I Am For The Darkmaster, Actually

In my misspent gaming youth, there was a game that the other members of my gaming group spoke of in strange, hushed tones. A game where you rolled on chart after chart after chart during battles. Where critical hits were described in gory, R-rated detail. Where character creation took hours and characters could die in seconds. This game was called Rolemaster.

Whether or not Rolemaster lived up to the hype of those 8th grade memories, I can’t say. But I can talk about Against The Darkmaster, an OSR-style revamping of the rules from lead designer Massimiliano Carachristi. It may seem weird playing a product that’s built on nostalgia for a game that I’ve never played, but good OSR designs stand on their own without the need for nostalgia to carry them. Nostalgia, at best, is meant to flavor a design and smooth over a rough patch or two. How does this game fare without me fondly remembering the charts of my youth? Let’s look at the copy provided by Open Ended Games.

The book is a 570+ page tome with a full-color cover and crisp black and white line drawings in the interior. Art director Tomasso Galmacci is also listed as one of the interior artists and he nails the classic look of an 80’s rulebook. The work here reminds me of the sharp art in Forbidden Lands with some great full page pieces breaking up the chapters. Layout is kept to a simple two columns with scroll-like sidebars breaking in the text. It’s here where Against The Darkmaster starts to tip its hand that it’s not going to be a simple reprint of Rolemaster. Many of the sidebars scattered through the text offer rules hacks and tweaks with ideas that modernize the rules. I love it when designers offer these options in a rulebook.

The system starts out simple enough. Roll percentile dice, add them to a skill percentage and if they get 100 or over, the character succeeds. Roll over 175, and that’s a critical success. The success chart also suggests other modern elements, such as a success with a cost for a roll between 75-99 or a critical failure of 5 or below. Players can climb these heights (or fall into the mathematical pits of despair) because the percentile rolls are open ended. 95 or higher means the players roll again and add, while 05 or lower means the players roll again and subtract.

Combat and magic are where the charts start to truly make their appearance. Combat rounds are structured so that magic and ranged attacks sandwich melee action in a round. That allows for some weapon strategy too, as the longer the melee weapon is, the earlier it goes during the melee section. Instead of the base 100 target number weapons are rolled on a chart determined by their type of damage with each of the four armor types on the chart. If the roll is high enough, a second roll occurs on a critical hit chart also determined by the type of weapon. That’s where a short description of a nasty injury lives, along with some long term effects of the injury like a torn tendon or bleeding hit points each round. It also helps in the modern era for those with the PDF to print out any relevant charts and have them handy for each player’s damage.

Magic’s complexity comes in its versatility. The majority of the classes come with some level of inborn magic talent, with any classes having access to spell knowledge by trading in skill levels on a two for one basis. Multiple rolls for a single action slow down game play, but it doesn’t do so much more than separately rolling to hit and damage. There are magic points and modifier charts, but the real cost of magic is that if a magic user does too well, they run the risk of revealing the heroes to the Darkmaster and getting some supernatural goons sent to take out the good guys.

The Darkmaster is the main villain of the campaign created by the GM as a stand-in for them in the world. Rolemaster was related to Middle-Earth Role Playing and this element offers a chance to let the Game Master let their inner Sauron fly by taunting the PCs or sending some monsters to attack the party. It’s a fun riff on the wandering monsters concept and for those who might not have a fantasy villain in mind at the start of a campaign, the book offers a few charts for inspiration, as well as some sample villains and minions lavishly illustrated in some of my favorite art in the book. Creating a Darkmaster feels like a middle ground between the antagonistic play of early RPGs and the collaborative play of modern designs.

The Darkmaster creation is of the modern ideas incorporated into character creation, such as drives that come off as aspect-like ideas that encourage players to get into trouble to score advancement points. Players also get background elements that work a little like feats while also tying into drives and shared world creation. A character that has an Assassin training background is encouraged to make their relationship with their guild as a drive and the GM is encouraged to build the details of that guild together. While Against The Darkmaster is built by a team that loves the original game, it plays like the version of the game I would run: keep the stuff I like, add in stuff that fits my style.

If I wanted to run a game that felt like the weird, dark 80s fantasy of things like Dragonslayer or Willow, this is the game I would use. It’s heavier than my usual fantasy RPG choices, but sometimes you just have to play a game where you high five everyone at the table when you deliver a gnarly blow to the kneecap of the vampire king the Darkmaster sent to kill you.

 

[CapnZapp]

You know, I saw this and thought it was a clever, story-driven modification to enhance the role of the Dark Lord in high fantasy as a narrative driver (definitely a classic trope and one that suits itself to play as it gives a final enemy for the party to overcome). I was totally unaware of the Rolemaster connection. Funny the things you learn here...

Against the Rolemaster would be a different game system!

 

[CapnZapp]

The fact you can only parry against one opponent is a crucial limitation.

Playing RM/MERP you quickly realize that having the platemail dwarf soak all the attacks while his friends wreck the attackers is a completely overpowered approach.

It made us realize why D&D does not allow any meaningful active defense. (Then WFRP came along and reminded us that active parrying might feel realistic but doesn't appreciably enhance the game while actually slowing down gameplay. After all, a successful parry is dice rolling and mental arithmentic spent on... no change)

I'm almost inclined to rule that you gain only half the DEF you spend of your CMB. (Not "you can only use half your CMB", mind you, I mean "for every 2 points of CMB spent you gain only +1 to Parry")

Active defense should be relegated to only desperate times, not something you rely on during regular combat. Yes, the dwarf shrugging off all the attacks might be terribly effective, but it also slows down gameplay and isn't very fun for the Dwarf player.

Much better to make active defense less useful and reduce the number of attackers to compensate for active defense's contribution to survival.

---


If I understand Disengaging correctly it allows you to fully Parry while also moving away. That seems too powerful - it seems to be written from the perspective of you parrying while also attacking: that the price you pay for Disengaging is not attacking at the same time. The overpowered option, of course, is that whenever you parry, you parry completely - since leaving a feeble attack is just a waste of time. Better to spend all your CMB on parry so you gain protection that's actually reliable. But this means that a Disengage is everything a Parry is, plus more. Expect players that choose to parry to always take the Disengage action to maybe cheese their way into some free movement while they're parrying...

If you just stand your ground doing an all-out parry that's one thing, but if you also try to escape you should have to pay something in return for the movement. Perhaps the "you're limited to half your CMB" for parry while disengaging - after all you are focusing partly on your footing and escape route.

 

[Staffan]

As an alternative perspective: I strongly dislike binary abilities.

Mostly when they overrule the DM's ability to rule how the world works. Simple example: the 5th Edition Alert feat. The +5 to Initiative is perfectly fine, but then it isn't binary. The other part "You cannot be surprised" is god-awful on the other hand since it tells the DM that you cannot use surprise for dramatic effect versus that character. Absolutely awful game design.

I mean binary in the sense of "You have it or you don't," or possibly "You can do it or you can't" when it comes to tiered abilities. Not in the sense of overruling everything else in the world (though on occasion that can be useful too).

For example, in RMSS there's a skill called Frenzy. It allows you to go berserk, which takes a round and requires a roll. If you succeed you get various benefits and penalties as long as you remain in the frenzy state. There's no cost associated with using it, other than the fact that it takes a round and isn't certain. Improving your Frenzy makes the skill more reliable, but the actual frenzy state remains the same. In D&D you instead have class abilities like Rage. Rage just happens – you decide to activate it, and it's there. Instead, Rage is limited by how often you can do it. Getting better at Rage means either getting more uses of it per day, or getting stronger effects from it.

Or take armor proficiency. In D&D, proficiency with various levels of armor is binary. You either know how to wear a type of armor, or you don't and take various penalties. In RMSS, each armor type starts out with a large level of penalties, and you can learn skills that gradually reduce these penalties.

For most types of special abilities, I prefer the binary approach.

 

[CapnZapp]

I mean binary in the sense of "You have it or you don't," or possibly "You can do it or you can't" when it comes to tiered abilities. Not in the sense of overruling everything else in the world (though on occasion that can be useful too).

For example, in RMSS there's a skill called Frenzy. It allows you to go berserk, which takes a round and requires a roll. If you succeed you get various benefits and penalties as long as you remain in the frenzy state. There's no cost associated with using it, other than the fact that it takes a round and isn't certain. Improving your Frenzy makes the skill more reliable, but the actual frenzy state remains the same. In D&D you instead have class abilities like Rage. Rage just happens – you decide to activate it, and it's there. Instead, Rage is limited by how often you can do it. Getting better at Rage means either getting more uses of it per day, or getting stronger effects from it.

Or take armor proficiency. In D&D, proficiency with various levels of armor is binary. You either know how to wear a type of armor, or you don't and take various penalties. In RMSS, each armor type starts out with a large level of penalties, and you can learn skills that gradually reduce these penalties.

For most types of special abilities, I prefer the binary approach.

Okay.

We appear to be discussing the same thing insofar that "either you have a number of rages or you don't", or "either you can spend d8's on bardic inspirations or you can't", or "either you can climb at full speed or you can't".

What I dislike isn't "either you're a warrior and you can do warrior-y things, or you're not and then you can't".

What I dislike is when the rules does not allow for DM intervention, except the always underhanded "per rule zero you can always ignore all rules".

I don't want to be forced into appearing arbitrary by overriding or shutting down certain rules but not others. I want game creators to always take the needs of the DM and the story and the excitement into account, and never design any feature that takes away that control from the DM. Except perhaps a level 20 capstone ability, since at that level everybody throws up their hands in the air, and simply accepts that now its all gonzo for a mercifully brief time until the next campaign starts...

I can absolutely see how you end up designing a feat that says "you can't be surprised" in the sense that all the other implementations became complicated or unwieldy, and you realized that there just isn't any numeric or balance-related benefit by making it more complicated than it has to be.

But then you absolutely must write DM fiat into the feat:

You cannot be surprised under normal circumstances. (Allowing a DM to declare exceptional circumstances)

Whenever asked to make a roll to determine whether you succeed in not being surprised, you always succeed (Allowing the DM to determine you don't get a roll since the ambush was extraordinarily sneaky)

You gain a +20 bonus to Perception rolls to avoid being surprised. (Allowing the DM to set the DC so high the remains some risk of failure).

All these three alternatives are MUCH MUCH BETTER than the PHB language, which inexplicably and very shortsightedly takes the right to remove DM agency and omnipotence, potentially ruining lots of very cool situations.

 

[CapnZapp]

I also agree that it'd be cool to have abilities you simply cannot access until, say, level 6. For some reason D100 games generally avoid it. A level 100 character is essentially just like a level 1 character, except stratospherically better.

My guess is that D100 players want SOME level development but not to the degree represented by D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am thankful HARP exists since it tells me there is no inherent crucial quality to the MERP rules where on one hand you say movement goes before melee, for example, but on the other hand say "conflicting actions are resolved with an opposed roll" except, perhaps, nostalgia (i.e. the TRS in vsD).

A simple roll for initiative appears to work just as well for D100 systems, since HARP is one.

You do need to keep in mind that detailed things, such as "you haven't drawn your sword yet" is already penalized in vsD, so it doesn't feel appropriate to also apply an initiative penalty (like HARP does).

In the end, I ended up with a relatively simple approach for my Against the Darkmaster houserules:

Add Swiftness and one other stat, and divide by 5. That's your initiative bonus.
The other stat should be appropriate for the situation. In a situation where you're talking with duplicitous townspeople, the other ability could be Wisdom in place of Swiftness. (If you quickly intuit a fight is brewing, you can act fast) In an obvious martial combat situation, where you see bandits running towards you on the path, the other ability could be Brawn in place of Swiftness. (Warriors are generally quick to make up their minds when they understand the situation) If you're faced with an intricate trap with many moving parts, perhaps Wits is appropriate as the second ability. In most cases, however, doubling up on Swiftness is perfectly fine.

At the start of combat, roll 1d10 and add your initiative bonus. If you and some monster is tied, you both act at the same time (so you could kill each other, neither blow interrupting the other).

Designer Note: I expect the static bonus to be at least comparable to the average roll (=5,5) so that ability and chance has roughly comparable if not equal impact on the final initiative score. Perhaps larger for slow starting characters, likely smaller for experienced capable characters. A character with +25 in Swiftness adds +10 for example (when using SWI + SWI / 5), and will thus likely never be dead last.​

​

I personally do not agree with systems where ability has a far higher impact and the random roll often plays zero role at all (such as the default system in HARP). Combat is far too chaotic to be that deterministic, where Bob always acts before Sue. Not to mention gameplay issues: how it sucks to create a character that can never act first. Why even bother rolling if the roll seldom matters?​

I will probably just do cyclic initiative (=not reroll each round).

 

[Delazar]

most stuff seems to be a multiple of 5... why not just divide everything by 5, use the d20, and make it easier to do math? Heck, divide everything by 10 and use a d10!

Edit: btw, I really LOVE the art of this game, reminds me of a lot of italian comic books from Bonelli I read back in the days!

 

[Topramesk]

most stuff seems to be a multiple of 5... why not just divide everything by 5, use the d20, and make it easier to do math? Heck, divide everything by 10 and use a d10!

Because d100s are way sexier! Jokes aside, I think someone on our Discord is already working on a d20 version of the rules, so you might want to check that when it comes out!

 

[CapnZapp]

most stuff seems to be a multiple of 5... why not just divide everything by 5, use the d20, and make it easier to do math? Heck, divide everything by 10 and use a d10!

Edit: btw, I really LOVE the art of this game, reminds me of a lot of italian comic books from Bonelli I read back in the days!

Lol you don't know how sacrilegious that question is!

One reason for using d100 is, of course, that you CAN have a bonus or penalty more granular than +5 or -5. Not sure if vsD features any +2 or -1 modifiers though.

I think the developers are from Italy, which would explain your memories...

 

[Topramesk]

Not sure if vsD features any +2 or -1 modifiers though.

We tried to keep them relatively rare, but there's a few. For example, the first 10 ranks in a skill give you +5/rank, 11 to 20 is +2/rank, 21+ gets you a meager +1/rank.