New Campaign Woes

I'm starting a new campaign, which means I need to generate my usual array of documentation, website, and other assorted nonsense. Which is actually quite good fun.

However, I rapidly ran into difficulties when it came time to write up the house rules document. See, I wanted to allow various things from the supplements, but at each step I found I wanted to add just a little more, and then some more, and then a bit more, and...

The problem is that I don't believe the game works terribly well with too many house rules, and since I very rarely use supplementary rules as written, I have to be wary not to totally bamboozle the players.

See, I initially wanted to use the Expanded Psionics Handbook. This then led me on to Sandstorm (for a desert game), Defence Bonuses ('cos they're cool, and for a desert game), and Swashbucklers ('cos they're cool).

However, the setting is Forgotten Realms, so I had to make a decision on races, and felt I might add some, from Sandstorm and the XPH mostly. So I thought I'd do that.

Of course, you don't want to use Defence Bonuses from Unearthed Arcana without also using the other really cool parts of UA: weapon groups and paragon levels. And then there's the magic ratings - the closest we've come to an actual fix for the multiclass spellcaster problem.

Using weapon groups means you need to rewrite a bunch of feats, so why not also fix metamagic? Oh, and Combat Casting. Plus, you might as well throw in Exotic Armour (from Arcana Evolved), because that's a really great idea.

If you're using Swashbucklers, let's see if any of the other classes from the Complete books are worth having. Well, yes, the Warmage, Scout, Spellthief and Favoured Soul are all excellent. The Warlock is also good, but requires a tad more work that I think it's worth. The Hexblade is non-good, which means I don't want to use it, and the others are from Oriental Adventures, so don't really fit.

And so it goes on. Individually, these are all pretty good ideas. Together, they would make for an unwieldy document for what should be a fairly simple game. So, I'll add them to the file of things I would change for the next edition, and restrict myself to a very few good things:

Swashbucklers, Scouts, Spellthieves, Warmages and Favoured Souls are in.
Defence Bonus is in.
The experience system is changed, although experimentally at first.

And that's it. Eight pages, as opposed to about 80.

And, again, I don't get to use Psionics. Pity, since I quite like them, but they would have just added too much complexity. Maybe next time. (Anyway, psionics work best in a setting build on the assumption that they exist. So, Eberron is better than Forgotten Realms, although still not that great.)

A dearth of sci-fi roleplaying

With the ending of the Star Wars roleplaying game, I have paused for a moment to consider sci-fi roleplaying in general. Worryingly, there is a severe lack of good, playable sci-fi games. The vast majority of games that do exist are old, poorly implemented, or incomplete.

Let's look at some of the games out there:

Flying about in ships games:

Star Wars: Still the biggest game in the field, despite being cancelled twice. Sadly, neither version was terribly good. The d6 version suffers from featuring a critical failure mechanic (a 1 on the wild die causes problems - so there's a 17% chance of screwing up royally, no matter how skilled you are?). More importantly, the implementation of Jedi and the Force left a lot to be desired as well. This doesn't hurt it as a game, and doesn't hurt it as a sci-fi game, but it hurts it really bad as a Star Wars game. Anyway, it's largely irrelevant - the game is long dead.

Star Wars d20 suffers from mechanics I have bemoaned at length here. The short version is that it doesn't do lightsaber duels at all well, and the startship combat rules suck beyond all telling, even in the revised edition. It's not a good game, never mind being a good Star Wars game. (Honestly, it's ridiculous: there are two things Star Wars needs to do to be Star Wars, and the 'Star Wars' game can't do either?)

Star Trek: Apparently, Decipher have cancelled the Star Trek RPG, which was at least the third bearing the name. It's odd - Star Trek should have been ideal for an RPG. Anyway, the only STRPG I've ever played was the ancient FASA version, a game which suffered from a bad GM and bad players. The mechanics were overcomplicated even then. I was unimpressed.

Apparently, the Last Unicorn version of the game was good, and was selling well. However, WotC bought them (to get the license), and a d20 version was mooted. At this point, the powers that be at Star Trek pulled the license, because they didn't want Star Wars and Star Trek under the control of the same people.

Babylon 5: In the words of G'Kar, "I like it". However, it suffers from the 'Dragonlance Syndrome', where the big story in the setting has been done. I'm not completely certain that the universe is really big enough for another sprawling epic (the way the Star Wars universe has become). I do think taking over the Crusade arc, or doing a Legends of the Rangers game would be cool, but neither is the focus of the game. I find this odd.

Stargate: I never got into the series, but this also seems ideal for an RPG. I believe (although I'm not certain) that the game is now out-of-print. However, of the games listed so far, this is probably the one with the most potential.

Farscape: Again, I never really got into the series. I also think this game is out of print. Sadly, I just don't see the same potential here as with Stargate.

Serenity: I've posted previously about how solid the set-up here is. This could and should make a kick-ass campaign. I haven't yet received the rulebook, so can't comment further. Watch this space for more.

Traveller: This game has so many editions, it's hard to know which is current. It's an old game, with a lot of history, and very well regarded. The only weaknesses are that it can be hard to find a game using a recognisable edition, and the fact that the universe isn't built for adventure. This is also the closest we have to a 'hard sci-fi' game, which isn't for everyone.

Cyberpunk Games:

Every game in this genre is built using assumptions about the future that are 20 years old. In some cases, this is to be expected - Shadowrun and Cyberpunk are products of the 80's after all. In the case of Cybernet, it's inexcusable. In any event, it's a major weakness in these games. As far as I'm aware, the three games I've mentioned are the big names in the field, with only Shadowrun being active in any sense (Cybernet was a one-book project from Mongoose, and Cyberpunk has been out of print for years, despite constant rumours of a new edition).

Oh, one more thing: the mechanics of Shadowrun, at least in the 3rd edition, were stupidly complex. I recall reading one passage in the combat rules that listed one exception after another, such that it was very difficult to determine what, actually, should happen. Plus, it was a dice-pool system, making combat encounters hard to balance. Hopefully, the new edition is simpler and quicker.

Other Games:

Armageddon 2089: A dark future d20 mecha game. This game has very complex mechanics, and an extremely compelling vision of future history. I like it, but would never play it.

I'm not aware of any other mecha RPGs that are currently in production.

d20 Modern/d20 Future: This is a nice game, but impossible to just pick up and use. Before running a game, you need to use which campaign modules your using, pull together some rules, FX abilities, and advanced classes, whip up a setting, and generally mess around for an age. d20 Future does cyberpunk, but with the same 20-year-old assumptions about the future as other games of the genre. d20 Future does mecha, suprisingly well, actually, in a slick Anime way, rather than a serious Armageddon 2089 way. d20 Future does flying around in spaceships, but it is saddled with the same starship combat rules as Star Wars, so might as well not bother.

The idea with d20 Modern/d20 Future was that Wizards would provide a toolkit for others to hang their settings and campaigns on. However, no-one has really seized that opportunity, perhaps because you can't actually do support for d20 Future without all manner of linguistic dodges (since a d20 product can't actually reference d20 Future by name or by page - slight mistake there by Wizards).

The Upshot:

I've listed a lot of games. However, the vast majority of them are out-of-print or badly flawed. Additionally, they're almost all licensed properties. Where is the Forgotten Realms of sci-fi? Where is our custom-built space opera setting? Where is the up-to-date cyberpunk game? Crucially, where is the adventure support?

Or is sci-fi roleplaying not worth bothering with?

The Law of Unintended Consequences (or: Why we need a new edition)

I have in the past mentioned that I dislike the Star Wars d20 rules. I have even developed an extensive set of house rules for the game that fix all the issues I have with it and bring the game more into line what I consider to be the Star Wars feel. (Found at http://www.geocities.com/delericho/Miscellany/ )

Recently, I thought of a couple of refinements to those rules that would bring the game closer to the rules as written (generally a benefit, since players are likely to have read the rulebook, but rather less likely to have read my house rules), and improve the feel of the starship combat system. One of these changes was to declare three 'tiers' of characters. First tier characters would be the PCs and the most major of NPCs (Darth Vader and the Emperor being the only two in Eps IV - VI). Second tier NPCs are all other named NPCs (from Lando, through Boba Fett, and even Greedo). Third tier NPCs are any character who doesn't even get a name.

The ruleset would restore the use of the VP/WP system, with one or two exceptions: First tier characters would be immune to critical hits. Second tier characters have the usual VP/WP array, and can suffer criticals. Third tier characters don't get VP at all - only WP. Force users do get VP, but only for the use of their force powers.

At a stroke, this eliminates a third of the house rules apart from the starship combat system. It's simple to explain, and it works. Unfortunately, it runs in to a big problem as soon as you consider armour. One of the problems with Star Wars as currently written is that armour is totally and utterly useless. The house rules fix that (since characters have HP, and armour always applies). This change elminates that, and makes armour even more useless than before. And you can't just say that armour applies to normal hits as well as criticals - a VP 'hit' actually represents a near-miss, which armour really shouldn't help against. (Although, that might be the best solution anyway, and hang the logic of it.)

All that is just waffle that exists so I can make my point, which is about unintended consequences. RPG rulesets are complex beasts, especially d20 rulesets. No-one has ever published the perfect game - every system has its flaws. Over time, a diligent publisher will produce errata or supplements to try to correct the flaws. So, we get the Mystic Theurge to patch a problem with multiclass spellcasters. Polymorph was changed about 4 times between 3.0 and 3.5.

The problem is that not all changes work, and many of them have unintended consequences, that are themselves even greater problems than existed before. A case in point is the change of armour from Defence bonus to DR between the two versions of Star Wars. This made characters very easy to hit, which means that in high-level combat virtually no critical confirmation rolls ever miss. This has the net effect that Mace Windu can be punked by Anakin on something like 15% of all attacks (with the primary attack bonus).

Now, I'm not suggesting that companies should not issue errata for their games, and neither am I suggesting that supplements are a bad thing. However, it is the case that the weight of 'fixes' can cause just as many, if not more, problems than existed in the game in the first place.

And once you get to that point, what really needs done is for someone to go back to the beginning, take the game (and its supplements) apart, and rebuild a new, clean engine to drive the game forward.

In short, we need a new edition.

Jedi purges and Paladins

It is important when running a game to consider how grim you want to make things for the PCs. It is even more important if one PC faces particular challenges than the others. When running a game set between Episodes III and IV, it is right and proper that Jedi characters should have to keep one eye over their shoulders, lest they be hunted down and killed. However, it is also important that you don't go too far in modelling this aspect of the setting. If the character cannot ever use his coolest powers or he'll immediately be gunned down by Stormtroopers, that's really no fun for anyone, least of all the player of that character.

A similar issue appears when paladins appear in D&D campaigns. Very often, the DM spends a great deal of time creating moral challenges for the player of that character, out of some desire to see them fall. If the player doesn't have his character jump through all the right hoops, he is penalised. Which sucks for that player, who probably just wants to play his character. It also sucks for the rest of the group, who really don't want the trials and tribulations of their colleague to become the focus of them game - they'd quite like a look-in occasionally.

It should be noted that the Jedi classes are designed to be balanced assuming play in an unrestricted era. The paladin class is actually balanced so that it will work just as well even if you ignore the alignment restriction entirely. In short, the GM doesn't need to go to any additional trouble to keep these characters from getting out of line.

Now, that's not to say that the paladin should never face a crisis of conscience, or that the Jedi should feel free to use his lightsaber to cut his way out of every inconvenient room. Just that these things should not be the focus of the game.

(And please note: this is a general comment, rather than about anything in any game I've played, ever. Sometimes, I just ramble on for no reason.)

Characterisation made Slightly Less Difficult

By virtue of actually paying attention in school, I managed to learn a couple of things. On of the things that I learned that has relevance to roleplaying regards characterisation. There are four ways we learn about a character in literature (or roleplaying game):

1) What they say.
2) What they do.
3) What others say about them.
4) What the author (GM) says about them.

The first two are, of course, the major sources of information. We know that Darth Vader is a bad guy because within two minutes of his appearance on screen he is seen throttling a starship pilot with his bare hands in his search for information. We know of his devotion to his "ancient religion" through the line "I find your lack of faith disturbing" (and, of course, the small matter of the Force choke that follows).

However, it's worth noting that these two are not exhaustive. At no time in episodes IV and V does Vader display any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Yet they are present (if one accepts the rather wonky Star Wars version of morality, anyway). Characters can lie about themselves, "That name no longer has any meaning for me...", or perform acts that are contrary to their natures to create a false impression (I can't think of a good Darth Vader example of this - but how about every TV show ever where the 'good guy' has pretended to be evil to get in with the "evil crew").

The third method of learning about characters is the least reliable, but it is important also. "I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father," tells us a great deal about Darth Vader, assuming of course that we know something about the Jedi, and also the BIG SECRET. We don't need to see Jabba in Episode IV to know all we need to know about him at that point: Greedo and Han tell us everything that we need to know.

The fourth method is the most reliable, but it should be used sparingly. The key here is that the author can never lie to his audience. The GM should never lie to his players. If we hear Morden telling Clark that he's going to be president (switching examples, I know), then at some later point we better not find out that it wasn't Morden at all, and that the writer just wanted to screw with us. (Or, rather, if we do find out that it wasn't Morden, there better be a damn good explanation why we heard his voice.) What this means is that if the GM tells the players, "he's a good guy", that character cannot at a later stage betray the characters, without laying out a huge road leading to that betrayal. (The GM can have an NPC tell the characters, "he's a good guy," and have that prove to be inaccurate, which is a tricky thing. It is important that players have a reasonable chance to tell which 'voice' the GM is using. NPCs can lie, GMs cannot, and nor should they deliberately try to mislead players, so no Aes Sedai obfuscation of the truth.)

(Oh, by the way, I want extra points for the use of the word 'obfuscation'.)

Now, the application of all this to roleplaying should be obvious. However, since I'm bored, here are a few thoughts:

When describing an NPC, the GM needs to be aware of which voice he's using. If he's telling the players what their PCs see, he should be using his 'GM voice'. Everything he says has to be accurate, as far as the PCs perceive it. If the NPC paladin wears spiked black armour, and comes charging out of the forest towards the PCs, a warcry on his lips, the GM can say that. However, if the NPC paladin wearing spiked black armour instead steps out of the forest limned in a halo of sunlight, the GM needs to say that. The impression it gives is totally different, but provided it is accurate, that's fine.

On the other hand, if one NPC is describing another, the GM has two characters to consider: the one doing the talking, and the one being described. The GM is providing characterisation for both, so needs to be aware of this. So, if the dirt farmer's brother was hanged on the say-so of the paladin, it is entirely appropriate for the GM to have him describe the paladin by spitting on the droppings of a passing horse and saying, "that's what I think o'that bastard." On the other hand, it is almost certainly not appropriate for the dirt farmer to explain at great length, and in the language of the court, how the paladin "resembles the fetid excretions from the deepest bowels of mine cattle."

As should be obvious from my last example, the words the GM uses are important. However, the words are important regardless of which voice the GM is using. If the PCs encounter a dirt farmer, the GM can probably characterise him more effectively by saying "you see a man dressed in homespun fabrics and dirt" than by talking at great length about the style of the man's hair, the particular pungency of the manure surrounding him, or anything else. By contrast, if the PCs are talking to a foppish nobleman, it's might well be appropriate to use words like tailored, coiffured, elegant and frightful. Basically, use the same sorts of words that that character might use in conversation: a simple man will use simple words, while a nobleman will pride himself on his erudition. (The thesaurus is your friend, but the use of lists is an even better friend.)

Finally, complex characters can be developed by showing a discrepancy between word and deed, between first impressions and later actions, and between what others say and what the GM says. Mal Reynolds in Firefly comments that "men of God make people feel guilty and judged." This is a true statement. So, in the villages where a paladin has passed, the reactions of the people may not be as universally positive as one might expect. If the paladin had a farmer's brother put to death, that farmer is likely to speak badly of the paladin, no matter of the brother's crimes. G'Kar can send a Narn ship to recover Catherine Sakai from certain death for no better reason than "why not?", and suddenly become something more than the simple villain of the piece.

Games to Write, Campaigns to Play

The big problem with every near-future game currently in existence is that they were written several years ago, or written recently with the same assumptions as those games (OGL Cybernet, I'm looking at you). The future doesn't look like it did then. If you look at something as simple as the mobile phone in these games, you see how odd those things appear.

It is also the case that the so-called cyberpunk games on the market don't actually match the source material. The cyberpunk authors wrote stories about creeping obsolence, and they were talking about their present. The games that these stories spawned seem to be nothing more than action games in a dark-future setting.

Which is a shame.

I would dearly love to see a new game, written today, using a hard-science, properly speculative version of the future as it looks today. I would also dearly love to see a 'proper' cyberpunk game, with all the grit and fire of the setting. Sadly, to play such a game, I would need to write it myself. Which is possible - all the d20 rules required exist, they just need assembled.

Another part of me, the really geeky part, would dearly love to see a Transformers d20 game. Again, all the rules required already exist - they just need assembled. (Actually, I think I'll do this - a game like that is just too much fun to leave undone.)

Finally, the game I would most love to play, or even to GM, is any game featuring 'real' characters, with proper flaws. RPGs are replete with tortured characters. However, their flaws and demons seem to exist solely as an excuse to be a really cool badass who strides through the world killing things. Vampire is most often played as "superheroes with fangs". No-one plays Wolverine - they play a Wolverine clone without the personality. I would dearly love to play a game with fully developed characters, with all the quirks and oddities of real people. Of course, such a game is system indepenent, but it relies on finding a group of players all of whom understand what is being done, and are going along with it.

Starting level in d20

The level system in d20 performs two jobs really well:

1) It gives structure to the game by giving a ready goal for players, guaging character power levels, and giving a fixed point of reference ("5th level Fighter" means something. Try describing the power level of a Brujah thug so concisely).

2) It emulates the "hero's quest" form of campaign play very well. It makes perfect sense for Frodo to leave the Shire at 1st level, and return at 12th (or higher). It likewise makes sense that Luke leaves Tattooine at 1st level and returns at 15th.

For most purposes, starting at 1st level is advised. New players will be less befuddled by the options than at higher level. Characters played since 1st level feel more 'real' than those created at higher level. And the game runs best at levels 3-12 (or thereabouts), so starting at 1st level gives the optimal game experience (2 levels to get used to the character, and then the run of good stuff).

However, starting at 1st level is not always ideal. If you want to run a "Lord of the Rings" game, you have three options:

1) The characters start at 1st level, and at the start of the book. The PCs are the hobbits, or equivalently useless characters.

2) The characters start at 1st level, many years before the start of the book. The PCs are Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, but have to adventure for several game years before they're even ready to start the 'real' campaign.

3) The PCs start at higher level.

The same issue crops up if you want to run the Trojan War, the Quest for the Holy Grail, or the like.

There are also cases where you might want to start at higher level, but not give out XP. For example, Jack Bauer doesn't noticably become any more competent between seasons of 24. If running that style of game, you probably don't want to give out XP. Likewise, if running Transformers d20 (more on this later), you'll probably want to start at a reasonable level, and then not give out any XP at all.

Finally, if you require characters to begin at 1st level, you automatically disqualify any race with a Level Adjustment. This may not be a problem - the LA rules aren't terribly good anyway. However, if you like the occasional Drow PC (or whatever), you can't do it except at higher level. (Caveat: you could give each player a 'free' LA, allowing them to play more powerful races at 1st level. However, if you do this, you won't be seeing any humans in the group, unless you somehow compensate them for their loss.)

Cancelled Sci-fi Shows: Bad for the Fans, Good for Gamers

One advantage of Firefly and Crusade being cancelled is that both of these shows then become ideal set-ups for campaigns. The GM and players are automatically on the same page as regards the concept of the campaign, the setting, and the characters, and you can just pick it up where the show ends.

Of course, you have to be willing to adopt the characters from the shows, but let's face it: if you're playing a Firefly campaign, it's probably because you want to continue the adventures of the show. Easier to do that with the characters from the show, rather than creating another band of misfits who just happen to fly around in a Firefly-class starship.

It also helps if the rulebook for the game provides stats for the characters in a balanced manner. I don't have the Serenity rulebook yet (it's on order; see my previous post), but the Crusade supplement for B5 gives the character levels as follows:

• Galen: 6th level Technomage/5th level Destroyer
• Captain Gideon: 9th level Officer
• Max Eilerson: 6th level Scientist/3rd level Xenoarchaeologist
• Dr Chambers: 7th level Scientist
• Dureena: 5th level Lurker/3rd level Master of Subtlety
• Lt Matheson: 2nd level Officer/4th level Telepath (P6)
• Trace: 1st level Lurker/5th level Worker

The thing is, while it makes sense for the Captain to be the highest level, this does not have to be so, and it doesn't make for the best campaign (d20 definately works best with a balanced party). Simply adjusting the levels slightly gives a much better balance to the whole. Note: Galen doesn't need changed. He probably works best as an NPC anyway.

Actually, Crusade is a particularly good example. The sourcebook contains synopses for two unfilmed episodes, both which seemed particularly strong. These, of course, provide two excellent adventures to ease you into the campaign.

(I should also probably note that, while Enterprise and Farscape were both cancelled, neither is really ideal for a continuation in this manner. After a little while, a show builds up a bit too much mythology to make 'stepping in' comfortable. Besides, at least in the case of Enterprise, it would probably be more fulfilling to take on the roles of a crew of a different ship anyway.)

Mail Order Woes

There is no FLGS in Yeovil. There is a games store, but the selection is rubbish, and by all accounts the service isn't exactly friendly. There is a game store in Taunton, at which the assistant seemed quite reasonable on Saturday. However, again, the selection wasn't good enough to accept the pain associated with going that far. Also, as with all bricks-and-mortar stores, the prices were pretty damn high.

There are, apparently, a couple of likely stores in Bristol, and there are obviously a number in London, neither or which are beyond the occasional trip. However, by this point we've long since passed the threshold of pain. So, we're off bricks-and-mortar, and on to mail order.

The first problem with mail order is that people who work have a hard time receiving parcels. If the Royal Mail were smart, they'd only ever deliver such things on a Saturday or, better, to the nearest Post Office for collection. I guess we'll see what actually happens.

The big concerns with mail order are money and time. It appears that the cheapest way to get most books is from Amazon US. Yes, it's cheaper to order the things from the States and import them than to order from Amazon UK. This, of course, is dependent on the exchange rate, which is favourable at the moment. Of course, that's also the method with the longest lead-time. Also, you need to order a lot at once, or the shipping costs will kill you. (Also, note that books have free import duty and no VAT. Miniatures are classed as games, and CDs as software, both of which will have additional charges levied by customs. This, of course, negates any savings made using a US supplier - and because "Sharn: City of Towers" contains a CD, it risks an additional charge.)

There are other suppliers. Amazon don't stock everything, only the big sellers, and obviously aren't the quickest. Then again, since you're waiting anyway, what's a few weeks? And, if you order a large number of books every few months, you will quickly get to the point where you don't notice the lag, since you always have a new book to read anyway.

Oh, please, no!

In Star Wars, if a character is hit with a weapon set on stun, he needs to make a Fort save, or be stunned. However, if the save is passed the character is still stunned for 1 round.

The stunned condition in d20 is really nasty: you lose your Dex bonus to AC/Defense (not as big a problem in SW as in D&D, as there are fewer sneak attacks. Still...), you drop whatever you have in your hands, and opponents get a +2 bonus to hit you.

I'll repeat that: you drop whatever you have in your hands. So, even when the stun wears off, you're still screwed. And this is if you make the save!

Death by Massive Damage

If ever there was a pointless rule in D&D, it is the death by massive damage. If you are capable of surviving the loss of 50 hit points in one blow, you're not going to fail a DC 15 Fortitude save. The rule was introduced to combat the tactic of escaping by jumping off a 200-foot drop, but it doesn't really do that.

Of course, the situation is somewhat different in other games. In Star Wars, a fall requires a Reflex save, or the damage applies to Wounds rather than Vitality, which is a rather more deadly matter. In Call of Cthulhu, the threshold for the save is 10 hit points, and it's entirely possible that a character can survive the loss but fail the save. In d20 Modern, the threshold is set at the character's Con score, which is much the same.

There's not really a point to all this, except for one small thing: the lethality of a game depends on more factors than just how many hit points the character has. By adjusting the damage threshold, the difficulty of the save, the attacks that can reach the threshold, or just means by which the character's hit points can be negated, the lethality can be tailored to your taste.

Of course, I still think the Vitality/Wounds split doesn't really work for Star Wars (to lethal), and the existing hit point system doesn't work for Call of Cthulhu (not lethal enough). But that's just me.

Story Logic vs Game Logic

In the movies, the villain always has a big monologue about how he's going to take over the world. Or, he escapes at the last minute, and threatens to return and wreak his revenge.

In a role-playing game, time spent talking is time wasted - the PCs will act, and probably kill you. Likewise, the PCs will never let a defeated enemy get away, or leave a fallen opponent for dead - they will always make certain of the death, and almost certainly search the body as well.

The thing is, in D&D this is fine - it's a game about killing things and taking their stuff.

However, it doesn't work nearly so well in Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, or many d20 Modern games. It probably doesn't make sense in Vampire either, but then, that game's not really supposed to have many fights to the death either, it's just that the system makes it hard to avoid them.

There isn't a solid solution for this. I think, perhaps, the GM needs to discuss campaign feel with the players before it starts, and then give out bonus XP for sticking with the feel of the genre. I just wish I felt better about advocating that position.

How to play a paladin?

Johannes asked about playing a Paladin...

It is a mistaken belief that a paladin must be a knight in shining armour type. Even requiring adherence to the Lawful Good alignment and the paladin code, this class allows many many archetypes.

(I'm afraid I am going to have to divert into some rules-speak for a moment. Sorry about this, but I think it's important. Firstly, a paladin who abandons the Lawful Good alignment becomes an ex-paladin. A paladin who willingly commits and evil action becomes an ex-paladin. A paladin who grossly violates the code of conduct becomes an ex-paladin. And the code of conduct states that the paladin must "respect legitimate authority, act with honour (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents... A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good." And that's it. Anything else is a House Rule, and should be flagged as such by the DM when starting the campaign.)

So, let's have a look at some paladin archetypes:

Luke Skywalker: Hardly the knight in shining armour, he rebels against the authority in the galaxy (not a legitimate authority), acts with honour, and maintains a moral code. Probably not a lawful good character, but he wasn't created with the paladin in mind. You can certainly imagine constructing a similar character who is a paladin.

Buffy: The reluctant paladin. She's not a perfect example either, but again it is possible to create a similar character who is a paladin. Her focus is on fighting evil, rather than being the shining example. Again, probably not lawful good, but close enough for illustrative use.

Joan of Arc: This is a good one. She's a dangerous religious fanatic, who may or may not have been insane. As a simple peasant girl, she's about as far from the classic knight archetype as you can get. She's probably lawful good, respects legitimate authority, acts with honour (or, at least, never acts in a grossly dishonourable manner), and punishes those who harm innocents. She may also be insane. Did I mention that?

In fact, many of the classic "knight in shining armour" types are very far from being paladins. Lancelot, probably the classic example people think of when considering the paladin, falls from grace when he has an affair with the queen (gross lack of respect for legitimate authority, in this case the king). The Round Table story does contain a true paladin - but it's Lancelot's son Galahad, who is humble, true and pure.

The crusader knights were emphatically not paladins. Depending on how cynical you are, you can accuse them of seeking riches and power, or even of taking advantage of the Church's willingness to absolve them in advance for any sins they might commit while on Crusade. What were those sins?

How about the Templars, a holy order of Knights set up to protect pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem? Initially, they might have been paladins, but the order swiftly mutates. Soon, they are hugely wealthy landowners (not bad when you consider their vows of poverty), and are money-lenders beyond compare. In 1314, the last grandmaster of the order is burned at the stake on charges of witchcraft, although these may be a fabrication due to the fact that the King of France owed the order a huge sum of money.

Getting back you Johannes' initial example, I say go for it. There is no requirement that a paladin refrain from drinking. As for being loud, that's just ridiculous. As long as you stay lawful good, and don't violate the code (which actually says nothing about humility), you'll be fine.

Besides, how else is a half-orc paladin supposed to act, other than loud? And if a half-orc can do it, so can a member of any other race. Those things that we hold to be right, and good, and true either are right, and good, and true, or we're nothing more than another set of petty tyrants, inflicting our ways on others. (And the flip-side is also true - upbringing is no excuse for poor behaviour in the eyes of an impartial alignment system.)

Be warned, however. Some DMs delight in screwing over the players of paladins. These same DMs often delight in twisting wishes to screw players over, or in secretly raising the DC on that save you have to make, just so the invulnerable character suffers. Because, of course, they are the king of the game, and it's their right, nay, their duty, to mess players around. If you find yourself with such a DM, you'll find that the only valid paladin archetype is the one he espouses. You then get to play along with his interpretation of the paladin, often having little or no choice in how to play your character (and, if you're really unlucky, he'll strip you of your paladin status for no obvious reason, and usually without warning). I recommend not playing a paladin under such a DM. In fact, I recommend not playing under such a DM at all.

Playing Under a Novice DM

Over time, there's been a great deal written about how to train a new player, how to become a better Dm, and even some help for novice DM's. However, there has been very little written about playing under a novice DM, and how an experienced player should adjust his play style to suit. So, let's try to redress that, shall we?

But why should I give a damn?

Okay, you're an experienced player. You've played for years, and you've got all the techniques down. Why should you help out a newbie? Why make the effort to assist another? And why is it important, anyway?

Well, quite aside from the responsibility to help others in need that decent human beings generally have, there's a practical benefit. Unless you want to DM yourself, there may come a time when you need to recruit a DM for your group. The more good DM's there are out there, the better for all concerned. And the only way to increase the number of new DM's is to help out the novices. They'll learn, but not if you destroy their confidence and/or love of the game in the meantime.

Why is it important to adjust your play style to play in a novice DM's game? Well, the truth is that a novice DM will almost certainly not have generated the game to end all games. He probably won't have dozens of plot hooks, well crafted characters at every turn, and an encyclopediac knowledge of the rules. Your regular DM might well have these things. Since the novice can't, it is up to the players to pick up the slack, and that means changing your style somewhat.

Before the Game

There's not much needing done before the start of the game. If asked for help and advice, give it, but otherwise, stay clear. The novice DM needs to do as much himself as he can. One thing you can do to help, though, is to meet up with the DM before the game and help to set out the game area.

Now, I'm aware that this contradicts my advice to the novice DM to arrive first, and do the set-up himself. I'm now going to take the somewhat ridiculous step of claiming that both pieces of advice are good, and that both should be applied.

Actually, the ideal situation is if the novice DM arrives before anyone else, and does some of the early set-up alone, to get a feel for the room. However, shortly before the game, it is good if one experienced player arrives and helps finish the task. By chatting with the Dm, that player can then help settle the DM's nerves, and generally help him get himself ready.

When talking to a newbie DM before his first game, do NOT ask him if he's ready, ask if he's remembered such-and-such, or probe for details of the adventure. The DM is as ready as he can be at this stage, so all you can do with such questions is to destroy his confidence. Instead, ask if he's looking forward to the game, and when he says he's nervous just say, "you'll do fine." Maybe recount a horror story of one of your own early games - this DM knows that every game you run is awesome, so if your early games sucked he won't feel so intimidated. Oh, and tell him that you're looking forward to finding out what he's got planned.

During the Game

The key rule here is to make things easy for the new DM. Not too easy - he has to run the game himself - but reasonably easy. This means a few things:

1) Go along with his plot. Okay, the plot hook sucks. But, frankly, you're here to enjoy a good adventure, so just get in there. After all, what would Star Wars have been like if Anakin had said, "No thanks, Qui-Gon, I think I'll stay here with Mom."?

2) Don't argue the rulings. Okay, the DM gets it wrong, and you should have had five attacks of opportunity. This time, deal with it. It's nothing personal. And besides, if you've read my earlier post you'll know that I've advised the newbie to stick to his guns. It's important that his authority in the game is maintained, even if he's wrong.

3) Don't fight with other players, in-character or out. A skilled DM can deal with in-character disputes. An experienced DM can even handle out-of-character disputes. A newbie can't. Just this once, can't you all just get along?

4) Don't jump in with advice and rules-knowledge. This may seem odd. You know the rules backwards and forwards. You've been DM'ing for years, and playing the game since it came out. You know everything aout everything, and I'm telling you to not use that knowledge.

The reason for this is simple: the DM must do this on his own. You aren't running this game, he is. So, let him run it without interference.

There is, of course, an exception to this. If the DM asks for your help, offer it at once. Similarly, if the DM really needs your help, offer it at once. So, if the DM says something like, "I know the rules for Trip are here somewhere..." and starts frantically looking for the appropriate rule, feel free to jump in after a few seconds with "it's on page 158. Oh, and you need the rules for being prone of page 311 as well." (Make sure you have a copy of the rulebook with you :-)) Likewise, if the other players are getting out of line, pull them back into line.

Important Note: If you find yourself having to pull other players back into line, it is vitally important that you DO NOT, under any circumstances, comment on needing to do so because it's the DM's first adventure, that he's finding it tough, or any other reason that might detract from the DM's authority. Such things don't help.

5) If something is cool, well-handled, or otherwise good, comment on it. If something is bad, poorly-handles, or otherwise sucks, keep quiet for now. If something isn't worthy of comment, don't needlessly hype it up. Don't be a patronising bastard just to cheer the guy up - it won't help in the long run.

After the Game

This is the point where you start to help the guy improve his DM'ing. Anything you say before or during the game can only hurt the DM, but here there is an opportunity to make things better.

As with everything else, there is a right way and a multitude of wrong ways to go about providing feedback. There are really two things to consider:

1) Everything you say must be constructive. Saying, "I thought X sucked," doesn't do anyone any good. On the other hand, saying, "you should probably play up the brutality of X a bit more," actually gives something that can be worked with.

2) Absolutely anything negative you have to say must be said privately. If you comment that a particular ruling was incorrect, and then entire group then chime in with their own incorrect rulings, that guy will never DM again. However, if you drop him a quiet email about the subject, he'll just do things differently in future.

The best way to offer feedback is in three stages. Step one comes immediately after the game. Thank the DM, and praise the things he did well. Hopefully, the rest of the group will do likewise. This then encourages the DM to run again, especially if you say, "and I'm looking forward to next time."

Step two occurs when you cunningly dispose of the rest of the group to the pub, while you and the DM clear up, saying you'll join them later (or otherwise get rid of the group). The idea here is that you're alone with the DM, but it's just after the game. This is the point where you ask what he thought went well and went poorly, reinforce the good, and offer advice on how to improve the bad. It's entirely possible that the DM thinks something was bad that wasn't, or wasn't a big issue, in which case you can set his mind at ease (a big plus). You might also say something along the lines of, "I have a few suggestions, if you'd like to discuss them at a later time."

Step three is the meat of it, though. This you do a couple of days later, probably by email. And here you can bring up anything, but no more than six things per game, and not all at once. So, if the novice DM made hundreds of mistakes, you probably want to tackle the worst one in your first email. Suggest ways to fix the problem, and move on. Say your piece, and have done. And make sure you comment on the good as much as the bad - remember that it is really easy to stop this guy from ever running a game again, but that's probably not your goal here.

At What Point Do You Stop?

At some point, the newbie DM will run another game. For the second game, you get to be a bit less 'soft'. You can question rulings a bit more, maybe not go along with the plot quite so meekly, and so on. But, do so a bit at a time - you're still easing the guy in. It builds from there. At each step, the DM will get better. He'll need your help less and less, and you'll have fewer comments to make. And you'll have another DM in your group.

A Gazebo Incident...

On the 21st of May, my band were playing at a Gala Day in Bargeddie. In case someone's not clear, that's a village festival where the local folk come out and pretend to have some sort of community spirit. For a pipe band, it involves playing for a parade of a mile or two, and then playing again at the location of the celebration itself.

Anyway, it being a nice day, we elected to march the parade without our nice, warm and waterproof capes. This proved to be a good idea - the sun really was beating down on us. Anyway, we got to the primary school, where the festival was taking place, and the parade was over. Shortly thereafter, it was our turn to play on the stage.

Now, last year, the Bargeddie gala had suffered a great deal of rain, so this year some smart soul had thought to put up a covering on the stage, in the form of one of those cheap plastic gazebos you can buy in B&Q and similar stores (actually, I don't think they market them as such, but they're close enough to be funny). Since it was being placed there as a temporary measure, it was only held in place with some ropes...

(Oh, I should also mention that it was only big enough to cover half the stage. I was on the other half, of course.)

We climbed the stage, and started to play, and immediately the weather turned. Clouds quickly blotted out the sun, and the winds came up quickly. One would have thought we were harbingers of doom or something. I didn't think we were that bad.

Anyway, by the time we were finished our first set, the gazebo was stuggling against its ropes as if animate. The wind was making a terrible shrieking noise, and the creatures clawed front legs were struggling towards me. Only a few weak ropes protected me from evisceration at the claws of the beast.

We sought to placate the dread Gazebo with a sacrifice. We have a dancer who accompanies the band. I play, she dances, in the traditional manner. So, she bravely took the stage, standing under the terrible claws of the gazebo, laid down her swords, and danced.

The gazebo was not impressed. Instead, it howled once more, and unleashed its breath weapon upon us. As the band played once more, I found myself being pelted with hailstones. In May. With my wonderful, waterproof cape some mile away, in the back of my car.

Defeated, we slunk away, and the gazebo ruled the day.

Novice GMs

I've been running games since 1988. Fortunately, those 17 years are reflected in the way I run games - it's a damn good thing I'm not still running them the way I did back then.

However, there is a problem when a new GM steps into the hot seat - he's almost guaranteed to face at least one player who knows how it's all done through years of hard-won experience. With a view to reducing some of the terror that this might cause, here are my thoughts on how a new GM should run his first few sessions...

Preparation

The cardinal rules here are as follows: prepare thoroughly, and keep it simple.

Some GMs prefer to run the game by the seat of their pants, and some just can't be bothered to prepare. However, until you know you're in one of these camps, you need to make sure you are well-prepared. Until you know you can fly blind, don't risk it.

Additionally, you may have grand dreams of an epic campaign spanning years of real-time and generations of game-time, featuring every creature in the World of Darkness and your twenty new bloodlines, but if you try that for your first game, you'll never get anywhere. Trust me - keep it simple.

Know the Rules

Whichever game you are running, you need to know the rules. And you need to know them well. Read the rulebook for the game through in its entirety, preferably twice. Ideally, sit in on a game in the same system being run by another GM, preferably one who doesn't use many house rules.

When preparing your first game, you should not use any supplements, nor should you use many house rules. It's probably best to use NO house rules at all, even omitting published rules. While it may seem simple enough to ignore the rules for Attacks of Opportunity, there is a danger that they will affect other things, and cause you more trouble down the line. Of course, you could seek advice from an experienced GM in this regard, and find some rules that can be ignored safely, but if in doubt, use the rules as written.

It is, of course, easier to use a rules-light game for the first session than a rules-heavy game. So, Vampire rather than Rolemaster. (D&D is a bit of a special case, so I'll cover that later.)

Plotting

Keep the polt for your first game simple and iconic: "Sabbat war-ghouls have been seen at the docks, the Scourge press-gangs the PCs to deal with them.", "The Empire has built a secret new battle-station. The plans are held in a bunker on Kessel. Go steal them.", "Our researchers have found the Staff of Death in a hidden tomb. Drow raiders are currently en route, and you must beat them to it."

Prepare the first adventure to last one or two sessions. It might run short, or run long, but that doesn't really matter. Your target is just to help you work out the length of the plot. You probably want three combat encounters, two role-play encounters and one 'other' encounter per session. The encounters should all be straight-forward, whether involving getting necessary clues, sneaking past the guard, or hitting things.

The 'other' encounters are the place where you want to let your own style come out, and are something you definately want to include. These might include a puzzle (but tread carefully here), reveal a plot-twist, or otherwise do something interesting. Just be sure to have a back-up plan in case this encounter falls flat.

For example, if your special encounter is a puzzle, you need to assign a real-time limit on it. If the players don't solve it in, say, twenty minutes, you move on. Also, make sure you have a plan for if the puzzle is solved in an unusual way. Likewise, if you're using a plot twist, make sure you plan for both the case where the players spot the twist and react accordingly, and also for the case where they either miss the twist, or just choose to ignore it.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff

If you find you just can't remember the five hundred variations on class and race combinations that are possible, or you get dizzy looking at dots on a character sheet, or you can only think of one good role-playing encounter, don't worry about it. The target is to get a game session or two under your belt, not to beat Robert Jordan in the creation of a pointlessly-epic fantasy yarn.

Running the Game

So, you're all prepared, and the game night is scheduled. You're going to run a game, and you're terrified. Well, never mind. Here's how you're going to do it: smile, fake confidence, and bullshit your way out of trouble.

Arrive First

Before leaving the house, preferably the night before, gather everything you need for the game together. Check you have everything you need. Pack it in a bag together, and make sure you have it with you when you leave the house. Arrive at the location of the game no more than an hour, and no less than ten minutes, before the game is due to start.

If possible, try to get to the location of the game before anyone else. This will give you a chance to unpack without distraction, and let you get a feel for the location. Once you've unpacked, go get a sandwich, read a book, or otherwise distract yourself. Do not drink either coffee or alcohol at this point - you neither want to be hopped up or drunk for your first session.

As the players arrive, make light conversation, but try not to discuss the game. The time for that will come.

Starting the Game

For your first game, you'll want to be using pre-generated characters. Really, I mean it.

At the start of the game, once everyone has arrived, hand out the characters. Explain that it's your first time, and ask for the group's understanding (unless they already know, of course). Explain also that you're using the core rules only, without variation, and ask for rules-chatter to be kept to a minimum. If you forget something, the you're sorry but that's life. Also, if you make a ruling, you're going to stick to it.

Ideally, the more experienced GM's in the group will then take it upon themselves to rein in the rules-lawyers in the group, unless they are the rules-lawyers. In any event, most players won't intentionally wreck the first game of a new GM if they know it's the first game of a new GM. However, if you don't explain all these things I've stated above, they might assume you know what you're doing, and engage in their normal game-destroying antics.

(Of course, you might encounter a player who's determined to be a dick. Sadly, in that case, you're stuck. But that would apply whether it's your first game or your 100'th, and whatever you do, so that's life.)

You also probably want to explain to the group that the start of the adventure is going to be a little bit rail-roaded. Basically, they have to go on the adventure, or the whole thing falls apart. Again, the group should understand, and will get down to playing. However, be aware that you only get to do this for your first game, and you only get to do it to get the group into the adventure - once they're hunting for the Staff of Death, about to land on Kessel, or otherwise involved, they get to call the shots.

Take a Deep Breath...

The players have their characters. They've heard The Talk. They're looking at you eagerly. Time to begin.

Take a deep breath, and start to speak, slowly a clearly. "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

Seriously, take a minute to outline the situation at the start of the adventure. Then describe the initial situation in front of the players, and ask them what they do. And take it from there.

During the Game

During the game, you're mostly on your own. Once you've started, you should be fine. Try to keep the pace up, if things slow down have a bunch of Stormtroopers/Sabbat ghouls/Drow kick in the door. And don't worry about things - you are doing fine.

If a rules question comes up, just make something up. Want to sneak past the Drow? Probably a Move Silently roll. Go for a DC of 20, that's usually a good number. Really, if you don't just know the answer, and none of the players can supply it off-hand, then who cares whether you get it right? Just choose something that sounds right.

If there's a rules dispute, you have three options. Option one is to ask the most experienced DM around the table for his opinion, and go with that. You get to do that once. Option two is to pause the game, check the rulebook, and use that. This is fine, but hurts the game every time you do it.

The best option is option three. Make a ruling, and stick to it. As long as it sounds good, who cares whether it's a Bluff or Perform(drama) check to play dead? If in doubt, favour the outcome that's least likely to kill a PC.

If you are faced with a player being a dick, you have a problem, probably the only serious problem you can possibly face. He might insist that his interpretation of the rules is correct, regardless of what you say. He might insist on his character going off alone, or not going on the adventure. Or he might instigate PC-vs-PC conflict (which is a sure sign of a dick in a GM's first game, by the way - such things are fine normally, but not for the GM's first game).

There is no one true way to deal with a dick. You just have to keep your cool, and stick to your guns. If it's a rule call, make your decision and don't back down. Even if he points to the rule in the book - it's your game, and you've made your decision. If he refuses to go on the adventure, ignore him. If he insists on splitting the party, do your best to improvise. If he instigates pC-vs-PC problems, let the players deal with him. Try to minimise his disruption, and move on.

Faking Confidence

So, you're absolutely terrified, but you have to appear confident. How does one achieve this goal?

Well, this is where your preparation shows its value. Since you know the rules, you can make judgements, secure in the knowledge that you know what you're doing. Since you know the plot, you can move it forward confidently.

Two other things to remember: it is more important for something to sound good than to be right. So, make a judgement that sounds about right, and you won't have any problems. Secondly, if you keep things moving, you won't have time to be nervous. Keep the plot light and fast-paced. If it bogs down, do something to speed it up again. And if you do this, a good time will be had by all. And that's really the trick, isn't it?

If it All Goes Horribly Wrong

You planned a great set of set-piece battles, followed by the revalation that the Scourge was working for the Sabbat all along, then a battle against the Scourge. Unfortunately, you overestimated the capabilities of the PCs, and they were all just killed by the wheelchair-bound octagenarian with her umbrella. Or you forgot that one PC could dominate the Scourge, and said PC commanded him: "Tell me the truth - you're working for them, aren't you?"

Well, shit happens. Laugh it off, and don't make the same mistake next time.

After the Game

Take in the character sheets, and start preparing for the next game. Now you're a GM, you never get to quit.

Try to think of three things that you did well in the game, and three things you would have done differently. Next time, emphasise the good, and do the other things differently. If you made a mistake, admit it and learn from it. It's really no big deal.

In the unlikely event that you offended anyone, apologise, and claim you were under a lot of stress, and were acting like a dick. They will understand.

If you had any experienced GMs in the group, take some time to ask what they thought, and what they might have done differently. Typically, they will know a few tricks you don't, and they should be willing to offer advice.

And that's about it.

Using D&D

There's no denying that D&D is a very complex game, which would normally make it a very poor choice for a first game. However, there are a few factors that can change that assessment:

1) Pre-generated worlds/adventures. If you don't need to create a setting for the adventure, or don't need to create an adventure, much of your preparation becomes easier.

2) DM tools. The CR system in D&D is quite complex, but it is also extremely useful. If you build a normal D&D party of 4th level, you know that most EL4 encounters are about right for the party. This is extremely useful, especially when compared with games like Vampire, where it can be hard to work out just how tough your Brujah thug should be.

3) Familiarity. Almost every gamer knows D&D, at least a bit. You already know most of the rules, so why not use that?

4) The D&D basic set is intended for novice players. You might well find this a useful way to get into running games.

Ultimately, for a first adventure, I would almost certainly recommend Vampire (the Masquerade), Star Wars (d6) or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. However, since only one of these is actually in print, you may prefer to go with what you know.

Challenging the Players

Here's a question: what is the place of riddles in the game world? Should such things not exist at all for purposes of realism, should they be resolved with Int checks (or similar), or should the players have to figure out the solution?

Here's another question: what is the place of role-playing encounters in the game world? Should the players have to speak for their characters, or should they be resolved with Diplomacy checks (or similar)?

Realistically, puzzles and riddles should not exist. If I'm a highly-intelligent Solar building a refuge against intruders, I don't guard it with riddles, passwords and carefully-hidden locks. No, instead I set up a system where any attempt to enter activates the traps, and I throw away the keys. Likewise, the pharoah building a treasury for his kingdom would defend it with lethal traps, but would not provide convenient keys to enable robbers to disable or bypass those traps. After all, he wants to keep his stuff, and there's absolutely no reason anyone will ever have to gain access.

However, role-playing games are not an exercise in recreating reality (at least, for the most part). Very few players would actually want to play in a real-world game, since we already live here. Instead, these games are about adventures. We can envisage fireball-throwing wizards, despite physics. So, we can accept unrealistic puzzles. (Plus, we accept jumping puzzles in our computer games - though players don't really like them - so why not a role-playing equivalent?)

However, what is the right way to include puzzles? And how do we resolve role-playing encounters?

Firstly, in both cases, the best way to handle such encounters is for the players to have a shot at it first. So, present the riddle to the players, and let them have a go. Play out the role-playing encounter, and see what the players make of it (with the caveat that they have to play this one out in character. The puzzle they do not, since the party wizard is probably much smarter than the whole group put together, and anyway the point here is to challenge the players). If the players succeed, great, the game proceeds as normal (and see XP, later).

If the players don't get anywhere, or don't want to play through the encounter/solve the puzzle (or are just getting bored trying to solve it), you move on to the backup plan. In the case of a role-playing encounter, this is handled using the appropriate role-playing skills. So, in D&D you use a Bluff or Diplomacy roll. The group may or may not qualify for an XP award as a result of this. In the case of a puzzle, there are three cases. If the puzzle must be solved or the game is dead, assume that a time passes and then the group gets the answer. The DM should assess a certain amount of resources used in determining the answer (either in the form of divinations, sage fees, or items wasted in the course of figuring it out). If the puzzle does not need to be solved for the game to proceed (for instance, if it guards a secondary treasure vault), you can either have the players make a skill or Int check to gain clues, or to solve it outright, or you can simply rule that the group cannot get through the puzzle. Regardless, the group does not qualify for an XP award for a puzzle that is not solved.

It's also worth considering that 'solving' the puzzle does not necessarily mean finding the DM's one-true-solution. If the party instead disables the trap part, and then hacks their way through the door, they have 'solved' the puzzle, and get the XP. Likewise, any solution that works, even if it's not the DM's preferred answer, should be accepted. Basically, players should be rewarded for clever thinking, never penalised.

Determining the XP award for a role-playing encounter or a puzzle can be pretty awkward. Since players don't gain levels, and so ranks in the 'puzzles' skill, the same puzzle can generally be used at 1st level and 20th level. Likewise, the typical role-playing encounter will be as 'difficult' at 1st level as at 20th.

However, the consequences of failure are likely not the same at 1st level as at 20th. And these should provide a guide as to the XP award. Typically, a puzzle should be backed up by a trap or other consequence (otherwise, the party can just hack their way through). If this trap drains the party of 20% of their resources, this constitutes a CR equal to the party level. If successfully opening the doors in the beholder's lair drains resources, this should also be factored in.

For the most part, traps, puzzles and role-playing encounters should all be at around the party's level. 'Normal' operation should drain the party of about 20% of their resources. If the party is very successfuly, or fails spectacularly, this should change, and perhaps wildly, but for the most part, that's how it should run.

There is one more thing to say about puzzles and the issue of realism. A large part of the reason for the existence of such things is to emulate the sort of treasure hunting seen in the Indiana Jones movies. What seems to be forgotten, though, is that those movies don't rely on solving the puzzles in situ. Instead, Dr Jones goes through painstaking preparation for his adventures, that largely isn't shown, gaining the tools to solve the puzzle. It's also worth noting that the puzzles he solves are not designed to hide something away so it can never be found - in all three cases the puzzles hide secrets that are meant to be found by the right people. The Holy Grail is hidden away and guarded, yes, but it is also intended to be found at some later time.

Role-playing games typically suffer in this regard. Usually, a puzzle is presented at the time it is expected to be solved. Instead, if we're emulating the genre, emphasis should be placed on building puzzles that fit the setting, on building up the character's Knowledge skills, and on finding the clues before assaulting the lost temple of doom.

For example, consider a Gnomish bardic school teaching jokes and language. The party might first learn that there are three ways in - a heavily guarded front door, a tradesman's entrance in the back (now destroyed), and a secret underground path used for testing new initiates. They can then look for the first clue - where does this underground path start? Then, having gotten in some way, they come to a hall with inscriptions on two opposite walls, and slate on the wall in between. The first wall has the start of six really bad puns in six different languages. The opposite wall has the inscription 122334455661. The key, then, is to complete each joke in the language in which the next joke is begun. And so it goes.

Conversely, if the characters are to invade a tomb designed never to be penetrated by robbers, the key here is to find those clues that do exist. For instance, the original designers might have left notes, which can be found. Previous tomb robbers might have made it a certain distance before turning back. In this instance, there shouldn't be puzzles that a smart character can get through. There shouldn't be passwords, hidden keys, or whatever. We're trying to keep everyone out, so the tomb should be built accordingly. Nonetheless, there should be clues to find, to help 'figure it out' - just not things that can be determined on the spot.

(Oh, and some clues, such as "only the penitent man shall pass", should either give a bonus to the Disable Device roll, a bonus on a save vs. the trap, or should just allow the character to bypass the trap altogether.)

She's my sister/accountant/mail-order ninja!

I've been thinking about character backgrounds again.

The perceived wisdom is that a 'good' character background should answer such questions as: what family does the character have? who were your parents? where are they now? do you have any siblings? are you married?

And so on.

On the other hand, if one looks at shows like Buffy/Angel, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and the like, which tend to have a lot of wisdom to offer RPGs, they tend not to have fully developed character backgrounds from day one. There is always some flexibility, so that you can introduce new characters. Suddenly, Angel has vampires whom he has sired. Troi's mother shows up (and a hundred fans cry out in dismay). Sheridan just happens to have an ex-wife who can come in and replace Ivanova.

Perhaps the quest when creating backgrounds should be to aim for a comfortable middle ground. Where something is important to the character, it needs stated, of course (we need to know that Giles is a Watcher from England, that Wesley's father died under Picard's command, and that Garibaldi has been bounced from one job to the next). When something isn't important, though, it should probably be left blank.

This allows the player to bring in elements that he hadn't thought of at day one (oh, yes, my father had business dealings with the Knights of Malice. Perhaps one of his friends can sponsor my petition for entry?). It gives hooks for new PCs to come in (Your brothers are dead. I've been sent to take you home for the funeral.). And it give the DM all sorts of leeway for evil plots (Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father...).

Of course, there need to be some ground rules:

1) The player can't bring in something relevant to the current situation without DM approval. It's one thing for a character's merchant father to have had shady dealings in the past; it's entirely another for that character's father to have saved the life of the crime-boss who is in the process of roasting the rest of the party.

2) The DM shouldn't be consistently evil when using the empty spaces. Otherwise, next time the player will either provide a background with no empty spaces, or will just not have a background at all.

Large Scale Events

In "Foundations of Flame", the city in which the campaign is set needs to be evacuated. This sounds like a job for the heroes! But, how to model such things in an RPG?

The key to modelling large events (evacuating the city, the siege of Helm's Deep, the attack on the Death Star, and so on) is to recognise that RPGs are closer to film than to reality. (Okay, I'll take that back. Some RPGs, notably D&D, are closer to film than to reality.) This means that we have a small number of characters whom we care about (PCs), a small number of notable NPCs, and a large number of faceless NPCs whom we don't care about, except in the abstract. If you were filming the battle of Helm's Deep, you wouldn't spend a lot of time on the actions of warrior #112 as he fires arrow after arrow at the orcs, then engages in hand-to-hand combat, and then dies a pointless and unremarkable death. No, you would have a bunch of fighting montages showing these events, interspersed with scenes of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli kicking ass, and trying to turn the tide, or at least hold the line.

The other thing to bear in mind is that you want the important characters to be at the centre of the action, not calling the shots from behind the scenes. In the above example, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are the PCs, but Haldir and Theoden are not. They are important NPCs, but they are not the centre of the action. Similarly, in a massed battle, the PCs are Ajax, Hector and Achillies, not Agamemnon.

So, how to model a large-scale event?

Firstly, the preparation. The key here is to consider what forces are involved, and how they are opposed. So, we have 300 humans and elves (yes, I'm including the elves because Haldir is going to become important later on) versus 10,000 orcs. The humans have the walls of Helm's Deep, the orcs have siege towers, explosive devices, and so on. Or, you have the eastern USA, a fault line and two nuclear devices versus Superman.

Next, consider the timeline, assuming the PCs do nothing. So, if Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli don't intervene, the orcs break down the walls in 6 hours. 2 hours after that, Gandalf arrives with the Rohirrim, but can't do anything to help. Likewise, if Superman doesn't act, a huge portion of the eastern USA falls into the ocean, the world suffers calamitous damage, and Lex Luthor becomes obscenely wealthy.

Now, consider what the PCs are going to do to help. Now, firstly, and obviously, they're going to oppose the orcs the same as anyone else. They will array their forces as best they can, use ever advantage they have available, and so on. In fact, since the players aren't, by and large, experts in fantasy warfare, it can be taken as read that they will do a better job of arraying the forces than the players would.

But you only show Superman rescuing a cat from a tree once. By that I mean, if the PCs can be assumed to do something, but it isn't very exciting, you just narrate a bit of boxed text about their actions, and move on. There's no need to linger on this.

Instead, you try to think up several scenes where the PCs can make a difference. Consider also the role of unimportant NPCs in this. They probably can't help, but their presence does change the situation somewhere. So, is there an enemy champion for the PCs to fight? In that case, show the champion cutting a swathe through the allies of the PCs. If there's a building on fire, allow the PCs to motivate NPCs for form a bucket line. Just make sure the PCs have to act as well - otherwise we're back to cat stuck in tree territory.

Having generated a bunch of scenes, it's necessary to work out how they affect the adventure as a whole. In this regard, "Foundations of Flame" had a useful system, where each sector of the city required a certain number of "Evacuation Points" to clear, and each scene was worth a number of points. So, assign each encounter a number of points, establish a set of victory conditions, and have at it.

Returning to Helm's Deep, if we say that orcs need 100 Siege Points to break down the wall. We'll assume that they gain 18 points per hour, so after 6 hours they have 108 points. We'll assume also that after 8 hours the Rohirrim will arrive with the dawn, and all will be well. Then, we decide what the PCs can do to help. Well, Aragorn's comments to the boy about hope (and similar words to the rest of the troops) counts for something. The scene where they shore up the gate by holding off the enemy is worth something. The last rally, when the Horn of Helm Hammerhand sounds once again is worth something. And so on. The idea is that the battle will be lost anyway, but by the actions of the PCs, they hold out just long enough.

When running the adventure, you put all this together as follows: You run a number of montages of general events. The armies trade fire. The PCs load carts, gather gaurds and send them out, or rescue cats from trees. In between montages, you have a mixture of key encounters, and scenes showing the fate of key NPCs. So, you see Hector and Achillies (actually, Patrocles) fighting. You see Superman stopping the rocket. Aragorn tosses Gimli across to the bridge. And, as time passes, you keep track of the event counters.

You should also take the time to show the fate of key NPCs. So, Theoden and his guys draw their swords and go to the front. You don't roll dice, just show this. You similarly narrate the fall of Haldir to the orcs. You comment about how Red 6 gets blown out of the sky. In this regard, it helps if you have a cast of NPCs, both liked and hated, whom the players know. And, sometimes, the fate of an NPC can be affected by a PC's actions. Boba Fett might be killed due to the actions of Han. Or, sometimes there's nothing that can be done. Aragorn isn't in a position to save Haldir. The DM gets to choose this.

There are two rules regarding NPC fates: if the PCs can change the fate of an NPC, you have to let the result stand, whether it's what you want or not. Conversely, if a character has a name, you have to show him die, even in a cut-scene.

As regards the question of XP awards, there are three options:

Under option 1, the large scale event could be considered something that the PCs just have to deal with, and therefore they only get XP for what they do (so, if they fight the enemy champion, they get XP for him, but they don't get an award for saving cats from trees, or whatever). This has the advantage of keeping the PCs' treasure total on a par with their level, which can be beneficial.

Under option 2, the PCs get a fixed award for success in the adventure as a whole. Perhaps the townsfolk grant the heroes a huge reward for saving them, and the DM gives out enough XP to increase them by a level or so. This has the advantage of being really simple.

Option 3 is perhaps the best. Each encounter has an XP award, which is modified by how well the PCs do. So, if they rescue the man from the burning building, they get an award, if they put out the fire, but the man dies, they get a lesser award. This is probably best, but is likely to leave the PCs low on treasure. However, this is probably best compensated by greater awards in previous and future adventures. Or, perhaps the towsfolk just give them an award...

And that's about that. Suggestions? Comments?

Alignment and Realism

I recently came upon a discussion on RPGnet which included a comment about moral relativity that really pissed me off. So, you'll need to indulge me for a moment while I rant.

For some reason, there's a perception that a game with moral absolutes is somehow less realistic than one featuring moral relativism. The notion there is that the rampaging Orcs have a reason why they're trying to rape, loot and pillage their way across the kingdom, from their point of view it's 'good', and so that's okay. Clearly, this is more realistic than a game where they're doing these things because they're Eeevil.

Well, duh.

The thing is, though, that whether they have a reason for what they're doing has very little to do with moral relativism. Whether they see what they're doing as good or evil is also irrelevant. It is, after all, possible to sincerely believe that you're doing good while, in fact, being completely wrong. If nothing else, that can make for very effective tragedy.

The other thing to bear in mind is this: it really doesn't matter why the rampaging orc wants to kill you and take your stuff. He might have a very good reason for doing so. Assuming you aren't suicidal, you're going to want to stop him. And that may well require killing him.

All that said, the use of an alignment system in role-playing games almost necessarily makes them less realistic. The reason for this is that it's just easier to play to your alignment, and this means that character morality becomes rather simpler.

There's another issue at play here, too. If players just ran their characters without regard to their alignment, and the DM tracked the alignments of the group, a great many PCs (if not most) would rapidly gravitate towards a Chaotic Neutral alignment. The average PC shows next to no concern for society as a whole (and goes to great lengths to avoid taxes - which is a definate sign of Chaotic behaviour), and tends towards a distinctly mercenary bent ("I expect to be well paid" is Neutral, not Good).

Of course, many PCs require a particular alignment to retain their powers, and so they don't play their characters freely, but take pains to stay in the 'right' box. And many people are uncomfortable with the notion that their characters might be anything other than Good (because, hey, they're not bad people). So, they play to stick within the lines. And, yes, that hurts realism.

Of course, alignment concerns really only apply to PCs. The average NPC is on stage for a single encounter. And there just isn't time for detailed analyses of the exact alignment of the third orc on the right as he swings his axe at the barbarian. The only characters who exist long enough for alignment to be shown in any detail are the PCs.

I don't know if that's at all helpful, to be honest.

On a related note, it would be nice to see characters who have clearly defined moral codes. As opposed to the usual attitude of "what's in it for me?". A character who isn't Chaotic Good because the player needed to put something in the Alignment box, but who has taken that stance because he truly believes that only in a loose society can people flourish, or has seen too many people destroyed by oppressive taxes (or even completely fair and just taxes) and has dedicated himself to removing that burden. Or a Lawful Good character who is absolutely committed to building a Utopian society where all can live in peace, free from the tyranny of evil men.

Or, better still, a Lawful Evil character who is absolutely committed to building a Utopian society where all can live in peace, free from the tyranny of evil men, but who is absolutely willing to crush the right of others to protest his reforms, by violent and fatal means, if necessary.

Random Generation

Typically, I'm not a fan of random rolls in character generation/management. I prefer point-buy and fixed hit points these days, due to the problem where one player gets really good rolls and the other really poor rolls. However, just for fun, and inspired by the random career tables in WFRP, I have put together a set of random race/class/alignment tables for D&D, including the PHB races and alignments, and the classes from the PHB and Expanded Psionics Handbook, and some of the classes from the Complete series (specifically, the Swashbuckler, Favoured Soul, Warmage, Scout and Spellthief - the ones I like, and that don't have an Oriental Adventures vibe to them).

I imagine it could be quite interesting to play in a campaign where the characters were generated using the tables to get race and class. Of course, you'd probably end up with an LG Elf Fighter, an NG Halfling Psychic Warrior, a CG Dwarf Cleric, an LG Halfing Psion and a Neutral Elf Cleric. At least, that's what I just got.

I would post the tables, but bit tables in html are a pain to code.

Interesting...

Under D&D 3rd Edition, using the 25-point buy method, there are 181 arrays of stats that can be generated (I used a computer to work this out; I'm not quite that sad). Each of these can then be sorted into 720 combinations (not all of them unique, of course).

So, what I'm wondering is if there's some mileage in using a stat generation system where you use point-buy to get the actual stats, but then roll to randomly determine which is which.

Example: Let's assume you go for array 81, which is 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8. You then have to choose a stat for Strength, so roll 1d6. Let's assume this gives a 4. The character therefore has an 11 Strength. You're left with five numbers for five stats, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, so roll d5. This comes up a 2. The character has 14 Dex.

This is then repeated using d4, d3 and d2 to get the remaining stats.

The advantage of this method is that you can control your eventual stats but not their exact positioning, which might be attractive. It means you can't rely on getting Charisma as your 'dump stat', and you might have to play a character with a sub-optimal value in an important stat. (For example, you might get a character with high Str and Dex but low Con, making him a good Fighter or Rogue, but one with a significant weakness.)

It is also the case that you cannot really get any 'useless' characters this way. Your best bet for a useless character is array 1: 18, 15, 9, 8, 8, 8, which is pretty grim. But if you choose that array, you're guaranteed to be excellent in two of the six possible areas. And anyway, you would have chosen that array, so it's really your own fault if that leaves you with a Con of 18 and Cha of 15.

The big disadvantage of that system, of course, is that you can't control what sort of character you'll have, and can't be sure of getting a balanced party.

Playing the Same Game

Before I rant, let me preface this by saying that it's not related to the current group. This is inspired by tales I've heard of another group that has problems. So don't take offense guys, I'm not talking about you.

In roleplaying, there is always the question of whether it's okay to cheat. Generally, it seems to be accepted that the players should not cheat, but the DM can cheat somewhat if he believes that this will produce a better game. In principle, I think most people would sign up to something like that. (Personally, I lean more towards a policy where neither players nor DM cheat, but that's just me.)

In d20 (particularly) there is also the question of just how much power-gaming should be going on. Should the group's Fighter have his armour class optimised to the nth degree? Should the Wizard have selected a specialism, chosen just the right feats, and taken the optimum prestige class so that no-one ever saves against his spells? (Personally, I lean towards a game where people know the rules, and use the rules to do cool things. So, I have absolutely no problem with characters with absurd AC values, despite my complaints to the contrary during the game.)

In truth, it doesn't matter who cheats, or how badly, nor does it matter how much power-gaming goes on, provided everyone is having fun. The problems really only start when a few people cheat or power-game, and the rest don't.

Basically, as far as cheating goes, I think there are two approaches to playing: either you play because you want your characters to have adventures, risking life and limb for whatever their chosen goals are, or you play because you want to watch your character do cool things. So, you have no interest in him dying, or risking the same, you want to win. So, you will make every important save, you will have a remarkably high hit point total for your level, and so forth. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.

By contrast, I think people who power-game are probably in it because they're fascinated by systems, numbers, and how things work. Certainly, one of the biggest attractions for me in D&D is that the system is fairly complex, certainly complex enough to be interesting, and also fairly solid in the maths. (It's just a shame that all dice hate me.) Consequently, of course, power-gamers tend to identify the areas of their character that are important to them, and use the rules to optimise those areas. Which is entirely reasonable. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.

However, big problems occur when one player cheats or power-games, and the others don't. Or even if all the players cheat and the DM doesn't want to play that way. (If all the players power-game, and the DM doesn't, there's actually not a problem - the power level just escalates. And in the arms race, the DM always wins in the end.)

The thing about cheating is that it removes the element of risk from the game. Now, as a DM, I take the view that character death (or defeat) has to be a real risk, or there's no point in playing. As a player, you might disagree. However, I am not willing to run a game where the PCs always win because, hey, they're PCs. So, if the players took the view (as a group) that they were going to cheat, I would be forced to take the view that they need a new DM.

If a single player decides to cheat, on the other hand (or just starts to look awfully like he's cheating), there's a temptation on the part of the DM to 'get' that players character. Payback. The problem there is the same as when one player power-games, so see below.

The issue with one player power-gaming is that an optimised character is probably the equivalent of the rest of the group a level or more ahead in power. If the DM wishes to continue challenging this character, he needs to throw in tougher opponents. The problem there is that encounters that challenge the power-gamer will be lethal to less optimised characters, and so either the optimised character becomes invulnerable, or the rest of the party dies. Neither of these is a particularly desirable outcome.

Ideally, the solution would be for the group to come to a consensus at the start of the campaign about how much cheating is going to go on, and about how optimised characters would be. If everyone is playing the same game, everyone should be happy. Additionally, since there's a clear policy, the group can turn to their resident power-gamer and have him reign in his characters if they become a bit too much.

The problem, of course, is that no-one really wants to admit to cheating. "I was just really lucky," becomes a common refrain, and it's very difficult to prove otherwise. Anyway, if you catch the cheat in the act, you'll just start a big fight that will tear the group apart, so what's the benefit? Ultimately, it's about trust, and some people just can't be trusted. Do you game with them, or do you let it slide?

(For the record, there was an elven necromancer in the previous adventure who cast a Feeblemind on Seebo. Roger, who was running Seebo at the time, rolled some absurdly high save. I said this wasn't enough. I was, of course, lying. Although in the end, Roger raked up another couple of points for the save, and I just couldn't keep the charade going. That's the only recent instance of me cheating that's been particularly bad, I think.)

WFRP

Well, I finished reading the book, and I must say that I'm impressed. Before I go on, I should note that I have no experience with previous versions of this game, although I do have a good deal of knowledge about the setting, from days of yore when I collected Warhammer armies, from White Dwarf, and from a familiarity with the source material (more on this later).

Warhammer is a rules-lite, roll-low percentile system. I am led to believe from the Designer's notes (although Gary contests this) that the old edition made use of all the different dice types; this version is almost certainly superior. Basically, you have to roll less that the appropriate attribute on d% to succeed at most tasks (and so, my characters will kick ass!). There are a couple of exceptions: damage uses a d10 roll + modifiers, and spellcasting requires you roll a number of d10's equal to your magic attribute and get over a target number, but these are rare.

Character creation is simple, although it's a bit odd that you choose your character's race, and then roll for a starting career. One of the options listed is that the GM allow players to choose their career - I think this is probably a case where your better rolling - that seems to be one of the quirks of the game, and something to keep.

Skill and talents work in a fairly simple manner - each skill is tied to an attribute, so to use a skill you roll d% and get under the attribute. Easier and harder tasks apply a modifier to your attribute (think I would have preferred modifiers to the roll, but then an easy task would give a -30% bonus, which doesn't seem quite right). Buying a skill twice gives mastery, which applies a +10% bonus to all rolls with the skill. Talents are just like feats in D&D - each one gives you some ability you didn't previously have, and they can't be improved.

Speaking of D&D, there are a lot of similarities between game elements in D&D and WFRP. Advanced careers seem to map to prestige classes (actually, it's the other way around - advanced careers came first), talents map to skills, and most of the combat options map directly to options in D&D. The major difference is attacks of opportunity - the only time when these occur in WFRP is when characters withdraw from combat. Oh, and it's just not possible to fire most missile weapons while in melee range, rather than the D&Dism of them provoking AoOs.

Combat in WFRP is quick and simple. There are rules for a more complex system, and also a more complex armour system, but it strikes me that your better off just using simple and fast systems.

Allegedly, the magic system is the most overhauled part of the game. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that it's quick, easy, and matches the magic system from the miniatures game very well. All of these are good. Sadly, the spellcasting system does not match the rest of the attribute checks (since you have to roll Xd10 and beat a target), which is probably a weakness.

The book also includes brief details of the setting, which is something of a triumph. It's not the best setting ever invented. It's not particularly original (it's basically dark ages Europe, with the Empire being the Holy Roman Empire, Tilea being Italy, Brettonia being France, and so forth), but it is very flavourful. There's a kind of Conan/Cthulhu thing going on behind the scenes, which is nice. Basically, though, it's just a fun place to adventure, which is precisely what's needed.

This is a great game, and would provide a better introductory RPG than D&D in it's current incarnation. It's probably much better at the job than even the new Basic D&D set, although that's an unfair comparison since I haven't yet seen the latter. The fact that so many of the options can be pulled out, and particularly the fact that the insanity rules are optional (which makes a big difference - with a mature group you would want them in, but with a younger group - the Warhammer crowd - you want them left out), means that the game can be tailored to just what you want.

Best of all, the game already has adventure support - there's an adventure in the book, and a compilation of some old adventures already available, with more on the way. As I've noted before, this is not only a good thing, but almost indispensible for me these days.

The game's not perfect. There are some areas where I would have done things differently. However, this is not a system to house-rule. If you're playing this, it's probably best to play it as written, with only a note about which options you are and are not using. Anything else is overkill. But it is probably worth noting that this game is now my demo game of choice, and I'll probably have to pick up a second copy, so I can leave one at the club where I run those demo games. In short, this is a good one, and highly recommended.

Gaah! Too many books!

For some reason, it takes me forever to get through any Exalted books. I don't know why (honestly, I want to like the game, there's a hell of a lot of cool stuff in there, but it just doesn't grab me like it should).

Anyway, as a consequence of this, whenever I'm working through an Exalted book, my big pile of books to read grows, and grows, and grows. Sadly, I then start to feel like I really have to read them all, and that's just bad. I like reading, and I like reading RPG books. But I hate feeling like I have to read something. It's like being at school all over again.

At the moment, there are three books on the list: Exalted Player's Guide (2 chapters to go), Arcana Evolved, and the new WFRP. Of course, I fully expect to get another bunch of books in the next few weeks...

Use of All Weapons

One of the areas where the current group really falls down, and something that causes them a huge amount of unnecessary grief, is in the use of preparation to make their adventures easier.

By high level, PCs have access to some very powerful spells and abilities. When it comes to optimising their use of high-level attack spells, optimising AC, or getting some extra bonuses with their chosen weapons, the group are masters. However, they rarely, if ever, think of using divinations to find out about their foes beforehand. Divination, Commune and Scrying are all available to Clerics at this level, and can make a huge difference to adventures. Druids have admittedly fewer options, although they do get access to Scrying, while Wizards have a huge range of options, including Legend Lore, Scrying, Contact Other Plane and Vision.

But magic doesn't provide the only options: Knowledge skills can also be extremely useful, provided you've been investing the skill points as you go. Of the Knowledge skills, six provide information about particular monster types (Architecture, Geography, History and Nobility do not). It is not beyond the means of a party of four adventurers to max out all of those skills between them. Granted, this would probably hurt, since the Cleric would need to spend points on Knowledge(religion), when he also needs to spend points in Concentration and, probably, Spellcraft as well (and only gets two skill points by default). The Wizard can probably afford to max out Knowledge(arcana) and Knowledge(the planes) in addition to the essential Concentration and Spellcraft (due to high Intelligence). It will also probably hurt the Rogue to have to max out Knowledge(local) and one other Knowledge skill, for although the Rogue has lots of skill points, he also has lots of skills to buy. And that leaves the Fighter to pick up a Knowledge skill.

Of course, the Fighter would have to take the Knowledge as a cross-class skill (and likewise the Rogue with one of his Knowledges, since only Local is a class skill). And the Fighter also has a paltry two skill points per level. However, skills are really not the forte of the Fighter class. To be honest, he isn't really going to miss out on much by sacrificing even half of his skill points on this venture.

The use of libraries and the like to improve Knowledge skills is something that has been mentioned a couple of times in the game. It's worth noting that a library will give a circumstance bonus to a Knowledge check of up to +5 (for the best libraries), after a full day's study and consultation. However, this bonus does not allow the character to make a Knowledge check untrained, and cannot exceed the ranks that the character has in the skill in the first place. Regardless of how good the books are, unless the character knows enough to ask the right questions, he's really not going to get much benefit from them. That said, the use of a library would allow a character to take 20 on a Knowledge check, but at the cost of taking 20 days checking the library.

Finally, there is always the option of consulting a sage. Typically an Expert with the appropriate Knowledge skill maxed out (assume a Knowledge check of level+8), a sage will be able to find most answers in an appropriate time-frame. Of course, they are also expensive - hiring a sage probably costs 100 gp per level per day (or per question), plus 100 gp per point of library bonus per day. A really easy question requires a DC 10 Knowledge check, so can be handled by even a low-level sage most of the time. A 'normal' question requires a DC 15 check, so is within the range of a low-level sage as well. Harder questions require checks of DC 20 or 30, or even higher.

For knowledge about a monster, the difficulty of the check is 10+hit dice (so, 21 for a Beholder). However, the check only yields one piece of information at that level - each additional piece of information requires that the DC be beaten by 5 points. So, the costs quickly rack up, especially once the sage needs to start taking 20 on his checks. Better to try to have the knowledge to hand oneself.