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.

Character Creation: Stat Inflation

Last year, while discussing the merits of Point Buy or Random Roll for character creation, I mentioned the issue of "stat inflation," the incentive for players to play characters with higher statistics.  This week, I wanted to take a closer look at stat inflation, which comes up in games that use Random Roll for character creation.

As I mentioned before, Random Roll in character creation can produce disparate results.  These disparate results, when combined with a distribution of bonuses that is skewed toward high stats, can in turn produce starting characters of vastly different power ability.

For an extreme example, let's take a look at the Exceptional Strength mechanic for AD&D:

A first level fighter with Strength 18/00 will be in every way mechanically superior to a first level fighter with Strength 9 (the minimum required by the class) and will be the mechanical equivalent of a fighter with significant magical equipment (e.g., Gauntlets of Ogre Power)!  So where's the incentive to play a starting fighter with Strength 9?

The Exceptional Strength mechanic, of course, was introduced in Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975) as an early attempt to address Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards.  However, rather than buff the class directly (ala the Druid's ability to Change Shape) and boost all fighters, either only a tiny minority of fighters benefit or chargen rolls become suspicious.

This is a striking change from Original Dungeons & Dragons (i.e., not including the Supplements),  where ability scores are mostly for roleplaying purposes and generally have little to no mechanical effect (e.g., a Fighter with Strength 9 fights as well as a Fighter with Strength 18).

Furthermore, stat inflation is also "incentivized" for all classes (e.g., Cleric's bonus spells, Thief's bonus to Thief abilities, etc.) in AD&D.

I discussed this issue with my old AD&D DM and his recommendation for a PC with low stats is to play a Magic-User, since M-Us don't get bonus spells at first level.  However, by the book, a Magic-User with Intelligence 18 will still be significantly superior in the long-run compared to a Magic-User with Intelligence 9 because of the Minimum Intelligence to Use Spell, Chance to Know Spell and Maximum Spells per Level mechanics:

People say that it's Old School to play with low or average stat characters and there's some truth to that POV. Additionally, it is true that some people aren't bothered by playing a significantly weaker character than other members of the party.  For others, however, it is hard not to be understandably jealous.

One can, of course, make house rules to curb or address Stat Inflation.  This is the path I've taken for the rule set I'm designing: I want to keep an Old School feel of Random Roll for ability scores but I also use a Point Buy system where the number of creation points increase as starting ability scores decrease.

RPG Design: Random Number Generation

Last year, I discussed the contrasting merits of using Point Buy or Random Roll for a character creation system.  This week, I wanted to expand that discussion to talk about Random Number Generation (or RNG, for short) in tabletop RPGs design generally.

Praise RNGesus!

To me, how one feels about RNG in tabletop RPGs is a key dividing line between "Old School" and "New School" thought for RPG Design.  IMHO, the further a rules set travels from RNG, the more New School it becomes.  Specifically, I'm talking about game mechanics that alter/revoke the raw numbers, like Fate Points or similar in-game  metacurrency, which directly override RNG.  Poorly designed Fate Point economies can unbalance or otherwise disrupt a game, but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm also talking about addition roll mechanics as well, such as Pushing in 7e "Call of Cthulhu" (2014) or Advantage/Disadvantage in 5e "Dungeons & Dragons" (2014):

"Advantage reflects the positive circumstances surrounding a d20 roll, while disadvantage reflects the opposite. When you have either advantage or disadvantage, you roll a second d20 when you make the roll. Use the higher of the two rolls if you have advantage, and use the lower roll if you have disadvantage. For example, if you have disadvantage and roll a 17 and a 5, you use the 5. If you instead have advantage and roll those numbers, you use the 17."

And, of course, this includes games with NO randomizer, such as "Amber" (1991).

Thus, I'm talking about games that by design will revoke/alter/supplant the raw result of a randomizer, usually in favor of player driven narrative.  Consequently, the more important narrative is to an RPG's design, the more likely it falls under New School.

By contrast, in my mind, there are few things that scream "Old School" more than RNG, whether it's the pain from a terrible roll (or vice versa) or the shock (or glee) from an unexpected result.    Like   "New School" and narrative, RNG is, IMHO, a signature of "Old School" games.

The appeal of RNG isn't hard to understand.  Basically, it's a form of gambling and has that same neurological effect.  This effect is multiplied for critical successes/failures:

Big money!  Big money!

Not everyone is a fan of criticals, though.  Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, vociferously opposed critical successes in The Dragon #16 (1978):

"The “critical hit” or “double damage” on a “to hit” die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D...the point must be made that whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined, by the inclusion of “instant death” rules, be they aimed at monsters or characters...“instant death” no longer allows participants to use judgement when playing."

Of course, Gygax's shifting from “double damage” to “instant death” in the above quotation is an example of the classic logical fallacy of moving the goal posts.  The great majority disagreed with Gygax and it is unsurprising that many RPGs nowadays have some kind of mechanic for criticals.

Of course, what one hand giveth, the other can take away and the results of a bad die roll can be extremely harsh, up to and including instadeath.  A major reason that many people play RPGs is wish fulfillment.  Consequently, it can be painful to have something terrible happen to one's personal avatar.  The difference between "Old School" and "New School" is that the former typically more readily accepts setbacks and failures as a part of the game, up to and including instadeath.

Many New Schoolers, however, have a problem with this "Old School" approach, which probably reflects changing expectations.  Back in the days of yore, players were far less coddled.  If the Dice Gods produced a result that was unfortunate but otherwise fair, you were supposed to suck it up and keep on trucking.

Given the above, it's probably not surprising that Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, only uses either RNG or GM rulings.  Again, maintaining Old School D&D roots is a key design goal.

Character Creation: Point Buy or Random Roll? (Part II)

As noted last week, while developing a rules set, a key early mechanical decision for a designer is whether to use Point Buy or Random Roll for character creation.  We've already examined the former, so let's take a look this week at the latter:

Like Point Buy, Random Roll has both strengths and weaknesses: In a well-designed Random Roll system, character creation is typically significantly faster and actual play is more organic and can produce really interesting and unexpected results.  I consider Lifepaths a form of Random Roll where the system has preemptively generated stats rather than the player.

Plus, there's little that's more Old School than rolling and praying to the Dice Gods during character creation (and it's quite satisfying, for example in Dungeons & Dragons, to roll an 18).

The primary drawback of Random Roll (of ability scores in particular) is that it can produce swingy results which, in turn, can produce PCs of considerably different starting power levels.  It is true that it can be awkward to be the player with crummy stats, especially if there's someone with ludicrous stats in the same party.  So, some people protest Random Roll on the basis of fairness.

However, this argument ignores the ability of a GM to flatly disallow overpowered PCs at his table and to allow players to reroll or otherwise augment underpowered PCs.  Furthermore, the importance of swingy results is proportional to the importance of what's being rolled (e.g., ability scores).  For example, in the three LBBs of Original Dungeons & Dragons (i.e., not including Supplements), ability scores are more for roleplaying purposes and have little mechanical effect (e.g., a Fighter with Strength 10 fights as well as a Fighter with Strength 18).

On the other hand, when what's being rolled becomes more important, Random Roll can produce disparate results for unlucky players.  For example, as "stat inflation" set in for Dungeons & Dragons, the incentive for higher stat characters arose.  Indeed, by the time of AD&D, the Players Handbook flatly states, "It is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

Swinginess is not necessarily an issue for Lifepaths, unless, for example in Classic Traveller, PCs can die or character creation otherwise prematurely ends.  This doesn't, however, prevent character creation in Traveller from being addictive.


Based on last week's post, you might think that I am way down on Point Buy systems.  However, this isn't the case: as a system junkie, I've spent hours pouring over the character creation rules and contemplating potential characters in a some Point Buy systems, such as Exalted and Ars Magica.

Also, only the oldest of Old School games are pure Random Roll (e.g., Original Dungeons & Dragons).  Not long after, hybrid systems appeared, such as in Basic Role-Playing, where players roll ability scores but also assign skill points.  Point Buy elements also soon appeared in Dungeons & Dragons itself, such as 1e's weapon proficiencies.

Overall, Point Buy systems are great for character focused and more serious games, whereas Random Roll is better suited for more casual games and where players are less invested in their characters.

For the rule set I'm designing, I want to keep an Old School feel so I decided to use a hybrid system, with Random Roll of ability scores but to also adapt a version of 1e's weapon proficiencies.

Character Creation: Point Buy or Random Roll? (Part I)

In developing a rules set, a key early mechanical decision for a designer is whether to use Point Buy or Random Roll for a character creation system.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses, so let's take a look this week at the former:

In a well-designed Point Buy system, a player is able to create exactly the type of character that he wants, the PCs are balanced with each other (assuming that they start with the same number of build points), and scaling the starting power level of the campaign is simply a matter of adjusting the starting number of build points.  And it is quite fun to look for interesting combinations and synergies from build options.  I consider Standard Arrays of ability scores a form of Point Buy where the system has preemptively generated stats rather than the player.

On the downside, character creation often takes considerably longer since Point Buy places a premium on initial character conception (although pregenerated templates can help speed things up), which in turn often means that character death is a more bitter pill for the player to swallow since the player has invested more time and energy.  Also, metagaming often increases, with players playing to the system rather than in game considerations, the most notorious example of which is min-maxing.  

Attribution to Gage Skidmore

Moreover, even where a player isn't min-maxing per se, once players figure out the "best" build for an archetype, a blandness of PCs often sets in.  Better systems will offer more choices without a clear "best" for an archetype, such as GURPS.

Other lesser examples of metagaming include players attempting to twist the narrative to fit their character's skills, sometimes in the face of common sense.  Overemphasis of system mastery may sacrifice more organic gameplay, as well.  For example, Gimli of Arabia may never have happened in a Point Buy system where a player is loathe to use a suboptimal weapon.

Also, please note that I wrote "well-designed", as it is often easy to cheese a poorly-designed Point Buy system, with a player able to exploit flaws in the system, such as picking up effectively free build points for Disadvantages that are never enforced in actual play.  "REIGN: A Game of Lords and Leaders," by Greg Stolze, has the best implementation I've seen to prevent this kind of cheesing: In  REIGN, rather than additional build points, Disadvantages give extra experience points (and only after the PC has suffered a tangible setback).