The value of bell curves

A while back I started talking to some friends about starting up a regular game again. To fill some time, after realizing that it would need some discussion to find a game everyone agreed on, we picked a game we had played before as a starter. 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars was that game.

For those who have not played this game, I can summarize a key point of the rules system. All rolls are one 1d10, roll under but high is good, against a Trait. I guess you see what this means. Right. No bell curve.

We started to play and since it is very much driven by black humour and creative narration by the players, it worked quite fine with some cynicism and beer. But, after a few sessions a pattern started to emerge. One of my players rolled really shitty. Like some of us say, he storked it, repeatedly. The thing is, he rolled maybe 10 dice rolls a night and missed all but one. Even after changing dice, we are not superstitious, he kept rolling like that in session after session. It just was not fun any more. In the end the game was not just a chore, it was actively un-fun to roll dice for him.

Now, I guess you have all heard of games where the narrative is as much in the hands of the players as the GM? You would imagine that maybe that would alleviate the problem, maybe? The problem here is that 3:16 is just such a game. I as the GM could only limit the stiffness of the opposition, and the players still had to sit there and narrate the hell out of repeated failures. Kind of sucks after a while.

We decided to fade to black after a few missions, and now I had pitched a new game which all seemed to like. It was all down to the weird imagination of Ken Hite, since who can resist a game with both nazis and the Midgard Serpent? Savage Worlds it was.

I guess you see one thing that differs from 3:16? In Savage Worlds you roll multiple dice, and if you fail you can spend a token and roll again. Once again you roll multiple dice. Multiple dice, i.e. more chances to succeed, since you get to pick which to use.

That choice of game system was intentional.

As you probably know, there are more than one way to skin a cat. The cat I wanted to skin was player enjoyment. While I do not subscribe to the school of design that say encounters should be "balanced" and that the players are entitled to this or that, I do believe game system matters for how much fun you can have.Clearly linear probabilities do have some potential to screw up your game night.

Savage Worlds and Fate are two game systems that have decided to let you have all that wild and intense fun you get by rolling dice, but have also included some way to take the edge of Those Nights(tm). I think that is good game design for a game for modern adults, for whom game night is time you clawed back from all the necessities of family, work and other obligations. Narrative control is one thing, but getting to describe your failure yourself over and over again does not make it more fun. Maybe the first time. I think some game mechanic that works as a "safety net" should be in your mind when you design a game for my kind of gamer.

Are there other ways? Let's go back to those dice, and our subject line.

I know I am not the first one to notice that some games are really swingy, and D&D with its d20 based to hit roll is one of those. As those of us than own a AD&D 1st ed DMG know, there are more ways to roll dice, and one of them produce a bell curve. Such a probability distribution skews towards the middle, making it harder to get those extremes. On the other hand, it also makes it likelier to get above that first hump of lower target numbers. Is this possibly the way to increase player enjoyment? I will leave off dice pool systems, since I find the probabilities of those headache inducing, instead focusing on rolling multiple dice and adding them before comparing to a target number.

Strangely enough, there are few games I can think of where you roll multiple dice of a similar kind and add them, as a basic mechanic. Sure, it's used for damage, but more seldom for other things. Off the top of my head I can only remember five game systems that use this, and two of them are closely related.

• The Fantasy Trip (TFT) - roll 3d6
• GURPS - roll 3d6
• Traveller - roll 2d6
• Tunnels & Trolls (T&T) - roll 2d6 for Saving Rolls, in combat roll weapon dice and add stat bonus.
• HERO - roll 3d6

Maybe these games are actually kinder to gamers who just want to succeed once in a while?

Next topic: Are these thus newbie friendly games?

When do you need a game system to support your play?

A short while ago I read a forum post where someone claimed the game 3:16 did not work for them. I played it a few times and thought it worked fine. I searched out an episode of the Walking Eye podcast to compare, since they often have interesting things to say about games they've played.

Interestingly enough, on the podcast there was a player who did not feel the game "clicked" for them. The question came up whether the theme of the game was satire, and if it was reinforced by the system of the game. Considering you don't count hits in that game, but kills, I think it's pretty obvious. But, there are some subtle things in there I felt like talking more about in this space.

In the game you have a flashback mechanic. Using that you can take narrative control, and define the psychology of your trooper. This is where the game enters the "hippie game" territory. But, here's the interesting part. Using the flashback you can fail and succeed on your terms, but it does not force you to adhere to the theme. In fact, it's only the last flashback that's mandated, as Hatred for Home. Basically, there is an endgame and there is a setup. The latter picture mindless carnage and the former suggests moral doubt and satire after turning military glory into genocide. What is interesting is that up until that point, you can play it however you like. There's nothing forcing you down the path of satire. Sure, there is that end, but it's fairly open to interpretation and you get to choose the seriousness of it.

Some people like to point out that even though D&D basically only has rules for combat, it's not really about combat. I'm not going to get involved in that discussion, but I want to compare that situation to 3:16. In that game you have a setup which is all about killing. Your game system only involves itself with killing, and that which some consider its core, the flashback system, does not force the issue of the theme. Just like in the case of D&D, it's more about System than system. System with a capital S is the sum of what happens around the table, not just the rules in the book. I think 3:16 is a very subtle design, in that it rather tries to give you a playground and let's you discover its social mechanics than putting it into text.

Killing bugs and going into genocidal frenzy is something that can affect you, not only your character. This is something which I've also found happens in Dogs in the Vineyard. At least for me it does. When I first played it, I started thinking about how I felt about the events my character encountered. If you let that inform your character's actions is of course up to your individual play style, but I found it both challenging and refreshing. 3:16 is a game that works the same way.

If you don't feel a bit repulsed by your trooper's mindless killing you I don't say you are playing it wrong, but if you do get that effect it sure is a memorable one!

What's the probability?

That is one of my most common questions. I very often wonder just that. What's the probability of something happening? I'd like to tell before rolling dice about probabilities. I one took down the math books for some basic high school mathematics, and even though I had once studied that I couldn't make head or tail out of it. 

I have posted about my Wednesday game before, and the great fun of playing 3:16. One reason it have been fun is that one of my players, who usually don't complain about dice or luck, in the session last week rolled amazingly bad!

Imagine rolling 20-something d20 rolls a night, and having 14 of those turn up a 0!

That guy missed a lot, but when he managed to roll under 8 for his Fighting Ability check, his kill number were impressive. His ability to roll high was consistent. In a game system where you should roll low, but higher than the opposition, his rolls where hilarious. Of course I had him narrate all his failures.

But, what's the probability?

Apparently poker buffs don't talk about luck, they talk about "variance". The same guy who rolled all those zeroes told me, that some have kept statistics on all their hands to calculate "variance". Even though it should even out, they have decided that there seem to be such a thing as luck. Everything should even out, eventually, right? The question is how close to infinity you have to get.

But, rolling 14 0 out of 20 something rolls? What's the probability of that happening? Amazing. I love dice.

Starship settings?

We were talking after our last session of 3:16 about science fiction
in roleplaying, and settings for gaming in general. It have struck me
that even though most games are fantasy games, there are some other
genres covered. Looking at those other genres, it seems like mostly
it's the indie games that covers the odd ones. I guess you have heard
of Contenders, right?

So, my question about settings is about starships. One of my friends
told me that when we have played sf, we have spend most of our time on
a spaceship. He suggested that was why it wasn't working out, since
most books and tv shows are not set on a ship all the time. But let's
think about gaming where that is the case.

Have you ever seen a game where the setting is a generation ship?

It's all about killing things

Almost everyone in gaming have heard the old adage that D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff. We might all have different ideas about the truth value of that statement, and some of its implications. I have now twice been behind the screen for a game of 3:16, and I am enjoying some carnage. It's a game that's by the book is only about killing things. Usually you don't even take their stuff, you just kill some more of them.

Taking a few moments to browse the web for discussions about XP awards and game systems for advancement and rewarding this or that behaviour, I find myself seeing a lot of the same stuff gamers have been talking about for decades! 3:16 is awfully neat in both avoiding all that stuff, and embracing it.

Imagine a game where you will get better from killing things, only. Imagine that you also can narrate, not the GM you, how you fail and succeed. This is a marriage the newest of the New School design (Forge style) and the simplistic summary of Old School gaming with less focus on story.

So what kind game is the mechanic supporting? Well, you have rules for killing, and rules for using a flashback to get out of trouble. That's it, simplifying a bit. But, this is one of those new-fangled "story games". It's probably not strange that for some of us, games which gives us a rough sketch of a PC will be the ones where we manage to develop some real personalities, through play. We have seen some very interesting character development in our two sessions of 3:16, and all we have been doing have been killing things.

Try it out, it sure is enlightening.

A comment about my Traveller experience

I've realized that maybe I should not have tried to be so subtle. The medium isn't good for subtleties. So, what I felt might need clarification about my former post about Traveller is that it was consciously written with a subjective view of things.

Naturally not everyone will be feeling bored after reading through the Traveller trading rules, and thinking about Accounting! It was my way of showing how my disenfranchised mental process went along. I'm aware that some people like accounting. My problem was more along the line, why did I get enthusiastic about this in the first place?

Something else have occured to me as I've been thinking about the relation between expectation, rules, actual play and the social space that gaming is. Gregor Huttons elegant game 3:16 Carnage Among the Stars is another game where issues like this might affect the game. Taking a look at that game, it looks like it's all about rolling a d10 under your FA and then you killed some aliens. Lather, rinse and repeat. It's not a very exciting game when presented like that. Still, it can be very cool. I think I've gathered as much from reading what Gregor himself posted on The Forge, that if they players are not getting in the spirit of the game that is all you'll get. Roll d10, roll damage and why is this supposed to be worthy of awards? Buy in, baby. From everyone, GM included. If only we could make it happen by writing it in the rule book...