Three Pillars

A much shorter one this time.

When developing 5e, WotC very wisely identified three pillars to the game: combat, interaction, and exploration. These three are probably not the only things in the game, but they make for a remarkably solid cross-section. And a game that is strong in all three is very likely to be a very strong game, while the weaker any of the pillars are, the less it's likely to appeal to some players.

I'm inclined to suggest one further thing: every player character should be able to meaningfully contribute to situations involving any of the three pillars.

(Amongst other things, that probably means that tying interaction to a single stat (Cha) that's of value to only some few character classes is a really bad idea. That creates a situation where the party Bard/Sorcerer automatically becomes the party 'face' and gets to enjoy all of that pillar while everyone else sits back and watches. But, other than simply removing the social skills and divorcing Charisma from interactions almost entirely, I'm not sure what the fix would be. Or maybe that is the fix!)

Quantum of Fun

Once upon a time, Ryan Dancey described D&D as being "twenty minutes of fun, crammed into four hours". While that's not entirely fair, it is true that there's some truth in it. As I've become older, my available time for gaming has inevitably become constrained, and my patience with time-wasting activities has likewise decreased. As such, the level of payoff Dancey implies is just no longer acceptable to me.

Unfortunately, part of the issue is systematic - RPGs seem to inevitably become overly complex, and as the game proceeds to higher levels that complexity seems to grow exponentially. And part of it is also a feature of group size - if there are eight players it will take at least twice as long to get around the table every combat round than if there are four, and probably considerably longer even than that.

But there are very definitely some things that the group can do to improve their payoff. Some of these fall to the players, some to the DM, and some require effort on both parts.

The first thing, of course, is simply to pick the right game. High-level Pathfinder with all the bells and whistles runs more slowly than a game like Star Wars d6 run with the core rules only. That doesn't mean that one game is superior to the other, and neither does it mean that you'll always gets the benefits you expect from the simpler game (if everyone at the table knows Pathfinder really well but doesn't know SWd6 at all, you'll see much less of a gain).

And the second, sadly, is to constrain the table size appropriately - as noted, eight players means that the game runs at least half as fast as with four players. There's a sweet spot, probably around 3-5 players (plus DM) that probably maximises fun, by keeping a nice, vibrant mix of voices but also keeping things moving at a good pace. (Of course, that supposes that almost everyone is there almost all the time. Irregular attendance can also derail a group.)

Some specific actions for players, then:

• Get on With It! This one is pretty simple - when your turn comes to act, be ready with your choice of action, have the dice you need easily to hand, and if there's a rules reference needed the look that up in advance. Basically, take your action as quickly and as smoothly as you can.
• Know the rules, or at least the ones pertaining to your character. This should be simple enough - every time you need to check, you're slowing up the game, so try to do it as little as possible.
• Don't argue with the DM (or other players). This one can be quite hard to stick to, and it requires a significant level of trust around the table (that the DM will be fair and that the other players won't try to cheat). But the truth is that arguing will slow the game right down, and while you might be technically correct (which is the best type of correct), the cost in terms of rate of fun means it's probably not worth it.
• Don't cheat, and don't take liberties. That's a corrollary to the above - the "don't argue" point requires that everyone around the table trusts one another, and if you cheat, you break that trust. (The "don't take liberties" one has a couple of flavours, but it's beyond the scope of this rant. Basically, make sure to apply both the benefits of your powers and the limitations.)

For DMs, the corresponding actions:

• Be as clear as you can. If not, players may declare an action that makes no sense, or they have to stop the game to ask questions and then determine their action. Either way, that slows the game down... and doubly so if a player is naturally indecisive.
• Keep the action moving. This can be as simply as gently pushing a player to keep going, it can be a case of getting the group back on track following a diversion, or it can be a matter of moving on to the next scene once the current one is played out. In many ways, the DM is the chairperson of the meeting, so it's your job to stick to the agenda.
• Publish any house rules and table conventions clearly. This ties into the players' responsibility to know the rules - how can they know them if you don't let them know? Oh, and be sure you do apply those rules you're using in a consistent and fair manner!
• Also, keep house rules to an absolute minimum. House-ruling an already-complex game means adding a whole new level of stuff that players need to keep in mind, and indeed may completely adjust the types of characters and actions that they'll want to choose, which is far from ideal. And while a simpler game may seem more forgiving of house rules, adding lots of them throws away the benefit of choosing a simple game in the first place. So if there's something you just can't live with, a house rule is probably worthwhile, but if you can live with it, maybe you should? (And if you must house rule something, a few big, bold house rules are better than lots of minor ones, or even a few very minor ones. "No multiclassing" is actually less painful than allowing multiclassing but adding loads of restrictions as to who can do it, what classes can be combined, and how the skills work.)

For players and DMs together:

• There are probably some table conventions that you want to adopt: how do you handle cocked dice, or dice on the floor, or... Decide what these are, and apply them.
• Similarly, there are probably some rules conventions you want to consider. Strictly speaking, the rule in 5e is that the player is supposed to describe an action, the DM decides whether a roll is required, and if so what roll, and only then does the player roll the dice. But there are probably some common situations where the DM will almost certainly call for a roll of a specific type (e.g. Perception), in which case maybe the convention should be for the player to just go ahead and roll? (After all, in that auto-success/auto-failure case, the DM can just ignore the result anyway.) That way, there are two less steps involved in the process... which over a campaign can add up to quite a saving. Anyway, decide what you're doing, and then stick with it!

Of course, all of the above is mostly about how the players and DM interface with the rules system of the game. While that's important, it's not the only important consideration. There are also some entire categories of activities that can probably be dropped from the game entirely (or taken away from the table) to speed things up:

• Anything that "simulates real life". Frankly, real life is mostly a sequence of dull actions and time wasting, which really isn't what I want from my entertainment. There's a reason that we never see Han Solo eating, sleeping, or visiting the WC - it's major boring shit.
• Setting watches. This is probably a holdover from days of yore, when every DM took great pleasure in ambushing the group at night if they ever forgot to specify a detailed watch sequence. Fair enough, but that really should be left in the past - the assumption these days is that even 1st level PCs are competent adventurers, so the assumption should be that unless they're exhausted then they should have the wit to set a watch. So let it go without saying - by all means have that random encounter, but make the roll first and then determine who was on watch at the time, and save yourselves the time.
• Encumbrance, tracking food, water, mundane ammunition, small change... there are some few cases where these have some interest, but for the most part you need something much simpler, or just to ignore them entirely.
• Shopping. Once upon a time (more than a decade ago), I saw a session derailed by a player insisting on a shopping trip. The party had just arrived in town and as soon as they did (but only when they did) the player grabbed the DMG and spent significant time working out what magic items he'd have his character buy. And that player just would not let the game proceed until he was done. Which was just horrible. Take all that stuff off-line as part of character management.
• XP and Levelling Up. Fortunately, this is something that happens at the end of sessions anyway, but it really should be taken away from the table entirely. Indeed, for pacing reasons it's preferable that characters not level up at the end of a session - you want to bring the session to a climax and then have everyone go home as soon as possible thereafter. Again, take all that stuff away from the table - you're there to play, so play. (And, yes, that means that D&D needs to have homework!)
• When a scene ceases to be interesting, move on. This applies to everything - in a combat, as soon as the tide is clearly in favour of the PCs, don't bother to play out the last couple of hits; in an investigation, if all the clues are found, move on; in a conversation, once everything that needs to be said has been said, and as soon as the conversation lulls, move on.

Obviously, there's an awful lot of stuff there. Not all of it will apply at all times, and there's some of it that people will disagree with. And that's fine - I'm not actually advancing this as the One True Way. But if some of these can increase the Quantum of Fun, isn't that worth doing?

The Space Elevator of the Ancient World

So I've had an idea for a game that is either genius or just terrible.

The game would be D&D 3.5e, using the old "Testament" setting supplement from Green Ronin (the name is a good indicator of what that's all about). The game would be set in the ancient city of Babel, and surround the Tower.

Said tower being a Space Elevator constructed by a significantly more advanced alien species, who rule humanity through their agents the Nephilim. The PCs would be cast in the role of rebels attempting to bring down the Tower, and thus end the reign of this alien race.

Of course, one fairly significant issue with that premise is that it is essentially jusr "Stargate" - replace ancient Egypt with Babylon, the Pyramids with the Tower, and Ra with Goliath, and you've got much the same thing.

On the other hand, it's an interesting premise. And "Stargate" was of course set long after the rebellion, rather than casting the PCs as the rebels themselves.

Well... it's an interesting thought, if nothing else.

Gaming in 2018

It looks like 2018 will be another very quiet year for gaming - my involvement in the Pathfinder campaign will have to come to an end in January (if it hasn't already), and from mid-Jan through to at least the summer I won't have time for any sort of regular campaign play.

That means that my options are limited, indeed singular - if I'm to play, it will have to be one-shots. But then, that's not too terrible, as a good one-shot can give a lot more focussed, and potentially enjoyable, experience than some campaign play.

The upshot is that I'm probably going to be on the lookout for some, limited, one-shot play. And it's likely that those will be my only games for 2018.

It's also worth my considering whether to look for one-shots to play, or whether I could consider putting together a game to run...

To Boldly Go...

On a rather more cheery note, I was able to take part in a one-shot game of the the new "Star Trek" at the weekend, which proved to be a much more enjoyable experience. It involved five players in a short adventure featuring all three pillars of the game - two combats, some exploration, and a very little interaction.

Truth be told, the adventure itself wasn't very good - as noted, there wasn't very much of the interaction that is so important to Trek, and the whole thing was pretty basic. But then, this was an introductory adventure intended to highlight what the system was about, so that wasn't too terrible.

(Also of note, and very important: we got through the entire adventure in about four hours. Contrast with Pathfinder's one throwaway combat in an hour and a half.)

The system is fairly light and breezy, with enough character customisation to provide sufficient interest there, and enough completity to the system to give it some bite. And it felt very much like a DS9-era Trek episode, which is probably pretty much ideal.

Finally, this seems to be another game that's almost perfectly suited to one-shot play, much like "Firefly". Given my likely availability for gaming over the next few years, or lack thereof, that's pretty ideal.

So, I'd definitely play this again, and would recommend it to fans of the setting. (Of course, if you don't like Trek, I really wouldn't recommend this game. Shocking, I know!)

Whoever Has Will Be Given More

I didn't really enjoy last night's Pathfinder game.

I should hasten to add that this was nothing to do with the GM, the style, the other players, or the adventure, and had very little to do with the system (though more below...). Rather, the source of my annoyance was one of the ongoing banes of my existence:

Dice.

The bulk of last night's game was taken up by a fairly lengthy combat, which spanned five rounds, and in which my character was able to attack twice a round. So, rather conveniently, that's ten attacks, which makes for some nice easy probabilities.

It's also worth noting that the opponents' AC was such that I was able to hit with a '7' or better on the die, which amounts to a 70% hit chance.

I managed a grand total of 4 hits in the combat, with 2 of those being the last two attacks in the combat, after about an hour and a half of frustration. Worse still, the second of those hits, which came an hour into the game, was immediately followed up by a roll of minimum damage.

(The situation is actually even worse than that. Each of the other players had a set of lavishly detailed, and therefore necessarily quite lengthy, combat actions. It therefore took about 15 minutes to get around the table. By contrast, it took me all of ten seconds to describe my action, roll the dice, and fail to hit twice.)

Sigh.

The thing is, the problem isn't that I have dodgy dice - the dice I have are quite capable of rolling high numbers, while the problem seems to follow me around whichever dice I use. And, of course, it only ever seems to apply to rolls that somehow matter.

Though in fairness, last night wasn't the worst example of the problem - the last time I played 5e I had a barbarian who would hit on a '6' or better and still missed almost every attack. In fact, there were some attacks I arranged to hit on a '3' and still missed. And, worse, because of the structure of 5e with it's Daily/Encounter/At-will powers, I ended up wasting all of my best powers on attacks that missed, which meant not only did my character utterly suck in that combat, but he'd then hamstrung his capabilities for the rest of the session as well.

There's not really any upshot to all of this - it's just a complaint about a sucky experience. Except for a couple of things...

First up, RPGs have a bad habit, and have done since the very start, of giving additional bonuses to people who don't need them. Way back on OD&D, the ability scores actually gave almost no in-game effect, except for one: if you were lucky enough to roll a high prime requisite, you got a bonus to earned XP. In 2nd Edition (which is more or less where I came in), rolling high ability scores, in addition to the benefits inherent in those scores, also gave access to more exclusive classes that were, of course, more powerful. 3e (and Pathfinder) tended to get rid of such things, mostly, but they were replaced by more situational bonuses - you got powers like "two-weapon rend" where characters who scored two hits in a single round got to do extra mega-damage. Which is great for that player... and really bloody sucks for the guy who can't buy a hit...

What I think is needed is actually to turn that on its head - rather than getting additional fun bonuses for the player who already rolls really well (or just outright cheats), there should be more care to ensure that the player who doesn't still gets to have a decent time. Some sort of accumulating token that can then be used to buy a hit, or to reroll a bad die, or boost damage, or something.

But the other thing that really bothered me concerned character building. Pathfinder now allows players to tweak their character's concept in about a million different ways to get their character just right. Which is great, except that if you do that, and all the other players also tweak their concepts to suit them, you run the risk of ending up with a character who is utterly and completely mediocre - on paper, he looks absolutely fine, but then you find that everything he can do someone else in the group can also do, and do better. So your two-weapon fighter is overshadowed by the rogue who also does two-weapon fighting (but has the same AC and bonus to hit, but does more damage per hit - and that before you factor in your crappy dice). Your animal-training ranger is overshadowed by the horse-lord who has all the same riding skills, and does them just that bit better. And so on - nobody does everything you can do, but for everything you can do, somebody does it better. Making your character utterly redundant.

I don't really know what the solution to that one is, except to note that in a class-based system like Pathfinder there shouldn't even be a need for a solution - the whole point of having classes is to enforce archetypes and therefore build in niche protection.

To date, the only game I won't play again is Shadowrun, on account of a really bad experience I had running that game. Pathfinder is very rapidly earning itself a spot on the same list.

The Perfect D&D Movie

Many gamers like to kid themselves that their games look and feel something like the "Lord of the Rings" films.

Most of the time, a really good RPG session will look and feel a lot more like "Thor: Ragnarok". Complete with the silliness and in-jokes, but probably with rather more "Monty Python" and "Princess Bride" references.