[Revels & Rhymes] A "World's 1st" Fantasy RPG That Never Was

[King Truffle IV]

Several years ago, I was roped into GMing a campaign for a small group of actors and theater geeks who'd begun playing rpgs as a way to practice their improv skills. It was a new experience for me, this borderline LARPing, where the players wore costumes and props, and some pulled Stanislavsky stunts by never breaking character, ever. Led to some great friendships and some truly epic role-playing sessions, and forever changed the way I approached my favorite hobby.

During that time, I began to wonder: what would the world's first roleplaying game look like if it had been invented by a Shakespearean theater troupe instead of a wargaming club?

After a few months of mulling the idea over, I sat down and brainstormed an alternate-universe "old school fantasy game" that used some familiar concepts like level-based advancement, six randomly-generated ability scores, and character classes; but used a rules mechanic modeled on Hazard, an Elizabethan-era dice game that was extremely popular in The Bard's day, and is the ancestor of craps.

Thus was born Revels & Rhymes: First Folio -- The Original Shakespearean Fantasy Roleplaying Game. The following notes have been languishing in my computer for about five years. I've committed myself to another project for the foreseeable future and probably won't be developing R&R any further for a long time to come, but I figured it was worth sharing.

These rules are nowhere close to complete, and have never been playtested, so I have no idea if they're broken or not. Hope you enjoy what's here.

Revels & Rhymes: First Folio -- The Original Shakespearean Fantasy Roleplaying Rules

[Scott Anderson]

Oh sweet. Thanks for sharing.

[Finarvyn]

That was an interesting read. I'd like to see it expanded.

[Recklessfireball]

This is very unique and clever. I didn't really care for the core mechanic, but it's something fresh and new. You should consider submitting it to 1km1kt website, if you haven't already done so.

[King Truffle IV]

That was an interesting read. I'd like to see it expanded.

Thanks, Finarvyn. I've decided to make this my weekend project, and my other project a weekday project. I want to clean up some of the rules, clarify a few things, and expand on the class abilities and maybe an implied setting.

Did you see anything you think needed expansion or clarification?

[King Truffle IV]

This is very unique and clever. I didn't really care for the core mechanic, but it's something fresh and new. You should consider submitting it to 1km1kt website, if you haven't already done so.

Thanks.

Yeah, the core mechanic is a bit weird, but then, I intended it to be. I wanted to pick something that would seem arcane to newcomers, but not completely unfathomable. That just feels "old school" to me.

I had no idea the 1km1kt website existed until now. Thanks for mentioning that!

[order99]

Well, I thought Hoodlums and Hideouts thought outside the box-but this idea makes both H&H and Mazes & Minotaurs look positively pedestrian! Looking forward to seeing more of this, if you're so inclined...

[King Truffle IV]

Well, I thought Hoodlums and Hideouts thought outside the box-but this idea makes both H&H and Mazes & Minotaurs look positively pedestrian! Looking forward to seeing more of this, if you're so inclined...

That is very high praise, sir. I love Mazes & Minotaurs, and now realize that I subconsciously borrowed the conceit of a "world's first rpg from an alternate universe" from them.

I'm really pleased, and humbled, by the positive responses I'm getting here. I think I will go share this on RPGnet and some other places, too.

[Zhu Bajie]

This is really good, I thoroughly enjoyed the short snippet. The concept is a neat, solid idea, and the statline makes a lot of sense. I realy like the "what if" concept, similar with Mazes & Minotaurs and Humanspace Empires, but this does a full 180. Nicely done.

I'm not 100% sold on the core mechanic. I didn't try it out, so it might be in the desciption of it rather than how it plays. For me, something along the lines of a Matrix game could work, and have a very theatrical / storytelling feel, although appreciate it's not reaily in the D&D framework.

From my school Shakespeare I do remember thinking the humours are much like alignments in terms of steering character attitude and behavior:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/shake ... umors.html

and speaking of school, this could be a great educational tool for those studying the bard, the idea definitely has legs.

[King Truffle IV]

I'm not 100% sold on the core mechanic. I didn't try it out, so it might be in the desciption of it rather than how it plays. For me, something along the lines of a Matrix game could work, and have a very theatrical / storytelling feel, although appreciate it's not reaily in the D&D framework.

I haven't play-tested the core mechanic at all. I just picked a dice game that was popular in Shakespeare's time, and is sort of familiar to a lot of modern people as well. Also, I think a clunky, weird core mechanic kind of gives it an old-school feel, but maybe that's just me.

I was trying to make up a game that blends Shakespearean and D&D tropes, without being just OD&D with the serial numbers filed off. I can imagine that Matrix-style rules would be something innovated for later editions of the game, thus sparking R&R edition wars.

I plan to develop it further along the lines of using the bidding-and-rolling dice mechanic of Hazard, until and unless it becomes clear that that doesn't work. The dice mechanic is just a straight port of a game that was played for centuries, but uses its concepts in a different way (bidding modifiers instead of money, for instance); thus, it is arguably the most play-tested dice mechanic I've ever seen.

I've thought about adapting the Humors as a type of damage track, but don't know how I'd use it yet. The simplicity of "hit points" appeals to me a lot.

Thanks for your comments.

[King Truffle IV]

Also, considering how they're linked to the elements, I think Humors could be the basis of magic... or maybe the categories of saving throw?

[Gold]

Nice of you to share the concept and your work on it so far. I'm taking a look and taking it into consideration.

[Zhu Bajie]

I'm not 100% sold on the core mechanic. I didn't try it out, so it might be in the desciption of it rather than how it plays. For me, something along the lines of a Matrix game could work, and have a very theatrical / storytelling feel, although appreciate it's not reaily in the D&D framework.

I haven't play-tested the core mechanic at all. I just picked a dice game that was popular in Shakespeare's time, and is sort of familiar to a lot of modern people as well.

I bow to your greater historicism! Working in an Elizabethan dice mechanic is a supurb idea, and no doubt very flavoursome once it is gotten into.

Also, considering how they're linked to the elements, I think Humors could be the basis of magic... or maybe the categories of saving throw?

All of the above The concept is very much tied to disposition and character. Magic has all sorts of interesting repercussions, from Alchemy to John Dees angel talking.

Look forward to seeing it grow and develop.

[Von]

I plan to develop it further along the lines of using the bidding-and-rolling dice mechanic of Hazard, until and unless it becomes clear that that doesn't work. The dice mechanic is just a straight port of a game that was played for centuries, but uses its concepts in a different way (bidding modifiers instead of money, for instance); thus, it is arguably the most play-tested dice mechanic I've ever seen.

Playtested as a self-contained game, played for its own sake. I don't know if that means it works as a core mechanic for a larger and more complex game, or as a means of interacting with imagined worlds. Playtesting it in the context of an RPG is the only answer. Personally I think it's a bit fiddly, and I think it'd be useful if there was some sort of guidance provided on the probabilities of nicking a particular main so that difficulties can be set with a degree of nuance and deliberate intent.

I also like the knock-on effects for character creation (any modifier being potentially useful means less fretfulness from people who roll low numbers… once they’ve understood how the game works) - but again, when we're at table and in game, simplicity triumphs and there's an instinctive Low Numbers Bad High Numbers Good factor that I find it easier to work with than oppose. The stats themselves feel a bit too close to D&D for me. I can see that you've moved some of the uses and implications and uses around, but ultimately there's nothing there that couldn't be done with the ones we know and love, apart from the switch to a 2d6 roll it ultimately feels cosmetic.

Classes are neat. Generally speaking, an opportunity for player choice should indicate something about how the world/game/setting operates. As a player, if I see the choice of 'human, elf, dwarf, halfling - fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief' I immediately have an idea of what this game is going to be like, and if you want to do something different you'll be fighting the generic expectations created by those choices all the way through. Here, the choice is ‘which Shakespearean stock character will you be?’ and that is an excellent indicator of what we're about. On that note, the use of different target numbers for supernatural stuff has a fitting 'feel' to it, and 'outside the main' is a nicely eldritch term.

Alignment feels a bit... OD&D reskinned, in terms of the actual descriptors involved. I'd rather see an admonition to create your own alignment structures. In Romeo and Juliet, whether ye be Montague or Capulet’s what counts – the needs of the play at hand determine the alignment structure for its duration, so perhaps determining the factions involved in your game and the characteristics of those factions and then structuring alignments accordingly would be a better call. I suppose Yorkist/Groundling/Tudor works well enough for, say, Richard III, as an example.

Across the board, I feel players might benefit from some more concrete modelling of a Shakespeare play into gameable terms, i.e. how alignment works in Comedy or Tragedy rather than History plays, what roles might be played by a class absent from the original text, that sort of thing. I find intelligent and useful DM resources more rare and more useful than new core systems, since everyone and their small but vicious dog seems to make their own mechanics these days and not everyone shows you how to do something you might not have thought of with them. This is a good start in that direction and I'd like to see you take it further.

Also, while hit points are simple, you've already stepped away from simplicity with your core mechanic, so why not go for a qualitative humour-based damage system? Off the top of my head I can't think of something that isn't clunky with too much granularity and book-keeping, or something that's not mechanical enough to be 'fair'... but the echoes of WFRP third edition, in which you accumulate Stress and Fatigue markers as circumstances prey upon you, seem to be in the right sort of territory. You might accumulate markers in a given humour as terrible things happen to you, which express themselves as modifiers to particular rolls?

I quite like this, but it hasn't quite convinced me not to just play Backswords and Bucklers - I feel it either needs to step away from the echoes of old D&D (six stats, three tiers of alignment, hit points) and become its own animal or settle down and be a potentially really good DM guide.

(And hello Dragonsfoot, by the way. I'm sorry if this is an inappropriate first post. Introductions have never been my strong point.)

[Finarvyn]

That was an interesting read. I'd like to see it expanded.

Did you see anything you think needed expansion or clarification?

Some general thoughts:

(1) I'm not familar with Hazard, and perhaps this adds to my confusion. It sounds like an interesting game but it's hard for me to see how it works as a core mechanic until I get the hang of playing the original.

(2) I don't feel as if I can run this "out of the box" yet. I suppose it needs some example "monsters" and spell lists or some such. It would be interesting to search through Shakespeare's works and look for quotes and/or examples; I'm not at all an expert on Shakespeare and would have no idea where to begin.

(3) I love the concept. I file this away in the "so cool but I don't quite get it yet" category, but it is intriguing!

[King Truffle IV]

Thanks again for all the feedback, y'all!

I'm still committed to the idea of using an Elizabethan-era dice game as the core mechanic, but I'm no longer convinced Hazard is the best one to use. Nonetheless, I came up with a simplified variation of Hazard that might be viable. And I've found another period game called Passage that might work even better. I've summarized them below.

Hazard
How It Normally Works: Hazard is an ancestor of craps. At the start of play, each player rolls 1d6. The highest roll is the Caster; ties are settled by a re-roll, with highest winning and becoming Caster. All other players are called Setters. The Caster throws the dice; if the result is between 5 and 9, this number is called the Main, and play continues. If it is not between 5 and 9, the dice are passed to the Setter to the Caster's left, who repeats this step.

After the Main is established, each Setter lays a wager, or abstains. If a Setter abstains, he can still wager in the next step. If everyone abstains, the game goes back to the step above.

After the first round of wagers, the Caster rolls again. This, and all subsequent rolls, are called the Chance. If the Caster rolls a nick on the Main, he wins, and collects all the wagers on the table, and the game returns to the first step. If he rolls an out, he must pay each Setter the amount they bet, and then pass the dice to the Setter to his left, who becomes the new caster.

If the Caster rolls neither a nick nor an out, this number is called the Mark. If a Mark is rolled (that is, a 4 or a 10), each Setter can increase their wager, and the Caster rolls again. This continues until the Caster rolls a nick or an out.

How To Use It As A Core Mechanic: Strip out the fiddly wagering and most of the "outs" rules. If a player rolls 7 or 11, he automatically succeeds (this would happen about 22 percent of the time, appropriate for a theatrical game). If he rolls a 2 or a 12, he automatically fails. Any other number becomes the new target number.

Now, he has a choice: he can withdraw, or re-roll a number of times up to the value of his governing stat (so, a Bearing 4, for instance, grants him up to 4 re-rolls). If he chooses to withdraw, his check fails, but he suffers no further consequences. If he re-rolls, and nicks the new target number, he succeeds. If he doesn't roll the new target, though, his failure is compounded by further complications. Each re-roll increases the magnitude of bad consequences that can befall him. However, higher rankings in the governing stat dramatically increase his chances of success, as well.

Modifiers applied by the Master Of Revels (the GM) can also affect chances of success. For many tasks, the Main will simply be a static number assigned by the rules or GM fiat. In such cases, 7s are easiest to beat, 6s and 8s are more difficult thus ranked as 1st-tier challenges, 5s and 9s are 2nd-tier, 4s and 10s are 3rd-tier, etc.
--------------------------------------
Now for the other popular Elizabethan dice game, that might work even better.

Passage
How It Normally Works: Usually, only two people play, using 3d6. Each rolls to see who will be the Caster. Highest roll wins. The other player becomes the Fader. The Fader bets against the Caster.

The Caster rolls 3d6. If he rolls doubles on two of the dice (a "doublet"), he adds them together along with the third die. A total of 10 or more wins, while a total less than 10 loses. If he doesn't roll a doublet at all, he passes the dice to the Fader, who becomes the new Caster and repeats. Wagers can be increased at any time by mutual consent, but not decreased or withdrawn.

How To Use It As A Core Mechanic: Keep the 3d6, look-for-doublets, 10-or-higher system at the heart of the game. This time, character stats are rated from 1 to 6, and can be used to "stand in" for one of the three dice, if desired. In such cases, only 2d6 are rolled. If one of the d6s matches the governing stat, or both d6s match each other, the three numbers are added together, looking for 10 or higher. If both d6s match the governing stat, it's a critical success, regardless of the total value.

As a variation, I could introduce "skills," also rated from 1 to 6, which also "fill in" for one of the d6s. So, if stat + skill match each other and = 10+ you wouldn't have to roll at all. If stat + skill match but equal less than 10, roll 1d6 and hope that gets you over the top.

As with the Hazard option above, modifiers could further affect chances of success. Tough challenges could be ranked 1 to 8 and have their value added to the target number of 10. Thus, to hit a creature with "Armor Class" of 5, you'd have to roll a doublet and get a 15+ rather than a 10+.

Third Option:
Use Passage-derived rules for standard tasks, and Hazard-derived rules for magic and the supernatural.

I'm likely going to keep the basic concepts of "class," "AC," "hit points," "saves," etc., to keep a certain "old school" feel to the game, the way Mazes & Minotaurs did.

What y'all think?

[King Truffle IV]

Playtested as a self-contained game, played for its own sake. I don't know if that means it works as a core mechanic for a larger and more complex game, or as a means of interacting with imagined worlds. Playtesting it in the context of an RPG is the only answer. Personally I think it's a bit fiddly, and I think it'd be useful if there was some sort of guidance provided on the probabilities of nicking a particular main so that difficulties can be set with a degree of nuance and deliberate intent.

Definitely a fair point. At first, the fiddlyness of it appealed to me as being the kind of arcane-seeming rules system that characterizes a lot of old school D&D from an outsider's POV; weird and counter-intuitive on its face, but comfortable and familiar once you get the hang of it. Now that I've learned about the period dice game Passage, though, I'm not so sure (see my previous post).

when we're at table and in game, simplicity triumphs and there's an instinctive Low Numbers Bad High Numbers Good factor that I find it easier to work with than oppose.

I agree, which is why I think Passage would work better for my needs.

The stats themselves feel a bit too close to D&D for me. I can see that you've moved some of the uses and implications and uses around, but ultimately there's nothing there that couldn't be done with the ones we know and love, apart from the switch to a 2d6 roll it ultimately feels cosmetic.

Yeah, this was intentional. It grew out of the conceit that this is an alternate-reality old-school game that would nonetheless be largely familiar to gamers from our world. See also, Mazes & Minotaurs...

Classes are neat. Generally speaking, an opportunity for player choice should indicate something about how the world/game/setting operates. As a player, if I see the choice of 'human, elf, dwarf, halfling - fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief' I immediately have an idea of what this game is going to be like, and if you want to do something different you'll be fighting the generic expectations created by those choices all the way through. Here, the choice is ‘which Shakespearean stock character will you be?’ and that is an excellent indicator of what we're about. On that note, the use of different target numbers for supernatural stuff has a fitting 'feel' to it, and 'outside the main' is a nicely eldritch term.

Yeah, each of the character "classes" I have here is a Shakespearean archetype. In an expanded text, I'd give examples of which famous Shakespeare character would fit in each class.

I feel the same way about "outside the main," in terms of both its math and its evocativeness, which is why I'm considering keeping Hazard as the basis of magic.

Alignment feels a bit... OD&D reskinned, in terms of the actual descriptors involved. I'd rather see an admonition to create your own alignment structures. In Romeo and Juliet, whether ye be Montague or Capulet’s what counts – the needs of the play at hand determine the alignment structure for its duration, so perhaps determining the factions involved in your game and the characteristics of those factions and then structuring alignments accordingly would be a better call. I suppose Yorkist/Groundling/Tudor works well enough for, say, Richard III, as an example.

Well, my choices here grew out of the fact that much of Shakespeare's work was written as pro-Tudor propaganda, and "Tudor" thus represented the order God intended for the world. Shakespearean actors inventing a role-playing would have taken this symbolism into account when designing "alignment." It would thus be seen as broadly applicable across all possible stories.

Across the board, I feel players might benefit from some more concrete modelling of a Shakespeare play into gameable terms, i.e. how alignment works in Comedy or Tragedy rather than History plays, what roles might be played by a class absent from the original text, that sort of thing. I find intelligent and useful DM resources more rare and more useful than new core systems, since everyone and their small but vicious dog seems to make their own mechanics these days and not everyone shows you how to do something you might not have thought of with them. This is a good start in that direction and I'd like to see you take it further.

For sure. Though I'm gonna have to break out all my old Shakespeare notes and research papers for this.

I quite like this, but it hasn't quite convinced me not to just play Backswords and Bucklers - I feel it either needs to step away from the echoes of old D&D (six stats, three tiers of alignment, hit points) and become its own animal or settle down and be a potentially really good DM guide.

What is this Backswords & Bucklers you speak of? <does quick Google search> Oh my! Many useful tools there! Thanks for the tip!

[King Truffle IV]

Some general thoughts:

(1) I'm not familar with Hazard, and perhaps this adds to my confusion. It sounds like an interesting game but it's hard for me to see how it works as a core mechanic until I get the hang of playing the original.

I posted a more detailed description of how Hazard works. Upon reading it, I'm leaning away from it and more towards another Elizabethan dice game called Passage. See above.

(2) I don't feel as if I can run this "out of the box" yet. I suppose it needs some example "monsters" and spell lists or some such. It would be interesting to search through Shakespeare's works and look for quotes and/or examples; I'm not at all an expert on Shakespeare and would have no idea where to begin.

Well, through direct depiction in the plays, we've got ghosts, hags, and fairy beings galore. There are references to various other beasts, including cannibalistic blemmyes (mentioned in both Othello and The Tempest) and dragons (mentioned in King Lear). So there's lots to work with there. Also, the witches and wizards of Shakespeare are very much the "bell, book, and candle" sort, and thus would be very similar to standard D&D magic-users. The Tempest and Midsummer Night's Dream in particular are full of magical effects that could easily be modeled with D&D-like spells.

(3) I love the concept. I file this away in the "so cool but I don't quite get it yet" category, but it is intriguing!

[King Truffle IV]

So, I've pretty much decided to ditch Hazard and go with a variation of Passage. Here are the two variations I'm considering. Any math wizards in here who could figure the probabilities better than me?

Method I: Roll 2d6 and compare to stat.
-- Does one of them match the stat? If so, add both dice + stat together, hoping for = 10+
-- Do the two dice match each other? If so, add both dice + stat together, hoping for = 10+
-- Do both dice match the stat? This is an automatic success, regardless of the sum of the three numbers.

Method II: Roll 3d6 and compare to stat
-- Does one of them match the stat? If so, drop the lowest non-matching die and add remaining dice + stat, hoping for = 10+
-- Do two of them match each other? If so, drop the non-matched die and add remaining dice + stat, hoping for = 10+.
-- Do two of the dice match the stat? This is an automatic success, regardless of sum. Ignore the third die.
-- Do all three dice match each other? This is an automatic success, regardless of sum. Ignore the stat.

I know that Method II will produce successful results more often, based on straight probability. I'm just having trouble figuring out how much more often.

[King Truffle IV]

Upon reflection, I'm leaning heavily towards a 2d6 mechanic as described in Method I, above, with the following permutations:

Character abilities are rated 1 to 6. These numbers have three functions.
1) They serve as a fixed-value "third die" that can be used to produce matches on a Passage roll.
2) They are the number of times you can re-roll the dice if your first roll doesn't produce a match.
3) If two of your traits match each other, they can be paired together in some circumstances and thus possibly eliminate the need to roll at all.

Also, any roll that produces three-of-a-kind is an automatic success, regardless of the sum of the three numbers.

I'm also thinking of lowering the success threshold number from 10 to 8, so that characters with a 1 in something can occasionally get successes by means other than rolling three of a kind. Alternately, I could stipulate that 2 is the minimum stat for characters. And/or there could be modifiers added to totals produced from successful matches, further improving chances of success.

[King Truffle IV]

Also, I'm going to change the name of the Schemer class to "Knave," and the spelling from "Faerie" to "Fairy," in keeping with the way it usually appears in Shakespeare.

Using Passage instead of Hazard will require changes to the class abilities, so stay tuned until next weekend...

[Corwwyn]

Thus was born Revels & Rhymes: First Folio -- The Original Shakespearean Fantasy Roleplaying Game. The following notes have been languishing in my computer for about five years. I've committed myself to another project for the foreseeable future and probably won't be developing R&R any further for a long time to come, but I figured it was worth sharing.

These rules are nowhere close to complete, and have never been playtested, so I have no idea if they're broken or not. Hope you enjoy what's here.

Revels & Rhymes: First Folio -- The Original Shakespearean Fantasy Roleplaying Rules

I can think of just the module for this system

[Von]

Ah-ha, Truffs - I think I misunderstood the nature of the project. I can see how the alternative-reality premise might excuse a few things which I, from my "but I'll be playing the game in this reality" perspective might see as... inadequate.

I look forward to your DM advice notes - and you're welcome for the tipoff in ref. B&B. *bows*

[King Truffle IV]

Ah-ha, Truffs - I think I misunderstood the nature of the project. I can see how the alternative-reality premise might excuse a few things which I, from my "but I'll be playing the game in this reality" perspective might see as... inadequate.

Well, I'm not married to having a unique dice mechanic (though it is, admittedly, rather fun trying to come up with one that works). You should definitely stayed tuned. If I can't work out a mechanic that I really like, I might just revert to something more like D&D. Do you only play D&D, btw?

I look forward to your DM advice notes - and you're welcome for the tipoff in ref. B&B. *bows*

Yeah, thanks again for that tip! It's a good product, especially for its focus on pub-crawls over dungeon crawls.

DM advice notes on running a Shakespearean campaign will be forthcoming, for sure. Especially on areas like setting design, character tropes, and common themes. But right now, I'm focusing on designing the actual rules.

[King Truffle IV]

Current permutation:

Recall that the proposed core mechanic is now based on the Elizabethan dice game Passage (which played like so: roll 3d6, looking for two of a kind; if you get two of kind -- called a doublet -- you add all three dice together; if the result is 10 or more, you win).

However, most rolls in R&R will be 2d6, with a character trait replacing the third die. Sometimes, two character traits, if they match each other, can replace two dice, and the player thus rolls only 1d6 (or may not need to roll at all!). Also, any three-of-a-kind result -- called a triplet -- is an automatic success, regardless of sum.

Characters have six Traits -- Bearing, Learning, Might, Perseverance, Slyness, and Wits -- and four Humors -- Choleric, Melancholic, Phlegmatic, and Sanguine. The Traits govern their physical and mental talents, while the Humors measure their health, personality traits, and relationship to mystic forces.

Both Traits and Humors are rated from 1 to 6. At character creation, players get 21 points to spend on Traits, and 15 to spend on Humors. Alternately, they could roll 1d6 for each of the stats. These numbers are used as a fixed-value "third die" in Passage rolls, and are also the total number of times a player can roll in an attempt to produce a doublet. Thus, a rating of 1 means you get one 2d6 roll, while a 3 means you get up to three 2d6 rolls, and so on (though you never have to re-roll).

Many (but not all) challenges in the game will ask players to attempt to match two Traits, or a Trait + Humor, vs. target number of 10 + modifiers. Trait + Humor challenges are the "saving throws" of the game, and can be described by combining the name of the Humor with the name of the stat (thus, a "save" to resist a fairy illusion might be a "Phlegmatic Wits" roll).

In such circumstances, there are several options, depending in the numbers involved:

1) If the two Traits (or the Trait & Humor) already match each other, you would simply roll 1d6 and add the three numbers together, hoping to match or exceed the threshold of 10 + modifiers. (Remember, a triplet is always a success, regardless of the sum of the three numbers).

2) If the two Traits (or the Trait & Humor) do not match each other, you would roll 2d6, hoping to form a doublet, using whichever of the two Traits (or Trait & Humor) is higher to determine the number of rolls you get to attempt a match. If one of the dice matches one of the Traits or Humors in question, you would add that die, the Trait or Humor it matches, and the Trait or Humor that the matching Trait or Humor was paired with, comparing the total to the threshold of 10 + modifier. You would ignore the other die… unless it formed a triplet with the other matching die and either of the Traits or Humors involved. In such a case, recall that triplets are always a success, regardless of sum.

3) In case 2) above, if the Passage dice match each other but do not match either of the Traits or Humors involved, you would add the two dice together with the highest Trait or Humor, comparing the result to the threshold of 10 + modifier.

The character "classes" will now have sets of special abilities that allow them to influence the outcomes of dice rolls, or serve as modifiers to opponents' rolls. One of these abilities will be a class-specific Soliloquy, a character motive that can be used to change a result or get a re-roll, but only if it is spoken aloud by the player.

I'm going to try and make combat fast and deadly; most Shakespearean fight scenes have people die as the result of a single blow, or a small handful of blows. Combat results can be enhanced or mitigated by Monologues preceding attack rolls... and dying Monologues can have special, lingering effects on the killer or the world at large, if the dying character's player rolls well enough.

[Von]

Ah-ha, Truffs - I think I misunderstood the nature of the project. I can see how the alternative-reality premise might excuse a few things which I, from my "but I'll be playing the game in this reality" perspective might see as... inadequate.

Well, I'm not married to having a unique dice mechanic (though it is, admittedly, rather fun trying to come up with one that works). You should definitely stayed tuned. If I can't work out a mechanic that I really like, I might just revert to something more like D&D. Do you only play D&D, btw?

I look forward to your DM advice notes - and you're welcome for the tipoff in ref. B&B. *bows*

Yeah, thanks again for that tip! It's a good product, especially for its focus on pub-crawls over dungeon crawls.

DM advice notes on running a Shakespearean campaign will be forthcoming, for sure. Especially on areas like setting design, character tropes, and common themes. But right now, I'm focusing on designing the actual rules.

My apologies, old sprout; I don't have this board set up for email notifications, and it results in churlishness like leaving a post of good faith and character neglected for ten days. Shame on me and my descendants, etc.

Besides D&D, to which I'm a relative newcomer (I owned the edition which would become Pathfinder, but found it absurdly heavy going, its execution best left to a computermabob), I play and GM Advanced Fighting Fantasy, various flavours of Vampire: the Gothnonsense, the Iron Kingdoms RPG and Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. I've dabbled in a bit of Deadlands and Paranoia, but only as a player.

Your focus on actual rules is... par for the course, given the nature of your project. It's not how I would go about devising a game of Shakespearean fantasy, but I understand you're looking to simulate an alternate universe's design process, which is not the project I would take on. Godspeed you on the Devil's thunder, sir.

[King Truffle IV]

Your focus on actual rules is... par for the course, given the nature of your project. It's not how I would go about devising a game of Shakespearean fantasy, but I understand you're looking to simulate an alternate universe's design process, which is not the project I would take on. Godspeed you on the Devil's thunder, sir.

And my profoundest apologies for ignoring your kind response for so long in return, good sir!

My focus on rules isn't so much on simulating an alternate universe's design process as it is on evoking an Elizabethan mindset, by basing the rules on a dice game Shakespeare himself could have played, and that almost certainly was played by his troupe and audience.

Even so, as I think about it, I'm finding that the task of designing "classes" and so forth will be better facilitated by developing guidelines for a Shakespearean fantasy campaign first, and working backwards from there.

So rest assured, when I post an update for this project, that will be the main focus.

Thanks for reading.

[YnasMidgard]

Has there been any further development on this? I was rather curious about the idea.