OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Month: June 2026

Design: Fighting

June 30, 2026 / / 0 Comments

For many people, it seems, combat is the first sub-system that they read in depth and figure out how it plays in comparison to systems they already know. I’m not among them, as I find other sub-systems more important to my understanding of a new game system, plus I figure I can change out what parts of the combat system I need to to fit my preferences after I’ve played with RAW for a bit.

I have a bit of a luxury, as a designer, with having three projects in progress at once…three projects that are similar in genre and feel, that is, I can work from a set of general principles and flesh those out in three different detailed fashions. I’ll be laying out those principles in another post, though, as this post is actually about how asking questions makes the design wheels go ’round.

A Question That Started a Cascade

I recently had a question come to mind when I was considering armor and how I most want to present its use in the abstractions of the systems. The question was rather basic and seemed obvious in hindsight, though I don’t recall ever having considered it before. Asking that question led me into a bunch of other questions about some basic issues, though, and in a most constructive fashion.

The question: What if we think of armor ratings as what the armor allows through?

Now, I’ve not worked out any way to actually use ratings in that fashion without involving more rolls and steps than I want. I considered dice steps to reflect the damage weapons could do versus the armor — D4 vs heavy armor, D6 vs medium armor, D8 vs light armor, for a simple “armor as damage resistance” approach — and that immediately brought some problems along with it. I don’t see some players handling that well, at all, and it could prove to be a headache for GMs. There’s also the issue that the approach is really nothing more than “armor subtracts damage” in a way that requires more work.

That Leads to Considering Wounds….

What that question and the resulting line of thought did do was lead to more fruitful fields. “Well,” I asked myself, “What does armor allow through on a successful strike?” That led to a consideration of exactly how the game abstraction includes the notion of damage and its effects, how such things are represented and gauged in the system, and what difference the armor can make in all of that. With the DA system, I’m riffing on D&D heavily and paring down hit point totals, with wounds stepping in to do the heavy lifting. The other two systems were conceived with wounds as a primary way to gauge harm.

Wounding is an aspect of damage that I’ve been playing with for quite some time, and working out how different armors can affect inflicting wounds is a design problem I find fascinating. The effects individual wounds can have on a combatant, how long it takes to heal from wounds, what exact effects wounds can and should have — all that is important to work through to provide the desired experience in play.

…And The Weapon Effects…

I also expect I’ll have armor affect any special effects a weapon can inflict. A weapon that can readily stun a target with a successful strike can have that effect made less likely by some types of armor, I think. I also think I can work out how the weapon effects and armor interact in a way that works for the play flow I desire, so I’m going to be experimenting with those interactions.

I also have to deal with how armor and shields affect what PCs can do, how their movements are affected in the wearing. Having a large shield in hand can limit some moves a great deal, for example. I expect most standard fighting movement can take place as usual (though heavy armor may make it more tiring), so it’s the unusual movement that can be affected. Working out what the unusual movements modeled in the abstraction and how they get affected in detail is an interesting problem.

…On To Shield Use…

So, what is it shields actually do? This is an important question when it comes to the abstraction. D&D uses them mostly as just a modifier to AC. Stepping away from that particular “determines difficulty to strike” approach means answering this question is an important consideration.

So, in my systems, should shields increase defensive ratings? How would this vary by number of foes being engaged? How are missiles treated when compared to melee?

If armor is reducing damage from attacks, do shields play a part in that reduction?

Does shield use affect any offensive techniques? Does it add any? Bashes, edge strikes, thrown shields?

Does shield use affect any defensive actions?

There’s a bit more that arose in response to the orginal question. The cascading questions that follow from one simple query is part of what makes designing systems so interesting, for me. And I get to work out a general response that then gets detailed in three most likely different ways.

Design: Saving Throws

June 10, 2026 / / 0 Comments

I think I’ve finally figured out why I much prefer saving throws in the traditional lineup rather than any of the single saving throw or three throw systems. It came to me when I was reading a post somewhere about how some folks prefer just using ability checks instead of saving throws — that’s when it clicked.

I don’t view saving throws as simple attribute checks. The attributes are used in deciding much of the character’s capabilities, sure (though far too much in modern systems, I think). So, the attributes are what are used to help keep the character from having to make saving throws. Why should they also then be used a second time after failing the first, so to speak? The saving throws, I reckon, are what can save a PC’s carcass when their attribute-based abilities have failed. Thus, saving throws shouldn’t properly be just another check of what failed prior.

The concept comes from minis play, where individual character attributes don’t come into play, so there’s nothing inherent in the origins that would lead to simply making attribute checks instead. Saves in D&D have varied from class to class, which makes for some interesting variety when faced with the specific hazards and challenges that saving throws address, and I see no convincing reason to toss that approach out.

I’ll be using saving throws with such class variance in my systems. I’ll be using throws in the same fashion as the traditional throws — so vs specific types of effects — and I’ve also added a sixth saving throw category. I’ve wavered back and forth as to whether to allow attributes to provide bonuses to saves and have finally settled on not allowing that. Saves are class-based and can be modified by circumstance, with attributes not being a factor.

Saving Throws :

: Save vs Corruption (Death, Poison)

: Save vs Metamorphosis (Paralysis, Petrification)

: Save vs Instrument (Rods, Staves, & Wands)

: Save vs Inundation (Breath Weapon)

: Save vs Imposition (Illusions, Phantasms, Charm)

: Save vs Workings (General Spells)

Design: Adventures I

June 3, 2026 / / 0 Comments

One of the hallmarks of old school design in support of classic play and OSR play is the lack of intended stories. A pre-plotted story is regarded as part of poor GMing, putting PCs on rails, so the speak, to experience some tale the GM wants to tell, instead of allowing the actual play at the table give rise to what narrative it will. Grognards appreciate letting play — the choices made by players — decide if the dragon gets rescued from the sheriff’s men.

So, the approach taken for Fogey Play could be thought of as going off-rail. Going off-rail, if done effectively, is to avoid getting on the rails in the first place, ideally. On both the level of an adventure and the level of a campaign, player choice should be driving the narrative and the GM avoiding pushing the PCs into any pre-planned choices. There is no BBEG behind everything in the setting and whom the PCs have to overcome for a campaign arc. There are no storylines PCs have to be nudged into during individual adventures. As there are no character background stories, there’s nothing involving those that has to happen at any time. Just say “no” to plotting.

The Basic Approach

The most obvious way to stay off-rail is to avoid starting on rails by not plotting any story. The idea of prepping only conflicts, sites, and situations has appeared in many blog posts and on discussion boards. It’s pretty standard advice in OSR circles and invaluable for GMs coming to old school play from contemporary D&D and other modern, character-based systems. It’s a solid reminder to GMs to help them avoid putting their games on rails.

Beyond the Basic

There lurks a danger at the table, however, if the players aren’t veterans of old school play. That is, the players can proceed to play as if there *is* a pre-determined plot to follow. They, themselves, can hop onto invisible rails by assuming there is an actual plotted story and having their PCs act accordingly. They can assume that a local crime boss is the BBEG of some grand story, instead of simply a Bad Guy not possessed of any significance beyond that of directing a cartel/faction/front/biker gang determined to control half a kingdom from behind the scenes, the same as a couple of other local Bad Guys. The players can assume that the first Bad Guy is the focus of a campaign and then try to force a grand storyline on play.

We have to step beyond that basic approach to support the understanding that there isn’t a single storyline. We have to show that there’s no single storyline, nor even a single major conflict, to play out. We have to do so early and often. So, how do we do that? There are things we can do that I’ve observed help keep players from locking in on any one conflict and trying to turn that into *the* story of a campaign.

First, instead of presenting a single conflict for the PCS to engage with at the start of play, present multiple conflicts. Make each of them enticing enough that the players are hard-pressed to choose which to initially pursue. They begin play of the campaign with the understanding that there’s more possible than just what they chose to do.

And keep those hooks freshly baited. Whenever something changes in one of the other conflicts, let the PCs get word of it. Shoot, even if nothing changes, let the players get wind of the conflict in a different fashion than before. If they first heard a rumor at the inn, let a pedlar along the road drop a different rumor about the same thing. Let the players figure out that there’s always something different they could be doing and make it appealing.

Town turns, downtime, ale time, or whatever you want to call it is a fine time to drop more tidbits in front of the PCs. More travelers telling tales. Research the PCs commissioned from sages that provide tantalizing information. Requests for assistance by interested parties. When the PCs aren’t actively out and about chasing adventure, let adventure try to lure the PCs back out. The players have activities they want to pursue while in town, so do your best to distract them by dangling hooks.

Mix the conflicts. That is, have elements of one of the conflicts show up in play of the conflict the PCS are engaging with. An NPC who is an essential cog in a cartel that’s part of a different conflict happens to have business with an old friend in a key cartel the PCs are trying to infiltrate. A raiding party from Site A shows up at Site B when the sites are tied into different conflicts. An item/artifact found in Site A matches one found in Site B and in Site C, providing a bit of a puzzle as to what the items’ purpose is.

Stay Off the Rails

To support the effort to stay off rails, it can help to work with four principles in mind:

  • PCs can always walk away from any conflict at any time;
  • PCs can set their own goals for any conflict they interact with;
  • PCs can negotiate with and influence most NPCs in a conflict;
  • PCs can side with cartels and switch sides freely, if they do

If you can keep these in mind and help the players keep them in mind, there’s likely little chance of the PCs ending up riding the rails of a real or imagined planned story.

Design: On Character Development II

June 1, 2026 / / 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, they should have a full toolset to work with during the first tier.

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.

A fighter, in D&D, fourth level is where the PC becomes a Hero — the fighting equivalent of four normal men. That allows for attacking multiple creatures with less than four HD each round, an ability that allows a hero to cut through mobs of basic foes. Each PC class can gain a likewise-useful ability to help deal with advancing through this tier

Third Tier

This is the tier that leads to name level (which is tenth level in these systems). 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. The breadth of capabilities possessed by a PC should be far beyond what they had at the outset.

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.

I think the option to level beyond this is absolutely cooked into the process. The accumulation of hp and attack bonuses and all that ended at an earlier tier. All the development in this last tier involves reduction of some capabilities and the addition of others. I see no reason why that couldn’t continue for as long as the GM allows for it, as each new level only changes capabilities a bit without adding increased bonuses.

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.

© 2026 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑