Of all the hundreds (thousands?) of houserule posts I have read from the OSR, one stands out in my mind as undoubtedly the best I have ever read and used in play. Trollsmith’s “Shields Shall Be Splintered” is a masterpiece of house ruling. The simple option of allowing a player to sacrifice his character’s shield (or weapon, armor, and even limbs if extended far enough) is the type of minor modification that immeasurably improves the gaming experience.
Why do I think so? I can give five reasons
that “Shields” is so excellent, each of which help define the “Less is more”
aesthetic that makes “Shields”, and by extension the best products of the OSR,
such an improvement over the rules-bloat and unnecessary calculus of industry
editions of Ye Ole Game:.
1) The best houserules are easy to
implement. “Shields” requires no extra calculations, charts or tables. Every
time I see an OSR post about an “easy” houserule that includes 3 pages of
tables or formulas, my teeth hurt. This is not to say that a good houserule can’t
be a table or involve calculations (“Tao of D&D” provided great materials
for figuring out agriculture and building structures, similarly Hill Cantons
has great world-building and reaction tables), but they must not be jarring to
whatever practice is underway. In the blur of combat a splintered shield fits
perfectly, just as a table of geographical features would fit when
world-building and calculations of acreage productivity when heavily into a
domain game. Context is everything, and a houserule that fits the context is a
good one.
2) The best houserules make the game feel
the way you want it to. “Shields” give the feeling of the fantasy literature
from which D&D takes its cue, and having a broken shield, weapon or bone adds
much more dramatic possibilities than a mere whittling down of Hit Points. A player
whose character is left unarmed or even maimed may feel more of an inclination
to surrender, sue for peace, bribe or run away from a fight, instead of
gambling on rolling a few criticals before his hit points run out and going
down fighting pointlessly as is often seen in hack-n-slash games.
3) The best houserules give more choice to either
players, DM, or both. “Shields” gives choice in two ways. First, the entire
gaming group can decide how far to extend the rule – can only shields be
splintered, or does the option cover swords and armor as well? How about an arm
or a leg? Second, the individual player whose hit points has been whittled down
dangerously must decide in the heat of combat what to sacrifice and when. In both
cases, both agency and investment/immersion in the game benefit from the
houserule.
4) The best houserules use what is already
there or give it more meaning. The game has rules for taking damage, and it has
rules for the benefit of shields. “Shields” simply links the two systems
mechanically, which heretofore had only been related thematically. Consequently,
both theme (fluff) and mechanics (crunch) are deepened by its addition.
5) The best houserules blend seamlessly
into the existing game, campaign or setting. Doing an Arthurian campaign where
shields and swords need to be broken occasionally? Use “Shields” and you’ll be
pleased with the dramatic surprises it offers, especially since no time is
needed to look up the rules’ effects. Doing a Jason & the Argonauts
campaign where characters are always outnumbered 3-to-1 and a broken shield
would be a death sentence? Leave “Shields” out of your final ruleset.
What houserule, OSR or otherwise, do you
think adds the most to your games? Does it fit the five conditions above, or is
it better for some other reason entirely? Drop us a line in the comments
section.
PS: You wouldn't believe the weird stuff I saw when Goo-oogling "shattered broken pierced shields" for this post...
Ah, "easy" is such a hard word to use. Every time I think the house rule I came up with is easy to remember and implement into every game, I realize, as soon as I start writing it down, that "easy" might be true for me, but not necessarily for everybody else. Or, at least, that my capability to explain a rule does not reflect how easy a rule might in fact be. Example (other than me trying to explain my point...):
ReplyDeletehttp://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.de/2012/12/aimed-hits-fast-and-easy.html
For me, it's totally fine. I wrote it, I know how it works. For others, I'm not that sure.
So maybe one more point on your list could be "The best house rules are well explained and easy to access". Now that I think about it, wasn't that one of the claimed advantages of OSRIC and (or?) S&W? That they were able to present the rules in a way people could understand easier than the originals?
Other than that I believe you're spot-on.
JD - Yeah, it's all subjective isn't it? Whatever works and is 'easy' for me might be incomprehensible or unwieldy or just lame for others. "Well explained and easy to access" sounds good enough for starters, but people will be getting different mileage out of whatever rule. This is why I like 'Shields', but extending it to breaking swords and bones makes sense to me, but not some of the people I played with.
ReplyDeleteVive la difference!
Thanks for reminding me about Trollsmyth's "Shields Shall Be Splintered" house rule. I remember reading about it ages ago, but forgot where it came from and what it was called. Bookmarked now, and forever.
ReplyDeleteThanks again!
--Dither