So the other day, we were having lunch, and I brought it up, and we sat down and actually formalized the rules. All that is left is making up the stats for the pieces (we lost those old stats long ago). Then we're going to do a few test games, then I plan to post the rules and the stats on my site.
The version we're working on is 3.5-based, because it was has smoother basic combat system, and we feel the powers-based system would be overwhelming when playing six simultaneous characters. All original chess rules are observed, with the exception of capturing. Instead of simply removing the opponent's piece, you now engage in a battle. If you win, the game proceeds like chess. If you lose, your piece dies. Once the 3.5 edition is up and running, I might update it for 4th edition.
We are looking at two versions...the standard D&D chess is 3.5 based, and only uses material from the Player's Handbook, no other sources allowed. It follows all chess rules, and has a level range of 1-10. An advanced (and more chaotic) version raises the level cap and level disparity, allows for long-term damage to character, the use of assisting and healing spells, and possibly resurrection. We're not going to focus on this for awhile, though.
Of course, any rules we come up with are guidelines, players can play the game how they want, particularly when it comes to the stat blocks...
I have the issue, can't recall which, but it's between 9-'06 and 5-'07 (my subscription period) for what it's worth. Very cool.
IIRC; all pieces are constructs, rooks/knights have a special "move" per their board moves, etc. etc. Pretty compelling. Impressed you took it and ran w/ it this far. Respect.
What you've described reminds me of an old 80's PC game, "Archon". Basically, chess, but you fight piece 'x' for square 'y', you don't just take it. A banshee (dark, rook piece) puts out an aura (scream) attack, the light side equivalent is a phoenix (fire, same radius effect) and so on and so forth.
Or "Battlechess". God, I love that game. Normal chess, but the pieces animate, talk, attack, etc. Rook takes Queen is best; castle becomes anthropomorphic (think, "The Thing") and scoops up the queen and eats her. A pawn taking a knight; little guy hits knight in full plate w/ 1/4 staff in nuts.
Jhonesy You know, that's pretty creative. All me and my group ever did was craft some wooden game pieces...
I made a set for and independent study in Sculpture. Omg, you think it's gonna' be easy until you realize, "I gotta' make each individual piece and try and keep them exact per unit, light and dark?!" Hence the molds, and I thought, "How clever, I'll make all the dark pawns skeletons."
Err, wrong. Thin and bony w/ many voids doesn't take to clay/slip well...
The rooks were handcarved though. Thank God for dremmels.
Also, our group tried plastic molds, but found small wooden figures easier to craft. We paid my cousin a few hundred for all the fine details and we have a nice set. Too bad I don't have any pics, we gave the set to an old friend who moved to the other side o' the world. We wanted him to have something to remember the good times with. I'll see if I can e-mail him for some pics of the set and pieces.
So why even frame it as chess?
Also, I was thinking of just using the handymans secret tool; duct tape. If that doesn't work, nothing will.
Well, sometime anyway.
As for the king being an "aristocrat", I don't quite get your meaning. The king in chess is, to many players, a useless piece. And in discussing this concept, a few things about king-strategy came out. Something to consider is that my brother and I both use our kings offensively, which is rare in chess. The rules on protection of the king, found in normal chess make this a little difficult, and requires some creative thinking. So I do regret that in this form of chess, there can be no king on king action, it's just not in the rules.
Again, basic chess rules are enforced, so checkmate is still a checkmate. However you want to look at it, the kings just aren't meant for battle, despite having the highest level. They will not willingly put themselves in danger, even in D&D chess.
As for strategy being "redundant", again I don't quite follow. There is now a hesitation in capturing, you have to know what you're taking. For example, if you play the Civilization games, you will find that different pieces can engage in combat with opponents. They have different strengths, different numbers, but the outcome is random. When you fight in Civilization, you have to have a good idea how strong your unit is, against the opponent, or combat is a crapshoot. And there's always a change you will lose the fight anyway. It doesn't remove strategy to have a chance for the unit to lose, it simply changes the approach. Likewise, in Civ games, movement rules are enforced, regardless of unit power and rank. A modern unit (like a Marine) will not be able to move between "threatened" spaces, even if the threat comes from a tribal warrior. This form of chess follows that same principle.
And again on the topic of kings...even in real chess, you can't take a king. In this version of chess, there is a slim possibility that you can defensively kill a king (especially with a queen), but in real chess, you can't possibly capture a king. So "taking" the king isn't an issue, defending against the king is. Which is in line with traditional chess, because if a king attacks you in real chess, you're dead, no matter what. The only difference now is you get a fighting chance this time.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/aristocrat.htm
I don't understand why the king should be the highest level peice, he is essentially a non-combatant.
:}
The nice thing about this, is that the characters we come up with are just suggestions. There's no reason someone can't switch out a character that doesn't work. If you think a king should be an aristocrat, or an Expert, or a level 40 epic sorcerer, go right ahead!
As for the "non-combatant" idea, I said earlier, I play aggressively with my king. Not to mention that making a king who is prone to losing makes the game much too risky. In real chess, the king always wins a battle. The king is the only piece that cannot lose, ever. So I think that should be reflected.
Err, wrong. Thin and bony w/ many voids doesn't take to clay/slip well...
The rooks were handcarved though. Thank God for dremmels.
Yea, I tried that in my ceramics class. Didn't work too well.
Hmmm... This does sound interesting though. Perhaps everytime a unit enters a square, they go to a different dimension for that battle so that they can't affect the board on a whole.
This all makes me think about Code Geass though, with Lelouch's battle tactics.