design factoid: humans do not intuit probabilities or statistics very well at all ; no math version

We see and choose based on perceived and thus not quantified extremes, not the highest probability; in other words, what we want, or what we fear has a BIG influence on how we think about chance.  Thus, State lotteries, thus, too, much superstitious behavior; also, much criticism of game design (see, actual relevance !).

Normally this works well enough, since the universe of avoiding cave bears and such is far from perfectly random and probabilistic, and there is a big bias represented by getting it wrong(eaten) simply based on choosing the average return. So we maximize the best outcomes, and avoid the worst, regardless of likelihood.  But, when it is highly probabilistic, and we don’t crunch the actual numbers, this don't work so good.  

The left side of the probability distribution for most of Human history

 

 Thus, looking at a probability tree (such as  in Traveller chargen), and deciding “Yuck, chances are I’ll get a one skill wonder or die before I play” Is usually waaaaay wrong.  *

Bottom line: it isn’t rocket science, but it isn’t as easy as speaking. It’s more like reading.   Barring accident or mutation, everybody learns to speak eventually, just by virtue of hardwiring; reading takes work.  But almost anyone can get there.  Rocket science, apparently not so easy, given how often Rocket scientists incinerate themselves and the local area code.

So, let’s look at Traveller more (any excuse will do):  original traveller handled Random/allocated chargen on a direct and a meta level.  Mostly random, but with a big dollop of allocation at a leverage point. Your stats were random, and your character history was dice ruled after you pick the career you are going to play.   And that choice was absolutely critical – most stat profiles could find a good fit in a couple of careers, so you have some choice –however, a bad fit made it very unlikely that you would have a successful resolution before you started play. 

Originally, this meant that you either “mustered out” (were fired) early, with few skills and benefits, or Died.  After the first edition, the vast beeping and squeeking about dying before play became so loud that even without the internet opinion amplipolarizer, that got changed to “fired with consequences” .  But still.   

If you’ve actually sat down and generated tons of Classic style characters (LBB1-3 + COTI for those who know) you find out that, yes indeed, choosing a good match for career and stats does give you a fairly good range of options, and boosts your survival (or non-termination with prejudice) significantly.  And, well, Scouts always die.  But that is on the label.

So, while it looks insanely stochastic (see! real technical jargon) it isn’t even close to as random as the armchair Pseudotravellers (those who only read or skim  the rules before posting and/ or making up their mind)  would have you believe.

 

This relates to the next topic: random vs purchase chargen design in rules lite systems (like, say, BAGS)

*For instance, did you know that by fiddling with the reenlistment roll typically to make it easier, one can actually increase your likelihood of dying ? You can, trust me –and there is a sweet spot that optimizes the two positive outcomes (survival and retention) . Interestingly, the tables are often already there.

Rules development interlude

Some thoughts on combat:

Thought one:  It’s been done to death at almost every level of granularity possible.

Thought Two: It’s the place where RPGs often dive into complexity of the most baroque kinds imaginable

Thought Three:  Rock paper scissors, while the simplest and most lite resolution possible lacks a certain amount of flavor.

So, the koan for RPG combat is this: what is not a shameless ripoff, has the same  level of granularity, complexity and crunch as the rest of the system, and is fun and flavorful.  Answer:  Very little.

So, rather than just plug in a simple Roll initiative, To hit , Damage by Weapon, Save As Needed, Next round -  type system  (which you’ll probably do anyway), I hoped to do something that addressed each of the points; and not test it.  I mean, come on, this is a gaming blog, right ?

Keep in mind that part of the motivation for this system is good old “lets try something different for a change ” .  So, that’s the answer when the inevitable question “why did you do this differently than usual ? ”  is asked.

So, thusly.

First up, does the combat system have to use the same mechanic as the task system ? 

  In fact, no it doesn’t, and in fact probably shouldn’t.  Tasks are about skills, and knowledge or athletic training and planning.  Combat is and trying not to get killed whilst doing the same.   Most skill use involves concentration, thought and planning; combat is about reacting in “panic hindbrain adrenaline reflex mode” and wetting yourself.  

That said, they should be expected to overlap, some… but the main point is this:  use of a rifle at a range, or a foil in a contest, or a punch in a boxing match is different than what you do when there is somebody firing back and trying to kill or maim you for real, and probably should use a different skill at the very least.

So, as a broad generalization, I’d like a combat system to use two different resolution systems to reflect this.  However, I’m not in love with different dice rolling procedures or tables just for the sake of adding flavor.  So I’ll start off with the following base mechanics:

·        All actions are either combat or normal.  Normal resolution emphasizes what you know and are capable of when no one is trying to kill you ; , and combat resolution is when someone is.    

·        You use different skills when in combat, even if you are using the same tools to do the same things.

·        For BAGS, use very broad categories wherever possible.

So:  Combat skills are used to resolve an attack when in combat.  Combat skills are mostly a measure of how well you keep it cool in a given type of combat; weapons limit range and modify damage, but do not modify the chance to hit when in combat. 

Combat skills are based around four basic types of combat, which consider range, and type of action required.

Skill	Range	MORA*	Action	Typical weapon
Wrasslin and rolling	grappled	C  (contact)	wrestling	Forehead, teeth
Fist City	Arms reach	H (Hand to hand)	boxing	Fist, fungo bat
Horseshoes and Handgrenades	As far as you can throw	T (Throwing)	throwing	Rock, football
Sling Lead	About 100 yds	S (shooting)	Shooting in a firefight	Any firearm
Country mile.	Anything more	L  (long)	Shooting at range	Mortar, machine gun

 

* Mandatory Obsessive Range Abbreviation

So, in combat at range T, your H&H skill is used, regardless of what you are trying to throw (rock, empty pistol, Native Javelin).

Similarly, when you are holding a rifle, but are in combat at H range (hand to hand) you don’t use your rifle skill but rather your Fist City skill.  If it isn’t a combat situation, such as an assassination at close range (a rifle ?  come on…but still) use your rifle skill.  But…the moment someone is tryoing to kill you back you use the combat skill.

Ammo. 

So, some weapons have ammo –when used at various ranges they use up ammo.  These are a function of the weapon.  If a weapon is at a range it cannot use its ammo, or does not have ammo, it, itself may be used as ammo –once.

Weapon effects:

Weapons modify two things: damage, and what ranges can they be used.

·        Damage: The number of hits that a weapon does when you succeed in a combat skill roll (or, a weapon skill roll when not in combat). Some do more, some do less.

·        Range: At what ranges it is effective, limited or not allowed

 

More to come, especially as it becomes obvious that BAGS has a VERY rudimentry combat system, thus far.

 

 

 

 

 

In Case You Were Confused....(AKA Dog headed opinion time)

To all want-to-be RPG designers, I feel it is my public duty to point out an issue that seems to be being overlooked in many new RPGs, and that seems to confuse many recent authors: RPG rules are not a venue for publishing your short (or interminable) gaming fanfic.

Not only is it blatantly inflating the page count (and price), but publishing your own fiction  in your own game is self indulgent vanity wankery of the first water.

I understand that a setting has to tell a story (really, I do) and yes, adventures need setting up – but neither of these are effectively accomplished by including interminable short stories about the tragic hero with a long duster, a shiny gunswordpowerthingie, and a tragic backstory attempting to make up for incomprehensible motivations stereotyped personality traits and pathologically confused  social relationships.    Okay ?  

Repeat after me: "A good RPG author is not automatically a good fiction author, and vice versa."  

Rules need playtest; stories need editorial criticism.   One doesn't substitute for the other. 

Cut it the hell out.   When I want crappy adventure fiction, I’ll read Gor; for crappy SF, there’s always Blake 7.


As an afterthought, the lack of actual fiction sections alone can be considered a major strength of the OSR and pocket/lite RPG design schools.  Even if I hated everything else about them, (and I don't) that alone would endear them to me.

Continuing my break from the cold war…a review of Engines and and Empires !

So, I thought I’d do some fanboy reviews of games that I’ve fallen in love with. First up, Engines and Empires.

How bout a quick summary before you start blathering ?

Okay.....Engines and Emrires is a BEMX/Holmes inspired set of rules via Labyrinth Lord, and allows play in a fantasy milleaux that is technologically similar to the pre or earlier victorian era.  Mainly self contained setting and rules. It seems pretty much play-out-of- the- box ready, possibly with some need for LL in the spells. Whatever, nothing a competent DM or creative noob couldn’t handle. 200 + pages with no crucial part being overlong.  Rules, spells, campaign equiptment, chargen mass combat, extras, options, you name it.  All there. Vampires, Elves, lightning cannon, fireballs and rifled musketry, man.  Vampires and lightning cannon, man ! Hobbits with muskets ! With muskets ! Yowsa !
Authors blurb:

ENGINES & EMPIRES is a campaign setting designed for use with the LABYRINTH LORD fantasy RPG. Sitting at the crossroads of heroic high fantasy and Victorian gaslight romance, E&E pits magic and science against an ancient darkness intent on once again enveloping the world of Gaia... along with all the Free Folk that now dwell thereupon.

John Higgins , 257 pages. 
Free PDF,and  very reasonably priced print available from Lulu, here.

Now, the froth and fluff part.

 Okay, here’s the deal, I am of the firm opinion that the further one gets past the pseudo medievalesque setting, the less sense class and level systems make; the same with different class membership and abilities by race (which really should be species). Plus, I’ve always cordially dispised " race as class" from its first presentation in Holmes (which, with BEMX I’ve always shunned). That said, E&E would seem to be a long shot for me to obsess about and fall in love with. But it is….fantastic.

Possibly its becuase it's vaguely post Napoleonic,early Victorian setting exactly defines the last period where class/level systems work (for me); possibly because it’s an actual non-dark/dystopic steampunk (gaslight, actually) setting or possibly because its a different take on human and non-human coexistence in a game world – but probably because it’s so well written, presented and a hell of a hoot.  Heck.  I even forgive it for Class as level because it makes it work (see below).

But Doc, why have you gone over to the dark side of emphasising setting over rules ?

Because E&E is  that rarest of rare things, a rules set+setting that is well presented, flavorful, creative and not just another world of Greyhawk with or without some kind of edgy tweak. Unusually for me, the setting is a big part of the attraction, the rules are fine too, but there are lots of rules in the world. The rules work for the setting, and don't require a vast investment of time in learning the authors new d17-d4 action resolution skill and trait based semi-level system. And the setting rocks, and not just becuase it's edgy gritty or has cognitively dissonant elements merged together (Spelljammer anyone ? Mechs in Creeks and crawdads ?)


And how is it not just another D&D elfy welfy eurocentric greyhawk only with mecha carved out of Ents and trains that run on spellpoints drained from gelflings ?

Well, primarily, the setting is self-contained and almost unique – early steampunk without as much punk, also known as a gaslight romance –except that romance now pretty much means relationship romance, and not fantastical. What sets it apart from lots of steam inspired RPG’s is that steampunk usually either pushes magic in an almost modern world (Falkenstein,most vampire/werewolf settings) or focuses on the crazy science (1889, most of the steam mecha). E&E does a good job of including both; magic is old, but science is new –it’s the exact overlap of gizmo invention and academic magic and spiritualism.
Also, whereas much steampunk has been edging closer to 1900, E&E drops back to clearly before the 1860’s, probably to 1820ish (Crimean war ?) with some anachronisms. Inventors work with steam and chemistry, electricity is a new and yet to be tamed force, cap and ball rifles and revolvers exist alongside swords and suchlike, people ride horses, sail in clippers or steam side-wheelers, and flight is reserved for balloons and creatures with wings. Oh yeah –plus the undead and magic, both of which have a much more Victorian penny dreadful flavor.

AND, it’s not just set in an earth alternate. It is similar physically to earth, but it is a world where lots of the non-human species (elves, dwarves fey,niads,centaurs,halflings) coexist as equals and humans are just another kind of race. Humans don’t dominate, nor are the other species declining. Even the frikkin hobbits have a kingdom or two, and IIRC, a napoleon analogue is a gnome. (Laugh at the committee for public safety, if you laugh at me, monsieur).  It has a history, and a gazeteer of the kingdoms at a reasonable level of detail, with lots of places and plaothooks for the GM to use.

Finally, while it clearly is shoving a Gygaxian fantasy world into a later setting, its fairly well thought out, and isn’t just an attempt to represent a particular modern or SF trope only this time made using steam and cocoanut shells (any fantasy/steam age star trek or mecha game, I’m looking at you)

And lots of cool hand drawn maps !  Did I mention the maps ?  I love maps. 

Any actual discussion of mechanics besides fanboy love ?

Like, what else do you need ?  Okay, okay.
The rules are Labyrinth Lord derived, with custom classes and all the basics of Old style D&D mechanics and feel are there. It has the defining race as class mechanisms of the Holmes/BEMX family of games, and is scaled for a 36 level character track, paralleling the basic/advanced/master/expert kinds of plateaus. Usually these would be problematic , but the class level works well enough, and has the benefit of similar non-humans have different classes –so, an elfy character has some options, just some are called Fey, and etc. Similarly, the 36 level scaling (who the heck has time for a 36 level campaign now that we are out of middle school….) seems much more doable with an custom advancement scheme that avoids XP altogether, and is based on game session. I think the assumption is that a character should level up every4-6 sessions. That’s still a long way to level 36, but doesn’t involve having to kill Gods to get enough XP to level up….. Chargen is bog standard. Combat is very abstract, but with options for old farts like me to use to complicate things. Of note is a skill system that is simple, and not very granular – much like the d20 lite systems use. If you like the skill granularity to be very fine, this may not work for you, but it is very consistent with the style of the game.

The basic D&D classes are there (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, and Thief) in some campaign appropriate disguises, with some different skills and abilities. New classes include the inventor, a requirement for any steampunk/gaslight setting. Clerics are scholars (kind of a cross between VanHelsing and Seminary trained types), mages use charisma, fighters are soldiers, monks are Boxers (Fisticuffs AND Marquis of Queensbury, wot!), Thieves are experts/professionals, and inventors have a fully developed set of rules for tinkering, gizmonics and infernal device creation.

How does it play ?

Overall, the style of play seems fast, but not truly cinematic, if you accept that john Wu films are the baseline for cinematic RPG style. Remember, it’s a world where the fastest communication is still birds, and the fastest land transport is a horse. Whereas a cinematic game simply cuts to the action and then to more action with a brief précis of between the scenes events, the action in E&E would seem to be fast, and frequent but with a fair amount of development of the intermediate play sequences. Yes, you get to fight cannibal apes, but you also get to role-play a court feast and negotiate a treaty with the king of the gnomish cannibals.

The rules are simple and familiar enough to be essentially transparent.  One plays the game, not the rules.

Anything to look out for ?

I sorta wish it was available in an 8.5 x 11 size, and/or hardback.  But , one can print the PDF that way.
It really doesn;t have any sandbox rules, although encounter tables and world detail is provided -but no Judges guild style hex contents genrator tables - but thats fine, as it comes with a dandy setting already installed.
 If you are expecting high graphic hex bases map projections, the ones provided will not satisfy. The art is (I think) entirely period B&W clip art; you'll either love it or hate it. Combat isn't very granular, but if I want that, I have Frappe or Colonial age skirmish.
Liking a rules set with 36 levels, post medieval class and level and Holmsian  race as class makes me experience cognitive dissonance.

Oh yeah.  Gnomes are treated as if they were worth existing.  Can't support that. next thing you know, it'll be sapient ducks........

Anything else ?

E&E is a different RPG using familiar tropes and rules.  Its exactly what I think is the goal of the OSR -not just cloning, but developing from the neccessary clones. Its all to easy to become  obsessed with the basics (ie rules cloning) and lose sight of the fact that it is not an end in itself.  Or, more academically, "Don;t convert vital ideological praxis into rarified ideology. Get out on the barricades !"

Anything else that doesn't hint at absurdist mockery of GNS games theory ?

Yeah.  Who the hell are you, anyway ?

Look. I love it. It’s honest to god adventure from the last age of explorers, Burton and Speke, guns and mystic mysteries vs. the glory of science, all in a world different enough that it need not be haunted by the dark side of steam (such as colonialism, satanic mills and factory cities, and…well, the killing floor of world war one). Full marks. . I have the free version, and two copies of the print version, and I’m a known cheap bastard.


GO GET IT NOW !


Other reviews are to be found here and here .

A break from the cold war......

So, I've run up against the current limits of what I enjoy doing on this blog - and am into areas of the story that I haven't thought thru all that well.  So, I need to take a break fro the ponderous faux history writing, and see what happens.

The game development itself seems to have hit a plateau; one day a couple of weeks ago I realized somthing: unless this is just an Alt.history blog exercise, I need to figure out where the players can fit in.

The biggest problem with the setting so far is that there really only is room (thus far) for adventurers who are still part of the space forces -in the military, in other words, since the world I'm designing certainly doesn't have room or resources for private enterprise (or corporate enterprise) in space. Regan/Bush capitalism isn't going to flourish in the world of retrospace -both sides have tightly planned, militarized economies. And while a WWII or cold war game on earth has lots of room for espionage, clandestine ops, semi-private adventurers and maverick warbands, the space war requires serious resources and official cooperation from the governments or you can't get there; plus, up to the time of the first orbit war, things are pretty obvious, and the goals are pretty circumscribed.  Blast off in single-seat rockets, shoot down satellite or enemy interceptor.  Infiltrate the three-man saluyt station ?  Ummmm.  No ?  Especially as the entire orbital battlefield has, on both sides, maybe twelve soldiers in it at any one time ?

So, where the players ?  The problem is, a "you are in the army here are your orders" campaign, while easy to run, isn't (in my experience) the most popular amongst the players, who do matter, somewhat.

It looks like there will need to be a couple of breakpoints for the backstory that can generate different campaigns. 

Lets see what I come up with.  In the meantime, I think I'll do some shilling for my current faddish RPG infatuations (six level D&D, Engines and Empires, Busiris, Epees and Sorcery), or post  some stupid game rants. (thieves, idiot fans, get off of my lawn).

Hard at work-and a question: talk among yer selves.

Thrashing away at the UDP (universal dungeon profile).  Coming along nicely. 

Here's a topic:  in my earlier post about bricks and basilisks, I keep saying that it isn't a skirmish game, but rather an RPG ....even if it isn't there yet.  Its kind of tongue-in-cheek, but thereit does reflect  a real issue as regards design, at least in my probably too-analystic and tortuously overthought musings....

So, the question is this:  what differmntiates a role playing game from other similar games.  Obviously persistance isn't unique to an RPG, any wargame campaign will illustrate that -and , one shots are also seen as roleplaying, right (re ADD 4e encounters) ? Not Dice or the GM/Player distinction.  It could be the huge weight of rules compared toalmost any other type of game, but that is too depressing to consider....

Similalry, It can't just be the willingness to metaphorically put on a wig and funny nose and pretend to be someone else, either.  I'm the example of that - I roleplay everything. Everything.  No kidding; even the hardest core miniatures wargame will find me personalizing at least one figure, (meet Lt. Nesbitt, found as a low level commander in games from 1600 to the far future), and I've been known to have my divisional chits have personaities and conversations- my parents assure me that the salt and pepper shakers often had elaborateadventures when I was a child at dinner. So.....what then ?