Jump to content

Best Version of DnD?


Kendal
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, VitM said:

 

What did deCamp's edits do to Conan, and how do I know whether I have the edited or unedited versions?

 

This may help.

 

http://theblogthattimeforgot.blogspot.com/2012/06/de-camp-controversy-essential-reading.html

 

(Then again, it may not.  I don't Facebook and for me every link in the list sends me to the same identical Facebook page half covered by a giant box that wants me to sign up for Facebook.)

 

 

Also:

 

http://www.barbariankeep.com/issues.html

 

It looks like starting in the mid-1950s deCamp rewrote all of Howard's Conan stories to his own tastes, but still slapped Howard's name on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Pingo said:

 

(Then again, it may not.  I don't Facebook and for me every link in the list sends me to the same identical Facebook page half covered by a giant box that wants me to sign up for Facebook.)

I'm currently logged in Facebook and everything and that redirect just leads to the Facebook page...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In part, deCamp was trying to establish a continuity for his own Conan stories - and, to be fair, he was a lot better at basic grammar and punctuation than Howard, which unfortunately resulted in the stories losing some of their power as the prose was polished. (Howard was a pulp writer - writing fast and loose, going for volume, not perfection. DeCamp was a novelist - and focused a lot more on continuity and grammar.)

 

Robert E. Howard was also a member of The Lovecraft Circle - and wrote Cthulhu Mythos stories. One of the side effects of this is that the protagonist in Charle's Stross's Laundry Files is named Bob Howard....

 

The Auld Grump

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Only familiar with 3 & 3.5 so that would be my choice obviously. I do have a rather large collection of 3.5 books including eberon and for forgotten realms.

if you could do some suitible models for those settings to that would be nice

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Megan pointed out a teeny, weeny, almost invisible flaw in my plan to split the kids game in two....

 

The pirate ship is a paper model about two feet long, and almost as tall.... And since the game is taking place at the home of two of the kids, it makes sense to leave the ship there - but those kids won't be in the other game, so having the game at their place would make no sense.

 

Which might mean moving the game to our place, which means more hassles for the kids to commute, and the parents to chaperone.

 

Or finding out if one or two of the other group of kids has parents that would want the game run at their place. (I know that Iain and Dain's parents would be okay with it - but they are also in the first group of kids, so not very useful....)

 

Or... I could find out if Iain and Dain would like to be in both groups - since only the first adventure would have been the same... I could write a new starting adventure, instead of using the Wormwood Mutiny.... This might be the best answer. (It also means that there will be eight players in the second group. Still, less of a difficulty than twelve.) I could run both games at their place. *EDIT* Heck, I could use the ship model as a bribe - let them keep it after that campaign ends.

 

The Auld Grump - with twelve players, I kind of miss the old role of the Party Caller....

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the kids enjoy outnumbering their poor, overworked GM by twelve to one....

 

They don't want to split the group.

 

The Auld Grump - dooooomed! I'm doooooooomed!

 

*EDIT* Wow, I feel the need to explain that I am joking there - just kind of amazed that the kids all want to stay as one group - they have been telling their friends about the great goblin war. (That they almost got beaten apparently makes it a better story - since they managed to pull it off, in spite of being outnumbered more than ten to one.) So, no, not doomed, just sort of amazed that twelve kids all want to stay as one group.

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking a short break from the game - the first four rolls by the PCs were all 1s - all by the same character, the first two by the bad guys was 20s.... we are sacrificing drinks - alcoholic and otherwise, to the gods of the dice, in the hopes they relent....

 

The Auld Grump - a critical from a 20 that was confirmed with a 20... after the rogue being attacked rolled a 1 on her climb check, followed by a 1 on her Sneak, followed by a 1 on her not-a-sneak-attack-because-she-had-been-spotted, with the last 1 confirming the fumble.... The gods are not loving Molly tonight... five minutes into the game, and her character is almost dead.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh. Fumble rules.

 

I never understood why some people seem to love fumble rules. Yes, let's punish people for not playing spellcasters by giving them a 1 in 20 chance of breaking/throwing their weapon and rendering them useless. And as you gain iterative attacks and are supposed to be getting better at fighting, you somehow manage to drop your weapon more often than a fresh-faced recruit with no training, because 4 rolls has something like a 19% chance of one of them being a fumble, where 1 roll has only a 5% chance.

 

Meanwhile, spellcasters are fine because their best attack spells don't require attack rolls, and even if they fumble one that requires an attack the fumble rule is usually "the spell fizzles" and not "the spell blows up in your face, you take all the damage you would have dealt." And then they can just cast something different next round and still contribute.

 

Not saying that's how you run it, Grump. More of just a general observation based on the experiences of myself and my friends. And it doesn't mean that all fumble rules are terrible. When they're baked into the core of a game and everyone is affected relatively equally, like in Shadowrun, they tend to work fairly well. But people kludge them into D&D so often and in such terrible ways that I can't stand them in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fumbles get The Cards. It is possible for a caster to fumble, and the cards have options for this kind of hilarity. It's usually catastrophic, with a small chance of minor calamity.

 

... combining them with the critical hit deck occasionally results in strangeness. I had someone roll - and confirm - a fumble. I pulled a card. Attack self. Crit. Confirm. Hm. Pull crit card. DECAPITATION. GM facepalms. Rest of party: !!!!! (with some lols, because.. well, it's that kind of group). 

Character managed to self-decapitate. Fortunately for him, the cleric pounced, caught his head, put it back on (right way around), and triggered the 'heroes never die' fast-cast (Breath of Life; only works if used in the same round). Their current opponent couldn't even with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty happy you guys.

I needed something to come out of some barracks of some evil lost evil temple of some forgotten evil god that the campaign's BBEG serves but there's already quite a bit of undead in these city adventures because of the evil cult, I thought about using Nothics for the creepy factor but they ended up fitting better in the tower of a foolish wizard who played with things he shouldn't have played with...

And then I realized, I can still have some corpses in there... and once the players make enough noise, their heads can fly off as vargouilles to attack those doomed dungeoneers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 9:54 PM, Unruly said:

Ugh. Fumble rules.

 

I never understood why some people seem to love fumble rules. Yes, let's punish people for not playing spellcasters by giving them a 1 in 20 chance of breaking/throwing their weapon and rendering them useless. And as you gain iterative attacks and are supposed to be getting better at fighting, you somehow manage to drop your weapon more often than a fresh-faced recruit with no training, because 4 rolls has something like a 19% chance of one of them being a fumble, where 1 roll has only a 5% chance.

 

Meanwhile, spellcasters are fine because their best attack spells don't require attack rolls, and even if they fumble one that requires an attack the fumble rule is usually "the spell fizzles" and not "the spell blows up in your face, you take all the damage you would have dealt." And then they can just cast something different next round and still contribute.

 

Not saying that's how you run it, Grump. More of just a general observation based on the experiences of myself and my friends. And it doesn't mean that all fumble rules are terrible. When they're baked into the core of a game and everyone is affected relatively equally, like in Shadowrun, they tend to work fairly well. But people kludge them into D&D so often and in such terrible ways that I can't stand them in it.

You do realize that any spell where you need to roll to hit also has a chance of both criticals and fumbles, yes?

 

And that the blast radius spells kind of have fumbles built in  - ask any character that has been caught in his own party's fireball. (It happened a lot in 1st edition AD&D, where the fireball filled a specific volume....) So, instead of having the wizard drop the template where he wants, ask him how far he is throwing it.

 

Some folks are really good at guessing ranges, others... not so much.

 

If you look at the rules for fumbles in Pathinder - fumbles have to be confirmed in the exact same way as criticals.

 

So, if you need a 10 to hit, but rolled a 1, you roll again, and it is only if that second roll is less than 10 that you fumble - if you need a 15 to hit, roll a 1, and then get less than a 15 on the second roll, then it will be a fumble.

 

The harder it is to hit a target, the more likely it is that you will confirm the fumble, and the less likely it will be that you will confirm the critical.

 

It is not an automatic fumble as soon as you roll a 1, anymore than it is an automatic critical when you roll a 20.

 

And the official rules only allow a character to have a single fumble in any single battle.

 

In Molly's case she would have needed a 10 for her sneak attack, but needed a 12 for a normal attack. (A natural 1 is a failure - she failed at climbing - by more than 5, so took a 20' fall, she failed her Sneak - by more than 5, so was spotted, so her target was not flat footed when she attacked in the next round.)

 

Neither of which mattered, since she rolled a 1, then confirmed with a second 1.

 

I use a fairly simple method - if you confirm a fumble by less than 5 then you lose your next attack, recovering from over reaching. (Which means that folks with iterative attacks are penalized less. They will still get to attack in the next round.)

 

If you confirm the fumble by 5 or more then you  provoke an attack of opportunity, but do not lose your next attack.

 

On a double 1 you lose your next attack, provoke an attack of opportunity, and are flat footed for that attack. (It happens in about one out of four hundred attacks....)

 

If the character chooses then they can lose their weapon instead of provoking the attack of opportunity - most people just take the attack. (They are more likely to choose to lose the weapon at low levels - when taking damage is more likely to put you down.) I put this in as a safety valve.

 

You do not automatically take damage from your own attack - or even the enemy's attack, they still have to roll, and they have to have an attack of opportunity available - so if the party is the Butterfingers Gang and are all fumbling while attacking the same target, if that target uses his attack of opportunity on the first attacker, he will not have it for a later attacker, unless he has the appropriate feat.

 

So, Molly provoked an attack of opportunity, which turned out to be a critical - she was down to less than four hit points at that time. Her being flatfooted did not matter - it was a 20 confirmed with a 20.

 

It did not help that she was doing what rogues do - and was nowhere near the rest of the party. (Her intent was not to engage the bad guys at all - she was going to follow them to find out where they were going - which is why the failed Climb check, followed by a failed Sneak was a problem - if she had made the Sneak then she would have landed with enough grace not to make noise, even though she got hurt by the fall.) For skill checks, most often all that matters is if the roll fails by five or more - she needed an 8 for her Climb check, if I remember properly - so a 1,2, or 3 would all have resulted in the same fall.

 

This was outside of All the World's Meat, for those familiar with the Path.

 

Sorry if this is more drawn out than needed - I had about two hours of sleep last night, and get verbose when tired.

 

The Auld Grump - I liked the cards - but they were a but too lethal... for the bad guys. ::P:

 

*EDIT* Molly survived the battle - she took the next round to drink a healing potion instead of attacking. The biggest problem was that then they needed to do a more frontal investigation of the butcher's shop, instead of being able to get info ahead of time.

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I hate the whole confirming criticals and fumbles "thing" as, for me, it slows down the game too much.  I much prefer the system whereby a critical always hits (and gives bonus damage) and a fumble always misses (I like to describe something funny happening but with no lasting consequences).  Simple and keeps the game moving.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...