Tales from the Rocket House
Specifically, I’m talking older than old school here, like mid-1970’s D&D, before the Rules Cyclopedia or even the Red Box Beginner’s set. The retro-clone that catches this feel best is Swords & Wizardry, which not only copies the earliest D&D rules, but also gives some good description and explanation of the play style.
Truly old school role-playing games, as I understand them, focused more on the game than on the role-playing part. To use a term from RPG theory, they were seriously Gamist.
What do I mean by Gamist?
- The goal wasn’t to tell a good story.
- It didn’t matter that parts of the game rules/mechanics (like hit points) weren’t realistic.
- It was a GOOD thing that player skill mattered as much or more than character skill.
- The GM’s most important role was to challenge the players.
Over time, people started bringing different assumptions and expectations to the party, complaining that hit points weren’t realistic, alignment didn’t make sense, racial character classes didn’t make sense, armor shouldn’t make you harder to hit (and if it did, higher AC should be better, rather than lower), mages shouldn’t forget their spells after casting them, etc. In other words, concerns with verisimilitude, if not actual simulationism.
Roleplaying games grew and changed, partially in response to these complaints, and partially due to the different priorities of the people involved in making them. D&D didn’t make huge changes, though AD&D had a few big ones, but other RPGs were created with very different styles and priorities.
The point is, the style shifted. Where once the players were expected to describe their search of a room, now the characters’ skills determine whether they find the hidden trap or treasure. Where once the players’ skill was the key ingredient in the equation, now it is largely intentionally removed. And that’s the style I mostly grew up with. By the time I started playing commercial RPGs it must have been 1987, maybe 1988, D&D was 13 years old and AD&D was 10 years old, and both were well into their semi-simulationist phases (my introduction to RPGs came when I invented a very rudimentary RPG-thing at 12 years old, inspired by my experiences with board games and 8-bit Nintendo games like The Legend of Zelda and Kid Icarus. I then learned about published RPGs and started acquiring them as fast as my allowance and chore money would allow). That said, I’m too young to remember the really gamist D&D style, but I think it might be interesting to try my hand at it.
So I did. Twice. These are my design notes from the first time through, in which I discovered that old-school D&D was actually pretty darn good at being what it was intended to be (something that may also be true of D&D 4th edition, which is apparently quite good at its intended role). I ended up “designing” my way back to hit points, character classes, etc., quite accidentally, and realizing that if this was the best I could do, there was absolutely NO reason not to just download one of the free retro-clones and use it instead.
So I cleared my mind and took another stab at it, attempting to design a game that was old-school in spirit, but not in letter. Effectively, I wanted to intentionally avoid doing anything that D&D did, and use newer-style ideas for resolution, while still maximizing the role of player skill and player challenge. The jury is still out on how well that one will work, but you will see it next month, in my September column.
Design Notes, Old-School RPG, Take One
NOTE: The basic system I’m basing this on is my Swashbuckling System, which I detailed in Column 15, in which an Average Trait is 3(+0), a Good Trait is 4(+1), a Very Good Trait is 5(+2), and an Outstanding Trait is 6(+3). Both the Trait number and the bonus (which is just the Trait number minus the Average Trait number of 3) are important to this system.
These are also just notes, with some comments to myself, inconsistencies, and so on. They’re also incomplete, because I stopped when I realized I was completely reinventing the wheel for no good reason. Thus, absolutely nothing has been playtested here. That said, here we go…
Goal:
Old school, semi-adversarial GM (set up to feel more like a one-versus-man board game than like a modern dramatist or simulationist RPG). The goal is to utilize player skill and imagination as much as possible, not to simulate the correct level of character skill.
To that end:
Things like checking for traps or finding secret treasure are handled dicelessly.
As much of the exploration as possible is handled dicelessly, making it a part of the “game.”
FIGHTERS are best at dealing with threats, but the goal is often evasion (why fight if you can sneak past and just slip out with what you want?)
I avoid automation on things like “notice checks” and so on, because just rolling a skill check is like just rolling a single skill check to resolve combat in a tactical system like D&D 4th ed.
Character creation must be quick, because lethality may be significant, especially at first.
I may end up having a “genre convention” for quickly getting a new PC to a player whose PC has died. PC loss is its own penalty; you shouldn’t have to sit out the game. Possibly backup PCs that advance at a slower rate than the main PCs, so you don’t end up starting a 1st level character when the rest of the group is advanced?
Special combat maneuvers are “wagers.” If you want to do something “extra,” (like extra damage or attack two people in one action), you tell the GM, who will tell you the consequences if you miss. Then you can choose to take the bet or just do a regular action. If you take the bet and you HIT, you get the extra “effect.” If you take the bet and you MISS, you suffer the consequence. Typical consequences are “Your opponent gets a free extra attack against you, immediately” or “you’re at -2 Defense for the rest of the turn.”
I’m not 100% sure what I’ll do with Spells. I want magic to be worth having, but not “linear fighters, quadratic wizards.” I may do two types of magic: Spells and Powers. Powers can be used pretty much whenever, require a Trait test, and are more expensive, so you’ll have fewer. Spells must be pre-cast, as they take hours to cast, but can be activated with a single action. This means no flexibility in the moment, but more flexibility ahead of time. It also means you have more powerful, one-shot options (powers are less powerful, generally). A power might be “Light.” It allows you to have an always-on lamplike light, steady, but not even as good as a modern flashlight. It can also be used as an attack, by blasting an opponent with a blinding flash. That, however, requires a to-hit and effect roll, and may not be THAT awesome. It may be useful, sure, if you have one powerful enemy who operates largely by sight, and you want to flash-blind him so you can get away. Maybe at a higher power level, you can flash-blind a group. Maybe this is the equivalent of light Spells: Torchlight, Flash Blind, Mass Blind?
The Mechanics:
12 Traits in no particular order:
Initiative
Attack
Defend
Damage
Toughness
Sneak/Hide
Pursuit
Flee/Escape
Disarm Traps/Pick Locks
Dodge (Agility Saving Throw)
Brace (Strength Saving Throw)
Out-Think (Mental Saving Throw)
Let’s try an organizational scheme:
Prowess
- Attack
- Initiative
Strength
- Brace
- Damage
- Toughness
- Defend
- Dodge
- Pursuit/Escape
Wits
- Out-Think
- Sneak/Hide
- Disarm Traps/Pick Locks
Okay, I want to look at TRAIT PROLIFERATION and the USELESSNESS of some of these TRAITS. Within the expected adventure setting, WHY is CHASE/PURSUIT/ESCAPE broken into TWO Traits? It can be one trait, under Agility (just let the thief types be able to escape the bulky fighters).
(I’m not sure that organizational scheme really helps anything).
So, what game system? To make things easier, either Tarafore or my Swashbuckling System (modified so attack, and damage are two different rolls).
Ah, and do I want to use Toughness? Is that a necessary convention of the dungeon crawl? Is resource management a vital part of the style? Hmm. Maybe. Good question. Let’s assume that they are.
To-Hit quality does NOT affect damage, unless you hit by 3 or more, which doubles damage.
I think Armor and Shields may give a bonus to Defend, rather than subtract damage. Why? It’s simpler, one less step. And in a GAME, it doesn’t matter that it’s less realistic. Once again, D&D got this right, FOR WHAT IT WAS TRYING TO DO AND BE AT THE TIME. [But it won’t work here, because DEFEND is based on a Trait, and without bonuses to hit coming from SOMEWHERE, you’ll end up with unhittable opponents]
So, how weak do you want 1st level PCs to be?
I actually like using the modified Swashbuckling system because A) it is simpler and B) I’ve already got multiple “enemy level presets” made.
PC’s could start with most stuff at Average, a couple of things at Good, and one thing at Very Good, and work their way up from there.
That allows them to defeat a bunch of Mook level opponents and maybe even a sub-boss, if they manage resources well.
So, what do fighters need to be good at?
All Prowess, all Strength, and Agility(Defend). I guess they don’t really have to have Strength(Brace).
So, what do thieves need to be good at?
All Wits, Agility (Defend) if they don’t want to get killed, and they should probably be good at other things, too, if they want to be useful.
So what do mages need to be good at?
Spells. They’ll need other things, though, if they want to survive long.
So, You get 5 traits at Good and 1 at Very good? You can trade in your Very Good for two Good Traits. I’ll also make a simple rule for how much magic you get for turning in Good and Very Good Traits.
That means:
Warrior:
- Prowess: Attack: Very Good, Initiative: Good
- Strength: Brace: Good, Damage: Good, Toughness: Good
- Agility: Defend : Good, Dodge: Average, Flee/Escape: Average
- Wits: Out-Think: Average, Sneak/Hide: Average, Disarm Traps/Locks: Average
Thief:
- Prowess: Attack: Average, Initiative: Average
- Strength: Brace: Average, Damage: Average, Toughness: Average
- Agility: Defend : Good, Dodge: Good, Flee/Escape: Good
- Wits: Out-Think: Good, Sneak/Hide: Good, Disarm Traps/Locks: Very Good
Ranger:
- Prowess: Attack: Very Good, Initiative: Good
- Strength: Brace: Average, Damage: Average, Toughness: Good
- Agility: Defend : Good, Dodge: Good, Flee/Escape: Good
- Wits: Out-Think: Average, Sneak/Hide: Good, Disarm Traps/Locks: Average
Scout:
- Prowess: Attack: Average, Initiative: Good
- Strength: Brace: Average, Damage: Average, Toughness: Average
- Agility: Defend : Good, Dodge: Good, Flee/Escape: Good
- Wits: Out-Think: Good, Sneak/Hide: V. Good, Disarm Traps/Locks: Average
(I almost question the applicability of these last two characters to this setting).
Advancement:
Characters start at Level 1. After each Adventure (or Chapter, if the GM wants fast advancement), they Level up, getting 1 Experience point they can spend or save.
Experience points add up this way: you get 1 per Adventure. You spend a 1 point to raise a Trait from Average to Good, 2 to raise it from Good to Very Good, 3 to raise it from Very Good to Outstanding, and 4 to raise it from Outstanding to Legendary. That means, if a starting PC wants to get ONE trait to Legendary, it will take 7 adventures (Level 8) to do it, 3 to get to Outstanding, and 4 more to get to Legendary. Taking the 3 to get to Outstanding is probably worth it, but it might be more worth it to raise a couple of Goods to Very Good (2 pts each) than to raise one Outstanding to Legendary.
Ok, so rules?
Initiative: everyone rolls, highest goes first, and can hold action and interrupt.
To-hit roll vs opponent’s Defense.
- Tie: Half damage
- Beat opponent by 1-2: Standard Damage
- Beat opponent by 3+: Double Damage
Also, remember “Wagers.”
Total Damage is Weapon Damage + Strength(Damage). This is subtracted from opponent's Hit Points.
Hit Points double with each Strength(Toughness) Trait Level, and are multiplied by Character Level as well.
Toughness:
- Average = (Level+1)x5
- Good = (Level+1)x10
- Very Good = (Level+1)x20
- Outstanding = (Level+1)x40
- Yeah, so Legendary = (Level+1)x80, but so what? Legendary is Legendary. It’s supposed to be crazy.
To begin with, it was LevelxAppropriateHPBasedOnToughness. So a Third Level fighter who still has Toughness of Good would have 30 HP. But if he increased Toughness to Very Good, he’d immediately go up to 60 HP.
First level characters are pretty fragile. Average Toughness = 5HP. Good Toughness = 10 HP. Ouch.
Damage: Weapons do 1d6, 1d6+ something, 2d6, or 2d6+ something. Rare magic ones may do more. Plus the Strength(Damage) of the attacker.
So, really? 1st level PCs, even the fighters, are 1-hit fragile? I mean, dang. Let’s change that to (Level+1)xAppropriateHPBasedOnToughness.
So now that 1st level mage type with Average Toughness has 10 HP, and the fighter with Good Toughness has 20 HP. That’s still potentially one-hit vulnerable, it’s not nearly as likely.
Okay, this is the point I when I realized I was utterly spinning my wheels, and I’d be better off playing Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, or Labyrinth Lord.
At this point, I decided to regroup, start over, and try something with absolutely no legacy connections to D&D, something that would approach the old school play style from a completely different angle. For that, you’ll have to tune in next month. Same bat-time, same bat-URL.
