It occurs to me that the Kingdoms of Seoland would make a fine setting for D&D.
Now, that’s so self-evident that it sounds kind of dumb, given that it’s supposed to be an ‘old-school’ setting and all. But what I mean by it is that I’m not interested in D&D – at all. If I wanted an old-school game I have a number of alternatives but would likely settle on Castles & Crusades, which while very like D&D, is not D&D per se. I am not interested in playing or running D&D out of the box, or in making the kind of sweeping changes to it that would be needed to make me happy with it.
But there is one kind of D&D that I would consider playing – Birthright. Not Birthright exactly, either; that was a wonderful setting but the D&D rules of the time (AD&D 2nd Edition, a system I passionately hated,) were very inadequate for the style of game that it was shooting for, and it ended up being a weird synthesis of styles where the PCs were kings, rulers and archpriests that would go dungeon-crawling together. But try we did, back in the day, and we had a wonderful time with it, despite the many issues. I’d be happy to play that type of strategic-level game again, if I had a better rules foundation for doing it.
D&D 3.5 had just such a system available, in Fields of Blood from Eden Studios. It gives you mechanics for ruling and building fantasy kingdoms, and the interactions between them, diplomatic and otherwise. Around the time of its release, there were several D20 products from various publishers that tried to do similar things, but FoB is the best of the bunch, in my opinion.
But there’s one problem with it. It’s a pretty detailed set of systems, all tightly interlinked, for military operations, diplomacy and regional development. The scale is set up such that one 12-mile (I think I’m remembering that number correctly) is a single ‘province’, which you as the ruler can then go ahead and develop, pillage or whatever. Movement rates of troops are tied to the 12-mile province. A small kingdom might have two or three provinces, while a big one might have five to eight. Massive and vastly powerful states have 12-15. Each province adds significantly to the bookkeeping involved in running a state; nations of a few provinces are no problem, but actually running big empires at the table is likely to eat whole sessions, especially if the players actually talk about what they’re doing.
The problem should now be apparent, if you’re thinking about the numbers here. Medieval Wales, by this yardstick, is a vast and powerful empire. Late Medieval France, not the largest country in Europe at the time, is made up of thousands of FoB provinces, making it unplayable under those rules. It thus becomes very difficult to plug FoB into any existing setting, virtually all of which presuppose the existence of states which are of reasonable (or at least vaguely believable,) size by historical standards but totally unmanagable under the FoB rules. Nor does FoB supply a setting to use.
There are a couple of ways around this; setting up a single large kingdom wherein the players take the roles of Barons of the realm, ruling over smallish areas, rather than as the rulers of the realm. But FoB provides few mechanics for the interactions of internal political factions, which is what such a game would naturally center around. Nor can you just change the size of the provinces, because the movement systems are tied into them very tightly, and you’d have to retool the rules substantially to make it work. Rules design is not something I want to put effort into when envisioning potential D&D campaigns. This leaves me back at the starting point of not wanting to do anything with D&D proper.
But it happens that the map I am using for the Kingdoms of Seoland is one I’ve had around for a while. And it happens to be of a scale appropriate to a ‘world’ (which you should read as ‘campaign area’,) of 12 miles to the hex. It occurred to me just yesterday that this could be made to work with Fields of Blood, and that my overall picture of the place, of a decent-sized island containing several small kingdoms, as well as areas dominated by barbarians and humanoids, would complement it as well. A world designed with FoB in mind alleviates the scaling problem entirely.
This doesn’t really change the development of the Kingdoms at all, and running a game using Fields of Blood remains a hypothetical option. The notion of getting up to speed on the D&D (3.5, probably) rules holds no particular appeal. But there’s also nothing that says you can’t do old-school gaming under D&D 3.5. The strategic-play thing is definitely not old-school, but you could set up a campaign in phases, with a series of dungeon crawls in the early levels concurrent with building the PCs reputations as heroes, or at least competent folks who get things done. Such a campaign could then (around levels 5-6, I’m guessing,) move into a mission-oriented phase, where the PCs are working for some important personage or other, before moving into a final, political phase where the PCs are movers and shakers themselves. Run the way I’d prefer, this would let me dig into what is, after all, a fairly complicated rules system pretty gradually.


February 23, 2009
Defending the Thief, My Old School, and Crypto-Rolemaster
Posted by Ardwulf under Castles & Crusades, Commentary, Dungeons & Dragons, Rolemaster1 Comment
I understand and completely sympathize with the desire to emulate the old school playstyle. But I have to say that certain persons who share this prediliction are pushing the School-O-Meter back a little too far. Case in point is James Maliszewski’s disdain for the Thief class, which seems to me to be based mostly on the fact that it didn’t appear in the original D&D brown/white box rules, instead being added in one of the supplements.
First of all, I need to say that James’ blog is a great place to go for ideas and insight on old-school play, regardless of where exactly one wants to set the bar. But I don’t feel that older automatically equates to purer, or better in any meaningful sense. In fact, I think that the original D&D rules are a big mess, filled with contradictions and presented in a manner that makes the rules almost unintelligible to a modern audience. This is why I much prefer using something like Castles & Crusades to emulate that kind of playstyle, or, failing that, why I’d rather use D&D 3.5, despite that ruleset not neccessarily being a particularly good match.
A big part of this is, of course, my own personal value for ‘Old School.’ I started with the Moldvay boxed Basic Set but moved swiftly into AD&D, which was, from my experience, a common approach back in 1981-82. The Thief class was a prominent feature in both, and I have an additional fondness for it because one of my own first and formative experienced with D&D was with the solo module Blizzard Pass, in which one plays a Thief. I therefore have a big soft spot for the class.
But that’s beside the point – which is that for me ‘Old School’ means the days of Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and Descent Into the Depths of the Earth. By 1981 or so AD&D had become the default platform for play, and only a comparatively few players stuck with the older rudimentary form of the game. It helped that AD&D first edition stayed relatively stable from a rules standpoint for as long as it did, the only significant rules addenda being the relatively mild (by modern standards,) ones in Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures and the two Survival Guides. Even those mostly introduced changes in the form of new classes, magic items and spells, with fundamental mechanical changes being fairly light except in the new emphasis on Non-Weapon Proficencies, the implementation of which I considered halfassed even at the time.
There’s another variable at play in my case, however, which is that a great deal of my formative experience didn’t come from D&D, but from Rolemaster, which I owned in the 80s but which I didn’t play until the early 90s – but when I did play, I played it extensively and exclusively, for a number of years. Therefore, any attempt at emulating my old-school ideal means incorporating some of the aspects and/or flavor of Rolemaster.
The current default version of that game, the Rolemaster Standard System, is somewhat bloated in a similar way that D&D 3.0/3.5 was inflated from its previous editions; the rules are detailed enough to feel confining rather than liberating. And while a version of the older system is now available, RMSS addressed some of the issues I had with those rules, and the so-called Rolemaster Classic represents a step too far back, much like James’ dislike for the Thief class strikes me as a step too far in the direction of intentional archaism for archaism’s sake in the case of D&D. That step eliminates a lot of clutter that I don’t like, but it also eliminates some features that I do like and would prefer to retain.
Of course I could houserule together an amalgam of RMSS and the older rules, but I hate doing stuff like that – I would rather build from scratch, or at least from a well-understood and freely publishable base (i. e. and Open Source system,) since I could then share it freely, or even publish it. I’ve gone through the mental excercise more than once of taking the basics of d20 and shaping them into something Rolemaster-esque while clearing away a lot of D&D chaff. In principle this is easy to do, at least by the standards of RPG design.
One tenet I’d start with would be that there are classes and levels, but that the former would not completely block you from picking up any particular in-game ability. I think that both elements could easily be exciused from the d20 rules, and I’m disappointed that some efforts (notably Traveller d20,) chose not to do so. But for something like this, I’d keep them. The Rolemaster approach is to base everything on the skill system, and that’s what I’d do here. Spells, combat bonuses and the like would all be based on skill ranks.
Combat would be a blend of D&D and Rolemaster; it’d work basically like D&D 3.x, but there’d be no feats and you’d be able to elect to put some of your combat bonus into defense. Armor and protection would work just liike it does in D&D 3.x. And of course, you’d have to develop critical tables, although I’d leave out the attack tables and just have an array of damage types, with a single percentile critical damage table covering all of them, with maybe another one for exotic damage types such as those dealt out by magic.
I’d want to keep the Rolemaster convention of making rolls generally open-ended; I always found that this added a dynamism to combat that was lacking in games like D&D, whose battles appeared to have more tactical options enumerated in the rules but which never felt as alive to me. Magic is trickier, but I’d keep the general level of spell utility about what it is in D&D, but adding the Realms and pure/hybrid distinction of Rolemaster.
So there, mostly fully imagined but not actually designed, is a sort of Crypto-Rolemaster built on the bones of D&D. It’s something I’ve love to play some day. As for designing it… well, I’ll let you know when I make some progress, but don’t turn blue waiting for it.