I have a grudge against the d20 system. I hate it. I could complain about it all day. I hate it so much that I really can't base this article on it, because I would rant forever.
Restricting myself to one reason I hate it: because hundreds of books have come out for the d20 system. Nothing unifies these books. There is no underlying world, no underlying theme. They're just a bunch of books that have "d20" stamped on the corner.
Because of this, they are compromised. Their promise of a fun and interesting setting is stomped on because they are required to use specific stats, specific conflict resolution methods, specific skills, progressions, dice...
It doesn't make a lick of sense to have a wide range of numeric stats and skills in a game about myth. Fundamentally, mythic adventures are about heroes with superhuman capabilities and flaws. They don't get "12 HP" or a con of "10". They are "stronger than ten mortal men but a temper to match" or "the wisest woman in the land, beware her fell magic!"
The idea of carefully listing out stats and skills is a throwback to the era of wargaming. You can get plenty of complexity and simulationist satisfaction without such crap, and the fact that d20 is basically D&D with all the funny-shaped dice replaced with dodecahedrons makes it fundamentally unsuited for most kinds of adventures.
I see this problem with all "shared" systems, including things like GURPS, Hero, Rifts, D&D, and even the almost unknown ones like d6 and Silhouette. Not to mention the huge number of games which basically use the same system, but aren't affiliated. If it's got stats running from 1-20 and a hundred skills, it's really just D&D.
These systems are often good at a particular kind of story. But they do not limit themselves to that kind of adventure, and instead publish add-ons for adventures that make no sense at all. Like D&D's "legendary" level adventures. D&D's system is fundamentally unsuited for legendary-level characters. The GM basically has to work around the system and hope his players aren't smart enough to pry at the cracks.
This is why I'm pushing for people to create their own system when they create their own setting. You have a great idea about the players all playing clerics? Great! Just don't put it in D&D, because their rules are painfully shattered when it comes to that kind of focus. Build your own system, a system with rules that fundamentally support the various kinds of faiths and capabilities of clerics of various gods.
I realize that I'll probably catch some flak. Someone will probably say, "It's not D&D, it's AD&D 3rd ed, which is completely different". Actually, that's the point: an RPG system is not like Street Fighter. You shouldn't have D&D, AD&D, AD&D Alpha Turbo Edition, etc. You should make a game that does precisely what you want it to do.
If your system doesn't support eight clerics in the party, you shouldn't stretch the system. You should create a new system for an "eight clerics" adventure.
Bah!
Showing posts with label make your own. Show all posts
Showing posts with label make your own. Show all posts
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Fun With Basics
This is kind of part of the make your own guide to creating role playing systems. This also stands alone, however, and is interesting on its own.
A sure way to make games more fun is to have an underlying principle that drives the game. This will make the game's fiction more coherent, and the rules can often be part of that fiction.
As an easy example, here's a wacky "science" video. A game could be easily made with this as its underlying principle. This would allow for a "convincing" simulation of species, landmasses, etc. Also, as you start to think about what makes the planet grow, you'll have to come up with an interesting set of physical/metaphysical reasons that will drive the biology, technology, magic... whatever parts of the setting you want. The game would feel very cohesive, and a big part of it is incorporated into the rules - the rules for tech work the way they do not because of some arbitrary reasoning, but because it all fits into the underlying principle.
When you're designing any game of any type, above and beyond the rules you use is how coherent yet diverse the "pattern" of the game is. The easiest way to make a pattern coherent is to relate every bit of it to a specific theme. You don't even have to state the theme - actually, it's generally better not to state it, at first. The coherence will still be there, and players will still feel that the game is "well designed". Long experience has taught me that they can still tell that all the content is "pointing" towards something.
Obviously, the principles don't have to be something so dry as a scientific theory. You might explore an emotion, or the meaning of honor, or the fact that transforming robots are way cool, but the basic idea is that everything in that game is related to the principle. Every character, every piece of setting, every game rule... designed to explore the ramifications of the underlying principle.
I can't stress this enough. Even lighthearted games benefit from underlying principles. Even card games, Flash games, drinking games. The theme can be serious, it can be stupid, it can be funny, it can be scary. It's simply a magnet that draws all the pieces of the game together.
Do you know what I mean?
A sure way to make games more fun is to have an underlying principle that drives the game. This will make the game's fiction more coherent, and the rules can often be part of that fiction.
As an easy example, here's a wacky "science" video. A game could be easily made with this as its underlying principle. This would allow for a "convincing" simulation of species, landmasses, etc. Also, as you start to think about what makes the planet grow, you'll have to come up with an interesting set of physical/metaphysical reasons that will drive the biology, technology, magic... whatever parts of the setting you want. The game would feel very cohesive, and a big part of it is incorporated into the rules - the rules for tech work the way they do not because of some arbitrary reasoning, but because it all fits into the underlying principle.
When you're designing any game of any type, above and beyond the rules you use is how coherent yet diverse the "pattern" of the game is. The easiest way to make a pattern coherent is to relate every bit of it to a specific theme. You don't even have to state the theme - actually, it's generally better not to state it, at first. The coherence will still be there, and players will still feel that the game is "well designed". Long experience has taught me that they can still tell that all the content is "pointing" towards something.
Obviously, the principles don't have to be something so dry as a scientific theory. You might explore an emotion, or the meaning of honor, or the fact that transforming robots are way cool, but the basic idea is that everything in that game is related to the principle. Every character, every piece of setting, every game rule... designed to explore the ramifications of the underlying principle.
I can't stress this enough. Even lighthearted games benefit from underlying principles. Even card games, Flash games, drinking games. The theme can be serious, it can be stupid, it can be funny, it can be scary. It's simply a magnet that draws all the pieces of the game together.
Do you know what I mean?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
MYO: Building a Rule Chain
This is part of the make your own guide to creating role playing systems.
Every game has a rule chain. From the simplest game of Pac Man to the most complicated version of AD&D, it's all built around this same concept. I've gone and refined it a bit to be somewhat clearer.
To make it really easy on you, I've broken it into steps. Basically, you follow these steps until you think your game world has enough complexity to keep your players interested.
This isn't about working out all the rules or the percentages. It's about having a guide that shows you how your game is played. Building a game with too much precision too early is a bad idea - that's how AD&D came into being, and that's why it's such a hodge-podge. This will help you lay the foundation for your game system.
When making a system, I suggest writing stuff down on a blank piece of paper "flowchart" style. I'll give instructions on how to do that, too.
1: The Primary Purpose of Conflicts
All games feature a central purpose - something that the players and GM try to accomplish. In D&D, it's reducing HP. In many more modern games, it's to tell a piece of story. There are thousands of possible purposes, choose one that suits you.
But remember, this is the primary conflict you're designing here, not the primary reason for playing. D&D's rules are built around reducing an enemy's HP, but the actual reason for playing is to have adventures. If "having adventures" is going to be the central conflict, then people would roll dice to have adventures rather than having adventures in which they roll dice.
I draw the purpose of a conflict in a triangle at the bottom of the page.
2: Basic Resolution
Now that you know the basic conflict, you need to know how it is usually resolved. For example, in D&D you roll dice to reduce HP, whereas in, say, FastLane, you bet chips on a roulette wheel for the right to tell a piece of the story. D&D's resolution is parallel - IE, enemies can reduce each other's HP simultaneously. FastLane, on the other hand, is perpendicular, in that if one person wins, another person (often the GM) loses.
This describes what kind of resolution systems you might choose, but anything will work, even rock paper scissors or making funny noises until someone laughs.
I draw resolution methods as circles above whatever they resolve, and connect them to their purposes with lines.
3: Add in a Modifier
A modifier is a method of giving a statistical benefit to one side or another. For example, a weapon in D&D allows players to reduce the HP of the enemy different amounts. In FastLane, having a chip pool allows you to bid various amounts of chips on the roulette wheel, allowing you to modulate your chances of victory and failure.
In D&D, rolling to hit is also a modifier. Instead of offering a sure but erratic bonus (2d6 vs 1d8 + 2 damage) it offers an erratic but sure bonus (you get to hit or not, period). This makes it more interesting than simply hitting, because now a beastie can have low HP but be hard to hit, whereas without this modifier all that mattered was the beastie's HP.
The basic rule is that a modifier lets a player express their intents and personalities more clearly. Having a chip pool lets a player be risky or safe, having a to-hit die allows players to specialize in damage or hits (or bypassing the need to roll hits).
I draw modifiers as boxes above whatever they modify, connected with a line.
4: Split the Approach
It's important to let players approach things in distinct ways by "going behind the back" of a modifier. This can be thought of as assigning modifiers to a modifier.
In D&D, the "weapons" modifier allows you to use different dice and bonuses to deal damage. However, having a weapon is not the only method of doing that. You can use techniques or be a mage. So, the "weapons" modifier has three "paths" - "weapons", "techniques", and "magic". Don't worry about the clumsy naming.
In FastLane, how you change the number of chips in your pool varies. The paths are "Betting/winning", "favor calling/granting", "Ability use", "statistic burn", "life risk", and so on. This is a lot of approaches, but you don't have to come up with thirty approaches at once. You can add more approaches at any time, and it's better to do it in small increments.
While a modifier allows a player to express themselves statistically, an approach allows players to express themselves categorically. They can choose to act like a monk, or a warrior, or a mage, or whatever. An approach can be semipermanent (such as choosing a class) but doesn't have to be.
I make approaches diamonds or rounded squares and put them near the things they modify, connected with a line.
5: Add in a New Conflict Type
Using any of the things you've created, add a new kind of goal it can resolve.
For example, in D&D you can use the "to hit" modifier to resolve noncombat challenges such as picking pockets or applying medicine. You can use the "weapon" modifier to do noncombat things such as healing, seeing in the dark, etc. Putting it under the "weapon" modifier rather than the "weapon" or "magic" approach means that any approach will have these noncombat methods, rather than only one of them. This allows for torches, spells of light, and light related techniques, for example.
In FastLane (or just about any game), the ability to improve your character by spending points is an end goal that gets added at this stage.
Be as specific or general as you like, and choose anything. Don't worry if the resolution method seems dodgy. That will all fall into place.
These give the players who choose different paths different capabilities, making them more unique. They are especially needed in places where you want the gameplay to be more complex than it already is.
I draw new conflicts as triangles beneath whatever controls them.
6: Clean Up
Look over your map. Does anything have an awful lot of connections to the same kind of shape? See if you can condense that into one or two much less specific shapes. An example of this would be the dozens of approaches to your chip pool in FastLane. they can be broken into two basic modifiers: adding chips to/from your pool and adding chips to your bet. Then those can have approaches.
Does anything seem awkward or lonely? See if you can move it to a more root branch. An example of this would be if you wrote "noncombat stuff" as a goal underneath "magic", and decided that it would make more sense if items could accomplish at least some noncombat stuff, such as nets, food, etc. So you roll the goal down to the "weapon modifier" rather than the "magic approach".
If something is misnamed, rename it. For example, the "weapon" approach and modifier allow you to address noncombat issues, so it's best to rename them "item".
This step is pretty important, as it will help you keep your game from getting too flabby and special-caseist.
7: Scrap it?
If what you see doesn't appeal or doesn't make sense, scrap it and start over. Seriously. It's no big loss.
8: Goto 2
Go back to step two and run through them again, but don't focus on whatever part you were focusing on before. Focus on whatever you want to have more depth.
For example, in D&D we can go back and focus on the "weapons" approach (now the "items" approach, since it's not all combat based any more). We don't want anyone to be able to get any weapon, so we add a resolution method: you can have weapons you buy or find. Then we can add modifiers to buying, so that we use gold pieces to try to buy stuff.
In fact, D&D is full of iteration. Range vs melee, saving throws, skills, stats - all of them are these same chains applied in slightly different ways.
This will also happen in game. For example, in the first tests of the first D&D, I'm sure there was no such thing as poisoned weapons. But then someone said, "I should be able to poison my weapon!" and hence poison was introduced. You can go in and add a poison modifier whereever it should be added, then run through the steps to make sure to balance it with approaches and limitations and so forth.
Here's a demo picture because everyone likes demo pictures.
Please notice that "favors" is an approach to the pool, but in the actual game, it's also fed by the pool. It's an approach and a goal simultaneously. To keep things clean, I just leave it as an approach. If you feel the urge, you can make the line a double-headed arrow.
This is mostly for YOUR use, so it only has to make sense to you.
Every game has a rule chain. From the simplest game of Pac Man to the most complicated version of AD&D, it's all built around this same concept. I've gone and refined it a bit to be somewhat clearer.
To make it really easy on you, I've broken it into steps. Basically, you follow these steps until you think your game world has enough complexity to keep your players interested.
This isn't about working out all the rules or the percentages. It's about having a guide that shows you how your game is played. Building a game with too much precision too early is a bad idea - that's how AD&D came into being, and that's why it's such a hodge-podge. This will help you lay the foundation for your game system.
When making a system, I suggest writing stuff down on a blank piece of paper "flowchart" style. I'll give instructions on how to do that, too.
1: The Primary Purpose of Conflicts
All games feature a central purpose - something that the players and GM try to accomplish. In D&D, it's reducing HP. In many more modern games, it's to tell a piece of story. There are thousands of possible purposes, choose one that suits you.
But remember, this is the primary conflict you're designing here, not the primary reason for playing. D&D's rules are built around reducing an enemy's HP, but the actual reason for playing is to have adventures. If "having adventures" is going to be the central conflict, then people would roll dice to have adventures rather than having adventures in which they roll dice.
I draw the purpose of a conflict in a triangle at the bottom of the page.
2: Basic Resolution
Now that you know the basic conflict, you need to know how it is usually resolved. For example, in D&D you roll dice to reduce HP, whereas in, say, FastLane, you bet chips on a roulette wheel for the right to tell a piece of the story. D&D's resolution is parallel - IE, enemies can reduce each other's HP simultaneously. FastLane, on the other hand, is perpendicular, in that if one person wins, another person (often the GM) loses.
This describes what kind of resolution systems you might choose, but anything will work, even rock paper scissors or making funny noises until someone laughs.
I draw resolution methods as circles above whatever they resolve, and connect them to their purposes with lines.
3: Add in a Modifier
A modifier is a method of giving a statistical benefit to one side or another. For example, a weapon in D&D allows players to reduce the HP of the enemy different amounts. In FastLane, having a chip pool allows you to bid various amounts of chips on the roulette wheel, allowing you to modulate your chances of victory and failure.
In D&D, rolling to hit is also a modifier. Instead of offering a sure but erratic bonus (2d6 vs 1d8 + 2 damage) it offers an erratic but sure bonus (you get to hit or not, period). This makes it more interesting than simply hitting, because now a beastie can have low HP but be hard to hit, whereas without this modifier all that mattered was the beastie's HP.
The basic rule is that a modifier lets a player express their intents and personalities more clearly. Having a chip pool lets a player be risky or safe, having a to-hit die allows players to specialize in damage or hits (or bypassing the need to roll hits).
I draw modifiers as boxes above whatever they modify, connected with a line.
4: Split the Approach
It's important to let players approach things in distinct ways by "going behind the back" of a modifier. This can be thought of as assigning modifiers to a modifier.
In D&D, the "weapons" modifier allows you to use different dice and bonuses to deal damage. However, having a weapon is not the only method of doing that. You can use techniques or be a mage. So, the "weapons" modifier has three "paths" - "weapons", "techniques", and "magic". Don't worry about the clumsy naming.
In FastLane, how you change the number of chips in your pool varies. The paths are "Betting/winning", "favor calling/granting", "Ability use", "statistic burn", "life risk", and so on. This is a lot of approaches, but you don't have to come up with thirty approaches at once. You can add more approaches at any time, and it's better to do it in small increments.
While a modifier allows a player to express themselves statistically, an approach allows players to express themselves categorically. They can choose to act like a monk, or a warrior, or a mage, or whatever. An approach can be semipermanent (such as choosing a class) but doesn't have to be.
I make approaches diamonds or rounded squares and put them near the things they modify, connected with a line.
5: Add in a New Conflict Type
Using any of the things you've created, add a new kind of goal it can resolve.
For example, in D&D you can use the "to hit" modifier to resolve noncombat challenges such as picking pockets or applying medicine. You can use the "weapon" modifier to do noncombat things such as healing, seeing in the dark, etc. Putting it under the "weapon" modifier rather than the "weapon" or "magic" approach means that any approach will have these noncombat methods, rather than only one of them. This allows for torches, spells of light, and light related techniques, for example.
In FastLane (or just about any game), the ability to improve your character by spending points is an end goal that gets added at this stage.
Be as specific or general as you like, and choose anything. Don't worry if the resolution method seems dodgy. That will all fall into place.
These give the players who choose different paths different capabilities, making them more unique. They are especially needed in places where you want the gameplay to be more complex than it already is.
I draw new conflicts as triangles beneath whatever controls them.
6: Clean Up
Look over your map. Does anything have an awful lot of connections to the same kind of shape? See if you can condense that into one or two much less specific shapes. An example of this would be the dozens of approaches to your chip pool in FastLane. they can be broken into two basic modifiers: adding chips to/from your pool and adding chips to your bet. Then those can have approaches.
Does anything seem awkward or lonely? See if you can move it to a more root branch. An example of this would be if you wrote "noncombat stuff" as a goal underneath "magic", and decided that it would make more sense if items could accomplish at least some noncombat stuff, such as nets, food, etc. So you roll the goal down to the "weapon modifier" rather than the "magic approach".
If something is misnamed, rename it. For example, the "weapon" approach and modifier allow you to address noncombat issues, so it's best to rename them "item".
This step is pretty important, as it will help you keep your game from getting too flabby and special-caseist.
7: Scrap it?
If what you see doesn't appeal or doesn't make sense, scrap it and start over. Seriously. It's no big loss.
8: Goto 2
Go back to step two and run through them again, but don't focus on whatever part you were focusing on before. Focus on whatever you want to have more depth.
For example, in D&D we can go back and focus on the "weapons" approach (now the "items" approach, since it's not all combat based any more). We don't want anyone to be able to get any weapon, so we add a resolution method: you can have weapons you buy or find. Then we can add modifiers to buying, so that we use gold pieces to try to buy stuff.
In fact, D&D is full of iteration. Range vs melee, saving throws, skills, stats - all of them are these same chains applied in slightly different ways.
This will also happen in game. For example, in the first tests of the first D&D, I'm sure there was no such thing as poisoned weapons. But then someone said, "I should be able to poison my weapon!" and hence poison was introduced. You can go in and add a poison modifier whereever it should be added, then run through the steps to make sure to balance it with approaches and limitations and so forth.
Here's a demo picture because everyone likes demo pictures.
Please notice that "favors" is an approach to the pool, but in the actual game, it's also fed by the pool. It's an approach and a goal simultaneously. To keep things clean, I just leave it as an approach. If you feel the urge, you can make the line a double-headed arrow.
This is mostly for YOUR use, so it only has to make sense to you.
Friday, July 13, 2007
MYO: Choose a Challenge Dynamic
This is part of the make your own guide to creating role playing systems.
Generally, the first thing I think of when they think of a role playing system is how the challenges are resolved. D&D is just about synonymous with a d20, for example. Other games use Nd10, rock-paper-scissors, decks of cards - just about any method you can think of.
In choosing your own challenge resolution system, you'll need to decide what kind of feel you want the game to have. Here are some common fragments you can consider when designing your own fundamental resolution system:
Flat Opposition. A lot of games use flat opposition which must be exceeded, especially on non-combat situations. Flat opposition is when the quantity you need to exceed is known. For example, "you need a 17 to hit" or "you need 4 dice of at least 5 to hack the mainframe". This is useful when you're playing a beer-and-pretzels game where the players don't want to think real hard.
Decaying Flat. This is the same as flat opposition except that if you don't reach it, the opposition drops some. Hit points are an obvious example of this: you need to do 150 HP of damage, and if you do 75 for two rounds, it counts. Obviously, you can mess with these numbers - include regeneration, thresholds, maximum damage levels, powers that unlock at high levels of damage... This is a bit more number-crunchy for the GM, so this is generally kept to a minimum in most games.
Opposed Simple. An opposed simple is when all the sides contribute numbers (usually die rolls) and add their bonuses to them. The highest wins. This has a much larger element of chance than a flat opposition, which is usually best to reign in by minimizing the randomness - making the die roll roughly equivalent to the highest bonus, or letting people play a card out of their hand.
Recursive Flat. This is when the success of one side's flat opposed roll becomes the flat target for the next side. For example, "Dave got 5 successes, so in order to defend himself, Jed has to get 5 successes, too." It contains less randomness than opposed simple, so it is suitable to dice of any size, but it can make turns take a long time. It's good for games where you want the players to always feel that they have the power to change things, no matter how late in the game things get.
Recursive Opposed. This is when players repeatedly bid. For example, each player can play any number of cards from his hand, then his opponent can, and so forth. This can be done with hidden data (cards face down) or with revealed data (die rolls/cards up/tokens). However, if it is with revealed data, there should be multiple simultaneous challenges or long-term bid conservation to prevent everyone from bidding until exhausted.
Single Die. Generally a d10 or a d20, the single-die method is fast and easy, and usually combined with flat or decaying flat opposition because of its high randomness. Also, most games allow for the maximum and minimum rolls to be considered critical, to punch up the variability. Generally, single-die methods do NOT allow for exploding dice. This is most useful for beer & pretzel games.
Multi-Die. Can be any die, but usually d10s or d6s. How many dice you roll is usually related to your skill level. Multi-die specifically refers to dice where each die can individually succeed or fail, rather than summed dice. The number of successes (and often failures) is usually a part of the final resolution. Generally, if the type of the die is d10 or higher, it uses critical successes/failures, whereas if the type of the die is a d6, it uses exploding die (ie, every max roll allows for another roll that adds on). This is simply because of the frequency of exploding dice. These are usually used by moderate games where the players are fine with thinking, but not too hard.
Variable Dice. Many games use dice that vary based on the character's capabilities. For example: damage is a d6+1, or 3d8+9, or whatever. Unlike multi-die, they are added together rather than independently counted. There were a few old systems which used a variable die method that was always the same (IE 3d6 for everything), but this has gone out of vogue. This is most useful for a system where you want a huge difference between people who are good at something and people who are bad at something.
Uneven Dice. Uneven dice is a type of multi-die where dice rolled have different rules applied to them. For example, you might roll two white dice and a blue die, with the blue die meaning something specific. Or you might roll 2d10 and 3d6... this kind of system can produce very interesting side effects, such as allowing players to choose which dice to roll.
Random Card. Using a deck of playing cards allows players to get a very different kind of randomization. Playing cards are easy to assign unusual values to - for example, "the joker is a botch" or "the king is +10 and draw another card" or "hearts restore a hit point". While theoretically cards can be counted, in practice this is too difficult for 99% of players. Cards can be either played face up in turns, or face down simultaneously. These systems are useful for games where you want lady luck to play a more entertaining part than simple criticals and botches.
Hand of Cards. Similar to above, except that players are given a hand of cards to play from. This allows players to spend or save their "good" "rolls" as they choose, and adds a whole new element to the game. In addition, if players are allowed to trade cards and see each other's hands, they start using dramatically more team work and will have a better chance of estimating which cards remain in the deck. Very much a thinking player's method.
Multi-Card. Some games allow players to play multiple cards and gives the players bonuses for the relationships between the cards. IE, poker hands are worth more. This does slow the game down, but allows players to control their gameplay exactly. Also, it allows specific characters to have specific abilities: IE, "the sword of Bronenogry deals double damage if all cards played are hearts." This is the ultimate thinking player's method.
Tokens. One of the fastest ways to play if you're playing a more iterative model (IE, each player can respond to what other players do) is to use tokens, with each character have a certain number of specific kinds of tokens - replenishing a certain amount each round. Tokens can represent "a point", but they more often represent an unknown number of points to be resolved at the end of round. Typically either a D6 or a 50% chance of being a point (red/black cards). This does well for minmaxers and wargame fanatics.
...
One of the basics I didn't mention but you might have picked up on is how much control a player has over what they put forth. For example, if all players roll 1d20 to hit, then they have relatively little control outside of trying to get their character stats to have bigger bonuses.
On the other hand, if they can play one of the cards from their hand, they can choose how "lucky" they want to be at any given time, using up "luck" as they proceed. Because this is a known quantity, these should always be actively opposed so that the player cannot flatly calculate the minimum play required for success.
And at the top of the player control system is tokens, where a player will be able to bid specific amounts of his resources on offense, defense, movement, damage, whatever. This allows a player to specifically determine exactly how his character should play in excruciating detail - something that some players love and some players hate.
There are other methods I didn't cover here, such as rock-paper-scissors. These kinds of methods are generally more suited to LARPs and are usually a simplified version of one of the above or a basic guessing game of some variety.
Also notice that I didn't cover things like whether you're using miniatures and maps or not, or what kinds of challenges you allow, etc, etc. Those are important considerations, but this is unrelated.
Choose a method that suits you and your players.
Generally, the first thing I think of when they think of a role playing system is how the challenges are resolved. D&D is just about synonymous with a d20, for example. Other games use Nd10, rock-paper-scissors, decks of cards - just about any method you can think of.
In choosing your own challenge resolution system, you'll need to decide what kind of feel you want the game to have. Here are some common fragments you can consider when designing your own fundamental resolution system:
Basic Styles
Flat Opposition. A lot of games use flat opposition which must be exceeded, especially on non-combat situations. Flat opposition is when the quantity you need to exceed is known. For example, "you need a 17 to hit" or "you need 4 dice of at least 5 to hack the mainframe". This is useful when you're playing a beer-and-pretzels game where the players don't want to think real hard.
Decaying Flat. This is the same as flat opposition except that if you don't reach it, the opposition drops some. Hit points are an obvious example of this: you need to do 150 HP of damage, and if you do 75 for two rounds, it counts. Obviously, you can mess with these numbers - include regeneration, thresholds, maximum damage levels, powers that unlock at high levels of damage... This is a bit more number-crunchy for the GM, so this is generally kept to a minimum in most games.
Opposed Simple. An opposed simple is when all the sides contribute numbers (usually die rolls) and add their bonuses to them. The highest wins. This has a much larger element of chance than a flat opposition, which is usually best to reign in by minimizing the randomness - making the die roll roughly equivalent to the highest bonus, or letting people play a card out of their hand.
Recursive Flat. This is when the success of one side's flat opposed roll becomes the flat target for the next side. For example, "Dave got 5 successes, so in order to defend himself, Jed has to get 5 successes, too." It contains less randomness than opposed simple, so it is suitable to dice of any size, but it can make turns take a long time. It's good for games where you want the players to always feel that they have the power to change things, no matter how late in the game things get.
Recursive Opposed. This is when players repeatedly bid. For example, each player can play any number of cards from his hand, then his opponent can, and so forth. This can be done with hidden data (cards face down) or with revealed data (die rolls/cards up/tokens). However, if it is with revealed data, there should be multiple simultaneous challenges or long-term bid conservation to prevent everyone from bidding until exhausted.
Mechanics
Single Die. Generally a d10 or a d20, the single-die method is fast and easy, and usually combined with flat or decaying flat opposition because of its high randomness. Also, most games allow for the maximum and minimum rolls to be considered critical, to punch up the variability. Generally, single-die methods do NOT allow for exploding dice. This is most useful for beer & pretzel games.
Multi-Die. Can be any die, but usually d10s or d6s. How many dice you roll is usually related to your skill level. Multi-die specifically refers to dice where each die can individually succeed or fail, rather than summed dice. The number of successes (and often failures) is usually a part of the final resolution. Generally, if the type of the die is d10 or higher, it uses critical successes/failures, whereas if the type of the die is a d6, it uses exploding die (ie, every max roll allows for another roll that adds on). This is simply because of the frequency of exploding dice. These are usually used by moderate games where the players are fine with thinking, but not too hard.
Variable Dice. Many games use dice that vary based on the character's capabilities. For example: damage is a d6+1, or 3d8+9, or whatever. Unlike multi-die, they are added together rather than independently counted. There were a few old systems which used a variable die method that was always the same (IE 3d6 for everything), but this has gone out of vogue. This is most useful for a system where you want a huge difference between people who are good at something and people who are bad at something.
Uneven Dice. Uneven dice is a type of multi-die where dice rolled have different rules applied to them. For example, you might roll two white dice and a blue die, with the blue die meaning something specific. Or you might roll 2d10 and 3d6... this kind of system can produce very interesting side effects, such as allowing players to choose which dice to roll.
Random Card. Using a deck of playing cards allows players to get a very different kind of randomization. Playing cards are easy to assign unusual values to - for example, "the joker is a botch" or "the king is +10 and draw another card" or "hearts restore a hit point". While theoretically cards can be counted, in practice this is too difficult for 99% of players. Cards can be either played face up in turns, or face down simultaneously. These systems are useful for games where you want lady luck to play a more entertaining part than simple criticals and botches.
Hand of Cards. Similar to above, except that players are given a hand of cards to play from. This allows players to spend or save their "good" "rolls" as they choose, and adds a whole new element to the game. In addition, if players are allowed to trade cards and see each other's hands, they start using dramatically more team work and will have a better chance of estimating which cards remain in the deck. Very much a thinking player's method.
Multi-Card. Some games allow players to play multiple cards and gives the players bonuses for the relationships between the cards. IE, poker hands are worth more. This does slow the game down, but allows players to control their gameplay exactly. Also, it allows specific characters to have specific abilities: IE, "the sword of Bronenogry deals double damage if all cards played are hearts." This is the ultimate thinking player's method.
Tokens. One of the fastest ways to play if you're playing a more iterative model (IE, each player can respond to what other players do) is to use tokens, with each character have a certain number of specific kinds of tokens - replenishing a certain amount each round. Tokens can represent "a point", but they more often represent an unknown number of points to be resolved at the end of round. Typically either a D6 or a 50% chance of being a point (red/black cards). This does well for minmaxers and wargame fanatics.
...
One of the basics I didn't mention but you might have picked up on is how much control a player has over what they put forth. For example, if all players roll 1d20 to hit, then they have relatively little control outside of trying to get their character stats to have bigger bonuses.
On the other hand, if they can play one of the cards from their hand, they can choose how "lucky" they want to be at any given time, using up "luck" as they proceed. Because this is a known quantity, these should always be actively opposed so that the player cannot flatly calculate the minimum play required for success.
And at the top of the player control system is tokens, where a player will be able to bid specific amounts of his resources on offense, defense, movement, damage, whatever. This allows a player to specifically determine exactly how his character should play in excruciating detail - something that some players love and some players hate.
There are other methods I didn't cover here, such as rock-paper-scissors. These kinds of methods are generally more suited to LARPs and are usually a simplified version of one of the above or a basic guessing game of some variety.
Also notice that I didn't cover things like whether you're using miniatures and maps or not, or what kinds of challenges you allow, etc, etc. Those are important considerations, but this is unrelated.
Choose a method that suits you and your players.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Cooperative Storytelling, the Guide
I wrote the guide. I guarantee you might find it interesting.
Guide to Making Games Featuring Cooperative Storytelling.
Guide to Making Games Featuring Cooperative Storytelling.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Rock Around the Clock!
This is part of the make your own guide to creating role playing systems.
One of the things that most people don't understand is the sheer number of ways to play games. Most GMs are stuck in a mindset: "Six guys sitting around a table, marking papers and rolling dice, once per week."
Well, that's certainly not the only way to play. In fact, it isn't even the best.
What sitting at a table together on a schedule gives you, primarily, is focus. It's really easy to play the game if everyone gets together on a specific night, at a specific time. And if Jimmy doesn't show, play without him. Even then, however, there are other methods. :P
How you want your game to run is a big choice. Most GMs will probably think in terms of "once per week" or some such. If that's your first instinct, then you can't pick that. It's much better to run anything else - one-shots, if your time is strict. There's nothing inherently wrong with once-a-week (or twice-a-month) games, but there's also nothing inherently wrong with sauerkraut. We still eat other things.
Here are some of my favorite schedules (This doesn't even take into account how the game is played, which is really important, too. So many factors!):
Once a week.
Super common. Generally about how often people think they want to play. Not long enough to completely forget about how much fun you had (or didn't have), although a lot of the vigor will wear off, especially among players who don't work 40 hours a week.
Once per (two weeks/one month).
A lot of people that have lives prefer this length of time. "I can make it every other Saturday..."
This won't be often enough to keep up with students or the unemployed, but for people who work too hard, it's probably ideal. However, I would suggest that you limit yourself to only people who work too hard if you choose this method: the odd one out tends to be really the odd one out.
Two+ per week.
It's very uncommon for one team to run the same game twice per week. I guess there's a feeling that you're basically spending your life on this game. The upside is that the energy level will remain high (presuming it's a fun game). The downside is that nobody will want to sign up. The only time I've been able to run like this is with my room-mates back in college.
This is, however, a really great way to level up your GMing skills. It's like weight-training for geeks.
The One-Shot.
Specifically, the one-shot that lasts as long as one session normally would.
One-shots are occasionally perfect for what you need. However, many games (and systems) are rigged for long-term fun rather than short-term fun, and you'll never feel that pull with one-shots.
Still, it's really easy to get people signed up for one-shots. :)
Multiphase.
At some point or another, every GM dreams of running two parties in the same universe, typically each party running once per week. You might have even heard stories. I'm here to tell you: Don't do it!
The only way to successfully run a multi-party game is to be an expert at front-loading your metagames. Yeah, didn't think so. Try some other situations with heavy metagaming, work your way up to this.
Long-Ass One-Shot.
A one-shot which lasts eight or more hours, often stretching into days. This isn't actually as uncommon as it sounds: Diplomacy is a long-ass one-shot, and people play that basically every weekend.
A LAOS isn't really suitable for sit-in-a-circle-and-roll-dice games. There needs to be a structure that allows players to sift in and out as food, bathroom, and sleep beckon. And showers. So, typically, these games are LARPs.
The upside to these is that immersion is fantastically strong, which is more important than you might think. The downside is that you have to be completely insane to sign up for such a game. To say nothing of how much pain it inflicts on the GMs.
Churner.
The churner is a game which operates on the player's time. An example would be assassins.
Churners are difficult to balance, because players all have radically different amounts of time to throw at playing the game. This is a very difficult kind of game to run properly, although everyone should try to run one.
Back-Burner.
This is a reoccurring game, typically a tabletop or LARP, in which the time between sessions still has game-related stuff in it. An example would be a tabletop with individual mini-sessions. Another example would be a game where you throw so much information at the players that they have to spend all week trying to sift through it.
These games tend to be very big on the metagaming, so if you want to hone your meta-skills, this would be a good way to run. Remember, though: "normal" systems aren't suited. They're all designed for simultaneous play rather than asynchronous play. You see the tear lines pretty quick.
Done right, however, this completely negates the way that players lose interest between sessions. Used correctly, players will come into the room half an hour early, waving papers at you and yelling over each other.
At the Con.
Some games you'll want to run at a weekend-long convention of some sort. Typically a 4-6 hour block of time. Something to keep in mind, regardless of what kind of game it is, is that all your players will be tired. Yeah, best to take that under consideration.
Also take into consideration who your competitors are. In the beginning, I screwed up by running opposite the Big Bad Game. As time went on, I watched other people make the same mistake. Just because Saturday at 7 PM is best for you doesn't mean it's the best time to run your game.
After all, I might be running my game then... ;D
One of the things that most people don't understand is the sheer number of ways to play games. Most GMs are stuck in a mindset: "Six guys sitting around a table, marking papers and rolling dice, once per week."
Well, that's certainly not the only way to play. In fact, it isn't even the best.
What sitting at a table together on a schedule gives you, primarily, is focus. It's really easy to play the game if everyone gets together on a specific night, at a specific time. And if Jimmy doesn't show, play without him. Even then, however, there are other methods. :P
How you want your game to run is a big choice. Most GMs will probably think in terms of "once per week" or some such. If that's your first instinct, then you can't pick that. It's much better to run anything else - one-shots, if your time is strict. There's nothing inherently wrong with once-a-week (or twice-a-month) games, but there's also nothing inherently wrong with sauerkraut. We still eat other things.
Here are some of my favorite schedules (This doesn't even take into account how the game is played, which is really important, too. So many factors!):
Once a week.
Super common. Generally about how often people think they want to play. Not long enough to completely forget about how much fun you had (or didn't have), although a lot of the vigor will wear off, especially among players who don't work 40 hours a week.
Once per (two weeks/one month).
A lot of people that have lives prefer this length of time. "I can make it every other Saturday..."
This won't be often enough to keep up with students or the unemployed, but for people who work too hard, it's probably ideal. However, I would suggest that you limit yourself to only people who work too hard if you choose this method: the odd one out tends to be really the odd one out.
Two+ per week.
It's very uncommon for one team to run the same game twice per week. I guess there's a feeling that you're basically spending your life on this game. The upside is that the energy level will remain high (presuming it's a fun game). The downside is that nobody will want to sign up. The only time I've been able to run like this is with my room-mates back in college.
This is, however, a really great way to level up your GMing skills. It's like weight-training for geeks.
The One-Shot.
Specifically, the one-shot that lasts as long as one session normally would.
One-shots are occasionally perfect for what you need. However, many games (and systems) are rigged for long-term fun rather than short-term fun, and you'll never feel that pull with one-shots.
Still, it's really easy to get people signed up for one-shots. :)
Multiphase.
At some point or another, every GM dreams of running two parties in the same universe, typically each party running once per week. You might have even heard stories. I'm here to tell you: Don't do it!
The only way to successfully run a multi-party game is to be an expert at front-loading your metagames. Yeah, didn't think so. Try some other situations with heavy metagaming, work your way up to this.
Long-Ass One-Shot.
A one-shot which lasts eight or more hours, often stretching into days. This isn't actually as uncommon as it sounds: Diplomacy is a long-ass one-shot, and people play that basically every weekend.
A LAOS isn't really suitable for sit-in-a-circle-and-roll-dice games. There needs to be a structure that allows players to sift in and out as food, bathroom, and sleep beckon. And showers. So, typically, these games are LARPs.
The upside to these is that immersion is fantastically strong, which is more important than you might think. The downside is that you have to be completely insane to sign up for such a game. To say nothing of how much pain it inflicts on the GMs.
Churner.
The churner is a game which operates on the player's time. An example would be assassins.
Churners are difficult to balance, because players all have radically different amounts of time to throw at playing the game. This is a very difficult kind of game to run properly, although everyone should try to run one.
Back-Burner.
This is a reoccurring game, typically a tabletop or LARP, in which the time between sessions still has game-related stuff in it. An example would be a tabletop with individual mini-sessions. Another example would be a game where you throw so much information at the players that they have to spend all week trying to sift through it.
These games tend to be very big on the metagaming, so if you want to hone your meta-skills, this would be a good way to run. Remember, though: "normal" systems aren't suited. They're all designed for simultaneous play rather than asynchronous play. You see the tear lines pretty quick.
Done right, however, this completely negates the way that players lose interest between sessions. Used correctly, players will come into the room half an hour early, waving papers at you and yelling over each other.
At the Con.
Some games you'll want to run at a weekend-long convention of some sort. Typically a 4-6 hour block of time. Something to keep in mind, regardless of what kind of game it is, is that all your players will be tired. Yeah, best to take that under consideration.
Also take into consideration who your competitors are. In the beginning, I screwed up by running opposite the Big Bad Game. As time went on, I watched other people make the same mistake. Just because Saturday at 7 PM is best for you doesn't mean it's the best time to run your game.
After all, I might be running my game then... ;D
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
From the Ground Up
Most of you who know me know my approach to RPGs is a bit like tissue paper. I do not run the same game system twice unless pressured specifically to do so. My philosophy is that a game should complete in three to six sessions and that each game should use its own system, engineered to support whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with your game.
Many people are very satisfied running their favorite system. "What I'm trying to accomplish with this game is to give my friends a good time! So I use a system I know we all enjoy!"
I say: you're really missing out! Oddball systems offer very different dynamics, and the fact that these are short games (even six sessions isn't really very long) means that even if they're terribly unbalanced, it's not going to be un-fun. Of course, not every oddball system is worth playing, and what you want to do with your game will never precisely fit any given system.
That's why I always roll my own.
So, for those of you who might want to try your hand at something deeper than picking a monster out of the manual, I'm planning on writing a set of articles on how to make your own systems. To find all of them, do a keyword search for "make your own" (link at bottom of essay).
This essay?
Turn order.
Turn order is a huge part of how your game feels. Here are some basic systems:
Free-for-all. Games default to free-for-all, and most games will be free-for-all even if they have some specific method, because most systems are sloppy enough that players won't be really aggressive about wanting to go first. The less advantage there is to going first, the more likely free-for-all is.
Free-for-all does everything bidding does, except crappily. There's nothing really wrong with that: bidding is often overkill, and free-for-all is basically zero overhead. Regardless of how you design your game, there will be a lot of free-for-all chatting at basically every moment of the game.
However, I suggest that if free-for-all serves all your game's needs, you're probably using a really boring system. All your players should be panting to be the next player to go.
Round Robin. More common in card games than tabletop RPGs, round robin simply goes around the table in a predictable order over and over. This is terrible, because not everyone has equal opinions at all times. I find that round-robinning usually means that half the players say "I pass" and the other half say, "I can't do what I wanted to any more!"
Round robin is a basic choice for more competitive games, or recursive games where the action of the last player matters hugely. However, in these situations much of the game lies in who you sit next to, so there should always be a game mechanic for switching seats and controlling turn order!
It is also not uncommon for the GM (if there is one) to interleave himself instead of simply getting to go once. Usually, giving the players five turns in a row is just begging for unbalance.
Staggered Round. This is a kind of round robin progression which has a kind of built in "fairness". Usually a staggered round means each time you go around the table, you start such that the person who went first last time goes last this time. This isn't the only option: another fun option is the "ping-pong" method where you go around the table, "bounce off" the GM, and go around in the opposite direction. This creates a kind of tit for tat mechanic which keeps players sitting "downwind" safer. There are other kinds of mechanics for this sort of thing, too.
Again, however, where you sit is tremendously important, so changing seats should be part of the gameplay. However, controlling turn order is less important, so it'll generally be more transparent as to who will go in what order. While, you know, still being something vaguely resembling fair. So even though the rules seem more complex on the surface, staggered round is usually better for newbies than the round robin, because the round robin is either boring (if you can't change turn order) or surprising (if you can).
Initiative. Many RPGs force players to go in a specific order that has nothing to do with where they sit. This is usually an initiative system: the faster their character, the sooner in the turn order they get to go. It also allows the GMs to interject NPC turns in a meaningful way rather than an arbitrary one.
The downside is that it is not a very juicy mechanic. It is dusty dry, either largely luck or almost entirely predetermined by character creation. There is not a moment-to-moment feeling of staking your resources on turn order.
"What the hell is he talking about?"
Try a different turn order type, you'll see what I'm talking about. Initiative is simply the dryest form of controlling player action, short of round robin with no way to control turn order. Nobody really gets excited about initiative. At least, nobody after they've played any system using any other method.
Simul. Some games try for simultaneous play. This is good for games which are potentially very competitive, but for cooperative games it makes teamwork needlessly cloudy and difficult. Also, while some people take their turns absurdly slow, those same people take ages to try to figure out what to do simul. Simply put, players love to build on what other players have done, and this muddies that equation.
Plus, unless you have at least eight players, you won't be saving any time going simul. Trust me, I dedicated a good chunk of a summer to it. Using a time clock to force timely moves will alienate your players faster than you can say "".
Bidding. Bidding is when players spend resources to determine turn order. For example, if everyone has ten chits and gets two more chits a round. Everyone bids chits and play goes from highest bid to lowest bid. Bids are either simul with a lot of tabletalk or in some other turn order with minimal tabletalk. (Competitive games are, of course, simul with no tabletalk.)
This lets players decide how much they want to go first (or last, if that's better). And, of course, it doesn't have to be chits they can only use for initiative: you can have a kind of "action point" system. They spend action points, they get to go first but have less action points to spend on actually doing stuff...
If bidding is going to slow you down too much, you can "front load" it - bid once for an entire sequence instead of rebidding each round. Also, you may want to read about the controlled random method if you like bidding but it seems too slow.
In order for bidding to be a viable system, turn order has to really matter.
Wounded Puppies. Some systems determine who goes in what order based on how well they did last round. Some systems make the winners of the last round have a better place in the turn order, but I would suggest the opposite: negative feedback loops are almost always better than positive feedback loops.
How you measure "how well they did" will determine the entire flavor of your system. If people who get injured more get to go first, it will feel like a very adrenal, high-tension game. If people who are closer to the enemy get to go first, it will tilt the entire play style of ranged characters and melee characters. It doesn't even have to be last round: it can be determined by a day's activities or somesuch.
This system really says something. If you want to give your game a message, this is a really easy way to do it. Just don't get preachy.
Controlled-Random. This method gives the players some control over their initiative but introduces a heavy random element. Usually, it's a simplified bidding system where what you can bid isn't so easily divisible.
For example, you might have a hand of three cards. You can play one as your initiative. (Maybe the others are used for hit and damage, or maybe initiative in the following rounds.) While there is a big random element, you have a level of control. Especially if you can trade cards.
There are many methods to do controlled random. That's a post in and of itself. But the basic idea creates a very strong, tense situation and creates a very good atmosphere. I highly recommend it.
Reverse Bidding. Reverse bidding is another handy shortcut. Basically, you have a list of numbers from 1 - 20. The players all get to choose any number they please, with the better numbers going first. Then the GM gets to choose a number or numbers.
The catch here is that every turn, each gets a token put on it. What that token represents depends on what the game is - maybe it's an XP boost, maybe it's a story token, whatever. Whenever a player picks a number, they get the tokens. (The GM does not take the tokens unless he only gets one turn, for balance purposes).
This is a specific example of a general idea. The idea being that you let players choose to act inefficiently in turn order in exchange for an advantage in something else. This is a very strong general-purpose method that can be applied to almost any facet of the game, even though this example is specifically for turn order.
Complex Phases. Not really a "type", this is really a mixing of types. The idea here is that your turn order varies dramatically depending on the phase. Maybe you bid on the movement phase, go round robin in the action phase, and go wounded puppy in the recovery phase. Maybe you can be a huge bastard and actually make the types have turns that players somehow choose at the beginning of each round, so they have to decide whether they want to do round robin for the first phase or the fifth phase.
Complex phases create a very complex interconnection between the players and the way actions reverberate through the game. While unsuitable for beginners, it can provide endless fascination for more advanced players.
Because a turn will typically have at least two (usually three) complex phases in it, these are not suitable for "fast" turns like rounds of combat. Instead, these are more suitable for huge chunks of battle, or political maneuvering, etc.
GM Fiat. Don't you do it. Just don't you do it.
How many of these methods have you used in an RPG? Have you used any I didn't think of? Did you really read that whole freaking thing?
It's your turn now.
Many people are very satisfied running their favorite system. "What I'm trying to accomplish with this game is to give my friends a good time! So I use a system I know we all enjoy!"
I say: you're really missing out! Oddball systems offer very different dynamics, and the fact that these are short games (even six sessions isn't really very long) means that even if they're terribly unbalanced, it's not going to be un-fun. Of course, not every oddball system is worth playing, and what you want to do with your game will never precisely fit any given system.
That's why I always roll my own.
So, for those of you who might want to try your hand at something deeper than picking a monster out of the manual, I'm planning on writing a set of articles on how to make your own systems. To find all of them, do a keyword search for "make your own" (link at bottom of essay).
This essay?
Turn order.
Turn order is a huge part of how your game feels. Here are some basic systems:
Free-for-all. Games default to free-for-all, and most games will be free-for-all even if they have some specific method, because most systems are sloppy enough that players won't be really aggressive about wanting to go first. The less advantage there is to going first, the more likely free-for-all is.
Free-for-all does everything bidding does, except crappily. There's nothing really wrong with that: bidding is often overkill, and free-for-all is basically zero overhead. Regardless of how you design your game, there will be a lot of free-for-all chatting at basically every moment of the game.
However, I suggest that if free-for-all serves all your game's needs, you're probably using a really boring system. All your players should be panting to be the next player to go.
Round Robin. More common in card games than tabletop RPGs, round robin simply goes around the table in a predictable order over and over. This is terrible, because not everyone has equal opinions at all times. I find that round-robinning usually means that half the players say "I pass" and the other half say, "I can't do what I wanted to any more!"
Round robin is a basic choice for more competitive games, or recursive games where the action of the last player matters hugely. However, in these situations much of the game lies in who you sit next to, so there should always be a game mechanic for switching seats and controlling turn order!
It is also not uncommon for the GM (if there is one) to interleave himself instead of simply getting to go once. Usually, giving the players five turns in a row is just begging for unbalance.
Staggered Round. This is a kind of round robin progression which has a kind of built in "fairness". Usually a staggered round means each time you go around the table, you start such that the person who went first last time goes last this time. This isn't the only option: another fun option is the "ping-pong" method where you go around the table, "bounce off" the GM, and go around in the opposite direction. This creates a kind of tit for tat mechanic which keeps players sitting "downwind" safer. There are other kinds of mechanics for this sort of thing, too.
Again, however, where you sit is tremendously important, so changing seats should be part of the gameplay. However, controlling turn order is less important, so it'll generally be more transparent as to who will go in what order. While, you know, still being something vaguely resembling fair. So even though the rules seem more complex on the surface, staggered round is usually better for newbies than the round robin, because the round robin is either boring (if you can't change turn order) or surprising (if you can).
Initiative. Many RPGs force players to go in a specific order that has nothing to do with where they sit. This is usually an initiative system: the faster their character, the sooner in the turn order they get to go. It also allows the GMs to interject NPC turns in a meaningful way rather than an arbitrary one.
The downside is that it is not a very juicy mechanic. It is dusty dry, either largely luck or almost entirely predetermined by character creation. There is not a moment-to-moment feeling of staking your resources on turn order.
"What the hell is he talking about?"
Try a different turn order type, you'll see what I'm talking about. Initiative is simply the dryest form of controlling player action, short of round robin with no way to control turn order. Nobody really gets excited about initiative. At least, nobody after they've played any system using any other method.
Simul. Some games try for simultaneous play. This is good for games which are potentially very competitive, but for cooperative games it makes teamwork needlessly cloudy and difficult. Also, while some people take their turns absurdly slow, those same people take ages to try to figure out what to do simul. Simply put, players love to build on what other players have done, and this muddies that equation.
Plus, unless you have at least eight players, you won't be saving any time going simul. Trust me, I dedicated a good chunk of a summer to it. Using a time clock to force timely moves will alienate your players faster than you can say "".
Bidding. Bidding is when players spend resources to determine turn order. For example, if everyone has ten chits and gets two more chits a round. Everyone bids chits and play goes from highest bid to lowest bid. Bids are either simul with a lot of tabletalk or in some other turn order with minimal tabletalk. (Competitive games are, of course, simul with no tabletalk.)
This lets players decide how much they want to go first (or last, if that's better). And, of course, it doesn't have to be chits they can only use for initiative: you can have a kind of "action point" system. They spend action points, they get to go first but have less action points to spend on actually doing stuff...
If bidding is going to slow you down too much, you can "front load" it - bid once for an entire sequence instead of rebidding each round. Also, you may want to read about the controlled random method if you like bidding but it seems too slow.
In order for bidding to be a viable system, turn order has to really matter.
Wounded Puppies. Some systems determine who goes in what order based on how well they did last round. Some systems make the winners of the last round have a better place in the turn order, but I would suggest the opposite: negative feedback loops are almost always better than positive feedback loops.
How you measure "how well they did" will determine the entire flavor of your system. If people who get injured more get to go first, it will feel like a very adrenal, high-tension game. If people who are closer to the enemy get to go first, it will tilt the entire play style of ranged characters and melee characters. It doesn't even have to be last round: it can be determined by a day's activities or somesuch.
This system really says something. If you want to give your game a message, this is a really easy way to do it. Just don't get preachy.
Controlled-Random. This method gives the players some control over their initiative but introduces a heavy random element. Usually, it's a simplified bidding system where what you can bid isn't so easily divisible.
For example, you might have a hand of three cards. You can play one as your initiative. (Maybe the others are used for hit and damage, or maybe initiative in the following rounds.) While there is a big random element, you have a level of control. Especially if you can trade cards.
There are many methods to do controlled random. That's a post in and of itself. But the basic idea creates a very strong, tense situation and creates a very good atmosphere. I highly recommend it.
Reverse Bidding. Reverse bidding is another handy shortcut. Basically, you have a list of numbers from 1 - 20. The players all get to choose any number they please, with the better numbers going first. Then the GM gets to choose a number or numbers.
The catch here is that every turn, each gets a token put on it. What that token represents depends on what the game is - maybe it's an XP boost, maybe it's a story token, whatever. Whenever a player picks a number, they get the tokens. (The GM does not take the tokens unless he only gets one turn, for balance purposes).
This is a specific example of a general idea. The idea being that you let players choose to act inefficiently in turn order in exchange for an advantage in something else. This is a very strong general-purpose method that can be applied to almost any facet of the game, even though this example is specifically for turn order.
Complex Phases. Not really a "type", this is really a mixing of types. The idea here is that your turn order varies dramatically depending on the phase. Maybe you bid on the movement phase, go round robin in the action phase, and go wounded puppy in the recovery phase. Maybe you can be a huge bastard and actually make the types have turns that players somehow choose at the beginning of each round, so they have to decide whether they want to do round robin for the first phase or the fifth phase.
Complex phases create a very complex interconnection between the players and the way actions reverberate through the game. While unsuitable for beginners, it can provide endless fascination for more advanced players.
Because a turn will typically have at least two (usually three) complex phases in it, these are not suitable for "fast" turns like rounds of combat. Instead, these are more suitable for huge chunks of battle, or political maneuvering, etc.
GM Fiat. Don't you do it. Just don't you do it.
How many of these methods have you used in an RPG? Have you used any I didn't think of? Did you really read that whole freaking thing?
It's your turn now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)