Monday, September 19, 2011

Mini Quests: Phlegmatics

Water-prime characters or phlegmatics interact with the environment. Whereas melancholics are interested in dominating the game world, water-types want to understand and explore.

Roll

Quest Idea

1

Explore a unique terrain feature (steps down, mountain peak, magic pool, etc)

2

Solve a puzzle, riddle, or conspiracy

3

Discover and research a specific monster at least two tiers higher than you

4

Gain access to a forbidden, secret, or hidden area

5

Complete task in accordance with your ruling planet or patron

6

Complete task in accordance with your exalted planet or patron


As such, the water quests are all about exploration. You don't have to defeat a hill giant as a level 2 character; you just have to find out everything interesting there is to know about some big dude named Nosnra who lives back in the woods. Unlike the earth quest to blaze a path and secure a trail/area, the water quest is just to explore or find a new feature. These types of topics should be familiar to D&D players as the core D&D rewards system focuses pretty heavily on these sorts of activities.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Mini Quests: Melancholics

Earthy Melancholic characters should be played by players who like to act on the game world. Your standard "world builder" player who loves strongholds, dominating monsters, and hiring flunkies fits this mold.

The mini-quest table looks like this:

Roll

Quest Idea

1

Be the first to reach or secure a terrain feature (ascend to the peak of Mt. Doom, clear the NE quadrant of level 3 of the dungeon)

2

Defeat a specific monster

3

Blaze a trail between two locations (discover, clear, map, and escort)

4

Accumulate at least 3 coins of the tier higher than yours

5

Complete task in accordance with your ruling planet or patron

6

Complete task in accordance with your exalted planet or patron


The last two items would be related to your faith/god/patron. So if your character works for Poseidon, he might ask you to go do some stuff related to horses or the ocean. Pretty straightforward.

The DM should be expected to fill in the details of the quests. They should be level appropriate but not too easy, either. For example, it would be appropriate to have the second quest be, "Defeat Ragnar the Ogre," for a first or second level fighter. It is something that the character could feasibly do on their own, but it will be a lot easier if they can get some teamwork to help them out.

Notice that the quests all involve acting on the environment or dominating it in some way. The player is taming the wilderness, overcoming NPCs, or hoarding resources. If a player enjoys those tasks, then the system will reward them for doing them.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Mini Quests

In Septimus, one of the ability scores/traits is related to the classical elements or humours which were said to have defined a person's disposition. These traits affect the character but they're intended to be selected based on player preference; there should be little in game detriment to a group that fails to "cover all the bases" as far as the four humours go, unlike, say, playing a party with no cleric.

Part of this subsystem involves rewarding players for doing things that they find fun and interesting. One of the problems in traditional D&D is that the reward system revolves around interacting with and usually dominating the game world. You get XP for exploring dungeons and eventually for building strongholds. You do not get XP for helping your fellow players develop the story or for sowing interesting and dramatic strife among the team. You're basically leaving out rewards for half of your players out there.

Hence, the idea of mini-quests. Mini-quests are tied to one's humour. You get to open one quest for free in your primary humour. You can spend a perk (you'll have 1 to 3 perks if you have an above-average score in a trait) in any trait to open more if you like. Completing a quest yields XP (or perhaps some other benefit, like "Fate Points" if you care to use them). However, if you abandon a quest, however, there's a chance you'll lose an ability score point (you can get them back upon level up), similar to the effects of a grievous wound or major defeat.

Over the next few days I'll post my tables for each of the four humours.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Game of Thrones

I just discovered the HBO mini-series "Game of Thrones." It is really awesome, and I highly endorse it if you can find access (HBO, annoyingly, refuses to embrace Netflix, Hulu, or any sort of pay-on-demand service if you don't have a traditional cable subscription). I never read the Song of Fire and Ice books but it is really a very compelling world. I've ordered book #2 for my Kindle so I can continue onward.

In other news, I haven't abandoned this blog. After a long vacation "off the grid" with little access, I have been working 60-90 hours most weeks these days, so between the two of them my posting has been very light and will probably continue to be light to non-existent until Christmas or so when hopefully work lets up. For now I am focusing on sleeping, eating, clothing myself, and spending what little time I have with family so gaming is not even really on the priorities list although I do have some ideas still rattling around.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Phases for Combat Rounds

I had an interesting thought recently about an innovative way to do combat rounds and actions. The problem with OD&D is that it is too simple: they-go/we-go means a lot of action happens all at once, combat gets swingy, and it is hard to adjudicate exactly how many actions are too many.

AD&D is a far end of the spectrum in that it has far too many rules to keep it simple. You need a college degree (well, maybe a minor) in D&D to run it properly. 3.5 and many other games use iterative one-after-the-another initiative which is a "silent killer."

The following thoughts are my attempt to keep the best of all worlds. Each round is divided into three phases: Fight, Move, and Communicate. I've done some tactical work and those are the three things you need to be effective on a battlefield (well, really it is shoot instead of fight, but hey, close enough), and those are the things that should be happening regularly in combat, so that's what our system will care about.

INITIATIVE
At the start of the round, we check initiative and then generally go in an "us and them" fashion each phase as such (assuming A wins initiative):

FIGHT -- Side A
FIGHT -- Side B
MOVE -- Side A
MOVE -- Side B
COMMUNICATE -- Side A
COMMUNICATE -- Side B

If there are three or more factions then just extrapolate. The key is that everyone resolves a phase before moving on. Very few things will break our "sequencing."

ACTIONS
Each character gets one simple action per phase. They generally get to upgrade one simple action to a complex action each round. A simple action involves precalculated, rapidly used scores. There are no situational modifiers (unless they apply to the whole side) nor are there any random dice tossed. Complex actions involve situational modifiers and randomized dice throwing. Thus, players will need to decide in which phase they want to use their complex action.

PROFICIENCY
Characters have a derived proficiency score for each key action. For example, in the fight phase, we have:
  • Melee
  • Shoot (Range)
  • Dodge
If using a dice pool system, the proficiency score is the size of dice in the pool, capped at 6; the pool has to get to 21 dice to get a simple score of 7 (unlikely to say the least). If using a D20 system, it should be a fixed number representing a somewhat less than average roll (for example, 7+THAC0 level-based to-hit bonus). I'll use my dice pool system (which has Target Numbers from 3 to 8 for the most part, for reference's sake) in further examples.

So, our character -- let's say he's a swashbuckler -- might have Melee 3, Shoot 2, Dodge 3. If taking a simple action, he can automatically hit anything with an AC or Target Number of 3 using his melee attack. He misses if it is 4 or higher. So, our swashbuckler can skewer rats or zombies all day, similar to the "fighter sweep" of yore. This frees up his complex action for rapid movement or lots of special communication.

However, say, he's up against a nimble, worthy opponent, like, say, an unusually aggressive lion. Hitting TN 3 won't cut it. In this case, he uses a complex action. Instead of just taking a "3," he gets to roll 3d6 and retain the highest (using my core mechanic). On average he'll hit around TN 4.75 or so, with a possibility to hit TN 8! The player can even argue for a situational bonus, perhaps due to terrain or some other circumstances.

Of course, if he uses his "complex action" in the fight phase, then when we get to movement, he's relatively anchored. He's stuck with moving two or three hexes -- whatever his simple move score is -- instead of rolling 2d6 or 3d6 to move several more.

The communicate phase encompasses all other actions. Rallying followers, giving orders to mooks, casting spells, using many other skills, and so on.

Wrinkle: Free Dice. As a wrinkle, each player begins an encounter with one "Free Die." This die may be added to any active die roll, or it can increase a simple score by one. If a player ends a round without using a complex action, they gain one free die. If they end a phase without spending a simple action, there is a 1/6 chance they gain a free die. Players may not accumulate more free dice than some number between 1 and 7 (tied to an attribute or something). The DM also gets free dice, and furthermore, he can share them freely among monsters to minimize bookkeeping.

Wrinkle: Extra Action. You could occasionally grant extra complex actions. This is a pretty sizable boon. Of course, you don't get extra dice. The character can spend both complex actions in the same round but must split his available dice however he wishes. I'm still thinking this through, and wondering if the extra action should only translate to a simple action (thus, you could have a Complex & a Simple action in the same phase, or two complex actions in two different phases).

Wrinkle: Minions & Actions. Minions don't often get to take complex actions. Instead, they can either take a simple action or they can lend their dice to another's pool, encouraging them to gang up on foes. Some "leader" type monsters may grant an action to a nearby minion, which then makes the players decide whether they need to take out the leader (to cut off the actions) or take out minions (easier to kill, rapidly reduces the dice thrown at them each round and reduces the odds of a hit). Bodyguards for players and other such NPCs work the same way.

EFFECTS & VARIATIONS

This system has several effects. First, it forces players to dynamically allocate limited resources. Each round they must decide where to take their complex action. They must also manage free dice, and decide when it is best to sit tight, do nothing, and take a breather (to get more free dice) and when to go for broke.

This also evens out "screen time." Calculating situational modifiers, rolling dice, and then evaluating the results are by far more time consuming. This is a common complaint for many fighter types in OD&D and AD&D; they get to roll one d20 and if they hit they get to roll damage, once per round. Meanwhile, clerics are chucking 2d6 to turn undead, mages are throwing fireballs for fistfuls of D6 of damage, and in general it feels like everyone else is rolling more dice. With this system everyone gets about the same number of random rolls to play with each round, regardless of how good they are at a specific task.

We get rid of most of the need for AD&D's rules about weapon length, ranged attacks, etc. The "fight" phase goes first, so if you aren't in melee when the round begins, you pretty clearly don't get a chance to strike unless you have a ranged weapon handy, unless we implement some sort of "charge" action in the move phase, or unless we have some sort of rules for readying or holding actions in reserve "out of phase." A really simple one would be, "You can take an inappropriate action during a phase, however, it must be fueled by free dice." Another would be allowing common sense "readied" actions (for example, readying to receive a charge by striking however runs in, or readying to swat someone if they try to cast a spell). If your action never triggers at least you get the comfort of building up your free dice pool.

I think it would be interesting to present different options to players. For example, you could play one of these three variants:
  • All proactively used simple scores (and thus all dice pools for active rolls) are increased by one, all the time.
  • You get (A) one extra simple action or (B) may upgrade one simple action to a complex one, every round.
  • All reactively used simple scores -- such as Dodge -- are increased by one, all the time. This also increases dice pools when using these skills actively, as when one is doing a "full round dodge."



Tuesday, May 17, 2011

I recently wrote about the trouble of dice pool mechanics with large number of participants to roll for. I presented some solutions such as using a new mechanic, changing the way you roll for things (using "rerolls," for example), or just not giving mooks situational modifiers.

I think there may be a more creative way to attack this issue: allow mooks (and/or others) to combine their dice pools. One of the great things about the Septimus core mechanic is that it has diminishing returns built in. Adding new dice -- especially beyond three or four in the pool -- has fairly negligible results. It will never hurt the players to let the monsters pool their attacks.

So, say we have five goblin archers that all throw two dice in the attack. Instead of having them roll six attacks with two dice each, you could have them roll one attack with 10 dice. They're almost certain to hit (avg result of 6.648, 98% of hitting TN5, 83.84% of hitting TN6, 51.54% of hitting TN7), but will only inflict one wound. Let's compare the number of successes when (1) rolling five attacks of 2d6 and (2) rolling one attack of 10d6.


4 5 6 7 8
5x2d6 3.75 2.75 1.50 0.14 0.00
1x10d6 1.00 0.98 0.83 0.52 0.23

As you can see, the DM is much better off rolling separate attacks until the TN gets to 7. Then he's best off with one giant 10d6 dice pool to try and land a hit. That's the diminishing returns in action. The plus is that it is a "bank error in the PCs" favor. I'm generally ok with those. The downside is that there's no incentive to economize time at the table under most circumstances, and if the DM decides to screw the players he could all of a sudden land three times as much damage as they're expecting.

One way to control this is possibly through the economy of actions. Maybe the DM gets a limited number of attacks to split amongst all the monsters however he wishes, the number being based on the leadership and morale of the enemy force. If he only has three attacks, and he's got the five goblin archers, a cave troll, and a worg to play with, he'll probably want to attack once with the troll, once with the worg, then pool all the goblins together. This has the nice effect of modeling "fog and friction" and rewarding effective command and control "force multipliers." For example, say the DM could also add a non-combatant shaman that gives his force one extra attack each round. Now the PCs have a strategic choice: do they take out mooks to reduce the number of attacks getting chucked at them, target the leader-shaman to reduce the effectiveness of the enemy's dice, or hit the heavy hitters to take them out of the fight?

\\

Another option is to let the players roll. For example, maybe instead of having monsters roll to hit a player, the player needs to roll against a fixed TN to "dodge" the monster. A very accurate monster might have a higher TN, whereas a weaker or less precise one might have a lower TN. I like putting rolls into the hands of players quite a bit, but this can lead to some wonkiness if there are players on both sides of a conflict.

It also doesn't solve the time consuming need to roll many dice pools over and over; in fact, it might make it worse (especially with a slow player!), although players might not mind slowing down the action if they throw more dice. You could introduce a rule that says that adding more monsters increases the TN. For example, maybe dodging an arrow from one goblin archer is TN4, but two is TN5, four archers in TN6, eight archers is TN7, and so on. I'd have to work out the math to see exactly how that progression should work out.

Mechanics and Efficiency

I really like the math behind my proposed core mechanic (in short: roll a pool of D6s, retain the highest, boxcars = 7). It works great for PCs and singleton foes. However, in a playtest I came up against a problem: it doesn't work well for hordes of mooks.

In traditional D&D, if you have a half dozen goblin archers you just roll six D20s to see if they hit. Likewise, if the wizard hits a squad of orcs with a fireball, you just roll a fistful of D20s to see if they save. With the dice pool mechanic, you generally have to roll one monster at a time unless they have a pool of "one;" if you color code your D6s, perhaps 2-3 at a time.

One work around would be to treat the dice pool as a "reroll." For example, say each monster has a dice pool of 2D. You could roll 1d6 for each of them and then reroll for any that failed on the first check. That is probably faster than setting up a color coded dice pool but still requires two steps. Another "solution" would be to limit situational bonuses or modifiers given to mooks; maybe part of being a mook is that you don't get modifiers to your dice pool.

I also recently thought of another simple dice mechanic that uses D6s but gives a bit more fidelity at the top of the scale: Exploding dice.
  • Roll a D6 vs. a TN.
  • If you roll a 6, roll again. If you get a 5 or a 6, then add 1 to your result. If you get another 6, roll again.
That gives an approximately 1/20 chance of getting a 7, and a 1% of getting an 8. That is, setting a TN of "7" is basically like saying, "You need a hail-mary natural 20 to hit this TN."

Distribution:
1 (16%)
2 (16%)
3 (16%)
4 (16%)
5 (16%)
6 (10%)
7 (5%)
8 (1%)

The problem is that it doesn't scale well with modifiers. A straight +1 modifier is fairly huge, as it doubles the chances of getting a 7 and quintuples the chance of getting an 8. You could reduce the number at which a highly skilled individual's dice "explode." For example, if you get to roll again on a 5 or a 6 then the distribution looks like this:

1 (16%)
2 (16%)
3 (16%)
4 (16%)
5 (10%)
6 (15%)
7 (5%)
8 (1%)

That leads to a somewhat wonky distribution, though, where 6 is more likely than 5.

Math
Odds of getting a 6: .166
Odds of getting a 5 or a 6: .333
.166 * .333 = 5.5%