New, Magic Free Game

[Captainocaptain]

Ok, so my last game flopped. I just ran out of story materials way too fast. I am still pretty new to GMing. Anyway, I was elected the next game's GM (again) and I think I have a pretty good idea for a game that I think everyone would enjoy, but i need some help. Thus I turn to my fellow playgrounders.
The idea is a game set in England, in a sudo-post-aurthurian, Feudal time. The players would be noblemen, soldiers, or just commoners, who through some strange circumstance end up working together.
The story is as such (this is just a rough outline): The King of the land is dead (that would be Aurthur), and the country is in turmoil. Nobles are taking this opportunity to expand their own land, and some even see themselves as the next king. To make matters worse, the French have decided to invade and steal the land from the now weakened England. The players are caught in the middle of this power struggle. It is their job to defend the land (from the invaders), keep the peasants safe (from evil marauding Barons and petty nobles), and re-unite the kingdom.
What I really need is a good system. I have some house rules for D&D 3.5 I think will work really well, but if there is a better system, please tell me.
Thanks to everyone who can help.
Here are the houserules by the way:
Some of these are borrowed from other sources (the homebrew section has been very helpful)
1) Everyone plays a human. Humans have their original racial traits plus +2 to 1 Ability score.
2) No class or race restrictions on feats.
3) No multiclass penalties
4) No magic, Full magic classes are not playable, semi-magical classes just lose their magic (ie: No Wizard, but Ranger is OK)
5) No Paladins
6) Fighters give 1 feat every level
7) Players gain feats every odd numbered level (1,3,5,7,9)
8) Ability scores increase every 3 levels (instead of every 4)
9) All skills are class skills
10) Concentration, Use Magic Device, and Spellcraft do not exist (obviously)
11) Players gain a Misc. Bonus to AC equal to 1/2 their Base Attack Bonus, rounded down.
If i think of any more, or get any suggestions, I'll update this list.

Thank you for any and all feedback!

[Milskidasith]

Ok, so my last game flopped. I just ran out of story materials way too fast. I am still pretty new to GMing. Anyway, I was elected the next game's GM (again) and I think I have a pretty good idea for a game that I think everyone would enjoy, but i need some help. Thus I turn to my fellow playgrounders.
The idea is a game set in England, in a sudo-post-aurthurian, Feudal time. The players would be noblemen, soldiers, or just commoners, who through some strange circumstance end up working together.
The story is as such (this is just a rough outline): The King of the land is dead (that would be Aurthur), and the country is in turmoil. Nobles are taking this opportunity to expand their own land, and some even see themselves as the next king. To make matters worse, the French have decided to invade and steal the land from the now weakened England. The players are caught in the middle of this power struggle. It is their job to defend the land (from the invaders), keep the peasants safe (from evil marauding Barons and petty nobles), and re-unite the kingdom.
What I really need is a good system. I have some house rules for D&D 3.5 I think will work really well, but if there is a better system, please tell me.
Thanks to everyone who can help.
Here are the houserules by the way:
Some of these are borrowed from other sources (the homebrew section has been very helpful)
1) Everyone plays a human. Humans have their original racial traits plus +2 to 1 Ability score.
2) No class or race restrictions on feats.
3) No multiclass penalties
4) No magic, Full magic classes are not playable, semi-magical classes just lose their magic (ie: No Wizard, but Ranger is OK)
5) No Paladins
6) Fighters give 1 feat every level
7) Players gain feats every odd numbered level (1,3,5,7,9)
8) Ability scores increase every 3 levels (instead of every 4)
9) All skills are class skills
10) Concentration, Use Magic Device, and Spellcraft do not exist (obviously)
11) Players gain a Misc. Bonus to AC equal to 1/2 their Base Attack Bonus, rounded down.
If i think of any more, or get any suggestions, I'll update this list.

Thank you for any and all feedback!

No concentration hurts ToB characters.

[Captainocaptain]

Oh, sorry, completely forgot to mention. If we use D&D basically the only rule books we are going to use are the PHB I, DMG, and MM (only the animals section).
The players would be pretty much limited to base classes and maybe a PrC.
Sorry for forgetting to say that in the first place.

[Project Icarus]

No concentration hurts ToB characters.

Really? Really? That's all you have to say? Needless to say, if they were using Tome of Battle, he would probably know that already.

Anyway, if I were going to run a game like that, Captain, I would go for 4E and just use the martial classes. You could grab the Martial Power book too, to give your players more options. That would work really well because you could account for all the roles in combat without the need of magical healing.
Now, I don't usual GM 4E, but it's really easy to grasp for beginners in case you or your players haven't tried it out before. The only foreseeable problem in my opinion is the lack of any enemies in the MM. You might have to stat some enemies up on your own. But other than that, I'd strongly suggest 4E.

If you don't want to mess around with 4E at all, you'd have to come up with an alternative system for healing if you planned on having a standard D&D game with more than one encounter per day. Of course, you could go a more simulationist route and say that one encounter per day is about all a group of knights (or what have you) could handle in a day, and they would have to recover afterwards.
You could also look into the Injury or Vitality and Wound Point systems found here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm

Hope that helps!

[Optimystik]

The magic-less Ranger and Paladin variants are in CWar.

Tome of Battle might be a bit much for an "Arthurian" game by my lights. But that leaves the problem of letting players do more in combat than say "I full-attack."

[Captainocaptain]

Actually we have some interesting character ideas already. That lead to many strategies. (someone wants to play a knight specializing in mounted combat, another wants to play a martial style archer, and we also have a friar tuck style monk, no one else has voiced an idea yet)
My only issue with 4e is that all the powers and whatnot really makes it hard to believe they are normal, really awesome, but normal, people.
Healing should not be too much of an issue actually. I just a simple system of 1 HP recovers every minute. So as long as the character has less than 480 HP, a single 8 hour rest will bring them up to full HP. Unless there is a reason for the players to be out of commission for a long period of time (broken leg, arm, etc.) then I think the healing will work fine.
Also, it is a non-player-scaled world, so many of the encounters they will face they should be able to reasonably defeat at even 1/4 hp. Since most battle in Feudal times was done by peasants, any knight worth his sword would mow down rows of them at a time.
EDIT: Also, I am hoping by giving them more feats, it will encourage versatility.

[amanamana]

Just use Iron Heroes, if you are bent on D20.

[Akal Saris]

Iron Heroes would indeed work well for this if the OP can find the books anywhere.

It's D&D 3.5 but with no magic. Set in the Dark Ages to late medieval periods, using classes that rely on tokens for abilities - so each time you hit a guy, you get a token, and you can spend 3 tokens to do a special attack, for example.

[Lost Wanderer]

I'd like to point out that, of the 11 core classes you have access to, you have banned 5 of them outright, 2 of them make little thematic sense (that would be Barbarian and Monk; substituting a Christian monk with D&D Monk powers is very theme breaking. There aren't even that many Christians around immediately post-Arthur. Celts sorta kinda might work as Barbarians, but they wouldn't be helping the English at this time). Of the other 4, one (Ranger) loses a (fairly minor, admittedly) class feature and gets nothing to replace it, one (Rogue) has a normally very fun and reasonably useful class feature (Evasion) rendered pretty much useless (not that big a deal, really), one (Bard) loses somewhere between half and 80% of its abilities (depending upon if Bardic Music counts as "magic" and is banned) leaving it in the same niche as, and simultaneously vastly inferior to, the Rogue (this would be less true if it weren't for the "all skills are class skills" rule) and one (Fighter) gets a seemingly substantial boost (even more extra feats!) that, because this is core-only, really isn't very much of one, seeing as Fighters run out of interesting and useful core feats to take around mid-levels already.

Healing... eh. Just make sure to not describe combat damage as wounds unless its a crippling or killing blow. I suggest thinking of HP as a combination of fatigue and morale.

A world that isn't player-scaled is great, I love it, but... it's hard to do well, especially in D&D. Why is mowing down rows of peasants interesting, anyway? "My turn? I Power Attack for full, Cleave through the six guys by me, five foot step with Great Cleave and Cleave the next 3. Done." And this will be possible almost immediately, because Fighters will have Feats shooting out their ears.

Concentration has non-spellcasting uses. They're few and far between, but technically exist. You're supposed to roll it when trying to maintain focus on a complex task while under attack or otherwise extremely distracted. Since most GMs ignore that anyway, you're probably ok there.

Arthurian canon is full of magic. Arthur has a super magic sword, a wizard buddy, an evil sorceress as a major foe, spirit allies, spirit enemies and possibly divine power, just to name a few things. So if you're going for "Arthurian"... why no magic?

So yeah. Unless the game is going to be mostly about RP, with combat as something that happens every couple of sessions when someone screws up (and if that's true, why all the rules affecting stat ups and feats?), my suggestion is to use a different system. Or maybe look up Iron Heroes, like the people who posted as I was writing this said.

[Kalirren]

Pendragon comes to mind, just because you mention the Arthurian saga.

[Ozymandias9]

Arthurian canon is full of magic. Arthur has a super magic sword, a wizard buddy, an evil sorceress as a major foe, spirit allies, spirit enemies and possibly divine power, just to name a few things. So if you're going for "Arthurian"... why no magic?

Because most characters that are natural choices to model PCs after do not use magic directly. If you're looking for a human magic user in Arthurian legend, you're very limited.

Moreover, if you're looking to add magic in, the basic function of magic in this kind of fiction is charm and enchantment. It's not a theme that's especially well represented in RPG magic (because it deprives some control of the character when used against PCs, it tends to be intentionally hobbled and easily combatable).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I feel real sorry for them when they run up against their first Incorporeal Undead, as they will be completely unable to affect it in the slightest...

heck, around ECL 8ish, a lot of critters suddenly start getting DR/magic, which you won't be able to bypass...

[Kaiyanwang]

Tome of Battle might be a bit much for an "Arthurian" game by my lights. But that leaves the problem of letting players do more in combat than say "I full-attack."

No please, not this again. Combat meneuvers do exist and a full attack could be two strikes, a trip and a crit on downed foe, two trip, a disarm and a trip, a stunning fist and a trip on an adiacent foe, so on.

You just have to understand that iteratives are better for touch attacks like trip attacks.

Moreover, I guess that in such a setting the enemies will be mainly medium sized, so not big size issues..


Another thing about healing: actually, such campaing is great just because healing would be different. One should think twice before draw a sword. healing could take time, very fitting with the setting. And this lead to players efforting for smart moves.

[Lost Wanderer]

Because most characters that are natural choices to model PCs after do not. If you're looking for a human magic user in Arthurian legend, you're very limited.

Really? What of the noble scholar who doesn't simply collect ancient texts of strange providence, but studies them as well and has unearthed a lost secret or two? True, he cannot call fire from the sky like the sage Merlin, but his mastery of subtle tricks, illusions and the dreaded Evil Eye give him power beyond that of an ordinary man.

Or the healer in the village, who combines her knowledge of the mystic Old Ways with observation and experimentation in order to brew elixirs and tinctures that can cure even the most dreadful of ailments, protect and fortify the mind and body and even, at their most complex, empower the very soul? Her ingredient list may be strange, her brews may take time ferment, but none can deny her skill.

Or what of the wanderer who, in a desperate or unthinking moment, made pacts with one of the Fair Folk? They might find themselves with a bottomless, but very focused, well of power to turn to their bidding. Their fell tricks are limited in scope, but endless in number, as they strike unarmed, but as with a sword and at a distance, or conjure orbs of choking darkness, or destroy blocks of stone with but an utterance, or vanish suddenly, only to reappear nearby. Truly, one such as this would be hunted and destroyed, should they let slip the nature of their power...

Yeah, Vancian casting is right out, but those up there would be a Beguiler, a slightly reflavored Artificer with infusion time and cost modifiers and a Warlock. Are they straight out of Arthurian canon? No, but they can easily represent things that aren't out of place, the lack of big flashy things in the first two is very fitting, and Faeries giving Nasty Powers is far from a stretch.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Use d20 Modern, with the d20 Past source book.

[Pluto]

Are you just using D&D because it's a system you know or because you think it's a good choice? If the prior, it could be workable. If the latter, I'm sure you can find something - almost anything - that will work better.

Because when you strip out the center of the system - the spells, the magic items, etc. - you're left with a pretty flawed game. Fighters still can't see. Even a great knight will have trouble surviving two separate fights in a week (AC doesn't scale well; HP recovery will be a sticking point). With so many feats to use and so few feats to choose from, don't expect much in terms of mechanical diversity between characters.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Also, giving Fighters that many feats won't make them better... they'll just run out of viable feats sooner, since there are very few decent feat options available to a pure melee build in Core.

[gdiddy]

Around tenth level, your PCs are going to be rolling 1s and outperforming the pinnacle of human achievement on skill checks. This will still be the case with Iron Heroes, even though I love Iron Heroes. It's not very medieval.

Consider A Game of Thrones RPG by Guardians of Order.

It uses d20, but it's more grimdark. Incredibly grimdark. It exercises magic, and comes up with fantastic fight system that fills in lot's of gaps while remaining dangerous. It's a true medieval system. Won 2006 RPG of the year at two separate contests.

It has active defense, and armor is intelligently made into DR that is useful. A level 10 character can do more and take on 10 level one characters. But if four of them mob him, he should be worried.

It requires some light reflavoring, because it was made setting specific, but that doesn't stop me from telling you it is the finest d20 variant for running non-magic medieval games with high dramatic tension.

[Optimystik]

No please, not this again. Combat meneuvers do exist and a full attack could be two strikes, a trip and a crit on downed foe, two trip, a disarm and a trip, a stunning fist and a trip on an adiacent foe, so on.

You're not helping your point here.
"Two strikes, trip, crit. Move to next. Two strikes, trip, crit. Move to next. Two strikes..."

It's what I call the Borderlands problem - you may have thousands of guns, but you don't have thousands of options; you're going to throw away all but the strongest in each category.

In other words, why would a fighter in your scenario, faced with all medium-sized foes wielding weapons, NOT trip and disarm each foe?


With so many feats to use and so few feats to choose from, don't expect much in terms of mechanical diversity between characters.

Also, this.

[Greenish]

It requires some light reflavoring, because it was made setting specific, but that doesn't stop me from telling you it is the finest d20 variant for running non-magic medieval games with high dramatic tension.Or you could use the setting. I haven't played the RPG, but the books are awesome.

[gdiddy]

Or you could use the setting. I haven't played the RPG, but the books are awesome.

The book are awesome. However, the OP was talking about a medieval game. The setting itself has certain fantastic elements, but they're easily cut out of the system, unlike say the entire wealth of planar knowledge.

[Swordgleam]

Another vote for Iron Heroes - it's an awesome system. Low to no magic, makes playing a martial class a lot of fun, and it's "you, not your gear." It's still heroic fantasy like D&D.

I'm not sure if that's what you want - Pendragon, which someone else mentioned, is a lot more realistic. So it takes you days or weeks to heal from a wound in combat, and you play your characters and eventually their children and grandchildren.

The Iron Heroes books aren't the easiest to find, but I know you can get digital versions here (http://fierydragon.com/dragonsbreath/?p=504).

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Another thought - you could use Conan d20, but leave out the sorcery.
It's much easier to ditch sorcery from Conan than it is to drop magic from D&D.

Also, Conan d20 has some awesomely fun combat moves. :smallbiggrin:

[Emmerask]

I feel real sorry for them when they run up against their first Incorporeal Undead, as they will be completely unable to affect it in the slightest...

heck, around ECL 8ish, a lot of critters suddenly start getting DR/magic, which you won't be able to bypass...


basically the only rule books we are going to use are the PHB I, DMG, and MM (only the animals section).
Sorry for forgetting to say that in the first place.

reading comprehension for the win :smallwink:

[Captainocaptain]

Wow, I did not expect to get so many responses so fast.
I'm not sure which points to really address.
Ok: To those who suggested different systems, I'm looking into them now.
Its true that the only reason I really have DnD as my first choice is because I am most accustomed to that system.
Thanks for all the feedback! Any other suggestions are much appreciated.
(also, if I do use DnD, the party's level will probably never get higher than 10 at the max.
As for mowing down peasants, the players not only have to deal with the guys sticking them with pitchforks, but also the knight or two who are running about the battlefield on horseback.)
I am hoping that I can set up encounters that encourage strategy outside of just those presented by the player's feat selection, though.
Thanks again!

[awa]

Personal i would have some magic and stuff but make it rare and impressive when it's found king Arthur had a couple magic items but did any of his knights? no.

As a second point i disagree that fighters will run out of feats to take what i do think will happen is he will be the master of several diffrent combat styles.
So instead of having to choose between mounted lance combat and mounted archery he can master both and still have feats left over

[Satyr]

In a case of shameless self-marketing, take a look at Serpents ind Sewers (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Serpents_and_Sewers), which was laid out to be as fun without magic as it is with. Plus, it's free.

[Rixx]

E6! E6!!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html

[The Glyphstone]

yeah, you really should look into other systems - D&D isn't suited for the playstyle you want to imitate, especially in core-only. Some of the recommendations given here so far are excellent ones.

[Knaight]

Satyr is apparently not paying attention today, he failed to mention GURPS. GURPS is near ideal for the setting you are describing, and leaves in a bunch of crunch as wanted. Active defenses, wounds that actually hurt, peasant levies and such become a threat because getting ganged up on hurts more than in most games (Off the top of my head, I can only think of one game with harsher rules for multiple opponents, and those are optional.), it lets one focus highly on equipment to some extent, so you can have a very special sword and some horses can be much better than others, and in all it is ideal for a gritty, realistic setting like this one. Use it.

Alternately there is Fudge, which works well for this (And is the aforementioned game where multiple opponents really hurt), with mostly default rules, and a tiny bit of crunch added. Or you could use savage worlds, but it has some major issues, most of which come down to apparent indecision on the part of the designers for the level of detail, crunch, etc. to include, while they managed to convince themselves they were a bunch of geniuses who made the best system ever.

[Shademan]

E6! E6!!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html

I second that!
oh, and the above post. gurps is not a bad idea.

also: people saying that the barbarian is out are wrong. you just need to refluff it as "srsly angry knight" :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

I second that!
oh, and the above post. gurps is not a bad idea.

also: people saying that the barbarian is out are wrong. you just need to refluff it as "srsly angry knight" :smallbiggrin:
Actually, I think an angry woad covered (and naught else) Pict with lime spiked hair would also be a fine barbarian, and pretty fitting with the period.

[The Glyphstone]

I second that!
oh, and the above post. gurps is not a bad idea.

also: people saying that the barbarian is out are wrong. you just need to refluff it as "srsly angry knight" :smallbiggrin:

Lancelot, for example.:smallbiggrin:

[Lord Loss]

Use d20 Modern, with the d20 Past source book.

This, or a slightly modified version of iron heroes would work very, very well.

I suggest you use PHBII for the Knight Class (or reflavor the fighter)

[awa]

Arthurian legend has a sliding time line their really a period to speak of

[erikun]

As mentioned, Iron Heroes would work, mainly because the non-magic classes have a number of options for them. d20 Modern (d20 Past?) would also give your fighters more options, as magic is an optional system in that setting. I'm not sure how well it works, though, as I haven't used it myself.

I also recommend Burning Wheel. It seems like it is almost exactly what you are looking for: Characters coming from either humble or noble origins, being able to specialize in weapons or skills based on what they wish. The magic system being completely optional. All humans being perfectly workable. The biggest problem is that it isn't free and is a relatively different system to work with.

[awa]

i agree iron heroes is a good system for low or no magic play but i know its out of print and im not sure if they sell the pdfs any more

[The Glyphstone]

i agree iron heroes is a good system for low or no magic play but i know its out of print and im not sure if they sell the pdfs any more

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=iron+heroes&quicksearch=1&search_filter=&filters=&search_free=&search_in_description=1&search_in_author=1&search_in_artist=1

[Kaiyanwang]

It's what I call the Borderlands problem - you may have thousands of guns, but you don't have thousands of options; you're going to throw away all but the strongest in each category.

In other words, why would a fighter in your scenario, faced with all medium-sized foes wielding weapons, NOT trip and disarm each foe?


It actually depends from a lot of things..

- Do you want them alive?

- Are they threathening you (say, you can disarm all of them and slaughter them later) or a squishier rogue (so you move in position to flank, trip, and wait the rogue prepare action trigger).

- Where are you? Where is you enemy in the battlefield? If your enemy is near a cliff better just bull rush him in.

And so on..

I second E6, anyway.

[Xuc Xac]

I'd like to point out that, of the 11 core classes you have access to, you have banned 5 of them outright, 2 of them make little thematic sense (that would be Barbarian and Monk; substituting a Christian monk with D&D Monk powers is very theme breaking. There aren't even that many Christians around immediately post-Arthur. Celts sorta kinda might work as Barbarians, but they wouldn't be helping the English at this time).

Technically, the "English" would be the bad guys here. Arthur wasn't the king of England. He was the king of the Britons (the Roman subjects who were the ancestors of the modern day Cornish and Welsh). The foreign invaders at that time were the Angles and the Saxons. The Angles eventually dominated the southern portion of Britain so thoroughly that it became known as Angle Land (later simplified to England). Arthur was in the 6th century. The Angles and Saxons were invading at that time. By the 11th century, they were firmly settled as the Anglo-Saxon "Englishmen" that were invaded by the Normans from France in 1066. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I think Errol Flynn's Robin Hood actually referred to this in one of his rousing speeches when he said he wanted prosperity for "every man whether he be Angle, Saxon, or Briton", because they were still distinct ethnic groups at that point with different languages.