#2 Rules! Explain yourselves!

Following up on the original post here, just a few notes on the design decisions I made when writing and playtesting The Tiny Skill Companion for the Basic Fantasy roleplaying game.

Basic Fantasy offers a simple optional rule for ability rolls that uses the ability modifier on a d20 roll with a target number set by the character's level of experience. It can be used for any skill, and ability checks that may come up during play.

Example: Klyth wants to climb a tree to collect apples. She's a level 3 cleric so her target number for any such rolls is 16. The GM decides she may apply her Dexterity modifier (+1) to the task. The player rolls 1d20+1, and needs a result of 16, or better to succeed. Now, since the tree seems easy to climb, the GM decides that the ability roll is necessary only to reach some of the apples high up. Klyth plays it safe, and collects some apples from the lower branches, then moves on to gather some kindling.

The GM may apply additional modifiers based on the situation, and character background. And this leads to the description of secondary skills.

Secondary Skills

Secondary skills are not related to the character class. They represent a character's profession, interests, and education. They may support class abilities, but they are not exclusive to character classes.

Writing the supplement I focused on two aspects:

1. Secondary skills integrate seamlessly into the core rules.
2. Secondary skills make use of the existing ability rolls.

I chose to use broad secondary skills, that are defined by players, and game masters. There is no standard list of secondary skills.

Skill Levels and Modifiers

There are only five levels for secondary skills: beginner (b), advanced (ad), expert (e), master (m), and grand master (g).

When I wrote the Tiny Skill Companion, I thought about the skill level modifiers, and decided to use a segment of the Fibonacci sequence 3, 5, 8, 13, 21: Beginners (b, +3), advanced (ad, +5), expert (e, +8), master (m, +13), and grand master (g, +21.)

Side note: Among other stuff, I practice improvising melodic phrases on the electric guitar based on Fibonacci sequences. First playing one note, then two, then three, then five, then eight, and so on. I feel that these sequences challenge focusing on melodic phrases better than playing phrases of two, then four, then six, then eight notes.

Anyway, I used them for the skill modifiers, and for other supplements I wrote, as well. For example: the pain thresholds of the &Pain companion expansion are 5/8/13.

Example: If Klyth had the secondary skill climbing (ad, +5), or any other that included climbing the player would add the modifier to the roll: 1d20+5 with a target of 16. The GM may allow to include the Dexterity modifier, too.

Secondary skills add a little more depth to characters, and help the players to make choices within the game based upon these skills. That's why we use them as house rules for Basic Fantasy.

Rules! Explain yourselves!

The text of the Basic Fantasy rules supplements I published a few weeks ago contains the rules, and few examples, without any so-called fluff text. They can be used with any background setting playable with a rules system like Basic Fantasy. I use them for a Morgansfort derivate setting with our group (who are rpg beginners about turning into advanced players.)
Since they are still in a playtest version I read the rules supplements thoroughly every few weeks. I add examples, and revise some of the rules where I can optimize them.

When I started writing about my design decisions, and some possible interpretations of the rules I put both right next to the rules. But then I read the complete text, and decided to release only the rules: concise, and with a few examples.
I'll write about design decisions, and rules interpretations on this blog, instead.

When I read, or design rules I understand the rules as constituting the game world. If the rules stated that wizards cannot wear armor, nor wield any other weapon but staves, and short knives then they cannot. The why is irrelevant at this point. Now, if a player wants to play a wizard wearing armour, and wielding a long blade in a game, then a different set of rules must be used. And a different set of rules leads to a different game world. Even, if the armour wearing, long blade-wielding wizard were an exception to all the other robe-clad, staff-dragging wizards of the game world.
What the rules do not state does not exist. However, there is more to the game world than just the rules:

1. The rules system constitutes the game world.
2. At times the words of the players (especially the game master's words) override the rules, and so create new aspects of the game world that had not been possible before.
3. The players interpret how the game world is described, and bring its characters, monsters, and landscapes to life in their imagination.

All so, both the rules, and the words of the players constitute the game world. And both are interpreted by the players in their imagination. I have the suspicion that there are actually different layers of the game world: one that is constituted by rules, one that is interwoven with it and formed by the players' words, and then there is the imagination of the players, which may be quite different from what rules, and words state.
The imagined game world will have impact on decisions, and the words of the players, too.

My take on hit points

From my Basic Fantasy supplements &Pain, and the Tiny Hit Point Companion:

'There are two types of standard hit points: A creature's hit points generated by its hit dice, and hit points of damage scored against a creature (e.g. by rolling 1d6 after a successful attack in combat.) Hit point loss has no consequence until the current hit point total drops to 0, in which case the creature is dead.'

Following the core rules of Basic Fantasy the only difference between a live, and a dead creature is that the latter one has zero hit points. There may be creatures with 1 hp, and others with 24 hp; neither is more alive than the other regardless of the creature's hit point total. A creature with 1hp left of its 12 hp total is as much alive as any other.
Hit point loss has no consequence. No modifiers, no simulation of wounds, or pain.
This is the first layer of the game world constituted by the rules. Then there are the words of the players, and their imagination - which my include wounds, and pain.

Consider this example: Klyth, a cleric gets ambushed, is hit by an arrow, and loses 2 hit points of her 6 hp total. Let's say the GM described a weird feeling Klyth had in her right shoulder, and when the player had the character quickly glance at it, Klyth saw the arrow.
However, since there are no rules for hit location, and arrows stuck in body parts, this aspect of the game world is created by the words of the players, and is quite readily accepted and incorporated into their imagined game world.
The player imagining the arrow in Klyth's shoulder, and recording the hit point loss now reacts: Klyth is surprised, and cannot see her attacker, so the player decides she'd run for cover, draw a weapon and observe the area.
The arrow is still stuck in leather armor, and shoulder. The pain may be described, but there is no consequence within the core rules. And unless the game master makes a ruling, and sets a penalty on attack rolls, Klyth can move about just as happy, and carefree as if she had no arrow stuck in her shoulder; because: hit point loss has no consequence.

The player may imagine her to be somewhat in pain, and decide she cannot move her right arm, and so must fight with her left; this again are the player's words creating the game world.

Another player could decide that Klyth will use her right arm for fighting, dash into the direction she thinks her attacker might hide, and challenge him to a fight.

For the &Pain supplement I decided to include a concept of pain: Hit point loss has no consequence, but PAIN does! Every creature has a pain status. A pain status (ps) of zero means, that the creature has no pain. A pain status of 4 means that the creature suffers, for example, a penalty of 4 on attack rolls.

If a creature suffers damage the player (or GM for NPCs, and monsters) decides wether the damage is deducted from the creature's hit points (drawing it nearer to death), or wether the damage is transferred to the pain status (pain can lead to death, as well.)
So, the player may decide, that the arrow caused damage to Klyth's hit points without consequence, and explain that it pierced through the armor, but didn't cause harm. Or she could transfer the damage to pain with a resulting pain status of 2, and no hit point loss.
Of course, it is preferable to take damage to the hit points, first. But if Klyth is hit again by an arrow and suffers 4 hit points of damage, she will have to take the pain (or at least transfer 1 point of damage to pain) in order to stay alive: after the first hit her hp total dropped to 4. Of the 4 points of damage she received by the second arrow, she deducts 3 from her hit points, and transfers 1 to pain with a resulting pain status of 1. She needs at least 1 hp to stay alive. Now she is a -1 for most actions.

What's in it

The 4-page &Pain supplement includes rules for a creature's pain status, the effective pain status, temporary pain, saving throws vs. pain, three different pain thresholds (incapacitation, unconsciousness, death) for all creatures, alternative pain thresholds based on a creature's hit dice, the effects of pain on attack rolls, ability rolls, skill rolls, initiative, movement, healing, regeneration, morale, and more.

This concept changes the game system, and thereby the game world it constitutes. It changes the players imagination, their decisions, and their words. I do like what it does.

On a side note:
The author of the Beyond the Pale Gate wrote in his article Moderation and Randomization: The bottom line is, RPGs are, at their core, playing make-believe. The rules for rolls and randomizations keep us from devolving into the arguments we had as children. "I shot you!" "uh-UH, I shot you first! I already called it!"

Now, there is more to this than just a call for rules, or rulings, but I'll leave this for another post.

And what about individual weapon damage?

I enjoy thinking about certain aspects of the game system, and trying to find solutions that work better with our (the group's) game. A simple system for secondary skills not based on abilities, nor class works better with our game than other ones, for example. But then I've come to realize, yet again, that my players may find different aspects of the game system to be more in need of optimization.So, despite the fact, that I introduced easy-to-use mechanics for pain, and combat maneuvers which I think significantly support options, and choices of the players regarding their characters' actions, one thing they (female, and male players alike) kept asking for since the first session was: When will we start using individual weapon damage?
Is it that individual weapon damage is an aspect of game reality easily identified as meaningful, whereas reconnaissance, parley, de-escalation strategies, ambush, combat tactics, etc. are not, because they are not part of the game system, but of playing the character?

Basic Fantasy Supplements - Hit Points as Currency, &Pain, Tiny Magic Companion

These three of my Basic Fantasy supplements go together nicely.

Hit Points as Currency
(now titled Tiny Hit Point Companion)
Based on a house-rule for subdual damage, and a revision, and expansion of that rule.
The idea is quite simple. A character successfully attacks, rolls damage, and decides what to do with it: cut off the opponent's beard, disarm him, cause the chandelier to drop on him, display weapon mastery, and force a morale check, or dance the funky chicken to distract him, so that others get an attack bonus.
Oh, and that's just damage rolls, you can spend your characters hit points to do stuff, too. Buy modifiers, and cast spells, if it's a magic-user, or cleric (read the Tiny Magic Companion for complete rules.)

&Pain

No critical hits, just pain. The companion expansion that allows (or gently forces) creatures & characters to transfer damage to pain. Actually makes characters think twice about attacking again, after their noses have been nudged. Damage has an effect on creatures, too: Attack penalties, slower movement rates, and they can pass out because of the pain.

Release 2 with minor adjustments, and alternative pain thresholds for creatures and characters depending on their number of hit dice.

Tiny Magic Companion

The standard magic system is safe. It was meant that way, and longer, more expensive spell research, and preparation times were welcomed by spell casters. Before that there was hit point magic (pain magic, ecstasy magic.) Pain magic, that required spell casters to release their life energy, and transform it into magical energy for spells. Some even used the life energy of other beings... This kind of magic had been outlawed by agents of the safe magic school, and its practicioners hunted down for ages.
Ecstasy magic was generally more pleasurable for all involved, but had been outlawed by the safe magic schools, nonetheless.

Links
Hit Points as Currency
&Pain
Tiny Magic Companion

Alle Treffer sind kritisch

Ein Ansatz, den ich für die Interpretation von Old School-Rollenspielen seit längerer Zeit verfolge ist der, dass Trefferpunkte als eine Art Währung innerhalb des Spielsystems verwendet werden, mit der Effekte eingelöst werden können. Dies ist eine optionale Hausregel.

Der Standardeffekt bewirkt,  dass die, durch den Schadenswurf (z.B. 1W6) erzielten, Trefferpunkte von den Trefferpunkten der betroffenen Spielfigur abgezogen werden. Es können allerdings auch andere Effekte ausgelöst werden: bestimmte Bewegungsmanöver, temporärer Schaden usw.

Alle Treffer sind kritisch

Für die Interpretation der Trefferpunkte scheint mir eine weitere Sache entscheidend: Bei für die meisten Spielfiguren angenommenen 1-6 Trefferpunkten, gilt nahezu jeder erfolgreiche Treffer als kritisch. Zwar hat der Trefferpunktverlust nach Standardregeln keinen Einfluss auf die Spielfigur (d.h., es folgt keine Modifikation von sonstigen Spielwerten der Figur), sofern die TP mindestens 1 betragen, aber in Hinblick darauf, dass ein TP-Wert von 0 den Tod der Spielfigur bedeutet, kann der Treffer kaum anders als kritisch gedeutet werden.

No more ability score prequisites for character classes

I like the Swords&Wizardry White Box approach of character creation without the ability score prequisites for specific character classes. So, one of the house rules I'm going to write down for my Basic Fantasy group is this:

• No ability score prequisites. Roll 3d6 in order, pick your class.

It's not really innovative, I know.* But there's no reason not to like the old stuff. (Except that new stuff generally sells better; or has to be marketed better in order to convince people to leave the old stuff, and get the new stuff.)

Oh, you might say: "But magic-users need to be intelligent enough to read and speak languages, so INT 9 is a reasonable requirement for the class."
And I say: "Yes, maybe that was when the PC learned magic. But then something strange happened and he got dumbed down. Like - by the Evil Sorcerer's Mind Control spell, or something."

No, really. I never liked the INT table for languages. (Read here as to why.) And why not play a really, really silly slow-thinking wizard? It's a game, isn't it? When the players generated new characters the other day, one of them created a magic-user with STR 15, DEX 13, and INT 14. These are fine scores to pick any of the basic classes. Though with WIS 7 a cleric would normally not be allowed. But then again, why not play a slightly foolish cleric who is strong, nimble, and can solve puzzles?

*I just remembered that I speed-read the 9and30kingdoms' post on a similar topic, yesterday. So, there may be a connection why my brain came up with this post, today.

INT score and the number of languages (old school)

Just some thoughts I had while reading Basic Fantasy RPG and the updated ORSIC 2.3.

There is a table for each of the ability scores, and I always had my problems with the INT score.
Basically, I see no relevant connection between INT and the number of languages a character is able to learn, or begins the game with. While it may be said that intelligent people are better language learners, I believe there is a fallacy, and the connection of INT and languages is a construct due to the mechanics of the game system and its game world dependency. And in my opinion, it's simply because the INT score had to be good for something. Characters need STR to inflict damage and bash in doors, DEX to get some missile attack bonus, and better AC and CON for more hit points. So what does the characters with high INT get? Languages, or more spells in some editions.

There is a real-life stereotype of intelligent people playing musical instruments, especially the violin, and the piano (because Mozart played them and PR did the rest. I'd rather have the stereotype be jazz vocalists, and electric guitar-players but I lack the PR funds.) Why is this not represented in the old school INT score?

Why, because this is not a game about musicians. Player characters may play instruments, and sing, or chant, but there are no 0e/1e skills, or class abilities to reflect this. And even the bard class does not use instruments to play music for entertainment: their special power is to influence people by device of vocal, and/or instrumental music. It is a magical power rather, or at least one of trance induction, and hypnosis (which would be seen as magic in many human cultures, anyway.)

Back to languages, and literacy. So, the fighter eventually gets more weapon-proficiency skills, but cannot learn to read and write? Not even by using all his riches to employ a decent teacher? What is the gold about then? (Experience points, yes. I remember, now.)

INT defines how many languages characters know at the start of the game, and limits what they are able to learn. Experience points do in no way simulate learning, because there are no skills that are learned (in a system without skills), and special abilities, feats, powers and so forth connected to the class are aquired in such a slow and irrational way that simulation of real-life learning is out of the question, or seems at least silly. But then ability scores are static, too. And even the long life-spans of dwarves and elves are not represented anywhere. On the contrary even, they have limits on the experience levels they may attain.

In many game systems experience points and levels represent hierarchy, and power within the game system and the game world. They have little to do with skills, or learning.
Player characters are merely playing pieces with attributes. Constructs. They are no real elves with magic powers, so I guess it does not amount to much wether INT and the number of languages they know have, or have not any plausible connection.
It's a game. And the rules can be changed.

Alternate language rule

Have each character roll 1d4 languages. Decide on fluency, and possible literacy skills depending on the character's class and background. 
1st level human fighter from the border marches between Nugluk and Goblin Plains? Knows regional human tongue and Goblin fluently, reads most of the signs, and picked up a few dwarven words that allow him basic conversation.

Languages are cool. Use them, and don't waste space on an INT table with it. Instead grant a saving throw bonus vs. puzzle traps, or something like that.

Put those INT and WIS scores to better use

Use ability scores - and not just INT and WIS bonuses - coupled with class skills to determine how well the player characters interpret the game environment. And I do not mean perception alone, but the clues that only fighters, magic-users, or characters with high CHA may find (e.g. CHA as an ability to influence people, and understand the means and ends of such influence, and consequently spot the use of it.) Interpretation is up to the players eventually, but PCs with high scores may grant their players a little help from the DM.

Non-lethal attacks (House Rule)

Non-Lethal Attacks with Lethal Weapons

I do not like the -4 penalty on attack rolls for trying to inflict subdual damage in the 2e (and 3e) rules. I find not much sense in restricting the use of non-lethal attacks. There is, I found out, no penalty in S&W and OSRIC, which makes me feel better. Still, subdual damage means half the inflicted damage is real. So, what about a successful attack that does no damage?
While day-dreaming I watched, and analysed some role-playing game combat scenes before my inner eye, and came up with a simple rule. (And remember, when I talk about role-playing game combat it means fantasy, which is, as the name implies, un-realistic.)

The "I don't have to miss" rule

"I don't have to miss." was what Fezzik said to the man in black, who found himself in the lucky position of being missed by a huge flying rock. (Read William Goldman's The Princess Bride, or watch the movie.)
The rule integrates smoothly into standard rules, can be ignored entirely most of the time, but comes in handy, if a PC, NPC or monster wants to convey a message to an opponent rather than physically harm him.

The rule is generic and can be used with most game systems, since it essentially says, that a player after rolling a successful attack, instead of inflicting damage may have his PC do something else.

When to use it

Use it in bar-brawls, in arguments with that naughty wizard in your group, or in staged fights. Game masters may want to use it on that tiresome occasion when an armor-clad sword-wielding fighter charges a dragon who couldn't care less for the feeble attempts of wanna-be knights courting ladies, and trying to prove their manhood by hunting huge scaly predators.

Note: The rules for Subdual Damage still apply.

How it works

1. Roll to Hit
2. On hit, EITHER declare damage (roll for damage, and resolve combat round normally) OR restraint from inflicting any damage. In the latter case go on with step 3.
3. Roll for damage but do not subtract from opponent's hit points. Take it as some kind of measurement as to what degree the defender is impressed, and glad to be spared the damage. Play the roles on this one.
4. Attacker may decide to inflict a small (but humiliating?) wound, cut a strap or girdle, trim a dwarf's beard, tickle an elf's ear, or whatever, and say their one-liner: "I could have killed you, you know...", or something to that effect.

Possible Effects:

• NPCs and Monsters must perform a Morale Check (maybe at -2), and will retreat (back off) or flee on a failed test. Their next attack (if any) will be at -2 (this counts for PCs, as well.)
• I suggest that Players whose PCs are treated this way should keep in mind that, if a NPC or monster spares them, they may want to acknowledge this gesture, and have their PCs retreat. Else, they better be lucky on their attack rolls, because the NPCs or monsters might really get cross with them afterwards.
• It can be used to to create comical situations, which is fine.

Optional:
If attacker decides to inflict damage during next attack he rolls to Hit +1 for that attack only (no damage modifier.)