Getting Off the Train

We were in our local hobby shop the other day, and had a discussion with a fellow game-master about the Pathfinder adventure path The Jade Regent. The GM mentioned he didn't like the adventure, since the story required the PCs to travel with a convoy of NPCs to the farthest reaches north, cross the arctic, and save the princess. The players did not like the NPCs, balked at getting on the convoy, and just wanted to run off and do something else.

Roleplaying is strange like that, players can up and decide to go east when the path leads west, decide the plot of the movie isn't for them, and frequently revel in the chance to take the railroad off road. Pathfinder's adventure paths are kind of like mini-movies, and you think by agreeing to play one, players would suspend their free spirits for a while, and play through and see what happens. We didn't really delve too deeply into the circumstances, and the GM could have been using the adventure as his weekly session, so there are a couple unknowns there, to be honest.

We wrote SBRPG with the spirit of player freedom as one of the central concepts in the game. We explicitly say that GMs should not write adventures, period. All interaction in the game's sandbox should be through the game's internal faction system, and players should get out there and makes things happen. It is a different take from most games, in that SBRPG requires players to be active participants in the world, with only minimal plot decisions being made by the referee. The referee can set the stage, like having the crying dame setup the next mystery for the private eye to solve, but beyond that point, the players should drive the action.

It requires strong improvisational skills from the referee, the ability to track plots, and quickly come up with 'what's next?' The referee can set the stage for the next part, such as the car chase by the bad guys trying to silence the gumshoe, the frantic call by the lady in red saying someone is following her, and the big reveal by the bad guy and mad scientist attempting to escape in the building-top zeppelin. 'What's next' can be mini-scenarios, story parts, and anything in the dramatic book that advances the plot (or not, it depends). Getting to these points is up to the players, and they need to be active participants in the story.

It is different than your traditional dungeon experience, where players can only go where the tunnel leads next, or an event-based story where players proceed from one prepackaged situation to the next. The closest analogy for SBRPG's gameplay is to the Grand Theft Auto games, where the player is the motivator, and the sandbox provides endless opportunities for danger, involvement, natural hazards, monsters, NPC interaction, and fun activities. The price players must pay is adopting the 'go out there and do something' play style, and the GM determines 'what's next.'

D = A Game's Database of Content

Every roleplaying game has a 'database' of content included with the game. All the powers, weapons, gear, skills, conditions, monsters, treasures, and even the rules are individual 'entries' in your game's master 'database' of content. Let's break this down for a game, and come up with variables to express them:

C = classes
S = skills
R = game rules
P = powers
F = feats and traits
L = leveling and progression
M = monsters
T = treasures
E = equipment
W = world rules
N = NPC rules
D = all the above sets of information, the game's master database
D = C + S + R + P + L + F + L + M + T + E + W + N ....and so on

Each individual item is an entry in one of these lists, such as a tower shield being equipment item #334, or E[334] in programming terms. Let's say our game has six shields in it, and they all work in different ways. Our buckler could give a -1 to hit in melee, our tower shield is handled in the ranged rules, and so on. Our game now adopts six special cases for all the shield types, and now we have to maintain these rules from now on. If we come up with one rule that handles all shields, and adjusts each shield based on type, we have simplified our design a little bit. Now we can reference one main rule for all shields, and adjust based on shield size and type.

DnD4 had a huge problem with their database of rules, and this extended in an endless series of updates, errata releases, patches to the online character designer, and changes after release. Their design theory was 'each power or equipment item was like a magic card,' and the card had special rules for use. The game had thousands of powers and equipment items, and by the time you started playing with a book, it was most likely out of date. The only real way to design a character was via the character builder, which had all the updates - the books did not.

To be fair, this was Wizards' business model, to sell DnD Insider subscriptions, and make the game play the best when you had access to the online tools. It's a valid strategy, with one flaw - they printed books. The huge database of game material became the Insider selling point, and also the downfall of the books. To be fair, you can play without DnDI, but it is not the same when you play with a group, and appreciate the speed and flexibility the designer gives you.

How do you solve the complexity problem? This problem has been solved before, in programming with design patterns and object oriented design. Think about the shield problem, if all shields work the same, and they only differ on a couple variables, you can make the shield rule an 'object' and limit the data to variations of the base object. You should define the entire game along the object-oriented theory, with simple, common rules used for the base cases, and limit special cases as much as possible.

We can solve the 'update' problem by keeping data apart from the rules, such as making equipment and spell lists online-only downloads. This way, if there are updates, your books remain valid, and you can print out the updated material you need from the Internet. Keep a basic, generic list of items in the basic rules, just as examples - but keep the huge 'download and print' items separate so these can be maintained and updated better.

If you are trying for an online, community-based game, you may not print books at all, and just sell access to the community. The rules would be free, and the value is held in the community and the tools which support play. You could say the pen-and-paper rules should be 'free-to-play' and focus on creating a community where roleplayers can gather, discuss, and play together.

When designing a game, part of the design is managing infinite complexity. How you manage this will be determined by how you want the game to be played and delivered. Some formats, like the ideal DnDI model, require a rethink, and allow you to have a more complex database. With a simple printed book roleplaying game, you need to make decisions to limit 'game database' complexity, since your format is much more limited and focused. Any way you can simplify the design and handled a lot with a little helps in all cases, since this streamlining makes the game easier to play and understand.

Difficulty Adjustment as a Game Balance Tool

There is a fascinating discussion over on the Pathfinder message boards. A GM has a fellow GM as a player in his game, and the GM-as-player has the opinion that 3.5 is horribly unbalanced towards casters, and wonders if Pathfinder follows the same design mantra. Notice here, we are not focusing on 3.5 or Pathfinder, we are talking about design.

Gauss (in the second post) says, "Also: Pathfinder almost universally dropped the CRs of monsters by 1. The effect of this is that monsters have slightly higher saves and more hitpoints. This benefits the martial classes."

Wow. Interesting take on this. Paizo dropped the power of an entire class by just adjusting encounter challenge ratings. This is a wonderful example of using difficulty to balance a class and its powers, without touching the powers or class itself.

Most game designers would first consider adjusting the powers, tweaking spell resistance rules, fixing the class, adjusting monster defenses, or any number of other fixes that would take a long time to iterate over the data in a game's lists. Game design is tough, and going back over your existing data can break lots of stuff. Instead, Paizo used their CR system, and tweaked it to put melee characters on an even keel with spellcasters - and they made the adjustment backwards on the existing system.

Examples of great game design techniques are hard to find, but I think we found one here.

DnD 3.5 vs. Pathfinder 3.75

The goings on in DnD land are interesting, with Wizard's reprints of 3.5 with errata, and of course Pathfinder and its huge world. Is it the RPG equivalent of the Kristen Stewart and Robert Patterson breakup? Both companies make great stuff, and I don't really see this as a fight. One company is forging ahead on its own path, and Wizards seems to be tipping its hat at their success, while moving forward with DnD5.

Pathfinder and Paizo built an incredible world, with majestic support in their adventure paths. From all the things Paizo has said, Wizards has been very gracious with the timing of the breakup on Paizo and DnD, and letting the company forge ahead with their new direction. There were pain points where Paizo was left to fend for themselves, and ambiguity around DnD4, which seemed to have hurt. Paizo has built an incredible brand and customer loyalty, and that isn't going to change.

Wizards is in a position where they seem to be rebuilding bridges, and trying to hand out olive branches to fans of all editions. They reprinted the classic AD&D books, and have also went forward with the 3.5 reprints (with updates and errata, very nice touch). Wizards is focused on DnD5, but that seems a long time off, so the best route they can take to shepard the brand is to rebuild loyalty, and reprint old editions as favors to the community. It's a great move, and I love to see this.

I would love to see most every classic TSR and Wizards edition, module, and support book to be released as paid-for PDFs. Paizo's PDF support is great, and Wizards should step up with their back catalog. We live in the world of iPads and tablet readers, and cracking open a classic "Tomb of Horrors" module via PDF to play with the reprint AD&D hardcovers would be a treat. Let's add in TSR's back catalog of games like Star Frontiers, Top Secret, Gangbusters, Gamma World, and even the old TSR minigames to the mix as well - the more gaming history for sale the better.

I don't see having a huge back catalog of TSR and Wizards PDFs as hurting the demand for a DnD5, the DnD3 theory of "network effect" takes over - the more people playing any version of DnD, or similar RPG the higher the demand will be for the newest versions of the game. Availability drives interest, and keeping the old-school core players happy gives Wizards a solid base of advocates and heavy users. New players will always gravitate towards new editions of the game, to check out the new stuff, be cool, or differentiate themselves from the old-school crowd.

Instead of obsoleting old editions such as the DnD3.5 to 4 shift; celebrate the past, and support the communities around the older games with low-support-cost PDFs. Don't pull the 'older system' life support from your old-timers and force them to play the new edition; support them, sell to them, and let them be the wise old wizards that guide the next generation to roleplaying enlightenment.

Are the PCs Heroes or Survivors?

Some games assume the PCs are heroes, others simulate an environment and let the chips fall where they may. Others take a more adverse position on heroism, and discourage heroism and make players fight for survival against impossible odds. Let's break down the design of heroism in RPGs today.

Heroic Games: Some games are designed so the PCs are heroes, better than the average person. Characters are meant to fight, survive, and beat scores of enemies in an average adventure. Think of an action videogame, where the PCs are heroes that advance through endless waves of opponents. The challenge of these games is judging the enemy's strength in real time, and give yourself a tactical advantage in every encounter. Games like DnD4, the classic Space Opera, Star Frontiers, the original Marvel Super Heroes, and d6 System are great examples of heroic games. One of my favorite "heroic game" quotes is from Space Opera, where the give PC's a +10% chance to hit in close combat, just because close combat is dangerous and PC's are supposed to be the heroes. Heroic games are great "party games" where you have players new to roleplaying, or groups that just want to have a great time.

Simulation Games: Some games put PCs and enemies on the same level, and let the toughest survive. The goal of these games is place everyone on the same level, everyone is spun up using the same rules, and neither side gets a special advantage. The challenge not only becomes tactics, but resource management and knowing how to beat the other side based on the enemy's strengths and weaknesses. You have to know your builds, know your rules, and know your enemy to survive. The rules are still fair, and combat is not discouraged - there is a good bit of survivability, if you know what you are doing. Good example of simulation games are Pathfinder/DnD3, Traveller, the James Bond RPG, the classic Aftermath, Top Secret, Gangbusters, and even SBRPG. Simulation games appeal to the tactical gamer, groups that like to build characters well, understand the rules, and beat the enemies at their own game.

Realistic Games: If a game has a quote, "combat is real and deadly," chances are this is a game designed to be realistic. Combat is discouraged, and damages are high. Combat is not a game, and if you get the first shot or blow in, you have the advantage, and will probably win. The original GURPS, Mercenaries Spies and Private Eyes, FASA's Star Trek, and Call of Cthulhu are good examples of this type of game. If you browse to the weapons section, and see the average rifle doing twice the damage as a PC has hit points, you are probably reading a realistic game. Relaistic games are a tough sell with a lot of groups, nobody likes their character getting one-shotted, and the appeal comes from a more interaction and mental layer. The roleplaying is the star here, and the rules are secondary.

The design of a RPG should fit its theme, and enhance the story. If the game simulates realistic espionage during the Cold War, you can't have PCs running around and surviving like James Bond. That may be fun, and fit the design of the latter James Bond movies, but it's not what you want to do for this game. You would want cloak-and-dagger stuff, with combat being deadly and real, and danger at every turn. Staying out of combat is survival - and smart play. Regardless, this type of game would not appeal to a group of excitement-driven players, it would be more intellectual and slow paced.

It's interesting too, when you think about James Bond - the early movies definitely are realistic affairs, where a pistol kills in one shot, and the action is subtle and muted, perfect fodder for a realistic game. The latter James Bond movies (excluding the current trilogy) are straight up action movies like Rambo, with James running through machine-gun fire multiple times during a movie, dual wielding guns, and enough explosions to level a copper mine. If you're thinking this is more heroic gaming, you are on the right track. The genre of James Bond has moved along, and it would be difficult for one game to simulate all the movies without a lot of configuration to handle different eras.

There are a couple things to remember here, like understanding what type of game you are playing, and making sure your group likes that type of game. We have played many games with groups that didn't fly well, many times because the group expected something else, like an action-hungry group wanting to kill sea-monsters in Cthulhu's port of Innsmouth. While that would be cool in an action-minded sense, the original game really didn't intend the game to be a DnD4 style monster hunt. At times, you will need to make adjustments to a game to fit the group's expectations, and even switch games to something that fits better depending on how things go.

System Games and Books

Gaming evolves, but like classic novels, some games become timeless. This is the paradox of role playing games; companies like to think of game as platforms, while players like to think of them as books. A platform can go out of date, be replaced, updated to a new version, and a new and better platform released. A book is a book, and it never really goes out of date. Sure, there may be no new support for an old game, but time does not wither the written word, it enshrines creative works such as games.

With the 'games as platform' side, you see the World of Darkness, Hero System, DnD4 and 5, GURPS (to an extent), Traveller (new versions), and other roleplaying game systems being marketed as 'gaming platforms.' Typically, you will get platform arguments like, "finding players is important" or "support and new content is key for interest."  It's all well and good, companies need to make new stuff to sell stuff, and honestly, there are room for improvements in every game.

With 'systems,' theories define success, and the danger of marketing witchcraft creeps into game design. A publisher may make their game overly complex to achieve 'system lock in', and also to take away time and mental effort needed to learn and play other games. Game companies may push a lot of books to increase 'investment' in the system, both monetary and mental for players and game masters. Companies and fans can create 'system wars' to draw attention to themselves, and shut out third parties not involved in the 'battle between the systems.' Other terms like 'shelf space', 'awareness', 'platform support' and other mojo terms appear and take meaning in physical products.

For more on this, please read the Wikipedia article on lock-in, and also the related articles on the bottom of the link. You'll find a lot of the terms used in current roleplaying game design, such as EEE, network effect, and even path dependence. They are fascinating subjects, with both good and evil sides associated to their use, and even unintentional market choice. Again, these aren't 'wrong' or 'bad' concepts when relating to system games, although they can be used that way.

Ignoring marketing 101, let's sit back and look at 'games as books.' My second edition of TSR's Top Secret sits on my gaming shelf, as timeless and secure as a copy of 'Moby Dick' would. I can pick it up, spin up some characters, teach the basics to a new group of players, and start having fun. Who cares that it is a 32-year old game set in the 1970's and 80's? It doesn't really matter no new modules are made for the game anymore, or there are a miniscule amount of players in the world. It is a book, and a game, meant to be taught and played until the paper turns yellow, decays, and turns into dust. Platform support, lock in, and investment mean nothing to me.

The old-school movement supports the 'games as books' theory, and tries to make new versions of old games available to play for a new generation. They give out the rules for free, and publish books and modules on the side to support the authors. It is a laudable goal, because with many of the old games, the books are hard to acquire, and not readily available for new players. Anyone with a printer and a computer can play. Some companies also distribute old editions via paid-for PDFs on sites like RPGNow, which is another avenue for keeping the 'game as book' alive.

Freedom is important, along with choice. Games can be both systems and books, and it's rough to be dragged into the mental trap of system advocates and marketers just because they say something is cool. Read, explore, think, and pick a game you like. Teach it to a new group of players, and don't be afraid to express your interest and support. Players and game companies need to be more open, celebrate our history, and explore the classics of the tabletop world.

Chocolate Frosting in Dungeon Encounters

Let's pause the game design discussion for a moment, and talk about refereeing. This is brought up by the thoughts on toy-box designs we just had, and I felt it was an interesting discussion tangentially related to all that.

I had this discussion with George last night, and it seems like a lost point on many published modules and adventures. If you are playing a fantasy game, and enter a crypt of undead- sealed off for 500 years. Let's say the first room is a trap where the doors seal and a flood of skeletons surge into the chamber, weapons ready, and the dust of tombs floating in the air.

I asked George, "Shouldn't those weapons be rusted to nothingness, and the skeletons fragile and their bones snap if tested?" George agreed, and I called the concept the "chocolate frosting" on the encounter - that extra special detail you normally wouldn't have thought of, that when added, makes sense and actually enhances the experience.

Sure, having the skeleton's weapons break when they hit the characters' weapons and armor sure reduces the difficulty of the encounter, and snapping arms off of the undead during grapple attempts kinda defeats the purpose of the skeletons grabbing for the characters in the first place - but it is cool, and it fits the encounter. If you need to, increase the difficulty with a hazard, trap, or more skeletons - but keep the chocolate frosting on the encounter to maintain the unique and memorable quality.

Let's take the opposite approach, and equip the skeletons with brand-new weapons, give them full hit points, and normal grapple attempt chances - book standard stuff. Boring stuff actually, without special flavor and this certainly won't be remembered like the previous version. There is something about the ferocity of an undead creation attacking as it breaks up and crumbles away that is so horrifying, it will stick in the player's minds for a long time. This is the stuff legends are made of, and great storytelling.

You can put chocolate frosting on any encounter with a little thought and imagination. Lizardmen in a swamp? Let's make them hunters, with spears coated in paralyzing poison, bolas, and hooked nets. Coat their skin in a slippery slime, either natural or applied before the hunt, and give them a couple archers with arrows that explode into a pungent skunk-like tracking scent that lasts for days. What was once ordinary is now cool and unique, and will stick in you player's minds (and their character's nostrils) for a long time.

Craft your encounters and situations like you would make a cake, don't just stop with the book-standard creatures and opponents - put that extra layer of detail and super-specialness on them that fits who they are and what they are doing. Your players will love your work, and you will get that extra-special feeling of satisfaction that a master chef gets with a perfectly-crafted dish.