Codex Of Old School Axioms

CODEX OF OLD SCHOOL AXIOMS

Old school Dungeons & Dragons is not a mystery, a brand, or a philosophy; rather, it is a practice. Its principles were never hidden or lost, only buried under decades of misinterpretation. The purpose of this Codex is to restate those foundations clearly, stripped of pretense, so that anyone who wishes to run or play the game as it was designed can do so with understanding and purpose.

These twelve axioms do not belong to me. They arise from experience...from years behind the screen, dice in hand. If they sound authoritative, it is only because they've been proven by play.

I. THE NATURE OF THE GAME

1. Dungeons & Dragons is a Game of Fantasy Adventure

D&D is a procedural game with rules, turns, and objectives; it is neither a story nor a performance. The structure of the game is built upon the premise of adventurers facing dangerous perils in a fantastical world with the hope of obtaining fortune and glory. 

2. The Dungeon Master is God of the Table

The DM embodies the game world and enforces the rules; there is no game without a DM. All authority for administering the game and defining the situation and environment being explored by the players rests with the DM. The DM is both creator and referee and, ultimately, owes fealty to nothing but the game.

3. Rules Matter

The rules are not suggestions; they are the mechanics that set the scope and limits of the world, transforming imagination into a functioning game, generating fairness, challenge, and consequence. It is the responsibility of the DM to know and apply rules with precision. Rules are the parameters by which we agree to play the game; without rules, there is no game.

4. The Dungeon Master is the Adversary

The DM opposes the players out of necessity; the premise of the game rests on the players being challenged. It is the DM's responsibility to provide a dangerous environment that demands both courage and intelligence. Worthy challenge makes victory meaningful; fairness lies in consistency, not mercy. Arbitrary challenge is undesirable, but the rules of the game provide a model for challenge based on both game logic and the needs of play.

II. THE ENGINE OF THE GAME

5. Treasure is King

Wealth is the measure of success and the engine of advancement, tying risk, exploration, and reward into single elegant loop. It drives the game's economy and purpose, unifies the players' motivation, provides an objective goal of play, and inspires a deeper investment in the DM's world building. Any treasure worth having requires effort, and the balance of risk versus reward is a core tenet of game play.

6. Violence is Inherent to the Game

Combat is not the only solution, but it is the defining risk of the game. Violence shapes the economy of resources, time, advancement, and survival. Rules pertaining to violence are a central part of the mechanics, and are an inescapable element of play. All characters are combat-worthy by rule, and the threat of death is a staple of the game.

7. Magic is Limited

Power comes with constraints. Magic breaks the rules of reality, but within finite uses and with clear costs. Its rarity preserves the game's tension, while its presence provides a means to increase player effectiveness and a method of advancement. The game portrays a magical world, but the use of magic must be earned through effort and risk.

8. Play Happens at All Levels

Low, mid, and high levels are distinct phases of the same campaign, not different games. The shift from dungeon to domain is part of the makeup of the game. The rules support play through all stages of advancement, and all stages have value. Game play is not limited to a particular portion of the players' advancement path, and it is the DM's responsibility to ensure appropriate challenges exist at every point along the route, using the rules as a guide. 

III. THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME

9. World Building is the Heart of Campaign Play

The world must exist before adventure can matter. Coherent geography, history, and economy give weight to every action. For the DM, creation is its own reward; the joy of creation is in sharing it with the players at the table. Investment of time and effort by the DM creates excitement; shared excitement creates player engagement. As a DM matures and grows in knowledge, so, too, shall the DM's world develop over time.

10. Players Have Agency

The game lives in meaningful choice. Players decide where to go, what to risk, and when to run. The DM provides the world; the players drive the action through consequential behavior. The character is the vehicle for a player's exploration of the game world; it is the interaction of player choice with the world of the DM that creates the story of the campaign.

11. Cooperation is the Key to Success

D&D is a team game. Skill sets of characters are asymmetrical and each individual contributes to the success of the group's endeavors, whether by performing a particular role, providing a useful idea, or absorbing the damage inflicted by dangers and perils. Both variety and redundancy contribute to group success, and groups that learn to respect, trust, and communicate with each other will find this enhances their ability to survive and thrive.

12. Immersion Comes From Engagement

True immersion...losing one's sense of time and space as you become hyper-focused on the task at hand...comes from attention to procedural game play and emotional investment in decision-making. When the stakes are real, practical, and supported by the rules of the game, engagement becomes the byproduct of risk, consequence, and participation, leading to an immersion that is un-matched by playacting or the drama of a told story.

Old school D&D exists in action, not argument. Every choice, every risk, every triumph and failure reaffirms the principles outlined here, guiding players and DMs through landscapes of danger, reward, and consequence. Apply these axioms with thought and discipline and let the game itself be the final arbiter of play. There is no secret wisdom...only the rules, the will to play, and the fortunes of chance.

The Big Six and Game Design

AKA “Re-Inventing Tri-Stat”

As some might surmise (after careful reading of this blog) I am much more adept at tweaking existing rules than inventing my own from whole cloth. I realize that this is not the case with everyone, and it may indeed be “all in my head” but, hey…that’s just how I roll. Much as I’d like to be a “premier game designer” or some such (that’s just my ego talking, pay it no mind) spontaneous creation/inspiration just doesn’t come all that easy to me.

I mean, sometimes it does, but not nearly as often as I’d like…and a lot of times, organizing my thoughts/feelings into something coherent to others is a real bitch.

So saying that, I might as well admit that I often get stumped right from the get go when trying to develop RPGs…regardless of whether it’s something that’s going to look like the wargame descendants of old (Boot Hill, B/X D&D) or something that’s going to be a bit more ephemeral (think indie/Forge games), it’s always tricky trying to develop the engine for the vehicle.

(interesting fun fact: I can drive a car, but I wouldn’t know the first think about tinkering about under the hood…well, maybe enough to tighten the screws)

It’s one thing to develop theory after all…it’s quite another to implement it and have it run smooth. I mean, the wheels may turn, but will the car purr along or will it clunk and belch smoke in a semi-ambulatory fashion?

But even the IDEA of fixing the engine is putting the cart before the horse (sorry about mixing metaphors). Here I am saying it’s tough to develop a decent, coherent system…sure that’s a tough balancing act for most anyone. But to be perfectly frank, for ME there’s a matter of pondering “which the hell place do I start first?” to worry about long before the ‘system as a whole.’

I mean, should one develop a method of character generation first? Or a combat system before anything? Or a spell list or monster inventory? Or (God help me) some sort of skill system?

I am, after all, a great believer in system design in aid of the game…that is, ONE system does NOT fit ALL games (sorry D20, GURPS, etc.). This harkens back to Axiom #1 of course: one’s game should not contain anything more or less than what is necessary for its play and enjoyment.

For instance, the last two game design ideas that popped into my brain (space opera and supers) were both based on the B/X D&D system. Easy enough to see why…I’ve been thinking/blogging about B/X a lot the last year or so, and in addition to being much beloved of Your Truly, its simplicity and rugged abstractness readily suggests itself to action-adventure RPGs like…duh…space opera and/or supers.

But even so, there’s a LOT more present in B/X than what is necessary, or even appropriate, to a Star Wars or Marvel type game. And I’m not just talking about magic items and wandering monster tables…I’m talking about the Big Six ability scores!

[SIDE NOTE: I forgot a THIRD B/X-based game idea from recent days: a re-imagining of the Mutant Chronicles. Like I said, it’s hard not to imagine using it for anything with lots of abstract combat]

Now the Big Six ability scores aren’t any particular sacred cow pour moi. Sure, like every true “Old School” player they are engraved on my heart in the following un-wavering order:

STRength
INTelligence
WISdom
DEXterity
CONstitution
CHArisma

from hours upon hours of hand-writing character sheets (remember the days BEFORE personal computers?). No need to alphabetize or organize by “physical vs. mental.” Best to put them in their order of importance (you better believe it!).

ANYway, I do NOT have too much attachment to the Big Six ability scores. I’ve played too many games over the years and seen far too many different stat lines: from Traveller’s UPI, to Palladium’s ugly eight, to Star Frontiers’ 4/4, to White Wolf’s nine, to Marvel’s FASERIP. And more…every new game system appears to feel the need to redefine how we define our characters.

Which, as I said, is totally fine and dandy by me…they ARE different games, after all.

However, I have myself become much more of a minimalist over the years. Six is pretty much the absolute maximum number of abilities I want to worry about when creating a character. Which, by the way, makes it all the harder when I see a brilliant new entry into the stat line, like Terminal Space’s Technology stat.

See, I want more abilities like THAT: multi-purpose abilities. Technology at once determines: degree of sophistication/civilization, social standing (money), even level of education vs. superstition. Hell, if D&D wasn’t intrinsically a game where “higher is better” (for ability scores…not Armor Class!), I’d be tempted to chuck Intelligence as a stat and file the magic-user’s Prime Requisite right into Technology…in its INVERSE that is (in other words, MUs would receive an XP bonus for having a LOWER Tech ability score…i.e. coming from a more primitive culture). But that’s just me…in some campaign worlds I’m sure the argument could be made for equating a higher Tech score with greater MU ability (access to books, alchemy, forbidden science or whatever…primitive cave men would know nothing of the "Greater Rituals" and “Dark Arts” except its effects on ‘em).

The point is, six random ability scores is about all I can stand, and really seems like they’re one or two too many in my book. Right now, I’m floating the idea of limiting abilities in the supers game (the one I’ve been obsessing over the most this week) to FOUR (4). I had been thinking three…kind of a body, mind, spirit thing…but decided it really wasn’t enough. Plus I wanted enough ability scores to give each class its own Prime Requisite.

Also having three ability scores would be a little too reminiscent of Tri-Stat, and I want more meat to my game…not to mention I’m dumping anything resembling a “skill system.”

; )

Skills Still Suck (Axiom #1 Redux)

Got an email from a reader with regard to my prior post on Axiom #1 and skills “sucking,” and it got me thinking I might have triggered some confusion out there. A few notes to clarify might be worth the time.

Remember that my axioms are principles of what I consider to be “good game design;” Axiom #1 states that the well-designed game should only include rules necessary to the game. Games should NOT include extraneous fiddlyness, attempting to account for every possible nuance and action of the game world. Now, of course, this is simply my opinion, right? But I see a number of benefits to efficiency in game design: smaller word count (less time reading, more time playing as well as cheaper to produce), lower search & handling time (in play), and (often) faster character generation.

When I say “skills suck” (and I have said/written this plenty often), it is because I see the skill systems of most games as the most blatant and egregious violations of Axiom #1. Again, Axiom #1 is about not including what's not necessary. Certain un-mentionable RPGs include all sorts of extra random charts that do little to enhance game play…these would also be included as “violators.” But skill systems are SO prevalent in RPGs these days that I like to single them out for bitch-slapping.

So, having said THAT, we now come to the possible confusion from earlier: my reader points out that there already appears to be skill systems inherent in B/X Dungeons & Dragons: both the actual Thief Skills of the thief class AND the imbedded skills of finding secret doors, listening, foraging for food, interacting with NPCs, etc., etc….all of these actions appear to be an exercise of skill (in D20 terms: Search, Listen, Survival, Bargain, etc.) that are perhaps WORSE than a contemporary system by dint of their non-universal way of checking actions. But even if they’re NOT judged by the merits of their “streamlined-ness,” doesn’t JB consider B/X to be an example of “good economy of design?” And if so why don’t these “skill systems suck?”

Because they ain’t skill systems.

Thief “skills,” despite their name, are NOT a skill system. They are class abilities, no different from a cleric’s ability to turn undead or a magic-user’s ability to cast spells (or a dwarf’s ability to check stonework). Like the other 6 classes of B/X, thieves have their own abilities that function different from every other class’s abilities (fortunately for us B/X players there are only 7 classes, so keeping track of these class abilities is fairly easy despite the variety of play style inherent to each). Thief skills do not model anything particularly “real world;” they simply provide a system by which thieves can do the things thieves do in a B/X world.

Likewise, the other listed “skills” are not some stealth skill system; they are simply game mechanics necessary to play. “Adventurers” in B/X take some universal actions that require rules to model…a method of finding secret doors that is not automatic, a method of climbing trees or rocky slopes, a method of determining whether or not adequate game can be hunted when starving in the outdoors. As these actions are necessary for common situations that arise in-game AND are deemed to have a chance of failure (there’s no “fire building” check to use a tinder box, for example!)…they require game mechanics. However, as they are actions ANY person can take, they are NOT specific class abilities.

They are also non-defined as far as how/why they function. To detect secret doors, a character spends one ten minute turn, rolls a D6 and finds a secret door (if one is present) on a 1-2. Does the character have exceptional eyesight for detail (“there seems to be footprints disappearing into this wall!”)? Does the character have some prior professional experience (“my uncle used to build secret doors, and I recognize a false torch sconce/lever!”)? Is the character simply lucky (“hey, I was just resting against this book case and a panel opened!”)?

Likewise, why do elves get a bonus to this roll? Well, because it’s a class ability of course, but the “in-game” reason could be anything from particularly acute senses to a mystic/psychic “I feel something strange” ability.

The point is, don’t mistake game mechanics for a skill system. Most RPGs have some system that is used to determine the effects of combat. The way in which combat is handled may be based on skill use (most contemporary, commercial games besides D20) or may not be (most Old School games). In both instances the game designer decided mechanics were necessary to decide the outcome of fights, and so they included a system. End of story.

Skill systems are, in general, bullshit. However, maybe I need to describe what I mean by “skill system.” To me the skill system is some set of “universal” game mechanics WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF a game’s set of game mechanics that ARBITRARILY LIMITS CHARACTER ACTION regardless of whether or not it is pertinent to the game design.

Let’s take a second look at the Thief Skills of B/X. These do not limit the thief at all. Instead, they provide a thief with certain special abilities that help define what the thief “class” is. Without these class abilities, the thief is a rather wussy adventurer (leather armor, D4 hit dice, worse attack ability than the fighter, etc.). WITH the class abilities, the basic adventurer becomes a fun class to play with a pretty well-defined role in the party.

All PCs in B/X have a chance to listen at doors or search for traps. Any PC can use their strength to try to break down a closed door, and (per the Expert rules) have a chance to climb rocky slopes and trees. The class abilities of the thief gives that particular class bonus abilities to all these things (better listening and trap finding, the ability to pick locks and climb sheer surfaces). Just as a magic-user’s class abilities (i.e. spell use) gives THAT class additional adventuring prowess.

Now contrast this with the “universal” skill system of D20 (it’s not truly universal after all or characters would probably use “weapon skills” for combat…like in the Basic Role-Playing or World of Darkness systems). First, of course, it makes chargen extra tedious, complicated, and fiddly right? I need to know how many skill points per level (defined by class), plus bonuses and penalties (from race and attribute scores), plus a host of other modifiers like “synergy” and item bonuses…then I need to know whether skills are class skills or non-class skills to figure out skills maximum ranks as well as how many points per rank skills cost…and of course there’s a huge list of skills to pick through (including new skills from other supplements!), most of which are open to any character as “non-class” skills at least.

Ugh.

Time consuming and tedious makes me want to throw the whole thing out from the get-go, even being a math-oriented guy that has little problem navigating this kind of thing. Quick! Write up the skill list for an 8^th level half-elf ranger! Oh, but first make sure you roll attributes, so you’ll be able to work in all the bonuses.

Okay, how long did that exercise take you? Now imagine you’re in the middle of a game session when your character dies, and the DM tells you to create an 8^th level half-elf ranger to replace your dead character…how long does it take you to get back into the game with your buddies? Don’t forget you want to be looking down the road at possible “prestige classes” so you’ll know which skills to take!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ridiculous.

But even WITHOUT the extra time and work, what does the skill system add? It actually LIMITS what your character can do…if you don’t have a skill (or don’t have it at a high enough rank), D20’s skill system limits your option of in-game activity AND (with regard to prestige classes) limits your advancement throughout the game. Wow, how much fun is that? Especially for a new player who’s just trying to learn the game and picks classes and skills they like rather than ones that are “optimized.” And then the newbie sees other players jumping into cool prestige classes at 6^th level while their fighter is struggling along with Hide 3 and a hefty penalty for armor.

But HEY, that’s not even the worst part! The worst part is that in MOST skill systems, including D20, the actual use of skills is based on arbitrary target numbers set by GM fiat! So if the GM doesn’t want you to succeed at something he/she just sets the target out of range (or hard enough that it’s nigh impossible to attain).

That SUCKS. Even Palladium allows skills to succeed if one rolls under the required percentage (with certain specifically listed penalties for things like piloting/repairing alien technology). Other games (World of Darkness, D20, even WEG Star Wars) have suggested target numbers that may be modified by circumstance as the judge sees fit…so if I don’t want you to jump the chasm/climb the wall (and circumvent a particularly fiendish trap/obstacle coming up!) I just need to set the TN out of reach. At least WEG Star Wars allows one to double their skill dice using Force points.

And what is the grand reasoning for adding Skill Systems to games? To give players more options? It limits them. To more accurately model “how real life works?” Let me tell you, flying a plane and researching a term paper are two VERY different things, even if they are both “intelligence” skills and cost the same number of skill points! To provide a universal “action” system for any action? Let me ask: how many of you have a Shadow Run character that knows “Boat, Sailing” as a skill? Who gives a shit?!

Axiom #1 is the principle that says “leave the shit out of your game that doesn’t need to be there.” Almost every “skill system” I’ve seen in RPGs falls into this category. On the other hand, class abilities (for RPGs that have classes) and game mechanics (that provide systems for taking actions pertinent to the game) are just fine to include in a game.

I hope that’s less confusing now!

: )

Axioms & Elves

A couple posts ago I mentioned a third possible axiom of game design, but I didn’t bother to still it down or discuss it at length, partly as it wasn’t pertinent to the discussion at hand, partly due to the post being even more long-winded than usual already. But I wanted a chance to discuss it now. AXIOM #3:

Good game design rewards behavior meeting the objectives of play.

As with my prior axioms that’s me trying to be as pithy as possible. To elaborate a bit, I’m saying that the system of a game (it’s rules and how they function) should promote the behavior the designer wants to see occur around the gaming table.

Now I realize I’m making a gross assumption here: that rewards systems have ANY influence on behavior within a game. Well, they do all right?…they have AN influence I’m certain, even though it may not be the ONLY influence…which is why there are so many different ways RPGs are played, not always as originally intended by the designer.

But that’s what we’re talking about: “GOOD” game design. A designer has objectives when designing a game, whether as simplistic as “I want to play a game of ass-kicking robots” to as specific as “an intimate exploration of love, pity, and self-loathing in a remote Transylvanian village” to as nuanced as “a version of D&D that delves into cosmic/creepy horror.”

Designers have objectives, even beyond “making a quick buck.” Now, how well they meet those objectives is where we start defining what is “good” versus “non-good” game design. And the way we measure this success (or lack thereof) is by observing how easily the objectives are met IN PLAY.

In other words: are people playing the game right? And by “right” I mean, “in the manner in which its designer intended it to be played.”

Now for the record, a game design doesn’t have to be good to be successful. Like the movie that is supposed to be a masterpiece of horror, but instead becomes a campy and unintentionally funny “cult classic,” games may be used with much enjoyment in manners not foreseen by the designer when he or she originally sat down at the keyboard. If your intention was to get published or make a few bucks, well okay then, “mission accomplished.” But if you intended people to play YOUR game YOUR way and it’s NOT…well, then you missed something as a game designer.

So acknowledging that “reward systems” in games are NOT the only reasons we play games (for example, we also play for the enjoyment of camaraderie, the chance to exercise our imagination, our interest in a particular source of licensed material, etc.) and thus are not the ONLY influences on player behavior…acknowledging THAT right off the bat, we then ask: Does the system as designed reward behavior that promotes the way the game is “supposed to be played?”

If it does, then bam! – good game design. If not…well, then not. An example or two might be useful.

Chaosium’s ElfQuest is a game I’ve owned for a long time, and one I’ve played and ran many times. Based on the Wendy Pini comics of the same title (at least the first 20 issues), the game’s objective appears to be “to allow players to experience adventure in the World of Two Moons” either by recreating the original comic book plots or by inventing one’s own pastiche of ElfQuest.

And who doesn’t like ElfQuest? For that matter, who doesn’t like elves in general? Even for folks not into the particular comic IP, people who are into psionic (“magic”) elves, faeries, and trolls are going to be just fine with a little escapist fantasy. Hell, when I was a kid, my friend and I used to spend hours running around the forest behind her house, carrying bows and pretending to be Wolfriders. It helped that her dog, Molly, was a big ‘ol German Shepherd that looked very wolfish in appearance (though we did not attempt to “ride” Mol).

But, okay…kids playing in the woods, pretending they’re elves living in a tree is one thing. At the gaming table? What the hell are you supposed to do?

Go to war with the trolls, of course…over and over again.

See, for those who’ve read Mrs. Pini’s remarkable comics there’s a lot to love besides the spectacular artwork. She paints a lot of drama into her work even if there isn’t much combat/action. Oh, there’s ACTION, just not much of the fighting with swords and daggers variety. There’s plenty of CONFLICT…elves trying to make homes for themselves, trying to find/fight love/attraction, new cultures misunderstanding each other, finding one’s origins when others try to keep it hidden, political games/intrigue, proving oneself to one’s tribe/community. There’s some “exploration” that occurs, but mostly “the road” is glossed over…the main exploration that occurs is the exploration of CHARACTER.

There are conflicts that lead to bloodshed in the books...a total of four by my count. Two very brief, bloody encounters with humans, one flashback scene with a big monster that needs to be put down, and the war with the trolls that occurs over the last five issues…a war encompassing three pitched battles. But that’s really it…and even after the “war” is done, there’s plenty more drama that occurs. After all, Pini is describing a world and a people, their growth and development, and it’s not all “storm the tower and kick ass” stuff. Human life IS drama much of the time, and the elves of ElfQuest, while an alien species, are still sculpted on the human experience with human emotions…which is one of the reasons they’re such beloved comics.

OK…so now, how do you translate that into an RPG?

Well, if you’re Chaosium, you use a derivative of the BRP to simulate the characters found in the comics, including a detailed and tailored-specific chargen system…and then you drop the ball. That is, there is nothing in the design of the game that supports the creation of ElfQuest-esque stories. A few sample scenarios (including a war with humans and a war with trolls, a conflict with a mad High One…call it the “evil wizard encounter”…and a fight with a monster based on the aforementioned monster fight of the comics) are provided…and that’s it.

Oh, wait…there ARE rules for “recognition” provided in the system (a percentage chance that any elves upon encountering new elves might have a couple involuntary romantic relationships formed)…but none of the provided scenarios deal with recognition, romance, or “soul names”…despite this being a major focus of much of the conflict/drama in the comics (for example, issues #2-5, issues #11-15, and issue #20).

The “reward system” of ElfQuest is limited to the normal BRP Increase-Skill-Check-For-Skills-Used. Elves don’t have money or attachment to personal possessions (in general), so there’s no adventuring for treasure or need to purchase equipment. There’s no fame points or measurement of status/prestige, no levels or experience points that are gained, nada. There’s no In-System rules that are going to lead to the exploration of character or that will lead to social conflict/drama…the design simply provides the chassis of the vehicle without a goddamn engine to run it.

Which to me is an excellent analogy. ElfQuest is a beautiful book (it has Pini’s artwork for one thing), well written with an enjoyable chargen system (we have created many elves…including illustrations!...using the rules). But it’s like owning a sports car with no engine…sure, it will move IF I get out and push the damn thing myself!

And I don’t want to have to push the car. I don’t want to have to draw inspiration (i.e. “rip off”) Pini’s stories or force/manipulate players with my plot lines and GM-designed NPCs simply to get an ElfQuest-like game. Besides being more work than I want to do (I might as well start writing short stories about elves!) it kind of defeats the whole purpose of playing an RPG, which is a collaborative effort between GM and players.

Unfortunately, ElfQuest is a poorly designed RPG in this regard. It doesn’t have a system that Rewards the behavior that is expected to lead to “EQ-style” game play. It doesn’t give you any more than what you bring to it, in other words. Well, shit…so what am I paying for? Something for my comic collection I guess.

Contrast that with the greatest fantasy adventure game ever designed: B/X Dungeons & Dragons. Characters are rewarded for adventuring, i.e. “overcoming monsters/obstacles and recovering treasure.” The reward system (XPs, leveling up) creates the desired behavior (let’s go adventure!).

Now realize that Axiom #3 does NOT say a game must have a “reward system” of any particular type…there’s no need for a game to include levels or skill boosts or any such thing. But the system that REWARDS BEHAVIOR…behavior conducive to the design goals of its author(s)…is the good game design. Ron Edward’s Sorcerer rewards behavior. So does My Life With Master, Dust Devils, and Dogs in the Vineyard.

Look at Boot Hill, which I consider to have great economy of game design. BH is designed to recreate the brutal, fast paced deadliness of the Old West. Right down to the name (most PCs are going to eventually end up on Boot Hill), the thing does nothing BUT “reward” the proper behavior. If your character insists on getting into gun fights, he’ll improve in ability until he gets dead. If he instead uses his wit to escape shoot-outs, he won’t ever increase his gun fighting ability…but he probably won’t get killed (I don’t seem to recall any stray bullet rules). The game CAN be used by the more ambitious players to create grand, sweeping epics of the Old West…but its basic design is to allow one to create gunfights in the street (both historic and fictional) like the Battle of Coffeyville or the OK Corral, and it’s well-designed to do so.

Ah, well...more design theory later I'm sure. Prost!

: )

Post-Apocalyptic Fantasies

The sun was shining today…I mean REALLY shining after weeks of grey, wet misery (that January-February kind of Seattle weather that will eventually beat down even diehard rain lovers like myself…too much mud and sickness) and even though we haven’t even got to Groundhog’s Day it feels a tiny bit like the beginning of Spring…I mean you can feel we are on the upside of days getting longer and such.

And so I find myself thinking of the Apocalypse.

I don’t know why…the last couple-four plus years that’s just what Spring and Summer start doing to me. Thinking about The End of the World is hard to do when in the midst of the happy holiday season…or is perhaps too depressing to take out and look at period during the grey, wet winter days. But Spring time…the Easter season, a time of renewal, etc…makes me think about the death of our world and the rebirth of the next.

Not to be morbid or anything…I don’t clean out the bomb shelter or re-stock the canned goods and ammo or anything. Me…I start getting in the mood for post-apocalyptic fiction and role-playing.

Post-apocalyptic fiction/lore (I’ll just call it PA for short from now on, or this post will get waaay too long) is something that’s held great interest for me for a looong time…so long I’m not sure when it started. It’s like my interest in astrology or fencing…from the moment I discovered such a concept existed it has held a great and terrible fascination for me (not that astrology or fencing are “terrible,” but they would draw my interest to the point of distraction even years..decades!...before I started practicing either).

Using Wikipedia to see the release dates of the earliest pieces of PA fiction I remember might give me a clue to when I first started dwelling on the subject. The Day After (1983) was a horrific made-for-TV movie that I remember watching as a 9 or 10 year old…though I also recall falling asleep before the end and having to ask my folks what happened (spoiler: everybody dies). Thundarr the Barbarian I watched religiously on Saturday Mornings and it aired from 1980-81 (age 7 to 8). Sometime around the same period I recall watching George Peppard in Damnation Alley on television and wow, did that one haunt my nightmares as a kid…but it was released in the theaters in 1977 so it was probably not broadcast on television for at least 5 years (’82 or so). Definitely I saw Planet of the Apes early-early in life, and found that pretty horrific…though I’m sure I didn’t see that until the 5-7 year old range (again on TV). My aunt and her friend almost took me to see the Road Warrior in the theater (US Release circa 1982), but at the last minute ended up taking my brother and I to see The Secret of NIMH instead…and I can recall vividly having a long conversation about the Apes movies on that summer day in Montana, so I must have already seen a couple of the films (possibly more than once).

But the earliest PA fiction I can recall is watching the Logan’s Run television series on TV (broadcast 9/77-1/78…’round about the age of 3-4!!). While not dealing with the horror of nuclear holocaust (or did it? Was that the one where there were these crazy scarred mutants wearing gold masks and black cowls to hide their disfigurement?), it certainly involved dystopian societies and bubble cities.

Hmm…I wonder if I can get that one on Netflix. I might need to re-watch it.

Anyway, I’m sure growing up in the Reagan "2^nd Cold War" 1980s helped fuel the paranoia/fascination with the coming apocalypse and “what happens thereafter.”

[Hmmm…just remembered that I also saw the 1978 version of the Time Machine on television when I was 5 years old, and the whole Morlocks/Eloi-cannibalism depiction of THAT film had more impact on my young psyche than any other version of the Time Machine I’ve seen since…this might even have something to do with my whole squeamishness regarding cannibalism]

Yes, long before I ever picked up a copy of Gamma World (2^nd edition, found used in the usual Montana bookstore) I was watching and reading tales that would depict (either in plot or background) the End of Civilization as We Know It. Hell, what 13 year old spends his own money to pick up a paperback of After the Bomb? Probably the same kind of kid that grows up watching Buck Rogers (with the nuked Earth surrounding “New Los Angeles”) and videotaping Chuck Heston in The Omega Man to watch multiple times. Yes…I am weird.

So it might strike some as odd that I’m kind of indifferent about most PA RPGs on the market.

But allow me to clarify: I love-love-LOVE the IDEA of the PA RPG. When I first started designing RPGs myself (as a hobby…my B/X Companion is going to be the first thing I actually publish, folks), I had a half-dozen fairly different RPGs all of the PA variety. I even figured I would call my “company” (whoa! Delusions of grandeur!) something like “Post-Apocalyptic Games.” I just felt there was such a dearth of material out there…and I wanted MORE.

Here’s the short-list of published PA RPGswith which I’m familiar:

Gamma World (1^st through 3^rd editions)

Rifts (and After the Bomb, etc.)

Twilight 2000 (and Cadillacs & Dinosaurs)

Deadlands: Hell on Earth

Car Wars (post-peak oil)

Mutant Chronicles (more Cyberpunk than PA)

Shadow Run (more Cyberpunk than PA)

Cyberpunk (see above)

Paranoia

And of course other assorted weirdness that can be categorized as PA: Obsidian, HOL, World of Synnibarr, some versions of Terra Primate (of course) and AFMBE (zombie apocalypse!), etc. And of course there’s Mutant Future, the OSR’s current darling of whimsical PA mutation & exploration.

The problem for me is: none of these games really satisfy my itch for PA role-playing.

I suppose I should look for a copy of Aftermath! (which I’ve never owned, nor read). But the reputation for being especially fiddly is off-putting to me, even as I like the idea of a grim survival based game.

'Cause that’s 50% of the problem…”grim survival” is the thing that is really missing from all the RPGs I listed above. Gamma World has the potential to be an excellent metaphor for man and his relationship with technology (especially the 1^st edition with some minor 2^nd edition tweaks), but usually gets bogged down in silliness like fish that turn people to stone and rabbits that turn guns to rubber (not to mention all the rest of the well-known gonzo mutants). Rifts and DL:HOE are waaaay too over-the-top to ever be considered grim in a semi-realistic way...and most of the other games don’t even come close.

I’ve never owned Twilight 2000. My friend Jocelyn DID, but we never played it…and her descriptions of the game to me did nothing to entice me to play (she made it appear to be a WWIII simulation fought with conventional weapons only, rather than a broken military in a PA world which might have been intriguing). I DO own Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, a true PA meets Lost World type pulp game that uses the same system as Twilight 2000. Unfortunately, I find the system to be incredibly BORING. I’m not sure exactly why (I’d have to pull it out and read it again), but after picking it up (recently…within the last 12-18 months), I was left feeling like I REALLY wanted to read the Xenozoic Tales comics instead of playing the RPG.

Grim survival ain’t present in these games, system-wise…and that’s something I’d want to see (yes, yes, a GM or referee can certainly tailor events to be “grim” but I want it INHERENT, dammit!) for a real PA game no matter WHAT the nature of the apocalypse. I mean, look at Reign of Fire (the film). Here’s a world that’s been burned to a near-cinder by DRAGONS but (as with all the best PA stories) still there is the over-reaching story of the GRIM STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL. Not, oh dragons exist maybe we should study magic. Not whimsical stories of captured maidens or bad guys allying themselves with the beasts. This is HIDE OR BE EATEN. Which is a common theme in many types of PA fiction (even without dragons).

But as I said “grim survival” (or lack thereof) is only 50% of my dissatisfaction with PA RPGs. The other 50% of my dissatisfaction comes from the other missing integral part of the genre: COMMUNITY BUILDING. The PA story is NOT simply concerned with 'O woe is us we don’t have electricity/plumbing anymore.' Most PA stories involve some sort of rebuilding/rebirth…a rise from the ashes and possibly a redefining of what community and “civilization” means to those left behind.

Now maybe this is just the Plutonic/Scorpio part of me (Pluto, ruler of Scorpio, is greatly concerned with volcanic upheaval that leads to karmic transformation within our lives) but that shit fascinates me. Surviving the apocalypse? That’s tough enough. But re-building the world from the rubble up? Now THAT’s a heroic task.

And again, while this can be simply “injected” by the GM of the game, I’d prefer it to be a real and integral part of the rules, hopefully directly linked to the “reward/advancement” system in the RPG. Reward systems based on behavior encourage that behavior that engenders rewards. Call that Axiom #3 of RPG design. If characters are only rewarded for killing monsters and getting treasure, guess what: that’s what they’re going to do (unless they wander off on a tangential Creative Agenda like, say, Story Now…hello Trollsmyth and Oddysey!). If characters are rewarded for “good role-playing” (whatever the F THAT means) then you’re going to get some hammy play-acting from your players (or you’re going to get players leaving the group disgruntled ‘cause they’re not into being judged on their improv abilities).

Now again, Gamma World (2^nd edition) comes O So Close to establishing this in its Status/Rank reward system…after all, what is being measured in GW appears to be characters value TO their particular community (or Cryptic Alliance, should they join one). Defeating mutants raises their “standing” in the eyes of their people, as does turning in valuable (and working) artifacts with the instruction book attached.

However, while community is INVOLVED in the advancement process, it is not being directly BUILT (perhaps INdirectly, depending on how many mutant monsters get killed and how many tribesmen the PCs arm with Tech III weapons). And community building is the main component of the PA genre…after the grim struggle for survival of course.

[as for the non-Gamma World games, they don’t even come frigging close to addressing this]

Community building or defining: you see it in the Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome. You see it in A Canticle for Leibowitz and The Postman. You see it in The Stand, The White Plague, and even Battlefield Earth and the Matrix films. In all these stories, the grim survivors of the Apocalypse (no matter what form the Apocalypse takes) must come together and redefine what their community is, what it stands for, what they’re all about and how they are going to relate to each other in this changed world. Heck…even those little rag dolls in 9 do this!

Yep, there is the ever-so-faint smell of Spring in the air and I’m itching for some Post-Apocalyptic action. I’ve yet to see The Road or The Book of Eli but I fully intend to see both if possible at my earliest opportunity (watched It’s Complicated on Friday which was very good but certainly not “apocalyptic” in subject matter). I’ve also been meaning to check out S.M. Stirling’s Dies the Fire, which seems to be a rip-off of Steven Boyett’s 1983 book Ariel (though without the unicorns). I just discovered Stirling in the last year with his throwback planetary romances (Mars and Venus) and Marching Through Georgia, but his PA series has gotten some of his ravest reviews and I’ve yet to peruse any of ‘em. As I finish up work on the B/X Companion and its companion adventure module, I find myself more and more enticed with doing a new 64 page RPG…and I wonder if I have enough junk material (and new ideas) to distill some sort of Post Apocalyptic goulash that will meet MY particular needs of gaming in a world gone mad.

; )

Objectives in Play

This kinda' comes hard on the heels of my earlier post about my sudden "re-disenchantment" with Rifts. Folks who have been reading this blog for awhile (or at least reading my earlier posts) know I have a bit of interest in game design (specifically RPG), and that I went so far as to pen my own "first axiom" of game design.

Welp, I've got another one for ya'; call it Axiom #2:

Good game design requires rules that set clear objectives for players.

Now, as usual when I say "players" I refer to everyone sitting around the table...whether one is taking the role of the DM/GM or a character-wielding participant makes no nevermind to me. Everyone present is "playing the game;" thus, all are players.

So what is an "objective" anyway?

Well it's not the usual diatribe found in most RPG's introductions, "the objective of the game is to have FUN!" As my wife might quip: barf.

OF COURSE we are all playing the game with the hope that play will be fun! Hell, it's a game after all! Most of us aren't getting money or sex for it, so it better be fun.

That is, there is NO NEED TO SAY that "fun" is an objective. That's what we call "a given."

When I say "objective" I mean that there is an OBJECT of play. Something one is to DO, besides simply sit around gabbing and occasionally rolling a set of dice. But there is a point to play, aside from the "meta-goal" of enjoying your gaming group's company and occasional pizza feed.

If there is no objective to play than you might as well be sitting around in an acid circle...or a collaborative writing session...or a circle jerk. But you ain't playing a game.

Games have objectives. Objectives provide direction. Direction allows action. Without action the game is simply talking about how "kewl" your guy is...whether that guy is a heroic PC or antagonist NPC doesn't matter. Likewise "talking about" your guy may involve actual talking about his/her various traits...OR it might be showing what the character can do (for example, in a game's combat system). Regardless, it's still a wank-fest.

Objectives may be distinct between the different types of participants, but they should still be present and should be clearly stated within the text of the game...well, at least in a game with good design. If not, well...it leads to problems. And fairly shoddy role-playing in my opinion.

Most RPGs that I consider to be of the "old school" variety, have fairly specific objectives in game play, and specific methods of measuring whether or not those objectives are being met ("points"). But many of the newer indie games also have clearly stated goals and objectives of play.

[by the way, I'm still mulling the idea of "objective" versus "expectations." Right now, they seem to be very distinct in my mind: an EXPECTATION would be a type of in-game behavior and would appear to be difficult to teach through text alone, save perhaps with several examples of play. But there's a fuzzy line between "expected behavior" and pursuit of objectives, as that itself is a type of behavior]

Some examples of games with clear objectives (here I will separate participants into "GM" and "players"):

Dungeons and Dragons: At the basic level has very clear objectives in play. The DM's objective is to create an adventure scenario that is stocked with both risk and reward (monsters, traps, and treasure) and then fairly adjudicate the outcome of the exploration. The players' objective is to gain as much reward as possible while surviving the risk. Sometimes, there are additional secondary objectives (free prisoners, defeat a specific foe, recover a specific treasure).

Sorcerer: An indie-game designed at facilitating "story now," this game also has clear in-game objectives. The players create characters that each possess a "kicker," an issue of tantamount importance to both the player AND character. The in-game objective is to push the narrative in such a way that the kicker is resolved. The GM's role is to weave the characters together within a loose plot using techniques like relationship mapping. In-play the GM's objective is to drive the plot by introducing "bangs" - decision points that force player action and that (by making choices) allow premise to be addressed and defined within play.

Call of Cthulhu: The Keeper's objective is to create a horror mystery that will engross the player characters. The player's objectives are to solve said mystery (survival and retention of sanity being optional).

InSpectres: The GM's objective is to keep the story coherent while introducing elements that allow the players to take action and "collect dice." The player's objective is to solve the (randomly generated) mystery/job by succeeding at tasks and collecting dice.

In none of these games are there questions about "how is this game supposed to be played," or more specifically "what the hell do we do once we get to the table." The objectives provide direction and the direction facilitates action. Left bereft of objective, play stagnates, degenerates, or simply doesn't "go anywhere."

That's poor game design, in my opinion.

JB's Axiom #1 (Skills Suck Part 3)

From this post:

“Good game design only incorporates rules integral to game play.”

This is my new game designer motto, and it especially applies to skill systems in RPGs. Basically it’s a distillation of a lot of design concepts, condensed into a tight little sound bite. Here’s how I’m using it:

The originators of RPGs in their modern form (and here I’m referring mainly to TSR designers, not the wargaming folks on whose shoulders they stood) were geniuses as far as I’m concerned. While RPGs have come a loooong way since the 1970s, they share things with their predecessors that their predecessors share with no one.

A group of people coming together to play. A shared imaginary space. A set of rules to govern play in that shared imaginary space. Game play that requires nothing more than players visualization, shared communication, and an agreed method of dispute resolution. Play in imaginary space requiring players to take on imaginary roles. Continuity of game sessions and methods to track that continuity.

You’ve got all these things, you’ve got an RPG as far as I’m concerned.

Even games that have no potential for an on-going campaign (say, My Life With Master) has a method of tracking game play if you have to finish a game over multiple sessions (even if the time between sessions is only a lunch break).

Anyway, before the introduction of D&D there wasn’t a game that had all these elements…at least not one of which I’m aware. And yet all RPGs today have these elements to one degree or another (by the way, the term “player” can mean “GM/DM” and the term “role” can mean anything from a PC/monster to elements of the shared imaginary space…like the weather or an earthquake).

As I was saying…GENIUSES. And yet while we pay them respect and forgive them their “flaws” of game design saying ‘well, they just weren’t as enlightened as we are now with regard to design,’ well...maybe we’re not respectful enough. After all they, for the most part, stick pretty true to Axiom #1.

I’m not sure they did this purposefully…since what they were doing was totally new, how much “streamlining” did they deem necessary? But they HAD NO CHOICE.

“I’m inventing a game.”
“What do you do in it?”
“Well you do X, Y, and Z.”
“Then you need a system for X, Y, and Z.”

What they did not say is “AND you need an additional rule set to cover anything you haven’t thought of…just in case the players want to try something ‘outside of the box’ or something.”

I haven’t picked up a copy of D20 Gamma World. I love GW, and I’m sure reading the D20 version would both piss me off and break my heart. I’m sure it has plenty of cool feats and WONDERFUL SKILLS like “craft spear,” “build fire,” and “construct hut,” not to mention something like “mutant animal lore.” What a crock of shit.

What do you need to know to play Gamma World?

How to fight, how to figure out artifacts, how to resist toxins and radiation.

That’s about it. The odd stuff is the mutations, and each individual mutation has an individual set of rules. It’s already assumed that your character growing up in the Gamma World knows the rudiments of survival (hut building, spear crafting). If your tribe lived near water you probably know raft making and net mending. But you don’t need a system that models this!

Boot Hill is an f’ing miracle of efficient game design. A couple years back, long before I discovered “retro-clones” I was writing a little western RPG I called “Gunmen.” I was drawing from all the western RPGs I could get my hands on: Boot Hill, Deadlands, Dust Devils, Six Guns and Whiskey. After much scribbling and note-splicing, I finally wrote the following:

RESOLVED: All Gunmen know the following:
A favorite weapon: pistol, rifle, knife-fighter, or exotic (saber, tomahawk, bow)
How to brawl
How to ride, tack, and care for a horse
How to drive, tack, and harness a wagon
How to brew coffee, cook beans, fry bacon
How to smoke, drink, and cuss
How to play cards (not necessarily win)

That was it. If they wanted extra skills (like being a doctor or lawyer or ambidextrous) it cost ‘em dice from another part of the character sheet. However, the design is on hold because Boot Hill pretty much already does this! BH characters could sure use a Charisma score (for chatting up the pretty widows), but otherwise it already assumes all these things. The ONLY thing you really need to resolve is gun play, as is aptly hinted at in the game’s title, BOOT HILL.

That is coherent game design, my friends.

This is yet another example of why “system does matter.” You can’t take one system (e.g. D20) and apply it to all games (fantasy, “modern,” Star Wars, Gamma World) and expect everything to be awesome. It might run…clunky at times…but that’s not the same as “humming along.” With individual games, you can craft individual systems that target specific objectives of design. Too many skill systems feel tacked on and detract from what players are supposed to do “in play” on an assumption that modeling reality in a balanced (or un-balanced…hello, Pallladium!) fashion equals a better gaming experience. That’s bunk. If it detracts from game play it is probably not integral to the game design. That’ll be JB’s Axiom #2.

So junk the skill systems already. One benefit of adherence to Axiom #1 might be a reduced page count of RPGs (again!) making them more affordable and accessible (again!).

Prost!


P.S. K.I.S.S. is Axiom #0.

Skills Suck

Shoot…I really thought I’d already written this essay somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. Perhaps I started it and it was toooo loooong. Strong possibility.

I’ll cut to the chase: I hate skills in RPGs. I mean is, in most games these days they annoy me so much that it makes me not want to play games. The more elaborate the skill system, the higher the search and handling time, the LESS I am interested.

I was going to write about the evolution of my disgust for skills, which has waxed and waned until the last couple years when it’s been pretty much all “wax on” disgust-wise. But why bother? Or maybe, I’ll save it for another “origins” post when I talk about the move from AD&D secondary skills, to non-weapon proficiencies, to Star Frontiers, to yadda-yadda-yadda…

However, I do want to say for the record how much I dislike skills:

A lot.
While I can talk about my historical journey through RPG skills (in another post), I think it’s more interesting to write WHY I dislike them. After all, every non-indie industry RPG designer feels the need to include some form of skill system in their rules. What bugs ME so much?

Well many things, actually, but I’ll break it down into just a few categories (not necessarily in order of importance):

#1 Over-complex character generation. This is perhaps my biggest pet peeve in game design. Aside from overly complex combat systems, nothing else slows down play more. Trying to introduce a new player to role-playing? You have to go through hours of skill lists (and explanations of skills and explanations of rule systems) just to design a character. A knowledgeable person, with his own rule book, and a strong idea of what kind of character he wants, can create a PC in…well, probably under an hour but pretty close to an hour mark depending on other options present in the chargen process. For non-gamers, this process (which generally takes them longer) is INCREDIBLY BORING. Woe unto the GM whose RPG then sucks…this does not grow an RPG industry.

#2 Over-complex character generation. Did I not mention this already? Perhaps I did. When chargen takes a long-ass time to create a character, character death becomes an especially awful punishment in play…one that tends to get avoided at all costs by a GM (to keep his players happy and his game going). When character death gets removed from the table, so does much of the drama of action/combat (you know…the life or death part?). For premise-focused games, that’s often fine. For competitive gamist-type games (like D&D) that sucks.

#3 Attempting to model “real life.” Most skill systems use some kind of universal mechanic…that is, all skill use works the same regardless of skill. One problem with this it’s kind of impossible to be all encompassing of “real life.” Another is that real life works differently in different situations. A design problem is that the same game currency (generally ‘points’ which are assigned to various skills) applies to all skills regardless of disparate application…say Bureaucracy versus Firearms; depending on the type of game being run, one of these skills is going to prove much more useful than the other.

#4 Conceit and hypocrisy. Even though many skill systems profess to use universal systems, often the “combat rules” are its own modified system. Shooting and stabbing are “skills” (albeit, not ones used in polite society), so why have things like, oh say “Base Attack Bonus?” What if I don’t want to ‘train up’ my attacking skill? Many, many games use different rules and sub-system for combat then from “normal” skill use. Since skill systems are often fairly complicated (simple, resisted, un-resisted, competitive, use over time, resisted use over time, etc.) the end result is more rules to digest and integrate to play. See point #1 above.

#5 Unnecessary rules. Good game design should only incorporate rules integral to game play. Call that JB’s Axiom #1. It needs its own post.

#6 Player limitation. Ugh…this needs its own post, too.

Now, just because I don’t like skills doesn’t mean I refuse to play games with skills, and the presence of skill systems does not create an immediate abhorrence for a game. Half the RPGs on my Top Ten list include skill systems of the type I’m describing…however, these games have other ‘redeeming qualities:’

• Traveller’s skills are assigned randomly without a player needing to put points on a skill list…plus character generation itself is a fun mini-game.
• Mutant City’s skills are all of equal value in the way they are used to facilitate the game; they actually act as a control of a player’s “spotlight time,” rather than a measure of in-game effectiveness.
• VTM and HEX both have settings that make their games kick-ass…enough that I’m willing to overlook the skill systems. Plus, both have systems that include simplification techniques (VTM by cutting out anything other than simple successes, HEX with its D2 approach and Ubiquity Dice).
• Ars Magica has multiple complex disparate systems including skills, combat, magic, and research. The game is for mature (i.e. experienced) gamers that want to run long sagas…it is NOT for one-off games or combat-quick groups. It requires the systems to help adjudicate (and turn game-like!) what otherwise might be a “group storytelling exercise” about Mythic Europe. Plus magi are badass. Oh…and grogs. I’d play it just for the grogs.

: )