Vector Insects

A vector insect is one used by another insect as a vector to infect a human host. The vector insect is trapped and eggs are laid on it. When the vector insect bites, stings or in any way does whatever it does to a human, an egg is laid on the human host. The human's body heat activates the egg which uses the vector insect's injury to get under the skin (literally). Once inside the egg grows to a full and rather disgusting larvae.

The potential use for this in a monster manual is huge, albeit a bit appalling and it does scream GM fiat all over. Imagine all those little critters you once found in a dungeon now laying eggs on mosquitoes that fly into town. Remember the dreaded rot grubs? Now you don't have to journey deep into the forest or a dungeon. They're delivered fresh to your home by your friendly mosquito.

Or maybe the villages honey bees are now infected with some terrible bug using them as vector insects. 

Why stop with insects. Curses and even zombification can be airborne on mosquitoes and other vector insects. Maybe even the G'ould evolved to be airborne that way. Chilling thought.

Source

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/nsfl-botfly-removal-5-year-old%E2%80%99s-eye

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?680134-Why-did-D-amp-D-amp-Pathfinder-art-become-so-stylized/page6

Cover, hit rolls and damage

Firing a weapon from cover requires the exposure of some parts of the body. Generally the less critical hand and arm and the quite critical head. This increases the risk of mortal injury if hit. It also raises the question about damage capacity of an attack and the character profile to the enemy as the encounter progresses. How do attack and damage rules affect the way the character appears from the enemy's standpoint?

We're used to attacks having a set amount of possible damage: 1d6, 2d8, etc. But what if the damage didn't only depend on the weapon, but on the target area? After all getting hit on the hand, as painful as it may be, will not be immediately life threatening. There should be a cap on the amount of damage that can be delivered to such body parts, right?

Asking around I got feedback on this issue. The comments can be grouped into two camps: a) some games (Hero System for example) have such rules and b) that's already taken into consideration in the damage roll. The former puts me in a cold sweat, I certainly don't have any interest in creating something as complex as Hero System (all due respect to those who enjoy playing it). The later leads me to ask the question: are the odds of hitting a certain body part a property of the setting and current storyline or are they a property of the damage roll, the hit roll or the character's hit points? Does this lead to certain body parts being "more visible" and "less visible" as the character's hit points change or the enemy changes weapons? Are rules affecting (and limiting) the storyline instead of helping narrate it? Let me explain.

Lets say a character has 12 hit points and the weapon does 1d6. We might interpret a 3 to 6 as a head wound with varied degrees of severity and a 1 to 2 as a hand injury. The first contradiction is that a head wound would never kill the character. Even the deadliest of hits would only reduce the character's hit points to half. To handle this we may totally exclude a head wound and as a storyteller one may just narrate that the hit impacts the hand or lower arm, sparing the head from any injury. But this totally excludes the possibility of a head wound in the beginning of the encounter. Rules are dictating what we can narrate.

Now as the character's hit points drop and reach a level of 3 o 4 remaining hit points it is quite hard to exclude a head wound from the storyline. It is very hard to narrate a hand wound at this point because it would be very hard to convince someone that their character died because he bled out of his pinkie. Once again the game mechanics are forcing the storyline and our trusty character is going from being this in real life:

to this at the beginning of the encounter:

and this as hit points are depleted:

It is clear from this example that the rule design affects the story's potential. A storyline's plausibility depends on the weapon used and the character's hit points instead of the current setting, actions and skills of those involved.

Question here is how to create a set of rules that describe what's happening without limiting what can happen. Games that take on a more narrative focus have less of an issue with this, but games with different mechanics could suffer from the aforementioned issue.

I'm looking at handling damage differently. First there's the hit roll, the the impact area is determined and finally the damage, which depend son the impacted area. This sounds a bit more complicated as it adds another die roll, but it can also be a means to simplify things. Here are some considerations:

• Hit rolls with various degrees of success rather than a binary outcome. This can help determine the impacted area by GM ruling rather than another die roll.
• Fixed damage to non critical body parts. If the hit roll is a marginal success then a hand or foot is hit, or the hit is just a flesh wound.
• Roll for damage only on good hit rolls that represent a severe or critical hit.

Thoughts? What would you propose or what games have you played that keep the character looking like the following image all through the encounter instead of some deformed version of it?

Image source

http://www.talkingproud.us/PhotoGallery/page98/PhotoGalleryServeSacrifice.html

http://www.defense.gov/Photos/NewsPhoto.aspx?NewsPhotoID=9828

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

The physics of magic and the wizard's stats

A wizard conjures a magic missile, fires it off and hits without even rolling to hit and without any recoil. The hail of stones rushes forward from the mage's hands. A lightning bolt strikes out from his fingers. All of this without any apparent physical effect on the sorcerer. Why?

Isn't that magic missile pushing against something as it is sent forward? For example the magic user's body, in the same way a rifle pushes against the shooter's shoulder. Non inertial magic is a term I'm using to refer to all that magic we love to use which has no physics to explain how it comes to be (which is fine, it's magic), but also has no physics to explain how it affects or doesn't affect the environment around it either.

What would the effect be if certain types of magic had inertia? Sure you can conjure a rock, but quite another thing is to throw it. Sure, magic can work as a hydraulic system, empowering your body, but there has to be some underlying strength. Factor in the strength in such a spell. The rock's weight can't be any arbitrary number, but rather a multiple of the wizards strength not his intelligence or wisdom.

Got a lightning bolt? Sure, but those six plus digit voltage levels are going to have an ionizing effect on anything nearby, including the magic user. Consider constitution or endurance. Even some "temporary" off the record hit point loss that represents the "ionizing damage" the bolt does to the wizard. These "pseudo" hit points hit zero? No more lightning bolts until they're recovered.

Want to invoke a daemon with low charisma? Good luck with that. The creature may be summoned and under the wizard's control, but flattery will still go a long way in granting you what you want.

Although I've seen some games include more than intelligence or wisdom into the "magic equation", it is not a common practice across the board and magic remains pretty much "non inertial". There is seldom any negative feedback rule a magic system or some sort of diminishing return model that may lead to a capped power growth for magic users. The magic user just keeps growing and growing usually based on one stat and at best sometimes two.

What do you think? Do you believe magic users have it too easy just relying on one or two key attributes and having everything else work like magic (pun intended)? Or should more attributes and values be taken into consideration when developing magic rules and spells? Would this help solve the exponential vs linear power growth many of us complain about?

Here are some ideas I'd like to put forward

• If your game has spells organized by spheres or groups, relate an attribute to each and require higher attributes to use such a sphere. Even have magic that doesn't require high intelligence or wisdom. Some instinctive power of a tribe that relies on other attributes. 
• Factor in attributes into the spell. How effective a spell is depends on other attributes aside from intelligence. A fighter, due to strength or endurance, can be more effective with a spell through a scroll than a magic user of considerably higher level. A rogue, due to agility, a can perform a task better with a ring than a magic user of a higher level.
• If you're considering failure mechanics in your spell system then relate these to attributes as well. A spell that requires agility may be more prone to failure if the magic user isn't nibble fingered. The aforementioned lightning bolt may be more prone to injure the magic user if he has low endurance.

Image Source
http://www.deviantart.com/art/undead-wizard-77297566

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

Poor Death Star Design

There's an open letter from the Death Star's designer Dak Exhaustport explaining why it wasn't his fault the Death Star was destroyed by a group of small fighters. While I do understand his concern regarding the 90° turn at the vent entrance and I too find it suspicious. I have to challenge his claim that he is without fault. It is true that there was a conspiracy to destroy the empire. It was clearly being carried out by Anakin Skywalker and his son Luke. Clearly it was meant to exploit the emperor's desire to bring Luke to the dark side and it was meant to take place when they met and not sooner. Unfortunately the whole Death Star thing blew up in Darth Vader's face and he had to postpone the meeting between Luke and the emperor.

Now back to the Death Star vent port issue. Dak Exhaustport claims it isn't his fault. That other issues lead to the exploit of the vent and not his lack of foresight. I say that it is not only a design which exposes the battlestation's core to a fighter attack, it is also a very inefficient one. Even for Earth's standards nowadays. Let me present exhibit A. It clearly shows the vent port going from the surface straight to the core. Literally straight to the core.

So while I do admit it is possible to use the force to turn the torpedoes 90° at the entrance of the vent, it would have been impossible to guide them through a maze of turns all the way to the core. The force is strong with Vader and Luke, but without visual sight it would be impossible to guide regardless of their skill with the force. This leads me to exhibit B, C and D.

Exhibits B and C show modern day Earth ventilation designs in which turns are clearly visible. Hot fumes can easily handle turns in the ventilation system. If Dak Exhausport had placed a few turns in the shaft as it lead down (or up, however you see it), the Death Star would still stand.

The design was also a poor one as Exhibit D shows how one shaft usually terminates. It fans out to a set of actual ports that provide even ventilation to the area the vent is meant to cool. So we would expect the controversial vent to fan out as it approached the core. This makes sense because a single port would be able to cool the area in its vicinity, but not areas in the opposing side. This would lead to thermal differences within the core. If the vent fans out into a set of vents around the core the overall effectiveness of the vent system increases and removes the possibility of a torpedo reaching the core.

So though there is the aggravating circumstance of the whole Skywalker conspiracy, the fact stands that Dak Exhaustport is entirely responsible for the destruction of the Death Star. Not only is it a poor vent shaft design as shown by exhibits B to D. It is also on that leaves the whole battlestation susceptible to external attack by a lone fighter pilot.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Image sources

http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131105191250/starwars/images/7/7d/Death_Star_Owner's_Technical_Manual_blueprints.jpg

http://www.brita-in-pubs.eu/bit/uk/03viewer/retrofit_measures/pics/solar_ac_pic1.jpg

http://capitalsteelbuildings.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/duct-system-in-commercial-buildings-for-sale.gif

http://centralair.net.au/images/packagedunits.jpg

The calendar as a story element

The calendar plays an important aspect in our lives. It tells us when winter or summer occur. When to plant and when to harvest. It marks certain days to celebrate, commemorate and hold ceremony. Now we usually run on a 365 day calendar, but what if we had two calendars and they weren't the same length. These two calendars are in turn broken into smaller elements which fit together as gears in a machine. Each tooth of each gear means something and as they turn they unfold the destiny of men. Such is the nature of the Aztec calendar. The ultimate random encounter table.

The largest of these set of gears is the xiuhpohualli (year count) a calendar year of 365 days. It is composed of 18 months (metztli) of 20 days each and 5 dark days called nemontemi. The tonalpohualli (day count) is a smaller set. A 260 day ritual calendar comprised of 20, 13 day periods, called trecenas. The xiuhpohualli (year count) and tonalpohualli (day count) spin together giving a year count and a day count for every day in a man's existence. They spin and spin in a cycle that repeats itself every 52 years. A century for the Aztecs sometimes called the calendar round.

The days in the tonalpohualli (day count) each have a name of either an animal or object which indicated what influenced such a day.  Some sample name are house, lizard, death, water, grass, and monkey.  These days also have a cardinal direction (north, south, east and west). Together these elements carry strong omens and meanings to those born in such days, those wishing to marry, venture on trips, build a house or make war.The cardinal directions were related to gods and held their own symbolism. The East to the God of Rain: Tlaloc, life and fertility. The East was the start of the Sun's travel. The West belonged Chalchihuitl, the Goddess  goddess of water, rivers, seas, streams, storms, and baptism. The West also marked the end of the Sun's path. Mictlantecuhtli, the God of Death, Power and Force, owned the North. The South was Xochipilli's, the prince of flowers, god of love, games, beauty, maize and pleasure.

For example, a dire time to travel was the first day of the five western trecena, (1 Deer, 1 Rain, 1 Monkey, 1 House, and 1 Eagle). On those days the dreaded vampire like Cihuateteo would roam road crossings. Stealing children, causing illness and even attacking weary travelers.

Thirteen of these days build up a trecena. There were 20 of these in a tonalpohualli (day count). Each one of these 20 trecenas was associated with a particular deity. These deities held power over these days, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill.

All of this in turn fits into the 365 day xiuhpohualli (year count) calendar, which had it's own days and months! Can you see how the mother all of random encounter tables begins to build up? What fortune will this day bring to the party? Well what god influences the xiuhpohualli month and what god the tonalpohualli trecena and what day is it? Is it a north, east, west or south facing day? Is it a benevolent god? Are we in the dreaded last 5 days of the xiuhpohualli. If so, let's stay in the tavern a few more days.

While two interwinding calendars may be too much for some, a simpler model can be built to add flavor to your setting and particularly your clerics. In your campaign you can set up months and days with each of the important deities, the good and the bad. The meanings for each day. As the gears spin and spin they crank out new paths for the adventure. Giving a good day to travel once then an ill day for a journey at some other time. Calendar dates may put pressure on the party. They have to reach their destination before the end of a certain 13 day period or depart during a certain month. Even small daily omens can help resolve what kind of creature the party will meet and what fortunes lay ahead before sun sets.

If you want to see this in action I strongly recommend the following site. Punch in today's date and read the significance of this day in the Aztec calendar.

http://www.azteccalendar.com/

For deeper look into the Aztec and Mayan Calendar take a look at the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_calendar

Image source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xiuhtecuhtli_1.jpg

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

Opposing die rolls

As players we are used to rolling to beat a target number with our dice. What I've been looking into and using in my games recently is rolling dice to beat a difference between dice. So instead of rolling 14 on a d20 or higher you need to have a difference of 5 or higher between two d20s. How does this work and how does it affect the game?

How does it work? Simply put the player rolls dice and the GM rolls dice. What matters is not the value each one rolls, but rather the difference between these rolls. To make a simple example lets play with d10s. A task has to be solved and the GM sets the difficulty at 5. To succeed the player and GM roll a d10. The difference between the rolls has to be 5 or greater to succeed.

The odds for a d10 - d10 is the following:

Since we are only concerned with the difference and not which is higher we must consider the absolute value of the die roll as show in the following graph:

Why has this caught my attention lately? Well for starters lets look at more complex dice. Look a the d20 vs d20 and 2d20 vs 2d20 below. The 2d20 vs 2d20 gives a nice flat curve towards the higher values. This means high difficulty tasks are going to be very improbable to succeed at unless the character has a lot of skill.

For example if the task requires a 32 or higher difference between the rolls the odds of success are minimal. If the character has just a +3 from skill the odds don't budge the slightest. On the other hand a character with +10 bonus would get considerable benefit, he's an expert. Yet this might not be enough to ensure an acceptable degree of success. Come in team play. Since there are a lot of values (0 to 38) it is easy to implement a mechanism for team play and group cooperation. If 4 characters all add their +4 to the task thats +16. It drops the difficulty from 32 to 16, making a task with 0.5% chance of success into one with 20% chance of success.

Finally the thing I really like, and that's because I'm a wicked GM, is that this keeps the players guessing. I don't have to reveal my roll and since there's no target value they're left guessing if they succeeded or not. Specially in the easier tasks. If the task is hard, once again taking the 32 difficulty rating as an example, it's pretty obvious from the player's roll which option is a winner and which one isn't. This is similar to real life, if the task is hard and you're not very experienced you don't raise your hopes up of having a success and you pretty much know you blew it. On the other hand if the difficulty is 10, there are a lot of values that I can roll as a GM that will give them a 10 or greater difference. The player rolls a 15, and well a 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 on my roll would mean failure. What did I roll? Did I roll these less probable values or the more probable ones between 5 and 25? Time to open the treasure chest and find out.

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

Unplayable character? What is that?

A recent conversation about character attribute rolling brought up the concept of "unplayable character". What is that? A character with such poor attributes it can't be played? But why can't it be played? And why is it allowed to exist in the game?

One thing is to take a character with some limitations and play it leveraging its strengths and overcoming its weaknesses. Another entirely different thing is to have a character with all low attributes. Such a character is an uncommon, but nonetheless possible outcome of the character generation process. This is what was called an "unplayable character". A character so limited in its attributes it is very hard to play since it does not allow the player to play the type of character or class they wish to play.

This situation has lead some players to shun random rolls as a means to determine attributes. My question is this, are "unplayable characters" the product of the random process itself which should not be used, or is it the product of a poor game design that allows for nonviable characters? In other words shouldn't games select these random rolls in a way they don't allow for low and "invalid" values? The software equivalent of user input validation.

Select another die roll or adjust what those values represent to the game's mechanics. If a game's mechanics call for attributes between 1 and 20 why not roll 5d4 which ensures values between 5 and 20? Or roll 2d6 + 8. That ensures values between 10 and 20 with most landing around 15. This eliminates the possibility of a "unplayable character" while still allowing for some low attributes which are challenging and fun to play.

I'm a strong advocate for random values because they take me out of my comfort zone and make me play with values I might not consciously select. Humans are creatures of habit after all. A little bit of randomness goes a long way to help me find new attribute combinations that are interesting to play. Yet this is only fun if the values fall within playable limits.

Advocates of point buy say they prefer this mechanism because it allows them to play what they want. Does it? Do they get what they want? I'd say they get less uncertainty as to what they'll end up with as a character. They're more secure in the thought they won't get something bad, but at the same time they're limited as to how good a character they can get.

The 8 + 2d6 random generation process I showed above does allow for the most unfortunate character to end up with all values of 10,  but it also allows characters to end up with all values between 15 and 17, or all 20s (with the same odds of having all 10s). You can't get that with point buy. To get a character with all attributes equal or greater to 15 by means of a point buy mechanics the game designer would have to give enough points to raise values to such high number and then everyone would play with all attributes above 15. Who would forfeit the remaining points to deliberately have low values in some attributes. No one. Every single player would use up all points and end up with super powerful characters.

So from the point of view of a point buy system those characters that were rolled up with 8 + 2d6 and ended up with low attributes sure look shitty. On the other hand from the point of view of random attribute characters that were rolled up with 8 + 2d6 and ended up with high attributes those point buy character sure look shitty.

Looking at it from this angle point buy isn't really giving me better characters, it's actually giving me fewer options.

Pros and Cons of each...

Point Buy

• Player has greater control of character attributes.
• Characters don't end up with very low stats.
• Less attribute value combinations available to players. Can't have all max values.

Die roll

• Player has less control of character attributes.
• Character may end up with very low stats. This is solved by a better selection of the roll mechanics.
• More attribute value combinations available to players. Can roll all max values.

Thoughts?

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

Heavy Armor in D&D Next

Just finished reading Mike Mearl's Legends & Lore article. I must say I'm a bit troubled by the new modifications regarding character speed and heavy armor. He says "allowing characters with sufficient Strength scores to ignore the speed penalties for heavy armor." Then he goes on to explain why it makes sense and puts forward a couple of reason.

I have to say it makes no sense to me. Now, I must confess I'm not following D&D Next development as I used to, but if encumbrance is still related to STR as it is in Pathfinder then I have an issue. Actually two.

I don't see strength related to speed. Sure it helps, but you also need endurance. As any marathoner can vouch for. The D&D attribute that is closest to endurance is constitution. You need good lungs and a strong and healthy cardiovascular system to pump all the oxygen required by those 18 STR muscles. A high constitution would be required to move heavy armor during combat without a speed penalty. Except maybe for short sprints in which oxygen in the muscles would suffice.

The second issue I see is more game design related. A high STR score gives a character a higher carry capacity (I'm assuming this is similar to previous D&Ds, correct me if I'm wrong). A high STR score also gives a combat bonus. On top of this it is also going to give a movement bonus? It makes more sense to me to move this rule to require high constitution and thus require two high values to get a character that can easily CARRY heavy armor AND MOVE QUICKLY in it. Otherwise a single value such as a 17 STR grants too many benefits, IMHO.

Thoughts? Do you think they're using STR too many times or is there something I missed that would make the game more balanced?


Image source

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3002/3091860019_1a209705c0_o.jpg

Hit, miss or suppress

"Cover me!" is one of the most useless phrases I've seen used in the modern combat RPGs I've played. Why? Because the games I've played have basically two outcomes: hit or miss. If you hit, what's the point of of covering your buddy, the enemy is already dead. If you miss, what's the point of covering if your shot isn't going to stop the enemy from firing back. If the only way to pin down an enemy in a game is to see him and shoot him dead the player loses a great deal of tactical options with the character.

In Weapons Free suppression fire is the third and most common outcome of an exchange of bullets. Suppression has the purpose of pinning down your enemy and allow friendly troops to reposition in the hopes of gaining a tactical advantage.

In the game you can shoot an enemy even if your character can't see them. "Whoa, what? Fire's coming from that tree line?", all of a sudden everyone shifts fire there even when they haven't seen anyone. Combat is resolvable even if the target isn't visible and the outcome of suppression can be leveraged for the unit's benefit.

So mechanically what is suppression? Suppression is a shot who's die roll is off enough not to be a hit, but not that far off to be a total miss. It comes close enough to scare the hell of the enemy. A miss is the product of a misplaced shot, shooting into the wrong direction or, if the target is dead center, appearing to have no damn clue how the weapon should be used. More often than not you'll either hit or suppress, unless you have no clue as to the enemy's location and your character is just firing blind.

As you might have guessed missing in the game is a terrible thing. It fails to neutralize the enemy in anyway and most surely gives away your character's position. Which can lead to your character getting suppressed. Remember, your character will probably not get hit, but all those bullets flying over his head will not make him comfortable or willing to put his head up and shoot back.

What do I expect to see in the game and what effects does this have? Well I expect there to be a lot more ammunition usage. A lot of shots that don't hit, but keep the enemy or players down. A lot of moving around to reposition and a lot less dying. I believe suppression will reduce game lethality and will go a long way into changing the expected outcome of an encounter from total annihilation to retreat or surrender. Getting totally suppressed should be the equivalent outcome of many "fight to the end" encounters I've usually had. Leading to a retreat or a surrender of the enemies or the party involved instead of a TPK.

Thoughts? What games have you played that allow for non-lethal outcome of attacks that push back the enemy?

Image source
http://s18.postimg.org/4ar0x79kp/VN22_Juliliten.jpg

Rules that enable players and rules that don't

I want to talk a bit about the effect rules have on player options. In tabletop RPGs rules are made to create a game which allows the player play the role of a character in some setting, be this fantasy, scify, modern, etc. As such the rules should allow the GM and players to describe any action the characters could really take in such a setting. Thus if a game has magic there are rules for magic, if the game centers around combat there are rules for combat and so forth.

Yet a great deal of times when rules describe or regulate actions they also limit what players can do. This occurs when rules take certain abstractions into consideration in an attempt to make things manageable. Examples of this are combat rule elements such as attacks per round, initiative and movement rules. In games with detailed combat rules these will dictate what actions are possible and which not and in what sequence. They work to make the complexity of combat fit into a flow diagram that can be followed again and again until combat is resolved.

Unfortunately it is quite common that these rules limit what a character can do. I don't want to get too deep into the debate of "the one attack is an abstraction and actually means many actions taken". I just want to point out the implications this has on the storytelling process and see what can be done about it. Is it possible to arrive at a rule set that sets some limits for characters so the game doesn't blow out of proportion, yet still allows for more narrative freedom and a greater variety of actions?

Lets take a look at an example of such combat rules since they are a clear case of this issue and then look into other ways of working with combat that allow for more flexibility.

The encounter in this example starts as a conversation between the party and a group of kobolds which might unfold into a combat encounter. The conversation goes quite smoothly the GM narrates what the kobolds say and the players what the characters responds and so forth. There's a great correlation between the actions in game reality (what the characters are doing) and game story (what the players are narrating). So far it all looks just as if the players were actually in the game setting itself, doing and acting what the characters are actually doing. Nobody rolls for initiative to see who speaks first, there's no rule saying you can't say something or that you can't interrupt the kobold chieftain in the middle of his speech. There certainly is no rule that limits players phrases per round nor rules that close their mouths as they walk. Now come combat and all that changes. If negotiation goes sour it's time for initiative.

A disparity between game reality and game story arises that wasn't there just a few moments before. The rules begin imposing limits to character actions which are not directly derived from the game's reality. Certain limitations are not a natural consequence of the setting's physics. In an attempt to depict what is happening in combat the rules leave out a great deal of actions and options. Characters that were just moments earlier speaking freely are now taking a turn and having one action in that turn, and while they could freely move around and talk seconds earlier, now they either walk, stand or attack. What happened? Combat rules kicked in.

Combat rules dictate what can be done, in what order and how. Yet they usually fail to explain why. Why is there just one attack? Why only one movement? Why just one weapon? For example when a rule says a fighter can't fight two handed the rule is imposing a limitation. A limitation which is the consequence of some physics of the world the fighter lives in, but not the actual reason. On the other hand when the rule says a fighter can fight two handed, but there's a -7 "to hit" penalty due to the extra burden and the coordination skills required, the rule is not limiting, it is describing a phenomenon. It isn't saying the fighter can't use two weapons because the odds of success are too low. It is saying "here are the modification to the odds" and letting you choose. Two handed fighting may not be in the character's best interest given such a high penalty, but it is certainly not some limitation imposed from "outside his world". Imagine the character's expression when some invisible force stops him from grabbing a dagger AND a sword. It simply makes no sense in for something like this to happen.

Now, not only does this create unreal barriers to player actions, it also adds unneeded complexity to the game. What happens when the character has four arms? Do we write a rule as an exception to the prior rule that limits two handed combat? This make the rules more complex, the rulebook heavier and the learning curve longer. Such rules can add up like polarizing lenses and end up with very little options for the player.

Lets start adding different rules together: weapon use, movement, attacks per round, healing, etc. All the things a character can do can be seen as normal unpolarized sun light. As the first rule is applied only actions that abide to such a rule "may pass". When we hit the second rule actions will be able to pass only if this rule is "aligned" with the first. If it isn't perfectly aligned, or worse yet totally perpendicular to it, less or even no actions will be possible.

The bigger the rule book the more probable it is that rules have contradictions and not all rules are coherent with each other. So in the same way many polarized lenses eventually cut down all light so will rules cut down a great deal of options and actions a player can take.

We can see the effect in a graphical way in the following diagram.

Wonder why min maxing occurs? I strongly believe it is because the final set (the one labeled "After a set of rules") is so small it is easy to wrap one's mind around it and find the key elements at play.

So what's the alternative? I strongly believe a more descriptive and less declarative set of rules goes a long way in solving this. By descriptive I mean a rule that tries to explain why something happens instead of just declaring the consequence. It might get a bit more complicated if for example fatigue rules are used to keep tabs on character actions. On the other hand it makes things a lot more unpredictable because there are more options. Characters still move, attack, act and react to the environment within acceptable limits, but they are no longer bounded to a single attack or movements in 15' increments.

The issue of limiting player options through the rules is currently of great concern to me as I work on a modern warfare game which borders on the action thriller. Can you imagine Jason Bourne having only one action every round? Neither can I.

Thus I've been moving away from the types of rules I grew up with. Moving away from the more fixed type with one attack, roll for initiative and follow a flow diagram type of rules to a more loosely coupled ones. I'm now interested in rules that explain how the character's potential is transformed into actions rather than just enumerating possible actions.  To do this I constantly ask myself two questions:

• Am I limiting the character beyond the normal limits? If applying the rule somehow limits what the character could reasonably do then it gets taken out. Limits exist, but they're "explained" by some character attribute or fall within reason.
• Am I really representing the game's reality? Rules are a great way to convey how the world I've conjured should work. They help a GM recreate my world on someone else's tabletop. If a rule does not help to build this it gets taken out or rewritten. As a modern warfare game designer, if I see live combat footage and a rule in my game prevents me from recreating that setting, the rule gets taken out or rewritten. 

The first question helps me push the game into the narrative side of gaming. I want the player to tell a story. The second question helps me push the game into the crunchier side of gaming. I impose certain mechanical restrictions that help describe and thus recreate the setting. In the context of a modern warfare game these rules and restrictions help differentiate one weapon from another and one skill from the other. In a game in which everyone plays a fighter it is interesting to see how these minor mechanical restrictions add up to the tactical value of each element in the team. Couple this with the more narrative combat resolution mechanics and a dynamic emerges in which tactics, player decisions and team work are more important to success than exploiting a fixed combat flow diagram and a set character options.

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

Team Play

Last Wednesday's playtest brought up the conversation on the value of character teams in RPGs and by team play I don't refer only to all players working as a team. No, I'm also talking about something I've seen generally shunned by players and that's playing with many characters.

I've usually heard that players can't handle more than one character. That roleplaying will only be "skin deep" as one mind can't handle multiple personalities at the same time (at least not a sane one). Characters, it seems, would end up being personality clones of each other. Their only distinction being their stats and skill sets.

On the other hand I'm working on a modern warfare game in which characters are highly trained professionals. As such they work as a team very well. Something that is hard to achieve with players who just meet once a week to play. Squad coordination is better achieve when all members think and act as one. In real life this is achieved through training and can be achieved in game by having one player control the squad.

So here's the sitrep:

• A one player to many characters type of relationship would lead to less character development by making it harder for the player to manage so many distinct personalities.
• One player coordinating many characters allows for more "professional" looking actions from the squad (group of characters) and less time spent "getting their act together" between players.
• For a mission to be successful it may require more characters than there are players available for the session.
• High lethality in the game means a character can be incapacitated or killed. So having many characters is a way to guarantee continued play.

What is to be done?

We discussed the idea and I agree that the best would be to make the unit the fundamental element for the player. Players will have units with many characters in them. This doesn't mean they need to always play with a unit. A player can use a single character from a unit for the duration of a session or mission. It does mean though that the PCs will have a benefit from being in the unit.

• A new player can have a one man unit and then grow from there.
• A unit will be more powerful and better balanced than a single player. It will provide a pool of resources depending on the mission at hand.
• Morale and leadership bonuses can be given in the game for members of the same unit.
• Unit points allow the unit to grow. These are handed to the player when a character becomes incapacitated and can no longer be played. They can be used to create new characters with similar skills and strengths as the one that became incapacitated.

The unit sounds like a good solid idea, but I still have some concerns about balance, power growth and a player not being able to develop many characters as well as a single character. What are your concerns with players running more than one character in a game? What issues do you have with large parties that have more than one character from each player? What about the endless minutes players spend coordinating something? How do you handle that? Played last Monday with +Kaan Emirler and he addressed the issue with a game mechanic called "the flow". Our characters had to pay something for us the players to talk and get our act together. Do you impose time limits on your players when they work as a team?



Image source
http://www.andrews.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123367891

Holy cow, I don't know how to play on the tabletop. HELP!

I'll be honest, it's been over 20 years since I GMed on the tabletop. I mean the real tabletop. Back then I had an 8088 8 bit computer with CGA graphics and a dot matrix printer that would hang if the PC ran at 10MHz. That is to say we did everything by hand. We drew on this cardboard with 1" squares and a plastic on top. The best I had were my D&D Battlesystem tokens to put characters and armies.

I came back to roleplaying two years ago and haven't stopped using Hangouts for that and Roll20 as a tabletop tool. I've got everything for that, but honestly, I don't have any printed stuff. Nor real life tokens, figures, maps, you name it. I can't play a real life RPG session. I'm not ready. I don't have a clue what to take. If I were to GM a tabletop game today, what's expected of me to bring?

New attributes and their value range

This week's playtest had raised some good points regarding attribute names, their meaning and how they are determined. This has lead to some attributes changing their name so they're a lot more clear as to what they stand for.

The game has two sets of attributes: primary and secondary. The primary attributes are rolled and they represent the character's "genes". These primary attributes had a name change in the value that represents robustness and physical build of the character. This attribute is now called build (BLD).

The way primary attributes are rolled has changed as well. Instead of having two options, one rolling 3d6 and another 4d6, primary attributes are either rolled using 5d4 or point bought.

Secondary attributes on the other hand represent the current state of the character and are calculated by averaging primary attributes and adding background bonuses. These values represent the upbringing and training the character has had during life and they will also change as the character progresses. Secondary attributes got two new names. What was once enlightenment is now sagacity. Enlightenment was a good name when used in a fantasy game from which these rules were born, but it is not so fitting for a modern combat name. The other attribute that changes was illustration. This is now called cognitive and represents the level of education and abstract thinking the character has.

The overall goal of this changes is to:

• Use attribute names which are a lot more clear in their meaning and don't refer to some uncommon meaning of the word.
• Introduce the option of point buying the character's primary attributes. Many players expressed their preference of point buy over rolling.
• Raise the minimum attribute value form 3 to 5 and group attributes a lot more around the value of 11 and 12. This will lead to less "nonviable" characters. I will also look into the weight each value has in the game. Such a "calibration" will make values between 5 and 9 less of an unusable dump score and more of a weak value.

PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES

Build (BLD)

The general physical build of the character.  A stronger build will allow for greater strength.

Intellect (INT)

The smarts and mental agility of the character.

Will (WILL)

The strength of the character's persona.

Agility (AGI)

How flexible and in control the character is of her or his body.

Constitution (CON)

How healthy the character is and how resistant to illness and disease.

Ki (KI)

How in tune the character is with the world.

Determining  Primary Values

By Rolling

Attributes are rolled using 5d4.

By Point Buy

Character starts with all attributes at 11 and the player rolls 3d4 to determine the ammount of extra points  that can be assigned to increase these values.

SECONDARY ATTRIBUTES

Strength (STR)

Determines how much the character can carry, lift and throw.  It can be improved over time with rigorous training.  Without sustained training it will diminish over time.

Initial value : average of BLD & CON

Sagacity (SAG)

Sagacity is the intellectual and spiritual openness and perception of the world around the character. It can be beneficial when negotiating with NPCs and being empathic with other characters. It is also important in enduring the hardships of war, the loss of friends and overall shock of modern combat.

Initial value: average of INT & KI

Cognitive (COG)

Represents the level of learning and education the character has.  It is a mixture of studied learning, and life experiences. It is an important attribute for officers and intelligence personnel as well as activities requiring abstract thinking.

Initial value: average of INT & WILL

Dexterity (DEX)    

It is the ability to move fast and with well placed moves. Benefits ranged combat and skills that requires manual dexterity.

Initial value: average of AGI & KI

Endurance (END)

Represents how much and how long the character endure physical strain. It benefits combat and resisting fatigue. High endurance means a stronger heart which translates to more actions per round under the system’s fatigue mechanism. High endurance also helps to counter the effects of taking wounds, like being disoriented or fainting.

Initial value: average of CON & WILL

Mettle (MET)         

It represents the character’s strength of character. It is an important attribute to have coolness under fire and be quick to respond to a changing battlefield. High mettle characters will endure suppressive fire better. Overall they will be more in control of the situation and in a better position to give orders and respond to them as well.

Initial value: average of WILL & KI

Failure improves your skills?

It should, shouldn't it? That is unless your character is trying to disarm a nuke.

How do you handle skill failure in your game? I've been giving this some thought and realized a great deal of times we as GMs grant XP for success and bonuses for being great and successful, but what about failures and retries?

I've talked about tracer rounds in modern combat and their benefit in "walking" the fire onto the target. You miss? No problem! Next round you get a bonus from the tracer bullets. That is, if you survive! Remember those things work both ways!

What about an archer? The first arrow falls short and the subsequent ones get a bonus. What about picking locks? Does the character just fail and that's the end of it? Or does the rogue get a retry with a bonus? Spells? Cryptography? What about combat? Feeling your enemy, getting to know the moves, predicting what the opponent is going to do, which way the sword is going to swing, which side does the opponent cover most?

How relevant is failure to character improvement in your game?

Point buy or rolled attributes?

Wednesday's playtest brought up some concerns regarding the initial character attribute values. Should the be rolled or point bought?

Weapons Free uses both. You roll base values and then tell a story to earn points to increase these scores. I selected this mechanism because it includes some randomness from the initial die rolls which I find good when it comes to taking players out of their comfort zone.

In my opinion playing with low stat characters is a lot of and I've found it motivates a lot of roleplay. So to maintain this even with high stat characters I've attached a story line behind each extra point players add to the rolled values. This is done by what is know in game as saints and daemons. Background stories that explain why the character has those bonuses, but also come with emotional baggage. Which will undoubtedly become useful later on in the adventure, buahahahahahaha!

Still some players expressed their concern for the initial die roll and wanted all randomness taken out. Although it isn't something I'd endorse, it can be easily solved by adding a minor change to the initial attribute mechanism in the game. As a player you can go down the random road or chose something more static. Either way you'll end up with some value you'll have to then improve with saints and daemons. That way you end up with a story for your character which I find to be a key element for the game.

Thoughts? How do you prefer to roll your stats and how are they related to your character's background?

Melee and hand to hand combat in Weapons Free

So the time has come to address melee and hand to hand combat in Weapons Free. It is something I had delegated until last because a) I was too busy with everything else and b) I honestly had no clue how to begin to create something different and fitting for the game's mechanics.

Unlike the previous fantasy games I've worked on, Weapons Free poses a greater challenge due to the mixed nature of firearms and melee weapons available. A rifle is both a firearm and a melee weapon. Turn it around and bat someone with it. Attach a bayonet and stab your enemy's gut out. Dodge it and come counterattack with a knife. Block the knife with your hands then pin his arm and subdue them or break his neck.

There are so many options it is hard to write a rule for each one. On the other hand I don't want to be so abstract that there is no distinction between one character and another when skill and weapon choice are factored in. I want it to feel real. Not in the sense of playing every single move in a realistic manner, but rather that your character's skill and your choice of actions really matter. So here is a quick overview of the mechanics:

• There's a base target number for success
• The base number is modified by the difference between the attacker and defender skill
• There is a modifier for weapon range that favors the longer weapon. This may be nullified if the opponents get too close. For example a halberd being very effective in the beginning, yet becoming useless if the attacker with the knife gets too close.
• Stance by style. Combat styles will add a certain modifier depending on the action being taken and its nature : defensive or offensive stance.
• Attributes will add modifiers. The two that are considered now are strength and dexterity. The attacker's attributes add and the defender's subtract. If both are equal then no attribute bonus is applied as they cancel out.
• This gives a final target value to beat. Rolling above it means success or failure otherwise.
• Catastrophic failure is given by a number below the target value. Rolling less than or equal to this means the attack goes wrong and the defender gains an advantage or scores a hit.This allows for a turn around of events in hand to hand encounters.
• I'm also considering outstanding success given by a number above the target value. Such a roll would not only grant a hit to the attacker, it would also nullify the defenders possibility to respond granting the attacker another attack.

Overall hand to hand combat would be a succession of successes that lead to victory. Skill and attributes will count a great deal in these encounters and should give you the feeling that your character is special. To add to this I'm researching unarmed combat styles to see how these can be leveraged as combat style bonuses for different situations. Keep you posted.

Saints and Sinners is a game based on the Weapons Free game and it's available as pay what you want. Download it here!

The value of unit points and medals upon character death

Last night's character generation playtest with +Kaan Emirler and +Tre' Grisby raised some good points about unit points and the creation of new characters to replace dead or incapacitated ones.

Unit points are a set of points given to the player after a character dies or can no longer continue to play. These points can be used to boost new characters and prevents the player from starting from zero all over again.

Kaan commented that power points should equate what was lost with the character's death. This would allow players who have a special forces character to pick up with another special forces character with the same skills and training.

While I get his point I'm more inclined to give a fraction of the current character's training as unit points. The player can create a new character, but not as powerful as the recently lost. This prevents the trivialization of death, but can be a let down for players.

I believe medals can come into play here. If the character dies and lacks any medals then the character gets somewhere between 60% to 80% "strength" in unit points to create the next character. If the character has earned medals or earns them posthumously this percentage increases. The increase will be proportional to the medal and possibly over 100% if, for example, the character earns the Medal of Honor. Such a great decoration can allow the player to create an even better character next time around or create two very well trained characters.

Suppressing werewolves

So you see this beauty running your way. What do you do? Fire at it with your revolver. Using up those six bullets you so carefully crafted with silver tips? Or do you fill it full of bullets with your squad's M249 SAW?

Chances are given the beast's size and the speed it is moving towards you that the M249 is a better bet if you want to stay alive and not get bitten. But what about the bullets? Namely the silver on the tip. It is one thing to make six or twelve bullets one Sunday afternoon, but at 200 rounds a minute it's going to take a whole month of bullet making to feed the machine gun.

Worry not you paranormal aficionados! This video shows how to quickly apply silver to the tip of a .223 bullet by means of silver nitrate.

Disclaimer: I haven't tested this myself as I lack a werewolf to try the bullets on. Should you happen to have a werewolf at hand locked up in your basement or one marauding your neighborhood please let us know if it works.

PS, take the revolver with the other silver bullets just in case.


Image source
http://www.whatreallyscaresyou.com/werewolves

We... need YOU... to game master!

Are you tired of having to wait in line to fire your gun, and then actually just get one shot or one grenade throw in the whole round? Fed up with all these weapons that look and feel the same? Wanna mow down the tree line with the power of minigun as it spits lead 4000 rounds per minute? Wanna zero in your sniper rifle on a target a mile away and be the deadliest element on the battlefield? Do you like maps? Tactics? Planning? Strategy?

Then we want you, to run Weapons Free a campaign. We are recruiting GMs for our playtests and we want you to be part of the team. Are you up to the challenge?




Weapons Free is a modern combat RPG meant to be lots of fun and truly convey modern warfare onto the tabletop. After six months of playtesting and endless nights of watching real combat footage Weapons Free is getting ready to release and we need your experience and feedback as a GM to make this a success!

Our playtest characters have HiLo jumped behind enemy lines in Georgia. Driven a stolen truck through enemy infested towns. Crossed the deserts of Iran to recover a stolen nuke. Engaged insurgents and crossed an Iranian villa under heavy enemy fire with only their HUMVEE's 50 cal and skill to bring them back home. They've stormed buildings, clearing them room by room. Overcome numerous ambushes and done their fair share of their own. Ventured into the most deserted, lifeless place on Earth, Antarctica, enduring worst cold and weather in the world to investigate unknown and possible world threatening activity.

The Black Hawk is revving up, where will you take them?





Image source
http://quickandeasygames.wordpress.com/tag/game-masters-boot-camp/

Game cover
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/4812145382/
After delivering U.S. Soldiers and Iraq dignitaries to their final destinations, Crew Chief Sgt. Fred Oser, A. Co. 2-25, Combat Aviation Brigade, attached to 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, dismounts the 240 Bravo Machine Guns from the UH-60 Black Hawk used during the morning’s mission to several Combined Security Checkpoints in the Ninewa Province, Iraq, July 2.

The cleric in a highly lethal game

Nope, the cleric isn't going to be raising dead every thirty minutes, he or she will be doing a whole lot more interesting things than curing light or serious wounds every third round. Let me clarify what highly lethal stands for in this context. It means your character may die from a single hit, any hit is potentially lethal. So hit point heavy characters and their players may face something uncommon at such a level, sudden death in the first round of the encounter. Characters will have to use all their skills and players all their wits not to get hit. Characters are not pampered behind huge hit points, they rely on the real thing: real skill and real luck and divine assistance.

When characters rely on skill and not bulky hit point accounts healing doesn't occur that often. Raise dead may be called for every so often, but the cleric is by no means left unemployed. The cleric's role shifts from being a red cross ambulance to a true representative of his or her deity. Among other things he can provide a channel to the gods and through it be granted divine assistance in battle. This can be done in  many ways aside from a + 1 to hit or + 1 to AC.

Take a moment to shift paradigms from a game in which battle goes on for many rounds to one in which the first round is the most important round. What would you ask the gods if you had to hit first and hit hard? What would you pay to get that advantage?

As a GM, consider that monsters will be as susceptible to sudden death as player characters. No more high hit point ogres and giants. Sure they will be more enduring, and cutting at their feet with little metal toothpicks may not be all that damaging, but they wont have the huge amount of hit points they once enjoyed. Fear will play a factor with them too.

So here are some spells I'd find interesting:
- Clairvoyance powers. Having the party's deity hand over some information on where the orcs are laid out and in what position will add an advantage when targeting that first fireball. The magic user can cast darkness and then, knowing where the enemy is beforehand, dispatch a fireball in that direction.
- Stopping hits. Characters may be blessed with a once a day or once an encounter opportunity to stop a hit before damage is rolled. Getting hit should be way more uncommon than it is in high hit point scenarios. So calling this one can be a real life saver.
- The classic, a bless spell or similar effect spell that grants the character a bonus to hit or better yet initiative. Hit first, hit hard and don't let them stand up.