The Alexandrian

Archive for the ‘Roleplaying Games’ category

Go to Part 1

Dice of DestinyQUALITIES

TIME REQUIRED: This quality is used to determine the amount of time an action takes to complete. For example, a good roll on this die will indicate that the action took less time for the character to perform. A bad roll on this die will indicate that the action took more time. Of course, the exact amount of time in question is a factor of what type of action is taking place.

OUTSIDE INFLUENCES: This quality is used to determine whether or not outside influences (i.e., things beyond the character’s control and/or experience) had the greatest or least effect on the outcome.

A character is attempting to pick a lock and succeeds, rolling very high on the outside influences die. The GM says, “Well, some day you’re hoping you’ll run into a challenge – but this isn’t it. A clear example of why government contractors should never be hired, the lock clicks open almost immediately.” If, on the other hand, he had had a marginal failure and rolled poorly on the outside influences die, the GM might have said, “Although you do your best, this lock is tough. Clearly a custom-made job, the tumblers have disguised trips and keep slipping off your pick. You might be able to crack it eventually, but you’ll have to start over from ground zero.”

KNOWLEDGE: The knowledge quality addresses that little memory bank everyone carries around with them – high influence from the knowledge die would suggest that either the character possesses some little piece of knowledge that makes the difference (success) or lacks a piece of knowledge that would help them (failure).

To return to our lockpicking example, a character succeeds with the knowledge die having the largest effect on that outcome. The GM might say, “Normally this lock would have been more than adequate security for this type of facility, but you just spent three weeks practicing on a lock off the same assembly line. Within seconds the door swings open.”

SKILL: This one is probably one of the most obvious of the qualities – it refers to the skill of the character and the impact it had on the outcome. If the skill roll was highly beneficial, it means that the character was performing at the best of his ability (even if he still subsequently failed). If the skill roll was extremely poor, it indicates that the character wasn’t doing his best (even if he proceeded to succeed at the action).

Rozel, a character involved in a fencing match attempts to strike his opponent, Benalt, and manages to succeed, although his skill roll is rather low. The GM shakes his head, “Rozel feints to the left and manages to draw Benalt’s block, but then doesn’t come back far enough to right. Only because Benalt’s foot slips does your blade manage to slash across his arm.” On the other hand, if the skill die had been higher, the GM might have said, “Rozel feints expertly to the left and Benalt moves to respond, only to be caught completely off-guard as the tip of your saber loops under his blade and tears a bloody gash into his arm.”

LUCK: Sometimes the biggest reason a character succeeds is because he has gotten lucky. If the most influential die result turns out to be on the luck die the GM should have the resolution of the action come about because of something completely out of the character’s control.

In a science fiction game, Laatzu, a fighter pilot, is attempting to blast one of the evil Bengai’s out of known space with his lasers. He fails, largely due to the poor roll on the die assigned the luck quality. “Laatzu loops his ship in behind the Bengai Tiger Scout and lets loose two searing bolts of death . . . only to meet with disappointment as his expertly placed shots strike an unnoticed piece of space debris.”

STYLE: Unlike the qualities discussed so far, the style quality doesn’t attempt to shed light on how or why something succeeded or failed – but how the success or failure took place. It asks the question, “Just how good did that look?”

Billy the Gangster attempts to leap over a stack of boxes, coming out of a rolling somersault, and fire two shots at some anonymous mug taking shots at his pals on the other side of the warehouse. He rolls a success, despite the abysmal result on the die assigned to style. The GM smirks, “Billy takes a couple of loping steps and leaps over the stack of boxes . . . knocking the top two over, stumbling, and falling flat on his back. His pistol slips out of his hand as he lands and skitters across the floor, sending him after it in a wild crawl. Snapping it up he manages to squeeze off a couple of shots and fill the mug full of lead just before he gets a face full of lead from the shotgun pointed at his head.” On the other hand, Sarah, an acrobat, is trying to walk across a beam. Her action resolution roll is a failure, but her style die is high. “Sarah is crossing the beam when suddenly she feels her balance slip. As she falls off she pushes a little bit with her leg and manages to land gracefully on the floor after a flip instead of falling flat on her butt.”

POWER: Sometimes people succeed just because they put more power into the attempt, or fail because they didn’t. This quality is particularly useful in combat situations.

Conan attacks an NPC with his sword and rolls a success with a particularly beneficial result on his power die. The GM grimaces, “Conan brings his mighty blade around. Although the guard raises his sword to parry it is completely ineffectual as your mighty arms push his blade out of the way and crush his skull.” Alternatively, you might have Gabrielle, a thief with an attitude, throw her dagger at a hapless orc, failing to do any damage with a particularly ineffectual score on her power die. “Your graceful throw is perfectly accurate, but glances ineffectually off the hard leather encircling the orc’s chest.”

FINESSE: This quality reflects on the precision with which a given action was taken, and its impact on success. For example, a poor roll on this die would show clumsiness, while a positive roll on this die would grace and perfection.

The Wizard, a hacker in a Cyberpunk game, is trying to get past some Black ICE which is preventing him from reading the data files he needs to reveal a corporation’s corruption. Rolling a marginal failure on attack he has a particularly poor result on his finesse die. “Getting a little overconfident, huh?” says the gamemaster. “The ICE swallows those simple macros with ease. You’re going to have to have to bring out the big guns if you expect to get past this guy.” Later on he gets a stunning success with a high finesse roll, “Nice work. That blackie was pretty effective, and usually your progs would have had some problems, but by slipping past his I/O channels and hitting his processor directly you take him out, smiling in satisfaction as his data-scream of death reverberates through your skull.”

HIT LOCATION

Using a system similar to that described above for qualities, a simple hit location system can be added to any multi-dice combat resolution (although it probably means removing the normal qualities from combat resolution).

Essentially you assign to each die in the resolution a different hit location. In the case of a successful attack, whichever die was most influential on the outcome (usually the highest roll, although in some systems the lowest) is the location of the hit.

This system, like most hit location systems, works best for humanoid creatures – although it can be easily adapted to non-humanoids.

Although the examples list different possibilities based on the number of dice typically used in the resolution, it’s just as easy to show the likelihood of hitting each location by – for example – having a single die for “head” and two dice each for “torso” and “limbs”.

If the GM wishes to add damage bonuses based on this hit location system he may, or he can simply use it as a descriptive aid like the other qualities.

2 dice
Head/Torso, Limbs
3 dice
Head, Torso, Limbs
3 dice
Head/Torso, Arms, Legs
4 dice
Head, Torso, Arms, Legs
5 dice
Head/Torso, Left Arm, Right Arm, Left Leg, Right Leg

Continued…

Fortune Cards - D&DAccording to my e-mail inbox, this apparently needs to be said:

Yes, the new collectible Fortune Cards for 4th Edition are massively dissociated mechanics. But since this is already 4th Edition we’re talking about, I’m not sure that it really matters very much.

Poking around the web to see the full scope of this fuss, I have two additional reactions:

First, the cards are obviously going to create a power creep within the system. The effects on the cards are not even attempting to be balance-neutral, so the net effect of using the cards will be to essentially give everybody free one-shot magic items that can be used every session. I’m surprised to see anybody actually trying to dispute this; it’s like trying to dispute that water is wet. The only interesting point to consider here is that they just recently got done rebalancing the monsters because they decided they had been underpowered when they released the game. Did they rebalance with these cards in mind? Will they need to issue another sweeping errata to take the cards into account? Or will they simply live with the imbalance?

Second, it is absolutely true that WotC is trying to create an MtG-style market for D&D. Again, I’m not clear on how this could even be a matter for dispute: They are selling collectible cards.

Does this mean they’re trying to turn D&D into MtG? Almost certainly not. They’ve already got MtG.

But it does appear that WotC is trying to figure out how to make money from selling accessories for D&D. Or, to put it more accurately, how to get enough of their customer base to continue making regular purchases that aren’t part of the supplement treadmill that D&D can sustain a viable market without rebooting the rule system every 5 years.

And I think, on the balance, that’s a good thing. It’s something that WotC almost certainly needs to do: 2008 was a very bad year for them, and I suspect they’re trying to figure out how to avoid ever splitting their market like that again.

Dice of Destiny

March 3rd, 2011

This article was written in 1999 and originally published in Pyramid Magazine.

Dice of DestinyAll roleplaying systems have a method of resolving action. Most use dice to check against a numerical value in one fashion or another to determine the success or failure of those actions. Few systems, however, provide any framework for interpreting those successes and failures.

This lack is surprising. The roleplaying experience relies entirely on the ability of the Game Master and players to communicate the reality of a fictional world and the characters therein as believably as possible. The real world, and the vast majority of worlds of fiction, do not exist in a binary fashion – when Conan swings his sword he does not “hit” or “miss”, he “swings his mighty blade and with thews of steel crushes the skull of his hapless captor” or “brings his sword about in a massive sweep, narrowly missing his hastily retreating opponent”.

Yet, beyond some mumbling of how a “higher margin of success means the character has had a greater success than if he had succeeded by a slimmer margin” roleplaying systems on the whole do not provide any intuitive clues for the GM to describe the outcome of a resolved action to his players.

This article attempts to rectify this lack by providing a meta-system – a system which can be applied to many different systems. In this case, any system which uses more than a single die for action resolution. It is not an attempt to “lock” GMs or players into an unalterable scheme of description, however. The system is designed to provide more than the crudest outlines of exactly how success was achieved, but it attempts to supplement, not usurp, the creativity of the play group.

OVERVIEW

Before looking into what this new system consists of, let us first look at what is provided by the action resolution systems typically found in most current games.

Any action resolution mechanic must provide, at a minimum, two degrees: A success and a failure for any action attempted under its auspices. Many of these systems, whether they acknowledge it or not, also contain a simple evaluation of how “well” or “badly” the success or failure of the action was. This takes the form of a “margin of success” or a “margin of failure”. In short, the greater the difference between the number you wanted to roll and the number you did roll the better the success or the worse the failure. If, for example, you needed to roll at least a 10 on 3d6 to succeed and you roll a 16, the GM would conclude that your character easily succeeded at what he was attempting to do. On the other hand, if you rolled exactly a 10, he might make your success much more slim – instead of clearing the canyon with room to spare, the character’s foot hits right on the edge and he teeters for a moment on the edge of balance before, finally, stumbling forward.

And this is where the vast majority of resolution systems stop – which is good in itself, but incredibly limiting. The GM is left with a vast void to fill in describing the outcome of actions. When confronted with a system which doesn’t even possess a margin of success, the GM is left with the arduous task of attempting to reconstruct a Picasso painting from a black and white sketch – and even with a margin of success you’ve barely established a grayscale.

What’s missing? In short, the GM knows that you succeeded or failed – and the margin by which you did so – but why did you succeed or fail? What form did that success or failure take? If you succeeded exceptionally, why? If you failed marginally, why? Should a marginal failure ever be catastrophic? Marginal success be akin to slight failure?

The system proposed in this article fixes these problems by giving the GM a wider grasp of what effects led to the success or failure of the PC. Beyond the simple margin of success involved, implementing this system will tell the GM a great deal of information on any number of topics on which he wishes to seek more guidance: How much time was required to accomplish the action? Was it bad luck or a lack of skill that caused a failure? Even a simple hit location system is provided for games without them – without adding a single die roll!

The only proviso to this system is that the resolution mechanic of the system in question must use more than one die. A GM using a percentile system should use 2d10 for percentile dice (instead of a single d100). A GM using a single die system will not be able to use the system found in this article without modification to his resolution mechanic. GMs whose resolution mechanic uses different types of dice (a d20 and a d6 together, for example) may also need to make a few modifications to the system in this article before it functions smoothly.

In short, each die roll is assigned a different quality. To keep track of the different dice, each die should be a different color or have some other form of easy identification mark. Making the decisions after rolling about which die represents which quality doesn’t help the GM at all.

After assigning desired qualities to the dice of his resolution mechanic, the GM then analyzes each roll. The die which is “best” (for success) or “worst” (for failure) had the most influence on the outcome.

For example, if the die which has been assigned the quality of “Time Required” is rolled with the best result, then the action took very little time. If, on the other hand, it was a comparatively poor result, then the action took more time. Quickly might be “an hour” for fixing a car, of course, and a long amount of time might only amount to a couple of minutes instead of a few seconds when picking a lock.

The GM should never feel bound to the results of the dice in describing what happened, nor should the players attempt to point to this system and “force” desired outcomes. The system is designed to be a guideline to feed the creative impulses, not a straitjacket to strangle them with.

Continued…

When encountering a hostile force, a group of PCs can:

  1. Fight
  2. Avoid
  3. Flee
  4. Negotiate
  5. Trick
  6. Suborn
  7. Call Reinforcements

First Thought: When you’re designing a scenario, just give a couple seconds of thought to how a group of NPCs might react to each stratagem. If something particularly clever occurs to you, jot it down and perhaps restructure the scenario to better support it.

Second Thought: When NPCs encounter a hostile force (i.e., the PCs) they can have the same reactions. Think about it.

Untested: Inspiration Points

February 28th, 2011

One potential mode of “old school” play is the idea that “everybody starts at 1st level”. Combined with each class having a separate experience chart table, individual experience awards, and open gaming tables it was pretty typical for adventuring parties to have a pretty wide variance in their levels. This, of course, isn’t “balanced“, so it’s come in for a good deal of scorn in the past couple of decades. Most groups today allow new characters to be rolled up using the party’s current level and keep everybody in lock-step through unified XP awards.

(My Ptolus group, however, has experienced a 1-3 level variance due to a variety of reasons. I have not found this be inherently traumatizing.)

Having played a megadungeon OD&D campaign for awhile now, however, I’ve found that there are a few mitigating factors in practice:

First, the open gaming table combined with super simple character creation results in everybody running a “stable” of characters. They can self-select whichever character is the best match for the current group or roll up an entirely new character depending on whatever is most appropriate.

Second, due to the lethality faced by 1st-level characters, players rolling up new characters want a couple higher level characters to accompany them. It greatly increases the odds of survival and the pace of advancement.

Third, it doesn’t actually take that long to “catch up”. For example, in the time it takes a 5th level fighter to reach 6th level, a 1st level fighter will reach 5th level. (And will catch up and become 6th level before the more experienced fighter reaches 7th.)

With all that being said, I’ve been giving some thought on how you can make the level gap more palatable.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Roleplaying GameIn Eden Studio’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer roleplaying game, they compensate for the power difference between the Slayer and the Scooby Gang by giving the weaker characters additional drama points. Could this be adapted? Let’s say lower level characters get +1 inspiration points per difference in level? (So a 3rd level character adventuring with 6th level characters would get 3 inspiration points to spend per session.)

Inspiration points are a dissociated mechanic, obviously, but they could represent all sorts of things: It’s the guy who’s inspired to greater heights by Superman’s example. Or picks up a few tricks from sparring with D’Artagnan. Or gets an assist from Bruce Lee during the melee. But, basically, you’re rubbing shoulders with some elite dudes and some of it is wearing off.

Mechanically, we could simply use the existing action point mechanics for 3rd Edition. Alternatively we could continue taking our page from Buffy and allow for an inspiration point to be spent much more significantly:

  • I Think I’m Okay: Restores half your lost hit points.
  • Righteous Fury / Time to Shine: +5 to all actions for the current combat.
  • Dramatic Editing: Actually alter the game world. (“Hey! There’s a secret door over here that leads us to the back of the goblin encampment!” “Good thing somebody dropped some holy water over here!”)
  • Back From the Dead: Return from the grave through resurrection, a clone duplicate, a long-lost twin, or whatever else strikes their fancy.

Some of these look like they would exceed my “tolerance threshold” for D&D. Others wouldn’t. Your mileage will almost certainly vary.

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Copyright © The Alexandrian. All rights reserved.