Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

RECIVS' Boardgame Projects

House Rules, Variants & Hacks



Development Update: The Monsters of Advanced DRnD 2.0

Posted by RECIVS on January 7, 2014 at 3:50 PM

After spending some time experimenting with the Character Creation system I've finally put together a first set of monsters for Advanced DR&D 2.0

The new Monster Cards deck will have 120 cards: 107 monsters and 13 traps. Traps will be discussed in an upcoming entry.  The deck includes the 79 original monsters from all versions of Dungeon! as well as 28 additional ones inspired in the D&D universe.

As you may see, there will be a few more monsters than the maximum required (80 rooms+18 creatures in 6 chambers=98 required monsters) I made this design decision expecting varied sets of monsters between games as well as rendering virtually impossible for the players to track which ones are left to appear, as few cards will always remain unused in the deck to the end of the game. I would love to hear your opinions on this matter.

The new system is quite simple but turned out to be very flexible and productive, given the varied dice pool mechanic used. Literally thousands of combinations are possible by mixing just four basic attributes: Defense, Attack, Magic Resistance and Life Points.

This new system has been thoroughly described in our previous Development Update published more than three of months ago. Using the guidelines described there I was able to create a "universe" of 9,324 different combinations as shown in the document attached, from which I picked my 107 candidates. No version of Dungeon! has offered this vast array of monsters.

Most of the monsters in DR&D resemble their Dungeon! counterparts and preserve their relative strengths and weaknesses between each other. However, specific attributes have been allocated and tailored to suit our own design, therefore they’re not always in harmony with the originals or their counterparts in the D&D universe, though I’m sure more adjustments and refinements will find their way into the final version.

Having exposed the above, here are the details of the new design and sorting patterns:

The monsters of DR&D are sorted into 3 levels: 1, 2 and 3.

Each level is divided into 3 LP Groups depending on their LP allocation (low, med or high)

Example: Level 1 includes monsters with 2, 3 and 4 LPs. Level 2 with 4, 5 and 6 LPs. Level 3 with 6, 7 and 8 LPs.

Every LP Group is divided into 3 Attack Strength Groups depending on their attack strenght (low, med and high).

Example: Level 1 monsters may attack with 2, 3 or 4 maximum hits, Level 2 monsters with 4, 5, 6 or 7 and Level 3 monsters with 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12.

The maximum hits possible for a monster come in different configurations. Obviuously some configurations will tend to hit more than others, therefore have been sorted in the same 25/50/25 pattern.

Example: 5 max hits may be completed either with 1 Red die and 1 Yellow die, or 1 Red die and 1 Orange oie, or 1 Red Die and 2 White dice and so on.

According to the above, the monsters are sorted in the following way (roughly):

25% of the monsters are Level 1
50% Level 2
25% Level 3

Whitin each level:
25% of the monsters are low (LPs)
50% are medium (LPs)
25% are high (LPs)

Whitin each LP group:
25% of the monsters are low (max hits)
50% are medium (max hits)
25% are high (max hits)

Whitin each Attack Strenght group:
25% of the monsters have low chance to hit
50% have medium chance to hit
25% have high chance to hit.

The rationale behind the design goes as follows:

There's only one deck of Monster Cards in DR&D, players have no control over the level of the monsters they'll face. This is an important deviation from the original Dungeon! where monsters are sorted according to dungeon levels so the adventures are able to simply choose the level they want to be in.

Taking the above into account and considering my own conception of how the game should play, I decided to privilege an average allocation, meaning that average (Lvl 2) monsters will be the most likely to appear at early stages of the game. Adventurers will start off relatively weak, I don’t want to make it too hard for them to obtain their first Lvl 2 (or 3) weapon, though I neither want the game to become too easy after getting it. This is the balance I´m looking for.

Also, one third of the monsters will perform magic attacks; this means that the Barbarian will be weak against 1/3 of the monsters in the new deck. This is a balance adjustment, the Barbarian won´t be the most powerful combat character all the time.

Besides, one third of the monsters have higher magic resistance so the Wizard will be weak against 1/3 of the monsters. Magic will be a powerful weapon in the game but some monsters will have higher magic resistance.

I’m still figuring if these two groups should be composed of different monsters or several of them could be concurring in both groups. 

DR&D is mainly a game of exploration, combat and random occurrences. If a very powerful monster is found early on, the adventurers will have the option to flee for a relatively low cost. Continuous exploration is rewarded but it could also help more powerful opponents looking for treasures, as the fleeing adventurer must reveal the monster he´s running from.

Since we have 9234 candidates to choose from there's a lot of room for adjusting and fine-tuning every one of the 107 monsters in the deck. No work is perfect though, so I’m sure that some improvements and revisions will be included in Advanced DR&D 2.0. 

This is an open test version, which means that it is subject to modifications and revisions until the final version is relased with Advanced DR&D 2.0. Every user may report any issue or suggestion regarding the design. Please feel free to submit your candidates as well as your corrections to the ones proposed in the files attached.  

Some new features in Advanced DR&D 2.0

-Print and Play. DR&D has become an unofficial PnP expansion; everything you need to play will be included.

- Simpler rules. The rulebook became thinner; rules are now mostly card driven so they’re more straightforward and easier to follow.

-Random Character abilities and powers. Each adventurer will play differently every time.

-Random Monster abilities and powers. Monsters will have different abilities and powers every time.

And there’s more coming...

What's DR&D?

Dungeon, Rings & Dragons may be categorized as a semi-coop or competitive multi-team adventure board game.

DR&D´s defining elements are adopted from Calabozo: La Aventura de los Anillos" (Dungeon The Adventure of the Rings) which is a Mexican version of Dungeon! Perhaps the sole multi-team specimen of it´s type.

This variant is based on the original gameplay from The Classic Dungeon, borrowing and blending elements from the Mexican "rings and dragons" version, HeroQuest, Advanced HeroQuest and D&D Fantasy Adventure Board Game, as well as other original novelties.

We´re looking for extra depth and strategy yet keeping things simple and beer/family friendly like in the original. That´s essentially the DR&D Project.

DR&D Project

Development Update: DRnDs Combat System Revision

Posted by RECIVS on September 20, 2013 at 1:25 AM

As mentioned on previous entries, DR&D´s combat system is undergoing a serious revision.  After the release of DR&D Advanced1.0 more atention has been given to playtest and tuning, few sessions were enough to note some expected glitches and tweaks I need to implement, the main issue overall is that I might have given players too many Life Points, I had a moderately hard time killing enemy adventurers because of the defense dice scoring too many blocks, other than that (and considering I’m still working on spells and abilities) the system is playable enough.  I’m not entirely satisfied with the results nevertheless, although fairly consistent they´re still rough; I believe they can be fine-tuned a little further.

Having already started the project, the main and most important design decisions I faced were:

- Target DC or Dice Pool system? 

- Linear or Non-Linear Dice Pool?

I’m inclined towards the dice pool mechanic for a game like DR&D. I believe it´s more engaging for the players, allows a wide range of design options and varied results, which in turn could be counter-productive if not worked properly...tell me about it! :|

I always liked HeroQuest´s dice pool mechanic for a light dungeon crawl, I believe it to be simple, more engaging as the attacked player gets a defense roll and “fairer” as more dice represent a greater chance just like in real life.  I’m not going through all the details about these mechanics as plenty of information is available online, besides I’m sure many people will know what I’m typing about, however some revealing articles have been posted on our FB page, in case you´re interested.

After doing some research and playing around with a dice pool calculator (great tool btw) I have to admit two facts: statistics isn´t that boring after all, and the actual chances and probabilities in the current advanced version of DR&D are not quite the ones I was looking for. Even though our current combat system is customizable enough and tends to be consistent, since it´s D6 based and using a single type of dice the results and improvement options are limited.

I want the Warrior to hit harder but less accurately than the Elf for example. I want the defense ratings to be partly random by adding either a fixed +1 bonus or a 4/6 defense die for instance, and so on.

I´ve figured that increasing the number of dice in the pool just alters the probabilities in a disproportionately manner, also that a small and limited pool provides more manageable results and works well with slight bonuses and penalties. Also that DR&D is intended to be a beer and pretzels game after all, so combat must be fair, fast and lethal from my perspective, just a simple mechanism to resolve attacks with some certainty…..and some cool spells of course ;)

Further analysis revealed that a limited pool with varied target numbers on each die combined with bonuses and penalties could be the option I was looking for. I soon realized that the system I was seeking could be described as a mixture between HeroQuest, D&D Fantasy Adventure Board Game and Descent 2.0.

As far as I know, D&D FABG introduced this interesting yet simple system of using a limited pool with variations in target number. Assigning different custom results to the dice allows fine tuning and a wide range of customization. I have to point out that this system is originally a target DC pool system, so instead of comparing hits against defense dice results like in HQ, the attacking player must sum all his “swords” and compare against a  DC, the difference between the swords rolled and the DC is the damaged inflicted. There’re no defense dice rolled.

I´ve never played Descent 2.0 but thanks to FFG I was able to download the rules. Apparently it uses a similar system though just one (blue) “to-hit” die is used, it has an "X" on one of its sides, so if it´s rolled the attack is considered ineffective and the damage result is ignored. Maybe I’m missing something but, even though the game looks very promising, I’m not quite convinced by this mechanic. I believe some characters should have less to-Hit chance than others.

Taking the above into account, I want to share the first update on DR&D´s new combat system:

The combat mechanics remain almost exactly the same as in the previous version, though now the dice pool is limited to a maximum of three Attack and Defense dice respectively, plus the Special Action die. Dice come in different colors as shown in the following table:

According to this table, the maximum possible Hits with three purple dice are twelve (though very unlikely), while a maximum of six Blocks are possible rolling three blue dice. Of course we have to leave room for magical and ability bonuses. I believe the attacker should have a slight advantage, like in HQ where the attack dice have 3/6 chance of hitting and the defense dice have only 2/6 chance of blocking.

I’m trying to adjust the whole thing taking the Warrior as a basis, considering a 50/50 to-hit chance as standard and work from there, scaling accordingly. Let´s take the Warrior and Elf for example:

We can see that, while the Warrior has a better chance of delivering more powerful blows, the Elf has a higher chance of hitting, though with less damaging attacks.

Let´s now take a look at the Displacer Beast, a medium (yellow) level monster:

We can see that this monster may inflict a minimum of one and a maximum of five Hits and may block up to two. This way one can tweak the game and figure how monsters stack against adventurers and other monsters, considering the minimum and maximum hits they may inflict.

I have not yet worked a formula for obtaining the exact probabilities resulting from this system as I believe it involves more complex calculations. I ignore the exact probabilites resulting from the Warrior attacking the Displacer Beast for example, though close estimations are possible. I have to admit that my geekiness reaches alarming levels in some fields, but math never was my type of deal. In absence of a proper formula I´ve been working with approximations.

However, using a dice pool calculator I´ve been able to determine some of the average probabilities involved, which gives us a general idea of how the system works:

For example, rolling 3 white dice, the attacker faces the following probabilities:
1 Hit: 87.50%
2 Hits: 50%
3 Hits: 12.50%

Rolling 3 white dice, the defender has the following chances:
Block 1 hit: 70.37%
Block 2 hits: 25.93%
Block 3 hits: 3.70%

Rolling 2 white dice:
Block 1 hit: 55.56%
Block 2 hits: 11.11%

Those are the average white dice, same with HQ odds. I don’t need to be Einstein to interpret what the above mean. The pool is limited to three attack and defense dice respectively, which I believe keeps the results more consistent with the odds I’m looking for.

As you could see, those are pretty much the results you´d get under our current advanced version. I´ve decided to keep those standards as a base model and start tweaking from there.

Rolling 2 green dice:
Block 1 hit: 75.00%
Block 2 hits: 25.00%
(Almost the same as rolling 3 white dice)

Rolling 3 green dice:
Block 1 hit: 87.50%
Block 2 hits: 50%
Block 3 hits: 12.50%

The results are not that jumpy and tend to be predictable. However, I’m still looking for a formula to calculate the probabilities with combined target numbers in the pool, but the above gives us a general idea of the possible outcomes, and also a solid base to start from. Any help with the formula will be much appreciated and rewarded 8)

Besides, another novelty are the special attacks, characters and new weapons will be given more powerful but risky special attacks, fumbles and negative effects will have a greater chance of occurring during these special attacks. They will be the subject of our next update.

That´s where we´re at right now. Any help, advice or suggestion will be much appreciated.

DR&D Project