Author: TAFL (Page 1 of 5)

Rules Modules and Aggregation

July 7, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I’m starting work on the rules module project I mentioned prior. Part of it will be as part of an effort to make instructional adventure modules to teach how to play, with the instruction based on specific rules modules.

It’s easy to see how the rules accumulated over time when one begins to read closely all of the subsystems included in the AD&D system. The three core rulebooks were published in 1977, ’78, and ’79 and some of the rules read differently from the appearance of the Players Handbook to the DMG.

The layers of aggregation can be seen clearly when one digs into specifics. For example, the basics of rolling for surprise are fairly straightforward. More and more bits got tossed on the foundation, though, and the resulting pile of rules is ungainly and poorly explained, at best. At worst, the surprise rules have been extended to where the underlying foundation can no longer support the whole and the subsystem warrants a complete overhaul.

That, I think, is a strong argument for sets of modules that present revamps of the varied systems and subsystems in the rules. Each module author can build a fresh version based on what they find most compelling in the pile of bits presented in the AD&D texts; each table can then decide what modules work best for its games and have clear instructions on the subsystem at hand.

I glommed on to combat rounds as an initial module to work on. I’ve no idea why, actually, just something that seemed to be a good place to begin. The rereading of the pertinent sections in the PH and DMG then illustrated the full scope of what a deep dive in the rules would provide, too, so I guess it’s as good a place as any to begin. I quickly realized that the way it’s explained in the books is also lacking in many ways, so expect at least half of the battle in cleaning things up will lie in better organization and limiting of subsystem boundaries, with detailed rules choices and explanations being the lesser burden.

Changes to Demi-Humans

July 6, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

Well, as far as they appear in my systems. ; )

I just recently came to a decision that I hadn’t even realized I was chewing on in the recesses of my mind, a decision on how to approach demi-humans in my systems. In short: my demi-humans are actually humans, just from a different origin world. So, the dwarves are humans from a distant homeland and some got transported to the prime setting in the distant past. The elves are humans from a distant homeland and some got transported to the prime setting in the distant past. I’m still wishy-washy about the existence of any other demi-humans — keep changing my mind about gnomes — and I’m not worrying about any others right now. The dwarves and elves, though, they’re simply “humans from other worlds” and that makes things a whole lot easier for my setting.

No need to worry about half-elves or half-dwarves, as I can say any offsprng would more closely resemble one line of parentage than the other and be largely identical to that line to where no mechanical differentiation is necessary. Your half-elf PC is thus either treated an an elf or as a setting-standard human and that’s all the consideration necessary. Players are free to fuss about parentage as they choose and the system doesn’t care; the PC will roll out as a dwarf or elf or human with characteristics accordingly.

This allows for the “demi-humans” to show some variance from the setting-standard humans without requiring any sort of complicated considerations for species. Dwarves are shorter, stockier humans with other characteristics based on evolving on a different world, with elves being longer-limbed and so forth due to their origins. I suspect it’ll also remove the “humans in funny suits” factor from the table, too (though putting the final descriptions into play with playtesters will shine light on that hypothesis).

It also works to make the appearance of other human strains easier to digest, so my half-formed thoughts of gray men may make it into usable form. It also has ramifications that extend to the place of humanoids in settings and like considerations. It helps to take advantage of my concept of the primary setting world bumping up against other planes regularly and thus being peppered with connections to lots of other places.

Well,…What’s It About?

July 6, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

One of the evergreen discussions I see in fora on game design involves asking what a system is about. It pops up regularly as a topic or as a major thread in a discussion on some random question posed by a user. Most of the time, it just rolls off my consciousness like rain off a brelly. Other times, however…well, it pokes me in the liver with enough force to really annoy me.

My annoyance — when I get annoyed — isn’t due to a single, repeated notion that flares up with each new iteration of the discussion. There’s a bit more to it than that. Perhaps laying out the issues in one place will help keep it from annoying me quite so often…I can hope.

The foremost issue I have with asking “Well, what’s it about?” when dealing with a game system lies in how the question conflates systems and games. The two are *not* the same and asking the question as if they are shows a lack of understanding both processes. To wit, a game system is the collection of game structures that a game master uses to create a game to take to the table; the system is not the game, nor are any of the games the system that they share. More than one game can be created using a system and using a system to support one game doesn’t preclude that system from also supporting a different game.

For example, a GM can use a system — say, GURPS — to create a game about medieval fantasy, mercenary units operating in a war-torn region where a couple of failing empires are battling over broken lands. The gameplay loop can be all about being offered contracts, accepting or declining said offers, working accepted offers, and the aftermath of the fighting such work involves, with recovery and political fallout to be navigated before starting the cycle over a gain. Does every game that uses the GURPS system use such a structure? Absolutely not! While that game is about mercenary companies in a war-torn land, the GURPS system is *not* about mercenary companies in a war-torn land. The system can certainly be used to make games about mercenaries, though.

A far more useful question then becomes apparent when discussing game systems: “What sorts of games does it support well?” A system that has detailed subsystems dealing with fighting and recovery is obviously going to support games that involve physical fights. Will it support games that eschew physical violence? Well, that depends on if it has subsystems that can support different types of conflict, such as emotional conflict and social isolation and so forth. If subsystems exist that can support other-than-physical conflicts, then physical fights aren’t a necessary component of games made using that system.

I find that I’m loath to discuss my bespoke system freely, many times, for exactly this reason. I don’t want to try to launch a discussion of any elements of it because of the sense of waiting for the “What’s it about?” to fall and derail any useful subthreads. It can be tricky to route discussions around the wreckage of the question to continue on in useful fashion, so I do find that I often just drop the intention to start a chat because of it. The perceived hassle is greater than the perceived gain.

This has arisen now because I’m at a point where I’m working out the underpinnings of how to explain campaign creation in my GMing guidebook. I think a GM having a solid understanding of what a campaign involves — what it’s about — makes for better games at the table. I’ve seen many discussions of play loops crop up across many venues of late, too, which suggests that reaching an understanding of how loops direct play is now being treated as more important than it has been prior. (Or that I’m simply noticing more references because it’s weighing on my mind.)

I find it more useful to ask what loops a system supports in service of specific games the GM wants to create for their table. To that end, I’ve reduced the notion of what a play loop is to the barest elements with the intent to then expand that basis in different directions to more distinct loops. It is by selecting which of those loops and how many of those loops to use that games are created to take to the table and play out in campaigns. A GM can thus create a tightly-focused campaign that involves only one or two of those expanded loops — a mercenary campaign, for example — or a multi-faceted campaign that includes many different fundamental play loops that offer amny different experiences.

Understanding how to use the system to support the choices makes for a better game experience, is my contention (and my hope). Whether focusing on mercenary actions or monster hunting or trying to track down magical artifacts or offering assistance to random communities or rooting out the machinations of otherworldly threats or any of a number of other approaches, understanding how the system supports the specifics is useful.

A Word on AI

May 29, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I saw yet another flaming wreck in a gaming forum this week. Somebody had posted something about creating a new work while using AI. It was supposed OK because the AI didn’t produce any final text or anything, so, ya know, supporting AI development is thus OK.

<sigh>

No, folks, it’s not. The development of AI llms to date has not been ethically done, so all AI llms are tainted by capitalist evil. It doesn’t matter how you use it, you’re supporting and enabling that evil to continue. A vast majority of gaming hobbyists, it appears, find that to be abhorrent. Expect to be ignored by most once your support of evil is known.

I’ve already got the icons to proclaim that my stuff is all human-made. I think there should be more of an effort to promote such identification, as it may spur some who otherwise wouldn’t even think about the moral aspects of using AI to reconsider. I also expect higher quality products to result, as AI is not known for producting high quality creative results.

I also have to wonder about the producers of such stuff. It’s not a rational decision. To wit, the audience for AI-infested material is much smaller than that for human-produced material. The audience for human-produced material also includes those who would be OK with AI-produced material, as there seems to be a distinct lack of people who only look for AI work. Any producer choosing to use AI is deliberately choosing to have a smaller audience–why is that?

Action Procedure Alternative for OSE/OSRIC

May 22, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

The combat system detailed here involves using side initiative rolls couple with speed adjustments per character based on weapons and activities. Weapon Speed Factors, Spell Casting Times, and Movement all affect the order of resolution of actions by PCs, NPCs, and creatures in an action encounter.

Action Rounds

Each round in this system is considered to be about twenty seconds in length. These rounds are shorter in duration than AD&D/OSRIC combat rounds and longer than OSE/BX combat rounds. Considering them to be a bit shorter or longer really isn’t likely to break anything in play, just alter the feel a bit. (I find the abstraction of all the fighting into 10-second rounds fails for me, especially with spell casting considered. If I have to consider finer points of timing during play, that short round puts me right out of the fantasy. On the other end, minute-long rounds also often put me out.)

Each participant is assumed to be involved in doing all the things that being involved in a fight can be expected: dodge, parry, shift, duck, feint, slash, stab, suck air, and so on. An attack is thus not a single attempt at striking an opponent. A loss of hit points is also not necessarily a measure of bodily damage, more a measure of loss of overall capacity to continue fighting. Movement is not necessarily an unbroken dash from one point to another. Action rounds are a bit chaotic and sloppy.

The Procedure for Action Rounds

A. Determine Surprise

B. Declare Action Intentions

C. Establish Initiative & And Action Segments

D. Play Out Segments

E. Morale Checks & Bookkeeping

Repeat steps B through E as needed to finish the action.

Determine Surprise

Once an encounter is indicated by placement or random roll, and the specifics of where each of the parties are located, how far apart, what conditions apply to sensory abilities, and all of that business, and there’s a chance that some action may be impending, then it must be determined if either (or any) of the parties involved is surprised. A surprised party is not immediately aware of the the other(s) and gets startled into awareness, which places the members a bit behind the surprising party on deciding what to do.

As PCs would not be aware of any other party if caught by surprise, the GM makes the checks for all parties involved in the encounter. Each party may be surprised or not, without reference to the other(s).

Roll a D6 for each party to check for Surprise. A roll of 1 or 2 on the die indicates the party is surprised and how long it will take to begin fully responding to matters, with a +1 or +2, respectively, applying to the Action Speed count for each member of a surprised party. If all parties are surprised, compare the numbers and subtract the lesser from the greater to find out the modifier to action, i.e., a roll of 1 and a roll of 2 result in the former being subtracted from the latter, resulting in one segment of surprise for the second group (a +1 to Action Speed).

Example 1: Two parties, the PCs on one hand and several bandits on the other, encounter each other. The dice result in rolls of 1 and 2, respectively. As both are surprised, the lesser is subtracted, resulting in the bandits being surprised for a segment. As the bandits are thus not fully aware of the PCs, the PCs may withdraw or hide and avoid having to deal with the bandits at all. If the PCs decide to engage the bandits, the bandits suffer a penalty of +1 to their Action Speeds.

Example 2: Three parties converge on a cavern at the same time. Surprise dice are rolled for each, resulting in two rolls of 1 and one roll of 2. This means that the two parties that rolled a 1 are aware of the others and able to act while the third party is still oblivious. If they all engage with the others, the third party suffers a penalty to Action Speed of +1.

[Note: a morale check may be required if one side is clearly overmatched on initial assessment.]

Declaration of Intent

All of the parties involved in the scene declare what their intentions are for the round. The GM will decide what all of the non-player actors want to do. The players will declare what they want their PCs, and any allies the players control, to do. If one side is surprised, it makes no declarations until after the unsurprised have declared intentions and begun acting.

These intentions guide what the character is doing and the speed at which they happen and is based on executing them without hesitation. Should a player decide to change a character’s course of action after the action commences, there may be a delay in the segment of action for the character because of the delay involved in changing intentions.

Each action selected for a character takes a bit of time to execute. The amount of time is measured in segments, with roughly ten segments each round. The length of a segment is not a discrete unit of time, however, as much as it’s a measure of activity that corresponds to time only roughly. The segment count for some rounds may exceed ten segments by a couple; some actions may end up happening in the following round if the first would be extended too far.

[Hmm. Make any extension of action automatically bleed over into next round? Could streamline things.]

Initiating Action

Once the issue of surprise has been sorted, if none of the parties involved have managed to get a jump on the others, then the ordering of engagement has to be sorted. Any surprised parties automatically lose the possibility of acting first, so Initiative need not be rolled. If there are at least two parties unsurprised, then Initiative must be checked.

The Initiative Check

One D6 will be rolled for each side involved in the action. The highest roll among the D6s wins initiative for that side; a tie in rolls means all actions are simultaneous with like actions in each segment. If more than two sides, the die rolls rank from highest to lowest, with order assigned accordingly.

The Segment Count

The segment in which any character or monster acts is determined by adding the Weapon Speed or Casting Speed and any modifiers. The resulting number corresponds to the segment the adjudication takes place.

A side that loses the Initiative Check adds a penalty of +1 per 2 pips on the roll by which it’s die rolled under the winning side’s die.

Example: Party A rolls a 5 for initiative and Party B rolls a 3.

Members of Party A act on the segments corresponding to their action speed. A fighter using a weapon of Spd 5 thus strikes in segment 5. A wizard casting a Spd 6 spell looses the spell in segment 6.

Members of Party B act on segments corresponding to their action speed +1. If the two characters above were in Party B, the fighter would strike in segment 6 and the wizard finish their spell in segment 8.

Multiple attack sequences: having multiple attacks indicates the combatant is quick enough, through natural ability or trained experience, to act more quickly. For beasts and monsters, their listed Attack Spds are used unaltered. For experienced fighters, the rounds in which additional attacks are available involve decreasing the Weapon Spd by 1 and acting on segments corresponding to multiples of that Spd.

Example: Erik the Bold now has 3 attacks every 2 rounds. He uses a weapon of Spd 5. In the rounds where he’s due a single attack, he operates with a Weapon Spd of 5. In the rounds he’s due 2 attacks, he operates as if his Weapon Spd is 4. If winning the Initiative Check in one of the latter rounds, he would attack in segment 4 and segment 8.

[Hmm. Weapon Specialization reduces Weapon Spd by 1 at all times?]

Action Speed

The Action Speed for a character relies on what the character is doing during the round and how they are doing it.

A weapon attack uses the Wpn Spd rating as Action Speed, along with any modifiers accrued.

A spell uses the Casting Spd as Action Speed, along with any accrued modifiers.

A move during the round adds segments to any other actions the character attempts. A full move involves two half-moves and doesn’t allow for any other actions.

Charge adds +4 segments*

Split-Move Attack adds +4 segments (and a penalty to attack checks)

Half Move adds +5 segments (and a penalty to attack checks)

A Stunt & Exploit has an Action Speed of 4 for each part of the combination; eg., the Spd for the stunt is 4 and then the exploit attempt comes 4 segments later

A Wait delay has action immediately after triggering event; e.g., “when somebody moves there” triggers action

Phase Order During Segments

Within a segment, the actions play out in the following phase order, the first side running through them, followed by the other side:

Movement

Missile

Magic

Melee

Morale

The side that won Initiative acts first (has actions adjudicated) in each segment before the other side. If Initiative is tied, the the phases become more important when comparing different actions.

This means that a spell that finishes during the segment will be unaffected by an arrow from the losing side, if one side has won Initiative. If Initiative is tied, however, and the sides are acting simultaneously, the arrow would arrive before the spell is finished.

[Hmm. Check to see if the caster gets the spell off before dying? A last gasp thing?]

A List of Actions

There are a great many choices which can be made for any random round of fighting, not all of which necessarily have to involve attempting to hurt a foe. The list of possible actions that follows includes the most common choices, though players may offer up unusual choices for the GM to adjudicate.

Delays

Wait: A character may try to delay further action after the First Action, putting the continuation of activity on hold, so to speak.

Parley: The character may try to shout over the burgeoning activity to get everybody’s attention and start, or continue, parleying between the parties. This can delay hostilities, with the segment count resuming only after the delay has played out.

Spectacle: The character may create a spectacle that interrupts the action by distracting most, or all, of the beings involved. A spectacle requires something that all involved can readily apprehend. It may be something they each believe to be a threat of some sort. It may be something that is disorienting.

Bait: The character may toss food or other items out before the foes to draw their attention away from the PCs or allies. Such baiting may provide a segment or two for taking flight, imbibing a potion, readying a weapon, or other quick activity.

Movement

Any character that plans on moving during the round has to declare the intent to move, to include the direction of movement.

Charge: Any intended charge attacks. The target of the intended charge must be within charging distance. A Counter-Charge against an announced Charge must also be announced. Note that charging distance can extend to a distance of both a Charge and Counter-Charge together.

*Charge timing can be affected by a Counter-Charge.

Shift: The character may shift position, if not actively engaged. A shift is aa repositioning within 10 feet of the beginning position.

Split-Move Attack: A split-move attack sequence involves a short move and an attack followed by movement after the attack. A character can move 1/3 of their movement rate in the movement portions.

Half-Move: The character moves half of their move allotment.

Withdrawal: The character may back away from the melee, attempting to take advantage of a lull in the opponent’s aggression. The opponent may move with the character and may be able to re-engage in melee.

Retreat: If the character is engaged with an enemy, the character may press the foe at +2, which, if successful, allows the character to forego damage and instead drive the foe back and provide the character with some space to back away without suffering an attack. Once clear, the character can scurry away from the fight.

Break & Run: A character failing a morale check (or a PC by choice) will simply try to flee without regard to the enemy. Such a character will suffer an immediate attack from the rear by an engaged foe. Any close foe that is free to move to the line of flight may attack the fleeing character, too, without bonus. Missile attacks may also be launched or hurled at the fleeing character.

Morale Check Due to Charge: If Charged by a dragon or other giant creature, all characters with fewer than 4HD must make a morale check immediately. The effects are applied immediately.

Missiles, Hurled or Launched

Pass-Through Fire: Missiles may be launched or hurled at foes moving around the melee scene close to the attacker.

First Fire: For multiple-attack routines

Second Fire: For multiple-attack routines

Etc., as needed

Split-Move Fire: The character may move, launch or hurl a missile, and then move again before the end of the round. The attack suffers a penalty of -2.

Artillery Fire: Any siege engines or similar contraptions may launch projectiles.

Missile and projectile effects are applied at end of the segment they are launched or hurled.

Magic (To include magical items)

By Item: Use of a wand, staff, or other item.

By Caster: A magic using character working a spell.

By Scroll: Casting from a scroll.

All spell effects are applied at end of the segment casting finished.

Melee

Weapon Attack: A chance to have significant effect using a weapon against a foe.

Unarmed/Body Attack: A chance to inflict harm without using weapons other than hands or feet via throws and locks and chokes and strikes.

Stunt Execution: Executing a maneuver intended to set up a later attack.

Exploit After Stunt: An attack following set up by a stunt that includes a special effect beyond simple damage.

All melee damage and special effects applied immediately. The other side’s damage and special effects are applied after their turn in the segment. It is possible, with tied Initiative, for a pair to combatants to kill each other.

Other Actions

Rally: Attempt to rally any close allies who have been shaken or broken due to a failed morale check.

Imbibe: Try to open and drink a potion from a vial or bottle.

Finish Activity: Try to finish an action that isn’t directly related to combat; e.g., picking a lock with melee happening close behind the character.

Options During Melee

May 13, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

There have been a great many complaints over the years of the base D&D melee system being boring. “If an attack misses, the turn was wasted” and the like have been spoken and written so many times. Another chorus bemoans the fact that an attack is an attack is an attack and that the basic attack is boring. While I think that’s all hogwash, I think it may be interesting to add a bit more to melee to provide more choices to players when it happens.

This is part of my efforts in designing my bespoke system and modules for the modular subsystems project. The more I play with variations on the theme, so to speak, the better grasp I have of it all and the better I can design exactly what I want for any given project.

I expect any options added to the system to play by the rules, so to speak. That is, they have to work within the bounds of the existing conceits of the system. Melee has been described in the rules as involving all of those things many players have whined about not having available during a fight—feints and parries and so forth—and over the course of a block of time—a round—the fighter gets a chance to actually damage the opponent. (Note: all of those parries and feints and dodges and whatever have always been available…in the description of an attack sequence. They just don’t have any role in adjudicating an attack.)

So, any options I add to the system can’t involve any of those things, unless in some odd circumstance, such as a PC needs to spend a round dodging a barrage of thrown daggers or boulders. All of the options have to be viable; the risks of failing at the attempts have to be weighed against the rewards of succeeding, with greater risk reaping greater rewards. No options can be structurally superior to the RAW attack sequence (nor obviously inferior), as that just replaces one standard attack type with another. I also want there to be a substantial difference in effect, instead of just an attempt at doing greater damage (though that may happen).

Types of Options

What are the types of options that can work to add variety to fights? I can think of several that fit within the guidelines I listed above.

Rest/Recover: The challenge here is that there has to be something to gain from not attacking. While I think it fits because fighting is draining and taking a bit of time here and there to simply breathe is part of it, that’s not something already built into the system, and I’m not certain it would be worth adding in. So, what if a round resting allows the PC to gain a small bonus of some sort?

Distraction: An attempt to get the attention of foes to keep them from paying attention elsewhere.

Protection of Ally: What it says on the tin. The PC physically intercedes between an ally and incoming attacks to defend. Prima facie, this is already possible in RAW, so there’d have to be more to it.

Drive the Opponent: Force the foe to move in some direction that would benefit the PC. Getting the monster positioned under a boulder an ally pushes off an edge above, for instance.

Passing the Foe: The PC ends up moving past the opponent with a surprising move, which allows an attack follow up from the rear or flank.

Draw Out Foe: The PC draws out the foe with defensive “flaws” to set up an attack that does more harm than a typical attack.

Fancy Pants Stunts: Sliding between a giant’s legs and slashing his hamstring or Achilles tendon while doing so. Instead of regular damage, it does lighter damage plus limits the giant’s movement and effectiveness through the rest of the fight.

On Death, Dying, and Dismemberment

May 13, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

I’ve been seeing some discussion on 0 hp and death in old school systemsthe past few days, and it’s the discussions have helped me clarify my thoughts a bit. I didn’t change my mind on any element, though I did get a firmer grip on exactly what I want.

A long standing criticism levelled at D&D has been the binary condition of a combatant–at full capability with even a single hit point remaining and then dead at 0 hit points. Nothing in between, no slowing down, no requiring some recovery before launching yet more attacks, just rock ’em, sock ’em robot mode until death.

I think this is an extremely valid criticism. D&D’s abstractions tend to take something that marks an activity in reality and slips it into the system in some fashion. Combat, for example, involves lots of attacks and parries and dodging and feints and so forth, with a baseline of a single attack sequence having a chance of solidly inflicting damage on the foe. This does reflect the realities of fighting in large degree, so the abstraction is modeled around it.

Well, in reality, fighters aren’t generally going to be able to go all-out non-stop up until they die. I know that I slowed during fights as the toll of activity caught up to me–and I wasn’t taking serious damage from live weapons. I wasn’t as quick at the end of a round as at the beginning. I wasn’t as sharp after several rounds as at the beginning of the bout. It would make sense to build that sort of loss of capabilities into the combat abstraction.

I’ve long been a fan of Leading Edge Games’ Sword’s Path: Glory rules. One of the design choices that impressed me a great deal was that of damage generating so much shock and the character having to save based on that amount to stay in the fight; it also detailed broken bones and the like that could affect fighting capabilities. This made any given strike a crap shoot for the victim–will they remain conscious and in the fight, and will they still be able to continue to fight without constraint? That core idea, that one has to save vs the damage taken to maintain capacity–and that may not be full capacity–is something that I think makes for a better play experience.

So, I’m building that into my system. PCs don’t have a pool of points that dwindle until they’re out of the fight. They accumulate trauma and have to check once they take so much damage to see if they stay conscious. When the accumulated trauma surpasses designated thresholds, they lose some capacity to fight, whether slowed a bit in combat order or movement or attacking with a bit less accuracy or doing less damage. Minor penalties, individually, though they can make for real troubles when stacked together. Those penalties then make it easier for the character to get beat up and knocked down and out. (Yes, it’s a death spiral–don’t get stuck in long fights where it can happen, if you value your PC.)

A major part of the discussions I’ve been reading has involved ways to mitigate the sudden onset of death a bit. Gygax, himself, in AD&D, offered up the option of the “death’s door” rules, where a PC reduced to 0 hp (with a further option of stretching that to -3) is down and dying, though not yet dead. Others have offered up the idea that PCs can survive getting downed via saves and so on, with the caveat that the cost of the PC making it through alive is that the PC has to face the chances on a dismemberment table of some sort. Yes, Aldric, the Mighty, survived the giant’s attack at the cost of losing two fingers on his sword hand.

One can see that the approach of wounds affecting capabilities during the fight can readily lead into the idea that getting incapacitated during combat could result in long-lasting or permanent wound effects. As a player has to save to stay in the fight as the PC gets worn down, the player also has to save vs the totality of the damage inflicted to avoid losing something after being incapacitated. A gimpy leg or arm, balance slightly off, something. I don’t want it to be a major element in play, so the odds will be generous in avoiding such. I want the threat to be present, however, to help spur lots of caution over fighting with large, nasty beasties.

The two of those elements taken together provides a couple of solid reasons to deal with any fighting cautiously. A PC can get KOed early on by taking a solid shot and then have a permanent gimp of some sort thereafter. The converse is that the PC could fight on long past when they could have been expected to still be conscious and fighting in a most heroic fashion and then come out of it without any lasting effects. The story of that fight would make for a campaign legend, I think.

Modern Assumptions Gotta Go

April 29, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

Some of the bits of game design that have long bugged me involve modern assumptions underlying game activities. Two that have long rubbed me wrong involve religion and buying gear. There are some quite modern assumptions underpinning how games have most often approached these, and I’m gonna boot those assumptions out of my systems.

Let’s examine religion, first. The cleric of D&D, the first example of the appearance of religiosity in RPGs, is quite obviously based on crusading knight orders–the Templars and Hospitalers and such. This binds the class to a medieval Catholic type of system, with clerics part of orders of individual deities. It involves the notion of proselytization as being part of all religion. It suggests, strongly, that faith is the important part of religious practice.

I have an issue with those thoughts. In so many pagan religious practices, none of those hold sway. Temples are often for entire pantheons to be revered. The praxis of religion is the most important part–adherents don’t even have to believe in the existence of any deities, just do for the necessary observances. And proselytization isn’t an obligation, nor usually even a thing; other peoples are allowed to have and practice their own rites and rituals as normal practice.

So, I won’t be having any of that nonsense in my systems. Temples are going to be for pantheons, in general, or at least groups of deities from the pantheon. Shrines dedicated to individual deities abound, though even those may have statuary and such for other deities. While many people will have an affinity for one or two deities, they’ll also respect the rest of the pantheon. They may even celebrate some observances of foreign pantheons when in strange lands.

Next, we can look at the acquisition of gear. What I see in all of the systems I’ve cared to look at or use, there are apparently general stores that carry everything–and have enough stock to equip entire kingdoms–in one small village. OK, a bit of hyperbole, though the general point stands. There are systems that limit how many items of a given kind are available based on community size, and I like those, as I think they’re a good start.

What I’m working on is formalizing some concepts I’ve played with over the years that seem to match more of what a generally medieval economy would support. Sure, we can have a general merchant that carries goods commonly needed in the community (note: adventuring gear is likely not commonly needed). Most stuff has to be bought from an artisan who makes the stuff. Uncommonly-needed equipment can be commissioned and will require passage of game time before the PC can take possession. Artisans to do the work may reside only in towns and cities, meaning the PC has to travel to commission the work and then to claim it (and that means off-screen activity).

This leads into handling all the loot stolen from the tombs by the PCs, too. Nobody in any general store nor any village jeweler is going to have enough funds lying around to buy the treasures from the PCs. The party will have to find agents who have contacts elsewhere and are willing to act as an intermediary to cart all that treasure to distant places and sell on the PCs’ behalf. So, the friendly general merchant in the village may know a guy in the county town who has contacts in a couple of cities who can auction off the goods to wealthy buyers. All of the steps along the way require a cut of the proceeds, of course, and what money the PCs end up with will arrive at a future date and be less than the value of the treasure as appraised. It’s a good way to keep funds tight for the PCs in the immediate present and keep funds from accumulating quickly, in addition to helping with simulation of a working world.

There’s also the training nonsense often encountered. Training time requirements are far too lax, with PCs able to rise from barely competent to reknowned expert in a quite short time, as measured in the setting. Even worse is the notion from more modern systems that a PC can “dip” into a class for a level and then move on to something else in short order. Lawdy!

One of the conceits of D&D, as mentioned by Gygax, is that PCs are trained prior to beginning play. 1st-lvl fighters, for example, are called “veterans”. MUs have gone through apprenticeships. No PC just drops his hoe and leaves his parents’ farm and the next day is a 1st-lvl PC. They’ve spent time developing skills. This needs to be reflected in character development rules. There are no community colleges on the other side of the village where one can spend a term to gain all that is desired. Indeed, as the AD&D system calls for, a PC must find a trainer.

Now, Gygax then calls for a relatively short period of training, and further even allows for self-training–as if a PC already knows everything they’d learn from a teacher. And that’s for a PC that has already finished an apprenticeship. In doing so, I think he’s subverting the whole training requirement system. Arneson had a training system that involved months of time training for new abilities and I think that’s a better approach. To change class entirely, I reckon an apprenticeship is going to take at least a year, more likely longer.

As can be expected, my bespoke systems are going to have stiffer training regimens. The challenge, as with most things, is to keep character development interesting at every step, and training time is only a part of that. All the parts working together will have to be interesting.

Building an Action (Combat) Module

April 26, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

Action Procedure Alternative for OSE/OSRIC

The combat system detailed here involves using side initiative rolls coupled with speed adjustments per character based on weapons and activities. Weapon Speed Factors, Spell Casting Times, and Movement all affect the order of resolution of actions by PCs, NPCs, and creatures in an action encounter.

Action Rounds

Each round in this system is considered to be about twenty seconds in length. These rounds are shorter in duration than AD&D combat rounds and longer than OSE combat rounds. Considering them to be a bit shorter or longer really isn’t likely to break anything in play, just alter the feel a bit. (I find the abstraction of all the fighting into 10-second rounds fails for me, especially with spell casting considered. If I have to consider finer points of timing during play, that short round puts me right out of the fantasy. On the other end, minute-long rounds also often put me out, too.)

Initiating Action

Fighting sequences begin with a First Actor—the first being to take an action in a fight. The first action taken by the First Actor is what begins the ordering count by segment in the round. This first action can be completely unexpected by the other side, which may result in surprise, or the culmination of a face off that finally erupts into action. In any case, this is what puts everything into action.

Declaration of Intent

These intentions guide what the character is doing and the speed at which they happen is based on executing them without hesitation. Should a player decide to change a character’s course of action after the action commences, there may be a delay in the segment of action for the character because of the delay involved in changing intentions.

[Hmm. Make any extension of action automatically bleed over into next round? Could streamline things. Only seems reasonable to extend a round count if no more than two segments needed in extension.]

A List of Actions

Delays

A character may try to delay further action after the First Act, putting the continuation of activity on hold, so to speak.

Movement

Any character that plans on moving during the round has to declare the intent to move, to include the direction of movement.

Shift: The character may shift opponents, if not actively engaged.

Split-Move Attack: A split-move attack sequence involves a short move, an attack, followed by movement after the attack. The attack may be launched or hurled weapon attack or a quick melee attack.

Half-Move:

Withdrawal or Retreat:

Morale Check Due to Charge: If Charged by a dragon or other giant creature, all characters with fewer than 4HD must make a morale check immediately. The effects are applied immediately.

Missiles, Hurled or Launched

Pass-Through Fire:

First Fire: For multiple attack routines

Split-Move Fire:

Artillery Fire:

Missile effects applied at end of segment.

Magic (To include magical items)

Spells Cast:

Artillery Effect:

All spell and artillery effects applied at end of segment.

Melee

Weapon Attack:

Unarmed/Body Attack:

Stunt Execution:

Exploit After Stunt:

All melee damage and special effects applied immediately. The other side’s damage and special effects are applied after their turn in the segment.

Morale Checks

All morale checks induced by reasons other than Charges are made and effects applied at the end of the segment.

Ordering Action

The Initiative Check

One D6 will be rolled for each side involved in the action. The highest roll among the D6s wins initiative for that side; a tie in rolls means all actions are simultaneous in each segment.

The Segment Count

The GM will count through the segments, beginning with segment 0 and continuing until segment 10.

The side that won initiative acts on the segments indicated by action speed.

The side that lost initiative acts on action speed +2 for the round.

Action Speed

The action speed for a character relies on what the character is doing during the round and how they are doing it.

A weapon attack uses the Weapon Speed rating as Action Speed, along with any modifiers accrued.

A spell casting used the Casting Time as Action Speed, along with any accrued modifiers.

A move during the round adds segments to any other actions the character attempts.

Charge Adds +2

Split-Move Adds +2

Half Move adds +4

Note: A full move is two Half-Moves played out individually.

Within a segment, the actions play out in the phase order in which they’re presented above, even though the effects may all be applied at the end of the segment. [Review necessity]

This is obviously very much a work in progress. I’m open to input about things that are missing that might prove really interesting, in particular.

This has the phases broken out because I started with an outline of a sub-system I’m working on that uses distinct phases. I’m thinking, at this point, that keeping the phases listed for resolution order in a segment may still be useful.

A Modularity Project

April 21, 2025 / TAFL / 0 Comments

As many, many GMs in OSR/NSR circles report swapping out bits from one system to use with another, I think it only reasonable that there are lots of folks who would love a compendium or compendiums that provide multiple alternatives for specific sub-systems.

I’m certainly not the first person to think such would be useful. I think my little useful bit to add to the idea is that such a compendium would be most useful if it provided a Creative Commons that allows for copypasta usage for any purpose. As in “You like this? Copy these word straight into your manuscript” as an expected usage. Shoot, provide text downloads, even (though some pricing to help with hosting and bandwidth costs).

As I find myself sketching out such alternative sub-systems regularly, I think I could certainly contribute to such a project. I’m currently hashing out an alternative combat approach for OSE/OSRIC that involves a tick system using weapon speeds and casting times. I don’t really expect to use it in any of my systems–at least, any time soon–and would be happy to see it used by others. My overflow of usable ideas isn’t constrained to combat systems, either, so I’d be happy to contribute to collections of other sub-systems, too.

If I can find a couple of other people interested in such collections, I might start on a layout bible so they all appear consistently. I enjoy making master pages in Affinity Publisher, and I’m happy to share those, too. Let’s get more people creating their best systems using ideas from wherever they can find them.