Original Standard Final

1P18PT is not a Canadian post code (well, maybe it is, who knows?). Rather, it is my new rule design principle. I like to have to simplify rules down to fit on one page using no less than 18 point type, and the benefits of this commitment to simplicity, I've found, usually pay off in actual play or writing. With this in mind, the final version of Original Standard (click to enlarge):

A few things. I figured out a way to give a standard reference to skill tests you want to implement, based on the input to the test rather to the actual die or numbers used. Most inputs to a skill test, apart from circumstance bonuses or penalties, come from a character's abilities, class or level, if there isn't a specific skill for it. For things that are often used, you may not need to do this, but if there is a weird test in your adventure (fishing a key from a drain with a piece of string, for example) you will want to say what stat is used, whether level should count, and whether level should only count for certain classes.

I also had some thoughts about broadening the standard to cover most Old School games (T&T, Chaosium, TFT). I thought about terms like "normal human hits", "longsword damage," "leather armor equivalent..." Where this fell apart was trying to square level-based characters with skill-based ones, but I'm interested in other people's attempts to truly live up to Old School completeness.

I guess time will tell if people find this or a similar standard useful. So it's on to other, more directly practical things. I have been struggling with a tricky issue on the dungeon.ppt slide (graph lines: overlay or room fill?) and it will take a while to detail both of my jury-rigged solutions. Bear with me ... it'll be great when it comes out, I promise!

Original Standard in Action: Of Molds and Magic

http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/

To illustrate some final issues arising in the quest to write an adventure using only the common rules elements of 5 out of 6 D&D editions, I give you the red and green molds from Egg of the Gazolba.

Red mold: dies from water, spore cloud if touched or burned, all within 20‘ risk 1d6x10 minute coma.  Green mold: infects by touch, grows rapidly when wet, dies from burning.

http://198.16.16.43/content.aspx?id=48998

To write about these things we are going to need a common time scale. The combat round varies in literal time from edition to edition, but is keyed to action, so can stand as it is. If you want a time course outside of combat, use minutes, hours etc. (the ten minute turn, alas, was put to death in 3e by the more "logical" usage of "turn" as a given figure's combat round.).

In the stat-free writeup I used "risk" to signify a saving throw situation, which all editions but 4th have, and 4th can simulate with a Fortitude attack. Now, which saving throw? Really, I could leave the situation as is; the 3e system using Fortitude saves would obviously use those, and earlier editions can assimilate it to Poison. Nor would it do any harm to give some pointers in case the save to use is not obvious. For example, an arrow trap might be saved against using (Reflexes/Breath Weapon).

The green mold can give a similar (Fortitude/Poison) save when touched with bare flesh, maybe at -2 for the audacity to touch it. All editions' saves or save-like procedures, like hit rolls, use d20, making bonuses and penalties easy to apply. Like green slime, it will infect you and kill you in a certain amount of time ... let's say 1d6 hours ... provided it is not excised with fire (doing fire damage to the victim) or with a cure disease spell.

Okay, okay, "magical curing." But this brings me to the most vexing question. How to deal with spells, and magic items beyond the simple +2 sword? The very thickness of those sections in D&D rulebooks shows that there is no easy way to boil them down, though some have tried ...

Without going through my thought process in too much detail, here is my solution. Each OS document has a "base reference edition," or core rulebook it can refer to for itemized things such as spells, items and monsters, without having to stat them out.

Most of the time, I think, that will be enough; the DM using another reference can improvise or substitute from the name of the thing alone. If you want to deviate from your base reference edition, then give a short description of the new or outsourced spell's effects and other statistics.

A good default reference edition would be OD&D + Greyhawk (of which Swords and Wizardry is a reasonable facsimile). This is the source identified by Delta a while ago wherein most of the iconic spells in the game can be found. This spell list has shown remarkable persistence right through 3rd edition.

To sum up, Original Standard writes with these numerical and categorical mechanics:

Ability stats, 4 classes (race and class descriptors), hit dice or level, armor class (ascending and descending), damage (d8 longsword standard), move as a 12" human standard, saves either descriptive or (original/3e), coins on a gp base, time in rounds or normal units, modifiers to all the above stats, and a base reference edition that can be used to refer to itemized game elements like spells and monsters.

So tell me what I missed, and if this is something you can use - and if not, why not?

Original Standard in Action: Monster stats

Statting a monster, Original Standard style, is fairly simple. Let's take the giant troll in Egg of the Gazolba. The original can be found in the Fiend Folio and these stats will suffice:

Hit Dice: 8
This is fairly straighforward to apply to all editions except 4th, for which a very inexact conversion factor seems to be "monster level = old-style hit dice x 1.5". Hit Dice also determines monster hit point, attack, xp for killing, and saves in various ways.

Armor Class: 4[15] - fairly simple, as with NPCs.
Move: 12" - As mentioned previously, this scales to  a move/speed of 6 5-foot squares (edited) for 3rd and 4th edition.
Damage: 2d8 - Give multiple dice-codes if multiple attacks exist.

Damage from any source presents problems for OD&D and the like where the base hit die and damage is d6 rather than d8. Attack damage dice seem to be to a similar scale in 3rd and 4th edition, just with more bonuses from abilities and powers, which will be calculated anyway in further detailing the monster. I would scale damage to Swords & Wizardry basic damage simply by bumping the die down one size and cutting bonuses by 75%, so 2d8+4 becomes 2d6+3 and so on. There's also a tendency in Basic and OD&D to eschew the multiple attacks in other editions, but that is hard to model in a regular way, and probably best handled by the individual referee.

Special: Regenerate 2 hp/round.
In particular, this regeneration number will need conversion upwards in 3rd and 4th edition where monster hit points double if not quadruple. Remember, OS is an attempt to find out what's common to the more complex editions, not to give them an easy time. "When in doubt, and you really need a number, scale to AD&D First."

In general, monster special abilities are a mixed bunch. If they affect Original Standard stats directly they can be described in those terms (like regeneration, slowing, or extra damage). But some things, like paralyzation, level drain, or poison are best described in words, with a time course for their duration and whether or not you get a save. More on this in the next post where I go into more detail on specials, traps, and effects. And yes, I'll get to spells shortly after that.

That's really my conception of an OS monster stats block. Useful, but not essential, is an additional descriptive portion I'll call the MRI. Like a brain scan, it gives details of the monster's morale, reaction and intellect in a sentence or two, without resorting to stats. For the giant troll I would say:

The giant troll is cowardly when faced with superior power (which isn't often). It is surly but will bargain to its advantage. While stupid, it knows it is stupid, so will be suspicious of overly complicated explanations.

From here on in the hard part starts: trick/trap/skill mechanics and (ulp) spells and magic items.

Original Standard in Action: NPC stats

It has been said that I'm a complicated man and no-one understands me except my woman. But when even she isn't clear what you're trying to achieve with a series of posts, it's time to get a concrete example going.

We're going to expand some elements of my one page dungeon "Egg of the Gazolba" (link to the right) with Original Standard stats. The introduction is mostly scene setting and can be skipped, but lurking in the back is a formidable woodsman who will have to be dealt with if the party isn't sufficiently cautious in covering their entry into the caves...

the keeper of the forest, one Syrax: high level, tracking ability near flawless in his own woods, prone to arrest trespassers

This casting decision sure makes him interesting...

So goes the mechanics-free description. First things first is his class. We have the four base classes to work with, and Iit's a good idea to also put in parentheses a word or two that can be matched to classes or races in more advanced settings, or treated as descriptive words otherwise. "High level" implies someone you don't want to meet; for low level characters, say 2-3, we can make him 9th level.

Syrax, Fighter (Ranger) Level 9. Another example might be Fighter (Ranger, Half-Elf). Descriptive words can be anything but obviously "Ranger" is going to be more understandable than "Puma Dancer."

Because he's an NPC, he gets stats: S 15, D 15, I 13, W 16, C 12, Ch 10.  The range of these stats, for NPCs at least, is pretty constant across versions.

And hit points ... Here we have a problem. The different editions of the game scale hit points very differently, but this is one of the most important stats you can provide. Or is it? Let's set a precedent and let the DM decide what a Level 9 character should have. I mean, I often forget the hit points I wrote down for a monster and just roll them up on the spot with a large stash of d8. If the person has above or below average hits for some reason, this can be remarked upon.

We can write down his weapons and equipment. I didn't because of space constraints of the one-page dungeon, but plausibly a tracking, sneaking ranger-type of high level will wear leather armor +1, carry longbow, 12 arrows +2 and 20 normal, longsword +2 and dagger. Note how simple magic item plusses are also OS across all editions.

It won't be necessary to list his Armor Class as this can be figured out from equipment and stats; alternatively, Swords & Wizardry style ascending and descending can be given, in this case AC5[14]. This light equipment also means his move is 12", or 6 new-style, but for an NPC this can also be figured out according to the rules in use.

Alignment, morale, friendliness can all be given descriptively, or left up to the GM. From the game text and "Ranger" description we know he is great at tracking in the woods, and will probably notice if the party leave any marks on the cliff face or large, obvious marks by the cave mouths 10 feet up. He's in good shape and because the climbing is "easy" he can get to the desired cave mouth without too much risk, but if he can't see much to choose among them he'll just watch the caves. And he can wait a long time. All these details could have been put in the module, but they also show that most of the time for an NPC, skill stats and mechanics can be reduced to "can they do it or not"? NPCs don't have to play by the same rules as PCs.

And his treasure ... well, the point is that he can't easily be defeated to get at it, but traveling light, he would carry about 20 gp for personal needs, well secured from clinking and probably hidden on his person. Treasure is more relevant to the monsters, and that's next up.

Anything else stats-wise you'd need to know about the ranger?

The Original Standard

As promised last time, here are the elements I've identified that are common to the base rules of five out of six editions of the D&D game.

• Characters have six Abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution and Charisma. How they are used differs, but their theoretical range is 3 to 18.
• Characters have levels, and monsters have hit dice, that determine their power.
• Characters and monsters have Hit Points, that increase with level or power, and which determine how much damage they can take before being taken out of combat. How those Hit Points are determined varies greatly.
• There are four basic classes, variously named, but most often called Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief. Two of the editions use race-as-class.
• Armor Class is a measure of defense. It either goes up from 10 or down from 10 (or 9); but it is usually immediately obvious that an AC over 10 uses the ascending system.
• Movement rate varies, but is easily scaled; a human's base move per round is 12 (120 feet) in earlier editions and 6 (30 feet) in 3rd edition on.
• Saving Throws exist to determine whether various dangers affect a being. They use d20 and are of several kinds, but what they are exactly varies.
• Combat uses d20 to determine hits and various dice to determine damage on a successful hit.
• As much as I love to use the silver standard, all base sets of D&D have used the gold piece (gp) as base currency.
• Technically, magic should be on this list. It shares a surprisingly great deal across all but 4th edition. Magic-Users and Clerics have different lists of spells, which are used by expending different spell level slots. Most of the spells from the original D&D have continued on through 3rd Edition. All the same, this is the area with the greatest flexibility, and it certainly would be tough to have to itemize a list of standard spell names. I'm still thinking out a solution for how Standard should refer to spells.

Does all this mean you should be playing a game with these rules? No, you can feel free to call Constitution Fortitude, use a different magic system, track specific injuries instead of hit points.

But when it comes to producing material for the many people who have taken to playing all kinds of variations on this game, this is the common language. A document produced using only these stats, and using system-free explanations for the rest, will speak to the greatest number of people. A rule set and its supporting documents will be more widely usable across variants of the game the more it builds on this "common language" property.

... So maybe "Original Standard Rules" sounds too much like I'm dictating the play of the game. Maybe just "Original Standard." You can be fully compatible so far as nothing in your game or module contradicts these concepts (for example, you don't split Dexterity into Agility and Finesse). You can be fully compliant so far as all the mechanics in your game use only these concepts.(for example, you don't refer to encumbrance or psionics rules using stats, names and numbers).

Some examples using Egg of the Gazolba next time.

OSR = Original Standard Rules

Wrong OSR, sadly - love the crab!

Let's make the reasonable assumption that an experienced DM running a version of D&D can run an adventure written for the One Page Dungeon contest, from which system-specific stats are purposefully banned. The more rules-light, the quicker to conjure up monster statblocks, improvise skill-like procedures, and do whatever else it takes.

Let's also assume that even the experienced DM would like some stats in the adventure, as long as that information fits the system they're using.

Let's further assume that there is such a variety of base, clone, and home-brewed systems being played that the best anyone can achieve is partial fit. What stats, at minimum, can an author provide that meet that fit for the most people?

I'm wary of ever achieving an opinion-based consensus. I mean, over on the right are 25 different blogs I follow. If you got all their authors in a room together you'd get 50 different opinions.

I'm more optimistic about an objective rule to build consensus. Look. We're all playing D&D here, with or without serial numbers filed off. There have been six major versions of D&D (Original+Supplements, AD&D, Basic, 2nd Ed. AD&D, 3rd Ed., 4th Ed.) Let's partially route around the quirks of the Zero and Latest Editions, and base our judgments on this rule: A game element is only Standard D&D if it appears in 5 out of 6 of these versions. 

Even 4th? Yes. Wizards may have taken a RotoRooter to the game mechanics but they have shrewdly preserved, in name, most of the elements that make up the game's persistent identity.

Next post I'll lay out what this means in more detail, because it's not without twists and oddities.

I have seen Chad Thorson's logo idea and Thomas Denmark's suggestions for its use. Let me propose a more specific rule for what I think Thomas was getting at.

OSR as a brand name for me makes most sense as:

• "Original" - because D&D is the original roleplaying game, without violating copyright, or being coy about the issue.
• "Standard" - if a supplement or adventure is mechanics-free except for the Standard elements of the game, it will automatically be compatible with all related systems. Any further details of the system the author is using should be explained, or handled by making a reference to a published product. Any further fine-tuning to fit the system the DM is using is the DM's responsibility.
• "Rules" - because that is really what we are doing at a minimal level that everyone can agree on. Not everyone is into a Renaissance, Revival, Revolution, Revanchism, Rearguard, Revelation, Raid, Regurgitation, Rap-battle, or Riot. 

More later, but let me know if this makes sense to you right now.