As those of you who have seen the Black Book Beta know, I’ve generally eliminated the rules for spell components: Distinguishing exactly which spells require verbal and/or somatic components is an almost perfect example of the kind of non-essential detail that Legends & Labyrinths is systematically eliminating in order to provide you with a simplified and streamlined engine for your imagination.

I made an exception, however, for material components: Spells like identify and raise dead are partially balanced by the expensive material components they require.

And then, since I’d been forced to include the rules for material components anyway, I thought I might as well go ahead and include all of the material components.

But as I revisit the Grimoire for its final editing, I’m beginning to suspect I may have made a mistake. So what do y’all think? Should I keep all of the material components for the sake of consistency? Only keep the ones with a significant monetary cost? Get rid of all of them? Bring back all the spell components? Invent a fourth category of spell component and just toss it in there for kicks?

(What would that fourth category of spell component be? Hmm…)

On page 86 of the Black Book Beta, there’s a sidebar entitled “What Type of Action Is It?” If you’re so inclined, I’d like to get your feedback on it.

For certain activities and abilities, the type of action is defined. (For example, it requires a standard action for a cleric to turn undead.) But at other times, the DM will have to make a judgment call about what type of action is required to carry out a particular intention. Here are some rules of thumb you can use:

• Any action which doesn’t require an action check is probably a move action.

• If it involves moving through space or traversing a given distance, then it’s probably a move action even if it does require an action check.

• If it’s any other action requiring an action check, then it’s probably a standard action.

• Full actions should be used for anything which feels like it should take more time or involves multiple steps. (But, when in doubt, default to a standard action.)

• Actions which could be resolved in the blink of an eye (like dropping something held in your hand) are probably a free action. But if executing the action is non-trivial, makes a substantial contribution to the battle, or just feels like something which should be limited in its repetition you can probably go ahead and bump it up to a swift action or move action.

Immediate actions should generally be reserved for specific special abilities because being able to act out of turn is a major advantage. However, if an action is immediately reactive by necessity (like catching someone as they fall past you) it may be appropriate to make an exception.

Legends & Labyrinths eschews a lot of the specific guidelines that you’d find in an advanced 3rd Edition rulebook, so this type of general advice — aimed at giving the DM widely applicable guidelines on how to make rulings — is, I think, necessary. The question is: Does this feel on target to you? Does it match your gut feeling for what different actions represent in the 3rd Edition ruleset?

In laying out the Black Book Beta, page 63 ended up being blank. This bugged me, but it’s actually a non-trivial problem to solve so I decided to lay it aside. I considered commissioning a full page of art to fill the space, but this would be expensive and randomly out of place given the layout in the rest of the book. So I’ve been looking at various ways to re-arrange Chapter 10: Companions & Allies and/or possibly Chapter 9: Conditions to “pad out” an extra page.

The other day, however, I was running a session of my Thracian Hexcrawl campaign and I realized how significant a role morale has begun to play in my handling of hirelings at the game table when one of the gem sisters collapsed into a complete panic when her sister was killed by a platoon of skeleton archers. So now I’m thinking that Page 63 — coming at the end of the chapter on Companions & Allies — might actually be a good place for morale rules. These would also be trivially adapted to use with adversaries and monsters; but the primarily utility would be aimed at hirelings.

Basically, as a DM, I don’t actually want to run hirelings as full NPCs: I’m already juggling enough balls that the idea of running a GMPC of any sort (player-initiated or not) isn’t appealing. I’d rather let the players manage their coterie. A simple morale system, on the other hand, gives a hireling a certain degree of “otherness” — they aren’t just adjunct PCs. (For some previous thoughts on hirelings and followers in Legends & Labyrinths, read here and here. For some thoughts on old school morale systems, read this.)

With all of that in mind, I’ve got a couple questions for you.

First, is this a good idea? It would be one of the more significant systemic departures from “vanilla 3E”.

Second, what form should such a morale system take? I’ve got a couple options in mind, but wouldn’t mind hearing some open-ended brainstorming in the comments.

OPTION 1 – OLD SCHOOL:In this option, morale and loyalty are essentially flat and don’t scale with level or CR. Loyalty would be determined by the PC’s Leadership score and/or the offer made to hire the NPC. The morale score of a hireling would be determined with a simple 2d6 roll modified by Loyalty. Morale checks would similarly be rolled on 2d6 (with a result lower than the hireling’s morale indicating surrender, panic, retreat, or a similar reaction).

An area of concern here is the scaling of the Leadership score by level. (Check out “Thinking About Morale” for why I think this is problematic. Essentially, it doesn’t take much for such a system to effectively become irrelevant.)

Another potential problem with this approach is that it’s radically inconsistent with the rest of 3rd Edition’s design ethos of having a “core mechanic”. (Although not that dissimilar from the turning mechanic, I suppose.)

OPTION 2 – SKILL-BASED: Alternatively, what if triggering events required a Diplomacy or Intimidate check with a DC set by the CR of the hireling you’re trying to keep from panicking? (Effectively you’d use the Trained Check DC from the Hazards table on page 86, although there’d probably be a morale-specific instantiation of the table on page 63.)

A potential problem with this approach is that it gives no ability for a hireling to stay loyal if their boss is incapacitated or absent. Maybe the hireling makes a Will save with the DC set by the CR of the prevalent threat, and only if they fail do their bosses have a chance to “rally the troops” using the skill check?

What do y’all think?

When I posted Black Book Beta Response 6 last week, it didn’t get much of a response. After some reflection on the matter, I have several hypotheses for this:

1. With the funding project done, nobody is really paying attention any more.
2. People don’t really care that much about art.
3. Since I screwed up the options on the poll, most people couldn’ t vote when they saw the post.
4. The fact that you needed to go flipping through the book to look at the art made it less likely for people to comment/participate.

On the theory that #3 or #4 are most plausible, I’m going to try this again. And this time I’m going to do it better. (Assuming I don’t screw up the poll again.) Below the poll you’ll find that I’ve included all the questionable art that I’m asking for your feedback on. I’m also adding in a few additional pieces that people have specifically commented on.

If you voted before, feel free to vote again. And, again, please feel free to leave a comment pointing out other pieces of art you don’t like. I’m particularly interested in hearing your feedback on any pieces that felt too “familiar” to you. (I’m using public domain art, but I still want the book to feel fresh.)

 Loading ...

(more…)

One of the major reasons for the Black Book Beta and 8-Bit Funding project was to raise the funds to improve the art for the book.

Some of the new art will be going into the sections of the book currently missing from the Black Book Beta (the Grimoire and Bestiary). But a good chunk of it will actually be replacing art already found in the Black Book Beta (which is almost entirely lifted from public domain sources).

I used those public domain sources because I wanted to lock-in layout. The Black Book Beta is actually a fairly art-rich book. It features 79 illustrations in 150 pages, for an art-to-page ratio of 0.53. (You can compare that to other RPG art throughout history here.) That ratio will probably be dropping as I anticipate some of the sections missing from the Black Book Beta will end up featuring less art per page.

But the use of public domain art carries with it some problems:

• Some of it is ugly.
• Some of it is inappropriate.
• Some of it is too familiar.

In short, it was always my intention to replace at least some of the art in the Black Book Beta with different pieces. At the funding level we achieved, I can’t afford to replace all of it.  So here’s your chance: Flip through your copy of the Black Book Beta and tell me what you think sucks; the stuff you hate with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns; the stuff you think is completely inappropriate; the stuff you think is too generic or well-known; and anything else you just don’t like.

I’ve included a poll with what I suspect will be the likeliest subjects. Vote for as many as you’d like, but don’t feel like you need to stop there: If there’s another piece that’s really bugging you, drop it into the comments.

 Loading ...