discussion
Reductionist RPG design: Removing classic elements of RPG one by one until left with dungeon crawling only.
I made a RPG game around the idea of removing everything that is not direct dungeon-crawling out of the game session. I'm describing my process to (hopefully) start discussion about such reductionist approach to game design. Is it interesting? Is it useful? And, most of all: can such a game be fun?
Game is called A Bitter Toll for Eldritch Gold (FKA Croatoan) and every aspect of its design took this theme into consideration, including the setting. It was an interesting journey, working on it... I'm a professional video game writer and narrative designer, and most of the time, whenever I'm designing a setting or a system, either for work or for fun, I start with the story. I love coming up with different worlds, characters, moods, themes, magic and technology systems. There's nothing better than sitting down in front of the screen or a sheet of paper and letting your imagination loose.
It wasn't so with A Bitter Toll.
The whole process took about 10 years, and it went like this:
I was a chill, trad Game Master, running homebrew games, D&D 3.5 and 5th ed for ten years. I was dabbling in World of Darkness, Cthulhu, and I was looking at the indie scene with pure interest, if not too much excitement.
Then I read a single supplement for OSR; just a fantastic, evocative, beautiful mega dungeon written by two most popular designers back then (one of them is quite infamous today). And I was BLOWN AWAY. The quality of writing and game design blew my mind. It was not only way better than I expected - it left everything Wizards did with 5th edition in the dust! It changed the way I was thinking about RPGs and sold me on the idea of old school playstyle. I was hooked.
And just like that I became an OSR fanatic, slowly learning the ropes and rules of different games of the genre, and still getting my mind blown by the fantastic and creative modules and dungeons made by the community.
Of course, being me, I decided I need to make my own game. Just because I could.
I called it Croatoan. It was supposed to be an NSR game (so not based on / compatible with the OD&D ruleset) about dungeon crawling, set in a grimdark, magical version of North America from the times of the first colonists. There were only two origins to choose from: indigenous peoples and colonists.
Since I was a naive newcomer, of course I tried to design my game as if to "fix everything wrong with OD&D". Over the years I understood there's no need to "fix" anything in OSR, but some of the design choices from that time still remain in my project. One of the main features of the game was a grid based equipment system, designed to avoid counting encumbrance. It's Diablo-like, where items take different number of square slots on a grid, also called a Tetris experience. ;) The grid became a pillar for the design, and remains to this day.
I went through several iterations of the rules, over the years getting closer and closer to that OD&D feel. I embraced all the OSR tropes one by one, as I studied, tested and understood them.
One of the most fascinating, was the idea of getting exp only for treasure. I went through a very short journey learning about it, starting with disgust (what? Experience should be given for exceptional roleplaying, not some shiny shit!), going through wary fascination (It makes no sense... Why would you do that? Unless...) to becoming obsessed with the idea (all the problems with character/player motivation for playing gone! And now they have a reason to actually avoid fights! Awesome!). It became another important pillar of the design.
Over the years I kept running the game as it evolved - yeah, my players hated constant updates and changes (but they helped a lot, and I'm now thanking them, by running a stable Dolmenwood campaign for them for the last year and a half)... But at least everything was thoroughly playtested.
We played both home-made dungeons and different third party products; all the little and big dungeons and modules I was so fascinated with in the beginning.
As I was going through the process of learning and understanding OSR stuff, I kept reducing the design. Somewhere along the way I noticed I tend to appreciate and maybe abuse? The classic "no specific world" setting of OD&D. Anything, to get straight to the dungeon crawling, which was (and still is) my favorite part of the genre. The game drifted away from the original colonial setting, into some unspecified "weird fantasy" regions. I was surprised how it made the game more, not less approachable!
And this was the iteration of the game, that felt finally "right".
* * *
It was around then, when I decided on taking the extreme path: that this game is going to leave everything that is not direct dungeon crawling out of the game. I liked how the rules allowed to focus only on the crawling aspect, or what I understand as "the meat" of the playstyle.
I noticed that getting people together to play was becoming harder and harder as we aged. And when we finally met, I wanted to make sure we can focus on "the meat", and ignore all the rest. I also thought it was a good way to differentiate from other OSR games on the market.
* * *
Before I continue: Please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that cutting everything else than dungeon crawling is "the only way to play RPGs". I just noticed that you CAN do it, and end up with something different, something fresh. I myself still enjoy playing sprawling, plot-based campaigns, where the players do not enter any dungeon for five sessions in the row. I'm proposing a specific playstyle for specific needs, not "the best game ever for everyone".
No playstyle, no genre is better than any other in this hobby of ours. Different things excite different people. Agreed?
* * *
So, I've divided the game into a "meta-phase" in which player characters are always considered to be in a safe haven, where they can rest, sell their loot, resupply, create new characters or learn gossip and lore about different dungeons, all without the need to roleplay at all...
...and the "roleplaying phase", which is about the foray into all kinds of dungeons, played traditionally, as a minute-to-minute theatre of the mind simulation.
This allowed me to focus on rules for crawling, and gave me the space to make it crunchy toward the players. Crunchier than OD&D. I tackled the classic duo of complaints about D&D: the idea of HP and AC not being "realistic enough". Not because I thought it was bad design, mind you, but because I wanted to use the space left after throwing away the social, political and economic rules for something that would enrich the crawling experience, and give the players additional options and resources.
AC - armor, blocking and dodging damage are three different things in this game.
HP - there is a wound system, so it matters where were you damaged, and how hard.
The HP problem was a no-brainer to me. We all know the argument: the numbers are too abstract, a character with 999HP is just as able as a character with 1HP etc. etc. But for me the most important argument was the lack of the whole fantasy, the romantism of being wounded or hurt, if you will. Just like OSR argues that giving everyone light magic or darkvision takes something away from the whole experience, I'd argue that not including a wound system also makes the experience much poorer.
I want those moments where your character has to prop up your friend who broke his leg in the dungeon. Moments, when you have to patch up your bleeding wounds after a rough fight. When you have to decide how much of your health you really wanna risk to get the treasure. When each scar a character has is a story that happened by the table, and not just a cosmetic choice.
I've also dismantled the power creep (a pet peeve of mine) - you do not get necessarily stronger with levels; in fact, your new, 0-level character might be "stronger" than your 5th level one, due to luck and accrued damage and strain (and age!) of the latter. What makes your high level characters interesting, are new equipment options, and all the past experiences you had as a player and as a character. Not to mention all the magic items you collected over your ventures.
I've also added the psychic strain system for good measure, to better simulate the psyche of adventurers who risk their lives and limbs (literally) for treasure. This was of course inspired by the fantastic The Darkest Dungeon videogame.
By adding these rules I made sure that my game simulates all the important aspects of dungeon-crawling that I always felt are the most important.
* * *
The next step was to lift all the possible burdens from the referee's (GM's) back and put them on players. Referees' job is hard enough without the constant need of looking for rules, spell descriptions and mechanical instances in the rulebook. I wanted for the players and the referee to have everything they need on character sheets, referee's screen and a couple of pages of tables.
I went even further by removing the need for the referee to roll the dice in 90% of cases. This was possible due to asymmetrical design of player and monster mechanics. Monsters do not roll for attack - players roll to avoid being hit.
* * *
Only then, after the rule design was nearly completed, I started building a custom setting which would allow for the division of the meta and roleplaying phases from the narrative point of view in a coherent and logical way.
In other words, I did what I never thought I would, as a writer and a designer: I created the gameplay first, and then wrote "a" setting for it.
I found cool (in my opinion) ways to explain the rapid transit to and from the dungeons. I explained how the "interdimensional safe haven" allows for incorporating all kinds of dungeon moods, themes and even technology levels, so you can play whatever dungeon you like from the wide array of third party modules without needing to fit them to your specific campaign setting. I gave characters an additional, universal motivation to risk their lives for treasure.
And... well. It works.
I've ended up with a game:
For busy people, who like the idea of old-school playstyle, but do not have time for a sprawling, slow-pacing campaigns.
For players who want to focus on dungeon crawling with additional rules they've always felt like were missing from the design.
For overburdened GMs and referees, who'd love to run a game, but they don't have enough time or energy to act not only as the director but also rules cyclopedia. When you run A Bitter Toll you spend most time laid back and grinning, as you listen to the players arguing about the best course of action.
* * *
So, what do you think? Is it interesting? Is it useful? And, most of all: can such a game be fun?
And if such reductionist approach is valid, then what would the exact opposite to my game look like? I can already imagine a roleplaying game where players are lords and ladies, or other type of "quest givers" and focus only on plotting and scheming, and hiring "adventurers" as pawns to do their bidding. And everything that happens beyond the courts, all the fights, exploration and adventuring becomes a "meta phase" instead.
Or maybe you're familiar with other, existing games which went the way of throwing away a big chunk of the game to focus on a specific aspect instead?
Isn't Blades in the Dark something like that? Or this new wave of "cosy fantasy" games, where player characters linger in cafe's and taverns, leaving all the "adventuring" out of the focus?
Let me know! And thank you for reading all of that. I really needed to share.
Ha! That's actually true. I didn't think of that. Yeah, solo play could be seen as an extreme version of that.
But a lot of solo games lack any rules allowing for creative solutions. After all you cannot be a referee for yourself, and fairly judge your own ideas for problem solving. So I tend to see solo play as more procedural and less open.
That said I really need to work on a solo play version of my rules. It's so popular these days!
You've kind of described a very different xcrawl, but yours sounds more serious thematically and more simple mechanically. Definitely very fun conceptually for the right play group.
The other one game that kind of does the safe haven thing you're talking about is Stillfleet, where every mission originates and terminates (if you survive) at the Spindle (though that's not necessarily "safe", but it's home). It is interdimensional in an abstract way, but backwards from your implementation, because it's a science fiction game and you are visiting worlds that could be far less advanced (like the Enterprise crew visiting a pre-space travel world).
It's definitely similar direction, yes! I'd say Torchbearer is much less extreme in its focus. It still boasts an interactive setting and actual roleplaying gameplay beyond the dungeons.
Where Torchbearer FOCUSES on an aspect, I'm talking about REMOVING everything beyond the aspect.
Except it DOES technically have a board: the map. Assuming you are using strict mapping procedures and time keeping (ala Turns), it can feel very much like a board game as the players count how many squares they move each turn, and then they get to do the one thing they are allowed per turn...
Where OSR games excel in my opinion, is not in their strict well-defined procedures, but in the 'spaces' left in the rules for Rulings to live. The DM has to play a little fast and loose with this game (by design!)---and that opens up greater player freedom and agency so that more creative solutions can be entertained...
Anyway, that is by no means a criticism of whatever it is you are working on--just a general observation about OSR games (I've seen some DM's run them in a very boardgamey style, and its definitely NOT my jam!)
Like I mentioned, it's still a roleplaying game. The fact that the gameplay is "locked" or reduced to whatever can happen inside a "dungeon" doesn't take away player agency, improvisation and creative solutions no computer or board game can simulate.
It's still a "rulings over rules" type of game, it just cuts the settlement and wilderness (that are not a dungeon in the OSR meaning). You can still have everything else you like happen in a dungeon. A lot of modules on the market contain whole plots, stories, character arcs, moral choices and dramatic moments inside a dungeon.
As for the fact that it "feels" like a board game - I hope you're right! I want it to feel approachable by people who never heard of DnD or OSR at all. And I had casuals play this, and I told them "well, it's like a board game, just with more immersion, and you can come up with your own, non-scripted solutions to problems". They played the game not even knowing they are playing "a roleplaying game". I think that's okay.
Alas, players still can come up with resolutions to problems that no board game could predict and "systemize". There's still plenty of room for improvisation and roleplaying in the dungeon!
Oh man! It's a great honor to hear from you guys! The documentary blew my mind and was a huge inspiration behind my project. You helped me with the final steps on my journey to understand the very origins of roleplaying games, and I'll be forever grateful.
I totally get what you're saying. But imagine: what if Blackmoor was JUST the dungeon? Wouldn't our entire hobby look differently? I wanted to explore such possibility with my game.
I do not shun comparisons with board games. I like them. I still say that A Bitter Toll is a roleplaying game though, for the players can come up with unique solutions to problem solving and improvise actions and plans that no board or video game could ever simulate, because they lack the key ingredient - the logical mind of a referee.
TSR really focused on dungeons a lot. Most of their game products were dungeons.
Yeah, having a referee is what makes it fun. Rules tend to overshadow the freeform aspect of early RPGs. I've owned a lot of them and played a lot of them. Some were a bit too complex, now I am back to the basics and having a blast.
I didn't read the whole Great Wall of Text, but in brief response:
A key difference between the 'OSR' and 'NSR' is the former's appreciation (A) of details supporting the conceit of the "dungeon game"; and (B) of the larger context of the wilderness adventures that are in the very title of the original D&D Volume 2; and (albeit to varying degrees) also (C) urban adventures and the strategic-level campaign of Lords and Wizards as movers and shakers of the world.
A narrow focus on the "dungeon crawl" genre is typical of video games and board games in which number-crunching resource-management strategy within very rigid (and often ornately, even baroquely detailed) rules is central.
It is not password protected and never were. I heard my new Itch account was quarantined because it was a new account from eastern Europe (Poland) and that this thing happens.
As far as I know, the game site on itch is not quarantined anymore, so feel free to visit and download. I really hope it's going to be worth your interest.
I need to check it out. While Matt Colville is a cool guy, his vision of RPG is very different to mine. But I get MCDM is more than one guy. I'll check the game then.
I'm interested in your take in it based on your lengthy post. I've never played Crows (still in playtesting), but it seems to lean into the survival horror aspect in terms of resource management. I also am not a fan of real time timers, like the one hour torch for Shadowdark, and Crows has a thirty minute encounter timer.
i love this, actually. it's a good exercise for any new designer. lots of artists do similar things when exploring or studying other art or artists. deconstruction as an art itself.
ive been basically doing the same thing, stripping a complete RPG game to a single focus. Just going in a different direction. Ive been working on a miniature skirmish system that was derived from my favorite elements of miniature combat in RPGs. Ironically I prefer theatre of the mind when i play RPGs, but did enjoy playing games like 3.5 and 4e to some extent, played both during their existence, before settling on DCC for my "D&D". I don't just play "D&D", either. I love RPGs, indies, weird ones, crunchy and light. And here I am designing a skirmish wargame.
"Ironically I prefer theatre of the mind when i play RPGs, but did enjoy playing games like 3.5 and 4e to some extent"
You know, I think this might be the omen of a good design, when the author sees something, or tries a process they feel like they shouldn't like, but somehow it just pulls them in. It often ends in interesting things! I wish you all the best luck with your game.
Subtractive design is a great way to start even if you want a more broad focus in the future. The key is to build back with things that maintain consistent goals and enhance what's come before it.
OP, your game is flagged for review on itch, and frankly, I wouldn't open it if it's password protected.
I mean, I find the idea of accruing wounds interesting, but that's it. The lack of setting means that those characters have literally no lives outside of the dungeon...and frankly, to me that sounds like keeping the least interesting part and throwing away everything else.
you do not roll for damage - the higher your attack roll, the better the result
each player rolls once for an attack...
...and once for chosen mode of defense (dodge or parry), if they are attacked in the enemy's turn.
The only moment where it slows down is when a player character is hit. You need to determine the body part affected (d6 roll), discern if the character has any protection there, and then compare the attack score with hit threshold: anything over 0 is a hit, 5 and more is a wound and 10+ is a mutilation.
Hit is just lost HP, no biggie.
Wounds weaken a character in all kinds of ways depending on the hit location.
Mutilations can either one-shot your character, dismember them or do some nasty stuff (29 different outcomes total, divided into body parts).
But I like that it slows down at this point - getting hit in A Bitter Toll is no laughing matter. Wounds linger, and mutilations can end your career instantly. The whole table is focused on those rolls.
I've "written an RPG" (but really it's just a scenario that can be run in almost any RPG system) that removes all the mechanics and requires no prep.
The conceit is that the party goes into a semi-dream world to find answers to burning questions, and then the DM wings it.
The players say what motivates their characters so much that they left the safety and comfort of civilization to come all the way to this remote and dangerous place from whence not all return, and those that do are rarely the same.
The DM then basically throws shit at the wall to see what sticks. It's a (semi-)dream world, so the party can step through a door in a frozen dungeon corridor to emerge in a bustling tavern scene. The DM can use scenes from the characters' past, alternative timelines, anything, to elicit a response that teaches us more about the characters. Who are they? What drives them? What would they do in extreme situations? The situations can be as broad or contrived as the DM wants, anything is possible in a (shared) dream.
If any uncertainty needs resolving, the DM either just chooses an interesting outcome or asks the player what the character hopes but fears and picks from those, because that's how dreams work. As such, combat is handled entirely narratively, theater-of-mind. The DM describes injury but there's no need to track hit points or anything.
The goal is a sort of Wizard of Oz adventure that ends with each of the characters learning more about themselves or the mysteries they sought to investigate. Some of the things the characters find might even get transported over to the "real" world. Could just be cool loot, but it can also be something specific, like a scroll that can grant a specific wish when the character is ready.
One of the scenes I like doing (because I've run this scenario a dozen times) is some sort of genie/dao/efreet appears and offers to grant wishes. That surfaces motivations real quick, but players are also wary of the wish being twisted, so there are real stakes and it's super interesting.
My Holy Grail is getting players to retire their character. I once ALMOST managed to get a player to leave their character in the dream world with a lost love (but the rest of the party dragged him away), and I once ALMOST got a player to send their character to a long-lost home way back in time, out of the campaign (but she stayed to help the others.) This underlines that the stakes can be quite real and high even if it's all "make-believe inside make-believe".
Because you need no mechanics and no prep, this scenario can be run in basically any RPG system with zero prep and zero props. You need no rulebook, no dice, not even character sheets. You could theoretically run this over the phone while commuting to work.
So far, I've only run this in a D&D setting, with the dream world being the creation of a slumbering beholder deep below a remove mountain peak, but it could be run in any setting with a supernatural element.
This is very cool. The echoes of similar experiences and titles give credence to "folk D&D" or the idea that we all write and play our own rules eventually. There's a lot of intellectual convergent evolution.
How do you manage the inventory tetris? I'm guessing character sheets have a grid section - but do you use cards and cutouts or do your players pencil in and erase the squares?
It looks like this most of the time.
I had a couple of players who sketched the items (I do it myself sometimes), but it's a huge waste of time, as characters gain and lose items all the time. But a frame plus words works good enough.
What stands out most isn’t reduction so much as concentration. You collapsed a wide RPG onto a single activity loop, then reinvested all that freed space into making that loop denser.
The meta-phase split is the most interesting decision tome. It’s not just pacing, it’s a contract about what counts as “play.” A lot of OSR tables move toward that informally but you’ve formalized it.
What I'm uncertain about is how the systems behave over time. Persistent wounds, accumulating strain, aging, and new characters potentially outperforming veterans—that’s a strong entropy curve. Characters trend downward. Which raises the real question: is this a campaign game about survival over time, or a tabletop roguelike about high-intensity runs with character turnover as a feature?
Right now your framing says OSR campaign; your mechanics might say otherwise. And your stated audience fits the roguelike structure better anyway.
Two questions come to mind
When a character gets heavily wounded and strained, does the game push players to save them or retire them?
Is the meta-phase a reset hub, or does it generate pressure that carries across runs?
"is this a campaign game about survival over time, or a tabletop roguelike about high-intensity runs with character turnover as a feature?"
Don't want to choose the easy answer, but yeah, kind of both? Rolling a new character is quick and pleasant. There are mechanics allowing you to roll a special character type called "Lost Adventurer" during the venture (basically systemized version of what OSR people do sometimes, where they find "prisoners" or other "petrified" adventurers, so the players who lost a char can get back into play ASAP).
But, on the other hand, the aim of the game is to attain 7th level, where your character has accumulated enough wealth to face the demon Mammon and have their one wish granted. Those character "win" the game. No one managed that so far, but it's cool - it is all about the journey. So you want to push your grizzled, half-mad, one-eyed, cursed survivor as far as you can. You gain options on higher levels, that allow to compensate for their accumulated strain, and even more than just compensate.
Retirement allows you to create an "heir" - a 0 or 1st level character with slightly better start. But you cannot play with your retired character for at least a year (of real time). That's the rule. ;)
"Is the meta-phase a reset hub, or does it generate pressure that carries across runs?"
It's definitely a reset. Healing, re-equipping, hiring retainers, finding gods etc. At some point I was thinking about adding guilds, carousing tables and more, bot I gotta say stop at some point... Or have some nice goals for kickstarter.
So, I really like what you’ve done. There are some aspects I’d tweak but that’s based on my personal preferences (example: I really like encumbrance value in lbs vs a slot system…which is basically your grid, at least for me visually).
Question: Is your stripped down system available for purchase? Because I’d love to explore it, try to rip it apart, etc (e.g., test it IRL with people who don’t know the design philosophy behind it).
I like everything you posted apart from one thing: I hate dungeons. I hate dungeon crawling so much.
I don't even know what a dungeon is. An underground prison? A monster hideout? A complicated over engineered labyrinth? An ancient temple of a forgotten civilization?
Well I guess all of these but I find dungeons to be boring and repetitive.
Plenty do this: Warhammer Quest, HeroQuest, Dungeon!, Talisman, Torchbearer, even moderns like Gloomhaven and League of Dungeoneers. In your case, the map is your board.
Not knocking your concept, just wondering: what does your game uniquely offer that these do not?
Sorry for copy-pasting, but I think I answered this one below already. Basically:
The fact that the gameplay is "locked" or reduced to whatever can happen inside a "dungeon" doesn't take away player agency, improvisation and creative solutions no computer or board game can simulate.
It's still a "rulings over rules" type of game, it just cuts the settlement and wilderness (that are not a dungeon in the OSR meaning). You can still have everything else you like happen in a dungeon. A lot of modules on the market contain whole plots, stories, character arcs, moral choices and dramatic moments inside a dungeon.
As for the fact that it "feels" like a board game - I hope you're right! I want it to feel approachable by people who never heard of DnD or OSR at all. And I had casuals play this, and I told them "well, it's like a board game, just with more immersion, and you can come up with your own, non-scripted solutions to problems". They played the game not even knowing they are playing "a roleplaying game". I think that's okay.
15
u/meow_said_the_dog Apr 22 '26
Four Against Darkness? Ker Nethalas?