Hacking 2e: Hirelings, Followers, and Henchmen – Part 2

Last week, I reworked these NPCs into a single category: Followers, with a subcategory of ‘Sworn Followers’. This week, I’ll work on experience and leveling rules, administration mechanics, and a final ruleset.

Hacking 2e: Hirelings, Followers, and Henchmen – Part 1

My players really like henchmen. I think all players do, even if it’s not coded into the game. The trope of the adopted goblin in the party exists because players love to make an NPC their own. The henchman is that concept on steroids. You’re telling the players “not only will this NPC tag along, they’re specifically your NPC, if you can keep them.” Once my group figured this out, they started trying to recruit everyone they met.

Before we really get into this, I want to share a very cool resource with you:

Meatshields! The Classic Fantasy Hireling & Henchman Generator

You gotta love a good generator. This one, obviously, makes people of the hench persuasion.

Anyway.

In 2e, these tag-along NPCs are broken into three groups: Hirelings, Followers, and Henchmen. Let’s look at each.

Tools for Planescape and Sigil

AD&D 2nd Edition heralded the Age of the Campaign Setting, and with it came an endless parade of unique ideas and overfilled splatbooks. That collection is a goldmine, a rich vein of pure imagination that can and should be pulled from the ground.

For me, the best of the lot is Planescape. It’s a wild setting with incredible locations, bizarre characters, and fantastic ideas. However, the act of getting these things to the table is a daunting task. There’s so much to remember, so many pockets of brilliant worldbuilding spread across so many sources, that it can become paralyzing. And that’s just for Sigil!

To mitigate that, I use tools. Here are some of the resources I have found invaluable for running the setting, along with one which I created myself.

Hacking 2e: Encumbrance and Weight – Part 2

Last time, I reworked the 2e weights and weight allowances into a slot-based system. The final step is to determine encumbrance penalties.

This is the entire reason we’re here. These penalties are the stick used to enforce the agonizing decisions inherent in encumbrance rules. Without them, there’s no reason to track anything at all, and that way lies 5e and players who occasionally look through their inventory to discover oddities from old adventures, like they’re rifling through their parents’ attic.

AD&D used ranges, or weight bands, to determine when penalties applied. Let’s start there.

Hacking 2e: Encumbrance and Weight – Part 1

Encumbrance is considered a pillar of old-school play, creating a natural limiter on what can be brought into – and out of – the dungeon. It creates a puzzle, wherein players agonize over what should be carried and what must be dropped, and opens the game to unique solutions such as hiring people or using beasts of burden. It makes magical items which subvert encumbrance into coveted treasures.

It’s also a huge pain and a taxing mental load. Especially in most editions of D&D, wherein you either need to add up large, abstracted coin weight or small, fractional pounds. This is the kind of ruleset for which people end up making spreadsheets. By the time you’re opening Excel to run a subsystem for a tabletop game, I’d argue you’ve left the Realm of Game and entered the Duchy of Simulator. This caused many tables to abstract encumbrance or ignore it altogether. As a result, the idea of tracking any of the character’s gear faded from modern D&D by 4th Edition. Notably ahead of its time, 2nd Edition made encumbrance optional.

If you want more detail on the history of encumbrance rules in D&D, check out these posts from Simulacrum: Exploring OSR Design and Welcome to the Deathtrap.

The OSR does its OSR thing when it comes to encumbrance: the mechanical approaches include points, slots, and grids, while unique sub-mechanics abound. Of these, I find slot-based encumbrance to be the most simple and adaptable for my modification of 2e, so I’ll follow the crowd here. As I noted in my post on Strength, that was the plan all along: the number of available slots can be the Strength score itself.

Now I have to execute it, which means establishing slot allotment, item slot values, and encumbrance penalties. For this first part, I’ll tackle the first two. 

Hacking 2e: Encounter Reactions

Prior to getting behind the wheel of 2nd Edition, my experience with implementing ‘reactions’ centered around the skill check. Diplomacy (and later Persuasion), was the centerpiece of NPC good will or antipathy. Generally, this almost never took the form of a ‘called check’ by the DM based on player actions, but was instead a player-requested check: “Can I roll Diplomacy to make this guy tell us where the MacGuffin is?” This playstyle is the exact thing that the OSR, in all its various iterations, has been scrambling away from for 20 years.

If you’ve played any modern version of D&D, you’ve seen that moment where the face character botches the Persuasion check and the player dutifully acts out the resulting buffoonery. Plenty of laughs have been had here, though it’s always bothered me that charismatic PC would randomly turn into a social moron every once in a while. Even if not taken to that extreme, the player-facing results leave little room for nuance in the roleplay: the failed check is a failed check, and the party is apt to focus on the die result and its repercussions, rather than the NPC in front of them.

Charisma has become king in social interactions; a party’s ability to win friends and influence people isn’t based on their actions or their reputation, but on the high score of whichever player didn’t dump Charisma. Obviously, Charisma should have a place in social matters, as that’s basically all it’s there for, but it shouldn’t be the end-all-be-all of whether NPCs have a positive or negative reaction to your collection of murder hobos.

2nd Edition has been a breath of fresh air. First, it keeps the reaction of the NPCs and monsters behind the screen; the players need to assess the social situation on its own terms, based on information communicated by the DM. Second, the face character can’t just spam the Charisma button; players need to determine how they’re going to approach any particular group, and hope that their bonuses from Charisma, their reputation, and their choices will carry the day.

That’s all to say, I like Reaction rolls. It’s good stuff. To figure out how it’ll look in a 2e rework, let’s look at the rules.

2e DM Screen

My hunt for a good 2e DM screen has been somewhat unsatisfying. There’s the official screen which does the job, but the layout and arrangement of the tables leaves something to be desired (a criticism I extend to the books, generally). There are some fan creations online, but there’s always something about them that doesn’t quite meet my needs.

My 2e Primer’s Quick Reference has served me for many games, but it contains much information that I don’t immediately need during play, while also missing some tables that I’d like quick access to. Really, what I’d love is a DM screen that has the Primer’s information, but laid out in a condensed format, with related tables arranged near each other.

So I made one.

 

Actually, I made two: One in landscape orientation and another in portrait.

I tried to keep everything to four panels, but good lord this edition is lousy with tables. Instead, it’s five panels, but the final panel is completely monster-based and can be considered an optional loose reference sheet.

It’s been helpful in the handful of sessions in which I’ve used it, but I can’t call it battle-tested. If you find it of use in your games, or if you see errors to be corrected or additions to be made, please let me know!

2e DM Screen – Landscape

2e DM Screen – Portrait

Note: I’ve also updated the 2e Primer with additional corrections and amendments. Nothing major, just thought you should know I constantly update it to reflect any new information I find that helps illuminate the darker recesses of this edition.

[I've made some edits to the document based on feedback. Morale and surprise modifiers have been cleaned up. The Common Equipment table has been axed in favor of Turn Undead. I'll keep a version number on the document from here on, and will update based on feedback. Thanks Lord Torath and Downingman.]

Hacking 2e: Initiative and Modifiers

AD&D 2nd Edition’s default initiative rule is the tried and true side-initiative (which it calls Standard Initiative Procedure), meaning that one roll is made for each ‘side’ in a combat. Modifiers are applied only for circumstances where an effect applies to everyone on a side. This rule is easy, fast, and shared between all versions of Basic and AD&D. 2e adds two optional initiative mechanics: Individual Initiative, where each PC and monster gets its own initiative rolls and applies modifiers per participant, and Group Initiative, where side-initiative is used but modifiers are still applied per participant.

Weapon Speed is offered as an optional rule, though it’s used as a given in all the examples of Individual and Group initiative. Spellcasting speed is portrayed as apparently not optional, even though most of it wouldn’t function with the Standard method. Multiple Attacks get special rules that put the extra attacks after all the other attacks, while spells requiring a round or more to cast get shoved to the end of the round(s).

All in all, it’s a serviceable initiative system that sometimes doesn’t know which version it prefers that you use. However, if you want to use all the special modifiers available, it clunks a bit when you have to do this every round. 

Happy Christmas

I meant to have a holiday gift for you in this post, but creating it is taking a bit longer than I had estimated. So for now, I’ve got nothing, aside from seasonal greetings.

Still, I didn’t want to leave the week blank; I made a commitment to myself that I would post every Thursday for as long as possible. I’ve kept that going for five months now. It is an accomplishment of which I am quite proud. Yay me.

If you’ve been reading this blog, commenting, utilizing the 2e Primer, or are one of the kind people that threw me some change: Thank you. It’s been cool to have someone like my stuff.

I still want to give you something. I’ll make do by digging into my bookmarks folder like a panic-stricken coworker searching for a Christmas party gift in the back of his closet.

AD&D 2e Character Generator by garumoo

Enjoy making a few thousand 2e characters.

See you in the new year with a post on implementing the optional Weapon Speed rules.

Hacking 2e: Roll-Under Mechanics – Part 2

Last time, I looked at converting Saving Throws, Surprise, and Attack Rolls to a roll-under system. Let’s do the rest. Please note: this is mostly the “make a new ruleset for initiative" post and will constitute most of the text.

 

4. Damage

Unless we’re altering the hit point system (which I’m not looking to do today), this mechanic needs to give us a value to subtract from those hit points. With that requirement, converting damage into a roll-under check is a weird and torturous exercise. I think it could be done by giving every weapon two static damage values, then giving the higher damage value on successful rolls. However, this is sweaty and lame, and it provides zero advantage over a flat roll.

Rolling the value directly on the die is the cleanest way, as is adding modifiers to the die roll. Since this doesn’t align the goal of making everything a low roll and only adding modifiers to scores, I’ll need to add in a caveat for this type of roll.

Whenever you roll dice to obtain a result, rather than beat a score, you’ll want to roll high and add any modifiers to the roll itself.

Damage won’t be alone in this; Hit Dice and calculating starting gold also meet this criteria. 

Hacking 2e: Roll-Under Mechanics – Part 1

The inconsistency of die mechanics in AD&D is often cited as one of the more confusing parts of the game. Putting aside the cacophony of die types (death to the percentile roll), the main issue is roll-under vs roll-over and where the modifier goes. This can seem arbitrary on first glance, but there is some consistency. Here are (most of) the rolls one can make, the ‘goal’ of that roll, and what’s being modified:

Modifier for…	Attempting to…	High or Low	Modifying
Saving Throw	Beat a Static Value	High	Roll
Surprise	Beat a Static Value	High	Roll
Attack Roll	Beat a Static Value	High	Roll
Damage	Get a High Number	High	Roll
Reaction	Place on a Spectrum	High (if you fix it)	Roll
Initiative	Get a Low Number	Low	Roll
Nonweapon Prof.	Beat a Static Value	Low	Ability Score
Thieving Skill	Beat a Static Value	Low	Thieving Skill Score
Morale	Beat a Static Value	Low	Morale Rating

Note: The assumption in this breakdown is that we’re gunning for the ‘desirable’ result for the PC.

You can see that we’re mostly trying to beat a value, whether that number is based on rolled attributes, level-based tables, more-than-three, or whatever number THAC0 spits out (depending on how one uses THAC0). Damage and Initiative are just seeking straight-up results from the dice. Reaction is our outlier, as it’s used to determine the temperature of the NPCs.

There’s correlation here: you add the modifier to the roll if rolling high, and you add the modifier to a static value if rolling low. Initiative is the weirdo, being the only time you modify the roll while also trying to roll low.

As I’ve made clear in previous discussions, I’m in favor of making everything into a roll-under mechanic. This chart shows that in order to do that, I’ll need to add modifiers to the values rather than the rolls. We’ve already got three rolls with that setup (NWP, Thieving Skills, and Morale), so let’s do the rest.

What is This Blog Anyway?

The following post is self-indulgent state-of-the-blog stuff. You’ve been warned.

I wasn’t sure what this blog was going to be when I started out a few months ago; I just wanted to start writing again. I’ve tried writing fiction and short stories for some time, but it tends to end with a whimper rather than a completed work, and I always seem to come back to games.

When I really started digging into 2e, I found myself all over the web, discovering blogs, forums, and OSR hacks as I tried to better understand this unique game. Through those blogs and forums, I got the itch to write in the nerdiest way possible. Through the hacks, I knew that I wanted to tear 2e apart and put it back together again in my own image.

So I guess I really am making a game.

Since I’ve just spent the past few months ripping apart the Ability Scores and Saving Throws, let’s interlude to discuss what the goals are here. 

Hacking 2e: Saving Throws – Part 2

In Part 1, I looked at issues with the current 2e saving throw ruleset. This time, I’ll be desecrating a beloved game mechanic to ‘fix’ those issues. I hold no deep affection or nostalgia for the original construction of these saving throws, but I absolutely adore the concept of saving against a threat over the modern design of saving with an ability. The following is an attempt to preserve that feel, but in a way that makes sense to me and that serves the game I seek to build from 2e’s design. 

Hacking 2e: Saving Throws – Part 1

He's a big boy.

Judging by how often they’ve changed through the history of the game, the rules for saving throws might be the least sacrosanct of the D&D mechanics. For more details on the origins and changes throughout the editions, DM David and Grognardia talked about that years ago, but the rundown is this: TSR-era D&D uses saves against specific perils, with static values based on class and level. OD&D, AD&D, and Basic each have different groupings and values for these saves, with Paralyzation wandering about the table as the years passed. WotC threw it all out with 3rd Edition and created Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves, now adjusted by your ability score. 4e turned these three into static defense numbers on par with AC, and used saving throws as a state-tracking mechanic. Finally, 5e reintroduced saving throws as a reactionary tool, but just made them modified ability checks. In short, the saving throw mechanic managed to save vs Petrification over the past 50 years.

The OSR approach to saves is anywhere between reverential and heretical. The faithful go no further than renaming the categories and maybe tweaking some numbers (though a notable exception is Swords and Wizardry, which cut saves down to a single column). The hacks, and other OSR content not wed to the sacred texts, just use 3e or 5e save mechanics or excise saves entirely. The dividing line is compatibility to older material; if you want your game to work with X1 or whatever, you’re going to make sure it has a ‘save vs Poison’ of some sort. Otherwise, keeping this system can only be a preference, either due to familiarity or in an attempt to evoke ‘the old school.’ Without such a need, a designer might discard them in favor of ‘better’ approaches.

Dolmenwood serves as an interesting case study in having your cake and eating it, too. Here, the Basic D&D saves are presented in an altered form: Doom, Ray, Hold, Blast, and Spell. The categories have been simplified in their presentation to the player, yet still retain their original assigned purpose – Doom still covers Poison and Blast still includes Dragon Breath. More than this, they’ve been expanded to include new meanings (Hold for falling rocks, Blast for explosions, etc.), moving beyond specific, proscribed events. In this way, the game maintains technical compatibility (well, at least with saves) while forging its own path.

I think that’s sufficient to say we have a bit of room to play around in this space. First, let’s look at some problems present in the 2e Saving Throw system. 

Hacking 2e: Charisma

The primary ability of bards and face-characters across many editions, Charisma gets a fair shake here, with three adjustments that tie to “a character’s persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead.”

Of course, this is assuming your game uses henchmen, morale, and reaction rolls. Online discussion makes it clear this was not always the case. The 90s was the era of story-driven games and director-DMs, the age of Vampire: The Masquerade. Rules that inflated the party or harkened back to D&D’s wargaming roots were no longer in vogue. The 2e core books themselves present morale and reactions as optional (while not calling them that), encouraging DMs to make calls on how the NPCs behave based on common sense, rather than relying on random rolls.

Obviously, if these rolls do not exist and these extra NPCs are not available, Charisma becomes the ultimate dump-stat, useful only to meet the prerequisites of the paladin and bard. It also threatens to turn Charisma into the ‘make them like me’ ability check, wherein the player may expect to ‘beat’ social interaction via direct check, since there is no mechanic to adjudicate this otherwise. As these are both undesirable outcomes, retaining these adjustments requires reinforcement of the rules which they modify. That comes later; for now, we’ll address the columns as they stand.