In favor of Luddism

Well, not really since Luddism is a concept that I'm not really invoking- but I'll be called a Luddite for what I'm about to say anyway.

I hate pod casts, streaming video, and the like exploding upon rpg/greek scene. Yes, I'm looking at you RPG Circus and other similar things. This despite that fact that I find Zachary's blog interesting and fun.

Blogs are easy to quote, the writen word easy to scan. I can read much faster than someone can talk. They can be quickly referenced, and pages searched for a tidbit in but seconds.

In contrast, Pod Casts are slow and I feel like I'm wasting more time than what they are worth. The makers of them have moved too much of their thoughts to this unsearchable and thus in the end forgettable format.

Pod casts are fine for those people (like talk radio or TV personalities) who's primary method of communication is vocal. I wouldn't expect them to step outside their skill set and actually *write*.

But gaming geeks should stick to the written word. These are PnP games- keep to the format.

Looking Back: Elements of Complexity

I've sort of backed into a series on RPG Complexity, backed into as I didn't set out to do a series on it- it just sort of happened. Since it's happened, let's do a reprint of an article I wrote for RPGNet back in 2002. There I defined what makes a game complex.

Should have started with this, but better late than never:

Elements of Complexity

Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.

Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.

It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.

For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.

Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.


Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:

Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.

Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.

In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.

Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.

Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.

Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.

Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.

Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.

Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.

Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.

Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.

Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.

First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.

A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.

These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.

Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.

Think Chess.

Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."

In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.

Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.



Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.

Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.

While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).

Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.

Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.

And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.

Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.

Groups and Complexity

Last time I spoke about how players in general will move towards a game whose complexity is high enough that the game isn't trivial, but low enough that they can be successful with it (however they define success). For the general market, that means complexity in game design will follow the common bell curve, with the most players running with the game that bests fits the top of that complexity bell curve and very easy/very complex systems found at the ends.

But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.

While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").

Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.

The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).

Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.

A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.

Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.

I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.


*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.

Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.

The Equilibrium of Complexity

RPGs run a wide range of mechanical complexity. Covering free-form styles (one could debate if these can be called rpgs at all) to games such as HERO System or GURPS.

Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.

It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.

That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.

How can this be?

If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.

However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.

Again, how can this be?

I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.

Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.

Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).

I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.

When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.

This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.

Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.

What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.

Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.

Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.

Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.

The nature of RPG discussion online?

I came across something interesting the other day speaking about the nature of debate on the Internet. The subject was global warming and I'd like to pass on that subject itself as this isn't a science or political blog, what's important here is that the author (Roger Pielke Jr.) is for the most part a supporter of the idea of global warming but objects to certain statements made by other proponents.

That objection resulted in what strikes me as an all too common Internet approach to debate. He describes it as such:

"Here is how it works. The really giant fish -- public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman -- confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas."

Further on...

"But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation."

Full article found here.

Pulling this back to the subject of RPGs, the pond is vastly smaller, and so too are the fish. But I've seen much the same result. The GNS debates for example certainly has it's giant fish (Edwards), big fish (Clinton, Vincent), and minnows (the mass of Forge/GNS supporters).

It would seem to me a natural result of how large numbers of people would interact in an enviroment that is effectively uncontrolled (and almost void of people with true standing on the subject). Something to keep in mind I think.

Death of RPG Bloggers?

From this it appears that there was something of a meltdown at the RPG Blogger's Network.

I imagine most reading this know who they are (there's a link to them on the right), basically they work as a sort of dashboard for various RPG blogs, posting the first few lines of a new post from their members in a single place allowing readers a one-stop 'shopping' exerience to decide what to read (or not) that day.

I've been a member for most of this year. In general it was a good experience, and I have little to complain about. It drove a fair amount of traffic and I hope it continues under new managment.

It was a useful stop for me. Left to one's own, the tendency is to hit your favorite links an stop. RPG Blogger opens that up a bit and I've read interesting things that otherwise I would have never saw.

The cause of the series of events resulting in the current crisis are unknown to me in detail. The general direction however is quite familar. The Internet runs on conflict, and conflict found its way to the management of RPG Bloggers.

I think it likely that it started early. When I first joined they had a section set aside for what they considered the best current blog entries. I was on the list once (that I know of), for a couple of hours or so before I was removed. Somewhere along the way, the section was removed completely.

That sort of thing indicates strong disagreement, and it looks like it overwhelmed them at last. Here's hoping that they can find new management, and that they can carried it forward with more agreement, and do so in a neutral way that allows it to be a hub of different viewpoints.

Update: The best blog entries list has been explained as a techinical issue, and not one of editor disagreement. I see no reason not to accept this, so the above 'sign of disagreement' should be ignored. Such is the danger of an outsider reading tea leaves.

HERO System Posts Suck, HERO Games sucks more

I was reviewing the traffic to my site over the last few days and noticed a pattern. The HERO System posts draw far less traffic than other subjects. And the actual HERO System builds draw even less (from what I can tell, the Giant Ant PDF got all of two downloads).

Dying game system? Maybe, who knows. Rather foolish to leap to that thought with this as the only data point.

Besides, this blog is 'marketed' (actually, its not really marketed in any real sense- but the word sort of applies) as a design theory blog and not as a HERO System blog. So I imagine a drop in interest like that should be expected. Plus I don't draw huge amounts of traffic anyway.

So I guess its time to go back to my core competency, and count that type of post as a failure. Pity, they were easy and fun (for me).

In other HERO System news, am I the only one getting the impression that HERO Games is running around with its head cut off?

HERO 6th still hasn't shipped, although you can now get a basic book and some other odds and ends from their website.

And speaking of their online store- I haven't seen a worse one in a long time. Rather than presenting their new 6th products in a single entry each with full descriptions and multiple purchase options, they have individual entries with next to no descriptions.

They are also doing some sort of basic/advance lineup, but the online store doesn't say where the 6th edition book they're waiting on fits into that. In short, there's little to nothing there describing their product line and the options they are offering their buyers.

Also, their first 6th edition support book coming out is Ultimate Base instead of Champions (it will be second). What idiot came up with that publishing plan?

I used to say that as far as Game Designers go, Long was a fine editor and publisher. For now at least, I should take out that 'publisher' part.

Morrow Project meets THEM!

A post-apocalyptic world without giant radiated ants is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the jelly.

Add in the fact that THEM! was one of my favorite movies of my childhood (and one of the best 50s monster movies), and the case was settled. Giant ants would be one of the first villains the players would encounter.

The HERO System write-up is fairly straight forward, and is based upon the movie. There are a couple of points that likely need to be explained however.

The Physical Limit: Takes Cumulative Body for example is an exception to a house rule I've used since Hit Locations became part of the system. In HERO Body is cumulative like HP is in D&D- add up the total damage and when it equals or exceed your Body you're dying.

That's fine (well, not really- but it works ok) if one isn't using Hit Locations. But if you are, characters who have been shot in the foot or hand for injuries that aren't even impairing are suddenly dying. And that's silly both from a genre and realism point of view.

So normally Body damage isn't cumulative in my campaigns (bleeding is), you take the effect of the individual injury and go on down the road.

For THEM! however, cumulative body works very well. The ants don't feel pain as such and in the movies would wade through gunfire unless it was fully automatic or done in mass.

The combination of the Damage Reduction and cumulative reflects this perfectly.

The second thing I'd like to point out is the Mandibles Multi-power. The movie didn't have THEM! cutting people in half (and it's a better movie IMO for that, I hate stupid and excessive gore). I reflected this by saying that the Mandibles aren't sharp by human standards- thus the normal damage attack. They however convert to a kill attack against large enough targets.

Reflects the movie well, and from a game PoV makes it easier for the players to live through a encounter greatly roughed up instead of dead. Assuming they win of course...

So, with the explanation finished, it is time to deal with: THEM!

The Tyranny of Hit Points

I've always considered that D&D style Hit Points to be one of the most of the depressing things in the RPG world.

Gygax himself was open about why they were there. He stated that they served the purpose of making the game predictable such that the players would know if they could win, and slowed things down so that if they weren't- they could retreat. In one article from the old days of the Dragon (I believe it was), he even stated that Saving Throws were originally incorrectly done with their 'Save or Die' nature- that they should be altered to fixed damage amounts to uphold this single goal.

Hit Points serve this goal well, and that usage is why they are found in the most popular RPGs table top or computer. Because the lowest common element in players is that they like to win, and HP systems are easy to win in. Find the right pattern, use it, repeat and victory is yours with small margin of error.

And this in turn makes things easy for the GMs the world over. Adventures are easy to make and manage. MMORPGs easy to design and balance.

But they are so terrible for any other use. And perhaps worse is the hoops that people leap to to justify them in other terms.

To use one example, I'll often see people claim that they represent your classic lengthy sword fight (think of The Dread Pirate Roberts against Inigo Montoya). Well, yes- you have a long fight with a winner and a loser (any system could do that by starting the battle and going out to dinner before resolving it). But I didn't read or see them hacking chunks out of each other- which is what 'roll to hit, roll to damage' indicates. I saw them striking and parrying/dodging blows until someone was disarmed.

And what about those fights where someone dies before the first D&D round can even finish? These are even more common in the source material, and not just for minion level foes which didn't even exist in D&D until recently.

"But", claim the HP people, "D&D includes that- it's just all abstract."

Sure, if one is good with an abstraction system that does Y and then afterwards claims that it did X. Do people get on an America Airlines Flight to go to New York and call it acceptable when they end up in LA? Order a steak and then are good when given a hamburger for their $25?

One possible suggestion is to just rename Hit Points and call them what they are- either Fatigue or perhap Battle Advantage. Stop rolling to damage, and instead roll to Press the attack. Add an 'actual damage' table to anyone taken below 1 HP to represent the final outcome of the battle. Then at least things are clear, and the only remaining objection is that so much of the source material (i.e. any quick kill) either can't be done or must overturn the core combat system (such as extreme critical hit systems).

Such a mess.

There are other options, and I've used them for decades. Age of Heroes uses a strike/defense system combined with a damage system that typically will drop a foe in a single blow. One's ability to hit and defend (and length of combat) is thus very dependent upon the relative skill of the combatants.

And what is interesting about this is that over the decades nearly any player I've encountered likes that better than D&D style Hit Points. New Players, old players, D&D haters and D&D (originally) fans. The couple of exceptions almost prove the rule.

Most recently we did two tests with different players comparing Star Wars SAGA with a Star Wars modified version of Age of Heroes. One group was basically new to rpgs and tested blind, the other was my own experienced gaming group.

No one in either group liked the SAGA approach (done first in the blind test, second in the experienced group). Or rather, the blind novice group liked it until they tried the other option. After that they completely rejected the SAGA approach as boring, in their view AoH seemed much more exciting and modelled the movies so much better.

But my experience seems to be the exception.

While other games have attempted a different approach, they either failed or at best are 'also rans'. Some (like HERO System) can be played in different manners, are instead typically used in the D&D style. Others use the D&D style, but attempt to hide it (Dark Heresy).

It may be due to D&D's ownership of the market. It may be due to players who want simple HP systems because the other options are too uncontrolled for them. Or it may be due to the system design failures of the early non-HP game systems (like Rune Quest) giving other non-HP designs a bad name. Or it may be that non-HP systems require too much of their GMs.

Whatever the cause...

...it's just depressing.

Another Morrow Project Build

Given yesterday's post on the Landmaster, I thought I'd follow up by providing an example character sheet for one of the PC in the Campaign.

The team consists of half a Special Forces A-Team plus a couple of scientists. Rather than the hard-core realism of the original game, it's done as almost a pulp style version action adventure.

Creating a good Special Forces write-up in HERO System takes more than just a few points. The real world training is extensive and they start with already experienced soldiers for the most part. A base of 100 points plus disadvantages will just get you there leaving little to individualize the character, so we started with the top end (for non-superheroes) of 125 points plus up to 125 points of disadvantages.

The character sheet is laid out in a rather odd way. It actually starts on the back with the package deals that make up the character's training presented in chronological order, and presented in their complete form. The front contains specialized training and individual skills.

The result is that the same skill may appear more than once, when this happens we've put the skill roll on the first occurrence of the skill on the back of the sheet, or on it's appearance on the front if present. The rest of the entries are marked with a '$' (called cash money upgrade by the players).

This makes the sheet dificult to read until one gets used to it, but keeps the training history of the character intact.

These characters are in many ways the most competent and well-rounded characters we've ran in HERO System.

Our example PC is First Sergeant Preston Walker.

By nature Preston is an idealist protected by enough experience to understand realism. He joined up to protect his country and takes the SF motto of de oppresso liber (to 'free the oppressed') to heart. His grandfather was a hero in WWII and he strives to live up to that idea.

A strong family man who's lost track of his wife and son due to the breakdown of the Project. He was told that they were to be taken to safety and likely put into stasis at one of the major bases. However he doesn't know if they made it there as the last transports left under fire. Nor does he know which base, or for that matter where any other base at all may be located.

As a result he is quite angry at waking up long after the planned period, and is currently thinking that things are moving too slowly. This is often most reflected in conflict with Prof Winston, one of the scientists who in Preston's mind is taking this as more of a puzzle to be solved than the serious disaster that it is.

His Captain is worried about this mindset, given that Preston is his top Sergeant currently, and he needs him calm and in control.

Behold the Landmaster!

Back in 1997, Fox released a movie by the name of Damnation Alley. It's subject was a cross-country run by a small band of survivors through the 'safest' 100 mile wide 'alley' in a post-apocalyptic world.

While that was a very promising setup (one of the best IMO), it was a rather bad movie. The special effects couldn't handle recreating the mutant threats that would have given it real kick, and the writing was sub-par as well. Sigh.

It's most remembered for two things. The first was being almost forgotten in the year that saw Star Wars come to the screen.

The other and more important was the Landmaster. For a generation that loved special vehicles like Bond's car or the Batmobile, the Landmaster was pure wishfulfillment. An armored all terrain RV with the teeth and electronics able to take the worst the post-apocalypitc world could throw at it.

And it was a real vehicle too. Well, the weapons were just props bolted on, but the core was real enough.

I've kept it in my imagination down the years along with the Enterprise and some other icons of sc-fi. It was a natural for it to appear in my Morrow Project campaign. And the designers of the original Morrow Project thought so as well, as it was the basis for the MARS One vehicle.

The MARS One however was too expanded- double the size with enough weapons to make an desert painted Abrams turn green with envy. It was just too much.

So I went back to the original and like the original put two in the hands of my players. They just reached them in play, although digging them out of the bunker will prove to be hard and dangerous work...

Given that the original was from 1977 and mine would be made in 2012, it needed some updates although far less than I at first expected.

First up was the standard Project almost magical Fusion power system and the electrical engine that comes with it.

It's already impressive 1 cm thick armor would be improved by concepts from a project that I read about- the use of magnetic fields to greatly enhance vehicle armor. The idea was to provide the same protection found on the M1A2 battle tank to an armor car like the LAV 25. That sounded perfect for my new model Landmaster.

The original had six machineguns mounted at different points. These were cheap Hollywood props as the forward ones clearly are glued on barrels without room for the actual gun. I decided to go with pulse lasers (again taking something from both current projects and the original MP game itself). I decided a low rate of fire would explain why the side mounts (and front for that matter) were in pairs. Powered by the fusion reactor, their independance from ammo will be useful in the game and they could look like they were bolted on as the 'gun' wouldn't have to be of conventional shape.

The twin rocket pods on the back were clearly 2.75" seven shot pods in common military use even today. Mostly an air-to-ground weapon, what were they doing on the Landmaster?

I thought that maybe if one replaced the warhead with a HEDP one (i.e. able to double duty for anti-vehicle and anti-personal) and added laser guidance- one might have something...

... look no further than the real world Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) and the M247 warhead of the Hydra 70.

The forward firing mortars at first seemed odd with the APKWS system installed. But if they were basically just an auto-loading 60mm mortar using cheap (and small) ammo- they could be used for targets not requiring the expense of the APKWS. So I kept them for this use.

Toss in the Boomerang shooter detection system, which I expanded to detect the location of any incoming fire, and I was just about done. Except for the sensors and a few other odds and ends that made up the vehicle.

So here's my HERO System 5th Edition Morrow Project Landmaster write-up. It's my first draft, but is very close to final. Note that it is built to my own house rules and standards.