Does camouflage matter?

Nature has a long track record of using camouflage to protect species from predators and hide predators from prey until it's too late. Many of use have encountered mimic monsters or at least heard of them. Creatures that, true to their name, mimic items in a dungeon only reveal their nature when a party member gets too close. Other fearsome dungeon dwellers will appear to be normal stalactites only to drop on unexpected adventurers, piercing them through and through and killing them on the spot.

Yet there is more potential to camouflage than just the initial element of surprise. How often is it used to disengage from combat? A strike, displace and strike again strategy would require the party to reacquire their target. Camouflage can help when running away by reducing the distance before visual contact is lost. Camouflage becomes an important element in an encounter when engaging at long distance; be this arrows or magic in a fantasy setting or long range weapons in a modern or futuristic game. You can't shoot a target you can't see. Obviously the players can always do this:

Extremely inefficient in regards to ammo and also has the drawback of giving away your position.

How comfortable would you be if a game depended only on the hiding and spotting roll? Get seen and it's game over. How much would a game change if spotting and camouflage became a central element in an encounter instead of a modifier during the first round's initiative roll? How would this influence your perception of skill and proficiency when such skills work side by side with hit points to keep your character alive?

Magic carpet vs jet fighter, who wins?

Who wins in a match between Maverick and Aladdin?

Lets see, Aladdin's carpet has the following features:

• Doesn't run out of fuel.
• Can make arbitrarily tight turns as it's not bound by aerodynamic constraints.
• Can fly arbitrarily high and fast as once again it isn't bound by aerodynamic constraints.
• Has no heat signature so it can't be easily targeted by heat seeking missiles.
• Has a small radar footprint making it hard to target with radar guided missiles.

On the other hand Aladdin and the carpet lack:

• A radar, making it hard to sight incoming jets (and dragons).
• A g-suit, without which it's very hard to endure high G turns.
• An oxygen mask, without which it's very hard to fly very high.
• A canopy and for that matter a cabin that protects the pilot. Supersonic wind is really damaging.
• Seat belts. Try pulling a -2G dive without them!
• No ejection seat!
• No 30mm canon
• No air to air missiles
• No fire suppression equipment. Have you ever seen a fire extinguisher on Aladdin's carpet? Neither have I. 

So there it is? Who do you think wins the day? Aladdin or Maverick?

Image Source

http://www.automotivepictures.co.uk/gallery/photos/id/2719-jet-fighter-plane-vs-aladdin-and-his-magic-carpet

Crispy vs Fuzzy Crunch

Crunch is usually considered the opposite of fluff, but crunch is also the rules of the game. How can we have a game without crunch if that would mean a game without rules?

Monte Cook pointed out, when participating in a panel called Crunch Vs. Fluff: FIGHT! (Norwescon, April 2012), that  "Crunch and Fluff formed a false dichotomy that actually hurts game design rather than informs it". He compares the argument with chocolate chips and cookies. Which is more important in making chocolate chip cookies? He mentions:

Like with so many things, it’s interesting to take rpgs apart and look at their parts, but it’s incorrect to then try to say that one part is superior to another. A cookie without chocolate chips is just a plain cookie. Chips without a cookie are just a handful of chocolate chips. Only together do you have a chocolate chip cookie. An rpg without story is a board game (at best). An rpg without mechanics is an anecdote.

I totally agree with this and I'd like to put forward another way of looking at crunch. One that does not stand in opposition to fluff.

If crunch is not the opposite of fluff what do I mean when I say this is a crunchy game or this is not a crunchy game? It can't mean its fluffier since we're working of the premise that crunch and fluff are not opposite. In come the terms crisp and fuzzy.

Crisp refers to a rule set with a lot of rules, modifiers, and values to consider. Fuzzy refers to a rule set which is more open to the GM's interpretation. Crisp refers to rule sets found in games generally considered crunchy and fuzzy refers rule sets found in games generally considered fluffy.

Now if fluff and crunch are two independent values that don't necessarily oppose, then it is possible to have very crunchy and very fluffy games as well as scarcely crunchy and scarcely fluffy games. 

I'd like you to bring to mind the idea of a game with a lot of crunch and a lot of fluff. Our initial judgement might be that it doesn't exist or that it is just too complex. Now lets move the crisp-fuzzy dial. A very crispy-crunchy-fluffy game could very well be a nightmare. A lot of rules, a lot of complexity (crisp) in those rules and a lot of stuff to apply those rules to (fluff). On the other hand a very fuzzy-crunchy-fluffy game would be a rules light one with a lot of world content and who's rules apply to broad aspect of the character's interaction with the world, not only combat.

Please take note of this. In this way of looking at crunch and fluff, crunch is an indicator of how much of the fluff has an actual mechanical model in the game. Games such as D&D and Pathfinder are high fluff, low crunch and very crispy. Why is it high fluff and low crunch when it's generally understood that such games are crunchy games? Well such games have rules for a small aspect of the character's life: combat. Within that realm the rules are very crisp. Lots of modifiers, skills, feats and tables to determine combat. Move away from combat and rules become really fuzzy or nonexistent. Maybe a charisma check here and there a dexterity check at some point, etc. you get the idea. Succeed and the GM narrates the outcome as seen fit. Such games, particularly the new D&D, have a lot of fluff. Aside from the huge amount of world content and campaign settings associated with the D&D brand, the introduction of background and character development add a lot of fluff which unfortunately relates very little through the game's mechanics. Get a few bonuses, some skills, maybe a feat for a whole life's training prior to meeting in a tavern. Most of which are once again related to combat or centered around dungeon crawling.

Looking at things this way a better game would be one with a lot of crunch and a lot of fluff. I like my chocolate chip cookies to be big and have a lot of chips. Now they also have to be kept fresh in a jar. Crisp and fuzzy are like the tightness on the lid. Too little "crisp" and the seal is not airtight and the cookies soon become stale. Too much "crisp" and it's too much of a pain to open and get a cookie every time a want one.

I strongly believe that games should be both fluffy and crunchy. That as a game designer I can provide a lot of world content I've researched and developed as well as rules to convert that into a meaningful in world effect. The debate then centers around crispness and fuzziness and their effect on game speed. It is here that I see Indie games with a lot of potential to make groundbreaking changes. Develop simple yet powerful game mechanics with a broad application to the world's fluff (not only one aspect such as combat). We all know backgrounds are great and character skills are a must and character development is really cool. Challenge is how to write this down in a way that doesn't get too crispy? That doesn't require an endless stream of number, modifiers and tables to represent. Above all that it doesn't take too much time to resolve. On the other hand it can't be too fuzzy that it becomes too ambiguous on the tabletop, to open to each player's interpretation and this leads to lack of challenge. A lot of work goes into developing a game. I want to sell "a flavor". If the game is too fuzzy and way to open to the player's interpretation then they'll play what they feel like playing and not what I wanted to convey. That's the point of crunch. To convey the world as the game designer envisions it. Too much crisp and the game becomes to hard and slow to play, too much fuzziness and the game begins to lose its flavor. The stale cookies in the poorly sealed cookie jar.

This post also appears on Indie+_ and is covered by the Indie+ Community Standards.

Air combat & skills

Air combat (and naval for that mater) is a seldom developed mechanic in games. I guess if working in 2D space leads to complex game rules, working with 3D space can only lead to even more complex rules.

I can't recall an encounter in which the momentum of my character was relevant and in which STR lead to any significant effect in movement. On the other hand in air combat altitude is speed and speed is life. Keeping track of airspeed, altitude, and factoring in thrust can lead to some very complex movement rules and we're not even getting into target acquisition, tracking, leading and firing. Then there's the matter of gun fire and missile fire. It's clear to see how things can get complicated quickly.

So when facing such complexity how can I trim it down to keep the grist of air combat while keeping things simple enough to resolve in a few seconds? I also what to explore in what non-combat ways can pilot skills become relevant in a tabletop RPG.

Let me enumerate some air combat variables:

• Aircraft performance
• Weapon system performance
• Maneuvers and location
• Pilot skills
• Pilot attributes
• Squadron and wing man teamwork

These variables have to be combined to create a realistic yet fast paced air combat. I just don't see working every 1000ft rise or drop in altitude, turn, spin and maneuver. Yet leaving everything to a success or failure roll in which players narrate the outcome without any real aircraft, weapons nor skill constraint can be a little too free form for my taste.

In regards to non-combat pilot skills I see a great deal of applications. Although many may require the character to stay on the aircraft and that can lead to party breakup which may not be everyone's cup of tea. Nonetheless not-combat skills can be helpful in many ways:

• Piloting entry or exit aircraft
• Plan aircraft load to carry mission critical equipment
• Logistics and route planning
• Maintenance
• Sabotage

Be it a PC or NPC, having a clear understanding of aircraft skills and a simple yet realistic model for air combat and maneuvers can add a lot to a game session.

How much has air combat and aircraft skills played a role in your games?  If so, have you house ruled or worked off a set of mechanics?

Image Credit

US Army

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Robert Cudd, a CH-47 Chinook helicopter pilot from B Company, 2nd Battalion (General Support), 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, Task Force Falcon, prepares his equipment prior to a personnel and equipment movement mission, Aug. 31, at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/9680321322/

Saints & Sinners GM playtest feedback

Last night I had the opportunity to sit down and talk with +Tre' Grisby who ran a session of Saints & Sinners this weekend. I was really looking forward to get feedback from a GM that's ran then game. Tre has played in my games, but had never actually picked up the game and ran a session as a GM so I was excited to hear what he had to say.

Before I continue I'd like to comment that Saints & Sinners is quite different when it comes to mechanics and rules. I'd say the only thing in common with mainstream games is the presence of six basic attributes. Aside from that skills and task resolution, hit points, damage and combat, specially hand to hand combat, are very different. I wouldn't say complex, just different. With that in mind here's the feedback.

First of I'll talk about the character generation experience. According to Tre he regrets not having made any pregens. Although character generation is quick it would have helped to save some time ( about 30 to 40 minutes given all the players present). Two elements of character generation were pointed out. The calculation of the pain threshold gave an expression of "umphff" from the players. It's a one time operation involving a percentage of the characters hit points. No big deal, but certainly more complex than adding some values. Unfortunately it is a key value to facilitate damage resolution during the game. Better a one time multiplication than a continuous headache. Nonetheless it wouldn't hurt to have a lookup table to get the value based on character hit points and endurance. Saints & Sinners has fixed hit points for life so the table is capped in size to the max hit points a character can have.

The second element that took time explaining was skill and background development. Many players were accustomed to games with a class or point buy mechanics that leads to a discrete list of skills and/or in which background has a minimal impact on "in game" activities. Saints & Sinners uses a set of human readable terms, not points, to express backgrounds and skills. The whole set of skills, background experience and learning is expressed with words such as skilled, professional, expert, master and legendary and laid out in a cascading skill set. This means that if a specific skill is not mentioned the next uppermost skill level applies. Task difficulty is also expressed in human readable terms such as challenging, hard, epic, etc. These terms indicate how many dice to roll and not how many pluses your character gets. For example if your character has to program something and he's a professional programmer and is expert with php and master with Java, but the task has to be resolved in ruby then the programmer level of pro is used instead of the expert with php or master with Java. The GM dictates the level of difficulty and can even modify it for expertise. Got a time constraint and your character has never read into ruby? Task just got harder by a notch.

One bug that was pointed out with skills was the naming of the expertise levels. As it stands in print right now there are two levels called experienced and expert. Their abbreviation is EXP for both and this caused an issue when writing the skills down. Some skills were labeled EXP for experienced and expert and it was hard to determine which was which. Experienced has been changed for professional with the abbreviation PRO.

Another element that took time getting used to was team work. Saints and Sinners makes strong use of this. It has clear rules on how to apply character skills in a teamwork environment. Three players got programming skills? Let them work together to solve the problem faster and with lower odds of failure. This is even more important when the task is something like disarming a nuclear bomb. The team just can't fail. I just can't emphasize this enough!

These final observations lead to the most important observation of the conversation: how to layout the rules to address GM and player assimilation of the rules. Even when rules are simple, when they're so different and are applied in such different ways from mainstream RPGs, it takes time to break the player's habit. This lead to a slower game and courses of action that were ignored. As players and GM alike became familiar with the rules the pace picked up and new ways to interact with the world were taken advantage of. Namely time, planning and teamwork became key elements in the player's actions. Once players caught on to this the game moved from being a dungeon crawl in an Afghan village to a modern day military mission.

The modifications based on this last bit of feedback will introduce the following modification: a text explaining clearly how the game should be played and a modular approach to the mechanics. Regarding the first modification it was noted that I should have a "Read Me First" text indicating emphasis on speed, teamwork and planning instead of a foreword that nobody really reads prior to the game. Regarding the second modification it was noted that game rules should be laid out in blocks or modules indicating which are core and indispensable rules and which can be added later. The core rules are the "you must always know and master" to get the essence of the game. Things like skill rules and task resolution are core. Combat, firearm and martial, is an extension of the skill and task rules. Combat adds a great deal of elements which are to much to master in one session. The core combat elements should be identified from the additional "nice to have". To hit rolls and damage are core, fatigue and suppression rules can be mastered later. Same thing for firearm vs martial combat. Master one first then tackle the later. A star system was suggested by Tre. Each element can be labeled three stars if it is of uttermost importance, two stars if it's pretty important and one star if it can be omitted more often than not.

Overall it was a great amount of feedback that will lead to an improved update in a few weeks. I'll be working these next two weeks to include this on top of the upcoming updates I already have in mind.


Saints & Sinners is a modern warfare game set in the Vietnam era. At only 64 pages it's a quick read and easy to start running a game. You can get Saints and Sinners as a pay what you want here and follow up on the game development in the Weapons Free G+ community.

Ideal Dice Mechanics

The thing I've done most over the past year is change the dice mechanics of my game. I've gone from 2d10, to opposing 2d10, to 2d20s and now 4d6s. Each had their merit and each their limitations. I've built a list of five points that I see as ideal dice mechanics.

Talking dice mechanics can be touchy so before some of you get all fired up please note that these are "ideal" dice mechanics. They don't exist. They are goals to seek given the reasons I lay down below.

Precision
The more possible outcomes a die roll has the more precision it holds. Precision is like bit rate in digital media, the more bits you have the more information you can contain in it. This allows one die roll to represent more information about the event. It also allows you to add more modifiers for different things without going off the chart.

Precision also has to do with how the distribution curve behaves. If steps are all equal it can become hard to add small increments to the odds of an event succeeding. I've found distributions with long tails to be helpful when modeling events with small odds.

Ease of Use
Ease of use refers to how simple the dice operation is. Are we just comparing values? Are we counting? Adding or subtracting? We can get some really interesting probability curves out of dice, but if these are hard to calculate they will slow down game. Thus operations such as counting and comparing are quicker than adding or subtracting and these in turn are much faster than multiplying and dividing.

This is the hardest restriction of all. As they say, there is no free lunch. The more interesting dice mechanics are also more complicated. Nothing beats reading a single number, but that's a flat distribution that as we'll see goes against "correctness" below. When you roll many dice things get interesting, but adding is one step further from reading. Getting more precision and correctness goes against the interest of ease of use.

Fortunately it seems there is a middle ground. In my experience very simple die rolls that excel in their ease of use may have complications later on due to lack of precision or correctness. Once again there is no free lunch. It's my belief based on my experience that those simpler dice mechanics may end up requiring more modifiers and tables to achieve the same precision and correctness than a slightly more complex die roll that provides greater precision and correctness out of the box.

A side note to keep in mind is dice type. Although polyhedral dice are common nowadays, d6 are even more common. Selecting d6 over d10 also adds ease of use, just as using d20 does so over using d34.

Correctness
Correctness refers to how well the selected dice mechanism satisfies our intuitive expectations of an outcome so as to not create frustration. The average and variance must fall within what we normally expect. If there is too much variance, that is outliner values that lead to extreme results (too much success or failure), then we begin to fee let down and even frustrated.

Another trait of correctness refers to character progression. The selected dice mechanics must correspond to our expectations as the character improves. A well trained character should not only better, but also more consistent than an untrained one. Success should group around a center value and the character should suffer less unexpected failures.

Secrecy
This refers to the ability of the dice mechanics to hide the result from the player even when all modifiers are known by the player. This allows the player to roll all required dice with her own hand and add all modifiers, but still not know the outcome unless the GM reveals his. Such a feature allows the GM to keep the outcome of certain actions hidden from the players, outcomes which could certainly alter the decision making process of the player. For example knowing the outcome of a disable trap may change the way the player opens a chest or if she even opens it. I'm aware that there are many out there who would claim that the player should be able to filter this out on her own and not metagame, and while it is true, it is not a skill held by anyone. An even for a skilled player like that the game changes and becomes more thrilling.

This is a nice feature that may bother some players. The good thing is that it is easily removed by everyone rolling in the open.

Team work
Die rolls should be able to stack or group in a way that many characters cooperating on a task can gain a benefit from teamwork.This mechanism should not only allow the simple addition of all the team members, but must also comply with the correctness attribute. That is, if characters of various skill levels are involved the average and variance must reflect that of the members, adding the higher skills of the better trained while also increasing variance due to the lower skills of the less trained.

This post also appears on Indie+_ and is covered by the Indie+ Community Standards.

Magic's quantums

What's the minimum unit of magic in your game? The word quantum comes from the Latin "quantus" meaning "how much". A magic quantum would be the minimum amount of magic energy or power that can tell one spell from another or one spellcaster from another for that matter. This is clearly visible in point systems like mana points and the like, and less clear in vancian magic systems with levels. In those cases the quantum is the level slot, but it need not be. Vancian magic refers to the process of preparing the spell, having it ready and the recovery rate of the spell, but is rather ambiguous as to the spell level mechanics.

"The tomes which held Turjan’s sorcery lay on the long table of black steel or were thrust helter-skelter into shelves. These were volumes compiled by many wizards of the past, untidy folios collected by the Sage, leather-bound librams setting forth the syllables of a hundred powerful spells, so cogent that Turjan’s brain could know but four at a time."

-”Turjan of Miir”, Jack Vance

There is no specific mention of levels and slots. Spell levels is clearly one way to count "how much" magic Turjan's brain can handle and "how much" magic each spell represents, but it's not the only one. A spell mechanism could very well be created around spell points which can only be used during the morning hours when the wizard's mind is fresh and recovered through sleep. Spells would then lack a level per se. A character can have 10 points which are spent on five spells each requiring two points or on two such spells and two three point spells, etc. Maybe some points can be saved for later on in the day, but studying and spell preparation would still be required. This could be extended to include spell empowering by spending more points than the minimum required. Maybe greater length or damage can be delivered by a spell if three or even four points are spent instead of the basic requirement for 2.

Now what stops my character from using all ten points on a high power spell? Wouldn't that immediately open 5th level spells to 1st level characters? Yes it would, but we could put a cap on this just like electric wiring has a cap on how much current can be conducted safely. Magical power could be expressed in points per action or some similar value. My character may have lots of points but can't channel them all in a single spell. Working on the previous example my character could have 3 points of "magic conductivity". Casting more than this may require some special roll to prevent the magic from failing. Failure would carry some dire consequences for my character so it might be something I'd think twice before committing to.

What I find interesting about exploring magic this way is how character attributes and skills link with the character's magic skill. When the magic quantums are small the magic system is much finer than when these quantums are big and the system is coarser. A plus one from an attribute relevant to magic use can be applied to tune magic in a much finer way. Does the bonus apply to the available points? To the usable points per action? We could even consider different attributes for different bonuses. Higher intelligence may add up more points, but physical constitution may contribute to "magic conductivity". In this way a player can't easily max out a stat and get all the benefits. It also opens up new dimensions along which the character can grow and having a small quantum gives more combinations and options; which makes my character less susceptible to being just like all other third level wizards. Do I put more less powerful spells? Do I put less, but more powerful ones? Do I up the power of each spell by investing more points?

WotC's job if not to create more classes

I'll be joining in a D&D Next game with my old time D&D buddies and have thus been taking a look at the Basic Rules. Although I've read quite a few comments regarding the "incompleteness" of the publication I'd question what's missing. Personally I find it quite complete. Particularly for a product that once sold with the slogan "Products of your imagination". What is WotC keeping back that is worth buying another book?

The basic rules include pretty much everything. Sure they have only 4 character classes and no character progression table nor in depth coverage of XP and levels. While some players may consider this incomplete, the rules have a rather complete set of weapons, armor and equipment. It also has a spell list that's big enough to last a couple of levels.

This begs me to ask what does WotC's consider an asset in this day and age of internet connectivity? The world model: character values, armor/weapon mechanics and values, combat mechanics and magic mechanics; or the instance values of a particular world: specific classes, specific spells, specific skills.

D&D is by no means a new game and publishing a new rules set with all the material that's already out there isn't going to keep players from looking into their own makeshift bard, or paladin, or archer or whatever. I could just pickup any of the classes I've played before and port them to D&D 5th. So what is WotC going to sell that would be worth buying?

I'll rephrase this looking at WotC's cash cow: MtG. MtG has rules for building a deck whereas D&D sells you the "whole deck" in the form of a class. The Basic Rules lack a set of rules to build classes and also lack class building blocks. How attractive would MtG be if WotC sold you a complete deck every time and you couldn't mix the cards? For example I bought the Fiery Dawn and Solitary Fiends intro decks; good as they were on their own I could mix them to create new decks and test them out.

Is there a class "building block" set of rules ready to be published sometime in the future? If not, why so? What would D&D look like if instead of selling player's handbooks with classes in them WotC sold class building blocks? The handbook would include class building rules and some sample classes.

Can a sense of scarcity be created with these blocks? In such a way that you need to have the "block" to actually be able to build a class around it. This is obviously something that would displease many players; a reminiscence of 4th's battle grids and a high $$ entry costs in tokens and figures, but one that may also please some who like to collect things. Not saying this is a good or smart idea. I'm just throwing wild thoughts out, but the fact is it is very uncommon to see players play with photocopied MtG cards.

To summarize, is WotC letting too much out of the bag with the Basic Rules and keeping too little for themselves in the form of classes? With basic information like combat and magic rules, equipment costs, weapon damage and armor effectiveness a great deal of the world's "model" is already handed to the players. Spells are more the "product of your imagination" kinda thing that can be easily filled in by the players and developed online through the internet.

Does the player's handbook include rules to build classes? Something like "you have 64 points", this power costs 5, that one 8, etc. Spells, abilities, races, features, etc. add up costs and then you have a finished class build from smaller individual elements. If not, then it seems like the "class" will continue to be D&D's atomic element; unlike MtG where a deck can be easily broken up and mixed together to create a new one as long as the basic deck building rules are followed.

Thoughts? Is there a place in D&D for a mechanism that stands between the class and the point buy models? Is it viable? Is there a business potential in it?

Long vs short character creation

Some games call for a lengthy character creation process while others have a very short creation process. Some players prefer the former while others prefer the later. I don't what to dig into personal preferences. Do you like deep detailed characters or simple less detailed ones are not the questions I'll be asking now. What I'm interested is exploring the impact character creation has on how the game is played and rules are treated. Namely does a lengthy character generation process create such expectations and requires such a investment in time that players are more inclined to pursue their agenda rather than the game's, session's, GM's and other players' agenda of having fun? Is the character creation process required to end by the time playing starts? Can it continue while the game is going on? Fine tuning the character to the particularities of the GM and the campaign. If so, how is it done? Would it help reduce rules lawyering and player complaints?

Let me put forth an example in software development. Your department requires a new piece of software and a team of developers is brought in. They create a list of your requirements and ideas and go off for three months to work on it. They come back later with the finished product. This has pretty much what you asked for but it isn't quite right. It has buttons for features you seldom use which within better reach than those for features you commonly use. Some functionality is implemented halfway. It works, but it requires some work around. It doesn't quite work as you'd expect. The list goes on and on, the budget and time have run out. Without budget and without time the users end up having to adapt to the application instead of the other way around.

I see this happening with players and their characters as well. A lot of time invested in developing a character than might or might not fit into the GM's plans and settings. I want to clarify that by this I don't mean that players should conform blindly to the GM's plans. Rather I'd like to explore how the character can evolve better if everything isn't detailed before game begins. How does GM input improve the character and how does these "looser" initial definitions may allow for newer rules, skills, abilities and what not to take hold. Look into the drawbacks of see in each process.

Lets work from the premise that the game has some set of attributes (STR, CON, DEX, you name it). It also has a skill system, equipment, can have classes or be classless, and has powers and spells as well.

On one end let us put a character generation involving just rolling the attributes, giving the character a name and some basic background and then jumping into play. One the other end there's the attribute rolls, class selection (if applicable), skills, powers, spells, etc. The later is usually done by following a set of rules, books and supplements. It usually involves a thorough reading of the material and a careful selection of the options. This implies a heavy investment in time reading and understanding the material and then building a character with it. After all this the player has what I could describe as a solution looking for a problem. This situation is compounded when the rule system calls for special skills for trivial tasks. Characters in this case can't even operate properly if not thoroughly finished and detailed. Detailing becomes a "cover my back just in case" exercise. Forgot your house keys in grandma's house? Bad luck without climb walls you can't jump the fence.

On the other hand rolling a quick character and then detailing works differently. First of all you get into the game quicker and that is always a good thing. A heavy investment in materials isn't required, although it helps, and a heavy investment in time isn't a requisite either. The character is more ambiguous and in that sense more prone to adapt to the circumstances of the setting. The character stops being a solution looking for a problem and the player can now concentrate in making the character into a solution for the problem. The player is more prone to become part of the the world building process. Without a detailed class selected the player and GM can be more open to develop a new class for the GM's particular setting. Without all skill points spent yet the player and GM may be invited to create new skills for the setting. Without all the spell slots used up the player and GM may be invited to create new spells for the setting. This goes on and on, you get the idea.

On top of all this there isn't anything stopping the player from creating a character as detailed as she or he pleases. The player can write four pages worth of character stats, skills, spells and what not; as long as it isn't prior to the game.

Now there is this little issue with trust. If a character isn't well defined or at least minimally defined then what happens during the adventure? First thing the party encounters is a locked door and all of a sudden one of the characters turns out to be a rouge. Maybe the first thing they encounter is a party of orcs and combat ensures. Turns out the character is a cleric who heals the wounded. I'm not saying the character is switching between being a rouge and a cleric. In one "universe" the character turned out to be a rogue and in a parallel one the character turned out to be a cleric. This is of course an exaggeration made to drive a point. The same can be said about the wizard's or cleric's spell list. Without a predefined set of spells prior to game start the player may be invited to call for the most convenient thing when the challenge presents itself. Some GMs and players may not be able to handle this. They might call it cheating. This sense of needing to have everything locked down prior to game start compels the need for heavy character building processes prior to game start, but is it needed?

Lets consider the extreme case of not even defining the character class prior to starting the game. Lets consider the "universe" in which the first challenge is a locked door. Taking the rogue as a character class locks that decision for the rest of the character's life. What will the party encounter behind the door? Would being a strong fighter and breaking it down be a better decision? Would being a wizard with a knock spell an even better decision? Sure players can "cheat" by making the optimal choice at that point, but is it the optimal choice overall once the adventure is considered as a whole?

What do you prefer? Longer or shorter character creation? Why? In what ways do you reduce the time required to create a character?

This post also appears on Indie+_ and is covered by the Indie+ Community Standards.

Where's the awe in D&D?

Many of you may remember the text in the book that read something along the lines of "Stop reading here". There was a section reserved for DMs only. A place players didn't enter. It was a time when being a DM wasn't an all powerful endeavor to punish players for all their sins.

In those days being a DM was a sacrifice so to speak. One in the group took a step through that portal from which there was no turning back. He forfeit the "innocence" of being a player and took on the task of being a DM. He took on a burden so the players could enjoy the adventure.

Players concentrated on the adventure. They explored the dungeon, drove deeper and deeper into the earth and brought forth treasure and fame. All that nitty-gritty stuff like modifiers, rolls, advancement, etc., was the domain of the DM. It filled player with a sense of facing the unknown. Both in regards to the adventure and the game mechanics. The unexpected drove the adventure. There was awe in the game. Where did it go?

Rules, complaints, bickering, more rules and more bickering now plague the dialogue. They have pushed the awe aside. Players complaining that things should be this way or that. Why? Don't like the rules, write your own. Don't like the game, write your own. Imagine how many great games would exist today if all that energy was spent creating something new instead of bickering?

The most amazing thing for me is that this bickering is about something that shouldn't be the player's concern and should in no way stop the DM from changing it to meet the group's needs. When players concern themselves with this issues about rules they step into the realm of the DM and in doing so forfeit this sense of awe and suspense I speak of.

Have we lost the "innocence" in playing D&D? Have we lost the awe?

How do we get it back?

20 1st Level Millionaires, part 3

I continue the countdown of possible histories and backgrounds for millionaire 1st level characters. These are background stories for characters with a lot of wealth and no army nor castle.

10 - Sold soul to demon

Cut through the chase and get wealthy the easy way. Your character is now not only wealthy beyond belief, he may have a few extra levels included with the sale. What now? Fame and adventure? The involvement of a demon ads great options for the GM. Will the demon appear every so often? What kind of influence can this have in the game? How does this motivate the character? He sure knows who's waiting for him. What will he do to stay alive and escape paying his part of the contract?

9 - Alchemist

Why quest for gold if you can make it? The character can turn lead into gold. Financial issues are of no concern to him. What's the focus of adventure in such a case? Who's going to catch on that lead goes into the character's home and never comes out?

8 - Wizardly inheritance

No everything is gold and gems. Your character is the heir to a powerful wizard's tower. Tomes, scrolls, potions, components, you name it, the tower has it all. It's all worth more than a king's ransom, but your character can't use it, yet. Adventure, exploration and leveling grant access to more and more items in the tower.

7 - Ransom money

Your character, a low level crook, obtained his wealth as ransom money paid for an important figure. What now? Hide? Stay low? Leave town? What about revenge? Will someone come after the character to get the money back and take revenge? Does the rest of the party know? What risks doe this character bring into play?

6 - Powerful item

The character doesn't have much wealth or power. Just one item from his old uncle. The item is actually an artifact. A very powerful one who's powers will be revealed during the character's adventures. What is it? What are its powers? How much is it worth? Who else knows of this item? Who es is questing for it? Will it be a homing beacon for trouble?

The NSR

Well there's OSR which can stand for old school rules/roleplay or old school renaissance or old school revival. Is there NSR? New school renaissance? It's hard to fathom something new having a renaissance. It is after all new. But when the new goes back to the old would you catalog it as new or old? What about the folks who were playing the new stuff which is now old given the release of the new stuff based on the old stuff.

Simply put, is there a future for D&D 4th? Will people keep playing it? What about 3rd?

With WotC taking D&D to the basics and some OSR players supporting it and others saying "it ain't good enough", I'd like to put forth a question. Will there be a NSR? A reaction to this move? Say something that goes back to the 4th Edition style of play.

RPG partisanship leads to reading incomprehension

I'm amazed at the knee jerk reactions some people will do when some of the fundamentals of the RPG rules they love get questioned. To the point they'll read what they want to read and respond accordingly oblivious to the actual content of the blog post.

Yesterday I wrote up a small post touching on the effectiveness of a sword vs full plate and how, given the ineffectiveness of a sword swing, those combats usually boiled down to grabbing, pinning and killing with a dagger or with a blade pushed through the softer spots. My point was that wrestling and grappling played a key element in such combats and that the game rules were "divorced" when it came to such cases.

I got all sorts of responses. None of which were pleasant. Most addressed my "lack of imagination". Others asked if I had never done a fight without weapons. Who the fuck was talking about fighting without a weapon? Sword vs sword in full plate is hardly unarmed combat. I was addressing the lack of leverage the character's wrestling and grappling skills had when fighting WITH a sword against full plate.

Why does this reading incomprehension exist and what's its impact? I'm troubled that this leads to a lack of progress in the game development arena. When someone raises a hand a points out that some modifiers would be better applied somewhere else and gets hammered with arguments against something that is not the actual text of the post then idea exchange and improvement in the game gets hampered.

Is this caused by rules heavy games? A "don't rock the boat" syndrome when players don't want their rules questioned because it would break too many things and lead to a new learning curve?

Have you suffered this? What do you think?

OSR is like a river

I see the OSR as a river. Looking up river you'll see tens if not hundreds of smaller rivers contributing to the main stream. You can paddle upriver and take any one of these tributaries. When you get tired or want to enjoy something new you just let the flow take you downriver until you find a new path to paddle upriver.

Some people believe there's only one true river worth rowing up and down in. Others have chosen a particular river and rowed upstream so far they've seen it reduced to simple stream so small their canoe can go up any more. There are even those that believe there is only one true canoe worth using to row up and down the river.

All this is of course bullshit. To focus on the river is to lose focus of what is important. The view, the sense of adventure and exploration, and, above all, those friends who accompany you on the journey.






To explore new horizons, new games and take on new adventures one must be willing to flow back to the main river and then choose another branch and row upriver through it. I'll add that it was very refreshing for me to read Michael F. Korns' "Modern War in Miniature". A very early (1966) WWII war "RPG". It literally made me throw away a year's work on the Weapons Free game in favor of Saints & Sinners. I guess that over time I had grown to accustomed to certain ideas and needs in regards to mechanics, and although the game's dice and mechanics were very different from what I had played with in other games, it was in essence still much of the same stuff I had vowed to step away from. Slowly, but surely, the game had gotten over complicated with things I liked but were not the true essence of what I was looking for. I was still too influenced by games I had played before. I was rowing upriver so to speak. I needed something new, broader and refreshing.

At around 90 pages Weapons Free was by no means "big", but when I read "Modern War in Miniature" and saw what Korns managed in just 11 pages with huge font size and a small page, I was instantly driven to create something new, simpler, a synthesis of my previous stuff. I realized then than I was being pulled downriver and would soon be finding a new river branch to row up. I realized that up to then I had been dragging the canoe overland, walking, trying to find a new branch to set it in and row, once again, further upriver.

This was not only harder, it was also much more limiting. Quite obviously walking overland carrying the canoe is a lot harder than having the canoe carry me. More important than this is the fact that going overland will only take me to the closest tributary rivers which surely flow to the same main tributary I came from in the first place. That's why after a year's work it still felt pretty much the same as the previous stuff I'd played. Overall a lot of effort for very little change.

With the upcoming release of D&D Next the talk about OSR, D&D and OSR fundamentalism has risen in tone and level. There's always been talk about D&D Next appealing to all their users. I thought and still think that is a bad idea. In the river analogy I see this as looking for a point upriver that all branches meet, and we all know that's impossible. Rivers branch out as one goes upriver. This is also a way to visualize what has happened with D&D over the past decades. Over the course of the last four decades D&D has rowed further and further up a chosen river branch. As the watercourse began to run dry they'd haul their canoe overland and find another nearby branch and milk it for all it was worth. This lead to the fragmentation we see today.

With the release of D&D Basic I see WotC rowing downriver, opening the options for players to choose from the multitude of branches available downstream. A set of wide and affluent branches. It takes us back to the older days of D&D when anything was possible. What we saw over time with 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions was a company choosing a particular tributary and rowing upriver. OSR was a response to this. A move back to the main river. A rejection of WotC's choice.

Unfortunately many OSR supporters have become as polarized if not more so than WotC was back in the day. They believe the river branch they have chosen is the one true OSR tributary. As if all water in it flowed from the fountain of eternal D&D youth or something like that. As much as I value and respect their rules, settings and style of play, I can't fathom their intolerance. There are even those who come to the point of dictating what is a proper canoe and what isn't, who can row in it and who can't. Isn't going against this type of attitude what got OSR going in the first place?

To me OSR isn't about a particular set of rules or even a particular type of die. It's about a spirit of play, a sense of adventure, a drive to explore those yet uncharted rivers. I believe WotC has made a good move with the next D&D version, although only time will tell.



Image Source
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt0ghjgSuzrtjmVrDttZDno7eW9qwbhL1TcbvfsxH-zlwvZZjbByxuA2vtU-M9s9iIvSYq4fW2QZFx0imzH4_GW-ktLF_W2CH0Cn5FLNdaRNquov7WLTOsddYnb-UXFT7_p7H6/s1600/Rapa+River+Delta+Sweden+14.jpg

It's havoc time!

Somethings never get old, and playing a band of orcs raiding a human city with "a smart plan" is a classic example. Playing a band of orcs raiding a human city with a smart plan live on hangouts the day it rains like never before and your house floods mid game is just priceless. This is what did last Saturday and boy was it fun! +Grant Howitt ran a session of his game Havoc Brigade for us last weekend and I seriously recommend it if you want to play something new this weekend.

The game is really easy to grasp and get going. I played a grumpy old orc shaman who dislikes the "new stuff" and what can be newer than a "plan" and a "map". What happened to the old ways? You know: skull crushing and dismembering? Unfortunately in orcland muscle outweighs good judgment and at 4 feet wide shoulders Ox had the final word. So we went along with the plan which was to infiltrate the city through the southern door, enter the keep and kidnap some important person. What could possibly go wrong?

Our day's rations, uhhh, I mean the band of goblins that accompanied us took to the task of infiltrating through the gate. Gone are the days when we'd just tie them up in pairs and catapult them over the wall. One always survived. Why didn't we just do that? No, no, we had "a plan".

So anyway we take to the task of going through the gate according to "the plan". Handsome as we are we didn't go by unnoticed. A little brawl ensured in which our tinker orc Wrench (the Copper Clan Inventor) had to pull out his rail whatever crossbow and unfortunately miss. Did I mention I dislike the new stuff? Specially the clever inventive new stuff. Unreliable as hell. Whatever happened to charging the enemy with a troll high on wyrdforest mushrooms? That always worked!

Well to make thing short after some old school magic from our fellow ettin the guards were neutralized will a pus blast spell that rendered them well... lets leave them at neutralized.

From there on we "followed the plan", and after a little brawl with the local guards (again) which were overcome by more ettin magic(which I'll refrain from detailing this time), we got a few nice dresses (five of them for our friend Ox) and then headed to the party in the castle. Our entrance into the castle was louder than the party itself. Fortunately to us nobody though something that loud was up to something bad. Once in the castle we secured our "target" and made a quick exit. Not without guard resistance of course. Which we had to handle the good ol' way by crushing skulls and dismembering bodies. My joy was so great I even rolled my mayhem dice and got an outstanding success using my thunderbear cloak and wyrdforest mushrooms. I was roaring, the room was thundering and there were lightning bolts flying all over the place. Needless to say nobody challenged our exit from there on and we made a hasty retreat back to our clan's village.

Overall it was a great game I'd recommend and a one shot weekend game. I'll certainly be playing it over and over again. Please make sure to check out the game here.

PS, my house did really flood mid game. LOL talk about havoc!

What is initiative?

We're used to seeing initiative as a die roll to determine who goes first. Is this really initiative and how does this "initiative" build up round after round to build combat momentum? While one meaning of the word initiative is "the power or opportunity to do something before others do", there is also the meaning "at one's own discretion : independently of outside influence or control". Using this definition we can understand that holding the initiative is leading the battle or encounter and not necessarily attacking first.

If the party has a plan and they want to push the orcs to the ravine then it should not matter if the orcs attack first or they party attacks first. What matters is that the orcs don't break out and flank the party.

In that sense the characters must be able to impose their will even if the orcs attack first. Most attack mechanics work by gaining the upper hand and rolling first. The outcome is favorable for the attacker or neutral. Neutral in the sense that no benefit is gained (damage to the opponent), but no loss is suffered either. Except maybe in some systems that contemplate epic failure, but that is sometimes in the way of "you drop your sword", "hit the wizard instead" or "cuts your leg".

The way I see this working better is to have the roll represent a challenge between attacker and defender in a way that the defender may become the attacker if things go sour for the attacker. This calls for greater set of outcomes from a single roll. It's not limited to two outcomes: attacker hits or attacker fails to hit. Instead the outcomes are: attacker achieves something, neither achieve anything, defender achieves something. In this case the one who moves in first is called the attacker and the other the defender, although in truth both are attackers. The attacker is the one that "has the initiative" in the classic sense, but not necessarily the real initiative. The attacker may have a polearm and the defender a short sword. The attacker enjoys the advantage of reach, but does he enjoy the benefit of skill? A skilled defender may lead the fight by dodging and looking for the right time to move in for a kill. It is the "defender" who really holds the initiative and may guide the encounter as the "attacker" tries hopelessly to hit him, misses and instead gets injured instead of delivering damage.

Have you handled situations like this? If so how? I think that being a key player in an encounter while always losing the "initiative" roll is a great opportunity to add more flavor to a game. What do you think? Is it interesting to you?


Image soure
http://martialartkalaripayatt.blogspot.mx/2010_03_01_archive.html

This post also appears on Indie+_ and is covered by the Indie+ Community Standards.

D&D Basic PDF, a move in the right direction?

I've read the rpg pundit's article on Prophecies on the Impact of the Basic D&D PDF with great interest. It seems like D&D is finally coming around to making a compact and easier to use version. One that will be easier to pickup and start playing and may also be more prone to extending and building on top of it by creating interesting content and not just more and more rules.

Back in 2012 I mentioned that WotC should make D&D more like its flagship product: Magic The Gathering. No, not by turning D&D into a card game. Instead of building what looked like a complex system at the time they should build a slim and compact rule set. Externalize all the other stuff to additional books and modules. In the same way MTG has very simple and long lasting rules and simple easy to understand cards, but put together the rules and the multitude of cards make for a very interesting game to play. I enumerated the following points:

• Make D&D a game with long lasting rules.
• Make D&D a game with simple rules.  The complexity in Magic appears in the cards not the rules.
• Make D&D a profitable game. 

I mentioned that instead of the immense complexity that D&D seemed to be building at the time WotC should be focusing on:

• Reduce D&D to no more than 10 rules or so.  Make it fit into 20 to 30 pages.  Like the basic edition.
• Open up a zillion classes and powers.  Magic has the white cards, and the black ones, and the green ones, and the blue ones, and red ones, and probably more I don't know or recall.  It has creatures, and spells, and artifacts, and also more I don't know or recall.  Can't D&D do some equivalent to character class, skills, power, spells, etc.  with that?
• Place the "modular" part on the "cards" (read: classes, spells, skills, powers) not on the rules.  Sell "modules" with ideas, thoughts, inspiration and all that which gets the campaign going.  Do what Magic does and "sell cards" or the equivalent you come up with for D&D.

It's clear from the pundit's article that the first point is coming to be. The Basic (and free) version will be a fully functional and compact book. A starter deck so to speak. Points two and three require a different focus on WotC's part and also a strong community as the pundit mentions. If they manage to ignite that I'd say we are quite possibly looking at some interesting times. Only time will tell. 

Thoughts? Do you think D&D Next offers new ways to put out new content? Can a community be built around this and can WotC make a business on this instead of rolling out more and more rules?

Team Cooperation Rules

We're used to having characters work as a team when they're on adventure. Yet this is usually in a complementary way. There are fighters and clerics, there are rogues and magic users. Each member of the party has a specific role and is specialized for it.

Now what happens when two or more characters work on a single task using the same skill? How would we handle this when the participating characters have different skill levels? For example two rogues trying to disarm a trap or two magic users casting a spell or two clerics trying to raise a dead party member. Or two shadowrunners trying to hack into a system. Or two members of the enterprise trying to fix the warp drive before the Romulans catch up.

What would we expect out of this and what use would it have? There is for example the task that can't fail, like disarming a nuke. Bad things happen if that goes wrong so it can't go wrong. On the other hand there can be tasks that can't be resolved without two or more members participating. For example the classic example of turning two keys that are four meters apart. Not that you need a special skill or roll for that, but you get the point.

In terms of rules this is what I'm looking for:

• There is a difficulty rating for the task.
• Characters have a skill that grants them some probability to succeed.
• Characters have attribute bonuses that grant them a better chance to succeed.
• Individually the task can be very challenging. Each can try, but with their individual odds of success and only with their individual attribute bonuses.
• Working as a team they should get a bonus from adding their individual attribute bonuses and for teamwork.
• Working as a team their individual skill level should affect the overall odds of success. 
• Having many good characters of the same skill level should improve the overall odds. 
• Having one good character and many of lesser skill should not improve the odds as much as the prior case and/or should increase variability (the odds of rolling further from a good central value).
• Working as a team should reduce the time spent at the task. For example many observers should spot the enemy faster than one. This may finally end up in the GM making the call, but it would be good to have a mechanism to convert time to success rate and vice versa. In the previous example many eyes could be on the lookout in a 360 perimeter that reduces the time required to go full circle around the camp, but is not so good at reducing the odds of failure in any one area. There is a lower chance of success, but if it happens they enemy is spotter further out. On the other hand there can be a focus in one area at a time (like a lighthouse). The odds of success are higher, but only apply when the "lighthouse" is painting the area. There are higher odds of success, but the enemy may be spotted later (or sooner if they get lucky, but luck is the topic of another post).
• Rolling as a team is done by a single roll instead of many for each individual character and that's always good.

If we're to see this graphically, I would look for distributions that work like the following:

Task and characters acting individually

Experience isn't only a bonus modifier that moves the curve to the right. It changes the curve making it more compact and higher on the central value (reduces variance). This means the expert is more consistent being an expert and tends to roll closer to a good value than a lesser trained character. You may notice the less skilled character can also roll higher in some cases. This is a particularity of the dice mechanics I'm using which I'm keeping and calling it beginners luck, but I digress, more on that in another post.

I see characters of distinctively different skill levels acting as a team to behave in the following way. The graph shows three levels of expertise: novice, skilled and expert. When building teams we see that the expert and novice together don't add much except maybe the novice's beginners luck. The green curve for the team is right underneath the black curve for the expert. Things get interesting when the expert works with the skilled (yellow curve). The change in variance isn't that great (the yellow curve is just slightly under the black one), but there's a considerable shift to the right. Showing an improvement in odds of success when working as a team.

As a final note I'll add that I haven't included individual attribute bonuses or other type of bonuses. Things can really get interesting when characters pool their attribute bonuses. What may only be a + 1 for intelligence when working individually may convert to a + 3 if all members pool their + 1.

Thoughts?
How do you handle team work in your game? What bonuses do you provide for team work? Have you forced your players to work in teams because that was the only way to overcome a challenge?  Like the aforementioned "turning two keys at once" example in which the fighter or wizard need to help the rogue unlock something or disarm a trap because the mechanical parts are too far apart for one person to handle.


Image 
http://thepeoplebrand.com/blog/2014/04/23/hidden-benefit-of-teamwork/

We tackled the Atlantic wall and killed a tiger!

To commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-Day I ran a D-Day session last night using the Saints & Sinners game rules. +Gabriel Perez Gallardi , +Lan Kelly , +peewee rota and +Randal McDowell joined the session to recreate that famous landing that took place on Normandy.

I had them running over the beach, rushing for the cover of some sand dunes and ditches, giving some cover fire as they inched up trying to get a better shot. Gabriel joined the game just in time to bazooka an MG nest into oblivion. This opened the way for the group, and all the men behind them to storm up Hitler's Atlantic wall. I have to say, I had never played with so many NPCs before. It was fun!

You know what also was fun? Just jumping in the game after rolling 6 attributes and giving the character a name. Players got a choice of M1, BAR, Bazooka, flamethrower or sniper rifle (actually a somewhat better M1).

The trench encounters were packed with grenade throwing, shots coming in and going out, bazooka rockets flying down the trenches to hit enemy positions. It was mayhem, but after about two hours they had secured their part of the wall and were ready to move inland.

The next hour was played on a march into Formigny where the group was ambushed and their tank destroyed. It was looking like a dire situation. More so when the Tiger broke through the morning mist and marched up the road to their position. Only Gabriel's lucky shot with the bazooka saved the day. In a miraculous roll the shot breached the thinner lateral armor and killed the engine. Without it the tank was a sitting duck and it was quickly taken out. The remaining Nazi forces in the area either retreated or surrendered.

We were all left craving for more. It seems like this just spawned another exciting campaign. Possibly the best yet. Second only to the Merc Ops Maersk Alabama one.

Can it be tactical if it's balanced?

Tactical: of, relating to, or used for a specific plan that is created to achieve a particular goal in war, politics, etc

By tactical I don't mean running the game on a grid with miniatures. I mean building a plan and executing it with success. When asked Arneson said the following.

What makes for a really great encounter?
Arneson: That the players overcame the obstacle by wit and not muscles.
What's the point of having a plan if the encounter is already balanced? If it relies more on "balanced muscle" than wit.

Does balance mean that unless the players do something really stupid the party will succeed?

Does this also mean that no matter how well planned the actions are the moment the party enters the room it will all depend on the initiative roll, the damage rolls and the mechanics? After all if the GM knows an encounter is balanced because he rolled it on a table and the outcome is known (with a high degree of certainty) before the first die is even rolled. Otherwise it wouldn't be balanced, right? The rules will work as a safety net around the character.

One of the issues I've got with the current D&D combat mechanics is the lack of urgency and planning in high level combat. It's something that's been in the game for years and we notice its lack of more when we meet level draining monsters or such critters as the rust monster. Get touched once and wham, lots of pain no matter how many hit points your character has. Ever sat down to think how differently those encounters are handled vs the average monster. Even breath weapons and regeneration don't convey that sense of urgency and instill the fear a level draining wight does.

That sense of fear, of need to plan and really stay ahead of the monster, or even run if it comes to that, is something we begin to forget as players as our characters reach mid to higher levels. We're in the 40 to 50 hp range, we've got fireball, some serious armor and cure serious wounds. We are rocking!

What would it take to keep encounters challenging throughout all levels? Without it boiling to some sort of calculation we do in our head: hit points delivered minus hit points received on average, number crunching, ok, let's attack it. Or worse yet, let's attack because the GM surely planned it for our current character level and adventure difficulty. So it should be safe to attack. Even worse yet, have to hear the complains of a player or all the players as some members or the whole party gets killed because they engaged an opponent they were not supposed to engage. They did so because the encounter was there and it was supposed to be balanced, right?

Does this bother you as it bothers me? How do you handle it in your game? Is the fix possible within current combat mechanics? If not, would a game that does a grass roots change to the mechanics still be considered OSR?

Sources
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactical
http://www.koboldpress.com/k/front-page460.php#.U4xpqvldWWE
http://accuracy0.deviantart.com/art/Lady-Justice-372932739