Tikhon HERO

The last week or so has been spent converting our existing fantasy campaign from the homebrew UbiquitousRPG to HERO System 6th Edition. Why on Earth have we been doing that? 

Three reasons:

1. I wanted to try out the HERO System (as I own it and all the main supplements).
2. There were major bugs in the UbiRPG system.
3. I wanted to spend less time writing rules, more time writing setting and adventures.

This post, however, is less about WHAT we're up to and more about HOW the fan forum has made this a far less painful experience than I expected.

An innocent question...

It started with a vague itch to stop writing rules, and to focus on setting/adventures. The next step was posting a question on the HERO Games Forums:

"Why run HERO 6th?"

My question: Why should we run Hero 6th? What does Hero give me that makes the benefits outweigh the effort?

Secondary question: If you persuade me, what can I do to make GMing easy?  

That was what started it. I didn't expect quite the awesome responses I got. Wow!

Super-helpful Community

Without a doubt, and with only one real exception, the folk over on the forums have been super-helpful and very enthusiastic. Yes, if you read the thread, there have been a couple of wobbly moments where passionate players (and one Troll) have highjacked the thread... but the moderation has been good. The advice has been very practical and encouraging.

HERO Games have a fabulous (if small) community of gamers who are passionate about their game. And with good reason, I feel very much welcome and supported. This is a credit to the company and to the game.

My worries were genuine, my preconceptions real, and my weariness with learning games tangible. Yet, as of today, I have converted all five existing characters to HERO... and was cackling with glee designing creatures this morning.

Complex? Less than apparent...

HERO 6e is a detailed system. But the core is very simple: 3d6, roll low, for tests; d6 damage dice, roll high.

Complexity is all front-loaded into character creation. Real bummer for new players, much easier when you play. Several GMs commented that you're best off demo'ing HERO with pre-gen characters, and I'd agree. Thankfully, we already have characters to port over.

How was the conversion process? Well... easier than expected. 

Yes, I had to learn and get to grips with some concepts that are different to D&D-style thinking. A good example is the fact that everything is entirely relative in HERO. Thus, a Combat Value of 3 is probably a bit poor... unless your opponent's Combat Value is lower, in which case it's cool. Whereas in most systems the standards are clearly defined, in HERO you have to set the standards for yourself.

Build Your Own?

HERO requires you to build your own... well, everything. Or, at least, that's the theory. That was what I was afraid of. I imagined hours of designing every little detail and essentially doing what I'd had to do for my own system - write every item, every spell, every creature. And, frankly, you could do that.

Or you could do what I did and ask the community.

Using Hero Designer (the very affordable character management software) and some supplements, I got the ball rolling in a few minutes. Over the course of a couple of days, posting iterations of characters to the forum, I got VERY useful feedback from a group of helpful HERO fans. By the end of the weekend, I felt confident that I was "getting" how things work.

This morning, as I sat down to stat some Mountain Goblins, I found that I have come a very long way indeed... as it took less time than it had using OSR resources.

Conclusions?

Ok, so I have yet to run the game with my group. That's Friday. I am, however, confident that a "learning session" (where we run a couple of fights and try out the rules) will be fine.

I'm mightily encouraged. I'm a lot less stressed. I'm feeling excited.

There are not many games where, a week of prep later, I am left feeling excited. Actually... this might be a first. Honestly.

HERO asks me to come up with what I want in descriptive terms and then lets me build it for my setting. Oh, you want an invocation that calls down a thunderous bang and hurts everyone in an 8 metre radius? No problem - I built that and called it, "Thunder of Helles"... it's one of Umbar's (the Priest) miracles.

Look... just because I am parking my own system doesn't mean I'm giving up. It's just that, to be honest, I just fancy playing a game for a while. HERO lets me do things my way, in my style... it doesn't say, "No." 

Hopefully the guys will enjoy things too. Fingers crossed for Friday.

Game on!

The Funnel

"I started out not really caring about any of these four peasants," said Jack, "but now I am really attached to this guy... he's becoming a hero!"

This statement, made at the end of our first ever attempt to play DCC RPG, really made my ears prick up. I was paying attention to that one. That was important.

"Yeah," added Will, "It's really cool that I started with one guy I was hoping would make it, but who died. My last guy is really precious now. I want him to make it out alive."

What was going on?

The Funnel

DCC RPG has a rule that I didn't want to try. 

Players roll up 3-5 characters, all of whom are basically expendable peasant spear-fodder. These are totally random characters: 3d6 across 6 stats, let the dice fall as they may. Each one gets a crude weapon, an item or two of equipment, and maybe one thing that they're lucky with. That's it. You take the band of peasants into a dungeon. Whoever survives gets to Level-Up and choose a Character Class.

On Thursday, needing a pick-up game for the four 12-13 year old boys I game with at school, I decided to try it. What the hell,eh?

Wow. We had a blast. 16 peasants went in. 7 are still alive, and we're around 60% of the way through the adventure. But we had a blast.

Heroes we care about?

Oddly, having chosen from 20 random characters (which I generated using the cool web-tool from Purple Sorceror), the guys threw their 16 "mooks" into the dungeon. We had some really fun, and slightly chaotic, roleplaying right from the start because they didn't really care what happened to these peasant scum. And yet...

As the first casualties mounted the guys began to realise the mortality of their surviving wannabes. When one player decided to quite casually have one character risk his very life to allow another to succeed, we had the makings of our first hero. Something changed. THAT guy became valuable. We wanted him to "win".

It was a lot of fun, with some tragically comic moments... even desperate acts. Yet, by the end of that first session two things happened: 1. the guys were treasuring the survivors; 2. they were desperate to see the story through to the end.

What happened?

Normally characters are heroes set apart and special. Yes, they are mortal... but the conceit is that we won't kill them without it meaning something. 

In DCC RPG characters are meat. Nothing. Until they become something more... through their actions, by their deeds. 

That feels good.

We care.

What happened there?

On Roleplaying, Part 1

As a gamer, I feel like I've come to a bit of a crossroads. Actually, it feels more like a nexus of crossroads. Choices between directions in different aspects of my roleplaying. I sense that once I work my way through the choices then I'll be able to more comfortably forge ahead in both GMing and Game Design.

The point of this post is to set out for the general RPG reader a question: "What choices do you make as you tread the road to gaming joy?"

In the ongoing quest for the perfect RPG experience (an ideal I realise is unattainable but nevertheless suspect is a worthy goal), these are choices that face us.

I'm curious as to what you might choose differently... and why.

One Choice Made

Astute readers will have noticed that I don't consider myself as an RPG "Player". Whilst I do (very occasionally) play RPGs, I usually have the role as "GameMaster". This was a choice I made a long time ago. Since that time, while I have sat as a player, I find myself far less skilled and far less interested than when I attempt to GM. I guess I feel that I only have time to learn so many skills... and Player is a skill-set that requires a lot of time.

Crossroad 1: The Crunch Continuum

In terms of examples for my continuum, I might place Fate at the lower end of this continuum whilst I would place Rolemaster at the higher end. One has relatively few rules and the other has a great many. Alongside rules, however, we often attribute detail with crunch... but I want to separate the two for now.

Crunch, for the purposes of my own journey, is about RULES. 

What do I mean by a rule? I think it's a permanent fixture within a game that allows players / GMs to repeat a way of doing things. If a ruling is an on-the-fly decision made to handle a specific situation, I think that a rule arises out of an actual or predicted desire to remember and repeat that ruling. Rules lead to consistency in rulings, if you will.

Coming, as I do, from a wargaming background, you can easily note that I enjoy tactical decision-making within the context of small-unit combat. Tactics require an understanding of the variables involved in combat... and a game that tries to handle more variables usually requires a heightened level consistency in how the rulings in similar situations play out. Desire for lots of consistent rulings leads to a desire for crunchier rules.

QUESTION: How much crunch do I want in my own gaming? 

ANSWER: Quite a bit but not too much. 

Reflecting on combat, as an example, I want the ability of the hero to count but I also want the type and quality of his tools to be a factor. That means I want weapons and armour to have some consistent rules. I also like to model injury in more detail. And, yes, I want the training of characters to differentiate them.

But that leads me to...

Crossroad 2: The Action Continuum

Do you want to play games in which the story is contained purely within dialogue and interaction, at one extreme, or entirely focused on a string of tactical combats at the other? 

I've played D&D 4e at the "string of fights end" and realised that I was simply playing a tactical skirmish game. The characterisation was irrelevant. I got bored.

I've played World of Darkness games run by a GM who wanted to avoid any fighting and entirely engage us in dialogues and intrigue. I realised that there ceased to be a tactical challenge because all that was required were my own (inadequate) social skills. As I didn't want to verbally spar with the GM - I do this all day for a living - I withdrew and felt bored.

Reflecting on it, I want a game with a fair amount of tactical challenge - but that doesn't mean simply tactical combat. What I want is a game in which there is a need to think tactically and use the various resources available to each character within the scenario. As GM, I am managing the interests of the opposition to some fairly capable heroes; the players are trying to achieve their goals using their own resources.

Action, for me, is the interaction between conflicting goals that requires the clever deployment of available resources. Thus, in combat, it's about using one set of skills and the available combat equipment well; in negotiation, it's about using another set of skills and the available leverage. 

Which connects me too...

Crossroad 3: The Resource Continuum

Earlier I asked you to take detail out of the Crunch. Resources are, for me, where the detail comes back in.

Detail in a game is about how much different factors and variables matter. This can range from the level of detail in the weapon choices through to how much it matters what species or ethnic grouping your character is from.

Straight away I'm going to point out that different aspects of detail in a setting will have varying effects: if I am wanting to play a Military SF game then my players will probably expect detail in the military details... down to the model of gun and choices of helmet design. Detail in a classical Fantasy setting might be very different, including lots of Races and detail in the magic system. 

I like detail. But I hate detail that slows down the action. Essentially, the "dials" you tweak with detail will have dramatic effects on how things play out at the table.

Why not call it the Detail Continuum? Well... reflecting on it, I realised that details matter when they give you something you can use in a challenge. Something you can use is a Resource. 

Those resources, however detailed, are what actually matters in the game. The level of detail determines what resources might be available.

Setting Out...

Those are the first three choices. More arise from these but, in the interests of brevity, we'll pause and reflect. Each decision, however, affects the shape of both how you GM and which RPG systems you'll prefer. 

As I asked at the start, now I ask again: "What choices do you make as you tread the road to gaming joy?"

Game on!

Traveller5

On the one hand, I am sick and tired of learning to play someone else's game. On the other hand, there are some cool games that I have long wanted to learn to play. Traveller5 is one of those games.

Reasons to Play

For one thing, I was involved in the playtest of the system. Bits of this game got tested... but never quite the whole thing.

When I was testing, the biggest missing piece was the combat section of the rules. This came very late and, frankly, I didn't get time to give it as much attention as was needed. 

That's probably one reason why, on first reading of the final book, I couldn't understand how to run a melee.

But that's not answering the question: why play T5?

On dipping my toe back into the waters of T5 over the past 24 hours, here's why I want to play:

1. I like the d6-based Task Resolution system and use of d6 only for damage - it's simple.
2. I really like building characters using the Career system and the 4-year Term process.
3. The system is comprehensive - everything I can imagine needing is in there.
4. There's a process to allow me to make my own stuff up; you name it, you can probably make it.
5. It's simple to play - the basic rules are very easy to grasp.

Reasons to Be Put Off

I'm not blind to the flaws of this product. For one, it is a book that initially just made me wince due to layout and the super-dense amount of text. My top five reasons to be put off include:

1. It's really badly organised - 50 pages in and I'm reading what should be an appendix.
2. It's really badly written - not just the typos and omissions, but also the style is really poor.
3. There's too much system and not enough setting - where's the "easy to grasp" equipment list, for example?
4. It needs a lot of house-rulings to clarify stuff... like, how to run a melee with a weapon in hand.
5. It's not at all aimed at the beginner. Defo not an RPG beginner. Probably not a Traveller beginner.

In short, it needs a very dedicated Referee (GM) to run a game. You will want to hide the book from the players, ignore just about everything inside the book until you actually need it, and you'll need to dedicate time to prepping the stuff you need. 

Thankfully, there are other Traveller5 Referees out there producing handy resources. Phew! But please share yours too.

So... Why Do You Want To Play?

Because it's Traveller, I have a deep-seated affection for the game and consequent desire to play. I have a deep love of the setting too. 

It's actually a rather simple game at heart. There's just lots of stuff piled on top to hide the fact from the casual reader. Actually, it's so completely piled on you can't really be a casual reader with T5. But it's worth the time to dig in.

Players will pick it up in no time. Referees will be dedicating much time to making games happen... but I get the impression that the effort will be worth it.

I wonder if I'll get to play.

Having Your Cake and Eating It

I'm not really a fan of roleplaying game theory. Generally, I like to play roleplaying games and tend not to think too deeply about why. 

That being said, there is a general tension in the gaming that I enjoy which, this week, has reared its head again: are we playing a game, telling a story or simulating a fantasy? 

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's all three.

Games

I like games and the fact that they have winners. The old RPG standard that "roleplaying games don't have winners" is really an illusory claim - do the heroes succeed or not? The game doesn't necessarily end when they fail, but the fact is that they either succeed or fail (to one degree or another). 

What I really like about RPGs is that the players (generally) set the goals. Even if, as GM, you give them a mission, they can still choose to reject or modify the goals. Only in the most prescriptive adventure would the GM completely set the agenda... and, in my experience, that is less satisfying for all.

Games have goals and successes and failures. They also have resources by which the participants tackle those goals. And, as a general rule in RPGs, there needs to be a sense of fairness about the resources that the heroes have in contrast to those of the opposition. Parity and balance are not as important as fairness... at least not at my table.

Stories

Stories have plots and a sense of dramatic tension, the rise and fall of action towards a satisfying conclusion. RPGs sometimes try to emulate this narrative style, to greater or lesser success. 

Heroes should probably overcome the obstacles and defeat the villains in a good story (unless your hero is really an anti-hero). Heroes shouldn't die without good reason and they should do things that are consistent with their values and the moral position that they represent. 

It's probably less important to a story that the details of things are factually accurate or possible. It's more important that they feel right and maintain an internal consistency that gives a dramatic sense of possibility. In other words, actions and consequences should fit the story and not jar with the audience's expectations too much.

Simulations

Simulations are all about "what if..." and "how..." questions. What if there was magick? How would that work? What if there were giant mecha? How would they operate? The point is to try and accurately model the fantastic within the context of a game. That doesn't just apply to stuff and effects, however.

If you're playing a roleplaying game then the first thing you might want to accurately simulate is the hero that you are playing. What if I am a Warrior... how do I play that Warrior properly? What if I am a Mage? There is a difference, right? How do I play it?

Simulations are often concerned with the way in which the details play out in a game. Things have to be not only internally consistent but also modelled with some degree of accuracy. The term "accuracy" is the bit that can cause some tension because, for a lot of players, what is scientifically considered "possible" is often not the subject of fantasy... and it's easy to forget that not everyone really cares about the details that you might care about.

All Three Please

At my table I want all three of those elements: we are playing a game with clear goals and useful resources; we are also telling cool stories which need to fulfil heroic concerns; we are playing in a fantastic setting which needs to satisfy a desire to feel alive and "real". And that doesn't sound like it should be such a hard thing.

Except that, over time, roleplaying games have become beholden to trying to satisfy one or (at best) two of those elements at the expense of the others. And there now exist evangelists for one or other of the camps that have grown up around each. 

I want to have my cake, eat it and come back for more. We are playing games. We are telling stories. We are simulating fantasies. This is meant to be fun.

Do I have a solution? Maybe it's simply not to concern myself over much with what, exactly, we are doing when we play. It probably means not placing self-limiting beliefs about "how games should be" above the fun of a session. 

The rules we have been writing for our own gaming are born out of the game-simulation-story tradition of classic roleplaying. We are probably going to be damned either way you look at us: the story-tellers will hate that our mechanics simulate effects in our world; the gamers will hate that we're not concerned with balance; the simulationists will dislike our concern for telling cool stories about heroes. 

The mistake, I believe, is in two attitudes: believing that there is only one "true way" to play roleplaying games; looking for what's missing instead of seeing what's there. 

The way we play games is simply that: it's the way we play games. If you like something from one game system then why not use it? If it doesn't quite work the way you want it to, why not mash it up with something else that you do like? If you and your players are having fun, who is going to be complaining?

Have your cake, eat it and come back for more.

Game on!

It Lives! Almost...

The week has been a pretty intense ride of writing, editing and discussion.

Having made the promise that we would write up the rules stuff we've been working on, I was pretty keen not to let down the guys who come to Friday Roleplay Night.

As of this afternoon, I'm about six miracles and a chunk of editing away from a finished draft. That's a really cool thing to have achieved together!

Publishing Tikhon

"Tikhon" started as a collection of rulings made to facilitate play within our own fantasy world but, at nearly 200 pages, has grown up to become a set of game rules in its own right. 

While our game has roots in the Old School Renaissance (OSR), and was developed through mashing up several sub-systems from existing games along with our own take on roleplaying, it has really become something... different. After all the work, it would be a shame not to publish it while we continue to play with it. If nothing else, it gives everyone involved a "standard" rules reference to work from.

Team Effort

The best thing, though, is that both the game and the setting has been developed openly through player contribution. Week by week, session by session, the players have been making suggestions and adding on details which have brought the world to life. As I write, I'm still waiting for the latest submissions for me to edit prior to publication. 

The big upside of this team approach has been that we are experiencing player (and GM) engagement at a very high level. Each player has spoken to me alone to feed back a similar message: this is one of the coolest gaming things we've ever done. That is the real reward for all of the effort.

As we come to the end of this initial writing phase, ready to continue our campaign in earnest from September, it looks like there will be a steady stream of new submissions ready for the future. It's really pretty exciting to bring the efforts of the whole group into sharp focus.

Reflecting...

Looking back, I think the big learning so far has been two-fold:

1. Don't be afraid to mash-up your own game.
2. Don't be afraid to say "yes" to player contributions.

While I love that there's an "industry" of roleplaying game designers, none of them plays or thinks quite like we do. By mashing up our own rules (and fitting it to our setting), we've unleashed a whole bucket of fun. On top of that, saying "yes" to players suggestions has poured fuel on the creative fire... and we have something exciting as a consequence.

The plan is to produce the booklet of rules through Lulu within the next week or so. It'll be a low-key thing, but it does allow us to hold the fruit of all our labour in our hands... and not lose as many loose-leaf pages as we might if we just ploughed it through a laser printer.

For me, it's simply great to be almost there with the rules and ready to focus back on the campaign.

Game on!

More UbiquitousFantasy

+10% XP for wearing costume...

About a month ago I wrote about the decision I took to draft my own house rules modifications, which I entitled "UbiquitousFantasy". These were a mash-up of ideas derived largely from taking the existing Castles & Crusades rules we were playing and colliding them with some ideas in Monsters & Magic. The result had me feeling nervous... you can read why in the original article.

Friday night's game arrived with me feeling nervous. Although I had "published" my ideas to the group, and received some generally upbeat feedback, the group's attendance had stalled due to good British weather and holidays. With a month having elapsed since we last played, I was worried that the proposal of change would scare off my players.

I was, of course, wrong to worry.

What happened next?

The guys arrived, spent some time chatting and, eventually, settled down to convert their characters from C&C to UbiFantasy. The process involved altering Attribute bonuses, choosing some Traits from their new Role (aka Class), rolling up some Fatigue, and slotting into the new card-based Initiative. Within 30 minutes we were ready to play.

There was some annoyance from one player who, looking at things on paper, felt he wasn't as good as he was... and that my vision of his Role was contrary to his own. Things improved when I allowed a simple switch of two Attribute values. Giving clear reasons for the setting decisions he was uncertain of also seemed to help. Once we were playing, however, it was clear that his misgivings were unfounded: the heroes are all slightly more capable than before.

What surprised me was that many potentially far-reaching changes were just happily accepted - such as the need for the Cleric to roll when summoning Miracles (aka casting Clerical spells)... and things went fine when, first time out, he failed his roll. I was amazed that they didn't end up unhappy.

At the end of the session the feedback was generally positive. We had generated a raft of ideas and suggestions too... which I decided to accept on one condition: each suggestion needs to be typed up and sent in to me for consideration; this is to free me from the need to interrupt play with writing down random suggestions - I want those suggestions but I want them when they really matter to the players.

What did I learn?

Well... I learned a lot about the way UbiquitousFantasy will play and what I need to tweak from the GM's point of view. I need to adjust creature and GMC* Armour Class values (adding their Level) in the same way the heroes have been altered, for example. 

I also learned that there is real, powerful and genuine value in the stuff I wrote about last week. The level of player involvement generated on Friday was higher than anything I have ever experienced. Period.

My players suggested and talked about some ten to fifteen new Traits for their characters. How many of these ideas will make it to the game is not important: the point is that, playing in a game that suddenly places no outer limits to their imagination, the guys were inspired to make suggestions. 

Examples include the anti-magickal Witchhunter who wants to explore the idea of "sucking powers out of Mages" and "using their power against them"; we also talked about a kind of "Improved Initiative type Trait which opens up stepped-upgrades at higher Levels". Marvellous!

Right there, in game, when the Priest of the Lightbringer asked, "What is my Holy Weapon then?" and I answered, "Erm... you're the Priest of the Lightbringer... you tell me"... THAT was marvellous! When he said, "Right. It's a Lucerne Hammer then" we created a new detail for the setting. 

That's when I learned what player engagement means. Big grins all round!

What's next?

More details need writing up. I need to get my teeth into how Mages work, for example. We don't have one in the party but they are set-up to hunt and kill magickal GMCs*, so I need to sort that out for next session.

There are new rules to propose introducing. One example is Hargrave's take on Hit Points designed to stop the heroes having more HP than a Dragon. I like these rules... but then I need to tweak a few other things to make levelling up even more interesting.

Finally, there are tweaks to make to what I've already written. Little stuff, like a limit on how many Traits they can invoke in one test. Minor tweaks but important.

Oh... and I need to ride the wave of enthusiasm that their play and encouragement gave to me. Getting a full draft of UbiquitousFantasy written over the summer would feel really cool. 

Let me know if you want to join the party and take a look at what we're doing. It's all house rule stuff... but if peering under the hood will help your game, please feel free to ask.

Game on!

*GMC = Game Master Character

Inspired by Hargrave

Don't judge a book by the cover... gems within!

"Well you can't please everyone, nor do I try to do so any longer." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p12), on the topic of his new Hit Point system.

I really like this quotation. I discovered it just the other day while perusing the Arduin Trilogy from Emperor's Choice Games. It's one of many little gems that sit within the chaotic collection of suggestions that David A. Hargrave offered back in the 70's and 80's. 

The thing that I really like about that quotation is that it sums up the general attitude of this legendary GM towards the attitudes of others. He happily ran a very successful series of campaign set within his own created multiverse (note: not a single world, but a whole multiverse) which is now known as Arduin. His fans loved him... and he published his ideas in the spirit of sharing and recommendation. I am sure that, if he lived today, he'd have a cult following for any blog he wrote. Yet... he had detractors.

Hargrave doesn't seem to have allowed negative comments to phase him. He was running his own game, derived from D&D but very much customised to his own tastes... and those of his gaming group. He was supremely confident (at least in print) that his ideas were good. And, looking at them 30 years later, I am inclined to agree with him.

"Take a Troll To Lunch"

"As far as my multiverse is concerned..." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p13), on the topic of languages.

I've long been aware that, as a GM, you are encouraged to customise your game. This is a given in roleplaying circles. Except that it's actually rather rare.

"In my Traveller universe..." has long been something that I have understood and dreamed of implementing fully. Hargrave's approach to fantasy gaming goes further - he utterly customised the game to suit his own style, evolving a new game to fit his own new setting.

A couple of weeks ago I also took the first step in this direction. When I drafted up UbiquitousFantasy, a derived but modified blend of OSR rules, I was initially trying to widen the scope of my own homebrew game. Yesterday, however, I read this:

"Don't be lonely, take a Troll to lunch. The world is a smaller place, but it is smaller still in relationship to the myriad worlds of the entire Alternity (alternative eternities). Do not be a small player from a small world. Embrace the whole Almanity, and give the different types [of character options] a chance. I think you will find that the world your game is in will become a lot more fun if you do." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p10), on the topic of his new player character types (or classes).

Having spent time customising our campaign world in include, among other things, a Witchfinder based on the specific setting details that my players had suggested in-game... well, you can imagine how liberating that encouragement to try new things would feel.

It's your game. It's your rules. Even if it's not your world, it's still your version of that world.
Go play.
Take a Troll to lunch.

Heading Out Deeper

Have you ever considered how much your players would enjoy finding themselves playing in a truly unique and personalised game? Certainly we tend to like to use a recognisable set of rules when we first play... but, once a group forms, isn't there an argument that whatever happens at your table is really your business?

Think about it: once a group forms, you are under house rules from the get-go. Once a game is running, we tend to make small tweaks to even the slickest system. Why not be brave and go further, incrementally moulding not only the setting but also your rules to fit your own, unique group? I wonder if that might not be a more rewarding outcome for everyone.

Here's a thought:

"Please try some of the rules that you have doubts about in game situations and game play. Only through actual play testing can a rule or situation be fully explored. We have been doing that for years now. Anyone can pontificate on rules and worlds that they have never tried, and can never be proved wrong because the proof is only in the play." - David A. Hargrave, Arduin Trilogy (p35), on the topic of rules questions.

Can we be brave? Who's up for taking that Troll to lunch?

Game on!

UbiquitousFantasy

This week two elements have collided and produced a whole new adaptation of an OSR-style game. 

On the one hand, inspired by my desire to blend the best elements of Castles & Crusades with Monsters & Magic, I found the time to draft the basis of something new: UbiquitousFantasy. 

On the other hand, inspired by the emails of one of my keen players, I've been seeking to further develop the fantasy world that we're currently playing in. Taken together, with a big dose of effort on my part, I've managed to put together something that excites... and which I hope will excite my players.

UbiquitousFantasy

We've been playing Castles & Crusades for a few months now. It's great: easy to play, easy to learn, lots of good and solid material. We like. Except that, having upgraded to Level 2 and being well on the way to Level 3, my players commented that there are really very few benefits from levelling up: in other words, it's a bit bland. That got me nervous about the longevity of playing this system.

Plus there's that pesky d20. Regular readers will probably realise that I don't like the randomness of rolling one die for action tests. For a long, long time I've fancied trying out 2d10 instead of 1d20... so yesterday, in a fit of creative energy, I wrote that into our house rules. That was how it started.

While I was in the process of writing house rules, I thought, why not introduce some of the other things that I've been mulling over for a while... and solve that blandness problem to boot? Inspired by Sarah Newton's ideas about Traits, I've modified the way adding the Level bonus works: in short, you get it when you invoke a Trait from your Race, Class or Personal Background. 

Taking things further, and inspired by the conversations with players, I also decided to re-write the classes to fit this change... and to introduce some Specialised Classes (or, to use another term, some Sub-Classes) which are customised to our fantasy setting. It was easy to do... and a lot of fun! Now we have options for a Lightbringer Paladin, a Ranger of the Wild, a Brotherhood Assassin and a Lightbringer Witchhunter. Each blends elements from both the C&C and M&M classes into something... different.

Finally, at least for now, I decided to adopt the idea of an Invocation Test for the Clerical Miracles (my new words for, "making a magic test to cast a clerical spell"). This forms the basis for a cool rule on organising Rituals with many participants and miracles which are upgraded by particularly high Invocation rolls.

Tikhon

Tikhon is a popular saintly name in the Russian Orthodox Church, meaning "hitting the mark". As the setting we're playing in has been doing just that with the group, it seemed a cool name for the world. Welcome, therefore, to Tikhon. 

On top of this, working with the players on their character backgrounds, I've been gathering more and more detailed material for the world. As the players work with me on creating the setting, it is long overdue to codify what we have so far. Thus, this weekend, I'm beginning just that process - typing up the notes.

What's cool is that their ideas, as players, are fuelling my creative process... in truly collaborative style we are producing something far more interesting than might have been expected. Combining this creativity with a desire to customise the game to fit the setting, rather than forcing the setting into a generic rule set, is not necessarily innovative... but it is something that I've never managed to do before. I've even gone as far as to commission a map for the area we've been playing in.

Being Bold

There's a massive risk involved in all of this: it might not work as well as we hope. The challenge, at least for me, is to be brave and bold. If past gaming failures have taught me anything it's that you can't keep doing the same things over and over, hoping that something will click. 

What has made the one-off Hunt for Gerulf adventure turn into the birth of the World of Tikhon has been boldness: a decision to wing a game off of a one sentence premise gave us Mortenburg and Gerulf's Raiders; another decision to introduce clues to the Moon Gate led to the birth of a conspiracy tale. The courage to listen to the players is leading me into a brand new and exciting setting, played with some customised house rules.

What's next? Well, next week's session is looming... will this all pay off? Fingers crossed... but you can't go through life wondering what might have been, can you? I reckon it's much more fun to risk failure on the opportunity of creating something really cool.

Game on!

Of Monsters & Magic

Because of the way the game felt on Friday night, I was feeling rather despondent about our fantasy campaign. I wasn't feeling at all happy with the game I'd run. 

Weirdly, however, some thoughts and reflection have opened up some fresh ideas that I wanted to share with you... and it's mostly inspired by a woman I've never met...

Meet Sarah Newton

I'd never heard of +Sarah Newton until about a week or so ago. She's an author and gamer, the founder of Mindjammer Press. What grabbed my attention was a G+ post about her game, Monsters & Magic. 

Having read a preview article or two on the website, I was tempted enough to download the .PDF of the game. I am hugely glad that I did... not least because it has inspired a whole raft of thoughts that I hope will be inspiring improvements in my fantasy and SF roleplaying experience.

Monsters & Magic

Sarah's game takes the OSR material from classic D&D and makes it possible to adapt any addition (whether past or present) to a more modern style of play. She describes it as, "combining the atmosphere of classic fantasy games with modern RPG mechanics."

Last weekend, having begun to read Monsters & Magic, I was inspired! What struck me so keenly has been the encouragement to take Sarah's game engine and customise it to suit my own fantasy worlds... nay, even my SF ones! 

What's so inspiring?

In truth, everything and nothing.

There are three things that I like about Monsters & Magic:

• Replacement of the d20 with 3d6... but retaining the same old familiar stat values.
• Addition of her innovative new "Effect Engine", in which new RPG mechanics meet old.
• Encouragement to customise and personalise your fantasy experience without breaking the game.

On top of those, I really like the fact that she wrote the game with only about four experience levels of play in mind. Right there, on page 4, lay the things that really set my mind to wondering:

"While Monsters & Magic is a standalone game, we anticipate you’ll use it with your favourite classic fantasy RPG books — bestiaries, spell books, equipment, magic items, and adventures. So, we’ve provided enough spells, monsters, equipment, and magic to take you to roughly the 4th level of play — but assume you’ll also incorporate material from your favourite classic fantasy resources to support your game."

And also:

"Monsters & Magic is a modular ruleset. You don’t have to use all the rules: if you have a favourite old school rule you want to use instead (say, different experience levels, or rules for treasure), then go ahead and use it — you won’t break the game."

The game actively encourages that which most RPG publishers avoid: take stuff from wherever you like, fit it into this game system, and make it your own.

That's the thing that set me to thinking...

Generic Doom

Most D&D derivatives (including Monsters & Magic) are generic: they present a framework for playing exciting fantasy roleplaying games in a broadly medieval style setting. The assumption is that the GM will make the game their own and colour the world in their own shades. In my experience, however, this is usually done in the most cursory manner.

When we began playing Castles & Crusades, the system we decided to use for our current fantasy game, the appeal was simplicity and ease. Having just run a playtest of the new Rolemaster, my guys were hankering for an easy-play Friday night escape game. Realising that you have to run the game the players want to play, I opted to keep it simple.

Things had been going well: four or five sessions under the belt, the birth of a new homebrew fantasy setting, and highly engaged players. The combination of the advice from Brian Jamison's "Gamemastering" and the simple rules from C&C were a great starting point.

What has gone wrong, however, is that I've been labouring to run another D&D derivative generic setting. Having limited time, I've not really begun to really tailor our game to my own tastes as well as those of the players. Gloomy and bored, I approached Friday feeling that something was missing... and it was noticable.

Customised Encouragement

Sarah's game reminded me that, no matter what I play, I need to be able to customise it. Monsters & Magic is the game that, although built to support whichever generic fantasy you want to play, actively encourages (nay, requires) you to customise. Thanks, Sarah - because otherwise, it's fair to say, I think our campaign would wither and die.

Here are three things that Sarah has inspired:

1. Customised Sub-classes: Ian plays an "Assassin". I want to give him a buzz and offer him rules for the "Witchfinder" that he is actually playing, designed just for our game.
2. Customised Traits: Mark plays a Cleric. I want to give him some specific abilities that reflect his role as a "Priest of Helles, the Lightbringer". 
3. Customised Setting: We're playing in our world. I want to import ideas from several other OSR games, blending in materials that will make this our own.

All of this is possible with Monsters & Magic. Heck, all of it is possible with Castles & Crusades... but I don't really know how much that'll affect the balance of things. 

With Sarah's game, well... "you won't break the game." 

If you've not yet had a look at it, I recommend it... right now, it's a $10 download.

Game on!

Dawning Serene

Last night I hopped online for a very productive video chat with +Scott Templeman, a long time friend and fellow gamer.

We've been chewing around some ideas for a cool SF setting, dubbed "Serene Dawn", for some months now. Our chat was all about how we are going to make it a reality.

Serene Dawn

To be honest, the name comes from a starship that was created for playing in a Traveller game set along the Solomani Rim, sometime around two years ago. The campaign I wanted to play never got launched so the name was shelved. Still, it kept nagging at me.

Last year, as I was fiddling around with the idea of creating my own RPG system, I began to chat online with two old friends - one of whom was Scott - and we concocted a plan to create an SF setting that was interesting. 

Things were ticking over fine, given the heavy schedules of everyone involved, until around 8 weeks ago when we came to an abrupt all-stop. In short, people simply weren't around.

Serene Dawn began as a near-future SF setting with a couple of interesting hooks. Firstly, the expansion of humanity was just about to be made possible by the invention of a slightly different style of Jump Gate; secondly, we decided that we wanted to increase the balkanisation of Earth through the continuation of current political trends towards micro-nations. Nothing overly exciting, but a start.

Interestingly, when we began to plot a first game, we ended up setting things off-world on Phobos. In my previous article, Phobian Nights, I mentioned some of the details we came up with. By now, however, the setting had evolved towards science-fantasy and was becoming... odd.

We also involved my home gaming group in a failed attempt to create a campaign in the setting using T5, getting as far as rolling up heroes. To be honest, in retrospect, I'm glad that tanked in favour of the current fantasy campaign we're playing.

But...

New Directions

Last night we had a frank chat about what we wanted to play. The consensus fell upon creating the first of a series of "modules" in the setting, initially focused on what interests both Scott and I: the exploration game.

Oddly, having spent the evening tossing around thoughts and ideas, I came away with the sense that not only did I want to develop the setting but that I wanted to custom-build the game engine to run it. As regular readers will be aware, I have been abortively developing the Beta RPG over the past couple of months... but that project had stalled because something wasn't quite right.

Over night, however, I dreamt the solution. Arising early this morning I typed up the beginnings of a new RPG system which blends elements from several places all into one reasonably light set of rules. With that thrumming in my head, I have found myself suddenly unblocked and imagining things in the Serene Dawn setting too.

It seems odd, perhaps... but, at least for me, the system is important to get out of the way before I create. I need to feel that the game I am writing is doable with the tools I have to hand. 

Scott's Requests

With the new game engine (dubbed the "UbiquitousRPG") in draft format, I have been able to turn my mind to the requests that co-creator +Scott Templeman has asked me for: Bruxx and Conveyors.

Bruxx are a genetically-engineered collection of rat-derived sentients that we postulated late last year. The idea seems to have really bitten Scott as he raised it as the No 1 thing he wanted me to develop. His argument is that, whether the whole setting works or not, this species is the kind of element that you can develop and slot into almost any other SF setting. And he reckons they are interesting too.

Conveyors came out of the discussions about the Jump Gates in the setting. In short, we have some very large starships which can leap to other star systems via the assistance of a Jump Gate. These large craft are called Conveyors because they tote either cargo or smaller, non-FTL capable ships from system to system. Imagine a kind of regular transport liner which jumps from system to system, picking up cargo and dropping off deliveries at each waypoint, and you've kind of got the idea. What makes them cool, though, is that they are controlled by one faction and used at the forefront of exploration too.

The suggestion is that we develop these elements of the setting, alongside some details on exploratory proving teams, to provide an introductory "module" ready to play. Ever ready to run an interesting new campaign, I'm up for that!

Why tell you this?

Well, partially because I'm excited about developing something new... but mostly because we also realised that this project is about something more than "just a cool new game idea". 

Scott and I really want to put our heads together and create something that "gives back" to the hobby we have played and loved for many years. Feeling like a kind of movie critic for RPGs, we both feel that we'd like to experience the joy and pain of trying to create something to share with other gamers.

It was a dear friend in 2004, while we were at Origins in Columbus, Ohio, who suggested that I ought to develop my own RPG system. He was right... but I've not been able to do it yet, despite at least six attempts. Along the way I have been told by several players and gaming friends that they have been surprised that I have not published a thing for the hobby, despite my foaming addiction for roleplaying. I guess, talking to Scott last night, that I realised just how much I really want to have a crack at this thing.

So... why tell you? Because I need support and encouragement. I need editors, illustrators, map-makers, layout artists, critics and supporters... but most of all, I need to know that someone might think it's not such a stupid idea either. And I need some players.

Gaming Online?

This is the project to try something else that's new for me too: online tabletop roleplaying. I've got an account with Roll20 but I've never used it. Now's the time.

Are you an avid roleplayer who fancies coming to play in the SF setting we're putting together? Fancy coming along with us to discover how the first exploration mission might pan out? If so, drop me a note or a comment and let me know. I'll be happy to try to include you in our first games.

Serene Dawn is born. Game on!

Can you Imagine?

Two hobby projects have been gestating this week. The first, Serene Dawn (the SF setting), hit two road blocks which, although largely temporary, put a dampener on my spirits. The second, my ongoing quest for getting fantasy right, opened up new vistas when I re-discovered Imagine.

Legends of the Unknown

This week the fifth book in the Imagine RPG series arrived at my home: Legends of the Unknown. That in itself was an exciting event, given that the subject matter includes adding watery adventures to the game - think pirates and stuff to do with travelling across the oceans, and you've captured my mindset.

The book itself, however, was only the spark for me. The main attraction was to crack open the main rules of Imagine and once again remember both why I love the game... and why I've never been able to get a game with it.

Time to Imagine

Back at the turn of the century, when the world was falling under the spell of D&D 3rd edition and the d20 system was new and magic... there was Imagine.

Looking back I see in the creation of this game a proto-movement for what was to become the Old School Renaissance... with a difference.

It began with the very cool merchandising decision to publish a poster:

Seeing this, I tracked down the website and bought the game. Reading the rules, I smiled at the irony that the combat roll used a d20... just in a very different way.

At the core, Imagine is a d100 game which uses d20 during a fight. The heart of the game, however, really appealed to me... and still does: the game includes a LOT of detail running over a very simple set of core rules. The GM is encouraged to be imaginative and creative, being given all the tools they need (via the GM Guide) to alter or design any element in the game - spells, creatures, classes, items... whatever. The players are also challenged to be creative, but in the way they describe and interact with the world they are playing in.

What I discovered was a game which harped back to the feeling I had experienced in the early days of gaming with more crunchy systems but with infinitely more freedom as a GM.

Imagine was the first game system I came across which genuinely encouraged me to create a unique world, not just another generic fantasy location.

Anti-D&D?

To label Imagine as a reaction to D&D is, however, a mistake. It's also a mistake to lump it in with the Old School Renaissance which (for the most part) has taken things back to an earlier form of D&D. For me, Imagine offers Old School Evolved... or, at least, Evolving.

Imagine suggests that, while it's helpful to have classes and levels to map out character power and progress, these things should not be limits to what you can do with the hero. It blends the best aspects of skill-based gaming with the best aspects of level-based gaming... and adds something to the mix. It's not really anti-D&D... it's actually suggesting that you take the game a step further by using your imagination.

Imagine

Imagine makes me pause. It makes me want to try it out. The only problem is that it makes me worry that my players won't like it. 

It's a game that will take you ages to create a character for but, once complete, will leave you to get on with playing. For my action-orientated group this means it really benefits from a speeding-up tool, like the rough-and-ready character generator on the game's website. What it really needs is a Hero Lab build.

It's a game that utilises one of the most innovative combat systems I've ever read. You actually describe what you want to do with that weapon and translate it into an attack roll designed to see if you achieve it. Slashing over arm to hit the Goblins head? Imagine it striking the head if you hit... but striking the shoulder if you narrowly miss! You are not only encouraged to describe (or even act out) your attack but you are rewarded for being clever: how about striking at the throat with your spear, or knocking a sideways swinging blow with your club to sweep the foe's legs out from under him?

Imagine is a game which offers real customisation as you grow your hero in whichever of the myriad of class choices you decide to follow. Class is a choice of pathway in adventure... but never a straight-jacket. 

The only downside is, given all of the choices, the game appears to be pretty complicated. 

Is Imagine complex?

That depends on what you mean.

Under the hood the game is actually simple: 

• Skills and Saving Throws are rolled on d100, roll-low, with a few optional modifiers.
• Attack rolls are d20, with modifiers.
• You gain XP to go achieve Goals (sub-levels) and Titles (levels).
• Mages cast spells using Aura (read: spell points).
• Priests cast spells freely but with limits on casts between prayers.

Imagine draws on the traditions of fantasy roleplaying. It feels a lot like D&D's spirit infused into a d100 system. Looking at it post-Arduin, I can see an awful lot of David Hargrave in the game... not in mechanics but in spirit. Imaginative ideas, encouragement to create and customise, and alternative ways of doing things are all core to Imagine. 

On the other hand, on a first reading at least, the game looks like it has some clunky aspects: the second-by-second combat system, for example, seems alien to most roleplayers... unless they've played the new Hackmaster or GURPS 4e.

Do I want a game where I need to track the second-by-second moves of the characters? That depends on my desired level of detail: I am sure that some GMs might be tempted to run the game with rounds based on the now-standard idea of a 6- or 10-second round with one action and one move. But if you bother to try out the more detailed system you discover that you don't need to add much more effort to gain a lot more tactical enjoyment... assuming you're into tactical play.

Here are two excellent quotes from Imagine creator and CEO, Michael (posted on the forum) in response to me asking, "How do I demo this to newbies?"

"For the ease of combat I break [the 10-second round] down into the first three seconds, the second three seconds and the last four seconds...So when the guy who got a -6 [for initiative] goes I ask him what would you like to do? He tells me I'd like to engage this opponent. So I check his movement and see that he has to go from walk, jog to run to get to his opponent in the third second. Lets say he has a 4-second weapon (long sword adjusted). I saw normally it would take you four seconds to swing but you are engaging the guy and you get to him on the 3rd second so that's when your first attack happens."

"Tell me how you want to hit the guy. I ask him to either describe or pantomime how he wants to hit. I show him the back of the sheet where we have already pre-calcuated his bonuses to hit and tell him to roll a d20, then add the bonus I have just shown him. Then we see how he hit. Let's say he hit right and said he was going to over head swing at the head. I tell him okay you didn't hit the head but you hit to the right tapping either his shoulder or mine to show and then he and everyone else can really visualize it. We roll damage by the weapon and I ask him what he wants to do next..."

For me, the added appeal is in the detailed description: I can imagine the movement and strike clearly for the trade-off of using a second-by-second, real-time counting system. It's not really complicated... just more detailed. 

Which is better? "I hit him!" [roll], or "I swing my sword down in a slashing move aiming for his neck!" [roll]. The second description is better, right? But what if that description also matters in the game? Cutting into the guy's neck should be very much more worrying for the guy being hit than just taking another generic dose of hit point damage. 

Which is more desirable? That is the real question: it is worth the effort to gain that detail? I feel that it might be... but I worry that my players won't agree.

Newbies

Which brings me to the question of newbies. The default assumption is that newbies need simple, for which we often substitute simplified (or, regrettably, simplistic). I have run games of Pathfinder, for example, which use the simplified "Beginner's Box" to intro the game.

Thinking back to my own gaming journey, however, I began with RuneQuest and Traveller plus Star Frontiers and D&D. I quickly graduated to Rolemaster. These were not simple games... especially given the appalling quality of explanatory writing in evidence in those early days. 

Roleplaying games are not simple to learn to play. They require a certain desire to tell stories and a preparedness to learn some reasonably challenging rules. Most young kids are actually playing much more complex games on their consoles... they just don't have to do the maths because the computer does it for them. But the tactical challenges of the games are quite large... and the more complex the game, generally, the more kids (especially boys) enjoy it.

The barrier is their confidence with what they are learning. As with all learning, you need to have the process staged and built in small steps. There's no point introducing all of the rules at once (which I tend to do, even with experienced roleplayers) because you just confuse people and turn them off. Instead, even with roleplayers who have played a lot of games, you need to step-up the learning through play. Enter the demo.

Demo

Here's where I share a newly developing idea for how to intro a new game: you run a demo.

Option 1, probably best for total newbies to a game, is to pre-generate the characters and allow them to pick-up-and-play. 

Option 2, open to more experienced gamers trying a new game, is to use a quick character generation system to speed them into playing.

Either way, you set up some basic situations which allow the players to learn how to use the game to emulate their decisions. The key point here is this: you ask them what they want to do... then you (as GM) model it into the game rules. That's what Michael's post (excerpts above) basically encourages and, from experience, I realise that this is the key.

Don't run a huge combat with 20 combatants. Run a quick fight with a couple of easy-to-defeat opponents aimed at teaching the guys how to play. They will learn the basics and get the flush of victory... making them hungry for more. Remember: they're going to win the fight... because the fight is designed to allow them to learn, not to try and challenge the heroes.

Run a series of situations which require them to use some skills. The aim, again, is just about helping players to learn how to roll the dice to emulate their actions. Throw in some Saving Throws, sure... this adds spice and danger... and teaches them how to make Saving Throws.

Give them choices to make as the story unfolds. Don't write a linear scenario... set up an open situation and allow the players to feel their way through to a conclusion. I'm imagining a house break-in, or a simple cave exploration, or a short street-based investigation with thugs getting in the way.

Make it a short session - 2 hours perhaps - and then take them through "levelling up". Allow them to customise their heroes ready for next time. And then invite them to come again... and again... and again... each time, increasing their understanding of the game with a few new details.

Even the most complex system, broken down into bite-sized learning experiences, will become accessible over time. The question is whether you're patient enough to create those experiences.

In conclusion...

I'm going to try an run some folk through games using Imagine. 

I'm going to design a beginner's scenario set in the world my main group is currently playing in too, just to make the setting stuff easy on me whilst adding to my other GMing commitments. Adding details to the world we're playing in means that, no matter how successful or not my efforts are, they are always useful to my main efforts.

I might invite my regular group to test the demo: it's a side-adventure in the setting they are already invested in, so it adds to the background of the stories we're telling... and it allows me to tweak my teaching efforts. Come the big day with the newbies, I'll be all-the-more prepared for how players might react.

I'm going to be brave and try to bridge the gap between the detail I desire in my gaming and the apparent complexity it implies. I just hope I can make it work.

Game on!

Traveller5: Anyone for Awesomesauce?

Arriving home last night, having dashed through the traffic to be back in time to greet my inlaws who are visiting this weekend, I was excited to find that the Postman had delivered something... large.

Upon opening the beautifully wrapped package I was confronted with the reality of something that I have waited a very long time to get my hands on: Traveller5 had arrived.

In the box were the items shown to the right: T5 Core Rules (656 pages), Core Rules CD-ROM, Jump Drive (Core Rules on USB stick), Traveller Dice set (10x Black, 1 Yellow, 1 Red, 1 White), extra Traveller Dice, 2x Cr25 Imperial coins, Membership card for Traveller's Aid Society, Patent of Nobility as a Knight (in my name, customed to my own world).

Beta Playtester

I don't remember the exact day that I received my Traveller5 Beta CD-ROM. But it was a very exciting day.

This was the original draft rules for the game I now hold in my hands, ready for playtest. On that day I signed into the Beta Playtest Group online and the rest, as they say, is history. Admittedly, it was was long, slow and sometimes frustrating wait... 

Last night I told friends that I'd been playtesting this thing for something like 8 years... and, thinking about it, that wasn't far off.

What amazes me most - and highlights the genius of Marc Miller - is that things haven't changed all that much... at least, in terms of the big things. It has just been a long period of tweaks and edits. The slow, long aggregation of small, incremental improvements. Today Marc refers to T5 as the "Ultimate Edition" of his long-loved SF RPG.

What's so special?

First of all, this is the most complete edition of Traveller ever written and put into one tome. It's massive. Actually, in truth, it's too big.

Here's the contents page:

Thankfully, following the massively successful Kickstarter campaign last year, Traveller5 is expecting the "Player's Edition" of the book: a shorter selection from the Core Rules designed to deliver just what the player needs, leaving the main book as a tool for the Referee. Nonetheless... this is an impressive tome.

It's beautifully simple in layout and design. Black two-column text which evokes the feel of Classic Traveller. Yet this is no "Little Black Book". It's one of the thickest books of any kind on my shelf.

Oddly, it's a book that I'll not need most of for the majority of the time. Design some characters for your group, learn the very easy to grasp Task rules and Combat rules... and you'll only use the rest if you are building something for your game.

In some ways the sheer size of the book belies the simplicity of the system.

Not just the Official Traveller Universe

I'd like to point out that this game is not just for the OTU. 

Certainly, T5 is optimised for the Traveller setting. Yet it's is written to be the "ultimate SF game", not just another edition of itself. Marc has designed the game completely ready to be used in Your Traveller Universe. 

I've been using this ruleset to prep my group to play in the Serene Dawn setting. We did characters some months back... and then got side-tracked into a fantasy campaign. Last night, when the T5 book arrived, the question was asked by one of the guys: "When are we going to play Traveller, then?" 

Soon, I hope. It's just too cool to leave on the shelf.

Final thoughts...

Yeah, I know. This is an exciting book to receive and yet, given my chaotic approach to gaming, it's also not necessarily going to get used as much as it should. 

Traveller5 is something of a dream come true. As a long-term fan of the game, having collected every book from every edition and having played since I was a pre-teen school boy, this is pant-wettingly cool. Geekdom come home, so to speak. But it is a flawed dream. It is a game that is ultimately Marc Miller's creation... and Marc doesn't, in my opinion, always get it right.

I'll be hacking my own Psi system, for example. I'll also be adding a Magick system to suit my own game (unsurprising as this is not a fantasy game: ultimate SF system, remember). And I'll not be using most of the design rules very much because, for a lot of my gaming, eye-balling and winging it is my style.

But the core of the game is sound. I love the d6-based game engine. I love the background building nature of character creation. 

You'll hack it and you'll mod it. But you'll play it... when it's finally on general release, at least.

If you like Traveller then you owe it to yourself to add this book to your collection. It'll be coming on both electronic and hard formats... and the electronic files are not only the whole book in one .PDF but also broken down by chapter and sub-section. There is so much to enjoy...

Just make sure you get past the first 50-odd pages and delve into playing it.

Game on!

Experiences on Experience

XP: the means by which most RPGs confer improvements upon the characters, earned through their achievements in play. Experience Points (XP) are given at regular intervals to reward the players for taking part in the game. We're all, I think, familiar with the idea.

The question has always been, "What's the best way to go about awarding XP?"

The answer lies in what you want to achieve. If you want to encourage any given behaviour then that is what you reward. Thus, if you give XP for killing monsters and finding treasure you'll focus the players on those two activities.

There is no right or wrong way to reward players in your game. There are simply more or less effective ways to encourage the behaviours that you want to see. For example, seeking to encourage more "roleplay", i.e. acting in role, instead of the more common descriptive style of play, I've introduced suggestions for XP multipliers. Taken straight from "Gamemastery", these bonuses have had a dramatic effect on the behaviours of the players and the quality of the game.

Experience from Fantasy

My current Fantasy-genre game is being currently played using the default rules of Castles & Crusades. The guys are enjoying themselves, although there have been rumblings for one or two tweaks, such as with the combat rules. 

From my perspective, however, the real challenge has been calibrating the XP system. C&C uses a very slow progression rate and encourages the GM to add in delays between levelling up processes too: one week of training (expensive) per level gained, e.g. going to Level 3... well that's 3 weeks training, dude.

With staggered level-up points for each different class, low-value awards for combat, and low-encouragement to give other awards... well, I found myself unwittingly starving my players of XP. Following the default rules was making them jittery because they wanted to get to Level 2 and 3 quickly. Remembering Wick's Law that you should "run the game the player's want to play", I knew that they needed a boost.

Step One was to add in the following XP multipliers to encourage role-playing over roll-playing:

Step Two has been to adjust the amount of XP per creature overcome. My players want an action-game where monster kills are valuable, in the Old School tradition, so I will give it to them. I've decided to make the monster-kill XP a per-hero total instead of being divided between them. Thus, when my 5 heroes kill 10 Goblins, worth around 100XP they get 100 each, not 20 each. 

Step Three has been to add in larger bonuses for completing non-fighting goals. These are largely improvised but a rough scale exists in my head: 

• 50-100XP for a small personal goal or small achievement, such as thinking to record something important or prepare something useful. In the last session, one player got 50XP for thinking of making 2 torches from some wood and rotten rags off a looted creature; another got 100XP for recording the details of runes on a doorway.
• 100-250XP for completing a short-term personal goal, such as found on the player's Roleplaying Sheet, or a story goal in the current adventure.
• 250XP+ for longer-term personal goal or a major story goal, such as something that would have taken multiple adventures to achieve.

I also took the expedience of giving everyone a 300XP boost at the end of the first adventure to allow them, after four sessions, to level-up. Oh, and I have dumped the training for this event.

Musings for Beta

Beta RPG is the system I'm developing for my own gaming pleasure. Right now it's very embryonic but it does have the basics in place.

One thing Beta does lack, however, is an XP system. I've not finalised anything yet but I am leaning towards a couple of things based on the experiences of giving XP to my group.

Firstly, they like big numbers. Increments of "1000XP = a reward" sounds nice and feel good. Perhaps each 1000XP total will unlock an upgrade, allowing for some chunky XP awards depending on the genre of play.

That's a good second point too: different genres and styles of play will warrant different XP awards. Fantasy gaming will probably reward creature kills where modern gaming may not... unless it's a monster-hunt game. Thus XP calibration advice to GMs needs to outline how different awards will affect play.

Thirdly, the roleplaying multipliers will probably become a default element of the XP system, encouraging good quality play.

Lastly, the system should draw fair-sized rewards from the Roleplaying (RP) Sheet, which needs to be a part of the character creation process... perhaps similar to the bonuses I mentioned above.

And finally...

The process of XP awards needs to be flexible. It needs to reward the behaviours you want in your game.

I still want to go back and check out the Rolemaster XP system again. Years ago I used the system outlined in the GM book from RMFRP and found it to be really useful. There are all-manner of useful ideas for XP bonuses in there, despite my memory failing me right now. I need to be able to drop in some new rewards ideas if they prove useful.

Do you want them to investigate? Then give XP for each clue found and a big reward for solving the mystery. Do you want them to stop killing like psychos? Then don't reward monster kills with XP.

That said... remember: "You have to run the game the players want to play".

Game on!

Going Beta

As mentioned back in January, the time has come for me to (finally) pull together my own RPG. This has, in fact, been a live project since January... but has faced its own challenges and delays. 

Today I can finally reveal that development of "Beta" has truly begun in earnest. Oh, and I'd better mention that Beta is a working title. 

Beta?

Beta is named for the fact that it arises out of the charred ashes of Alpha.

Alpha was developed a few years ago as the evolution of several previous attempts to design an RPG system that fits my own style of play. One of the key features of Alpha was that it operated a two-tier system of characterisation: a roleplaying level and a skirmish level. 

The former level was the familiar RPG approach... but the skirmish level allowed players to run quick engagements or short scenarios utilising miniatures and terrain on the tabletop. This suited the Dark Reich setting, an fantastic WWII alternative world, because it opened up the same game to be played in a quick wargaming style too.

I'm not sure why Alpha stalled and failed. In the end, I think, it was just too much pressure to develop a game system plus a unique setting on my own.

Beta is already a superior development because I'm not alone: working with some very old friends, I'm able to get the benefits that arise from collaboration and feedback. Things are in the opening stages of a first draft... but the mutual support of three other gamers is a very great aid indeed.

What's the Point?

I've been pingling around with a lot of ideas which link back to Beta. I really want to evolve a game system that is quintessentially about how I'd like to roleplay.

Right now the Beta project has some serious parameters:

• it has to be relatively rules light, even a bit 'old school' in simplicity
• it has to be able to support my meta-setting, which is a genre blend
• character development is going to be fluid and a constant flow
• it needs to be beginner friendly, easy to grasp
• it needs to be GM friendly, with low prep complications

I need to swallow the pill: this is a new product; it needs to bring something new to roleplaying. 

Finally, Beta has to be something which the players around me can buy in to: no players, no point.

What's Next?

First step is to finish writing the draft and then share that with the core team. From this I hope to publish a complete "beginner's game" version set in one of the many worlds of my dreaming. 

Initially I am tempted to present the first part of my meta-setting through the medium of the fantasy-apocalyptic. More on that another time.

In the end, this is a project that is going to take time. It'll also need to discover some friends. To facilitate feedback we'll open a wiki space and invite interested parties to read, play and comment. If you're interested in trying this system out then I'd like to hear from you: pop a comment on below.

Until next time... well, I'd better go and write another section of the rules, eh?

Game on!