Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


quote:

Nameless Warrior wrote:

Looks interesting. I especially like the idea of critical hits and misses. The more unique and varied combats can be the better, you don't want the story of every battle to be the same.

Apart from the new critical outcomes in what way do you see the new D12 aspect change the combat for the better?



Hey, are you a reporter? (*smilie here!*)

Well, in addition to the critical results, I at least hope three things will be for the better -- including a fourth, though it is not as tangible (yet) I am afraid.

1. Area Hit -- Since I also plan to have To Hit result tables which could affect the location of a target that is hit (still an early thought in development!) AND the aspect (optional for Warriors and random for monsters) of aiming an Attack AT a target's body part, the 1D12 gives more possibilities.

2. Less Drastic To Hit Modifiers -- Using 1D6, a -1 or +1 to hit is rather drastic! IF a Warrior already needs a 4+ to hit (50% chance), then a -1 to hit reduces his chance by AND to 33%. But, using 1D12, modifiers are only HALF as drastic. I perceive this as generally better, though it also affects the positive modifiers. I just think less drastic is better in this case.

3. Room for More Modifiers! -- This follows (sort of) from the previous point. Take for instance the new parrying option. When a model is using this option, he also has -1 to hit during his Attacks in the same turn.

BOTH 2 & 3 taken together I see as grounds for Warriors investing more in common weapons and armour which might result in negative to hit modifiers. In this same vein of thinking and with the area hit concept (borrowed at least partly from the official Pit Fighter), then I see even more incentive for those that are able to acquire and use more armour all over (not just a heavy piece of body armour or just a shield and helmet combo).

4. A Greater Sense of Surprise and of Accomplishment! -- Taking into consideration that many Warriors, skills, equipment, and treasures already have something special associated with rolling a 6 (or even with rolling a 1, like the Barbarian's Berserk skill), I hope that using a 1D12 to hit will tend to make some things seem more real (relatively). Though I have not worked out all the details to explain this more thoroughly, I hope this attempt at least conveys the concept.

So, why not go with a 1D20 like D&D? someone might ask. I think a 1D20 would be too much like D&D for one. heehee. But, my main reason for picking 1D12 is that it makes an easier conversion of the current Weapon Skill system. Another reason would be that 1D20 seems to provide too many options for my purposes. Add to that that a 1D12 is probably better on a real-life table -- though I would not know this by experience; I just imagine by the shape of a the dice I have seen. (My gaming group use digital dice calculated by a server anyway. So, this last argument would carry no weight there!)


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
20/Jul/2011, 12:51 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
Nameless Warrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Novice
Global user

Registered: 05-2010
Posts: 17
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


lol, sorry but 5 years of essay writing at uni gave me a semi formal writing style.

1) I love the area hit concept, you can visualise the battles more. What would you do for the enemies aim when there is no GM but just 4 players?

Do you envisage this making battles longer or shorter?

2 + 3) That is an excellent bonus of a D12, it would change the game. I never buy negative to hit weapons but they would be more of an option here for sure.

3) Do you mean by making special actions and abilities rarer they are more satisfying when they happen.

Would you round up the abilities on the new system so that the barbarian goes berserk on a 13+ and not a 7+ but goes mad on a 1 in both?
24/Jul/2011, 1:02 am Link to this post Send Email to Nameless Warrior   Send PM to Nameless Warrior
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


quote:

Nameless Warrior wrote:

lol, sorry but 5 years of essay writing at uni gave me a semi formal writing style.

1) I love the area hit concept, you can visualise the battles more. What would you do for the enemies aim when there is no GM but just 4 players?

Do you envisage this making battles longer or shorter?

2 + 3) That is an excellent bonus of a D12, it would change the game. I never buy negative to hit weapons but they would be more of an option here for sure.

3) Do you mean by making special actions and abilities rarer they are more satisfying when they happen.

Would you round up the abilities on the new system so that the barbarian goes berserk on a 13+ and not a 7+ but goes mad on a 1 in both?



Actually, I really appreciate the Q & A format. It helps to facilitate my reasoning. I love logic and deep thinking! (smilie!)

Concerning the enemies aiming, I will have a special table for that as well even as GM, so, I don't see any reason why it could not be used without a GM or in solo play. Thinking of this aspect makes me feel even more satisfied that this might be a worthy project. (another smilie here!)

Ah, yes, I DO think the combats will last longer on average, though I think overall that it will balance out as the players and GM get familiar with it all. I also think they will be more exciting. So, longer is not necessarily a bad thing, unless people are wanting to play a shorter game around the table

The main reasons I think combats will take longer are:

1. The time it takes to roll each Initiative test -- rolling off any ties as needed too.
2. Rolling on the Monster Behavior Table each turn for each specific type of monster in the combat.
3. Rolling for and looking up the details of Critical Hits and Area Hit and Injury tables.


Concerning the special actions and abilities being more rare was not exactly the thought, though it is certainly very close -- maybe even partly the reason for my unclear concept in #4.

Remember that some things are tied to the To Hit dice, so those things will probably HAVE to be modified to fit the new gameplay -- like the Warhammer's +1D6 damage on a natural 6 To Hit. That would have to be either a natural 11 or 12 or a natural 12. IF I go with the natural 12, then this would definitely be less often and a bigger surprise when it happens.

The jury is still out on whether I should also use 1D12 for all things as well as the To Hit dice. I currently am leaning towards keeping most of the Warhammer rules, skills, abilities and etc... on the 1D6 system. It would be a much more radical upheaval of everything if I convert it all over to the 1D12 basis. So far, I only really intend to use 1D12 for the To Hit dice and the Initiative tests during combat for the fighting order.

(adding bold and color here to help remind myself of this development in my thoughts!) I am beginning to think that doing the Initiative rolls every turn could bog things down though. So, I might just go with rolling those at the beginning of each combat and then following the resulting order to the end of the combat. The idea of rolling Initiative every turn is probably an unnecessary carry-over from the Player versus Player games I am currently running (Warhammer Quest Mortal Combat Tournament!). Some of my ideas for the advanced Warhammer Quest are coming out of the practical combat issues in those games -- especially the idea of combat being more simultaneous in actual gameplay, rather than each model taking its full turn all at once.

NOTE: I edited this response several times.

Last edited by OldWarrior, 24/Jul/2011, 12:58 pm


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
24/Jul/2011, 12:41 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
Nameless Warrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Novice
Global user

Registered: 05-2010
Posts: 17
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


This is an amazing project, well worthy. I hope you don't mind if I throw some thoughts forward.

1) Concerning the aiming table I think it would be worth considering if you could find a way that better fighters (higher weapon skill) have a deadlier aim than the lower. I don't know if it should come down to comparative weapon skill or solely the attackers but I would expect an assassin for example to have a better aim than a goblin. Maybe rather than based on WS it can be a new skill for monsters "deadly aim".

2) Giving the "defensive fighting" action a (-1 on aim table for enemy if that is how it works) as well as -1 to hit to represent defensive body movement.

3) There is no representation in missed attacks that a fighter may open themselves up. Maybe if a fighter missed their FINAL attack then if they get less than 10 (or any other number) on a wps +D12 roll then they open themselves up. Opening themselves up give their opponent +1 to hit (too big for D6 but not D12) and +1 on the aim table (if that is how it works) for their FIRST attack only.

You could consider the possibility that missing and failing the roll on an attack prior to your final gives you (-1 to hit, -1 on aim table) for your next attack to represent bending yourself out of shape but that is if you want to expand the rule.

4) An idea just came to mind that there are not many fighting staffs in use. One rule to make them more appealing is that you cannot open yourself up or bend out of shape because of the two available ends and maybe if a character has over a certain weapon skill such a weapon (which will be weak) could be used to fight normally and defensively at the same time to represent the speed of both end utilisation.


I had a feeling the fight would be longer which is a good thing as we love long sessions. I was just thinking about unexpected events and the increase of them due to longer combats, maybe the unexpected combat events table should be recommended for use because of this?


Doing the combat on initiative tests would be challenging although it will make initiative increasing bonuses more enticing, I consider them second rate at the moment for my characters. Would you be able to declare you are fighting defensively even if you are being attacked before you have attacked in a turn to get the bonus?


I think D12 for to hit and initiative rolls and 1D6 for everything else is a good plan. I think 1D6 fits alot of the others. I think your bit in bold makes sense too.




 
25/Jul/2011, 10:54 pm Link to this post Send Email to Nameless Warrior   Send PM to Nameless Warrior
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


As I am digesting much of what you said, I will just comment on one thing for the moment.

Concerning the idea of Combat Events, I am already using the following method and might modify it a little for the advanced game(s), or not:

Whenever an Unexpected Event is triggered by the Event Die* result (a 1 on the 1D6) during combat, then I roll an additional 1D6:

1-2 = take an Event Card as normal
3-4 = roll 2D6 on the Unexpected Combat Events Table (a pdf table by I cannot remember whom at the moment)
5-6 = roll 1D20 on the Combat Events table (adapted by BassJam from D&D)

The 3-4 result above could also turn into more monsters, but it adds some fresh flavour to the combats as well with other results.

Result 5-6 -- that Combat Events table has a slight chance of getting a small percentage more of the same kind of monsters already in the combat and the same small chance of getting an NPC reinforcement to help the Warriors.

*Referring to the Event Die above, I mean that my group already uses a separate 1D6 to trigger Unexpected Events (So, we techncally have a Power Phase AND an Event Phase).

 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


By the way, this special advanced rule set is just another of my many experimental game ideas for Warhammer Quest. Most of the games I play and GM are much closer to the original rules. See the following topic from about one and one-half years ago for what seems a total repudiation of these new rules! (smilie here!)

]When WHQ Was More Simple: Old Warrior Returning to Official Rules!?

Last edited by OldWarrior, 26/Jul/2011, 12:53 pm


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
26/Jul/2011, 12:51 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


Ballsitic To Hit Rolls

Since it will be 1D12 for Ballistic To Hit as well -- Did I say that before? -- It will be the same formula to come up with the target number applied to the Ballistic Skill itself since BS IS the target to hit value in WQ: (Ballistic Skill X 2) -1

When a Warrior gains Ballistic Skill from a new level, it will still be the same as before, we will just look up the Ballistic Skill value on the table to see the To Hit result needed. I will think about making this more complicated, but I hope NOT to do so. emoticon

Anyway, the new table is below. Let me know if anything seems incorrect. The explanations concerning the values with astericks (*) are what I have been working out for normal Warhammer Quest play all along, with the exception that I have made the Auto value NOT an automatic hit. I suspect that this might be controversial, but unless you convince me otherwise, I think that all physical (as opposed to magical) missiles should have some chance of missing.

One more thing: I do NOT like what I am creating in the way that every miss for those with BS 1+ and Auto must be a Critical Miss. Then again I could moderate this in the 'Ballistic Critical Miss' table to be NOT so critical. emoticon Here is an idea: maybe that +1 and +3 that helps to counter negative modifiers could also be applied to the Critical Miss table, thus giving the very highly skilled shooters an advantage in that area as well.

Any discussion is welcome. I hope to keep this sort of simple, though it must be a little more complex in some way.


--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

I realize the formula is simple, but my gaming group play several different games with different Warriors and different GMs. Therefore the chart will help us.

Last edited by OldWarrior, 7/Aug/2011, 2:41 pm


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
7/Aug/2011, 2:40 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


quote:

Nameless Warrior wrote:

This is an amazing project, well worthy. I hope you don't mind if I throw some thoughts forward.

1) Concerning the aiming table I think it would be worth considering if you could find a way that better fighters (higher weapon skill) have a deadlier aim than the lower. I don't know if it should come down to comparative weapon skill or solely the attackers but I would expect an assassin for example to have a better aim than a goblin. Maybe rather than based on WS it can be a new skill for monsters "deadly aim".

2) Giving the "defensive fighting" action a (-1 on aim table for enemy if that is how it works) as well as -1 to hit to represent defensive body movement.

3) There is no representation in missed attacks that a fighter may open themselves up. Maybe if a fighter missed their FINAL attack then if they get less than 10 (or any other number) on a wps +D12 roll then they open themselves up. Opening themselves up give their opponent +1 to hit (too big for D6 but not D12) and +1 on the aim table (if that is how it works) for their FIRST attack only.

You could consider the possibility that missing and failing the roll on an attack prior to your final gives you (-1 to hit, -1 on aim table) for your next attack to represent bending yourself out of shape but that is if you want to expand the rule.

4) An idea just came to mind that there are not many fighting staffs in use. One rule to make them more appealing is that you cannot open yourself up or bend out of shape because of the two available ends and maybe if a character has over a certain weapon skill such a weapon (which will be weak) could be used to fight normally and defensively at the same time to represent the speed of both end utilisation.




Finally answering some of your suggestions, Nameless Warrior...

#1: Well, yeah, maybe a bonus based in some way on the difference in the Weaponskills of the Attacker and Defender, but I must think more on that.

#2: I will think about this while working out the finer details. I will try to make every aspect have some sort of benefit as well as negative trade off for the benefit.

#3: Maybe not connected to their final Attack for the turn -- though I will keep that in mind -- but I think there would be the potential (chance) of opening oneself up to an immediate reprisal Attack by the Defender whenever a Critical Miss is rolled. By the way, this one was already floating around in my brain. emoticon

Yes, the idea of further attacks having some sort of penalty -- that too I think would be a potential Critical Miss result.

A worst -- or nearly so -- Critical Miss result could include several negatives: Attacker loses all further actions for the turn, loses any fighting stance/style benefits (regardless of what stance) for the rest of the turn, and suffers a retaliation Attack from the defender that automatically hits! Or it just might say something like: "all of the above". emoticon

#4: Attaching certain extra benefits to various types of weapons has sort of occured to me -- especially since reading the Critical Hit tables of Death Blow #2. I DO like the idea of a Staff providing benefits like you suggest.

Cautionary statement: I really must closely guard against making it too complex though. I might even be adding a bit more as the play-testing is in progress for a while.

In reference to the Combats taking longer, I think I will be slowing down the frequency of Unexpected Events, especially since the monsters are going to seem to be on a more even playing field with the Warriors in this type of game.

Furthermore, when Unexpected Monster Events happen during Combat, I plan to roll on a special Monster Alignment Table to determine whether the new group of monsters will attack other monster groups.

I have added the Monster Alignment Table to the ]Advanced Rules wiki


Here is a cropped screenshot of the more recent updated portions of the wiki:

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--



---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
29/Aug/2011, 5:42 am Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


For anyone following my specific advanced game post (privy to my gaming group), this is an identical post here. emoticon

I have been wrestling with the idea of how movement will work in a Simultaneous Combat situation.

I think I have a fairly simple solution -- simple compared to uncertainty anyway.

First I must decide a term for one round of the Initiative order during the Turn. I will call it Initiative Cycle.

Further to help the reader understand, this is based upon the fact that I will be rolling 1D12 for each Warrior and monster type and adding their Initiative. This will establish the 'pecking order' -- or the order in which the models will fight. IF they have more than one Attack, they might be acting twice during the Turn. Hence we have the idea of more than one round through the Initiative order to complete the turn. The reason for this is to facilitate the concept of 'Simultaneous Combat'. It will still be essentially a turn-based game, but all models' actions will be more interspersed throughout the Combat, especially at higher levels where more models will have more than one Attack.

Initiative Cycle = one time through the Initiative order with each model Attacking and/or moving. We will often have more than one Initiative Cycle in each Turn of the game. If a model has run out of Attacks and Movement, then they are skipped the next time through the Initiative Cycle.

1. Each model's Movement for the turn will be divided into TWO Movement Actions. Formula = Movement divided by 2 = 1 Movement Action. Allowing the player or monster to have any odd square of movement for either Movement Action (a flexibility for the rule).

2. In addition to the number of Attacks each model gets in each Initiative Cycle during the turn, they may use ONE Movement Action. IF they wish to use TWO Movement Actions at once, then they may do so by delaying one Attack for that cycle -- thus pushing that Attack into the next Cycle.

3. This will accommodate all sorts of movement and Attacking combinations while still helping everyone to know what is allowed and what is not.

Here is a brief, more simple illustration of what I am talking about:

Four Warriors (BEWD) and two Minotaurs are about to fight (beginning of Combat).

Roll 1D12 for each and add their Initiative.
Results: 6,9,3,11,4 respectively + their Initiatives
Barbarian, 9
Elf, 15
Wizard, 6
Dwarf, 13
Minotaurs, 7

There are no ties (in which they would reroll only against each other, so, the order will be:
Elf
Dwarf
Barbarian
Minotaurs
Wizard

This is the Initiative Cycle order.

IF the Barbarian goes berserk right away (on his turn), then he will have 2 Attacks. Let's assume that happens. They are all level 1.

First Cycle:
Elf 1 Atk and/or one Movement Action of 2 squares
Dwarf 1 Atk and/or one Movement Action
Barbarian 1 Atk (ditto on movement)
Minotuars 1 Atk and/or Movement Action of up to 3 squares
Wizard 1 Atk, and/or move...

The Elf decides he want to move away and then shoot, BUT, he is unable (in this scenario) to move far enough with 2 squares. So, he delays his 1 Atk and takes TWO Movement Actions (his full movement) and moves 3 or 4 squares to where he could shoot.
Let's just say no Minotaur is able to escape pinning (another option added by the advanced rules). So, on the next Initiative Cycle, the Elf will get to shoot. emoticon

For the sake of simple illustration, no model has fallen yet. emoticon

Second Cycle: (still the same game Turn)
Elf: 1 Atk but no movement option (because he did not use his 1 Attack last cycle -- traded for movement)
Dwarf: up to 2 Movement Actions (his full movement)(IF he did NOT move in the last cycle, and IF he can escape pinning of course)
Barbarian: 1 Atk (because he is berserk) and/or 1 Movement Action
Minotaurs 1 Atk and/or 1 Movement Action (because they have 2 Attacks normally!)
OR, a Minotaur which has NOT moved yet in this game Turn, MAY take 2 movement Actions to chase down his chosen target.

Third Cycle: (This might only be a formality in this case IF only the Minotaur that saved its last Attack would have anything left to do.
Dwarf: 1 Movement Action (assuming he only moved once so far)
Barbarian: same as Dwarf
Minotaurs: those having used all their Attacks could potentially still move with any Movement Actions left. (always assume escaping pinning is involved as needed)
The Minotaur that moved to chase the Elf last cycle will now perform its final Attack.

This all gives rise to new particular rulings regarding Movement, Pinning, and Escape Pinning.

1. Each time a model's action(s) for the cycle end with them adjacent to an enemy, they are then pinned.
2. Each time a model fails its Escape Pinning test it LOSES ONE Movement Action (1/2 it total Movement, round down in this case).

For those not familiar with the Simultaneous Combat game mechanics I have been test-playing... There is a formula I use which divides up the Attacks and spreads them more evening throughout the entire game Turn.

Here is an example to show how it pans out (a random, arbitrary Initiative order used for the moment).

A Pit Fighter with Fist Spike (3 Attacks), a Barbarian that is Berserk, an Ogre Warrior (2 Attacks at level 1), and Elf with 1 Attack, and they are fighting some goblins with swords and squig with two Attacks, and a Night Goblin Big Boss with 3 Attacks.

Here is the brief order of how their Attacks are basically spread out through the turn:

1st: Pit Fighter's Quick Reaction Atk(s)(depending on his dice roll and which weapon he chooses)
2nd: Squig's possible special move and Attack when placed.

Elf: 1 Atk
Pit Fighter (Fist Spike): 2 Atks
Goblin Big Boss: 2 Atks
Ogre: 1 Atk
Squig: 1 Atk (Warrior or monster target, if its special roll allows it)
Goblins: 1 Atk
Barbarian: 1 Atk (goes berserk right away this time)

Remaining Attacks...
Pit Fighter: 1 Atk
Goblin Big Boss: 1 Atk
Ogre: 1 Atk
Squig: 1 Atk (original dice roll for how it acts will still apply here)
Barbarian: 1 Atk

This type of spreading out of the Attacks gives more variety, makes strategy more interesting (IMP), and provides greater possibility of models going down before they are done doing all they could in the turn.

I think this also makes healing items a more tempting choice in the middle of the Turn, when a Warrior might wish to do more...

Last edited by OldWarrior, 5/Sep/2011, 10:46 am


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
30/Aug/2011, 3:38 am Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


Using FreeMind to mind map this rule set...

Though this is not complete, it shows much of what is going on and how things are coming together.


--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
13/Sep/2011, 2:07 am Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1264
Reply | Quote
Re: Old Warrior's Advanced Warhammer Quest


Well, I am now using a much more user-friendly mind map. I am able to represent some tables within it to.

Anyway here is the alternate Unexpected Events method I have come up with:

I have come up with a modified Dungeon Bash method for generating Unexpected Events.

It should produce events more often than Dungeon Bash, but not quite as fast as Warhammer Quest original method for the earlier part of the adventure and first turn or two after each Combat.

During Combat and longer periods of non-combat turns, this new method will make an Unexpected Event MORE LIKELY than the normal 1D6 method.

An Unexpected Event during a Combat WILL BE a Combat Event of some type which will often be more monsters.


--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

Just like the Dungeon Bash rules, the Threat Level will NOT change during Combat.


Here is the entire mind map with tables collapsed.

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

Once everything is completed, I intend to have many links in the mind map to specific sections of the wiki. Clicking on the links opens a browser window within the Xmind program. It is quite a handy feature.

Xmind is free to download and use.

Then people could also take my mind map and wiki and further modify it for their own purposes.

Last edited by OldWarrior, 18/Sep/2011, 1:40 am


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
18/Sep/2011, 1:31 am Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)