The state of Post-OSR content
- Thread starter Yora
- Start date
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Hmm...a later edition rule? I wasn't aware.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I've been working on this a while and I see the conversation is moving on, so I'm going to post what I've got so far. This is giving an example of 4e rules in this regard, in case you are able to come up with a conversion.
So, in 4e I know that, for example, an item that is level 11-15 can grant a +3 bonus to a particular skill (like Intimidate), or a range of skills used in a particular way (say, checks related to social interactions where social class is relevant). And the higher level the item is in that range, the more additional perks (like applying to a second or third skill, or non-skill related abilities) the item can have. And I know the cost of such items (a level 11 item is 9,000 gp, and a level 15 item is 25,000 gp, for example), and the way rarity interacts with the game (only common items can be purchased or made by the player in ordinary circumstances). Moreover, some items require upkeep or they fade/lose their benefit - usually an alternative reward fades every five or ten levels, depending on the type of reward.
So I could, for instance, classify a title of nobility as an uncommon or rare reward (it can't be bought, it must be bestowed by the sovereign, and that its benefit fades over time if you don't put money into it - in dressing appropriately, maintaining social/political contacts, maintaining property, etc. So I could say the title of a Marcher Lord is an 18th level item that grants a +3 bonus to social skill checks where rank is a relevant consideration, and that it also grants you the right to clear lands in the borderlands and build a castle (allowing you to treat two "uncommon" items as if they were "common" items); to attract followers and peasants once you have your lands and castle; and to receive an additional bonus to social checks once you have lands, castle and followers.
Now your lands don't produce cash (unless you are lucky enough to score a gold mine), so you can't buy things with what they produce, at least not directly. But you can use the in-kind production to support your castle, household and troops (with horses and equipment), and to raise troops, or to reinvest in the estate to improve it - and also produce clothing and other materials to support a certain standard of living for the noble and their family.
Units of troops would be treated in many ways like mounts. That is, there is a predictable relationship between the level of the mount and the cost of the mount, so a given value of estate ought to be able to produce a unit that, as a group, acts as a creature (swarm) of a particular level. Also, in 4e mounts don't use their own actions in battle, they need to be directed using the PC's actions, so a unit would need a PC or NPC officer to tell it what to do in most circumstances.
The thing that would take a little thought, and trial and error, is to determine how many troops and NPC officers an estate could generate and support. A modest estate would support some vassal knights and their retainers (a handful of cavalry, light infantry and noncombatants), warhorses for the cavalry, riding horses for other essential personnel (anyone you don't want to leave behind if you end up in a hurry, which might include infantry if you can afford it), and riding horse remounts for everyone who has a horse (possibly two for cavalry, because you want the warhorse to stay fresh). I was listening to a podcast the other day which mentioned a real life example of a modest lord whose retainers included 50 men and 95 horses (and I think he mentioned that the vassal knights' retainers would have been on top of that). Plus a militia for short term local actions that might raise one soldier for every 25 people, and a general defensive militia for emergencies that might be one soldier for every 5 people.
I note that in 4e the cost of all those troops is far more than what could be raised through adventuring, so it would have to be the case that it all comes from estate earnings in kind. In theory you would need an impediment to spending that income on magic items instead, so you might limit the ability to convert grain to cash, for example. In practice, in 4e there are a limited number of items available for purchase or creation by PCs, so they aren't likely to break the game (and I note in the Eberron setting while magic items are widely available, that is limited to low level magic items).
Fortifications provide protection for troops, of course, and discourage raiding (since your cavalry can sally forth to catch raiders. The more expensive, the bigger the garrison it can hold, and the more protection it can give to them, and the more other features it might have. But instead of pricing them using a stronghold guide, you price them like items with similar capabilities. So a pallisade fort might cost 25,000 (level 15), house the lord's household and 25 troops and officers (I'm making that one up, it would require some thought to systemize), and provide superior cover to defenders and a +3 defensive bonus (if the PCs aren't running the siege and you want to resolve an attack with a single die roll), as well as a +3 bonus to ... whatever skill checks seem appropriate to a castle. I'm not publishing it, so I could make ad hoc decisions as I go. Certainty intimidating raiders to convince them not to raid, but perhaps also to perceive hostile activity on the estate (due to watchtowers and scouting parties). But I know the size of the bonus when I need one. And a large stone castle would be more expensive (call a keep with a walled bailey and a gatehouse 85,000 gp, level 18) but house more troops, give +4 bonuses, and maybe contain a library (+2 bonus to most knowledge checks) or other special rooms (some of these already exist in the rules, like an Alchemist's Workshop (level 8, 3,400 gp, lets you make higher level alchemical items than you normally could).
So, in 4e I know that, for example, an item that is level 11-15 can grant a +3 bonus to a particular skill (like Intimidate), or a range of skills used in a particular way (say, checks related to social interactions where social class is relevant). And the higher level the item is in that range, the more additional perks (like applying to a second or third skill, or non-skill related abilities) the item can have. And I know the cost of such items (a level 11 item is 9,000 gp, and a level 15 item is 25,000 gp, for example), and the way rarity interacts with the game (only common items can be purchased or made by the player in ordinary circumstances). Moreover, some items require upkeep or they fade/lose their benefit - usually an alternative reward fades every five or ten levels, depending on the type of reward.
So I could, for instance, classify a title of nobility as an uncommon or rare reward (it can't be bought, it must be bestowed by the sovereign, and that its benefit fades over time if you don't put money into it - in dressing appropriately, maintaining social/political contacts, maintaining property, etc. So I could say the title of a Marcher Lord is an 18th level item that grants a +3 bonus to social skill checks where rank is a relevant consideration, and that it also grants you the right to clear lands in the borderlands and build a castle (allowing you to treat two "uncommon" items as if they were "common" items); to attract followers and peasants once you have your lands and castle; and to receive an additional bonus to social checks once you have lands, castle and followers.
Now your lands don't produce cash (unless you are lucky enough to score a gold mine), so you can't buy things with what they produce, at least not directly. But you can use the in-kind production to support your castle, household and troops (with horses and equipment), and to raise troops, or to reinvest in the estate to improve it - and also produce clothing and other materials to support a certain standard of living for the noble and their family.
Units of troops would be treated in many ways like mounts. That is, there is a predictable relationship between the level of the mount and the cost of the mount, so a given value of estate ought to be able to produce a unit that, as a group, acts as a creature (swarm) of a particular level. Also, in 4e mounts don't use their own actions in battle, they need to be directed using the PC's actions, so a unit would need a PC or NPC officer to tell it what to do in most circumstances.
The thing that would take a little thought, and trial and error, is to determine how many troops and NPC officers an estate could generate and support. A modest estate would support some vassal knights and their retainers (a handful of cavalry, light infantry and noncombatants), warhorses for the cavalry, riding horses for other essential personnel (anyone you don't want to leave behind if you end up in a hurry, which might include infantry if you can afford it), and riding horse remounts for everyone who has a horse (possibly two for cavalry, because you want the warhorse to stay fresh). I was listening to a podcast the other day which mentioned a real life example of a modest lord whose retainers included 50 men and 95 horses (and I think he mentioned that the vassal knights' retainers would have been on top of that). Plus a militia for short term local actions that might raise one soldier for every 25 people, and a general defensive militia for emergencies that might be one soldier for every 5 people.
I note that in 4e the cost of all those troops is far more than what could be raised through adventuring, so it would have to be the case that it all comes from estate earnings in kind. In theory you would need an impediment to spending that income on magic items instead, so you might limit the ability to convert grain to cash, for example. In practice, in 4e there are a limited number of items available for purchase or creation by PCs, so they aren't likely to break the game (and I note in the Eberron setting while magic items are widely available, that is limited to low level magic items).
Fortifications provide protection for troops, of course, and discourage raiding (since your cavalry can sally forth to catch raiders. The more expensive, the bigger the garrison it can hold, and the more protection it can give to them, and the more other features it might have. But instead of pricing them using a stronghold guide, you price them like items with similar capabilities. So a pallisade fort might cost 25,000 (level 15), house the lord's household and 25 troops and officers (I'm making that one up, it would require some thought to systemize), and provide superior cover to defenders and a +3 defensive bonus (if the PCs aren't running the siege and you want to resolve an attack with a single die roll), as well as a +3 bonus to ... whatever skill checks seem appropriate to a castle. I'm not publishing it, so I could make ad hoc decisions as I go. Certainty intimidating raiders to convince them not to raid, but perhaps also to perceive hostile activity on the estate (due to watchtowers and scouting parties). But I know the size of the bonus when I need one. And a large stone castle would be more expensive (call a keep with a walled bailey and a gatehouse 85,000 gp, level 18) but house more troops, give +4 bonuses, and maybe contain a library (+2 bonus to most knowledge checks) or other special rooms (some of these already exist in the rules, like an Alchemist's Workshop (level 8, 3,400 gp, lets you make higher level alchemical items than you normally could).
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
3e only, I think.
You could count items generated by the estate as found or "dropped", rather than crafted.
If you are building a castle, you could grant XPs for doing a very fightery thing, like building a castle. It could be a wash. Ditto for clerics building a temple stronghold. Wizard gets XP for engineering the thing.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't mean to drag this discussion too far backwards, but something that still surprises me whenever I think about it was the fact that many of you found it strange (or at least incongruous) that I had new spells that my players could find while exploring, and still felt that this was BtB in play-style.
Were you all gas-lighting me, or is this truly something that has fallen out of common practice?
I was reminded of it today by a post over at K&KA in which tetramorph states (for his OD&D game)
Were you all gas-lighting me, or is this truly something that has fallen out of common practice?
I was reminded of it today by a post over at K&KA in which tetramorph states (for his OD&D game)
So it's not just me.tetramorph said:
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
No, people still do it. There are homebrew forums for 3e and 4e that include custom spells (although as a rule I think the impetus comes from DMs rather than players). I don't know how common it is, but it's still there.
I'm also aware that the 1e DMG expressly contemplates the creation of new spells by players (in collaboration with the DM). It's just that a lot of your previous statements regarding following the rules seemed very rigid, and not particularly open to any deviation from what appeared in the rules. Since then, your statements have showed a lot more flexibility.
I'm also aware that the 1e DMG expressly contemplates the creation of new spells by players (in collaboration with the DM). It's just that a lot of your previous statements regarding following the rules seemed very rigid, and not particularly open to any deviation from what appeared in the rules. Since then, your statements have showed a lot more flexibility.
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
I'm sick and tired of these "candy spells" invading our games all for the sake of placating some fragile player's ego. Players are such special snowflakes, they're all "unhh... magic doesn't do what I want it to. I'm going to just invent my own spells. Nyah nyah nyah!" It's not how the game is supposed to be played! It's wrong, and impure to the core of the game's original intent. It's ruining D&D!
*insert wall of text here*
Do you see squeen? Do you see what the rest of us have to deal with now?
Two orcs
Officially better than you, according to PoN
If you don't understand the difference between the diversity of in-campaign creations and diversity of pre-made options try doing that before posting, otherwise this is just trolling.
Palindromedary
*eyeroll*
I think that the profusion of official spells has probably done a lot to sideline the practice of players inventing their own; it's hard to create something truly new if one has, say, the seven volumes of TSR spells.
For me, selecting spell access for the campaign (and game, if you're really getting choosy about your retroclones / making your own) is one of the most important things you can do, and I've given it a lot of thought. What spells are available dictates player tactics, adventure design, and even world design. Consider how radically each of these transforms your game: Identify, Fly, Detect Lie, Know Alignment, Speak With Dead, Summon spells (any), Permanency, Wish, Raise Dead, Passwall, Continual Light, Stoneskin. If you're aiming at a very specific feel or playstyle, as I usually am, letting players make new spells can easily upset that. If you're willing and able to communicate that campaign style, then sure, let them at it: research is definitely a part of the classic game, and there should be plenty of room for creativity even with firm campaign guidelines, unless those guidelines are "magic is fading/lost in some way".
I have to admit that for myself I prefer to keep that door closed, knowing that I'm deviating from BtB but not minding in this particular case. I wind up removing a lot of official stuff, so adding more is against what I'm aiming for in general (this is one part not wanting to make casters overly versatile, one part campaign/world design, and one part wanting to keep spells from taking up dozens upon dozens of pages). I might change my mind if I have a player that's really set on the idea, but that hasn't occurred in the time I've been a DM.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I thought that perhaps, as the style evolved away from extended campaigns and towards more one-shots/pre-fabs (chained in series)...then this sort of multi-game activities may have gone the way of the Dodo.
I also think I detected something from @The1True about a 3e creator class/skill that might be indicating that spell/item creation has become more rote---so I also wondered: is creation now strictly book-stuff?
Thanks to you two.
I also think I detected something from @The1True about a 3e creator class/skill that might be indicating that spell/item creation has become more rote---so I also wondered: is creation now strictly book-stuff?
Thanks to you two.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
We always played that making new spell is darn HARD...major fetch quests for components and terribly expensive. BUT, if the player see a potential weakness in the status-quo of the campaign and want to put the effort into obtaining an end-run technology...then more power to them!
I think that falls under EOTB's "Let them win." heading. Rewarding resourcefulness is more important (to me) than love-of-ones-imagined-campaign-flow. Roll with the punch and (re)write some new stuff!
Thanks for the reply.
Last edited:
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
If you don't understand the difference between tongue-in-cheek satirical parody and trolling, try doing that (sic) before posting.
Words to live by. I have given you ample warning yet you will not learn. I have run out of patience. 3 day ban.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
BTW, I read the Role Aid suggestions and now agree that "Classic" (what I'll be calling it in the essay) is a play culture. So we're up to six, and I've written the classic section. I'm almost done, it's mainly putting an editing pass over the essay. This first essay will mostly just be a taxonomy with some basic notes with the possibility of a deep dive on each one to follow if there's interest.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
I'm stubborn but not unreasonable!
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Do you put on intelligence modifiers for what a player's character can come up with too? Only a 9 intelligence? sorry, your character can't come up with that idea. And if not, why wouldn't you?.....
With no disrespect to anyone, but most of you seem to have this iron-fist over creativity in a game. If a player has an idea--you cancel it because it must be something their character can do. That way you can put their character through hell getting ingredients, money, whatever so that maybe it works. But you stifle creativity from the actual player and are afraid to open that door on their ideas (fear of something being unbalanced--can always change it during game you know) so you can create a fantastic world together. That's too bad.
I'm thankful my DM is flexible and doesn't restrict my creativity to just what my character can come up with. Part of the fun is balancing it out during the game, whether its a spell, magic item, or class. I don't think I would last at a table with that kind of creative restriction. Feels like a 'railroad' gaming experience and I prefer a sandbox with guidelines.
With no disrespect to anyone, but most of you seem to have this iron-fist over creativity in a game. If a player has an idea--you cancel it because it must be something their character can do. That way you can put their character through hell getting ingredients, money, whatever so that maybe it works. But you stifle creativity from the actual player and are afraid to open that door on their ideas (fear of something being unbalanced--can always change it during game you know) so you can create a fantastic world together. That's too bad.
I'm thankful my DM is flexible and doesn't restrict my creativity to just what my character can come up with. Part of the fun is balancing it out during the game, whether its a spell, magic item, or class. I don't think I would last at a table with that kind of creative restriction. Feels like a 'railroad' gaming experience and I prefer a sandbox with guidelines.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Huh, I don't get that vibe from anyone I can think of here, and if you are thinking of this post by @squeen I think you may be misinterpreting him (or I may be misinterpreting you).
One of my goals as a DM is to try to make as much of the action as possible happen "on stage". If a player wants to invent a new spell or make a new magic item that's fine, but I want to know what his character is going to do to accomplish that. Is he going to try to collect obscure arcane texts, or experiment with unusual materials, or seek out a master of the art to learn from or collaborate with, or do something I haven't thought of? And all those things are hooks, and they drive adventure. I mean, the most basic thing for a DM to say when a player states an intended action is to ask "what do you do?" and perhaps "how do you do it?"
And I can use those hooks even if the player hasn't thought of those things himself, by dropping hints in the marginal notes of found books, or stories regarding the disappearance of a wizard who was rumoured to have solved the problem, or legends of a lost civilization that appears to have used similar magic. I already think that about 5% of treasure should be hooks of some sort, this just inspired me as to what the hooks might be.
I suppose the character might end up going through hell, but the player gets more gaming. And gaming that is by default tailored to the character, because it is a task the player has chosen. It is hard for me to accept that more gaming that is centered around that specific player might be perceived as a punishment (although I suppose it is possible).
Part of what informs my thinking on this are the same passages of the 1e DMG that I think squeen is referring to when he talks about characters inventing new spells. Because the 1e DMG always treats these things like hooks. So I think we come from the same place in this regard, although I might not make it as hard, at least in terms of finding rumours. Especially if it is knowledge their character may well have, and especially if it gives me a chance to draw the players into the world. "Well, you know that the Zil gnomes know the secret of elemental binding, but they guard the secret closely, and non-Zil researchers in the area have been rumoured to have gone missing. On the other hand, you remember that the Zil discovered the secret by exploring the ruins of Xen'drik. Several of the professors at Morgrave University are well known for their studies of Xen'drik; also, there are two wizard's circles in the city that are happy to share their libraries with members. The best resource might be the Arcane Congress at Arcanix; they are in Aundair but you recall that the wizard you apprenticed under had colleagues there, she may be able to provide a letter of introduction." And then they pick a strategy, and I tell them what rumours they uncover (which likely leads directly to the adventure, you don't want to nest rumour gathering too much, it's not that interesting), and off they go.
Last edited: