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.