As I mentioned awhile back, the Russian spammers figured out my math captcha. The intensity has died down again in the past couple months, but I’m still scanning through a couple dozen spam messages per day that slip past the captcha and hit the Akismet spam filter.

Usually it’s pretty easy to spot the false-positives and restore comments that should be seen by the world at large, largely because the spam comments are always complete non sequiturs that have nothing to do with anything I’ve ever talked about here on the Alexandrian. But a couple days ago I ran into this:

On the topic of AC being movement based, etbolusaly NOT!! While Dex does affect AC, AC is not dependent on Dex. AC is based on the ability of the armor to prevent damage to the wearer; which is why plate is better than chain is better than leather is better than clothing In the real world in medieval europe, clothing was a layer of wool on a layer of linen, leather was boiled (hardened) leather on a padded jacket (basically a moving blanket), chain was riveted iron rings on a padded jacket and plate was 1/32 to 1/16 inch think steel plate with small ring chain at the joints all on a padded jacket.Sheilds ranged from all but disposable Viking duelling sheilds (see the duel in 13th Warrior) to seriously stout wooden rounds and tear drops (kites much better for fighting from horseback, but very useful on foot too) to proper steel traditional shapes in late periods.Your dexterity might make you move a bit more fluid in your armor, but it did little for the actual defensive ability of the armor. If you get hit with a mace, the blunt force impact can still break bones in lessor armors (chain, leather, cloth). If you are stabbed, you are almost definately getting hurt in lessor armors (chain, leather, cloth). If you get knocked down in plate, you aren’t just jumping back onto your feet and returning the attack, you might even need help to stand again.Watch some YouTube videos of SCA combat to get a decent idea of what D&D combat would be like.

A little on the ranty side, but my first impression was that this was a legitimate comment. But then I noticed that it had been posted on the page for “Opening Your Game Table“… which has absolutely nothing to do with armor class. A little digging around then confirmed that the user name was linking back to a known spam domain.

So, apparently, the spam bots are playing RPGs now. Which, frankly, I’d be fine with: They just need to stop posting random comments on my website and start running some games on Google+. Ya know, contribute something to the community.

Go to Part 1

The most successful scenario structure in the history of roleplaying games is the traditional dungeoncrawl. In fact, I believe that much of D&D’s success rests on the strength of the traditional dungeoncrawl as a scenario structure. (Notably, it is a structure which has proven extremely effective even when translated into other mediums and executed with completely different mechanics.)

What makes it work?

First, for the player, it provides:

(1) A default goal. Specifically, “find all the treasure”, “kill all the monsters”, or some other variant of “clear the dungeon”. In other words, the structure inherently provides a reason for the player to engage the scenario.

(2) A default action. If a player is standing in a room and there’s nothing interesting to do in the room, then they should pick an exit and go to the next room.

Collectively, these mean that the player always has an answer to the question, “What do I do next?”

Second, for the GM, the dungeoncrawl is:

(1) Easy to prep. In fact, it’s virtually impossible for even a neophyte DM to screw up the design of a dungeoncrawl. What’s he going to do? Forget to draw an exit from the room?

(2) Easy to run. This extends beyond the macro-structure of the dungeoncrawl and begins to depend on the D&D ruleset itself, but, in general, any action proposed by the players within the dungeon will usually have a self-evident method of resolution. The dungeoncrawl also “firewalls” the adventure into discrete chunks (the individual rooms) which can generally be run as small, manageable packets.

Collectively, these mean that even first time DMs can reliably design and run a dungeoncrawl without leaving either (a) their players stymied or (b) themselves confused.

This is huge. Thanks to the dungeoncrawl, D&D can reliably create new DMs in a way that most other RPGs can’t and don’t.

But the dungeoncrawl also has a couple of other key features:

(1) It provides structure, but not a straitjacket. When the players ask themselves, “What do I do now?” the dungeoncrawl provides them with a default answer (“go through an exit”), but doesn’t prohibit them from creating all sorts of other answers for themselves: Fight the goblins. Investigate the arcane runes. Set up a fungal garden. Check for traps. Translate the hieroglyphics. Reverse engineer the construction of dwarven golems. Negotiate with the necromancer. And on and on and on. (It doesn’t even prevent you from leaving the structure entirely: The D&D rules include a multitude of options for bypassing the structure of the dungeon itself.)

(2) Flexibility within the form. The DM can put just about anything into the structure. Each dungeon room – each chunk of content delivered by the scenario structure – is a completely blank canvas.

Having this simple-to-understand, simple-to-design, and simple-to-use scenario structure makes D&D universally accessible in a way that, for example, Transhuman Space isn’t.

Next, let’s shift from the macro-level to the micro-level.

Go to Part 4: Combat

Tagline: If you’re the type that likes GM screens or interesting tidbits of knowledge concerning the World of Darkness, this product will probably be a satisfying purchase.

The Storyteller’s Screen and the accompanying Storyteller’s Companion are both very good products for what they are, but there’s nothing particularly exciting or innovative about either – nor do I consider them crucial products to the gaming experience. Surely with the plethora of materials available for the Vampire game you should be able to find something else worth spending fifteen dollars for.

The Storyteller’s Screen is made up of four 8” x 11” panels. The GM’s side has: A list of the five traditions, the armor chart, a chart summarizing the thirteen generations, a summary of aura colors, a hierarchy of human sin, a blood pool chart, a combat maneuver chart, a chart for judging feats of strength, two weapons charts, a combat summary chart, an experience chart, a summary of difficulties, a summary of hunting, damage charts for fire and sunlight, plus a general health chart and a summary of various vehicle types. This is an impressive array of information, and I found it was generally useful. I was also impressed that White Wolf avoided the temptation of including a summary of character generation on the screen – something almost every GM’s screen seems to possess despite the very obvious fact that you will never, ever need to access that information in the course of actual gameplay.

The opposite side of the screen is a very nice mosaic comprised of various vampires looking either threateningly or seductively out at you. I found it be an excellent choice of art because the choice of colors meant that it wasn’t overly distracting, but at the same time it was not so monotonous as to become easily boring to look at after a short time. In general, if you’re into GM’s screens this one is extremely admirable.

The accompanying book – the Storyteller’s Companion — on the other hand, cannot be so lauded. This is your typical hodgepodge of material thrown together so that the GM’s screens doesn’t have to stand on its own. Included are three new bloodlines (the Daughters of Cacophony, the Salubri, and the Salmedi) along with their associated disciplines. There’s also an extensive list of new equipment and an expanded character sheet. All in all, fairly boring stuff in my opinion which could have been more effectively integrated into other products instead of being thrown together without any sense of clear purpose here.

The most useless section in the book, however, would be Secondary Abilities. These are a new set of rules meant to supplement the Primary Abilities found in the main rulebook. In general I saw little differential between these abilities and those in the rulebook (why, for example, they felt that Interrogation would be used less often (and therefore qualify as a secondary ability) than Performance (a primary ability from the main rulebook) is beyond me), but these secondary abilities are cheaper and subject to a slightly different set of rules. The net result, as the book itself says, is that these “Secondary Abilities add greater complexity to the game, but they also add greater complication” (you’ll note that the words “complexity” and “complication” can be seamlessly interchanged here). Nothing is really accomplished by their inclusion except unnecessary headaches. Personally if I were to use any of them I would treat them exactly as I treat Primary Abilities. It should also be noted that since the expanded character sheet takes these Secondary Abilities into account, the other nice features of the character sheet (an expanded background and history section) are rendered rather useless. Oh well.

In general I found the product uninspiring, although generally adequate for this type of thing.

Style: 4
Substance: 3

Author: Clayton Oliver
Company/Publisher: White Wolf
Cost: $14.95
Page count: 70
ISBN: 1-56504-259-9

Originally Posted: 1999/02/17

One of the weird things about getting comp material for review is the essentially random nature of what you end up reviewing. You also end up reviewing stuff that you would never have actually bought for yourself, which creates a strange dynamic in which it becomes difficult to accurately judge the value of the material for people who actually are the target market. (Of course, one of the skills of a good reviewer is the ability to step out of your own shoes to judge the material as objectively as possible… while remembering that objectivity doesn’t mean relativity.)

In other news: Landscape screens are awesome and I’m not sure how we ever endured the taller screens of yore. I have also just realized that it’s been over ten years since I last played Vampire. That makes me a little sad.

For an explanation of where these reviews came from and why you can no longer find them at RPGNet, click here.

Rough Cover Progress – Viktor Fetsch

A couple days ago, we took a peek at the preliminary sketch Viktor Fetsch produced for the cover of Legends & Labyrinths. Here we see the cover as a work-in-progress, as it reaches roughly the 75% point of its completion.

One of the things I like about this piece is that the dragon feels traditional at first glance, but has a uniquely fiendish cast to his features upon closer inspection. There is a depth of both physical and conceptual space which draws my eye into the work and makes me want to step (or charge) into that world.

Go to Part 1

All of this can be somewhat difficult to discuss because game structures have become invisible partners in our games. They are generally not spoken of. We don’t even really think about them.

In The Elfish Gene, Mark Barrowcliffe writes: “When D&D is played it sounds like a series of questions and answers.” Similarly, in Apocalypse World, D. Vincent Baker says, “Roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right?”

So as we begin looking at game structures in traditional roleplaying games, what we’re really doing is cracking open this conversation at the game table and looking at what makes it tick. And, just like a formal debate, we’re also looking at how we impose rules onto that conversation and what effect those rules have. (Some of those rules are the actual mechanics of the game, but most of them are actually looser and more universally applicable than that.)

With that in mind, let’s start by imagining ourselves sitting at a hypothetical game table. We want to start playing a traditional roleplaying game. What needs to happen?

(1)   A player needs to propose an action for their character.

(2)   The GM needs to adjudicate that action and provide an outcome.

Once that outcome has been determined, this cycle repeats itself. (The player proposes a new action for their character and the GM then adjudicates that action.) This is the fundamental basis for the conversation at the heart of all roleplaying games.

But, as we established at the beginning of this essay, this is not as simple as it looks. Complications arise once we consider two questions:

(1)   What, exactly, is the action being resolved?

(2)   How, exactly, do we resolve that action?

The first question can be largely thought of as conceptually chunking or breaking actions apart. (Is “exploring the dungeon” a single action or is it made up of many different actions?) Sometimes the GM will need to break a proposed action down into smaller actions; sometimes they’ll need to figure out how to get the player to chunk multiple actions together into a meaningful package. Ideally, of course, both player and GM would get on the same page about what type of “chunk” to propose and resolve. (And this is, of course, where shared game structures come into play.)

The second question is often answered by the mechanics of the game, but not always. (And often those mechanics will only provide a partial answer.)

For a relatively simple example at the micro-level, consider a situation in which Elizabeth the Duchess of Canterlocke is providing a formal introduction for her friend, the Duke of Donalberry. But, in reality, the Duke of Donalberry is a fraud and Elizabeth knows this (she’s trying to smuggle him into some formal affair for reasons that aren’t really important). Is this resolved with a Bluff check? If so, is the check made by the duchess or the duke? Or both? Or should the duchess make a Bluff check while the duke makes a Disguise check? If the duchess fails her Bluff check, does that mean the whole fraud has been discovered? Or does it just alert the target that something funny is going on (thus applying a penalty to the duke’s Disguise check)?

There is no “right” answer here. But which structure you choose will have a significant impact on how this scene plays out at the table.

MICRO vs. MACRO

For the sake of convenience, I’m going to conceptually break down my discussion of game structures into two types:

At the micro-level, game structures usually take the form of GM rulings: As in our example of the Duchess of Canterlocke, the PCs propose an action and the GM determines how that action will be resolved. (In some cases this ruling is straightforward – the players want to do X; there is a rule for X; the GM uses the rule – and in other cases it will require greater innovation.)

At the macro-level, game structures become scenario structures. These larger scaffoldings determine how the players move through complex environments (physical, social, conceptual, or otherwise).

For example, imagine a simple scenario concept: “The PCs go to Castle Osterkark and investigate the rumors of cultist activity.”

A GM could choose to use any number of game structures to flesh out this concept: Is it a crawl from room to room? Is there a network of clues that will take the PCs to various locations throughout the castle? Will the PCs seek out particular NPCs and question them? Is there a timeline of events? Some combination of these techniques? Some other technique entirely?

At both the macro- and micro-level, game structures have a significant impact on what happens at the actual game table.

To help us get a better grasp on what scenario structures look like in practice, let’s take a peek at the grand-daddy of them all: The dungeoncrawl.

Go to Part 3: Dungeoncrawl