The part of the rules I’m working on was conceived as an Into the Odd (ItO) hack, but I wanted to treat weapons a little differently. In my first ever post, I talked about ItO as a materialist game, in that physical objects in the game world play the largest part in defining your character. But in later musings, I’ve realised there is more than one way to apply materialism to an RPG.
Damage Determined By Physical Things
In ItO combat, your weapon is a big factor involved in your coming out the victor. Without “to hit” rolls, the significance of damage is correspondingly increased. Unlike D&D, damage is not influenced by your personal attributes or level. But the weapon you use does affect your damage dice, a sword does 1d6 damage compared to 1d10 for heavy gun.
As I’ve talked about here, Old School gaming generally prioritises the game world, in terms of physical, graspable things. But I want to try making a game that is historical materialist, still prioritising the game world, but paying more attention to social aspects of this world.
It’s not that other RPGs don’t pay attention to things like politics and power hierarchies, but the onus is more on the Games Master to incorporate this into their world building. I instead want to build it into the game mechanics, so it can’t help but being an active part of game play.
This probably sounds quite pompous and abstract, so this is how I think it would translate in concrete terms to an ItO hack.
In ItO combat, your weapon is a big factor involved in your coming out the victor. Without “to hit” rolls, the significance of damage is correspondingly increased. Unlike D&D, damage is not influenced by your personal attributes or level. But the weapon you use does affect your damage dice, a sword does 1d6 damage compared to 1d10 for heavy gun.
As I’ve talked about here, Old School gaming generally prioritises the game world, in terms of physical, graspable things. But I want to try making a game that is historical materialist, still prioritising the game world, but paying more attention to social aspects of this world.
It’s not that other RPGs don’t pay attention to things like politics and power hierarchies, but the onus is more on the Games Master to incorporate this into their world building. I instead want to build it into the game mechanics, so it can’t help but being an active part of game play.
This probably sounds quite pompous and abstract, so this is how I think it would translate in concrete terms to an ItO hack.
Scaling Damage with Training
In my system, the default is that all melee weapons deal 1d6 damage, from a dagger to a pole axe. This assumes that you start off completely untrained in a weapon. The idea being that a 2 handed sword is no more effective in combat than a dagger to someone completely unused to its weight and balance.
So finding a shiny new sword in a dungeon isn’t immediately going to make you better at hitting things. You can though acquire weapons through institutions in the game, which simultaneously gives you an ability in the weapon. This is the point at which weapon damage is differentiated.
Here as an example of how it works in an institution (“class”), The Null Watch. Note that Panic Pillow is producing an alternative qualitative version of these same templates. You can view the full pdf here
This template has abilities you gain from advancing in rank within the organisation. At first rank, your long sword damage becomes 1d8. Note, there is no definitive equipment list, showing the damage of weapons outside the context of an institution (which can be assumed as 1d6). This leaves the potential for another institution to give you different damage in the same weapon, reflecting how their training might differ.
The weapon, as a physical object, is still relevant in the damage you do. You would not end up doing 1d10 damage with a dagger. But perhaps now social factors, like the institution you align with, become more important in your combat effectiveness. The latter here reflects historical materialism, as compared to a focus on physical, graspable things.
Summary
With a philosophical idea in mind, it felt almost as if the design decision here made itself. Of course this doesn’t work in isolation. It requires a move away from players freely choosing their character’s career path as something divorced from the game world. Advancing with an institution like The Null Watch needs to have in game consequences. Weapon damage is one of the carrots intended to lead players into such a bargain.
I find ItO a great chassis because it has a relatively flat approach to weapon damage compared to D&D. The scaling between weapons is not too great, making it viable for a character to not advance in an institution (which needs to represent a genuine choice). In ItO, you can remain on 1d6 damage, because clever tactical approaches can be a major swing factor in combat (a risky stunt can gain you enhanced 1d12 damage).
If applying philosophy to game design sounds odd, I’d suggest that other RPGs do have their own philosophies, just ones that have become so implicit as to rarely be questioned. In 5e D&D, attributes like strength have a massive impact on your combat effectiveness. This notion of success being linked to personal qualities, rather than institutional factors, constitutes a world view at the very least (I’ve discussed the philosophical implications of this here).
In my system, the default is that all melee weapons deal 1d6 damage, from a dagger to a pole axe. This assumes that you start off completely untrained in a weapon. The idea being that a 2 handed sword is no more effective in combat than a dagger to someone completely unused to its weight and balance.
So finding a shiny new sword in a dungeon isn’t immediately going to make you better at hitting things. You can though acquire weapons through institutions in the game, which simultaneously gives you an ability in the weapon. This is the point at which weapon damage is differentiated.
Here as an example of how it works in an institution (“class”), The Null Watch. Note that Panic Pillow is producing an alternative qualitative version of these same templates. You can view the full pdf here
This template has abilities you gain from advancing in rank within the organisation. At first rank, your long sword damage becomes 1d8. Note, there is no definitive equipment list, showing the damage of weapons outside the context of an institution (which can be assumed as 1d6). This leaves the potential for another institution to give you different damage in the same weapon, reflecting how their training might differ.
The weapon, as a physical object, is still relevant in the damage you do. You would not end up doing 1d10 damage with a dagger. But perhaps now social factors, like the institution you align with, become more important in your combat effectiveness. The latter here reflects historical materialism, as compared to a focus on physical, graspable things.
Summary
With a philosophical idea in mind, it felt almost as if the design decision here made itself. Of course this doesn’t work in isolation. It requires a move away from players freely choosing their character’s career path as something divorced from the game world. Advancing with an institution like The Null Watch needs to have in game consequences. Weapon damage is one of the carrots intended to lead players into such a bargain.
I find ItO a great chassis because it has a relatively flat approach to weapon damage compared to D&D. The scaling between weapons is not too great, making it viable for a character to not advance in an institution (which needs to represent a genuine choice). In ItO, you can remain on 1d6 damage, because clever tactical approaches can be a major swing factor in combat (a risky stunt can gain you enhanced 1d12 damage).
If applying philosophy to game design sounds odd, I’d suggest that other RPGs do have their own philosophies, just ones that have become so implicit as to rarely be questioned. In 5e D&D, attributes like strength have a massive impact on your combat effectiveness. This notion of success being linked to personal qualities, rather than institutional factors, constitutes a world view at the very least (I’ve discussed the philosophical implications of this here).
No comments:
Post a Comment