Neitherworld Stories

A game designed for web based play?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:02:00 +0000

When RPGs were created there were some assumptions that were made. They'd be played around a table. Players would have paper and writing implements. You'd be playing with people you know.These weren't outlandish assumptions. They probably weren't even conscious.

These assumptions led to some very basic game design decisions. Players could roll dice as a randomizer - everyone around the table could see the results. If you needed to, you could record die rolls (or other things) on paper. You could include rules that depend on things like having a clockwise order around the table or knowing who the youngest player is.

Today, some of us play RPGs remotely over the internet, whether that is via Skype, G+ Hangout, or some other system. We've adapted around assumptions like the ones mentioned above. For our dice rolls, we might depend on trust and self-reporting - or we might use an online program that shows everyone's results. Instead of setting up miniatures on a table, we might use a shared online document or a virtual game table. Instead of proceeding in a clockwise order, we might establish an arbitrary order when needed.

We're playing games designed for a tabletop in another medium. We're adapting.

...but what if there were RPGs designed specifically for such a medium? RPGs designed to be played by people online who aren't all in the same location? I'm not talking about MMORPGs. I'm talking about something analogous to a tabletop RPG. Something flexible. What would such an RPG look like?

I think we could fairly safely assume that it wouldn't have dice. If it has a randomizer at all, there'd be no reason to limit it to the number of choices governed by the size of physical dice.

That's a fairly trivial difference, though, all things considered. I think an online-play rpg could be a very different sort of game.

What do you think such a game would look like?

The Dwarves of Kor

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:57:00 +0000

In the new game I'm running, Dwarves are weird.

Before the refugees settled in Kor, they had no idea how weird.

First off, the dwarves who headed to the surface were all young. Dwarves in Kor will live nearly a thousand years. Typically, dwarves spend their young adulthood either in the military, in an apprenticeship, or as an entrepreneur. Adventurers fall into this last category.

Second, at about 300 years (give or take a century), dwarves begin growing two fleshy appendages on their cheeks to either side of their nose. These limply hang down into a dwarf's beard. Covered with hair, they could easily be missed from a distance. Dwarves say these organs allow them to "taste" metal and minerals from a distance. When already-skilled smiths grow their whiskers, they can become nearly legendary in their abilities. (As a side note, these "whiskers" are erogenous zones. Some scandalous dwarves shave them. Calling someone a "metal-taster" is a comment on their sexual promiscuity.)

Third, despite the famous dwarven work ethic, many older dwarves don't seem to actually do anything. Rumour has it that the pillars are filled with chambers in which 800 year old dwarves sit, staring at walls. This might be an exaggeration, but older dwarves often move and react slowly, and it is not unknown for one to sit down at a table in a tavern and stay there, unmoving, for days. Other dwarves don't seem to bat an eye at this (and the tavern keeper will happily close up the tavern around his immobile guest) - indeed, they seem to show deference to such dwarves. Either not all older dwarves have this tendency, or it might come and go. Possibly both.

Kor, Dwarfhome

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:13:00 +0000

As mentioned previously, I recently started running a new Pathfinder game. It is set in Kor, an enormous, ancient Dwarven city-state.

Kor means "home" in Dwarven.

Kor is more than a city. It is nearly a nation into itself. The Open Market - where dwarves trade with outsiders - is itself larger than most human cities were... and it only occupies a corner of the floor of the enormous cavern that is Kor.

Depending upon how you look at it, Kor has either three or twelve main sections. The cavern is dominated by twelve enormous pillars - formed where giant stalagmites and stalactites merged. Each of these is owned by one of the twelve Great Clans. Within the high city, each of the pillars is capped by a huge keep. The pillars themselves are filled with passages and chambers and have structures built upon them. They serve as the homes for many of those in one of the twelve clans. The outside of a pillar might be covered with shops, artisans' studios, cafes, and taverns run by those in the clans.

Those outside of the clans live in the Low and Middle cities.

The Low City: This comprises the floor of the cavern. It is home to most of Kor's large industry and the aforementioned Open Market. The Low City is loud and busy. Successful merchants and crafters may have private estates in the east, closer to the polyp farms. The western and northern parts of the Low City tend to be less desirable real estate.
The Middle City: This is a series of walkways and platforms that cover much of the height of the cavern. They have accumulated haphazardly over time (probably expanding out from the pillars). Now, the roads of the Middle City connect pillars, stalagmites, stalactites, and dwarf-made towers. Some areas of the cavern are much more built up than others. The Middle City has, historically, been where younger dwarvenfolk proved themselves. It has also been a center of criminal activity. Currently, many refugees live there in makeshift structures (often made of canvas).
The High City: This is carved into the roof of the cavern itself. There are few large buildings in the high city other than the great keeps, the Forum, and the Throne Hall (though these are all monumental in scope - the smallest of them being the size of a respectable surface
town). The few outsiders who have been to it have found it stark and somber, but dwarves tend to find it peaceful and beautiful.

The PCs in the game I'm running aren't dwarves. They are members of the aforementioned refugee class - most of whom are humans.

Seventeen years ago, the sky went dark. The surface became uninhabitable and nearly devoid of life. Horrors came out from the dark corners of the world to which they had been banished.

Some few surface dwellers took shelter where they could. Kor was one of the places they were welcomed. Still, the dwarven society changes slowly... and it was not built to accomodate a sizeable minority of non-dwarves.

The game is going to focus on political intrigue, mystery, prejudice, and destiny... with a healthy dose of high weirdness.

New Year, New (for me) Game: Discovering Pathfinder

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:58:00 +0000

I'm late to the party, but I recently discovered that Pathfinder is pretty cool.

Back in November, I picked up a few of the core Pathfinder books. I hadn't really looked at the game since the early days of the open playtesting/beta/whatever.

I was impressed.

Pathfinder isn't D&D 3.5. I think I assumed it would be D&D with the numbers filed off, a few rules tweaks, and some rebalancing. It could be described like that, but I feel like it is really its own game insofar as it has a different design philosophy than 3.5 did.

D&D 3.5 was all about the expansion of options. Obscure new feats, prestige classes, and other rule subsystems created a tone that encouraged players to scout out strangeness. The rules encouraged players to multiclass, play unusual races, and otherwise seek out "cool stuff" from fringe supplements.

Pathfinder is all about making the core PC options cool. Base classes are not only filled out so that there aren't any "dead levels" at which the class doesn't give you any benefits, but they also gain powerful capstone abilities at 20th level. The new favored class rules (choose any class as a favored class at level one... gain +1 hp or skill level - or another bonus based on your race/class combo - each time you take a level in that class) encourage you to stay single-classed. The class archetypes in the Advanced Player's Guide allow you to tweak base class abilities to fit your character concept.

I think the class archetypes are one of my favorite features. For instance, there are Bard archetypes that swap out the Bard's performance abilities for themed abilities. Some of these are subtle: the Court Bard gains abilities that are little more than tweaks of standard Bard abilities. Others are complete class rewrites: the Arcane Duelist swaps out performance for abilities that magically enhance her combat abilities. Some archetypes essentially replicate base classes in 3.5: the Sandman removes Bard performance abilities and replaces them with spell-stealing and a bit of sneak attack (basically recreating the Spellthief).

A big part of what I like about Pathfinder's approach is that it uses carrots rather than sticks. Players aren't punished for making choices that the game designers don't want them to make. Instead they are rewarded for making choices that are deemed desirable. The favored class rules are an obvious example of this. Class skills are another. You can learn cross-class skills to your heart's content in Pathfinder. They don't cost any more than class skills. They don't have a lower max rank. Instead, if you take a single rank in a class skill, you get a +3 in it. As a result, PCs tend to have at least one rank in each class skill. Another stick-removal: nothing has XP costs. If you buy an item creation feat, you aren't penalized for using it. Why would you be?

Pathfinder doesn't really address my biggest gripe about D&D 3.5 - that it is all about the next level and the eventual build - except by trying to make PCs a bit more interesting at lower levels (primarily via more feats and more little, colorful abilities). Is that enough? Maybe. Is it better than 3.5 - a game that I enjoy despite its flaws? Yeah.

I think that's the appeal here. I like D&D 3.5, and Pathfinder incorporates all those things I like about it and improves on them.

I've started running a Pathfinder campaign. Follow-up post on that is coming soon.

The sweet spot: simple, creative, tactical

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:36:00 +0000

The resurgence in old-school gaming has highlighted the appeal of simple rpgs that foster creativity. There is a powerful appeal here. Remove the learning curve for the rules, and you can focus on the learning curve for play. Player skill becomes a matter of critical thinking and decision-making rather than rules mastery.

(This last bit raises issues of tension between roleplaying a character's decisions and making informed player choices, but this tension really applies to rules master as well: Can you really justify your character taking that highly-optimized feat combination?)

The place where games with more complicated rulesets can shine is in tactical options. (I don't mean just combat tactics here, but that's the most obvious place where they show up.) That's not to say that old-school games lack tactics - one of the advantages of such games is that players can try just about anything. Crazy ideas are often encouraged. What old-school games lack, though, are systems for tactics. Crazy ideas are often encouraged... but not always. If the GM thinks (correctly or incorrectly) that something is dumb, he can (and often will) smack the attempt down. There is, of course, a lot of variability here. Some GMs take great delight in "laying the smackdown" on what they see as dumb player choices.

What do systems for tactics get you?

First, it tells players that they can do this sort of stuff and gives them a rough idea of how effective it would be. Let's say I wanted to try to trip a giant. In an old-school game, the GM would decide if this was even possible. I might, then, get a random chance of success. It might be a better chance if I have a good plan. Still, it is unlikely that any two randomly selected GMs would give me the same odds of success. One might just rule it impossible. Another might think the idea was cool and give me a 75% chance of success. Contrast this with d20 games, for example, in which I would have a pretty good (though imperfect) idea of how likely I am to succeed... and whether success is even in the realm of possibility.

There's something to be said for that.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks: enumerating tactical options implies that these are your options. Creativity in tactics isn't necessarily encouraged here. Instead, you are encouraged to choose from the options given.

Perhaps more importantly, there's a lot of overhead in terms of rules to learn. I happen to like achieving rules mastery, but a high learning curve means that I have fewer people to play with and I spend more time teaching people how to play and looking up rules... when I could be playing instead.

So... is there a sweet spot? Simple rules that offer a tactical system that promotes creativity?

I think there is.

There might be rules out there that would do this. I'm not sure. There are certainly some that try: Savage Worlds and Fate come to mind. Fate , to me, comes closest to a system for creative tactics... but it still isn't quite there.

I feel like I'm groping toward something. Maybe it is a stripped-down Fate with a tweaked maneuver system...

If there are games you think hit this sweet spot, leave a comment and let me know. I'm wondering whether I missed something obvious here.

How Many Stats?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:30:00 +0000

What's the sweet spot for the number of attributes and skills in an RPG ruleset?

Last week, I complained a wee bit about the proliferation of attributes and skills in Eclipse Phase. One of my biggest frustrations with the Dresden Files RPG is how many disconnected social skills it has (Contacts, Deceit, Empathy, Intimidation, Performance, Presence, Rapport... ). Old World of Darkness games had a huge issue with introducing extra skills in supplements... which could be problematic when the number of skill points to split among them didn't increase.

I'm not a fan of attribute proliferation, but I might have gone too far the other way. In the Fate-based post-apocalyptic game I'm running, the skill list is:

Athletics
Combat
Knowledge
Persuasion
Will
Magic

There aren't any attributes. That's pretty much it, except for a couple of derived stats like Initiative and Defense.

Each character has a number of Aspects, though, that describe them. One of the tweaks I made here was requiring an Aspect that serves as a descriptor to each of the above skills. So, for instance, an android PC in the game has the Knowledge descriptor of Damaged memory cores alongside her rating and another has the Combat descriptor of Curl up and take it (alongside her very low combat score). Hmmm... the descriptors aren't generally negative. Those two just stuck out at me. In Fate terms, these are normal aspects. They just help to specify how the character applies each of their skills. Characters also have stunts, which let them tweak things in various ways.

Part of me really likes this approach. Another part of me thinks, "Only six skills?! Are you crazy?!" There is, of course, a perfect reply to that second part. It goes like this:

Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

Almost Loving Eclipse Phase

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:26:00 +0000

Eclipse Phase is almost a great game.

As a rule, I don't like science fiction games set in space. I just don't get excited by them. I'm not sure why. I mean, I went to Space Camp when I was a kid. I like space travel.

My best guess is that in space games, you're typically just playing a normal guy. I don't think that's all of it, though. I don't know that it really matters, though. The point here is that I got excited about Eclipse Phase. I just started thinking of all sorts of character concepts. Given that a central conceit of the game is that people can download/copy/backup/reprogram/reupload their minds (into multiple bodies, no less), I think that the philosopher in me was intrigued by the idea of playing with different notions of the self.

The point is that I got excited by Eclipse Phase.

Then I tried to make a character.

As long-time readers of my blog know, I'm not afraid of game mechanics. Still, a ridiculously complicated spreadsheet was pretty much required for character creation. Even then, it took hours. The sad part is that it isn't necessary. Character creation allows you to tweak your character a lot, but the steps described for it are fairly inefficient and could be simplified quite a bit. Moreover, a significant number of stats are redundant. For instance, there is a Willpower aptitude. There is also:

Lucidity (Willpower x2)
Trauma Threshhold (Lucidity /5)
Insanity Rating (Lucidity x2)

These are all multiples of Willpower... Couldn't we just have a single stat and build the mechanics around that? Willpower isn't the only stat that gets multiplied like this. There are ten stats and seven aptitudes (basically extra stats). Five of the ten stats are derived from a multiple of one other stat or aptitude.

Eclipse Phase also has you separately define your Ego (mind) and Morph (body), because the two can become separated. Everything on your very long skill list is based off of both your Ego and Morph. Determining the changes to your character sheet that would come from replacing your Morph would take a significant amount of time without an impressive spreadsheet. In some games, though, this could happen all the time - an important means of travel is Egocasting: in which your ego is sent as information and downloaded into another (presumably temporary) Morph.

This is cool. It is also really annoying.

From the small amount of the game that I've actually played, it seems to run well... but we also haven't run into any of those situations that would call for switching out Morphs. As cool as the idea is in theory, I kind of hope we don't.

Open Atrium for Collaborative Campaign Websites

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 04:04:00 +0000

Open Atrium is an online team collaboration tool that's used for intranets and project management.

I've recently found that it makes a pretty kick-ass campaign website, as well.

Essentially, this is a free (if you have web space), open-source alternative to Obsidian Portal. It is built on the Drupal CMS, so it is extremely extensible. Built in features include:

blogging - Anyone on the team can write a blog post. So far, my group has used this to discuss character ideas, generate setting questions, and discuss rules.
microblogging - This is kind of twitter like. My group hasn't used it for anything useful, but it is mildly amusing. I might dedicate it to off-screen, in-character discussions down the road. or something.
a calendar/event system - good for scheduling games. If you are running a modern game, I suppose you could use it to track in-game events as well. That could be interesting.
Notebook: a wiki alternative - This requires some explanation. It is based on Drupal's Book module, and it allows hierarchical structuring of pages. I've set up one notebook for rules and one for setting. I'll probably also create one for NPCs. You can use this for just about anything you can use a wiki for... though it isn't precisely the same.
case tracking - I haven't enabled this. It might be useful as a quest log, but is probably overkill.

All content is, by default, restricted to your group, and you can allow group members to create all and/or edit the different types of content (or not, if you prefer). Commenting is enabled by default on the blog, but you can add it to the Notebook as well. You can also use Drupal's powerful taxonomy system to categorize content across blogs and notebooks.

There are some additional features you can download for Open Atrium that look pretty cool, such as an ideation tool and integration with Graphmind. There are also thousands of other modules for Drupal, but they will require varying levels of configuration and customization to work the way you want them to work.

So far, I'm a pretty big fan of the way this is working out. I have no complaints about Obsidian Portal, but this gives me a bit more control over my own content.

System Matters... Sometimes too much...

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 02:30:00 +0000

I'm going to be running a Wasterunners campaign for some friends scattered across the country. This is exciting, but it is also a bit frustrating. I have a good idea of the setting, but I don't have the necessary game mechanics down.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that system matters, otherwise I'd just run this in Shadowrun or something generic. Unfortunately, Shadowrun has some mechanical bits that just won't work for this setting (the opposition of magic and technology, magic as physically-draining on practitioners) and a whole host of mechanics that promote a different feel than I'm going for...

A generic system is... well... generic. It sacrifices flavor and focus for flexibility. A generic system might be able to model the powers and such in my game, but it isn't going to provide mechanical support for the game's spirit. Also, I want to go relatively rules-light, and most generic systems aren't.

What game systems do get at the spirit I'm going for? Well, Unknown Armies isn't far off... unfortunately, it has some limitations. It is a very human-centric system and isn't well-suited for things on a superhuman scale. Also, I really don't like the combat system. The combat system I can modify, but the human-centric nature of it is a bit rougher, since it is a percentile system scaled to set the 'human maximum' at 100%.

FATE is nicely flexible insofar as it can be tweaked to support different tones, but I'm a bit burnt out on it at the moment.

I feel like I'm missing something.

If I had the time, I'd just write up my own system for this... but I'd like to get going with it in the near future.

Old thoughts on Wraith

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Sun, 29 May 2011 17:03:00 +0000

My wife is planning on starting up a tabletop Wraith game. Wraith has a bit of a bad reputation, but it is one of my favorite games out there in some ways. Its game mechanics required PCs to care about things. Its setting was rich, and it could handle stories both intensely personal or epic in scope equally well.

Unfortunately, Wraith used a very old set of White Wolf's rules. It never got the revision that most other old World of Darkness games received, much less an update to the new WoD. I remember writing some things about Wraith rules long ago. Here's a post, verbatim, from an old blog of mine (from most of a decade ago). It still has an interesting point (though one that is, perhaps, not so revolutionary anymore).

Thoughts on Wraith and game mechanics
I play in a wraith LARP every Friday.

I enjoy it quite a bit. It is a relatively small game. The players and storytellers are generally good (and, more importantly, good friends). I have had a fondness for Wrath for quite awhile. It is definitely my favorite WoD game, and it is in strong contention for my favorite RPG.

My biggest problem with the game? The rules.

The rules we use are a modified version of the MET rules published by White Wolf. The original MET rules are fairly simple, but not particularly evocative. The ones we use are more complete and marginally better.

What Wraith really ought to emphasize are a character's Passions and Fetters - the things that makes a character a wraith. The tabletop game does this to a point, the LARP version soewhat less so. Even the tabletop version of the rules, however, I find lacking. The Wraith-specific rules are shoehorned into a familiar, but ill-suited system (i.e., Storyteller).

I remember when I first read Unknown Armies. The first part of character creation contains the personality mechanics - because that is what is important to the game. I remember thinking that Wraith should have been more like that. I think that was why I got excited when someone (a while back) started a RPG.net thread about converting Wraith to UA mechanics.

Even that, though, never quite sat with me as completely appropriate. Wraiths are, essentially, supposed to be composed of memories, ties to the earth, and driving passions. Why aren't these things the main attributes in the system? Wraiths have corpus (health levels). Why isn't their Corpus score equal to their points in Fetters (the objects that matter to them - the things that literally tie them to the world)? Wraiths have Passions (the things that motivate them, the actions they habitually take) - which I see as metaphysical grooves in the world through which a Wraith will tend to naturally flow. Why aren't Wraith naturally more successful at fulfilling their passions than they are at acting counter to them?

Then I thought... why limit these insights to Wraith? If they are treated more metaphorically than literally, they could apply to games with a variety of narrative structures. Why should health levels be physical? Are characters in novels more likely to survive if they are tough or are they more likely to survive if they have things to live for? Are characters in novels more or less likely to succeed in things that really matter to them.

I think that these are meaningful questions for game design. While they might, on occaision, be addressed, they haven't - to my knowledge - been made really central before.

Wasterunners: campaign idea

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:01:00 +0000

A friend of mine was jonesing for some Shadowrun. It didn't come together, but it got me thinking... What sort of Shadowrun game could I run? I don't know all the metaplot and setting, and I don't really see myself researching it. I like some of the basic ideas, though... and I was feeling a bit of a post-apocalyptic vibe... so this is what resulted:

Wasterunners: The year is 2030... but for the past thirty years, the world has been a different place.

It was Y2K that changed things. As midnight hit, the world held its breath in fearful anticipation. At the time, we thought it was a computer bug, as we saw a wave of darkness moving toward us hour by hour and time zone by time zone.

We were wrong. It was the fear itself - the mass of the populace concentrating their fear on one single thing. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The power went out. Computers stopped working. In cities, people began looting.

In some places, power began trickling back on in a matter of hours, but it was already too late. When the lights came back on, the world had changed. So had the people in it. Those who had turned to looting and violence had become objects of fear... and had physically transformed into twisted, monstrous forms. Those who had sheltered others had likewise transformed, gaining angelic visages so that their bodies reflected their actions. Others changed in different ways.

Something had broken. People’s shared perceptions and emotions began to have a physical effect upon the world. Memes gained a sort of magical power. Certain times and places were found that could strengthen or weaken this effect. Enclosed arcologies began to spring up in the memetic dead zones in an attempt to insulate themselves from magic.

In late 2001, a giant reptilian beast emerged from the Pacific Ocean and laid waste to the remnants of Tokyo.

In early 2002, the Godstorm hit. People’s prayers began being answered. The sick were cured. The hungry were fed. People’s enemies were struck down by lightning. Beings of various sorts appeared and wreaked vengeance upon nonbelievers and sinners. No religion had priority here. Whatever people believed in, materialized. Organized religion soon became a target. Any group larger than a small family that engaged in a religious practice together is generally considered a cult to be hunted.

The gods and beings that appeared in the Godstorm didn’t go away. They merely changed. They became (or, perhaps, always were) malleable, animistic spirits. Some shamans learned to communicate with them directly and draw off small portions of their power.

Within the dead zone arcologies, corporate interests held sway. Most world governments collapsed by the beginning of 2002. The United States became a loose confederation of states. There are 32 states, most of which are now city-states. Few of them bear much resemblance or connection to those that existed before Y2K.

Outside the arcologies are the wastelands - areas of scattered settlements, uninhabitable territory, and monster-infested regions. In the wastelands, people’s fears and legends become true. Many of the world’s large cities before Y2K were left abandoned. A few were reclaimed.

While the arcologies insulated themselves from magic, they thrived on it as well. Wasterunners are employed to retrieve artifacts or materials of use to corporate interests... and sometimes to perform other tasks as well.

Nervewire,a living optical cable that can be easily grafted to the human nervous system, is rumored to have been pulled from the ruins of a laboratory in Rochester, New York in 2013. It has been used for connecting a wide variety of cybernetic systems to living creatures. Large numbers of soldiers and security forces have been augmented cybernetically and employed in clandestine military operations over the past fifteen years.

While those who were changed in the wake of Y2K were incredibly diverse in appearance, their children tend to form identifiable psuedo-racial groups. The two largest of these are commonly referred to as elves and goblins. In more isolated communities, diversity is the norm.

Shamans pull magical power from willing spirits. Usually this involves calling a spirit to partially possess the shaman and provide some unnatural ability. Shamans can also summon spirits directly, but spirits tend to be less willing participants in such things.

Sorcerers call new spirits into being and typically enslave them. They are effectively one-person religions. They tend to be feared and reviled, but they can be very powerful.

Mages harness pure magic. Through imagination and focus, they bring certain effects into the world. Most mages can only cast a few spells (many can never pull off more than one), and it helps them when their spells have a common theme. Most shamans and sorcerers know at least the basics of magecraft, though few are very good at it.

All the basic elements of Shadowrun: shamanic magic, cyborgs, elves, and cyberpunk - all mixed up in a post-apocalyptic wasteland primed for weirdness and exploration. You can easily run a standard Shadowrun-style mission-based game here, but you can just as easily run a 'dungeon' exploration game, a political game, or something full of spiritual trippiness.

System? Shadowrun would work. I was thinking either that, Mutants and Masterminds (probably starting around PL 6), or a modded version of the old Marvel Supers game (more on that later). Really, though, there are a ton of options.

The tricky thing in this sort of game is the economics of everything. Cybernetics, weaponry, and vehicles tend to need money for improvement. Magic and learned skill tend not to - with two paths to power, you need to give some thought to balancing advancement.

Free Sharable Online Battlemap - from Google

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:17:00 +0000

I think I've mentioned that I've been playing in a D&D game via Skype. In general, it has been working quite well. The biggest frustration has been combat. Without a battlemat, combat in 3.5 is... well... tricky.

We considered a few options. Last game, however, our GM hit upon a great, simple solution: Google Docs.

She set up a spreadsheet in the form of a grid, and she shared it with all the players. We could all edit the sheet simultaneously. We just typed our PCs' names into the appropriate squares and cut and pasted them around as needed. The cell backgrounds are easy to color, and you can even drop in images... or Google Draw pictures that you create within the document.

Should I run a game?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:55:00 +0000

I'm more of a world-builder and game designer than I am a GM. I've certainly run games before, and most of them have been fairly successful, but I get a lot more satisfaction out of creating (or modifying) a setting and planning a game than I do out of actually running it. The social aspects of running a game are fine. I like playing host.

I think part of my issue is a strong belief that the PCs should be the protagonists of the story and at the center of the narrative. If I'm GMing, then I'm going to be pushing that... which, to some degree, means that what I'm doing is playing support. Sure, it is necessary support... but I'd rather be in the starring role. I want to be a player in my own games, yet that way lies madness... and, I am certain, a poor experience for everyone involved.

All this comes from my inkling that I should GM a game. Kenneth, who is running the Dresden Files game I've been playing in, has asked me a couple of times if I'd be interested in running Shadowrun.

Now, I like Shadowrun well enough, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the setting and timeline, so I said that if I ran it, it would be in a somewhat variant/abstracted setting. This idea, of course, took root in my brain and sent out tendrils. I now have an idea for a setting that I can best describe as a post-apocalyptic Shadowrun/Unknown Armies hybrid... with high-tech corporate arcologies separated by wastelands infected by wild animistic/memetic magic. I find the setting compelling, but should I run a game based in it?

Investigation in RPGs

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:37:00 +0000

Right now, the two games that I'm most actively playing in are primarily investigation-based, and this has gotten me to start thinking about the challenges of running an investigation-based RPG.

The trick to running an investigation-based game, I think, is to not make the investigation itself the hard part. The Dresden Files game I'm playing in is a bit guilty of this. In that game, a lot of the challenge comes from trying to figure out what's going on. We investigate clues, and we might get information from them, but that information rarely suggests a clear next step. One of the players has (a couple times) just asked the GM if she could roll her Investigation ability to try and figure out what to do next. This isn't ideal.

How could this be better? New information should usually have an obvious next step attached to it. It doesn't have to come with that information. It doesn't have to be the ideal next step - there might be far better choices available to the PCs... but as a GM, you ought to make it obvious that there are things that PCs can do to advance the plot.

The other game - the Planescape detective agency game I'm playing in - had a great example of not making the investigation the hard part. We were hired by a woman to find out if her husband was cheating on her. Here, the investigation was straightforward. We staked out his place of work and followed him. The tricky part was the decision-making. We were fairly sure that his wife wanted us to fabricate evidence that he was cheating on her (so that she could divorce him). We had to decide whether we were willing to do that (there was a lot of money involved). When we found out that he wasn't cheating on her, but was involved in some other questionable activities, we had to decide what to do with that information and whether we wanted to act on it. This (not the investigation per se) is what made the story compelling.

What I'm Playing Now

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:32:00 +0000

The Dresden Files RPG

We met up with some local(ish) gamers and decided to give the new Dresden Files game a try. I'm the person with the most FATE experience in the group, but I'm not GMing. That's OK. I get to play. It is a low-ish powered game, and I'm playing an aspiring wizard/art student. The game is set in Baltimore, which is the setting fleshed out in the book. It also has the advantage of being local. We're planning a field trip at some point to locations that show up in-game.

So far, the game is fun. There's a bit more reliance on dice-rolling and a bit less in-character roleplaying than I'm used to in this group - but only a bit... and I am wondering how much of that is a matter of people's comfort level. Angela and I didn't know any of the people in the game going into it... and few of them knew each other... but things appear to be working out.

System-wise, I have mixed feelings. I really like a lot of the tweaks to the system that they implemented for DFRPG. On the other hand, there are some places that are vague to the point of being problematic (Thaumaturgy rules - I'm looking at you!). My other big gripe is that the skill list is far too large and has some arbitrary distinctions.

I think that an analysis of the rules will be another post... once I get the hard copy of my books. (I've been using the free-with-preorder PDFs).

The Bridge Company (D&D 3.5, Planescape)

I'm also playing in a game with my old gaming group in Illinois via Skype. I've been a bit wary of this in the past, but I use Skype daily at work now. It seems to be working. The PCs in this game are the employees of a private investigative firm in Sigil. So far, it is a lot of fun. I am playing an Illumian bard/paladin. The character was adopted and had thought himself human (something was surpressing his sigils) until recently. I'm treating bardic music (and spellcasting to some degree) as functions of the Illumian language - which is pretty cool in play.

Other games

Angela started to run a sequel to her long-running D&D campaign, but it has stalled due to scheduling issues. We've also been in two goofy, low-key 1st ed campaigns - one of which has also had some scheduling issues lately... and the other we haven't made it to in several weeks... and will likely end up dropping out of due to schedule conflicts.

Plans

Kenneth (who is running the Dresden Files game) has been pushing for me to run Shadowrun. It is tempting, though I haven't come up with a compelling angle yet. I also recently picked up Mutants and Masterminds, which is my current game-system-crush.

Spells vs. Rituals

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:28:00 +0000

When 4e came around, one of my big criticisms was the ritual system. I mean, I liked the idea of rituals, but the way that they were implemented seemed driven wholly by game balance. It didn't make any sense to me that the vast majority of utility magics cost time and money to use while combat spells were quick and free.

I knew that I wanted both spells and rituals in Destined, and I also knew that I wanted the distinction between them to make sense. My solution was to make rituals into more formal versions of spells. Spells are quick, flexible... and dangerous. Rituals are slow, more static, more reliable, and far more safe.

How are spells dangerous? I'd discussed how to limit magic use here before. I don't think I explained what I settled on. The first thing to note is that to cast a spell very effectively, you need a number of degrees of success which can be used to do things like increase the spell's duration, range, damage, etc. On the flip side, spells have a penalty to their casting roll based on their power level. Spellcasters will be scrounging for bonuses (there are a variety of ways to get these) and will need to manage them wisely. They can get by on casting spells without bonuses, but those spells will tend to be much less effective... and they are far more likely to fail altogether.

When a spellcaster fails a roll to cast a spell, he has a choice: he may accept the negative shifts on his failed roll as a penalty on all his future spellcasting rolls for the day (until he gets at least four hours of sleep) or he can suffer a penalty such as fatigue or damage that is based upon his degree of failure. If the spellcaster just barely fails, then he doesn't suffer either of these problems. Instead, the spell misfires. In general, this means both that the spell has an effect that is slightly less useful than that of a one-success casting and that it has some unintended (and unwanted) side effects. For example, a misfire on a simple Light spell might result in one of the caster's fingers glowing in flashing colors that fade over the course of a few days. If a spell misfire occurs and the GM sees an opportunity for a spectacular spell failure, he may offer the spellcaster a fate point (which the spellcaster can later use for a bonus). If it is accepted, the GM may describe the misfire any way she wishes. In general, established rituals do not misfire. This is one of the benefits of rituals, but it also accounts for their cost.

It is possible for a spell to be cast as if it were a ritual. You could perform a ceremony that ends with a fireball... and no chance of misfire or backlash. There are other costs involved in this, though.

I'm actually really happy with my ritual system. Nonspellcasters can, potentially, learn rituals. In some ways, they can even be better at using rituals than spellcasters (though it is more of an investment for them to learn how to use them in the first place). The primary factor here is that identification and learning rituals depends upon the Lore skill rather than the Spellcasting skill. In addition, many (particularly more powerful) rituals must be performed at auspicious times, and the caster must calculate the next time they will be able to cast it. For a rare and potent ritual, it might be a number of years before it can be next used effectively. If a ritual has an

auspicious time listed, this is the length of time until it can be cast. The caster can attempt

to calculate a sooner time; this, too, is a Lore roll.

Destined sample character: Drilla the Rat

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:40:00 +0000

Here's a sample starting character for Destined and my first draft at a very simple character sheet. Drilla is a bit of a hard character to pigeonhole. She has a bit of magic, but with her low Spellcasting (and noting ameliorating that), she isn't going to be very reliable in using it. She's competent (but not outstanding) in combat. She has a solid base to build on in a variety of directions (though it would be rough trying to make her a socially-competent character). I included the text of her feats and spells for those who might be curious.

Drilla the Rat

High Concept: Rat Shaman

Other Aspects: Uncertain Ancestry ● The rats, my children ● Take care of the street, and it will take care of you ● Stench of the sewers ● Relentless

Skills:

Athletics: 6 ● Combat: 4 ● Persuasion: 1 (First Impressions: -2) ●

Lore: 3 (Streetwise: 4) ● Will: 6 ● Spellcasting: 1

Reflex Defense: 6 ● Toughness Defense: 5 (+2 armor) ● Initiative: 6

Languages: Low Tongue, Gutterspeak, Gobble

Feats:

Display of Prowess (Will)

Choose a skill other than persuasion. When you are attempting to intimidate someone, you may display your prowess with this skill. When you make an intimidation attempt, you may choose to roll this skill. The degrees of success or failure modify your persuasion dice roll.

Danger Sense

In the first round of combat, you gain access to your reflex defense immediately, instead of at the beginning of your turn.

Rat Swarm (Creature Companion)

You have an animal or other creature that is a faithful companion. You share an unusual

rapport with your companion, who could be a pet, mount, or familiar. Your companion is

an NPC that is run by the GM and created by the GM in consultation with you. Your

companion will have an aspect reflecting its loyalty to you, and you may use your fate

points to compel this aspect. Doing so, however, does not give your companion the fate

point.

Spells:

Illuminate – Level 1 (-0) (Basic Spell)

Effect: A glowing light as bright as a torch appears. You control its movements: each light may float anywhere within arms reach or remain stationary.

Duration: 5 minutes (extendable)

Degrees of Success: Increase the number of lights by one (+1). Move the light(s) anywhere within your zone (+1).

Aspects: Light

System: If you need to roll to control the created light – if, for instance, using it in a maneuver – the ability rolled is Will.

Notes: You may use this spell as an attack to impose the consequence Dazzled at a cost of three successes.

Whispers – Level 1 (-0) (Basic Spell)

Effect: You can link yourself to a single target you can see. You hear your target's words as whispers. In addition, you may make your own whispers heard to any target you can see.

Duration: 10 minutes (extendable) or continuous Concentration

Degrees of Success: Link to an additional target (+1 each). Subvocalize your whisper without actually making any noise except at the location of the target (+2).

Target: A creature within line of sight.

System: If you link to a target, the target may banish that link with a simple success on a Will roll.

Rat Form – Level 1 (-2)

Effect: You turn into a giant rat, about 30 lbs in weight. While in rat form, you cannot speak or cast other spells, but you gain some of the rat's physical attributes. When you attack with your bite, you do not count as unarmed.

Duration: five minutes (extendable)

Degrees of Success: You may spend degrees of success on a one-for-one basis to increase your Athletics rating and the damage bonus of your bite.

Aspects: Rat

Target: Self

Rituals:

Animal Servitor

Requirements: Small animal ● Modifiers: -1 Casting ● Time: 30 minutes ● Duration: Eight hours (extendable) ● Type: Nature ● Effect: This ritual binds a small animal (such as a rat or a small bird) to you for use as a messenger or spy. While the binding is in effect, the animal can be used as a conduit for a Whispers spell (assuming the caster can cast one). It will go to a location that the caster designates, provided that it is well-known to the caster. The caster will know when it has arrived, and can then use it both to speak (with the caster's voice) and hear. The animal can carry a small object (like a homing pigeon). The caster can have the animal seek out a specific target when it reaches its destination. The target must be no more than two zones away from the destination and must either have been present at the time of casting or have been indicated at that time (the latter costs 2 successes).

Equipment:

knife (+2)

light armor (+2/0): piecemeal scraps of leather, fur, and canvas

crowbar

waterskin

Destined: What is it?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:54:00 +0000

I'm just about done with the first full draft of the game I've been writing. At this point, it is over 100 pages, although nearly half of that is devoted to things like spells and feats - long lists of things with write-ups.

So, what sort of game have I written? Originally, I set out to create a fantasy version of Spirit of the Century (a Fate based game). Angela and I had used Fate to run a modern fantasy game, and she wanted a D&Desque version so that she could run a fantasy campaign with them. She'd used 3.5 last time, but the prep work was too intense, and she isn't keen on 4e. So, yeah. I told her I'd make her the rules she wanted. Then I thought I'd throw out some of the bits of Fate that neither of us were thrilled with and fuse the Fate and d20 systems. The end result isn't really either. From Fate, I took Aspects and Fate Points. The similarities don't precisely end there, but the feel of the game will be very different.

Some highlights:

The base mechanic is 3d6+skill+modifiers. Despite my love of the d12, the only dice you need are six-siders. People who love Fudge dice and Fate's ladder will be disappointed. OK. If you want to impose the ladder on Destined, it would be trivial to do so.
Six skills: Athletics, Combat, Lore, Persuasion, Will, and (sometimes) Spellcasting, plus the ability to have areas of player-defined strength and/or weakness within those skills.
Really simple, but very flexible character creation.
Power level gauges that reflect character strength without dictating it - useful for judging the appropriate difficulty of encounters for PCs. If you are familiar with Mutants and Masterminds, think in those terms.
A flexible, tactical combat system. It functions a bit like a cross between Spirit of the Century and Mutants and Masterminds... with a some resource allocation thrown in. It doesn't require a battlemat (it uses zones), it doesn't use stress tracks, it expands the idea of consequences (merging it with d20's conditions), and it includes an abstract system for gauging combat advantage. How long do combats take? I still need more data on this, but they seem to take significantly less time than in d20.
I scrapped the idea of a rigid social combat system. I've rarely gotten it to work well in play without it feeling very artificial. The social manipulation system in Destined is designed to have the same functionality without the structure.

So. What am I going to do with this thing?

I'm going to play it.

Monsters as Terrain

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:40:00 +0000

Long ago, I wrote about the problems of fighting big monsters. Part of this came from watching my housemate at the time play through Shadow of the Colossus. In that game, you have to climb giant monsters in order to attack them at their (few) vulnerable points.

D&D, with its recent emphasis on a two-dimensional grid, has a huge problem accounting for these sorts of tactics. Instead, it seems to assume that you are always attacking giants in their shins. Or something.

In Destined, I think I've figured out a way to handle this. In general, I'm using the zone system that is found in FATE. Basically, a zone is a roughly-room-sized area. Normally, you can attack anything in your zone in melee combat. Ranged weapons can usually attack things a couple of zones away (depending on the weapon type). The borders between zones may or may not be difficult to cross. If two zones are connected by an open door, there's no problem (unless someone is blocking it). If there is a wall between the two zones, however, there's a difficulty that must be overcome to cross it in combat.

So, what I'm doing is giving big monsters their own zones. I'm still working out how, exactly, this will work, but the basics are simple. That giant? His back is a zone. It is non-trivial to get onto this zone, but if you do, the giant might be limited in how he can attack you. Maybe the giant's armor is weaker there, too...

Orcjournal.com

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:00 +0000

Orcs have lousy memories.

No. That's not right.

Orcs have superb memories that retain far more detail than that of the average human. If you ask an orc about his breakfast, he's likely to be able to tell you how many bites it took him to eat it.

That's assuming he didn't take a nap in the meantime.

For orcs, sleep works as a memory diffuser. It works gradually. An orc will remember yesterday about as well as a human. A couple of days before that will be fuzzy. Anything before the last week is a blur.

Unfortunately for orcs, this has made them prized as slaves - for both labor and warfare. After the first week of slavery, they barely remember another life.

Reminders help, though. Stories. Visual cues. Notes. They'll dig up old memories (or at least memories of old memories) that the orc can't normally access. This is why so many orcs get tattooed. If there is something that they want to remember, they mark themselves with it. When they see the tattoo, the memory comes back to them.

This is also why orcs, at least the literate ones, keep diaries.

Destined: Too Many Spells?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:22:00 +0000

My working title for my FATE/d20 mashup ruleset is Destined. Why? Obviously because it's derived from FATE and it has two Ds in it.

My current game design conundrum, like my last one, focuses upon the nature of the magic system. I have a few options:

A ton of spells of various power levels. This is the D&D option.
A few spells, most of which are available to beginning characters, but:

would have more powerful/customizable effects depending on the result of your spellcasting roll (more powerful characters will tend to do better on this...)
include explicit support for customizing/skinning spells (the Bolt spell could be a Fire Bolt or an Ice Bolt or a Force Bolt... and each of these would function slightly differently.)
include feats that give extra options to basic spells (the Necromancer feat might let you use Charm to affect undead)
include rituals (already part of the system, though often used as plot devices) that give new options to the spells you have (a ritual might allow you to prepare an object so that when you cast a spell like Mage Hand that doesn't normally allow fine manipulation you can effectively animate that object).
Some combination of (a) - (d)

I was originally looking a (1)... with some of (d) added on. The more I thought about it, the more I'm tempted to go with (2)+(a) - (d)... or at least (b) - (d)... though (a) seems like a good idea for the inclusion of divine magic.

Some people like to play wizardy types because they want to manage the spells. I suspect that just as many people (at least) avoid playing wizardy types for the same reason. If I just had a few basic spells and the system was designed so that you could effectively play a wizard with just those... but you had the option of tweaking a few dials... that might be ideal.

What do you think? What sort of spell lists do you like to see in games?

Haiti: How To Help

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:13:00 +0000

I know that I'm not the only one who has watched the devastation in Haiti, shellshocked... and not knowing what to do. My current financial situation hasn't really allowed me to make the donations that I'd like to make.

What I can do, however, is encourage others to help. If you are still looking for a way to do something, Drive Thru RPGs is matching donations to Doctors Without Borders. They are also offering a huge PDF bundle for $20. 100% of the proceeds from the sale of this bundle will go to relief efforts through Doctors Without Borders.

I'm proud to have contributed to a couple of the titles in the bundle. There are a ton of things in there - including full RPGs (Serenity, Roma Imperious, QAGS, Shambles, Seven Leagues), supplements full of additional material for several systems, adventures, setting material, maps, and more. It is advertised as being over $1000 worth of material, but it is important to realize that a lot of these PDFs are very inexpensive to begin with... Check it out.

Limits on Magic Use

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:07:00 +0000

As I may have mentioned, I've been working on a FATE-inspired, d20-informed gaming system. I'm designing it with D&D-style fantasy (loosely speaking) in mind. One of the problems that I'm running up against is that spellcasting is open to abuse.

In the system I'm designing, spellcasting is a skill. It effectively gives you the the ability to use rituals and some cantrip-like effects. When you cast a spell, you roll your skill. The margin of success or failure may make a difference - degrees of success can usually be spent, after the roll, on things like duration. You can buy additional sets of spells as feats. For instance (and I'm making this up as I go along), the feat Fire Magic I might let you use spellcasting to attack a single individual (and maybe a small area) with fire, protect yourself (and maybe others) from fire, start fires, and cause fires to flare up/die down.

I don't want to use a Vancian fire&forget system or import a spell point system. What I do want is something that will keep a spellcaster from casting the same spell over and over again. In combat, it might be nice for the fire mage to occasionally do something other than attack someone with fire, but that isn't my primary concern. I'm more worried about down time. Consider the fire mage who wants to protect himself from fire. What can be done to prevent him from rolling his spellcasting until he gets an incredibly good result?

Currently, I'm considering three options:

Diminishing returns: If you cast a spell with a duration, any subsequent uses of that spell on the same target are made with a cumulative penalty. I'd have to play with the notion of duration here, since some spells that I'd want to include in this - like healing spells - are usually considered instantaneous.
Extra cost: If you cast the same spell twice in a row, the second use costs a Fate Point (a fairly valuable meta-resource). The problem here is what "twice in a row" means. I don't want the healer to heal someone, shoot a fireball into the air, and heal that person again. That's silly.
Fatigue/health cost: I'm generally not a fan of this, but the system I'm working with allows for some flexibility in interpreting damage. It will probably be an option for failed spells... and, coupled with option 1, that might be a significant deterrent.

Any other ideas?

Playing a Cleric: Prayers

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:19:00 +0000

I have a tendency to play PCs with religious backgrounds. Playing "the cleric" is a challenge, you are playing against expectations. Other players may expect you to be a healing machine. Your GM may impose expectations from a church - or even a god. If you want to develop a multidimensional character with its own identity, you need to develop a strong concept. It also helps to have some pre-packaged ways of meeting the expectations of others.

Game mechanics can help with the "healing machine" expectations. Newer editions of D&D have spontaneous/at-will healing mechanics. These allow you to develop your character in your own direction while still being capable of meeting the needs of the other PCs.

In terms of meeting the GM's expectations, it is often a good idea to have a talk beforehand about church structure and your PC's role within it. The other thing that can help is to prepare prayers beforehand. Using snippets of prayer can help tie your character into a religious tradition. Just as importantly, the prayer bits you choose can help define your character (and guide the GM in terms of further development of the church).

So, where do you come up with bits of prayer? You can pull things from real religious traditions. If you want to do this, I'd recommend World Prayers. Personally, though, this makes me vaguely uncomfortable. First, I don't want to risk appropriating someone's real-world prayer for a fantasy game. Second, real religious traditions are generally based on faith. In a fantasy world in which priests have direct access to their gods, religions are not faith-based. The sorts of prayers used should reflect that.

So... where would I go to get prayers?

Song lyrics.

They generally need some adaptation, but they can be a great resource. I recommend looking to musical genres including folk, traditional, goth, and power ballads. Keyword searches can also be useful.

Need an example?

Angela is thinking about running a follow-up to her long-running D&D game in which I played a dwarven chef. One of the NPC-types in that game was Mitra. Thousands of years ago, Mitra had been an archmage who set out to save the world from a deluge. He succeeded in his task, but - in the process - accidentally killed a sun god and was cursed with pseudo-vampirism. He became a demigod in the process, but didn't really want to admit that to himself. Unfortunately, the flood that Mitra stopped was necessary to cleanse the world, and without it poison was slowly killing everything. The sun god had also functioned as a tether to the Elemental Plane of Water - without which the world was messed up in a planar sense. We mostly dealt with Mitra followers, but the climax of the game involved us convincing him to undo what he had done by rebuilding a tether to the water plane and raising a power to take the place of the sun god he'd killed.

In the new game that Angela will run (which will take place a couple of hundred years later), I'm thinking of playing a cultist of Mitra. I was brainstorming about what a cult of Mitra would be like. I came up with some phrases in praise of Mitra, like "He brings light from the darkness," and such. Brainstorming, I thought that he'd be associated with darkness, light, and floods. Maybe one of his titles could be The Torchbearer.

This led to me thinking of the Sisters of Mercy song, The Torch (from the album Floodland). Lyrics like

Would he walk upon the water
If he couldn't walk away?
And would you
Would you carry the torch for me?

...could be easily adapted. Prayer snippets could include things like, "When you walk across the water, O Mitra, would you bear the torch so that I may see?" Looking at other songs on the album, I see lyrics that can be tweaked to things like "A million voices called out your name, Mitra, as the waters came rushing in. And you answered them, saying 'No harm will come your way,'" and "In the light of the night, in the dark of the day, I close my eyes and I look your way. I meet the fear that lies inside, and I hear you say, 'It is mine.'"

That's off of a single album by a single artist.

The added bonus is when other players around the table recognize (or don't quite recognize) the source of your PC's prayers.

Rules Hacking: Combat, Reach, Facing, and Areas of Control

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:58:00 +0000

I've been working on my FATE-inspired fantasy rules project, and got to thinking about combat yesterday. The ideas I was having were a bit too crunchy for my current project, but they should work as a tweak to d20-based games, 4e, or other games that use a similar minis set-up.

The basic idea is that everyone has an Area of Control (AoC). This replaces reach, attacks of opportunity/opportunity attacks, flanking, and a few other things. The basic AoC looks like this:

The space taken up by the creature (G) is green. The AoC is blue.

G gets a free attack on anyone moving out of a blue square.
A melee attack on G from anywhere outside of a blue square is at +1. An adjacent attack on G from anywhere outside of a blue square is at +2. This replaces flanking.
Reach weapons change a characters AoC dramatically. A longspear, for instance, might give a character an AoC like this:

A character can change the orientation of their AoC on their initiative.
A flat-footed character has no AoC.
Large+ creatures can have uniquely shaped AoC (and take up non-square spaces) to reflect their physiology and abilities.
Feat ideas:
- Most feats building off of flanking, reach, etc. will have obvious correlates.
- Allow a character to change the orientation of their AoC as an immediate action in response to a successful attack.
- Allow a flatfooted character to have an AoC of one adjacent 5' square.
- Allow a character to treat one extra square adjacent to them as part of their AoC.