What Classes Should be in D&D?
For me, choosing a class has always been one of the most fun and important decisions to make while playing Dungeons & Dragons. I can still remember the feeling of pure excitement I had when I first cracked open the 3rd Edition Player’s Handbook and saw that Monk was a core class. I also remember our friends all having multiple discussions about what exactly the Sorcerer class was and how it was different from the Wizard. I view these discussions along the same lines as what would happen if the Fighter, Wizard, or Cleric were left out of the first Player’s Handbook for an edition. With the next edition of D&D now in open playtest, I felt it was a good time to discuss the varying levels of class distinction in D&D.
Considering the Monk is the class I played the most of in 3E, I was surprisingly happy it wasn’t included in the first PHB for 4th Edition. It never felt quite right to me as a class presented as an introductory option for D&D players unless it was specifically for an Oriental Adventures style of game. I think that if you boiled down the options for character classes to the most basic you would end up with Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and sometimes Thief/Rogue. Beyond these 3-4 options the list of secondary classes can vary greatly. Depending on player preferences, classes such as the Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and many others can all be seen as important options for players. My opinion is that beyond the four main classes, most of the other options readily fall into two categories: specialization or combination.
Combinations / Multi-Classing
I would like to go through a quick experiment. Let’s put aside many of our assumptions/favorite characters and look at some of D&D’s classes in their raw forms. I don’t think it does any disservice to the Paladin class to say that it is a combination of the Cleric and Fighter concepts. In the same way, I believe you can say that most Bards fall somewhere between Rogue and Wizard, and that most Rangers can be put somewhere between Rogue and Fighter. The toughest combination I find is the Wizard/Cleric, but I keep coming back to the Druid as a class that often feels like it is somewhere between those two classes. Surely you can come up with a Bard, Ranger, or Druid that is nothing like any of the other classes, but I think having a class paradigm to begin with makes those break out concepts even more exciting and this is, after all, only an experiment.
This gives us a fairly clean wheel of class relationships:
Fighter – Paladin – Cleric – Druid – Wizard – Bard – Rogue – Ranger – Fighter (loop)
I really enjoy seeing a nice, clean, logical layout for classes and how they relate to one another. I enjoy thinking about the sliding scale between the primary classes and imaging what a Paladin would look like closer to the Fighter end (maybe close to or having already lost faith) or closer to the Cleric end (extremely dedicated, focused, and not rearing for a fight). I also think it gets interesting when you think about pushing a primary class closer to one or the other secondary classes. Imagine playing a Cleric or a Fighter that leans towards the Paladin concept between them, or a Rogue that dabbles in music/song and discovers a yet unknown arcane spark within themselves leaning towards Bard. [Read the rest of this article]
Playtest “D&D Next” Like A Pro
I may not be the best game designer in the world, but if there’s one thing I do know, it’s playtesting. I’ve been a playtester for a variety of games from RPGs to party games to board games to light card games to heavy war games. I’ve been chief of product development for a startup card game publisher, and a lead playtester (and copied on ALL playtest reports) for Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. A good set of playtesters can make your good idea great, or kill your bad idea before you invest too much time and effort.
With the open playtest of the new iteration of D&D coming tomorrow, I wanted to offer some of my advice on playtesting and giving feedback. Wizards of the Coast will provide plenty of instructions on what they do and don’t want to see, so obviously that could easily supersede anything I say here. These are some general guidelines to keep in mind for D&D, so hopefully you find these tidbits helpful while playing the game and collecting your feedback.
Respect Their Playtest Decisions
The designers at WotC have decided that the first thing we’re going to see is going to include pre-generated characters, and not have character creation rules initially. I understand not being happy with this decision, however, it’s not like they’re going to suddenly decide that there will never be character creation rules. So when submitting your feedback, you don’t need to tell them “I wish I could see the character creation rules.” As professional game designers, they’ve decided (after many meetings, I’m sure) on this method of rolling rules out, so try and respect that. Keep your responses to what you were provided, not complaining that you don’t have what’s already been promised. [Read the rest of this article]
Torg: A Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Hack (Hacking the Datasheets)
After reading the Leverage and Smallville RPGs, I was tempted to base my Torg hack on Smallville, but once I had it in my hands, I knew that my hack needed to be based on Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. Torg ultimately is a cinematic game. It’s full of action, and while drama certainly can be part of Torg, it’s not inter-PC drama like in Smallville. Leverage ultimately wasn’t a great fit either since there are so many different archetypes in Torg, whereas Leverage features a team that where each person still has skills in all aspects of a con (though with different specialties).
Although my Torg hack is based on the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying rules, there are differences. Each Cortex Plus game needs to be altered differently to focus the important aspects of that game. Many of those differences are expressed in what goes into the dice pools that the players and the GM create. As far as Torg is concerned, the primary aspect that needs to be reflected well in the hack is the treatment of ‘reality’ and how it interacts with the characters.
Reality in Torg
First, I need to explain how the mechanics of causing contradictions in other realities worked in the original Torg game. If a character uses a tool: a spell, miracle, piece of tech or some sort of social concept, it causes a single contradiction if the axiom level of that tool is greater than either the character’s home reality or the reality that character finds herself in. In the original Torg game, the Everlaw of One disconnects the character from their home reality on a roll of 1 on a d20. However, if the axiom level of the tool is greater than both the character’s home reality and the reality she is in (a double contradiction), the disconnection occurs on a roll of 1-4. When the character is disconnected, she is unable to create any more contradictions and is completely subject to the reality she is in. When the disconnection occurs, the action fails and usually the character is pretty hampered in her abilities. However, all the character needs to do is reconnect on her next turn via a successful Reality skill check.
In the original Torg game, the combat rounds were very quick to resolve, and there usually were 5-10 rounds in each combat. Although disconnecting was infrequent, enough combat rounds occurred in a session that a character could expect to disconnect once or twice. Disconnecting meant that the character lost a lot of her abilities (either superpowers, magic, miracles, high tech) for a brief period of time and then gained them back. It may take a round or two though, if the Reality skill checks fail.
In my initial playtest of the contradiction rules for my Torg hack, I tried two methods. In the first method, if the character was causing a single contradiction, he added a d4 to the dice pool. A double contradiction added 2d4 to the pool. If an opportunity was rolled (a 1 on one of the dice), the GM had the option of activating that opportunity and inflicting Reality stress equal to the die that provided the opportunity. In the end, I decided this made it too difficult to disconnect (which would occur when “stressed out”), it was predictable, and it would take a few rounds for it to occur at all.
My second method was to actually treat disconnection as a Limit, which could be activated by the GM or the player. However, when I did so, it severely nerfed the character’s ability to do anything. In this case, the Ninja wasn’t able to use any of his technological devices or his Ninjitsu (martial arts requires a certain Social and Spiritual axiom level).
Now, this problem normally wouldn’t be too bad since the player could have just made an action vs. the Doom Pool to reconnect. However, one thing I’ve learned in running Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and my Torg hack is that the individual Action Scenes don’t necessarily last very long, so disconnecting could mean a major negative impact on a character for much of an Action Scene.
Ultimately what I decided to do is reflect the fact that in the original Torg, the characters got to do their schtick most of the time, and any disconnections were usually speed bumps. The way I imagined it was that a US Marine, fighting in the Living Land, shooting at some incoming velociraptors suddenly would find himself disconnected, his gun not working until he focused briefly and reconnected to Core Earth. This would provide an opportunity for the velociraptors to chow down on him, but it would be a brief opportunity. So the solution to my dilemma was to use part of the first playtest option and add one category to the datasheet that all characters have:
Contradiction
Single d4
Double 2d4
This solution simulates the original Torg game within the Cortex Plus framework. Disconnection can be a pain, but not one that eliminates the fun for the player.
Axiom Traits
Magic d4
Social d8
Spirit d6
Tech d10
During the first playtest, I tried just using the Affiliation trait from Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, but it didn’t feel right. In the comics, heroes often split off, join up or run solo, but in Torg it’s always been expected that the group sticks together. My feelings on this were confirmed when Rob Donoghue blogged about not using the Affiliation trait for MHR hacks. Instead I’m looking at a trait focusing on the interaction of the character with the four axioms of all realities: Magic, Social, Spirit and Tech.
These four axioms define all realities, and including them explicitly in the datasheets connects the character to the game more directly. Each axiom is associated with a d4, d6, d8 or d10 die, with one die for each axiom.
A d10 indicates that the character has a close connection with that axiom. Either he uses tools of that axiom instinctively, or at least knows how elements involving that axiom behave. For instance, a character with Magic d10 probably either uses arcane spells frequently, or at least is familiar enough with magic to know when it’s being used and how to react to it.
Conversely, a d4 indicates either inexperience with that axiom or that when using tools associated with that axiom, things get complicated for him. So a Social d4 could be a social misfit, or a coward. A Magic d4 indicates a character who has never been exposed to magic or could have weird things happen when he uses magic.
Although I’d considered using this trait earlier, I stopped thinking about it after reading Ryan Macklin’s blog post on “use whenever stats”. Although Rob Donoghue pointed out to me on Twitter that Cortex Plus pretty much assumes at least two “use whenever stats”, I felt it was better when the game didn’t use them (e.g. Smallville).
The solution came to me when I realized that I could force the reaction roll to use the same Axiom trait as the action roll that it was opposing. This would mean that there could be some tactical considerations when acting against a character. You might use your d8 trait if it was the d4 trait for your opposition. Plus, it directly ties in the fact that people who aren’t exposed to high axiom tools like powerful magic or amazing technology wouldn’t really know how to defend against it.
Distinctions
Distinctions work exactly the same as in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: either a d8 if it helps or a d4 plus a Plot Point if it hurts.
Aspects
Aspects are the equivalent to Power Sets from Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. They are groups of power traits, limits and SFX organized on a theme. There are three different types of Aspects: Cosms, Ability Sets and Equipment.
1. Cosms
COSM
Nippon Tech (Axiom Limits: Magic 1 Social 16 Spirit 8 Tech 21)
SFX: Law of Intrigue. Add a d8 to your dice pool when attempting to be sneaky, deceive or bribe someone.
SFX: Law of Vengeance. If you have been seriously wronged, you may immediately replace one of your milestones with I WILL HAVE VENGEANCE.
Limit: Law of Profit If you do not have Business Master or Business Expert, acquiring a resource requires 2 PPs instead of one while in Nippon Tech.
MILESTONE – I WILL HAVE VENGEANCE
1 XP when you inflict stress on your enemy or interfere with his or her plans.
3 XP when you harm your team in your attempt to exact vengeance on your enemy.
10 XP when you kill or otherwise permanently defeat your enemy.
Each character not only includes a Cosm on their datasheet, but also is subject to the Cosm based on the reality they are currently in. Each Cosm lists the four axioms plus SFX and Limits based on the World Laws of that reality. Shown above is the Cosm entry for Nippon Tech.
In my hack, I am not using the axiom definitions from the original Torg boxed set, but revised definitions shown on Storm Knights, written by Jasyn Jones and “Kansas” Jim Ogle. Comparing the axioms of your tools or other abilities to those of the Cosm you’re from or in allows you to determine if Contradiction dice should be added to your dice pool.
The SFX and Limits from Cosm Aspects are situational, but for the most part are dealt with exactly the same way as they are in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. However, some SFX involve replacing one of your Milestones with a new one, like I WILL HAVE VENGEANCE.
2. Ability Sets
NINJITSU
SUPERIOR REFLEXES d10 ENHANCED STAMINA d8
ENHANCED DURABILITY d8 INVISIBILITY d8
SFX: Block/Strike. When you are attacked in unarmed or melee combat, the attacker provides an opportunity on a roll of a 1 or a 2.
SFX: Ki Focus. If a dice pool includes a NINJITSU die, you may replace two dice of equal size with one die +1 step larger.
Limit: Exhausted. Shutdown any NINJITSU power to gain 1 PP. Recover power by activating an opportunity or during a Transition Scene.
Ability Sets are dealt with much like Power Sets in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. However, because there may be more than two Aspects on a datasheet, you can only add a trait die from each Aspect up to a maximum of two.
Ability Sets usually involve abilities that are inherent to the character: specialized training, super powers, arcane spellcasting or the invocation of miracles. Sometimes there will be some overlap with Ability Sets and Specialties, but the trait dice included in Ability Sets represents specializations (e.g. Rifles vs. ‘Combat’).
One important difference between my Torg hack and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying is that Torg is a bit more ‘street level’ as far as power scale goes. Torg heroes aren’t controlling weather over scales the size of a state, or teleporting across the universe, or being able to hurl tanks into orbit. For most of the Power Set descriptions, I’ve eliminated the “Godlike” category, and moved “Superhuman” into the d12 rank. To replace “Superhuman,” I’ve made “Superior” the new d10 rank.
3. Equipment
EQUIPMENT
LAR Grizzly 50 Big Boar Rifle d10 (Tech 20; Accurate)
Herod IV Pistol d8 (Tech 21; Full Auto)
Magic Sword d8 (Tech 7, Magic 9)
Kevlar Vest d8 (Tech 20)
SFX: Accurate. If a pool includes a die from an Accurate weapon, you may replace two dice of equal size with one die +1 step larger.
SFX: Full Auto. If a pool includes a die from a Full Auto weapon, add a d6 and keep an additional effect die for each additional target.
Limit: Gear. Gain 1 PP and shutdown Equipment you are using. Make an action against the Doom Pool to recover.
Equipment is a set of Traits, SFX and Limits representing signature items that the character uses on a frequent basis. These items can include tech, magic spells or miracles. Since the tools your character uses have an impact on whether or not you are creating a contradiction, each item in your Equipment list has an axiom level associated with it. Some of these tools will have keywords (e.g. Accurate or Full Auto) that will reference SFX.
I’m still working with exactly how this section works, at least as far as magic spells and miracles go, but I’ll elaborate on that in a future post.
Specialties
Specialties in my Torg hack are mostly the same as in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. There are some changes (though they may be set in Jello):
- Cosmic is replaced by Reality and covers knowledge about the nature of realities, the cosmverse and probably will be involved in whatever mechanic I decide on to deal with reality storms.
- Mystic is replaced by Arcane, Faith and possibly Occult. Faith will be specific to a certain religion.
- Survival and Weird Science are new Specialties.
Milestones
Finally, Milestones are handled exactly the same way as they are in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. In fact, Milestones replicate the mechanics of subplots from the original Torg game well.
Torg: A Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Hack (Primer)
Back in 1990, West End Games released Torg, a cinematic style multi-genre roleplaying game. This game featured many innovative mechanics such as the Drama Deck and Possibility Points, but is best known for its background. Not only did this game allow multiple genres to be treated with the same mechanics, but then smashed them together and added an invasion of Earth on top of it.
Torg is one of my all time favorite roleplaying games. Although I have only briefly played it in the last 15 years, I’ve always wanted to go back to playing it. However, although some of the mechanics (especially the Drama Deck) are great, the system as a whole is showing its age. From problems such as the ‘glass jawed ninja’ to an over-proliferation of skills (even though it is a skill-based RPG), there are several modern RPGs that are more ‘elegant’ than that system.
When I was introduced to the Leverage RPG last year, and learning about the various hacks to the system, I decided to work on a Cortex Plus hack for Torg. This has been something of a journey, learning the ins and outs of the various Cortex Plus games. Originally I planned on making it a straight Leverage hack, but then after playtesting the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying game, I decided that it was the best fit. However, I did briefly flirt with the idea of basing my hack on Smallville as well.
Before I get into how I’m hacking MHR, here is a primer on the Torg setting. [Read the rest of this article]
The Easily Lost Explorer’s Guide to Dungeon Crawling
Now Communicate All That To Your Players
The latest D&D Next blog post by Bruce Cordell covers one of the oft-pointed to dealbreakers for many in D&D 4e: the use of the combat grid. This is actually only one piece of a whole topic about spacial thinking.
Bear with me here: if we all had perfect spacial thinking and effective communication skills, we wouldn’t need a battle grid in combat. The DM could describe the dimensions and shape of a room in the dungeon, as well as relative positions of inhabitants and features. We could just describe how far we’re going, all adjust our mental pictures appropriately, and voila: the entire time to set up a battle would be the time we need to talk about it.
Unfortunately, we don’t all have that. Some of us are terrible at it (me) while others of us are really good at it. In order to make it function at its best though, we have to ALL be reasonably good at it in the same game. Usually this is not the case: you have varying levels of spacial aptitude among the players at an RPG table, and definitely varying degrees of communication skills. In D&D, this has classically been addressed by one of the following styles:
- The battle grid, where everybody can see a birds-eye view of the entire battle, and can always determine exact distances and sizes.
- Rough battle grid (RBG) that does use a map and minis/tokens, but is less concerned with measuring distances and more simply about rough positions.
- “Theater of the Mind” (ToTM) as discussed by Bruce Cordell, where distances aren’t as important and everyone roughly imagines relative positions. (Notice there’s only one exact distance given in Bruce’s example in the size of the room.)
- A fourth style that I’ll call “Blueprints of the Mind” (BotM) that uses exact distances but does not represent them in the real (OOC) world, and is entirely reliant upon the DM to communicate where everything is.
(There is at least one other style in other RPGs I’ve played, which I’ll address later.)
Theater of the Mind, in 3D
Now, as someone with terrible, terrible direction sense, I tend to prefer one of the first two in D&D. The battle grid means that we’re all automatically on the same page. If I lay out a room as a DM, you can see how big it is without any negotiating. If I’m a player, I can easily look down and pre-plan what I’m going to do (and more importantly, get excited about what my character will do next turn) without having to wait and get a recap. The only delay tends to be working out fiddly things like line-of-sight. RBG operates largely the same way, though there’s a bit more clarification often involved.
ToTM can be OK, but also problematic. With situation that cares about relative positioning – ”Can I my barbarian charge him? Is he in range of my bow? Can I aim this Cone of Cold to hit all of them?” – it becomes messier. Because I know I’m not going to be able to track where everything is, I have to wait until it’s my turn and get a recap. This sometimes leads to embarrassing situations where I’m not sure if there are goblins still attacking my face or not until it’s my turn. In other situations, I prefer the ToTM. In fact, in many other RPGs I play, this is the only way I’ll play because it just doesn’t matter who is where, and decisions are made based on what would make sense in a story.
BotM is my least favorite, as you might be able to tell, and I think it’s more common than people give it credit for. In this style, I completely check out when it’s not my turn because it just feels punishing and frustrating when I try to listen to everything that’s going on and I still can’t form a mental picture. Sometimes, it’s even worse when it feels like a math problem: “two golems are equidistant from each other in a 50 foot square room. One of them charges 30 feet to the wizard on your left. Assuming a halfling’s speed, can your rogue reach the other golem before he pulls the lever that drops the lava on the rest of the group?” It sounds extreme, but I’ve found that’s often the case when a very spacial thinker runs a game without a grid. While I cannot picture distances in my head, I’m sure there are folks out there that can’t help but describe things in terms of feet (and sometimes, horrifyingly enough, yards).
Stop And Ask That Pit Trap For Directions
These situations don’t just apply to combat mapping either. Take ye olde dungeone crawle. Mapping the dungeon is treated like another job you must perform like party caller or healer or stableboy. Only, in the case of dungeon mapping, it’s entirely based on player skill, so your illiterate barbarian with a 6 wisdom could be better at it than the 18 intelligence wizard.
So you have your dungeon cartographer, and the DM can describe the hallways that snake off 20 feet to the north and 30 feet to the south, then curve at a 45 degree angle for 40 feet, and so on. The cartographer listens intently and sketches it out as we go, making the player be in charge of trying to draw floor plans only by talking to a partner, like some kind of party game. Mess up, or misinterpret, and everything could be off. This is sometimes fun, for like the first time it happens, and other times, feels like you just programmed your Robo Rally robot to walk off a cliff repeatedly. Likewise, you miss all the possibly fun connections that are had by exploring a dungeon and seeing where the things wrap around, or connect in interesting ways.
Even assuming that you’re doing it perfectly, the mapping is done by one player, who has the best sense of what’s going on. The two players sitting next to her can see the map and weigh in on informed decisions about where to go next. Sitting anywhere else at the table? “Uh, left is always good.” Certainly a good cartographer will show it to other players when needed, but by and large, exploring a dungeon is the province of the one player who really understands what’s going on.
Don’t get me wrong: I LOVE exploring in D&D. I love those “aha” moments where you figure out where there has to be a secret door because of the way things connect. That’s just what makes me sad about the style of play, since I don’t get to really participate. And trust me, you do NOT want me doing the mapping.
3d6+12 Feet Converted To Metric
All this is what lead me yesterday to declare, on the internet of all places, the following statement, in reaction to my friend Trevor stating that you need to know whether a range is in squares or feet:
I actually find feet similarly worthless in a gridless situation. Either you’re measuring exacts or not. Melee/Close/Medium/Far etc. would be fine, or some kind of zoning method.
Exact distances (like 30 feet, or my more hated 3e spell alternative, 30+2 feet per level) get you into the BotM framework. A spell tells you how far it works, and NEVER EVER goes beyond that. If you need to hit the dragon with an acid arrow but it’s 31 feet away, you’re out of luck (and if your DM isn’t out to hose you at every turn, he might even tell you before you waste the spell.) In more situations, we fudge it anyway, which TotM and RBG both live in the “fudge it/negotiate it” zone of play.
What I’m ultimately saying is that specifying exact distances in play, unless you’re using a battle grid or something similar, punish people like me, and there are more than us than you might think that are just playing along. It’s one of those things that has been a part of the game for so long it’s easy to just accept it. However, I do think there are solutions out there that can help everyone.
Virtual Matrix-Esque Worlds For Every Game Table
One alternative I floated, specifically in the context of D&D, is the idea of fuzzy ranges. That is, the range of distances is described by a rough description, like I described above: melee, close, medium, far. I can only attack in melee at melee range. My bow can hit anything I can see within far range. The cone of cold blasts everything close. You can still attach real world distances to them in the rules (close goes from 6-30 feet, medium from 31 to 100, etc.) so as to support battle grid usage. Additionally, and this is the important part, the abstract nature needs to be represented by the rules. Instead of relying on having an omniscient placement of a fireball because the spell description tells me it branches out to exactly 30 squares, it instead would say something like: “hits everything with close range of each other, up to 6 targets. You may designate a target you’re trying to avoid hitting and that target receives a +5 to their saving throw versus the effect.” Or: “Any character may try to run with an Endurance check to increase the distance of their run from close to medium. Halflings and dwarves have tiny legs and so get a -2 penalty to their check.” And so on. Those are just examples that might not work in play, but hopefully you get the idea.
Another alternative, as I alluded to earlier, is to take the approach that FATE and other games have done, which is create abstract “zones” of battle that only care about what area you are in, not exactly where you’re standing. So you might be in the ogre room zone, able to attack anything in melee in that zone, or attack with a longer range weapon into that zone or the hallway zone adjacent, but not the otyugh trash pile adjacent to that around the corner. Movement is listed in things like “1 zone.” And so on.
In both cases, you still have rules about distances, and you’re still going for the same effects that you’ve always had in D&D. It’s just thinking about them in a different way, and supporting them through the system instead of relying on DMs and players to be good at estimating distances. Heck, I couldn’t even tell you the size of the room I’m in right now, and I come to it every week day.
Ultimately, I think my point is that looking at the issue of just battle grid vs. not battle grid will leave us with the same issues, conflicts, and style preferences that lead us down the winding road in the first place from Chainmail to whatever comes next. Thinking about WHY we have these issues- like being unable to picture a battle in my head- and less about one style versus the other could bear some fruit in a solution that will work for everyone playing.
Photo Credit
Musings on Continuity
Our Own Hero’s Journey
Sometimes, in any fantasy world where you have invested a large amount of your imagination, you start to append your real-world experiences to those of the characters being portrayed. For example, in the Star Wars universe, characters such as Luke are relatable, in that most people understand the story of “the everyman.” He is compelling because of the extraordinary destiny that lies ahead in his life. People generally like to feel that there is a greater purpose for them, and as such, they always cheer for the protagonist that achieves this greatness. As we cheer on we also become invested in the story. No matter how far removed from reality the elements of the story are, there is a humanization that brings us right back in. We love this. We want this to continue. We want to never break the feeling we first received while experiencing that story.
Everyone experiences this in a different way. What we pull from a story will differ depending on our life’s experiences. Continuing with Star Wars, one might feel more attached to Han Solo, the brutish scallywag that really has a heart beneath his crusty façade. Or, maybe it is Leia, the strong-willed and persistent princess, one who can get things done, regardless of the testosterone that flies around. Maybe you even felt a connection with Chewbacca—a big cumbersome brute that protects his friends with furious devotion, but is cuddly and cute once you get underneath the fur. Regardless of how you made the connection, you connected. You became invested in the story, and you want nothing to scramble that experience, even if you’re willing to give little ground.
Continuity of a game world works the same way. Consumers of fantasy become invested in the characters, and they begin to sense the world around them, taking in the descriptions and feel an author has provided. R.A. Salvatore, New York Times best-selling author and creator of the renegade drow Drizzt, is fantastic at bringing in the reader and giving them what is needed to relate to his characters. It is undeniable that Drizzt is popular, and for numerous reasons, people keep coming back to hear what will happen to him next. They want to maintain that feel, and have the protagonist overcome adversity. [Read the rest of this article]
The Agony & The Ecstasy of D&D Next
Following the “Retraction” episode of This Greyhawk Life, I feel I must explain myself. As you may have heard on the episode, I now admit that my account of visiting the Wizards of the Coast offices in Seattle and playing D&D Next has had elements that were not entirely truthful.
You see, as a Dungeon Master, I often incorporate elements of the dramatic into my storytelling, even while using some of the trappings of journalism. I embellished in the pursuit of the sharing a story that I felt was important. I am sorry for misleading my audience when I claimed this to be the entire truth.
Thus, in the interest of clearing the air, I would like to clarify the following points:
- I claimed to have interviewed a former worker of Wizards of the Coast who said that he and his coworkers were paid entirely in copper pieces, which do not add up nearly enough to a living wage in Seattle. The truth is that they are paid entirely in coffee.
- My story about the giant mutant chickens being used as playtesters for the Gamma World game was slightly exaggerated. The mutant chickens were merely human-sized.
- My translator says she has no recollection about my meeting with a dice tester required to make sure d4s gave “the full experience” by being forced to walk across them barefoot.
- When I wrote that an iPad would be required to play D&D Next, I actually meant that the New iPad purchased using our Amazon affiliate code would be required to play D&D Next.
- My claim that there were entire rooms, running 16 hour shifts, devoted to playtesting every possible class from Archer to Runepriest was false. No one has every played a Runepriest.
- When I described the D&D Next modular system as being able to “effortlessly combine all aspects of every RPG you’ve ever loved in a seamless way that produces an RPG superior to anything you could ever do with your life in a million years and will make you wish that you could spend your entire life within the fully realized fantasy world that you create using the multitude of advanced tools guaranteed to produce the greatest story ever told,” I was engaging in a slight bit of hyperbole.
- When I said that you could get access to the D&D open playtest early by purchasing a copy of Marvel Heroic Roleplaying... well, wouldn’t hurt to try, would it?
So as you can see, my dramatic retelling of my trip was all in the purpose of serving a greater story, one that I felt was not being told properly in the greater media. I apologize to anyone I mislead in previous posts, in my speaking tour, or my various podcast experiences. Clearly, we will redouble our efforts to tell nothing but the truth, especially on April 1st of all days.
Learning to Play “Marvel Heroic Roleplaying”
Now that Marvel Heroic Roleplaying has been released in PDF, you may be itching to start playing.
I came in late in the playtesting cycle and just last Friday ran my first MHR session as a warmup for the launch party at my FLGS this Friday. So I haven’t exactly played this game a lot. It was also the first time I’d had to teach some players a new game since I introduced my group to Torg in the early 90s.
Although I have read through the Smallville and Leverage RPGs, I had yet to actually run a Cortex Plus game. It was a learning experience. So, I figure that other people would be interested in my experiences at teaching the game to my players and that I could provide some tips and warn about some pitfalls in introducing the game to your players.
Don’t Force Feed Them the Rules
Unless your players have played Leverage or Smallville, there is a lot to absorb all at once. There is the core mechanic, plot point usage, actions, complications, stress, and milestones. Instead I recommend starting with going over the datasheets and how you build your dice pool. Mention that the players have Plot Points that they can use to manipulate the dice pool via different methods and SFX on their datasheet, but don’t go into all the various ways they can do so. Finally mention that you, as the Watcher, have the Doom Pool that acts not only as a supply for extra dice for Watcher characters (much like Plot Points are for the players) but also as an an opposition pool for actions that aren’t directed at a specific Watcher character.
Then throw them straight into the action.
Some points that you may want to emphasize to your players:
- The importance of the effect die is the actual die it is, not the number that is showing on the die. This is quite different than other games, and it took some time for my players to wrap their head around it.
- Rolling a one on a die is not necessarily a bad thing! Yes, this will cause the Doom Pool to grow, but it also means that the players get Plot Points! This is important because…
- Plot Points are PLOT FUEL! Players will want to have a nice supply of Plot Points later in the Act when the Doom Pool is larger and with bigger dice. Player’s shouldn’t be afraid to add a d4 to their dice pool (and get a Plot Point) instead of adding a d8 when including a Distinction in their dice pool.
Subtle Rules
As expected, I made several errors in my first session. Most of these errors I either discovered on re-reading the Operations Manual or through discussions online. To help you avoid those little mistakes here is a list of the ones that I made:
- In order for the reaction roll to prevent the action from succeeding, the total needs to be greater than the action roll.
- If the effect die from the reaction roll is higher than the effect die from the action roll, the effect die for the action roll is stepped back by -1.
- Distinctions must have some association with the action or reaction you are attempting. If you can’t come up with one (and for some of the villains it might be tough), consider using a Scene Distinction instead.
- If the Watcher rolls an opportunity (ie. rolls a 1), that opportunity can be activated by the player immedately, and the push or stunt die added to the next roll, including the reaction roll to the action that provided the opportunity.
- Although you cannot use multiple effect dice to inflict the same type of stress on a single character, you can do so with mobs. So if you use one of the Area Attack SFXes, and have effect dice on a 5d6 mob of d10, d8, d6, d6, you can take out three dice from that mob (as you can’t have 2d6 stress).
- When you get to the end of a round, the last character gets to choose anyone to go next, including himself! This is why a player might want to choose a Watcher character instead of a Hero to go next, as explained by Fred Hicks.
Cool Stuff to Do
One of the great things about MHR is that it gives you mechanics to do cool stuff. Here are a couple of things you can do to complicate matters for your players:
- Mess with their Affiliations. Unlike many other games, MHR actually encourages you to split the party. By spending a die from the Doom Pool you can force the heroes to join up or split apart, which will improve (or degrade) their performance by changing which of their Affiliation traits is applicable. Wolverine is going to attack that villain? Spend a die from the Doom Pool and send them crashing down into the lower levels of the complex, separating Wolverine from his friends (and making the player happy). Want to make things challenging for Cyclops? Do the same thing. On the other hand, combining separate groups can be just as rewarding.
- Scene Distinctions (eg. It’s Pitch Black or Collapsing Building) are great for providing an alternative Distinction for players to use rather than the ones listed on their character sheet, especially if it’s difficult to apply them to the current situation. They also provide excellent mood and atmosphere.
Above all, the point is to make cool stories and have fun!
More Than Openness: Designing in Public
In my last article, I talked about some of the basics on open design. I’ve used those principals in my work with Sand & Steam, but recently I realized that what I’ve been doing has been a step beyond openness. I’ve been designing in public.
Openness vs Public
One of the distinctions that I missed in my last article is that openness doesn’t necessarily have to be inviting. It just leave the door open. Doing something in public combines openness with a call to the public to look at what you’re doing. It’s the difference between opening the front door of your house while you work, and inviting people into your house to watch you work, and give feedback on what you’re doing.
This difference became apparent to me when I saw what was happening with my most recent project, School Daze, which is currently being funded on Kickstarter. School Daze had its genesis as I was driving back from visiting friends in Kansas City. I was thinking about a joke a friend had made on Twitter, and before I knew it, a game idea was unfolding in my mind.
At that point, I had what I felt were two options: I could begin writing, and post everything on Sand & Steam as usual, or I could go to my community hive-mind, and start bouncing ideas off of people. I chose the second option. As soon as I got home, I began bouncing around the idea of Ranks (a concept from School Daze), and what possible effects Rank-rhymes could have, in-game. The result is that I got a much more complete list of Ranks for School Daze, and the end result is much better than it otherwise would have been. [Read the rest of this article]
Fighters & Flapjacks
If you ask me what my favorite D&D classes are, it’s hard to pick one. My tastes range from the mildly offbeat (Psions/Psionicists, Bards), the specific (Paladins but only if I don’t have to deal with a damn horse), the edition-specific (2e Wild Mages and 4e Ninjas), and exactly one true classic: the Fighter.
However, I’ve been playing RPGs a long time now. I’m quite experienced at playing RPGs and games of all types. This is why I react poorly to statements implying that the D&D fighter should be the class that you give the new player, because they’re so simple. I don’t necessarily want a class that’s overly complicated (and we all know a few of those out there in D&D history) but I do want one that gives me plenty of decisions to make inherent in the class itself. I want to think like a Fighter, choosing what move (and maybe, what weapon) is most appropriate to the situation. I want to think like Batman in Dark Knight Returns and (paraphrasing) “There’s 9 different sword strikes from this position. 5 of them kill. 4 of them paralyze for life. The last one… hurts.”
Why is this? I point to what I want in D&D classes as a happy marriage between concept and mechanics. The Fighter- the tough, armored guy that uses weapons to fight monsters- is one that appeals to me for whatever reason. (Possibly because Con is my dump stat in real life.) The concept is awesome and there’s many, many examples of it out there in heroic fiction. Mechanics help reinforce that concept, but also serve with how I interface with the “game” portion of RPG, in giving me interesting decisions to make, and a specific outlet for creativity interpreted through those mechanics. (Slight digression: I think D&D needs better mechanics for improvised weapons and using stuff from your environment. There have certainly been rules and classes that attempt this, but it’s never quite clicked for me, and I think that could help some characters a lot, as well as having the side effect of powering cool descriptive background stuff from the DM and making the situation overall more dynamic.) [Read the rest of this article]
