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: Rules Lawyers

Last year, I discussed perhaps the important meta-rule in RPGs: Rule Zero.

This week, I wanted to talk about an issue that was driving factor in the creation of Rule Zero: Rules Lawyers.

"Rules Lawyer" is typically a pejorative term used to describe someone who attempts to use the letter of the rules of the game without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage for themselves.  As this can be a literal form of "Gaming the system," with the attendant negative consequences, Rule Zero arose.  As I mentioned last year:

"For games where meta decision making is distributed along traditional lines, Rule Zero serves as a manual override to the rules set: in other words, it exists in case someone needs to override the rules when they result a nonsensical result.  Furthermore, it serves the underlying philosophy that the rules should take a back seat if they interfere with having fun."

As  "judge" and "referee," Rule Zero allows GMs to keep a game from slowing down too much or going off the rails for various reasons, Rules Lawyering included.

However, as you might expect, Rules Lawyering can be a problem for some New School games that reject traditional GM authority in favor of greater Player Narrative Fiat, such as GM-less games.

A softer and more proactive way to address Rules Lawyering is with the group's Social Contract.


In addition, in some cases Rules Lawyering and System Mastery (high knowledge of the rules) are just two sides of the same coin, even though the latter is generally viewed positively and encouraged.

Furthermore, a clever GM can sometimes recruit Rules Lawyers to assist in running games, such as serving as a rules reference, managing less focused or experienced players, etc.

RPG Design: Non-Human PCs

This week, I wanted to touch on an important related design issue that is very hard to do well, Non-Human PCs:

This isn't really a concern for my rule set, being Swords & Sorcery-themed and, unsurprisingly, humanocentric.  However, Non-Human PCs being believable are a concern for any RPG that incorporates High Fantasy and/or Science Fiction elements, which is a whole boatload of them- everything from D&D to Shadowrun to Star Wars.

Of course, what constitutes "believable" depends upon the level of immersion that the RPG purports to have.  For example, for B/X D&D's simplified rules set, where Demi-Humans are effectively the "multi-class option," as Race-as-Class mostly works.

However, for deeper levels of immersion, a lack of believability can be a problem for those who value verisimilitude.  As a world building task, it's quite hard work to develop a truly alien mind set, belief system, culture, history, etc.

Consequently, most RPGs (and other media) cut corners.  In High Fantasy, Non-Human species are typically the Tolkien standards, blatant Tolkien ripoffs or weird monocultures such as Scottish Dwarves.  Science Fiction is even worse, where most aliens are just Aliens with Forehead Ridges.

One of the few RPGs to do Non-Humans right is 2300 AD (originally titled Traveller: 2300, as the game as supposed to be a prequel to Traveller), from the genetically-engineered Pentapod to the vicious Kafers (a name based on the German word Käfer, meaning "beetle").  Culture, motivations and otherness are all done well and add to the aliens' strangeness.

The game is definitely worth a look to see how GDW handled the Non-Humans, as well as interesting relatively hard Science Fiction world building in general.  Except for having France be the reigning superpower, which shatters suspension of disbelief.

Being creative is hard, so the state of Non-Human PCs in RPGs is somewhat understandable.  However, sometimes avoidance is the best strategy (*cough*Swords & Sorcery*cough*).

RPG Focus: Trail of Cthulhu (2008)

Last year, I took a look at Call of Cthulhu, the grandfather of Horror RPGs, and, last month, I took a look at Investigations in RPGs.

So, in honor of Messr Howard's birthday today (8/20), I wanted to take a look at a different take on Lovecraftian Horror in RPGs: Trail of Cthulhu.

Named after the series of interconnected short stories by August Derleth (who did much to keep Lovecraft's literary legacy alive after Messr Howard's unfortunate demise), Trail of Cthulhu is, like Call of Cthulhu, an RPG focused on the Cthulhu Mythos genre of horror fiction.  Published by arrangement with Chaosium, Inc., creators of the Call of Cthulhu RPG, there are a handful of familiar trappings in this game (e.g., Occupations, skills) but it's just window dressing as Trail of Cthulhu runs instead on Pelgrane Press' in-house Gumshoe System.

Unlike Call of Cthulhu's d100 mechanic, playing Trail of Cthulhu only requires a single d6 for Gumshoe's target roll over mechanic.  Also, there are no ability scores for Investigators, only skills.

The supposed "killer app" of Trail of Cthulhu is the absence of rolls for Invesgiation skills.  Namely:

"Gathering clues is simple. All you have to do is: 

1. Get your Investigator into a scene where relevant information can be gathered,
2. Have the right ability to discover the clue, and
3. Tell the Keeper that you’re using it. 

As long as you do these three things, you will never fail to gain a piece of necessary information. It is never dependent on a die roll. If you ask for it, you will get it."

ToC's boosters argue that this is a revolutionary mechanic because the failure of a single roll can derail the entire session/game/campaign!

However, I consider this "No clue roll" mechanic to be highly overrated and the above argument to be hyperbole.  For example, the argument doesn't take into account that typically there's more than one PC with a relevant skill to acquire a particular clue and that typically the GM will allow multiple rolls.

In addition, such bottlenecks that this "killer app" is meant to address are usually the result of poor adventure design.  This issue can easily be overcome by the Alexandrian's Three Clue Rule (i.e., if there are enough clues, missing one in particular should not be fatal to gameplay).

Additionally, as the Alexandrian notes:

"[The "No clue roll" rule] is a mechanical solution to the problem. But while it may result in a game session which superficially follows the structure of a mystery story, I think it fails because it doesn’t particularly feel as if you’re playing a mystery. 

[Robin] Laws’ fundamental mistake, I think, is in assuming that a mystery story is fundamentally about following a “bread crumb trail” of clues...But, in point of fact, this type of simplistic “A leads to B leads to C leads to D” plotting is not typical of the mystery genre."

Furthermore, ToC is a very New School RPG in the sense of expecting the GM to cater to the players and tilting the odds in the players' favor by reducing the overall challenge.  This is as opposed to the traditional GM role of an impartial referee.

This game does have a vocal group of fans.  However, in terms of actual play, I personally cannot recall seeing a listing for Trail of Cthulhu on Roll20.

RPG Design: Active v. Passive Defenses

Last year, I discussed the importance of considering Tactical Depth v. Complexity in RPG Design.    This week, I wanted to touch on an important related design issue that is sometimes overlooked, Active v. Passive Defenses:

By "Active Defense," I mean any system where the PCs can take action to defend themselves, typically parrying or dodging.  Examples of RPGs with Active Defenses include Call of Cthulhu, and oWoD.

By "Passive Defense," I mean any game where the PCs have one or more defensive stats (calculated using the character's ability scores and/or their gear) representing their ability to avoid harm in one or more ways.

The most famous example of Passive Defense in RPG is D&D's Armor Class, which represents the difficulty to actually land an effective attack on the PC and which is calculated from the PC's Dexterity and/or their gear.

Other examples of systems with passive defense are nWoD and Savage Worlds.

There are, of course, RPGs with *BOTH* Active and Passive Defenses.  For example, REIGN allows parrying and dodging (Active Defenses) and has Damage Reduction stats for armor (Passive Defense).


So, what's the big deal about Active v. Passive Defenses?

As I mentioned before when discussing Weaponry, many RPGs make combat is a key or even central element of gameplay.  There are many, many, many different approaches to modeling Combat in RPGs, but a key design decision is whether a particular approach is more Tactical or more abstract.

Combat, as it is usually portrayed, is fast paced. However, game mechanics (e.g., Initiative, attack rolls, etc.) by their nature are slow paced.  Thus, in terms of Tactical Depth v. Complexity, the more crunchy a game's combat mechanics, the more complex and slower that game's combat becomes.

Unless a game is very narrative, most RPGs have Active Attacks.  But when the designer also adds Active and/or Passive Defenses involving rolling, a game can really slow down.

Some people love really Tactical games (e.g., miniature war games).  However, myself, I prefer faster paced combat, as it can be the more dramatic and the emergent narrative of the game session flows quicker and more easily.

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!

RPG Game Play: Really Bad Stats

Last year, I discussed the issue of Stat Inflation (the incentive for players to play characters with higher statistics) in role-playing games which use Random Roll for character creation. 

This week, I wanted to talk about the opposite side of the coin: characters with Really Bad Stats.

If you use Random Roll for character creation, eventually Random Number Generation (RNG) will catch up and give you a character with Really Bad Stats.  And by "Really Bad Stats," I'm not talking merely below average but rather, bottom of the barrel (in D&D terms, I'm talking 3s, 4s or 5s) and I'm talking having more than one Really Bad Stat (even in a well designed game, it's usually possible to play around one Really Bad Stat).

So, this begs the question: Does having a character with Really Bad Stats materially affect fun?

Well, it depends.

Firstly, some players simply don't care about their character having Really Bad Stats.

Secondly, in some games, this is a moot question since some or all stats have no or little mechanical effect.  For example, in OD&D, a PC's Strength, Intelligence and Wisdom no mechanical effect other than possibly an XP bonus.  OD&D's other stats, except for Charisma, don't significantly effect gameplay either.

Thirdly, the circumstances can matter a great deal: it's different playing a character in a one shot or that doesn't otherwise require much mental investment in the character by the player. For example, it's easy enough to play up Really Bad Stats for comedic effect.

However, what about a character where the GM is looking for significant mental investment by the player in the character and wants to play a long-term campaign?  In other words, a player cannot simply wait until next session to play a different character.

Two common reasons that people play tabletop role-playing games are for escapist fantasy and for wish fulfillment.  Really Bad Stats can put a damper on both of those.

There's also the issue of fairness.  It's not really fair to having one character be significantly mechanically worse than the others.  Really Bad Stats can mitigated by the GM if he is able to provide the character with Really Bad Stats alternate ways to be effective and is able to still give the character their time in the spotlight.  However, this does require a level of trust in the GM and really should be expressly stated in the group's social contract.

RPG Design: Gamist Restrictions On Classes

Last year, I discussed the important issue for tabletop RPG Design of Balancing Classes.   This week, I wanted to discuss a particular approach to game balance: Gamist Restrictions On Classes.

First made famous in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974) and OD&D's linear and spiritual descendants, RPGs that use character classes typically have various limitations baked in at the RPG Design-level in order to differentiate the abilities of different game characters and to provide niche protection (e.g., only Clerics can turn undead, Magic-Users cannot cast spells in armor, etc.).

These limitations also reflect OD&D's war-game lineage (e.g., unit types often have sharp and unexplained differences).  For example, no one asks why the Knight in Chess is the only piece in Chess that's able to jump over other pieces.

However, these limitations can go too far IMHO, particularly when they provoke bizarre mental contortions trying to justify themselves.

For example, there is the eternal D&D question, "Why can't wizards use swords?"

As with Spell Points, Gary Gygax, the co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, was also famously not a fan of wizards using swords.  For example, in The Dragon #16, he pontificated:

"Why can’t magic-users employ swords? And for that matter, why not allow fighters to use wands and similar magical devices? On the surface this seems a small concession, but in actuality it would spoil the game! Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which con- front the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun."

However, not only does Messr Gygax's argument feature classic logical fallacies but it is patently ridiculous.  By itself, wizards using swords will not create a "super-character" that will "kill the game".

This particular topic is something of a personal bugbear for me, as it also exacerbates Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards in D&D.

Thus, by "Gamist Restrictions," I'm referring to those RPG Design limitations on character classes that fly in the face of verisimilitude for Gamist reasons (typically game balance).

For Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, I've endeavored to avoid any Gamist Restrictions.  Consequently, wizards can use swords (and any other type of weapon), as well as armor!

RPG Design: Thief Skills

A couple years ago, I discussed the Thief Class and the importance of Balancing Skills,  and last year, I discussed the importance of Balancing Classes.

This week, I wanted to riff off those discussions and take a look at the mechanic for Thief Skills in 2nd edition AD&D compared to earlier editions.  Like earlier editions, in 2e, there is a chart stating the base scores for Level 1 Thieves, to be modified by Dexterity, race, and armor, if applicable.

Then, however, the Player gets to do something pretty different for TSR D&D:

"Each time the thief rises a level in experience, the player receives another 30 points to distribute. No more than 15 points per level can be assigned to a single skill, and no skill can be raised above 95 percent. including all adjustments for Dexterity, race, and armor. As an option, the DM can rule that some portion of the points eamed must be applied to skills used during the course of the adventure."

I've mentioned before that 1st edition AD&D is my favorite iteration of Ye Auld Fantasy Game, but I do really like the 2e approach to Thief Skills.  It is basically a type of Point Buy for character advancement that allows the player to customize to suit in this area, while still retaining the archetypal flavor benefits of using a class.

This is able to work with Old School D&D since the OD&D game engine is robust enough to have multiple independent sub-systems, which in turn means that DMs can mix and match sub-systems as desired with limited or no mechanical repercussions (e.g., changing Thief Skills has no knock effect on combat mechanics).

Inspired by the mechanic for Thief Skills in 2nd edition AD&D, in my own rules set, I have added a skills system influenced by Call of Cthulhu, allowing players to customize their characters to a much higher degree than in Ye Auld Fantasy Game.

RPG Game Play: Starting out as GM

Happy New Year!

Recently, it came up in a conversation about how to start out as a Game Master (or GM, for short) in  tabletop role-playing.  Being a GM is the most challenging and demanding position in any gaming group, so this week, I wanted to focus on some of the key issues that new GMs should consider.

First of all, before the game session even starts, beginning GMs should make sure that that their group's Social Contract is in place, to match up everyone's expectations and to prevent easily avoidable problems.

Secondly, it is worthy to note that, with New School games, there are non-traditional ways to distribute the GM's role, including GM-less games such as Fiasco and Microscope and games using  Player-Facing Mechanics, such as Dungeon World.  This post is not aimed at those games.

Anyway, in traditional tabletop role-playing games, being a GM entails wearing many "hats" (e.g., Author, Director, Referee, Manager, etc.)  For example, as Referee, a GM must make judgement calls and decide when to apply Rule Zero.  Consequently, as one can imagine, there are many things to track and manage during a game session, but for beginning GMs, there three areas to focus on where one to get the most mileage:

• Prepare, Prepare, Prepare!
• Be Flexible
• Keep Learning

• Prepare, Prepare, Prepare!

Preparation, as with many things in life, can make all the difference when running a game session.  As you become more experienced as a GM, you'll see more and more situations and learn how to juggle more and more things on the fly.  However, when you're starting out, preparation goes a long way toward preventing problems and keeping things running smoothly.  It will boost your confidence and speed up gameplay since you'll be less likely to struggle to fix things or figure things out.

A key part of preparation is knowing your rules set and the adventure that you have planned to the best of your ability.  The more you've prepared, the faster you'll be able to identify and address potential issues, such as fielding your players' questions.  It will also make it easier to address the next bullet point, Being Flexible.

• Be Flexible

In the words of the great German military strategist Helmuth von Moltke the Elder: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.”  Similarly, your players may (*cough*probably will*cough*) do something unexpected that will fly in the face of all your hard work and preparation.

Don't panic.  If you're caught off guard and need some time to figure out what to do, don't be afraid to call a bathroom break or even end the game session early.

And remember to keep an open mind.  Particularly, don't worry about wasting a plot, a character, a setting or anything else you've spent hours to develop.  In fact, you'll probably have a chance to reskin and recycle it later, with your players none the wiser.

• Keep Learning

Lastly, keep learning!  Curiosity is a natural trait of the best GMs.  You will get better with experience but there's always something that you can work on to become a better GM.

IMHO, one of the best things about being a GM is the opportunity to stretch your creative muscles, but muscles only get stronger with training and use.  Talk to your players and other people- don't be afraid to solicit feedback and don't overreact to criticism.


Obviously, there are many, many, many other things to help start out as a GM and to become a better one, but if you begin with the above three areas, you'll have a head start!

RPG Design: Tactical Depth v. Complexity

Earlier, I discussed the importance of Tactical Depth to RPG Design.  This week, I wanted to talk about the trade off between a game's Tactical Depth and it's Complexity.

As I mentioned before, by "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both and out of combat.  However, the currency which with an RPG Designer buys Tactical Depth is Complexity (i.e., as a game becomes Deeper, it concurrently also become more Complex).  This is because as a game's Complexity increases, there are more rules to consider before reaching a resolution and, as a consequence, the game's pace slows down.

IMHO, ideally any RPG should have sufficient Tactical Depth to keep players interested.  However, this Tactical Depth, IMHO, should be bought with the least possible Complexity to keep the game's pace moving.

A great example of Complexity-efficient Tactical Depth is utilizing a universal Core Mechanic, such as the d20 System, the first iteration of which appeared in 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons.

To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the  ability modifier, if any, and the skill modifier, if any, as well as other, situational modifiers.  In Dungeons & Dragons, the d20 System replaced a host of different and usually unrelated subsystems in older editions, making the game easier to learn and quicker to play.

However, speed is not the be all and end all in RPG Design.  For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons, there's no mechanical difference between weapons since all weapons do 1d6 damage.  This is certainly less Complex than variable weapon damage introduced in Supplement I: Greyhawk, but most people would consider non-variable weapon damage to be less fun.

Also, as mentioned above a game's Complexity increases every time a new rule is added, and rules are added for more than just Tactical Depth.  So, Complexity issues must be considered in other contexts as well.

For example, beginning with 1e AD&D, material spell components are required in order to successfully cast spells, such as:

Spider Climb (Alteration)

Level: 1     Components: V, S, M    Range: Touch     Casting Time: 1 segment    Duration: 1 round + 1 round/level     Saving Throw: None    Area of Effect: Creature touched

Explanation/Description: A Spider Climb spell enables the recipient to climb and travel upon vertical surfaces just as a giant spider is able to do, i.e. at 3" movement rate, or even hang upside down from ceilings. Note that the affected creature must have bare hands and feet in order to climb in this manner. During the course of the spell the recipient cannot handle objects which weigh less than 50 g.p., for such objects will stick to the creature's hands/feet, so a magic-user will find it virtually impossible to cast spells if under a Spider Climb dweomer. The material components of this spell are a drop of bitumen and a live spider, both of which must be eaten by the spell recipient.

As a result, material spell components adds a resource management element for casters and is also a way to address Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, since, as a caster levels up, it is increasingly unlikely that they will happen to have all the material spell components that they would like for a particular today.

However, many (if not most) groups consider material spell components to be a poor purchase of Complexity since they consider the rule unnecessarily restrictive and too much of a drag on the game's pace.  Thus, material spell components are often hand waved or ignored outright.

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: Player-Facing Mechanics

This week, I wanted to discuss a New School fad that has popped up in a number of tabletop RPGs: Player-Facing Mechanics.

No dice for you!

By "Player-Facing Mechanics," I mean that the mechanical parts of the rules set (e.g., rolling dice) are handled by the players, often to the exclusion of the Game Master.  For example, in RPGs such as Numenera (2013), the players are the only ones to roll dice.

Fate Points, and other types of Player Narrative Fiat, are another type of Player-Facing Mechanic.

Myself, I see mostly Player-Facing Mechanics as a marketing gimmick.  Some people claim that they speed up the game, but unless the number of actual dice rolls are reduced, I am skeptical of such claims.  For example, there's no mechanical streamlining by replacing an enemy's attack roll with a player's defense roll, simply re-fluffing.

Another argument made by fans of Player-Facing Mechanics is that they promote Player-Empowerment.

Here, I would agree that they do make the game more player centric.  This change fits some genres and play styles, but not others.  For example, Old School D&D is, to many, a gritty game with death around every corner and about trying to strike it rich.

Some games with Player-Facing Mechanics, such as Dungeon World (2012), go so far as to deliberately undermine Rule Zero, presumably since that rules set does not trust the GM to be fair.  However, if players don't trust the GM, why are they playing with him/her in the first place?

Player-Facing Mechanics also make it more difficult to for the GM to fudge rolls.  This can help prevent GM tyranny but, again, if players don't trust the GM, why are they playing with him/her in the first place?

For my own group, Player-Facing Mechanics would probably produce worse outcomes for my players since I do occasionally fudge rolls, but I only do so in the players' favor when Random Number Generation produces a result that I think is too harsh.

In any event, I don't have any problems with Player-Facing Mechanics, per se.  However, that's just not the type of game that I usually prefer to play.

Also, I like rolling dice when I GM.

RPG Game Play: Rule Zero

This week, I wanted to talk about an issue that's potentially confusing but hugely important to traditional tabletop role-playing games: Rule Zero of RPGs.

The Game Master is Always Right

By the above, I mean that Rule Zero states that the GM always has the final say, even over the rules as written.  For games where meta decision making is distributed along traditional lines, Rule Zero serves as a manual override to the rules set: in other words, it exists in case someone needs to override the rules when they result a nonsensical result.  Furthermore, it serves the underlying philosophy that the rules should take a back seat if they interfere with having fun.

Rule Zero came about because in role-playing games, player creativity can produce almost unlimited options.  For example, in the board game "Clue" players only have a limited number of things that they can do in their turn.  However, if "Clue" was a role-playing game, Colonel Mustard would be able to set the kitchen on fire.  Also, some rule sets simply have gaps.  Consequently, sometimes someone needs to make a ruling about the "legality" of an action.

Rule Zero also serves as a check upon Rules Lawyers, Munchkins and/or if the players are just being rowdy in general.

Unsurprisingly, Rule Zero is the foundation of GM authority in tabletop role-playing games.  Giving the final decision making to the GM is what allows the GM to override even the rules as written.  It also gave rise to the proliferation of house rules and other aspects of the DIY nature of Old School games.

Of course, Rule Zero assumes that GMs will be reasonable.  However, if abused, Rule Zero  can lead to railroading, turning the players into an unwilling audience for the GMs fan fiction, or even the GM becoming a petty tyrant!

By contrast, some New School games, operate differently since more or all (for those games without GMs) decision making is distributed to the players.  Other New School games, such as the *World games, try to constrain the GM within the rules set (though actual effectiveness of such constrains is questionable).

Rule Zero is, for the most part, an unspoken rule or referred to only obliquely.  However, not only does it remain important to this day (especially in Old School games), but it also is part of the history of  tabletop role-playing games and the reason why old terms for GM included "judge" and "referee".

RPG Design: Balancing Classes

Last year, I discussed the important overlooked issue for tabletop RPGs of Balancing Skills.  This week, I wanted to discuss another important issue for tabletop RPGs involving game balance: Balancing Classes.

Not many RPG players would choose to be a sidekick!

For purposes of this post, by "Balancing Classes " I'm referring to classes being balanced in terms of power/utility compared to each other as they level up.  In addition, this discussion focuses on RPGs with character classes.  By contrast, in a Point Buy character creation/advancement system, the balance issues presumably have already been addressed in the design of the Point Buy system.

Most class-based RPGs try to balance classes using some sort of niche protection (e.g., fighters will be better at (surprise) fighting).  Of course, poorly designed niche protection raises its own issues, but that's a discussion for another time.

Why are balanced classes important for an RPG?  Because, ideally, we want to keep players interested and involved in the game.  This obviously can be a problem when one class is notably more powerful than another, since every player should have a turn in the spotlight and a chance to Be Awesome.

...I'm quite good at my BMX...

Of course, the most glaring case of unbalanced classes is Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, where one class can outshine another in its purported area of speciality at a lower investment of resources (i.e., spell slots).

Is it possible to have fun playing a game with unbalanced classes?  Yes, for example, classes in Rifts (1990) are hugely unbalanced in terms of power, where an adventuring party can be a dragon, a demigod, a lord magi... and a hobo!  Yet, according to stories, apparently author Kevin Siembieda is able to make it fun at his table by exercising GM fiat narrative control to give each player their time in the spotlight.

So, who wants to play a hobo?

This is the crux of why designing balanced classes in a game is helpful.  With unbalanced classes, a GM has to wrestle with the rules (and possibly the players) to reach a good result, whereas in a game with balanced classes, a GM can spend precious time and bandwidth on other issues.

RPG Focus: REIGN (2007)

Previously, I have focused on 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and on 6th Edition Call of Cthulhu, two old favorites that have been highly influential upon my own developing rules set, Sorcery & Steel.  This week, I want to take a look at another game that has taught me many lessons in RPG Design, REIGN:

Right off the bat, I'm going to say that I love REIGN to bits.  That might seem a bit odd since REIGN  utilizes a number of New School ideas and mechanics.  However, I am not against New School games that are designed well and I played in a REIGN campaign for a couple of years, followed by GMing my own REIGN campaign for a couple more years.

REIGN is a low-powered fantasy game powered by the One Roll Engine (ORE), a count success dice pool system, with applicable stat and skill determining the size of the PC's dice pool.  This is not anything revolutionary.

However, what sets the One Roll Engine apart is that, rather than looking for a fixed target number, "successes" are based upon matching sets of dice.  As a result, as the name suggests, you can determine success, speed and degree of success all in one roll.  Furthermore, the same system can be used for static, dynamic and opposed rolls.  ORE does have a learning curve but, overall, this makes the game run very quickly and smoothly.

Another thing that I really like about ORE is the stripped down skill list that still covers 95+% of what PCs might encounter during an adventure (i.e., skills are broadly applicable).

There are lots of other things that a would-be RPG designer can study in this game as well, including using a strong authorial voice throughout the work, effective flavor text, really well-balanced mechanics and character advancement, an interesting and effective approach to Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, etc.  One really does get a lot for their dinero!

So, if you are a fan of RPG Design or simply want to check out a neat rules sets, you can do a lot worse than REIGN!

RPG Design: Dice Pools

Earlier this year, I highlighted the issue of Core Mechanics in tabletop role-playing games.  This week, I wanted to discuss a type of Core Mechanic that became hugely popular beginning in the late '80s/early 90s, Dice Pools:

Binomial distribution: a characteristic of all dice pools

As tabletop role-playing game mechanics evolved beyond those of Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974) and similar games, a number of games began to utilize Dice Pools as their Core Mechanic.  By "Dice Pools," I mean that each die used to determine task resolution is considered individually.  There are two major types of dice pool system that are used tabletop role-playing games: 1) fixed target number dice pool systems, and 2) count success dice pool systems.

In fixed target number dice pool systems, the dice are added together and compared to a target number.  One of the most popular fixed target number dice pool system is GURPS, which is mostly a 3d6 target low system (but sometimes a 3d6 target high system).  There's little difference between fixed die target number systems (ala D&D, BRP and similar systems), save that the former, like all dice pool systems, produces a binomial distribution, whereas the latter produces a flat distribution.

Dice Pools have been around since relatively early in RPG history (e.g., Traveller (1977)), but what really caused hoopla in the hobby was success dice pool systems, which became a killer app.  In count success dice pool systems, the dice are individually compared against a target number to determine whether or not a "success" occurs.  Then, the player must reach another target number of successes to determine whether or not the character was successful at the task.

The most famous games with count success dice pool systems are probably Shadowrun (1989), and White Wolf Publishing's seminal Vampire: The Masquerade (1991), the first entry of  the Storyteller system.

Depending on the number of dice in the dice pool, count success dice pool systems can be faster and more streamlined than fixed die target number systems, especially fixed die target number systems with lots of modifiers to the fixed die.  Also, count success dice pool systems can be used creatively from a design point of view (e.g., botches, exploding dice, etc.)

And, it can be immensely satisfying to roll a giant handful of dice!

However, the drawbacks of count success dice pool systems are many.  First of all, they don't bonuses and penalties easily, as the math when changing the target number or the number of dice is often non-obvious or at least requires a bit of crunching.  Consequently, this increases the difficulty for GMs of adjudicating these variables on the fly, which can lead to unexpected or unwanted results.

Also, if the dice pool is too small, the results may be too grainy for modifiers to work properly.

Furthermore, from a physical standpoint, large dice pools (10 or more dice) usually slow the game down considerably as hunting for successes becomes increasingly time consuming.  Also, the chance of dice rolling off the time or otherwise becoming lost also increases.  These can even be issues for medium-sized dice pools.

So, count success dice pool systems can great or not so great in practice, depending upon the implementation.  Probably the most clever and fastest  count success dice pool system that I've seen is the One-Roll Engine (ORE), which uses a dice pool of d10s equal to the character's Stat and Skill similar to that used by Storyteller system.  However, rather than calculating a "success" against a fixed target number, ORE uses a matching system, which produces some interesting results.  If you're a fan of count success dice pool systems, check it out!