This is not a post by me; this is simply to redirect you to this rather brilliant article on The Alexandrian about Dissociated Mechanics, and their use and misuse in Role Playing Games. This is particularly pertinent to me because (1) dissociated mechanics and an understanding of them are what propelled me from 4th edition (which drew me into D&D) and into the arms of Pathfinder and OSR; (2) this blog is about tools that can be used by Players and (especially) DMs to enhance role playing, and those tools need to take dissociation into consideration; and (3) as we’re collectively going over D&D 5E it is imperative that we understand dissociative mechanics because that was the great failing of 4th Edition and we need to make sure 5th doesn’t carry forward the same or similar mistakes.
Archive for May, 2012
Tags: alexandrian, attributes, blog of holding, dnd n5xt
While I’m still slowly going through the 5E playtest materials, I’ve been looking around at what other people have to say about it. Reading a couple of posts on The Alexandrian and Blog of Holding, it strikes me that 5E seems to be highlighting a misunderstanding by the system of the Wisdom attribute.
There are two things that 5E is doing that spotlights the problem, but I don’t think 5E is introducing the problem: it’s just making clear a problem that we’ve all been living with for years, though it’s been masked. First,5E is dropping the triumvirate of 3E saving throws, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Instead, saves are made directly based on attributes. You’ll make Strength saves and Dexterity saves and Charisma saves, and so on. I’m not exactly sure what an Intelligence Save might look like (the materials say “against spells that try to overcome your intellect, but I’m not sure what they mean) but it’s in there.
The Alexandrian is tentatively supportive of this change (as am I), but notes that it might introduce the old hierarchy of saves issue. It used to be you saves were based on what a thing you were avoiding was (death, dragonfire, ray), and later it was based on how you avoid the thing (jump out of the way, take the hit and power through, resist with your will). But there was a question on what Save to use if a thing fell in to multiple categories (a ray of death, or something you can dodge or resist with will) — do you use the best save, or the worst save, or just whatever save the DM cares to call for? This was relieved a little bit in 3E, I think, but in 5E it looks like both Wisdom and Charisma are fighting over the same turf. Wisdom saves are supposed to be used to resist being charmed or influenced (and it’s noted that both Command and Charm Person call for Wisdom saves), but Charisma saves are supposed to be used to resist “magical compulsions.”
The second point is 5E seems to be tossing away the idea of skills, generally. I may have misread it, but is you want to bust down a door you roll a Strength check, if you want to tumble to safety you roll a Dexterity check, if you want to search the room for traps you make a Wisdom check, and so on. Some character options give a bonus to certain actions (the Rogue character does note +3 to “open Locks”), and maybe there’s a more-robust skill system than we’re seeing here. But from the looks of it, if you want to be good at finding secret doors, you bump up your Wisdom.
Blog of Holding notes that this highlights the odd position we find ourselves in when the Cleric (who’s whole schtick is based off Wisdom) is better at finding things than the Ranger, Rogue, or Barbarian (if you accept “feral awareness” or “aggression-fueled blindness”). In 3E this issue was masked by the fact that skill points and Class training could make up for a poor Wisdom, but all things being equal a Cleric would have higher Perception because it was based on his key stat. He goes on to suggest moving Perception in to Dexterity not because it makes any sense but because then the classes we expect to be perceptive (Rangers, Rogues) would have it keyed to their attribute of choice.
Frankly, I think that’s just silly. Blog of Holding claims that Perception doesn’t really fit under any of the 6 attributes and while there might be an argument for that the description of Wisdom says it represents “common sense, awareness, and intuition.” I this that’s something of a perfect fit for Perception. Definitely better than an attribute representing manual dexterity and agility.
The problem in both cases is one little word in the description of Wisdom: “Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.” One of these is not like the others; one of these just doesn’t belong. And in fact, I think the place that “willpower” does belong is under Charisma: “Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead” (the 5E text says “ability to influence others and strength of personality”). Both of those lines were taken from the Pathfinder SRD, and I’m pretty sure it meshes with the 3E SRD as well.
So my solution is thus: move Willpower in to Charisma, with “strength of personality,” where it belongs. Make Wisdom a stat of pure awareness and intuition so it isn’t fighting with Charisma any more. And adjust Clerics so that their magic is based off of Charisma (like 4E Paladins), representing the strong personality and will necessary to draw the power and favor of the gods (bonus: Clerics are now best able to draw followers). It cleans everything up just by dropping one word.
Tags: alexandrian, character creation, dnd n5xt, feats, hexcrawl
So before the hex crawl that I did this weekend, I started working on a few of projects that should become posts when they’re done. Turns out that there’s a bit more effort involved than I expected, especially since I didn’t touch any of it over the long weekend.
The first bit I’m working on is trying to address the issue of feats. So far I’ve gone through the Pathfinder SRD and binned the feats into Tiers based on how many feat prerequisites they have — this roughly translates to “what is the earliest level this feat could be taken,” but not entirely (I haven’t accounted for Base Attack Bonus or Level requirements, for example). even at that, easily half of the feats are simply unavailable to a 1st level character, and a good chunk are unavailable before 4th level.
The second bit is a review of the 5th Edition playtest materials that got released. Other people are already going over their first impressions — The Alexandrian made a couple of comments that hadn’t occurred to me, such as “how much of an improvement on 3rd Edition can we expect” and the possibility of an infestation of disassociated mechanics. I’ve only gone over the “How to Play” packet and skimmed the others; my initial thoughts are positive, but there are a few things I’m unsure about. I may get my players to try to run through the playtest adventure with me this weekend and maybe that’ll help inform my opinion.
Finally, I’ve been toying with the idea of reducing character creation to a high-density blurb. It’s not a final solution and doesn’t produce a completed character but I think it should distill the necessary choices a player needs to make, and that will hopefully speed up character creation. I think as it is it might only work for 1st level characters, and even at that some of my players have pointed out that I may have blind spots where my own expertise with the system makes things more intuitive for me than they are for others.
Tags: alexandrian, delta's d&d hotspot, game report, hexcrawl, papers & pencils, roles rules and rolls, untimately, welsh piper
This weekend, my brothers and I got together for the long weekend and I took the opportunity to try my hand at a hexcrawl game. We had limited time to work with, so I told them to keep it basic and make characters with whatever background they wanted, as long as it gets them to this town looking for adventure in the wilderness. The game itself was essentially the same idea as the Western Marches campaign I’ve heard about, though I’ve never read up on it specifically. Adventure is to the west, retirement is to the east, and in the middle is a town you can spend your money at, brag about your adventures, and prepare for new ones.
Setting up the game took a lot of work on my part. It’s the kind of work that’s done once and can be used over and over again, but as this was my first game it all had to be taken care of. I used Hexographer to build my map, following the guidelines of Welsh Piper. I really wanted to use the one-page hexcrawl encounter system from Roles, Rules, and Rolls, but I didn’t have the time to hand-key even a significant portion of my hexmap, and I wanted to incorporate non-combat encounters. So instead I used a multi-table setup recommended by Pencils and Papers — I had a d20 table to determined if there was an encounter and what type, and then sub-tables for Combat, Location, Sub-Quest, and Special encounters.
Making those random tables took the bulk of my effort. The Welsh Piper guidelines make building a hexmap really easy, and the Pathfinder core rules have a lot of information for how to put together encounters (so my Combat table had entries like “2d4+1 Goblin Warriors”), but I haven’t really found any good advice or suggestions on what a Random Encounter table should look like, especially not for non-Combat encounters. Sub-Quests were probably the hardest, but possibly because (for time’s sake) I was restricting myself to one-line hooks. “Lay the Dead to Rest,” “Explore the Ruins,” “Stop the Mad Wizard.” This also kept it general enough that I could build details around them during play, so that no two “Stop the Mad Wizard” quests necessarily felt similar, let along the same.
After all that I found that there were a few systems I wanted to have that I didn’t have any good notion for. How to move around the map was pretty easy: I remembered reading a post on Pencils and Papers about movement points and went off what I remembered from there. My group had a Dwarf so their speed was 24 miles in a day, so they got 24 “movement points” to spend. I kind of wish I’d thought to look over that post again before playing, though — I gave plains a move-cost of 5 and pretty much everything else a move-cost of 10 and i like the better granularity that P&P offered (which I guess he inherited from Brendan – who was riffing off Delta? I kind of love all the cross-pollination I’m finding). Anyways, I decided that you paid the Movement cost when you tried to leave a Hex. I rolled for an Encounter whenever the group entered a Hex, and they could pay half the exit-cost to “search” the Hex and get another encounter roll.
Two systems I didn’t have that I wanted were a method for getting lost (and a similar method for finding your way again) and a system for foraging. The latter, foraging, got preempted at the table by going with Pathfinder’s rules on the subject from the Survival skill (though I did vary DC based on terrain). The Alexandrian hinted at what sounds like a really great hexcrawl system that included a mechanism for getting lost, but as far as I can tell he’s never posted the details. The P&P/Brendan/Delta posts have a notion of getting lost based on Survival checks, and I spontaneously settled on a very similar system, with Survival for getting lost and Geography for finding your way again. Still, I feel like I want something more-defined than that.
The game went off really great. We had an Elven Ranger, Half-Elf Cleric of Gorram, Halfling Cleric of Pharasma, Human Fighter and Dwarven Druid. They heard rumors of a dragon in the woods and met the sole survivor of a group who were apparently attacked by giant ants. They got lost in the forest a few times, found a magic spring that got them drunk (the elf is the only one paranoid enough to not drink) and finally happened upon a dragon hunter who they joined up with to slay a Green Dragon wyrmling. The cool thing is, I never planned on that happening when I seeded the rumors about the woods, I just wanted to warn them that dragons were on the table for Forest encounters.
My favorite scene of the night came about thanks to some odd behavior by a player and my inclination to say “yes.” Early on the group met a travelling merchant, and the fighter spent a bunch of time going through his wares while the others asked him for rumors about the wilderness. He finally decided that he wanted to buy a shovel, and then proceeded to make Perception checks at every opportunity, looking for “anywhere that looks like there might be buried treasure.” I let him make the rolls and fail to find anything interesting, until he rolled a 1 on his check. I decided that he found something recently buried that turned out to be a goblin grave under an oak tree. Another of the players asked if goblin typically buried their dead in caskets, and the Ranger (who’s favored enemy is Goblins) rolled Knowledge and recalled that some tribes of goblins bury certain of their dead under oak trees as a sign of deep respect. None of this was planned (I didn’t think they’d question a goblin in a casket), and now we’ve determined that they desecrated the grave of a goblin king. (I found out later that all my players thought he was digging up another traveler’s latrine pit…)
Tags: alexandrian, broken structures, delta's d&d hotspot, encumbrance, game structures, papers & pencils, tools
So I finally got the Strength Tables up on my Carrying the World on Your Back post; there has to be a better way to do tables in WordPress…
Anyways, I got the tables up and I wanted to share a few more thoughts on the topic. The primary complaint about the D&D/Pathfinder encumbrance rules is that they’re too granular. Each individual item is tracked with weights down to the fraction of a pound, and characters have varying levels of encumbrance based on their strength. It’s straightforward but not easy or quick to calculate a character’s current encumbrance and, most damning, it is not easy or quick to figure out what the character needs to drop if he suddenly has to run from a monster. I have a MS spreadsheet-based character sheet I grabbed off the Internet that does a good job tracking such things, but a system that requires a computer to use effectively is not a good system for a tabletop game. Knowing what their biggest weights are should be as intuitive to my players as it is for their characters. This is the argument Pencils and Papers made that changed my mind on Encumbrance.
There are, I think, two ways to simplify the system, and both of them consist of moving to a coarser measure. Delta suggested the use of the Stone, an archaic measure of weight that was roughly 14 or so pounds. She kept herself to whole-Stone numbers, The Alexandrian introduced fractional-Stone measures with certain containers and the notion of Bundles (which he put as 5 Bundles to the Stone). The math in the Alexandrian’s system bothered me, with talk about Stone and half-Stone and one-fifth-Stone (thanks to Bundles)… So my thought was to set a Stone at 15lbs and a Bundle at 5lbs (1/3 Stone) and only track to the Bundle level. I want to say that if it’s less than a Bundle you should ignore it, but I think that may make problems later on.
One of the things I’m happily cribbing from the Alexandrian is his general notions on how much things weigh and how things should be carried. Basic weights for weapons and armor were taken by him from Delta, but he added containers and more granularity for miscellaneous equipment. It should be noted that adding granularity when our intent was to reduce granularity is something to be wary of, but at the same time we don’t want to disassociate ourselves to much from the fictional world, and it’s not desirable to me to allow a player to carry infinite arrows or other such things.
From Delta and the Alexandrian, Heavy armor is 5 Stone, Medium armor is 3 Stone, and light armor is 1 Stone. Shields and full-sized (one- and two-handed) weapons are a Stone each. Obviously characters should still recognize that a war hammer is weightier than a rapier, but I don’t think so much so that our mechanics need to care. In particular, Items should be measured in whole Stone, as a single Bundle, or as a Bundle when collected (like arrows).
Light weapons in my system are a Bundle for 5, bolts and arrows are a Bundle for 20, and coins are a Bundle for 250. Miscellaneous gear should cover everything else from rations to potions to maps and whatever else you have. Light items like a compass or Holy Symbol (unless it’s a particularly big or weighty holy symbol, I guess) can be ignored, and everything else gets put together in Bundles of 10. In most cases if it’s less than a Bundle it can safely be ignored, but you may want to make exceptions if a character has several mostly-full bundles (3 daggers, 14 arrows, 200 coins and 8 misc. items should probably weight something). Treasure should be assigned a weight by the DM, with a Stone being a hefty statue, a Bundle being a large gem or sack full of coins, and smaller items treated as misc. equipment. Something unwieldy like a painting or rug may count as several Stone despite not actually weighing that much.
Containers include things like backpacks, belt-pouches, and sacks, and should be used to explain where a character puts his gear when he’s not holding it. Weapons are assumed to come with sheathes and quivers which can attach to a belt or be slung over a shoulder, but other things need to be packed away. Empty containers are considered misc. equipment, containers holding things are ignored (just count the stuff they’re holding).
Finally, creature weights. This will usually refer to familiars, who tend to be misc. equipment- or Bundle-sized. Small creatures are about 2 Stone, the average Human is 12 Stone, and a Large creature is 100 Stone. Individuals can weight more or less if you care to make a distinction, but should stick to whole-Stone numbers. I’m just taking this stuff from The Alexandrian, so look to his page if you want to deal with larger creatures, though I’m not sure I want to know when or how the weight of a Colossal creature needs to be tracked…
Finally, for a guideline on figuring out weights of odd things you want in your dungeon, just divide the weight-in-pounds by 15 and drop any remainder; that’s how many Stone it weighs. If it’s smaller than a Stone but bigger than misc. equipment, call it a Bundle.
So a little background, I didn’t really encounter D&D until college, and by “college” I mean 2003, so it was right there with D&D 3.0 and 3.5. I had a few terrible experiences with a few terrible DMs and decided I’d stick to my RIFTS and World of Darkness, thank you very much. A few years later I heard about D&D 4E, saw the similarities with the MMOs I’d been playing for years, and felt it was an elegant solution to all the problems I saw with earlier D&D. I’ve backed away from that opinion, but that’s maybe a discussion for another time.
By the time 5th Edition (are they really calling it D&D N5xt?) was announced, I’d already moved on to Pathfinder and figured there wasn’t anything they could do to bring me back. Then I started reading about things like Hexcrawls and disassociative mechanics and complete game structures… Suffice to say I dismissed 5E out of hand as something I could even care to follow.
This afternoon, I saw a post by a friend of a friend talking about the playtest materials (which I guess got released today?) and how it was a mix of 2E and 3E, consisted of a whole bunch of book-keeping, undid a bunch of what 4E had established, was catering to players that WotC had lost with 4E… And now I’m thinking maybe I should rethink my initial dismissal of 5E. Maybe there’s something there.
So, anyone out there been involved with D&D N5xt? Does anyone have the playtest materials and can give me a second opinion? Is there a way I can get the playtest materials?
I just read an interesting post over at Pencils and Papers about Character Generation versus Character Building. P&P seems to take, or have taken in the past, a lot of time comparing modern games to the ideals of OSR gamers. OSR is the Old School Renaissance that’s budded up in the community recently with a, some say overly-nostalgic, preference for the games and systems of the 1970s. I would have to say that I am at least on the fringe of that group (notionally, at least), but my interest is mostly in taking mechanics from the past that have been discarded and re-integrating them into modern games. I don’t want to play D&D 2E, I want to play Pathfinder with hexmaps and random encounter tables.
But I digress. The post I referenced talks about old school “character generation” where you roll a few dice, pick a class, and you’re done. P&P says there’s a de-emphasis or discouragement for players to get too deep into the rules, ostensibly so they don’t limit what they believe are valid options in play. This is contrasted with Character Building, where the player is presented a cascade of rules and options to play with and customize their character. P&P talks about how he loves Character Building, how he fiddles with his character and plans out his next level ahead of time and writes up character sheets for the NPCs in his background. This is exactly what I do, and I have the same level of glee. But P&P concludes that Character Building is harmful to the hobby. It can be daunting to new players and it can really bog down the excitement of starting a new campaign (never mind just getting a group together at random for an afternoon of gaming). When I had my players build characters for my Expectations game I feel that I set out fairly rigid guidelines in order to help limit the overwhelming options they had to deal with — they had a Standard array of stats instead of rolling or point-buy and I had soft and hard requirements their characters had to satisfy (generally, be an exemplar of your Race and Class in some meaningful way). it still took them roughly a month to finally get me characters, and even then their sheets were incomplete in places. Granted, I don’t expect they were actually working on their characters for any significant portion of time, but that it took that long is ridiculous no matter how you excuse it.
There is a problem with Character Building, and like P&P no one I know (with maybe a few exceptions) enjoys the character creation process. That being said, I for one dislike the notion of character generation, even if it has the benefit of drastically cutting down the time necessary to create characters.
P&P talks about an imaginary system that makes equally balanced characters either through Generation or Building, to allow people like he and I to gleefully twiddle our characters while at the same time letting less-enthusiastic players generate a character 10 minutes before play. It’s not clear that such a system is possible, and P&P claims to be working on a stop-gap to use with Pathfinder. I haven’t checked to see if he’s gotten anywhere with that, but I like the idea of it.
I’ll take a note here and say that this is one of the things that I really like about some of the non-d20 games I’ve played. CAPES has a really quick, easy, and fun method of character generation, and it DOES work (in a sense) whether you generate a character with their templates or free-form (I’ve done both). Burning Empires uses a lifepath-style form of character creation, and while it doesn’t necessarily make it quicker or easier to generate a character, background details naturally flow out of it (something which isn’t true of most other systems).
For my purposes, I think I’ll start putting together “generation guidelines” for my players to help streamline choices. I think I’ll use his “X+INT skills at Level+3+attribute” idea (though, what happens if X+INT is bigger than the list of class skills?) and work on paring down Feat option. From my post on Massaging Feats I already plan on doing some pruning there. After that, you have issues like Stats, Class Features, Spell Lists, and Equipment that needs to be accounted for. I may take a page out of another RPG I played once (can’t remember which) and just bundle up packages, like “Necromancer Spell List” or “Tomb Raider Equipment.”
If anyone has thoughts on this or ideas on ways to help make Character Generation possible in modern D&D, let me know.