Wheels are best used, not reinvented

I've been rather busy of late, and haven't even read some of the recent comments (I'll try and get to them). So much to do.

I did however run across a interesting little article here that I wanted to comment on. It basically breaks down Star Trek (the recent movie), The Matrix, Harry Potter, and Star Wars to their basic storyline and finds out they're all the same.

There's nothing new to this, and one shouldn't be surprised. All are versions of Campbell's Hero's Journey after all. And this is perhaps the most common and successful 'plot' of all time. The core ideas are successful because they speak to something in mankind, everyone can relate and everyone knows how the story should go and are happy when it does indeed go that way.

Any sense of discovery along with the way is not over the major plot points- but rather is found in the details. The setting, individual character descriptions and action, etc.

On the other hand, when someone attempts to completely avoid those major points- the result is a disconnect with most of the audience. They can no longer relate, finding no joy in the main story and little in the details which now seem pointless. It may achieve cult status, but the mainstream will pass by with little interest.



What this reminded me of of with respect to the rpg hobby is how much time so many of the online personalities spend trying to do something different, often attempting to avoid key elements of the Hero's Journey (or any other of the classical plot arcs). In so doing they disconnect from most people- seeking the approval of their own little cult which may consist of a population of one in many cases.

Such a waste.

I prefer the open embrace of those elements that have always worked combined with the details that individual groups can bring to the table. It may not be 'cutting edge' but unlike that rather foolish goal which typical requires more ego (and cultists) than talent - it can actually work.

Bribing players

There is a whole school of thought out there that thinks rpg design is all about bribing your players to do what you want. This is a subject I've touched on before, and it's one that comes up now and again generally presented as if it was some great new insight.

The most current example I've ran across (located here) combines holier than thou moral relativism (i.e. killing the villian is the same as murder) with "Let's bride the players with XP awards to get them to do what we want, i.e. not kill villains".

So much is so wrong here, it's difficult to know where to start.

First up it must be noted that bribing players to act out of character is counter to what should be the primary goal of all role-playing games: role-playing a character. Good grief, one may as well just slip them five bucks under the table. The concept is identical- they trade you their ethic of correctly running their character for the bribe you're offering.

Well, almost identical. If I was a player, I'd want the five bucks. At least that would allow me to pay for something more interesting than the game I was stuck in for some reason.

The other side of this, the assumption that players 'killing the villain =murder' is somewhat amazing on its own. Maybe the author assumes 'villian' is some kindly old man who happens to refuse you a building permit or something, and not someone who presents a clear and present danger to life and limb; you know, like bad guys in rpgs tend to do.

Quite the devaluing of the word 'villain'.


At the end of the day, if your players arent interested in playing the kind of game you're running- you're not going to improve things by bribing them anymore than you can get good friends by paying them.

Rather you'll get an illusion of 'good players', and that someday will backfire on you. For it's not mutual respect or love of their characters that is driving their actions, but greed. And you were the one that set up the relationship that way.

Will HERO 6th have it's own Edition Wars?

I previously talked a little about the upcoming 6th edition of HERO System here and what my reaction to it was (which can be quickly stated as "pessimistic with a bit of wait and see").

Of course my reaction is only important to my group and myself. The impact of my buying or not buying 6th edition products being insignificant compared to the whole. So that leaves open the question of what the buying public at large will think of the new edition.

Such things are very difficult to tell.

On one hand, the forum posters over at herogames.com can claim to have had input into the new rules and thus in general will be boosters of the new line. They likely think they represent the public's actual views on the matter.

However I seriously doubt that the forum posters represent much besides the hardcore fanbase who by definition thinks Steven Long walks on water, there are many HERO System fans with far different opinions. Forums tend to lean towards a single mindset more often than not and are a poor measure of much of anything.

We can look at what history tells us and that is often one of the best measures...

The last major systems to make significant changes in their games were World of Darkness and D&D 4th Edition. In both cases the result could best be stated as 'mixed' with significant numbers of long time players disenchanted and with rather general agreement that the new lines have yet to measure up to previous success.

Deadlands was another, and while Savage Worlds has seen some success in a few corners- the Deadlands brand is almost dead compared to its height.

The open question is if 6th edition will change the game's play style to the degree those did, and if it will have the same impact.

There are certainly changes, but as I noted in my previous post- they (at least the ones talked about so far) are at the construction level- which is not where most players interact with the game. It's also the easiest part of the design to overcome by just changing your build approach and/or altering starting points (or even building to concept instead of point budget).

I can see many old time players however not taking that much effort. And if enough of them are lost, HERO will lose a major segment of it's marketing strength as it depends more upon the word of mouth from their older players than D&D or World of Darkness ever did.

Long has decided to roll the dice on a successful game line, if he wins he gets to inflate his ego even more. If he loses, the hobby may will lose one of the best games it ever had. It was a chance he didn't have to take, but one he did anyway.

It will be interesting to see the result.

Yet another look at Fate Points

I'm already on record as dislikely Fate (or Luck) Point mechanics, but they are so common in design these days that's it's difficult to escape them.

Joshua over on the Tales of the Rambling Bumblers doesn't care for them either, and he does an excellent job detailing one of my own reasons why they're a poor mechanic.

But I can't approve of his method for overcoming that limit. The idea of trading one 'get out of jail' card for a "GM will now screw the players" card comes with a whole host of problems. It furthers a negative style of GMing- i.e. one opposed to the players. As a GM, I reject any mechanic that forces my hand in such a way and in such a direction.

Worst, it requires the GM to balance those Luck Points during play- and how do you balance not killing someone? Kill a different PC? Kill him later? It seems that any GM won't trade equally on this matter or the very trade itself (from the PC PoV) is foolish except in very rare cases. Indeed, he'll undervalue (to use Joshua's terms) Karma vs. Luck every time.

No, this isn't a wise option. If a group is worred about characters dying- use a system where they either don't die, or where the chance of their dying suits the group's taste.

HERO 6th: Change for the sake of change...

Some time back Steve Long (the 'industry's' best RPG editor, but likely it's worst designer) let it be known that he was hard at work on the 6th edition of HERO System- but this time he had the freedom to make any and all changes his little heart and large ego demanded.

Anyone making that claim at any time is reason enough to cause thoughtful men to cringe in dread. Seldom indeed does that golden road lead to anyplace good.

We now have some tidbits of the upcoming changes.

They show Long's typical tunnel vision- a bunch of changes to the construction rules. He's been all over that from the beginning- seeming to think that one can actually play balance points in the abstract instead of balancing them in the campaign (see my view of Point based construction here and here).

There's some simplification in the listed changes, getting rid of figured characteristics and the like. This comes at the cost of disengaging related traits and the easy shorthand defaults they provided. There's a fair list, and promise of yet more to be detailed in the future.

He's getting rid of hex maps, because you know some of the hobby is insulted when people mention hex maps.

And...

...take a look yourself, I'm too bored to detail everything and given I don't have the real numbers and costs yet- it doesn't pay to consider them too closely anyway.

The thing is, it doesn't matter from where I set. I'll build characters the way I want to build them- and I just don't care what the costs in the book are. I'll still achieve my goals.

Now it's possible that some of the unknown changes may alter HERO greatly. For example, the 1d3 stun for Kill Attacks (with normal defense applying vs. Stun) is quite the nerf- and alters the balance of those abilities greatly... well maybe it is and does or maybe it doesn't. You see we don't know the cost of the power yet, it may well not be 15 per d6 anymore.

And heaven only knows what he intends to change about how the game is played as opposed to how much it costs to make something. This could be the death blow to the whole company if it goes too far.

So it's wait and see more before making a real judgment.

Well, there is one real judgment I can make now. There was no need for a 6th edition that was any more than a cleanup of the 5th. The rules worked fine for anyone who actually understood them, and if someone doesn't- no amount of change will make them make the effort to do so now.

No, this is all about Long's own ego, making his own mark, and selling a new edition of rules and cut & paste supplements that he's become famous for.

That much I'm certain of.

Well he did ask for it after all...

I've had something of a red flag waved in my face, and it was done with style and humor by Wyatts on The Spirits of Eden blog. I'm rather fond of the description he gives of me there, athough I must object to being thought of as a possible pet. Rather I'd like to think for a bit about what I'd consider awesome pets for myself- but then my wife would give me that evil (and deserved) look and I'd have to switch gears.

So. Red flag, check. Lots of things I can go over the top in expressing my opinion of, check.

Let's go. Let us review Wyatt's likes and dislikes shall we?


He starts off about as well as a hand cart would bolt off the line at a drag race. The White Wolf system? Really? Elegant huh? That's like saying you like the old Soviet five year plans because they had cool charts.

When first introduced, White Wolf proved to the world that you can have a successful game with mechanics that increase your chance of horrible failure as you increase your skill. Thus kicking off the 'style over substance', 'fluff over intelligence' design that has nearly ruled the industry since. Oh they improved on this point a few revisions down the line, but the mechanics are still a muddle mess and the best most players (without resorting to long cheat sheets, if they have them) are able to say with respect to the question "What is your success chance on that roll?" is "better than if I had less dice".

Things don't improve much as he goes from here to diss anything beyond the most general game systems, wishing to lump all weapons together with indentical stats and then extending that to basically everything. Just roll your dice and apply a 'good' or 'bad' modifier if you must seems to be the approach.

This is great, if you like boring games where the mechanics are a passing evil so you can get back to the more important White Wolf idea of whining in the blood you've just spilt about what a monster you are, as you eye the next cute chick you're about to take advantage of...

Wyatts now goes on to note that he likes lots of dice. He better, given that those dice rolling around the table are the most dynamic thing in otherwise bland game system. He furthers this by saying that he really doesn't care what the result is- liking randomly chosen modifiers better than defined methods.

So if he shows up at your table, hand him a bunch of dice and tell him to roll now and then. He'll be happy and you can play the game with players that actually like rpgs...

He was on a good roll with his blog post- but then ruins it with his dislike of behavior mechanics (like insanity systems). Putting something in that I agree with is a freakin' crime. It almost derailed my train of throught and had me saying nice things about him...

...almost.

But we're lucky as he then says he likes narrative techniques. Thus after he's gutted any meaningful game system above- he now goes on to gut the freedom of the GM and players to manage the story of the campaign. Basically leaving nobody any reason to play anymore. Unless they have a dice fetish of some type.

We're now at the end, and the sad thing is that there's no mojo here for me to drain. I may fly out and eat his head, just because.


Now for a more serious note:

I think it's actually worth while for people to do what Wyatt has done here. A overview of a blogger's tastes, likes and dislikes is very useful for readers as they define where the blogger is coming from. I'd like to see such on more sites, with a fixed link to them on the sidebar. One doesn't always have to agree with people to find worthwhile things in their work, but it always helps to know where they stand.

So while I had fun ripping into him above, I'd like to say that I approve of his effort here and hope that he takes it with the humor I intended. He's inspired me to copy him on this point in the future, and I'll be adding a RPG Profile section for myself here soon.

Taking the Assault Rifle to the extreme

One of the interesting things I came across while researching rifles for my Morrow Project game was two possible chamberings for AR15 style rifles.

The .458 SOCOM and the .50 Beowulf. Both of these are extreme attempts to improve the stopping power of the M16 rifles by in effect turning the ballistic design on its head. Large heavy bullets moving at slower speeds instead of the original's small and fast bullet.

It's basically a return to old school, the .458 SOCOM for example is very much like (i.e. in effectiveness, not techology) the .45-70 used in the old Springfield Trapdoors seen back in the days of the Old West. Making it a concept over a 130 years old!

For a semi-auto rifle, I actually want one of these in real life. The sheer stopping power would be highly impressive and would remain, especially so for the 'Assault Rifle' ranges out to 400 yards. And I should be able to manage the recoil.

The drawback is a heavy reduction in amount of ammo carried. A M16 style 30-round mag for example drops to 12 rounds for the Beowulf and 15 for the SOCOM.

Also auto/burst fire with these may be something of an experience, thus I would think one should leave the selector set to semi. That may not be all that bad of a deal, because if you run into something that can take one of these and keep coming I doubt three rounds of a lesser weapon would fair any better...

The last disadvantage is that of range, while the .45-70 has proven it can be a 1000 yard rifle (these new shells have not, but have the potential from the specs given)- it is a slow reach across that 1000 yards. The arc is extreme, and the travel time long meaning that it is much more subject to changing conditions and requires better shooting skills than faster, more level traveling bullets.

The increased ammo weight and reduction in mag sizes was the final reason I passed on these for the Project, but they look to just be fun. Maybe I can fit one of them in as a specialized loadout...

RPG Blog Carnival: Thoughts on Steampunk

Seems Mad Brew Labs is hosting this month's RPG Blog Carnival. I must say these are fun in their own way, and its highly interesting to see all the various takes on a subject.

I've never been all that interested in Steampunk myself, this despite some great fondness for works like Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. I know some may not view that a steampunk, but come on- it's a freakn' nuke sub 80 years before the first one was made. In the same way his lesser know work Master of the World counts in my mind as does some other classics of early sci-fi.

But I suppose that steampunk proper is more focused on the 'punk' than the era of steam. So it's something different after all. And this is something of a pity I think, as it wrecks the charm of the era and makes something strange and new like the Nautilus common and somewhat unremarkable.

Steampunk is also often ugly, which strikes me as very odd- for crafters of the classic steam era still often considered their work to be as much art as function.

All in all, these are likely the reasons I've never been drawn to steampunk as a rpg genre. The closest I've come is our Deadlands games where the Mad Scientist owns this style. It wasn't a natural fit for me however, and I found myself wishing it was less in your fact steam powered power fists and more Wild Wild West.

So I suppose in the end my view is that steampunk is overdone, overloud, and way too in your face for me, or perhaps it's just the joy I found in the classics that turn me away. A case of Verne and not Hensley.

I'm hoping to see some recommendation of what people consider the finest fiction that is steampunk. Maybe something will change my mind.

A success at understanding Game Design

In stark contrast with yesterday's failure, is a post today by Norman J. Harman, Jr who is guest blogging over at at Zarhary's RPG Blog II.

Norman is talking about D&D's Magic System, and nicely nails one of the major advantages of its approach in this section lifted from a paragraph:

"That having each spell be it's own little set or rules with weird names and wildly varying power/effects instead of some unified & coherent system where for example the higher level fire attack spell is the same weak fire attack spell just with more power applied. Makes Vancian Magic more phantasmagorical and mysterious, less mechanical and logical. All things that greatly appeal to me as I try to escape rules-heavy, min-maxed, mechanical focused games. Too many players (and DMs) have forgotten that magic shouldn't be reduced to numbers and effects, shouldn't be mundane or well understood."

This is a statement I agree with, and one of the driving factors behind the Magic System I selected for my own Age of Heroes fantasy system which uses that type of spell design (but does away with the other two features of D&D- memorization and spell slots).

I'd add further that such a system is more easy to balance (as long as the total number of spells are controlled- expansion without bounds will destroy balance in any system) as it's exceedingly difficult to develop a core mechanic that remains balanced under any possible use- and yet still have a vast range of possible uses. I've never seen it done, and such attempts always require GMs to maintain a firm grip on the attempted usage.

The article goes on to justify and/or praise other aspects of D&D's system, most of which aren't things I agree with- but even so are still valid opinions to hold.

Like Norman, I too don't think that one approach is the end all. He likes Ars Magica, and I like and use HERO System (you can't get a more unified and coherent spell build system). It all depends on what type of campaign I'm looking for.

So a 'good job' to Norman, and for Zach for hosting that post.

Epic Fail at understanding Game Design

Came across a blog post located here at the Omnipotent Eye (which isn't looking to be all that Omnipotent at the moment).

There's some good things there. Andreas realizes there's a problem, but flails around looking for some other reason than the one thing causing the disconnect in the first place- the idea that "rules reinforce and support a certain style of play".

Maybe that original idea is just wrong, or at best incomplete. Maybe someone should read my Layers of Design article :)

More battles are lost than are won

One of the mindsets I often encounter online is a belief by GMs that they must run their NPCs involved in a combat against the players as tactical masters, wise and skilled who never make foolish mistakes. They feel anything else is unrealistic.

How odd, and how unknowing of history.

To take but one example, General Robert E. Lee is considered to rank with the best (if not the best) US generals in history. Yet there was error after error committed by him at the Battle of Gettysburg. GMs of the mindset I noted above wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen, and by so doing fail in any attempt at realism.

But that example is of one of the greats, a true standout. Most don't rise to the skill of a Lee, but rather more commonly reflect a McClellan. The simple truth is that most leaders of men aren't very good, and they commonly make serious mistakes.

Some shine under some conditions, but fail when the conditions of the test change. Bull Halsey is a good example of this- excelling at times, but failing come the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Such is what it means to be human.

Nor are machines much better, for a AI committed to following the most reasonable course would have failed where C. Wade McClusky succeeded- with a much darker course of the war as a result.

Such things roll all the way down to troops. US Marines are famous for skilled actions, but the same can't be said of WWII troops from Italy.

I tend to run most of the foes in my campaigns rather poorly, reflecting any number of weaknesses both in the 'troops' and in their leadership (Orcs are a wonderful example- powerful and often found in great numbers, but cowards and bullys with little teamwork). My goal is not to have them perform at their best according to the game system- but as they would. And it's rare indeed that I field a elite NPC foe that I pull out all stops on (thus depending only upon my own tactical failings instead of modeling specific ones).

One result is that I tend to field larger numbers, and wait for the players to take advantage of the limits I've placed on the tactical judgement of those numbers. This I feel gives the players both something to test themselves against, and a feeling of earned success when they overcome such an advantage of numbers and resources. Thinking they're backs are up against the wall to start with, it's rare indeed for my players not to find and take advantage of the gaps in their opponents.

As an added advantage, this approach prevents group wipes in what others would consider rather dangerous game systems. Playing the NPCs instead of trying to the kill the players with the near limitless perception of a GM alters such games significantly- and they become far more dangerous to the villians then they are to the heroes.

Something from the Old School Movement I agree with

In general I view the old school guys (which includes a number of bloggers I respect) with some degree of amusement. I played OD&D when it was first released, and much of what they describe as Old School is anything but IME.

They say "rulings, no rules" and call that fun. And I remember those days as a trip through hell dealing with poor rulesets that defined the ground floor of a hobby that was just kicked off. Indeed that very statement about rulings reflects a deep division in rpgs that started from day one and continues to this day.

Even so, they often hit on something that I do consider a characteristic of old school, as Zachary does here. My original campaigns were very like this (and still are), it was up to the players to decide what they would or would not tackle and the only 'balancing' the GM did was to make the information about what was over the next hill possible to be found to those looking for it.

The concept of balancing for story, character ability, or anything else didn't appear on our radar for years after we started playing.

If I had to pick one characteristic that truly defines old school, it would be this one. And poorly written and designed rules would be the second- except of course that still applies to games written today and thus isn't very defining...