Crazy Train

Now where was I...oh, right: going off the rails.

The last couple days have been spent mostly researching ancient history, and the pseudo-science "archaeological" study of goofy, woo-woo lost cultures (like Atlantis). It would just be so useful if we had real, working time machines and an ability to go back and truly document ancient history (you know, when exactly did the dinosaurs die, who built the damn Giza pyramids, who was mining copper out of the Americas and exporting it to Eurasia to fuel the bronze age, etc.). I don't even need to go back and see Jesus healing lepers and such...just let me fly around the globe circa 9000 BCE and see what was going on. I promise I won't try to put modern Egyptologists out of business. Heck, I'll even agree to stay west of the Prime Meridian; I never had much interest in China anyway.

*sigh* So many people arguing so many crazy things on the internet. So much history tainted with bias and agendas. And so so soooo much of our history unknown. Radiocarbon dating isn't wholly  accurate, and our written material (what we can translate) just doesn't withstand the forces of entropy for more than a few centuries. Unless they're inscribed in gold, or other precious metal, that is...but then, such "books" of that type were likely melted down for ready cash long ago by folks who couldn't decipher them anyway. Or confiscated by the Vatican. Or whatever.

But you folks don't want to to hear about all that stuff...let's talk about games!

SO...one of the purposes in writing the new fantasy heartbreaker (recall that I've already got a pseudo-heartbreaker under my belt with Five Ancient Kingdoms), was to get something down that was more like "Basic" D&D. Yes, funhouse-style gaming...though, now the specifics of the setting are starting to make this look like a long-term sandbox-style campaign setting. ANYway...part of getting back to "basics" was going back to those funny-shaped dice that D&D helped popularize...all those D8s, D4s, and D12s (not to mention D20s!). I wanted to make a game that people would recognize, even if it was a "little different."

Then I started looking at Star Wars.

Specifically Fantasy Flight Game's new Star Wars RPGs (Edge of Empire, Age of Rebellion, etc.). I could find surprisingly little posted on-line about these games (considering the production value and general popularity of the setting)...then again, I didn't spend time perusing the FFG forums. I know there are people playing it. I know there are even more people who simply own it (I want to own it...the artwork and production values are stunning!). The main knock people seem to have (and there aren't all that many negative reviews out there, please realize) is the proprietary dice required to play with their weird symbols (as opposed to numbers or pips).

Personally, I'm not terribly into a this kind of gimmick (says the guy who has special "zero dice" commissioned for sale with 5AK...hypocrite, much?). *AHEM* Personally, I am NOT really into this kind of gimmick when it leads to overly-complicated mechanics that are hard to decipher (how hard is it to read "zero" on a six-sided die? Not bloody-damn hard!), but the REASON behind it (to introduce narrative aspects into the standard mechanics of the game with a single simple dice roll) isn't a bad one. Just one that was kind of clunkily executed.

So I started brainstorming an easier way to do the same thing. And that's where my "basic" idea starts to fall apart.

See, one thing I really wanted to return to was the "roll D20" to hit, to save, to everything. People love those little 20-sided dice and I wanted to give 'em to them. There were three main mechanics in Moon, and all of them used a D20 mechanic. I was intending to keep these mechanics for the new iteration. But now...well, now it's going to be a "roll 2D10" instead.

Bell curves. Nerds like me who look at dice and percentages (well, and maybe some hard-core gamblers, too) know that rolling 2D10 is a lot different from rolling a D20 (and not just because 'you can't roll a 1'). When rolling a D20, each number (1-20) has an equal chance of being rolled (5%) and all "+"s and "-"s from, say, ability scores or level move the needle in simple increments of 5%.

2D10 is different. The percentage chance of rolling very high or very low is much smaller compared to numbers "in the middle." Which, when considering a "roll over target number" scenario (as is my basic mechanic), means easy rolls get easier to make, and harder rolls get harder.

Blah blah blah...what does that mean, JB? Let's look at a basic example: combat. Attack rolls versus armor class (though I'm not sure if I'm going to stick with the "AC" term in the final document). At the moment, you've got three basic target numbers when fighting an armored man:

10 (unarmored)
13 (light armor)
16 (heavy armor)

with a shield adding +1 to those numbers (11, 14, and 17, in other words).

Needing to "roll over" the target number to hit means a dice roll of 11+, 14+, or 17+ against non-shield wielding opponents. Since all PCs get at least a +1 to their attack roll (bonus is level-class-based), this means that, effectively, each character type needs to roll a result equal to the actual AC of the target to make a successful attack (for example, if the PC tries to damage a dude wearing heavy armor and a shield, she needs to roll 17, as 17+1 = 18). We can see that with a straight D20 roll the chance of success for each AC is:

10 (11) - 55% (50%)
13 (14) - 40% (35%)
16 (17) - 25% (20%)

With the bell curve of 2D10, this looks fairly different:

10 (11) - 64% (55%)
13 (14) - 36% (28%)
16 (17) - 15% (10%)

Armor becomes substantially more effective, and the +1 AC bonus from a shield makes a bigger difference...though with a diminishing "rate of return" (only a 5% bump if already wearing "heavy armor" - but you're basically forcing your 1st level opponent to roll the equivalent of a 19+ on a standard D20 to do damage).

Because of the bell curves, smaller adjustments (a +2 versus a +1) make a bigger difference. While at the "top end" (+5ish) it works out to be about the same success chance against hard difficulties as a D20 system, the success against easy target numbers is much greater...in the +10%-15% range. That's the equivalent of giving the D20 character an extra +2 or +3 against easy-medium targets without needing to resort to inflation of effectiveness by making sure everyone has more potent magic weapons (if sticking with the combat example). 

For DMs that don't want to clutter their campaigns with needless enchanted items (just for the sake of meeting expectations of character effectiveness) this is a bit of a godsend...and at the same time makes sure that the harder challenges remain appropriately hard (plate armor doesn't suddenly become useless unless upgraded to mithril, etc.).

Of course, that's just the effective outcome of switching from a D20 base to a 2D10 base for "stunt" rolls (what I call the action mechanic: attack stunts, magic stunts, and physical stunts). The whole reason for switching to a 2D10 mechanic was to enable me to create additional outcomes (similar to FFGs "advantage," "threat," "triumph," and "despair" results) at the same time as determining success/failure. Rolling two dice instead of one allows me to do this by allowing me to compare the results of each die separately (to its partner) in addition to examining the sum total of the roll.

At this point, I'm keeping it simple (it's supposed to be a "basic" game, right?) and just looking at "doubles" rolls (double 10, double 4, etc.) in relationship to two factors: whether or not the end result was a success-failure, and the character's level (I'm tempted to add a 3rd factor: a comparison based on class and type of stunt, but haven't developed the idea yet). Since doubles get rolled 1 in 10 times on a 2D10, that gives a 10% chance of "something interesting" happening on any particular stunt roll...not particularly over-whelming and not much different from saying a D20 roll of "20" is a "critical" and a roll of "1" is a "fumble." It just allows me to be a bit more nuanced with my effects.

SO...I've decided that I'm going to stick with it. The 2D10 thing instead of D20, that is. I realize this puts me outside the normal FHB model (again, jeez...just like what happened with 5AK), but I think the end result will better model what I want it to model.

Which is treasure hunting descendants of Atlantean colonists fighting the monstrous creations of older Atlantean migrations in the South American wilderness with orcichalcum spears and bronze armor, 11,000 years before present. Oh yeah...and sorcery, of course. Got to have sorcery.

More later.

A little too long in the jungle.

Fighter Love 2: Combat Stunts

We’ll start out our fighter love series with that house rule I talked about ripping off from Jon in my last post.

 One of the things I liked about DCC (yes, there are/were SOME things I liked about DCC) was the concept of special combat maneuvers for fighters, as well as the gradual increase in ability to perform those combat maneuvers. Having said that, I found the execution of those combat maneuvers (in play) to be frustrating in two regards:

1. They happened too infrequently.
2. Their effects were too limited (too rigidly or narrowly defined). 

But again (and just to emphasize) it’s the execution that tanks. The concept, the idea, is an excellent one:

• It makes the fighter “special” in combat (where fighting should be the fighter’s specialty).
• It gives a mechanic that can “spruce up” battle (less “boring”).
• It adds another bennie that “levels up” (development/growth over time).

Currently, there is a certain “dullness” to Old School combat, only flavored/colored by the narrative of the DM and players. Now, yes, this can still be plenty exciting, especially at lower levels with dangerous encounters when a lucky blow can (or two) can knock a PC dead. But sometimes it would be nice to do a “special effect” with your attack, similar to DCC’s Mighty Deeds of Arms which include (for those who don’t know) blinding attacks, tripping and throws, push backs, disarms, troop rallying, precision shots, and defensive maneuvers. Done with a little tactical cunning, these things can add to a party’s effectiveness in addition to making the “hit point attrition mini-game” a little more interesting.

Because – especially at high levels, and when fighting large monsters – the steady drone of clacking dice and counting HPs becomes tiresome. How many successful attacks does it take to take down a 20 hit die T-Rex? Wouldn’t it be nice to blind the thing or do that cinematic maneuver where you jam something in its mouth (like a big bone or tree branch) to keep it from biting? Is there a way for the heroic fighter to defeat such a monster in heroic (and clever) fashion, rather than just standing toe-to-toe and swinging away? I’d prefer there to be something for the fighter, rather than just waiting for the spell-user to neutralize the big threat…why must my fighter be nothing more than a glorified bodyguard for the artillery?

So, yeah: combat stunts. That’s what I’m talking about. Interesting “add-ons” to the standard attack roll-damage roll game mechanic found in B/X.

Jon’s idea (if I’m remembering correctly) was to roll two different D20s for an attack roll, one a “regular attack die” and one a “special attack die.” If the “special” D20 scored a “hit” you could attach an effect of some sort to the opponent, even if you failed to do damage with your “normal D20” (i.e. even if you rolled a miss). The example he gave might be something like tossing sand in the opponent’s eyes so they suffer an attack penalty in the next round. If you succeeded with both rolls, you got to add damage, too. If you succeeded with the attack die, but failed with the special attack, you’d do normal damage without any added effect.

All that is too complex for my brain to remember, plus I hate asking players to call colors and whatnot (“Which die is the special attack? Which die is the normal attack?”). So here’s my riff:

-        Your character can choose whether or not to do a combat stunt.

-        If you choose to do a stunt, roll 2D20 for your attack instead of 1D20.

-        If both D20s (with normal bonuses) result in “hits” you can narrate your combat effect.

-        If either D20 misses, your attack misses.

-        A successful combat stunt always does normal damage, unless you choose otherwise.

[regarding normal damage: remember that I generally use the D6 default as standard in my B/X games or D8 for slow, two-handed weapons. I might adapt this as well saying, "you can do D8 damage if you choose a slow stunt" acting at the end of the round]

The B/X Companion has two-weapon rules.

This for me is simple and straight-forward. There’s a little risk-reward going on here (it’s easier to roll a hit with one D20 as opposed to two). Fighters, who have better attack rolls, will have an easier time succeeding at combat stunts…and their ability to DO those combat stunts will get easier as they go up in level. Yet other adventurers can still try stunts, too.

Most combat stunts will probably be used in melee, seeing as how fighters (with their high prime requisite STR) will have a better attack roll in melee, but archer-types with high DEX might well attempt “ranged disarms” and “bullseye” type shots. Here are some ideas of the types of stunts that I'd allow:

Cripple: used to give a character a penalty for the remainder of the combat, no more than -2 (though additional crippling results might be cumulative). This could represent a cut that drips blood in the eyes, knee-capping or stomping an ankle, or giving someone a nagging wound of some sort. The opponent can withdraw and spend D4 rounds of self-ministering to recover from the crippling attack.

Delay: a temporary “stun” attack that prevents the creature from taking any action for a single round. This could be a kick in the groin, a trip attack, sand in the face, or a stick in the craw of a large monster (like a T-Rex). The creature cannot move or attack (or cast spells) while delayed. Usually only a single delay can be performed on the same opponent in a single combat. If the combat stunt occurs at the end of the combat round (after the opponent’s normal action), the opponent is delayed in the following round.

Disarm: usable against opponent’s with weapons only, though it may be possible to maim a claw/claw/bite creature’s natural attack (broken wrist, for example). If the disarm is temporary (the opponent’s weapon can be retrieved), the stunt automatically works. If the disarm is permanent for the remainder of the combat (breaking an opponent’s weapon, crippling an opponent’s natural attack), then the opponent is allowed a save versus wands to resist.

Hamper: hamstring an opponent (or leave a dagger in its paw or similar) to limit its movement. The opponent’s movement rate is halved for the remainder of the combat and for one turn thereafter.

Incapacitate: a knock-out blow of some sort. The character must have equal (or more) levels compared to the level or HD of the opponent; for example, a 3^rd level fighter can’t knock-out an ogre. Giant monsters (larger than 7 hit dice), may be immune to this combat stunt unless the PC can provide some justification (like using a girdle of giant strength to slug the creature with a tree trunk or boulder). The opponent is allowed a save versus poison to resist this stunt. The creature wakes up shortly after the combat ends.

Intimidate: perform some incredibly intricate attack or maneuver to break the will of the opponent. If successful, the opponent must make a morale check. This combat stunt only works on opponents with fewer HD/levels than the PC performing the stunt. The morale check may be adjusted if the opponents outnumber the PC or PC’s party. When attempting to intimidate a group of opponents, the stunt must be performed against the leader of the opponents (i.e. the attack roll is made against the biggest badass of the opposing side).

Push: maneuver the opponent in the direction desired, driven and directed by the PC performing the stunt. This can force a creature back over a ledge, or back into a bottle-neck area (like a doorway), or turn a creature so a buddy thief can backstab the opponent.

Take-Down: this combines both the delay and push combat stunts as the character takes the opponent to the ground; the difference is that the PC goes down with the creature and must spend a round (their next available action) in order to regain his or her feet. The PC can decide to maintain the take-down, taking no other action, in order to keep the opponent on the ground in subsequent rounds, but the opponent is only delayed for a single action and may proceed to attack the PC while on the ground.

Okay, that’s all I’ve got off the top of my head for combat stunts (though others may think of others that don’t fit into these categories). I haven’t had a chance to play-test any of these yet, so I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who has a chance to use them.

More fighter stuff sometime in the near future!

: )