Evil Hat Productions

Tags and Axes (and Axes)

Rob Donoghue — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Ok, so if you're not going to do damage types (or even more complicated things like weapon versus armor type tables) then how should you go about meaningful weapon differentiation?

Well, first off, why would you want to? Isn't that a pretty finicky idea?

Yes, it kind of is. And it's entirely possible (and reasonable) even, to create game with no weapon differentiation, or with nothing more complicated than light, medium and heavy weapons. This totally works, and it allows for dramatic differences in color without slowing down the mechanics. You have a longsword and I have a mace and he has a katana and she has something from a Star trek episode that only she can pronounce, but we all just roll 1d8 for damage, so it all works out.

But sometimes people like differentiation to have teeth. Sometimes it's a sense of 'realism' but more often it just the general desire to have system reinforce and support our choices.

If you're going to do that, you need to make sure that the difference between weapons exist on more than one axis. Now, damage will almost always be one axis, but the other might be speed, accuracy or something else. As an example, one of the baseline weapon choices you can make in 4e is whether you want a weapon that's +2 to hit and 1d10 damage or +3 to hit and 1d8 damage. Deep math nerds can tell you a lot of details about that tradeoff, but to jo reader, that seems about right.

Two axes (axis, plural, not the chopping thing) helps, but it still produces a pretty straightforward curve of tradeoffs that gets easy to calculate on. The obvious solution is to add more axes - speed and penetration and, yes, even damage type. Provide enough differentiators and choices become inobvious, which is desirable.

But that is, frankly, a pain in the ass. It makes weapon stat blocks complicated and unreadable, and virtually guarantees that some number cruncher will find some specific weapon that is just unbalancingly badass if used just so. The rewards of complexity are quickly bogged down by the drawbacks.

A good compromise is to use an exception-based system. That is to say, some weapons may have keywords which grant them special rules. Now, this may seem fancy pants, but this idea has existed for as long as there have been bastard swords. The introduction of a special rule (you can use it in one OR two hands!) made the weapon interesting and appealing in a way that was difficult to precisely measure against. You can add these special rules individually (as was the case with the bastard sword) but it's often easier to come up with a set of keywords for frequently occurring effects.

The joy of this method is that because these are exceptions, they don't introduce any more than the bare minimum of necessary complexity. Now, yes, this can spin out of hand - it would be easy to conceive of a system where EVERY weapon has multiple keywords (the longsword is "Versatile, Stabbing, Slashing" while the dagger is "Stabbing, slashing, nimble, concealable") but at that point you're just recreating the axes problem all over again.

Now, if that complexity is what you want, then totally go for it. My aversion to it is at least partially a taste thing (albeit a taste thing that the larger part of the market seems to bear out). But otherwise, look at creating simple differentiation with 2 axes, then layer just enough keywords on top to spice up the mix.

At least that's how I'd do it.

Tags and Axes (and Axes)

Rob Donoghue — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Ok, so if you're not going to do damage types (or even more complicated things like weapon versus armor type tables) then how should you go about meaningful weapon differentiation?

Well, first off, why would you want to? Isn't that a pretty finicky idea?

But sometimes people like differentiation to have teeth. Sometimes it's a sense of 'realism' but more often it just the general desire to have system reinforce and support our choices.

At least that's how I'd do it.

[In the Lab] Notes on Dead Weight

Daniel Solis — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:03:00 +0000

A long time ago, I came up with an rpg premise that seemed to resonate with a lot of people. There's one tower sanctuary left after a zombie apocalypse. Parkour runners loot the surrounding ruins while trying trying not to get weighed down. If you're too slow, the zombies get ya.

John Harper came up with a cool Apocalypse World hack for the setting and it's been dormant since. People still ask about it occasionally, though. I'm just not a role-playing game designer, so if I were to revisit this world, it'd have to be as a more tactical board or card game. So here are some thoughts on Dead Weight as such!

At it's core, it's basically a hack of Bomb's Away! Everyone begins with one runner card. There are three decks of cards on the table, containing either DISTANCE cards or ITEM cards.

On your turn, you roll one die and strike that result from your runner's card. Then, you can draw a new card from the first deck. You can keep rolling as many times as you like, each time drawing a new card. On your second roll, you can draw from the first or second deck. On your third roll, you can draw from the first, second or third deck. If a deck ever runs out, you cannot draw from it. (In other words, that part of city has been looted.)

DISTANCE cards get you more time in the city. Instead of striking a result on your runner's card, you can strike the result on the distance card.

ITEM cards are what you can use to buy new resources, hire new runners, and equip better tools. Eventually, you can buy admittance passage to higher levels of the tower. While carrying an ITEM, you must roll an additional die and strike that result as well.

BUSTING: If you roll a result that is completely struck out, you BUST. You lose all the loot and get one result on your runner's card permanently struck. (This is why you eventually want to hire more runners, too.)

TURNING BACK: You can always turn back and cash in your items. When you do so, place them face down in a discard pile.

NEW AREAS: When a deck runs out, place the discard pile face down as a fourth deck. This is a new, previously unexplored distant part of the city, ready to be looted. Discard piles continuously become new parts of the city in this way, so you might have a fifth deck, a sixth deck, and so on.

The first player to buy admittance to the top level wins.

That's the loose idea, anyhow. For a minute there, I thought this would be more of a dexterity game, but I couldn't settle on a way to actually make that work in play without that aspect totally overshadowing all the other tactical elements.

The Golf Bag Tactician

Rob Donoghue — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:23:00 +0000

There's an interesting question over at Rob Schwalb's D&D blog about whether weapon damage should be typed. In practice this would mean that weapons might do, say, "slashing" "bludgeoning" and "piercing" damage, and implicitly removing entirely the idea of "untyped" damage from the system.

This is, on the surface, a kind of compelling idea (and fans of GURPS and some other games are going "Well, DUH!"). It adds another dimension to weapon selection so characters stop gravitating to the same sets of weapons. Heck, it could even inspire play: when your fighter is faces with an oozy opponent who ignores his slashing attack, he might be forced to grab an improvised weapon to finish the fight. That's cool, dramatic and thematic! A total win!

Except...

The reality is that the fighter is just going to carry around 3 weapons, one of each type.[1] The opportunity cost of doing so is fairly low (encumbrance? for a fighter? I laugh!) and the payoff is high enough to allow it. Or if the payoff isn't high enough, then it hardly matters, does it?

This is one of those unfortunate design traps that I like to call Golf Bag Tactics. The idea actually has its roots in D&D, back in earlier editions when the vulnerabilities of different creatures were sufficiently wide and varied that a common solution was to carry an array of weapons. Even if you didn't count magic items, a well equipped fighter had his normal sword, a backup sword, a silver sword, a cold iron sword and a non-metal sword, and that was just for starters. It meant the fighter could choose just the right weapon for the fight, which theoretically felt clever and tactical. Unfortunately, all it really felt like was a golf bag full of swords. That idea of the vulnerabilities as drivers of RP and excitement existed, but never really materialized in the face of this.[2]

All of which is to say, be careful of anything that looks like it adds interesting tactics and decisions during a fight which can be trivially short-circuited by choices outside of the fight. Otherwise, you might be one left holding the bag.

1 - Or he might carry some multi-purpose weapons, like an axe with a backspike. How the system handles mixed damage - like blunted edges or stabbing vs slashing with a sword - invites many options.

2 - Part of this was also the fault of a TERRIBLE understanding of the role of dramatic weaknesses in adventure design.

On Understanding Problems

Ryan Macklin — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:47:50 +0000

There is something that we do, as geeks in the community, that if sit-coms are to be trusted is stereotypically masculine: we present solutions to problems before we actually understand the problem.

Stop that. You’re helping no one.

Too often, fruitful discussion of problems is derailed by proposed solutions and then argument over the solution’s foreseen effects. Sometimes, that leads to further understanding of the problem, but just as often it turns into a pointless waste of energy in the form of a flame war.

It also creates a situation where “I see a problem and want to talk about it” is unhealthy, because the discussion desired is not the discussion created. And then those sorts of conversation seeds are less often planted, which hurts us all (if, like me, you believe that discourse is how we elevate our communities).

Next time someone presents a problem, take a moment to understand it. Set aside your assumptions as best you can — especially when those assumptions are counter to the problem. Like countering someone saying “I don’t like playing games like Burning Wheel because they’re too crunchy for me” with “Well, it isn’t for me” as though the human being you’re replying to is the problem.[2] Ask questions. Get some sense of what is behind the problem.

I understand the desire to immediately problem solve, because that is for many of us its own reward cycle. And I understand the impulse to be the first to post a new solution online, because then maybe you look smart and that’s yet another form of reward. But slow your roll and take some time to understand problems, and you’ll get something even better out of it:

You’ll become one of the sharpest people in the room, for having come to understand so many viewpoints. And you’ll be one of the more appreciated people in the room, because instead of being an assuming cockbite with fast, vacant answers, yours are thoughtful and are themselves worthy conversation seeds.

So, if you cannot bring yourself to slowing down and understanding someone else for the good of others and the community overall, consider the rather selfish ones I just stated. :)

- Ryan

[2] If you say that, punch yourself in the face right now. That’s pretty damned insulting to immediately suggest the other person is him or herself the problem.

Reverb Gamers Prompt #31

Ryan Macklin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:00:39 +0000

Atlas Games is doing this thing called “Reverb Gamers 2012″, with 31 question prompts to kick off 2012. I’m going to post one up each day, including weekends, throughout January. I invite you to do the same! And check out @ReverbGamers on Twitter or Facebook.

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #31: How would your life be different if you’d never gotten into gaming?

Gaming has influenced my life so much that it’s hard to say. At minimum, I doubt anyone before friends, family & random coworkers would know my name. I wouldn’t be invited as guests to places and all that jazz.

More than that, there’s a good chance I wouldn’t be alive today. That I’m typing this is right now is no small deal.

But I’m not ready to explain that in more detail. At least, not yet.

- Ryan

[In the Lab] Rulers – System Overview

Daniel Solis — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:11:00 +0000

Couldn't sleep this morning, so I decided to make good use of my time by writing up this system overview for Rulers, inspired in part by Rob Donoghue's commentary on the previous post.

System Inspiration
Split Decision's rich rolling, RISK for the Rule Duel mechanic, RISK: Legacy and Unknown Armies in the endgame, the storytelling elements of Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple without the writing, and a bit of Aeon Flux and M. Night Shyamalan's The Village in the setting.

Premise
The Crown keeps tight control over a modern kingdom. The kingdom is the only stable area within a surreal land called the DMZ. The kingdom's citizens are divided into the twelve castes to maintain order. Despite this, a random group of citizens possess a telepathic power: They can create and impose rules on the people around them. This power is called Ruling, and the Crown is the most powerful Ruler of all.

Each year, the Crown hosts a televised event called Rulers in the DMZ. The Crown exiles a handful of rulers to the Demilitarized Zone outside the kingdom's borders. Each episode highlights their deeds and obstacles in the DMZ. At the end of the series, one exile wins the grand prize:

The winner decides a new set of Rules for the Crown to impose on the kingdom.

How to Play
STUFF YOU NEED
Each player needs, a pencil and paper to record your character's details.

The group shares a separate sheet of paper to record ongoing game information.

The group shares three six-sided dice, one red, one black and one blue. It's handy if you have more than one set for the whole group.

Each player needs a Ruler character to play.

CREATING YOUR RULER
First, roll your three dice. You'll refer to these results in the following steps.

I'm Sector _______ and I'm a Ruler.
Add together the highest and lowest results and write that number in the space above. If your number matches another player's, increase it by one. Continue increasing it until you have a unique number. This number is how your character will be referred to throughout the series.

The kingdom is divided into twelve sectors, numbered from 1-12. Sectors represent strict levels of access an individual may have to resources and liberties. Only the Crown is Sector 1, meaning the Crown has access to the entire kingdom and may rule it as the Crown wishes. Each subsequent sector has less access, all the way down to lowly 12s who are often desperate, malnourished or convicted of serious crimes against the Crown. In other words, it's a caste system.

I must __________. I must __________. I must not __________.
Choose one result for each space. In each space, complete the sentence with that many words.

Each of these statements is a personal code. A Ruler's special powers come from intense commitment to three particular codes: Three things your character must or must not do. It is important that these be broadly applied and concise worded, otherwise the code has no power.

Codes come in all varieties, but generally break down into three groups. Codes of conduct are the most common, meaning a basic restriction on personal behavior. (I must heal any higher sector. I must assist all children in distress. I must not love.) There are also codes of access, meaning a restriction on personal liberty. (I must only eat meat. I must not look at women. I must not enter a place uninvited.) Lastly, there are codes of gospel, meaning a compulsion to teach or learn a particular subject. (I must teach compassion. I must learn sword fighting. I must reach inner peace.)

The Crown approves me because _______. [Crown Approval ___]
Choose one or two results. If two, add the results together. Complete the sentence with that many words.

During play, your Ruler will try to curry favor with the Crown by doing things he or she believes the Crown will like. The Crown's favor will be very helpful in the long-run, as this determines how long your prize may be at the end of the series.

The public supports me because _______. [Public Support ____]
Add together the result(s) you did not choose in step 4. Complete the sentence with that many words.

During play, your Ruler will also curry favor with the people of the kingdom, hoping to gain public support. This support is ultimately what determines who will win the series, so it's important to play to the crowd.

BEFORE EACH EPISODE...
Choose an episode synopsis to decide what this episode will be about. Each episode focuses on a test for the entire group, with three obstacles that get in the way. Your character will try to pass the test, curry favor with the Crown and the people, and all without breaking code.

Tonight, on Rulers in the DMZ...
The Rulers return a group of lost citizens to the Kingdom.
Act 1 Obstacle: The citizens are criminals who don't want to return.
Act 2 Obstacle: They're being protected by automated security systems.
Act 3 Obstacle: The leader of the group is related to one of the Rulers.

The Rulers expand the Kingdom's influence deeper into the DMZ.
Act 1 Obstacle: Invisible predators stalk the jungle.
Act 2 Obstacle: Ancient ruins reveal a dark secret about one of the Rulers.
Act 3 Obstacle: Power corrupts one of the Rulers.

The Rulers befriend a local village.
Act 1 Obstacle: The villagers speak a language that causes madness.
Act 2 Obstacle: The village's well water is poisoned.
Act 3 Obstacle: A rival village lays siege.

[This is just a short list as an example.]

Turn Order: Each episode lasts three acts. Each act lasts however many turns it takes for one player to overcome the obstacle in that act. Each player gets one turn, starting with the lowest Sector number and continuing sequentially.

Countdown Clock: Each act has a countdown clock noting the time remaining for Rulers to overcome the obstacle. In a three-player game, the countdown clock is set at 10. In a four-player game, the countdown clock is set at 13. In a five-player game, the countdown clock is set at 16.

ON YOUR TURN...
State what your Ruler does to overcome this act's obstacle, with some constraints based on the following steps:

Roll the three dice. Add together two of the results and set aside the third. The two results added together will be either equal to, less than, or greater than your sector number.

If less, your Ruler attempts to overcome the obstacle but makes negligible progress. On the bright side, the people take pity on you and send you a Gift. Gifts can take many forms – food, weapons, knowledge – but they all behave the same way in play. You may spend gifts to lower your Sector for one turn. After spending a gift, it cannot be spent in this way again.
If equal or greater, your Ruler attempts to overcome the obstacle and makes some progress. Remove your highest result from the Countdown Clock. If the Countdown Clock runs out, your Ruler successfully overcomes the obstacle. Refer to "End of the Act" for more information.
If you set aside a blue die, your Ruler gains that much Public Support points OR Crown Approval points. Record this number on your sheet. Refer to "End of the Episode" and "Series Finale" for more information about what these mean in the long run.
If you set aside a black die, your Ruler must break a code. Cross off the code he or she has broken.
If you set aside a red die, your Ruler may impose a new Rule on all characters for the rest of this Act or until someone breaks that Rule. A Rule affects all applicable characters. Your character may dissolve his or her own Rule at any time. Your Ruler may only impose one Rule at a time. Refer to "Laws of Ruling" for more information on writing Rules. Refer to "Rule Duel" for more information on how to break another player's rule.

RULE DUEL
On your turn, before you write what your character does, you might wish to break a Rule. If so, your Ruler and the other player's Ruler both engage in a kind of telepathic willpower contest. It doesn't matter how far apart they are from each other, a duel can span any distance. On-screen, the televised broadcast shows the duelists' rising heart rates, dripping sweat and bulging forehead veins. Here's how to duel:

If you are trying to break the Rule, you are the Breaker. If you are trying to maintain the Rule, you are the Defender. Each player gathers one die for each of their own unbroken codes, up to a maximum of three dice. Each player rolls one die at a time.

If the Breaker gets an equal or higher result than the Defender, the Defender loses one die.
If the Defender gets a higher result than the Breaker, the Breaker loses one die.

The Duel is over when one player has no dice remaining. The player with dice remaining wins.

If the Defender wins, you may not write an action that would contradict the Rule. The Defender gains his last die result in Crown Approval points.
If you win, that Rule is vetoed. That Rule may never be imposed again for the rest of the series. The Defender gains his last die result in Public Support points.

END OF THE ACT
After a turn in which the Countdown Clock runs out, the Act is over. Any Rules imposed during this act are no longer in effect. The first act is always relatively minor in scope, the second act raises the stakes, and the third act is the climax.

END OF THE EPISODE
After three acts, the episode is over. All players may replace broken codes with new codes. The player with the most Crown Approval lowers his or her Ruler's Sector by one, to a minimum of two. The player with the least public approval raises his Sector by one, to a maximum of twelve. Public Support and Crown Approval both reset to zero. If this is the last episode, proceed to Series finale.

SERIES FINALE
The Crown awards the grand prize to the ruler with the most Public Support. The winner may write a new set of Rules for the entire kingdom, using as many words as she has Crown Approval points. The other Rulers return to the kingdom, now all bestowed with the rank of Sector 2.

In the Series Finale, it is possible for Rulers to attain Sector One or Sector Thirteen. If a Ruler reaches Sector Thirteen, she is exiled forever from the kingdom. If a Ruler reaches Sector One, she ascends to the Crown with either the support of the preceding Crown or of the Public, depending on whichever category in which she has the most points.

Reverb Gamers Prompt #30

Ryan Macklin — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:00:37 +0000

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #30: What lessons have you taken from gaming that you can apply to your real life?

That’s a tough question. I have been gaming sine late high school. My friends, social life, and now business prospects all involve gaming. Narrowing it down to one set of lessons? I don’t think I can.

But rather than try to iterate many lessons, I’ll name just one. One I have mentioned before: we make our own win conditions.

Gaming & being a game designer over the years has taught me about the value, power, and limits of amateur psychology.

- Ryan

[In the Lab] A Situation for Rulers – Hunger Game of Thrones?

Daniel Solis — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:48:00 +0000

So the big problem with the Rulers universe is that it's a potent setting, but hard to come up with a crystal-clear scenario that creates focused play and touches on all the cool aspects of the setting. I call this the Shadowrun problem. So much of Shadowrun's awesome comes from the melange of fantasy and cyberpunk, yet the focus of play is on a teeny, tiny aspect of the universe: dungeon-crawling.

Folks on Story-Games came up with a lot of interesting scenarios. I eventually settled on a Prince Zuko scenario: Royal exiles in the DMZ. The king's sons and daughters are suddenly exiled, cut off from the line of succession, and cast out into the unruled zone between kingdoms.

That's fine, but it still doesn't give characters a real purpose. I like it when there's one thing everyone knows they're supposed to be doing, even if the story deviates from that over time. There's still a central lane players know they're supposed to walk. (For example: Pilgrims help people and get into trouble.)

So, I'm considering an extra wrinkle in the basic exile scenario: It's televised. The whole exile scenario is like a Rumpsringa. Royal exiles proving their worth individually while being forced to stick together by external pressures.

Mechanically, you could pull stuff from the "First Contact" scenario of Split Decision, where optimal actions could negatively impact public approval and vice versa. Minor betryals might get a pass once or twice, but a fickle audience will only put up with so much.

I suppose I should just get down to writing this thing into a playable beta at some point, eh?

Reverb Gamers Prompt #29

Ryan Macklin — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:00:48 +0000

REVERB GAMERS 2012, #29: What does the word “gamer” mean to you? Is that different than what other people seem to think it means?

Self-identifying game enthusiast.

Granted, these days “gamer” covers so much ground. Do you play Call of Duty? World of Warcraft? iOS games? Board games? RPGs? The word does not even pretend to mean a tribe anymore, as it did once when gaming was a thing to apparently be shameful about.

- Ryan