New Blood, and Onward to the Next Campaign

Finished up our Only War campaign, and it's rather nice to be done with it. It was fun to stomp everything that comes along, but the joy of doing that quickly passes when its too easy. My son's online Only War campaign continues, there the Guard (having gotten a hold of the better weapons like auto-cannons and Meltas) can handily curb-stomp Chaos Space Marines due to how forgiving the game system is.

We have a new player which is always fun. The whole concept behind RPGs greatly intrigued her when she heard about it, so much so that she attempted to drive into whatever game she could last week including going to one of the local D&D gatherings (multiple groups in a local hobby store) because all those books for it looked... well wonderful.  She came away saying that if that had been her first experience, it would have been her last.

Afterwards I attempted to explain the state of game design and the hobby to her. Basically it comes down to the fact that today's players want to win, and win easily. If they can get loot while doing so- all the better. Both their games and their role-playing are centered on those goals, and that's the end of their needs and desires. Thus you have games like D&D and Only War. This makes up nearly the entire market now and I've given up any hope that it will change.


We've started our next campaign, which has the traditional (for us) title of X-babies, attempts to give it a real name always fail for some reason.

It's superheroes using 5th Edition Hero System, centering on a new class of Mutants at the re-imagined school for Gifted Youngsters (i.e. re-imagined because it's really quite different from the comics or movies- which we all loathe this days) . Intended to be a fun and care free campaign it's a great introduction to role-playing with a tactical focus during combat, with a huge amount of fun and silly role-playing (in and out of battles). This is a setting we often use for new players for just those reasons.

Our next game is tomorrow and I'm really looking forward to it.

Only War is amazingly safe

For the last few months we've been playing in my Son's Only War campaign, and he in turn has been playing in an online Only War campaign (that's been going on for a bit longer). The setting was marketed as deadly and dangerous, and the fluff in the rulebook repeated that claim. So I was expecting at least a few dead PCs and mountains of Comrade corpses littering the battlefields.

In actual play however it's been one of the safest and easiest games we've ever played. In both ours and the online game there's not been one PC death, and only one Comrade has died (when I was guest GMing in our campaign).

There are a number of reasons for this, both mechanical and psychological.

From the mechanical PoV:

• The system has what is basically a D&D Style Hit Points (called wounds, typically 12 points or more). Until these are gone, your character if fully effective and 'safe'. This combined with the damage reduction provided by Toughness and Armor results in a very significant Buffer against common weapons. A well built and moderately equipment character can soak *a lot* of hits or even become all but immune to less than Heavy Weapons fire.

• The Logistics System allows characters to quickly attain high end armor and weapons further increasing their ability to suck up incoming damage while increasing their outgoing damage to levels opposing NPCs can't handle.

• The mechanics for teamwork and leadership are well done (i.e. they are suited to the genre and effective), however they amplify the above effects significantly. In any battle the PCs will defeat equally (and even better) skilled and equipped opponents due to the effect of these rules.

• If you do get into trouble, Fate Points will generally get you out of it.

Now naturally the GM is capable of throwing powerful enough foes at the characters to overwhelm them. However it's impressive just how much is required, We've seen players deal with dozens of foes outnumbering them 3 to one. How about heavily armored, conversion field protected, plasma gun armed robots of death with 60+ stats? Walked over. Three Killer Cans? Blasted into bits. Bloodletter? Tank? Shot to pieces. And this with characters who have just now reach 5K+ experience (something easily done after but 10 game sessions with these rules) and for most of the above had far less. I think the online game saw five players or so defeat a Chaos Marine and another time a Greater Demon (which just shouldn't be possible according to the setting).


This leads to the Psychological influences I mentioned. The amount of force needed to provide a serious threat is just too much for a GM to feel justified in using. For one thing, such opponents should be rare. And for another it just plain seems wrong to have your Guardsmen whacking hordes of foes more suited setting wise as Space Marine opponents.

In the end we're likely going to need to break through those Psychological influences and ramp up the opponents to levels that don't match the setting we thought the game was built for- just to feel that we're at risk.

Corporia

I was a bit surprised to get a press release for Corporia, a new kickstarter offering. I don't think I'm known as a fan of modern game design, but then again I do like urban fantasy style cyberpunk and this certainly fits.

So I looked it over,and it sparks some thought.

I *might* like the core setting concept. Most Urban Fantasy is a kitchen sink approach where anything and everything goes, but this one's focus on the "Once and Future King" elements of Camelot promises something less aimless than that. More over, there's a "fight the cyberpunk culture" vibe that is all but missing in that genre and I think it would be a welcomed addition (and mirrors my own re-imagined Shadowrun campagin).

Why did I include that "might" above? Well the most familiar version of Camelot is one strongly influenced by Christianity be it the Grail Quest itself or the whole "One God coming to replace the old gods" theme. But there are older far more pagan versions. And for me much depends upon which take if any the author took in for his setting.

I would have a interest in a strong Christian version, especially given the fact that Christianity is dying in the modern world. There's an appeal to the concept of its champions returning in a near future dystopia brought about by its absence.

But I doubt this is the case. Nothing seems to point in that direction and modern sensibilities being what they are I'd bet on a completely secular Camelot, or a pagan one.


On the system side of things...

Well, it looks like a typical example of a modern non-D&D based game, i.e. a low resolution trait + skill stat vs. target number thing. Very simple and uninteresting mechanics that aren't much of a game in and of themselves (and thus why should I waste any time using them?). A quick glance indicates that it also has a strong stat bias, something I've never liked in game design. A lot might have been missing in the preview certainly, but what was included wasn't impressive.

The lack of a Death Spiral is a good thing however. So there are much worse options out there.


Meanwhile the layout looks to be par with some of the better games out these days, but the photo art didn't go over well for me. Real people are just too real for fantasy, urban or otherwise. It might appeal to cosplayers, and of course such taste is personal.

One exception to that was the shower scene with the caption "Corporia what will the flux do to you" that appears in a small frame in the preview. Likely because it's a very light focus shot. Really nice that one.

In short, if you're one for light systems and urban fantasy check it out. This might suit and provide a alternative "light in the darkness" campaign in a gaming industry that mostly sees in shades of black these days.

The new Captain America trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLWsK1ZFunA

Some comments that may be off because things might not be in context, it is a trailer after all. That never stopped me. Currently, I'm not hopeful about this film.

 


- The exchange between Fury and Cap sounds a lot like the typical Hollywood attack on preemption, the War on Terror, and heck- even having a significant military with Cap taking the role of the liberal leftist. If it really pans out that way, it will wreck the franchise. Leftists don't go to a Captain America movie, so making it for them is a  very bad idea (unless like the comics you think marketing to less than 10,000 fans is a good idea).

- Checking out IMDB, too many characters. What is it about superhero movies that cause them to stuff too many villains into the same film? Winter Soldier, OK that is the name of the move and while I personally thought it a lame story I can see... Crossbones too? Why? And Batroc? Now we're just being... Machete? Good frickin grief, who in the heck even remembers him?

The same on the hero side to be honest. Sharon Carter and Nick Fury with some flashbacks to Peggy Carter and Howard Stark is to be expected. But do we really need the Falcon in this movie too? Maria Hill? Black Widow (talk about overlap with Sharon Carter). Hawkeye didn't make the cut, color me surprised.

Too much, most these characters will get shafted and made insignificant. There's enough here for two or three movies, maybe they should have waited for those movies. Doing it right each time might make the chances of more movies in the future a better bet.

We're due for the Marvel Avengers franchise to go south. They started with movies in the spirit of the originals, and their success has made them bold enough to further modernize the characters and the stories. That will end them. Sad, I was hoping things would last a bit longer before we started getting the likes of Spider-Man 3.

How Senseless Things Continue

Richard Bartle made an very interesting post* on his blog concerning the Trinity in MMORPG design, how it doesn't make any sense in any true context, including that of desired game design- but rather came about as an artifact of limits- first of the game, and then the players.

The table-top world suffers greatly from the same type of evolution (or rather it's lack). D&D style Hit Points were a quick fix for the problem of players not wanting their characters to die- and we've (both table-top and then MMORPGs) have stuck with a nonsensical game mechanic ever since to the point where people will tie themselves into logical knots trying to justify them.

I long for the day when people will be willing to wipe the slate clean and reboot the hobby. That it hasn't happen isn't due to a lack of people offering other options- it's from the inertia of an hobby whose mainstream is completely uninterested in trying different approaches.

For the more open minded, we likely lost our best chance at it when WotC released the OGL ensuring that the core market will always be D&D. Now instead of waiting for D&D to die (something it's almost done at least twice now) leaving an opening for something new- we have to wait for the entire hobby to die.

In the meantime, we'll have to be happy with our own personal groups and homegrown rules- for they couldn't care less about the wider hobby because they don't need them. In that way, we have a huge advantage over the MMORPG world whose player base is still strongly tie to what companies are willing to produce.



*hat-tip to Vedron  over on Vedron's Potion for calling this to my attention.

Only War- House Rules

My son is running a Only War campaign for us for a while, doing a good job at it too. It's sort of interesting in some ways to see how things change from one generation to the next, what we share and want we don't.

He's not as concerned as I about having perfect rules and he's willing to accept 'The Rule of Cool' to some extent, but he also doesn't buy into the rather sloppy approach to them that characterizes modern gaming either.

The result is a small set of House Rules for Only War that I've put up on my website here. They are still a work in progress, and some vehicles will likely be uploaded tonight.

May as well make them public for others to consider or ignore as they wish.

Design Zombies - Part II

We're continuing the series about game mechanics that failed when they were first developed, failed in every game they were used in thereafter, and fail in games designed today. But they are still used for mysterious reasons beyond the understanding of mortal man.

Today we take a quick look at the Game Breaking Stat. I'm going to focus on one type related to damage, but the concept applies beyond that single area.

Let's use FFG's Only War as our standard bearer. Want to create a character for this dark vision of future war where life is cheap and death is close? What's that you say? You want to be an nearly invincible titan on the battlefield?

Grab a character sheet, use point allocation and throw as many points as you can into Toughness. You'll hit 40 points easy and maybe even more depending upon home world and other factors. Now select the Stormtrooper as your archetype and get five points of armor free. Build the right type of regiment with the right aptitudes and using your starting experience add another 10 points to Toughness.

Out of the gate, nothing special and you're already immune to anything less than max damage from many common weapons. Make attaining Best Quality armor (much easier than it sounds with the system) and gain a another point of Armor. Work towards the Armor Monger Talent for yet another point of armor. Should only take a handful of adventures.

Gratz! You are now immune to nearly all the common weapons your foes should be using. Las Rifle fire will roll off you like rain water. I've watched characters wade through the mass fire of 20 NPCs in the open just to pick up a piece of dropped gear- because he could.

Of course the GM may respond with giving every opposing grunt Heavy Weapons, Sniper weapons or the like. Sucks to be you I guess, but it sucks for the setting and campaign more and it has to suffer the intense violence of mainstream weapons being worthless.

As a side note, the Toughness stat is far more effective than armor, because armor is subject to penetration by the more potent (and less common) weapons. Toughness isn't.

This one error in the overwhelming effect of a Stat dates all the way back to 1st edition Warhammer way back in 1986 where the invincible dwarf (due to toughness and armor) became a legend in gaming circles.

It also dates back to the original Star Wars RPG in 1987 where a common Wookie could make himself all but immune to the typical Imperial Blasters.Yep, you could get through armored doors with those things ('lock the door and hope they don't have blasters'), but couldn't take down a wookie with one. Oh well.

How and why this is still happening is beyond me. Give any gamer who understands mechanics five minutes with the rulebook and he'll find this hole immediately. But it seems that a game designer will never see the problem, even if it's been around for decades.

Design Zombies - Part I

No, not that type of zombie. Here I'm referencing game mechanics that failed when they were first developed, failed in every game they were used in thereafter, and fail in games designed today. But they are still used. It would be baffling if one didn't expect people to be stupid, but sadly they are and so I imagine we'll never outgrow bad game design.

So in this post (the first of a series) I want to take a quick look at Design Zombies.

First up, spending your XP in exchange for altering or changing in-game events. One simple example is classic Deadlands where you spend your hard earned chips for re-rolls or instant healing.

It’s a meta-game decision that pulls you out of character, and doesn’t in any way relate to anything ‘real’ to the character. Think about it, does James Bond put off raising his driving skill in order to keep Goldfinger from killing him? I never saw him consider that exchange in the movie or book. Perhaps I missed it.

I think this mechanic results from a game design that fails to represent the genre by providing too many non-genre results. To correct this the designer puts in a player controlled ‘override’ ability but doesn't want to give away 'freebies'. Thus he charges him the one currency the player always values (XP) to make sure it's not 'over-used'.

Alternatively, the designer loves to have his players make meta-game decisions (mistaking such things as a type of resource management), puts the mechanic in and then designs his game to *fail* at providing genre appropriate results so that the players must purchase them with XP.

Both reasons are terrible. The whole concept should be avoided like the plague it is and the designer should just design a good game that provides good results upfront.

But that would be hard I suppose. And why do hard when people will still buy easy?

Downtime

For any that happen across this site, it's worth noting that real life has asserted itself. At this time I don't foresee any more posts being made here. The future however is hard to see, so no long term promises. Now and then a miracle does come along. I've shutdown the Age of Heroes offering at Lulu, the errata for that will continue to exist here.

This is all for the best as I've come to realize that the style of design I embrace and its goals have all be disappeared from the hobby. This in fact may be its last grave marker as it goes on to join other elements of a dying culture. Such is history, good things last but a short time.

For any friends I've met along the way, thanks. It was worthwhile.

Genre Simulation RPGs

It's clear to me that in any practical sense I play and design RPGs rather differently than... well just about everybody. This is due to how I approach the subject and isn't that hard to define, but its still worth a post making it a bit detailing it a bit.

The concept arises out of three core beliefs.


- I think realism is a definable and achievable goal in game design. That puts me at odds with most people in the modern gaming scene who feel completely differently- often for the simple reason that they'd feel that admitting such a thing would lessen the games they play themselves (because they almost without exception have serious flaws with respect to realism).

- I think simulation of genre is desirable and also achievable by a mix of game mechanics and what could be called meta-mechanics (more commonly called play style). This puts me at odds with everyone who identifies as Simulationist be it Threefold, GNS, or the more individual definitions I've encountered online.

- I believe this combination allows one to create (or recreate) their own fantasy or sci-fi epics, basically on par with modern film and literature themes, plots, and events (perhaps more a sad comment of the state of modern film and literature than a comment about how great the gaming style is)- and thus serves many of the more common 'story' goals people have expressed in the past.

In total it is in short a middle of the road style that uses sophisticated and rather complex rules to reach a perfect mix of realism, genre and story without stressing one to the point that the others break. This style was born in the 70s and remained common in the 80s although most attempts at game design for it was a failure (mostly of scaling).

It has however nearly completely faded from the scene over the last couple of decades for reasons that are IMO mostly cultural and irreversible. But I still design and play according to it, and have settled on the label 'Genre Simulation RPG' to describe it.

The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey

Skipped The Hobbit movie in theaters due to word of mouth, but finally got around to watching it on blue ray this weekend. There was some cool scenes. Mostly the quiet stuff like everything with Galadriel. And Bilbo the morning after the Dwarves visit, one could read his mind as he wandered his home- with everything put back in place after the chaos of the previous evening.

But... when did Middle Earth become part of the Roadrunner Show? Falling down massive chasms without harm? Domino trees? And poor Radagast the Brown, not one of my favorite characters by far- but must he now be forever connected to bird droppings? It was almost a case of split personality, half the movie seemed set in Middle Earth. The other half was more Keystone Cops.

I remember in 2001 walking out of the theater thinking, "yes- we could do all that in games". And now, I'm thinking "no we can't, and we don't want to". What a difference a decade and fame can make in a director.

Age of Heroes 5.0: 1 year old

So it's been a year (as of last month to be honest). I hit my expected sales nicely (i.e. they were all basically to myself and my groups past and present).

And no magic supplement yet, but to be fair it's been a 'busy' year for me and if anyone could have completed a project under those conditions they be impressive. But the year marker brings the chance to pick things up again and see where they go. The trip is always fun.

It also brings up the question as to when to update the Lulu copy with the errata that's been collecting. It's less than two nicely formatted pages, so I'm not really feeling the pressure yet. But I wonder at which point it should be done.  A year ago I thought the one year mark would be perfect, but those couple of pages just don't seem like enough. Someday I'll make a decision, I don't think there's a hurry.

Meanwhile the Errata link over on the top left there now goes to a PDF file instead of a blog link. Easier to update and it allows one to download it to a table or print it out for reference.

Mother May I Gaming

I'm not sure who coined the term 'Mother May I Gaming', but I've always considered it a apt one to describe what these days seem to be a very common type of play- one that removes objective information from the game and along with it the ability of the players to make decisions based upon that information. With respect to RPGs, the concept is at most basic an appeal to authority to grant something that the player by any normal gaming approach should be able to do for himself- but isn't allowed to. Or to do something the player isn't allowed to, but wants to anyway.

Time for some examples.

Example 1

Let's take a very common one from way back, AD&D (and 3.x) gave ranges for its spell effects right in the player guide- and thus would be information one would think the player could act upon. The rules also detailed movement rates. The traditional and objective method for keeping track of and using such details is a grid with miniatures although drawn maps and/or other types of markers could be (and often were) used. The important point is the that player using the information in the player's guide, the playing grid and the starting setup provided by the GM could completely and without the GM's input or permission determine if he was in spell range or not, he could also determine the effect from his movement on his own. And he could also predict (and thus take into account) the movement options of others (assuming he knew how fast they moved). That is, he had the tools to make tactical decisions on his own, one up to date with each passing action.

The GM has no input, other than making sure the player are using the rules correctly. A good section of the game was actually out of the GM's control and passed to the player.

However many GM's refuse to use a grid and miniatures, and instead just 'mentally keep track' of everything in his own head. In this case the player is forced to constantly ask the GM for information he should already have, such as "Am I within Magic Missile Range?".

This is Mother May I. It removes the player's access to direct information and the ability to act independently upon it- instead turning the game into one of asking the GM if this or that can be done. A GM that I might add that really isn't keeping a good objective model of what's really going on himself but is instead just estimating everything. There is no real certainity he's correct or even close in his decisions (except in the most simple cases- basically two dimensional hallway fights) and indeed it's highly likely he's inaccurate on the scale of the game as presented by the rules.

In general, the more rules are ignored (or not present) and the more objective information is moved to the GM instead of being displayed to the player, the greater the degree of Mother May I we see.

Example 2

Many GM's don't feel themselves limited by the rules, and make up new ones on the fly sometimes due to a player's request. For example in a game system too abstract to consider (i.e it doesn't have rules for) throwing dirt your opponents eyes, the GM will suddenly allow just that at the player's request.

Not only is this basically breaking the rules of the game (can you imagine an on the fly call at the Superbowel allowing a team to score a touchdown by first throwing the ball to a fan who then throws it to player?), it also makes the tactical situation on the board unpredicatable as in-game reality itself changes from moment to moment. Tactics isn't making stuff up, it's predicting the actions of your foe and taking the best option in response. When completely new actions can suddenly be created- prediction becomes impossible and tactics worthless.

Instead victory is to be had by finding a new method the GM will agree to. Again Mother May I.


Some groups are good with Mother May I, and games based around the concept are certainly easy to design or use- being but one step removed from children games such as Cops and Robbers. I however find it rather pointless, if I can't have objective information to act upon as a player- I have no desire to play. Watching a movie or a TV show gives me nearly the same degree of control, and are more fun besides.

Star Trek Online- the Weakness of MMORPGs

I actually rather like the MMORPG Star Trek Online, however a cute sig on one of the forum posts reminded me of one of the game's failings. That being the lack of a Tier 5 (i.e the top level of ships in the game) Constitution class ship (either original or movie refit). There are many player who say such a thing would ruin their immersion in the game because according to 'canon' the design wasn't in use in the time frame the game is set in it.


Quoting the sig by thecosmic1:

"STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game."

A perfect summary of the current state of the game. About the only thing I'd add is the fact that it already includes a Tier 5 Original Show Klingon D7 and the T5 Andorian ship from the show Enterprise (set almost a hundred years before the the original show).

The worst thing about anything (MMORPGs, PnP RPG, etc) are the other players. No matter what, there's  a vocal group who hate whatever is done.

Which is why I think games are best at the small group level where they can control what is and is not accepted between themselves. For myself, this is the real joy of PnP RPGs over MMORPGs, one owns and controls system and setting. It's the one place you don't have to put up with the greater stupidity of the world and can do your own thing.
  Note: There is same claim that the reason for the game lacking a T5 Constitution is that CBS (they owns the IP) will not allow it. I don't know how accurate that statement is.

Can These Really be Called Campaigns?

I wish another company would release marketing information like WotC did back in the day. I imagine that they thought people would take their new version of D&D more seriously if they showed how seriously they were looking at their possible customers. Companies still do this sort of thing, but they keep the results close and don't talk about them in public.

So until one does, one is left with data that's more than a decade old. A lot can change in a decade. Even so, one of the most interesting things in the old WotC release was average time for a campaign reset (i.e. everyone rolls new characters and a new campaign is started).

Players who have gamed longer than five years have the longest campaigns, but they're only 19.6 sessions. And they play *a lot*, an average of 5.9 games per month. So basically a campaign lasts all of 3 months.

This is one of the things that make me feel greatly out of step with the typical gamer. My shortest campaigns tend to be at least 2 years long, but I play around twice a month. Even with the lower frequency, that's still almost five times as long as the average. And I often return to a previous campaign adding a another few years to the same setting and characters.

For myself, that fast turnover would turn me off the hobby. It's takes me that 19.6 sessions just to get a good investment going.

But beyond my reaction there is another interesting question, knowing those values- what kind of game would you design to meet them?

I'm not sure I would have gone the path of 3.x, for such a short experience why use a complex character generation? My first reaction would be that the characters were expendable and short lived. Thus they should be easy to create, and just as fast to get rid of.

Instead WotC went with a very detailed character generation, and they might have been right- assuming that many groups didn't start over with 1st level characters but started at higher level. A major part of the game in that case would be generating the character, testing it for a while, and then trying something new.

It does however seem to explain why they wanted to farm out adventure modules. It would take too much to keep up with that frequency of play and campaign turnover. They needed third parties to keep up.

I'd love to see what the current numbers are after the balkanization of the hobby between 4th edition, 3e edition clones, OSR clones, and the also ran games out there. My guess is that the session number has declined on average.

Do Settings need Custom Systems?

It was a long standing 'common wisdom' (i.e. not really common, but still accepted by a good number of people) that universal rules such as HERO or GURPS did not serve a setting as well as a set of rules designed specifically for it.

Like many things online, few if any actually backed up this assertion with real examples, and when they did- they often were little more than Chrome style rules and had little to do with the core mechanics themselves. As a result I was always doubtful and I think the passage of time has basically disproved the concept.

Let's talk about a few often quoted examples.

Let's take Call of Cthulhu. This one was a bad example out of the gate as the original system was that from the earlier game (by three years) Runequest which was about fantasy adventure- not 1920s dark investigations. It did introduce the insanity tracking mechanic- but that was just a bit of Chrome easily added to any game. And the monsters were powerful, but that was just powerful monsters. Rules wise, there's really little there really related to the setting and there have been a number of very successful conversions to other game systems including (in the judgement of some people) D20.

The original Deadlands is a better example, sort of. Here you have the use of playing cards and poker chips, which reflects... well a bit of the Old West if your version of the Old West happens the Old TV show Maverick. Actually, it doesn't provide much of even that to be honest. Beyond the cards and the chips, it's just a handful of dice game paired with a magic system offering a high fumble rate. We can see how important all the system flavor was when it was dropped in the newer editions of the game for a universal system with some setting related Chrome.

All in all, I'm at a loss to point out a real example where the rules really reflect and invoke the setting. The actually work is done by setting fluff, renaming common concepts and using them, constructing NPCs to the proper power level, or a bit of Chrome here and there. I'll be interested if anyone can point out a true example.

Thus I've sided with the Universal Systems that I can learn once, take off the shelf and add a bit to. The final result is every bit as good as anything a custom rule set has ever offered- but with additional expandability built right in.

Game Design by Exception

Many RPGs work in a somewhat confused way- they have a small set of core mechanical rules that are applied generally, and then a whole bunch of exceptions to those rules.This is a long standing tradition in RPGs dating back to original D&D and before that to wargames where you had the basic mechanics of the game and then 'Chrome' rules added on top for flavor.

In the days of wargames, designers were careful to keep the amount of Chrome limited. Chrome was to be little highlights to make the core more interesting, i.e. basically the same purpose chrome on a car design served (and hence the name). It wasn't suppose to be key to the game,as the game was to fun and involving itself. The law was simple: Thou shall not use Chrome to support function.

RPGs changed this, basically making Chrome the game itself. Some of this is unavoidable, if you're to have a extensive list of spells for example (as opposed to a spell design system) you end up with more pages describing that 'Chrome' than you do core mechanics. Besides, the very birth of D&D was in Chrome added to the end of a wargame (Chainmail by many accounts).

D&D however took things much farther, with individual rules for individual classes. And then things got worse with various skill or weapon packages that modified things even further. And then on to Feats. As of today, the list of exceptions far outweigh both in number and importance any core values such as stats or basic resolution mechanics.

The reason for this is rather simple, the basic game is... boring. Always has been. So lacking any real interest in themselves, the rules needed Chrome to inspire at all. And over time, it just plied higher and deeper.  It becomes increasing difficult to know how any combination of Chrome will react to another combination. Both the GM and Players ability to judge and thus control results are degraded.

Attempts to avoid this include the OSR method of burying one's head in the sand, i.e. go back to an old edition (with less Chrome) and spend as little time as possible in combat because it's now boring. I suppose a victory dance of some type helps one deal with this self-defeating option.

Another example of this type of design can be found in the 40K RPG products like Only War and Dark Heresey. Limited to a closed ended d100 system, things are only vaguely interesting when effective chances for success hover around the middle of the random number span- say 30-70 percent chances.

This results in a game that represents the mighty genetically enhanced superhuman Space Marines with stats only 10 points higher than normal men... so maybe a base 58% to hit instead of 48%. The mind is underwhelmed by such power. Instead it's 'Talents" (i.e. special abilities, i.e. Chrome) that's suppose to make up the difference. There are more Talents in the game than all the core rules (stats and skills) combined. And once again, the core rules are by themselves, rather boring to play.

I believe that Design by Exception is by its nature poor design. Instead the core mechanics themselves should scale from the lowest creature to the mightiest. Chrome should be just that, little things that makes those core mechanics pop just a bit more, not be something that buries them.

To pull this off those core mechanics need to be interesting of and by themselves. A fact that is basically impossible individually, but quite obtainable in combination. Consider the individual chess pieces, by themselves their movement rules are simple and boring, but in combination against the board the result is vastly more engaging.

I don't see any modern designer attempting such outcomes. Raised on endless D&D editions, they are only recycling failed concepts while wondering why their market is shrinking. They have only themselves to blame.

Sandboxes are to be Outgrown

Sandbox campaigns are so... boring.

We played in that concept back in the mid-70s after wandering around pointlessly in a dungeon crawl exploring and looting- all to no real end except imaginary fame and imaginary fortune.

A bit before Judge's Guild started producing their products, we wandered out of the dungeon into a huge map, and basically treated it like another dungeon bounded by hex lines instead of the interior D&D grid. We wandered and explored, and looted. I suppose the imaginary fame and fortune was greater.

I liken the experience to most of Arthur C. Clark's books. We went interesting places, met interesting people, and (unlike Clark's books) may or may not have killed them and took their stuff- but really nothing special happened. With ultimate freedom comes ultimate meaninglessness.

And certainly nothing happened that matched the epic fantasy works that had captured our imagination and caused us to play these silly games in the first place. The hopes of recreating them died with every roll of a d20.

We wanted Lord of the Rings, and what we got was Conan (in Platemail because you needed the AC in those days)- who's age of 'adventure' is in the source materials rightly forgotten, for in the end he didn't matter.

Sandboxes are without exception amoral, for to enforce morality is to raidroad the sandbox. They are without exception small minded, for to add an epic overarching story to is to destroy the sandbox. They are without exception meaningless, for no man can define true meaning on his own.

As the decade closed, we burned all the old material, never to return. The past was wasted and it was time to move on to better things.

We traded large random hexmaps for for larger worlds with many stories on different but yet interrelated levels. Like an extensive web, they will ensnare those who pass by and they will deal or not according to their talents. We traded useless freedoms for purpose searched for and found. We put pointed questions to the adventurers, and didn't meekly respond to their base passions.



You couldn't pay me to play in a sandbox. The mere talk of them, and the old school play example threads that I encounter on the web confirm our decisions to toss it all into the fire. If that was the whole of gaming, I'd stay home to watch NCIS repeats.

These days I don't think people can outgrow D&D and sandboxes on their own. The hobby doesn't have the experimental air that resulted in other options back in the 70s and 80s, and the internet wars have hardened people to cling thoughtlessly to what they used to do as if that's was all there is. The OSR buried themselves in the trenches they dug defending against change, be it from the Forge or WotC, or well- anything.

Look at the hobby, its corpse is fossilizing.

Balance and Choice Where Balance and Choice Shouldn't Exist

Been spending some time playing Star Trek Online of late. Over its three year life, they've done some interesting things. Perhaps the most worthwhile was creating a number of different play modes- you can do nothing but ground missions (typical MMO stuff), or nothing but Space Missions (fly a starship), or nothing but order your crew around in Duty Officer Missions (compared to a type of farmsville by some players).

Or do a mix. And while doing any of the above, you can help your guild (called a Fleet in this game) build their Starbase and other things. For an MMORPG, the ability to play in so many different ways is a welcome change from everyone doing the same thing.

One of the downsides is that it's a textbook case of 'game balance', 'assumed advancement' and 'player choice' destroying the realism of the setting.

-Everyone gets to be a vice-admiral. And vice-admirals still command single ships, just like captains, or Lieutenants for that matter. You can't swing a cat without hitting a dozen vice-admirals.

-At the top end, all the ships have to be roughly equal. No matter what they should actually be. This becomes more strange when (due to the need for player choice), you have ships in play with service dates that are hundreds of years apart according to the official timeline. Small ships, medium ships, huge ships, old ships, new ships, future ships- all the same.

-It's very common for Federation Captains to use non-Federation Ships. They might be Breen, Ferengi, or Jem'hadar. Whatever the case, they make up half the Fleet. But no Klingon ships... because... well... it beats me why that is now that I think about it. It's likely to make sure that there is some difference in PvP... yes, the PvP that most agree doesn't work well (IMO it's because the Klingons just flatly have better ships so there's no reason for a Federation player to go in there- unless of course he's flying a non-Federation ship).

-While everything is roughly equal, the truth is that small advantages are big deals for many players. So the 'uber' players chase those small advantages. Oddly enough for a Federation centric TV show and game, those small advantages are found on the non-Federation ships. The fact that those ships can only be gained by buying 'keys' for random content 'lockboxes' is perhaps the biggest money maker for the makers of the game. And the reason so many Federation players fly ships that don't belong to the Federation.

All the above is frankly silly at best. Downright stupid in fact when matched against any standard of simulation and realism.

But in the end I think it's unavoidable. It's driven both by the needs of a MMORPG and by the sheer size of the setting that it's attempting to model. How does the game attract players like me who liked the TOS but not the latter stuff? Simple, by having some of TOS stuff in the game that's playable (this needs more work actually as they really don't have anything outside the uniforms and ship interiors). And the reverse applies.

In a real sense, the game can't ever make sense due to the requirement to appeal to too wide of a user base with multiple subgroups thereof having serious expectation differences. Add in the need for MMO 'balance', and realism/simulation is not just dead- it's been buried, dug up by ghouls, and eaten.

But that's been the case with Star Trek for decades now. One just ignores it and plays the game.

There's a advantage and lesson here for players of table top PnP RPGs.

The advantage is that their settings can be alter to make sense to the players that make up the group, they are not bound by the concerns that bind an MMO- and for that reason they are very different hobby.

The lesson is to be careful of the holy concepts of balance and choice- it is often little more than deciding to be dumb.

A Stream of Thought...

Been spending some time with the new Rohan expansion for Lord of the Rings Online (mounted combat is nicely done) and with Star Trek Online (liking their changes, which seem mostly to benefit small groups like mine). In general I enjoyed the time spent, but as always I find how other people react and certain elements of the game designs to be... interesting.

So a stream of thought post, that while spawned by MMORPGs tend to also apply to PnP RPGs as well:

- There is a odd belief among players that playing until you get a random drop indicates more player skill than grinding until you get a fixed price item. Unlike the case of Santa, I've never figured out the basis for this belief or any use for it.

- Game designers like to hit people coming and going. Not only does it cost more to level up something in obvious terms- like more Starbase XP for the higher Fleet Base tiers in STO online, it also costs more at each tier to get the same amount of Starbase XP. It like saying the next level costs $5, but each $1 costs you $3 now. Very odd, it's like designers are trying to hide something- and end up doing it very poorly.

- Game designers like large numbers. In Lord of the Rings Online you earn a certain token in batches of 5, and spend them in batches of 5. Why not earn them as single items and spend them as single items? After all *everything* is in groups of 5. When did inflation become game feature? Silly question, it was that way from the beginning of the hobby. I think they are just trying to look impressive, and (for me) failing.

- Speaking of player skill, generally it isn't. Most players are just spending their time and using the gear and abilities that gains them in simple ways. A small bit of the content is memorizing fixed tactics that haven't changed since that content was introduced. Skill has about as much to do with it as the weather. The same is true of PnP RPGs, for after all the GM in one way or the other will conform his game to his players (and yes that includes the so-called Sandbox GMs). The truth is that the player will naturally play at the level that interests him, and no other- thus he's always doing skilled play, but only by his own definition.

- Speaking of Sandboxes, they aren't. At best, they're just the offloading from the GM the work of determining the adventure to the players determining the adventure- or they're random encounters. Neither one impresses a person playing attention. Most Sandbox fans don't pay attention.

- Much of the hobby (MMORPGs and PnP RPGs) is an illusion, little lies we tell ourselves. But like watching TV or Movies (to name a couple of other things that aren't real), such things are fun. But we should keep it in mine that it's smoke and mirrors and not take it too seriously. And at the same time, we shouldn't do it poorly, but should strive to do it well. A bit of tightrope that.