The Gamorrean Guards -- Inspired by Orcs?

When I was younger, I was particularly struck by an image in a storybook I owned about Return of the Jedi.  Despite the disappointing movie overall, there was a pic of a Gamorrean Guard.  The Guard himself reminded me of nothing more than a classic 1e orc!

Now, Gygax himself has gone on record as saying that he didn't like the pig-faced orcs, but nonetheless it's an iconic image -- one that I didn't like 2e and 3e changing, thank you very much.

For anyone who doubts what I'm saying, here's a pic of the Gamorrean Guard:





And here's a pic from the first edition AD&D Monster Manual:

Note that for Star Wars, the G. Guard seems to be rather low tech, something you would find in a more medieval/Hyborian Age culture.  What do you think?

Happy Turkey Day everyone!

The Turkey Dance, errr...what?

Race As Class

Because I love the occasional hot-button topic, I'll be weighing in on the "race as class" debate.  For those of you unfamiliar with the debate, there are two schools of thought in the D&D community: 

One favors the idea of "race as class," that is, if you're a non-human such as a dwarf or an elf, your character type is automatically accounted for and the ability to fight or cast spells is a racial ability.  There is no selection of Elven thief, as you are automatically either a mage or a warrior. 

Another favors selection of race and class.  That is, you can take a Dwarven Cleric, you're not automatically a warrior-type simply because you chose to play a Dwarf.  This would be the more familiar type to modern day players. 

We will now contrast how the various editions handle races and classes:

OD&D
The LBBs (little brown books)  seem to indicate that if you were one of the non-human races, then you were already in a "class:" 

There are three (3) main classes of characters:
Fighting-Men
Magic-Users
Clerics

Fighting Men includes the characters of elves and dwarves and even hobbits. Magic-Users includes only men and elves. Clerics are limited to men only. All non-human players are restricted in some aspects and gifted in others. This will be dealt with in the paragraphs pertaining to each non-human type.

It is interesting to note that OD&D never defines the term "class." The LBBs also do not use the term "race." The only idea of race that creeps in is that the non-human player's choice plays differently depending on whether you select Elf or Dwarf, and the Dwarf has a level limitation.

D&D (Holmes Blue Book)
In Eric Holmes' edition of Dungeons & Dragons (blue book, cover by David C. Sutherland III), the trend of using race as class appears to continue.  I say *appears* because the one reference to race on page 7 reads: "the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish)..."  But the classes and races are all lumped together in the experience tables, and page 6 says "any human character can be a fighting man and all halflings and dwarves are members of the fighter class, unless they opt to be thieves." 

The terms "class" and "race" are not defined.  There is a third way Holmes refers to characters, and that is "character type" (page 7), indicating class and race, which perhaps is the term that should have been used in later editions.    

AD&D1e
AD&D hardcover Player's Handbook, first edition, is the first clear delineation between class and race.  There you can be one of quite a few races, and you first select your race, then you select your class.  There's also quite a bit of fiddly bits that make little sense, like level limits for non-humans.  But this has been torn apart in many, many magazine articles, so we won't tackle this here.  The interesting thing about the classes is that they now had "minimum ability scores" that you had to roll to be certain classes (like the Paladin).  If you didn't roll it, you had no chance to be that class.   

Basic/Expert D&D (Moldvay) & BECMI (Mentzer)
The simple race as class structure can be seen here, hearkening back to the LBBs and Holmes.  The trend continued in Mentzer's BECMI.  In contrast to AD&D, Moldvay had a "prime requisite," which meant the highest ability score you had was used to help determine class selection. 

AD&D2e
AD&D2e was, for the most part, a cleaned up revised version of AD&D1e, and the final nail in the coffin for any royalties Gygax might have received.  Race and Class are separate entities, and for the most part resemble their 1e counterparts.  The main difference was in the fantastic settings created for 2e, introduced "Kits" which could be special classes designed for a specific race (like Elven BladeSinger or Dwarven Chanter). 

D&D 3.X
The 3.X naming convention is strange, since its simplified ability bonus tables remind one of B/X or BECMI, but Race and Class are distinct and separate, like AD&D.   Eventually 3.X would ape 2e by doing "racial kits" (like the Dwarven BattleRager).    Dropping the "Advanced" moniker sent a clear message that this was the only Dungeons & Dragons we would see from WotC, and that B/X and BECMI were effectively unsupported.

D&D 4.X
Does the same thing as 3.X, races and classes are discrete groups, and one must select a race and a class. 

My take:
I never had a problem with "race as class" because I'm aware of one of the dictionary definitions.  From Dictionary.com:
27.  to place or arrange in a class; classify: to class justice with wisdom.
28.  to take or have a place in a particular class: those who class as believers.
The word comes from the Latin "classis," which meant class, fleet, division, army, etc.  So we can infer that the D&D "class" is merely a grouping, and the only thing in the dictionary that implies profession is class as social standing or caste, hardly an ironclad case.  So the snarkiness that I have observed (and been the target of) could have been avoided simply by cracking a dictionary. 

Do I prefer race as class?  For some things it works well.  It gels nicely with the simplified structure of B/X.  In the "clone" I'm working on, I have them separate as of this writing, though I'm thinking of leaning toward the race as class model and giving them different "builds" for race-specific classes.  Time will tell...

Why I Hate Energy Drain

Over at B/X Blackrazor there is post about how the author loves Energy Drain. Energy Drain is one of the little banes of my existence as both GM and Player.  I don't agree with the rules for it at all.  

It's simply not conceptual.  Why should I lose my skills because my life force is gone?  Simple fact: Energy Drain is stealing your life force.  It is not retrograde amnesia affecting procedural memory.  

It's also a pain in the patootie.  If you reduce someone's level, it could affect attack rolls, saving throws, thieving skills, class abilities, and spells.  That's a lot of bookkeeping! 

I finally figured an easy way to do Energy Drain (even easier than losing a level) and have it be true to what I feel Energy Drain actually is.

Make it a stackable -1 modifier to every roll.  

Even easier than losing levels, and more effective.  Someone drained 3 times would be at Energy Drain -3.  You may only be drained a number of times equal to your level.  If the penalty from Drain is equal to or greater than your Level, you are dead.  Energy Drain can only be "cured" by a Restoration spell or potion.  Since those spells are not only high level in my world but it is necessary to find them in ruins, tombs, etc, it would take awhile to get that life force back.   

Players whose characters were drained would write it on their character sheets, along with the penalty (e.g., "Energy Drain -2").  In the case of percentiles (frex for thief skills), it would be -5%. 

Another option is to have the victim of an Energy Drain make a CON Check (8 or less + CON Modifier) 24 hours after being drained.  A successful Check means a -1 penalty is gone.  Other penalties still remain, so if you were drained to -3, and you healed one, you'd still have a -2 to deal with.  Only one Check can be made each day (or if you want to be cruel, each week).

Obviously, YMMV.  I'm messing with a rule that's been in place for nearly 30 years.  But still, the rule has bothered me for about that long...         

Abstract vs. Heroic Combat

Something that D&D has done in violation of the fiction that inspired it is retain a combat system that doesn't give you much of a "feel" for combat.  Technically, you can try anything, but the RAW (rules as written) DMs were more than likely going to either (A) not let you or (B) give you a high chance of failure.  

Older editions seemed to lean towards a more abstract combat system.  That's great, but I don't want to read that Conan quickly dispatched his foes, I want to read about *how* he did it.  

Recent editions have put a premium on tactical combat.  Move this much, gain this modifier, etc, has become a standard part of modern iterations of D&D.  But, to me, this still doesn't fit the source material.  

What I'm talking about is Pulp Combat.  Pulp combat isn't about kewl powerz.  Pulp combat isn't necessarily saving someone's bacon, though it's certainly possible.  Pulp combat, in this context, has to do with emulation of some of the fantastic things we see heroes doing in fiction.  Think Robert E. Howard, Alexandre Dumas, or David Gemmell (for a more modern take) and you pretty much have what I want.

So, how to make combat more pulpy?  Well, I started in my retro-clone by adding maneuvers that you can do in combat.  I designed them with two assumptions in mind: 1) pluses and minuses suck.  2) I want results *now*.

Now, I'm sure we're out of grade school and can add +1 or subtract 2 or whatever.  But I got tired of that schtick in 2nd Edition, and I sure didn't like it in 3rd.  So I made it go away.  Too, I wanted results that would let the combat march on normally.  I don't want a 45+ minute combat. (Awfully demanding, aren't I?)   So here's an example maneuver I designed:

KNOCK FOE OFF-BALANCE - This is a powerful blow designed to move weapons and shield out of the way.  STR vs STR.  If successful the attacker can attempt to follow up with a quick attack before the defender can get his shield/blade back into position.

STR vs. STR is a from a rule I devised called "Ability Checks."  The check is 8-, and the Ability Score Modifier adds to it.  So if you have a +4 Modifier your Check would be 12- on a d20.  In cases where an opposed Check is needed, the higher roll wins (as long as it falls within the range of the Check).  If the person above rolled a 13, for example, his Check would fail.  

So, quickly put, the attacker and defender roll their STR Checks.  If the attacker wins, the attacker can try to quickly attack and take advantage of this, and the defender cannot parry or block.  If the defender wins, the attack was wasted.  

It's quick and easy.  Here's another:

THROWING YOUR FOE -- You have to win a turn of combat to do this (i.e., do damage, bind arms, etc).  You lift your foe over your head, and throw him into one or more foes to stop them.  They must make DEX Checks to see if they're knocked down.

No zillion arcane modifiers, just the ability to quickly knock down more than one foe at once.

Or how about this one?

INTERRUPT ATTACK -- DEX Check vs foe's attack roll.  If DEX Check succeeds, then foe's attack is disrupted and no damage is done.  DEX Check failure means the attack hits.

These are just maneuvers that I see all the time in fiction, in comics, in films, and for some reason haven't made them into many, if any, game systems.  Some might think that if you include maneuvers, you infringe upon creativity.  I don't believe that -- a list of combat maneuvers with accompany text on how to model them can be a springboard for all sorts of maneuvers.  You can simply roll to hit, but why when you can do cool things like throw sand in your foe's face, fast-talk your foe into making a mistake, bash through your opponent's parry or perform a Leaping Attack (think James Cameron's Avatar).  

Again, if you don't like all that, you can simply describe your action and roll to hit.  But I don't ever want to hear you say "I roll to hit."

Memories: The Atlantean Trilogy

In a recent post I helped explore the meme of 15 games in 15 minutes.  Now, as the mists of time part, one game rises to the fore.  One game that I used to be enthralled with:

The Atlantean Trilogy. 

I first discovered this in 1985 through a friend who was visiting from California at the time.  He had a copy of the Arcanum, the first edition, the cover in living greyscale.  I looked through it, and was enrapt with the game-related art inside.  While not technically fantastic, it was interesting enough, and as I skimmed it, I saw rules that were like D&D, yet were not D&D.  Gone were the nebulous Armor Class rules and attack matrices and saving throws.  Ability saves were used to resist spells.  Given that the hobby was still quite young at the time, it was still shackled to some of the more cumbersome engines, tables for things that would have better used a target number, variable percentages for skills, etc.  My friend told me that he thought that it was D&D, and therefore his campaigns were set there, and used those rules. 

The Arcanum

It had the standard D&D abilities, but swapped WIS for WILL and added Perception.  You didn't just have the choice of Thief, Fighter, Magic-User, or Cleric anymore.  You had Witch Hunters, Astrologers, Alchemists, Witch Doctors and more.  You didn't have the bog-standard choices for races -- you now had Druas (Dark Elves, before anyone else ever did), Aesir (giants), Zephyr (like ordinary people with huge eagle wings), and Andaman (half-human, half beast).  You didn't have the standard array of spells anymore.  Things like Fire Sign and Lesser Invocation of Mars gave the spells a much needed revision.  They separated the spells into nine schools of magic, such as Black Magic, Astrology, High Magic, et al.  All of this gave the game a definite flavor, a "feel" to it.

Skills were given to you based on race, class, level, and what climate you were raised in.  The skill list not only included Martial Arts, several different sub-types of Acrobatics, but also Knife Throwing, which gave you the ability to "call" your shot to any location, including throat, heart, etc.  This would cause the roll to be halved, but a hit to any vital area caused 2x damage and the  target would need to save vs. CON or be incapacitated by the wound.  If I had to quibble with the skills, it would be that some of was percentile, and others were based on attack rolls in combat.  One of my house rules was that each skill was tied to an ability and got a bonus if the ability was "exceptional."

Combat itself was almost rewritten from the ground up, and was a whopping four pages long.  Combat ability was defined by three different ratings: Highly Trained, Skilled, and Untrained.  Each determined to hit bonuses and hit points per level, and each of the classes had one of these ratings.  A straight 11+ on a d20 was a hit, and was modified by DEX, magic, and the bonus from class and combat rating.  Each opponent rolled a d20 -- the attacker and the defender.  Highest die roll + mods won.  The standard offensive tactics were in there -- melee, missile, hand-to-hand, dirty tricks, and called shot.  Defenses included parry, evasion, dodge, or counter (which you wait for your foe to strike first, then you strike him back while he's off-balance from his attack).  Damage was a bit more (such as 2d8 for a two-handed sword), given that hit points were higher (CON + set number from Combat rating).  AC was gone, so Armor actually subtracted 1-6 points from your damage, based on whether it was leather, ring, chain, plate, ad infinitum.  Also, chain, plate mail, and plate armor gave you -1, -2, and -3 on DEX saves respectively.      

Alignment was handled a bit differently, too.  It had only four Alignments: Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic, and Neutral.  Lawful Good characters were committed to honor, truth, justice and mercy.  Lawful Evil characters despised honor, lied, had no sense of mercy or justice.  Devils were LE.  Neutrals uphold and maintain their own beliefs.  Chaotics analyzed a situation and then acted.  The best of these are loners.  The worst lack all conscience (demons).

The spell system was markedly different from the Vancian system.  At first level, all spellcasters get every first level spell from their school of magic.  Any higher level spells must be found, and they offer ways to do that, from private collections to libraries, to learned mages, and adventuring in ruins and tombs.  It is worth noting spellcasters may only cast two spells per day, plus 1 per level.  In combat, it is also impossible to cast anything other than a first level spell, due to the stress and frenzy of battle.  They also had extensive rules for the properties of various plants and metals, alchemical rules, signs and symbols, and spell research.  

I went home the next morning and dug up one of my dragon magazines that had that book in it.  I sent in a check to Bard Games.  They told me that it really cost a buck more, but they'd send it to me anyway.  I soon found the Bestiary and the Lexicon published in one book (I don't recall where -- the now-defuct Crown Books?), and thus began my love affair with the Atlantean Trilogy. 

Of course I houseruled it, I found the AD&D-inspired ability tables lacking (i.e., bonuses all over the place) and so tacked on the BECM ability bonuses, instead.  13-15: +1; 16-17: +2; 18: +3.  Easy to remember, easy to apply and easily consistent.

The Bestiary

This was an interesting book.  The colorful cover by PD Breeding draws the eye, almost reminding one of Don Maitz's work.  The interior illustrations were rendered by comic artist Bill Sinciewicz.  Though I despised his run on The New Mutants (they hadn't had a good artist since Bob McLeod), the illos in the Bestiary were perfection.  His crazy, somewhat manic-messy style fit the tone of the book.  They had an interesting way of handling the monsters.  Each monster was given a class and a level.  From there you could figure out the to hit bonuses.  They also had no orcs, they were lumped under the label "goblin," which would handle everything from the standard D&D goblins to the big nasty orcs.  The other thing is that they had mythical or quasi-mythical names for the monsters.  A mummy was a "sahu,"  a lich was a "yatu," and they had special undead monster types for those who have been slain by ghouls and vampires to rise from the dead once more. 

For those who wish to see a sample of the gonzo art, here's a peek:

The Lexicon

The Lexicon was the atlas of the antediluvean world.  This product was obviously a labor of love, and parts of it resembled nothing so much as Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age (even going so far as to use some of the names, themselves taken from ancient history), but everything was ripped from myth and folklore and ancient cultures.  A giant mixing pot of Greek, Roman, Inca/Aztec/Mayan, Native American culture, and Medieval Europe.  The entire earth is described.    In a nutshell, the world suffered a massive Cataclysm, and Atlantis is a shadow of its former self.  Mu and Lemuria and similar mythic continents all share space in the Lexicon.  All in all, it's a fascinating read.         

This is one of those games I kinda wish had reached ascendancy, but it is a very different game than it started out as.  The first time some of this material saw print was in the "Compleat" series by Bard Games.  The Compleat Alchemist, The Compleat Beastmaster, etc.  Then, Bard Games put out these three books.  And later, Talislanta was born and would change publishers again and again.  If the Atlantean Trilogy is at the dawn of the world, Talislanta takes place at twilight, well after the Atlantean Cataclysms and the ice ages that followed.  A decade later, Death's Edge Games picked up and republished the Arcanum, the Lexicon, and the Bestiary, added some new material and changed the art.  A decade after that, Morrigan Press decides to update and revise the material, calling it Atlantis: The Second Age.  They changed the game to a series of suggested templates, spells that are created from different "elements" that combine to create specific effects, and a different system more based on the one found in Talislanta.  I'm not sure what Morrigan Press set out to achieve, but it has a very different flavor than the original Atlantean Trilogy.  I'm no less intrigued, but I miss the old game.

Something interesting about Blogger

I've noticed something interesting about Blogger.  Every time I try to post something, it tends to end up a little wonky.  Typos aside, the formatting tends to get all munged up.  And I don't think I ask too much -- large font, Verdana, single spaced. 

I've since remedied the situation by composing in Notepad, and then copy/pasting into the "Compose" field, and adding links and formatting as necessary.