# Basic game manifesto
The basic game is a variant on traditional challenge-focused fantasy spelunking
tabletop roleplaying. While it is very common in our community (the OSR), I do
not think we usually play it intentionally, nor have we articulated its
possibilities and limits. I intend to explain the nature of the basic game and
its charms.
Briefly: The basic game begins at the dungeon's door. Players set the terms of the
scenario as they please, essentially choosing the scenario's difficulty. Players
do not even have to request equipment, levels, or hirelings from the referee --
they simply declare what they have. Once the scenario has begun, the referee
adjudicates events neutrally, with an eye towards realism rather than any
particular outcome or desired "balance".
I am playing a self-consciously basic game because my work schedule does not
allow me to run an extended campaign; because I am interested in concentrating
the challenge of a dungeon adventure game into its sharpest possible form; and
because I want to play a game that is in some respects casual, and allows me to
test a variety of rules, formats, and modules.
## The basic game versus the extended campaign
This section is really just a summary of parts of *Muster* by Eero Tuovinen. If
you want more detail, check out that work.
The basic game lies at one end of a spectrum between a basic game and the
extended campaign. We can understand it better if we begin with the extended
campaign, and work backwards, by subtraction, to the basic game.
We are all familiar with an extended campaign, and for many (the "Classic
Fantasy Adventure Game" crowd, for instance) it is the ideal form of tabletop
roleplay. In an extended campaign, players control a stable of characters in a
vast and living world. They track their characters' various fortunes and demises
and search for opportunities for wealth, glory, and power. In the purest form of
the extended campaign, players pay scrupulous attention to their characters'
resources on a day-to-day basis, optimizing them to find and conquer adventures.
For instance, players might spend a session in an extended campaign exploring a
new city, meeting locals, and finding rumors which they can later exploit as
opportunities for adventure.
In fine, extended campaigns feature
1. an independent and persistent world
2. downtime tracking of player characters
3. scenarios formed exclusively by player efforts
4. limited player resources, tracked between scenarios
A game becomes less of an extended campaign, and more of a basic game, as it
loses these features. For instance, all things being equal, a game is more of an
extended campaign if it features a persistent world, and more of a basic game if
the GM simply tells players what adventures they may have.
When we play in an extended campaign, we'll move back and forth between three
distinct modes of play: downtime, scenario formation, and scenario execution.
1. Downtime is the period immediately following the completion of a scenario.
It's usually slow-paced, low-stakes, and handled abstractly. Players think
of activities for their characters to pursue, usually to make them stronger,
richer, or in better political shape.
2. Scenario formation is the period in which players make plans for a new
scenario. This is usually a simple discussion between players. They review
the leads they have acquired during downtime and prior scenarios (rumors,
treasure maps, ominous castles sighted in the distance, and so on). Then
they evaluate their resources, and the expected difficulty of each potental
scenario, and choose one to embark upon. (In the purest possible extended
campaign, players have total freedom in creating scenarios; they might
decide to rob some NPC, or, equally, to obey the Duke of Geoff in wiping out
some pesky hill giants.) They may be wrong about the difficulty of the
scenario, or they may need greater resources to overcome the scenario, in
which case they may embark upon a subsidiary scenario, or a downtime
maneuver, just to set up the original scenario.
3. Scenario execution is the period in which players journey to the location of
their chosen scenario and brave its perils in hope of finding gold, magic,
and glory. This is usually handled very concretely, in 10 minute turns,
moving the PCs about a dungeon.
Most of us will be familiar with a basic game where the play group progresses
through a series of modules like pearls on a string. A "dungeon of the week"
game. Players bring the same characters to every module (unless one dies, in
which case it is replaced) and the group of characters form the only link
between the different modules. This is a very basic game, but we can make it
still more basic.
## Right of retreat
In both the basic game and extended campaign, players *must* be able to set
their own terms of engagement with a scenario. (Some scenarios in the extended
game may spring on the players like a trap -- suppose a character's beloved dog
is kidnapped by a recurring villain -- but this is pretty advanced stuff.
Generally the dungeon doesn't follow you home.) Players decide which scenarios
to undertake, how much effort they can expend on the scenario (both in and out
of game) and when they will retreat. They may find that retreat is difficult or
impossible, because they have not kept a strong rearguard and the goblins have
set traps and an ambush behind them, but they are still free to try. And they
can always declare, "No, we're done here, we're not interested in challenging
this scenario any further."
If the other players assume responsibility and constantly evaluate the
difficulty of the scenario, judging when they should go on, retreat temporarily,
or retreat permanently and never come back, then the referee no longer needs to
burdern themselves with that responibility. The other players decide what
difficulty they can manage, and the referee simply adjudicates the situation
they have created.
## Max basic: arcade mode
If, as I have said, an extended campaign is characterized by the four features
listed above, a basic game is characterized by their lack or negation. We can
play the most basic game possible by negating all four features of an extended
campaign. So our basic game will have:
1. no independent and persistent world, but only a series of modules
2. no downtime tracking of player characters; as soon as they exit the module,
they cease to exist
3. no player formation of scenarios; the GM simply tells the players what
adventure they will have next
4. unlimited player resources, refreshed between scenarios
If we refer back to our three modes of play in the extended campaign, we'll find
that only the third is present in a truly basic game. Players simply have the
scenario before them. They don't have to worry about finding a scenario, or what
their characters have been up to since the last adventure, or whether they will
be able to hire enough men and horses to overcome the scenario's challenges.
We might wonder how the scenario could possibly present a challenge, if players
can draw on unlimited resources. In my basic game, players opt-in to challenge
by intentionally handicapping themselves, by *not* drawing on those resources.
And, once they have begun the scenario, whatever resources they have claimed are
fixed. For instance, players cannot enter the dungeon with one henchman, and
decide halfway through that they should have three or four instead.
## Tools of the basic game
Let's look a little more concretely about the variables of a basic game:
* The scenario itself. Outside of the players' control; it is as it is, and the
refree must adjudicate it impartially
* Scenario level. The approximate force the referee or module designer thinks
the players will need to overcome the majority of the scenario
* Number of characters. The force, in bodies, the players bring to the scenario
* Level of characters. How powerful and accomplished the characters are[^1]
* Character equipment. The spells, weapons, steeds, and money the players bring
to the scenario
* XP. The potential rewards of the scenario
[^1]: In the basic game, the traditional link between XP and level is severed.
Players can set their level as they please, while their XP is static,
increasing only with victory in the game. Of course a player could decide to
only increase their characters' levels when they acquired a certain amount
of XP, as in standard fantasy spelunking tabletop games.
In the basic game, players control the number of characters, their level, and
their equipment. They can make a character of any level, race, or class, as they
please and the system allows, and outfit them with as many allies and as much
gear as they please. In essence, players will choose the scenario's difficulty
by choosing their starting loadouts.
For me, this is one of the great appeals of the basic game. I tell the players,
"Here is the scenario. It is deadly. You may have whatever you think you need to
try and overcome it; but what do you *really* need? And even with every
advantage at your side, *can* you overcome it?"
Players track their success in overcoming a scenario's challenges through XP.
Their XP is their score in the game. They win points for defeating enemies and
recovering treasure. After the scenario has ended, the players adjust their
score based on the advantages they have taken when they began the scenario, as
follows:
1. The referee tallies up the number of enemies slain and treasures recovered,
coming up with a lump sum
2. The sum is divided evenly among all survivng adventurers, *including
retainers and men-at-arms*, though it is only recorded for PCs
3. If a PC is a higher level than the scenario level, they reduce the XP added
to their score by the ratio of the scenario level to their own level. (For
instance, if a level 3 character survives a level 2 scenario, they only
receive two thirds as much XP as a level 1 or 2 character in that same
scenario.)
I keep track of XP on a public leaderboard labelled "high scores". If a PC is
destroyed, they keep their place on the board, but they are labelled "lost".
Players have the goal of getting to number 1 on the leaderboard with a living
character, and holding it for as long as possible -- or at least of getting the
highest score possible in the shortest time possible.
## Difficulty levels
So far my players have kept to three distinct patterns when choosing their
resources for the scenario. I have dubbed these patterns "difficulty levels",
and they are as follows:
* **Easy mode.** Start with a PC a few levels above the recommended level range
and equipment and retainers and men-at-arms as you please. Choose a class and
race that will work well in the scenario, and set your stats however you
please. Freely increase PC level between sessions.
* **Normal mode.** Roll up a PC using standard methods, in a level appropriate
for the scenario. Increase your stats to qualify for whatever esoteric class
and race you please. Increase the level of the PC between sessions to stay at
a scenario-appropriate level. On your first expedition with a character, take
a small number of retainers and men-at-arms for free, paying their wages out
of whatever you win in the scenario. Track gold between sessions. On future
expeditions, pay standard prices for retainers and men-at-arms in advance.
* **Serious mode.** Roll up a PC using standard methods, including equipment and
money, at a level appropriate for the scenario. Once the PC has been created,
only increase their level when they have earned enough XP. Track gold between
sessions, and pay upkeep. Pay a fee to search for retainers and men-at-arms,
and pay their standard prices. Pay for training on level-up.
"Easy mode" is really a bit of a joke, and I don't expect many players to
actually use it. We play to test ourselves in overcoming challenges, so it would
be very strange to routinely lessen the game's challenge. Even so, some players
are insecure, or untalented, and still want to participate. While their skill is
in infancy, they will be able to play, though their scores will suffer.
Comments
Post a Comment