Sludge Pit

cRPG: Running Diablo 1 on Windows 7

2012-01-16T21:22:00.000-10:00

There's a fair amount of scattered, occasionally-conflicting information about running Diablo 1 (the first Diablo game) under Windows 7. (If you found this post, you've probably already seen some of this info.) Here are my experiences.

Out of the Box:
Diablo 1 will install and run under Windows 7. However, the original unpatched version of the game stores multiplayer character files in the WINDOWS directory. This means you have to run the game as Administrator. (Running the game from the CD automatically prompts you to do this.) If you don't, you won't be able to create a new multiplayer character or see any of the multiplayer characters you created during previous sessions. (I haven't messed with single player.)

Connecting to Battle.net results in a long pause with the message "Searching for the fastest Battle.net server...", which eventually times out after about 1 minute with a "Could not connect" error message.

It is also not possible to play multiplayer across a LAN using IPX because Windows 7 no longer supports IPX. I installed Windows XP Mode with Virtual PC. While this allows for IPX, it is not a solution because DirectX will not work under XP Mode. This means the game won't even start under virtual XP.

IPXWrapper:
Instead, I went back to Windows 7 and used IPXWrapper. You just need to copy the 3 provided .dll files into your Diablo directory to do this. (This code seems safe. I skimmed the source, which is well-formatted, and I didn't notice anything obviously strange. I haven't had any strange new processes or network connections made since running it, either.)

I was trying to play Diablo between a Windows 7 and a Windows XP machine. Note that IPXWrapper is tunneling IPX over UDP, so you can't play using IPXWrapper with a machine that is natively running IPX. All the machines involved need to be using IPXWrapper. But using IPXWrapper is actually easier than installing and configuring IPX on Windows XP anyway, so this is not a hardship once you know about it.

Patching:
Having to run Diablo as Administrator annoyed me somewhat. I was also curious if I could get Battle.net to work. (It is no longer listed even on the Battle.net Classic site).

Installing the latest patch to 1.09 means Diablo will now save multiplayer characters in the diablo/ game directory. Thus, running as Administrator is no longer required. Also, I could now connect to a Battle.net server. (I did not bother actually creating an account and logging on, though.)

Bad/Broken Colors:
Patching breaks the color palette, though. This is obvious in the opening Blizzard animation and in the game itself (though the pre-game menus look fine). Some have reported luck with the Compatibility settings, but none of the combos I tried worked for me. (For example, setting the mode to Win98 or earlier meant the game couldn't find the CD-ROM anymore.)

The weird trick some have reported of opening the Windows Screen Resolution settings window and leaving it open in the background also did not fix this for me.

What did work was: start Diablo, Alt-Tab and open the system Task Manager, and kill explorer.exe. Then Alt-Tab back to a correctly-colored Diablo. (Weird, I know.) When you're done with the game, you can return to the task manager and File -> New Task (Run...) -> explorer.exe again to bring back your task bar, etc.

As reported elsewhere, you can automate all this with a simple batch file. Save the following into a file named diablo.bat in your Diablo game directory:

taskkill /f /im explorer.exe
diablo.exe
pause
start explorer.exe

You can now change your start menu shortcut to point to diablo.bat instead of diable.exe. You just have to hit any key in the console window after you quit Diablo bring back explorer. (Annoying side-effect: this closes any open Windows Explorer windows too.)

All told, unless you are running into some of the game bugs fixed by the patch or want Battle.net access, it's probably easier to just set the original unpatched version to run with Administrator priviledges. Also, if you do patch, all games must be patched to the same level to play over IPX.

On a related sidenote, Diablo 2 runs fine for me out of the box under Windows 7.

cRPGs: The best solo play solution?

2012-01-16T21:16:00.000-10:00

It's been a long time. I spent the summer finishing up my dissertation, and then I started another degree in the fall. The combination of teaching, taking classes, and trying to do research consumed me. I haven't had any time for gaming in months--and that sucks.

The last project I worked on during the summer was a playing-card-based dungeon-generation system. The idea is to quickly generate rooms, encounters, features, etc. I've been browsing a few other card-based approaches, and even found a Sudoku-based approach.

My idea here is that a gaming/generation system that allows for solo-play would also allow for GM-less group-play. But the trick here is balancing random generation with pre-stacking the deck and interpreting the results. Too much randomness sucks, producing a stale or discordant dungeon experience without a decent story behind it. Too much interpretation requires the player(s) to be rather schizophrenic, switching between omniscient DM and world-ignorant character.

So what's the best blend here for solo play?

Random generation: Dungeon-generation tables have been around for decades, and now numerous online apps will do all the tedious rolls and lookups for you. However, I find the results to be exactly that: random, discordant dungeons that you have to grind through. They usually lack structure--both narratively in terms of the quest/story and logically in terms of architecture and monster assortment. Simply replacing a dungeon generation die-roll table with cards won't improve this random flavor at all. There needs to be some way to tweak or interpret the cards--either beforehand or during the game--to produce a coherent emergent structure.

Solitaire systems: This is includes Choose Your Own Adventure books, gamebooks, solitaire adventure scenarios, etc. These have a pre-authored plot, and so the quality is better than random generation. But your options tend to be rather limited here to a couple options at a time. More than this and you need to start DMing in order to keep the story moving along its designed path. But DMing requires knowledge of the story, which brings us back to the schizophrenic scenario of solo DM/player.

Balance: So, again, how to balance author-provided quality with user choices and the openness of random generation?

For a little more money, there's a lot of board-game-like dungeon games out there which shoot for this. They provide a quest structure and then board-game rules for playing out the encounters along the way. Indeed, these were the original inspiration for my home-brewed zilch/card-generation system.

But there's another genre out there that does this even better: computer games! Aren't these the perfect solo RPG experience? Rich immersive multimedia experience, randomly generated content for maximum replay value, all with an authored storyline laid over it. Why not just play cRPGs then?

I've already started this exploration. I'm looking at NetHack, Diablo, DiabloII, and NWN. I already know that there's something different about a solitaire table-top RPG vs a cRPG experience, but I'd like to try to nail down just what that is.

I'll let you know what I find out...

DRYH: Car Ride Session [backlog]

2011-08-15T09:14:00.003-10:00

In July 2010, three of us played a little Don't Rest Your Head on a long car ride. Mechanically, this worked very well, as there's not much overhead. I used a cup to hold and roll the mini-dice I created previously. I GMed from the back seat. I didn't have a preset story and just planned to improvise.

My two players created some very interesting characters.

Brett: John Hannigan
Surface: Homeless war vet: scraggly, scars, limpy, quiet. 15 years since the war. Has a shopping cart. Carries a book from/by sister Laura (about 28 years old) which he also uses as a sort of journal. It has old letters stuck in among the pages.
Beneath: Memory is slipping away. Feels vague guilt over the death of his brother Tom (fled?). Laura's letters stopped coming recently.
Insomnia: Nightmares about Tom's face. Sees bright/flashing lights while awake. Recently saw a "nice lady" too.
Path/Goal: Find Laura and explain (to her?) about Tom.
Just Happened: A bright light while crossing the street, now shopping cart is gone. Only book remains.
Exhaustion talent: Heightened Senses
Madness talent: Draw something in his book and it becomes real
Respones: 1 fight, 2 flight.

Becky: Eli Fox
Surface: Upper-middle class white architect. Attractive in his business suit. Early 40s. Drives into city for the week. Works long hours. Married for 8 years. (Wife?) married young.
Beneath: Distrusts wife. Has been drinking a lot and has a coke habit. Wants to kill wife and lover. Bought a gun recently.
Insomnia: Walked in on wife and another man (a stranger).
Path/Goal: Revenge and closure on infidelity
Just happened: Hit someone with his car, and ran, taking his gun with him.
Exhaustion talent: Persuasive/smooth-talking
Madness talent: Endurance/resistance/strength
Responses: 2 fight, 1 flight

I was impressed by these characters, but I found it hard to bring them together. They started separately, after Eli crashed through John's shopping cart. John followed a wandering PaperBoy into an old gas-lit subway entrance. Eli got picked up one of Tock's clockwork patrolmen.

Improvising as I went, I had a very hard time bringing these two characters back together. Even after a long roadside break and some pondering, the story never really picked up again. I had some ideas that Eli would get involved with the Ladies-in-Hating--probably through one that looked like his wife--and possibly dealing with Mother When. Mother When would also work for John's story of loss--possibly reached through lost Mad City children and the Finishing School. I also had some interesting custom nightmare thoughts for John: a War Monger and a number of Leaf Tenants (play on the word Lieutenants, in light of the British pronunciation, "leaving", and tenements.) that burn in horrible conflagrations. This would somehow tie into John's war experience.

But these ideas never really picked up steam. I eventually got Eli and John together using a previously conceived nightmare/local of my own design: Benjamin "Button" Bridges, who runs a small warehouse of buttons, each imbued with a different memory or dream experience. As I recall [it's been over a year now], Tock's men came knocking on the warehouse door and John and Eli fled. I think things ended there, because I hadn't yet managed to give them a solid hook to tie them together and drive them into a story.

The main reason I'm blogging all of this now is as a reminder to myself of the agony of improvised GMing. I still think I had some rich characters, willing players, and some decent general ideas here. But I just couldn't pull it all together in time on the fly. Any GM-improvising system/tool should help with this sort of problem: not just generating ideas, but pulling them together too.

Another lesson is a variation on that old chestnut: "Never split the party." In this case, I think starting with the party together and firm goal would have helped a lot. Bouncing narration back and forth between two storylines sucks.

Resurrection (again)

2011-08-15T09:11:00.004-10:00

I've been busy this past year finishing up my PhD work. There were few gaming thoughts to report during that time. That work is all behind me now, though, so hopefully I'll get back into things here.

In the past year, I've been working on zilch some more. It has split into two components now: a very lite simple nearly-boardgame core and then a number of cleanly modular optional rules to turn it into more of a lite RPG system. The core portion is pretty much done, though it hasn't been tested much yet. The RPG portion is fairly well sketched out but still largely in pieces.

Last month, B. and I sat down one night after a couple beers and whipped up a quick session. We only made it through a couple combats, but things went fairly smoothly there. I was also trying a card-based dungeon generation idea I had (which is also still largely in pieces). An hour or so wasn't enough to tell whether either zilch or the generation system are any good, but at least they didn't seem obvious broken. (We did have to fix the default zilch character generation rules a bit, though.)

B. and I have also been playing D&D by email. I've found this works out quite well. It takes about 1 hour per round/email. I always group his characters together in the initiative order (which is fine, as they only differ by +1 anyway). Once B. decides what Lacane and Gwulf are doing, the rest of the round is in my hands. The only thing I need to do is actually sit down and do this more often!

I have a couple stray backlog details I've been meaning to report, which I'll post soon. Then I'll report on some of my more recent endeavors.

Zilch's first alpha test

2010-06-09T16:39:00.005-10:00

Just finished the first Zilch play-test. Played with B. online using OpenRPG, so it doesn't quite capture the full experience, but it probably tested the mechanics well enough.

B. created a character named Max, a human cleric (Death) / fighter: 11♦ 9♥ 10♣ 6♠. Max knows 1 rune (since we were focusing on the combat system): E.

To provide a little backdrop, I used my rough-draft/in-progress fantasy-western setting, Columbia. Max is trying to break into the underground bloodsport competitions in New York City. He approaches a tavern keeper at the Frog and Bean to sponsor him in the local tavern fights, which Max has heard is the first step into the illegal bloodsports.

As an audition, Max spars with the Frog and Bean's bouncer, Anders. This was a basic trading of blows, with Max's magic saving the day, bringing Anders to his knees.

The first fight of the actual competition didn't go quite so well, though it was very close. Max managed to blind his opponent with some kicked sand, though Max was caught in a flailing grapple in the same move. Although Max escaped the eventual pin, he lost consciousness before he could deal the last 2HPs of damage to his opponent.

The fights were a bit tedious... but then such turn-based trading of blows usually is. Overall, things were pretty balanced--Max held his own and dodged well enough, considering his paltry 6♠ was up against some 10 and 11 ♣. The Threatened mechanic worked pretty nicely, I think (as an alternative to numeric penalties).

B had some good minor suggestions, such as call stance and draw a domino, but don't actually reveal all the dominoes until everyone has called their stance. Also considered some sort of cleave/extra attack option for the fighter.

As GM, I often found myself waiting for B. to roll... when no roll was required! The dominoes were already on the table. With practice, the mental math will probably go a little faster.

While it probably went about 2x as fast as an equivalent D&D combat, it still had the same tedious turn-based feel. I guess that can be a good thing or bad, depending on your game preferences. I think my part of my DMing angst comes from a need to generally work on my DMing skills, rather than the underlying gaming system.

We'll see where Zilch goes from here...

z20 Reviewed

2010-05-12T19:43:00.006-10:00

For nearly three years now, I have had a love-hate codependent relationship with D&D. In short, I can't live with it, but I can't seem to live without it, either. When I come back to it after a break, I feel rejuvinated and excited by this old comfortable friend I know so well. But after a couple weeks, all the old irritants come back, and I'm driven away to some other gaming system thread... until I eventually come crawling back again.

I have come to think of "z20" as describing the history of this abusive relationship, including all my attempts to change d20 (rather than love it the way it is). It includes Drudge, mini20, d20house, etc.

Hyperbole aside, it is time to review z20 (again) to see what I'm trying to get out of it. What is my goal here? Is z20 meant to be a simple tweak of d20? A conversion of d20? Or a whole new system simply inspired by d20? I'm hoping that, if I can decide what I want out of it, I can then move past the tensions it's causing in my design work.

z20 is not meant be a whole new system--though it often seems to drift in that direction. There are other existing systems I could use if that was my goal. But instead I want to retain all my existing d20 content. Basically, I'm too invested, with hours and years of learning and a number of existing storylines and worlds defined in terms of D&D. I can't easily let it all go. (I would say zilch has been strongly inspired by d20, but compatiblity was never a concern there, and so zilch is largely separate from z20... except that now it is starting to feed ideas back to into z20.)

But z20 is not a simple tweak, either. It has gone too far for that. I've tried to throttle things to back to this level as d20house--which approximates a relatively normal level of house rules or the degree of changes made by Pathfinder.

So, if z20 is more than just a tweak, but not a completely separate and independent system, that means it's a conversion. It is a kind of bastardization: no longer the old d20 system, but not a new truly system with a life of its own either.

Other such hybrid/conversion systems already exist--such as True20 fantasy or Microlite20 (both of which have served as inspiration). So why not just play these then?

Mainly, because I don't feel the conversion goes far enough to capture all the content. Microlite20 actually caused the revival of z20 and serves as its core. But, while it simplifies characters--attributes, skills, feats, etc--it doesn't simplify the rest: conditions, special abilities, spells, magic items, monsters. This is frequently a problem: a d20 conversion system essential streamlines the first half the Player's Handbook, but neglects to do the same for the second half (the spells) or the other two core books.

And, I've come to realize, it's not really the character sheet that's my problem. Yes, it takes a long time to develop a character. But 1) this is usually fun in and of itself and 2) this is relatively minor investment in terms of a campaign that will take months or even years to play all the way through. Simpler characters really only help for one-off games or similar quick start situations with new players.

Instead, my problem is with the modifiers, the numbers to track, all the little details that are going on during play: basically, the reason it so often takes 3 hours to play through two minutes of combat. And this is not easy to simplify because of how entangled all these rules are. Monsters rely on all the special ability rules and spell-like abilities; spells rely on the possible character conditions; the combat rules inform spells and conditions and feats. Simply touching one of these systems ripples through all the others.

Another insight I've had is that a "conversion" is a temporary state, not a finished system. If the conversion is not completed, then it is simply an elaborate tweak--which is worse than the original system in terms of quick use. Even if the conversion ultimately simplifies the rules, it must still be applied on the fly. Each rule lookup now requires the DM do the lookup in d20... and then apply the conversion (hopefully without also having to look up the conversion rule). This is why I prefer finished system documents where all lookups need to be directed to only a single resource.

But, if I apply the necessary conversions throughout the system, I end up with a new system! Any additional d20 material must undergo the same conversion to be used. Furthermore, this is a massive undertaking. I'd have to touch every monster and the over 600 spells in the core rulebooks. While I've thought that some of this could be automated, it is really just not worth the effort. This much effort could instead be spent loosely converting existing material into a completely new/alternate system.

In short, keeping z20 compatible with d20 is only useful if the content can all still be used without conversion. But, since all the rules are form an interdependent system, more than a few tweaks breaks the system or makes it a new, incompatible game.

I've now slept on this, and I think the conclusion is clear. z20 is essentially a new game system, but it does not offer enough new or exciting differences from d20 to make it worth a lone-man translation of all the core content. I can think of z20 as Zludge for d20: an assortment of modular rules, sort of like Unearthed Arcana on steriods. As such, much of the work I've done could rollover into any future work I do on a new fantasy or generic rules-heavy RPG.

But I think my time and effort would be better served by searching for (or even developing) a new system unfettered by vague d20 "compatibility" or "equivalence" constraints. I could then translate only the necessary content of my world--a handful of characters--rather than all the d20 core content.

Therefore, my current plan is to shelve z20 indefinitely. I may be able to use the work for later Zludge Prime efforts. In the mean time, I'll play my existing d20 lines through to their ends (or at least to a good conversion point) as d20. I'll probably still poke at zilch, since that has a neat boardgame aspect to it. But, between d20 and zilch, I don't see a real need for a third fantasy RPG in my life. My game system design efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

For the curious: This is where z20 stands now.

Recent Threads

2010-05-11T16:56:00.004-10:00

The spring semester is drawing to a close. It's been a busy one, with me actually focusing on my dissertation/implementation for a change. Sadly, this has meant less time for gaming. I hope to continue implementing into the summer, so there probably won't be too much of a gaming resurgence for a while. But, despite a grading backlog to still get through this week, the coming summer has stirred me to look through my various gaming threads once more:

• d20: I've been brushing off d20house and my Tellurian Tales characters and trying to get back into d20 again. The two players I actually have await me in two other D&D storylines. So I'd really like to get out of my current d20 doldrums.

In brushing off my characters, I'm reminded once more of the huge "character creation" side of D&D. As I was explaining to S., it has some of the same draw as Magic: The Gathering: There is a collection of different abilities that can be combined to form awesome combos. And, thanks to WotC's prolific publishing schedule, the library of possible components constantly expands. So there's this draw to familiarize myself with all the possible components and then flesh-out the "perfect" combos in accordance with some initial character (or deck) concept.

While this is still fun, sometimes of late I find it a bit tedious. Specifically, prestige classes annoy me. Many are close to what I want but none are "just right". So I've been designing a couple custom classes--but, since there's no real mechanic for this, it tends to take me hours of thought.

• Caligo: I poke at this occasionally and I'm quite happy with how it's coming along. So far it's staying pretty simple, which is good. I have a few different one-off story ideas I want to try... someday.

• Dark Heresy: A break-thru here in that this week I decided to drop my Zludge translation of this. While I'm sure the work already done on this will inform eventual Zludge Prime work, I decided to just leave Dark Hersey as it is.... because it's actually quite a nice system, especially now that I've come to appreciate some of the advantages of a roll-under die mechanic. I have lots of story ideas here, and I'd like to move into some serious campaigns with this once my d20 lines end. So I'm trying to shelve it again until then (and focus back on my d20 threads!).

• zilch: I was thinking about this yesterday and this morning. I was refocusing on it's mission: a boardgame-like dungeon-crawling RPG. Some elements of it--such as the spell system--I think could be used elsewhere (like in z20). But I really need to get back to a boardgame sort of focus. This morning, I started sketching out stuff on that: particularly, how I might generate a story/dungeon on the fly so no pre-game GM planning is required--only some (potentially collaborative) refereeing. We'll see where this goes...

• z20: Now I'm turning my eye to z20 once again... that old sore tooth that I can't stop poking.

[I apologize to my readers that my blog is so often a review of threads or a whining reiteration of the same points over and over again, but this blog is really sort of my gaming journal. This is where I come when I need to record (or, frequently, reaffirm once again) some gaming insight or goal.]

Too Many Systems, Too Many Settings

2010-03-28T18:25:00.003-10:00

I'm back today to re-read my New Year's resolutions. It seems I've strayed from the path.

The big two projects of the past couple months (aside from working on my dissertation implementation more than in the past) has been zilch and Caligo.

zilch (which deserves a better name, but stands for "Zach's Implementation Lies Cold & Hoary") is what the domino die mechanic idea turned into. It's a sort of board-game-style dungeon crawling RPG. It's actually pretty sweet. You represent characters with 4 playing cards (one of each suit), roll d6s for skills, use dominoes for an exchange/stance-based combat, track details with poker chips, and use Scrabble tiles to track and cast magic spells.

Yes, I finally have a decent Scrabble-based magic system! This time I started with the ~600 D&D spells and distilled them down to 26 schools/tiles, rather than starting with the noun/verb approach of most rune-based system. Tiles are often still combined to produce the more powerful spells, though.

Anyway, the intention of zilch is to have a lite, "paperless" play style for one-off dungeon crawls or short campaigns.

Caligo (the Latin word for misty darkness) started a week or so ago when I got a free PDF version of World of Darkness from a DriveThruRPG sale. While overall I found WoD to be yet another standard, solid, reliable table-top RPG system, there were a few little rule nuggets that intrigued me. I started putting together ideas from DRYH, QAGS, etc, pulling together a very lite, narrative-focused system for descents into darkness.

As you can see, I've drifted from my goal of "no new threads."

In other news, today I bought a Warhammer Fantasy Grotek and Felix omnibus. These stories are good fun! As I've mentioned before, I often get overwhelmed in the bookstore: so many great stories, so many worlds! How do I play them all? How do I build something better myself?

Upon waking from my nap, I realized I don't have to. As GM, we often rely on pre-packaged adventure scenarios. Why don't I allow myself to expand the use of such aids to include other creative works? There's all these great adventure short stories out there--recently Conan, Elric, and Grotek & Felix for me. What's wrong with "borrowing" those? Or maybe blending a couple together? Roleplaying is not a public presentation; it's a private, intimate sharing of tales. If my player's haven't read the stories themselves, the ideas are new to them.

I know this is certainly not a new insight. In fact, I'm sure I've read it a number of times in DM advice chapters: take ideas from your favorite shows or books! But I guess today I was ready for it, open to the idea that I am really only obligated to provide a fun afternoon for myself and my player(s), not produce a whole new creative vision for the world.

And this insight spills over into the rule design too. I'm getting overwhelmed here too. There are so many systems out there when you look past the handful of large publishers. And each one has some novel, intriguing aspect to offer. Yet there is no way to combine all these little gems, because each works because of it's home system. Lately I've been coming to appreciate even the advantages of different die mechanics. So many cool things are possible with only certain die mechanics; yet, each also has its drawbacks. But, in the end, you have to pick only one of them and play it.

It seems we all want, to some varying extent, to produce our own system: to tweak, to touch, to make the rules we play by our own. But, taken to excess (as I am always wont to do), this becomes divisive, producing a babel of systems so that players cannot move from game to game because each requires its own system. Obviously, there is a balance here. There must always be a bazaar of ideas and system options available; but it can be hard to decide to work towards system harmony and synthesis, rather than just throwing out one more discordant voice.

So, once more, I come here to put in writing: I need to focus my efforts on what I already have going!

Domino-based Combat Mechanic

2010-01-20T21:12:00.001-10:00

I currently own two sets of dominoes. Every time I reach over them to get to some of my other gaming supplies, I think, "Surely I could use these for some RPG-related purpose!" Well, today I woke up from a nap with just such an idea: using dominoes as combat rolls.

This mechanic would work best for a simple exchange-based combat system. Each player draws a domino, orients it horizontally, and then flips it face-up. Just like a Magic: The Gathering creature card, the value on the left side is the offensive attack modifier (power) and the value on the right is the defensive or armor modifier (toughness).

As a further option, each player can declare an offensive or defensive stance before flipping the domino over. If offensive, they rotate the domino so the higher of the two values is on the left/attack side. Similarly, for a defensive stance the larger value should be moved to the right. (Actually, this should perhaps be the standard procedure so as to avoid any questions about some players' flipping technique, since the pips on a domino can sometimes be felt while the domino is still face down.)

Of course, each domino end gives a +0 to +6 modifier. Or, at the expense of a little -3 math, a linear progression from -3 to +3 (including 0). Doubles could perhaps allow for some special effect--such as the option to use a certain feat or combat stunt.

I'm not quite sure where I want to use this mechanic yet, but I quite like it--especially for an exchange-based combat system where each character is supposed to "roll" only once per round/exchange. For melee combat, this works pretty well using a single die roll--the higher roll between two combatants deals damage to the lower. However, things can get a bit fuzzier with ranged combat, multiple combatants, or when you'd like the option of two combatants injuring each other in the same round. This domino approach still means only one "roll", but you conveniently get two values. Very slick! Can't wait to try it somewhere...

Die Mechanic Flavors

2010-01-14T14:29:00.003-10:00

Yesterday on the bus I started mentally comparing Dark Heresy's roll-under d100 die mechanic to that of Zludge's 2dF. In particular, I was curious how much such a conversion would affect the percentage likelihood of success in different situations. But I came to realize that this is too low-level of a comparison. Instead, it's more important to consider the assumptions behind a mechanic and the resulting "flavor" that it imparts.

Here's what I mean in terms of 4 different die mechanics I've been working with lately:

d20: linear skill variation. Here, the die roll just provides a random bonus to the skill. The average d20 roll is about 10 (10.5, actually), so against a DC of 10+skill, there's about a 50% chance of success or failure. If using critical success (natural 20) or critical failure (natural 1) rules, there's a 5% chance (for each one) each roll, regardless of the character's skill level. Because the roll distribution is linear, you are just as likely to roll at the extremes of the range (+10 or -10) as you are at the character's actual skill (+0).

Zludge: curved skill variation. As for d20, this just provides a bit of randomness centered on the character's skill level. However, a curved roll distribution is weighted towards the skill level: there's a 33% chance of rolling +0 on 2dF, but only an 11% chance of rolling +2. If +0 is sufficient to succeed, this gives a 66% success rate.

I feel this curve limits some of the "gambling" flavor of d20, especially since the range of possible roll values is so small. It's almost like playing diceless--it's unlikely you'll get very "lucky" with a roll. But this goes the other way too: it's more unlikely you'll fail miserably just due to a bad roll. Instead, you have to intelligently play based on your character's skill level.

Dark Heresy: linear roll-under. Here, you roll d100 and roll under your skill value. The degree of success is determined by just how far under you roll. Thus, as your skill level increases, so does both the likelihood of success and the possible degree of success.

In Dark Heresy, the average skill starts at about 30, so this gives only a 30% success rate (though this can be modified based on the circumstances; it seems DH's default curve center-point is for a pretty challenging task). Since the distribution is linear, each skill improvement gives the same return: +5 skill increases your chance of success by 5%, regardless of whether you purchase the increase at a low or high skill level.

Assuming few characters ever achieve the max skill level of 100, there is always a chance of failure on a roll. It feels that your fate is controlled much more by chance with this mechanic: your skill only sways the likelihood of success, but there are no guarantees here. Every roll is a gamble. (I actually like QAGS's "the Price is Right" spin on the linear roll-under mechanic a little better, but it produces the same results.)

GURPS: curved roll-under. As a roll-under system, this too seems to have a bit more of a gambling feels. For example, you're just as likely to roll an 18 on 3d6 when you have a skill of 8 as you do with a skill of 16. However, since the distribution is curved, at least most rolls will be centered around 10.5. The chance of rolling an 18 is only 1/216. Skill increases at higher levels provide increasingly limited returns.

After considering these differences, I think I am correct in going with the Zludge die mechanic, since that is the flavor I want in my games. As applied to Dark Heresy, this may reduce the "grittiness" a bit. However, I do still plan to try QAGS a bit, to see if my expectations for a linear roll-under system really do bear true.

New Year's resolutions

2010-01-10T22:31:00.003-10:00

The past few months have been rather slow with the gaming as I've been busy with my PhD work. Now the pressure is really on to finish that up this Spring semester. So it looks like the RPGing will be scanty for the next 6 months or so. However, since it's my addiction, it's unlikely to be completely non-existent...

And on a related note, I was in the bookstore a couple days ago, flipping through RPG books and settings. Though I was intrigued by a few setting images, I realized that I really could fit some of these into my existing worlds. For example, there's the whole "jungle filled with vine-covered temple ruins where savage lizardmen worship dark gods yet lost laser guns can still be found" milieu. I realized such a planet could easily be placed in a Warhammer 40k universe (along with a separate Shadowrun-like hive city planet, etc.). Similarly, such a jungle (sans laser guns, perhaps; though with Magic Missile wands available) already exists in the extreme south of Tellure. So I don't need to build a whole new campaign to run an adventure or two in these worlds.

So, with these two insights in mind, I'm figuring out which of my many threads are important enough to keep open, and which should be shelved for now.

Rule systems [OPEN]

• z20/d20house
These two are merging somewhat, as z20 becomes complex enough to support d20 PCs. In short, I can run z20 rules as DM while players are still working in d20. The core of z20 is pretty close to done, though. That's good! And I'd like the combat system--particularly possible actions in combat, etc--to (mostly) mirror Zludge Prime. It's already close, so that should reduce duplicated work between these two threads.

• Dark Heresy/Zludge Prime
I'm converting DH a bit, and using it as the basis of what I want Zludge Prime to be. I need to decide if I want to play it with its own d% mechanic for a while, or some QAGS-like variant, or straight Zludge 2dF. But this should eventually become my heavy-weight simulation-gaming system.

• QAGS
I just downloaded the QAGS quick-start last month and it seems pretty cool. I'd like to play around with it a bit (as is only; no tweaks for now!) with a few one-offs adventures.

• Mythic/Dynamo
Along with one-off games, I'd like to explore this way of generating stories on the fly.

Rule systems [CLOSED]

• Huffy
This primarily means finishing the narrative-based combat system I've started. But I also need to figure out how exactly Huffy varies from Fluffy.

• Fluffy
This too needs to be clarified.

• Zludge
Zludge Prime, Fluffy, Huffy, (and even z20 to some extent), distilled into modular rules and a collection of GM tools. Is this still worth doing?

• System reading backlog
I have a number of free and quick-start PDFs downloaded, nearly all gaming/simulationist in nature. Most of these boil down to essentially the same thing: a collection of attributes/skills/feats to define PCs, a die mechanic, and a list of combat moves. In the process of clarifying Zludge (above), it'd be good to skim through these for more comparisons and ideas to filch.

Campaigns [OPEN]

• Omri
S.'s line. Decent testing ground for z20.

• Dragonwars
B.'s line. The place for d20house (though it may become more z20 behind the screen).

• Tellurian Tales
My original, primary line. I'd like to get back to some solo play on this again. It's been way too long... Should perhaps be a d20 PC test-bed for z20, with a focus on story. (Now that I've got the d20 rules down, I'm finding solo combat to be rather tedious...)

• (Warhammer 40k)
This is my own tweak/compilation of Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader. The story has only be slightly sketched so far, so more notes, sketches, or even testing solo one-offs would be good. (However, real play should not start until after the dissertation or one of the other campaign threads closes!)

• (One-offs)
If they truly are one-session games... (but see below).

Campaigns [CLOSED]

• Interludes & Ailithorn & (solo Planescape)
Shelve these solo Tellurian strains for now. The Planescape Gith monk thing is meant to be preparation for Dragonwars after the end of RHoD, but that'll be months yet, so don't worry about it now.

• Columbia: Fantasy in the New World
This started as a "D&D western" idea, but has expanded to include Carribean pirates, lost Atlanteans, and dark jungle ruins in the jungles of South America. But, as mentioned, versions of these things could captured in my other settings (at least for now).

• Squirrel Attack! & Mouse Guard
I'd like a little anthropomorphic animal action, but I should leave this be for now. The official Mouse Guard RPG looks really good (and a little more narrativist than I'm used to), and so I wouldn't mind reading/owning it at some point though.

• DRYH
I enjoy this system, and have a few ideas on more insomniac stories, as well as other forms of madness (including something along the line of JAGS's Wonderland). But these will keep until after I finish my dissertation...

• God's Dogs
Except for the one adventure I already have prepared for B., this is too similiar to Dark Heresy to have a separate campaign (especially right now).

• Heavy Metal Atomic Wasteland
Nothing planned in this at the moment anyway.

• Tor-Lomlin
I think B. needs to take the lead on this one before it'll move ahead.

• (As-yet-unforeseen world ideas)
My one-offs rarely stay that way, but tend to become full campaign worlds instead. Beware those! Jot the ideas down, but don't spend more than one writing session on them.

Well, with all that in black-and-white, it seems pretty clear: focus on playing my main/oldest 3 D&D lines. To that end, tweak z20 as necessary. In preparation for the future, play around with Zludge Prime and Warhammer 40k. For lighter gaming, try QAGS and Mythic in some one-offs. Other ideas--whether rules or worlds--should be jotted down for future exploration and expansion, but no new lines should be started for now.

Pyrats

2009-11-02T01:09:00.004-10:00

I saw this animated short over a year ago, but something reminded me of it again tonight and so I had to track it down:

Pyrats (on YouTube)

I love the animation, the music, and the ending. But, regarding RPGing, I love the party class mechanics. This is how RPG combat should feel!

An XML spell list

2009-10-28T22:13:00.005-10:00

Today, I got to thinking about XML. Last night I was poking a bit more at the z20 spell list, slowly importing/converting things from d20, and realized what a hassle it was. I'm doing way too much formatting and linking by hand in HTML. Instead, I should probably be making a separate XML document, which I could then format differently for different needs. I'm comfortable with the theory behind XML documents, but I've never created and reformatted one of my very own. So I got to wondering if anyone's come up with a standard DTD or schema for d20 spell lists. Some searching ensued, with the following results:

• http://www.andargor.com/
The biggest name/site I found in regards to still-active d20 XML. In the latest version (zipped XML+SQL bundle), the XML includes markup of spell details, but also a fulltext section including a table-based HTML view as well.

I was more interested in his "obsolete" version (2004) of only spells and monsters, which includes only XML markup of the spells. The OGL licence suggests this came through the PCGen Character Generator project somehow.

The oldest version of all (2003) includes an XSLT as well, for decent formatting. This is what I have in mind for z20--a nicely marked up XML backend with different formatting options through XSLT (or similar tools). The content isn't itself quite a clean as the previous option though.

The site also has an XML markup of the whole SRD, though this XML simply marks tables, rows, cells, and paragraphs.

• http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/spells/index.html
From John Kim's more general SRD page, this page includes a zipped XML file of the spell details. This is from the 3.0 version of the SRD though. Sadly, the online CGI options to search through it don't seem to work.

• http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/d20-xml/
A Yahoo! Group that ran from 2000 to about 2006 working towards a complete d20 XML schema for character creation and possibly even gameplay. I did not read more than a few of the first posts and the last posts. Different people were working on their own projects, and no consensus or central DTD was apparently formed.

• http://xmld20.crwth.org:8080/
A personal d20 XML project--spinning off from the d20-xml group--to get an XSchema for all the d20 content. The focus is on having the XML usable by software tools, so machine-readable is preferred over human-readable. (I agree with that approach, since you should be using XSTL if you want truly human-readable output.) However, the project focused more on characters and monsters and the rules logic than simply data storage. The project ended in 2008 (or, rather, rolled into a different approach using Lua).

Conclusion: There is no readily available XML schema for d20 content because everyone has different needs. PCGen and OpenRPG are doing some XML stuff backend, but that doesn't really fit what I'm going to do. So I'm on my own... which is probably just as well.

My current thought is that it'd be fun to play around with the different d20 XML versions I downloaded, and to try generating a HTML snapshot page of each spell pulled from different versions of the SRD. Then I could build a z20 spell list, and pull those into the same snapshot pages for comparison. I've been meaning to learn more about XML, XSchemas, XPath, XSLT, etc. for some time. But I really don't need a new project right now! So we'll see what happens.

History of z20 and Zludge

2009-10-21T02:15:00.005-10:00

As the last couple posts have hinted, my z20 project has been quietly resurrected, despite earlier posts suggesting this is a doomed endeavor. I started wondering at this--where did z20 come from? How did I get here, and where do I think I'm going?

However, in digging for the answer, I found that z20 is intricately tied to the history of Zludge. Pouring through my archive of Sent email messages to S. and B., I was able to reconstruct the following chronology:

Jun 2007: I become intrigued by Fudge and Fate 2.0 (effectively a specific flavor of Fudge). Fudge in particular is filled with good ideas, but in a very "...and here's another good idea" style, leaving the GM to roll these ideas into his own perfect system. I start my own Fudge derivative named Zludge: a mixture of Fudge, Fate, d20, and GURPS ideas.

Jul 2007: I finish an early version of Zludge largely shaped for a sci-fi campaign (including psi rules, for example), though still intending to be a largely universal system.

Dec 2007: After repeatedly being frustrated by the slow rate of D&D combat--particularly the modifier tracking and rule details--I consider a possible simplification project. Zludge comes to mind as a base, and so I begin a document to blend Zludge and d20.

Feb 2008: The Zludge-d20 project grows beyond a simple hack document and becomes its own system: Drudge.

Mar 2008: After playing around with Animal Ball's Instant Game, one day S. and I just sit down and play a rules-lite system I come up with in an hour based on bare-bones Zludge. Originally named Fluff, this soon becomes Fluffy.

There are now three flavors of Zludge going: the lite Fluffy, the original Zludge (which I start calling Zludge Prime), and the relatively rules-heavy Drudge. The idea comes to make Zludge a roll-your-own system. However, instead of just being a jumble of ideas, it would be a system of clearly-defined, compatible modules. GMs could define a "zenome" document for their particular instance of Zludge that would specify which rule modules they are using. Thus, the rules could be lite or heavy depending on GM preference or the particular campaign. Furthermore, when I found a good mechanic idea in another system, I could port that single idea into the framework of Zludge, thus being able to experiment with small pieces here and there while still keeping the bulk of my gaming system constant.

I begin surfing more and more RPG test drive rules and indie RPG system for neat ideas.

Apr 2008: I start this blog, whose name is even inspired by Zludge.

Jul 2008: Fluffy (and its basically synonymous incarnation Huffy) sees some action on a long car trip with B. in a Heavy Metal Atomic Wasteland campaign setting. (Sadly, this never got documented properly here on SludgePit.)

May 2009: After 18 months of work (not 15), I call an end to Drudge. Essentially, Drudge had wandered too far from d20 to be at all useful. It would have been easier and faster to just completely reimagine the d20 content in a Zludge system. Intrigued by True20, I instead consider a d20-True20 blending named z20.

Jun 2009: I essentially realize the differences between True20 and d20 are too minor to be bothering with a synthesis. In short, I'm simply bastardizing d20 without significant advantage. I decide to end z20 in favor of d20house, which is just a handful of house rules for d20 and an digital DM's screen to speed play.

Aug 2009: I discover Microlite20. This is d20 streamlined! I think my own strength is streamlining--making simpler rules that are still effectively equivalent to the source. But I suck at actually trimming and drastically cutting away the fat (and even some of the meat, if necessary). Microlite provides the core I've been looking for.

However, there are a number of things I don't like. For instance, the core rules are so lite and streamlined, but the equipment lists are so long and detailed, spells are still straight from d20 (and so too detail-oriented), translated monsters have no special abilities at all--essentially just attack bonuses, AC, and hit points. In short, it feels like a hodge-podge.

I start pulling Microlite20 into a single document and tweaking what I don't like. Of course, I find myself adding a lot of old Drudge ideas, etc. It grows beyond the Microlite core, so I call it mini20.

Sept 2009: mini20 has stopped being even "mini". But it seems to also be close to my original goal way back with Drudge: a lite version of d20. In short, its the d20 that I always wanted to play. I resurrect the name z20.

So that's how I got here. As to where I'm going... maybe in another post soon I'll talk about some of the things I proud of in z20, and see if I can ever answer that still-haunting question: "Why convert or change d20 in the first place? Why not just play d20 as is, or else start a new system from scratch?"

z20/Omri: Shroom

2009-10-19T00:51:00.003-10:00

Got in some more of The Amazing Escapades of Omri Buckle & Co. this evening. Omri had a bit of a mishap (no GM karma point expenditure required after all: S. missed the Reflex save DC by 1 point), met Shroom the goblin, and made it back to her party again.

In related news, I've been poking at z20 combat actions this weekend. I was flipping through my True20 books (Blue Rose and Mutants & Masterminds) and started thinking how all these different systems really have the same set of actions you can perform in combat: grapple, disarm, charge, etc. Even my work a couple months ago on a Zludge version of Dark Heresy has most of the same actions. So I decided I should compile my own list with simple, standardized rules to use across all these systems. This list is currently in z20, though I think the same list will end up in Zludge Prime eventually.

S. and I also went looking for some colored pipe-cleaners this weekend, but no luck at Office Depot. I have a little condition-tracking idea, but I'll share that another time...

Korgoth of Barbaria

2009-10-15T01:58:00.003-10:00

This is mostly just a ping to show I'm still alive! Too busy for much gaming the last couple weeks.

I ran into this months ago, but remembered it again this evening after a week or so of reading Conan short stories:

Korgoth of Barbaria on YouTube
(first part of 3; others parts available at the end of the clip)

It's an awesome show originally made for Adult Swim. Very sadly, this was the only episode made. Still, possibly good inspiration for a beer-and-pretzels sort of game.

z20/Omri: Death of Myrksog

2009-09-20T21:43:00.004-10:00

After a 3 month break, S. and I got in another Omri session today. Omri and party managed to find and slay Myrksog the bugbear; details appended to the "Myrksog" section of The Amazing Escapades of Omri Buckle & Co.

We played using z20, which is what I quietly renamed mini20 to earlier this week (thus effectively reviving that old obsession). I had drawn up some crude character sheets a couple weeks ago. They worked well, though I need more room for gear and maybe less room for tracking spell effects. I still haven't found the best way to track spell effects--how much the GM should track and how much the player should be responsible for, and how to note it in either case.

We played a little more than 2 hours, which is quite a bit longer than our normal goal of 1 hour, but it seemed to move along pretty well.

As usual, I forgot a few details here and there--such as the miss chance for shadowy light, especially when characters without lowlight vision moved away from the torch-lit area. But that's pretty minor.

I used poker chips to track hit points and spell points and that worked nicely.

z20 grapple rules worked well--there was a significant amount of grappling happening, all without GM pain! S. also used the "Heroic Exertion" rule that I came up with just a day or two ago in order to turn a failure into a success on the last blow against Myrksog. This made for a much better story (rather than trying to chase Myrksog down into some tunnel, and maybe even seeing him get away). The exertion also left me with a karma point, which I already have plans for. (Bwahhahahaha! <--Evil GM laugh.)

A couple z20 alpha test notes for myself: While I really like being able to choose from the whole spell list, it does means spellcasters can do almost anything. I think more specialist spells would be a good way to encourage focus/customization. Imposing limits on spell selection would mean more rules (so I'd rather not do it), but I may still give it some thought. The number of spells cast felt about right though.

There were some other d20 features lost in the adaptation. For instance, without feats, Jimmy doesn't have Rapid Reload anymore and now takes a turn to reload his crossbow. Also, Solomon Jack isn't very "bardy" in terms of game mechanics. Again, not sure what I want to do about that.

Not having to track squares and attacks-of-opportunity was nice. Overall, z20 flows pretty well, though it still takes a pretty hefty amount of time just adding up various modifiers. (Admittedly, there were 9 combatants involved.) I don't think I'll make any changes on any of those until after a few more game sessions.

Overall, a great evening--fun story and good feelings for the z20 game system. Maybe soon I'll be able to successfully end this 2 year obsession with streamlining d20!

Fallen Clerics in a Morally-Objective World

2009-09-14T15:15:00.003-10:00

Waiting for the bus today, I began to puzzle over the idea of the corrupted D&D cleric and, by extension, the fallen paladin and the innocent church-goer deceived into cult worship. These things make good story hooks, but how could they ever happen? In D&D, deities grant spells directly, so how could a cleric ever unknowingly stray from the path of light? Surely the sudden lack of spells would be a wake-up call! Here's my take on it.

First of all, clerics can be one degree of alignment different than their deity. So a LG cleric of Heironeous could drift to LN without losing his spells. And a cleric doesn't have to be evil to disagree with the PCs and get in their way. Indeed, this can be an even thornier issue when the cleric is not evil and so cannot simply be dispatched.

However, the idea of a cleric actually turning to dark magic while still believing he serves the light is pretty thrilling. I think it could happen in D&D as follows: Most deities have many appellations beyond their normal (true) name. For example, Moradin of the dwarves is also called Soul Forger, Dwarffather, All-Father, and Creator. A cleric would likely develop their own personal appellation for their deity--even something as simple as "my Lord" or "my Light". Driven to distraction by sorrow, hate, greed, or a quest for revenge, they may rely on this personal appellation more and more as they slip from their true faith. Eventually, when they finally cross the alignment line and their deity refuses them spells, they would likely have a conflict of faith. Perhaps this would lead them to a period of fasting, flagellation, and praying, calling to their deity by their personal appellation. Eventually, their call is answered again. In their relief and rush to return to their work, they don't fully investigate the presence now granting their spells. (Indeed, there's probably a lot of self-deception going on by this point.) Unbeknownst to them, a new deceptive deity is now granting them spells and receiving their worship and appellation.

Now, when the PCs catch up with this cleric, they can still point out certain objective facts: the evil cleric channels negative energy, has an evil aura, and receives no reply if he calls upon his old deity by its true name. Faced with such facts, the cleric may be redeemable: he may atone and eventually return to the light. Or he may embrace, knowingly and whole-heartedly, his new patron deity and be forever corrupted to evil.

Adventurers: Embracing the Cliche

2009-09-14T12:59:00.003-10:00

I started working on mini20 again this weekend. I also went to my local gaming store to browse around for a bit, as I've been feeling a bit dry when it comes to good story ideas. I looked through the bargain bins of old 3.0 and 3.5 OGL adventures and the like, but didn't find anything very exciting. For most of them, I thought: "Hmm... same old, same old--adventures come to town, find trouble, and so need to clear out a dungeon."

But I realized later that I'm being snobbish: adventurers clearing out dungeons for wealth and glory is the very essence of D&D! I've realized the same thing when reading pulp stories by the likes of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard, and H.P. Lovecraft: yeah, this stuff may not seem particularly original today (especially after it's been rehashed and imitated in fiction and film for decades), but the stories are still damn exciting! And a sort of lite, fast, almost beer-and-pretzels dungeon-crawling campaign is exactly what mini20 is supposed to be good for. That's what's so great about using genre and cliche: you know what you're getting into, you know what the background assumptions are, and you can just jump straight into the action.

During this morning's shower, I considered this further and realized that the concept of the "adventurer" is key. Indeed, the adventurer concept is at least as important to the fantasy roleplay genre as magic and exotic beasts.

What I mean by the adventurer concept is that the fantasy world has areas of darkness and danger. These could be great tracts of wildness or simply the creepy-crawliness of the city sewers. These places are dangerous because of the foul beasts that dwell there, but are frequently well-stocked with gold and treasure accumulated by said beasts. The common citizen fears these dark places, but is willing to hire independent contractors to deal with them when the irregular need arises. Thus, in the fantasy setting, there is actually a well-established career of "adventurer". That is, the citizen of a fantasy setting should think "I need to hire an adventurer for this" as readily as they might consider hiring a plumber or a blacksmith. Sure, adventurers might not be thick on the ground--particularly since the fresh, eager, inexperienced novices are the most likely to be picked off--but their rag-tag bands are easily recognized in the fantasy world when they do show up. In such settings, there's nothing strange at all about a local striding up to such a band in the inn, tossing a pouch of gold coins on their table, and offering to hire them for an odd job.

Thus, the adventurer is an independent problem-solver for hire: mercenary, detective, explorer, spelunker, and exterminator all in one. Starting out, of course, they serve as simple caravan guards, mercenaries, and message-carriers. Some may fall from the path, becoming little more than highwaymen, brigands, freebooters, and grave-robbers (and thus giving other adventurers a bit of a bad name, though also employment to deal with their fallen colleagues). But those that do make it, and that strive for noble altruistic ideals as much as for buried wealth, become heroes, revered throughout the land: part war-hero and part rockstar.

Idea: Zombie Sim Game

2009-08-17T14:53:00.005-10:00

I guess this is a good a place as anywhere to jot this idea down:

This summer, B. and I were chatting that it'd be fun to roll ourselves up as ordinary level characters in a high-simulation system like GURPS and then run an end-of-the-world zombie game/simulation. It would be cool to set this up in a specific city location, so the DM could have a real map of the area, thereby determining how long it'd take to get places, where certain supplies would likely be, zombie concentrations, etc. It'd be fun to see how long we'd last with all our now-useless skills, like computer programming and psychoanalysis. :)

mini20: Tensions in RPG design.

2009-08-17T14:42:00.003-10:00

Last week, I stumbled across Microlite20, which is a very pared-down incarnation of d20. I find that, while I'm ever seeking simplicity, I have a difficult time actually hacking large swatches of a game system away. I make only little snips here and there, always minding backwards-compatibility (or at least equivalency) with the source material. In contrast, Microlite20 reminds me of pruning in the tropics: you can cut all the branches off, leaving only the stump behind. And instead of this killing the tree, it grows back as lush and beautiful as ever in 6 months.

That said, there were a few little quibbles I didn't like, so I set about tweaking it a bit. This did turn into putting a few things back in (in reduced form). The result is mini20.

Like I said, a large portion of my week went into this (despite having other more pressing projects!). I even drew up some hand-drawn character sheets and converted S.'s Omri line to mini20. However, we didn't get a chance to play this weekend; instead, we got drunk on pizza, beer, white wine, and 70s TV Wonder Woman. I woke up a few hour later, a little hungover, and started thinking about the project.

As this blog demonstrates, I seem to be constantly hacking on various game systems, yet never seem to reach a satisfied conclusion. These are some of the tensions I've identified in the past 24 hours:

DMing vs Design. DMing is a live, dynamic, social activity. While the game is underway, quick decisions are called for and the game moves ever forward. Design, on the other hand, is a largely solitary activity, where the resulting document can be reiteratively edited until perfect.

I'm coming to realize that DMing actually scares me. I think that's why I keep falling back to design, in this vague belief that the perfect RPG system will make for flawless, perfect DMing.

Rules vs Rulings. On the heels of the previous point, some systems provide tomes of specific rules. The advantage here is consistency and a crutch for the DM; the down-side is that then the DM has to recall or look up the specific rules at game-time. The alternative is to provide a simple system for the DM to make rulings on: to apply a modifier or make a call at game-time, and then move on. There are no lookups involved here. The downside is that the DM needs to manage making fair, consistent rulings, along with all the other game details going on at the same time.

Desiring a lite system, I want rulings; but being a little fearful of screwing up as a DM suggests more established rules. In short, rules compile all the possible rulings into rules before the game starts. But of course it can never be perfect: some situation can always arise not covered perfectly by the rules, requiring adjudication (ie, a ruling).

Game vs Story. On the one hand, an RPG is a game: characters are bought, described, and balanced in terms of points. There's a simulated world with clearly defined possible actions (skills, powers, etc.) On the other hand, especially these days, all of this is supposed to serve only as the underlying foundation for a story. (I would argue that, in the past, dungeon-crawling was more of a simulation/game than a story.)

Character detail vs simplicity. So, in terms of the game/simulation, we need character modeling. The more detail and customization possible in terms of the rules, the more stats, rules, and preparation time needed. Otherwise, character details are left superficial to the rules--which often does already happen with roleplaying details. Also, if too simple, there's no way to differentiate different characters and abilities--like different fighting styles, a smooth-talking con man vs an earnest likable diplomat, etc--in terms of the game world itself.

But in terms of story, it is frequently not the numbers and die rolls that determine the ultimate course of the story, but in-character decisions made by players based on the "superficial" personality traits of their character. This suggests that if story is the goal, simplicity and letting the game aspects take a backseat should work just fine.

Complete System vs Hack Document. This is my personal preference: when hacking on a system, I tend to want a single finished document that describes the resulting game, rather than simply producing a hack/errata-like document that lists the changes to make to the underlying system. I should really try to get over this, since it takes a lot more time to do it this way.

So, in conclusion, I'm not sure if mini20 is a good idea or not. It could just be more mental flailing around on my part, largely due to my failure to resolve the above tensions and decide exactly what the hell I want from my gaming system.

GOLD: An RPG web series

2009-07-31T02:32:00.004-10:00

This is where a couple hours of my yesterday afternoon went:

GOLD: The web series that does double damage.

The site sums up the series this way:

The World Goblins & Gold Role Playing Game Championship is only a few short weeks away. The perennial second-place American team has undergone an upheaval: their longtime team leader, Jonathan Drake, has suffered a tragic gaming-related accident. Maverick player and loose cannon Richard Wright takes the reigns and tries to wrestle his new team into shape before the competition, while despondent Jonathan battles his personal demons. Meanwhile, the World Champion British team, led by the crafty Oliver Crane and sultry Martha Thistlethwait, prepare for the Championship by enlisting a gaming legend as their new coach...

The series is fun and certainly tongue-in-check, but it also has moments of memorable depth and emotion. It's also fun to see some free independent film made possible by online distribution. Check it out!

Omri: Myrksog

2009-06-14T22:19:00.004-10:00

In the spirit of getting back into the game, S. and I played a bit of my new d20house form of D&D today. It had been 1 week short of a year since our last session!

For session details, check out the "Myrksog" section of The Amazing Escapades of Omri Buckle & Co.

It went well mechanically. The new damage mechanic (the most obvious d20house change) was pretty smooth. My new DM screen worked well, especially when combined with more intelligent use of the SRD's spell index and monster index pages. Chess pieces still make great cheap miniatures.

Story-wise, there were a couple minor snags--mainly, how to balance the power of social manipulation with combat? For example, Jack charmed the lead hobgoblin and told a good story about having an important prisoner... but I couldn't decide whether this should be enough to let the party pass the whole encounter. (Of course, this still may have worked out interestingly since they would have had to come back this way later.) But, if I wasn't going to let them bypass all the guards with it, it seemed something useful still should come of it so that there's at least some value to trying tact before steel.

First, I rolled a contest between the charmed hobgoblin and the orc to see if the orc could talk some sense into his companion: that this rabble shouldn't be allowed into the inner sanctum without Myrksog's express approval. Turns out the orc won. But even in this case, there was some benefit to the charm: it got rid of the hobgoblin. Sadly, this backfired slightly, since this logically left the party locked outside without any lock-picking skills! Turns out the standard DC of 25 to break down a barred door was just barely in range (with a bit of magical aid), so it all worked out decently enough.

So, in retrospect, I think I played it pretty well. And, as a personal note for the future, a spell and a successful skill check should be enough to bypass an encounter, especially if those creatures are still available to serve later as monster re-enforcements (and now behind the party besides!).

z20 is now d20house

2009-06-14T22:05:00.004-10:00

A couple weeks ago, Drudge became z20. As I mentioned then, it was still shrinking in scope as I realized more and more that I shouldn't be changing d20 as much as I was. To reflect this, I've changed the name of the project (again!) to d20house.

As the latest name implies, this is simply my collection of house rules to d20. While still pretty heavily tweaked, it is actually d20-compatible. I've been putting my time into consolidating what small changes I still do want to make (because I just can't help myself!), as well as making a personal digital DM Screen that links into the SRD. I think this will serve to speed play--which was really the whole point of the initial project.

While still not complete, the project is taking shape here: http://snarkdreams.com/d20house/

I hope to convert (nearly) all of my D&D campaigns to d20house (since most are currently weird hybrids with different options from 3.0 through 3.5), and then get back into playing again!

RPG Settings released

2009-06-10T01:14:00.003-10:00

I just uploaded my RPG Settings page, which currently includes God's Dogs and Heavy Metal Atomic Wasteland.

B. and I played some Fluffy/HMAW last summer. I still have a vague hope of getting the play notes up here at some point.

Fluffy: Alpha-testing notes 1

2009-06-09T00:04:00.002-10:00

The recent God's Dogs game went pretty well. Observations:

Combat can be pretty deadly when damage is based on degree of success: one good blow and it's all over. (While not actually physical combat, the contest of wills with Castigation is basically the same mechanic.) So maybe tone back how DoS determines damage? (At least with the static defense factor mechanic I'm currently considering, ordinary combat will only have a 3dF range of variability, rather than 6dF, which will limit the possible DoS.) I'm going to wait to decide on this though, because actually the only combat was of +2 vs -1, so it should not be surprising that 3 dmg was dealt. I perhaps should have made the demon a 0, rather than -1....
There are surprisingly few rolls with this kind of story-based roleplaying. It's weird after coming off D&D, where the object is to get into the next battle so you can start rolling again. Half the rolls didn't really need any variation on them. Checking is certainly a good idea (and one I need to get more comfortable with as GM--but it's just so exciting to hit a chance to roll!), and I wouldn't mind eventually trying fully diceless.
The skill set was pretty good--even in only the few rolls made, it was a pretty evenly used: Speed, Will, Social, Magic, Knowledge.
What I still see a strong need for is some roleplaying character aids. The "Extras" section of Fluffy is still unwritten. What I'd like to see here is a more objective and point-based way to earn plot points. I'm going to have a closer look at Fate 3.0/Spirit of the Century's aspects and True20's Blue Rose's conviction mechanic.
I need to get God's Dogs and Fluffy finished so I really know how the magic and combat systems work!
Fluffy certainly needs more testing.

Fluffy: God's Dogs (B; vol 1)

2009-06-08T23:41:00.005-10:00

About a month ago (early May), B. and I talked about reviving his world of Tor-Lomlin using a different rule system. Fluffy seemed like a possibility, so I've been doing some overhauling and clarifying of the system. (I hadn't really touched it in over a year.) I also created the God's Dogs setting for some alpha-testing gameplay. (Both Fluffy and God's Dogs should hopefully be publicly posted soon.) Here's how our first game today went down:

B's character is Patrick Callahan, a young farmer-turned-friar working for the demon-hunting Order of the Holy Faith in early 17th century Ireland. Patrick's immediate superior, Father Havishant, has received a letter forwarded from a friend of his (Father O'Malley). This letter, originally penned by a young priest named Sean O'Keegan, comes from the remote French Isles of Galleon in the south Atlantic. O'Keegan believes a man in his congregation there has been possessed by a demon and seeks advice or aid. Since his prize student Finnegan is otherwise engaged, Havishant decides to send Patrick to deal with the case, as Havishant believes he's ready to handle a simple, contained case like this one.

Booking passage aboard the Sanguine Tide, Patrick arrives at the main village of San Galleon. Like a tarnished bauble, the Isles of Galleon have been passed back and forth between the powers of Europe: discovered by the Portuguese, conquered by the Spanish, a hideout for English pirates, and currently claimed by the French. The barren crags of the isles have collected various settlers like so much driftwood left behind by these successive waves of Europeans.

The Tide drops anchor in the harbor. Once ashore, Patrick pauses to chat up the harbor master, learning a bit about the recent winter storms and the girl (Maria Luz) that stands at the end of the seawall, awaiting in vain for the return of her fisherman beau. Patrick then continues through town to the church with his letter of introduction to the local parish priest: Padre Joachim del Gabana. Patrick meets the young O'Keegan at the church, who leads him to the back courtyard to del Gabana's small but well-appointed home.

Though oddly impressed by Patrick, the Padre insists that no demons infest his parish. The case is not supernatural. Rather, a farmer--prideful and a bit isolated--was driven to drink and madness by a series of misfortunes, culminating in the murder of his wife. Though usually not so extreme, cases of such seasonal madness is not unheard of during the bleak winter months in tiny, isolated Galleon. It is clear from the looks del Gabana gives O'Keegan that the two have debated the issue before, and the Padre is not happy his underling has now involved others in the case.

Patrick still requests to see the farmer (Allahn). So after a short repast, he, O'Keegan, and del Gabana head to the French military outpost, where Commissionaire Jacques Du Font sends a private with them to unlock one of the stone storage sheds out back. Within, Allahn lies bound and shackled, wearing a strange dented metal plate strapped to his forehead. The function of this plate becomes obvious when he begins to mutter and smash and scrape his forehead against the wall.

Patrick, in a moment of keen insight, notices some subtle presence behind the blurred eyes of the inmate. Patrick questions the man, who only mutters such nonsense as "he cometh he cometh he cometh..." O'Keegan admits he has also spoken the name of Azabel in the past--which is not the name of anyone in town. The name of a demon perhaps, but not one Patrick is familiar with.

In a rather sudden moment of clarity, Allahn begins to complain of the pain in his head, of the burning on his brow, claiming that the two priest have come to torture him in the past. Requesting the assistance of his two companions, Patrick removes the protective device, revealing a rune of Binding bloodily etched onto the man's forehead. O'Keegan guiltily admits that he did this--a tip given to him in the past by Father O'Malley for cases of suspected demons possession. Allahn suddenly manages to roll free of the men and struggles to scrape away the skin of his forehead against the rough stone of the shed walls. Patrick hastily sketches a Circle of Exorcism, which succeeds easily as the rune of Binding is scraped away: a black mist rises from Allahn, assuming an short, twisted gobliny form with glowing red eyes. While the other two men step back in hesitation, Patrick leaps forward, shouting the Litany of Castigation and thrusting his glowing hand into the demonic form. The Castigation is extreme: the form explodes with a scream into wispy tendrils, which quickly disperse.

Allahn is largely comatose. Patrick calls for the military doctor and has Allahn moved to a different cell for observation. O'Keegan's eyes sparkle from the excitement and the vindicating proof of demon possession; Padre del Gabana is subdued, apparently deeply disturbed by the presence of such tangible evil among members of his flock.

Notion: Speeding Play

2009-06-04T16:09:00.003-10:00

Since I'm already posting today, here's a few thoughts from the last couple weeks on z20 work to speed of D&D gameplay. In short, how do we make an RPG faster? (I'm just thinking in terms of game mechanics here, not table-talk and other social reasons for slow play.)

Fewer rolls. Rolling the die and then totaling the result and relevant modifiers takes time. Instead, we could just use static numbers. For example, use a static Defense Factor or Armor Class instead of a defense roll. Or roll initiative once at the start of combat, rather than every turn.

Group rolls are also possible: roll the dice once and then apply everyone's modifiers separately to determine everyone's results. So this is good for speeding initiative rolls or doing quick Spot check to determine who sees what.

Rolls just provide randomness, so the average outcome over the long haul is the same as not rolling. It means there are no lucky breaks, but also no unexpected failures. But, since not everyone's looking to go diceless, we just need to decide which rolls really need this randomness.

Quicker rolls. The more dice a roll involves, the more totaling is required. The same is true of modifiers (even in the absence of a die roll). Most of the time this is not a big issue, but consider the math required to determine the difference between normal AC, flatfooted AC, or touch AC if they're not pre-totaled or if some component of those totals has since been modified (such as if the character was subject to a Shield of Faith spell).

Fewer lookups. This is the difference between having a list of specific spell descriptions verses a general magic mechanic. The more rules you write, the more players and GMs feel obligated to look them up and follow them exactly. (Of course, general mechanics can also take time to adjudicate, especially if these leads to social argument.) Still, if GMs know there are only a couple simple mechanics and are empowered to apply those on the fly, it saves bogging down in rule lookups.

Lookups also happen in just recalling what modifiers or effects are currently in play. The fewer possible states or conditions, the less often this has to happen. For example, if a game has stunned, shaken, dazed, disabled, and clobbered conditions, someone's going to have to look them each up at some point. On the other hand, if there's only a single Impaired state in place of all these, there will be fewer lookups required.

Quicker lookups. Even if lookups are needed, how fast are they to perform? For example, how handy and visible is the information needed? This is the realm of DM aids like a screen, outlines, notecards, etc. Player's need to be able to quickly find the info on their character sheet: attacks, damage, AC, saves, skills, etc. And then there's all the stuff that fluctuates during play: spells in effect, conditions of characters (including hp, location, status, etc.), and so on.

The time saved on rolls is pretty minor, but adds up over time. Changing lookup frequency usually means changing the game mechanics. So probably the technique with the most payoff is to figure out how to speed lookups.

z20: What game is this again?

2009-06-04T15:29:00.003-10:00

Following on the heels of my insight that Drudge was a bastardization, I'm realizing there really isn't much overhauling that you can do to a game system and still have it work.

Gary Gygax stressed this in his book, Role-Playing Mastery. He points out that every game has a spirit, and you can't violate that spirit without ruining the game. The 3.5 DMG asks the same thing in more specific terms: Why are you changing the rules? Do you really know why you're doing it and what it'll mean for the game as a whole?

As I've worked on z20 this week, I'm realizing more and more that trying to change D&D is a futile endeavor. Even simple changes have sweeping effects. For example, I consolidated and renamed some of the skills. This was a good change, since now the skills are all equally valuable purchases for players based on how I actually use the skills as a DM. (For example, I don't think I've ever called for an Appraise check, but I do Spot checks all the time. Certain skills are just way more valuable than others in my campaigns.) But I realized this morning that this totally breaks the character sheet--half the skills are missing or renamed. (Missing is okay--players can just cross them off--but name changes are irritating.)

Another change I considered was dropping Attacks of Opportunity. Instead, characters would just lose their DEX bonuses while performing any action that used to provoke an AoO. But I realized this morning that AoOs really aren't that big a problem. They really don't crop up all that often in normal combat, since players do their best to avoid them. Changing that rule still means I need to remember which actions (used to) provoke AoOs. And it has unexpected consequences. For example, the Mobility feat: +4 vs AoOs while moving. So how would this translate according to the new rule? It implies that moving across the battlefield must leave characters defenseless. If so, should Mobility just allow a character to keep their dodge bonus while moving, or should it still grant the same +4 bonus? And then there's the Combat Reflexes feat... In short, even a simple rule swap really does lead to cascading changes through the whole system.

That's not to say that neat tweaks here and there are impossible though. I decided that damage rolls would just consistently do their average. For example, 1d6 always does 3 points of damage; 2d8+1 would do 9 points every time. This one change--simple enough to done mentally during play--suddenly cuts the need for all the other dice besides d20 (and possibly d%), as well as all the mental totaling of die rolls. But otherwise the game effect is basically the same as the original. Unlike the changes made by True20, I still have a hit point mechanic and all that goes along with that. (There's actually a bit more to this rule change, since I also have the degree of success on the attack roll modify the damage dealt slightly, just so things are not completely routine for every attack!)

This afternoon, I started thinking about how to streamline modifier tracking... and the approaches I used with Drudge just won't work without massive overhauls. In short, hours and hours of creation-time to save a few minutes of game-time.

So my conclusion from all this is a more visceral understanding of Gygax's point: if you choose a gaming system, then play that system. Don't try to make it something it's not. If you don't like it, choose a different system--there are certainly plenty of them out there to choose from if you just look around!

So z20 continues to shrink in scope... which is a good thing! It's becoming mostly a collection of house-rules and clarifications to reflect how I DM. I'm also trying a few little shortcuts to speed a few things up here and there, but I'm learning I really need to leave the mechanics themselves well enough alone. Instead, I should put the time into producing DM aids for myself--like a good/personalized DM screen or a better way to track game modifiers--than trying to overhaul the system itself.

I should also be playing entirely different (separate) systems to fill my need for change and lighter rule systems.

"When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep." -- Zen adage

RAB 5: "Dungeons and Christwagons"

2009-05-30T22:38:00.005-10:00

In honor of getting back to D&D roots, here is my favorite characterization of D&D ever: Retarded Animal Babies 5: Dungeons and Christwagons.

RAB a little coarse, but insightful and eminently quotable. It also amazes me that the series (including all the voices) is constructed by one man. This is hosted on Newgrounds, which used to be described as "The problems of the future, today!" (which I still think is way better than their current "Everything by Everyone."), so you may feel like you need to shower afterward.

The End of Drudge

2009-05-30T22:27:00.003-10:00

Today I decided to end my work on Drudge.

Drudge was my attempt to simplify D&D. Frequently, while playing D&D, I despair at the slow rate of combat and tedium of tracking countless modifiers. In those campaigns that I DM, my players (all 2 of them) are not very familiar with the rules, and so I end up tracking every modifier currently in play. In the one campaign where I was only a player, a single battle would take a full 3-hour gaming session. Even though the group was large--about 8 players--this still seemed excessive.

So, thinking about how to streamline D&D, I turned to Zludge. Zludge is my own custom RPG system based primarily on Fudge, but also pulling ideas from a great number of other systems. I've been working on the Drudge rules for over 15 months now.

But last night, I started looking through Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds again. Today, I read through the True20 Quickstart again. This is really d20 simplified, complete with a d20-to-True20 conversion document.

I realized that Drudge had really gone too far from d20 to be useful. While everything still converted from d20 in an easy mapping, everything had to be touched. Essentially, conversion became as much work as just re-imagining the same content from scratch in a completely different system. It was a weird, hybrid bastard that no one was ever going to use (possibly not even me).

But still, the exercise was not without its value. It's like learning how to write an operating system: no one's ever really going to use what you produce instead of Windows or even Linux, but it's essential to learning what goes into an OS. I still believe that, in a generic RPG system of my own design, feat and spell lists are something to avoid. They are too constraining while also require too much effort to construct and record. Instead, I think general rules and a purely skill-based system are the way to go. But stripping these out of d20, along with hit points and various die shapes (including the d20 itself!), leaves something largely unrecognizable behind.

Instead, I've realized I need something that cleanly translates. That means, all the 3.0/3.5 feats, spells, monsters, etc, need to translate over with very little effort. It's just the gameplay that needs to be tweaked. So I'm taking a lot of my Drudge work and trying something called z20: a hybridization of d20, Pathfinder, and True20--possibly with a few other odds and ends thrown in (such as from Castles and Crusades). I'm also giving up any notion that this would ever be widely (or even narrowly!) adopted by others. It'll just be my own construction of excessive house rules. Maybe then I can easily convert my many d20 campaigns, and recapture the joy of just playing again!

D&D: Tellurian Tales (vol 11)

2009-04-06T22:59:00.004-10:00

Sadly, it had been almost 2 years since I posted a volume of my main Tellurian Tales line. After being inspired by a post over at Head Injury Theater about spending more time posting excuses about not posting than actually doing something productive, I decided after my afternoon nap to do something about it. Yay!

Lately, Tellurian Tales has involved simply slogging through a long dungeon. Running this solo, now that I'm comfortable with the D&D rules, is not quite as exciting as it once was. Also, I've moved on to hacking on Zludge rules as my primary form of entertainment, rather than building D&D characters that need a story to shine in. I guess this partly explains why it's been 2 years.

I'm looking forward to the end of the current story cycle. I'd like to dust all the characters off while I level them up and (as already planned) break the party into smaller groups for more story-focused adventures. I'll probably leave things running as D&D though. The characters I have (some of whom haven't even entered the story yet) represent countless hours pouring over D&D rule books and supplements, squeezing out the max advantage from combining diverse feats and prestige classes. Seems a shame to lose all that history by switching to Drudge. Also, it's a good idea to keep one foot in d20 while I contemplate translating it to Drudge.

Besides, I already have plans to alpha-test Drudge with Ailithorn, and I'm currently toying with a Western D&D setting for beta-testing games (with either S., B., or even a gaming group). I'm also wondering about a Zludge adaptation of Dark Heresy...

Time's at a premium though, so we'll see how it goes. I really need to focus...

Oh, and the slowest point in this evening's game was the pause to determine whether a ranged touch attack counts as a simple or natural weapon. My conclusion: No. Which makes sense if you think of it as just an attack and not a weapon. But there's confounding issues such as unarmed attacks sometimes being equivalent to simple weapons and the ability to take Weapon Focus for magical rays.

Notion: Modifiers suck

2009-04-01T01:17:00.005-10:00

Modifiers are the essence of an RPG: some things are easier to do than others, and some people are generally better at certain tasks than others. Modifiers to the roll (or even without the roll, in a diceless game) represent innate skill or external circumstances that may aid or hinder your action. Even if modifiers are applied to a target DC rather than the roll itself, the Game Master still needs to track them.

However, modifiers tend to suck when there's a lot of them. They're easy to overlook: "Oh, wait, I forgot the +1 from the Bless spell! And I would have hit last turn if I'd remembered it; can we back up?" If you remember them, they take time to tally: "Let's see, that's a +4 from the Bull Strength and another +2 because I got Enlarged last turn; I'm raging right now, so that's +4 more..." And then there's issues of which apply when: "Oh, wait, I'm wearing a Belt of Giant Strength, so that means I don't get the +4 from the Bull Strength after all, since they don't stack." And then there's those modifiers that affect the calculations of the numbers already on your character sheet (rather than just adding or subtracting from them): "Okay, so that's a total of +6 to strength. That means +3 to melee attacks, +3 to damage, but only +1 to off-hand damage... oh, but considering my normal strength of 12, that's actually +2... now I can carry a heavier load and, since I was right on the edge, I'm no longer encumbered, which means I can move 10 feet further this round!" And all this d20 headache comes from only three spells, one magic item, and one class ability in effect!

Actually, I'm talking about more here than just a modifier: a + or - number. I'm talking more broadly about all effects--which can also include spell or magic effects, character abilities (including feats, maneuvers, powers, etc), and conditions (flanked, paralyzed, fatigued, etc). Even damage taken--especially to attributes/abilities--can be seen as an effect. Some effects (such as conditions or states) do not affect rolls but instead determine what actions are even possible.

So, with this broad definition in mind, the problem remains: how to streamline the tracking of all the active effects during a game? The first step is to look at what exactly comprises an effect:

Size (or condition): First is there is usually some positive or negative modifier to a die roll. Alternatively, if a condition, the effect may instead limit or allow certain actions, or else represent a number of different modifiers. For example, being entangled might impose a -1 to all physical actions, reduce speed to half, and prevent all spellcasting.
Applicability: A modifier is usually applied to only a certain subset of rolls, such as only a certain skill or skill group. For example, a modifier might apply to all Jump checks, all saves, all combat rolls, or all STR-based skill checks. (As mentioned above, this applicability can be simple to add on to existing inherent character modifiers, or it may require recalculating other modifiers.)
Type (Stacking/Overlapping): Modifiers are not always cumulative. Some may have a type or category that determines how they stack or overlap with similar modifiers. For example, in d20, natural armor stacks with mundane armor, resistance bonus do not stack (the highest applies), and damage or energy resistance overlaps.
Duration: Effects can either be inherent/permanent (determined at creation time from things such as skills, attributes, or even worn magic items) or circumstantial/temporary (determined at play time based on the current surroundings, spells in effect, relative positions of the characters, etc.) Temporary modifiers usually expire after a certain number of rounds, minutes, hours, or days. Or (even more of a headache) the modifier may vary over time, such as gradually degrade. (In general, it is temporary effects that require effort to track.)
Source: Effects usually have a source that determines how the effect can be canceled or manipulated. For example, magical spell effects can often be dispelled or nullified in anti-magic fields. Or certain defenses may exist if an ability damage effect comes from an undead creature but not if it comes from disease or poison. (Knowing a source often implies its type, applicability, and duration, but only indirectly.)
Visibility: Finally, there is the question of whether other characters/players can tell if an effect is currently in place. First, there's the question of how apparent effect is in the game world. Secondly, there's a question of how other players track global effects, even if those effects are not apparent to their characters. For example, one character may be exuding some 30-foot healing aura that other players must be made aware of whenever their characters enter the range.

Now that we've had a look at what goes into an effect/modifier, we can start thinking about how to simplify the tracking process.

Notion: Creation-time versus Play-time

2008-12-16T01:54:00.002-10:00

In computer programming, there is the difference between compile-time and run-time. To create a program, the author first writes the instructions in a particular programming language. But a computer does not understand those instructions directly; they must be translated into binary machine code relevant to that particular computer hardware. The translation from the author's source code to executable machine code is called compiling. Once an executable program has been compiled, it can then be run. It is during run-time that the program actually does what it was written to do.

While compiling, the compiler can do a lot of error-checking--making sure that the syntax is correct, confirming that the data types for different variables are correct, etc. It can also link in other libraries or modules. It can optimize the program so it runs more efficiently. Generally, the more error-checking done at compile-time, the fewer errors encountered at run-time.

Not all programs are compiled in a separate stage like this, however. Some are interpreted: translated into machine code line-by-line from the source code at run-time. (This is a spectrum, of course: many modern languages compile to an intermediate form and are then interpreted from that form at run-time.)

The point of all this is: there's stuff you can validate at compile/creation time, and then there's stuff you validate at run/play time.

This is the same for RPGs. Something like D&D is like a compiled language: it takes hours to translate levels and skill ranks and equipment lists into all the particular modifiers listed on a character sheet. This is not necessarily a bad thing: character creation and optimization can be a very enjoyable activity, especially for power-gamers. And, as with programming, the more error-checking of modifiers you can do beforehand means fewer errors during play time.

On the other hand, a game like Risus is rather interpreted. There's still some authorship beforehand, but characters are represented as cliches. How those cliches then translate into particular skills or feats is actually determined during game time.

Overall, I'm a fan of compiled over interpreted, both for my programming languages and my RPGs. There's an initial overhead, but things seem to run smoother if as many details as possible are composed and validated beforehand. But this is just a preference.

Hopefully this difference/metaphor proves useful when considering RPG design.

30 Years of Stupid D&D Monsters

2008-12-16T00:55:00.004-10:00

While I may not agree with the lameness of every monster listed here (I have a soft spot for owlbears), this author does have a very good point:

Dungeons & Dragons: Celebrating 30 Years Of Very Stupid Monsters (note that there are 2 parts)

Just a humorous reminder to keep your critical evaluative functions engaged while reading your next RPG supplement--even if it does come from a big-name publisher.

Paizo's Pathfinder: The future of d20 3.5 [backlog]

2008-12-16T00:21:00.003-10:00

Last week at the bookstore, I stumbled across Pathfinder Chronicles: Classic Monsters Revisited. This book takes 10 of the most common humanoid monsters of D&D--including kobolds, goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, orcs, trolls, ogres, lizardfolk, gnolls, and minotaurs--and tries to bring a fresh take on each by going back through both D&D's Monstrous Manual history as well as the scraps of original folklore on which these creatures are based. Though I flipped through only casually, I was quite impressed with what I saw. It was all "fluff", rather than "crunch", but very nicely done. I plan to take a closer look next time I'm in, and possibly pick this one up. [Update: And so I did. I didn't agree with all the characterizations, but reading it forced me to clarify my own. And that's the whole point: encounters with different kinds of humanoids should be significantly different, or what's the point of having more 1HD and 2HD humanoid races other than just Orcs?]

I'd never heard of Pathfinder before though. Turns out it's the product of Paizo Publishing, who used to publish the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. They've released a Pathfinder RPG, currently in beta and downloadable as a free PDF (registration required). Pathfinder is based on d20 3.5 OGL rules, so it's basically like playing D&D 3.5. But they've gone through and tweaked a few rules, streamlined others (including some skills), and beefed up some of the standard classes (so you'll think twice about abandoning them for prestige classes). Again, I only skimmed through the PDF, but I liked what I saw. It was like reading through 3.5 when it first came out: mostly small changes from 3.0, but all that tweaked the game to be a little more fun and a little simpler to play.

Some of the things of note that caught my eye were the alternative to having animal companions and familiars; the many bloodlines that characterize sorcerers based on the source of their magic; 0-level spells are now unlimited at-will powers; grapple and other combat maneuvers are simplified; turning undead is more impressive and useful, acting more as a positive energy burst.

Paizo is also releasing a 96-page adventure every month, forming 6-month long campaigns that take characters from 1st to about 15th level.

All-and-all, I got the feeling that Paizo is providing a lot of support and vitality for the 3.5 rules now abandoned by Wizards of the Coast. If you're leery about taking up 4E just yet (or just want to get a little more mileage out of your collection of 3.5 supplements), don't feel like you've been left behind: check out Pathfinder.

On Licenses [backlog]

2008-12-16T00:10:00.002-10:00

I've been doing a lot of coding lately. During my run this evening, I got to thinking about licenses and IP rights, and exactly what rights I should be worried about retaining on both my recent software and gaming rules projects. These are the conclusions I came to for me personally (so feel free to hold your own view).

Most licenses concern opening up copyright. As explored earlier, copyright doesn't cover ideas themselves, but only the specific instantiation of those ideas in a document or other physical form (including digital media).

You can protect processes with a patent, though that tends to limit the free exchange of ideas. For that reason, I'm personally not really down with patents--especially outside of physical manufactured devices.

You can cover distinctive and identifying names and images with a trademark. I think that's fair. This is product identity--how people recognize certain producers, companies, and products. Protecting your trademarks prevents others from trying to impersonate you in the marketplace or in the sharing community.

But the bulk of intellectual property is covered by copyright. While I'm opposed to restricting the flow of ideas, I do see that it's fair to protect the work that goes into instantiating that idea into a particular form. (I think that the default copyright duration is too long though, but that's another post.) As soon as you create a physical (or digital) work, it's automatically protected by copyright, and others are not allowed to copy, modify, or redistribute it without your permission. However, various licenses have sprung up to allow you the ability to grant others permission to do some of these things, provided they adhere to certain restrictions. The thing I got to thinking about on my run is: which of those restrictions do I want to enforce for my works?

After visiting Creative Commons again, and reading the new GPLv3, here's what I've been thinking:

Attribution. I like this. I would want credit for the time and effort I put into a work, even if others then go on to build on it or change it. Interestingly, all the CC licenses include this option, so apparently this is a common human response to want credit. For game rules, the OGL does a nice job of ensuring this at a basic level by requiring modifiers to retain the copyright notices of all previous contributors.

For software, I find the GPL to be a little vague on this requirement. Presumably, "publish[ing] on each copy an appropriate copyright notice" refers to the original author's notice. Also, though the "work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it", it doesn't explain or give examples of how this might best be done. (They give example for new programs, but not for modified ones.) Perhaps modifiers don't merit their own copyright, since they are producing a derivative work? That doesn't seem entirely fair though. Version 3 of the GPL allows certain other licenses to be enforced along with the GPL, so I would consider using CC's Attribution license with it in order to clarify some of these issues.

Non-derivative. For software, this would mean "non-free", since the user wouldn't be able to change and then publish the modified program. Since game rules are always tweaked based on the particular GM, I think those GMs should be free to then post those changes. This allows for an improving evolution of the system as a whole.

Where I could see restricting derivative works is in regards to what the OGL calls Product Identity: particularly, a campaign setting, world, or characters. The temptation is to prevent others from taking your carefully constructed vision and "messing it up". But, I think most people would be motivated to tweak a setting because they're fans of it, and would try to stay true to the basic spirit. I think opening it up would allow a setting of much greater depth (with many hands contributing to fill it out) and greater adoption in the larger community. And who doesn't want their world adopted by others? When combined with attribution, you'd still have some measure of "canon" control as original author. I can see why many would choose non-derivative for product identity, but I think there's some very good reasons to open it up.

Share Alike. This is what is really meant by copyleft: modifications of your IP must be just as available to others as the original material. For software, the source code for any published modifications must be released back to the community. Under CC licenses, it means the other terms of the license must also apply to modifications as well. I think this is very good idea--again, to encourage the exchange of ideas, to keep things open, and to allow evolution to something better. If my material gives someone a head start, I think they should pay it forward by letting their material boost someone else's efforts.

Non-commercial. This one I thought on the most. My first thought was: "If anyone's going to be making money off my work, it should be me!" But if I was really going to make money off of my IP, I probably wouldn't be giving it away free in the first place. Or I'd be making money off of it in different ways--such as associated product identity or support.

So, if I'm making it available for free, but someone else can think of some way of making money off it, it's probably because they've either added something valuable (derivative work) or are providing some extra service around it. Because of attribution, I'm still getting credit for the original idea. And because of their adoption and advertising of it, it's getting more coverage and support. And thanks to Share Alike, I'd be free to take their valuable additions and reincorporate them into the original and make money the same way they are--if I wanted to put in the effort to do so.

So while my gut response was to not allow commercial uses without a separate agreement (probably one involving royalties), I'm thinking now that--as long as I've got attribution (along with retaining any original trademarks or associated product identity) and share alike (with free access to their changes)--I may as well let others freely make money off it if they can figure out how.

Thus, I think the OGL, the CC BY-SA license, and the GPL (possibly with a supplementary CC BY license) are the best for me.

Resurrection!

2008-12-15T23:59:00.003-10:00

It's been a while. The hiatus was not due to a loss of interest in either RPGs or blogging. Instead, I've just been busy with other things, and so haven't had time for either.

This is a disappointing state of affairs. It seems each semester something gets neglected: usually either my research or my gaming. This semester, it was the latter (which, incidentally, had pretty good consequences for my research--I'm starting to implement Marlinspike now). Hopefully next semester it can be my TAing and grading job that's neglected--I could use some practice getting by with less time on that one.

RPGing has become part of my identity--a key feature of how I define myself. But this makes it all the sadder that I so rarely actually do it.

So it's time to get back to it all!

This evening during my run, I was thinking I might go back to the Monday gaming night at Ward Warehouse and rejoin my old D&D group there. It's been a year. Sometimes it was frustrating how slow things went, but at least it was playing. And lately I've been dragging my feet on things because I want more entertainment and less of the work involved with DMing and designing. I've even been pushing S. to try her hand at DMing.

Zludge still needs work. Getting back into D&D would be good just to index some of the irksome things that Drudge should strive to overcome. (Look for some Notion threads on those!)

But, if I just want to play, I do have a bunch of solitaire lying stagnant on scraps of papers and text files on my hard drive. Lately, I've been in a mood to play something, but RPGing just seems too daunting and time-consuming. Time to overcome that apathy.

So, in the spirit of revival, here are a few backlog posts from this summer that never made it up here.

Dynamo/Fluffy: Lily and Will

2008-07-07T06:44:00.006-10:00

Last weekend, S. and I tried out Dynamo, which is a mechanic I've been working on for co-GMing. It's still rather tenuous at the moment, but we tried alpha testing it anyway.

For the gaming system, we used Fluffy, which also needs some testing.

Dynamo (pre-game): On Saturday, while strolling around town, we hashed out the general setting, which was basically film noir, but with slightly updated fashion and Hong Kong action style gunfights and vaguely Lovecraft-like occult powers at work in the background.

On Sunday, we came up with a list of motifs: scenes and elements that captured our desired genre and tone. Our list:

-obscure dying last words
-"damsel" in distress
-all a lie?
-PI gets roughed up
-PI gets dragged in by the cops
-PI offered a bribe
+a dusty, ominous tome
-connection to the decadent element and/or seedier part of town
-tangible evidence of evil (but evidence lost by end of tale)
+a disturbing figurine
+a shoot out
-the good bad guy
+betrayal
-no penalty for shooting a pistol in each hand
-an extra gun somewhere

The +s are those motifs we've used so far (see below). The last couple are almost aspect-like--an idea I want to work on more. It'd be nice to have "themes": general/story aspects you could invoke for a plot point. So, here, any character could spend a plot point to fire two guns without a penalty or to whip out another gun.

Fluffy (char creation): +6 attribute points to spend across 8 attributes. 1 attribute point can be traded in for 4 skill points. A skill or attribute can be reduced to raise another. Later, once the game has started, you can spend a plot point to add a rank in an unbought skill (+1) or to add quirk/hook and invoke it. (We haven't used this last rule yet though.)

LILY McNESSA (S.'s character)
Combat +2
Health: +1
STR: +0
DEX: +1
PERC: +0
KNOW: +0
APPL: +2
SOC: +0
[S.'s didn't bother buying specific skills.]

--Honor (sees things through)
--Doesn't smoke or drink, but has a Tootsie-Pop addiction.
--Weirdness/occult magnet.

Equipment: Beretta, boots, switch-blade, pentacle.

Background: Boxing gym father (died of heart-attack). Catholic maternal grandmother. Apprenticed to a detective, who was bumped off and she had to solve the case of his murder. Owns her own agency now.

WILL STANTON (my character)
Combat: +1 (Guns +3, Brawling -1, Defense +1)
Health: +1
STR: +0
DEX: +0
PERC: +0 (Taste/smell +1)
KNOW: +2 (Occult +4, Languages +3)
APPLIED: +0 (Forgery/docs +1)
SOCIAL: +0 (Disguise +2, Read Person +1)
[1 extra skill point left, which converts to an extra plot point.]

Quirks/Hooks:
--Not respected in occult field (too young; methods too hands-on)
--Needs glasses to read
--Protector of innocent

Equipment: pistol (auto) in shoulder holster, derringer.

Background: Works as office clerk for Lily, both to pay the bills and because occult occurrences seem to follow her.

Dynamo (the game): We then came up with an initial conflict/inciting incident: a job to recover a strange box. This quickly turned into the first scene, with S. taking the lead in narration.

We didn't pause to do the story sketching phase of Dynamo: determine possible conclusion(s) and map out a few NPCs and waypoint scenes along the way. It seemed obvious at first: the story ends when we solve the case. But, though it seems like it might have taken some of the mystery out of things, having a few waypoints added to the motif and character hooks list probably would have helped. Doing so still would have left all the specific details that need to be adlibbed.

We then traded the limelight/narrative control (represented by a large silver coin) after each scene. Scenes seemed to be naturally delimit themselves, and generally corresponded with locations (as I suspected they would).

Here's how the story progressed:

Stolen item job: box, with gold corners and inlay. [S]
--Client: officious/fastidious business man, paying 3x normal rate
--Stolen by hood/crime lord: Citizen Frank Valenti
--Lily knows one of Frank's men from father's gym: Rocko.
Go see Rocko [Z]
--Uncooperative; knows nothing of Frank's "ivory" interests
--Fresh pink scars on hands
--Suggests we talk to Richard Ontario, Frank's art dealer
Break into R.O.'s office [Z]
--Past the lobby security guard by using fire escape
--Odd shrunken head in desk drawer
--Frank's file of purchased: mummified infant+cat, cabinet of curiosities, grotesque Venus-like statue, death-mask of Mata Hari.
--Current file: large cargo (6'x6'x4') coming in from Ivory Coast.
--Invite to Frank's party.

About this point, we took a break. This was tiring work coming up with the whole story on the fly.

Dynamo discoveries: GMs probably won't want to keep the limelight, as I first thought--it's a lot of pressure. And so it should probably regularly pass back and forth in turn (unless someone wants to pay to keep it).

Also, there's probably no need to spend plot points to contribute to the story as a player. The narrating GM should still be able to deny a contribution, but we found that any input was welcome, as the narrating GM was usually willing to grasp at any straw. S. did a great job of contribution, producing most of the items in Frank's file of purchased artifacts. She also was always conscious of placing a good solid lead into the next scene, providing both the connection to Rocko and the party invite. Overall, we largely ignored the exchange of plot point chips in relation to narration control.

The incorporation mechanic worked well. For example, in the Rocko scene, I threw in the "ivory" comment and Rocko's scars in the hopes that this would come to mean something later. "ivory" became "Ivory Coast" in the next scene, and S. built on it again later (see below). This is now becoming a clear thread.

The original idea was to work in a motif whenever possible in order to earn a plot point. However, S. suggested placing the motifs into a hat and drawing one out each scene and then having to work it in. We ended up rolling a die to pick randomly--but with the same result. This was a good idea, as the added constraint actually made scene construction easier, rather than harder.

After our break, we returned to the game:

To Frank's party [S]
--Check out his museum, seeing most of his artifacts.
--See box... but Frank walks in with Rocko [betrayed!]
--Escorted out, back to party
Rival gang arrives (Oscar Calzone) and start shooting up the place [shoot out] [Z]
--Dash back to museum room in confusion [S.'s contribution]
Museum room again [S]
--Box is gone... but do find a [dusty tome]
--Will recognizes it as containing African hieroglyphs, from Ivory Coast region.
--Slip out the French windows with book while shootout rages and alarms blare.

Fluffy discoveries: We never actually rolled the dice during the whole session. I almost asked for a roll to pick the lock of R.O.'s office, but I wasn't really prepared to handle a failure, and in any case, a Good Applied(lockpicking) skill should have been sufficient for Lily to just check (Take 0) on the roll anyway. This suggests that Dynamo might work best with diceless games (though rolling is certainly possible for those who miss it).

Overall, a very fun session with some good design feedback.

D&D: 4E is not OGL

2008-06-25T00:37:00.003-10:00

A couple posts ago I was talking about 4th edition D&D. I decided to go check on the 4E SRD and learned something interesting: 4th edition is not released under the Open Gaming License (OGL)!

(Standard disclaimer: The following is how I understand these things work. But I'm not a lawyer or copyright expert, and so I guess that means I'm largely speaking out of my ass on this. Just be aware of the sort of material that comes from most people's asses.)

Default state: You cannot copyright or trademark game rules or mechanics, per se. You could probably patent them if they are new ideas, as they are a process (but please don't, because such patents would suck). And you might be able to trademark certain specific words or phrases used in the game description. Or course, applying for a patent or registering a trademark costs money.

However, though the rules or mechanics themselves are not copyright-able, any particular instantiation of the rules in writing is covered by copyright as soon as it is written.

So all this means you could technically take any (non-patented) game rules, read them and put them aside, and then completely rewrite the same mechanic in your own words. This would be a lot of work though--especially for something as large as D&D. (And if someone did take offense from any resulting similarities, could you really afford to defend it in court?)

3E and OGL: But then along came Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming License. As long as you adhere to the OGL rules--which mainly involve keeping the OGL itself attached to the resulting work--you are free to copy verbatim, redistribute, add to, or change any game rules (or other content) released as Open Gaming Content under the OGL.

Wizards then released the majority of the core D&D rulebooks as a System Reference Document (SRD) under this OGL. (The SRD didn't include certain flavor text and product identity--such as certain names, deities, some monsters, or how to create or advance characters.) So people could do practically whatever they wanted with the text of all these SRD rules (provided they followed the OGL in doing so).

In addition, there was a d20 System Trademark License (STL) and d20 System Guide (which are no longer easily available from their site). Together, these specified how you could use the d20 logo to claim that your game was d20 compatible. Generally, this meant you could not redefine any of the standard conditions or special abilities of d20, do anything indecent, or describe how to create or advance a character.

Note how the OGL and STL are separate licenses. You can take the SRD and make a stand-alone game (including how to create characters); you just can't claim it's still d20 and use the d20 logo if you do.

4E and GSL: Now things work differently with 4E, which is neither OGL or d20. Instead, there's the Gaming System License (GSL). (This was released just last week.) This is more like the the STL of 3E: it describes what you need to do to create a 4E-compatible game or supplement. If you follow these rules, you get to use their special D&D logo and the many D&D-specific terms, as laid out in the new SRD. Note that this new SRD no longer contains all the rules, as it did for 3E; instead, it's largely just a list of terms. In short, it's all the phrases you'd need to be able to describe D&D characters, abilities, and monsters in the context of a game supplement--but you'd need the D&D core books to look up all the rules and definitions for them.

Also, the GSL applies only to the production of books: hardcover, softcover, or digital (PDF). It specifically excludes software and websites. Another interesting rule is that if a company switches any part of one of their product lines from OGL to 4E, they need to switch all of it over.

So, what's this change mean? The major ramification is that the 4E rules will not be freely available. I can honestly see why Wizards did this. I mean, I never bought the 3.5 books because I could use online or downloadable versions of the SRD, which were actually faster to use for quick reference. And I was planning to do the same for 4E. Just excluding character creation and advancement rules wasn't enough to ensure sales of the core rulebooks.

It also means that software products--such as all those little character generating apps and online RPG tools that understand D&D characters--could get in trouble for making 4E versions. Something generic like a character with 6 abilities scored between 3 and 18+ isn't going to be a problem. But you're probably going to want to have your software list all the various possible standard powers for the different 4E classes. But this is copyrighted product identity (as specifically listed in the new SRD); using it could be seen as creating a derivative work--and you have no license now to grant you a special dispensation to break copyright. So this could suck. I guess Wizards is planning to release some DMing software, but (unless some later license grants these rights), you're not going to have any legal alternatives.

Another concern is the fan websites that post their character details and game histories. Technically, these are derivative works too. I doubt Wizards would go after such fan material, though. In addition, they're already planning to release a separate license for fan websites to cover this.

The thing that pisses me off the most though is that they're releasing all this new license stuff under the wizards.com/d20 URI. It's not d20! d20 is history as far as Wizards is concerned (since they've pulled all links to their d20 STL and System Guide.

OGL is still here though, and we'll always have the 3.5 SRD floating around. That's some consolation, I suppose. (Another bonus for Drudge, which will still be OGL!) But it looks like publishers that want to stay on the D&D bandwagon will have to abandon OGL. That probably won't be a major stumbling block for them, though, since most are in the business of producing compatible product identity material of their own. The new GSL still lets them do that.

Anyway, check out the licenses for yourself: http://wizards.com/d20. This "plain English" version of the GSL from ENWorld is handy too.

D&D: Omri

2008-06-24T19:59:00.003-10:00

Omri (S.) tried the assault on the goblin holdout again. It went very well, partly because the goblins couldn't roll worth a damn. (I don't usually use my yellow d20 for this reason, but it needed some love.) Omri was also well shielded and buffed with spells--she took out each foe with a single blow and wasn't even scratched in return! I remembered to consider NPC morale, and had a couple goblins surrender after witnessing the wholesale slaughter of their comrades by this suddenly-appearing avenging goddess. This turned out nicely, as the party was able to pump them for info but then had to spend a sleep spell and some rope to tie them up when they were done. (My original idea had been to use speak with dead if necessary.)

On gaming tools, that "battlegrid" overlay and chess pieces combo is working great. Beer and nuts made for nice DMing companions! I also didn't have my computer this time, which freed up some table space and made things a little more casual. It just meant I needed to copy down all the pertinent notes in the corner of the whiteboard before we started. I might try to do that again, though I have more info necessary for our next encounter: NPCs spell-lists and such.

Picking up the Scattered Pieces

2008-06-24T19:49:00.004-10:00

Well, this past couple months have been a bit scattered as I work on various projects:

• D&D: S. and I played some on Omri's line this weekend. I spent a day hacking B.'s OpenRPG XML tree to streamline play on Dragonwars. And last night I put in a bit of dungeon crawling on Tellurian Tales--though nothing major to report there yet.

I also got to check out the new 4E books at Borders. I only had time to flip through the PHB, but I was pretty happy with what I saw. Interesting decision to cut alignment down to LG, G, N (unaligned), E, and CE. The new gods seem cool. A lot of things like skills have been nicely simplified (often mirroring changes I've made in Drudge), but things are a bit more complicated with characters in other areas, as there are so many powers to choose from at each level now. I think it was a nice idea to turn a lot of the spells into character powers for spellcasters, except for rituals which take too long to be cast in combat. Still, with all the other stuff I have going on right now, I probably won't buy the books for a while. (But the SRD is probably out there somewhere.... Oh, foul temptation!)

• Zludge/Drudge: I've been rereading the Fudge SRD straight through, just to make sure I've covered everything I should and to pull any missed good ideas for Zludge. I also combined the 3dF of Fluffy and the 4dF of Zludge Prime into a single 3dF progression for both systems. Zludge is getting more streamlined, and I'm quite happy with it on paper. I still haven't had a chance to playtest it much yet, of course.

I've also been checking out diceless games, and I've been hacking out some co-GMing rules. Hopefully those details will make it up here soon.

• Lite Gaming: Reading Fudge's magic system got me thinking about my "non-Scrabble" magic system and so I pulled that out again late last night.

• Inspiriation: I went ahead and bought the Iron Kingdoms World Guide off eBay. So far, it's made for nice bathroom reading. I plan to work their history into my general Tellurian history document; doesn't look like it will be too painful.

• IN Research: I've also finally gotten back into my IN research by reviewing my two big spiral sketchbooks of notes, writing up a Table of Contents/Summary for each.

Anyway, this is just an overview. A lot of these projects will turn into links as more of the details get posted.

D&D: Slow Monks

2008-06-04T03:14:00.003-10:00

A couple days ago I got to thinking how I've created over 25 D&D characters, yet I've never had a monk character. The reason for this is I feel that monks are a cool idea but lame in practice.

My biggest complaint about monks is that a Fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a pair of gauntlets is better at unarmed combat than a Monk of equivalent level performing a flurry of blows. Under 3.5 rules, a 1st level fighter with 2WFing could perform two attacks at -1/-1 BAB. A flurrying monk would be at -2/-2. The monk stays -1 behind the fighter until 11th level when he at least gets an extra attack.

Sure, monks do a bit more damage (initially d6 vs the fighter's d4), and monks have a bunch of saves and other special abilities--but nothing that couldn't really be duplicated with some good magic items. And the fighter has the option of armor and upping his damage using a long and short sword at the same attack bonus.

In short, I feel the monk should be a whirlwind of accurate unarmed blows. Sure, they might not do much damage verses armored foes, but I see this a damage issue, not a base attack issue. (I guess part of the problem is they only have a fair BAB progression.) I'm imagining Wing Chun style combat here (think Matrix or wooden dummy speed). This is the flavor of the monk, but it constantly disappoints me that the math doesn't match.

However, I started thinking... what if the monk also took Two Weapon Fighting? Would that stack with a flurry of blows? After much pondering and research, it seems that the basic answer is: yes. Some of the finer details are still a little fuzzy though. Specifically, if performed unarmed, does the offhand attack get +STR or only +1/2 STR to damage? The rules say there's no such thing as an offhand attack for an unarmed monk; additionally, even offhand special monk weapons receive the full +STR bonus during a flurry. This suggests the first interpretation: even when 2WFing, the monk should still receive the full STR bonus if the offhand weapon is an unarmed attack or special monk weapon. This seems to be the interpretation of Skip Williams (at least when the offhand is unarmed), and the one I favor.

However, the official FAQs (by the Sage, Andy Collins, I believe) imply that a monk's off-hand attack would receive only +1/2 STR, even if made unarmed.

The DM's always right, so I'm basically going with: Monks can take the 2WF feat to get an extra attack. This stacks with flurry of blows, so now a first level monk could make 3 attacks at -4/-4/-4. (An impressive display, but most of them will probably bounce off the opponent's armor.) By the rules of 2WF, one of those attack must be made by the offhand. However, if this offhand weapon is an unarmed attack or a special monk weapon, it still gets the monk's full STR bonus. The offhand weapon doesn't actually need to made with a hand, but could be an unarmed attack such as a kick, etc. (This simplifies book-keeping and seems to keep with the general flavor of the monk's Unarmed Strike and Flurry of Blows.)

Technically, I still have a moratorium on new character creation. However, there's a future major NPC in Dragonwars that was going to be partly monk, so (loophole!) I'm fleshing him out a bit. For story purposes, I'm taking a level of Rogue and two of Ranger first. I'm thinking of using a glaive and Combat Reflexes too, which will provide a nice reach. While the glaive can't be used with a flurry, it can still be used with 2WF. Though the glaive occupies two hands, I can still make "offhand" attacks with kicks. By that reasoning, I could carry the glaive in one hand, make primary attacks with kicks in a flurry, and then an offhand attack with the other hand.

This should make for interesting/powerful enough martial prowess. Now I just need work on fleshing out the rest of the character and the non-combat aspects...

Scattered Pieces and Tangled Threads

2008-05-31T16:23:00.004-10:00

Well, not much to report this month because I just haven't had time for much roleplaying work. I've been busy with the end of term and the big grading backlog thereof. And then there's a few computing projects I'm starting to work on. Next month I need to start work on my IN research, which has been on hold these past 5 months. (Ouch.)

Looking back through my timelog, it seems February and March were spent on Zludge/Drudge design (over 90 hours!), and April was blogging and short/indie games. Right now I'm trying to pick up the pieces and decide which project to return to first.

• D&D. This week I've been refreshing my Dragonwars characters, dusting off OpenRPG, and doing some long-term planning in prep for some summer gaming with B. It's amazing how characters seem to get stale when you haven't played them in a while.

Working on D&D gets me thinking about all my other lines too. We haven't gotten back to S.'s Omri line since my last post on it. Tellurian Tales has been languishing in Mor Dunehaim for over a year now.

• Drudge/Zludge. Working with D&D is faintly depressing these days knowing that 4E will be out next week. This has also taken some of the wind of my Drudge sails, since so many of the little 3.5 irritants will be fixed in 4E. But D&D will remain focused on miniatures and combat strategy, so I think there will still be a place for Drudge.

On the Drudge front, I've been trying to slog ahead with my Ailithorn: Demon Hunter line as an alpha test. But Drudge is still in many incomplete pieces, and so progress is slow. Also, I'm trying to overhaul Zludge to be a proper parent system, but it's a massive undertaking. I've been tinkering with it this week though.

• Lite gaming. A Fluffy (non-Scrabble) urban fantasy magic system is still on the backburner, as well as an interesting potential storyline to go with it. Part of the stumbling block there is that the basic gist of the story/world (uninitiated character gains strange powers, learns of magical parallel world, and must deal with the machinations thereof) is essentially the same as DRYH, albeit with a slightly different feel. S. enjoyed DRYH, so I've been wondering if I shouldn't just stick with that for a while longer instead. So I've got a few idle notes there too.

• Inspiration. For all that on my plate, I feel the urge for something new. Admittedly, I'm looking for more content than rules (since I already have my Zludge pet project). I stood around in the local gaming store for an hour or so yesterday, trying to find something worth dropping $40 on despite my dire poverty. Nothing quite fit the bill. I'm thinking about checking out Iron Kingdoms though. I flipped through a couple books--their Monsternomicon and Five Fingers: Port of Deceit--but their core books seem to be out of print. But I've long been attracted to trying a sort of steam-punk, late Renaissance/early Enlightenment/Age of Discovery, musketeers-style fantasy setting. I think I could fit this well in the civilized Midlands of Tellure, currently empty on my maps. So this got me thinking of my Interludes D&D line, which I'd be happy to switch over to Drudge. Pirates, swashbuckling, dirty city intrigue, and blackpowder pistols! Yeah!

So all these things are simmering along. Hopefully this month some of them will get pulled together into some rousing game session or solid rules documents. If so, you'll hear about it here first!

Battle for Wesnoth, or The Siren's Call of Semi-Passive Gaming

2008-05-08T01:13:00.004-10:00

Not much to report lately. There have been no play sessions, and work on the ex-Scrabble magic system has been sporadic and slow (mostly on the bus). My term ends next Friday, so I'm trying to catch up on my huge grading backlog. Still, most of last week was devoured by Battle for Wesnoth.

I found this computer game while trouble-shooting an old Linux laptop of mine. I wanted to see if the laptop would lock-up during use, so I was just going to play a bit of Tetris. But I had previously uninstalled all the games, so I pulled up the package manager... and happened to notice this turn-based war strategy game with a fantasy theme instead. Wesnoth is free in both senses of the word (as in speech and as in beer), and it's also available for Windows. I know this because I installed it on my normal laptop after it had consumed one evening of my life.

Now fantasy war/strategy might make you think of Warcraft. (The old Warcraft, that is, not WoW.) But Wesnoth is turn-based, which is much more enjoyable for those of us a little slow on the mouse. In fact, it reminds me a lot of an old DOS favorite of mine: Warlords II Deluxe. But they've taken Warlords and added a lot of RPG features to it (and did a better job of it than Warlords III did).

First of all, each of your armies is a named individual that gains experience and levels. Play is structured into campaigns, and so your battle-harded veterans travel with you. And so it hurts a little more when you lose an archer that survived your past two battles and was only a couple kills away from his next level! Each warrior of the same class even starts out a little differently, since each is created with a different combination of traits--such as strong or quick or intelligent.

The various scenarios are strung together into a story-based campaign, much as a series of dungeon crawls can form an RPG campaign. I guess some of the campaigns even have branching storylines, though I haven't experienced that yet myself.

The strategy is pretty interesting too. Terrain affects movement, but it also makes a big difference on how well your armies can defend themselves, and so you always try to use it your advantage. Time passes, and the current time affects the game: daytime makes lawful armies stronger, and nighttime strengthens chaotic armies. And so sometimes you find yourself just trying to keep your head down until dawn comes! Also, each figure on the board has a zone-of-control that limits how opponents can move around it. This reminds me a lot of D&D's attacks of opportunity. I still haven't quite mastered using ZoCs to properly protect my wounded soldiers on the backline though.

Overall, a very nice mix of turn-based strategy and RPG elements.

It also got me thinking about the addictiveness of semi-passive entertainment. It reminds me of the entire college weekends I lost to Diablo. I'd break only for two meals a day, which, incidentally, was usually just long enough to let my mouse hand uncramp.

Passive entertainment rarely gives me that degree of flow. Occasionally I've read a whole paperback non-stop--but that's usually only about 6 hours. Or I might watch two or three movies in a row. But with an addictive computer game, I can go from waking until I collapse completely exhausted in the wee hours of the morning... and be willing to get back on again as soon as I wake up again. Of course, I have too many responsibilities these days to have the great chunks of time required for this lifestyle.

But another source of flow like that for me is RPG rule-hacking and world-building. Since that has recently been my drug of choice, the return to the computer game addiction made me realize an important difference: After a day of world-building, I feel exhausted and a little guilty for neglecting all my "real" and "important" obligations, but I have something to show for it--some artifact I've actively created. I wasn't just consuming content. Although the time just flew by while plugged into Wesnoth, I felt rather deflated and empty when I finally jacked out.

Anyway, with all the grading due, I've been afraid to open Wensoth again since last week. And with all the Zludge and RPG ideas that need to be written up, I'm hoping I don't open it for a while longer after that. But active creation is daunting... sometimes we just want to jack in to a little semi-passive entertainment, with just enough challenge to keep us flowing.

Not a Scrabble-based Magic System

2008-04-25T02:29:00.002-10:00

I can work on RPG design for 6 hours straight with only 2 breaks to pee, but grading for only 30 minutes makes me want to tear my eyeballs from their sockets. Today was my stay-at-home day, and I have about a 4-week backlog of grading to do. Therefore, a nap, dinner, a run, and 12 hours later... and I'm still working on my Scrabble magic system. (I did some grading in there though! And some laundry.)

When we last left it, I had a separate skill and power mechanic going on. However, I was running into trouble on pricing things. For instance, moving (M) anything--even a bottle cap--would inherently cost at least 3 mana. Yet banishing (E) a demon or holding (N) a person immobile would only cost 1 mana (though such acts would require a high skill roll). In short, mind-blowing magic didn't cost any more than subtle magic in the same discipline; it was the disciplines themselves that cost more or less.

Of course, the GM could adjust this per spell, but it still seemed too ad hoc. Or I could combine power and skill into a single mechanic. But I didn't want that either. I wanted them to be separate so you need both enough skill and enough power, and that one doesn't substitute for the other. Sometimes high-powered magic should be possible with low skill... it's just always much more dangerous if you mess it up. That said, it still seems there should be a general initial correlation--if you're highly skilled, you should be able pull together more power.

My post-run insight (I love those--it makes it all worth it) was the tile-based power levels I was considering varied only from 1 to 4, since I was saving the higher scoring tiles (8 points: J, X; 10 points: Q, Z) for mythical magical forms. But my skill levels run from +0 to +3, so just making the base power cost the Difficulty Modifier + 1 suddenly seemed so clean and simple, and fixed most of the hiccups I was struggling with. Now the simple skill steps also give a sensible base power requirement, but the two are still separate, so the GM can modify power as needed for certain odd spells.

So this means I am no longer using the tile scores. And then I decided to go ahead and drop the last real Scrabble-based constraint: the tile frequencies. Rather than requiring a certain number of a particular letter tile, just knowing the letter is good enough. Power levels should be set based on the task, not on the magical school.

And so suddenly I was free of Scrabble, because the only thing I'm using now is the 26 letters. And I think I'd do better if I dropped that too and used some other form to keep track of what "schools" or "runes" of magic a character knows. (A list on a sheet of paper comes to mind...) That way, it's more flexible--they can vary as needed by character or story, some broader or more narrow than others.

Overall, I'm happy with the way my Fluffy urban fantasy magic system is shaping up. However, I think the Scrabble aspect is done for.

I was thinking more about why this should be, though. I think the basic difficulty of a Scrabble-based magic is the flavor/world reason for it: why would a mage (randomly) vary in what spells he knows at any given time? That's basically what's being represented by a rack of limited tiles drawn from a larger pool.

Also, there's a game flavor at work here: resource management. So I think this system would work better for gamist games, such as D&D or GURPS. Also, then you could more easily map the tiles to a specific spell list (whether as stunts or specific skills).

The alternative to representing knowledge is representing power. This might make more sense--that a mage has various levels or fragments of power available at a time. (But again, why?)

The other thing to keep in mind is that Scrabble isn't the only way to approach such a "resource drawing" magic system. Playing cards, tarot cards, or dominoes might work better, depending on what you need. I particularly like the idea of dominoes--they just feel like little runestones in your hand!

So, while perhaps not completely abandoning it, I think I'll be putting this whole Scrabble thing in cold-storage after all... at least until I run across some magic flavor that actually cries out for it as a mechanic.

A Scrabble-based Magic System

2008-04-24T13:18:00.004-10:00

A month or two ago, I was browsing around the various Fudge pages and ran across mention of a magic system that uses Scrabble tiles. I never found a fleshed-out version; just a few discussions of possibilities. But it got me thinking...

Most of the discussion focused on spelling out English words with a limited number of tiles (usually 7 or so) to cast spells. I thought this would be too limiting and time-consuming. But the idea of having 7 tiles prepared at a time, and drawing from a larger pool, was interesting.

In Scrabble, there are 26 unique letters and a blank. Each letter tile (but not the blank) has a score marked on it. Because the score is in the lower-right corner, even symmetrical letters (like O and I) have clear orientations. So, if each orientation of a letter had a different meaning, it would be possible to have up to 4 * 26 + 1 (the blank) = 105 unique representations. Some letters are much more common, and there is a rough correlation between score value and frequency. This suggested to me that it'd be nice to use the score somehow as a casting cost. Therefore, there'd be lots of have cheap, low-level spells, all readily accessible due to their frequency. Expensive, high-level spells would be vary rare (1 in a 100 tiles).

With over 100 representations to work with, I thought first of a full but simple language, complete with verbs, nouns, and prepositions. I looked through the first two or three hundred of the most common English words for ideas. Then I realized someone had probably already done this language-constructing work. As an example, I found http://tokipona.org/, which is a constructed language with a little over 100 words. Examining this made me realize this was too intense--you'd have a to learn a whole new language just to play a spellcaster! That said, if you're embracing the idea that RPGs are a life-style game, and wanted to reveal the magic system slowly over months of play, this could still be a fun avenue to pursue.

Back to the drawing board, I decided to just focus on the 27 unique letters (including blank). This suggested some rune-like combo system of subjects and verbs. GURPS improv/rune magic has 25 runes. Fudge's Gramarye has 22 colleges and realms. And then there's Fudges 4x5, which as 9.

It turned out to be pretty easy to fill in 27 runes. Soon, I was creating 4 variants for each rune, each of increasing complexity. For example, the Earth rune might have 4 levels: 1) sand/clay 2) stone/solids 3) metals 4) crystals. Similarly, the Sense rune (separate from Knowledge) could involve: 1) heightened senses 2) see through material 3) true-seeing (see through magic) 4) scry (see through distance). Perhaps rotating each tile would add one to its basic mana requirement (which is initially its Scrabble score).

By this point I realized I was back to the original problem: 105 representations is too much! And that's before you even start combining them to make spells.

The other annoying thing I was running into was lack of orthogonality. That is, there was frequently more than one way to do something. For example, if Mind is a noun, then should controlling that mind require the Move or Transform rune? Or should there be a separate Control rune for mental actions? Is steam Air or Water? Do you need both Earth and Water runes to affect mud? Even if it's pretty thick mud? I decided that, if I was going to do this whole combo approach, I would just stick with the 4x5 system. (And, actually, I'd consider combining Mind and Spirit into one category, making it 4x4.)

At this point I was getting ready to give up the project as just too complex. But then I realized I didn't really have an idea of what I was trying to do here, other than use Scrabble tiles in some way. I had no overarching vision. So I went back to examine the real Magic System Basics in order to consider my options.

In the last couple months, S. and I have been watching and reading a lot of Dresden Files, which is basically an fun urban fantasy setting. It gels nicely with other similar material, such as from Neverwhere, American Gods, Nightwatch, etc. This gave me a flavor for my magic: I wanted some sort of subtle magic that could pass in an urban setting, but that is still capable of producing the world-shaking spells of myth and legend, and can include any kind of historical magic system.

We've also been playing a lot of Huffy/Fluffy lately, so I decided I wanted a simple magic system--which is almost in conflict with the complexity naturally suggested by a Scrabble system's potential.

I also realized I don't need to use the full Scrabble tile set. In fact, if I did, it'd mean every magic-using player would need their own full Scrabble game! So I cut the set in half. This means a few characters--such as K, the only 5-point letter--might get thrown out... but only if every caster needs the full half-set.

So, the past few days, I've been doodling ideas and finally inspiration hit last night that brought all my various notes together. I will use a single Magic skill to determine casting ability. Magic is an exertion of will on the world, and so it must overcome the inertial disbelief of those around you. (Though I've never played, or even read much of it, I guess this is basically the Mage: The Ascension idea here.) This makes it easy to adlib spell effects--it's basically dependent on how overt and unlikely the spell effect is. This is the core, simple thing used to adjudicate spell effects, and the system could probably just run on this alone.

The complexity--and flavor--is then in what kinds of magic a character knows, since not every character is good at every kind of magic. This is represented by the Scrabble tiles. I'd like to have these gained through gameplay, rather than simply bought with skill points. Each tile corresponds to a magical verb. There are no nouns; those are implicit/provided by the casting ritual of the spell. Each verb has a mana cost corresponding to the tile's Scrabble score. I'm not messing with different tile orientations, but multiple tiles of the same letter can provide more intricate effects (with appropriately higher mana costs). Most spells would involve a single letter, but some higher spells could involve more.

The challenge for characters in this system is to come up with enough mana at once to cast spells. A higher Magic skill gives a caster a couple more points, but the rest comes from special locations, rituals, items, etc. I'm using the magical laws of Similarity and Contact in all of this too.

Anyway, I think the basic ideas are together, but I still have to flesh out all the details. If it works out, this will likely become a possible Zludge/Fluffy magic system. Sadly, I'm no longer using the full information-encoding potential of the tiles, or the mechanic of tiles being drawn randomly from a pool, or 7 tiles being held in the mind at a time. But I think I made the right decision to start with the flavor of the magic and the nature of enclosing gaming system I wanted instead. I think the tiles will be a nice touch just as a physical representation of accumulated knowledge, as well as handy representations of spell costs.

Drudge: Ailithorn (vol 1)

2008-04-23T01:19:00.005-10:00

Well, I just "played" a bit of Ailithorn: Demon Hunter (a Tellurian tale), which is finally posted. I say "played" since, for this line, my focus has been a bit more on the writing (at least at this point) than the gaming. Also, Drudge is still currently in pieces, so I can't even say this is alpha testing. My second character--Sophie--isn't even fully rolled up yet.

That said, of the handful of attack rolls I have made so far, I have the following to note:
1) My black Fudge dice seem to roll low more often than they roll high.
2) Burning an aspect for a repeat roll (getting the same result again) sucks.
3) I may need to go back to drawing board (again) on converting D&D HD to Drudge, or at least give it a bit more thought. In D&D, that mane should have taken (on average) 1.5 crossbow hits. In Drudge, it will consistently take 3 one-handed hits. (Actually, more, since I wasn't bothering with its natural armor. Oops, and I also see now I forgot its Acidic Cloud death-throes, though I happened to get the general dissolving spirit right.)
4) Related to 3, I do miss that thrill of getting in a good solid hit for more damage. Though there's less rolling without damage rolls, Drudge is currently a bit more slogging in nature.

Nothing I want to change yet; just things to keep in mind.

Notion: Magic System Basics

2008-04-22T22:01:00.002-10:00

I've been thinking about magic systems this week. I've been pondering a while on a Scrabble-tile-based system for Zludge. But, as I often do, when I get stuck I explore the basics to try to figure out what the factors are.

First of all, there's a vast variety of magic systems. For examples, I've just been looking at D&D, GURPS, Fudge, and FATE--and that's been enough! There's also related and parallel magic-like systems, such as psi, ritual/incantations, and superpowers.

I think the great variation of magic is just because every fictional world tends to have its own magic/supernatural rules--what's possible and how hard it is to do. So one magic system is definitely not going fit all games, just in terms of flavor.

The other side of that flavor coin is the rule mechanics. I've identified three concerns here:

First, how detailed is the system? That is, is it based on just a handful of guiding principles, a few tables of modifiers, or a complete book laying out every spell in detail? Detail may be a boon or a curse, depending on your play style.

Secondly, how diverse is the magic that needs to be modeled? For instance, is magic in this world basically only telekinesis, where physical objects can be moved and that's it? Or are we modeling a long tradition of every diverse occult effect, from summoning demons to levitating to blasting fireballs, from combat casting to potions to hour-long rituals?

Finally, is the magic system balanced? This means between uses (so casting a certain spell has a consistent cost), within the magic system (so a mage specializing in divination gets just as much of the limelight and story power as one specializing in evocation), and with the rest of the game mechanic (so that non-mage characters aren't overshadowed by the mages).

With these concerns of detail, diversity, and game balance in mind, we can look at how various general mechanics satisfy these. First, there's the issue of how magic is purchased by a character. One option is as skills--where each use requires a check or roll, just as with any other non-magical ability. Another option is stunts--one-time uses that a player usually checks off when used (though not necessarily: a stunt may be more like a feat, usable at will). Additionally, there might be power levels, which usually determine the strength of effects. Power levels usually operate in conjunction with skills or stunts.

These purchasing modes--skills, stunts, and power levels--provide a means for game balance. However, magic could be something simply accumulated through play. D&D's wizard's spellbook and Unearthed Arcana's incantations work a bit like this.

So, aside from how the magic is purchased, what is the basic game mechanic? The first is the exhaustive, specific spell list. D&D uses this approach (where each spell uses a stunt-like spell slot), but so does GURPS (where each spell is a separate skill, with a diverse tree of spell-skill dependencies). This could also be used very nicely on a small scale, as with Fate's example of Pyromancy stunt magic. The advantages of the spell list is extensive detail and, assuming sufficient playtesting, good game-balance. But detail is its own curse--now every time a spell is cast, the books need to come out to check the rules. Also, one is not meant to adlib new spell effects when you have a spell list.

A second mechanic is the general skill. So, unlike GURPS one-skill-per-spell, what I mean here is that one or more skills determines success in a wide variety of endeavors. In short, details such as range, duration, and effect are not set by the spell itself, but adlibbed according to some guidelines. This is seen in simple Fudge-like magic systems, such as Fate's Improvisational Magic. In a very simple system, the GM specifies how hard a certain affect would be to achieve and the player justs roll against a single Magic skill to determine success.

Often the skill roll is combined with power-levels. GURPS psi works a lot like this. For example, the character's telekinesis skill determines the control the character has, but her telekinetic power determines how heavy an object she can affect. (GURPS psi skills are defined so narrowly to be practically a spell list, however.)

Stunts could be used generally too. For instance, a character could perhaps produce 3 Illusions a day, but determine at the time of casting the details of those illusions.

A third mechanic is the combo skill. This is essentially run as a per the general skill mechanics, but each spell success is determined by some combination of skills. This could be an averaging, one roll for each skill involved, or just rolling the lowest skill. Fudge's 4x5 and Gramarye systems and GURPS Magic's improvisational rules work like this (using a combination of college/verb and realm/object skills), as do D&D's incantations (using non-magical skills).

I don't know of any combo-stunt systems, but it seems such as system would certainly be possible.

Finally, magic might use some completely separate mechanic, such as using playing or tarot cards, marbles, or Scrabble tiles. But usually these can be boiled down, or at least compared to, stunts or skills.

So, from what I see here, a magic system is basically going to let a character roll some skill or invoke some stunt to produce an effect. This is because skills and stunts (and power levels) are the core RPGing mechanic and, to maintain game balance and functionality, any major/integral magic system should be in these terms.

So, the first question is to determine the flavor and diversity of the magic you want to model. Then, look to what detail you want to use to model this. With high diversity, high detail will be a major undertaking. Also, your game system will probably direct you on this--high detail systems (such as D&D and GURPS) favor detailed spell lists, while Fudge prefers general and combo skill rolls. The advantage of detail is all the consistency and game balance kinks can be worked out beforehand. The advantage of less detail is that you can make it up as you go, letting player and GM creativity shine.

D&D: Omri, Cheap Battlegirds, and Player Caution

2008-04-22T20:32:00.003-10:00

S. and I played a bit of D&D this weekend. We overlaid some clear Omnigrid quilting rulers over the white board for a quick battle grid, and then used some old chess pieces for miniatures. Worked out quite nicely! Normally I just use the white board, but it always takes an extra minute drawing the grid before each combat, and then I have to erase each character's mark before moving them to another square. There's just something quick and satisfying about miniatures... but also something a bit pricey when doing it right! The chess pieces were a nice compromise.

I was also reminded what a cautious player S. is. While taking out a goblin army outpost that had her party pinned down with crossbow fire, her character, Omri, burst out of invisibility within the enemy dugout and immediately decapitated an orc and a goblin. Half the remaining seven goblins in the room were still flatfooted, and the rest of her party was about 3 rounds away. Omri had both Shield and Sheild Other in effect, and I was envisioning an awesome cinematic bloodbath as Omri tore through the remaining goblins while her friends dashed in, their own crossbows and spells blazing. But S. chose to retreat rather than press her advantage! So now the entire scattered goblin army--not just this one outpost--knows they're coming.

But upon reflection, I think this retreat is not so surprising. For one, Omri--who had never seen either orc or bugbear before and failed her Knowledge check to identify the orc before her--thought that she may have killed the commander bugbear they were coming for. (And S. did a great job of staying in character even after I accidentally let slip that it was an orc.) Secondly, I may not have been clear as GM that the army had little outposts scattered around these mountain valleys, watching all the passes, that this was just one such outpost that could alert the others given a bit of time.

But most importantly, it's just a (nice) surprise to have a player that isn't unconsciously meta-gaming the whole time, that doesn't have a good idea of the challenge rating of the current encounter, and who's worried more about avoiding unnecessary combat than just killing everything that moves and nicking all its stuff. And, I must say, if it were me in Omri's place, I don't know if I'd stand my ground in a cramped dugout when seven armed and outraged goblins turned to stare at me! Overall, it was still an impressive hit-and-fade attack... marred slightly only the by the 3 crossbow bolts the party took in the back as they fled into the surrounding hills.

Anyway, it was just another lesson in that constant GM balancing-act: providing enough challenge that players have to be cautious, but not so much that they're afraid to just rush in--swords swinging--when the situation calls for it. I guess that's the trick: successfully conveying whether or not the situation calls for it.

Making cheap dice

2008-04-17T13:13:00.003-10:00

Don't Rest Your Head requires about 30d6 to play with only one player (and about 17d6 for each additional player, if everyone has their own dice), divided into four different colors. So I had to figure out how to make some cheap dice. When I made my first set of Fudge dice, I bought some blank black dice at 75¢ each--which wasn't going to cut to here. (Those didn't turn out all that well either. Sorry, I forgot to include them in the picture though.)

So a couple weekends ago S. and I went to the educational supply store that I knew had a mix of odd dice. I didn't find anything pre-made there that was affordable enough, but we did find a bag of wooden counting units. Remember those from elementary school--the 1s, the 10s, and the 100s? This bag of 100 little wooden cubes was normally $3.95, but it was 30% off, so I got out of there for less than $3 (meaning less than 3¢ per die)!

I didn't have any permanent markers, so I had to buy some of those too. (Doh! Another $5.) I bought the kind with fine tips on one end and ultra-fine on the other. I ended up using ultra-fine for the dice pictured here. (The lone black die in the foreground is an example of fine.)

Due to the wood, 4 of the 6 sides tend to cause the ink to weep a little along the grain. The other 2 sides really suck the ink in, making those numbers seem darker. I was consistent in how I arranged the numbers in relation to each other on the die, but I tried to vary the side and grain orientation I started with on each die. I'm not guaranteeing that these dice are completely random and unweighted, but I figured if I varied each one, the individual differences shouldn't matter much.

Although the different colored numbers are clear in daylight, it was hard to tell the blue and green (and black) apart in dim indoor lighting. To differentiate them, I tried outlining the edges of the green dice (which we use for DRYH's Discipline pool). This was still a little too subtle. S. suggested using a green highlighter, and that worked out quite nicely. I haven't noticed any staining on my hands using these dice.

The picture above shows the finished product, with a penny for scale. The dice are quite small, which is handy when you're trying to roll 10 or 15 at once. They're also very quiet on the table, which is a nice feature. The medicine bottle containing 3 Fudge dice is what we've been using for Huffy rolls. And, as you can see, I still have half a bag of blanks left!

Notion: Generating RPG Story Graphs

2008-04-17T12:51:00.004-10:00

Please forgive me for the long way 'round. I tend to explore the problem a bit before proposing a solution. And, since I haven't touched my IN research in about 3 months now, I've been using the exploration of the past three posts as a bit of review and rejuvenation. But it's time to finally tackle the problem at hand: how, as human GMs, can we quickly generate a story graph to guide our game?

First, start with the gist. That is, what is the main conflict or central idea of the story? Keep this ever in mind, as it will tie everything else together. If some encounter doesn't further the gist, reconsider including it.

That said, there may be separate story threads that will eventually tie back into the gist. Also, certain character-building scenes might lay groundwork that will later be important to the gist. Often, the story might start with a lead-in thread--something that gets the PCs involved in the gist. Try to get them there quickly and into the main story.

The gist corresponds to an adventure. If you're running a longer campaign, you might start foreshadowing later adventure gists, and so one adventure serves as lead-in to another. But, like an episode in a TV series, each adventure should have its own gist and core structure.

Be aware of PC motivations. Before you even start, know why the PCs would be willing to involve themselves in the gist. You may have a lead-in with clear motivations, but will they then switch their interest over to the gist? This is less of a concern if the gist is forced upon the PCs--ie, the forces of darkness are coming after the PCs themselves for some reason, such that they can't run or hide (for long).

Next, work backwards. The gist should suggest some obvious conclusion that you'd like to strive for. Be aware this could change though, so perhaps think of a couple alternatives. For example, your gist might be an massive alien invasion. As GM, your intended conclusion is a dark one: the PCs manage only to rescue a few key people and flee the planet. But other places you could go is the PCs actually thwarting the invasion somehow, or perhaps even aiding the aliens. In short, you want to a desirable conclusion to shoot for, but also a couple fallback destinations if you want to give PCs enough freedom that you might miss your mark.

Now that you have a conclusion, what needs to happen immediately before that? Does the conclusion generally suggest some journey, needed information, or essential item? Try to work back one step at a time, but be aware that there may be a few threads that you can interweave as is convenient. For instance, in order to flee the planet ahead of the alien invasion, the PCs will need to know about the invasion, need to get the refugees together, and will need to get a ship. That's three threads. Start fleshing those out. How will they get the information? How will they learn that stopping the invasion would be impossible? What will their motivation be to gather refugees?

Essentially, you're working backwards filling in the preconditions (including justification and motivation) for each node. (Perez's MEXICA story gen system works this way.)

Work forwards. But, alternately, you want to work forwards as well. Your players have given you a starting point: their PCs, backstory, and motivations. From your gist and conclusion, you have a goal.

From here, you use the improv technique of tilting. In improv, you try to establish a scene or context and then tilt it by changing or breaking some expectation. This constant introduction of problems, even to some boring task, proves much more engaging than simply trying to do something interesting. For instance, brain surgery on an elephant might be interesting at first... but not if it goes smoothly. Washing dishes would be more exciting if the drain stopper suddenly stops working... now we have something to solve.

In this spirit, keep introducing some problem or obstruction between the PCs and their goal. Let them solve each one, always moving closer to the goal... but only to find another problem.

Work where you are. Whether working forwards or backwards, you still need to flesh out the details of the current encounter. In short, you need material. Much of the time, the story needs of the encounter will suggest things.

But if not, start with reincorporation (another improv trick). That is, how could you work some previous character or item or effect of a past event into the current action? This means you're building on the previous story, weaving things together, so it's all not just a string of unconnected events. (This approach of establishing the narrative necessity of earlier story events is actually the core mechanic of my current IN system, Marlinspike.) Theoretically, if you do this too much, you end up with a string of bizarre coincidences as old characters keep coming back in new roles. But if it worked so well for Charles Dickens and Edgar Rice Burroughs, why not for you?

If reincorporation isn't suggesting anything though, then it's handy to have a list of material on hand--one or two word NPC sketches, scene forms, etc. See if you can't work these in somehow to fill the needs of your current story--either throwing a temporary wrench in the PCs' current plans or else justifying/providing for later action you have planned.

So how does all this produce a quick game? First, establish a gist. (Again, Instant Game can do this for you.) This will give you the general setting and likely (or at least possible) conclusion. Let the PCs start creating characters in accordance with this. Don't be afraid of a little explicit player involvement--explain the gist and even discuss some possible conclusions with the players. This lets them create characters that will be motivated by the gist, and can give you more ideas.

Next, while the PCs are building their characters, generate some material appropriate to the setting--a handful of NPC hooks, and maybe a list of the kinds of scenes you'd like to see. Your story's Tone/genre can suggest a lot here. This material will serve as resource if you get stuck.

Now put the (likely) conclusion on the right side of a sheet of paper. Start working backwards, establishing the threads it'll take to get there. Then, within these threads, work forwards a little, thinking of ways to tilt or obstruct PCs progress. Once you have a rough idea of the major events in the story--the stuff that will generally need to be completed to get to the end--go to the far left side of your paper and work on the first couple encounters that will take the PCs from their starting conditions and tie them into the gist. Since you know where you're going now, you can start foreshadowing things.

Once you have the first couple encounters fleshed out, and a general outline for the rest, you're ready to start playing! You can work forward as you go, trying to reincorporate things the PCs did while tilting to produce problems for the PCs to solve. But don't bog down the action too much--keep things moving along your outline and remember the gist. If you're stuck, glance at your material list for things you haven't already worked in for ideas.

Now that I have a recipe for action, I'll have to try it next time I play and see if all this actually works in practice! It also suggests possibilities for collaborative GMing/GM-less gaming which bears thinking about...

Notion: Material and Form of RPG Story Graphs

2008-04-17T11:32:00.002-10:00

So I've examined story graph structure in general. But what exactly contributes to this structure? It seems there's both the form/structure and the material/content.

The material is basically the world--characters and setting--and the game rules (verbs) for interaction. This is what makes up the substance of encounters. A campaign setting--whether adopted or constructed--provides much of the world: geography, history, culture, types of creatures and characters, major NPCs, etc. Even an Instant Game provides the basics for this with its Instant Setting rolls.

PCs also provide a lot of material if the GM is willing to incorporate it. PCs tend to have or suggest various dependent or patron NPCS or other backstory hooks that could be built upon.

If more material is needed, random tables work great for this. Just roll up your next NPC encounter, the next roaming monster, or the features of the next dungeon room. These random tables are usually campaign (or at least genre) specific, though there are a few table that give some general NPC trait or feature handy for quick caricature.

What random tables do not provide is the purpose or role the material will play in your story. Is this random, non-combative NPC meant to be a hindrance, a clue, or foreshadowing? You need to provide this structure.

However, sometimes structure will prompt material directly--if you need to hinder the PCs a bit at this point in the story, a certain apropos monster may spring to mind.

So these are some sources of raw material, but they must all serve the story structure in order to be relevant.

The core of a story is its central idea, also called the conflict, the opposition, or gist. A random table (or Instant Game) might provide this core story idea, but it then needs to be fleshed out.

One way to do this is follow some sort of story form. At its most basic, this is simply the rising-action/climax/falling-action of Freytag's triangle (the modern version, anyway). But there are more specific forms for each genre--such as Propp's Russian folktale morphology, Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, etc. Other forms have forms less codified but still recognizable--the sci-fi horror film, the romantic comedy, etc. Genre rules usually provide material as well, as with film noir's hardboiled detective, femme fatale, and dark gritty streets. Story forms are good for guidance, but can become a straitjacket if the PCs don't want to follow the traditional roles--such as being the moral heroes. (It took me a few months of research to realize this--see "The Limitations of a Propp-based Approach to Interactive Narrative" over at Argax for more.)

It's also possible to generate random scene forms (aka, encounter types) and try to append them to each other. For instance, a rescue, a car chase, or a dungeon battle. But what is the material of these scenes--who is rescuing whom? And what is their role in the story--is the rescue a climax of the story, or is it performed just to get another clue towards the final goal, or is it even the inciting incident for everything that follows?

We now have a good idea of everything that goes into one of these story graphs and were we might get some of it. So how do we put it all together?

Notion: Story Graphs in Theory and Practice

2008-04-16T11:45:00.008-10:00

So, after a little contemplation it seems that a GM guides the story with a mental model of possibilities and potential stories. This model forms a directed graph of story nodes (that is, encounters). The game then traverses this graph of possibilities to produce a linear actual story. This linear story should then have certain characteristics of all good stories--coherence, rising and falling action (conflict), interesting characters and events, etc.

Here's a depiction of this: a graph of dark blue nodes with all possible connections (dashed arrows) and the path actually taken by the story (dark arrows). Some nodes have time requirements--they will happen at (or cannot happen until) a certain time. Similarly, some nodes might be dynamic, having contents that vary depending on which nodes were visited previously.

I must immediately note that most real GMs do not work this way! This is more of a brute force IN/computer game approach, where everything must be completely written before play even starts. As GMs, we don't plot out all possibilities in detail. For one, it's incredibly hard to think of all possible player actions that would necessitate a response. Secondly, it's a waste of time to do all this plotting for events that are unlikely to ever make it into the game.

Instead, I believe GMs work more like this:

That is, we have the main story line mostly planned, though there may still be a couple encounters (shown as outlined light blue nodes) we don't know all the details for yet. We may have a contingency plan for some of the obvious player choices that would take them off the main story line, and hopefully have a vague plan for how to work this back into the story. We might also have some world/content ideas with no idea of how these will affect the story (non-outlined light blue nodes). But these will be handy if we suddenly need to generate more of the graph to support a story that veers off of our planned outline.

In contrast, here's an approximation of the mental "graph" I was working from during our last Huffy session:

There's a clear starting point and a relatively good idea of where to end. There's a few ideas of the kind of action we might see--such as a rooftop chase or a rescue--but without any content--such as the characters or setting necessary for this action. These are shown as empty white nodes. And then there's a few other vague ideas that have no obvious story role yet, with a couple notions about how some of them might go together.

So, even if we do not need to generate a complete graph of all possible stories, how to we quickly generate a partial graph containing at least one complete possible storyline?

Notion: Story Management in RPGs and IN

2008-04-14T15:00:00.004-10:00

In thinking about how we might make RPG story management more dynamic, it would probably help to review how it's done normally. The following view essentially comes from D&D's DMG, though it's been shaped a lot by my thinking on the problem of interactive narrative (IN).

An adventure is composed of encounters. Encounters are some short segment of interaction, usually phrased in if/then terms. For example, if the PCs enter this room, this monster will attack them. Or, if the PCs agree to lay down their weapons, the king will listen to their request; otherwise his guards will attack.

Encounters are really simply the story/world/GM response to player actions. So what determines possible player actions? The game rules and GM's description of the world provides affordances for PC action. That is, players know what sorts of actions they can perform based on their skills and powers, including the likelihood of success. The game rules and story context so far can provide constraints and guidance too--some actions are not possible in the world, would be out of character, or would be irrelevant/nonsensical to the story.

In terms of my IN poetics, the events internal to an encounter are world-level events. I call this set of possible world-level actions verbs. As already mentioned, the game rules provides the set of possible verbs. An encounter needs a setting (location, props, etc.) and characters (PCS and NPCs). Characters should include motivations to be believable.

So this brings us to what, in IN, I consider to be the story-level interpretation of world-level events. In other words, how do encounters combine to form adventures? That is, if we summarize each encounter as a sentence, how does that sentence further or change the story structure?

As a related parallel, I would say the main challenges of IN include:
1) defining the set of possible verbs widely enough that the player doesn't feel constrained yet so that the world can appropriately handle/respond to all (or at least all logical) combinations of verb and world object,
2) providing NPC motivations that lead to believable responses to both PC and other NPC actions, and
3) modeling the story so that the system can direct the story to some conclusion.

I believe point 1 can be overcome largely through brute force--coding up a complex rule-based interaction system. Similarly with point 2, though 2 is harder since NPCs have more complex internal states than objects and must also present their reactions in an audience-interpretable manner. But I find point 3 to be the most challenging. In particular, how can a computer understand what world-level actions mean at a story level, both when interpreting user actions and then when directing NPC/world responses? And, secondly, what model of story is the IN system trying to follow as it directs the action?

In terms of RPGs, human ability fills in a lot of these gaps for us. As mentioned, the rules tell us how to adjudicate the verbs (1). But where they do not, the GM can devise a substitute or house rule. NPC motivation (2) is provided by the GM as necessitated by the story. Story structure (3) is what I'm interested in here. I believe that, for a human GM given a story structure (providing constraints/direction) and a rule system and game world (providing affordances/material), the encounter details largely take care of themselves.

Okay, so in the interest of both IN and RPGs, how do RPG GMs model a story structure? D&Ds DMG suggest two basic approaches: site-based and event-based.

In a site-based adventure, encounters are laid out as a map. Site-based adventures are easy to run since both constraints and affordances are easy to communicate: certain spells aside, players have to move through the passageways, encountering each room in some sort of basic order. Locked doors and other obstacles can further direct them. It's easy to foreshadow what's coming up around the next bend. Choices are clear--do we go left or right at this branch? What do we do with the troll currently picking his nose in the next room?

The DMG points out that site-based adventures can be static or dynamic. Static dungeons don't change--there's a troll picking his nose in this room regardless of what the PCs did in the previous room. Dynamic dungeons change or respond to earlier PC actions. Perhaps the nose-picking troll is summoned from his room to sounds of battle, or perhaps he's warned by a fleeing guard that the PCs let get away. Or maybe the troll simply has a random chance of being asleep rather than nose-picking.

For event-based adventures, the DMG suggests starting with a goal for the PCS, and then consider their opposition. It's important to consider PC motivation and how to entice them into the adventure. Then the GM flowcharts the adventure--what events happen in what order. Again, encounters have an if/then structure, so remember preconditions and stress the consequences of PC actions.

As with site-based adventures, event-based adventures can be static--these things happen if the PCs do this. But they can also be dynamic (called timelines): this will happen at this time, regardless of what the PCs have done so far. Usually you end up with some combo--as in the advancing horde reaches the city on day 3 of the adventure, but the results of that battle will depend on what the PCs did before it got there.

What we can see here is that RPG story planning essentially means creating a directed graph. Each encounter is node. The story moves from one node/encounter to another based on what the PCs decide to do.

In a site-based adventure, the graph will have essentially the same shape as the dungeon--rooms connected by corridors. In event-based, we might end up with more various shapes, such as a linear graph when the GM has a single storyline that the PCs have no ability to change. (These can still be interesting games, as the players have to determine how to advance the story and overcome the obstacles before them. See these rough draft pages of my dissertation for more on potential story forms.)

Of course, there are a couple more concerns than simply the shape of the story graph. The DMG recommends that an adventure should offer a variety of different kinds of encounters (combat, puzzles, social intrigue, etc.) and should make good use of PC abilities. The encounters should be individually exciting, but, together, form the rising and falling action of a story. There should be at least some encounters that offer the players a chance to significantly affect the direction of the story.

So, in summary, we can say that an RPG GM works from a directed graph (often of the branching tree variety) representing all potential stories. Each node is an encounter, and the mechanics of those encounters are determined by the rules system and story world (setting, NPC motivations, etc.). But the actual story produced is a linear traversal of that graph as determined by player choices at each node. This completed linear story should then have appropriate story structure--coherence, rising and falling tension, etc.

So how can we speed the production of this guiding story graph?

Huffy: Testing notes

2008-04-12T13:43:00.006-10:00

Huffy is a hiking version of Fluff(y), and served about as well. We only had a couple rolls for the combat scene.

The supplies needed include: a pen and scrap of paper (which got a little damp in a light shower), 3dF (small) in a transparent (medicine) bottle, 5 blue chips (plot points), 2 white chips (to mark light injury), and 3 red chips (for heavy injury). All this fits in a few pockets without much trouble.

Our hiking path didn't include too many road crossings, which is good. Your Huffy player party should include someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time to keep an eye on everyone, especially at intersections. S. does this well.

I found that combining hiking and gaming means the gaming goes a little slow as there are pauses to enjoy the scenery, and some of scenery is a bit of a blur because I was deep in thought on gaming. But I tend to think of gaming whenever I hike, so it wasn't that much different! By combining the two activities, you can focus more on one whenever the other hits a bit of a boring lull.

I felt that the biggest problem we encountered--which is larger than just some broken Huffy mechanic--is how to steer the story when we're making it up as we go. I'm still used to D&D, where time seems to divide roughly into 50% combat/strategy, 30% adventuring/dungeon crawling/narration, and 20% town/roleplay/interaction. (Well, that's recently in my Omri campaign. In Dragon Wars, it's probably closer to 65/20/15. In another campaign I play in, it's closer to 80/15/5.) In this context, the main challenge is to come up with dramatic battles and tricky dungeons puzzles (though, yes, it should all still be in the pursuit of some interesting goal).

But lately I'm trying to shift this time division to about 10% combat, 50% narration, and 40% interaction. But this means there needs to be a lot more story ready to go! Yet at the same time, I'm trying to play short, lite-weight campaigns that don't require more than 20 minutes advanced planning.

So what are some possible mechanisms to use here? I still think Instant Game does a great job of quickly giving you a campaign setting--the world and the basic conflict of the story. What I was missing yesterday was more of the story details that then flesh out that conflict.

I did include S. in more explicit story planning at the outset. This means we spent as much time planning as actually playing though. But S. seemed to enjoy being able to shape the world and the story as well as just her character. But once we were into the playing, I felt that the pressure is really on the GM to come up with the next encounter.

Another idea I had was to make a list of story elements before we started that we could then try to work in. Again, S. contributed to the list, which included things such as: feral hordes, a high speed chase, a fight on a narrow archway, a knife fight, spitting in someone's face in defiance, slippin' someone a micky, a foretelling. This did help a bit. I'm already foreshadowing the feral hordes. The knife fight didn't quite come through, but it did suggest the fight between the 3 men. We did a bit of foretelling too (though it's hard to prophesy when you have no clear plan beyond the next encounter!)

All of three of these--Instant Game's setting and opposition, player contribution to the world, and a list of potential story elements--helped. But all three of them require pre-game prep. Is there any generative thing we could do to foster play-time plot generation? And I'm not talking just rolling up another combat encounter here--though the idea of a random table could be used (which the story element list already hints at). In the spirit of Zludge, it'd be nice to stay away from reference tables during play-time.

Hmm... something to ponder more. It's also nice to see my RPG interests coming back around to my IN work!

Huffy: Liza Jaeger

2008-04-12T13:17:00.002-10:00

Date: 11 Apr 2008
Player: S.

This was our first attempt at Huffy. We played for about an hour, I'd say, as we walked from Kahala Mall, along the coast at the foot of Diamond Head, to my house. We were playing an Instant Game with the following details:

Setting: Fallen Civilization
Tone: Action/Adventure
Thing: Neutral Ground
Thing: Epic Heroes
Tech: Lost Technology (Now: Wheel. Then: Automobiles)
Place: Camping Out
Population: >10 million

Opposition: (Cruel) Kingpin
Action-Thing: Rescue (Giant) Secret Society
Action-OtherThing: Survive (Strong) Soldier

The population of this corner of the world is spread out in little woodland villages, living a primitive but comfortable existence. S.'s character, Elizabeth "Liza" Jaeger is the greatest hunter in the region. But it seems her family is in debt to the local Godfather figure, who calls in the debt by giving Liza a choice: go on a little "errand" for him, or else he'll marry her young, innocent sister Amelia.

The errand is to travel east over the mountains to find more "sigiled meshal". The kingpin shows her the piece of meshal he already has--a hard, silvery sheet bearing a strange sigil: a circle surrounded by three triangles [a chunk of metal bearing the radioactive symbol, in other words]. The man who brought this to the kingpin suffered sores and internal bleeding. Before he died he explained that the sigil is significant as an indication of the meshal's power to cause disease. The meshal is now stored in the kingpin's shed, a fair distance from any living area.

Liza seeks prophesy before she leaves on such a long journey. The local wise woman reads her tea leaves and says to beware the mountains and the Green Bear.

A couple days journey later, Liza reaches the foothills of the mountains. Ancient myth tells that giants live on the far side, and heroes of old fended them off so that the Villages could live in peace here in the forest.

Liza hears a scuffle nearby and interrupts a fight between three men. One is a warrior dressed like her, but the other two are large, bald, blubbery, and dressed in loincloths and war paint. One of the savages--already wounded--roars and charges Liza when she calls out, and she sinks him with an arrow. The warrior slays the other savage with a well-placed blow of his macuahuitl; he then brutally dispatches the other fallen savage. Liza notices the savages bear weapons crudely fashioned from chunks of meshal, though they lack sigils.

Introductions are exchanged. The warrior is named Albert, and is a member of the Order of Holy Redoubt, a martial monastic order that serve as sentinels and guardians of the mountains. Though they have not seen any giants in known memory, lately small groups of these savages have been coming across the desert wastelands beyond the mountains. They do not seem to speak, but violently attack other humans and, occasionally, each other.

Albert offers that Liza come to the monastery for the night. It proves to be under-staffed with only a handful of warriors who come in from their diverse posts and watches for dinner. Albert explains that the Villages very rarely tithe their sons to the Redoubt as they once did, and the order itself has largely been forgotten here in the wilderness. Liza overhears a hushed discussion of "the rogue" further down the table...

[Liza's details: Fighting +1, Strength +0, Grace +1, Knowledge +1, Perception +1, Social -1, Survival +3. Quirks: Blunt/Tactless; Honorable.]

Notion: Explicit Player Meta-plotting

2008-04-10T22:42:00.003-10:00

Our recent DHYH session and some experiments with AnimalBall.com's Instant Game have prompted me to think a bit about direct player involvement in story planning.

DRYH explicitly involves the player by letting them lay out the first scene that starts the action, as well as specify a story goal for their character to achieve by the end of the story. During our session, I would occasionally ask S. directly for more info about her character's backstory--such as naming three anthropomorphic toys her character had as a child. Some DRYH GMs have gone so far as to allow players that win their contest to assume narrative control for the following scene.

I've also lately been exploring the mechanic of plot points, where the player can introduce some coincidence, minor story control, or introduce some world detail.

I guess perhaps its my IN research that prompts me to shy away from all this as something that will break player "immersion" or "narrative presence" in the story. Yet, in my own solitaire gaming, I've felt the difference between plotting and playing. Since I'm both player and GM, I know what's going to happen ahead of time in my storylines. The only variation from my plan is going to come from the dice--which can introduce interesting and significant variation at the micro-level, which may in turn prompt new ideas. And yet it's still a rewarding experience to play through and make all those general plot lines concrete. I guess it's like reading a plot summary or reading the original work--the details make a big difference!

So why shouldn't this experience also be rewarding for my players? Yes, there's a breaking of immersion, but at the gain of greater player control and involvement in the story.

So here's a few ideas on how I could try to add more player control:

"Yes, and..." World Building. One thing I noticed with a recent Instant Game exercise was that sometimes the GM and player might want to take the world-building in different directions. One possibility is to play the "Yes, and..." improv game here. The two take turns adding details to the world, but can't retract or change what the other has already added. (No "Yes, but..."s.) I suppose there could be some sort of "plot point" buy-out mechanism if the GM didn't want to go the full way here. Perhaps the GM has 3 chips which let him veto that many player-generated elements. Or perhaps both player and GM each get 3 chips and can veto each other. This would be better, since vetoing in general tends to kill the spirit; at least this way the two are on even footing.

As you can see, I'm hesitant to give equal power to the player. I noticed during the first part of our DRYH session that giving control to the player doesn't mean you're going to get a story out of it. (I was impressed with S.'s contributions and creativity though!) Someone--or at least some mechanism--needs to be in place to guide the story in some direction, or else things just stall. Unless there's something else at work, that guiding "mechanism" is usually the GM. And giving the player story control actually means more work (or at least flexibility) is required of the GM.

Co-GMing. It would be interesting to take turns narrating with the player, so each alternates the GM role. I know other systems (Dogs in the Vineyard, perhaps?) have a stakes-based conflict resolution system. Perhaps something like that could be used here to see who takes control of the story. Of course, some players will be passive and not want story control, while others will always want it. And this still doesn't resolve the problem of "who's driving this thing, anyway?"

Explicit Pre-game Plotting. But again I'm falling into the trap of thinking that all of this plotting needs to be subtle and in character, or emergent from the rules. I started this post with the realization that explicit plotting is not a bad thing! So perhaps following up on DRYH's notion of an explicitly-started story goal is a good one. All of this could be negotiated before the game starts--even including any major plot points that should be hit along the way. If everyone's agreed on the direction and the major waypoints at the outset, then it doesn't matter who's currently driving. Instant Game is close to this, as their instant story tables gives the main opposition and other actions that need to be worked in.

Evil Hat's Spirit of the Century/FATE 3.0's aspects are another possibility here. Aspects can be tied to the campaign/story itself, so anyone can invoke them. This serves to at least direct the story towards certain themes, if not in a particular plot direction.

Hmm... something to continue to ponder.

DRYH: Mood Lighting

2008-04-10T18:48:00.002-10:00

A few links to DRHY-like images from here:

DRYH: Piper Fergesson

2008-04-10T14:31:00.000-10:00

Date: 06 Apr 08
Player: S.

S's character was Piper Fergesson, a cop on leave after an "incident". She and her partner, Herb Banocheck, had a run-in with some nut with long grey hair. The nut ran at Piper and said, as if in recognition, "It's you!" He pushed her down and she bonked her head, losing consciousness. Witnesses report that the nut then shot Herb with a ball-and-blackpowder pistol, killing him. The nut apparently escaped in the ensuing commotion.

Piper is on leave now, but she can't seem to sleep. Recently, she seems to be noticing doors where she doesn't remember seeing any before. The action opens when she passes a woman in the lobby of her apartment building--a woman she recognizes as a former tenant that died!

[Character details: Exhaustion talent = Good reflexes/reaction time. Madness talent = Can summon/communicate with ghosts. Madness responses: All fight.]

Locked in her apartment, wondering if she's losing her mind, Piper hears a knock on the door. It's a Bobby policeman, asking her to accompany him down to "District 13" for questioning regarding the death of her partner, Banocheck. Curious, Piper follows him, even after she spots the large clockwork key protruding from his back. He takes her down the hallway a ways and through a janitor closet door to a busy city street. Looking back, they just came out the glass door of a candy store.

As they head down a busy and anachronistic street towards a metal archway bearing a large "13", someone in the crowd slips a bit of paper into Piper's hand. Reading it while the Bobby stops to talk to a Paper Boy, Piper sees "Don't go into District 13!". Taking this as her cue, she slips away from the Bobby and disappears into the crowd. She wanders through half-familiar streets and finds the Bizarre Bazaar.

[Here we paused for a nap and a break to get some storyline plotted, as I'd been just adlibbing this far--and most of that based on a vague memory of the example session in the first few pages of DRYH.]

A little someone catches up with her in the Bazaar. He looks like a blue stuffed dog in a trenchcoat with sort of tassel buttoned to the end of his snout. Introducing himself as Stitch the Snitch, he leads Piper to see "La Resistance!" Down into the sewers, through the borders of the Wax King's domain, and down to the upper edge of the Under-Where [hee hee]. La Resistance proves to be three individuals who bear a suspicious resemblance to some of Piper's childhood toys: a little "rag doll" girl, a "stuffed pig" named Anderleaf in a flowery waistcoat, and Barbie's friend Midge. They're currently having tea on a packing crate under a single naked lightbulb.

La Resistance explains to Piper that she can summon ghosts, as they themselves are not really here, but the ghosts of toys remembered. Something strange is going on regarding the death of Herb Banocheck, something that has Officer Tock and even the Tacksman interested. The description of the nut sounds like a Tweener they know named Mad Max. (Tweeners are neither Awake nor Sleeper, but trapped between the two worlds. You usually find Tweeners raving to themselves at bus stops in the City Slumbering.) With no further clues, they recommend Piper seek prophesy.

Stitch takes her to the surface again. He buys a paper from a Paper Boy and points out a small article regarding Piper's escape from the Bobby and that she is still wanted for questioning. He chuckles over how he "snitched" Piper away from the Bobby.

Stitch then leads her to Mama Fortuna. Piper's own mother made a living as a false medium and psychic, and so Piper recognizes a number of tricks of the trade. Mama gets nothing from the crystal ball, so she tries a Tarot reading. It's a strange deck, but she reveals the following: the King of Cups (the Wax King) is in opposition with the King of Blades (the Tacksman) over the City (Mad City and the City Slumbering, two sides of a coin). Beneath the City is the Page of Wands (Piper, newly Awake). Mirroring the Tacksman and Wax King's opposition, Piper is torn between the Horizon Walker (a major arcana card of a man with long grey hair and out-stretched arms; "He represents new awareness and knowledge," Mama says) on the one hand. On the other... Mama Fortuna draws the last card, but casts it and the deck aside, refusing to continue the reading.

Leaving Mama's, Piper finds that Stitch has disappeared. At a loss, she decides to try to find a way home. She heads to her neighborhood in this mirror city, looking for a door. Instead, she finds a couple Pin Head G-men waiting in her building lobby. She gives them the slip. In the fight, she finds her gun is gone... snitched by Stitch?

She tries to buy another paper, but the Paper Boys want Wax King coins, or else $20. One of the Boys, Johnny, recognizes her from the newsies, and so sells her a paper for an autographed $1. According to the paper, Piper is still wanted for questioning, though now they've called out the Needle Nose hounds.

Piper summons Anderleaf the pig, who daintily sniffs around her and announces that, yes, she's being tracked based on the scent of her gun, snitched by Stitch. So he recommends she buy a new one to replace it... then her old one won't be hers anymore.

Back at the Bizarre Bazaar she trades, in the shadows, a memory of freedom and rain in exchange for a gun... that proves to be a ball-and-blackpowder model. Johnny the Paper Boy runs up to her in the crowd, waving his autographed $1, gloating that it'll be worth even more now, look... a new article in the paper says that there is now a warrant out for Piper due to "possession of evidence".

A Needle Nose trots by then, on the trail of something... but passes her by.

Then a mob of Paper Boys hurry past, cursing the Horizon Walker for "taking a bum again." Dashing after the Boys, she sees that they are following some bum with long grey hair. His clothes are stuffed with old newspapers... slips of which are falling out behind him, leaving a trail of headlines from the future. Dashing in, pulling off the Boys before they can dismember him, Piper draws her new gun. As the bum turns, she grabs him and recognizes him as the nut that killed Herb. She cries out, "It's you!" and there is a sudden connection between them. She can see something reflected in his eyes... a Tarot card... the opposition that wouldn't be shown by Mama Fortuna... but as she struggles to dive further in, to make sense of the vision, she passes out.

She awakes in the Bazaar, surrounded by a crowd muttering "Horizon Walker". The bum and the Paper Boys are gone, but, in their place, is a crowd of Bobbies, Pin Heads, and Needle Noses, who quickly surround Piper and haul her into a paddywagon bound for District 13!

There, she is hustled to a courtroom for trial. The Tacksman and his Pin Heads are there as audience. So is Stitch the Snitch, who continues to sob, "I'm sorry! I couldn't help it--I'm a Snitch!" so loudly that he is eventually evicted from the room. The prosecution argues that Herb was killed by the Horizon Walker with a blackpowder gun. Piper is the Horizon Walker (huh?) and possessor of said gun. Chronology seems to hold no weight here. In her defense, Piper summons the spirit of Herb himself, who exonerates her by agreeing that it was the bum Mad Max who shot him.

The prosecution tries to shift tacks--while Piper may not have been directly responsible, she was indirectly to blame. In the moment when she faced her assailant, she was slow (when we know she can be so fast), she passively let her partner come to her rescue (when we know her to be so capable), she failed to see the supernatural at work (when she is (now?) so comfortable existence). With this speech, realization comes. It's true, there is/was opposition to the awareness that is the Horizon Walker... an image comes to mind of a little girl in the shadow of a woman in a shawl holding a crystal ball... the same woman that was on the card she saw in the eyes of the Horizon Walker... the Charlatan... her mother.

The tiny judge in the huge wig bangs his gavel and dismisses the case. Somewhere outside, the clocks are chiming Thirteen.

Conclusion. We played for about 2.5 hours, I'd guess, which is our longest gaming session to date in any system. It is also the first story we've every finished. (Yay!) There was certainly a strong story focus--we only rolled for "combat" and "summoning", and that only occurred about 6 or 7 times.

Some of the elements I was proud of: Tweeners, Stitch, the Under-Where, Anderleaf, the folding over of time with the HW encounter. Others were a little weak--particularly the whole Charlatan thing at the end. I was attempting to build on what S. had already established--Piper's mother--as a psychological topic for further investigation. In the City Slumbering, her mother's shadow still affects her--as the prosecution pointed out--leading to a level of cynicism and a tough cop exterior. Yet, in Mad City, she has in many ways achieved what her mother always pretended--she can actually channel the spirits of the dead. And the first unconscious use of that power was to summon the spirits of her childhood--symbols of girlhood and innocence. But all this probably makes way more sense here than it did during the session, where we were both getting tired and just trying to finish things up.

I wouldn't mind returning to this storyworld. I think of this session as the pilot episode for a TV show that may or may not get canceled...

DRYH: Don't Rest Your Head Review

2008-04-10T14:16:00.000-10:00

A couple weeks ago I bought Don't Rest Your Head on a bit of a whim. I bought the PDF + book version. The PDF included a high-res version and a low-res, 2-pages-per-screen version for quick access. The book just came and I'm glad I bought it--something tangible and glossy-covered to flip through while I fall asleep at night.

The rules are a bit tricky at first glance, but they make sense by the second reading. In play, they go pretty smoothly. Basically, there are 4 dice pools: Discipline, Exhaustion, Madness, and Pain. Any time the player has a stressful encounter, the GM assigns a level of difficulty--the number of Pain dice he's going to roll. The player then rolls some combo of Discipline, Exhaustion, and Madness in response. First, you determine whether the GM or the player won--that is, whether the player succeeded or not. Then you determine which pool dominated, which may have certain game effects and always characterizes the resulting action. That's basically it for the game rules. This game definitely has a narrativist slant.

The setting is pretty cool too. The players are always insomniacs that begin to cross over to another world and gain odd abilities as they become more strained and exhausted. Think Dark City, Mirrormask, Neverwhere etc.

You can find out more about the game from Evil Hat's site (link above). Especially check out their Actual Play links--the world is really nicely fleshed out by other people's campaign notes.

It took me a while to come up with the couple dozen or so d6s required to play (but that is a story of its own), but last weekend, S. and I tried it out.

Fluff: Testing notes

2008-04-10T12:04:00.001-10:00

Based on the Rye adventure, here were a few conclusions regarding Fluff:

For such a lite-weight system, skills should default to Okay. New characters should get maybe two +1s to spend, though they could still drop one skill to up another.
The death spiral is too deadly. That is, after a first hit, further hits become more likely. And because, without magical healing, it takes so long to heal from wounds, the game either stalls while the character lays up for a couple weeks, or else death becomes increasingly more likely. It'd be better to tone back the "realism" in the interest of keeping gameplay moving.
The 3dF (though we were faking it with 3d6) and skill granularity were fine.
The plot points were nice, and should be used more for player story control, especially for things like filling out character equipment/details on the fly.
The combat system needs to be clarified. I described the damage levels and the combat mechanic, but left it largely to GM fiat on how the two related. It'd ease gameplay if this was properly defined.
The player was skeptical about having her wounds "reopen" on a bad roll, especially when they didn't seem that bad the first time around.

I'm currently working these changes into the rules. The system has been renamed to Fluffy.

We're also thinking about a similar play-while-hiking version (Huffy), an RPG play context inspired partly by Sherpa. Huffy would probably have a scene-based form of combat, to focus even more on story over mechanics.

Fluff: Amaryllis, Post-apoc librarian

2008-04-10T11:24:00.001-10:00

Date: 02 Mar 08
Player: S.

Together, S. & I came up with the basic world: post nuclear apocalypse in the Badlands of South Dakota. America is gone, though remnants of civilization are slowly regrouping in Sioux City IA, Albany NY, Sarasota FL, Seattle WA, Juneau AK, Cabo San Lucas MX, Rio BR. S.'s character, Amaryllis ("Rye"), is scouring the Badlands on her chopper, looking for books and remnants of civilization. Due to some strange effect of the fallout, gunpowder no longer works.

Rye needs gas. She encounters a blockade formed by a couple buses on the deserted highway, guarded by 3 men. Rather than give over her bike as "tax", she manages to power around the blockade. She takes a couple hits in the battle--one being a crossbow bolt in the leg as she flees. But she gave about as well as she got.

Pulling off the road to avoid pursuit, she meets a young boy named Sam who has been run off from the nearby town for being a "mutant" and a "devil-child". Apparently things seem to move around him. He explains the town is run by the Landlord, who lives up in the "Castle" overlooking the town. He's the only one would have gas.

The two lie low while the three guards from the road block return to town and gather a group of torch-bearers to scour the surrounding desert in the darkness. Rye hides her bike, and she and Sam approach the "Castle"--which proves to be a Quonset hut and another shed surrounded by a high fence.

After trying to figure out how to approach the building without alerting the kenneled guard dogs, Rye eventually attacks a lone guard. A second one comes running, but he is "magically" repelled by a cowering Sam. The original guard and Rye are both bloodied, though Rye puts a thrown dagger in the guard's back as he tries to run for reinforcements. Rye and Sam stumble towards the door of the Quonset hut while the formerly repelled guard begins to stir once more...

This was about 1.5 hours of play. We ended things here as we wanted to make it to a movie that day. S. thought things looked pretty bleak, and we haven't returned to this story since. Should we do so, here's the details:

Amaryllis: Good fighting, Bad strength, Okay grace, Okay know-how, Okay perception, Worse social, Okay survival.

Sam: Bad fighting, Bad strength, Okay grace, Bad know-how, Okay perception, Bad social, Okay survival, (Good psi).

Ideas: I'd thought of having an episodic campaign structure, where each session involves some need--gas, food, supplies, etc--that involves Rye in some local dispute or story. General prompters: muts and tards, a burnt cityscape with preserved convenience store, trail of previous survivors, a sheet trap, tard horde in the city, muts in the subway system.

Also, when we left things so bleak, I considered a world-jumping campaign idea. Perhaps when Sam and Rye pass through doorways together, they move to another world but with the same story--so a fantasy setting (Sam's a wizard), or Hyperborean (Rye is like Red Sonja), etc.

Fluff

2008-04-10T11:14:00.000-10:00

Date: 02 Mar 08

After working on Zludge for the past few months and generally browsing the indie RPG sites for ideas, I started thinking about a quick, lite-weight rule system for playing "short story" games. That is, it'd be nice to be able to just sit down and whip up a quick, unplanned game to play through and finish in a single session. AnimalBall.com's Instant Game does this very well! But I wanted to use a Zludge-based rule system for gameplay, rather than Animalball's.

So, on a Sunday morning after a light run, S. and I were walking home after breakfast and I said, "We should just go home and play!. So we did. I spent about an hour writing the rule system out on 3/4 of a notebook page. About half that time and space went into converting a 3dF roll system to 3d6 though, since I didn't have my Fudge dice with me. I called the system Fluff, to highlight its light-weight, casual-play nature.

Here's the basic system design:

Roll 3dF, which gives +3 to -3. Adjectives: Best, Better, Good, Okay, Bad, Worse, Worst. (A bit cheesy perhaps, but clear and easy to remember.)

Skills default to Bad. There are no attributes or phases/levels. A new character gets five +1 ranks to spend on skills. A player can spend a rank to specialize (+2) in a subskill. She can also drop one skill by -1 to raise another by +1. (In an ongoing campaign, the GM can periodically give out one or two +1 ranks for players to improve their characters.)

Plot points. The player gets 5 plot points, which she can spend to reroll or tweak a roll, or introduce some coincidence, small world detail, or add some small gadget to their character on the fly. The player earns more plot points by good roleplaying or achieving certain story goals.

Combat is exchange-based. All characters announce what they're doing, and then all roll the appropriate (fighting) skill to do that. Attacked characters roll Defense in response, and the difference gives an idea of how much damage is inflicted. Damage levels include Clipped (-1 for next exchange), Hurt (-1 to rolls), Hurt Real Bad (-2), and Dying (-3/incapacitated).

A first aid check after battle lets a character drop the damage penalty by one. The wound is still there though, and a physical skill failure later might reopen the wound. Players heal about 1 damage level per week.

Equipment is pretty free-form: the player just jots down what their character has. Equipment doesn't usually offer a skill bonus or penalty; it just lets you do something or not.

The context for the first game was a post-apoc world, so we had the following skills (and subskills):
--Fighting (Melee, Ranged, Unarmed, Defense)
--Strength (Athletics, Endurance, Shoving/Lifting, Breaking shit)
--Grace (Speed, Reflexes, Acrobatics, Driving)
--Know-how (Book-learning, mechanics, etc.)
--Perception (Sight, Hearing, Other, Mental)
--Social (Diplomacy, Deception, Intimidate, Gather Info)
--Survival (Tracking, Foraging, First aid, Stealth)

Overall, it worked out pretty well.

Initial Description and Mission Statement

2008-04-09T22:29:00.000-10:00

"A partial-suspension of fine and diverse RPG sediment"

Sludge:

mud, mire, ooze, slime, slush or similar mixture
fine, broken, half-formed sea ice
the semisolid material precipitated by sewage treatment
any thick, viscous matter

Pit:

a naturally-occurring or excavated hollow, hole, well, or recess
a sunken enclosure for staging fights, especially between animals
the side of a racing track used for refueling and servicing cars
the stone at the center of a fruit

The Sludge Pit shall contain the following info:

Game play-session summaries/plots, especially for plot-lines that don't have a home of their own.
Reflection on Zludge design issues, including play-testing notes
Reviews of other RPGs, especially free and indie systems
Jotted notes for game mechanic ideas that don't have a home yet
Game-mastering lessons and reflections
Discussion of RPG theory (with an eye to perhaps making this an academic endeavor someday)