Dexterity Influenced Initiative

My understanding of 3E and 4E initiative is as follows. Each character or monster has an initiative bonus, which is influenced by the dexterity modifier and other situational modifiers (including things like the improved initiative feat). Each character rolls initiative which is 1d20 plus the bonus, and then all characters act in the order of highest to lowest. This is only rolled once, at the beginning of combat, and then the order is followed statically for every following round, and is modified only if characters decide to delay their action (and thus voluntarily place themselves later in the order). Monster initiative is often done as a group, to simplify the referee's job.

In terms of the math, this type of initiative system is much like achieving surprise: it can benefit you in the first round, but never afterwards. To see why this is, consider a simple initiative order with four entities, acting in the following order: A, B, C, D. Thus, assuming no entity is removed from the combat or delays, the actions would go:

• A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, ...

It is clear that A, B, and C have some relative degree of advantage at the beginning of the combat, but after that it is much less clear. For example, the following initiative orders are all also true if ignoring some or all of the first round (as they are all subsequences):

• B, C, D, A
• C, D, A, B
• D, A, B, C

Thus, not much dynamism or potential character advantage is actually gained by using this system, which is relatively cumbersome at the table (all the numbers have to be rolled, written down, and then reordered). Mechanical aids can help; I've seen (but never used) magnet systems, smartphone apps, and small whiteboards designed to help with d20 initiative. If you know the initiative bonuses of all combatants beforehand, you could precompile several sample orders, but that seems like a lot of work to me (with little benefit).

Given that, why not just let the character with the highest dexterity go first, and then go around the table? For added impact, seat players around the table in order of dexterity score (or initiative bonus, if you are playing a game that uses such a thing). The referee could use a Holmes-like system and roll 3d6 for monster dexterity at the beginning of combat, and then have a roll-off to determine if the cycle would start with the monsters or the PC with highest dexterity (the advantage here is 2 rolls per combat rather than N rolls, and no need to write down the order or bounce around the table).

For comparison, it is also worth mentioning the AD&D/segment "count up" system, which is similar to, but more elegant than, the d20 system. In the "count up" system, everyone rolls 1d10 and then subtracts their dexterity bonus and adds things like casting times and other penalties. The referee then counts up from one until every entity has acted (thus, lower is better). The advantage here is that weapon speed factors and individual dexterity can contribute to the order of actions without needing to write down an initiative sequence. Since everyone tracks only one single number, it can even be rerolled every turn, so that characters with quick weapons or high dexterity scores will go first more often than not, but nothing is guaranteed (making combat more interesting and less predictable).

It seems to me that the d20 style of initiative is a clear example of a misapplied core mechanic. Roll a d20, higher is always better just doesn't seem to be convenient for the problem of determining initiative order. I'm probably missing some subtle awesome stuff that can be done with delaying actions in the d20 system. If so, please enlighten me!

Personally, I am quite happy with the Moldvay D&D method of rolling d6 per side every round (I even used that system with Fourth Edition), but I was thinking about this and just wanted to get my thoughts down. The dexterity bonus is only applied to initiative rolls in Moldvay for one on one combats; otherwise, it is a d6 roll unmodified by any character stats.

Excursion Format

Image from Wikimedia Commons

Back in high school, we sometimes played D&D in a format that we called a house game. This format was so called because every adventure was required to begin and end at a home base (the "house"). We did this because it allowed us to rotate DM duties, and slowly develop the campaign world jointly, rather than requiring a large time investment upfront by a single DM. This was the way we ran the Blackwater Falls campaign.

This is somewhat similar to the way I see many games being run online now (ConstantCon, FLAILSNAILS, etc), though the primary concern is not rotating referees, but rather a changing player roster. The PCs in the next session may not be the same as the PCs in the previous session. In other words, it is assumed that PCs return to town (whatever "town" means for the particular campaign).

This can raise a problem of logical narrative. What happens if the PCs end the session on, for example, dungeon level 3? Jeff Rients addresses this with his Triple Secret Random Dungeon Fate Chart of Very Probable Doom. Basically, if you are still in the dungeon at the end of the session, you need to make a roll (50% success) adjusted down (-10%) by dungeon level and up (+10%) by character level to see if you escape without mishap. If you fail that roll, you are sent to the Chart of Very Probable Doom to see what happens (the name says it all).

Jeff's approach and table are inspired, but I am modifying the method slightly for my own use. First, rather than making a percentile roll and adjusting for level, the character makes a saving throw (the most favorable save may be used). This models the increasing competency of being higher level and reuses the numbers that are already on the character sheet (not that Jeff's percentages are hard to remember; I just like saving throws). You may also add your single most favorable ability modifier as a bonus. Penalty is applied by dungeon level as per Jeff, but only -1 (5%) per level (I may change this to -2 in the future). Second, regarding the wilderness. The number of hexes away from the nearest known point of civilization is equivalent to dungeon level in terms of penalty. Third, the expected consequence of failure is death. I may have a table with other options, but its contents are confidential.

Note that whatever system I happen to be running, it is likely that the main setting assumptions of B/X D&D will hold: the wilderness is a perilous place. You might run into a dragon. I stock the wilderness map without consideration of PC levels. Merchants and other travellers generally move in large, armed caravans. Maybe you should stick to the dungeon for the first few levels (not that that's any guarantee of safety either).

This post is not intended to be in any way original. I just want a page that I can reference describing the way I plan to run a game.

9 July 2012 edit: Well, look at this, an ODD74 thread from 2008 (Starting my Jakalla Megadungeon) that features a "table of despair" for characters that have overstayed their welcome in the dungeon.

Diegetic Character Options

Last year I wrote about about backloading complexity, specifically applied to skills. In response, Jeffro wrote an excellent post about extending that idea to magic-users; in Jeffro's Infocom-inspired system, magic-users begin with only one spell, read magic, and must discover all other spells by finding scrolls. This is also a way of backloading complexity (because the players of magic-users do not need to know what the various spells do before the game starts or choose between them), but it is something more as well. It is diegetic in the sense that it ties the game mechanics to in-game events and situations. It is meaning first.

I think this principle can be extended even further. What if learning new skills or feats required finding a teacher or some other quest? For example, if you want to learn the mounted combat feat, perhaps you need to complete 1d4 missions with the local cavalry, and maybe you must journey to the steppe barbarians to learn mounted archery. Under such a system, feats would become a form of treasure, or at least an adventure hook.

Why not use this approach for race as well? Elves could be available as PCs once Elf-Land has been discovered. This is the way that Evan plans on handling reptoids in his Uz setting. Other nonhumans could also be accessed in this manner. In a sense, this is similar to the idea of "unlocking" options in video games. To take this to the logical extreme, what if you could play any race if you could convince one of them to first be a retainer (riffing off the traditional idea of being able to promote retainers to full PCs)? Thus, want to play a dragon? You first have to find and make friends with one. It would provide a nice incentive for parley, too. And give the referee an opportunity to show through play how a given species behaves in the particular setting.

One could even imagine having almost nothing at the beginning, and discovering everything through play (even class). Some modes of zero level play approximate this ideal, but in reality most of these systems allow players to plan things out and just make them wait for it (which is why I think many people don't like zero level play). What I am laying out here is a stricter idea how zero level is usually played, as spells or other mechanical bits may be entirely unique to a given campaign (though the two ideas could be profitably mixed).

This structure privileges exploring game worlds over exploring mechanical options. Players might not even know what feats were available until they have experienced the game! I realize this kind of game is not for everyone (there seems to be a sizeable contingent of players that groove on character optimization, if forum post volume is anything to go on), but I think this is a mode I would enjoy both as player and as referee. Exactly where one draws the line between character creation options and diegetic options is a matter for individual groups and referees to decide upon together.

Chaos Titans

Chaos titans are powerful beings from other worlds or dimensions who derive pleasure and nourishment from strife and conflict. They are not gods. Thus, they cannot shape reality in the way that a true god has authority over a domain such as light, or love, or death. Nor do they exist outside the bounds or rules of the material universe. However, in most cases, practically speaking, they are immortal and invulnerable.

It is possible to destroy them, but the correct rituals to do so are difficult to obtain and may even have been truly lost. It is easier to banish or imprison them, but even such limited tasks are the work of a legendary hero. It is unknown whether chaos titans were created by mad gods, ancient sorcerers, or are birthed naturally from maelstroms of chaos.

Chaos titans can grant powers to mortal servants in the manner of divinities. They favor powers of destruction and awe. They are often the patron of rebels, and may pretend to be gods unconnected to chaos. They communicate only telepathically, at a range of several thousand feet. Thus, they often reside in caverns deep below populated areas, where they can cultivate followers, though they have also been known to hide in storm clouds, volcanoes, or powerful rivers. They enjoy causing natural disasters periodically.

The physical presence of a chaos titan may mutate creatures nearby, though this radius will vary from titan to titan and can be controlled to some degree. Chaos titans dislike any kind of stability, and are likely to betray followers if they feel like their power is being used in the service of order. They will also use their followers to undermine any other source of law. They have little sense of time of consciousness, and thus little ability to plan; they exist mostly in the moment.

When in physical form, chaos titans often appear as giant chitin-plated humanoids, 50 feet or more in height, but may take any form that pleases them of approximately the same size. Metamorphosis between forms takes one turn, and is terrifying to behold. Anyone witnessing such a transformation must succeed on a morale check or flee (this does not apply to PCs, but does apply to all retainers and NPCs).

AC as plate, HD 20, # attacks 2, damage 3d6, immune to non-magical damage, movement 24 (levitation). They may cast the following spells at will: ESP, confusion, invisibility, levitate, pyrotechnics, lightning bolt, transmute rock to mud, part water, all cure spells. They can also grant these spells to followers of the appropriate level that are within telepathy range. Individual titans may also have access to other spells; this list is merely a suggestion.

If defeated in combat without the proper destruction ritual being performed, the chaos titan will reform in 1d4 weeks, often growing in a surviving follower or nearby beast.

Iron Heroes & Adventure Motivation

Recently, I have been sampling the d20 book Iron Heroes. This is a "variant player's handbook" that presents new classes and rules for 3E D&D. I am indebted to noisms for originally bringing Iron Heroes to my attention. My understanding is that the original motivation behind IH was to create classes that would be competitive (in terms of power levels) with the core classes without relying on assumptions about magic items and healing magic.

The game is thus mostly built around martial classes (with the exception of the arcanist) that have interesting tactical and combat abilities. Classes include archer, armiger, berserker, executioner, harrier, hunter, man-at-arms, thief, weapon master, and arcanist. Some of these are obviously derived from standard 3E classes (e.g., man-at-arms = fighter, berserker = barbarian, thief = thief) with tweaks to make them fit the desired style.

Though this may seem, from the above description, to be similar to many recent high power, heroic games, the actual atmosphere is swords & sorcery, enforced by a lack of magical items and a highly dangerous magic system for the one class that uses magic. This is a system for Conan stories, not for teleporting elves. The art is also perfectly in tune with this vibe.

There are many great ideas here for specific mechanics, and the magic system is wonderfully evocative. It uses mana points, and each school has methods with guidelines about how to create effects, based on a character's level of mastery. A d20 "casting roll" is required (with difficulty based on the amount of mana spent and the power of the ability) and failures can cause minor or major disasters (for example, a major disaster when animating the dead causes the newly created creature to immediately attack the creator arcanist). It is a complicated system that requires calculation for every effect, but it looks like it would be very enjoyable once learned.

Iron Heroes was written by Mike Mearls in 2005, and thus predates Fourth Edition by three years. Many of the concerns that would inform the design of 4E can be seen here in proto form, though the style of the implied game world is very different. Check the following quote (page 248):

ADVENTURES

When creating adventures, be sure to come up with interesting situations that allow the player characters to use their abilities. Try to avoid fights in plain, empty rooms.

Battles in Iron Heroes tend to last longer than in other games, since the characters have more hit points and more complex abilities. Thus, you must ensure that there is more to the fights than merely two lines of opponents standing still and smacking each other. Throw in lots of interesting terrain to encourage creative, active play.

When designing adventures, remember that you cannot offer magic items to the party as a reward. Gold and jewels also lose some of their value in terms of character power, because the PCs cannot use them to purchase magic items. The onus is on you, as DM, to come up with interesting stories, villains, and enemies. The characters need motivation other than the simple accumulation of treasure to push them ahead to adventures.

Entire books have been written about adventure design, leaving far too little space for the topic here. However, you’ll do fine if you remember one important thing: The characters should always have a good, compelling reason to do something. Whether it’s a noble desire to defeat an evil overlord, a selfish need to escape the law, or some other reason, you need to create a clear and interesting rationale to drive the action forward.

The first two paragraphs outline exactly the kind of play expected by 4E. Creative play is reacting to and using terrain elements tactically. Encounters should be designed to allow characters to show off their abilities. Fights in plain rooms are discouraged, and movement is considered the essence of dynamic combat. This is quite different than traditional D&D, but I don't mean to highlight it pejoratively. I've learned some interesting things from Fourth Edition combat, and though I have come to the conclusion that as a complete system it is too cumbersome and slow, there are aspects of it that I think deserve a place in more freeform and fast-paced combat systems, particularly forced movement and support actions (e.g., things that allow fighter-types to protect other characters if they so desire).

However, there is one aspect of the above advice that I think in retrospect is downright harmful, based on the kind of game that it encourages. Specifically, the bit about characters needing motivation to push them ahead to adventures. Why should players demand "compelling" reasons to do something? Is not the point of the game to have adventures? A referee already has to spend a nontrivial amount of time and energy either familiarizing themselves with a module, writing their own material, or improvising it at the table. Why put this additional burden on the referee? Is the existence of interesting locations and scenarios really not enough?

There is nothing wrong, of course, with using character motivations (revenge, fear of the law, a common enemy, whatever), but it is this sense that the referee is required to convince the players to go after the adventure that bothers me somewhat. Why should the ref need to push the players ahead to adventure? Haven't they indicated that they are interested in adventure by sitting down around the gaming table?

Precompiling

I have found that I don't much like rolling on content-generating tables during play. I rarely do it (I would usually rather just improvise), but every once in a while it comes up (like a treasure table in a module that I didn't bother to roll on beforehand). The box label generator in the Lamentations module Tower of the Stargazer is a good example of this. Rolling those names during the game just killed the sense of immersion, and made it seem like none of the results could possible matter.

Whenever this happens, I feel like it slows down the game and exposes pieces of the machinery that are better left hidden. My most recent face to face group, especially, seemed to become uninterested in content if it looked like the random variety. They wanted to find the "real" content.

There have been a few posts on the blogs recently that have touched on similar issues. For example, Beedo over at Dreams in the Lich House has been talking about how he is using spreadsheets to pregenerate content for his Black City game:

• Random Content and Speed During Play
• Randomly Generated Viking Ships
• Black City Retainers

And, Jim at Carjacked Seraphim has been posting about his system for DM prep. He has some useful-looking ideas there, like prerolling on which turn encounters should happen, so that you can tick off bubbles as the turns progress and then just cross-reference the appropriate encounter column. Check them out:

• Pre-Timed Encounters
• Precompiled Hit Dice Bubbles
• Pregenerated NPCs

This also brings an aspect of fate into the game without actually limiting player choice at all, which is sort of fascinating. It's like looking down from the corner of a high building at a road intersection and seeing two cars speeding towards (but oblivious of) each other. You have seen their future (the crash) without reducing their free will.

There are also tools like Meatshields! that can help.

The principle is also a bit like vancian casting: you want to prepare the content so that all that is left is the final command word. Note that the content in question can still be loosely bound. Like, you might not know exactly where you are going to need the next barkeep, but having one ready is useful (especially if you are as bad at remembering improvised details like I am).

Magical Affinity Draft

Here is a reworked version of the magical disciplines system. This iteration is slightly more limited (there are only 12 disciplines) and they subsume the common cleric functions using a colors of magic system. Vitality magic risks causing aging (though I have some updated and streamlined mechanics for this inspired by Talysman that I will post separately).

The spell metaphysics and descriptive parts are heavily influenced by The Dying Earth, which should probably be obvious. This is part of something that is rapidly evolving (to both my dismay and delight) into a full-blown heartbreaker (that is still entirely compatible with the traditional game). Thus, there may be several references to other aspects of the system that are not explained herein. Apologies for that, but I suspect things should be pretty clear from context. Posting smaller parts as blog posts helps me make progress on the whole.

SPELLS

Worm-eaten books speak of hundreds, or even thousands, of spells in the past. In these degenerate times, only twelve spells remain. Each has been handed down through the ages, hand-prepared laboriously (for each individual must make their own copy to fully understand the mysteries). For example, though most sorcerers have knowledge of the dread tome of necromancy, actually procuring a copy can be far from easy. This is compounded by the fact that white magicians commonly destroy the books of black magic and vice versa. Spells are not mere manipulations of reality using arcane techniques. They are actually a type of hyperdimensional creature that exists sideways to reality. Preparing a spell involves binding such a creature, and imprisoning it inside the sorcerer's consciousness. All effects within a single domain are actually manifestations of the same kind of bound creature. Generally, spells work against sorcerers, which is why "higher level" effects are harder to accomplish (and more dangerous). Forgetting a spell means the sorcerer has lost control of the creature in their head.

USING MAGIC

All characters have a rank in each discipline, ranging from 0 to 6, where 0 indicates no familiarity and 1 indicates basic competence. Magic-users may "safely" attempt effects of level equal to or less than their discipline rank. When casting a spell, a magic-user must make a saving throw. Upon success, the spell goes off and they may use spells from the discipline again in the same day. Upon failure (but not fumble) the spell still goes off, but the magic-user may use no spells from that discipline again until they have had a good night's sleep and studied their magic books. If a fumble is rolled, the spell fails or backfires in some inconvenient (and probably dangerous) manner (use the spell fumble or corruption system of your choice). A roll of 1 is always a fumble.

Higher level effects may be attempted, but at greater risk. The same procedure is used as above, but the saving throw takes a penalty equal to the spell level, and the save must succeed for the spell to go off. A roll of 20 is always considered a success. Also, the fumble range is extended by the level of the spell. So, if a 4th level magic-user (max spell level: 2) is attempting to cast a 5th level spell, they roll their saving throw with a -5 penalty and the spell backfires on rolls of 1 through 6. This same procedure will obtain until the caster reaches 9th level, when the save penalty disappears and the fumble range drops to 1. In other words, the progression is not linear (though the base save versus spells does improve at 6th level and 11th level); this is intended. You don't get it, and don't get it, and then it finally clicks. Thus, magic-users may attempt any effect at any level, though doing something like conjuring an elemental at first level will almost certainly result in disaster.

AFFINITY

Magical affinity ranges from -6 (chaotic) to 6 (lawful). All characters begin at 0. Whenever a character casts a black magic or white magic spell, affinity shifts one step in the appropriate direction. For example, if a sorcerer casts charm person, which belongs to the domination discipline (black magic), affinity shifts one point negative. Affinity cannot be higher than 6 or lower than -6, so ignore any further shifts in either of those cases. Affinity serves as a penalty to casting spells from the opposite end of the spectrum. For example, a sorcerer with a magical affinity of -4 (chaotic) would take a penalty of 4 when casting white magic spells. In addition, black magic is forbidden in most civilized areas ("malfeasance") and is punishable by branding and banishment (at the very least) or death by burning (more commonly).

Magical affinity encodes some aspects of what would be considered alignment in other games. It has nothing to do with morals or behavior, however; affinity only measures a character’s relationship with the cosmic forces of law and chaos. Characters with affinity scores of more than 3 in either direction may start to be affected by, for example, protection from evil. They may also manifest their affinity in other ways, including mutation or physical changes.

ADVANCEMENT

Characters that choose the path of SORCERY begin play with one spell book (determined randomly or by player choice). All other spells books must be discovered through play. It is possible for adventurers on other paths to gain competency in spells also, but it is twice as difficult. Sorcerers may learn no more than 1 plus their intelligence modifier disciplines, and other classes may only learn a number of disciplines equal to their intelligence modifier. No adventurer may advance more than one point on a single discipline per advancement period. (I'm still playing around with several other schemes for advancement limitation, including limiting the total spell ranks to the intelligence score, and providing "retraining" rules.)

DISCIPLINES

Discipline	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th
Turn Undead	skeleton	zombie	ghoul	wight	wraith	mummy
Vitality	cure light wounds	slow poison	cure disease	neutralize poison	cure serious wounds	raise dead
Warding	prot. from evil		prot. from evil 10' radius		dismissal	banishment
Stasis	hold portal	web	hold person		hold monster
Shield	shield		prot. from missiles	minor globe of invulnerability	avoidance	anti-magic shell
Arcana	read magic		dispel magic	remove curse
Divination	detect evil	locate object	clairvoyance	wizard eye	contact higher plane	true seeing
Transmutation	enlargement	shatter		polymorph	rock to mud	stone-flesh
Domination	charm person	forget	bind familiar	confusion	feeblemind	geas
Destruction	magic missile	acid bolt	fireball		flame strike	disintegrate
Summoning			minor demon	demon	elemental	invisible stalker
Necromancy			vampiric touch		animate dead	death spell

There are legends regarding spells that can manipulate gravity, or bend space (allowing travel over great distances with a single step). This magic has been lost. However, it may still reside in mouldering tombs or hidden deep in lost ruins.

This table is still a work in progress. You will notice that a few of the effects are new, and one or two have had their level adjusted. I am considering having the necromancy and turn undead spells more directly mirror each other (see also my necromancer draft from a while back). I really like the idea of maintaining the traditional spells (both by name and effect) in this system, so I don't want to stray too far from that ideal. Or maybe I do. Who knows where the muse will take me.

I am aware that some of the terminology is less than ideal. On the one hand, I like using multiple words for magic-users (wizard, sorcerer, wonder worker, etc), but on the other hand, using fewer terms is likely to cause less confusion. I am leaning towards standardizing on sorcerer, as it also matches "the path of sorcery," which is the analogue to the magic-user class in this system. Perhaps falling back to the more general magic-user in some cases, since it is possible (though harder) for other kinds of adventurers to use magic. Also, there is some problematic overloading of the word "spell." Following Vance, I want to use that word for the entire discipline, but other fantasy games use the word spell for individual effects. Right now I am still inconsistent on this.

The magic books will get better names. The book of necromancy will probably be The Necronomicon, for example, if that term is now in the public domain.

Malfeasance as a term is from English law, but was borrowed in this context from The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss.

I'm extremely happy with the cosmic reinterpretation of alignment as affinity. The new term should help avoid arguments about ethics and moral philosophy. It also manages to apply only to those classes that are tampering with the cosmos (clerics and wizards).

Sturluson's Dwarves

Snorri Sturluson wrote The Prose Edda, a telling of Norse mythology. He lived from 1179 - 1241. Here is an excerpt about dwarves.

Next after this, the gods enthroned themselves in their seats and held judgment, and called to mind whence the dwarves had quickened in the mould and underneath in the earth, even as do maggots in flesh. The dwarves had first received shape and life in the flesh of Ymir, and were then maggots; but by decree of the gods had become conscious with the intelligence of men, and had human shape. And nevertheless they dwell in the earth and in stones. Modsognir was the first, and Durinn the second; so it says in Voluspa.

1916 Brodeur translation, 2006 Dover edition, pages 25 and 26.

Cantrips as Encounter Powers

Some time ago, I bought a copy of the Pathfinder Beginner Box (reviewed here, here, and here). I still think about running it as a complete (E5-style) low power game, perhaps with a d20 supplement such as The Lost City of Barakus (that might be a fun G+ campaign). The one thing that I have decided that I absolutely must change is how at-will magical powers work. The same is true of the recent D&D Next playtest materials. The chassis is something I would enjoy playing, but I really dislike limitless powers, from both style and gameplay standpoints.

First, I would just remove cantrips that solve resource problems (such as light). Second, all other cantrips would require a short rest to prepare. Five minutes each, so two cantrips could be prepared per turn (important for things like torch duration and wandering monster checks). Diegetically, cantrips would be exactly the same thing as other vancian spells; they would just require less work to prepare. In game terms, they would function like Fourth Edition encounter powers. Thus, your PFBB wizard would get one free force missile (or whatever it's called; I can't be bothered to look it up right now) per combat.

I readily admit that this is not meaning first design, but it is "meaning based" design. And yes, this decreases the power of the magic-using classes. I don't see that as a bad thing. In essence, there would be two kinds of vancian spells: the kind that require deep concentration and a fresh mind to prepare, and the minor cantrips that can be prepared given a few minutes.

Youth as a Resource

Yesterday, The Dragon's Flagon had a post about using hit points as spell points. One of the common (though not insurmountable) problems of a system like this is that it increases the utility of healing effects, which are already potent. In addition to allowing adventurers to take more punishment, healing would also allow magic-users to cast more spells. I call this the "mana battery" problem.

When thinking about this, the following idea came to me: what if each hit point of magical healing aged a character by one day? I have PCs recover one HP per day when tracking natural healing, though hit dice are re-rolled between adventures. Thus, there would be a symmetry between magical and natural healing. At one stroke, healing magic becomes problematic while still being available, a reason is given for why healing magic is not used frivolously, and magic gains a greater sense of enchantment. I am considering implementing this even in games that don't use HP to power magic.

Also, this morning while reading John's answers to my 20 rules questions, I came across this:

Level-draining monsters: yes or no?

No. Monsters that would normally drain levels instead age you.

This is much better, in my opinion, than ability score damage (the 3E method), which is both not very scary (because it recovers quickly) and a hassle (because you need to recalculate several other derived statistics). Aging is irrevocable without being catastrophic in most instances. And, you have adventurers returning from raiding barrows strangely aged, which fits the atmosphere of undead. 2E (and maybe AD&D, I'm not sure) sort of did this with the restoration spell which restores drained levels at the cost of aging. I might even use level drain and aging together if I was running a game using a proper traditional rule set (as opposed to the 4E hack I've been playing recently).

There are some other spells that traditionally age spell casters as well. Gate, for example, ages the caster five years, as does wish. I'm sure there are more.

The downside is that you need to track an extra number per character (effective age). This was sort of true before, but it has come up so infrequently in games that I have played in as to basically not be required.

Alexandrian Hex Crawling

Justin Alexander has been putting out some posts on hexcrawls. Here are some links:

• Hexcrawl game structure
• Overview and design goals
• Modes of travel
• Navigating
• Encounter tables
• Spot distances
• Watch checklist
• DM's worksheet

They assume the 3E skill system, but are still interesting reads. For comparison, see my old wilderness movement costs post (which is really just a slightly simplified version of the B/X wilderness movement system).

In particular, his concept of "watch" seems like higher temporal resolution than I need. What I have been doing is one encounter check per day (with a die roll to determine time of day). This is pretty much as specified by the original Expert rulebook. There are also rules for discovering fixed features through exploring hexes rather than moving through them (like searching a room for secret doors in a dungeon). It is also possible to notice some fixed features without searching form them.

Justin also left this provocative comment on one of the posts:

If you find yourself starting to worry about where the PCs are “in the hex”, you’re doing it wrong.

I need to think about that more. Should the hex be an atomic measure of wilderness space? It has a pleasing absolutism to it. It does remove the idea of zooming hex levels, but perhaps that is unnecessary complexity anyways.

Power Levels

In a previous post, I praised the flattened power curve that 5E seems to be groping towards. Jack (of Jack's Toolbox), left the following comment:

I like the vast spread of potential power levels in D&D 3.X. I don't think that it's a game that reasonably can or should be played straight from Level 1 to Level 20 or beyond, but the system gives you the option of playing wherever you want from gritty adventurers to wushu-style heroes to nigh-demigods. I don't think that flattening that curve or 'simplifying' the system along that axis is going to be a benefit for people like me.

My own preference is towards more grounded play. As a DM, managing a low-power campaign is more tractable, and, as a player, a low-power campaign is more exciting (because the stakes are higher, the motivations more immediate, and the treasure is more special). I've never played in a satisfying high-level campaign. This is entirely a subjective preference, I readily admit.

That being said, I think Jack has a point regarding the potential of the 3E system (as elaborated in The Alexandrian post he links to). I suspect that the original authors did not have such a sophisticated intention, however, due to how challenges are scaled. In 3E, adventure design seems relatively constant (and is even more so in 4E); that is, the primary difference between a low-level and a high-level adventure is the cosmetic dressing (sewers in the beginning, planar travel at the end) and the tactical complexity of the combat (due to the increase in things like numbers of attacks and spell selection). I think it was designed to be played straight through from level 1 to level 20, and I also think this is the assumption of the vast majority of players.

However, assuming that supporting a vast spread of power levels is a good thing, doing it mechanically via difficulty levels doesn't work very well, because it assumes a sameness to play, and I think that dooms any kind of lengthy campaign. It seems to me like much of the design of 3E and 4E involved embracing only a limited part of the full traditional D&D campaign arc, discarding the parts presumed to be not-fun, and extending the remaining part over the full level spectrum. In 3E we can see this in the generalized multiclassing, removal of level limits, and continuing accumulation of hit dice. In 4E we can see this in the extension of the 3E "sweet spot" (roughly levels 4 through 10) over the entire game experience.

I like the idea of bounded accuracy, but I think there is a danger that the designers will try to fit the entire game into another limited box using this principle. There is actually an impartiality to difficulty class systems (generalized with 3E) which could in theory work well with wide-open sandbox games, exactly because such DC systems are not centered around character stats. This is in contrast to systems like "roll under" stat checks, which, while more traditionally old school, are also more solipsistic (even if you keep the math the same). One crafts bonuses or penalties around character abilities when using a roll under system, rather than just describing the external entities.

Here's Zak on campaign evolution (that is, how game play changes as a game progresses over multiple sessions). Along similar lines, there was a Save of Die interview with Frank Mentzer where immortal level play is discussed. To paraphrase Frank, the focus of the game shifts from how to defeat (or circumvent) the monsters to preventing collateral damage to mundanes (the mortals that the characters presumably care about). He compares immortal play to Superman stories; it is assumed that Superman can triumph "mechanically" over his foes in most direct confrontations, but he must protect those he cares about (and avoid being tricked into succumbing to his weaknesses).

We can also see this in the traditional domain game that comes when a D&D character builds a stronghold and begins to attract followers. This was always present in the B/X and BECMI systems, was present in AD&D (though somewhat obscured by the popularity of high-level tournament-style modules), and then embraced again by recent revival systems like ACKS, the very name of which embeds the expectations of the campaign arc (fist adventurers, then conquerors, ending as kings).

I don't think that high power campaigns are inherently bad or unsatisfying (I have a copy of Nobilis on my shelf), but I do think they need to be different in some meaningful way from the first level character experience. It's not enough to have a higher attack bonus, more spells, and +N equipment. RPGs have more potential than that.

Prometheus

I saw Prometheus over the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. There have been many overly critical reviews going around, so perhaps this can function as a dissent. In addition to suspending your sense of disbelief (something necessary for engaging with any work of fiction), you must also be willing to accept a story which can support multiple interpretations, as not everything is spelled out. If you don't like any kind of symbolism or theme in movies, this is not the movie for you. If you are irritated by characters that go to investigate dark hallways alone in horror movies, this is not the movie for you.

Some of the characters made bad (even stupid) decisions. Many reviews I have read latched onto these plot elements as flaws in the movie. However, people can be stupid, vain, greedy creatures who don't necessarily think things through, even when they are spending trillion dollar space ship budgets (and this is when they don't need to make split-second decisions). Consider Christopher Columbus spending Queen Isabella's money (and all the other explorers that were not as successful). And speaking about some of the mercenaries, what kind of person rents their life to a megacorporation and risks death in a two-year suspended animation in order to make some money? Apparently, some people are only satisfied with stories about people who always make smart decisions (see The Alexandrian's take, for example).

That being said, there were some problems with characterization in the movie. It was hard to feel sympathy for many of the characters, and some motivations were not terribly clear, especially for Charlize Theron's corporate ice queen. Why was she there? What did she hope to get out of the mission? And, the captain's final action. The motivation did not feel authentic to me for the captain, and it felt even less so for his subordinates, who, as far as I could tell from what came beforehand, were basically just hired technicians.

It is possible that Prometheus is one of the better cinematic adaptations of Lovecraft that has yet been produced, despite the fact that it is not directly based on any Lovecraft story. It is certainly more in the spirit of Lovecraft than either Alien or Aliens. I would also add that many of Lovecraft's protagonists also make "stupid" decisions, and that this is part of the point. Humans tamper with an unknown and dangerous cosmos. To quote from Joe the Lawyer's list of D&D rules broken by characters in this movie: "Never trust the unknown. Everything in the universe is fucking hostile."

There are a few minor problems of pacing. I could have done without the entire section near the beginning depicting the android teaching himself about human culture while everyone else was in stasis on the ship. I feel like more mileage could have been gotten from the exploration of the alien ruins. And the writing was not spectacular, though I didn't feel like it was bad enough to negatively affect the rest of the movie.

I can't say for certain that the makers of Prometheus consciously meant to allude to Dungeons & Dragons, but there certainly seemed to be a number of references. For example (paraphrasing from memory here), near the beginning there is the following dialogue: "Before the adventure begins, Ms. Vickers would like to speak to you." There is a "skull mountain" vista which looked like it was straight out of Holmes. I suppose these could just be coincidences. Also, the mapping robots. All I could think of here was that this is a DM with players who clearly don't like mapping. Did I mention that the entire plot revolves around what is essentially an alien megadungeon?

In total, I think the visual power of this movie is enough to carry it for a viewer that appreciates such things. The score was good too, in an unobtrusive sort of way (I generally don't like scores that call too much attention to themselves, with the exception of Kubrick, but then all bets are off with Kubrick anyways). And, if you play D&D-style adventure games about exploring dungeons, you will see a lot in Prometheus that is familiar, and probably get some ideas from it too (I certainly did).

Holmes cross section, just because

Evasion & Armor

Here is a quick method for changing how armor works that has been floating around in my head. I don't claim any originality for this system. It was inspired by Combat Musings over at The Jovial Priest and St. Innocent of Alaska over at Blood of Prokopius.

This assumes a B/X substrate. It would play well with damage by hit die rules, I think.

First, instead of AC there is an evasion score. This is 10 + dexterity mod. This is how hard it is for a character or monster to be hit. You would need to improvise the evasion score for monsters, but I think that should be easy. Sample: goblin, 12; pixie, 17; dragon, 10.

Second, armor provides a damage reduction die. Light (leather) armor is d4, medium (chain) armor is d6, and heavy (plate) armor is d8. If you are wearing armor and take physical damage, you roll your armor die and reduce damage by that much. This is similar to "soak" rules in other games, but I think this implementation integrates nicely with other traditional D&D rules. Monsters also require improv DR scores. Sample: wolf, d4; bear, d6; dragon 2d6.

That's the core of the system. Here are a few optional rules for added detail.

1. Armor damage. If you ever take a full damage blow (e.g., 4 points from a d4 attack or 6 points from a d6 attack), you roll damage reduction as normal, but mark down a point next to your armor. When N such points have been accumulated (e.g., 8 points for heavy armor), the armor is degraded one step (so degraded plate armor would reduce damage by d6 after one level of degradation). Armor can be repaired, probably at half cost.
2. Weapon versus AC. Using a weapon that is "good against" a particular armor drops the damage reduction die by one step. So, plate armor would only block 1d6 damage from a military pick. Firearms could ignore armor entirely or drop the damage reduction die by one or two steps, depending on how much influence you would like gunpowder to have on your setting.
3. Bulky armor. Armor reduces evasion by one point per class. For example, plate armor would reduce evasion by 3, leather by 1.
4. Armor competency. The damage reduction die is limited by class hit die. So magic-users can wear plate armor, but they still only get d4 damage reduction, and all evasion and encumbrance penalties still apply. Maybe there is some method to gain proficiency with armor for classes other than fighters? That's beyond the scope of this post, though.

I've worried before that this sort of system might make dexterity overly important, and I still think that is true. Another reason to use 3d6 in order to generate stats, as if we needed more.

From the armchair, this looks like a pretty slick system that would be fun to play and potentially feel more realistic to people who don't like the "armor makes you hard to hit" paradigm.

Edit: damage reduction numbers for d6-centric OD&D using 2DTH: light (leather) 2d6 take lowest, medium (chain) 1d6, heavy (plate) 2d6 take highest. Evasion calculated using the B/X dexterity modifier, though it would not apply to anything else.

Wilderness Rumors

One of the major draws of a sandbox campaign is that players get to choose their own paths. But in order to make informed choices, players need setting information. There are two major ways of communicating such information: 1) setting documentation and 2) learning about the setting through play. Option 1 is also known as the infodump; published setting canon belongs to this category. Unsurprisingly, I favor the second method, but it does sort of beg the question: if you need info to play intelligently, and you gain info only by playing, does that mean that you must play stupidly to begin with?

You could take a hybrid approach, which I suspect is actually the most popular in the wild. Something like: read this small infodump, and then learn the rest through play. And I'm certainly not against some amount of background info (though it does have the tendency to grow once unleashed). However, under the principle of restricting preparation to elements likely to affect the game directly, there is a traditional structure that can be used: the rumor table.

It seems to me like we already have an integrated rumor table without any extra work required: the stocked hexes. You just need an impartial way of deciding which areas you want rumors to be about, and (optionally) their truthfulness. I'm not sure that much actual utility is gained by seeding false rumors (as is usually done in old modules), but it is easy enough to roll for truth if you so desire (maybe 1 in 6 rumors are false or misleading). Here is the method I am considering.

Rumors (d6):

• 1 - 3: current hex
• 4 - 5: adjacent hex (roll again for direction)
• 6: farther hex (roll again for direction and for distance)

Optionally, in the case that a 6 is rolled for both farther hex and distance, you can have the possibility of a rumor from even farther afield. Here is one way to do this. Roll a d6 to "confirm" the far-distance rumor, and then another d6 for the actual distance and add it to the previous distance. Continue this process as long as you roll 6s on distance rolls. Or stop at the edge of your stocked hexes.

When PCs enter a hex, roll for one rumor automatically, no matter what the characters do. This information may be conveyed in any way you like, via encounter, dream, whatever. These may be framed in whatever way works best for your particular group (some ideas include: leads, quests, and direct encounters). I imagine the appropriate number of leads will vary by group.

Additional rumors can be uncovered by PC action. Maybe roll d6 more times, and maybe adjust that result by charisma or intelligence as appropriate to the context. For example, if the PCs are in a tavern, charisma is probably more relevant, but library research might use intelligence.

Example uses of the rumor system:

1. Rumor roll: 3. Select a rumor from the current hex.
2. Rumor roll: 4. Adjacent hex. Roll for direction: 3 (southeast).
3. Rumor roll: 6. Farther. Roll for direction: 2 (northeast). Roll for distance: 6. Roll for even farther: 6. Roll for additional distance: 3. So, the rumor should be taken from 9 hexes away to the northeast.

In a separate G+ conversation about encounter tables, a similar method (but for random encounters) was brought to my attention (I had seen that one page dungeon before, but didn't notice the random encounter method). See here too. This seems like a nifty way of doing encounters too, and I'll probably consider it more when I get to the post on random encounter tables.

Hex Stocking Interlude

Aplus of People the with Monsters left a comment on one of my recent posts:

For another example of how one dude handles wilderness, I just make a short table (12 or 16 entries). The players tell me the direction they are heading (I do have terrain figured out beforehand, but nothing else) and I check each hex for a random encounter. Most of these encounters are lifted from Carcosa, so they have a lot of underlying depth in a sentence or two, and are also easily modified to suit near any campaign.

This is a really interesting approach. It lies somewhere between having nothing other than terrain and rolling wandering monsters and keying up hexes statically. In computer science terms, this method is somewhat like late binding. I see several advantages: one, less material is needed; two, the referee can be surprised along with the players; three, you end up building a setting through play gradually rather than all at once prior to the game (compare to the character build versus development through play game styles).

There are several things that I want in a hexcrawl that are not supported by the Aplus method though, assuming I am understanding it correctly. I would like the direction chosen by the players to matter regarding more than the terrain type. Assuming that there is only one list of encounters in play, it seems like you would have the same die roll no matter which direction was chosen. It's not exactly the same thing as a quantum ogre, but it does seem to preclude information gathering beforehand.

Unless information gathering, in addition to actual travel, is grounds for determining hex contents. In other words, things start to exist only when you look at them, and researching rumors and travel are both ways of "looking at" hexes. That sounds promising, but I suspect it would fluster me at the table, so I still think I would prefer to precompile. Also, I'm really bad at taking notes during play, so I fear that I would end up losing much of the richness created at the table. (I really think good session note taking is one of the most valuable referee skills, and I'm terrible at it.)

There are two other little subsystems that I have been working on (for future posts) which also require having some hexes set down beforehand. The first is autogenerating rumor lists based on the contents of adjacent hexes. Yes, it's about as simple as it sounds, but I added a few complications to decrease the predictability somewhat. The second is creating relationships between the contents of different hexes. For example, the wizard in the tower in hex A might be interested in capturing the creature in hex B or taking vengeance on the fighter is settlement C. I don't really have a system for that yet, but I'm working on it.

All that being said, I like the Aplus method and think it is very practical, especially for people like me who probably tend to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I may try it the next time I want to get a game going with minimal prep. It did also make me step back from the systems that I had been working on and ask myself what I was gaining from the amount of work I was doing, which is useful to do periodically.

Hex Stocking II

Recall: 1-2 monster, 3 trap, 4 special, 5-6 empty. Yes, differing chances for treasure too, but ignore that for now. Translating these possibilities into wilderness terms:

1-2 lair, 3 hazard, 4 special, 5-6 empty.

What are these things? They are subtly different than the dungeon equivalents, so here are some definitions.

• Lair: a place where monsters reside. Probably counts as a small dungeon, and may sometimes connect to the underworld. Examples: goblin caves, bandit fort, zombie graveyard.
• Hazard: something that is potentially dangerous, but only if PCs interact with it. Examples: lava flow, quicksand, time-stopped wizards mid-duel, town where everyone was killed by a disease, magical radiation.
• Special: something with interesting utility, unlikely to be directly dangerous (though don't underestimate the power of creative players to make anything dangerous). 50% chance that a special is a settlement. I wish I had a better word than special for this category. Non-settlement examples: wizard's tower, oasis, dimensional gateway, healing spring, antigravity zone.

If followed rigorously, this system will result in hexes with at most one interesting feature. Frequency is variant, since one third of all areas will probably be empty. A six mile hex is a big area though, so I would sort of like the system to provide the possibility of more than one result per hex. So, new rule: Keep rolling per hex until you roll a 5 or a 6. Each result rolled will be progressively more hidden or off the beaten path. Basically, I see a hierarchy of obviousness regarding hex contents:

• Impossible to miss: if you enter the hex, you are aware of it. If you are following roads, then anything on the road is of this category. Examples: a mile high tower on a flat plain, the smoke from an army's campfires, New York City (probably doesn't fit in a 6 mile hex, but you get the idea).
• Standard: some chance in 6 of discovery. If you're just trying to move through a hex, you still get a passive chance of discovery.
• Less: some chance in 6 of discovery, and you must proactively spend time exploring the hex.
• Least: like above, but lower chance of discovery.

This "obviousness" hierarchy is still something I'm working on. The similarity to secret door systems is not lost on me, but I haven't decided exactly how it should best be systematized yet. I also feel like I read something similar to this somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Also, in case it's not clear, the default level of obviousness is standard, not impossible to miss.

If there are dangerous things (hazards) and interactive things (specials) there should also be a category of things that are interesting but not so interactive, right? Otherwise, I suspect the hazards and specials will start to feel too common, even if you try to improvise other details at the table. Dungeon stocking systems often have the concept of dungeon dressing; thus, we need wilderness dressing too. Since fluff is crunch, the dressing might still be of use to creative PCs too. My first thought for this was an independent roll per hex, with a 2 in 6 or 3 in 6 chance of added dressing. Like the general hex stocking step, keep rolling until you get a negative result. So, the majority of hexes will not have a dressing element, but a few will have more than one. Hopefully this distribution will feel organic and keep players guessing. Examples of wilderness dressing: abandoned farmhouse, small canyon, half-buried dinosaur skeleton, crater from a past explosion.

To summarize the system as I see it working now: for each hex, roll 3d6 (each die being a different color would probably be convenient). Die 1 determines the main result (lair, hazard, etc), die 2 determines the treasure, die 3 determines if there is dressing. Die 1 and die 3 are each re-rolled until they come up negative, determining ever more hidden hex features. For each result, the relevant subtable is consulted for details about type. I see these tables as a mixture of generic elements that can repeat and unique Vornheim-like entries that are crossed off and replaced with something else once rolled. Monsters are determined by rolling on a terrain-specific table. Treasures are determined by monster hoard type (if part of a lair result) or the standard dungeon "unattended treasure" table (maybe? I haven't thought this through yet). In the future, I might do some table consolidation, so that fewer die rolls are needed, but I want to leave the various rolls separate for now to preserve the probabilities and make it clear where results are coming from. Also, I don't think the number of dice required can by much reduced if I want to support a variable number of features and dressing elements per hex.

Hacking D&D

I'm in the process of creating a sandbox using the implied OD&D setting. I'm not sure if this will turn into a game or not; it might just end up being an exercise. While working through this process, I've gone through the booklets several times now, and it has got me thinking again about what makes up the essence of D&D. Just about all the things that I now consider important to the game are here in the beginning. I think it's valuable to see all the parts working together before you start to swap out bits, and I've never really done that systematically. So, paradoxically, in order to investigate hacking D&D, I'm doing the opposite.

Here is a summary of what the 3 LBBs cover, and how much space is dedicated to each topic. The space allotted to some topics is surprising.

• Men & Magic
• Classes; Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, Clerics (2 pages)
• Demihuman Races; Dwarves, Elves, Halflings (1 page)
• Alignment (1 page)
• Abilities and character creation example (3 pages)
• Hirelings; negotiation, monsters as, loyalty (2 pages)
• Inheritance (1 page)
• Equipment (2 pages)
• XP tables and advancement (4 pages)
• Combat and saving throws (2 pages)
• Spells and turning undead tables (2 pages)
• Magic-user spell descriptions (9 pages)
• Cleric spell descriptions (3 pages)
• Magical research and spell book rules (1 page)
• Monsters & Treasure
• Monster stats reference table (2 pages)
• Monster descriptions (17 pages)
• Treasure types (1 page)
• Magic item tables (4 pages)
• Magic swords (4 pages!)
• Other magic items (8 pages)
• Artifacts (1 page)
• Coins & gems (1 page)
• The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures
• Dungeon maps, traps, dungeon stocking (4 pages)
• Movement, time, surprise, dungeon encounters (2 pages)
• Dungeon encounter tables by level (2 pages)
• Example dungeon session (2 pages)
• Wilderness strongholds and their inhabitants (2 pages)
• Wilderness encounters (2 pages)
• Wilderness encounter tables by terrain (2 pages)
• Evasion and pursuit (1 page)
• Construction of castles and strongholds (4 pages)
• Mass combat (3 pages)
• Naval combat (8 pages)

Men & Magic contains almost all of the player interface to D&D. In that sense, it is the precursor to the Player's Handbook. It has the character generation rules (including special powers), equipment, the way combat and advancement work and a few aspects of implied setting that impinge on PCs (such as alignment). Most modifications of this material will increase the cost of entry for new players.

Monsters & Treasure contains the risks and the rewards. It also interfaces with the advancement rules (because of XP for GP), but not in a player-facing way. That is, players know from Men & Magic that XP is rewarded for treasure, but the rules in this book encode the frequency and distribution of the rewards. Several subsystems (such as dragon subdual) are described here, which PCs should probably know about, but these can easily be introduced diegetically within the game as necessary. This material is relatively modular and it easily swapped out for custom monsters and treasures.

The Underworld & Wilderness Adventure encodes the three different game modes. These modes also correspond roughly to three different campaign phases: low-level dungeon crawls, mid-level wilderness adventures, and high-level domain rules (stronghold building and mass combat). Each of these modes makes use of the previous mode (for example, mid-level characters still have encounters in dungeons or rooms). This book is almost entirely for the referee (and thus is a predecessor to the later Dungeon Master's Guide), and provides tools for setting building (stocking dungeons and generating NPC strongholds). The evasion rules probably count partly as player-facing rules. The mass combat rules should also probably be considered player-facing, but most games don't actually get to that stage in my experience.

So what is the core of D&D? The aspects of characters that are class invariant (ability scores, mostly). The way combat works. The advancement system and incentives (that is, what is XP rewarded for). This makes up 10 to 12 pages depending on if you include equipment. The domain rules if your campaigns reach high levels. Classes and races are extra character generation options; the core game can be played without them (18 of the pages in Men & Magic are dedicated to classes and spells). Hirelings and inheritance rules occupy a strange place in the rules. Superficially, they look like setting details that are included here because they are part of the player interface, but in terms of how the game plays they are probably more integral than classes and special abilities like spells or turning.

Consider Carcosa as a case study. It is built on Men & Magic, but the only classes allowed are traditional fighters and the new sorcerer. Monsters are mostly custom (though there are a few creatures in common with the traditional game, such as mummies and oozes). Treasure is replaced with space alien technology and ancient technological artifacts. The underworld is only hinted at obliquely, but the wilderness is given by example (hex descriptions) rather than formula.

Thus abstracting the sections marked out above, this is what you might replace when building your own custom version of D&D:

• Player's Interface
• Classes & races (and powers such as spells)
• Equipment (this implies places to buy equipment)
• XP incentives (this will determine the type of adventures)
• Referee's Interface
• Systems
• Time keeping and resource tracking
• Non-combat resolution (searching, traps, etc)
• Encounters; surprise, initiative, etc
• Setting
• Bestiary
• Treasures
• Encounter tables by terrain type or region
• Map or terrain generation system
• Dungeon and dungeon stocking guidelines
• Hex stocking system (not really present in OD&D)

I believe the above list to be entirely genre-independent at this level of abstraction, though you may need to add other layers of maps for games that allow space travel. If you work through those elements, my thesis is that you will have the smallest complete setting that could potentially satisfy all aspects of the original game. Am I missing anything?

Surprisingly, the part of the 3 LBBs that feels most lacking to me is actually the part that I also think is most unique and valuable, at least compared to other similar games (because it's usually totally absent): wilderness stocking rules. TU&WA punts by only giving you half of a system. The referee is instructed to get a copy of the Wilderness Survival hex map (page 15):

OUTDOOR SURVIVAL has a playing board perfect for general adventures. Catch basins are castles, buildings are towns, and the balance of the terrain is as indicated.

Then rules are provided for generating the inhabitants of the stronghold and for interacting with the stronghold (including very interesting guidelines for the occupants venturing out to meet adventurers). And random encounter tables are provided for other wilderness inhabitants. Now, this is not bad, but I still find myself somewhat blocked when I go to create a wilderness area. Basically, I think the wilderness setting guidelines in the 3 LBBs are more example than generator, so anyone that is building a setting from scratch will need to come up with their own system (something similar to the dungeon stocking system is what I am experimenting with, but it still requires some modifications).

Meaning First

There has recently been another round of discussion about associative and dissociative mechanics. Here is Justin Alexander's restatement of his original thesis, a post by Zak about diegetic and extradiegetic thinking, Carter Soles on healing surges, and Jeff on whether or not the d30 rule is dissociated. Zak doesn't use the words "associated" or "dissociated" anywhere, but it's really the same issue from a different angle. Are players reasoning about cause and effect within the game world or within the structure of the rules?

Consider two examples:

1. The Labyrinth Lord spell "levitate" (LL page 33):

   For a number of turns equal to the casters level +6 turns, the caster can move up and down as he wishes. The caster mentally directs movement up or down as much as 20 feet each round. The caster cannot move horizontally, but could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half base land speed).

2. The Fourth Edition level seven fighter power "come and get it" (4E Player's Handbook page 80):

   Every enemy (but not ally) within a 15 foot radius is shifted two squares (10 feet) and become adjacent to you do so, and then you get to make a weapon vs. AC attack against them.

In the first example, the meaning is primary. The caster is no longer subject to the limitations of gravity, and can move themselves around at some set speed. In the second example, the effect is primary. Enemies come to the PC to be hit. We don't know why. Did the PC taunt the enemies? Did the PC lasso the enemies? Either might make sense in different cases, and many people don't bother at all with narrative explanations. Obviously, it is not an either/or thing, but one of association or dissociation is usually dominant. In the first example, the duration in turns is somewhat dissociated (why would levitation only be available in game-convenient durations that are a multiple of ten minutes?), but unobtrusively so.

The common example of a limited martial resource (such as a daily power) as a dissociated mechanic is really just a special case of this more general "meaning first" or "effect first" principle. It is easier to make a balanced game using effect first design, which is why 4E leans so heavily on dissociated mechanics, as mathematical balance was an important goal for that system.

The examples above also show how this issue is orthogonal to realism. Levitating is obviously not realistic (at least based on my experience), but it is associated. Enemies moving toward you and then you hitting them is realistic, but it is dissociated. Why are they moving toward you? Why do you as a player have the ability to affect the movement of your enemies? You can come up with an after the fact narrative explanation, but the meaning is secondary and the effect is primary.

As has been noted in some of the links above, there are some dissociated mechanics in traditional D&D too. Hit points and experience points are notable. To elaborate, the effects of gaining a level are primary (more staying power, additional spell capability, followers, whatever), and the narrative explanation is after the fact. Was the PC training? Did a demon grant them extra power? We often don't know. HP and damage are probably the most problematic. How can cure light wounds help with the loss of luck and fatigue? We can come up with an explanation, but it's certainly not obvious. Weapon and armor restrictions are another common dissociated irritant that has prompted many house rules, my own included (see here for weapon damage by hit die and a system to do away with armor restrictions).

The major difference, as I see it, in how new school games and old school games do things is that the dissociated mechanics of old school games affect encounter-based problem solving less than they do in new school games. And when they do affect problem solving (perhaps equipping every character in OD&D with daggers because they are cheaper and all weapons do 1d6 damage) that is considered pathological, and either fixed with house rules or condemned as against the spirit of the game. From the standpoint of creative problem solving, if meaning is first, the potential effects are limitless, and this is in my opinion why many people are uncomfortable with the extensive use of effect-first mechanics.

Edit: I'm sure this post was influenced by On the Failure of Tactical Combat over at Hack & Slash (though his post focuses, unsurprisingly, more on combat). So go read that too.

First Level Clerics & Spells

There is a really insightful comment over at Grognardling by Mike Monaco (quoted partially) about clerics:

Clerics in B/X don't get a spell at first level so they spend the first few adventures UNABLE to heal people. This gives them a chance to learn more roles, like throwing holy water, turning undead, backing up the fighters or defending the mages, and so on.

1974 D&D and the various incarnations of basic (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, and the Rules Cyclopedia) do not give clerics a spell at first level. Strangely, some of the retro-clones (Labyrinth Lord, LotFP) do give first level clerics a spell. The clones that don't are Swords & Wizardry Core, Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox, and Original Edition Characters for Labyrinth Lord. I believe the AD&D Player's Handbook was the first place that first-level clerics are given a spell, though more knowledgeable people can correct me if I am wrong.

In any case, I much prefer the no spell at first level version of the cleric. It highlights the martial aspect of the character class, which I think is very important to the cleric as demon hunter and crusader rather than purveyor of cure light wounds.

Maturity & Gaming

Back in the 90s, when I played Second Edition (this was the edition I started with), my friends and I almost always used 4d6, drop the lowest, re-roll 1s, and arrange to taste when rolling up characters. Max HP were generally awarded at first level. I usually played elves, most commonly elven wizards. I often came up with relatively intricate back stories for characters before play, and our characters rarely died (though we did not consciously run a "low lethality" game; such things were not considered). We enjoyed the process of rolling dice, mostly for the variation they introduced, but we didn't want randomness to rob us of whatever our predetermined vision was.

By that point in TSR's history, many of the core elements of the original game had become obscured or removed. For example, some of our characters had animal companions or other minions, but we didn't really play with hirelings. We scorned random encounters, never used reaction rolls, didn't use hex maps, and ignored all manner of other early techniques (mostly, now that I understand them, to the detriment of our games). This was also certainly affected by the amateur thespian advice littered around the Second Edition books, and the rise of the White Wolf Storyteller games around the same time (which all the older, more sophisticated kids were playing). I flirted a bit with The World of Darkness in high school, but even at that time D&D was always my game of choice.

I wonder, though, if play style is somewhat generational, not in terms of when you were born, but in terms of maturity level. I started playing during my adolescence, and much of one's life during that period is about defining yourself. Thus, I think there is a strong pull towards wish fulfillment play ("this is what I want to be"). Gary and Dave, when they originally developed D&D, were obviously not in that sort of mental space. They were already mature adults, and were building an intricate game informed by their wargaming experience. There is still a strong strain of childlike wonder present, but that is different than wish fulfillment. To perhaps oversimplify, if adolescence is about self creation, then maturity is about self discovery. The parallels with "character builds" and its alternative "development through play" should be obvious, I think.

Hex Stocking

I'm in the process of trying to come up with a random hex stocking method that works for me. My point of departure is the traditional dungeon stocking method:

• 1-2 monster (3 in 6 chance of treasure)
• 3 trap (2 in 6 chance of treasure)
• 4 special
• 5-6 empty (1 in 6 chance of treasure)

In the context of wilderness stocking, "monster" would be interpreted as a lair or dungeon, "trap" as a hazard of some sort (or perhaps an abandoned ruin that is uninhabited but still dangerous), and "special" as everything else (including, probably, settlements). Each of those categories could have a subtable or set of subtables to determine the type of lair, etc. I want to keep the system as simple as possible, but I think I need more than this for inspiration, because I don't find myself actually finishing a stocking process. That's a sign to me that I need more help from the tables.

One thing that is blocking me is how settlements interact with the stocking. I could just place the settlements, and then stock the areas between them, but I kind of want the generator to do that work for me. It seems that there are really only three or four meaningful settlement sizes for my purposes here. Stronghold, town, village, and isolated settlement (outpost, traveler's inn, farmstead, etc). Maybe half of the special results would result in some kind of occupied settlement. Ruins would be covered in the monster, trap, and empty (when with treasure) results on the main table.

I don't care much about things like logical food supplies (I can come up with after the fact explanations), but I do sort of like the idea of graduated civilization and wilderness. Here is another place where three or four categories seem appropriate: civilization (town, fortress, etc), threatened ground (the border between civilization and wilderness), and wilderness. There is a mathematical choice to be made regarding how this works: should the stocking roll be independent or related to results in adjacent hexes? If the process is independent, then we can infer the level of civilization (and thus danger) from the resulting distribution, which will end up being regular.

If it is dependent, then the process would be more like an organic outgrowth from some seed hex (probably the starting town), which would have some chance of going down in civilization level and some chance of going up. The chance of civilization level decreasing as you expand outwards would probably be greater than the chance of civilization level increasing, resulting in a setting that is dominated by wilderness (and thus adventure opportunities). Victor Raymond uses a system like this to generate terrain type in his Wilderness Architect series of articles in Fight On! (issues #2 and #3). He places settlements by determining random direction and distance from the starting settlement.

So, to expand the the "4 special" hex result:

1. Trick (magic statue, etc)
2. Settlement
1. Stronghold (50% chance includes another settlement)
2. Town
3. Village
4. Outpost

The meaning of this table (based on expected values): 1 in 12 hexes will contain a settlement, and 1 in 48 hexes will contain a stronghold. Following the DCC recommendation of 100 miles square, I am considering approximately 16 x 16 six mile hexes, which is 256 hexes (and also compatible with my ideas on hex zooming). Overall, such a wilderness would have (approximately) 86 lairs, 86 empty hexes, 43 specials (21 of which would be settlements) and 43 hazards. How does that distribution look? One thing that does not seem quite right is that an outpost is just as likely as a stronghold using this scheme, but on the other hand this will lead to around 5 strongholds on the map, which seems to be about right (especially if they are of varying levels of power and influence). Also, the "monster" result would include things like bandit forts and the towers of evil magicians.

Any ideas welcome.

Magic Disciplines

I read this post over at The Mule Abides about Starting Magic-User Spells, and for some reason that got me thinking about how higher level spells often seem to be improved versions of lower level spells. With a bit of mental flexibility, many spells almost feel like they belong in a progression. For example, consider a hypothetical discipline "gravity" with the following effects: floating disc, levitation, fly, telekinesis. Or a discipline "interposition" with the following effects: shield, protection from normal missiles, globe of invulnerability.

Extending this idea further, what if magic-users just had access to the discipline as a whole and never needed to learn (or prepare) individual spells? Higher level effects would just be harder to cast. Following the conventions of the 3 LBBs and B/X, there are six levels of effects (or spells) within each discipline. Spells are not learned; disciplines are determined at first level.

A magic-user gets one discipline, plus one additional discipline per point of intelligence bonus. All magic-users would get the metamagic discipline for free. Yes, this means that magic-users with a higher intelligence are more flexible, but we're all playing 3d6 in order, no? A magic-user with an 18 intelligence is assumed to be a rare an wondrous occurrence. For example, a magic-user with an intelligence of 14 would have access to two spells, determined randomly (or selected, you cheater). It is not possible to switch disciplines after character creation.

The system I am envisioning for casting is similar to these variations of Vancian magic, but magic-users don't need to prepare any spells beforehand. They may cast any spell which is of level less than or equal to half caster level (rounded up). For example, a 3rd level wizard may cast up to second level spells. When casting a spell, a magic-user must make a saving throw versus spells. Upon success, they may use spells from the discipline again in the same day. Upon failure (but not a roll of 1) the spell still goes off, but the magic-user may use no spells from that discipline again until they have had a good night's sleep and studied magic books. If a 1 is rolled, the spell fails or backfires in some inconvenient manner (use the spell fumble system of your choice).

Higher level effects may be attempted, but at greater risk. The same procedure is used as above, but the saving throw takes a penalty equal to the spell level, and the save must succeed for the spell to go off. A roll of 20 is always considered a success. Also, the fumble range is extended by the level of the spell. So, if a 4th level magic-user (max spell level: 2) is attempting to cast a 5th level spell, they roll their saving throw with a -5 penalty and the spell backfires on rolls of 1 through 6. This same procedure will obtain until the caster reaches 9th level, when the save penalty disappears and the fumble range drops to 1. In other words, the progression is not linear (though the base save versus spells does improve at 6th level and 11th level); this is intended. You don't get it, and don't get it, and then it finally clicks.

Thus, magic-users may attempt any effect at any level, though doing something like conjuring an elemental or attempting telekinesis at first level will almost certainly result in disaster. This could also be done with an ability check and some DC math, but I prefer the simplicity of the traditional saving throw. If possible, I wanted to build this system entirely with traditional D&D spells, using the more iconic ones where possible. Here is an (incomplete, preliminary) example of how the disciplines might look:

Discipline	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th
Transmutation	enlargements			polymorph self, polymorph others	transmute rock to mud	stone-flesh
Illusion		phantasmal forces		hallucinatory terrain		projected image
Divination	detect magic	locate object	clairvoyance	wizard eye	contact higher plane
Necromancy			VAMPIRIC TOUCH		animate dead, magic jar	death spell
Destruction	magic missile		fireball			disintegrate
Ward	protection from evil		prot. from evil 10' radius
Shield	shield		protection from normal missiles			anti-magic shell
Domination	charm person	forget		confusion	feeblemind	geas
Thuraturgy		knock, wizard lock			pass-wall
Gravity	floating disc	levitate	fly		telekinesis
Stasis	hold portal	web	hold person		hold monster
Optics	light	invisibility,	invisibility 10' radius	massmorph
Energy	shocking grasp		lightning bolt
Summon					conjure elemental	invisible stalker
Space			rope trick	dimension door	teleport
Metamagic	read magic		dispel magic	remove curse

Spells that look like this are originally from OD&D.
Spells that look like this are originally from Holmes.
Spells that look like this are originally from B/X.
Spells that look like this are originally from AD&D.
SPELLS THAT LOOK LIKE THIS ARE ORIGINALLY FROM 2E.

Note that by "originally" I mean showed up in a major ruleset; they may have also appeared earlier in a periodical like The Dragon or Strategic Review; this is not intended as an historical treatise. That being said, any corrections are still welcome. Shield, magic missile, and ventriloquism were from Supplement I: Greyhawk, not the 3 LBBs. Merciful Shiva, but the spell list exploded in Second Edition!

Ideally, I would have one spell per discipline per level. Sorry about the overloading of terminology; I hope the meaning is clear. Though maybe it's okay if a few disciplines are just inherently more dangerous, like necromancy or summoning. In a final system, the level of a few effects would probably be adjusted (for example, animate dead could be level four).

This system seems to have several benefits:

• Familiar D&D spell effects
• Simple character generation
• No time spent selecting prepared spells
• Risk/reward trade-offs
• Genre flavor (apprentices overreaching their power, etc)
• Each discipline could be given to a player as a one-page handout

There are a few downsides too:

• No spells as treasure (at least not in the traditional manner)
• Scroll rules would need to be revised
• Potentially more powerful magic-users?

This almost ends up looking like a White Wolf power system (three circles in celerity allows you to do X, Y, and Z) but with traditional D&D effects. Such a system would work well for cleric spells too (for example: purify food and drink, create water, create food), though I'm not sure the flavor works unless you are merging the spell lists like Akrasia's colors of magic system.

Okay, the data part of this post is not quite complete, but it is taking way too long to cross reference all the rule books, so I'm just going to go ahead and hit publish, and if I still care later I'll come back and finish that part. In any case, the idea should be clear.