|
Post by mao on Mar 30, 2024 6:31:30 GMT -5
Do you use cantrips? I love them as both player and dm.
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 30, 2024 6:59:18 GMT -5
Do you use cantrips? I love them as both player and dm. I like them too, though I think they could be simplified.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Mar 30, 2024 7:28:49 GMT -5
Do you use cantrips? I love them as both player and dm. I like them too, though I think they could be simplified. This would be prob no memorization and a set number a day.
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 30, 2024 8:33:38 GMT -5
Do you use cantrips? I love them as both player and dm. I like them too, though I think they could be simplified. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 13:44:06 GMT -5
Do you use cantrips? I love them as both player and dm. I like them too, though I think they could be simplified. How do you mean, they could be simplified? I thought cantrips were already really simple. Is there something I am missing about cantrips?
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 13:45:10 GMT -5
I like them too, though I think they could be simplified. This would be prob no memorization and a set number a day. I don't understand, why is it a problem?
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Mar 30, 2024 13:59:24 GMT -5
This would be prob no memorization and a set number a day. I don't understand, why is it a problem? I can't speak for simrion but I was just agreeing that they need to remain simpler and less effective than the normal spells when you make new ones.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 14:07:09 GMT -5
I don't understand, why is it a problem? I can't speak for simrion but I was just agreeing that they need to remain simpler and less effective than the normal spells. You all have me confused. 1. I thought were simple and either less effective than normal spells or (mainly) did really simple things for which no spell exists. So I want clarification from simrion on how you would make them more simple. 2. Why does mao think cantrips are a problem when he starts by saying he loves them AND he says no memorization (I thought that was a feature) and a set number a day (again I thought this was a feature). So I want clarification from mao as to what his statement means.
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 30, 2024 14:32:01 GMT -5
Not sure I can state my opinion without deeper consideration but heck, it's an opinion. I'd simplify with a hand wave or simple skill/actuation roll allowing the mage to do something simple and unoffensive (mildly offensive like a hot foot?) at will. Rather than a set limit per day. Light a candle within 10 feet? Spoil cheese? Done! or roll 1D6, on a 1 you fail (maybe with comedic consequence) anything above a 1 is success.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 14:37:28 GMT -5
Not sure I can state my opinion without deeper consideration but heck, it's an opinion. I'd simplify with a hand wave or simple skill/actuation roll allowing the mage to do something simple and unoffensive (mildly offensive like a hot foot?) at will. Rather than a set limit per day. Light a candle within 10 feet? Spoil cheese? Done! or roll 1D6, on a 1 you fail (maybe with comedic consequence) anything above a 1 is success. Ok, I was wondering how to make it more simple. I am thinking lighting a dozen candles at different times during the day, yeah, lighting a hundred candles in a room (a few at a time) uses up all the cantrips available for day.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 14:42:11 GMT -5
Not sure I can state my opinion without deeper consideration but heck, it's an opinion. I'd simplify with a hand wave or simple skill/actuation roll allowing the mage to do something simple and unoffensive (mildly offensive like a hot foot?) at will. Rather than a set limit per day. Light a candle within 10 feet? Spoil cheese? Done! or roll 1D6, on a 1 you fail (maybe with comedic consequence) anything above a 1 is success. We should continue to throw out ideas and that would make a blog post and a fanzine post, either or both.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 15:00:54 GMT -5
Not sure I can state my opinion without deeper consideration but heck, it's an opinion. I'd simplify with a hand wave or simple skill/actuation roll allowing the mage to do something simple and unoffensive (mildly offensive like a hot foot?) at will. Rather than a set limit per day. Light a candle within 10 feet? Spoil cheese? Done! or roll 1D6, on a 1 you fail (maybe with comedic consequence) anything above a 1 is success. I like this, though I'm not sure I could refer it well.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Mar 30, 2024 16:31:32 GMT -5
This would be prob no memorization and a set number a day. I don't understand, why is it a problem? I don't see one . I was just giving another option.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 16:40:35 GMT -5
I like them too, though I think they could be simplified. This would be prob no memorization and a set number a day.I don't understand, why is it a problem? I don't see one . I was just giving another option. mao, see the bold, he said he thinks it could be simplified and you quite literally said it would be a problem. See the bold, that is what you said. How can you now say that you do not see a problem?
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 16:54:36 GMT -5
"Probably"?
|
|
|
Post by mao on Mar 30, 2024 17:00:02 GMT -5
I don't see one . I was just giving another option. mao , see the bold, he said he thinks it could be simplified and you quite literally said it would be a problem. See the bold, that is what you said. How can you now say that you do not see a problem? sorry
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 30, 2024 17:06:09 GMT -5
Problem versus Probability? My take is anything that enhances the minutia or brings minutia to the game, causes later editions. Players desire (demand?) specifics and I think that has led to later editions focusing on "player agency" in the form of defined skills, feats, special abilities. Our favored edition (Original) is not exempt, Thieves Skills for example. Players increasingly seemed to not trust the impartiality of the game master's decisions (fiat) and began demanding control in the from of ever more onerous rules. Hence the demand for supplementation, such as cantrips. I certainly chafe at the 'one shot wonder' of the low level MU. Cantrips make sense from a flavor and utilitarian nature. I simply don't agree they should work like a memorzeable 1+ level spell. These should be "parlor tricks" IMNSHO and (mostly) reliable in execution.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 17:18:14 GMT -5
mao , see the bold, he said he thinks it could be simplified and you quite literally said it would be a problem. See the bold, that is what you said. How can you now say that you do not see a problem? sorry Ok, I just have no idea what you were trying to say in the first post. Just confused is all.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 17:29:26 GMT -5
Problem versus Probability? My take is anything that enhances the minutia or brings minutia to the game, causes later editions. Players desire (demand?) specifics and I think that has led to later editions focusing on "player agency" in the form of defined skills, feats, special abilities. Our favored edition (Original) is not exempt, Thieves Skills for example. Players increasingly seemed to not trust the impartiality of the game master's decisions ( fiat) and began demanding control in the from of ever more onerous rules. Hence the demand for supplementation, such as cantrips. I certainly chafe at the 'one shot wonder' of the low level MU. Cantrips make sense from a flavor and utilitarian nature. I simply don't agree they should work like a memorzeable 1+ level spell. These should be "parlor tricks" IMNSHO and (mostly) reliable in execution. Thieves are not part of the original game, they are an option added in a supplement. Bitd, in roughly 2600 hours of gaming in college, I had zero pushback on referee fiat. I often wonder where that pushback at other tables originated. I have read about the dreaded "DMs girlfriend" syndrome, but that guy was not doing himself any favors with the girlfriend, let alone the rest of the table. I agree with your take on cantrips, "flavor and utilitarian nature." is a good way to go with them. RE: "one shot wonder," down in the pbp game, I am giving first level M-Us two spells at 1st. Plus I house ruled how "thieving skills" work for all three classes, somewhat like it was bitd before Greyhawk Thieves came along. Thieves were never needed as a class, your character could lean into those skills from the base class. A lot of problems and rule bloat, comes from DMs who lack imagination and have no clue about how to work with players. If I know a player who is a (insert base class - FM or MU or Cl), wants to lean into "thieving skills" then along the way, there will be ways for those to improve beyond what the player that is way more casual towards them can do. No special class needed. A full on Thief is an NPC.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 18:14:30 GMT -5
Problem versus Probability? My take is anything that enhances the minutia or brings minutia to the game, causes later editions. Players desire (demand?) specifics and I think that has led to later editions focusing on "player agency" in the form of defined skills, feats, special abilities. Our favored edition (Original) is not exempt, Thieves Skills for example. Players increasingly seemed to not trust the impartiality of the game master's decisions ( fiat) and began demanding control in the from of ever more onerous rules. Hence the demand for supplementation, such as cantrips. I certainly chafe at the 'one shot wonder' of the low level MU. Cantrips make sense from a flavor and utilitarian nature. I simply don't agree they should work like a memorzeable 1+ level spell. These should be "parlor tricks" IMNSHO and (mostly) reliable in execution. I'm very intrigued by your take on cantrips, simrion. I also like the idea that an MU has certain "tricks" always available. Or, as I have seen somewhere, available when a similar spell is memorized at present. Again, I don't know that I could ref this so well, but I like it.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 18:43:48 GMT -5
Problem versus Probability? My take is anything that enhances the minutia or brings minutia to the game, causes later editions. Players desire (demand?) specifics and I think that has led to later editions focusing on "player agency" in the form of defined skills, feats, special abilities. Our favored edition (Original) is not exempt, Thieves Skills for example. Players increasingly seemed to not trust the impartiality of the game master's decisions ( fiat) and began demanding control in the from of ever more onerous rules. Hence the demand for supplementation, such as cantrips. I certainly chafe at the 'one shot wonder' of the low level MU. Cantrips make sense from a flavor and utilitarian nature. I simply don't agree they should work like a memorzeable 1+ level spell. These should be "parlor tricks" IMNSHO and (mostly) reliable in execution. Thieves are not part of the original game, they are an option added in a supplement. Bitd, in roughly 2600 hours of gaming in college, I had zero pushback on referee fiat. I often wonder where that pushback at other tables originated. I have read about the dreaded "DMs girlfriend" syndrome, but that guy was not doing himself any favors with the girlfriend, let alone the rest of the table. [...] If I know a player who is a (insert base class - FM or MU or Cl), wants to lean into "thieving skills" then along the way, there will be ways for those to improve beyond what the player that is way more casual towards them can do. No special class needed. A full on Thief is an NPC. Re: pushback, I don't know, but we know there were lots of refs when this hobby was huge, and not everyone in the world behaves well. Although it seems odd to me to think that people wouldn't just walk if the ref was abusive. The second stuff I have bolded sounds very good to me, I like that way of doing things. The only problem someone would have is that it isn't "fair" or that their progress can't be predicted by the book. Since I don't care about character power or improvement at all, that's never going to bother me.
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 30, 2024 18:47:16 GMT -5
Problem versus Probability? My take is anything that enhances the minutia or brings minutia to the game, causes later editions. Players desire (demand?) specifics and I think that has led to later editions focusing on "player agency" in the form of defined skills, feats, special abilities. Our favored edition (Original) is not exempt, Thieves Skills for example. Players increasingly seemed to not trust the impartiality of the game master's decisions ( fiat) and began demanding control in the from of ever more onerous rules. Hence the demand for supplementation, such as cantrips. I certainly chafe at the 'one shot wonder' of the low level MU. Cantrips make sense from a flavor and utilitarian nature. I simply don't agree they should work like a memorzeable 1+ level spell. These should be "parlor tricks" IMNSHO and (mostly) reliable in execution. Thieves are not part of the original game, they are an option added in a supplement. Bitd, in roughly 2600 hours of gaming in college, I had zero pushback on referee fiat. I often wonder where that pushback at other tables originated. I have read about the dreaded "DMs girlfriend" syndrome, but that guy was not doing himself any favors with the girlfriend, let alone the rest of the table. I agree with your take on cantrips, "flavor and utilitarian nature." is a good way to go with them. RE: "one shot wonder," down in the pbp game, I am giving first level M-Us two spells at 1st. Plus I house ruled how "thieving skills" work for all three classes, somewhat like it was bitd before Greyhawk Thieves came along. Thieves were never needed as a class, your character could lean into those skills from the base class. A lot of problems and rule bloat, comes from DMs who lack imagination and have no clue about how to work with players. If I know a player who is a (insert base class - FM or MU or Cl), wants to lean into "thieving skills" then along the way, there will be ways for those to improve beyond what the player that is way more casual towards them can do. No special class needed. A full on Thief is an NPC. And yet "everyone wants to play that roguish rapscalion" 😝 I hear you, but original rules aside I think the thief is here to stay. And because of that so are those "tacked on" skills/abilities. Hence I see no reason (beyond my personal enjoyment of another persons misery) to not allow an MU some utilitarian bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 18:49:20 GMT -5
Personally, I would like to see more characters with a low level of utilitarian magic in addition to their other abilities. Although I don't know just how I would like to see this handle -- multi classing, bonus abilities because of character interest, or what.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 19:25:42 GMT -5
Thieves are not part of the original game, they are an option added in a supplement. Bitd, in roughly 2600 hours of gaming in college, I had zero pushback on referee fiat. I often wonder where that pushback at other tables originated. I have read about the dreaded "DMs girlfriend" syndrome, but that guy was not doing himself any favors with the girlfriend, let alone the rest of the table. [...] If I know a player who is a (insert base class - FM or MU or Cl), wants to lean into "thieving skills" then along the way, there will be ways for those to improve beyond what the player that is way more casual towards them can do. No special class needed. A full on Thief is an NPC. Re: pushback, I don't know, but we know there were lots of refs when this hobby was huge, and not everyone in the world behaves well. Although it seems odd to me to think that people wouldn't just walk if the ref was abusive. The second stuff I have bolded sounds very good to me, I like that way of doing things. The only problem someone would have is that it isn't "fair" or that their progress can't be predicted by the book. Since I don't care about character power or improvement at all, that's never going to bother me. In my experience good players have a better take on what is or is not "fair." Those who complain about fairness usually mean, "why can't my PC be a lot better than the other PCs?"
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 19:31:20 GMT -5
Thieves are not part of the original game, they are an option added in a supplement. Bitd, in roughly 2600 hours of gaming in college, I had zero pushback on referee fiat. I often wonder where that pushback at other tables originated. I have read about the dreaded "DMs girlfriend" syndrome, but that guy was not doing himself any favors with the girlfriend, let alone the rest of the table. I agree with your take on cantrips, "flavor and utilitarian nature." is a good way to go with them. RE: "one shot wonder," down in the pbp game, I am giving first level M-Us two spells at 1st. Plus I house ruled how "thieving skills" work for all three classes, somewhat like it was bitd before Greyhawk Thieves came along. Thieves were never needed as a class, your character could lean into those skills from the base class. A lot of problems and rule bloat, comes from DMs who lack imagination and have no clue about how to work with players. If I know a player who is a (insert base class - FM or MU or Cl), wants to lean into "thieving skills" then along the way, there will be ways for those to improve beyond what the player that is way more casual towards them can do. No special class needed. A full on Thief is an NPC. And yet "everyone wants to play that roguish rapscalion" 😝 I hear you, but original rules aside I think the thief is here to stay. And because of that so are those "tacked on" skills/abilities. Hence I see no reason (beyond my personal enjoyment of another persons misery) to not allow an MU some utilitarian bonuses. I am in favor the utilitarian bonuses for MU and I think all the player should have thieving abilities. Now what should we do for Fighting-Men and Clerics, if we give utilitarian bonuses to MU?
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 19:31:50 GMT -5
Personally, I would like to see more characters with a low level of utilitarian magic in addition to their other abilities. Although I don't know just how I would like to see this handle -- multi classing, bonus abilities because of character interest, or what. Hmm, that is an interesting thought.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 30, 2024 19:58:53 GMT -5
Personally, I would like to see more characters with a low level of utilitarian magic in addition to their other abilities. Although I don't know just how I would like to see this handle -- multi classing, bonus abilities because of character interest, or what. Hmm, that is an interesting thought. Maybe there could be very low-power cantrips that some people learn from their parents or something. And to keep it from cheapening magic there is a genetic and a cultural component. Say if you have a carrier parent, you're likely to be a carrier (or something). And then you have to learn it. So some might have the ability and not learn it, some might have the exposure through a parent but not have the ability. And if it's a culture that doesn't use magic then just forget it. Maybe that's too complicated.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 30, 2024 20:35:51 GMT -5
Hmm, that is an interesting thought. Maybe there could be very low-power cantrips that some people learn from their parents or something. And to keep it from cheapening magic there is a genetic and a cultural component. Say if you have a carrier parent, you're likely to be a carrier (or something). And then you have to learn it. So some might have the ability and not learn it, some might have the exposure through a parent but not have the ability. And if it's a culture that doesn't use magic then just forget it. Maybe that's too complicated. Again, that is a very interesting thought, you should write that up. One of the things that I think is missing from game products are Supplements of optional rules and ways of handling things. To me that is what the Greyhawk Supplement was and that is what The Arduin Grimoire was. Those are the products that are not really made these days. Plus the format of the original game booklets has been lost in favor of massive tomes.
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Mar 31, 2024 6:37:16 GMT -5
The beauty of Original rules is their flexibility that is limited only by imagination. Mao has certainly exemplified that on this forum! Personally I don't care for the idea of everyone having "minor magics" makes the game too much like 5E IMNSHO. Not the type of game I'm looking for. Besides minor (and not so minor) magic is already available to other classes, especially in the form of potions. My Fighters always pick those as treasures because then they have a "one shot" spell.
In reference to Arduin, I have used the special abilities of volume one. Randomly determined bonuses and abilities that don't break the game and offer a little more flavor/capability.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Mar 31, 2024 7:03:26 GMT -5
The beauty of Original rules is their flexibility that is limited only by imagination. Mao has certainly exemplified that on this forum! Personally I don't care for the idea of everyone having "minor magics" makes the game too much like 5E IMNSHO. Not the type of game I'm looking for. Besides minor (and not so minor) magic is already available to other classes, especially in the form of potions. My Fighters always pick those as treasures because then they have a "one shot" spell. In reference to Arduin, I have used the special abilities of volume one. Randomly determined bonuses and abilities that don't break the game and offer a little more flavor/capability. Thanx!
|
|