Ron Edwards talking about how to run old school games

I just found this very good review of Ron's game Sorcerer. It highlights how the core of the game goes back to The Fantasy Trip, and Wizard and some other game mechanical details I had missed. I especially like how the reviewer praises the initiative system for the kind of free wheeling action D&D was always intended for. Maybe something worth importing? Likewise, the GM advice in Sorcerer is definitely worth checking out, especially for someone of old school bent.

When I got my copy of the new Sorcerer books, I found the annotated edition a bit hard to read, as the flow of the text being interrupted by the annotations. This review, and the fact I got my copy of Ron's new game Circle of Hands, made me want to take it down and read it some more. Maybe I might even play it.

Some extra rules for BRP - autofire and initiative

I've been very much in love with BRP lately. It's a game system I've played since I began this hobby, and it still feels like it can do anything. When Savage Worlds and FATE come and go as the "go to" systems for setting conversion, I always feel BRP could do it.

There are some oddities in the rules, though. Like almost every other rules set out there, it's more inspired by action movies than real life. I shall not try to bring up the dreaded "realism" argument, but sometimes you want to tone down the action hero aspects for a grittier game.

Autofire is one of those things I'd live to tweak. I've been thinking on this a while, and also been reading people's tweaks. This is my presents thoughts, archived. If you have any input I'm quite interested to hear it. I might still change things up a bit until I actually try these ideas out

Autofire

On of the oddities about autofire is that it's no harder to hit regardless how many bullets you put in the air. Recoil is abstracted out, and the amount of bullets that hit have no relation to your skill. I'd like to change that.

When you autofire, roll to hit as usual. But, do not add +5% per bullet! If you hit, take a note of your margin of success. A successful hit mean one bullet hit, and one more bullet per 5% of margin of success. But, regardless of success level, mark of all those bullets fired.

That will mean skill matters, and recoil is kind of factored in by removing the extra +5%. Optionally: subtract -5% per bullet fired if you really want to make recoil matter.

Another effect of autofire is to make people keep their heads down. To make that happen, I'm thinking of adopting a concept found in some games from GDW, namely Coolness Under Fire.

Coolness Under Fire

I'm not sure yet if this should be a derived ability, or a skill. The latter makes it easy to slot in among the other abilities. But, it's only partly something trained so I'm unsure if that makes sense, but also what to derive it from! Average POW and INT? Is low INT maybe a benefit? For now I'll treat it as a skill.

CuF is a skill, with a base chance of your POW. You can put skill points into it, just like any other skill. When you'd normally call for initiative rolls, instead roll CuF. For every 10% of your margin of success you get a +1 bonus to your DEX rank for initiative. Those who succeeded then act like usual in DEX order.

Those who fail their roll must take cover at once, and may not attack. Each round you make another roll to try to get to act.

Optional: For every bullet fired towards your area you take a -5% penalty to your CuF roll. That way autofire is very useful to lay down covering fire.

Final thoughs

The big problem with this will probably be for those players who fail their CuF, and get to sit there and do nothing. I guess that's why the rules are like they are in the book, but I have played enough conflict simulation games to appreciate the idea of having a field of combat a little less ordered and with a little less control.  I mean, RPGs are not like chess, right?

The other big thing is if CuF should be a skill at all. I'm still not sure about that, and change my mind every day. I'll put this out there as a working draft of my ideas. Hopefully I get to try them out when I've decided on something.

Using weapon speed factors as recoil

In Mongoose Traveller, some weapons have a recoil number. I like that implementation, since it allows you to fire a big gun and then that recoil number adds to your initiative next turn. Simple, and effective. Now imagine if there was an easy way to use those pesky weapon speed factors from 1st edition AD&D? Maybe there is.

How about you do the same thing? Sure, initiative is a very different beast in AD&D but considering how many hacks of that system there is, yet another wont make much of a difference.

So, roll 1d10 for initiative. Then add that weapon speed, and count up from 1. You could probably use it both with individual and with group initiative. One size fits all, eh?

Let me know if you try it, or have already tried it out. I think is sounds neat, on paper at least.

Weapons length and reach in combat

When posting a comment on the A Paladin in Citadel blog about the value of weapon length modifiers I realized it had turned into a post of its own. I have posted on this topic before, but it's worth revisiting. Here we go.

Those rules, adding a sense of simulation to the play, are probably jettisoned because they make combats longer.

While it might be heresy, I might suggest that those who prefer tactical crunch should take a closer look at D&D 4th ed. The teamwork and tactical play needed for efficient combat is a big part of that game. Even with the fiddly bits of 1st ed., it never was a very tactically detailed game.

Now, that being said, there are some ways to incorporate tactical details while making the game decently swift. One good way to add some depth and planning to the combat phases is to have different phases in combat. Ranged combat and magic have their own phases, and I'd suggest they go before melee.

When it comes to weapon length, I think Elric!/Stormbringer can add a simple way to handle that. This is how it works. If you have your weapons categorized as "long" or "short", the longer ones will have reach to hit before the short ones do. Simple enough.

When attacking, in whatever order you choose, let "long" weapons go first. If you use DEX order or side initiative, follow that but let long weapons trumph that order.

For fighters with "short" weapons, they will have to make a dodge of some kind to get within the reach of the "long" weapon. Otherwise they can not attack. The same thing then apply when the opponent have dodged within your reach. Wielding a "long" weapon you then need to make a disengaging dodge in order to use your weapon again.

While it reduces the reach to a binary situation, it have the benefit of being very simple, but still managing to create a lot more tactical depth to the choice of weapons. Should your game system of choice, D&D say, not have a dodge skill, use the initiative! Dice off or use DEX or whatever method you normally use. A great idea from Tomas Arfert's Saga RPG.

Hopefully that gave some food for thought.

Tactical moves in combat - positiong redux

I have gotten some feedback on my last post on positioning. Apparently I wasn't all that clear, so let me try again.

One of the important things about positioning is your relation to your enemy. Do you control the area? Are you able to keep the enemy at bay? To what extent do that relation shape what actions you take? The ideal is, of course, to limit the actions of the opponent.

Considering that relation, we keep tabs on whom are engaged in melee with whom. If you are engaged, your options are limited to fighting that enemy. The same is true for your enemy.

The only things you need to keep track of is whom is engaged to whom.

If you don't want to be engaged, or you want to limit someones options by engaging him (for example hinder somebody from attacking the magic user as she is preparing her spell) you'll roll dice.

Now you just roll initiative like you usually do, and if you win you now can free your options for next turn by disengaging or you can now limit that other guy by closing for melee and engaging. If you fail, that was all you did that turn. I hope your armour will take the blow!

I hope that was clearer.

Tactical moves in combat - positioning

How about some spicy in your rpg combat? I've a few discoveries to share. Especially in light of what Michael Curtis briefly touches on in the end of this post.

Like I posted about a short while back, I visited a con, where I can the opportunity to talk to Tomas Arfert and James Raggi. One result of that meeting was that I decided to take a closer look on Tomas game, Saga (link and game in Swedish only). I had read about it before, and thumbed through it, but know I suddenly saw a few nuggest of gold I had missed before. One of those were the role of distance in combat, and positioning.

In Saga you roll you initiative, and the winner get to decide on the distance for melee. If you on the other hand want as your action, to position yourself at a range more beneficial to you, you roll initiative again and if you loose that was your action this round!

This struck me as a very neat way to handle positioning in combat without the need for a battlemap and having to know exactly in which square your dude is standing in relation to those goblins.

There is one other game that I know which have a similar idea. In Elric!, one of the most silly names of a game in the industry, there's also rules about combat range. In this game you are either engaged, or not. When engaged you can not move. When disengaging you have to dodge all the attacks one round, then you can move.

The mechanic is similar, but it feels smoother and probably more fun with an active role for the player, like rolling initiative, than to just sit there and endure duress.

I see some interesting potential in this. Thanks for the idea, Tomas!