After my OSR experiment the past weeks, I present: the 3d6 Constitution
There is a three-part agenda, laying down why we are playing and how we want our game to be. Then there are ten amendments, detailing important features from the game by attempting to motivate them from the agenda. Then comes the corpus juris itself: concrete rules that are at best motivated by the agenda or its amendments, at worst compatible with it. All rules are explicitly "until further notice", under principles put forth in the procedural agenda and amendment I.
What do you think—does it hold together? Would you feel comfortable signing up for my campaign after reading this? Do you think the Constitution
reflects the experience you'd have (looking to the Stonehell thread
as evidence)? What questions are you left with?
I intend to go over sections 6 and up, adding more "History and notes" sections; I just ran out of patience and wanted to get the thread up. I expect there will be some more of that within a few days.
I should also say: next time I run anything in this system, I intend to put together a spell list and a price list. They will probably be added to the corpus, but at an even lower level, perhaps as appendices. They are, after all, even more campaign-specific than the other rules.
In my last post
I went into my thinking on having and developing crunch-heavy rules, despite feeling no desire to read others' crunch-heavy rules, not to mention using them out of the box. Similarly, I don't expect many of you to want to use these rules off this document. (Not to mention I wrote the most important part in my best impression of legalese—I consider it a holdover from my Nomic days.) If you should, you're more than welcome to branch, fork, or however you do this.
(The name is just a bad pun. The game doesn't even have a Constitution stat. I'm open to other suggestions, having already dismissed both Dungeons & Dockets
and Castles & Case Law