I’m not entirely sure about the Armour system, but I think this might be what I want.

Dexterity Roll

Characters with above average dexterity can either roll a d4 vs opponents combat roll to block their attack, or increase any existing armour roll dice by one step.

Special Weapons & Shields

Shield: Roll a d6 vs opponents combat roll to block their attack

Two Weapons: May choose to reroll Weapon Roll using dice for 2nd weapon

Two Handed: May choose to reroll a Combat roll of 1

Longer Weapon: On the 1st round your combat roll also succeeds if it matches opponents combat roll

Combat Maneuvers

Assist Ally: Defensive Fighting Blocks and Shield Rolls can be given to a nearby ally

Charge: use the next higher dice size (e.g. a d6 becomes a d8) for Weapon Roll with 2 handed weapon

Shield Bash: Use your shield as a second weapon (d4) instead of blocking attacks

Special Maneuvers: Roll Combat dice normally, opponent can ‘accept’ special maneuver conditions or take Weapon Roll as normal.

Weapon Roll

Characters who succeed with their Attack roll next make a Weapon Roll.

Characters can use up to the limit for their class (d4,d6,d8) on a Weapon Roll
Weapons also have a maximum dice size that can be used for Weapon Rolls

Two-handed weapons gain one additional dice step beyond Class and Weapon limits
Some conditions, effects, magic and maneuvers (e.g. charge) may allow additional steps

Armour Roll

If an armour roll is higher than the weapon roll, the attack is blocked.

Characters can use up to the limit for their class (d4,d6,d8) on an Armour Roll
Armour also has a maximum dice size that can be used for Armour Rolls

Types of Armour
Light: d4
Medium: d6, -1 step for Speed Rolls
Heavy: d8, -2 steps for Speed Rolls

Some weapons (Axe, Mace) or situations can reduce the size of the Armour Dice.

The defender can choose to reduce Weapon + Armour Dice on a 1-for-1 basic to a minimum of d4 for the Weapon Roll

As with the previous post I’d love to know what you think.

I recognize that I’m trading some of the balance and granularity of results by considering moving from a d20 + modifiers type system, and there may be some unexpected ways this could interact with other parts of the game… but I’m okay with seeing how it goes.

This system is based around these things I like:

• Reducing down time while players wait for their turn
• Reducing post dice-roll math
• Wider variety of dice getting used more frequently
• Character fighting skill having more effect on defence

Please keep in mind that we all have differing preferences, and this isn’t meant to be seen as the “one true system” but rather something I think looks like fun.

Basic Combat Roll

Each combatant rolls one dice for their attack.
d4 – Magician, Scholar, Traveler
d6 – Fighting Man, Monk, Ranger

Rolls of 4 or higher succeed and the player rolls to see how much stamina their opponent loses from combat that round.

Aggressive and Defensive Fighting

Characters can normally choose to fight either aggressively or defensively. However some situations and conditions may only allow them to use their basic combat roll.

Aggressive

A character fighting aggressively uses the next higher dice size (e.g. a d6 becomes a d8) when making their attack roll.

Defensive

A character fighting defensively blocks one opponents attack that is lower than their own attack roll.

Combat Roll Modifiers

The dice rolled for combat may be modified up or down in size (e.g. a d6 becomes a d4) based on the following.

Fatigued : -1 dice step. Wounded characters are also considered to be fatigued.
Higher Level : +1 dice step per level higher than opponents (highest level opponent if fighting against a group)
Multiple Opponents : -1 dice step per additional opponent to use Defensive Fighting against.

Okay, that’s all for now. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the basics before I post more about how special maneuvers, weapons, armour, shields, dexterity and stamina would fit into this system.

The majority of roleplaying game systems I’ve played use a game mechanic for resolving combat that’s built on the general rules presented in the original Dungeons & Dragons. Combatants take turns rolling “to hit” their opponent, if they roll higher than the defence value of their opponent they score a “hit”, they roll to see how much “damage” they do, this is subtracted from the defenders “hit points”.

This system of taking turns trying to hit and damage each other was adopted from a naval war-game (I can’t recall the name at the moment), where I think the mechanic nicely emulates the feel of opposing battleships exchanging cannon fire and their armour gradually getting worn down until one ship or the other is sunk.

Of course with a more abstract game you can explain any number of things happening here as you roll the dice. 20 men facing off against 20 orcs. A knight and an Ogre battling. A dance-off where flashy moves reduce your opponents confidence… pretty much whatever you like. It’s a bit like how a chess set can have medieval figures or the characters from The Simpsons.

So generally it’s a good, simple system, and has stood the test of time as something that works well in a game. Particularly an RPG.

All the same… I still wonder if it’s the best model for all types of combat resolution. Even if we change the terms (rolling to attack, stamina loss etc) the back and forth of each side taking their turn to attack doesn’t feel much like how people actually fight. Your hit points and armour also matter more in resisting your opponents attacks than your own fighting skill – which has always made the lightly armoured fighting man a challenge to model in an RPG. In a setting like the Weird West where people generally don’t wear armour, I’m really not sure it’s the best system.

What I’ve been considering is changing the d20 vs AC attack roll to opposed dice rolls between the combatants with the highest roller being victorious. Rather than make you harder to hit, armour reduces the amount of stamina you lose in combat. The opposed dice rolls would use the dice step mechanic I’ve posted about before.

I’m not sure what’s holding me back from changing things. Maybe it’s that if I change the combat system we’ll have crossed the threshold of “modified D&D” to “new game”. I figured we’d get there eventually, but I’m still wondering if I want to do that yet…

This got me thinking about why game designers choose to add elements to a game. What makes someone decide adding some new rule, system, or component will make a game better than it currently is?

Here are some of my thoughts on the topic. Despite the format, I’m sure there are other reasons I haven’t included and I look forward to hearing your ideas as well.

The first two points are the most general:

Art – the designer feels it makes a good game
Business – the publisher feels it will make more money

and it’s at the highest level where I think the distinction between Hobby and Industry needs to be recognized. Something might be a great idea for the Art of game design, but a lousy business idea. Or it might be a great idea to make money (see yesterday’s post) but of dubious artistic value.

The next four are the most important reasons that something should be added to a game:

Challenge – making things more difficult (single-player)
Discovery – new things are interesting
Emulation – making it feel more “real” for the genre being emulated
Fairness – making things more balanced (multi-player)

To my mind these are all very good reasons for something to be added to a game. The rest of the list are reasons of perhaps questionable value that explain why someone would choose to add something to a game.

Getting Started – make it more appealing to new players
Habitual Play – make players more inclined to continue playing on a regular basis
Interest in Hobby – the game introduces players to similar games
Jokes – things the designers added because they thought they were amusing
Killing Time – things that stretch out the gameplay to take longer than needed
League Play – make the game compatible with organized gaming leagues
Monetization – elements that offer more opportunity to sell things to consumer/players
Novelty – something is added to make the game seem different from others
Orderly – things are added to balance number of choices, even if unnecessary
Price – elements are added to the game to justify an increased price
Quantity – similar to Price, the amount of rules is expanded to pad out a page count
Request – someone asks for something to be added, whether or not it makes sense
Sales – mechanics or elements are added based on what other games have sold well
Tradition – adding in unnecessary elements because “they’re always in games like this”
User Expectation – copying features from similar games to make it “familiar” to players
Visual Appeal – mechanics are added to justify adding components with visual appeal
Work – hard working game designers should produce more rules, not less… right?
Xenophobia – Uh… fear of… new ideas. (Don’t you judge me! Did you want Xylophone?)
Y, Generation – “kids today like X, so we should but X in the game”, even if unnecessary
Zeal – designer gets caught up in adding game mechanics and wants to add more

Are any of that last set important reasons for something to be added to a game? What if business success wasn’t a consideration – would they still be important?

Are there other reasons people add things to a game?

This seemed like a reasonable approach to take, after all a lot of people who’re playing a D&Desque MMORPGs might enjoy a D&D RPG as well. Doing things to make the game more familiar to someone with a background in playing online games would seem like a good idea.

The trends does seem to be taking game settings or design patterns from the screen and bringing them to the tabletop. Bioware released it’s new MMO alongside a pen-and-paper version by Green Ronin.

But while I generally think game designers should look at other types of games and think about lessons they can learn from them, I also think game players should be cautious about what lessons the designers and publishers are learning and what affect their being added to a game might have.

I’m not sure when the world went topsy turvy, but when I was a kid Cracked Magazine was more about cheap laughs than thought provoking articles. Now that we’re all living in the Future, Cracked.com has been publishing a number of rather good articles. The most recent one to catch my attention is about Ways Video Games Are Designed to Get You Addicted. This is a great article for anyone interested in game design.

This isn’t the “so much fun, I want to keep playing” sort of addiction – this is about getting you addicted to repetitive activities that aren’t really that much fun. The kind of addiction that for some people can actually be damaging, or even life destroying.

Gaming has changed. It used to be that once they sold us a $50 game, they didn’t particularly care how long we played. The big thing was making sure we liked it enough to buy the next one. But the industry is moving toward subscription-based games like MMO’s that need the subject to keep playing–and paying–until the sun goes supernova.

Now, there’s no way they can create enough exploration or story to keep you playing for thousands of hours, so they had to change the mechanics of the game, so players would instead keep doing the same actions over and over and over, whether they liked it or not. So game developers turned to Skinner’s techniques.

This is a big source of controversy in the world of game design right now. Braid creator Jonathan Blow said Skinnerian game mechanics are a form of “exploitation.” It’s not that these games can’t be fun. But they’re designed to keep gamers subscribing during the periods when it’s not fun, locking them into a repetitive slog using Skinner’s manipulative system of carefully scheduled rewards.

Some of the elements from addictive MMOs that could find their way across to tabletop gaming include:

• subscription models over stand-alone games
• encouraging obsessive collecting
• variable ratio rewards
• easy initial rewards and levelling
• eliminating stopping points
• play it or lose it

Which might seem like familiar game patterns to people who spend their time with FarmVille or WoW, but were introduced into those games for reasons other than fun in and of itself.

Should a publisher want to include those things in a tabletop game? More importantly, is that something current tabletop gaming hobbyists should want?

Erik Mona from Paizo Publishing recently gave a talk on Pen & Paper Gaming in the 21st Century. He focused a lot on technology and bringing together Pen & Paper with the world of digital gaming. I agree that there’s a lot of potential here, and I’m certainly not opposed to things like iPhone apps for Pen & Paper games, but I’m thinking we need to start giving more thought to what elements from other media like MMOs we want to add to our tabletop games – particularly if they’re of the DIY variety and we’re building them ourselves.  Game mechanics that encourage harmful addictive behaviour isn’t something I’d want to add to my own games that I play with my friends.

What are your thoughts? Is this the way tabletop gaming will inevitably move in the 21st century? Are Pen & Paper gamers immune to the addictive elements of MMO gameplay if it’s taken out of the original context?

It was a lot of fun seeing the different entries come in, and the wide variety of approaches to a “Dungeon” adventure that they represent. Some people focused on Traps & Tricks, others interesting NPCS, and some on challenging combat scenarios. We had entries for a range of different types of games from “Old School” D&D and Tunnels & Trolls, to 4th Edition D&D.

With more space to focus on describing a single room it was easier to get a sense for the entrants approaches to running a dungeon as well. Some preferred a simple situation and relied on the players and game system to make something interesting happen, while others had more customized and pre-scripted surprises to unleash on their players.

Having multiple judges was great as our individual “top 10″ choices all reflected our own unique approaches to Dungeon Adventures as well.

I think the best part of the contest was the diversity of ways people can get creative with the game and make something fun and original.

And now… here are the winners of our 2010 Design a Dungeon Room Contest!

1st Place

The Demon Fountain, by Tom Livak

2nd Place

Freamon’s Map Room, by Chris Weller

3rd Place

I Hope You Brought A Towel, by Zzarchov

Runners Up

The Goldilocks Room, by Paul Jessup
Vault of the Clay Medusa, by Scott Murray

More Awesome Entries

Chamber of the Alectromancer, by Alec Robertson
Triple Fire Trap Room, by Carter Soles
As Through Fetal Hell, by Duane O’Brien
Uushalla’s Fury, by Heron Prior
The Greenhouse Room, by James Mullen
Necromancers Workroom, by Jason Withrow
Diminutive Disciples, by Jerry C
Shrine to Tych, by Ken Breeze
Salt and a Battery Room, by Ken St. Andre
The Garrison of Bynia Min, by Knaight
The Devious Save vs. Conga Trap, by Michael Curtis
The Rotating Room of Confusion, by R.D. Bedard
Guardian of the Red Herring, by Rob Northrup
The Gold Sink, by Robert Sandlan
Kobald Den, by Shane Knysh

Download all the 2010 Dungeon Room Entries and add one to your next dungeon!

Of course the reason for today being GM’s day is that it was two years ago that Gary Gygax passed away.

In addition to all the books he wrote, which I continue to enjoy to this day, I remember that he was also light hearted poster on a couple of web forums. It was great being able to post a question about where he got the inspiration for something, or what sort of things he was interested in lately. More than just his celebrity as the creator of D&D I think it was also his continuing interest in the hobby and transition to being “just another gamer” and encouragement for people to do their own thing that I liked most.

While he’s not with us anymore I’m quite certain that if you have any sort of question about how the rules or story for your game should work he would say something along the lines of: “It’s your game. You should do whatever you’d like with it.”

A sentiment I like very much.

This is my favourite video interview with Gary Gygax where he talks a bit about his childhood experiences playing make-believe games.

Random Character Generation — No! Diceless character generation.

Character Backstory Optional, Perhaps Wasteful — Yes/No. A little is needed, a lot is not.

Focus on Player Skill, Not Character Stats — Yes! Or rather “in-game skill” rather than “pre-game skill”

Slow Leveling — No! Characters level up at the end of each game session

“Eternal” Campaign – No, Predetermined End — No! An ending is loosely planned out.

Rules and Expansions are for GM, Not Players — No! All the players should understand the rules.

GM as God of the Game — No! GM as Referee and Player.

That’s around a 20% match for James’ list. Probably a bit more or less if you asked some other blogger to come up with their own list of “what is Old School”.

And yet I still get a lot out of reading Raggi’s and others “Old School” blogs, and lots of those bloggers in turn leave comments here as well. I definitely don’t feel excluded from any sort of community. Whether or not our game matches anyone’s definition of “new school” or “old school” or “neoclassic school” really doesn’t make much difference where it counts:  are we having fun?

Yesterday I put together the first set of cards for this weekend’s Weird West game. CCG style cards are definitely not Old School. The rules are built upon the foundation of Swords & Wizardry, which is a restatement of the original ‘74 edition of Gary Gygax’s RPG. That definitely is Old School. So our game is a mash-up of new, old, private, junior-high, and reform school gaming.

My advice to anyone who wants to run 1974 D&D with superheroes and battlemats, or Exalted using Matt Finch’s “Old School Primer” would be to just go for it and have fun.  Don’t worry about whether you think your game fits into any “school”, and just focus on having fun with it.

As we continue to add content I thought it would make things easier to have a single page that links to all of the articles I’ve written about the Weird West game, as well as any of the older articles with custom rules we’re also going to be using.

The Weird West game started out with Swords and Wizardry as a reference, although as more material is added the game is drifting further from that starting point.

In addition to the material listed here, there is some not-yet-public content that will be included once the players in the game have discovered it for the first time.

• Dice-Step Mechanic
• Random Character Names
• Attributes
  • Character Attributes
  • Attribute Generation
  • Disadvantages Boosting Advantages
• Character Classes
  • Fighting Man
  • Magician
  • Monk
  • Ranger
  • Scholar
  • Traveler
• Starting Hit Points
• Equipment
• Combat
  • Combat & Initiative
  • Fighting Groups
  • Firearms
  • Aiming & Evasion
  • Unarmed Combat & Maneuvers
• Campaign
  • Desert Sun and Heat
  • Wilderness Travel

Appendix

• Bene Gesserit
• Holtzman Shield Generator
• Psionics

Probably the most popular types of dice mechanic in RPGs would be:

2) Find a target number, add modifiers, roll a dice, add modifiers, compare modified target number to modified dice roll

I’ve previously posted about some of my ideas around less math, different dice game mechanics, and in general I find the idea of changing the way the mechanic works a bit more interesting than just adjusting the target number or modifiers (aka Math). I like the idea that a player who’s character is attacking with a volley of missiles would roll a lot of dice, where as one with a single powerful canon might roll a single large dice. I think that the kind of dice, number, and way in which they’re rolled helps give a feel for the action taking place in the game world. Just the sensory experience of seeing the dice, and hearing the sound they make (lots of dice tumbling through a dice tower can sound a bit like a machine gun) help shape the way the game “feels”.

Which brings us to the Holtzman Shield Generator!

After posting about the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood the other day I’ve been listening to the Dune Soundtrack and watching some clips from the movie. One of my favourite effects from the David Lynch film was the look for the personal shields.

The shield blocks fast moving objects, like projectiles or fast strikes with melee weapons, but allows slow moving objects like air or a slow blade to penetrate. What a great concept, and interesting way to make hand-to-hand combat a relevant part of a high technology world.

The challenge is how to represent that with an interesting game mechanic. Adding a bonus to AC, or providing some sort of saving throw would be pretty straight forward, but it doesn’t feel very “special” or suggest the unique way in which the device works.

What I’ve thought up is matching “move slow” which seems counter-intuitive compared to regular combat with “roll low” which is also the opposite of what you’re normally hoping to do.

Holtzman Shield Generator
A protective field produced from Phase One of the suspensor-nullification effect  of a Holtzman generator will permit entry only to objects moving at slow speeds.

Ranged attacks do not affect an opponent with a shield.  A melee attack roll must be lower than that of the opponent with the shield or the attack is deflected.

So if two combatants have personal shields they would need to roll high enough to hit their opponent, but lower than what their opponent has rolled. This puts a skilled fighter (with a lower “to-hit” number) at a considerable advantage over their opponent.

If I were going to use this item in a game I’d add in more details about how it is affected by magic, how long it runs before needing recharging and so on.

Update

Thinking about this some more I want to add something that encourages players to pick knives over great-swords when fighting with personal shields.

I thought about making the damage roll need to be lower (as well or instead of), but that would only encourage you to not pick a larger weapon that your opponent. Instead I think a simple ‘less than X’ for damage would work best.

Holtzman Shield Generator
A protective field produced from Phase One of the suspensor-nullification effect  of a Holtzman generator will permit entry only to objects moving at slow speeds.

Ranged attacks do not affect an opponent with a shield.  A melee attack roll must be lower than that of the opponent with the shield, and they must roll 4 or less for stamina loss or the attack is deflected.

Now in addition to wanting to roll lower than your opponent with your attack, you preferably want to use a weapon that doesn’t roll higher than d4 for damage. A Knife is a better choice than a Sword which would be deflected an additional 50% of the time.

If you’re using a system where characters can use any weapon but they only roll up to a certain dice size for them (like our Weird West game), I’d have the player roll the full dice size when fighting against a personal shield user.