Introducing The be67 Bubblegum Barometer & talking state of the blog

Hey folks, it's been a while ... Mainly due to us moving to greener pastures (will miss Leipzig somewhat, still, we had to get going), but also because our internet moved waaaaaay slower than we did and that resulted in me not being able to do any proper blogging last month. Also other things I had to put some work in. It had been a tough couple of weeks, all things considered. I'm mostly pretty plastered (moving out with renovation, moving in with lots of new furniture and some renovation, some bureaurocratic shenanigans, taxes and so on and so forth). Hence the update here on the blog only today, with some extra content from the upcoming Retroclone Mutant be67 ...

Most days, these days ... [source]

So, where's be67 at?

It's coming along nicely, I'd say. 75 pages so far, I hope to get this finished enough to allow for some editing in two weeks or so. Then layouting and getting the pdf live. After that test printing and getting the PoD version out there as well.

Since I'll be doing nothing else but this from now on, I'm somewhat confident to have both available early April, the pdf maybe even a bit earlier. I'll offer and coordinate some one shots via MeWe, I think. Any interested parties here on the blog and without MeWe account should drop me a comment here (moderation is on, so if you want to share contact information, just add that it's not for publication and I'll delete the comment instead).

Other than that, writing the game forced me to take a closer look at some of the aspect I more or less handwaved in our house campaign. This game will be a RETROCLONE in as much as it's very closely related to the D&D RC:

• Race as Class, but with a tool to build your own Classes
  
• Descending AC, but made flexible to accommodate gun fights
• Differing xp goals for Classes, but offering an explanation why it needs to be so
• Differend combat matrices according to Base Classes

It's all there and very much following how I understand the game. It will be a MUTANT in as much as I heavily houseruled aspects from other D&D variants (Ardui, HackMaster 4e) into the game and made it my own by:

• Keeping basic combat, but adding A LOT to make this the bloodiest D&D clone out there
• Taking the principles of earning xp, but made something else entirely out of it (combat will, for instance, result in grindhouse effects that'll earn a character or even the group extra xp).
• I'll offer rules to simplify bookkeeping and shortcut aspects of the original game I'm not that fond of (in the best tradition of OSR game designing)

... and so on. I hope it'll not only end up being the book I use to play the game I love, but that it'll also be a treasure trove of ideas for you guys to enjoy and use! 

Introducing: The Bubblegum Barometer (example from the book)

This game needs proper rules for gun fights, naturally. D&D doesn't lend itself to it easily, I found. The rules are a bit too static for it, especially if you aim for something more ... cinematic.

Like this infamous firefight ... [source]

It needs more movement and flexible AC ... and keeping track of ammunition will definitely slow down the game as soon as lots of shooting with lots of shooters is involved. We found solutions for all of that, one of them being the so-called Bubblegum Barometer (mainy because I like how that sounds), which allows to bridge lax bookkeeping of ammunition with some movie drama.

Note: the text I'm about to share will reference Damage Dice and it means that in be67 characters don't do damage as per individual weapon, but have differing Damage Dice according to Weapon Category. For instance could a character have a d6 for heavy weaponry and then deal at least d6 damage with said weaponry. There is more to it (could be more d6 due to a good roll or even a higher die due to getting some help), but that's the basic idea ...

So here's the excerpt from the book:

AMMUNITION (optional rule)

We are willing to offer some concessions regarding the strict documentation of ammunition. For one, this is about playing the equivalent of ‘bad’ (but ‘good’!) movies, so events like reloading or situations where characters are ‘out of ammo’ should follow narrative purposes more than those of a quasi-simulation of combat.

Thinking of this as an extended exchange of blows should help getting the idea, but having a character punch a hole into a zombie with their bare fists will do that too. be67 isn’t about the weapons one uses but more about the damage they do with what they got. Different set of implications altogether, as should be obvious at this point in the book.

That said, there is nothing hindering you from making the bookkeeping mandatory for ammunition, we’d just recommend being lax about it, if for no other reason than combat being complex enough in other areas and adding ammunition to that would slow things down considerably (while taking away some of the fun, in our opinion).

Here is another aspect to this that’s worth considering: combat rounds are exchanges of bullets, but decidedly not just one shot per Combat Unit per round. Bullets are flying around, like, all the time, sometimes just to Counter someone’s Combat Action, sometimes just to open a door. There’s no good way we could come up with that would manage to take all of that into account … so we discarded the notion.

We will, however, offer a compromise of sorts. Add some drama, if you will. We call it

The Bubblegum Barometer (The BB)

(and hope you all get the reference). For that, the GM needs to take into account if the characters had an opportunity to load up on ammunition (or made a habit out of mentioning doing so). If the situation is unclear (that old argument ‘But my character would have …!’), a Funk Test should be allowed to establish the grade of preparedness a character brings to a gunfight instead (Funk+d20 vs. Difficulty). Decided through dice or judged by GM call, the BB should be the guideline:

• >20 (unprepared) – immediate use of the BB (+4) & every round after that (adding +1each round)

• 20 to 24 (somewhat loaded) - immediate use of the BB & every round after that (adding +1 each round)

• 25 to 29 (properly prepared) – use the BB every time ammunition-heavy Mode is used & add +1 to each time after the first

• 29< (loaded, they brought spares & extras) – no immediate problems, they are loaded (no rolls necessary in this fight unless Character shares ammunition with someone else)

To test the BB now, the GM takes the Damage Die (DD) of the weapon a character used that round and rolls it after all Actions are resolved to find out if the next round is the last round the character has ammunition (roll 1DD vs. Difficulty). If the result matches or is lower than the BB Difficulty (which is at least 1, otherwise modified as indicated above), the character is running low and will be out of ammo end of next round unless they do something about it.

Changing weapons will start the BB at 1 again, for instance, but other characters might supply as well. If ‘loaded’ characters share their ammunition, they start to count as ‘properly prepared’ from then on. If those ‘properly prepared’ share ammunition, they are reduced to being ‘somewhat loaded’ from then on. Sharing ammunition while being ‘somewhat loaded’ or lower, will raise the BB +1 immediately (and additionally to the +1 per round). Characters will run dry fast like that.

Beyond that, enemy interaction (through disarming and whatnot) and Critical Failures will have weapons destroyed or lost, regardless of the ammunition carried.

And that's it: if it isn' established, a roll decides if you are running out and how fast (close to what you might know from games like Macchiatto Monsters, if I remember correctly). Characters will have a round to react (or are at least able to shoot one more round) and ammunition is properly limited in a meaningful way, as far as combat tactics are concerned.

And if you read this carefully, you might have gotten a glimpse of what else is in store, like weapon modes. It's a wild little system and, if our play-tests are any indication, a blast to play ... You'll see :)

I hope this whetted your interest a bit.

So much for posting at least 3 times a month ...

Yeah, that didn't work so well last month. But I'll make up for it. I might have to, as I finally took a chance and made this little enterprise a project of self-employment. The opportunity arose and I took it. Now I'm publishing full time, we'll see how it goes. For one, I have no excuses to slack here on the blog.

But I'll not just talk about the products I aim to publish this year or in the future* (although I hope there's interest for that as well). It'll still be about game design (I'm still building on lots of games, you know) and maybe I should experiment a little with additional content. Maybe establishing some sort of Campaign setting?

Not sure.

For now I wanted to let you know that things will be happening here on the blog and with Disoriented Ranger Publishing in general.

 

[source]

 

------------------------------------

While we are at it, that module I wrote and published 5 years ago (MONKEY BUSINESS) isn't PWYW anymore. I thought long and hard about that, and to be totally honest, I came to the conclusion that the PWYW selling modell, for all it's benefits, isn't really supported at drivethru. PDFs need to cost to have any worth as far as the marketing tools available there are concerned (no 'medals' unless pdf units sold, for instance). So it's 2 USD now, which still is a steal, considering all the material you get for that. The good reviews justify that as well ... People I don't know liked it, it seems. Good enough.

As it happens, drivethruRPG has a sale right now and Monkey Business is among that. 30% off. It's an even better deal :)

------------------------------------

* As you might be aware, it's Reflected Digressions (collected essays), be67 (Retroclone Mutant) and The Rise of Robo-Hitler (adventure module for be67/LL/MF) for this year.

How to alter D&D, the be67 revision: Part 1 (Basic/Expert rules supplement, grindhouse style)

Lockdowns have us playing more D&D again (first digitally, recently in meat space, even!). If you know this blog, you know I have a set of house rules I'm constantly tinkering with. It's all spread over the last 10 years of posting. The last iteration is something I call be67 and it pushes the whole concept into grindhouse/splatter territory. It's basically a D&D RC/HackMaster 4E hybrid with a special twist or two. This is going to be a revised collection of all those ideas, in several parts, putting all of it into a D&D context. This will be a little booklet in the end, hopefully some time this year. Stay tuned, stay safe, stay healthy ...

A word on compatibility

This should work with all and any early versions and clones of D&D. Those games are build in blocks and some of it is interchangeable or added to without much fuss. The D&D RC and the Labyrinth Lord rules are what I've worked here with, but even AD&D could be modified accordingly.

However, you'll have to take into account that heavy changes might need additional rules or changes that accomodate those alterations.

Let me give an example here (a sketch to the detailed explanations below): this system will do way more damage than D&D would do normally. Not only can dice somewhat explode (Echo, see below), you will get additional and better damage dice if the die result allows for it and the players cooperate. To compensate for that, you need to allow for tactical decisions to where a character takes a small disadvantage to be harder to hit, for instance.

It might not be enough, though, which means you'll have to install more measures to counteract massive amounts of damage. It's why we introduced hit locations (you might lose a limb but not your life) and a luck pool (reduce your luck attribute to manipulate rolls) as standards. The result is that characters are harder to hit, might get maimed instead of killed and save their lifes by spending luck points (being unlucky in future rolls as a consequence).

All those alterations are minor, as the system stays intact, but crucial, as the system would fall apart without them (due to a VERY high lethality, of course). It's the rules of tinkering. Change something, see what it affects and introduce counter-measures where necessary ...

Adding to the rules being like ... [source]

What stayed the same

You still have six Ability Scores, although partially renamed (this has to work for the late 1960s, after all). The Saves are still there. I have been looking for alternatives, but have to say, beating the original 5 Saves system is damn hard. All the alternatives I have seen, even the 'official' ones, haven't even come close.

I know people see that differently, but I found they mostly ignore the flavor and sense of gravity the original Saves radiated (Save versus DEATH RAYS!). A character's passive reaction to their surroundings should be taken as seriously as their conscious interaction. Having just three Saves (or even one!) and without the flavor (Reflexes, blech) takes too much away from the game, imho. So the Saves stay.

Attacks are still 1d20 + modifiers vs. AC.

Classes are still there, although somewhat modified. The engine is the same (Fighter, Thief, Wizard & Cleric classes), but the chassis is quite different (again, as per the assumed setting, you'll need to have convicts, hippies, veterans and such). The approach is somewhat similar to what the D&D RC actually offers, as I assume that the canonical characters are nothing more but inspiration and should help informing a DM to build their own cadre of classes.

How far I'll push this in terms of level advancement, I can't quite tell right now. We are still testing options, and while it's nice to have something simple like later editions, I can't help but admire the subtlety a class bases advancement offers (thieves are weak, but advance faster, if played right, Elves take a really long time on paper, but a capable player will have no problem advancing as fast as the others, if the game is played RAW).

I wrote a post about this, if you are interested in my thinking here (go here). I'll leave my options on the table for now, but how xp are gained had a massive overhaul and might work as enough of an equalizer to allow for the same progression (I also like to see level advancement as a group endeavor ... maybe I should push more towards something down that road?).

Anyway. As many, many people have pointed out when deconstructing D&D, those are the core tenets of the game. All changes and additions are build with this in  mind and to achieve a very specific gaming experience: 60s grindhouse splatter. Compatibility is so high, you could easily use be67 to play Temple of Elemental Evil. You just have to find a way to have those hippies crash in the Hommlet ...

Not the Europe you had imagined, though ... [source]

So this has lots of options to play the same game with a very different tone. Maybe a bit like as if Tarantino had written D&D instead of Gygax, but today and with the 60s grindhouse features in mind and gallons of blood. Could also be Wolfenstein: The New Order as a role-playing game.

Let's start talking about how to make that happen, following the example given above. In a way this is also a 'Best of the Blog'-feature, as we are turning 10 years old here :)

Step 1: Hacking HackMaster 4e to run with D&D RC

This is basically a back engineering of AD&D 2e (revised) to work with B/X. The main features in HM had been (1) exploding dice, (2) a big HP buffer for more hacking, (3) a honor system that allowed for a meta system where characters by sacrificing their honor could gain benefits from rerolls to actually surviving a deadly attack, (4) a complex and detailed advancement system with goodies for everyone and (5) critical hits that may leave you maimed instead of dead.

Most of them established in AD&D 2e, all of them good things to have in a game of SPLATTER, but also rather baroque and extensive (that honor system alone ... man, it took me ages to wrap my brain around that one).

AD&D 2e at the end? [source]

As I said in the beginning, took me 10 years get the fine-tuning done for this, but I did manage to translate ALL of that into B/X somehow:

(1) EXPLODING DICE are Echo now. This means, if a player rolls the maximum on a die, they may roll the next lower die and add the result. There is no die lower than the d4. IMPLICATIONS: it opens up the game in places where people tend to roll often, which would be mostly combat, and that means more damage. This was to be expected, so measures have been implemented with randomized hit locations and by opening up the Funk ability score (originally Charisma) as a luck pool players can drain to alter results effecting them. Limbs are lost easily, but this being the grindhouse genre, alternatives are gained easily enough (see The Rule of Cool). RESULT: Characters are maimed easily, but it's not that hard a disadvantage.

(2) THE HP BUFFER is regulated through rules for dodging and cooperation, as well as randomized hit locations and Funk. The origin of the rules of dodging are based in the necessity of gun play and the lack of AC in the game, playing in the 60s and all that. Therefore it became necessary to make it easier to gain protection from the surroundings and the support from your fellow buddies. IMPLICATIONS: It made a point-based initiative system necessary that actually made it possible for people to support each other in various ways. They can now protect and help each other, ideally overcoming enemies with ingenuity before they are seriously getting hurt themselves. Additionally they may gain via advancement a Second Wind Pool that allows for some fast regeneration. RESULT: Those rules will automatically have people change position and support each other. If still hit, it might be a limb or it might be modified by Funk. People get hit less often, but harder, which then can be negotiated to some degree with the tools provided.

(3) THE HONOR SYSTEM was reduced to Funk. Easily enough, Funk can be reduced by the points needed to alter some result effecting a character. All results can be altered, but always only the last result effecting the player (you can't just wait how it plays out and then alter the combat die after damage has resolved, for instance). Low Funk will result in disadvantages, as all low ability scores would. Which element of the game is effected is determined randomly at the beginning of each session and Funk regenerates every time a character advances. Furthermore, players can decide to start a Funk Pool with level advancement whre each point collected allows for a reroll. IMPLICATIONS: Since Funk has such strong implications for the game, it became rather necessary to make the same true for all other ability scores. There are no dump stats in be67, instead players will have to make meaningful decisions during character creation. RESULT: As characters progress between levels, their Funk usually will take a hit or two, but those decisions are ALWAYS dramatic and will fit the genre quasi automatically.

(4) THE ADVANCEMENT SYSTEM is reduced, but more detailed than what B/X offers. Characters not only gain HP and occasionally an additional attack or maybe some skill points, they can also attempt to gain a benefit associated with the ability scores. Each Ablity Score stands for another aspect relevant to the game (the Second Wind and Funk Pools are already mentioned, Weapon Mastery as well as skill points and better initiative are also options). Another heavy focus was on HOW experience is gained. This changed mostly towards xp for damage, in several variations. Usually, all damage made or taken during the game is collected and multiplied by 10. However, dismemberment, high damage and instant kills are worth a higher multiplier. IMPLICATIONS: While being totally in tune for the genre, this lends itself easily to an award system as one would know it from first person shooters. As a consequence, the whole advancement experience adapted towards that approach. The group collects special xp awards over the course of a session and check, if the awards stack towards a higher goal (combos, flawless attack, you name it). RESULT: The game resolves about the art of SPLATTER in a way that translates a computer game experience into D&D, very much with the same effect. People will cheer a gory insta-kill just as they would with your favorite FPS. What's more, everytime characters advance, something happens. Small changes, for sure, but still meaningful to the players.

(5) CRITICAL HITS, finally, are directly connected to Echo (as are fumbles, but reversed), so the result of the d12 that is rolled after a natural 20, will have additional damage implications with rising severity. Furthermore, the damage system has been altered. Instead of having weapons with specific damages, characters have Weapon Mastery in different categories and damage dice associated with that. How high the Damage Die is relates to class, level and cooperation, how many dice are rolled is determined by the attack result. IMPLICATIONS: This is quite gory to begin with, which means the critical hit tables need to offer an additional aspect to the table (it can result in nicknames, for instance, and signature moves against specific enemies, if the results are high enough). Damage is also now tied to how well a player knows the system (as well as to high rolls), and since all of this is connected with gaining xp, there's another incentive to use rules that help manifesting the genre at the table. It all loops rather nicely. RESULT: Characters can be as deadly with their fists as with their guns, which, again, is quite like you'd know from the grindhouse features. Big gun makes big bang, but the kung fu master will have organs explode with their attacks. It's all quite satisfying, actually. Even more so when players start cooperating for higher results.

And that's that. The beauty of it is, not only is it a great deal reminiscent of HackMaster 4e (to me, at least), it's also less clunky and fits the D&D RC rules (or Labyrinth Lord or Basic Edition or any other clone) rather well while emulating the genre, as you can see.

That's already a lot, right?

With the basics established like that, we can go into the specific rules next and talk about how they alter the original rules and to what effect in detail. Step 2 should be something like "Altering B/X classes to fit the 60s", Step 3 should handle combat, Step 4 everything else (Skills, Saves, the lot). Step 5 would be about advancement and Step 6, finally, will adress what DMs have to keep in mind when DMing be67 ... I'd say that's some posting for the foreseeable future.

The high art of improving the basics ... [source]

That said, what do you guys think so far? Was I able to explain how the changes apply and what they alter? Or that it's all still D&D? Are any HackMaster afficionados among you that can appreciate (or hate?) the design choices alluded to above? As always, I'm happy to read your thoughts.

------------

In other news, I managed to publish a cyberpunk role-playing game and you can check out a free preview of the book right here (or go and check out the first reviews here).

If you need convincing, maybe this post will get you there. If you already checked it out, please know that I appreciate you :) It'll certainly help to keep the lights on here ...

 

"This is a Fight! ... Isn't it?" (a deconstruction of combat - design post)

It's a declared goal of this blog to post at least once a month. Well, I tried. However, I'm not just barging in right now to arbitrarily cast "Wall of Text" and be gone again. No. Main reason for me sitting down only now, at the last days of June, was research. Believe it or not. I'm working on a combat system for that dystopian rpg I'm currently almost-finished-writing, and here's how I went at it.

RPG combat is too structured ...

... and that's a bad thing. And a good thing. Sometimes it's ugly. Let me tell you why. First of all, it's just not called into question that much why fights have to be structured. You hit, the orc hits, some have protection, some get hurt, some get lucky, some die. All in order, maybe with some tactics, sometimes with light rules, sometimes heavy on the fighting rules.

Don't get me wrong, it's mainly a good thing, imo. However, this war-game based understanding of what a skirmish is fits well in most role-playing games, for that's the stories you want to tell. In D&D the characters go into combat ready for it (at least on the character sheet, right?). The game is more or less build around a war-game engine and the trappings changed, even grew over time, but so did the board game aspects that are in the DNA of that first game.

H. G. Wells in action ... those roots are deep [source]

What it also does is telling a specific set of stories. And that's the limitation. It's where combat in a game can turn ugly or even bad. I've talked in other posts about how detailed power curves in rpgs practically force specific power structures on the worlds they emulate. If you can play a level 36 half-god, able to kill some old dragon in a fair one-on-one, the world around that character needs to be layered like that.

A king just can't (shouldn't?) be level 1 or a level 10 character could just force his will into the story, maybe killing that king for shits and giggles. There are consequences on stories for detailed rules like that, and to a degree those rules will dictate the rhythm of the game. This will mostly be felt on higher levels, though. It's probably the reason why many regard D&D levels 1 to 8 as the "sweet spot" as far as range goes (might vary a bit between editions).

Anyway, I digress ... Rules give rhythm to a game. If it's heavy on the combat rules, it's what will have lots of table-time over a course of a campaign. More so on higher levels, and badly if those consequences aren't taken into account for high-level games. Not only a problem D&D has, btw, look no further than WoD for problems with high level characters. I'm sure there's more.

Of course there's ways to solve those problems. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia, for instance, (the gold standard, if you ask me), shifts gears from adventurer to noble to legend to god, all playing out differently. I'd argue that's good design, because it takes into consideration the power curve of the game. The stories told in the D&D RC (if you go the distance) change as the rhythm of the system changes. This is because of the combat system (and to equal part because of magic, I should add, which is mostly written around combat, so ...).

That basic war-game structure echoes through almost all role-playing games. When there's a call for initiative, everyone knows the jig is up. If that's not the kind of story you want to tell, if you want to, say, copy patterns we know from action movies, if you want chaos and arbitrariness and tension, you have to change that rhythm significantly.

The boardgame-kind of abstraction [source]

What stories? (patterns, not structures)

The first step towards this would be to stop seeing combat as an isolated incident, as something that needs to be fenced in a specific set of rules or a separate ritual with a specific set of terms attached to it.

The next step would be to integrate it into the system in a way that allows for enough detail to honor the implications and enough abstraction to make it manifest naturally in every possible narrative scenario the game on hand has. It needs to appear as part of the story as it would in a noir novel or a thriller.

This is about direct consequences. If characters are prepared and capable, the outcome of the confrontation should not only be just that, it should enhance and celebrate that. If they are in over their heads, it's that what the game should enhance.

We are talking the bar scene in Inglorious Basterds here or the first 40 minutes of Sicario. It's also when the hero fights his way through some extras in no time, only to face a tough one at the end. Both scenes need equal spotlights as well as feel different without having the system bog it all down too much or shift tone in a way that it doesn't feel cohesive anymore.

There is a flow in good action movies that constantly builds and releases in patterns that relate to the story, not to a template (although those exist as well). People are less keen on stories that get too formulaic. Of course, that's a bit different in games. When having an active roll in a story that includes random results, the average outcome of several rolls is what lets a character's abilities make manifest*. That needs to be considered and addressed (which can be done with the level of abstraction, but more on that later).

Before I came up with anything myself, I checked out what other games did in that regard (special shout-out to the mewe-group for their suggestions!)

Random Kung Fu pic ... [source]

What's out there (just examples, not a list)

The idea is to look for as long at games as it takes to get an idea what I will need for the game I'm writing. Took me longer than I expected and I found more games that I like enough to regret never playing them.

One more caveat, though. Lots and lots of games offer nuance to the same old formula. No initiative, group initiative, one roll for attack and damage ... variations like that. When all is said and done, though, they really don't stray far from it. It's merely house-rules to the established. Nothing wrong with that, but also not relevant for this.

There's also a huge array of skill-heavy role playing games (CoC and the like) that either tend towards either D&D or oWoD, so I consider them covered as described below. If you know any game that strays from anything I describe here, please give it a shout-out in the comments. I'd love to check it out ...

Okay, let's have a look at some staples and some exotics:

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (all editions and clones) - We've talked about that above already. Strong templates, war-game roots, very specific rhythm. The only thing to add would be that newer editions try to expand the "sweet spot" described above and force the game into a ever more complex variant of the original formula on higher levels. While making the lower level a computer game like experience and short-term fun (like a boardgame would), it's not very successful to encourage long-term or campaign play.

Old WORLD OF DARKNESS - Didn't check out what happened with the newer editions. The oWoD games where the first popular example of having a higher level of abstraction opening a system successfully towards the stories the game wants to tell. While combat still followed established structures, it offered different patterns to get to results and stayed vague (as well as consistent) enough with its terminology and how it all connected, that allowed an easy transfer between system and drama. In other words, it was easier to do a character's individual choices to solve conflict compared to older games.

UPWIND RPG (cards) - The GM (mostly) offers "plays" if something is at stake, same is true for combat. It can be resolved in broad strokes or very detailed, just as the narrative manifests and the involved parties see fit. Plays will mostly involve 1 player and the GM (pretty sure the others can chime in, but not to great effect, as I read it), and it should be possible to have a detailed skirmish that way, even with several players having several plays. However, it would burn through cards quick and since card decks are "set" in a way rolling the dice aren't, players might end up less welcome cards if they want to or not. This encourages less detailed play, I'd say, as players like to plan with the cards they have to get things done ... Interesting system, just not what I'm looking for.

AMBER Diceless - Combat here is about finding out if your enemy is superior or inferior to you and how to go about it. Combat is a narrative and has no strict scheme like rounds or even initiative. In a sense, players are observing, analyzing and reacting as the narrative manifests. Characters can only die if they are in over their heads and usually get an opportunity to avoid a fate like that or even chose it. Not what I'm looking for, but it most certainly works. It's basically the other extreme to using structures as described above. The story is the thing here, not so much the game.

TUNNELS & TROLLS - T&T is notable for its very abstract and light combat system. It was designed in direct contrast to D&D and its war-gaming roots (quite early as well). In short, both sides roll and the losing side gets the difference to the winning side's result as damage. Since the hit points a monster has defines the dice it can use to attack, monsters will get weaker as they get hit. There are rules for armor and "spite damage" (where the winning side gets damage as well), but that's about as concrete as it gets. No movement and just a little maneuvering, the rest is played as it makes sense. It all evolved a bit from earlier editions, but mostly by adding detail to the existing system. A good example what can be done by thinking out of the box.

Let's leave it at that. There is obviously way more games out there than that, but there also isn't that much variety. Most of that might be due to the fact that it works. You can scale the level of detail somewhat, it's intuitive and it allows for tinkering as per taste. Some games do away with combat as much as possible, because they tell different stories (you could argue that they just shift the focus in the system from combat to something else).

What I haven't seen a lot is attempts to change the rhythm in a way that it cohesively allows an established tension to erupt brutally and as the story dictates, while considering that this needs to work within improvisation. That is, it needs to work unplanned and as the result of the system interacting with the players and the narrative ... Okay, okay. Wait a minute. You've read so far. Here, have a funny pic before we move on:

He had it coming ... [source]

Crazy talk, you say? Hold my beer ...

The greatest and most memorable fight scenes are all about drama, not about the action, is what they tell screenwriters (a very interesting and inspiring article about screenwriting). I like that a lot. Those meaningful escalations are build over time and when they bloom, it is recognized. Normally something like this is arguably in the realm of a good DMs narrative power (or writer or director). It doesn't need a system, if the participants are able to produce that kind of tension as they manifest the narrative and interpret the dice results.

However (you probably guessed), I think a system should be able to build that kind of tension and allow the abstract room to apply it to whatever interpretation the players and the DM can come up with.

Here is the thing: we intuitively know the patterns necessary to evoke certain reactions. The Big Guy in the crowd with the scars and the Big Gun everyone else is shying away from? That's a clear set-up for a tougher opponent. If the characters recognize him from somewhere or he shouts at them something he did to them, for instance, like "I was the one that killed your wife! Hahahahah!!" or if he's about to do something that might escalate the situation further (like killing innocents or destroying something or ...), you'll load that scene further. Every bit helps to make it more intense.

For a system to offer that kind of output, you need to go away from seeing non-player characters as single entities, but as part of a potential instead (a bit like Tunnels & Trolls does, actually). How this potential is build up is totally individual as the story manifests. The system sets the markers, like "something is stolen" or "someone threatens the neighborhood" and keeps track of it, like "you get accused as the thief" or "people get beat up and there is corruption".

All that can be done randomly, and if done on a level abstract enough, it can be applied to every situation within the stories a game might want to tell. Actually, it'll influence those stories towards specific outcomes an occurrences you'd expect for a genre or setting by giving directions, not results. Oracles, if you will (if you've been reading this blog for any amount of time, you will have heard some of those ideas already).

There you have it, then, patterns and opportunities for escalation and hinting and interpretation, randomly created and with natural "hot spots" where the stakes are somewhat established, but also offer room for surprises as the story shifts from narrative encounter to narrative encounter and the reactions to that.

That's not all, but then we are done

It needs one more dimension to make it work properly, though, and that would be a bigger disconnect between player and character. An abstraction not only how hurt a character is, but (in this case) if the character actually is in the mood to fight or even pumped and eager for some of that ultra-violence.

Think about it. We monitor characters all the time for how damaged they are or how well equipped and there are some more or less established systems around for seeing if a character is hungry or thirsty or if it's too hot or cold. We already take those things into account when we decide how to play the character. Same is true for the never changing, but still relevant ability scores. If your character isn't strong, you will try to avoid things that involve using that ability score. It comes natural.

So a logical step would be to install a system that can have a character being very angry as well as not in the mood. Having characters getting frustrated or stressed will have players react to that and it all becomes part of the story just out of pure necessity. That's the beauty of having output like that come through the system: it will give impulses otherwise easily forgotten or neglected. Giving them importance is giving them power over the narrative and that is a great source of tension.

And that's where I'm at. It would be a post just as long as this one to go into detail how this will be done in that game I'm writing, but I can say that we gave the beta a test-run and it is promising. I'll have to write more about this soon, but I hope I was able to illustrate the distinctions I saw and how I addressed the problems thereof.

As always, thoughts and impressions on the ideas formulated above are very welcome here or wherever I share this.

In other news, the first draft for my next publication is almost done, we are already working on a layout and art is on its way ... You know what? Have a tease of some interior art by Daniel Petri (who can be found here):

Copyright by Daniel Petri [hompage]

* Incidentally this is the weakest point of light systems with very few rolls allowing for a limited assortment of results: success conditions have a probability of occurring, but there is a number of rolls necessary to reflect said probability in a way that it is recognizable as good or bad probability. So limiting rolls and success conditions will have less controllable outcomes and discourage long term play.

Aphorisms about Game Design Theory (lazy blog post)

I haven't forgotten. One blog post per month, at least. Here we go ... So I have a group on MeWe that talks about philosophy and game design. It's basically me collecting ideas (for now, that is). You are welcome to join, of course. However, since I suspect the overlap to be minimal (to say the least), I thought I'd share a little something I wrote over there.  It's a random collection of thoughts on design. Enjoy!

Day 1:

I need to apply some discipline here to keep going. So I thought it'd be nice to share some of the observations I had while tinkering on games. Small sprints on a daily basis. This is social media, so let's keep it random as well. Fell free to chime in while we are at it.

 

Here goes: Something I try to do as often as possible, is feeding my subconscious with all sorts of different patterns. It's not as much about reflecting new content, it's just taking it in and trusting that it somehow helps shaping whatever I'm working on. To enhance that, I try to follow my "whims" as much as possible as well. If I'm in the mood for some victorian drama, it's what I'm following up on, if it's true crime, I'm all over that. Doing so helps finding an understanding of what you like and you'll seek and collect that with more care. It also helps finding connections between patterns that are not that obvious. It's also something my girlfriend hates, because she sometimes just wants to watch stupid tv.

Baseline is, feed your brain not for immediate benefits but for building a frame of ideas to draw from when you sit down designing stuff. Sorry if that was too obvious ... Is it something you guys experience as well?

There was a short argument that this can't always be achieved, and my answer to that fiat was:

Time definitely is a restriction, as is compromise ... What I wrote is more like something a designer should aspire to, if that makes more sense.

[source]

Day 2:

There is no game out there that fully realizes what a role playing game can be, but there are some that come close, if only in different areas or aspects of that nebulous new media. Seek those games and push the boundaries they found. That said, don't make the mistake assuming some game or another is better than other games just because it's newer. That's not how progress works. They are all forays into the dark to see what sticks and what doesn't. Knowing that should encourage you to create and look at all games, old and new, for inspiration. There's also no way to know if something is "right" or "wrong" that way. Tinker, publish and play to find out.

Day 3:

A feeling (or measure?) for scope is one of the most crucial skills a game designer needs. It's not only about knowing what it means if a game checks "all the boxes", it also means to be able to extrapolate that for the game being written. This relates not only to the level of detail a game might need (or not), it also entails how different manifestations and interpretations impact a game on all levels of resolution (immediate, midterm and longterm implications, for instance). Power levels, tact regarding the terms a game uses ... All of that needs scope to be integrated properly.

Day 4:

When you write rpg rules, you basically do so for at least 4 different readers with just as much different assumptions. You'll have those intending to DM the game and they'll focus on how to use the game for what they had in mind or for the inspiration of the next campaign. While understanding the game is necessary for the first reader to get in a position to use it for the next campaign, it is the sole reason for the second reader, which would be the players. They (ideally) want to learn the game and (maybe) learn how to exploit it as well. For both readers the game needs the structure to be read front to cover as well as being an easy reference during the game and preparation phases. The third reader is the collector. They can transit to become reader one or two, but the main reason for a purchase would be the look of a game, which would be (in order of significance) artwork, production value (is it coffee table worthy?), layout and whatever could be gained from short pieces of text (interestingly enough, this works well with clones of well known games, as it mostly proposes variants to a known set of rules and thus allows directly going into referencing). The fourth reader might be an odd mix of all other possible readers (optionally split into several new readers, obviously, but they form very small groups, so ...). Here you'd have those just reading games for the fun of it (a rare breed), reviewers and critics as well as other designers looking for inspiration (or checking out the opposition). All those readers need to be addressed to some degree and there's definitely some overlap. Depending on how you aim to market your product, you'll have to make some decisions. Can you think of other readers?

[source]

Day 5:

This one is about playtesting new rules. Actually, you might say, it's about why games need to be played to be evaluated, because rules that might sound well on paper (and you will have those), might actually fall short in the game. Sometimes simply for having the wrong dynamic in play. So for one, if everyone at the table is not using a new rule repeatedly (even the one who wrote it), you might need to do some changes. That's not to say the rule is worthless and needs to be ditched, but it will need readjustment. Realizing that taught me not only to "read" games, it also showed me how to manipulate the flow I want in my games by using, for instance, the right markers at the right time and in the right place. Character sheets are a huge part of this, but information design in general is crucial ... That's why games have phases in combat and similar structures. Rules are carried by mnemonic patterns like that and applying those patterns is part of the design process.

Day 6:

People can work their way around processes with between 3 and 7 steps. Everything below that is boring as fuck ("My attack roll also resolves damage and endurance AND the enemy's attack! "Slow down, bro, this isn't always about efficiency."), everything beyond that will have people ask you about the rules (for instance) constantly. Having three steps to everything is a save bet (3 classes), but going 4 or 5 can work, if it's not overdone or rules that get frequented regularly (because routine helps a lot) and 6 or 7 will stretch it and most likely only appeal to those people into more complex games. Incidentally, that is the reason for having all those little sub-systems in OD&D and AD&D, because once you play and you decided for (race and) class, you reduce your choices from "unlimited"* to "manageable". It's also why THAC0 is brilliant just because it is counter-intuitive: it's a clear distinction to the other number systems in the game and therefor better to be remembered (and it has, what?, 3 steps?). So if people get easily bored with your game (applies to mid- and long term as well, like campaign play, for instance), think about adding a couple of steps to it. If people tend to re-read rules a lot although they are into the game, categorize a bit more. Not necessarily ditch some rules, just group and differentiate by the ratio outlined above (races, classes, spell-types, combat phases, you get it).

That's it for today. Tell your friends. I'm here all week.

*Btw, common mistake is to think a game like AD&D is too complex, often enough because just reading rules from cover to cover definitely makes it look that way (ironically just for the reasons discussed above). However, and I really want to stress this point: where it matters, when playing the game, if designed properly (with little sub-systems and the right groupings, with steps between 3 and 7 for everything, all that jazz) it'll feel never too complicated (might include a learning curve, though, but I, for one, always appreciated that).

This, as well, provoked a comment (and I really provoked it with my comment on games being light on combat in the beginning there). The argument being made was, that while it might be true for most (if not all) areas in game design, it might not apply in combat, to what I wrote:

I think we mostly agree. I can't dismiss your argument as anecdotal, though, as there is something to it that needs to be addressed (still anecdotal). An easy way out would be to say there are different preferences and reduce this to a matter of taste. It can be that, as you could say that it's what works at your table. The counter argument would be that it is possible to make every game work with the right people. One is about reducing your selection of games to the whim of the folks you want to play with, the other is reducing the people to the whim of the game you want to play. Both work, both have merit. That's not what it's about, then. I've actually seen a couple of games that offer (at least) two ways to handle combat, but that's just as an aside.

The argument that I'd be trying to make here, is, that there are two kinds of role playing games out there: those that let you explore (AD&D, as an example) and those that offer a room where you can express yourself (the PbtA games, as an example). The first works with critical hit tables and dungeons to loot, the second not so much (or at least not in the same way) but it offers a frame or a couple of frames . Consequently, both games will come with a very different set of conditions to work properly, and they don't mix well.

With that said, I'd add that the principles discussed above still apply with combat as well. All preference changes is that you'll most likely shun games that allow levels of detail you won't need if it is inventing funny shit when opportunity arises. Stuff like that would get in the way and as far as design goes, the difficulty would be to adhere to those conditions (I'm not sure, but moves might do something like that in Dungeon World, right?). Still, the choices you'll have in those games reducing combat to just a blip in the game, will (if done right) offer just a couple of choices or phases in order to not overwhelm. Another example: how many special powers have the monsters you use in your games? More than 3? Maybe the well-known ones like dragons. More than 6 or seven? Would that even work? 6 or 7 might work for an end boss or something like it, but beyond that? I don't think so. The rules apply.

As well as:

Addition: there's a whole subset of arguments connected to how the advent of D&D 3e with it's streamlined rules led to the simplification of rules down to that bare minimum that fuels the games where people play to express themselves instead of exploring a (for lack of a better word) 'simulated' fictional world. Consequently (or so I'd argue), it's simplification what you provoke if you are not distinguishing rules to bring them to full effect (said sub-systems). Some of it is (maybe) that it's nowadays just as easy (and maybe enjoyable) to mimic those original games without going through all those motions. However, it's different vantage points and I'd go as far as saying different gaming experiences with different needs to cater to.

That's a lot and I hope you all find something worth your while in it. There'll be more of the same in the days to come. However, I'll probably write something else here first. Join us over at that social media place, if you want to. You'd be most welcome. Either way, share your thoughts :)

[source]

 

Hit Points as Confidence (Lost Songs of the Nibelungs - design post)

With the 400 pound gorilla out of the way (pun intended) I can start concentrating on other things that need attention. Lost Songs of the Nibelungs, for instance. There have been some changes and one wrong turn with the latest update for the f2f-group. I won't talk (yet) about the wrong turn, that problem is solved, and I already talked about Skill Ranks a couple of weeks ago. Today, though, we'll talk about an epiphany I had regarding hit points (Health) in Lost Songs. Let's get at it ...

Hit Points, what art thou?

This is an discussion as old as the hobby, I believe. Every now and then I see someone tackle the topic to define the logic behind it. Is it luck? Or just brawniness? How do you explain that a low level character gets killed by knocking his head on a door frame while a high level character can get chewed on by a dragon and still walk away smiling? Some would say, experience is what makes all the difference.

I mean, look at professional athletes failing. It almost always looks horribly hurtful. And yet, more often than not, they seem to make their save for half damage and walk away with a scare. It's fascinating what the human body is capable to avoid instinctively, if he's trained. Look at Shaolin monks how far training can really get you.

They are not kidding ... [source]

It's something I learned from Judo training, so many moons ago: I did that for almost 9 years, starting pretty young (I had been 8 or 9) and one of the benefits of the training (like getting thrown on the floor constantly and all that) will result in a hardened bone structure. Because the body just reacts, over time, to the new constant challenges it is facing. Especially when you are still growing (it also results in short legs, but that's a story for another day).

What I'm saying is, training and experience will have a body handle damage differently on so many levels, that "hit points" are actually a good way of reflecting this. Without training or, in other words, without people constantly hitting you with pointy metal sticks, you'll get hurt so much easier. And yes, that also explains why a wizard shouldn't get so many hit points, since the brain is his muscle of choice.

We could start a discussion about thieves now, but we won't ... Okay, a short one: mechanically speaking, the thief is great in avoiding damage before it occurs, sneak attacks will shorten a fight from the beginning, high DEX will give a good natural AC and great saves against physical damage will all, theoretically, result in a lower damage average than, for instance, your basic fighter will have. So lower hp are somewhat justified. If it's a d4 per level, as the D&D Rules Cyclopedia suggests, is still a matter of debate.

(Liquid Courage house rules make total sense in that context, btw)

Hit Points in Lost Songs, though ...

Never change a running system, right? Unless you write your own system. I mean, Lost Songs still has some strong ties to D&D. It's not obvious, but it's there. So the change in terminology from "hit points" to "Health" was merely cosmetic in the beginning. But it didn't jive right with me. As a matter of fact, it'd been the one of the things that just never made sense in the game. And here is why: the core concept of Lost Songs of the Nibelungs is about reducing a character's ability scores. That's where the hurt is. "Health" was merely a buffer, a resource a character could deplete without much harm.

In a way that still is what I described above. The buffer grows with experience and it takes longer before it gets to a character. But calling it Health made less and less sense, because a character would lose those points in a fight, and if that's all he lost, he'll regain it with a night's rest (if that). Only damage in the ability scores would take longer to heal, so he wasn't losing Health at all ...

It's been a bit frustrating, to be honest, as those things tend to threaten the integrity of a game every time you can't explain how that "Health" damage isn't even a scratch. Well, I guess the title gave it away, but it wasn't until a couple of weeks (months?) ago that my good friend +Mark Van Vlack compared Health in Lost Songs to something like confidence. And boy, did that resonate with me!

What Confidence does for you

This solved several problems at once. For one, it explains well in the narrative the game tends to produce. Those early hits the character takes? They don't deal physical damage, but instead damage the confidence. Imagine going pumped into a fight, all confidence and balls, and then you realize that last strike came pretty close and the next might hit ... That's how you get the opponent to make mistakes: you make him insecure. It mirrors quite effectively how fights actually tend to go down. It builds up until one gets lucky or makes a mistake, then it escalates very fast.

Both hit, both fail their Saves ... [source]

I also want LSotN to be a game where you can taunt an enemy into doing something stupid enough to have a direct impact in a fight. Reducing an enemies Confidence before the first hit is thrown is very much that. It all makes total sense.

There's more to it, though. Another thing LSotN was lacking, although connected, was to find a fitting mechanic that allows a character to regain some of that "Health" damage. With the change to Confidence, it got quite obvious what tat could be. Because how do you gain confidence? When things work out, that's how. So a new rule now is that if a character rolls a successful Save, he regains as much Confidence back as he rolled over the difficulty.

Which leads to the fourth consequence of this simple change of terminology, because characters can not only recharge their Confidence, the can over-charge it. In other words, characters can get "Overconfident". That's neither a bad nor a good thing.

Overconfidence, blessing and curse

The good is, they can ignore any disadvantage on tests (active rolls), so they can run, swim and generally stay alive in this state. He'll even get an additional d6 to his rolls. That's what adrenaline does, it's a natural high that keeps you functioning. So you basically can regain your Confidence in Lost Songs by taking a breather (depends on a character's level how often he's able to do it, though).

Now imagine a character on the run. He's hurt, no Endurance left and he gets that break. Sitting there, breathing heavy, he realizes he's still alive and has a chance (regaining Confidence and Endurance, in this case). So after 20 minutes or so, he decides to pull himself up and try once more to get away. DM demands a Save here, because he still is hurt and all. Right now the character pulled it together somewhat. His Confidence is back, his Endurance, too. If he doesn't make the Save, his body demands more rest, but if he makes it, he'll also gain Overconfidence (unless he just hits the difficulty, that is) and can ignore his aching body for a bit longer.

Every test he'll make, will reduce the overconfidence, though, because that d6 he gets to roll with his tests works as a bonus, but reduces Confidence, too. And any disadvantages he has still apply on Saves (mirroring the danger to overdo it due to Overconfidence). So this could save a character's bacon in a tough spot, if at a price, and it also helps describing what a character is going through.

But there is more. While overconfidence makes you ignore disadvantages and helps you overcoming challenges, it's also that kind of stubbornness that brings it own kind of problem. So the rules here are that Overconfident characters can't share dice in Combat (give or receive) and that they won't get a benefit from Skill Rank group effects (because they don't listen!).

[source]

And that's that

There's a moderate amount of Saves in the game and only part of them will result in Overconfidence, but it is something that characters could use to their advantage, force even. The picture I have in mind here is barbarians screaming at each other with all the aggression they can gather. In Lost Songs that could force an easy Save, which would most likely result in Overconfidence, exactly what they are aiming for. It might give you the edge you need to win a challenge. But it also works to motivate soldiers in a trench to make that last attack ... It does a lot.

And it's a shift that, once more, underlines the style of gaming LSotN supports. The player nurtures his character, helps him, manipulates him and makes the necessary decisions to keep him alive. Characters are entities on their own. They feel or hurt or are stubborn. Players work with that by giving them a good time every now and then, feeding them and do all kinds of stuff to keep their characters happy instead of just alive.

It's a bit more involved, but sometimes that the kind of story I want to tell. And it helped intensifying our game, in my opinion. 

Could work in D&D, too

There are already house rules out there, using Constitution as the real death zone for a character. It'd be where damage goes when the hp are gone. And once that's zero, the character is gone for good. With a rule like that in place, you could use the rules described above without any fuzz. Only problem I see is that damage stays linear in D&D as the hp grow, while Lost Songs has a high variety in that regard (from not-so-much to lots of damage), but there are rules for exploding damage out there and all kinds of other shenanigans one could use to make it work, so I'm not worried.

It'll change the game a bit, though, as fights start out as battles of wits, getting ugly only in the end. It'll make slaughtering low hp critters look so much crueler, too. All I'm saying is, it'll work.

So here you go, that's one of the biggest changes Lost Songs has gone through and it was only by changing a word. Funny how that goes sometimes. Ideas and impressions are, as always, very welcome.

-----------------------

And also, if you haven't heard already, I managed to get a module out there. It's a PWYW "balls to the wall gonzo" procedural junglecrawl called Monkey Business and you can get it here.