Exploring the Ports of Light in a d100 game

After thinking a lot about social and combat encounters, and magic systems, I decided to write a post about exploration instead. After all, its supposed to be one of the big pillars of roleplaying games. First up, I don’t think a d100 core mechanic has any inherent advantage or disadvantage when it comes to making exploration part of the game, unless it helps your GM prep by buying a lot of the cheap d100 content generation tables on drivethrurpg.com.

When I started playing roleplaying games about 40 years ago, exploration was largely focused on “-crawl” play eg dungeon crawl for specific locations, or hex crawl for exploring a geographical region, with the players making decisions about risk and reward in deciding where to move next. The game system then provided rules for:

  • verisimilitude rules for representing reality in a game, such as calendars and time, movement rates, and weather.
  • spot rules for hazards, such as falling damage.
  • wandering damage tables (random encounters that cost resources or threaten the PCs)
  • inventory management rules for characters, so that food, water, and other necessities need to be tracked and accounted for.

The problem is that inventory management is not a fun activity for players. It also requires some paperwork for the GM (per Gygax “YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT” emphasis in the DMG page 37). Many modern game designs make as much of the player facing problems as possible go away. For example, in the GUMSHOE games, you can spend points of your Preparedness ability to have a useful item to hand, even if you did not write it down on your sheet earlier. Another technique is to use a die to represent resources, e.g. roll the die when firing an arrow, and on a 1 or 2 you might run out of arrows or step the die down in size. A countervailing trend, are games that deliberately lean into the inventory management, making it a critical part of gameplay, eg Torchbearer. In these games, the decision around whether to drop a torch or first aid kit, so that you can carry an extra bag of gold coins out of the dungeon is a core part of the game experience.

As for a philosophy of why exploration is fun, the best take I can find in a day of searching and reading comes from The Angry GM, exploration is the satisfaction of curiosity. Other useful articles include The Alexandrian’s take on Hex Crawls, and Ben Robbins West Marches.

So you can push the PCs out of the tavern on a quest to find the macguffin, and the players will search until they discover it, at which point this push-exploration stops. If the players are curious about the world, however, they will see something interesting and want to go and check it out. This pull-exploration is a meaningful choice, derived from player investment in the game world. The players may have different interests, and be pulled in different directions. Exploring may be a distraction, or obstacle, from the current party goal. The time and resources exploring may require is an opportunity cost, and a risk/reward trade-off. Exploration becomes a series of choices, not just an activity or nested loop of play procedure.

Detail from map of Dragon Pass. A good map will evoke interest from players. The map of Dragon Pass is one of my all time favourites.

The d100 games I am most familiar with are largely descended from the verisimilitude game engines of roleplaying antiquity, with detailed encumbrance rules. Exploration does not get the same level of thematic attention as combat and magic do, except in Call of Cthulhu. I think CoC has a central exploration theme, with players choosing to pursue the knowledge that can be found in grimoires of spells and Cthulhu Mythos lore. This is definitely something I want, a game of book hounds, seeking rumours of ancient tomes of lost knowledge, with which the world might be healed of its hurts from “All-Banes Day.” So I will build things into the game from the start for the players to discover in play.

Introspection is internal exploration – where players explore what their character is about. This is not something the older d100 games are optimised for, although in CoC you may get to discover how your character goes insane, that is not an activity the players want to have happen. The randomness of the experience system can produce some surprises about how quickly your character grows in some skills and not others. The more modern d100 designs can put an emphasis on internal emotions through the passion mechanics. As I already want to integrate passions with the setting and the experience system, I do not think I need to do much more with this. I could introduce a specific downtime activity between adventures that is “soul searching” and self-reflection on your character.

Encumbrance Rules

A short overview of how the main d100 games in my collection handle this:

  • Basic Roleplaying: Encumbrance (ENC) is an optional rule. A thing you can carry in one hand is one ENC, two hands is two ENC, with tables to specify the ENC of armour, shields, and weapons. ENC is mainly used to reduce your Dodge skill.
  • Runequest in Glorantha: Your max ENC is the average of STR and CON, with STR as a maximum. If players and GM agree on a reasonable carry, encumbrance can be ignored. The “things” system from BRP can also be used. Every point of ENC above your max load reduces movement, and most skill use by 5%. All ENC (even below max load), reduces Dodge skill by 1% per ENC.
  • Mythras: Characters can carry STRx2 ENC. Greater loads make skill checks harder, reduce movement, and increase effort for fatigue. Armour also reduces initiative, but while worn only counts as half its normal ENC value. An optional simpler system lets you carry half STR in items, ignoring worn armour. Fatigue comes in ten levels (fresh to dead), and in the Mythras campaign I ran my players regarded “Wearied” (level 4), which reduced skill value by half as the point at which life became hell.
  • Call of Cthulhu: Does not really bother with detailed encumbrance rules – but this game does not normally feature the PCs wearing heavy armour.
  • Revolution D100: does not recommend tracking carried weight. Fatigue only plays a role if the GM wants it to.
Map detail of Southern Mirkwood for Adventures in Middle Earth.

Other Games

I am going to look at few non-d100 games for inspiration.

  • Ultraviolet Grasslands: in UVG some of the ways that PCs can gain XP is by eating meals in the locations they are traveling through, as well as spending gold on carousing in the local den of iniquity, seeking out intense new experiences, and the wonder of new creatures or landmarks. The point crawl movement map gives the party a limited number of choices for moving onward, usually not more than three.
  • Symbaroum for 5E: this setting for D&D tries to make exploring the Davokar forest a dark and scary experience, dividing the forest into bright, wild, and dark zones of increasing difficulty. The system eliminates the normal D&D classes that have features that eliminate the hazards of exploring (like Druids and Rangers). Rests take longer: a short rest is an hour, a long rest eight hours, and a full rest requires 24 hours in a safe place. There is a Death March rule for forced marches, where forced marches require the PCs to make death saves. If my players had wanted a d20 game, I would have used this as a base, along with Adventures in Middle Earth.
  • Adventures in Middle Earth: Lord of the Rings for D&D 5E, now out of print. Largely an adaptation of the first edition of The One Ring. Terrain was divided into five types, from easy to daunting. Winter increased the peril rating by one. Using ponies or boats mitigated the first level of exhaustion on the journey. Journeys were divided into short (1-15 hexes), medium (16-40 hexes), and Long (41+) hexes. The longer the journey and the more difficult the terrain, the more encounters the party faced. Checks were also made at the start and end of the journey. The peril rating of the journey also increased all DCs.
  • The One Ring (2E): The party needs to allocate the roles of Guide, Hunter, Look-out, and Scout between the PCs. On a journey the path is determined between origin and destination. March tests are made, on a success the party advances three hexes before an event is triggered. On a failure they move two hexes in Spring/Summer and one hex in Autumn/Winter. Entering areas of peril always triggers events. Events often result in fatigue for the PCs, a skill check for one or more PCs based on their role, and are more likely to be hazardous in wild or dark lands. Fatigue from the journey can be reduced by a mount, a travel roll, and prolonged rest in a safe place. Long journeys of 20+ hexes may require stops in safe places. This captures the mood of travel through the wilderness, and I like the emphasis on mount quality in reducing fatigue. That gives players a reason to own multiple horses, like a medieval knight did with their chargers (warhorse), palfreys (riding horse) and pack or cart horses.
Detail of the Eriador Map for The One Ring (2E). Green hexes are Border Lands, Tan hexes are Wild Lands, Orange hexes are Dark Lands, and regions with a red border are Perilous Areas. The player facing map has less information.

It seems I have a gap in my rpg collection where it comes to games or supplements that feature nautical travel or exploration, 7th Sea being the notable exception. Sailing ships do suffer from the same problem as space ships in sci-fi campaigns – any credible threat to the ship is a potential Total Party Kill. Perhaps a combination of point crawl and TOR hazard levels. The well known points are largely at ports, or other safe harbours where galleys and ships can land for water. Journeys that hug the coastline would be relatively safe, while those that cross seas and oceans would be riskier. If the journey passes by a point of peril, such as a pirate haven or sorcerer haunted isle, further perilous encounters could occur. Weather would factor in here, the old joke being that the Mediterranean has three sailing seasons: July, August, and Winter. Ship and crew quality could adjust encounters and outcomes like fatigue. Sly Flourish has a post on point crawls with links to a few other related topics.

Detail from Ultraviolet Grasslands point crawl map.

I think fatigue in TOR is a mechanic that makes interesting decisions for journeys – at what point does the party decide between pressing on, seeking shelter, or turning back? This will need a conversation in session zero about expectations, as I think the default in modern gaming is that narrative hand waving will occur, rather than it may occur. At the same time I want the paperwork element to be simple. TOR manages this in part by making Endurance, which is also HP, be what load is compared to. It also just focuses on war gear. Players can that easily spot when their PC is about to become wearied by fatigue, as Endurance is already a number they will be paying close attention to.

I do not think traditional d100 Encumbrance creates meaningful decisions at the tactical level, which accords with my own experience in medieval re-enactment. People who are used to carrying a load can move and fight with that load for well beyond the duration of even a very, very long tabletop roleplaying combat. Where it might be a factor, is when fresh combatants engage fatigued combatants – and I think that situation can be handled with advantage/disadvantage.

In the Mythras campaign I ran, fatigue only produced one memorable moment in the campaign, when one PC was separated from the rest of the party, and subject to a magical cold effect that was forcing Endurance checks. By the end of the campaign we had stopped tracking fatigue in combat.

TOR can be interesting at the tactical level, in that when Fatigue plus Load rises above Endurance, you can temporarily alleviate the problem by discarding a shield or removing your helm. If I have a “willpower” system for combat stunts, then spending willpower to ignore fatigue for an action sounds good, but the luck mechanics I am already experimenting with might do the job as well.

My design decisions

A “ports of light” point crawl design will help facilitate travel mechanics, and discovery of points of interest far away from the initial home base location will help evoke the Renaissance theme of rediscovery. This is a play on the “points of light” approach for making an adventure friendly world. Ports will generally be safe havens, with the interior of islands out of sight of the sea being more dangerous.

I will design an evocative map to spur player interest in the world. Little pictures to spark curiosity, rather than text based lore dumps, like the RQ Dragon Pass maps. There will be a player map and a GM map with some hidden locations. The geography will also tell me something about the weather.

I will build a calendar for the campaign world, and a sheet to record the passage of time, so that the time a journey takes to complete is relevant to player decisions. “Can we sail there, and get home safely before the winter storms?” I will have a conversation with my players about whether the RQG norm of one adventure per season is one they are happy with.

The equipment list will need ships and mounts of varying qualities.

I will need to think about what is known, what is unknown, and where and how the unknown might be discovered. A quick list of things that I think the players will be interested in discovering in the setting:

  • Develop a number of mysteries for the players to stumble over and investigate if they wish
  • Safe havens where they can rest and recover fatigue
  • A way to enter a forbidden city (or other gated area)
  • Places to go shopping for exotic goods
  • A few places to explore in depth, worthy of repeat visits
  • Locations where they can find trainers for downtime spent on improving characters
  • Short cuts
  • Free XP from picaresque encounters that surprise and delight
  • new point locations on the edge of their known map.

I think I can adapt the TOR fatigue rules for d100. In TOR 2E, the starting Endurance range for PCs is a range from 20 to 29, although within each culture its normally a three point spread (eg 24-26). This is close to the HP range I was planning for a d100 game (20-30 HP), which means that I could use the TOR endurance, load, weariness, and fatigue mechanics. In TOR a one handed weapon is 1-2 load, a two handed weapon is 3-4 load, armour varies from load 3 for a leather shirt to load 12 for a coat of mail, plus 4 for a helm. Shields are 2-6 load depending on size. Load only measures war gear and treasure – ordinary clothes, blankets, and tools are not counted (but the number of useful items you can carry is limited by culture wealth – which would be an issue with my players who hoard possibly useful items like a squirrel storing nuts for winter).

For a renaissance setting, big heavy shields are unlikely (they fell out of use with the rise of plate armour and polearms). Pistols and aquebus are fairly cumbersome items, so they would be load 2 and load 4 respectively. A big musket (built to penetrate armour) with a supporting rest to allow it to be aimed might be load 6. I can extend the armour table, which in TOR is more dark age than medieval. Plate armour would be load 15, pistol “proof” armour would be load 18 (or 5 for a helm), and aquebus proof armour would be load 21 (or 6 for a helm). I will explore the topic of renaissance arms and armour further when I do a post on combat.

Building a d100 Roleplaying Game

Changed the blog theme for the first time in about a decade. I need to figure out a better widget for displaying a menu of past posts.

This post is the first of several on the topic of building a d100 roleplaying game for use in a campaign I plan to run. The design process is one where I take different bits of rules from different d100 games that I like, and stitch them together into what is hopefully a coherent design for maximum game fun at my table. This is me working through my preferences from existing games, plus my judgment about what will work for my established group of players, rather than me trying to design a new d100 game engine from scratch.

First, my reasons not to just run with a published d100 game that I already own:

  • Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4th Edition: A bit too tied to the setting, and I am not convinced the core combat/magic rules are robust enough without buying a couple of expansion sets.
  • Zweihander: Too fiddly, too pretentious, and I’m still annoyed at how much the author spammed their work on the roleplaying forums I read (before he was perma-banned).
  • Basic Roleplaying System Reference Document: Too limited and bare bones in detail – it looks a lot like it was published to prevent any kind of retro-clone OSR flowering in d100 that might get too close to Chaosium IP. Not that this stopped…
  • Cthulhu Eternal Open Game License: While I am not planning a jazz age horror game, there are some good ideas in here.
  • Elric!: I probably ran into random armour points for the first time in this game, which I think is a good way to deal with the players wanting to stack every single bit of armour they can find (which leads to an arms race with GM adversaries to keep combat interesting).
  • Flashing Blades: not a d100 game, but I would be silly not to take a look at the first game to focus on this swashbuckling era. I think I have the ubiquity engine’s One for All lying around somewhere too. 7th Sea 2E is too much of a narrative game to be useful.
  • Basic Roleplaying: the big gold book is packed full of tools for building your own d100 games. Lots of different mechanics to mine here, even though its overall presentation is a little dated compared to the new toolkit systems on the block. The Blood Tide setting could be worth picking up for some piracy and nautical rules.
  • Mythras: my group played this in its Runequest 6 edition, and while there is a lot to like in the game, my group never wants to play with its action point system or menu of 50+ combat special effects again. The Fioracitta setting could be worth picking up for ideas.
  • Revolution 100: another system full of interesting ideas, but I find the text presentation of these ideas hard to parse in places, and ultimately the skill list is too truncated for the kind of game I want to run, and that my players want to play. Its take on extended conflicts is best in class.
  • Runequest: The second edition was one of my first roleplaying games, and I will love it forever. The current Runequest in Gorantha edition is wonderful, but a bit fiddly around the edges. I really don’t fancy running its complex Strike Rank system online. I prefer its take on passions – with risk when you invoke them – to the “Mother may I?” bonus seeking of Mythras.
  • Clockwork and Chivalry: while it is a renaissance setting that my players want, I am not keen on always evil witches, witch hunting, and religious violence, which look like core elements of this setting.
  • Mothership: the new hotness of indie gaming with a fresh take on d100 games. If I wanted to run a short 8-12 session campaign, I would be using this as the base game engine, even though the original game is focused on space horror.
  • Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition: The latest evolution of d100 from Chaosium – in some ways showing what could have been with the latest edition of Runequest if they had not tacked backwards towards the 2nd edition for reverse compatibility. Pulp Cthulhu also has useful ideas to borrow for a swashbuckling game.
Cover of the “Big Gold Book” from Chaosium

I also plan to borrow a few mechanics from non-d100 games, which I will discuss in the relevant sections. Rather than try and cover everything in one epic blog post, it makes sense to break it down into shorter posts. In the rest of this post I will write about character ability scores (aka attributes or characteristics – I use ability because it is a shorter word), and in the next post I will discuss skills.

The Eight Ability Scores

Where D&D uses the six ability scores of Strength (STR), Constitution (CON), Dexterity (DEX), Intelligence (INT), Wisdom (WIS), and Charisma (CHA), the d100 family of games usually has eight ability scores of STR, CON, DEX, Size (SIZ), INT, Power (POW), Education (EDU), and either CHA or Appearance (APP). POW is not a replacement for WIS, and represents aptitude for magic, psychic, or other super powers, plus Sanity (SAN) in Call of Cthulhu.

Ability Score Scale

Most d100 games follow D&D and have a 3-18 scale for most of the ability scores for human characters. The exceptions being INT and SIZ with a 8-18 range. Call of Cthulhu 7E adjusts these scores into a d100 scale by multiplying them by five.

In most cases higher scores are always better, the exception being SIZ, where being small could boost stealth, allow you to squeeze through a narrow gap, or hide inside a small space.

Random or Point Buy

The traditional random rolls for ability scores are 2d6+6 for INT and SIZ, and 3d6 for the other six ability scores. So “mean norm the average ranger” will have 13s for INT and SIZ, and 10s or 11s for the other six ability scores. Elric! (1993) is a more high power system, all eight ability scores are rolled 2d6+6. Non-human PCs can have different scores, eg in Runequest 2, a Great Troll would roll 4d6+12 for STR, but only 2d6+2 for INT.

Some d100 games allowed you to shift up to three points around between your scores. In my Tarantium campaign I allowed a player to discard one die and reroll it, a maximum of three times when generating all eight ability scores.

Mythras has a point buy system. The default is 80 points, which gets you average scores of 10 in your eight ability scores, but allows you to min/max as you see fit within the constraint that INT and SIZ require minimum scores of 8. In my Tarantium campaign I increased the point buy to 84 points.

Philosophically, random rolls mean you get to discover the character you will play, while point buy lets you choose the character you want to play. For long campaigns my preference leans towards point buy. In Tarantium I let my players choose. One rolled, the other four went with point buy. For point buy systems, it is important for the GM to point out break points for derived characteristics, to avoid system mastery traps in character generation (eg, building a Mythras character with only two action points).

For a high power campaign, I might use a variation on Rafu’s matrix method, which mixes elements of choice and randomness. This has a three step process:

  1. Assign the numbers 1-8, each to one of the eight ability scores.
  2. Roll a pool of 8d8. From the pool, assign one die roll to each of the eight ability scores.
  3. Roll 1d8, in strict order, for each ability score.

This changes the base ability range from 3-18 to 3-24, average of 13-14 (not too far off Elric!), but I am okay with PCs being special snowflakes. The original mechanic used d6s as it only had to generate six ability scores.

Progression

Ability scores in d100 games are sticky and hard to change, often requiring significant time and money to train up. SIZ is usually the hardest to change, POW the easiest as using magic successfully might allow a check to increase it. A character maximum is usually three points above the highest possible rolled ability score, so for a 3d6 score, that is 21. In some d100 games injuries can permanently reduce an ability score.

In Tarantium I sometimes awarded increases by GM fiat, to represent training that the party got from their employers.

Derived characteristics

This is one of the areas where the different d100 game engines have significant points of difference.

  • Hit Points: these are “meat points” not “plot armour”, and are usually calculated on CON and SIZ, divided by 2. In Call of Cthulhu 7E, its divided by 10 or by 5 in Pulp Cthulhu. D100 games can have a mix of general HP and location specific HP. Mythras only has location HP. Average general HP is around 12, or 24 in Pulp Cthulhu.
  • Action Points: a Mythras score, based on INT and DEX.
  • Damage Modifier: a bonus to melee damage, based on SIZ and STR, usually represented by rolling a an extra die that is not the same as your weapon die (which I find a little clunky).
  • Spirit Combat Damage: a bonus to damage when fighting spirits. Based on POW and CHA.
  • Movement Rate: a critical score in Call of Cthulhu, where flight is often a better choice than fight.
  • Experience Modifier: In Mythras your CHA score can adjust the number of XP you get each game session. In Runequest the skills category modifier also adjusts experience checks.
  • Healing Rate: In Mythras and Runequest your CON score determines how quickly you recover lost HP, typically 1-3 HP per day.
  • Luck Points: A player resource to nudge die rolls in their favour. In Call of Cthulhu 7E these are generated randomly. In Mythras it depends on your POW score.
  • Magic Points: Fuel for spells, usually determined by POW. Magic Point recovery depends on how magic rich your campaign world is. In magic rich Runequest you regain 25% of MP every six hours. In magic-poor Tarantium, you regenerated 1 MP per day in a flying city, and 0 per day on the ground.
  • Strike Rank: Combat initiative. In Mythras its derived from DEX and INT, with a penalty for encumbering armour. In Runequest its based on DEX and SIZ, plus a modifier based on the weapon you are using.
  • Sanity: In Call of Cthulhu, your resilience in the face of cosmic horror. Based on POW x5. In my Tarantium campaign I used Areté (moral excellence) to represent moral corruption in a manner similar to SAN. I am not fond of the actual forms of madness that older editions of Call of Cthulhu inflicted on investigators, which were derived from older stereotypes of mental illness.
  • Encumbrance Points: no one likes encumbrance and fatigue mechanics, but in Runequest it is based on STR+SIZ, in Mythras its STR x2.
  • Skills category modifier: In Runequest modifiers to skills are based on a range of ability scores, eg Agility is derived from STR, SIZ, DEX, and POW, while Knowledge is derived from INT and POW. Usually a flat modifier of -5% to +15% to the base skill scores. Not needed in Mythras where base skill scores are determined by combining two ability scores or doubling one ability score (so a range of 6% to 36%).

Implications for Other Mechanics

High STR, CON, DEX, and SIZ scores make you good at combat. High INT and EDU scores make you a better skill monkey. High POW is needed to be good at magic. As is typical for older game engines, only APP/CHA play a major part in the social pillar of play.

Mythras makes you really consider your ability scores. There are no dump stats.

My Design Choices

First, I will use CHA rather than APP, as a personal preference.

Second, I will drop SIZ and replace it with Social Standing (SOC) and a heritage based Build score. By heritage I mean “race” in old game design language, and I want it to represent a nature/nurture/culture background choice for characters. Replacing SIZ with SOC will let me diversify base abilities for a number of skills away from CHA, INT, and EDU (which is a solid clue to how my pans for skills are shaping up).

Third, I will go with the d100 scale ability scores of Call of Cthulhu, rather than the 3d6 range. This will let me use the same experience based improvement system for improving both skills and ability scores. As to whether or not I go with point buy, or that 3d8 OSR mechanic, I will talk with my players first. 3d8 x4 will give a number broadly comparable to 3d6 x5 (with a median of 54 versus 52.5, and a range of 12-92 versus 15-90).

Fourth, Hit Points will be based on CON/5, STR/10, and DEX/10, which will give a level of HP equal to Pulp Cthulhu. I am leaning towards general HP only, no location HP, with a serious wound mechanic at 0 HP or loss of half HP in a single blow, or something like the stepped wound system in Mothership.

Fifth, Melee Damage Bonus will be based off STR and heritage build (75 for a human, non-human heritages may vary from 25 to 110). Options for implementation include the classic bonus die, a flat modifier, or stepping up the weapon damage die (ie d6 steps up to d8, then to d10).

Sixth, Movement Rate will be based off DEX and heritage build (as above). I mostly run theater of mind games, but if its needed for chase scenes its good to have it.

Other mechanical decisions will need to wait until I refine the campaign setting and expectations of play with my players. For example, I might make Luck Points only available to players who roll their ability scores randomly, while players who choose point buy get a different fate/destiny/free will mechanic to use.

Grim and Gritty, or Glam and Sticky?

JoyceMaureira_SORCSPLASH (2)

In which I will eventually consider my own play preferences, but first…

I have been doing a lot of reading on roleplaying game design over the last few weeks.  So much so that I suddenly started dreaming in GURPS mechanics last week. Which is odd, as I have never owned a copy of the GURPS rules, just a few of the setting supplements.

My reading started with me thinking about cooperative magic mechanics, magic mechanics in roleplaying games in general, tropes entries on magic, and some Wikipedia research on shadows and weaving.  I also listened to some podcasts at Narrative Control. Chatting with friends, I got feedback that my pitch was more of a Gotterdamerung/final days pitch than a real post-apocalyptic pitch, which I thought was valid.  This led to me thinking a bit about noir settings – and the very next day Bundle of Holding decided to have a noir themed release.  I am still working through that pile of information (and the rulebook for Ars Magicka 5th Edition from another Bundle of Holding offer a few weeks back), but I think a noir influenced setting might require multiple flying cities (so you can have a Casablanca in the middle of it all).

I can go back and forth on the setting. While its important, trying to build it without a better grasp on system is likely to be a waste of time. Figuring out the best system for the setting depends on figuring out exactly what I want the characters to be doing in the game system and what I want the players to be doing around the game table.  So I need to do some research to try and figure out if an existing game system already does what I want, or if I need to build my own system.

Cooperative Mechanics

Many game systems are silent on the issue of character cooperation to resolve contests in the game. Some games allow one character to assist another, but few of the mechanics I looked at are built explicitly around a group of players all making decisions about the contest outcome. Here are three that I found:

Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition: everyone makes a roll, if half the characters succeed, the group succeeds. Dull.

Runequest 6th Edition: the extended skill check system can be used for group tasks. The GM sets a difficulty (suggested base is 100), and the characters do skill checks, +25 for a success, +50 for a critical success and -25 for a fumble. Not quite as dull as D&D, but close.

Blades in the Dark: Characters take turns at being “on point” for an operation (which is based on teamwork). One of their options is to lead a group action: all players roll six sided dice, the best roll is used, but the leader takes one “stress” for each roll of 1-3. Players in “backup” roles can also influence this, e.g. by taking stress to roll a bonus die. Extended tasks are handled with progress clocks, which reminded me of the damage clocks in Apocalypse World. Overall I found this system was exciting my imagination, and I plan to run a Blades in the Dark game at Kapcon in 2016.

Magic Mechanics

Starting with Runequest, the sorcery system is close to what I want, but many of the spells are either lacking in obvious utility for player characters, or are too powerful for player characters. In play, I am not sure there is enough width to the spell list to make a combination of magic form 5-6 characters worthwhile.  The current edition also makes magic very all-or-nothing, either a spell overcomes the defences, or it completely fails, and this is a paper-scissors-rock subgame game.

I am not done reading Ars Magicka yet, but its rich and detailed magic system is primarily focused on the individual mage. While the troupe/covenant playstyle is interesting, its not what I am looking for.

D&D/F20 suffers from my dislike of Vancian magic. Too weak at low levels, a campaign killer at high levels.  If I have to rebuild the entire magic system, I might as well look elsewhere.

Note: there are a lot of roleplaying game systems out there that I have not played, or are unfamiliar with. I would be happy to hear suggestions of game systems I should take a closer look at. Information in forum posts makes me think I should take a look at FATE, and in particular The Dresden Files.  I only know the Mage: the whatever games in brief summary.  Heroquest and Riddle of Steel fall in the :too damn complicated” box for me.

Not satisfied with my search for illumination, I have been thinking about my literary influences, and also doing some research on roleplaying game design.

Roleplaying Game Design

Time to post a few links:

The Power 19 are like an extension of the Big 3, and most of the 19 feed off/interact with them, so I will just repeat the Big 3 here:

  1. What is the game about?
  2. What do the characters do?
  3. What do the players do?

Hard questions that are worth answering. I don’t think I have solid answers yet but some initial bullet points are:

  1. The game is about the transition to a post-peak magic society, and shaping the age that is to come (its about surviving the apocalypse long enough to make a difference).
  2. The characters are a cabal of mages, who share a fragment of a broken God, and the sum of the whole is greater than the parts when they weave their magic together.
  3. The players have to decide between escalating or escaping from contests, how much personal gain they want to try and twist out of the cabal, andwhat they want to do with their broken God.

Another part of my research was trying to figure out how dice pool mechanics work. I was sleeping under rock when these came on the scene, and I was intimidated by the wall of d6s required to fire an AK-47 in Shadowrun.  I think I get the concept now, and while an “exploding die” can be fun for criticals/fumbles, I still think my gut feeling is right that throwing large numbers of dice to determine contest outcomes has a big downside in terms of the mental energy required to keep processing the maths.  Star Wars: Edge of Empire has a dice system I would like to know more about, but the game is petrified in dead tree format, so it is going to be a while yet before I get to read it.

RPG Design Patterns was a good read. I think the best insight it gave me was on “Conflicted Gauges”, where is where a mechanic in the game is situationally good or bad.  For example, in Call of Cthulhu a high Mythos Lore skill is handy when trying to remember facts about eldritch monsters, but a disadvantage when trying to make Sanity checks.  There was a lot more in there, but this is going to be a long post already.

The RPG Design Handbook gave me some other questions to think about:

  1. How does the game make players care?
  2. What behaviours are rewarded, and how are they rewarded?
  3. Will the system let the players play the game the way I intended it to be played?
  4. Authority in the game – who gets to decide when the conversation moves forward and the decisions are locked in place?
  5. Credibility in the game – who has the right to challenge the shared fiction, and who gets to win that contest?

Literary Influences (Appendix N)

I think its worth listing some of my literary influences at this point:

  • Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files
  • Steven Erikson’s Malazan Tales of the Fallen (a spinoff from an AD&D campaign converted to GURPS, rpg.net has a good thread discussing Warrens)
  • Max Gladstone’s Craft Sequence (I have only read the first two books, but I like what I have read)
  • Mark Smylie’s Artesia comics and first novel The Barrow (one of the best literary interpretations of a dungeon crawl ever).

I have not been influenced by Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series, even though I worked back to it when searching for “magic + weaving” on Google.

Play Preferences

My tabletop roleplaying gaming started in the 1980s and was firmly rooted in the first generation of games: Dungeons & Dragons, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, and Traveller. Most of the campaigns I have played in or game mastered, have been in those systems, or a D20 version (like Fading Suns).  Kapcon has been good for being exposed to indie games, but prior to the Bundle of Holding, it was rare for me to look at other game systems on a regular basis.

Its interesting to reflect on my play preferences and how they differ when I am a player or a game master.

As a player I like:

  • rolling dice and sometimes getting lucky
  • being effective in combat
  • having a solid background hook for the character
  • a clear niche for my character
  • progression over time (and don’t make me lose the game in character generation by failing to understand what my character build should be)
  • some kind of direction about what we are doing in the game.

As a game master I like:

  • contest outcomes that give me some direction about what to narrate next – this is the main weakness of the d100 game engines, what does 57 mean?
  • faction ambiguity – players will always attempt to immediately kill anything within line of sight that is flagged “obvious villain”, and will feel like utter failures if you refuse to let them roll for initiative before you finish the opening monologue. So I like shades of grey and intrigue as a GM.
  • a system I am comfortable tinkering with for the house campaign (i.e. I understand everything inside the black box and feel comfortable about pulling level A to get result B)
  • running long, multi-year campaigns (most narrative games cannot do this to my satisfaction)
  • building a detailed setting for the house game and doing prep before each session (when I stop enjoying prep its time to think about wrapping the campaign up)
  • subverting cliches
  • the lightbulb moment when one of the players figures out the big secret!

While there are a lot of grim and gritty roleplaying games out there, there are not a lot of glam and sticky games. These reflects the wargaming roots and the mania for combat simulation. Still, maybe someone will make a game some day about playing 1970s rock stars and their groupies.

What might an ideal cooperative mechanic look like?

I do not have a solid idea yet on how to articulate these ideas as a mechanical expression.  Rolling some dice probably, but if I want something closer to the stories of literature/cinema, then I need a way of divorcing myself from the simulationist mania.  I would like the game mechanics to incorporate these ideas:

  1. The Cabal of Broken Gods: as a resource shared between the players – encourage the players to work together by making it advantageous to do so. Maybe the cabal lets you cast spells known by the other PCs but not by your PC? Maybe the cabal has a bonus pool of magic points? The cabal obviously needs its own character sheet (a character sheet is a promise).
  2. Magic Weaving: the players need each other’s help to cast effective spells, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Other PCs can give a die roll bonus, share the cost, benefit from the cast, etc.
  3. The Tapestry of Shadows: the potential threat of losing control over your character, or otherwise increasing a potential threat.
  4. Betrayal: the potential to twist a cabal weaving to your own benefit.
  5. Escalation: as the contest progresses, the player has to make the decision to escape or escalate. Think of the classic mage duels, no one dies in the first fireball, its a sequence of move and counter-move (and after scribbling this idea down I read about escalation mechanics in Dogs in the Vineyard for the first time)
  6. Going “all out”: a choice by the player to commit everything to the contest, with dire consequences for failure, the last option on the escalation ladder
  7. Escape: so common in literature, so rare in tabletop gaming. I want to make escape a valid choice for players, by having some kind of reward for bailing out of a fight they might lose (e.g. +1 Luck Point), and by making it easy (e.g. mages can teleport).

I am doodling some diagrams, trying to see if I can build some conflicted gauges around 3-5 magic resources.  For example, having a strong talent in Wild Magic could help you create new magic, but might make all your spells harder to control.  Other potential axis are destructive/creative, permanent/non-permanent, clarity/confusion. One thing I want to avoid, is writing up 666 different spells. Much easier to have just a small number of useful spells. Some important considerations for magic in the setting itself:

  • is magic an individual gift, or can anyone do it?
  • is magic powered from within the self, or by tapping into a universal magic force field?
  • is magic a fixed list of specified power, or can the players be creative/improvise on the go
  • is there are hard limit to the magical energy a character can tap – I think this is important because in much the same way players dislike going to zero Hit Points, they also dislike using their last Magic Point/spell, but it did occur to me that I could build into the reward system an explicit bonus for spending that last magic point
  • how quickly does magical energy refresh?

Publishing

I did some quick market research this week. Tabletop roleplaying games make up $15m of the $750m hobby gaming market. Boardgames have a greater share of the market at $75m. Most of the market is taken up by miniatures ($125m) and card games ($500m+).

The bulk of the tabletop game market is dominated by the Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder systems.  Outside of the F20 market are a handful of universal game systems, such as GURPS, or more focused systems, such as World of Darkness that have large followings.

I think if you want to make some money in publishing a new game setting, you have to think really hard about not using some flavour of F20.  If you want to publish a new game system, I think you need to be focused in your efforts. Write two pages, not twenty pages, write twenty pages, not 200 pages.  Having looked through a number of the universal setting free game engines, I would be unconvinced that the world needs another way to roll dice on the table.

Military Muddling

Finally, a shout out for my friends at the Chestnut Lodge Wargames Group in London, who have migrated their old club newsletter into the blogging age. Military Muddling may be of interest to people who are keen on historical game design and megagames.

The artwork in this post was taken from the art pack for The Silent Legion.

Kickstarter – how I choose what to back

After some initial hesitation, I have become keen on Kickstarter, and I often take 5-10 minutes each day to scan the latest listings on the /games section.  So far I have pledged for 26 games and 2 comic books, but only two of the games have been delivered so far.  Most of the games I have backed, have been backed in the last six months, so I am not too worried about that lack of fulfillment so far.  It is a bit worrying, however, to get an update on Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition, which was originally scheduled to ship in November 2013, that Chaosium have a new President and unspecified company problems.  A firm reminder that everything on Kickstarter is vaporware until its in your hands.

Over the last few weeks I have passed on a lot of tempting Kickstarter offers, as I need to save some coins for an upcoming trip to the USA/Canada.  So I started thinking on why exactly I was passing on some Kickstarter projects and not others.  I have looked at a few other crowdsourcing websites, but Kickstarter seems to be where all the action is.

Instant turn-offs:

  1. Pretty much every pitch for an MMORPG, RTS, phone app, or top-down isometric computer game.
  2. People asking for charity, or to support events/organisations in places I don’t live.
  3. Bad thumbnail art.
  4. Failure in first sentence/opening paragraph text to convey what the main hook of the concept is.

Instant excitement:

  1. Beautiful artwork.
  2. Established IP that I love, or…
  3. … something that sounds innovative on a topic I am interested in.
  4. A designer whose prior work I like.

So I look through the rest of the pitch carefully, star it if I don’t see any further turn-offs (gender exclusive language annoys me) and come back to it 2-4 weeks later.  I do not usually look at the video pitch until the final 48 hours, at which point I will also scan through the updates and comments looking for danger signals.

The danger signals are:

  1. Pledge levels that are confusing.
  2. Updates or comments from the developer that indicate problems with the project, or where I can’t actually understand what it means (sometimes this is an English as a second language problem).
  3. Massive mid-campaign changes to the product or pledge levels.
  4. People posting that its a rip-off.

So if I still like the general idea, and I have some degree of confidence I might get the product someday, how do I choose to part with my money or not?

  1. Would I buy it off the shelf at that price if it was in front of me right now?
    1. Bread, taxes, bills, etc, all come before entertainment spending
    2. Opportunity cost – what else could I be doing with this money?
    3. What is the shipping cost?  Living in New Zealand, shipping costs can exceed the item cost.
  2. Do I intend to use it in actual play, or do I just want it for the ideas?
    1. If I just want to loot the ideas, PDF is fine, and can I find something similar already on Drivethrurpg.com?
    2. If I want to use it at the gaming table, hard copy is better.
    3. Will I use it more than once?
    4. If I want to hack it, will I get the files to do this easily?
  3. What am I rewarding in the pitch?
    1. Innovation in setting or design principles (or an iterative progression on existing ideas).
    2. Nostalgia for the games of my youth (I backed Paranoia but not OGRE).
    3. Is it just a fun looking Fantasy Heartbreaker?
    4. Am I just being a fanboy for this particular designer?
  4. How close is it to completion?
    1. A boardgame should already be fully playtested and draft rules available.
    2. A roleplaying game should have a playtest draft ready for backers to access.
    3. Computer games … should at least have concept art ready.
    4. Is it bleeding edge research that could fail? (I did not back Clang!)
  5. Do I already own this product?
    1. You can get diminishing returns from anything. For gaming, dice are pretty, but few systems really require me to get yet another set of the classic polyhedral dice.
    2. Do I really need the new edition?
  6. Does it look beautiful?
    1. Art is subjective, but if the art looks ugly to me, I am unlikely to spend money on it.
  7. Are those add-ons, peripherals, etc really needed?
    1. I have eight plastic tubs full of t-shirts, I really don’t need more of them.

There is a very old adage – if the deal looks too good to be true, then its probably not a good deal.

Part of the reason I am paying attention to Kickstarter, is to learn what not to do for the day when I try running one.  A lot of the problems I have seen come done to poor communication, or insufficient preparation before the campaign begins.  I would not start a boardgame project unless I was 99% sure I could get the components manufactured, and I would not start roleplaying game project unless I already had the first draft of the manuscript ready for playtesting.  I can see that communication also needs a lot of prep for the crucial early launch phase.

Anyhoo, time to listen to some game design podcasts and scribble ideas on paper.