Yearly Archives: 2013

Weapons Revisited

Update: I recommend using the slightly simpler approach to this same basic idea described in the Weapons Quick Reference post.

I started work compiling various blog posts into a Vaults of Pahvelorn Player’s Guide, and the very first thing I decided to look at was my old weapon properties post. This is one of those topics that I think would really benefit from the accessibility of being included in a player’s document, because despite being designed mostly as bonuses, in play we still often forget many of the weapon features. One of my ongoing personal design goals is to make weapon choice just as interesting as spell choice, without relying primarily on variable damage dice (which promotes an overly numerical approach that I find lacks interesting trade-offs).

Of course, rather than just copying the old rules into the document and moving on, I immediately start to significantly revise them. Since I wrote the original version, I have been exposed to Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, which both take approaches to weaponry that have influenced me substantially. I think weapon tags are a wonderfully efficient way to remember the various features, and while yes you need to read the definitions once, it seems like once you know that dangerous-1 means backfire on a natural roll of 1, you are unlikely to ever need to look that up again. I think this version below is much improved over the original, and many of the rules have also been simplified (for example, riposte just automatically deals damage to attackers that miss and roll poorly rather than requiring another attack roll).

Weapon damage is 1d6 by default. Some weapons have additional benefits, as described below.

Weapon	Properties
Axe	melee, damage: re-roll 1, shield-smasher
Dagger	melee, quickdraw, throwable, range-2, concealable, grapple
Mace	melee, penetrating-2
Sword	melee, quickdraw, riposte
Two-handed sword	melee, two-handed, damage: 2d6 take highest
Pole arm	melee, two-handed, interposing, damage: 2d6 take highest, reach, awkward-2
Quarterstaff	melee, two-handed, parry (melee)
Spear	melee, throwable, range-3, interposing, reach
Javelin	melee, throwable, range-5
Club	melee
Shield	armor-1, parry (missile), damage: 1d3
Bow	missile, two-handed, range-7, reload-0
Crossbow	missile, two-handed, penetrating-2, range-6, reload-1
Sling	concealable, missile, insignificant, missile, range-4, reload-0, versatile ammo
Oilbomb	dangerous-1, flaming, immolating, penetrating-2, range-1, reload-1, unreliable-3
Powderbomb	area, damage: 2d6 take highest, dangerous-1, flaming, range-1, unreliable-3

Property	Effects
Area	no attack roll, all enemies in area of effect take damage, save for half
Armor-N	+N armor class
Awkward-N	-N attack if not used at reach
Concealable	easy to hide in standard clothing (will not be noticed without a search)
Damage	damage inflicted is modified as stated
Dangerous-N	backfires (damages wielder) on natural rolls of N or less
Flaming	deals fire damage and flammable targets must save or be lit up
Grapple	future attacks auto-hit if a dexterity/strength contest is won
Immolating	save or ignite, continuing damage, additional save per round
Insignificant	does not count as an item for encumbrance purposes
Interposing	melee enemies must save to attack wielder, and on failure take damage
Melee	may only be used when engaged in melee (essentially, range-0)
Missile	requires ammunition
Parry (type)	save to deflect one attack per round that hits (limited to type, if given)
Penetrating-N	+N attack versus targets with armor
Range-N	weapons of higher range afford a free attack round as enemy closes
Reload-N	takes N rounds to reload (reload-0 fires every round)
Riposte	deal damage if enemy misses and rolls 5 or less
Shield-smasher	defender with shield must save or have their shield destroyed
Two-handed	requires both hands to use effectively
Quickdraw	may ready and attack in the same round
Unreliable-N	does not function on rolls of N or less (overridden by dangerous)
Versatile ammo	may use any small hard object (coin, rock) as ammo

Further Notes

“Mace” includes warhammer and military pick.
Wielding two weapons (where one is not a shield) grants +1 to the attack roll (credit to Philotomy).
A flask of oil may be used to coat a weapon and then ignited to give a metal weapon the flaming property (likewise, arrows). This is a reload-1 type operation. On attack rolls of 5 or less, the fire goes out. Such flaming weapons will also go out after one exploration turn (or after combat).
Target of a grapple may spend an action to attempt to free themselves (this is another dexterity/strength contest).
Ranges: bomb < dagger < spear < sling < javelin < crossbow < bow
Ranges are not measures, but are only used in relative comparisons.
Shooting or throwing into melee: determine target randomly.
Crushing/bludgeoning damage is sometimes important (skeletons, living statues, and so forth), but I decided that this is probably clear enough contextually, and thus doesn’t require a property (Google Plus discussion). I may change my mind on this, though.
A strength/dexterity contest means: both contestants roll either a strength or dexterity check (their choice). This is a less than or equal to d20 check, and the one that makes it by the most wins the contest (ties go to the defender).
I kind of want to add a great axe and maul (two-handed varieties of the axe and mace), but that would probably necessitate giving the two-handed sword an added benefit, and I haven’t been able to think of anything that I like.

Thanks to Robert G. on Google Plus for suggesting the property name interposing.

For ease of future reference: G+ threads on flaming oil: here and here (and Philotomy).

Affordances and aesthetics

22 Replies

Odilon Redon, The Black Torches

Assume for a moment that you have a game artifact. This is a thing, to be “used” with your games in some way. Maybe it’s a setting write-up, or a module, or a bestiary. Maybe you wrote it, maybe someone else wrote it. First: it’s important to note that these things are all the same sort of thing at some level, and thus this is not just a discussion about modules, but of any product useful for gaming. But what does “use” actually mean? Consider the idea of affordances from ecology.

The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, but the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment.

That’s by Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, chapter eight: The Theory of Affordances (bold items were italicized in the original, but my theme blockquote style loses that).

Okay, that’s a lot of words; how about an example? From the same chapter:

The human species in some cultures has the habit of sitting as distinguished from kneeling or squatting. If a suface of support with the four properties is also knee-high above the ground, it affords sitting on. We call it a seat in general, or a stool, bench, chair, and so on, in particular. It may be natural like a ledge or artificial like a couch. It may have various shapes, as long as its functional layout is that of a seat. The color and texture of the surface are irrelevant. Knee-high for a child is not the same as knee-high for an adult, so the affordance is relative to the size of the individual. But if a suface is horizontal, flat, extended, rigid, and knee-high relative to the perceiver, it can in fact be sat upon. If it can be discriminated as having just these properties, it should look sit-on-able. If it does, the affordance is perceived visually. If the surface properties are seen relative to the body surfaces, the self, they constitute a seat and have meaning.

What are the affordances of a game-thing? I’m not talking about the physical object, but rather the affordances of the virtual objects that arise in the shared game space that players conjure together that derive directly from the game-thing. This is the use of the game-thing. Examples. A stat block (or perhaps HD + AC) affords fighting. If a thing has hit dice, it is fightable and killable. An exact site map affords constrained exploration and movement. A more abstract map (graph-style, perhaps) affords a different kind of movement and interaction (where relationships are more important than distances; see page 5 of this, by Patrick of False Machine). A treasure (in GP = XP games), or more generally a rewarded goal, affords character advancement.

Numbers and game mechanics are not the only (or even most important) affordances, however. Because as Roger put it, fluff is crunch. Thus, the adjective “covetous” attached to an NPC may afford more game utility than 100 stat blocks. If that is true though, what isn’t an affordance? Why are so many game-things so hard to use, so badly designed, and so padded with useless information? Some of it is just redundancy (text spent explaining that there are trees in the forest, or fish in the fish market, to borrow an anti-example from Vornheim). Some of it is prolixity (writing in full sentences what might better be apprehended as a list of keywords; there is a reason why referee notes are so often in this form, and it’s not because they are “unpolished”). And some of it is just bad organization (putting things that are likely to be needed together in separate places, thus requiring page flipping or even context switching between different books). That is, there are good forms of redundancy too. So, all those things are non-affordances that take up space in modules, and are all pretty much unarguably bad design.

Even factoring out those mistakes though, game-things are more than just affordances. That paragraph of imaginary history, or an evocative description which you won’t have time to read during a session but which might help communicate a mood. Like psychological priming, and memories, game-things have a lingering (and useful) influence on the consciousness of the referee. On that subject, a while ago on G+, I wrote (in retrospect, incorrectly):

In an adventure all of that backstory is useless unless it impacts the character’s adventures.

And James Raggi responded:

It colors the Ref’s attitude towards the material which should directly impact the way the adventure is run.

He’s right, and such details are often valuable, and can even be independently works of art in their own right, but such details do not afford game play. Further, unless such exposition is organized exceptionally well, this mood-filler detracts from the other useful ideas contained within the product, and may even render them inoperable. Then you get the dreaded wall of text experience where you can’t find the relevant details when you need them in play (and this can be critical to the functioning of the game-thing, such as clues for an upcoming trap, rumors about a nearby area, prophesies of a future doom, or weaknesses of a specific enemy).

The degree to which a game-thing, as game-thing, is game-functional is the number of affordances from the game-thing that are enabled to arise in actual play, and the degree to which the non-affordance aspects of the game-thing get out of the way. This is, I suspect, why so many game products work so poorly at the game table, despite being creative and enjoyable to read.

Barbarians of the ruined colonies

7 Replies

Image by John Singer Sargent (source)

Castle Pahvelorn was once the mightiest stronghold on the edge of the western colonial frontier. Before the giants were driven back and Pahvelorn was built, the old kingdoms settled colonies on the coast of the Mirnilask Gulf, which lies to the east of Zorfath and Shem Nabar. Several generations ago, those colonies were overrun by savage warriors that swept down from the southeastern hills. The warriors fought fearlessly, and drove of interlopers from their colonies back to the sea, plundering the wealth of the colonies before retreating to the hills from which they came.

Some of their warriors still venture forth from their clans in the hills. Here is a class for their raiders. Hit dice, saving throws, attack, XP progression, and weapons as fighter. See below regarding armor.

When making a death saving throw in response to being reduced to 0 HP from combat, barbarians roll two dice and take the highest result.

A barbarian gains a rage point when the character:

Scores a hit on an enemy in combat
Takes damage during combat
Rolls a natural 20 on an attack roll
Slays an enemy in combat

These conditions are cumulative, so slaying an enemy with a natural attack roll of 20 gains 3 rage points.

Rage points may be spent to:

Add +1 to an attack roll
Add +1 to a damage roll
Add +1 to a saving throw
Improve AC by 1 (no better than 2 [17])
Improve a nearby companion’s AC by 1 (no better than 2 [17])
Save to shrug off damage from a mundane missile
Decrease damage taken by 1

Points must be spent for bonuses before dice are rolled. At the end of combat, all rage points are lost. AC improvements last until the end of combat. Companion AC improvements are only active when the barbarian is nearby. No more than six rage points can be spent at once on any given type of bonus.

Barbarians must make a successful saving throw (use most favorable number) to disengage from combat (this save is penalized by the current number of rage points).

Barbarians are deeply suspicious of the dark arts, and gain no rage points if in possession of enchanted objects that are not fetishes from their own homeland. This suspicion is connected to ideas of personal, spiritual purity and does not extend to travelling companions (though barbarians may be contemptuous of the unclean and strange habits of the civilized).

Additionally, no rage points are gained if the barbarian is wearing any armor (though shields are allowed). If not wearing armor, barbarians gain a bonus to AC equal to their HD (for these purposes, treat 1+1 as 2). For example, an unarmored barbarian with 3 HD has an AC of 6 [13].

Barbarians also often have misunderstandings with civilized people, and thus take a -2 reaction penalty. This includes loyalty and morale checks for civilized retainers (though close associates will come to understand and trust the barbarian over the course of successful adventures). Thanks to those that participated on Google Plus in the discussion about this aspect of the barbarian class.

Monstrous armor

4 Replies

Source: Wikipedia

Wyvern-scale armor. Heavy armor, AC 3 [16]. When properly worked by a knowledgable armorer, wyvern-scale armor is amazingly light. So light, in fact, that it both floats and does not add to encumbrance. Maintaining the armor in fighting condition requires careful and continuous oiling and care, though no special or expensive oils are required. If wyvern-scale armor is not oiled for more than a week, it becomes brittle and begins to fall apart (this process cannot be halted or reversed; the armor is ruined). It is assumed that knowledgeable PCs will maintain their wyvern-scale armor adequately, and this downside will only manifest if the armor is lost or the PC is trapped away from maintenance materials for an extended period of time. When freshly made, wyvern-scale also has a very distinct aroma, undetectable by most humans, but clear to many animals and beasts, making achieving surprise more difficult in some circumstances (the scent may be perceived as either terrifying or aggressive, depending on the creature in question). After proper aging, the scent is said to dissipate, but experts estimate that such an aging processes requires the better part of 1000 years. Crafting cost & time: 1000 GP and 1d6 weeks, assuming access to a knowledgable craftsperson. One wyvern yields the materials for 1-2 suits.

Purple worm leather. Light armor, AC 7 [12]. One part of the dermis of the giant violet worm can be made into effective, flexible, and durable light armor. The armor, if properly made, remains partially alive (though its method of sustenance is unknown), and it slowly leeches alchemical compounds into the wearers body, granting a +2 bonus to saving throws versus poison after the armor has been worn regularly for at least one week. The wearer’s eyes and tongue also slowly take on a purple hue at this time. The armor feels slightly warm to the touch. The worm skin is too bulky to combine effectively with other forms of armor (such as plate + worm skin) but can be worked into heavy rain-capes or coats for those that seek only the poison resistance and cosmetic effects. The poison resistance does not persist when the armor is removed (sages suggest that the skin must release some further compound in response to poison). Most skins result in a vaguely tigerlike pattern of alternating brown and vibrant purple, and the color does not dull with age. Purple worm leather can be killed. Assume the armor needs to make a save versus death if the wearer is reduced to 0 HP by trauma (use the wearer’s save number). It will also mend itself naturally. Crafting cost & time: 100 GP and 1 week. One worm provides materials for a number of garments equal to its hit dice.

Purple Acid Blast

2 Replies

Source: Wikipedia

Spell, Magic-User 2

Open an extradimensional rift to the acid seas of Erankzix. This causes a blast of violet, sparkling acid. If targetting a single creature directly, this does 3d6 damage, save for half. The 3 dice may also be distributed between several clustered targets (for example, two dice to one target, one die to another). Will weaken most physical objects if cast on them directly, providing a bonus to open doors or similar checks. The acid itself phases slowly back to Erankzix within one exploration turn, leaving a worthless residue of purple dust laced with mica. The acid is resisted by glass, rock, and organic bone.

Crucilest

Wardrobe malfunction

9 Replies

At the tail end of this encumbrance system, Logan Knight included this bonus optional rule, called wardrobe malfunction:

If you are hit in combat you can choose to sacrifice a Significant Item or other piece of equipment before damage is rolled. If you can explain how the attack removed or destroyed that item instead of injuring you, it happened.

As he writes, it’s like shields will be splintered, but for everyone. Personally, I don’t care for shields will be splintered (for a number of reasons that are not relevant to the purpose of this post), but this did give me an idea for a variant wardrobe malfunction rule.

In my game, there are no negative HP. Rather, when reduced to zero HP, a saving throw is required, with failure indicating death and success indicating unconsciousness. Rather than make unconsciousness always the cost of success, there could be a chance of an item taking the brunt of the almost fatal blow, allowing the character to remain conscious at 1 HP. This chance could be 50/50 (potentially requiring another die roll) or maybe occur on a natural saving throw roll of something like 19 or 20 (10% chance seems about right for this).

This does add a little bit of complication to a rule that I value primarily for its lethal simplicity. And such complications pave the way to death and dismemberment charts (which, to be clear, I also enjoy using sometimes). That said, the variation added by this additional potential outcome (lose a randomly determined item but stay conscious) might be worth a slight increase in complexity.

Another stunt system

11 Replies

Jeremy D. recently posted this simple and elegant stunt system based on the DCC deed die but intended for use with traditional rules. The basic idea is that attack rolls are made with d16 + class hit die (assuming B/X style variable hit dice), and a pre-declared stunt is successful if the hit die comes up 4 or greater and the attack roll is high enough to hit. This gives fighters (d8 hit die) roughly a 62% (4 or higher on a d8) chance of pulling off a stunt, given a high enough modified attack roll. Magic-users (d4 hit die) have a 25% chance (4 or higher on a d4). What’s the trade-off? If the stunt fails, the attack misses, even if the number would have been high enough to hit had a stunt not been attempted.

The system is clean, but does require Zocchi dice, which is a downside. However, thinking about the trade-off gave me an idea for another system based on a similar principle. The basic idea is to gamble on two independent dice both coming up high. So why not make stunts require success on two attack roles rather than one? This would still represent a single action, but would be similar to roll twice, take the lowest (since both need to hit). The essential dynamic of fighters being most able to benefit from stunts would be preserved, because (assuming the same level) fighters will have the best chance of hitting. This also seems like it would be easy to communicate to players: just make two attack rolls; no new mechanics would need to be introduced.

Necropraxis

Classic fantasy roleplaying games and loosely associated thoughts