RPG Weapons- Up Your Arsenal

I cannot stress how sick I am of watching varying online communities bicker and argue over what is possible with what weapons in whatever RPG, and what was "historically accurate". Most of it boils down to common sense. Either way, as a fencer and martial artist, these squabbles are extremely irritating. Today, on this extra rant-fueled article in the Mage College, we will look at the historically inaccurate "argument", we'll analyze the design space of weapons, and I will offer my ultimate opinion on weaponry.

People Tend to be, Historically, Inaccurate

If you have ever used the term "historically accurate", when talking about weapons in D&D, Pathfinder, 7th Sea, Cypher System, etc. but have never practiced a martial art, learned stage combat, or researched weaponry, and instead are quoting some movie, or something you heard from some friend who knows equally little as you, I want you to go to the other room, and cast stinking cloud centered on yourself. This is your punishment.

I saw someone on a forum based in an extremely toxic community say, "historically speaking dual-wielded weapons weren't identical weapons in each hand." I chimed in that he was wrong. He quoted the rapier and dagger, and said that was generally it. Well, the hole in his argument was that he only accounted for a couple of centuries only in Europe. The Japanese sai, kama, and tonfa, the African eskrima, Chinese warfan, butterfly swords, the use of Krabi in the Thai style of Krabi Krabong. Half of this you can find on the Wikipedia article called "Dual Wield." 

Calling anything in tabletop RPGs "historically inaccurate" indicates that you have chosen to scrutinize aspects you don't like, and blatantly ignore the aspects of the game that are still historically inaccurate. How about the fact that just anybody can throw a dagger 30 feet and cause damage to an enemy in D&D 5e? Have you thrown a dagger before? Throwing knives, the balanced, thrown version require hours of practice and you're telling me that any old wizard can throw one and expect to hit reliably someone at least half of the time? You might be asking if I have tried throwing throwing knives before. The answer is, "YES! Every summer, for 10 years, because I grew up at Renaissance Festivals! That is a thing you get to practice!"I digress, interestingly it is easier to throw axes than knives. Given the shape of the axe (especially axes made for throwing) the head of the axe aids in the rotation, and occupies a a much wide space in the weapon than the point of a dagger. 

Another example of a historically inaccuracy that everyone seems to neglect, is that if armor have strength requirements, why don't weapons? My friends and I have dabbled in a number of sword styles, and regardless of the weapon you are using, your arms will tire quickly depending on the pace you are fighting at. Heavier weapons are, you guessed it, heavy! Great swords are monstrous pieces of steel. I tend to think of the German zweihander when we are talking about "great swords". We're talking a sword that could be as long as 5' 9" (180 cm). These monstrous weapons weighed between 4.4 and 7.1 pounds (2-3.2 kg). You're telling me that your character is so strong that he is swinging this monstrous piece all day without suffering any strain or exhaustion? According to D&D, a dwarf can reasonably use this weapon without issue when he is effectively shorter than the weapon. That's not to say that people who are of shorter stature can't use a weapon such as a claymore or zweihander, but the technique would have to be very different if the weapon is larger than the wielder. Of course, this is overlooked, because a great sword does a 2d6 damage. If the damage is good, how can we complain?

On the other end of the spectrum, shorter weapons, such as knives, axes, and shortswords have really no draw back except for using a smaller dice. Everyone should know that is perfectly historically accurate. If you did not read that last line in a sarcastic tone, go back and try again. Shorter weapons are generally much harder to wield against someone who is using a weapon that has sufficient length. In roleplaying games, this disparity is frequently overlooked. Smaller weapons tend have smaller damage dice in games, it's generally hard to kill anything in a roleplaying game with just a knife. Now, compare that to how many deaths have occurred throughout human history because of knives. Do I need to bother saying that it is "historically inaccurate"?

I mentioned the rapier and dagger combo earlier, but has anyone else noticed that most roleplaying games have no idea what a rapier is? Cypher system has it categorized as a light weapon and only deals 2 points of damage. D&D 5e upgraded its damage dice from 3.5's 1d6 to 1d8, but no longer has an increased critical hit chance, and weighs a pound less than the scimitar, but it is not a light weapon. For those of you not sure what a rapier is, watch the BBC's Musketeers, or Princess Bride. The swords that 90% of your protagonists wield are rapiers. They aren't terribly weighty, they are just long. They are specialized to be a thrusting weapon, and were often accompanied in duels with a dagger, or cloak. So, of course, they shouldn't be easy to use with anything in your offhand! That would be historically accurate if they could just be wielded all willy-nilly with some form of accompanying weapon!

If it isn't obvious. the take-away here is that there is a lot overlooked in these tabletop games. The more is overlooked the more inaccurate something is going to seem in a game. The reason being is that a games mechanics are abstracted representations of a real or quasi-real concept. (Can I get an "Ooo" for the use of fancy language?)

That's Not a Knife! This is a Knife!

No...that's actually a d4, you're holding. It hurts if you step on a d4, but that's not a knife. It just represents a knife. How do we know it's not club? Because we can add our dex bonus, or attack creatures at a range of 30 imaginary feet and it counts as a light weapon,.Well, it could be a light hammer... wait, no, you can only add strength to your damage if its a light hammer. Despite these nuances, you still have a d4 in your hand. The nuances are the representations that differentiate one weapon from another. Without them, the obvious choice would be to take the best option, as far as the dice are concerned, and leave it at that. Just as the abstraction of the weapons makes the game easier to manage, regulating potential damage is also necessary. If everyone does the same amount of damage all the time, it is pretty much a question of who hits most, than offers no variety and isn't very fun. If weapons are different, the system is more interesting, but you can't make weapons clearly better than another. Just like in real life, weapons are situational. In a cramped hallway, wielding a longsword is not as easy as wielding a shortsword in the same environment. RPGs do not include rules that reflect this. It is expected, or at least hoped, that the GM will take this into consideration. However, we rarely see this, in part to poor game mastering decisions, but to explicitly include this in all the rules would be very weighty. Looking back at how 3.5 and Pathfinder handled weapons seems like a lot compared to 5e or more narrative focused games like Cypher System or 7th Sea. The major concern in games like D&D and Pathfinder is that the system must remain (mostly) unabused. It is definitely easier to stab with a knife than to swing a great sword, but if the rules reflected it, knives get to attack more. Then you have to consider reach to balance that out, then eventually your comfortable blanket of abstraction is lost. To include these details will not only strain your abstraction but your system entirely. 

Using a Weapon

In my games, whatever the system, despite my knowledge of weaponry, I accept these games for what they are, fantasies based on reality. So what if someone wants to use a rapier and dagger but they haven't got the dual wielder feat? Might you assume for this one combination that the character is trained to do so? If someone is a master knife thrower, so be it! These characters are supposed to be heroic characters. These are characters who are some of the best of their own worlds. Unless it is something absolutely game breaking (Looking at you 3.5 Monkey Grip feat), what is the harm in it? If some aspect of a weapons description harms or helps a character in a situation (such as wielding a knife in a grapple versus a spear) consider that!

I know in Chronicle & Tale weapons will have properties that represent the real world components, but there will always be room for the fantastic as well. I suppose you'll have to wait for the first playtest packet. 

Creating Characters- Part 1

Character creation is different depending on the game. This is no surprise, character creation should feel different depending on the game. The depth of character creation and the style will take a variety of forms. I think it also explains the homebrewing phenomenon in Dungeons and Dragons and even multiclassing. In order to understand this claim, we need to look at what creating a character is about. If you immediately answer with, “Creating a character,” I recommend you stay awhile and listen.

Dungeons and Dragons character creation ought to be contrasted to another system. Lets look at a system that uses a little bit more to actually define a character: Cypher system. Each character is created by proclaiming that the character is a ________ ________ who ___________. An adjective (charming, graceful, strong, etc.) noun (“class”), and a verb (your power or theme.) This immediately offers a new way of viewing your character. Of course, it is a summation with much more depth, but, at the same time, it is different mold than Dungeons and Dragons. In Dungeons and Dragons, we all make certain assumptions about characters based on their class-- Rogues are sneaky, bards are goofy, barbarians are dumb. Although that may not be true, a system like Cypher system’s does not immediately allow for this kind of assumption. The character sheet immediately gives a glimpse of what sort of character we are looking at by avoiding those class definitions altogether. Although 5e’s archetype system gives us a better look at what sort of character it is, it doesn’t define the character. There is more character information in an adjective more than there is in calling a character a monk in D&D. When you spout the mouthful that is Chaotic Good Noble High-Elf Multiclass Rogue/Bard Swashbuckler-College of the Sword we still know nothing about the character. In fact, we’re only told what their training is, not who they are. 5e’s addition of background has included an easily ignorable and in my opinion fairly bland attempt to create actual characterization. It isn’t a bad inclusion, but I think the character traits are suggested further only encourage the cookie cutter nature of the Dungeons and Dragons. You might say, “Derek, how is it a cookie cutter form of character creation when Cypher system offers you three slots to fill?” One word: Optimization. In Dungeons and Dragons it pays off to play strong classes like Wizard and Rogue. A good number of players don’t pick anything in D&D without considering what it does for them solely on mechanical level. However, I do believe 5e is more balanced than previous iterations, especially 3.5. 

That’s not to say that every player tries to optimize. There are many players, myself included, who try to build characters who are more based on a character concept. I think Cypher System does this better than Dungeons and Dragons does. You want a character that uses magic, but you want it to be light magic? Done. Now what's he or she like? Graceful? Charming? Done. Inside each of these character options are more choices. Dungeons and Dragons offers most of its choices once. At character creation. Spells, and feats don't really apply as these choices do not apply to everyone. At each step of progress, every player at the table is offered choices to make, and depending on the play style or character they want, one Warrior can feel very different from another. Depending on the character, even mage type characters can stand a decent chance of survival in melee. They aren't limited to being just "mages". Ultimately the characters are how the player and GM interpret them.
This isn't to say there is never overlap, but the way I might make a character is different than how you would make a character. 

Regardless, this does not inherently mean that either of these two systems are perfect. Another system with an interesting method of character creation is the Powered by the Apocalypse game, City of Mist from Son of Oak Game Studio. Each character is given tags that describes the character's abilities. For instance, one of your character's tags might be, "Master Swordsman." For any check that involves the character being a "Master Swordsman." You gain a single +1 to your roll. These tags can stack up to a bonus of +3. The only trade off are character related weaknesses. So if your character has a fear of heights, you'll have a penalty on anything related to that weakness. This model truly creates characters, however for players who want more mechanical representation this might feel that this isn't much of a game. It's hard to optimize a character in this system, but the story is key. What is optimal about a story? Nothing. A story is a story, the characters are not optimal people. They may be extraordinary, but they have flaws. City of Mist takes this into consideration and characters are exactly that: Characters. Numbers have less of a hold on this system allowing what is in and out of character to decide. 

Regardless of the system you land on, what defines a character will ultimately differ depending on how the system implements character creation. The in between pieces that the game might not reward are ultimately up to you, but it is nice when the mechanics reflect the identity of the character. As D&D is a perfect model of it, characters in some systems can only be so complex until the system is strained. Take one of my favorite PCs, Akyas for example. In concept he is an assassin/ detective/ spy/ hunter--Essentially he's almost Batman. If you look at how many ways there are to develop a Batman-esque character, that character could be exemplified by any class from the following: Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Ranger. However, there is a major issue with the D&D class model. If a character is a single class character, they will obviously have access to all of the best features of that class. Subclasses, as I have said previously, will help incorporate a theme into that base class, but the more complex a character is, the conventional character building model slips away. Skills help, sure, but when we want favored enemy, sneak attack, evasion, assassinate, extra attack, ambush, whirlwind attack, etc. We're looking at a character design that is a combination of a lot of cool ideas, but are more easily accomplished in 3.5 or pathfinder then in 5e. One might argue that it is because of how new 5e is. To a certain degree, that is true. There are not as many  character options in 5e as there are in 3.5 or pathfinder. At the same time, in both older games, there are more moving parts. Feats are gained at every third level defining character abilities outside classes, and ability scores improve on a separate but slower track. There in lies the role of homebrewing. Homebrewing and hacking your game is risky. I enjoy it as a creator, and I enjoy when players like my work. I personally don't like using my own homebrew classes because I feel like I am getting away with something.

If there a problem with these differences? How do we make up for them? Think it over. When we come back to this theme, we'll look at what defining a character should be and how I as a creator intend to deal with them as I continue developing Chronicle & Tale RPG. 
'Til Next Time, Happy Creating Arcanists!

Re-imagining and Roleplaying Part 1

You've decided to play a Battle Master Fighter. Kevin, your table's optimizer says, "Oh, well at least isn't Champion, because that would be really boring." At this point you say, "Well, the story is with my character is that he's a Shadow Blade." Kevin raises an eyebrow and says, "he's a Battle Master." You reply, "Yeah, but his Lunging strike isn't a long fencing lunge, his shadow powers make the sword temporarily longer. His menacing strike manifests as a swarm of shadows that torment the mind of his target. That's also why as feats I took Stealthy and Skulker. There's not an archetype that does 'Shadow Blade' stuff, but this works!"
Kevin mutters something like "that works," and proceeds to create his Half-Elf Lore Bard because Kevin is that guy. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Re-Imagining the Classes

In this "exercise" of character building, we try not to take classes for their face value. In the example above, we offer an alternative to the normal Battle Master fighter to make use of a simple flavor change. By considering a flavor change, the possibility of playable characters increases dramatically. Some classes are very well defined by their archetypes in 5e, but even then, remember that a class, or archetype is only a compilation of instructions and numbers. In addition to that, Feats, skills, and backgrounds can easily change the way a class might look on a character. Multiclassing also contributes to this over all idea. In each case the main idea is to break away from tropes that we associate with these classes. They can also open new benefits that your GM may consider as your character is not the usual sort.

Below are examples for the first three classes that may help inspire various iterations of different uses for a class:

Barbarian

Rage doesn't need to be "Rage." Rage could be instead some hidden power that the "barbarian summons." Ask yourself if you think Goku from Dragonball Z is just a monk. Super Saiyan isn't just a "rage"; it's a total power up. Rage as a concept could also be the release of a darker personality, or darker set of powers. Another example would be Devil May Cry's Dante. When Dante uses his Devil Trigger ability, he unleashes the demon powers within him. For a short while, Dante's speed and strength increases. A type of ability like this would be a great application of Frenzied Barbarian. Not every barbarian needs to be some guy in a loincloth who talks like the caveman version of Patrick Star and swings a greatsword around. Another pop culture reference would be Winston the gorilla from Blizzard's Overwatch. Winston is the smartest character in the game, but in his ultimate ability, he enters a primal rage and his fury fuels his power. Outside of that, Winston is a well spoken character, an inventor, and more civilized than the human character Roadhog. Roadhog is more like your classic barbarian.

Also remember, that each archetype offers a new use or flavor for your Rage ability. Rage doesn't have to be entering a screaming bloodlust-driven fury. It can be though. When considering backgrounds, an Outlander Barbarian may be your loincloth clad murderhobo, however, you may have a criminal background barbarian who is more a "thug". One villain in one of my campaigns I run is a Pirate background barbarian/fighter. Essentially, this character, Corvis, is more like a corsair. An entertainer barbarian could very well be a strong-man in a circus. 

Bard

Everyone has the same image of bards. Critical Role's Scanlan Shorthalt, is perhaps the epitome this trope. Mind you, I think Sam Riegel is the coolest guy, and I love Scanlan, but playing a witty, lecherous, goofy, bard does not have to be what you sign up for when you write "bard" on your character sheet. Not to say that Scanlan is one-dimensional either. In one of our more recent games, Andy (DM Starhelm) played a Dragonborn College of War bard but was nothing like the normal interpretation of bard. He was instead a skald. For those of you unfamiliar with what a skald is, a skald is a "composer and reciter of poems honoring heroes and their deeds." (Thanks Google.) However, skalds are often interpreted in roleplaying games as being rougher, viking/barbarian-esque heralds of battle. In our game of White Plume Mountain,he played a lore bard who was more a treasure hunter than a traditional bard. His character, Julius was more the Indiana Jones/Nathan Drake kind of adventurer. As he came across varying puzzles, and the like, I didn't make him roll "knowledge" checks. He was a level 9 bard who was a treasure hunter/dungeon delver. If he saw something he usually would have some comparable familiarity as far as most standard traps were concerned. What's more, Andy played him like a character who knew what he was doing. As a DM, I was happy to offer more because of that specific profession the character had.

There may not be a lot to each bard college, but remember that bard's are combinations of skills and magic. The skills you choose and the spells you pick can make each bard seem different. Besides, how does a bard that has the entertainer background differ from a bard with the spy background, or the far traveler background (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide)? A spy bard is probably a trickster of some kind. The College of Whispers is perfect for this bard, who may be more of a back-stabbing scoundrel. An entertainer bard might not be some smooth-talking minstrel, but could be an enchantingly beautiful flautist with a mysterious but magnetic presence. For those of you that like more East Asian style fantasy, geisha would almost definitely be bards.

Cleric

Clerics tend to differ by their domain pretty frequently, but abstracting the concepts further may prove useful. A knowledge domain cleric could be more like one of the Greek oracles. A tempest cleric could be a sort of Thor-esque character (as obvious as that is). Flavor-wise, a nature domain cleric could be more like a shaman and rather than serving a specific god, takes a more animism approach. Maybe their spells manifest more in the form of aspects of animals. This of course could be argued about druids, but by nature (pun intended) they are very similar. The entire class rather than being priestly in nature could be interpreted as a being closer to the divine than than just being a cleric. Perhaps having cleric as a class is more liken unto being a demigod? I see plenty of homebrews that try to create angels, gods, etc. Each one of them usually is, as you'd expect grossly overpowered. Why can't a cleric be reskinned to fit this kind of character if someone wants to play one so badly. If you think back to the days of AD&D Elf and Dwarf had their own classes. In 5e's design a race be a class is absurd. There isn't any reason why you couldn't say that is what the cleric class can be used as, it represents a connection to the divine and by the end of the class progression, they can perform miracles, and in the eyes of less powerful individuals, what appear to be acts of a god.

Considering backgrounds while making a cleric could also be an interesting influence in the character as a whole. A cleric who is more of an exorcist could be the Haunted One, or Investigator background, and produce more of a John Constantine type character. A charlatan cleric could easily be some kind of false prophet, or a trickery cleric who uses his divine ability to go about his business in a more dishonest manner. A sailor cleric could be a divine blessed ship captain with the tempest domain, or a pirate who commands the storm to aid in his plundering.

More to Come

 As this is a long topic, I will cover the other classes in continuations of this article. Let me know if you have any good ideas in the comments down below. Until next time, happy reinventing, Arcanists!

The Worst Status Condition- Part 2: Inflicting Death and Dying

Death's Role

Now that you've established death's role in your game. You can begin to employ it as a mechanic. After all, you have hit points in most games, or a death spiral, or something of the sort. What most GM's should do is explain what dying entails.

For example, in the Acquisitions Incorporated games as run by Chris Perkins, death is escapable. Spoiler warning: After Wil Wheaton's character Aeofel dies, the rest of Acquisitions Inc. were able to go to another plane to save his soul, and pull him back from the afterlife. In Critical Role, spells that resurrect the dead can fail, making the person to be resurrected lose any chance to be resurrected from then on.  In games like Cypher system, or Star Wars RPG, dead is just that. Dead. Though, those games tend to have a greater threshold for death. That is, it takes more work to kill a character, unless the circumstance is entirely unsurvivable. "How does it take more work?" you might ask. Systems like that (unless death is all part of the fun like in Dungeon Crawl Classics) tend to use different action economies. My Star Wars RPG character, Dash, has only 14 hit points.  Thanks to his training a Makashi Duelist (think Count Dooku) when someone hits him in melee, he can parry it to reduce the damage significantly. This is whenever he is attacked, mind you. However, if he uses this ability, he does take an amount of strain that represents his exhaustion. In addition to his armor which reduces damage further, Dash has a pretty good chance of survival despite having a whopping 14 hit points.

With this example we're given a fun equation:





Chance of (R)esurrection over (M)ortality (number of hit points) times m(I)tigation of damage is equal to (E)ase of death.  Now this isn't a concrete equation, its a representation. You math majors, put away your calculators. The chance for resurrection and the closeness to death (hit points) are related at first. Take D&D for instance. By level 10 most people are sporting over 100 hit points. That is a barrage of pokes from several dozen goblins. In real life it could take one. Lethality in real life is more of a binary scale. Of course, repeated harm "stacks" as we nerds would say about anything. However, generally something kills you, or it doesn't. You can be grievously wounded, but you're dealing with homeostasis. The human body, (or living things rather) tries to right itself. They're brilliant systems. If someone was stabbed to death, generally its organ failure and moreso blood loss that is their undoing. The wounds were simply a vehicle for irreversible tip in the balance of homeostasis. Hit points can't reflect homeostasis well. Though they do reflect fragility. The hardest your barbarian can hit someone in a single hit with a normal greatsword in D&D 5th edition is 23 damage assuming Strength is a 24 and you are raging. 23 damage. The most resilient 2nd level rogue (Con of +5, 2d8 HD) possible can survive that (26 hp). If someone was more than twice as strong as the average individual, stronger than a hill giant, most normal people would be dead several times over from such a hit. Games like Dungeon Crawl Classics and Dungeon World relish this mortality. 

Death Comes

So in these power heavy games how do we make death real?

Well if you have decided that you want death to be semi-permanent, proceed with caution. If death is permanent or semi-permanent, that's fine but be prepared for some comments from people who like clerics. Your necromancers, however, will be happy if they like more corpses lying about because undead will be even more taboo and spooky.

However, if resurrection is relatively more easy, don't be afraid to throw death and injury at your players more readily. If it can be healed (with work) why not? One of the coolest things I did to a character was his arm got cut off, but because he was an artificer, and he made himself a really cool magical prosthetic arm.

To utilize injury and death I have a few recommendations:

The Dungeon Master's Guide has some pretty great rules for massive damage found on page 273. These rules allow for creatures to be killed more easily if they take damage equal to more than half their hit points, but other results can happen such as being knocked unconscious, stunned, or an equivalent of dazed. This is one more reason I use exploding damage dice. Massive damage is easier to inflict.

The page before it has a list of potential injuries that a character might sustain, however the suggested triggers for this are on a critical hit, dropping to 0 hit points, or failing a death saving throw by 5 or more. The second one is fine, however, every time someone takes a critical hit, they would have a chance to lose a limb, or an eye, or some such injury. I would stipulate that they might have to make a Constitution save with a DC equal to half the damage they took before rolling on a table after every critical hit, or else your characters will look like the squad of bad guys from Logan. Everyone and their mother would have a prosthetic.

Coup de Grace: Coup de grace was an action in 3.5 that you could take against a "helpless" creature. You automatically hit the creature and it was a critical hit. The creature had to roll a Fortitude save equal to 10 + the damage dealt or die.

To fit this into 5e, as most of our game hacking goes, you could apply similar to an incapacitated creature. (Maybe you'd have to still make the attack roll against a restrained creature). The saving throw DC for a Constitution save is 15 (like Massive Damage). If the creature fails it is automatically dead (or dying if you want a little cushioning between your players and the Reaper)

For killing creatures by surprise, this rule could also be used. A lot of players tend to be unhappy that you can't just take someone by surprise in D&D and almost definitely kill them unless "your numbers are higher than their numbers." You could also use the same rule to knock creatures out rather than killing them.

Reason: Maybe something that shouldn't be survivable happens, like falling into lava, being launched into space, being thrown infinitely because of the  a Setting Sun practitioner. (Seriously, 3.5?) As a GM it is totally fine to say something kills someone if it is impossible to survive. Especially if choices have lead to it. Not obnoxious arbitrary rolls (Never make death the result of a natural 1 on a check, I will tear apart "nat 1's" someday soon), but the result of choices. Death is a rational result for a series of choices. Did the dwarf choose to jump into the lava? If yes, than that is a dumb choice unless he is immune to fire damage. 

Ultimately, death is reasonable. As a GM, you control death. Do you want a fight to be particularly lethal? Does death sound like a reasonable result for an attack and ultimately speed up your process, thus saving you from a 10 minute encounter with Steve the guard who is the first of many guards? GMs call the shots but what is most important is consistency.



Coming this week and next:
Redefining classes
More Magic Items
A Monk that knows how to throw down

The Worst Status Condition: Death

The Phenomenon

A lot of bloggers/writers for tabletop games often tend to weigh in on the subject of character death in RPGs. A lot of the other writers that I really respect have their own varying opinions, which I often agree with. Though, let's face it, death is part of these games. In real life, death is a very real, emotional, and painful experience for those who remain. On the cosmic scale however, it is a mechanic. In a sort of irony, death is a simple mechanic we make a huge deal of in these games.Like in real life, in game it happens. This may be rather nihilistic in tone, but that isn't the point of this article. I don't in anyway want to cheapen death, but we dabble in it in these games as a theme every session.  We inflict it onto NPCs unless you are playing in one of those sort of George of the Jungle rules campaigns where "Nobody dies, they just get really big boo-boos." Though most people don't play that way unless they are actually trying not to kill a character. All else, when you drop a character to 0 hit points, you're killing them. Usually it's a monster of some kind, but in my campaigns, you will fight other humanoids as often, if not more often, than monsters. It almost always ends in death. The games we play emulate rather violent periods in history through fantasy, or times in which there is a particular "lawlessness". Death is dispensed at random, and readily by players and GMs alike.

 Sometimes it hits you with a glimmer of the same emotional effect as it would in real life. Last week, I dropped a Star Destroyer onto a factory where there were thousands of slaves. I didn't save them, I destroyed them. On accident, of course, but that choice my character made, as he was riding the high of his rage and walking in the Dark Side, made him lose his reasoning. He made the call "imperial factory=bad", and proceeded to drop it onto a planet. Of course, I'm an actor type player, and was emotionally entwined with my character’s feelings. When my GM told me what the real effects of what I had done were, I personally felt awful. I felt guilty. Although it was just a game, the emotional connection to the idea of being responsible for that was real. Dash (my character) will, of course, be impacted by this. However, I ask you as we proceed, to look at the mechanical side of death in games. I have illustrated that there is undoubtedly an emotional part to all this, but there is a less often addressed mechanical side as well.

The Effect

Once upon a time in Gygax’s Tomb of Horrors, a player might take a wrong turn. DEAD. They just died, no saving throw, no pomp and circumstance. They were just dead. From a gaming perspective, that isn’t fun. Lawrence Schick’s White Plume Mountain was almost as brutal. I ran White Plume Mountain in 3.5 after I had found the module and had no idea what it was. When one of the characters nearly fell into the boiling mud pits, I realized something was wrong. The potential damage that it could have done was an insane amount, and the characters in this adventure were the recommended level. I was baffled, whoever had designed this was clearly just trying to kill the players. A few years later, it dawned on me, that danger was actually kind of cool. Not from a sense of realism, of course, that would be awful. Who would be amazed with the idea of someone one hundred feet into pools of boiling mud? From a gaming stand point, the peril made it fun. I recently read Tales from the Yawning Portal. As DM Starhelm fully intends on running Tomb of Horrors, I’m not allowed to read it, but I did call “dibs” on White Plume Mountain. So I gave it a once over, and I was sort of disappointed. Those same mud pits did a fraction of the damage they used to. The danger was gone. The amount of damage proposed was underwhelming. Not to say that I will not run White Plume Mountain for my play group, but that danger is not there. The danger makes it fun, does it not? There we have it, mechanics should be fun! A bit of a backwards affective result, don’t you think? Death is fun in games. Not a roguelike, but my favorite fight in all video game history is Kingdom Hearts 2, fighting Sephiroth. At lower levels, say 70 to 80, this fight against the iconic villain is challenging. Every move must matter, every move must be flawless, or Sora (the main character) will perish. What’s more, your beloved companions must sit this fight out. The tension is high and all that stands between you and death is your own skill. Though that isn’t death being fun, is it? Here we see that it is not the source of the fun, but the tension. The tension is there because the danger is clear. It is the tension that sets the tone. One of DM Starhelm’s greatest achievements was running Curse of Strahd as masterfully as he did. Tension abounds in that campaign, in more thematic ways than one. Strahd isn’t just a monster, he’s a character, and a dangerous one at that. Castle Ravenloft is the stuff of nightmares, and it feels like a proper death trap. This didn’t require rules to create the tense relationship to death but the clear presence of danger looms over the setting. As a mechanic, death creates dramatic tension. It is the main mechanic by which the game ends prematurely.

Death Ward

Hit points as a mechanic cheapens this tension. Players say, “As long as I have these X hit points, I’m ok.” To create danger, what do we do? We throw enemies that have enough numbers that that are bigger than the players numbers. This is a gross simplification, but that’s how it works. Imminent death is only a numbers game. In real life, death is not the result of a number but the result of circumstance. There are figures that we know can’t be survived, figures that yield improbable survivability, but our own vitality has no numbers beyond our vital signs- A representation of our actual uncountable health. We have representations signifying our health but they aren’t hit points. I don’t have hit points, you don’t have hit points. What’s more, pain and damage are uncorrelated. Something can hurt can cause less damage than another occurrence. Damage is dependent upon the location. Unless something major happens in some kind of bizarre occurrence, spraining your wrist can’t kill you. Though slipping and hitting your head can. With a hit point system, where you hit is irrelevant. It takes a clever GM/player to paint a decent picture that coincides with hit points. Although the more hit points you have, the less sense the damage you take over time makes. All of it until the final blow(s) would appear incidental. Tension doesn’t really occur unless you know that you have only so many hit points left.

Resurrection is perhaps the usual fallback for most players. In games like D&D, you have resurrection as a staple of the game. Why do you have a cleric? To fix two major problems: hit points and “deadness”. If someone in the real world could die and be definitely raised from the dead, you’d see modern stupidity become even more prevalent. The Darwin Awards would become an actual achievement that you could be proud of. Expendability would be a good thing. That’s not the way the world works, and I would even argue that shouldn’t be how these games work. Not that resurrection shouldn’t happen, but stipulations on resurrection should be facets of the mechanic that is death. I like Matthew Mercer’s house rule in Critical Role that makes resurrections a challenge; they aren’t simply a done deal. This of course, depends on your game. If you have a party of four or five people, that’s fair. On a one-on-one game, or a two player game, that is harder to force on a player. The smaller the game, the more character-centric the story/game becomes. Resurrection is, like death simply a mechanic, unlike the ability to end the game, resurrection continues it.

Before we continue to next week’s Inflicting Death, I recommend you reflect on what death means in your game. Emotionally and mechanically. Is death a trifling thing, or is it final? Try not to be too depressed about it, friends. It is part of the game after all.

Til then, happy thoughts, Arcanists.

Tabletop One-on-One, Part One.

When I first started GMing tabletop games, I thought the idea of playing one-on-one, GMing for a single person was entirely possible, but what  I didn't realize is that it is an entirely different game. My first major experience with this was my friend Mike DMing for me as my favorite PC. I later carried this story on to DM for my wife in the same fashion, and we now have one-on-one tabletop gaming as one of our favorite pass times. There is a very strange dynamic to one-on-one games, and there are a few things to take into consideration before you as a GM or a player wade into a one-on-one game:


The Difference

In a one-on-one game the focus can and often does shift from a party-centric story to a player character centered story. This will allow your player to really dig into playing the type of character they want to and make decisions as their character would. This will also help the GM learn the character, and later, should the character be incorporated into a group, the player and the GM will be able to understand better how to keep the character involved in the story. This player-centric story can be a lot of fun to create, and usually has a plethora of good roleplaying opportunities. This is especially good for players who are newer, or even more quiet at the table.  However, these new perspective means several shifts will occur in the mechanics and the dynamic between the GM and player. As this is a brief summary we'll skim these before we visit them in full articles.

Harder On Everyone?

In terms of playing difficulty, unless the GM runs a a GMPC or uses a hireling system of some kind, your challenge ratings for enemies won't be accurate as they would in a four person party. If a gm for a one-on-one player is going to challenge that player. It is important to carefully consider the character that the player is using to create challenges. Some systems like the newer Scarlet Heroes has rules to fix the scale for one on one play. Scarlet Heroes' fix for this is using a different damage system and what is called a "Fray die" that sort of cinematically help deal with "minions," so solo characters can deal with larger encounters faster and with the odds less stacked against them. 

It may also be difficult for the player at times to feel in charge of the story, and they could very well feel like the story idea that the gm is offering doesn't match up with their character. Sometimes, it is better to resolve it to be more sandbox like until something more attention grabbing comes along. In a one-on-one session, the player may feel less compelled to follow what will feel more like a "generic quest for some adventurers." The very nature of this style of session is to allow the character navigate as they would like. To some degree, this style of game allows the GM to be more reactionary than proactive. The player will innately indicate where they want to take the character by asking questions. Railroading a player in this style of session will only upset them as much as any other player.

Even though the player is in charge of where they are going and constantly telling the GM where they're are headed to next, it is still, coincidentally, more work for the GM in these kinds of things. The GM is not planning in advance but instead needing to react to the desires of the player. Of course, this isn't always the case but it is common for the GM needing to either improvise more, or plan accordingly after the fact.

Easier On Everyone!

However, ultimately, one on one can allow the player and the GM to take more time with their roles. Because of my own one-on-one sessions, my homebrew setting has been much more fleshed out, making larger games much easier to manage. With the player at the forefront of the story, the party decision discussion which can be overly long, and with the wrong players take most of a session, the story moves faster, and you can accomplish more. In another interesting note, the GM gets a better glimpse as to how player mechanics work and why. Rather than having to try to acclimate to four character classes to GM for, the GM will become very familiar with a single one, and may very well gain a better insight as to the design ideas behind the class. I don't think that without my extensive experience with these kinds of games/sessions that my homebrews would be as cohesive as they are.

Another reward to one on one sessions, is that because they follow a single player, that player could even create other characters that should they not feel like playing one story one week, they can instead use another character allowing them to stay interested in the game without boredom. Probably one of the worst feelings is being "stuck" with a character you don't like.

Communication between the GM and player is, of course, easier. It is a 1:1 ratio, and therefore the game that the two want to play can be made more easily. Sometimes when a party has a problem with the GM communication can be less direct and there can be more drama, confusion, and general lack of fun while forgetting the key idea of the game; Having fun.  Though mechanically the styles are different, one-on-one games are an awesome way to hang out with a friend who may be too busy to join a full game, or for you guys to scratch that gaming itch.

Summing Up

One-on-one games are big topic to cover, and I would definitely attest that with a bit of practice, the pros outweigh the cons. I will be talking more about this in the future, as you may be able to tell in the title. Next time we approach this subject, we'll talk more about the mechanical end of things and what it does to the story.

Til then, happy one-on-one-ing, Arcanists. 

The System is Your Console

Establishing Complexity and Choosing a Game

In a recent article, I talked about starting a game and what it requires, and in case you are a firm believer of "TL;DR" (too long didn't read), what it boiled down to is meeting the basic needs of the game: players, a comprehensible system, and a GM who is willing to "make it work."  Keep in mind, what it is important in this context is that these base elements are important to form a new group consisting of new players a new GM, and an entirely a new game. Any combination of these will require some degree of simplicity. Once a group has taken off and learned to play a tabletop roleplaying game, then it is time to choose that delicious layer of complexity that adds all the fun rules we like using (and hopefully not abusing). This is metaphorically, like selecting the type of video game that we feel like playing, we have all agreed that we want a particular experience.

The Engine of Complexity

We very well may have chosen a game we want to play, but there is an important aspect in choosing a system, and this extends to any system not just the ones I mentioned previously. The system you choose better be able to accommodate the game you want to play. To continue our video game analogy, based on the hardware in a Sega Genesis, we couldn't play Bethesda's Skyrim as we know it today. Though, we can definitely play the original Sonic the Hedgehog on any modern console with no difficulty.  In fact, this very phenomenon is why we see remakes and rehashes of old games, we want the ability to play things we enjoy in an updated fashion. (More on this later)

Aside from remaking a game, we may want to choose what game we want to play, and then choose the console to play it. For instance, for the longest time, Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus was only on Playstation 2. If I wanted to play that game, I needed to use my Playstation 2 and not my Playstation 3, but sometimes, we find that rather than buying the new remake, we can just save the money because we still have the console and game. As DM Starhelm likes to remind me, in tabletop games the systems and the games are often mistaken for being one in the same. The way I play Dungeons & Dragons is not the way your group plays it because Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition may be the game, but it is more liken unto the console, what I do with the hardware (the base rules) as a GM is entirely up to me. There are, in video games, good games and bad games, just as in tabletop gaming there are good games and bad games, because you guessed it, we may all be playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (Wizards of the Coast brand new console) but we aren't playing the same game. 

Choosing an Engine

Therein lies the beauty of choosing a system. I have been playing the master(sword)piece that is Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild because I can't play it on my Playstation 4. At the same time, we have the option of playing the game on both the Wii U and the Nintendo Switch. There we reach the secret of choosing the system, what do I need and want? The Switch is marketed for being portable, and a new revolution in gaming with friends. I own a Wii U and I generally, if I am out somewhere, I don't have the time or need to play a video game, so the Wii U fits me just fine, and how else am I going to play Super Smash Bros.? The analogy is continued here as we see that I have my reasons for playing the game on the console I have. To step back into our situation of choosing the system for the game, the way you want to play, that game you have chosen to share, unlike a console which generally are fairly universal aside from peripherals and available games, will dictate which tabletop roleplaying systems are right for your group and your game. Let's take a brief rundown of some examples and my subjective and objective thoughts on them: 

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

I have no inherent problem with 3.5 other than balancing issues, but that is part of my reasoning for my choice, it is not an objective expression, my own conclusion from my observations. 3.5 is good for games in which character diversity is paramount to you and your group and you all have little complaint for diversity and want more exact rules. This system may be more work for your GM and players overall depending on the game you want to run and how you handle it. Homebrewing is much harder in 3.5, mind you but there isn't much that is not covered here. Definitely for groups that want a game and story with a more "hardcore high fantasy". If you want to feel like your characters go from 0 to legendary hero in this, this system is great, just be aware of obvious rules issues and broken characters.

Pathfinder
I personally like this system a little more than 3.5 but it is undoubtedly based in it (and there for backwards compatible) this game is more balanced with the same level of diversity that 3.5 offered, with similar rules. Major changes are an increased diversity of characters through archetypes while arranging the system so prestige classes aren't necessary, but math gets slightly heavier here. Broken characters can still occur, but players are more likely to have a far more balanced time. New material is still being made for this system by the publisher and a lot of good 3rd party publishers alike. The feeling of growing in leaps and bounds and becoming a legendary hero is also in this system and good for a game that has a high fantasy feel while also having "realistic" rules but with more balance than we saw in 3.5. 

Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition
This system is controversial, but it is balanced, and that may be some people's gripe with it, but it is great for new players and GMs alike, as the system is written in full acknowledgment that it is a game you are playing with the flavor and fiction being left entirely to the players and GM. This system breaks a few standard conventions concerning D&D but if the players want an experience where not much can be broken, and the playing field is fair, in a sort of Justice League everyone is a hero kind of way, welcome to D&D 4th edition. Although, one thing to remember is that this game leaves very little to rules arguments and can be good for having a solid system in which a story can be crafted around. 

Dungeon World and Other PBTA Games

The games that are based on the Apocalypse system that I have mentioned are completely fine systems, and very engaging for both the GM and the players. Some of my favorite sessions have actually been in this system because it is less bound to a huge stack of rules. Alternatively, what is important to remember is that a large amount of what you feel your character can do is up to you and your GM. Unlike D&D, your character class isn't going to explicitly tell you how things work in the fiction of the game while giving you your own unique mechanic. Class features in this game are light and are very driven by the story and how you play not by what your class is, or "who" you are. This game will feel odd to many D&D veterans because they like having those huge blocks of text that make them feel like they have a list of cool stuff they can do, when in this system, the power to be cool is inside of them all along. 

Mutants & Masterminds
This system has a decent following, and can be used to tell essentially any superhero or high power anime/JRPG-esque story. The main consideration is that it is a lot of work at first and without a well read GM, the rules can be daunting, especially for players. Though it has its rewards and you can play superheroes and all that it entails and the rules for player creation are very open, it can be a nightmare to keep it all straight. GMs unfamiliar with the possibilities can be surprised by what their players are capable of and then you may have a problem. The GM being surprised by a decision is ok, but being unaware of a mechanic or power in their game until the moment of can be disastrous. Days of planning can be undone simply because of the "Chunky Salsa Effect". A friend's campaign was abruptly ended when the players essentially create the perfect death trap of cascading damage for the main villain within the course of a couple sessions, and the main damage source was the building damage thanks to the "Chunky Salsa Effect" or the property of energy reflecting off unbreakable walls, magnifying damage and ultimately turning the villain/victim into...well... a thick, chunky salsa like paste. One can be sure that the GM was surprised. If your group can handle it and keep it all straight and want to bench press continental shelves, then have at, just be prepared. 

 

The Start Button

This list doesn't incorporate all the systems out there, but it gives you a glimpse of what systems are good for, I DM and play a lot of 5e (clearly, look at this blog), but at times I miss Pathfinder because of the open options. It is up to everyone (EVERYONE) in the group to decide. No one like being lost in rules, or being beaten up without a clue in Smash Bros. Like any other time, tabletop roleplaying games are about cooperation and cohesion with your players-- your friends. Without that, you have an impending melee, brawl, or dare I say, Mario Party on your hands.