Thoughts About Cairn

Recently, System Matters pointed me to a German version of Cairn. I had been aware of the original, but apart from skimming it, I had not had much interest in it. After grabbing the German version, I gave it a thorough reading and must admit, I like lots of its elements. I also checked the English version and found no differences while skimming, so this review should apply to the original version as well.

In case you’re wondering – this is a part of my series about light-weight games.

The German version does have more and better artwork, though. Except for the character sheet, the English one is a lot better.

The Good:

1. Many random tables: I like rolling for name, background, gear etc.
2. Interesting magic: Works through grimoires alone, and anyone carrying one can cast the spell. Magic is meant to be used as a tool, not a weapon, and using it in battle can have negative consequences.
3. 3 attributes with a roll-under/equal game system to accomplish stuff. Nothing new here, it’s been done in the early ‘80s by Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye) already, although they used 5 attributes. (Even though some folks still like to believe OSR games invented this.)
4. The game explicitly states that story takes precedence over rules, so when someone puts a dagger in the enemy’s heart, the enemy is just dead. No damage is rolled or stuff like that. Also, focus is not on combat. I know this, but many modern GMs might benefit from this being spelled out.

The Neutral:

1. No attack rolls: you just roll your damage and apply it to the enemy. I’m not a big fan of this idea, because I like the randomness of a missed blow or a critical hit. But I can see the benefit and reasoning of it:
   1. In an abstract system where combat rounds are not of fixed length, a series of blows can be exchanged (I have OD&D’s 1-minute round in mind), which means a single miss won’t be affecting the overall damage.
   2. And here’s the real deal: Cairn’s HP are “Hit Protection” points, the way they were meant to be in the earliest D&D already. “Damage” is not real injuries and broken bones, but “used-up” luck, exhaustion from evading blows, mental strain etc. So, you’re not rolling damage, but you’re really rolling how well you keep your enemy busy until the final blow can take them out.
   3. My only minor gripe with this is the role of armour, because if HP loss is not because of actual hits, why would armour help? Mind you, once HP are depleted, damage is applied to attribute scores. Then I’d say, armour helps. I guess it’s really a mix of hitting armour and exhausting your enemy till you can land the final blow(s). My personal choice would have been to ignore armour until a hit would take HP to or below 0. Only then armour is taken into account and an “armour save” rolled to see if the armour helped the character or not. A spontaneous house rule when HP would fall to 0 or below, I’d use a d4 and roll equal to or below the armour value (1-3), each time reducing the armour value by 1. A success means, HP are kept at 1 and the armour has worn down. A miss means, the armour didn’t help, the blow went through. Heavy armour has a good chance to help you out at least twice that way. if you prefer a deadlier rule, roll a d6 instead of d4. I can still see how this is making things more complicated.
2. For a rules-light game which handles lots of this in a modern, abstract way, I feel the equipment section is too old school, in that it’s full of stuff to carry around. Of course, that’s how it was done in the old days and every bit of equipment, cleverly used, may save the day. Still, I wonder if it’s necessary for such a game. Depends on how you want to play, I guess.

The Bad:

1. And this is a major oversight for me, or it’s hidden somewhere in the book where I can’t find it: character development.

Edit: Thanks to Yochai Gal‘s comments XP and character growth get an upgrade. With this in mind, I’d not rate this bad. It should be in the relevant section in the book, imho.

Page 1 states that characters grow by overcoming obstacles and surviving dangerous events, yet the only one page (21 in German Cairn, 14 in English Cairn) lets us know how it’s done in Cairn: Scars.
When HP fall to exactly zero, you roll on that table to see how you may improve (random chance, you might not actually get anything but a serious injury or scar).

So, in a game which sets its focus not on combat, the only chance to develop a character is by taking damage (in combat or through accidents and traps). That’s a big WTF in my book. Finding treasures and mysteries is great, but apparently, characters can’t learn from that. Too bad.

Instant house-rule here.

So, combat and dangerous (= HP-degrading) situations do grant experience, too, of course, but why only when falling to exactly 0 HP? I really don’t see why you’d have to be that lucky to get a chance at developing your character. How often do you get that chance, I wonder? Especially with the premise that the game does not focus on combat, how often does a character take damage exactly to zero HP?

Even in a combat-heavy game like D&D I’ve only ever had this a couple of times in several years.

Second instant house-rule here.

TL;DR:

Cairn is a nice, rules-light game with a big logical flaw in character advancement. (Edit: See the comments for a link clarifying this!) Considering everything, I’d might give it a try once, but I’m sure other games already cover this experience in a way I like equally or prefer.

Edit: I had a little discussion with a friend about this game. We both feel like it’s worth mentioning that Cairn might be a good game to start playing P&P RPG’s.

Found here: https://de.jf-staeulalia.pt/collection-think-cliparts