Shinobi Sunday: Gamer ADD Edition

In the Board Game Group, Jeremy has maybe one or two more players interested in joining Josh's Gamma World game.  But according to Alex, who I talked to yesterday, Josh is thinking of stopping after this module rather than continuing the series.  What's all this got to do with ninja?  Not much, I can hear some of you thinking. 

But Alex is again wanting to run his go-to system, Palladium.  He plans to mix TMNT with Ninjas & Superspies.

Right now he's thinking of running a mercenary campaign, possibly using elements of Recon as well.  I told him yesterday that I'd be all over this game if he actually set it during the Vietnam War.  I grew up on Tour of Duty, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and read quite a few histories of the war in Jr. High and High School. 

Anyway, even if he doesn't set it in 'Nam, a TMNT/Ninjas & Superspies game could be pretty fun.

Blending Alignment and Treasure Hunting

Building off of my last post, and Jaap de Goede's comment on it, I started thinking back to my earlier breakdown of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic as the conflict between civilization and the forces that would destroy it.

Hunting for treasure is not in and of itself anti-heroic. 

XP for treasure is a simple way to include "story" awards in D&D.  Too much treasure kicking around the campaign can be a problem for certain styles of game.

Alignment can be problematic, but the simpler version of Classic D&D works for me.

Taking all of the above together, let's combine my ideas on alignment with the Dave Arneson houserule that you only gain XP for 'frittering away treasure on hookers and blow.'

• Lawful characters, being concerned with advancing Civilization, only gain XP for donating their treasure to some agent of Order and Civilization.  This could be their liege lord, the Thieves' Guild, a temple or church, the Tower of Magery, a museum, local charities, and the like.
• Neutral characters, being concerned with their own interests first, only gain XP for wasting their treasure on some hobby, or their own pleasure (the standard Arneson rule, in other words).
• Chaotic characters, being concerned with halting and reversing Civilization, only gain XP for destroying or hiding treasure in some way.  And it has to be gone in a way that it's not likely to come back soon.  Sinking a treasure ship before raiding the hold, dumping coins down bottomless pits, crushing gems to powder, melting down jewelry, using alchemy to turn gold into lead, or feeding it to a powerful dragon all count.  Simply burying it in the woods pirate style to dig up later doesn't.

Heroes Need Not Apply? I don't think so

So I'm reading through my blog list this morning and of course there's a lot of reaction to the Dungeon Crawl Classics beta that's been released for free.  I still haven't taken a look at it.  I've been too busy this week.  Today's our anniversary, so I know I won't get around to it tonight.

Just wanted to throw up a quick reaction to some of the blogs discussing the non-heroic focus of DCC (and LotFP:WFR). 

Making treasure the standard of progress (gold for XP being much greater than monster XP, and no 'story' or 'skill' rewards until 2E) doesn't invalidate heroic play.  It's fairly easy to incorporate the treasure hunt motif with a heroic vein.  That's the whole point of one of the most popular movie series ever (yeah, the 4th one sucked, we'll ignore that for now).

Dungeon Chickens

So there's that story that floats around the internet, about a second hand copy of a DMG that had penciled in the margins of the wandering monster tables, "Dungeon Chicken."  I'm likely getting the story wrong, but I'm too lazy to go look it up.  I'd bet the story's kicking around somewhere on Jeff's Gameblog (UPDATE: here).  Pretty sure that's where I first read about it.

Anyway, have fun:

Dungeon Chicken
Armor Class: 7 (13)
Hit Dice: 2
Move: 30 (10), Fly 30 (10)
Attacks: 1 peck
Damage: 1d8
No. Appearing: 3d4 (0)
Save As: Fighter 1
Morale: 6
Treasure Type: nil
Alignment: Neutral
XP: 20

Dungeon Chickens are 4' tall versions of the normal animal who have adapted to living in caverns, ruins, and underground labyrinths.  Their coloration is the same as normal chickens.  They have 90' infravision.

Fire Breathing Dungeon Chicken
Armor Class: 6 (14)
Hit Dice: 3+1*
Move: 30 (10), Fly 30 (10)
Attacks: 1 peck or breath
Damage: 1d8 or 3d6
No. Appearing: 1d6 (0)
Save As: Fighter 2
Morale: 7
Treasure Type: S
Alignment: Neutral
XP: 75


Fire Breathing Dungeon Chickens are similar to normal Dungeon Chickens, except they are always red in color.  Once per day, a Fire Breathing Dungeon Chicken can shoot a cone of fire 20' long and 10' wide at the far end.  All those within the blast take damage (save vs. breath weapons for half damage).


Chicken Leg (Chicken Dragon)
Armor Class: 4 (16)
Hit Dice: 5+2
Move: 60 (20)
Attacks: 1 tail or 1 bite
Damage: 3d6 or 1d8
No. Appearing: 1d6 (1d4)
Save As: Fighter 3
Morale: 8
Treasure Type: A
Alignment: Neutral
XP: 225


Chicken Legs look like a cross between a featherless chicken and a small dragon.  They have round pink bodies atop a pair of chicken legs, a powerful serpentine barbed tail, and a bird-like beak.  They usually attack with a tail sweep, but have been known to bite.  Chicken Legs can be trained and are used as mounts by certain barbarian and humanoid tribes.

Into the Wastelands!

Last night we got our Gamma World game off the ground.  We also had a new player join us, Jeremy.

It took quite a bit longer than we'd hoped to roll up characters.  A large part of that was because we were playing at my place, and my son kept interrupting the process.  So while I had thought I'd roll up my guys quickly and then help the others, it was more of me helping them while trying to keep my son from stealing dice or dancing on the table, then finishing up my characters last.

As usual with Gamma World, we've got some interesting characters.  I rolled up an Altered Human Examiner and a Mutated Animal (Cougar) Esper.  Jeremy rolled up a Mutated Animal (Bull) Enforcer and an Altered Human Esper.  Pat rolled up a Pure Strain Human Examiner and a Sentient Plant (Succulent) Scout.

Despite the late start, I think we made some good progress into the module.  We have been given several hooks and a small sandbox area to explore.  We focused on the 'main task' but I think we'll be sure to check out some of the other hooks before we finish.  There wasn't a lot of combat.  We fought one radioactive bird which had no loot, and got attacked by some gamma moths later, which resulted in Pat's Cactus getting radiation sickness and almost dying.  Most of the other encounters were role playing affairs. 

Towards the end, we were all also starting to get a handle on who are characters are.  Jeremy jumped in early with that, making his "Minotaur" into a noble, hard working guy, and his Esper into a crotchety old coot.  I of course made my Cougar into an over 30 female, and since she had an Int 5, she's none too smart so I started trying to make her cat-like instincts drive her at inopportune moments.  My Examiner took a little longer to get into, but I think he's a curious and friendly fellow who has a dream to see civilization restored (he's a Restorationist).  Pat's two characters are a buddy team, sort of like Nobita and Doraemon (if you know who they are).  His Cactus even has a kangaroo pouch mutation. 

Eureka!

I think I've finally got the nuts and bolts rules section of Flying Swordsmen RPG finished, as of sometime during my break at work yesterday.  Tuesday at work (Monday's Korea's version of Memorial Day) I'll print up all 75 or so pages of rules so I can really scan them well for editing purposes.

Once I clean them up a bit, I've got to get to work on the campaign setting, and including lots of examples in the rules that show off that campaign world.  I'm gonna try to keep the world descriptions/history brief, and focus on organizations that can be used to flesh out the setting, similar to Gamma World's Cryptic Alliances or the Martial Arts secret societies of Dragon Fist.  I think that will be much more useful for gamers than boring stats of the populations and major products of a dozen cities. 

Once I get that done, I'll try to work up an introductory adventure and solicit some art donations.  So don't expect to see Flying Swordsmen any time in the immediate future, but it is coming along.

It's not about the textbook, it's about the students

I've been pondering again -- rather pointlessly, I know -- about just what divides "Old School" RPGs from "New School" RPGs.

And once again, I'm coming up with a conclusion that points more to the players than to the rules systems presented in any rulebooks.  Of course, the rules are connected, and can serve to reinforce what the players expect out of the game.  But I feel that what's actually written on the page is a lot less important than how the players (and I suppose I should state here that when I'm using players in this little essay, I'm including Game Masters/Referees) interpret and use those rules.

First off, we can pretty easily say there's no specific 'cut off date' that divides games.  We can't say that everything after 1989 is new school, or everything before 2000 is old school, or anything like that.  The existence of the retro-clone movement has created neo-'old school' games recently.  And some of those games created back in the 70's/80's definitely don't feel like what I personally, at least, consider to be that old school feeling.

Second, it again really falls on D&D's shoulders to be the benchmark by which other games are judged.  It's the first and most popular RPG, and the changes in its various editions show a lot of adaptations of, or reactions against, innovations and player desires in other games.  And those other games are often adaptations of or reactions against the current version of D&D on the market. 

Third, and most importantly from my perspective, is that there are people who can adapt any rules set to suit their preferred style of play (as evidenced by the recent "I'm with D&D...any edition" internet badges out there).   For many players, the real fun of an RPG isn't so much in what rules you're using, it's in that spark of creativity and shared imagination you have when the group you're playing with are all helping feed each other's shared imaginings.  Yes, there are some people who get bogged down in rules minutiae and love the mental challenge of it. 

The real breakdown between Old and New Schools, I'm thinking, is completely based on what the players are expecting out of the game.  And it's got a lot to do with how well a player accepts limits on their character's potential.  This is not about power gaming, but it is about being able to embrace the sub-optimal choice or to embrace the unlimited potential. 

For Old School players, not every character created needs to be able to achieve the maximum potential for 'power' under the rules.  If you get lucky, you might be able to create Luke Skywalker or Elric of Melnibone, but you're still willing to play as Fatty Bolger or Napoleon Dynamite.  The limits imposed by the game are there to make those powerful characters feel special.  Not every character is supposed to achieve the maximum potential under the game rules.  And finding the best way to play that sub-optimal character is the fun of the game.

For New School players, it's important that any particular character have the potential for the maximum development.  You don't need to get lucky, you just need to make the right choices and you can have that power (eventually).  No one needs to get stuck with an Elmer Fudd unless they purposefully choose to play him.  If you choose, you can be Gandalf.  (With an implication that you'd better play Gandalf, because Elmer Fudd won't be able to pull his weight alongside John Carter, He-Man, and Cloud Strife).

So basically, if the game has 'balanced' classes, or a completely selective skill system, or a group's house rules allow repeat mulligans or for selecting options rather than rolling randomly, that's New School.  If the players take the limits of the game and the results of random character creation and just roll with it, that's Old School.

Feel free to rip this analysis to shreds in the comments.