Inspired by Hargrave

Don't judge a book by the cover... gems within!

"Well you can't please everyone, nor do I try to do so any longer." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p12), on the topic of his new Hit Point system.

I really like this quotation. I discovered it just the other day while perusing the Arduin Trilogy from Emperor's Choice Games. It's one of many little gems that sit within the chaotic collection of suggestions that David A. Hargrave offered back in the 70's and 80's. 

The thing that I really like about that quotation is that it sums up the general attitude of this legendary GM towards the attitudes of others. He happily ran a very successful series of campaign set within his own created multiverse (note: not a single world, but a whole multiverse) which is now known as Arduin. His fans loved him... and he published his ideas in the spirit of sharing and recommendation. I am sure that, if he lived today, he'd have a cult following for any blog he wrote. Yet... he had detractors.

Hargrave doesn't seem to have allowed negative comments to phase him. He was running his own game, derived from D&D but very much customised to his own tastes... and those of his gaming group. He was supremely confident (at least in print) that his ideas were good. And, looking at them 30 years later, I am inclined to agree with him.

"Take a Troll To Lunch"

"As far as my multiverse is concerned..." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p13), on the topic of languages.

I've long been aware that, as a GM, you are encouraged to customise your game. This is a given in roleplaying circles. Except that it's actually rather rare.

"In my Traveller universe..." has long been something that I have understood and dreamed of implementing fully. Hargrave's approach to fantasy gaming goes further - he utterly customised the game to suit his own style, evolving a new game to fit his own new setting.

A couple of weeks ago I also took the first step in this direction. When I drafted up UbiquitousFantasy, a derived but modified blend of OSR rules, I was initially trying to widen the scope of my own homebrew game. Yesterday, however, I read this:

"Don't be lonely, take a Troll to lunch. The world is a smaller place, but it is smaller still in relationship to the myriad worlds of the entire Alternity (alternative eternities). Do not be a small player from a small world. Embrace the whole Almanity, and give the different types [of character options] a chance. I think you will find that the world your game is in will become a lot more fun if you do." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p10), on the topic of his new player character types (or classes).

Having spent time customising our campaign world in include, among other things, a Witchfinder based on the specific setting details that my players had suggested in-game... well, you can imagine how liberating that encouragement to try new things would feel.

It's your game. It's your rules. Even if it's not your world, it's still your version of that world.
Go play.
Take a Troll to lunch.

Heading Out Deeper

Have you ever considered how much your players would enjoy finding themselves playing in a truly unique and personalised game? Certainly we tend to like to use a recognisable set of rules when we first play... but, once a group forms, isn't there an argument that whatever happens at your table is really your business?

Think about it: once a group forms, you are under house rules from the get-go. Once a game is running, we tend to make small tweaks to even the slickest system. Why not be brave and go further, incrementally moulding not only the setting but also your rules to fit your own, unique group? I wonder if that might not be a more rewarding outcome for everyone.

Here's a thought:

"Please try some of the rules that you have doubts about in game situations and game play. Only through actual play testing can a rule or situation be fully explored. We have been doing that for years now. Anyone can pontificate on rules and worlds that they have never tried, and can never be proved wrong because the proof is only in the play." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p35), on the topic of rules questions.

Can we be brave? Who's up for taking that Troll to lunch?

Game on!

UbiquitousFantasy

This week two elements have collided and produced a whole new adaptation of an OSR-style game. 

On the one hand, inspired by my desire to blend the best elements of Castles & Crusades with Monsters & Magic, I found the time to draft the basis of something new: UbiquitousFantasy. 

On the other hand, inspired by the emails of one of my keen players, I've been seeking to further develop the fantasy world that we're currently playing in. Taken together, with a big dose of effort on my part, I've managed to put together something that excites... and which I hope will excite my players.

UbiquitousFantasy

We've been playing Castles & Crusades for a few months now. It's great: easy to play, easy to learn, lots of good and solid material. We like. Except that, having upgraded to Level 2 and being well on the way to Level 3, my players commented that there are really very few benefits from levelling up: in other words, it's a bit bland. That got me nervous about the longevity of playing this system.

Plus there's that pesky d20. Regular readers will probably realise that I don't like the randomness of rolling one die for action tests. For a long, long time I've fancied trying out 2d10 instead of 1d20... so yesterday, in a fit of creative energy, I wrote that into our house rules. That was how it started.

While I was in the process of writing house rules, I thought, why not introduce some of the other things that I've been mulling over for a while... and solve that blandness problem to boot? Inspired by Sarah Newton's ideas about Traits, I've modified the way adding the Level bonus works: in short, you get it when you invoke a Trait from your Race, Class or Personal Background. 

Taking things further, and inspired by the conversations with players, I also decided to re-write the classes to fit this change... and to introduce some Specialised Classes (or, to use another term, some Sub-Classes) which are customised to our fantasy setting. It was easy to do... and a lot of fun! Now we have options for a Lightbringer Paladin, a Ranger of the Wild, a Brotherhood Assassin and a Lightbringer Witchhunter. Each blends elements from both the C&C and M&M classes into something... different.

Finally, at least for now, I decided to adopt the idea of an Invocation Test for the Clerical Miracles (my new words for, "making a magic test to cast a clerical spell"). This forms the basis for a cool rule on organising Rituals with many participants and miracles which are upgraded by particularly high Invocation rolls.

Tikhon

Tikhon is a popular saintly name in the Russian Orthodox Church, meaning "hitting the mark". As the setting we're playing in has been doing just that with the group, it seemed a cool name for the world. Welcome, therefore, to Tikhon. 

On top of this, working with the players on their character backgrounds, I've been gathering more and more detailed material for the world. As the players work with me on creating the setting, it is long overdue to codify what we have so far. Thus, this weekend, I'm beginning just that process - typing up the notes.

What's cool is that their ideas, as players, are fuelling my creative process... in truly collaborative style we are producing something far more interesting than might have been expected. Combining this creativity with a desire to customise the game to fit the setting, rather than forcing the setting into a generic rule set, is not necessarily innovative... but it is something that I've never managed to do before. I've even gone as far as to commission a map for the area we've been playing in.

Being Bold

There's a massive risk involved in all of this: it might not work as well as we hope. The challenge, at least for me, is to be brave and bold. If past gaming failures have taught me anything it's that you can't keep doing the same things over and over, hoping that something will click. 

What has made the one-off Hunt for Gerulf adventure turn into the birth of the World of Tikhon has been boldness: a decision to wing a game off of a one sentence premise gave us Mortenburg and Gerulf's Raiders; another decision to introduce clues to the Moon Gate led to the birth of a conspiracy tale. The courage to listen to the players is leading me into a brand new and exciting setting, played with some customised house rules.

What's next? Well, next week's session is looming... will this all pay off? Fingers crossed... but you can't go through life wondering what might have been, can you? I reckon it's much more fun to risk failure on the opportunity of creating something really cool.

Game on!

Of Monsters & Magic

Because of the way the game felt on Friday night, I was feeling rather despondent about our fantasy campaign. I wasn't feeling at all happy with the game I'd run. 

Weirdly, however, some thoughts and reflection have opened up some fresh ideas that I wanted to share with you... and it's mostly inspired by a woman I've never met...

Meet Sarah Newton

I'd never heard of +Sarah Newton until about a week or so ago. She's an author and gamer, the founder of Mindjammer Press. What grabbed my attention was a G+ post about her game, Monsters & Magic. 

Having read a preview article or two on the website, I was tempted enough to download the .PDF of the game. I am hugely glad that I did... not least because it has inspired a whole raft of thoughts that I hope will be inspiring improvements in my fantasy and SF roleplaying experience.

Monsters & Magic

Sarah's game takes the OSR material from classic D&D and makes it possible to adapt any addition (whether past or present) to a more modern style of play. She describes it as, "combining the atmosphere of classic fantasy games with modern RPG mechanics."

Last weekend, having begun to read Monsters & Magic, I was inspired! What struck me so keenly has been the encouragement to take Sarah's game engine and customise it to suit my own fantasy worlds... nay, even my SF ones! 

What's so inspiring?

In truth, everything and nothing.

There are three things that I like about Monsters & Magic:

• Replacement of the d20 with 3d6... but retaining the same old familiar stat values.
• Addition of her innovative new "Effect Engine", in which new RPG mechanics meet old.
• Encouragement to customise and personalise your fantasy experience without breaking the game.

On top of those, I really like the fact that she wrote the game with only about four experience levels of play in mind. Right there, on page 4, lay the things that really set my mind to wondering:

"While Monsters & Magic is a standalone game, we anticipate you’ll use it with your favourite classic fantasy RPG books — bestiaries, spell books, equipment, magic items, and adventures. So, we’ve provided enough spells, monsters, equipment, and magic to take you to roughly the 4th level of play — but assume you’ll also incorporate material from your favourite classic fantasy resources to support your game."

And also:

"Monsters & Magic is a modular ruleset. You don’t have to use all the rules: if you have a favourite old school rule you want to use instead (say, different experience levels, or rules for treasure), then go ahead and use it — you won’t break the game."

The game actively encourages that which most RPG publishers avoid: take stuff from wherever you like, fit it into this game system, and make it your own.

That's the thing that set me to thinking...

Generic Doom

Most D&D derivatives (including Monsters & Magic) are generic: they present a framework for playing exciting fantasy roleplaying games in a broadly medieval style setting. The assumption is that the GM will make the game their own and colour the world in their own shades. In my experience, however, this is usually done in the most cursory manner.

When we began playing Castles & Crusades, the system we decided to use for our current fantasy game, the appeal was simplicity and ease. Having just run a playtest of the new Rolemaster, my guys were hankering for an easy-play Friday night escape game. Realising that you have to run the game the players want to play, I opted to keep it simple.

Things had been going well: four or five sessions under the belt, the birth of a new homebrew fantasy setting, and highly engaged players. The combination of the advice from Brian Jamison's "Gamemastering" and the simple rules from C&C were a great starting point.

What has gone wrong, however, is that I've been labouring to run another D&D derivative generic setting. Having limited time, I've not really begun to really tailor our game to my own tastes as well as those of the players. Gloomy and bored, I approached Friday feeling that something was missing... and it was noticable.

Customised Encouragement

Sarah's game reminded me that, no matter what I play, I need to be able to customise it. Monsters & Magic is the game that, although built to support whichever generic fantasy you want to play, actively encourages (nay, requires) you to customise. Thanks, Sarah - because otherwise, it's fair to say, I think our campaign would wither and die.

Here are three things that Sarah has inspired:

1. Customised Sub-classes: Ian plays an "Assassin". I want to give him a buzz and offer him rules for the "Witchfinder" that he is actually playing, designed just for our game.
2. Customised Traits: Mark plays a Cleric. I want to give him some specific abilities that reflect his role as a "Priest of Helles, the Lightbringer". 
3. Customised Setting: We're playing in our world. I want to import ideas from several other OSR games, blending in materials that will make this our own.

All of this is possible with Monsters & Magic. Heck, all of it is possible with Castles & Crusades... but I don't really know how much that'll affect the balance of things. 

With Sarah's game, well... "you won't break the game." 

If you've not yet had a look at it, I recommend it... right now, it's a $10 download.

Game on!

Dungeoneering Revisited

This week off work has been a real blessing, despite having developed the inevitable common cold and weekend lurgy. One of the reasons for feeling so positive, apart from having my wife off work for a couple of days too, was that I've had time to really dig into my hobby.

Regular readers (yes, you hallowed few!) will know that I've been really wrestling with what it means to Gamemaster roleplaying sessions lately.

You'll also realise that I have felt considerable pull in two entirely different directions:

• On the one hand I'm seeking to develop a really engaging and engrossing SF roleplaying game for my regular group; 
• On the other hand I am wanting to immerse myself into the OSR trend towards looser games in the fantasy genre. 

This week has opened my eyes to the possibility of doing both.

Dungeons

What is it about dungeon adventures that so attracts me to want to run one again? Is it just nostalgia for a mythical style of play? Well... no, not for me.

Lately I've run a dungeon adventure for a bunch of teens and, despite two TPKs in recent weeks, they keep coming back for more. One of the reasons for their enthusiasm, however, is definitely my own enthusiasm; in short, I've really enjoyed it.

Dungeons are low-intensity and low-pressure games for me. Once I have a dungeon to use I feel very comfortable in running the players through it. The relatively constrained environs in some way open up my ability to roleplay in a more relaxed manner. It's odd but, for me at least, giving a game clear boundaries helps me to feel more free in my choices.

Writing My Own

Here's a confession: I don't think that I have written and run a dungeon adventure since I was a teenager. 

I've run other people's dungeons. I played in other people's dungeons. But I've not written one myself for more than 25 years. 

I've been asking myself why. The answer is that I am both scared and lazy.

Scared? Yes. What if I write a crappy dungeon?

Lazy? Indeed. Designing an adventure with a dedicated dungeon map is actually a lot more work than most gaming sessions.

So... why bother? Answer: It's about time to scratch that itch.

Easter Crusade

As with all projects, it's important to set a target deadline and set your goals out clearly. I've decided to invite some friends to a session during the impending Easter holidays, giving me around 5 weeks to write an adventure. 

The title comes from the combination of timescale (Easter) and my initial intention to try out the Castles & Crusades system for the game (Crusade). Of course, right now, I am really being tempted by OSRIC (essentially 1e D&D) because of the added complexity... and several other OSR titles too because of their faithful followings online.

All that aside, the main focus has been to come up with an adventure idea and turn it into a cool one-day 8-hour roleplaying session for my friends. 

Challenges so far...

What I wanted to share, however, were the challenges that I seem to face in getting this dungeon written.

Firstly, I have only the vaguest of adventure ideas running around my head: I want to feature a Paladin and a Cleric; I want to do a dungeon raid of some kind, with really clear goals; I want to run it with 3rd level characters, probably pre-gens convention-style. 

Secondly, I haven't designed a dungeon map for more than 25 years. It actually is a bit of an art to do well, so this seems daunting.

Thirdly, I don't want to set it in any pre-generated setting, either of my own or anyone else. In one sense, the adventure will be the beginning of a new setting... but also, very likely, a stand-alone event. That almost gives me too many choices.

Solutions are, however, at hand. 

A copy of The Tome of Adventure Design has proven a really positive tool to get my creative juices flowing. I'm going to review it in more detail at the end of the project, but so far it has proven a valuable mine of cool ideas and systems for dungeon-building.

I've also bought in some squared-paper, tracing paper, pencils, a pencil-sharpener and an eraser. Actually handling these items has really brought my enthusiasm to boiling point. 

It's weird but, in some way, the only thing that seems missing is the idea to get me started.

What's Next?

I guess I am just going to begin and see where this project takes me. Perhaps by sharing the process and thinking out loud with you guys I'll feel spurred to complete it. 

What do I need from you? Maybe some encouragement, advice or ideas. Oh, and if you're local to Nottingham (UK) and you fancy a game, maybe you'd like to come take a seat at the table.

Here's to my first dungeon in more than 25 years. Game on!

Three Ways to Roleplay?

This last week or so has been a welcome time because, having some time away from work, I've been able to dip deeper into some of the not-so-random thoughts that have been dribbling around my mind.

One of the most pervasive ideas that has really struck me this week has been the way in which, at any given time, I seem attracted to three different styles of roleplaying games.

Style One: Character-focused

Getting together with the guys in my regular group over the last few days, to create characters for the Serene Dawn game using Traveller5, was a really positive time for me as Gamemaster. 

Here I have been applying some of the techniques gleaned from Brian Jamieson's Gamemastering and really focusing on generating a game based on the desires of the players. This style is the one which I really hanker for a great deal: the development of my GMing to a more engaging and deeper level. 

Character-focused gaming is about really engaging the players in the collaboration that is roleplaying games. It's the adventure flowing from the ideas that a group of people bring to the table in a serious attempt to tell tall tales together.

Character-focused gaming is also the most hard work. It requires dedication as GM and lots of input from the players. The rewards are great... but the effort is demanding. 

But then anything worth doing...

Style Two: Low-intensity

For a long while this was what the group wanted. We did it with D&D4e before... admittedly badly, in my honest opinion. Yet, this is the game of the end-of-week adventure. 

Low-intensity is about rolling up some characters, using the standard character archetypes, and letting rip with the action. The investment is lower than that mentioned above but the rewards are still pretty good. Perhaps the stories are more stereotypical and straight-forward, not taking time to connect the players to their characters too greatly... but these games are fun.

For me, this is the realm of the Dungeonmaster. It doesn't have to be fantasy, of course... but it quite commonly is. I've played games of Hunter and Buffy, Star Wars and Star Trek in this style... and I've played D&D and other OSR games in this style too. 

It's about an evening of simple entertainment. It's about mates rolling dice and telling tall tales of derring-do and danger.

These are the games that I miss when I've been running a game for weeks, nay months, and I just fancy a knock-about. It's not quite beer-and-pretzels... but it's certainly not high-brow or deep thinking.

But then there's nothing wrong with a good delve, eh?

Style Three: Quick Bash

Simple rules, simple scenario, very low investment in effort. That's the promise of the quick bash.

I've noticed a recent trend towards this arising out of the blend of the OSR and the simple enjoyment of board games. I'm not entirely sure if it's 100% my cup of tea... but then, sometimes, you just want a quick cup of tea with a biscuit, eh?

How about you and your mates come around and we just knock out a quick dungeon bash? Or maybe we run some skirmishes in an arena? Or a quick cyberpunky mission? Nothing much... maybe the equivalent of a short convention scenario, with pre-gen or quick-gen (because the rules are really lite) heroes. A couple of hours or so, bang, we're done.

Sound good?

But then sometimes you just want to blow off steam, right?

No One Style

For a long time I thought that maybe I was on a quest from Low-intensity towards Character-driven gaming. In some way I used to think that, ultimately, I was going to be a great GM when all my games felt like hard-bitten adventure tales which engaged my players in deep roleplaying all of the time.

Then I woke up.

The reality is simpler. 

Yes, I'd love to produce a detailed Character-driven game. I'm working on one right now, actually. Nothing wrong with that aspiration. Yet... I'd also like to run a one-off Low-intensity game with Castles & Crusades quite soon. And I'm not averse to a simple Quick-bash to either test some rules or just have a laugh either.

Honestly? I think that we might just need all three styles. It's about a mix. Variety = spice, right?

Yeah, I want to produce some really dramatic and exciting gaming experiences with my friends. But I also want to, even if occasionally, just have some laughs. It's horses for courses, as they say... and when the mood takes me I want to delve dungeons just as much as I want to roleplay a complex character.

Are you allowing yourself to taste the buffet? Or are you restricting yourself to one style? 

Why not try something different next time?

Old School Renaissance?

Three young players sat down at the table, ready to face the second instalment of the dungeon adventure that they'd begun a couple of weeks before. 

A Fighter, a Cleric and a Magic-User. The spartan character sheets in front of them, their first challenge was in deciding to turn back and retrace their steps in the dark. 

Asked for clear directions, the players looked at the GM in mild horror: why hadn't they taken his advice and drawn  a rough map of the way in? 

Shrugging their shoulders they began to discuss the route... and, nervously, the leader of the group gave instructions for the way back...

It'd be easy to roll your eyes and tut at the pedantic nature of asking players for directions when retracing their steps in the dungeon. Yet, this scene comes from a game I ran for 3 twelve/thirteen year-old boys at the school club just last week. They were grinning from ear-to-ear once they realised that, after a two-week gap, they had remembered the route back. One of them told me he got a real kick out of having to solve the problem.

It gets worse. This particular group of players has just rolled up their first set of characters using the Swords & Wizardry rules. They had to do this because they suffered their second TPK (total party kill) in that dungeon. 

The first set of adventurers was chosen from a selection of 6... and they died, throats ripped out by Giant Rats. The second set, who got a quite a bit further into the dungeon and then decided on that turn-around above, lasted maybe another hour before they got overwhelmed by Ghouls. Paralysis sucks.

What was the reaction of the group? Whining about how unfair it was? Asking why the dungeon was "so unbalanced"? Screaming insults at the GM because of the effort they'd expended on the dungeon so far? No. None of those. 

A deep breath was taken and slowly exhaled. A exchange of glances from player to player, followed by a couple of slight nods of the head. And then, with a smile on his face, the boldest of these players turned to me and asked: "Can we roll up our own heroes this time? We'd like to have another go."

Experimenting With Teenagers

I've been experimenting on teenagers. Not chemicals or anything medical, don't misunderstand me. Just experimenting with them using roleplaying games. 

Last year I opened the club and we played the "New School" rules set, Pathfinder. They liked that well-enough to play through the Beginner's Box dungeon and then start to play another adventure. Once we got out of the dungeon, though, they lost interest. I was taken aback but just rolled with it. The question was, however, "why?"

We fiddled around the edges of roleplaying since. A false start or two with various games because I couldn't pin down what they so obviously wanted. I was kind of blinded by my own preconceptions and ideas, to be honest.

To be clear: they wanted another dungeon. They wanted to beat it.

I gave them "The Temple of the Iron God". I rolled out Swords & Wizardry. We've had 5 sessions, 2 TPKs, have killed 7 heroes, lost one player, are about to gain a new player, and rolled up the next set of heroes. I've also allowed them to level-up these new characters to Level 2.

Right now, they are hooked. They want to "do" that dungeon. They tell me they've learned a lot too: to make a map, to back out of fights when they look too tough, to sneak past the goblins and ghouls, not to let the big nasty out of the cage, and to leave the big bowl of silver coins alone. They tell me all of this with big smiles.

What Does "Old School" Mean To You?

For a while I thought that "Old School" just meant D&D retro-clones or playing 0E. The story above would seem to reinforce that idea. But it's not just that. Actually, the system doesn't particularly matter.

Old School is about a style and approach to roleplaying games that I've found myself missing. And it's not just nostalgia. It's about recapturing a way of playing that had me sitting in that player's chair, grinning from ear to ear, while my hero lay in a bloody and battered heap.

Old School has some qualities that I'm only just beginning to quantify and reflect on. The following points are a starting point... where I am up to right now. They are not definitive or complete.

Old School includes:

• A group of relatively weak characters who, over time, given some skilful play and luck, will become heroes of note.
• Adventures which present situations in which the players of those characters must be challenged to guide their would-be heroes through to a hard-earned victory.
• Stories in which the outcome is unknown and dependent on the skilful play of the players, not just the roll of dice or the pre-determination of the GM.
• Dealing with what you are presented with and not expecting it to be "fair" or "balanced".
• Detailed description of most actions taken by both the characters and the NPCs, instead of reliance on a die-roll to test some statistic on the character sheet.
• Generally less-detailed rules and perhaps more detailed setting; the focus of the GM is moved away from the rules mechanics and towards creating and presenting each imagined scene.
• A consensus between players and GM in which all understand that poor play will lead to character death.

Maybe that's not what it means to you... but it's definitely what I've been discovering with my teen group.

One Step Further...

I'm taking things another step forward this week. I'm about to experiment with my adult group too. 

(Sshhhh. Don't tell them.)

There are some major differences with my adults in what they want. A simple dungeon, for example, will not be enough. They want a different level of sophistication in their gaming. They just haven't figured out what it is yet... but they know it's not a return to D&D4e kill-hunts and they tell me it includes investigation and roleplaying, not roll-playing.

Enter the OSR.

We're going to try out my theory.

Here's what I am going to do:

• Show them a choice from some pre-generated, relatively weak heroes who (if played long-term) have the potential to become something great.
• Give them an adventure which presents situations in which the players are challenged to guide their would-be heroes through to a hard-earned victory.
• Present a story in which the outcome is unknown and dependent on the skilful play of the players, not just the roll of dice or the pre-determination of the GM.
• Provide the players with a mystery to be solved and a challenge to be overcome, without much regard to how "fair" or "balanced" the situation is for the characters.
• Focus on providing and requiring detailed description of scenes and actions, and not allowing them to just "get away" with making a simple die roll off their sheet.
• Using a simpler, lighter rules set to help take the focus off mechanics: we're going to try Castles & Crusades.
• Make sure the players understand that character death is a possibility avoidable through skilful play and a bit of luck.

This Is Scary

Experimenting with my gaming groups is scary. The reason is that not everyone is going to enjoy the experience. 

In my school group we lost one player. We are also gaining a new player. The reason for the player loss was that he didn't really want to PLAY. 

Some folks come to the session to unwind and hang out with friends. This one lad wasn't really too interested in the game as much as he was wanting to hang with friends. When the game got hard... and he couldn't just drift through to the end... well, he walked.

The new player has heard about the game. He has heard about the TPKs. He tells me that he likes to play games that are fun but challenging. He tells me that computer games get boring because, although they look great and have cool stories, he knows that (given enough effort and game saves) he'll eventually complete. It's not called winning any more, by the way: it's called "completing" a game. This guy wants to win.

Roleplaying games don't have winners, do they? Isn't this the thing that we tell ourselves and even print in every rulebook of any salt? Hmm. Depends on how you define "win". 

RPGs are about winning as a group. Together we struggle with the challenges and, if we are smart and a little bit lucky too, we get to beat those challenges. Our characters improve as a reward for our win... whether with XP, treasure, honour, kudos or just by being asked to take on another challenge.

For me, Old School involves genuine risk. Characters sometimes die. They get pounded by circumstance and tested by challenges. With good play and some luck the players win.

Goodbye to "completing the mission". 

Welcome to "beating the challenge".

Game on!