I got the Gehenna book for Vampire on Wednesday, and have since devoured it. Given that it was an act of sheer madness to end the World of Darkness, I was somewhat eager to find out how they did it. There are no spoilers below.
Gehenna is a 244-page black and white hardback from White Wolf. It cost me £17.99. The book has six chapters and two appendices.
Chapter one briefly outlines the events leading to Gehenna, the secret status of the Antediluvians, and such things. It discusses some of the powers involved in Gehenna, and discusses how they might react to the events in the book. However, this chapter does not answer any questions in a definitive manner - it provides possibilities and the most likely reactions to each. This is probably a good approach, firstly because it puts the power in the hands of the Storyteller, and secondly because no set of answers could ever satisfy everyone.
Chapter 2 through 5 present not one but four different visions of Gehenna. These each deal with different types of storytelling, from the personal to the epic, and cover different themes found in the game. They also take different approaches to the vampiric myth, playing on biblical origins, the Lilith cycle, the Antedluvians, and the Masquerade. Of the four stories, my favourite is definately the first, which is also the least explosive in nature.
These stories avoid a key failing that I've seen in WW prepublished adventures in the past, in that they put the PCs squarely in the centre of the frame. With the exception of the last story, the actions of the PCs are the most important events in the scenario. In the last chapter, the Antediluvians take centre stage, and the action consists largely of one event following another, each of greater power than the last, and none in a manner that PCs can really influence, merely observe. I didn't like the last scenario for this reason. The others were fine. It should be pointed out that these visions of Gehenna are essentially mutually exclusive. You could combine elements from one with the events of another, but the amount of work needed to do so would be considerable (less so for combining the last two, but still extensive).
It should also be pointed out that the four scenarios between them cover groups of almost any power level. From the rawest thin-blooded neonate to the oldest and most powerful elder, one of these stories should be appropriate. Alas, the Storyteller's preferred Gehenna might not match the power of his group...
Chapter 6 discusses storytelling the end of the world, and has a lot of interesting things to say. It speaks about personalising the story, not holding back, not being especially bound by "fairness", and putting the PCs at centre stage. This was all useful material, which might have been helpful when I ran my own version of Gehenna some time ago. Or perhaps not, since I think that campaign was probably too far gone by then.
Appendix 1 provides sample characters for the adventures in the book. These are mostly well-known vampires, such as Sascha Vykos, Hesha and Dr. Netchurch. Appendix 2 discusses Caine, and the viability of actually using him in a Gehenna story. Perhaps oddly, only one of the four stories features Caine in any significant way, and the appendix seems to advise against doing so.
Two things leapt out at me from this book. Firstly, it is a very fitting end to the Vampire line. In some ways, I wish I had been running a Vampire game for the past year, to allow me to use it. I wouldn't use this book for a one-off game, and probably won't now get the chance to use it as written at all (I imagine that a book of adventures like this will lose its value quite quickly after publication, given how important it is to the metaplot). However, I did like the sense of finality that came from closing the covers on this book after finishing it.
The other thing that surprised me is how rules-light this book is. I guess I've become used to d20 adventures again, where you get a bunch of encounter areas, coupled with stats. The adventures in this book are almost entirely missing stats for enemies. The Antediluvians are never properly statted out, and Caine isn't even touched. This is intentional, to allow the Storyteller to tailor challenges to his PCs, but it still came as rather a surprise, and perhaps a disappointment.
I'm also gutted that it seems we'll never find out what two words Xavier said to the Camarilla Inner Circle when the Gangrel seceeded. Alas.
Friday, 16 January 2004
Thursday, 15 January 2004
Review: Draconomicon
For the past three weeks, I've been reading the Draconomicon on and off. It's a big book about dragons for D&D. Here's the review:
The Draconomicon, like all Wizards' books these days, is both hardback and full-colour. This is apparently the first of a series of 'prestige' books, featuring extensive artwork, superior design and the like. Personally, I don't care for such things, and would prefer a lower price, but so be it. The book is about 290 pages long, has five chapters and two appendices. Finally, in terms of quality, the editing of this book is damn-near flawless, as is usually the case with Wizards, Green Ronin and Malhavoc. However, the pages seem bound slightly too close to the spine, which makes reading some of the text a little difficult (but not impossible).
Chapter 1 tells us all about dragons. It covers dragon physiology, psychology, and species, and runs to some 52 pages. I really didn't like this chapter. I didn't find it useful, or interesting, or frankly worth exploring. There are three big problems with it: (1) I could cut both hands off, and still count the number of times I've been asked how a dragon's eyes work while still having stumps left over. I don't really need to know this, and if ever asked, I could just make stuff up. (2) If you're going to make up physiology for fantasy creatures (which is an unnecessary exercise), it needs to bear some relation to real physiology, or at least explain the inconsitencies. For instance, my understanding of the eye is that the pupil is little more than a hole that lets light in. So, how then can there be another, smaller eye embedded in the pupil of the main eye? Also, we are expected to believe that dragons can fly without some magical explanation, which is clearly nonsensical. (3) By tying down things like the lifespan of dragons, their ties to the elements, and so on, the book actually restricts my ability to make dragons fit with my campaign. Or rather, it would if I considered any rulebook authoritative. However, since I now have to throw that material out, I have to question its value in the first place.
Anyway, as a result of my displeasure with chapter 1, I started chapter 2 with some trepidation. This one handles the DM's perspective on dragons, and how to use them in a campaign. This chapter runs to 44 pages. It starts with a brief discussion of the role of dragons in a campaign (as just more monsters, plotters behind the scenes, or overarching campaign villains), and then proceeds to offer some advice on how to stage an encounter with a dragon. This is quite nice. The chapter then has a bunch of feats, spells, magic items and prestige classes tailored especially for dragons.
Sigh. I could have done without yet more of any of these. The feats may prove useful, and some of the magic items (particularly those modifying entire rooms of a dragon's lair) are nice, the spells are pretty dull. As for the prestige classes, I have to ask why these are here? Dragons are already so powerful that they hardly ever get used, so a dragon with a prestige class is unlikely to ever feature in the majority of games. The only game in which I'd expect more than one of these classes to appear would be one played at epic levels. Otherwise, they seem really wasteful.
The chapter ends with a discussion on advancing dragons beyond Great Wyrm. Again, this would be useful for epic-level play, but is unlikely to be useful to most campaigns.
Chapter 3 deals with dragon encounters from the player's perspective. It also runs to 44 pages, and follows the same pattern as the previous chapter. Here, however, the discussion about dragon encounters discusses how to survive them, and the other materials at least have a chance of appearing in the average campaign.
That said, there are still some flaws. Firstly, a lot of the feats and spells are pretty boring. Secondly, while the prestige classes are okay, and rather better than the ones for dragons, most of them read as being "the dragon-flavoured paladin", "the dragon-flavoured rogue", "the dragon-flavoured bard", and so on. They're mostly not that interesting. But the big problem is in some of the feats, which are specially designed to negate a feat or special ability possessed by the target. For instance, there's a feat that allows the user to perform an attack of opportunity on a target starting a grapple, even if they have the Improved Grab ability (which itself specifically removes that attack of opportunity). This strikes me as a really bad idea, firstly because it's of such marginal benefit, but more importantly because it seems designed specifically to hose a player who has made the investment in the ability that has just been negated. Characters should get the opportunity to use their hard-earned powers.
By this point, I was not well-pleased. Chapter 1 was bad, chapter 2 was much better, but of marginal use, and chapter 3 was good but not great. And, for the cost of the book, I'd expected greatness.
Chapter 4 provides new monsters, all of a draconic nature. 45 pages of new dragon-themed monsters. Great.
Fortunately, this chapter is actually good. It covers a bunch of classics, such as the dracolich (there are, as can be seen, some reprints, but these are all conversions from 3rd ed to 3.5, and are also from out-of-print or FR-specific books). It provides undead templates for dragons, allowing the DM to use skeletal, vampiric or zombie dragons. And it has a bunch of new dragons, including planar dragons. Finally, this is another chapter that seems to provide support for epic-level games, which may not be a bad thing.
So, I'm glad to say I found this useful.
Chapter 5 is then composed of sample dragons, and is the single most useful chapter in the book. In 78 pages, it provides a sample dragon of every size in every one of the 10 main colours of dragons. Since the lack of this very feature in the MM is the biggest hurdle to the use of dragons in a campaign, this chapter is a godsend. Furthermore, the chapter also provides advice on customising and upgrading the dragons and provides some sample lair layouts. I like it.
Appendix 1 discusses lairs, providing extensive tables to help the DM transform a lair from a big pile of coins (in even bundles of 100, of course), into proper treasures as befit PCs who manage to kill one of these creatures. Useful, and short.
Appendix 2 then lists all the various types of dragons to appear in any official 3rd edition (or 3.5 edition) source, up to the time of printing. This includes the MM, Forgotten Realms sources, Dragons magazine, and so on. It does not include general d20 products, nor the Kingdoms of Kalamar products (which are not Wizrads' products, but carry the D&D logo due to some deal between the companies). Frankly, this list is not that useful anyway.
And there it is. I think that DMs of epic-level games will find this book extremely useful, as will any DM who hopes to use dragons regularly in his game (for the stuff in chapter 5). For the most part, however, it's probably the case that this book can be left on the shelf without harm.
The Draconomicon, like all Wizards' books these days, is both hardback and full-colour. This is apparently the first of a series of 'prestige' books, featuring extensive artwork, superior design and the like. Personally, I don't care for such things, and would prefer a lower price, but so be it. The book is about 290 pages long, has five chapters and two appendices. Finally, in terms of quality, the editing of this book is damn-near flawless, as is usually the case with Wizards, Green Ronin and Malhavoc. However, the pages seem bound slightly too close to the spine, which makes reading some of the text a little difficult (but not impossible).
Chapter 1 tells us all about dragons. It covers dragon physiology, psychology, and species, and runs to some 52 pages. I really didn't like this chapter. I didn't find it useful, or interesting, or frankly worth exploring. There are three big problems with it: (1) I could cut both hands off, and still count the number of times I've been asked how a dragon's eyes work while still having stumps left over. I don't really need to know this, and if ever asked, I could just make stuff up. (2) If you're going to make up physiology for fantasy creatures (which is an unnecessary exercise), it needs to bear some relation to real physiology, or at least explain the inconsitencies. For instance, my understanding of the eye is that the pupil is little more than a hole that lets light in. So, how then can there be another, smaller eye embedded in the pupil of the main eye? Also, we are expected to believe that dragons can fly without some magical explanation, which is clearly nonsensical. (3) By tying down things like the lifespan of dragons, their ties to the elements, and so on, the book actually restricts my ability to make dragons fit with my campaign. Or rather, it would if I considered any rulebook authoritative. However, since I now have to throw that material out, I have to question its value in the first place.
Anyway, as a result of my displeasure with chapter 1, I started chapter 2 with some trepidation. This one handles the DM's perspective on dragons, and how to use them in a campaign. This chapter runs to 44 pages. It starts with a brief discussion of the role of dragons in a campaign (as just more monsters, plotters behind the scenes, or overarching campaign villains), and then proceeds to offer some advice on how to stage an encounter with a dragon. This is quite nice. The chapter then has a bunch of feats, spells, magic items and prestige classes tailored especially for dragons.
Sigh. I could have done without yet more of any of these. The feats may prove useful, and some of the magic items (particularly those modifying entire rooms of a dragon's lair) are nice, the spells are pretty dull. As for the prestige classes, I have to ask why these are here? Dragons are already so powerful that they hardly ever get used, so a dragon with a prestige class is unlikely to ever feature in the majority of games. The only game in which I'd expect more than one of these classes to appear would be one played at epic levels. Otherwise, they seem really wasteful.
The chapter ends with a discussion on advancing dragons beyond Great Wyrm. Again, this would be useful for epic-level play, but is unlikely to be useful to most campaigns.
Chapter 3 deals with dragon encounters from the player's perspective. It also runs to 44 pages, and follows the same pattern as the previous chapter. Here, however, the discussion about dragon encounters discusses how to survive them, and the other materials at least have a chance of appearing in the average campaign.
That said, there are still some flaws. Firstly, a lot of the feats and spells are pretty boring. Secondly, while the prestige classes are okay, and rather better than the ones for dragons, most of them read as being "the dragon-flavoured paladin", "the dragon-flavoured rogue", "the dragon-flavoured bard", and so on. They're mostly not that interesting. But the big problem is in some of the feats, which are specially designed to negate a feat or special ability possessed by the target. For instance, there's a feat that allows the user to perform an attack of opportunity on a target starting a grapple, even if they have the Improved Grab ability (which itself specifically removes that attack of opportunity). This strikes me as a really bad idea, firstly because it's of such marginal benefit, but more importantly because it seems designed specifically to hose a player who has made the investment in the ability that has just been negated. Characters should get the opportunity to use their hard-earned powers.
By this point, I was not well-pleased. Chapter 1 was bad, chapter 2 was much better, but of marginal use, and chapter 3 was good but not great. And, for the cost of the book, I'd expected greatness.
Chapter 4 provides new monsters, all of a draconic nature. 45 pages of new dragon-themed monsters. Great.
Fortunately, this chapter is actually good. It covers a bunch of classics, such as the dracolich (there are, as can be seen, some reprints, but these are all conversions from 3rd ed to 3.5, and are also from out-of-print or FR-specific books). It provides undead templates for dragons, allowing the DM to use skeletal, vampiric or zombie dragons. And it has a bunch of new dragons, including planar dragons. Finally, this is another chapter that seems to provide support for epic-level games, which may not be a bad thing.
So, I'm glad to say I found this useful.
Chapter 5 is then composed of sample dragons, and is the single most useful chapter in the book. In 78 pages, it provides a sample dragon of every size in every one of the 10 main colours of dragons. Since the lack of this very feature in the MM is the biggest hurdle to the use of dragons in a campaign, this chapter is a godsend. Furthermore, the chapter also provides advice on customising and upgrading the dragons and provides some sample lair layouts. I like it.
Appendix 1 discusses lairs, providing extensive tables to help the DM transform a lair from a big pile of coins (in even bundles of 100, of course), into proper treasures as befit PCs who manage to kill one of these creatures. Useful, and short.
Appendix 2 then lists all the various types of dragons to appear in any official 3rd edition (or 3.5 edition) source, up to the time of printing. This includes the MM, Forgotten Realms sources, Dragons magazine, and so on. It does not include general d20 products, nor the Kingdoms of Kalamar products (which are not Wizrads' products, but carry the D&D logo due to some deal between the companies). Frankly, this list is not that useful anyway.
And there it is. I think that DMs of epic-level games will find this book extremely useful, as will any DM who hopes to use dragons regularly in his game (for the stuff in chapter 5). For the most part, however, it's probably the case that this book can be left on the shelf without harm.
Friday, 2 January 2004
Gaming in 2004
Given that everyone and his uncle has felt the need to post their review of 2003, I thought I'd instead post some hopes for what will happen in 2004. I've decided to confine myself to things that I think have at least some chance of happening (so, no hoping for an end to the Wheel of Time), and also to things that have some connection to gaming (so, no hoping for an end to the Wheel of Time). Anyway, this leaves only a few things:
Basic D&D
This is already happening, in the form of a new introductory boxed set from Wizards of the Coast. I just hope it's somewhat decent. Simply put, there isn't a good introductory RPG in existence, mostly because the only games with the required name recognition are D&D and Vampire (okay, and maybe Buffy and LotR), the subject matter of Vampire is (theoretically) too mature for an introduction for teens, and D&D is way too complex to be used as an introduction. Not to mention the fact that the buy-in costs for any of these games are way too high.
(You'll note that I haven't really addressed the use of Buffy or LotR as an introductory game, other than to say they're too expensive. That's because I haven't read them, so can't comment.)
WoD 2.0
In my opinion, they should have ended the WoD, left it for a few years, and then considered a new version. However, given that they're doing it now, I rather hope it's done "right". By which I mean I hope they do three things:
1) Follow the "Exalted" model of books, where the core rulebook introduces the core game (most likely Vampire), and the major hardbacks then introduce other factions (Werewolves, Mages, etc). This seems to work very well.
2) Design the game so that cross-overs aren't a logistical nightmare. Again, this is similar to the Exalted model, where all factions seem to have Charms, which work in broadly the same way. That said, Exalted doesn't seem to advocate cross-overs, merely make them possible, which suits me just fine.
3) Strip out the crap. The existing WoD is creaking with an over-abundance of powers behind the throne, supernatural factions, and so forth. There's also a lot of stuff that breaks the tone (comedy Malkavians, for instance), and a failure to decide whether they're doing a horror game or a superheroes game. Frankly, I would like to see them throw everything out, and start again. Sure, you can then add clans of vampires, if desired, but they should also feel free to leave them out, if they think the game would be better without.
In any event, nothing that's happening with the WoD is going to make the existing games less playable, so if the worst comes to the worst, I'll just ignore this new edition.
Exalted
2003 wasn't a great year for gaming (one bad game, one game abandonned, one game that became a never-ending sequence of combats, and a bunch of less-than-stellar releases), but the one new game I encountered that was good was Exalted.
In fact, Exalted was something of a revelation, in the same way that the new edition of D&D was and my first encounter with Vampire was. However, unlike these other two games, I've decided not to invest in a set of the books, and learn everything there is to know about it. Instead, I'll find things out by gaming.
So, yes, I'm hoping to get a chance to play some more Exalted this coming year.
Tollis
The other game I'm wanting to play this year is my new D&D campaign, set in a home-brew world called Tollis. And, I hope it doesn't suck.
Anyway, those are my hopes for gaming in 2004.
Basic D&D
This is already happening, in the form of a new introductory boxed set from Wizards of the Coast. I just hope it's somewhat decent. Simply put, there isn't a good introductory RPG in existence, mostly because the only games with the required name recognition are D&D and Vampire (okay, and maybe Buffy and LotR), the subject matter of Vampire is (theoretically) too mature for an introduction for teens, and D&D is way too complex to be used as an introduction. Not to mention the fact that the buy-in costs for any of these games are way too high.
(You'll note that I haven't really addressed the use of Buffy or LotR as an introductory game, other than to say they're too expensive. That's because I haven't read them, so can't comment.)
WoD 2.0
In my opinion, they should have ended the WoD, left it for a few years, and then considered a new version. However, given that they're doing it now, I rather hope it's done "right". By which I mean I hope they do three things:
1) Follow the "Exalted" model of books, where the core rulebook introduces the core game (most likely Vampire), and the major hardbacks then introduce other factions (Werewolves, Mages, etc). This seems to work very well.
2) Design the game so that cross-overs aren't a logistical nightmare. Again, this is similar to the Exalted model, where all factions seem to have Charms, which work in broadly the same way. That said, Exalted doesn't seem to advocate cross-overs, merely make them possible, which suits me just fine.
3) Strip out the crap. The existing WoD is creaking with an over-abundance of powers behind the throne, supernatural factions, and so forth. There's also a lot of stuff that breaks the tone (comedy Malkavians, for instance), and a failure to decide whether they're doing a horror game or a superheroes game. Frankly, I would like to see them throw everything out, and start again. Sure, you can then add clans of vampires, if desired, but they should also feel free to leave them out, if they think the game would be better without.
In any event, nothing that's happening with the WoD is going to make the existing games less playable, so if the worst comes to the worst, I'll just ignore this new edition.
Exalted
2003 wasn't a great year for gaming (one bad game, one game abandonned, one game that became a never-ending sequence of combats, and a bunch of less-than-stellar releases), but the one new game I encountered that was good was Exalted.
In fact, Exalted was something of a revelation, in the same way that the new edition of D&D was and my first encounter with Vampire was. However, unlike these other two games, I've decided not to invest in a set of the books, and learn everything there is to know about it. Instead, I'll find things out by gaming.
So, yes, I'm hoping to get a chance to play some more Exalted this coming year.
Tollis
The other game I'm wanting to play this year is my new D&D campaign, set in a home-brew world called Tollis. And, I hope it doesn't suck.
Anyway, those are my hopes for gaming in 2004.
Thursday, 11 December 2003
Cyberpunk roleplaying
I gave up on OGL Cybernet, after getting to the second last chapter. As I mentioned below, there were a couple of issues that were really bugging me, and that I'd rant on later. In fact, that list grew, and grew, and eventually overwhelmed me.
Reinventing the Wheel
If there's one thing that pisses me off about d20 (and, incidentally, Storyteller) is core rulebooks that repeat huge swathes of the rules verbatim, and make a handful of small changes. So, you have to read hundreds of pages of the same old stuff in order to get to a handful of changes.
Frankly, if you're going to do a core rulebook, you really should provide clear guidance on what's different, for the benefit of players familiar with the system. This doesn't apply if there are huge changes, as is the case in Mutants & Masterminds, for instance, but does apply here.
Better still, if you don't need to produce a new core book, don't. Chances are most people interested in your game have the D&D Player's Handbook already. If it's d20 Modern based, it's likely that that book has well outsold your effort anyway. We have these resouces available. Use them, please.
Incomplete Games
If you are going to do a core rulebook, it better damn well be complete. You need to include rules for non-lethal damage if it's going to be a part of the game. Just because I can fill in the gaps doesn't mean that I should have to - and I resent carrying two books to the game when I should only need one.
General Editing
I've ranted about this before (although perhaps not here), but since the previous point is a symptom of general problems with editing, allow me to say it here: if your book doesn't read well, I'm going to be predisposed to hate it. Sorry, I don't care how good your ideas are, if you can't express them well I'm almost certainly nor interested.
Editors are worth their weight in gold. Find a good one, and never let her go.
Hit Points
Right, on to the specifics of OGL Cybernet. This game uses the standard hit point system as found in D&D and d20 Modern. Now, in the past I've defended hit points as being a good system. Granted, it's a very simple system, and not at all realistic, but it is a system that works, and can help build the exact feeling you're looking for in some games. Specifically, in D&D and Star Wars d20, hit points are the way to go.
However, cyberpunk should be dark, gritty, and very lethal. Although there's likely to be a lot of gunfire in such a game, there should be a strong incentive on the parts of the players to keep their characters out of it. And, there's absolutely no way to get that sort of a feel when moderate-level heroes can easily take multiple hits from heavy calibre firearms and keep on coming, with no impact on their capabilities.
There are various fixes to this problem:
1) Use the Vitality/Wounds system from Star Wars. This allows characters to take multiple hits, but also leaves them horribly vulnerable to criticals. Which is, I think, a good thing. That said, the VP/WP system is closed content at the moment, so not available for general use.
2) Use the hit point system from Babylon 5, where characters get 1d6+c hit points at first level, where c is a class-based constant. Each level, they gain 1 to 3 more hit points, again based on class. Constitution increases the chance a wounded character will stabilise; it does not give additional hit points. To be honest, I was sure this would be the route they'd take.
3) Use a save versus damage, coupled with wound levels. This is the system I would use:
Each time a character takes damage, he must roll a Fortitude save (see below for DC). If the character succeeds, he shrugs off the damage without effect.
If the character fails by 1-5 points, he takes a functional wound. Such wounds don't impair the character noticably at the time they are received, but may have greater effects after the combat ends. Functional wounds can also be of an aggravated and non-aggravated form. Basically, they start off non-aggravated, but become aggravated if the character engages in strenuous activity before getting them treated (so, if the character continues fighting, his wounds become aggravated). Functional wounds are things like stab wounds to the chest, torn muscles, and so on. Basically, anything that doesn't immediately take the character out.
If the character fails by 6-10 points, he suffers a non-functional wound. Such wounds take the character out of the fight immediately. Non-functional wounds are therefore quite serious, but they're not necessarily more dangerous than functional wounds - just more instantly debilitating. For instance, a non-functional wound could simply be a blow to the head that renders the character unconscious.
If the character fails by more than 10 points, the character takes a mortal wound. Such a character is immediately removed from the combat, and additionally proceeds to bleed out. Unless such a character stabilises on his own, or received treatment urgently, he will be dead in 10 rounds. (The rules for stabilisation are unchanged.)
The DC of the save versus damage is (15 + damage taken + wound modifiers). Each wound the character has taken (regardless of type) adds 5 to the base DC. So, a character takes 3 points of damage from a dagger, having previously received 2 functional wounds (which were treated), 1 functional wound (which has become aggravated) and a non-functional wound. The DC of the save versus damage is therefore (15+3+5+5+5+5 = 38).
After the combat, it is expected that the character will seek treatment for his wounds. This is also the time when the actual effects of the wounds are determined (useful in a cyberpunk game). At this point, we also reach the end of my thoughts on the matter, so I'll post again when I have more.
Reinventing the Wheel
If there's one thing that pisses me off about d20 (and, incidentally, Storyteller) is core rulebooks that repeat huge swathes of the rules verbatim, and make a handful of small changes. So, you have to read hundreds of pages of the same old stuff in order to get to a handful of changes.
Frankly, if you're going to do a core rulebook, you really should provide clear guidance on what's different, for the benefit of players familiar with the system. This doesn't apply if there are huge changes, as is the case in Mutants & Masterminds, for instance, but does apply here.
Better still, if you don't need to produce a new core book, don't. Chances are most people interested in your game have the D&D Player's Handbook already. If it's d20 Modern based, it's likely that that book has well outsold your effort anyway. We have these resouces available. Use them, please.
Incomplete Games
If you are going to do a core rulebook, it better damn well be complete. You need to include rules for non-lethal damage if it's going to be a part of the game. Just because I can fill in the gaps doesn't mean that I should have to - and I resent carrying two books to the game when I should only need one.
General Editing
I've ranted about this before (although perhaps not here), but since the previous point is a symptom of general problems with editing, allow me to say it here: if your book doesn't read well, I'm going to be predisposed to hate it. Sorry, I don't care how good your ideas are, if you can't express them well I'm almost certainly nor interested.
Editors are worth their weight in gold. Find a good one, and never let her go.
Hit Points
Right, on to the specifics of OGL Cybernet. This game uses the standard hit point system as found in D&D and d20 Modern. Now, in the past I've defended hit points as being a good system. Granted, it's a very simple system, and not at all realistic, but it is a system that works, and can help build the exact feeling you're looking for in some games. Specifically, in D&D and Star Wars d20, hit points are the way to go.
However, cyberpunk should be dark, gritty, and very lethal. Although there's likely to be a lot of gunfire in such a game, there should be a strong incentive on the parts of the players to keep their characters out of it. And, there's absolutely no way to get that sort of a feel when moderate-level heroes can easily take multiple hits from heavy calibre firearms and keep on coming, with no impact on their capabilities.
There are various fixes to this problem:
1) Use the Vitality/Wounds system from Star Wars. This allows characters to take multiple hits, but also leaves them horribly vulnerable to criticals. Which is, I think, a good thing. That said, the VP/WP system is closed content at the moment, so not available for general use.
2) Use the hit point system from Babylon 5, where characters get 1d6+c hit points at first level, where c is a class-based constant. Each level, they gain 1 to 3 more hit points, again based on class. Constitution increases the chance a wounded character will stabilise; it does not give additional hit points. To be honest, I was sure this would be the route they'd take.
3) Use a save versus damage, coupled with wound levels. This is the system I would use:
Each time a character takes damage, he must roll a Fortitude save (see below for DC). If the character succeeds, he shrugs off the damage without effect.
If the character fails by 1-5 points, he takes a functional wound. Such wounds don't impair the character noticably at the time they are received, but may have greater effects after the combat ends. Functional wounds can also be of an aggravated and non-aggravated form. Basically, they start off non-aggravated, but become aggravated if the character engages in strenuous activity before getting them treated (so, if the character continues fighting, his wounds become aggravated). Functional wounds are things like stab wounds to the chest, torn muscles, and so on. Basically, anything that doesn't immediately take the character out.
If the character fails by 6-10 points, he suffers a non-functional wound. Such wounds take the character out of the fight immediately. Non-functional wounds are therefore quite serious, but they're not necessarily more dangerous than functional wounds - just more instantly debilitating. For instance, a non-functional wound could simply be a blow to the head that renders the character unconscious.
If the character fails by more than 10 points, the character takes a mortal wound. Such a character is immediately removed from the combat, and additionally proceeds to bleed out. Unless such a character stabilises on his own, or received treatment urgently, he will be dead in 10 rounds. (The rules for stabilisation are unchanged.)
The DC of the save versus damage is (15 + damage taken + wound modifiers). Each wound the character has taken (regardless of type) adds 5 to the base DC. So, a character takes 3 points of damage from a dagger, having previously received 2 functional wounds (which were treated), 1 functional wound (which has become aggravated) and a non-functional wound. The DC of the save versus damage is therefore (15+3+5+5+5+5 = 38).
After the combat, it is expected that the character will seek treatment for his wounds. This is also the time when the actual effects of the wounds are determined (useful in a cyberpunk game). At this point, we also reach the end of my thoughts on the matter, so I'll post again when I have more.
"What is Roleplaying"...
I'm currently reading OGL Cybernet, which is essentially d20 cyberpunk. I say essentially because it uses the d20 mechanics, but is published under the OGL rather than d20 license, in order to include character creation rules, and it's in no way related to the Cyberpunk 2020 game - except in that it covers the same genre.
Anyway, the game is moderately interesting, despite a couple of things that are driving me crazy (cyberware and hit points being the main ones, but that's another rant). However, as with so many other role-playing games, it opens with the standard discussion of what exactly roleplaying is.
Now, perhaps I'm being foolish, but I would expect that a game as obscure as this title (and, indeed, every other role-playing game except D&D and maybe Vampire) is only ever going to be sold in speciality game stores, or on places like Amazon where you're only going to find it if you specifically look for it. Either of which means that only gamers are likely to pick it up. And, one would expect, gamers already know what roleplaying is (not to mention that the concept is now generally understood, due to the use of roleplaying in education, staff training, and the like. It's only the concept of a role-playing game that might need explained).
So, frankly, what's the point? Just assume your readers know what the game's about, and use the space for more useful things. Like blank space or something.
Storyteller Advice
While I'm on the topic of wasted space, I'm starting to lean towards the notion that GM advice on constructing stories, campaigns and so forth (rather than specific issues like accurately balancing challenges, varying encounters, and so on) are a waste of space. Such discussions are often aimed at such a level that every good GM already knows everything that's mentioned in them. It's also manifestly obvious that bad GMs don't even read them, or if they do they don't pay any attention, instead being focussed on the 5,000 additional enemy groups you've just introduced, and are now advising they don't use.
Anyway, the game is moderately interesting, despite a couple of things that are driving me crazy (cyberware and hit points being the main ones, but that's another rant). However, as with so many other role-playing games, it opens with the standard discussion of what exactly roleplaying is.
Now, perhaps I'm being foolish, but I would expect that a game as obscure as this title (and, indeed, every other role-playing game except D&D and maybe Vampire) is only ever going to be sold in speciality game stores, or on places like Amazon where you're only going to find it if you specifically look for it. Either of which means that only gamers are likely to pick it up. And, one would expect, gamers already know what roleplaying is (not to mention that the concept is now generally understood, due to the use of roleplaying in education, staff training, and the like. It's only the concept of a role-playing game that might need explained).
So, frankly, what's the point? Just assume your readers know what the game's about, and use the space for more useful things. Like blank space or something.
Storyteller Advice
While I'm on the topic of wasted space, I'm starting to lean towards the notion that GM advice on constructing stories, campaigns and so forth (rather than specific issues like accurately balancing challenges, varying encounters, and so on) are a waste of space. Such discussions are often aimed at such a level that every good GM already knows everything that's mentioned in them. It's also manifestly obvious that bad GMs don't even read them, or if they do they don't pay any attention, instead being focussed on the 5,000 additional enemy groups you've just introduced, and are now advising they don't use.
Sunday, 30 November 2003
Fascinating...
Many moons ago, Wizards of the Coast did extensive marketing surveys to help them design D&D 3rd edition so it would sell. Can't fault them for that.
Anyway, some of the results of the survey have recently been posted at . I must say, I find the sections that are given (and I don't really believe that these represent the entirety of the results, which isn't claimed there anyway) quite fascinating. The only thing that I wish we had was a copy of the surveys and also the algorithms used to profile people - it would be useful to profile the group in order to better tailor adventures to the players.
Anyway, the thing I found most interesting was the section that said that pretty much all players, regardless of other results, looked for games with the following elements:
So, if one ditches the sixth of these (add-on sets), this provides a checklist of elements for a DM to incorporate into his games in order to help ensure a good time is had by all.
(Also interesting was the notion that most good DMs fall into the "Storyteller" category, while most good game designers fall into the "Thinker" category. I'm not sure that's right - I suspect most good DMs and game designers probably have a little of both, but I might well be wrong.)
Anyway, some of the results of the survey have recently been posted at . I must say, I find the sections that are given (and I don't really believe that these represent the entirety of the results, which isn't claimed there anyway) quite fascinating. The only thing that I wish we had was a copy of the surveys and also the algorithms used to profile people - it would be useful to profile the group in order to better tailor adventures to the players.
Anyway, the thing I found most interesting was the section that said that pretty much all players, regardless of other results, looked for games with the following elements:
- Strong Characters and Exciting Story
- Role Playing
- Complexity Increases over Time
- Requires Strategic Thinking
- Competitive
- Add on sets/New versions available
- Uses imagination
- Mentally challenging
So, if one ditches the sixth of these (add-on sets), this provides a checklist of elements for a DM to incorporate into his games in order to help ensure a good time is had by all.
(Also interesting was the notion that most good DMs fall into the "Storyteller" category, while most good game designers fall into the "Thinker" category. I'm not sure that's right - I suspect most good DMs and game designers probably have a little of both, but I might well be wrong.)
Friday, 28 November 2003
"So, you all meet in a pub, when this old guy..."
Sorry I haven't posted in ages. The problem with agreeing with what the other person says is that it doesn't leave much room for comment.
Anyway, it looks like my next game is going to be another D&D campaign. For this one, I've been looking into creating an entirely new setting, and one of the elements that I wanted to get rid of was the generic pub, especially as a launching ground for adventures.
So, I've set up the major culture of the setting with a social taboo against eating in front of strangers. It is considered common to do so (except in the military, but that's life for the enlisted grunt). Instead of the standard in with a single common room, villages would have boarding houses, where small groups would rent a large room, and both dine and sleep there, in the company of their friends. (I'm reasonably sure that the eating thing was more or less how things worked in the days of the Roman Empire, but I may well be wrong about that. It doesn't really matter.)
There are three problems with this, derived from the role of the inn in the standard campaign:
1) The inn was often used as a starting point for adventures, a recruiting ground for mercenaries, and so forth. Removing the common room removes the usefulness of this approach.
2) The common room was the best place to look for rumours and gossip in the village. Without the common room, again we lose out.
3) The inn also provided a safe haven and a few regular NPCs, which could be used to ground the game. To a certain extent, this can be lost as well, since PCs will dine alone.
Naturally, each of these problems can be solved quite easily, by ensuring that there are marketplaces and fora in which to gather rumours and information, arranging for alternative sources for adventure hooks, and ensuring that there are familiar NPCs. Still, just one more thing for me to worry about.
Anyway, it looks like my next game is going to be another D&D campaign. For this one, I've been looking into creating an entirely new setting, and one of the elements that I wanted to get rid of was the generic pub, especially as a launching ground for adventures.
So, I've set up the major culture of the setting with a social taboo against eating in front of strangers. It is considered common to do so (except in the military, but that's life for the enlisted grunt). Instead of the standard in with a single common room, villages would have boarding houses, where small groups would rent a large room, and both dine and sleep there, in the company of their friends. (I'm reasonably sure that the eating thing was more or less how things worked in the days of the Roman Empire, but I may well be wrong about that. It doesn't really matter.)
There are three problems with this, derived from the role of the inn in the standard campaign:
1) The inn was often used as a starting point for adventures, a recruiting ground for mercenaries, and so forth. Removing the common room removes the usefulness of this approach.
2) The common room was the best place to look for rumours and gossip in the village. Without the common room, again we lose out.
3) The inn also provided a safe haven and a few regular NPCs, which could be used to ground the game. To a certain extent, this can be lost as well, since PCs will dine alone.
Naturally, each of these problems can be solved quite easily, by ensuring that there are marketplaces and fora in which to gather rumours and information, arranging for alternative sources for adventure hooks, and ensuring that there are familiar NPCs. Still, just one more thing for me to worry about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)