+1 Or Not?

(I have a confession to make.  My name is Charlie and I have Gamer ADD; I have seen a few bloggers expressing similar thoughts since I started blogging and following blogs written by others.  I need to get back on track and get focused again.  I will still post on a variety of subjects other than just gaming but I need to develop some structure and get a routine established.  Maybe it will come quickly or maybe it will come slowly but it begins here with this post.)

 

---------------------------------------------

 

A Sword +1 is quite possibly one of the most common magic items ever handed out by Dungeon Masters in the (A)D&D game.  The name is not very intriguing but it does the job.  Many campaigns work perfectly fine using that labeling and there is nothing wrong with that. 

 

I have used the "+x items" as is without modification but I have wondered if there is a better labeling method.  For instance, what if the +1 to hit was replaced with "heightened accuracy", "greater accuracy", "true aim", or something similar for a bonus to hit?  Another example could be replacing the +1 to damage with "greater penetration", "minor sharpness", or something else similar to those listed?

 

I think it is interesting to consider but I also wonder how you would handle the higher bonuses.  If a +1 is "greater accuracy" or "sharpness" then what would the higher bonuses of +2, +3, +4, and +5 be labeled?  How would the low end and high end of the bonus range be labeled in a manner that would make sense and be more in touch with the feel and tone of the campaign?

 

Has anyone reading this tried anything like this?  If so, did it work well?  Did you keep using it or change back?

Getting the Band Back Together?!

If everything goes right - planets aligning, etc. - and we can clear a night on everyone's schedule there's a good chance that two of my buddies from my high school days (1987-1991) will be doing some role-playing with some other guys rounded up by my cousin.  Technically, it's not the whole "band" - it will only be Jamie and Travis - but it should be cool anyway.  We used to play all sorts of rpg's and video games together back in the day.  It would be cool to game again with these guys.

I met Jamie in the second grade - that's a looooonnnnnngggggg time ago - and we discovered D&D together with the Basic Set.  We played as much as possible and missed a lot of sleep growing up...lol.. We moved on to other games including Car Wars, Gamma World, GURPS, Palladium Fantasy, & Talislanta. 

I met Travis through Jamie.  Travis introduced us to RIFTS.  I still remember looking through the rulebook that first time.  I couldn't help but think of Gamma World and all the fun Jamie and I used to have with that game. 

I'm not sure what we are going to play once we do get a game night organized.  Jamie and I have talked of trying out Castles & Crusades because it would be both familiar to AD&D but the rules are streamlined; I'm not saying the rules are better but they are easier to understand. Of course, we might just dust off an old favorite like RIFTS. I have the RIFTS Ultimate Edition that I have yet to run.  I'm also considering really rules-light such as Microlite74 or something similar.  To tell the truth, the game system really isn't that important but getting the chance to game with some old buddies is what's really important.  Regardless of the system used I'm sure we'll have fun.  First, we all just have to get a free night.

Fingers crossed...

[House Rules] Alternate AD&D Ability Score Generation Methods

I promise I am returning to AiF posts soon...

I am somewhat fortunate to have a co-worker that is also a role-player.  We often discuss games at break or lunch.  During one of the recent coversations we discussed different methods for rolling ability scores during character creation in (A)D&D.  I thought the two methods we discussed could prove to be fun so I thought I would share.

18D6 & Split
Each player rolls 18D6 for the ability scores.  The player then splits them into 6 groups of 3D6 and chooses which score gets assigned to each ability. 

9D6 Physical, 9D6 Mental
Each player rolls 9D6 for the physical ability scores.  The player then splits the 9D6 into 3 groups of 3D6 and assigns each score to one of the physical abilities of strength, constitution, or dexterity.  Each player rolls 9D6 for the mental ability scores.  The player then splits the 9D6 into 3 groups of 3D6 and assigns each score to one of the mental abilities of intelligence, wisdom, or charisma.

Both of these methods give the player a little more control of the character creation process.  It should make it a little bit easier to qualify for some of the more difficult classes to qualify for in AD&D.  It just seemed like a fun change.  I'm going to give it a try sometime.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit 1 - fat fingers.

On the Origins of Half-Orcs

I am taking one more break from continued posting about the Book of Adventure from the AiF rules to post this quick thought.

Half-Orcs have always been among the outcasts of society.  This only makes sense considering their typical origin.  Usually, the Half-Orc is the result of Orc conquerors and the obvious spoils of war.  More rarely, the Half-Orc is the result of of an "unfortunate" pairing with an unattractive human.  Neither one of these are satisfying answers to the origins of the Half-Orc.

I believe that there is a better explanation - or even multiple explanations - for the existance of Half-Orcs for three simple reasons.  First, the name of the game is fantasy role-playing so step out of the box and come up with some reasons out of the ordinary; skip the science and start thinking of magical, divine, or other reasons.  Second, I keep hearing how creative role-players tend to be. How about showing some creativity and come up with a different reason?  Third, most role-players I know of really enjoy tinkering with the rules.  Why let the changes be restricted to just the rules?  I can not count the number of times I have read that it is "your game" so why should I not tailor it to my liking?

In my campaign world Half-Orcs are pretty close to their official writeup in many ways except for their origins.  Here is what I did to change the Half-Orcs of my world.  Half-Orcs are not the product of crossbreeding - willful or otherwise - between a Human and Orc.  In fact, that union will never produce any offspring.  Half-Orcs are actually the product of divine intervention.  At the end of the First Age of my world, there was a great war. All nations were eventually pulled into this conflict and even the Gods took sides.  There was one spot where war was expected but both sides refused to give in to the conflict and the will of the Gods.  The capital city of one human nation and the nearby Orcs had a truce that had been in place for several years by the time of this war.  They both saw the needless bloodshed of the past and did not want it to continue.  The Humans and Orcs from these two areas made a stand against their respective allies and against the Gods even.  As punishment, the Gods cursed these two societies by forever joining them in mind, body, and spirit. The other cultures started calling these people and named them as "Half-Orcs" and the label stuck.

There it is - the quick version of the origin of the Half-Orcs in my campaign.  I just did not like the "official" explanation in the rulebook.  It did not seem that enough of these beings would be created from the implied explanation to justify an entry in the races section.  I just sat down with my notes and tried to draw some logical conclusions.  That is the one I came up with and used.  Do you have anything like this in your game?

edit 1 - removed unnecessary "an".