OSRPGtalk

Design: On Character Development II

June 1, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I spoke about PC development here: https://osrpgtalk.net/design-on-character-development/ and this is a continuation of that.

I mentioned the four tiers I think of when I consider character development in my projects. I think a closer look at what those entail is warranted, along with the expected types of development for each. As with everything in my projects, it’s all highly malleable until it isn’t, though that “isn’t” state won’t appear until the final published versions are released into the wild (and additional feedback may change things up even after).

Beginning PCs have established themselves as exemplary in their fields of endeavor. They’re experienced, consistent, and have shown greater capacity than their peers. Thus, they’re not beginning play as “zeroes” in a “zero to hero” process. As mentioned before, they’re beginning as competent performers and develop into reknowned experts.

Ways this shows up, using the D20-based project that riffs on B/X and AD&D as a reference:

PCs have 0-lvl hp (4-6 hp) and then 1st-lvl hp added to those. Players won’t have to worry about PCs being one-shot by the most basic of foes, though tangling with an ogre still has them in peril of a quick death. A wizard PC will begin with 7 or 8 hp on average, with a fighter having 10 or 11, so a foe striking and doing a D6 damage isn’t likely to be a single-round threat to mortality. (The system also works to reduce hp bloat at higher levels, so the starting hp are a larger portion of what their max hp will end up.)
PCs begin with larger bonuses to their primary abilities. Fighters, for instance, aren’t beginning with the same chances to hit as all other PCs, they have bonuses that are noticeably better; where other classes have a +0 bonus to hit at the outset, a fighter will have a +2 to +4 bonus, depending on sub-class and which fighting ability is being considered (melle or missile). Fighters are better at fighting in every way from the outset.
The notable competence extends to many discrete abilities. PCs have a qualitative advantage in class-related abilities when compared to PCs of other classes. A sneaky PC class not only has a bonus to sneaking that other classes lack, but can move more quickly while sneaking.

Now that I’m nailing down sub-systems for playtesting, I’ve been considering exactly what sort of development happens at each tier. This has involved considering when the development needed for each tier actually happens, too –does it all happen prior to reaching that tier or during that tier? When do I expect the character to possess those capabilities? Then, do the abilities show up full-blown, that is, at full capacity and never improving, or do they also develop over time much the same as hit points?

As these are old school systems, I’m inclined to assign improvements in batches at set points instead of having them accumulate in dribbles with something new each level. So fighters begin with the ability to sweep, cleave, sunder, and such at 1st level. Those basic feats/abilities don’t accumulate here and there over time, they’re just part of the basic class abilities for fighters. When new abilities appear, those will arrive in similar bundles reflecting the regular training and experience at that point in development. The system isn’t about the details of how characters gain skills, the system is interested in how the players avail themselves of new capabilities at that point in the character’s life.

I’ve been commenting on fighter development because I’ve been working on that lately to get ready for broader testing. I’ve postulated a great many abilities for the fighter class/sub-classes with an eye to paring back after receiving feedback on them. I expect that I’ve pumped up the class with more than it needs to be viable and interesting, so not all of what’s current will survive to publication. I do know that my take on the fighter won’t be (credibly) criticized as being under-powered.

First Tier

The first tier of play sets a PC up with all of the basic abilities the PC will need throughout the campaign. Fighters will have basic stunts available. Wizards will have basic casting and countering and knowledge skills. A scout will have all of the basic abilities needed for successful travel — orienteering and wayfinding and camping. No PC should have to wait for essential abilities.

That first tier is also the time in play when a PC gains notoriety for personal ability and begins to develop bonds in play within the setting. I expect a good deal of diagetic development to happen in a campaign, and it begins right out of the gate. PCs begin building reputations and come to the attention of the movers and shakers in the world around them (for better or worse). That diagetic development is important within the campaign because the diagetic can get supported mechanically later by the system. (I figure the best way to support diagetic development is to merge it with mechanical development in some fashion.)

Second Tier

The PCs now branch out a bit and begin establishing strong bonds with a social network. The seeds of future political clout are planted. Whether the player wants the PC to primarily adventure when name level and above or to primarily administer a holding (or guild or academy or whatever). The PCs have established themselves as notable in a region and voted Most Likely to Become Movers & Shakers.

Note that diagetic ties to NPCs are not automatically scoring mechanical support. The mechanical support, I think, should be limited to few of these diagetic relationships, so players should choose carefully which to lock in mechanically. I’m also still uncertain as to what form that mechanical support should take.

Third Tier

This is the gateway to high level capabilities. It’s where I think the development should move beyond class-based abilities. It’s when players get to prepare PCs for high-level play without simply being locked into larger numbers of the same ol’ class abilities. Sure, an ability that can support class play whether the PC stays focused on adventuring or becomes a domain ruler would be welcome, so there should be one or two for each class.

Development should be able to move beyond that, though. PCs should be able to gain abilities that aren’t directly related to character class and prime the PCs for continued play at high levels. Becoming conversant with portals for travel to other planes, for example, or learning how to navigate the astral seas in specialized ships. I’m still brainstorming what can/should be available at this point; the abilities need to be useful without providing superpowers of any sort.

Fourth Tier

Well, if we’ve already developed capabilities for high-level play, what else is left? I think at this point, players should be able to fine tune their PCs. To that end, I plan to allow the deprecation of some abilities to replace them with different abilities. That may take the form of taking a reduction in capability with some class abilities to boost other abilities or to gain entirely new abilities.

Development of any domain/organization should be part of this stage of character play, too, of course. What’s been built needs to be maintained and improved.

No Zero-to-Hero

I think it better to describe this development as “competent to expert” with “exploring new realms” on top of it. At no point should the PCs be barely competent enough to wander outside their towns and encounter the wilds of the setting. At no point should the PCs be possessed of superpowers that make them near-invincible. Building expertise and then expanding expertise makes the most sense to me.

Design: On Character Development

April 9, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

When considering the development of Player Characters, I find myself ambivalent about many elements of development. I’ll just offer general thoughts here, despite dealing with three different systems. It may be best to look at all this through the context of Dangerous Adventures, my riff on B/X and AD&D. There’s a great deal here that originated when considering how to tweak those rules to better fit my preferences, plus the underlying considerations affect the Legendary Journeys system and likely the third system, too.

• I have no interest in designing a system that allows or supports the notion of character builds. The games I play aren’t all about characters as that approach makes things, and optimizing a character for the entirety of its lifecycle during chargen is definitely not allowing for much in the way of diagetic development.

• With that said, I do want to offer players a way to customize a character in some small way. This may be limited to how they kit the character out and little else, yet there should be a way to differentiate characters of a like class with just a glance.

• I’m planning for four tiers of PC development: lvls 1 – 3; lvls 4 – 6; lvls 7 – 9; and lvls 10 – 12. This is, of course, an organizational notion to help me when I’m considering how the PCs develop. They begin as notable figures on a local scenehaving established themselves as capable figures that others will call on for assistance. Then they begin to surround themselves with henchmen and cronies and expand their capabilities to be helpful. They then become notable allies to have on a grander scale, with wealthy and noble persons looking to them about important matters. They finally become movers & shakers unto themselves, as important in the political realm as in the arenas of the mythic wilderness and the mythic underground.

• I’m pondering whether or not to add another tier to that stack. I can vaguely see ways to make those higher levels interesting without the PCs simply being superheroes in fantasy suits. I’ll have to be able to spend much more time on that, though, and that’ll have to wait until I get the bulk of the system(s) in working drafts.

• I want PC development to be both vertical and horizontal. The numbers shouldn’t just get larger on abilities. There’s a lot of number bloat that I’ve taken measures to limit over the years that I’ll simply design out of these systems.The DA system uses hit points, in a manner much like its inspirations do. No PC in DA will have hp numbers near what high level PCs in those systems do, as DA PCs only roll for more hp for a handful of levels. The dice rolled also help limit how many hp can accumulate.

• I want PCs to develop new abilities that expand their capabilities as they grow, though not to the point where they get something new each level. Something for each tier, OK.

• I’m also looking at allowing for some abilities to be diminished over time and new abilities developed in their place. This may be the most significant part of customizing a character that I’ll use. As PCs grow, they can shed some bonuses to abilities possessed to add a new ability. (It may be this sort of development choice that differentiates how the player approaches high-level play, whether as a domain ruler or as a hero called on for further adventuring challenges.)

• As that last point mentioned, I’m trying to hash out the details of how a player can choose to either play a domain ruler at high levels or continue on as an adventurer, primarily. The assumption of the early fantasy system designers was that PCs would advance to become rulers and raise armies for the sort of wargames the RPGs descended from. That assumption hasn’t been valid for ages.

• For all the comments about higher levels, I’m not neglecting beginning PCs. The notion that all beginning PCs are some degree of frail is problematic. When compared to 0-lvl people, sure, the PCs have at least some slight edge. When compared to what they can confront when venturing forth, though, they can seem a bit puny. I think adding a bit more competence at the outset can only help; beginning hp are higher (adding 1st lvl hp to existing 0-lvl hp) and a bit more competence (such as fighters having a better to hit bonus at the outset). No “zero to hero” development — “competent to expert” is the goal.

• One way to look at my goals is this: I want to expand the “sweet spot” of character levels in play. Many folks find play with character levels 3 to 7 preferable because the PCs are strong enough to take on a wider array of challenges at the low end and not yet too complex or powerful to enjoy at the high end. If I can expand that to lvls 1 to 9 for many of those players, I’d be satisfied. PCs that aren’t viewed as frail as the outset and not overwhelming at the higher end would be a very good thing, I think.

Some of what I’ve mentioned in here is already sketched out. Some of it is still very much in my head. There are also some elements that I have planned that I’m leery of hard coding into rules (such as gaining titles and other diagetic rewards). I’ll probably have more thoughts to spill as I work through it all.

An Early Look At DA Fighters

April 7, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I’ve got the rough sketches of the fighting classes for Dangerous Adventures ready for comments.

The Stalwart is the straight up fighting machine. https://osrpgtalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/DA-Class-Stalwart.pdf

The Lancer is the mounted specialist. https://osrpgtalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/DA-Class-Lancer.pdf

The Warrior is the barbaric edition. https://osrpgtalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/DA-Class-Warrior.pdf

The Ranger is a monster hunter. https://osrpgtalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/DA-Class-Ranger.pdf

The Paladin hunts undead and puts them to rest. https://osrpgtalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/DA-Class-Paladin.pdf

I’ve yet to flesh out some of the abilities and settle in on final descriptive terms. I think this is a good look at what will be going into outside playtesting, though, once the numbers and descriptions are all nailed down.

Design: Characters

April 6, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

At the heart of the player experience in RPGs is the Player Character. One can argue that the rules surrounding PCs can make or break a system, with those rules being what ties the player into the game at the table. I wouldn’t argue that notion is wrong, though it might not be the whole of the measure. The ins and outs of PCs, however, do a lot of work in a game system.

Help Define the Setting

What character classes are available for play provide a look at the setting, the game world. The archetypes and expressions of those archetypes provide information on what goes on in the setting, and what is important to how the world operates. OD&D’s three possible archetypes –fighting man, cleric, and magic user– tell us that the world has lots of fighting, religious orders that also fight, and a community of wizards who actively seek out new information and materials. These archetypes are lightly defined, leaving it to individual tables as to whether fighting men can be knights or mercenaries, light foot soldiers, heavily armored troopers, and so forth. This allows for the GM to provide guidance to players to get PCs that fit the GM’s world.

So, while the system rules don’t offer much in the way of defining the setting, the GM can certainly do so by informing the players what sorts of fighters can be played and tying them into the world. The GM establishes the flavor of the world by offering horse archers, light footmen, heavy infantry houseguards, lancers, and so forth.

Tools For Play

The character classes provide players with tools to use in play. Each ability possessed by a PC is a tool the player can use in overcoming challenges. This isn’t to say that the PC abilities should be providing simple solutions to challenges –proverbial EASY buttons– but provide the type of abilities to bring to bear that such a character would. The abilities shouldn’t provide immediate answers to challenges, just tools that can be used with ingenuity in addressing those challenges.

As mentioned above, a class provides abilities available to the PC/player to use to overcome challenges in play. A class definition limits what abilities the PC is best at to those that serve their role in the setting, and thus in the game. Fighters are good at fighting to some degree, better than those PCs who aren’t fighters. The magicians wield magic, which the other classes don’t. There are sub-classes with abilities to sneak around more effective than other people, while Paladins are more effective at battling and destroying undead than everybody else. A key element is that characters are better at what their classes do than characters who belong to other classes. I look to make each class both qualitatively better and quantitatively better at their specialties than those who aren’t of the same class. That also indicates that characters of other classes can certainly do at least some of the same things –sneak around, fight undead, hunt critters– though not with the same competence as the specialists.

Consider a snoop, for example. A snoop is quite competent at breaking & entering and sneaking around in dark places to find items without being detected. So, when it comes to climbing a rope or wall, a snoop is less likely to fall –a quantitative difference– and able to also move more quickly than others –a qualitative difference. Players are able to have their PCs attempt actions outside their specialties; it’s expected as a normal part of play.

In My Projects

In my projects, I’m using character class constructs in exactly these fashions. The range of character sub-classes offer insight as to how the world operates. There is no generic fighter, for example; there are multiple sub-classes that fill roles in the societies in which they arise. There are experienced soldiers notable for their capabilities, the Stalwart. There are Troopers, the mounted cavalry. Barbarians come from less-“civilized” lands and are adept with both melee and missile weapons. Rangers are specialized hunters of monsters. Paladins hunt undead and lay them to rest.

These last two sub-classes highlight that monsters are a common issue in the setting that has to be dealt with, to the point where specialized roles have been created and there are people who step into those roles to protect the lands of the human (and human-like) peoples.

Even among those sub-classes there can be further differentiation via character kits. A mobile light infrantry skirmisher is different than a soldier of the line is different than a member of a noble’s houseguard. Different weapons, armors, approaches to combat, and different organizations they operate in can provide a myriad of ways the character is tied into the setting.

There are also Scouts of more than one type. Delvers, often derided as tomb robbers. Snoops for hire by the wealthy to spy on rivals. Hunters who know their local landscapes well and trade in furs and carcasses. Guides who know the routes connecting the settlements and lead caravans and expeditions.

There are then magicians of varied sort. Witches, who draw on primal powers and work within the weave of the natural world. Wizards, who take a more scholarly, abstracted approach to working. And Enchanters, who create illusions and draw out horrors from others’ minds.

Each of the three projects underway offer up these three classes and at least most of the sub-classes. Two of them also offer an assortment of Raconteurs, with priests, friars, bards, and other performers available to provide characters better-suited to social interactions.

I’ve already posted a draft of a Witch class (https://osrpgtalk.net/first-look-at-a-witch-class/) and have sketches of other classes underway.

Design: Exploring

April 5, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

Exploration is a staple of fantasy RPG adventuring. From the earliest rules drafts onward, exploring underground complexes has been present. Later expansion of the system added exploring wilderness to the mix, so PCs could explore the great outdoors, find a musty old dungeon, and then explore the hole in the ground. The basic play loop in the rules has always been that of “Leave Home –> Explore –> Return Home” lather, rinse, repeat. With that in mind, I’d like to look at exploration closely, with an eye on figuring out what’s important to the play experience when exploring to try to capture that in my projects.

First, of course, we’ll have to break exploration into discrete units of activity, as I don’t think dungeon exploration and wilderness exploration share enough similarities to share a unified process. There are some major differences that warrant treating them individually despire shared concerns between them. I’m also leaning into additional exploration fields (dreamscapes, faery, etc.) and expect those to also have some significant differences when compared to sneaking around in dark tunnels.

Dungeon Exploration

Fantasy RPGs began in dungeons, so I think it fitting to begin by examining exploration of dungeons. What is that drives characters to delve in the darkness and hazard the risks of going there? Or, properly, what is it that leads players to want to have characters who adventure there? What are the game experiences that entice players to play in these imaginary spaces?

I think, at a fundamental level, is the draw of a world similar to ours and yet filled with wondrous things that ours isn’t. Many of those wondrous beings, items, or events simply don’t or can’t happen in our mundane existence and provide both relief from mundaneity and the promise and challenge of novelty. Even with the dozenth iteration of a magical fountain, the very idea of a magical fountain remains something new enough to warrant wonder.

So many of these wondrous things also involve a challenge to us as thinking creatures. How will we overcome the struggle before us to achieve our ends? Let us marshall our tools, gather our wits, and figure out an approach to surmount the odds and prevail. Can we bludgeon our way through? Slip surretitiously past it? Undermine it operations so it falls apart? Negotiate a way past? The game situation allows us to stretch our problem-solving abilities beyond the boundaries of our personal capabilities via PC abilities and belongings.

The dungeon offers us myraid ways to engage in the wonders and challenges of a fantasy setting. There are puzzles to be solved to find a hidden vault or open its portal, and clues to be found and pondered to reach a solution. Traps that can be the demise of the unwary, if warning hints are ignored or misread. Tricks to be overcome when they lead us astray and waste our time and resources. Then there are treasures, both obvious and not, that promise riches and reknown and influence, if we should be able to return home with them.

All of this while mucking about in the dark with the possibility of monstrous creatures lurching out of the shadow seeking to devour our bodies and sometimes our souls. All of the nightmares of our primoridal psyche on display in flesh and bone and dripping blood from fang and claw. We get to confront horrors and walk –or limp– away to tell the tale.

The feel of those encounters arises from few things. The PCs –and thus the players, vacariously– are in an unknown environment. Their primary sense, sight, is limited by the pervailing darkness, and other senses can be readily overwhelmed by strange scents, echoing sound, and the strange airs found in the underworld. It’s easy to get turned around and about and to lose grasp of the way back to safety.

The PCs also have limited resources. They can rely only on themselves and what they can carry with them (the best argument for encombrance rules, I say) while struggling against the dark and the horrors it contains. They’re likely to have only the water they carry to maintain hydration and foods they carry to maintain energy. The very extertion of moving around can drain them to where everything becomes more difficult. Maintaining peak performance is a challenge in itself.

It’s my opinion that the constraints of the latter limits emphasize the joys of the former. That is, the shiny wonders shine brighter when contrasted with the strain of the darkness. The challenge of design, I think, lies in balancing the two — how intrusive to make the strain of resource management balanced against the brightness of the challenges.

Wilderness Exploration

Exploring in the wilderness can be an express investigation or happen merely by moving through an area. I’ve still yet to sort the finer points of the two so I can decide if the procedures are exactly the same or if there’s some difference that is worth making apparent in the rules. The broad strokes of each are the same, though.

I find a lot of value in the approach of having Landmarks, Hidden POIs, and Secret POIs in any given hex/area of the lands being moved through. The hidden and the secret, of course, are only found by exploring as part of the move through the area. The hidden are off the natural path of travel –a road, well-worn trail, along a river or stream, or route following the base of hills (instead of trying to climb over them)– and can be found easily by leaving that path. The secret need to be sought out with greater effort, poking about in copses and hollows and all places that are impervious to casual view.

I think there are several instances that can make travel interesting. All of the things that serve to make dungeons interesting can also make wilderness interesting, with the understanding that the wilderness can provide an abundance of events and encounters and places that a dungeon is hard-pressed to match. For each magical fountain in a dungeon, the wilderness can offer up numerous magical pools, springs, ponds, streams, wells, and fountains. For each portal into the mythical underworld found in a dungeon, the wilderness can host multiple openings into the realms of faery, the elder world, alternate times, spiritworlds, and other planes; the mythic wilds are numerous and dangerous.

The wilds are full of homegrown beasties and those of all the other places that can attach to it. For every great cat protecting its territory, there can be an incursion from elsewhere or elsewhen providing a different form of danger. The machinations of faery courts can spill out into the mortal realm. Travellers from other planes with malicious intent can act against the beings that call this world home.

So, it’s possible to have a near-constant appearance of events and encounters to liven up play in the wilds. Wizard weather –powerful storms– can bring entities across the veils between worlds, ancient sites of power can erupt into action according to astral alignments, malignant spirits can inhabit fens and copses and areas around tombs and shrines to dark forces. All of the interesting parts of dungeon exploration are possible in the wilderness.

The same aspects of dungeon exploration that create tension and highlight the satisfaction of encountering the challenges also appear in wilderness play. Expeditions are limited in the supplies they can transport, so decisions about what gear to carry come to play. Gathering supplies from the surroundings is a choice, balanced against the time it takes to do so; that extra time means extra exposure to the elements and the hazards of travel, with an extra day on the trail possibly leading to catastrophe. Spending extra time in a haunted wood with malicious spirits is a recipe for distress, at the least. PCs unable to find rest and recovery are then easier pickings for hostile forces later along the trail.

There is the darkness of night to negotiate, complete with the creatures that prefer darkness. Daylight brings respite from the dark, though with a different roster of dangers and choices possible to keep the characters successful in their travels.

Faery Exploration

Then there are the otherworldly spaces to explore. These can offer different challenges and change up the procedures for maintaining supply. Hunting in Faery can be quite different than hunting in a typical forest. Gathering plants much the same. Players can find that simply maintaining food and water supplies can be more difficult in a different plane/world.

Time can be variable, with a foray in another world resulting in much time elapsing in the PCs’ home world, or spend days wandering in another place only to return an hour later to where they left. The geography of another world can vary as the characters move about. The players may have to figure out how to return to the home world with the opening between worlds closing behind them. Getting drawn into another world when having a deadline into the home world is problematic and increases the challenge for players.

The elements of exploration are generally similar from one environment to the next. The differences are likely enough to warrant procedures for each to help them feel different in play. I think that finding the basic demands of managing resources a bit different in each context will be a way to provide a contrast in flavor, as will the details of the nature of what’s encountered.

Design Theory: Abstractions in Action

April 2, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I’m currently working on combat/action sub-systems, at least for the Dangerous Adventures project. That involves taking a hard look at many of the usual business approaches to aspects of combat systems and deciding if those are fitting with my intentions for a system. It may prove inspirational for others to read how I approach the design process with some examples, so I’ll begin here.

The oldest version of D&D and then AD&D both use one-minute combat/action rounds. Among the early editions, B/X stands out for using a much shorter round, nominally, though the rules really don’t offer any substantial difference in play to support the varied time scales. In each instance, a round of fighting activity is assumed to involve basic fighting movement, feints, dodges, parries, attacks aimed at different targets, sucking down air, and any other individual bits of man-to-man fighting one would care to mention. Throw in movement on the battleground and one has a reasonably complete picture of what’s going on in the abstraction. It’s all in support of the pointy end of the stick, which is finding out if the PC fought effectively enough to do any significant damage to the foe.

That approach stands up under scrutiny, as being reflective of reality in fighting while being useful in playing games. I don’t see any utility in trying to reduce the time to very short instances of action and trying to posit individual strikes in a fight. Far too many attempted strikes would be ineffective to make such a process at all interesting, so the assumption of a round involving at least several such attempts works better for me.

The only part of this that I’ve taken issue with is how long a round is. I’ve found over the years that both one-minute rounds and ten-second rounds grate on my sensibilities, with the one too long and the other too short. The technical length of the round doesn’t have much direct effect on what happens within it, other than a general guage of how much can get done, so it’s never been a major issue. I’m designing with the idea of rounds being 15 to 30 seconds long, likely the best measure to use; anything longer could make differences in movement rates moot and anything shorter would stretch some activities over more rounds. This tightens things up a bit when compared to AD&D rounds.

Among the elements I want to incorporate in my projects, is that of weapon speed. I don’t see this as a literal measure of how quick the weapon is when in use, mostly as a measure of how easy it is to use the weapon and have it in place for striking and parrying and such when wielded. The weapon speeds listed in the early versions of D&D will help guide the assignment of Action Facility ratings (weapon speeds) for use in DA.

I suspect the Facility can be improved based on class and level, too, though I’m not to a point where I can gauge that (the basics of it have to be well-tested, first). At first glance, I can see experienced fighters being able to improve Action Facility with a favorite weapon type.

Movement has to be nailed down, in terms of how far a character can generally move in a single phase of the round. The rates of movement resulting from different approaches –cautious, careful, aggressive, sprinting, etc.– have to be tested for verisimilitude and all that.

I want to include pass-through fire on moving foes, with missile able to attack them at an appropriate place along the line of movement taken during a phase. I want split-move attacks possible, with partial move followed by a quick attack and then ending with further movement. An unengaged character should be able to intercept a moving foe, whether by a simple short shift move or a longer interception move.

I suspect that pulling a lot of the choices that orginated in miniatures play can help make sub-tactical RPG engagements perhaps more fluid and certainly requiring more factors to consider each round.

NPCs: Central Casting

March 30, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I’ve been struggling with crafting a cast of characters for a campaign start area. Then I realized I could approach it in a different fashion and suddenly the NPCs started springing up left and right. I’ve no idea why the change let the creative juices flow where the approach I’ve used for decades suddenly dried everything up. Ah, well, ideas are bubbling up and I figured it worth sharing.

I was thinking about a friend who has been an inspiration for an important NPC. I realized that I wasn’t really trying to put her into the setting, I was using her as an inspiration and it was much more like I was casting her to play that character on the world stage. That brought the epiphany — I’m a director casting people in parts for a play.

I found that this approach works well in two directions. That is, taking an NPC role and figuring out who I’d cast to play that part; and also considering a person I know in some fashion and figuring out what sort of role I’d cast them in. Note that I’m not considering basing the NPC on the person’s actual personality, I’m just considering how I’d cast them in a play based on how I think they’d play the NPC.

I’ve never overtly considered this as an approach to NPCs prior. I’ve rarely even thought of correlating a known person with an NPC in my games. I expect there are people who’ve taken this approach, though I’ve not encountered discussion of it anywhere.

Layout: Tables

March 26, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

One layout feature found in abundance in RPGs, especially in old school systems, is the table. A table can organize information in a fashion that efficiently conveys the ideas involved, providing concise statements of information. The Turning Undead table, for example, lays out the chances for clerics to turn or destroy undead creatures while also providing a gauge for how tough the different undead types are to encounter.

Tables can also help decide among a variety of options via dice rolls, as with encounter tables for wilderness travel or random dungeon encounters. Those are the tables I want to look at here. I’m interested in taking the basic tables long used in rules systems and expanding on them a bit.

I’ve written before about wanting to use some large table types. Reality sat me down for an intervention and showed me that laying out such large tables wasn’t quite practical, even using a two-page spread. The cells on the table shrink to barely usable with such a size. So, I’m here to press more conventional tables into service.

The many systems that have been published over the decades all use tables of some sort, so the usage of tables to provide information in RPG systems isn’t new or unusual. D6 tables, D10, D20, D30, D100 tables abound in the published literature. While they all can prove useful, I’m mostly interested in those found in old school and OSR materials, specifically those using multiple dice in some fashion.

The venerable reaction table, for example, calls for 2D6 rolls. An OSR system favorite is the D66 table. Each of these types can be expanded to increase the range of results in ways that can serve a setting better and provide a bit more flavor to the rules.

The reaction table is a a single-axis table, meaning the roll indicates which row on the table to use to find a result. We can, however, expand the number of rows to add some interesting utility to the table. We can expand both the top and bottom of the table, so the lowest result is less than the lowest dice roll of 2, and the greatest result is greater than the highest dice roll of 12.

What this does is allow for a wider range of results and move the more extreme results — hostility resulting in immedate attack and all-in friendly helpfulness — outside the bounds of a default roll. To garner a result from the expanded rows, the roll has to be modified and that provides a chance for the players to wrangle modifiers in their favor. A look at a potential reaction table:

The five results from the standard table have now expanded to nine results, which allows a bit more nuance in play. It also allows for added interactions to shift results for better or worse, facilitating more interaction before either extreme can occur.

Now let’s look at an encounter table. By expanding the number of rows, we can reflect increased danger in deeper levels of a dungeon or risk increasing the more time is spent in a location. The more dangerous the area or longer the PCs have been in a risky place, the greater the modifier to the roll and the more dangerous the entries on the table become. A 2D6 table that has goblins as the most likely critter encountered now has gnolls as the most likely with a modifier shifting roll results, and the possibility of owlbears as the most powerful.

Now, we can also expand the number of columns available. Using a D66 roll, or adding a D6 alongside a 2D6 roll, allows us to shift things in a different direction. The D66 becomes a possible D68, so to speak, as a modifier of one or two column shifts moves us into options not part of default rolls.

Expanding a table in both directions allows us to color the results in more than one fashion. If we add rows, we can tie modifiers for that to one element, say level of dungeon in a dungeon crawl. Then, we can add columns to the table that reflect the time spent in the current level and how that increases the chances of stirring up more of the inhabitants. Or we can have the expansion in one direction reflect moving into a different area of the level that has more active or dangerous inhabitants. Or an increased chance of cave-ins or geothermal vents spraying steam or whatever.

In this fashion, the regular 36 possible results of a D66 table can be expanded to, say, 64 possible results by allowing for modifiers of +1 or +2 in each direction. I’m looking at using a 2D6x6 table format to take advantage of the bell curve, so that involves 66 possible results of varying likelihood. (The 2D6^2 table format I wanted to use — 121 possible results by default and bunches more with expansion — just doesn’t fit well in a rulebook, alas.)

This is, of course, just a cursory look at expanding tables and how they could be used. The true utility has to be worked out in game materials and used at tables to see how they’re best used. I’ll be hashing out expanded tables in the materials I’m preparing, so concrete examples will be found therein.

The Old School: Hallmarks II

March 19, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

More thoughts on what makes for an old school experience. Some of this is simply expansion on a topic mentioned in Hallmarks I because I think the added commentary adds something to the discussion. As I return to thoughts of playstyles, I expect more details and notions to arise and I’ll toss them up here. Perhaps I’ll get around to pulling all of it together, properly organized, and then post it.

I’ve offered that settings are what define the world in which PCs operate. Any exceptions to normal physics are delineated so that players can interact with a consistent basis of understanding; gravity is going to make a long fall quite detrimental to a PC’s health…although here are the specific ways in which that can be ameliorated. Players are able to predict, in general terms, how things work and thus gauge how risky a course of action will be for the PC.

Settings also tie in with other elements. PCs are expected to be grounded in the setting, with some nominal ties to specific elements. The most basic is likely that of origin; where the PC comes from establishes them as *part of the setting* from the outset. The PCs aren’t foreign to the setting, they’re just another one of many elements that are part of the setting.

That’s important because old school campaigns are about the setting. The system rules didn’t include anything about pre-planned “character arcs” or long, involved background stories because the campaigns were expected to be about what’s going on in the world and how a group of random characters engage with it. With everything involved being part of the setting, it’s the setting that is featured in play. It’s this that makes every PC replaceable in a campaign, with it not unusual that a player could begin a campaign and then change PCs over time without that campaign ending.

A system begins to lose old school flavor when the approach to PCs loses tight definition in an effort to provide a lot of customization. As the ancestral wargames offered up a “fighter is a fighter is a fighter” approach, the old school RPGs proceeded with that idea, I reckon, because it kept the PCs grounded in the setting and helped to make them replaceable. The expectation was that a PC becomes memorable based on how it’s played with the choices the player makes defining the unique nature of the character. Thus, a character is only fully defined through play and that’s where the important differences should arise.

I’ll even offer that this is part of developing player skill, in part — take this standard-issue archetype and make something more of it *in play.* So much of the play experience and character definition happens “off-sheet,” as is often said. Players can’t rely on special combinations of customization options to provide “easy button” solutions to play challenges, a build isn’t a substitute for creative solutions the player cooks up. The character sheet acts as a toolbox for the player, not a source of solutions; interrogating the fiction by asking questions to find elements that can possibly be exploited to help overcome the challenge at hand is far more important than looking to the sheet for an answer.

Old school play is very much in the “play to find out” camp. Even in tournament play, while each round of the tournament provided a continuation of a general plot, the individual installments often didn’t dictate an explicit sequence of encounters and events. G1-3 Against the Giants, for example, moved the overall plot from round to round from G1 with hill giants to G2 with frost giants and then to G3 and fire giants. When playing through G1, however, there was no expected order of encounters as to how it would play out, nor do I recall any instances of “the PCs have to do X then Y” or similar to finish the module.

Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, with its order of battle roster, makes this even more apparent. PCs can have denizens appear during a fight with others and then, when arriving at those critters’ regular quarters, there won’t be any critters to be found. The module doesn’t decide if the critters will be encountered during the large melee, in their own quarters, or somewhere in between. That lack of expectation and reliance on the GM to sort the happenstance is representative of an old school approach.

Old school systems also expect exploration as an important component of play. this hearkens back to the importance of setting, because finding out what is in the setting and what’s happening in the setting is core to the experience. Exploration becomes important as a way to find out about the setting, as the setting provides for play. A solid procedure for exploring sites thus seems to be a requirement in old school playstyles.

I hope my thoughts here can spur thought and spark ideas from other people. I can’t say that my idea of the hallmarks of old school styles are necessarily the most accurate or thorough, certainly. I can say that thinking on the subject has helped me deepen my understanding, certainly.

First Look at a Witch Class

March 5, 2026 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I’ve roughed out a Witch class for the DA project. The class will be quite similar when it appears as an LJ class.

I’d love to hear ideas on more powers for Witches to be able to develop, as the list I have seems a bit short. I’ll be basing the spell descriptions and lists on those powers.

Feedback on the abilities described also welcome…shoot, feedback on all of it is welcome, at this point. I think I’ve conveyed the gist of the class reasonably well and I’d like to know how it comes off to you.

https://osrpgtalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/DA-Class-Witch.pdf