Killing My Babies

“Kill your babies” is a term you may or may not be familiar with. I’m sure it exists in many fields, but I first discovered it while studying writing. The idea is that when you’re working on something, parts of it will become very precious to you. You’ll be happy with the way this argument or that turn of phrase represents you and your skills. But even a brilliant piece of writing can be out of place. The quality of the project as a whole must always take precedence over any individual aspect of it. Anything which is out of place or distracting must be killed, even if it is your baby.

I killed one of my babies a few minutes ago. In and of itself, that is not something worth writing to you about. However, the reason this particular baby needed to be smothered revealed something mechanically interesting about my recently posted ability scores weighted by race system. I’d recommend you read it, but to briefly sum it up, my idea is that the player should first pick their race, then roll their ability scores in a way that is weighted towards that race’s strengths and weaknesses. So a dwarf, being very hardy, would roll 5d6 for their constitution, and take the highest 3. Whereas a halfling, lacking physical strength, would roll 5d6 take the lowest 3 for that ability.

A few days ago I had the idea to combine the weight-by-race system, with a variant of the old ability penalty flaws system. My plan was that if a character had a negative modifier in any of their 6 ability scores, then they would need to roll on a flaw chart associated with that ability. So a character with a -2 modifier for their strength would need to roll on the strength flaw chart. No matter how severe the penalty (-1, -2, -3, -4) the character would only have one flaw per ability score, and the flaws would mostly be absolute “can’ts.” A character with a Strength flaw might roll “Can’t climb anything harder than a steep slope,” or “Can’t run for longer than 1 round.”

Unfortunately, while trying to work it out, I found it was difficult to determine which flaws should be associated with which scores. For example, one of the flaws I knew I wanted to have in there was “Can’t swim.” Originally, it was a strength flaw, because strength is the ability which modifies the swim skill in Pathfinder. But that didn’t strike me as correct, because it would mean dwarfs would almost never be unable to swim, while halflings would often be unable to swim. Moving the ability to dexterity solved that problem adequately, but then I ran into the same issue with “Can’t climb anything more difficult that a steep slope.” It’s obviously a strength based thing, yet a halfling scrambling up a rope seems perfectly natural. Many small creatures with low strength should be able to perform strength-based tasks, because their own mass requires less strength to move.

It was here where I realized that there was a large difference between Pathfinder’s default method of rolling ability scores, and my racially weighted method. Using the default method, ability ability scores are relative. Using my variant, ability scores are absolute. What do I mean by that?

In rules-as-written Pathfinder, a Strength of 10-11 is ‘average,’ pretty much regardless of your race. With a penalty of -2, halflings have a slightly lower average of 8-9; but since PCs get to roll 4d6 drop the lowest for all of their scores, PC halflings will still have an average strength (11) higher than the average NPC human. It sounds a little ridiculous to say that an average PC halfling will be about as physically strong as an average human, until you realize that a halfling’s strength is relative to their own size. Other mechanics represent the halfling’s strength relative to larger creatures. When using a weapon, halflings must use a smaller damage die. When attempting to grapple with an opponent, halflings suffer a significant penalty due to their size. Even encumbrance is modified by the creature’s size; a halfling can carry only 3/4ths the weight of a human with the same strength score.

The weighted-by-race system, in contrast, is intended to use absolute values for the ability scores. A character with 10 strength can carry the same amount of stuff regardless of whether they are a pixie or an ogre. (accommodations would be made for quadrupeds). That might sound ridiculous, but bear in mind that neither of those creatures will ever have a strength of 10. A pixie’s strength would probably be something on the order of 5d2, take the lowest 3. While an ogre’s strength might be the highest 3 out of 5d10.

I still like my system better. Not only is it significantly simpler, (small characters don’t need to record a dozen different penalties for the game’s different subsystems), but it’s also more consistent. RAW Pathfinder’s ability scores are only relative for the physical abilities. Mental abilities (Int/Wis/Cha) are absolute. Regardless, though, I don’t think the ability penalty flaw system will work with the weight-by-race system. Not unless I come up with a very different way to implement it.

The nice thing about killing your babies as a game designer, as opposed to killing them as a writer, is that game mechanics are modular, while writing often isn’t. Someday I’ll get to use the ability penalty flaw system…

…someday…

Ability Scores Weighted by Race

I’ve been thinking of ways to simplify the character creation process for new players, and I struck on an interesting problem with the way the game is presented. Typically, the first thing I ask my players to do is to roll their ability scores. Which means that their first glimpse of the game is “Roll these dice, record the resulting sum. Repeat this task five more times, then assign one score to each of these six abilities, the functions of which you probably don’t fully understand yet.”

This is a bad first impression of fantasy gaming. Sure the GM can help the player out by giving them an idea of how the ability scores will relate to class abilities, and the player will sticks it out regardless. Nobody is going to walk away from the table after 2 minutes. They will eventually start doing more interesting things, and they’ll probably have fun. None the less, this is a bad introduction which weakens a neophyte’s initial experience.

What if, instead, the initial question was “Which of these fantasy races would you like to be?” That’s a far more interesting introduction to fantasy gaming, I think. And in describing how each race functions mechanically, the GM is also describing interesting detail about the game world. Defining wisdom to a new player is difficult, describing a dwarf to a new player will connect with their experiences and engage their imagination.

Once a race is selected, the ability scores are rolled according to the strengths and weaknesses of that race. 3d6 is the average, but if a race is particularly strong in a certain area, then they would take the 3 highest from rolls of 4d6 or even 5d6. For every ability score where the race is strong, there must be others where they are weak, and take the lowest 3 from 4d6 or 5d6. So humans, as the baseline race, would roll 3d6 down the line; while a race which is strong, but clumsy and stupid, might roll 5d6(+) for their strength, and 4d6(-) for both their dexterity and their intelligence.

This would replace any bonuses or penalties the races get to their ability scores, which would eliminate scores over 18 at first level. And while it might seem extreme, 5d6 drop the lowest/highest doesn’t actually end up with too many extremely good or bad rolls. The averages would be 7 and 14 respectively. AnyDice represents the data really nicely.

So that the players have a little control over the scores they end up with, during character creation they may (after any roll) turn the face of one die to a 6. For (-) rolls, this is done after the high dice are dropped. So if a players rolling a 5d6(-) ability score rolls 6, 5, 4, 4, 1, then first the 6 and the 5 would be dropped. After that, the player can turn that 1 into a 6, resulting in a final ability score of 14. But this can only be done once for each character, and must be done before moving on to the next ability score.

Here’s how I think the races might work out:

Human
STR 3d6
CON 3d6
DEX 3d6
INT 3d6
WIS 3d6
CHA 3d6

Dwarf
STR 4d6(+)
CON 5d6(+)
DEX 4d6(-)
INT 3d6
WIS 3d6
CHA 5d6(-)

Elf
STR 5d6(-)
CON 5d6(-)
DEX 4d6(+)
INT 4d6(+)
WIS 4d6(+)
CHA 4d6(+)

Gnome
STR 5d6(-)
CON 4d6(-)
DEX 3d6
INT 5d6(+)
WIS 3d6
CHA 4d6(+)

Halfling
STR 5d6(-)
CON 5d6(-)
DEX 5d6(+)
INT 3d6
WIS 4d6(+)
CHA 4d6(+)

Orc
STR 5d6(+)
CON 5d6(+)
DEX 3d6
INT 5d6(-)
WIS 3d6
CHA 5d6(-)

Goblin
STR 3d6
CON 3d6
DEX 5d6(+)
INT 4d6(-)
WIS 4d6(-)
CHA 3d6

Kobold
STR 5d6(-)
CON 4d6(-)
DEX 5d6(+)
INT 5d6(+)
WIS 4d6(+)
CHA 5d6(-)

Simple Skill System, Type II

This past September I proposed a system I called Streamlined Skill Rolls. I thought it was a pretty solid idea, though it wouldn’t be a stretch to call it derivative. Earlier today I was pondering various means by which the Pathfinder character creation process could be simplified, and I ended up formulating an entirely different simplified skill system. I woulnd’t use it for Pathfinder, but I could certainly see myself implementing it in a new game.

Since I’ve created another one of these before, but this one is not related to the other in the slightest, I’ll call it “Type II.”

When a character wishes to perform an action which needs to be resolved by dice, but they have no ability to determine the method by which they perform that action, success or failure is resolved by a roll-under ability check. For example, if a character with 15 strength wishes to lift a large stone, they roll 1d20. On 15 or less, they succeed. On 16 or more, they fail. (For really large rocks, the GM might penalize them with a +1 or more on their roll).

The game has a list of such skills. For lack of a better list, we can use the reduced pathfinder skill list I ended up with at the conclusion of my Skills Overview. At first level, characters may select a number of skills from this list equal to their Intelligence bonus, with a minimum of 0. Rogues and bards, as the jack-of-all-trades classes, are each allowed to pick 2 additional skills beyond the ones their intelligence grants them. A character’s skills may be chosen at character creation, or during gameplay, at the player’s option.

When making a roll-under ability check relating to that skill, the player receives a bonus of -1 on their roll. Characters cannot choose the same skill multiple times to receive stacking bonuses. Once chosen, the skills remain unchanged until level 5.

At level 5, the players are again allowed to select a number of skills equal to their intelligence, with rogues and bards again being allowed to select an additional 2. The player has the option of selecting new skills, or of selecting their previous skills again, gaining a -2 bonus in those skills. This process repeats every 5 levels.

I haven’t determined how broad the skills should be with this stystem. On the one hand, if something is going to be itemized, I think the list should be kept short. On the other hand, if the players are allowed to simply select any ability they want (with a note about the appropriate broadness in the book), then the potential number of skills could be endless, and I find that somewhat interesting. If lifting and pulling are different skills, then players will be more inclined to pick new skills every 5 levels rather than just grind the ones they have up to the max. On the other hand, you risk emulating the D&D 3rd edition skills system, with its numerous skills that are absolutely pointless.

The major problem I see with this system right away is that automatic success becomes far too simple. That’s why it would never work in Pathfinder, because characters often end up with ability scores of 20+, at which point a roll under ability check cannot fail unless the GM imposes penalties. Even oldschool D&D, with a maximum of 18/100, would allow automatic successes by level 5 when the player is able to gain skills with a -2 bonus.

Maybe it’s okay for some skill checks to be automatic successes, thus rendering the die rolling unnecessary. I do like mechanics which allow players to simply do cool stuff, rather than roll to see if they can do cool stuff. At the same time, I worry a mechanic like this may fly out of control and allow players to do stuff they shouldn’t be able to. Perhaps this system would work better if high rolls represented success, rather than low rolls.

It’s also possible this is a terrible idea. It just sorta came to me, and I thought others might find it interesting.

Fast Playing Skirmishes

Recently the tide turned in the ongoing war between the elves of the Western forest, and the orcs who had settled in the ruins there. A series of defeats has forced the orcs into retreat. Rather than flee North into dwarven lands, or South where they would likely be subjugated by the Lich, they began migrating East, and established three settlements in the north of the Plains of Nalew. No one holds a true claim on this land, though there is a small human settlement, named Overton, at the confluence of the River Nalew and the Drall River.

The humans of Overton have obviously been distressed by this development. They appealed to the elves for aide, but the elves say they have enough orcs to worry about in their own lands, and are not interested in risking lives in solving human problems. To make matters worse, the orcs have recently erected a fourth settlement. This one south of the River Nalew, a day’s ride from Overton itself, and very clearly an encroachment on human territory.

Fortunately, the local adventuring party returned to town about this time. The mayor begged them for help, and they agreed to do what they could to get rid of the orc problem. Unwilling to take such a large force head-on, the players devised a more cunning plan. First, they did some recruiting around town, and found 10 able-bodied adults willing to join them in battle. Second, they approached the elves again, and laid out a plan which would minimize the risk to elven lives. They also reminded the elves that orcs breed fast, and allowing them to settle so close to elven territory would given them the opportunity to re-invade within 10-20 years. The elves agreed to lend the players 30 archers; but only on the condition that the only real risk be to the players.

The lynchpin of the plan was Betsie, the minotauress PC. For the most part, this has been a humans-only campaign, but I allowed one of the players to take control of Betsie when her paladin died and Betsie was the only friendly NPC around. The players figured that the Orcs, as fellow monstrous humanoids, may be inclined to trust Betsie more than they would trust a human. The plan was that Betsie would tell the orcs that the forest west of Nalew had ruins similar to those the orcs had occupied in the Eastern forest, and that ever since the tribe of Gnolls she’d been in charge of had been killed by humans, there was no one there to occupy the territory. (All of this was pretty much true). Further, Betsie would claim, the ruins were filled with treasure, which she would prove with a massive 5000gp diamond the players had recovered from the area.

The player’s hope was that the Orcs would agree, and she could lead each of the four colonies (one by one) into a bottleneck between a large hill and a river, where they’d be ambushed by the humans, elves, and the rest of the party. It was a solid plan. Or, rather, it was an insane plan, but one which met the minimum standard for logical thinking which constitutes a good plan in D&D. Shortly after the plan was made, one of our players had to leave, and we decided to play board games for the rest of the evening.

That was a month ago. I had that long to figure out how to handle the player’s plan. It’s a good enough plan that I didn’t want to simply have it blow up in their faces; at least not by fiat. Assuming that the reaction dice didn’t cause the orcs to attack her on sight, and the player made her case well enough, I figured the plan would go off. (Though no way were the orcs going to be dumb enough to go in one at a time. They were gonna get together with the other three camps, and march in there 100 warriors strong).

So how do I run this scenario? 100 orcs, 30 elves, 10 humans, and 5 PCs. Obviously I don’t want to model a battle with 140 NPCs at the table, because that would take a week and be immensely boring. I do want it to be random though, because that will create a more interesting scenario than one I’ve scripted. Given the small number of forces on each side of the engagement, I do want to track how many die, but I don’t want a battle between NPCs to take up too much of my time. It has to be about the players, and their actions during the combat. Those actions of the players should also have some bearing on the fight’s outcome, though, even if it’s small.

What I eventually came up with was based on the dice chain mechanic of DCC RPG. The chain I used was 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 1d14, 1d16, 1d20, 1d24, 1d30. Each round, each of the factions would roll one of these dice against the other factions, killing that many members.

Assuming nothing went wrong with the player’s plan, the first round of combat would be a surprise round from the elves. I assumed they’d have plenty of time to line up their shots, so the opening volley from the elves killed 3d6 + 12 orcs. So most of the elves would make kill shots, but it wouldn’t be able to exceed the actual number of elves participating.

The PC who was in charge of the 10 humans had chosen a position a little removed from the bottleneck, and I told him it would take 1 full round of charging before he could get into position to attack. Once they were able to engage, I figured the humans could kill 1d10 – 2 orcs each round (as these are not trained warriors), and the orcs could kill 1d10 humans each round.

Starting on the second round (after the surprise) the orcs could kill 1d4-2 elves each round, with a result of 0 or less meaning they still had not spotted any elves. While the elves, now dealing with the chaos of battle rather than a well timed ambush, would be able to kill 1d30 each round.

While all of this was going on, the players would be in the thick of the battle. Each round they faced off against several different orcs (I invented 6-8 variant orcs to keep things interesting). These death-rolls would be be made openly between each round of combat, so the players could see how the battle was progressing around them.

The majority of play time during the battle was focused on the players, with brief interludes between each round while I rolled to see which combatants on each side had died. As the battle progressed, the ‘kill dice’ I rolled were modified by several factors:

No faction can ever roll a die with a potential to result in more kills than there are attackers. For example, the elves can continue to roll a d30 for as long as there are 30 elves, but once an elf dies, they move down 1 space on the die chain, to 1d24.
Once the orcs score their first kill against the elves, they’ve figured out how to spot the elves and jump up to a full 1d4 on the die chain.
Each round, as the elven positioning is further revealed, the orcs roll a die which is one higher up on the die chain.
Each orc the players kill will be matched by the elves, who gain a +1 on their kill roll. The result cannot exceed the number of remaining attackers.
Any PC knocked to 0HP or lower, or who flees from the fight, will give give the orcs a boost of 1 extra step up the die chain.
If the PCs successfully kill 5 orcs in a single round, the elves will rally and receive a +10 to their kill roll.
Once any of the 3 factions is reduced below 20 members standing, roll a 1d20 morale check each round. If the result is equal to or lower than the number of fighters standing, the faction will press on. If the result is higher, then the faction will break and flee from the battlefield.

These rules only took me about 20 minutes to come up with, but it seemed like a solid method of running a skirmish like this. And it did work pretty well in play, though I did end up straying from the plan a few times when I lost track of what had happened. The players did succeed in slaying the orcs, though with only 10 elves left alive they may want to watch their back if they ever venture into the Western forest again.

Any of my readers have a better method of running a battle like this one?

Crafting Weapons & Armor in Pathfinder

Building on what I determined last week, I’d like to move on to actually producing a working craft skill for Pathfinder. I have a lot of ideas for how to proceed, but for this particular system, I’m working within two important design constraints.

The the resulting craft skill must use the Pathfinder skill system, without circumventing or subverting it. Regardless of how far this system strays from the game’s original design, it must involve rolling a d20, modifying the roll with the character’s skill level, and comparing the results against a DC to determine success or failure.
Feats should not be necessary to craft an item. If a character invests skill points in a crafting skill, they should receive the benefits of that skill without needing a feat to turn it into a useful ability.

Unfortunately, due to the titanic level disparity between moderately invested, and focused characters, I’ve needed to abandon the third of my original criteria; that the difficulty of crafting an item would be determined by the DC, cost, and crafting time alone. Unfortunately that’s simply not feasible when a focused character at level 10 has the same crafting ability as a moderately invested character at level 20.

Were I to insist that the number rolled represent the absolute quality of the item being crafted, then either:

The 26-45 range allows characters to craft the highest level weapons, in which case everyone should focus on crafting, because it allows you to make a +5 Vorpal Sword at level 10.
The 26-45 range allows characters to craft weapons appropriate for level 10, in which case no one should ever bother with crafting, because it requires a lot of investment, and stops being useful at mid level.
A middle ground is attempted, which would only mitigate the problem slightly; not fix it.

None of these alternatives are acceptable to me. Which is why I think the system should also take the character’s level into account. By limiting the power of crafted magic items based on level, I keep the focused character from leaping too far ahead of the game, without simultaneously forcing the moderately invested character to fall miles behind. Both heavily focused characters and moderately invested character will always be able to make the same items as one another (assuming they are the same level). But while a focused character will almost always succeed in making a magic item on their first try, a moderately invested character will likely fail a few times first, perhaps creating cursed items.

In Pathfinder, weapons and armor can have two different kinds of magical properties. There is the common numerical bonus, which ranges from +1 to +5; and the special ability, which can take many forms. Perhaps it’s a “Flaming Burst” weapon, or “Shadowskin” armor. These special bonuses each have a numerical equivalent listed in the book, to help determine the item’s pricing and the maximum power of the weapon. For example, “Arrow Catching” armor is equivalent to +1, while “Spell Resistance 19” is equivalent to +5. Each item can have a maximum of +10 effective bonus (only five of which may take the form of a numerical bonus). This is all standard Pathfinder stuff, which can be found in chapter 15 of the core rulebook.

Using this method of determining weapon and armor ability values, a craftsperson can create an item with an effective item bonus equal to 1/2 their character level. But only 1/4 of their character level may be numerical bonuses.

So at level. 1, a character can craft masterwork armor. At level 2, one half of their level is 1, allowing them to create Arrow Catching armor. However, since 1/4 of 2 is still less than 1, the character could not create +1 armor. They can’t do that until they reach level 4, at which point they can create armor with an effective bonus of +2, so they could create +1 Arrow Catching armor if they so chose.

(Note: For those familiar with Pathfinder’s item creation rules, you will notice that I’ve removed the requirement that all magic items must be at least magically +1. I don’t think that’s necessary)

The base DC for crafting a masterwork item is 20. The DC for the crafting check increases by 2 for each effective item bonus added to the item. So a set of +1 Arrow Catching armor (an effective item bonus of 2) thus has a DC of 24.

Here’s a chart of how this would break down over the course of the game. Under bonuses, the numerical bonus is listed on the left, while the special ability bonus is listed on the right. Though, of course, there’s nothing to stop characters from ignoring the numerical bonus entirely, and simply using all of their available effective item bonuses to add special abilities to the weapon.

I think a week of crafting time for most items should be sufficient, though I’d rather leave that up to GM discretion. Gold pieces required to craft the item should be equal to 1/2 the items value. And any special materials would need to be acquired separately from that. If a spell is called for, a scroll will be sufficient, though if the character wishes to avoid that route, then they can seek out a special reagent at the GM’s discretion. (“Want to skip the scroll of Darkseeing? Then you better bring me a Drow’s eye!”)

If a roll is failed, then the character has a 10% chance to create a cursed item. Otherwise, they’ll simply create the best item their roll would have allowed for. So if they’re trying to create a +3/+4 sword, but they roll a 31, then the GM should roll first to determine if the sword will become a cursed item. If not, then the player has successfully created a +2/+3 sword.

I’m not convinced that this is the best way to handle crafting, but it’s the best way that I can come up with which still uses the Pathfinder skills system.

Designing a Pathfinder Skill

I’ve long intended to redesign the Craft and Knowledge skills from the ground up. I’ve even taken a shot at it a few times in the past. I’ve got a completed, but unpublished post from mid Summer where I went on a rather vitriolic rant about the failings of the skills system, based on one of those unsuccessful attempts. Regardless of the system’s failings, though, I do think that both of these skills are beneficial to the game and could be improved from their RAW state without fundamentally changing the way the skills system works. So with some new ideas in hand, I’d like to give it another try. This time moving more slowly, and “showing my work.”

It seems logical to me that any skill must be created with at least two different types of characters in mind. The Moderately Invested Character, and the Focused Character.

The focused character is one who has made this skill their top priority. Whether the skill is a crafting or knowledge skill, or any other skill for that matter, this character is determined to be the best at what they do. Through luck or point-buy, they start the game with an 18 in the associated ability score, and they select a race which grants them a +2 bonus to that ability score. Every four levels, they improve that ability score by 1 point, culminating in a +6 modifier at level 8, and a +7 modifier at level 16. The focused character also takes Skill Focus at first level. And, obviously, this character has selected a class for which this skill is a class skill, and places new points into the skill at each level.

Now, it wouldn’t be hard to take this further. Their are races with better than a +2 ability score bonus. There are magical items and spells which–temporarily or permanently–increase a character’s ability scores. Some races receive bonuses for specific skills, such as the gnomish +2 racial bonus to craft. Often, masterwork tools give characters a functionally permanent circumstance bonus to their checks. There are even magical items which increase competency with a skill, though in my opinion these should be almost entirely ruled out of the game for reasons which will become obvious in a moment.

If a person really wanted to max out their skill, and the GM was willing to humor them, then I think the skills system is so fundamentally, mathematically flawed that it would be impossible to create a well balanced skill. But when attempting to craft these skills, I will assume that the players are not quite so obsessive, and the GM is not so foolish to indulge them if they are.

The other type of character which the system must be balanced for, the Moderately Invested Character, is much simpler. They do not make this skill a priority, but it is a class skill, and they do put skill points into it at each level. Their associated ability score is a +2, which is above average, but not great. That, I think, is a sufficient level of involvement that a player should expect to see solid, level appropriate returns on their decision to invest in this skill, whatever it may be.

For all of these characters; the focused, the moderately invested, and every character who falls between; the skill ought to work ‘right.’ Certainly, within this gradation, there will be players who are more or less skilled than others. That’s fine, and in fact it is one of the benefits of the Pathfinder skills system. However, a moderately invested character should never feel as though the skill isn’t useful to them, nor should a focused character receive such significant rewards that they become overpowered. Players with less skill than a moderately invested character can be legitimately viewed as handicapped in the skill, and should not expect full at-level rewards from it. And characters with greater skill than a focused character can be considered overpowered already.

So how do the numbers work out?

Not great.

At first level, there’s already a variance of 6 between the moderately invested and the focused characters. By level 20 that variance has widened to 11. Those may not sound like very large numbers, but notice that a 10th level focused character has reached the same level of expertise that a 20th level moderately invested character can.

Forging ahead, now that we know which ranges the two character types will have available to them at each level, the question becomes: what acts should a character be able to perform at a given level? For example, according to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, +1 swords cost 2,000 gold pieces. They’re also available for sale in large cities, so in the assumed Pathfinder campaign setting, +1 swords should be available to a character who has sufficient gold. According to the wealth by level guidelines, a level 4 character should have 6,000 gold, so I think it’s safe to say that a character is meant to have +1 weapons by level 4. If characters are to be able to craft magic items using the crafting system (as is my goal), then what should be the DC of crafting a +1 sword? 25? That gives the moderately invested character a 25% chance of success at level 4, and the focused character a 40% chance of success at level 1.

Clearly an additional layer of complexity is required here. Materials cost will obviously help limit this crafting, but it’s important to me that I avoid requiring feats in this system.

Further work on my part is required, but at this juncture I’m eager to hear what others think. Perhaps one of my betters can save me some time?

OD&D-ish Stuff I've Been Doing

The scheduling here on Papers & Pencils is important to me. If I’m being honest, it’s probably unhealthy how much importance I place on my posting schedule. Anytime I miss a day it feels like the end of the world. I’ll avoid detailing my emotional pitfalls, but it can get bad. I’m also human, though, so there are times now and again when I simply don’t care about tabletop games. I mean…Dishonored is so good, and I’ve been re-reading the X-Wing series, and do I really have to write about wizards at the moment? What has often happened in the past is that I’ve solved this problem by making really shitty posts. Which actually solves nothing. I know the post is shitty, so I still feel bad about it, and the immense amount of time I spend stressing about that only prolongs my momentary disinterest in tabletop games.

I’m not announcing a hiatus or anything. Just offering an explanation. I don’t know if any of my readers pay attention to my schedule, or feel disappointed when I’ve failed to update on time. But I do know that in the past 15 days, I’ve missed 4 posts. At this point, I thought an explanation was warranted.

Moving on, I’d like to share some stuff I’ve been doing in the OD&D-ish game I’ve been running for my younger brother and one of his friends.

I call it OD&D-ish because I’m not very familiar with the OD&D rules, or with the way OD&D GMs go about things. My entire experience in that regard comes from flipping through the three “little brown books” (which I’ve found to be disorganized and nigh-incomprehensible in some sections), and from playing in Vaults of Pahvelorn. Anything I don’t understand, I’ve filled in with whatever seems to mesh with the spirit of the game, as judged by me at the time that I need to come up with it. If you thumb through my campaign pages for this game, you’ll find numerous sections where all I’ve written is “I’ll detail this when its needed.” It’s a disorganized way to run a game, but in my defense I thought the game would be a one-shot. And the kids keep coming back, so it can’t be all that terrible.

The design-as-you-go nature of the game has forced me to come up with some ideas I don’t know if I would have come up with otherwise, two of which in particular I’m happy with: Alchemy, and Trade Caravans.

Alchemy

Upon reaching second level, a magic user has achieved sufficient learning to attempt creating alchemical concoctions. This requires that the magic user have access to an alchemical laboratory, and the creation of each potion will require large investments of time and gold. Like spells, potions (and other alchemical products), have levels.

Each alchemical product requires a number of material components which must be purchased from the town herbalist, such as leaves, seeds, and nectars from plants all over the world. The cost of the components are [50gp * Potion Level] So a first level potion would cost 50gp to make, a 2nd level potion would require 100gp to make, and so forth.

Alchemical products also take time. The materials must be painstakingly prepared so as not to contaminate them, and and even once all the work is done, it can take days for the mixture to slowly, drop-by-drop produce enough of the liquid to create the desired effect even once. Each alchemical product requires 1 week per recipe level to complete.

Regarding recipes, you will need them before you can create a working potion. Like magic, alchemical knowledge is rare and difficult to come by. However, recipes are freely traded, and are normally much less expensive than spell scrolls. It’s also likely that you’ll find some recipes among treasure hordes!

It is possible to create a recipe yourself through research, but alchemical research can be an expensive and time consuming proposition! In addition to costing [250gp * Potion Level] in material components used for experimentation and failure, the process will require [1d6 + Potion Level] weeks to complete. If you have a potion to reverse-engineer, then you may reduce either the cost, or the time required by 20%. Having a magic user apprentice who is willing to assist you can reduce either the cost or time by an additional 20%. (In each case, you must pick only one of the two. If you have both a potion to reverse engineer, and an apprentice, then the two you select need not be the same).

If you do not have a potion which you are reverse engineering, Alchemical research will result in discovery of a random potion, determined by the GM.

Some alchemical products may be associated either with clerics, or magic users. For example, a healing potion will be associated with clerics. In that case, a Magic User may still create a healing potion, but the potion will be treated as though it is 1 level higher. So if a healing potion is a level 1 alchemical product, then a magic user who wishes to create one will treat it as a level 2 alchemical product, which costs 100 gp and takes 2 weeks to produce.

An example Alchemical recipe is Strength of the Bull. It’s a level 1 alchemical recipe for clerics and magic users. When consumed, it grants the person who drinks it immense strength for 1 minute. With it, the player can ignore most strength checks, lift heavy boulders, and even smash through walls. A punch from someone who has consumed a Bull’s Strength potion would be equivalent to 2d6 damage.
Bull’s Strength doesn’t make a person Superman. They couldn’t knock over a building or lift a sailing galley over their head, but their strength is superhuman none the less.

Trade Caravans

Like Vaults of Pahvelorn, all of the XP in my game comes from the players spending gold. It’s been amazing to watch just how instantaneously players internalize this fact, and become ravenous treasure hunters. It wasn’t long, though, before they’d spent all the money they wanted to spend on basic amenities, and started asking me what else they could spend their treasure on. I needed to come up with some items they could purchase which wouldn’t break my low-magic setting, but would also be interesting enough to the players that they’d feel compelled to spend piles of gold on it.

I immediately thought of Thracle’s Emporium, a shop in the town of Zorfath, which regularly sells oddities such as a miniature wyvern, Dragonbane arrows, or gems with the souls of ghosts trapped inside. The Emporium has often been the subject of discussion in the Vaults of Pahvalorn campaign, as we all scramble to find gold for whatever odd or end the shop has.

Since my game’s town, Haetrope, is a trading town on the edge of Elven territory, I decided that merchants traveling to and from the elven lands would serve the same role as Thracle’s Emporium, for my players. Every few days I come up with a bunch of random items, assign them to a caravan, and let my players know that new goods are available in town. Some of them have obvious uses, while others are simply highly valuable, and still others have uses which aren’t obvious at all. A few days after each caravan arrives in town, it leaves again. The system is pretty simple to pull off, since we manage the campaign online anyway, and everybody seems to be enjoying throwing their money at the various oddities which crop up.

As an example, here are the caravans currently stopped in town:

Marigold’s Caravan

8 finely crafted oaken chairs, engraved with symbols of nature = 100 gp / ea
1 finely crafted oaken table. Seats 8, engraved with symbols of nature = 1000 gp
3 masterwork elven padlocks = 65 gp / ea
A chest with a magical lock upon it, which no one has yet been able to open = 500 gp
A miniature bear, about the size of a cat. It is fully grown. = 750 gp

The Corvani Family Trading Caravan

The Longsword of an Ancient King. It does not appear to be magical, but was once wielded by an unknown hero. It is extremely ornate. = 1700 gp
Exhausted Wand, crafted by an elven wizard, this wand retains no magical powers. = 100 gp
A ballista = 600 gp
14 Ballista Bolts = 40gp/ea
8 potions of healing from the elven lands = 100 gp/ea
1 potion of Sight Through Walls = 200 gp
A block of the finest elven marble, large enough for a life sized statue = 1500 gp
12 pairs of silk, elven shoes = 60 gp / ea

Dade’s Caravan

A grand piano. Well crafted, though not ornate = 700 gp
12 Perisnia blosoms, potted in elvish soil = 30 gp / ea
A lightweight steel staff, topped with an owl holding a glass orb between its wings. Does not appear to be magical. = 1000 gp
3 books detailing the language of Ancient Common = 25 gp / ea
8 very fine elven dresses. Proportioned for an elvish frame = 100 gp / ea
20 yards of elvish silk = 50 gp / ea

In closing, you should totally play Dishonored. So good.

In Defense of Experience Points

Recently, I found myself perusing a thread on the Paizo forums. It’s not something I make a habit of, but I noticed they were sending me some traffic, so I thought I’d take a look to see why. The thread was addressing the issue of experience points, and asked the question: are they necessary for a good game? In the course of the discussion, my old Simple Experience Points piece was shared by a poster named Azaelas Fayth, which is pretty cool.

Scanning the thread, I was surprised to note that many, if not most of the responses replied in the negative. A large group of Pathfinder players seem to prefer running games without experience points. Instead, characters are granted levels either ‘every few sessions,’ or at story appropriate moments. I find this particularly interesting, because it’s what I did for such a long time, and I was never satisfied with it. In fact it was that very dissatisfaction which made me so excited when I encountered Paul’s simple experience points system, and drove me to adapt it for Pathfinder. To quote myself:

“Almost every game I’ve run as a GM has used a kind of ad hoc experience distribution system. I look up how many experience points are needed for the characters to reach the next level, and I give them whatever percentage of that number which I feel like they’ve earned. Most of the time I base that percentage on what speed of progression is optimal to keep the players in-step with events in my game world, rather than basing it off of challenges they have overcome.
At best, the method I’ve been using make experience points redundant. At worst, my method reduces player agency. It’s an arrangement I’ve never been happy with” -Me, 10/22/11

Some of the posters in this thread even went so far as to assert that experience points are an outmoded concept, kept alive by misguided tradition rather than actual usefulness. And, in fairness to that viewpoint, it’s not entirely wrong in this case. Pathfinder removed the experience point cost from all spells and rituals, and in doing so, removed the very last reason why experience point totals need to be so large. Calculating those large numbers is time consuming and frustrating, even with the improvements Pathfinder made to how experience points are calculated.

But is completely removing experience points from the game really the best solution?

To be fair once again, my impression from reading the thread is that most of those participating could be classified as “story gamers.” So my viewpoint may not be very relevant to the kind of game they’re trying to run. I’m not sure why a story gamer would choose a mechanically heavy system like Pathfinder to play with, but who am I to judge? I play oldschool, high-mortality games with Pathfinder. If anyone is the odd ball out, it’s me.

I’ve come to the understanding that in a role playing game, the means by which characters gain new levels, defines the game’s goal. The players are free to do as they choose in the game world, but they will not achieve greater status and power until they direct their attention towards whatever actions will help them level up. In most games, reaching a new level is a big step. One which takes a significant investment of time, to properly offset the significant boost in power and status the character will receive.

Once a player has set their sights on a goal, they may become frustrated if they cannot see progress towards that goal. I would consider this to be reasonable behavior, particularly in games where gaining a new level can require months of weekly game sessions to accomplish. As such, it is helpful if the player can more easily acquire a tangible ‘piece’ of a new level, and over time, watch those pieces accumulate, as they grow ever closer to the number of pieces required to reach a new level. In Pathfinder, those pieces are called experience points, and they are received primarily by slaying monsters. Thus monster slaying could be said to be the point of the game.

Interestingly, though, there’s nothing stopping a GM from redefining the goal of the game, and breaking each level into different sized pieces. To demonstrate what I mean, here are three examples of three completely different experience point systems, all of which I’ve used:

In my ToKiMo Pathfinder campaign, I reward players for overcoming challenges. Any challenge will do. Defeating monsters is one type of challenge my players enjoy. But they also enjoy the challenge of avoiding traps, or talking their way out of a tight spot. Both of those challenges also give experience points, and they do so at the same rate as combat. I also require only 30 experience points for each level in that game, and award either 1, 2, or 3 xp per challenge, depending on how difficult I determine it to be beforehand. As an added bonus, choosing a number between 1 and 3 is a lot easier than calculated thousands, or hundreds of thousands of XP. I can easily grant XP to my players immediately after the challenge is overcome, rather than waiting until after the session to do so.
In my Dungeons & Dragons & Little Brothers OD&D campaign, the point of the game is to find and recover treasure. To facilitate that, players gain 1 experience point for each 1 gold piece they spend. The effect this system has had on the game has been amazing! Players are always happy to find treasure, but I’ve never seen players so happy as they are in this game, where every silver candlestick or ancient vase brings them one step closer to their next level. Of all the experience point systems I’ve ever used, I think this is easily the most fun. Plus, it’s utterly simple, since I don’t need to do anything. All I do is tell the players how much gold they find, and they do the rest!
In my as yet unfinished Legend of Zelda Adventure System, there is no experience points, nor any other ‘piece’ of a level for players to collect. It a character wants to advance, they must seek out and destroy a great monster. If they can accomplish this feat, they immediately advance to the next level. Like the GP for XP idea, this requires no real work on the GM’s part.

As you can see, each of these three has a unique goal, and a unique ‘piece’ size. (Overcome challenges, recover gold, defeat great monsters / 30, thousands, and 1 respectively). When you and your group sit down to play a new game, it might be interesting to briefly ask: what do we want the goal of the game to be, and how can we represent that?

Fallout 3 Tabletop Game 4: NPCs and Foes

This is the fourth post in my series on running a tabletop game based on Fallout 3’s setting and mechanics. If this is the first post you’re seeing, you ought to check out how to create a character, the details of the skills system, and the post on equipment.

It’s hard enough just to scrape by in the wasteland. Food is scarce, and radiation is plentiful. You’re lucky if you’re able to scavenge a drink of clean free water once in a month. And to top it all off, everybody else seems to want to kill you. Whether it’s Enclave soldiers trying to kill you because you’re not a true American; Raiders trying to kill you for your food; or Supermutants trying to kill you because “PUNY HUMAN, HAHA.” It all means the same thing: bullets are as precious as water out here in the wastes.

It is important to remember that non player characters only exist for one purpose: to interact with the player characters. NPCs don’t need each of their 13 skills to be calculated out the same way PCs do. Their skills can simply be as good or as bad as they need to be fore that NPC to serve their function within the game. NPCs don’t even need all 13 of their skills to be defined at all. Why waste your time writing down the town doctor’s Energy Weapons score? He need a Medicine score, maybe a science score. And there are some skills which no NPC should ever need. Barter and Speech are the exclusive purview of player characters. For the most part, NPCs don’t even need SPECIAL attributes at all.

The only thing you should ever write down for an NPC are the following:

Hit points. All characters should have hit points, but you don’t necessarily need to roll Endurance for this. Just roll 2d20, and keep the better result. Multiply the result by whatever level you wish for the character to be.
If this is a character the players are likely to fight, then any damage resistance should be noted.
Characters should have any skills relevant to their function in the game. Generally speaking, most NPCs should only have 1-5 skills. These can be assigned manually by the GM or calculated using the following formula: [(2d20, discard lower roll) + 15 + (5 per level)]
If it is likely that the NPC will perform melee or unarmed attacks against the PC, then they should have a Strength score in addition to their Melee or Unarmed skill.
If the NPC has any equipment the player would find useful, it should be noted.
Sometimes creatures will have special abilities or attacks. These should be noted.

Below are a number of example NPCs, mostly foes.

Dr. Malkov (Doctor, Rivet City)(lvl 5)
HP 65
Medicine: 53
Science: 28

Jimmy The Wrench (Repairman, Traveling Tradesperson)(lvl 2)
HP: 18
Repair: 41
Small Guns: 35
Equipment: 10mm Pistol [Durability: 22], 2x 10mm Ammo

Supermutant (lvl 3)
HP: 90; DR: 15
Small Guns: 35
Big Guns: 50
Melee: 46[STR: 27]
Equipment [Roll]: 20%: Minigun[Dur: 33], 3x 5mm Ammo; 50% Hunting Rifle[Dur: 26], 2x .32 Ammo; 30% Sledgehammer[Dur: 74]

Feral Ghoul (lvl 1)
HP: 20
Unarmed: 44 [STR: 8]

Feral Ghoul (lvl 6)
HP: 150
Unarmed: 85 [STR: 14]
Special: Radiation blast. Anything at close range is hit with an intense burst of radiation, dealing 40 damage, and causing radiation exposure of 50 for one round.

Yao Guai (lvl 4)
HP: 116; DR: 8
Unarmed: 70 [STR: 25]
Special: Claws and teeth allow Yao Guai’s melee attacks to deal an additional 10 damage.
Special: Yao Guai can make 3 attacks on a single turn. (Right Claw, Left Claw, Bite)

Raider (lvl 2)
HP: 30; DR: 5
Small Guns: 40
Big Guns: 29
Melee: 19 [STR: 14]
Stealth: 17
Equipment[ROLL]: 50%: 10mm Pistol[Dur: 60], 3x 10mm Ammo; 35% Chinese Officer’s Sword[Dur: 10]; 15% Flamer[Dur: 46]

Enclave Soldier (lvl 10)
HP: 180; DR: 44
Energy Weapons: 100
Equipment: 50% Plasma Rifle [Dur: 80], 5x Microfusion Cell, Enclave Power Armor, Enclave Helmet

With this fourth post, I’m confident that the game is ready for the kind of slapdash campaign I want to run with it. A number of elements have been glossed over, or entirely omitted, but I was never aiming for comprehensive. Plus I’m anxious to get back to writing about more thoroughly developed games. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to test out these rules in the coming weeks, and may post revisions and new rules as appropriate.

Fallout 3 Tabletop Game 3: Equipment

Hello to you, gentle reader. I know that I dropped off the face of the planet for a few days, and missed my regularly scheduled Friday post. I promise, I had a good reason. Or at least an okay reason. I’ll make it up, though, really I will. For now, it’s time for me to get back to tabletop writing, and more specifically, outlining the Fallout 3 Tabletop Game. If you haven’t read the other parts of this series yet, you may want to read up on how to create a character, and the details of the skills system.

There’s not all that much more to cover. As I said at the start, this isn’t a serious attempt to create a comprehensive game system. The skills detailed in part 2 should serve as adequate resolution mechanisms for most conflicts, and that’s all any RPG really needs: conflict resolution mechanics. Anything else can be handled through discussion between the player and the GM. In terms of setting, the Fallout games themselves provide ample setting information. I would not presume to improve upon the fine work done by the developers. All that remains is to cover the game’s weapons, armor, and enemies. I’ve no intention of creating any comprehensive lists, but over the next two days we’ll go over how equipment and foes will work, and I’ll provide a few examples.

Armor

Armor and other items of clothing serve two functions within the game. First, most clothing has some kind of Damage Resistance. Any time the a character takes damage while wearing armor, they subtract their damage resistance from the amount of damage they will receive. So if Kestrel is wearing a regulator duster with a DR of 5, and she is hit by a weapon which deals 11 damage, then the protection of her armor means she only takes 6 damage. The second function of armor is to provide miscellaneous bonuses, to various skill rolls. For example, pre-war clothes, or a vault jumpsuit, will likely provide bonuses to speech or charisma based skills, because you appear to be more respectable. These miscellaneous bonuses need not make perfect sense (A raider wouldn’t care about respectability, but the clothing should still provide its bonus.) While this may weaken the game’s verisimilitude, it is in keeping with the spirit of the video game on which it is based.

Both of these functions decrease according to the armor’s durability score. Durability ranges between a minimum of 1, and a maximum of 100. A durability of 100 represents how the item might have appeared prior to the Great War. If durability ever falls below 1, the item is broken and does not confer any benefits whatsoever, save perhaps covering the character’s nakedness. Any time a character take damage their armor’s durability decreases by 1/2 of the damage dealt to the player, rounded down. To use the example above again; Kestrel’s regulator duster had a durability of 89 before she was hit. At that durability, it offers her a Damage Resistance of 5. So when she’s hit by a weapon which deals 11 damage, Kestrel takes only 6. Her armor’s durability decreases by half that amount, which is 3. So after the shot, Kestrel’s regulator duster has a durability of 86. If she has another regulator duster handy, Kestrel can use the repair skill to attempt to raise the items durability back up later.

Example Armor

Vault 101 Jumpsuit (Wt 4)
Durability: 100-75; DR: None, Speech +5%
Durability: 74-50; DR: None, Speech +4%
Durability: 49-25; DR: None, Speech +3%
Durability: 24-1; DR: None, Speech +2%

Raider Painspike Armor (Wt 20)
Durability: 100-75; DR: 20
Durability: 74-50; DR: 17
Durability: 49-25; DR: 14
Durability: 24-1; DR: 11
Special: 5 damage inflicted on anyone who performs an unarmed attack on the wearer.

Brotherhood of Steel Power Armor (Wt 45)Durability: 100-75; DR: 40, Strength +4, Radiation Resist +15
Durability: 74-50; DR: 36, Strength +3, Radiation Resist +13
Durability: 49-25; DR: 32, Strength +2, Radiation Resist +11
Durability: 24-1; DR: 28, Strength +2, Radiation Resist +9

Metal Helmet (Wt 2)
Durability: 100-75; DR: 4
Durability: 74-50; DR: 3
Durability: 49-25; DR: 2
Durability: 24-1; DR: 1

Brotherhood of Steel Power Armor Helmet (Wt 5)Durability: 100-75; DR: 9, Radiation Resist + 5
Durability: 74-50; DR: 7, Radiation Resist + 4
Durability: 49-25; DR: 5, Radiation Resist + 3
Durability: 24-1; DR: 3, Radiation Resist + 2

Weapons

Weapons are slightly more complicated than armor. And, in fact, I would recommend that both weapons and armor ought to be recorded on index cards which are kept in the player’s possession, rather than listed on character sheets. I’ve found this to be a much simpler way of keeping track of the information. (I do not presently have access to a scanner, but will endeavor to post an example once that is remedied. )

Weapon damage is a static number, which decreases according to the durability of the item. Like armor, weapon durability ranges from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 100, with 100 representing a pre-war state, and less than 1 representing a complete lack of function. Durability decreases by 1 each time the weapon is fired, but misses its intended target. This is because characters who are more familiar with the weapon they’re using–and thus able to hit more often–are better able to maintain their weapon, and prevent its deterioration.

In addition to damage and durability, most weapons require ammunition. The type, and weight-per-unit of ammunition is listed with each weapon entry. Players must scavenge for their weapon’s ammunition. Each unit of ammunition is good for a single battle. Any time the player uses a weapon in battle–regardless of how many times they fired that weapon–they expend one unit of ammunition. Most weapons also have a special attribute, which helps make the various weapon choices distinct from one another. Finally, all weapons have bonuses and penalties to their hit chance, based on the range between the weapon’s wielder, and the target. There are five ranges: Melee, Close, Mid, Long, and Distant.

When using any weapon, players have a 1% chance to score a critical hit, for every 5% chance to hit they have. If, for example, a character has a 15% chance to hit, then they have a 3% chance to crit. A player’s crit chance cannot be higher than their luck score.

Hunting Rifle (Small Guns)(Wt 7) [Ammo: .32, Wt 2]
Durability: 100-75; Dmg: 30
Durability: 74-50; Dmg: 24
Durability: 49-25; Dmg: 18
Durability: 24-1; Dmg: 12

Melee: -60%
Close: -5%
Mid: +10%
Long: +10%
Distant: +0%

Special: Each round spent studying a target without taking a shot adds +10% to the hit chance, up to 30%.

Sawed Off Shotgun (Small Guns)(Wt 8) [Ammo: Shotgun Shells, Wt 3]
Durability: 100-75; Dmg: 40
Durability: 74-50; Dmg: 30
Durability: 49-25; Dmg: 20
Durability: 24-1; Dmg: 10

Melee: -30%
Close: +30%
Mid: +0%
Long: -60%
Distant: -100%

Special: Regardless of small guns skill, all wielders have +20% crit chance with the sawed off shotgun at close and melee range. At those ranges, all crits deal x3 damage instead of x2.

Lead Pipe (Melee Weapon)(Wt 2) [Ammo: None]
Durability: 100-75; Dmg: 14
Durability: 74-50; Dmg: 10
Durability: 49-25; Dmg: 8
Durability: 24-1; Dmg: 6

Melee: +0%
Close: -20% (Thrown)
Mid: -60% (Thrown)
Long: -100% (Thrown)
Distant: -100% (Thrown)

Laser Pistol (Energy Weapons)(Wt 2) [Ammo: Energy Cell, Wt 1]
Durability: 100-75; Dmg: 25
Durability: 74-50; Dmg: 20
Durability: 49-25; Dmg: 15
Durability: 24-1; Dmg: 10

Melee: -20%
Close: +10%
Mid: +0%
Long: -30%
Distant: -60%

Special: If the wielder has a crit chance with energy weapons, then there is a 5% chance that an opponent who has been hit will be completely vaporized.

Minigun (Big Guns)(Wt 30) [Ammo: 5mm, Wt 10]
Durability: 100-75; Dmg: 70
Durability: 74-50; Dmg: 60
Durability: 49-25; Dmg: 50
Durability: 24-1; Dmg: 40

Melee: -95%
Close: +60%
Mid: +50%
Long: +0%
Distant: -30%

Special: Any time the gun stops firing, one round of ‘warm up’ is required before it can begin to fire again. While the gun is firing it creates a stream of bullets which cannot be crossed by friendly players without taking damage.