(The New) d12 Supers

So, over 20 years ago, I wrote a fantasy game called Runebearer which became my game of choice for years. For me and my group, it was a great game for the grim and gritty fantasy that we often played. For super heroic adventure, we stuck to Champions. Even though I had grown to have some serious issues with Champions over the years, I couldn't see replacing it. In my mind, supers games just had too many power combinations and fiddly bits to try to create something. I had adapted Runebearer to western, sci-fi, and pulp settings, but I would never write a supers game.

Until I did... I adapted Runebearer to a super hero setting. But man, it was clunky. There were tons of stats and skills and talents and modifiers and special cases. It was fun (I personally enjoy fiddly games, so take that with a grain of salt), but it was a mess.

I am in the process of rewriting Runebearer to streamline it and cut out unneeded complexity, and along with that, came the task of reimagining the super hero game. It is a ton of work, but I am at a playable state, and wanted to get it "out there". It's not 100% finished, and certainly isn't perfect, but it is getting there.

Here is the link to the docs, please enjoy them.

Playing (and Scheming) Above the Table

Last post I talked about Wolverine vs. Cyclops, which is shorthand for playing your character for yourself, or playing for the others at the table. Almost always, I want players to be playing for the rest of the table. I want people to think before they take action, "Is this going to be entertaining for everyone at the table, or just me?"

At first glance, this might seem like it precludes selfish and scheming characters. It depends. If your goal was to create a character to get one over on your fellow players, then yeah, I don't think I want that character in the group.

However, if you want to play the bad guy who redeems himself, the scoundrel with a heart of gold, or the villain who is reluctantly forced to roll with the heroes, I think there is lots of room to operate. You just need to keep in mind, "Is this going to be entertaining to everyone at the table?"

One way I have thought to enforce this is, as the GM, to stop accepting secret notes and directions from the players. If they want to perform an action, they have to state it at the table, out loud, in front of everyone. This means that every player is in on the plot, even if their characters would be opposed to it.

I think this avoids a couple things. First, it cuts off the most egregious examples of selfish play. If something is really offensive, or will tear the party asunder, someone can step in before the action is taken and voice their concern. If one player's thief is planning to steal from the group, another player can step in and state, "That's not OK, and if we find out, we are leaving you on the side of the road."

Second, it avoids one of the pitfalls of PvP play, which is opposed skill rolls. If your thief is going to palm some coins, one of the other players may ask to make a spot check. If your schemer is lying to the group, someone might think to ask for a sense motive check. Of course, the GM will have to adjudicate whether or not anyone will be able to make the opposed skill check. What you don't want is to allow an action in secret, and then another player finds out, and feels cheated because he could have made a skill roll to detect the subterfuge.

You do open the door to some huge metagaming (which you still get as soon as the first secret note is passed). Remember though, what we are shooting for is enforcing the rule that any intra-group plots and schemes are entertaining. Scheming above the table eliminates much of the risk that one character's secret plans derail the entire campaign. Scheming above the table means that all the players are in on the plot -- they agree to allow that plot into the story. When everyone is OK with a character's shenanigans, I think metagaming becomes less of a problem.

Wolverine vs. Cyclops (or Why Your Games Keep Imploding)

When I visit my local game store, the discussion often turns to unhappy gamers, unhappy GMs, and to games that have recently imploded. Such-and-such is unhappy with their game, and is looking to drop it. More often than not, these discussions are laden with anecdotes about one or more players behaving badly, min-maxing to the point where the GM is miserable, hogging the spotlight, or maybe even actively working against the team's goals.

The problem here is a simple one -- Everyone wants to be Wolverine; No one wants to be Cyclops!

At the gaming table, it seems that everyone wants to be the mysterious loner, who wins the battle single-handed, and quips about killing, and loneliness, before walking off into the sunset, alone, to contemplate his tortured psyche... something, something, alone.

Everyone wants to out-cool everyone else, and no one wants to be left as the steady, solid, team player. Who makes the plan, and sticks with it, even though he isn't the main focus, to beat the bad guys with the help of his team, with which he has a quick beer, before heading home to bed, with his wife... who is way out of his league... and secretly pines for the loner bad boy.

Unless the accountant is also a bad-ass

So yeah... everyone wants to be Wolverine and no one wants to be Cyclops. I understand. We game to be wizards, space rebels, and superheroes. No one is playing an accountant, pounding away at his 9-to-5 desk job. We game to imagine being cool, and so it is only natural that people gravitate toward the cool archetype of the mysterious, tortured, bad-ass, loner -- Wolverine!

Unfortunately, the Wolverine archetype, when played poorly, is also sort of a disaster on a team. When he meets his prospective teammates, he won't step out of the shadows, and will only give vague, mysterious answers to their questions... bonus points if the answers are passive-aggressive. In battle, he is trying to out cool everyone, avoiding moves that help the team, and going for things that will prove just how much better he is than everyone else. Bonus points here if he is min-maxed so as to be better than everyone else. When adventuring, he is the guy who wants to scout ahead alone, maybe take out a guard or two (or even the big boss), or steal the macguffin all by himself. Bonus points if he withholds information or steals from the party because, "That's what my character would do."

Thanks to: http://clipart-library.com

So no, we don't want Wolverine at our table. What we want is a table full of Cyclopes. We want players who are actively trying to make the game better -- for everyone.

Gaming groups work when the players realize that their main goal is to play their characters such that they entertain each other, and the GM. Not to be cool. Not to stay true to character. Not even to beat the scenario and become rich and powerful. You can indeed do all those things, but the main goal is to entertain the other players at the table. That means everyone gets to be cool. Everyone gets their moment. Everyone gets their opportunity to contribute to a battle, and indeed, when you pick your moves, you pick the ones that bring the team closer to victory, even if your individual kill count suffers.

None of this means you can't play a bad-ass, or heck, even a misanthropic jackass. It just means that whatever your character concept, make it work in the context of the game, and the party. You can always think of one reason why your angry loner would work with the group, and if you can't, ask the other players for ideas, or ask the GM to give you a reason.

If your character idea is going to cause conflict, run it by your GM and fellow players. Your character might be working against his party, but you, as a player, should not be working against the other players at your table. If your idea isn't going to be fun -- for everyone -- don't even roll him up.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying, "Don't be a selfish player," so I'll be moving along now.

Can We Retire 'Fantasy Heartbreaker' Now?

A friend of mine recently called a game of his a "Fantasy Heartbreaker." Having lived through the stupid rpg internet arguments of the '90, my first thought was to gripe and groan. But, I held my tongue and imagined for a moment, that after 15+ years, maybe this term had taken on a new meaning. Perhaps, like Randal in Clerks 2, we were "taking it back."

As it turns out (much like Randal in Clerks 2) we're not taking it back. It is still sprinkled with condescension, a touch of derision and just a dash of wrongheaded agenda. It is still out there in posts and discussions. Indeed, the top article in a Google search is the Wikia definition:

A fantasy heartbreaker is, essentially, a Dungeons & Dragons knock-off. Ron Edwards coined the term to describe a species of games published in the RPG boom of the 1990s, long after their purported innovations could be considered original. The term usefully describes games which are mired in preconceptions arising from the D&D paradigm. A criticism of the term is that it implies dismissal of the idea you can make "D&D, but better," which might be a desirable goal for some designers.

After 15+ years, do I care anymore? Eh... obviously enough to spend 15 minutes internet ranting about it, so yeah, a little.

My issue with the term Fantasy Heartbreaker is the same issue I had the old days -- it denies one of the main joys of the hobby, which is that strong element of homebrew, do it yourself tweaking. So, it bothers me when I see someone post, "I had this game idea, but decided to scrap it because the world does not need another fantasy heartbreaker."

The only correct answer to that is "Hell yeah we need it!" Look... it's 2015. The top selling rpg of the past year was a D&D knock-off. The entire OSR movement is full of fantasy heartbreakers. Tell me exactly whose heart is being broken... by all of these games people are writing, playing, and enjoying? What used to be a crappy term has become a meaningless one. Maybe it's time to retire it?

Lamenting The Death of Dungeoneering

I have had the pleasure of participating in two Pathfinder games recently, and one thing that has struck me is how the players' approach to dungeon settings has changed over the years. In the old days, navigating the dungeon used to be one of the key challenges in an rpg. Each room was a negotiation between the DM and players, starting with the DM's rendition of the room description and continuing with a detailed account of every PC's action. Who searches what part of the room? Where is everyone standing? Who is opening those moldy old sacks in the corner? Hmm, so I see no one checked the ceiling... (chuckles and rolls behind the screen...)

Whereas before, it was critically important for the players to tell the DM exactly what they were doing, what pieces of dungeon dressing the characters were investigating, and how they were going about it. There was still a lot of combat, but it took only a couple of minutes; this back and forth of description and reaction WAS the game. Today, in many gaming groups, the fights take most of the table time and much of the dungeoneering boils down to a quick, "We search the room," and a host of perception checks.

This is starting to sound like a graybeard nostalgia post. It isn't. Just an interesting observation of how players have changed their behavior over the years. I think there are two main reasons why the emphasis has shifted... and if these damn kids would get off my lawn I would tell you about it.

The first reason -- and perhaps the key reason -- is the fact that our game systems have gotten better (or perhaps just more specific). Skills and talents are the norm in rpg systems now, whereas before, you really didn't have a good accounting of a character's abilities. In 1st edition D&D, you knew if someone found an item hidden under the bed because they said they searched under the bed. You knew if they detected the spider lying in ambush because they said they checked the ceiling.

Now, we have skills and skill challenges, which is great, but it also means that a skill checks have replaced a lot of the meat of dungeoneering. Many games have skills, like Perception and Dungeoneering, that dice much of what had to be described before. I like skill-based games and I like having skill checks as an rpg mechanic, but the double-edged sword of these systems is that they encourage us to dice out what used to be interactive sequences. Conversation skills are one place I see this change, overcoming traps is another, and dungeoneering falls into that dice pit as well.

Another thing to consider is that dungeoneering used to be the focus of games like 1st edition D&D. Early editions of D&D were resource management games where the dungeon environment was the main opponent. Your hit points, spells, oil, torches and provisions were all resources in the pool, being slowly depleted by the denizens of the dungeon.

As you burned your resources, you had to decide whether your group could continue on and face another fight, or trap, that would weaken it further. Even worse, you may stumble on a devious trick, like a sloped passage or a sliding wall, that would make it hard for your group to navigate out of the dungeon -- and every minute you spent wandering around lost, or rechecking your map, brought you closer to a wandering encounter check... and a fight you might not be able to withstand.

And let's not discuss the dreaded pit trap. This dastardly trap was a triple threat. Not only would it damage the group and burn precious hit points and healing resources, but it would negate all of your careful mapping, dumping you into a new area and forcing you to find your way to the steps up. In the meantime, you are fighting for your life on a dungeon level you are probably not quite ready to face... They get harder as you go down, remember???

Nowadays, the focus has shifted from the environment to the individual combat encounter or skill challenge. Navigation is often a non-issue; the GM reveals the map as you explore it. There is no emphasis on getting you lost, after all you can see the map, too. If you have no chance of getting lost or stuck in the dungeon, and running out of critical supplies, like torches, time becomes way less important... and if you take wandering monsters out of the game as well, there is no need to track time anymore.

The dungeon used to be an environment to be conquered. A fair bit of skill and decision-making was required to successfully navigate a large dungeon, and doing so was the strategic part of the game.

Cleric (leader) : "Guys, I know the kobold king is nearby, but the I am down to my last two heals, and the mage is out of spells. If we turn back now, we'll have to face at least 3 wandering monster checks. Maybe we should consider heading out."

Fighter: "Yeah, but remember last time, those damn kobolds set up tons of traps and old Fumblefingers here doesn't really have a good Find Traps percentage. I can't face another one of those black spore traps again... (shivers)"

Cleric: "Ok then. Wizard, get out your wand. We'll try one more door."

Wizard: "But my wand is out of..."

Thief: "Let's do this! I open the door."

Ok... maybe strategic is too strong a word, but there were decisions involved, and a lot of sloping passages and secret doors to be discovered, and pit traps to be dreaded. A lot of that is gone from our adventure designs, and now dungeons are more a way for GMs to arrange encounters in a logical fashion and to limit choices while still offering a few options, but the meat of the game is the diced encounter.

So when we play Pathfinder again, and our group smashes its way from room to room, not marking off torches, or worrying about another random encounter check, I will remember "the old days" fondly and sip my beer and lament the death of dungeoneering.

Save vs. Monotony -- Let The Fight End When Its Over

We've talked a little bit about two different styles of combat systems, build-based and positional systems. Build-based systems focus on building and tweaking your character's abilities to increase his performance in combat. Positional systems rely more on tactical positioning and situational modifiers. Both styles have good points and thankfully, most game systems are hybrids to some degree, allowing choices made both before and during combat to matter.

However, both styles also have drawbacks. Often, build systems lend themselves to a "one-trick pony" mentality where players optimize to do a single trick in combat very well (trip or disarm for instance) and then try to pull the same trick every single battle. Positional systems can also fall into a similar trap when the group uses the same set of tactics over and over.

The key is that combat in any system can bog down in play, or become monotonous over the course of a long campaign. However, with a little creativity, we can avoid most of the problems and keep our fights fun and memorable. Here is one important tip that I think many GMs could use...

I learned this lesson many years back when I started to run games in chat rooms. I exclusively play games with rules-heavy combat systems and I am pretty good at keeping the action moving and resolving combats quickly. However, those skills didn't translate too well in the chat game. The slower pace of people typing their actions and the lag in communications led to combats being dull and dragging on for way longer than they should have.

I came up with a simple solution. After a few rounds passed, and I was convinced that the outcome of the fight was decided, I simply stated that the enemies fled into the woods and that the fight was over. The PCs were satisfied with their victory and the story had been move all in a reasonable amount of time. So, our first lesson is ...

Let The Fight End When Its Over

I recently GMed a combat where the group was fighting some heavily armored giant beetles. The early rounds went well for the party and they downed half of the giant insects. The remaining two bugs weren't really going to do any significant damage to the group, but as luck would have it, the die rolls turned a bit, and between luck and the beetles' hit points and armor, the combat lasted several more rounds... easily 30 minutes more.

This was a bad mistake on my part, because the fight was actually over in something like three combat rounds. The PCs had smashed two of the bugs and injured another. Had I made the last two beetles flee for their lives, the combat would have gone 10-15 lively minutes, the PCs would have felt like bad asses, and we could have moved on with the game. I had the beetles fight to the death and drew the fight out several more boring rounds.

There are times when the PCs are engaged in an epic, all-out battle for the fate of the entire campaign world and yeah, those combats ought to last a while and feel like all or nothing affairs. But when the party just happens upon a group of bandits robbing a caravan, or when the PCs encounter a group of goblin scouts, or when the enemy is just trying to send the PCs a message -- those aren't "final" battles, so don't be afraid to end them.

The leader of the bandits might yell for a retreat, drink a potion of invisibility, and take to the hills with as much loot as he can carry. The goblins might surrender as soon as a couple of them fall. The thugs sent to rough up the PCs might only fight for a couple of rounds before they slink back into the dark alleyways. Not only is there no logical reason why such groups would fanatically fight to the death, but doing so is likely to drag the fight past the point where it is interesting.

I call this point the Point of Decision. It is the point at which the outcome of a battle has been decided and the rest of the combat is a question of how the winner will mop up their enemy and how many more combat rounds will it take. I think a big key in keeping your combats interesting is to learn to recognize this point and not fight much past it.

Try this for your next set of encounters. For each enemy group, write down a circumstance under which they would disengage and flee combat. The goblins might flee once three of their number were downed, or the leader of the pack took a significant wound. The bandits might take to the hills once their leader gets to a specific sack of treasure.

This does three things. It shortens combats, and more importantly, it cuts off the less interesting parts of the fight. It keeps things somewhat realistic in terms of how creatures with any self-preservation instinct would approach combat. Finally, if your game has skills like combat sense, or tactics, it gives you more to do with those skills, since now players could use them to learn the conditions under which their opponents will try to break off combat.

This is not to say that every fight needs to end in the PC's enemies fleeing for their lives. Some enemies will be fanatical, or mindless enough to fight to the last man, and those enemies should strike dread into the PCs. Fighting ten bandits is one thing when you know that cutting their leader down will make them scatter. Fighting ten zombies that will mindlessly try to rend your flesh until you have cut them into pieces... that is a different kind of battle entirely.

So, if we are going to endeavor to make combats shorter by having enemies NOT fight until they are all dead, we need to figure out exactly how they are going to run away. Most games make it very hard for a combatant to disengage and leave the field of battle. Also, many players have been trained by years of gaming to think that winning a fight means wiping out the enemy.

My suggestion is very simple. When you feel a combat is done, tell the players, "I am pretty sure you guys have won this battle, and so are the bandits, so the remaining thugs scatter into the woods. Is that OK with you guys?" They might be worried about XP, or about the state of future encounters if they let any bandits go, so be prepared to answer their questions. If they seem unwilling to allow the fight to end, either let them play it out, or perhaps you can just rule that the PCs have mopped up the remaining opposition without any significant trouble.

And remember, use your judgement. This isn't for every battle. Your goal is to avoid the boring rounds when a fight can't be lost, but rolls have to be made. If the battle is exciting and going down to the wire, fight it out. But if it is a group of 6 against two injured but heavily armored beetles and the dice have turned and you can see interest flagging... The combat is over, so end it.

Repost: Remind Me Why I Rolled on Freedom? (Or One PUG's Story)

This is a repost of a blog post I made in 2008... Pathetic to repost, most certainly, but dammit, I miss CoX!!!!!! So, here is one great memory of that great game.

...

Generally, I run with a group of what I call "post-modern" CoX players (I'll talk about them some in a future post). They are good friends and great players, forming uber farming teams and rolling through pretty much everything they come across. It's great XP ... but sometimes boring. See, these guys have been playing pretty much straight through since beta. I've been offline about half that time and so every time I reopen my account, there is something I've missed. Of course, these guys have mostly seen it all, or don't care to see it all and so while I can farm to 50 with these guys all day... I might never see most of the game.

To experience the rest of the game, I created a new character on the heavily populated Freedom server and decided that I would level to 50 in pick-up groups with only the occassional interlude of soloing. Thus a new Plant/Storm controller, Song of Land and Sky, was born. Yes, I know, the name is fruity... but I sort of like it... and do you have any idea how hard it is to get a reasonable name on Freedom???

So, after a few solo runs and a few more pick up groups (have I ever told you how much I truly love the Hollows?), I have leveled Song to 16. Late last night, I am tooling around, trying to figure out what to do, or if in fact, I should just head to bed, when I get that fateful tell:

"Can you heal? We need another healer."

I sadly replied that I did not in fact, heal, but instead brought confusion and holds to the table. I figured this would kill the conversation, but surprisingly I got another tell:

"That might work. We are fighting CoT." And along came the invite.

Now, I should have been wary. I generally feel that most teams in CoX don't need any healers and this guy indicated that they needed another healer. Not one...another. With that single word, I created an entire scenario in my mind; a scenario of scrappers charging into a horde of purples, of wanton fire blasters firing Rain of Aggro... I mean Fire, of team wipes.

Sign me up!!!! I accepted, greeted the team and headed straight to the mission door.

Once in, we were faced with a gaggle of level 19 purple CoT. The first few battles went... ok. Slow, but steady and we didn't get into too much trouble. However, the first room we came to, the tank charged in and three Ruin Mages (and sundry minions) started pounding him... He dropped like a stone. I missed my Seeds of Confusion... which would not have handled the bosses anyway... and managed to buy my team an entire 0.3 seconds to flee as they eviscerated me and chuckled over my corpse. Within seconds, everyone was at the hospital heading back to the mission.

You know it is going to be a long night when you find yourself thinking how convenient it is that the hospital is less than 300 yards from the door.

Now, the tank is talking about finding another healer and though I usually try to stay off the soapbox, I felt the need to point out that healing wouldn't have helped much in that room. No healer of our level would have kept up with that onslaught.

We decided to pull.

Pulling goes OK for a few minutes and then people start getting antsy. Inevitably, "corner" pulling degrades into "hallway" pulling, degrades into "at the door of the room" pulling, degrades into "I will go with you pulling". So, our dark defender was essentially following the tank into the room, forgetting he had his targetted heal on auto...

At least this hospital serves Jello!!!

We head back and surprisingly, we've learned our lesson. The non-pullers stay back somewhat and we have a couple good pulls and start slogging through the room pull by pull. Hey, debt's gone... time to make more!

This one is totally my fault. We have mostly cleared the first room. There is maybe a group left and we have charged it. I am spamming confuse and holds and the occassional attack (I have serious energy issues at this stage). It is tough, but we are doing well. Suddenly, I see a flash of red in the corner of my screen. It seems we have an add or perhaps a runner. I WILL TAKE CARE OF HIM!!!!

So I dash after him... and am instantly gutted by the dozen or so of his buddies sitting just around the corner. I pull the adds, die, and then the baddies roll up the rest of the team.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get bloodstains out of Lycra?

Ok, lesson learned... no need to be the hero... or at least use some stealth when dashing willy-nilly around corners.

A few more battles and we have our collective stuff together. We cap a couple more groups and head into the next hallway. I am following the tank closely when we walk through a doorway and back out again, pursued by a convention of angry CoT. Strangely enough, this doesn't cause another team wipe. We pull the CoT through the door and the controllers manage to get the fight under control. As the enemy comes through, they are held, confused, debuffed and subsequently slaughtered. The doorway is clear... we are still standing...

And that's when the dozen or so Unbound Nictus start pouring through...

Not a Kheldian in sight, but somehow, we spawn a Crystal. And while we were valiantly fighting the CoT, what we didn't see is that there were two crystals spawning their little black clouds of death the entire time. There are at least a dozen of them and they make quick work of our unprepared team.

Back to the hospital... again... and again... and

See, those crystals had built up quite a head of steam and had filled the antechamber with nictus. We had to zip through that mess to get to the crystals and engage them. All the while, more nictus are spawning. It made quite the gauntlet to run. Finally, we bust through, attack the crystals and...

BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh right, forgot about the blowy uppy thing when you kill one of the crystals... and presumably our blaster has never seen it because she is dead and spouting a whole load of WTF!!! on the team chat.

But now the final door is in sight. Victory is ours with just one more room. Click the door and there are no less than 3 bosses sitting right there, all in a tight clump, staring at us and daring us to cross the threshold.

It is at this time that my own boss... my wife gently reminded me that it was 1:00 am in the morning and the baby was awake and perhaps I should tend to him. And so I had to leave my team in the lurch... I wonder if they ever got that other healer?

Now, it might sound like I had a miserable time. In fact, it was quite the opposite. I had a great time. The mission was hard. The players were fun and did a nice job given the circumstances. I was laughing the whole time. This is why I still play CoX and why I rolled on Freedom!!

Weekend Gaming Odyssey

I have spent an unfortunate amount of money on computer games recently... and honestly, I haven't gotten that much satisfaction out of them. I am getting grumpier with my games as I age, I guess. In any case, I spent my weekend looking for something exciting and... I got mixed results. Here is what I played this weekend.

This was the final beta weekend for the new Marvel Heroes MMO and I decided it was too tempting to pass up. Marvel Heroes is an upcoming FTP offering from Gazillion Entertainment. It plays an awful lot like Diablo II. You pick one of 20+ Marvel superheroes with which to start your crime fighting career. Each character has a distinct fighting style, advancement tree and gear. Action is point and click with the ASDFG and H keys allotted to your special powers.

The game plays well enough and is a reasonably fun ARPG. I was lukewarm while I was dozing through the tutorial mission, but once I got to the first open zone, Hell's Kitchen, I was pretty happy with the game. There are lots of mini-missions, events, side maps and bosses to keep you occupied. If you like Diablo II, or Torchlight, and you can stand running around with a dozen Iron Men named lickIt, and born2pwn, you should give it a shot when it releases.

Marvel Heroes was fun enough, but it isn't really my kind of game and so I spent a few hours searching for something else upon which to waste my time. And though I am not in need of any new games (my current back catalog of PS2 JRPGs alone would last me until my death), I just can't help giving Valve more of my money.

For that reason, I picked up Might and Magic Heroes VI on Steam. I have loved pretty much every Heroes of Might and Magic since the very first one (including its predecessor, King's Bounty)... even the much maligned HoMM4. Aside from the Yoda-ization of the name, MMH6 is pretty good. Some of the game is streamlined, primarily the resources and the town building, but the basic game play is there -- build a stack, level a hero, pick some cool powers, kill your enemies in simple, but fun turn-based battles. MMH6 delivers on this formula fairly well, I think.

What is not so good, is that it also delivers on the modern-day wackiness of DRM and bogus online options.  You already have the DRM inherent in Steam. I can live with Steam. Like many PC gamers, I have made that Devil's bargain of trading the hassle of DRM for the convenience of getting my games quickly and easily and with the extra features that Steam brings to the table (Community and Workshop, for instance). However, on top of Steam, you still have UbiSoft's Uplay system. So "playing" MMH6 from your Steam menu really just starts UPlay, where you have the option to hit "Play" again, or go shopping with some goofy U-currency for crap you couldn't possibly want... It is literally the version of Heroes for people who want DRM in their DRM.

When you are in the game, you have even more online options. You start by connecting to the Conflux... what the heck is the Conflux? And you can spend your dynasty seals on new heroes and widgets... and you can sync your games to the cloud and... I don't know. Honestly, I love wacky options and features piled on top of features, but couldn't we have somehow made these features part of the game, as opposed to some kind of micro-transactiony metagame? If this is where the franchise is headed, I am not impressed. For now, I suppose I can ignore it, hit Custom Game and have at it.

And because I have a lifetime account and little self-respect, I found myself coming back to an old standby, Champions Online. CO is my go-to superhero MMO since City of Heroes folded. It is much-improved from its release in 2009. Pretty much everything from the gear, to the power sets, to the leveling has been made much better and CO is probably the best it has ever been.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, regardless of how far CO has come since 2009, it hasn't improved much at all since 2012. Updates have stopped (Neverwinter might have something to do with that) and the player base is very depressed. I have played a lot of MMOs over the years and this one smells like it is in a steep decline...

I hope that isn't the case because I have remade my first and favorite City of Heroes character in Champs Online. Monochrome Girl is now officially a refugee from Paragon City. Hopefully, she will have a few more years in her new home before they shut down the servers for Neverwinter Online 2: The Drizzt Files.

Talents in Runebearer

One of the changes to Runebearer that I am happiest about is the addition of talents. Talents are akin to D&D's feats in that, under the correct conditions, they permit you to break the rules in a certain way. This could mean rerolling a failed skill check, or taking a move when it is not your character's turn, or ignoring incoming damage, or a host of other things.

Talents are a relatively late addition to Runebearer and they came about primarily as a way to make the experience system more interesting. See, a long-standing campaign was coming to a close and looking back, I realized that at some point, my players were stuck when leveling their characters. Runebearer is a skill-based game and as characters gained experience, the most effective thing to do was to pump that experience into increasing their skills.

And so skill levels that started around 12, slowly crept up into the upper teens and then the 20s. Increasing skills is a "roll-over" system and so as skill levels increase, it costs more and more experience to increase it more. You spend an ever increasing amount of experience to get an ever decreasing statistical benefit.

It wasn't fun. And more importantly, most characters really didn't change much mechanically over the course of the campaign. Everyone got better at what they did, but very few characters saw their abilities broaden as they gained experience. We were all that AD&D fighter ... "Woo hoo another +1 to hit stuff!!!"

Another issue was one common to many game systems, as the characters advance, the difference between the "haves" and "have-nots" in combat becomes more and more pronounced. So, as the fighters were gaining level 20 in their weapon skills, the magey types, who had other skills to spend points in, were still floundering in their low teens. Combatants that challenged the fighters would gut the mages if they even glanced at them.

So the search was on to find a way to make the experience system more interesting, while evening out the leveling curve a bit, and also making characters more mechanically interesting as they gained experience. I would love to tell you that Lucy Lawless showed up at my house, stabbed a few leather-clad dudes, threw a D&D book on my table and screamed "FEATS, you fool!!"

Indeed that did happen, but that didn't lead to Runebearer talents. What did lead to talents was I had run a short, abortive variant Runebearer game where characters had classes and "leveled up" based on their skill gains. As they leveled, they could pick additional powers, or combat maneuvers, or tweak the way one of their skills worked. The rules for leveling up were cumbersome. The campaign was forgettable. But the powers? Everyone loved the cool new powers.

At that point, it was a matter of finding a way of melding these new powers into the standard Runebearer experience system. As you gain experience, you have the option of putting your checks into increasing your skills, or purchasing a talent. To purchase a talent, you must have the requisite skills at the proper levels (usually 15 or so) and you must roll-under your current skill level (instead of over).

This works in many ways. First, it gives players something to put their points into instead of just raising their skill levels over and over. In fact, at a skill level of 16 or higher (out of 30), it becomes more efficient to spend your points on talents than to buy increased skill levels. Because of this, it naturally tends to even out characters who specialize in a skill with those who do not. A novice fighter might have a skill level of 10. A veteran might have a 16, but have half a dozen talents that give him more options in combat, but don't skew the statistics of the dice mechanics.

Finally, and most importantly, it opened up a whole new dimension to the character leveling mechanics. Players started talking about builds, cool talent combinations, ways to build light, dodge-based fighters, heavy armored tanks, whether to level rune knowledge or meditate first to get access to which awesome talents.

Subsystems and Character Differentiation

Mechanically, characters in RPGs are differentiated by what subsystems they use. All of the fiddly bits of the rules that you get to use make your character mechanically interesting to play. 1st Edition AD&D is a great example of this concept. If you look at the 4 main character classes in that game you can see how the characters use different parts of the rules:

• Clerics -- have a subsystem for turn undead; use spells, but unlike the magic-user, do not have to deal with memorization, or spellbooks
• Magic-User -- they have spells; a memorization subsystem; rules for scribing spells in their spell book
• Thief -- backstab; all the percentage-based rules for thief skills (hide in shadows, climb walls)
• Fighter -- ???

Ahh... the lamentations of the poor, neglected fighting-man. To me, this is a great example of one of the interesting characteristics (flaws maybe?) of the early days of gaming. In AD&D, everyone can fight and everyone uses the same rules and the same sets of tables to fight. The fighter just has more hit points and uses an advantageous table to determine his chance to hit. So, the cool thing the fighter can do is... the same thing everyone does, but a tiny bit better. There isn't that much to make fighters different from other characters in AD&D... just better stats, really.

AD&D is a class system and indeed, each class (fighter excepted) brings its own subsystems to the game. Rangers and Paladins are more interesting than fighters because they have more systems to play with. In some ways, I think skill-based systems have a harder time creating character differentiation. Sure, characters buy different skills and thus, their characters are different, but the mechanics used are very often the same, just applicable at different times in the game.

Take Traveller, for instance. There are dozens of skills, and each character is bound to have a different set of them. However, the mechanics for pretty much every skill use is roll 2d6, add your skill level, if your total is 8 or more, you win. So, you are running down a hallway and come to a locked door? Roll 2d6 and add your lockpick skill. You need to hack a computer? Roll 2d6 and add your computer skill. You need to pick up some information in a bar? Roll 2d6 and add your carousing skill.

I am not really giving Traveller enough credit; not all skill use is so monotonous. Traveller has several subsystems where the character's skills allow them to interact with the game -- starships and commerce being two of them. The advanced books like Mercenary and High Guard added even more subsystems. Nonetheless, the basic game does suffer from characters feeling samey and I think a lot of that has to do with the lack of subsystems.

My mention of Traveller stems from a conversation I had yesterday with my friend, Phil. We were discussing Traveller and came to the conclusion that even though it held a special nostalgic place in our hearts, it hadn't aged well, even considering the relatively recent Mongoose re-release. Why was that?

I came to the conclusion that Traveller hadn't aged well because gamers today expect more mechanical character differentiation. We want "builds" and we want different "fighting styles". Traveller doesn't really have a character build. You have skills, that's it. Barring stats and gear, everyone fights exactly the same way. We may be statistically different, but mechanically, we are exactly alike.

In short, D&D 3.x spoiled us with FEATS.

Feats solve a lot of the differentiation issues suffered by earlier rpgs. Each feat is a mini set of rules (or ways to break the rules) that can be used by that particular character. Fighters get tons of feats and so now, finally, after numerous editions, fighters get their own little subsystem and can break the rules just like the wizards can.

(Of course, mages and rogues get feats too, but it is obvious due to the fact that most feats are combat-oriented and fighters get so darn many of them, that fighters are meant to be the "feat-guy". Much like mages are "spell-guys" and rogues are "skill-guys".)

Feats also act as a means of differentiating combatants and creating combat styles and builds. One fighter might build to be the "trip guy", taking feats that allow him to trip his opponent. Another fighter can build to be a two-weapon fighter. Another can build to be great with bows. Feats give us mechanical ways, besides just a boring +1, to specialize with a weapon or a set of maneuvers.

This is one reason I find it hard to get back into some of my older games. I fantasize about giving Traveller, Rolemaster and Aftermath and  another go, but I would miss the interesting character builds possible when everyone get their own subsystem.

I think tomorrow I will talk a little about Runebearer's "feat" implementation, talents and how that all came about.

I Hate My Gaming Group

A buddy of mine sent this to me... it is a repost of a blog entry I wrote a few years ago. Still makes me chuckle:

I am fortunate in that I have a regular stable of people with which I play online games. It isn't really a large enough crowd to be a guild or clan, but anywhere between 3-6 guys/women get on Teamspeak several nights a week and we get together and share our latest game... which is great. The only problem is that in the past several months, I have come to realize that I hate my gaming group.

See, recently things have not been so smooth for my gaming crowd. There have been moves, new jobs, family engagements -- the normal comings and goings of 30-40 somethings that interfere with gaming. No big deal there... we are all pretty busy, everyone has a reasonably demanding job, two of the guys are family men and those that aren't have active social schedules. I get it: real life >> gaming life.

What bugs me is this: Every so often the stars align and everyone puts the kids to bed/ditches the wife/takes the evening off or otherwise clears their schedule, grabs a drink, dons the headphones and fires up their computer. This might happen once a week or so and when it does...

We don't play together.

Have you ever "gone to lunch" with a group of friends only to find that it is 1:30pm and the only conclusion you have reached is that there are 13 restaurants within driving distance and someone in the car can find a reason to dislike every single one of them? Our Teamspeak sessions are THAT car.

L: "Let's play CoH. We all still have CoH accounts and I have another Fire/Kin I am dying to level."

C: "Umm... I let my CoH account expire."

L: "Aw.. why'd you do that?"

C: "Well, we have played CoH for years now. It's boring. And anyways, you guys have essentially
beaten the game right. I don't really want to tag along while you four-box your team of plant/storm controllers. It's not fun anymore."

L: "I only three-box."

C: "Nonetheless... let's do something else. What about WoW? I would love to dust off my WoW account and actually level my warlock."

L: "I could do that."

J: "Ugh... I HATE WoW!! The graphics suck!! Literally, they make me nauseous."

C: "Dude, who cares about the graphics? The gameplay is what counts."

J: "The art style is so cartoony... I can't stand it."

C: "That art style is deliberately designed to look like a Warcraft game. Haven't you ever played Warcraft?"

J: "And those hideous Popeye forearms... ugh... I just threw up a little in my mouth."

C: "Ok, ok... no WoW. What then?"

S: "LORTO just came out with a new expansion... I could show you guys around."

B: "How can you like that game? It feels nothing like Middle Earth."

S: "Yeah, but it's a good PvE game. Don't think of it as Middle Earth. Think of it as an MMO without shoes."

J: "I suppose the graphics are ok on that one."

B: "If you'd have read the copy of the Silmarillion I lent you..."

C: "Ok... no LORTO!!!"

S: "Huh, why not?"

C: "I have a rule: once someone mentions the Silmarillion, the argument is over... It's a lot like Hitler that way."

D: "How about EQ2? I used to have an account there."

C: "Oh I don't know. I played EQ2 at launch and frankly it was a little dull. The crafting was a pain and you had to grind 10 levels before you could even play an interesting class."

D: "Yeah, but I've played more recently than that. A lot of that crap has changed. They have really improved the game these past years."

L: "Please,  'Come back and play... the devs have really improooved the game with patch 80398-B'... If I had a quarter for every time I'd heard that..."

C: "You still wouldn't have enough to pay the monthly fee for all of your CoX accounts."

L: "Good point."

S: "Isn't EQ2 a Sony game?"

D: "How about Vanguard then?"

S: "Sony game."

B: "Are you still on about Sony and SWG?"

S: "I WILL NEVER FORGIVE THEM FOR WHAT THEY DID TO MY BEAST TAMER!!!"

(uncomfortable silence)

C: "Well... how about we try some free to plays? No risk there... just download and play."

L: "Yuck... You have fun with your Korean grind-fests. I am going to run through some player-created content on CoX."

C: "Would that be RitkiFarm#341 or CouncilSlaughter#418?"

L: "No way, my new farm is called StatesmanIsMyBitchNow. The XP flows like..."

C: "Lube?"

L: "I was going to say 'butter', but whatever."

D: "I don't even think Statesman is with CoX anymore. Isn't that guy off making Champions Online?"
(All in unision.. and with awe): "Oooooh, Champions Online."

S: "I'm really excited for Champions Online."

C: "Me too."

D: "Comes out soon, I think."

J: "I am looking at the website now. Look at those awesome graphics -- just like it was straight out of a cartoon!"

C: "Umm... what is the difference between 'cartoony' and 'straight out of a cartoon?'"

J: "Huh?"

C: "Forget it."

B: "I hope it comes out on XBox."

C: "What? Why?"

B: "My computer won't run Champs Online... no way. So they better release this thing on XBox or else Statesman will have nerfed me again."

C: "Dude..."

B: "What?"

C: "I don't think they are guaranteeing cross-platform gaming. So, even if Champs Online is the only game we can all agree on, and we all go buy it together... you STILL might not be able to play with us. You should go out and buy a new computer."

B: "No way I am buying a machine just to run a stupid game!"

C: "You just bought an XBox."

J: (obviously changing the subject) "Why don't we all try the trial for DDO?"

(laughter ensues and we all log off for the night)

Combat in Runebearer

I wrote Runebearer over 13 years ago, and though it was never particularly successful in terms of the number of people reading/playing it (and frankly nowadays, it is almost unknown), from a personal standpoint, I think it turned out pretty well. I like the game. A handful of other folks like the game, and over the course of the past decade or so, the amount of enjoyment the game has brought me and my friends has been considerable.

And hopefully a few people outside of my various gaming circles have found it to be to their liking as well.

Looking at the rules as they stand today, one of the things I am pleased with is Runebearer's combat system. Runebearer started as an attempt to take the simplicity of an AD&D style hit point system, but still capture many of the interesting effects of games like HERO, Rolemaster and Aftermath. Ultimately, through many reviews, play sessions, arguments and revisions, I think I got it about 90% right.

The big thing I enjoy about Runebearer's combat is the fact that it is a positional combat system, meaning that one of the main determinants of a party's success in a fight is how the PCs position themselves on the battlefield in relation to their allies, enemies and terrain features. The fact that defenses degrade against multiple attackers, the engagement rules, and the rules for obstructions all ensure that groups who position their characters to support one another and use the battlefield will fare better than those that charge in carelessly.

Another thing that I think works well in Runebearer is its pace of decision is good. Combats are often decided in about 6-8 rounds. Combats aren't often decided on the first salvo, and they usually don't drag on beyond the point where everyone has lost interest. Because of the positional nature of the game, one side's position will crumble before all of their combatants are defeated, leading them to run, surrender, or fall back. This keeps combats fast-paced and exciting.

Finally, I like the mix of control and randomness that the game has. Combat is deadly -- every wound can drop you. However, most blows won't incapacitate you, and with talents, equipment, maneuvers and tactical skill, you can minimize your chances of injury. Still, that chance for an incredible shot (both for and against the PCs) is there and I think that adds a bit of spice to battles.

Are You Having Fun Yet? Part 2 -- Hook Your Character

Last post I claimed that the best RPGs came about when the players were taking responsibility for their fun. By that I mean players need to take responsibility for the quality of the game in general, thus ensuring that they and their fellow players have fun.

You can start taking responsibility right at character creation by making sure that you hook your character to the game world. This means that you take some time to understand the campaign setting and then you build your character so that he has some ties to that setting -- some purpose to his adventuring; something that he cares about; a reason to be. Understand what the GM is going for and make sure that your new character can be a part of that. When the GM is setting his game in a fantasy Age of Sail, complete with galleons, cannons, pirate queens, swashbucklers and pistoleers, maybe the dark, foreign, loner mage who uses magic no one has ever heard of and is deathly afraid of water of isn't a good fit.

In addition to making sure your character fits in the game setting, make sure you also hook your character to the rest of the group. Talk to your fellow players and make sure you fit into the party. Does that group already have a rogue? Then please don't make another rogue with all your skills one better. Is everyone else playing a member of an extremely strict temple? Your dual-classed hedonist-thief might not be the best fit. You want to play the dark, mysterious loner in a group of 8 PCs? Errr... maybe you should talk to the group and see what they think...

Oh, and the character who took the limitation pathological liar? Never OK. No matter how many build points you got. Never. O. K.

Ask the rest of the players about their characters and use that to help you get ideas for your character. Maybe you can even take it a step further and see if another player would like to hook your two characters together in some way -- perhaps you are siblings, classmates, or rivals.

The main point is to make it easy for the GM to give you cool stuff to do. You might think being a grumpy loner with no reason to live is awesome, but to everyone else at the table, that is a dull character. You have no ties to the world, so the GM has nothing with which to motivate you -- no Auntie May to kidnap, no liege lords to send you on a quest, no religions to fight for. Hell, you don't even like kittens!! At this point, don't be surprised when you find yourself complaining that the GM isn't making the game compelling enough for you. You have made a character who refuses to be compelled.

My regular game setting is a fairly small, religious, human-centric land and I have one player who plays a non-human, pagan, foreigner from a clan-based society. So he is an outsider in the normal campaign world. However, in his homeland he... well, he took the limitation "Clanless" which makes him something of a persona non grata in his home territory as well. He is an outsider everywhere and that means I have to work extra hard to get him screen time. Without some character modifications, or some serious suspension of disbelief, he is where plotlines go to die.

This isn't to say you shouldn't play what you want, or that campaigns shouldn't include offbeat characters, or that GMs shouldn't work at integrating all types of PCs into their games. But, it is a reminder that the player bears some portion of the responsibility for how his character fits into a given game. If you are wondering why your character isn't getting any interesting plots, ask yourself if you have given the GM any hooks. If none of the other players seem interested in your character, ask yourself if your character is interesting.

Take responsibility for tying yourself to the campaign world and your group, and you should find yourself having more fun.

Are You Having Fun Yet?

I do most of my gaming at my local game store and while there are several good games down there, there are also a bunch of failing games, filled with misery, griping and drama. These games start, play out and fizzle all in the span of a couple months. The entire time the players are griping about how crappy the GM is. The GM is moaning about how the players don't get his intricate plots. The players are sniping at the other players -- about how such-and-such is a spotlight whore, or a power gamer.

There are any number of reasons why these games fail... a downright dizzying amount. There are so many ways a game can go wrong that sometimes I am amazed that so many games actually work since statistically, it would seem that the odds are stacked against sitting down to a good, fun game.

I have played in and run both good and bad games and though there are many tips and tricks that I could talk about to push a game into the "good" zone, I would like to focus on one specific idea that I often see overlooked in gaming advice articles. Namely, the fact that in every good game in which I have ever taken part, all of the players were there to have fun.


Ok, I can hear it now, "Well of course we're there to have fun! We are gaming after all. That doesn't change the fact that the GM is a boring blowhard trying to railroad us into following his uninspired J.R.R. Salvatore Martin rip-off plot."

You may have a point, the GM has a big part to play in making a game fun or not, but I do think that the role of the players is overlooked. Too often, we talk about how it is the GM's responsibility to make sure everyone is having fun. But, looking back on the best games, I would say the players have as much, if not more, impact than the GM on whether a game is fun or not. Which brings me to the point of the post:

The best games are ones in which the players take responsibility for their own fun.


What does it mean for a player to "take responsibility for his own fun?" It means actively participating at the table, working with the GM and getting into his story, being funny when it is appropriate, being quiet when it is appropriate, letting everyone participate in decisions, understanding the pacing of the game and moving things along when they slow down...

It means a heck of a lot of things... Let's get into more detail in the coming posts.

Turns Out I Hate The Skill Guy

3rd Edition D&D, including 3.5 and its successor Pathfinder is pretty clear on how it deliniates the focus of a character. Ignoring specific class features, each class relies on a specific part of the game mechanics to define its role in an adventuring party. For instance, fighters have the best Base Attack Bonus and are the "Feat" class; mages and clerics are the "Spell" classes and rogues are the "Skill" class.

At first glance, this seems reasonable. Of course fighters have the most options in combat. Of course, wizards and priests solve problems with spells. And of course, when it comes time to pick a lock or disarm a trap, you are going to rely on the skills of the thief. Makes sense -- each class has a role and gives up some other important abilities to excel in its role.

But, over the years, I could never shake the idea that there was something inherently wrong with this mechanical split. The first thing that struck me was the fact that if the rogue was the "Skill Guy", there wasn't much room for anyone else in the party to have skills. At 2 skill points per level (plus intelligence bonus, of course), once you take spellcraft and maybe knowledge: arcane, there isn't much room for the wizened wizard who wants to be a history buff. Priests have it even worse, since they likely won't have INT as a primary stat. Because the rogue's niche is skills, the other classes just don't have enough skill points to go around, leaving wizards and clerics among the most uneducated characters in the game.

Then there is the concept of "class skills" which seriously limit which skills can be reasonably taken. The fighter’s class skills are climb, craft, handle animal, intimidate, jump, ride, and swim. You can take other skills, of course, but only at a penalty... and as noted before, skill points are already at a premium. Good luck if you want to be a warrior who is also a diplomat.

Certainly multiclassing helps with this situation, but it too comes with its share of pitfalls. In the case of mages and clerics, taking a level of rogue for the skill points makes no sense at all. Stylistically, it does not work for many characters and mechanically, the spellcasting level is inifitely more valuable than 8 skill points... especially when you take into account that many of the rogue's skills can be made obsolete with the proper choice of spells.

But still, your party probably needs a rogue, if only to gather information and deal with trapped chests and locked doors. And let's say your party is heading into an adventure littered with stuff for the rogue to do. There are NPCs with which to negotiate. There are traps to disarm and locks to pick. There are dangerous dungeon corridors with lots of listen checks and stealthy scouting...

All of which is a lot of action for the rogue. In the meantime, everyone else sits aound and probably waits for a blundered stealth check to thrust them into combat.

I call it the Netrunner Syndrome. When cyberpunk games were popular, almost all of them had a fairly detailed set of rules for hacking virtual reality computers. Netrunning was almost its own minigame, complete with skills, gear and mechanics. It was all very cool... for the player who was playing the netrunner. Everyone else's character sat around waiting for JimmyL33t to either return from his solo adventure with the ciritcal piece of data, or for his head to explode into jelly. Either way, all but one player was bored.

Scouting and other rogue duties aren't as bad as netrunning, but they can come close. When it is the rogue bartering and the rogue scouting ahead and the rogue listening at doors and the rogue disarming the traps and the rogue searching the room... it can get boring for the other five people at the table.

So after running Pathfinder for a few months, it turns out I hate the "skill guy" as a class concept. What would happen if we got rid of the rogue (and probably ranger) class, gave everyone something like 5-6 skill points each level and got rid of the idea of class skills. Class features for rogues would become feats (possibly with a limitation on the armor worn). That way, everyone would have part of the "skill guy" job. Mages and clerics could take many of the skills and knowledges they really ought to have. Scouting, stealth, negotiation and trap duties could be more evenly distributed among the PCs in a party and those wanting to be sneaky, fast killers could still do so by taking the proper feats.

Would a rogue-less Pathfinder game work? I'm not sure, but I may certainly try it.

D&D 4th Edition the next great supers game?

As I was chatting with a friend about the pros and cons of 4th edition D&D and how I could not possibly run a fantasy campaign with it (I will get into that later), an interesting thought struck me. Out of the box, 4th is remarkably close to a superhero game! All of the trappings are there. You have tons of powers, all of which are very mechanically similar, but with lots of status effects to differentiate them -- thereby simulating guns, lasers, claws and mutant powers with the same set of rules. With healing surges, you have very resilient characters (though you would have to find some way to activate them without a healer archetype). You have minions!

Heck, if you just renamed the classes and powers, you might be able to pass 4th Ed as written as a superhero game.

I wouldn't do that though. I think some modifications are in order to truly complete the transformation. I would likely ditch the concept of a single class/character and go for some kind of dual-spec system for a more mix and match approach to characters. So you would not be a "Fighter". You would be a Superstrong/Fire Blaster. I think this would allow more flexability and synergy in character builds. I think a slick way to handle super stats would be in order as well... not sure on that one though.

Otherwise, most of the rules would work as written. Sounds like a side project!!!