The Misadventures of Hareng Rouge

I want Chassis to be a classless, or semi-classless, system. I’ve been researching classless systems and came across the Knave / In to the Odd inventory as class system.

I’ve never played Knave or In to the Odd so I’m basing this judgement on some internet scuttlebutt. I don’t think the inventory as class system is for me but I do think it is quite elegant and as this reddit post suggests flexible.

As I understand the inventory as class system does away with abilities and attributes tied to the character as a person and instead converts them in to objects that can have in a strictly limited slot based inventory system. You are your toolkit. You don’t have qualities of Fighting-Man-ness or Magic-User-ness. Instead Items in the slots in the inventory are endowed with powers or talents or abilities.

Instead of being a Fighting-Man y ou might have a Sword of Hitting Things and Shield of Avoiding Damage. Then progess to owning a Sword of Hitting Things Elegantly and a Small Shield of Avoiding Damage by Dexterous Dancing and a Ring of Resisting Damage or a Sword of Hitting Things with Rageful Violence, or a Dagger of Foul Play and Sneaky Shots.

Rather than being a Magic-User you are the owner of a Ring of Fireballs and Cloak of Not Being Able to Tell How Large a Fireball Is.

I think it’s a simple, flexible and customisable system. You could, as the reddit post suggests add on the Notches system from GLOG

 But it’s not for me.

There are two reasons. Two design choices I have considered but am rejecting for the system I am building.

For the Chassis system I want durable character that players can expect to invest time and thought in. I think the essence of the Knave and In to the Odd rules systems are very grounded in the OSR tradition of high-lethality. This is a system for the quick creation of disposable characters. Your character’s backstory is what happens to them in Levels 1-3. Your proto-character will die. It needs to be quick and simple to replace them. To the point where their inventory is an accumulation of their backstory that’s fine. That’s a fine design decision. A fine ethos of play. It’s not for me for this project.

Secondly, I think there is a diegetic mechanic misstep lurking in the system. It’s summed up a suggestion in the Reddit post that one of your items could be an insignia that represents your experience as a warrior. I don’t think this sort of thing (and down with this sort of thing) is the intention of the system designers of Knave or In to the Odd. Ben Milton and Chris McDowall are craftsmen of the highest calibre. However, I think it’s there in potential if not actualitie. The issue is the Fortnight Loot Huddle. Every game of team Fortnight I have watched my boy play at some point after the first couple of firefights involves the team gathering in a quiet spot and sharing their loot. The team allocates the kit they’ve found to the person best suited to using it and who already has the most compatible other kit. The best sniper gets the best scope. The member with the rocket launcher gets the rockets. Daft Bob the Bamm gets a baseball bat, some healing potions and instructions not to stand too close to the rest of the group.

If I’ve been a Fighting-Man for five years and you’ve been a Thief for three months and we swap gear are you now a veteran Fighting-Man? Should you be? If we are both out shopping and having a spa day and we’ve left all our kit behind what are we?

The answers to those questions might be “don’t do that sort of thing” and “who cares, get back in the dungeon.” That’s not what I’m trying to build.

I’m trying to build something where there is a conscious link between the mechanical elements of the rule-system and the in fiction behaviour of the characters. I explicitly want that link to be formalised.

So I won’t be using an inventory as class system. One option down, many hundreds to consider.