A small farewell

I'm not a big fan of the D20-system, and I never played original DnD. I do, however, recognize that Gary Gygax was one of the pioneers in a hobby that I have loved for more than 20 years.

My thoughts go to his family and friends. He will be missed!

Slight interface change in Mutants and Masterminds

In the Green Ronin game Mutants and Masterminds, you buy your stats and modifiers with points. This includes your Attack Bonus, which is bought independently of your stats.

Each level of Attack Bonus costs 2 points, and encompases both Melee and Ranged combat.

Later on, when you are buying feats, it's also possible to buy a particular feat that lets you add 1 to either melee och ranged combat. This feat can be bought multiple times, adding one to either combat type per level. Each feat costs one point.

From a user standpoint, this means that if I, for instance, want to build an archer I might reason that an archer needs to have a good Attack bonus, since he is a good shooter. So, I spend points on getting a high general attack bonus.

What I should have done instead is get a low attack bonus and then increase the ranged attack bonus with the feat. This way of thinking, however, isn't clear in the book.

Consider this instead:

Attack bonus is bought for Melee and Ranged attacks separately. Each level costs 1 point. The feat that lets you specialize is removed entirely (since it's no longer needed).

The effect of this gamewise is exactly the same as the original rules, but it's much easier for me as a player (especially as an inexperienced player) to think about how to build my character. Using the example above, I it feels natural to get a slightly lower melee attack bonus and a higher ranged attack bonus.

This changed doesn't change the behaviour or the implementation of the system, but it does change my perception of it, making this a change at the User Interface/ Presentation level that I would say makes the game easier.

ORE forcing me to move on

Ore and the Layer system - The demise of layers?

The next system that I set out to analyse was the ORE-system. It's a system first introduced (from what I know) in the game Godlike, and from there it have evolved to Wild Talents, Reign, Nemesis and a number of smaller games like Star ORE.

It is a pool-based system, where the core idea is to roll a number of D10's and look for pairs or sets of the same number. The reading uses both the number of dice with the same number (the width) and the number rolled (height).

An attribute or a pool has three types of dice. First there is a normal die, which is rolled as usual. Then there is the hard die, which is always considered a 10. Finally there is the wiggle die, which you can place on any number you want after you have rolled the normal dice.

Example of a simple combat round: Sir Runalot and sir Prise is in a combat. Runalot has an attack pool of 4d+1hd (due to his magical sword). Sir Prise, being a lesser skilled fighter, but blessed by the gods, has an attack Pool of 3d+1wd.

Runalot has a higher Sense than Prise, therefore Prise declares his attack first. He wants to bash Runalot with his sword. Runalot, not being a particulary imaginative fella, does the same, and hopes that he hits Prise first.

They both roll their die-pools. Runalot rolls 4,5,2 and 1. With his hard die added, the reulst is still just 4,5,2,1 and 10. No sets there. Prise, on the other hand, rolls 3,2 and 6. He then sets his wiggle die to 6, giving a final result of 3,2,6 and 6. This is a set of two sixes (width: 2, Height 6).

This means that Prise initiative is 2, he hits at hit location 6 (The right arm) and deals damage of 4 (the width + the weapons damage modifier of 2).

And so, combat continues.

I won't go into all the details of the system (there are a number of them) or all the interesting side effects (among other thins, the system generates an interesting bell curve that can be used by smart fighters to change the odds).

However, this system is very hard to divide into the layer model. The flow of the modell goes from behaviour to implementation of behaviour to presentation/interface, which I'll write as behaviour -> implementation -> presentation/interface

With ORE, I'd say that the flow is behaviour <- implementation -> presentation/ interface.

If I compare with the D20-system, I can describe the general behaviour, and then make that happen with a number of systems. With the ORE-system, however, I'd have a very hard time to come up with a system that has the same effects.

One example: In the D20-system, the type of die doesn't change gameplay much apart from having to add bigger or smaller numbers and, to some extent, the usage of critical hits. In the ORE-system, the die-type has an impact on how the bell-curve looks. Or to put it in another way: If you change the D20 to a D100 or a D10 in the D20-system, you can do a straight multiply by 5 or division by 2 on all numbers and you can go on playing with no change at all. However, if you go from D10's to D20's in the ORE-system, you can't make a straight conversion without changing the odds and the behaviour of the game significantly. As can be seen by the pictures a die pool of 5 d10's has a 70% chance of getting a match, while a set of 10 D20's has more than 90% chance of getting a set.

What does all this result in? It seems like the first model isn't generic enough to encompass all systems in an elegant way. The different effect of the type of dice, for instance imply that in some systems, the type of dice is merely an interface-aspect, and in some it's an integral part of how the game behaves.

The way I want to deal with this is to make the model more generic without making it to abstract or complex. Instead if trying to find one solution at the moment, I'll form a number different models that are related to this first one, but takes it in different directions. My starting points will be:

• Adding Arrows of Influence. Assuming that all the "layers" can influence each other, I'll not place them in a linear progression but rather in a triangle with arrows pointing to and from all the corners. A certain aspect of the game can belong to either of the three corners, but is influenced by or influences aspects in the other two to a smaller or bigger degree
• Using the three layers as dimensions or attributes. For instance, the D20 in the D20-system is heavy on interface/presentation, but low on implementation and behaviour (since it can easily be exchanged). Saying that it's a linear system is heavy on behaviour but medium on implementation and low on interface/ presentation. Going from a D20 to 3D6, for instance, changes the behaviour of the system quite a lot, the implementation doesn't change that much and to most people rolling a D20 or 3D6 is roughly the same.

More will be added further along the way.

These different methods will be developed and looked at in detail in later posts.
Until then, happy gaming!

Post-campaign thoughs on what could be better

Recently I ran the last session in a 10 session campaign of mage. After that I sat down and tried to evaluate what went good and what didn't. I won't write down the long essay I wrote, but I will share the points I found out.

The situations me and my players found most enjoyable was the pointed at the following:

• Things should be personal. When it's possible to relate to the other "actors" in the module, it is more engaging.

• Drama! This shouldn't be confused with people walking through doors and looking through curtains but rather that things should matter. There is something at stake.

• Intense moments where things come together. This isn't just a random encounter, but rather an encounter where things matter with something you have a relation to. Combined with pacing and flow of the game.

How to make this possible then?

There are a number of factors I think are important to this, and I did change my workflow as the campaign progressed (mostly towards the final sessions). First of all, I increased my prepping time, especially my focused prep time. Trying to figure things out while walking home from work wasn't enough, but spending the same amount of time actually writing non-stop the same amount of time did give me more material and a more solid background. When writing this background, I tried to focus more and more on other actors, rather than magical secrets or strange events (without leaving those ones out).

Another important thing was to present a situation (not necessarily THE situation) within five minutes. From that situation there should be a trigger to the next and so on. The overall premises should be clear. From there, it's easier as both players and GM to improvise and go on with the story.

What to take with me?

For the next time I run a game, I will make a short check list and try to keep these things in mind:

• More focused prep time
• Start out with a bang and give a basic framework within a couple of minutes
• Focus on persons and things the players can relate to.
• Add drama and intensity. Make choices and encounters matter

There are lots of other little details here, but I think that you can add most game- and setting templats to these little (almost to simple) points. This would apply to a fantasy game as well as a super hero game as well as a mystery game.

Use the character sheet

Driving Blind - A quick trick for Fate (and other system) GMs

I have long been a proponent of the thesis that the character sheet is the best indicator of what kind of game the player want's to play. The Driving Blind-blog takes it one step further, and gives the advice that you should put the characters in an Excell-sheet (which can be easy or hard depending on the system) and highlight the skills that the characters excell at (pun is.. well.. semi-intended). This gives you a good graphical representation on where you should allow the characters to shine.