The Effect of Charts on Imagination

AI Art by @nightcafestudio

Over-reliance on random charts is the current fad-de-jour in pen-and-paper game design, and worse, it harms our imaginations. This can also extend to in-game systems, combat charts, crit charts, and over-reliance on chained dice rolls to determine special effects.

I recently had two experiences with this: my Road War game using the Cypher System rules. My cinematic, dramatic vehicle combat in Cypher felt much better than trying to "sim" everything using a vehicle combat system like Car Wars. I did not need that level of detail, and the results I got using Cypher System felt more realistic and engaging than "boiling down" and using a full-vehicle combat game.

And I got a result that, for a story-based game, felt right, fit into my story narrative better, and did not take four hours to conclude.

The second was my consideration of running a "hard sci-fi" game using the same rules but using the gear, ships, and overall feeling of the Cepheus Deluxe setting (an excellent game on its own). The feeling of "just use Cepheus Deluxe" was strong in this project. The breaking point was ship combat. Would I use the Cepheus ruleset or abstract it with Cypher System and use a variant of my Road War rules (cars as monsters with weapons)?

The Cepheus Engine ship combat system looks fun, with charts and tables for particular damage results that seem like out of a starship combat simulator. It is tightly integrated into the game's engine, which is nice, but the number of rolls and tables you need to work through seems daunting. The ship combats also seem complex, with one taking some time to simulate through and ensure all the rolls are done correctly to get the best results.

But to what result?

AI Art by @nightcafestudio

In Road War, I proved my imagination was better than any chart, and I had some great results in determining what happens on damage rolls, critical hits, and critical failures that made the entire game feel more like "Mad Max" than a complete vehicle combat sim could ever give me. If I applied the same logic and procedure to a "hard sci-fi" game, I bet I could come up with some memorable moments far better than any set of charts could give me. Some moments and things in my mind make space combat "hard sci-fi" - far better than any chart in any game.

I can do better with a generic system and a few guidelines.

So why do I need the charts and rules?

Random charts and detailed systems are excellent when you have no clue or need inspiration. But relying too much on them or creating monolithic "game systems" based on random charts feels wrong. Mainly when I had limited time, and I had played "chart games" before that went nowhere, with me rolling on random charts, getting results that did not excite my mind, and then rolling again and again, each time getting less and less excited about the following result.

Yes, rolling through a Cepheus Engine ship combat chart and "playing that game" would be fun as a "sim." But I must answer, "Is that what I want to do for my game?"

This is a tricky question. For those that don't have a massive frame of reference for what can happen in a "hard sci-fi" game and those who want to be surprised by chart results, the complete systems and charts can be a great experience. They take time and an understanding of the rules and leverage the game's design systems to create better fighting machines.

For those who want to tell a story, the detailed and complete combat systems and books full of charts will likely be a hindrance and drag on the game. I can get many of those "oh crap" moments in Cypher System with GM Intrusions, and the critical hit system works well to turn that around in the players' favor. Do I give up being surprised by a chart result? That is one weakness to 100% using your imagination, in that there will be things you will not think of on a chart.

But on the flip side, there are millions of things in my head that can happen, and one chart could never hold them all.