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.

RPG session report 2

Our second RuneQuest session was far more intense than the first. Events followed as:

The group made camp, having decided not to follow the horse thieves through the night. They rose early the following day to continue the pursuit. Within a few hours, however, Flavias had once again lost the tracks of the bandits. A debate followed; should they give up the chase or should they attempt to follow in the general direction of the brigands (roughly north-east)? They chose the latter. Luckily, within a few hours, Flavias found the tracks.

The party arrived at a steep hillside. They saw bare rock and cliff above and steeper ground ahead. They smelt cooking meat. More debate; approach from the sides, sneak in, or approach up-front? Flavias, this time in the role of sneak, went in to gather information. A minute later she'd alerted a goblin lookout who'd been on watch from the second lowest branch of a tree. The first Flavias knew of it was a stone (from a sling) that struck her lower back. She yelped in pain. This cry alerted the other goblins nearby.

The adventurers sprung into action. After catching up to Flavias, Ben Polio and Soliste lingered underneath the goblin's tree, unable to reach it. Flavias fired arrows at the goblin. One arrow hit, but only grazed the creature. Trax arrived and threw a javelin into its right side. The goblin faulted and fell to the ground. Moments later the goblin was pierced through it's right thigh by either a short-spear or an arrow, but events where moving too quickly for anyone to take note. The goblin was overwhelmed by pain and fell unconscious.

Soliste noticed another goblin, further away, also skulking on a branch of a tree. She went off to deal with it. As she did so, she noticed four more goblins, this time on foot, coming down the hillside.

Regrouping around the bleeding goblin, the adventurers attempted to make a deal with their adversaries; the life of the hostage for their horses. The goblins refused. Our travellers opened hostilities. The goblins prepared spells.

Soliste prepared a complex sorcery spell targeting all the goblins. She intended to poison their senses, leave them incapacitated and overwhelmed by a phantom, burning taste in their mouths. Through all her intent, the spell failed and fizzled into the æther.

Nevertheless, within seconds three goblins were dead. The survivors hastily surrendered. They were bound and forced back up the hill to their camp. A quick glance around the camp revealed that Ben Polio's and Soliste's horses were missing. The goblins had sold them to a barbarian tribe for two hundred silver, far less than they were worth. Collecting the silver (two hundred and twenty eight in total), the goblins' weapons and the horses, all that remained was to deal with the survivors. More debate; take them as slaves, leave them bound, kill them?

Our band left the dead bodies near the burning fire at the cave entrance. Anid had acted decisively and brutally. Six dead goblins, carelessly abandoned to rodents and maggots.

When we left our adventurers, they'd had reached the borders of the Black Grove Clan, only hours from Verstead.

I hadn't intended that the party fight the goblins. I think it was partially my fault. I'd considered that they might sneak into the camp, but didn't think about what would happen if they failed to move stealthily. It made sense for the lookout to attack Flavias. However, when the goblins refused to hand-over all the horses for their dying companion, they should have at least offered to give them one horse in exchange (they were certainly never going to give up all three.) I didn't think of bartering. Obvious in hindsight.

We learnt one thing; the adventurers are brutal and not afraid to make gritty decisions.

Even though there was a fight that I thought was going to be avoided, the action played out relativity quickly. I even made the mistake of giving the goblins more combat actions than was permitted (I forgot to count parrying as a combat action). Six goblins are no match for five adventurers. (Note: I need to buy a few coloured glass beads to keep track of combat actions.)

Goblins aren't normally part of Glorantha. I wanted some tricksters that were good at getting about during the night. Goblins fitted well. Nevertheless, these weren't the goblins of D&D. They weren't evil. They were just out to make a living and provide food for their clan. They paid dearly.

This was the first time we were hit with the full impact of the RuneQuest rules. I've read the core rules at least three times. I used about 40% of them correctly and forgot about 30%. Getting so much of it wrong definitely made me anxious. Rules make the game more objective rather than "what the game master says," so I wanted to get them correct. At the same time, one needs to be ready to instantly dismiss a rules if they're forgotten or don't fit well with what the players are trying to achieve. It's quite difficult to balance. It went okay, but I wish the rules were simpler. However, I really like things like hit locations and combat manoeuvres. I've been waiting for those to manifest in RPGs for years and they're done very well in RuneQuest. Maybe in a few more sessions we'll know and remember the rules better and they won't get in the way.

Through the last two sessions, one of the issues I've had is that I've assumed the characters will succeed in what they do. I've been thrown a number of times when dice results go against what I've imagined. It's a foolish assumption. They're inexperienced, I should assume failure, not success. But, I need to plan for both.

Chris' observations are here.

Shrines and Temples in RuneQuest II

There are four types of magic in RuneQuest II; common, sorcery, spirit and divine. Divine magic requires devotion to a god. Only cult members that worship a particular god are granted spells and only if they pray at a shrine or temple. From the Mongoose Forums:

Both shrines and temples are made - consecrated - through the Consecrate spell. Note its description: 'The consecrated sphere is sacred to the spellcaster's god'.

A temple, then, is a site that is the subject of numerous and sustained Consecrate spells, kept in place by the presence of the permanent clergy.

Shrines are much smaller and local, their consecration kept in place by a sole Rune Priest responsible for that area. A shrine's consecration may lapse; it may not. It will depend on who looks after it and what else he or she has to do.

Creating a shrine or temple is thus a case of casting Consecrate on an appropriate area, object or building and then maintaining it. Once cast, its ties-up the dedicated POW used to cast it, putting it beyond other use (spells, usually) so a single person could maintain a shrine within a certain range if he has no other duties requiring dedicated POW or magic.

So the answer to your question: 'A character can scratch a holy symbol on a rock, or just wave his hands and say, "it's a shrine!", or what have you, and the location works as a shrine forever after' is Yes, sure he can. But he must cast and maintain Consecrate to keep it that way. If he doesn't, and the spell lapses, so does the ability to use the shrine to recover spells. Furthermore, a shrine must be recognisable to others of the same faith. Scratching a symbol on a rock might work in one culture but not another. Something recognisable and visible is going to a) declare that god's presence and b) help the divine follower find it and use it.

However, shrines, being local and personal often aren't enough. That's what temples are for, which typically contain numerous shrines to a pantheon's gods. Grouping them together under one roof makes consecration easier, attracts maximum attention, makes a political and religious statement, and so on. (Lawrence Whitaker)

What this means is that a Rune Priest is giving up their power for other people. How different is that from real-world religions?! Real-world religion takes. It takes money, in the form of donations and inheritance from the deceased. It takes time, attendance at mass and prayers from the faithful. Of course, the cults in RuneQuest take time and money too, but you'd never see a bishop or metropolitan physically reduced by their devotion. Of course, one could reason that devotion to a delusional belief system is reduction enough, but the distinction is real. Importantly, an archbishop probably isn't aware that they're delusional.

A better analogue for real-world religions in RuneQuest is the Empire of Wyrms' Friends. Some of their cults literally suck the life-energy from its members to feed the Cosmic Dragon. This is much closer to Hillsong or the Church of Scientology that take money (i.e., power) and must obviously give something in return, though I'm not entirely sure what. The veneer of community, perhaps?

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)
   

Decision making

The last role-playing session ended on a crucial dilemma; does the group continue tracking horse thieves into the night, or do they stop and rest at nightfall, continuing the hunt on the morrow? One player was in favour of pursuing into the night (or at least until the torches ran out - 4 to 5 hours). Three were opposed to the notion. As the game master, I must admit I thought it would be more fun if they continued the chase, so perhaps, one and a half in favour.

We resolved the decision in probably the worst way, flipism. Afterwards, I thought through the ways groups can make decisions. They are

• Consensus
• Majority rule
• Flipism
• Minority rule
• Splitting the group
• Rational argument
  

Clearly consensus is a terrible idea. It's little more than formalised coercion. Majority rule is better than consensus, at least the dissenters can announce their reservations even though they accept the decision. Still, it's a bad idea (what if the minority are correct in their beliefs?)

Flipism is the worst of the lot, but maybe in things like RPGs it can be fun. I thought it was fun to see the group slowly be influenced into continuing the pursuit, only to see the process break-down on the last person.

Splitting the group is also completely valid, if somewhat dramatic. Nevertheless, there should be nothing stopping one or more people leaving the others behind.

Rational argument, that is, arriving at a decision based on looking at all known options and collectively deciding which is the best, is the finest way to solve a problem. It's too bad that few use it. (I'm not sure how well it fits the fantasy world of Glorantha, however.)

The crazy thing was that - during the session - I'd forgotten all about minority rule. Often in RPGs a leader forms simply because the others aren't very communicative or are disinterested. This wasn't the case with this group/session. I had a bunch of free thinking anarchists roaming Glorantha. This will not do. A leader shall emerge. At the very least, it'll create more interesting dynamics; those that don't lead, rebel. Also, having one more option to fall back on is always a good thing.

RPG session report 1

Our role-playing group played our first "real" session last Thursday night. Background and events occurred as follows:

Our group of adventurers were returning to their stead after fighting against God Learner brigands on the border of Safelster and Delela (in Ralios). They recently departed from the EWF raiding party that was heading for other tribes and clans. They hurried on their way, so they could return in time for harvest during Earth season. However, during the second night, some dastardly thieves made off with the groups' horses. The following day was spent tracking hoof and footprint through forest, stream and hill. Unable to catch-up to the the brigands by nightfall, the group decided to make camp overnight, rather than risk a potentially deadly altercation with the thieves during the night.

So, not a huge amount happened, but it's all about how you get there. (There was also something about a brown bear attending to a corpse by the side of a trail, but they were too frightened to follow that up.)

Generally, the session went well. However, I was thrown by a few questions that I hadn't prepared for, regarding regional information. That was because I hadn't figured out where in Gernetela the group were based. I have now. It's a little region of Ralios called Delela. An interesting fact about Delela is that most clans are subject to The Walker's Curse.

The Walker’s Curse
The clansfolk of the East Wilds suffer under an ancient curse laid upon them by St. Kus, after they rode through the countryside surrounding Kustria and engaged in indiscriminate slaughter. Now they cannot ride horses. Any attempt to place a saddle on a horse or to ride it bareback results in the immediate throwing of the rider. The curse ties to the sufferer’s bloodline. Orlanthi from elsewhere, including Lankst, can still ride here. (Glorantha - The Second Age, pg 110)

I think everyone had a lot of fun. I certainly did. The evening definitely contributed to my belief that role-playing games are the greatest games ever created.

An Assassin in Orlandes

I've been waiting for Tin Man Games gamebooks to come to the iPad. I tried out the first game - An Assassin in Orlandes - last night. I like it. Compared with the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, An Assassin in Orlandes is vastly superior.

The art, design and user interface work really well. The writing is decidedly competent. The writing scrapes the borders of try-hard descriptiveness, but never reaches it, so it's an enjoyable read. I like the use of Spanish to give it that exotic flavour. (I speak Spanish, so it's not so exotic for me, but it's a nice idea.) I noticed a few grammatical errors (an occasional missing comma or comma in the wrong place). Nevertheless, generally it was edited well and is easy to understand.

The story is a generic fantasy affair, but that's okay with me. It's quite intriguing.

The decisions - the core of a gamebook - appear decent. It's not just "do you turn towards direction X?" I felt like what I decided to do had a real impact on the game/story. At the beginning, you can choose to have one more drink at the tavern. The outcome is that your stats are lowered for a while. I'm totally fine with that sort of stuff. Most of the time it seemed like it would really matter if I chose one option over another. Of course, it can't matter too much, else you'd get in-exhaustive branching very quickly. It's the illusion of infinite choices that really makes the difference. Thus far, An Assassin in Orlandes holds up to that illusion.

A weird aspect of the choices, however, is the "if you choose to do X, turn to 345." What's with the "turn to 345"? This isn't a printed book, why present the user with worthless fluff? I found it quite distracting.

The achievements are great. It's very cool being rewarded for going off the beaten track. (I wasn't even aware I was off track, which made it even cooler.) Unlocking the pictures is a nice touch too.

One can bookmark various places in the story. That was something I always used to do in the printed books of yore (I used to use my fingers as bookmarks, switching back to a spot in the book and trying an alternate path). It was a clever idea to integrate bookmarks into the game, limiting the number you have access to based on what mode you want to play.

I don't like the combat. It involves watching the dice roll, few (almost no) decisions. What they really need is a rock, paper, scissors mechanic. And I have one:

Each round of combat you can choose to attack, parry or cast a spell. Depending on the class you choose at the start (fighting man, rogue or wizard) you get two dice for one of those manoeuvres and one die for the other two manoeuvres. Fighting man has two for attack, rogue two for parry, and wizard has two for cast.

While fighting, if you attack and your opponent casts, you get a +2 bonus to the die roll. Same if you cast and they parry or you parry and your opponent attacks; you get a +2 bonus. If you both choose the same manoeuvre, there is no bonus awarded. Otherwise, it'll be your opponent who gets the +2 bonus.

Therefore, if you chose fighting man, you'll be inclined to attack more often than parry or cast, but not if you're going up against a rogue. If the computer opponent made random decisions with a slight prevalence for its favoured manoeuvre, it would work well, I believe. Certainly better than watching digital dice resolve.

I haven't actually read all that much of the gamebook as yet, so my opinion may change. In the main, however, I'd say it's very good. The combat is utterly uninventive and redundant, but that's my only substantive criticism. This isn't exactly what I've asked for, but it's getting there.