Other Games

Watched the first episode of the new Stranger Things last night (well, this morning...around 1am) and now I am annoyed. Like, really annoyed. Not because of the new characters or plot developments or story arc changes...no, all that stuff is neat, interesting and welcome. Well done, intriguing, makes me want to watch more.

No, what has annoyed me to no end is the new D&D player boasting about her 14th level rogue character...in 1986. Three years before 2nd edition would introduce "rogue" as general class specification of thieves and bards, and 14 years before 3rd edition would introduce "rogue" as a specific, playable class in lieu of the thief. 

Color me the brightest color of nerd on the planet...fine. For a series that prides itself in grounding its setting in a particular time period, this is an annoying, gross misstep that I simply cannot unsee. It has tainted my enjoyment of the show; it's broken my suspension of disbelief. It's lowered my opinion of the Duffer Brothers' "D&D cred;" born in 1984 did they ever actually play the brand of Dungeons & Dragons their protagonists do?

*sigh* The things that annoy us. Everyone has their pet peeves...this is just one of those things that really chaps my hide.

[the idea that ketamine...i.e. "Special K"...would have been available to a casual drug dealer in '86 in as small a town as Hawkins also seems a bit dicey, though that may simply be my naivete regarding 80s drug culture (it wasn't on my radar till the 90s). But THAT particular anachronism bothers me a lot less...go figure]

Moving on to other, non-"nerd rage" topics: I wrote...mm...last weekend (maybe?) that I wanted to introduce my kids to some new RPGs, particularly Gamma World and Top Secret. Top Secret it was (or, as my kids call it, "super spies"). My son's British MI6 agent, "Chad" caused me no small amount of amusement (mainly due to his name which, to him, sounded "very English") though his antics were a bit more Johnny English than James Bond. In the end, he was KIA while trying to rescue the U.S. president (Operation: Executive One, from the TS Administrator's screen)...having his foot shot off by a shotgun-tripwire trap.  

Fun, but not as much fun as D&D (that cleric magic can really mitigate missteps, you know?). And I'm afraid Gamma World wasn't even tried, and probably won't be any time soon. There's a LOT that I dig about the GW game...just reading the 1E rules or early adventures like Famine in Fargo and The Albuquerque Spaceport are a JOY. But I'm not a huge fan of the GW system...it's just so...

Mm. I don't know the word I'm looking for. It's kind of immune to planning or manipulation. It's too "swingy;" there's no mastery of design, really. Um...hm. Okay, how 'bout this:

Gamma World, unlike other RPGs, is poorly done when it comes to character generation. Not because it's poorly themed (I rather like the PSH, Humanoid, Animal selection), but because...outside the first choice of "character type"...you are a slave to the random die roll. It is possible to create an Uber-mutant...or a complete genetic dead end. And it's all based on a random throw of the bones. Vast discrepancies in effectiveness are possible between different players' characters...and the success of the PCs adventures largely comes down to how heavy a hand the GM is willing to take.

Such is not the case with D&D, for example: 1st level characters have their different skill sets, but they are largely comparable in power...and experience/leveling gives a good indication of what types of challenge/obstacle are appropriate for a party of a particular size. That's ain't GW, where a beginning mutant may (by dint of fortunate rolls) come out as a powerhouse while her amigos are all primitive weenies. I saw a lot of this, Back In The Day (when I used to run 2E)...more than GW setting nonsense, this is what eventually turned me off on the game. Somehow, I always seem to forget this aspect of Gamma World, right up till it's time for chargen.

[and I'll probably forget about it in the future as well. Dennis Laffey's GamMarvel World idea remains an intriguing one...something I'd love to run with pre-gens sometime...]

Other games:  I picked up the latest version of Twilight 2000 a few (three to five) weeks back. It continues to sit, unopened and shrink-wrapped, on my living room coffee table. I don't know why. I don't know what I'm waiting for. I'm going to open it. Soon. One of these days. 

Ugh. I'm scattered all over the place this morning. Truth be told, there's nothing burning terribly brightly on my mind this morning, other than the sunshine streaming through the window. I'd like to go for a bike ride today, I think...a little exercise, a little fresh air. That's what I need...not more games. 

I already have/own/run the BEST game. The session with the new kid went well yesterday. I won't bother to bore folks (more than I already have) with tales of the party's exploits, but great fun was had, and much success as well.  I don't know why I need to collect and hoard other RPGs.

All right, this post is going nowhere...maybe I'm just tired (still). Going back to sleep for a bit.

Shhh...Top Secret!

One thing you don't see on my blog is a bunch of posts on kickstarter projects. Personally, I prefer to purchase things that already exist ("a bird in the hand" and all that jazz). And as for my own projects, I prefer NOT to crowd-source for a number of reasons:

• I don't want to rely on others to fund my projects (i.e. I'm afraid folks won't show up for me)
• I'm not confident enough in my organizational abilities that I could set realistic goals 
• I tend to work in a fairly small scale...the kind I can fund out of my own pocket (or with the money I've already generated from book sales)

SO...I've never been a backer of kickstarter projects. At least, not until now.

This week, I backed my first ever kickstarter: Merle M. Rasmussen's TOP SECRET: NEW WORLD ORDER, a new edition of the Rasmussen's somewhat beloved classic.

I say "somewhat" because, while it's fairly well known to folks in this area of the blog-o-sphere...it was one of TSR's flagship games back in the day, heavily supported (especially in Dragon magazine), and was one of only a very few "secret agent" games on the market...I almost never see anyone writing about it. I'd guess that it isn't played all that much these days.

I know that I don't play it, and I like it and have quite a bit of material for it sitting on my shelf. I never bought into Top Secret/S.I. (the second edition)...all my product is for the original game. And I did play it a bit, back in the day. But it's not an easy game to run or manage. Most (all?) of the published adventures for the game are set-up much like any site-based, dungeon crawl: go to this installation and acquire [target]...said "target" being kidnapped scientists or politicians or secret plans or whatever other type of loot/McGuffin you can imagine.

In many ways (and, yes, I realize this is going to sound like bashing) Top Secret was still Dungeons & Dragons, but with a very specific, genre-enforced tone. You will be stealthing into the dungeon, not simply kicking in doors with mindless abandon. You will be looking to accomplish a specific goal. Due to time pressures you will not be wasting time on needless distractions (extraneous fighting and looting). You are required by your employer to work as a team, refraining from intra-party conflict. And, of course, any special equipment (i.e. magic items) will be provided on a "need only" basis (as determined by the GM).

Most PC equipment, in fact, is subject to the whim of the GM/administrator. For instance, if the mission calls for insertion via scuba equipment (c.f. Operation: Rapidstrike!), the PCs are probably going to be precluded from bringing the heavily modified machine guns they've been spending their earnings on. While this makes perfect genre sense, it takes away a bit of player agency. A large part of D&D is one's proper selection of equipment (trying to get maximum utility with minimal encumbrance)...but there aren't any portable holes in the spy genre.

[I suppose nanites and super-micronization could take the place of bags of holding...but I digress]

At least you get a spear-gun.

Yet despite this rather simple premise ("constrained D&D"), the game's major systems, especially combat, aren't nearly as streamlined as the classic fantasy adventure game. The firearms rules aren't nearly as chunky as Aftermath, but its still burdened with an over-abundance of stats and modifiers based on specific makes and models of weapon, as well as rules for varying damage by hit location. Melee combat is worse, requiring characters to choose specific maneuvers from large tables determined by type of hand-to-hand combat (fortunately, "martial arts" is a single table) and cross-reference them against an opponent's secretly chosen defensive moves. It's not as chunky as firearms combat, but it IS clunky, with very slow "search & handling"...though the Administrator's Screen (which I own) helps cut down on this somewhat.

I understand that it's all in the name of genre emulation, BTW, but it's a tough one to become comfortable running. And the nature of the beast is that there are specific combinations of moves and defenses that are favored over others, to the degree that the table could probably be cut-down with little detriment to the system.

There are a couple of other poor design flaws in the game (spending cash on cosmetic surgery to increase one's Charm and Deception abilities...with no max cap...which, in turn, increases one's Evasion score and, thus, Hand-to-Hand combat ability), but it has a lot of good ideas, too, especially with regard to reward systems (as I've blogged about before). But Top Secret remains one of the few old TSR RPGs that has never been retrocloned in some way, shape, or form.

Well, unless you count Haven: City of Violence.

Over the years, I've often considered doing something with Top Secret: re-writing it to my specs, or just running a game as is (regardless of clunk and chunk). Usually this happens when I see some action-packed spy thriller that carries a TS "vibe." The Man from UNCLE. Mission Impossible. Stuff like that (no, not James Bond...he belongs to his own sub-genre, one that doesn't fit the "spy team" motif). Recently, I watched one of these (Mission Impossible 2) and it got me considering the game again...but then I found the kickstarter project for the new edition. And I decided to become a backer (it was already fully funded by the time I ponied up, but I was able to ensure I'd get a copy of the hard cover edition, plus some goodies).

Anyway...the game's not supposed to arrive at my doorstep till November (hopefully in time for my birthday), but I can wait. I'm interested to see what Merle's new vision of the game looks like, how it will play, where it's focus is. My son is VERY excited...he watched the video on the kickstarter page and said, "Ooo! Papa! We have to get this game!" I'm not sure he can wait till November, but...well, patience is a trait that everyone in my family is in desperate need of developing.

Later, Gators.
: )

Whiteout (Redux)

The governor has declared a "state of emergency" in Washington due to heavy snowfall, and my office is closed for the day.

Which means I have to stay home, which means I will have little opportunity for reading or writing (since me son is the priority, folks).

I don't know if I'm going to have the chance to bone up on Top Secret today, in other words. Though at this point, I'm not sure who (if anyone) is going to make it out in this weather. For me, at least, the bar is just two blocks down the road.

No, D! Don't eat that!

(gotta' go)

: )

Whiteout

Welp, the snow was fast, if not exactly thick today, and I stayed home from work because of it. Not because I couldn't get to the job...I'm walking distance from my day gig. But my wife is not, and so needed to work from home, and that meant someone else had to mind the boy (me) since we had no nanny in the snow.

But that's cool, because I love Diego and he and I get along famously (though he's not quite ready for the gaming scene...some day, some day). I even got a couple naps in myself, which is always a good thing. Plus we got to walk around in the stinging, icy, fast-falling snow. I put five layers on the kid and he fell asleep in the Baby-Bjorn. I tell ya', he just wants to be snuggled and rocked.

[which is a good thing, because if he'd inherited the wife's penchant for motion sickness we'd ALL be in trouble!]

Being out and about in these conditions, not to mention seeing nothing but white outside my window all day, led me to thinking about an old Top Secret adventure: Operation: Whiteout. Written by none other than Merle Rasmussen, creator of Top Secret, Whiteout appeared in the July 1984 issue of Dragon magazine, one of the first I ever owned (I still have it, but it's so old I'm missing the cover, which is why I can't cite the issue number).

Operation: Whiteout is a very cool adventure: players infiltrate an installation in Antarctica to find out to what extent a group of neo-survivalists might be up to nefariousness. Similar to TS:0 (Operation: Pisces, included with the TS game), it provides a site based adventure with many numbered encounters, a list of NPCs, and several pre-gens. It's non-linear in design, and while there is a plot (so to speak), there's no designated timeline of events to push the action. PCs are able to work in their own fashion and the bad guys will go about their daily business. It's pretty cool, a good example of what a nice Top Secret adventure should look like.

On the other hand, looking at it makes me think: wow, that is a crapload of work Mr. Rasmussen put into it. Lots of specific rules for Antarctica (including weather tables, vehicles and movement rates, random crevasses and systems for identifying them and what happens if you don't, etc.), plus the installation itself, complete with individual named and statted NPCs (close to 50...all with varying degrees of knowledge about the operations, day and night encounter areas, job occupation, etc.). A tiny little microcosm world of adventure...and if the PCs do what they're supposed to do, in an intelligent manner, they'll bypass most everything Merle bothered to write-up. He's just accounted for a ton of different possible contingencies.

Just thinking about what went into the writing of this simple Dragon magazine adventure makes me exhausted. It would take hours of research on the scientific outposts in Antarctica alone (not to mention the history of the continent and various international treaties) to do this...and 1984 was long before the internet and wikipedia. Wow.

I don't know if I'm just lazy or if Rasmussen is just uber-dedicated.

Between that and re-reading Haven: City of Violence the other day, I've got Top Secret on the brain (or so it would appear). Maybe I need to run a game of TS. Last Thursday I played a board game down at the Mox which was fun but less-than-satisfying. I could probably be up to snuff on Whiteout by tomorrow...assuming anyone comes out in the snow (I doubt I'll be driving to Cafe Mox...I wonder who I can get to show up at the Baranof).

Top Secret...gosh, maybe I need to do a series of post on that. I wonder if I'll be going to work tomorrow...

: )

Playing to Your Strengths

Having my own little blog from which to proselytize has been very liberating for me…not in the sense that I now speak my mind where before I did not…but in allowing me to cut down on time pent surfing various net forums and moderating/following discussion threads. Sure, my “message” (if I have one! Still refining that) may not be reaching as many folks as it could be, but dammit I can’t be responsible for everyone anyway! If it’s meant to be, people will find their way here and if anything I write interests them, they’ll stick around.

Doesn’t mean I don’t sometimes miss or get nostalgic for the old web forums.

One set of forums I frequented regularly circa 2006-2008 was those over at deathguard.org. Unfortunately closed up now, deathguard.org was THE premier site for discussion specific to the Death Guard chaos space marines of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. In addition to fun tips on painting, modeling, and army building there was plenty of discussion on strategy, tactics, and theoryhammer regarding the use of the Death Guard against other army types. The place was quite the think tank, and there were a lot of victories forged in the fires of those discussions.

Which often surprised other 40K players. Fielding an “all Death Guard” army (or any chaos specific-dedicated force) is kind of the equivalent of showing up to a Con with your Little Brown Books and running an OD&D game. In the original edition of 40K, if one wanted to field a chaos legion army, one would choose a single patron demon (for Death Guard this would be Grandfather Nurgle, Lord of Decay) and build the army using those troops specific for the patron. However, beginning with the 2nd edition (WH40K is now in its 5th or 6th edition) the designers moved to a more “Chaos United” kind of format, where you could sample a little of this and a little of that from the Chaos buffet line.

Of course, to older (or more stubborn) “traditionalist” players like myself this was frigging blasphemy! I ran a “Khorne only” army for a looong time, up till I discovered deathguard.org a whole community of dedicated curmudgeons drawn to the plaguey ones for the modeling opportunities a diseased horde affords the a budding sculptor. Seeing them as kindred spirits, I quickly switched allegiances and built a very nice collection of plague marines; a veritable “pox hammer,” if you will.

Other 40K players call this a “theme” Chaos army. But really, we’re just Old Schoolers of a 40K variety.

Anyway, on the Death Guard forums I developed my own pet theory of strategy called the Doctrines of Strength. I wish I’d saved my essays on the subject, as they were lost with the closing of the forums. They were a bit controversial (that is, heatedly debated at times), but they served ME well. The basic idea behind them (I’m not going to try to eloquently re-create them today) is that an army/force is good at SOMEthing, figure out what that something is, and do THAT. Hell, overload it! One gets more “bang for the buck” playing to one’s strength and can achieve crushing victories using the same.

The reason this was contested was of the existing idea of “shoring up one’s weaknesses.” This was the theory that if an army was weak in one area, one should add units to compensate for those weaknesses, thus becoming more “well-rounded.”

To me, this appeared to be a coward’s deception…hell, trying to compensate for weakness is simply denying your own strength! For example, the Death Guard were never going to be great at long range shooting, so why bother worrying about adding one or two (very high priced) long range weapons to the mix. Just focus your tactics around the areas your force is strong (short-mid range and close combat) and crush your opponent in the areas where YOU are strong.

Anyway, as I said, there was far more to it than that, and several good discussions on the subject that I wish I’d saved somewhere (maybe they are saved on my old PC hard drive, but that’s sitting in my garage still). Anyway, they weren’t entirely original (except perhaps in application)…I got the idea for the Doctrines of Strength from a seminar/training at work!

The training was based on a book (I don’t remember the title, as I’ve never read it, though it’s stuffed in some book shelf at home) and involved a video of people throwing fish around the Pike Place Market…or maybe I’m confusing that with a different training (maybe there was a jazz trumpet player? I don’t remember). ANYway, the basic gist of the training was this: different people have different strong personality traits, the older we get the more we become “more of the same” (stronger in our strong areas, weaker in our weak areas), and we gain more by exploiting our own strengths than we do by compensating for our weaknesses.

Interestingly enough, while I think the Strength theory works great for Warhammer 40,000, I probably come down on the opposite side of the argument with regard to human beings; it is much more important to be a well-rounded person in day-to-day life than it is to be “super strong” in one area. Also, I don’t believe everyone becomes “more of the same” as they get older…it really depends on the self-analysis and work you do on yourself over time. Otherwise, I’d suspect I still be a full-time jerk in stead of just a part-time one!

But with regard to GAMES including RPGs, the strength doctrines are interesting. I see two applications of them with regard to standard RPGs (like D&D) the first obvious, the 2nd less so.

The first, is in choosing character concepts that fit one’s randomly rolled profile. Now of course this only applies to games where random chance is a factor in character creation (for example: ALL old TSR games, Traveller, Chaosium BRP games, etc.). The recent post over on Grognardia about ability scores is what got me thinking about this at all. In OD&D, the three Prime Requisites (strength, intelligence, and wisdom) did nothing but increase the rate at which you gained experience points. This is the Doctrines of Strength in all its glory! You can certainly play a fighter with an 8 strength…and hit just as hard as a fighter with an 17 strength (same to hit roll at any given level, same 1D6 damage regardless of weapon type)…but the guy with the 17 is going to get more “bang for his buck” in earned XP than the lesser dude. The same applies to the un-intelligent wizard or the cleric that lacks wisdom.

I like this…hell, I like it A LOT. Most of the gamers I know do NOT like it (simply because they prefer more bonuses and more distinctions between characters), but I do. You can role-play the wimpy fighter or ignorant wizard with great fun and enjoyment (and you know what else? No one gets an advantage over someone else simply because they happened to roll a higher strength than the other! THAT’s game balance, folks!). And yet there is still a reward for the players who “play to their character’s strengths” in the form of more rapid advancement (though not “meteoric” advancement…just a bonus).

The second, less obvious application of the strength doctrines is regarding players’ choice of character type within an RPG. Certainly many folks gravitate to different types of characters depending on their temperament and personality. However, some of us (like me), want to try a whole slew of different personas seeing great “role-playing potential” (whatever THAT means!) in various character types; however, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are best suited to a particular class or archetype.

Let me give a personal example before I write something that offends someone. Now for me, I am a fan of the Western genre (duh!) and I am an aficionado of the spaghetti western (Clint Eastwood blazing away). I think the silent, stoic, lone gunman is totally badass and cool (who doesn’t?), and it really appeals to my Scorpio nature.

But folks who know me and role-play with me know that I am probably the least likely candidate to play the strong, silent type. Why? ‘Cause I’m loud and talky and perhaps (not too much I hope!) obnoxious at times. I can glare and sneer with the best of ‘em, but especially at the gaming table (a “fun” environment) I tend to be very sociable and un-Scorpionic. Something about role-playing brings me out of my shell.

Similar to my earlier posts about my Toad cleric…I had wanted the guy to be a sleezy, in-the-shadows kind of priest, but I couldn’t help bringing him to the foreground. Now this is NOT because I have any kind of tendency to be "heroic." It IS because I have a tendency to be impatient, aggressive, and (at times) ballsy. Being the support guy or the “thinker/schemer” is NOT my forte…unless I can be thinking up plans and tactics on the fly (I tend to be decisive in the “pressure cooker” situation).

This is probably one of the main reasons I have NEVER played a magic-user or magic-user sub-class in D&D…in ANY edition (oh, well, there was my abortive attempt at a Gandalf knock-off in 3rd edition…but that’s the exception that proves the rule in my opinion). I’m not good at walking in 2nd or 3rd rank…I like to be up front where the action is. I don’t like having to plan my spells in advance (unless I can just take a bunch of utility spells and rely on my SWORD, as I did with my Gandalf character!). Yet another reason why I hate the bard of the 2nd and later editions…they are designed to be a purely support role (they will be quickly up-staged by any “focused” class), and I can’t abide that.

But that’s ME. I have gamed with many folks who don’t share my particular berserker temperament. Clever, outside-the-box players, thoughtful-intuitive players, players who used their social skills to advantage IN GAME. And yes, those heroic players that always, ALWAYS play paladins (hi, Alex!).

Some players like to take a wait-and-see stance, only stepping forward when called upon (these are thieves of the non-swashbuckling variety) and they are perfectly content to play such a reactive role in the party. This is FUN for them. But would they make a good fighter? Not necessarily one of the “tank” variety; that’s quite possibly outside their comfort zone.


This post is getting long so I’ll just talk about one last RPG example (one that, along with Grognardia, blew this whole post into existence). Top Secret (1st edition; I haven’t played SI) is an excellent example of an Old School game that is “wide-open” as far as character possibility, but one where paying attention to one’s strengths is critical. There are only three character types (occupational Bureaus) in Top Secret: Confiscation, Investigation, and Assassination. Nothing chargen-wise distinguishes any of them from each other…you can roll any scores for your random attributes and choose any Bureau. Likewise, Bureaus themselves confer no special abilities or kewl powers…PC s are all trained spies; they simply happen to work in different departments.

The “only” thing Bureaus do is completely influence behavior and one’s role in an adventuring group (because the rewards system – money and experience – is tied directly to one’s actions and the expected actions of a Bureau member). So an Assassin gets more “points” for killing and kidnapping people, a Confiscator gets more “points” for stealing and hijacking vehicles, etc.

While ANY character generated in Top Secret can choose to be of any Bureau, certain (randomly determined) ability scores would be desirable for different departments (for example, an Investigator would like to have more Areas of Knowledge and an Assassin would probably like a higher Hand-to-Hand rating) and could (and should) prompt a person to take a particular “career path.” However, it is even MORE important in a game like Top Secret that players consider their own personal temperament, and how they feel comfortable “playing their character” as the character’s behavior within its Bureau’s specifications are going to be directly linked with game advancement. A person with no stomach for killing or (like myself) no patience for planning “clean” or “ultraclean” assassinations, should probably think twice before picking an assassin character…even though government hit-men seem cool and “glamorous,” the style of playing involved may not fit with our personality types, thus leading to slow advancement, discomfort in conformity, and less overall “fun.”

Just something to think about.

Role-Playing Is Its Own Reward

At least it was in the past.

As RPGs are descended (at least in part) from table-top war games, it only makes sense (to me anyway) that the earliest RPGs cater to a sensibility that facilitates a gamist creative agenda; that is, an agenda in which the players attempt to score points or achieve certain victory conditions (allowing players to compete for both “wins” and “quality of wins”). Generally, all older TSR games (and many games considered “Old School”) carry this sensibility as part of their game system:

1) There are specific ways to score “points” promoting actual concrete behaviors/objectives in play.
2) Further rewards (generally advancement and/or improved effectiveness/opportunity) are tied to these points.

A list of games should help to illustrate this more concretely.

“Old School” D&D (OD&D, AD&D 1st edition, B/X and its derivative BECMI): Points are tracked through “experience points.” Experience points are gained through killing monsters and recovering treasure. Points advance characters in level. Higher level allows characters to improve in effectiveness. Improved effectiveness allows characters to encounter stronger monsters and recover greater treasures. Better play results in more adventuring “points” results in more effective adventuring.

Gamma World (1st & 2nd edition): Points are tracked by “Status points” (literally one’s status in their community). Status points are received for defeating foes in combat (encountered during exploration), recovering artifacts and giving them to their community, accomplishing “missions” (generally assigned by a community), and accomplishing special tasks. Status points allow characters to increase in Rank (the mark of one’s rank within a community) which equates to greater recognition and benefits being received from one’s community.

Boot Hill (1st & 2nd edition): Points are tracked through survival of gun fights. Surviving gun fights increases a character’s speed with weapons, bravery (which increases both speed and accuracy), and gun fighter experience (increasing accuracy). Increases in speed and accuracy allow for greater skill at gun fights. Points gained through gun fighting measures gun fighting and allows for more gun fighting. Simple.

Top Secret (1st edition): Points are measured through experience points and accumulation of money (payment). Experience and money are gained through accomplishing mission objectives, with bonuses being paid out by accomplishing objectives based on one’s chosen specialty (character class). Accumulation of experience increases character’s level AND increases one’s ability scores allowing greater effectiveness on missions allowing ease of accomplishing mission objectives allowing more difficult missions and/or greater accumulation of experience points. Accumulation of money allows purchase of equipment that increases effectiveness of accomplishing mission objectives allowing for more payment. Again: points (cash and experience) measure how well a player is “winning” and provide a reward (increased effectiveness) that increases a player’s ability to earn points.


Please note that in all of these Old School games, objectives (point scoring and awards) are truly objective, being up front and set by the game system. Experience points in Old School D&D are set at 1 XP to 1 GP of treasure with XP for defeated monsters being based on opponents’ Hit Dice and (sometimes) hit points. Status points in Gamma World are determined by hit points of opponents or Status points listed for various artifacts with a minimal point range given for “missions.” In Boot Hill, 1 gunfight = 1 gunfight. Top Secret has an extensive table for calculation points/cash awarded for various objectives.

In no case are arbitrary points awarded for the referee’s determination of “good role-playing,” “heroic action,” or “furthering the plot.” Please note also that there are no points awarded for “simply showing up;” all Old School games promote ACTIVE participation (one must perform the designated behavior in order to accumulate any points at all…sitting on your ass garners you NOTHING).

Contrast this with games post-1986 or so that awards points for “good role-playing” or simply showing up for a game session; contrast this with Palladium’s GM fiat in assigning “experience points.” Many of these games attempt to facilitate the same gamist objectives that Old School RPGs do…i.e. they say “create a story/plot with obstacles for players to overcome.” But the behavior informed is based not on the actual rules of the game but rather on the social contract created by each individual play group. In other words, can the players guess what is going to garner them points based on the GM’s interpretation (fiat) of the sketchy rules?

Well, at least they get rewarded for sitting down at the table, right? (Shadow Run, Vampire, etc.)

To me this is pretty lame. It feels like some of these games (especially those that award points for “role-playing”) were designed to reward gaming groups (or players/GMs) who enjoyed “play acting” and felt “those people should get something for their efforts.” It’s not surprising to me that a lot of folks that grew up on Old School games rail against this. For some folks, they simply refuse to play any new game that’s not based (at least mostly) on their set notions. For others, notably several Indie game designers, it leads them to write/design their own games that leave this shite out of it.

So what’s with this rant? Well, I just wanted to throw down my own opinion on the subject. I should probably mention that one of my Bachelor degrees is in the performing arts (I studied to be an actor), so personally I don’t have the loathing for “playing in character” and “using funny voices” that some people do, and in the past when I have played these “non-Old School” games I have been fairly judicious with the awarding of “points.” However, that doesn’t mean they’ve equated to good game experiences, and ALL of my past gaming groups that played one of these games disintegrated after a short handful of sessions.

The main reason was the simple lack of an ACTIVE reward mechanic. Players showed up to the table and had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do. “Well, I get points for showing up, role-playing, and ‘learning something;’ great…” This is the standard way of experience gain in Vampire the Masquerade. WTF in other words. It basically forces players into a reactive stance waiting for the “plot” (or railroad) to happen.

I hate that shit. I hate it as a player, and I’ve hated it as a GM. Even though I loved the premise or “setting” or “genre” of a particular game, the actual play experience has always suffered when there were no defined objectives for the players.

I know there are some people who play role-playing games with non-gamist creative agendas. I myself, am not always interested in simply kicking ass – I actually enjoy stories where the good guys don’t always win, though sometimes they manage a literal “moral victory.” I am especially pleased to see all the recent games, most created by Indie designers, that facilitate this “narrativist” creative agenda.

But I know damn few people that simply want to “piddle about and be;” that is, folks that want to simply escape from the humdrum reality of life and pretend to be living in a different fantasy world. I mean, there ARE folks like that but you don’t have to play RPGs to do it…you can be an actor, or writer, or hell just daydream. I realize it’s just my opinion, but I consider role-playing to be an ACTIVE art form…players should be working towards SOMEthing, though it’s their prerogative whether it’s a gamist or narrative goal. Role-playing just for the sake of “how well can I evoke this character?” Wow…as a goal of play?! You’ve got to be kidding me.

In the “old days” role-playing was its own reward…you had fun portraying your character, but damn it that wasn’t the point of game play.

I suppose that’s part of the reason I don’t LARP.