Showing posts with label today's games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label today's games. Show all posts

Friday, January 1, 2016

Your 15 Minutes of Adventure Are Up

D&D 3E introduced us to this wonderful concept of the 15-minute adventuring day. It goes something like this:
"Hey guys, I used all my spells in that last encounter. Let's go back to town and rest."
Now, this existed before 3E to be fair, and this issue has really been seen more with D&D than other role playing games. Part of the problem is D&D itself, adventures are designed around a series of encounters with CRs that are supposed to balance play and use up resources at a predictable rate. This does not always work, and I feel CR misleads us in a number of ways:
  • Randomness leads to greater or lesser resource usage
  • The CR system is too simplistic to deal with the complexity of the game's classes and powers
  • Players don't care about balanced fights and "burn down" every encounter
The first one is interesting, and yes, a series of bad rolls will double or use up your entire excursion's resources (spells, potions, powers) and you are stuck. Since the rest of the encounters in the dungeon were carefully balanced around you having some resources to deal with it, it's game over man, time to bug out. One encounter drops your party resources to zero, and if this is a "one time only" dungeon with an objective (like most should be), you have lost. That's it. Bad dice have let the bad guy get away with the princess, and that's the knocks of a story-based game.

Yes, the d20 with its wide variance is partially to blame here, it isn't the best die to use if you want a strong average, but with D&D it's what we got.

Another side note. D&D 4E tried to solve this problem with at-wills and encounter powers. the designers of D&D 4 were trying to solve a lot of problems, and this one they did a pretty good job at (tactical miniatures wise, not role playing wise). They introduced the concept of regenerating powers and healing surges, and that kept the party going into the next part of the story. For story-gaming, D&D 4 had a lot of nice improvements over D&D 1-3 and D&D 5. Mind you, the design of D&D 4 did not lend itself to roleplaying all that well, but as a tactical miniatures game where you played stories, it was interesting (counting the first 3 books or so before everything started going to the lower planes).

The second point is also interesting. In some ways I feel the CR system is overly simplistic and it does not take a lot of factors into account. One the other side, if it did the CR calculation system would be something as complex as calculus to figure out encounter balance. With Pathfinder, I have seen reports that modules designed against earlier versions of the game are now too easy with the power creep introduced in later books, and that encounters need to be toughened up to be a challenge again. Old CR does not equal the new CR, and the rating slips as time goes on.

Burn downs. This I have been waiting to talk about, because every player coming from an MMO knows about this one, and this is how most videogames train players nowadays. When you are in a MMO, in each encounter you 100% burn down all your powers and abilities in order to beat it. It does not matter if it is a hall fight or a boss fight, you keep pressing every button, keep hitting every power as its timer comes up, and maximize your damage output to 100% in every fight. In the old Everquest, this wasn't the case and you had to practice careful resource management through a zone. Past that, most modern MMOs make you burn down as fast as possible in order to get through a fight.

The reason? It's flashy! It's more exciting! It solves players from complaining the dungeon is too hard and filling up your customer service system with too many tickets.

So many videogame and MMO players are trained to burn down.

Now, many players get it when they begin playing pen-and-paper. They get the careful resource management game. The games fight this though, and try to make things easier on players by giving them infinite-use attack cantrips (D&D 5), or multi-shot built-in class attack powers (Pathfinder). D&D 4 had infinite-use at-will powers and auto-recharging encounter powers. Even 3E had a plethora of multi-use wands, scrolls, and other items that let you blast away with rechargable wands of magic missiles and fireball staffs. You see the burn-down starting to creep back in.

Player power has increased dramatically over the last 15 years of D&D to keep up with the MMO arms and expectation race.

Personally? I find burn downs boring and resource management more compelling. I like story-based play (a separate topic entirely), but I appreciate games that force you to make hard choices.

In old-school gaming like Basic Fantasy or Labyrinth Lord, giving a magic user infinite ranged attack cantrips would be unthinkable. Today, shooty and flashy are the new thing and the new norms. In the past, you didn't doll up with magic items and carry around enough rechargable magic items to blow through days of content. If your DM was stingy, you pulled the "go back to town" thing. If he wasn't, you loaded up for bear with enough magic to blow a hole in the side of White Plume Mountain.

In older editions of D&D and today's OGR games, the magic item economy is sparse, and you don't get into it as much. A wand of magic missiles is rare and special. A +1 sword is Excalibur. You survive on your wits and a player's ability to coax room descriptions out of the DM's head to avoid the trap of doom in the next room. Then again, the story in old-school games was a lot like today's 'sandbox" games. Do you survive? What do you do? Old-school games focused on the stories of the characters in that personal survival story, and not the DM's or module writer's story.

I blame Vampire: The Masquerade back in AD&D 2E days for this "module as story" stuff really. Vampire showed us a wonderful roleplaying game focused on personal stories, and AD&D had to follow suite and try to make dungeoning "story gaming" as well. Vampire did story gaming elegantly. AD&D had a lot more trouble making that leap because of the abstraction and resource management, and that theme of "story dungeoning" has stayed with us ever since, even across 3E's magic-card-if-i-cation of the rules.

So this pesky resource management game is getting in the way of completing tonight's story dungeon! Let's punt, take a mulligan, and head back to town to ignore this archaic D&D resource management system and continue on, shall we? If you are going to be in any way realistic about this dungeon master and reset the encounters, make us roll for wilderness encounters, or make us 'lose' the story for taking a break in the middle, then I guess you are a horrible dungeon master who hates well-told stories and famous module designers, right?

I am being sarcastic, but I have had those feelings come up at my table before so they are there.

There is an internal struggle here that I feel D&D has never gotten over. There is a simulation side to old-school D&D with the resource game, and if you have never played an old-school game, I recommend you do to see what I am talking about. It is a different game. Health does not auto-recharge. What you take in is it for possibly 100 rooms. The game is simple and deadly. Characters die frequently. You struggle. There is a mental game going on where you pry descriptions out of the DM, be clever, avoid fights, and survive.

3E and Pathfinder? Stuck in the middle of storytelling and resource management. Deck-building RPGs at heart.

4E and D&D 5E? Storytelling games at their heart and trying hard to shed old-school D&D's resource management game. Heavily MMO-influenced with recharging and infinite-use powers, with D&D 4 being the more MMO game, but D&D 5 shooting for the feel of 2E's story-dungeoning feel.

None of them are bad, and players love each for different reasons. This is not an argument one is better than another. You play what you love. But, you need to understand what each one brings, and where the conflicts are. If I ran D&D 5, I would go for more story than resource management, because that's what that game does best. I would adjust the story if players felt their party needed to take five, and advance the story in a logical way that reflects them having to take a breather. The show would go on. There wouldn't be a 15-minute adventuring day because the story reacts.

In old-school games? Yes, you can bet I would come down like a ton of bricks on a party that wasted its resources in wasteful burn-downs and had to retreat to town. Old school games are the Old Testament of resource management sims. Roll for wilderness encounters to and from the dungeon. Roll for wandering monsters all the way down to the point you left off. The dungeon's residents react and adapt to the last incursion, setting up traps, moving to rooms deeper (or to ones you thought you cleared), clearing out, or calling for reinforcements. You take a 15-minute day, and I will make you regret it for the next 15 days, but that is the old-school dungeon master's job.

The trouble comes when the game's designers try to please everybody, and tell you that the game is good for all types of play. It's cool marketing speak, but it isn't true. Some games do things better than others, and that's okay. Another problem arises when the game's designers put in systems geared to resource management when the game shines in story-based play. I can't blame them, the marketers said 'make it appeal to everybody' so sometimes you get systems in games better ignored than used. It happens, and game design isn't a perfect science.

Know what you like. Know what your players like. Most importantly, know what you expect from a game, and how a game shapes that experience.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Adventurers and Only Adventuers

DarkgarX and I had a discussion and it started like this:

"It is funny how some superhero RPGs assume that the X-Men and the Avengers have the same motivations...."

Now with the old Marvel Superheroes RPG, it had this feeling, at least for us. Now, what is this feeling. I can sum it up by saying that this happens when a roleplaying game automatically puts you into a "default role" based on the fact you are a hero.

You see this with D&D and also Pathfinder, you are some sort of treasure hunter or other "adventurer" class that goes out and loots and kills for experience and profit. In most other games, these people would be called bandits, but I digress, the game has a feeling it puts you into a role just based on the fact you are playing it.

Factions and the world story are secondary, and these games typically don't want to put you in a specific world role because of their generic-fantasy roots, or it is just easier to assume by default those generated in the system belong to this generic adventurer class.

Traveller had the same feeling for us, that the game mustered you out of whatever service the tables put you in, gave you a starship, and said, "Go forth and adventure, space citizen!" And that is typically where our Traveller games ended because space is a huge place. I know it is up to the group to decide what they want the players to do, if they all still work for the scout service or whatever, but the game provides little direction to do so, and we were young, so we wondered what the point all was. Today, yes, we know more and can handle a universe-sized sandbox, but as kids, no, we weren't prepared.

Contrast this with Dragon Age, or even the Pirates of Legend games. In a setting-specific RPG, you have factions ready to join and be a part of, and those factions have missions ready and waiting. I would even put games like Gangbusters (more so) and Star Frontiers (less so) in this category, since those games have built-in worlds and factions a player can jump right into and get going.

Dragon Age is an interesting game, since it pulls so heavily from the lore of this world, and there are many factions to join up with or play against. It is a wonderful world, and very rich in detail and backgrounds, and I will say the world almost feels Star Wars: The Old Republic like in the factions and history. I would have wished Wizards did as good of a job with Faerun, but it often feels Wizards doesn't focus as much on lore and characters as they should. I feel there is always this invisible stalker hovering over Wizards and to some extent Paizo when it comes to lorebooks concerning powerful NPCs, and the tired trope that powerful NPCs make the world unfun. The D&D 4th Edition worldbooks were almost devoid of any personalities or powerful figures, and they felt sterile and useless for our group as a result.

Exactly the opposite feels true for me and my players, powerful NPCs make the world interesting and compelling. Give us a world full of great good guys and bad guys, and we will have adventures in it all day. What is Lord of the Rings without Gandalf?

Dragon Age also has a "goals and ties" system that attempts to give the players a reason to band together, so the default assumption of the adventurer class is still present in the game. They also have a fun-looking "player organizations" system that lets players create factions and run them, so there looks to be thought put into a sandbox-style game and crafting motivations within it beyond the 'kill for loot and XP" motivation of other games.

But back to the original thought. The adventurer class and the default roles of the hero. I find this to be a little less common in generic RPGs (such as GURPS, Legend, and others), since there is literally nothing else to do, so you need to come up with the factions yourself. You need to start by saying "let's spin up a party of ghost hunters" and use the rules to make that happen. With the D&D style games, you can get away with "let's spin up a hero and wait for the DM" sort of generic adventurer role, and things still can work.

I don't think it is a strength, in fact, I think this is one of the things that turns me off to the current incantations of D&D and Pathfinder, the assumed lack of a world and a faction. It isn't the game's fault, of course, because they are toolboxes, but there is something strangely un-generic about these traditional high-fantasy games that feels different than an entirely generic game.

Yes, you can make your own world, and make your own factions, and more power to you if you do. But you can get away without doing it and still have it work. With other generic games, creating a "generic hero" without knowing why is often a recipe for disaster. Fantasy does tend to be simpler in its motivations, so you can get away with designing to fill a role (tank, healer, DPS) and fit right in to any story by "wanting to help out."

It is interesting to compare this to a generic fantasy game such as Legend. With Legend, if you spin up a character, there feels like there is little or nothing to do without a story happening or factions in some sort of game world to motivate players to a call to action. Referee input is needed in order to get going. With the D&D variants, it somehow feels different, like you can start playing without a story and a faction and be fine. You could happily adventure for adventure's sake, and begin leveling up and gathering loot. This admittedly is a strength of the system, since the motivation for leveling is strong and built-in.

It also feels like a weakness of these systems, because by default there is no need for a strong motivation. It is the same "get in and level your guy" sort of motivation MMOs have, where you disconnect yourself from any care about the story or quest text, and play for getting to the next level. I suppose this is a legacy of "XP for monsters" and the hack-and-slash nature of that reward system. It is also interesting to note that if you remove the "XP for monsters" part of D&D and only award story XP for achieving goals, the motivation to level without background decreases a bit. You would still go out to get loot, but killing for XP is now not an option and players are pushed more towards story and not random violence for XP.

Motivations are fascinating things, and the reward systems in games can be setup to reward players who do setting-supporting activities (like Gangbusters). Other games try to walk a middle ground and support generic motivations, like D&D, but this also creates a paradox where you can advance by not supporting a faction or playing through a story. It is an interesting "not choice" for the game, and given a lack of a specific game world with specific story lines and factions, can create a generic adventurer class whose sole motivation is to level.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Car War Basic: Reissued!

It continues to be an amazing year as Steve Jackson Game re-releases the original Car Wars Classic Board Game game!

This one appears to have die-cut counters instead of the old flimsy "sneeze and die" paper-cut ones. Nice touch. And four dice in the box too, very nice.

This is also the basic version of the game, before Deluxe Car Wars or the Car Wars Compendium added so much the game became unrecognizable. This is just the basic game with a couple cars, a couple weapons, and a lot of tactical fun.

This game is a lot of fun, and by the reviews on Amazon, a new generation is discovering this gem. It may not be the fastest game around, but it is solid and it brings back many Mad Max style memories and good times.

Thank you to a great company for reissuing this classic game, and please check it out for some very cool and fun tactical car combat. This is one of the greats, and it is great to see it back.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

The Casual Pen-and-Paper Gamer

This is the new battleground. The casual pen-and-paper gamer.

They are by definition exclusively new players too, drawn in from the world of video games, MMOs, cell phone games, Youtube, tablets, and other places. Forget the hardcore - they are already playing and bought-in, the profits and future customers of the roleplaying depend on new players.

Every industry chases 'the new player' and you even see legacy MMOs in decline trying to reinvent themselves to attract a new player base. This is where World of Warcraft is right now, a declining (but mature) hobby struggling to reinvent itself for that large group of casual players out there with little time to invest and who frankly aren't sold on the idea of logging to a faction grind in every day.

World of Warcraft's problem is essentially Zynga's with Farmville and Mafia Wars - how do you make a game interesting to play when it is essentially a game of "who gets bigger numbers?" Granted in each those 'numbers' turn out to be little pieces of gear, new critters for the farm, or a bigger number to bonk other players over the head with - but they are numbers hidden by 3d graphics, achievements, pets, or other virtual representations. Sometimes they are just numbers, like stamina or the endless faction reputation values in WoW.

Numbers are not cool.

Social, right? Our game is a social experience! World of Warcraft was like that for a while, you played because that's where everybody else was, but social is never a reason to play something when no one is playing, it's fire without fuel. Social can amplify a game's popularity, but you can't sell people on social in a barren desert. Unless you are Las Vegas, but that's only been done once.

So the casual player, that incredibly large mass of players out there with nothing else better to do than wait to play your game. Right? You have to answer the question, why should they? D&D 5, Pathfinder Beginner Box, or Five Moons, why play? What makes this as 'pick up and play' as the next Angry Birds? What makes this game so cool I will sit and watch people play it endlessly on Youtube? Look at your game. Is it really that casual? Is it really that fun? What screams at people and engages them? What makes this game so fun that you have to play it, or even watch people play it?

If your answer is "we have better numbers" you are not thinking it right.

There is a question, how many casuals pen-and-paper gamers are out there? While I love Pathfinder or even D&D 5 I know plenty of people that play casual games who's eyes would water just looking at the books and dismiss them as 'not for them'. Of course the hard-core players love these games, and we system wars ourselves to incredible lengths over them - that's just who we are. But those casuals. Who are they? What are they doing now? How do you entice them?

How do you get them to say, "This is cool! I wanna be doing this!"

Or most importantly, "I want to be seen doing this."

Friday, May 17, 2013

Design Room: Eberron

Welcome back to another edition of Design Room, not really a review of a number of gaming books, but more of an in-depth look into the game design aspects around a series of books and the implications on game play. For reviews, I shall steer you to other sources, like Amazon, we are interested primarily here in game design, theory, and impact on referees and players. Today we look at one of the biggies in a retrospective, D&D's Eberron game world.

It is important to note that Eberron is still the setting of games like D&D Online, but it doesn't seem to be getting any D&D Next love as of yet. It had a number of 4E supplements, which we will get into, but the fate and status of the world is very much up in the air right now. It is not a good thing, Wizards has far too many worlds to support for the company's focus, and it leads to none of them being supported all that well. Let's start with the D&D 3E Eberron Campaign Setting as the starting point for our delve into the world of Eberron. Mind you, this is not a complete review, nor can we cover everything, we will be hitting some high-level stuff, and reflecting upon the world and game design implications and consequences of these choices.

3E Origins

Eberron started out as a contest-winner in the D&D3 days of a 'create a new D&D game world' contest Wizards put on in the waning days of D&D3. Why they did this is strange, they already had a number of incredibly well designed game worlds, including Faerun, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and the shelved worlds of Mystara and Birthright. One thing you need to remember was this was the heady days of the beginnings of a number of modern MMOs, and the bug one at the time was World of Warcraft. Perhaps Eberron was the first step to making D&D relevant to that crowd, a fantasy world with steampunk elements with an over-the-top look sounds a lot like...World of Warcraft to me. If true, this makes Eberron the first D&D4 product released, a change in tone from what came before, and also a clear statement of change in the direction of the product.

Eberron is very much one of those worlds that never really had a place. Faerun was the home of the big-money fiction, and Greyhawk was the official setting of D&D3. This seems to harken back to the old TSR's habit of creating too many game worlds to support, and D&D3 always had this multiple-personality complex where the main books were heavily Greyhawk-centric, and the other worlds were' oh yeah, them too' add-ons. Eberron seemed the least-liked child, but it was definitely the most unique and cool. A smart choice would have been to keep all the Greyhawk stuff out of the main three books, and support all worlds equally. You shall see this 'what world do we support?' question come up later, so keep this in mind.

3E Theme: Factions and Kingdoms

The MMO elements are clearly here, a number of strongly rethought races with motivations and a unique flavor, a ton of internal orders and organizations which fight and shift alliances, and a number of pseudo-governments that serve as the backdrop to the larger conflicts. It is important to note that point, the governments of Eberron are backdrops, thematically, they aren't as important to the world as the major players, the Dragonmark Houses being the largest and best defined, followed by all the local factions unique to each kingdom. Again, this is like your typical MMO, and again World of Warcraft. While major nations can fight and even the players can take part, for the most part, the big stories are with the organizations that control the world, and most of these reside between and even above the governments. The kingdoms are 'zones' and the interesting action happens across them.

There is a balance between governments and power groups in the campaign guide which is interesting. The government is given one section, and all the power groups their own following. This is done for every major area of the world. This tells you two things. The first is that unlike other game worlds, the big players are the power groups - they are clearly given more weight than the governments. While a power group may be itself the government, this is not supposed to be a forever thing, different groups can get the upper hand and control the government. It is a fluid and dynamic situation that is clearly different than any previously published D&D game world. The second is that this is a game about these groups and all the plots between them, again, the governments are supposed to take a back seat to the games these groups play.

Again, you can find a mirror in World of Warcraft, with groups like the Cenarion Circle, Order of the Silver Hand, the Guardians of Hyjal, Hellscream's Orcs, and all the other classic WoW factions. Orgrimmar is a kingdom, yes, and it has a government and background all its own - but who controls it on any given day can shift and change depending on what is currently going on between all the background groups that are fighting over it, playing politics, and running plots. Eberron is the same way, and it is important to understand. Friends characters make in one kingdom may or may not be there when they come back, and their political situation may have changed dramatically as well depending on the current stature of things.

Contrast this with other D&D game worlds, where nothing much changes. In Faerun we get the stereotyped belief of, 'Oh I can always go to kingdom X and contact NPC Y for help, they are always good, and enshrined here by the fiction.' In Greyhawk, the same can be said, although it is typically, 'Oh, Kingdom X is lawful good, that is a safe place and they can help.' In Eberron, nothing is guaranteed, and if the players want change, they will need to get out there and do the leg work to support the factions on their side. Note this point, this is clearly the #1 most important thing about Eberron and why it is different than any other world that came before - or after.

World Design In 3E: The Wow Factor

Another clear point of differentiation between Eberron and any other world is the 'WOW' factor. Throughout the original 3E Eberron book, a series of incredible art pieces lays out the world. Cities aren't boring concentric castles surrounded by urban sprawl and squalor; they are grand matte paintings of towers built on top of spires of rock, floating castles, cities built in alien ruins, and a whole imaginative smattering of out-there ideas.

It is perfectly normal in Eberron to have cities built in underwater domes, in the middle of volcanoes, built on the underside of floating mountains in the sky, on crawling robots made out of stone, floating on rivrs of magical ley lines, warping in and out of reality, or anything else you can imagine. Similarly, temples, ruins, fortresses, and any other adventure locale can be just as way out there and cool, and in fact - it is expected. We can go as far as placing monsters and magic items under the cool umbrella as well - these need to be unique, fun, different, and engaging. If it is not cool and unexpected - it is not normal. This is major point #2 about the world, note this.

One of the cardinal rules of Eberron goes like this, "If it is in D&D - it has a place in Eberron." Note that for some things in D&D, like the Drow, they get pushed to the side in this world, they are clearly not as important as they are in either Faerun or Greyhawk. This brings in a lot of material, for good and bad. On the bad side, it is a very chaotic world, with a lot of stuff going on at once, and a lot for the DM to grasp. The 3E Eberron book does a lot to sort this out, and attempts to give everything its own spot so you don't have too much going on at once.

The good part is that this opens up the door for unlimited creativity for the DM. "In D&D" covers a lot of ground, any book Wizards put out, anything from other D&D game worlds, D&D Modern and Future stuff, anything from third-party publishers - anything. You can literally beg, borrow, and steal any idea out there and put it in your game world. This is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Eberron is uniquely situated to be the "game world to end all game worlds" and is written to be that way.

3E: Magic in the World

The magic in Eberron is uniquely designed. Low-level magic is so common it is ubiquitous, everyone has it, and magic is a part of everyone's daily life. A farmer could have a magical self-powered cart to haul hay, magical robots to tend crops, a magical hot-water tap, and all sort of other pseudo-conveniences taken from the modern world, fiction, or any other source the DM can imagine. High-level magic is ultra-rare, even more so than other D&D worlds. You simply don't have a thousand wizards living in the world that can cast the wish spell willy-nilly. You don't have high-level interventionist NPC spell-casters shaping the world with magic. High-level magic has been pushed back, is rare as Hades, and is a special thing again. Resurrections don't happen every day, bucko.

This is another interesting point, and a fun design element. The factions of the world are left duking it out with lower-level spells, casters, and powers. They can't simply scry or cast their way to victory, they have to put boots on the ground to get what they want. This is a good thing, and it keeps the world interesting. See that group of enemy soldiers? They may have a low-level caster or two with them, but they were sent here by that faction that does not get along with you, and they really want to recover that high-level magic artifact before you do. Oh yes, shades of Indiana Jones are back, and they are groups in the world that want those items of power more than you do, and are willing to use force to get them. Cue the music, we need to get in and out fast, Indy.

Having high-level magic reduced also makes high-level PCs more powerful and special, and they are now major players in the world rather than 'one in a million high level NPCs.' This also puts PCs at a distinct disadvantage, once you think about it. All these lesser powered factions will start to notice high-level characters in the world, and the pressure on them will increase. Having a high-level PC allied with an opposing faction may cause another faction to try to eliminate the high-level PC just to keep the balance, so the world gets a 'self correcting' power-balance that is a very interesting place for PCs to operate in.

All of a sudden, it isn't wise to flaunt your power, you never know who might be jealous of you, and there just may be someone else out there who really doesn't like you all that much for who you are. Come to think of it, maybe the reason this world has limit of high-level magics is because it tends to kill of ff and weed out high-level threats ll its own through the groups and politics of the land. An element of danger for high-level PCs just because of who they are? Unthinkable in every other D&D game world. Major point #3 here, note this.

4E: Things Change

Along comes a new edition of D&D, and things change. Picking up the Eberron Campaign Guide, you will notice one thing right off: where did all my cool art go? Gone are all the cool pictures of floating castles, amazing contraptions, and cities perched on the top of rocky spires and alien ruins. There are a couple, but a disturbing trend happens in the book of normal art of castles surrounded bu urban sprawl and squalor.

Where are the cool illustrations of the dragonmarks, especially the large ones? Those took up a huge portion of the book in 3E, and they are now gone. Where is the cool Heavy Metal style Mobius art in the chapter starts? You know, those pieces that gave a tone and flavor to the world, almost like a mature comic book? Gone again. A lot of art was removed here, so much so it changes your perception of the world.

Point #2, the coolness of the world, has been severely reduced.

This hurts, and yes, some of the original art is maintained, but a lot of the important pieces are lost. In the beginning of the Campaign Guide, we get Sharn, a floating city, and a pretty typical castle on a lake. Most of the rest of the art is the typical 4E 'character battle' art, and not really world-specific. Sharn seems like the only cool place here, and the 'open door' to creating fun adventure sites and cities seems to have closed some. This is a great example between the 3E and 4E books of how art can totally change the perception of a game world, and really needs to be recognized and studied.

4E Eberron Factions

Even the iconic sections of the area governments and factions have been muddled, done away for and replaced by random adventure seeds, monster stat blocks, mini-adventures, and plot hooks. Another huge step back, and the individual sections for each kingdom just seem like articles in Dungeon rather than something that lays out tense political conflicts. There doesn't seem to be a coherent world anymore, and even though some of the same factions are mentioned, there is no focus, and each area just seems like a single adventure to burn through.

If you have both books, compare the worldbook sections. Sure, the 4E maps are pretty, but the 3E books seems a lot tighter on focus of the lands, factions, government, places, and interesting sites. We get huge stat-blocks for monsters, and mini-adventures. The factions are either gone, or moved into the adventures. We don't get the feeling that these places are really fought over anymore, or that anything can change, nor are NPCs that important anymore. The 4E 'War on Powerful NPCs' continues here, with a majority of Eberron's big players missing or sidelined. With no powerful NPCs, and a lessening of the important of factions, something is lost.

Could it be, point #1, the focus on factions, is gone?

The 4E Campaign Guide is a huge step back. Room had to be made in the Eberron Player's Guide for all those lists of rote 4E powers, and the referee's book has devolved into a copy-and-paste section of DC History checks that take up way too much space. If all you know about Eberron comes from the 4E Guides, you don't know Eberron. Seek out the original Eberron Campaign Setting book and prepare to be blown away.

The 4E Rules in Eberron

Granted, I like 4E's rules a lot better for Eberron-style action roleplaying, as they are more cinematic; but then again, something major has been lost here. Once thing you notice is that the art in the 3E Eberron book to a point looks like the art in the 4E books, in fact, most all of the 4E books. It is like Wizards decided to transplant the cool from Eberron and place that into every D&D world - yeah, it is all like that now.

I like this tone, but as for putting it in every D&D world? It didn't make much sense in dramatic-novel Faerun, and it surly doesn't fit all too well in old-school Greyhawk. They took Eberron's coolness, turned it into a whitewash, and painted it all over everything they could to make everything seem just as cool. It didn't happen, nor was it correct in many cases. For Nerrath, yes, it worked, and it worked well - but realizing where this cool came from is just as important, and how it can mess things up is another thing.

Faerun is more of a LARP-y, dramatic, almost romance-novel world full of dramatic action. Geryhawk is the original gangster of old-school death-trap dungeons, dour and deadly in its outlook and survivability. Dark Sun is even the way it is, different, Mad-Max, post-apocalyptic, and cool. They each bring a unique 'cool' to themselves, but they are not the over-the-top Eberron 'cool' - nor should they be. They each are special, they each deserve their own tone, and they are not the same as Eberron. To do so is to not respect their special culture and flavor of the worlds. You can't transplant a new 'cool' onto a world without a reboot, nor can you make a world something it is not.

4E Magic in Eberron

Magic too, has been changed to the 1 to 30 D&D4 run, where everyone lives in this MMO-style progression path. Gone is the unique low-level/high-level magic disparity, and the world loses yet another interesting and cool aspect. In the old world, level 6 to 8 characters were the movers and shakers. In the new, it seems like we are back to the lets-get-to-30 grind, and we lose that have and have-not fight in the original world.

Remember, in 4E you start plane-hopping at level 10, and the original world goes away for the Feywild, Elemental Chaos, and all the other theme parks of the 4E cosmos. In Eberron, the focus is solely on the world - it is the center of the universe, and the place to play in all the way up to max level. All of a sudden, Eberron is just for the first 10 levels of play, and we quickly move in a whole new group of worlds into the mix. This water-down syndrome affects all the 4E worlds, including Faerun and Dark Sun - both of which should not have a Shadowfell and Feywild, but they do, since that is what 4E is, and the game loses something without them. For a world to be the central focus, we need to stay in it.

With the loss of magic and clear focus on the world, point #3 seems to be gone too.

What are we left with? Something that is definitely 4E, with some of the action-adventure cool, but none of the original fun stuff that made the 3E world so special and cool. Note that some of these things were tied to the original implementation of the 3E rules (like magic level), others were because 4E tried to adopt the Eberron coolness (Faerun, didn't work), and the others I cant explain (the loss of factions and the focus of the world). Part of this can possibly never transfer correctly, like the magic-level, due to the change in rules.

The loss of focus on the world's unique faction setup is the most puzzling here. It seems like they used the same model for all of the D&D4 campaign books, the DC History checks, the turning every area into a mini-adventure Dungeon magazine article, and general same-ness of the treatment of each worldbook for 4E. It didn't work for Eberron, and a lot was lost. Another thing was a lot of material just didn't convert in all too well, and some of the most interesting parts were ignored, like the dargonmarks - losing the higher-level art for them was huge.

The connection to old-school World of Warcraft is weakened too, while the D&D4 1-30 MMO track is here, the original world inspired by the fantasy-steampunk inspiration seems missing, and all the cool movers and shakers have been replaced by mini-adventures. Remember, the focus of a 4E world is away from ppowerful NPCs, so the 'powerful factions and NPCs control the world' theme of the original Eberron can't happen in 4E - the focus is supposed to be on the adventurers, Points of Light, and the whole 'alone in the world' adventure theme. This is one of the fundamental differences here, 4E's focus is incompatible with 3E Eberron's focus.

Where Art Thou, Eberron?

Part of me thinks they put out too many campaign books for 4E, and maybe they should have just stuck with Eberron as the only and official 4E world. Granted, they needed to keep what was cool and not cut so much art, but then again, it is probably a limitation of book size and format than purposefully limiting content; or they just didn't understand what the 'cool' was here and thought it was just like any other game world, medieval and static.

They would have also had to consider Eberron's magic-balance as well, and wrote 4E around that balance. It is an interesting problem, the design of a generic rules system for all D&Ds seems to have gutted the world of its unique mechanics and flavor, even though Eberron was designed under the generic 3E system. Part of the world depended on those items and rules in 3E worked, and in fact, the "anything in D&D" rule is part of that. Eberron is a redefinition of the 3E world in a new and interesting way, a new way to look at things. If all of a sudden, we lay 4E on top of that, we lose what we were looking at in the first place, and the world just becomes another implementation of the 4E ruleset. We are not looking at anything differently here, this is the same 4E, just with different kingdoms and peoples.

You also potentially have a situation where players coming into Eberron having played 3E understand the world and what is cool, and players introduced to it via 4E are sitting there wondering what the fuss is about. Why is this any cooler than Nerrath or Faerun, it's all 4E action-adventure, right? Well, people that understand the original source material know, but the new players have a different perspective on the world. Combine that with the loss of focus on the world's factions and unique magic setup, and Eberron becomes another 4E world with nothing really special about it other than two new classes, some magic items, and a map.

Eberron is cool, and the 4E version is a nice piece of work - but it is not the same world. From a design perspective, there is a lot to learn here about world design, reboots, rules systems transplants, and a whole bunch of other stuff just waiting to be explored. There are two different design goals here, one for 3E to present a new and exciting world, and another for 4E to transplant the rules and theme of the new game into the existing world. Like Faerun, the transplant is not 100% successful - but for different reasons. Examining why this happened tells you a lot about the subjects we study here on the blog, game design, world design, and what makes something interesting and fun.

Friday, January 18, 2013

System Lock In: Bad for New Players?

Part of what cemented the term 'system lock in' into the pen-and-paper lexicon was D&D3. For those in the know, system-lock-in is a term taken from the world of computer operating systems meaning, "It would be hard to switch to another operating system because all my data and applications are on this operating system." In other words, switching, trying something new, or changing things on the computer would mean a substantial amount of pain involved for the consumer.

In the roleplaying world, system lock in means, "I have so much money invested in this system, and I have spent so much time learning the rules I would never even think about switching to another game system, or even trying one out." To enforce system lock in, pen-and-paper games are typically expensive, complex, and huge. Since all your friends have invested the same in buying books and learning rules, the system lock in is strengthened, and we get a 'network effect' - meaning if all your friends are locked into X, you will play X.

This is all well and good, and companies are free to write games however they want them - I support the free market of ideas. But the question comes up, is system lock in hurting the new player experience? To have system lock in, we need three things: buy-in, size, and complexity. Let's break this down in three short sections.

"Buy-in" is investment, and this typically means the game books are a substantial purchase. For a game like D&D4 this would typically include the player's book, a referee's book, monster book, and maybe one or two others. New players are reluctant to part with that much cash, so asking a new player to invest in that many books is going to be a challenge. Beginner sets are not the answer to this, they are merely an enticement to make the big purchase. System reference documents are not an answer to this either, they are often unwieldy and require hundreds of pages to be printed. Contrast this to a more new-player friendly game, like Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy RPG. These games can be bought for $20 or less, and you get everything you need to play and referee the game. An argument can be made that cost scares away new players.

"Size" is the cost of ownership, and also the amount of space the game takes up on your shelf and in your mind. This is both a physical quality (space the books take up), and also a mental one (how important the game is in your mind). Good art can increase the mental size of a game, and Pathfinder gets this down in spades. Once you have invested, the size of the game controls how often you keep coming back to it and using it. Some people equate size with fun, what is more fun: a 5' long shelf of Pathfinder books, or a quarter-inch thick copy of Labyrinth Lord? Size definitely drives away new players, it is a commitment to store and use the books.

"Complexity" is how much effort it takes to learn the rules. A game that is easily learned is also easily put aside for something new. Granted, I like complex games with a lot of options, but there is something to be said for a game that is easy to learn, but conceptually deep. Forcing new players to learn the rules for flat-footed and attacks of opportunity is cruel, we have had to do it many times, and a player new to roleplaying often gets the wrong idea about the game, "I can't get into this." The skill system in D&D3 and Pathfinder is similarly difficult to use correctly and teach, and all these complex systems intended to create options mostly make the game difficult - without adding real options. If my thief character needs lockpicking X at level Y, why make me go through this complicated skill system to get there?

Again, these are just more random thoughts on the state of the pen-and-paper industry, where things are driving players away, and how things can be made better. It seems the more we go in hobby shops, the more space is devoted towards big-box tabletop games, and less space is devoted to traditional pen-and-paper games. All the innovation in the gaming industry seems to be in the board game area nowadays, and a lot of today's pen-and-paper innovation seems stuck in the past.

It seems like we are long overdue a revolution in pen-and-paper gaming, and we get back to games made to be entertainment. Aping the tactics Microsoft and Apple use to lock in users may lock in some players, but aren't they driving off the majority or new players to just keep a few legacy users?

My feelings are if you make my pen-and-paper game more like a computer, a real computer will beat it any day of the week. New players seem to understand this concept very well, but most roleplaying game companies don't. We have to learn from the successes of companies doing well in the board game market, and innovate like they do. Really, this is the same type of game, and the same type of player. The question needs to be asked, where are all the new players going, and what is keeping them away?

Monday, January 7, 2013

Design Room: Pathfinder Advanced Race Guide

Hello again! Today we are doing a Design Room breakdown on the Pathfinder Advanced Race Guide. This is not a traditional review, as you can go to the Paizo or Amazon sites and get plenty of those. Instead, we will be breaking this book down from a game design standpoint and discussing related issues with campaign and world design. We will start by covering the basics.

Again, Paizo puts out a beautiful book, a full color 258 page monster of a tome. I will always say, Paizo is the sports team that spends the big bucks, gets the best talent, and they are just a joy to watch deliver. The book is full of new options for existing races, new core races, new alternate races, and a race builder that is the star of the show - more on that later. Art, layout, and content are all playoff quality, as usual.

It is an impressive addition, and very useful in play. I wouldn't say this is an essential book to play with (like the NPC Codex is), as the races in the core rulebook are great and good enough for most every player. If you are a fan of alternate PC races, this book is for you. It really breaks down on you view of fantasy, and how you see the world.

The Creature Cantina

Some people see fantasy as the intersection of the basic D&D races: Humans, Elves, Halflings, and Dwarves. This is your pretty typical Lord of the Rings model for a fantasy world, and it works well no matter what rules system you follow. There could be other races in the world, but there is a distinct deemphasis on their importance in the world. The rule is, if the world can exist without them, they are a minor race.
As an example, compare Dark elves in D&D and Warhammer fantasy. Dark Elves in D&D are a minor race, the world can exist without them. Dark elves in Warhammer are a core part of the world, and they are a major player in everything from battles to Chaos magic. In our D&D world, in most cases, you could do without dark elves a lot easier than you could do without normal elves.
The problem with minor races is that they start to feel like those tack-on latex-mask races that appear weekly in shows like Star Trek, or the mess of races in the Star Wars Creature Cantina. Admittedly, Star Wars is doing a better job nowadays integrating and raising the importance of its core races, with the standardization of the big players in games like the new Star Wars MMO. With a plethora of minor races, they begin to feel like 'guest stars' in the game, and they become a bit more difficult to relate to. It is easy to see the problems a dwarf would have traveling through elven lands, but a kenku or a merman?

The Melting Pot

The Forgotten Realms in D&D3.x was notorious for its subraces, and the Advanced Race Guide gives you subraces in spades. In FR, there were a Baskin Robbins amount of elf flavors, moon elves, star elves, sand elves, sea elves, wood elves, and if I looked hard enough you could probably find stone elves and storm elves. The Advanced Race Guide does not go that far with subtypes, they prefer to differentriate with swappable racial traits, a couple new subtypes, favored class options, and new racial archetypes. It is a good balance of making a race different without creating a new ice cream flavor out of them. Paizo chose to go the 'this is an elf, but with this type of background' style of race design. It is a good choice, and keeps elves as a whole able to relate to each other better.

In a game design sense, you need to be careful of creating too many racial subtypes. You have to balance the fantasy trope of 'oh, there is a cool new race that lives here' with 'oh boy, another derivative flavor of the week race - enough already.' Too many racial subtypes and all of a sudden they are not special, and the original race becomes plain and boring. In the Forgotten Realms, who wanted to play a normal vanilla elf, when there were so many cool subtypes to choose from? Too much of a good thing is a problem.

The Drow in a Human's World

We bring up the specter of Drizzt Do'Urden here, and a PC choosing a race that obviously has problems even walking in the normal LotR style world. Admittedly, D&D4 does a good job with this, with dragonmen, tieflings, and even minotaurs being normal members of society. This is a reason why D&D4 felt so strange to many people, it adopted the Star Wars mixing pot model, and elevated minor races to major players. Nerrath was a fun mixing pot, where a half-giant could be the king, with a tiefling paladin and dragonman court mage working side by side.

With a normal world with the major four races, the drow PC all of a sudden doesn't fit in. This goes the same for aasimars, cat people, goblins, and even half-orcs and the like. I have been in a couple games where choosing a half-orc meant you were ostracized from the group, and you did not get as much play or RP time. It takes a skilled referee to incorporate race choices to a game, or be forward enough to tell players to stick to a subset of races when designing characters. It's okay if you want to do this, and actually helpful - if your vision of the world does not include a player's race choice, you will marginalize that PC subconsciously.

The Far Outs

"But I want to play a gray alien in your 1920's Gangsters game!" Another issue that comes up is the player that wants to play something so far out there it is difficult for them to even relate to the world. Two things can happen: either they become an ignored third wheel in the group, or the entire game centers around them and their wacky misadventures in a world that doesn't accept them. Either way, it's not a good thing. We have had this happen a couple times in our games, and a race guide gives players seeking this sort of attention a lot of ammo to use. I will be frank, I don't like it when race choice becomes a popularity contest. I guess you have to bring it up, since the selection of character race in a carefully crafted world is an important choice, and it can be used to disrupt a game.

There are good sides to 'far out' race selections, otherwise, we wouldn't have the Chewbaccas of the world, and everything would be bog-standard. It depends a lot on the group, theme of the game, and the game world. There is no better answer to talk it out beforehand, before anyone gets set on a particular choice. As a player, you need to feel out what is acceptable, bounce character ideas off the referee, and make sure other players in the group are thinking along the same lines. Selecting a far out choice can work, and not everyone in the group can be one as well.

No LotR Races?

Another fascinating use of the book comes with the Race Builder chapter, and creating campaign worlds. Here is a cool exercise, create a game world using five races. None can be one of the standard four (human, dwarf, elf, or halfling), and one race must play the bad guy. Now try to come up with a story for this world. It is a fun exercise, and it gets you out of Golarion for a while. You could come up with a world full of gnolls, kenku, cat-people, and frog-people - with demonic yeti-men as the enemies. This type of world design forces players out of their comfort zones, and can create a memorable short campaign full of new worlds, savage enemies, and plenty of pulp excitement. It is a favorite game of mine, and a model I used for my interpretation of Golarion's Jade Regent expansion.

My Jade Regent - Races of the Zodiac

To shake up MY Golarion, I reinterpreted the Jade Regent expansion using the animals of the Chinese Zodiac. I used the Advanced Race Guide to design each race, and thrust the players into a savage land where humans are the deposed rulers of the mighty Empire of the Zodiac (the Empress). The land has the following races:
  • Ratmen - evil aligned until the tide turned
  • Minotaurs (Ox)
  • Tigermen - good aligned and used as slaves
  • Rabbitkin - neutral
  • Dragonmen - initially evil, were turned to good
  • Yuan-Ti (snake) - evil
  • Horsemen - neutral leaning good
  • Goatmen - evil
  • Intelligent Monkeys - good, and a fun one to play
  • Kenku (rooster) - evil initially
  • Wolfmen (dog) - neutral, turned to good
  • Pigmen - evil
Granted, that is a lot of races, but not all of them were allied on one side. Some of them were demon-aligned, others persecuted, and others tried to remain neutral. A couple other races made their way in as bad guys, such as demonmen, ravenmen, ghost people (haunts), and a couple other evil-aligned critters. It was a fun game that threw characters out of their element, and forced them to roleplay and think about the nature of the race they dealt with. The goal was to unite the Zodiac's races and put the Empress back on the throne. This game is still going on since it is quite epic and sweeping.

I admit, it also seemed kind of like furry-friendly roleplaying; but hey, it was and still is cool, even if it seems slightly anthropomorphic. This is a great example of using the Advanced Race guide to create a campaign world, or spruce up a part of it you felt was lacking in variety and excitement. I could have done this with less races, but this is the Zodiac, so it was a cool metaphor to use for the conflict.

Overall

The Advanced Race Guide is indispensable for the creative GM world builder. It also allows you to get out of Golarion for a while, and create interesting one-shot worlds with an eclectic mix of races that are out of the ordinary. Sometimes, you need to mix things up and shake up perceptions. For players, this is primarily an options book for character creation, with a big 'check with your group' string attached. Where it shines are in building areas of the world or entirely new ones, and it breaks up the standard collection of fantasy races with a bunch of new kids on the block. Highly recommended for referees, a good buy for players looking for something different.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Referee's Screen: Star Wars Edge of the Empire II, part 4

Part IV: A New Hope

Let's continue our unboxing coverage of Star Wars: Edge of the Empire with some thoughts on campaign creation for the new game. There is a significant amount of game design in campaign creation, and the process can make of break the game. Let's look at some traditional pitfalls of Star Wars campaigns first, continue on to theming, and then layout a framework for building a new campaign.

Where Star Wars Games Go Wrong

I have played in a number of Star Wars games, and I have seen a number of areas where Star Wars as a game can fall apart. Usually these are story and campaign reasons, and a lot of them are common to sci-fi games in general. Let's look at the top three that I have seen and discuss them:

Theme Creep: Readers of SBRPG may recognize this one. A game centered around criminals on the edge of space shifts into a Sith versus Jedi war, alien invasion, son of Darth Vader plot, or some other 'do not want' nonsense. The reason that attracted the players to the game in the first place has been sidelined for the new 'big bad plot' and the players are showing up to just see what happens next to their characters. When the players are not driving the story and the GM is, expect things to break apart in a couple games.

The Great War: I have been in a couple Star Wars games that lost focus, and just turned into a big wargame. The Empire versus Rebellion fight gradually escalated, and the next mission had to become bigger and better than the last - with the stakes even higher. It's only a matter of time before super star destroyers and the latest and greatest superweapon (Sun Crusher, Death Star III.V, Plot Smasher, etc) shows up at this point. Players start racking up TIE fighter kills in the hundreds, the players form STAR Team 6, and the intimate feel of the game is lost.

Supervillain Escalation: This is a common one in Jedi and Sith games, and it happens all the time in superhero RPGs. The big bad is defeated, and the power level goes up for the next battle. Pretty soon, both sides raise their power levels, and the game then becomes about who can throw the biggest attack and most dice around. We saw this in our d6 System superhero game, "Well no, I got 18 dice of attack! The big-bad has 24 dice of defense! Pah-shissshhhh, let the dice tsunami roll!" The game degenerates into a power-versus-power battle, and pretty soon, the big-bad is threatening other planes of existence.

What to Do Padawan?

A good bit of general advice to avoid the above is to keep the game focused on characters, not conflicts. Nobody cares about "The Empire hates the Rebels" in an adventure where the PCs are supposed to be interacting with NPCs face-to-face. The galactic conflict should be in the background, with personal conflicts between characters taking center stage.

Let's look at this closer. If a colony manager is short of water because a local trading cartel is jacking up the price with the help of a local Imperial governor, then things start to become interesting. The 'Rebel vs. Imperial' conflict is still in there, but it is a subtext, and the smaller more personal conflict between characters is driving the plot. It is up to the PCs to interact with those characters, and resolve the situation however they want to.

Never let an ideology be the reason for the adventure! It makes as much sense as M calling James Bond into her office and this exchange taking place:
M: "James, your mission this time is the Cold War. Good luck 007."
James Bond: "WTF? omg lol"

Peeling Back the Onion

Ideologies, conflicts, wars, cartels, trade embargoes, and other large ideas should be backdrops and affect characters in the world - giving them motivation to do specific acts. It is better even yet to have these large ideas being the reason 'something else happened' and a character is involved. The more layers you can write into your adventures the better. Let's layer one out and see if we can craft a beautiful situation:
  1. The Empire hates the Rebels, so...
  2. The Empire supports a local Hutt boss, who...
  3. Runs the local Water Cartel, that is...
  4. Run by an Imperial Governor, who is...
  5. Raising prices on a colony world, that is...
    1. Bonus points for going deeper than this!
  6. Causing a shortage of minerals from the asteroid mines, which is...
  7. Causing pirates to raid ore ships, which...
  8. Caused one ship to disappear, that is...
  9. The reason the daughter of the captain contacted the PCs, who wants them to...
  10. Find her father.
Wow. The more layers you add, the more fun you can have. Now that we have this, we can fill out each layer with NPCs the players can interact with, factions who have interests going one way or the other, and locations for all of this fun stuff. You should also keep most of the middle layers secret, and let the PCs discover them for themselves! This gives them the satisfaction of unraveling the mystery themselves, and this 'peeling back the onion' is an important part of letting the players have the satisfaction of solving a problem.

Most of the problem will be finding out the who and what, and shadowy forces will be hunting them and trying to stop them at every turn. You typically start out with generic baddies, like Imperials and monsters; and then as the bad guys figure out someone is on to them, the cartel thugs and adventure-specific bad guys start showing up. The opposition that appears is driven by the PCs actions, events in the galaxy, and what happens next.

Remember, the conflicts are driven by the NPCs, the Water Cartel should never order an attack 'because it is'; the NPC leader of the faction should order the attack in response to a specific incident by one of the groups (or PCs). If you played SBRPG and recognize Factions and Faction Reactions at work here, give yourself bonus points. It is the same system, and it works very well in Star Wars: Edge. You can incorporate "ripples" from the events that happen in the galaxy, and have the factions react to them as well, and all of a sudden you have a cool sandbox model for running your game.

In Closing

Keeping your games focused on situations and a layered adventure model keeps your game on track, and keeps you from having to make it up as you go along. You can't sustain winging adventures from week to week, and that typically causes one of the three failure conditions to happen for your campaign. Layer your situations, keep things secret, and have NPCs drive the conflicts between factions. Doing these three things will help you manage a successful game, and keep the players involved in your galaxy.


Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Referee's Screen: Star Wars Edge of the Empire II, part 3

Part III: Revenge of the d6


Understanding Star Wars: Edge

It is important to get the feel of play right for the game. Star Wars: Edge is different than other RPGs you may be used to, and it threw us when we began playing. In this Referee's Screen, I want to go over some of the issues we saw with macro versus micro play, and how to run Star Wars: Edge at its best given the dicing system and results. Let's dive today into micro versus macro play.

Micro Play

RPGs that play in the 'micro' are almost totally simulation games. Every blow is vectored out with a to-hit, every wound tracked, and every skill roll broken down into subtasks. Some games have marco elements (hit points, AC), but still play with a micro feel, such as D&D3.5. SBRPG had a very micro play style, with the spending of action points towards making attacks and parries, and a detailed blow-by-blow combat system. Car Wars, Aftermath, Champions, GURPS, and many other old-school games played in the micro style.

Macro Play

Remember the old D&D thru D&D2 combat explanation, which went something like this: "An attack roll covers more than just one blow, it is all the activity of the round, including defending, feints, dodging, attacks, and maneuver"? Macro play is like that, a series of actions or activities is aggregated into one roll, such as an attack roll in Arkham Horror. In these games, you are not rolling blow-by-blow to-hits, tracking bullets, and rolling to parry incoming attacks one at a time. You likely are making a 'combat roll' based on 'combat power' for your turn based on your weapons and abilities. The original D&D and its OSR clones are great examples of macro play, along with Star Wars (d6 System).

Star Wars: Macro Dipping Into Micro

Star Wars: Edge is a macro style game that dips into the micro style of play when needed. Combat is a perfect example, especially with minions. When you make an attack roll against a group of minions, you make one attack roll, and you can eliminate multiple minions with that roll. You assume the attack roll is a series of shots, and you are figuring out the result of that sequence of attacks with one roll. This is a great example of macro-style play, and the game encourages skill checks be made in a similar manner.

For example, Chewie would probably make one skill roll to repair the Falcon's broken comm dish. Busting the repair out into a sequence of events into a series of skill checks is discouraged, such as: weld the O-ring, replace the fuses, rewire the main comm line, install the dish, and test the installation. That 5-skill roll repair process would probably make sense in a game such as Space Opera or Traveller, but not here. In Star Wars: Edge, this is one skill roll with a degree of success and failure, along with the positive or negative consequences.

This is not to say Star Wars: Edge is all macro. The game can dip down into the micro when needed, and the dice can simulate what happens when that one photon torpedo shot into the ventilation shaft is needed. The game should play in the macro for the most part, and even things like star travel should utilize the dicing system to determine what happens when you jump into a star system. Life in Star Wars: Edge is controlled by those dice, and the rolls should cover a good amount of action, with those occasional 'one shot' micro rolls.

How This Plays

Now that we understand the macro vs. micro play styles, how does Star Wars play for us? Coming off Arkham Horror with its extremely macro system of task and combat resolution, we get it. The game should play more like a European-style boardgame, with the referee proposing problems to the group of players, and the players working as a team to solve them with their skills and abilities.

The micro-style play that feels like an episode of '24' doesn't really fit here, something that is typical of games like Pathfinder or GURPS, or games where you worry about penalties for switching targets, attacks of opportunity, or other micro-tropes. The game is not a sim, it is more an adventure game where you are solving a series of larger problems. Do not worry about haggling with a shopkeeper over every stim pack (in an hour long RP session); you are solving big problems with a single roll, moving to the next location, and taking on the next challenge.

Here's a good example of how this plays the best, at least in our experience:
GM: You land at the star port of the ice world, ship heavily damaged by that fight with the pirates. You will need a new reactor core, and you also have that encrypted holo-message to deliver to the contact named Jerak, who is supposed to be here, but you don't know how to contact him. All you know is that he is an alien, an asteroid miner, and is wanted by Imperial Intelligence.
Bob: Okay, Sam, you fix the ship, I'll put your pog here on the starport where our ship is. I will take Jane out to the local watering hole and start asking around for asteroid miners, where are the starport bars?
GM: Here, and a really dangerous looking one over here near the salvage yard.
Bob: Okay, let me put our pogs on the dangerous bar at the salvage yard, and we will take Vex-4 along so he can drop by the yard to shop for a new reactor. Does anything happen on the way?
GM: Make a streetwise roll, are you avoiding trouble, or doing something else along the way?
Bob: Avoiding trouble. [makes roll] 2 successes and 1 threat, what happens?
GM: No one beats you up, but it does look like a rough neighborhood. You bump into an Imperial patrol looking for troublemakers, and they take note of you and move on. You arrive at the bar, which looks like a total hole-in-the-starport-wall. Sam, make a roll for your first repairs on the ship....
The game works best with that conversational style, with a higher-level play using a large map. When something happens, either handle it with RP and skill checks, or bust out a quick tactical map for combat. Most checks should be macro, with the advantages or threats from these macro rolls guiding the action.

Use micro play on the zoomed-in combat and tactical maps, such as a roll to pick a lock, repair a distress beacon, or for one-on-one combats. Zoom back out to the macro play style as soon as possible, and don't get bogged down in the details.

Understanding how to zoom in and out like this, and keeping your game focused on macro play will give you greater enjoyment, and also keep that Star Wars feel in your game sessions. Star Wars is about the big picture, and you need to be able to aggregate action into dice rolls, keep players moving, and avoid everyone being bogged down in a dungeon hall.

Games that focus on dungeon halls are rightfully more micro and work better that way, but for dramatic sweeping sci-fi action, you need to play with a larger focus and picture. The Star Wars: Edge dice are designed to help you do this, and you need to understand how they will work for you to get the most out of the game.

-Hak

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Referee's Screen: Star Wars Edge of the Empire II, part 2

Part II: The Polyhedral Menace

Meet the Dice

Today, let us meet the symbols on the Star Wars: Edge of the Empire game. They are an interesting collection of mahjong-like symbols used in every roll to determine a four-axis result: success vs.failure, good outcome vs. bad outcome. I say mahjong-like and I mean it, the symbols on the dice cancel each other out like in mahjong. It is an interesting Eastern influence on the game, and one that harkens back to Star Wars' "Seven Samurai" inspiration.

We came up with our own fun names for the dice, to help us remember what they are for and what they do, and I will share those below. They are intended to be a fun way to understand how the dice work, and how we use them in the game.


Bang: This symbol is the success symbol, which we call a bang. Bang means explosion, and in Star Wars, the side causing the most explosions is usually the more successful one. Bangs are probably the most important result in the game. Bang is also one syllable, so George will announce, "4 bangs on this roll!"

If you roll positive bangs, the roll is a success. Many bangs indicate greater success, and if you get over four, we houserule you can say something crazy and stupid at the table to celebrate, "Don't get cocky kid!"


Sith: Countering the bang is the Sith, which the game calls a failure result. Siths oppose bangs, and remove them from the roll, one to one. We liken this to Siths being emo, negative, and generally opposed to the action movie trope of 'explosions are good.' Sith usually live on the darker dice, which is typical, and they are a bad result.

If you roll more Siths than bangs, the roll is a failure. Roll enough, and you have really failed big time. It's time to start thinking about career choices when you roll four or more, Leia is wounded, and you have a whole battalion of stormtroopers asking what you are trying to do by getting through that blast door.



Fuzzballs: Before you say this picture is upside down, I will tell you that this looks exactly like Luke's haircut in Star Wars. In fact, it looks like any good hairstyle in the 1970's, and it brings it's good-looking karma with it, what we affectionately call the fuzzball. In the game, this is called an advantage, but we liken fuzzball to that 70's magic of Farah Fawcett, blow dryers, and hairspray. Roll a lot of them, and you can laugh it up, fuzzball.

Each fuzzball increases the magnitude of something good happening because of the roll, independent of the success or failure of the roll. Roll a lot of them, and you are guaranteed something good happening; because in Star Wars, if your hair looks good while doing it, it doesn't matter if you are winning or losing. Just ask Billy Dee Williams or Chewie about Hair Club for Men.


Death Stars: The only thing awesome enough to counter Luke's hair is the Death Star. The game calls these threat, and each one cancels a fuzzball. Advantage and threat work exactly like success and failure, one cancels another on a one-to-one ratio. Rolling lots of them puts you in the cross hairs of fate, or the Death Star, your choice.

If you roll more Death Stars than fuzzballs, you have a roll that produces a negative consequence. If you managed to disarm the starship's engines but accidentally set the self-destruct sequence, you've probably rolled a ton of these small moons, and you are about to have a very bad day. Sometimes, you don't even know how bad it is until later. If you are rolling to find a safe landing spot in an asteroid, and the landing spot that has teeth, you've rolled a bunch of these suckers.


Palm Trees: Play the Star Wars music now, you've just rolled a palm tree. Oh yeah, we are looking at another upside down die, this time, the game's triumph symbol. This is technically treated as a success, but is a very good roll to make. They look like palm trees in Hollywood, complete with a little sun behind them. Getting one of these on the roll guarantees your adventure blockbuster status. This is Hollywood, after all.

One of these could send that photon torpedo down the air shaft. They act like successes, but they are that extra special "play the music and swing across the chasm with the princess" results that make your character oh so cool. Roll two of these, and you are probably eligible for bullet-time and a cool soundtrack to back you up. I hear Mace Windu has gold plated dice that are covered with these symbols, for when he needs to bust out his 'd12 ass kickers.'


Bikini Bottoms: The only symbol fierce enough to counter a palm tree is the dreaded bikini bottom. Ask Leia, if you end up in one of these, you have hit absolute rock bottom. Yes, it's upside down. Yes, it's a silly name, but it has a Star Wars pedigree in the inspiration, and bikini bottoms and palm trees go together like nothing else we know. And yes, we know it's a Sith symbol.

The game calls this the despair symbol, and they cancel triumphs. When you roll one of these, the 'Star Wars despair' music comes on, someone dies, something terrible happens, and the 'bad feeling about this' happens at the worst time. You know you've rolled a bikini bottom when you blow your charm roll at a party, and walk into the next room, where Vader and Boba Fett are just finishing up their appetizers.

May the Dice Roll with You

Well, that does it for our twisted little view on the dice, and hopefully this helps you remember what symbol cancels what, and how they are used in the game. Yes, we do use our crazy names for them around the table, and we have fun with the results. That's what the game is about, fun, and coming up with silly names for the rolls and their results adds to the party atmosphere around the table. They days of laughing at a RPG, quoting your favorite Star Wars character, and having fun are back.


Friday, December 28, 2012

Referee's Screen: Star Wars Edge of the Empire

Part I, Attack of the Clone


As a companion to George's "Players" section, I will write my impressions of Star Wars: Edge of the Empire Beginner Game (SWEoE:BG) from a referee's perspective. I will call this series "Referee's Screen" since this is mainly my feelings and impressions as a referee for this game. I will limit my thoughts to pre-play observations, as we will get into playtest reports later.

Unboxing
The box is filled with all sorts of goodies, and is really a complete mini-game covering the basics, including combat, starships, skills, advancement, and even a collection of creatures. Character creation does not seem to be included, so you are stuck with the 4 basic characters. Kudos to Fantasy Flight for getting this much of a game done in just 48 pages (!), and their skill at keeping the system to-the-point in this age of 300+ page rulebooks is astounding.

A self-contained 32-page adventure is included, which teaches you the system as you play through it. This works in tandem with the character folios, which give you four pre-gen characters, and everything you need to play them with. This is a key selling point, and mirrors what Paizo did with their Beginner Box. The beginning adventure here is in my opinion better than the one in the Beginner Box, and gives you a structured part to play in, and then an open world mini-sandbox in the city.

You also get a map covering the first adventure, and also a sheet of tokens. Pretty cool stuff, and appreciated. They had better sell add-on tokens in future products, or something like Paizo's cardboard pawns. These are useful things to have, and I hope they keep this up in the future.

I will ding Fantasy Flight on the dice! You get a good selection of these funny dice to start, but some skill checks in the game require more dice than what they give you (ex. 4 green dice and 1 purple). Of course, this is a minor point, but one worth mentioning. I will probably be picking up a couple sets to make a pool for play, so in the long run, the dice won't be an issue.

I like the dice, they are cool and from what I saw work very well. They provide a large variety or results, along with roleplaying situations built into the rolls as results. They are very clever, and worth looking at purely from a game-design perspective. They remind me a little of Fantasy Flight's Warhammer FRP dice, and they are different and cool. +1 to FF for making use of these, and making them work. They are a cool, Star-Warsy addition to the experience, and shape the action in the game.

Full Game Coming Soon
Remember, this is just an intro game, and the full 400+ page behemoth main game rules is scheduled for release early next year. Something will always keep me coming back to this set, since the beauty here is keeping the game focused and simple. It is fully playable, and will keep a group of players busy for a while. All in all, I get a good feeling after unboxing this, and it doesn't feel short or missing anything terribly significant.

I didn't expect rules for star destroyers to be in here or a lot of equipment, but what they do give you covers enough of what you'd want to play with when you are starting out. You get an ad for the full book in the box, and it looks like a fun game. Bonus XP to FF for putting Han and Chewie on the cover, two guys who typically get limited cover space on Star Wars RPGs. Han has this cool WTF look on his face, which rocks. Party on Han & Chewie, you guys are the original gangsters of Star Wars.

Also of note is the X-Wing minis game (see the catalog in the picture), which is a totally different game from this one, but still cool. More on this in a later post.

Part of me wonders if they are going to do an all-in-one book focusing on the criminal element first, and then dedicated sourcebooks for Jedi's, KoTOR, etc. We shall see how this happens, or if the game focuses on 'Edge of the Empire' stuff primarily, and includes those subjects as also-thoughts. The focus of the game is important. The d6 system game was focused on the shooty-movie action, the d20 version had an equal focus on everything (though Force powers tended to be dominant), and we shall see the 'take' of this game. There are a lot of fans to please in the Star Wars universe, and there is a risk pushing the smuggler angle over the Sith/Jedi angle, Imperial/Rebel, and so on. I hope they can achieve that balance, without making the game all about the Force, big battles, or any other area that can 'take over' the game.

"Chewie, WTF are we doing on the cover of a Star Wars RPG?"
Star Wars: Off the Rails
The game has a smuggler, criminal, and fringe system vibe to it - which is cool. You are not meant to be playing mainline rebels in giant CG battles, Sith, or Imperial agents in the center of the galaxy. You are assumed to be playing on the outer rim of the Empire, shortly after the destruction of the first Death Star.

This is a cool direction to take the game in, and makes it different than the d6 and d20 versions of Star Wars RPGs. You know, I am sure there will be support for all that stuff in the main rulebook, but keeping the game 'down to Earth' as a game of smugglers and criminals is kinda a cool direction to take, and reminds me of the Star Wars Scoundrels novel that's coming out (Star Wars meets Ocean's 11).

The Yoda Rule: "Impossible to see the future is."
If I started a new Star Wars campaign with this system, I would probably make a grand pronouncement to the players when we started:

"The Fate of the Universe is up to You"

In short, I would call this the "Yoda Rule" summarized by Master Yoda's own quotes, "Impossible to see the future is," and "Always in motion is the future." I would pull those two out whenever someone brought up cannon, and how the game is straying from it. When it comes to conventional wisdom, Yoda always wins, bitch.

This would mean there would be no script for anything past the first Death Star destruction, the events in Empire and Jedi will not happen, and the side the players are rooting for will probably lose the war. To make a change in the universe, it will be 100% up to the players. Of course, if they play both sides, all the better, and the war will probably never end. Everything will be paid for, and major characters will never have immunity to anything bad that happens.

Anything outside the main rulebook won't exist, just to keep spam from the Expanded Universe from a minimum. Events and books in the EU past the first Death Star will be similarly de-scripted, eliminated, or changed outright. As a thought, since they had the freedom to create all that stuff for the EU in the first place, so it gives me the license to go to town and create my own stuff. A race of giant green rabbit men? Sure! Jedi Don Quixote? Go to town! Anything can happen, and the universe is open and free again. This shall be known as the optional "I am Timothy Zhan" rule, which may come into play. To start, I will feel better keeping the game simple and to the stuff in the book at first, then we shall see if the IaTZ rule needs to be used.

The important point is to make the Star Wars universe the players' - they will own the outcome, if they want an outcome. Nobody can come along and say 'such and such happens at this time' or 'no, this person was a good guy' - everything is on the table. If my girlfriend's Sith assassin wants to seduce Han Solo into working for the Empire and she pulls it off - so be it. It won't be easy and will probably take a long time and lots of RP, but hey; this is not the approved script anymore, nor will it ever be. The players will write the script, as Yoda would have it.

Overall Like it. Will be buying the main game. A winner.