OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

More about characteristics

June 19, 2024 / / 1 Comment

As mentioned previously, I’m working on decreasing the prevalence of bonuses from characteristics accruing to actions across the board–I don’t want a bonus for dexterity, for example, to apply to everything that involves movement of any sort. I want discrete bonuses that apply in specific situations. A character that is notably stronger than most will thus have a variety of discrete bonuses instead of simply adding +3 to everything involving strength.

What does that look like? At this point, it involves lists of abilities–likely to be called feats–that are attached to each of the characteristics. A list of strength feats, a list of dex feats, and so on. During chargen, when rolling for characteristics, a “high” roll would then result in the character being capable of more feats associated with that characteristic. A strong PC would have list of activities with which they have a bonus, say, lifting portculli, hanging from ledges, pushing boulders, forcing doors, and carrying capacity.

This removes a high roll from wandering into superhero territory due to the granularity of the system mechanics, while providing a sense of superior ability in general. A strong character isn’t going to be extraordinary with every measure/usage of strength, yet will be more capable in general terms when using strength. This all ties back into the notion that player skill is important and bonuses on the character sheet shouldn’t outweigh it.

The question I’m wrangling now is how exactly to structure this. Obviously, a simple 3d6 roll isn’t going to provide much detail in way of how many feats are warranted, except in a very crude way. I’d like a bit more nuance, I guess, so am looking at using a different approach to rolling in chargen. A 2d6x6 grid might provide enough options to handle it. I plan on using 2D6^2 grids in the system, already, so might end up with one of those, instead–that should certainly provide enough nuance!

That wouldn’t bother me, certainly. I already planned to use a smaller scale range for characteristics, dropping the worst ratings as unbefitting competent heroes who have the confidence to venture into the dangers of the wilds. I planned a range of 6 -16 in 3d6 terms, with modifiers of -1 to +3. (Players could garner a bonus point to assign to one characteristic, meaning the top end would be a rating of 17, with a +3.) If I use a table allowing for more grades of capability, then PCs could end up with bonuses on a handful of discrete abilities, say one to six or seven such. The bonus for each ability could then be +1 to +3 or equivalent. I may put up a sample of such a table when I get one sketched out that I think is worth playtesting.

I’ll also have to decide whether what feats accrue is based on RNG or player choice. I’m leaning toward player choice, just to allow customization at a low level. There’s not much choice in character development by level, so providing a bit of choice at the outset can help establish a sense of how the character will play.

About character sheets…

May 16, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been thinking of character sheets the past couple of days, after eyeballing all of the abilities/skills that actually appear in TSR systems and what my paraclone and bespoke systems have laid out. There’s a whole lotta info to put on those sheets! Lots of items to be available to reference, even avoiding any sort of easy buttons to circumvent challenges.

I realized that the common approach of reporting attribute scores was kind silly a long time ago. Those scores aren’t really referenced often in play, at least in editions where attribute checks aren’t a thing. They’ve always taken up a lot of space on the page, too, despite a relative lack of use.

I’ve sketched out sheets before that placed the attributes in the lower right of the page–the tail end of a single page sheet. Those sheets were just as useful as any other, if not more so because the info at the top of the page was all referenced far more often.

So, when thinking about sketching out sheets for the systems underway, I have to wonder if the attributes should even appear on the sheets. I’ve reduced the importance of attributes in each system to remove the luck of the roll from being a major character advantage in play. Good attributes do still provide bonuses, just in a more restrained manner.

Those bonuses appear in other sections of the sheet, though, alongside the abilities to which they apply, and those grouped with similar abilities. I don’t reckon I need to actually list the attributes on the character sheet for reference; that something may change an attribute and that could have follow-on effects is the only reason to include them. So a small box listing them seems adequate.

The other major reason for pondering character sheets involves what to present in prime placement? By that, I break down placement on the page by importance: the top third is more important than the middle third which is more important than the bottom third. The left most part of those tiers is more important than the middle which is more important than the right side. As we read from left to right and top to bottom, what gets placed first in that scheme is most important.

So, what’s most important in these systems? At this point, I’m leaning to the general adventuring abilities being most important in terms of needing reference. Sure, in the middle of a fight, a player will need to reference what fighting abilities the character possesses; the same sort of thing applies for other specialized activities. Far more often, I think, the player will need to refer to information about how the character performs with everyman abilities–is the character more or less likely to be surprised or surprise others? Notice oddities in stone work that can indicate a secret door? How capable at lifting a portcullis that clanged down to block the way?

It think it far better to have the abilities listed on the sheet grouped by activity to make referencing easier, so having those abilities listed top left makes the most sense to me. I’m still working out how the rest of the page real estate should be allocated. Class abilities in the next plot? Then abilities in the other aspects/pillars of play? Or each aspect/pillar gets a plotted space with all the basics and the class abilities then get recorded? I can see advantages to each approach.

Skills: baked-in or not?

April 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Early D&D, for establishing the idea of character classes and having that as a defining feature, also has a skill system. It’s baked into the rules here and there without being made explicit; Lucy Blumire explains it well on her site, found here: https://rpghorizon.com/posts/2020-07-11_skill-system/

All of those skills can be compiled and serve as the base for an explicit skill system, of course. I think that may be a better approach, too, instead of dropping in a skill rating in the description of something else (“there’s a 2-in-6 chance of success”). The baked in approach drops in exceptions to the general chance in descriptions not associated with the description giving the general chance, in most cases, so learning the general rule and the exceptions is a bit trickier.

I’m leaning strongly to just making an explicit skill system to explain each of the abilities in detail and all can be found together. It’s still very much old school to have explicit skills–witness Traveller–and makes it apparent how many skills are included in the original fantasy systems even if they aren’t made clear.

That exercise also helps fill out and solidify skill lists. What does each class require? Of those skills, which do all characters possess in some degree? Everybody can sneak, for example–chance to surprise others–while some characters are much better at it–some by dint of birth and upbringing and other through intensive training.

I’ve found that also breaking things down by skills used in each pillar of play is helpful. What are all the magical abilities? Which are general and which only for specialists? Same with fighting and sneaking and speaking and so forth. Doing that makes it readily apparent how the different classes stand out from each other while also showing where non-specialists also have some ability.

Adding minor miracles

April 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I don’t care for clerics, despite having played some truly memorable cleric PCs that are among my favorites. I’m just not fond of the general fighter-magic user vibe, without one of those being very much primary and the other very much secondary. Because of that–and other issues–I’m not including clerics in the projects.

I was involved in a reddit discussion some time ago that convinced me that it could be a good thing to include some sort of divine magic, though, especially if it weren’t entirely class-based. Something that other characters could conceivably avail themselves of. I’ve been chewing on that periodically ever since.

The other day, an approach finally clicked into place on that count. I’ve not played around with it thoroughly, yet it seems to be fully viable and fits within my preferences. I was reading another post about orisons on a blog somewhere (was trying to work out what to do with handling undead with clerics) and had an epiphany: I can use a version of orisons to accomplish it all.

Orisons as standard chants/litanies/prayers that anybody can learn. Most of the time, for most people, the orison won’t have any greater effect than soothing the person using it–no mechanical effect and no in-world effect other than that. Some characters, however, by dint of qualifying attributes, can occasionally invoke actual divine favor to accomplish mechanical effects.

I expect to use the channeling system for spellcasting to help regulate it, with the channeling rate lower than that witches and wizards can achieve. Other characters who are sensitive to divine power can assist if they also know the relevant chant. Perhaps even non-sensitive characters can do so.

The power level of orisons is also limited. They’re not a way of channeling divine wrath and striking down monsters, they’re a way of deriving a bit of favor and fortune on a basic level.

This also addresses my need for some way to handle undead without clerics. I can see a class of characters who are sensitive, have trained with many orisons that affect undead and other supernatural entities (demons, et al) and some ability to physically confront (fight) the horrors, too. The class won’t be a top notch fighter, and certainly not a powerful spellcaster. It will be useful, though, and I expect fun to play.

And the orisons will add a nice touch to the priestly class I alread have planned–friars. Those friars who are sensitive (could be most) can occasionally get a slight boost via orisons. The wandering holy helpers get another thing that sets them apart as servants of the pantheon.

On superpowers in fantasy

April 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’ve mentioned before how I dislike superpowers and superhero characters in fantasy games. Reading through the 3rd edition D&D books when they released, I saw rampant superhero stuff and put them back on the shelf immediately. That was the moment that I stopped keeping up with new editions, shaking my head at far from the sort of fantasy tales I enjoyed reading the system had strayed. I recalled how Gygax had railed against the “Dungeons & Beavers” style of game run on the west coast in the early days, because of the outlandish power bloat involved.

I began play with AD&D. There were design choices in there that I looked askance at as they stretched the boundaries of what I found to be good fantasy (by which I mean “good for me”). It was until I played some B/X and learned more about OD&D that I noticed how there was already some power bloat in AD&D. Hit die sizes for character classes increased in AD&D, for example. When the D12 barbarian appeared in Unearthed Arcana, I was less than thrilled; having been unsettled by the Ranger’s 2d8 start and the fighters’ general D10, already. The early hit dice being D6 for everybody immediately felt better, though I did understand how expanding the variety available to classes helped set them apart better.

The notion that a “killing blow” was 6 points as a 0-lvl NPC would have at most 6 hp made basic damage from weapons a D6 readily understandable. Increased hit dice sizes began to whittle away at that intuitive understanding, though. Understanding bell curves in measuring capabilities can make reasonable a 6 pt strike being a killing blow on a D8, as most creatures of 1 HD would have 3-6 hp and the 6 pts of damage would still kill them. Changing the default hit dice size to a D8 wouldn’t bother me. Using D10 and then adding D12 for humans? That strains my sense of simulation.

So using larger die sizes was something that never felt right (for human characters of any stripe). The same with hit point totals at higher levels–that always felt like we were playing superheroes, only wearing cloaks and tunics instead of masks and capes. One of the reasons I’ve decided to work the projects I have is to create systems without superpowers being designed in.

This extends to class abilities, too. I read a take on thieves just the other day where thief could do some class ability action and then be able to use a power that the defeated monster possessed for a while after. Um…a thief gets the ability to spit acid or paralyze foes just because they succeeded at some thiefly ability during a fight? No…just, no. I don’t find that sort of thing fitting into my fantasy. Same with some of the abilities that have cropped up to boost fighters in relation to MUs–they begin OK yet at higher levels become ridiculous.

So a light touch with extraordinary abilities is what I’m attempting, all the while including abilities beyond what normal people can do.

A bit more on attributes

April 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’m still conflicted on attribute bonuses and effects.

On the one hand, I want a reasonable simulation wherein higher attributes gain bonuses and the PC can mechanically do something extra or something extra well. This makes having attributes useful and differentiating character abilities, which makes the tools players have available via characters different in one more regard.

On the other hand, I want players to not get bonuses on a whole slew of abilities/actions in play. I can think of systems where I’d find that just peachy; the flavors I’m going for with the current projects are not where that would be fine.

The question then remains “How do attribute modifiers appear in the rules?”

I’m now looking at all the ways attributes affect mechanics. Saving throws, damage bonuses, defensive bonuses, accuracy bonuses, reaction modifiers, yadayadayada. I think that allowing the attribute bonuses to affect some of the possible mechanics–player choice?–and not all of the mechanics and abilities tied to the attributes may be the way to go.

So, a PC with a high strength isn’t going to get a bonus for opening doors AND bending bars AND inflicting weapon damage AND carrying copious amounts of treasure AND a bonus to a saving throw AND…you get the point. That notable strength bonus might only apply to part of the list.

Another thought is to use the bonus in discrete units; eg., a +3 bonus can appear as a +1 on one thing and a +2 on another. I find this line of thought really interesting, as I could expand the range of bonus ratings available and still have no single bonus outlandishly powerful. A player could roll a character with a +5 Strength, for instance, and that would appear as bonuses to three different abilities associated with strength. I find that quite an attractive option, though I’ve not played with it in my head long enough to be fully confident in its desirability.

I’m trying to keep my balance on the line of designing in enough customization of a PC to be helpful in differentiating characters via more than just loadout and characterization (for those folks who enjoy that sort of thing) and keeping power bloat under control from the outset of play. There’s a small range of bonus ratings that clearly fit what I want to see, so finding a nice way to expand that range without moving into superheroics is tricky.

Thoughts on low hit points

April 1, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been reading through old volumes of The Dragon magazine. It’s been interesting to read all the takes on game design that appear in the pages, whether from Gygax or one of the other TSR people. An article I read yesterday, by Len Lakofka, I believe, was about low hp and zero hp, offering an alternative approach to using them.

The first part of his take that I found interesting involved when hp totals dropped to 2 or 1. He advocated for penalties to PC actions at that point, reflecting the obviously wounded status. I found that quite interesting, as it addresses the criticism of “full capabilities until dead” that applies to the RAW. Now, I’m going to assume that every PC began play with more than 2 hp, so dropping to 2 reflects a loss of foundational hp, a decrease in inherent capabilities on part of the PC. Yes, even those MUs! I know so many tables award hd maximum at 1st level and others mandate at least upper half of the die range (so 3 on a d4), so dropping to two hp would be wounded status for even a PC MU.

The next takeaway involved dropping to 0 hp or lower. He offered a table with percentages for all the options; that seems to be overkill to me. The basic idea that a PC has to check for death or incapacitation is good. It’s not instant death, yet things don’t look good for the PCs (instant death arrives if hp drop to -5 or -6). Even if still alive after dropping to 0 to -4 hp, the PC will have to make another check in a few rounds to stay alive, repeat until receiving care, healing naturally, or dying. And if the PC lives through all that, there are chances for scars and maiming (losing body parts). Woot! Adding history and characterization to PCs!

I’ve been evaluating different systems for limiting hit points of late as part of finalizing playtest materials. From the E6 approach to static hp/level to reduced hd sizes and more. One thing I’ve decided makes a good deal of sense is to have all PCs have basic hp for 0-lvl and their PC hd then adding to that base. So, I’d have a base of 5 hp for simply being a healthy, active person and then adding hp for experience levels.

This works well with the idea of reduced hp leading to penalties due to wounding. A PC gets damage to where those foundational hp are disappearing? Yeah, there’s penalties involved. Time to get out of Dodge and live to fight another day. Then, if getting incapacitated and dropping unconscious, the PC has a solid chance to die if not receiving care soon enough. That strikes me as being deadly enough to drive caution on behalf of players while allowing PCs a bit of room to get knocked out of a fight and still live.

I think coupling limited hp due to class and the idea of foundational, 0-lvl hp can make for a reasonably demanding playstyle. Couple that with the penalties, incapacitation, and maiming rules and it can be a nail-biting good time.

Procedural play

March 28, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Another key lesson for GMing, I reckon, is that procedures are everywhere. Becoming familiar with procedures and comfortable with using them is a core element of running a game.

PCs decide they want to hire on a crew for an expedition to find a rumored lost mine? There’s a procedure for hiring on help.

The party heads out of town on the expedition? There’s a procedure for travel.

The PCs hear a ruckus in the forest just out of sight and it sounds like something large and ferocious is headed their way? There’s a procedure for that.

The PCs reach the landmark they seek and begin looking for the mine entrance? Yup, another procedure.

A procedure isn’t anything more than the basic play loop put to use for a specific context. Running an encounter in the forest uses the basic loop to challenge the players to respond to the situation–what choices are they making that are relevant? Fleeing? Hiding? Waiting for more information? Setting up an armed defense? Then another loop begins with the next change in situation as the beast bursts into view.

A GM can use procedures offered in the system rules or develop procedures themself. As long as the procedures cover the pertinent choices available to players and can make significant differences in the situation, they’re good. They also keep the setting and play consistent, with regular use in similar situations.

That works to make GMing easier. A novice can learn the procedures as needed and then have those tools available for all future similar situations. Every trip out into the wilds uses the travel procedures. Delving into a tomb uses an exploration procedure. And so on.

Loops all the way down

March 28, 2024 / / 0 Comments

As I’ve been hashing out my notes over and over and working to polish the material to put together the alpha playtest draft, I’ve begun pondering the material for the Game Masters Handbook. I view the GM instruction as the foundation for good games using the systems, so I want to offer the best information that I can. This goes beyond the simple advice for making encounters interesting and the like. I want to provide a solid foundation for how the GM approaches play, how to string all the bits together into a coherent game.

The most essential loop in role playing is the basic interaction that governs play: the situation is laid out, decisions made as to what the PCs will do, and then the adjudication of that line of action. This loop then repeats endlessly to move play along.

Everything else in play then builds on that basic loop and puts it to use for specific endeavors. The classic dungeon exploration turn is but the basic loop expanded. The loop is considered to cover ten minutes’ time, to place it in the fiction. The situation gets described by the GM–where the PCs are, what they can see and such–then the players have to make choices about what to do. Move this way or that? Open this door? Flee from this monster? Parley with these goblins? The choice is made and the GM adjudicates the activity.

With that in mind, I think a foundational lesson for GMs is how to use the loops to structure play. I think of play as having the PCs always involved in a situation and the players always involved in a turn. With a firm grasp of how everything in play is a structured loop, then it becomes much less of a challenge to keep play moving. The GM notes what sort of turn the PCs are involved in (or will likely be involved in) and run the loops for that kind of turn.

It makes it easier to begin play, even–especially!–for new GMs. Take the typical pub start, for example. The PCs are all in a pub, having a pint, each present for personal reasons. Instead of wondering how to get the ball rolling, the GM considers this the first turn of the game and can use the loop to get things moving. The players aren’t going to have much to act on, at this point, so the GM knows that an interesting NPC will blow in through the door with Something Exciting to share, whether it be a raid happening on the edge of town or a vociferous call for parties interested in hiring on for a trip into the depths of the haunted forest.

There’s the situation. The players now get to decide what the PCs do, how they react. The GM can use a ten-minute turn for conversation with the NPC and adjudicate what the PCs want to do. Will they rush to help repel the raid? Will they simply step outside and watch the locals deal with it? Will they show interest in the expedition into the forest? Sort all that out and the campaign has begun.

Say that business with the NPC takes two turns. What then? Another turn or two with the PCs discussing possibilities and making general plans. The GM doesn’t even have to be involved with this beyond noting the time.

Next? Well, if the PCs have no activities planned until the next day, the GM notes that the PCs settle in for a night and the players have a watch to start the night (whether they actually have anybody stand watch). Nights spent in town may be largely quiet and devoid of play activity, so the GM then jumps to morning and drops the players into another turn to begin the day.

And so on.

Classic style: Play off-sheet

January 27, 2024 / / 0 Comments

When I say “playing off-sheet,” I’m referring to a couple of things: quantity of abilities and nature of abilities listed. A character sheet is a reference for the player to use to keep track of the tools available in play. That is, what mechanical aspects the character can bring into play. I think, in classic systems, there are limits to what can be found on character sheets.

One of the hallmarks of newer D&D editions and similar systems is the profusion of character abilities, many in the core rules and a greater volume in the expansions to be found. It seems at every experience level a character acquires yet more powers. These abilities are designed to be used in conjunction with other abilities to make for even greater powers inplay. The idea of a “character build” arose as a way to plan how to take a PC to superhero levels of power by planning out how to take advantage of combinations of feats during levelling.

That’s not old school. Old school development can involve getting new abilities as a character levels up, it certainly doesn’t involve a plethora of choices at each level–remember, the way to differentiate characters is in play–and combining them into a superpower. There shouldn’t be bunches and bunches of abilities for players to remember and to have to check how they interact.

There’s also the notion of players using sheets to find the Easy Button, some ability or group of abilities that automatically solve the challenge at hand without requiring the player to choose what to do. That sort of thing removes player skill from play, which is not part of the classic ethos; we want players to have to develop skill and make choices constantly to overcome challenges.

I see old school sheets as being bare references for players. The details of spells, inventory of equipment, notes and numbers that won’t solve challenges by themselves and instead provide info about the tools the player has available.

« Older posts

© 2024 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑