Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep- Part II: GNS

As the sun set on the Threefold, it rose on GNS.

GNS followed on the heels and built upon the ground of Threefold, however in many ways they were worlds apart. Where the Threefold was only concerned with individual decisions by players and GMs, GNS would seek to define entire game systems. Where the Threefold was interested only in expressing the ideas of individual, GNS would seek to be a movement to change the hobby. Where the Threefold by error uplifted Simulation, the GNS would by intent trumpet Narrativism. Where the Threefold was a reaction to being attacked, GNS would be the attacker.

Ron Edwards took many of the original concepts of the Threefold and turned them on it's head around 1999 with the publication of System Does Matter. Here he replaced the Threefold's Drama with the term Narrativist and redefined the other two terms (Gamist and Simulationist) although he kept the wording.

The goal was completely different from that of r.g.f.a, here the intent was to define game systems (not individual decisions) by the three concepts. And further and more importantly he would claim "a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." This was a radical departure from the Threefold who viewed individuals as commonly using all three elements throughout a game session.

Thus, according to Edwards a game was to be judged as to how well it allows you to play in one of the three modes, which by nature means that it could not let you play in any of the other two. Games that did this would later be labeled coherent, those that failed this test would be labeled incoherent.

Armed with this new vision, Edwards set out upon a crusade to remake the hobby replacing such inferior (to his mind) work as the incoherent World of Darkness games (which according to him preached Narrativist play while only offering Gamist mechanics).

Towards this end, he took sole control of what was once a website called Hephaestus' Forge from his partner E P Healy sometime in 2001. The site would undergo changes that made it into a platform for further development of the GNS theory where once before it supported any and all free rpgs offered oline. Renamed The Forge, it holds the definitive articles on GNS.

Message forums were added to the site, and this by nature attracted a number of people previously involved in the Threefold or other theory debates including myself by invitation.

It soon became clear however that this wasn't r.g.f.a, for this place was even less accepting of disagreement and more than willing to enforce it by moderation. I broke all contact early on when the site admins edited a posters comments that reflected poorly upon the supporters of the new model (without informing the poster or making a notation of the action). The effect was to make my own reply to the now edited article appear far over the top. Any and all posts by me and links to my works at the site were pulled by the Admins at my request after a short firestorm.

In short order, entire threads would be managed and locked when they in Edward's view diverged from the core (now GNS) intent of the site. The original offer to build new theory and rpgs was found to have a serious limit- only as long as they met Edward's approval.

For the next few years the site's forums saw limited and focused debate effectively limited to believers as Edwards sought to refine his model. During this time his distain for corners except Narrativist would become clear as this quote on Simulationism shows

"Paul and I are now thinking that Simulationism is NOT an actual outlook or goal, unlike Narrativism or Gamism. Nor is it a "design dial," as many have suggested.

No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism."

Gamism would fair somewhat better than Simulationism, but would still be characterized as being more akin to board games rather than rpgs, and in terms unfamilar and unacceptable to the typical role-player. From 1999 on Edwards would author additional articles on his model expanding on his concepts of how rpgs should be designed. These are jargon filled almost beyond belief. Those interested can review them themselves here.

What is striking about these events is both what it has in common with the original Threefold and where it differs. Both were models developed by someone who heavily favored one of the corners, and both refused outside suggestions for change or improvement. Edwards however took GNS places where the Threefold never stepped- outright dismissal of one of its corners, intense criticism of various RPGs and gaming styles, and to a mission that would make new rpgs that were in all ways better than any that came before.

The Threefold was a human failure due to lack of prespective. GNS was from the start an ego driven obesssion.

Finally in December of 2005, Ron Edwards closed the Forge's message board on GNS theory with the following 'Graduation' statement:

"This forum is no longer available for posting. It has served its purpose: to develop a sensible framework for discussing play, and the children of play, design and publishing. That framework is available as the Big Model."

Any future exchanges on GNS (or the Big Model that evolved from it) at the Forge were now shut down. The model was perfect, the stage set. It was time to go forth and multiply.

Next, the Swine Wars...

Parts I, III, IV, V

Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep- Part I: The Threefold

If one visits some of the more common RPG sites online, there's a good chance that sooner or later you're run into what is call GNS, which sadly is the most visible 'RPG Theory' today. While I think it's declining in importance, it has left a long shadow of bad feelings that's cause many to knee-jerk away from anyone speaking theory or design. Passions are heated and the number of flamewars over this is beyond count.

So, why is that? How did GNS trash RPG Theory as a whole to the point where the best nearly any forum with a Game Design subject can do is talk about how to roll dice in a different way?


Like most things, it didn't begin with GNS. It started much earlier, to my knowledge in the Usenet group rec.games.frp.advocacy (r.g.f.a) around the mid 1990s. And it's here that I'd like to start.

Originally r.g.f.a was a typical advocacy group on Usenet where someone could scream that RuneQuest was better than D&D and get immediate foes claiming the reverse. In short, it was a dumping ground for flamewars. This changed however as the group membership abandoned exchanges about which game was better instead talking about characteristics of gaming itself. Rec.games.frp.Advocacy in effect became the first noticeable RPG Theory group online.

Into this enter one David Berkman (one of the authors of Theatrix). Berkman advocated a style of play based around 'what was good for the story', not what the mindless dice or needs of simulation would call for. 'Advocated' as is 'this is the best way, any other way is stupid' type of advocating.

This was unacceptable to other members of the forum, those who based their gaming upon the desire to recreate a internally consistent game world that would allow deep immersion role-play. In such a campaign, even examining the 'plot', let alone altering it in the name of ‘improvement', was an ice cold bath dumped upon their life passion.

Thus the r.g.f.a core divide came into being between Story-Telling vs. Simulation as the two sides were called (later Story-Telling would be replaced by the label Drama).

Under fire, those on the Simulation side of things spent a great deal of time and effort defining what they actually believed. And for good reason, after all it's difficult to defend something unless you can say what it is. Along the way, they also defined what Berkman's ideas of Story-Telling driven gaming meant to them.

Eventally Berkman left the group although his influence remained until its end.

Afterwards the various members decided to build upon the defintions made during the great debate. They saw things as divided between Drama on one hand, and Simulation on the other as a result of the Berkman flamewars.

But the point was raised that people who just gamed for the fun of gaming didn't seem represented. Thus the term Gamist was coined and from there the leap (generally credited to Mary Kuhner) was made to what became the Threefold Model (also called GDS by some).

The important thing to me about the Threefold is that was created under fire, and was create by those who with rare exception called themselves Simulationists. Mary Kuhner's influence both upon the model and the newsgroup as a whole was the most powerful, although John Kim who maintained the group FAQ certainly had an impact as well.

So the end result was what one would expect. A model with a very nice definition of Simulation (I should note here that Warren Dew, perhaps the best example of what the term Simulation was meant to mean didn't like the term that much), but rather half-baked and even somewhat insulting definitions of the other two corners.

I truly feel that was unintended, but still the unavoidable result given that the creators of the Threefold didn't really understand any other style of player besides their own. They could not but describe Game and Drama except as 'other'. Instead their failing if anything was the refusal to take input from those of other styles who over the next few years as the 90s came to an end engaged them in Threefold debate after Threefold debate.

Many tried (including myself from the Game POV), especially various people who would have like to have identified with Drama. Nearly all give up, only to be replaced by new people who arrived and had the same reaction. Finally the supporters (most importantly Kuhner herself who drove much of the threads in the newsgroup) of the Threefold got fed up with all the attacks and left r.g.f.a. The newsgroup died.

Along the way was a fair amount of interesting discussion and good ideas. It’s worth reviewing some of the threads in Google Groups. But the mental image left to those aware of r.g.f.a was endless bickering over word use, all for a model that didn't really define or mean much to most gamers given its Simulationist founding and control.


So the Threefold was born in flames, and died in flames. With a hint of Personality Cult around its creator at that. But far worst was to come in that line with Ron Edwards and GNS...

Parts II, III, IV, V

Now Playing

It's been a week of posting rather heavy theory related articles, so I've decided to take a break before starting a multi-part look back at the history of RPG Theory on the web and talk about my own current campaigns.

We attempt to game weekly, however this due to real life concerns tends to be more like bi-weekly if averaged over the year.

What I'm playing hasn't really changed much over the years although the faces have as I've moved from town to town. Currently most of my game time is spent in HERO System in a re-imagined version of Shadowrun, Marvel comics, or a whole cloth comic setting called White Phoenix (again using HERO) GM by another.

These are quite different in character as the Marvel setting makes full use of the concept that points really don't matter. It's called the "Year One" campaign as it stole a idea from the comics themselves (Ulimates series) of doing a complete reboot, i.e. doing it the way we wanted to do it with the characters the way we liked them (which is often very different indeed from official comics).

There's no XP award in this campaign. The characters are what they are and while something may happen that causes changes to the character sheet, it has nothing to do with the common XP leveling.

The Shadowrun campaign is a bastard thing that uses what at first glance is the standard HERO System point budgets. But that's a illusion. Cyberware and the like are gained by pure money while the character's starting points is based upon how much Cyberware they can have installed. So a player who wants a Cyber monster might have 50 points to begin the game (and of bunch of cyberware of course) while someone wanting to play an Adept starts with 125.

XP is awarded in the Shadowrun, but there's a dimishing return applied that is also linked to the starting points. This keeps the XP and Cyberware improvements somewhat in line with each other.

The name of this blog by the way comes from the Shadowrun campaign. Whitehall ParaIndustries is a AA corp in that world that has... interesting behind the scenes influence. The picture in the header was inspiration for their Arcology and headquarters.


The White Phoenix campaign is a flat 800 point budget with no XP.


All very different ways of playing the same core system.

Now and then of course we still play Age of Heroes, my home grown rules for High Fantasy. We brought one of our players a copy of Dark Heresy and he's considering running a game for us, but he's time pressured and it may not happen.

The Points Just Don't Matter

... that's right, the points are like a role-player in a D&D game :)

More seriously, this picks up from the previous article on Point Systems. There I looked at them from a game design POV with a focus on what is a rather traditional style of play- a GM designing a campaign world and adventures for his group of players (and their characters).

There's another way of doing things however and it's a very simple one. You build everyone (and in a game like HERO, everything) to match the setting and its concepts. It doesn't matter if an ability is useless or not, if they have it- buy it. Hang the points; only add them up if you're curious.

For example, I've ran a re-imagined version of the Marvel Universe for years now with a number of different groups. Every character, weapon, device, etc was built in HERO System first and foremost to match my own view of what my version of the setting was and should be like. Game Balance came in second on the list of consideration.

So Hulk is the strongest one there is. And Hawkeye is just plain not as powerful as Thor in the Avengers. And the points show this. Hawkeye is a 365 point build while Thor clocks in at 655.

And to someone interested in recreating a consistent reality based upon the comic world (with changes to make it truly consistent), that's the way things have to be.

Now what's interesting, is that over the campaigns Hawkeye has been on the same team with Thor in the same adventures. And he wasn't useless by any means. Sometimes niche is more important than power, and Hawkeye can do things Thor can't for the simple reason that their niche is different. In fact, I've had more people want to run Hawkeye than run Thor- they think he's more fun.

I'll come back to niche some day, for niche is the single most important mechanic element in a successful rpg IMO.

But for now, I'd like to suggest that it's ok to run wild with the points if "it is what it is" is your primary concern in campaign design. If you (like me) are still interested in some degree of player balance- find it not in points but in niche. It works.

The Correct Way of judging Point Systems

One of the common threads I see on rpg sites are about the failures of various Point systems for character generation. Be it HERO, GURPS, or whatever.

Sometimes these are on the mark. For example GURPS depressing ability to make an highly experienced but rather average stat character cost far more than an equally skilled high stat but green new comer. The later will find it much cheaper to advance his skills and will in total do more with far fewer points. Most Point based systems suffer from this to greater or lesser degrees, most not approaching the serious foolishness found in GURPS that effectively derails certain character concepts out of the gate. A point system can go seriously wrong with it displays problems with it's own consistency.

But sometimes people just flatly miss the boat on some things. For example this thread where a number of people are whining that rich characters are forced to be incompetent.

Right out the gate one can see the assumption that Point Systems are 'balanced' and one 100 point PC is always equal to another differently constructed 100 point PC. This is simply false and for a very good reason. The designer of the Point System is not the designer of your adventures.

For example, one can buy a wonderful 10 ability in HERO System that prevents your character from being flanked or from taking out-numbered modifiers. Nice huh? Well it's 10 points completed wasted if your GM never has your character flanked or out-numbered. Heck, it's over-priced if the GM tends to focus on single big bad foes vs. the heroic team of underdogs.

And it's under-priced if you're playing Doc Savage vs. the hordes of villainous cannon folder every single adventure. The door swings both ways.

So it’s plain that out of the gate, no game can make the expenditure of those 10 points balanced. Thus game balance can't really be the point of the system design now can it?

So what do those Points actually represent? That's simple- purchasing power in a nearly capitalist sense. It's just as if you had $100 and went to the store.

And now here's the real big kicker on this. And I mean really big.

You're not buying abilities for the mythical completely balanced campaign where every 1 point spent on X is always equal to one spent on Y. You're buying it for the campaign you're actually playing in. And in order to do this, you're buying you're GM's agreement that it will work out that way in his adventures.

So, to return to why so many people at thread above missed the boat. It's because the player who buys 10 points of wealth in HERO is buying an agreement with the GM that he will allow that character to either overcome or deal with problems that 10 points of wealth can deal with.

If the GM doesn't want to include things for that wealth to overcome in his campaign, he of course can declare that. And at the point the 10 point Wealth perk now costs nothing, because that's the effect it's going to have on the important matters of the campaign. Put on your character sheet as background fluff for that's what it is, much like eye color.

And this people is how you get rich characters who are in every way the equal of normal joes in Point Systems like HERO. Just remember, you're not buying wealth. Weath is free, what you are buying is the right to throw Wealth around like it was a 800 lb ape- and changing the direction of the adventure as you do so.

Who's Genre?

Every now and then I see a message forum post or blog about a specific genre and how such and such game does a poor job or a good job recreating it.

I always have a somewhat mixed reaction. On one hand, in concept I love the idea of rules matching the genre. That is after all a target any game design should aim for. But the other hand almost always come into play- and that is I tend to object to what exactly people think is part of the Genre.

To use one example I've seen a number of times online, the claim is made about the Comic Book genre that a Superhero system should allow just about anyone to beat anyone. After all, Wolverine beat Lobo now didn't he? Thus Powers and abilities should be extremely flexible in effectiveness in order to reflect the source materials...

Really?

I mean do people really consider one of the attractions of the comic book genre to be ever changing abilities (and personalities) of the characters driven by who's writing that month to be a good feature of the medium worthy of simulation in a rpg? Or do they just consider it bad writing and retcons?

I'm firmly on the side of this being of bad writing myself.

By no means does this mean that unlikely things don't happen or that underdogs can't win. Most genres and rpgs allow this. It’s just that the underdog had to be smart and/or lucky.

Now I'm sure that there are others that disagree and think that comic authors should have Super X the Mighty rend steel with his bare hands one issue and be restrained by common rope the next. And that a superhero rpg should follow suit. After all, these would be the people who post such rpg advice in the first place.

But personally I think they are carrying genre emulation too far, and aren't thinking as they do so. There is no requirement to emulate the bad elements of a genre. Be it repetitive plots, highly unrealistic events in an otherwise realistic setting, changing characters, racism, or even intended subtext of the original.

People often play and design genre games to do them right, without the limits and failures of the original. And they should, it will be a better game as a result. No matter what someone else claims is a 'required' element of the genre.

This in the end explains something about the rpg hobby. Why do we have so many games on the same subjects? It’s because everyone has a different view of what any specific genre is and is not. Be happy about this, it’s what gets us the wide ranging choice of games we have today.

Looking Back

Below I posted an article of mine from RPGNet from 2002. I reposted it for two reasons, one to give what is in effect my 'top level view' of rpg design on this blog. The second reason is to look it over and how it seems to apply to rpgs today.

Naturally (not lacking in ego) I feel it remains sound and rather intact. RPGs haven't despite the efforts of some changed to any extent that would cause a revision of the article (although I did correct a couple of typos as I was copying it over). Another thing that hasn't changed is the fact that many don't understand the concepts covered in the article. Stated as it's most simple, this can be expressed as: The sum total experience of a rpg campaign is driven by a large number of factors much of which exist outside the rules.

Yet today there are many who feel that unless something is hardcoded in the Game Layer (or *maybe* the Near Game), it doesn't exist at all. From the old cries of 'roleplay not rollplay' to today's critics of D&D 4E (who say the detailed combat system prevents roleplay), to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ and its depressing theory of GNS, this mindset remains a bedrock of the rpg hobby.

Pity. Games are worse for it, and players poorer.

Each Layer of a game design can and should of course be judged on it's own. One may for example examine combat rules and determine that they are too complex for one's own use or taste. One may even find rule loopholes and failures. That's fine and fair. One cannot however say that it isn't roleplaying. To do so is ignoring the most important Layers- those the players and the GM exist at, for it is there that any RPG campaign is given form and brought to life.

Elements: Layers of Design

Orignally Published on RPGNet Dec 2002

What do people think of when they think of game design? Generally things like character generation, resolution mechanics, combat rules, etc. Sadly this common view often causes people to miss most of the game as it is actually played. This in turn results in either poor design that fails to achieve its goals, or in poor evaluation of existing games (which causes endless flamewars).

In the simplest terms, an rpg campaign consists of two very different influences- the Game itself and the Meta-Game. These terms are generally understood by most gamers and are a useful short hand. That split however covers too much ground for my taste and I’ve identified five layers (one in Game, and four in the Meta-Game) that differ significantly enough from each other that a solid treatment of the subject must give each their due.

Any game operates within (and is in effect designed for) these five layers. Let’s consider each of them in turn:

Game
This layer is made up completely of the actual rules, i.e. the game’s mechanics. These rules must be objective and visible.

By objective, we mean that the mechanics would be resolved the same way and produce the same outcomes (assuming equal rolls, card picks, etc) no matter who the players are (assuming they are of course following the rules). For example, in HERO it takes a roll of 11 or less on 3d6 to succeed with an unadjusted 11- skill. Thus a die roll of 10 will be a success for any player in any group no matter the opinions and thoughts thereof.

By visible we mean that all data, resolutions and decisions in respect to the mechanics are visible to all players at all times.

It is very important to realize that this level’s primary purpose is to define LIMITS on the available actions and results. In chess rooks can move vertically and horizontality but never diagonally. A broadsword does a specified amount of damage- no more, no less in D20. Etc. It is by forcing limits that the mechanics assure objectivity, visibility and provide a framework for play.

Game play at this level is based upon known certainties. Examples: “The orcs have massed their greatest fighters in the center, we should…” or “I have a 68% chance of taking down the goblin, but only a 33% chance on the bigger hobgoblin. We’re outnumbered right now and that’s gives heavy modifiers against us so I’ll…”

In general tactical game design exists at this layer.


Near Game
This layer consists of any hidden mechanics.

This includes but is not limited to such things as pre-plotted movement (seldom used in RPGs, one example slightly modified is The Burning Wheel), various rock-scissors-paper resolutions systems (hand-to-hand combat in Top Secret, RSP itself in many LARPs, etc), hidden movement (defined by Line of Site rules for the most part, D&D 3rd edition for example defines the range limits of sight under various conditions), hidden damage, and simultaneous assignment (such as the drop of the initiative die in The Riddle of Steel).

The effect of this layer is to move decisions away from the visible certainties above to one of predicting the decisions of other players or guessing what information that they are hiding. Examples: “Tom tends to mass his power in the center but he likes the cover forests give as well. Let’s deploy here so as to be within range of both and send scouts in those two directions” or “I’ll buff with this hand, Bill can never tell when I’m buffing”.

It should be noted that this layer remains objective and as such contains many of the characteristics of the Game layer. But it has moved into the Meta-Game to a large extent as the focus switches from visible characters and their abilities (stats, locations, resources) to players and their abilities (to guess and deceive).

In general, strategic game design exists at this level.


Near Meta-Game
This layer consists of any subjective or invisible mechanics.

Subjective Mechanics are those that rely upon the interpretation of the GM (or a player) to determine the final effect. D&D alignment is the classic example of such a subjective mechanic, the GM is required to determine when and if a character violates his Alignment and the player is required to role-playing with its goals and limits in mind. Another example is fumble mechanics where the actual effect is left up to the GM.

Another way of looking at these mechanics is to view them as ‘guiding mechanics’ or ‘advisory mechanics’. They may point in a direction, but how far you go and sometimes even if you make the trip at all is squarely a heavily subjective decision of the GM/Player.

A number of systems even toss combat modifiers that they normally reserve for the Game Layer here. In HERO System for example the GM is advised to give a bonus (+1 to +3) for creative and/or unexpected types of attacks. In Age of Heroes, I leave specific terrain modifiers up to the GM after providing a few examples.

Meta-Game
This layer consists of pure subjective resolution/methods, ‘group contracts’, and role-playing itself.

Subjective resolution is free form or mechanic-less play. The classic example is a GM or player just calling the outcome of an action: “I think your character is more than able to track down the guy by using legwork, you find him that evening at 8 PM”.

However subjective methods covers more ground then first comes to mind including the ‘world’ and adventure design essential to RPGs. If the GM has decided (without resort to mechanics) that the mob boss has three bodyguards, each highly skilled- he has engaged in the pure subjective resolution of a question.

Huge sections of most games are turned over to Subjective Resolution/Methods. One of the interesting aspects of that is that by nature you can’t design rules for it, each person does that himself according to his own needs and desires. At best one can provide advice. Thus in game design terms, this method is defined not by rules enforcing limits, but by the absence of rules preventing subjective decision-making. It is worth remembering that not including rules is as a result game design as well.

Group Contracts are those agreements made by members of a group to either engage (“we want to do a lot of hack and slash”, “Let’s try to keep the game focused on court intrigue”, “players should create characters that work with others”) or refuse (“we don’t want evil characters”, “no rape will occur in this campaign) events, ideas or storylines. Such group contracts are often informal although there are exceptions, and they tend to be added on top of the game outside the control or influence of the designer.

Role-playing itself is typically done at this layer with the players determining the personality, actions and reactions completely on their own without input from mechanical rules.
The main characteristic of this layer is that it’s subjective. It is also limited only the constraints accepted by the players themselves. Since it’s contained mostly within the minds of the players, it is also in large part hidden with uncertain influences or outcomes.

Far Meta-Game
These are influences unrelated to the game itself, but even so they still carry great impact. There is almost no way to define all the possible examples for the extent of their reach. Common ones are “GM’s girlfriend syndrome’ or ‘Sherri worked late and is off her game, let’s be easy on her’.

There is however one point in this layer where game design does matter: the decision to play the game at all. Here we get game design that attempts to make entry easy and attractive either by way of light and simple rules, by seductive settings, or ‘new’ concepts. These days we see lots of effort to design at this layer in an attempt to expand or open up new markets, often at the cost of other Layers.

Designing by Layers
One of the first things a designer should do is decide which parts of the game are to be handled by which Layer and for what reasons.

This will in large measure determine the character of the game and the campaigns that result from it. Those things contained at the Game layer will be highly defined and limited. Those at the Near Game will defined and limited, but unknown to some in the short term. Those at the Near Meta-Game will be guided, but not specifically controlled. The Meta-Game level itself is its own lord and master. The Far Meta-Game may cause the design to forgone certain mechanics as ‘too complex for his market’ or otherwise unacceptable.

For example, I designed Age of Heroes to handle character creation, advancement, combat, etc at the Game Layer. A few elements (like the Personal Appearance Stat) are covered in the Near Game. I assigned a large number of areas (all the world design, storyline, and role-playing) to the Near Meta-Game. I gave no attention to the Far Meta-Game not really caring why people chose to play.

An important concept to keep in mind is the fact that it’s quite possible to move elements I lumped into specific layers above to another.

A number of games for example move some parts of role-playing from its normal Meta-Game subjective method to a subjective mechanic in the Near Meta-Game. (D&D’s alignment) or even to the Game Layer (CoC’s Sanity at certain points). Another example of crossing Layers is those systems that determine at the Game Layer which player has control (and sometimes for what ends) in the Meta-Game.

Since such ‘crossing’ of layers is typically defined in one and resolved in another, I’ve coined the time “Calling to the X Layer” (such as Calling to the Meta-Game) for this type of design. It’s an increasing common method that many are finding exciting.

Judging a Design by Layers
Anyone attempting to judge the usefulness of a game system can benefit by considering five layers if they are interesting in not greatly misrepresenting other people’s campaigns and tastes.
For example, it’s easy to say that D20 or Age of Heroes are purely hack and slash designs given that most of the rules cover combat and near combat events. They have forgotten the importance of the Meta-Game level and the fact that both games are specifically designed to use it for certain parts of the campaign. It’s entirely possible for a group to spend five gaming nights in pure role-playing without a single die being toss, and then engage in a single evening’s combat. To characterized such a campaign as hack and slash would be a grave error- and a defining statement of the limits of looking at a single Layer.

Knowing the Layers and your own tastes in them can be helpful anytime you’re thinking of trying out a new game system. It will quickly point you towards things not to your taste and allow you to house rule it away from the start or to turn your attention elsewhere.

Beware of Shortcuts- Fun with Hit Locations

Often a game will seek to include something to emulate reality or the genre. The examples are of course countless, but for this let’s look at how a couple of games treated Hit Locations.

Back in the ‘day’ there was a game called Behind Enemy Lines, set in WWII. Like many games it used a random chart for hit locations (and was an interesting game all in all). It had this odd little thing however. If your character took hard cover, foes shooting at you would take a simple modifier to hit. If they hit they used a modified hit location chart that only targeted those locations not covered. Nice, simple and didn’t introduce new mechanics.

All was well… until you ran the numbers and realized that even with the modifier you greatly increased the chance of your character dying due to head shots and the like. The designers of the game even realized this and offered the tactical suggestion to never take hard cover- instead take soft cover (i.e. tall grass) which offered concealment modifiers without the special hit location chart.

If only the Army knew, they would abandon fox holes and bunkers for tall grass or maybe those dressing screens you see in Western era movies. Portable concealment for the win!

Another example of fun with Hit Locations is Dark Heresy. It decided to shortcut the need for a second die roll by the simple method of reversing your d100 roll to hit, and then cross-indexing the result on a chart. So a ‘to hit’ roll of 57 would also be a 75 on the Hit Location chart. A rather new method that is found in a number of games.

Removing a die roll for the ‘same’ result. Brilliant!

Except when you look a bit more closely. Let’s say your character is being fired at by some evil scum but the modifiers are such that it is the wildest of possible shots. Only an 01 will hit. But when it hits, it’s always in the same place- location 10 (head I think).

Things improve of course as the hit chance raises, and greatly improves after you hit 10%. But did you really want the most unlikely shots to be the most heavily focused from a Hit Location POV?

Did they not consider that by simply reversing the die they’ve constrained the range of possible results on the Hit Location table? Maybe they did, but decided that it was a small price to pay for removing the die roll. I hope the player who gets head shot (losing along the way the advantage the game gives for cover because that ‘always hit’ location wasn’t behind it) agrees.

The take away here for would be designers (and game buyers) is to consider what the cost is for your shortcut. It may be worth it to you, or not. And it may often be worth a laugh or two for the buyer…

Killing me not so softy with Game Balance

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 would 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 now work and you could die.


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…

Kicking This Off

Here goes nothing...

Being an old-timer from the days when rpgs were blue text on white, it's taken me a while to setup a blog. But what the heck, let's give it a try shall we?

I'll be using this to post various thoughts and reactions to rpgs new and old, free and not so free. We'll see how this goes and how much I have to say.