When I need to relax at the end of a long day, I open a favorite book at random and read a few paragraphs before sleep overtakes me. It's comforting. As often as not, it's the Eric Holmes blue box rules set. I mean, if I could have ONE bedtime book, that would be it. Nothing evokes a sense of wonder like that book..
Showing posts with label Holmes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holmes. Show all posts
Monday, April 9, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
On Hopeless Characters
OK, DMs and players, where do you stand on the issue of a "hopeless" character? Reroll it, or see it as a role-playing opportunity?
Let's let Professor Barker and Zeb Cook weigh in on opposite sides:
"Should a player roll a totally unsuitable character, the referee (at his option, not the player's) may allow the player to roll over for a totally new character. Re-rolling individual basic talents is NOT allowed, nor is it possible to transfer points from one talent to another. If one rolls a puny weakling, thus, or a hopelessly stupid clod, it is best to let him or her wander off into the sunset and roll for a new persona!"
-- M.A.R. Barker, Empire of the Petal Throne, 1975, p.12.
"Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him."
-- David "Zeb" Cook, 2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, 1989, p. 18.
Gotta say I'm with Professors Barker and Holmes on this one. Reroll until the PC has at least one ability score to get excited about, and no very low scores.
As a player, I have found Cook's advice to be cold comfort as I suffer the presence of the other players' paladins and rangers while I'm stuck with "just a fighter." If it's another player who has the hopeless character, I tend to find it annoying to put up with the PC's weaknesses unless the player is brilliantly clever or entertaining. As a DM, I get bored when heroes become thespians -- I'm really more interested in moving the plot along at a good clip and providing tactical challenges and moments of wonder than in watching improv theater.
Most D&D campaigns I've DM'd or played in featured fudging or re-rolling during character creation outside the guidelines of the RAW. Of the dozens of people I've introduced to the game, many have scratched their heads about the whole process. In my ruleset you get a character with optimal stats for his or her role, and you can individualize the character in play as you level-up. I've had no complaints so far, but would any of you strongly object to all PCs of a particular class starting with the same stats, and why?
Let's let Professor Barker and Zeb Cook weigh in on opposite sides:
"Should a player roll a totally unsuitable character, the referee (at his option, not the player's) may allow the player to roll over for a totally new character. Re-rolling individual basic talents is NOT allowed, nor is it possible to transfer points from one talent to another. If one rolls a puny weakling, thus, or a hopelessly stupid clod, it is best to let him or her wander off into the sunset and roll for a new persona!"
-- M.A.R. Barker, Empire of the Petal Throne, 1975, p.12.
"Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him."
-- David "Zeb" Cook, 2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, 1989, p. 18.
Gotta say I'm with Professors Barker and Holmes on this one. Reroll until the PC has at least one ability score to get excited about, and no very low scores.
As a player, I have found Cook's advice to be cold comfort as I suffer the presence of the other players' paladins and rangers while I'm stuck with "just a fighter." If it's another player who has the hopeless character, I tend to find it annoying to put up with the PC's weaknesses unless the player is brilliantly clever or entertaining. As a DM, I get bored when heroes become thespians -- I'm really more interested in moving the plot along at a good clip and providing tactical challenges and moments of wonder than in watching improv theater.
Most D&D campaigns I've DM'd or played in featured fudging or re-rolling during character creation outside the guidelines of the RAW. Of the dozens of people I've introduced to the game, many have scratched their heads about the whole process. In my ruleset you get a character with optimal stats for his or her role, and you can individualize the character in play as you level-up. I've had no complaints so far, but would any of you strongly object to all PCs of a particular class starting with the same stats, and why?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
[Infographic] What's in the Blue Box?
This chart breaks down the Holmes blue box ruleset by subject area. Hope you find it interesting. I'm going to do Moldvay next and see how they compare. If anyone out there has the 4e "red box" set and wants to send me a page count by subject area, that would be fabulous -- I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
[If I Ran the Circus] Operation Back Hall Closet
Since you asked (Didn't you? I could have sworn you did)...
... if I were D&D's product manager, my goal would be to put an entry-level D&D boxed set in every back hall closet in America, sandwiched between the ubiquitous dogeared copies of Risk, Scrabble, and Monopoly. Let's stop trying to make D&D cool. D&D will never be cool, no matter how many tattooed elves we include or how many WoW-isms we slap on it. Hell, WoW isn't even remotely cool anymore. We need to distinguish cool from classic. Cool is ephemeral. Classic is forever.
I'm not talking about reprinting Homes or Moldvay word for word, but dammit, just make an evergreen edition of the game that combines the charm of Holmes and the scalability of Moldvay and be done with it. And sell it at Target next to Stratego and Life and Sorry!, dice and a few plastic minis included. Emphasize family play, with mom or dad as the DM, and kids as the players. Trade on older players' love for the game -- "the classic adventure game you loved as a kid is back, and it's easier to play than ever!" Have the boxed set include several short, thematically linked adventures that can be played in one or two sittings each.
Additional boxed sets would be self-contained adventures or campaigns, with relevant plastic minis and dungeon tiles. If you wanted to slap the D&D brand name on some new-school product, like WotC's recent slew of D&D-based boardgames, go ahead, but D&D the classic game would remain its own thing, apart from the D&D brand.
I've seen WotC groping at this idea, with the retro red box set, but there's a difference between retro and classic. It won't work until they stop trying to please the hardcore gamers (because there's no pleasing them ever) and go after a mass audience of lapsed gamers in their 30s and 40s who want to share a classic pastime with their kids.
... if I were D&D's product manager, my goal would be to put an entry-level D&D boxed set in every back hall closet in America, sandwiched between the ubiquitous dogeared copies of Risk, Scrabble, and Monopoly. Let's stop trying to make D&D cool. D&D will never be cool, no matter how many tattooed elves we include or how many WoW-isms we slap on it. Hell, WoW isn't even remotely cool anymore. We need to distinguish cool from classic. Cool is ephemeral. Classic is forever.
I'm not talking about reprinting Homes or Moldvay word for word, but dammit, just make an evergreen edition of the game that combines the charm of Holmes and the scalability of Moldvay and be done with it. And sell it at Target next to Stratego and Life and Sorry!, dice and a few plastic minis included. Emphasize family play, with mom or dad as the DM, and kids as the players. Trade on older players' love for the game -- "the classic adventure game you loved as a kid is back, and it's easier to play than ever!" Have the boxed set include several short, thematically linked adventures that can be played in one or two sittings each.
Additional boxed sets would be self-contained adventures or campaigns, with relevant plastic minis and dungeon tiles. If you wanted to slap the D&D brand name on some new-school product, like WotC's recent slew of D&D-based boardgames, go ahead, but D&D the classic game would remain its own thing, apart from the D&D brand.
I've seen WotC groping at this idea, with the retro red box set, but there's a difference between retro and classic. It won't work until they stop trying to please the hardcore gamers (because there's no pleasing them ever) and go after a mass audience of lapsed gamers in their 30s and 40s who want to share a classic pastime with their kids.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)