Rules Cyclopedia Oddities Part 5: Experience

I should sit here and write about something else. So here I am, writing about something else instead ... But did you ever think that the reputation D&D has for being about killing things and taking their stuff is unjustified? I did and there is yet another odd thing about the D&D Rules Cyclopedia that could shed some light on why that is so.

Just killing monsters and taking their stuff?

No, definitely not. Sure, you get xp for treasure and for defeating monsters and that makes a good portion of the low to mid-level game. But the fact of the matter is that you'll need far more juice than what you'll get for killing and looting once you enter, say, level 10 or higher. Actually, one wizard'll need to kill the equivalent of 455 red dragons or loot 4.350.000 gp (mix and match, of course) to reach level 36. That's ONE character. Just isn't happening by killing and looting alone.

On the contrary. Chapter 10: Experience is very illuminating in that regard. For starters, by concluding an adventure or quest, characters will get the amount xp they gained for defeating monsters during that quest again as a bonus. So just murderhoboing around won't double the monster xp like that. Finishing adventures does. And I agree, killing overcoming is still a motivator here. But the story gets a major highlight with those rules, so there you go.

And it doesn't stop with that. A character furthermore gets 1/20 of the base xp he needs to reach next level for "good role playing". A thief, for instance, needs 120.000 xp from level 16 to level 17 (incidentally that's also the level range between all following levels). 1/20 would mean 6.000 xp just like that per session. "Good role playing" covers a lot of ground here and you only get it once per session. But it shows the emphasis of the game towards playing a character well. And since it's individually connected to level, it's a bonus far easier to get on higher levels than killing beasties (a group of four characters without help would have to kill a monster worth 24.000 xp to get that kind of xp ...).

And here is the kicker. Characters also get 1/20 of the base xp they need to reach next level for Exceptional Actions, or in other words, clever play. It's also an award you can get more than once per session. Saving allies from harm or clever skill use are just two examples here. It sure is not an easy thing to achieve, but possible once per session. Especially in high level games, where wrong decisions will have a far bigger impact.

The book also advises to aim level advancement to every 5 sessions (with no indications how long one of those sessions might be ... I might have to check on that). Going with simple math here and the assumption that an experienced player is able to gain at least 1/10 of the base xp he needs to reach next level through role playing and clever play per session. And that means half the xp we'd need in 5 sessions (5/10) are not for fighting and killing and looting.

That'd be 60.000 xp for the thief mentioned above. The rest comes from defeating monsters, gaining treasure and fulfilling quests. If we take a third each here, that'd mean 20.000 xp for killing, quests and loot each. All in all killing and looting makes a third of the game, experience-wise. Two thirds is what you get for good and clever role playing and going on quests.

That's his 1/10 to reach next level right there!
The new equipment was a nice bonus, too ... [source]

Here is one last thing: Defeating Monsters and Gaining Treasure do not necessarily mean killing and looting. You don't need to kill a monster in D&D to gain the full xp award for overcoming it as a challenge. Actually, even losing a fight against a monster will net the characters a quarter of the monsters xp value just for facing it!

Now that's some stubborn rumor, I'd say!

I'm not saying there's no killing and looting in D&D or that it isn't fun (or can't be, anyway). But it is not what the game is about. Not by a long shot and not going by the rules. I'd think a DM might actually hurt his game, if he insists to reduce the game to it. It might work for the first couple of levels but it will get very difficult later on as the game shifts gears with huge amounts of xp between levels. That's the moment when those other aspects, like good role playing or going on quests, gain traction and need proper rewards.

You see, if the assumed mode of play as described above isn't established from the beginning, it'll be experienced as a different game as they hit mid-level and the players could lose interest because of that. Might very well be the reason why many campaigns won't last beyond levels 6 to 10 and that's a well known problem.

Anyway, this is a great experience system, allowing for several different ways of play and it's somewhat odd that people keep insisting on saying D&D 1e is nothing more but this or that. It's actually way more versatile than later editions managed to be (especially 3 and 4e) and not at all geared towards combat as ultimo ratio.

So what can we take away from this? How a DM rewards a game will give players an impression what sort of play is the most beneficial at the table and they'll start playing accordingly. It's something a DM needs to communicate as clear and careful as possible. Much of the same goes for a system: how experience is gained will have a huge impact on how a game is played. In case of the D&D RC I'd say play it as written and see what happens. It won't be the D&D some would make you believe it is.

If you liked this post, you might want to check out the other oddities in this series. Comments are, as always, very welcome. Especially if they praise the Rules Cyclopedia :)

Rules Cyclopedia Oddities Part 4: Race as Class

I know, I know, other posts have been promised (about combat in The Grind and the RC light character sheet variant) and I assure you, they will happen very soon. But this one has been long coming: me entering the fray about the decades old discussion if "race as class" is a good concept or not. It is not really a phenomenon solely associated with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, but AD&D was long done with the idea when the D&D RC set the exclamation mark for 1e. So let's talk about that for a second or two ...

Race as Class?

See, I never got the argument that Race as Class is restricting, because the whole idea that humans are more diverse than the other races never was the main focus to begin with. It's rather about giving a DM a vanilla assortment of choices and the fiat to make his own campaign out of it. So if anything, by not seeing the possibilities you'd not only end up restricting yourself, you'd also missed the point of making the game your own.

The flood of material back then, with all the variant classes and what not, could have given you a hint or two and one argument that comes up very regularly (justifiably so) is that you could just as easily exchange halfling with, I don't know, pygmy or mushroom people, getting a new option for your game just like that and just as your campaign needs it. It's a nice exercise if you haven't done it yet, rename all the classes and change from default to, I don't know, weird.

Or why not make it a Blinkling? [source]

Or go one step further and experiment with the advantages. So the halfling gets a great advantage hiding in natural environments and I'd keep that for the mushroom folks. Maybe the indoor advantage, too, because they are as small. But I'd make Constitution and Wisdom the main ability scores and give them a +1 for saves versus magic instead of that attack bonus (and keep the bonus to AC and initiative. It's little things, but they make a difference.

For the next stage after that you will need some experience with the system or at least some major play-testing. But it is possible to make that dwarven cleric or an elven barbarian as class options and at it's base not that different to taking the bonus a class gets and relabeling it (like with the bonus to saves versus magic above), only now you take a close look at what other classes do and extrapolate it towards what you want.

You'd have to test a bit with the xp range here to keep it balanced, but you'll usually find out fast enough if it works or not. D&D can take a lot crossfire like that as a system and as nice as it is to have it all balanced, I'd always prefer to tinker with it and re-calibrate if it doesn't work.

But you don't actually need to do that if you are reading this right now, because there is a guy out there who did all the heavy lifting, broke all the classes into little pieces and made a huge LEGO kit for you to build your own stuff with. That guy is +Erin Smale and you'll not only find all you need for

Building The Perfect Class

on his blog Breeyark!, he also went ahead and revised his (perfectly working) concept recently with the post Building A More Perfect Class, at least streamlining it a bit and working on some of the problem he saw with the original (which I've used for years without any problems, so YMMV). Seriously good stuff. Guy needs to get an Arneson Award for that, or something. Genius.

It illustrates two major points for the Race as Class concept rather well, in my opinion:

1. It's not about what you play ...

... it is (and this is really important) about how many xp you need to get to the next level (and how many levels there are). It's a part of D&D that really got the boot from D&D 3e onward, but I think it's a brilliant design choice. Capable characters don't just need more xp to achieve their next level, they need experienced players, too, if it was to work at all.

See, this is crucial. At least in our campaign it was. You sure could play an elf or a barbarian with all their special abilities and what-not, but you really should be up to the task. Conversely, if a very able player chose to play something like, say, a thief, he'd get very powerful very fast (if you award player skill as per pages 127 to 129  of the RC, that is*), as they gather xp for role playing and exceptional actions with ease and help gathering more gold and kills on average while needing less to advance further ...

So the xp-range of a class gave, to some extent, the level of player skill needed to play a class effectively, getting more difficult the higher it was and made it easier on the other side for inexperienced players the lower it got. I think that's brilliant. In the end we had some very low entry classes that proofed too easy on experienced players and just about right for newbies (the Noble, the Pilgrim and the Goblin Soldier) and some very high end classes (not as high as the classic D&D elf, though) like the Barbarian, The Dwarven Elite or the Prince Charming (who is at the end of this post) and they worked very well for the experienced players at the table.

[Edit:] Another thought supporting this theory just occurred to me: You can't earn more xp than you need to gain your next level and that's a great benefit to a skilled player going for a huge xp range. In other words, the huge amounts of xp a skilled group could gather is no use to those playing with a lower xp range, since they'd have advanced just as easy with less ... And if you look at the numbers, you can see what Gygax meant when he said the character gets a soul (or some such thing) beyond level 6, because that's around the time where playing the character will net you more xp than killing and looting!

But level limits are another important aspect. This is not about finding reasons to make them work in a game, it's about math. With a lower level range (or in other words: other classes being able to get higher in level) the average xp needed for the next level will also be lower, because the class is actually weaker than others.

So it is very well possible to have human character classes with level caps. The Noble, for instance, would travel the world until he reaches name level to assume his title and the Pilgrim would end his pilgrimage at name level (with an option to become a saint, but that's another story).

But back to the original point. Level limits allowed players to have characters with lots of powerful abilities (those saves alone!) with acceptable xp ranges by limiting the level range. I honestly admire that design. And it's one argument less against Race as Class.

Think about it! [source]

2. It's also about customizing your campaign

I have to thank +Edward Ortiz at this point for pushing me in the right direction here (he's also doing a tremendous job in world building over at his blog Dungeons and Dutch Ovens ... highly recommended). Race as Class, or really all the vanilla options you get as basics in the D&D RC, are just options to expand upon.

You got the first prestige class with the Druid, there is a Mystic to loot for abilities and a complete bestiary of humanoids to loot for ideas, with guidelines how to give them magic and what they'd be able to cast. And that's just going by the book. Add Mystara or Hollow World options or whatever the  (still striving, btw) fan base came up with and you'll have hundreds of options.

But do it yourself and the sky is the limit, really. You customize your campaign from the very beginning, just like described above, and you'll have the very individual voice of the game supported by the system you use.

You could say now that you'd be just as able to do that with later editions (or other games, for that matter). And I agree. But, as always with the generic versus the specific, when everything is possible, you'll have to limit options to get a specific result and that's never popular (also thousands of splat books from AD&D onwards would try so nonetheless, often by allowing way too powerful options to make it appealing**).

Seeing race as another LEGO piece, on the other hand, just opens up lots and lots of options. You add instead of limiting and you add within the terms you set. We had a gimmick of "unlocking" classes in our game. One day the group managed to befriend a tribe of goblins and goblin warriors where willing to join the group from then on, so the Goblin Warrior class was unlocked.

You make it as you go along in the campaign and the result will always be more personalized than anything you could have bought. Your players will thank you for it.

So: Race as Class? Yes, please!

It seems like an odd thing to have in a game and I'm pretty sure there aren't many games out there doing that the way they did it here. Actually, it got changed because it wasn't popular, not because it was bad design and I think it's, to this day, one of the most underrated and misunderstood system choices in early D&D.

The more I get exposed to this version of D&D, the more I appreciate the thought that was put into the designs here. I know, all of this is a matter of taste and some of it a matter of debate. But you'll have a hard time arguing that this isn't good design.

If you liked this post, you might want to check out the other oddities in this series. Comments are, as always, very welcome. Especially if they praise the Rules Cyclopedia :)

---------------------------------------

* Player skill would have a capable player score far more often than not multiple times per session in all categories. Here is another oddity for you: a character will earn 1/20 of the complete sum he needs to reach the next level every time he scores in those categories. So a great player should be able to achieve another level with ease within, say, three sessions (maybe faster), even without gold as xp and killing monsters. Furthermore (and this is where it really gets interesting) having the value they earn not as a fixed rate but depending on the level a character is on, shifts the game on higher level dramatically from killing and looting to, I kid you not, role playing. How about that ...

** Damn, this fits very well into the whole frame of mind that is commercializing the hobby: rather break the game to make another splat book than to actually think about a proper design. I think it explains a lot.

The Devil's Dare (Dungeon's and Drunkards: Deleted Scenes)

So this is a little something I wrote some time back for my part of the Dungeon & Drunkards community project and it didn't make the cut for some reason or another. Now, reading it again, I started thinking it could be fun to allow it in a friendly game of D&D, maybe if beer is already a heavy motivator for the game anyway. I kept it for an occasion where I hit a dry spell on the blog. There are several other posts in line to get done (some I went as far as announcing them even), but I'm way behind right now (or: as usual) and thought this made a nice filler ...

The Devil’s Dare (a house rule for being dangerously drunk): This might produce all kinds of involuntary actions, but might also result in characters just boasting what they’d really like to do before they end up lying in the gutter puking their guts out. This is intentional. Players should lose some control over their character’s actions if they decide to go on a binge and there should be a good possibility to get into trouble, too. A DM should start this as a harmless enough drinking game of daring and go from there, escalating it as much as possible. To make this work, all parties involved have to agree that the characters already are a bit plastered and are willing to do stupid things ...

It's all about bad ideas ... but with beer! [source]

So here goes. Every time in an adventure when the characters decide to get drunk, they may dare each other into stupid actions (it works fine to start an adventure, too). This is a mix of many of the ideas in the original post (linked above), inspired by movies like Hangover or Project X and a players' gambit as they (somewhat) decide how drunk they want to be to attempt the dare. The payoff (xp) gets higher the more drunk they decide to be, but comes with a chance to pass out before it even started. 

A failed save vs. poison -2 initiates the daring and decides which characters get in the mood. At this point the characters already have some buzz going (-2 to attributes/attacks/ saves/damage, +2 to AC and HP)*. The characters that made their save suggest the dare, those that failed agree to it. If all failed their save, the DM is to suggest the direction of a dare. In both cases start with rolling 1D6 to suggest something:

• (1) dangerous
• (2) embarrassing
• (3) illegal (by law or religion)
• (4) story/rumor-related
• (5) destructive
• (6) reckless

If a player won’t have the dare for his character, another save is allowed, but with a -3 this time (being a bit more drunk and all that, they never stopped drinking ...). Failing this second roll will result in adding another complication to the roll (roll another 1D6 on the table above). There’s no upper limit to the number of saves, but it’s getting the character more and more drunk and adds a suggestion every time and every fail with a -4 or more will send the character under the table. A passed out character might be carried along for the fun and might even gain back some consciousness to participate, drink on or run for his life ...

Multiply every xp gained with the penalty the characters got. A player may decide to get more drunk and still get through with the dare, but has to make a save for every penalty of -4 or higher to not pass out on the way there. A penalty of -x always goes with -x to attributes/ attacks/saves/damage, +x to AC and HP. So yeah, if a character manages to kill a dragon being stupid drunk (say, -4) he gets four times as much xp as he'd get sober. And if he passes out, he gets funny pictures tattooed on his face or burned to a crisp (dragons not being known for their humor and all that).

If all of them manage to pass out, they’ll wake up with no idea where they are or what they've done (DM’s discretion).


I hope +Charles Akins approves. This is (as written above) wildly untested, but every role player or DM worth his salt should be able to make something out of this. People should be harsh, relentless and creative about what they suggest for the other players to do. Make it tough, make it illegal or make it embarrassing, but remember it's all about having fun. Doesn't hurt to be clear about those rules at the beginning of a game.

Other than that, tell me what you think or, if you went as far as testing it, how it went. 


*Following a concept described in that post linked above (and now here, too) and based on the rules for being stunned from the D&D Rules Cyclopedia (page 150), but assuming that it involves a gradual process, starting at -1 for a slight buzz and stopping wherever a character decides to pass out, with getting sober being the reversed same process. For more detail read the RC or/and the original post about alcohol in the editions of D&D ... 

Level Advancement in Lost Songs of the Nibelungs (with some D&D RC in it)

We are now several play-tests into exploring if level zero game works or not. It does and I got no reason to find more excuses to delay digitizing what I have on my desk for more than three six months now: the rules for advancing characters in Lost Songs of the Nibelungs (cue for epic music ...)! So this is the first version of how characters will advance in that grim Dark Ages fantasy heart-breaker of mine.

A Difficult Birth

Okay, I thought I'd write a few words how difficult it was (for me, at least) to put this together. One would think that Level Advancement just needs a way to earn experience and another way to spend it and gain levels that express the different shades of power. That's true, of course, and it should be very true for a Domain Master and his players.

But behind the scenes it can get messy. The thing is, do something right and no one will notice, but make a mistake and people will not stop telling you. So in an ideal case I'll set up this system and no one will notice it because it's intuitive and runs smooth in the background. To make this even possible, I need a complete overview of the game. And that's a hen/egg story, really. I need an overview to test it, but also need to test it to get an overview. See what I mean?

Anyway, next thing you know is that you are writing a huge post that is all over the place. I still discover areas that need some further exploring. But that is to some extent the reason for writing those development posts. So here goes an early system. Most of it tested one way or another, some of it as just a consequence of the tested and a small part untested. Let me know what you think.

Level Advancement (compared to the  D&D RC)

Next weekend I aim to put up a post connecting all the dots, but for now I'll just get the proper advancement for the game out there and talk a bit about it. The basic idea was and has always been to take the class based system we all know from, say, the D&D Rules Cyclopedia and break it into digestible pieces, with the hope to end up with a hybrid system that is somewhere between a class-based structure (like D&D) and a completely modular structure (like, say, GURPS). A system where it's easy enough to specialize but just as easy to diversify.

All that needed to be balanced and has to work with the system I already got. Some quick notes how all is this still (if by a thin thread) connected to D&D. I basically assigned the D&D RC class abilities to 6 areas of expertise (3 physical: Do, Fight, Endure and 3 mental: Learn, Meddle and Cast) which correlate with the 6 Qualities (think ability scores) of the game.

Next step was to fracture this even more to allow a balanced development across the 10 levels a character can achieve in the game, so all of those 6 areas got 5 levels of advancement, with 1, 2 or even (in one case) 3 options per advancement and area. That meant that someone could specialize completely in two areas (2 times 5) but with enough wiggle room to end up with a different character than another player choosing the same path.

But first things first. Here is the promised Level Advancement:

Open in new tab for details!

Back to the D&D RC. To make this comparable, I'd need to be able to "simulate" a basic class with Lost Songs. This is where it gets a little more abstract. Take a fighter, for example. Through the editions you'd say he has a focus on fighting and enduring. A high level Magic User could nuke a whole group to oblivion, but the high level fighter has a chance to still stand after a hefty punishment, most of the time even with enough punch left to kick some ass.

So this is hat I needed here. A character that advances only in Fight and Endure will end up knowing legendary combat techniques, will have lots of combat dice (so he's fast and brutal) and will also have more Health and Endurance and a way better physical condition than the others. That'll do, I think.

It's also easy. Thieves turned out be way more difficult, of course. Do and Learn with one or two advancements in Fight should do the trick, then. It goes on like that. Magic User? Cast and Learn. Cleric? Take the complete Meddle and mix Fight and Endure. It's all there!

But the beauty is (sorry if I get a bit carried away here ...), well, the beauty is, you can mix it as you please. The only two requirements are that the advancements need to stack and that you can't take 2 advancements of the same level and the same area. Other than that you are free to advance the character as you see fit, one advancement per level.

More in a few days when I paint the big picture from creating a character over gaining experience up to advancing, sprinkled with some new ideas about Oracle Dice and Magic.

That's it for now

But the thing is complex enough on it's own. And although D&D was an inspiration along the way, I believe I managed to come up with something different in the end. I have to say, this was by now the hardest part to get done. Face to face restart tomorrow and leveling up will be a topic very soon. Then I'll see how the players take it ...

Comments are, as always, very welcome. What do you guys think of this?

XP for Treasure (sneaking up on Level Advancement in Lost Songs of the Nibelungs)

Level Advancement for Lost Songs of the Nibelungs is a monster to write. Who would have thought (my guess? everyone knew, nobody told me). Anyway. I could go for big-ass monster post with thousand different ideas and directions (as I do by default more often than not, I'm afraid) or sneak up on that bastard to get double damage on the final delivery ... Yeah, let's try that last one and start with something related and harmless like "xp for treasure". It's also something that could easily be swapped for D&D (and friends), so that's good. Right?

XP for treasure doesn't work

For me at least. The very idea that gaining wealth is somehow connected to getting more experienced in life somehow sits wrong with me. I know, I know, it's about what you had to do to get that treasure. I get that. Same difference. For me it's more about how to spend it and that's how I did it in my D&D games. Characters got xp for carousing. And if that meant economies breaking down and people getting fat and decadent wherever characters decided to leave thousands and thousands of gold coins, so be it. That's part of the fun.

Well, it doesn't work that way for Lost Songs. Mostly because it's a somewhat historical setting and you can't always expect to find huge amounts of gold and get the opportunity to spend it all without travelling thousands of kilometers to the next metropolis (like Rome or Constantinople) beforehand. No, it really doesn't work that way. Sure, they party and all that, but it's a community thing.

Characters also got obligations to their tribe. Imagine, your parents and other families just like them, settled where they are right now just a few years ago. They sure could use all the valuables they can get their hands on. And there are gods to honor, don't forget that. Never forget that, actually. They could really get pissed. And finally there are those that helped your tribe getting where they are to begin with: the leaders and warriors (and the gods, of course, just to be sure ...).

This was not about spending or giving, this was about balance. You honor your guests to be honored when you are a guest. You honor your gods and leaders and families to get honored by them in return. So you don't bought that sword you got, you either received it as a gift or as battle trophy. It's a very different kind of thinking, but I believe a game like Lost Songs will benefit from such little details a great deal (same should be true for most fantasy games, actually).

Honoring your host for fun and profit 

Presents can be anything from pelts to war trophies from Monsters, simply gold and jewelry (but, you know, that stuff is not just laying around, it all got a history and what not), fancy weaponry, even hostages or exotic animals! A Good Will Save will determine how well those presents are received. It's just one Save, the group needs to decide who has to do that role, but the effect will be on all characters. So if the Save fails, the whole group looses some Wyrd. The gift is still accepted for it's value, but it will affect the course of their stay. A table about it might look like this (early test material):

Open in new tab for a closer look ...

The worth players invest in their tribe and the honor the tribe feels for receiving it will influence everything else that happens between quests. Players will at least get what they invested in Gold as xp and will be able to advance, but if the reception is poor, it might lead to ill will that will further damage the groups ability scores one way or another.

The idea here is to allow the blooming of a narrative for their stay at home, without it taking too much time. They arrive and honor the host (Good Will Save), Carousing (random table to decide if oracle dice get involved and/or opportunities arise) and advancement takes place.

After that the characters are back on the road, fully equipped for their new quest by their tribe ...

A final word on "oracle dice" and D&D-ifying

This is mentioned in passing on the document and right now it's nothing more than a loose concept. But I found it needs a random dynamic for the DM to use actively in the game (most of it is dealt with by active/passive player rolls). Oracle dice will be a random tool for the DM to see how the machinations of the world gear towards (or against) the characters. So with Tasks and Saves influencing characters on the player-side (changing Qualities and so on), there'll be a third roll doing very much the same on the DM-side of things. It'll even be possible to directly attack/threaten Qualities beyond what Saves already do ... But that's a post on it own.

If you use this system with D&D (and friends) you basically use the same procedures: one player offers the gift (roll appropriate Ability Score, like Wisdom or Charisma), keep everything regarding xp and change the effects to penalties or boni for reaction rolls. I'd use -4 after a critical fail, -2 with a normal fail, nothing for a success and a +2 for a critical success. Please let me know if you try this at home ...

The following weekend I'll post some more about Level Advancement and how to make a random character in Lost Songs. Also need to write a post about getting those xp :)

Witches, Warlocks, Souls On The Cheap... (Dark Thoughts 1)

Power corrupts. We know that. And there are always those that will feed from those with power. We know that, too. What is always good to remember, though, is how sweet an evil and corrupted soul tastes to a demon. It's something they cultivate like a viniculturist his vine. And it is a delicate art indeed to harvest the tainted soul at it's peak, either at a moment of regret or just the moment before they got too powerful. This first post about the machinations of evil will illustrate how the weak may be corrupted. It's system agnostic and could be used with every system that uses ability scores and xp for level advancement. Be warned, this will give the game a very dark turn*. So: magic users may become witches or warlocks by selling their soul. Her are my thoughts.

The Pitch

A human** magic user may sell his soul, if the opportunity arises. The decision alone will shift a lawful character's alignment towards neutral. If the requirements are fulfilled, they just gain the next level with all the benefits and powers associated with it (hp, spells, etc.). No xp needed. A character may start doing this at level 1 or on higher levels. If he enters later, he'll only have to pay the price needed for the located level. A demon may offer special powers for those prices not yet used up to level 5 (see below), so if a character is already, for instance, level 4, he might buy special powers instead of the levels he already has. If a demon sees a possibility to get away cheap, he will do so, of course.

The Lower Price Ranges

and Special Offers (enter at ANY level!)

Notes: A demon will naturally never talk about the consequences or the fine print. It's always just "I really only need the memory of your first kiss to make this happen! You won't need it anyway and you'll be so much more powerful afterwards...". Always leading a character nicely in the wrong direction to screw him up. And even if a character is only using it to gain a one-time benefit, the demon just won't let him alone and the dark deeds accompanied with it will fall back on the character somehow, someday.

A pleasant memory - shift alignment towards chaotic, if this shifts the alignment beyond chaotic, the player needs to succeed in a save vs. death or he looses control over the character (who is then considered "evil" and going for the next 1d6+2 levels in this list), gain level 2

Special offer: By giving the entity a pleasant memory, a character gains the ability to always float on water instead of drowning. If that isn't enough a demon might add a spell slot more or two. The character will still shift alignment.

A first kiss - loose 1d4 points CON permanently, gain level 3

Special offer: Giving away this memory will make the character immune to the effects of fear. He'll still loose CON.

Ambition - the character has sold his complete soul now and may only gain xp when following the orders of his demon lord, gain level 4

Special offer: The character gets the ability to control undead as a cleric would. Of course he'll only gain xp when doing his demon lords bidding from now on. Now the gloves come off...

--------------------------------

An unholy union - gives birth to a demons child, this is gender indifferent (be creative), gain level 5

A friend - kill someone that trusts you, gain level 6

A virgin - sacrifice a virgin (nothing fancy for the ritual needed), gain level 7

A child - kill it, let it feel the pain, gain level 8

An unborn - get it out of the mother, make the mother realize what happens, kill both, gain level 9

Build unholy shrine - needs the sacrifice of at least 20 hd of some innocents, half of them need to be consumed, the character will have an uncanny appetite for young human flesh after that, gain level 10

The Fine Print

Every level gained like this will have the character loose (1 + half the level gained) points Charisma. If this is reduced to 1 the character is considered hideous (with all the attributes you'd give a witch, nose, warts, cackle and all) and further losses will instead reduce Wisdom by 2 points per further level gained this way. After reducing Wisdom to 1, the character ages 10 years per level gained. They won't die because of old age, though, they'll just look incredibly old, fragile and ugly...

An entity powerful enough to grant this powers won't allow the ones it granted those powers to become more powerful than they are themselves, of course. They'd rather arrange an accident and claim their price. Sometimes the victims get wise, though, and fight back. Best way to do that is killing the demon lord that owns your soul, gaining it's power in the process. Betraying the demon also has a nice ring to it. Someone like this might become a demon himself (it has to start somewhere, I guess). Other, more creative solutions are always possible, too.

Up to gaining level 5 a character sells only parts of his soul. If he gets the complete package including level 5 he has sold his soul complete. Being already level 5 or higher, means he'd have to sell his entire soul to gain the next level. A character level 1 that wants to buy any other level but the next, will have to pay for the levels in between, too.

If a character is able to recover his soul, he will, of course, loose all benefits he gained by selling it. The crimes he did will remain, though, and he is still accountable for them..

Regular Advancement

A DM or player might want to keep a separate tally for regular gained xp. For calculating regular advancement, the xp for the levels gained by selling the soul will count as if gained regular, too, and all other xp are added to this. So if a character has earned 2500 xp and bought 4 levels he have 22.500 xp and he'll need 17.500 xp to get level 6. If he would gain 5.000 xp more and decides nevertheless to buy level 6, his new xp tally would be 47.500 xp (as per the Rules Cyclopedia).

*Clarifications: If a player is foolish enough to sell his soul to a demon or devil, it has to have dire consequences. I'm not proposing this for the players to have fun "being evil", but to make them realize what "being evil" may entail. So this is to produce tension and maybe to see how far they'd go. But it's entirely possible too use this just for NPCs. In the end, it's a DMs choice what and how much of it he is willing to use in his campaign. My stance on this and further thoughts are found here.

**How this is handled for other humanoid races depends on the campaign world. Elves might have no soul to sell and all that.

Spending Gold BIG TIME (The Career)

After writing this post about gold in a D&D game (mostly because of the comments...), reading this post about expeditions over at The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms and, maybe, because I also read this post about fast and slow megadungeon levels at Semper Initiativus Unum, I realized what I needed in my game to avoid an inflation of gold and treasure.

Doesn't matter how much gold they have...

I believe every class needs a goal to reach for name level, like adventurers need some sort of goal in an adventure. So from now on a player has to decide, either during character creation or before he starts burning gold for xp, what kind of career he has in mind for the character (The Settlement, The Expedition, The Business, The War, The Office). So here is the twist: upon deciding that, the gold exchanged for xp might be used for carousing (limited, partying hard has limits) or into the Career (that is making contacts, bribing official, investing for equipment, etc.; limited, doing so costs time). 

Five Careers (there could be more)

The Settlement - Or castle or thieving guild (those could arguably be more The Office...) or wizards tower, etc.. Just like the domain game in D&D intended it to happen at Name Level.

The Expedition - Aiming for a funded expedition into uncharted territory.

The Business - Financing some sort of major enterprise (a fleet of trading ships, whatever). Halflings especially go for this career (as per this reasoning).

The War - Working on getting a private army (or being leader of an official one) to wage a war!

The Office - Planning to become some sort of official, like a politician, a sheriff or the leader of a congregation.

Triggering Careers

There are two ways to trigger the effects of a career (expedition gets funded, land for the castle, etc.). Either it happens at Name Level or as soon as at least half of the xp needed to gain name level are invested in the career (which should be close enough anyway...).

Inheritance is possible, but only two thirds of the investments might be saved for a new character. The rest gets lost in the process. What is inherited, however, does not count for the new character's level, only for the career (which could lead to a very inexperienced character in a leading position... and I think that's a good thing, from a DM's point of view).

Changing a career is only is possible after the current career is either fulfilled (you could be an explorer and then a politician, go to war after that and, later, be a politician again) or if the money invested considered as lost (a character would have to start investing anew). Same goes for inherited investments. The next career will also need at least half the xp needed (in gold) to reach Name Level, before it gets triggered (yes, even for careers after name level is reached...). Bigger investments should trigger bigger careers (need to think more about that aspect*).

If an investment triggers the first career, reaching Name Level won't trigger a second career for "free". Reaching Name Level will only have an effect, if investment into it hasn't triggered it yet.

Just a rough sketch...

It still needs some more thought about some of the specifics, but I think a system like that could put at least some focus on the mid level game. And just with a little bookkeeping, at that. Plus, a career isn't coming cheap. If the characters have no money at all, the career starts at Name Level, if they have to much of it, they might as well burn it for that, too.

Playing a game like Rules Cyclopedia, with a scope of 36 levels (!), I believe it's important to give the players some strong indications how the game will change with the characters getting stronger. Traditionally, Name Level is one of those points in the game (it's a well known fact that it actually changes at levels 5 or 6, but anyway...). Careers give players not only indications, they let them choose what the mid level game (and later) is about. It gives perspective, a goal the characters are aiming for ("I want that island!" "I want to explore the wilderness in the north!" "I want to rule a city one day!" "...!"). For a DM it has all kinds of advantages (no need to regulate treasure, knows where a campaign (in general) might be headed, which should help DMing the game in terms of flavor, treasure, etc.).

I also believe, that a game like D&D should be able to be a war game, a domain game, about economics or power struggles on bigger scale than Player vs. Environment, at least later in the game.

What do you think?

*My thinking, to give an example: In a Domain Game (The Settlement Career), invested money is xp for the settlement, leading to growth (as indicated in my Settlement as Class post over here). It's a bigger picture every day, but sometimes dots get connected, too ;)