Patreon: bit.ly/QBPatreon My newsletter: bit.ly/Glatisant My RPGs: bit.ly/ItchStore Merch: bit.ly/QBMerch Amazon products: amzn.to/30kfamM
Contact me about advertising or review copies: questingblog.com/contact/
WANT TO MAKE A HACK OF MAZE RATS OR KNAVE? Both games are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ In short, you can do anything you want with the text of these games, including making hacks that you sell, as long as you give attribution.
This channel makes use of affiliate links, which help support the Questing Beast channel at no cost to you.
Losing a level would put me on a DNR . Though in all seriousness I wonder what that looked like because it seems like losing a level makes it more and more likely you'll die and lose even more at some point it makes sense to part ways maybe ? 🤔
The thing to always keep in mind is that to Gary Gygax anything less than Lawful Good was at least a little morally suspect. His particular interpretation of Neutral easily allows for this sort of ritualized duel-to-the-death
3.5 has a feat that gives you more ac if you have another character with ame feat and both have light weapons and shield. Literal shield wall, now let me give it to my followers under Leadership feat and I don't even need a party.
Arneson did actually publish another rules set (but without the Blackmoor name and setting, possibly for copyright reasons with TSR?), Adventures in Fantasy, with Richard Snider (the same one who wrote the «Richard Snider’s Additions» found in The First Fantasy Campaign*). Arneson did at-least at some point early one use ability scores (as we can tell from original Blackmoor character sheets), although there didn’t seem to be that hard a line between them and «skills» (like horse-riding). However some of the D&D-independent Blackmoor derivatives, like Craig VanGrasstek’s Rules to the Game of Dungeon, don’t use ability scores at-all. It’s possible many of them started on an as-needed basis rather than being integrated parts of character creation. Like a character wants to do X, Arneson makes a decision for how good they are at X to roll against, and then has it written down for future reference. Someone who was actually there rather than interpreting this 3rd hand could probably give you better info. Ultimately Arneson scaled (back?) down to a system of just «referee decides on the fly how hard something is, and the player rolls according to that». Adventures in Fantasy uses some of the same scores we see in the Blackmoor character sheets, but also divides them clearly into D&D-like ability scores and a skill-like education system. And you are correct, Arneson’s original Wizard/Magic-User’s spell system was based around spell components that you either had to buy or find and that were «used up» once the spell was cast. The First Fantasy Campaign itself mentions that the Egg of Coot has a «huge Laboratory that turns out spells, for selling». In VanGrasstek’s rules spells had been abstracted into being «balls» that could be bought or found and that could sometimes contain multiple charges of a spell (usually rolled on 1D6*). For example the Spear Ball would cause 3 spear blows to an enemy with each use. Snider on the other hand early on made a magic point system instead and this is what is used in Adventures in Fantasy. *) That section was actually taken from Snider’s write-up of his own Blackmoor-derived rules. These are not lost, but as far as I am aware also not available to the public anywhere. D. H. Boggs was intending to describe it in detail on his blog, but seem to have abandoned the project after one post. **) Most Blackmoor-derived systems (Adventures in Fantasy excluded) favored D6s, including Mark Bufkin’s Beyond this Point be Dragon which was otherwise closely based on an early draft of the D&D white box.
Mike Mearls says the 5e spell slot system is from Wizardy. It is *also* featured in the original version of Final Fantasy 1 (which may also have been inspired by wizardy)
As published by WotC, 5e is best geared for a heroic gameplay style. The optional rules for a more gritty gamestyle are not great. But narrative doesn't necessarily comes from dice rolls, so Brendan is not wrong. Some gamestyles just need more homebrewing than others. Having said that Genesys is mone rule system that is absolutely perfect if you have the right group, to allow players to insert a lot of their own ideas into narrative in a codified way. But if a Gm knows how to correctly use (yes and" and"no but", the system matters less, ift at all.
Apart from Hotsprings, I own and adore them all :D Really next level. I don't read books anymore these days. But when I do, it's one of these (and some others).
Honestly, the vast majority of these are also true for earlier editions. Outside of specific terms like second wind, the rules and guidelines are really not that different. And I am flabergasted by a lot of what you all said. Gary not giving a crap about NPCs? Huh. That's a 4E thing. In earlier editions, hirelings were encouraged to be RP'd, since they very well might be the next character, or just kick your ass to the curb if not treated well. Rules Lawyers have always been both a good and bad thing. Bad for DMs that didn't know how the game actually worked or how to play with others, a huge boon for DMs that did, or knew how to use them. Same thing with Power Gamers. The different player types was also well established way back in the 80's. 4E was just copying WoD and earlier editions which both codified such types as the Lone Wolff, the Drama Queen, the One-Ups-Man, the Center-of-Attention, the Mystery, etc. . . Earlier editions just gave advice on how to incorporate these types of playersp into a game. Even as far back as B/x, BECMI, 1E, Skill Proficiencies have been a thing. 3E did revolutionize i, but it was not a new system by far. In fact 5E essentially does what 1E had already done with less options and innovation.
at 12:20, you mentioned recording running a scenario with subtitles for your thought process while running it. Can you give me a URL for it or put it into this video's description? Much thanks
As per the point about skills - I think there's this point you reach when your system has a lot of skills and feats (which tend to be very specific) that it comes back around to being fun again. Like in OSR style play, you're really trying to engage a lot with the fiction and be creative to extrapolate value out of a system because the mechanics don't support a lot of mechanical ways to get advantages. In this style of play, you're engaging with the functionally infinite mechanics of your own imagination rather than the finite mechanics of the rulebook, which allows for creativity and thoughtfulness. In something like Pathfinder or Call of Cthulhu, there are so many skills and options that building a character really boils down to making a guy who can do one thing really well (and because of the massive number of options, you can get REALLY creative about what that thing is and how it's possible, which is a lot of fun). Because of this, though, the game gently pushes you to making a character that's really UNIQUE. Your character might only do a few things, but they do them really really well because of the interesting combination of feats etc. In this style of game, you're being forced to think and be creative during character gen, but also you're naturally going to be inclined to interact with the fiction to JUSTIFY why your character should be useful. In both styles of game, the PC is forced to be immersed and thoughtful/creative during play. As an example, let's imagine a large chasm. In an OSR game, the PC tries to jump the chasm. If it's an easy jump, the PC just does it. Maybe the PC will have to roll under his strength - a very quick and easy thing to do (the process of checking the die against your character sheet takes 2 seconds). If it's harder, the PC will need to engage with the fiction to extrapolate a means of solving the problem. The two outcomes are either A. a quick and painless process that takes 2 seconds, or B. an engagement with the fiction that demands thought, which is fun. In a more skill-based system, maybe the player has put skill points in jump. They test it, and they feel good because their planning (designing the character) has paid off. However, it is possible that the player has not put points into jumping - maybe they put points into running instead. The game then becomes how to JUSTIFY using that skill instead of the jump skill, which requires a thoughtful engagement with the fiction. Maybe the player tries to run along the wall. Maybe the player tries to take a running jump. Maybe the player has a spear and uses it + the momentum from running to build up enough speed to pole vault the chasm. In this case, the game becomes about a man with a hammer trying to turn the problem into a nail - which requires thinking and creativity and is fun. The reason why such a gameplay loop fails to manifest in 5E is because the skills are too nebulous and vague. The skills are there - meaning that players are pushed towards making a skill roll. However, the skills are not specific enough to loop back around to the player needing to engage with the fiction to justify their skill choices. Running, jumping, etc are all "athletics." 5E suffers from this problem again and again - it does not ever COMMIT to any of its ideas. In fact, it tries to murder its own ideas, as if the game is afraid of you playing it. We can see this with the plethora of mechanics that remove play from the game - goodberry, fast healing, never getting lost, the neutering of the encumberance system, the PC background that trivializes finding lodging, etc. 5E has enough skill and feat choices to make playing in the OSR way difficult - if you allow PCs to succeed using an engagement with the fiction, other PCs will become upset because they will feel that their character (who they built to be good at that thing) is not unique or special anymore. If the wizard can trip the orc, why did I roll up the battlemaster, whose whole identity is built around tripping and "combat moves" of that kind? However, 5E lacks enough specificity in its skills and feats to force the PC to make interesting choices. PCs all feel the same in 5e - they are all homunculi who, on their turn, deal 1d10 damage. Players dont need to choose to specify whether they are good at swimming, running, climbing - if they are good at "athletics", they are good at all of these things. 5E sits in the unfortunate bottom of the bell curve, where it tries to be 2 things at succesfully accomplishes neither. In an effort to streamline the gameplay loop, it has sanded away all of the snags that were actually there to provide interesting avenues for player choice. It is a corporate, by-committee design that fails to succeed in being fun in either of the ways that it tries to. A more skill-heavy system would encourage more player choice. A LESS skill-heavy system would encourage more player choice. Player choice (and the creativity involved) is what makes D&D fun. The TYPE of streamlining 5E did (still resulting in a more convoluted RPG than most OSR systems, ironically) removed most of the avenues for player choice.
The issue with alignment is many players use it as an excuse to act like an idiot. and are unwilling to change their alignment based of their actions. I had a player once do something horrible and I said their alignment SHOULD not had to but should change to chaotic and they flew into a fit. as they felt being True Neutral meant they could just be bipolar and do whatever they pleased and it still made sense for their alignment.
Vermis feels like Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Shadowgate, Fear and Hunger, Ravenloft Dark Sun and Berserk all put in a blender. Its fantastic and such an amazing blend of horror. I'd love to see a game like this!
That Habitations book is such a great idea! In the right setting, this will be an awesome resource for prepping. Once again, my shopping list grows larger, thanks to you :D
Just got this vid suggested. Blackmoor has fascinated me sonce the first tan book(lets) came out in my HS days. I had been playing since my buddy brought the first blue box, along with those crappy, crumbly dice. But when Greyhawk, Blackmoor and DDSH Supplements came out I was hooked for life. In fact the last game I DMed before I left my group, and the hobby was based on the release of the Blackmoor Campaign setting books - the last for 3.5E, I think. Great stuff. Made me tear up a bit. I miss those days, and I miss gaming.
You made me get out my old copy. To my surprise, I may have a first printing of The First Fantasy Campaign from Judges Guild. Mine has a copyright 1977, while yours has a copyright 1980. The pages are different at the very first of your book. and mine has 93 pages. Not only that but... mine looks less refined while yours has different (better but similar) redrawn artwork and typeset. Interesting! Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Developing my own combat system where I also use the term grit in much the same way. Glad Im not too far out in no man's land with my thoguht processes.
Thinking about it, a lot of the stuff that came up as "Things people hated in 4th that they liked in 5th", I find it amusing that, having never even played or read 4th, those were most of the things I decided to houserule out of any 5e game I run in the future, after having finished a multi-year 5e game. Like, my 5e houserules now include: - cantrips use a 0-level spell slot, which restore using the normal spell-slot restoration rules. [Generally, casters start with 4 0-level slots and gain 2 more as they level for a max of 6] - There are no death saving throws -- mechanically, if you're at 0 HP you're dying and each round you automatically fail the death save. - Short rests provide no HP, Long rests use HD rolls to heal, total HD restore at a rate of one-per-day [so if you use all of them to heal on a long rest, it takes a number of days equal to your level to get them all back.] (Also Revivify is removed, material components for the other raise spells cost 10x as much. I also removed warlock, but, with the change to cantrips the warlock class is kind of terrible anyway.)
Not really content with the suggestion to use only humans, that non human species should be too alien to collaborate well with humans, that half-elves should be sexless mules etc… since the root of all this is the Lord of the Rings in which the inter-species collaboration of the fellowship is portrayed as unusual and unique but celebrated and Elrond (who has kids) is a half-elf and a perfectly functional dude
The art doesn't work for me either. Perhaps they were going for an "early" D&D look. I think the creature attacks adds some very interesting variety but it also means you need to have the book open to that entry.
Jumping into the middle of a play example was common in many RPGs in the 1980s. The best “examples of play” often helped me decide if I wanted that game.😊
Broke: "players aren't allowed to know the rules." Woke: "players rely on the DM for rules to allow for maximum flexibility in their application." Bespoke: "players will never know the rules, whether you want them to or not."
