Philosophy:
The New World of Darkness uses a system for regaining willpower whereby each character has a virtue and a vice. Willpower is a spendable resource pool whose capacity is based on your Resolve and Composure score--spending a point of willpower gives a character a three die bonus on a single roll. Once per chapter (session), a character may act based on their virtue (one of the traditional seven) to regain all spent willpower. Once per scene, a character may act based on their vice to regain a single point of willpower.
I was never really happy with this system. While, theoretically, it should reward a character for acting against their best interest in order to fulfill their character concept, I found that players were more likely to act against their character concept--or behave in an inappropriate and disruptive way. Further, certain virtues and vices were problematic--sloth, for example, generally led to characters skipping out on scenes. I ran a game where the majority of characters chose sloth as their vice. It was problematic.
So, if the virtue/vice system is inadequate, what can replace it? Well, I happened upon an article on Amagi Games (http://www.amagi-games.org/?p=22) that offers a plug-in to create a soap opera feel for a game. Soap opera's not quite what I'm looking for, but changing a few small things makes this very workable as a plug-in for a serious nWoD game. Luckily, Amagi Games puts their material into the public domain, so I shall butcher it and display the remains publicly.
One of the things that is ideal about this system is it rewards characters for developing meaningful relationships. Oftentimes in a game, players can feel reluctant to become attached to NPCs, because they fear the Storyteller will just use this to punish them.
Relationships:
This is an optional sub-system to replace virtue/vice in the New World of Darkness. At the beginning of a chronicle, each character is assigned a certain number of "relationship" slots. The development of a small number of in-character relationships will be rewarded. The number of slots should be assigned based on the expected length of the chronicle. A short three-session game will probably do with just one relationship slot. I have yet to play-test this, but I suspect there should be roughly one relationship slot for every three sessions played, guaranteeing that players will not be able to regain full willpower every session without making difficult choices. It is certainly possible that a storyteller could add relationship slots at key moments in the plot--perhaps starting with four and adding one at the beginning of each new "Act," if using a five-act play format. Or, the storyteller could add new slots when appropriate for the story--if the PCs move to a new a city, adding two or three relationship slots will indicate to them that they should be exploring their new locale and meeting new people.
The seven basic types of relationships, as defined by Amagi-Games, are as follows:
• Anathema: Someone you want to destroy.
• Exemplar: Someone you want to follow.
• Keeper: Someone you want to escape.
• Paramour: Someone you want to obtain.
• Rival: Someone you want to defeat.
• Protégé: Someone you want to mold.
• Ward: Someone you want to protect.
In general, a character should not have more than one of each type.
There are four levels of intensity to a relationship:
• Implied: Your character feels a particular way about the other party in the relationship.
• Overt: Your character acts based on feeling a particular way about the other party in the relationship. This is the level at which a healthy relationship will remain.
• Abusive: Your character behaves in abusive ways based on the relationship. The target of abuse may not be the other party in the relationship. For example, you may get in a fist fight when some guy starts talking to your paramour at the bar.
• Murderous: Your character is willing to kill to get what he or she wants out of the relationship. As with the abusive level, this may not be directed at the partner in the relationship. For example, you may be willing to kill in order to protect your ward.
Starting a relationship:
Once per session, you may fill an empty relationship slot with a character that is not in any other relationship slot. This counts as intensifying a relationship for purposes of only being able to do so once per session (see below). This character can be any NPC, and this relationship does not need to be reciprocated. You regain full willpower and the relationship is set to the Implied intensity level.
You may choose a player character to fill your relationship slot, but the player (not necessarily the character) must consent to this.
Acting on a relationship:
If your relationship is overt or more intense, once per scene you may act out your relationship at that level in order to gain a point of willpower. You may take your overt paramour out for dinner at a fancy restaurant or you may threaten your anathema.
Intensifying your relationship:
Once per chapter (session), you may intensify a relationship by acting out a scene at the next higher level of intensity. For example, you may have a retainer who serves as your assistant in magical experiments and your protégé in your relationship slot. You may be working long into the night to prepare a powerful spell to break your rival's ward. The events are stressful, and you find yourself using your assistant as a scapegoat. You begin to chastise and belittle him for his shortcomings, blaming your falling behind schedule on his repeated errors. You have intensified your relationship to abusive, refilling your empty willpower pool and ensuring success, but at what cost?
Mechanically, intensifying a relationship beyond overt is rewarding in a pinch because you will totally refill your willpower pool. However, in the long run, it means that you will need to engage in more extreme behavior to gain willpower from that relationship from scene to scene.
Ignoring it:
If you ignore an established relationship, the Storyteller or another player may call you on it. If you fail to act on the relationship at the next appropriate opportunity, you lose a point of willpower.
Ending a relationship:
If your character ends a relationship or a relationship ends because of circumstances beyond your control (the other character's death, for example, though it might be interesting to play out a relationship in the absence of the character), the relationship slot becomes empty. If you want to end a relationship, but the storyteller thinks that doing so is inappropriate, he may ask you to spend a willpower dot (which can be bought back for 8 xp). The now empty relationship slot behaves differently than before, however. If your character intensifies a relationship in that slot (including when a character is first chosen to fill that slot at the implied level), you do not regain full willpower, but, instead, regain only one point of willpower. This remains so until the relationship reaches the intensity of the previous relationship.
A storyteller may, at his discretion, allow you to empty a relationship slot but still receive full willpower for intensifying the relationship from the beginning. This option may be used in especially long chronicles, or in chronicles where the storyteller is okay with a rotating cast of characters. This may be necessary in a game concerned with very long-lived characters, for example, if your playing a Vampire chronicle that takes place over several centuries.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Neanderthals!
When I was in high school, I was very active in the drama club. Every once in a while I remember one particular incident that still brings about a strong response. I was playing Louisiana Capote in Southern Fried Murder (he's an effeminate southern writer that's a combination of Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote). In one line, I was to call another character, a stupid southern sheriff, a neanderthal. Now, obviously, Louisiana was an educated person, like me, and knew that Neanderthal is a word with French origins and is properly pronounced (in both languages) with a hard t, not an English th. The director laughed at me and insisted I was saying it wrong. Even once I proved that I was right, I was told to say it incorrectly. This pushed my buttons in about 37 different ways--I hate being corrected when I'm right, I hate pandering to the ignorant, I hate taking direction from someone who's not committed to doing things correctly, etc. Ultimately, I said it correctly anyway.
The important thing about this incident is it still gets me fired up when I think about it. We all have all sorts of experiences in high school that are varying degrees of humiliating, and those of us who are well adapted move on. Despite all of the indignities suffered in my childhood, I've grown into a pretty healthy person. I hold almost no grudges. But this, for whatever reason, cannot be forgotten. Funny the things that stick with us.
The important thing about this incident is it still gets me fired up when I think about it. We all have all sorts of experiences in high school that are varying degrees of humiliating, and those of us who are well adapted move on. Despite all of the indignities suffered in my childhood, I've grown into a pretty healthy person. I hold almost no grudges. But this, for whatever reason, cannot be forgotten. Funny the things that stick with us.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Stealth
I've been wrestling with the idea of stealth for several days now. A system that does not address sneaking would be wholly inadequate. No matter what sort of game you're running--dungeoneering, wilderness, urban, noble court, etc., you're going to have someone wanting to be undetected eventually. But I can't say that I've ever seen a stealth system with which I was fully satisfied.
In AD&D, there were two forms of stealth. The first was simply to have a good surprise chance. When I DM'd the D-series, my players marched through the underdark with an advance guard of elves, rangers and thieves would were able to gain surprise 2/3 of the time. This is probably the happiest I've ever felt with a stealth system. The second stealth system in AD&D was the Thieve's Hide in Shadows/Move Silently. This system seemed simple on paper, but was quite complicated in practice. When were these rolls made? What sort of circumstances were required? etc. I think now I have better perspective than when I played AD&D (Hide in Shadows is used to avoid detection while stationary in an obscured location, and then Move Silently was used to sneak up on the unaware--adjudicating the circumstances was DM's discretion). However, a major issue with the Thief sub-system is that Thieves' stealth chances were woefully inadequate at low levels.
In modern systems, D&D 3-4, WoD, the stealth roll is made and compared to an opponents detection roll (or, in the case of 4e, an opponent's passive detection). However, this leads to many issues as stealth is relative to the observer. While perhaps this is more "realistic," it also creates a lot of headaches at times--especially with 4th editions requirements of total concealment to gain stealth and concealment to maintain stealth since such conditions are sometimes relative.
The final issue I have with all of these systems is the difficulty of group stealth. In properly played AD&D (with parties of 7-9 PCs along with their entourages), it was definitely possible in overland travel to have "team sneaky" leading the party by 90'. This is part of my ultimate satisfaction with the surprise system of AD&D--players were able to, in a relatively simple and transparent manner, game the system with reasonable results. However, in modern systems with small parties and protectionist maintenance of niches, it is nearly impossible to have a sneaky party.
In my imagining, it should be possible for a group of assorted D&D characters to move around a "dungeon" with relative sneak-ocity. How can this be accomplished without stepping on the toes of the thief-type?
Perhaps the best way to do that would be to set stealth DCs relatively low--such that a standard party of adventurers has a 2/3 chance of everyone passing and a thief-type is guaranteed success. Certain monsters (elite guards, beholders, dragons, etc.) would be sentry types (maybe even give such monsters a keyword) who would raise stealth DCs around them significantly.
This would work well with my planned Scout class, since a Scout's backstab ability allows him to fairly reliably one-shot an elite.
The party as a whole can stealth across a large shadowy courtyard to get into the Temple of Fundamental Wickedness, avoiding the detection of the mindless undead (DC 3 for level 1 characters). As they proceed, the Scout spots a skeletal sentry standing near the gate. The Scout proceeds around the edge of the courtyard, hoping to get the jump on the guard (DC 16). The Scout, with a +9 modifier, makes a modified roll of 19, which succeeds. He attacks from the darkness with a +9 modifier (+5 base +4 for backstab) and hits, dealing 40 damage. The Scout has jabbed his blade into the Skeleton's spine. The Scout catches the Sentry's skull before it crashes to the ground and silently lowers his victim to the earth before giving his party the all-clear.
Of course, the DM would adjudicate when stealth is possible. Situations like the aforementioned courtyard work great. In the case of narrow twisting catacombs, you might use stealth to sneak past the door to a room full of monsters, but not THROUGH a room full of monsters.
In AD&D, there were two forms of stealth. The first was simply to have a good surprise chance. When I DM'd the D-series, my players marched through the underdark with an advance guard of elves, rangers and thieves would were able to gain surprise 2/3 of the time. This is probably the happiest I've ever felt with a stealth system. The second stealth system in AD&D was the Thieve's Hide in Shadows/Move Silently. This system seemed simple on paper, but was quite complicated in practice. When were these rolls made? What sort of circumstances were required? etc. I think now I have better perspective than when I played AD&D (Hide in Shadows is used to avoid detection while stationary in an obscured location, and then Move Silently was used to sneak up on the unaware--adjudicating the circumstances was DM's discretion). However, a major issue with the Thief sub-system is that Thieves' stealth chances were woefully inadequate at low levels.
In modern systems, D&D 3-4, WoD, the stealth roll is made and compared to an opponents detection roll (or, in the case of 4e, an opponent's passive detection). However, this leads to many issues as stealth is relative to the observer. While perhaps this is more "realistic," it also creates a lot of headaches at times--especially with 4th editions requirements of total concealment to gain stealth and concealment to maintain stealth since such conditions are sometimes relative.
The final issue I have with all of these systems is the difficulty of group stealth. In properly played AD&D (with parties of 7-9 PCs along with their entourages), it was definitely possible in overland travel to have "team sneaky" leading the party by 90'. This is part of my ultimate satisfaction with the surprise system of AD&D--players were able to, in a relatively simple and transparent manner, game the system with reasonable results. However, in modern systems with small parties and protectionist maintenance of niches, it is nearly impossible to have a sneaky party.
In my imagining, it should be possible for a group of assorted D&D characters to move around a "dungeon" with relative sneak-ocity. How can this be accomplished without stepping on the toes of the thief-type?
Perhaps the best way to do that would be to set stealth DCs relatively low--such that a standard party of adventurers has a 2/3 chance of everyone passing and a thief-type is guaranteed success. Certain monsters (elite guards, beholders, dragons, etc.) would be sentry types (maybe even give such monsters a keyword) who would raise stealth DCs around them significantly.
This would work well with my planned Scout class, since a Scout's backstab ability allows him to fairly reliably one-shot an elite.
The party as a whole can stealth across a large shadowy courtyard to get into the Temple of Fundamental Wickedness, avoiding the detection of the mindless undead (DC 3 for level 1 characters). As they proceed, the Scout spots a skeletal sentry standing near the gate. The Scout proceeds around the edge of the courtyard, hoping to get the jump on the guard (DC 16). The Scout, with a +9 modifier, makes a modified roll of 19, which succeeds. He attacks from the darkness with a +9 modifier (+5 base +4 for backstab) and hits, dealing 40 damage. The Scout has jabbed his blade into the Skeleton's spine. The Scout catches the Sentry's skull before it crashes to the ground and silently lowers his victim to the earth before giving his party the all-clear.
Of course, the DM would adjudicate when stealth is possible. Situations like the aforementioned courtyard work great. In the case of narrow twisting catacombs, you might use stealth to sneak past the door to a room full of monsters, but not THROUGH a room full of monsters.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Will
Philosophy:
Crippling magic, mind control, poisoned arrows--all of these things are a staple of fantasy gaming. Different games have handled the applications of these effects differently. In AD&D, we had the saving throw--at low levels, you were unlikely to succeed, but the consequences tended to be tame (except for save or die poisons, which I'll address later), and at later levels, success was essentially guaranteed, but the stakes were quite high with frequent disintegrates, death rays, magic jars, etc.
In 4th edition, these types of effects tend to target one of three defenses. As one gets higher in levels, the effects become more crippling (including stun spam), but, as opposed to AD&D, the chances of them hitting the players actually grow. This is awful!
So, I've designed the Will defense as a general resistance to all special effects. I have tied its value to Arcana as a boon for the Mage (TBR) and to give the attribute some cross-class appeal. Rather than having different will values for different affects, there is only one Will score, preventing the risk of a particular defense falling behind.
Will:
When an attack imposes a crippling effect on a player or an opponent, instead of or in addition to damage, the attack roll is not compared to AC. Instead, it is compared to Will. A character's Will represents their ability to avoid extreme danger, the blessing of the Gods, the power of their soul, their luck, etc.
Your Will score is equal to 15 + Arcana. Each time your character levels up, your score improves by one.
Errata:
The original posts for the Templar and the Warrior will be changed, but note that the Templar receives a +2 bonus to Will against Fear attacks and the Warrior receives a +2 bonus to Will against forced movement attacks.
Crippling magic, mind control, poisoned arrows--all of these things are a staple of fantasy gaming. Different games have handled the applications of these effects differently. In AD&D, we had the saving throw--at low levels, you were unlikely to succeed, but the consequences tended to be tame (except for save or die poisons, which I'll address later), and at later levels, success was essentially guaranteed, but the stakes were quite high with frequent disintegrates, death rays, magic jars, etc.
In 4th edition, these types of effects tend to target one of three defenses. As one gets higher in levels, the effects become more crippling (including stun spam), but, as opposed to AD&D, the chances of them hitting the players actually grow. This is awful!
So, I've designed the Will defense as a general resistance to all special effects. I have tied its value to Arcana as a boon for the Mage (TBR) and to give the attribute some cross-class appeal. Rather than having different will values for different affects, there is only one Will score, preventing the risk of a particular defense falling behind.
Will:
When an attack imposes a crippling effect on a player or an opponent, instead of or in addition to damage, the attack roll is not compared to AC. Instead, it is compared to Will. A character's Will represents their ability to avoid extreme danger, the blessing of the Gods, the power of their soul, their luck, etc.
Your Will score is equal to 15 + Arcana. Each time your character levels up, your score improves by one.
Errata:
The original posts for the Templar and the Warrior will be changed, but note that the Templar receives a +2 bonus to Will against Fear attacks and the Warrior receives a +2 bonus to Will against forced movement attacks.
Patch 3.1.0
Hunter Patch notes for patch 3.1.0
* Hunting Party (Tier 10) is now a 3 point talent, increasing agility by 1/2/3% and your Arcane Shot, Explosive Shot and Steady Shot critical strikes have a 33/66/100% chance to grant up to 10 party or raid members mana regeneration equal to 0.25% of the maximum mana per second. Lasts for 15 sec.
* Trap Mastery moved from Tier 9 to Tier 2 and is now a 3 point talent. Increases the duration of Frost and Freezing trap by 10/20/30%, Periodic damage of Immolation and Explosive trap by 10/20/30%, and number of snakes summoned by Snake Trap by 30%. (Previously was just 1 point)
* *New Talent* Black Arrow (Tier 9) - Fires a Black Arrow at the target, increasing all damage done by you to the target by 6% and dealing [ 10% of RAP + 785 ] Shadow damage over 15 sec. Costs 6% base mana. 5-35 yard range. Instant Cast. 30 sec cooldown.
* Sniper Training (Tier 9) has been changed to increase the critical strike chance of your Kill Shot ability by 5/10/15%, and while standing still for 6 sec., you gain Sniper Training increasing the damage done by your Steady Shot, Aimed Shot, Black Arrow and Explosive Shot by 2/4/6% Lasts 15 sec. (Previously increased damage and critical strike chance based on your range to the target)
* Wyvern Sting (Tier 7) now lasts 30 sec on the target. (Previously lasted 12 sec)
* T.N.T. (Tier 4) now increases the damage done by your Explosive Shot, Explosive Trap and Immolation Trap by 2%. (Previously increased critical strike chance of explosive shot and and gave it a chance to stun the target)
* Lock and Load (Tier 4) now has a 33/66/100% chance to proc off Freezing Shot, Freezing Trap, and Frost Trap, and a 3/7/10% chance to proc off the periodic damage of Immolation Trap and Black Arrow. (Previously worked on all traps and included serpent sting)
* Improved Wing Clip has been removed from the game.
Conclusion: We have a new rotation to learn. I have no idea if this is a buff or a nerf.
Warrior Patch notes:
Titan's Grip (Tier 11) now reduces physical damage you deal by 10%.
Conclusion: Why can't the guy who does Warrior nerfs come work on Hunters. A nerf is a nerf and it sucks, but I would appreciate it being straightforward. Hunters have been radically changed every patch this expansion. I don't mind too much, I like the challenge of modifying my play style. But, from a game design perspective, isn't it more elegant to do something more akin to what they're doing to lolfury warriors?
* Hunting Party (Tier 10) is now a 3 point talent, increasing agility by 1/2/3% and your Arcane Shot, Explosive Shot and Steady Shot critical strikes have a 33/66/100% chance to grant up to 10 party or raid members mana regeneration equal to 0.25% of the maximum mana per second. Lasts for 15 sec.
* Trap Mastery moved from Tier 9 to Tier 2 and is now a 3 point talent. Increases the duration of Frost and Freezing trap by 10/20/30%, Periodic damage of Immolation and Explosive trap by 10/20/30%, and number of snakes summoned by Snake Trap by 30%. (Previously was just 1 point)
* *New Talent* Black Arrow (Tier 9) - Fires a Black Arrow at the target, increasing all damage done by you to the target by 6% and dealing [ 10% of RAP + 785 ] Shadow damage over 15 sec. Costs 6% base mana. 5-35 yard range. Instant Cast. 30 sec cooldown.
* Sniper Training (Tier 9) has been changed to increase the critical strike chance of your Kill Shot ability by 5/10/15%, and while standing still for 6 sec., you gain Sniper Training increasing the damage done by your Steady Shot, Aimed Shot, Black Arrow and Explosive Shot by 2/4/6% Lasts 15 sec. (Previously increased damage and critical strike chance based on your range to the target)
* Wyvern Sting (Tier 7) now lasts 30 sec on the target. (Previously lasted 12 sec)
* T.N.T. (Tier 4) now increases the damage done by your Explosive Shot, Explosive Trap and Immolation Trap by 2%. (Previously increased critical strike chance of explosive shot and and gave it a chance to stun the target)
* Lock and Load (Tier 4) now has a 33/66/100% chance to proc off Freezing Shot, Freezing Trap, and Frost Trap, and a 3/7/10% chance to proc off the periodic damage of Immolation Trap and Black Arrow. (Previously worked on all traps and included serpent sting)
* Improved Wing Clip has been removed from the game.
Conclusion: We have a new rotation to learn. I have no idea if this is a buff or a nerf.
Warrior Patch notes:
Titan's Grip (Tier 11) now reduces physical damage you deal by 10%.
Conclusion: Why can't the guy who does Warrior nerfs come work on Hunters. A nerf is a nerf and it sucks, but I would appreciate it being straightforward. Hunters have been radically changed every patch this expansion. I don't mind too much, I like the challenge of modifying my play style. But, from a game design perspective, isn't it more elegant to do something more akin to what they're doing to lolfury warriors?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Role-playing
Though these games we play are called role-playing games, role-playing often seems to take a back seat--especially in D&D from 3rd edition on. However, the sessions and games I've enjoyed most are the ones most focused on the role-play element ("wut iz this ar pee!?"). But how does role-play even work? Is it correct to call D&D a role-playing game, or is it a game with role-playing?
If one is playing a card game, it has rules about cards. What rules does D&D or WoD have about role-playing? In AD&D, there was the reaction roll. Percentile dice, modified by your charisma score (per a chart) determined how positively or negatively an NPC reacted to you. There were also alignments that dictated moral roleplaying, and certain mechanical penalties for violating those alignments (loss of a level if your alignment changed, loss of special status for Paladins, Clerics and Monks).
In World of Darkness, there's an even greater array of "role-playing rules." Characters had three base attributes to tell us about their social abilities (presence, manipulation and composure), which tied into an array of skills (including persuasion, empathy, socialize, etc.).
Now, recall that, above, I said some of my favorite gaming memories stem from games focused on role-playing. The shameful truth is, I usually ignored or downplayed these role-playing rules. Sometimes I'd roll them and ignore the roll, or I would simply forget to roll in the heat of the moment. Instead of allowing the dice to determine the outcome of role-playing "encounters," I allowed success to stem from role-playing skill.
Now that I say it that way, it seems like a no-brainer. Why should the inattentive clown in the corner whose character has high manipulation and a good persuasion roll be able to convince the neighboring werewolf pack to assist against a greater threat? You don't win a hand of poker by rolling a seven and you don't succeed at role-playing encounters by rolling a twenty. You succeed by role-playing well.
What does this all have to do with my homebrew fantasy game? Well, it means that the emphasis is on role-playing, and this emphasis is to be achieved not by a long list of rules, skills and sub-systems, but, instead, by their absence.
You should expect to see a sub-system that rewards archetypal behavior, but this will affect the characters behavior in broad strokes, steering them towards a destiny negotiated between the player and the DM. However, if you want the Duke to send armed guards with you as you negotiate the dangers of the Dread City, it's time to get in character.
If one is playing a card game, it has rules about cards. What rules does D&D or WoD have about role-playing? In AD&D, there was the reaction roll. Percentile dice, modified by your charisma score (per a chart) determined how positively or negatively an NPC reacted to you. There were also alignments that dictated moral roleplaying, and certain mechanical penalties for violating those alignments (loss of a level if your alignment changed, loss of special status for Paladins, Clerics and Monks).
In World of Darkness, there's an even greater array of "role-playing rules." Characters had three base attributes to tell us about their social abilities (presence, manipulation and composure), which tied into an array of skills (including persuasion, empathy, socialize, etc.).
Now, recall that, above, I said some of my favorite gaming memories stem from games focused on role-playing. The shameful truth is, I usually ignored or downplayed these role-playing rules. Sometimes I'd roll them and ignore the roll, or I would simply forget to roll in the heat of the moment. Instead of allowing the dice to determine the outcome of role-playing "encounters," I allowed success to stem from role-playing skill.
Now that I say it that way, it seems like a no-brainer. Why should the inattentive clown in the corner whose character has high manipulation and a good persuasion roll be able to convince the neighboring werewolf pack to assist against a greater threat? You don't win a hand of poker by rolling a seven and you don't succeed at role-playing encounters by rolling a twenty. You succeed by role-playing well.
What does this all have to do with my homebrew fantasy game? Well, it means that the emphasis is on role-playing, and this emphasis is to be achieved not by a long list of rules, skills and sub-systems, but, instead, by their absence.
You should expect to see a sub-system that rewards archetypal behavior, but this will affect the characters behavior in broad strokes, steering them towards a destiny negotiated between the player and the DM. However, if you want the Duke to send armed guards with you as you negotiate the dangers of the Dread City, it's time to get in character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)