RPG Design: Hit Points

This week, I wanted to touch on an issue that comes up in almost every RPG: a PC's health.

Hit Points are by far the most popular method of indicating PC health. Examples of RPGs with Hit Points include D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and most other RPGs.

By "Hit Points," I mean a numerical measure of the amount of damage a PC can sustain before death or incapacity.  

Hit Points have been in RPGs since the beginning of the hobby, being an innovation of Dave Arneson in his Blackmoor campaign.  Some people might argue that Hit Points started with Chainmail, but Chainmail's system of "Hits" was different and didn't really track to the man-to-man scale.

What Hit Points are supposed to represent is a topic of debate to the present.  Gary Gygax notes in AD&D's PHB:

"Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment.The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

However, Gygax ignores an issue that he indirectly brings up, namely that that 10th level fighter with 85 hit points, will only recover, as per the DMG, 1 hp per day of rest (for the first week and then perhaps a bit more later), which doesn't make sense if "the majority of [the 85 hit points] are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces".

Nevertheless, for D&D's abstract combat system, Hit Points are a quick and intuitive way to tracking a PC's health.  In that kind of system, Hit Points also add tension and drama to combat, escalating with every hit.  At least up to a point, as a PC with too many Hit Points raise game balance issues.

For example, that 10th level fighter with 85 hit points is a literal tank who can singlehandedly wipe out a small army.

Hit Points don't work as well for less tactical games, such as New School RPGs with story game elements.  For example, Ten Candles has no Hit Points since a PC's health is determined narratively.  This is also why Dungeon World, a New School game that apes Old School conventions, severely reduces the chance that a PC fails a roll.

Hit Points also obviously don't work for non-combat games, such as Golden Sky Stories.

RPG Game Play: Campaign Basics (Part II)

Two weeks ago, I discussed some of the basics applicable to running all RPG campaigns.  This week, I want to touch on the types of RPG campaigns.

By "types of RPG campaign," I mean the genre, background and feel of a RPG campaign, rather than the mechanics.  Of course some GMs, for a variety of reasons, just focus on running a campaign and purchase a commercial product, of which there are many.

So, how does one choose the type of an RPG campaign to run?  This decision is usually driven of the preferences of the GM (and, for some New School games, the Players).  There do seem however to be three common and effective types of RPG campaigns:

• Sandboxes
• Adventure Paths
• Relationship-Maps

The three types are of course not mutually exclusive and all of them can work (for different kinds of storytelling and approaches to RPG play).  Furthermore, many campaigns combine elements of some or all three types, but many times one of them is dominant, because of the preferences of the GM and/or Players.

• Sandboxes

Last year, I touched on Sandboxes as a style of Game Play, and now I'd like to look at them again in terms of campaigns.

In a sandbox campaign, the GM creates an area and populates it with NPCs, events, monsters, etc. and the players choose where they want to go and with whom they want to interact.  It is a form of emergent storytelling, where the narrative develops as play happens.

As Old School as it gets, Sandboxes go back to the beginning of the RPG hobby (e.g., Blackmoor), and some of the best known examples are the classic modules B2 The Keep on the Borderlands and X1 The Isle of Dread.

Sandboxes can be a good starting point for novice GMs because they only need to create the area in which the players will adventure, and the campaign can be expanded as necessary

• Adventure Paths

What is nowadays called an "Adventure Path" (i.e., a series of interlinked adventures featuring pre-scripted events) has been a popular mode of campaign play since DL1 Dragons of Despair (1984) kicked off the Dragonlance Saga (which many Old School gamers consider to be the beginning of the end for TSR, as it was a decisive step away from Sandbox play).  In an Adventure Path, the plot is directed by the GM.  For example, DL1 states:

"Events

As opposed to encounters, which take place in specific areas, events take place at specific times. They may happen anywhere unless stated otherwise. The first event begins your adventure, then each follows at its stated time in the sequence below."

Adventure Paths can also be a good starting point for novice GMs because they limit the number of things with which the Players can interact.  However, they can also devolve into a railroad, stripping Players of agency.

Adventure Paths continue to be produced today, such as many Pathfinder products (e.g., Rise of the Runelords).

• Relationship-Maps

These campaigns are typically Player-driven affairs, most often seen in indie games, such as Fate, Smallville, Apocalypse World, etc.

In a Relationship-Maps campaign, many or all of the background details of the campaign are determined by the Players, usually in the course of Character Creation.  This is a type of Player Narrative Fiat.

Since the Players come up with most or all of the campaign background, Relationship-Maps campaigns can be low or no-prep for the GM, who primarily focuses on knowing the rules set well and managing the group's Social Contract.

RPG Game Play: Campaign Basics (Part I)

Ever since Dave Arneson created Blackmoor (aka the First Fantasy Campaign), wherein he pioneered, among other things, the concept of Character Advancement, GMs (and now some players) have been creating their own game worlds and settings.  So, this week, I wanted to talk about some of the basics of running RPG Campaigns.

By "Campaign," I mean an ongoing set of adventures or a continuing storyline, typically set in the same game world and nowadays often involving the same PCs (unless there has been Character Death).  As a result, running a campaign is usually more challenging and demanding for a GM than a one-shot adventure, since the GM needs to know more and in greater detail about the background, the locations, the NPCs, etc.

While it's true that some New School games encourage cooperative world building and shared narrative fiat between GMs and players, the majority of games and campaigns still follow the traditional GM-led model  (i.e., the GM is primarily responsible for developing and running the campaign).  So, this post will focus on the latter, (i.e., the role of the GM in running the campaign).

So, in terms of general advice for running a campaign, probably the first thing for a GM to keep in mind is that, regardless of how much you prepare, something is not going to go as expected, whether it's because you made a mistake, your players killed the NPC that you intended to keep as a recurring foe, your players left the location/plot you oh so carefully prepared, or whatever.  Thus, being a good GM requires at least a little improv ability (i.e., being able to handle curve balls and to think on your feet).

For novice GMs, a good way to reduce the likelihood and scope of the unexpected is to run dungeon crawls.  In fact, one of the reasons that Messr Arneson put his first adventures underground was to expressly limit what the players could do.

Additionally, GMs shouldn't be overly attached to any particular plot, NPC or whatever or concerned that the PCs didn't interact in the GM's desired way.  It's always possible to recycle material into a later game session or future campaign.


Secondly, the GM should take some time to know the applicable rules set.  Constantly looking things up will disrupt the flow of a game session.  Also, it can be disheartening to find out that you misquoted a rule.


Thirdly, the GM should prepare enough to feel comfortable.  Some GMs spend hours getting ready for a game session, while others do literally no prep.  For myself, over time, I've prepared less and less, partly because I usually use rules with which I'm quite familiar and because my improv skills have improved.


Fourly, the GM should be on the same page as the players regarding expectations.  Here, the group's social contract is key.  Also, remember to keep in mind that the goal of playing RPGs is to have fun.


Of course, there are many other things that can play a part in running a campaign, if you can get down the above, you should be starting from a good position!

RPG Design: Character Advancement

This week, I wanted to discussed an issue that is important in almost all tabletop role-playing games with campaign play, Character Advancement:

By "Character Advancement," I mean the mechanical advancement of a character rather than narrative or other development of a character (e.g., becoming a landed noble in a fantasy game, gaining magic items, etc.).  Traveller (1977) is a role-playing game that famously originally didn't have any Character Advancement system (i.e., the PCs were rewarded with, among other things, information about the setting).  In addition, RPGs not intended for campaign play (e.g., Fiasco) also lack any Character Advancement system.

However, almost every other RPG incorporates some system for Character Advancement, of which there are many different types, including:

• Leveling (e.g., D&D)

In D&D and similar games, once a PC has accumulated a sufficient number of Experience Points, their Level increases (i.e., they level up), resulting in mechanically defined increases in some of the PC’s capabilities.

Some games, such as older iterations of D&D, try to use Character Advancement as a balancing mechanism by having different Experience Point requirements for different classes.  However, the success of this balancing mechanism is questionable.

Leveling is the most common type of Character Advancement.

• Ongoing Point Buy (e.g., GURPS, WoD)

A continuation of Point Buy from Chargen, once a PC has accumulated a sufficient number of Experience Points, they receive a mechanically defined number of Points to further improve the character.

Ongoing Point Buy is probably the second most common type of Character Advancement.

• Advancement through Use (e.g., Call of Cthulhu)

Like it says on the tin, a PC advances through successful use of skills (e.g., Call of Cthulhu) or what have you.  While this may be a realistic approach, it can also result in players trying to squeeze in skill checks even in such are not appropriate.


Of course, there are also other possible Character Advancement systems, including non-mechanical advancement, such as Milestones in Fate Core:

"A milestone is a moment during the game where you have the chance to change or advance your character. We call them milestones because they usually happen at significant “break points” in the action of a game—the end of a session, the end of a scenario, and the end of a story arc, respectively."

Basically, the above is advancement through narrative fiat.


While not every role-playing game features Character Advancement, for those that do, it is a key method to maintaining player interest in the game and to increase player investment in their character.  "The Hero's Journey" is a part of humanity's collective unconscious and most people love feeling more powerful and seeing numbers go up.

Character Advancement in RPGs was a key innovation of Dave Arneson, as leveling was one of the key differences between Blackmoor and the earlier Braunsteins of the Midwest Military Simulation Association (MMSA).  So, many thanks to the Cheeky Wizard!

History: Dave Arneson (1947-2009)

I would be remiss this week not to give a shout out to the person who provided the "Spark of Life" to tabletop role-playing:

The self-styled Cheeky Mage!

Born on October 1, 1947 in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Dave Arneson grew up with a lifelong love of games and gaming, joining the Midwest Military Simulation Association (MMSA) when he was in high school.  There, he met David Wesley and was introduced to the latter's Braunstein game scenario (1967), a proto-RPG that was a wargame first set in a fictional German town where players could act in non-military roles (e.g., town mayor, banker, university chancellor, etc.).  Inspired at least in part by Diplomacy (1959), Braunstein's open-ended rules allowed the players to attempt any action, with the results determined by a neutral referee.

These concepts influenced the development of Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, the direct precursor to Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974).  

In 1969, Arneson and some friends attended GenCon II, where he met Gary Gygax.  The two hit it off and collaborated first on Don't Give Up the Ship (1971), a Napoleonic naval wargame, and then OD&D.

After Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) was formed to publish OD&D, Arneson worked for the partnership and its successor, TSR, Inc., before leaving due to differences of opinion in 1976.

Later, when Gygax, in a highly incorrect interpretation of copyright law, attempted to avoid paying Arneson royalties by re-writing OD&D and removing Arneson's name from the front cover (the resulting work was 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons), the latter brought the first of five lawsuits against Gygax and TSR in 1979.

All of the lawsuits were settled to Arneson's satisfaction and then sealed with confidentiality agreements.

After OD&D, Arneson worked only sporadically on RPGs, most notably when he wrote up the Blackmoor setting for Judges Guild in The First Fantasy Campaign (1977) and when he returned to TSR for the "DA" (Dave Arneson) series of modules set in Blackmoor (1986–1987).  However, he mostly focused on areas of personal interest in his later years, as a business owner (Adventure Games) and as a teacher, first special education and then game design.

Still, any reasonable person would agree that the RPG hobby owes a considerable debt to Messr Arneson.  Beyond his specific design and mechanical innovations (e.g., dungeon crawling, campaign play, advancement (i.e., experience and leveling), etc.), Arneson was the one who had the clearest vision that a new role-playing tradition (parallel to murder mystery nights, comedy improv, etc.) was being created, rather than a mere incremental change to wargaming.

RPG Design: The Cleric Class

Today, I wanted to give a shout out to perhaps the most poorly loved of the Core Four Classes of tabletop role-playing, the Cleric:

Although published along with the Fighting-Man and the Magic-User in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), the Cleric, unlike those two classes, did not have a clear antecedent in the Fantasy Supplement to the Chainmail miniatures wargame (1971).  And, unsurprisingly, there are no clear antecedents for the Cleric in Fantasy literature either.  Rather, this class began in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, where they filled several key roles in the party, most notably as a healer and as a counter to undead.

Despite being probably the most powerful class at lower and middle levels in older editions of Dungeons & Dragons, being something of a hybrid of the Fighting-Man and the Magic-User (reasonable melee combatant, decent caster plus the most generous XP table), there's often a reluctance by players to be "stuck" playing the party healer, since, in my experience, most players prefer to focus on their own character's exploits rather than being at the service of others (e.g., healbot).

Not helping the situation are the weapon restrictions that Gary Gygax added to the Cleric.  Since all weapons do the same damage in OD&D, these weapon restrictions are primarily in place to prevent Clerics from utilizing magic swords.  However, in later editions, it becomes a serious blow to the Cleric's general appeal.   These gamist restrictions are justified by some wildly inaccurate "history".

The Cleric's weapon restrictions in D&D are also defended in-game with some equally dubious "facts", namely that blunt weapons do not draw blood.  Now, if you whack someone with a baseball bat, chances are pretty good you'll start to see blood before too long.  Perhaps one might argue that "drawing blood" means cutting or piercing flesh, but that seems to me like a distinction without practical difference.

In any event, given the lack of clear antecedents, it is unsurprising that other rule sets take the general idea but focus on only part of the OD&D Cleric's remit, such as healing (e.g., White Mages from Final Fantasy) or religion (e.g., Runequest's deity specific approach).  Moreover, even D&D itself has moved away from the tropes it established, with newer editions shifting the Cleric's remit more toward leadership and by giving healing surges to everyone.

Another source of confusion is the Paladin (sub)class:

Like the Cleric, the Paladin is a heavily armed and armored holy warrior.  Unsurprisingly, the conceptual difference between the two is fuzzy.  Moreover, by having more in the asskicking department, it's hard not to argue that the Paladin stole a good bit of the Cleric's thunder.

So, for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, I bring the Cleric back toward its Arnesonian roots and also blend in the best parts of the Paladin a single archetype: a soldier of faith who smites creatures of darkness and wields potent divine magic.

Board Game Review: "Dungeon!" (1975)

This week, I would like to take a look back at another well known "Old School" product, albeit not an RPG.  Sort of.

Dungeon! is a competitive board game where players race through the eponymous dungeon, slaying monsters and taking their stuff.  The first to reach their particular adventurer's gold piece goal and race back to the starting point wins.  Since adventurers have different gold piece goals and the dungeon has different levels of difficulty and loot, the game remains roughly balanced even though adventurers have different abilities.

The mechanics are quite simple: upon entering a new room or area, the player draws a monster card appropriate for the dungeon level that lists the target numbers for each adventurer.  If successful, the player draws a treasure card appropriate for the dungeon level.  If not, something bad randomly happens to the adventurer (including death).  Old School!

If fact the mechanics are so simple that for many gamers from the early days of tabletop role-playing, Dungeon! was a gateway to RPGs: you can get your dungeon crawl on without worrying about story or campaign elements.  This simplicity is also a reason for Dungeon!'s recent renaissance, as the children of those same early gamers come of age, such as the daughter of my AD&D DM!

Dungeon! is also of historical interest since Dave Megarry, the primary designer, was a friend of Dave Arneson and a member of the Blackmoor campaign, from which grew the rule set that eventually became into Original Dungeons & Dragons.

So, gamers can see and experience a version of the earliest days of tabletop role-playing.  Thus, in a way, Dungeon! is the closest that many gamers will get to adventuring in Castle Blackmoor.