1. Thanks to everyone for being good sports yesterday, I know it must have been disappointing (but what's a trap without good bait?). I also know (hope?), that someone, somewhere, has been inspired to create the real thing, so we all win! ;)
2. Check out ChigoWiz's RPG Blog, where Michael has turned my own Round Table questions back at me. And yes, despite the timing, those are actually my answers and not Michael's April Fools' Day prank!
3. My favorite April Fools posts this year include Akratic Wizardry and Hill Cantons. BtBG posts from the Fools of Aprils past are here and here.
4. If you haven't been following Frog God Games, now is the time to pay attention - anyone in love with those hex maps and guides Judges Guild put out 30 years ago may be interested in their line of "Hex Crawl Classics" mods - each is basically a big hex map with lots of hex descriptions, and there will be 9 or 10 altogether. These are also by John from the excellent Land of Nod, and the first is due in print this month.
5. No, I won't be participating in the A to Z project sadly, too many other pans in the fire this month. But I will be following everyone else's with interest, especially James' Dwimmermount-focused A to Z, mainly for ideas to shamelessly steal for my own Megadungeon!
6. Quick Poll - Do you prefer MORE or FEWER classes in your old-school RPG, and why? OD&D had 3 classes; B/X had 4 (not including the 3 "race-classes"); 1E had a dozen. Which is best?
No Classes.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea, that every PC can do, what he want. If you want to play a charakter, which can fight and do sorcery, than its ok. If you want to focus your skills to fighting or magic, you can do. But there must be a balance. A fighting sorcerer can never be a perfekt fighter or mage-user.
I like 8-10 classes - the AD&D core minus monk and assassin, possibly also minus illusionist
ReplyDeleteI prefer fewer classes. I'm thinking about taking mine down to just three classes (fighter, mage, cleric) and I might even go so far as to just have one class at some point that is a sort of "paper doll" to hang your character concept on. I've got some ideas for that that I think I can pull off without a cumbersome skill and feat system. We shall see...
ReplyDeleteI'm more and more coming to the conclusion that I like the OD&D approach best. I'd throw in your "Expanding the Fighting-Man" article for a little diversity, though. I really, really like the "rules-lite" approach, but some part of me will always want to start tweaking things, to move the game closer to AD&D. Lord, the second session of my LL campaign is tomorrow and I'm already debating on whether I want to run S&W or OSRIC, next. S&W is winning. :)
ReplyDeleteLess is more.
ReplyDeleteI like the purity and simplicity of fewer classes but I always seem to add more and more as I go -- usually oddball custom classes based upon what my players want to do.
ReplyDeleteTwo or three at most.
ReplyDeleteMore, a lot more, and quirkier. I even like the idea of split classes.
ReplyDeleteWhat April Fool's joke?
I like the base 4 classes, but with the addition of a role/profession that grants one particular bonus. Like how it was done in the AD&D 2e class books, except just grant a bonus with no penalty.
ReplyDeleteThe 4 basics, but with lots of fiddly flavor to encourage unique characters to evolve. I shy away from too much purely mechanical customization (like weapon proficiencies or schools of magic) which leads only to m4dness... :-)
ReplyDeleteI waffle. There are times I love the uniqueness of each class's mechanics, there are other times I love the simplicity that everyone is pretty much of the same skill set... It really depends on the group and my mood.
ReplyDeleteI like few in the core rules, and lots in my setting fluff. Mostly, making my own is fun, and I like to make them very setting-specific.
ReplyDeleteI'll +1 what trollsmyth said above.
ReplyDeleteThe basic 4 (mostly, sometimes I vascillate on thief, but lately I'm on board). I think that for every door the additional classes open, they close doors not only for themselves, but for other classes as well. I do like homebrew, specialized, setting-specific NPCs, though.
ReplyDeleteI waffle as well. I really like the simplicity of the 3 core classes; however, I am also a push over when a player wants to do something outside the box.
ReplyDeleteBTW thanks for the kudos during your Round Table answers. I really appreciate it and I am glad you enjoy my posts.
@FrDave - thank you for the great blog! :)
ReplyDeleteI'm currently running 10 homebrewed classes, but for my next rules revision I'm planning on cutting it down to fighter, magic-user, rogue and using the prestige class template Dyson posted here (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/old-school-dd-prestige-classes-glantri-style-2/) to make the other classes available that way. Kind of having my cake and eating it too.
ReplyDelete3 classes: Fighter, Wizard, and Thief. I like some ideas at adding abit of detail to them, but those three cover everything.
ReplyDelete(and just to agree with Al: Fr. Dave's blog is awesome. Plus he does cool maps. Read it now if you don't already.)
I don't see it as an either/or equation. Sometimes I play a campaign limited to the 3 LBB's, and other times I like it opened up to anything goes - the more character classes the merrier! (even playing some of the quirky "NPC" classes from old Dragon magazines)
ReplyDeleteAnd I have had just as much fun playing either way.