The Dice Man Cometh

Gamers love dice. I'm a gamer so, ergo, I should also love dice. And I do...kinda.

Not gonna lie, these are beautiful.

Rant incoming...

Recently, I've been on the look out for a Fantasy RPG and a lot of new Anime/Manga/JRPG inspied ones have been promoted via Kickstarter, Backerlit, and Gamefound. Last Arc: Tactics Analogue, Legends of Akeroth, and Twilight Sword spring immediately to mind. Unfortunately, nearly all of these games share one element in common that really turns me off. I've been disappointed when I look past the pretty pictures and nifty settings and into the mechanics; a lot of them use multiple die types. 

I have grown to dislike games that use all the different polyhedrons. I prefer it when a game uses just D6s, or just D10s, or even just D20s (though that tends to be my least favorite die - too swingy). Pools of the same die are fine by me (preferred in fact) but using six or more different types just feels unnecessary and inelegant.

I know this isn't the case but I equate using all the dice with the clunky, limiting, inefficient games of yore. Given the many and varied ways I've seen the idea of 'only D6s' used to create systems from the complexity of Champions to the simplicity of Smurfs, my gut reaction to those developing a game with six different shaped dice is, 'Why? It isn't needed. There are easier [and better] ways to go about this.'

It's not just Fantasy games either but I did starting thinking about this more and more as I went on a quest to find a game that I really want to go on a quest with. The upcoming Superhero RPG from Free League, 'Invincible', based on the Image comic book and animated streaming series of the same name, uses only 6-sided dice but the recently announced Justice League Unlimited RPG uses all of the [basic] types. This instantly put a little frown on my face. I really like Invincible but I don't want to like more than I do my beloved DC Comics and from a cursory glance at both...that is exactly my feeling!

Frustrated by the dynamics of this situation I did the unthinkable, though more as an experiment than anything else, and put a host of very specific criteria into an AI language program, asking essentially, 'Can you make a Fantasy Tabletop Roleplaying Game with no Classes or Levels, Rules-Lite but suitable for Long Term Campaign play, that utilizes only 6-Sided Dice in its mechanics?' I expected to get junk but thought it might inspire me to create my own from scratch once I saw how bad the result was.

To my utter shock and dismay, the AI created a damn good, playable game. It was almost perfectly what I wanted. I did have to make a tweak here and a modification there but overall I was very impressed. I thought, 'so an AI can make a really cool D6s only Fantasy RPG but no creative person in the gaming industry can?' I know I'm being hyperbolic and I don't mean that literally but...well...its not a completely unfounded assessment either.

Most of the D6 only games lean towards Science Fiction or Superheroes: ALIEN, Champions, Star Wars, Tales from the Loop, Traveller, and the various incarnations and variations of Ghostbusters from the original to InSpectres to my kitbashed hybrid. While I am sure there are Fantasy TRPGs that use D6s, few seem to hold the kind of charm for me that any of the aforementioned games (except the Smurfs that is). 

My favorite Medieval Fantasy experiences have come from Ars Magica, traditionally using only D10s. I think Modiphius's 2D20 System might make for a good Fantasy game but I have yet to test that theory. 

Anyway, those are just some thoughts that have been on my mind recently so I thought I'd shout them into the void. If you stayed to actually read through this you are a true Barking Alien fan and/or should probably seek professional help. 

Talk again soon,

AD

Barking Alien

31 Questions For Barking Alien - Phase II - Question 12

This question comes from a recent conversation with my friend Stephen about TRPGs with simple, binary 'Pass/Fail' systems versus those that allow for 'Yes and...', 'No but...', and/or other possible outcomes. It wasn't so much a question he asked as much as one we both asked each other.

You might remember Stephen as the Storyteller, or Storyteller Smurf, of our 'The Smurfs and The Palace of The Silver Princess' mini-campaign/adventure, as well as the one-shot 'The Smurfs and The Bluebird of Happiness'.

Question #12 amounts to...

How do you feel about the increasing use of 'Failing Forward' or 'Success at a Cost' mechanics?

I've never liked the Pass/Fail die mechanic. Sure, there was a time when that's all there was but one of the earliest houserules I can recall making was related to the idea of degrees of success and failure.

It was in 1982 or 83 when I started adding a little more to the results of the percentile Skill Rolls of FASA's Star Trek RPG. If a PC had a 54% chance of determining what that strange signal was that the ship just detected and she rolled a 57, I would her a little something.
57 is damn close to 54 considering the 1-100 range of possible outcomes. As such, I [as GM] would say she failed to figure out what the signal was all about but it's seems to be coming from the fourth planet in the Star system. 

If you needed a 54 and got a 94, I would say you not only know it's short and repeating like an SOS but the signal seems to be getting weaker! If an 01 is a Critical Success and a 100 is a Critical Failure, then an 02 or a 99 has gotta mean something! Right?
Another thing I did in some games with traditional binary results was give the rolls a little garnish depending on how the player approached the situation. If the Fighter says, "I swing my sword", and misses on the To-Hit Roll, then all that happens is he misses.
On the other hand, If he describes the twist he does to strike his enemy and misses, well, I might have the NPC unnerved (-1 to its next attack on the PC) or the PC landed in an advantageous position at least.

I still do stuff like this from time to time, happy to embellish the PC's action if the Player put in the effort to make an entertaining moment. I will also add a +1 (or the equivalent) to a PC's chance of Success if the action as described by the player was particularly well thought out or clever. Perhaps throw in a +1 to damage if they figured out an effective way to trap their opponent or gain some other tactical advantage. 

Sorry, I'm getting a bit off topic. The point of all this is I want the players' ideas to have impact on the rolls they make. I want to see creativity and variation what happens as a result of that choice. Sometimes a roll is just a roll but I think its awesome to have the possibility of 'it's a failure but something positive happened' or 'you succeeded but something went wrong'.
I really like the idea of a player saying, "I manage to grab the rope around the crate before the crate falls off the deck of the ship BUT just barely and Great Scott! is this thing heavy! A little help over here?!".

I remember a conversation years ago at GenCon with Bill Smith, then line editor for West End Games' Star Wars D6. He explained the 'Drama Die' or 'Force Die' as we always called it as follows:

You have to jump a chasm. It's Difficulty Number is 15. You need a 15 or better to clear it.

You fail and roll a 1 on the Force Die.

You fall and hit a few outcroppings on the way down.

You fail and the Force Die is nothing special.
You fall.

You fail but get a 6 on the Force Die.
You fall but land on an outcropping not far below. You're hurt but alive.

You succeed with a 1 on the Force Die.
You are barely holding on to the opposite side ledge by the tips of your fingers.

You succeed and the Force Die is nothing special.
You land safely on the other side.

You succeed with a 6 on the Force Die.
You leap high and land solid. You are able to turn quickly and help up your friend hanging by their fingertips.

Succeed with Cost.

Fail with Promise.

Make things interesting. 

AD
Barking Alien

Yeah, I know I went a little ranty here but this is a big thing to me. I really prefer non-binary Action Resolution mechanics.

Going Solo

I've never understood Solo TRPGs and still don't to be honest. I'm also absolutely fascinated by the idea.

I've made several attempts to 'get it' in the past but always end up with the same question, 'Why am I rolling dice if no one is here to see it?'

Now that probably sounds like a 'Why can't I just cheat?' question but it isn't, at least for me. Its a question of whether I need to roll. Of course if I don't I'm not really playing a game am I? I'm just writing fiction. So...why aren't I simply writing fiction?

The entire excercise feels like a paradox with little benefit. Solo RPG gaming is what you do when you aren't fortunate enough to have someone else to play with. It isn't something one wants to do but has to do given your particular circumstances. 

Except that I know that isn't absolutely true. It isn't the only reason. There are a ton of motivations that might lead one to be interested in the concept of gaming Solo.

Maybe you want to try out a new system or scenario before bringing it to the table with your regular group. Perhaps you have an interest in a game that your group isn't into; why shouldn't you get to run and play it anyway? Maybe you do want to write a story of short fiction but want to experiment with prompts and other parameters that will test your ability. What if...now stay with me on this...you just think it could be fun?

I am in a few of those camps. Sometimes I get bored or more accurately 'less inspired' by my regularly scheduled games and I want to try something different while everyone else wants more of what we're already doing. Fairly often I'll come across an RPG, particularly one within my niche sub-hobby of collecting Japanese TRPGs, and I really want to test it out before I feel comfortable with my translation of it. Sometimes I just have a crazy thought I want to explore. 

The bottom line is that I'd like to give this a shot...and can't seem to get started. There are a lot of reasons for this but the main one is not being about to shake the feeling that its kind of a waste of time. Pointless. Why do this instead of trying to set up a session of some with other people or working on one of my other active campaigns, preparing for a future campaign, and/or writing a blog post?

Why? Because...I don't know. I really don't. I just want to. 

Another major hurdle has to do with the nature of how a Solo RPG general works. After a long conversation with my friend Mark - who has quite a bit of experience playing Solo - I realize that my brain may not be wired correctly for this endeavor. 

Generally speaking, when a situation comes up in a Solo game (which is generated by random rolls) and your character reacts (and you randomly roll to determine if you intended reaction is successful), you then roll randomly to determine what happens next, how your opponents reacts, or whatever. 

That's A LOT of random rolling. Waaay too much for me. Being the player in the scenario I kind of get that I'll be rolling a lot but being the GM also it becomes far more random than I am used to. It's not how I Gamemaster normally and the idea of doing it here really isn't enticing.

I don't rely on random die rolls to determine things as much as I guess the average GM does. If it's been established that the alien/monster we've been tracking is cold-blooded and the one of the players thinks of a way to decrease the local temperature, I am going to have the PC roll to see if or how well he pulls off this trick but once pulled off I'm not rolling again to see if the creature is slowed. It's just slowed. That's what happens to a cold-blooded lifeform in a chilly place. It's science, it's been established in the continuity of the game, and the PC effectively pulled it off. Logic and story elements always supercede randomly results in my games. 

So what's the issue? Just do the same thing here, right? Sure but then once again I feel like I'm writing a story and I can just do that without the need for rules. Ugh.

In conclusion, I still want to give Solo gaming an honest go but not just yet. I waiting for something to speak in to me in a way that makes me say, "Yes! This is what I want to go with." Until that happens, I certainly have things that can occupy my time.

AD

Barking Alien

Talk A Blue Streak

Over the past few months I've had the opportunity to run the Smurfs a number of times and I have some thoughts.

In order to understand some of the ideas my friends and I have for [possibly] improving play, allow me to go over some of the game's rule mechanics. The objective here is to provide a point of reference for rules discussions and not to give you all the RPG's particulars. We're just going for a 'working knowledge'. 

Effort, Smurfberries, Smurf Power, and Thorns

The game has a number of different in-game currencies.

First and perhaps foremost is Effort, with one pool of Effort points for each of your stats - Brawn, Heart, Mind, and Quick. By spending a point of Effort, a Smurf PC can reduce the Difficulty Level of an Action Roll related to the connected Stat by -1D6. If you are desperate to lift a large tree branch off your friend and the Storyteller says its Difficulty Level 3, you would normally roll 3D6 and try to get under your Brawn. However, you could spend 1 point of Brawn Effort and reduce the Difficulty to 2D6.

Smurfberries are next - PCs starting out with 1 Smurfberry and gaining one more when they use Smurf Power. They can also be awarded by the Gamemaster for particularly clever moves or great role play. My players have likened them to Bennies from Savage Worlds.

By spending a Smurfberry the player can add a one-time +1 to one of their Stats for the purpose of an Action Roll. An expenditure of three Smurfberries will return a spent point of Effort to its active pool. The Effort point can be restored to ones self or you can restore one to a fellow PC. 

This got us wondering about other possible uses for Smurfberries. We'll get back to this later.

Smurf Power is one of the most awesome and interesting elements of this system but also the one that led me to wonder if the rules regarding it need some kind of modification. 

Smurf Power begins Active at the onset of every session and becomes Inactive once used. It remains Inactive until either the Smurf PC's Player rolls all 6s - even if rolling just a single d6 (Hmm...OK) - or the session ends and the another session starts. As noted, Smurf Power always starts out as Active at the beginning of a session.

When you use your PC's Smurf Power you switch out one of the action's Difficulty Dice for a special Smurf Power Die. The number on the die doesn't matter and I am honestly not sure if you roll it or not. In the custom dice set there is a larger die with white and red Smurf symbols so I am thinking you do roll it. The important thing is that if the total roll succeeds it Critically Succeeds and if it fails it Critically Fails. 

When a player uses their PC's Smurf Power the Gamemaster gets the last of our currencies, Thorns.

Thorns are points that are given to the GM when a player/PC initiates their Smurf Power that has a few different uses. Most notably, your Storyteller can add 1D6 to the Difficulty Level of a situation, obstacle, or opponent. Another, and my favorite by far, is to activate the Advantage of a foe. Like Smurfs, enemies have a special Advantage but they require a Thorn to be spent to use them (remeber this - it's key). Finally, a Thorn can be spent to remove a piece of Equipment from play, though only if the PC fails or partially succeeds on an Action Roll using that item. The Equipment need not be destroyed permenantly but rather temporarily lost (swept down river, dropped into a ravine, snatched by a raven, etc.). 

Now for some questions, opinions, and potential houserules my friends and I thought up. Here goes...

Smurfberries and Thorns

One Smurfberry gives the PC a +1 to a Stat for the purpose of a single Action Roll. Three Smurfberries can return a point of spent Effort to themselves or to another.

What if you could spend two to give your ally a +1 and/or it costs three to regain an Effort point for yourself but only two to aid someone else? Now, in each case, imagine that when performing these actions you give the GM a Thorn.

Why? Well that partially goes into my issues with Thorns.

The Gamemaster just doesn't get enough of them. The Storyteller only receives a Thorn when a PC uses Smurf Power but what if you're playing with only two or three players/PCs for a four hour game. In that case, as I have experienced now a few times, I rarely get more than one Thorn per session. Considering the fact that Thorns are needed to activate a foe's special Advantage, well, the table doesn't see that happen much. In fact, if there are only two PCs, two Thorns is the most I could possibly have in four hours. 

Smurf Power Alternative

Smurf Power is such a cool idea; the PC gets to decide on a gamble that might earn them a Critical Success or inflict upon them a Critical Failure. I love that. The thing is, you're already expending the ability and giving the GM a Thorn. Why then do you roll it to see if you actually get the effect or not? Based on standard odds, you have a 2 in 6 chance of the Smurf Power Die coming up with a Crit (a 1 or a 6 let's say). 

Instead, my group and I have been using an alternate method:

Once a player expends their Smurf Power (going from Active to Inactive), they roll the total number of Difficulty Dice - no die switched out and no special die included - and if it succeeds it Critically Succeeds and if it fails it Critically Fails. Nice and simple, more direct, and to the point. Basically, once you use your Smurf Power it is in effect for the next roll and that's that. It seems much Smurfier this way. 

So what will I do with the special Smurf Power Crit Die when it arrives? Not sure. I am considering an option where the player can choose to include it in addition to his Difficulty Dice and count a White or Red Smurf Emblem as a Super Smurfy Crit! There's a catch though...the Storyteller gets two Thorns! *Gargamel laugh*

As far as gaining your Smurf Power back...I would say rolling all 6s makes sense but not on a 1D6 roll. For one thing, while there are certainly occasions where the player might roll a single D6 Difficulty, it's rare that I would require one. If your Smurf can reduce the Difficulty down to 1D6 they really shouldn't need to roll. The exception would be if your Smurf is especially bad at the Action in question and has a Stat of only 2 or 3.

Another reason is that there are very few things in the game that are Difficulty Level 1. Again, not none but its really uncommon and it seems odd that you'd regain something as great as Smurf Power just by performing an especially simple and easy task. 

There you have it. The focus is mainly on simplifying things and finding a way to give the GM more Thorns to work with. 

I do have one more Smurf post on my mind but not sure beyond that.

Smurf you soon!

AD

Barking Alien

Our Smurf House, Is A Very, Very, Very Fine Smurf House

The view count on my 'Base' posts has been quite high but interaction (comments) low and I think the idea just isn't resonating  with my audience. 

At the same time I am pondering several game concepts that have Bases as a key element so bare with me just a bit longer. 

While I was having a conversation with other Smurfs RPG enthusiasts over Discord, I wondered how one would create a Smurf House that would either belong to or be used by multiple Smurfs.

According to the rules for Smurf House Building in the game drafts, every Smurf gets their own home and they can customize them using 'Build Points' converted from Character Points (XP) that the PCs receive. Now, what if a group of Smurf PCs wanted to have a clubhouse or similar facility that they lived in or worked in together? Using one possible 'House Rule' (get it?), I came up with Storyteller Smurf's Cottage and the adjoining Adventurers' Club House. 

The idea is that Storyteller Smurf is basically the Gamemaster in a fashion not unlike the AI of a Red Dwarf game. His Cottage is built using the standard rules for NPC Smurf Houses, resulting in the three story high mushroom home you see in the image above. However, you'll notice that attached to it in the background is a single story, much wider mushroom capped edifice. This 'House' is used when Storyteller hosts other Smurfs for things like storytime (Storyteller reading to his fellow little blue folk) or playing 'Adventure Games' (See below).

In my most recent Smurfs session, I opened with the PCs playing a parody of D&D with Storyteller as DM. It is implied that the group comes over to play once a week. Because of this, the PCs can add elements to the Club House, with benefits usable by all (sort of - keep reading), purchased at a reduced cost.

Each item costs 1 Build Point per Smurf who receives a bonus from them -1. The -1 discount comes from it still being Storyteller Smurf's property. The number of improvements to the Club House do not get added to the Safety Rolls of the individual Smurf's involved because it isn't their home. When they make Safety Rolls - dice rolls that transport them safely back home when they're in dire straits - each returns to their own Smurf House. Only additions to your own house effect your Safety Roll.

To illustrate by example: The Smurfs who participate in Storyteller Smurf's Adventure Games - Champion Smurf, Smurfiris, and Spelly Smurf - think the Club House could use an area to store and/or display all their maps. They discuss the subject and decide to call it the Solar or Map Parlour. When needing to go on a journey outside of Smurf Village or Smurfy Grove, any of the PC can reference the Solar and get a +1 to Brains Rolls versus not getting lost. It will be usable by four different Smurfs (Champion, Iris, Spelly, and Storyteller) and would therefore cost 4 Build Points -1 or a final total of 3 BP. Storyteller doesn't have to pay since its his house. The others are using his home.

I really like this idea but it still needs work. What if two or more Smurfs actually do live together? Do the roommates both get all the Safety Roll bonuses? Hmmm. 

AD

Barking Alien

31 Questions for Barking Alien - Question 15

This is Question I5 of 31 and it might be my last for the month of December.

Work, life, and the holidays have gotten in the way, making it difficult to finish, let alone catch up to where I should be by this time.

Fret not! I sure won't. Not this time. 

The whole point of this endeavor you see was to light a fire of inspiration under me and it has done just that. December has the most posts I've put up in one month since back in August. Usually when I do these blog challenges I don't hit my goal and end up feeling bad about it. This has been and is very different. Here the goal was never 'to win'; I never prioritzed completing 31 answers to 31 questions. Rather, the objective was to 'get better engagement with the viewers/readers of the blog by interacting with them more and using said interactions to fuel my desire to post more often'. I feel I've accomplished that.

I've seen more responses and comments these past four weeks then I have in a long while. Again, I've also posted more this month than I have in the past three months combined! I'm mentally cataloging this as a success and it has me itching to prep for next month in advance. 

With all that, here is Question #15 - it comes from my friend Miguel de Rojas, who has my sword, my bow, and my axe but remember, I'm just lending them to you. I need them back. 

For a guy with such love for IPs and a stated interest in medieval Europe's myth, legend, and folklore (not to mention RPGs), The Lord of the Rings is conspicuously absent from your blog. Can you explain your relationship with Tolkien's works?

As Gandalf himself once said, “The wise speak only of what they know.”

I don't really know Middle-Earth. Not the way I feel I would need to in order to run it.

I discovered the Hobbit after first playing D&D and The Lord of the Rings sometime after the Hobbit. It took me a while to get through all three books of Tolkien's trilogy but get through them I did and yeah, I really enjoyed them. Those books started my interest in reading more Fantasy books of the Appendix N variety.

Thing was, there wasn't more Lord of the Rings after Lord of the Rings (at least not that I knew of at the time). At the end of the story, the tale has been told.  After the original Star Trek series there was the Animated Series, comic books, novels, later movies, and further on there'd be much more material across many different forms of media. The same is true of Star Wars, Marvel and DC Comics, and a host of other franchises.

Lord of the Rings impressed me but it was all there was to it. After a while it fell off my radar. It was never my all time favorite thing. It wasn't something that I really wanted or needed more of and that was fine because there really wasn't more to be had.

It was also a story that didn't (and to some extent still doesn't for me) lend itself to continuing. It was a set story with some unique characters and we know (largely) their final fates. There are a specific and very limited number of Mages and we know what happens to them (for the most part). Frodo (and to a lesser degree Bilbo) was rare and truehearted enough to carry the One Ring and again, he accomplished the goal of destroying it and had a happily ever after of sorts.

I mean, the LotR series focuses on 'The One Ring'. There's only one. It's in the name. We know who was part of the one Fellowship that went to rid the world of the One Ring and the events that ultimately did so.

It's what I tend to refer to as a Closed Story or Closed Setting. Star Trek, as an easy example, is an Open Setting. We learn there are other ships, with other crews, doing other things. It's inherent in the make up of the franchise's universe. Lord of the Rings feels more 'closed'; a single, specific group did a single, specific thing with a singular object. The End. Star Trek doesn't have a The End. It keeps on keeping on.

Part of that is because Star Trek is indeed a franchise, an IP, not a story. There isn't one book or trilogy called Star Trek. There will always be Superman comics. Star Wars could theoretically go on forever as well. Lord of the Rings just doesn't have that feel. 

Personally I never loved it enough to learn all the details and complicated history of its world. There are many people, including several of my gaming friends, who know far more about the setting then I. This puts me at a considerable disadvantage as a GM. I wouldn't mind playing in that world for a short while though. 

Lastly, while Middle-Earth might be influenced by European folklore and myth, it isn't Ars Magica. It's its own animal and one that I am less confident about adding my own stuff to, a key necessity when running in an established IP. 

I liked the Peter Jackson movies more than I ever did the books. I also enjoyed the animated film way back when. That's about as far as my love of Tolkien's creation exists for me today.

AD

Barking Alien

31 Questions For Barking Alien - Question 4

Here's one from my pal Andy, who actually sent me a few quite interesting inquiries. You all might know Andrew from his 31 Days/31 Characters entry, The Hyborian. 

Question #4 from Andrew F. Rodriguez

Where does the content provided from an official TTRPG (setting, story, game mechanics) begin and where does it end at the gaming table?

I am going to interpret this question as follows: 'At what point do you start to add to or divert from the official 'canon' and rules-as-written of a game that has its own established setting [and of course mechanics]. 

A funny thing about [tabletop roleplaying] games...I've often said that most are terribly overwritten. In an attempt to cover any and all actions a Player Character might take or situations they might find themelves in, a ton of extra rules and subsystems are added in, often turning a relatively workable system into a bloated mess. 

At the same time - and this is key - TRPGs, regardless of how choked with mechanics a game is, they NEVER cover everything that can and will happen in your campaign. It is literally impossible, since a virtually infinite number of possible actions and reactions is the very nature of roleplaying games. 

To me, the best RPGs have a base mechanic and everything you want to do is essentially figured out the same way. Want to rewire a hostile robot to be your ally? Roll a pool of D6s and beat a Difficulty. Want to convince the Maitre d' you were invited to the fancy shindig? Roll a pool of D6s and beat a Difficulty. Trying to slash a monster with your sword? You get the picture.

Once a default Judgement system is established, all the game needs to do is say, 'If you come up against something and you don't know how to adjudicate it...use the base mechanic in a way that makes sense.' Game Designers of the world, I just saved you a hundred plus pages and a crap ton of money in printing costs. You're welcome.

So, back to the question and how what I'm talking about relates...

Depending on the game, you're either going to get everything that could possibly happen in the setting or a general idea of how to run a game in 'this type of genre'. Some TRPGs are Shadowrun and some are Mechanics for running a Cyberpunk game with Magical Elements. These two things are not the same. Battletech/Mechwarrior is a very different beast from Mekton. 

As a general rule, the 'official game' ends when and where you reach a point where the players or the GM want to do something with the story, setting, or mechanics not covered by the established parameters given by the game. For some games that can take a while since the corebook and supplements have crossed all the t's and dotted at the i's for you. For others, that can kick in right from the start since that's the whole point. The latter type of game is basically telling you, 'Add to this. Modify it. Please! That's what its for.'.

Speaking for myself, I usually prefer that latter kind of game. Unless you're creating a franchise/IP TRPG - I'd have to discuss that subject a bit differently - I'd rather you give me a straight forward, all encompassing rule mechanic, and the base components that make the game an RPG about X. Let me begin making my own stuff right off the bat. 

Incidentally, one of the things that always bothered me about D&D in my early days in the hobby was how the game gave you Classes, Monsters, Spells, etc., but not rules/mechanics for creating those things yourself.

AD

Barking Alien

Thoughts to De-Cypher

My Sunday group recently finished an original 'Mecha vs. Kaiju' campaign using the Cypher System by Monte Cook Games.

It's OK, you don't need to apologize. You had nothing to do with it. No, you didn't do anything wrong. I'm not blaming you, nor anyone really. It was my own decision. I could have said no.

In defense of the GM*, he did a good job with the campaign itself, in spite of the fact that he didn't have a really good source for running this particular genre using the Cypher System. If he'd had a solid sourcebook/rule supplement specifically geared towards helping a GM run a Mecha vs. Kaiju themed game, he would likely have been able to add a spoon full of sugar to help the system go down better. 

I'm kind of joshing but yeah, I don't like the mechanics of Cypher. OK, I basically despise them but that isn't really what this post is about. The point of this entry is something I observed during the game that related to something else I've been thinking about lately. In order to wash away my feelings about Cypher, I want to take a look at why it didn't work for me and why a very different outlook on game design is appealing to me more and more. 

In Cypher, the player rolls a D20 and attempts to beat a number determined by the opponent's or situation's Level (or Tier? PCs have Tiers which are just Levels so...) times 3. So, to hit a Level 3 monster, the PC needs to beat a 9. Yep. You get a number (Level - Difficulty), multiply it by a number (3), in order to get another number (in this case 9). Way easier than saying, 'OK, you need to beat a 9', right? Anyway...

During the actual campaign, it seemed like the overall average difficulty for enemies and tasks was 12 and 15. A PC can spend points from one of three pools (which pool dependent upon the nature of the action) to lower that difficulty. Based on another aspect of your character, it can cost between 1-3 pool points to drop the Difficulty one Level. I would guess each of the three Players/PCs spent points one out of every three actions. Why so often? Because we missed a lot. A LOT! Even after spending the points, we still missed fairly often. So much missing! 

In a game with a binary Success/Fail outcome, missing sucks. Sure, sometimes you miss or fail, that's gaming and life. That said, if I go and miss and then the next player, two villains, and then the last player go before the GM gets back to me and then I $^%&ing miss AGAIN...it's more than frustrating. It isn't fun. It's just sitting around while your character fails to interact with what is transpiring in the game. 

Bare in mind, nothing else is happening. I just miss. There is no cool side effect, no interesting 'you miss but this opportunity opens up...' or anything like that. You just sit and wait your turn until you miss again. You could also hit. It's possible. Throughout this you are likely spending points from the same finite pool that powers your special abilities and in the case of 'Might' serves as your Hit Points as well. 

Anyway, I don't want to dwell on the specifics of Cypher but rather the mindset that went into the design. It doesn't reward failure, regardless of the context of that failure. A good idea followed by a poor roll equals a failure result. Having a good idea doesn't really matter. Sure, the GM can award you a reduced Difficulty if they want but I am not sure if the rules-as-written include that concept. My point is, Cypher appears to be built on much the same mentality as Dungeons & Dragons (not surprising - Monte Cook don't you know); Hit/Miss resolution, little Narrative influences or results, and your PC begins the game incompetent. 

Meanwhile...

I've seen some talk about the upcoming Final Fantasy XIV Tabletop Roleplaying Game from none other than the 'House of Final Fantasy' itself, Square Enix. One of the interesting ideas the game is supposed to feature is the way your 'To Hit' roll works. Based on the way it works in the MMO itself, you always hit. Take a moment, step back, breathe deeply, and release it slowly, now read that over again. You always hit. 

The Starter Set and Core Rulebook

All coming soon...

From the FFXIV Reddit Community:

• Attack rolls are checked against physical or magic defense (AC). Attacks will always hit, but rolling (+ bonus) above defense is a Direct Hit and has additional effects (just more damage?).

• Nat 20s are Critical Hits, which double your damage or healing. There are no critical misses (Nat 1).

What a fascinating approach to the normally 'punitive to the players' combat systems of classic Fantasy TRPGs. I'm not sure I love no Critical Misses as those offer opportunities for cool complications and narrative additions but I get it as those wouldn't appear in the MMORPG. Hmm. Wonder how hard it would be to mod that? Sorry, where was I...

On this same line of thinking there's the Japanese game I recently covered (and merged with Ghostbusters), Tokyo Ghost Research. TGR also has every roll (combat or otherwise) succeed unless the player decrees that they fail. If the roll meets or beats the  Target Number it results in a positive outcome. If its less than the Target Number you get a generally positive outcome plus a negative or problematic outcome to go with it. You either succeed or succeed with 'Trouble'. What's Trouble? Something interesting.

I know I use the word 'interesting' a lot here but really, after 47 years of gaming, games that go: roll, hit, damage, roll, miss, roll, hit, damage are immediately followed by yawning. A lot of RPGs, the majority I think its fair to say, focus on Combat or more accurately have Combat as a key component of the game. If that Combat is flat, untextured, and dry it means you're going to be experiencing that blandness regularly. I just can't take that. I don't have the attention or patience for un-engaging combat scenes that happen often. Ugh. 

The same is true, to a less extent perhaps, to non-combat activities amounting to nothing. Skills rolls for things that should just happen because of the in-setting context that a character is a specialist in the thing they're doing and/or the meta-context that if its just a failure the game comes to a halt. Either just allow the PC to succeed at the endeavor or make the roll have the possibility of an added positive or negative outcome. 

Have actions worth rolling for result in a useful, detrimental, or otherwise memorable outcome. Also, I personally prefer games where the PCs, the protagonists of your story, don't seem like they absolutely suck. They shouldn't always be successful; I want to be clear that's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to convey is the idea that out of five actions, four of them being failures is lame - unless that failure comes with a 'and yet', 'but you notice', or some other narrative element that makes failure as fun, or at least nearly as fun, as success.

AD

Barking Alien

*The GM of our Cypher game, as well as the other players, enjoy the system very much. They have various reasons for this and they're all as valid and legitimate as my criticisms (for whatever that amounts to). The GM finds the system extremely easy to run, the rules requiring the least amount of prep of any game he's played. Understandable that this would be appealing, even more so given the differences in how he preps and executes a game compared to myself [who's generally loosey-goosey with rule mechanics in favor of rule of cool.]

Cypher isn't a bad-wrong, terrible system. It just really isn't for me. 

 

Starfleet Support Services

I finally got the chance to read through Modiphius Entertainment's Star Trek: Lower Decks Campaign Guide for the Star Trek Adventures RPG and I'm very impressed.

Not only does the book capture the art and humor of the animated series, it expands the game overall with several elements that work with any and all eras and settings. For example, this book contains the first full-on alien creature design system. I'm not only amazed it took this long for the game to have such a thing but that it should first appear in the Lower Decks sourcebook is wild.

The book isn't perfect, although none of its minor short comings impact my overall love for this product. There are some editing errors and it doesn't include stats for two alien species that are nonetheless depicted and/or mentioned, specifically the Dooplers and Pandronians. Luckily the latter are given a full write-up in the Star Trek Animated Series Supplemental Guide (which is awesome in and of itself - check it out!). Finally, and this one gets me, each new Species is given sample names except the Exo-Comp. WHAT? You're not going to elaborate on the choice of PEANUT HAMPER? Perfect opportunity for humor casually tossed aside. For shame! 

The more I read, the more ideas I get for a Lower Decks campaign but there are some changes I would make to the 'core game' to add an additional level of emulation to the game and the part of the Star Trek universe it depicts and embraces.

Yeah, yeah, you know me. I can't help it. I just have to customize. 

Optional Lower Decks Character Creation

It bugs me a little that they didn't change or add much to the Character Creation process for Lower Decks characters. To me, there are some considerations that I feel could be a lot of fun if addressed. 

For instance, standard Character Creation involves having two Career Events: things like Conflict with a Hostile Culture, Ship Destroyed, and Transporter Accident. These events give the PC bonuses to an Attribute and a Discipline, as well as providing a prompt for some backstory. Cool right? But...Lower Decks characters haven't had a Career yet, let alone two character building Events. 

I would like to suggest a few alternative options for making a Lower Decks PC in Star Trek Adventures. Here goes nothing...

Environment and Lower Decks Upbringing

Environment and Upbringing seem to be a big deal for the characters in Lower Decks, especially Mariner and Tendi, though Boimler too to a lesser extent (I'd love to meet his parents in an episode). I think this should be evident in Character Creation, perhaps giving the PC something more meaty than Homeworld and Science and Technology. *Yawn*

I'm thinking you can probably keep Environment as is (haven't decided) but Upbringing should carry more weight. Maybe with Lower Decks Upbringing you get only one Attribute bonus, you pick a Discipline as usual, a Talent, a Focus, and then you have Issues.

Issues are drawbacks that can benefit your PC by operating at a cost or with a disadvantage for your PC now in exchange for a bonus later. Something like Rebels Against Authority for Mariner or Embarrassing Heritage for Tendi. Hmm, maybe you get to re-roll a D20 when interacting with your Issue ( say, when Mariner is disobeying an order from the First Officer or Tendi is trying to explain away how she knows where the secret compartments on a Smuggler's ship are located) but any Success also comes with a negative consequence (be it real or perceived). 

Career Events Academy Major and Academy Minor

Academy Major: Character receives a +1 to one particular Discipline and a Focus related to their career objective. Command Officers might take Diplomacy or Starfleet Protocols, Security Officers might take Energy Weapons or Small Unit Tactics, etc. You also get to come up with a story on how, this one time, you aced a test the rest of the class did poorly on or helped a classmate get past a mental block preventing them from grokking a subject. Gain a Contact! In the first example, the Instructor was so impressed she stayed in touch. In the second situation, you and the other Cadet remained friends even though they're stationed on another ship.

Academy Minor: The PC receives a +1 to one particular Attribute and must choose a Focus that will not come up that often. A very niche area of knowledge or a not generally applicable skill is their forte. Maybe they excelled at reasoning out Time Paradoxes in Temporal Mechanics Class. Perhaps they're extremely well-versed in early period Andorian Ice Sculptures.

Alternatively...

Academy Event

A Lower Decks Player Character receives a +1 to any one Attribute and a +1 to any one Discipline as well as two Focuses related to whatever the event was. It could be recommended [by the Narrator] that one of the Focuses be more serious and the other more trivial but it isn't necessary I suppose. I just think it's a fun idea.

On a related side note:

One of the things I loved about the FASA Star Trek RPG that other incarnations have kind of ignored is that it included skills like Gaming, Sports, and Trivia. I think we had a houserule that you could switch one of these for Hobby. Characters had interests and familiarity with things outside of beaming down to planets and scanning spatial anomalies. Lower Decks is all over this, so it seems only fitting to include it in the Character Creation section for a game in this setting. 

Values Goals

A lot of Star Trek Adventures players I know have difficulty understanding the Values feature and the rules around it, myself included. Part of the problem is I've been gaming for so long without needing or using role-playing mechanics (that is, a rules sub-system governing aspects of role play) that it takes me a while to wrap my head around rules that adjudicate my acting. Another issue, one I come across very often, is that they don't know their character's values at Character Creation. Sure they have some ideas but a lot of them develop their PC's outlook and beliefs as they play. Making Values before playing the Character is counter-intuitive to many of my friends, let alone ones that will aid them in a mechanical way.

In our [now 7 year long] Prosperity campaign, we just don't bother with Values at all. Determination is spent when it seems dramatically appropriate to what is going on in session. In other games I've run I let people leave them undefined at Character Creation to be written in later as they get to know their PC. 

For Lower Decks, I'm thinking of replacing Values with Goals. Instead of identifying the attitudes and convictions of a young Starfleet Officer who may not have figured those out for themselves, we go for the more straightforward objectives of a newly minted Ensign. Some possible Goals inspired by the show include:

• Find a Bridge Buddy
• Get noticed by the Captain
• Join a Clique/Club (For example: The Bear Pack, The Redshirts)
• Get a promotion
• Get transferred to a cooler ship

Like Values, you can act counter to your Goal but I recommend doing this near the end of an adventure/arch. If it fits what's going on, talk with your Narrator about making it a 'B Plot' for your character while participating in the latest 'episode'. Perhaps your Goal is to get transferred to a cooler ship in the standard fleet. Finally you're awarded exactly that after you work with your friends to save your current ship, a California Class vessel. Sure you get what you wanted but you turn it down to remain with your Cali-Class starship and crew. In the recently finished adventure you gained a new found appreciation for your ship and your crewmates. You might then swap that Goal out for a different one moving forward. 

I have more thoughts on this, including working out some new Talents, as well as Academy Majors, Minors, and Events to use with the idea above. I'll leave things here for now, as tomorrow starts a whole other focus for the blog.

Hint: It's Spooky.

Don't worry Star Trek fans, we'll talk again soon.

AD

Barking Alien

Generating Interest - Part I

I had a fascinating conversation with my friend Ray last week regarding Player Characters in Fantasy RPGs versus those in other games.

The focus of the discussion followed Ray's observations as to why I - me personally - often find it difficult to create Fantasy PCs and why I don't often find the Fantasy Player Characters I generate all that interesting. This can lead to my becoming bored with the character, wanting to try some other sort of Race/Class combo, or simply losing interest in the game overall. 

Ray's keen insight into why I don't have an investment in Fantasy RPG characters is that they simply aren't particularly intriguing to begin with. They are not, by their nature, especially cool. To paraphrase Ray himself...

'Fantasy RPG characters don't start out interesting. They become interesting.'

 

I can just imagine the reactions to this statement out there in TRPG Internet Land and the images it conjures in my minds give me quite the hearty chuckle.

I should point out we are talking about Fantasy PCs created in the majority of the bigger, more popular Fantasy game systems; the discussion concentrates on RPGs like D&D, Pathfinder, Cypher System, and other Race/Class/Level based games. I could absolutely create a PC I find interesting in Ars Magica. Ars Magica is a very different beast from the games we're talking about here, though some of what makes it different will come into play (no pun intended) later in the post.

Many a modern gamer would disagree with this statement outright, saying the PC is as rich a character as the work you put into it. A truism I'll grant but that work is all you the player, with little coming from the system itself. Remember we are talking beginning PCs starting at 1st level here. I know many like to run and create characters that begin at 3rd Level or even higher but that only proves my point. The bulk of the classic style Fantasy games don't have you start at First Level with the kind of character you'd really like to play. That comes later (this is a key point that will come up further on in the post).

I can see the Grognards and Neckbeard Old-Schoolers (the latter the name of a Dwarf I met once I'm sure of it) saying that's the point! You start with nothing, a nobody, you're not a 'Character' in a story but a game piece, a component for the game that is D&D (or Rolemaster, Tunnels & Trolls, etc.). That's possibly true...and doesn't interest me. I don't want to play a glorified wargame or innovative board game. I want to go on adventures that tells/turns into stories and I want to be part of those stories with a story of my own. 

Now back to Ray's proclamation: It's always kind of bugged me that you begin many Fantasy game with a character who often seems like they never existed before they first stepped foot in 'Ye Ole' Meeting Place' tavern or the Dungeon-of-the-Week. 

"Flakgore the Barbarian turns to see an Elf in the Wizard Robes standing next to him. She wasn't there a moment ago but then again...was he? He has no memories of his life before opening the vaulted doors of the Crypt of Cataclysm. Looking at the other members of his party, there is a vague recollection of meeting them all in a tavern..."

These types of characters rarely feel 'real' to me and as such, I usually concoct a short description of who they are and why they've deciding upon the life of an adventurer. Without that, it all feels immaterial to me. Unimportant and definitely not special. The problem is, in my experience, I can't come up with a description because there isn't much to go on inspiration wise. Fantasy game settings often feel same-y to me and since I'm not a fan of the genre overall, these elements combine to create a blandness that doesn't motivate me to come up with much. 

Then there's the make-up of the characters themselves...We begin with 'Race'. Humans are boring, the other Races sound cool on paper but have few mechanics reflecting the fluff, and there are rarely rules for creating your own Species. This has improved in later editions and various systems. Classes are fairly rigid, start with few abilities, and multi-classing is usually poorly thought out. There is little to give any ideas for character background (later editions of D&D and other systems have added this and its much appreciated), and I just don't know where to go with it since I'm at a handicap with Fantasy to begin with.  

Compare this to some of my favorite games from other genres:

Star Trek (various versions) and Traveller: Rolls and/or choices develop your PCs pre-playing history. Your 'starting' character isn't just starting out in life but moving onto the next big, bold chapter of it - it just happens to be the chapter the GM and other players are interacting with. 

Characters begin the campaign after their 'Pre-Academy' days and 'Tours of Duty'. They may have gained 'Special Assignments', received 'Promotions' and/or 'Commendations'. They've lived interesting fictional lives before they've even entered the first session. This person is, to me, instantly interesting. It inspires ideas and makes me want to answer questions like, 'What was their homeworld like?', 'What was the Special Assignment they were given?', and 'Who gave them their Commendation? Are they still in touch?'.

Star Wars (specifically the West End Games D6 System) is so customizable that you can practically make up a cool character first, then figure out the Template's numbers, skills, Species abilities, etc. Let's say...OK let me try an experiment. I am going to do a Google Image Search for 'Star Wars Alien'. Give me a moment.

OK, the first three were a Hutt, Grogu (Yoda's Species), and Jar Jar Binks, a Gungan. OK, I love redeeming the Gungans so I'll make one of those. What Template? I'll build my own. There is no official Gungan Mercenary but I like the idea of playing one. Another quick search shows a few different Gungan Species write-ups. The Second Edition has a Mercenary Template as well as rules for making Templates so - bing, bang, boom - I can make a Gungan Mercenary, customize some of the skills, take away some gear since I get a few Amphibious abilities as a Gungan and I have a character I like that I designed myself for the most part. His name is, hmm, Junji Terble. Yeah. I could totally play this guy. 

I had 20 minutes and too much coffee so I made an image. 

Champions and Ars Magica take the previous approach and lean in on it hard. Through the purchasing of Attributes, choosing Advantages and Disadvantages, building your various Powers and Abilities exactly the way you want, I can create precisely the character I would find interesting. I can come up with a story for the character and then dig through the systems for rules that reflect that story. If my Superhero character's origin has her trapped in a forest fire before being given her plant powers by Flora - Spirit of All Plants, Daughter of Mother Nature - she might be as mighty as a Redwood but remain afraid of fire. So...hmm...Psychological Limitation. Cool. How about...Pyrophobia and maybe she takes Vulnerability: Extra Damage from Fire. Nice. That gives me more points so I can add more Plant-themed gimmicks to my PC's repertoire. Which gimmicks? How do they work? The ones I want and how I want them. 

One of my oldest Superhero characters, Excelsior - art by Keith Conroy, 1992.

The randomly generated Villains and Vigilantes version was cool. 

The custom built Champions version was AWESOME!

It would seem that the main focus of classic Fantasy RPG Character Creation is more Character 'Generation'. You are, for the most part, along for the ride as you roll dice and make some choices. You are a passenger on a commercial airplane flight. You get to pick your meal from one or two choices, decide what you want to drink, and whether or not you want the peanuts. 

With many of the games I enjoy it's more like being the pilot of a private jet. It's your plane. Go where you want to go, bring the food you want to eat, and if you want the peanuts, hell, knock yourself out. 

As Ray notes (paraphrasing): 

"The Fantasy character traditionally starts off simple. A basic design without much to make them appear unique. As they adventure, as they explore, fight monsters, and perform their skills, they will gather experience points they can spend to get new and more special abilities. Even more so, they will establish friends, enemies, and live through events that will give them a 'life story'.

Eventually, the PC will become much more interesting, both mechanically and narratively, as they've gone through numerous 'character building' moments."

OK, I get that. That certainly makes sense. I'll even go as far as to say it sounds fun to follow this complete rookie, this noob, through their development into a hero of the realm. But...

Spoiled as I may be, what with having cool traits, knacks, and maybe some neat equipment at the very start - all of which I built or decided upon myself - can you see how I'd automatically be more invested, more attached to this kind of character than the one just described? 

At the end of say a dozen sessions, both a classic Fantasy RPG PC and a Space Adventure/Supers RPG PC will have had the same amount of potential in-game character building and development time.

Yet the Space Adventure/Supers character had a head start on the 'being cool' factor right from the get-go. This is key to my forming a relationship with the PC that makes me want to keep playing them.

What can be done...?

AD

Barking Alien