DCC Magic is RIDONKULOUS!

So, I've been wanting to try playing a DCC RPG Wizard for a while now. I don't usually play magic-using characters, but the colorful, if somewhat byzantine, magic rules from DCC hold some unique appeal to me. Of course, when am I going to have the chance? No one in my gaming group is likely to run a game of DCC any time soon.

So, in the spirit of FLAILSNAILS, I managed to convince our current DM to let me bring in a second PC, a DCC Wizard type, into his 5E game. So here he is--meet Battle Mage!

He's a hedge wizard, apparently from the Greenest area. He still lives on his parents' farm, so that he doens't have to come up with rent while he concentrates on his magical studies. He insists on everyone calling him "Battle Mage" though his Mother still calls him Terrence and his father generally tries to avoid contact with his poor excuse for a son.

Well, Battle Mage, will no doubt join the party in order to earn his name fighting the invaders to this normally peaceful land. Rugby, the family goat, has followed him on his way and refuses to go home, so he's there too.

The DCC Magic System

So, apparently someone at DCC looked at DnD magic and said "Yes, it's Vancian, but it just doesn't capture the insanity of Rhialto the Marvelous". The Mercurial Magic Rule in particular, is, quite frankly, inspired. For instance, whenever Battle Mage casts Comprehend Languages, it rains frogs, thus making a dull spell infinitely more amusing/useful.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the DCC magic system works in actual play. My only worry is the amount of material I need to bring. I wrote quite a few notes on how the DCC magic rules work, plus I have to print out Battle Mage's spells(a page each), critical hits table, patron info, the misfire/corruption tables, and the list of spellburn actions. That's a lot more reference material than I like to have to bring to the table. In any case, it's probably time for me to add a hard copy of DCC RPG to my next Amazon order...

Combat or Roleplaying?

Doc Bargle recently wrote a great little post pointing out the tension between good tactical combat and good roleplaying. I recommend that you read it in full, but here's an excerpt:

the good Dr. instructing a new player to his group
(source Google Image Search)

I play mostly with people who have not and will not read the rules. And so I am acutely aware that combat with lots of choices equals victory to those with system mastery. I find nothing more disheartening when I read roleplaying forums that are 'epic' accounts of encounters that concentrate on the 'synergies' that the players managed to set up between their powers or other clever exploitation of the system. In the games that I run, once combat is started I want the encounter settled quickly. I want it settled quickly because I want the consequences of that combat to result in further interesting choices for the PCs. Choices about the game world, not the game system.

I definitely agree with Doc's model of tactical combat vs. roleplaying. Just look at our 4e games--when every encounter take between 45 minutes and the entire session, there just isn't any time left for roleplaying!

At the same time, I disagree with Doc's conclusion, that the roleplaying should be at the center and the combat an afterthought. DnD grew out of Chainmail, a simple wargame, and wargames are all about interesting tactical combat.

The subtle joy of obscure polearms

Even when Gary and Dave discovered the joys of roleplaying, combat continued to be a major part of the game. Heck, the whole reason I got sucked into DnD to begin with was that I just couldn't put down the equipment list for Pool of Radiance--I just had to keep re-reading it and figure out what these strangely named weapons were(it was only a decade later that I figured out what the heck a Bec-De-Corbin was) and try them all out to see what worked best.

Bottom line, I enjoy the Roleplaying and I enjoy the Tactical Combat, and I want both in my game, dammit!

Quantum Combats and Holy Horticulture

Well, for the second session of "Hoard of the Dragon Queen", I actually tried to figure out who the other members of the party were, so here's the lineup(note, holes in the writer's knowledge may have been filled using some license, artistic or otherwise):

• Sir Manly of the Holy Turnip(played by yours truly)- a Halfling paladin who is better at roleplaying than at... just about any game mechanic. His squire is a living vegetable with 4 HP and the chutzpa to keep showing him up in combat
• Pam aka. Drugs- a badass WFRP Dwarf/Alchemist, ported-over from WFRP 1e in the spirit of FLAILSNAILS. Be nice to her and she'll let you touch her stash(mustache--it's funny cause Dwarven women have beards--but it's not funny cause I had to explain it...)
• Drizzita the Drow- a deadly Drow Archer, recently arisen from the Underdark
• Lego the Bastard- the Half-Elf Warlock! He likes to electrocute anything with more than 1HD, like Emperor Palpatine with a Taser...

The Prisoners Dilemma

Once safely inside the keep, the party was offered a number of possible missions. One was to fight the dragon assaulting the parapets(fat chance!) We settled on sneaking out of the keep and either rescuing imprisoned townspeople or capturing cultists for interrogation. We ended up doing both.

From there, we defended the keep a bit from a break in the wall and then went out to try and attack the Cultists' leader. Unfortunately, we were headed-off by their second in command and a small army of kobolds. He demanded a champion to face him in single combat. Since Sir Manly is the only thing remotely resembling a fighter in our party, and since he was honor-bound to accept the challenge, he stepped forward, despite considering it a suicide mission. The half-dragon commander beat him bloody but spared his life, in the end.

Game Design Bait & Switch

...and I'm starting to sense a trend here.  Previously, we played a session or two from Dead in Thay, and ran into a similar situation of "Combats That Aren't Combats". We got dropped into the middle of this epic battle with a bunch of NPC's far more powerful than us facing-off against each other and the clear implication of the impossible odds was that this wasn't a real battle.

Now comes Hoard of the Dragon Queen with it's no-stakes challenge fight. Also, we learned afterwards that, had we chosen to take-on the dragon in the parapets, it would have fled after having sustained minimal damage.

I'm sure that any of these encounters on it's own could be defended as being sort of interesting and original ideas, but the net result is that our party is only allowed to fight:

1. Low-level combats against foes that pose no risk to them
2. Big dramatic encounters that look scary but really pose no risk to them

Certainly the debate over how to handle campaign lethality in practice is alive and well. But, whatever approach you take, you need to find a balance somewhere between two conceptual extremes:

1. if there is no reasonable possibility of lasting harm, then the risks PC's take are meaningless and Players will no longer be fooled into feeling tension
2. if the campaign is too lethal then there is no possibility of PC development and Players will begin to only feel frustration

I can't help but feel that WotC's current game designers don't really understand point #1, although they're hardly alone.

Playing the Hell out of the Paladin

So, here's my dirty little secret--I've never played a Paladin or Cleric before. And here's my other dirty little secret--I'm having a blast!

After somewhat cooling my criticism of Adventure Bonds, I asked myself what Sir Manly really wants out of this visit to Greenest. The answer is obvious, he wants to spread his religion, of which he is currently the only adherent.

So, I role-played the heck out of this premise this past session. Sir Manly convinced the Town's leadership to switch their main crop to Turnips, he sought to convert his cultist enemies, and when confronted by a townswoman who remembered his rather sorry state during his last visit here, he convinced her that he had turned over a new leaf thanks to the redemptive power of the Holy Turnip.

dreaming of a world where turnips and radishes can live in harmony

And Sir Manly's mission has progressed even further thanks to some between-session roleplay(thanks, DM):

• He used his now lofty status among the townsfolk to commission a shrine to be built to the Divine Turnip on the edge of town
• His Sentient Vegetable friend will be named Prior Raddish and put in charge of the Shrine's upkeep
• Sir Manly was inspired to pen the code of conduct for followers of the Divine Turnip on a plaque in the shrine:
• You can't have pudding unless you eat your Turnips
• Radishes are not to be trusted(unless they repent)
• Bountiful Tithes should be given to the nearest Shrine of the Holy Turnip
• We all hope and pray for the rebuilding of the Temple to the Holy Turnip

And with that, this player will, for now, end this account of his slow descent into madness...

On 5e Bonds

OK, let's talk about the "Bonds" provided in "Hoard of the Dragon Queen". I complained previously that giving each party member a personal reason why they should take an interest in the adventure hook is a light-handed form of railroading. Here's the list provided by the module:

1. Leosin Erlanthar, a wandering monk once saved your life.  He's sent an urgent summons for you to meet him in a small town called Greenest.  Looks like it's time to pay off that debt.
2. When an orc raid drove your family from your home, the people of Greenest took you in.  Anyone who threatens Greenest is your sworn enemy.
3. Every five nights, you have a strange sequence of apocalyptic dreams.  The world is destroyed by cold, choking fumes, lightning storms, waves of acid, and horrible fire.  Each time the dream ends with ten evil eyes glaring at your from the darkness.  You fell a strange compulsion to travel to Greenest.  Perhaps the answer to the riddle of your dreams awaits you there.
4. Ontharr Frume, a crusading warrior and champion of good, is your friend and mentor.  He has asked you to travel to Greenest in search of rumors of increasing dragon activity.
5. You have heard rumors that your close childhood friend, a half-elf named Talis, has been kidnapped by a strange group of dragon cultists.  Your investigations into the cult have led you to the town of Greenest.  You must save her!
6. Being the grandchild of a renowned dragonslayer is usually a good way to impress people, but just last week a gang of ruffians attacked you.  You barely escaped with your life, but as you fled the ruffians told you that the Cult of the Dragon never forgets and always avenges.  You're hoping to lie low in a sleepy little town called Greenest, until this blows over.
7. On his death bed, your father confessed that he had been involved in a group called the Cult of the Dragon.  They paid him to smuggle goods across the Sword Coast.  Wracked by guilt, he begged you to investigate the cult and undo the evil he may have helped foster.  He urged you to begin your search in a town called Greenest.
8. The dragons destroyed everything you hold dear.  They killed your family and destroyed your home.  Now, with nothing but what you carry on your back and a horrid scar of the near fatal wounds you sustained in the attack, you seek revenge.
9. You and your family were members of the Cult of the Dragon until your rivals in the cult arranged to wipe you out.  Though they slaughtered your kin, you survived, but they think you are dead.  Now is your chance for vengeance!  Your hit list consists of three names: a human cultist named Frulam Mondath, a half-orc named Bog Luck, and a half-dragon named Rezmir.  You have arrived in Greenest knowing it's next on the cult's list of targets.
10. You have a secret.  You were once a gold dragon who served Bahamut.  You were too proud and vain, to the point where Bahamut decided to teach you a lesson.  You have been trapped in a weak, humanoid body, with your memories of your former life but a dim shadow.  You remember only one thing with clarity:  Bahamut's command to go into the world and prove your devotion to the cause of good.  If you prove worthy, on your death, you will return to his side in your true form.

Roleplaying & The Agency Paradox

While I think the point about railroading is true, I'd like to push that complaint to the side for the moment. Some DM's don't know how to or aren't interested in running a sandbox. They buy a module and read it and now they want to run it for their group. But they now have a roleplaying problem:

In a sandbox, the PC's enter a dungeon/scenario for their own reasons: to find treasure, to help someone, to impress a girl, because they are curious... As such, roleplaying in that dungeon emerges naturally. Questions of, when to forge on, when to flee, what to look for all follow naturally from the PC's original in-character intentions.

But when the DM just picks a module to run, the roleplaying can suffer. Without a clear in-character motive for entering the dungeon, the players will likely just treat the scenario as a railroad, following whatever seems like the next place the DM wants them to go to be polite. I felt this quite distinctly in our recent WFRP campaign where I just sort of went along with the clues the DM dropped, even though Seigwart and Sigyn really had no reason to be chasing this warpstone meteor across the empire.

Bonds are one solution to this problem. Let's artificially provide characters with the motivations they are missing by not playing in a sandbox. Now "paying back my debt to Leosin Erlanthar" is my motivation. I'm going to want to look for him first and foremost, and the results of that search are going to greatly effect how I roleplay the adventure.

This yields an interesting result. By railroading the PC's into the dungeon with these artificial motivations, you're actually giving them more agency within the dungeon, since the DM has given validation to their in-character motivations. Now, as a player, I can riff-off of those motivations and our play through the dungeon can be driven by the players rather than by DM railroading, as it should be.

So, while my preference is to play/run in a sandbox setting, I think that Bonds are a good thing when that isn't an option.

A More Natural Solution

That said, these Bonds come-off as being rather artificial.

"The dragons destroyed everything you hold dear.  They killed your family and destroyed your home."
"You have a secret.  You were once a gold dragon who served Bahamut."

Really!? We're just throwing some huge world-changing fact in order to justify the party's presence in the dungeon?  It just feels too forced to me.

I could see using this approach on brand-new PCs, but in an existing campaign the DM should use their own creativity and knowledge of the PC's to draw them in.

1. Don't make-up an NPC that no-one has ever heard of. Instead use an NPC that the party grew close to in previous adventures.
2. Leave a clue at the end of the previous adventure that leads to the next module you want to run. Like when "Against the Giants" had clues that the Drow were to blame
3. Don't tell players that "just last week a gang of ruffians attacked you". Instead, set-up the attack previously, maybe several sessions previously. Telling the players "the attack happened" just seems like lazy DMing.

Another Alternate XP System for CP2020

So I'm happy with how the Alternate XP System for Cyberpunk 2020 turned out. It's simple, elegant, and intuitive. I did have to put a bit of thought into how to keep players from abusing the system with extraneous skill checks, but it didn't complicate things too badly.

But then I had another alternative idea for a similar system, which is a little bit simpler. I'm not sure which system I prefer--I think I'd like to try this one out first and see how it works in practice...

The Rule

Every time you succeed in a skill check by rolling exactly the minimum number you needed for success, you improve 1 point in that skill.

• No more than 1 point can be gained in this way for a particular skill in a single game session

Exceptions

This rule only applies for real, challenging applications of a skill, not practice or low-difficulty activities. For example:

• Skill checks as part of training/practice can't be awarded a skill point. Instead the GM should come up with an alternative ruling. (If you want to increase your Karate skill by 1, spend a month in training and then roll 1d10 vs your current skill level, etc.)
• The same applies to Knowledge Checks, which just verify if the PC knows a particular domain-specific fact. This, as opposed to cases where the PC actually spends time/effort researching or figuring out something novel.
• Making a Personal Grooming/Wardrobe & Style check every time you dress in the morning doesn't cut it. You need to use your looks on a real goal--get the girl, get the bouncer to let you in without checking ID, buy the right clothes for the event in a time-consuming/expensive shopping trip, etc.

Examples

Mad Dog shoots at the security guard from close range, so he needs a 15 to hit. His REF is 6 and his Pistol skill is 5, so he rolls 1d10+6+5. He rolls a 4+6+5=15 which is the minimum roll he needed to hit. As such he gains 1 skill point, bringing his Pistol up to 6.

The guard's partner get's the jump on Mad Dog, grappling with him. Mad Dog draws his knife and attempts to stab the guard. The partner rolled a 2+5+2=9 on his Dodge & Escape. Mad Dog has a knife skill of 9, so he rolls 1d10+6+9, so there's no way he'll roll exactly a 9, so the task is too easy for a blademaster of his talent to possibly gain a skill point from the encounter. That's fine--he may want an easy win. If, however, he wants a chance improve some skill, he should pick something more risky, like using his boxing skill of 1 to punch the guy. Then he'll roll 1d10+7+1 and if he gets a 1 on the d10 then he'll gain a skill point in boxing. These creates an interesting strategic trade-off between higher chance of success vs. improvement.

Later on, Mad Dog gets in a knife fight with a rival gang-leader. Mad Dog chooses to fight left-handed(-4) to challenge himself more, thus increasing his chances of improving his knife skill.

Concerns

I like the simplicity of this system, but I have a few concerns. For one, I'm not crazy about the fact that a higher roll loses me the skill point. BUT, it's OK, I think. When I just barely make a roll, there is something more exciting/significant about that for me than if I make it by a lot.

I'm wondering if this is going to result in my players getting way too many skill points(1-2 on average per 2-3 hour session makes sense for me). I don't think it's going to be a problem, since at best they will have a 1 in 10 chance of success per skill test, but I'd like to see how it goes in an actual play test.

I'm also worried that players will get too caught-up in trying to gain skill points and will lose focus on the game. This might also be a reason to cap the number of points you can gain per session, so that players can focus on in-character concerns once they've earned their skill point for the session...

Alternate XP System for Cyberpunk 2020

Improvement Points--they're such a pain! The DM has to award them. The players have to spend them. It's a lot of bookkeeping to for everyone to spend time on.

I always liked XCOM's character improvement system. Your attributes improve as you use them. So successful shots improve your accuracy, carrying heavy loads improve your strength, etc. So here's a similar, simple system for your Cyberpunk 2020 game:

The Rules

Every time you succeed in a skill check AND the number on the d10 is greater than your level in that skill, you improve 1 point in that skill.

• You can only gain 1 skill point per game session(or perhaps 2 for really long game sessions)
• You can choose to not receive the skill point, in hope of improving some other skill later in the session
• The player needs to declare they're adding the skill point at the time of the roll. Otherwise it's assumed they chose not to recieve the skill point now. (If your players are a bit absentminded, give them leeway of a minute or so)

Exceptions

This rule only applies for real, challenging applications of a skill, not practice or low-difficulty activities:

• Skill checks as part of training/practice can't be awarded a skill point. Instead the GM should come up with an alternative ruling. (If you want to increase your Karate skill by 1, spend a month in training and then roll 1d10 vs your current skill level, etc.)
• The same applies to Knowledge Checks, which just verify if the PC knows a particular domain-specific fact. This, as opposed to cases where the PC actually spends time/effort researching or figuring out something novel.
• Making a Personal Grooming/Wardrobe & Style check every time you dress in the morning doesn't cut it. You need to use your looks on a real goal--get the girl, get the bouncer to let you in without checking ID, buy the right clothes for the event in a time-consuming/expensive shopping trip, etc.
• No skill points can be gained for skills of less than Average Difficulty(less than 15)

Example

Mad Dog shoots at the security guard from close range. His REF is 7 and his Pistol skill is 5, so he rolls 1d10+7+5. He rolls an 8+7+5=20 which is a hit.

• Since his die roll(8) is greater than his skill level(5), his Pistol skill increases to 6
• But, really he wanted to improve his Hacking skill and he's planning on doing some hacking later in the session. So he chooses not to receive the skill point now to Pistol, in hope of possibly gaining a skill point in Hacking later on.

Advantages

1. You no longer have to deal with experience points
2. Skill improvement is more natural, since you generally will have to use the skill fairly often to get better at it
3. Skill improvement gets progressively harder as your skill level increases, since you need to roll higher than your level
4. It creates an interesting meta-dynamic--players have to use skills they're bad at to improve them. Also there's a gambling element involved, giving up the skill point now for the one you might potentially get later in the session.

I Love it When a Sandbox Comes Together!

There's nothing like the joy of when your sandbox setting starts to take shape and show a life of it's own. I've had "Surfers of the Apocalypse" on the back-burner for a while now and I'm starting to think about fleshing it out. I started brainstorming who might be the major powerful factions the players could encounter. There's definitely a fair share of "Out of the Dark" mixed in here...

	Goals	Location
Aliens	Shock and Awe attacks on Earth to subdue it's population quickly. Hopes to use subjugated humanity as a pawn in intergalactic politics.	Flying around in ships. HQ in West LA Federal Building, as well as other strategic locations.
Survivalists	Live out in bunkers/caves in the woods. Whatever it takes to survive, including preying on anyone who enters their territory. Eventually mount Guerrilla attacks on Invaders	Santa Monica Mountains
Army	Major bases have been nuked. Survivors still intent on fighting an insurgency against the invaders.	All over
Black Dragons Gang	Triad. Experts in criminal enteprise/extortion. Can get anyone anything for the right price.	Fled Nuked East LA to the Valley
Latin Kings	Gang with drug dealing focus. The invasion is bad for business, so now they're looking to branch out.	Based in the Valley
Devil's Diciples	Motorcycle Gang taking full advantage of their ability to navigate the gridlock on the roads. Charge to get people places.	PCH and other Major Highways
Scientologists	Surprisingly, their mysticism works against alien troops. They're gathering an all-star team and looking for a way to launch them to the Aliens' mothership.	Hollywood HQ
Freemasons	Trying to summon the Great Old Ones in defense of Earth. Need a relic from the Scientologist HQ	Hollywood Masonic Lodge

Let's Get Critical

Books

Good literature--it tends to be of the type that submits to deep Critical Analysis. This may be intentional on the part of the author, as with William Gibson. It may be less so, as with Robert E. Howard. Or it may be intended, but the book nevertheless comes out a dud, as with Chabon's Yiddish Policeman's Union. Nevetheless, the good stuff, tends to be the sort where Critical Analysis reveals layer after layer of meaning, like the proverbial onion that keeps on giving. 

Movies

Good movies, on the other hand, don't necessarily have the same depth as good books, and when they do, it's often not a required ingredient. Unlike books, a movie is typically experienced for a couple short hours and that's it. Unlike books, you can't stop and think about it, or flip back to check what happened before and how it relates to what's happening now. The film just keeps racing ahead and any deeper meaning hidden there by the filmmaker is lost on 99% of the audience.

Just look at Refn's Drive. The movie has a metric ton of symbolism and meaning, and it's slow pace and great cinematography actually allow the audience more opportunity to identify it than in most films. And yet, all but the most overt symbols were completely lost on most viewers, with audiences describing the film as "boring". As much as I like Bergman, Kubrick, and Refn's movies, their love of intricately deep layers of meaning is not a required ingredient for a "good movie".

RPG's

So what about Role Playing games? On one hand they're like books--many published adventures have put a great deal of thought into their text. On the other hand, they're even more extreme than movies--the players experience the game as a game session in real-time, not as a text, and while you can rewind or re-watch a movie, live game sessions generally don't have that luxury. Plus, due to their non-deterministic nature, you don't know which material will be covered and it's even quite likely that scenarios will occur that explicitly aren't covered in the book. If anything, RPG's are most like improvisational performance art.

And Now for Some Practical Advice

Sooo...now I'm supposed to offer some great practical advice for adventure authors and DM's based on the preceding brilliant observation on the nature of pen & paper RPG's...Right. Any minute now...

Well, what I will say is this. Keep in mind that not all your brilliant ideas and witty text are easily translated to the format of the live game session. So try and focus on the stuff that does translate: tactical combat, stimulating mood, opportunities for PC development(either mechanical or narrative), challenging puzzles, wondrous exploration, or whatever you see works for you and your group.

Unarmed Combat for "Kill, Cyborgs! Kill!"

Okay, let's tackle this little topic.  I need an unarmed combat system for Kill, Cyborgs Kill!, the cyber-horror adventure I'm working on. Here are some of the desired attributes of said system:

• It's a Cyberpunk game so it needs to include lots of bitchin' martial arts
• BUT 2010 martial arts, not 1980's
• AND it's a horror game so I want to keep the combat simple so as not to break the mood
• AND DnD Compatible
• AND needs to work with the skill system

Techniques

There are several unarmed combat techniques characters can use:

• Punch: 1d4 damage
• Kick: 1d6 damage
• Grapple: hold your opponent, restraining him from using large weapons, moving.
• Escape Grapple: escape a grapple
• Throw(only from grapple): 1d8 damage, opponent is prone, still grappled
• Choke Hold(only from grapple): puts opponent to sleep. Each additional round the choke is held, must save or die
• Joint Lock(only from grapple): 1d8 dmg
• Neck Lock(only from grapple): paralyzed. Fort save or die.
• Eye Gouge: blindness till end of combat. Fort save or permanent.
• Groin Shot: stunned till end of combat. Fort save or permanent damage.

Skills

The skill check is done as an Opposed Skill Check(see Skills section), with the attacker and his opponent each rolling and comparing their rolls.

Example: The ninja attempts to punch Detective Hobbs. The ninja rolls 1d20+DEX bonus+Ninjitsu skill vs. the Detective’s 1d20+DEX+Brawling skill.

Example: Detective Hobbs attempts to grapple a junkie, who has no relevant skill. The Detective rolls 1d20+DEX bonus+Brawling skill vs. the Junkie’s 1d20+DEX.

Death & Dismemberment Chart for Unarmed Combat

This is a different chart for non-lethal damage such as from punches, kicks, throws, and joint locks(if a PC punches with brass-knuckles, throws an opponent's onto a concrete floor, or curb-stomps a prone opponent’s head then that is normal armed damage and should use the normal chart.) Upon taking unarmed damage which leaves a character with 0 or fewer HP, roll 1d10 + the number of negative hitpoints the character has.

• 1-6 Lightly Stunned: character misses next turn
• 7-14 Stunned: character is not killed, but is useless for the rest of the combat
• 15+ Killed: blunt force trauma, internal bleeding, etc.

RPG Software and Semi-Structured Data

My work has me dealing with a lot of data. Customers send us data and we use our software systems to help us analyse it. Now there are two types of data customers send us: Structured Data which is easy to input into our software systems, and Semi-Structured Data, which requires some messy work on our part to convert it to Structured Data.

Now 90% of the data that comes in is semi-structured, which means that it's harder for us to plug it in to our software. Why is that?

Because computers only know how to work with structured data, while people can just as easily work with semi-structured data. Not only that, but keeping your data fully structured takes a good deal of effort, so most people don't take the trouble until they are forced to.

RPG Management Software

So what does this have to do with Roleplaying Games? Because there are all these Virtual Tabletop and Campaign Manager computer programs out there. They can help you manage your game, but on the other hand, they often force you to move your game material from semi-structured to structured. When they do that, they are incurring a cost on you in order to get the benefit the software provides. And sometimes the cost exceeds the benefit.

Just look at your character sheet. In most cases, you don't even need a printed character sheet. You can just write down your character on a cocktail napkin and play just fine. But then, when you need to put your character into the Virtual Tabletop, suddenly it complains that you didn't fill in your saving throws or some other field. Or you are playing a homebrew class that isn't supported. Or you have an item that doesn't appear in the master list of items.

I'm not saying that you can't write the software in a way to allow semi-structured data. But it's not the most natural choice and anyway many of the features you will want to implement may require you to impose structure.

So, next time you're writing or considering using RPG software, keep this trade-off in mind. One of the great things about Pen & Paper Roleplaying Games is that they can be run quickly and easily with semi-structured data. So when your software imposes structure, you need to ask yourself "Is it worth it?"

Well? Is it, punk?

Coverage-Based Playtesting

OK, following up from last post, here's another approach to playtesting that borrows from software testing.

Coverage-Based Software Testing

In Software Engineering, Coverage-Based testing means running your tests and then, usually with a specialized tool, seeing what parts of your program the tests "covered" and which were left-out of the test. It's not a perfect technique: you might "cover" a piece of code and still miss the bug that is there. However, if you didn't cover a piece of code, then you definitely won't find the bug there. So it's one of the quicker methods to find holes in your testing, albeit an imperfect one.

Coverage-Based Playtesting

Get a game together and run a playtest on your game artefact, be it a game system or module. Now, when the playtest is over, ask yourself what parts of the game did your playtest "cover". The simplest way to do this is to skim through the text and circle any rooms, monsters, magic items, etc. that didn't get used.

Okay, so you've got your list of "holes". What do you do with them?

The Brute Force Approach

The ideal option is to continue running playtest after playtest until most or all of the holes are covered. But that can take a lot of time, especially since, along with the holes, you will no doubt be re-hashing a lot of the same covered material as in previous games.

Filter

For one, you can decide which holes are really a problem and which aren't.  Empty rooms might not be so important to playtest, for instance. You might also filter them based on what concerns you have for this artefact.

The Parallel Universe Approach

Now that your group finished their playtest tell them "OK, now let's go back in time to when you went right at that passage and instead say you decided to go left". Continue to reset them to past locations until most or all of the holes are covered.

The Proofreading Approach

You're not going to get around to covering everything via actual play. Instead, give the holes an extra round of proofreading, to make up for them not being covered in the playtest.

Concern-Based Playtesting

Playtesting. It's an important part of developing a game system or module. Until you playtest, everything is a priori--all your assumptions about how the game will play-out in practice are just that--assumptions. So fine, to playtest you run the game and make observations.

But playtesting effectively takes a lot of time. Getting a group together and then playing for several hours takes a lot of effort, and you're going to have to arrange quite a few of these to cover every part of your module and sufficiently playtest every mechanic. So unless you are a company with a full-time playtesting staff, you probably aren't going to be able to set up enough playtest games.

Concern-Based Testing

In the world of Software Quality, one of the techniques for dealing with the "too much material to test" problem is Concern-Based testing. The idea is that we identify the areas that are the most error-prone and focus a dis-proportionate amount of our testing resources there.

So how can I do this for my Game Artifact?

Well, in addition to running a single game with the Artifact, you can devise a number of much smaller, more focussed playtests, each addressing whatever concerns you identify in your Artifact. Here are some sample concerns with examples of how to playtest them:

Concern 1: Player Skill

Sections of the game that require Player Skill are always problematic. These include solving riddles and solving mysteries. The problem is that one groups will solve the problem in a minute, while another group will get hopelessly stuck and the DM will have to bail them out. And nobody likes it when the DM has to fudge and bail you out.

So for this concern, identify sections of your game which require player skill and try-out the riddle/mystery on a number of your friends. If too many people are getting stuck, you may want to make it easier or make sure there is an alternate route, albeit one that may require more time/combat.

Concern 2: Branches

Some parts of your game have too many "branches" to be properly covered by a single playtest game. These could be random tables, with many options that will not be rolled in a single game. It could be a complex map, which the party will pass through, most likely without stopping in every room.

So how do we playtest these? It may be an issue of proof-reading the table extra carefully, since you know it won't be covered by the playtest. It might be an issue of describing each and every room of the dungeon(or at least the more interesting ones) to some "players" and seeing how they react, without all the character generation and die rolls.

Concern 3: Balance

It's happened to me and to other DM's I know that you set-up this big difficult battle and then, much to your surprise, the PCs breeze right through it. And it's not because they came-up with some ingenious trick. It's simply that you mis-calculated(the conclusion of Shadows Over Bogenhaffen is a well-known example of this). The point is that, while I'm not for balancing every single battle, some of your battles you want to at least provide a challenge, and that can be hard to estimate without playtesting.

So, if there are any of those battles that you didn't reach in your playtest game, make sure and playtest them independently.

Concern 4: Novelty

So you don't have to playtest every single encounter and trap in your game module. Assuming that you are using a tried and true game-system, you can generally rely that things are going to just "work". That isn't the case when you create some new mechanic. Maybe the king of the goblins challenges the PCs to a drinking contest which uses your own novel mechanic, or the PCs have to wrestle a bear in the arena to impress the Hetman's daughter, using your custom mechanics. The point is, that a single play-through is not going to properly test some new mechanic. It's worth running a number of drinking contests or bear fights to make sure that everything plays-out well.

Anyway, these are all just ideas. Next time you are playtesting your module, think about what concerns your playtest game doesn't address and make sure and playtest them separately.

A Wargaming Education

So I've had a lot of secondary exposure to Wargaming. When I was a kid, an older friend created a WWII boardgame for mass battles. In our current WFRP game, I've had to look-up rules in the WFB rulebook. And in general, you hear occasional wargame discussions in RPG sites.

But when I watched this video of a WFB game the other day, I was surprised by how relatively smoothly this big 100-troop battle ran.

1. No Grid

I remember hearing that ODnD movement is in inches like a wargame, but I didn't really get what that meant until I saw this video. They actually each have a tape-measure and you can move your troops along any diagonal axis you want. That's pretty cool!  And quicker than counting a ton of grid-squares.

2. Group Movement

The movement are per group, rather than per individual unit. That's a really good way of managing a ton of troops in a lightweight fashion. There's even a little rectangle underneath each group so you can move them together easily. I have to remember to do the movement by group next time I'm DMing and I run a big battle. Maybe that way it won't take all session.

3. Group Attacks

Attacks are also a lot quicker because they roll a handful of dice for each unit's attack. For WFRP, where it's a percentage, this might be a little unwieldy, but for d20 based systems it seems very do-able.  Like when the archers fire, you can just roll a handful of d20's and then divide them up between the PCs. Or if a group charges the party's front line, then you can roll a handful of d20's and divide them up between the PCs in the front line.

So in conclusion, I think there is what to learn from wargames about running big RPG battles smoothly, and I'm excited to try this out next time I DM a fairly big action.

Simple Cyberpunk Skills

So, after deciding to make the Cyberpunk adventure I'm writing DnD-compatible, I started thinking about how to do the skill system. PCs will probably want investigative skills, technological skills, etc. One option is to adapt the Stars Without Number skill system, but I'm not entirely happy with it and anyway I would have to adapt it a bit. So here's a draft of a simple, flexible, skill system for DnD-based Cyberpunk adventures.

Skills

Rather than giving a complete list of skills, I've decided to just give examples, loosely categorized. It seems to me that this gives the skills a more organic feel and greater flexibility.  In fact, there is certainly overlap between the tasks that a skill covers. There are no skill descriptions. Rather the DM should rule whether a skill applies to a specific situation.  Skills are distributed on a scale of 0-10:

• Language Skills
• English, Japanese...
• Academic Skills(learned in University, private Corporate academy, etc...)
• Architecture, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Literature, Medical Doctor, Nano-Tech, Nursing, Theology...
• Career Skills(learned on the job)
• Infantry Soldier, Jewellery Thief, Naval Mechanic, Police Detective...
• Technical Skills(learned in practice)
• Drive Automobile, Guitar, Gunsmith, Hacker, Pilot Fixed-Wing...
• Physical Skills
• Acrobatics, Distance Running, Swimming...
• Martial Skills
• Fencing, Handgun, Karate, Filipino Knife Fighting, Rifle, SMG…
• Other Skills
• Etiquette, Fashionable Dress, Gambling, Oratory, Interrogate, Resist Torture...

Using Skills

Skill checks are d20 based, modified by the relevant ability score bonus and and the relevant skill level. The DM should rule what ability score/skills are relevant for a given task. The roll is made vs. a target value. Rolls less than or equal to the target values are considered successful, with natural 20’s always denoting success and natural 1’s always denoting failure . Target values are generally:

• 5 easy task.  Generally doesn't require a roll
• 10 somewhat challenging task
• 15 moderately challenging task
• 20 moderately challenging skilled task
• 25 difficult skilled task
• 30 nearly impossible task

Example: Detective Hobbs uses is searching a crime scene for clues. The Target Value for him to find the 3 hairs under the recliner is 15. So he will need to roll 15 or more on 1d20+INT bonus+his Police Detective skill.

Example: Hacker Damien is trying to hack into a Megacorp's top secret accounts. There's tons of security, so he'll need to roll a 30 on a 1d20+INT bonus+his Hacker skill--not very likely! If he rolls a 25, then he'll get the data, but be detected. He kidnapped a corporate officer and has his passwords, so the GM ruled that this reduces the target value by 5. If he breaks-in and tries from the man's office then this will reduce them by an additional 10.

Opposed Skill Checks

Some skill checks are against another character’s skill. As such, the target value is whatever that character’s skill roll is.

Example: upon questioning a junkie who was at the scene of the crime, the man flicks out a switchblade and attempts to stab Detective Hobbs. The junkie rolls 1d20+DEX Modifier+ Knife Fighting skill vs. Hobbs’ 1d20+DEX Modifier+Karate skill(Karate being a martial art which practices weapon defence.)

Example: Detective Hobbs is interrogating the junkie he brought in for useful information. The junkie has no skill to resist interrogation, so Hobbs will roll 1d20+CHA bonus+Police Detective skill vs. the Junkie’s 1d20+CHA bonus.

Missile Attacks

Missile weapons are made against a character’s AC(using ascending AC). Note that the DEX bonus doesn't apply if a character is just standing there, unaware they are being targeted. Also note that the degree to which the character is concealed can raise AC by between 1 and 4 points.


Example: As a suspect charges him with a Monokatana, Detective Hobbs draws and fires his sidearm. He rolls 1d20+DEX bonus+Pistol skill vs AC 10+DEX bonus.

My Wars

An excellent post about putting wars in your campaign left me asking what wars I've inserted in my sandbox campaigns in the past. Much to my surprise, they have all have had wars.  Why is that?  I guess it's because, indeed, having big political events going on in the background, or foreground, provides a lot of adventure hooks and makes the setting a lot more interesting.  Plus, as part of the world-building, I love coming up with the conflicts the various factions might be having. So here's a quick review of my wars:

Warren's Deep

Ah, my first sandbox campaign, run as play-by-post. The setting was a rather far-flung province of the empire, given a good degree of independence. I had a whole plan for an army to come out of the Desert, North of Flal, led by some Sorcerer-King with a dimentional-portal. They would conquer the fortified city of Flal, and then work their way West towards the PCs. By the time the Empire got their troops mustered and moved, they would have a heck of a time against the well-fortified magical minions. Unless the PCs could come up with some way to interfere with the Sorcerer's plans.  Unfortunately, PBP is so slow, none of this ever happened in-game.

Polish Resistance

OK, sort of a no-brainer, since it's set in WWII.  Anyway, the PCs did resistance-type activities, basically espionage, guerilla tactics, and salvaging war materials for the cause, all on their own initiative.

New Tilia

Well, New Tilia, and Neualtdorf are technically at war, though they are mostly small skirmishes and assassinations. The Baron offered the party some jobs along those lines as privateers, but they were more interested in dungeon-delving than political intrigues.

Rules vs. Content: A Question of Emphasis

OK, so here's the thing.  I used to be really into the question of "What rules to use?"

You know: "What system to use?", "What houserules to use?"

And I still am pretty opinionated on the topic(probably a bit more that I should be).  But it hit me recently, that, while rules may be important, there is something more important: Content. What you run and how you run it.

Because rules can RUIN a game, creating a distraction, taking the focus away from the actual role playing experience.  But it's rare that the rules make a game session GREAT.  That's more of a question of the adventure you're running and the art of how you're running it.

And it's an easy mistake to make, focussing too much on the rules, at the expense of content. The rules are static, mathematical, open to easy analysis, relevant from session to session.  This, as opposed to the adventure you run, which is always changing, or how you're running it, which is a dynamic, inconsistent process, for which there is no definitive guide.

I look at the incredible bounty of Rule Systems our hobby has created: there are so many RPG systems and variants out there. There may well be more systems and variants than there are adventures/modules. It makes me think that I'm not the only one who has made the mistake of over-emphasizing rules when I should have been focusing my best efforts on Content...

Running a Mystery: Chandleresque Clues

Another topic Raymond Chandler touches on in his essay "The Simple Art of Murder" is Clues.  He points out that Hardboiled stories, such as his own and those of Dashiel Hammet, are inherently different from the Classic Detective Story, such as Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories or the Locked Room Whodunnit.


Chandler defines the Classic formula as presenting the reader with a logic puzzle and then solving it ingeniously:

Two-thirds or three-quarters of all the detective stories published still adhere to the formula the giants of this era created, perfected, polished and sold to the world as problems in logic and deduction. 

On the other hand, he defines the Hardboiled story as eschewing such external considerations and just giving an "honest" story of crime and the detective who follows up leads and solves it.

A Tale of Two Mystery Games

So just like there are two types of mystery story, I would propose that there are two ways to run a mystery game.

1. The Classic-Style Mystery Game

The mystery is treated as a logic puzzle with the clues presented up-front and the players must figure out the riddle.

The problem with this approach is the problem with Gygaxian Traps, they are ingenious, funny, perplexing, but you don't have much chance of solving the riddle unless you're able to probe the DM's mind telepathically.

An example of this type of mystery game is the recent Schroedinger's Cat game of "Creatures!"  The players must figure out the nature of the monster and how to defeat it before it kills everyone.  It's very smart, but relies on some considerable Player Skill at cracking mind-teasers.  In the playtest, for example, the players were completely flummoxed by the riddle, ending  in a presumed TPK.

2. The Hardboiled Mystery Game

The mystery is treated more realistically.  There are still clues, but they lead to people who can shed light on the case.  Solving the case is less about solving a logic riddle and more about tracking down leads and following up on them.

Once the clue is found, it's a much more human exercise, figuring out if people are lying, withholding information, and getting them to admit what they know.  Cyberpunk 2020 is built for this, with a wide array of investigative skills like Interrogate, Intimidate, Human Perception, Interview, Seduction, Social, Persuasion & Fast Talk, Awareness/Notice, Library Search.  Also Streetwise for finding underworld contacts and science-skills for extracting clues.

An example of this type of mystery game is Masks of Nyarlathotep.  The clues are more "leads" to
follow up on than "riddles" to crack.  So skilled players may need to do less "footwork" following up leads, but it's less of an all-or-nothing game of "Guess what I'm thinking".

Clue where PCs can follow-up on the names/locations mentioned

How to Weasel People into Gaming With You or "Sometimes Three's a Crowd"

Wow!  My wife actually playtested Fight Club with me!  All I had to do was convince her it isn't an RPG, just a stand-alone game(which is technically true, though it is also a set of alternate martial arts rules for Cyberpunk 2020).  OK, I'm not sure she believed me entirely, especially when I pulled out the characters sheets and polyhedral dice, but she was a good sport and at the end of the test she told me, sounding quite surprised "That was fun!"

Playtest Results

This was my third playtest of Fight Club.  Since it was my wife's first time with Cyberpunk 2020 combat, I gave her an advantage: I gave my character a Reflex of 5, while hers was 10.  And I got my butt kicked as a result.

Orignial BTM chart

I had added a mechanic for Cool to Fight Club: if your character is knocked down then a Cool test can bring them back into the action. I did this because of a real-life factor in Martial Arts.  Royce Gracie one remarked that he likes to classify a fighter based on 3 factors:

1. Physical Attributes
2. Fighting Skill
3. Spirit

This third one is a real factor.  You can sense when your opponent(or you) have given-up on winning and they just shut-down or go into autopilot.

Anyway, the first two factors are covered by your Ref, Body, and Skills, but I wanted to give a representation to Spirit too, so I decided that would be your Cool score.  But it still ends up being a dump stat since REF and BODY have so much more effect.  So regrettably, I changed the rules so that COOL is not a factor and the cool tests are now standard Stun Tests vs. Body.

To make BODY more important, I'm also changing the Add to Damage and BTM to make them more of a factor(skill can add up to 5 damage to a strike, so Body should too).

Original Add to Damage chart

	Body	Body Type Modifier	Add to Damage
	1	0	0
	2	0	0
	3	1	1
	4	1	1
	5	3	3
	6	3	3
	7	3	3
	8	4	4
	9	4	4
	10	5	5

Anyway, maybe I'm make a PDF with the summary of these alternate martial arts rules for CP2020.