Words from a grognard

Tag: #classicoldschool (Page 2 of 2)

Classic style: Play to find out

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

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

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

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

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

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

An underutilized approach to monsters

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

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

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

A channeling magic system

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

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

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

Here’s how it works:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bit of hit point adjustment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newer posts »

© 2025 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑