Newbie friendly games - using probability

My last post was inspired by how my friend had a horrendous strike of unluckiness, which made his game nights less than fun. He is after all a seasoned gamer and while an experience like that might sour him on a game, it would not make him run screaming from the hobby. But, how about someone who never played a RPG before? Maybe it is actually more newbie friendly to use a game with a bell curve instead of a flat probability when introducing new people.

So would I use any of the games mentioned in my last post, or the systems mentioned in the comments to introduce a newbie?

The Fantasy Trip
This game has one big drawback, it's out of print. If you want to get it, you will have to search on eBay and be a bit lucky to get a complete set in nice condition. Luckily there are clones and derivatives out there. My favourite is Heroes & Other Worlds, which is an attempt to take some cues from B/X D&D and fuse it with TFT.

As most of you know, fantasy is the most popular setting for RPGs and TFT fits the bill. Also, there are only a few stats (one extra in HOW) and it's fairly easy to make a character in a short amount of time. Nothing weird, nothing fancy, just swords and sorcery.

GURPS
Even though it's not as visible as it used to be, this is still a game supported and published. Since it's a generic system it can be used for whatever setting, making it easy to run a game set in whatever setting you newbie favours. The flipside of the coin is that a adapting a generic game to a specific setting will take some work.

Character generation can be overwhelming, to say the least. Since there are so many options it's very easy to get analysis paralysis. Then, even if you as the GM do your homework, and you use a template system, the game is detailed enough to cover any eventuality. That can very easy bog down a game. But, it's extremely versatile.

Traveller
In my basement I have a big box with nothing but Traveller books. Science fiction is not a popular as fantasy, but considering how popular Star Trek or Firefly is, it's not exactly weird or exotic. There have been a ridiculous amount of stuff published for this game system, and many different editions of rules available.

Mongoose Publishing is a company that I would generally advice people to stay away from. They have a terrible track record of games with awful layout and abysmal quality control. But, their little black book of Traveller is really neat. It takes the classic Traveller and packages it in a very sweet package.

There is one thing that's less than ideal of Traveller for newbies. Since it uses a life path system where you take terms in different careers, and you can get thrown out of said careers on a bad dice roll, you never really know what kind of character you will get. As a mini game on it's own, it's quite fun. But, I imagine it could be less than ideal if you as a player had your eyes set on a specific kind of character with a specific set of skills.

Tunnels & Trolls
Everyone who looked at the text on the top of this page, or followed the blog, might know I have warm feelings for this game. It has some neat features, like a generic resolution and stunt mechanic. It also have a slightly comedic, or at least less than totally serious, attitude which I personally like.

If there's something this game does less well is probably the fact that it uses really big piles of dice, especially in later editions. Thus it can take some time to gather all the dice, roll, sum and subtract. It can be a bit slow.

HERO System
Everything I said about GURPS is valid for HERO, even more so. This is ridiculously adaptable. But, compared to TFT and GURPS which have a small set of stats, this game's character sheet can be intimidating. If I have to choose between GURPS and HERO, I'd choose the former, as it's as clunky to make a character, but it's more smooth in play.

Over the Edge
I have played this game system twice. Once was in the original setting, and once was a free adventure for Harn I found online and ran with the OtE system as I did not own Harn, and I did not really fancy it anyway.

In the original, and very weird, setting this system is just right. You have so much oddity to keep straight that the game system has to be very light and narrative. If it has a problem, it is probably the same as Fate. Both game system suffer from the fact you can make a Trait/Aspect out of anything, and that can make you stumble before you understand how it works in play.

It's a quite expressive system and I think the fact you can just ask a potential player to describe in a few words what they envision, and then put dice to that is a big win.

The D6 System
Most players of this system have probably used it for Star Wars. I have only played it once, and then it flowed very freely and the action was exciting. Since then I've read how the piles of dice can be cumbersome, and that there are some rules that are fiddly. The latter case would be the target numbers, that can be chosen from a range, but probably just works best if you just have a set interval of 5.

Conclusion
So would I use these games to introduce a newbie to rpgs? Well. I think the fact these games all use multiple dice, and thus probably have a more even spread of successes, yes that is a point in their favour.

Would I use one of the more generic ones, like D6 System, GURPS, HERO or OtE? No, probably not. I think fantasy is popular for a reason, and even though it's the game on the list I am least familiar with, I lean toward TFT/HOW.

You would maybe expect me to champion T&T, but I think that maybe for once I have to agree with those who think the names of the spells are less suitable. Also, the free flowing stunt system of SR are not very easy to handle even by seasoned gamers.

So, who knows. Maybe I get to try to use one of these systems to bring new gamers to the fold. Maybe I actually will try to use TFT/HOW! Today I started to read HOW and I really felt like I wanted to play it. We'll see.

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?

Using the right tool for the job

Yesterday I was browsing my collection of game books. Some of them I don't read that often, and almost forgets about. I have a few...

My eyes fell on GURPS Black Ops, and it piqued my interest. Who doesn't like the idea of truly badass characters taking on monsters? I figured it would be fun to read some of it, and maybe import some ideas into a game some day. When I came to the section about building characters I paused for a second.

Characters in Black Ops are built on 700 points. For those of you who don't know much about GURPS, I checked the core rules about campaign scales, and there it said 500 pts is "Superhuman". Cinematic action is the name of the game.

This is where I got reminded of why it is a good idea to use the right tools for the job.

In the book there are five templates of 650 pts you can use as base for your character. They are the Combat Op, Intelligence Op, Science Op, Security Op, Technology Op. Sounds like it covers all the bases in the genre, right? What gave me cause for doubts was what was on those pages.

Those templates all took up one page each, with about an inch at the top with the stats, Disadvantages and Advantages. The rest was three columns of text listing skills, and taking the illustrations into account it was maybe two full columns on the average. I counted the skills on one template, and it was about a hundred. 100. Yes. 100!

If you have that many skills, how are you even going to find the ones you need?! Why list all those? I've never seem anything so unwieldy in a game before. It would have been easier to list what was missing instead. Sure, the idea is to play super competent characters being really awesome. But, will that list really help you do that? What you really want to express is how cool you are, and how many cool things that character can do. It just screams out to be simplified. Mayve into some kind of system of skill categories, or even in a more daring move, reduced to Aspects like they use in FATE.

Here I think we see one indication this kind of game is not best modelled in GURPS. 

The next thing I noticed was the ratings of those skills. In GURPS you roll 3d6 and try to roll below your skill rating. Personally I cry foul when I see characters which break the ceiling of the system. These templates ranged from 12 to 22. Yes, roll below 22 on 3d6. Foul. Something is broken there, even if the list had been a fifth the size is was.

Here I think wesee another indication this kind of game is not best modelled in GURPS.

I've seen that kind of stuff in other games, sadly more than once. One example was this system which used roll low and a d20, i.e. a percentile system divided by 5 and less granular. This NPC I think of had 40 in some skills and spells, i.e. 200%!

If you want to play cinematic action, the best tool is probably not a game system that focuses on realism and detailed simulationism. You probably want to use FATE, or Savage Worlds.

This I think is also why the idea of a generic system is a failure. The idea is beautiful, and the amount of "generic" systems in my collection tells the long story of that strong allure of having one system for all your games. But, the sad fact is that you have to tweak and adapt a system to the style and setting you are using. Some games can be changed more or less easily and after a while it will become clear that you would have saved time using a system tailored for the experience you want.


...so if you see numbers like 200% in a percentile game, or 34 in a d20 based one, then it's time to look for a better tool for the job.

Thinking back on 7th Sea

I ran a short arc of a revenge story in AEG's 7th Sea a few years back. The idea of swashbuckling is seldom far from my gaming thoughts, and the game system had enough interesting knobs and dials for me to long to try it out.

When I had decided I wanted to run it, and had read the books, a new problem appeared. The game was set in an imaginary Europe with new names for everything, and magic to boot! I liked the idea of filing off the serial numbers. I remembered that Dave Arneson had thought that taking the adventure into fantasy was a great way to stop arguments about historical minutiae, that was not the problem. The magic on the other hand, was.

For some reason I wanted a regular world, with none of that "gamey stuff". I wanted exciting fencing and swinging in chandeliers, but no fireballs. I also decided to ditch the culture inspired by ancient Norse culture. Those are always corny when done by Americans.

Starting the game it also became clear that even though the game system had some really good ideas, for example the incentives to do dramatic stuff, it did have problems. One of the most glaring ones showed up already in character generation, where the sheer amount of knacks and skills made it take too long to whip up a character. I like that part of a game to be quick and breezy, which is why I fell out of love with GURPS.

Now this weekend when I saw the movie I posted about yesterday, I realized I had been wrong about the magic, though.

While my 7th Sea game was a success, the way that musketeer movie shoved in non-historical air-ships and steampunk features showed me the joy of mash-ups. I still think vikings through an American lens is just corny. But magic, swords, Napoleon, cthulhu, intrigue and lost treasures actually goes just fine together in the soup! One reason I liked the movie was those elements which were contra factual. Hey, what was it Dave had done again?

I'm thinking about revisiting 7th Sea, and this time I'm not going to take things out. I'm going to put more gonzo stuff in! There are still issues with the game system I will address, like a hack to limit the amount of skills you get. Maybe even eliminate the fact that there are skills and knacks. That was a bit fiddly. More of that will be posted here, shortly.

A reflection on Rolemaster - tweakablility

Having been in a conversation about Burning Wheel, a game built very tightly to a specific specification, I think back on how amazingly modular Rolemaster is.

Anyone who have seen the long series of companions published for the system probably know what I mean. Almost any part of the system can be tweaked, added to or subtracted from. It would still be Rolemaster! I think I have at least four different initiative systems in my collection, and that not counting the fan made stuff free on the internet!

I think that was the same thing that made me a fan of GURPS back in the day. Take the parts you like and the core is still the same. Learn some basics and then you know the game, but there's more flavour if you need it.

Contrast that with modern iterations of D&D.

Do you remember how convoluted, complex and contradictory the 3rd ed D&D rules became when you started hacking them with all the splat books that came out?

I still look favourably on Rolemaster, and even though I don't expect to play it again soon I almost always start make up new and exciting rules tweaks as soon as I start to read it. I like that quality in a game.

Character personality as crunch

I read a post on The Douchey DM, by Stu from Happy Jacks RPG Podcast. He posts on the topic of whether character personality chould be part of the game mechanics. I have on more than one occasion in both posts and blog comments mentioned how I by far prefer to randomly generate my characters and than designing them through, e.g., point by systems.
For me it works better by far to play the character and in play develop personality traits. When I don't, I find more often than not that I run out of ideas and the character becomes a one trick pony.

Now, what happens when the character personality and psychology is supported by game mechanics?

I think the crunch heavy game, where I get to game (so to speak) the personality, it works better for me. Even if I decide beforehand some character traits, I tend to get more out of them if I can use them as an excuse to roll dice. Maybe it's because most games have some kind of mechanic for those traits to change and develop. It kind of is a way to support my implied way of developing a character with a game system.

Interestingly enough, many new school game, like those from the Forge community, are not only quite crunch heavy but also quite "in your face" when it comes to supporting the psychology and personality of the character and its relationships with game mechanics.

Thus, we have three groups of games.

1. the old school game where there's not much game mechanical support for anything but combat.
2. the 2nd generation game where the designers left the random tables behind and you "can build anything". Premier examples are GURPS and Hero.
3. the new school game with few rules, but they often focus on the character personalities and interpersonal activities.

What I find interesting is how this is also something of a chronological series. Really new games and old ones have interesting similarities for supporting a style of play where you "game the personalities of your character. One game by leaving you to your own devices, and the other by focusing the rules on that thing.

For me this explains why I find some games so fascinating, but still can't make them work for me. This is also why I do things like this, where I try to merge the qualities I like most from games of different eras and generations. The true test of skills would of course be to find a way to hack GURPS to be what I want.

T&T hacks - a series of rules surgeries

I took a long hard look at my wall of games. I like those games. Some of them I haven't played in a long while, though. I see why the idea of learning one system and sticking to it can be very appealing. Yeah, I have GURPS on those shelves too. I even used to have more than one edition. But, maybe there is a way to have your cake and eat it too!

One of my favourite systems is Tunnels & Trolls. Now, how if I could take some of the cool features or subsystems out of those other games and transplant them into T&T? Some might work like a charm, and some will be terrible frankenhacks. Hey, there's only one way to find out which works or not!

I will in the coming weeks post one post every Sunday, taking the surgical knife to another system, trying to graft its entrails to my T&T homonculi, creating a new life form. Follow along, it might be scary and it might be fun. If you care nothing for T&T rules hacks, stay around any way. I'm keeping up *ahem* with the regular posts in the regular bursts of activity.

RIP Professor Barker

Professor M A R (“Phil”) Barker died just recently. I was away from home, cramming my head full with new skills for my gong fu, when I friend called me up and told me the news. I have never played EPT but I have read his first novel, and liked it. Right now I wish I could re-read it, but I lent it out and now it's lost. One of these days I'd like to explore Tekumel.

So, what can I say that have not been said already? I didn't know him, and don't have any experience with the game world. I'm thinking of how fans of Tekumel write their setting and rules hacks.

If you check out the official Tekumel site, you will find links to many different rules systems. Those I find intriguing are the ones which don't try to adapt an existing set, but instead start with what is specific for Tekumel. There are a few, and some are not even finished after those specifics are nailed down. Maybe that is what is the core of the rules needed. The main theme of the game is by necessity what should first be written. Can you spot what is the core theme of GURPS? I bet there is one. Those might not be obvious at first, but even fairly setting agnostic rules have themes in them. I'm right now suddenly immediately struck by the necessity of that fact. I think I'm going to meditate on that a bit. Maybe re-reading those Tekumel rules again will make me see the Tekumel behind the rules.

Thanks for the cerebral workout Professor! Even indirectly, your creation makes the gears turn. The power of dream and imagination is amazing. Game on!

GURPS through a FATE lens

I have been thinking about GURPS a lot lately, and it feels like it wont leave my head.

GURPS is a very crunchy system, and while I have no fear of crunchy systems (I did start out with MERP and Rolemaster after all) something scares me off GURPS. That something is character generation. One problem with point buy systems is that it necessitates a lot of thumbing through the rules books, and recalculating and juggling numbers around. That takes time. I hate that part.


Still the allure of a generic and universal system have never left me. While I have never actually played GURPS, I imagine it could be pretty smooth in actual play. So, how do I take out the points while keeping the customization possibilities? Today I got this idea of merging GURPS with FATE.


FATE, Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment, doesn't only have the worst name ever, it's also a pretty slick game system. Even better, I have played it, and enjoyed it. FATE is a game engine, an outgrowth of FUDGE, that can be used for lot of different settings. It almost start to sounds like "generic and universal", doesn't it? I took a stab at combining the two flavours.

Step one. Roll your stats, ST, DX, IQ and HT, on 3d6 - in order. That's your basic stats, and you can calculate Move by averaging HT and DX, or something similar.

Step two. Now pick your Aspects. This is where we bring in FATE. You can have any kind of trait as an Aspect. It could be a personality trait, an advantage or feat like Advantages in GURPS. The important thing is that this is a defining aspect of your character, and from this you generate your skills. Eyeballing it I'd say you pick three Aspects for a 100 pts GURPS character. Maybe add another one per 25 pts?

Step three. Now you get to pick skills. My first idea was to say you get a bunch of points to spread around. Then I remembered the idea was to get rid of points, and decided on picks instead. Make of it what you will, it's all for free on my blog, right?

So, skills. I suggest you now pick five skills per Aspect. Make them all relate to the Aspect in some way. The rating is eight to start with, and if you spend more of your picks on the skills they get +1 per pick. Got that? If one of your Aspects are a Power of some kind, like magic or psionics, you get 5 free "skills" for free, at rating 6, before spending picks.

Step four. Roll 3d6 x 10 for money. Or credits or dollars or whatever you want to call it.

How's that for a slimmed down GURPS? What? How to use those aspects? Well, this is what I'm thinking.

For every Aspect you have, you can once per game day invoke it to add +2 to any skill roll, i.e. 3d6 against your skill rating. Once every session you can invoke it for +3. Take your pick. The gamemaster can do the same to give you a penalty of -2/-3 instead. What helps sometimes hinder, right? Untrained skill use I'd say you roll 3d6 against a relevant stat -4, or 10 if that's lower.

Will this work? Will it feel like GURPS? I have no idea. Feel free to test it and tell me. Some days I feel like tinkering with rules, but I seldom get a chance to play test them.

Another thought on GURPS

From my last post on GURPS, it seems like there are some interesting things to note about the game.

Nobody I've heard, either now or back when 4th ed. GURPS was released, seemed to think the new edition was such a big thing. Add to that the fact that they went to hard cover only and I wonder if SJG limited the market just there. I've heard it said many times that hard covers sell better, but I'm wondering if that is true when the game isn't evolving as much as D&D was when 3rd ed and 4th ed came out. Is GURPS maybe a little too true to its roots?

It would be really interesting to know how the transition from 2nd ed. GURPS to 3rd ed. worked? I was there, but I wasn't at all connected to the business side of things. Not like everyone is today in the era of the information highways.

Also, how about those GURPS Compendiums? It has been said about many games that they have been to cumbersome, but I'm starting to wonder if GURPS didn't in fact implode from its own weight. I guess 4th ed. was an attempt to fix that, but maybe the timing was off.

The last thing which have struck me is the most ironic thing of all. What if GURPS is too good at being GURPS?

Think about it. If the game truly is the Generic Universal system you can use for anything, then it is the end of all games. Roleplaying games are really totally nonsensical from a business perspective. Once you have the rules, the only thing you need is your imagination. In perpetuity! Core rules should be prices higher, probably. Now imagine if you can use one set of rules for everything.

What if GURPS is just too good at being GURPS?

A thought about GURPS

As you might now, soem people have tried to assemble lists of what kind of games are "old school" or not. I have no idea if GURPS ever was on one of those lists, but it was mentioned in the comments on Grognardia (you know the way there, right?) and it got me thinking.

Steve Jackson have, for a few years now, posted a "Stakeholder's Report". In this he keeps us all in the loop of what's going on at SJG HQ. Steve is indeed a very interesting fellow in this business. Anyway. One thing that has become clear is how utterly dependant SJG is on Munchkin, and how totally insignificant GURPS have become. I am, after all, primarily a rpg player and am thus mosre interested in the GURPS part of that equation.

Why on earth have GURPS shrunken so in the market place?

What are all the former GURPS fans playing today? GURPS 3rd ed. still, and buying nothing new for the shiny 4th ed.?

Frankly, it puzzles me.

Anyone have a theory?

An insight into "rules lite" systems

Yesterday we met for the first real session of 7th Sea, the new game in my "indie Wednesday" group. We had met once before but had not finished making characters. This time I had decided to set a time when everything had to be done, so we could play at least one scene. Having accomplished that goal I was struck by a sudden insight about "rules lite" systems.

I know some of my readers are familiar with The Bat in the Attic blog, and might have noticed the posts about GURPS there a while back. If you would have asked me two weeks ago if I wanted to ever pick up my GURPS books again, I would horrified have said "Never!". After last night, I think I might have changed my mind, slightly.

Just like GURPS, 7th Sea is a game where you build a character from points. Just like GURPS, there are dozens of things to spend those points on and choosing can take a while. A long while. That was really my main beef with GURPS.

Looking closer at the rules in GURPS, both from The Bat posts and my own copies, I realize it can be a fairly smooth game. On the other hand, if you spend all that time making characters, you not only feel an urge to cushion those Player Characters from danger (as a GM) but also risk loosing all interest in the game if it takes two sessions until you get to roll dice.

I don't know if I'd call GURPS a "rules lite" system, but it sure looks like a lot of the clunkyness can be found in the character generation system with point builds. This brings me to my newfound insight and hypothesis that the "rules lite" aspects that are so fondly spoken of in the OSR, is mostly the fact that the games most talked about are games where you get to dive into the action, right from the start. The reason "rules lite" is so popular is that "rules lite" = no point buy systems.

There, now go find a game popular in the OSR which have a quick character generation system with complex rules once play starts. I think that combo could be a seller.

Mixing two flavour that don't match? - GURPS Dungeon Fantasy

I have known about this line a while, since I read the Daily Illuminator, but I haven't investigated what it meant. Until now.

There's a line for GURPS called GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, and it's supposed to be a way to do dungeon crawling with GURPS. This sounds like everything but a match made in heaven. When I last made a character for GURPS, it took ages to shuffle points around and look through long lists of Advantages and Disadvantages. Can you really do a dungeon crawl that way? With traps? With puzzles and really dangerous monsters? With a real threat of a TPK?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a dungeon crawl has to be a meatgrinder, but if I ran a game where the experience of making a character was that tiring, I'd be tempted to cuddle the players. That is what I think sounds like a recepie for a boring game. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it just works. Maybe.

It makes me wonder why crazy I am that am talking about Ars Magica, DragonQuest and Mythic Europe. Something odd in the water, maybe?

The deadliness of combat

I just managed to strike a really good deal on eBay for the old fantasy rpg classic DragonQuest. For some of us it's one of those games which the old grumbling grognards seemed to like, but we never bought ourselves when it was in print. I've been reading it a while now, and it have some interesting ideas, and one of the more verbose ways to present the rules I've ever seen. I'm going to talk a bit about the combat system today.

Everyone have probably heard the criticism leveled at AD&D, that with escalating hit points jumping off a mountain was always an option when a fight with a dragon went bad. Later editions have exacerbated the phenomena, and it sure can get silly sometimes.

Then we have those games where your stalwart hero marches into combat, only to be slain by a fist to the jaw. I own a few of those as well. DragonQuest made me think of another way to kill characters.

How many of your fantasy rpgs have rules for infection and gangrene? Harn probably have it, and maybe you, dear reader, can mention a few more. In DragonQuest the rules say like this:

The Base Chance of infection is equal to 10%. If the figure took any damage to Endurance, add (20 + the amount of Endurance damage in points). If the damage was inflicted by bite, claws, or talons, add 20. Specific Grievous Injuries may rise the Base chance even further.

Tough going! So if a Troll manage to rake you with his claws for 1 point of damage (note that there's less serious Fatigue damage before taking Endurance damage), you suddenly have a 61% chance of infection!  I wonder what will kill most characters, infection or the damage points?

In comparison I decided to check GURPS, which usually have a rule for everything. To my great surprise it was not that detailed, and the chance to avoid infection was a simple HT+3, which for a average human with 10 HT would mean roll over 13 with 3d6. Sounds very doable. I tried to calculate the percentage chance of success on that roll but my math skills just wasn't up to it.

Another game I checked was my old BRP derived Drakar & Demoner which had rules for infection, but far less tough than DragonQuest. 1% per hit, or 3% for dirty or natural weapons, and 5% to develop the infection into gangrene in 1d4 weeks. Those 61% start looking very grim indeed.

I am amazed by these numbers! While I am no longer very concerned by realism in my games, I start to wonder which of these games actually provide a picture of how it really works?

I guess everyone have heard of Papers & Paychecks, the rpg that they play in one illustration in AD&D? I am getting these ideas of a rpg where most of the time is spent is bed, coughing or lying on a battlefield with your guts spilled out, and the big drama is not combat, but the hours spent rolling on tables for disease, disfigurement and permanent injury. A new game called Injuries & Illness, maybe? Grim, is the word. It almost goes into silly territory for a moment there. Still, I find it fascinating.

Making interesting characters

I read a good blog post today, which got me thinking about how I generate the characters I play. Our Sunday Group have been playing different kind of New School, indie games, for a while now. Many of these games come from the movement to empower the player which can be said to have started at The Forge. In those games you usually focus a lot on the player characters, naturally. To then just roll the bones and play what you get is kind of antithetical to that idea. My problem is that rolling the bones is how I go about such things!

I was once very fond of GURPS. My love with that system ended when I tried to make some characters in that system. It's a great system in many respects, but it showed to me an aspect which I know about, but hadn't felt before. If you ask me about what kind of character I'd like to play in this or that game, I usually think a bit and then give a few words of the attitude I'm aiming for. When using GURPS that is usually where you have to start, but for me that is the end. Sitting down and actually design a character built upon that vague attitude and you'll find me flailing about indecisively. I don't design my characters. I play them, from the start.

Rolling the bones and making up something as you go along is my way of doing it. I have nothing against detailed concepts, but I suck a making them up on the spot. Using life path systems is something I love, since it gives me a character with a lot of interesting wrinkles and also helps me start imagining things. So, having a table like the one on bloodlines which Mike is working on is right up my alley. Something like this in the rulebook of my beloved T&T would make me happy. As far as I know, neither Flying Buffalo nor anyone else have every published anything like that. A new character could always use some polish, right?

Here's some rough sketches, and a few newly cut facets which shows the jewel beneath. Now, imagine the hell out of it!