OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Category: Setting Design

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: Characters

April 6, 2026 / / 0 Comments

At the heart of the player experience in RPGs is the Player Character. One can argue that the rules surrounding PCs can make or break a system, with those rules being what ties the player into the game at the table. I wouldn’t argue that notion is wrong, though it might not be the whole of the measure. The ins and outs of PCs, however, do a lot of work in a game system.

Help Define the Setting

What character classes are available for play provide a look at the setting, the game world. The archetypes and expressions of those archetypes provide information on what goes on in the setting, and what is important to how the world operates. OD&D’s three possible archetypes –fighting man, cleric, and magic user– tell us that the world has lots of fighting, religious orders that also fight, and a community of wizards who actively seek out new information and materials. These archetypes are lightly defined, leaving it to individual tables as to whether fighting men can be knights or mercenaries, light foot soldiers, heavily armored troopers, and so forth. This allows for the GM to provide guidance to players to get PCs that fit the GM’s world.

So, while the system rules don’t offer much in the way of defining the setting, the GM can certainly do so by informing the players what sorts of fighters can be played and tying them into the world. The GM establishes the flavor of the world by offering horse archers, light footmen, heavy infantry houseguards, lancers, and so forth.

Tools For Play

The character classes provide players with tools to use in play. Each ability possessed by a PC is a tool the player can use in overcoming challenges. This isn’t to say that the PC abilities should be providing simple solutions to challenges –proverbial EASY buttons– but provide the type of abilities to bring to bear that such a character would. The abilities shouldn’t provide immediate answers to challenges, just tools that can be used with ingenuity in addressing those challenges.

As mentioned above, a class provides abilities available to the PC/player to use to overcome challenges in play. A class definition limits what abilities the PC is best at to those that serve their role in the setting, and thus in the game. Fighters are good at fighting to some degree, better than those PCs who aren’t fighters. The magicians wield magic, which the other classes don’t. There are sub-classes with abilities to sneak around more effective than other people, while Paladins are more effective at battling and destroying undead than everybody else. A key element is that characters are better at what their classes do than characters who belong to other classes. I look to make each class both qualitatively better and quantitatively better at their specialties than those who aren’t of the same class. That also indicates that characters of other classes can certainly do at least some of the same things –sneak around, fight undead, hunt critters– though not with the same competence as the specialists. 

Consider a snoop, for example. A snoop is quite competent at breaking & entering and sneaking around in dark places to find items without being detected. So, when it comes to climbing a rope or wall, a snoop is less likely to fall –a quantitative difference– and able to also move more quickly than others –a qualitative difference. Players are able to have their PCs attempt actions outside their specialties; it’s expected as a normal part of play.

In My Projects

In my projects, I’m using character class constructs in exactly these fashions. The range of character sub-classes offer insight as to how the world operates. There is no generic fighter, for example; there are multiple sub-classes that fill roles in the societies in which they arise. There are experienced soldiers notable for their capabilities, the Stalwart. There are Troopers, the mounted cavalry. Barbarians come from less-“civilized” lands and are adept with both melee and missile weapons. Rangers are specialized hunters of monsters. Paladins hunt undead and lay them to rest.

These last two sub-classes highlight that monsters are a common issue in the setting that has to be dealt with, to the point where specialized roles have been created and there are people who step into those roles to protect the lands of the human (and human-like) peoples.

Even among those sub-classes there can be further differentiation via character kits. A mobile light infrantry skirmisher is different than a soldier of the line is different than a member of a noble’s houseguard. Different weapons, armors, approaches to combat, and different organizations they operate in can provide a myriad of ways the character is tied into the setting.

There are also Scouts of more than one type. Delvers, often derided as tomb robbers. Snoops for hire by the wealthy to spy on rivals. Hunters who know their local landscapes well and trade in furs and carcasses. Guides who know the routes connecting the settlements and lead caravans and expeditions.

There are then magicians of varied sort. Witches, who draw on primal powers and work within the weave of the natural world. Wizards, who take a more scholarly, abstracted approach to working. And Enchanters, who create illusions and draw out horrors from others’ minds.

Each of the three projects underway offer up these three classes and at least most of the sub-classes. Two of them also offer an assortment of Raconteurs, with priests, friars, bards, and other performers available to provide characters better-suited to social interactions.

I’ve already posted a draft of a Witch class (https://osrpgtalk.net/first-look-at-a-witch-class/) and have sketches of other classes underway.

NPCs: Central Casting

March 30, 2026 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been struggling with crafting a cast of characters for a campaign start area. Then I realized I could approach it in a different fashion and suddenly the NPCs started springing up left and right. I’ve no idea why the change let the creative juices flow where the approach I’ve used for decades suddenly dried everything up. Ah, well, ideas are bubbling up and I figured it worth sharing.

I was thinking about a friend who has been an inspiration for an important NPC. I realized that I wasn’t really trying to put her into the setting, I was using her as an inspiration and it was much more like I was casting her to play that character on the world stage. That brought the epiphany — I’m a director casting people in parts for a play.

I found that this approach works well in two directions. That is, taking an NPC role and figuring out who I’d cast to play that part; and also considering a person I know in some fashion and figuring out what sort of role I’d cast them in. Note that I’m not considering basing the NPC on the person’s actual personality, I’m just considering how I’d cast them in a play based on how I think they’d play the NPC.

I’ve never overtly considered this as an approach to NPCs prior. I’ve rarely even thought of correlating a known person with an NPC in my games. I expect there are people who’ve taken this approach, though I’ve not encountered discussion of it anywhere.

© 2026 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑