Are You Missing the Forest for the Trees? Plant an Orchard.

Recently, JB at BX Blackrazor wrote a long post (he does that) on why he doesn't like "rules lite" , primarily OSR/NSR style, games. Adam at Barking Alien wrote a reply on why he does like rules lite games (OSR or otherwise). I'm somewhere in the middle. 

I like enough mechanical crunch to make the game feel like I'm actually playing a game, not just doing some group story exercise with a bit of die rolling. But I don't need an excess of systems that bog down the flow of the game, either. Hence my preference for TS&R, where I take the simpler (but not rules lite) BX/BECMI D&D rules, and graft on the bits and pieces of OD&D, 1E, 2E, and even more modern games that I like to it. Along with a few of my own house rules, of course. Just enough complexity for me, without getting too burdensome to run.

That's all preamble to what I really want to write about today, though. These two posts, along with Adam's follow up on there being too much combat in old school fantasy games, got me thinking about something I'm sure I've addressed before, but probably years and years ago. 

One of the big strengths of original D&D and the Classic D&D line, in my opinion, is that is is explicit about the procedures for each stage of game play. Dungeon exploration turns -- spelled out and given a checklist to follow. Wilderness exploration -- also spelled out and given a checklist to follow. Encounters (both dungeon and wilderness) -- spelled out and given a checklist to follow. Combat rounds -- spelled out and given a checklist to follow. Reaction rolls and morale -- you get the idea. 

These are something that has been lost in a lot of newer games. Now, I haven't checked out every single OSR/NSR game out there, so I'm sure there are some that do these things. I know retroclones like Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy still have these procedures spelled out explicitly. But WotC D&D, any version, really only does this for the combat side of the equation. And even then, some areas like Reactions and Morale are done away with for the most part. And it seems like many of the newer, rules lite games like Into the Odd, PbtA, and Black Hack derived games lack these as well (but I've mostly experienced these games from the player side, so I could be wrong here). 

I looked through my 1E books, and was surprised that the dungeon exploration turn doesn't seem to be spelled out explicitly anywhere. The process for wilderness exploration is described in the DMG (but not with handy checklists like BX and BECMI have), including for maritime, airborne, and planar adventuring. Combat procedures have maybe too much detail (those pummeling/grappling rules for example). But a simple explanation for the DM or players about how to structure an exploration turn for a dungeon seems to be missing. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. Most of the guidance for that is in the PHB, but how to run a turn doesn't seem to be spelled out. 2E seems similar. Each individual mechanic is described with how it operates, but how they all fit together in the exploration turn or encounter seems to be more vague.

Procedures provide structure. Games need structure. Without structure, you can have game elements. You have mechanics for action resolution. You have mechanics for advancement. You have mechanics for spells/items/abilities. But you need a frame to hang them on. Without procedures for game turns, it's like you have a big box of LEGO pieces for your RPG, with an incomplete or missing manual to tell you how they fit together. 

Now, plenty of older games also fall into this trap. I'm loving playing and running d6 Star Wars, but while it gives you lots of good advice on setting up situations within the fictional world and a mechanic for action resolution, it is a little light on procedures for running non-combat activities. I get that combats need to be the one area of the game where the mechanics are most clear and transparent to the players, so they feel like they win or lose fairly. But the rest of the game should be transparent in that way, too. 

I know I've had times where a new player didn't understand how the procedures worked, and since they were joining my game which included veteran players, I didn't fully explain them. And then things are a mystery to them. I need to be more aware of this, and explain not just how to make a PC or how combat works, but how exploration and interactions work step by step. 

I like having those procedures spelled out, even if I don't always follow them to the letter. They are there when we need them. And of course, as old grognards, those of us who've been running these games don't need them spelled out. I know I personally used a lot of Classic D&D procedures when I ran 5E. The game lacks them, but I knew what to do because of my earlier gaming experiences. I imported the procedures that 5E lacked, but eventually tired of trying to shoe-horn in these elements to a game that fundamentally didn't want you to use that sort of procedure. WotC D&D, some old school non-D&D games, and a lot of the recent "lite games" seem, from my estimation, to want DMs to just present players with encounter situations and get to the skill checks/combat to resolve them. 

It's not railroad play in the traditional sense that players have no choice in what to do and where to go. But it is a sort of stunted play, where tactical choices are limited to "how do I do the most damage in this situation?" or "who has the best skill modifier to complete this task?" With set procedures, that are known to players as well as the GM, players can make more informed choices. GMs can tweak the procedures for special occasions, but most of the time will rely on them to keep the game moving. Players can engage in all the play-acting of their PCs they want during this, and that can be fun. But the procedures keep us from getting too bogged down in the role play or the mother-may-I style exploration interactions. 

Now I know some play these games FOR the role play. The more free "describe what you do, I'll tell you what happens" style play is also popular, and I can see why. I think it's good to have both in your games. But you need to enforce some order in the game to have choices matter. Procedures for exploration and interaction do that. I think it's a shame that most games have gone the path of only providing these procedures explicitly for combat. 

Individual game mechanics are like trees. An RPG that doesn't show you how the game mechanics connect and work together to make the game advance is like a forest. A game that connects and orders the various mechanics in a way that gives players choice and GMs flexibility to use or modify them as needed at the table -- that is an orchard. And it will bear the most fruit.  

Advancement System Before Action Resoultion Mechanics

The other day, Jeremy sent me a file for a Supers RPG that he's working on. He wants to play test it, and I'm looking forward to that. He's going for a rules-lite system, so he's trying not to bog it down with too many subsystems or overly define what any particular superpower can and can't do. That's fine. 

He's got an interesting action resolution/combat system. It's 2d10 based, but you add attribute scores (your superpowers or skills) as appropriate. If you roll snake eyes, you auto fail. If you roll any other doubles, the dice explode and you keep rolling (but snake eyes on a further roll is still auto failure). That's interesting and I want to see how it plays out.

Character creation has lots of d% tables for determining things randomly, but he also says that picking and choosing to fit your idea is fine as well. The only problem I found with this is that the big list of Attributes (again, the super powers or advanced skill-sets that heroes have) is a 3d100 chart. If you're picking the abilities that you want, no problem. If you're rolling randomly, this will skew heavily into the middle of the alphabetical list of 297 options. I checked the dice probabilities, and you're 7500 times more likely to get item 151 (or 152) than to get item 3 (or 300). Of course, with nearly 300 entries, it's still only a 0.75% chance (each) to get 151 or 152.

And what do you know, when I rolled a random PC, I got Leap (entry 151) as one of my rolls.  

So there are a few things to work out there, but nothing major. 

The big problem is, there's no advancement system. No way to earn XP or additional Build Points (once you determine your powers, you can set their strength with build points, then add features or limits plus or minus more build points) after play starts. There's no goal of play other than "play out stories like in comic books" which seems like it will only be conducive to one-shots/convention play. 

I think that anyone designing an RPG should figure out what the advancement system is before trying to figure out the resolution mechanics or char-gen features. You've got to know what the players should be doing with their PCs before anything else. Otherwise, what's the point of play?

Is Star Frontiers Mimimalist? Is it Lite?

What exactly defines a minimalist game is subjective, as is what makes a game "lite." Some people go by page count, with 1-page RPGs the epitome of minimalism. I've seen some people say it's bare minimum dice types, bare minimum ability scores/traits, and bare minimum word count. I've seem people say that it's a universal mechanic and plenty of space for players to do things not on the character sheet. I've seen various combinations of the above. I'm sure there are other qualities I'm overlooking at the moment.

So, how does Star Frontiers (Alpha Dawn) actually rank as a minimalist RPG? 

Page Count: 16 page Basic Rules, 60 (or 64?) page full game. 

This would count as minimalist in relation to doorstop games like Pathfinder, but still pretty hefty compared to many indie games. Fairly minimalist, for the time it came out.

Dice: Only d10s. 

Definitely in the minimalist camp here.

Resolution Mechanics: d% resolution for most actions, Xd10 damage, 1d10+modifier initiative, a few oddities like 2d10 bell-curve resolution tables for vehicle damage. 

Pretty tight, but not as light as it could be. 

Abilities/Traits: With eight abilities, but these grouped into four pairs, it's fairly tight. The fact that the scores (or 1/2 the score) are also the % chance to make a check is streamlined design. Alien species' special abilities are also % based. 

That is again pretty light mechanics load, but not as streamlined as possible. Not bad, but could be simpler.

Character Options: Four alien species (one human), three primary skill areas, 13 skills. Five of the skills have no subskills and are Ability dependent (weapon group skills), and all others have two to nine subskills at set levels which are learned as a suite. Only the Martial Arts skill has unique mechanics (increased Punching Score and knock-out chances). 

This isn't very heavy. With basically four die rolls for Abilities and three choice points (not counting Ability adjustment and selecting starting gear), you have a character. Roll Abilities. Select Species. Select Primary Skill Area (PSA). Select two starting skills, with at least one in the PSA. You're good to go. 

Creatures: Aside from descriptions and special ability rules, most creatures are represented by seven descriptors/numbers: Size, Number (appearing), Move (given in general categories), Initiative Modifier/Reaction Speed, Stamina (health), Attack (%), Damage. 

I've seen games where there are fewer stats for creatures, and something like D&D you can get by with fewer actual numbers most of the time (AC, HD, HP are enough for most encounters), but this isn't a lot, either. The game also provides typical stats for herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores of each size category, to make creating your own alien creatures simple. 

Again, it's almost minimalist, and for the time it came out, it's again pretty light. 

Combat, Movement, Etc.:  The basic combat resolution is dead simple. Roll d%, if you roll lower than your chance to hit, you deal damage. But there are a LOT of modifiers, for melee and ranged combat. The vehicle combat isn't too complex, but it does add new subsystems (like the vehicle damage rolls, mentioned above), acceleration, and turning radii. Movement rules are generally simple, until you add in things like modifiers for planets' gravity, rough terrain, and species' movement rates. 

There's a minimalist core there, but also just enough crunch to make things interesting and pay some attention to the science side of science fiction. This is one area where the game stops being minimalist, but it's not maximalist to make the hardcore science nerds happy. This is, I would wager, one of the things that really makes people dislike the game. It's too complex in certain ways, too simple in others.

Equipment, Weapons, Etc.: The game uses "credits" as money. There aren't a whole lot of items on the weapons, defenses, equipment, or vehicle lists, and those that are are one-size-fits-all. There's only stats for "laser pistols" not XM-03 Blast-all and Zerk-tech Laserific Pistols, with fiddly distinctions between what are essentially the same weapon. All ground cars share the same stats, with no distinctions for make/model/species it's designed for.

Robots and Computers are the two areas where there can be a lot of customization, but even then, the options available are limited and streamlined. This is again an area where hard sci-fi people, and gearheads, are going to be disappointed that the system's gear is so bare-bones (and the computers presented were obsolete not long after the game was on shelves), but things are just fiddly enough that it can't be called minimalist. 

There are no rules for building, buying, or operating starships. This is again something that many people deride the game for, but again, this isn't something that's actually necessary (or realistic). There are rules for FTL travel, and prices for PCs to book passage. You just can't own your own ship. This is actually both more realistic, and more minimalist. But it rubs many people the wrong way. I'll go deeper into this in a future post. 

Setting: The Frontier Sector is fleshed out in small bites throughout the rules, with a lot of information in the Basic Rules book, and small details scattered across the Expanded Rules book. All in all, though, it's a skeleton of a setting, with lots of room for the referee to flesh it out as they please, and plenty of uncharted star systems on the sector map. 

This is a pretty light setting, but it gave my friends and I enough of a structure to flesh things out, with inspiration from various sci fi books, TV shows, movies, and games. Again, I'll post more on this particular point in the future. All in all, it's not minimal, but it's a very light setting with just enough meat on the bones to not be useless. 

THE VERDICT

Is Star Frontiers minimalist? No, but then it wasn't trying to be. That wasn't even really a thing back in the late 70s/early 80s when the game was designed and published, as far as I know. 

Is it a lite game though? I'd say so. It has its complexities, but from experience it was pretty easy to ignore a lot of these rules when we were young and didn't care that much. And even as we grew older and got more proficient with the core mechanics, it wasn't hard to add in the extra complexity of the game, because it never gets THAT complex. 

The thing is, I think that it COULD be a minimalist game, if stripped down. The Basic Game is already pretty minimal, but it's also a bit more of a board game than a proper RPG. Still, using it as a base, and selectively including only the bare necessities from the Expanded Rules, you could play a very minimalist space opera/exploration game.

 

 

Don't let the limits of tournament play limit your campaign

Riffing off of my last post, I was thinking of how the "module" as presented by TSR, Judges Guild, and others back in the day has had an overall negative influence on the game. This is not a new observation, by any means, but it's what's on my mind. 

As mentioned in the last post, most modules focus on dungeon delves (at all levels of play), with some wilderness exploration/sandbox modules and a fair number of epic quests for artifacts for higher level play, but very few dedicated to city/social adventures, domain level play, or planar excursions. The rules suggest that the development of players' skill should develop from dungeoneering out to wilderness exploration, then to domain management/war gaming mixed with RPGing, then on to the epic quests and planar exploration. But the examples of play provided by the vast majority of modules are maybe a bit of town play or wilderness exploration as a prelude to the dungeon, if it's not just the dungeon itself. 

There's a good reason for tournament play to focus on the dungeon. If you're going to have many groups of players competing, it makes a lot of sense to just run everyone through the same dungeon. Other types of play are much harder to compare. And scoring is easy. How many monsters were defeated? How much treasure was found? How many traps avoided? 

It's a lot like in teaching. Often, the most effective ways to teach students are the hardest to fairly measure with a test. So we get teachers teaching to the test, rather than trying to inspire and motivate their students to become independent learners. We focus on grammar and memorizing facts and formulaic mathematical calculations rather than inspiring the minds of our students. Well, I try to inspire my students as much as possible. I think I do a pretty good job of it. But many teachers don't. 

Many DMs are similar. They look at the rules, and read over the ideas of what the game could be. Then they look at modules produced by TSR or WotC (or others) and see it's just dungeons all the way down. Not that there's anything wrong with dungeoneering (and I totally read that in a Seinfeld voice as I typed it, although that wasn't my intention when I started writing it). But it does limit the game, and the appeal of the game, if it's only ever dungeon of the week play. 

I tried all sorts of odd adventures when I was young. I'd get a crazy idea from a book, movie, TV show (especially Saturday morning cartoons), Nintendo game, or whatever, and modify it into a gameable situation. And the only modules I  had back then were Isle of Dread and Crash on Volturnus for Star Frontiers. I had alternate realities, dream worlds, other planar pocket dimension dungeons, weird quests for not overly high level adventurers, etc. And we all dove into the domain game once we had enough high level characters and the Companion Set to guide us.

Was it consistent world-building? Hell no. There was often no rhyme or reason. But I did explore many facets of game play. But as I got older, and was exposed to more modules, my play design did shift. It wasn't something I consciously decided to do, it just sort of happened. My designs for adventures shifted. Even my current campaign has a relatively realistic area map, with relatively mundane (by fantasy adventure standards) dungeons. There is a room in my micro-megadungeon that has portals to odd places, but the party hasn't found it yet. 

I need to start adding some more things like that into the game. Get back the vibe of freedom and creativity I had when I was younger. Shake off the yolk of "module" design and just have some fun with things. Get a bit more wild and wahoo with the game. And encourage others to do the same. And that doesn't mean to throw out consistency in the world, or realism to balance out the fantasy. It's just that my designs for many years now have been a bit too "realism" based rather than just letting my imagination run wild. I need a bit more of that creative chaos in my games.

Operationalizing Honor

Last week, noisms of Yoon Suin fame wrote a blog post about a "single class paladin campaign" except he's not really talking about a single class paladin game, he's talking about how to operationalize honor for RPGs in a way that will facilitate and motivate a game built around honorable heroes doing honorable things. He admits that various character classes could be used in such a game, as long as the game revolves around matters of honor and correct, heroic behavior, rather than typical D&D "adventuring" or "murder-hoboing" or what have you. Instead of everyone being the Paladin class, they all are behaving by a code of conduct and in service to some greater power.

I was definitely interested in what he had to say, as it's something I've had to deal with with only limited success in Flying Swordsmen and Chanbara. Yes, FSRPG includes notes about the xia code, and what is expected of a wandering martial hero in Chinese stories/movies. But that's it. The XP system is still revolving around defeating enemies (of any type) to gain XP, and doesn't stipulate that the combats need to be won honorably. And granted, there are anti-heroes or those that skirt the line in wuxia fiction, and they don't necessarily need to be penalized. 

I think I got a step closer with Chanbara. I re-conceptualized the carousing rules from Arneson's original campaign. But instead of saying you're spending your hard earned treasure on drunken debauchery and flashy displays of wealth until you're broke and need to go adventure again, it's explained as donating that hard earned treasure to your various lords, patrons, and clan to aid them in their endeavors. That's a step up from "hey, just role play it!" but I admit it still leaves something to be desired. Collecting the treasure is still a necessary step in play. If we're really wanting to make our campaign seem like the legends of King Arthur and Charlemagne, or of honorable samurai loyal to their lords and so on, "getting the treasure" seems out of place.

So, what sorts of rewards could we offer in a game that would encourage players to play Captain America instead of The Punisher? Galahad and Percival instead of Fafhrd and the Mouser? That's not an easy question to answer. 

So what's been done before? Marvel Super Heroes, the old 4 color resolution chart game from TSR, had a huge list of dos-and-don'ts that could earn you Karma points, or take them away. The 1E OA book also had a big long list of "honorable and dishonorable" actions, which earned or reduced honor points. 

I'm not a big fan of this method. For one, it's fiddly and arbitrary. It also requires everyone to be paying attention to a level of detail in the game that can hurt immersion. Finally, it polices play, rather than encourages it. XP for gold and fighting monsters encourages play. It tells players what the goal is, but not how to go about achieving the goal. Lists of "Thou shalt not..." doesn't give you a goal, it just mediates your choices in game. And giving a goal of "be honorable" doesn't spur action the way "get gold" does. 

I don't have a lot of history with the Palladium or White Wolf systems, but from what I remember, Palladium has a lot of strictures for keeping your alignment a la the MSH Karma and OA Honor systems, but I don't remember if that had an effect on XP or not. It's been a while since I've done anything with that system. 

For White Wolf, I haven't played Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, or Changeling. I've played Trinity and Street Fighter. In both of these games, at the end of a session (and the end of an adventure that takes place over multiple sessions), certain criteria are given or questions asked, and determine how much XP each character earns. This, I think, may be a better way to handle XP for the sort of "all paladin" game noisms wants to run. 

For those that don't know, players get 1 xp just for taking part in the session, and then additional points if they can demonstrate that their character learned or matured in some way, a point for good role play, a point for sticking to the character concept well, a point for heroism (at least in Street Fighter, which I have). If I remember, for Trinity there was one criteria for using your powers to aid the mission. 

This seems like the way to go to quantify honorable behavior to me. Make a list of criteria. The Chivalric Code. Bushido. The Way of the Jiang Hu. The Cowboy Code. Klingon Batlh. Probably best to keep it to under six tenets (the Cowboy Code as often shared on the internet these days has lots of pithy sayings that basically boil down to the same few concepts). At the end of a game session, go through each tenet and ask each player how they felt they upheld that tenet. Award chunks of XP for each tenet they upheld. 

Of course, WW games use XP as a spendable currency to develop skills and abilities, rather than a measure of progress in class level, but that can be adjusted. If someone wants to keep the D&D class & level paradigm, either adjust XP values needed to level up down (divide by 100, maybe?) or tie the amount of XP awarded by the criteria to the level of the character.

Gaming in the Abstract

I was thinking about a more general, abstract way to describe play in RPGs the other day, and I'm still sort of working through these ideas, but wanted to get down here what I've been considering so far. Partly so that I don't forget, and partly to get feedback from the community. 

I'm thinking of how a DM/GM/Referee and players interact during a game, at the encounter level. Obviously, the "logistics" phase of the session, where players get set up, check character sheets, add/subtract equipment or various scores, update things, wrap things up, level up, and all that would have separate moves than these. This is a start at describing the "moves" of an RPG. Other than Initial Description, there is no set order for these, and they are of course recursive until the encounter is completed. Also, these should be able to apply from any sort of situation from entering a simple dungeon room to traveling through other planes of existence.

The Encounter

Initial Description: GM move. GM gives an initial description of the encounter.

Question: Player move. Players request more details about initial description or information gained from other moves.

Examine: Player move. Characters look for more specific detail about one element of the encounter.

Interact: Player move. Characters manipulate one element of the encounter (including talking to NPCs/monsters).

Search: Player move. Characters attempt to find possible hidden elements of encounter.

Travel: Player move. Characters move from current location to another.

Engage: Player move. Characters initiate some sort of conflict, or react to NPCs/monsters engagement.

Avoid: Player move. Characters refuse to interact with encounter.

Explain: GM move. GM provides more information in reply to player moves above.

Stipulate: GM move. GM explains pertinent rules or obvious consequences of proposed player moves so that players understand the stakes.

Adjudicate: GM move. GM engages in game mechanics (or calls on players to engage in game mechanics) to find the results of a player or NPC/monster move.

Resolve: GM move. GM explains results of moves taken by players and/or NPCs/monsters, or of game mechanics adjudicated.

Updated Description: GM move. GM provides pertinent details of changes to the encounter after relevant moves have been completed.

Fetch Quests and Delivery Quests Suck

Why are fetch quests and delivery quests so popular in games? I understand to a degree why video games use them, since they primarily end up being side quests in that format. But in RPGs, they are pretty lame. I think I mentioned that I joined a PbP game of the 5E adventure Storm King's Thunder. And we're in the middle of a boring delivery quest right now. It's dragging on and on since it's PbP and takes weeks to get through an encounter. Someone spoiled the adventure for me, at least partially, and from what I heard, there are more dumb fetch/delivery quests waiting. I'm considering dropping out of that game.

And the 2E game I just joined that I mentioned in the previous post just got underway with all of our PCs meeting in a tavern with an NPC who wants us to be errand boys. Joy.

I figured that this was not a good way to manage a game session many years ago. In my first 3E campaign back in 2000, one of the adventures was based off of a story in Welsh mythology where the hero had to visit increasingly older and wiser creatures to learn the knowledge he sought. When I translated it into a D&D adventure, it ended up being a series of magical fetch quests for weirdo NPCs. And my players were fine with the first round, but when they found out there was a second, and then third round, they were not too happy. After the game, we discussed what I'd hoped for, and what they experienced in the game. I've not used the fetch quest or delivery quest since then in D&D thanks to their feedback. 

Players are gathering around to play D&D, or any other RPG, because they want to vicariously experience adventure through their character's experiences. Having an NPC just tell them, "Bring me back the MacGuffin and I will reward you." or "Take this MacGuffin to NPC B and they will reward you." is not very adventurous. Well, it can be adventurous if done well, but often it's just tedious. And if not done well, it can be very railroady.

So, what to do instead? 

First of all, it's perfectly fine for NPCs to want certain things, and even to offer rewards if the PCs can bring them those things. But that should just be one of many possible hooks or rumors that might drive PC actions. Whatever the MacGuffin is, it should not be something vital. It should not be something demanded of the PCs (an exception is when geas or quest spells get used, more on that below). Similarly, if an NPC wants something taken from here to there, why force the PCs to do it? Unless it's in some dangerous or difficult place to reach, why should a bunch of treasure seeking ne'er-do-wells or even glory seeking would-be-heroes waste their time playing Fedex?

The NPC makes it known that they would like to have X, or have X taken somewhere. Maybe they even say what the reward will be. That's a rumor you can introduce to the players when in the home town. If they follow up, they may contact the NPC for more information, and accept the job if they feel like it. If not, no big deal. There are other rumors or hooks for them to follow. And if they come across the item of a fetch quest, intentionally or by chance, and then offer it to the NPC, they can claim the reward. Of course, they should always have the option to just ignore the MacGuffin, or even keep it for themselves. Similarly, the PCs should be free to abscond with the MacGuffin of a delivery quest if they so choose, or just simply ignore the whole affair and find something more interesting or challenging to do.

Now, there will be times when PCs end up under [often magical] compulsion. This may be due to a geas or quest spell, as mentioned previously, or something they agree to as payment for a service (removal of a curse or to have a slain companion raised, for example). But this should happen as a consequence of the PCs' actions and choices. If they try to rob the Temple of Golden Pigs, and the High Hogg's men catch them, the High Hogg may slap a quest spell on them as punishment. That's fair. It's the consequence of their failure. 

Even then, the quest/geas spells allow you to ignore the compulsion, accept a penalty, and try to find a way to remove that magical compulsion somewhere else. And if it's not a magical compulsion, and the PCs are willing to accept the legal or social consequences of their actions (possible arrest or being labelled as outlaws, refusal of further services by the Temple of Golden Pigs, etc.), again there is nothing forcing them to finish the fetch quest. 

And in cases where the PCs willingly accept a fetch or delivery quest, it had better be worth the players' time. A trip from village A to village B, maybe with a planned encounter or two on the way, is not so exciting. Having to find an object in a remote, dangerous, or magical environment (dungeon, cursed mountain, other plane of existence, etc.), or deliver the object to a similarly hard to reach place, is a good step to making the quest more interesting. But even then, what's in it for the PCs? 

In my West Marches game, there were NPCs who wanted certain things. There were sometimes rumors about these things, and the players followed them up from time to time. But they were just rumors I threw out there, that could lead them to new areas of the Marches, or else suggested things they could do, but hadn't considered on their own, in areas they'd already explored. I had one NPC who would occasionally pop up in town seeking new monsters for his menagerie. A few times the PCs followed up on this, trying to hunt down that type of monster, capture one or more, and bring them back to town. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they failed, and sometimes they just gave up because they found something more interesting. And I was fine with all of that. I could always wait a few months then reintroduce Throckmorton P. Ruddygore, with a new request for the capture of a new type of monster in a different area of the Marches. 

Similarly, in my Star Wars game, the PCs wanted a faster hyperdrive for their ship. So I determined that there were three places to get one on the Outer Rim planet they were based on. Two NPCs would sell them outright, or would reduce the cost if the PCs would help in some way. A third wanted safe passage off the planet (he was wanted) and would exchange the hyperdrive for help escaping. In this case, the idea of improving the hyperdrive was 100% a player-driven goal. And if they'd pooled their money, or gone on some other adventure to make up what they lacked, they could have just purchased a hyperdrive without any hassle. They also had three different places to find one, and if they had tried to leverage one against the others, they could have possibly gotten the discount without the "quest." 

In the end, they ended up taking on the quest of the first merchant they talked to, who wanted them to salvage an AT-AT walker for spare parts. And of course, there were other interested parties that the PCs had to deal with while doing so. In the end, it was challenging and fun for the players, and they managed, through their own initiative and effort, to get the reward they wanted. 

So please, don't start an adventure -- and definitely don't start the entire campaign -- by forcing the players to go on some boring fetch quest or delivery quest for an NPC in order to "advance the story." Use NPC desires as potential motivators of action, but leave it up to the PCs to follow up on that or not, and make sure that if they do follow up, there is adventure and challenge along the path.

Focus While Designing Games

This is the next post about Richard Rouse's Game Design: Theory & Practice. The first post is here. 

While Rouse is a computer game designer and that's where his book focuses, I find lots of interesting nuggets that can translate to TTRPG design, or at least provide a slightly different frame of reference to consider what we know about RPGs. 

The previous post delved into the major points of Chapter 1, although I skipped most of the meat of the chapter. I'll be doing the same here with Chapter 5. By the way, the book is written so that ever even numbered chapter is either an interview with a noted game designer or a case study of a popular game. So I'm skipping those chapters in this read through. Chapter 3 is about brainstorming ideas for a game, which is something I feel pretty comfortable skipping for the purposes of these posts. So, to get to business: 

Chapter 5 is about focus. What is it, how to achieve it, and how to maintain it through a long development process. Most of the chapter is focused on stuff not really relevant to RPGs, but early in the chapter, Rouse poses some questions that are designed to help foster focus on the game design project. 

While they're intended for use on the overall design of a video game, I think they could be good questions to ask when designing an entire RPG, a campaign world, or just the next adventure. And if you flounder or get stuck on some element, you can go back to your answers to these questions to help you get back on track.

• What is it about this game that is most compelling?
• What is this game trying to accomplish?
• What type of experience will the players have?
• What sort of emotions is the game trying to evoke in the players?
• What should the players take away from the game?
• How is this game unique? What differentiates it from other games?
• What sort of control will the player have over the game-world?

In applying these questions to an RPG, not all of them will be relevant to each level of design. For example, when designing an entire game, you probably don't need to worry about evoking specific emotions. That's something for scenario/adventure design level thinking, IMO. Maybe sometimes at the campaign level to help set a mood (heroic, dark & gritty, gonzo, etc.). The opposite is true of the question of control. That's primarily something to decide at the game design level, thinking about mechanics and how players will interact with the game world. The rules should pretty much answer that question, not individual adventures. 

So don't feel like I'm listing these questions as ones that you MUST answer about your game. Instead, they're more like guidelines. Use them as needed to help you focus on what you're doing -- whether that be game design, campaign creation/world building, or adventure/scenario design.

What Do Players Want in RPGs?

Many years ago, way back in 2016, I read a book on (primarily video) game design called Game Design: Theory & Practice, 2nd Edition by Richard Rouse III. It was a good read, and I had a lot of insight into RPG design and play from it, not only that of computer based games. I even mentioned wanting to blog about it in this post. But with academics, family life, actual gaming, designing Chanbara, and what not, I never got to it. At the time, I only had an ebook copy, but I ordered a hardcopy either last year or the year before. It's been sitting on my shelf waiting for a reread (or for my son, who is getting into coding and thinking of computer game design, to read). 

Then JB at BX Blackrazor wrote this post, in response to Adam of Barking Alien. And the conversation is relevant to another post I've barely started writing in response to Alexis's recent world building posts (which I'm enjoying quite a bit, although I'm a little behind on reading them). 

The question Adam raised was, why world-build when character backstories aren't encouraged? And JB, instead of answering directly, started off by musing on why bother playing D&D at all? And that reminded me of Rouse. So I grabbed my copy off the shelf, and re-read his first chapter, where he talks about what players of (video) games want, and what they expect. Rouse makes the strong assertion that interactivity is what sets games apart from other forms of entertainment, and that computer games have the most interactivity. I disagree. An RPG has much more interactivity than even the most carefully crafted computer offerings. So his points on what players want and expect do seem to have transferability to RPGs.

According to Rouse, players want the following in their games: 

1. Challenge

2. Socializing

3. Dynamic Solitary Experiences

4. Bragging Rights

5. Emotional Experiences

6. To Explore

7. To Fantasize

8. To Interact

He of course elaborates on all of these things. And of course not every player is equally desiring of each of these elements. But if you think about the people in your play group, I bet you can pick out two or three of these that fit each person in your group. 

According to Rouse, players expect the following in their games: 

1. A Consistent World

2. To Understand the Game World's Bounds

3. For Reasonable Solutions to Work

4. Direction

5. To Accomplish Tasks Incrementally

6. Immersion

7. Some Setbacks

8. A Fair Chance

9. Not to Need to Repeat Themselves

10. Not to Get Hopelessly Stuck

11. To Do, Not to Watch

Again, Rouse of course elaborates on these points. Most of them are pretty self-explanatory, I think, but Expectation 4. Direction might need a bit more explanation. Even though most computer games are railroads that take you along a linear story (I recently started replaying Final Fantasy VII on my emulator box, and so much of the beginning is just a linear story without any real choice in where to go or what to do), Rouse isn't saying players expect to be railroaded. 

He means that players expect the goals of the game to be obvious. And players need some clues about how they might achieve those goals. When he talks about the goals of the game, he doesn't mean completing the story. He means playing the game. 

Translated into D&D terms, it doesn't matter if it's a megadungeon, a hexcrawl, the GDQ series, or even the railroady Dragonlance modules. It doesn't matter if the BBEG is a dragon, a lich, a vampire, or the gods themselves. It doesn't matter whether or not there is even a BBEG. That's all window dressing. 

What is the mechanical goal of the game? In D&D, it's (like it or not) gaining levels. Possibly becoming a ruler or even an epic hero or immortal (depending on edition). How do you achieve that goal? Fighting monsters and accumulating treasure. 

This, I think, is why so many players prefer D&D over other game systems. And why it's often easier for DMs to create a satisfying long-term D&D campaign when they struggle in other systems. Some people, like Adam D. have no problem creating satisfying games with other systems. And there are other systems in which the mechanics lead naturally to the in-game story the way D&D's do. But for most people, D&D is just much clearer, EVEN if there isn't a lot of world building done in the campaign (yet). Is there a dungeon full of monsters and challenges and treasure? Great, we can explore it and if successful, gain levels. 

Writing this post has helped me to clear up in my mind exactly why I'm dragging my feet preparing for my next Star Wars d6 game. I'm having fun running the game. The players are having fun playing the campaign. But the mechanical goals of the game (increase your skills) don't necessarily lead to specific in-game fictional goals the way D&D easily does. Should I just focus on combat with the Empire or criminal elements? Should I have exploration or social adventures? How does a desire to improve Technical skills, for example, translate to in-game goals that are challenging and exciting? 

It's not as clear as in D&D. And games like Star Wars or White Wolf's Vampire or what have you require a bit more world building up front than D&D. Granted, well-known IP like Star Wars take some of the heavy lifting from you, but they also come with baggage that may not always suit the style of games you want to run. With D&D, the goal is to get treasure to level up. I'm a Fighter. He's a Thief. She's a Magic-User. They're a Cleric. The dungeon is over there. The treasure is in the dungeon. Let's go!

My Star Wars group include (current and former members): a Camaasi Force Adept seeking knowledge, a Smuggler trying to earn enough to improve his ship, a Mandalorian looking to improve his beskar armor, a Minor Jedi seeking training, a Young Jedi looking for romance (go figure!), a Duros Pilot who likes to instigate trouble, a Failed Jedi seeking redemption, a sentient Battle Droid (not a Separatist model) looking for bigger guns and explosives... No where near as cut and dry as with D&D.

Analyzing Prince Part 2

Today, I want to take a look at the first numbered axiom laid down by Prince of Nothing, in which he enumerates what, to him, makes old school D&D superior to a lot of the stuff being put out under an OSR label but is really more avant-garde than old school (again, according to Prince). 

1. The greatest DnD is neither a slavish imitation of the past nor a wholesale rejection thereof (conscious or unconscious), but a continuation of that old craft, with syncretic improvements from other areas.

I simplified this statement to: 

1. Some parts of D&D can (and sometimes should) be changed, but a core essence of "D&D" must remain.  

I can't disagree with the sentiment in general. My own frankenstein-edition, titled Treasures, Serpents, and Ruins, is very much a Classic D&D base with elements of AD&D, 3E, and even some 5E inspiration in it. And a few things from other OSR games or blogs that I like. 

So yes, I've taken D&D to a place that I think is a continuation of the old craft while incorporating syncretic improvements from other games. 

But MUST it be this way? I mean, it works for me and my players. And every table back in the original days was tinkering with the rules, adding, subtracting or modifying things to suit their own tastes. That's about as "old school" as you can get. 

But the statement as written would actually invalidate some old school play styles. There are people who run things as by-the-book as possible. Sometimes, because of gaps in the rules or because of incoherent explanation or because of different sections of the rules providing different mechanics for the same subsystem, there's no way to be 100% by the book. But there are games that seek to do that. 

Is it wrong to try to run OD&D (or any edition) in a way that follows as closely as possible what is in the books? I don't think so. There's definitely value in that. I've read plenty of blog posts and forum threads over the years where people do just that, and come out of it with a deeper or changed perspective on the rules as they have been presented. Sometimes, it's exactly that which helps people to understand why the rule was that way to begin with. 

Other times, it helps show people why the rules have been changed. In order to understand what we're modifying and changing, I think it's a good thing to have a solid understanding of the rules before they get changed. 

And of course, there is no accounting for taste. Some people like the quick and easy recovery of 4E and 5E. Some people hate Vancian casting. Do I even need to bring up demi-human level limits? 

That's why I modified my version to read "can (and sometimes should)" because I don't necessarily agree that a Frankenstein edition is necessarily the "greatest" form of D&D. I'm constantly tinkering with mine, and never satisfied. How can that be the greatest? 

Obviously, that is simply Prince stating his opinion, one in which I more or less agree with, at least for the first half. 

The second half is of course where things get tricky, and untold gigabytes of blog and forum and G+ posts and YouTube commentary and whatnot have been spent debating just what exactly is the line that demarcates "continuing" the old craft and where have you moved on to "wholesale rejection" of the old ways? 

I don't have the answer to that. Except as it applies to me and my table. 

In my previous post about Prince's 0 Statement, people got into this discussion in the comments. I put forth the proposition that GP = XP is the key tenet of that "old school continuation", and plenty of people whom I respect disagreed. And reading their arguments, I can concede that perhaps it's only one of the tenets of old school play, not the key one. 

So we have here a statement I'm happy to agree with on a surface reading, but the more I think of it, the harder it becomes to give full-fledged support to the idea. I definitely agree that you can "go too far" and make a game not feel like D&D (for example, I feel the Black Hack line of games lose the essence). But what exactly does it? It's like the Supreme Court definition of porn - I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. Or play it, as the case may be. 

And here's the thing -- while I haven't perused all of the ArtPunk scene's offerings, a lot of the things I have seen, like say Ultraviolet Grasslands, still feel very D&D to me. I'd say UVG feels more D&D to me (on a reading, I haven't played it) than Black Hack does. But again, your mileage may vary. And I may be a bit predisposed to like UVG since Luka is a friend and played in my West Marches game back when he lived in Busan a few years ago. Personal biases shape a lot of how we will determine these things. 

So, final thought on this axiom: An idea I can completely understand and sympathize with, but don't fully embrace.

Analyzing Prince Pt 1

Today, I'm wrapping up 2021 by starting my series of posts discussing the points Prince of Nothing brought up on his blog regarding the value/benefit of old school D&D play compared to both newer forms of play and the artpunk movement. And of course, we need to start with his initial statement of why all this even matters:

0. The resurgence and longevity of the oldschool playstyle is no mere happenstance but an indication that there is something fundamental to its merits which modern TTRPGs largely fail to capture.

On its surface, there seems nothing to argue or quibble over. It's an opinion. But, it's worded as a fact, so let's take a deeper look at it and what it means. Or at least my interpretation of it. Feel free to disagree!

Have people continued to play older versions of D&D all the past nearly 50 years? Yes. That's a fact. It can't be denied. And I'm talking about people who started with the old woodgrain box sets of OD&D and still prefer that edition. Sure, they have probably tried other editions of D&D. Probably other RPGs. But they keep returning to OD&D. The same with 1E AD&D and the various box sets of Classic D&D. 

I'm one of the people who tried lots of stuff, still plays other games/versions, but prefers older D&D to newer. And IMO, yes, there's just something to the older editions that resonates with me more than the newer ones. The first question is, what is it?

Personally, I think it's something I've actually seen quite a few people mentioning lately. Old school D&D is focused on treasure. Gold = XP. It's not classes and levels. Not Vancian magi. Not the tropes. For sure not alignment. Gold = XP. That's it.

Gold = XP provides the impetus for GAME PLAY. I was just talking to my son last night about various RPGs. One member of our group wants to run another Black Hack family game this weekend. But in those games, we get leveled up after every X game sessions. Doesn't matter if we're sitting around town chatting with NPCs for 3 hours, or risking our lives in some gods-forsaken hellhole fighting monsters. We'll level up after X number of sessions. So why are we mucking around risking death? We should be sitting around playing cards with Dieter the Town Gambler all session, or hitting on the barmaids/stable boys, or wandering around town just seeing what's there. Do that for enough sessions to level up. THEN maybe go fight some monsters. And just why are we fighting the monsters anyway? Because like Mt. Everest, they're there? There isn't even XP for killing them like there is in 5E! 

XP for treasure gives us a reason to go adventuring. It's a goal everyone shares. And it drives play. THAT is the "something fundamental to its merits" that Prince of Nothing is talking about. Game play always has a default motive for when nothing else is motivating play.

But there's a second question we need to ask. If that quality is so fundamental to old school play, and other games/editions fail to include it, why have the vast majority of gamers moved on to newer editions of D&D and/or other RPGs entirely? 

Well, the answer to that is quite simple. Gold = XP is definitely a merit of old school play. Having a default motive to fall back on is nice. But it's not the only motive of play, and isn't a universal motivator. And for some people, the motive to play is to EXPERIENCE. They want to get into the head of their PC (especially if that PC is very different from themselves). They want to explore strange landscapes and social situations. They want to be taken out of the everyday. That is what the artpunk movement is targeting. I think it's also a big draw of a lot of the indie/storygames crowd. And also a big appeal of games like 5E and Pathfinder, where the number of fantasy races allowed keeps growing and growing and human PCs become the oddity rather than the norm. 

And I'm not saying these are the only two motives of play. I'm sure there are many more. But since Prince posted his list of axioms as a response to the popularity (or at least high sales volume and critical acclaim) of artpunk products in the OSR, that's the only other one I think we need to discuss right now. 

So on this statement of intent, I agree with the opinion being shared, but don't think it is quite as concrete as Prince's wording makes it seem. At least as I read it, there is an unstated "And this is why old school D&D is better."

I'm happier with my boiled down version: 

0. Older D&D has merit as a game.

It's stating the opinion in a way that people can, and will, still disagree with, but it's not implying something lesser about other games or newer editions that don't share the same merits. 

Well, this is interesting

 Prince of Nothing apparently wrote a scathing post trying to destroy the Art-Punk movement, which has been deleted and I missed it. In its place, he sets out 10 (plus a few more) axioms that define non-Art-Punk OSR to him. It's worth taking a look at them and seeing how they can be deconstructed, criticized, modified, or accepted. 

0. The resurgence and longevity of the oldschool playstyle is no mere happenstance but an indication that there is something fundamental to its merits which modern TTRPGs largely fail to capture.
1. The greatest DnD is neither a slavish imitation of the past nor a wholesale rejection thereof (conscious or unconscious), but a continuation of that old craft, with syncretic improvements from other areas.
2. DnD is at its core about the emulation of fantastical adventures and expeditions in the spirit of the Appendix N. Deviation from that spirit is possible but if one strays too far something essential is lost.
3. DnD is, at its core, an Activity. This does not preclude a host of other things (e.g. subject of theoretical discussion, vehicle for creative endaevour, personal hellscape, lucrative side-hustle) but as in all things, Actually Playing the game is its purest expression.
4. Playing good (that is to say, entertaining, challenging, rewarding, fascinating) DnD and making good adventures is primarily a craft, which relies on knowledge and experience, and secondarily a factor of innate ability.
5. DnD is primarily a game to challenge the players. However, great DnD is also about exploration, and so incorporates elements of wonder, horror or whimsy against a versimilitudinous (?) backdrop. It is rooted in the real but contains the fantastic.
6. A good adventure is neither about pure system mastery nor abstract challenge resolution, but incorporates a variety of challenges (lateral, tactical, logistical, social, strategic) which tend to allow a variety of approaches. The answer is not always on your character sheet.
7. DnD play-skill grows as characters gain in levels and good adventure takes that growth into consideration. A level 20 wizard played by a new player is not the same as one that has incorporated every spell and magic item into his routine and knows how to use them.
8. DnD is at its finest when it is open-ended and allows for player decision-making; Maps, Sandboxes, Strategic options, side-quests, factions to ally with etc. etc.
9. DnD is more about mastering your environment then character building. You take what is given and put it to use. This does not preclude logistical challenges.
10. Standard practice is standard for a reason. It is possible to break with procedure, but consider the change in terms of trade-offs, not as the fruits of your brilliant auteur imparting his wisdom on DnD.
11. Art, Layout and Aesthethic Shall Be in Service to the craft of adventure writing, not an end unto itself.
12. DnD is a pasttime and place of solace from the evils of the world. Woe unto him who brings politics unto the gaming table, or by gaming seeks to further his political end.

If I were to try to boil these down to their essences (as I interpret them, of course, YMMV), I'd restate them thusly: 

0. Older D&D has merit as a game.

1. Some parts of D&D can (and sometimes should) be changed, but a core essence of "D&D" must remain.

2.  D&D works best for pulpy style adventure. It can do other genres but it is at its best pulpy.

3. Talk all you want about the game, but it's only relevant when we PLAY.

4. Good play requires players and DMs to develop skill over time.

5. Without challenge, there is no game.

6. A well-run game has a variety of challenges, some within the game system, others independent of it.

7. The game's challenges needs to to evolve with increasing player skill.

8. Without freedom of choice and consequences for those choices, there is no game.

9. Your character is a tool for interaction with the game world.

10. With great power to change the game comes great responsibility to keep to Axiom #1.

11. Providing good content is more important than surface presentation of that content.

12. Keep your politics out of my game.

Hmm, lots to think about. I definitely agree with some of these points, disagree with others, and have caveats about some as well. Looks like good fodder for a series of posts!

The Death of "The Big Model" (GNS)

The Forge, Ron Edwards' rpg game theory website, is no longer the powerhouse it once was. Early in the days of the internet, so much indie game design was influenced by this website. Probably still is, even though it shut down its forums nearly a decade ago. I know I still use lingo derived from The Forge when discussing game theory stuff simply because the one really good thing they did was set down a list of definitions that were clear and concise to discuss various aspects of role playing games. 

GNS, and later the Big Model, though, was supposedly Edwards' crowning achievement. A theory of game design that posited the idea that all RPGs are composed of a combination of three modes of play: gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. Or, people make games to game the system, or to create a story, or to run an imaginary world. 

But that never sat right with me. Partly, I think, because Edwards believed (still believes? I'm not in contact with him anymore after the destruction of Alderaan...I mean G+) that good game design focused on only one of these three modalities and sought to deliver a game focused only on that modality. 

Enter Alexis Smolensk and his elephant. The linked post didn't receive any feedback directly in the form of comments, but Alexis makes the same argument in this post that I have made against GNS. A good RPG doesn't seek to cater exclusively to gamists or narrativists or simulationists. It needs all of them to be a good game. Hell, I didn't need Alexis to figure that out. But what Alexis does in the post is set out what some of the real modalities of play (creative agendas in Edwardsian/Forge lingo) are. 

Escapism (distraction in Alexis' post)

Performance 

Exploration and Discovery

Problem Solving

I can add a few more, things like Immersion (related to escapism, but not the same), Wish Fulfillment, Camaraderie, and again I'm sure there are more. These are things players are looking for in a game.

Edwards wanted a tight little 3-part model. He also erroneously linked players' creative agendas with designers' agendas. They are not and should not be the same. Edwards' three agendas may or may not be pertinent creative agendas for game designers, but they really fall short when trying to classify reasons people play RPGs. 

 A well designed game should be an elephant. Different parts of the game should cater to different agendas, but all should be part of the whole. And as a designer, myopically focusing on only one modality of play really limits the design.

Oh, and Alexis at the end turns his post to his kickstarter menu project, which again I'd urge you to support. I'd like to see it succeed. He only needs about $700 (US) to fund it.

Not Mother-May-I: How to use rulings in RPGs

This post is related to several recent posts by Alexis over at Tao of D&D. Like him or not, he's a smart guy and I think he's been posting some quality content recently (not ONLY recently, but I've really liked his stuff of late). 

In old school D&D circles (including but not limited to the OSR), you often hear one of the things that sets old school play apart from new school play is the fact that the old school game doesn't try to anticipate every eventuality, which requires DMs to improvise and make rulings. New school games try to be comprehensive in their coverage, often by providing a universal mechanic for actions. To be fair, though, there are quite a few older games that have universal mechanics. I've been playing WEG d6 Star Wars, definitely an old school game, and it has a universal die pool mechanic. But even then, reading through the 1st edition reprint I bought a while back, there are a LOT of holes in the rules that aren't covered. The referee has leeway to make calls. 

Anyway, that argument about what is old school or new school is beside the point. We're here to talk about rulings in the game, not what makes something old school or new school (today at least). 

Why the emphasis on rulings in old school play? Well, as far as I can figure it, it comes from Matt Finch's Old School Primer. It's the title of the first of his four Zen moments. He may have gotten the phrase from somewhere else, but it's likely the Primer that made it famous. 

In the Primer, the section talks about how description should trump die rolls and common sense should trump dedicated game mechanics. I don't have a problem with that. It's advice I would generally follow, except for the fact that where the rules stipulate die rolls for game purposes, that should trump "common sense." What do I mean by that? Well, there are examples in the Primer of things like having players ask questions, get detailed descriptions, and use those descriptions to disarm traps or find secret doors or things like that. I think that's great. But if we're playing old school D&D, we DO have definite mechanics defined by the rules for these things. If players can, through smart use of description and questions/answers about the state of the game world, discover a secret door or trap or hidden treasure, or can sweet talk the guard to let them talk to the prisoner or get into the Duke's Ball without an invitation, that's fine. But if their description falls short, we have the die roll prescribed by the rules to see if they stumble upon the right answer despite the players' descriptions falling short. 

I don't think that's a controversial position, but I have seen many times people on blogs, on Google+ back when that was a thing, on message boards (which I rarely frequent these past 10 years or so), or other online places talking about "rulings not rules" in a different way. These people seem to think that rulings should trump the rules. There's "the rule of cool" and the various improv theater derived "say yes" rules: "say yes, and", "say yes, but" or "say yes or roll the dice" that all seem to be coming from a desire to improve the game, but in my opinion, may ruin it. 

The rule of cool says that if players want to do something cool and awesome like in a movie or video game, let them. The various say yes rules tell the referee to never deny players anything, unless the dice determine it so. You can't deny them, only give limitations through "and" or "but" statements.

Newer versions of D&D (since 3E) try to cover as many situations as possible, in as much detail as possible. And players of those games have been, in my experience, the ones decrying a game based on rulings not rules as mother-may-I. I think they're not quite accurate in their claims, but they do have a valid point. If there's a rule in the book that covers something, why is there a need for an arbitrary ruling?

Honestly, there have been some times in a game where players have such an interesting (or funny, or ridiculous) plan that I just go ahead and say sure, you can do that (rule of cool). But not every time. Maybe I'm inconsistent. Maybe that is me playing mother-may-I with them. I'm trying to be better. More consistent.

Here are how I think rulings should be used during a game, and how "rulings not rules" should really be interpreted to avoid mother-may-I situations.

First of all, the DM needs to know the rules well enough. They don't need to have everything memorized (although that's the ideal), but they need to know the basics and be familiar with the less often used rules. Once that condition is satisfied, there are four situations that may come up which require a ruling:

1. When a situation arises in game in which clever play by the players would circumvent the need for a roll, then the DM can make a call that that action succeeds without a roll. That's the first kind of ruling, and the thing Finch was talking about in the Primer. 

2. When a situation arises in game and the DM has forgotten the rule, and they know it will take time to look up the actual rule, then they should make a ruling in that instance to keep the game moving. If the rule is something they can easily find in the rules (a spell description for example) then they should NOT make a ruling, they should look up the proper rule. It only takes a short time and shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game. After the game, the DM should look up the rule and get to know it better.

3. When a situation arises in game that is definitely not covered by the game's rules, the DM in this instance must make a ruling. In this case, it is a good idea to record the ruling, and pending consideration by the DM, and possibly consultation with the players, it should then become the new rule for that situation in the future.

4. When there is a dispute among players (including the DM) about the interpretation or implementation of a rule in the game, then the DM needs to make a ruling as to how it will be interpreted in their game. Again, the DM may wish to consult with the players for their opinions, but as with any ruling, the DM gets the final say. Again, this should be recorded and kept for reference in the future. 

In any other situation, the onus is on the DM to know the rules and implement them fairly. Arbitrary judgments that aren't recorded to set precedents for future games are exactly the sort of thing those players were afraid of when they said "rulings not rules" is just mother-may-I.

New Reading Material

 Got a package from Amazon yesterday. 

Reading up on game design theory, motivation, and role play game history to build up some background knowledge to start some studies on language learning through RPGs. Hoping to get a group of my students to try out some RPGs, which I can monitor and interview them about, and write up some case studies and action research papers. 

So this is a research expense.  And they should just be interesting to read on their own.

Some days (most days) I really love my job.

Does it make the game more fun?

 As a DM, especially one who likes to toy with the game and make it my own, I constantly ask myself this question. If I'm going to add a new class or race, switch from race-as-class to race-and-class (or back again), if I'm going to reskin everything to make it feel like Asian fantasy or Star Wars or whatever, even if I'm just adding in some new monsters, the question that's always on my mind is:

Does this make the game more fun? 

And the question has more than one answer. Who's fun will the change enhance? Whose will it detract from?

In my current state of Treasures, Serpents and Ruins, I added Dragonborn and Changelings (Tiefling/Aasimar) because I started my West Marches game in 5E and those races were popular with my players. I'm not overly fond of either one, but removing them would make the game less fun for my players. So I made simple 1E/BX/BECMI style versions of those races.

Yesterday, a new player came to my game. She thought she'd play a Druid. But the stats she rolled didn't have a high enough Con score (a requirement for Druids in my game). In order to let her have her character which she would have fun playing, I let her change the score to the minimum needed. Problem solved, she had a great time.

The switch from 5E back to Classic (with heavy house ruling) was necessary for ME to have more fun with the game. Yeah, I lost a few players. But the ones that stuck around, and the new players that joined, are having a blast. And I am, too. I'm a lot more confident running the game, and prep for the game is much easier as well.

If a change to the rules, the systems, or the procedures of gaming make the game more fun for one or more participants, and don't significantly reduce the fun for other participants, then that's a good change to make. Even if it doesn't enhance the fun, if it makes things easier for some participants without reducing anyone else's fun, it's probably a good change.

Yes, "fun" is subjective, impossible to quantify and define in a satisfying manner. Yes, what seems fun now may seem less fun in the future. If the "fun" is decreasing over time, that 's just a sign to either go back to the way it was before, or else try something new again.

If you're thinking of making changes to your game, of course you should ask yourself "Is this necessary?"  If the answer is yes, keep going. But don't give up on the idea just because the answer is no. Also ask yourself next if it makes the game more fun. Only if the answer to both is no should you abandon the idea.

Beyond the Secret Door - Rolling Protocols

So I've been in a drawn out conversation with Alexis of The Tao about whether or not all DM rolls should be in the open or not. The most recent exchange in the comments of my previous post.

One of the original examples I gave of why sometimes it's better for the game to keep some rolls secret is in the case of secret doors in an old school game.

The way I see it, there's a better choice analysis/trade off in old school D&D. Searching takes time, 1 Turn per 10' searched. And every Turn (or two Turns, depending on the rules used) the DM makes a wandering monster check. So every time players make a choice to search an area for secret doors is them gambling on facing the next low payoff random encounter.

Random encounters provide some monster XP, but rarely have any treasure worth scooping up. And they risk losing hit points, spells, flasks of oil, potions, magic item charges, etc. to deal with.

So that's the situation. Players suspect an area might (or even must) have a secret door. Do they want to spend time searching for it, possibly failing, and risk more wandering monsters? Or do they want to just move on to the next area? If they can see the results of the search roll (d20+ style player Perception skill rolls, or old school style DM rolls made in the open) they have less uncertainty. If they roll well but find nothing, the question is answered. If they roll poorly, they are in the dark. By keeping the roll secret, the players are always in the dark if no door is found, and the choice remains on the table.

Alexis pointed out that the DM rolling in secret was functionally identical to the DM rolling in advance to see if the secret door would even be found. And if so, why wouldn't the DM save themselves some effort and roll in advance, and if negative, not even draw/stock/create the contents beyond the door?

Now, I have been formulating ideas in my head for the greater question - should some rolls be kept secret from the players? But Alexis wanted this specific question addressed. And when he repeated the question in the comments yesterday, he actually gave me the answer I was looking for.

He further specified a situation in which a dungeon would be visited once and then forgotten (like in a lot of modern adventure path gaming). And I have to say, in that specific situation, he's not wrong.

For example, back in October/November of 2007 (or maybe it was 2006, after I got married but before my first son was born and we were still living in Japan, pretty sure it was 2007 though), I intended to run Ravenloft as a one-shot. It turned into a 3 or 4 shot. Before running it, to speed things along, I made a time chart and rolled all the random encounters and their reaction rolls in advance. Partly this was because according to the module, at certain times, Strahd will be aware of the PCs and attack or send minions to attack. But I also wanted to just save a bit of time in the session.

This resulted in a few interesting encounters. For one, I'd rolled spectres, but friendly reactions! And when that encounter came up, the party were resting for the night in the chapel (which they incorrectly thought was still hallowed ground and safe). Thinking on the spot, it's the chapel, the middle of the night, spectres, but not hostile. It was a ghostly Black Mass being celebrated. Creeped the players out, built up the proper Gothic mood, but also allowed them to avoid what could have been an adventure ending encounter if it had devolved into combat.

I mention that to point out that I'm not against the idea of the DM making some rolls in advance. There's a time and place for that.

But back to the secret door thing. In my answer to Alexis, I pointed out to him that in my current West Marches campaign (actually also true for my play-by-post megadungeon game on RPOL), players often decide to return to partially explored dungeons. And as players come and go, and characters die and get replaced, it's not always the same party exploring.

In a game like mine, players knowing there definitely ISN'T a secret door at a certain location becomes a form of metagaming. But if the players themselves aren't sure, then their characters are also unsure. And they remain with the trade-off of searching for the secret door and risking wandering monsters, or not.

Now, it should go without saying that whatever is behind the door shouldn't be vital to the success or failure of the adventure. If the only way to get to the BBEG or rescue the prisoners or escape the fiendish Bond villain deathtrap is to find the secret door, don't roll. If the players search, they find it.

But if the secret door is just a shortcut from A to B, or has some extra loot or nonessential but helpful clues or strangeness that would just make for a cool moment, whether they find the door or not is irrelevant. It's an Easter Egg. In that case, why should the roll be in the open? Perceived fairness of the DM is the only reason why someone would argue that it should.

I'd argue that DM fairness will be known by other things than by whether the results of some rolls are kept secret or not.

Gaming the System and New Editions

I read this article today. It starts out with a dude gaming the system in Jeopardy, and moves on to the general implications of gaming systems. It was nothing really new, but interesting nonetheless. Especially how it matches up with D&D in particular but RPGs in general, and the desire to push out new editions every few years to "clean up the system" (and make more money).

Spells in D&D are a prime example of this, as they're one of the easiest ways for players to think up creative uses to solve problems laterally. OD&D spells were so vaguely defined that DMs and players had a lot of latitude. And players would discover that certain spells allowed "exploits" in encounters. Some exploits later became codified in the rules. Casting light or darkness at a creature's eyes blinds them being explicitly allowed in BECMI, is an example of this in practice.

Others were seen as a problem and got nerfed. Haste originally only sped up movement rates (apparently) but then in later editions also gave more attacks. But since this was seen as too powerful, in AD&D it caused a penalty every time it was cast (aging the recipients). Although later, in 3E, the penalty was removed. In 5E, a weaker penalty (exhaustion) was put into it.

Sleep is another example. In OD&D/Classic, it affects a certain number of hit dice of creatures, no saving throw. In AD&D, if affects a variable number of creatures by their hit dice (on average less than in OD&D/Classic), but still no saving throw. 3E returns it to a set roll for hit dice affected, but lowers the roll (from 2d8 to 2d4) AND it gives them a saving throw when they're first affected. In 5E, the spell affects a certain number of hit points of creatures (and with the inflation of hit points in this edition, this severely reduces the number of creatures affected), and gives them a saving throw each round! Sleep is the go-to spell in Classic D&D. It's the "get out of this encounter free" spell. In 5E, they made the spell so weak it's not even worth considering. Might as well just crank out another damage dealing cantrip...

I digress with this discussion of spells, though. They make a good example of how the people in charge of shaping each edition try to use it to eliminate the "loopholes" and "exploits" that, like the linked article above talks about, are technically allowed by the rules, but seem to be "unfair" to players when they see them used.

But players trying to exploit the system, in some senses, is actually a form of good play. Sure, the CoDzilla and Pun-Pun of 3E were examples of bad exploitation. I'm sure 5E has its own (although they explicitly took steps to try and limit this). Not all exploits are created equal, though. I think what determines the perception of the exploit is heavily dependent on what's seen as the goal of play.

If exploration is viewed as the main purpose of the game, and treasure acquired is the measure of success (old school style), then any exploit that is used to avoid a risky combat (a sleep spell, grabbing treasure then teleporting away, a save-or-die spell that takes out the dragon in one round) is a good thing! It's only when combat is prioritized, and "fair" combat is considered to be the hit point slog-fest (like 5E does) that these exploits are seen as unfair.

One last point: companies putting out new editions of their games every however many years is also a sort of exploit. They claim to be fixing the system to remove these loopholes and end the unfair exploits. But there are always loopholes and unfair exploits. They type just changes. The companies are exploiting our desires for "shiny and new" and our fears of being left out of the group to keep their profits rolling in. Not blaming them. They need to keep making money if they want to stay in business. Just something we should keep reminding ourselves of when the splatbooks hit the fan.

Game Theory: Dice Complicate Things

This is a follow up post to this discussion of why some rolls should remain secret from the players, and this brief summary of information states in Game Theory.

Again, I'm far from an expert in Game Theory. If I make some mistakes, forgive me. The following is based on my understanding of the theory.

Game Theory uses mathematical models to explain, and hopefully predict, human decision making. It sets up scenarios and tries to use logic, modeling of all permutations, and probability to create these models, and many of the models show optimal game states called equilibria. A state of game equilibrium is the optimal moves for one or both players in the game.

As mentioned in the post on information in games, sometimes one or both players have imperfect or incomplete information about the game state, and so a Call to Nature (or assigning probabilities of any possible move happening) is made.

Now, Game Theory isn't designed to predict outcomes of things like common games. It's really about creating hypothetical situations to model real world decisions. So from what I've read, the Call to Nature is used as infrequently as possible. It's possible, though, if I keep studying GT, that more advanced models do include constant randomness in the game model. If so, I haven't gotten there yet.

Rolling dice is a Call to Nature. But in a GT model, it's a theoretical position discussing the possible outcomes or permutations of the model based on the probabilities assigned.

In an RPG, the dice are a Call to Nature, but they also are also an unknown. Until the dice are rolled, we can know the probability of a result, but no player or game master knows what the outcome will be until the dice are rolled.

In a pure diceless story-game, there are no Calls to Nature. Players can enjoy a state of perfect information. Every move made by every player is in the open.

In an RPG involving random number generation (by dice, card, or what have you), the game state may be perfect if the game master has no secret information that the players do not. Usually, though, the GM will know some things about the game state that the players don't, resulting in an Asymmetric state of information.

The dice, though, are the great equalizer. Players and GMs alike are in a state of Imperfect information. In a way, the dice could be thought of as a player in the game as well as the GM and players. And no one knows what moves the Call to Nature Player will make. You can't predict their strategy (unless you game with loaded dice). You can know the probability of any particular throw, but the result will always be a surprise.

How this affects things, and why keeping some of these throws secret will have to wait for another post, though. I'm out of time.

Information in Game Theory

This is the first post in a series responding to Alexis's comments on my Secret Roll post. I don't have time to write up a full reply today, so I'll just get this out there as a grounding for my thoughts.

Let me also preface this by saying I'm nowhere near an expert in Game Theory. I've done some light reading on the subject. My notes here come from reviewing Rosenthal's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Game Theory (2011).

There are four basic states of information in Game Theory: perfect, imperfect, incomplete, and asymmetric.

Perfect Information: all players are aware of all moves made by all other players up to that point of the game. For example, in chess, you can see the board, all the pieces, and every move you have made and every move the opponent has made is done openly.

Imperfect Information: One or more players know the possible moves that could be made, but don't know the exact move that has been made until after they make their move. Rock-Paper-Scissors is an example. You know what move you will make. You know possible moves your opponent may make. You won't know the outcome until the moves have been made already.

Incomplete Information: One or more players has imperfect information and also cannot be sure what sort of player they are up against, what strategies they favor, or the value the other player(s) place on outcomes. Poker is a good example of this, as a good poker player will try to hide their preferred strategies to more effectively bluff.

Asymmetric Information: One player has perfect information while the other player(s) has incomplete information. This sounds to me a lot like the typical DM/player distinction.

Rosenthal suggests that imperfect information games are the most interesting theoretically. "[T]he truly interesting games involving human interaction are games of imperfect information" (p. 84). However, game theorists can turn games of incomplete/asymmetric information into games of imperfect information by using a "call to Nature" or assigning a probability to each possible unknown move or unknown strategy choice in these situations.

It seems like Alexis is saying D&D works best when it's an imperfect information game. Players know the moves that they and the DM have made, but don't know the outcome until the dice are rolled. But once they are rolled, we're in a situation of perfect information until the dice need to be rolled again.

What I'm suggesting is that occasionally, incomplete or asymmetric information situations, where the player is forced to make a Call to Nature to determine the best strategy, can be a good thing.

More later.

Rosenthal, E.C. (2011). The complete idiot's guide to game theory: The fascinating math behind decision-making. New York: Alpha Books.