Exclusion

This will probably be brief and potentially rambling. My focus is all over the place right now, so I'm not completely happy with anything. When my mind turns like this, I start thinking about things I want in a game, but can't seem to find. At least not all together in one game.

One of the things I'm mulling over is the fact that once you establish any sort of list in a game, even if it is included as an example of what can be done, it creates a mutual exclusion. I think part of that is human nature ("I don't have the First Aid skill, I can't possibly wrap a bandage around your arm"), and part is systemic. If stats are weighted toward the high end (characters are exceptional paradigm), then the non-skill penalties are generally prohibitive to keep high-bonus characters from taking over.

Obviously, that thought applies to skills, and also to talents/feats/whatever. What is on my beady little mind this dreary afternoon, though, is stats. Why even mention them if they're average (no bonus, in other words)? Also, if your character is exceptional in some physical/mental/spiritual capacity beyond the Big Six, how do you represent that? There is no "stat" for mnemonic memory, it is subsumed into Intelligence in most systems. But what if my guy isn't a super-genius, just an ordinary guy with a phenomenal memory?

I'm not sure how to implement this sort of thing. Obviously, it would need to be completely open, no "example" lists. Also there would have to be some sort of guidelines for the breadth of the Attribute, balanced against either its cost to attain/improve, or the degree of its usefulness. Like, if you want a character with Mnemonic Memory and I want one that has Superior Intellect. Obviously, SI would be useful for remembering things, so it could provide its bonus to such activities. However, would it provide less of a bonus than the more focused Mnemonic Memory? Or, would there be a disparity in costs based on the fact that MM is more specialised? You could buy it higher, faster, and the trade-off would be that it may not come up too much.

I know there are games that have tackled this concept, FUDGE, FATE, PDQ, and something else that slips my mind (guess I should have put some points into Mnemonic Memory). I'm not sold on those wholesale, though, and thus we return to the relevant conundrum. Dizzying, right? Welcome to my world, enjoy your stay . . .

A Momentary Indulgence

I just wanted to say congratulations to my Alabama Crimson Tide. They devastated the LSU Bayou Bengals last night, 21-0. That's an old-school beat down, or as a buddy of mine used to say "the D-home stomp". Anyway, I've been a Tide fan since Nixon's first term, and through the bad times and good, I bleed Crimson. Roll Tide!

All that was old . . .

Good morning, friends,

I have news of some portent for you this morning. A new edition of D&D is in the pipe. You can learn more from the wizard's mouth here.

There is also an articles in The New York Times.

It is evident from reading the articles that WotC is taking a page from the open playtest playbook, used to such great affect by Pathfinder. It also seems evident that they intend to go back to the "toolkit" roots of the game. Love 3E and 4E or hate them, there are certain unavoidable truths about them. 3E attempted to enable diversity among characters with an idea that looked good on paper. That edition's rules for multi classing and prestige classes originally struck me as very cool. In play, however, they battered the gates of reason allowing a flood of munchkins. I also believe that such a tightly woven rules set, where virtually every contingency is spelled out, further opens the doors for munchkins. Because, really, what is a rules lawyer, but a munchkin with a better vocabulary?

4E was awesome, IF you played its game. Stray too far from the RAW at your own peril. One of my chief issues with 4E was the herculean effort it took to create new classes. As you may know, I'm a fan of a small number of basic classes, role-played as "ranger", "illusionist", whatever. But, that was rendered almost impossible in both editions. So, creating new classes along the new model, in order to personalize the game to the world, was almost impossible in 4E. It wasn't nearly so difficult in 3.x. There were numerous examples of using prestige classes to good effect to bring certain aspects of a campaign to life.

There was another thing that I took away from the article. It seems that with 3E and 4E the keys to the game were given to the players. Sure, there were improved stat blocks and new encounter paradigms, but the players were the clear focus. The DM became less of a Master and more of a Moderator. The game didn't belong to him anymore, it belonged to the rules, and to the players' interface with those rules, the characters. It became less an exercise in collective story telling and more about the DM entertaining a table full of players. Players, by the way, that were empowered to tell the DM he wasn't entertaining them properly if they caught him in a rules faux-pas.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I always look forward to a new edition, at least on the run-up, I'm an edition whore, after all. If they can put more of the game back into the DM's hands, and make it more of a toolkit, it should be pretty exciting. By the way, if you follow the Wizard's link above, you can sign up for the open playtest. Make your voice heard. Power to the people.

Buffalo Castle

I have survived a brief, but lucrative, foray into Buffalo Castle. My first experience was a positive one. I didn't enter very many rooms when I came upon the Bank Vault. I fought one wandering monster, a giant snake with no mate or treasure. I fought an orc on the way out. I opened one chest full of tear gas, and another with an emerald necklace worth 250 gp. In the vault I found a vitamin that doubled my CON, which started at a very respectable 15.

So, my final tally was 32 AP, a 250 gp emerald, a face full of gas (2 hits), and my CON doubled. Not bad, I don't think. I don't know how brutal BC has the potential to be, so I can't say just how lucky/good I was. I plan on hitting it again, though, since I only actually used about 14 entries. I know it has more to offer . . .

PocketMod Character Sheet Redux

Ok, since my GoogleDoc has gone rogue on me, here is an idea of the pocketmod sheet. Here is the link directly to the jpg again. Hopefully it will work this time. I've also changed the pointer in my Pages link, so it should go to a better place, vis a vis my GoogleDocs. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Tunnels & Trolls: Combat

I still haven't found time to play this, even a solo. My comments are untested observations on a reading of the rules. You've been warned.

The first time I read T&T some time ago, one of the things that initially put me off was combat. I was in a hyper-tactical frame of mind, and upon reading T&T doesn't seem to fit that bill. Wrong answer.

Combat in T&T is bog-simple. Combatants roll a number of d6, that number being derived from chosen weapon modified by three stats. This modification is called "Adds", and that is exactly what is does, it adds to the roll. Weapons can have adds too, so you might have a weapon that is rated 3 dice +2 Adds. Your stats might yield another +2 in Adds. So, you would roll 3d6+4 when using the weapon. Monsters do the same thing, but their numbers are arrived at differently.

Essentially, there is no "to hit" roll in T&T. There is only one roll, and it does determine who does the most damage, so in a sense it is a hit roll, but not really. Each combatant rolls his dice and totals them. The lower number is the loser. That lower number is subtracted from the higher number and the remainder is the damage. Armor reduces damage directly, so it is subtracted from the damage remainder, and the final result is deducted from the victim's Constitution score. Zero Constitution equals dead guy. There is also a rule for the winner of the combat potentially getting nicked up in the fracas, which is reasonable.

That, to my eyes, seems very simple, straight-forward, and quick to play through. Upon my initial reading there were two things about it that jumped out at me. I'll admit to not really opening myself up to the spirit of the rules, which hindered my understanding greatly. The two things were:

1. All combatants on a side in combat pool all their dice and Adds. There is a single roll per side, compared for a final result, per side, with damage being evenly divided amongst all combatants on that side.
2. A distinct and total lack of tactical options.

The thing about #1 that never occurred to me is to split a big combat into individual combats. It is not carved in stone that all combats must be reduced to a single roll per side. Split it up however you want to. It is actually very handy to have a "mass" combat system built right into the base combat system. Who wants to waste half the session in a combat with 14 goblins that were a random encounter to start with? Not me. Just lump it all together and get it over with.

As far as #2, I wasn't applying the Saving Roll concept in combat. In a nutshell, Saving Rolls make it easy to adjudicate anything a player wants his character to attempt. Swinging on chandeliers, kicking sand, flipping table, tangling somebody in your cloak, whatever the player can think of. In a nutshell, there are endless tactical options, they just aren't spelled out.

So, now that I've read it more thoroughly and with a more open mind, what started out as a turn-off for me has become one of the game's selling points for me. Isn't life strange?

Tunnels & Trolls Character Sheet

I've created a pocketmod-style character sheet for T&T. It is on my google docs, but you can get to it here. I hope it works out for you, whoever you are.