Continuing to look over the Rules Cyclopedia, I'm noticing another thing I was never crazy about in (A)D&D: the dependence of PCs on higher-level NPCs to help them advance. I.e., magic users generally need to return to their mentors to pick up new spells; weapon masteries in RC require training from someone else; in AD&D 1e played by the book, characters can't even gain a level without seeking a trainer.

Some of these rules make a certain amount of sense in terms of in-game continuity. They can also complicate the game nicely by providing an excuse to send PCs off looking for trainers, or going on quests in exchange for training, and of course as a way to siphon off excess wealth.

But the problem with all these is that they mean the PCs will never be the big dogs. Why should the PCs be the ones picking up the treasure and glory, or saving or destroying the world, when, by definition, there's someone else stronger than they are?

So why shouldn't I just throw all that crap out? And if I agree that I should, do I need to compensate in some way?

Magic users are the only real problem because getting new spells really ought to be special. At the same time, you don't want to force Magic Users to rely on found scrolls for all their spells. So I think some sort of magical research system is called for--basically a way for Magic Users to spend time & money in exchange for "discovering" new spells on the list. I'd possibly rate all the spells on how common vs. esoteric they are so that picking up an esoteric spell would cost more time/money or involve a chance of failure--the purpose being to balance the need for mages to supply themselves with spells in the absence of a mentor, on the one hand, and the need for found scrolls to be something special on the other hand.

Any thoughts?

This is one of things that more or less turned me off to AD&D back in the day. I can remember sitting around at my GM's house and looking through the Dieties and Demigods book- the early one with the Lankmar stuff in it. I saked him why The Grey Mouser could have a 19 dex and no other human could-
"The Mouser is a hero."
"I thought out characters were heroes too."
"No, PCs are adventurers."
"WTF?"

I realize that this is a DM problem as much as a rule/system problem, but I've found it to be fairly widespread. When we first started playing together my best friend actually felt that PCs shouldn't be the able to "Shake the pillars of Heaven"  . I WANT my players to be Conan/Tarzan/ the Grey Mouser of their setting- it makes for cooler adventures, but I guess some GMs feel like it's going too far, or they feel like their carefully constructed NPCs will be neutralized... I don't know...
Anyway there you go some (disjointed and inarticulate) thoughts.

You obviously never played RC D&D at high levels. It gives "top dog" a whole new meaning. By the end of my D&D campaign, when the characters were Master level (25-36), whole countries were coming to them begging for their help.

RC D&D lets YOU be the Elminster of your game.

RPGPundit

QuoteRC D&D lets YOU be the Elminster of your game.

Yay for that!:cheerleader:

QuoteSo I think some sort of magical research system is called for--basically a way for Magic Users to spend time & money in exchange for "discovering" new spells on the list.

Did the spell research rules get dropped from the RC?  They are absolutely critical in the '81 Basic/Expert rules because by the book you can't lift spells from scrolls.  Other than your freebie spells when you gain a level, research is the only way to add to your spellbook.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou obviously never played RC D&D at high levels. It gives "top dog" a whole new meaning. By the end of my D&D campaign, when the characters were Master level (25-36), whole countries were coming to them begging for their help.

RC D&D lets YOU be the Elminster of your game.

RPGPundit

Indeed, in fact it less you have people come to you for training! People come to your fighter from miles around to learn the sword, or your cleric for his wise insight into the divine path of the Immortals.

Quote from: jrientsDid the spell research rules get dropped from the RC?  They are absolutely critical in the '81 Basic/Expert rules because by the book you can't lift spells from scrolls.  Other than your freebie spells when you gain a level, research is the only way to add to your spellbook.

Oops, I didn't get to the research section yet. But in answer to your question, all I see is research to create altogether new spells that aren't on the canonical list. And as far as gaining new spells, all I see is that your teacher (a high-level mage) will give you an extra 1st level spell at 2nd level, and then one 2nd level spell at 3rd & 4th levels. After that you basically have to petition your master, who may or may not help and may or may not ask for a special favor.

And yes, a magic-user in the RC can copy spells from scrolls into his/her spell book.

I was thinking of simplifying spell research down to a "one new spell per level rule", though. How does B/E do research?

Just to give a little more perspective, I doubt I'd want to play the game very far into the double-digit levels. And also I don't intend for the PCs to be the biggest and toughest from the get-go. But I do want them to be special in a few ways...

First, I don't want them to be beholden to anybody unless they choose to be.

[About the only way I'd give magic-users "teachers" would be if they were like Ningauble & Sheelba--inscrutable and half-insane, thus unlikely to give a damn about what their students are doing in the world, except occasionally to ask for some incomprehensible favor.]

Second, I don't intend to work from the paradigm of "there are n adventurer-class characters in the world per 10,000 people", with adventurers' guilds and so forth. There may be higher-level badasses in the campaign, but their level represents their relative bad-assitude. It doesn't mean that those people started at 1st level and worked their way up the way that PCs do. On the other hand, NPCs also won't advance, generally speaking. PCs are special because they have unlimited potential.

To expand a bit on that last paragraph. What I mean is that the campaign may have individuals who are 7th, 8th, 9th level, etc., but the PCs will be unique in that they're "adventurers". Pretty much everyone else in the campaign will have a place in the world; the PCs on the other hand get to walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu." If they settle down and take on obligations and responsibilities, that's cool. If they burn the whole place down, that's cool, too.

One of the reasons there are only a few example heroes in Hearts & Souls is because I want the PC's of YOUR H&S game to be the big dogs.

There are a lot of villains and smattering of heroes, because its always good to go 'oh so that's how you'd write up a werewolf, undead, robot, whatever..."


and yes in D&D it was sort of assumed that while the King may have an advisor/mage that person was likely to be old, tired, too smart, or otherwise uninterested in adventuring--hence the need for PC's--sure he could teach the wizard hero spells, but he had no interest in doing more than that and telling the king to send the wizard hero to go do something big when big things were needed.


Also I never understood why people didn't use "spirits", artifacts, or even Immortals as trainers for high level characters, there are some stories in folklore of the culture hero having to go learn a skill from the above (Sometimes the god is evil and must be tricked into giving it, sometimes the spirit is good but wants to prove the worth of the hero) all these things may not be big dogs in the world per se--Immortals concerns are often other, spirits (ghosts, or animistic forces) also no longer have worldish concerns.  And such quests to find a trainer worthy can make for interesting adventures if they aren't human.

In Goodman Games' big thick collection of 20 first-level adventures entitled DC29: The Adventure Begins, is an adventure entitled 'The Tower of the Black Pearl'.

It includes an optional ending called 'The Dark Age of Heroes'.  If you choose that ending, a particular event at the end of the adventure kills all good-aligned characters of level 5+ (it is actually rather cool why this happens).

This leaves the PCs (now probably only level 2) as some of the few 'good-aligned' PCs left in the entire world.

:gnome:

(Of course, if your PCs were evil-aligned, then this ending is not so great ...)

Quote from: Elliot WilenI was thinking of simplifying spell research down to a "one new spell per level rule", though. How does B/E do research?

In an ad&d game i played way back, my DM allowed me to research new spells (or gain some from the book) equal to my new character level. So once i reached second level i could add 2 levels of spells, at 3rd, 3 levels of spells etc...etc...

Quote from: AkrasiaIn Goodman Games' big thick collection of 20 first-level adventures entitled DC29: The Adventure Begins, is an adventure entitled 'The Tower of the Black Pearl'.

It includes an optional ending called 'The Dark Age of Heroes'.  If you choose that ending, a particular event at the end of the adventure kills all good-aligned characters of level 5+ (it is actually rather cool why this happens).

That sounds rather interesting. On the other hand, the players are of the same level, right? So it's not like they would stick out of the rest of the 2nd level goody-two-shoes.

BTW, is the adventure pack worth buying? Are the adventures purely introductory, or could you use some of the for further episodes?

Has this actually been an issue in game for anyone? I doubt it has, but if bothers you don't use it. Regardless of the rules, at high enough levels (>15) players should have the necessary skills to create their own combat moves and spells and would not require a trainer anymore, and probably will attract followers who want to learn from them.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSnip

But the problem with all these is that they mean the PCs will never be the big dogs. Why should the PCs be the ones picking up the treasure and glory, or saving or destroying the world, when, by definition, there's someone else stronger than they are?

So why shouldn't I just throw all that crap out? And if I agree that I should, do I need to compensate in some way?


Any thoughts?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI was thinking of simplifying spell research down to a "one new spell per level rule", though. How does B/E do research?

In the Moldvay/Cook rules the only spells allowed in your book are what you can cast each day.  If you can cast 1 third level spell per day you're only allowed one such spell in your book.  You gain these as you level up, from either a high-level NPC that the PC is apprenticed to or a Magic-User's Guild.  No details are given on these relationships.

If you want to add any more spells to your book, whether new spells or other spells on the canonical lists, you must research them.  That costs 1000gp and 2 weeks for each level of the spell and has a minimum failure chance of 15%.  In my current campaign project I give a bonus to the roll if you have a copy of the spell in a scroll or spellbook, or if you are assisted by someone who already knows the spell.

QuoteJust to give a little more perspective, I doubt I'd want to play the game very far into the double-digit levels. And also I don't intend for the PCs to be the biggest and toughest from the get-go. But I do want them to be special in a few ways...

One of the reason I prefer Basic/Expert is because it only goes to 14th level.  Play past that point doesn't interest me most of the time.  In my games I normally consider anyone reaching name level, building a stronghold, and entering semi-retirement to be a "winner".

QuoteFirst, I don't want them to be beholden to anybody unless they choose to be.

[About the only way I'd give magic-users "teachers" would be if they were like Ningauble & Sheelba--inscrutable and half-insane, thus unlikely to give a damn about what their students are doing in the world, except occasionally to ask for some incomprehensible favor.]

That rocks on toast.  I wholeheartedly agree.

QuoteSecond, I don't intend to work from the paradigm of "there are n adventurer-class characters in the world per 10,000 people", with adventurers' guilds and so forth. There may be higher-level badasses in the campaign, but their level represents their relative bad-assitude. It doesn't mean that those people started at 1st level and worked their way up the way that PCs do. On the other hand, NPCs also won't advance, generally speaking. PCs are special because they have unlimited potential.

QuoteLike Caine from "Kung Fu."

I totally agree.  Other adventuring parties are rare in my games.  They usually are meant to be major rivals of the PCs, like Belloc to Doctor Jones.  There is no adventuring industry or adventurer culture.  Adventurers are people operating outside the normal bonds of society.

(Edit: Cross posted with Jeff. Thanks for the summary, Jeff!)

I doubt I'd run the game to 15th level. (Though I may have a distorted view of things as I tend to think in AD&D 1e terms.) And in any case, this is an issue from level 1. I realize I can just not use the various rules--what I'm looking for is feedback on the consequences and/or how other people do it in their games. So far the Basic/Expert spell research system that jrients alluded to sounds pretty interesting. (Looking at Jeff's blog and correlating here, I gather this means the Moldvay/Cook versions of Basic/Expert.)

Huh, I found a neat discussion of the differences in rules and philosophy behind the rules, concerning Magic Users, in Moldvay vs. Mentzer/RC over at Dragonsfoot. Link...and I'm off to do some more research.