Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(2 edits) (+1)

I came across this game after a friend introduced me to it, and it looks really solid. As someone who tried making an RPG a while back that attempted to cover similar ground, you did a much better job handling these systems/ideas than I did. I particularly like the way that healing, endurance, rations, and travel all tie in together. I think that's a really elegant way of handling things. I also think your system for random stat generation is great, and strikes a good balance between providing random outcomes without being a slog.

I do have one point I'm not clear on though, and that's the game's general approach to combat. Trespasser seems to be taking the approach of a lot of OSR-influenced games where combat is something that should be actively avoided wherever possible, and that when a party has the choice between resolving something with or without combat they should always pick the latter (that's how I interpreted the first paragraph on pg 27, at least). It then goes on to provide a quite in-depth and tactical combat system, which I think is interesting, but it also seems at sort of at odds with that previous point. I'm not sure I understand the design intent here. Why would you spend time elaborating rules for something you want the players to not do?

My view has always been that the amount of space a game allocates to providing rules for something should correlate with how often it expects you to be doing that thing while playing. For example, consider a hypothetical game that spends 3/4 of its page count on combat and magic, and only two pages on crafting. I would interpret that to mean the game expects you to spend most of your time either in combat or working with magic, and that craft-ing  is a niche activity that will come up only rarely if at all. It sounds like that may not be the model you're working under. I would be grateful for any clarifications you could provide.

(2 edits) (+3)

This is a great point! You've arrived at the conventional wisdom that I am trying to challenge with the project. Conventional wisdom says that "combat as sport" a la 4E and "combat as war" a la OSR are fundamentally at odds, and I think you've articulated that very well. 

I don't necessarily think that is the case. Even in OSR games, combat is not always avoidable. Engaging with the combat system is necessary for progression: treasure and experience are often locked behind nasty encounters, enemies will rise up to present themselves as an existential threat that will need to be dealt with, etc. So I'd say, OSR isn't telling you not to fight, it's telling you to choose your battles wisely and try to give yourself every advantage before the dice start flying.

Trespasser is trying to do the same. Even victorious battles are costly, and victory should be carefully weighed against the benefits of avoiding a fight entirely. it doesn't expect you never to fight, it expects you to have discernment about when you engage, instructing you to choose your battles carefully. It even provides a retreat mechanic to facilitate this.

I think the paragraph you reference is intended for players coming to the game from 5E or other more heroic games, where they are expected to say yes to whatever battle the DM puts in front of them and fight it to the finish. That advice to pick your fights carefully is meant to be a clue that in a player-driven game, not every battle will be meaningful or necessary, and the party will have to be judicious about when it is worth it to fight. The Judge and the game will not make that decision for them. 

This is often the first thing people wonder when they look at Trespasser, so I'm glad you've given me an opportunity to talk about it a bit! I often describe the goal of combining tactical combat with OSR principles as a "peanut butter and tuna fish" sandwich. My goal is to make that sandwich delicious, as stupid an idea as it is! 😁 It's been a great design problem at the heart of this experiment that has kept me interested in it a lot longer than I thought I would be! But I think Trespasser has struck a good chord in the current edition. 

(+2)

And to add just a little more context, I started out making this game for my table, who always felt that OSR didn't have enough to grab on to to keep them interested. We all really like picking character options and moving miniatures around a table, but I wanted to try and prove that you could still enjoy that in the context of a player-driven, old school style game! 

(+1)

Thank you for giving an in-depth response. I think I better understand what you were trying to go for with the game. I look forward to trying it out when I get the chance.