"Story Awards"

[file this under the "bashing someone's edition" category]

Comments on my Wednesday post had me going back and forth a bit with Dan regarding 2nd Edition AD&D and its reward mechanics...so much so that I had to go back to my battered copy of the 2E DMG (I keep one on hand for reference) and try parsing out the system yet again. 

First, a note on my experience with 2E: it ain't much. I quit playing AD&D around 1988 after my original gaming group "broke up." Met some kids in my high school who still played, but A) they continued to play 1E even into the '90s, and B) D&D just wasn't my "scene" any more (at that time). We gamed together, but it was generally Palladium, Vampire, Stormbringer, or something weird (Toon or random shit). Later on, in my 20s and looking to get back into D&D I delved deep into the RC/BECMI realm...and could find no takers. So I decided to buck up and get the 2E books. Ran one aborted game (the group dissolved in argument before we even started) and played in another with an experienced 2E DM...however, while I had fun with the latter the whole thing degenerated into a shit-storm because:

A) we wouldn't play on the DM's rails, and

B) all the PCs had different agendas

[the party consisted of a ranger, a rogue, and a "war-priest" (this latter being a mechanical fighter who fashioned himself the holy man of a god who did not grant spells or turning ability, but instead allowed edged weapons and better combat prowess). The ranger was happy to do whatever (as long as he could shoot guys with arrows), the "priest" wanted to build his religion (asserting dominion over bandit groups and whatnot by besting their leaders and converting them), and the rogue was being played like an old-school thief, picking pockets, sneaking around and stealing shit, etc. The DM eventually threw his hands up at trying to manage us into his adventure]

I own exactly three 2E-era modules, and only one of them have I tried running (as a 1E adventure); two of them I picked up for...um..."research" purposes. We'll get to those in a minute. Point is: not much experience with 2E. Had a buddy in college that wanted to start a 2E campaign (can't remember, but he might have wanted ME to run it. Didn't happen), but that never got off the ground. Still, while I have read the books, once or twice, I'm far from an expert on 2E, nor have I any experience of running or playing in a 2E campaign. Its nuances are bound to escape me.

[oh, wait...I did some SpellJammer stuff with/for Steve-O. That's 2E, right? But that was a loooong time ago; we played far more Rifts than SJ]

Back to yesterday...Dan wrote:

You keep calling Individual XP "standard" when it's specifically called out in the book as an optional rule. Never used it, and never played with any else who used it either.

Dan is correct. On page 46 of the 2E DMG; here is what it says in the Experience Point Awards section:

There are two categories of experience point awards: group and individual. Group awards are divided equally among all members of the adventuring party, regardless of each individual's contribution. The idea here is that simply being part of a group that accomplishes something teaches the player character something useful.

From a strictly game mechanics point of view, this ensures that all player characters will have the opportunity to advance in experience points at roughly the same rate. Individual awards are optional, given to each player based on the actions of his character and his character's class.

Emphasis added by moi. This is the only place where it is noted that class XP awards are optional...it is NOT noted on page 48 (where the class awards are listed), although there is a side bar regarding individual awards for clever ideas, role-playing, encouragement of others, etc. that is EXPLICITLY noted as being an "optional rule." When you list one "optional rule" in a sidebar to another section, I think you can be forgiven for making my mistake (especially when the section text begins with "there are two categories of XP awards: group and individual..."). Ah, well. 

[I will note my one stint playing in someone's 2E game, these individual awards were NOT deemed optional, which was part of what led to our breakdown in play: fighter was trying to fight, thief was trying steal, etc. Does not make for a cooperative atmosphere]

SO there are only two ACTUAL, non-optional XP awards in 2E: combat awards (hello 3E, 4E, and 5E!) and story awards. Combat awards are strictly mechanical: there's a table based on a defeated opponent's level/HD which is modified by special abilities...very similar to all prior editions of D&D. The "story award" is different; here's what the text says:

This other group award is that earned for the completion of an adventure. This award is determined by the DM, based on the adventure's difficulty. There is no formula to determine the size of this award, since too many variable come into play. However, the following guidelines may help:

The story award should not be greater than the experience points that can be earned defeating the monsters encountered during the adventure...

The story award should give a character no more than 1/10th the experience points he needs to advance a level...

Within these guidelines you have a great deal of leeway. 

There is more to the section but it offers nothing concrete, only discussing how XP is used to monitor (and regulate) character progress, some notes about handing out arbitrary "survival" awards (properly noting "survival is its own reward"), and penalizing XP earned by PCs that died during an adventure.

What isn't discussed is...well, a lot. Like the fact that different character classes require different XP amounts to level so that "one-tenth" limitation isn't going to apply equally among classes. Nor is there a discussion of what constitutes a "story" or its "completion" or what to do when the party deviates from what the DM feels is the story proper.

[is Bilbo's story about killing a dragon or is it about stealing some gold from its hoard or is it about finding self-reliance, courage, and leadership? And is his story the same as the Thorin's?]

So, I spent the morning digging through the closet in my office (a monumental feat if you've never seen it) to find the three 2E adventures I own for a little guidance on this whole "story award" thing; they are: Return to the Keep on the Borderlands (John Rateliff), Return to White Plume Mountain (Bruce Cordell), and Night Below: an Underdark Campaign (Carl Sargent). Hoo-boy!

As I noted back in 2017, Rateliff in RtKotB strongly urges DMs to use the "optional" (old edition) mechanic of giving XP for treasure found. This in addition to "any appropriate story awards." Regarding the latter Rateliff writes:

Appropriate story awards are listed at various points in the text; generally speaking, rescuing hostages, defeating the plans of evil characters, and eliminating a threat to the Keep are all achievements worthy of experience point awards. For each cave in the Caves of Chaos that is completely cleaned out, give the group a story award. 

He then lists some actual numbers: 100 XP for Caves A through E, 200 XP for Caves F, G, H, and J, and 300 XP for Caves I and K. 

These story awards are in addition to any experience points gained in actually exploring said cave [note: Rateliff's emphasis, not mine]. When the adventure deviates from the established script [??], extrapolate the story awards listed in the text to come up with appropriate awards for your player characters.

Okay, then. What story awards are actually listed in the text? Nothing. There are none. Good work, Rateliff.

[please feel free to point out any I missed. I read/skimmed the book twice today and found nothing]

Okay, so: "completing the adventure" equals "genocide." Or something. I see why he "strongly urges" DMs to use the old x.p. for gold system. Moving right along...

Cordell's Return to White Plume Mountain is the adventure I have (years ago) tried running with 1st edition rules; it didn't go very far, but I am familiar with it. Cordell's a pro's pro and explicitly lists the (2E) XP Awards in a prominent section at the end of the adventure:

The characters may be eligible for additional experience points based on their actions. Each character actively involved in ending the threat of the False Kerapti should receive an XP story-award of 1,000 times his or her level. If the heroes save the child-Keraptis from the shade of the vengeance, each receives an additional 2,000 XP. If they refuse to give the child-Keraptis up to the Resistance (the easy way out), but instead find a good and proper foster home for him, award each PC an additional 3,000 XP. 

Well, that's all pretty cut-n-dry right? Defeat the bad guys, save the kid, and get him to a good home and you can earn 12,000 to 15,000 XP (the adventure is for characters 7th - 10th level). Which is a bit outside the one-tenth guideline limit for story awards, but it's close (unless you're playing a rogue).

What's NOT cool, though is this: you've got a fairly brutal, 80+ encounter dungeon with a "hook" that has NOTHING to do with defeating "false Kerapti" or "saving a [special special] child." The (multiple) hooks boil down to:

• Retrieving a stolen magic weapon (yours or someone else's)
• Rescuing an old friend
• Investigating "rumors of evil"
• Curiosity (anything in that-there mountain?)

Screw. You. Cordell.

SO, assuming you're running the adventure straight AND you're not using any optional rules AND your DM isn't telegraphing the plot like a madman (i.e. railroading, etc.) THEN the only x.p. you could potentially end up with is from the monsters you fight? What does that encourage PCs to do?

I *thought* (briefly) that perhaps "story XP" would be awarded for recovering the various magical weapons. I mean, that's one of the main hooks for the adventure (go find Wave). And look here! Each of the magic weapons lists an "XP Value" with its description. That must be what it's for, right?

No. ALL magic items in 2E have an XP Value. But I thought 2E didn't award XP for finding treasure. It doesn't:

Note: XP Value is the number of experience points a character gets for making an item.

[DMG2E, page 135]

Remember those "optional" individual XP awards? Right. Wizards (optionally) earn XP for enchanting items. If your 2E wizard makes Blackrazor (and the DM is using the optional individual awards), you character will get 8,000 XP. Yay...fun D&D, that.

SO...we go on this cool adventure...that has a hidden goal/objective. We spend multiple sessions exploring its multiple levels of danger. We maybe NEVER accomplish the "hidden" story award of the thing. But as long as we're fighting and killing everything we encounter, we'll earn experience towards leveling. 

Great. Plowing ahead...

Big Fat Adventure

Night Below! This book is massive. I ordered it POD off DriveThru sometime back, and it's a couple hundreds of pages (not counting dozens of maps). Originally a three-book boxed set, it is considered one of the finest offerings of the 2E era (here's a review); it is an ENTIRE CAMPAIGN designed to take PCs "from 1st level to 10th level and beyond." Check this part out (from page 9 of the introductory chapter):

Earned XP

This campaign assumes that characters gain XP for monetary treasure, at the rate of 1 XP for each gp value of the treasure. DMs not wishing to employ this optional rule should increase XP story awards to compensate, ensuring that the PCs advance at a sufficient rate to meet the challenges of the adventure. Playtesting shows that to maintain campaign balance, PCs should earn some 60% of XP from sources other than slaying monsters.

Oh, 2E.  When it comes to XP for treasure, 2E says "I just can't quit you."

Night Below offers an interesting sub-system called Social Collapse Points (SCPs) that PCs earn as they destabilize the evil subterranean societies, and succeeding at bringing about this collapse does earn the characters bonus XP in the thousands, but almost all of the things that earn SCPs are either slaying monsters or destroying/vandalizing property. But that's part of the "story awards" for Book 2 of the campaign (that section effectively ends once collapse had been achieved). The story awards I could thus find include:

• 1,000 XP for concluding Book 1 IF the PCs can wipe out the bad guys in a single foray.
• 5,000 XP for earning 50 SCPs in Book 2
• 5,000 XP for earning 100 SCP's in Book 2
• 100,000 XP for destroying the ultimate Big Bad in Book3

But there IS a lot of treasure in Night Below....though probably not enough, considering the lack of XP awarded for magic items in 2E.

Hey, folks. I know the following thought is probably going to be met with some ire, but I'm going to post it anyway. In my last post, with regard to "story awards," Dan wrote:

I have no idea where you get the idea that this discourage self-starters. An adventure is an adventure, regardless of whether the DM lays it out on a platter or the PCs choose it themselves. Finding a goblin lair in the wilderness and looting it is a completed adventure just as much as slogging through a boring Dragonlance module is. I have never run a game with XP for treasure in my life, and player engagement has never been a problem.

How does one define adventure? In B/X, it is a single game session; does this hold true for 2E? If not, where is the adventure's beginning? Where is its end? Who says when it's over? The DM? In a B/X or 1E game, PCs can beg off at any time...because they don't like the scenario, the risk versus reward, whatever. But this idea that a "story" must be "completed" is a shitty, shitty concept.

What it SOUNDS like...and please disabuse me if this is wrong...is that 2E advancement is, at its simplest, just "combat experience multiplied by two." That is, you get experience points for defeating opponents, and then you get the same experience ("x.p. equal to defeated opponents") whenever the adventure is considered to be "done." Which...well, that's just 3E again, but with a different formula for calculating it, no?

Am I mistaken?

I want to continue this discussion (somewhat) in my next post, but it won't be about 2E specifically. In an effort to be constructive, I'm going to talk about the positive aspects of 1E's reward system.

Have a good weekend, folks.

: )

Incentivizing Thief Skills (Part 1)

Yesterday, I wrote about my re-kindled romance with the B/X system of Dungeons & Dragons and my need to address a couple of its (few) inadequacies. The first of these is a certain minimal level of survivability, to take some of the crapshoot out of the early adventure sessions (where a character can get themselves killed with a single unlucky roll). That probably deserves another post, offering additional reasons to use the proposed fortune mechanic, but first I wanted to address the other (glaring) barrier to sustainability: the lack of effectiveness found in certain classes.

This post will be about thieves; the next one will address magic-users.

I've written a lot about the thief class over the years...this will be my 20th post that includes the "thief" label. What can I say: it brings up a lot of topics for discussion. However, most of the thoughts I blogged in my last post on the subject still stand. I'll try to summarize them:

• The thief character offers a unique play style focused on gambling that, thematically, fits the class rather well.
• Removing thief skill checks (as I've done in the past) remove both this thematic play style, and removes the joy of development that comes from increased character effectiveness with advancement.
• The skill percentages, as listed make the success chance so low as to provide no incentive (risk/reward) for attempting skill use at low levels.
• The thief's lack of overall survivability (low hit points, low armor class) coupled with a lack of production makes for a character that few would want to play...at least not if forced to begin at level one.

One idea I floated in the post was the idea of adding a bonus to a thief's skill chances based on their Dexterity score: basically a +5% bonus multiplied by the standard B/X ability adjustment (+1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, +3 for 18). As DEX is the prime requisite of thieves, it is easy enough for beginning players to adjust the score upwards at chargen, ensuring a bonus of +5-15% to the beginning thief skills. But is that adequate? Let's examine how that looks:

	Dex 9-12	Dex 13-15	Dex 16-17	Dex 18
Open Locks	15%	20%	25%	30%
Remove Traps/ Hide in Shadows	10%	15%	20%	25%
Pick Pockets/ Move Silently	20%	25%	30%	35%
Climb Sheer Surfaces	87%	92%	97%	99%

Do put this in perspective with actual thief skill progression in B/X, with the exception of climb sheer surfaces, a thief with a dexterity of 13-15 adds one level of effectiveness, 16-17 adds two levels of effectiveness, and a dexterity of 18 adds three levels of effectiveness. As a longtime B/X Dungeon Master, I've come to assume that most players will increase their prime requisite to 16 (in order to maximize their experience bonus), meaning most such PCs will be playing with the talents of a 3rd level thief.

[with the exception of the climbing, which is equivalent to an 11th level master thief]

Leaving aside the climbing skill, we see there are three basic percentages: removing traps/hiding (the worst percentage, i.e. most difficult), picking pockets/moving silently (the best, i.e. easiest), and opening locks (the middle difficulty, though requiring "thieves tools" for use...see page X10).

Comparing these to the attack tables, we see that the starting percentages are the same as a thief attempting to attack AC 0, AC 1, and AC 2...all armor classes rarely encountered by 1st level characters in B/X. Adding the proposed +10% bonus for a dexterity of 16 betters this to AC 3, AC 4, and AC 5...still difficult considering standard armor class for most creatures on the L1 wandering monster table top at AC 7. Is this enough of an improvement to encourage actual skill use by the 1st level thief?

The question is really one of incentive: does the possible reward outweigh the high degree of risk that comes with using one's skills?

Clearly there are potential benefits for using thief skills. Most allow the PC to reach treasure that might not be readily accessible, being guarded by traps and locks, located in hard to reach (high) locations, in the pockets of opponents, or in areas where stealth could enable the saving of resources (HPs, spells, etc.). But in many cases a frontal assault can prove far more effective: attacking guards allows the entire party to bring their might to bear, as well as providing a better chance of success (assuming the usual low level opponent types), and dividing risk among multiple participants. And who needs to pick locks when you can break a latch with an axe or crowbar? Is there any other possible incentive besides "looking cool?"

2nd edition AD&D was the first D&D edition to provide XP to thieves (*ahem* -- "rogues") for the use of their special abilities, at a rate of 100 per pop. That's 100 experience points for the successful use of an ability. Considering that the rate of advancement is nearly unchanged from B/X (1250 for 2nd level and 2500 for 3rd) AND that starting rogues can have skill percentages as high as 70% to 75% for non-climbing skills(!!), it's hard not to see this as another example of 2E's misguided design parameters. But the concept of awarding XP for skill use is not a terrible one.

How many legitimate opportunities does a thief get to try their skills in an average game session? Six to eight? Less? With an average success rate of some 28% (35% with a 16 dexterity and receiving a 10% bonus) we're talking some 200-300 extra XP per session. Quite a nice little bonus for a low level character, though one whose importance fades as the character gains levels and requires more XP to advance.

That being said, is it right to give the thief class such a bonus? Is it fair? Unlike XP for treasure and monster defeats, such individual awards...an incentive for the the player to attempt a risky maneuver...are going solely to one character. And it just happens to be the character whose class already has the fastest rate of advancement (well, until 11th level; that's when the cleric passes the thief in speed). Would such an incentive breed incentive in the non-thief players at the table? I can see the argument that the player is risking their own skin in a way that other classes aren't (magic-user's spells have no chance of failure and are generally performed at a distance, while front-line fighters have heavy armor and extra hit points to increase their survivability)...but still, there's a bit of inequity there.

What if the XP bonus was reduced to 50 points per successful skill use? Would this curb the possible resentment? Would such a reduction negate the thief's incentive of trying skills except in the most exceptional circumstances?

Here's the thing: the issue is one of base competence for the thief character. A 1-in-10 or 1-in-5 chance of success is not good enough for most folks to risk their lives...especially when any reward (i.e. treasure recovered) is going to be shared out equally amongst individuals who did not take part in the risk. And while a 1-in-3 or 1-in-4 chance (adding DEX bonuses) is a LOT better, there's still a lack of incentive to perform as required when alternative options (hacking and slashing) are available. Survivability is still a consideration here...dead thieves can't spend gold.

[and I would not allow thieves to spend fortune points when using thief skills...that removes the gambling aspect of the class]

So...what to do? Lacking the standard XP carrot (because going down that rabbit hole would probably lead to a bunch of house ruled individual XP awards for different classes, leading to the gradual drifting away of the the whole D&D reward system predicated on PCs working together for the common goal of getting rich)...*ahem* Lacking the standard XP carrot, I feel the incentive must come in the form of increased effectiveness of the thief skills themselves. More "bang for one's buck" is needed, to make the risk of failure worth the possible reward.

But as this post is getting a bit long, I'll write about that in a follow-up.

One Million

Let's talk level limits. A common enough gripe of old school play style, generally with regard to demihumans...which is going to be the subject of this post.

[and, frankly, if you're going to gripe about assassins only going to level 15 or druids to level 14, I can't help you. Though, I suppose Gygax increased druids to 23 with the UA...because we need druids turning into fire elementals and stuff? Some stuff I just don't get...]

Holmes (my new "foundation" for all games D&D) has no level limits, of course. This is because the text of Holmes Basic only provides rules for characters up to 3rd level...and even the stingiest edition of Dungeons & Dragons (the Little Brown Books) allows the lowly hobbit to achieve 4th level. However, as I plan my Ten Year Campaign, I know that (as with multi-classing and which classes deminhumans can become) I'm going to need to make some hard decisions as to maximum levels. 

I might be in the minority with regard to level limits, but I like them. And it has nothing to do with game balance, or throwing human characters a bone, or modeling human ambition as their "advantage" over demihumans. No...to me, level limits make sense based on the limitations inherent in the demihumans.

Take the halfling (hobbit) as an example. Originally, their maximum potential of fighter was 4th level. That's "hero level," four times greater than a 1st level fighter, but pretty small potatoes compared to the ranks of high level humans. But look at their limitations: limitations of upbringing, of temperament, of training (in hobbit communities). Limitations with regard to armor that can be worn and weapons that can be wielded. If I have a small frame, poor reach, bad leverage (in hand-to-hand) and an inability to wield (and thus practice) most of the large weapons available, how am I ever going to reach the potential in training for battle as a human?

Look at elves. If we consider them these stereotypical, daisy-eating vegetarians with a deep respect for life...and thus lacking a killer instinct...coupled with a love of frivolous star-gazing, woodland frolicking, and wine-drinking (the Tolkien model), PLUS a slight frame, shorter reach, less leverage, and the capacity to bruise like a peach...well, you can understand how they might be limited as well.

And the same holds true for dwarves, okay? Don't tell me these are the roughest, toughest warriors in the realm, whose "favored class" is fighter. Fighting in tunnels, hatred of goblins, doesn't provide you with comprehensive fighting skills. You can't even ride a damn horse (not that you have stables underground anyway). Your fighting education is lacking, my beardy little friends. You can still be PROUD warriors, but that doesn't make you SKILLED warriors.

Here's my take: adventuring classes are human scale. Yes, I've decided that (at least for a couple demihumans) race will not equal class, and whether due to their interaction with humans, or adventurous nature, multiple classes will be open to non-humans. However, being "human scale," only humans are able to express the full potential of the class. Even if we're talking about a world setting analogous to Tolkien's Middle Earth (where you have a history of elves like Fingolfin and Glorfindel taking down balrogs single-handedly), this isn't about elves being "diminished in the current age." It's about humans expressing the full potential of the adventuring class (though the class may have been pioneered by this "elder race"). Those heroes of an ancient age may have been hot stuff, but humans in the current setting can be even better.

Yet even for humans, there's a limit to what can be learned...a finite amount of skill that can be acquired. For my Holmes setting, the hard limit is about 14 for the four main classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief), with lesser levels for subclasses. For all classes (and subclasses), hit dice stop accumulating at level 9, and only bonus HPs are gained thereafter; skills and spell acquisition cease at 14, and while saves continue to improve, combat skills stop at level 13 for fighters. This is the limits of the class, mind you...you've learned all you can learn by the time you hit a certain level, and the only thing there is to gain is a little bump to HPs and (possibly) to saves. There's just a limit to what is possible for the adventurer.

But while characters can measure their power by their level, they measure their success...and what they've learned/earned...by experience points. And here, I've decided to simply install a hard cap on how much XP can be accumulated: one million points. Once you've hit that number, you can retire or continue on, but you aren't earning anything, no matter how many monsters you kill and no matter how much treasure you accumulate. One million is, for my purposes, the limit of what adventuring can gain you. 

Well, actually 1,100,000 for individuals with a 10% bonus for their prime requisite. But a million for everyone else...including demihumans, to whom I don't really want to give a prime requisite bonus (let that be the "human advantage").

Elves, as I wrote earlier, simply add the XP required for fighters and magic-users together to determine how much XP they need to accumulate to advance. With a million XP cap, that gives them a maximum potential of 10th level (at 810,000xp). Even earning a million doesn't get them to the next level.

Dwarves and halflings only have the options of the fighter and thief classes (and remember, there's no "multi-classing" round these parts). For dwarves, their normal maximum training is one-half the human potential (call it 7th level), but even after reaching it, they can continue to earn XP (up to a million)...however, each level requires double the normal XP to acquire (giving them an absolute maximum of 11th). For halfling fighters, their base potential is only one-third that of humans (4th level), and continued progression requires triple the normal XP (absolute max of 9th level). For thieves, this would be reversed (dwarves at one-third/triple and halflings at one-half/double). 

This method allows the demihumans to keep earning XP along with their human counterparts, just at a much slower rate of return and (one might presume) with a higher rate of "burnout" or urge to retire...there are some awful long stretches of "no gain" as the non-humans work and work and work to try to match their taller comrades. But...well, it's a bit like the real world: I would have never been an NFL linebacker, no matter how hard I tried, because I'm just not big enough. Nor would I have ever been a genius physicist...I wasn't gifted with that type of intellect. Demihumans have inherent limitations based on their individual species and culture. At least in my game world.

But there's still bragging rights for getting a million points.

; )

Dichotomy

A couple days back, Anthony was commenting on my Cacodemon post when his brain went into a minor meltdown (I don’t fault him for this, BTW, as this kind of thing tends to happen to me all the time when I start musing and muttering). He wrote:

“On a related note, with regard to age of character, character level, whatever…I feel like I’m tired of levels! And perhaps anything related to character advancement! How about a game where the character you make is the character you make, for the entire time you are playing in said campaign. I mean, if campaigns have a tendency to crash and burn (with those decades-long campaigns being the exception to the rule, and trust me I doubt the veracity of those claims of long-running campaigns), then why not create a character that just advances in abilities, rather than have the seemingly superfluous add-on of an XP system. “I’m not quite sure what I even mean by all of that…maybe it’s related to my growing disdain for roleplaying games as being counting exercises. I’m tired of counting XP!”

 Anthony then goes on to write that he’s still interested in some sort of character development (actually, “development” is my word), that may not be necessarily in the traditional, linear, level-up fashion of D&D.

I understand his frustration. I do, really. It was about…oh…nine or ten years ago that I started writing a fantasy RPG that had an XP system that just went from 1 to 9, with each number representing a different, life-changing experience a character might have. For example, going to war for the first time or being crowned king. There were more than nine possible experiences, but a character was limited to nine…and each experience provided its own individual bonus or change or advantage to the character.

In fact, the milestone mechanic in Five Ancient Kingdoms is the direct descendant of this idea, though it was developed into its current incarnation through my (as yet unpublished) B/X Star Wars game, combining my original idea with the destiny mechanics (I think that’s what they’re called) found in the Star Wars Saga (D20) Edition. You can also see something similar in the old school game Villains & Vigilantes, where every “level up” gives you some mechanical advantage (chosen from a substantial list), in addition to bonus HPs and such. I incorporated something similar to V&V in my Land of Ice campaign setting for B/X.

In developing the milestone concept, both for B/X SW and 5AK, it was suggested to me that I return to my original idea of giving each different ‘stone some sort of related “power up.” There are a couple-few reasons why I rejected the idea:

1. No matter how hard you try to make the game otherwise, some people are going to see certain associated power-ups as “better” than others. If a character gets a +1 to initiative and attack rolls because they’ve been “blooded in combat” that’s going to be more desirable (in a D&D-style game) than certain other advantages…unless you do the dumb-dumb thing of making ALL the various associated bonuses as being “combat-related” (see Saga Star Wars for that kind of stupidity in game design).
2. Milestones were developed as a bonus for taking “extra action” outside of the normal loot/slay paradigm (rewarding players who engage the world, i.e. “going above and beyond”) but it wasn’t meant to distract from other adventure-related goals (i.e. finding treasure). At least not in Five Ancient Kingdoms since most Arabic folktales tend to fall into the category of “adventurer looking to get rich.” In B/X Star Wars, it’s a different story (and a topic for a different blog post).
3. I still like the idea of variable XP totals between player characters as a gauge of “how well” players are doing in the game. I don’t like the idea of everyone “leveling up at the same rate.” Call me a curmudgeon if you like but I’m NOT of the generation where everyone on the little league team gets an award at the end of the year. I like to have comparison and variation and tracking individual “points” does that.

[hmm…this might be a good time to note that I am NOT a fan of the Chaosium/BRP system of development for precisely this reason. I don’t like it anyway because I find it to be too slow, too random, and too dumb (only going up), but placing the emphasis on skill use as the only means of “advancement” makes the whole game about finding ways to use those skills (to meet the reward requirements of the system) rather than exploration of the setting, which would otherwise seem to be the desired objective of the Chaosium game designers]

There’re some other pitfalls, too (which is part of why that experiment nine or ten years ago didn’t fly) but I don’t want to get into ‘em right now.

But as I said, I understand Anthony’s venting. It IS a pain in the ass to track and record XP, and the whole idea of linking not just effectiveness but game content to advancement is kind of shitty. I have a mage that wants to explore the astral plane…sorry, you don’t get access to a suitable spell for 12+ levels (and it takes weeks of play just to go up one level). Maybe your DM will let you find a cubic gate or magic portal in the course of adventuring, but otherwise you’ve got to commit to a few years of constant gameplay to open that content…assuming the group and DM are willing to stick together that long.

And, of course, this doesn’t just apply to magic-users. “My character’s a hero! When do I get to fight a dragon?” When you’re damn good and ready in about eight or ten levels…unless I’m a sadist of a DM. And this is, of course, assuming you find adequate equipment along the way. “But isn’t this Dungeons & Dragons we’re playing?”

It sure is. Which means you get none of that “big kid stuff” for a long, long time.

What folks should understand (and what I’ve tried to explain before) is that there are a lot of parts to the game that were not conceptualized by the designers when they first created the game, they were simply added and added and added IN PLAY to make the game “fun.” And a lot of the things that were added were not very well thought out and have caused all sorts of problems for all sorts of reasons over time.

The XP/level advancement system was NOT present from the get go. Arneson wanted a game of underground exploration and fantasy adventure; THAT was his objective. Napoleonic wargame maneuvers underground against the orcs of Sauron or whatever. It was only after a while of playing that players asked “shouldn’t we be getting better [i.e. more effective] at this exploration thing as we survive?” The objective of finding treasure/gold was ALREADY in place…it was a very small leap of concept to adapt that to leveling up.

And it makes sense…but it makes MORE sense when you consider the original scale. “Gygaxian ecology” wasn’t necessarily in effect from the get go. Who knows what giant piles of treasure were pulled out prior to concepts of scaling and “realistic” or “balanced” treasures? The scale of character advancement was different, too…from a "three level" system based on CHAINMAIL (no-name, Hero, and Superhero) to the level seven to twelve range found in OD&D (which quickly scaled up due to infinity potential, Monty Haul campaigns, and the potential of Odin as an antagonist).

2^nd Edition AD&D tried to reinvent the game with a revised XP system, but that was pretty much trying to shut the lid on Pandora’s Box…the game needed a rework from the ground up if you wanted to restructure folks’ assumptions. 3^rd Edition DID restructure the game assumptions drastically, by making the game entirely about combat (sure, sure…”overcoming challenges,” but those are mostly fighting monsters especially as PCs advance in level) with rewards (feats, spells, etc.) being related to the same (i.e. combat). 4^th Edition was a natural “next step” from what had been introduced in 3^rd Edition, even though people hated it.

But I’ve blogged about all this before. You can check out my various posts on advancement and development and Arneson’s Blackmoore, etc. scattered throughout this blog. The question isn’t really what D&D is or isn’t or what we’d like it to be. The question is this: given that you don’t like it, what are you going to do about it?

The question is not intended to be rhetorical and is directed at myself as much as any of my readers. Fact is, folks like advancement (not just development) of character. Arneson’s players asking him, “shouldn’t we be getting better at this?” is pretty solid evidence. I think it’s also safe to say that practical experience in one’s craft (in this case “adventuring”) is worth something…most would assume that the wet-behind-the-ears rookie isn’t as effective as the ten year veteran. But do you want the game to model the progress from rookie to veteran? I only ask because, you know, that’s what it does.

And some would say: “That’s the game.” D&D is about young Turks going into an underground world and looking for treasure, eventually becoming hardened vets. Fantasy Vietnam, right?  This doesn’t contrast too much with traditional folklore and hero tales, most of which combine “coming of age” themes with their tales of valor. The difference is in the effectiveness of the heroes in classic legends. Theseus may be on his first adventure, but he still manages to beat the Minotaur single-handedly (and bereft of armor or magical accoutrements). How many 1^st level fighters can claim that?

[yes, I suppose one could say Theseus (in D&D terms) got incredibly lucky with his dice rolls, and it is because of this exceptional encounter that he is remembered as a legendary figure. But his is but one example of many, and don’t you want your characters to have the same “literary probability” of heroic achievement? Or do you want your game to be a crapshoot lottery when it comes to seeing if player characters’ names will be remembered?]

Again, we know what D&D is…maybe it's not the game we want to play. At least, not every day of the week.

Do you like variation and disparity in power levels between player characters? Do you think that “good play” (a whole ‘nother line of design theory) should be rewarded with increased in-game effectiveness? Do you want players to have to “pay their dues” before they can access “the good stuff?”

Think about your own fortitude for this last one: does making folks wait for content make the pay-off all the sweeter? Or does it simply frustrate the hell out of ‘em to the point where they want to play something else? Keep in mind that the DM has to wait, too…no excursions into the deepest bowels of hell when the PCs at your table are all under 4^th level!

Personally, I’m not much for delayed gratification. That paradigm of doling out points and content over time may be a frigging godsend to the video game industry – who can turn players’ desire to achieve into a steady supply of subscription cash – but that’s the very thing that turns me OFF of such games. I don’t want to have to play and play and play just to reach a point where my character can ride an f’ing horse! Again, I understand that “that’s the game;” it’s just not the game for me.

SO…given all these thoughts, what do I want to do with my redesigned fantasy game? Do I want characters to begin their adventuring career as Harry Potter or as Elric of Melnibone? I’ve already said I don’t like systems like FATE or FUDGE because they’re not “nailed down” enough for my taste, and I certainly don’t want a point-based system like GURPS or a skill based system like BRP (chargen takes too damn long). I like the specificity and simplicity inherent in a random ability, class/level system…it may just be a matter of scaling the game properly.

I’ve talked about level compression before; I’ve also talked about cutting the “XP needed” by a factor of five or ten. It’s possible to write a game so that a “1^st level” character has the same effectiveness as, say, a 4^th level character (by adjusting HPs, saves, attack rolls, etc.) and making each step of advancement be the equivalent of going up two or three levels. That’s an easy enough fix.

But it still requires a system for awarding those levels, and that would generally be based on some type of “merited action,” whether we’re talking XP or the clearing of a dungeon level.

What if your character went up one level every time he or she found a stairway down? That might resolve some of the problems with the standard system (counting points, opening content, etc.) though it wouldn’t allow for much variation/discrepancy between characters. It would create an objective of exploration certainly; but it would also undermine the traditional premise of “treasure finding,” Maybe you want that, maybe you don’t.

All right, that’s enough for me to chew on for awhile…hopefully, these musings were useful to Anthony.

; )

Good Rewards, Bad Rewards

I had a bunch of (basically) garbage filler written up that I’ve now deleted. I’m just going to lay it out for folks…and sorry if this seems a bit terse, but sometimes people get my goat with their obtuseness.

When I was railing against the poor design of the D&D game with regard to the later “stages of exploration” I was NOT decrying the designers’ choice of awarding XP for treasure. Yesterday, I spent part o my morning rereading the sections on experience in both the AD&D PHB and DMG and found Gygax’s explanation and justification both concise and 100% reasonable. The problem with the current XP system isn’t the choice of mechanic, the problem is the lack of EVOLUTION in the advancement system commensurate with the evolution of game play (both as intended and as unintentionally designed) and how that lack:

A) Fails to appropriately reward “right action”
B) Fails to incentivize players to choose “right action.”

And right action in this case could be defined as “behavior that contributes to the type of fantasy exploration intended by setting and scenario.”

Once you get out of the “hazard site” (the “dungeon” scenario) and move into the larger fantasy world (i.e. “the wilderness”) or the more lofty objectives and goals that come with being a high level character (when game play becomes more proactive, less reactive), the XP system as written falls short.

So why not just junk the system altogether? I.e. why not award XP for different objectives? Well, sure, okay let’s just do that. But before we do, let me pose a slightly tangential question:

Do you want an objective measure of a character’s success, or a subjective one?

This is, of course, assuming you are interested in having an advancement system whereby characters progress in effectiveness (i.e. “level up”) dependent on reward. I read one tale of a certain, unnamed innovative indie-game designer that was running a D&D game that kept getting bogged down in the advancement system and decided to junk the whole thing: that is, NO XP and NO LEVELS. "Let’s just play and forget all about counting points for actions." To me, that’s a fairly extreme stance to take (because it defeats the whole gamist/challenging premise of D&D) but it's certainly an innovative approach to circumventing the question altogether!

However, I am interested in an advancement system, so I return to the question at hand: do you want your reward system to be an objective measure of success or not? And I want you to consider the question from two different perspectives before coming to your answer, those perspectives being as player and as Dungeon Master.

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, let me explain what I mean by an “objective measure of success.” An OBJECTIVE measure is one that is cut-and-dry and not dependent on DM judgment. Now I know, I know it’s difficult to have a reward system that is TRULY independent of DM judgment…after all, the DM is responsible for setting the quantity of “reward opportunities” in a game and thus still has the choice to be “generous” or “stingy” with those opportunities. But having a nominally objective measure of success at least gives the players a yardstick by which to measure the choices they make in game. The original measures of success (treasure found and monsters defeated) are both objective measures of success: if you find treasure you gain XP equal to its GP value; if you defeat a monster you gain XP based on its hit dice.

Treasure and monsters aren’t the only possible “objective” measures of success. Miles travelled, damage sustained, collection of taxes, locks/traps disarmed, or treasure spent/donated are all non-subjective ways to award XP to players, as is awarding a certain amount of XP for (player) attendance. Do the specified action and receive the specified XP total; simple and straight-forward. Here are the important considerations regarding objective measures of success:

1) Rewarding a particular action provides incentive to take that action, to the possible exclusion of other (non-rewarding) actions. For example, if you ONLY reward PCs for the defeat of monsters, PCs will seek out conflict with monsters.
2) Over time, your game will become about that which you choose to reward.

There are several consequences of #2 that should be pointed out. If I say, “This game is about finding treasure,” and award XP for the acquisition of finding treasure, then players will expect to find treasure and will bristle in disappointment if they don’t. If you decide to reward players solely for attendance (i.e. being seat warmers) than there is little incentive for them to take any dangerous action that might jeopardize their characters: showing up and sitting on their hands is enough “effort” to climb in level.

Okay, those are objective measures of success. What would be SUBJECTIVE measures of success, or what I like to call “DM fiat?” Welp, that would be a game in which a character’s rate of advancement is more or less arbitrary based on the whim of the DM. Some examples might include: awards for good role-playing, or bonuses for showing courage/heroism, or humor awards, or completing “mission objectives,” or setting-specific goals. All of these are entirely dependent on the DM for any award to be received, and thus stunt players’ ability to be proactive to a greater or lesser extent.

For example, if I (as DM) say, “you get XP for making a journey of a 1000 miles or more” (an objective measure of success) players may choose to travel to any random far-off place they’ve heard of in order to gain XP. If the DM says, “you get XP for making a pilgrimage to shrine XYZ,” then players are limited solely to travelling to XYZ…at least if they want to gain the reward. Of course, if PCs don’t know they get XP for travelling to a shrine XYZ (because it’s a “secret” or “hidden” objective) then it’s even more of an arbitrary reward…the DM is simply handing out “bonus XP” when he or she feels like it based on the “accomplishments” of the PCs…which require “good guesses” by the players in question.

“Secret goals” or events are ALWAYS considered “subjective” awards. If players don’t know about them, then they cannot make informed choices whether or not to pursue those objectives. So what if a DM has a list of objectives written down beforehand? The list is still subject to the DM’s whim and can be changed at any time due to the “demands” of the campaign or campaign setting. Hopefully, players will manage to do the right thing during the right session when the DM is still feeling like a visit to shrine XYZ is deserving of an XP award.

With a subjective measure of success, “right behavior” becomes about pleasing the DM and players are forced to take pains to determine what it is the DM enjoys or expects. If the DM wants you to rescue captives (and dangles a fat XP carrot as incentive) then By God we better get in there and save those hostages! If the DM awards bonus XP for “good role-playing,” whatever that means, then players better figure out what the DM expects (Funny voices? Accents? A cape?) so as to receive that reward.

Now if it sounds like I’m throwing stones at “subjective” measures of experience, well, yeah, I am. Of course, Arneson’s Blackmoor game started out with a “fiat based” advancement system from the accounts I’ve read. Back in those days, you were either a “flunky,” hero, or superhero (the latter two based on the Chainmail system) and Dave promoted your character based on meritorious action (as decided by Mr. Arneson). And when you think of it, that’s not an absolutely terrible method of advancement (presuming some basic guidelines for heroism), assuming a fair-minded DM (debatable) and a level/advancement system that isn’t too granular (i.e. NOT 14, 20, or 36 possible levels of experience).

But, yeah, in general my thought is it’s better to have objective measures of success for a game like D&D: giving players objective measures of success provides them with a) an objective knowledge of what behavior/action is expected of them, and b) the incentive to proactively seek out those things that will earn them advancement. That doesn’t mean ANY objective measure is better…again, review those considerations. Do the objectives model what you want your game to be about? Because rest assured, they will (in part) determine what your game is about. Do they incentivize player behavior that your want to see? Because that’s what it’s going to do, especially depending on the amount of reward being offered.

For example, I’ve written before that I dislike XP awards for attendance, i.e. awards for participation. “Show up and your character receives X amount of XP regardless of accomplishment during a game session.” Now, I realize that this is often an award given in addition to the normal XP awards, so there is still an incentive for players to “push” their characters…but if I want to reward are players stepping up and face challenges then why would I award ANYthing for failing to participate? Players that fail to take part might as well have not showed up in the first place. In effect, they don't show up. If you’re adding an “attendance award” because advancement is otherwise too slow, then up the other XP awards or reduce the XP needed to advance. Duh.

Another “objective” measure of success I hate is found in Mentzer’s version of the Basic set. I didn’t realize this until recently a major change in the way XP is awarded for treasure, different from Moldvay’s Basic set: in B/X, the total value of treasure found is divided amongst all surviving members of the party. In BECMI, the total value of monsters defeated is divided, but treasure XP is awarded based on a character's SHARE of treasure found. What this does is place a priority on the “division of spoils” (and there is, indeed, a large section in the Mentzer rules detailing the importance of treasure shares), in effect rewarding the shrewdest bargaining player character. The highest level guy is thus the best merchant/shop-keeper in the group!

On the other hand, I really like Alexis’s rule about gaining XP for taking damage. As going up in level represents (on a certain level) a “hardening” of adventurers, it makes sense that a character’s confidence will increase by surviving punishment. What’s more, it provides incentive for players to take risks and not shy away from danger…an “anti-craven,” fortune-favors-the-bold point o view. Also, there’s definitely a gamble involved in facing danger and taking damage…but that’s the kind of choice I like to offer my players. Some might say, “but magic-users benefit less than fighters from this rule because of HP differential.” Well, duh…fighters benefit more from the experience of getting their asses kicked the magic-users (their training isn’t that which allows them to learn from their combat mistakes).

Hmm…you know, I’d intended this to be short and terse, but once again my brain has run-on a lot longer than I expected. I’m going to stop writing (for the moment)…I might pick this up again later with my specific thoughts on possible objective measures of success for the various stages of exploration.

Later.

Follow-Up to Stages of Exploration

I want folks to know that I have had a chance to read (and appreciate) all the comments on my recent series of posts (actually, it’s just one BIG post that I broke up into four parts). Fact is, it turns out the place I was staying out on Orcas Island had better, faster wireless web access than what I’m used…however, for the good of my marriage I refrained from posting much to the internet while I was on our “mini-vacation.”

Anyway, here’s the follow-up post:

I don’t have a solution to the issue at this point. But having identified what the issue is, I have some ideas, and I’m currently working on them and looking at adapting ‘em to D&D Mine (my personal version of D&D). And no, none of the ideas involve playing a different system or “boosting” the starting levels for B/X D&D characters.

Here’s the deal, folks: I am familiar with other games. Ars Magica, for example, and Pendragon, too. I have read The Song of Ice and Fire RPG and I’ve played Amber Diceless, as well. These don’t work for my purposed for a number of reasons. I suppose I could enumerate them all, but it would seem like a lot of bashing of these particular games and, fun as that might be, that’s counter-productive. And anyway, they’re good games: Stormbringer was a lot of fun (I played the 1st edition extensively) and can certainly be played on a variety of “levels,” but it works best for a very specific setting and method of play…and I’m looking for something a bit more generic, or rather "setting neutral."

And let me put to rest any thought that I’m one of those dudes who only plays D&D or only considers a single system for my “fantasy sword-swinging” RPGs. I know there are folks like that out there, but I’m not one of them. There are a lot, A LOT, of good things going on in the D&D rules…especially with earlier editions. My D&D Mine has a lot of deconstructed D&D concepts in it, but a lot of folks who read it would say, “That doesn’t resemble the D&D I know!”

As for simply starting characters at 3rd level (or higher!) or adding a bunch of bonus HPs to ensure survivability…that’s just a patch, folks. So why are there rules for 1st level characters then? I mean, you might as well just say 1st level has the same ability as a 3rd level character, right? Ugh…just never mind. 1st level is 1st level, and this is not (just) about adjusting/addressing effectiveness.

Look, I have some mechanics in D&D Mine that will allow me to address the issues of effectiveness in context of objective. I would share it here (I might still sometime), except that it only works in light of me converting the whole game to being D6 based (and, no, not in the West End Games’ sense of “D6”). I think (I’m not 100% sure…maybe 70% at this point) that I can make that part work.

What’s more important, and what is the tougher deal, is fixing…or rather “breaking down and recreating from scratch”…the advancement system of D&D. Because reward mechanics influence behavior…and the current method of reward, while excellent for Stage 1 exploration, blows chunks for Stage 2 and Stage 3.

Let me give you some examples of what I mean. We’ll start with adventure module I4: Oasis of the White Palm. This adventure was widely published so many will be familiar with it, but for those who aren’t the scenario goes like this: the player characters are forced into the Desert of Desolation on a search for some brigands (or something). Along the way they end up accidentally releasing a demonic force. By the end of the three module series (I3 through I5) the demon is defeated, the curse on the desert broken (transforming it back into a paradise) and all the PCs hailed as heroes.

I4 is the middle module of the series. Whereas I3 and I5 mainly feature large dungeons, I4 provides a mystery, a damsel in distress, a thriving desert civilization/town (the titular Oasis), intrigue, and several small dungeons. There’s A LOT of different avenues of pursuit by PCs in I4 and it is not out o the realm o possibility for players to ignore the story/plot at hand. I mean, here’s a town where you can settle down and live if you so choose…start up a business, hire yourselves out to locals, change your name and identity if you wanted, etc. You could throw in with the Bad Guys or start your own competing faction in the town (hypothetically)…and even if you succeed at the “main scenario” of I4 there’s nothing that really compels your characters to continue on to module I5 except the base assumption that your characters don’t like the desert and want to get the hell out of there by completing the over-arching quest.

Basically, it’s a great adventure and wide-open to a number of different possible actions; if it was a fantasy novel, one could see how characters might approach it with little or no worry about collecting treasure. However, as a game, Oasis of the White Palm is a flat, 1st edition AD&D adventure…which means characters receive experience points for collecting loot and killing (“defeating”) opponents. Not for exploring the landscape. Not for surviving the desert. Not for making alliances with the various nomad tribes. Not for doing anything interesting in the Oasis (unless that “interesting” thing involves killing and looting). Regardless of anything else going on in the adventure, the MOTIVE for player characters is “to get paid” period. The only creativity encouraged is creative methods of getting gold.

This issue comes back regardless of whether this is a sandbox world or adventure module and (for the latter) regardless of the difficulty level associated with the adventure. Examples of low-level Stage 2 Exploration (B2, N1), or mid-level (X1, I4) or high level (D3 or Q1) all bog down because of the driving goal established in Stage 1 exploration: Find treasure. Kill monsters.

Here’s the formula I’m working with as my basic paradigm:

Reward for Exploration = XP Gained = Level Advanced = Increased Effectiveness in Exploration.

What is wilderness exploration all about? Finding gold and killing monsters? Sure…in the current paradigm of D&D. But what else COULD it be about, if we removed the standard reward.

- Finding a new place, or opening new territory
- Meeting and greeting or scouting or killing a new culture, tribe
- Uncovering mysteries or secret history of an area or region
- Surviving hostile environmental conditions (swamp, desert, arctic, etc.)
- Opening trade routes (by land or sea) and/or escorting traders
- Climbing a mountain, exploring a jungle, sailing a sea
- Surviving “the road”
- Learning the politics of a region, and making friends/allies

At high levels the same types of wilderness objectives apply to more dangerous and stranger “wilderness” environments: for example, the Vault of the Drow (D3) or the Demonweb Pits (Q1). If the goal of the game was NOT “to acquire gold and kill monsters” how much time do you think individual adventurers would spend in such a hostile wilderness without allies or safe havens? How much time might they instead spend, trying to survive and explore or reach their quest/scenario objective instead? And shouldn't they be rewarded for doing so?

I think they should. A character who has "sailed the seven seas" or plumbed the depths of the ocean floor or climbed Mount Insanity or met exotic tribesfolk in the darkest jungles or visited the surface of the moon should show a marked increase in confidence and swagger...regardless of whether or not the character killed anything or found any treasure while there. A character that has explored the wilderness...who has participated and survived adventures...will be mored hardened (fighters), wiser (clerics), more knowledgeable (magic-users), and probably gained in resourcefulness (thieves) compared to the person who hasn't traveled farther than their home village...even should said village be on the edge of a "mega-dungeon."

Please note I am still talking about experience points here: XP as a measurement of success and accomplishment is a great mechanic for a fantasy adventure game. Much more so (in my opinion) than, say, Chaosium's "increase in skill percentage" (which is just a different method of doing the same thing as old D&D, by the way, save that it is more granular, piecemeal, and clunky. It still only addresses Stage 1 development). It is also much more appropriate than, say, White Wolf's "XP gained for showing up/learning something/role-playing award;" the point is to still reward player characters for their appropriate actions (i.e. for facing challenges), not just for showing up and pretending to be a character. Experience points are EARNED in old school games...on risk of painful (character) death.

Anyway, still working out exactly what to reward and how much (in terms of XP), but it's coming along. Now that I'm back in town for the foreseeable future, I plan on doing more play-testing of D&D Mine and will certainly check the revised advancement system. Of course, I'm going to have to re-do the adventure (which, as I said, is set in a damn setting-based mega-dungeon).

[oh, by the way...please note that the above applies in the main part to Stage 2 types of exploration. I have some very different ideas regarding Stage 3 but they're for a different, future post...this one's gone on a bit long...]

: )