Announcements: A Playtest! A Guild!

tl;dr: play my game here, help me make it here.

***

GRAVEROBBERS

is a gothic fantasy heistcrawl RPG, with a feather-light ruleset inspired by the OSR.

Things I've written about it on this blog can be found here.

The Current State of the Game

Some folks have been expressing an interest, so I figured I might as well put the rules up, such as they are. You can get what I'm calling the Player Starter Sheet right here in a lil google doc.

The Player Starter Sheet has everything a player needs to know to make a character and play the game. As a GM, all you need to do is:

a) prepare a situation (a heist)
b) decide when to call for rolls (bearing in mind how the rules work)

I feel like anyone who's GM'd an OSR game before can do this competently enough.

The Future of the Game

I'd like to eventually release a finalised ruleset, in a document along with GM advice, at least one starter adventure, various example hacks for the game, and a few of the most pertinent posts from this blog, rewritten to be relevant to Graverobbers specifically.

Any updates to the rules, additional content, and previews on a final product will be shared through the Graverobber's Guild.

art by Nicoletta Migaldi

The Graverobber's Guild

I'm setting up a Patreon, intended to:

- Support the making of Graverobbers and other games I'm working on
- Direct access to all updates on those games, and a direct channel to me for your feedback
- Serve as a kind of tip jar for folks who like this blog

- Develop a community, so you can talk to each other and me about ideas
- Provide me with a direct line to the folks who most want to support me, so I can give you stuff

The Guild can be found right here. The only pledge level is $1USD per month.

This is not a payment for a service - it is an optional way for you to help me if you are able to and want to. I hope you will consider sending a little bit of spare change my way if you like what I do :)

PS: If you don't want to commit to a dollar a month, you can give a one-off donation by spending an amount of your choice on any of the products on my Gumroad online store.

Does An OSR Game Need Dedicated Combat Rules?

I'll segue into today's topic with an update on the status of the game I'm working on. It's kind of what prompted the question in the title - that and some recent conversation on the social platforms.

I was also working on a separate ruleset beforehand, for a heist game. There were various iterations, and I was largely happy with it, but it was more of a pet project than the Fantasy Heartbreaker. Then I started running a new campaign, and... well, I don't remember my thinking exactly, but the fantasy game has been absorbed into that heist game.

I mean, a dungeon crawl is just a heist anyway, we all know this. This is simply a ruleset that leans into certain aspects of the dungeon crawl over others, with a particular implied setting, all of which add up to make a more "heist"-themed game that still plays in the OSR style. I'm very proud of it so far, and I expect you'll be hearing more about it soon enough.

***

The heist game as it existed before the fantasy stuff got absorbed into it had no specific combat rules. Combat was a governed by a roll, like other things, and that was fine. It worked for the genre and tone of that system.

I had notions of bringing over mechanics from the fantasy ruleset to keep things in line with what I thought of as OSR - things like initiative, attack rolls, AC.

The core mechanic of the heist game is very different from d20+mod, and I had a lot of fun trying to adapt those classic concepts in new ways, thinking up new mechanics that delivered the same effects. But as I refined the game, playtested, drafted and redrafted, all those mechanics fell by the wayside.

In the latest iteration, the one I'm using to run stuff, combat is just a roll again. There are as many combat rules as there are rules for stealth, lockpicking or scaling a clock tower in the dead of night with a grappling hook. That is to say: describe what you want to do, and then the GM tells you to make a roll.

My designer brain, reared on 5e and now enamoured of the many DIY takes on traditional combat systems, keeps throwing up ideas on adding tactics, damage types, weapon categories. But nothing works as well for this system as the single roll.

***

My next thought, then, was "is this still OSR?". I know from Troika! that the old-school mechanics OSR games draw inspiration from don't have to be from D&D, and I know from Maze Rats that you can change the core mechanic until it's not recognisably D&D at all and still be considered OSR.

But no combat rules? Surely this was blasphemy? Was I turning my face from the DIY community entirely, and embracing some new, dark wilderness of game design, alone?

I mean... no. I don't think so.

***

One of the most persistent myths about the old-school style is that it's a numbers-first, tactical combat based, hack-and-slash style of gameplay. It's not. The game is lethal, and if you wish to avoid the many varieties of grisly demise on offer, you need to think creatively, avoiding and subverting combat scenarios rather than engaging in them.

But you knew that, you're smart. We all on the same page? Good.

So, then, quoth the as-yet-unaware, why do OSR systems have so many combat rules? As opposed to, say, rules for feeling things, or exploration? If the game is about things other than combat, why isn't that reflected in its ruleset?

Again, we know the answer: because the way OSR play engages with the rules is fundamentally different from most other schools of RPG design. Your character sheet is a list of the few limitations imposed on you, not a list of your awesome powers and skill trees. In something like Pathfinder, say, the character sheet represents all the cool stuff you can do. In an OSR system, the cool stuff you can do is everything else. OSR play is what's not written - what's written is there to ground the situation and make things difficult.

***

So, then, the if the purpose of the combat rules in an OSR system is to enforce lethality, the question we started off with remains. Does an OSR game need dedicated combat rules?

No. I don't think so.

What it needs is lethality rules - rules that ensure that when things go wrong, there are drastic and often fatal consequences. Rules that encourage the OSR playstyle - player ingenuity and calculated risk-taking - by providing a box the player is forced to think outside of.

The reason, then, that these lethality rules have been presented as combat rules since the days of yore is, obviously, partly because the hobby evolved out of wargaming. But if that was the only reason, they would have been replaced over the decades as RPGs moved further and further from their wargaming roots.

The main reasons, I think, are a combination of genre conventions and player agency. We expect the knight to have a sword, and know how to use it, while the wizard shoots fireballs from her trusty staff. Those are the special skills the characters offer, and since we can't roleplay physical danger at the table like we can social situations or intellectual puzzles, we need to have at least some idea of whether or not they will work in a given instance.

This ties heavily in to player agency. When your back's against the wall and combat's the only option, you want to know exactly what it is you can do - even if it is likely a fatal endeavour.

Combat rules do three things, then: enforce lethality, support the expected tone and setting of the system, and allow players options to fall back on when "standard play" (what I call just, like, talking), fails them. These are all Good Things. Combat rules are good.

***

So why was I having such a hard time grafting them on to my own system? Why did every attempt feel so inelegant? It is an OSR game, I still believe that. The playstyle is exactly the same. I eventually realised I'd just achieved that playstyle in a different way.

My game has its own rules to enforce lethality that aren't tied to damage. I'll likely detail them another time, or they'll be available to read once some form of playtest doc or rulebook comes out. But basically, rolls are inherently dangerous. Every one is a gamble with your character's fate, in one way or another, and with each failure you risk slipping closer and closer to death. The structure of lethality is very much enforced, even without standard HP mechanics or damage rolls.

As for supporting the expected tone and setting? Well, those are different in this game. It's not a gonzo Conan-esque dungeon crawl, it's kept too much of the heist flavour for that. I still run dungeon crawls in it, but the setup and tone are different enough that players don't expect their characters to necessarily be able to wield a sword, or use magic. In fact, character creation makes it very apparent how unlikely it is that either of those skills will be available. It's in a different genre, ish.

And finally, options to fall back on. The numbers on the sheet, the stuff outside of talking, planning, or using your surroundings or inventory in interesting ways. Those three things are the vast majority of any session, but what happens when those options fail? Combat mechanics sort that out by giving everyone some kind of mechanical sway on the deadly situation, however slight. Characters in my game still have mechanical abilities, but not everyone has an attack bonus. They'll be good in other ways - hiding from a monster, sneaking past it, running away.

Don't get me wrong - they can attack. Limiting player agency is maybe the biggest no-no for me in game design. They're just probably not going to be good at it. Making them good enough at a bunch of other stuff, and making that stuff more relevant, is an acceptable substitute, I've found.

***

So, to answer the question.

tl;dr: No.

I figured out that:

1. Lethality mechanics don't need to be distinctly combat-focused as long as failure can still lead to death and disaster.

2. Players won't miss dedicated combat rules if the setting and style make it clear that combat is unlikely to be relevant.

3. As long as the players have something to roll for when the shit hits the fan, they're happy, even if it's not a classic attack roll vs AC.

***

The only thing remaining, then, is compatibility with other OSR/DIY stuff, and I don't think the game's lacking anything by not basing itself on the standard model. The main point of conversion between systems is monster stat blocks, and since there aren't any combat rules, the game doesn't need 'em. You could absolutely run something like Tomb of the Serpent Kings in this system, no problem.

Well, that's me all rambled out. Exciting things to come, stay tuned.

Design Document: Three Basic Classes

Here's a little something about the game I'm working on. Specifically, how I approached class design, looking at the three "standard" classes: Warrior, Thief and Mage.

(I think there'll be one or two more posts in this vein for now, then we'll return to Your Regularly Scheduled Programming. Or maybe I'll start talking about another game! Who knows.)

***

Classes in this game are simple. At first, a class was just a single ability you got - like in Maze Rats or Songbirds. I expanded a bit on this concept, but didn't go far.

The basics of a class in this system are:
- a Stat requirement. You need a certain stat to have at least a positive modifier to take a class.
- Abilities. You get 3 - 2 passive and 1 active, that you activate by spending 1 HP. I talked a bit last post about how scarce and valuable HP is as a resource in this system; 1 HP is pretty significant.
- Starting items.

And that's it. The Stat requirement isn't a favourite feature of mine from other games or anything, but it makes sense in this system - you don't get new features or abilities as you level up. But your abilities are tied to your Stats, and so as they increase (every other level gets you a +1), your abilities become more potent by default.

The idea, as with much of this game, was keeping things minimal. Instead of introducing a new mechanic, have a mechanic that already exists power something else in the system.

(I try and do this as much as I can in games - it's just good design. Mario can run and jump, and that's it, but you're never bored or stuck for things to do in a Mario game. Jumping could mean over a pit, onto an enemy's head, to reach a platform or hit a box... permutations of a central mechanic, rather than new mechanics for no reason.)

Knight

The "fighter" class in this game is called the Knight. I could have just called it the Fighter, or the Warrior, but Knight invokes a particular image - that of a noble protector.

No class ability in this game is combat-specific. There are a few that are inherently useful in combat situations, but nothing powers up your attacks in that sense.

So, the Knight gets powers based on protection. Their AC can effectively go 1 higher than any other class - and in a game where the numbers are as tight as this one, +1 AC is massive. Their other passive is Expertise with several different weapons (Expertise gives advantage on rolls). It's pretty much an attack bonus, I suppose, but it also covers knowledge of weaponry and warfare, so it's not combat-specific. Again - nothing in the game is.

The Knight's active skill, the one that costs them 1 HP to use, negates all damage done to an ally from a single action. Falling into a spike trap? The Knight caught the scruff of your jacket and pulled you to safety, you take no damage. Dragon's breath? As you flinch and prepare to be burnt to charcoal, you feel a wave of heat but nothing more - you open your yes to see the Knight standing before you, shield raised, the flames streaming all around you but not touching you.

So, we have a character recognisable as an archetypal Knight. Trained with various weapons, well armoured and protective of both themselves and their friends. And we did it all without any abilities that only work in combat.

Shadow

The rogue in D&D is second to only the Ranger in the way it has been forced and stuck into several different design corners by the game's long legacy. It's the dungeoneering class, a product of the game's own idiosyncracies. A rogue should be able to sneak around, to check for and disable traps, pick locks and climb walls, but also fight well and in a very particular way, and maybe assassinate people, oh, and be very charming and deceptive...

It's a lot more specific than the warrior archetype, that's for sure. For this game, I distilled the Shadow into one facet, one of the earliest aspects of its design - the sneaking.

A Shadow can roll any roll to hide or move unseen with advantage. That's huge. It's maybe the single most powerful passive ability in the game. Rolls in this game are like saving throws, not skill checks - you'd really rather not be making them at all. Flat advantage cements the Shadow as the party's master of stealth, in a game where character skill levels generally start out from average to appalling.

The other passive is Expertise with a light weapon - they need something to do other than hide. Their active ability is to double the bonus they get from their Stat when making the game's equivalent of DEX saves. If a +1 is huge, doubling a Stat is insane. At high levels, the Shadow can spend 1 HP to just straight up Not Fail - the bonus alone would go above the threshold for instant success without a die being rolled at all. Plus, this doubling can be done retroactively, so the player has the option to "fix" an unlucky roll.

Sneaky, backstabby. Done. All the other stuff is up to the player.

Witch

I don't like spell slots, or the way magic works in old-school games in general. I didn't grow up reading Vance, I didn't grow up playing D&D, so I have no nostalgia or love for the concept. The magic systems I'm familiar with involve something simple like Mana Points or just Doing The Magic, not waking up and preparing spells from spells you know but forgot but now you know them again except not really and you can't use this spell but you can use that one but it would mean you can't do any more of the other one until... the next day? What?

I get that it works, kind of, in a game mechanic way. It's just far too long a walk for what should be a short drink of water.

The Witch class is a gardener - their passives are knowledge of plants and fungi, and general plant-y abilities, including meditating to find food, light and/or water. Their active is their "proper" spellcasting, which instantly summons a full-grown plant.

D&D spells are great. Grease, Rope Trick, Speak with Dead... their inherent use is obvious, and their potential use so varied that a creative magic user always has some bonkers but surprisingly relevant trick up their sleeve. They're one of the best things about OSR gaming.

They can also all easily be plants. The Witch starts out able to grow trees and vines (ropes! cages! bridges! shields! growing a tree straight up into a guy and killing him outright!), and they can also study a plant for an hour to learn how to grow that one too. This allows for one concept of D&D spellcasting that I like quite a bit - copying things into your spellbook - but also lets the player take matters into their own hands a bit more, rather than waiting for the GM to throw them a bone with a scroll in a treasure chest or That One Book in a whole library.

And if the GM does want to throw them a bone: carnivorous plants, ones that put you to sleep if you smell them, ones with leaves big and buoyant enough to be rafts, ones that let you speak to ghosts if you shave the root and chew it betwixt your back teeth while standing in moonlight...

And so, we have a caster as versatile as a wizard, with a spellcasting system that can be explained in a sentence rather than half a core rulebook.

***

Job done.

There are other classes in the game - 9 total so far - and the others get weirder. I just thought that covering the bases people expect of a fantasy adventure game would be wise, and I want those bases covered as much as the next guy too.

Next week... I dunno. Something.

Steven Universe: OSR Hero

With the vast majority of DIY RPG content fitting into traditional dungeon fantasy and/or gothic horror and/or the New Weird, a lot of assumptions get made about the style of play in OSR being inherently grim and/or dark and/or grimdark.

There's been a fair amount written already, however, about how Romantic Fantasy fits into OSR play almost surprisingly well. Characters tend to avoid combat and seek other solutions? Check. Characters have picaresque adventures, collecting allies and influencing the world with their decisions? Check. The impetus for traditional modes of play may be a little different in a Romantic setting, but those same mechanical structures support this genre just as well as the standard OSR fare.

When making a game, I tend to think of a story that captures the intended genre well, and think through whether that story could emerge from a session of the game. Obviously this works better with narrative rulesets than trad games, but it's a decent benchmark. If the rules don't even slightly allow for the kind of story I expect the game to result in, I know I'm way off.

So, to run this little test with the game I'm working on now, let's take one of the best examples of current Romantic fantasy: the kids' cartoon Steven Universe. The show is about a kid who fights alongside a superhero team from outer space, using empathy as well as magic powers to protect Earth from monsters and aliens.

Its modern-fantasy setting has a few similarities to my system, so it seems like a decent fit. The aesthetic and music and everything are pretty much a kid-friendly version of how the game is looking so far, even.

We'll be using Episode 1, so everything should be simple enough to pick up if you don't know the show already.

(Aside: if you decide to watch the show, bear in mind that, well, it's for kids. I personally bounced right off it the first time. There's a turning point partway through the first season, though, and a tonal shift at the end, so start there if you'd prefer.)

We open on Steven in the donut shop, finding out his favourite ice cream sandwich, Cookie Cat, has sold out and is no longer in production. The store owners let him take the branded freezer home.

So far, this is surprisingly well supported by the system. This would all be covered in Downtime, or maybe roleplayed briefly at the start of a session, but there's absolutely concrete rules and suggestions in the text to cover a) the existence of a particular brand of snack, b) that being Steven's favourite food, c) a shop existing in town that might sell them, and d) Steven knowing the people at the shop.

All of this handily sets up the scene, likely at the player's suggestion, and the group can roleplay from there. The GM then just has to let the player take home the freezer, which, I mean, why not.

Steven goes home to his dope-ass house inside a temple inside a giant stone colossus by the beach. The other "PCs", Garnet, Amethyst and Pearl are fighting some monster insects that have overrun the place.

The Gems are probably higher level characters. I'd imagine this is Steven's player's first session, joining a group with established characters. Or, rather, it's the player's new character after their last one, Rose Quartz, died in a previous game.

So, this battle is one of three things mechanically: a few 1HP mooks being dispatched with relative ease by higher-level characters; a single monster, flavoured as a "swarm", also being fought handily; or a narrative moment the group puts in for fun. Given how little danger is presented here, I'd say one of the latter two. Full combat in this system is for moments of intense peril.

The GM uses this fight to establish that the creatures have acid spit. They also let the players know more about the bugs (there's a mother nearby), by telling Garnet's player that she knows the information already. The text supports and reinforces this kind of openness with information. Garnet might even have something on her character sheet to justify the GM's exposition.

There's a cute moment where the Gems have bought Steven a freezer full of Cookie Cats, and Steven sings the theme song from the TV ad (unknowingly foreshadowing a lot of the show's lore). There's a lot of establishing of the Gems' personalities and characters as they try to teach Steven how to use his Gem powers: summoning a weapon.

This is all narrative, the group's having fun with their characters. The weapon summoning might be pure flavour from the setting, or there are specific Classes in the game with powers that could cover this. I didn't design the game to allow players to become Crystal Gems, but I'm glad it's possible!

Steven gets his weapon - a shield - just in time, as the mother bug shows up. The Gems leap into the fray, and Steven goes to grab an extension cord so he can take his new freezer outside with him, full of the treats that he's convinced give him his powers.

Almost everything has been handled through roleplay so far, but here's where the mechanics come in. Mechanics in the game only really kick in when danger is present. Rolling generally has a high chance of failure - you don't want it to happen! Pure roleplay is the standard, until the adventure hits a snag, as adventures are won to do. This is a pretty standard OSR way of thinking, the contrast is just maybe a little more stark here.

We go into Initiative order. Steven's player spends his first round or so of combat dealing with the freezer. The player knows that the character wouldn't survive a confrontation, and hopes to set up some alternative win condition for the fight. Good player instincts! That monster could probably kill him in one hit.

The Gems are all higher level, and more capable in combat, but quickly find themselves overpowered. Mehanically, the players are aware they are losing the fight, even though the monster hasn't hit them with its acid yet. It's just a fairly standard HP system, but tightening the numbers and making a few old-school assumptions more explicit in the text should reinforce the right thinking.

This is all supported in the rules. I think we're doing well so far.

Steven's freezer gets broken, and he uses it to electrocute the monster, giving the Gems an opening to attack.

Aha! There's that OSR thinking. Your character is too weak to fight - look through your inventory and think of creative solutions to an overwhelming situation. Exactly the kind of play the game encourages.

Then it's just a matter of an attack roll or two to finish off the last of the monster's HP. The GM probably rules that it loses a turn at this point due to being stunned by the electrocution. Garnet leads the charge, and the battle is won.

(Aside: Garnet in the show is voiced by the singer Estelle, and... you guys. She uses her natural speaking voice. This means a whole lot to me. I grew up in the same part of the world, in a white-minority area, around black women who spoke just like Garnet does.

That accent was my daily reality, but I never saw it represented on TV - definitely not from black women, and definitely not from a positive, strong, competent and complex character. Garnet existing makes me so happy.)

Steven has a funeral for the ice cream wrappers, everyone's happy, the fight is over, Steven throws up from eating too much ice cream.

... And the rest is all narrative. That's, what, half an hour or so of play? Not bad.

The main ways the mechanics came through were in the setup of the situation, and in the execution of the fight. I didn't go super in depth on rolls etc in combat, that wouldn't be an interesting read, but I think the fight managed to deliver. What might not have been clear is just how deadly it was - the gang barely survived. Combat in this game is rough. HP levels are closer to HD levels in other OSR systems, so every hit really fucking counts.

***

All in all, I feel like that would be a strong opener to a campaign. The mechanics held up well under examination, particularly with the two key aspects of the episode: the initial setup and the fight. The rest being largely handled just by fiction rather than mechanics is pretty ideal too. This isn't a system that puts mechanical restrictions on any of that sort of stuff, players can just roleplay without rolling for the most part. That's how I like it.

I think this was a valuable exercise, even considering that this isn't a narrative system, and doesn't have mechanics in place to produce story. The story emerged through gameplay! The knowledge that it's even slightly feasible that this kind of story could emerge naturally through play is heartening, it means I'm on the right track. Or at least the track I wanted to be on. I'm happy with the system so far!

I'll go more into the system itself next week. We'll talk about Class design, progression and balance.

One More Fantasy Heartbreaker

It's my birthday this week, so I'm taking some time off. The Earth has gone all the way round the Sun almost 23 times since I was born, and I think all that spinning is starting to get to me.

The blog continues in earnest next month.

***

For now, I'm announcing a Thing, mainly so that I feel some pressure to actually do the Thing.

I'm making a game! I've made games before, this one's a little different. I love the DIY scene, the community of players and designers all cobbling away, sharing and adapting great ideas, each person building their own take on OSR gaming for their own group. This will be my contribution, I guess.

Here are a few general notes on what this game is:

- It's light. Very light. I've fit an early version of the rule book on 2 pages, and character creation with all the options and spells on another. You could copy a character sheet onto the palm of your hand.

- It's not d20, or based on old D&D rules in that sense. You use a d12 for everything, because the d12 is the best die. (You can convert any other OSR thing into this real easy, though.)

- The prevailing setting in most OSR stuff is historic-ish fantasy horror and/or New Weird. The implied setting in this game will be just as generic, but very different. I have no idea if anyone will want to play in it, but I do! At the very least there will be a new kind of aesthetic out there in OSR gaming.

- Here's everything Joseph Manola has written about Romantic Fantasy, which Spriggan suggested should be called Hope and Heroism. It's a genre that is a natural fit for OSR play, and will be (I hope) exemplified in this game.

***

If any of that sounds like something you'd be interested in, I'll be posting chunks of design and my process here until it's done or implodes or something suitably final happens.

I think transparency in any creative process is a great thing, and I think it's a large factor in what sets games like these apart. So, here I go.

More information next time!