Refining Rulesets
Every serious ttrpg hobbyist will one day find themselves unsatisfied with the range of games available to them. Why does this happen? Do they think they are somehow wiser than the old school Gygaxian wizards or smarter than the hip new Macrisian venturers? This is not the case. Rather, they have an ideal simulation they want their games to exist in. They will first write new material for the games they love and eventually set out to make their own (if you can survive the hobby long enough!). This is the natural life-cycle of the gamer.
Of course, this applies to me as well. Long ago, I began my career playing the lastest DnD edition on the market, then moved to Advanced DnD (ADnD), then Adventurer Conqueror King system (ACKs), and I now feel that familiar restlessness with the current version of ACKs. Why? I want my fantasy roleplaying vision to materialize in my games, and itâs not quite happening due to trappings of the genre and certain aesthetic choices of ACKs. This line of thinking creates an interesting paradox though. Maybe youâve already noticed what it is.
The Mandate of Roleplaying games states: players must have free agency. If weâre not on the same page here you have a decade of roleplaying dialectics to catch up on my friend. I recommend checking out the youtube series âBears and Barrowsâ as well as Alexander Macrisâ book âArbitor of Worlds: A Primer for Gamemastersâ (a synopsis is in the ACKs II Judgeâs Journal if you already own that). So the question is:
How do I get players to act how I want?
If youâre a rpg chud your knee-jerk reaction should be: âYou canât and you shouldnâtâ. And rightfully so my intellectual comrade-at-arms! But not everything is as it seems. Think of the classic DnD adage: âYou can do whatever you want in Dungeons and DragonsTMâ. We know this isnât exactly true. You canât fly around on fairy wings and behead drakes with one fell swing at level one. The point is obviously that you can try to do anything you want and the Judge will tell you want happens. Similarly, every character cannot try to do every realistic action in the game either. The fighter cannot pick locks. As a fighter, you can try to pick locks in the game; itâs your right to command your character to attempt an action. However, the Judge will inform you that fighters can never pick locks because they are not thieves, and in the game your fighter will do nothing. Maybe some Judges will actually permit a fighter to toil endlessly with a door he cannot open. However, I argue this is overstepping the bound of abstraction. Your fighter character knows he cannot pick locks, and I will go as far as to say he does not want to pick locks because of his class (his literal class within society; this is why it is call a class). Therefore, he will not try to pick the lock even if you tell him to, just as he will not try to cast a spell and he will not try to raise the slain from death. So, weâve established there are some things possible within the simulation that your class can never do. This begs the question:
Are there things my class must always do?
If weâre on the same page here, then the Paladinâs oath immediately comes to mind. If youâve never played in an ADnD campaign, I must say you have missed out on experiencing the awesome power of the Paladin. The array of discrete abilities combined with a profile of minimum attribute requirements ensure that the Paladin is an extremely capable adventurer even at level one. This inspires both the Paladin and his party to face danger fearlessly and frequently. All this is awarded to the Paladin because he must follow a strict code of conduct else his great powers will be revoked (and if you have a good Judge he will likely be further barred from various institutions, outcasted, etc.).
But does the Paladin really have to follow his code? In ACKs, the Paladin doesnât even have a typical code of conduct because they donât get cleric spells like ADnD. Other Divine casters do have a code, but they are quite unobtrusive to any actions your character is likely to attempt. In ADnD we see his powers are stripped and he becomes a normal fighter. This is barely a punishment considering the playerâs crimes of violating the spirit of the Paladin. Some of you may have fallen victim to the idea that the fighter is extremely weak in old editionsâand I do not fault you for thisâbut that is the topic of another article. Once again, the stalwart defenders of The Mandate of Roleplaying reading this surely will remind me that it is the playerâs right to violate the Paladins Code of Conduct regardless of the consequences, because that player has free will. In this article I will attempt to refute that statement.
Why am I doing this?
I have been developing rules to run a long term campaign. The goal of this campaign is to simulate a world of sword and sorcery akin to the worlds of fiction I and other like-minded individuals enjoy. I am building this game on the framework of ACKs (for now). It would take me an extremely long time to develop a system for economy, geography, and information technology as complex as found in ACKs, but after playing rules-as-written to the best of my ability for several years I do have a few hangups. Here are my goals for the campaign
1. No optional rules. I believe optional rules are the death of games. Is it important or not? A game needs to have a clear vision for exactly how it is intended to be played else it is doomed to failure. The expectations of everyone involved need to align. For this reason, I am conducting a thought experiment in this article and future articles where I assume no rules are optional and I attempt to define all elements of the game within my set of rules. The number of rules must be kept to an absolute minimum and be operated by the average (serious) hobbyist. This has never been done before and never will be done, though many have tried and some have gotten close. Also, this is not intended to remove the role of abduction from the Judge, to be clear.
2. Clear âclericalâ rules. This is to say rules about how to run the game pertaining to things outside of the simulation. This is a continuation of the optional rules problem, and I think every game ever made has this problem. Games need to be run in a strict, predefined manner or they are again doomed to failure. Authors inevitably get too normative in the Judgeâs guide. I donât care how a Judge should act, I care how they must act. Authors shy away from the uncomfortable but real realities Judges will face when actually playing a roleplaying game. In this instance Clerical rules represent a course of action to take in these situations. I have to give ACKs some credit in this regard, I just have things I want to add. Specifically, my game must accommodate many players (multiple tables as some might say), and any level of player (new, experienced, stupid, genius).
3. An appropriate setting. I get the appeal of the Hellenic RPG. I get the subversion of Achilles as the Paladin. I want to see Arthur and Merlin; I want to see Aragorn and Gandalf; I want to see Conan and Thoth-Amon. I intend to create a world where grand medieval fantasy intersects the barbaric Hyborian age: on The Borderland. The world of Homer can adjoin my world, but it will not subsume it. Based on the prior statements, the rules must reflect the laws my world and not the laws of the real life Holy Roman Empire with Spell Slots.
4. Sword and Sorcery sanity. Forgive me Gygax-sama but yall were not cooking with âVancianâ Magic. Same goes for âLeatherâ armor. And Iâm not trying to blaspheme here, but I really hate the operation and distinction of the Magic User and Cleric themselves. I could go on. The elements of history and fantasy will be made to fit my vision in the actual rules of the game, not simply within the aesthetic of the game.
Fortunately, ACKs has a robust process for designing new elements to incorporate in the game. I will expand on these concepts in time. For now, they are merely the outline for:
Code of Conducts as Rules
I am not a merciful Judge. That is not to say I behave cruelly to my players, quite the opposite. I want nothing more than to see them succeed. But Iâm not going to take it easy on a Player who, for example, violates their Paladin Oath in the first session. However, if we look at my goals above we see things are out of alignment here (no pun intended).
¡ Everyone does not implicitly understand what a Paladin should act like. The cold hard truth is that not everyone at the table will be read on these topics. So, am I forced to rely solely on negative reinforcement to get reasonable results out of every player in the campaign? No. The rules should obviously convey the expectations of the game so players can make reasonable decisions. The current paradigm does not support this.
¡ I donât want to see an oath broken paladin session one of every table I ever run. Itâs happened before. Itâs not interesting. Maybe its interesting when it happens 20 session in. How do I incentivize this properly at scale while maintaining the Mandate of Roleplay, so I donât lose my mind and the campaign doesnât completely suck. The current paradigm does not support this.
¡ My version of the Paladin is powerful. How do I disincentivize choosing this class based on âpower gamingâ and incentivize choosing this class in order to embody the role it represents.
Here is the solution: code of conducts are rules. Maybe you are thinking to yourself, âarenât those already rules?â. No. They are optional rules and normative rules. I will not stand for this. The code of conduct must clearly and unmistakably covey how a player operates a given class. Under this new paradigm, breaking code of conduct is breaking the rules; breaking code of conduct is cheating; breaking code of conduct is like giving yourself more exp and gold. Breaking code of conduct will not be allowed by the Judge. Maybe you think Iâm going too far, but try this: replace the âPaladinâ with your favorite class. You will see that based on the rules of any of your favorite games there is zero reason to ever embody the common principles of any class. This is a catastrophe and a failure of the genre. There must be order. Based on this new principle, we can extrapolate other key rules:
¡ All Classes have a code of conduct
¡ There are levels to the severity of a code of conduct. I will refer to these as levels 1-3 from now on. Level 3 is most restrictive (the Paladin).
¡ There are Good and Evil codes
¡ Level 1 Conduct is Neutral (Allows for Good or Evil to some extent)
¡ Evil Classes with level 2 conduct are NPC only
¡ Evil Classes with level 3 conduct are Monsters
Code of Conduct Example â The Paladin
Iâve been harping on the Paladin thing this whole time so I think I should provide an example of what I want the code to look like:
¡ Must be the male heir of a name level character be they living, dead, or no relation.
¡ Must never commit an act of Evil.
¡ Must act against all Evil entities witnessed or indicated to be in operational range of civilization.
¡ Must swiftly move to destroy any Evil entities assessed to be no more than double your operational strength.
¡ Must defend other Good creatures before yourself in combat.
¡ Must ensure employed Henchmen are Good.
¡ Must uphold the law to a high degree and serve justice to those who do not.
¡ This Code of Conduct shall be upheld in trust of your own senses and in risk of your own life and the lives of others.
Remember: every class needs a code, not just the Paladin. Compare the Paladin to the Fighter who is almost completely unrestricted in conduct. The single implied rule on every code is that characters will not willingly attempt to emulate the explicit and unique circumstances afforded to other classes. Iâm talking about the Fighter/Thief example from earlier. This rule is already implicated in most games; I am simply stating it. In that regard, if there is ever a âblankâ code, that class is only beholden to this rule and may otherwise do whatever they want.
Conclusion
This is kind of a controversial post. Maybe you think forcing players to act a certain way is railroading. Maybe you think Iâm a âstory gamerâ and a âget-a-long gangerâ for effectively disallowing players from playing explicitly evil classes.
Consider this: players should play a class that actually befits how they want to act in the game. That is productive. That is your form of agency. Classes with strict codes will be significantly more powerful. Donât misunderstand, Fighter is the âmost powerfulâ class and it always will be. Trust me, you canât take that from them if you tried. Also, you can still insist on breaking your code. Iâm going to abduce an appropriate way to swiftly retire your character (same as if youâre a cheater), but you can do it if you really want to. That has potential to be cool honestly. Iâm not going to make rocks fall on your head if you try to sneak around goblins instead of killing them by the way, Iâm just going to tell you need to kill them unless you are really struggling to maintain your code. Maybe that class is not for you at that point.
As Evil characters go, my logic on this is similar to the 1st session oath breaker example: I donât want to constantly see other characters turning a blind eye to you just to move the session along. Thatâs lame. Under my rules you are banned from doing that anyway. Furthermore, just like how the good party members are not going to suffer you committing evil acts, some classes will be forced to commit certain evil acts due to their code. Itâs the same reason why you canât play an âAnti-Paladinâ in ADnD. Anti-Paladins are monsters. They are compelled to be evil. If you want to play this type of character I am sympathetic, but the rules donât really support it. What are you going to actually do after your one-note betrayal on the first session? Retire your character? This idea does hold more water in the context of multi-table/multi-character games. As a Judge, youâll still need to set some kind of expectation as to what you can or canât achieve as an Evil character or it will go nowhere. Iâve seen it in my games many times before. All this is not to imply Good men canât fight one another, etc. Iâll still be making Evil classes for NPCs or if interest is very high in playing them for more than one session.
Iâve very interested in feedback on this post. What do you guys agree/disagree with? What are some things that have to go in the code for your favorite classes? Here are some classes I plan to include in my game if you want some direction for your response:
PC Classes
Players may ONLY elect to play as the following.
¡ Fighter
Subclasses
o Ranger
o Paladin
o Barbarian
¡ Bard(?)
Subclasses
o Wizard
o Burglar
NPC Only Classes
Players may NEVER play as the following. These characters shall never be subservient to Players below name level, and they are exceedingly rare to encounter anywhere.
¡ Crusader
¡ Sorcerer
¡ Assassin
¡ Priestess
Henchman Only Classes
Henchmen might appear as other classes. Players who have not achieved name level cannot recruit an NPC of a Player Subclass as a Henchman.
¡ Man-at-Arms/Adjutant
¡ Thief/Thug
¡ Physician/Shaman
¡ Herald/Courier
¡ Merchant/Sea Captain
¡ Magician/Alchemist
Monster Only Classes
Monster Only Classes gain benefits from a severe Code of Conduct which prohibits them from existing within the confines of Manâs Law.
¡ Black Rider
¡ Witch
¡ Dwarf
¡ Elf
