Coatmixtitlan the cloud city

High above the mountain ridges of Itza stands the fabled cloud city of Coatmixtitlan, the city of the snake clouds or to be more precise the matlapallicoatl or winged snakes, known to us as dragons. The city is located nowhere and everywhere as it floats through the skies of Itza. Once an important human city it was abandoned two suns ago by men and taken over by the matlapallicoatl a term used to refer to a group of winged snaked like creatures we in the west commonly refer to as dragons.

The matlapallicoatl worship the mixkoatl, a powerful group of gods from the northern skies. Among these their strongest deity is Tezcatlipoca, the god of the northern skies, of the night, of rulership, and divination. He is also referred to as the black tezcatlipoca to distinguish him from the white tezcatlipoca known as Quetzalcoatl. After the creation of the current sun, the gods instructed the white and black tezcatlipocas to bring order to the world of men. They brought fire and knowledge to men and all was well, for a while. Eventually though, men sought Quetzalcoatl more than Tezcatlipoca and Tezcatlipoca distanced himself from these new beings and returned to favor creatures of previous suns as well as the few men who still followed him. Among these creatures from other times were the matlapallicoatl, the winged snakes who survived the destruction of the last sun.

In the land of men Quetzalcoatl's favor among them would not last forever either. As men became more ambitious and war and discord began to plague the land it was Huitzilopochtli who became the most worshiped and revered god. Huitzilopochtli, the blue tezcatlipoca is also the god of the southern skies, the sun and war. As Huitzilopochtli's influence became stronger so did the discord between the matlapallicoatl and these new creatures called men. The former stood with the black tezcatlipoca and the northern skies and the later with the blue tezcatlipoca and the southern skies. To the matlapallicoatl and the few men who live with them in Coatmixtitlan the vast majority of humans are a plague that will bring nothing but suffering and destruction to the land. Coatmixtitlan is heaven, a center of great and ancient knowledge to be kept safe from the all grabbing hands of men.

The men of Coatmixtitlan are powerful priests and sorcerers, as well as erudite scholars and scribes. They are also great merchants and traders who will not hesitate to enslave the common man to work in their homes, cities and mines. These merchants have something revered and envied all throughout Itza, flying merchant caravans, and during times of war they rule the skies and hold unequal air superiority. Their scholarly ways does not bar them from being great soldiers on the ground and while not being the best foot soldiers they enjoy some of the support available, the fearsome K’i’ix Kaan. A race of blue flightless lizard men who excel in the art of war. These fearsome creatures stand between two and a half and three meters tall (7 to 10 feet), wear bone and stone armor on their upper torso and carry a powerful Macuahuitl as a sword. As if that was not enough their strong tail is usually equipped with spikes or a flail which they use to create a safe perimeter to their sides and back. Together with men the K'i'ix Kaan form a formidable army that defends the treasures and secrets of Coatmixtitlan.

The city is a focal point for all divination magic as well as magic related to time and change. As creatures from another time the matlapallicoatl also hold ancient magic and long forgotten knowledge. These are well kept secrets not easily shared with the common man. When they do share them it is at a very high cost. Other matlapallicoatl powers are said to come from Tezcatlipoca himself and provide power over the creation of life itself. It is said the matlapallicoatl have power over the creation of men and all that lives under the sun. That they can easily control the magic of shapeshifting and have unprecedented control over wayobs(the animal spirits within men). These powerful dragon sorcerers are said to be able to control the animal that accompanies a man through life. Thus, they are sought after for their knowledge and power by human shamans and wizards wishing to reap the most of their internal animal spirit. They can provide great power to a shaman who wants to come in full contact with his or her inner animal spirit while not letting the animal turn the shaman into a nahual or lycantrope being who succumbs to the primitive animal nature of the spirit.  The matlapallicoatl can also enter a man's dreams, thought by many to be a path to divination and the future. In dreams and heal or cause great harm, even posses a human being.

The two most sought after wayob powers are those of the jaguar and the turkey. The jaguar aspect of Tezcatlipoca is identified as Tepeyollotl "The heart of the mountain". Tepeyollotl is the Jaguar of Night, lord of the animals, darkened caves, echoes and earthquakes. Sorcerers following this path gain great control over all animals of the land, stealth and secrecy, spying skills and unprecedented power over the element of earth.

As the jewelled fowl Tezcatlipoca takes the name Chalchihuihtotolin. In such a shape Tezcatlipoca is a powerful sorcerer who can control human minds, set them on a path of self destruction or as easily absolve them of guilt and cleanse their spirit. Shamans who follow this path gain powers of mind control, insight, dream control and nightmares, illusion and even greater powers of divination. Their power power can be so great they can even help men overcome their fate. This is the most sought after power by the shamans followers of Chalchihuihtotolin. The power to rewrite the very fabric of life in Itza, destiny and fate.





Image sources http://sholarijames.com/Du/Newsweave934661-09.html
http://indiron.deviantart.com/art/Aztec-Dragon-The-Dreamer-337816791
http://www.designzzz.com/15-spectacular-mythological-beasts-illustrations/
http://emonteon.deviantart.com/art/Tepeyollotl-71111473

http://daarken.com/personalconcepts.html

Fudging dice in times of industrialized warfare

I've come about a great deal of conversations involving fudging dice, how bad it is and the process of limiting it by mechanical means. For example game rules that explicitly limit fudging by rolling in the open. I want to talk a bit about the impact of these rules in certain genre and settings, namely late industrialized warfare settings, as well as post atomic and futuristic/sci-fi.

Industrialized warfare brought us the long range rifle and the machine gun. Post atomic developments brought us the shoot and forget missile, the bunker busting weapons and a whole set of long range weapons. Even such thing as the FASCAM (Family of Scatterable Mines) that can be delivered by bombs or shells.

War was no longer close and personal.

This means that players must be kept in the dark as to the outcome of some of their actions. To roll in the open is to reveal way too much information. As a game designer I have two options: limit fudging by mechanics, or trust my players and have them trust their GM as well.

If I limit fudging by mechanics and force all rolls in the open then players will know the effectiveness of the mine field they left behind, they'll  know how many targets are hiding in the bush and how many they hit with the machine gun strafe, they'll know how well the outcome of the shelling, etc. They'll be privy to knowledge their character is not, they'll have information to metagame, and I'd have to trust them not to metagame. It seems like I'm solving a problem to get myself into an even bigger one.

Now, you as reader may say that players could also not metagame. That players can willingly keep themselves from metagaming. True, except it does happen. More so, many games are built so it does happen, it even requires it to happen. Metagaming with this information is so common we don't even realize we are metagaming. It's so intrinsic in so many rules that we don't recognize it as metagaming anymore. Let me explain.

Take for example the following encounter. Your party is on patrol and falls prey to an ambush. Your party is taking fire from a treeline so your first action is to take cover and fire back. Ok, how? at what? At the puffs of smoke? It's smokeless powder. At the muzzle flares? It's broad daylight and even if you got to see the muzzle flare whoever is shooting is probably using the proven tactic of fire and displace. So the target is most surely no longer where you spotted it.

Yet the first thing that players ask and GM gives is the location of the enemies. This is usually because the encounter is unsolvable without that knowledge. The attack roll, the range, cover, modifiers etc., all have to get factored in to this roll that is done in the open and dictates if your bullet hits or misses the target. More so, the player gets to roll for damage too. So somehow the character knows the bullet hit and the amount of damage done. All this through the smoke of the battlefield and the thick jungle bush. The character must be some type of borg to see that clearly that far off.

Now let me make a parenthesis here. This isn't about being overly realistic or simulationist. It's about telling a story. Realism is taking extreme care in representing all the factors in a sniper shot. The barrel length, bullet type, wind, scope, etc. Actually keeping the sniper hidden and damage secret is about the story. This is what makes a sniper so deadly and the story around the sniper so interesting. If the players know the exact location of the sniper (because they need to for the roll) and the amount of damage handled (because they're rolling the dice), well then, a bit of that story dwindles away. It dwindles away no matter how good a player may be at not metagaming.

So it is my strong belief that game rules and mechanics need to evolve as technology in their settings evolve as well. Industrialized warfare took the "close and personal" from the medieval and pre-industrial encounters we're used to in fantasy settings. Sure there are still close and personal encounters, but also beyond visual range encounters. To really harness the story potential of these post industrial settings we need a bit more trust and a bit less metagaming.

Image source
http://www.dublin-fusiliers.com/weapons.html

Metal robots make no sense

We know monsters such as the T-800 terminator unit are made of hyperalloy. The hyperalloy is said to be "a durable metallic alloy of unknown composition", but lets face it metal is a rare element on earth. Sure the core is 1220km ball of molten iron surrounded by a 2180km ball of molten nickel iron alloy. If you could drill to the core and extract all that metal it would sure provide for a lot, I mean a shitload of a lot of T-800 units. But that's a very big if, not to mention that said core provides the magnetic field for the planet. Take it away to build a shitload of T-800 and you'd have a whole new set of problems to solve, and I mean whole set of planet wide problems.

Coltan is an element used to build the higher heat resistant terminator units (vs the titanium based T-600). Using coltan, practical as it may seem for heat issues, is adding scarcity to scarcity. Silicon is also known to handle heat well. A lot of advanced ceramics are very good at handling heat (and can be made superconductive too!). Silicon is nearly and order of magnitude more common than iron on Earth's crust. If you're a super advanced computer from the future, doesn't it make sense to use your super advanced technology to build super advanced machines from the more common elements and not the scarcest?

There's a reason life built itself around carbon and not another element like iron. Carbon is extremely common! It also gives room for a huge diversity in structures and molecules: the soft and brittle insides of your pencils, the diamonds in industrial drills, nanotubes, DNA, the exoskeleton of insects, etc. Maybe the truly advanced robot from the future is a carbon based, ceramic enhanced, nanotube fuel cell powered, quantum computer driven machine more akin to David or Bishop than the T-800.

Sure, maybe a coltan built robot will be an order of magnitude more durable than an "organic" one, but given the abundance of materials there might be two or three orders of magnitude more organic bots. Numbers do count and ammo runs out sooner or later.

Thoughts?

D&D needs action figures

WotC needs to sell D&D toys. As part of Hasbro WotC can and should make D&D action figures. Take a look at the image on the right, just a fraction of my Star Wars black series collection. All in all more money there than in the PH, DMG, and MM; that's without counting Luke, Han, R2, and the rest of the less than complete collection I hold so far. It's not hard to see how Hasbro could sell me a lot more tan just the same three books over and over again.

I'm a Star Wars fan, but not a hardcore one by a long shot. I have the six movies and that's about it. I've never read a book and only seen a few animated series. Still, I don't hesitate to spend good money on good quality Star Wars figures. Why not do the same with D&D monsters and character classes?

Making the analogy with D&D, the Star Wars movies are like the core books. Once bought that's it, revenue is over. Making more rule books is a demanding task that also complicates the game, but cranking out action figures would be a relatively trivial thing with a good margin for a profit. Action figures would create a revenue stream without necessarily creating a version war.

Back in the TSR days D&D had some action figures (HT to +Robert Brumbelow for providing the link). A nice large set of figures, but let me be honest, it's quite a good set of "nobodies". I mean, with all due respect, who the fuck is Elkhorn? A Storm Trooper, even being one in millions is still a "Storm Trooper". There's no strong background, no attachment to Elkhorn. The fact that the quality of the figures is also a bit sub-par also adds up to the not-buy decision. Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly reasonable to buy it for nostalgic reasons. Warduke sells for about 25 US on ebay.There's a market for it, but it isn't growing.

On a side note there's also the less than menacing evil ogre lord face. If I'm going to pop 25 US on a figure I want it to be a kick ass fear instilling figure that generates awe in all who see it! Something that would make me proud of showing off in a private collection at home. Not something that says "look at what I played in high-school, good thing I grew out of it"


So what would get me to start cranking out 20 bucks a figure? First of all something I can identify with. Take for example Parkinson's great piece "The North Watch", one of my favorite Dragon Magazines covers. It already sells as a miniature here at 45 Euros a piece!

Now imagine an articulated version of it. The dragon and the rider. Hell fuck yea! I'd jump in and buy it without a doubt!

Other figures that come to mind are the fighter from the D&D Basic red book. How about the mounted fighter from the Companion set cover? Aleena? And don't even get me started with monsters. A beholder, a lich, goblins, lots of goblins. The list goes on and on!

Think 6" drows, the drow spider queen, a mind flayer; goblins on a 12" dire wolf; the beholder; the rust monster; orcs!, let us not forget the orcs; giants! lots of different types of giants, 8", 10", 12" even 24" giants!; a lich; the owlbear; a huge tarrasque the size of my AT-AT. The options are limitless.


Of course I'd expect something like this to the right, and not something like this below.

Evil dudes should have a pissed with life expression! They should make me feel like they could kick some ass and harass my schnauzers if I don't keep a watchful eye, and not look like they're sorry for being evil.

What do you think? Too far fetched? Would you pay 20 to 30 bucks for a 6" D&D action figure? Maybe 50 or more for a more elaborate piece like the drow spider queen? What would be your dream collection of 10 6" monsters? What about character classes? What would you like there?

WotC if you're reading this, what's stopping you?

On a steel horse I ride

I let my steampunkish spirit guide my bike ride this weekend. Took my steel horse (or should I say aluminium horse) for a ride down the tracks from Texcoco to Teotihuacan. 

I ride by Tulantongo, through Chiautla, beyond Chiconcuac and beyond Tezoyuca, making my first stop at the train station of San Mateo Chipiltepec. Here my horse stands resting against the wall as I take a look inside the old forgotten station. 

Stepping inside the station takes me back over one hundred years. I leave the town that stands behind me as I cross the portal. The brightness of the fields beyond the window down the passage contrast with the darkness that surrounds me as my eyes begin to adjust.

 I get close to the window and grab the late 19th century bars that protect it. I can feel the age in the texture of the iron. Worn by the years of unrelenting sun, rain and sand, yet still firmly set and standing their ground. I look through them at an entirely different landscape. Vast dry fields for growing corn, separated by lines of trees, nopales and magueyes. Small trails lead up to the hills beyond. I know they'll rise and turn and drop again before finally taking a steep climb into mount Tlaloc, a extinct volcano that stands between me and Rio Frio. I enjoy the bright landscape from the cool comfort of the station before mounting again and riding on.

The trail turns gently to the left running alongside the last houses of San Mateo and leading me through the countryside as it slowly rises up into the hills. I go under a bridge, the north eastern entrance to San Mateo, and I stumble upon two men herding their goats. After a courteous hi and good-by I turn north and follow the tracks towards Tenochtitlan. These are the last two people I'll see for a long while.

The tracks keep climbing and climbing under the unrelenting heat. A sense of detachment from modern life begins to set in. I'm nowhere and with no one near by. Stopping only makes the bike go silent, the last reminder of technology, the humming of the chain, fades into the wind. I'm left with the soft brushing of the trees under the scan wind. Something dashes through the bushes, a lizard maybe? I get off the bike and start walking as a near a bridge crossing. It runs over a creek, as I look down I see nothing but dry grass. It's been months since water ran through here and it will be months before it runs again. It would be really shitty to get stranded here.

I mount my bike again and keep pedaling. I'm travelling light today, no water, no tools, no spare parts. I must reach the next town to get something to drink before turning back. It's only a kilometer or two ahead, but not having traveled this route before makes it feel like an eternity. It's always like that isn't it? The trip back always feels shorter, there's no unknown, you're headed home, all is well. The trip to, well that is always something else. The sense of exploration, of discovering something new, the sense of risk and danger. I can only begin to imagine what it would have been to travel here 100 or 150 years ago. The same unrelenting heat, but nothing within tens of kilometers.

Further ahead the narrow hill passages open to fields and I come upon a forgotten station, aptly called Azteca. I get off the bike and sit on the warm cement, looking left and right, imagining myself waiting for the train one hundred years ago. Shaded from the sun by the roof that once stood there, I would have awaited my fortune. When will the train arrive and who will be on it? One hundred years ago, Mexico was in the middle of a revolution, one of the bloodiest in history. The train is a mixed blessing. An escape from the heat and a quick ride to the next town or an ill fate among "bandidos". I'd roll some dice and find out, but I'm way too thirsty to be thinking such things, I mount and ride off.


A kilometer or so further on I finally arrive at today's destination. The town of Xometla. I take a right off the railroad tracks and bike up to the caves, park and gotcha field in the hills. I sit down under a tree and enjoy the view of the countryside as I take a refreshing drink I just bought in town. Beyond, barely visible in the horizon, stand both the Moon and Sun pyramids of Teotihuacan. I'm perfectly aligned with the "Calzada de los Muertos" (the avenue of the dead), I could walk my way from here, down the calzada and up the Moon pyramid, but that is a journey for another day.

For now I just relax and take a moment to close my eyes and rest. It will be quite a ride back home and I'm getting hungry. Next time I'll bring more supplies and take you further down the tracks. We'll see what random encounters await.

Setting traps with Red & Blue dice mechanics

I could have called this post "emergent dynamics with opposing die rolls", but then we'd miss out on the fun of setting up a trap and seeing what comes around for lunch. I'm going to talk about delaying the success roll until something actually steps on the trap, but still having enough information on the outcome to know what to lure into the trap.

In a previous post I talked about the opposing die rolls in Red & Blue dice mechanics and the feature of keeping the outcome secret while still giving the players a hit of the task performed. Now before you go all ballistic about fudging dice and keeping die rolls hidden and what not, let me tell you that this time around I'm not going to hide the die roll. Well I'm not going to hide it behind a GM screen that is, I'll hide it in time by rolling only when the prey steps on the trap. How's this different from a single open roll? Read along, I'm about to get to that point.

In many games the GM sets a task difficulty and the players roll against it. The outcome of this roll dictates the result. Did the trap catch the prey? Did the prey get away? Yet it fails to inform the player how well did the character set the trap! We do know that against a specific prey the trap failed or succeeded, but was it due to the size, skill and cunning of the pray or the quality of the trap?

This is where the Red & Blue split dice mechanics come into play. The player rolls for the character's skill regardless of the task difficulty. If the character is an expert hunter then the roll with be done with a very favorable set of dice. On he other hand if the character is just figuring things out, or worse yet applying something seen in a movie, the roll will be done with a less favorable set of dice. What's important here is that the character has a clue as to how well the trap was set. Did the setting favor the character with all the materials? Is the branch strong enough? Was there good rope at hand? Is the counterweight heavy enough? Those are things the character can see and from them conclude the quality of the trap.

Now we move onto the prey. The game mechanics contemplate the usage of 4d6 plus a set of subtracting dice depending on skill. Since this is beyond the scope of this post I'll make an example with 2d6, 3d6 and 4d6, dice sets we are more familiar with.

Let me equate simple trap knowledge with rolling a 2d6 and expert with rolling 3d6. Let me also equate the difficulty of catching a rabbit to 2d6, a fox with 3d6 and a boar with 4d6. Now, the expert hunter sets a trap, the player rolls 3d6 for the skill check and gets an 8, a sad roll indeed (not much better than a basic skilled hunter rolling 2d6). Maybe nature wasn't on the hunter's side this time, the rope at hand is too thin, the trees to weak, whatever. The hunter knows the trap is not the best he's set. With this information at hand the player then decides what to lure into the trap. A rabbit which will feed the party a day at best? A fox that will supply the party for a few days? Will the character risk the trap against a boar which would feed the party for a good two weeks?

The player decides to go for the rabbit. It's better to have at least some food than none at all, and the party needs to keep moving. Hopefully the hunter will have better luck next time. Thus the party works on luring a rabbit into the area, the GM rolls 2d6 at that point and gets a 7. Since the 8 for the trap beats the 7 the rabbit is caught and the party gets to eat that night.

A day later the party has moved along the forest and sets camp again. The hunter sets up a trap and gets a 15! A very good trap indeed! More confident of this setup the party goes on to lure bigger prey. The GM can make things interesting by rolling for what prey there is at hand. A boar is presented by the GM to the party. Will the party lure it or let it pass in favor of some smaller prey?

You finish the hunt. If your party decides to try and capture the boar roll 4d6 against the 15 for the trap, if you decide to lure a fox in then roll 3d6. Good luck with your hunt!

Read more about this by downloading the latest playtest release of Saints & Sinners

Save vs nuke or die

There are certain skill checks whose outcome is unknown until the inevitable happens. Disarming a nuke before opening the case that would set it off. Disabling the ICBM's warhead before it launches. If these things don't get done right it will be too late later on.

So, how do you handle this with your players? More important than that how do you handle dice in these situations?

Let me present a few scenarios:

1. Rolls is done in the open against a target value GM previously mentioned.
2. Rolls are opposing. Player rolls and GM rolls. The player can see the player's roll but no the GMs. The GM keeps the roll secret until the player decides.
3. Rolls is done in the open against a GM set value, but it is hidden from the player (inside a cup). The roll is revealed after the player decides to open the case or not.
4. Rolls are opposing. Player rolls and GM rolls. The player's roll is done in the open, but the GM's roll is hidden and can't be touched by the GM until the player decides.

These examples go from total disclosure to the player (roll 1) and given the player the option to decide based on that outcome to having no clue as to what happened (roll 3). Rolls 2 and 4 can give a hint of how well the character did, but the player can't be sure the roll succeeded until the GM reveals the roll. Roll 4 leaves no room for fudging as the GM can't modify the roll.

What's your thought on each? How would you handle each situation? Do you prefer a open roll over the hidden? Do you want to at least know a little of your outcome? How to decide otherwise right?

Fairy tales are devoid of player agency

If I look at fairy tales from the classic player agency definition I'd conclude they're devoid of such player agency. After all the princess will prick her finger on the spindle no matter what. Some players would argue that it's railroading. No matter what the players do the door will be closed, no matter what passage they choose to go down it will lead to the same room, no matter what they do the story leads down the same inevitable road.

If something is to be learned from Maleficient is that the GM is also playing a character and that destiny is full of surprises.

In the classic story line the fairy/witch is a evil GM controlled character sent to make everyone in the kingdom miserable, specially the small and defenseless princess. I can imagine many players complaining about the unfair GM who, no matter what they do, always ends up pricking the princess with the spindle. "It's unfair!", they'd say. "We've journeyed east and west, north and south, we've brought everything onto the evil fairy, we've taken the precaution to lock the princess on that dreadful day to be, and still there's a fucking spindle! Come on! Give us a break you're just being a shitty GM and railroading the adventure". I can hear them say that and worse. Can you?

But there is Maleficient! A story with the same railroading. The princess will prick her finger on the spindle no matter what. Yet the story unfolds entirely different. We see a more complex antagonist. An antagonist who is full of dreams and hurt by having these dreams clipped. An antagonist who is an antagonist from the point of view of the men in the castle, who in turn are antagonists to Maleficent. So regardless of the inevitable destiny involving the spindle there is so much the players can do in between, so many internal struggles that can add to the story and so many ways to end the story. So many ways to come to a new and totally unexpected story.

So next time you complain that the GM is railroading the adventure because no matter what you do as a player there are things you can't seem to change, take a moment to think which Sleeping Beauty story are you living with your character. Are you rehearsing the same ol' Disney version or are you forging a new Maleficient?

Red Blue dice mechanics

Red & Blue is a dice mechanic I've been using in my latest games and it's at the core of the Saints & Sinners game. It uses up to 9 d6 in a combination of red and blue dice. The red dice represent the strength of your roll and the blue the weakness. The system revolves around opposing die rolls, one roll for the task being performed, which represents its difficulty, and one roll for the skill with which the task is being performed. The level of success is measured by how much the skill roll overcomes the task roll, and obviously failure is quite the opposite.

Now, to measure skill and difficulty blue dice are added or removed. The easier the task or the more unskilled the character the more blue dice the roll has. This makes for a very nice treat for players, the more skilled your character is, the less dice you have to roll and add. How many dice mechanics do you know that give you that benefit?

How does the Red & Blue mechanics work? Well on one end of the spectrum we have the unskilled character and the trivial task. They roll 4d6 - 5d6. That is we add 4d6 and we subtract 5d6. This might be a daunting task at first, but being d6s they cancel out quite quickly and you end up adding and subtracting very few dice.

In the roll the 4d6 are always constant, they're the red dice that are always added. The blue dice are subtracted from the red and as the skill increases we have less of them. Skills go as follows (amount of blue dice is noted in parenthesis): unskilled (5d6), skilled (4d6), professional (3d6), expert (2d6), master (1d6) and legendary (0d6).

Tasks follow the same pattern: trivial (5d6), easy (4d6), challenging (3d6), demanding (2d6), hard (1d6), epic (0d6). The first thing to notice is that there is no fixed difficulty value. It's a range that will depend on the roll. Not all tasks are equal and I've found out that this adds an interesting twist to things. The hardest of the easy tasks are similar to the easiest of the challenging tasks.

Players commit to the human term. As a GM I'll inform them the task is challenging. If they take it the dice are rolled and the difficulty is set. The player's roll must equal it or better the GM's to have success.

Success and failure is further divided into outstanding success and outstanding failure. If the skill roll beats the task roll by 10 or more then it's an outstanding success. If on the contrary it fails by -10 or less it's outstanding failure. These outcomes are interpreted according to the task and situation and hand. I will note that in combat there's a "specialization" of these rolls in such a way that a single roll reveals the outcome as miss, suppression, hits cover, hits target (and to what degree). In hand to hand combat these outcomes indicate how attacks are chained together, who does damage and who takes the lead. As you can see with such a broad spectrum of outcomes it is easy to customize the roll to your needs as a GM.

What features does the Red & Blue mechanics have?

1 - They have a lot of points so it's easy to add modifiers and not go off the chart. That is to saturate the roll in such a way that success or failure is guaranteed.
2 - The rolls behave in a way consistent with what you'd expect from higher skill. As skill increases the average value increases and the variance decreases. The rolls become tighter around the average. This is consistent with skill. The better the skill the less variability we should be expecting.
3 - As a GM you can maintain a level of secrecy from the players. There's no fixed difficulty from which they can immediately conclude if they succeeded or failed. Did you defuse the bomb? Only one way to find out. This adds tension to the game and makes it feel like a real action thriller.
4 - As a GM you don't have to mess with abstract values and target values. It's simple. If you think the task is difficult well just roll those dice and be done with it. Its very easy to convey the idea of difficulty and challenge.
5 - Teamwork. This is beyond the scope of this post, but I'll say that the mechanics include a means to determine the overall skill roll for a group of characters participating in a task. This is a really nice feature to promote teamwork among players and build multidisciplinary groups.
6 - Initiative. Another topic that's a bit beyond this post, but I'll say there's a clear rule to convert skill to time and back. This allows the player to take chances and convert odds of success to speed.
7 - I've said it before and I'll say it again as a closing point. The more skilled your character is at something the less dice you have to roll.


Take a look at these dice at work by downloading the latest playtest release of Saints & Sinners

If you knew the weapons to come

This year in Back To The Future, Biff Tannen takes the Gray's Sports Almanac and returns to 1955 to become a millionaire by betting on all sorts of sports events.

What if your character got a copy of this year's Jane's Books and went back to 1955 to let the superpowers know what's coming?

What challenges would your characters face? What an opportunity for fortune and fame would this lead to! To know what weapon systems the enemy will have 20 or 30 years from now.

Thoughts? Who would you contact? How would you convince them? How much would you ask? How would you explain yourself? What would you have to do to stay alive?

Floating target values in action thriller games

Action thrillers are packed with high levels of anticipation, uncertainty, surprise, anxiety and terror, so it sucks to know you character disarmed the trap before opening the case! Knowing my character succeeded the roll kills all uncertainty and smothers any anxiety and fear of actually going ahead and opening it. On the other hand I can't just open it blindly, I must know if I succeeded. There has to be a middle ground between being totally uncertain and somehow know I did a good job at disarming it. It is here that floating target values and split dice mechanics come into play.

Floating target value is a term I use to refer to cases when a roll needs to beat another roll. The target value will fall within a range and the player doesn't know this until the GM rolls. Thus the term split dice mechanics. The player rolls dice, the GM rolls dice and the outcome is successful if the player's dices beat the GM's, but the player doesn't know what the GM rolled! The player may know their roll was good or bad, but can't be certain of its outcome without knowing the GM's roll, and so the tension builds.

I'd like to make a clarification that has been pointed out by many readers after I posted this article. Floating target differs from opposing die rolls in that the later is a subset of the former. Opposing die rolls require one roll to be above the other. A floating target can also be a proximity value,  for example 2 below or above the value rolled by the GM. This makes it harder to guess! From the previous example if I roll 2d6, in a roll equal or over opposing mechanism a 10 is pretty good and a 12 is unbeatable; in a proximity roll within 2 anything goes, a 4 is good if the GM rolled 2,3,4,5 or 6. If the GM rolls an 8 then the values for me to win would be 6,7,8,9 or 10, a truly floating target!

The Saints & Sinners skill mechanics is based on opposing die rolls. Characters have a skill level that determines which dice to roll and tasks in turn have their difficulty rating and their corresponding set of dice. The player rolls, the GM rolls and the outcome is resolved based on the difference, but only the GM has both parts of the puzzle and can thus leave the player guessing. Did I type the correct stargate coordinates? Was the trap disarmed? Was the bomb defused? Did I hit the monster behind the wall? Did my machine gun fire hit anything in the bush behind the tree line? Who moves in to investigate? Who opens the door? Who goes beyond the event horizon first?

Drawback? Well it requires a bit more rolling and comparing, after all nothing beats rolling a d20 and seeing if it beats a target value. Pros? When it comes to thrill, nothing beats not being certain of the outcome of a dangerous task such as disarming a bomb! No matter how much players might say they don't metagame, they will, even a tiny little itsy bit. This way the GM gets to keep the result secret without depriving the players of their opportunity to roll for their character. Personally, its worth the overhead! What do you thing? How do you keep your players on their toes?

Airplane flight random encounter table

Airplanes are deemed too enclosed and compact to consider random encounters on board. Nothing is more distant from the truth. In this day and age of air travel random encounters in an airplane are an important aspect of any modern setting rpg. They can provide something for the characters to do in an otherwise boring transoceanic flight. Not to mention a plot twist!



Roll 2d6 and determine the random encounter


2  Liam Neeson
3  Alien
4  Zombies
5  Rats (and 2000 nibbled boarding passes)
6  Vampire(s)
7  Gremlins
8  Snakes
9  Ghost
10 Virus
11 Ex-wife / Ex-husband
12 Hugo 'Hurley' Reyes

d20 & uncertainty

In my previous article I touched on the topic of information entropy and explained how certain resolution mechanics can be considered random even when dice are not involved. I explained how information entropy is a measurement of the amount of information in a message. I supported this with an example of a coin and how a fair coin has an entropy of 1 and a coin with two heads has an entropy of 0. Such a coin will always land heads, we know what will happen before we flip it and such an event provides us with no information whatsoever.

Now it's time to take a look into something more interesting and commonly used in our hobby, the d20.

What's the information entropy of the d20 as the target becomes harder to hit? What does this mean to us players, GMs and designers?

First I'll build a table with the required roll to hit and the odds of failing and succeeding in an attack. The following table shows the required roll, the odds to hit, to miss and the entropy (calculated by the sum of the log of all that stuff you don't want to read about here).

d20
required roll	failure	success	entropy
8	35.00%	65.00%	0.93
9	40.00%	60.00%	0.97
10	45.00%	55.00%	0.99
11	50.00%	50.00%	1.00
12	55.00%	45.00%	0.99
13	60.00%	40.00%	0.97
14	65.00%	35.00%	0.93
15	70.00%	30.00%	0.88
16	75.00%	25.00%	0.81
17	80.00%	20.00%	0.72
18	85.00%	15.00%	0.61
19	90.00%	10.00%	0.47
20	95.00%	5.00%	0.29
21	100.00%	0.00%	0.00

Notice how the roll reaches maximum entropy at 11 when the odds of failing or succeeding are even and then begins to drop, eventually reaching zero at 21, a point in which it makes no sense to roll as failure is guaranteed. Graphing the values from 1 to 21 I get the following curve.

Since entropy is a measure of uncertainty it is easy to understand how it drops as we approach the edges. If my character needs a 2 or better to hit there is little uncertainty as to what will happen the next time it's my turn, on the other hand if I need a 20 or better it is quite certain I will miss, and if I need a 21 or better I'll surely miss! No need to even roll! Entropy is 0 and actually rolling the die provides me nothing new. As a player or GM I will discover nothing by rolling a d20 when I need a 21 to succeed.

Let me make another example to show this. Let me write out a succession of attack rolls. I'll write F for fail and S for success. When the odds are even or near even, that is anywhere between an 8 and 14 is needed to hit, the string of outcomes would look something like this:

SFSSFSFFSFSFSSFFSFFSSFSFSFSSFF.....

There's a pretty even occurrence of S and F.

If on the other hand I move to the right of the graph and require an 18 or better the string will look something like this:

FFFSFFFFSFSFFFFFFSSFFFFFFSFFSF.....

There will be considerably more Fs than Ss, there might be two successive Ss, but these will be uncommon and far in between.

In the extremes the strings will look like the following, either:

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.....
or
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.....

There is no uncertainty, my character will either always succeed or always fail!

Why is this important? Well it can save us a lot of time. Why make all those extra rolls if I know I will most surely succeed of fail? Obviously I can't guess the future and knowing I'm going to fail very often doesn't spare me the roll because I need to roll in the odd chance I do succeed. What I can do is compare this to other roleplaying mechanisms, for example drama which relies on the player narrating the outcome. An equivalent event is my options getting reduced more and more. More often than not I as a player take the next tunnel to the right instead of considering the other options. The lower the entropy the less options I really have available to me. I'm getting less bang for the buck as I still have to roll the dice.

So, what happens when we include more outcomes?

Lets revisit the above table and pick out a few values (11, 16 and 19) and calculate the entropy when 1 represents critical miss and 20 a critical hit. The following tables include the contribution of each individual outcome to the the total entropy of the roll. Let me explain based on an 11 required to hit when rolling a d20. The odds of hitting or missing are 50%-50% (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 hits, all other miss), but a 1 is a critical miss and a 20 is a critical hit. In the previous example the maximum entropy was reached at 11 and the value was 1. Now at 11 the entropy is 1.469, almost a 50% increase because we included other outcomes that add information to the roll. There are more outcomes thus there is more uncertainty as to what will happen. As the roll required to hit increases the entropy decreases; 1.257 when a 16 is needed; 0.848 when a 19 is needed.

d20 tohit 11	odds	entropy
crit miss 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	45.00%	0.518
success	45.00%	0.518
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	1.469
d20 tohit 16	odds	entropy
crit miss 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	70.00%	0.360
success	20.00%	0.464
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	1.257
d20 tohit 19	odds	entropy
crit miss 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	85.00%	0.199
success	5.00%	0.216
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	0.848

What's interesting to see is what happens with the individual elements. The critical outcomes always add .216 bits of entropy. When a 19 is required the failure outcome, which accounts for 85% of the odds, represents only 0.199 of the entropy; success and critical success have equal uncertainty (entropy). This is counter intuitive. It makes no sense to believe that an outcome which is barely possible (success) is equally important than one which should be considerably less probable. After all if my character can hardly score a hit how can I explain that one out of two hits will be critical and will have some outcome like double damage? It is this that give me the jolt feeling when I use the d20 in games. When the character is too weak to take on a challenge or too strong I get the feeling I'm rolling a lot for a whole lot of nothing and every so often I get these radical, very impacting outcomes.

Lets up the stakes a little bit and introduce a variable critical hit and miss. Instead of 1 being critical hit lets make it to hit minus something and consider two scenarios: a) tohit - 10 and b) tohit - 15, and 1 is always critical.

The following tables show the numbers for a tohit roll that requires a 19 or better to hit, but a critical is generated on a 4 (tohit-15) or a 9 (tohit-10).

d20 tohit 19	odds	entropy
crit miss 4	20.00%	0.464
failure	70.00%	0.360
success	5.00%	0.216
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	1.257
d20 tohit 19	odds	entropy
crit miss 9	45.00%	0.518
failure	45.00%	0.518
success	5.00%	0.216
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	1.469

Notice how just going from 5% odds of a critical to 15% odds of a critical has increased entropy from 0.848 to 1.257. There's a whole lot more going on in that roll now. Things get interesting when the player has to decide to roll or not against low odds of success and a lot higher odds of critical failure. Notice also how taking those same odds for a critical miss and increasing them to 45% doesn't increase entropy that much more! There's a sweet spot after which it may be just too unfair.

Now let us not forget this is symmetrical and the same happens for critical hit! Doing the numbers for a superb character that hits on a 3 or better we get the following tables, one is the plain old 20 for critical hit and the other is the tohit+14 giving the player a critical hit on a 17 or better.

d20 tohit 3	odds	entropy
crit miss 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	5.00%	0.216
success	85.00%	0.199
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	0.848
d20 tohit 3	odds	entropy
crit hit 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	5.00%	0.216
success	70.00%	0.360
crit hit 17	20.00%	0.464
	100.00%	1.257

When my character gets really good the behavior repeats itself, entropy drops drastically without the adjusted critical ranges, and I'm left rolling dice for a whole lot of nothing. My character is mowing down goblins left and right and every so often he will do a critical that will either chop three goblins with one blow or chop his leg off.

With the adjusted critical hits my character is going to be impaling three or four goblins way more often, he'll push one and throw the three behind him down a wall, he'll swing his sword around and behead two goblins at the same time, etc. You get the idea, there is more going on in the story than there was before.

Conclusion, I reviewed the d20 roll looking at the measure of its uncertainty as indicated by the entropy of the roll. I showed how outcomes become monotonous when skill is either too high or too low and thus added two more outcomes: critical hit and critical miss (as is commonly used in our games). I once again studied this as skill increased or decreased considerably and noticed how the usage of a fixed value for critical outcomes once again lead to monotonous outcomes. I adjusted this by using a variable critical, which lead to an increase of entropy once again. I compared two settings, a 10 point difference and a 15 point difference (critical miss on 4 and 9 as explained above), and noticed that the 15 point difference was good enough and the 10 point difference made it too uncertain between fail/critical fail or success/critical success, that is the odds for a normal outcome vs a critical were the same, when it's more intuitive that critical outcomes should have lower odds than normal outcomes.

After seeing these numbers it's my conclusion that using critical outcomes at -15 or +14 from the required to hit (with 1 and 20 always being critical) makes for the best d20 rolls for OSR styled games. It adds enough uncertainty that it keeps things interesting without making it so uncertain it becomes a wild guess. If I look back at the table for a tohit of 11 I see the following:

d20 tohit 11	odds	entropy
crit miss 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	45.00%	0.518
success	45.00%	0.518
crit hit 20	5.00%	0.216
	100.00%	1.469

As  my character gets better and I only require a 3 to hit I get the following

d20 tohit 3	odds	entropy
crit miss 1	5.00%	0.216
failure	5.00%	0.216
success	70.00%	0.360
crit hit 17	20.00%	0.464
	100.00%	1.257

The odds of hitting have gone up from 50% to 90%, and the odds for a critical hit has gone up to 20%, while the overall entropy has dropped only to 1.257 instead of .848 as it did before. This small drop is due to the uncertainty of hitting being removed by my character's skill. I'm more confident I'll get what I want, to win! But at the same time I'm filling the gap with more information from the critical success which is now a more important element in the story than it was before. Entropy should drop due to skill, but not so much that it steals from the story!

Well wow, just realized how long this post turned out. I hope you're still with me and that this has been helpful. I'd love to get your feedback on this and know what you're doing to get a little more from each die roll on your table.

Drama, Karma & Fortuna are all random mechanics

Drama, karma and fortune are three resolution mechanism commonly cited in game design theory, such as GNS. Fortune is the one renown for its randomness, chance, as they say, determines the result. Over the last few months I've had conversations with avid supporters of GNS and drama, karma and fortune as means to categorize resolution mechanics, and what's called my attention is that they're in the understanding that only fortune (dice, cards, etc.) brings randomness to the game.

My position is quite the contrary. All three are random processes, being drama the one with the most unpredictable outcomes, after all dice can't roll on more sides than they have, right? Yet players can select from a nearly infinite set of options in a tabletop RPG. My intent in this article is to go over the three mechanisms, review them from the angle of information entropy (uncertainty) and see how we can see all three as random resolution mechanism.

A quick review, what is drama, karma and fortune? The abridged version of it is that drama is the resolution by means of players narrating the outcome; karma is the resolution by means of comparison or expenditure of some value; fortune is the resolution by means of random value generated by dice, cards, etc. It is common practice to call this last mechanism as "uncertain" or "random", but it's not the only one. Drama and karma are also random, that is there is uncertainty of their results when such mechanisms are applied.

To prove this and show that drama and karma are mechanisms with a degree of uncertainty in their outcomes I'll take a moment to touch on entropy, namely information entropy or Shannon entropy. Information entropy characterizes our uncertainty about our source of information it is the average amount of information contained in each message received. This sound a bit confusing at start, information, uncertainty, messages? What's this got to do with tabletop rpgs? Well it is really easy to explain with a coin. A fair coin has a 50-50 chance of landing heads or tails. A coin with two tails has 0% chance of landing heads. I'm certain that every time I flip it it will land tails. The outcome is certain, there is no uncertainty in the action and the action provides me no information that I don't already know. In other words flipping the two tailed coin is pointless. This behavior is illustrated in the graph below. It measures entropy as a function of the odds of landing heads or tails. A truly fair coin is in the middle, a 50-50 chance yields maximum entropy ( a value of 1). To the left and right of the graph a 0% or 100% chance (two tailed or two headed coin) yields zero entropy and thus zero information. The X axis (Px) represents odds, the Y axis (H) represents entropy.

Now back to drama, karma and fortune. I've already mentioned that fortune is random and it creates a degree of uncertainty in the game. A good example is the coin flip I just gave. But what about drama and karma? How can they be random processes and provide uncertainty in the game? This is contrary to much of what we hear: dice on one end, storytelling on the other. Now, lets consider that karma and drama are indeed non-random mechanisms, that they provide no uncertainty. If so then their entropy is zero, just like the two headed coin. If they provide no uncertainty in the game they also provide no information, they add nothing to the story. Why then do we use them? Why then do we go through the trouble of using them if we know their outcome prior to their usage? The only reasonable conclusion is that contrary to the beliefs of some, karma and drama are random and have an uncertainty just like dice do. The question is how much more or less uncertainty!

Information content and entropy are things I seldom see touched when discussing game design. What's the overall value of die roll? Of the player's words? Of those numbers on the character sheet?

Over a series of upcoming posts I'll look into die rolls, their entropy and the effect of modifiers on the overall impact on a story. What is acceptable uncertainty in a storyline? If you look at the graph above you'll see that success rate drops at a different rate than entropy. Uncertainty is not the same as odds of hitting it with an ax!

What do you think? What makes things unpredictable, uncertain and possibly "not fun" in your games and what makes for "very fun" in your game? How far do allow things to become predictable in your games before it's just plain boring or railroading?