How the mighty have fallen- R. Dancey

The old saying about a broken clock being right twice a day finally worked for therpgsite, a forum that normally has very little of interest. But this week produced something of a gem, if by gem one is interested in how someone who once ran the hobby's flagship could go so wrong.

In this thread, Dancey repeats a contention he made some time back after leaving WotC. That RPGs as we know them are dead. MMORPGs are taking over, they have vast growth and are improving constantly. In contrast RPGs are a shrinking market.

At its core, there's nothing new here. Dancey see's sales figures and new technology and much like many before him thinks that grants him insights that never occurred to others. Like those who said TV would replace books... oh wait, books are still around and sell well enough to have made Amazon into a Internet power house. Well, maybe its cars and horses. That one did take a common item and reduce it to a niche (if a niche that people still spend a good amount of money on). But this isn't really the point I want to make.

The point is the rather strange justification he gives for believing this. He takes the WotC study on Gamer Segmentation and tries to mold it into matching his opinion. You see he thinks that two of the five player types are the ones leaving RPGs for MMORPGs because in his mind, it makes sense. He feels the goals of those two groups (Power Gamers and Character Actors) are better met by MMORPGs, and thus this is the major drive for the drop in the RPG market.

He's said this same thing before, but what makes this thread more interesting than before is a slip he makes on post #49.

The MMO was too embryonic for us to study it in 1999. I wish I had the money to repeat the survey today though...

In this one throw away comment Dancey admits something critical. He has no data that actually indicates this true. He's just making it up, much like anyone else online who is gazing into their crystal ball and telling us the future of the hobby.

Except that in so doing, he's asking us to change that hobby into something completely different. One that is based upon GNS and Story-Gaming offerings that don't support the missing player types at all.

In doing this, he runs counter to two very important findings from in the original study. From the link speaking of the Study:

In other words, even the players who enjoy a "Tactical Focus" still want to be challenged to use Strategic Thinking; likewise, even the Combat Focus player wants a Strong Character and Exciting Story.

And

We also found no additional segmentation based on what games people identified as their "favorite"; in other words, there are just as many Power Gamers as there are Storytellers who like Vampire, and just as many Thinkers as Character Acters who like D&D.

Both of these indicate that not only is Dancey acting without data, he's acting against what data he originally collected. Bad business, and worst science.

Why is he doing this? Beats me, I'm not a mind reader. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's more ego driven than anything. D&D is shrinking, MMORPGs are growing- and it would be cool to be the man who explains why and offers a vision for the future. If he's right, he's golden. If he fails, well he's no more forgotten than he is now is he?


But if he's making wild unfounded guesses, I can play the game too. I'd put money that a repeat of the study done today would produce the same results (if fewer gamers).

Why then the drop in the RPG market and the growth in MMORPGs? Here's my wild guess

1. The OGL weakened the primary RPG brand making it one of many.
2. The OGL to a significant extent prevented the original owner from driving new versions or its future (as old versions remain supported)
3. The 4th edition of D&D was poor design
4. Most RPGs are poor design
5. MMORPGs are quick and easy, and quick and easy wins out over a hobby hit by the above four factors
6. There would be a natural migration to MMORPGs from those who previously played RPGs due to common factors. These include the fact that RPG gamers have always consider the overhead high, many have lost their groups, etc. Switching to a MMORPG is just easier than dealing with those issues.
7. Just like more kids watch TV and movies than read books, more kids will be playing MMORPGs than RPGs. This should be expected.

None of this means RPGs will disappear completely, although it's possible that they may reach wargame levels of 'almost disappeared'. Or they may not. We still have books after all.

IMO, it will continue as a smaller hobby even unto the days of holodecks. Sort of like books (even if they're all on a Kindle).



 
So who's right? Me or Dancey?

The only way to tell is for the hobby to go whole hog for Dancey's suggestions. If it dies, then we know he was wrong.

Oh wait, Dancey's accounted for even this. He suggests that by 2020 (only ten years) MMORPGs will reach the point where they able to meet all RPG goals. So in the time it would take for his theory to kill gaming, it will have died anyway. So he can't be proven wrong if his idea is accepted.

In the end he's not offering a new vision or path- just something that can make him a few bucks before the whole things dies. And if it doesn't die, well he'll still make a few bucks on the side if enough people buy into his predictions.

How cute.

An outcome in the Swine Wars?

Zach has a post up about the Forge of all things, something that hasn't really been on the radar for a while. It seems that the site is revamping maybe shutting down. It's rather hard to tell as plain English was never in wide use by Edwards and it certainly isn't making an appearance now.

About all I could tell from Zach's link was that Edwards claims victory in his battle (whatever that was) and... ...some forum reorg ....plus an implied statement that it's not going to be around much longer. But those type of claims should always be taken with a grain of salt and believed only when the site actually disappears or stops updating.

There's been some blogging wasted on this non-event (including this post of course). For example this one, that says RPGPundit immediately claimed victory for himself. I swear, one of those two just has to be a sock puppet for the other or maybe they're twins split at birth.

But it does raise a briefly interesting question- who did win in Pundit's "Swine Wars"? In a small completely unimportant way, that can be answered no matter if the Forge is shutting down or not.

RPGPundit was the self-declared defender of traditional gaming, which for most of his rant time online meant D20, Ryan Dancey, and WotC. For him to win, those elements would have to be standing tall and Forge ideas must remain unnoticed. Let's see how that went shall we:

• WotC replaced D20 with 4th Edition D&D
• WotC replaced Dancey
• 4th Edition D&D was penned by Mearls
• Mearls openly stated that he agreed with at least some of the GNS Model
• 4th Edition D&D seems to show that GNS influenced design
• Dancey publically declared traditional gaming dead, and called GNS influenced 'story-gaming' the future of rpgs.

It doesn't look like RPGPundit's side did all that well did it? His game of choice corrupted, his industry hero flipping to the other side. Indeed, that Pundit's side looks more like Vichy France in 1942 than the US in 1945 to me.

If this be victory, defeat must be a real bitch.

Edward's crowing is a little better founded- but far from roses. Sure he can point to the above points, but he gets no real credit for it. Mearls isn't exactly singing his praises and didn't use anything like the full model. Meanwhile Dancey is no longer even a player in the table-top rpg world. Various people took parts of his ideas and ran with them- but the parts they took were only those he stole from rec.game.frp.advocacy in the first place. Now even most of those who praise parts (and only parts) of GNS, mock the man who wanted to own RPG Theory.

Finally burning out (which is everyone's right, indeed- everyone's future) , and basicially forgotten- Edwards is ready to slowly phase out his last connection to the rpg world. Like the UK after WWII, his empire is gone and his time as a overshadowing presence even on his own board a thing of the past.

If this be victory, defeat must be a real bitch.



It's almost difficult for me to decide which of the two which I pity more. Almost difficult because I'm not going to waste the effort- neither is worth the time. They are what they made themselves to be, which is smaller than they could have been.

In the end, they are nothing more than something to waste a blog entry on. For God only knows, it's difficult some days to come up with a subject.

Review- Synapse: Part III, Controlling the Player

Continuing the review of Synapse (Part I and II), the next section of rules I want to talk about is what I consider the most interesting.

There are found in Chapters 3 (Culture), 4 (Life Experience), and 5 (Personality) that in total create the values for the character's Motivations. There are 22 Motivations, each in the end to be rated from 1 to 10. These include things like Revenge- a person who wants paid back for wrongs done him, to Nurturance (I don't think that's a real word)- the drive to take care of others.

How are these used? Let's quote an example from the rules on page 111.

For example, lets assume the Hero whose motivations are listed below has come across one of her long-time rivals, who is hanging off the edge of a cliff on a rope. A quick glance at the major motivations of this character reveals two motivations that are strong and would apply to this situation; Nurturance and Revenge. Abasement and Achievement are strong motivations for this character, but it does not relate to the actual situation so they are ignored here. The motivational setup for this Hero indicates that she would want to help them (Nurturance) more than she would want to punish them for past misdeeds (Revenge). Therefore, all things being equal, the character should want to help her rival get back up to safety.

What we have here is a another in a long list of mechanics called Personality Mechanics, i.e. mechanics that determine the decision making of characters instead of players. D&D alignment is a version of this, although the form was greatly expanded in games like Pendragon.

The most common reasons for systems like this are:

1. The designer and/or GM thinks that the players are playing their characters wrong- and they turn to mechanics to 'improve' role-play or to enforce conventions of the genre. Judging from a number of posts on the designer's game blog, this is a major goal for him.
2. The players who are so boring that they can't role-play an interesting character on their own- so they need a crutch. Something to remind them that- hey, there's suppose to be a person here...

Both are rather sad reasons. And in the end both are doomed to failure except at the most shallow level. But those reaching for systems like this tend to only think in shallow terms, so it fits and in its own way even works. For the designer/GM they enforce 'correct' play, and for the player it removes the burden of role-play which was something they likely didn't want to do in the first place.


With that in mind, the method in Synapse isn't bad at all, given what such rules are attempting to do. Here the complex creation system that so dragged down the skill system (take culture, life experience, plus extra points and get your totals for each Motivation) is almost welcomed. After all, if you can't role-play your character you may at least have some detail to determining what he's going to be.

It does suffer from the same 'this impacts you in the way the game says it does'. For example you could take a life experience of Sexual Abuse which drops your Sensuality by 6 points and adds +2 to Rejection. I don't think one would need to think very hard about how such an experience may in fact reverse those types of modifiers. But much the same can be said about any mechanic of this type.

Synapse offers two methods for overriding the mechanic.

One is for the player to present an argument for the decision that the GM agrees with (this is still meeting item #1 above for having these rules in the first place, and so is all to the good in allowing the GM to control the role-playing of his players).

The other is something called a Motivation Boost, which is a die roll against Eccentricity that costs the character mental stress upfront and risks perhaps undesired changes in your Motivations. Oh wait, they would only be undesired if you were actually role-playing instead of just using the mechanics.

All in all, this section of the rules aren't bad for what they are. Better than most in fact.


Lastly for this part of the review let's look briefly at the section on Morality. The pitch for the game says it goes far beyond good and evil, and then it says on page 108 that it's too complex of a subject and that only very general guide lines are going to be offered.

Those guidelines come out some PC book about moral systems that makes the most general comments possible. For example: people react to things as either person, animal or object. There's even a chart for it. Yes, it's a boring as it sounds. Like a freakin' text book by a bad author.


More importantly, why is this section even here? Shouldn't the Motivations handle all this in normal play?

Review- Synapse: Part II, Skills

It's been a bit since the last update. Life is busy and all.

Let's pick up with the part of the review of Synapse. The Part I was about my first impressions and what goals the game appeared to be aiming it. IMO, it failed on both accounts (I wasn't impressed, and the goals seemed both unobtainable and frankly not desirable). But first impressions can be wrong, and sometimes worthwhile things are found even in attempts at the most foolish goals. So let's play around with the mechanics some. Here' we're focus on skills, often the core of any system.

Character generation takes up pages 16 through 172 and is broken into eight sections: Brain Chemistry (I swear, this one section header by itself will cause most people to trashcan the book right there), Biology, Culture, Life Experience, Personality, Connections, Skills and Possessions.

The concept is to... 'naturally' grow your character in a fashion that he is the sum of... all they things modern lay psychology says he's the sum of.

I'm afraid the rules weren't well written with important information all over the place. For example you don't know what effect your Attributes (from the Brain Chemistry section) has until you reach 'Making a Skill Roll' on page 174. Just for reference, here we find that the game becomes Shadowrun 4th Edition and you roll a number of dice equal to the ruling Attribute (1 to 8, 3 is average) plus an extra dice if you have the linked talent then plus 0 to 4 dice for your training. Rolling a 5 or 6 grants a level of success. So a 'average' guy would have an attribute (natural talent as I'd call it) of 3 and if trained to the level of 'trained' +2 dice for a total of 5 dice for the typical skill test.

It's at this point that the wheels of the primary game goal come off depending upon the viewpoint of user. Do you personally think that success in an activity is more governed by natural talent or by training? Does this reflect a better view of how characters exist and interact with the world?

If you think training is more important than natural talent, the core design of the system disagrees. I'm afraid I fall into this camp, believing that natural talent only determines the upper limit of what training can provide. To put this into perspective- my version of this system would say that the attribute governs a skill cap. Thus training would provide all 5 dice if the attribute allowed it.

Another problem, do you believe that there is only a single way of thinking that can get you results in any specific area? For example the game says that Lock-picking is solely based upon Spatial and is modified by the Dexterity talent. Do you agree? I don't. Because I don't think someone excellent at lock picking is automatically as good at unarmed combat. Synapse however says this is the case. Further I think a person could pick locks by using Cognition, i.e. determining by analysis how the lock works and thus how it could be defeated.

The final result of all this is that Synapse suffers from the same simulation problem that all games do. Real life is very complex and game systems must be very simple. By attempting to define things like Brain Chemistry and the resulting building blocks thereof that in the end create skill- Synapse is highlighting that disconnect between reality and games instead of concealing it. The result can be disrupting to anyone who thinks differently on any number of matters than the game designer himself.

Thus by it's very design, Synapse is aiming for a very small target- people who think the mind works like the designer says it does.


One last comment on this part of the rules.


Synapse is designed to give you an end result that is common in RPGS: A Skill Roll. It does this by showing all (according to the game) the building blocks of what makes up a skill.

The typical RPG just gives you a Skill Roll (using any number of methods). And lets the player define what aspects of his character was the building blocks for that result.

Which do you think offers the most diversity in character design? Which method would you like to create characters in?

Review- Synapse: Part I, First Impressions

Greg Christopher has released a free public beta of his game Synapse, something he's been working on for quite some time.

Greg has in the past left me an impression that he is at his core... a game design new ager for the lack of a better term. Someone out to change the hobby with lofty dreams and 'new' ideas. Perhaps the natural result of a culture that wants to define everyone as special and talented- even if they aren't. However that is all first impressions and first impressions can be unfair. Besides, I recall baiting Greg before (I believe the subject was 'designing for women') and he responded calmly- that is worth points and respect. Few on the net are capable of an adult reaction to criticism.

So maybe Synapse is something special. Greg has earned the right in my mind to taken seriously, so let's do exactly that over the next few posts. I'll take Synapse apart and see if it does break any ground, and if it does- was that ground worth breaking?

First up- first impressions. The type of stuff that runs through your mind when you first open a gaming book on the shelf at the store and browse the book. Would I buy it or not?

Synapse is a 281 page PDF, with art that isn't outstanding art but good enough.

It opens with a all too typical section about "What is a RPG?". Nearly everyone that buys an RPG never reads that section. Frankly they're boring for the simple reason that the typical gamer already knows what an RPG is to them, and come hell or high water that's exactly what any game they pick up well be.

But it can be an interesting insight into the mind of the designer and here the 'intro' section takes up pages 4-15. Here's the first sentence:

"A roleplaying game (RPG) is played by a group of typically four to six people, usually around a table. The goal of the game is to tell an interesting, collaborative story and to have fun doing it. To tell the story, you use your imagination. There are no winners or losers because the game is about cooperation."

As is typical for RPG books, it's horrid. For one thing it tells me to use my imagination to reach the goal ( defined as 'collaborative story'), so right off the bat it's telling me I don't need this game- I could succeed without it using my own ability to create. Yes, nitpicking that, but it's there along with defining for ME what MY goal in a RPG MUST be and that part of it put me in a cranky enough mood to do nitpicking.

To be honest, most games screw up this section, so it's nothing new. But still disappointing. Often these sections have nothing to do with the actual rules and are pure boilerplate to increase the page count. So we'll see.

The most interesting section in the intro is on page 12. I always like understanding why the game was made in the first place. There are hundreds of games out there, with nothing really to set them apart other than perhaps setting which is always the least effective influence IME. So having something to tell me what is special about a game is very useful indeed.

What does Synapse have to say here?

"Synapse is a roleplaying game system where your character is conceptualized as a brain, not an entire person.... By contrast, in Synapse, all your attributes are mental. Your physical self is more like equipment than a part of your character."


So... that.. means... well... nothing. You could say the same about any game really. It's all in how you want to look at it. So my first reaction is that this is a way of pointing out a difference that really makes no difference. I sure it makes sense to the author, but I could have used something a bit more descriptive. Nothing that immediately follows makes it more clear- instead it mostly insults gamers and other games.

"The process exists this way because traditional RPG games are, when you examine them carefully, not as much about telling a story as much as they are about killing things and taking their stuff."

Massive turn off. My campaigns have not been *about* killing things and taking their stuff for decades. Nor is Synapse above this sort of thing as back on page 9 we read:

"Maybe your character is breaking up the thieves den because she wants to get her hands on some of the loot."

Hypocrisy, thou name is Synapse. Here the designer makes a mistake I seldom see outside of the likes of the Forge. Belief in the concept that a rpg campaign is defined solely by the rule set. This has never been true, and never will be true. RPG campaigns are defined by the players and how they choose to use the ruleset.

OK, enough with poor definitions and foolish claims. What appears to be the real goal of the design is stated on page 13:


"The character creation process is matched to the actual growth and development of real human beings in the real world."

A bit more reading and it seems clear that beyond the hyperbole, the actual goals of the system are roughly as follows:

1. Define the mental side of characters in more detail using something like the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (it maps poorly to this model and I reference it only in that the concept seems similar).
2. Refine this with a total 'lifepath' concept that generates your character in a method similar to the real world human development.
3. Resolved character changes caused by play in a method similar to real world development.

And that's basically it. As stated Synapse isn't a RPG as much as it's a character development engine. It's gaming for psych majors. Note, there's nothing here on those intro pages that indicate any means towards creating great stories- which is well and good since the author said I'd have to do that myself with my imagination.

So, here are the first impressions:

• The game takes itself too seriously
• It insults gamers, basically saying they are sociopaths who aren't role-playing or creating actual stories.
• It proclaims itself the one true way of.. not creating stories... but of creating brains.
• It's founded on a concept that I consider impossible for a playable game (modeling human development as opposed to a gaming character's development), or even if it were possible it would be undesirable (as nearly all humans are boring in what they develop into).
• It claims an end result for such modeling (great role-playing, great stories, etc) that are both unlikely and even contrary to the other.

Here I would put the game back on the shelf and walk out of the store (unless said store had different, more interesting new products to look at).

Next we'll see if Synapse achieves any of these goals, if it's the game the designer described, and if there's anything useful in it at all.

Is really that hard to replace an almost 50 year old rifle?

One of things I keep up with is firearms, both out of interest and the use they see in my games. A lot of research goes into weapons for my games so that people selecting them have reasons behind their choice related to real world.

Sometimes the news is (while not unexpected) silly. In that line, it seems that yet another attempt to replace the M16 is on the edge of failure. I've nearly lost count of how many time they've attempted to find a replacement, just off the top of my head there was the ACR, the OCIW, and XM8 and now this one and it was only targeting a small percentage of the total weapons. Currently just about every firearm maker offers a improved M16 in one form or another.

So what's going on here? Has firearm tech really stalled to the point that there's nothing better? Is it actually politics and penny-pinching being hidden by spin? Are people stupid?

Well, that last always applies of course. After all, people still stick with D&D and that's a worse performing platform than the M16 ever was. This is true even if the goal is playing rpgs instead of killing people.

But here I think it's mostly a case that the technology just hasn't moved very far in the last hundred years. I'll still take a M1911 over any 'modern' pistol and for many cases I'd take weapons from WWII over those deployed today. About the only real improvement has been in weight, and that seems to have hit its limit.

In any case, I think any replacement project is doomed as long as they insist on the replacement being chambered in .223. You can add bells and whistles all you want, but no amount of improvement around the edges is going to impress anyone if you're still using a poor ammo choice. After all, rifles are built around the bullet. And it's far pass time for them to revisit that first choice if they want an improvement for the future.

Note: Currently (and somewhat in line with my thoughts), SOCOM is still going to buy the 7.62mm version of the rifle.

Central PCs in Campaigns

Came across a blog post that I mostly liked today. It presents the idea that a RPG campaign doesn't have to be peer focused thing- but can mirror classic source material. Things like Doc Savage perhaps, with one main character and the supporting casts.

I liked the blog article because it's really something of a match to how I always run my campaigns. Sort of a match, because I don't agree with everything there.

For example, I think most who have dug into Middle Earth consider Sam and not Frodo the main character of Lord of the Rings. Or one could say that no single character is, instead claiming that it is a collection of individual stories that make up the history of the War of the Ring and that Frodo and Sam only got the most screen time because they were closest to the Ring. In much the same way, one could claim that Luke wasn't the main character in Story Wars- that taken as a whole it's Vader. But all that is nitpicking as certainly there are story arcs that feature a main character with a supporting cast.

The major point that I disagree with is that in order to recreate this the GM and players must actually work at it- i.e. put story concerns first. And that just isn't true.

IME it's very common for one player to for whatever reason stand out at a gaming table. And they become the focus for the story as much as say Sam (or Frodo depending upon your POV I guess) in Lord of the Rings did.

Sometimes it's because that player is the best at the table. More often IME it's because the other players are very interested in that one character themselves for some reason. I've seen players twice decide to have their characters die to save specific characters that they themselves decided were the most important in the campaign, not with respect to story- but purely as a element of their character.

GMs react to this, and storylines start to revolve around these characters. This doesn't mean that the spotlight is always on them, any more than it's always on a single character in Lord of Rings or Star Wars. In a large and long running campaign there is room for everyone to shine somewhere.

So I think these types of campaigns can grow naturally without effort in a gaming group that avoids trust issues. Indeed, I think a campaign of equals is actually difficult to enforce as a playing style, and if attempted likely the cause of any number of harms along the way.

Game Prep- is it All That Big of a Deal?

One of the responses I received on my last blog entry was the claim that one of the things that doom 'heavy' systems for older and/or more busy gamers is the game prep they require.

Now, I'm a older more busy gamer with limited time. And somehow this isn't a issue for me. Why would that be?

Perhaps I'm smarter, faster, better looking and frankly more than a step above the common gamer at everything. But while that is likely true, I don't consider it the primary reason. Rather I think the primary reason is the same as always- anyone who doesn't really know their game system will suffer horrid inefficiencies both in running them and preparing to run them. Those who do know their chosen game systems well, won't.

I suppose first we need to define game prep.

Back at the dawn of the hobby it was extensive mapped dungeon complexes or other adventuring areas with backgrounds on dozens or more of NPCs- friend and foe. Call it World/Setting Creation and doing that sort of thing is certainly a major time sink...

...except that it would be time sink no matter what the game system if what you want is a completely mapped world with backgrounds on all the NPCs. Very few of the popular heavy systems (HERO, GURPS, D&D 4E) do this sort of thing for you- at least with the core books that make up said heavy system. World creation is world creation and if you want to skip it, you can skip it no matter what game rules you're using. If you do it, you do it again no matter the system.

There's the creation of adventures of course. This may take time although a pure sandbox skips this step completely. However once again, few of the common heavy rule systems offer more than advice in this area. A campaign against the dark elves of New York remains a campaign against the dark elves of New York if it's done in HERO or in FATE.

So three major components of game preparation- Setting and Background, detail maps, and adventure creation aren't really impacted by game systems. And that's nearly everything except actually playing.

The one detail left is the mechanical NPC write-up. Determining game stats and abilities for those NPCs (or things in some cases) that require them. Certainly this must take up a huge amount of time for heavy systems?

Not for those who understand their system.

Let's take an example from my own campaign, from a session ran a couple of weeks ago. I want many consider a highly complex game system- HERO for this campaign. I knew that the players would (after choosing a certain path) come across a high tech security android assigned the task of guarding the area the players were seeking access into. I didn't want this to be a stand up fight, so...

1. The android would attack after or during an encounter with mutant ruin rats.
2. It would be neat of the android looked like a corpse, it would appear that a dead man just stood up and started to kill them.
3. Hmm, dead looking android. I could steal much of the design from Terminator there.

HERO is very detailed when you're interested in adding up all the points and balancing the creation to a budget. But points aren't game balance no matter what anyone says. What matters in this encounter is it's weapon, it's OCV and DCV, BODY and defenses. I've ran this system for years and decided upon those values in less than a minute. I tossed in some enhance senses and skills that might be important (PER, combat levels, etc) for another maybe another minute of thought. Nothing needed to hit paper, nothing needed to be pointed out.

Same process with the ruin rats (already done some time back, so I already had these).And I was ready to go.

Prep Time: About 20 minutes in total split up through the week thinking about what adventure I was going to run Sunday. The result was tightly fought and close battle that had the desire effect (i.e. scaring the players) and then some.

I can rather easily run such things off the top of my head with no prep- because I understand the system and its game balance. Later I spent about three hours actually writing up the T-800 just to have a copy of it because I enjoy that sort of thing. And it makes it easier for players who don't have a firm grasp of the rules if they should want to run something. But that's above and beyond just running the game.

Add in published write ups for NPCs/creatures (HERO has lots, although I don't care for their construction methods they can still be a base for something)- and really, I don't have any prep time.

I can do these before I've been running HERO since it was first published in the 80s. The editions are close enough that any work I've done before can be applied to something done today. I have a huge resource at my call.

And that wouldn't be possible if I was changing game systems every few months like most bloggers seem to do.

So if prep time is a problem for you- it's your own fault. Caused either by  your own non-mechanical related demands, or a failure to stick with something long enough to know it well enough. You're just wanting to pass the blame to the game system.

What about people new to the hobby who don't have decades of experience to make this possible? It's called work, you get out what you put in. If you don't have time to learn a heavy system, then you don't have the time. You have to do what you have to do.

But don't claim it isn't possible for others. Your limits do not define mine- or the hobby itself for that matter.

Is the future Lite?

Zachary is one of my daily reads, mostly because he's rather level headed for this hobby (it's certainly not because we like the same games). With this post however I was rather puzzled.

With D&D 4E at the top of the sales charts, and games like Shadowrun, HERO System, Dark Heresy and GURPS still highly represented on the game shelves- what sort of cool-aid has Zachary gotten into? The assertion that the gaming world is going Lite seems rather baseless from everything I see.

But Zachary isn't dumb, so what's going? Has Gencon really shifted towards Lite rules, are most of the events running things like FUDGE or FATE (i.e.... FUDGE + a house rule or two)? Or has he fallen into the trap of self-selecting data? He's going lite and thus hangs out with others going lite and therefore thinks everyone is going lite?

He likes reading this blog and perhaps will answer for himself. It should be interesting.

As I've said before, predicting the future of the hobby is difficult at best because it is a such a small hobby and thus subject to shifts from rather small sources. But I will go out on a rope and say one thing- if the future is Lite, the hobby will shrink to an even further degree of insignificance. When even the most basic MMORPG can provide a more detailed environment for gaming, when even the most inexperience gamer can match the published designs on first try, when gaming books ofter nothing but the endless repeating of the same lame advice and fluff- people who actually are interesting in playing an rpg will go elsewhere.

From an industry point of view- if the future is Lite, the future is DEAD.

Oh and one other comment about 'resolution lag'.

It doesn't exist for people who know their game system inside and out. I run the most complex systems in the hobby- and have the same limits on my time as Zachary. The difference is that I am still running the games I've been running for decades, I know them very well indeed. If however you're always chasing the latest thing- well you won't know it well and that brings 'resolution lag'.

So time is a problem- the solution isn't going with something so easy that time doesn't matter (because the game isn't taking any time, i.e. it's not doing anything). Rather the solution is focus and knowledge of what it is that you're doing in the first place.

Review: HERO System Advanced Player's Guide 6th Edition

I was for some reason actually expecting new optional and advance rules with this product, I should have known better. As I've mentioned before, Long is basically a cut and paste writer who will reprint material whenever given the chance. This book is no exception.


Most of the book (again with the ugly cover from hell- could these possibly be worse?) consists of sections yanked from 5th edition books- be it genre books, ultimate books, or whatever.

There are basically three types of 'rules' contained within.

First is those that should have been in the core books. For example, piercing from Dark Champions? It's in here. Applying Limits on Advantages? It's in here. And so on. A significant amount is just going into more details on what are IMO mainstream rules. One could say that they are in this book because they are 'advanced'- but that doesn't explain why for some powers he goes into detail in the core book but others are withheld until this. Unless while he cuts and pastes- he's really not that good at it (like after removing COM from the game, he still left in modifiers to COM under the Disabling Wound section...). So maybe he just forgot.

Second are those rules that are more genre or specific item focused. Things like salvaging gear and items from the 5th edition Post-Apocalyptic HERO book (lots from that book actually). Stuff from Ultimate Brick 5th edition. And so on.

The third and smallest type of item is actual 'new' rules or methods. I think I've seen all them at one time or another but generally they aren't very interesting so I don't recall just where I ran across them. Nothing that I'd use (movement by segment instead of phases for example, other ways of using SPD, etc).

One is on their own with the rules contained within. They often cover the same ground (for example options to make AP offset a fixed amount of defense are but pages away from the cleaner Piercing rules- which offset a fixed amount of defense) or even conflict.

Some do part of the job and then fall flat when you go to apply it throughout the game. For example there's a welcomed 'Heroic' STR chart that has an improved progression (i.e. slower)- but it wasn't carried over into any of the other related subjects- like Growth, Density Increase or the defenses of the environment (doors, walls, etc.). I guess that would take more than cut and paste editing.

In any event, it doesn't live up to its billing. Nothing here strikes me as 'advanced', very little if anything is new, and it doesn't really take the game in new directions unless gutting the SPD and segmented systems core to HERO is your idea of a new direction.

However I still like the book, because it means that there's almost no reason (unless you want what I consider rather basic and obvious genre advice + lame versions of those settings) to buy any future genre/setting books. All the rules have been pulled into this one- just select what you need and go forth.

So if you're into HERO 6th- buy this book and avoid any future ones. Or if you for some strange reason like those genre/setting books- don't buy this one and wait until your favorite(s) comes out. I'm sure Long will cut and paste whatever he thinks it needs from the Advanced book.

I'd rather be a good bad gamer than an elite one

Anyone who's followed me online know the degree of disgust I hold for Forge style designers, i.e. those out to make the next big thing or change the hobby. Those who think of gaming as ART, the endless (and I hold destructive) search for GREAT things in rpgs.

Gaming isn't the only thing where this type of split occurs, indeed one may say that it afflicts any human activity. There are always those seeking great meaning, intelligence and art in ways that most people just don't concern themselves with- and thus in the end they will by any real measure fail.

Consider this article by George Orwell on Good Bad Books as an example of this. Here's what I consider the key statement:

"The existence of good bad literature — the fact that one can be amused or excited or even moved by a book that one's intellect simply refuses to take seriously — is a reminder that art is not the same thing as cerebration. I imagine that by any test that could be devised, Carlyle would be found to be a more intelligent man than Trollope. Yet Trollope has remained readable and Carlyle has not: with all his cleverness he had not even the wit to write in plain straightforward English."

Yes, I'd rather be a good bad DM, player and designer than in the end an overblown and in the end forgotten and useless artist- no matter how much the critical elite may look down upon the former and exalt the latter.

When I Use Random Character Generation

Zachary is singing the praises of random character generation over on his blog. I thought he was giving that up (the blogging, not the singing. I think Zachary must spend all his time signing about one thing or the other) or at least significantly cutting back. Hasn't happened, at least not to any degree I've noticed. But then again it's a classic to try and pull away from the waste of time that online interactions are only to fail. Sort of like trying to quit smoking, but without most of the health problems at least.

Where was I? Oh yes, random character generation. Personally I don't really like the method.

Or rather, I don't like it for one type of campaign and do for another.

I use random generation for long term campaigns where one would see family lines and multiple generations of characters. Mine are half-sand box and half epic fantasy arc (I've only done this in one setting), and given that players will over the life of the campaign run multiple characters (some of which are children of previous PCs)- a certain amount of random generation of stats and the like makes sense. You just don't always get what you want from the kids (vast understatement that, on the other hand you sometimes get more).

More common these days are concept campaigns because that's what my players are interested in. The one team of runners for Shadowrun. The one Morrow Project team that will either save or lose the future. The re-imagining of the Marvel Universe. And so on.

Concept Campaigns (which last a handful of years in real time for us) really demand concept characters- and thus full control over their creation.

So, partially random for sand box and designed for concept. This split in campaign types explains in a large degree why I use two rpg systems instead of one. It's not the only reason, but a it's a very significant one.

HERO System 6th: A question of skill

So I'm playing around with recreating some 5th edition characters in 6th just to see, and came across this jewel...

OCV and DCV were completely detached from DEX in 6th, a fact that neither greatly upsets nor to any degree excites me of and by itself. You start off with a default of 3 in each and buy them up at the cost of 5 points each.

With that in mind, an Overall Combat level costs 10 points (btw, this is not the 5th edition Overall which costs 10 points as that now costs 12). So for 10 points I can get a plus 1 OCV or DCV for any attack... meanwhile for 10 points I could a buy +1 OCV and +1 DCV.


But you say, that Overall applies to mental combat which OCV and DCV doesn't- nope. Seems 6th edition changed that rule and now all mental combat levels must be specifically bought and the standard Overall Combat Level does not apply.


Sort of makes Overall Combat Levels a poor buy unless you're in campaign with one cap for OCV/DCV characteristics and a different one for skill levels. But I had thought Long's entire reason for 6th was to make the points more balanced- not to make you buy stuff because of campaign caps...

Now the one thing the skill level will do is allow you to increase damage (using multiple skill levels) instead of OCV/DCV. So all is not lost- except I hate those rules and have long removed them from my campaigns. Not that they would have much effect even if I allowed them due to how expensive they are (in terms of lost OCV/DCV), at least for how I run my campaigns where I design the balance such that it's important to not be hit.

Default HERO is more like D&D in that respect (easy hits, each less dangerous), and so likely makes far more use of the ability to use skill levels to increase damage.

On such fine points does game design turn.

Review: HERO System Martial Arts 6th Edition

In the past various incarnations of the HERO System Martial Artist supplement (Ninja Hero, Ultimate Martial Artist) have always been the most useful book outside the main one.

That trend certain continues with the 6th Edition version Hero System Martial Arts.

Like those before, it presents the game system's mechanical versions of most of the major martial arts styles in the world, together with suggestions for fictional styles and abilities. On top of this are rules for making up your own styles.

There is little to dislike, expect perhaps for the genre advice which is as normal for HERO boring in its presentation and only useful to someone who has no knowledge of the movies or books that drive such settings.

Compared to 5th Edition, the various real world styles have seen some revision and additions. And of course the martial powers sections are built using the 6th edition renaming conventions. In general however, there is little here that wasn't in previous editions.

Even given that, if one is going to invest in the 6th edition books they should buy this one as well. Nearly usable in any setting, I've always consider it 'core' and a must have. Easily the best treatment of martial arts (with properly built characters) ever presented in a published rpg.

Review: HERO System Ultimate Base

The Ultimate Base is one of the latest supplements for HERO System and one of the first (if not the first) for 6th edition.

It shows all the typical Long styling- heavy cut and paste from other books (Ultimate Vehicle in this case) and very little value add.

He did make the attempt, there's a whole section on medieval castles and floor plans for a number of bases. There's even a section on how to in effect create 'Kingdoms' as characters and the play thereof. This is better than average for HERO Games as maybe as much as half the book isn't cut and pasted from elsewhere.

But half is and the half that wasn't just isn't interesting. So close, but a miss. The floor plans are boring, but usable for those who don't have the time to do better. There isn't anything here that really connects, coming across as something the author had to complete more than something he was interested in.


The cover actually reflects this. It shows the HERO Games' ripoff of Marvel's Helicarrier. Only one problem- it doesn't appear in the game book. That's because it can't appear- the rules inside quickly note that such a thing isn't a base but a vehicle.

Opps.

Growing the Hobby?

One of the blogs I follow is hosting the RPG Blog Carnival, with the subject of 'Growing the Hobby'. A timely subject when one hears of falling sales and hard times. People have been predicting doom for a while now, with even the former head of D&D claiming that the end of PnP RPG era is approaching.

Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. Time will tell. I know I'll be playing them for a good while longer because nothing else does what they do for me.

Back to original question. Reduced to its basics, 'Growing the Hobby' means gaining new RPG players. While regaining older lapsed players add numbers to the current pool, its not new ground and does little for the long term. So, yes new players...

Not really a subject I care about much. Not when phrased that way.

Now I have introduced many new players to the hobby, but never considered it as anything beyond growing my own group. In fact, I'm rather certain it didn't grow the 'hobby' because I doubt they'll ever play in a campaign outside the ones we do ourselves.

Yes, we're that good. And yes, the play style we have is going out of fashion when viewed with respect to the hobby as a whole (if the current games being produced actually reflect that hobby). So much so on that last point that I really don't care of the 'hobby' dies, because it hasn't been supporting me for a while now anyway.

If I had a larger ego, I'd claim at this point that if the industry made games I'd like to use, the hobby would grow on its own. Beh, maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. I couldn't say either way.

I can say that all anyone who isn't one of the big gaming companies (and maybe that's only WotC, and maybe this is beyond even them) can do is grow one's own group. Anything more is wishful thinking. And the hobby's wishful thinking has brought us to where we currently are...

...given that track record, it may be best to work on those things we actually have our hands on.

HERO System 6 Edition Review Part II

I likely should have mentioned this in yesterday's review but it was a bit long to include there. So I'll go back and add an link.


HERO System was always a very detailed and map focused game system. The game spoke in terms of 'inches' and 'hexes'. The entire rule set was written around the use of the hex map with powers defined to match. The environment and breaking things rules made the entire map something to interact with.

Like any game one could alter it and play it without the map, but at that point you're paying points not for defined abilities (movement, area of effects, range limits, reduced by range, indirect, etc) but for abstracted 'somethings' that one could only hope the GM took into account. If one really wanted to do this, they should switch 1" of running costs 2 points for things like "Perk- Fast Runner I" for x points. But whatever, that mindset seldom is worried about consistency.

I've never encountered anyone in real life that was in the least tempted to do that, much like I've never seen a D&D group in real life do it either. But it's all the rage online and Long himself claimed that's how he played (thus perhaps explaining why he seems so tunnel-visioned with minor updates to character creation rules and nothing else- for him that's the entire game it seems).

In contrast with WotC who in their new edition embraced it, HERO Sixth did away with the map, inches and hexes providing the most minor of 'if you're using these" hints in their place.

Well sort of did away with. Really he just converted everything to meters. Which just makes the book clumsy to use. If you want to use the old HERO scale of 1 hex = 2 meters you're having to make constant conversions as you play. It's unnecessary, and really addresses nothing.

If I was actually going to switch to 6th, I'd likely deal with this at the character sheet level- making all the conversions there as I use a Excel spreadsheet of my own. But it makes HERO Designer clumsy along with any of the published books, so those the value of those resources are reduced.

Oddly enough, this combined with the unnecessary expense of replacing my 5th edition books caused me to pass on any purchases from HERO Games in the future. They were already borderline with mostly dull supplements, and this kicked the can over the edge.

The owners of HERO Games have recently brought controlling interest in the Indie Press Revolution, so perhaps they'll overextend themselves and one day end up selling HERO System to someone who actually understands and plays it as more than a character generator.

Well, one can hope can't they?

HERO System 6 Edition Review

Managed over the last couple of weeks to look over copies of the two core 6th edition books.

Things aren't as bad as they could have been I suppose. Most of the rules are intact (it takes all of one page to list the changes, and most of these really aren't except in name). When you do find a change, they are more of the type you'd except in a 5.5 edition instead of a 6.0 with one exception.

That one significant change is the removal of figured based secondary characteristics (replaced with a flat base) together with characteristic repricing. This was a long sought goal of Mr. Long, but frankly it's neither exciting nor interesting. We end up with more point inflation and without doubt it will alter things (slightly negatively) for those who build to defined point budgets. For gamers like myself who build to concept, it's just points and points don't matter.

The planned change to Kill Attacks? You know, the 1d3 for stun multiple instead of of 1d6-1? It's really just a suggestion- the books says you can do it either way. And Hit Locations (what I've always used anyway) still use the old numbers in any case.

Otherwise it's small differences. There are a couple of good ones. Power Pool purchase has been streamlined with a nice simple method that hearkens back to older editions of the game. The Area of Affect advantage has been reduced slightly in cost. And so on.

But by far most of the changes are just the replacing of names. So Energy Blast is now just Blast. Force Wall has become Barrier. And so on.

Long is a well known master of the school of cut and paste publishing- to this he now has added the power of Find & Replace. The world is stunned and God help us if he ever finds the more advanced options in Word.

The goal here seemed to be making the rules more general, i.e. to not bias the reader as to the various purposes individual mechanics could be applied to. But it bleeds the soul out of the game and makes a ruleset that was already dry even more barren. I recall reading the original Champions rulebook and being flooded with ideas of where to take it. Force Fields! Armor! Those labels spoke to someone attempting to model a world. Resistant Protection? Chirping crickets. If 6th was the first edition of the game I had encountered, it would have likely been the last.

Visually the books are horrid. Someone thought orange on blue was a good color combo for the cover. I don't think I have ever encountered something as ugly. The whole book is in color (keeping up with the latest fad) and it hurts.

From the blue headers to the artwork (much of it taken from Champions Online) I just don't like the look of the book. Color is often good, but in this case it gives a comic book feel to everything. Fine for a comic book based game, but not the best choice for a system that is suppose to cover various other genres. There black and white (or less stark coloring) would have been nice.

Also Champions Online for whatever reason has once again changed the look of the Champions setting and background. As but one example, why Defender looks like a dude in tights and a open face helmet instead of an Iron Man ripoff is beyond me- but the change is frankly stupid.

Looking at their releases in the line, it looks to be a reply of 5th edition. So yet once again, I think HERO System will lack their Greyhawk or  Forgotten Realms, i.e. no setting that really takes flight with the rules and becomes a name in the mind of their players. That would have been something worth a 6th edition.


In the end, this is a workable set of rules just like HERO has always been. But very little has been gained with this release except cash flow to Long's pocket. If you have 5th edition, save your money and house rule in a couple of the changes (like Power Pools). If on the other hand you don't have a copy in good repair, well this is better than nothing.

Part II of this review: Hero dumps the Grid

Suppressive Fire and HERO System- Solutions

Previously we reviewed how HERO System handled Suppressive Fire in the core rules and foundd it somewhat wanting.So we turn to house rules in order to achieve our goal.

Here I see two possible (and simple) options.

1. Define 'movement' into a hex declared for the Suppressive Fire maneuver to be the taking of any action not just actual movement (i.e. making an attack). This at least subjects the person to the choice of accepting an attack in exchange for doing much of anything. Along with this we'd have to overturn the restriction on requiring auto-fire for Suppressive Fire..
2. Rather than modifying the Suppressive Fire rule, modify the Presence attack rules by providing more bonus dice to the attack, likely linked to the number of rounds fired. This would have to count as an action instead of the normal zero phase Presence Attack perhaps also requiring the attacker to hit the target hex (DCV 3) or target's cover (typically DCV 0). Additionally the negative modifier for repeating an presence attack would have to reduced or removed for Suppressive Fire. Spreading or Firing into multiple hexes would allow the attacker to cover more than one target.

Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages.

The first eats up a ton of ammo (making it unlikely it would commonly be used), and to make it work we would have to scale the OCV modifier with the ammo expended (i.e. say a single shot takes -3, two takes -2, 3-5 takes -1, 7-10 takes -0, etc). On the plus side it allows freedom of player choice and allows Suppressive Fire to  be dangerous.

The second actually represents the genre use of Suppressive Fire better and is much lighter on ammo (as you only need to fire on your phase and not each segment between them). The roll for the Presence attack replaces any damage roll, or standard effect can be used to avoid any die roll at all. The downside is that Suppressive Fire is never really dangerous in itself.


I'll be presenting these two options to my players and we'll see what people think.

Suppressive Fire and HERO System

Yesterday's post on Suppressive Fire drew some good comments. I didn't respond because much of my response is continue in this article.

Within the HERO core rules (5th edition) there are three methods of handling suppressive fire. Let's example each and see if they achieve what we desire (and if they do, what is the downside of using them).

Method 1: "My character aborts to a Dodge"

Like many systems, HERO has rules for dodges and blocks, basically you exchange your attack action for an decreased chance of being hit or for an attempt to actively roll to 'block' an attack. Dive for Cover is another such action often used to leap out of way of an attack.

Given that one is exchanging offensive action (and at least some movement) for these options (with their defensive benefits), one can say that they represent the player declaring his character 'suppressed'.

There are a few problems with depending upon this approach however.

First players typically only opt for these when the threat is serious (i.e. excellent chance of being hit and seriously damaged by the hit). Suppressive fire often doesn't have a serious change of hitting- it's more of psychological affect that damages someone as a side effect. Second, it doesn't reflect the genre and real world convention of firing in the general direction of a foe in order to 'keep their heads down' as opposed to trying to hit them directly.

So this rule by itself doesn't really do what we want although it certainly covers part of the concept.


Method 2: The Suppressive Fire Maneuver.

Hero System includes a combat maneuver called Suppressive Fire, so we have to consider it. When reading it however we find that it doesn't really do what we want.

The actual effect is sort of an area denial action. You hose down an area spending lots of ammo and anyone entering it is automatically attacked (at slightly less than normal hit chances).

That's sort of cool. But very limited. For example against a single target it's no different than holding an action and then firing at him (at a reduced chance unlike holding an action). It doesn't make him take cover or do anything other than let you shoot at him (once per your  phase). It really only becomes interesting when you're trying to deny an area to multiple people.

The requirement for auto-fire is also a bit of a drawback. Movies have characters with revolvers providing covering fire and this doesn't help any in modeling that.

So once again, we have a bit of what we want, but not all of it.



Method 3: Presence Attack

HERO has a attack method call Presence Attacks. These are basically an attempt to so impress someone that they lose actions and/or just give up (or give you information, open the door, etc.). Bonus dices are gained from violent action, so this sounds almost exactly like what we are looking for.

The base rule is that you roll a number of dice based upon your PRE and modify that number as the result of various conditions. So from memory, a PRE of 15 (a good solid value for 'street level' campaigns) gives 3 dice, -1 dice for in combat already, +2 for very violent action (shoot a firearm at someone isn't the most violent thing possible, but it's violent), +1 for display a 'power' (i.e. the firearm).

So 5d6, on average 17.5 points. Which isn't enough to make the typical man in the street lose even a half-phase action. It does let the attacker go first but that has very little practical impact. Worse, each additional attack Presence Attack of the same type suffers a -1 dice modifier and will quickly not even case that much effect.

Sigh.

A good roll (say all 4s or better) does work- it will make the target lose a half phase and in my campaigns that's their 1/2 phase combat action by default. But that's an above average roll, and would work only at the beginning of the battle.

Plus there are some odd effects here, Presence Attacks don't have to be related to the target, but can impress everyone. So by shooting in Joe's direction and rolling good- I can suppress Pete who was sneaking up behind me...

So Presence Attacks don't do exactly what we want either. So out of the box, HERO can't do want we want.


Next, we turn to house rules....

Suppressive Fire

This is something of a old subject, not just for HERO but for RPGs in general. It came up this weekend during our game session as something desired by a character at one point, but we moved on without really examining it. So I thought it would be worth a couple of blog posts.

Suppressive Fire is important in real world and genre firefights, i.e. shooting to keep someone's head down rather than directly kill them (even if such fire may manage to do just that).

Few games take it into account, and for good reasons. It may be something of a game breaker providing a huge advantage to whichever side has greater numbers. For example, if the game mechanic simply applies a modifier for someone declaring Suppressive Fire (up to preventing their 'target' from returning fire), it's easy to see how the more numerous side can suppress 'one for one' and then take complete tactical advantage with their remaining people.

It's not that easy in the real world, Suppressive Fire doesn't just have to be used- it must be effectively used and different targets of such fire may react differently. Numbers don't tell the whole story, individual troop quality and morale is often far more important.

Also from a game design PoV,  it's generally counter-productive to remove player action from the game. All these factors must be weighed before selecting a mechanic.

Next post I'll cover the different ways Suppressive Fire can be represent in HERO System.

Farewell to RPG Blog II

It seems Zachary is hanging up his blog. A pity as it was one of my must stop places online, and there aren't many of those. But rpgs are a hobby, and in a hobby a person must go where they must go or the whole thing will suffer.

So best wishes to Zach for whatever he does next although he really doesn't need them. After all, one defines one's own success in this hobby.

Building Big and Daring

Green Float is an idea that cries out for inclusion in my Shadowrun campaign. 3000 foot tower, floating on the ocean. A great view and an exotic place for raging gun battles and spell slingin'.

What's not to like?

Other than the fact that it's a death trap just waiting to drown everyone on it. But small details shouldn't get in the way.

The Ego of Gamers

Stuff like this is just so common. It isn't enough to have a nice hobby with a great return on entertainment time vs. investment. Some people just are not happy unless they are creating unfounded MEANING in it as well.

We have the RPG as Art type, and even worse we have the RPG as the hope of mankind type.

What BS.

Oh, I'll grant that the ability to spin reality is a powerful influence. Sadly that is core of politics and PR although calling it 'story' is nothing more than making the term 'story' meaningless as a useful word. But to leap from there and decide that just because one plays RPGs that world is yours for the remaking... is just stupid.

Let's pass over the small matter that real public influencing skills are not what is being used at the gaming table. Let's pass over the fact that no matter the spin, in the end reality will catch up with you (although if you're like Stalin or Mao, you get to pass that off to the poor bastards who are alive after your gone).

Let's just take a passing look at any collection of gamers out there. They hate each other guts. One says one thing, ten others will leap and and say the reverse. The only thing they'd do in the real world even given all of Rob's foolish assumptions is add to the noise. And they'd add a LOT to the noise.

Just what we don't need. Gamers wouldn't save the world, they'd doom it.

Iron Man 2

Went and saw the latest Iron Man movie last night. It was a good time, and once again I was able to walk out thinking that I didn't need to update any of the character sheets for my HERO System based re-imagined Marvel campaign. I suppose Widow's sheet could use a couple of new toys (electro-mines and some flash bangs) to make it a total match.

Even the climatic end battle with its 'new and unexpected and never to be repeated use of repulsers) is covered by the Teamwork and Pushing rules + special effects.

I"m a little different than most I think in that I like the first movie in a series better than the following ones (Spiderman I better than Spiderman II. This is even more the case with movies I was mixed on (Fantastic Four) or disliked (X-Men).

Talking with one of my friends, he suggests that it's more interesting to see a comic book hero come to life on the big screen. Once that's happen you're left with only two options.

1. Just another adventure. These can be quite fun, just like this last move. But they're aren't 'magical' anymore.
2. A major change in the character's course that ruins what the character was about in the first place. These are awful (Spiderman III went in this direction, we'll see if they recover from it).

Comics themselves have the same choice, with one difference. Comics depend a bit more on the imagination of the reader instead of special effects. And that imagination allows it to carry on longer without appearing stale.

That first option isn't as bad as one might think, as most highly successful TV shows follow it to the letter. Really, once you've seen one Law & Order or House- you've seen them all. Only the details are different.

Option 2 however is the beginning of the end. List hope that we don't see that soon with this latest run of comic movies, for they have been quite good.

Deconstructionism Equals The Boring Approach

Deconstructionism has been an increasing fad for western culture since I was born at the beginning of the space age.

The method is simple, find a traditional thought (any thought, it doesn't matter) and wreck it. Make it into something completely different. When someone creates something new and presents it as new, it may have its place in the world. But when they insist on it replacing the original (i.e. keeping the same name while calling the original invalid for whatever reason), it's basically nothing more than an act of hatred driven by personal ego.

Case in point, this post here at Motor City Gamewerks.

Now nothing is stopping Jason from creating a new fantasy race, called Hippie Runts (to coin a name) that are short polish speaking, forest dwelling, wood crafting folks without breads and a taste for malts for his fantasy campaign.

But creating something new wasn't the point. Instead Jason had to rage against the traditional view of dwarves because he lacks the imagination to do something new. Instead he is driven to undermine the work of others to feed his own needs.

And that is so common, and yes- now days it's also boring.

My Primary Requirement for Game Mechanics

I have a rather consistent approach to deciding if a given game system may or may not be interesting. I skip the entire character generation and setting sections if possible stopping only long enough to determine the type of numbers I'll need to actually play the game (average stat, average skill rating, whatever).

Then I go over the whatever are the core rules (typically combat) that would be most important in play. I then plug in those 'average' values and see if the game is interesting to play.

No Setting. No real characters. No role-playing. Just the game mechanics themselves. The question is, is the underlying game fun just by itself. In short, is this a rpg that is built upon an interesting game system. Or is it a rpg that is built upon a boring game system.

That one test tells me if the game has any legs. Or if my attraction is based upon the marketing and fluff packaged around the design- things sure to fade the longer I use it.

Using the Rules as Written

Spend enough time online and you'll see this subject come up now and then. I came across it most recently over at the RPG Blog II today.

My own view on this subject is very straight forward. After selecting a set of rules, and then modifying them to meet the group's needs- there is never a good reason to not play them as written. The very act of needing for whatever reason to alter them on the fly is proof that you've selected the wrong rules to begin with, or failed to modify them to suit your needs. In other words, you don't know what you're doing.

Perhaps I need to rephrase that last, while it's true that you may not know what you're doing (or at the very least failed to do it well)- it is perhaps even more likely that you're not willing to admit what you're doing. You say you want to play D&D, and perhaps most of the time you're happy with that- except when it doesn't agree with you and then you in effect cheat to get what you want.

Yes, cheat. That's when someone breaks the rules of a game to suit a desire of their own. Even if it's by agreement. A golfer who shaves strokes off his score with no more than a laugh from his buddies is still cheating. The difference between the golfer who does this and most gamers however is that the golfer is typically at least honest with his pals who heckle him for it but accept it.

Gamers just lie to themselves, saying it's a normal and accepted part of the hobby. And then get mad if someone like me calls them on it. They aren't man enough to admit what they're doing, to others and perhaps even to themselves.

The behavior is very childlike really. It's that greedy part of ourselves that demands things go our way. It's someone losing a bet who then refuses to pay up instead begging for 'the best two out of three'. It speaks ill of the person doing it, and it speaks ill of the hobby that it is commonly accepted.

What's interesting about this is that there are game systems that include mechanics that in practical terms give you anything you want. Don't like those, you can add subsystems to any game to achieve the same goal. Thus a person has to select a system that doesn't (and then refuse to modify it) in order to have the option to cheat. Which tells me that to these people- the act of cheating is more important to them then the playing of the game itself.

Or they can take the golfer's approach, and just admit that they cheat and laugh off the heckling they get for it. It has the advantage of at least being honest.

Common RPG Questions

Since I've started this blog, I've written number of series that drove rather deeply into specific subjects and in a way I consider those to be the highlights of this blog.

There are however a number of common questions that I see raised again and again. The answers for these are typically rather short and I've been debating how to approach them as a body of work. So far I've just done one-off posts. This then is an attempt to take advance of the tools a blog offers.

This will be a parent post that I'll link to on the right together with  those to the more in-depth series. I'll update this entry with links to future posts that address common and basic questions about RPG design and usage I often see. Further I'll toss a label on it of  Common RPG Questions so that feature can be directly used.

It will at least be useful to me, and we'll see how it goes. I'll add in few links to pass articles to kick it off

Complexity

• Equilibrium of Complexity 
• Groups and Complexity
• Musings on Complexity

Using the Rules as Written

At last, a good answer to my opinion on FATE

My reaction to the Dresden Files RPG and the FATE system produced a fair amount of nearly unintelligible nerd rage as the comments for those posts show. Which I always find amusing, mostly because so many of the comments are just plain stupid. And I think stupid people are at fault for many of the world's problems, so it gives the world an good excuse for being so screwed up. There is a 'correctness' to it all in a sad way.

And I'll be honest, part of the reason I post some of my opinions is in order to see if there is anyone out there with any sense holding a opposing opinion. Most of the time the answer is a resounding no. Typically all I get is hateful bile and ad hominem attacks, which was certainly the case this time around.

Well almost the case this time around. Someone did surprise me. Rainswept at Romance Monsoon had this reply to my charge of "Why people blow their hard earned money on works that a monkey could do in his spare time is beyond me."

And it's a good reply. It still indicates a approach to RPGs that I don't agree with, but it indicates a person that at least begins to understand theirs and is willing to present it without going bonkers and acting like a fool.

So well done Rainswept. I must give you your point, and since you're likely not interested in a dust up- I'll spare you my answering one.

Judging FATE

This is an answer to Wyatt in a comment from my previous post about the Dresden Files RPG. He asked what I didn't like about FATE.


FATE is at its core FUDGE. And FUDGE at its core is just a resolution system.

By that, I mean a method of rolling dice to see if an attempt at something is successful or not. The difference between that and an true RPG system in my mind is the difference between playing a game of chess, and rolling a couple of dice to see if you're declared the winner of a game of chess.

FATE adds some not uncommon chrome to the core FUDGE Mechanic. Fate points that when expended add to the roll (hence the system name I imagine). Also some other small details like Aspects which strikes me as a bit of concept theft (not a bad thing) from RISUS, those can be called upon to generate Fate points and/or provide other modifiers in various ways.

The result is a very bare bones systems. Characters sheets that wouldn't fill and index card and very little to actually do from a game play point of view. Sure you can decide to shoot someone, but the game is too course to handle the tactical details of that except as non-rule connected descriptive fluff. Sure you have a character, but one with a very limited number of mechanically defined handles for the player to hold.

Which is why the authors claim that FATE (to quote their website):

"focuses on telling stories and balancing characters based on story significance, rather than points and cool powers. It's the system of choice for GMs who are looking for rules that get out of the way of the story, but still provide enough structure to get the job done."

I'd phrase that differently: FATE is a terrible game system, only useful to add a degree of randomness to whatever story you or or players happen to be railroading.

Now to be fair, if actually playing a game isn't the goal- FATE is a rather fine simple resolution system with enough chrome to almost invoke the favor of the setting. It's better than most that attempt the same thing.

But it's FUDGE, its simple. You don't need to spend money on the game books to use it. I wouldn't send Evil Hat Productions a dime even if I liked the ideas behind their designs. Do it yourself because to a large degree that's what the (free to anyone) FUDGE system demands anyway.

Why people blow their hard earned money on works that a monkey could do in his spare time is beyond me. Unless it's their parents money and they need to fill the bookshelves in the basement...

The Dresden Files

I will have to admit to something of a guilty pleasure. I really like the Dresden file books and just finished up the latest entry in the series, Changes. The whole Film Noir meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer approach appeals to me. Also at 12 books, it's the longest running series I've encountered that hasn't jumped the shark. Most don't get past the second book.

In general I find urban fantasy rather unbearable, for example anything by Kim Harrison or Kat Richardson is just bad. Not that Butcher is a great writer. There are parts of the books that cause me to cringe (yes I know it's noir, but every girl having the hots for the main character just screams author wish fulfillment). But when he's on, he's on. He does with rare exception the best version of Paladins I've seen in fantasy and the same for his fey.

There's a Dresden Files RPG that one can now pre-order.

Sadly this game won't live up to its source material. The Fate system is horrid, the art work being used doesn't fit. I have no reason to buy the game. It will be yet another failed rpg license that will be off the shelves (if it even makes it there) and effectively forgotten about in a handful of years. The Internet keeps games like these in something of an undead status after their life span reaches the end because overhead is so low- but they are still by any rational matter dead.

Maybe if they did adventures, those might be of interest. But they won't. The whole point of the setting is for things to be very tailored and personal to the characters, and that doesn't lend itself to pre-written adventures. Besides, this is a game company who's claim to fame is Spirit of the Century and that line currently consists of all of two books. These are not productive people, and highly productive people are needed for success.

Dresden it seems is doomed to failed cross-overs, but it the TV show or an RPG. Oh well, that's life.

It is tempting for me to kick off a Dresden style campaign on my own (using HERO System 5th edition). It fits well in my already existing time line. Only the other hand, I'm think I should just enjoy the books. I have other campaigns to run and I can fit Harry and his like into my Year One Marvel setting as a cameo appearance easily enough. A little Harry goes a long way.


Edit: Follow-up to this post here

Living with Canon

Over on the RPG Blog II, Zachary is weary of canon fiends wrecking his fun with 're-imagined' settings. A problem that I've heard about online before, but never really encountered in my campaigns.

Given that I run Middle Earth, I suppose the odds should have been good that I'd encounter players like that. But no. The closest I've gotten is people online who attempt to claim (foolishly I may add) that humans were incapable of magic in Middle Earth.

But then again, I picked a time and place in Middle Earth long before the War of the Ring in a 'blank' spot of the timeline- the middle of the Third Age around a millenium and a half previous. So I suppose I've dodge the worst of it by that one single fact.

For my other 'based upon X' setttings, I'm always clear up front that they are 're-imagined' versions. Be it Year One in my Marvel based superhero campaign or Shadowrun.

I've been doing this for decades, but the new Battlestar Galactica helped make it an easily understood choice even if it was a horrid show. If Starbuck can suddenly become a woman, there's not much point in whining about the incorrect number of bathrooms on deck 15.

Still, none of that will help if you have players who insist on playing in the 'real' version of the setting however they define 'real'. IME no two people will be able to agree on just what is 'real', so the desire is stillborn no matter what. In such a case one can only make it clear that the setting is re-imagined, and that you're not willing to run a 'real' version. If they can't live with that, then they have a decision to make- accept it or find a different campaign.

Curmudgeons often have soft spots

Apologies up front for a non-game related post. I don't do that here, but today is an exception. Some people say blogging is often good for expressing grief. I guess I'll see.

Online (and off) I'm an admitted curmudgeon, looking at the downside of most things and dismissive of wide-eyed claims of... well just about all wide-eyed claims. And rightfully so, just ask me.

Curmudgeons however often have soft spots. Mine- for my wife, my religion, and my country (if not those in charge of it). And animals. I'm real softie (but not PETA crazy) for animals, especially Maine Coon cats.



A few weeks back I mentioned that the wife was getting me a pair of kittens for my 50th birthday. I want you to meet Winston, the Maine Coon in the picture. Just a bit shy of 3 months in age.

He lived with us for 10 days. In that time he was a perfect paragon of what a Maine Coon should be. Playing in water, following us from room to room, naturally fitting into the house and becoming part of every activity. If I spent any time at the computer for example, he'd find his way up to the monitor where he'd watch with interest or go to sleep until I stepped away. Every. Single. Time.

He cost a pretty penny, but more than paid for himself when he noticed a bit of water leaking from a flooded cabinet. The installers for our new dishwasher had dislodged the drain from the garbage disposal. The resulting flood upon draining the sink wasn't really noticable from outside it. But he caught it instantly saving us hundreds in damages.

Three days before his 3 month birthday, he developed a fever. Two days later his breathing was labored despite treatment. On his birthday, he joined his sister Truman who was suppose to come home with us as well and who had died the previous week from the same illness.

It's called Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP). And is currently my personal symbol of evil in the world. Basically it was just bad luck, a lightning strike. Winston's care both before we picked him up and after was excellent. No one is at a fault. The breeder may well have cried as much as we, and has promised a replacement kitten. In time, I'll likely take her up on that. And I have a new charity.

According to Matthew 10:29, God takes account of every fallen sparrow. Certainly he must take note of every little kitten.

Sorry for the downer post. I'll make it up for everyone later. Promise.

The A-Team RPG

So there's going to be a A-Team movie. Don't know if it will be any good, but a wise man would bet against it. The trailer however made me laugh.

Used to watch that show back in the day, it was fun and predictable. Odd how those two concepts go together in TV (and likely in RPGs as well). It was also silly with likely thousands of rounds fired and I can't remember them ever hitting a single person. They were hell on vehicles and the landscape however.

One night our gaming group decided to play a one-shot A-Team game instead of our normal campaign.

So I turned to my workhorse game- HERO System. Ran it straight with the following house rules:

1. Kill Attacks (and deadly normal attacks) would not harm a living creature. Instead their effect was replaced with a Presence Attacks. Weapons were given dice bonuses to these depending upon how impressive they were. These Presence Attacks only applied against valid targets of the original physical attack.
2. Any A-Team kit-bashed weapons got more Presence Attack bonus dice than any normal weapon. Only one allowed per adventure.
3. Anyone who loses a full phase from a Presence Attack counts as 'defeated', i.e. they either give up or flee from such a display of impressive firepower.
4. Any character could make a free dive for cover from any vehicle, exploding building, etc. This was always successful- but if invoked 'defeated' the character as in item 3.
   

With those four simple changes, we went on to have a perfect A-Team adventure. It could have been scripted from the actual show. Was a ton of fun. But it wasn't the stuff of a full length campaign for us and we only did it once.

Now days people at the Forge and elsewhere would attempt to create an completely new game system to do something like that. And it would almost certainly suck in comparison.

SETI, The Joy of Wishful Thinking

Sc-fi fans in general are big believers in ET. They pull out the Drake Equation (forgeting that the equation has little to plug into it besides made up numbers) and dream of little grey men with rather odd probing habits.

It's an attractive idea (not the probing part), and when I was young and wishful I spent some time researching the fringe areas of science. The foolishness I found there made me a skeptic of such things forever after. Oh some of them would be cool if true, but coolness doesn't make them real.

Even when they are chased after by people who should know better.

SETI being the example currently on my mind. I hold a degree in Electronic Engineering Technology (stone age stuff, early 80s), and the whole idea seemed iffy to me back when it started. The reasons are nicely summed up in this article. In short, the reason they haven't detected anything likely has nothing to do with the question of something being out there not- it was just a stupid idea fueled by wishful thinking. The physics and reality of the problem indicates that failure is nearly certain.

The neat things about stupid ideas however is that they can be really fun in game campaigns.

Greg Bear for example wrote a book with the idea that the reason SETI didn't detect anything was because ET learned it was best to be quiet- or you could end up dead. From a rpg point of view, that's a cool idea even if the book itself was rather dull.

Marvel comics ran with a very similar idea, although it started much better than it ended. A common problem especially in comics which in this day and age is basically a dying medium.

I've used quite a number of silly fringe ideas in my campaigns, because campaigns aren't made to be serious. Nothing wrong with that.

Unless people start believing them for real. The millions of dollars SETI have spent indicates to me that too many people let fantasy bleed over into reality.

So what fringe ideas have my readers used in their games?

I can be Achilles

Came across this post at one the blogs I normally read, Zack is fun even if he plays silly games.

My first thought was "this is why the OSR doesn't inspire me". Such limits on what you can do. A well designed heroic adventure game should allow for both Odysseus and Achilles. Old School to me means the search for a better game than D&D.

My second thought was, you can certainly play Achilles in those old games. As long as the party leader was Odysseus.

My third thought was, both those guys were screwed in the end. Given that, I'd rather be killed by a random arrow in a battle than by my own son*...

*In one version of the story

Who to design for?

As sort of an outgrowth of last week's postings, I was reminded how many people are off designing new rpgs. Print on Demand, word processing, PDFs, etc have all made it possible for just about anyone to toss their two cents on to the growing pile of rpgs.

And there are a lot of them.

And almost all of them will fail.

That is they will never reach a wide market nor attract much in the way of significant attention. That's a given. I could go out on a limb (a very strong one IMO) and say that they *all* will fail. This is true even of internet 'famous' games like... oh let's pick FUDGE or Dogs in the Vineyards.

There are three ways I can see to avoid this fate, the first is to have D&D to die off creating an opening for a new rpg of note. The second is to dumb down the meaning of success to the point where just getting it into print counts as a win.

I'm not a big fan of the second, and while I'd like to see the first- it won't happen. D&D may slack off (as it did with 2nd edition), but someone will buy it up and it will retake the market leaving whoever took that opening looking like yesterday's news (White Wolf anyone?).

Oh, the third way...

You could be the next Mearls and basically pull a bait and switch with the 5th edition of D&D and slide your game into its place. You have to keep some of the terms, and you likely won't have a free hand. And you may kick off a new OSR, but hey. It works. That game you're working on now, a stepping stone to pad your resume for that big shot at taking the helm of D&D.

Myself, I'd rather skip all the above.

Independent game design shouldn't be an effort to make the next big thing. It shouldn't be Greg over at the Synapse Design Blog firing the fans and designing for women (just to pick on one guy as an example).

Independant game design should be for the designer's own group. A labor of love, to meet their needs. Not that of the market, not that of the theorists. A very personal goal for a handful of people you know very well.

There you will find success, and it will be success that matters.

Also I'm certain of one thing, if there is a 'next big thing'- it will come from a designer like that. The rest, well you can just tell the rest have no soul. They're too busy looking pass it.