18th Century Musings

I've lately been on an 18th century kick.  The American Revolution, Napoleonic wars, etc.

There are a few basic problems of scale associated with this era, though, for man-to-man adventuring.  The most obvious is that of range.  Here are some typical ranges for 18th century arms, rounded off for easy usage:

• Musket:  Point Blank 60 yards / Effective 120 yards / Max 240 yards
• Rifle:  Point Blank 100 yards / Effective 200 yards / Max 400 yards
• 3 lb light cannon:  Point Blank 200 yards / Effective 400 yards / Max 800 yards

Compare those to your typical medieval game.  Long bows vs. point targets are typically effective to about 100 yards.  Most hurled weapons are being used far closer, and with indoors scenes dominating, hand to hand melee is king.  Moving the action to larger outdoor venues with firearms definitely changes the necessary scale.

The other issue is the rate of fire of such arms.  A musket could be fired around 4 times a minute by a well trained regular.

Marshal Maurice de Saxe wrote: "Light infantry should be able to fire 6 shots a minute, but under the stress of battle 4 should be allowed for."

Finally, rates of march remain similar across the eras.  The quick time march is about 85 yards/min, and double quick is 150 yards/min.  This is actually fairly rapid; it is a 5 MPH pace or a 12 minute mile.  Obviously a dead run is faster, but sustaining a 12 minute mile while loaded with gear on battlefield terrain under fire in formation is pretty legit.

With that data in hand, here are some examples of scales that could be appropriate:

1 figure = 1 man, 1" = 10 yards, 1 round = 20 seconds

With this scale, a "quick time" march would cover 3" per round, and a "double quick" about 5" per round.

• I really like this as if you wanted to add a bit of randomness to movement, you could determine move distances with the roll of a D6.  For example, at the quick march, roll 2d6 and retain the best; at the double quick, roll 3d6 and retain the best.  Double sixes equals a move rate of 7" (8.5 minute miles), and rare triple sixes equals 8" move.
• There is also a happy coincidence that the number of inches of movement equals the rate of move in MPH, which allows for easy conversion to overland adventuring scale.  "Quick time" = 3 MPH.
• Horses would cover about 8-10" per round at a trot or gallop, which again is easily derived by rolling a D6+5 and allows similar conversion to MPH.

Conversion of weapon ranges to tabletop distances is easy; divide by ten.  For example, musket range would be 6/12/24".  Ranges would fit fairly easy on a typical table.  A yardstick worth of play area could probably be sufficient for most engagements.

The problem here is granularity of action and reloading rate.  With each round being 20 seconds, you need to allow a proficient musket user to load and fire at least once each round. Even that only gets you three shots per minute, which we know is shy of the historical case of 4-6 shots per minute.  So clearly we need some sort of provision to allow well-drilled regulars to occasionally squeeze in an extra shot; say, a 1/3 chance per round.

We also need to allow multiple actions per round (load and fire).  This is familiar to D&D players of 3E ("move & standard" actions) but I prefer simpler systems where everything is a full round action, personally.

One could do a variation on this for 1" = 10 yards, 1 round = 15 seconds.  This would change your march rate to 2-4" per round, but could solve the rate of fire issue.

1 figure = 1 man, 1" = 5 yards, 1 round = 10 seconds

With this scale, again a "quick time" march would cover 3" per round, and a "double quick" about 5" per round.  Conversion of weapon ranges to tabletop distances is a bit harder; divide by 20.  For example, musket range would be 12/24/48".

The shorter rounds helps solve our rate of fire problem.  If we allow load & fire each round, then we get six shots per round; if we throw in some sort of random "x" factor to occasionally mess up the process (say, loading requires passing a relatively easy skill check, but one which is failed from time to time) we can throttle that down to fewer shots per minute fairly easily.

With a more granular system of actions, you could require "load" and "fire" to each be full round actions.  That would still allow three shots per round.  We'd have to have some sort of "feat" or rules exception for well-drilled regulars that let them accelerate the load & fire process to get back up to our six-shots-per-minute best case, though.

The problem here is tabletop real estate required.  Now I need six feet of table to cover most probably scenarios.  Youch!

1 figure = 1 man, 1" = 10 yards, 1 round = 10 seconds

With this scale, again a "quick time" march would cover 1.5" per round, and a "double quick" about 2.5" per round.  Conversion of weapon ranges to tabletop distances is easy again.  Loading is easy too.

The problem here is the move rates are very slow and small.  It almost necessitates some sort of battle grid, and even then we'd probably have to either round up to 2"/3" moves, or have some sort of mechanic that allows an extra 1" space to be moved every other round.  It would also be very difficult to work in any sort of reduced move rates, say, from difficult terrain.

1 figure = 1 man, 1" = 5 feet, 1 round = 6 seconds

With this scale, again a "quick time" march would cover 5" per round, and a "double quick" about 9" per round.  Conversion of weapon ranges to tabletop distances is a bit tougher, as we're going from yards to feet, but you could round the weapon ranges off.  Musketry would be at 36"/72"/144" though, which is the fatal flaw of this scale:  you need the length of a room just use use muskets, much less rifles or cannons!

This scale does resolve the granularity of action issue in that you could have loading be a full round action, and firing be a full round action, and get about five shots per minute.

Rules Lite Abstraction

You could also dispense with such scales altogether and go rules lite with some sort of range abstraction.  Say that characters are either in range, or they're not. 

I can see why man-to-man action is not popular to model in the 18th century context, except perhaps for naval battles where these issues are easier to manage!

Interesting Post on the "Trinity" vs. RPS

In my previous post I explored some class/role ideas.  It turns out that Richard Bartle, of MUD fame, has a post reaching similar conclusions.

Now if, back in 1978, you'd told me that there were going to be three main character classes in future MMOs, I would probably have assumed some kind of rock/paper/scissors relationship among them for reasons of balance. Archers beat infantry, cavalry beat archers, infantry beat cavalry — that sort of thing. I don't believe for a moment I'd have gone with what we have, which is the "trinity" of tank, heals and dps....

He goes on to explain that the "tank" role came from MUDs (early online RPGs) that lacked positional systems.  Everyone was either in a room, or not in the room.  Therefore, there was a need for aggro management:  ergo, the tank.

D&D has traditionally handled this as wargames do, with pathfinding or keeping track of locations.  This requires greater granularity and fidelity, though, in that you need to track locations of pieces, usually with minis.  It also starts to break down in some scenarios.

I am reminded of G2, Gary Gygax's module about frost giants.  Maybe I am a huge jerk, but as DM I used a lot of missile fire (as the dungeon key suggests) from the giants, and I played the ogre magi to their maximum potential.  Heavy missile fire which can essentially ignore the strong "front line" tanks and the threat of flying invisible ogre magi with AOE spells like Cone of Frost made some sort of "taunt" ability necessary.  The player running a paladin role played this to the hilt and sought out a magic sword with the "Taunt" spell built in.  The other fighter went with the "whack giants with a two handed sword dealing 3d6 damage" route so they had to pay attention to him.

The point is that if the system allows enemies to ignore the tank for some reason then we're back in the early-MUD DPS-Tank-Healer trinity conundrum again.

Class Roles: Quartets, the Trinity, and Duality

One of the topics I brainstormed on was the idea of character classes.  A lot of my game design ideas are focused around character creation.  Classes are an integral part of that, obviously.

Right up front, I want to acknowledge that it is possible to have fun games with class-less systems, or systems which have loosely defined roles such as World of Darkness.  However, for the lighter sorts of games I am enjoying these days, a class system is helpful because it helps everyone find their role in the game quickly, speeds character creation, and generally helps everyone "grok" what is going on.

FOUR CLASSES

D&D 4E was an interesting example of a lot of ideas.  One of the core character creation rules in 4E was character roles.  Each class filled one of four niches:  Striker (DPS), Defender (Tank), Leader (Healer/Support), and Controller (debuffer/crowd control).  Characters could generally "lean" towards a second role, in effect "majoring" in one and "minoring" in a second.

One problem that becomes apparent rapidly though is that if you have four roles, and each are considered vital, then you need more players to fill them all.  At a minimum, you need two players and they must each Major and Minor in different roles:  for example, a Paladin (Defender/Leader) could pair up with a striker that minors in controller (or vice versa).  Really, most typical groups will need five folks to cover each of the core four roles adequately.

1E AD&D was similar in that the core four roles were cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief.  In reality, you could often dispense with several of those, though, as there were more ways to skin a cat.  For example, if you were short on fighters it was usually possible to hire men-at-arms as bodyguards.

Personally, I play RPGs rarely these days and often with a small group.  I would prefer a mechanical system with fewer roles so that two or three players can cover down on everything.  That means that the classes need to be less rigid, or you need fewer of them.

THREE CLASSES OR THE "HOLY TRINITY"

MMOs like WoW have popularized what has come to be known as the "holy trinity" of DPS, Tank, and Healer.  This allows a smaller group to cover all the roles, in theory.  In practice, it seems like the average group size in WoW still tended towards five, with a common line up being three strikers, a healer, and a tank.

The Holy Trinity has a few strengths.  As mentioned, you need fewer players for a viable group (more on that later).  Due to recent popularity, it is easily understood by players and GMs alike, and players know immediately what they are "supposed" to do.  Even players who don't do MMOs can figure it out rapidly:  I personally think immediately of American football, which has an offensive team, a defensive team, and a special team.

Some downsides include:

• These roles don't really match historical combat lineups.  For example, in ancient combat you had heavy infantry (like pike formations), medium infantry (Roman legions with swordsmen), light infantry (velites), cavalry (of various types), archers, and so on.  In the Napoleonic era you had light infantry skirmishers, line or medium/heavy infantry, artillery, and cavalry.  They don't necessarily fit neatly into a trio.  The trio is entirely based on game rules, not reality.
• The roles fall apart in a PvP environment, or if the "enemy" uses the same system.  I'm not a big WoW player, but as I understand it, healers and tanks are fairly useless in PvP.  You'd have to balance the trio more like "Rock Paper Scissors" for it to work in a PvP setting.
• The "tank" role only makes sense with an artificial aggro mechanism to force foes to attack the target which is hardest to kill.  Traditional D&D uses minis and battlefield positioning to allow tanks to block an enemy; MMOs used aggro due to poor pathfinding algorithms and latency issues.

TWO CLASSES

Two classes would be the minimum to have a non-trivial choice in character creation.  EVE Online does this, with basically choices between tank (defense) and spank (offense).

I find such a system to be a bit too simple, personally.

I've got a few more thoughts on this front but my wrists are killing me, so I'm calling it quits for now.

Back -- a little!

I just wanted to announce that the blog is back.  A little.

It has been a busy year.  I traveled out of the country on business for months, moved into a new position at work, and got some carpal tunnel syndrome which is really cutting into computer time.  I was able to manage a rocking summer road trip though and did a lot of talking with old friends and brainstorming on game stuff.  I'll see what I can put down onto useful paper here, if my wrists allow.

Newtown

I don't normally intrude into the real world on this blog as that is not the intent.

The events at Newtown elementary were shocking and obviously terrible.  They hit close to home as I have close family members who work in elementary schools.  I want more than anything to see effective solutions that reduce the threat of violence to kids and people who work in schools.

I know that many people are asking a lot of questions and wanting solutions and dialogue.  I am professionally in the risk assessment and threat mitigation business, have qualified on and carried bona fide "assault rifles" for work, and personally know about losing friends and coworkers to violence.  My wife works with children, but on the weekends she is a certified firearms safety instructor (and a better marksman than me and many badge toting professionals, I might add).  We are familiar with the legal environment in Connecticut.  Please email me if you want facts or information that you feel the media are not providing accurately or clearly.

I won't ask you to join the NRA or donate to the Brady Campaign; I won't tell you how to vote or what to tell your Senators.  I can answer questions like, "What's the difference between an automatic assault rifle and a semiautomatic assault weapon?" or "how do you as a risk management professional mitigate the threat of random mass violence?" or "what is the likely risk impact/effect of proposal X?"

Post a comment with your email address and I'll be happy to have a private dialogue to answer  questions.

Back to your regularly scheduled intermittent gaming posts.

Where has your RPG hobby helped you out in life?

My post from Dragonsfoot:

I met my wife and the best man at my wedding through a gaming group.

I learned to quickly and intuitively apply statistics. Most people cannot figure the results of this type of problem: "Ok, I have a 4/6 chance of opening the door first try... Then a 2/6 chance of getting a surprise round... Then a 45% of landing a hit... And an 80% of it being a one-hit-stop before the goblin takes otu the hostage. So what are the chances of getting this done in one or two rounds?" Obviously that exact problem does not come up too often in life except for those on the SWAT team, but there are many events involving probabilities in life and most people suck at the math.

I learned to turn verbal descriptions into graphical maps/diagrams, and back again (mapping 101 and room description 101!).

I learned to put myself in the mind of another type of character -- or even a hideous cunning monster. I now do threat analysis professionally as a living. Most people are unable to even imagine how a suicide bomber or assassin or even common criminal thinks. Being able to break out of your own frame of reference is very helpful.

I learned how to game out multiple courses of action, including detailed tracking of costs/consumables/durations (name level magic user spell planning! AAAGH!) and determine which is best. THis is helpful for many things, whether it be figuring out how to plan a family vacation or a major business move.

I have been able to slip "antithesis of weal" into conversation a few times. I get to smile every time. That phrase is like a secret uber geek handshake, by the way.

I learned that knowing when to commit your last reserves, and knowing when to cut your losses and NOT open that "one last door" are keys to success. Not just in games, either. The key skill in D&D, I think, is having the judgement to balance risk and reward in both the short and long term. That is what "one more door" is all about. Evaluating risks and rewards in a rational, cool headed manner is an important life skill, but so is knowing when to gamble and hope for a natural 20.

Finally, I learned how 1E initiative works. It took four years and enough time to have earned another minor in my undergrad but I think I finally have it licked.

Exploration System Design Notes Part I

I wanted to pile on my previous post with a few explanations behind the choices I made.

SCALE:  My desire was to allow groups to make use of a wide variety of existing graphics and maps.  The 1:250K is a fairly common scale that allows a fairly large area to be depicted on a sheet.  These maps will often display an area about 60NM (1 degree of latitude) on a sheet 15" tall.  One of them should display about nine counties of terrain, making them perfect for exploring the area around an isolated community in a "points of light" type setting.  One could easily pick up some maps of a rural area like the hinterboonies of Afghanistan or Iraq (in a JOG) or remote Alaska (from USGS) and use those maps for a campaign.  I've found the USGS maps as cheap as $1 each.

RATE OF MARCH:  With this scale, a character moving at 12" (max human normal) covers 4" on the 1:250K map which is about 16 miles in eight hours for a pace of 2 MPH.  However, as you will see, the system allows double moves to be taken, putting these characters at a pace of 4 MPH.  This is a bit fast but most parties will be moving a bit slower and most terrain will be restrictive, substantially slowing movement.  It is not unreasonable given that some Army units (such as Airborne, Rangers, etc) conduct foot road marches with rucks at a 4 MPH pace (12 miles in 3 hours).  Obviously such a pace is not necessarily sustained day in and day out but we are in the right ballpark before modifiers.

MOVE IN INCHES VS INCHES ON THE MAP:  Obviously, the 4:1 reduction in pace (12" move = 4" on the map) is a bit confusing.  I could have gone with longer turns of 24 hours or so each, and then just done a straight 1" move = 1" on the map.  Indeed, that would work just fine as a variant rule for groups that want to accelerate overland travel.  However, I found this undesirable for a few reasons.  First off, if groups are covering almost a foot of space on the table every turn then you will rapidly need another map.  They will be off the 1:250K page in just two or three moves.  Next, the longer scale requires a higher degree of abstraction.  

With the party only moving a few inches on the map, a single sheet should last for several iterations of play.  Specifically, a party at 9" move will cover 3" on the map each iteration, which means it will take at least five turns to march from one side of the map to the other.  Factor in winding indirect routes, pauses for detours/shelter/rest, rough terrain, weather/night factors, and you're talking...  Hrm...  7+/-2 turns to cross the map.  You can play for days of campaign time on a map that easily fits on a corner of the typical kitchen table.

ECONOMY OF ACTIONS:  Dan Collins makes a good case for granularity in turns.  Specifically, he thinks if characters are taking multiple actions in a turn then the turn should be shortened until they take only one.  I chose to use the "standard" minor/move/standard action economy instead.

To increase granularity of turns and allow only one action, I would either need four hour turns with the same distance scale (12" move = 4" on the map), or I would need to keep the eight hour turns with twice the movement (12" move = 8" on the map), or some other ratio would be needed (12 hour turns with 12" on the map?).  Of those options I tend to like the four hour one the best.

The problem with allowing only one action per turn is three fold.

• First, you get "slow poke" syndrome.  An entire party, fleet of foot at 12" move, is dragged down to 6" move when the dwarf comes along.  This either leads to crazy work arounds (how many mule-mounted dwarves have you seen?), handwaving of overland march speeds, heavy burdens for everyone ("Well, we're at six inch move anyways...  Plate mail for everyone, all the time!"), and racial discrimination for new characters ("No dwarves need apply...  Move along, sir...").
• Next, players get an incentive to do nothing more than move every round.  After all, the party is trying to get somewhere, right?  Why would you spend an iteration doing anything other than moving in most cases?
• Most of the scales other than the four hours and 12" move = 3" map cause issues with needing a really big map on your table, or necessitate going to a 1:500K chart which lacks the detail I'd want.

So, I decided to try out the old tried & true "Minor/Move/Standard" economy.  The way I envision a lot of groups using this economy is as follows:

• A few folks use Minors
• Everyone uses a move action
• Slow Pokes use their Standard to Force March so as to keep up with the faster folks
• Faster folks use their Standard to attempt a more interesting exploration option

This may be a bit boring for the Slow Pokes, but even they get to make a die roll for their Standard Action.

Well, that is enough for now.  I certainly envision putting more thoughts down later.