Let’s start this off with a rant.
I've noticed that over the history of rpgs that bad ideas never really die. It would almost serve as a disproof of "survival of the fittest". Course one could say that about western culture as a whole, doomed by its own success- but that's a slightly different subject as in rpgs most of those bad ideas never really enjoyed long lasting success. Rather they sort of creep along forever as 'also rans'. Perhaps in the end it will be survival of the fittest given that such games only exist because western culture no longer weeds out its own unfit at any level. One unstable condition propping up another until they both tumble to earth due to sheer unsupportable weight. Sort of like ‘affordable housing’.
So what inspired that rather pointless (as in, it won't change anything) rant? Dark Heresy and Deadlands, and actually even 1st edition RuneQuest at nearly the dawn of rpg history.
Back in the day, one of the entries for Murphy's Rules was the huge death and maiming toll inflicted by the Great Axe (may have been a different weapon, I forget the details) in RuneQuest. A thousand man army would see dozens fall beneath those deadly blades each round- from self inflicted wounds. Such were the fumble rules.
Murphy Rules made great fun of this, as it was obviously completely silly. No one would use a weapon more dangerous to its user than its targets. Heck, everyone knows that no one would use a weapon that was unlikely to get you though a single battle without injuring or killing you.
And yet, years later come Deadlands. There we have hucksters and mad scientists whose spells and devices are extremely likely to blow away their users. I ran the odds, and just to use a steam wagon or the like for a round trip risked a greater than 50% chance of some sort of failure, and a significant number of them would put you in the hospital or graveyard.
Dark Heresy is the latest game I've encountered using this type of system, where every attempt to use an ability risks the lives not just of the user, but of all his 'friends' within range as well. Like Deadlands before it, the more skilled the user, the more likely things are to get out of hand. Death by game balance.
Who in the world would have thought this was a good idea? Game designers across three decades it seems.
There are only two possible outcomes to this design choice:
1. The benefits of the abilities aren't worth the cost. This means that they aren't used- thus being a waste of rule space at best, or a complete roadblock to the intent of the game at worst.
2. The benefits are worth it, and thus tend to be game breaking in and of themselves. After all, it’s worth the risk of death if that ability is the only way (and certain way) of achieving the goal. And that means all those other less dangerous abilities your character has- Meaningless. Of course, they may not work and you could die from the attempt ending your play in the campaign- because balance.
So they break the campaign when they work- and then break it when they fail and kill the PCs. Designers are still making these systems, players are still buying them. And people wonder why I have a low opinion of the hobby.
Now one may say that such a system is perfect for those types of campaigns who’s whole point is having the characters die. Sure, one can say that. But it doesn’t raise my opinion of the hobby any…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
In regard to your Dark Heresy example, I though of the rules as emulating the setting. In the Warhammer 40,000 setting, psychic powers draw from a dangerous place that can lead to you being possesed by demons, and the more powerful the psychic the greater that danger becomes. The rules make sense to me in that respect.
So here are the questions:
1)Does it make sense for a game's rules to emulate setting or genre if it's at the player's expense? I certainly think it's possible as long as the rules are clear so the player knows what they're getting into.
2)If such rules are okay, is there some clear line probability to represent that level of risk to power? For example is it okay for a power to have a drawback to the player as long as the chance to occur is no more than 30%?
You make a good point Zweihander. It is emulating the setting, even if in this case the setting was a wargame where balance by death is only for a single battle. The next day the same character can appear in a different game. Thus it never really breaks the 'campaign' as it does in an RPG that has a continuing storyline. Besides, ‘death’ in the wargame is little more than removal from the battlefield. One can just hand wave that most of the deaths are battle ending injuries and not real deaths thus explaining the return of the characters to the storyline. Game Workshop itself did this in the background that accompanied battle reports in their Apocalypse game book.
However there is a problem with setting disconnect in the wargame, that upon transfer to an rpg becomes even more apparent. The 'fluff' (to use a 40K term) doesn't match the rules.
There are characters in the background who used such powers for *hundreds* of years without dying or being driven insane. How is this possible? Why isn’t it reflected in the RPG? (I understand from a forum post that it is, just not for PCs. But don’t have the supplement it’s listed in and so can’t confirm).
But despite all that you raise good questions and I'll try and answer them.
1. I think so, as long as it's not done in the name of game balance and is better if it affects everyone. This allows campaigns like Strike Force: Morituri for those who would enjoy such a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=850512
2. I think the chance should be on the low side; otherwise the character becomes about as useful a clip of ammo (if that). RPGs (unless single shot) are longer term efforts than something as high as 30% would generally allow for.
DH varies its chances depending upon power level (‘more powerful == easier to screw yourself’ is a different but related point in this debate that I’ll pass on for now), but can be held to 5% and under for serious negative effects by a cautious player, and even then most of the results aren't going to kill the character outright.
I imagine different groups would want different percentages likely related to how long a single campaign tends to last. Your suggestion of 30% might well work for a one shot heavy genre game.
I chose Warhammer mainly because it does have the issues you mentioned, I should have also stated my self a little better in that the risk to the psychic is more related to the amount of power they exert and not to their own personal potential (though it does seem a factor, as you said the issue is pretty cloudy).
Game balance through the designer's perceived concern over a specific ability or family of abilities is an interesting subject. As I've become a little more interested in such issues and how they relate to the games I run, I've had to review the games closer just to see if it makes sense, and by how much. For me balancing rules are only implemented if they are appropriate for the setting, and if they are expedient to use
In my upcoming D&D campaign, I use the simpler armor prohibition for magic users instead of sweating over whether the magic failure percentages for wearing armor are appropriate.
I thinking yours is a wise approach. Keep it simple, and keep it setting related.
Just as side comment, I'm not opposed at all to backfires, fumbles and the like. As long as they are more of a passing problem, and not something to kill the character
Hey gleichman,
I compeltely agree about Deadlands. I remember one very short campaign (perhaps only one game, maybe two?) where all but one character (whose player wasn't there that night) died by their own hands. We didn't play it again.
It's fine to accidentally commit suicide but the game must be set up for that. Deadlands wasn't. Paranoia, for example, was.
Great post, sir.
Deadlands certainly risks that result Rob.
Although I love the concept and the feel of its mechanics. Tried to get it to work for good couple of years in a campaign, as the house rules on my website show.
In the end however, we gave up. It just wasn't workable for a long term campaign without gutting some of the charm (like Hucksters drawing cards).
Thanks for stopping by and liking the article!
I'd say that an ability that has very small cost (or that is free) can have a huge chance of failure and severe consequences.
For example, let every character be able to summon a demon, with around half a chance of total ruin and half a chance of getting what they wish for. Few players would be willing to take on the odds, but in desperate situations they might, which is thematic and fitting.
The examples I listed weren't about desperate and rare situations, but were about typical acts taken on typical adventures.
RPGs often have those events when characters risk life and limb and might end up dead. It's called heroic adventure (although much of the time is something of an illusion).
My point was (supposed to be) that similar designs can be function under specific circumstances.
Extreme circumstances that skilled character play up front should be able to avoid?
Your point isn't very interesting. But if you're not railroading your players into such circumstances and if you want to give them a 50/50 out when they already deserve to die- sure, go for it.
I'd let them die (or whatever other dire condition they got themselves into) myself.
Remember the whole point of the mechanics I'm talking about is to kill the characers in the name of game balance, there's no reason not to let them die up front when they screwed themselves up enough on the own to reach for something like this. To even allow them the out is a failure of Game Balance from the tradition POV.
Post a Comment