The abstract vs realism quadrants

After pondering on abstract, simulationist and realism I came up with the following diagram that groups the abstract and the concrete, the real and the unrealistic and present rules, simulations and storytelling processes  as means to move around it.

The area is split into four quadrants. On the X axis we have the abstract vs the concrete. Moving along that line to the left we get more vague and less detailed concepts being communicated on the tabletop and more detailed (less abstract) ones being communicated as we move to the right. On the Y axis we have realism, more realism up, less realism down. By realism I mean plausibility, not if the event can occur in 21st century Earth, but rather if within the context of the game the event seems "right", if the outcome of an action seems coherent with player expectations and is "intuitive". It also has to do with how fluid the game feels, we don't live life in "stop motion", to us life is fluid and continuous. A game that is more fluid and stops less to check things imply feels more realistic than a choppy one in which game mechanics resolution consumes a great deal of the time.

"Simulationist" on this graph is not a position, but a means to go from the abstract to the concrete. It is a process that fills in detail lost by the abstraction process. This can also be achieved by another process called storytelling. Simulationist is a process to fill in detail by which rules and dice mechanics come into play to "unbias" the GM or player by injecting randomness and binding things to certain constraints.  How well crafted these dice mechanics and rules are made influence in the player experience. The storytelling process on the other hand is less bound to randomness and so players and GMs may fall into certain habits and be biased, the are also less bound to certain constraints and free to improvise on the detail. This in turn can create uncertainty with the players and be counter intuitive. The GM may pull out some unexpected  outcome and break "realism".

It is important to note that neither "simulationist" nor "storytelling" add realism to a game, they add detail. If the detail added seems unreal, out of place or causes a choppy flow of the game it is not making the game more real, it is simply making the player experiences more detailed.

There are two types of concrete to consider. The one graphed on the diagram is concrete is the communication between the players. Inside the player's mind the process of going from the abstract to the concrete continues, as a player you begin to fill in more and more detail to recreate the event in your mind. For example an abstract statement from the GM like "The goblin swings at you and does 5 points of damage" will be reconstructed in your mind to a vision of the goblin sword your character's shield and armor, the place, the movements, swings, etc. A more concrete statement from the GM will give you less leeway as to what your mind can do, it narrows down your options as you reconstruct the scene in your mind. Less detail on the graph (games on the left) means more imagination leeway for you, more detail on the graph (games on the right) means less imagination leeway.

Up and down on the graph has to do with how well the communication process facilitates this reconstruction in the players mind. If the communication process begins to fall into the unreal area it will begin to cause issues with the player's reconstruction process. "Glitches" in this communication may make it less intuitive for the player to create a convincing reconstruction based on what's been communicated. For example a character attacks and hits the goblin, but then suddenly falls victim to an unexpected attack of opportunity. Although it all falls well within the rules the game, the player will be building this image of the attack in his o her mind and suddenly the attack of opportunity comes along and the player goes "hey what was that?". The attack is an unexpected and counter intuitive event that sets the player's mind off balance. It hinders the abstract con concrete process that goes in our minds when we are communicating.

This takes me to ask what is a good game and what is a bad game? There's a lot of opinions on this and some will comment that there is no such thing as an objectively better or good game. I do disagree with that. Independent of genre, simulationist or not, there are game properties held by some which make them better than others, that is objectively better. I believe a good measure of a game is how well the rules create a communication process between players which in turn facilitate the recreation process in the recipient's mind. Games on the bottom of the graph, quadrants 3 & 4 are not as good as games on quadrants 1 & 2. Those on quadrants 1 & 2 offer the same level of detail than their lower quadrant counterparts, but facilitate the reconstruction process by lacking inconsistencies that may hinder the player's mind from working up more detail. It doesn't matter if the rules offer more or less detail, in the minds of the players the abstraction of the game is reconstituted into a concrete experience much faster and easier with those above the X axis than those below the X axis.

Thoughts?

The Druid, are we playing it right?

Do you play the nature loving tree hugging druid or the representative of nature? A force that's neutral in a way very distinct from the center point between law and chaos, good and evil.

My recent research into Mesoamerican prehispanic cultures has got me rethinking the druid. The Aztec and Mayan gods were beings of good and evil as seen through our western eyes, but to them they were just representations of the different aspects of nature. The same gods that created also destroyed. Creatures with habits we would now relate to daemons lived in places known as paradises. They guided the sun through the skies and took fallen soldiers to heaven, as the Valkyries did, but they also came and devoured men on less fortunate days. These deities demanded tribute, sacrifices, sometimes food and items, sometimes animals and in some cases humans.

Unlike the many "codices" that remain from the conquest, the druids leave little record of their habits.

Julius Caesar, who led the first Roman landing in 55 B.C., said the native Celts "believe that the gods delight in the slaughter of prisoners and criminals, and when the supply of captives runs short, they sacrifice even the innocent." (1)
Doesn't seem too different from what the Aztecs did. Except there is written record of such activities like the image to the right shows (Codex Magliabechiano). So if the priests, these so called druids, behaved much like the Aztec priests. Shouldn't we consider that their gods, the Celtic gods, behaved in much the same way?

Itza (the prehispanic RPG I'm making) has turned out to be a rather brutal setting were blood is the currency of the land and war is the purpose of all men. I'm beginning to see the red below all that green, and I must say I like it. I think I'll be changing the way I play my druids and their gods. A more brutal type of druid that represents the true aspects of nature. One that sees life and death as part of a wheel that spins and spins, forgiving no one.


Reference

1 - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid

Image source

http://theskyrimblog.ning.com/group/character-building/forum/topics/character-build-druid

Building my character's bow - Part 3 Combat

This article has been a long time in the making, but finally I can get around to show the new bow rules in Imperium & Maleficium (I&M). In my two previous articles The Range and The Damage I went over the design of the mechanics and weapon models. The idea behind such a rule restructure is to create distinctive bows depending on character attributes without adding extra rules and complexity to the game. I&M already has a fatigue system which will be leveraged to provide a distinctive rate of fire for each character based on their constitution. Instead of one or two attacks per round, characters get a number of attacks equal to their dexterity / 2. Attacks can be converted to parries and dodges in case of hand to hand combat, but at long range there's no risk of a sword swing, so all actions go into putting arrows in the air and stopping the enemy before it gets too close.


Meet our heroes. To the left the mounted archer. Of medium build the mounted archer is fast on his horse. Leading his mount with his knees he has both hands free to fire at his targets. He will approach the enemies, discharge as many arrows as possible and ride away.

To the right, the English longbowman. A lifelong training has produced one of the most powerful and feared bowmen of all times. Using a very heavy longbow the Englishman is able to deliver very heavy and deadly arrows to his enemies. His bow is strong enough to propel arrows through the heaviest of armors.

Last but not least, to the left the rogue. A woman of great agility, but low strength. Her skills are stealth and surprise is the key to her success. She's not very strong, but her agility allows for quick reflexes, good aim and a rapid rate of fire.


Each character has different strengths and weaknesses and faces different opponents. It makes sense for them to have different weapons. As a player you want to leverage the strong points of your character and find a niche were your character is most effective. To do so you need specially designed bows for each type of character and a set of rules that help you make the best of this during gameplay.

The mounted archer carries a composite bow, small and strong it allows him to lead the horse and fire at the same time. The Englishman uses a longbow, one taller than himself and with enormous pull. It requires all of his strength to fire, but delivers the deadliest shots. The rogue, not favored with strength must use her dexterity to her advantage in combat.

Let us give them attributes to work with (remember dexterity / 2 = number of attacks ):

Mounted archer
strength : 14
constitution : 15
dexterity : 13

With this dexterity the mounted archer can put up to 6 arrows in the air during a round. His strength isn't very high and his targets are usually not heavily armored. A lighter bow with heavy arrows would fit him well.

English longbowman
strength : 17
constitution : 14
dexterity : 13

The Englishman can put 6 arrows in the air during a round. Given his strength it is convenient to have the highest pull possible, thus the usage of the longbow. His constitution is high, but the workload of pulling that bow is also elevated. It is possible he will fatigue before the max amount of arrows deliverable by his dexterity.

Rogue
strength : 13
constitution : 15
dexterity : 17

The rogue is quicker than all the rest, her dexterity grants her up to 8 arrows per round, but her strength only allows her the usage of bows of lesser pull. She'll gamble on aim and rate of fire. She won't be able to take armored targets, but that's not what she usually comes upon, and if she does she can pull a called shot to the head and take the target out quietly.


Now lets look at the weapons. Three heroes, three bows. One for the strong Englishman, one for the riding archer and one for the stealthy rogue.

The table below shows the bow pull vs strength as well as the damage at different ranges. To the right is the DynE value, an indicator of how fast a character will fatigue when using this weapon.

The Englishman with his 17 STR can take the heaviest bow with the 600 grain arrow. He will have 5 ranges, from 30 yrds to 200 yrds. Given the high DynE value he will be able to let off two arrows at best given his constitution of 14. If he required a faster rate of fire he can take a lighter 400 grain flight arrow and fire up to 3 times per round. Either arrow does formidable damage and the heavy 600 grain arrow can punch 2d10 HP of damage at 30 yards. Enough to break through plate armor.

The mounted archer lacks the strength of the Englishman and is limited to a 300 grain heavy arrow. The benefit is that the bow is much lighter with a DynE of 10 instead of 16 for the Englishman's long bow. This grants him the ability to shoot all six arrows in a round and since his targets are not as armored, the 2d6 damage of such arrows is enough to kill an opponent. He has forfeit bow damage and range for a considerable increase in fire rate.

Finally the rogue, with her low strength must concentrate on fire rate. She selects the light 150 flight arrow with a DynE of 7. Less than half the energy cost of the Englishman's longbow, this bow gives her an impressive rate of fire of 8 arrows per round. She can only fire effectively up to 60 yrds, but she doesn't need more. Her precision added to the flight arrow's +2 and +1 at such ranges (see range modifiers below) make her a deadly marksman. There are high odds she'll get a head shot with such precision and if she misses she still has 7 more shots in that round. Her damage is small 2d4, but enough to take out the lightly armored targets she meets in the city.

STR		Human 32” arrow shaft
light arrow	heavy arrow	Arrow Weight (grains)	30yds	60 yds	100yds	150yds	200yds	DynE
9-13	9-12	150	2d4+1	2d4				7
14	13	200	2d6	2d6-1	2d6-2			8
15	14	300	2d6+1	2d6	2d6-1			10
16-17	15	400	2d8	2d8-1	2d8-2	2d8-3		12
18	16	500	2d8+1	2d8	2d8-1	2d8-2		14
19	17	600	2d10	2d10-1	2d10-2	2d10-3	2d10-4	16
20	18	700	2d10+1	2d10	2d10-1	2d10-2	2d10-3	18
	19	800	2d12	2d12-1	2d12-2	2d12-3	2d12-4	20

Range modifiers
	30yds	60 yds	100yds	150yds	200yds
light arrow	2	1	0	0	0
heavy arrow	0	-1	-2	-3	-4
clearance	direct	10 feet	30 feet +	30 feet +	30 feet +

The weapons, ranges, damage and attacks are:

		Human 32” arrow shaft
		Arrow Weight (grains)	30yds	60 yds	100yds	150yds	200yds	Attacks
	Rogue	150	2d4+1	2d4				8
	Mounted Archer	300	2d6+1	2d6	2d6-1			6
	Englishman Flight Arrow	400	2d8	2d8-1	2d8-2	2d8-3		4
	Englishman Heavy Arrow	600	2d10	2d10-1	2d10-2	2d10-3	2d10-4	2

The rogue as a fast and precise weapon with a +2 and +1 modifiers at 30 and 60 yrds. She does little damage, but fires very quickly.

The mounted archer also has a lower firing rate, but has a little more damage and can reach up to 100yds.

The Englishman has the heaviest bow. He can reach up to 200 yrds and attacks at short ranges are deadly even to armored knights. He can switch to a lighter, less damaging bow that gives him two more attacks at the cost of less damage and the extended 200 yrd range.

The rules provide weapons consistent with each character's attributes and gives you the player a way to differentiate your character from other party members. Thus creating a more personalized an unique gaming experience.


Images

http://www.esmondknight.org.uk/thearcherstale.htm
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1497479424/nm3080419
http://www.alinacostumes.com/gallery1.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Longbow
http://petitecreme.blogspot.mx/2013/02/bow-and-arrow-designs.html

The abstraction horizon, a point of no return for simulationists d20?

At what point does abstract become simulationist? What distinguishes something simulationist from something abstract? More so, given the core CPU in a tabletop RPGs is our brain and it's quite slow compared to a computer, can we call an RPG simulationist when compared to a video game? Compared to those, any tabletop RPG feels pretty darn abstract!

Abstract and simulationist games are usually placed on opposite sides of the scale, but do they belong there? Is abstract the opposite of simulationist? I believe it isn't. In this blog post I will defend the idea that rules light and rules heavy games can be product of the same abstraction level,. That the quest for more detail adds rule complexity, but not necessarily less abstraction and more realism. That "simulationist" games, if there is such a thing in tabletop RPG, can be attained with equivalent abstraction, but using a better crafted model.

Lets take a look at the following statement :

"Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose." (1)

By this statement all tabletop RPGs are abstract. Some do put more math into play, but there's a limit to this given the computational power of our brain as compared to a computer. Particularly since this is meant to be a hobby and not work.

Now lets take a look at the following statement:

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication. (2)

What's important to point out here is that both communicator and the recipient must have an "intuitive or common experience" for effective abstract communication. That means that either the abstraction is such that both intuitively interpret it the same or both know the "rules" of the abstraction so well there is no ambiguity in their interpretation (common experience).

Abstraction requires a certain amount of common understanding among players of what is being abstracted. That way the communicator and the recipients can fill in the gaps left by the abstraction process. That is, players fill in the details of the gaps left by the rules (aka abstraction process). Theoretically the larger the rules the less gaps the players should have to fill in.

Considering this, "simulationist" is commonly seen as the product of a process where we begin to fill more and more "information" or "detail" in a game, so less is left in the player's hands. We begin to call it a "simulationst" game one in which there are rules to arrive at greater detail. For example having 10 hit points and taking 4 in an attack is considered "abstract". While taking 4 hit points piercing damage to the head causing an arm wound is "simulationist". As simulationist players we seek to add more detail into a game when once there was a greater lack of it. There's a border, a horizon, after which we begin to call something simulationist. But what is this? The amount of detail or the amount of time required to resolve such detail? It certainly isn't realism as many games have lots of detail which aren't very real. For example the way bows and arrows work in D&D, which seem "real", but are very distant from real bows and arrows work.

Our brains are awfully slow compared to computers in regards to the amount of detail we can mathematically resolve. So we're limited in detail if we're looking for "fun" in a game. Unless you define "fun" as doing a hundred triple integrals to figure out if a sword hits or not. This sets an implicit and quite subjective limit to what players are willing to put up with in the name of fun.

Yet in this struggle between abstract and simulationist we fail to ask a key question about the model (the way something is represented, the "strategy of simplification"). Is the model we are using good?

What happens when we try to take a model from the realm of the abstract to the world of the simulationist without considering this? What is this in the first place? Well basically, there's reality, then we take detail away to make an abstraction and then we try to put it back again through "simulationist" rules.

To answer this lets look at what has gone on with D&D because they're trying to do this exactly. Add more detail (be more simulationist) on top of a basic set of rules which disregarded such detail in the first place. One such example is D&D's and d20 system's hit points. What are they? Life? Skill? Luck? A mixture of all three? Another example is the to hit roll. What is it? If you succeed with a hit roll, what does that mean? A hit? A hit that does damage?

Look at it like this. Back in the '70s a game builds an abstraction of combat based on rolling a d20. It has classes and hit points and a value called THAC0 that "improves" as the level of the character is increased. It was simple and fun to play. You roll the d20, hit or miss. If you hit you roll damage and if the creature reaches 0 hit points its dead. It was simple and it was fun.

With time players got more demanding and more stuff was added. Wound rules, skill rules, more and more detail. In a quest to become more simulationist more rules were added to reinject the information that had been removed by the initial abstraction process. These rules added more detail, but not necessarily more realism. Many rules that add detail to D&D today are questionably realistic.

But, there is information that once removed to achieve an abstraction can not be easily reinserted.

At what point did the game developers stop and consider the original abstraction? If the original abstraction was remade to remove less information in the first place then less information would need to be reinjected, leading to simpler rules. This would have meant a leaner, rules light AD&D. But it was not done. Instead layer upon layer of rules are added, editions built on top of editions. The latest of which trying to group together the best of all prior editions in a quest for a game for all.

Let us go back to what I pointed out as important. What's important to point out is that both communicator and the recipient must have an "intuitive or common experience" for effective abstract communication. Intuitive? Common experience?

For a moment let us see "intuitive" as OSR and "common experience" as rules heavy. The OSR sticks to the simple rules and understands how the game is played. They don't need complex rules because they understand the game intuitively. On the other hand "common experience" is the rules heavy player. For there is no other way to have people enjoy a common experience when they're geographically disperse and have never met. By writing rule upon rule you have a mechanism for many players who never met to have a "common experience" around a game. The rules convey the same experience to all players as long as they stick to the rules. By creating a modular system in D&D Next WotC seeks to customize this "common experience" for different market segments, but fails to address the underlying issue. The problem is not with the rules, those are the symptoms, the problem is with the abstraction in the first place.

This opens a new way to look at rules light and rules heavy. Rules light is not a product of high abstraction while rules heavy is a product of low abstraction. They're product of how the same abstraction is conveyed to different groups of people. Simulationist isn't opposite to abstract, it's not even on the same slider bar.

Simulationist or realistic are terms achieved not by less abstraction. All RPGs are by definition abstractions as they lack the full detail of the real life objects they are trying to represent. Simulationist or realistic are achieved by better models, better "strategies of simplification". Such models convey the abstraction in a more intuitive way to players and thus allow more detail to be "recreated" in the player's minds without the need of extensive rules (quicker). This greater detail is after all what players look for when questing for a realistic or simulationist game.

Why go beyond the abstraction horizon when you'll have to walk back the simulationist road to reconstitute lost detail? Isn't it better to build a game that is abstract, realistic and rules light at the same time by using a abstraction that holds on to the detail wanted by the players?

For example breaking the to hit roll into a two rolls, one to determine if weapon contact is made and another to determine if actual damage is done allows skill to be easily applied to the first roll. Removing some of the ambiguity involved in the classic d20 roll. When I "miss" did I hit and cause no damage due to armor protection or did I simply not hit the armor at all?

Thus it's my strong belief that you can build and abstract, simulationist and rules light game if the abstraction is well made. That is, abstract enough to enable fast play, but not so abstract that too much detail is lost.

Thoughts?

Reference
1, 2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

Image
http://supplychain.enchange.com/bid/49901/Trying-to-run-an-FMCG-company-without-a-Supply-Chain-department

Character attributes and properties, to limit or to distinguish?

When you play your favorite RPG, how different do you feel your character is from other characters of the same class, but with different attributes? Do those attribute difference limit your character or enhance your character? For example is a low intelligence used to limit your spell use or is a high intelligence used to stimulate your spell use? Might sound the same, but it's quite different.

Is the impact of all attributes, regardless of class, important enough that your character feels quite different from one with a two point difference? Are attributes not relevant for the class used to distinguish characters of said class?

I'm concerned that many RPGs don't put enough emphasis on attribute use and end up with characters of the same class which are pretty much all the same. For example a magic user with 18 INT will look pretty much like a magic user with 17 INT and somewhat like a magic user with 16 INT. Simply because the magic user class focuses around intelligence and disregards all other values. So the magic users look pretty similar even when one may have 18 CON and another 13 CON. They both get few hit points, albeit 18 CON gives a bonus. They both get to set off a spell per round. They both have their handy dagger to attack with. So what really tells one character apart from the other?

In the quest for "balance" I find many RPGs tend to put a filter or veil on many attributes which are not directly related to the character class. Thus all members of a class seem the same, or lets say way more similar than their attributes gives them potential to be different from the rest.

Do you take steps in your game to leverage other skills in the character's attributes outside those relevant to their class?

An intro to Itza

Welcome to the calmecac, the Aztec school. Today's lesson is a quick intro to the Itza RPG. Itza is based on the Era rule set I developed last year. As the game has split it two, Era has become Imperium & Maleficium a Roman RPG and Itza its Mesoamerican counterpart. In this post I will go over the basic points of the character sheet and mechanics so players can get up to speed with the game rules.

Itza is a 2d10 game, that means that a 2d10 is used where usually a d20 would have been used in other d20 based games. All other dice are also used and in some cases in large numbers.

Attributes & Skill Use

Characters have two sets of attributes, primary which the player rolls and secondary which are calculated from the primary and can be improved over time through training. Skill and attribute checks can be called for by the GM for any of the attributes, primary or secondary, although secondary attributes are most commonly used with skills as they represent the actual training of the character.

Skill checks require the player to roll bellow the attribute associated with the skill. Skills have ranks that can be increased through training. Each rank grants the character a +1 bonus to the associated attribute. For example a character with an expert rank at something gains a +2. If the associated attribute value is 13, the player would need to roll 15 or less to succeed.

Power Points

Characters have three types of power points that represent the mind, body and soul of the character. These are Q'ort, Stamina and R'ho respectively. Power points represent the capacity the character has to affect the world, they are the energy that powers the characters special abilities. To make a common analogy to other games, Q'ort is mana for magic user powers, Stamina is endurance to physical punishment and strain, R'ho is mana for cleric powers, those involving the conscience/spirit (stress, mind spells, mind effects, psionic attacks etc) or activities demanding great concentration.

Spells, powers (like the wayob powers) and skills require power points. When attacked characters will suffer damage to stamina first and then if the damage is too high this will overflow to hit points (see combat below). Magic use will require Q'ort points to cast and skills and wayob powers will require R'ho. Skills can be turned on by notifying the GM. For example some find traps, detect ambush, or remove mines can be called on by the player so the character is particularly aware of such events. These type of skills put a great deal of stress on the mind of the character and will require rest to recover lost R'ho points invested in keeping this activity up.

Wayob powers are a special power characters have in Itza. All are born with an affinity to an animal. A character may develop this affinity through training and gain more powers from the animal. But be careful as this may consume the character and let the animal take over. Turning him into a nahual. Some of the more powerful animals also have the most treacherous spirits. So be careful with your wayob.

Character Templates, Collegiae & Training

Itza is a point buy system disguised as a class based game. Character templates are quick starts based on selected collegiae. Collegiae in turn are "schools of training" to which characters can "subscribe" and then progress by gaining new skills and powers under each collegiae. Multiclassing becomes possible by simply buying into different collegiae.

As characters progress in a collegia, they gain more and more skills and powers. These have an ongoing cost. That is, part of the gained XP in every adventure must be paid in upkeep. Each skill and power has a percentage upkeep cost. The sum of all these is the character's upkeep cost. For example it may be 22%. That means that out of each 100 XP points 22 are spent in upkeep and the character only accumulates 78 XP points. XP is then converted to role point (at 500 XP per role point). Role points are then used to buy skills, training and acquire entrance into new collegia.

Combat

Combat in Itza puts skill and tactics above weapons and armor. That means you don't want to be hit! An attack is resolved by both the attacker and defender rolling 2d10. To hit the attacker must beat the defender's parry/dodge roll. If the attacker succeeds then damage is rolled. A weapon's damage roll is matched by the armor's soak roll. If damage isn't soaked by the armor it goes on to deplete stamina, but only a fraction of it at a time. Only the amount given by the character's pain threshold can be soaked as stamina, all remaining damage overflows to hit points and causes a wound. Wounds can disorient, slow down or even drop a character unconscious, so hit point damage is something you want to prevent at all costs. Stamina can be increased through training, hit points can't. Hit points are fixed for life. Stamina recovers at an hourly rate given by the stamina recovery rate, hit points recover at one per day.

Combat takes place in time spans of 10 seconds called rounds and actions are limited by the character's action points and the fatigue table. Each character has a set amount of actions points given by the current tactical build (setup of weapons and armor). Each attack and dodge requires 2 action points, a parry requires 1 action point (it costs less, but not all attacks can be parried). It is the player's responsibility to allocate these points into attacks and defenses. Too hasty an attack may leave your character without action points to properly defend. As action points are used, fatigue rises and penalties are incurred. So keep enough to defend yourself without running out of breath.

Each round simply represents the reset of the action points and it does not mean a break in the continuum of actions. That is, a new round will not call for initiative rolls and action definition. As a player you go with the flow as the encounter is taking place. Initiative is a skill check against the mettle attribute. Mettle represents the character's decisiveness and coolness in combat. A higher mettle means the character will have better control and greater situation awareness. In an encounter whoever succeeds the mettle check by the highest margin has the initiative and is in greater control of the situation. Winning initiative may still mean attacking last, that depends on your strategy for combat. Holding back and wearing your opponent out is a very valid tactic in this game. Sometimes it makes sense to wait.

Now, going deeper into damage and soak rolls. Each weapon and armor has a roll defined by say 2d8 vs 3d6. This means the weapon rolls 2d8 (4, 7) and the armor rolls 3d6 (4, 6, 3). The rolls are ordered from highest to lowest and compared. The weapon's 7 vs the armor's 6, the weapon wins and adds 7 points of damage. The weapon's 4 vs the armor's 4, the armor stops the damage, and finally the 3 is not used. The weapon succeeded in delivering 7 points of damage to the character.

As you can see the higher the dice the more penetrating power the weapon has, and the higher the dice the more stopping power the armor has. Some attacks may have many dice, for example a fireball may do 6d4. That's a lot of small dice rolls. Armor may easily roll over a d4, but it can't stop all 6 of them, so at least 3 will do damage. This represents the cracks and gaps in the armor where such damage can seep through.

Well you're all set, looking forward to seeing you this weekend at the game sessions!

If you're visiting this blog post from outside the LUG Con community I invite you to join at

LUG Con

Image source

http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-manners

Google Maps 1500 AD - Tenochtitlan

So you're Tlaloc, the rain god, looking down on the Aztec capital city high above from your heavenly paradise of Tlalocan. What do you see? Had Google Maps existed 500 years ago the view would have been something similar to the picture on the right. A large city afloat on the Lake Texcoco. Causeways leading north, west and south from the great Tenochtitlán. The north causeway lead to the hill of Tepeyac, location of the altar of Tonantzin, an important goddess in Aztec mythology and a place of a great many sacrifices. The west causeway is known as the Tacuba causeway. On which Cortez suffered a great defeat and lost two thirds of his men and thousands of his Tlaxcalteca allies. The causeway to the south, known as the Iztapalapa causeway was the longest and lead to the far settlements of Coyohuacan and Xochimilco. To the east, separating the light blue water from the greenish one to the east was the Netzahualcoyotl dam that helped regulate water levels in the city. Crisscrossing the city and lake were many canals that allowed travel with bigger boats. They converged on the west and south sides of the city were the docks were located. The following image shows a closeup of the city. 

At the center was the great Templo Mayor, a majestic conglomeration of temples and government buildings. A street view of the city would look something like the image below. A well laid out grid of floating city blocks built with chinampas surrounding the city center and connected with waterways very much like the European Venice. To the north is Tlatelolco, actually another city, a sister city to Tenochtitlan and renown for its market. The most important commercial site in the area.




An areal view of the city looking down at it from the west would look like the painting below. An impenetrable city floating on its own moat the size of a whole valley. The causeways, with their removable bridges, provided ample protection against attacks. The chinampas on which the city was built were floating gardens great for farming. That and ample supply of water made sieging Tenochtitlan a futile task at best.

Far in the horizon the two volcanoes Iztaccihuatl and Popocatepetl stand out against the blue sky and beyond that the Gulf of Mexico.








Pulling back on our prehispanic Google Maps we would see the following. The city of Tenochtitlan quickly becoming a small blotch of land in the immense lake. The two following images show the lake from high above and an angled view from the south looking north north east at Tenochtitlan. In the second image down Xochimilco is clearly seen in the forefront, a place were even today chimampas and structures reminiscent of old Tenochtitlan still remain. Further north, to the top of the picture, is my home town of Texcoco, a small city that gives the lake its name. It is also the place from which Cortez would eventually launch his final and decisive assault on Tenochtitlan. One that would end Aztec rule forever.

The following is a drawing of Tenochtitlan and the surrounding lake and water structures.

Full image here

Image sources


http://bcr-8history.blogspot.mx/2010/06/aztecs-and-tenochtitlan.html

http://aztecciv.pbworks.com/w/page/8783392/Geography

http://www.mnartists.org/work.do?rid=29044

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-1212325.html

http://geekaztecas.blogspot.mx/

http://www.ducksters.com/history/aztec_empire/tenochtitlan.php

The Macuahuitl, a kick ass sword against ballistic gel and bone

So you saw Apocalypto and were wondering how good that wooden sword with stones really was. The sword is known as a macuahuitl. A half meter to a meter long piece of wood lined with very sharp obsidian rock.

The macuahuitl comes in two sizes, one handed and two handed. The two handed version is a heavy piece of equipment with a lot of momentum. That means big time cutting and bludgeoning power, but how effective is it against something bigger like a horse? It is a viable weapon against the big monsters that commonly inhabit our game settings? Is it a threat to all those mythological creatures we just love to hack and slash or is there no hope of survival for our loin clothed heroes?

Let's take a closer look at the macuahuitl. It is a wooden club lined with very sharp obsidian. The weight of the wood and the sharpness of the obsidian make it a very deadly weapon indeed. But exactly how deadly. The following video puts a two handed macuahuitl to the test against ballistic gel and bone in a slow motion footage that shows exactly how painful it was to get hit by a warrior bearing this weapon.

Deadliest Warrior

Video source
http://www.spike.com/shows/deadliest-warrior

Image sources
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/reply/399393/Re-MAQUAHUITL-Aztec-Swords-WAR-CLUBS-COUP-STICKS#.UbeFNPnrxqI

The Mayan Warrior in the Itza RPG

Creating the Mayan warrior for Itza (Mayan RPG) has been quite a challenge. One that has required a complete rewrite of the combat rules to allow for a fast paced and challenging encounter for characters with primitive weapons, scant armor and the goal to capture, not kill, the enemy.

Not only is combat different than the more familiar armored combat of most RPGs, the goal of combat is different. Getting the opponent to surrender and taking prisoners were a common goal in combat, as human sacrifice was a key element in their culture.

Itza uses a combat mechanism that:

• Has no fixed amount of attacks per round. These depend on the character's ability scores and the players strategy. Will the player be more aggressive and attack more than defend or fallback to a defensive stance waiting to wear out the opponent?
• Hit points are fixed for life and handled in a way that allows characters(and opponents) to be incapacitated and subdued in combat due to wounds. Thus allowing for the so valued prisoners.
• The attack roll has been remade to allow survival based on skill, not armor. Armor helps, no doubt about that, but your character is not defenseless if dressed only with a loin cloth. More so, less armor grants the character more actions per round, granting the player more options in the round to round tactics of combat.

The warrior's weapons

The Mayans and Aztecs lacked iron and thus their weapons were made of wood and stone. No less lethal though, they require a different damage and armor mechanism to fully exploit their lethal power in combat. The image above shows the Aztec weapons, which were very similar to Mayan ones.

1 - Club - clubs were either just wood poles or were tipped with big round rocks for an extra punch.
2 - Axe - made with stone, usually a large piece of obsidian.
3 - Bow and arrow, arrows were made with obsidian tips. I'm not aware of any composite type of bow. Mesoamerica lacked horses so the mounted archer was nonexistent in these cultures.
4 - Macahuitl, the sword was made of a thick wood piece with obsidian blades on its edges. A great weapon to cut and pummel with. If in doubt check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKfuEUisyk0
5 - Spear with obsidian blades at the end
6 - Armor consisted mainly of shields, although the more prominent warriors may have used padding. Padding though presented a risk in the intense heat and humidity of the Yucatan peninsula.
7 - Atlatl - The atlatl was a shaft that allowed the warrior to project a spear like object with greater velocity towards it's target. The weapon itself, the spear, was an obsidian tipped pole.

Image source

http://rjjohnson.wikispaces.com/Warfare

Realism and rules light games

So what is realism in an RPG? Is it second by second simulationist perfection? Or a very good description of the setting, character and events? What is realism in a game that considers magic real? What is realism in a fictional sci-fi setting?

We could go into a lengthy conversation as to what realism is. Is it representing a characters ability to jump correctly? The precision of the bullet? The technobable involved in the game? The fact that a long sword really does deliver 1d8 HP of damage? What is a hit point?

I think the issue with realism comes when a player is happy when his magic user's fireball goes off and kills the orcs (as if fireballs and orcs were very real), but complains of suffering an attack of opportunity that could have been prevented. The player then goes on complaining how that's not possible, it should be evaded, that's not true, in real life his character could have dodged the axe. In real life his character wouldn't have fireballs. So what is real? What is realism in an RPG?

How do we define real in a game who's setting isn't real in the first place? Should we use a better term? A term like consistent? If a game is consistent the players and GMs know what to expect even if the setting itself isn't realistic.  What is the game rule's role in maintaining this consistency and what is the player's mind role in maintaining this consistency?

Consistency can be understood as the game rules contradicting themselves or not. If no contradiction exists the game is said to be consistent with itself. Clearly the bigger the rule set the more prone it is to have a contradiction. It has two or more rules that contradict each other. It is clear then that rule light games are more prone to be consistent than rule heavy games. A poorly designed rule light game can still have contradictions, it's simply easier to have them in rule heavy games.

We can also talk about consistency between player expectations and outcome. By this I mean is the outcome of a certain action what the player expected or is the player constantly taken by surprise by apparently incoherent outcomes to the character's actions. Is the game consistent with the player's expectations? Although it is a valid usage of the term, I prefer to keep consistency applied to the rules and use the  term plausible when talking about player expectations.

Instead of using the term realistic or consistent let's think for a moment about "plausible". Is the outcome of an action expected? Magic isn't real, but the effect of a spell must seem plausible for the game to be accepted by the players. In combat an attack or outcome must be plausible if it is to be accepted. A monster that swings at everything that passes by, while possible by the rules, is hardly plausible and being against the player's interests, a highly disputed by the players. The more plausible the game is, the less game flow will stop to challenge the GM, look up rules, check up tables, etc. Plausibility benefits play.

So to conclude, I'd like to lay out the following points I'm using to better describe and design games:

• "Realism" is a term that should not be used to describe a game, instead "plausible" gives a much better term for what is commonly meant by "realism". 
• Consistency is another term that should be used to describe a game, since an inconsistent game will surely be less plausible than one without internal contradictions. 
• Consistent and plausible games run smoother than less consistent and less plausible games. They're more fun!
• Rule light games are easier to keep consistent than rule heavy games.
• "Plausibility" is not only enabled by the rules, but also by the GM. Being the GM a human being he or she is clearly benefited by less rules than more rules, as there is less to keep track of, less to stop and check and it is quicker to learn. Leaving more time to concentrate on the game and creating a plausible adventure.
• It is of uttermost importance to select the essential rules to write. Any small set of consistent rules will not automatically ensure a plausible game. The rules must be cleverly selected to represent the essence of the game. They are to be the base from which all other dynamics in the game emerge. 

This final point is what makes creating a good rule light games hard. A designer must distill the essence of the game and write it in a way that allows it to grow beyond the bound of the written rules, but still remain playable as the characters gain power. A shortcut to this is to bound the game's "power range" for example characters can go up to level 6 or have so many power points, etc. This binds the game to a range within which it remains stable. To let it move beyond it requires a set of rules that self regulate the power curve of the game by means of some negative feedback.

Thoughts?

Hit Points, Skills, AC and Genre

In his recent Legend & Lore article Mike Mearls talks about hit points and the influence on genre. He goes on to discuss about "dials" that can be turned to allow for different "styles of play and genre". The "dials" are set around recovering hit points and not losing them. I find this to be not only a terribly bad decision, but one that actually limits the options available in regards to "styles of play and genre".

As I move from developing a game set around medieval Europe and turn to developing a prehispanic Mesoamerican game I find the gamble of developing a whole new combat mechanism to be paying off. The game is called Era precisely because its goal was to be able to represent any epoch. This doesn't mean its goal was to be a universal system, but rather that different epochs in human civilization could be easily represented with a great deal of realism. That meant that combat in an unarmored, iron less setting was to be a possibility. One that was not only survivable, but also enjoyable and challenging to the player.

A few design criteria were taken early on:

• Hit points are fixed for life.
• Loss of hit points can mean an incapacitating wound.
• Stamina points act as a shield around hit points, but only a fraction of such points can be used at a given time. Making strong characters still susceptible to strong hits.
• Stamina points can be increased through training (aka level progression).
• There is a to hit roll challenged by a parry/dodge roll.
• Hit and parry/dodge rolls are made using the non linear 2d10 vs the linear d20. This creates a diminishing return on training and skill improvement.
• If a hit is attained a weapon damage vs armor soak roll is made to see if damage is actually done.

What are the repercussions of this?

• Skill counts a lot more than armor. Actually it's all about skill and not getting hit rather than taking it on as man. The added complexity of the damage and soak rolls is minimal as you're not usually getting hit.
• There's little chance you'll end up with one hit point and still be in fighting condition. Your character will most surely have passed out by then.
• Monsters (and characters too) can be killed with one good well placed hit. This may be very unlikely in some situations, but possible. This adds up to the excitement and epic realism of an encounter.
• Players are much more concerned about their tactics than in "hit point wall" configurations.
• It is possible to play without armor, be good at the game and actually enjoy it a lot.

So what's the issue I see with hit points, AC and skills? Well back in the day when I started playing D&D there was only hit points, AC and levels. Your character got better and had a better toHit roll or THAC0. Then skills and specialization and feats were added. Then extra healing to compensate for the extra damage, etc.

What happened is that an already existing overlap of concepts became even more overlapping. Armor class represent the difficulty in hitting and doing damage. Hit points represent the life force of the character, but also the possibility of not suffering damage, luck, and skill. A 10 hit point loss to a character with 100 hit points represents a flesh wound, while being a deadly wound for a character with 8 hit points.

D&D has added more rules and more detail over the years. More skills and modifiers to weapons and armor based on attributes and weight and what not. Yet it has not addressed the issue of these mangled definitions. As such I find it very difficult to "dial" in settings in the current D&D rules as Mike Mearls proposes. Dialing into the recovery rate is a stop gap solution to the underlying problem. To create different game styles and genre with D&D you need to dive neck deep into AC, HP and skills. Just adjusting recovery rate does not fix a setting without iron and without armor. Hit points, armor class and recovery are simple way too coupled to allow a simple "dial" to fix the situation. How would you go about implementing an armor less setting in D&D that was survivable and fun for the players?

Image source

http://s423.photobucket.com/user/SSonic2006/media/Motivators/HitPoints.jpg.html

An imperial jacuzzi carved in rock

You've got to hand it to Netzahualcoyotl, he knew how to pick his views! This is his bath overlooking his empire from the hills of Tlaixpan. To the left and outside the field of view of this photo would have been the great lake Texcoco and in its center the imperial city of Tenochtitlan.

From here the poet king could overlook his empire while he enjoyed his bath. To the side of his bath was the queen's bath. A smaller bath tub set in an outcropping and carved from solid rock. The view from there was no less spectacular than the king's.

From the queens bath stairways lead to the building complex below. Once again notice the stairs and structures carved in stone. This is basalt, by no means a soft rock to work. I guess the option, as a slave, was either carve the rock or have your heart carved out. Pretty damn simple choice if you ask me.

The whole complex took up the best part of three hills. Here we see the aqueduct going from one hill to the next and providing water to the aforementioned baths. The aqueduct ends at the base of the throne room and to its side a stairway leads up hill to the buildings at the top. Two passages form a circle around the hill providing water to the multitude of baths and complexes around its base. Beyond the hill and into the horizon stands Mexico City, back in the day it was all a lake that spanned left and right and as far as the eye could see. In it's center stood the mighty Tenochtitlan.

Below is a view from one of the baths on the other hill. A set of terraces with baths lined this hill and on top ( to my back) sat a building complex with rooms and living quarters. The photo can't capture the scent of incense that permeates the air. Giving tribute to the relevance of the site even today. Notice the dry, but recently placed flowers at the bottom.

I take a break to enjoy the emperor's bath after riding all morning under a blazing sun. Behind me you see the terraces that lead up to the aforementioned buildings and living quarters. Notice the water channel that brings water from the top of the hill and feeds the aqueduct to the other hill were the main baths are.

After a relaxing snooze in the tub a quick drop downhill gets me an ice cold beer and some delicious quesadillas and tlacoyos with some kick ass hot sauce!

Stimulating character sacrifice a worthy cause?

As players we take great care in protecting our characters. We develop them over the span of many sessions, raise their hit points, increase their skills and attain more spells. We want them to survive at all costs!

Question, would you let your character take one for the adventure? In my experience characters more often than not die to player mistake or a bad roll. Would you put your character in harm's way to save, not your fellow party members, but the adventure itself. Would you risk your character for a greater more exciting adventure?

I'm not only talking about that split second decision that ends with your character's death to give the adventure a grand finale. Not the going down in a blaze of glory ending. I mean taking the road less traveled. Developing a character who might have an early, and foreseeable death.

I'm currently working in a prehispanic RPG called Itza. The gods, the calendar and the horoscope were important elements in mesoamerican cultures. To the point that there could be a set path at birth that would be followed through out life. If you character rolled a bad destiny, would you be willing to pay it to it's fullest? Not the "fuck it I'm going to die anyway" attitude that either makes your character foolhardy or unloved/underdeveloped by the player, or both. I mean really playing the character to its fullest potential knowing the end is near. To live an epic life worthy of the gods.

I'm considering putting in game benefits to the player that promote this type of play. Have the gods benefit the player with bonuses usable on the next character. A type of posthumous medal from the character that the player may invest on the next character.

Would you find this stimulating enough to go all in on your character's destiny and play to the fullest? Do you think this just opens up more doors to abuse and min-max issues?


Image source

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakingTheBullet