cRPGs: The best solo play solution?

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...

z20 Reviewed

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.

Domino-based Combat Mechanic

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

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.

History of z20 and Zludge

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

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...

mini20: Tensions in RPG design.

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.

z20 is now d20house

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!

Fluffy: Alpha-testing notes 1

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.
  

Notion: Speeding Play

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?

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

The End of Drudge

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!

Notion: Modifiers suck

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

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.

Not a Scrabble-based Magic System

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

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.

Notion: Magic System Basics

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.

Fluff

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.