specifically forbidden two handed swords and long bows. I find it a bit odd that pole-arms are not included on the list, and I'm personally tempted to include those as well.
Labyrinth Lord's expanded equipment list makes it more confusing I'm afraid, especially as the wording on the restriction in the text is even more loosely defined. Dwarves are still specifically restricted from two-handed swords and long bows, but the section for halflings reads:
Like dwarves, halflings may not use large and two-handed weapons, but may use any other weapon and armor.
Now, the comparison to dwarves implies that it's the same list of weapons, but the subsequent text does seem to try and genericise the limitation to any two-handed or large weapon. Are we to assume halflings are more limited in weapon choice, or that the section for dwarves needs expansion to also include any two-handed or large weapon? Just which weapons are considered large anyway?
At least in BX the equipment list is pretty brief, so it's easy to identify the three potentially limited weapons: two-handed sword, pole-arm, and long bow. In BX there isn't even a 'long sword', it's just a 'sword', so no worries there that it's too big.
LL introduces more troubling weapons, and not just the rename of sword to long sword. There's the morning star, heavy pick, heavy flail, and trident, all two-handed weapons. Crossbows are grouped into light and heavy, should we make exception for the heavy crossbow just as we do the long bow? The battle axe is specifically listed as being two-handed as well, but not allowing a dwarf to use a battle axe just seems wrong. And what of the bastard sword, which can be used either one or two handed?
If we go back to BX and assume use of the optional damage by weapon chart (remember default in BX is that all weapons do d6 damage, which to some degree makes this whole thing kind of moot under that system), and we assume that pole-arm should be included in the list of proscribed weapons, we can see that dwarves and halflings lose access to melee weapons that do d10 damage, and ranged weapons that do d8 damage. That at least seems like a real mechanical limitation.
Allowing dwarves and halflings to use a mace (d6) but not a morning-star (d6) reduces the rule to purely aesthetic. If instead we say that the limitation applies to any melee weapon that does more than d8 damage, and any ranged weapon that does more than d6, we not only have a rule that has actual mechanical impact in LL, but also a pretty manageable list of proscribed weapons: two-handed sword, pole-arm, bastard sword, long bow, and heavy crossbow.
Races and Classes
Though I have defended race as class in basic D&D, many of the players I play with would much prefer the wider range of character choices when race and class are split. If splitting the two means my players will let me run an old school campaign, well, that's a compromise I'm willing to make.
So I've been looking into how to adapt Labyrinth Lord to split race and class. I was really hoping that the Advanced Edition Companion would come out before I had to do any work on this, as I figured I could probably just lift what I needed from that. Unfortunately, the release on that work has been delayed, and my opportunity to start a new campaign will arrive sooner than that. Also I really don't want all the baggage that comes with 1st edition (which is why I'm not considering OSRIC or the like), I just want dwarves, elves, and halflings to have access to the same classes as humans. I'm not sure how closely to 1e Daniel Proctor plans to adhere in the AEC.
Now, Michael Curtis wrote a nice article entitled New Classes and Racial Variants for Basic, which happens to have an appendix full of tables that breaks apart the features of each class into XP modifiers so you can build any custom class with a correctly scaled XP progression chart (which in turn is based on an old article from Dragon Magazine #109). I'm a big fan of using level progression as the balancing factor, so I decided to try and use these as a basis for my own race/class system.
I started by creating a spreadsheet of those tables so I could quickly play with options and see the effect. Apologies to MS Excel users, but I use Open Office, so you'll have to download that if you want to check out my spreadsheet. It is free after all.
Anyway, playing with those tables I was able to recreate some standard classes with reasonable accuracy. So next I tried creating some non standard classes, such as a dwarven cleric or an elven thief. Mostly I was trying to come up with a quick formula that could be applied to one of the core four human classes to make a non-human version.
To do this, I first had to decide what class features should be tied to race instead of class. Obviously, the 'racial features' table goes with race, and includes all the special rules for a race such as infravision, finding secret doors, and the halfling +1 with ranged weapons. The other item I decided should be part of race is the saving throw chart. I know 1e just converted this to saving throw bonuses for different races, but I kind of liked just allowing the non-human races to just use their own chart out of the book regradless of their class.
Given that, I started to see some easy math emerging. It boils down to this:
To create an elven version of a human class, add 20% XP to each level. To create a dwarven version, add 10% XP. To create a halfling version, use the XP chart as it is.
The halfling thing may be surprising, but basically it looks to me like the bonuses for halflings (hiding in wilderness, +1 to ranged weapons) are easily countered by their detriments (small weapon requirement). This makes the assumption that the race as class versions of dwarf and halfing are equivalent to the 'fighter' version, which probably precludes those original race-classes as written (why would you play a halfling with less hp and a level cap instead of a halfling fighter?) I think I would leave the elf race-class in as an option though, as the only real example of a multi-class character.
This is just a quick off-the-cuff idea, I haven't really done any close analysis of what this produces. It may be well enough for my use though, at least until Proctor gets the AEC out.
It does raise one question for me though, which is do I really want all races to have access to all four core classes? Thematically, I'm not sure about the idea of dwarven magic-users. Halfling spell casters of any type also strike me as a bit odd. Elven clerics seem unusual, but I'd probably just skew them in the direction of druids, at least aesthetically. I'm not sure though, perhaps it's worth polling my players to see what they think.