OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Month: January 2024

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.

Classes, templates, & packages–oh, my!

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I see a component of classic games involving supporting the simulation aspect of play–that characters are part of a setting and their capabilities correspond to those reasonably found in the setting. The setting has people trained to fight, for instance, because such roles are essential in some fashion. Furthermore, as most of the roles to be assumed in the setting involve a good deal of training to fulfill, there’s not a lot of crossover training to be had. (Medieval fantasy settings lack community colleges, ya know, so bopping on down to the school to get a semester of classes for a different role doesn’t happen.) Thus, it’s reasonable, in most instances, to not have super-sneaky, magic-wielding, fighting superstars as characters. (Sorry, munchkin.)

The structures of classes address that issue. (And then the idea of multi-classing dumps it on its head.) Templates, which are guides for beginning characters that allow for freer development later, do the same sort of work. Even the use of skill packages help establish PC capabilities with clear boundaries at the outset, then allowing for freer development after.

The approach I’m taking with my hack of D&D is that of having a base of shared skills & abilities for characters of each type, then building sub-classes by adding different abilities. All the fighters, for example, share a core group of abilities, then are differentiated into sub-classes by added abilities. Some are mounted warriors, others skirmishers, and so on. Thievish characters can be burglars or tomb robbers or thugs. This approach ends up mimicking the original rules, though with slightly different outcomes; a fighter subclass that has a lot of non-fighting abilities won’t be as capable at fighting as a subclass that focuses on fighting, in contrast to the paladin, for example.

I know of games that don’t use classes, per se, and yet still provide a measure of specialization through the use of skill packages; Powers & Perils comes to mind. A package is simply a group of skills that would be typically possessed by somebody in the setting who works as a(n) “xxx.” A jeweler would have a group skills that are common to jewelers and take the jeweler package. A soldier would have the package of skills that are common to soldiers. In this fashion, the roles of PCs are set out despite character creation being a point-buy system and nominally free-form. The packages usually offer a discounted point cost to encourage coherent character creation.

Hacking away: Thoughts on attributes

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been thinking of a hack for a long while, now, due in large part to mental health issues. I’ve written thoughts down elsewhere that I’m now posting here to bring everything together. Hacking involves evaluating each part of a system and adjusting it to a new vision, so I’ll be posting bits and pieces as I get to them.

The original rules version specified a few uses for each of the characteristics and then the ratings were used only for roleplaying guides and fictional choices beyond those specific uses. The B/X system uses this same sort of approach. The primary benefit of extraordinary ratings isn’t so much to affect mechanisms in play, rather to provide extra experience toward character development. That’s to show that the more talented PCs have an easier time advancing–the strongest fighters have it easier than those of average strength, the better-coordinated advance as thieves easier than average prospects, and so forth. The approach means that the players have much to do with deciding which fighter PC is more effective when levels are equal, while the character traits define how easy it is to level up.

AD&D is the edition where more differentiation in play begins to be supported. (Some would say this edition is when the power creep that leads to superhero fantasy actually began; HD sizes also got boosted for most PCs.) The +3 maximum bonus for a characteristic rating found in ODD was replaced, with greater bonuses possible (+4 in most regards and a +6 damage bonus for the highest STR rating). The system also provides bonus xp for high ratings, so the PCs with those ratings progress more quickly up the ranks, in addition to getting bonuses for activities in play situations. This is, in effect, a doubling of benefits for high ratings.

So, do I want extraordinary ratings to provide a single type of bonus or two kinds of bonus? If only one type, do I want that to be in long-term development or in situational play?

I think the key to answering such a question requires that I look to the experience of play that I want the system to support. How much support do I want to offer to character differentiation via mechanics as opposed to player choices in play? Do I want better characteristics to provide more benefit in play or player choice to offer more benefit–the latter looking to player skill to provide the difference?

I tend to prefer player skill/choices to make for memorable PCs. I also think a baseline of simulation is necessary for a good game experience, so stronger characters should prove stronger in play mechanically and that long-term development alone based on high STR as a fighter doesn’t really meet that preference. I then have to look at how to use high stats mechanically to provide suitable simulation while still maintaining support of player skill in playing. As the full measure of a character isn’t confined to a primary characteristic, then I can rely on other factors to help in supporting differences in player skill.

Well, how much of a bonus should be possible, then mechanically speaking? As I’m looking to nip in the bud the power creep that starts in AD&D and builds in later editions, I certainly don’t want to be too generous; I’d rather error in way of too little than too much. Playtesting can determine if added benefit should accrue.

At this point, a maximum bonus of +3 for an extraordinary rating is what I figure will be appropriate. I might convince myself that a +4 will work better, though I’m leery of that, as of now.

Classic style: Trails instead of railroads

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Railroading has always been an issue at game tables. Once adventures moved out of dungeons and added more elements from genre fiction, one common fashion in which GMs fail involves trying to force PCs along a set plot line. Some of this may arise from the early published adventure modules being for tournament play and assuming the party followed an expected line of play from one round to the next. Modules published after those also assumed a general sequence of events contained in the descriptions of encounters.

The problem with this is that good play involves player choices on how to pursue goals, not a script that they have to follow. Thus, we’ve always heard lamentations about GMs precluding player choices by railroading parties. I maintain that a sign of good classic play is that there are no railroads.

Now, adding situations of the sort found in genre literature expands the RPG experience well beyond dungeon delving and the types of stories that can arise. A classic approach to stories is to let them play out as they will, based solely on the player choices, and avoid forcing specific developments. Setting up supposed climactic scenes is possible *only* when actual play has lead to them…and certainly not possible before the PCs have even begun play. So, any adventure material written with expected climaxes just doesn’t work in classic play, at all.

Classic style play is all about following trails from one situation to another, without any idea about which trail the PCs are going to follow at any given time. The party isn’t pushed to enter the Haunted Forest at point X and then encounter Y, Z, V, and Q in that order, though it could play that way. The party could just as easily, based on previous play, enter somewhere else and run into V, then Z, and never run into Y and Q.

This is all part of playing to find out what happens. The players have to be able to choose what their characters do in the world, without outcomes being preordained. They don’t have to end up fighting the evil sorceror if they don’t want to and the GM shouldn’t be trying to force the issue.

Classic style: Play to find out

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I was briefly involved in a discussion at one time about character arcs. I mentioned that, as an old school guy, I had no truck with preplanned character stories and did nothing to support them. Any player with preconceived notions of their character’s arc are just SOL in an old school game. Such a statement was regarded as heresy by the youngsters and there wasn’t much quality discussion in that forum, so I dropped it then.

I’ve been thinking about the topic, though, and can see how one of the foundations of classic play works against much that’s pre-planned. Pre-planned character stories? Nope. Pre-planned character development? Nope. Involved backstories intended to affect play and what the GM prepares? Nope.

I see one of the hallmarks of classic play as playing to find out. That is, we prepare situations that provide confict and adventure and choices to be made of the kinds found in literature, then place characters in the midst of it all and play to see what happens. If a good story results, we’re happy. If a disjointed story results, we’re happy. If a tale of catastrophe and woe results, we’re happy. We’re not attempting to make any specific story result.

Because of that desire to find out what happens in play, we can preclude anything done to predetermine results. For example, the practice of players developing involved backstories that are intended to set up their characters for some specific storylines doesn’t really fit. As those background events weren’t played out, they don’t fit the style. The player didn’t find out any of it via play. (There are also other issues with such background stories, though not pertinent here.)

The same with character arcs. The player may want to develop the character’s history in some specific fashion. That doesn’t mesh well with the approach of developing the character only according to what happens in play. The player may want the PC to become a powerful general involved in overthrowing a despotic emperor, yet the results of play may very well work against that. For the player to try to work to that end when the rest of the group would make choices that don’t support it can make for strained play at the table; no player should be trying to force the fiction in a specific direction.

This also applies to builds. I’ll suggest that good systems don’t allow for any specific builds to be overall better than any others, just on the face of it. A player trying to plan a build for a PC’s entire career at the outset of play just doesn’t work, as it involved trying to force the fiction in a specific direction. The best practice in eliminating this is to have a system that really doesn’t support detailed builds in the first place, removing the temptation for such, and allowing players to concentrate more on interesting play.

An underutilized approach to monsters

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

HD ratings for monsters have indicated two separate things since the earliest system appeared. HD indicate both how well a creature attacks and how much of a beating it can take. I think we can add a great deal more variety to our monsters if we separate those two in some fashion.

The easiest way I see to do this is to simply use hit dice of various sizes. It’s not a unique thought; indeed, Gygax himself indicated using D12s for the largest dragons would be a good thing in an online discussion. I don’t see that the idea has been used much, though, and I wonder why. (It very well may appear in works I don’t have in my library. I’m not current on bestiaries. I don’t see it in online discussions, though.)

A 4 HD creature with hit die size of D4 is much different than one with a D8 hit die. They both fight with equal ferocity, yet one is much easier to defeat than the other. Such discrepancy can add a bit of flavor to encounters, with easily dispatched critters still able to drain hp from PCs if the party isn’t careful.

A channeling magic system

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I suspect the search for a non-Vancian magic system for D&D and associated game systems began at the time of publication of the 3 LBB, if not before. There have always been players who have chafed at the restrictions of Vancian magic. Some decry it because MUs have little else to do (there’s actually a bunch they can do). Some decry the “quadratic wizard” effect, where the power of MU characters at higher levels dwarfs that of non-casters.

Other approaches to game magic have appeared in the effort to replace Vancian magic. Mana/spell point systems. Requiring casting rolls for spells. Requiring casting rolls to keep spells in memory after casting. There have been many multi-page sets of rules for magic systems produced over the decades. The challenge for me, then, was to figure out a system that could fit over the existing rules and allow MUs to use spells more often at low levels, yet keep them from taking a stand & deliver approach and spamming their favorites. Oh, and to keep it simple enough to not bog down play.

I landed on a channeling system. It hits all the high notes for me: MUs can cast more than one spell per day out the gate; MUs can memorize more than one spell and have some variety in their spell selection; it’s not a given that a spell can be cast in one round (limiting spell casting a bit); MUs can strain themselves (hp damage) to push their effort and channel more mana in a round to get a spell off.

Here’s how it works:

*Each spell requires 5 mana per spell level to cast. The spell only goes off after enough mana has been channeled.

*A MU gets 1D6 channeling every two levels of advancement. The channeling dice are rolled during casting to see how quickly the MU can cast. If not enough mana is generated on the first roll, then the casting extends into the next round where another roll adds to the total.

Example: A 2nd lvl MU casting a 1st lvl spell and the player rolls a D6 channeling die and the result is a four. That’s not enough mana channeled to cast the spell, so the casting extends into the next round. The player rolls the channeling die again the next round, and as any roll would result in 5 or more mana channeled, the spell goes off.

*If a player wants to push the effort in the hope of getting a spell off sooner, then the PC can take damage equal to the level of the spell to add another die to the casting roll.

Example: Our MU from above wants to cast that spell quickly, before a goblin eats her face. She rolled 4 mana and needs another point to get the spell off. Her player decides to burn a hp–takes damage–and rolls another channeling die, resulting in the magic missile catching the goblin before it can close the gap.

Any rules for learning spells can still apply. MUs may be limited in how many spells of a given level can be memorized, which also helps limit what magical power they can wield.

A bit of hit point adjustment

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’ve currently two projects underway, both classic old school systems. One of the many things to consider when designing a system, of course, is how wounding and damage are going to be regulated in play. What mechanical system is going to measure health matters?

In one of the projects, I decided to do away with hit points entirely. Damage, instead, forces checks for consciousness and capability.

The other, however, is very much an OSR rendition of early D&D/AD&D in a form that I rather wish I would have had when I began play. In that project, hit points are one of the necessary touchstones, so I’ve been working with how I want to use them. In so doing, I’ve considered a couple of irritations that have long bothered me.

The first such is the lack of consistency in rolled hit points. Yes, I still want randomness. I just find the idea that an very slight increase in capability is as likely as a tremendous increase to strain my perceptions of fun and simulation; as with most things dealing with people, I figure hp accumulation would also bunch around the middle.

To that end, I’ve decided that a couple of methods of rolling hit points are acceptable. The first is to simply roll two dice and average them. Yes, it involves addition and division, though it happens aside from in-setting action so shouldn’t be a problem for even math-phobic players.

The second method is to roll two dice that can total the HD size. D8 is rolled with 2d4, for example, resulting in a bell curve from 2-8. This has the benefit of removing a result of 1 from the roll, which works for me within the bounds of the heroic fantasy I have in mind (competence to notable abilities).

The second such irritation is one that I know is widespread: hp bloat. Credulity is strained with characters that can endure far more strain and damage than should be manageable for a human. Falling long distances and surviving should be rare. Getting kicked around and stomped on by a giant and surviving should be very rare.

I’m using two approaches to combat hp bloat. The first is to decrease HD sizes–no class uses any die larger than a D8. No D10 or D12 characters. The second is to limit how many HD PCs get. I know there are tables that limit PCs to six levels or so during play, and I’m riffing on that to have PCs top out at 5 or 6 HD. Using a standard of a “killing blow” being enough to slay a 0-lvl human with, at most, 6 hp, then PCs will still be mighty without crushing all sense of disbelief for me.

Welcome to the blog

January 23, 2024 / / 0 Comments

This blog serves a few purposes.

The first is that it provides space for me to offer up thoughts on a great variety of topics pertinent to RPGs. I’m an old school gamer and find many fora on games and game design to be an ill fit, as most of the participants embrace completely different playstyles and philosophies. Even many of the old school fora don’t quite fit me comfortably. So, I’ll add to the conversations from here.

The next is that it gives me a place to post and explore bits of my design projects where I can get some feedback from interested readers. I don’t see much utility from posting for feedback where most forum users aren’t old school peeps–the feedback gained is likely rooted in much different sensibilities and unlikely to be of much use.

And lastly, this blog is celebrates me regaining the ability to produce materials. My mental health has been spotty for ages–depression–and now that the mental fog isn’t ever present, I’m able to design and create and write, again. It’s such a nice feeling!

I can’t say how often I’ll be able to post. I’ve several posts planned, so it’s just a question of when I can get them typed. Stay tuned.

© 2024 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑