Building Combats: Four Guidelines

I'm sure I didn't originate all of these, but they're generally useful, so...

• It's better to use multiple opponents that one big one. And it's better to use multiple varied opponents than several the same.
• You should consider ways that the environment can affect combat - are there hazards to be avoided or to drive enemies towards? But, also, make sure to add things that players can choose to pick on to use. If there's a giant old bell lying around then the PCs might or might not make use of it, but if there isn't such a thing they obviously can't!
• You should look to change the situation in some way every few rounds. Perhaps the bad guys should change their tactics, or they get reinforcements, or something. But don't just have the two sides stand trading blows for round after round after round!
• If it becomes apparent that the PCs are going to win, and especially if it becomes apparent that it will take them a long time to achieve that, you should find an 'out' - some way to bring the combat to a conclusion quickly. Whittling through 100 hit points at a rate of 2 per attack gets old real fast!

Measuring Time

On the face of it, there's a lot about our measurements of time that aren't obvious: we do almost all of our counting these days in base-10, and yet we have twenty-four hours in a day split into two blocks of twelve, twelve months in a year, different numbers of days per month, seven days in a week, sixty minutes in an hour and sixty seconds in a minute, and so on.

Much of this is legacy stuff - we use these numbers because our ancestors used those numbers, and making a change would be so difficult as to be impossible. And it's also worth noting that efforts to construct a decimal clock have generally met with failure, because while a day can be divided any way you want, making it fit our natural patterns of wakefulness and sleep is exceptionally difficult.

But, of course, it's not just legacy stuff. Sure, we use those measures because our ancestors used them, but by and large those ancestors didn't just arbitrarily pick them either. The day, obviously, comes from the rotation of the Earth. The year, equally obviously, comes from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (These were actually observed by the rising of the Sun and the passage of the seasons, but that's the underlying reason.) The week comes about because the Moon has four phases and a cycle of just under 28 days. And then we get to sub-divisions, which are largely due to number systems used by the Egyptians and/or Sumerians. (Base-12 is thought to come from the number of finger-joints in the hand, excluding the thumb, while base-60 may well be to do with circles.)

(Obviously, there's more to it than that. This is a post on an RPG blog; it's not a comprehensive study of measurements of time!)

What this means for RPGs is that there's potentially some significant mileage for world-building in considering changing some or all of these assumptions. For example, it's very likely that creatures of the Underdark wouldn't have a concept of a 'day' or 'year' at all - they'd measure time very differently. Moving further afield, if the first major species on the planet instead had only four fingers on each hand then it's possible there would instead be eighteen 'hours' in the day, each ninety of our minutes in length. A world with two moons, or no moon at all, would likely have a very different measure of the week.

Of course, it's also worth considering the question of just how far to go here - although the natives of the world would naturally come to all these different assumptions, the game is played by people native to this world, and changing too much means you're effectively playing a game in a foreign language, to the detriment of immersion in the game. A seven-day week is nice and obvious, even if the names of the individual days are different (and the FR's 'tenday' is also suitably easy to understand); a week of six days would probably confuse. So tread carefully.

(Ultimately, my advice would be to change one or two things in big, obvious ways, and then leave the rest as-is. That way, things are recognisably different when they need to be and yet clear and obvious where they don't need to be different.)

Oh, one more thing: Apparently, humans really struggle to adjust to a different day length (for example, when on the International Space Station). So when moving the PCs to a different planet or a different plane, that's certainly something to consider...

Lessons from Literature: Sherlock Holmes

I'm going to skip the obvious lesson from literature, which is about the construction of mystery scenarios, and where Sherlock Holmes is actually a strong example of how not to do it. Instead, I think I'll talk about what Sherlock Holmes, Batman, and d'Argtanian have in common (at least until halfway through "The Three Musketeers"). Which is probably a pertinent lesson as regards the role of PCs in an RPG.

Here's the thing: in all three cases, the heroes named are extremely competent amateurs who frequently work with less capable professionals. And, crucially, in each case our hero chooses to work with the authority figure, but isn't part of the official heirarchy - meaning that at any time they could choose not to work with the professionals and could instead go off-book.

I think both of these are useful lessons as regards RPGs. Firstly, making the PCs clearly a "cut above" plays into the player-empowerment aspect of RPGs, which is always to the good. It also explains why they would be called on by those professionals - their special talents mean that they can do things the authorities cannot (and, indeed, their being unofficial also has the same advantage).

But, secondly, making the PCs outside the official heirarchy also has key advantages. It allows them greater freedom to act than if they were beholden to some official organisation with a designated superior. And it also allows for a greater variety of interactions: most of the professionals may well respect them for their talents, but there will also be plenty of scope for them to obstruct the PCs or have to be worked around, precisely because Batman doesn't carry a badge.

D&D (turn-based) combat: It's a Comic Book

I've had an epiphany. I'll come back to that.

Firstly, I'd like to take the opportunity to pass on a recommendation I once saw and was glad that I heeded - some ages ago, Monte Cook recommended "The DC Comics Guide to Writing Comics" to DMs as a useful storytelling resource. I promptly picked up a copy, and was glad I did - there's a lot of useful material there that can easily adapted covering telling stories, structuring campaigns, building mini-series, and the like.

But, of course, the book itself isn't an RPG resource, and so it's largely left to the DM to drag out any lessons from it that he can find. Which is fair enough.

I've recently been thinking more about the topic of episodic campaigns, and especially structuring a game session like a TV show, and in particular I was thinking about the structure of combat within the session - and notably how in a TV show initiative would really represent the camera moving from character to character showing their time in the spotlight. Which all seems fairly sensible.

(It also has two consequences - firstly, it's better if initiative determines the order the PCs act in only, with the NPCs being associated with a given PC and acting at the same time - though the Big Bad/named NPCs may very well have their own individual turns also. Which also suggests that 4e's model that animal companions, et al, act instead of the PC is actually also the correct one. Secondly, it suggests that the 6-second combat round D&D uses is a mockery - it should be much more fluid than that.)

But that's where I came to my epiphany, which was that I was looking in the wrong place - D&D combat, and turn-based combat systems in general, are best viewed not as seen in a TV show or movie but rather as seen in a comic book (or a TV show or movie adapted from a comic book, which are near-relations). Each character's turn is therefore a panel in the comic, and each round is a single page... mostly.

I say mostly, because there are three broad exceptions to this rule. Many comic book fights are also depicted with three large two-page spreads showing the action: one at the start to establish the shot, one at the end to show the wrecked building at the end, and (less often) one at the end to show the team of heroes all starting together being badass.

So, following on from that, I think I'd suggest:

1. Each turn, rather than each round, is considered to be about 6 seconds long.
   
2. When it is your turn, you are the spotlight character. You get to take one action, with the definition of 'action' being "something that materially affects the state of combat. So punching a guy would be an action, singing an inspiring song is an action, but just standing around picking your nose would not.
   
3. In addition to your one action, you can move up to your speed and take a reasonable number of non-actions (that is, anything that doesn't materially affect the state of combat). So opening a door, or switching weapon, or similar are all effectively free.
   
4. You're also positively encouraged to have your character say something suitably badass on your turn. It's your turn in the spotlight, after all.
   
5. Also on your turn, any associated NPCs also take their actions. In particular, any associated bad guys get to attack you. And they get to do so even if your attack reduced them to 0 hit points. Your action and theirs are considered simultaneous, so tough luck. (The only exception to this is in a surprise or ambush situation. There's no such thing as being flat-footed here!)
   
6. When it's someone else's turn, you get to move up to your speed and take a small number of non-actions. Basically, anything that doesn't require the camera to swing back over to you is fair game. You're not allowed to "say something badass" - the camera isn't on you! Assuming you're not currently grappled or otherwise overwhelmed, you can freely assist the spotlight character, again provided the camera remains on that other character and your contribution is mostly incidental.
   
7. Two characters can act together to share the spotlight if it is appropriate to do so, provided neither has acted in the current round. No more than two characters can do this.
   
8. At the start of combat, at the end of combat, and every few rounds during combat, the DM should take the time to recap the situation, paying particular attention to whatever the various PCs were doing last. In addition, at the mid-points in combat this recap should also mark some sort of change to the parameters of the combat - maybe the terrain shifts, or one side gets reinforcements, or something of that sort.

Obviously, it's very much a work in progress. But I think I'm on to something here that could prove very promising...

Proposed House Rule: Team Players and Lone Wolves

D&D is designed as a team game with clear, distinct roles. Indeed, this is deliberately so - those defined roles, and the niche protection that goes with them, means that all the players should get their chance in the spotlight, their chance to do their thing.

But... everyone loves Wolverine and everyone loves Batman, and one of the reasons people like these characters so much is that they're the cool "lone wolf" character. Very often, even when the X-Men or Justice League are doing their thing, that one character will be off pursuing his own agenda. And, sometimes, players want their characters to reflect that. (And, equally, it's not entirely unreasonable to sometimes have a character off on a solo-adventure, if Bob is the only player who shows up. Think of it as the "Iron Man" movie where the regular session is "The Avengers".)

But that niche protection works quite strongly against the use of lone-wolf characters - most difficulty levels are calibrated for a character working as part of a team, and there are a whole bunch of challenges that a lone wolf simply can't tackle. (And, indeed, it's not all that feasible to simply run the character against a lower-level adventure and expect it to compensate - the moment that character hits his first lock, the adventure may well be over!)

So, something I've been noodling over...

The Two Modes of Play

Each character can operate in one of two modes: "team player" or "lone wolf". It should be fairly obvious when he's acting in one or the other - if he's off on a solo mission or side quest, he's a lone wolf; otherwise he's a team player. (He's also a team player if he's acting as a scout or similar - he's still performing a role for the team, he's just not physically located with the team right then.)

There's no action involved in switching modes - the character's circumstances will make one or the other appropriate, and should be used accordingly.

(For ease of transition, it might be a good idea to keep two copies of the character sheet, one for each of the modes. Since the transition effectively changes every modifier used but does so in a predictable way, it's just easier to let the auto-calculating sheet take the strain.)

The Non-proficiency Bonus

Each character has a "non-proficiency bonus". This bonus is added to all rolls for things that the character is not proficient in.

So...

Team Players

When acting as a team player, the character functions exactly as he does now: his Proficiency Bonus is set by his level and is added to all the things he's proficient in; his Non-proficiency Bonus is +0 and so can be ignored.

The one change I would suggest to the way the game plays is to significantly expand the range of things that can be achieved only by a proficient character - when in team player mode, a character can pick a lock only if he's proficient in thieves' tools. That's just about enhancing niche protection - the Rogue picks the locks; the Fighter fights.

Lone Wolves

When acting as a lone wolf, the character functions slightly differently: his Proficiency Bonus is reduced by 1, and is added to all the things he's proficient in; his Non-proficiency Bonus is half of his (reduced) Proficiency Bonus (rounded down), and is added to everything else. And in this mode there are no tasks that are "proficient only" - the character can at least attempt to pick that lock!

(The reason the proficiency bonus is reduced is to avoid the temptation for players to argue they should always be in "lone wolf" mode - if you're in a team, you're better off with the higher bonus. If you want a justification, the character has less to worry about and so can be better focussed on his specialities.)

One More Thing: Hit Dice in Solo Play

When playing in "lone wolf" mode, I'm inclined to suggest that characters should have double the normal hit dice, thus allowing them to heal well in the absence of a Cleric. However, I'm further inclined to suggest that this should really only be for solo adventures, and not for those cases where Batman peels off from the Justice League for his side mission only to rejoin them for the final showdown. So if Bob is the only player to turn up, he gets the extra hit dice; if Bob has his character go off on his own, he doesn't.

Anyway, that's that. For the moment, it's just an idea, though.