OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Tag: #OSR

More about characteristics

June 19, 2024 / / 1 Comment

As mentioned previously, I’m working on decreasing the prevalence of bonuses from characteristics accruing to actions across the board–I don’t want a bonus for dexterity, for example, to apply to everything that involves movement of any sort. I want discrete bonuses that apply in specific situations. A character that is notably stronger than most will thus have a variety of discrete bonuses instead of simply adding +3 to everything involving strength.

What does that look like? At this point, it involves lists of abilities–likely to be called feats–that are attached to each of the characteristics. A list of strength feats, a list of dex feats, and so on. During chargen, when rolling for characteristics, a “high” roll would then result in the character being capable of more feats associated with that characteristic. A strong PC would have list of activities with which they have a bonus, say, lifting portculli, hanging from ledges, pushing boulders, forcing doors, and carrying capacity.

This removes a high roll from wandering into superhero territory due to the granularity of the system mechanics, while providing a sense of superior ability in general. A strong character isn’t going to be extraordinary with every measure/usage of strength, yet will be more capable in general terms when using strength. This all ties back into the notion that player skill is important and bonuses on the character sheet shouldn’t outweigh it.

The question I’m wrangling now is how exactly to structure this. Obviously, a simple 3d6 roll isn’t going to provide much detail in way of how many feats are warranted, except in a very crude way. I’d like a bit more nuance, I guess, so am looking at using a different approach to rolling in chargen. A 2d6x6 grid might provide enough options to handle it. I plan on using 2D6^2 grids in the system, already, so might end up with one of those, instead–that should certainly provide enough nuance!

That wouldn’t bother me, certainly. I already planned to use a smaller scale range for characteristics, dropping the worst ratings as unbefitting competent heroes who have the confidence to venture into the dangers of the wilds. I planned a range of 6 -16 in 3d6 terms, with modifiers of -1 to +3. (Players could garner a bonus point to assign to one characteristic, meaning the top end would be a rating of 17, with a +3.) If I use a table allowing for more grades of capability, then PCs could end up with bonuses on a handful of discrete abilities, say one to six or seven such. The bonus for each ability could then be +1 to +3 or equivalent. I may put up a sample of such a table when I get one sketched out that I think is worth playtesting.

I’ll also have to decide whether what feats accrue is based on RNG or player choice. I’m leaning toward player choice, just to allow customization at a low level. There’s not much choice in character development by level, so providing a bit of choice at the outset can help establish a sense of how the character will play.

A bit more on attributes

April 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’m still conflicted on attribute bonuses and effects.

On the one hand, I want a reasonable simulation wherein higher attributes gain bonuses and the PC can mechanically do something extra or something extra well. This makes having attributes useful and differentiating character abilities, which makes the tools players have available via characters different in one more regard.

On the other hand, I want players to not get bonuses on a whole slew of abilities/actions in play. I can think of systems where I’d find that just peachy; the flavors I’m going for with the current projects are not where that would be fine.

The question then remains “How do attribute modifiers appear in the rules?”

I’m now looking at all the ways attributes affect mechanics. Saving throws, damage bonuses, defensive bonuses, accuracy bonuses, reaction modifiers, yadayadayada. I think that allowing the attribute bonuses to affect some of the possible mechanics–player choice?–and not all of the mechanics and abilities tied to the attributes may be the way to go.

So, a PC with a high strength isn’t going to get a bonus for opening doors AND bending bars AND inflicting weapon damage AND carrying copious amounts of treasure AND a bonus to a saving throw AND…you get the point. That notable strength bonus might only apply to part of the list.

Another thought is to use the bonus in discrete units; eg., a +3 bonus can appear as a +1 on one thing and a +2 on another. I find this line of thought really interesting, as I could expand the range of bonus ratings available and still have no single bonus outlandishly powerful. A player could roll a character with a +5 Strength, for instance, and that would appear as bonuses to three different abilities associated with strength. I find that quite an attractive option, though I’ve not played with it in my head long enough to be fully confident in its desirability.

I’m trying to keep my balance on the line of designing in enough customization of a PC to be helpful in differentiating characters via more than just loadout and characterization (for those folks who enjoy that sort of thing) and keeping power bloat under control from the outset of play. There’s a small range of bonus ratings that clearly fit what I want to see, so finding a nice way to expand that range without moving into superheroics is tricky.

Thoughts on low hit points

April 1, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been reading through old volumes of The Dragon magazine. It’s been interesting to read all the takes on game design that appear in the pages, whether from Gygax or one of the other TSR people. An article I read yesterday, by Len Lakofka, I believe, was about low hp and zero hp, offering an alternative approach to using them.

The first part of his take that I found interesting involved when hp totals dropped to 2 or 1. He advocated for penalties to PC actions at that point, reflecting the obviously wounded status. I found that quite interesting, as it addresses the criticism of “full capabilities until dead” that applies to the RAW. Now, I’m going to assume that every PC began play with more than 2 hp, so dropping to 2 reflects a loss of foundational hp, a decrease in inherent capabilities on part of the PC. Yes, even those MUs! I know so many tables award hd maximum at 1st level and others mandate at least upper half of the die range (so 3 on a d4), so dropping to two hp would be wounded status for even a PC MU.

The next takeaway involved dropping to 0 hp or lower. He offered a table with percentages for all the options; that seems to be overkill to me. The basic idea that a PC has to check for death or incapacitation is good. It’s not instant death, yet things don’t look good for the PCs (instant death arrives if hp drop to -5 or -6). Even if still alive after dropping to 0 to -4 hp, the PC will have to make another check in a few rounds to stay alive, repeat until receiving care, healing naturally, or dying. And if the PC lives through all that, there are chances for scars and maiming (losing body parts). Woot! Adding history and characterization to PCs!

I’ve been evaluating different systems for limiting hit points of late as part of finalizing playtest materials. From the E6 approach to static hp/level to reduced hd sizes and more. One thing I’ve decided makes a good deal of sense is to have all PCs have basic hp for 0-lvl and their PC hd then adding to that base. So, I’d have a base of 5 hp for simply being a healthy, active person and then adding hp for experience levels.

This works well with the idea of reduced hp leading to penalties due to wounding. A PC gets damage to where those foundational hp are disappearing? Yeah, there’s penalties involved. Time to get out of Dodge and live to fight another day. Then, if getting incapacitated and dropping unconscious, the PC has a solid chance to die if not receiving care soon enough. That strikes me as being deadly enough to drive caution on behalf of players while allowing PCs a bit of room to get knocked out of a fight and still live.

I think coupling limited hp due to class and the idea of foundational, 0-lvl hp can make for a reasonably demanding playstyle. Couple that with the penalties, incapacitation, and maiming rules and it can be a nail-biting good time.

Procedural play

March 28, 2024 / / 0 Comments

Another key lesson for GMing, I reckon, is that procedures are everywhere. Becoming familiar with procedures and comfortable with using them is a core element of running a game.

PCs decide they want to hire on a crew for an expedition to find a rumored lost mine? There’s a procedure for hiring on help.

The party heads out of town on the expedition? There’s a procedure for travel.

The PCs hear a ruckus in the forest just out of sight and it sounds like something large and ferocious is headed their way? There’s a procedure for that.

The PCs reach the landmark they seek and begin looking for the mine entrance? Yup, another procedure.

A procedure isn’t anything more than the basic play loop put to use for a specific context. Running an encounter in the forest uses the basic loop to challenge the players to respond to the situation–what choices are they making that are relevant? Fleeing? Hiding? Waiting for more information? Setting up an armed defense? Then another loop begins with the next change in situation as the beast bursts into view.

A GM can use procedures offered in the system rules or develop procedures themself. As long as the procedures cover the pertinent choices available to players and can make significant differences in the situation, they’re good. They also keep the setting and play consistent, with regular use in similar situations.

That works to make GMing easier. A novice can learn the procedures as needed and then have those tools available for all future similar situations. Every trip out into the wilds uses the travel procedures. Delving into a tomb uses an exploration procedure. And so on.

Loops all the way down

March 28, 2024 / / 0 Comments

As I’ve been hashing out my notes over and over and working to polish the material to put together the alpha playtest draft, I’ve begun pondering the material for the Game Masters Handbook. I view the GM instruction as the foundation for good games using the systems, so I want to offer the best information that I can. This goes beyond the simple advice for making encounters interesting and the like. I want to provide a solid foundation for how the GM approaches play, how to string all the bits together into a coherent game.

The most essential loop in role playing is the basic interaction that governs play: the situation is laid out, decisions made as to what the PCs will do, and then the adjudication of that line of action. This loop then repeats endlessly to move play along.

Everything else in play then builds on that basic loop and puts it to use for specific endeavors. The classic dungeon exploration turn is but the basic loop expanded. The loop is considered to cover ten minutes’ time, to place it in the fiction. The situation gets described by the GM–where the PCs are, what they can see and such–then the players have to make choices about what to do. Move this way or that? Open this door? Flee from this monster? Parley with these goblins? The choice is made and the GM adjudicates the activity.

With that in mind, I think a foundational lesson for GMs is how to use the loops to structure play. I think of play as having the PCs always involved in a situation and the players always involved in a turn. With a firm grasp of how everything in play is a structured loop, then it becomes much less of a challenge to keep play moving. The GM notes what sort of turn the PCs are involved in (or will likely be involved in) and run the loops for that kind of turn.

It makes it easier to begin play, even–especially!–for new GMs. Take the typical pub start, for example. The PCs are all in a pub, having a pint, each present for personal reasons. Instead of wondering how to get the ball rolling, the GM considers this the first turn of the game and can use the loop to get things moving. The players aren’t going to have much to act on, at this point, so the GM knows that an interesting NPC will blow in through the door with Something Exciting to share, whether it be a raid happening on the edge of town or a vociferous call for parties interested in hiring on for a trip into the depths of the haunted forest.

There’s the situation. The players now get to decide what the PCs do, how they react. The GM can use a ten-minute turn for conversation with the NPC and adjudicate what the PCs want to do. Will they rush to help repel the raid? Will they simply step outside and watch the locals deal with it? Will they show interest in the expedition into the forest? Sort all that out and the campaign has begun.

Say that business with the NPC takes two turns. What then? Another turn or two with the PCs discussing possibilities and making general plans. The GM doesn’t even have to be involved with this beyond noting the time.

Next? Well, if the PCs have no activities planned until the next day, the GM notes that the PCs settle in for a night and the players have a watch to start the night (whether they actually have anybody stand watch). Nights spent in town may be largely quiet and devoid of play activity, so the GM then jumps to morning and drops the players into another turn to begin the day.

And so on.

An underutilized approach to monsters

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

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

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

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

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

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.

© 2025 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑