I have talked much about Microlite75 here because this isn't an old school board, but as the project has reached "final playtest" form, I thought I'd post a bit about it here.

Microlite75 is Microlite74 plus the kitchen sink in optional rules. I took 0e (as embodied in Microlite74) and added stuff from the 0e supplements, third party 0e material, and a heaping helping of my house rules from the 0e to 1e transition era (late 70s) converted to Microlite20-style systems. I even borrowed a few things from other editions and games. The result is a very customizable d20-based game with a huge helping of old-school style.

My objective in designing this game was to create a set of rules I could use to run either of my "old school" era campaign settings (Empire of Arn and the Hidden Valley) with a set of simple rules that I could just hand out to players. Given how different the two seetings are (Arn is a high-powered, everything goes setting, Hidden Valley is low powered swords-and-sorcery), I figured this would mean a lot of campaign settings others might have could be easily handled as well.

While Microlite74 tried to be 0e in Microlite20 format, Microlite75 simply tries to be old school based, emulating a heavily house-rules 0e/1e campaign. It owes a lot to 0e, but does not try to be 0e with light D20-style mechanics as Microlite74 did. Also, while the rules are simple, it is not really a "microlite" game.

The (hopefully) final Playtest draft of Microlite75 is now available for free download. M75 hase been split into two books: Characters and Magic contains the standard rules, the spell and equipment lists, and a player's intro to old school play. Options and Monsters contains the various optional rules that GMs can add to customize the game, monsters, and advice for the GM. In most campaigns, players will only need a copy of the Characters and Magic book.

You can find out more and download free PDF copies of both books from this post on my blog: Download the Microlite75 Final Playtest Draft.

Comments are welcome!

All in all, I like it. Quite a bit, actually. The game reminds me of a cleaned up RC D&D, which is a good thing in my book.

I like that you've managed to wedge a few modernized gaming ideas into an old school-inspired game, like second wind, combat stances, implements, at-will spells, and XP for debauchery, which I'm reasonably certain you got from Barbarians of Lemuria. I'm also a fan of body points vs.

I also like the wide variety of classes. I think that the Fighting classes in particular are handled well....they have a lot of tactical variety it seems. This is something that I would definitely like to run, if I could talk my group into it.

And now for some constructive criticism:

How did you come up with monster AC'S? Is there some sort of formula, or are they just straight MM ports? In my opinion they're a little on the low side. The highest I saw was 30, and most monsters didn't even have above a 20. A 20th level Fighting Class with an average STR or DEX score can expect a +20 to hit from level, class, enhancement and stances.

The only real downside is that players will be hitting ALL the time....which makes sense when attacks are at +20/+15/+10 etc...but my feeling is that if a character is only making one attack a round by default, then there should be at least a decent chance that he/she will miss. I don't mean 50/50 hit or miss. but maybe something like 75/hot to 25/miss at the upper levels.

If you were to standardize monster AC progression with a formula, like say (HD/2)+16 for heavily armored monster types, then PC efficacy would see a steady 20% increase for melee characters over the course of their career.

I don't think that combat stunts should be penalized so heavily (-8/-6). If the idea behind stunts is to make combat more dynamic than just swing, swing and swing...but making stunts a far inferior choice to simply attacking with a weapon does little to incentivize taking such risks, especially since most stunts (tripping, bullrushing, grappling, etc.) don't really cause damage but instead merely hinder enemies in some way.

IMO, a better way to handle stunts would be to have the PC roll an attack against the target, and allow the target a saving throw against the action. The DC would be equal to the characters attack roll, and the monster rolls 1d20+HD.

On the subject of magic and saving throws, I'm still trying to decypher exactly how they work for monsters. I see that for players, the base save is 18-level/2 meaning that spells are easier for them to resist as they gain experience. I'm not seeing how this works for monsters, though. Do spell casters simply roll against monsters AC, adding their magical combat bonus?

For that matter, I think that the FORT, REF, WILL, PRE saving throw division is a bit muddy. If you want to go with 4 attributes, I would use:

Strength: Physical power and stamina
Dexterity: Agility and precision
Intellect: Reason and Perception
Will: Determination and force of personality

Each of these could also represent one category of saving throws.

Strength: Saves vs. poison, disease, movement effects
Dexterity: Saves vs. ranged or area attacks.
Intellect: Saves vs. illusions, feints, etc.
Will: Saves vs. fear, domination, other compulsory effects.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts...like I said, I like what I'm seeing so far so keep up the good work.

Quote from: Shazbot79;398306.I like that you've managed to wedge a few modernized gaming ideas into an old school-inspired game, like second wind, combat stances, implements, at-will spells, and XP for debauchery, which I'm reasonably certain you got from Barbarians of Lemuria. I'm also a fan of body points vs.

Actually, all but implements were from my house rules circa 1978-1979.

QuoteHow did you come up with monster AC'S? Is there some sort of formula, or are they just straight MM ports?

They are simply a conversion of the descending AC from 0e/1e to ascending AC. The formula is 19 - descending AC.

QuoteIn my opinion they're a little on the low side. The highest I saw was 30, and most monsters didn't even have above a 20. A 20th level Fighting Class with an average STR or DEX score can expect a +20 to hit from level, class, enhancement and stances.

A 20th level fighting man gets +10 from his level and an average of +2 from stat bonus to hit. Yes, magic weapons and stance can push that to +20 without problems. But then a 20th level fighter is supposed to be a terror in battle, easily keeping pace with a 20th level magic-user. Fighters were not wimps in early editions. And to be honest, there aren't many monsters in the standard monster list designed to be a challenge to 20th level characters -- just as in 0e/1e.

QuoteI don't mean 50/50 hit or miss. but maybe something like 75/hot to 25/miss at the upper levels.

IMHO, that's the road to making high level fighters into the wimps they turn into in later editions.

QuoteIf you were to standardize monster AC progression with a formula, like say (HD/2)+16 for heavily armored monster types, then PC efficacy would see a steady 20% increase for melee characters over the course of their career.

The idea in early editions is that monster armor is based on how tough the monster's armor is, not on some level-based formula designed to balance the challenge. A 1HD monster made of iron could be AC 20 while a 30HD monster made of something like jello could be AC 10. The two numbers aren't tied together.

QuoteI don't think that combat stunts should be penalized so heavily (-8/-6). If the idea behind stunts is to make combat more dynamic than just swing, swing and swing...but making stunts a far inferior choice to simply attacking with a weapon does little to incentivize taking such risks, especially since most stunts (tripping, bullrushing, grappling, etc.) don't really cause damage but instead merely hinder enemies in some way.

I though so as well, I tried lower numbers but that made stunts too easy. Trying to shoot an arrow into the eye slit of a helmet, for example. I thought of making a distinction between hard (-8/-6) and easy (-4/-2) combat stunts, but could think of no quick way to describe what should be considered easy and what should be considered hard. Leaving the GM with no guidelines seemed like a bad idea.

QuoteIMO, a better way to handle stunts would be to have the PC roll an attack against the target, and allow the target a saving throw against the action. The DC would be equal to the characters attack roll, and the monster rolls 1d20+HD.

We tried something similar and players did not like it. Perhaps I need to revisit this issue?

QuoteI'm not seeing how this works for monsters, though. Do spell casters simply roll against monsters AC, adding their magical combat bonus?

Monster saving throws are simply listed in their description. For example, a giant ant is listed as ST: 16 meaning it's saving throw (for anything) is 16.

QuoteFor that matter, I think that the FORT, REF, WILL, PRE saving throw division is a bit muddy.

I was originally going to use the standard FORT, REF, and WIL save categories from 3.x (as they are actually simpler than the old tables), but some players thought that turned CHA into a dump stat. So I added a PRE save. Perhaps I should just remove the PRE save (as removing/replacing the CHA attribute isn't an option). That would also leave the saves in a form most people would be most familiar with.

Thank you for all the comments and suggestions!

Quote from: Shazbot79;398306How did you come up with monster AC'S? Is there some sort of formula, or are they just straight MM ports? In my opinion they're a little on the low side. The highest I saw was 30, and most monsters didn't even have above a 20. A 20th level Fighting Class with an average STR or DEX score can expect a +20 to hit from level, class, enhancement and stances.

After some further thought on this, I've come up with the idea of "Natural Defense" as this post from my blog explains:

QuoteSomeone commented that they thought high level fighters had it too easy in Microlite75. The commenter pointed out that a 20th level fighter could easily have a +20 to hit (+10 from level, +5 from fighter bonuses, and +5 from magic items/other bonuses) and that very few monsters had very high armor classes. This meant a very high level fighter could expect to hit almost every time. Personally, I consider this a feature, not a bug. Very high level fighters should be able to hit just about anything they aim at most of the time. This helps to them "keep up" with high level spell-casters.

However, while thinking about this comment, I realized that Microlite75 doesn't really have that many ultra-powerful monsters intended to challenge very high level characters. This is pretty much standard for 0e and 1e as campaigns simply were not expected to regularly reach such high character levels. I figured I probably should add a few more high level monsters as high level play is much more common now than it used to be.

However, I have problems with ever-increasing armor classes. Monsters and characters with an AC of -10 (about 30 with ascending AC) are unbelievable enough in my book. Going higher just to make monsters tougher for high level fighters just doesn't make much sense to me. After a while, I came up with the idea of "Natural Defense." If you naturally roll (i.e. before any modifiers) the target's Natural Defense or less on the D20 attack roll, you miss. Except for extremely powerful beings, Natural Defense is always 1. As a natural roll of 1 always misses under the rules now, there is no change to the game for the vast majority of combats.

For exceptionally powerful monsters, however, having a Natural Defense of more than one reduces the chance of high level characters hitting them without having to raise their AC to the point that no one but a high level fighter has any chance to hit them.

For example, a powerful demon might have a Natural Defense of 4 and an AC of 25. Without the Natural Defense, a very high level fighter could easily hit 95% of the time (any roll but a 1). With the higher Natural Defense, the same fighter could only hit 80% of the time. However, as you don't raise the AC to get this reduction in hit chance, less combat-oriented characters still have a chance to hit the character.

Remember, there are no fumbles in Microlite75 (fumbling on a roll of 1 would mean one fumbled 5% of the time which unrealistically high for a trained character even at 1st level). All rolling a 1 (or below Natural Defense with the rules change) means is that you missed. You don't drop you weapon, stab yourself, or accidentally cut off your friend's head.

I'm going to try this rule in actual play next weekend with some high level NPCs my players will get to temporarily play, if it works it will be added to the M75 rules. It's only a few additional words in the Combat rules:

QuoteAttack Rolls: Add attack bonus to d20 roll. A natural roll equal to or less the target's Natural Defense (which is 1 unless otherwise stated) always misses, otherwise if the result is higher than your opponent's Armor Class (AC), it's a hit.

The bolded words above simply replace the words "of 1". A sentence about Natural Defense will be added to the rules for creating monsters and a few monsters will be added with a Natural Defense higher than 1.