Now that I am nine sessions into running my Deep Carbon Observatory game I feel that I should share my opinions of...
Originally shared by Brian Ashford
Now that I am nine sessions into running my Deep Carbon Observatory game I feel that I should share my opinions of the Whitehack rules I am running it with. Put simply, I’m loving it! It’s a lightweight OSR system with an ethos of figuring out the details of both character and setting organically during play. I have never run another game which can so easily surprise me...
https://ominosity.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/whitehack-2nd-edition/
Now that I am nine sessions into running my Deep Carbon Observatory game I feel that I should share my opinions of the Whitehack rules I am running it with. Put simply, I’m loving it! It’s a lightweight OSR system with an ethos of figuring out the details of both character and setting organically during play. I have never run another game which can so easily surprise me...
https://ominosity.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/whitehack-2nd-edition/
How can you say there is no math? AFAIK (I don't have the book with me, no pdf, narf!) there are bonuses end penalties, for vocations for example, like in any other rpg.
ReplyDeleteThe negotiation part drew me into this game. It was a relief to finally see a designer recognising an aspect which is inherent to every RPG (there really are no GM as Judges in RPGs as long as you play with people and opinions.)
About the pdf, I don't think the author wanted a wide-spread, everywhere played, long-lived and popular RPG. And he achieved that goal very effectively.
You are right, I should have said 'minimal maths'. Most rolls are simply, roll under your score but over the difficulty, even vocations and species only give you 5e style bonus and penalty dice.
ReplyDeleteThere is still some maths in combat though. If you gain advantage in combat you can gain +2 to your Attack Value and Damage. And if course you will often be deducting damage from HP.
When other variations on the D&D theme though are asking you to roll d20+Skill+Ability Mod vs Difficulty or d20+BAB+Opponents AC vs 20, the Whitehack way seems a lot tidier and (slightly) easier to use.
It is easier, no doubt (there are plain mods to attribute checks, too but I'm not sure). Though, I know players who had a hard time adapting to roll high under. Strangely enough, they converted the lower boundary to a single DC, claiming this would be easier for them (although it is even an additional operation in comparison to standard D&D checks).
ReplyDeleteIn general, Iwould love to see more Material for WH :(
Brian Ashford, you may have mentioned this in a previous post (if so, apologies): do you convert stats from the adventure on the fly, or ahead of time? Any issues you've run into? Do you convert variable damage to d6 only? AC is easy enough, since DCO lists e.g. "Armor: as chain" instead of a value.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Codispoti I converted monsters following the rules in Whitehack and it's worked fine. I did the ones in the adversaries section of DCO in advance but when I found others in the next chapter I just converted them in my head, it's really simple.
ReplyDeleteI did convert their damage to the d6 equivalent although there was no real reason to.
I gave the Crows Strong/Deft/Wise abilities and that has worked well. Ghar is scary when attuned to his bow.
I started the players at level 3 which may have been a little low as they have been struggling in places but it has made for a very tense game and we have only lost one PC. So far.
Brian Ashford Thanks, I figured it would be minimally difficult to convert on fly, given how bare-bones the DCO stats are. I look forward to hearing your further adventures!
ReplyDeleteYou did say "pretty much eliminating the usual bonus&penalty maths" in the post, which leaves room for some remaining math in the game. There are some combat options that tinker with AV as well. In a sense, I dislike that combat advantage gives +2 to AV, instead of a double positive roll, but the latter would mean a +4 advantage which may be too steep. It would also encroach on the Deft ability to roll double positive attacks if everyone could do it... even though the Deft could still retain the ability to switch it out for damage.
ReplyDeleteCompared even to the first edition of Whitehack the roll-high-eq-or-under-AV-above-AC system is a lot quicker and removes a lot of math. WH1 had descending AC and a table at the character sheet to figure out the target number for attacks. You could also calculate 19-AC to know the target number, and since players wants to know the target number before they roll we had to do "19-6=13", "19-4=15" calculations for each and every attack. In WH2 the players know their AV and just roll, and I know the AC and can say if they roll enough or not. No math needed.
I use the same system for task rolls as well, as you describe in the post, but when I reread the text it seems like it's not in the actual rules! To use the same system for tasks and attacks seems so obvious that I'm surprised. The section "Difficulty, Help & Extreme Scores" on page 15 says that you should add or subtract 2 from the attribute to change the difficulty. I never subtract (people in general find subtraction harder, by the way), but use harder rolls as AC and easier I still add to the attribute. In fairness, we never roll for easy stuff, so it's always with AC or unmodified. I even half-jokingly call it "Action Complexity" for task rolls, so I can keep calling it AC and not switch to DC or something for task rolls.
As I said, there are mods for attribute checks and I never questioned them, since there are also mods in combat like you both mentioned. So imho the double roll system is whats disturbing the design coherence ( I dislike rolling mutiple dice, anyway).
ReplyDeleteJonas Ferry Yeah, it is not in the rules-as-written but your "Action Complexity" makes perfect sense and is elegant. I'm using it next time I play!
ReplyDelete