Introducing Minimus Ludus to the World (also, 500th post!)

Hello, friends and neighbors. I hope the year is treating you fine so far! As it happens, I got busy again and managed to get another little game. This time, another first with my little publishing endeavor, a game not written and designed by me, but by my good friend Mark van Vlack. I did editing and layout, eddy Punk added a couple of scenarios ... but I'm getting ahead of myself. Lets talk about it!

Get it on OBS!

A game, written by a friend

Mark is a well seasoned game designer. He's doing it for years now. Decades, even. And it shows whenever he tackles a new project or revises one of his numerous old games, which seems to happen every other month. Thing is, he doesn't really have any interest in getting them published "properly". The odd pdf or PoD here and there, but all very much the "I needed to have this in some form for my own table, so I might as well share it"-kind of approach.

I love talking games with this guy. Always insightful and seeing something I might have missed in my designs. I think it is fair to say that we inspired each other for several ideas that made their ways into our games here and there. It is that healthy and productive exchange you'd always like to have with your peers.

Anyway, I've been dabbling with this publishing thingy for some time now, and we've talked a couple of times about me publishing some of his. We did come close once, when I edited and layouted his role-playing game Phase Abandon. It is a game you can get for free on OBS right now, if you are interested to find out how this guy ticks. PA is anotehr great game of his I can only recommend. Saw lots of play-testing, too!

Which leads to another thing: his friends love his games. Check out his discord, if you don't believe me.

Anyway, he's a good egg and I'm happy to call him a friend. 

Minimus Ludus - All the Worlds, Pocket-Sized!

As for the publishing gig, just the other day he told me that he wrote a very small game for the Bachelor party of one of his friends. The challenge he gave himself was to make it a complete game with no more than 1000 words (I belive ... no more than two pages A5, anyhow). AND HE DID IT!

If you read this blog, you might be aware that I'm not really into lite role-playing games. Or rather, in how they are marketed in our little niche of the hobby. They take shortcuts by assuming an experienced gamemaster, but often don't own up to it, claiming instead it's "how the game was supposed to be played", which is, on the face of it, bullshit. Of course.

But they do have their perks, obviously. For one, they are easily expanded on. Preparation, if you know what you are doing, is easy as fuck. Just a couple of pages to read, ready to go soon after. For big groups, or for people with no huge amount of time to play, right on the money. IF the GM knows what he's doing and all you want to do is small one-shots or very short campaigns.

I saw over the years a couple of games I actually admired for their short and concise approach to role-playing games, Macchiato Monsters being one of them, for instance. There is an art to writing a short rpg that actually works.

Minimus Ludus is such a game, in my opinion.

I'll tell you why, too: The role of the dice in this game is minimal, but not insignificant. It is not so much about how high your roll is (although that factors in, too), but instead about what you can summon as aid to your roll that makes the game click. Those elements you may summon are all narrative in nature, but convey bonuses if applied.

That means, if you play to the elements of the story and setting you are playing in, it does the two-punch of making the setting come alive AND results in a better result. There's also a meta-currency element to it where GM and players can trade story elements.

I really like that (maybe for obvious reasons?). So characters come, for instance, with a weakness and the GM can exploit that, but it costs the GM as well to o so, the benefit for the player being, that they get a Token they can burn later for a benefit ... 

Behold the character sheet!

Another aspect I like is how it is conceptualized to be expanded on by the setting you use it for. There is a very abstract but highly functioning core that is easily altered to fit all kinds of settings. There's even a meta story how all those worlds (or "Pockets", how he calls it) connect.

The game came with five settings already written by Mark. When we agreed that this will be the first game of his published under my label, Eddy Punk added three takes of his to the fold.

That's EIGHT SETTINGS out of the gate before you even have to come up with your own (for which the game actually also provides guidelines!). I don't have to tell you: that's a lot of gaming right there, even if you are not into ALL the scenarios.

That's not Star Wars. Not at all.

Lets get lost on an island!

Anyway. We talked about it and agreed, I did editing and layout, and now you can buy Mark and me a coffee by purchasing this on the OBS flavor of your choice.

In return you will get a fun little game that does a lot of heavy lifting with a very light engine. Something you can take for a spin when there's not enough time to play something a bit more complex.

I really like it and I'm happy to have this game as part of my portfolio. And I hope you guys will check it out!

It will bring you some joy, I'm sure of it.

What else is new?

With Minimus Ludus out of the gate, the next big project is the pdf for ORWELL ... It needs a couple of small mistakes taken care of as well as bookmarks and hyperlinks, but then the pdf will be ready for public consumption. The PoD gets a little facelift as well, while we are at it.

While that's happening, I'll keep on writing Angry Little Aliens VERSUS King Arthur. That turned out to be a fun project and it's very well doable in the couple of months ... so I'm confident that it will see the light of day soon!

Other than that? I rediscovered my love for all the small publications out there and want to spend more time with reading what piled up on my desk ... digitally and PoD both. We'll see how far I'll get with that, but if I do so, I will talk about it here on the blog.

Beyond that ... who knows. There's a little game I plan to write for Halloween this year. That has a very high chance of happening. And there is at least one supplement for ORWELL I can see myself tackling this year, most of all because I love the premise of it (read about it here, if you haven't already).

More on that soon, I guess.

And then there's also the big projects like Brawlers! and be67 that should see some work done this year. I had high hopes to get be67 done in 2024. It's possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath ... On the other hand, the stuff I want to do with be67 doesn't allow for much more delay. It is piling up here and at some point I have to get things done to start new things.

Also: Lost Songs of the Nibelungs will get some love this year. I already reactivated the old group of play-testers, now I have to sit down and see where that game's at. It would be rad as hell to have that fully conceptualized until the end of the year. I have an idea or two that will be talked about here on the blog as well this year.

So there is, if I may say so, lots to look forward to here on the blog and as far as publications go. I'll keep pushing, because what else is there to do?

If you have any ideas what else should happen here on the blog, or even if you are interested in the status of any of th odd things I've talked about here on the last couple of years, feel free to drop a comment! No one ever does, recently.

Other then that, I'd like to close this post with a little mantra I've learned about a couple of weeks ago, Ho'oponopono (a great article about it can be found here). It really had a positive impact on my life, and I feel we all need something like this right now (or always, actually), so here you go:

I'm sorry!

Please forgive me.

Thank you.

I love you ...

Revisiting Balance in Game Design (in which I ramble a bit ... you have been warned)

Balance, that old chestnut. People with opinions talking gaming seem to think it ain't necessary, because "player agency" solves all that, or that encounter balance is a myth, something that cannot be achieved so it needn't be tried ... I get it. If all you do is DMing games, you'd have to realize at some point that a Gamemaster is one key element to achieving balance in a game. And yes, it is a multi-faceted problem. Just doesn't mean it can't be solved. Lets talk about it once more ...

This is following up a discussion I had with my good friend Eric (of Methods & Madmen fame) on X, where I'm also at now (find me! follow me! hehe). It was his idea to change medium and write posts about it, too. Read his take here. I have also talked plenty about this with my good friend Mark, and he pointed me towards this nice little nugget of his about balance in a game he wrote. You can read that here.

Over the years I've taken several stabs at the project, and as I got more and more serious about designing my own games, my perspective somewhat shifted. One of my early takes on this (2014!) can be read here. Spoiler: I'm a bit further down the road right now, so I might not even fully agree with what I wrote back then, but clever young me already took that into account and left open what he couldn't know. Ha!

[source]

Anyway. This one will be a bit all over the place. You'll find this examined through all kinds of lenses, as the discussion was all over the place as well.

Preamble

Balance is everything, and everything is balance. Anything that goes against that simple truth will produce some disharmony, if you are lucky, disaster, if you are not so lucky. So purely on the face of it, it is ridiculous to assume that games don't need to be balanced one way or another.

Assuming so, then, needs to come from some skewed understanding what is happening in game design, or what it means to play a game. Something different to what the original games offered. A paradigm shift of sorts.

I think I have a grasp on what is happening and why. It took a while and some discussion, but in the end it was right there in front of me. As usual it is there to be seen, but you have to look. Now I have to find a way to actually explain this in a way that gives others the chance to gain that same understanding.

I'll say it up front: this is no joke. We have been way too lax with how we talk and write games, what game design really means. And in the end (not "the end" end, but where we are at nonetheless), it fucked up what little gaming culture we had. what we are seeing now is the corpse of our hobby looted.

You think this is hyperbole? Keep reading ...

[source]

Where we come from, where we are ...

I'll keep this one short. It will just be a reminder what was offered in the beginning and how that changed. It will be important to understand where I come from when I talk "balance".

Out of several different attempts to make role-playing games happen, D&D was the one that stuck, that actually produced a hype that not only carried itself quite well, but also inspired a wave of innovations in this new hobby that still needs proper reviewing.

What was the essence of that game? What was able to catch the inspiration of so many gamers all over the world? We know today that it wasn't just the rules, it also was the "zeitgeist" back in the early seventies. What the sixties sowed had been in full swing in the 70s, and it showed. The books people read, the movies that went along with it ... very fertile ground for something like role-playing games.

People had been ready to experience the stories themselves they had seen or heard and read about. I think it is hard to grasp what it actually meant to grow up in that time. For one, computer games hadn't been a thing. Board games hadn't been that big yet, either. If you really were into "gaming" and lived in the USA, it would have been in one of the war gaming clubs. A very fringe group of individuals, and ground zero for role-playing games.

Nerds! [source]

 So the hobby takes off and innovates up to the 90s like crazy. Hundreds and thousands of games come into existence. the hobby is broad enough at that point so that there is a general agreement on what it means to play the game, but yet no proper research. No one is looking, everyone is doing. Basically. Some forums here and there discussed aspects of the big picture, but it was all very much wild west.

The only way to find out if a game designer back then understood what they were doing, usually was publishing it and seeing if it worked or not (simplified, of course).

The end of TSR in a way marks the end of that momentum as well, even for the competition. Hasbro buying WotC (because of M:tG) then killed it for good and fully made it a corporate endeavor.

Then the revisioning started for good, and the strongest for that first game: D&D. 3e did what 3e did, but people wanted to keep playing that original game, so all the retro clones and blogs happened ... and ended up being successful.

4e failed, 5e tried to play catch up with a crowd that would rather play the old games. That worked a bit, but all the while another movement gained momentum out of the retroclone scene many associate with the moniker "OSR": minimalist games really started taking off.

Basically, we ended up with three distinct kinds of games. The "old" games that started it, including those designed in that tradition. The minimalist games, that basically take the core assumption of the old games, add a concept to that and assume that those playing know what they have to do. And finally, the corporate vision of role-playing games, that would rather have the game being a theme park, of sorts, where you pay and pay and pay to participate.

That's the way I cut it, and those three distinctions are crucial for the argument I make.

The Basic Tenets of  RPG Game Design

Role-playing games are, despite their war gaming roots, first and foremost about NEGOTIATION. You talk about what's happening until a disagreement makes it necessary to consult the tools the game offers until the problem is resolved.

Ongoing negotiations ... [source]

Those tools exist along a hierarchy, with the basically talking being the lowest, and the most complex tools being the highest spot in that hierarchy of negotiations. I go into detail about this in the GM section of be67 when talking encounters (following the paradigm established by the D&D RC). It goes like this:

Other than seeing Encounters as elements that form a cohesive narrative, they also need to be seen as interactive elements. As such, they will have several degrees of possible interaction. They are, ordered hierarchically (from easiest to most difficult):

•         Superficial – Can be negotiated without the use of dice.

• Passive – Can be overcome with a Save.
  

• Resource based – Can be overcome, but it costs.
  

• Active, Attribute based – Can be overcome with active use of Attributes.
  

• Active, Skill based – Needs specific Skills to be overcome.
  

• Combat – High resolution challenge triggering some or all the resources.
  

All elements can be combined, of course, and it should be possible to cleverly negotiate encounters towards a lower hierarchy solution in almost all cases. Instead of fighting, Characters could use Skills, instead of Skills, they could argue the use of Attributes or spend some resources they got available. Arguing Saves would be possible, if it is imaginable that a challenge could be overcome instinctively, and arguing down to “superficial” would render the challenge harmless because Players could talk their way around it. The Gamemaster needs to entertain the argument first, however, and has the last word in all things.

This holds true through all sorts of designs (hence "basic tenets"). You can add to this, or leave stuff out, but along these lines game design happens as soon as talking won't bring the narrative forward.

In a sense, and this is important to understand, the design starts where the negotiation ends. Or rather: the rules of a game EXPAND on language towards the narrative the game intents.

This is, then, where you decide how a game should play. The vision. But what makes a game?

Definition Time & Some Analogy

At this point we can start talking balance, then. We'll start with the analogy and go from there:

The relation between gaming system and GM is the same as between a car and a professional driver. Ideally, both compliment each other to completion, which means, if both work as they should, you get the best possible result. It also means that one balances the other. A good driver will easily tell what problems a car has and what changes need to be made, a good car is designed to accommodate a driver as good as possible.

So for one, a gamemaster needs to know systems like a professional driver needs to know cars. That may come with individual tastes and biases (and will produce new problems I'll address further down), but the more you know, the more you'll appreciate how a game is done before positioning yourself towards it (incidentally how you recognize a good reviewer as well).

By that same token, games need to be designed properly to elevate the performance of a good GM. If all a GM is doing is reduced to compensating for a lacking system, you might still have a game, just not as good as it could have been.

Proper design, therefore, needs to establish standards that new games can build on, just like cars developed standards and still evolve to this day.

In game design, that standard should be (as far as I'm concerned) that someone buying a game can expect to gain the same experience from it as the designer was able to conjure when testing it if playing it by the book. This is no small feat to begin with, to be fair, because it means that the designer must have done extensive testing to present the game in a way that takes all possible uses into account (as far as that's possible).

The only way to assure that is to have the engine of a game BALANCED to the extent that it actually takes some punishment before producing false results.

See it like this: a guy has a vision for a game. It is supposed to do xyz when playing it. That means, it needs to produce results to that effect on all levels of resolution. It is the "first principle" of the game. The base line. Now, when testing reveals a problem where, say, leveling breaks or classes aren't progressing properly or combat produces undesirable effects, or a plethora of other problems that could occur when designing a game, a designer would look at the problem and adjust the system towards the established first principle.

Doing so throughout will produce a BALANCED SYSTEM within the parameters established in the beginning. Which means, as a matter of fact, that there is a metric by which encounters are balanced within the system. It is the equivalent to having a sports car do the things a sports car does.

He's saying something about speed ... [source]

So what does "balance" mean, then? Well, chess, for instance, is balanced. Other than who starts, everyone has the same rules and moves. You play two games and switch who starts between the two of you, and it is the same for both.

The balance is in the symmetry of the game, as well as in how the single elements within the game move and interact. Making that happen is the act of designing a game. "Fairness" is not in the opponent you get, but in the fact that all have the same chance to reach the goals the game sets. finding an individual way to make that work is up to the player.

There you go, game design 101. You decide what your game wants to do, then you engineer it towards that goal anyway you can, balancing all elements towards the vision you have for the game. If you manage to make all that manifest, you have a balanced game on hand.

Balance is unnecessary?

Why aren't there proper distinctions and definitions? Or how come that balance is deemed unnecessary in role-playing games? The answer to both would be that gaming is part of our culture to an extent that general assumptions of what that entails interferes with a need to have a distinction to begin with.

We are expected to know games. At least the general principle of what "gaming" is. We are also expected to accept that while there are general distinctions between categories of games, our only purpose is to know what we like so that we can go and consume that. In other words, you don't need to know how a car is built to drive one. Or even enjoy driving one.

So on the customer side, we only learn to look for the signs of what we think we like, not how that is achieved or, necessarily, how something actually aligns with what we could, would or even need to enjoy. There is a huge wiggle room where selling and buying the illusion of what we want is absolutely fair game. That would be consuming for the IDEA of doing something, with no intention of actually doing so.

I have bought enough games to know exactly what that means. And I have bought games because I liked their presentation, not really thinking about actually ever playing them. Or pdfs, because of an appealing idea and some nice cover art. Guilty as charged, on all those points. Which is why there is a market for it, which also is why that market is over-saturated but, for lack of a better word, flat.

That said, make no mistake, producing artifacts that superficially manage to summon the air of being a role-playing game is not the same as actually writing a role-playing game. There might be overlap, for sure, but to satisfy the market of the former is far easier than doing so for the latter.

That same wiggle room also produces another problem: it results in a faulty understanding of what playing a role-playing game actually entails. It skews our meta-knowledge of this niche of gaming towards an idea of entertainment more akin to going to a theme park.

At this point we are back at the distinction made in the beginning, those three different approaches we call "role-playing games" without distinction. Following the original paradigm will lead to a different understanding of what the game needs than following that of a minimalist game. And corporate has its very own idea what it wants of a gamer (basically WotC wants for the game what Adobe does for its apps). 

With all three having very different approaches and need for their designs (again, with overlap), there will be confusion about what a game needs if the distinctions aren't clear.

Coming from a faulty premise like that will make it impossible to evaluate the requirements of a good game from a customer perspective, even if you end up playing a lot of games that spawned in that dreaded wiggle room. The idea of "balance" would not even occur to you, as it is not needed for the kind of games that don't need it. You agree at the table what you want to experience, and then you experience that. The rules are more about engaging socially and how to behave. More LARP or improv theater than D&D.

Still my favorite LARP pic ... [source]

 What's more, the "balance" those minimalist or corporate games need is not necessarily anchored in the system, but outsourced to the participants (although with a different focus for each). That hierarchy I've talked about above doesn't track with those games.

Minimalist games, arguably, reduce the game to mostly the negotiation part. That has to mean that those mean rely on a proper "social contract" between the participants to make it work. That can be through having an experienced GM bringing their "meta understanding" of what constitutes a game to the table, compensating for the lack. It can be some form of ideology, that will force the experience through the same lens for everyone.

The corporate approach would be to gear the experience towards being a theme park. In that, you'll have always fun and never struggle and own nothing of the game and be happy (to know is to know). The first thing to castrate for that is the GM as well as the authority of the game itself.

Also seems to work well with ideology, as politics try to determine who is allowed to play and who isn't. Social engineering replacing the system, fucking up that nice hierarchy I shared above simply by giving a "get out of jail card" for all levels of resolution.

But all of it is, in its own way, a form of balance. Otherwise you couldn't play.

But people play games how they want to play them!

The one thing a game designer should ignore is how people are NOT playing their game as published but go their own way with it. If a game is designed as described above and playing it really does what the designer intended, then those playing it differently do so at their own peril. If the game is not at fault (and it might be, but if ...), then the gamer is. Limits of control and all that.

I mean, there is value in learning that a huge variety of people ignore a rule or use it differently. Something like that should be considered for revision, naturally. But if someone, say, uses a horror game to play a superhero campaign, the designer is not at fault.

But that's not even what I'm hinting at.

There is a whole movement in the ttrpg community to see systems as a mere trappings for their individual expression of the story they had in mind. Systems doing their jobs will then be seen as intrusive, disruptive even. And since that's a market, it's easy enough to find content creators (not game designers, mind you) accommodating that need.

That is all fair game, of course, but all the same something different to playing a proper role-playing game. Not even denigrating here. If you find enjoyment in playing something akin to what heavily scripted you tube theater groups call "playing a role-playing game", feel free to do so. It's just very different to what role-playing games had been originally and should be regarded as such.

Same goes for lite rules/minimalist games. Of course there is a beauty to keeping it nice and succinct, and of course is there the possibility that they will offer a proper gaming experience. Just not without an experienced gamemaster, who'd have to invest a whole lot of work to make a game with few rules worth playing for a campaign, if it's possible at all. Or without external forces (as in "not part of the rules") that engineer cohesion into a group.

It's all just different. You wouldn't take a Trabi to a Formula One race, is all I'm saying.

Unless it's pimped? [source]

In all cases, first principles apply: if you write a game with improvised theater in mind, maybe even for Twitch streaming or what have you, it will bring different necessities than writing a proper role-playing game that group of friends can play for decades without getting bored of it, or even writing something that's just supposed to last for a couple of sessions.

That all of this has its place does not mean that one form of design replaces the other. It is, rather, to be treated differently. That's not always easy, it seems.

Why bother, then?

To keep with the analogy, if you shift gears in a car to the next tier, you expect that car to behave like a car that has been shifted one up (ideally, going faster then before). How you react to the car performing is directly related to the feedback it gives. The same goes for players in a game. They'll try and test, maybe even read the rules, to get an idea how a game behaves and act accordingly. System mastery is, to use another buzzword, giving them "agency" over their characters.

If a system, now, produces unreliable results, their performance will be geared towards balancing and compensating the problems the system is producing themselves. Same goes for the GM, of course. They might even work together to address the shortcomings and find compromises to solve them.

It is, naturally, something the designer should have done to begin with to present a "complete" game. And if all of that produces more hustle than playing the game is worth, people will move on and play something else.

So this is why designers should bother with offering games that work properly, which means, they are balanced in a way that reliable results allow for all involved to have an enjoyable experience when engaging with the game. And those things will get apparent over time, of course, so even if a game is successful for, say, the sheer marketing power of its publisher, it will fall short sooner or later when people find out what a game is lacking.

D&D 3e, for instance, broke when characters reached mid to high level. The work load for the GM just got too big too handle, plus, the system did not take into account how powerful characters impact a setting and so on and so forth (I hear 5e has some of the same problems, actually). 

50 years into the hobby, examples are legion. But so are examples of good design. It just seems that people have a hard time accepting standards and building on them. Ignoring them, however, doesn't mean you'll get away with something subpar, because gamers will notice sooner or later. They always do.

Another important point why game designers should bother is that leaving the task to make a game work to a gamemaster is unfair to begin with and also introduces so many additional variants to playing the game that the outcome of playing the game is random at best, futile for all involved in its worse manifestations. Because you can't know who is running the game, how experienced, which tastes and biases. It is why the first principles discussed above are so crucial. It is why balance is crucial.

[source]

 Which is, ultimately, why people find ways to argue that it wasn't needed to begin with. Or that it's okay as long as all follow the same ideology. Or that it can be known what a rpg is and therefor will sort itself out at the table. It is why those three distinct groups exist and fight for dominance.

My bias is towards writing games as complete as possible, following the design principles outlined above. I think it has value to do so and that it is important to see other games for what they are: different.  

To close with the analogy: give a good car to a mediocre driver, and you'll get a good performance out of it. Give that same driver a bad car and you open the result up to such a huge variance of failure, that everything between "passable" and "disaster" could be the outcome. A good car avoids that, as does a good game. Both car and game will follow or even develop standards and need to be engineered towards producing reliable output throughout.

And that's why you bother.

Conclusion

This will be a long one no reads or bothers thinking about. Yet, I stand by the above. We need proper definitions for what's happening around us, if only to recognize what has been done, what can be done and even how to do something else. It is also to save what is left of gaming culture, I assume.

All of this is already happening, but of course some people have a vested interest in keeping it foggy, unexplained and vague. Because then you can claim "this is how it's supposed to be played" or that something that isn't, is a natural evolution of a design (as, say, AD&D 2e to D&D 3e ... rather a neutering than an evolution, I'd say). People earn money or just street cred by keeping things just as they are.

Not an evolution ... [source]

That is a problem.

Not that I have anything against them doing so, but y being honest about what a game can do, maybe even MUST do to fulfill certain criteria, it might end up appealing to far less people. What happens to D&D now regarding rewrites and 6e is a very good example for what I'm talking about here.

What's worse, the fact that the gaming community is split across political and ideological lines is very much due to the fact that lots of rules don't care to create an experience SO COMPLETE that those things don't matter. Or the other way around, if all you argue is rules for that years long campaign you are in, then the game did you a service. Once a game leave too much room for interpretation, those spaces are filled with all kinds of nasty surprises instead, like what the publisher wants you to do, think or buy. Or that political/religious/ideological bullshit someone wants to push down your throat.

So we need definitions, we need to be clear about what game does what service for what audience. And we need to understand that balance is a very real aspect of games, but the kind of balance you chose has a HUGE impact on your gaming experience. And some of that has NOTHING to do with the original idea of what role-playing games are.

If you are like me, you'd want that hustle on the system side of the game, not anywhere else.

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

Almost all my shit on drivethrugh is on the cheap right now, this being the time of the year for it, so check it out. If you want to do me a huge service, think about getting Monkey Business, as that only needs two more sales to make copper!

Cheers and all the best for the next year!

Revisions Part 2: The True Nature of Encounters (with another excerpt from be67)

Hello, friends and neighbors. How's life? Mine (thanks for asking) is good but busy. Still can't leave the blog hanging like that. I keep finishing be67 as of this writing, but I am making progress, if ever so slowly. We are now testing this with another GM having a go at it (the great Mark van Vlack is giving it a shot ...), and it has been a most illuminating experience so far (and a blast rolling dice with Jay and Eric ... first time I had the pleasure of playing with my good friend Eric from Methods & Madmen!). Turns out, you can write 140 pages of rules and still miss some of the more crucial aspects of the game unmentioned.

To give you an idea ...

Anyway. I'm on it. We are here to talk what works, which would be the Narrative Encounter Generator that game features. Lets have a look ... You could also check out part 1 first.

Lost Songs did something like it!

Lost Songs of the Nibelungs is another game still happening that hasn't seen love in some time now. Things is, all the work I put into other games right now is (still) to make LSotN the best game I can make. One of the most crucial parts (no one seems to care about) is what encounters are and how they measure towards a gaming system. As most of you will be aware, it never translates fully. Not all non-player characters are fully statted or carry even a tenth of what your basic character sheet will hold.

Couldn't, to be honest, unless it'd be a game with very basic values and no real depth. A game needs to provide the necessary data as soon as it is needed, which can be tricky, of course, if it is a whole lot of information a GM needs fast. D&D is a bit more complex like that, but can take a huge amount of punishment before breaking down and (for instance) killing a party because a random encounter turned out to be too hard. That can be a boon (as gamemasters can wing it and get away with it), but it also comes with huge disadavantages when you actually try to emulate it properly in your gamedesigns.

Seems like lots of it had been guesswork ...

Now, what you can learn when designing it from the bottom up, is, that it needs a deep understanding of what encounters really are and how they need to connect the game with players and gamemaster in a meaningful way.

I think one of the bigger misconceptions early D&D let fester, was the reduction of encounters to only being entities to interact with. It codified the idea that the game is around encountering monsters and taking their treasure. That this is only partly true is easily obvious as soon as one takes a closer look at all the interactive elements those games offer: ability scores, skills, saves ... all tools to probe a fictive reality in several different ways. role-playing games are about interacting with everything imaginable in the narrated surrounded. Everything the players ENCOUNTER, that is.

First time I developed designs in that direction was when writing Lost Songs, where characters didn't encounter entities as much as "narrative concepts" associated with fairy tales that may manifest as some sort of entity, but could be something entirely different, like a storm or a landscape feature that offers ineraction of some sort.

You can take a close look at that Random Narrative Generator here (damn ... that was seven years ago!). It is thoroughly tested, and let me tell you: it writes fantastic D&D stories, even on the fly. A variant of this is used to generate cyberpunk stories to great effect in ORWELL, too.

Turns out, however, that be67 needed a somewhat different approach. What I ended up with is a tool where the same method is used (generating abstract and random narrative encounters), but with more individual encounters specifically designed for one scenario instead of a whole genre. It helps focusing on the movie part of the experience, while somewhat moving away from the sandbox approach (characters are still having freedom of choice, but not as much on a fictive map as what the action sequences and movie scenes are, in a sense).

I already shared this in Part 1, but here it is again in the new context presented here:

So instead of a barony in your fantasy setting that has specific problems and quests, the movie title is the "territory" the players are exploring, and everything is geared towards that specific experience. You have a Zombie movie, scenic encounters should be about humanity failing to push back against the undead: streets with abandoned cars, overrun military outposts, burning cities. An encounter like that should set the mood.

Landmark would additionally offer some form of orientation (you'll notice that the encounters are arranged hierarchically), and might offer left behind messages by other survivors, like "Newport is still free", or "We are meeting at the Hargrave military base", or something along those lines.

Benign NPCs, then, would be other survivors with no ill will towards the characters, most likely (given the genre) someone needing help one way or another. 

Challenges could be anything from avoiding zombie infested areas to getting some form of energy (gas for a car, electricity, wood even) or ressource (ammunition might be a bg on here). A threat would be to get discovered, for instance, or overrun, while the main plot would hint towards the source of the zombie uprise, while the Main Evil is the source itself, and "showdown" would offer some form of solution to the get rid of the main evil. In this case, it might be a face-off with the zombie master (the difference between "just" encountering him as "Main Evil" would be that in a showdown, it is personal for some reason ... "You know my secret, therefore you must DIE!").

Now think about how those parameters might shift if it where, say, an alien invasion of body snatchers, or the plot of some Bond villain for world domination ... All get different NEG, but they might interact, even, like different locations would in a fantasy setting but as movie sets instead.

Throw some sixties weirdos into that (classes in be67 are Journalist, Outlaw, Activist, Spy, Flower Child, Saboteur, Veteran), and you got a game going!

How is all of that explained in the book, then?

The thoughts tying all of this together in be67, are formulated in the beginning of the GM chapter of the book (right after establishing the genre, as you may read here). Consider this (unedited, as it were):

HOW TO STRUCTURE THE GAME

But how to tell those stories? How to prepare for them? There is more to a story than having some maps and the numbers and information for monsters or Non-Player Characters on hand. It all needs to come together, at best gearing towards a very specific experience: bloody grindhouse cinema in the Weird Sixties.

As we just established, we are already half way there. The system carries a lot just by setting up specific player goals and resolving all of it geared towards that experience. It does not tell a story, however.

All the sources of inspiration we offered so far will also go a long way, giving GMs ideas what elements they might want to see in their games. And while that might lead to some satisfying adventures, it’d be difficult to make that a campaign to last over the course of 30 levels. It needs more than that.

The following segment will give some basic information how to prepare and tell stories as well as connecting all of that within a be67 campaign.

The Rule of Cool!

The first bit of structure every game needs is an understanding between the participants what “fun” constitutes for their gaming. They need to be on the same page about what be67 can be at their table. The Weird Sixties can provide a wide array of possibilities beyond what the hard rules the game already provides are able to convey.

You can have dog fights with dragons over New York, hunt werewolf Nazis lurking in the deep snow of Antarctica, or head expeditions into the Hollow Earth to fight dinosaurs and King Kong. All with a good dose of splatter and psychedelics … A GM’s imagination is the limit and a group’s willingness to suspend their disbelief directly correlates with the fun that can be had in be67.

The Rule of Cool, then, is basically a sleight of hand allowing “Suspension of Disbelief” by explaining what can happen as “movie magic” as long as it does not contradict the rules presented here.

A Character loses an arm? Why not let them have a prostheses with a shotgun because they “know a guy”? It is easy enough to see the advantages and disadvantages of something like that (even how to express and expand on it within the rules!). The blunt weapon of choice a Character is using is a frying pan? Why not have them do just as much damage as a mace would? The damage would be the same since Weapon Mastery doesn’t make that distinction. They could use a spoon, for that matter.

In a sense it is the logical consequence of how weird the setting is combined with how flexible the rules are. There is a “wiggle room” in between, and exploring that is part of the fun. In that spirit, The Rule of Cool proposes to let the imagination go wild for the fun of it. Not as a hard rule, but as something to keep in mind and everybody has an understanding of.

The easiest way to build tension?

The smallest narrative unit relevant in a role-playing game is an ENCOUNTER with an interactive element of the game. Those elements are interactive as soon as they enter the narrative, which could be as benign as a passer-by on the street or even just the entrance into a cave. For there to be tension, however, it needs to signal that there is either something to gain or something to lose. In raw game terms, gaining could simply mean xp while losing might simply mean losing Hit Points. In more general terms it might mean information that somehow brings the narrative forward.

By asking lots of questions about their surroundings, players will actually fish for interactive elements that can be salvaged for in-game currency most of the time without further initiative necessary from the GM. The art of gamemastering, however, is in shaping the dynamics of that fishing. There’s a couple of simple rules to follow when working Encounters into the game:

• No Encounters Without Purpose – Encounters should always at least manifest one element of the setting, the mission or the scene. Even if totally random, the benefit must be either for meaningfully enhancing the atmosphere, enriching the world or advancing the game.

• Always A Tease – No Encounter should occur without being hinted towards first at least once. It does not matter if the players are looking for the Encounter or the other way around.

• Always A Catch – The more the players want something, the more they are willing to do for it, so the effort needed to have something happen is an easy regulator for a GM to motivate players into spending resources or have them drop an attempt by making the attempt too expensive. Teasing helps finding out how big of a catch an Encounter allows and which challenges are acceptable to engage with it.

• Play With the Unknown – Signs of an Encounter about to happen should be as obscure as the narrative allows and might even be misleading as long as the reveal is able to explain what had happened.

• (Let Them) Run With It – Encounters should never be changed while manifesting in order to accommodate the players’ intuitions about what’s happening or going to happen.

• Allow Tension, Allow Release – The interplay of teasing, little challenges and The Unknown will produce tension during Encounters, but tension always needs to be released as well. It is crucial to resolve all Encounters if the end of the Encounter is not obvious, even those that fail to manifest completely (due to a failed challenge, for instance) need to be resolved by signaling the Players that whatever was happening has come to some sort of end.

• Never Stop Moving – Ideally, players will always look for something or have questions, which means there are enough encounters to explore around them. That said, it is always good to pile on what is existing to have something to engage them with as soon as the game stalls for some reason. A good rule of thump is to have at least three encounters manifesting at all times in some form or another, while being on the lookout to add even to that.

• [ADVANCED] Little Puzzles Everywhere – What applies for Encounters in detail (as described above), does also apply for the sum of all Encounters over the course of a Session (or even several Sessions). Encounters map the gaming world for the players, and GMs should aspire to allow for meaningful patterns to appear on those maps for the Players to discover and play around with.

• [ADVANCED] Encounters Triggering Encounters – While the above suggests an organic flow of the action manifesting from the interaction between narration, gamemaster and players, it is important to stress that encounters might escalate situations based on wrong decisions the players went for, making life more dangerous because of it. A natural consequence of bad decisions is, therefore, that additional encounters manifest immediately into the encounter that is playing out, making a bad situation worse. Gamemasters are encouraged to let that happen, but also signal that things are forced to escalate and the dangers associated with the escalation.

• [ADVANCED] Time is a Construct – Not all encounters follow – or should follow – in a timely fashion. Sometimes it is, instead, advisable to have time pass without incidence, and without the attempt to fill the passing time with meaning. It just passes. The narration bridging the time gap sets up the next encounter instead, manifesting after the designated time has passed. Since there is an arbitrary element to this process, doing so deliberately between encounters will help shaping the narrative favorably while allowing for drastically shifting a group’s surroundings in a natural way, if need be.

Following the advice formulated above should lead to satisfying gaming loops in all Sessions when the challenges offered cover the range of systems that make be67, no matter the specific adventure. The next important step is to set the frame for those Encounters to happen in.

What kind of Encounters does the game need?

As already established: for the purposes of this game, an Encounter is basically EVERY element in the game the Characters can interact with. It needs to be distinguished, however, between NARRATIVE and STATIONARY Encounters. The first category is occurring in a (usually randomized) sequential manner as the story unfolds, the second comprises a set of necessary locations the Characters can (or need to) find over the course of a scenario or adventure.

Those two categories will interact with each other as the game progresses. Not only will the Stationary Encounters summon the “back cloth” for the run time of a specific movie scenario and keep that present, some locations will also be more dangerous than others and that will alter Narrative Encounters as well.

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

And that's how it's done in the book. Build on that follow tools to create challenges and monsters, going more and more into what the rules actually need (from most abstract, like shown above, to most crunchy).

This is where I'm at ...

At the moment I'm hammering down the finer details of this. It all needs to click in the end so that all those different ideas and designs come together into something coherent. Not easy (as it turns out), but fun nonetheless. Takes time, however (who'd have thought ...).

So this is what I'm doing when I'm doing something right now.

Artwork for the Spy in be67!

Well, what do you guys think about it? You think encounters should be EVERYTHING, to one degree or another, anyway, or is it too confusing for those used to the very specific way D&D established so many moons ago? Would you use it like I propose here? As always, your thoughts are very welcome.

And now back to work ...

Paradigms of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia (or: Staring into the Abyss)

It's February 2023 already and I'm (seriously!) way behind with everything I planned to have happen LAST year. That said, I'm getting there. No day goes by with not at least some progress. Could be more, maybe it SHOULD be more, but I'm content with how it is. I'm getting there. Point in case: I'm tackling the final hurdles in finishing writing on be67, that Weird Sixties RPG I'm aiming to publish as soon as possible (if I'm lucky, May 2023 ... I always seem to publish big projects around that time, wonder why that is). Those last hurdles, however, are those really tough bits where so much of the rules converges that lots of interacting ideas need visualization. Welcome to another episode of the ...

Parody of original cover, fair use for sure ...

[Short side note: it seems that it is safe right now to at least talk about our house rules of old D&D iterations, therefore I'll keep telling you that be67 will be a collection of my D&D RC house rules mutated into a complete game ... I'll still take care that it is very much it's own thing, which means pushing a couple of concepts I used a bit further than I originally intended. Not a big thing, and still very much compatible with everything D&D or OSR out there, but this post will look at the core of some of the concepts in the D&D RC and how they relate to my version of those concepts. As I keep saying: be67 will not be D&D, it'll be a retroclone mutant of the D&D RC.]

The Game, as we see it

OD&D was famously vague with its rules. So vague, in fact, that it was almost impossible to play RAW (Ruled As Written) if you didn't have the war gaming background Gygax and Arneson had. To be precise, if you weren't part of those war gaming circles Gygax and Arneson frequented, OD&D would most likely be a mystery to you. Something inspiring, for sure, but IF you were able to make sense of it somehow without that context, it'd most likely be with a very different understanding compared to what the original authors intended.

Tunnels & Trolls (1975) is the perfect example of how that could still manifest a beautiful and complete game.

As far as TSR was concerned, they had two venues to explore: one was revisioning the OD&D toward a version that was more clear in its rules (that'd end up being AD&D), the other was making the entry into this hobby easier (which was attempted with Basic D&D). It ended up creating two very distinct versions of what D&D can be, both based on that vague first iteration, both, in a way, distinct variations of the same themes, ideas and concepts.

Now, we are talking the D&D RC here, which is the end point of that second strain, and, if not vague, it ended up being just as convoluted and incomplete as that first game, just on a bigger scale. We always knew this, I think, but the beauty of role-playing games is that it is possible to "wing it" on almost every level of resolution. Nowadays, a  skilled Gamemaster can GM a game with a very minimalist approach, no problem. They can also gain an (as in "one", not "the") understanding of a poorly explained game and make it work at the table.

As far as D&D is concerned, it means: the collective and documented experience of playing D&D in general makes for a great blueprint how to "summon" that kind of gaming experience. It is a paradigm:

paradigm (noun)

A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. [source]

So mostly, playing the "idea" of the game will be close enough to the actual rules to make that approach work. But what's more: with a strong paradigm like we have with D&D and a little experience in playing it, it is easy enough to bridge what the rules might be lacking and still make it work. You get an idea where you have to end up, roughly.

In a way, the paradigm of D&D can take a lot of abuse before the game breaks (one could make the case that WotC did find that breaking point with 4E). It can also help masking some pretty major shortcomings in the rules ... which is something a dedicated collective hivemind processed and filtered most prominently in what the OSR was up until, say, 5 years ago.

What's more, while there never will be an official revision of the D&D RC, there for sure are retroclones rewriting and revisioning that game (Dark dungeon comes to mind, with its retroclone mutant Darkest Dungeon as an iteration moving away from D&D ... the latest version, combining both, can be found here). There are also tons of micro solutions to problems the rules pose and you can find them hidden all over the internet.

Some of it is about bridging gaps in the rules (perceived or not), some of it is about finding a true understanding of what all the numbers mean and how they relate ...

You want an easy example? Guns are a very specific and ignored problem in the D&D rules. At least I haven't seen any satisfying solutions to the problems guns bring to how the game is designed (the original solution, imo, was to circumvent the problem entirely by introducing wands and staffs ... but that's pretty unsatisfying to begin with).

Other good examples would be giant creatures and structural damage ... it is all there, in parts and pieces or as island solutions for specific monsters (I argued in the past that dragons give indications how we are supposed to create our own monsters ... see the argument made here).

[source]

And sure enough, all of this can be improvised in a narrative. No one would object to the idea that a dragon may just be able to do a lot of damage to structures, if it's able to bring the mass or firepower to do it ... That said, it'd still be nice to have a ratio behind it all. Not necessarily to apply it on every fictional building in a campaign, but because experience taught us that the game WILL break down for mid- and high-level games if those things need to be "winged", because characters could be that dragon (or its equivalent) and without rules to accompany that, it'll just get boring fast.

You see, all of those are problems hidden deeply at the core of the game, and if you were to write a game based on those rules, you are either forced to ignore them as well (the c/p approach of many a lazy game designer ...) or come up with a satisfying solution that suits the game. I keep saying: the D&D RC has an EPIC scope, but doesn't do it justice all the time. That can be a problem if you try to reproduce its results.

Here's another very specific problem: HD

The reason for this post is: I have no solution for this specific problem. Yet. All the pieces are there (as you will see), but I can't see a good way to condense all of this into core principles that work as a jumping off point for GMs new to the game (other than just doing the work and offering dozens of pre-made monster portfolios ... which would be a cop-out, obviously).

The problem is, many assumptions about how powerful monsters are rely on "legacy code". Some of it definitely derived from games like Chainmail, some expanded on through experience (you know it works because you threw it at a group and it worked), and build on that comes the whole rest you'll find in the D&D RC. There is no "behind the scenes" how the sausage is made, it's just a lot of sausages, ready for consumption.

Well, to be fair, it's not entirely true that there are no metrics at all to work with. There is an attempt to "balance" encounters in the RC, and it goes a little bit like this: it basically makes HD comparable with Level, which is a whole thing in itself, and not necessarily a tool of precision, considering that "special abilities" may be imbalanced to begin with. But anyway. So you take a group's total level and compare that to the "back engineered" HD of a monster (or NPC) to see how they relate. With that, you have a metric to asses how hard a confrontation MIGHT be (Tucker's Kobolds would be a great argument against that, but whatever).

Now, if the adjusted HD are, say, between 30 and 50%, it'd be a "good fight". As in, it'll tap into the resources a bit, it'll hurt a bit, but it'll most likely be a voctory, which is satisfying, and that is, of course, "good". 50 to 70% is, by that metric, "challenging", 110% (barely above what the characters bring to the table!) is categorized as "extremely dangerous".

D&D RC, p. 101

also D&D RC, p. 101

As I said above, it's not nothing. But the whole "adjustment" process is pretty much broken, and I have to find a way to make it all make sense in a way that would allow a GM to build a monster that'd be intentionally balanced from scratch and without much hustle. From what I can see (and, again, considering the scope), not even the math works out (as far as I'm aware).

Check it out. You take the base HD a Monster has. If there is anything added or substracted, it is basically rounded up or down. Then (also D&D RC, p. 101):

"[...] add half of the original Hit Dice figure for each power bonus. Power bonuses include:

• Each asterisk next to a monster's hit dice.
• Special NPC abilities.

For NPC parties, award a power bonus for each of the following conditions: 1) Everyone in the party has +2 weapons or better; and 2) There are spellcasters in the party. (Take the highest level of spells that may be cast, divide by two, then divide that result by the number of characters in the party, rounding up; the result is the power bonus added to the Individual Adjusted Hit Dice figure of every character in the party.)"

It's just ... okay? It'll give you a form of measure, I'm just not sure if I would trust it. As a matter of fact, I'd test that before believing it. Or rather, I'd have to see if it matches how I play it. Again, just from a game-within-the-game point of view, the Gamemaster is just as much a black box as the special abilities can be. I can bluff the players into making mistakes, just as a smart goblin would ... I will not lie or cheat, but I will have monsters and NPCs that'll give it a shot.

And there's the next problem: smarter monsters (than the base line), no change in xp range. Okay. At least there is some rules for it (D&D RC, p. 214). That whole chapter on changing monsters is inspiring, but not a lot of crunch, actually. Good ideas, almost no rules.

Size can be factored in, but it is a strange one, because changing the size of an EXISTING monster will alter its xp range and base HD exceptionally. Huge medusa, in an example, has HD 8+24, plus better AC, better to-hit, better saves, more damage! That'd be brutal ... and in no relation to other big monsters in the book? A big goblin like that would fuck up a normal orc, no problem (a 7 ft goblin would outmatch an orc with more hp, slightly better saves, more damage ... it's not much on that scale, but a lot when going bigger than that, as the Medusa shows easily). 

That's not even all of it. Look at the Gargantuan entry for monsters (D&D RC, p. 177), compare them ith their counterparts and THAN do the math to see if it fits. It doesn't. The gargoyle is not that much larger (still L), but features 32 (!) instead of 4 HD and deals about 4 times the damage. That's a legacy monster, for sure. They just didn't bother to align it all.

There's more. As those stars factor in as "special abilities", it is interesting to check what the thinking was there, so off we go to the section in the book about xp (D&D RC, p. 128) ... only to find out that each * basically denotes some ability that can be used in combat. Nothing else ... unless it can cast, which automatically counts as "weaponized", no matter the kind of magic (also interesting, also unbalanced).

I don't really get the distinction anyway, as EVERYTHING can be weaponized. Their argument is "if it can fly, no *, if it can swoop in to attack, it gets the *". Not even defenses factor in (they say there could be exceptions, but they don't say what they are). And another "soft rule" added to that, is called "Modifying XP" (same page) and basically advises "if it's tougher than you thought, give more xp, if the characters walk through it, give less.", which sucks, as far as advice goes (nothing to work with, just taking space, also diminishing clever play).

See the problem with that? I do.

It is all connected to HD, but inconsequentially so. It's not connecting all the dots. If you have (optional) rules for balancing, apply them to everything, connect them with how xp are calculated and monsters are created. Make it click, revise all the monster entries. Do the work. As it is, the problem is addressed in three different chapters, offering 2.5 different solutions, with all the island solutions you can come up with in the monster section. There is a vague idea what that could mean, but not developed enough to produce monsters with other than "making them up", and riddled with inconsistencies.

And that's assuming they touched the proper dials here. HD is a good measure for attack matrices, but it doesn't translate well into the size adjustments: they have to use tricks here, but they are basically inflate the HD+x and then add a indirect to-hit modifier. At best, it's not a very elegant solution.

Want more? What about things like Morale? It is so crucial to be able to overcome monsters by scaring them away instead of having the whole fight, with all the risks and resources that takes. Doesn't that factor into how dangerous an encounter is? 10 HD, but runs away as soon as it sees blood? That shouldn't be a problem for a group of level 1 characters. 

Or how about checking if the random encounter section creates results in line with the balancing idea? Don't bother, it doesn't (although it's the same fucking chapter!). It teaches a different lesson, however: there is no balancing encounters in the wild. There be dragons out there, and they don't care what level you have. And not all encounter end up in fights, AND the characters should not only encounter tougher foes, but should also learn the signs of such an encounter and how to evade them. It is all part of the game. Just different parts, offering different design philosophies EVERY TIME.

It's all kaputt ...

Let's say, a group's antagonist is a highly intelligent and very rich 2HD monster. Has the funds to give the group hell, and the smarts to be subtle about it. Could terrorize them for a whole campaign, no sweat. A real Moriarty (who might have higher HD, but needn't really in this context). If they caught him, the wizard of a high level group could take him out, bare-knuckle style.

If that would be the climax of a campaign ... xp would not rely on the enemy's HD, it'd be the creature's wealth AND all the challenges it threw at the group over the course of the campaign. Yes, all the monster xp gained, rewarded AGAIN (as per D&D RC, p. 127) plus the wealth.

And that's just that: with a shotgun approach like that, the moving pieces collected in between almost don't matter, what's important is how it is scaled towards the end of an adventure or a campaign so it doesn't overshoot all connected systems (like levelling and and so on). And even for that it has at least secondary safety measures. So D&D RC characters cannot gain more than one level for "an adventure" ...

Another side note: again, very weak with the terminology here ... What's an adventure? How about campaigns? What's if a normal session generates more than enough? What time of playing are we talking here? Say, a 12 hour session dungeon crawling (I do know people like that ... I sure was one of them when I was younger), all open-worldy, no story ... is that one adventure? Again and again just soft rules, ignoring the deeper, underlying structures.

And how unfair is that, if it occurred that you lose xp because of advancement? How easy is that to handle on higher levels? Say a group of high level characters drop a surprise round on a party of big bad dragons and take them out ... big haul, lots of xp, done in a days work. Why not? If you played long enough, you are bound to have some tricks and shortcuts collected for opportunities like that! Instead, nothing. The GM overshot and had to regulate ... fuck that.

What's more, say you just need a couple of hundred xp for next level, but you gain big time (like with finishing an adventure). Bad luck, chummy. You get one point short to gain the next level, everything beyond gets scrapped.

And there is yet another aspect: all the tools talked about here are about fighting monsters, but there is a shift in how xp are gained somewhere in mid-level range, where just killing and looting won't cut it anymore. The shift is away from combat and more towards actual role-playing.

There aren't enough dragons in the multiverse to advance even one high level wizard. Once your fighter needs 120.000 xp to gain another level, they'd rather have some drama where they can shine (good role-playing will gain a character 1/20 of what they need for next level, or in this case 6000 xp) than going for goblin genocide in the homeworld. Exceptional actions will net you another 1/20. If you aim for both, you'll advance every nine sessions, at least.

So. Many. Construction. Sites. So frustrating.

The D&D RC, if it where a bong ... [source]

Solutions: let's stare into that abyss a bit!

I could go on, but I won't. If you've read all the above, you get the idea. But how can I fix that for be67? What does it take to make it all work in unison? Cutting the "fat" here seems to be such a waste, although all of them are island solutions, there are some nice ideas throughout (obviously, duh). And my guess would be that it'd seem too one dimensional as soon as it all lines up into a pattern that actually leads to something like a coherent system.

The only thing I know is: I need that, for sure, since everything else is lined up already and this is the final piece. I cannot write my way out of that. So I won't. Lets take a look at the elements we have:

• HD to have an idea how good a monster or NPC fights and how long it'll last (with the added benefit that the amount of HP also indicates level of maturity).
• Damage output per successful attack (again, there is no rhyme or reason how that measures, but it really matters).
• Saves are really important, since they are a great passive defense mechanism (no idea how to factor that in).
• AC is there in the top five, but it just "is" in the rules (nothing to see here).
• Morale, as described above, lots of moving pieces (no clue how they should connect).
• Special abilities, which can be anything, but at least it is highly applicable AND we have an idea how they track.
• Encounter challenge rating, not a good, but the best indicator we have how some of it at least connects.
  

What else? Treasure? Not necessary (although it factors in with xp). Number appearing? Well, that's a strange one, as it randomizes the balance rating. Maybe good to have a measure like that, but I think it might be a relic from dungeon generating tools that didn't make the cut for the D&D RC. So that's about it.

We can calculate which HD range relates to Total Party Levels in general, and (maybe) what outcome to expect depending on the Challenge Ratings. If you are aware of the sneak peak I shared of the book in my last post (NEG (blank), find it here), you can get an idea how there are additional measures that should make it easier to calculate and manifest a threat.

For one, a GM can track how dangerous the surroundings are, which maps nicely with the idea of a Challenge Rating. For the six Danger Scales presented in the NEG I'll go 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%. If you have the Total Party Level (TPL) as well as the Danger Scale (DS) and an Encounter occurs, there's already a lot to deduce from the available numbers. It just isn't that much of a help if you end up with one big number and a myriad of options how to resolve it.

I'm telling you, this will hurt a little ...

Say we have a group of 6 level 5 characters cruising in a DS IV kind of situation, that'd allow for encountering a (80% of 30) 24 HD entity. And the problem is: that could be ANYTHING. Even just reduced to the encounter table, there's so much to go with. I'm tempted to make it sort of a point buy system where the 24 (in this case) are a pool to buy all kinds of features, with some easy defaults to fall back on, if time's pressing.

It could be, however, information overload: would it be a good option to use a swarm, or one big fella? Maybe buy some damage options and better AC? So default is AC 9, reducing that would mean different costs for different numbers of enemies ... so that needs to be categorized. Single (one entity), skirmish (a division of the HD Potential) and mob (1 HD entities, all of them) encounters, maybe? At least that's what I did in ORWELL ...

Maybe it should scale a bit differently? Like, a single encounter should have the lowest AC default, skirmish encounters default a bit higher, swarm lands at 9. Easy. Default damage should be just as easily mapped with group size ... But having the option to buy shit with HD as the currency would mean it'll be reduced. You'd have to do THAT before deciding for group size, right? Right?!

[source]

Okay, so potential first, then group size, then the defaults (AC, Damage, Saves should be in there and Morale?), then using the Potential for specials. And that's it. Make it relate to the basic encounter key, give it something special, maybe dial a bit with the stats ... é voilà, basic encounter?

No no no ... Something's missing. Can't have the same defaults independent of the actual HD. Higher HD should have better defaults, right? So that needs to be done. Saves scaling HD like Level, maybe? Higher damages, maybe related to DS? DS could factor in all the time, actually. Still, that's a lot of information to decide on during a game ... And how would prepared monsters fit into this?

[source]

So we need to shift that paradigm?

Fifth attempt at this (I think). Anyway, had to put it to rest again for a couple of days to mull it over AGAIN. Here's the thing: they never cared to put it all together. In other words, the system I'm looking for, does not exist. The D&D RC is a tool box, consequently it doesn't amount to much until you do something with it. That can (and often will) mean we have to fill those gaps ourselves with the tools we like or our own solutions.

Which is good, as I can use something I came up with instead. It'll change the tone of the game a bit (compared to the D&D RC, that is), but only for the GM (which is another interesting observation, I think ... the game doesn't change much on the player side at all). So how could I go about this, then?

be67 already offers several frames I can work with. Encounters are themes and tropes a GM wants to see in an adventure, all of them geared and scaled towards an escalation (including clues a group might collect and stationary encounters they might explore). Characters are free to explore as they see fit and encounters are abstract enough to manifest independently of that.

Here, have an example! What we are playing now is a Narnia grindhouse feature where the group ended up looking for some lost kids in a Nazi occupied Narnia variant ... No talking lions yet, but we've only started. Anyway, the group enters through a portal and gets several directions to explore (hints to several stationary encounters). The first Encounter I roll is connected to the main plot: Nazis. As for what their motivation is, the Motivation Generator comes up with "A force of greed that is insane and aims for power". That's what I'm working with.

It is a Main Plot Encounter, so the characters should get a chance to learn something about what's going on here. I'm going through the stationary encounters, and there is a frozen lake with a mystery that the group will see soon in the distance. "insane greedy grab for power" sounds to me like they are taking something powerful they shouldn't, maybe in a place they shouldn't (very movie-villain like, I might add). I decide it'll manifest as a mining operation on the frozen lake. Those Nazis are cutting huge pieces of ice out of the lake and something is trapped in those pieces they carry away!

It was clear that they'd end up seeing the lake soon, because of their decisions. Encountering the mining operation fit that perfectly, imo, so I went with it. That same result on a different stage might have had very different results with the same encounter and motivation rolls, but should have covered the same themes just as well: greedy Nazis doing insane shit for power ...

Another narrative encounter might have been more benign or challenging or threatening, so what would have happened then on their way to the lake would have manifested very differently. That way you gain huge variety in encounters, but themed and with some escalation systems to forward the plot as the characters figure out what's happening (one way or another).

Anyway, so plot and stationary encounters come with a "Danger Scale" (as mentioned above) that alters how powerful those encounters are and changes as the characters interact with them (clearing a dungeon, for instance, would reset that stationary encounter to a DS II (default) or a DS I even). As far as "balance" is concerned, the Total Party Level (TPL) gives indicators what's how tough on a group.

I'd take that, but modify it to adding all of that up (Levels and HD from supporting NSC) and then taking a tenth of that as base line. If that produces fractions (.1 to .9, obviously possible), round down but keep that fraction in mind.

Danger in be67 is scaled from 20% of that TPL (very easy) to 120% (very hard), just like they indicate in the RC, but in steps of 20 % to align it with the DS. That tenth of a TPL is calculated easily enough, to see what HD Potential (HDP) that amounts to in a specific DS, just multiply that number with 2 ( for the 20% or DS I), 4 (40%, DS II), 6 (60%, DS III) and so on. Easy enough and actually quite fast, I'd say.

Now a GM has to decide what's needed in that specific situation. If it's less than what's actually available, it can well be improvised as long as the numbers aren't adding up to something more or way less powerful than indicated by the HDP of that encounter. Other than that, there will be rules to use the HDP to its full, well, potential.

The next thing that needs deciding is the size of the encounter. Is it a single beast/NPC/entity? A "skirmish" (which, for be67, means a group with the upper limit of character group plus DS)? Or a "mob" (which would describe a number of entities above the number of characters in a group + DS)? As a situation is already on hand, that should be easily to decide on the fly.

Mob rules in effect! [source]

While the TPL and the DS with the narrative and motivation generator results give you a target area (HDP) and a rough idea what could happen (group size, some elements of the encounter as well as a "stage"). Once the smallest HD unit of that encounter entity is defined, you also gain a couple of insights in as far as HD already determines how capable a monster/NPC/etc. is to hit something. We also already have guidelines for what HD can mean generally, as it nicely tracks with character levels.

Something like that will give a GM a base line to work with, as far as AC, Damage, Saves and Morale are concerned. What it needs, then, is comprehensive tables to make that information easily accessible. Done. A GM that knows if it'll be a single, a skirmish or a mob encounter and what HD a single of those entities will have, will just as fast have the basic default values needed to make it a fight.

As a cherry on top, that fracture from the TPL tenth calculated in the beginning, that can easily translate into that HD bonus we all know and love from D&D monster entries (+1, +2, and so on).

If you are GMing on the fly, this "fast lane" approach will help you immensely, but there is more ...

Introducing Builds & high complexity Encounters

Following the above, you'll see that the numbers a GM is working with at any given moment are moving targets, in flux until needed in a specific situation as all parameters may change quickly during play (DS changes, characters gain allies or explore alone, and so on).

The easiest way to alter those spontanious numbers quickly, is to provide a GM with what I call "Builds" or "Monster Builds" in be67. It is basically a collection of alterations that add variety in the base numbers (higher or lower AC or Saves and all that) as well as special abilities, combat tactics, treasure and even weaknesses.

That, then, is just thrown on the numbers a GM has come up with. Instant goblin soup. Or that werewolf you just needed. Or aliens, because why the fuck not. Builds is what GMs prepare for their adventures (think: grindhouse features), but are just as easily provided in the equivalent of monster manuals (and be67 itself will feature its good share of examples as well ...).

HDP will be a general guide what's possible or recommended here, but that's just to not overpower an encounter by accident and should formulate nothing more than an upper limit. Anything below that threshold should be fair game.

To get REALLY deep n dirty into the rules, be67 will also provide tools for GMs to create detailed builds themselves. It'll provide a GM the dials needed to have a somewhat balanced build to throw at all suitable TPL. It introduces weaknesses (blind, small, stoned, incestous, animal or plant, stuff that'd impede an encounter somewhat) and gives a coherent list of special abilities and combat tactics for inspiration, as well as guidelines to implement attributes, skills and other character traits for monsters and NPCs.

And that's it?

That's it. GMs get three grades of resolution to manifest ALL encounters the game provides as well as all the tools needed to DIY all aspects of it. With this, if it isn't written already, I feel confident enough to say that its now conceptualized to a point where it just needs to be written.

Is this still B/X D&D? I'd say be67 will produce similar results to a degree that it all stays highly compatible while doing something else entirely (like, being weird in the Sixties and introducing lots of GORE!). If you where playing it towards a more balanced version of the game. As far as the D&D paradigm I described above goes, I'd say that if you were to design a game like that from scratch nowadays, you don't (well, I don't) have the luxury of it not making sense. In my opinion.

The only aspects new rpgs need that MAY gain a distinct advantage against their (overwhelming) competition, would be compatibility and/or coherent designs. Coherent enough, at least, so that an aspiring GM could transcend the rules to a degree that allows for a complete DIY approach. If you can throw it at everything and do everything with it, chances are that people that bought it to at least read it, will get something worthwhile out of it.

Hence the headache of making this work as good as possible.

That said, I hope I could also show that the D&D RC is more than that one approach I chose to build my designs on. There is way more, and that's a good thing. In a way, having it being so "patchwork" and incomplete is part of the appeal of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. It draws you in easily enough (playing early levels works like a charm, with enough material all around to make it even easier), and when you get to a point where you find some inconsistencies, it invites you to look deeper and engage with it even more that way.

I wonder if that imcompleteness is one of the secrets of its success, actually starting with OD&D, which (as I alluded to in the beginning) was just as incomplete (and inspiring), but for other reasons. Is it, even, the source of that paradigm I was talking about above? Something worth pondering on, I presume, but maybe impossible to replicate in a modern rpg?

As for be67, I'm happy how it shapes up. If nothing else, it is what my house rules look like as a full game, and it is what I use when I want to play a game like that, so it'll be handy to have around. But it is also a (hopefully) comprehensive deconstruction of early D&D (as you see above), so it may have value as that as well. Compatibility is the third important aspect, I think.

Structuring monster and NPC generation like seen above, it not only makes all monster manuals out there fair game, it is also quite the fit for the great systemless monster generators that managed to get my attention (my good friend Eric Diaz' great Teratogenicon and James Raggi's fabled Random Esoteric Creature Generator come to mind ... I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg), if more inspiration or just more meat on them bones is needed.

Anyway, this ended up being a long one again. I appreciate everyone reading this one to the end. Thank you for tagging along as I tried to sort this out for me, and I hope you took something away from joining me in this deep, deep dive into the machinations of the D&D RC! Maybe it'll also help gaining a bit of interest for be67. Either way, know you are appreciated.

Latest version of the cover ...