All y'all should go to this page at Snorri's joint A Wizard in a Bottle and check out the pdf Searchers of the Unknown. It's a one-page D&D house rules thing-a-ma-bob and I think it's pretty great. Searchers isn't exactly new, but over on G+ the other day Chris McDowell of SoogaGames reminded me of it's existence, with his comment "Anyone that runs or plays D&D should be required to play Searchers of the Unknown for at least one session. It should come packaged on one sheet with every version of the game."
Please, seriously, if you haven't read it take the few minutes necessary to do so, then come back and answer these questions.
1) Is it still D&D if your character doesn't have Str, Int, Dex, Wis, Con and Cha scores? Are the presence or absence of those stats dealbreakers for you? This is one of the big humps I would have to get over to run this great little game. Those six rolls of 3d6 matter a lot to me, even in editions where they don't do that much mechanically.
2) Having a character class seems like a pretty core part of the D&D experience to me as well. On the other hand, everybody starting out as some jerk with a spear and no particular skills seems like a pretty good match for my usual "down-and-dirty" approach to starting a D&D campaign. What if the only character classes available were Prestige Classes? You want to play a wizard? You absolutely must seek one out in play and apprentice up. That's a bit similar to the WFRP approach, except you wouldn't necessarily hop from class to class.
A Return to the Stars
-
After a veeeeerrrryyyy long, and mostly unplanned, hiatus, Stuart and I got
together to play more Stargrave in recent days. It was good! It was also a
bit ...
%202.png)
.JPG)
.png)
.gif)
Posts
I love SotU. I was able to run an entire campaign using a post-apocalyptic variant of these rules:
ReplyDeletehttp://mutantur.wordpress.com/
I've also got a version for fantasy gaming:
http://dwarvenglory.wordpress.com/
The minimalist rules are excellent for emergent play.
Personally, I can go without ability scores, I think. I'm not s huge fan of the stunt mechanic in Searchers, but I understand why the writer wants there to be a penalty for wearing armor. Ability scores, even without mechanical backing, are just plain fun. They give you something with which to compare to other characters and bond with the game.
ReplyDeleteClass, on the other hand, I find pretty essential to D&D. Now, I wound go for something that allowed characters to choose their class after a couple of sessions once they found a wizard to apprentice, but we're getting beyond the realm of what Searches of the Unknown does in its current state. (I feel class going pretty against the grate of Searchers assumptions and goals).
Ian, let me pitch you an alternative to straight-up joining a class:
DeleteYou're a hardscrabble dungeon bastard. You're always going to be an outsider. There's no such thing as really joining the Thieve's Guild or becoming a sorcerer's apprentice. At least not for a misfit like you. Instead, maybe you can stay with that cranky old druid just long enough to learn one or two pieces of magic. Or maybe that knight can show you how to properly swing a sword, instead of the inept chopping motions you make currently. You'll never be a true expert at any of this stuff. You'll never really belong to any strata of society. As a dungeoneer you are a perpetual amateur, a dilettante of a thousand respectable professions, collector of any useful little skill or trick that will allow you to continue the quest to go into slimy little hellholes in search of gleaming gold.
See, I can live without classes, but I think ability scores of SOME sort are helpful handles for role-playing, and gives the GM something more robust than "uh, role below an entirely arbitrary number to succeed" when he needs to improvise a way to resolve an action. No stats means sitting around trying to come up with something more interesting than "myself, but a hardscrabbling dugneon bastard" before you can play. Ability scores means you can look at your character sheets and say, "MY hardscrabbling dungeon looter is smart but lacks common sense, while YOUR hardscrabbling dungeon looter is strong as an ox, but gets sick easily - awesome, let's play."
DeleteAs I have blabbed to anyone who will listen, I love SOTU. With the right mindset its very playable. I especially lovethe initiative and stunt rules. But for Dungeon bastard swords and scorcery type action its pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteOf course players might want to differentiate themselves.so a referee could allow some sort of background trait to give a Guy a boost in one kind of skill. Or better yet, they could improve via play - a Guy would attacks with a bow gets a bonus to archery when he levels, a delivery who opens a lot of locks gets a bonus to lockpicking etc.
Anyways doing without class is quite doable , its just different.
I absolutely don't need stats, nor classes. I've always had the mindset that in D&D the main class for everyone is "Adventurer", and all other differentiation is a sub-class.
ReplyDeleteThe short while I played SoTU in a play-by-post campaign right after it was released, was great fun, in part because differentiation was introduced through Snorri originally posting the rules with an additional sheet allowing a random roll on the national background table from Chainmail. This started everyone with different weapons and armor, and since the backgrounds were all from common history, a place to start characterization. It'd be easy enough to do that with a fantasy world, too.
1.) It isn't a deal-breaker, but I think it gives you less to work with when it comes to making a character concept. One of the nice things about attributes is that they can spark your imagination. And I like attribute rolls. I prefer to have more factors involved than just the type of armor that is worn or not worn.
ReplyDelete2.) I can live with classes sans skills or skills sans classes, but characters without classes or skills seem a little flat to me. I'd try it as a one-shot, but I don't think it would hold my interest for anything longer.
Looks awesome. I think it's still D&D and could still be played the same. Character differentiation comes from your gear. You want a wizard? Use magic wands and stuff instead of swords. Unfortunately, the one page here doesn't give the information needed to run the game, but it's totally enough to play the game with a knowledgeable DM. In fact, I'd be tempted to just run without any further rules and have every magic item and spell and monster work ad hoc.
ReplyDeleteI really love these rules. I'm working on a more advanced version of Searchers that should total about 6-8 pages of rules. I'm adding the ability scores back into the game, and putting in some rules for magic item use similar to the way the thief can use magical devices in other versions of the game. The big revision I am making however is removing hit points, and instead tracking all damage by hit dice, thus removing the need for a damage roll. In this way it has some similarities with BattleSystem Skirmishes and GW's Mordheim.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, over at RetroRoleplaying: The Blog there is a free download of the Searchers of the Unknown RPG Collection PDF, which includes lots of variants and additions. (Speaking of dungeon bastards, there is a version entitled, "The Bastards," although it's about "Killin' Nazis and takin' their stuff.")
ReplyDeleteHere's the link:
http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2012/02/update-searchers-of-unknown-rpg.html
I'd seen the character sheet before and assumed that was the whole game! It's beautiful and totally playable and I love it. Is it still DnD? Probably not, but I don't care.
ReplyDeleteThat said, like the rest here I want just a bit more to think about as I start playing my character. Carcosa has no classes (really) but it does have stats and it's just about as thin as I want to get.* Unless the game starts with a funnel, in which case I'm totally happy with everyone playing vat clones or ants or something and having everything be determined by the hazards of play and reputation.
* Actually, only 2 stats really matter to me from a roleplaying perspective: INT and WIS. If I have to hang on that rope or make that tricky shot or charm that prison guard then I will try regardless because the alternative is game over, so those stats don't end up mattering, really. What matters for understanding the character is knowing I'm not very smart or I am smart enough to get in trouble but not wise enough to get out of it again - that actually affects how I play, how I see my options and what I'll try. I'd like something that brings the business end of that back in again.
I like how it use AC, very clever.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind having no class & attributes, but no XP for Gold?
I wouldn't for a minute suggest SotU as a permanent replacement for your personal D&D flavour of choice, but as Jeff mentioned I think that playing it is a highly valuable experience for anyone. When you have nearly no mechanics to work with you find yourself fully engaged with that wonderful "outside of the rules" play that, for me, is the beauty of our hobby.
ReplyDeleteSure, some of us would find ourselves playing a game much like our regular sessions, but for some players it can reveal a whole different type of play. It might not be to their tastes but I'd hope that fans of even the crunchiest, most rigid games would find it an interesting experience.
I'd seen this before but forgotten all about it. I might take it for a spin.
ReplyDeleteNo stats? Fine. No classes? Well, alright, one class: adventurer. Also fine. But you'll have to pry JB's random hats table from my cold dead fingers. You want character differentiation? That's character differentiation right there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStupid blogger ate my comment.
ReplyDelete1: Yes. In AFG we use only Physique, Craft and Spirit and nobody complains. I guess phasing to "no stats" won't be a big problem, I won't miss it anyway.
2: that sounds great and it was in Sham's ideas to use in his accomplishments system. It didn't get in AFG because, well, I'm not sure, it probably felt too much work to do the accomplishments writeup. But adding it would require only a small effort and I'm pretty sure I'll put the "classless with late class-perks learning" rules in the compendium. Because it fits both the genre and the rest of the rules. And would be tremendously fun. Classless characters with no special powers make for the best adventurers. And reminds me of picari. Which is totally appropriate.
I absolutely adore Searchers. I've toyed with a number of house-rule variations since its release, none longer than a page; generally, these elaborate on the original's thoughtful use of armor to define player roles. I think the ideal manifestation of those rules would balance all possible equipment loadouts against each other such that a character might want to work toward a large, versatile personal armory just to be ready for a wide variety of possible operational circumstances.
ReplyDeleteMy group's never objected to the missing ability scores or classes - it's a beautiful, flexible system that meets our needs perfectly.
Chris McDowell [...]"Anyone that runs or plays D&D should be required to play Searchers of the Unknown for at least one session. It should come packaged on one sheet with every version of the game."
ReplyDeleteI don't listen to folks unable to separate opinion from fact and after reading this quote I see no reason to start. McDowell needs to think more and type less.
No need to get your knickers in a wad, Purvis. Unless you actually believe that Mr. McDowell is working on model legislation to be adopted to the Uniform Dungeoneer Code I'm willing to grant the dude a little hyperbole for rhetorical purposes.
DeleteIf it offends you otherwise you can pretty much assume that everything I say is prefaced with "It's my opinion that...".
DeleteThere are very few, if any, hard facts when it comes to RPG advice.
heeeey wooooow maybe you should cool out a bit there, Purvis.
ReplyDeletefor real he on some ad hominem ish
ReplyDeleteD&D is a state of mind. Searchers is a great ruleset which absolutely springs from that mindset. So it must be D&D.
ReplyDelete1) The loss of ability scores is something I could bear, but it would be hard. I like using stats to push my character in directions I normally wouldn't consider. I enjoy mechanical complexity. And the core 6 attributes in D&D sum up the human condition very neatly -- it's hard to think of a game that does it as well.
2) No-class-but-prestige-class is a spectacular idea.
These are my thought after reading SOTU and thinking about it after good nights sleep.
ReplyDelete1) Well, it sort of is like D&D. I mean you normally get ability score in range of 9-12 so it is pretty much the same, sometimes you get worse and DM has to step in and examine your character like Spartans examine babies in beginning of 300, It's rare occurance that you get character with dexterity score of 16 or high constitution that is straight up adventageous to your 1st level survival.
2) I don't really know about characters lacking class, I sort of get a vibe SOTU characters are fighting men and thieves. My players often play those classes and they would propably fall in to those archetypes when playing SOTU, I would too.
I would assume wizarding is option avaible out of scrolls and if you have been taught a spell you try to remember the magic words (Klaatu... verata... n... Necktie. Nectar. Nickel. Noodle) and when you finally utter the magic phrase it flushes itself out of your brain Vancian style. I would rule maximum of one spell per level.
To elaborate a little further in response to this:
ReplyDeleteI like using stats to push my character in directions I normally wouldn't consider. I enjoy mechanical complexity.
Ability scores in their capacity as "found objects," jumping-off points at the moment of character creation, are really imaginatively useful; no argument from me here. But what I'm most grateful for when it comes to Searchers is that it illustrated to me that in play - as opposed to when I'm effing around on the internet, thinking about RPGs - a great deal of mechanical complexity is socially dispensable. In other words, if a player wants to inhabit an especially physically powerful character in the absence of a number between 3 and 18 that quantifies her strength, we just have to arrive at a contextually manifest consensus on what "physically powerful character" means in the game - and we always can, because we're grown-ass people.
Regarding the class thing: As a DM, what energizes me most about Searchers' lack of a class structure is that it gets the rules out of the game's fictional world. In other words, different versions of D&D embed variously implicit or explicit assumptions about the game world's society, economy, cosmology, and so on in the rules: Searchers doesn't do this, but instead allows people like Jeff the headroom to dream up new character possibilities based on the material and affective conditions of the game world.
Quick addendum: Obviously Searchers still embeds assumptions about the game world in certain ways - equipment, for instance - but by doing away with class choices the game gets rid of one of the big ways games tell players what they're supposed to do. I've never had a moment in Searchers of thinking that perhaps I shouldn't try harebrained maneuver X, Y, or Z on account of my job description, and that makes for a lot more harebrained maneuvers.
DeleteIt's easy to forget, but *everything* mechanical can be dispensed with in play. We did it when we were 5 years old; we still have that ability. I'd love to put Searchers in the hands of a bunch of young'uns, maybe with an older person running things, and see what they came up with.
DeleteI do like the lack of character classes. Perhaps I'm just the Great Class Apostate, but I think you can have a thoroughly D&D game without ever including character classes -- they're just a bunch of premade decisions on things that, frankly, you can decide for yourself.
I participated in a play-by-post game using the "Searchers" rules at the OD&D Discussion forum. I have to say that I did not miss the presence of ability scores or classes; their absence encouraged more role playing and background development for the characters. The game was a lot of fun and very deadly; the DM was able to put together a very complex sword and sorcery sandbox using the simple rules set. The game is still in the archive (http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=burkesearcher) and is worth a look if you are interested in running "Searchers."
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your questions:
ReplyDelete1) The absence of The Great Six Stats is less disconcerting (to me) than either the lack of CLASS...though it would be MORE disconcerting if he'd renamed 'em a bunch of dumb names.
2) Again, I think character "class" is (along with level and XP) one of the very definitive things about D&D. Even without ability scores it is such an easy way to define a character and his/her arcetypal role in the fantasy world. The WHFRP style of profession-hopping is probably the thing I dislike the most about 3rd edition D&D (even in WHFRP it could lead to abuse a nonsensical combos). However, I am not "against" prestige classes per se (and think, with limits, they are a nice little addition/reward for PCs).
I think character "class" is (along with level and XP) one of the very definitive things about D&D.
ReplyDeleteThen maybe the question is: How important to you is it to be playing "D&D" rather than "Searchers of the Unknown"?
A D&D that is more rules-light than Dungeon Squad. I'd certainly try it.
ReplyDelete1. Is is still D&D without Stats?
Sure, I frequently see Str and Con merged into one stat so the holy six aren't as sacred as we think, more of a convenience or complacence thing. Still I do think the complete removal of stats takes away an avenue for you to describe your character and what they are capable of.
2. Having people start as a dirt farmer with a pointy stick and later earning or joining a class is a great idea that I'd love to try. If I'm not mistaken that's the whole point of DCC?