Original Dungeons and Dragons

More investigations into role-playing games (mostly to plunder them for ideas) led me to a couple of re-writes of the original Dungeons and Dragons game (the red and blue books! Remember?) The games are Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry (White Box Rules). And you know what? Original D&D sucks. Badly.

There are horrible tables (attack roll tables?!), saving throws, experience points, ability scores, spell levels, Vancian magic systems, alignments, arbitrary weapon restrictions (as if clerics don't shed blood, come on! The crusades, anyone?), etc.

The idea of moving away from D&D 3rd and 4th edition is a good one. Not moving back to AD&D 1st or 2nd edition is also a good idea. But moving back to original D&D? Not a good idea.

What the authors should have done: Taken the idea of "simple" and applied reasoning to it. Take the nostalgia and remould it into a simple and yet modern RPG. The great thing that original D&D has over 4th edition D&D is evocation. Reading about Charm Person is a lot more evocative than reading about Ray of Enfeeblement. These OD&D games have the evocation but they're extremely tedious, power-gamey and complex.

Who are these RPGs even aimed at? I can't imagine how anyone new to the past-time would be even slightly intrigued by the complexity and weirdness of the books. They're not logical nor do they create a space for players to envision their characters. Therefore, I can only imagine that the new releases are for old-school players. If that's the case, why wouldn't we just grab our old red and blue books from the attic, basement, parents' house, siblings' house, etc.? I know I could, but I'm not going to.

Advancement rules in roleplaying games

Numerical advancement in roleplaying games, where there is a net increase in values (skills, stats, attributes, etc.), is like treading water in a river flowing downstream. You may feel like you're swimming, but it's the current that's taking you along for the ride.

Lets take Dungeons and Dragons in the simplest form. You start with a +2 bonus. Roll a twenty-sided die and add the bonus. Against a goblin, 15 or above is a success. A little later you "advance". You now get a +4 bonus. Against the same goblin, your chance of success has improved. If that's all there was to it, it would be a real improvement. Of course, that isn't all there is to it. If you advance a few more times, your chance of success gets so high that there is barely any point in rolling. So what does the game master do to spice things up? Simple. A goblin with a helmet (need 18 or above). Or two goblins. Or an Orc (24 or above). That is, the game master has to change the odds to stop the game from becoming boring. It becomes an illusory arms race. Once you do the arithmetic, however, you're back to where you started.

If you're someone what doesn't understand maths, there isn't an issue. It's fun to think your character is getting better and better (rather than more and more uselessly complex). But what do you do if you want to play RPGs and you understand maths? You could pretend the issue doesn't exist, find a game without these silly advancement rules or modify an existing game so there is no superficial advancement.

In our next game session, I'm going to modify RuneQuest so it's not tied to any form of net numerical advancement. The only logical way to do this is to completely excise the game system. Drastic, but the entire system is tied to advancement, so it all has to go. What's left? Lots of stuff:

• An evocative explanation of how ancient forms of combat worked
• Great descriptions of ancient weapons and equipment
• Good lists of professions
• Great ideas for magic and spell descriptions

In fact, hardly anything is really lost. And there is still Glorantha. Glorious Glorantha.

Are there any RPGs that don't try this rather trite gimmick? Everything (D&D/Pathfinder, RuneQuest/HeroQuest, Traveller, Rolemaster/MERP, Burning Wheel, FUDGE/FATE, HarnMaster, T&T, Savage Worlds, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, etc.) but two games; Fiasco and Diaspora. (There may be more.)

I am left wondering how any of this came to be. I've got a few ideas.

• The market. You can sell a lot more books if you convince people that they'll need tougher monsters and better magic items. You need more and more and more.
• People don't understand maths. They really don't. (Myself included, a lot of the time.) It can be very confusing. So many dice, so many game systems, so much options and layers. It's difficult to figure it all out.
• Legacy. Some guys thought it up in the 70s, so it must be right, huh?
• Bourgeois ideology. The need to reproduce notions of progress is so deeply embedded in all thought and practice in the modern world that any progress, even non-existent progress, is clutched at.
• People love inventing systems. Even if the system is nonsense, people just love to invent them. I don't know why.
  

Why Combat in RPGs works well (or Skill Challenges suck)

Combat in role-playing games generally works well. During combat scenes, everyone is engaged and contribute on an equal footing. Getting non-combat to that level of interest and involvement, however, is often difficult. Having read about and tried skill challenges in D&D 4th edition - an attempt to bring the flavour of combat to non-combat situations - I have been intrigued as to why skill challenges have failed to achieve anything remotely similar to D&D combat. They're not exciting and they're certainly not fun.

Combat works well because

• There is a clear and shared goal;
• Everyone is expected to contribute every round;
• There are often multiple paths to achieving the goal;
• Debate on tactics is a crucial element to achieving success;

Skill challenges, on the other hand, don't work well because

• Everyone contributes via atomised tasks (you roll for a knowledge check and I'll roll for the language check) - i.e., there are few shared tasks and the consequences of one task doesn't influence another;
• There is only one path to victory or each path is essentially equivalent (uses different skills) - i.e., there is little room for tactical discussion;
• The result is only either a success or fail (unlike surrender, retreat, defeat, victory or stand-off in combat encounters);
• Rolling a die is not, in-itself, fun;
  

So, how do we fix skill challenges? We don't. I'm quite convinced skill challenges will be dropped with the next version of D&D. And you don't need them anyway. What is wrong with all non-combat scenes in RPGs going along the lines of "say yes or roll" (a rule used by indie RPGs like Burning Wheel and Diaspora)? That is, the character automatically does what the player decides unless you tell them to roll instead.

We should allow "skill challenges" to emerge as we roleplay the scene. For example, in our first two sessions of RuneQuest, a failed perception check led to the horses being stolen. Generally poor tracking led to two of the horses being sold by the goblins. A failed stealth check led to ambush by sneaksy goblins in trees. Each check required debate and discussion. Also, if any of those skill checks had succeeded, the outcomes would have differed dramatically. Skill challenges can't do anything like this.

That said, it's a shame that combat gets so much attention in role-playing games. I'd like a non-combat system that dealt with social conflict simply and effectively. Maybe the duel of wits from Burning Wheel or the social conflict from Diaspora will fill the gap.

Probability in RPGs

Dice rolling is one of the core features of basically every role-playing game (except Amber Diceless). However, when probability is involved, people often get sucked into weird beliefs and numerological thinking.

There are a couple of good documents on probability in RPGs. See here and here. I have a few extra comments, especially regarding RuneQuest.

The percentile rolls in RPGs use two ten-sided dice. (I don't think anyone actually uses d100s.) One die represents the tens, the other, units. This means that one of the dice is an order of magnitude more important that the other. Only one in ten rolls of the second die is worth rolling (i.e., you need 64%; only a 6 on the tens die makes the second die relevant). RuneQuest, however, offers a couple of subtleties - critical successes and fumbles - that brings the usefulness up to 3 in 10 rolls. I've also noticed, with opposed rolls, that that number goes up to 4 in 10. Therefore, RuneQuest is mostly a d10 system, rather than percentile. However, the second die is used about a third of the time and gives some rare probabilities that makes it quite intruiging.

Comparing the percentile system of RuneQuest (Call of Cthulu, Basic Role-Playing and others) with D20 (D&D, Star Wars, etc.), I find the d100 system more satisfying. This is because

1. It's very easy to judge your chances of success when using percentiles. With D20, it's not immediately obvious what your chances are when you need 24+ and you roll 1d20+10. Sure, you can quickly figure it out, but it would be better if you didn't have to.
   
2. Little touches in RuneQuest, like fumbles that occur when rolling 99 or 100 and varying chances for critical success (depending on your skill level), break up the standard roll of 1 for automatic failure and 20/18-20 for critical success of D&D/D20.
3. Critical hits in D20 require re-rolls. This wastes more time.
4. In D20, the player, when rolling, does not know the chance of success unless they ask the game master. With percentile systems, the player knows the chance of success, unless the game master modifies it. The latter is better as it gives more determinacy of the result to the player.
   

The above concerns transparency and clarity, there isn't a real difference in probabilities between a percentile or D20 system. It's a single roll and the probability of each result is linear (can just as easily roll 33% or 99% in RuneQuest or 2 or 20 in D20). On the other hand, there are a few other game systems that provide either real differences to the probability or more superficial complexity. They are:

• Normal distribution systems, like the approach of Traveller, GURPS and Fudge. E.g., roll two dice and add them together. The non-linear distribution is cool in the sense that more often than not you'll roll near the average. However, the downside is the probability of success is tricky to figure out, especially when you don't want to have to put much effort into thinking about it. It also requires arithmetic, slowing down the evaluation of the result.
• The dice pools (e.g, grab a number of d10s relational to your ability) of World of Darkness, Warhammer Fantasy, d6 Star Wars and The Burning Wheel games also sounds pretty cool, but again, it's not overly obvious what your chances are to achieve a task. Also, more dice means more time to evaluate. Not good.
  
• The step dice of Savage Worlds, EarthDawn and Serenity seems very promising. You use 1d4 when unskilled, 1d6 if you're a bit more competent and 1d10 if you know what you're doing. The probability is easy to figure out and it's fast to evaluate. Having said that, Savage Worlds, at least, has complexities. Wild Cards (PCs and important NPCs) have two dice to roll (one normal die and one Wild Die) and re-roll if you ace (get a 6 on 1d6, for instance). This takes time and obscures the evaluation of probability. Nevertheless, I'd really like to play one of these games.

My preferences then, based on transparency and speed of evaluation are:

1. Percentiles (RuneQuest)
2. Step dice (Savage Worlds)
3. Roll and add modifiers (D20/D&D)
4. Normal distribution (Traveller)
5. Dice pools (World of Darkness)
   

Speeding-up role-playing

With the attempt to re-boot role-playing, I've been thinking through the annoyances. The main annoyance is the extreme time-wasting that can occur. Sessions can devolve into referencing and debating nothingness, rather than creating a shared narrative.

The biggest time drainers in role-playing are:

1. Checking/arguing rules
2. Book-keeping (checking/updating values on character sheets and GM material)
   
3. Dice rolling
   

All of these make the game part of Role-Playing Games, yet when it becomes the bulk of a session, it's wearisome. I have a few ideas to reduce their impact:

Issue 1

Choose a simpler, more integrated game system. RuneQuest and Traveller win here, over things like D&D and MERP.

Choose a better game system. Even little nuances help, e.g., while playing D&D, one looks-up a modifier for a skill check (e.g., roll 1d20 +6) and references it with a required "difficulty check" (e.g., you need 13 or higher). Sounds simple? Yes, but that's two things you need to know ("+6" and "13+") and it requires two people involved to know the result. With RuneQuest, one looks-up the skill for the task (e.g., 43% chance of success) and that's all one needs (though the GM may modify the difficulty, e.g., -20%, given particular conditions).

Players should only attempt something that they already know the rules for. This could be linked with the character. "I want to knock-back the trollkin... just got to check how that works." "Bah baw, the trollkin anticipates the rush and sidesteps." The same thing can apply to the GM too, if they forget how an action works. Characters (and NPCs) can have momentary lapses of competence, so it may be explained in that way. Note: This is different to players considering options; decisions are what make it a game. Tactic talk is crucial!

Issue 2

For turn-order (in combat): Assign players a card (from a normal deck of cards, or wherever), e.g. "Jack of Spades", and create a deck from the order of each player's turn from first to last. Add opponents' cards too. Cycle through the deck as people take their turn. OR: Ditch randomised turn-orders entirely and have people sit around the table in order of their speed (i.e., Strike Rank in RuneQuest, Initiative in D&D). That way players will always know who's next. OR: Combine the two methods above; non-random turn order using cards.

If a player isn't ready on their turn, drop them down the turn order.

Use the numbered cards from a deck of cards to keep track of the round number (if you care about spell and effect durations).

For RuneQuest, each player could have a number of poker chits to match their number of combat actions. Throw them into the pot as they use them.

Issue 3

I'm worried about the amount of dice-rolling in RuneQuest. In combat, a player rolls to hit and the opponent rolls to parry/evade. If the strike succeeds, roll for hit location and damage. That's four dice rolls! I can think of two solutions:

1. Roll all dice together. Attacker: d%, 1d20 and weapon. Defender: d%. Maybe you'll ignore a few of those dice, who cares?
   
2. Use an average for damage instead of rolling (rounded-up or down depending on how deadly you want the game to be). At the very least, this is how the Damage Modifier based on strength and size should work in RuneQuest.
   

RuneQuest II vs D&D

In a lot of ways RuneQuest and D&D are similar. However, everything works better in RuneQuest. Such as:

• RuneQuest uses skills whenever a character attempts to do anything. e.g., singing, thieving, shooting, casting, etc. Skills all work in the same way and they all make sense. No base attack bonuses, saving throws, ability score checks, synergy, obscure exceptions, etc.
• There are no classes in RuneQuest. If you want to create a thief, you devote skills that are useful to thieving (sleight, stealth, evade, disguise). If want a cleric (or healer), you devote skills and magic to healing. If you want to create a unique character, combine unrelated skills and spells.
• D&D is full of redundancy. e.g., Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds, etc. In RuneQuest, there is just "Heal," the caster can increase the amount of healing as they improve their magical ability.
• RuneQuest combat is more than just spatial, it is temporal too. Timing is key. This gives a whole new tactical layer to the combat that is missing from D&D.
  
• Combat is a lot more deadly in RuneQuest. Fights don't go on and on like they do in D&D.
  
• There is locational damage in RuneQuest (head, arms, chest, etc.)
  
• Hit Points don't increase over time in RuneQuest. i.e., you don't miraculously become more resilient to pain.
• There is no alignment in RuneQuest. You define your morality rather than fitting into an obscure and confusing category. (What the hell is Chaotic Neutral suppose to mean?)
  
• In RuneQuest, armour works like one imagines it would. There is no weird abstraction (i.e., Armour Class). There are armour points that apply to parts of the body. If you are wounded, you subtract the armour points from the damage dealt. e.g., a Broo does 6 damage to the left arm. Leather armour on the left arm has 2 armour points. 6 - 2 = 4 damage. Simple and logical.
• There are no levels in RuneQuest. At a particular juncture, players are rewarded with improvement points that they can use to improve skills or characteristics. There is no endlessly waiting until your character finally goes up a level. Beautiful.
• RuneQuest doesn't have the utterly frustrating Vancian magic system. Okay, not entirely true, divine magic uses a Vancian system, but sorcery and common magic doesn't.
• Skill checks are slightly simpler and require less tedious communication in RuneQuest. In D&D, the player rolls and applies bonuses (e.g., 1D20 + 5) and compares it with a number supplied by the Dungeon Master (e.g., need 17 or above). In RuneQuest, the player will generally already know the chance of success (e.g., 68% chance) and can just roll and declare the result (critical success, success, failure or fumble). This is a subtle difference, but it saves constantly needing to ask "What's the number I need?" or "Did I succeed?" It puts slightly more power on to the player. This a good thing.
• Since 2000, D&D editions have been advocating the use of miniatures in combat. They even have special rules that apply best with miniatures (attacks of opportunity, movement rules to get past other characters/pieces, etc.) There is nothing wrong with using miniatures. However, one must be careful because miniatures reduce the luscious 3D environment of an imagined scene to a grided 2D battlemap with right-angles. On a battlemap it's difficult to visualise attacks from above (balustrades, trees, fly-by attacks) and below (burrowing creatures or a chasm traversed by a suspension-bridge). You can't see sloping or uneven ground. Stairs and various forms of cover (walls, bushes and tables) are often difficult to represent. Your imagination can handle all of this better than a battlemap. RuneQuest has a cinematic feel with not a single mention of miniatures or battlemaps. All of those environments mentioned above are easily supported by the RuneQuest game system. D&D can do it too, but it struggles.
• With D&D and D20 games in general, it takes a bit of thinking to figure out your probability of success. E.g., you require 23+ for success and roll 1d20+8. You have to do a bit of maths to figure out the chance of success. It's more transparent in RuneQuest, everything uses percentiles, e.g. 25% chance.
• Even though ability scores (or characteristics) are created the same way in both games (i.e., 3d6 or 4d6, drop the lowest, etc.) they're actually used in RuneQuest. In D&D, you roll the scores, derive a "modifier," and never use the score again, for anything. This "modifier" is used as proxy for everything. The obvious question is, why bother with ability scores at all? Just roll for the modifier instead. Ability scores in D&D are just one more number that you don't use. In RuneQuest, the scores themselves are used as a basis for basically everything.

How To Act Like An Aldryami

I've been searching for a new role-playing game ever since D&D 4th edition came out. I never really loved 3rd edition all that much. I compared 3rd edition to 2nd edition and it was a good improvement. However, nowadays I've decided that D&D has to go. It's got stupidly complex rules, was designed for power-gaming, and is full of contradictions (resulting in arguments). It's a fun killer.

Traveller appears to be the sci-fi game out there. However, I've always liked my role-playing games to be fantasy based. I'm currently considering RuneQuest. Reading through one of the books, I came across the section below, describing how to play an elf. I really love it. I can't remember reading anything similar in a role-playing book. It's a great example of how and why role-playing games don't need to be anything like board-games or computer games.

How To Act Like An Aldryami:

• Unfocus your eyes; look off into the distance, past the person you are talking to.
• Talk so quietly others must strain to listen.
• Bring a few dried leaves to the game session in a plastic bag; occasionally take them out and rustle them.
• Speak in plant metaphors.
  
• Tremble with quiet fury when the woods are threatened.
  
• Have your character detour to forests. Once there, it lingers, listening to the song of Seyotel. Require sustained prompting from other Adventurers before you move or pay attention to pressing matters at hand.