I posted on tumblr recently about an epiphany I had with regards to dice in the OSR. I'll quote my original text here (with some editing notes):
I think I get one of the roles dice play in OSR games, that I didn’t get before.
I
used to think dice were for randomly deciding between things a human [at the table]
couldn’t fictionally determine, or it would be wrong for one to do so:
e.g. does an attack hit in combat? Hard to say in the fiction if all
that is said is “I swing my sword” and not super fair for any one person
(GM or player) to simply declare. I though this philosophy was also
valid for random encounters, reaction rolls, open door checks… but I
think there’s something else dice can do.
I re-read this blog post, this one too, and watched this Bandit’s Keep video.
The first discusses “the oracular power of dice,” the central point
being that dice are “game oracles,” giving glimpses of the abstract
question. The second looks at random encounters and suggests you take an
OD&D wilderness encounter roll, and turn it into an interesting
situation on the fly, using the usual rolls (reaction, distance,
surprise, etc.) as prompts for forming this. The last discusses what
“getting lost” in a hexcrawl means: is it realistic? How do we
fictionally justify this?
I think all of these point to the same
idea: dice provide abstracted (in the game sense) answers to exploration
questions, though not a full answer. The structure of rolls, the
questions they answer, fill in blanks the GM might have about, say, an
encounter, in a way that promotes creativity (by making compromises of
apparent roll result paradoxes).
The natural conclusion of dice
being oracles then, is that the GM is an interpreter, one who must make
sense of the seeming paradoxes and deliver the news to a wider table.
This will involve some improvisation, creativity, and a feel for the
world and its inhabitants. It also sounds very fun. I can brainstorm a
couple of reasons why a group of bandits might be friendly towards the
party (did they mistake them for comrades? Are they on the lamb and
looking for genuine help, or to exploit?).
GM-procedural dice rolls are then worldbuilding prompts, ready to be riffed on at the table.
I read once in a Marc Miller interview (creator of Traveller),
that early on when making games, he didn’t want someone else to do the
imagining for him. I like this idea. Give me some leads, and I will make
do with however many bandits, at any distance, with any sort of
attitude.
And I think I'm starting to think this idea can be applied more broadly. I want to explore the idea of "riffing off procedures and numbers" in two different contexts.
Encounters
My post covers the basic idea that goes here. But let me expand on it a bit. What rolls go into an encounter, say, in a hexcrawl?
There's checking for an encounter (which for this discussion assume it comes up positive), there's distance, surprise, number appearing, and reaction. In line with my post above, this provides the base framework for building the encounter in the hex.
You should immediately think of what the encounter is doing here. You may wish to proceduralize this further, say, using a table like Maze Rats' "Wilderness Activities" table. Or perhaps you have sufficient worldbuilding to determine what this type of encounter usually does. OK, let's say you've figured out why the NPCs of this encounter are present here. Then what?
Look at reaction and surprise. Remember, these are abstract, and not binding to the letter of the result. "Surprise" doesn't have to mean that someone is getting jumped, but definitely that someone is caught off-guard or unaware. Similarly, reaction may need some interpretation for different encounters. Do dragons and goblins follow the exact same mindset for reaction? Probably not. But low is agreeable to the party, and high is disagreeable. The in-between can be ruled accordingly.
Number appearing is also a great prompt. This is the final key to the interpretation. This will seal the deal of if an encounter attacks or looks to parley. If the NPCs could take the party, they might try for it (if the reaction roll is telling of such). Or they might simply demand treasure from the party. Or, ambush (if surprise is appropriate). Oh, and now you should have 4 more ideas for how this could play out if we include lairs.
The big take-home point is these rolls are prompts for improvising an encounter, rather than designing one. I encourage more GM's to try this. However, these rolls are not a gold standard of encounter improvisation - if you find yourself routinely missing some information for an encounter, build yourself a little table to help out.
Much of this applied to the dungeon. You might wish to adjust the activities table, but of course, that is up to you.
Enemy Tactics follow from Stat Blocks
I want to take a different spin on my point: stat blocks ALSO server as prompts for interactions.
There have been enough blog posts on monster tactics before that even
5e people have taken up the call. This may seem easier in 5e, where you have in-depth mechanics that may seem to serve as more detailed prompts for tactics. But I think the most basic OSR stat block still provides enough.
To highlight this point, let's look at a by-the-book bandit. AC 8 [11], 12 MV, 1HD. Weapons are generally melee according to rulebook (I think it'd be interesting to allow bows, but let's keep it simple).
What do we learn from this? Bandits are quite mobile but HP-wise are weak. They have meh weapons. What would YOUR tactics be, if you were a bandit? What makes sense? If the party is surprised, then ambush and guerilla warfare makes sense (if they rolled low reaction). If evenly matched or so, then they want to be able to retreat quickly if they do decide to attack. They might run away if they are outmatched, since they are so mobile.
If you include bows, things get more complicated as kiting becomes a possibility. Or ambush from trees. It will depend intimately on the encounter rolls. The stat block is another thread in the encounter improvisation tapestry. I haven't even bothered to mention leveraging terrain and environment! Nor the variable HP rolls! Who might frontline among the bandits? Would they retreat if they're all weak?
I think they key to running dangerous encounters with OSR enemies is to genuinely try to kill the party with them. "Be tough, but fair" as it says in Skorne, but it is much more fun as a GM to actually play the NPCs with your intelligence, using GM skill over NPC skill. We kinda get back to a weird asymmetrical "combat as chess," but with randomly determined chess pieces and a random start configuration. But if you roll a bad reaction for the party, run those enemies hardball.
----------
I think procedures cut down on prep IMMENSELY by providing just enough information to help you think up something cool. I have been lowering and lowering my prep for a while, and this is one of the keys to it so that you can avoid meticulous encounter crafting. Procedures are a flexible idea that allow you to do better than "Orcs attack!" because, you can always write a new table, and you deserve a more interesting game than that.
Comments
Post a Comment