I last posted about alignment, and how much I disliked the concept. It is, in my mind, similar to the way certain Computer RPGs have a "Good/Evil" thing going on. Games like KOTOR (Knights of the Old Republic), Neverwinter Nights and Fable come to mind. It's kind of interesting, in those games, because they do give you a choice of how to act, some decision-making control over social interactions and tasks, &c, but ultimately, it all boils down to a very basic black-and-white view of: "If you choose to be an ass you're an ass, and if you choose to act like Mother Theresa you're not". And that's good and evil, right there. Ridiculously simplistic.
But, after I wrote that post, I've been asking myself, what would you replace it with? There are really two options, in mind. You could replace it with nothing. That is, let players act how they act, and the DM determines repercussions. If you decide to steal from that poor shopkeeper and get caught, are you evil? He was poor. You have adamantium weapons. You got caught. Are you evil? What about if you then, because you got caught, decide to kill him to cover up the crime? Are you evil then? What if, before he gets killed, he shouts really loud and the night watch comes to investigate and sees you with the proverbial bloody knife in your hand? Are you then evil because you got caught? And what if, then, because you're by now level 10 and everybody knows that basic humans are supposed to be 0-level, you decide "I really don't want to go to jail because then the game would be over and I kind of like this character so fuck it, engarde Night Watchman!" and you proceed to hackandslash your way through the entire constabulary of this medieval fantasy town and you don't even breathe hard until you have to face Lord Whatsthenameofthistownanyway, who is considerably higher than level 0. Are you evil then? Because now you just sacked a town. When, in reality, all you wanted was to just keep playing the character that you'd grown kind of fond of? I mean, come on, I have an Adamantium Sword and was just trying to get the potion of whatsit for the guy over there. It's my quest, man!
See the problems? Anyway, I sidetracked a bit. So you could replace it with nothing at all. No alignment. Only consequences. Which, to be fair, is truly where the RPG experience is anyway. Nowadays, it goes something like this:
DM - "You just sacked a town. The king's going to be pissed when he hears about this. Oh, and Mikey, you're not a paladin anymore. That was kind of the very definition of not Lawful Good."
Mikey - "But I didn't even do anything until the guard showed up, and Joe the barbarian started getting his ass kicked and begged me for help. I helped my friend. THAT's the definition of Lawful Good."
DM - "Nope. You sacked a town and now you guys are going to have huge bounties on your heads and you will have to spend the rest of your days in Sherwood Forest."
Conrad the Half-Elven Ranger - "Sweet. I've always wanted to be Robin Hood. No worries, guys, I have Wilderness training. We'll be fine."
Mikey the ex-Paladin - Sure. We'll eat rats all day and I'll be a warrior. Great. Whatever.
As opposed to the not f'ing worrying about the good vs evil thing, and just letting them play. Because, let's face it, he did help his friends. And that is a pretty good thing to do, isn't it? I'd wager that it's kind of in the eye of the beholder.
OR, you could really come up with a convoluted cultural/religious separate worldviews system, wherein every God/Culture defines good and evil separately. In other words, if you're a worshipper of the Raven Queen, then what she considers to be acceptable and "good" is completely different than what Bahamut or Fizban or whoever considers to be acceptable and good and proper. Fizban/Zifban/nabzif/It's-been-way-too-long-since-I-read-those-books the avatar of the platinum dragon might frown on you randomly slaughtering passersby, but be perfectly fine with you killing everything that moves in the Goblin village over there. Gork and Mork might have a problem with you single-handedly thwarting the latest Waagh!, while the Raven Queen just loves it all. You see what I'm saying? In each case, you could have a "Good" character, or somebody who follows the cultural/religious tenets of his worldview, and yet in each case the decisions you make would be different.
And it's this point that I've been thinking about lately. A lot.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Musings on Game - Alignment
Playing an EVIL character the other day got me thinking about Alignment in the D&D system, and how much it sucks. Yeah, I know. Another post on Alignment? Everybody knows that Alignment blows. Why write yet another post about it?
I don't know. Why do the makers of D&D insist on keeping the Alignment system in place when everybody and their mother hate it?
Way back when, the original D&D had a pretty simple Alignment system: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. It was probably somewhat influenced by Moorcock. The best thing to say about it was that it was easy. But, being a sometime player of D&D when I was a kid, I remember not really "getting it". What was Lawful, and what was Chaotic? Lawful represented a desire to uphold order and justice, and Chaotic represented a "frontier spirit" sort of thing, all for the good of the individual. I guess. I don't know. I always tried to interpret it in the spirit of Star Wars, but that led to the interesting conundrum that the Empire would have to be Lawful (at least by the time of A New Hope), and the Rebellion Chaotic. But the Empire is bad. And the Rebellion good. Right? Right?
Right. It didn't make any flipping sense. Then out comes AD&D, and their whole 9 alignment system, which introduced Good and Evil. Now you could be Chaotic, but still be Good at the same time. And you could be Lawful, but still be Evil. So there you go. The Rebellion = Chaotic Good, and the Empire = Lawful Evil. But still, after a little bit of thought, that system sucked too.
I mean, what sort of person is ONLY good? Which one of us has not been a dick to somebody else at some point in our lives? What, that's not good and evil? That's just too personal? Alrighty then. So what defines evil? Comic books sometimes make it out to be a killing vs non-killing thing. If you take a life, you're evil. You're a villain. If you don't take a life, you're a good guy. Yeah, I know. Ridiculous. How about assassination, then? That seems pretty clear. You kill a person for no other reason than pure unadulterated profit. Evil, right? Not necessarily. What about a sniper, in the military? Alright, not working for profit. Working for patriotism, supposedly. But assassinating people, regardless. So soldiers in a war = good, but mercenaries in a war = bad. What's the difference? Patriotism. Law and order vs Ego and the profit motive. In other words, Lawful vs Chaotic. Not good and evil. So, what's evil then? Good question. It has always been my belief that there is no such thing as good and evil, that these terms are societal constructs/labels that are used to control behavior (which is a post and a half all by itself, so we won't get into that here). But the game already has a set of labels to define whether your anti-social or not: Lawful and Chaotic. So then, aren't Good and Evil, in the terms of the game, redundant?
It would seem so. Or at least, in D&D 4E it would, because they've gotten rid of 6 of the 9 alignments. Now there's only Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil. In other words, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, being redundant terms, are REALLY REALLY Good or REALLY REALLY Evil. Whatever. Nobody's going to play a Lawful Good character as it should be played, and nobody's going to play a Chaotic Evil character as it should be played, so what's the point?
There is no point. Alignment sucks, it always has. Let the players play what they want to play, how they want to play. Don't force them into a moral straightjacket, especially when the definition of that morality is a slippery thing, and evil to the character might not be evil to the DM might not be evil to anybody else.
I mean, I played an Evil character a couple of days ago. What was the most evil thing I could think of to do, short of killing other players, which is always always a great big no no? I didn't help out a merchant in need, and then I peed in the fountain. In public.
I don't know. Why do the makers of D&D insist on keeping the Alignment system in place when everybody and their mother hate it?
Way back when, the original D&D had a pretty simple Alignment system: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. It was probably somewhat influenced by Moorcock. The best thing to say about it was that it was easy. But, being a sometime player of D&D when I was a kid, I remember not really "getting it". What was Lawful, and what was Chaotic? Lawful represented a desire to uphold order and justice, and Chaotic represented a "frontier spirit" sort of thing, all for the good of the individual. I guess. I don't know. I always tried to interpret it in the spirit of Star Wars, but that led to the interesting conundrum that the Empire would have to be Lawful (at least by the time of A New Hope), and the Rebellion Chaotic. But the Empire is bad. And the Rebellion good. Right? Right?
Right. It didn't make any flipping sense. Then out comes AD&D, and their whole 9 alignment system, which introduced Good and Evil. Now you could be Chaotic, but still be Good at the same time. And you could be Lawful, but still be Evil. So there you go. The Rebellion = Chaotic Good, and the Empire = Lawful Evil. But still, after a little bit of thought, that system sucked too.
I mean, what sort of person is ONLY good? Which one of us has not been a dick to somebody else at some point in our lives? What, that's not good and evil? That's just too personal? Alrighty then. So what defines evil? Comic books sometimes make it out to be a killing vs non-killing thing. If you take a life, you're evil. You're a villain. If you don't take a life, you're a good guy. Yeah, I know. Ridiculous. How about assassination, then? That seems pretty clear. You kill a person for no other reason than pure unadulterated profit. Evil, right? Not necessarily. What about a sniper, in the military? Alright, not working for profit. Working for patriotism, supposedly. But assassinating people, regardless. So soldiers in a war = good, but mercenaries in a war = bad. What's the difference? Patriotism. Law and order vs Ego and the profit motive. In other words, Lawful vs Chaotic. Not good and evil. So, what's evil then? Good question. It has always been my belief that there is no such thing as good and evil, that these terms are societal constructs/labels that are used to control behavior (which is a post and a half all by itself, so we won't get into that here). But the game already has a set of labels to define whether your anti-social or not: Lawful and Chaotic. So then, aren't Good and Evil, in the terms of the game, redundant?
It would seem so. Or at least, in D&D 4E it would, because they've gotten rid of 6 of the 9 alignments. Now there's only Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil. In other words, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, being redundant terms, are REALLY REALLY Good or REALLY REALLY Evil. Whatever. Nobody's going to play a Lawful Good character as it should be played, and nobody's going to play a Chaotic Evil character as it should be played, so what's the point?
There is no point. Alignment sucks, it always has. Let the players play what they want to play, how they want to play. Don't force them into a moral straightjacket, especially when the definition of that morality is a slippery thing, and evil to the character might not be evil to the DM might not be evil to anybody else.
I mean, I played an Evil character a couple of days ago. What was the most evil thing I could think of to do, short of killing other players, which is always always a great big no no? I didn't help out a merchant in need, and then I peed in the fountain. In public.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
D&D Encounters
So last night was my first ever experience playing "D&D Encounters". It was at the local FLGS, Mayhem, and was huge. By huge I mean to say, entirely too many players and not enough DMs.
I had been into Mayhem before and seen these posters and advertisements for the Encounters thing, and had my interest piqued. Talked to the owner of the store about it, he said it starts at 6, no you don't have bring anything, &c &c.
I then convinced a friend to join me, and off we went, bringing absolutely nothing to the game except our formidable presences. No pencils, no dice, no little plastic pre-painted miniatures, no characters. That's right. Nothing. Except soda. And booze. Can't forget the booze.
We arrived, Jonny said something about needing to take a dump the size of Guam and ran off, and I sat down at the table. Give it to me, I said.
Give you what?
Whatever it is that you have to give.
And thus I received a Sentinel character and mismatched dice. Bummer.
A druid? This sucks, I said. Give me something else.
I have a Thief, a player said.
Ah crap, I replied. Nobody has anything decent?
I have a Warpriest, somebody else said.
Alright, give me the Warpriest. No way in hell am I going with a pansy fluffy-bunny-loving Druid for my first game.
Jonny came back. What do I get, he asked.
I have a Blackguard, the same person who offered me the Warpriest said.
Well hold on just a minute. How long have we been going around and around about this? Why didn't you guys just offer me the damned Blackguard at the beginning. I'll take that.
I guess I'll take the Warpriest, Jonny said.
Sloppy seconds, I replied.
Ouch.
I took a look around the table, which was actually three tables pushed together to form one big table. There were, by the time we started playing, nine players, including Jonny and myself. This does not include the DM, who had one full side of the table all to himself, because of his damned big DM Screen set up over there. So nine players, around three sides of a table. It was a tight fit, let me tell you. Which is, apparently, exactly how Jonny likes 'em.
Player impressions: um, yeah. The DM seemed confident, even with that many players. Cool. Counting the DM and Jonny and I, there were two other players who looked to be in their 30's. Which left five players who might have been in high school. Egads. Youngsters. Hoodlums. Ruffians. I remember what it was like back then. Punks and Yobs, manno. I was suddenly tingly with fear.
Not really. One of the youngsters talked about how the Drow were, like, his favorite race ever. I almost asked him if it was a cross between a Lion and a Tiger and reknowned for its magical properties. That didn't seem like the wise thing to do, however, in a group that I didn't know, and so studied the five sheets of paper that were given to me for my character. A Vryloka Blackguard. Vryloka? What's a Vryloka? I turn to the last page, where racial feats and crap were listed. Undead something something. Aha. I'm a sort-of kind-of vampire. A Vryloka is to Vampire what Tiefling is to Devil. I get it. I always did hate the concept of Tieflings. I suppose now I'll have to hate the concept of Vryloka too. Except I'm playing one. Great. And what's a Blackguard? Honestly, even now, after playing through that game, I don't know what a Blackguard is. Evil. That's what I know. How do I know? because it said so up on the top of the page. Evil Vryloka Blackguard.
I was pondering what a Blackguard was when the fellow to my right began cackling. That's right, cackling. He stopped. Then he started again. And then he stopped. And then he did it again. I almost walked out it was so fucking disturbingly mind-numbingly anti-social and creepy. Except it wasn't Halloween anti-social. It was more of a "I don't have any friends and this is why" anti-social. And then I figured out that he did it whenever somebody else came into the game room looking like they wanted to play D&D. It was a psychological trigger or something, the sound of that door opening. Like a human Pavlov dog that was trained to cackle every time the door opened.
A youngish couple came over to our table and asked to play and were turned away. But in the course of that, the girl in the couple (yes, there was a girl, and yes, she was turned away) stated that she wanted to play a healer. Which started a discussion around our table about whether or not we had any. Turned out we did. Two of them. One played by Jonny, the Warpriest, and another played by a 30-something to Jonny's left, another Warpriest.
To which I might have said, If I was playing a character class named Warpriest, and somebody asked me to heal them, I'd be pissed. Good thing I chose the Blackguard.
And the game was on. It was Episode 1 of the first chapter of the new Neverwinter cycle, apparently. And we're in a market, with markety things happening everywhere. A markety cart broke down and Jonny rushes in to help get it unstuck, but it turned out he couldn't. His Athletics skill just sucked, apparently. He exhorted all the players to help, me first, but of course I refused. Somebody asked, Doesn't anybody have the Athletics skill? Another player pointed at me, but nobody noticed. Of course I had the Athletics skill. I'm a tank. But I'm EVIL, why the hell would I help a broken markety cart? Instead I just pondered the fact that I was the only tank in the group.
Talk and talk and more talk about a new king of Neverwinter and a big fight that happened in a tomb or something (it was, apparently, handled in the prelude, which was last Saturday, which both Jonny and I missed). Then it was Surprise Round time, everybody get the minis, everybody roll initiative, game on. Where are all the minis going? So-and-so was over by the halfling selling pies, several people were by the dwarf selling God-knows-what, and several people were over by the broken cart. Where are you at, Ranger?
Staring over the Ocean.
Good answer, I thought.
Where are you at, Blackguard?
Peeing in the fountain.
Wait. What? Where are you?
By the damned fountain. All alone. The only other guy by me is this dude by the Halfling pie-seller. Sweet.
Up pop the critters. 10 of them from the sewer entrances, to which both my Blackguard and Guy-standing-by-Halfling were closest, and 4 fiery Drake things over by the Ranger-staring-into-the-ocean. Even better, I thought. The tank is gonna wade in here and start killing ash zombie things, and laugh as he shrugs aside their blows.
Zip Zap Boom two rounds later and everything is dead, including a second wave of 10 ash zombie things; the rightful king of Neverwinter shows up and leaves; and a fiery White Dragon lands in the market, threatening to end our pathetic 1st-level lives.
And if you thought that the description of the fight was too short, that's how the actual fight felt. Seriously. Two rounds. I got to swing my flail TWICE. But it was definitely long enough for me to realize that playing a Blackguard sucks. Or at least, playing that Blackguard the way it was built sucked. Or maybe playing a tank sucks. Or maybe quite simply having that many players sucks. Or maybe all of the above.
I don't know. I suppose I'll have to build my own character and go back next week to find out. I'm thinking a greataxe fighter with Power Attack and Cleave. Yeah. Tanky but hitty at the same time.
I had been into Mayhem before and seen these posters and advertisements for the Encounters thing, and had my interest piqued. Talked to the owner of the store about it, he said it starts at 6, no you don't have bring anything, &c &c.
I then convinced a friend to join me, and off we went, bringing absolutely nothing to the game except our formidable presences. No pencils, no dice, no little plastic pre-painted miniatures, no characters. That's right. Nothing. Except soda. And booze. Can't forget the booze.
We arrived, Jonny said something about needing to take a dump the size of Guam and ran off, and I sat down at the table. Give it to me, I said.
Give you what?
Whatever it is that you have to give.
And thus I received a Sentinel character and mismatched dice. Bummer.
A druid? This sucks, I said. Give me something else.
I have a Thief, a player said.
Ah crap, I replied. Nobody has anything decent?
I have a Warpriest, somebody else said.
Alright, give me the Warpriest. No way in hell am I going with a pansy fluffy-bunny-loving Druid for my first game.
Jonny came back. What do I get, he asked.
I have a Blackguard, the same person who offered me the Warpriest said.
Well hold on just a minute. How long have we been going around and around about this? Why didn't you guys just offer me the damned Blackguard at the beginning. I'll take that.
I guess I'll take the Warpriest, Jonny said.
Sloppy seconds, I replied.
Ouch.
I took a look around the table, which was actually three tables pushed together to form one big table. There were, by the time we started playing, nine players, including Jonny and myself. This does not include the DM, who had one full side of the table all to himself, because of his damned big DM Screen set up over there. So nine players, around three sides of a table. It was a tight fit, let me tell you. Which is, apparently, exactly how Jonny likes 'em.
Player impressions: um, yeah. The DM seemed confident, even with that many players. Cool. Counting the DM and Jonny and I, there were two other players who looked to be in their 30's. Which left five players who might have been in high school. Egads. Youngsters. Hoodlums. Ruffians. I remember what it was like back then. Punks and Yobs, manno. I was suddenly tingly with fear.
Not really. One of the youngsters talked about how the Drow were, like, his favorite race ever. I almost asked him if it was a cross between a Lion and a Tiger and reknowned for its magical properties. That didn't seem like the wise thing to do, however, in a group that I didn't know, and so studied the five sheets of paper that were given to me for my character. A Vryloka Blackguard. Vryloka? What's a Vryloka? I turn to the last page, where racial feats and crap were listed. Undead something something. Aha. I'm a sort-of kind-of vampire. A Vryloka is to Vampire what Tiefling is to Devil. I get it. I always did hate the concept of Tieflings. I suppose now I'll have to hate the concept of Vryloka too. Except I'm playing one. Great. And what's a Blackguard? Honestly, even now, after playing through that game, I don't know what a Blackguard is. Evil. That's what I know. How do I know? because it said so up on the top of the page. Evil Vryloka Blackguard.
I was pondering what a Blackguard was when the fellow to my right began cackling. That's right, cackling. He stopped. Then he started again. And then he stopped. And then he did it again. I almost walked out it was so fucking disturbingly mind-numbingly anti-social and creepy. Except it wasn't Halloween anti-social. It was more of a "I don't have any friends and this is why" anti-social. And then I figured out that he did it whenever somebody else came into the game room looking like they wanted to play D&D. It was a psychological trigger or something, the sound of that door opening. Like a human Pavlov dog that was trained to cackle every time the door opened.
A youngish couple came over to our table and asked to play and were turned away. But in the course of that, the girl in the couple (yes, there was a girl, and yes, she was turned away) stated that she wanted to play a healer. Which started a discussion around our table about whether or not we had any. Turned out we did. Two of them. One played by Jonny, the Warpriest, and another played by a 30-something to Jonny's left, another Warpriest.
To which I might have said, If I was playing a character class named Warpriest, and somebody asked me to heal them, I'd be pissed. Good thing I chose the Blackguard.
And the game was on. It was Episode 1 of the first chapter of the new Neverwinter cycle, apparently. And we're in a market, with markety things happening everywhere. A markety cart broke down and Jonny rushes in to help get it unstuck, but it turned out he couldn't. His Athletics skill just sucked, apparently. He exhorted all the players to help, me first, but of course I refused. Somebody asked, Doesn't anybody have the Athletics skill? Another player pointed at me, but nobody noticed. Of course I had the Athletics skill. I'm a tank. But I'm EVIL, why the hell would I help a broken markety cart? Instead I just pondered the fact that I was the only tank in the group.
Talk and talk and more talk about a new king of Neverwinter and a big fight that happened in a tomb or something (it was, apparently, handled in the prelude, which was last Saturday, which both Jonny and I missed). Then it was Surprise Round time, everybody get the minis, everybody roll initiative, game on. Where are all the minis going? So-and-so was over by the halfling selling pies, several people were by the dwarf selling God-knows-what, and several people were over by the broken cart. Where are you at, Ranger?
Staring over the Ocean.
Good answer, I thought.
Where are you at, Blackguard?
Peeing in the fountain.
Wait. What? Where are you?
By the damned fountain. All alone. The only other guy by me is this dude by the Halfling pie-seller. Sweet.
Up pop the critters. 10 of them from the sewer entrances, to which both my Blackguard and Guy-standing-by-Halfling were closest, and 4 fiery Drake things over by the Ranger-staring-into-the-ocean. Even better, I thought. The tank is gonna wade in here and start killing ash zombie things, and laugh as he shrugs aside their blows.
Zip Zap Boom two rounds later and everything is dead, including a second wave of 10 ash zombie things; the rightful king of Neverwinter shows up and leaves; and a fiery White Dragon lands in the market, threatening to end our pathetic 1st-level lives.
And if you thought that the description of the fight was too short, that's how the actual fight felt. Seriously. Two rounds. I got to swing my flail TWICE. But it was definitely long enough for me to realize that playing a Blackguard sucks. Or at least, playing that Blackguard the way it was built sucked. Or maybe playing a tank sucks. Or maybe quite simply having that many players sucks. Or maybe all of the above.
I don't know. I suppose I'll have to build my own character and go back next week to find out. I'm thinking a greataxe fighter with Power Attack and Cleave. Yeah. Tanky but hitty at the same time.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Musings on Game - AC
Armor Class (AC) has never made any sense to me. I understand that, like all things in D&D, it's an abstraction. But if you think about it even a little bit, it all falls apart. In the game, it goes something like this: Creature A is attacking Creature B. Creature A needs to roll a certain number, which consists of a formula involving Creature B's AC, and then is modified by Creature A's attack bonus, whatever that might be, if it even exists. In other words, #-to-hit = AC-modified. If the roll hits, then damage is applied, determined by whatever weapon/spell/whatever Creature A is using.
The problem I have with it is two-fold. First, since when does wearing Plate Armor make you harder to hit than being completely unencumbered? The opposite, in my mind, must be true. A person wearing in excess of fifty pounds of armor wouldn't move as fast as somebody who wasn't, and then must be easier to be hit. In D&D these sorts of questions arose, at least in my mind, when a player wanted to cast a "touch" spell against an opponent. Many times did I think, you mean all I have to do is touch this walking tin-can and the spell goes off? So how come it doesn't because I can't roll that absurdly high number?
Second, wouldn't wearing a bunch of armor minimize what damage did get through? I once read a news story about a lady in NYC who was shot on the subway, but she was wearing so many layers of fur coats that the bullet stopped before it actually penetrated her body. Wouldn't the same thing be true when dealing with slice&dice weapons, against leather and mail armor? Of course it would.
Now, in D&D, once it has been determined that you hit, your damage is not affected at all. If you're wielding a longsword, you do 1-8 damage. Period. This seems backwards to me. Armor should not affect the chances to be hit (or if it does, to increase said chances), but rather affect the damage roll.
Am I wrong on this? Let me know.
Next up: Demi-humans. Or magic. Or maybe something else. I don't know.
The problem I have with it is two-fold. First, since when does wearing Plate Armor make you harder to hit than being completely unencumbered? The opposite, in my mind, must be true. A person wearing in excess of fifty pounds of armor wouldn't move as fast as somebody who wasn't, and then must be easier to be hit. In D&D these sorts of questions arose, at least in my mind, when a player wanted to cast a "touch" spell against an opponent. Many times did I think, you mean all I have to do is touch this walking tin-can and the spell goes off? So how come it doesn't because I can't roll that absurdly high number?
Second, wouldn't wearing a bunch of armor minimize what damage did get through? I once read a news story about a lady in NYC who was shot on the subway, but she was wearing so many layers of fur coats that the bullet stopped before it actually penetrated her body. Wouldn't the same thing be true when dealing with slice&dice weapons, against leather and mail armor? Of course it would.
Now, in D&D, once it has been determined that you hit, your damage is not affected at all. If you're wielding a longsword, you do 1-8 damage. Period. This seems backwards to me. Armor should not affect the chances to be hit (or if it does, to increase said chances), but rather affect the damage roll.
Am I wrong on this? Let me know.
Next up: Demi-humans. Or magic. Or maybe something else. I don't know.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Musings on Game - HP
Why design a roleplaying game? The reasons, for me, are many.
I first started playing roleplaying games when I was about 13. At the time, for lack of a roleplaying group to be a part of, I subjected my two younger brothers to my immature Dungeon Mastering. I made mistakes, quite a lot actually, but learned how to be a better DM with every one of them. In High School I joined a roleplaying group, and we played every Saturday night until we discovered the joys of alcohol and women, and suddenly roleplaying went by the wayside. I never did give up gaming, though. I simply switched from tabletop RPGs to tabletop miniatures, and card games, and board games, and video games. Quite a lot of gaming, it occurs to me as I look back at it now. Fast forward quite a few years (I'd rather not discuss exactly how many), and a friend of mine convinced me to get back into tabletop RPGs. That was on the order of three or four years ago. During that time, I've done a lot of thinking about what I like and what I don't like about the RPGs that I've played (not many, as it turns out. D&D, AD&D 1st & 2nd eds., D&D 4E, 1st or 2nd edition Shadowrun, and 4th ed. Shadowrun. I have, however, read complete many many other game systems rules. So many that I will not post them all here).
So what don't I like, then? And please, excuse my ramblings. They may seem slipshod and hit-or-miss, but for the time being I'm just putting it all out there. And, there are so many things (which is why I'm doing this blog, in order to organize all of it) that I will probably end up stretching this over a series of posts.
1) I don't like Hit Points. I never have. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the need for them. I just don't like them. Why? Because, at least as they are used in D&D (and subsequently every Computer RPG ever made), they give rise to a phenomenon where a character at a certain level need no longer fear the lethality of a crossbow (or insert favored weapon here). Arrow to chest? No problem, I've got 63 more hp. Bring it, gobbos! Yeah, I know. It's an abstraction. But an abstraction of what, exactly? Morale? I've heard that one. And it doesn't make any sense. In Dungeons and Dragons, a character's defenses are given a score. And their health is given a score. If I were to bypass a creature's defenses, and lower their health, then they have taken damage. At first level, that was great. A hit from a longsword was often enough to cleave the pesky critter in twain. But you try that same thing at 5th level, fighting a 5th level creature, and suddenly your hit from said longsword doesn't do crap. You still hit the pesky critter. You still bypassed its defenses. You are still using the same weapon, with the same strength, as you did before, but now it means less. A LOT less. Sweet. I hit the Fiery Whatsit and did 11 damage. Now I only need to do that 17 more times. Man, this is great. I sure am glad I leveled up so I can fight these great evils that have also leveled up just like me.
I recognized this problem even when I was fairly new to the world of RPGs, although I didn't know exactly what it was that was bothering me. All I knew was that it didn't take very long before I didn't want my PCs to advance beyond the 3rd level. The 3rd level seemed about perfect to me. It was enough that the PCs weren't being taken down by fuzzy bunnies, but not too much that certain creatures (such as the quintessential kobolds and goblins) were no longer a threat. Of course, you can't do that as a DM. Character growth is one of the essential aspects of any RPG, and how do you grow as a character if the DM caps you at level 3?
And then I discovered Shadowrun. Shadowrun, in many ways, blew my mind. But the way that most affected me was the idea of static HP. Everybody got 10 Health, and that was it. No more, no less, ever. Suddenly a whole new world opened up to me. Holy crap, I thought. Holy mother-loving crap. Of course, it didn't take long before I recognized that Shadowrun was a flawed system itself, and I found the aforementioned joys of women & booze, which took all of my attention away from games. At least for a little while.
Next up: AC (Armor Class)
I first started playing roleplaying games when I was about 13. At the time, for lack of a roleplaying group to be a part of, I subjected my two younger brothers to my immature Dungeon Mastering. I made mistakes, quite a lot actually, but learned how to be a better DM with every one of them. In High School I joined a roleplaying group, and we played every Saturday night until we discovered the joys of alcohol and women, and suddenly roleplaying went by the wayside. I never did give up gaming, though. I simply switched from tabletop RPGs to tabletop miniatures, and card games, and board games, and video games. Quite a lot of gaming, it occurs to me as I look back at it now. Fast forward quite a few years (I'd rather not discuss exactly how many), and a friend of mine convinced me to get back into tabletop RPGs. That was on the order of three or four years ago. During that time, I've done a lot of thinking about what I like and what I don't like about the RPGs that I've played (not many, as it turns out. D&D, AD&D 1st & 2nd eds., D&D 4E, 1st or 2nd edition Shadowrun, and 4th ed. Shadowrun. I have, however, read complete many many other game systems rules. So many that I will not post them all here).
So what don't I like, then? And please, excuse my ramblings. They may seem slipshod and hit-or-miss, but for the time being I'm just putting it all out there. And, there are so many things (which is why I'm doing this blog, in order to organize all of it) that I will probably end up stretching this over a series of posts.
1) I don't like Hit Points. I never have. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the need for them. I just don't like them. Why? Because, at least as they are used in D&D (and subsequently every Computer RPG ever made), they give rise to a phenomenon where a character at a certain level need no longer fear the lethality of a crossbow (or insert favored weapon here). Arrow to chest? No problem, I've got 63 more hp. Bring it, gobbos! Yeah, I know. It's an abstraction. But an abstraction of what, exactly? Morale? I've heard that one. And it doesn't make any sense. In Dungeons and Dragons, a character's defenses are given a score. And their health is given a score. If I were to bypass a creature's defenses, and lower their health, then they have taken damage. At first level, that was great. A hit from a longsword was often enough to cleave the pesky critter in twain. But you try that same thing at 5th level, fighting a 5th level creature, and suddenly your hit from said longsword doesn't do crap. You still hit the pesky critter. You still bypassed its defenses. You are still using the same weapon, with the same strength, as you did before, but now it means less. A LOT less. Sweet. I hit the Fiery Whatsit and did 11 damage. Now I only need to do that 17 more times. Man, this is great. I sure am glad I leveled up so I can fight these great evils that have also leveled up just like me.
I recognized this problem even when I was fairly new to the world of RPGs, although I didn't know exactly what it was that was bothering me. All I knew was that it didn't take very long before I didn't want my PCs to advance beyond the 3rd level. The 3rd level seemed about perfect to me. It was enough that the PCs weren't being taken down by fuzzy bunnies, but not too much that certain creatures (such as the quintessential kobolds and goblins) were no longer a threat. Of course, you can't do that as a DM. Character growth is one of the essential aspects of any RPG, and how do you grow as a character if the DM caps you at level 3?
And then I discovered Shadowrun. Shadowrun, in many ways, blew my mind. But the way that most affected me was the idea of static HP. Everybody got 10 Health, and that was it. No more, no less, ever. Suddenly a whole new world opened up to me. Holy crap, I thought. Holy mother-loving crap. Of course, it didn't take long before I recognized that Shadowrun was a flawed system itself, and I found the aforementioned joys of women & booze, which took all of my attention away from games. At least for a little while.
Next up: AC (Armor Class)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)