Modifying Magic Users : Making a High INT Score Useful

This may offend many of the purists who play old school style, but I've never agreed with the idea that a wizard with an 13 Intelligence can cast just as many spells as a wizard with an 18 Intelligence. Intelligence is the Prime Requisite for magic users, so why doesn't having a high score in INT benefit the character the same way a high STR aids the fighter?

Couple that to the fact that playing a 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd level caster can be disappointing for the new player who only gets 1, 2, or 3 spells PER DAY; I don't recall any of my fellow players expressing satisfaction with that established limit.

Over the years, I've experimented with many modifications to try and make the lower level magic users a bit more playable without totally destroying any balance  that exists between character classes. Some players may complain that these options grant excessive power to B/X magic users at lower levels, but in my experience I've not found that to be the case, especially since the magic user must still memorize their selected spell(s) each morning and is locked into the selected spells for the day.

Option 1. Grant bonus spells based on INT score
Following the standard progression of 

•     13-15 = +1
•     16-17 = +2
•     18      = +3

the Magic User (MU) gains bonus spells based on INT. B/X elves do NOT gain this bonus, the justification being elves lack the focus that humans apply to their studies. In AD&D any demi-human magic user is granted the bonus, but a multi-classed character does not as their focus is no longer limited to the study of arcane spells.

The bonus is applied to the number of spells that the MU knows and can cast per day, thus giving a 1st level B/X magic user with an 18 Intelligence 4 spells per day vs 1.

When the MU achieves 2nd level spell casting ability, the bonus spells may be allocated either as three 1st level spells OR one 2nd level spell and one first level spell. This bonus may be adjusted on a daily basis depending on the needs of the party.

When the MU gains access to 3rd level spells, the option is then expanded to be three 1st level spells, one 2nd level spell and one 1st level spell, or one 3rd level spell. This selection may be changed from day to day as needed.

Option 2. Use a Modified Magic User Spell Table

The table on the left would be employed by human magic users, the one on the right by elves in B/X, (who are configured as "fighter/magic users") or any demi-human caster in AD&D, where race does not automatically determine class.

I like this distinction between elf/demi-human and human spell casters, as it gives the human magic user an enormous advantage at high levels as they can access 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. Using this in tandem with option #1 would grant five 1st level spells to an 1st level magic user with an 18 INT and certainly makes the still fragile 1st level magic user more useful to the party.

Option 3: Introduce cantrips

Cantrips are small, "0 level" spells that have limited effect but provide more things for a spell caster to do, especially at lower levels. Jeff George of PrintAndPlayGamer.com put out an excellent supplemental system; you can find it on DriveThruRPG. I won't go into much detail here since that supplement exists, but I found it an excellent way to add some more game play options to low level casters.

Hopefully you'll find something among these three options to help your low level casters survive and their players have more fun.

Hit Points, Hit Point Bloat, and Body Points

Hit Points (in B/X) represent the number of "points" of damage a character or monster can take during battle before dying. Any creature reduced to 0 hit points (or less) is dead. 

Page 34 of the AD&D Player's Handbook explains further. "Hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces." (Emphasis mine.)

The 5th edition Player's Handbook drops much of the explanation provided above and simply states "Your character's hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations."

Hit Point Bloat (HPB for short) is a term describing the state of characters at higher levels where they have so many hit points they are nearly invincible; the fear of death becomes almost non-existent and it makes combat encounters an hours long slog of "death by 1000 cuts."

HPB can also lead to some comical scenarios. The character with 85 hit points in the example cited above could easily walk off of a 60' cliff and fear nothing from the fall, since falling damage is calculated as 1d6 / 10' fallen. For the group that wants some semblance of realism in their game, this doesn't make sense. Even the optional rule in 5E which addresses massive damage by forcing a system shock roll if damage from a single source exceeds half of the character's hit points (Dungeon Master's Guide, pg 273) would not come into play, as 36 (max damage in this scenario) is less than half of 85.

So what to do?

Below is one of my home-brewed solutions that my players enjoyed the most. I may offer up additional details (such as reducing the severity of a critical hit by sacrificing hit points) in another post, but the core basics are as follows:

Body Points
These represent the physical body, and loss of these points indicates a serious injury. Normally, these are lost only after all of one's hit points have been expended, BUT a critical hit, or any other form of damage that the DM adjudicates, may effect body points directly. 

In our games, a critical hit is defined as either a natural 20 on the attack roll, OR an attack roll that is 10 above the score needed. For magic damage, failing a saving throw by 10 points or more, or rolling a natural 1 on the save, may result in the spell delivering body point damage.

I give 6 body points to player characters which may or may not be adjusted by their Constitution score (depending on how deadly one wants the game to be.)

Body point damage is rolled with an exploding* 1d6, and the DM may declare other die types depending on the potential severity of damage. In the 60' cliff example cited above, the DM can declare that such a fall would deliver 1d6+3 body points of damage to make the players think twice before leaping.

Should the character survive a body point wound, they suffer a penalty of -1 for each point of body point damage.

Body points recover at a rate of 1 point per week, with cure spells healing 1 body point per level of the spell, so a 1st level Cure Light Wounds would heal 1 body point, OR 1d6+1 hit points at the caster's discretion.

For "cannon fodder" types of monsters or "normal people" I assign 3 body points to reflect the above average standing player characters have and to give the players a bit of an edge, since their being outnumbered is fairly common. For climatic enemies or physically larger foes, I assign 6 to 8 body points, and for monstrously huge foes, like an ancient dragon, I assign 10 to 12.

*exploding 1d6
Anytime a body point damage roll is a 6, another d6 is rolled and added to the total. This provides a small chance for that miracle shot that finds the "soft spot" in between a dragon's scales that proves fatal, or fells the giant with a miraculous slingshot strike.

Now, I know many players will balk at the idea of some 1st level goblin rolling a 20, then a 6, then a 5 and instantly killing their 13th level fighter who, with their 18 Constitution, had 9 body points. 

As I mentioned earlier, there are other options players are afforded to prevent an instant death at the hands of some seemingly innocuous foe, but I often wonder if high level characters should enjoy their status of near invincibility, or should the chance of death always loom over the heads of those who seek fortune and riches at the end of a blade? Shouldn't the lower level bowman have a chance, however small, to slay the mighty Smaug?

Debate is always a good thing.
Until next time.

Should First Level Ever Be Played?

Elaine by Sophie_Anderson
Google Art Project

There is no doubt playing a 1st level character in B/X and other OSR systems is challenging. A single blow can kill a 1st level D&D character outright, and the fatality rate for our characters during those first months of play was high since we charged into combat at almost every encounter without even thinking about other options. In this case, the level of our characters matched the level of the players - we were all 1st level and blissfully ignorant of our inexperience. 

Bill Willingham
Basic D&D Title Page (Moldvay)  TSR 1981

As play continued, we players began to learn from previous mistakes, party tactics began to take shape, and combat became more of a last resort. While the characters were still 1st level, we players were learning and playing smarter, which led to characters surviving games and gaining XPs (experience points.) After about 6 months of regular play, our DM implemented a rule that players whose character died could start their new character with a rolled percentage of the deceased character's XPs. 

Some of this was to try and keep the party members within arm's reach of one another as far as hit points, saving throws, etc. as it totally sucks to be the poor 1st level character traveling with a bunch of 6th level heroes. Why further penalize the already disappointed player by starting them at 1st level again? 

I think 1st, 2nd and even 3rd level play is great for people who are new to the hobby (not necessarily to the specific set of rules being played.) Someone who has NEVER played a tabletop role playing game misses out on the experience of advancing thru the challenges of those initial levels if they are simply thrown into a game starting with a 7th level character, and the number of options for higher level characters in some games can be overwhelming for a brand new player.

That sense of accomplishment that comes from progressing from a beginner player to a seasoned veteran shouldn't be denied to new enthusiasts.

Experienced players and referees, having "earned their stripes," may not want to start a new campaign all the way back at 1st level, and in that case, starting at whatever level upon which the group agrees certainly makes sense. 

My Favorite Fix for Absent Player(s)

It happens. The group has scheduled a session and at the last minute something comes up that prevents a player (or players) from attending. 

First, determine if the group should even meet. Things to consider:

• Frequency of the group's gathering
• Cancelling a game that only meets once a month hurts a lot more than a group that meets every Tues and Thurs for a couple of hours.
• Percentage of participants who will miss the session
• A group of 7 missing 1 player is less impacted than a group of 4 missing 2 players.
• Location of the party at the end of the last session
• If your sessions tend to end with the party arriving back at their base of operations it is a lot easier to address any absenteeism as opposed to if your session ended in the middle of a melee encounter.
  

If the group decides to still meet and continue where the last game left off, there are some "generic" options that are often employed.

• The referee (or one of the other players) controls the character of the absent player(s) if the last session ended mid-adventure.
• The issue I've seen with this solution is the fallout if the absent player's character is killed. I know it's all supposed to be fun gaming, but players can get attached to their characters, and character death is bad enough without it happening while someone else is "at the wheel."
  
 

• The character(s) of the absent player(s) stays behind if the last session ended with the group safely back at their "base of operations." 
• This might get complicated if the group embarks on another dungeon delve or similar adventure that takes more than one session to resolve; getting the absent characters reunited with the party may present a challenge to the adventure's continuity.
  

Here's a solution that I've used (with minor variations) in my medieval fantasy themed games.

The "Summon Monster" spells in AD&D summons monsters for the spellcaster. The exact verbage of the spell is below, with my emphasis bold and italicized:

Explanation/Description: Within 1-4 rounds of casting this spell, the magic-

user will cause the appearance of from 2-8 first level monsters (selected at random by the referee, but whose number may be either randomly determined or selected personally by the referee, according to the strength of the monster randomly determined). These monsters will appear in the spot, within spell range, desired by the magic-user, and they will attack the spell user’s opponents to the best of their ability until he or she commands that attack cease, or the spell duration expires, or the monsters are slain. <snip>

 
My fix is to attribute a player character's sudden disappearance mid-game to a high level caster somewhere else in the game world having cast "Summon Monster" of adequate level to include the absent player('s) character(s) which results in them being instantly "summoned away" by the spell (usually with some visual effect akin to the transporter in Star Trek.)

This puts the absent character(s) in a sort of "limbo" which allows the players assembled to continue without having to track the absent player(s)' character(s), and frees the referee to focus on the game at hand. The absent character(s) can reappear whenever the absent player(s) rejoins the game under the explanation that the "summon monster" spell has been dispelled, returning the formerly absent player(s) character(s) into the company of their previous companions when the spell was originally cast.

I used to have a small table to determine how the "summoned" characters fared in their time away from the party, and it's probably only fair to have some sort of repercussion for missing a scheduled session, but as one who understands how complicated real life can be I'd suggest a lenient table of consequences.

A variation of the above solution was used for a slightly different scenario, but it offered here as another fix.

I had one player in one group who always wanted to play, but their attendance rate was absolutely atrocious due to an insane work schedule. Since this player was a good friend to all in the group, we decided to accept the explanation that the character was cursed to randomly phase into the ethereal plane, rendering them unable to communicate in any way, shape or form with the party. The ethereal character could tag along, but was unable to contribute anything, harm or be harmed, earn experience points, and as such was "not present but attending." When the player could attend a session, the character phased back to the Prime Material Plane, and when the player missed the next session, well... you get the picture.

Feel free to drop you own creative solutions to address absentee players.

A Questionnaire for Curating Compatible OSR Participants

I drafted the questionnaire below in 2006 when on the verge of launching a new campaign. I continue to use this as a filter for finding players whose tastes and expectations match what I feel I am best at providing.

Note that I don't think there are any "right or wrong" answers; I simply know what sort of game I am best at running, and making sure that all the players have similar expectations is essential to prevent the game from morphing into some format or style that no one enjoys.

Examples, clarifications, or my personal suggestions that are not part of the questionnaire are formatted in yellow. For the impatient, a cleaned copy of the questionnaire without my comments can be found at the tl;dr below.

Feel free to use as is or adapt to your game and taste. 

How would you prefer to handle narrative portions of the campaign?

1.  I would like to cover them during the game session.
2.  I would prefer to have them covered outside the session with input via email, etc. 
        3.  I would prefer to have them covered outside the session without the players' input.

An example of a "narrative portion" would be: the party has just finished a successful dungeon delve and have arrived safely back at their base village as the game session ends.

Some prefer to submit a list of equipment to purchase for the next delve (either right then and there, or submit via email in a day or so) and have the referee handle the logistics of making purchases, dividing loot, and summarizing interactions so that the group is "ready to roll" when the next game starts.

Others may break for the night with the caller declaring "Ogre-Bane and Genna will be in charge of purchasing gear, while Erin and Megan get gems and jewelry appraised. The two halflings can hang at the tavern and drop some coin in hopes of getting some decent rumors or leads" and then the referee and each separate group can text/call/video chat to resolve those actions before the next full group session.

One of my groups, which was heavily comprised of fellow actors and people working in the entertainment industry, preferred to role play everything at the table, and while we all enjoyed the improvisational entertainment such nights provided, many reading this may not be on board with this option. A small hourglass timer (my version of the light on the back wall of an open mic night) can easily indicate when the next group has the spotlight to prevent "attention hogs" from monopolizing the session should this be the preference.

How much "freedom of choice" would you like to have?

1.  I would prefer to have total freedom, even if our choices result in our going way off what the GM (game-master) has prepared. 
        2.  I would prefer to have some freedom, with major GM nudging if we are going way off what the GM has prepared. 
        3.  I would prefer to have the path pretty much laid out before us, with minimal choices.

"Railroading" is a term used to describe a situation where the players are forced into a scenario that the referee has unilaterally decided must occur. I think the general consensus among most players is that railroading sucks; "If  I wanted to be railroaded I'd just play a video game" is a perfectly understandable response, but there are those who prefer the path to be laid before them with little to no chance of straying from the objective, thus giving birth to this particular question.

I would point out that it is "bad form" for a group of players being presented with three juicy rumors to ignore them all under the guise of "player fiat." If the referee has gone to the effort to prep something for the session, it may offend the referee if the players ignore all of that preparatory work, and unless the referee is comfortable improvising, the spirit of cooperation should guide the players on their next course of action.

I do remember one game where "player fiat" took center stage; our group decided to "head off to see what trouble we could get into." Everything was handled by random rolls of the DM, all made in the open in the name of transparency. The game moved smoothly thanks to the DM's mastery of the rules and our willingness to abide by the rolls as they landed.

The night ended with a TPK (Total Party Killed) thanks to a series of bad rolls and failed saving throws (which were generously granted by the DM even though technically 'sleep' doesn't allow a save) and while we the players enjoyed that session, which ended with the DM announcing "Her laughter rings thru the hills as she slits your throat" I noticed our reluctance to pursue "the lightly trodden path of randomness" after that. 

How would you prefer each game session to be balanced?

1.  Primarily roleplaying with little action.
2.  An equal balance of role playing and action, with the understanding some sessions may be all action or all roleplay. 
     3.  Primarily action with little roleplaying.

Here again, the composition and expectation of the players is important; some simply aren't happy unless dice are rolling, in which case they would be a poor fit for a group where everyone voted for #1.  

What type of adventures would you prefer the campaign to be comprised of?

1.  Epic quests
2.  Primarily dungeon crawls
3.  Political intrigue/mystery/lots of role-playing based adventure
4.  No preference

That player who dreams of playing a Tyrion Lannister based courtier in a high political intrigue based game might be quite disappointed playing in a group wanting dungeon crawls.

How important are character skills, feats, attributes and background history to you?

1.  Very Important - I'd like to see them heavily utilized each game.
2.  Important- I like to have them and occasionally use them in each session.
3.  Slightly Important - I like them to make my character unique or for role playing.
4.  Not Important - I wouldn't miss them if they were done away with.

These little "personalized details" may serve as a hook for future adventures, or individualize  two characters who, on paper, may seem almost identical. Something as innocuous as declaring one's father had a bad gambling habit could easily serve as an adventure hook when a former gambling friend of the player's father shows up looking to settle an old bet, while granting a small adjustment to reaction rolls for the character when interacting with gamblers at local taverns.  

What degree of magic availability do you prefer?

1.  High - Magic is an everyday thing and no one is surprised to see it. 
2.  Moderate - Everyone knows about magic, but it is limited to those with $$.
3.  Low - Magic is pretty rare, and those who can wield it are even rarer.
4.  Very low - Anyone who can cast anything is considered to be some sort of deity.

If everyone above 2nd level is walking around with a +1 sword, the novelty of enchanted items is diluted, and if all the local merchants use continual light balls to provide light in their shop then the "awe factor" of magic is similarly diminished. 

The mechanics of magic should be discussed with new player(s) who plan on playing a magic user, as I don't think I have ever meet anyone who has fallen madly in love with the Vancian-based system of magic employed by D&D, and new players may be disappointed to learn a 1st level magic user can cast only one spell for the day.

What is your opinion on player character (PC) death?

1.  It should never happen unless the player wants to roll up a new character.
2.  It should only happen if the player is being REALLY stupid or suicidal.
3.  It should be allowed to happen if the dice so dictate; living on the edge has its dangers.
4.  It should be expected that there will be a death every game - life is a tragedy.

High lethality is a trademark of the OSR philosophy, and players should realize that foolish choices carry potentially deadly consequences. 

What is your opinion on DM "fudging" of the dice rolls?

1.  It should never happen. In fact, the DM should roll in the open where all can see.
2.  It should only happen when it's needed to progress the campaign.
3.  The DM should roll only for effect; results should be based on what makes a good game.

Some rolls need to be made behind the screen to prevent players from gleaning out of character knowledge (is there really no secret door, or did the elf just miss finding it?) so keep that in mind for those who like #1.

Many new players today aren't used to the idea that failure can and will occur, to which I would explain using a mixed reference to War Games and Monopoly:  "Just because you don't want to land on my hotel on Boardwalk doesn't mean you won't; the only way to guarantee that is not to play."

How detailed do you like the rule set to be?

1.  I like a very complete set so that I know exactly what it will take to perform any task.
2.  I like a mid range set which may result in inconsistencies in resolution, combat, etc.
3.  I like a loosely organized but fast paced set of rules which may mean inconsistent rule resolution.

The amount of time a group can dedicate to the game and how frequently the group plays are big factors in how complex and detailed the rules used should be. It is frustrating to only meet once a month and then spend half of that session flipping through books to find obscure rules on the effects of sleeping in one's armor or characteristics of one's campfire (Wilderness Survival Guide by Mohan, pg 65 for those who are curious.)  

What is your preference on combat?

1.  I like having lots of advanced combat options and detail (full attack mode, parrying mode, defensive withdrawals, grapple, aim, charge, parry, dodge, standard attack with movement, etc.) with the understanding such options may slow combat resolution.
2.  I like having basic combat options and some detail, but not so many that I'm spending 5 minutes reviewing my options.
3.  I like having no options: I simply roll to hit and if I hit I roll damage. Done.

Some really enjoy getting down to the "nitty gritty" details when it comes to combat, while others prefer a more cinematic presentation with less concern on the differences between crushing damage and slashing damage. A HEMA (Historical European Martial Art) fanatic may be completely disgusted by the allowances a lighter treatment of combat may present.

What is your preference on the tone of the game?

1.  Gritty realism (ala Lord of the Rings trilogy / Excalibur)
2.  Medieval fantasy (ala Ladyhawke /Dragonslayer)
3.  Lightly comedic medieval fantasy (ala Legend / Willow)
4.  Other (specify: e.g. Sword & sorcery (ala Conan the Barbarian))

The player who wants to play a "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" type of game is a poor match for a group playing a serious "Lord of the Rings" flavored game.

What is your opinion on the "tech based" display (MapTool) that we currently use in lieu of miniatures and tabletop sets?

1.  I love it. 
2.  It's perfect for the space we play in, but if were in a large conference room I'd prefer miniatures on the table.
3.  I don't like it. I'd rather use cardboard cutouts if no miniatures are available.
4.  I don't think we really need to see what's going on; theater of the mind works for me and only the DM needs to track locations and other data.

This could be modified to address preferences of online or in person; my last group played in person but I ran "Map Tools" and provided a large monitor for the players to view instead of using tabletop miniatures. It has been useful as the program's "Fog Of War" feature does an excellent job revealing only what light sources will illuminate.

----------------------------

Questionnaire

How would you prefer to handle narrative portions of the campaign?

1.  I would like to cover them during the game session.
2.  I would prefer to have them covered outside the session with input via email, etc. 
        3.  I would prefer to have them covered outside the session without the players' input.

How much "freedom of choice" would you like to have?

1.  I would prefer to have total freedom, even if our choices result in our going way off what the GM (game-master) has prepared. 
        2.  I would prefer to have some freedom, with major GM nudging if we are going way off what the GM has prepared. 
        3.  I would prefer to have the path pretty much laid out before us, with minimal choices.

How would you prefer each game session to be balanced?

1.  Primarily roleplaying with little action.
2.  An equal balance of role playing and action, with the understanding some sessions may be all action or all roleplay. 
     3.  Primarily action with little roleplaying.

What type of adventures would you prefer the campaign to be comprised of?

1.  Epic quests
2.  Primarily dungeon crawls
3.  Political intrigue / mystery / lots of role-playing based adventure
4.  No preference

How important are character skills, feats, attributes and background history to you?

1.  Very Important - I'd like to see them heavily utilized each game.
2.  Important- I like to have them and occasionally use them in each session.
3.  Slightly Important - I like them to make my character unique or for roleplaying.
4.  Not Important - I wouldn't miss them if they were done away with.

What degree of magic availability do you prefer?

1.  High - Magic is an everyday thing and no one is surprised to see it. 
2.  Moderate - Everyone knows about magic, but it is limited in its availability.
3.  Low - Magic is pretty rare, and those who can wield it are even rarer.
4.  Very low - Anyone who can cast anything is considered to be some sort of deity.

What is your opinion on player character (PC) death?

1.  It should never happen unless the player wants to roll up a new character.
2.  It should only happen if the player is being REALLY stupid or suicidal.
3.  It should be allowed to happen if the dice so dictate; living on the edge has its dangers.
4.  It should be expected that there will be a death every game - life is a tragedy.

What is your opinion on DM "fudging" of the dice rolls?

1.  It should never happen. In fact, the DM should roll in the open where all can see.
2.  It should only happen when it's needed to progress the campaign.
3.  The DM should roll only for effect; results should be based on what makes a good game.

How detailed do you like the rule set to be?

1.  I like a very complete set so that I know exactly what it will take to perform any task.
2.  I like a mid range set which may result in inconsistencies in resolution, combat, etc.
3.  I like a loosely organized but fast paced set of rules which may mean inconsistent rule resolution.

What is your preference on combat?

1.  I like having lots of advanced combat options and detail (full attack mode, parrying mode, defensive withdrawals, grapple, aim, charge, parry, dodge, standard attack with movement, etc.) with the understanding such options may slow combat resolution.
2.  I like having basic combat options and some detail, but not so many that I'm spending 5 minutes reviewing my options.
3.  I like having no options: I simply roll to hit and if I hit I roll damage. Done.

What is your preference on the tone of the game?

1.  Gritty realism (ala Lord of the Rings trilogy / Excalibur)
2.  Medieval fantasy (ala Ladyhawke /Dragonslayer)
3.  Lightly comedic medieval fantasy (ala Legend / Willow)
4.  Other (specify: e.g. Sword & sorcery (ala Conan the Barbarian))

What is your opinion on the "tech based" display (MapTool) that we currently use in lieu of miniatures and tabletop sets?

1.  I love it. 
2.  It's perfect for the space we play in, but if were in a large conference room I'd prefer miniatures on the table.
3.  I don't like it. I'd rather use cardboard cutouts if no miniatures are available.
4.  I don't think we really need to see what's going on; theater of the mind works for me and only the DM needs to track locations and other data.

When "Old School" was the "Only School"

I've found a lot of talk on various forums these days about "OSR" - Old School Renaissance or Old School Revival depending on who one asks. I'm going to wager you already are familiar with what OSR entails, and while I encourage you to read on, I'm aware that today's younger audience seeks only a bullet point style summary, and actual prose is avoided by all but the most wise. For those who wish to skip to the tl;dr click here. For those of you who obviously have at least a +1 to Wisdom, read on!

For those who are unfamiliar with the term OSR (which almost begs to ask 'How DID you stumble upon this cobweb laden corner of the web?') it refers to a play style in tabletop role-playing games which draws inspiration from the earliest days of tabletop RPGs in the 1970s, especially Dungeons & Dragons. Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as it was played in the first decade of the game's existence—less emphasis on linear adventure plots and overarching metaplots and a greater emphasis on player agency.   [Wikipedia]

My reason for this post is to introduce myself to you, gentle reader, and share some of my personal gaming history in hopes of helping those I've seen on various other RPG  (role playing game) forums who seem to be extremely dissatisfied with their gaming experience. I've derived immense joy from my 40+ years in the hobby (most of those years spent as the "forever DM") and it saddens me to read of those who are frustrated, angry, and disillusioned with what certainly should be a really entertaining cooperative creative endeavor and social outlet. It is my hope that my observations and suggestions based on 40+ years of play might serve to aid the reader in finding the right game and style to match their particular taste.

The 80's
I was introduced to D&D in 1981, back when dinosaurs still roamed wild. We started our game with one of my new college friends taking the role of Dungeon Master (since he had played in high school) and the Moldvay version of Basic D&D.  

Our DM took about two weeks to prep the ruins of an abandoned castle on an enormous 11" x 17" pad of graph paper. We rolled up our characters and started the game standing before the rotted drawbridge, staring at the weed overgrown entrance to the ruined fortress. Less than an hour into the game I realized I was hopelessly hooked on this new game as we began our exploration of the multi floored castle and the dungeon levels underneath.

Being totally new to the entire world of fantasy role playing, we were thoroughly captivated by the game as it was presented. We had a fairly high character death rate, mostly due to our total inexperience with the game, though the fragility of 1st level characters cannot be overlooked. When we finally hit 2nd level we thought we were kings of the world.

When we hit 3rd level the Cook version of the "Expert" set of rules were brought into play, which introduced travel through the wilderness, new, higher level spells and deadlier random wilderness encounters. 

While many today derisively scoff at this "kiddie version" of D&D and the simplistic play style it provided, I would argue that, at the time, it was a perfect level of sophistication for an introduction into the hobby. We may scoff today at the simplicity of the Model T Ford, but the process by which it was made is still utilized (though improved,) so I would encourage any who are dismissive of anything more than a week old to reconsider their perspective.

Over the last 40+ years, I've watched the level of rule complexity in my games take a "bell curve" shape; now that free time to play is less plentiful and player schedules are filled to overflowing, complex rule sets are pushed aside in favor of lighter, easier, OSR style rules to expedite quick resolution and more "bang for one's buck."

When our founding DM finally migrated us to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, the game became an "all you can eat buffet" of options; separating race and class  being one of the immediate differences that made character death less tragic, as there were so many more combinations to explore. Allowing for multi-classed characters made the options seemingly infinite. 

In addition, other games were now being released, and we eagerly experimented with other genres/games such as Gamma World and Top Secret. I still chuckle as I recall our founding DM turned "Administrator" meeting us on a public transit bus to subtly hand off a manila envelope with our first "Top Secret Mission Briefing." (I know... totally cringe by today's standards, but it was so fun at the time.)

Eventually, the college workload forced our founding DM to retire his duties as our "DM of Doom." I inherited the reins and became the "forever DM", which satisfied my creative urges as an actor, writer, and director, and play continued as much as class loads allowed, usually with marathon weekend games running well into the night if not until dawn.

College eventually ended and my initial group parted ways, but it did not take long for me to start up again with new friends that I had made. Over time, I introduced my new core group of 4 players to a variety of game systems, including Middle Earth Role Playing, Rolemaster, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, GURPS, and the 2nd edition of AD&D. When the five of us ended up living together our time spent "rolling the bones" was so frequent one of the players refers to those years in his life as his 'period of no-growth'." In hindsight, I'll admit my focus on gaming was probably at borderline addiction levels; when we weren't playing I was mentally designing adventure hooks, NPCs, tombs and long lost locales for exploration. We also spent a lot of time discussing various game systems, debating the merits of certain action resolution conventions and experimenting with our own solutions.

Unguarded Treasure
There are several hidden gems that can be found in this brief stroll down 1980s Memory Lane that I'll use to close this initial post. These little "gems of advice" might help you, gentle reader, in finding that elusive, high quality group/game that you may be seeking. Some important things to consider when trying to find or form a solid group would be:

• Everyone should be "on the same page" when it comes to key aspects of the game. I think this is one of the most important things to consider when searching for a group. A few of the most important aspects on which I think any group should find common ground before starting a campaign are:
  
  
• The tone of the campaign 
  This one is pretty obvious; if everyone wants to play a gritty, realistic game (ala "Lord of the Rings") but one player is looking for something more along the lines of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" there is a disconnect that will quickly sour the flavor of the game. 
  
  
• Tone should also include some discussion as to magic (if it exists in your game) and how common magic is in everyday life. Some players will want to play in a "high magic" game where a medieval tavern might have ice elementals powering refrigerators and freezers and continuous light balls have been cast on top of posts to illuminate the streets at night, while others may want to play in a world where one could travel weeks without ever seeing a wizard or other spell casting character.
  
  
• Level of commitment to the game
  This is important for both players and the referee, and there should be some understanding as to what is expected from all participants. I've heard of players eagerly writing 30 pages of "character background" and then being bitterly disappointed at everyone else who failed to do the same, or game masters designing a novel's worth of world history for their game that the players never read nor reference. Those who wish to go to such lengths are certainly welcome to do so (and I for one always applaud those of a like creative mindset) but they should realize those efforts are more for their own satisfaction, and should not expect similar "over the top" efforts when a lower level of commitment has been agreed upon by the group.
  
  
• Those who are inconsistent in attendance, or who continuously "show up but fail to be present" will drive down the quality of the game and the general level of enjoyment. When such behavior becomes noticeable, talks should be held and decisions made as to whether or not the status of "in absentia" should be made permanent.
  
  
• Complexity (or "crunch" as it is sometimes called)
  This should also be discussed and a level agreed upon before play. There is a vast offering of various game systems from which to choose, and finding the right set of rules is just as important as finding the right group of players. Some people absolutely love the deep detail that some games provide, while others look for something lighter and easier to learn and play. Some take comfort in knowing that "there's a rule for that" while others would rather allow the referee to make ad hoc rulings in the name of expediency. There is no right or wrong option, but everyone should be in agreement as to the level of crunch they are willing to learn and employ.
  
  
• Players should realize that if they want to play a "crunch heavy" game they should be ready and willing to learn the details of the rules as thoroughly as possible. This helps take some of the pressure off of the referee, who has plenty to do even before the first die is rolled.
  
  
• It has been my experience that the amount of time the players and referee can commit to the game (both in preparation and in actual play time) is directly proportional to the level of complexity that the game's rules provide. 
  
• When we were all living under the same roof and playing almost every day, the Rolemaster system (with all of its various tables and charts) was perfectly acceptable to all of us. Later groups that I started, which had far less time available to play, never even considered using such a "top heavy" game system.

• We all eagerly subscribed to the philosophy of 'home-brewed rules'  and we weren't afraid to tinker with RAW (Rules As Written.)
  
  
• Below is an excerpt from Moldvay Basic: 
  
  
• "...if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

I've seen many "home-brew" rule suggestions labeled by those who claim to be "old school purists" as "FOE" (Fake (or False) Old-school Enthusiast) which is a contradiction to the "Old School" thought process since the rules themselves encourage such changes. If we examine the definition of "OSR" above, it specifically refers to a "tonal fidelity", not a "mechanical fidelity." If you decide you want to reconfigure the thief skill table to be resolved using 2d6 instead of d%, I would say that falls well within the scope of the excerpt quoted above, and pronunciations of "FOE-GYG" (Get Ye Gone) should be ignored, as any true enthusiast of the OSR mindset would appreciate the effort put forth into any form of evaluation and subsequent modification.

[Update] I've since noticed a few places now adding "mechanical fidelity" to their definition of OSR; I would continue to refer the reader back to the excerpt above - if you and your group want to flip a coin instead of rolling a polyhedral die you should absolutely start saving that loose change for game night. 

• All the members of our group were friends before we were players, which I think helped immensely as we were well versed with each others' quirks and idiosyncratic behaviors. I can't recall a time when we ever disagreed to a point where rage-quitting or simply storming out of a game session was considered. 
  
  
• I know that many today attempt to play online, and I think some of the frustration and poor game experiences of which I've read on various other forums is a direct result of this particular play option. The adage "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD" certainly should be considered when deciding if you want to play virtually or in person. I do think that the extra effort it takes to assemble a group in person makes everyone a little more invested in making sure the time spent around the table is not wasted.
  
  This is not to say one can't build a strong group online, but be aware it takes extra effort and there are complications that come with online play that don't exist at an "in person" game, so all participants should be aware and adjust their expectations accordingly.
  
  
• No one else should be telling you how to play your game. The irony of this final statement is not lost on me, but the truth is you and your group are the best judges of what works for you. The ultimate goal should be for all the participants to have fun and look forward to the next session, and if all the members of your group are in agreement that a dark, gritty medieval fantasy game with high fantasy magic levels where the player characters are all mutated badgers from a far away planet trying to find their way home, then who cares what anyone else thinks?