Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Wanted to pick at this a bit.

First, I do use 1e stats for most monsters with d8 HD. When I spec, unless the fella is an over-achiever, I typically award the average HP (4.5 x HD) to it, and often don't even bother with HP variation across a large group (i.e. all 4 bugbears get 15 hp). If the monster is a "boss", he'll typically get close to max HP for his HD. I know this is not BtB, and I'm being a bit lazy. (Shhh...my players don't know this.)

As has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum, my players---despite the fact that PC death is relatively scarce at higher-levels, are extremely risk adverse. It has been suggested (by you kind folk) that may be because of my DM style which does not reward combat (or some other aspect of my style has traumatized my players...I can't recall). Here's a mini-list of my guesses as to why my player are risk adverse:
  • we do not focus much on level advance, it's been slow (8 levels in 6 years with an average of bi-weekly play)---so the fight XP is minor (GP=XP), i.e. no reward for fighting unless you just plain want a threat eliminated
  • I made it clear at lower-levels (and general demeanor) that death is a real possibility. As a result, they are very protective of their almost-name-level characters. Favored NPCs/henchmen do tend to drop in big battles...and sometimes they play the henchmen when their PC is occupado, so there's player-NPC-death identification.
  • I play with my daughters. In my experience, girls are not quite the risk-takers boys tend to be. At least not mine.
  • Almost all the monsters are home-brewed (tweeked) and unknown in terms of powers/abilities. I fiddle a lot, and the unknown is scary. Monster stats are always opaque.
  • Magic (item) accumulation is a big driver (and route to power). It's also almost always an expendable resource. They are miserly in it's use.
  • With regards to PCs becoming Thor---I agree. But that's only through recovered magic/artifacts, not inherent level-progression/ability. Also, I am very miserly with protective magic. An AC a step or two better than plate is the best they've ever achieved. (Poison...one hit can equal death, etc.). So they are always vulnerable to counter-attack, even while offensively formidable.
What this all adds up to is that the statement "The [monster] HP is too damn high" just hasn't been my experience. Fights are neither long or overly often. It's not unusual for us to go multiple game session without a battle---instead, they are sneaking around, exploring, or conversing with NPCs. Unless they are in a dungeon, it's maybe 1-2 fights...some fleeing...and a lot of sneaking. The amount of time my players spend invisible is probably alarming. I blame the Harry Potter books.

This has been said elsewhere (maybe at K&KA), but big-boss monsters vs. a high-level party usually only get 1 round to act---that's why surprise is so crucial for them. As I said above: my players are
a) scared (due to foreshadowing/unknown/etc.)​
b) hording their fire-power​
c) risk adverse​

So when the fight starts, they typically unload with everything they've got and the combat ends in 1-2 rounds. I've been dishing out the magic resistance to bigger-foes, which helps fizzle out a few of the spell-attacks, but the back-ups kick in. So, by round 2, a big-nasty with any sense is usually fleeing and taken down from behind.

I understand now, that if I am to engineer a real challenge for a higher level party, it has to be waves of multiple tough-creatures---one Big Baddie will never cut the mustard...but sometimes, in the campaign context, that makes little sense (and also, no way do my risk-adverse players go for a frontal assault, a trap will have to be sprung).

My $0.02.
(umm...is this your microphone? I think you may have accidentally dropped it. I heard a "thud" and...:geek:)
Your kids are cautious because they are roleplaying a character in deadly situations, and the character wants to live. If they treated the characters like disposable playing pieces, they wouldn't be playing a RPG, they would be playing a tactical wargame. You call them risk-averse, I call them good players.
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
What this all adds up to is that the statement "The [monster] HP is too damn high" just hasn't been my experience. Fights are neither long or overly often. It's not unusual for us to go multiple game session without a battle---instead, they are sneaking around, exploring, or conversing with NPCs. Unless they are in a dungeon, it's maybe 1-2 fights...some fleeing...and a lot of sneaking. The amount of time my players spend invisible is probably alarming. I blame the Harry Potter books.....

This also has EVERYTHING to do with the intangible factors of your game. How your campaign & world are structured. Are there any time-sensitive problems that the party will have to solve? What kind of areas do the fights happen in? How big are your dungeons, wildernesses or other hostile areas? What are your random encounter tables like? The social milieu? Etc etc etc.

If your players can dictate the pace of events all the time (as it seems from this quote) that makes it very easy to nuke monsters. Conversely, when they are at the bottom of a dungeon, debuffed and low on resources, hoarding every last potion, but knowing there will be real consequences to aborting the mission (or even delaying)... now we have a challenge that makes even another pack of orcs a relevant fight. That 'big bad' doesn't seem so easy now.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
If your players can dictate the pace of events all the time (as it seems from this quote) that makes it very easy to nuke monsters. Conversely, when they are at the bottom of a dungeon, debuffed and low on resources, hoarding every last potion, but knowing there will be real consequences to aborting the mission (or even delaying)... now we have a challenge that makes even another pack of orcs a relevant fight. That 'big bad' doesn't seem so easy now.
This is some great food-for-thought. There are time-sensitive problem that drive them to make choices, but they are more typically on the "days" level and not the "turns" level. I should think of interesting ways to limit their ability to retreat/regroup/recover. The mega-dungeon was "one way" in that it took them a long time to get out once they were in---requiring penetration to a certain depth until an exit route was possible since the one they came in had effectively closed up behind them. They felt almost paralyzed there---clearly afraid to penetrate in the territories of the fractions for fear of things getting out of control.

Also, as you note, they are generally very anxious "in dungeon". One of my daughters in particular is anti-dungeon for exactly that reason---she prefers town adventures. However, all the real juicy rewards are in the deep, dark places. The party is often split on where to go next.

Hmm...I think they have been in a total of only 7 dinstinct home-brewed dungeons in the campaign world (+ B2, T1, and Pod Caverns)---one mega, and the others just the equivalent of 2-4 levels (30-50 keyed areas). I am realizing now, I tend to write for the larger ones with a lot of "empty spaces", or sections that allow for a "breather" in one form or another (if you are stealthy). Plenty of opportunities for you discover the inhabitants before they see you, or just go "off radar" like Bilbo did in Gollum's Lair.

The outside world is also fairly "safe" once the party gets above 3rd level or so. A touchstone of normality, with mostly self-selected, quasi-imperative, plot-driven action.

TS...you've got me thinking of ways to turn up the heat.
 
Last edited:

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
I worried that it would be to wild, but it only came up once and it went over great in a 4 hour session.
 

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
Hey everyone! Thinking about instead of d6-1 for light weapons, d6 for normal and d6+1 for heavy weapons... maybe replacing light and heavy weapons with damage rolled as d6 with disadvantage and advantage instead of d6-1 and d6+1. (trying to use only d6 and d20 for at home game).

Sounds more fun instead of adding another modifier (even though thats really what advantage is just hidden).


If I continue to use the exploding dice, dice are way more likely to explode that way though. Would you say subsequent dice rolls due to explosion no longer use advantage and disadvantage or let it ride?

Thanks,
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
If I continue to use the exploding dice, dice are way more likely to explode that way though. Would you say subsequent dice rolls due to explosion no longer use advantage and disadvantage or let it ride?
I don't follow -since when does Adv/Dis apply to damage rolls?
 

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
Its not an established rule. I just thought instead of White Box FMAG d6 +/- 1

You roll 2d6 and take the lower or higher number for light / heavy weapons respectivly.

So if you do that, does that mess with exploding dice too much?

If it does, I was thinking that you don't apply the ADV/disadv to the exploded dice rolls.

What do you all think?

I am noodling.

Someone here suggested exploding dice, its fun.

ADV/disadvantage is also fun, don't know to what extent they mix though
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
Assuming dice explode when you roll a maximum result (in this case, a 6) -- as you might expect, it happens about twice as often rolling with advantage, and about half as often with disadvantage.

EDIT - I tell a lie. It's extremely unlikely with disadvantage, because of course you'd have to roll boxcars. 1/36, a 2.7% chance.
 
Last edited:

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
But the probability of exploding dice over time are an exponential decline right?

So for heavy weapons exploding twice as often. How bad of an idea is that? Is it too much?

The effects on daggers might be worse. The simple fix is no advantage and disadvantage after the dice explode once. But is that inelegant?
 

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
I would ASSUME that even if you're rolling with advantage -- if a die explodes, you would roll only one additional d6. I don't see how that's "inelegant." You leave those two dice on the table, pick up a new one and roll it. If that comes up a 6, you roll another and so on.

If you also roll the exploded dice with advantage - picking up two additional dice every time - then you are looking at a lot of explosions and a lot of extra damage. This makes your advantage/disadvantage mechanic a HUGE deal. Anyone with a minimal understanding of the numbers (this excludes most players, at least most of mine...) would be using a weapon with advantage wherever possible.

To break it down:
Rolling 1d6 - chance of a 6 is about 16%.
Two 6s in a row is 2.7%.

Rolling 2d6 and picking the higher - chance of a 6 is about 30%.
Two 6s in a row like this is about 10%.

Rolling 2d6 and picking the lower - chance of a 6 is 2.7%.
Two 6s in a row like this is a very small chance, as should be obvious.

Remember also that the dice have no memory - every time you pick them up, those are your chances.
You can mix & match mechanics as much as you want. But you should at least have some idea of *what will happen*, or it's pointless. I wonder why you want to use exploding dice in OD&D anyway - it's a pretty dangerous game as it is!
 

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
Thanks for the breakdown!

I agree, its not too much extra lift to explain that you only roll another dice when there is an explosion.

Playing around with it as my players and I like rolling more dice, it likely is a bad idea to introduce more explosive swings :p

Exploding dice went over really well with the players, let see how this does : P
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
IMO you don't need to mix Adv/Disadv with exploding dice; exploding dice are bonus enough as-is. Adv/Dis would add too many dice into the mix.

Not to mention that fact that Adv/Dis is not something traditionally associated with damage dice (probably for a reason).
 

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
What is this forums favorite mechanic for mass combat?

Everything I have seen is either not clear enough to run without story game like buy in and group dynamics in place (FKR Kigspiel) or too fiddly to be fun / reading 40k rules
 

Two orcs

Officially better than you, according to PoN
Domains at War for ACKS is so good I ran a tournament in it with just battles. Of course it's derivative of a bunch of dedicated war games, but it's made to seamlessly integrate B/X style magic and monsters.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I build military units as swarms; that it, the unit is treated as a single monster. The edition I play makes this easy to do; I think it could also be done with earlier editions, and I could probably do most of it myself, but I haven't played 1e in a long time and would need help working out appropriate number of attacks and damage expressions.
 

Osrnoob

Should be playing D&D instead
I use a homebrewed system, but it sounds like it wouldn't be suited for you (contains "story game like buy in and group dynamics").
Hey there! I come from board games, those led me to Fiasco.

I still play that with friends once in a while (improv heavy rpgs). I just found that those games don't work well until people know each other enough to go "yes! and..."

Additionally, even if you know some people they are not the type of people that is their jam. DnD always has the fireball guy who sits back and thats cool

Not knocking that style at all! The card game Once Upon a Time is another similar favorite. Blades in the Dark I have read but never played, I am interested though.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I've run a homebrewed version that combines similar units like proposed in the Swords & Wizardry rulebook, and also ACKS Domains at War per @Two orcs' suggesting). Domains at War is very complete --- I liked it but my players thought it was too complicated and slow. They basically want the battle results without the legwork.

My plan now is to write a companion application that will allow them to play out the mass combat as a video game. The idea being it will be simple and quick (for them), but the under-laying mechanics with be exactly 1e D&D, i.e. 100 humans in plate vs. 100 orcs in scale mail --- computer will just role all 200 attacks and damage and report who's still standing.
 

Johann

*eyeroll*
I used Rolemaster's War Law for a while -- though not the very complex system but merely a single "battlefield encounter table:

Roll low, and "fight five footmen for three rounds", roll really high and "fight the enemy general and his six elite bodyguards for six rounds" (before being swept away by the tides of battle -- unless you die or decide the battle!).

As you can see, it's not geared towards PCs-as-leaders or resolving the actual outcome of a battle (i.e. determining the winning army), but instead focuses on the individual fates of the PCs in a sea of blood and steel. Throw in limited objectives (Disable that catapult over there!) and you can have a lot of fun on the battlefield.

(Probably not the kind of thing you're looking for, though.)
 
Top