Continuing on Magic and Race

So after I dropped the last idea into my online bucket, I went ahead and made a brief write-up for it:

"Certain types of magic are traditional to (and generally guarded by) certain races:

Dwarves are regarded as the masters of Gem Magic, while Elves have long been the keepers of Crystal Resonance.  This has lead to a feud between the two races, as the Dwarves begrudge the harvesting of quartz and other appropriate crystals for what they view as a "perversion" of Gem Magic, while the Elves say that Gem Magic was an attempt by the Dwarves to steal the knowledge of Crystal Resonance.

Halflings use Sorcery, though other races often refer to it derogatorily as Witchcraft.  It is a simplistic magic, but with no less potential to be powerful.

Gnomes, with their analytical minds and love for categorizing, developed Occultism, which relies upon hidden knowledge derived from both arcane formulas and religious texts and ceremonies (which are often formulas disguised as dogma and doctrine).

Humans, with their short lifespans and overwhelming drive for power and knowledge, have not developed their own form of magic, instead learning whatever form they prefer (or can get their hands on).

It is possible to learn more than one type of magic, though finding willing teachers may be difficult."

Magic and Race

So I'm puttering about, as usual, with my various spreadsheets and text files, trying to determine how many or which magic systems I want to keep, like I do.  I'm starting to separate things out by assigning which stat is used for casting, when suddenly a thought hits me: what if your character's race determined what sorts of magic you had access to?

So maybe humans have access to gem magic, which I figure is more or less universal, as well as some other type, probably based on the spell lists in various resource books.  And maybe elves can use gem magic, as well as the free-form d6 based magic system I came up with.  In the meanwhile, maybe dwarves can use gem magic, as well as something based on runes, and halflings get gem magic and... I don't know yet.  But the idea just hit me about five minutes ago.

Whaddaya want for nothin'?  A rubber biscuit?

Demonwars: One More Thing

Something I'd intended to bring up last post, that strikes close to some of the problems I've been having with differentiating between races, is that the setting (at least in this book) doesn't have non-human PCs.  Even the elves of the world, the Touel'alfar, are treated as a mysterious NPC faction that will occasionally take human children off to be trained as this game's version of the Ranger class, but is generally unseen unless they want to be seen.  So you can play as an elf-trained human, but you're still human.

For the setting, this likely makes sense (again, I haven't read the books the setting is based on), but from a mechanical standpoint it also makes things less complicated and tricky, regarding balance between races and what sorts of differences they have: there are no different races for PCs, so there are no differences.

I don't know that I want to go that route, but there are times that solution seems tempting.

Gem Magic

One of the several d20 books I have on my shelves is R.A. Salvatore's Demonwars Campaign Setting book. It's got a neat flavor to it, despite that I've never read the books its based on. Definitely a lower magic setting than traditional D&D, with most hybrid classes only being permitted if they drop their spellcasting abilities, and clerics/druids/wizards/sorcerers being replaced entirely with setting-appropriate casting types based on the indigenous magic system: specially imbued gemstones.

Woo, objectification.

Sexualized cover art aside, I really like the concept of gem magic and the way it has been implemented in this system.  Enough that I would use it, perhaps slightly modified, in my own games, except that as it is I'm already struggling with too many options and magic systems.  I had wanted to make this system less complicated, not more, and having multiple systems of magic and spellcasting does not fit with that goal.

Regarding the setting's system, essentially there are gemstones which are imbued with magic (as well as naturally occurring gemstones that are not imbued, and can't be used to cast spells).  The type of stone determines what type of magic or effects it can produce in the hands of a skilled wielder.  Certain feats permit wielding two or even three stones at once, combining them to produce new effects not possible with only one gemstone.

The setting uses a mana-type system instead of spells-per-day, since you invoke the power of a stone through channeling that mana into/through it, and gem-wielding classes get 1d8 mana per level, with a bonus from their Con modifier.  This still provides a limiter, which is what a spells/day system does, but there is also the secondary limiter of having any magic dependent upon having one of these special gemstones.  There's no learning new spells each level, or scroll scribing giving a wizard a utilitarian edge.  You either have the stone you need, or you don't - leveling just gives you more mana.  Multiple gem wielders, though, can potentially share stones with each other, and I don't think there's any mention of stones breaking or losing their magical properties with use.

Combining it with any other magic system has the potential to make gem magic significantly under-powered, which means if I do want to use it, it may have to be the only magic system available.  Alternatively, I could keep all these systems as options and leave it up to the players as to what gets used.

Mental Balancing Act

Last post got me thinking about how Psionics could be balanced so as not to be too overpowering in comparison with other magic types.

The first limiter, of course, is that the "casting stat" for Psionics is a derived stat, so to have a comparable amount of power to draw on you need to have multiple base stats which are high enough to average to another high or moderately-high stat.  With a system where there are only three base stats, admittedly, that is not necessarily as difficult as some, and yet it also means one low score can remove it as a viable option.

Something else to consider is what can affect, or is affected by, what.

Physical can affect physical things.  That's... pretty much it.

Magic can affect physical things, and it can affect magical things.  It can also bypass physical, depending on the spell.

Psionics can affect physical things (though this may or may not be more difficult), and it can affect mental/psionic things.  It can easily (depending on the setting, nearly by default) bypass physical.

But magic does not (at least typically) affect psionics, and likewise psionics do not affect magic.

So where's the problem?

Generally, magic does physical damage.  Even when it bypasses physical armor, it does physical damage or has some physical effect.  Psionics do mental damage, the grand majority of the time.  So a psionicist can easily bypass not only physical armor, but any form of resistance to physical damage, and is therefore even more effective against physical-based characters than a magically-trained character.  In addition, since magic doesn't affect psionics, a psion can bypass magical defenses as well, and is only slightly deterred by the better mental stats of a spellcaster vs. a fighter.

On the other hand, a psion can't block a non-physical magic attack, either.  Hmm.

Ok, so really, where's the problem?

Even if I permit a magic-user to affect psionics, and psions to affect magic (at an increased power cost for either) all I'm doing is making attack and defense types more accessible.  Which would mean mages and psions could actually have a chance of resisting each other rather than being glass cannons.

Maybe it isn't as intrinsically overpowered as I thought.

Free-Form Featherfall

So, I've scrapped the entirety of my magic system, including the compendium list of spells that I'd accumulated, and replaced it with a free-form system somewhat reminiscent of the casting system in Fabletop or the skill and magic system in Shadowrun.  For purposes of nostalgia (and because I'm not ready to scrap my list of weaponry and make all weapons of any given size equal), I still have physical combat within the d20 set-up.

So how does this make things simpler?

I have some basic rules for how spells work, and how adding on different effects increases the cost of any given spell on casting.  But by making the magic system entirely free-form I eliminate the need for resource books.  No more looking up spell descriptions.

It makes it potentially more powerful, sure.  High-powered mages have always been powerful.  And there's still the limiter of "I'm the DM," plus the added bonus that a player can't point to the rulebook and say "but, but, but!"  Plus, it gives the player an excuse to roll a whole bunch of six-siders, which is always fun.

My test subje-erm... game tester has brought up the concern that it can be easier on the player to have a list of spells to work from, the idea that you can look in your toolbox and see what you've got.  And while there is some truth there, if a player wanted to they could write down spells they've used or come up with to refer from later on as well.  I think the potential for versatility and accessibility outweighs that particular bonus.  Plus, I've already come up with a short list of example spells that simulate well-known effects, so if someone says "well what can I do?" I can hand them that list.

Another aspect of this free-form system is that it means any caster can cast any spell.  Healing, direct-damage, buffs/debuffs, whatever, is free game.  Because as I've discussed here before, the idea that any given person can't figure out how to make a spell work in their own tradition is a bit weak.  So I have two spellcasting traditions, Arcanist and Spiritualist.  You can claim the power comes from a potato on a string around your neck, if you like - the only mechanical difference is which of the two spellcasting stats you use for your primary.

This free-form system will also work for psionics, and I have the mechanics in place to support a psionic system, but psionics have always been a bit game-breaking as far as power goes, primarily due to the general non-existence of psionic-resistant monsters.  I'm thinking I may keep psionic ability as a rarity, rolled at character generation, as my mother does it.

Online Gaming Resources

I came across this site a couple months ago, and overall I like it: http://fabletop.com/  Simple, easy to use, great for quick pick-up games.  Biggest problem is there is very little you can do to customize the system to suit your tastes.  The system in place is good, not saying otherwise, but it makes playtesting my own system on the site rather difficult.  Also, though there were a small number of people running games when I first joined, the site seems to be languishing right now, possibly due to a lack of GMs.  If you already have a playerbase to bring to the site, not so much an issue, but it can be hard (as a player) to find a game when you're available to play.

So I also came across this site: http://roll20.net/   Not quite as simple and certainly not as quick and easy to set up a game, but the customization is much more universal.  Dice are customizable, and I can actually use my own system on the site.  Plus, the option of voice and video chat between players is a nice touch.  I played around with it a lot tonight, and I'll probably end up using it to run games soon.  It seems vastly more populated than Fabletop, though that's less of a concern for me there since I'll be playtesting my own system.

On a side note, I may need to tweak the bonuses for weapon skills.  It looks as though I may have been a wee bit generous.

Staring back at myself

Sometimes I just have to stare something in the face long enough before I can see it.

Sorcery is Arcane.  Ritualism is Divine.  The four schools that were under each are combined into one skill.

Is this a perfect balance?  Well, no.  Transmutation as a spell group has always dominated the list by the sheer number of spells it has.  As it is, I'll be going through the Arcana Unearthed spells and redistributing them as I feel appropriate.  Because I can do that.  And I'll probably add in a few here and there that I really liked the flavor of (probably a good deal from the Arcanis system).  And I'll remove the typical summoning spells, replacing them with my preferred one-shot summons, and that by itself should help balance between the two groupings.

Spellcraft as a skill would allow access to more complex magics from the other magical discipline (skill in either discipline would give access to the simple spells from any school).  Exotic spells from your own discipline could be learned at ranks 3, 6, and 9, and more could be learned (from either discipline) through the use of Combat Proficiencies.

Unrelated quick thought: Base exotic weapon proficiency on a new Weaponmaster skill - each rank gives access to the exotic weapons of a different basic group (polearms, heavy blades, etc.), chosen by the player upon placing points in the skill.

Sorcery vs. Ritualism

In the interests of simplicity, then, I'm once again taking a look at the magic system.  Dividing things up into schools of magic, while it makes sense in some ways, has also imposed some limits that were not intended.  Not to mention that the sheer volume of spells I've accumulated from so many different sourcebooks in order to fill out the lists of some of the lesser endowed schools (such as Divination) makes sifting through them prohibitive.  Of course, the idea of rendering all that work invalid has only been more and more distasteful the more I've added to it, but I think something needs to give.

Part of this stems from reading through another sourcebook, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.  In this book, magic has been separated according to complexity.  Every level has simple spells, which any caster might access, complex spells which might require greater training or access, and exotic spells, spells that might become the signature ability of a character because of their rarity or difficulty.  And the book has its own magic spells, already separated into these categories.

Trying to just cram it into the full list would destroy the balance.  Trying to split the full list into simple, complex, and exotic is an ambitious and prohibitive project.  It would be easiest, if I want to use this method, to simply use only this one spell list, but it is tiny in comparison to what I have, and there are entire schools with less than ten spells total, and none in the first few levels.  Transmutation, as per the usual, has the most spells, including a few I disagree should be placed there, but others have also commented on the favoritism Cook shows for Transmuters.  Obviously, this wouldn't work for a system where schools of magic are learned individually.

And so I'm considering scrapping all of this subdivision, and offering simply two choices:  Sorcery, and Ritualism.

Sorcery, based on Mind stats, akin to Dragaeran sorcery, where the caster simply pulls energy (either to him or from within, I'll leave that to the player's flavor preference) and tosses it to achieve the desired effect.  This would apply also to any magic system where memorization is more important than intuition, though it could be argued that the use of magical formulae is ritualistic.

Ritualism, based on Soul stats, which might be Eastern witchcraft, or religion-based, or even bardic magic - any ritual-based magic.

I'm not sure if this will be the final iteration or not.  There are some discrepancies, I'm sure.  Discworld wizards, for example, might well be ritualists with such a system, especially when you consider some of the high-powered magic such as the Rite of AshkEnte.  But, considering how the Disc works, and what that Rite in particular does, that may not be inappropriate, especially if you go back to Pratchett's Sourcery.  More concerning might be that magic used by divine beings might be categorized as Sorcery, since they're simply lobbing energy.  Another explanation might be that they're imposing their will upon the cosmos, which would place their magic as being based on Willpower stats.

But all of this is simply a matter of semantics, a matter of the magic's origin, and not a matter of what you can do with it.  Arcana Unearthed uses the same spell list for all caster types, leaving it to the player (and a handful of various feats and methods of altering magical effects selected by the player) to determine the flavor.  This method would mean that the source of magic has no bearing on its limits - a Sorcerer might heal someone just as well or better than a Ritualist.  It does away entirely with the debate of cleric vs. mage, arcane vs. divine, and says instead, "This is what is possible.  How you get there is the fun part."

In some ways, though, it seems they should complement each other.  Let's use the Force as an example: most of the active abilities used in combat such as a Force Push or even the Jedi Mind Trick would be based in Sorcery, in the Mind.  The ability to use the Force as a means to predict the future, or to commune with deceased Masters, or to sense a great "disturbance" would be based in Ritualism, in the Soul.  So how do I account for this?

Maybe I should just forego Mind and Soul entirely, and create a Magic stat, then separate spells by casting time - anything longer than a standard action is based in Ritualism.

System Overhaul

When last we left our intrepid game designer, he was blathering on about some dream, completely unrelated to the task of creating a gaming system.  After several months of not much progress, a recent visit from a close friend and play-tester yielded an unexpected result.

"Dude, you're making things way too complicated."

Faced with the accuracy of the statement, the game designer leapt to his mental feet and declared, "I have so much work to do!" before collapsing into the fetal position at the prospect of the undertaking now at hand.

Outside the city, in a remote location, our hero worked tirelessly at his task.  Though he'd broken the archetypal classes into their base components already, he still had ended up with what was essentially a class-based system, one which dizzied the mind with its complexity as he strove to make a fantasy gaming structure more realistic.  Taking up the tools of his craft, he tore this structure apart and rebuilt it into something simpler, cleaner, more fluid.  The basic details and abilities of a character could be seen with a single glance.  He had done the unthinkable.

The System was reborn.  Three stats, from which all else derived.  No classes, nor class-fragments, but a comprehensive list of skills to govern the abilities of a character.  And yet this simplicity maintained, at its core, a means to fit within the dynamics of 3rd Edition rules, providing the ability to use available Monster Manuals.

The game designer sat back to survey his work, making small adjustments.  He found it to be shiny.  But there were still questions to be answered, regarding how much of a role the character's level was to play, in contrast with skills and ability scores.

And so he sat, fondly inspecting his new creation, awaiting the chance to see it in action.

Racial Diversity in Gaming

Once again I'm trying to tackle the question of how much or how little difference race selection should make in the game.  It seems like any explanation for giving bonuses or detriments, whether to stats, skills, or classes, is based on an attempt to propagate a stereotype of the race in question.  Yet this is generally only helpful if you intend to play to the stereotype, and most players I know like to break them instead.  Further, if you are playing in a system that allows you to place your ability scores as you like, rather than as you rolled them, then you're already optimizing for the class you want to play, and can manipulate the placement to either offset disadvantages or boost bonuses.

Back to the stereotyping issue: "Everyone" knows humans jack all the trades, elves are better at everything except being clerics and taking hits, dwarves are better at hitting things, getting hit, and making stuff, and sometimes being clerics, halflings are good at being sneaky, stealing anything not bolted down, and in some cases being clerics, while gnomes are the quirky alchemically-inclined arcanists.  If anyone plays a half-orc, it's always optimized for bashing things.  There are sub-races that break some of these rules, but generally speaking you don't see gnome barbarians, dwarven wizards, or half-orc bards.  There are various "reasons" given for these things, but without the setting's background it more or less seems arbitrary.  It gives a bit of flavor, another choice for the player, while still remaining (in theory) numerically balanced.

I guess what I'm getting into is flavor vs. substance.  Ice cream is ice cream, but choosing chocolate, vanilla, or any of the other 47 flavors is what makes the experience personalized, unique, and memorable.  Yet when it comes to race, what would be the ultimate difference between playing an elf (for example) rather than a human?  If you're already placing stats as you want them, you can put your high numbers in Dex and Int if you want to play to the widespread stereotypes.  Is it enough to simply state "my character is an elf?"  Is roleplay the major factor, or does there need to be a mechanical variance in order to really feel like you made a defining choice in the character's development?

I spoke with my wife about some of this, and came to the conclusion that I don't like assigning racial stereotypes.  Considering I'm a Sociology major, I guess this shouldn't be a surprise.  I'd rather leave it up to the player to determine what stereotype, if any, they want to play to or break away from.  But if there are no defined norms or stereotypes to begin with, then the player has nothing to guide him or her.  Stereotypes and norms would only come about by having enough player-created characters to build them organically.

Overall, I've decided that it isn't within the scope of mechanics-building to define these things, but in setting or world-building.  It is the campaign world which determines what is the norm, and mechanics are altered to suit. I could build a world where dwarves are the penultimate magic-users, elves have developed steam technology, halflings can take a severe beating and still keep going, and humans are terrible at everything except being clerics.  Sure, this flies in the face of most fantasy literature, and I'd have to come up with some fairly solid reasoning and explanation for why things were that way, but there's nothing stopping me from doing so.  The biggest problem with this, though, is that if I provide a setting with norms that are too different from what players expect, it will likely be (at least at first) confusing and may put them off if they don't enjoy it.  If someone expects chocolate ice cream, and gets pistachio instead, they probably won't be happy.

On the far side of the moon, I remember one of my gaming books mentioning that, yes, the setting does have set and discriminatory gender roles, but that's just part of the game society and is something the character will have to deal with, either by trying to blend in or by fighting the system and trying to enact change.  By creating norms and stereotypes, I'd also be providing a social contract for the characters to either adhere to or challenge, which can make for really good RP, but doesn't necessarily help me test my game mechanics.

Okay, I've gotten sidetracked here.  Determining whether this is a system issue or a setting issue doesn't help me to decide what sorts of mechanical differences I should be applying.

Size is basic, and easy. Regardless of what a race is called or whatever abilities it may have, its relative size to humans is something that doesn't bug me to include.  It determines non-magical weaponry available, and by 3rd Ed. also has an effect on armor class.  Also by 3rd Ed. it has an effect on movement speed, and my friend brought up the effect of size on reach as well, but that tends to get into positional combat tactics that I was trying to avoid, for the most part, in system construction.  There is a part of me that it appeals to, but it also can slow combat down in contrast with the system I grew up on.

Various vision types are available, with variations between editions to draw upon.  It still touches on pre-existing stereotypes of what defines a race, but it's easier for me to deal with than stat boosts.

Bonuses with weapons or skills and stat bonuses, and even discounted experience costs for certain classes based on race, are things that would make mechanical differences, but are the strongest "offenders" as far as stereotyping go.  Is it somehow inherently flawed or wrong if every race is capable of being just as much a jack-of-all-lanterns as humans are?  Should humans have some sort of specialty as well?

Too many questions, and I've run out of pebbles for now.

Short Update

Having only two people in the party can be a challenge as it is, but when neither one has healing it really makes it difficult to gauge an appropriate challenge.  In the most recent game, and the one before that, at least one character has fallen into negative hit points, and needed to be dragged to a temple for healing.  It seems like the encounters I've been giving are either way too easy, or way too hard, and I'm having some trouble trying to find the middle ground.  Then again, I don't really get a lot of time to find it.

With Great Power Comes A Need For Control

I recently showed my static mana plan to my mother, the woman who raised me in modified AD&D. She liked the concept and implementation, up to a point - she raised concerns over it being too much power for a low-level character. My original thought was that, yeah, a 1st level mage might end up being able to cast 18 magic missiles, but magic is to a wizard what a sword is to a fighter, and the latter aren't restricted to how many swings in a day.

But then I thought about some of the other system changes I'd made from 1st and 3rd, and how weaponry and armor, as well as multiple attacks, have less to do with your class and more with your inherent stats. A mage might have stats optimized for casting, but if they'd taken fighter as a class instead they'd be no better off in physical combat. Any class can wear any armor, and my spell failure for arcane magic is based off of how much metal is in the armor rather than how much it inhibits arm movements for somatic components (something which seemed far too easily remedied with careful manufacture anyway).

So maybe I'm being too nice to casters.

Rather than come up with a system that limits how much mana is available until the maximum is reached, however, I thought about the possibility that spells might, at first, take more mana than would be indicated by their level. Say, for example, that at first level, a 1st level spell costs 5 mana instead of 1. You're just starting out in the world of magic, you haven't had a lot of practical experience, and you're still learning how to properly, and efficiently, wield the power you have. At second level, the cost goes down by 1 point. At third level, it now takes 3 mana for a 1st level spell, and so on until you reach the minimum of 1 point for a 1st level spell at 5th level.

Every time you gain access to a new level of spells, the cost of them is X higher than normal, let's say 4. That would mean that 4 levels after you start getting spells of that level, they would cost the normal minimum of 1 mana per spell level.

This could be a bit confusing for cantrips, since they normally take 1/4th of a mana. I could start them at 4, or I could be nice and start them at 1, dropping by 1/4 each level until the minimum.

Thoughts?

Keep Those Dice a'Rollin'

So my friend Jonathan came out this past week (Huzzah!) and we got to game a little bit. I am still fairly enamored with my new experience system, especially how clean it looks/feels to me at the moment. One potential concern that I noticed is that my system for saving throws and skill checks may be inherently flawed. The concept is that you roll 3d10, and you are aiming for a number lower than the relevant stat with a bonus gained from a secondary stat. With an expected average stat of 15, and a range of 3 to 30, I figured 3d10 would be appropriate. However, it seems that the majority of rolls are landing above 16 even after adjustments. I should have expected this, but I'm not yet sure how to deal with it. I was trying to approximate a d30, but I don't actually have any of those and they're not terribly common anyway. I suppose I could do a d6 and a d10, like how d20 rolls used to be done before d20s became popular. 1-2 on the d6 means the d10 is 1-10, 3-4 means it's 11-20, and 5-6 means 21-30. I'll have to do some blank rolling to find out if that brings the average down.

In pondering further upon the topic of skills, I thought about the idea of a slow method of improving skills based directly on Intelligence, rather than class as 3rd Edition had it. I'm thinking about putting a limiter, though, on how much of a bonus you can give any individual skill, based on the primary stat governing that skill. Maybe half of the stat? One of the things that really bugged me about 3rd Edition skills was that within a few levels the bonus to the skill far outstripped the ability of most challenges to keep up. Difficulty ratings kept getting arbitrarily bumped up just to have any chance of failure. I'm also, personally, a believer in inherent ability being a greater contributor than training.

Minor Update: Death Threshold

After playing around with various ways to implement the concept I wrote about here, including lots of number crunching and contemplation, I realized that messing with the death threshold and altering it from -10 would necessarily mean I would have to alter some of the other Fighting Skills I'd implemented. Certain abilities already altered how far below zero someone could go without dying. This isn't a major concern on its own, since it's easily enough fixed.

But I also came to the conclusion that unless I was going to go ahead and strip the ability to bring back the dead, as the other person had, then all I was doing was increasing an already generous hit point system at high levels, and in some cases (depending on how I chose to implement it) making lower level characters less likely to survive.

So at least for the moment, I'm not going to be using altered death threshold rules. I'm still fond of the idea, and like the increased realism that such a system would bring, but I'm already concerned about the level of complexity in my system anyway. Until I manage to do some serious playtesting to determine current power levels, I should probably just leave the mechanics alone.

Methods of Improvement

I already had a system in place that would allow a character's Faith score to be malleable through the course of normal play, changing the score based on exceptional success or exceptional failure with Turning checks. Just today I wrote down and implemented a similar idea for the Luck stat, where the Luck would alter with exceptional critical hits (consecutive natural 20s), or exceptional critical fumbles (consecutive natural 1s).

I also allow stats to be built up using Combat Proficiencies (my term for Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, or Feats, depending on your chosen version. I don't know what the 4th Ed. equivalent is, but I don't care), but since I have these two stats as potentially variable I was wondering if there were other stats that people thought should be so quickly alterable. I know that physical stats such as Strength should not be so quickly or easily changed, but maybe Charisma might be affected by apparent wealth, or the Charisma scores of the people you're with?

Probably not, since it's a bit trickier than the systems I have in place for Faith and Luck. As it stands, Faith is really only important to one class, or anyone who wants to Turn or Rebuke undead. Luck is a bit more universally useful, since it affects saving throws, but there are two classes in particular that are majorly helped by having Luck as a primary stat. I like having these two stats alterable on-the-fly because I think it reflects the concept behind them well, but I don't know that any of the others really lend themselves to such.

Delusions of Shakespeare

So why am I "The Bard?"

Contrary to the title above, I'm not trying to horn in on Will's racket. I've always been very musically inclined, and am an accomplished vocalist. I've been operatically trained, have been appearing in plays and musical theater productions since Elementary School with an actor's resume some 5 pages long. I've played trombone, piano, and guitar, but my primary instrument is my voice. As a young child, brought to events by my parents, my goal in the SCA was to join the musician's guild (and go fight in full armor, but what kid doesn't want to do that?). I am a Master Harper in one such SCA guild, modeled after Harper Hall in the Dragonriders of Pern series (and sanctioned by Anne McCaffrey).

I even bring my guitar, a Martin Backpacker, to gaming sessions. When I was a regular attendee at the Tuesday Games(tm), I would have it out nearly every session. Because of its small frame, it didn't interfere with most dice rolling, and it's easy to put to the side when the action gets heavy.

One particular Tuesday night, playing 3rd Ed. D&D, the party was trying to make their way down a corridor that was bottlenecked by a horde of goblins. As the rest of the group began discussing options, I started plucking out a tune I'd picked up at the St. Louis Renaissance Faire a year or two prior, modified for the current events:

"They're standing in line.
They're standing in line.
They want to get killed so
They're standing in line.
They're standing in line
For a very long time.
They want to get killed so
They're standing in line."

"Everybody sing!"

And everyone did. I led half a dozen people on an impromptu sing-along reprise, most of which had never even heard the tune before. There was no hesitation on anyone's part. No one missed a beat, and no one missed a word.

To make a group of full-grown men break into song without prior training or expectation of performance? That's a powerful feeling. If I'd needed any more convincing of real-world bardic magic by that point in my life, that event would have satisfied me.

So that's why I'm the Bard.

Experience Overhaul

Thank you for the comments on my last post. They allowed me to realize that the numbers were hiding a flaw in my entire system of experience.

My original intent with my system, as I explained here, was to reflect easier or greater difficulty in progressing, based on Intelligence and how many classes you took, and eliminate the feeling of "wasting" a high Intelligence by not taking as many classes as it could handle. While it did do this to some degree, it was flawed in the fact that it based experience per level more off of the number of classes than the Intelligence. There was nothing in place to adjust difficulty for relative Intelligence. A low-Int character would simply not have access to the more "valuable" classes, but it could still out-level a higher-Int character that had more classes in short order.

That's been fixed now. A low-Int character taking its recommended maximum number of classes will now progress at the same speed as any other character that is also taking the recommended maximum number of classes for the character's Intelligence score. I may tweak it some from here, as I lost some "downward mobility" in the advantage a person gets by not filling up on classes, but I think this is the form I was going for earlier. The numbers were just getting in the way, so I couldn't see it. So again, thank you.

Experience Over Time

I've always had alt-itis, I guess. I generally don't get any D&D character past 4th level except under extraordinary circumstances. Tonight, though, I thought I'd do a quick comparison check to see how the experience tables I have worked up for my game (based loosely off of 3rd Edition's charts) stacked up against the old 1st Edition AD&D tables I grew up using. What I saw surprised me a bit.

At 11th level, a Paladin from 1st Edition had amassed over a million experience points. By 15th, the Thief class crossed the one million mark, followed only by Bard at 16th level (which doesn't really count since it was the 1st Edition equivalent of a Prestige - you had to be both a Fighter and Thief for 5+ levels before you could become a Bard). To get to 20th, you're talking 3.3 million for the most lenient table, ranging up to nearly six million points for Paladin.

By comparison, the pure 3rd Edition chart is child's play: 2nd level at a mere 1,000 points (The least expensive in 1st Ed., Thief, was 1,251), 10th level at only 45,000 which provides you with a "massive" gap to the 190,000 total needed for 20th level. Add to that the fact that 3rd edition experience is granted, according to the DMG, as an even split to all participants in an encounter (rather than being awarded individually based on damage dealt and treasure found - a bane to all low-level spellcasters) and you have what seems to be a supercharged elevator to the top. No wonder WotC came out with Epic Level handbooks so quickly!

I remember, as a child, sitting in a restaurant with my parents, and overhearing a conversation from a booth behind me: one guy was telling his friends about a campaign that took place in some tower, and his Paladin character made it all the way up to 50th level, only to be defeated or level-drained or some-such, and had to start over again at the bottom, so he did it again and got up to 50th level, and he got booted back down again, etc. Being the naive, inexperienced youth that I was, I got excited because they were talking about D&D, and I suppose I asked my mother why she didn't seem interested in asking them to game with us. That's when she explained to me the concept of "Monty Haul" gaming, and why it was generally considered to be a lesser form or of poorer quality among serious gamers.

I have to wonder if WotC was intentionally reducing the difficulty in such a manner, hoping to snare old and new players alike by promising greater rewards at a much quicker pace. Perhaps they thought that the attention span of modern gamers wouldn't last as long as it used to? Or maybe they simply believe most gamers play infrequently enough that too wide a gap between levels is discouraging, a belief I can't readily refute given that I typically only manage 1d4+1 sessions a year.

Now, however, I'm left with the concern that my own table is likewise too lenient. After all, even my highest chart only requires about 370,000 points for 20th level, and that assumes a character with a maximum class load.

I could make a return to the charts of old, or try to find some balance between the old and the new. After all, with the more generous experience rewards given by 3rd Edition rules, it might somewhat bridge the gap between players of different editions. Or, I could shove it off to the side for now, perhaps ruminating further upon it when I actually have players with characters above 4th level in the current system. At present rate, that might only take five years.

Free Sound

If you're looking for sound effects for Softrope (see my last post), this site has free, searchable sound files. You do have to register an account, but there's no credit card or such involved. Along with music files I already had, I've managed to create soundscapes for a good many adventuring environments with the sounds from there.