OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Setting: Recurring Events I

October 5, 2026 / / 0 Comments

I enjoy having problems arise in the setting that the PCs can deal with in the short term, yet those issues will arise again in the future. I started thinking about this phenomena recently when brainstorming a new adventure, so I’m trying to work out a variety of ways providing a recurring challenge has cropped up in play over the years.

The adventure at hand involves some ancient magical wards failing and a BBEG waking, rousing its minions, and those minions going forth and behaving badly. If the PCs decide to help the locals with this problem, they have to figure out where the minions are coming from, then infiltrate the site and see if they can figure out how to stop it from happening again. They’ll figure out that minions they’ve cut down are respawning and then have to figure out how to stop that from continuing. The BBEG can also be cut down and then will respawn, adding to the mess. The party will have to figure out that the way to prevent recurrence is to restore the wards that failed.

The thing is, I don’t want the plague of minions to be constant, so there has to be a reason for the BBEG to wake and rouse them for a bit and then go absent again for awhile. That took me down the rabbit hole of identifying many ways I’ve handled that, and others GMs have handled it when I played at their tables, and a bit of extrapolation based on that experience to identify other ways.

I’m expecting this adventure to be linked to astronomical events. Thus, I’ve been building a list of events that can certainly be reasonably tied to magical/supernatural events. What I’m offering here isn’t exhaustive, I expect, though every entry is something I’ve brainstormed multiple uses for to decide if it warrants inclusion (as the formal list will be part of a GM’s text).

The Moon

An obvious cycle to tie weird events to is one provided by the moon. Postulating that your setting has a moon generally similar to our own Luna, with noticeable cycles in the viewing, there are many ways to parse it out.

• A full moon for the triggering event. One can use a single day measure or a three-day measure of the full moon for short windows of activity. A longer window ranges from full moon to new moon.

• A new moon works just as well.

• A gibbous moon phase — the time between full moon and half moon — provides a shorter measure of time than full-to-new. A crescent moon phase — half moon to new — does the same.

• One can require that the solution to stopping the recurrence be tied to a moon phase, too. The full moon triggers the event and the measures needed to stop it (semi-)permanently need to happen during the following new moon, for example.

• If your setting includes multiple moons, then things can get wilder. Two moons have to be full or some such. Or all three moons have to align just so. Lots of possibilities here.

The Sun

The next obvious cycles to consider are those tied to the sun. Again, first considering settings that involve a single star similar to Sol. We have historical accounts of numerous cultures observing solar events for matters of importance, with calendar systems being largely tied to solar cycles.

• Soltices are major events and long used to regulate calendar years.

• Equinoxes have also been tied to calendars and religious/cultural celebrations.

• The so-called cross-quarters, halfway between solstice and equinox, have also been tied to celebrations and observances. All Hallows’ Eve — Halloween — is a prime example of this.

Seasons

The travels of the sun in relation to the horizon are tied to the seasons, given an Earth-like world setting. The seasonal changes can drive magical activity, where they don’t perfectly align with the solar cycle. Perhaps winter is measured from the first hard frost instead of the sun’s progress. Spring arrives with the blossoming of specific flowers instead of simply aligning with the sun.

The Stars

Another obvious historical connection is that of events matching up with the stars in the heavens, or stellar constellations as seen from Earth. One can create an entire astrological lineup for seasons, matching up with solar positioning at sunrise, or matching moonrise, or using some other type of recognition of the astrological cycle.

Mix & Match

Now, these are all perfectly good when used by themselves. There’s absolutely nothing stopping a GM from mixing these together, to make sorting out the requirements for a magical sealing ritual a bit more involved. One can posit that a BBEG will awaken during the first new moon after the winter solstice and can only be put to rest on the nights of a full moon thereafter, for example. Or will regenerate after being killed and rise again on the first new moon in each season.

Tying events in adventures to natural cycles in the setting helps deepen the sense of immersion for those who treasure that, and makes things a bit more predictable for even those who don’t worry about deep immersion. The setting comes to life a bit more, as the elements get tied together.

Layout: Keying Adventures

September 30, 2026 / / 0 Comments

So, Yochai Gal posted this the other day: https://newschoolrevolution.com/the-keys-to-my-heart/ He takes on the burden of creating a taxonomy for styles of keying adventures.

I’ve laid out a basic approach to keying materials for my projects that lands in the OOK approach, I reckon. My initial sketch of the approach can be seen in this image:

The illo at the top is of a two-page spread, with the map on the left of the spread and the room description on the right page. This contains the info that I’ve always wanted available to me as I GM. There’s the map so I always can reference the space available and features in it, plus the approaches to the space. There’s quick description info for first looks, then more info about the contents of the space for when/if the PCs poke around. That info is broken out according to the landmark/hidden/secret principle to make running the space easier on the GM.

I’m now curious as to how others interact with this sort of information. How much prose would be useful to support the bullet point information, if any? I want to provide what’s needed to run it, along with any additional info to help the GM bring it to like, yet without including much that won’t be used and just clogs up the room description.

I’m also interested in seeing how other GMs organize their prep info for running stuff at their tables. What’s the info you find essential and how do you present it for yourself at the table?

Design: Training

September 29, 2026 / / 0 Comments

PCs training as part of level advancement has been around since the beginning. It’s also strained at credulity for me since I began play. Not that I find it unreasonable that characters should have to spend time practicing to improve and gain consistency, certainly not. The way in which that gets mimicked in the rules has never really gelled with me.

Let’s look at AD&D training:

Note: OD&D has nothing about training among its sections covering experience levels. As monks and druids got added to the system, their descriptions called for fights with higher level monks or druids to advance to specific levels and that was it.

The first statement in the DMG about gaining experience levels is one that I’ve taken to heart, though put into practice in non-obvious ways. To wit — and the emphasis is in the original — UPWARD PROGRESS IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. Simply accumulating xp isn’t enough for advancement in level. I think that’s something that got lost from discussion and play long ago and that loss is for the worse. I suspect losing track of that notion is what led us into the wilderness of not having solid training rules.

Gygax then speaks about the GM rating the overall performance of the play of the character in regard to class function and alignment. He ties this rating directly to the number of weeks required for training to gain a level. The notion of evaluating PC play via adherence to stereotypical PC behavior — was the fighter boldly leading, was the thief sneakily stealing, etc. — doesn’t sit well with me as it disallows the nuances of character and variety of personality among members of the same class. The notion of time necessary for training, however, seems obvious to me. The trick is figuring out how to figure out how much time is necessary. (Keep in mind that time spent training is time the PC is unavailable for adventuring.) He goes into whether tutelage by an NPC is necessary, also, based on that GM evaluation.

The costs of training seem to be tied more to draining PCs of wealth than reflective of any diagetic issues. That’s perfectly fine as a game mechanism, though I reckon there are better ways to deal with excess liquid assets and the costs Gygax lists strain the simulation aspect of play. Paying for training tutors and/or assistants is fine. Paying a noble’s ransom for such is a bit much.

He also notes that training is to undertaken as a solid block of study, uninterrupted by adventuring or anything else, lest the benefits of the training be lost and the PC have to begin training anew after the interruption. A bit harsh, though it certainly fits with the general style of play that centered on forays into dungeons as part of ad hoc groups of PCs, so the temptation to interrupt training time to join an effort to map out a bit more of the fourth dungeon level would have been strong. Force the player to choose which is more important — being involved in the mapping foray or training to increase in level.

The Concepts Taken From It

What I’m taking from this and using as a basic for the projects I’m working on:

• Leveling up is not an automatic event. It requires training.

• Training is an explicit activity to be undertaken in an environment designed for it.

• Training involves other people, whether instructors or assistants, and costs associate with that.

• Training requires a commitment of time devoted to it.

For a bit of background, I can speak to the ways I’ve dealt with xp and leveling over the years. In the beginning, of course, I toed the line on RAW, diligently adhering to what I’d read in the DMG. Then, over time, I’d dropped xp for monsters and just used xp for gold. Then played a bit flipping that script (I don’t advise that <shudder>). Then I toyed with awarding xp based on the number of encounters played through (whether fights or avoidance or negotiation or whatever). What I ended up using for a long while, as did another GM or two in our group of players, simply dropping large amounts of xp whenever it seemed to be a good time to give the PCs a bit of a boost.

That last approach has long been my preference. One of the reasons I played around with different xp award systems has to do with diagetic advancement rates. That a PC fighter could advance from 1st level veteran to 8th level superhero in a matter of a few game months just didn’t sit well with me (and still doesn’t). So, what I’m working on now is laying out guidelines to advancement that work with my preference for diagetic believability and showing progress in advancement due to what players choose to do.

To that end, I’m looking at training being a regular activity for PCs. That is, any time they aren’t out saving the dragon from the princess, they’re living their lives in town and part of that is spending time training. This also makes the idea of upkeep costs a bit more applicable, as paying for training assistants and supplies is required for effectiveness. A fighter needs opponents to wallop with wooden swords, a wizard needs a scribe to copy borrowed texts for reference, and so on — whether household staff or not, those people cost money.

It’s also a two-pronged approach, in that the PCs have to actually get out and adventure to advance smoothly. I think of Ars Magicka and it’s seasons, with Magi being required to adventure for a season before retreating into their drafty towers to study and craft new spells. That cycle of venturing forth followed by a return home with new lessons to learn makes for a fine basic loop for me. Among all the activities to do while at home, training should be a regular thing.

Design: Magicking I

September 23, 2026 / / 0 Comments

This is a subsystem that’s been percolating for ages, repeatedly rising and sinking in the morass in my head. Now that I’ve been putting it together for specific systems, more aspects bubble up.

Channeling

The fundamental element of this approach to working magic is the idea that casters have to channel mana to do their thing. Lots of folks have offered up mana point/magic point systems over the years though I’ve never seen one that measured the channeling instead of setting up pools of mana. I stepped away from thinking of mana as a resource that the caster accumulated and just as surrounding energy that the caster draws on, so the focus lands on how much the caster can draw and control at a time. That’s made a significant difference.

Another key step involved stepping away from channeling a set rate of mana to a random rate. This was tied in with finding a way to vary how long it should take to cast a spell, as I want to avoid a feel of magic-as-technology with set, reliable working times. I landed on rolling dice to measure the channeling as much as to provide variable timing as anything else — one has to channel so many pips of mana to cast a spell, and that can take more or less time as determined by the roll of the dice. That randomness works out diagetically as the caster having to work to summon and channel the mana and such an endeavor being a bit different each time.

Focusing on channeling, I reckon, makes how much a caster can channel an important factor. Then, just like with purely physical exertion, how much the caster can channel before fatigue throws a wrench in the gears also becomes important. Those factors become easy to measure and regulate using the dice — how much can be channeled is set by how many dice can be cast per turn, and how much can be channeled before fatigue sets in limited by how many dice per day.

I’m starting with the idea that a caster can channel only a single die at a time. The default is one per round, though that could certainly mean one per phase where casting is considered, if more than once per round. Even if more than one die can be cast during a round, a limit on the number per round makes sense, still. The limit on how many dice can be cast during a day of activity is also readily modeled by limiting how many dice the caster has capacity for. The number of dice available at any time helps limit magic work to keep it limited in play.

With that established, it becomes apparent that the exertion model also can support PCs pushing themselves to channel mana beyond their working capacity. As runners can force themselves to continue on after hitting the wall of fatigue and eventually stumble across the finish line of a race, magicians can push themselves and work magic beyond when they should. The part to work out is how much extra they can push, how long it takes, and what the price they pay will be. I can see wizards literally knocking themselves out by way of overexertion channeling mana — keep casting until they pass out.

The amount of mana required to cast a spell is arbitrary, of course, and can be set to reflect the desired feel of the game world and play therein. I first started playing around with the channeling dice using spells from AD&D, just dropping the channeling system in to replace the Vancian slots. I landed at requiring 5 points channeled per spell level to cast.

For an individual spell of 1st level, that 5 points of mana channeled means that rolling one channeling die means the spell is powered and completed one-third of the time. I played around with requiring 4 points of mana channeled, which meant half the time a single die was sufficient. That coin flip of success worked well, on the face of it.

If I use 4 pips/spell lvl, then the odds for finishing casting using one die per spell level begin at 50% and fall for every spell level thereafter. That’s not necessarily bad, it just didn’t end up feeling the best to me. Using 5 pips per spell level, made working magic decidedly more demanding, in comparison, and immediately drove me to consider how many dice the caster would have available. With the 4-pip cost, I was looking at a single channeling die per spell level the caster was expected to be able to cast in a day. With the 5-pip cost, I had to consider how adding extra channeling dice capacity would affect casting.

Adding extra dice to the channeling capacity made a major difference. With the caster having more than one die per spell level to throw at the casting, the odds improved to make the casting more reliable. Adding extra dice to the wizard’s capacity then led to being able to perhaps cast an extra spell, if the rolls go well. It adds another choice for the player to make when marshalling resources. At this point, I’m playing around using the caster’s level plus one for the number of channeling dice available.

A first-level MU in AD&D has a single spell slot. Replacing that slot with two channeling dice means that MU could potentially cast two 1st-lvl spells instead of just the one. Even with two channeling dice, however, casting the spell isn’t a given. That’s a variance that I can get behind, as it reinforces the idea that working magic is a challenging affair and doesn’t always go as expected.

That also made me consider that idea of exertion in real terms. So, the MU spent both channeling dice on casting a sleep spell and still hasn’t managed to do so. Well, that’s when pushing the effort to gain another die for channeling has to happen, so the player rolls another die to finish the casting (likely, though still not a given) and then accumulates fatigue. That fatigue affects PC activity in general and isn’t limited to just magical working, as it causes checks for capacity and the wizard could pass out, though is more likely to end up stunned and suffer penalties to all checks for a phase or two.

As mentioned earlier and should be obvious after having read about the process so far, the use of the dice determines casting times. No longer is a 1st-lvl spell finished in the same number of segments every time it’s cast. Nope. It’s finished when the mana has all been channeled, however long that takes. So, with a low roll on the first channeling die, the spell isn’t finished in that first bit of measured time. It may be finished on the next or the one after that. This also ties to the pushed effort, as pushing to add a die can be done immediately at great cost or in another bit of time following the normal rolling at lesser cost. Again, the player can choose how to use that resource and how important finishing a spell is. I like that a great deal.

Channeling dice recover with rest, much the same as hp. I reckon allowing for one die to recover after eight hours of no magic use is something to consider; playtesting can speak to how that affects play. In general, though, I expect a full night’s rest to recover the whole of the channeling capacity, though that, too, warrants playtesting.

This is the foundation of the channeling system I’m using for magic works. There are more facets to it that will appear in later posts, of course.

Design: Action

September 21, 2026 / / 0 Comments

Action is an important part of most fantasy RPGs, with “fantasy adventure game” being an accurate description alongside “role playing game.” Many players automatically turn their thoughts to the combat rules a system offers and perhaps later consider rules governing perilous climbs, balancing on ledges, chases, pursuits, swinging on ropes over yawning chasms, and so forth. Imaginary fights claim the most exciting territory for many players.

Action rules help determine: what’s important to the system and what players can expect to happen frequently; how the players can expect PCs and foes to interact; how dangerous adventuring can be for PCs

Action rules require abstraction of elements due to game demands. This is a key element of crafting action rules and fitting them into the system with the other parts. How abstract, how granular, what choices are available to players?

When crafting an action system, ordering the action is the primary challenge. Ordering provides the structure that everything else is built on.

First, we look at the abstraction. What level of detail are we looking at? How do we best support the level of detail we want?

The granularity of time keeping has to support that detail. If we want granules fine enough that finding and disarming a trap requires eight specific steps/decisions, then a round of a minute might not fit best with that.

The traditional structure is built on rounds of some length and the action that takes place is generally assumed to fit within the time of one round. Whether a ten second round or one minute round, the action has to fit, for the most part. The abstraction assumes a process of multiple small steps when disarming a trap or skewering a rat or deciphering glyphs.

One criticism of this is that not every action a character is allowed reasonably fills a round — there are actions that strain credulity when stretched out that long a time. Others are multi-round affairs with but one decision to be made at the outset and everything thereafter is but a countdown.

How we order action involves putting one action ahead of another and we have to decide on how to go about doing that. Do we look at the nature of the action? The expertise of the character acting? Determine it randomly? Base it on the size of the creature (a giant’s arm is so long it effectively telegraphs swings well in advance)?

Then, do we place the actions in phases to regulate adjudication order? Magic work comes before missile fire (or vice versa) so spells get loosed prior to arrows thudding home in the wizard?

In the projects I have underway, I’m working on three different action systems. One uses five phases during a round to help highlight differences between weapons and skill levels and action types. A second system uses three phases to break down ordering. And the last uses beats wherein a player doesn’t know in advance if the character can finish a chosen action in that time frame or not. If you guessed the first two systems have quite similar goals for action abstraction and the third takes a significantly different approach, you’re correct.

Quick looks:

Five phase system: Swift; Quick; Tempered; Deliberate; and Slow (and Last) phases.

Three phase system: Early phase; Main phase; Late phase.

Beats system: everything in each beat is simultaneous; a PC may be able to make a quick attack or move a normal attack or move, start a lengthy attack with stunting that won’t finish for another beat or two; Action Dice determine what’s available in a given beat.

As the title mentions, I’m looking at these as action systems and not simply combat systems. They’re being crafted to cover melee, ranged weapons (including artillery), magical dueling, aerial fighting, underwater skirmishing, chases and pursuits, scurrying along ropes, clinging to rock faces, and any other sort of action I figure could make an appearance in games on a regular basis. I’m looking to make them suitable for use with skirmishes and to work alongside mass battle rules as needed.

Design: More On Travel

September 21, 2026 / / 0 Comments

Earlier thoughts can be found here: https://osrpgtalk.net/design-travel-navigation/

I’ve been pondering the choices players should be making for travel and trying to whittle the number of key decisions down to few enough to not clutter up play. While doing all that thinkery, I’ve come to realize that a detailed understanding of what, exactly, the travel is supposed to provide for in the game is key to deciding what choices players should face.

OD&D relied on a boardgame for a wilderness map, a game about survival, and that focus on survival carried over into the D&D mythos. Gotta make certain the party has enough food and water for travel and then more for when entering the dungeon. Light sources then get added to the list of resources to be managed (though light doesn’t seem to ever get mentioned during wilderness travel — no overcast nights or deep fog or other circumstances requiring light sources?)

So I had to ask myself what choices I really want to have at the heart of my travel rules. In most environments, water is reasonably abundant to where PCs should have no trouble refilling skins when needed; that’s not a resource in need of management. The management of food, when it comes down to it, is a resource that requires but management of time, with hunting and gathering being available choices. Navigation can be an issue, though I don’t see wholesale getting lost and wandering far off course for long periods as reasonable, and certainly not something I want to include; I think navigation issues are better seen as triggering more opportunities for discovery and adventure and slowing progress to the destination.

I think fatigue is far more important a consideration during travel than any of those factors. Choices about speed of travel, how long to travel during a day, and how well the night’s camp allows for recovery from the day’s travel — those are important considerations in the experience I want to offer in my systems. That also gets affected by finding distractions along the way, time sinks that provide more interaction and challenge at the expense of miles traveled and conservation of stamina. That requires choices about how to manage time on part of the players; that’s what I want at the heart of my travel rules.

The Types of Travel

I’ve also taken to looking at movement in the wilderness as having three different modes: travel along roads and clearly marked trails; travel following landmarks relying on animal trails and dead reckoning; and actual intentional exploration of unknown areas. Journeys, excursions, and treks into the wilderness. I think the nature of each warrants different procedures for each. This means that pointcrawl and pathcrawl and hexcrawl procedures will appear.

I recently stumbled across the notion that PCs should be able to find shortcuts here and there in the wilds, reflecting them finding game trails and the like that help cut off a bit of time/distance when traveling. I love that! It fits nicely with my penchant for variable travel distances and with failed navigation meaning only a delay before the party gets back on track. The travel procedures can slow the party or speed the party along. Woot!

The Weird Environs

I think it worth a look at the environs the PCs move through, too, as those can — should — have an effect on movement rates and encounters. Incursions by other worlds on the main setting world can appear in all sorts of places, and the Fantastic Wild should be rife with the odd and unusual. I’m still pondering and playing with the existence of such incursions being obvious or not to the travelers. The incursions I’m thinking of are pre-planned sites on a campaign map, either, just randomly

The lands of Fae can intrude on the mortal world, with the most obvious places for that to happen coinciding with hills or hedgerows and the like. Hints that something is amiss can include faint music, distant chatter of small voices, or odd glimmers of light. The sudden appearance of fae creatures or beings would be a dead giveaway, though the fae could certainly have stepped through to the mundane world without the party having stepped through in the other direction.

Haunted forests or groves or the like can also waylay traveling parties. A slight darkening, mists rising unexpectedly, the appearance of distant features that PCs can swear weren’t there just moment before, all of those can provide clues that the party has stepped into a different realm.

The Elder Lands are akin to Faery, and the two can overlap a great deal, as the boundary between them is even more porous than that between them and the mundane world. Where the trees and plants in Faery tend to be a bit…brighter…, the trees of the Greenwood grow larger, with darker foliage. The beings found in the Elder Lands also tend to be larger, whether animal people or monstrous creatures.

All of these affect travel times, with the major factor being how quickly the travelers realize they are, indeed, Elsewhere and figure out how to get back to the mundane world. The distance traveled Elsewhere has to be traversed again, with perhaps some variation that could shorten or extend the distance. Having passed into and out of another world can also taint the travelers so they encounter more beings from the other side that slow them, even when back on the mundane side of things.

Design: Social Interaction Basics

September 21, 2026 / / 0 Comments

Social interaction is one of the facets of play that has long been somewhat contentious. There are those who maintain that all social interaction should be left up to the people at the table and completely free of any mechanical consideration. There are those who recognize that player capabilities vary greatly and without mechanics, it would be impossible for a socially inept player to pull off a charismatic character. And there are all of the people who wish for something that doesn’t mechanize the whole interaction yet want the rules to provide *something* to help sort it out.

I’m in that last group. I want there to be rules providing structure and resolution while allowing the interaction at the table to guide it to that resolution. I recognize that the players and the characters are *not* identical in capabilities of any sort, so the way in which we don’t make players pick up weapons and physically act out fights should also be reflected in not expecting players to physically play out social interactions. Let the players be players and the characters be separate entities that the players aren’t expected to imitate perfectly.

The best of the systems I’ve seen that address social interactions in play involve using the venerable Reaction Table from early D&D. That makes a good deal of sense, as the Reaction Table is all about PCs interacting with others and what type of reaction they receive while doing so. I can see using that table as the basis of a social interaction system while understanding that it needs a lot of tweaking to offer greater nuance in adjudicating situations in play. The possibility of a hostile reaction resulting in a physical attack when a PC hails a merchant group along the road should be much slighter than the basic Table results would indicate, for example, prima facie.

I expect a base line level of regard the NPC has for the PC. Then PC actions can adjust the reactions of the NPC for better or worse, leading to success — the NPC acquiescing to the PC’s wishes — or failure — usually, the NPC simply walking away from the discussion. That general approach, I think, allows for a lot of nuance in execution and lots of ways to hand additional processes on it to add to the flavor.

This approach also supports all manner of player expression of PC action equally, that is, there’s no inherent preference for third person statements of action, first person statements, or improv theater expressions. This rests on the assumption that interactions are structured by procedure that inputs discrete information for a time unit and generates output for that, with limited time units available during the interaction. A player acting out a PC soliloquy can stretch on as long as the GM allows and it still involves one discrete turn in play, the same as the next player stating their PC statement in a couple of short sentences.

As with many activities, I’m also a fan of the uncertainly regarding the time required or time available to the PCs. That uncertainty drives a basic sense of urgency, as players understand they don’t necessarily have as much time as they want to sweet talk the mayor into helping them and they can’t be sure how much time they actually have to do so. Poor reactions can shorten an interaction session. The length of the session can be subject to randomization from the outset, too, which can be limiting.

I just recently spent some time chasing the rabbits of Reknown and Reputation down their respective holes, and those certainly have bearing on resolving social interactions. They also have bearing on what interactions happen in the first place, too, so should probably get their own post or posts.

Design Theory: Processes, Procedures, and Loops

September 21, 2026 / / 0 Comments

Play of an RPG is governed by the loops of activity expected and supported by the system rules. On the largest scale, a game system uses one or more play loops, which in turn rely on procedures for each part of the loop, and those in turn rely on procedures to provide the detailed execution.

Loops

A loop is the largest structure to support play in a system. Many systems only offer one main loop, such as “Start in Town –> Travel to Dungeon –> Explore Dungeon — Travel Back to Town.”

Multiple loops are possible, however. When PCs are expected to take actions while still in town, such as solving a mystery or researching a legendary item, then a loop concentrating on that play is offered. Play that involves travel to a known destination and negotiating with entities there is a different loop than exploring a dungeon would entail.

The more explicit a system makes its loops, the easier it is to GM those loops. The system can support each loop with procedures and expected choices to maintain an engaging level of play.

Procedures

A procedure is a step-by-step walk through of decisions and outcomes in support of a specific sub-system required by a game loop. Combat is one such procedure, as is infiltration by stealth, social intrigue among noble houses, magical and/or scholarly research, and any other aspect of play important to the experience desired for the system.

Some systems have but one major procedure with all other aspects of play resolved ad hoc by the GM, despite claiming to have multiple “pillars of play.” The presence or absence of a procedure highlights the relative important of any given aspect of play. Ars Magica, for example, has procedures for magic that show it to be far more important than melee or intrigue or anything else. Contemporary editions of D&D offer up melee procedures as primary, with the social interactions and any other activity as much lesser.

Processes

A process is the structure of a mechanic called on to help adjudicate efforts made during a procedure. An attack during a melee procedure is an example of a process: “If the sum of (2D6 +applicable ability rating + circumstantial modifiers) is => (a difficulty Target Number), then the attack is successful.” A successful attack might then call on a process for gauging how much damage the target takes from the attack. Then the target may require a process to determine how seriously the attack affected them.

Role playing games have long been primarily about the processes used, with proponents of dice pools or percentile systems or the venerable D20 or the use of cards instead of dice or any of the other resolution mechanics that have appeared in game systems over the decades. The processes do have great effect in how play feels and it’s important to find processes that support the game experience desired. I think it’s also important that system rules treat procedures and loops as being just as important.

This has been happening, of course. The Errant game system offers up procedures for major parts of expected play and has been notable for that reason. Find it here. Errant has been described as rules light and procedure heavy, which I think makes it a good illustration of how to make the procedures that use the processes of the game as important as the processes themselves.

At this point, I’ve yet to nail down all of the loops and procedures I expect to lay out in my projects, though the processes are largely already so. I can see a lot of play loops possible in addition to the basic “go forth and survive a dungeon” loop. There’ll be more options for activity when characters are at home/in town, some off-camera, some requiring longish stretches of time, and most tying into situations which involve the PCs leaving town to go forth and survive elsewhere.

Design: Sneaking

September 21, 2026 / / 0 Comments

Sneaking around a hostile stronghold is a situation that seems to arise with some regularity in the fantasy adventures I’ve experienced. It could be caves with unfriendly humanoids living therein, a hostile noble’s estate manor, alleyways in a border city, or amongst the winding switchbacks and boulders on a mountainside.

One of the weaknesses of the classic Thief character class in D&D has been that the class was designed for the character to operate in solo. Yeah, in games about groups of characters acting in concert, thief characters were designed to do their thing all by themselves. Everybody else can take a break and play some poker or something among themselves while Sneaky McThiefy does their thing. This isn’t a horrible arrangement when it comes to picking locks or checking for traps, though any time infiltrating a stronghold comes up, things can get kludgy.

It’s possible, certainly, for the players to plan infiltrations with the non-thief PCs causing distractions and getting into position for obvious intrusions on the site to mix things things up. Playing out the split narrative between solo sneak and the rest of the party can prove tricky, though. I reckon part of the solution is to simply include the non-thieves in more of the sneaky stuff.

It’s always been the case, as many have claimed, that all PCs can sneak around to some extent; the chance to surprise foes rests on that assumption, despite it never being stated. All PCs have some ability to dart from one hiding place to another, climb over walls, and hide behind furnishings and in dark corners. The difference, as I see it, lies in how well they can do it when compared to the professional sneaks.

All PCs can move quietly. The difference lies on how quickly they can do so and how close they can be to guards without noise giving their presence away. Where a thief can pass within several feet of a watchman without notice, the rest of the party may only be able to pass without tipping the watch off at a distance much further away.

All PCs can hide in places that provide cover and shadow. The difference lies in how much cover and how deep the shadows necessary to allow for it to be effective. I offered up a take on AD&D thief skills some time ago that touched on this, so I’ll see if I can find that again and link to it. (Note: it’s a bit lengthy.) For those who enjoy that classic approach on thief skills, I figure that look at the skills will provide material to consider adding to play.

That take on the classic theif skills speaks to the points mentioned above about thieves being qualitatively better at sneaking around. Thieves can move more quickly and quietly and get closer to guards without being noticed. They can hide better and requires less cover and shadow to do so to avoid notice.

I suspect that there’s a need to describe how amateur sneaks — the other PCs — can sneak around to help integrate the whole party better in plans to infiltrate a stronghold in a way that doesn’t spend most of play time resolving the actions of the solo thief character. So many people seem to have assumed that because thieves have skills explicitly described that other types of PC can’t also do the same activities, which is nonsense. The difference is akin to that between somebody who plays pick up basketball in a gym and the pros who make a living at it; they all play basketball, the pros are simply much better at it. In the same fashion that Hrothgar, the Mighty, is better at fighting than Nimbleshanks, the Quiet, Nimbleshanks is much better at sneaking than Hrothgar.

Laying out some explicit processes for sneaking in general should be included in the rules, certainly. GM materials discussing how to present the situations to include more sneaky activity by other classes also seems helpful. I’m thinking the process offered that walks through infiltration actions should explicitly support actions by all PCs, instead of focusing on what the thief does will carry the rest of the load.

Describing Setting

September 2, 2026 / / 2 Comments

In the many, many GM sections and GM guides I’ve read over the years, there’s been discussion of how to describe the bits of setting the PCs are interacting with in the moment. What I’ve not seen much of is using the brief description of where the PCS find themselves to impart more information implicitly than explicitly, that is, without making the description of the surroundings the focus of the commentary.

Take the arrival of the PCs in a new village. It’s common to offer up a paragraph about what the village looks like to try to provide a basic feel of it to the players. I’m thinking that can be done more efficiently using fewer words by making the elements that get mentioned carry extra weight.

The village is thriving? How can we show that in few words, words that aren’t simply all about describing the village? Well, how about a short mention of a group of children running by playing with rolling hoops? How about a mule parking its butt in the middle of the street and its owner loudly lamenting the obstinate animal’s behavior? Just a couple of moments from the normal, daily routine of the village.

Now, what if there’s some trouble arriving? A courier racing by on horseback demanding access to the mayor. A cluster of haggard sellswords bellowing at each other drunkenly near a stable. Those moments feel quite different than the children playing and suggest something untoward has happened.

Or there are troops from the baronial guard stationed at key points in the center of town. They’re idle, yet watchful and obviously geared up for possible trouble. The townsfolk hustling around on their daily business may appear oblivious to the guard, which provides one feel, or appear dour and subdued, which provides a different flavor.

And this can all be conveyed in just a couple of phrases or sentences that aren’t really focused on describing the village. “You sidle past a couple of townsfolk who only glance furtively around you as you approach the tavern Reginald recommended you visit, its freshly-painted sign bright in the sunshine” versus “You pause to watch a mule and its owner argue about carrying a load at the edge of the market square before Reginald appears alongside you, laughing at the fuss.”

It might be useful to sketch out a list of elements that can be used to convey normal activity in a site that you can drop in as needed. A list of “Sights and Sounds of a Thriving Town or Village” that includes children playing, people shopping, vendors selling, townsfolk socializing, and so forth. Then a list of sights and sounds of a troubled settlement. Just a couple of lines worked into the narrative of play can go a long way.

« Older posts

© 2026 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑