Geeks Do It Better #6: Papers And Paychecks

What better way to follow-up on my favorite Will McLean piece than with Jerry's. So who's up for a game of Papers and Paychecks? ;0).

Geeks Do It Better #5: The Helm Of Rodent Enchantment

This particular piece of art has to be one of my all-time favorites ever to feature in a roleplaying manual. A big thank you to Jerry over at The Delving Dwarf for both tracking it down and, pointing me in the right direction of much more by the same artist (Will McLean).

Expect to see much more of his work here, as his superb art combined with his rapier sharp humor really is proof that Geeks Do It Better!

Geeks Do It Better #4: Who Remembers This Classic?

Saving Throws AS Combat, Not Just In Combat

It came to me in a dream (quite literally a T&T themed dream that I had last
night / this morning). In the dream I played Tunnels and Trolls but, the combat mechanic that I happened to be using was the SR.

The dream itself was also prophetic as I can remember how the system worked, which means I can make it happen, thus play it and fulfill the prophecy.. A person can go mad thinking of such things though, so without a further ado, down to business.

The system was quite simple. Every combat round consisted of two phases, which could be likened to the "to hit" and, "roll for damage" steps in D&D. The to hit roll was a SR with the target number being the monsters MR, followed by a roll for damage (Weapon dice + Adds) if you were successful.

Looking at this system objectively in the cold light of day, I really do think it has legs but, I know it's going to need work before it's ready for practical usage. For one, I think that Combat Adds would have to serve a dual purpose with this system. They could either be used to increase the chance of a hit (before rolling), maybe on a 1:1 basis. So you drop 1 point of potential damage and in return you gain +1 to your SR, or you simply take your Combat Adds as a bonus on the "damage roll".

Other matters that need consideration are whether or not to reinstate the "death spiral" effect that was removed with 7.x, and the viability of this system outside of 7.x (the AP increase granted by more frequent SR's offsets the generally high nature of MR rated monsters but, 5.x requires a lot more AP to increase attributes).

It's on these matters that I could really use some input and some feedback. What do you think to the idea guys? How might you tweak it to make it work for you and your group?

Toxic Talents

Continuing on with my current theme of Talents within Tunnels & Trolls, I've
had another brainwave that I thought was worth sharing partially inspired by the Dungeons & Dragons supplement, Complete Scoundrel and, partially by the fact that I have never (ever EVER) like the poison rules as they are written for Tunnels & Trolls.

As presented in the rules all poisons are pretty much instantaneous in producing their effects and, most of the effects only cause additional damage.. Which is pretty dull, not to mention inaccurate. Most poisons take time to take effect and the actual effects of poisons, venoms and, toxins varies greatly.

How does this tie into our Talents theme though?

Well inspired by Complete Scoundrel, a Talent that I thought might be fun to play with would be Poison Master. Which is the same name as a Feat in the supplement but, my implementation is quite different. In the original supplement the Feat simply makes the poisons that you brew more deadly, where I envision the Talent being much more wide-reaching. Allowing you to both create your own toxins, and affording you a degree of resistance against poisoning due to your extended exposure to hazardous materials.

So for me, Poison Master looks something like this: Poison Master (CON / INT). To really work though, I need to change the nature of how poisons are handled. Given that I have never been too happy with poisons as is though, this really isn't an issue.

So what's the plan for poisons?

It'll take sometime to re-write all of the various toxins present in the 7.5 rulebook, but the plan is that every poison will be statted out something like this:

Name: The name of the item in question.
Type: Venom (generally naturally occurring and delivered through injection or contact), Toxin (venoms can be considered toxins by definition but this classification will be used to cover ailments such as diseases that can be delivered through open wounds or by ingestion), and Poisons (Almost exclusively consumed to be effective).
Cost: The cost of the materials needed to prepare one unit (one dose) of this poison.
Craft: The level of the INT SR required to manufacture one unit of this poison safely.
Save: The level of the CON SR that needs to be made by someone exposed to this poison to resist it's effects.
Failure: If you fail to safely manufacture the poison you suffer this effect unless you make a CON SR at the poisons level (the "Save" value of the poison).
Critical Failure: If you roll a fumble when preparing the poison or trying to resist it's effects you suffer this effect with no further SR allowed.
Effect: This is the effect of the poison when successfully delivered.

I'm also hoping to create more diverse poisons too, moving away from the purely vanilla nature of poisons causing a few more hits in combat. Effects such as nausea, hallucinations etc. Before I get too involved though I really do need to playtest the idea to see how well in pans out under scrutiny.

Swordplay You Say?: The Feedback So Far

When I threw this question out there yesterday, it wasn't just here that I Tunnels & Trolls Google+ group that I joined a few months ago. I haven't been too active in the group since joining but, wanting to get more involved I have been posting there more frequently and, the more viewpoints that I can get regarding the question at hand, the better.

decided to ask. I also shared the exact same post over at the

So here's the feedback from the group. It's not vast but there are some good points raised, both for and against Talents having a direct bearing on combat:

Tiefling Swashbuckler by D MAC

Andreas Davour: I think that there are problems, bigger and smaller, with most of the rules introduced as new in 7th ed. I have some hopes that Liz can iron out those oddities with her significant skills latest shown in 5th ed. Talents have potential, but like you write, some questions marks are left.

I actually let it be said in my game that Talents were all different from magic and combat, since we already had rules for that, and Talents were everything else.

If that feels like a cop out, which I can see why you would feel, maybe use the character level for something? Add that much as a bonus to one roll per adventure/session or something along those lines? Then it could get applied to combat/magic if you wanted.

Me: That's an interesting take. As you can guess, I had considered using Talents for combat and, more recently, even Talents as spell-like abilities (with limitations) but, I hadn't considered working level into it, which is an interesting idea.

The only problem that I can see there is that a Talent gained later will get bigger bonus instantly if I allow character level to be added instantly to certain Talents. So less experience but being just as good seems a little wonky. As I say though, I still think it's a good idea.

I think maybe that I'd say upon every level increase you add +1 to all Talents you already have in addition to aquiring a new one. It'd also offer an incentive for players not to hold back on their Talents.

Joshua Macy: I like Talents as a catch-all for things that aren't relevant to combat; there are enough ways to get combat adds, I don't see anything gained by having an arms-race of Talents... and I do foresee pressure not to "waste" Talents on things that can't help in combat. 

Andreas Davour: I'll confess that I'm mostly channelling Ken here, throwing odd ideas out there and see what happens. :)

That being said, I think levels, as far as they should be there in the first place, should be used for something. I have never had any problem with getting a big bonus from the get go if you pick up a Talent at high level. But, your suggestion +Tom Grimshaw with the +1 sounds workable. 

Me: I am inclined to agree that I wouldn't want to see all Talents going into combat abilities but, by the same token I don't think that they should be excluded. Being a predominantly a solitaire player and, with most solos being geared towards Warriors, it seems a little off that Warriors wouldn't have at least one or two combat abilities. Especially when you see the arsenal of spells Wizards get with 7.x.

Andreas Davour: Good points all. The question as I see it, is how to make it something more than just a +2 extra adds, which feels kind of bland an effect.

Naturally, special effects like disarms and suchlike (which feels like something you do a SR for, and a Talent could help with) are notoriously hard to handle in a solitaire situation. I'll have to think a bit, for once.

Dungeons & Conversions

Do you know the great thing about D&D 3.5?

It's a great source of inspiration. Whilst I have no great interest in ever running any of the material as it is written, nor the system that it was written for if I can ever help it again, many of the supplements do have a lot to offer to the budding homebrewer.

A great example would be Complete Scoundrel. I recently picked up a copy of this because I was thinking to myself "Well, they've done Warrior World, how about Rogue World?", which is in itself a whole other matter, but keeping on topic, inside Complete Scoundrel I did find a lot of great material. Where they list Skills and Feats, I see Talents, likewise Prestige Classes can easily be broken down into the Talents that make them up. Equipment is a little trickier to convert but not impossible with a little common sense. The same goes for spells. Honestly, this book is a goldmine!

Then the matter of "Rogue World". I picked up this book expecting it to be rather "theif-centric".. Okay I made that word up but, I'm pretty sure that it communicates my point. I expected a world full of assassins, pick-pockets and, cat-burgulars. That's what I expected as that's pretty much how the D&D world views the rogue. What I got however was quite to the contrary as it turns out even Paladins can go rogue with this supplement..

So for the purposes of conversion, this particular book was a bit of a mixed bag of mostly good things. The Skills are good, as are the Feats, and equipment. I also like the idea of being able to flesh out the roguish nature naturally inherent in delvers into other classes but, given my previous example of the Paladin, doesn't always work in my opinion.

All-in-all though a good solid resource for adding some spice to your game.. Once you remove the "other game" that is. ;0).

Sources Of Power

Almost forgot to mention. In my ongoing, massive re-write of the Tunnels and Trolls spell book, I'm drawing upon all of these resources:

• Tunnels and Trolls 7.5 Rulebook
• Codex Incantatem
• Codex Incantatem II
• Tunnels and Trolls HQ
• Dungeons & Dragons: Complete Arcane
• Sword & Sorcery: Advanced Players Guide
• GURPS: Magic (thanks to Tim Shorts for the heads up on this one)
• Dragon Warriors
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

If there's a good one I've missed, I'd sure appreciate a point in the right direction. :0).

It's Bigger.. What Do You Know!?

Ever have one of those moments of realisation.. That comes way too late.

When I decided that I wanted to give the spell book for Tunnels and Trolls a bit of a sort, I figured piece of cake. All I had in mind after all was a re-classification of the spells already in the rulebook into new "classes". Then it struck me. Like a bolt of lightning it struck me!

Dividing the spells from 4 classes up into 17 new and different classes, whilst limiting new characters to having access to only two of these classes at creation is going to massively devalue the Wizard type. They'd only have a couple of spells.. At best!

This is suffice to say a problem. I either ditch the plan, cut down the number of classifications (which would kinda defeat the purpose) or, go with plan B: Add lots of new spells.

So if I tell you I have spent the better part of the evening after work sifting through Tunnels and Trolls 7.5 AND Dungeons and Dragons: Complete Arcane, I'm sure you can pretty much guess which route I've decided to take.

Which posses another question. All told, how many spells would you expect to find in a grouping and, what level should they run to?..

Okay that's two questions. ;0).

Dungeon! (2012): Huh?

I finally picked up a copy of the Wizards of the Coast re-release of the dungeon crawling classic, Dungeon! and, on closer inspection I have been left wondering, well, huh?

As much as I appreciate Wizards breathing new life into this game and opening it up to a new generation of gamers, without forcing them to trawl E-Bay, a number of the changes that they have made have left me puzzled. Some of which just defy logic.

For example, one of the cosmetic changes that they have made is to include a minotaur, which is great. Minotaurs are a firm favorite of mine. But as a level 1 monster? Really? A minotaur on the same level as goblins and kobolds. Level 2 is only orcs and hobgoblins and, you're telling me they're tougher than minotaurs!? The values that they have assigned to defeat these monsters seems more than a little arbitrary as well.

The other major change (other than a tweak to the way magic swords work) is to the characters. This change is purely cosmetic, meaning that instead of Elves, Heroes, Super Heroes and, Wizards you now have Halfling Rogues (instead of the Elf), Dwarven Clerics (instead of the Hero), Human Fighters (instead of the Super Hero) and, Elven Wizards (instead of the Wizard).

Despite being purely a re-branding of the old characters, I did find it interesting that the introduction of Dwarves, Clerics and, Halflings didn't draw upon the expansions for those very classes released for earlier versions of Dungeon!

So all in all, the new release has raised a lot of questions, for me at least, but I am sure as with the previous versions the fans will set it straight in the long run. I may even have a crack myself. As a start though, some veteran players have released some interesting variants on the Wizards website that are worth a look.

DMotivational #43: Enchanted Bunny

Drone Guns, Fantasy Style

An idea has just occurred to me whilst watching Futurama: Bender's Game. It came to me during the scene where the Planet Express crew decided to directly assault Mom's icy lair and she rolled out the seemingly endless wall of Killbots.

I thought to myself, those could just as easily be animated ballista guarding the fortress of some powerful enchanter or artificer who doesn't welcome visitors as robotic drones with lasers for arms or, Gatling Guns mounted in their torsos... Because that's how I think. :0).

It seemed a little odd at first but then I began to wonder why the concept hadn't hit me sooner. Especially after the hordes upon hordes of animated suits of armor that I have waded through time and time again whilst playing Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II.

So what I have in mind is fitting several of these devices to key defensive locations, such as turrets or, as a full defensive line along the battlements, with animated suits of armor or other automatons instructed to reload them. Preferably, I would use repeating ballistae (which I picture looking a lot like this) for a sustained rate of fire against marauders and charge the "crew" with simply clearing jams and changing "clips" but the design and implementation is purely up to the whim of the GM.

DMotivational #39: Canned Lawful Good(s)

DMotivational #38: It's Not The Size, It's What You Do With The Dexterity Bonus That Counts.

DMotivational #37: A +5 Holy Avenging Needle In A Hex Map

Following on from DMotivational #29: Make A Spot Check and,

DMotivational #32: Make A Listen Check, it's time to make a Search Check..

Yeah.. Good luck with that!

DMotivational #33: Earning XP, 4th Edition Style.

DMotivational #29: Make A Spot Check

The Solo Dungeon: An Odd Specimin

What on earth is that adventurer doing!?

I found this little obscurity whilst doing some research into early gamebooks, which has now been made freely available by the author, Richard A. Bartle, here.

But why call it odd? Why call it an obscurity?

Well at the date of publication (1978) the only solitaire adventures I am aware of being out there (and I could be wrong) where designed to be run with the Tunnels and Trolls rule set, yet in the introduction the author states that this adventure was written for use with "the most widely used, Fantasy, Character Role-playing rules which most of you will be using". By which I assume he means Dungeons and Dragons.

So it's certainly odd and obscure in the sense that it would appear to be a one of it's kind at the time of publication with another Dungeons and Dragons solo not to follow it for another 5 years but, I also find it odd that it doesn't simply just mention the system by name.

Personally, I smell a licensing issue. He does sight the adventure as using "D&D Type Rules" at the bottom of the page here that links to the Online version now but, it does seem odd that he didn't say as much back in the day.

So, there you have it at any rate, a freely available solitaire adventure for old-school Dungeons and Dragons for your downloading pleasure.

Dungeon Masters Series: Hisss

Well it's got to a point in the project where it has become necessary to build a new kindred, Something I have really been looking forward to from the outset.

The task at hand is to create a species of snake human hybrids (the original was apparently supposed to be a lizard according to a write up but as I have always seen it as snake, a snake it's going to be).

For inspiration I decided to look up the Yuan-Ti of Dungeons and Dragons fame. I have always thought that they were pretty cool, so the chance to play as one seems like something I should really jump at. Not to mention how well I think they'll compliment my Frogkin (which still need a little tweaking) should I decide to introduce them all into a campaign setting.

That's a post for another day though. Right now, I have my keen reptilian senses set on the here and now. ;0).

Looking over this entry I found in a Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Wiki, I think the way forward is to introduce Purebloods, Half-Bloods and, Abomonations. I'll be keeping the Makan name from Dungeon Master however, even though I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with his species and, is probably just an indicator of where he hails from. Still, it sounds cool, so it's staying.

I have chosen Purebloods, Half-Bloods and, Abomonations as it seemed a very Tunnels and Trolls way to go. One is a 50/50 mix of man and snake, whilst the other two lean more towards 80/20 in either direction. This to me is very similar (but not identical) to way that Tunnels and Trolls handles Types. Rogues are the middle ground when it comes to magic / combat balance with Warriors and Wizards leaning more one way or the other.

That's my logic anyhow.

Purebloods: The "perfect" combination of human and snake, often resembling tall and slender humans with strong reptilian features in their faces and scales ordaining their bodies. Some Purebloods also possess a stub or short tail. Like all Makan kindreds, Purebloods have an innate distrust of the "goodly" kindreds who for centuries have hunted them as monsters.

Attribute Modifiers: CHR x 2, DEX x 1.5, INT x 1.5.

Half-Bloods: Similar in appearance to Purebloods, Half-Bloods are often the result of a coupling between a human (or humanoid such as an Elf) and as such possess more humanoid traits than their Pureblood cousins.

Makan DNA is significantly more dominant than human however, so such breeding will still always result in offspring possessing the scales and striking facial features that are the hallmark of all Makan.

Attribute Modifiers: CHR x 1.5, DEX x 1.5, INT x 1.5.

Abominations: Throwbacks that have inherited more than their fair share of reptilian DNA. Not much is known of the process that creates the Abomination as both of the parents are often Purebloods but, being born as such stands you in great stead in Makan society. Often refered to as the "Pure of the Pure" amongst their own kindred they are afforded great luxury by them and often hold positions of power and influence. 

Abominations are almost purely snakelike, with only a human chest and arms to separate them from the giant serpents that inhabit their homeland and, could be the missing link that connects the Pureblood to other races such as the Lamia or the Naga.

Attribute Modifiers: CHR x 2, DEX x 1.5, INT x 1.5, STR x 2.

Alchemy's Workbench #3: Taking Talents Up A Notch

Whilst working on my Dungeon Masters Series project I have come to notice something. Something that I can fully see becoming a project in itself.

In order to flesh out a lot of the characters in the project I have had to get quite creative with the Talents. Now, getting creative with the Talents isn't exactly breaking new ground in Tunnels and Trolls, as the rulebook pretty much suggests that's exactly what you should be doing.

What I have come to realize however is the way that I am using Talents is akin to the way that the other game uses Feats and Skills.

Which set me thinking. How about creating a list of say 20 Talents (one a level) that define a sub-type? Why not do it for loads of sub-types?

Say you want to play as a Barbarian, obviously a Warrior in Tunnels and Trolls terms. But, if you are clear from the outset that this is the path you want to take, you could pick your starting Talent(s) from the Barbarian list. I'd even say that you get to roll 2D6 for it's bonus instead of just the one every time you choose a Talent from your list.

This doesn't mean a Barbarian cant pick something from say a Thieves list or, make something up on the spot of course, just that they'd lose that second dice when rolling up the bonus.

At the moment this is still very much a work in progress and feedback is would be welcome. What do you think?