Some good points about BLUEHOLME™ made by Herman Klang, and my "designer's thoughts" behind those decisions. I'd be most interested to know what the members here think. :-)
Originally shared by Herman Klang
I got blueholme to save my Holmes books. I have a few complaints. 1 It's minor shit. 1. The scrolls table doesn't have a scroll of three wishes. This is a huge change. I liked it on there it gave the potential for crazy stuff to happen if you were doing procedural generation.
The other is going to sound dumb. Too many spells. I know. I just think that fewer spells would motivate players to research their own spells.
Another thing is the stronghold rules seem to allow you to build at any level. This eliminates the drastic cnhange potentially that occurs at name level in the way the game works.
If course I can house rule all this stuff. It's just that I am using this book every week and with players that might now be buying the book who are new to dnd.
So the concept of house rules is a little iffy with them.
It sounds like a big endorsement to me. These are all good problems to have. Even the scroll thing is easy to change.
ReplyDeleteAmusingly, I saved my original Holmes book by buying more Holmes books : )
ReplyDeleteToo many spells, isn't that an oxymoron? I never built a stronghold, but it sounds like a great way to get your players to spend their gold. Also they might be building over an ancient cursed burial site.
ReplyDeleteWell, in theory I agree that it would be nice to see more PC-created spells. It's just that nobody seems to do it, myself included.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, though unrelated to BLUEHOLME, in "Ye Olde Days" we never waited until name level to build strongholds. In fact, we usually took over castles, dungeons, sewers (!), or what have you, I think around 5th or 6th level.
ReplyDeleteEgads, doesn't everyone retire around 6th level?
ReplyDeleteStill, I tend to play rules-as-written for a while whenever I pick up a new game. There are usually lots of reasons behind rules that might seem odd on first reading, which will come out in play. D&D 5E really brought this home to me, as there were many things I had reservations about, but most of them worked fine in actual play. Once I had refereed and played it for a while, then I started house-ruling.
ReplyDeleteMichael Thomas, interesting that you say that about building bases early.. we never did that; raising troops, building or taking over bases, and the like never started in my old groups until somewhere in the levels 9-12.
ReplyDeletePrecluding base acquisition until a certain level feels artificial. But if you do gold for XP, then you will need to be a pretty high level before you can build a good castle.
ReplyDeleteBrad Ncube I agree. That's a pretty foreign concept to people that haven't played an rpg before though.
ReplyDeleteNew players should be rewarded for learning the rules.
When you have house rules and the players don't know wht the actual rules are explaining th e house rules can be information overload.
Th en if the player does take the effort to learn the rules. They could get the impression that that effort was wasted.
It's not Michael Thomas 's problem to solve though.
Scott Anderson I associate strongholds with attracting followers, which comes with name level too.
ReplyDeleteI see strongholds as distinct from regular property that a pc can own at any level. It's real estate + reputation. Also jousting. Jousting rules are super important.
Jousting rules and strict time records.
Someone mentioned Jousting? Not Holmes related but we're playing this today.
ReplyDeleteAs for house rules, I can see playing a game as correct as possible the first time, but as a DM, I'd House it up even for new players. Player's don't need to know many rules. I just want to know what they do. As Rob Kuntz also would say "don't ask me what you can do, just tell me what you do."
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/R0Fr0Q7uaqOlLgaSrTkWc4c_6V-UN-cPsBUBE9fY7UdeN9GYj-WMGj1YtDEFjaEdB_WFJCG7D3FEFAyNz60GzRuTzP0rZyj4OSU=s0
After Herman Klang's original beefs, and reading Michael Thomas's response, I am completely at ease.
ReplyDeleteI would contest +Herman Klang's assertion that "Jousting rules are super important" - personally, I don't give a sh*t about jousting, so I have never used those rules. Also, the underlying vibe of D&D has always been 'do it your own way' - so if players get the opportunity to build a stronghold of some kind before they reach the 'required' level, then more power to them, I say.
ReplyDeleteTim Duke some people like jousting. I've never run a joust, but I know exactly when and how I would do it.
ReplyDeleteTim Duke it's impossible to have a meaningful campaign without extensive jousting rules.
ReplyDeleteHerman Klang Have you seen how some Random Harlot Tables have few, if any percentile results showing bald harlots? How can you have a campaign without bald harlots?
ReplyDeleteScott Anderson Harlots are for AD&D. Basic and OD&D only have respectable ladies.
ReplyDeleteAD&D is all harlots and turn segments. Not for me.
Herman Klang and really how many kinds of boots do you need to run a decent game? Probably no more than seven
ReplyDeleteI suspect a goodly amount of ribbing is going on in these posts. Excellent Gygax reference to strict time records, Herman Klang! Did no-one else catch that? ;-P
ReplyDeleteI did consider jousting rules but I felt they were unfairly biased towards a certain type of Fighter Lord. I prefer to make each challenge unique to the individual landowner, so players have to think about their characters' strengths before accepting. I think I was strongly influenced by one of any Karl May books I read (which all melt together in my memory), where a group of heroes were captured by Native Americans and had to undergo a series of apparently unfair challenges, which they overcame through cleverly playing on their varied abilities and physiques.
ReplyDeleteHoly smokes, Michael Thomas - so funny you mention Karl May books. I never heard of him over here, but have relatives in Bamberg, Germany; should you ever find yourself there, they have a Karl May museum - apparently he was a big hit over there back in the day.
ReplyDeleteThe jousting joking around aside, I've done jousting exactly once. I ran a loacl group through B2 back in the 90s, one of whom was a cavalier; the party barely had two coppers to rub together, so while mucking about in the Keep they were trying to pick up odd jobs for the locals. I decided it was the monthly market festival, at which time the Castellan opened the gates of the inner baily and tournaments were held in the Inner Bailey with various market stalls set up as well. I figured the poor cavalier would likely never end up jousting again in game, and he happily took to the lists - won a pretty decent purse by the end too! And, of course, I broke out my trusty Chainmail 3rd ed rules to run it. Good times!
Michael Thomas if you have ever read Herman's blog, you'd have your antennae up for dry humor :)
ReplyDeleteCan we use the term concubine instead of harlot?
ReplyDeleteChris Holmes I would say not, as historically a concubine is a woman in a formal relationship with, but not married to, one man (who may or may not have numerous other concubines). In fantasy I would probably open up the gender on both sides of the relationship, but stick with the general meaning.
ReplyDelete"Harlot" I would ascribe either to a prostitute, or a promiscuous person - the latter wouldn't apply in many sword & sorcery settings, as everyone seems to be promiscuous by some modern standards!
Interestingly, in looking up the origin of "harlot" I came across "vagabond, man of no fixed occupation, idle rogue" from the 12th century. So it could have an entirely different meaning if your fantasy world is an earlier historical analogue. :-)
Herman Klang I assume that you are exercising your vaunted 'dry wit' Herman ;) Overall, I really like Blueholme (and indeed, Blueback) but then I'm a bugger for tinkering with rules sets...Holmes basic is by far my favourite incarnation of D&D (but B/X or Lab. Lord run it a close second). Rules-light is the order of the day for me.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I bow to your scholarship.
ReplyDeleteCan't hang around long in Hong Kong without learning a bit about concubines. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThat was rather roguish of you Michael.
ReplyDelete