Lock and Load

 A few weeks ago, I posted about the double-tap, burst fire, and spray fire rules I was working on for Missions & Mayhem. 

If you don't want to click the link, the gist is that following d20 Modern, I had the attacks take a penalty which then resulted in greater damage on a hit. Game mechanics wise, that makes sense. But both as a simulation and as a player trade-off decision point, my players were not happy and I was OK with it, but not in love with the mechanic, either. 

I'd considered, and several players said they agreed, that a bonus to hit but normal damage and extra ammo expended would make for a better trade-off in game, as well as being more realistic.

Reader Avi suggested in a comment that the damage bonus should only apply at short range. 

Considering all this feedback, my new rules for firearms use look like this: 

Basic Ranged Weapon proficiency: use basic ranged weapons at no penalty. -2 to hit with firearms (single shot/semi-auto mode), -4 to hit with military (autofire mode firearms, launcher) weapons. 

Skilled Ranged Weapon proficiency: use basic and firearms weapons at no penalty.  -4 to hit with military weapons. Double-Tap and Suppression Fire can be performed. 

Advanced Ranged Weapon proficiency: use any ranged weapon at no penalty. Burst Fire and Spray Fire can be performed. 

Double-Tap: Fire two rounds as one attack, with a +2 bonus to hit. At short range, the attack deals +1 die of damage. Normal damage at medium or long range.

Suppression Fire: Empty the current magazine (minimum 5 rounds, belt-fed machine guns use 20 rounds) in one direction, targeting the area (AC 11). On a hit, all characters within short or medium range in that field of fire must make a will saving throw or dive for cover, losing their actions for this round.

Burst Fire: Using a weapon with autofire capability, fire five rounds at a single target as one attack, with a +4 bonus to hit. At short range, the attack deals +2 dice of damage. Normal damage at medium or long range. 

Spray Fire: Using a weapon with autofire capability, fire ten rounds as a single attack targeting a 10' square or 5x20' line (AC 11). All in the area must make a reflex save or take normal damage.

I'll see how this works on Sunday as the party continues their exploration of Dinosaur Island. Well, I suppose they probably won't try to use suppression fire on dinosaurs...but maybe they will?

Guns Blazing (or maybe not?)

 Yesterday, I ran a relatively straightforward combat mission for Missions & Mayhem to play test some of the combat rules. And of course, as we got started, the players were looking for ways they could solve the mission without resorting to combat. But after straight up telling them I needed to test the combat rules, they went with it. 

The players went in with a good tactical plan, hired mercenaries for extra firepower support (old school D&D players want their men-at-arms, you know!), and good use of the "I Know a Guy" rule to get access to night-vision goggles. 

We were able to test out surprise and initiative (just like Classic D&D, and they work just as well), regular attacks and the special double-tap, burst, and spray autofire rules, grenades/explosives, and the first aid rules. 

One area I had been wondering about were the double-tap and burst rules, which I'd imported directly from d20 Modern. For both of these, in d20 Modern, you sacrifice accuracy and ammunition for increased potential damage. As a game mechanic, it's elegant. Firearms all deal 2dX damage. With a double-tap, you fire two rounds and take a -2 to hit, and deal an extra die of damage (3dX). With burst autofire, you fire five rounds and take a -4 to hit, and deal an extra two dice of damage (4dX). 

However, in M&M, it's not as easy to get bonuses to hit (no feats). Also, there's less hit point inflation, because NPCs/creatures have mostly flat hit dice, not bonuses to each die for Constitution scores. When I ran the solo test with Jeremy a few weeks back, we'd discussed the option to change double-tap and burst autofire to be a bonus to hit, rather than a penalty, but deal standard damage on a hit. The thing that holds me back is that ammo expenditure becomes the only reason NOT to double-tap or use burst fire if you have the proficiency for it. 

The rules for spray autofire (expend 10 rounds, trying to target several people with one attack) works similarly to the explosives rules. You only need to hit AC 11 (ascending AC) with your attack roll, but the targets in the area get to make a reflex saving throw. In the case of spray autofire, they take no damage on a save. With explosives, they take 1/2 damage (like fireball in D&D). This seemed to work well. No need for a change. 

I do have notes for figuring out where a grenade or other thrown explosive goes off on a miss. I think I need to also implement them for both burst and spray autofire. We had one instance where a burst attack missed a terrorist standing among the hostages. On the spot, I had the player roll a reflex save to avoid the bullets striking a hostage (failure! But the hostage survived with 1 hit point). That worked, but since I already have rules for how to determine where an explosive goes off (and it may still affect the intended target if you're lucky), it's easier to implement those for missed autofire attacks in crowded areas as well. 

We didn't get to test out the suppression fire rules (empty your magazine in one direction, opponents must make will saves or dive for cover/lose their actions for the round), but everything else went fairly well. 

Right now, I'm working on the first campaign module: Cryptids & Conspiracy. Basically, X-Files, but with potential for psychic or occult Heroes (and villains). I've got the advanced classes and psychic powers done. I need to write up a system/advice for creating and running conspiracy groups as opponents, and of course stats for a bunch of cryptids, alien visitors, and ghosts/demons that can be investigated. Once those are all done, I'll add some mission design guidelines and XP award guidelines. I'll likely include a few sample missions as well.

So still early in the process, but so far I'm happy with what I've done. 

In Search of Elegant Design

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein (apocryphal) 

 I haven't made a lot of progress on Missions & Mayhem this week, but what I have done feels elegant. 

When I started out, I tried to pare down d20 Modern to the bare essentials. 

Then, I started pulling in systems and ideas from other old school games to fill out systems where I didn't want to rely on a d20 system mechanic. Because d20+mods isn't always the best roll to make for every situation, and the scaling DC system gets progress backwards. 

But I quickly realized I had a mishmash of disparate game systems, and they didn't work well together. So the past few weeks have been about simplifying and trying to find elegant solutions to problems. 

I feel like that's what I've done recently. On the first page of my playtest document, which I share with my players, I've been putting a rundown of the various mechanics involved in the game. I'm not sure if they're reading it (I should ask), but for me it helps me keep track of what the game does and doesn't do. I'll copy/paste it here: 

 

Die Rolls: The following types of die rolls may be made in this game.

Ability Scores (character creation): 4d6, drop lowest single die. Roll six times to set ability scores.

Wealth Status (character creation, level up): 3d6, sets or modifies status level. Rolled at character creation to set initial status, and checked when a level is gained for possible changes.

Funds on hand: at the start of a mission, roll 2d4 or 3d6, multiplied by a modifier to determine additional cash/credit available for this mission.

General Proficiency Check: non-proficient 2d4, proficient 2d6, advanced 2d8, roll target number or higher. Possibly with modifiers depending on talents or Gambles.

Attacks, saving throws: 1d20+modifiers (Str for melee attacks, Dex for ranged attacks), roll Armor Class or save number or higher. Situational modifiers may also apply to attacks or saving throws.

Damage rolls: various, depends on the type of attack. Strength modifiers affect damage for all unarmed/melee weapons and some ranged weapons.

Gamble: In chases and some other emergency situations involving a general proficiency check, a player may roll 1d20 trying to roll equal or below one of their ability scores to gain a +1 bonus to a check. If they fail, they get a -1 penalty. How that ability may help must be described before the roll.

I Know a Guy: 1-2/d6 chance to know a guy in general, 1-4/d6 to know a guy related to occupation. If successful, the Hero gains information, access, or a favor.

 

I've described in previous posts how the proficiency system works, but here's a brief summary. There are combat proficiencies (access to weapons/armor, removes penalties for their use) and general proficiencies (replace skills/feats from the d20 system). Players get 2 proficiencies from their Starting Occupation (background), four or five from their level 1 character class, and if they have a high Wisdom, 1 to 3 bonus proficiencies. They gain more proficiencies at every 3rd level. Everyone starts with basic proficiency in ALL of them, and the proficiencies gained above are improvements to Skilled or Advanced levels. 

For the most part, difficulties are set. They don't scale with level as the PCs go up. That way leads to the backward progress I mentioned above. If your Hero has basic level infiltration proficiency, they roll 2d4. They can't disable any security devices with a difficulty of 9 (unless they gamble and get lucky, or get a bonus from one of their class talents and get lucky). After a few levels, if they boost infiltration to skilled, they now roll 2d6 and they've got a chance to disable that security device. A few levels more, they can boost it to advanced and roll 2d8, and have a pretty good shot at disabling that type of device. 

On the GM side, as well, the 2d4/2d6/2d8 scale, and 5/7/9/11/13 difficulty levels have been useful for a variety of systems. 

One more system that I keep finding useful is the I Know a Guy mechanic. Yes, it's a metagame mechanic. Yes, it shifts (not quite retcons) what's "known" in the fictional world. But it's goddamn useful! 

"Do we know the layout of the compound?" You do if you know a guy. 

"Can we get some uniforms to disguise ourselves?" You do if you know a guy.

"We need to get into the Grammy after party to find evidence." If you know a guy, he can get you in. 

Earlier in the design process, I had borrowed from d20 Modern the idea of equipment being unlicensed, licensed, restricted, or illegal. But it was a complex mess in play, and players were getting confused about needing both proficiency and permits to have certain types of weapons. Technically, they needed proficiency to use the weapons efficiently, and permits to legally own the weapons. They could have owned them illegally, or legally owned them without being very good at using them....

Anyway, I was working on a black market system related to this, and the abstract purchasing system (another hold-over from d20 Modern), and a Wanted Status system (with varying levels of "wantedness") for adding complications when the authorities are onto PC activities. Overly complex. 

This week, I added back in the Wanted Status, but it's binary. You're wanted or you're clear. No more "of interest" "suspect" "wanted" and "fugitive" levels. And if you're wanted, there are random encounter checks made once per mission/session, and at times when the party runs into the authorities, to see if some complication develops. 

For the black market, the I Know a Guy rule solves a lot of problems. If you're wanted, you can't buy certain items that would require you to present identification (firearms, explosives, new cars, surveillance gear) without triggering an automatic complication. But if you know a guy, you can buy from a black market source for a small mark-up in price. 

Clean, simple, elegant, and works with something I've already been developing in the rules.  

Another Successful Play Test

 This afternoon, I ran Steven (my younger) and my friends Denis and Charles through a stealth/subterfuge infiltration mission with Missions & Mayhem. Well, first we needed to update Charles and Denis' Heroes to the new rules. That went pretty well, with minimal fuss and only a few things fudged to match what came before to what they have now. 

The rules worked well. They were simple for me to run, with minimal referencing to the rules (they're written by me, but in flux so my mental model of the game doesn't always update to my latest ideas). The new proficiency system (2d4/2d6/2d8) was simple and easy for them to grasp, and very easy to implement in play. Yes, it is basically a skill system. But it's independent of class/level for its power growth, and it's limited to just the three levels. 

The new version of the "I know a guy" rules came into play, and worked in the group's favor so they were happy with that. In this case, they decided to pose as OSHA inspectors, and Steven's "I know a guy" roll showed that his hero did know a guy who could get them OSHA uniforms. A bit of forgery here, paying to have the rich hero's helicopter (Charles's) decorated with OSHA livery there, a little shopping, and they were set for their mission. 

A few things did come up in play that either hadn't been addressed yet, or I'd dropped from the rules. In particular at the end of the mission, they noticed the hidden security camera only AFTER they'd hacked the computer system. But their cover wasn't yet blown so they decided on a quick retreat rather than deal with that. In a campaign, this is the sort of thing that would bring them heat. At the moment, I've dropped the "wanted status" but the players today seemed to think it should come back.  

We also discussed a few ways to make it work. For one thing, they suggested that random encounter chances could be pegged to a character's (or group's) wanted status. Every few game hours, or once per scene/setting, roll to see if someone recognizes the wanted PC and alerts the authorities. I'd need to work out how that system plays out, something I hadn't finalized before dropping the original idea. 

To complete it, I'll need to decide exactly what sorts of complications might arise from being wanted, how likely they are to occur, what are the effects of each possible complication, and what players can do to lower their heat. 

There was hardly any combat this session. The manager in the office was already suspicious of them, and when they came in to "monitor the computer system for safety reasons" he wouldn't buy their story. So they tasered him. While he was out, they hacked the computer and got the information they were after. 

Which reminds me, the computer hacking rules worked OK, but I think I need to increase the chances of automated responses to actions while hacking. Most of the actions have low percentages, and there weren't any reactions or complications from the hack. To spice things up, I need to bump them up a bit. Not too much, or no one will try hacking. 

The important thing is, the entire hack was quick, and the other players weren't bored while it happened. So that's a success. 

My take-away: The basic combat rules are good. The proficiency system is good. Most of the resolution mechanics are easy to run. I need to tinker with a few probabilities and add/refine a few systems. 

We also leveled up everyone's heroes to 3rd level. Charles stuck with Fast Hero 3, but Denis multiclassed into Strong 2/Tough 1. Steven decided to do the changes later, but he will go Fast 2/Smart 1. Charles was a little confused by getting both a talent from his class, and a free proficiency slot from being 3rd character level, but we got that sorted quickly. Denis leveled up with no problem, but a complaint. When he rolled for hit points, the die slipped when he picked it up. It was a 2. I saw that it obviously slipped from his hand, so I let him re-roll it. He got a 1. 

Next time, I will run a combat heavy mission, in order to test out some of the more advanced combat rules (the autofire rules, explosives, etc.). We expect some or all of the heroes to die, but since it's a play test not a regular campaign, they'll resurrect if that happens. Charles didn't roll very well for hit points either, so they're all feeling a bit uneasy about a heavy combat mission. Should be fun!

The Final Puzzle Piece (yeah, nah, probably not final)

Last night, my son and I were going over the recent rule changes and updates to Missions & Mayhem, and I was explaining what would be different for his character. He should have been in bed already, but he said he wasn't sleepy. Well, talking about boring rules sure did the trick! He was a sleep within half an hour. 

 While we were talking, I realized something. I've taken away ability score modifiers to the proficiency checks. Like old school D&D, the ability scores have their effects but they're limited. One of the big problems with WotC's editions of D&D, for me at least, is that EVERYTHING depends on the ability scores. They're important, but shouldn't be that important. Besides, the character classes in this game already focus on one ability score each. 

Because the modifiers don't (normally*) affect the rolls, that left Intelligence as only modifying linguistic ability. And while a globe-hopping treasure hunter or superspy may need to know lots of languages, your typical 80s muscleman with machinegun or quaint New England murder detective or long-haul trucker running moonshine from Georgia probably doesn't. 

The ability scores affected these areas before last night's epiphany: 

Strength: melee combat (hit and damage), carrying capacity

Dexterity: ranged combat (hit only), AC, reflex saving throws

Constitution: hit points, fortitude saving throws

Intelligence: languages known (or limited communication ability if low)

Wisdom: bonus proficiency slots, will saving throws

Charisma: reaction checks, follower morale 

So all the scores except Int cover at least two mechanical areas. Well, I figured out what Int should do besides linguistics: bonus XP! 

Since the base classes are functional rather than professional, and multiclassing is not just easy, it's expected, it doesn't make sense for each class to get different bonuses to XP for high ability scores like D&D's prime requisites. If a Strong/Dedicated Hero has both high Str and Wis, does she get to double dip in the XP bonus? That's not good design. So I'd left it out. 

But last night, it hit me that Intelligence equals ability to learn, so that should be the general "prime requisite" ability score. 

So I'll be adding to the rules a little bit: 

"Intelligence modifies how well you learn from your experiences. Heroes with high Int learn faster, and those with low Int need to put in a little more effort." 

Int 3 to 5: -10% XP

Int 6-8: -5% XP

Int 9-12: no change

Int 13-15: +5% XP

Int 16-18: +10% XP

 

I know in previous discussions of D&D's prime requisite bonuses here and on other blogs, people have expressed the opinion that the small percentages don't really make that big of a difference. And in my opinion, that's a good thing. It's a nice little treat for a player who puts a high score in Int, and it's a small annoyance for a character who uses Int as a dump stat. But it won't have massive effects on the comparative power between PCs. And it gives me one small mechanical boost to the one ability score that didn't do very much. 

*One area where ability scores CAN modify proficiency rolls is in the Gamble mechanic. I developed this for chases, but may allow it in other areas as well. In a chase, each side rolls against the other, in a best three out of five framework. But on any particular roll, a player can try to gamble with their ability score. If they gamble, they roll 1d20, trying to get their score or lower. If they succeed, they get a +1 bonus on the chase roll for that round. If they fail, they get -1 to the roll. 

I'm considering allowing this for other areas of contested rolls, like with computer hacking. And maybe just a general rule for any Proficiency check.  

Computer Hacking in RPGs

 I'm finally working on some computer hacking rules for Missions & Mayhem. I've heard before from fellow gamers, and reading a lot on the internet about how many games try to make hacking fun and exciting, or make it fairly realistic, but it turns into a mini-game that one player is playing while everyone else sits and twiddles their thumbs. Or, it just gets made into a single skill check that is not very exciting. 

There's got to be a sweet spot of just complex enough (providing choice/strategy to the hacker PC) while not bogging down into 30+ minutes of solo play. And as always for M&M, I am trying to follow the KISS principle. Don't make any mechanic more complex than it needs to be. 

Or as Einstein (I think) once said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler." 

Right now, I've got two ideas in mind. One is for hacker vs hacker scenes, as you might see in a spy or superhero movie/show. The other is for simple player vs system checks, but could also be used for hacker vs hacker stuff. 

My original idea was to try and make a strategy vs strategy results chart, similar to the Chainmail jousting rules. The PC hacker selects a strategy. The opposing NPC hacker (or the system being hacked) selects a countermeasure strategy. Cross reference on the table to see what happens. 

But I'd really need to test and refine that chart. I remember Delta analyzed the Nash equilibrium of the Chainmail joust, and there is definitely a single dominant strategy to it that will more often than not result in a win. And that's boring if you always know the optimal options to select. 

So my current thinking is to use the second option, which would break hacking a system into three phases. 

Phase 1: Entry. Hacking into the system. Make a roll to get into the system. If the roll succeeds, you're in. Either way, make a check to see if the attempt was noticed.

This phase could be made much easier with some other character talents. One Charismatic Hero class talent, and several of the starting occupation talents allow for a check to get "information, access, or a favor" from an NPC or organization. This could be done to represent social engineering before the hack.

Phase 2: Manipulation. Depending on the security level of the system, this might be automatic for unsecured systems, or require a check/counter-check. Either way, once you're in, you can search for information (including physical location if unknown), download or copy information, attempt to reprogram the computer system, control connected (security) devices, or try to sabotage the system. The longer the PCs stay in the system (each additional check after the first) increases the odds of being noticed/having countermeasures triggered.

If the attempt to enter was noticed, countermeasures will be in place (if there are any). If not, each action runs the risk of being noticed, and triggering countermeasures. If there's an opposing hacker, the hacker can attempt to reverse hack the PCs and direct the countermeasures. And of course, this could all be reversed, with an NPC trying to hack the PCs' computer system.  

Phase 3: Exit. Attempt to cover your trace as you log out of the system. Depending on the countermeasure response, this might not be necessary as your cover could already be blown or you could have already been booted from the system. But it would be a simple check at the end. 

 Computer systems will have three categories. Unsecured systems are your typical home/office PC. Sure, they may have some passwords or firewalls, but nothing unusual, and no countermeasures unless an NPC hacker is on them. A lot of IoT devices will also be unsecured. 

Secured systems will have some automated countermeasures in place that can be triggered, and are harder to hack into during entry or exit cleanly. Unless an NPC hacker is working against the intrusion, though, the responses will be preprogrammed/limited. Most small to medium size businesses and non-military/intelligence government agencies would have this level of computer system.

Hardened systems will be the hardest to enter or have a clean exit, and will have responsive AI countermeasures that act as an NPC hacker even if none is present. This is what megacorps, militaries, and intelligence agencies use. 

It's a Problem of Tone

 I've been reading over some of my draft of Flying Swordsmen 2E, and I'm not happy with it. 

Well, I'm happy with the d6 system, and the mechanics I'm using for the game. I'm not happy with the tone of my writing so far. 

I was hoping for a nice, friendly, guiding hand explaining the game and how to play. Similar to Frank Mentzer's tone in the old Basic Set. But reading it over, there are a lot of places where I'm slipping into "professor" mode and explaining concepts for the advanced referee and player, rather than for the new gamer. I've also got a lot of sections that are too much like 3E D&D's rules lawyery tone. 

Luckily, it's still the first draft, and I've just barely started in the section for the referee on how to create adventures and run the game. 

I feel like I need to go over what I've already written and simplify and clarify my writing. I also need to figure out the best way to explain some of the more detailed mechanics. I want martial arts battles to include strikes, parries & dodges, ripostes and reversals, just like in the wuxia source material. d6 allows for that, easily, but my explanations of the mechanics feel too technical in many areas, and over-explained in others. 

I know that good writing habits are to get that first draft done before going back to revise. But I think in this case, revising what I've already got and trying to give it a consistent tone will make writing the rest of the book much more enjoyable. And hopefully, clear and fun for the players and referees to read as well.

Is Star Frontiers Mimimalist? Is it Lite?

What exactly defines a minimalist game is subjective, as is what makes a game "lite." Some people go by page count, with 1-page RPGs the epitome of minimalism. I've seen some people say it's bare minimum dice types, bare minimum ability scores/traits, and bare minimum word count. I've seem people say that it's a universal mechanic and plenty of space for players to do things not on the character sheet. I've seen various combinations of the above. I'm sure there are other qualities I'm overlooking at the moment.

So, how does Star Frontiers (Alpha Dawn) actually rank as a minimalist RPG? 

Page Count: 16 page Basic Rules, 60 (or 64?) page full game. 

This would count as minimalist in relation to doorstop games like Pathfinder, but still pretty hefty compared to many indie games. Fairly minimalist, for the time it came out.

Dice: Only d10s. 

Definitely in the minimalist camp here.

Resolution Mechanics: d% resolution for most actions, Xd10 damage, 1d10+modifier initiative, a few oddities like 2d10 bell-curve resolution tables for vehicle damage. 

Pretty tight, but not as light as it could be. 

Abilities/Traits: With eight abilities, but these grouped into four pairs, it's fairly tight. The fact that the scores (or 1/2 the score) are also the % chance to make a check is streamlined design. Alien species' special abilities are also % based. 

That is again pretty light mechanics load, but not as streamlined as possible. Not bad, but could be simpler.

Character Options: Four alien species (one human), three primary skill areas, 13 skills. Five of the skills have no subskills and are Ability dependent (weapon group skills), and all others have two to nine subskills at set levels which are learned as a suite. Only the Martial Arts skill has unique mechanics (increased Punching Score and knock-out chances). 

This isn't very heavy. With basically four die rolls for Abilities and three choice points (not counting Ability adjustment and selecting starting gear), you have a character. Roll Abilities. Select Species. Select Primary Skill Area (PSA). Select two starting skills, with at least one in the PSA. You're good to go. 

Creatures: Aside from descriptions and special ability rules, most creatures are represented by seven descriptors/numbers: Size, Number (appearing), Move (given in general categories), Initiative Modifier/Reaction Speed, Stamina (health), Attack (%), Damage. 

I've seen games where there are fewer stats for creatures, and something like D&D you can get by with fewer actual numbers most of the time (AC, HD, HP are enough for most encounters), but this isn't a lot, either. The game also provides typical stats for herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores of each size category, to make creating your own alien creatures simple. 

Again, it's almost minimalist, and for the time it came out, it's again pretty light. 

Combat, Movement, Etc.:  The basic combat resolution is dead simple. Roll d%, if you roll lower than your chance to hit, you deal damage. But there are a LOT of modifiers, for melee and ranged combat. The vehicle combat isn't too complex, but it does add new subsystems (like the vehicle damage rolls, mentioned above), acceleration, and turning radii. Movement rules are generally simple, until you add in things like modifiers for planets' gravity, rough terrain, and species' movement rates. 

There's a minimalist core there, but also just enough crunch to make things interesting and pay some attention to the science side of science fiction. This is one area where the game stops being minimalist, but it's not maximalist to make the hardcore science nerds happy. This is, I would wager, one of the things that really makes people dislike the game. It's too complex in certain ways, too simple in others.

Equipment, Weapons, Etc.: The game uses "credits" as money. There aren't a whole lot of items on the weapons, defenses, equipment, or vehicle lists, and those that are are one-size-fits-all. There's only stats for "laser pistols" not XM-03 Blast-all and Zerk-tech Laserific Pistols, with fiddly distinctions between what are essentially the same weapon. All ground cars share the same stats, with no distinctions for make/model/species it's designed for.

Robots and Computers are the two areas where there can be a lot of customization, but even then, the options available are limited and streamlined. This is again an area where hard sci-fi people, and gearheads, are going to be disappointed that the system's gear is so bare-bones (and the computers presented were obsolete not long after the game was on shelves), but things are just fiddly enough that it can't be called minimalist. 

There are no rules for building, buying, or operating starships. This is again something that many people deride the game for, but again, this isn't something that's actually necessary (or realistic). There are rules for FTL travel, and prices for PCs to book passage. You just can't own your own ship. This is actually both more realistic, and more minimalist. But it rubs many people the wrong way. I'll go deeper into this in a future post. 

Setting: The Frontier Sector is fleshed out in small bites throughout the rules, with a lot of information in the Basic Rules book, and small details scattered across the Expanded Rules book. All in all, though, it's a skeleton of a setting, with lots of room for the referee to flesh it out as they please, and plenty of uncharted star systems on the sector map. 

This is a pretty light setting, but it gave my friends and I enough of a structure to flesh things out, with inspiration from various sci fi books, TV shows, movies, and games. Again, I'll post more on this particular point in the future. All in all, it's not minimal, but it's a very light setting with just enough meat on the bones to not be useless. 

THE VERDICT

Is Star Frontiers minimalist? No, but then it wasn't trying to be. That wasn't even really a thing back in the late 70s/early 80s when the game was designed and published, as far as I know. 

Is it a lite game though? I'd say so. It has its complexities, but from experience it was pretty easy to ignore a lot of these rules when we were young and didn't care that much. And even as we grew older and got more proficient with the core mechanics, it wasn't hard to add in the extra complexity of the game, because it never gets THAT complex. 

The thing is, I think that it COULD be a minimalist game, if stripped down. The Basic Game is already pretty minimal, but it's also a bit more of a board game than a proper RPG. Still, using it as a base, and selectively including only the bare necessities from the Expanded Rules, you could play a very minimalist space opera/exploration game.

 

 

Treasures, Serpents, & Ruins Rules Reference books are available!

 After way too long of a wait, I've finally got around to adding my Rules Reference books for Treasures, Serpents, & Ruins on DriveThruRPG. There's one for Ruby and one for Jade. 

These are meant to be table reference books, with just the rules, procedures, charts, etc. that the GM might need while running the game. If you don't need all the instruction of how to run the game or how to build your adventures and world, but need refreshers on the mechanical bits, this is the book for you! 

Ruby Rules Reference (standard Euro-style setting)

Jade Rules Reference (Asian inspired setting)

They're both Pay-What-You-Want titles, so you can go grab them for free and check them out. As always, if you like it and find it helpful, why not return and throw a few dollars my way? I reinvest the money I'm making from TS&R back into the gaming community. I'm not trying to make a million on this. But a few dollars here and there is nice. 

Oh, and in hopeful news, my younger son Steven is interested in maybe trying to DM his own game. He did some crazy free-form DMing when he was 5 or so. Now he's 10, and is thinking about maybe trying to learn how to DM the "right" way. I'm gonna order him a POD copy of Moldvay Basic to read through. This could be fun!

Update on Flying Swordsmen 2E

Progress has been slow, but I am making progress on the game draft. 

I've got the first draft of the character generation guide. It's only two pages, so it's pretty basic. I plan to add a detailed guide to both picking a template and building a character from scratch later, once the actual rules and the combat system are nailed down a bit more.

I've got a list of about two dozen template ideas. Once I've got the rules stuff more or less complete, I plan to show what I've got to my various play groups (TS&R Jade, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu), and ask them to help me test the system for character creation. Then I can use what they create for some of the templates. It will save me some time, and prevent some of my own character preferences from biasing the sample. (Can you guess I've been more focused on academics than gaming lately?)

I have write-ups for all of the system's basic skills. It's d6 system, so a referee could easily add more skills to the game as they wish. I don't have sample difficulty numbers yet though. I'll be cross referencing Star Wars and d6 Fantasy for that. And then when I finally get around to play-testing, I'll adjust the numbers based on whether certain tasks seem too easy or too difficult. One thing that I did try to do was to make sure that there is at least one skill useful in combat under each Ability. Star Wars has a lot of situations that don't involve combat, so there is room for the know-it-alls and the fix-it-up guys and the get-you-from-here-to-there guys to shine, along with the dedicated blow-you-to-bits guys. Wuxia should have plenty of non-combat stuff, but a lot of it in the source media is more managing relationships rather than testing your learned proficiencies. So combat should probably play a bigger part, and I want room for characters to specialize in evasive or manipulative techniques in combat, not just punchy punchy Street Fighter types. So I'm pretty happy with that. 

I also have suggested Specializations for each of the skills. 

I'm in the middle of writing up the special martial arts/mystical techniques. These are all inspired by the martial arts maneuvers, spells, and special class abilities in Flying Swordsmen. Mechanically, they work somewhat like the SW Force powers, or like 3E D&D feats. Or like special ability trees in a video game. There are six Powers, and getting trained in a Power grants access to its techniques. One die in the Power grants access to the Level 1 Basic technique. Gaining a second die in the power grants access to three to five Level 2 techniques. Gaining the third die grants access to Level 3 techniques, but only those based on the Level 2 techniques you have learned. 

I've drafted text (including difficulties) for the Qinggong (light step), Neigong (body power), Dianxue (acupressure), and Suan Ming (divination) techniques. I'm working on the Wu (white magic) techniques, leaving only Ku (black magic) techniques to get this section of the rules done. 

Some techniques are automatic ("always on") while most need to be used as actions. Some have unlimited use, others with more power are limited to a number of times per day equal to the dice in the governing Power, or just once per 24 hours for some really powerful ones. And some are unlimited in use until you roll a 1 on the Wild Die while activating it, then you need to wait for the cool-down period to finish before using it again.

In addition to all that, I've got a series of questions based on the Virtues of the Xia and general goal advancement which, similar to White Wolf games I've played, would need to be answered by players at the end of a session or adventure to gain Character Points. I've got guidelines for spending CP to improve skills and Powers, and spending them to gain additional techniques and learning new Powers. And, of course, they can also be spent from time to time to improve rolls. And a few high level techniques rely on spending some CP as a balance measure to prevent their abuse. 

I've got weapon lists, but I'm still playing around with them. I need to decide how certain weapon properties will interact with the combat system, especially around making special maneuvers like flips, blocks, holds, disarms, reversals, etc. I've got a basic Combat Resolution guide draft complete, but I need to add more detail, and especially go into those special maneuvers (and their difficulty numbers). 

The Education ability has a skill called Stratagems which in addition to covering battlefield strategy and tactics, allows for special maneuvers like those mentioned above. The difficulties for using a regular combat skill (like Sword Combat) to say disarm an opponent will be higher than for using the Stratagems skill. But certain weapons, like a hook sword, may allow you to attempt disarms at the Stratagems difficulty level. But then that all has to play well with the basic difficulties to hit with certain classes of weapon and with unarmed martial arts. So I've got a lot of number crunching and experimentation in the future, once I get the draft sorted out and a bunch of sample characters made. 

And there is a lot still to write. I've got to make monsters, magical treasures, update the FS 1E campaign world (or make a generic guide for "fantasy China" or maybe both), and write up the guidelines for creating adventures, interesting NPCs and locations, and challenges. 

And once all that's done (or more likely done piecemeal while working on all of the above), I should start working on a guideline for Wuxia. Probably not as extensive as those in Brendan Davis's Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate or Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades (which are both quite impressive!) but useful to players who might approach this game expecting D&D style hack and slash gaming, only to find a game made for martial arts soap operas.

Treasures, Serpents, & Ruins Game Master Guidebook

I've gone back to work on the GM Guidebook for my house rules of D&D. I figure I'll go ahead and keep what I've got written so far, which is mostly how I run things explained in a way that hopefully inexperienced GMs will find useful. After I'm done writing this, I'll condense just the rules bits into a shorter booklet as a reference for more experienced GMs to use at the table. 

The past few nights, I've been reading over what I wrote before, and I added a "secrets of running a great game" section for those new to RPGs, or new to old school style play. I've decided rather than try to cater to all tastes, I'm just going to write this thing to show the way I run my game. I'm not trying to tell a story with my campaign. I'm not trying to lead the party through a series of staged and micromanaged encounters for an evening's entertainment. I'm trying to present a world to them that is full of challenges and problems, and allow them to seek out what they will. That's my authorial voice. That's the way the rules tell you to play. Feel free to disagree, but I'm not going to waste time telling people how to run D&D as a narrative game or a balanced challenge game. There are other games for that. The teacher side of me wants to do that, but I'm resisting the urge.

That said, I am realizing there are quite a few things in Classic D&D that I don't really use (like the Caller or the Declaration phase of the combat round) so I'm ditching any references to those. I'll go back and edit my player (and monster/treasure) books later to match. There are a few mistakes here and there in those booklets that need to be corrected, as well. 

It's not a revolutionary game. I don't intend it to be. But it will be nice to share it with the world. 

Don't expect it to be done any time soon. I've still got a lot of things left to write, like all the rules for crafting dungeons/wilderness/settings and those for high level campaigns (domain formation and management, planar adventures, artifacts, etc.). I will probably include a few rules variants that I've toyed with or at least considered (XP for magic items found, alternate character creation methods, etc.) near the end.

But I've got some steam built up for writing this thing, and I'm going to try and capitalize on it. Some day, this may actually be a complete game system that others can use.

Rewards of Social Encounters: A TS&R GMG Excerpt

 I finally finished my chapter of the TS&R Game Master Guidebook dealing with social exploration (whether in towns/cities, or in dungeons). This is the final bit, on giving rewards for this sort of play. I used to think (maybe I still do?) that the in-game rewards were adequate for this, but since XP drives the type of play that players engage in, it helps to have some guidelines for awarding XP for talking through the monster encounters. 

I say 'maybe' above because I do award full monster XP for creatures encountered that the players engage with but pacify, scare off, or talk their way out of an encounter with where no combat dice get rolled. In the past, I only gave XP for creatures defeated in combat. I'm still not giving the goal-oriented awards to my group, but I may give it a try. Anyway, here's the excerpt. If anyone has feedback or suggestions for improvement, I'm all ears! 

Rewards of Social Exploration: Traditionally, the rewards of social exploration are in-character rewards such as new information about the setting, alliances with NPCs or monsters, or avoiding hazards (such as combat). Experience points were not considered necessary, as the rewards listed above are intangible but significant, at least in long term campaign play. However, the GM can easily award XP for social encounters in which the PCs achieve their goals if they wish to encourage more of this sort of play.

For encounters with monsters or NPCs that could easily have become combat encounters, the GM may award the monsters’ XP value for successfully talking, bargaining, or deceiving their way out of the encounter. In order to avoid abuse, it is suggested that the reward only be applied once per adventure for each group of opponents “defeated” in this way. Continuing to deceive, intimidate, or negotiate with the same monsters or NPCs over and over again in short order does not provide much experience.

For encounters where the PCs gained useful information, made new friends, fulfilled duties, got a feel for a new city, or similar types of social exploration, the GM may wish to provide individual bonuses of 100xp multiplied by the level of each PC for that game play. This bonus XP should be rewarded for the entire session’s play, not for each individual encounter. If the PCs somehow made a profit or managed to gain some treasure from their social exploration, they should earn 1 XP per 1gp of value, as with loot from dungeons.

Not Mother-May-I: How to use rulings in RPGs

This post is related to several recent posts by Alexis over at Tao of D&D. Like him or not, he's a smart guy and I think he's been posting some quality content recently (not ONLY recently, but I've really liked his stuff of late). 

In old school D&D circles (including but not limited to the OSR), you often hear one of the things that sets old school play apart from new school play is the fact that the old school game doesn't try to anticipate every eventuality, which requires DMs to improvise and make rulings. New school games try to be comprehensive in their coverage, often by providing a universal mechanic for actions. To be fair, though, there are quite a few older games that have universal mechanics. I've been playing WEG d6 Star Wars, definitely an old school game, and it has a universal die pool mechanic. But even then, reading through the 1st edition reprint I bought a while back, there are a LOT of holes in the rules that aren't covered. The referee has leeway to make calls. 

Anyway, that argument about what is old school or new school is beside the point. We're here to talk about rulings in the game, not what makes something old school or new school (today at least). 

Why the emphasis on rulings in old school play? Well, as far as I can figure it, it comes from Matt Finch's Old School Primer. It's the title of the first of his four Zen moments. He may have gotten the phrase from somewhere else, but it's likely the Primer that made it famous. 

In the Primer, the section talks about how description should trump die rolls and common sense should trump dedicated game mechanics. I don't have a problem with that. It's advice I would generally follow, except for the fact that where the rules stipulate die rolls for game purposes, that should trump "common sense." What do I mean by that? Well, there are examples in the Primer of things like having players ask questions, get detailed descriptions, and use those descriptions to disarm traps or find secret doors or things like that. I think that's great. But if we're playing old school D&D, we DO have definite mechanics defined by the rules for these things. If players can, through smart use of description and questions/answers about the state of the game world, discover a secret door or trap or hidden treasure, or can sweet talk the guard to let them talk to the prisoner or get into the Duke's Ball without an invitation, that's fine. But if their description falls short, we have the die roll prescribed by the rules to see if they stumble upon the right answer despite the players' descriptions falling short. 

I don't think that's a controversial position, but I have seen many times people on blogs, on Google+ back when that was a thing, on message boards (which I rarely frequent these past 10 years or so), or other online places talking about "rulings not rules" in a different way. These people seem to think that rulings should trump the rules. There's "the rule of cool" and the various improv theater derived "say yes" rules: "say yes, and", "say yes, but" or "say yes or roll the dice" that all seem to be coming from a desire to improve the game, but in my opinion, may ruin it. 

The rule of cool says that if players want to do something cool and awesome like in a movie or video game, let them. The various say yes rules tell the referee to never deny players anything, unless the dice determine it so. You can't deny them, only give limitations through "and" or "but" statements.

Newer versions of D&D (since 3E) try to cover as many situations as possible, in as much detail as possible. And players of those games have been, in my experience, the ones decrying a game based on rulings not rules as mother-may-I. I think they're not quite accurate in their claims, but they do have a valid point. If there's a rule in the book that covers something, why is there a need for an arbitrary ruling?

Honestly, there have been some times in a game where players have such an interesting (or funny, or ridiculous) plan that I just go ahead and say sure, you can do that (rule of cool). But not every time. Maybe I'm inconsistent. Maybe that is me playing mother-may-I with them. I'm trying to be better. More consistent.

Here are how I think rulings should be used during a game, and how "rulings not rules" should really be interpreted to avoid mother-may-I situations.

First of all, the DM needs to know the rules well enough. They don't need to have everything memorized (although that's the ideal), but they need to know the basics and be familiar with the less often used rules. Once that condition is satisfied, there are four situations that may come up which require a ruling:

1. When a situation arises in game in which clever play by the players would circumvent the need for a roll, then the DM can make a call that that action succeeds without a roll. That's the first kind of ruling, and the thing Finch was talking about in the Primer. 

2. When a situation arises in game and the DM has forgotten the rule, and they know it will take time to look up the actual rule, then they should make a ruling in that instance to keep the game moving. If the rule is something they can easily find in the rules (a spell description for example) then they should NOT make a ruling, they should look up the proper rule. It only takes a short time and shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game. After the game, the DM should look up the rule and get to know it better.

3. When a situation arises in game that is definitely not covered by the game's rules, the DM in this instance must make a ruling. In this case, it is a good idea to record the ruling, and pending consideration by the DM, and possibly consultation with the players, it should then become the new rule for that situation in the future.

4. When there is a dispute among players (including the DM) about the interpretation or implementation of a rule in the game, then the DM needs to make a ruling as to how it will be interpreted in their game. Again, the DM may wish to consult with the players for their opinions, but as with any ruling, the DM gets the final say. Again, this should be recorded and kept for reference in the future. 

In any other situation, the onus is on the DM to know the rules and implement them fairly. Arbitrary judgments that aren't recorded to set precedents for future games are exactly the sort of thing those players were afraid of when they said "rulings not rules" is just mother-may-I.

Role Playing, Metagaming, and Differing Opinions

Interesting video on metagaming. I recommend that you skip the first 45 seconds of cheesy acting and just get to the topic.

First up, Luke gives his definition of role playing. It seems to me that he puts a lot of emphasis on the amateur thespian aspect of role playing. That's fine. Good to know where he's coming from. I tend to disagree. That is one way of role playing. But besides getting into the head of a fictional personage, role playing can also simply be acting out the assigned functional role within the adventuring party (by race/class chosen). He mentions the stereotypes (barbarians smash, rogues stab...shouldn't this be sneak?, wizards cast fireball), but to me his tone seems a bit dismissive of this functional level of role playing.

Anyway, then we get his definition of metagaming. Using any knowledge the player has instead of knowledge that the character has available.

I have no quibbles with this definition. However, it makes metagaming impossible to avoid. Unless the DM and players have sat down and discussed for hours in minute detail every experience the character has had, every story they've ever heard, etc. how can we really know what the character knows aside from the limited information given by the DM when setting scenes?

Yes, there are ways to roll the dice to see what a character knows. But is the player or the DM tracking the results of each of these rolls? Some may. Most don't, in my experience. So it will be inevitable that a player will need to use some knowledge that they possess that their character doesn't from time to time.

Around the 3:19 mark, he starts talking about Perception checks to find a secret door. If the player rolls it, and rolls low, the player knows there could still be a secret door there. Asking another character to check is a form of metagaming, because if you had rolled high and failed, you'd be confident that you don't need another PC to check as well. [Relevant to the yet unfinished discussion on secret or open die rolls.]

At 6:40, he begins his discussion of whether metagaming is good or bad. First he gives the extreme views: any metagaming at all completely ruins the game, or meh, metagame away.

After saying metagaming everything is fine if the DM/group is good with that, it violates the concept of role playing. Here, I'll disagree. From what I've read, Gygax and Arneson didn't really care one way or the other how "in character" the players were in their original Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns. And clever thinking by the player was something to be rewarded. I could be interpreting what I read wrong, but the amateur thespianism that Luke seems to believe is the heart and soul of role playing was not part of the hobby in the beginning. So when he claims that metagaming is not the way the game was intended to be played, I think he's off. A certain level of metagaming is expected.

Now, Luke goes on to say that he does think some metagaming is acceptable (around the 8:45 mark). And funnily enough, I think he's got it backwards here, too. He says that players knowing that encounters are balanced for them is a good thing, because otherwise they'll run in fear of unknowns. My West Marches group has been a lot more cautious since they met a wight that killed one PC and drained another before they took it down. And in my opinion, this has enhanced the game for them. They need to approach encounters carefully, see what they can learn, and flee if necessary. And they're not completely afraid of everything. Recently, groups have charged in to an intellect devourer lair in one session, and stuck around to defeat an aboleth after they learned it wasn't just a trio of nixies in the river. It hasn't made them afraid, it's made them cautious, which is a good thing.

At 9:25 we get his next acceptable form of metagaming, which is letting PCs adventure together when they probably shouldn't. Like the paladin and assassin in the same group. Now, AD&D didn't allow this to happen. By the book, the paladin would refuse to join the group unless the assassin was left behind. Modern games ease up on the restrictions, meaning this form of metagaming is only necessary in these editions. I'll actually agree with Luke on this point, though. I never did like the overly restrictive AD&D alignment interaction rules. If an assassin's talents are useful, and a paladin's talents are useful, why not have them team up? Their interactions about how to approach the adventure will hopefully liven things up rather than be a drag.

Next point -- why not form a large party? Why not hire hirelings and retainers to help increase the party size? And all I think is, that's smart play, and not at all metagaming. The fact that there is strength in numbers is something any character in any sort of world should realize. And in old school play, it's just what's expected.

From around the 10:50 point, he gives his solution to the metagaming problem. First, pick your battles. Solid advice. Even if we disagree about what is good metagaming and what is bad metagaming, knowing when to stop it and when to let it slide is good advice. Because, as I said above, it's nearly impossible to avoid metagaming by the strictest definition because it's impossible for us to know everything that our character knows.

We also agree that we need to remember that this is a game. And while he thinks "having fun" is paramount, I think a big part of the fun of D&D is figuring out a challenge presented in an encounter. And often that involves a clever idea which is a form of metagaming. This could be assessing a tactical situation in combat, or finding a non-standard use of a spell or magic item, or whatever. It's highly likely that the player is considering the situation as a whole in these instances, not through the lens of their character's in-game knowledge and intelligence.


Finally, I like his proposed solution to the metagaming problem. No matter where you fall on the "metagaming is bad" spectrum, having a conversation with the players and letting them try to justify the metagaming is a good idea. And since it's just a game, letting the player have the final decision about whether to metagame or not is probably a good thing, too.

Gaming the System and New Editions

I read this article today. It starts out with a dude gaming the system in Jeopardy, and moves on to the general implications of gaming systems. It was nothing really new, but interesting nonetheless. Especially how it matches up with D&D in particular but RPGs in general, and the desire to push out new editions every few years to "clean up the system" (and make more money).

Spells in D&D are a prime example of this, as they're one of the easiest ways for players to think up creative uses to solve problems laterally. OD&D spells were so vaguely defined that DMs and players had a lot of latitude. And players would discover that certain spells allowed "exploits" in encounters. Some exploits later became codified in the rules. Casting light or darkness at a creature's eyes blinds them being explicitly allowed in BECMI, is an example of this in practice.

Others were seen as a problem and got nerfed. Haste originally only sped up movement rates (apparently) but then in later editions also gave more attacks. But since this was seen as too powerful, in AD&D it caused a penalty every time it was cast (aging the recipients). Although later, in 3E, the penalty was removed. In 5E, a weaker penalty (exhaustion) was put into it.

Sleep is another example. In OD&D/Classic, it affects a certain number of hit dice of creatures, no saving throw. In AD&D, if affects a variable number of creatures by their hit dice (on average less than in OD&D/Classic), but still no saving throw. 3E returns it to a set roll for hit dice affected, but lowers the roll (from 2d8 to 2d4) AND it gives them a saving throw when they're first affected. In 5E, the spell affects a certain number of hit points of creatures (and with the inflation of hit points in this edition, this severely reduces the number of creatures affected), and gives them a saving throw each round! Sleep is the go-to spell in Classic D&D. It's the "get out of this encounter free" spell. In 5E, they made the spell so weak it's not even worth considering. Might as well just crank out another damage dealing cantrip...

I digress with this discussion of spells, though. They make a good example of how the people in charge of shaping each edition try to use it to eliminate the "loopholes" and "exploits" that, like the linked article above talks about, are technically allowed by the rules, but seem to be "unfair" to players when they see them used.

But players trying to exploit the system, in some senses, is actually a form of good play. Sure, the CoDzilla and Pun-Pun of 3E were examples of bad exploitation. I'm sure 5E has its own (although they explicitly took steps to try and limit this). Not all exploits are created equal, though. I think what determines the perception of the exploit is heavily dependent on what's seen as the goal of play.

If exploration is viewed as the main purpose of the game, and treasure acquired is the measure of success (old school style), then any exploit that is used to avoid a risky combat (a sleep spell, grabbing treasure then teleporting away, a save-or-die spell that takes out the dragon in one round) is a good thing! It's only when combat is prioritized, and "fair" combat is considered to be the hit point slog-fest (like 5E does) that these exploits are seen as unfair.

One last point: companies putting out new editions of their games every however many years is also a sort of exploit. They claim to be fixing the system to remove these loopholes and end the unfair exploits. But there are always loopholes and unfair exploits. They type just changes. The companies are exploiting our desires for "shiny and new" and our fears of being left out of the group to keep their profits rolling in. Not blaming them. They need to keep making money if they want to stay in business. Just something we should keep reminding ourselves of when the splatbooks hit the fan.

The Secret Roll

I know there are a lot of bloggers and blog readers who favor rolling all the dice in the open. The original West Marches campaign, which I'm not faithful to 100%, also was for open rolls by the DM.

Now, I've come to believe that in combat, yes, the rolls should be open. Fair combat rolls, observed by everyone, lead to fewer complaints when things go pear-shaped.

But sometimes, rolling in secret as a DM for non-combat tasks is a good thing.

Searching for secret doors is a trade-off. There's not guaranteed to be a secret door where you're searching. And even if there is, you're not guaranteed to find it due to the roll. And each search takes a Turn, so the more searching done, the more chances of wandering monster encounters that suck up resources. In this case, if the roll is in the open and a result proves that there is no secret door (1-2 on a d6 for an Elf, 1 on d6 for anyone else, with no door found), the party knows to stop expending resources. But if the result is a mystery, they don't know if there is no door, or if the dice just weren't on their side (and chances are they weren't).

And now, they have to make a choice. Risk a wandering monster check to roll again? Or move on and potentially miss some treasure or a shortcut through the dungeon.

Now, I can understand the rationalization in the above situation that a successful roll where there is no door means the party gets definitive evidence that there is no door. So rolling in the open isn't so bad for that. But the suspense and measuring of odds of keeping that roll secret is more interesting to me.

Similarly, Thief skills are rolls that I, having learned from Mentzer's rules where he advises such, think the DM should roll in secret. Again, it adds to the suspense at the game table. And it's a situation where, as DM, if you were going to fudge the roll anyway, you might as well just tell the player straight up that conditions are such that they succeed automatically.

I mean, no one complains when a DM tells the Thief player, "Sorry, there just aren't any shadows to hide in here." Or if a door is barred rather than locked, so it can't be picked (although a clever Thief can work around a barred door too...). If the situation is such that failure is guaranteed, I don't see many players complaining. So if success is guaranteed, the DM should just tell the player that without bothering to make a roll. 

Just like players, the DM shouldn't have to roll unless the outcome is uncertain. And while certain rolls like monsters' attacks, damage, and saving throws most definitely should be rolled in the open, occasionally there are still times when it is better for the game experience for the DM to keep the roll secret from the players.

IMO, YMMV, all that jazz.

Black Hack Musings

Jeremy has been pushing for a series of one-shot games using variations of The Black Hack recently. He's been using the Rad Hack, a post-apoc version of the system, for a game recently and it's been a lot of fun. It is definitely a simple system. And that may actually be my problem with it. It may be TOO simple.

Now, this post is not meant as an attack on Jeremy, or on the Black Hack family of games, or David Black. It's just, like, my opinion, man. So abide.

That said, there are a few things about TBH that just don't sit well with me. I'm going to enumerate them here, and discuss a bit about why I'm not fond of these mechanics/systems. And once more, for the people who didn't read the above - I'm enjoying Rad Hack, and I don't think it's a bad game at all. It's just not my cup of tea.

So there are a few things that bug me. Two that I've already blogged about are armor and active defense rolls (also armor in this post).

The armor rules require a fair amount of bookkeeping and/or really break immersion for me. The Rad Hack's BTB rules just are weird. In any battle, your armor absorbs X amount of damage then stops working. But ten minutes later, in the next battle, it can again absorb X amount of damage (then stops working). Jeremy has switched to a system of straight damage reduction (but not the usage die suggestion I made in my post liked above).
 ________________________________
Again, I already posted that I'm not a huge fan of "active defense."* Supposedly it keeps players paying attention and allows them to take their fate in their own hands. Statistically, it doesn't matter if the DM needs to roll d20+mods against my AC, or I need to roll d20+mods against my AC to see if I'm hit. Making the players roll the monsters' attacks and the monster's saving throws for the DM I guess takes some pressure off the DM. But the DM still needs to be monitoring those rolls.

*Active defense has two meanings. One, the defense value is rolled each round, or each attack, against the attack roll. Very swingy. Not a fan of that, either. In TBH and hence in this post, the defense value is static (aside from occasional modifiers) but the player rolls avoidance rather than the monsters rolling to hit.

As a DM, I really shouldn't trust every player to be making their own rolls like that. I've played with enough players through the years who always seemed to make those crunch time rolls, and get plenty of natural 20s (although sometimes the dice are just like that, it's happened to me a time or two and maybe some of my fellow players suspected me of cheating too). As DM, if I roll, I know it's fair.

And as a player, it takes away some of the suspense. I don't know why it does. Until I roll in Rad Hack, I don't know if the monster hit me or not. But once I roll, I pretty much know right away. In traditional D&D (or other games) I'm in suspense until the DM announces the result. The time delay between the DM rolling and the DM announcing the result is exciting! Making the monsters' attack rolls for them just seems like more work for me. Again, this is just my personal
________________________________
Milestone leveling is another problem I have with the system. I've posted before about how I think the experience system is one of the most important parts of the game. Maybe THE most important part. Because it informs play. If activities A, B, and C gain you XP, then "good play" tries to maximize A, B, and C. Milestone leveling just says the game master will reward you with levels when they feel it's time.

And yes, a DM can set out a comprehensive set of criteria that result in gaining a level. And then players can try to manage their game play to meet those criteria as often as possible. Jeremy has been using sessions of play as the milestones, rather than basing it off of subjective criteria related to the in-game fiction. And the result? Dean and I are clamoring for him to run Rad Hack more often instead of all these one-shot experiments. Because the more sessions we clock, the faster we level in this game.

OD&D~AD&D gives you XP for monsters defeated but mostly for treasure. Optimal game play is about finding treasure. 2E BTB had a bunch of weird requirements for each class that meant unless everyone was playing the same type of class, there was no "optimal" game play. But I never played with someone who ran 2E experience by the book. Everyone just used the O/AD&D treasure/monsters system. Maybe spellcasters got some bonus XP for casting spells or thieves for picking locks, but mostly it was just fight the monsters and get the treasure. 3E and 4E focused on combat as the way to get XP. And it led to combat heavy games. TBH milestone system leads to...it's fuzzy.

__________________________________
OK, one last one. TBH uses the classic 6 ability scores (although the mecha hack game Jeremy sent uses only 4). And every roll is based on rolling a d20 under one ability score or another. It combines a universal mechanic (which IMO is not always the best way to model probabilities for various actions) with stat dependency.

It can be hard to play a non-combat character in many RPGs. But TBH (or at least the way Rad Hack is run by Jeremy -- again, not an attack, just explaining how I get my experience to base this off of) seems to actively punish you for having a character not optimized for combat. Again, part of this is the active defense system. If I have a low strength Cleric in D&D (and I did play one once), I'm not likely to hit often in combat. Fine. But with plate armor and shield, I'm well able to avoid the monster hits as well. But in Rad Hack, if I have low Strength (or low Dex in ranged combat), it makes my attacks less effective and the monster attacks MORE effective. And the armor only holds up so long.

__________________________________
So, there are my reasons why I don't think TBH is the game for me. It's still fun to play Jeremy's Rad Hack game. I'm invested in my character, Cybersys 842. And it's mainly this investment in the character, not any investment in the rules system, that makes me want to keep playing it.

In my first impression of Rad Hack (and TBH in general), the post linked above for active defense rolls, I said at the end I might try to make my own TBH variant. Now, though, I'm pretty sure I never will. The system, much like 5E, is fine for what it is, but it's just not what I want out of my games. I'm happy to play it, but won't likely DM it.

Silly Rules -- Recovering Ammunition

I'm rolling up a new character for a 5E game I'm in, and I noticed that on the entry for sling bullets, there is the rule that spending a minute after a battle allows you to recover half of your spent ammunition. Boy, that's a ridiculous rule.

First of all, owning a bow and arrows, I can tell you that in a wilderness situation, even if your arrow doesn't go that far, it's pretty easy to lose it. I imagine sling stones would be even harder to locate, considering they don't have brightly colored fletching to make them stand out. Or maybe you use day-glo colored sling bullets for that reason. I have literally spent an hour trying to track down arrows after a round of shooting before I finally found them all. Usually the arrows were still in good condition, but they sure weren't easy to find.

Indoors, sure, it will be easier to locate the ammo. But still, impact with your target or with a wall is very likely to damage your ammunition. Arrows break or at least crack from hard impacts. Sling bullets will be warped by the force of the impact.

There was a video on YouTube that I watched a few weeks ago from Tod's Workshop -- some of you may know this channel, as he makes and discusses medieval arms and armor. They were testing fairly authentic Medieval arrows versus an authentic steel breastplate. None of the arrows pierced the armor, and the ones they could locate after the test were ruined. I saw another video from Tod's Workshop yesterday where he was testing the force of a sling stone and comparing it to a 9mm round. I don't think he even tried to recover the bullets. A third video I saw last week was of a guy shooting a steel plate from a tactical vest with shotgun slugs. Some of the slugs managed to put dents in the plate, but none pierced it. And he did recover a few slugs and showed how deformed they were from the impact. I assume a lead sling bullet would have a similar reaction to hitting a breastplate or even chain armor.

No, the idea of spending a "minute" to recover three or four arrows is ridiculous. Either the time it takes to locate the ammunition is way too short, or the amount of usable ammunition that can be recovered is unrealistic.

And ammunition is cheap anyway! If you're worried that you will run out, buy more before you head out adventuring.