Did you look closely at the previous post's system for attrition? Did you plug in some numbers to test it out? Did you find out where the system works and fails? Did you notice how incomplete it is?
The post only details hot weather effects on attrition, what about cold weather? The heat index is only valid for temperatures above 80F and humidity above 40%, if you try to use the charts' equation for cold weather, you get nonsensical results.
What type of data we we plug in? High temperature, low temperature, average temperature? Desert travel can be brutally hot during the day and freezing cold at night, how does the above system take that into account?
So there's the direction for the next post, finding what the system is incomplete and making it more robust. Always push your design, always test the fringe cases, and always strive to make them better.
Monday, May 21, 2012
PDF
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Attrition: New Design Ethos, or, Why Your Design Has Been Found Lacking
I've been kicking around the concept of attrition for overland travel for a while now. Let's re-establish the current foundation for this system.
Attrition accumulates per day, according to a base value added to a temperature/humidity factor. The next day, the base value is the previous day's final value, which is then added to the current day's temp/humidity factor. Rinse, repeat. Here's another way of looking at it:
Attrition(0) = Base damage + Climate factor
Attrition(i) = Attrition(i-1) + Climate Factor
Now the whole concept has been simplified to a single factor, that is temperature and humidity. Those two variables, also called the heat index, should cover the vast majority of the effects of weather on the human body. Precipitation will be factored indirectly, namely, heavy rainfall washes out (or covers with snow) paths and roads, which lengthens travel time, allowing for more attrition to take place.
Now here we are at a crossroads, what numbers do we use? D&D was built on pulling numbers out of assholes in order to answer this question. This is where your design fails too, you do not have to guess at any of these numbers at all. Thanks to the information age, you can find peer-reviewed research on pretty much any topic you want. There is no reason to be building systems out of fairy tale numbers of useless heuristics you just made up.
Ok, so where do we find this information? A quick google search lands me at the Center for International Earth Science Information Network, and a handy research article called "Climate Effects On Human Health". Why, there is even a section of predictive equations! Who would have thought of this, there already IS a system for determining how your environment affects you. All we have to do is translate it into hit points and we are off to the races.
So stop pulling numbers out of your ass for your designs and put in the same amount of time into basic research.
Ok ok, back to this system. Let's see what we can use: TMR = cycle + 0.10e[0.2(F[1] - 90)] This looks extremely similar to what I want, a "temperature-specific mortality ratio" expressed as a base value added to a function of temperature. But I want heat index, or a value that combines temperature AND humidity. Thank you NOAA:
We have all of our pieces now. Stick our predictive equation into a spreadsheet along with inputs for temperature and humidity. Input the above chart into the spreadsheet and perform a look-up to pull a heat index value to stick into the predictive equation. Then, tune the factors around the exponential term in the equation as well as the output so it translates into usable hit point numbers (nothing too small or too big).
Once the sheet is set up, it takes less than 1 minute to generate an attrition value for the day's adventuring or travel. In the end, you have a system that gives you an answer as fast as you can open a spreadsheet and the answer is based on our shared reality and science.
Oh, need to find climate data for input? You have a few resources from which to work.
Attrition accumulates per day, according to a base value added to a temperature/humidity factor. The next day, the base value is the previous day's final value, which is then added to the current day's temp/humidity factor. Rinse, repeat. Here's another way of looking at it:
Attrition(0) = Base damage + Climate factor
Attrition(i) = Attrition(i-1) + Climate Factor
Now the whole concept has been simplified to a single factor, that is temperature and humidity. Those two variables, also called the heat index, should cover the vast majority of the effects of weather on the human body. Precipitation will be factored indirectly, namely, heavy rainfall washes out (or covers with snow) paths and roads, which lengthens travel time, allowing for more attrition to take place.
Now here we are at a crossroads, what numbers do we use? D&D was built on pulling numbers out of assholes in order to answer this question. This is where your design fails too, you do not have to guess at any of these numbers at all. Thanks to the information age, you can find peer-reviewed research on pretty much any topic you want. There is no reason to be building systems out of fairy tale numbers of useless heuristics you just made up.
Ok, so where do we find this information? A quick google search lands me at the Center for International Earth Science Information Network, and a handy research article called "Climate Effects On Human Health". Why, there is even a section of predictive equations! Who would have thought of this, there already IS a system for determining how your environment affects you. All we have to do is translate it into hit points and we are off to the races.
So stop pulling numbers out of your ass for your designs and put in the same amount of time into basic research.
Ok ok, back to this system. Let's see what we can use: TMR = cycle + 0.10e[0.2(F[1] - 90)] This looks extremely similar to what I want, a "temperature-specific mortality ratio" expressed as a base value added to a function of temperature. But I want heat index, or a value that combines temperature AND humidity. Thank you NOAA:
 |
| http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/heatindex.shtml |
We have all of our pieces now. Stick our predictive equation into a spreadsheet along with inputs for temperature and humidity. Input the above chart into the spreadsheet and perform a look-up to pull a heat index value to stick into the predictive equation. Then, tune the factors around the exponential term in the equation as well as the output so it translates into usable hit point numbers (nothing too small or too big).
Once the sheet is set up, it takes less than 1 minute to generate an attrition value for the day's adventuring or travel. In the end, you have a system that gives you an answer as fast as you can open a spreadsheet and the answer is based on our shared reality and science.
Oh, need to find climate data for input? You have a few resources from which to work.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Why Saving Throws Hurt the Game, Why They Are Needed
The moments that call for a saving throw represent the pinnacle of tension in D&D. They lie at the crossroads of defeat and success, of life and death, and can be the culmination of an evening or a year's campaigning. So why are we rolling a die at this high point? Why are we leaving the resolution of our shared time to random chance, no matter how intelligently or recklessly the game has been played?
The moments that call for a saving throw represent the mundane points of D&D: a pit placed in a hallway, a random trap rolled off some table, or the effects of a harsh environment. Again, random chance takes the place of smart/careless behavior and turns these aspects into something resembling adventuring attrition.
Saving throws are overused. When I first talked about taking attrition damage during overland travel, one commenter wanted to add a save to avoid a day's damage. Like you can really avoid the effects of the environment by being bad-ass? More likely, he was calling for saves because the PCs are precious and should be afforded every opportunity to survive/thrive regardless of smart/reckless play.
Well, the real reason saves are overused is because D&D is under-designed. How many mechanics are just rolled up into a saving throw? Spells, abilities, effects, poison, traps, magic items, the list goes on and on. Just throw a save on an action to create a lazy mechanic to adjudicate its effects. It isn't even a robust and elegant mechanic that could be applied to numerous situations; it is just lazy. Maybe the original designers ran out of creative steam and then we all just kind of turned a blind eye to this gaping hole in the game's mechanics. Or maybe we are blind to the failings of tradition.
Either way, saving throws are a boring, lazy, static mechanic that form an umbrella over countless actions and opportunities in game that could have mechanics designed to add tension, flow, and enjoyment to the game.
The moments that call for a saving throw represent the mundane points of D&D: a pit placed in a hallway, a random trap rolled off some table, or the effects of a harsh environment. Again, random chance takes the place of smart/careless behavior and turns these aspects into something resembling adventuring attrition.
Saving throws are overused. When I first talked about taking attrition damage during overland travel, one commenter wanted to add a save to avoid a day's damage. Like you can really avoid the effects of the environment by being bad-ass? More likely, he was calling for saves because the PCs are precious and should be afforded every opportunity to survive/thrive regardless of smart/reckless play.
Well, the real reason saves are overused is because D&D is under-designed. How many mechanics are just rolled up into a saving throw? Spells, abilities, effects, poison, traps, magic items, the list goes on and on. Just throw a save on an action to create a lazy mechanic to adjudicate its effects. It isn't even a robust and elegant mechanic that could be applied to numerous situations; it is just lazy. Maybe the original designers ran out of creative steam and then we all just kind of turned a blind eye to this gaping hole in the game's mechanics. Or maybe we are blind to the failings of tradition.
Either way, saving throws are a boring, lazy, static mechanic that form an umbrella over countless actions and opportunities in game that could have mechanics designed to add tension, flow, and enjoyment to the game.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Saving Throws Vs Stats
I never really liked how saving throws worked in D&D. The concept of a roll to avoid some horrible fate seemed anti-climatic and antithetical to play, but that would be the topic of a different post. The mechanics themselves are rather stagnant.
At lower levels, saving throws are pretty poor and you don't really expect to make a save in most cases. At higher levels, saving throws can get so good that they can be meaningless. I'd rather have a mechanic that is interesting at all times. 3rd edition used scaling saves, but that really just devolved into the edition's min/maxing attitude; saves became binary, either you maxed out your save or DC or you didn't. Not too interesting there either.
The simple solution is to tie saves to stats, which are rather static. Roll a D20 and if you roll equal to or under the stat in question, you save. Saves stay relevant at all levels and the classes keep their unique quirks (thieves dodging fireballs, Clerics resisting mental effects). For NPCs/mobs without stats, we can make a quick correlation to HD. Maybe assume every stat is average (9), plus some fraction of their HD (half? third?). You will still have the monsters usual resistances/immunities (undead to mental effects) to guide any tweaks. Either way, saves for monsters are mostly "did he die yet or not" and are one more roll in combat; I'm not concerned with having a strict mechanic there.
In the end, stat-based saves makes sense with a nod towards realism. Hell, I am just as susceptible to my wife's ziti today as I was 8 years ago; my willpower hasn't really changed through my adult years. Soldiers get better at fighting, but they don't become wiser or more hardy with age. If you throw in the age effects on stats, you get a small movement in those stats to reflect aging, and that small tweak seems perfect enough.
Yea, nothing monumental.
At lower levels, saving throws are pretty poor and you don't really expect to make a save in most cases. At higher levels, saving throws can get so good that they can be meaningless. I'd rather have a mechanic that is interesting at all times. 3rd edition used scaling saves, but that really just devolved into the edition's min/maxing attitude; saves became binary, either you maxed out your save or DC or you didn't. Not too interesting there either.
The simple solution is to tie saves to stats, which are rather static. Roll a D20 and if you roll equal to or under the stat in question, you save. Saves stay relevant at all levels and the classes keep their unique quirks (thieves dodging fireballs, Clerics resisting mental effects). For NPCs/mobs without stats, we can make a quick correlation to HD. Maybe assume every stat is average (9), plus some fraction of their HD (half? third?). You will still have the monsters usual resistances/immunities (undead to mental effects) to guide any tweaks. Either way, saves for monsters are mostly "did he die yet or not" and are one more roll in combat; I'm not concerned with having a strict mechanic there.
In the end, stat-based saves makes sense with a nod towards realism. Hell, I am just as susceptible to my wife's ziti today as I was 8 years ago; my willpower hasn't really changed through my adult years. Soldiers get better at fighting, but they don't become wiser or more hardy with age. If you throw in the age effects on stats, you get a small movement in those stats to reflect aging, and that small tweak seems perfect enough.
Yea, nothing monumental.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
The Bard - One Man's Take
I guess there are tons of different Bard classes out there between the ever-growing amount of editions and home-brewed classes. Here's my attempt to introduce a new game play mechanic to 17th century fantasy gaming.
Motif
Bards begin spellcasting by selecting a Motif. This is the base effect that will be further modified as the Bard performs. For example:
Coraggio: A piece that affects courage to those who hear it.
Mode
The performance can be in either minor or major key. The major key is an uplifting, positive tone whereas the minor key is a dark and melancholic tone. In game terms, the base Motif will have a positive or negative effect. For example:
Coraggio (Major): bonus to morale
Coraggio (Minor): malus to morale
Accompaniment
Each performance can have one of three accompaniments, which essentially affects the magnitude of its effects (oh, there's a grammar lesson for you). One example might be:
A capella: +/- 1 to morale
Cantata: Reroll a morale check
Concerto: Force a morale check
Each motif then is six potential spells; Bards gain motifs per level as a spellcaster gains spells. Maybe a Bard learns one Motif per level. He can always module that Motif in either key. Then, he can sing its weakest effect, play an instrument with the vocals for a greater affect, or play in a troupe of bards for a stupendous effect.
Accompaniments are probably gained as a function of level, so a first level Bard can only perform a capella, a third level bard can perform a cantata to accompany (his own or other?) vocals, and a fifth level bard can lead 2 other Bards (at least one of which is at 3rd level) by playing a concerto. The level up mechanic would most likely increase the range or amount of HD affected.
There's plenty of ground here to come up with tons of motifs. The idea needs some fleshing out, but building on this foundation could be a fun exercise.
I think it is a neat mechanic, what do you think?
[Forgive me for massacring the terminology, I'm obviously not in the music world]
Motif
Bards begin spellcasting by selecting a Motif. This is the base effect that will be further modified as the Bard performs. For example:
Coraggio: A piece that affects courage to those who hear it.
Mode
The performance can be in either minor or major key. The major key is an uplifting, positive tone whereas the minor key is a dark and melancholic tone. In game terms, the base Motif will have a positive or negative effect. For example:
Coraggio (Major): bonus to morale
Coraggio (Minor): malus to morale
Accompaniment
Each performance can have one of three accompaniments, which essentially affects the magnitude of its effects (oh, there's a grammar lesson for you). One example might be:
A capella: +/- 1 to morale
Cantata: Reroll a morale check
Concerto: Force a morale check
Each motif then is six potential spells; Bards gain motifs per level as a spellcaster gains spells. Maybe a Bard learns one Motif per level. He can always module that Motif in either key. Then, he can sing its weakest effect, play an instrument with the vocals for a greater affect, or play in a troupe of bards for a stupendous effect.
Accompaniments are probably gained as a function of level, so a first level Bard can only perform a capella, a third level bard can perform a cantata to accompany (his own or other?) vocals, and a fifth level bard can lead 2 other Bards (at least one of which is at 3rd level) by playing a concerto. The level up mechanic would most likely increase the range or amount of HD affected.
There's plenty of ground here to come up with tons of motifs. The idea needs some fleshing out, but building on this foundation could be a fun exercise.
I think it is a neat mechanic, what do you think?
[Forgive me for massacring the terminology, I'm obviously not in the music world]
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Divinity And Magic
I've mused on metaphysical questions for the early modern period before, but I still haven't stumbled upon something that I like, fits a pseudo-historical interpretation, and is still recognizable with typical D&D tropes. Let's take some inspiration from the Trinity.
There are a ton of denominations and religions throughout the 17th century world and I don't want them ALL to be Clerics or Druids and I probably don't want religion to dictate class when it comes to divine spellcasters. While it would definitely be neat to have a separate class or at least spell list for Catholics, Lutherans, Muslims, Animists, Ancestor Worshipers, Pagans, etc, I think the granularity would mostly be lost in meta-gaming, both in terms of players who WANT certain spells and players who WANT a certain religion making the decision mostly moot. So let's compromise and utilize the Trinity.
God the Father is the omnipotent, uncaring creator of the universe. He created existence with a set of natural laws and is completely above the care of any individual person or world. Followers of God the Father worship "nature" and natural law, either in a tangible sense or as a personification of the Almighty. Spells for these followers are rarely personal and instead invoke upon the power inherent in the laws of creation and existence.
Christ is a personal God incarnate in every living being. Christ is a God who was both divine and mortal and experienced life and death in a finite sense. Followers of Christ retain a personal connection with Him, whom offers personal salvation. Spells for these followers operate on the intrapersonal and interpersonal level to offer either salvation or damnation.
The Holy Spirit is a power manifest in mortal beings who strive for righteousness. He represents power manifest in the self, derived from following the will of the Spirit. The ultimate expression of the Holy Spirit is the attainment of personal divinity, where one becomes part of the gestalt Holy Spirit. Spells for those who worship him are focused on achieving righteous power.
You can probably see where the lines are drawn now. Druids, Rangers, and similar classes/faiths worship God the Father, in one name or another, and use the Druid spell list. Catholics, Christians, and monotheistic faiths follow Christ and use the Cleric spell list. The Holy Spirit is for pagan and polytheistic followers and will need a spell list. One could break all the divine spells into three thematic lists and assign them, adding spells from source books to have a robust selection for everyone.
Either way, this interpretation allows for multiple religions that are all "right" without implying that there is some all-present celestial holy war playing out in heaven and on earth, which is how the Planes have been presented in canon D&D lore. Each individual religion can have its own flavor and doctrines but it derives all power from the same Godhead.
Another thought crosses my mind. What about magic-users? Could they be shoe-horned into that third slot? One could play a Priest of a Pagan religion, or just an atheistic or agnostic magic-user with the same spell list.
Or perhaps magic-users should stay separate.Whereas followers of God the Father pray for spells implicit in natural law, magic-users seek to cast spells that harness, manipulate, and/or contradict natural law.
Fertile ground indeed and I like what has been sown better than previous ideas...
There are a ton of denominations and religions throughout the 17th century world and I don't want them ALL to be Clerics or Druids and I probably don't want religion to dictate class when it comes to divine spellcasters. While it would definitely be neat to have a separate class or at least spell list for Catholics, Lutherans, Muslims, Animists, Ancestor Worshipers, Pagans, etc, I think the granularity would mostly be lost in meta-gaming, both in terms of players who WANT certain spells and players who WANT a certain religion making the decision mostly moot. So let's compromise and utilize the Trinity.
God the Father is the omnipotent, uncaring creator of the universe. He created existence with a set of natural laws and is completely above the care of any individual person or world. Followers of God the Father worship "nature" and natural law, either in a tangible sense or as a personification of the Almighty. Spells for these followers are rarely personal and instead invoke upon the power inherent in the laws of creation and existence.
Christ is a personal God incarnate in every living being. Christ is a God who was both divine and mortal and experienced life and death in a finite sense. Followers of Christ retain a personal connection with Him, whom offers personal salvation. Spells for these followers operate on the intrapersonal and interpersonal level to offer either salvation or damnation.
The Holy Spirit is a power manifest in mortal beings who strive for righteousness. He represents power manifest in the self, derived from following the will of the Spirit. The ultimate expression of the Holy Spirit is the attainment of personal divinity, where one becomes part of the gestalt Holy Spirit. Spells for those who worship him are focused on achieving righteous power.
You can probably see where the lines are drawn now. Druids, Rangers, and similar classes/faiths worship God the Father, in one name or another, and use the Druid spell list. Catholics, Christians, and monotheistic faiths follow Christ and use the Cleric spell list. The Holy Spirit is for pagan and polytheistic followers and will need a spell list. One could break all the divine spells into three thematic lists and assign them, adding spells from source books to have a robust selection for everyone.
Either way, this interpretation allows for multiple religions that are all "right" without implying that there is some all-present celestial holy war playing out in heaven and on earth, which is how the Planes have been presented in canon D&D lore. Each individual religion can have its own flavor and doctrines but it derives all power from the same Godhead.
Another thought crosses my mind. What about magic-users? Could they be shoe-horned into that third slot? One could play a Priest of a Pagan religion, or just an atheistic or agnostic magic-user with the same spell list.
Or perhaps magic-users should stay separate.Whereas followers of God the Father pray for spells implicit in natural law, magic-users seek to cast spells that harness, manipulate, and/or contradict natural law.
Fertile ground indeed and I like what has been sown better than previous ideas...
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Undead in the 17th Century - Zombies
A fitting topic for a dead blog, right?
The undead mostly blow in D&D. This comes from the fact that all the undead tropes are familiar to players, both in style and mechanics. So no one is afraid of the undead and everyone knows how to leverage their strengths and weaknesses. Let's change that up a bit.
The undead have to be shrouded in the unknown in order to invoke any fear in the players. This means much more than just shuffling their abilities around or contriving new strengths and vulnerabilities for them. On a fundamental level, we have to strip the Cleric's ability to trivialize the undead. Then, we have to strip in-game and meta-game knowledge about the undead. From there, we can build undead foes while sprinkling in some of the (ir)rational fears that we share as people.
Let's take up that second item here with a look at zombies in the 17th century. All undead need to have some sort of 'fear aura' that eliminates the 'undead hunter' trope. You know, the expert in killing undead, of which there is invariably one hanging out in each town. Nearly every encounter with the undead should result in death or fear in order to maintain the milieu.
The undead mostly blow in D&D. This comes from the fact that all the undead tropes are familiar to players, both in style and mechanics. So no one is afraid of the undead and everyone knows how to leverage their strengths and weaknesses. Let's change that up a bit.
The undead have to be shrouded in the unknown in order to invoke any fear in the players. This means much more than just shuffling their abilities around or contriving new strengths and vulnerabilities for them. On a fundamental level, we have to strip the Cleric's ability to trivialize the undead. Then, we have to strip in-game and meta-game knowledge about the undead. From there, we can build undead foes while sprinkling in some of the (ir)rational fears that we share as people.
Let's take up that second item here with a look at zombies in the 17th century. All undead need to have some sort of 'fear aura' that eliminates the 'undead hunter' trope. You know, the expert in killing undead, of which there is invariably one hanging out in each town. Nearly every encounter with the undead should result in death or fear in order to maintain the milieu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)