Gotta Go Fast

Yesterday, I found myself involved in a fascinating conversation on Discord about running. Not running games, no ... running during an encounter in the Basic D&D tradition.

Adventurers showing survival instincts / cowardice

I will start here where I started yesterday: with the rules presented in Old-School Essentials. They are pretty clear. You can only run away, and only during a pursuit. 

I will call attention to the phrase "characters run at their full movement rate." I glossed over this when I initially read it. Since you find this section in the Encounters - Evasion and Pursuit portion of the rules, I assumed it meant the character's full encounter speed (usually 20'/30'/40' per round). However, compare that to the OSE section on retreating from melee:

See how the rules specifically state full encounter movement rate in this portion. So, first a character must declare a retreat. Then, the character may move 20'/30'/40' away. Finally, if they're still out of melee in the next round, they may begin to run (using their full or exploration movement speed; 3x encounter speed) and the enemy may pursue (starting the Evasion and Pursuit procedure). Well, wait ... can they? According to OSE: no.

So, OSE implies that you can only run (or, flee at 3x encounter movement speed) during Evasion and Pursuit, and that you can only trigger Evasion and Pursuit before combat has begun. That's kind of a strange limitation, but okay.

Then yesterday, on Discord, user @dcullina called to my attention that this isn't exactly how Moldvay Basic reads. Moldvay basically defines running in the same way, though it is more clear that when a character runs, they move at 3x encounter movement speed (a.k.a. your exploration movement speed, or full movement speed, as OSE calls it).

However, the paragraph on retreating differs in an important way:

Importantly, this paragraph does not specify that you can only move at your full encounter movement rate, as OSE does. It states "any movement at more than 1/2 of your normal movement rate." To @dcullina (and to me), that means that you could retreat and move your normal movement rate or run at 3x your normal movement rate.

Okay, maybe we're splitting hairs; reading into it too far. Maybe. But, check out what Moldvay writes on Evasion:

The caveat about "if [...] combat has not yet begun" in this excerpt seems to be a stipulation for evasion being automatic, not for the ability to evade altogether (as in OSE). You can try to avoid an encounter whenever you want, but if you've already engaged the enemy, it can't be an automatic success.

So, let's recap. In Old-School Essentials:

• If you wish the retreat from melee, you must move away at your encounter movement rate.
• Even if you get out of melee, you still cannot move at 3x your encounter movement rate for the rest of this encounter.

And, in Moldvay Basic:

• If you wish to retreat from melee, you can decide to run, moving at 3x your encounter movement rate (and suffering the normal penalties for retreating).
• If you are outside of melee, you can decide to run at any time, moving at 3x your encounter movement speed and not being able to do anything else (map, attack, etc.).

There is more to debate here. And, to be fair to the author of OSE, Gavin Norman, he does mentioned this in his Author's Notes:

Gavin clarified on Discord that the later edition to which he referred is likely Mentzer Basic, specifically this passage:

To me, the most interesting question is why can't characters run away at full speed once combat has been joined in OSE? I don't see that restriction as clear-cut in either Moldvay or Mentzer. And, for me, I find that the game works better when you give players an option to retreat (unless they make decisions that get themselves into a really bad spot).

All of this kind of points to the absurdity of getting hung up on "rules as written." Everyone views rules through a different lens. Which interpretation is right? Whichever one works for your table.

Wear and Tear

Before Elrond could reforge Aragorn's famed sword Andúril, it had to break during combat. Yet, most TTRPGs don't model wear and tear on gear at all, unless the party comes under attack by a rust monster or something similar and the rules explicitly prescribe it.

Most don't bother with it because they don't want to keep track of numerous modifiers and conditions on their gear. But, like with most things in RPGs, you don't need to make it realistic. You don't have to tell me how different weapons handle differently when damaged. Players just need something to remind them that their precious stuff might break.

Use notches to represent this wear and tear. I lifted this idea from old articles over at Last Gasp Grimoire and Necropraxis, but I heavily simplified the mechanical effects. A notch always equals a -1 modifier, regardless of whether it's on a battle axe, a sword, or plate mail.

If your sword suffers a second notch, it breaks. If your armor suffers enough notches to reduce its effect to +0, it sunders. That means there isn't too much tracking.

Two knights trying to sunder their opponent's armor

How does your gear suffer a notch? When you critically fail when using your weapon, or you opponent critically succeeds in smashing your armor. Natural 1s and natural 20s. Simple. It happens frequently enough to come up, but having your sword break during battle would be pretty rare (would require two critical failures).

That's about it. You can extend this to other gear as well, though I'd probably just have a rope or pole break on a critical failure, instead of having it accrue notches.

I did add some rules about how to fix notches - specifically, anyone proficient with a whetstone can hone notches out around a campfire. Armor and shattered swords require a full smithy, though.

Side-Based Initiative

I resisted the concept of side-based initiative, or the approach that you roll initiative for each side instead of each individual participant, for too long.

Yes, the approach does reduce the cognitive load of managing individual turns during combat, as you'd expect. But, in practice, I found that using side-based initiative improved the flow of combat altogether. Players are all invested simultaneously instead of taking their turn and tuning out, which has resulted in combat that feels more immediate and maintains consistent pacing from beginning to end.

An adventurer not waiting for the monsters to take their turn (art by William McAusland)

I make one concession to the tradition of rolling initiative. When one side makes its move, I ask the players to make an opposed Dexterity check. They are trying to exceed 10 + the HD of the opposing leader. Those who do get to act first.

Once they do, turns alternate from that point on. So, the PCs who succeed take a turn, then the monsters take a turn, then all PCs take a turn, and so on.

I have used this hack during several combat encounters in my current adventure so far and I have been very pleased with the results. 

For Every Action ...

Basic Fantasy RPG does a good job translating many old-school mechanics into a standardized d20 system that modern role-players tend to find more intuitive. Yet, there are some rolls it keeps as 2d6 like reaction and morale.

A fisherman who rolled well when meeting giant frogs (art by Matt Ray)

However, adding standardized ability bonuses to a 2d6 reaction roll weights the impact of the ability too heavily. Old-school games tend to cap the impact of Charisma on a reaction roll at +2. BFRPG maxes out at +3. 5th Edition takes you to +4 and possibly beyond.

I like reaction rolls but my current games use the 5th Edition rules at their core, so I took Knave's reaction roll table and pasted it on a d20 scale so that PCs could apply their Charisma bonus.

d20 Roll	% Chance	Outcome	% Chance	2d6 Roll
1	5%	Hostile	3%	2
2 - 6	25%	Unfriendly	25%	3 - 5
7 - 14	40%	Unsure	44%	6 - 8
15 - 19	25%	Talkative	25%	9 - 11
20	5%	Helpful	3%	12

Roll Your Own

I like when the players make the rolls. Knave, the rules-light system by Ben Milton, gives PCs an "armor bonus" so that they can roll armor against a monster's static value. It's quick to grok but doesn't sacrifice anything from a "normal" attack roll.

What if players rolled their own checks for random encounters, particularly during wilderness travel? It would help them to conceptualize the passage of time during wilderness turns and it would also directly reveal the consequences of spending more time: risking more checks.

The referee does give up the power to discretely adjust the encounter chance on the fly, but in my games it would not be a problem to tell the players that their normal 1-in-6 chance is a 2-in-6 because of the amount of noise they've been making. In fact, it's not even a negative. Again, it provides the players with more information on which to base their decisions.

Adventurers encounter a wandering furry (art by David Trampier)

My current travel rules include an encounter check on every wilderness turn made by the players, who take turns around the table. They roll a d20, and lower results equate to worse outcomes.

1-3 wandering monster

4-12 travel challenge

13-16 descriptive encounter

17-18 evidence of monster

19-20 discovery

I'm toying with the idea of having them add their WIS bonus as long as they're not traveling in darkness or at a fast pace. It might mean that certain characters would very rarely roll wandering monsters, but since they must alternate, in the long run it should balance out with characters who have lower WIS scores.

Unless they're all clerics, I guess. Guided by the holy light?

Determining Surprise

When possible, I prefer to have players make the most important rolls, and I prefer to have their character abilities provide meaningful inputs to those rolls.

Yeah, I know: players aren't their character sheets, spot checks suck, etc. But, I also don't want to ignore when it would make sense for an ability to come into play.

Surprise feels like one of those times when it would make sense. Traditional fantasy RPG rules state that, all other things being equal, each side has a 2-in-6 chance to end up surprised by the other party during a random encounter.

A small humanoid after getting surprised (art by Jeff Easley)

Yet, the stakes here match the criteria of calling for a check or saving throw instead of a purely random chance: the outcomes matter, they are obvious, and they are very much in doubt.

Checking for Surprise

When a random encounter occurs, each player should make a WIS saving throw. On a failure, that player's character is surprised and does not take a turn during the first combat round.

Note that this rule specifically determines whether or not the monsters surprise the PCs. Determine the reverse scenario with the standard 2-in-6 roll. This house rule isn't about verisimilitude or accuracy, it's about giving players the illusion of agency.