|
Post by scottanderson on Feb 14, 2015 17:18:57 GMT -5
Treasure Hunters started as a what-if exercise: what if OD&D was written using only six-sided dice? That seemed easy enough. And for a lot of the technical stuff, it is pretty easy. There are some differences- armor class and to-hit numbers vary a little. However as I went along, I found a number of things I wanted to bring in from Holmes, B/X, BECM and even some elements of modern retro-clones. When we play "D&D" at my house with my son, my wife, and my daughter we use the Treasure Hunters rules. It works fine for us, but lately I have wondered how it would work at other tables where "dad" isn't there to issue rulings. It's not a finished game; most notably, the monster stats are only about 1/3 done. Certainly there are many parts which are unclear, contradictory, or that could use some adjustment. Right now, my goal is to be able to release a very small run of boxed sets before Christmas with original art, with two booklets and dice. I would probably self-finance the initial run but kickstarter is a possibility too. Before that happens i need to get some play testers to tear it apart and find what's wrong with it. Rather than update this thread as we go, I will direct your attention to two threads on Dragonsfoot where the most current versions of the player's rules and the referee's guide can be gotten for free. Player's rules: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=66944Referee's Companion: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=69048
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 14, 2015 20:05:26 GMT -5
Hi Scott, glad to have you here and I am intrigued by what you are doing with Treasure Hunters. Please post any updates that you would like to post to the game itself here in this thread you have started and links to DF are fine, although any comments and other info that you would like to post here are very welcome. In addition, if you would like to, please feel free to start a thread in Add Your Campaign Here about your home campaign itself. We would love to hear about how your campaign and play testing is going. Others who are using your rules for their own play testing should post here in this thread I believe. Of course if we need to move anything around for you or others we can always do that later. Again welcome!
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 25, 2015 21:38:13 GMT -5
I am sorry that I have not been here more regularly. You can find the latest updates to Treasure Hunters at www.treasurehuntersrpg.blogspot.comThere is an RPG called "Treasure Hunter" on DriveThru an other places. This is not that.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Mar 26, 2015 5:46:06 GMT -5
I've skimmed through the DF threads and overall I like what I'm hearing. (Plus I've hung out with Scott enough on the boards to know that he thinks "old school" pretty similar to the way I do.) I've always been torn between the "all d6" and polyhedral approaches. When I first got OD&D we only had d6's and ended up doing chits in a jar (a trick we picked up from the Avalon Hill wargame Third Reich, among others) for the strange numbers. I'm glad we were able to order some poly dice quickly so that we could bring them into play because they are so darned cool. The thing is, back in the 1970's an "all d6" approach was a good one simply because no one had polyhedral dice sets. Now, 40 years later, I have dozens of sets. My wife and my kids each have a dicebag full of their own poly dice. From that standpoint, I can't see throwing those other dice away forever. It's interesting to note that Goodman Games sparked a similar discussion with their use of the d5, d7, d14, and so on. That's not intended to take away from Scott's concept or the way Treasure Hunters is designed. (And I'm not really sure why I'm cluttering up Scott's thread with my musings.) I think playing T.H. looks like a blast to play, but I can't see making a "only d6" system my go-to game for the long run. Stick with it, however. I like what you've done with the thing.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 26, 2015 7:59:26 GMT -5
The all-sixes was a thought experiment. There's actually optional material in the referee's guide for percentile dice, because there are some things that just work so much better that way.
Marv, you are always welcome to say whatever you want, good bad or off topic because you've earned that, and you are really interesting too.
Here's the thing about the all sixes aporoach: it doesn't FLAILSNAILS well. Monsters are dead easy to write, but you do have to write them over. To-hit rolls don't translate well. There's probably some other mechanicals that don't translate well. So that's a drawback.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Mar 26, 2015 14:05:36 GMT -5
The all-sixes was a thought experiment. There's actually optional material in the referee's guide for percentile dice, because there are some things that just work so much better that way. Marv, you are always welcome to say whatever you want, good bad or off topic because you've earned that, and you are really interesting too. Here's the thing about the all sixes aporoach: it doesn't FLAILSNAILS well. Monsters are dead easy to write, but you do have to write them over. To-hit rolls don't translate well. There's probably some other mechanicals that don't translate well. So that's a drawback. Dunno if I have any special insights or anything like that; I've just played a lot and tried a lot of different things. And I tend to like certain things in my games which fall into a somewhat narrow range instead of a full spectrum of the options out there, so some great ideas never actually reach my gaming table. I've enjoyed reading Treasure Hunters, though. For example, I'm a big fan of the "core four" character class model that you use. Some of the other classes look good on paper, but I find that they mess up game balance a lot. (I'm really noticing this in my 5E game at the moment.) I like that you have the anti-cleric. I like the use of BAB (basic attack bonus) over the more cumbersome tables and charts. I like the "forgotten lore" property of thieves. That kind of thing. :-)
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 28, 2015 2:46:07 GMT -5
The design considerations of: RACES AND CLASSES
Four races; four classes. Those are the ones we like best at my table. Well, except for Men. Nobody but me likes playing "plain old" Men. Coincidentally, it mirrors Greyhawk to some degree. This was not by design.
But
There's no reason you can't bust out a gnome. Or a skeleton. Or a treefolk. Or whatever. But four and four sets up the implied setting properly- those are the commonest kinds of folk who are civilized and cooperative. Those are the commonest professions of adventurous types.
So you have the common choices.
The thief has a great deal of competence and flexibility. Thieves are my binky. I made them a little better than the greyhawk thief. To balance that, they share the cleric's xp, Attack progression, HD and saves. The thief in TH never has to take a combat ability, never has to learn how to remove a trap... He could be a linguist or a musician or a tough as nails commoner. Whatever he does do, he will be immediately competent at it.
Initially I was going to bar elves from being thieves. They are already awesome. But... Why? There's no mechanical or implied setting reason why an elf can't learn thief abilities. So the compromise is they have to start as F/W and only take Thief after they have been hanging around the other kinds for a while.
Clerics in older style games are sometimes confused with village priest types. (3e's splat book explosion cured this to some degree.) The addition of the paladin class confused the idea that clerics are actually the holy knights, who are dealing with really cool, weird stuff. i try to make it clear that clerics are the true gish, and are just as prone to the weird as wizards are. Especially the pitfalls of reverse casting, and the trials they may face coming up to level 7. Paladins are really shaded over toward the fighter to make more conceptual room for the Cleric as warrior.
Wizards are all summoners in a way. Their key skill is being able to call upon & control living beings called vorpals through willpower and forbidden lore. The end result is fairly mundane vancian casting but the fluff is cool and weird. Implied setting... Implied setting.
Both of the base spell casting classes have access to rather unlimited magic. Wizards can always cast cantrips, which are well-defined. At my table, common folk mostly believe that cantrips are all there are to wizard magic. Clerics may call upon God to grant them any spell at any time. God may not answer.
I added the druid as an optional class because they are an important implied setting element. As there are christian style holy warriors who are consumed by the battles of law and chaos, so there is a primal spell caster who is steeped in the old ways of paganism.
I added the paladin because I like the paladin. I may cut them though. They are not important to the implied setting; clerics can serve that role.
The ranger is just impossibly complicated. But I like the idea of the hobbit bounder. I took another look at the ranger, and presented it just today in PDF form here and there. Idk whether they make the cut, since they are not strong in domain play.
Assassins and monks are presented as a mirror image to one another, and as an alternate take on holy warriors. implied setting is important but golly, assassins do step on thieves, and monks are just bizarre mechanically. My son loves them both though.
Anti-clerics get the full treatment they deserve in the referee's companion. Whether as PCs or bad guys, they are again a critical setting element. Alignment is cosmic. We are imbued by God with it.
Finally there are the oddball classes- Hedge wizard and treasure hunter. They are only there to illustrate different takes on building the setting. That whole chapter might get cut from the final release.
There is one more optional class that potentially will make the cut, and that is the alchemist. Blackmoor only had alchemical magic. That's appealing. I would like very much to represent it in some way.
|
|
|
Post by randyb on Mar 28, 2015 9:06:19 GMT -5
Perhaps broaden the concept of a domain to incorporate the ranger (and possibly also druid if they could have similar issues) into domain play. My initial thought would be ranger-as-warden, that is, the ranger establishes a domain not by building a castle or keep, but by roaming about the domain and establishing his presence on a more personal basis. The ranger could still attract followers, but less "army of the lord of the keep" and more "band of brothers/merry men".
I'm trying not to pigeonhole though, so other non-fortress ideas should be possible.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 28, 2015 9:47:47 GMT -5
scottanderson, your class / race rules are brilliant. They seem fairly complex to me for an old school feel. But I suspect that is b/c I am "in" my mind rather than yours. It looks like one of those cases where the logic of it is perfectly clear to you, so it still feels rules-lite to you. My house rules takes 0e in the direction of B/X and BECMI. I have six character classes, races are classes, I call them: knight, mage, cleric, scout, dwarf and elf, respectively. I discourage hobbits. They would just be diminutive men types and I would limit them to knights and scouts. I do have my own version of "multi-classing" though, that makes sense to me. Here I am sure it is another one of those cases where most other 0e folks are going to think I am long past rules-lite, but it still feels rules-lite to me b/c it makes sense in my own head. At lvl 7, I want my PCs ruling a realm. This is where titled leveling stops for fay. Human PCs may "multiclass" at this point, but if they do so, they must foreswear land and (further) titles and knights and clerics must foreswear any accumulation of wealth! Knights can take on the role of Paladin, with limited cleric like abilities. Magi can become druids, with limited scout like abilities. Clerics can become knights Templar, with limited knight abilities (edged and magic weapons being the chief benefit). Scouts can become bards with limited fay-like magical abilities. And that's what I've got!
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 28, 2015 14:59:14 GMT -5
A big part of the original game that I want to capture here is that there is an end game. The end game is you are no longer a murderhobo. You win land in some way. You gain respect and legitimacy and secure the safety and security of your heirs. And you get to go wage war too, which is a whole other aspect of the game.
I put domain rules right after the combat rules because I think they are that important to this game. Chapter one, you make your character. Chapter two, you learn how to move your character and how not to die. Chapter three, you learn how to fight with your character. Chapter four, you learn how to rule with your character.
Rangers other than Aragorn are not really on that glide path. I'm not sure where they fit in. They can have a stronghold but they're not really domain oriented. Thieves can run a city as a Guildmaster. Not the same as a domain, but not all that different either. As much as I like Rangers, this may be a reason to cut them. There's no strongly implied endgame that matches the concept for the other kinds.
Tetramorph: your conception of character classes and especially race as class is consistent and sounds fun. Just from the short description you gave, let me see if I can groak where you're coming from.
You like race-as-class. It resonates with you. Demi-men, in your perception, are not as prone to being adventurers as men are for whatever reason. Therefore those demi-men who do adventure use their natural talents rather than taking up a particular adventuring profession.
You see that there is a cutoff at some point after which something changes in the dungeon-and-hex game. Maybe magic users are just outclassing figter types? Maybe it just gets silly to keep throwing bigger and bigger orcs at the same party. But for whatever reason, it's time for the party to move into another style of play. In my opinion, play changes starting at level 7. 4th level spells change the game, specifically. I don't know why you picked 7, but it makes sense to me.
I don't feel like I fully explained the design considerations backing domain rules yet, but this is a good start at cracking the game concerns inherent in the inclusion of the domain rules. I'll get back to that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 28, 2015 16:40:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 28, 2015 17:20:09 GMT -5
Yes, scottanderson, pretty good description! Yes, my campaign, like yours, assumes end-game as built-in. And, like you, my house rules document has domain rules built in in the U&WA section. Yes, 7HD just changes things a lot. I love the whole 4, 8, 12 scheme of CM for 0e, but I also like groupings of three so: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 with 10 as "name," or "sovereign" level. Rad!
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 28, 2015 21:33:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by randyb on Mar 29, 2015 7:53:39 GMT -5
A big part of the original game that I want to capture here is that there is an end game. The end game is you are no longer a murderhobo. You win land in some way. You gain respect and legitimacy and secure the safety and security of your heirs. And you get to go wage war too, which is a whole other aspect of the game. I put domain rules right after the combat rules because I think they are that important to this game. Chapter one, you make your character. Chapter two, you learn how to move your character and how not to die. Chapter three, you learn how to fight with your character. Chapter four, you learn how to rule with your character. Rangers other than Aragorn are not really on that glide path. I'm not sure where they fit in. They can have a stronghold but they're not really domain oriented. Thieves can run a city as a Guildmaster. Not the same as a domain, but not all that different either. As much as I like Rangers, this may be a reason to cut them. There's no strongly implied endgame that matches the concept for the other kinds. I was trying not to stereotype, but imagine a Robin Hood situation - not in rebellion against tyranny, but as the claiming of land. A ranger and his band of men operating from a place that is not quite a druid's grove (or could be, depending on what relationship, if any, exists between druids and rangers), patrolling the region, etc. The difference becomes the type of central residence the ranger occupies, and how to match the cost of that residence to the ranger's usual level of wealth.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 29, 2015 13:24:08 GMT -5
I understand that more now randy. I'm really not against the idea of the ranger. I like them just fine.
What I am searching for is a stronger straight line between "woodsman loner" and "King" and I'm not seeing it. But maybe it's not super critical.
|
|
|
Post by randyb on Mar 29, 2015 13:28:30 GMT -5
I understand that more now randy. I'm really not against the idea of the ranger. I like them just fine. What I am searching for is a stronger straight line between "woodsman loner" and "King" and I'm not seeing it. But maybe it's not super critical. "Forest King", perhaps. It would certainly be a different kind of realm, one perhaps more hunter/gatherer/trapper than farmer/planter.
|
|
|
Post by Robert the Black on Apr 8, 2015 14:13:35 GMT -5
What is this murderhobo term I see being thrown about? It sounds more like a pejorative for gamers than something we would use ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 8, 2015 15:26:32 GMT -5
What is this murderhobo term I see being thrown about? It sounds more like a pejorative for gamers than something we would use ourselves. I'm not sure, I have seen it a few times, but it seems pretty negative and anti-gamer to me too. If someone is familiar with this term perhaps they could educate us.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 9, 2015 12:56:22 GMT -5
Murderhobo is a dimunitive rather than a perjorative. It refers to the "loot and scoot" style of dungeon exploration which minimizes the focus on RP and emphasizes the acquisition of treasure and defeat of monsters.
For those folks who prefer open-ended style games rather than tightly-plotted ones, it's a badge of some honor.
|
|
Mike
Wanderer
Posts: 6
|
Post by Mike on Oct 20, 2015 0:38:09 GMT -5
I love Treasure Hunters.
And it's soooo close to being finished...
Hint, hint?
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 20, 2015 8:12:38 GMT -5
Scott was last online with us on 9/28. Scott come back we miss you and we want an update on the status of Treasure Hunters!
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Jan 5, 2016 16:17:05 GMT -5
Thanks for keeping the thread warm. You can find updates here: www.treasurehuntersrpg.blogspot.com . Most delightfully, we have added to the Referee's Companion about 100 monsters written up the Treasur Hunters way.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 6, 2016 8:25:36 GMT -5
Thanks for keeping the thread warm. You can find updates here: www.treasurehuntersrpg.blogspot.com . Most delightfully, we have added to the Referee's Companion about 100 monsters written up the Treasure Hunters way. Welcome back Scott. (For those who don't know see Scott's post a little way down the page here.)
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Aug 7, 2016 13:13:43 GMT -5
I'm checking in to report that the game is finished and available for free as a PDF at my little blog site: treasurehuntersrpg.blogspot.com
It's not perfect. Some of the monsters have incidental typos. I don't think the morale system is quite right because at some point I decided to flip high for low and never fixed everything on the back side. But at some point, you have to say that enough is enough and let your little game out of the house!
It's all made up, it's just for fun, and I would be honored if you borrowed or stole any of it for your own good use.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 3, 2018 6:15:49 GMT -5
Since Scott's original Blog got deleted & his new one doesn't have links to his Treasure Hunters Referee's Companion or the Treasure Hunters Basic (Full game not the the WIP version if he finished it). I got the TH Player's Guide but I am missing the Referee's Companion. I love the TH player's guide - I just wish I had the full game.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Feb 3, 2018 13:39:17 GMT -5
Hi, my blog did get deleted! Or more precisely, I stupidly deleted it by accident, and Google couldn't or wouldn't help me get it back. Thankfully the community did find a lot of it. It's back up here: t reasurehuntershq.blogspot.comYou can find the Treasure Hunters players' book here: Players' Guide (it's named incorrectly as a working draft, but it's the final version) You can find the Treasure Hunters referee's companion book here: Referee's CompanionThe RC has a ton of awesome unique monsters written by my co-author John Wong, who blogs at taxidermicowlbear. This is a complete game. However. You will find that there is almost nothing published that is compatible because it's 2d6 instead of 1d20. I do not have plans to release it in print or POD, but you have my permission to print it out. If you do it in black and white, you can get them both printed and bound at staples on good paper for between 15 and 30 USD depending on what your preferred format is. Don't do the whole thing in color because the only color plates are the front and back color and that would end up being very very expensive. Thank you for asking after my little game. It's very gratifying to hear that some people remember it
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 3, 2018 13:56:42 GMT -5
Thank you for the update Scott! Happy to hear that you were mostly able to recover your blog and that it is up and running.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 3, 2018 15:12:33 GMT -5
Hi, my blog did get deleted! Or more precisely, I stupidly deleted it by accident, and Google couldn't or wouldn't help me get it back. Thankfully the community did find a lot of it. It's back up here: t reasurehuntershq.blogspot.comYou can find the Treasure Hunters players' book here: Players' Guide (it's named incorrectly as a working draft, but it's the final version) You can find the Treasure Hunters referee's companion book here: Referee's CompanionThe RC has a ton of awesome unique monsters written by my co-author John Wong, who blogs at taxidermicowlbear. This is a complete game. However. You will find that there is almost nothing published that is compatible because it's 2d6 instead of 1d20. I do not have plans to release it in print or POD, but you have my permission to print it out. If you do it in black and white, you can get them both printed and bound at staples on good paper for between 15 and 30 USD depending on what your preferred format is. Don't do the whole thing in color because the only color plates are the front and back color and that would end up being very very expensive. Thank you for asking after my little game. It's very gratifying to hear that some people remember it Thanks Scott, you made my day. Woot! Happy boy I am, yes siree. BTW I am enjoying your new blog as well. I got the TH Player's Guide via Taxidermicowlbear's OSR list. I read through it & was BLOWN away. I've been searching everywhere for the Referee's Companion. I'll check out John Wong's blog as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 10, 2018 10:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 10, 2018 12:34:37 GMT -5
Hi, my blog did get deleted! Or more precisely, I stupidly deleted it by accident, and Google couldn't or wouldn't help me get it back. Thankfully the community did find a lot of it. It's back up here: t reasurehuntershq.blogspot.comYou can find the Treasure Hunters players' book here: Players' Guide (it's named incorrectly as a working draft, but it's the final version) You can find the Treasure Hunters referee's companion book here: Referee's CompanionScott, very glad this is back up - I need to save a copy this time. Thank you! Just one question - the Players' Guide seems to link to...this page? Is there a working link for it? Or am I crazy?
|
|