Rules Lite

Most people are pushing for rules-lite systems.  The idea is is to get a game together and played, fast.  People like the 'out of the box' play-style. Chatroom roleplaying relies almost entirely on no-rules games, focusing entirely on storytelling and character development.  Rules systems are a means to an end, just a simple way of establishing conflict-resolution that is, at least on the surface, impartial or heavily tweakable by GMs so their carefully-plotted stories don't come to a crashing halt because a player had a lucky roll.

I really like rules systems, though.  I like a lot of rules.  People probably think I'm sick, but I enjoy knowing that there are specific situations that can be resolved through the application of multiple dice.  Dice are fun.  I like to roll them. 

I also like the feeling of full impartiality.  Despite what cosmic forces are involved, they still must follow rules of their own in order to preserve the nature of the universe.  In some ways I'm applying that heavy title of "cosmic force" to the GM, but it also applies to the game as a whole: the setting as played by countless game groups.  Someone suggested that the problem is a matter of trust - that I have a psychological problem because I can't trust people in my own game group to make proper decisions.  But that's not what I mean.  It has more to do with a philosophical approach to the idea.  There are things man was not meant to toy with, and having a strict rules system in place reinforces that concept . . . even when the GM is clearly ignoring or changing rules in favor of play style.

More importantly, I like the simulation aspect.  There is the idea that an entire world can propagate and continue based on mechanical application, and the variable or change to that world comes not in the form of arbitration by Lords on High, but by the actions of the individuals in that world.  The simulation of experience is also important, answering the question of what would happen if one were to enter this cave.  I want a livable experience in my fantasy, and rules that are meant to simulate reality as much as possible do that.  During a game devoted entirely to story at the expense of rules, I can feel the artifice.  I know it is a story told from someone's perspective.  I rarely feel like I, as an individual, can alter or affect much unless I take absurd or arbitrary actions.

I saw a couple of places online where people were advocating "no meta-plot" in their games.  Even though they usually refer to the published company material and not their own games, I have to admit, that's a refreshing find.  Even so, people enjoy the plot, they like having a "bigger goal" to be working toward as a group, and they like knowing that their actions have an effect on the world around them.  I admit that some of my favorite times around the game table were during large-scale, campaign-long stories.  But maybe that's been a little overdone.  Everybody does that, and the world is almost always at stake.  We forget our humble beginnings, and every character is worried about fulfilling destiny or trying to find a way to warp that destiny into their own game. 

So let's all step back.  Let's remember why we're doing this.  Think of ourselves as professional ball players who have to remind ourselves it's the love of the game, not the personal rewards, that drew us here in the first place.  Walk into the wilderness and make your own stories.

Related Links:
Grand Experiments

No More

I was going to sit down with the old unaltered Star Wars movies tonight, maybe even break out the VHS tapes as opposed to the 'extra features' disc that was finally released with the DVD set a few years ago.  But I just can't bring myself to do it, now.  I feel like some poor bastard sitting down with home movies of him and the ex-wife before the divorce, crying into his whiskey.  Too many painful memories are associated with that, now, and going through all that again would open up old wounds better left alone.  Some day I'll be able to look back with fondness, but not while I have to see my former love hawked and whored all over Cartoon Network.  That really makes it hard for me to move on and overcome the bitterness.

Meanwhile, a shelf full of Star Wars D6 products collects dust in the basement.  They won't be used again.  I can't participate in a game ever again, neither as player or GM, without knowing that the whole universe has been reimagined and restructured, retconned and wrecked.  And it will be harder and harder for me to find people who don't think of the films as connected to the prequels.

But, ah, well.  Another chapter comes to an end, another era bleeds into the next.  The fall of Rome is upon us, and WotC fiddles while it burns.

But I Digress... Quake 3

I haven't posted anything for a while (I've been very busy doing a lot of work for very little pay), so I feel a little sheepish about this post, which has little to do with pen and paper roleplaying games.  Still, I like talking about video games, especially from a roleplayer's perspective, because the attitude and approach are completely alien to what an RPG should be.  Granted, there are video games called RPGs, but that title is only an approximation rather than an accurate descriptor.

But this post doesn't even deal with that.  It deals with first-person shooter video games - specifically, Quake 3.

About 15 years ago (was it really that long ago? How old I feel!), a friend of mine, right out of high school, got a job working as a techie for a high school computer lab.  On the weekends, he'd use his door key and let us in, where we would play Quake 2 on a LAN line.  There were from four to seven of us, and even though I was never really that good, I had a great time.  We talked trash across the room and generally yelled and made a ruckus in the high school after hours.

Online, I don't get that kind of fun and excitement.  I never really played video games for the game itself.  I always enjoyed the comraderie and party atmosphere.  I bought a Nintendo 64, and later a Game Cube, back in the day because their group games were fun and fantastic.  But those days are gone, and every game system has thrown out (with the exception of the Wii, which I don't like very much) in favor of faceless competition.

That being said, I was looking for a nice little FREE online game to play as a time killer (okay, as a procrastination device), and I found Quake 3, online, for free.  Right now, the game is a beta test, as the providers want to see if an older shooter game can withstand a group connection in a browser game.  So far, it can.  When the beta is finished being tested, I hope they keep the game free.

Anyway, they have a ten minute test game for you to play and find out what your skill level is, so you don't keep playing games against disastrously weaker or overwhelmingly stronger opponents.  I took the test and dominated it, reliving some old fun times.  When I sat down to play the game, though, I had my ass handed to me.

Part of my problem is that I have a terrible sense of direction, even in non-virtual environments (read: real life).  Jumping around a 3D world gets me hopelessly turned around, and I never know who or what is behind me at any given moment.  The other problem I have, and maybe the bigger problem when it comes to playing games like these, is that I am a roleplayer, not a gamer.  I put myself in the role of a military or mercenary figure, working his way around an urban battlefield.  I skulk, sneak, wait, evaluate, act.  That's easy to do against a single opponent in these games (like the skill test I had to take), but in a free-for-all, or even team-based, Quake 3 environment, I'm cannon fodder.

The way characters move around in that game is crazy!  All the jumping, running, moving, ducking, and mostly blind indiscriminate use of firepower overwhelms me.  I can't imagine that there is anything in that style of gameplay that is at all realistic.  That might not seem like a problem, but I wonder about what that says about cognitive strategy.  Are realistic forms of strategy and critical thinking dulled?  Surely some kind of strategy is formed, but like most video games, those strategies are entirely dependent upon the nature of the game rather than any skill set applicable to the outside world.  Even games I enjoy, like the Civilization series, have strategy guides built for maximizing points that do not reflect the way countries and culture actually operate, which is what the game makes a pretense of doing.

As a roleplayer, I can't imagine the world.  There it is, right in front of me, and I have no idea what's going on in it.  Where does this place exist?  Where could it possibly?  Outside the stylized arena, I have no way of putting myself in the world, I don't know why I'm there, and I have little motivation to continue.  And the mentality that developed this game is at work in most contemporary pen and paper games - or the .pdf facsimiles thereof.  What good is a roleplaying game when the rules make sense only within the context of the game itself?  What does it mean, then?  People claim that it is a tool to be used however I see fit, and I can add or remove roleplaying elements as I wish, but I don't ever see groups do that.  They play their games 'right out of the box,' and that idea is encouraged.  You're not supposed to personalize it much, but you can plug in someone else's mod (once used shorthand for 'module' now used as shorthand for 'modification.'  What does that tell you about a game?) and away you go.  The general game is unchanged, except for a few personalized 'elements' that some programmer (read: DM) felt like adding for personal amusement, and most of those mods have nothing to to with story or even the intended style of the game - just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The Deulist - Factoring Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength in Swordplay (Is There Anything Wrong with AD&D? Part III)

 One of Hughes' (actually Kevin Mowery, according to his website) critiques is a question of how high ability scores reflect bonuses to combat scores.  Constitution adds hit points, Dexterity reduces Armor Class and Strength increases chances to hit.  He argues that the specific bonuses do not reflect the abstract combat accurately.

Only the Fighter class benefits from a higher Constitution, for example.  "A fighter with an 18 Con," he says, "is luckier and more agile than a thief with 18 Con, and has better divine favor than a cleric with 18 Con."  I understand the argument.  Hit points tend to reflect, according to the 1e Player's Guide, "combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers) and magical forces."  If the character has a bonus to hit points due to constitution, then that must mean all of those factors are considered, which is inconsistent with what Constitution represents.  Alternately, the fighter benefits from physical toughness more than other characters, which does not reflect a reality.

However, part of the hit point "combat skill" involves how easily someone wears themselves out.  In combat, often the fighter with the most conservative movements lasts through the battle.  I have seen seasoned fencers dominate younger, faster fencers simply because of reserved movement.  Eventually, the younger fencer, who has been throwing themselves at the older, more experienced fencer left and right, tires and leaves themselves open for a simple attack.  Other times, the quickness of an experienced fencer's blade work tires his opponent for him, as the inexperienced one overcompensates his parry too often and starts to slow down.  Constitution, then, isn't about how thick the body is, but how it conserves its energy in a fight.  This is why characters receive a Constitution bonus for every level, rather than only once.  Similarly, fighters have more benefits from higher scores because that is what they are trained to do - manage their energy for combat.  Thieves, magic-users, and clerics, while gaining some experience in combat, do not have this focus.

So if hit points do not reflect simple physical damage, why does Dexterity offer bonuses to Armor Class instead of hit points?  If not every hit point reduction is due to a real and authentic 'hit' on the character, Dexterity could be used to represent that, instead.  However, considering Constitution bonuses partially represent how easily a character tires out, and level increases partially represent a learned conservation of movement, adding hit points because of movement is contradictory.  Instead, the bonus goes to Armor Class because someone does not need to train to have fast reflexes.  In combat, a reaction is rarely unexpected.  The strategy of sword fighting is to cause the opponent to act or react in a way that the attacker has already planned.  Even when attacks are expected, it is difficult for someone to respond to them if they have allowed their actions to be dictated for them.  Dexterity, though, represents that last-ditch untrained response to an attack - jumping back out of range at the last second, ducking or turning to the side to avoid a blow.  This is something that anyone with a high Dexterity can do, not just those trained specifically in fighting, thus Dexterity affects Armor Class.

Strength, though, is a raw ability that comes into play fairly often in combat, which is why only fighters have the benefit of exceptional scores in that ability.  Part of this is due to learning how to hold and use a weapon.  The rest, though, comes from someone bearing down on an opponent with sheer brute force.  More than once, I have had my blade knocked out of attack range, even when I was anticipating - or encouraging - a parry to my attack, simply because my opponent was a gorilla.  Other times, I've given up points or have been stung by a slapping blade because my parry against that gorilla wasn't forceful enough.  Sometimes, just fencing someone twice my size has worn me out because a) their bulk makes them slow, so I rely on my speed and move around more, or b) their attacks and parries are so strong my arm is wrenched left and right during the bout.  Now imagine someone with a rapier, an elegant and quick weapon, trying to parry a mad barbarian's bastard sword.  It can be done, but even a successful deflection is still going to result in some damage.

Other game systems I have seen, especially those that simulate direct play-by-play exchanges, do not take these factors into account.  A parry means a parry, simply, and no side-effects result from that parry.  Hit points are directly a representation of how much punishment someone can take, and fatigue, learned conservation, or the rigors of being in combat with someone twice the size of the attacker are ignored.  Worse is when dodging is regulated purely for defending against missile weapons, while parries are used only for melee weapons.  Where, then, is the side-step or retreat-step?  Besides, each and every attack made at an opponent is not necessarily intended to connect or cause damage; they're intended to bring the opponent into a rhythm of parries and counter-attacks, leaving them open to an attack on a different quarter.  If one of these attacks lands, great!  But there is no game system that accurately relates this idea in a blow-by-blow simulation.  It requires a generalization.

 This system, of course, relies on imagination on the part of the players and GM.  They don't rely on a series of dice rolls to recount the scene for them.  Instead, they take generalities and use them to tell an exciting story, as they interpret the dice. 

Related Links
Mark Damon Hughes: RPG: What's Wrong with AD&D?
Fencing.Net

Of Elves, Wizards, and Plate Mail (Is There Anything Wrong with AD&D, Part II)

This is my first response to a specific criticism of AD&D offered by Mark Damon Hughes on his website What's Wrong with AD&D?  In the section Metal and Magic and Multiclassing, he prints a few points made by Dr. Erin D. Smale on wearing armor while casting spells and the seeming irrationality behind multi-classing rules.  Like the other issues that Mark points out on his page, these are some valid points that really need to be addressed because as new games were developed, each with its own sensibilities, people demanded explanations for rules that seemed arbitrary.  Most of the choices that Gygax made in the development of AD&D followed conventions and standards of the (especially pre-Tolkien) fantasy genre.  Times have certainly changed since then, and most of those conventions have either been re-imagined, refined, or re-defined.

So let's look at these questions that Dr. Smale asks about AD&D:

1. Why are multi-classed demi-human magic-users permitted to wear metal armour but human magic-users are not? . . . 2. Why are demi-humans restricted in level advancement? . . . 3. Why can multi-class demi-human magic-users wear armour but single-class demi-human magic-users can't? . . . 4. How are other multi-class character abilities justified in contrast to their single-class restrictions?

The good doctor points out the inconsistencies in logic with the usual answers to those questions, and I agree:  those answers are inconsistent and incorrect.  Game balance has little to do with the answer (at least, if we understand game balance to mean equalizing power between characters of comparable level).  In fact, game balance in relation to level limits was considered after the fact, with the publication of Unearthed Arcana. 

Why are demi-humans restricted in level advancement?  Looking to Dr. Smale's specific questions, it's easier to answer the second one first because the answers to the others are closely related to one another.  Part of the issue with AD&D multi-classing is a loose distinction between racial culture and genetics.  Are elves adept at magic due to their nature or hundreds of years of their society's development of mystic arts?  Like most of the ideas behind AD&D, there is a tendency to blur specifics - this time done in an attempt to leave things mysterious and exciting.  Either way, there was a specific idea people had in their head when they thought of high-fantasy elves, and while original (Basic) D&D preserved that idea by making demi-humans their own classes, AD&D had to do the same thing while still allowing some variation to class.  This was done by limiting single-class levels for demi-humans but opening the door for multi-classing, something that humans are not allowed to do.  It suggests that multi-class identities are more likely among the demi-humans, especially since a multi-class character can assume a combined level almost twice as high as a single class.  As one can see, the limits to character class are meant to guide identity and character more than balance power.  Furthermore, most of the reasons that the mechanics work the way they do are meant as an explanation of why we see particular conventions at almost every turn. 

To address one of Dr. Smale's other criticisms, elves show their affinity for magic through their likelier multi-class choices: fighter/magic-user, fighter/magic-user/thief, magic-user/thief, and fighter/thief.  Elves and half-elves are the only characters that may multi-class as magic-users.  Elves are not more "adept" at magic use than humans, but they certainly are more used to it as part of their lifestyle and culture. 

This sounds a bit as though I'm defending a purely mechanical choice that reflects an idea without supporting a real-world (even if that world is a fantasy world) rationale.  However, keep in mind that while elves, dwarves and halflings have preconceived ideas attached to them, so do humans.  In most fantasy, and in most science fiction, humans are always able to overcome what seems to be impossible odds and defeat more powerful (as a whole) races.  Two conventions about humanity's place in the world (or universe) raise to the forefront: human beings' "insatiable curiosity" and their unlimited potential.  Only from the human perspective do we see demi-human levels as "limited."  It might be more accurate to think of humans as "unlimited" in relation, instead.  Therefore, it doesn't matter how long an elf lives.  Only humans have unlimited potential in noble or demanding pursuits, while anyone can pursue ignoble skills as far as the highest-level thief.

Why are multi-classed demi-human magic-users permitted to wear metal armour but human magic-users are not? . . . Why can multi-class demi-human magic-users wear armour but single-class demi-human magic-users can't?  The first and second questions have the same answer because they are basically the same question: Why are multi-classed magic-users permitted to wear metal armour but single-class magic-users are not?  The answer is in training.  A single-class magic-user simply is not trained in the use of arms and armor, while a multi-classed magic-user is.  Even a dual-classed magic-user has not been trained in the use of armor while casting spells.  Also, as I stated above, AD&D tends to err on the side of generalization.  There are so few spells that do not require somatic (physical) components, that AD&D generalizes all magic spells in regards to casting while wearing armor.  This idea was either unpopular or misunderstood enough that it was changed in 2nd edition AD&D.  Multi-classed magic-users could no longer wear armor while wearing spells, unless they were elves (not half-elves) and were wearing elven chain, "as magic is part of the nature of elves."

How are other multi-class character abilities justified in contrast to their single-class restrictions? Dr. Smale's final question leads him to, perhaps, the best argument for fair game balance between single- and multi-classed characters.  When demi-humans are restricted in single-class pursuits, having multiple classes is a benefit.  Furthermore, they are, more often than not, on par with their single-class human counterparts, if not better due to their versatility.

Eventually, though, a multi-class character will reach level limits.  An elf fighter/magic-user, for example, can only reach levels 7/11, while their human counterpart will continue to advance.  That means the elf's experience total will be 70,001 for the fighter and 375,001 for the magic-user, for a total of 445,002 experience.  An equivalent single-class fighter will be level 10, and an equivalent single-class magic-user will be level 11.  At these levels, the multi-classed elf is a superior character.  But he has reached his limit.  How long will that superiority last while the human magic-user continues to advance? 

Again, humans have unlimited potential, while the other races do not.  This is part of why human beings, in most fantasy settings, are expanding their lands while the other races have been driven to seclusion or face dwindling numbers.  Also, multi-classing suggests that the lines between distinct human concepts are fuzzier for demi-humans.  For elves, magic is such a part of their lives that they would benefit more by including it in their studies.  Similarly, dwarves spend their time fighting underground, sneaking through tunnels and digging through earth, so of course they will have the option of being fighter/thieves.

One can infer that contemporary players are much more interested in seeing characters break conventions than succumb to them.  They don't want to know how an elf's character would develop.  They want to know how their character would break tradition.  This is due in part to our general American philosophy of individualism.  White Wolf games certainly pushed this idea, by explaining factions of monsters and describing how each faction is seriously flawed in one or more ways.  Players were expected to fight against nature or society and, through their individuality, become something better.  Other games, such as D20 D&D, accentuate that idea by making individual characters highly customizable, so much so that characters are rarely restricted by the normal class limitations.  In D&D, this is a trend that started with the AD&D Player Handbooks for the various classes, escalated with the Players' Option line of books, and finally culminated in D&D 3.0.  This is what contemporary players want out of  the hobby - customized personalities instead of roles to play.

Unfortunately, AD&D was always about playing traditional roles, not customized inventions.  The last thing I wanted to point out was that, again, these rules are meant to explain why we see the same conventions over and over again.  Any in-world explanations are going to be after the fact, whether after mechanics are in place or after the racial conventions are decided upon.  Even by the time 2nd edition was printed, people's ideas of certain character races had changed, so the 2nd edition had to reflect that.  For example, dwarves were no longer restricted to 9th level as fighters.  They could reach as high as 15th level!  That's an increase by two-thirds!  This comes from the increased suggestion that dwarves are fighters, rather than the thieves and tunnelers they are portrayed as in The Hobbit.

What happens when we remove all of these restrictions?  Why would a particular race have a preference for one class over another?  Character races will start to lose their individuality.  Aside from superficial differences, such as height, there will be no reason to choose one race over another.  Worse, what happens when multi-classed characters are allowed to advance to unlimited levels?  If the multi-classed character is already more powerful than an equivalent single-class character, allowing unlimited advancement only makes that relative power permanent.  Ultimately, the total personal customization of characters means that lines between races and classes are drawn arbitrarily because, in the long run, they mean nothing.

Related Links
What's Wrong with AD&D?

Is There Anything Wrong with AD&D?

I came across an old website (last modified in 2002) explaining the problems in the AD&D system.  I have heard these arguments before, and to be frank, I've had a lot of the same concerns.  It's funny, though, that when I have sat down to work on developing a game system of my own, I often realize that solutions to apparent problems in the mechanics I am developing are dealt with easily by AD&D rules.  What I've found, more often than not, is that the seeming inconsistencies with the game are usually the result of my own misunderstanding of either the rules or the concepts behind them.  Furthermore, I also realize that despite my preference for older games, I am still a product of the threshold of fantasy storytelling as a preference to adventure gaming.  To be honest, most of the things that are criticized in the AD&D game come from a different style of play and the incompatibility of that play with older game systems.  Furthermore, the older style of play is seen as something that was less refined than today's style of gaming, when that simply isn't the case.  Others more insightful than myself have pointed out that contemporary roleplayers are unable to play in the old style while older gamers have no problem moving between the two.  To me, that suggests that the contemporary style is less refined than the older.

However, it is important that even us older roleplayers look back on the rules systems that we enjoy so much and remind ourselves why they worked so well in the first place and what their intentions were.  To that end, in the next few posts, I'll address some of the issues that Mark Damon Hughes points out on his website (the same one I mentioned earlier).  For the sake of argument, let this first post be a response to his Manifesto.  I believe that most of his criticisms result from a combination of 1) a lack of information about the function of the rules and 2) a completely incompatible playing style with vastly different expectations.  I do want to point out that Mark's criticism and commentary are neither ignorant nor inarticulate.  He makes some good, valid points (and as I said earlier, ones that I have made before, myself).  I even applaud his intentions of contributing to the ongoing process of refining and raising up the hobby.  He just wants something out of AD&D that isn't there and was never intended to be there.  Gary Gygax even noticed the perspective that Mark represents, and Gary had implied on more than one occasion that he intended the game to be played in a certain way that newer and newer players did less and less.  In short, AD&D may not stand up as a purely storytelling game (as the term storytelling is defined by contemporary rpg players), nor does it exist as the height of unadulterated combat-focused gaming.  AD&D is a roleplaying game, and the best of them. 

Related Links
Mark Damon Hughes: RPG: What's Wrong with AD&D?
Lulu download: A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming

Character Project: Let's Get Silly

Man, what a stressful week.  In an effort to relieve some of that stress, I'm hitting that often neglected Steve Jackson game, TOON.

Products: TOON: The Cartoon Roleplaying Game (1984) & Son of TOON (1986)

Aaron Aardvark

     Description:  Aaron looks like a typical aardvark.  He stands three feet tall and has a long snout.  He usually looks tired and unkempt.  He wears rumpled shirts (no pants) and carries a cup of coffee that always seems to be full.  He speaks in a low monotone voice and acts like nothing surprises him.

     Beliefs and Goals: Sleep during the day and stay up all night.  Scrounge for ants and termites to eat, and wash them down with a nice, hot cup of java.  Try to look unimpressed and unaffected by even the most bizarre occurrences.  Watch out for lions, leopards, dogs, big snakes, or anything else that might want to eat me.  You can usually out-think them (but try not to work too hard or look too stressed while doing it).
     Hit Points: 11

Muscle: 3
     Break Down Door: 3
     Climb: 3
     Fight: 5
     Pick Up Heavy Thing: 3
     Throw: 3

Zip: 2
     Dodge: 2
     Drive Vehicle: 2
     Fire Gun: 2
     Jump: 2
     Ride: 2
     Run: 2
     Swim: 2

Smarts: 6
     Hide/Spot Hidden: 8
     Identify Dangerous Thing: 9
     Read: 9
     Resist Fast-Talk: 9
     See/Hear/Smell: 9
     Set/Disarm Trap: 7
     Track/Cover Tracks: 7

Chutzpah: 4
     Fast-Talk: 7
     Pass/Detect Shoddy Goods: 7
     Sleight of Hand: 4
     Sneak: 4

Schtick:
     Incredible Speed (Burrowing) 5

I was starting to like this character by the time I finished him.  I tried putting myself in a mindset of the old animators, who would develop an idea around an almost real situation first - an animal in its natural habitat that otherwise acted human.  The TOON game, though, has no such 'logic' controlling it (they make a distinction between 'character' animals and 'real' animals, for example).  Still, the two or three times I played the game was enjoyable, for what it was, and I'd play it again.

Of course, I wonder how much contemporary players would get of the game, considering Saturday Morning Cartoons are pretty much over (I think Cartoon Network helped to kill that notion).  Unless the younger kids go out of their way to educate themselves in old Warner Bros. and MGM mayhem, I think a lot of the concept would be lost on them.

Then again, the TOON game was never intended for great things - it's a pick-up game, after all.  It's something to do while you're waiting for the rest of the players to show up.  The game was reprinted as a Deluxe Edition in 1991, comprising over 200 pages (up from the thin module-size prints of 40 pages or so), and that was followed by three additional 200+ page supplements. The supplements were increasingly silly, and by the time the last one was printed (TOON Ace Catalog) the already-difficult-to-take-seriously game was almost completely unplayable because they abandoned any comprehension of rules and started to violate their own premises.  It's one thing to be funny, but another thing entirely to be unusable.

Related Links
TOON at Steve Jackson Games

Character Project: Four Color System

After going through the Marvel files, I wanted to look at the revamped rules put together by Phil Reed and Michael Hammes of Ronin Arts.  I don't know what to say about the product, other than you can get a free .pdf download of it from a number of places (Lulu is one) and that it is intentionally a bare-bones system.  Some people like that kind of thing, and would leave it that way.  I am going to interpret this fact as a gift to the hobby from Reed and Hammes, who don't have the time to flesh out a full system.  It's all open content, published by Seraphim Guard (and Lulu gives credit to 'Public Domain' as the author).  There has been some supportive material, but not as much as OSRIC.  For the most part, the product was put together kind of hastily, but Reed and Hammes met their goals.  The rules are intended to be altered and filled in by anyone that wants to use the basic mechanics to develop a full system.  At least one person is already on that task (ThatArtGuy, who did some nice Judge's screen and character sheet work for the original MSH game), but I don't know the status of that project.

Either way, here is a new character put together with the 4C system.  This is FASERIP compatible, so I'll try to reflect that in the stat block here.

The White Lion (Skilled Human)

Melee 20

Coordination 30

Brawn 10

Fortitude 30

Intellect 10

Awareness 30

Willpower 10

Damage 90

Fortune 50

Lifestyle 70

Repute 50

Known Powers

Invisibility 6

Mind Control 10

Astoundingly Wealthy

Skills

Business/Finance

Meditation

Occult Lore

Martial Arts

Oriental Weapons

Background

When his private plane crashed in the mountains of Tibet, billionaire playboy Trenton Buckner was wounded and lost among the snowy peaks.  On the verge of death, from both the wounds he received in the crash and exposure to frigid temperatures, he was rescued by monks from a hidden nearby monastery.  They nursed him back to health, during which time Trenton had time to reevaluate his life.  Upon his recovery, he begged the monastery's lama to accept him into the order and teach him their ways.  He learned quickly, and in a few short years he returned to America with the knowledge and abilities he had gained.  Realizing he could put his talents and resources to better use than he had in the past, Trenton donned a white suit and mask to become the White Lion!

This game is almost unplayable without more rules.  There are no talent sets and some of the 'powers' extend outside the realm of what are normally considered 'powers.'  Some of these would be better set aside as some kind of resource or background.  More importantly, they violate the concept of powers as they were presented in the original material.  Furthermore, the over-generalized method of character creation (everything is rolled on a single table) makes a character feel less specialized and the different origin options less important.  A character becomes a list of statistics with arbitrary meanings behind them.  

The 'thesaurus disease' seems to have hit this product, too.  I realize that the attributes directly relate to the FASERIP system, but I doubt there is a need to worry too much about a few terminology uses when there have been industry standards for years.   Is it really that much of a problem to keep using Strength, Health and Agility?

As I said, there are some supportive materials for the 4C system so far, but these mechanics need a more complete treatment to be useful.   I'm hoping ThatArtGuy finishes his project (the last reference to it that I've heard was almost a year ago), or that someone else gives it the complete once-over.

Related Links

Marvel Heroes Classic Roleplaying

Ronin Arts

Design: Ability Scores

"Why have Attributes at all?"  Few gamers ask this question unless they mean it as a snarky response to questions about the use of Attribute checks as a separate system from skill checks.  I ask the question legitimately.  There is an overwhelming number of game systems that rely on skills over attributes, but the attribute system is still in place.  At most, attributes are used as a small boost or minor advantage increase on top of the skill.  I think the bigger issue is what that means in terms of the game being played.

Considering that attribute systems have become a standard, I start to wonder if that means most games are pretty much the same.  There are setting differences, and that's almost all that distinguishes them.  I haven't seen (at least not for several years) a game that boasts a mechanic system as the best way to represent a particular type of setting, rather than touting the setting itself.  I don't necessarily want to focus on settings, but it's hard to discuss attributes in any realistic way without mentioning it.

I can think of one game that doesn't use an attribute system - at least not the way we think of it.  Car Wars characters spend so little time on foot (the game calls people who walk 'pedestrians') that there is almost no need for attributes.  Characters focus on skill use, and the greatest use comes from three skills in particular: Driver, Mechanic, and Gunner.  On top of that, they have stats for Prestige (which changes during a campaign) and Wealth (which also changes).  Every character starts with 3 hit points, and only someone with a weightlifting skill can increase that.  The scale of the game, after all, is based on big American sedans of the 1980s as the average, and a puny human is much less durable.  The "Character Sheets" for vehicles, though, are outrageously complex, and there is no clear-cut method of 'character' creation for vehicles.  There is a lot of basic information that the GM has to supply arbitrarily with no guidance to new GMs.

The only system I've seen that comes close to minimalizing attributes is the famous D6 system (West End Games and the original Star Wars RPG).  Attributes begin as a basic start of what and where a character's abilities sit, but they can be totally left behind after some development.  Okay, after a LOT of development.  I haven't seen a sustainable D6 campaign in which characters developed more than a couple of their favorite skills beyond basic attribute levels.  Even so, I wonder what a character with a 5D rating in Strength can lift compared to a character with a 2D Strength but an 8D Lifting skill.  It just doesn't seem feasible to me that the first character can't lift more than the second, even with that skill bonus.  For that matter, I don't quite understand why Lifting is a skill at all, and not just a representation of a developed Strength attribute.


Are Attributes Necessary for Skill Systems?
Couple Questions, If I May
Car Wars

Game Design: Playercentric vs. Worldcentric

 

I have a few minutes between moments of work, here, so I thought I'd bang out some thoughts.  I responded to a comment with this idea, but I wanted to develop it in its own post. 

People are polarizing roleplaying ideas along the wrong lines: roleplay vs. hack and slash, rules heavy vs. rules light... there was a time when people polarized between reality and fantasy, but that was wrong, too.  As a minor-league rhetorician, I have to ask, what are the assumptions we are making about this hobby?  In other words, what is it that we are taking for granted without asking about?

Is anyone asking why we focus on players so much?  I don't mean players as opposed to Game Masters (player vs. DM mentality was another misplaced polarization).  I mean intentionally placing the players as stars of the world rather than highlighting the world and letting characters run around in it. 

It sounds crazy, right?  Aren't we supposed to make the players the center of the action?  After all, without them there would be no game.  But there is a problem.  Everyone wants to be in on the act, including the Game Master.  He (or she, I guess) wants that complex story to get noticed and appreciated, just as much as the players want to get noticed.  The story unfolds, not unlike a video game plot, where the players have a choice here, a choice there, they 'roleplay', meaning they act in a way that is consistent with a personality quirk rather than learn and grow, but otherwise they make very few decisions.

Like I said in my comment, what happened to the objective world that could be explored?  Out beyond the walls of the homes and institutions where we place so much importance on ourselves, the world cares little for us and keeps spinning, spinning.  Is meaning in our lives thrust upon us by the universe, or is it forged by our own actions and determination?  When nature cares little for us, slapping our coasts with devastating waves or tearing the ground out from underneath us, how do we make our lives our own?  Why do we rely so much on our destinies being played out for us, while we sit as passive, complacent consumers, taking what's marketed to us rather than forging our own tools and clearing our own paths?

So I encourage people to close their eyes and put themselves into a setting.  Feel the dank walls of the dungeon around you, smell the sweetness in the air from the moss and lichen and the rich smoking wood of the burning torch.  Remember that the walls are close, too close, and that you're underground.  Even if you don't get killed outright here, there is still the chance of a rock slide blocking the entrance or a pit trap dropping you into the infinite reaches of caverns below.  There is never any guarantee that you'll return alive, no matter how well-equipped you are or how powerful.  Around you is the isolating darkness of the unknown, and only the brave or ignorant take these exploratory excursions lightly.  Even the sarcastic quips of the party's thief is an effort to push away the lingering anxiety that comes from being reminded of one's own mortality in the face of a dangerous and quiet hallway of stone and earth...

Character Project - Marvel Super Heroes

The game I started playing with was not D&D, but instead was Marvel Super Heroes.  This was during the mid- to late-80s, when D&D was vilified as a gateway to Satan worshiping.  As a compromise, I was allowed to play some games that focused specifically on heroism.  Marvel was one, and Star Wars was another.  That didn't keep me from sneaking off to play D&D (or other, much more violent games, like Twilight 2000).  Still, Marvel Super Heroes has a special place in my heart.

This entry is going to be unlike previous ones because I'm not going to use a particular product to gauge my critique on.   Instead, I'm going to pull out an old database I've created that is an amalgam of several sources: The Advanced Set, The Ultimate Powers Book, Realms of Magic, and a couple of Dragon Magazine articles.

EL CHUPACABRA


STATISTICS

F  In (36)
A  In (36)
S  Fe (1)
E  Ex (16)
R  Pr (3)
I   Gd (8)
P  In (36)

Health: 89
Karma: 47
Resources: Fe (1)
Popularity: -5

BACKGROUND
Real Name: Unknown
Occupation: Vagrant
Legal Status: The world at large believes El Chupacabra to be only a legend.
Identity: Publicly known
Place of Birth: Puerto Rico
Marital Status: Single
Known Relatives: None
Base of Operations: Mobile
Past Group Affiliations: None
Present Group Affiliations: None

KNOWN POWERS
Pheromones: El Chupacabra can emit an Excellent (16) Rank stench through his pores that causes nausea.  Anyone subjected to the stench must make a successful Endurance Feat against this power's intensity or be incapacitated until El Chupacabra leaves the area or stops emitting pheromones.  He can emit the stench for a number of rounds equal to his power rank each day.

Leaping: El Chupacabra can leap up with Remarkable (26) ability.

Danger Sense: El Chupacabra detects danger with Amazing (46) ability.  He may substitute this rank for his Intuition for the purposes of combat.

Natural Weapons: El Chupacabra has several large quills that run along his spine.  Additionally, he has long fangs and claws that he may use in combat.  These sharp objects cause Amazing (46) damage.

Infravision: El Chupacabra can see into the infrared spectrum with Excellent (16) range and ability.

Shrinking: Because of his diminutive stature, El Chupacabra is considered to have permanent Feeble (1) rank shrinking.

Talents: El Chupacabra has learned how to survive in the wilds and may be considered to have survival and stealth talents.  He has also shown a remarkable ability to learn and understand languages (particularly Spanish and English), though he is unable to speak them.  Finally, El Chupacabra is considered to have the Acrobatics and Tumbling talents, receiving a +1CS to all FEATS involving those actions.

Contacts: In his travels, El Chupacabra has met many people that he may call friends, particularly the outcast and unwanted.  Furthermore, he has attained a form of cult hero status in many areas of the Southern United States, Mexico, Central America and South America.

This is a difficult system to nail down.  There is a remarkable combination of organic, build-as-you-go character creation and controlled random generation.  I think it helps best to have a clear idea of a character before sitting down with dice, because every time I let random chance determine any part of the creation process, I end up with the oddest characters (the first and last time I let the dice think for me entirely, I inadvertently recreated a giant space hamster from the Spelljammer AD&D setting).  On the other hand, any sort of randomness in a character creation process means that a player has to be willing to sacrifice at least part of his initial concept.  Sometimes this means a character could have lower scores than the player would like, and other times this means a generalized or uninspired character concept becomes a more individualized and interesting one.  This encourages adaptation to circumstance, something players will have to take with them into the playing of the game itself.

All things being fair, I should include some hard criticism of the game as a whole.  Combat is fast and fun, but damage is static, which often leads to regretfully frustrating encounters.  An armor ranking effectively defends against all attacks equal to or less than that rank, and no matter how much a character exerts himself, he always does the same amount of damage.  That means there is no way for strengths of equal rank to overcome one another.  Furthermore, the Marvel Super Heroes RPG is an early example of a single mechanic that dominates a rules set.  However, I get the distinct feeling, while looking at the Basic set rules and supplements, that the game was designed as simplified role-playing rather than something more complex.  The Advanced set was a change from that, as the developers moved from a simple rules set to a larger complex world.  Like many single-mechanic games, the character was the central focus rather than the setting itself... and that is the setting: the unique individual existing in a normal world.

News in Productivity

Johnny Rook Games is a go!

I've joined forces with someone to start a publishing company, and the first product is now for sale!  The 1e module Watchtower on the Hill can be purchased through Lulu, and the basics of a website have been put together.

When my business partner first approached me about a publishing company, it was several years ago, and the idea felt more like a pipe dream.  The more we talked about things, though, the more we liked the idea and thought we could realize it.  Even though we were woefully low on start-up funds, we talked about producing a game and threw some ideas back and forth.  We wanted to develop a full product before we tried to sell it.

Our biggest problem had been trying not to reinvent the wheel.  Every time we came up with a solution to a problem with game mechanics, we realized that it had been done already (or better) by previous products.  Then we saw what was happening in the self-publishing world and how that was being used to put out 1e material.  We were hooked in an instant, and we devoted our time to producing a few things for the growing community of traditional role playing enthusiasts!

Now, we still have a few tricks up our sleeves.  We spent a lot of time working angles, altering rule sets, clarifying mechanics, and tweaking what was left.  While the products we're putting out now are intended to be compatible with the OSRIC rules, we still plan on including original material.  It will be an evolutionary process, as we tidy up loose ends and fine tune the rules we've been working on.  In production right now is a new campaign setting that will include much of the hard work we've been putting in over the last few years.  These are products not for us, but for the hobby, and we can only hope that our small contribution helps push the hobby forward. 

This blog will continue as a separate entity from the Johnny Rook Games company, as I meditate or play around with ideas or games that have little or nothing to do with what the company publishes.  Go out and play games, everyone, and bring some new players into the fold.  Good gaming to you all!

Important Links:
Lulu
Johnny Rook Games
Watchtower on the Hill

Downtime

I wonder how odd it is to be writing about role playing games (on an admittedly low level of regularity), when I haven't played a game in over six months, and haven't played regularly in years.  I also wonder how much interest I really have in playing anymore, when the hobby has changed as much as it has.  On a deeper level, how much of my own attitudes toward the current trends come from nostalgia for something lost rather than as a critique of what is?

Despite the growing Traditional Gaming Movement, I don't see the hobby having much growth.  Most of the new products that spring up in support of refurbished old game products still carry the weight of postmodern computer gaming identity.  That is, the modules are designed with the writer's AWESOME STORY in mind rather than playability, and the smell of over-the-top 'dungeon-punk' (I wish I had coined that phrase) still lingers on those virtual pdf pages.  Small-press D20 books are on the wane, small-press old-school books are on the rise (at least in the print-on-demand internet markets), but nothing seems to be reaching out to new players.  It's all about sustaining what current players want to play.  And with simulations of Original D&D and First Edition AD&D, Second Edition is grossly underrepresented.

I know at least one person rejecting 'retro-clone,' the term that has been circulating among the adherents, as he wonders why we are referring to traditional gaming as such, or as 'old-school' style, when very little actual role playing occurs in this new style.  The shift, it seems, from playing the part of a type in favor of playing the part of an individual, is at the core of this difference of philosophy in games.  Based on what I have seen and experienced with contemporary art and literature, not to mention popular media, I agree with the objections to contemporary gaming.  It is more of a challenge to play the part of The Fighter than to play the part of Giaccomo Fenderharp, Battlesinger and Bladespinner.  I don't even know what the hell I just said, but I'm sure someone will think they can make that idea awesome with a bit of personalization.

This is a lot of the reason I don't play much anymore.  I can't find anyone that shares this philosophy of gaming.  Individuals are incredibly unreliable, while archetypes are as dependable as Old Faithful.  Deep in the pits of the Underdark, surrounded by beasts that have not seen the light of day for centuries, I cannot rely on Giaccomo Fenderharp for combat support.  I honestly have no idea what he can do, and I can't trust how necessary I am to him, since anything I can do, he can do better.  I would rather trust the longsword of Robert the Fighter, whose survival depends on me as much as mine depends on him.

OSRIC vs. AD&D, part II

My last post was my impressions of AD&D 1st edition, by way of character creation.  For this entry, I'll go through the OSRIC rules and make a character that way.  There are no statistic block standards for any of this, but the presentation needs to be modified somewhat from the standard AD&D form to allow for player-necessary information that doesn't show up in standard published statistics blocks and to highlight slight differences between OSRIC and AD&D.

Robertus Cordner: 1st-level Human Cleric; Strength 13, Dexterity 14, Constitution 16, Intelligence 7, Wisdom 18, Charisma 15; Hit Points: 3; Age: 22; Armor Class 4; Alignment: Neutral Good
Equipment: Scale mail, medium shield, heavy flail, sling, pewter holy symbol, heavy boots, tunic.
Physical Description: Slim; Height: 5'7"; Weight: 170 lbs.

Organization: I organized the statistics block above in pretty much the order that the OSRIC document walks a reader through character creation.  The only real difference is that the standard ability list (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) is organized before race and class, while I list them here afterwards.  Note the location of Age in the stat block above.  For most purposes, age tends to be almost unimportant or overlooked, and anyone else would shift it to the Physical Description area.  However, the OSRIC book puts an emphasis on age as related to class, rather than only race, and beginning age generation is listed there.  The AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide emphasizes age that way as well, but that information rests exclusively in the DM's tome.

Another thing a few purists might notice is how the standard ability list is out of normal order.  This actually makes a big difference when it comes to random character generation, and it can mean the difference between a character becoming a wizard or a thief, for example, because those prime-requisite scores are in different locations.  Robertus, up above, would have become a clumsy, durable, dwarf fighter if the order was standard.  However, this is only impportant in individual cases, and wouldn't make much difference to the way the game is played.

There is no dungeon master's section.  After years of play, like I said in my last post, the idea of one person controlling all information has become unrealistic.  The OSRIC rules, though, are not intended to be a complete and polished game in itself.  It is a collection of rules found in other places, gathered together for ease of reference, not necessarily for ease of use.  There are no collective tables that show me comparative bonuses and penalties of one race compared to others, either for ability scores or class limitations.  There are no tables that do the same thing for each class's armor and weapon permissions, hit dice, or weapon proficiency slots.  Scrolling through the OSRIC material to compare one thing to another to help make a desicion takes a long time.  This is a collection of rules for people who already know the rules.

There is also a tendency to organize things (spells, classes, treasure) alphabetically.  This, too, gets in the way of functionality.  When I'm looking at a choice between many spells of the same level, it is much easier to see them all in the same spot, rather than spread out all over the spell section.  When I have to scroll through a computer document, rather than flip through pages of a book, the problem increases.

Ironically, the only thing arranged by type is the monster section of the OSRIC rules, which was arranged alphabetically in the 1st edition Monster Manuals.  I suspect this has something to do with avoiding duplication of organization methods, but it is also a reflection of organizational and categorical style found in D20 products.  In fact, all of that alphabetizing of other sections is a D20 method of organization.  Despite the rules being similar to 1st edition, then, the organization in OSRIC suggests that those rules will be used in a different way - the D20 way.  A quick look at the new 1st-edition supportive material that is being published lately (under the 'compatable with OSRIC' banner) confirms that.  There is something about these products that make them decidedly NOT 1st-edition AD&D products, and the rules deviations are only a small reflection of that.

What's missing: It hadn't even crossed my mind until one of my cohorts pointed it out to me, but I found out later that the OSRIC set is missing rules on grappling.  For a player well-versed in the rules already, as this document seems to be directed to, that isn't much of a problem.  New dungeon masters or players, though, will find that the rules are either incomplete or rather bare-boned.  The response to this is two-fold: 1) the rules are left open so that interpretation of what rules are present can fit the situation; and 2) the compilers of OSRIC may have left out material they didn't care for or were afraid of crossing copywrite laws with.  What is most disturbing, though, is the lack of the monk character class and psionics.  Regardless of how poorly done one may claim the psionics rules in 1st edition (and 2nd) AD&D were, exclusion of them, and thus the monk character that possessed them, damages the general tone and overall atmosphere of an authentic 1st edition replication.

One more thing that bothers me is a result of avoiding lawsuits.  In an effort to not reproduce the AD&D method of organization for fear of copywrite infringement, the character classes are no longer organized by classes and sub-classes.  The paladin and ranger were sub-classes of the fighter, druid a sub-class of the cleric, illusionist a sub-class of the magic-user, and assassin a sub-class of the thief.  These are small distinctions when the rules still follow those general categories (the rules often repeat phrases like "uses the fighter's 'to-hit' table").  However, it does damage the new player's ability to think in those terms, and it adds a lot of extra material that doesn't need to be there.

All-in-all, it's nice to see 1st-edition material in use again, but I wonder about how it's being used.  If these rules are only going to be presented in the same way that 4th edition D&D is, and suggestions to use those rules in the same way, then why do we need a reprint of an old edition at all?  I contend that it is possible to do something else, and perhaps to respark an older method of play, but I don't know if anyone is open to the idea or would even know how.

Happy New Year, Happy New Characters

With a new year comes new possibilities.  I have been watching the Open Gaming License and retro-clone for a while now, and I thought I would do something special.  For the first post of the year, I will make two characters, let the dice fall where they may, one using First Edition AD&D, the second using the OSRIC rules that are an attempt to simulate (partially) the first edition rules.  It should be noted that the rules do not entirely match up, with some variation in character advancement and experience award, but I will do my best here.  I believe the OSRIC rules have later 1st edition Gygax rules sets in mind, rather than early stuff.  I have to make an effort to recover the orange-bound first edition players and dungeon masters manuals to help verify similarities, but for now I'm using the black-bound original cover books.

This post will be the AD&D character, the next post, in a day or two, will be an OSRIC character.  Once I go through both processes, I'll have something more profound to say about the similarities (besides the obvious ones) and differences between the two products.  I hope to discover something shocking!

Product: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook
Date: 1978 (6th printing)
Product #2: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide
Date: 1979 (Revised Edition)

Ailell Ruadh: 1st-level fighter/1st-level magic-user, elf; ST 12, IN 15, WS 13, DX 17, CN 13, CH 16; AC 5 (Dex, studded leather armor); Move 9"; HD 1; hp 2; #AT 1; Dmg 1-8 long sword, 1-6 short bow; SA spells (Jump, Read Magic, Shocking Grasp, Write), elf abilities; AL CG.
Equipment: Belt, Cloak, High soft boots, Iron rations (1 week), Large belt pouch, Large sack, Light riding horse with saddle and harness, Long sword, Oats (1 week horse feed), Rope (50'), Short bow and 2 dozen arrows, Saddle blanket, Small saddle bags, Studded leather, 4 gp.
Weapon Proficiencies: Long sword, short bow, staff, dagger; Secondary Skills: No skill of measurable worth; Age: 210; Height: 4' 8"; Weight: 98 lbs.

It took me almost an hour to make this character, partially because my first-edition character-making skills are somewhat rusty.  I noted that a lot of the character creation material is in the Dungeon Masters Guide.  Ability scores, for example, are discussed in the DMG to some extent, and the options are given to the DM as to which method to choose.  Because I wanted a fairly random development of character, I chose method III - roll 3d6 6 times for each ability and save the highest of each set.  That gave me a character with some high stats!  I was dismayed that I missed qualifying for a paladin by one point on Charisma!  Spell selection, too, was determined by random table in the DMG, but the rest I chose based on the scores I had generated and the fact that I didn't want to make another thief. 

My hit points were low (again!) and I didn't have an outrageously high Constitution to fix that problem.  This character is pretty well equipped, but could die easily in the first encounter.  It's a dangerous world out there!  Those high ability scores can only protect a character so far (in this case, with a two point bonus to AC).

At any rate, I see a tendency to keep some information out of the hands of the players.  Remember, this is a time when the world was created and designed by the DM, who was solely responsible for knowing the rules.  This gave the DM power to fudge those rules from time to time, usually in the player's favor (who wants their hour-long created character to come to a quick end on the first adventure?).  This also gives the players more focus on the story, moving through the world, and not worrying about a list of numbers or list of abilities.  Instead of only thinking about what their stat block tells them they can do, the players would actively engage the world and make decisions based on that engagement. In time, of course, players became knowledgeable of all the rules.  Maybe it was a little naive to think that everything would be kept secret from players, especially if they all had dreams of becoming DMs some day.  I suppose it did cut out the rules lawyers (and what a pain they can be), but I'm sure just as many DMs played the part of tyrant god-king too often...

All-in-all, I do know that this character (and the Basic D&D character I made for my last post) needs to find a party before he runs off into the unknown.  I see him as being a bit apprehensive in his early adventuring days, leaving some work to others, and he'll have a longer road to travel for advancement.  But that's an elf for you.