Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
The project is actually coming along nicely; it will probably never get finished, but I will probably post an incomplete version so we can talk about it.

In the meantime, re-reading The Alexandrian's series on city crawls got me thinking about knowledge checks. It occurs to me that there are basically two knowledge checks in 1e. One is the use of the "Read Languages" skill; I think what distinguishes that from many modern checks is that it is used for an activity that can't really be resolved narratively by player/PC interaction with the environment.

By contrast, there is the sage's check to answer a question. The interesting thing about this it that the knowledge check if not made by the PC, but rather by an NPC. The PC discovers the information by interacting with the environment to first find an NPC with the knowledge skill, and secondly convince the NPC to help.

I still think there is a role for PC knowledge checks if a PC has invested in a particular knowledge skill and the information is something the PC might know given her background. That is, where the PC either knows or does not know, but is not assumed to be doing something to find out as part of the check. But I really dislike checks that assume a PC spends time researching or making inquiries without any active choices being made by the player. If the PC is snooping around the criminal underworld to make a Gather Information check, I think the player should be making decisions that involve talking to criminal NPCs, and trying to pry information out of them.

I'm thinking about adding to my city mapping project a section about gathering information, to support me when I need to decide who has information, and who knows that the person might have information, and what obstacles the PCs will have to overcome to extract the information. I will let you know if I come up with a framework. In the meantime, your thoughts are welcome.
Which resources have you used the most?
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I'm trying to come up with a more inclusive system that doesn't just favour Rogue and Wizard skills during city downtime.
Well that's just it, if the NPC is the one making the knowledge check, a low-skill character can still get the information by asking the right people and following the trail to the guy who knows. Hiding the information behind a skill check wall only makes sense where you can't resolve the situation by player choices, as with Read Languages (in a dungeon, that is, you can always make a copy and take it to a sage who specializes in ancient languages).

I'm also frustrated with the blind use of diplomacy in later editions. My not particularly charismatic engineer is making investigations on his own little side quest and I've got to go roust the party cleric to help me whenever I need to interact with anybody. ridiculous.
I think DMs forget that ordinary people in their worlds with average or below average stats manage to have social interactions on a regular basis. If the approach makes enough sense, it shouldn't matter if the proponent is a bit rough around the edges.

Which resources have you used the most?
So far, the Sharn: CIty of Towers gazetteer, and the city encounters table from the 1e DMG. I also used Hexographer to put a hex overlay over the various Sharn maps, and built a spreadsheet with a random generator to place elements from the gazetteer (and anything else if feel like including, like locations from various modules) onto the map.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Hiding the information behind a skill check wall
I agree with everything leading up to this statement except the statement itself. I think of it as filing information in a series of skill check opportunities. Opportunities to roll the dice, use skills or abilities that you've invested in, and be engaged. There just need to be opportunities for all the different classes at the table to roll the dice and have their moment to be engaged in what can often be a style of play that involves one or two players 'driving' while the rest twiddle dice impatiently. DEFINITELY vital information should NEVER be hidden behind a skill wall and only truly privileged or 'bonus' information should be hidden behind anything over an average skill check.

I also used Hexographer
Hexographer is hours of fun! I wish I could find where they hide their icons in the code though, so I could directly edit them...
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I agree with everything leading up to this statement except the statement itself. I think of it as filing information in a series of skill check opportunities. Opportunities to roll the dice, use skills or abilities that you've invested in, and be engaged. There just need to be opportunities for all the different classes at the table to roll the dice and have their moment to be engaged in what can often be a style of play that involves one or two players 'driving' while the rest twiddle dice impatiently. DEFINITELY vital information should NEVER be hidden behind a skill wall and only truly privileged or 'bonus' information should be hidden behind anything over an average skill check.
I'm not sure if we actually disagree. My full statement was:
Hiding the information behind a skill check wall only makes sense where you can't resolve the situation by player choices, as with Read Languages (in a dungeon, that is, you can always make a copy and take it to a sage who specializes in ancient languages).
If it is not vital, roll-to-continue information, by all means the players should be free to fail if they rely on a skill check to accomplish what they want. All I am saying is the DM should try to think about how the information can instead be gained narratively by clever play, which is at least as engaging for players as choosing a skill to use.

If the DM has determined that Clever Jim the bartender thinks Sneaky Mike might have that sort of information, then this can be resolved in two ways (assuming for simplicity that Clever Jim will provide the information when asked):

1. The player makes a Gather Information check. If he fails he gets nothing. If he succeeds the DM narrates that they talk to Clever Jim the Bartender, who tells them that Sneaky Mike might have the information; or

2. The player has his PC ask Clever Jim who he might talk to to find out the information, and Clever Jim automatically tells the PCs that Sneaky Mike might have the information.

If you want Clever Jim to be difficult about coughing up the information, the same options apply, because even though in both cases you need to figure out a way to make Clever Jim talk, in the second case you still don't have to make the check to decide to talk to Clever Jim in the first place.

I see taking your chances with the dice as a safety net because you, the player, can't figure out a narrative approach. But if the play can figure out a good narrative approach, I think the DM should always be open to it, even if all it does is increase the odds of success.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Question for the 1e crowd. On PHB p. 25 it states that higher level fighters get one attack per level against creatures with less than one hit die "and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans". Not sure if "semi-humans" includes humanoids. Also, IIRC, in either or both of 0e and the varieties of Basic, the rule is that fighters get one attack per level against creatures with one hit die or less.

Now orcs are 1HD in 1e, and also I believe in 0e and Basic(s). So if I am not misremembering, according to that working in 0e and B+ a fighter can hit them once per level, but in 1e he can't. Compare that to a 1e goblin, which is technically less than 1 HD, but is very close in stats and worth the same experience.

So my question is, is the rule in 1e generally interpreted as written, or is it assumed that the 0e/Basic rule applies, and the PHB just contains sloppy language? Can a 1e 5th level fighter hit five orcs per round, or only one?
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Here it is in OSRIC:
Fighting the Unskilled: When the fighter is attacking creatures with less than a full hit die (i.e. less than 1d8 hit points), the fighter receives one attack for each of his or her levels of experience, e.g. a 4th-level fighter attacking goblins would receive 4 attacks per round.
And this is how I've always played it. Goblins, kobolds, etc. and untrained humans...but sadly (for the PCs) not orcs.

This has implications if you also use the 1e unarmed combat (grappling/overbearing) rules in the number of "grab" attacks a fighter can fend off as well, e.g. a high-level fighter with a sword can stand-off a mob of villiagers seeking to...well, err..."mob" him.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
It isn't sloppy writing; the rule was adjusted down. So orcs are no longer come under the rule, but anything with less than a full hit die (1-1 HD or lower) does.

Re: unarmed and fending, I've not treated that as applicable/combined with multiple rule which covers the fighter striking to kill. For fending, the fighter gets a fending roll against each attacker. It doesn't address any situation/condition where they don't get 1 fend per each unarmed attack. Now I do address a corner case and say the fighter must be generally "free" (i.e., if they have kobolds grabbing their legs and partially overbearing them already, DM judgement as to whether they get a fend roll at another kobold attempting to overbear them - but no longer automatic).
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't doubt you, but what bugs me about this is that, while this rule makes orcs much more dangerous than goblins, they are worth exactly the same amount of XP. While a hobgoblin, which is barely tougher than an orc using this rule, is worth twice as much XP.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Then I'd suggest dropping 1-1 HD to 5 XP +1/hp in your campaign (it won't make much of a difference either way, I don't think).

As for the move up to 20 XP+1/hp for hobs, I think the extra +1 to hit and better tactical acumen is worth it. At the low end of the monster XP scale, there's only so many ways to split the baby across the bottom of the power curve. I personally wouldn't want "13 XP +1/hp" or other increments like that.
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
Yeah, with humanoids that circle around 1 to 2 HD other factors like group organization, tactics, environment and culture can make much more of a difference than a couple hit points plus or minus. Sometimes you chop through a bunch of useless goblins, sometimes you get pranked by Tucker's Kobolds. XP numbers are pretty much the same. I thought this was an accepted element of humanoid monsters. Largely because I'm not sure how you could fractionate XP distribution *enough* to take this kind of thing into account.
 

Beek Gwenders

*eyeroll*
I don't doubt you, but what bugs me about this is that, while this rule makes orcs much more dangerous than goblins, they are worth exactly the same amount of XP. While a hobgoblin, which is barely tougher than an orc using this rule, is worth twice as much XP.
It seems a trifle to worry about considering that the majority of XP is going to come from treasure rather than monster kills. If a goblin was worth as much XP as an ogre, I might have reason enough to complain. As it is, goblins on average are worth 1 XP less than orcs. Goblins as a group/tribe can be just as dangerous as orcs, with the high chance that they have 5-30 dire wolves/wargs in their camps vs the orcs 2-5 ogres, as well as superior spell casters.
 

Beek Gwenders

*eyeroll*
Here it is in OSRIC:

And this is how I've always played it. Goblins, kobolds, etc. and untrained humans...but sadly (for the PCs) not orcs.

This has implications if you also use the 1e unarmed combat (grappling/overbearing) rules in the number of "grab" attacks a fighter can fend off as well, e.g. a high-level fighter with a sword can stand-off a mob of villiagers seeking to...well, err..."mob" him.
I think EOTB‘s take is right. Armed attackers get a free fend off attack against any unarmed opponents, followed by another freebee ‘for real’ if the fend off is successful. I don’t think this is linked in with multiple attack routines.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I guess I really do like the mob taking down an armored opponent and skewed the rules towards my preference. :)
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
To be clear, I didn't ask because I am running AD&D and am worried about the amount of XP I am granting. I sought clarification because I frequently convert AD&D to 4e (and now 5e), and I have been using XP as a starting point to determine the relative power levels of monsters. I do this exclusive of factors like the traditional tactics associated with a monster, since I have other ways of accounting for that.

My takeaway is that I need to treat AD&D orcs as tougher than their XP would suggest - that is, nudge them a bit toward hobgoblins and a bit away from goblins. And to treat 0e (and I think Basic?) orcs as weaker than 1e orcs. So my hierarchy would be kobolds < poorly armed/armoured 0-level humans < goblins & better armed/armoured 0-level humans < 0e/Basic orcs & well armed/armoured 0-level humans < 1e orcs < hobgoblins < gnolls.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I tweaked my kobolds quite a lot...turning them into sexless prols in a great war machine with small clever hands, with a strong collective mentality. I added a male warrior-class (stealthy assassins with bartered drow armaments that hunt in triads) and a much larger, serpentine female ruling class. Their ruling Empress is a savant mutation --- an escapee from the Mind Flayers legendary Body Banks.

Certainly Tucker-esque in their organization, but not quite as a-hole lethal. Still, my players are afraid to take them on directly. Their "advanced tech" comes from a mad half-dwarf "prisoner"---one of the main antagonists of the megadungeon.
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I have been thinking about map conversions in converting early system adventures to later systems. I tend to design my conversions so they support the large parties you would have expected in the originals, but it causes some unusual interactions.

The basic problem is that 1e, at least, assumes each medium sized humanoid takes up about 3.3 feet of space. That means they can stand, and fight, three abreast in a 10' hallway. In later editions, medium humanoids take up 5 feet of space, and you can only fit two abreast in a 10' hallway.

So if you have a party of, say, 9 characters, in 1e they could stand three rows deep, but in 3-5e they would have to stand 5 rows deep. That makes it really hard for the people in the back rows to get involved in the fight (well technically it might not because of overly forgiving missile-fire-into-melee rules, but I houserule those).

Another issue is that early designers often didn't give much thought to how their dungeons work as physical spaces and, well, the rooms are really small for the number of creatures in them, even using the 3.3' space rules. A 10 x 10 room with 10 orcs is pretty cramped considering there is only space for 4 of them to stand and fight.

I've been thinking about how to deal with the issue for a while, and I think I might just try making all the dimensions 50% larger. So 10' hallways will become 15', and 10x10 rooms will become 15 x 15 rooms. I haven't tried it yet, so I'm not sure if I can just expand existing maps (or shrink the grid size), or if there will be a lot of odd results in terms of dimensions that will require some redrawing and reinterpretation (like a 15x15 room becoming 22.5x22.5).

Has anyone else had this problem, and if so, how have you dealt with it?
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
If someone put 10 orcs in a 10' room, in any edition, either the orcs or the room needs adjustment. I've not seen that, but I know that some of the earliest stuff (especially 3rd party publishers) were less stringent. What product was this out of curiosity?

Making the rooms larger would be OK, but it's also OK to keep the dimensions the same and vary the tactics, probably a mix of the two. Instead of all the humanoids piling into the scrum, some try to flank down alternate corridors, or build some vertical in so that they can fire down and back.

Humanoids can require 5' space in 1E also - just pretend they all have 2-handed swords or other large weapons requiring a lot of space, and rotate back when they get hurt with wounded setting up cover to retreat behind if things go badly. I would round up to the nearest 5' (or even 10') if making the rooms larger.
 

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
Excuse me my 10 by 10 hallways have NOTHING TO SAY MISS RED DRAGON

JUST TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS 30 x 30 ROOM

WANKER
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I had a thought for a hexcrawl procedure. This relates only to calculating distance travelled, and obviates the need to keep track of the distance travelled within a hex.

1. 6-mile hexes.
2. Good roads generally speed movement and help with navigation; poor roads help with navigation only.
3. Entering a hex using a good road takes 6 units (miles) of movement. On plains and the like without a good road, or rougher terrain with poor roads, it takes 8 units of movement; difficult terrain takes 12 units of movement, and very difficult terrain takes 20 units.
4. Calculate the distance that would be travelled in ideal conditions in miles, given the movement rate and time spent travelling. Assume base unencumbered rate for humans in whatever system you are using is 3 mph.
5. Figure out how many complete hexes could be travelled, subtracting the movement value for each hex from the calculated distance.
6. If there is a remainder, roll a die of the same value as the movement value of the next hex. The remainder is the chance of entering that hex.
7. If the party isn't happy with how far they got and want to travel longer, deduct each extra mile from the original roll to see if they make it.

For example, a 1e party is walking with a movement rate of 9" (because they are a UA party with fighters in full plate, and fuck "plate mail" movement). They travel for 8 hours at 9/12 of full speed, so 3 mph x 8 hrs x 9/12 = 18 miles under ideal conditions. They take a good road to the next hex, which uses up 6 miles of movement. They then travel cross-country in plains, which takes 8 miles of movement. They have 4 miles of movement left and want to go into the hills, which are difficult terrain and would require 12 miles of movement. Roll a d12; on a 1-4 they make good distance and enter the hex; on a 5-12 they don't quite make if before their 8 hours is up. Let's say they roll a 8, they will need to travel long enough to add another 4 miles to make it where they want to go, which would take 4 miles/3mph/(9/12) = 1.8 hours.

For modern/sci-fi, use 10 km hexes, assume base 5 kph movement rate, good roads take 10 km of movement, good terrain with no roads takes 12 km, difficult terrain takes 20 km and very difficult terrain takes 30 km (you do have a d30, right?).
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I think that system works nicely.

For example, a 1e party is walking with a movement rate of 9" (because they are a UA party with fighters in full plate, and fuck "plate mail" movement).
I generally would invert this and kick full-plate to the curb. "Full plate" is intended for jousting tournaments and maybe the battle-field, but not traveling or adventuring in dungeons. It's too bulk for long travel and your fighter would almost certainly not be wearing it and have it packed on a beast of burden. Hence the reason for just including plate mail in pre-UA D&D.
 
Top