OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Month: September 2025

DA Design: First Combat Module: Notes 1

September 28, 2025 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been playing around with the first of the alternate combat sub-systems in the Dangerous Adventures project. What began as a purely Weapon Speed & Casting Time exercise has morphed into quite a bit. It still has weapon speed and casting time involved, though they appear differently, now.

The primary problem that reared up with the system as originally envisioned involves movement. Breaking movement down by segments proved to be a bit tedious and boring in play. Even grouping segments of movement together on an ad hoc basis whenever all that would happen for those segments would be movement just wasn’t working well.

Also, the weapon speeds in the book obviously weren’t intended to be used in a strict segment count system, so those would all have to be re-figured; I couldn’t find a suitable mathematical formula to use to assign them segment counts. It’s easier to simply work up new speed ratings from scratch.

Now, beginning from scratch means that the ratings don’t have to reference segments, nor range from 1 to 10 to fit. I can break the round into any number of segments that I wish, based solely on what seems to work best for me. That means I can structure rounds around (!) any of the concepts involved in combat. With that in mind, I’ve landed on five segments/phases in a round, based on the different types of movement I want to include. I think the five-step phasing will assist GMs to work in any unusual activity, too, with the provided descriptions of movement types giving suitable examples to generalize from for rulings on the ground.

The list of movement-types: Shift/Intercept; Split-Move (& Fire); Half-Move (& Attack) [Or (Attack &) Half- Move]; Charge (& Attack); Counter-Charge (& Attack); Full Move (Advance); Full Move (Run). These movement-types should provide enough examples to provide guidance for GMs ruling on weird actions.

This is all part of the chassis for the combat system, part of the Basic rules for it. There will be Expanded rules that include abilities added for some PCs (fighters) as they increase in level and also fit both Mana Channeling & Counterspell and Magical Combat procedures. I think it’s flexible enough, at this point, to support any other combat types I may want to add (read: that I’m contemplating now).

Now, LJ has a three-phase round structure too accommodate all of the above, to one degree or another. It’s interesting (at least, for me) to see how the same basic ideas brought on two different structures. I’ll likely post about that at some point so everybody can compare the two.

Design Theory: Combat, Abstraction, & Procedure

September 23, 2025 / / 0 Comments

Part of my early-rpg-gaming study has involved reading the Chainmail rules and how those were used, not only for minis wargame play, but also play of OD&D. As Chainmail is a wargame, most of what it provides is rules for combat, so it’s an integral part of studying the OG RPG combat rules.

One of the most interesting tidbits to be found in Chainmail is that it has three combat systems. Yeah, it offers a mass combat system for use with miniatures wargame scenarios, a man-to-man system for individuals beating on each other, and a fantasy combat system for dealing with monsters. The rules text as a whole offers up a lot of information on the earliest fighting rules and there’s much to be gathered from reading the text.

Procedures Provide Structure

One aspect shared across all three systems is that they’re all broken down procedurally in play. It’s this procedural step-by-step approach that provides a great deal of the verisimilitude among the abstractions made in the rules. The use of phases provides a feel for how action proceeds apace, yet some activity most often precedes other activity and that difference helps ground the whole in time. I compare stepping through phases here (as with B/X and OSE) with the free-for-all of AD&D and find that using phases does make a difference in flavor, at least for me, so I figure there are other players for whom it makes a difference, too.

The phases provide some structure for the abstractions, especially when dealing with actions that aren’t described in the Advanced rules, such as split-fire missile actions. The phase structure places the initial move early in the round, the missile attack later, and the final move segment after. Let’s look at how it plays out:

THE MOVE/COUNTER MOVE SYSTEM

  1. Both opponent’s roll a die; the side with the higher score has the choice of
    electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-move).
  2. The side that has first move moves its figures and makes any split-moves
    and missile fire, taking any pass-through fire possible at the same time.
  3. The side that has last move now moves its figures and makes any split-moves
    and missile fire, taking any pass-through fire possible at the same time.
  4. Artillery fire is taken.
  5. Missile fire is taken.
  6. Melees are resolved.
  7. Steps 1 through 6 are repeated throughout the remainder of the game.
    Note:Missile fire from split-moving troops is considered to take effect immedia-
    tely during the movement portion of the turn, and the same is true of pass-
    through fire. All other fire, both artillery and missile, is considered to
    simultaneously take effect just prior to melee resolution.

This provides a basic feel for time advancing through the round. This feel is enhanced by stepping through artillery fire and general missile fire and melee. While there are arguments to be made about having the chaos of battle reflected in simultaneous resolution for everything, I find the feel of time progressing during a round to be preferable. The switching from player to player and monster to monster with simultaneous resolution doesn’t provide the same.

I also believe that stepping through the phases in play helps GMs develop a feel for how to approach play, in general. Building a habit of taking matters one step at a time during resolution can help GMs provide consistency in adjudication and that helps with the verisimilitude of the setting.

The rules also offer a list of possible actions to take. This list is predicated on minis play, of course, and yet most of what it describes can also happen in man-to-man and fantasy play — split-move fire, pass-through fire, indirect fire, direct fire, cover, charging, and melee. Yes, a player could have a PC do something not on the list, yet the list illustrates the variety of possible combat action just by its size and what it covers. I suspect most GMs could study that section of Chainmail and come away with a better understanding of all the things that can happen and how to sequence them and adjudicate them, even with having to adjust for playing an RPG instead of a minis wargame.

Chainmail also provides a different take on initiative by dint of having the different combat systems order action differently. The basic roll isn’t the end all be all of old school initiative, it turns out. The man-to-man system, for example, uses weapon speeds to figure out how many attacks a combatant can make based on a comparison of weapons between them and their foe. A small, quick weapon vs a large, much slower weapon can lead to multiple attacks that wouldn’t be possible using the fantasy combat system; fighting men and fighting monsters are qualitatively different in Chainmail.

A key concept I pull from this is that using procedures in play offers a lot of benefit at little cost. I don’t see scrapping the free-for-all for phased resolution to result in a loss of flavor in any significant way, while doing so gains a good deal of feel in play. It’s because of this that I’ve embraced the use of phases in my projects, although the specifics vary by which title.

Blog News: Revamp is Underway

September 23, 2025 / / 0 Comments

At work this past weekend I was able to hash out notes on several more topics that will appear in posts on here. The reorganizing and editing of the old posts is also happening apace, despite all that taking writing & design time to do. I figure getting it all organized and finally out of my head will free me up for more design and writing time before long, which would be a net gain for me. When my head gets cluttered, I lose productive time. (And as the triple bypass revealed that I’d been walking around essentially dead for some time, I want to get it all on paper before I do actually fall down.)

Among the things I pondered while working on the assembly line were wizard-locked doors, wards and seals, magical constructs, power crystals for constructs, and what would be driven by such. Also, various ways to involve tracking fatigue in play, some of which I’ve played around with prior and others I’ve not. Thoughts on some tutorial adventure materials with commentary on what players and GMs have to consider as play moves along. Notions about sages — hiring them and how they go about doing their research. A bit on lighting in dungeons that PCs don’t have to provide.

Topics still percolating in my head from before include: counterspell processes for casters and how those work in combat against enemy casters; fighters and performing stunts and exploits; how to possibly use my channeling dice mechanism as part of my Resolve system and what change in feel/flavor would come about (and whether it seems reasonable, at all).

And a good deal about topics for GMing materials. Things to consider for settings, guidance on developing dungeons/ruins/adventure sites. Thoughts on design theory. All. The. Things. And I write best and most productively after I’ve nailed the organization down for whatever I’m writing, so getting it all out of my head and into an outline of some sort is going to help finish it.

The Old School: No “fail forward”

September 22, 2025 / / 3 Comments

One of the most annoying bits I read in online discussions of RPG topics is the notion of “fail forward.” I’m going to try to restrain myself so this doesn’t turn into a straight up rant, as this is one of the lamest notions I’ve heard about game play in the 40 years I’ve been playing elf games. I rolled my eyes when I first encountered it and my opinion of it has dropped since then.

If a PC attempts some task, it goes, and fails in the attempt, play can’t advance because nothing happened. If a PC fails, they say, it should still advance play, by which they mean the PC should succeed in some fashion despite failing. Leaving aside the nonsensical notion that every PC action should meaningfully advance progress in some fashion, this argument is ludicrous. (I think it indicates the player making the argument is far too lazy or lacks the creativity to be a good player, though I’m trying not to rant here.)

Experienced old school players understand things differently, I reckon. They know — from experience — that having failed at one approach to solving a problem simply means that they have to get creative and explore one of the other possible solutions. They don’t expect things to be easy and know that the first, obvious solution may not work. They expect that they may have to work a bit harder than that.

So, when the thief fails to pick the lock on the door that promises to provide access to the area believed to be awash with piles of coins and gemstones, all is not lost. There’s no need to whine and demand that they get access to that part of the dungeon just because they tried something that could gain them access and success should be handed to them with some lame “consequence” attached. The old school players understand they’ll have to work harder: perhaps there’s another door not far away that leads into that section of the dungeon; perhaps in the shdows overhead there’s a passage that bypasses the door; perhaps they can force the door, grab something to use as a battering ram, hack it to pieces, or burn it until they can smash it; trick some dungeon denizen to open the door for them.

The failure of the thief’s attempt to pick the lock didn’t stall out play. It advanced play by eliminating one possible solution to the problem of the locked door. It enhances play, actually, by providing a chance for the players to get creative in opening or bypassing the door. It drives the players to work a little harder and engage with the setting a bit more. Trying only the easy solution and then throwing hands up in defeat while demanding success just isn’t good play.

The same sort of argument arises when dealing with combat. If both a PC and the monster engaged with it are unsuccessful in attacking each other, the cry arises that nothing changed in the fight and that’s bad. A bit of thought shows this to be nonsense, too. Tthe PC keeping the monster occupied while the magic-user behind them finishes a spell changes things as much — if not more — than had the fighter simply laid another four points of damage on the beastie. The PC staying alive and upright could be a significant achievement, if the monster outclasses the character. The PC could use that time to reassess the fight and decide on a different approach to it, which also advances play; there’s more to melee than just doing damage to the foe.

There’s so much creative play that can happen after the easy approach fails that I have to wonder if the folks arguing for “fail forward” have ever experienced any play that embraces challenge as an integral part of the experience. If a party always succeeds with the first thing they attempt, I think that play experience would be might shallow and not very fulfilling.

© 2025 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑