Microlite74 2.0?

[randalls]

I'm considering a possible future revision of Microlite74. The rules would not change (except for typo correction, of course). What would change is that spells and monsters would be based on the descriptions in Swords & Wizardry. This would mean that those who want/need more details than I give would be able to use the information in Swords & Wizardry directly.

I'm looking for comments and opinions...

[mkotschi]

Sounds good.  Also in preparing to run ML74 I ran off a copy of the Weapons/Equipment list from Swords and Wizardry for my players, it might be nice to include that.

[randalls]

Also in preparing to run ML74 I ran off a copy of the Weapons/Equipment list from Swords and Wizardry for my players, it might be nice to include that.

Given that all weapons do 1d6 damage in M74, I'm not sure a weapon list is all that necessary. An equipment list would indeed be nice, but I don't like assigning costs to equipment in the rules. It has always seemed like costs, at least, should be set by the campaign world, not the game rules. However, if people think I'm nuts on this point I can bend.

[mkotschi]

True, having everything do 1d6 damage and not wanting assigned costs in the rulebook kind of negate the need for a list.  But then again I'm playing with newbies so a list can be useful.

[evernevermore]

Perhaps a list without prices or maybe something like Ive seen in other rulesets that have packages of equipment.

[mkotschi]

Some quick pick packs would be nice, just to give the noobs some ideas. 
When I say noobs, I mean real noobs.  Players who NEVER played paper and pencil rpgs.

[randalls]

Perhaps a list without prices or maybe something like Ive seen in other rulesets that have packages of equipment.

Microlite74 1.1 has three quick pick packs.

[randalls]

I'm considering some optional classes for M74 2.0:

Mnemonic Mage: An option to have a magic-user who uses the Vancian memorize and forget system instead of draining hit points. It would have to include a table of spells by levels.

Specialist: Can wear light armor, use shields and any weapon. Has special knowledge of one broad area. GM should give strong consideration the the area of knowledge when deciding if the character's action succeed. If the GM decides a roll is need, the character receives a +5 bonus at first level, + 6 at fifth Level, +7 a tenth level, etc. if the GM decides the task s clearly with the character's special expertise. This class could easily be used for a thief or a ranger, for example.

[Chgowiz]

I'm considering some optional classes for M74 2.0:

Mnemonic Mage: An option to have a magic-user who uses the Vancian memorize and forget system instead of draining hit points. It would have to include a table of spells by levels.

Specialist: Can wear light armor, use shields and any weapon. Has special knowledge of one broad area. GM should give strong consideration the the area of knowledge when deciding if the character's action succeed. If the GM decides a roll is need, the character receives a +5 bonus at first level, + 6 at fifth Level, +7 a tenth level, etc. if the GM decides the task s clearly with the character's special expertise. This class could easily be used for a thief or a ranger, for example.

Obviously I like the first option.

I've been chewing on the second one and I think I like it. I think stressing that this should give the GM strong indications on his *ruling* of success, and de-emphasize the rolling aspect. My initial thought was "oh, this brings back the thief and the numerous Pick Lock/Disarm Trap" rolls.  I realized those thoughts came less from the mechanic and more of you using a thief as an example. Good examples that de-emphasize the typical "rollalot" classes might be: woodsman (not evoking the ranger), alchemist, librarian/scholar, etc.

I guess my thinking is that I like m74 with fewer DCs to roll, and more rulings to make based on player actions. Does that make sense or am I nitpicking too much?

[randalls]

I've been chewing on the second one and I think I like it. I think stressing that this should give the GM strong indications on his *ruling* of success, and de-emphasize the rolling aspect.

There will be a special "GM's Advice" section in the description of the Specialist that will strongly suggest that the area of specialization generally just be a special consideration in the GM's normal rulings, not an excuse to roll the dice a lot. For example, if a fighter were to try to sneak up on the goblin guarding the door and bash his brains in before the goblin can react, I'd likely require a roll unless it was obviously "easy" (perhaps sneaking through lots of cover in leather armor).  If a "thief" specialist wanted to try the same thing, I'd likely just let him succeed. 

A specialist normally can't do anything any other character class could not try to do, they are just far better than the average character at tasks that clearly fall within their area of specialization.  This gets rid of the "Greyhawk thief" problem where the minute the thief class was introduced, many people stopped allowing non-thieves to even try to pick a lock or find a trap.  It also makes it easy for the GM to create specialists just for his campaign's needs without have to write up a bunch of mechanics. For example, most campaigns I run would benefit from weird classes like Courtier, Investigator, and Scholar. Specialist will handle them just fine with nothing more than a few sentences describing the profession so the the players and GM start out on the same page.

I guess my thinking is that I like m74 with fewer DCs to roll, and more rulings to make based on player actions. Does that make sense or am I nitpicking too much?

It not only makes sense, but it looks like we are thinking along similar lines.

[Chgowiz]

There will be a special "GM's Advice" section in the description of the Specialist that will strongly suggest that the area of specialization generally just be a special consideration in the GM's normal rulings, not an excuse to roll the dice a lot.

I like that idea a lot. It definitely "feels" a lot more like what you might expect an "adventurer" (as opposed to the 4e 'super hero') to be like. That takes me back to nethack, where you could have a number of odd "classes" of ordinary types.

Although a baker specialist might be in some trouble...

[randalls]

Although a baker specialist might be in some trouble...

Probably not very useful in the average campaign. LOL.

[Chgowiz]

Probably not very useful in the average campaign. LOL.

But the party would be well fed... (and he could escort the barbarian half orc in a skirt twirling batons that we're discussing on the m20 forums...)

[randalls]

(and he could escort the barbarian half orc in a skirt twirling batons that we're discussing on the m20 forums...)

I've been avoiding that discussion.

[Chgowiz]

I've been avoiding that discussion.

Awww... we could use all the help we can to make the ridiculous even moreso!