Continuing on Magic and Race

So after I dropped the last idea into my online bucket, I went ahead and made a brief write-up for it:

"Certain types of magic are traditional to (and generally guarded by) certain races:

Dwarves are regarded as the masters of Gem Magic, while Elves have long been the keepers of Crystal Resonance.  This has lead to a feud between the two races, as the Dwarves begrudge the harvesting of quartz and other appropriate crystals for what they view as a "perversion" of Gem Magic, while the Elves say that Gem Magic was an attempt by the Dwarves to steal the knowledge of Crystal Resonance.

Halflings use Sorcery, though other races often refer to it derogatorily as Witchcraft.  It is a simplistic magic, but with no less potential to be powerful.

Gnomes, with their analytical minds and love for categorizing, developed Occultism, which relies upon hidden knowledge derived from both arcane formulas and religious texts and ceremonies (which are often formulas disguised as dogma and doctrine).

Humans, with their short lifespans and overwhelming drive for power and knowledge, have not developed their own form of magic, instead learning whatever form they prefer (or can get their hands on).

It is possible to learn more than one type of magic, though finding willing teachers may be difficult."

Magic and Race

So I'm puttering about, as usual, with my various spreadsheets and text files, trying to determine how many or which magic systems I want to keep, like I do.  I'm starting to separate things out by assigning which stat is used for casting, when suddenly a thought hits me: what if your character's race determined what sorts of magic you had access to?

So maybe humans have access to gem magic, which I figure is more or less universal, as well as some other type, probably based on the spell lists in various resource books.  And maybe elves can use gem magic, as well as the free-form d6 based magic system I came up with.  In the meanwhile, maybe dwarves can use gem magic, as well as something based on runes, and halflings get gem magic and... I don't know yet.  But the idea just hit me about five minutes ago.

Whaddaya want for nothin'?  A rubber biscuit?

Demonwars: One More Thing

Something I'd intended to bring up last post, that strikes close to some of the problems I've been having with differentiating between races, is that the setting (at least in this book) doesn't have non-human PCs.  Even the elves of the world, the Touel'alfar, are treated as a mysterious NPC faction that will occasionally take human children off to be trained as this game's version of the Ranger class, but is generally unseen unless they want to be seen.  So you can play as an elf-trained human, but you're still human.

For the setting, this likely makes sense (again, I haven't read the books the setting is based on), but from a mechanical standpoint it also makes things less complicated and tricky, regarding balance between races and what sorts of differences they have: there are no different races for PCs, so there are no differences.

I don't know that I want to go that route, but there are times that solution seems tempting.

Mental Balancing Act

Last post got me thinking about how Psionics could be balanced so as not to be too overpowering in comparison with other magic types.

The first limiter, of course, is that the "casting stat" for Psionics is a derived stat, so to have a comparable amount of power to draw on you need to have multiple base stats which are high enough to average to another high or moderately-high stat.  With a system where there are only three base stats, admittedly, that is not necessarily as difficult as some, and yet it also means one low score can remove it as a viable option.

Something else to consider is what can affect, or is affected by, what.

Physical can affect physical things.  That's... pretty much it.

Magic can affect physical things, and it can affect magical things.  It can also bypass physical, depending on the spell.

Psionics can affect physical things (though this may or may not be more difficult), and it can affect mental/psionic things.  It can easily (depending on the setting, nearly by default) bypass physical.

But magic does not (at least typically) affect psionics, and likewise psionics do not affect magic.

So where's the problem?

Generally, magic does physical damage.  Even when it bypasses physical armor, it does physical damage or has some physical effect.  Psionics do mental damage, the grand majority of the time.  So a psionicist can easily bypass not only physical armor, but any form of resistance to physical damage, and is therefore even more effective against physical-based characters than a magically-trained character.  In addition, since magic doesn't affect psionics, a psion can bypass magical defenses as well, and is only slightly deterred by the better mental stats of a spellcaster vs. a fighter.

On the other hand, a psion can't block a non-physical magic attack, either.  Hmm.

Ok, so really, where's the problem?

Even if I permit a magic-user to affect psionics, and psions to affect magic (at an increased power cost for either) all I'm doing is making attack and defense types more accessible.  Which would mean mages and psions could actually have a chance of resisting each other rather than being glass cannons.

Maybe it isn't as intrinsically overpowered as I thought.

Free-Form Featherfall

So, I've scrapped the entirety of my magic system, including the compendium list of spells that I'd accumulated, and replaced it with a free-form system somewhat reminiscent of the casting system in Fabletop or the skill and magic system in Shadowrun.  For purposes of nostalgia (and because I'm not ready to scrap my list of weaponry and make all weapons of any given size equal), I still have physical combat within the d20 set-up.

So how does this make things simpler?

I have some basic rules for how spells work, and how adding on different effects increases the cost of any given spell on casting.  But by making the magic system entirely free-form I eliminate the need for resource books.  No more looking up spell descriptions.

It makes it potentially more powerful, sure.  High-powered mages have always been powerful.  And there's still the limiter of "I'm the DM," plus the added bonus that a player can't point to the rulebook and say "but, but, but!"  Plus, it gives the player an excuse to roll a whole bunch of six-siders, which is always fun.

My test subje-erm... game tester has brought up the concern that it can be easier on the player to have a list of spells to work from, the idea that you can look in your toolbox and see what you've got.  And while there is some truth there, if a player wanted to they could write down spells they've used or come up with to refer from later on as well.  I think the potential for versatility and accessibility outweighs that particular bonus.  Plus, I've already come up with a short list of example spells that simulate well-known effects, so if someone says "well what can I do?" I can hand them that list.

Another aspect of this free-form system is that it means any caster can cast any spell.  Healing, direct-damage, buffs/debuffs, whatever, is free game.  Because as I've discussed here before, the idea that any given person can't figure out how to make a spell work in their own tradition is a bit weak.  So I have two spellcasting traditions, Arcanist and Spiritualist.  You can claim the power comes from a potato on a string around your neck, if you like - the only mechanical difference is which of the two spellcasting stats you use for your primary.

This free-form system will also work for psionics, and I have the mechanics in place to support a psionic system, but psionics have always been a bit game-breaking as far as power goes, primarily due to the general non-existence of psionic-resistant monsters.  I'm thinking I may keep psionic ability as a rarity, rolled at character generation, as my mother does it.

Online Gaming Resources

I came across this site a couple months ago, and overall I like it: http://fabletop.com/  Simple, easy to use, great for quick pick-up games.  Biggest problem is there is very little you can do to customize the system to suit your tastes.  The system in place is good, not saying otherwise, but it makes playtesting my own system on the site rather difficult.  Also, though there were a small number of people running games when I first joined, the site seems to be languishing right now, possibly due to a lack of GMs.  If you already have a playerbase to bring to the site, not so much an issue, but it can be hard (as a player) to find a game when you're available to play.

So I also came across this site: http://roll20.net/   Not quite as simple and certainly not as quick and easy to set up a game, but the customization is much more universal.  Dice are customizable, and I can actually use my own system on the site.  Plus, the option of voice and video chat between players is a nice touch.  I played around with it a lot tonight, and I'll probably end up using it to run games soon.  It seems vastly more populated than Fabletop, though that's less of a concern for me there since I'll be playtesting my own system.

On a side note, I may need to tweak the bonuses for weapon skills.  It looks as though I may have been a wee bit generous.

Staring back at myself

Sometimes I just have to stare something in the face long enough before I can see it.

Sorcery is Arcane.  Ritualism is Divine.  The four schools that were under each are combined into one skill.

Is this a perfect balance?  Well, no.  Transmutation as a spell group has always dominated the list by the sheer number of spells it has.  As it is, I'll be going through the Arcana Unearthed spells and redistributing them as I feel appropriate.  Because I can do that.  And I'll probably add in a few here and there that I really liked the flavor of (probably a good deal from the Arcanis system).  And I'll remove the typical summoning spells, replacing them with my preferred one-shot summons, and that by itself should help balance between the two groupings.

Spellcraft as a skill would allow access to more complex magics from the other magical discipline (skill in either discipline would give access to the simple spells from any school).  Exotic spells from your own discipline could be learned at ranks 3, 6, and 9, and more could be learned (from either discipline) through the use of Combat Proficiencies.

Unrelated quick thought: Base exotic weapon proficiency on a new Weaponmaster skill - each rank gives access to the exotic weapons of a different basic group (polearms, heavy blades, etc.), chosen by the player upon placing points in the skill.

Sorcery vs. Ritualism

In the interests of simplicity, then, I'm once again taking a look at the magic system.  Dividing things up into schools of magic, while it makes sense in some ways, has also imposed some limits that were not intended.  Not to mention that the sheer volume of spells I've accumulated from so many different sourcebooks in order to fill out the lists of some of the lesser endowed schools (such as Divination) makes sifting through them prohibitive.  Of course, the idea of rendering all that work invalid has only been more and more distasteful the more I've added to it, but I think something needs to give.

Part of this stems from reading through another sourcebook, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.  In this book, magic has been separated according to complexity.  Every level has simple spells, which any caster might access, complex spells which might require greater training or access, and exotic spells, spells that might become the signature ability of a character because of their rarity or difficulty.  And the book has its own magic spells, already separated into these categories.

Trying to just cram it into the full list would destroy the balance.  Trying to split the full list into simple, complex, and exotic is an ambitious and prohibitive project.  It would be easiest, if I want to use this method, to simply use only this one spell list, but it is tiny in comparison to what I have, and there are entire schools with less than ten spells total, and none in the first few levels.  Transmutation, as per the usual, has the most spells, including a few I disagree should be placed there, but others have also commented on the favoritism Cook shows for Transmuters.  Obviously, this wouldn't work for a system where schools of magic are learned individually.

And so I'm considering scrapping all of this subdivision, and offering simply two choices:  Sorcery, and Ritualism.

Sorcery, based on Mind stats, akin to Dragaeran sorcery, where the caster simply pulls energy (either to him or from within, I'll leave that to the player's flavor preference) and tosses it to achieve the desired effect.  This would apply also to any magic system where memorization is more important than intuition, though it could be argued that the use of magical formulae is ritualistic.

Ritualism, based on Soul stats, which might be Eastern witchcraft, or religion-based, or even bardic magic - any ritual-based magic.

I'm not sure if this will be the final iteration or not.  There are some discrepancies, I'm sure.  Discworld wizards, for example, might well be ritualists with such a system, especially when you consider some of the high-powered magic such as the Rite of AshkEnte.  But, considering how the Disc works, and what that Rite in particular does, that may not be inappropriate, especially if you go back to Pratchett's Sourcery.  More concerning might be that magic used by divine beings might be categorized as Sorcery, since they're simply lobbing energy.  Another explanation might be that they're imposing their will upon the cosmos, which would place their magic as being based on Willpower stats.

But all of this is simply a matter of semantics, a matter of the magic's origin, and not a matter of what you can do with it.  Arcana Unearthed uses the same spell list for all caster types, leaving it to the player (and a handful of various feats and methods of altering magical effects selected by the player) to determine the flavor.  This method would mean that the source of magic has no bearing on its limits - a Sorcerer might heal someone just as well or better than a Ritualist.  It does away entirely with the debate of cleric vs. mage, arcane vs. divine, and says instead, "This is what is possible.  How you get there is the fun part."

In some ways, though, it seems they should complement each other.  Let's use the Force as an example: most of the active abilities used in combat such as a Force Push or even the Jedi Mind Trick would be based in Sorcery, in the Mind.  The ability to use the Force as a means to predict the future, or to commune with deceased Masters, or to sense a great "disturbance" would be based in Ritualism, in the Soul.  So how do I account for this?

Maybe I should just forego Mind and Soul entirely, and create a Magic stat, then separate spells by casting time - anything longer than a standard action is based in Ritualism.

System Overhaul

When last we left our intrepid game designer, he was blathering on about some dream, completely unrelated to the task of creating a gaming system.  After several months of not much progress, a recent visit from a close friend and play-tester yielded an unexpected result.

"Dude, you're making things way too complicated."

Faced with the accuracy of the statement, the game designer leapt to his mental feet and declared, "I have so much work to do!" before collapsing into the fetal position at the prospect of the undertaking now at hand.

Outside the city, in a remote location, our hero worked tirelessly at his task.  Though he'd broken the archetypal classes into their base components already, he still had ended up with what was essentially a class-based system, one which dizzied the mind with its complexity as he strove to make a fantasy gaming structure more realistic.  Taking up the tools of his craft, he tore this structure apart and rebuilt it into something simpler, cleaner, more fluid.  The basic details and abilities of a character could be seen with a single glance.  He had done the unthinkable.

The System was reborn.  Three stats, from which all else derived.  No classes, nor class-fragments, but a comprehensive list of skills to govern the abilities of a character.  And yet this simplicity maintained, at its core, a means to fit within the dynamics of 3rd Edition rules, providing the ability to use available Monster Manuals.

The game designer sat back to survey his work, making small adjustments.  He found it to be shiny.  But there were still questions to be answered, regarding how much of a role the character's level was to play, in contrast with skills and ability scores.

And so he sat, fondly inspecting his new creation, awaiting the chance to see it in action.

Tolerating Distractions

Once again, enlightenment from another blog's comments.  Normally when I read the comments on internet articles and blogs, I'm left with disappointment over the state of humanity, so this is a welcome change of pace.

I recently followed a few gaming blogs on G+, and through that stumbled across this article regarding gamers who don't pay strict attention at the table.  Knitting at the table is kind of awesome, and is less distracting (for the other players) than my backpacker.  I know one GM who sometimes crochets while running the game, when the players are planning things out and so on.  In most cases, it is as easy to pick up and put down as anything else and is productive to boot.  I'm fairly lenient when it comes to distracted gamers, though I'll admit to some of the typical insecurities regarding whether or not the person is invested in the game, and whose fault that may be if they aren't.  However, my wife and I have discussed at various times her envy-inducing multitasking abilities, so usually I'm able to keep in mind that even if she doesn't appear to be paying attention physically, her mind is still focused on the game.  It was nice, then, to see this comment from "dfjdejulio":

So, on the “knitting while playing tabletop games” thing, I might be able to give a little perspective on why some people react so negatively to it.

My spouse does this sort of thing. I do not.

I was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. My spouse has some ADHD-like symptoms but has never gotten a diagnosis. Right around the time of my diagnosis, I studied up on the condition, reading a lot of books and some articles from medical journals and stuff.

Some people with ADHD cannot concentrate well *if* more than one thing is going on. Other people with ADHD cannot concentrate well *unless* more than one thing is going on.

(What *seems* to be going on is, when the primary activity isn’t stimulating enough to occupy every last drop of their attention, they can “bleed off” some of the excess need-for-stimulation via secondary activities. If they’re blocked from doing this it gets frustrating and they fidget and daydream and stuff and just can’t focus.)

Whether she actually has ADHD or not, the latter certainly describes my spouse. She’s even got empirical data to back this up — when she started studying and doing homework with the TV *on*, her grades went *up*, and that correlation remained in place from high school through grad school. It was an objectively measurable effect, not just a subjective experience.

I, on the other hand, am the sort who can’t concentrate if anything else is going on.

Her behavior drove me *nuts* until I understood it, because if *I* had been behaving that way, well, it would have meant that I cared so little for the game that I had no intention of participating in it. But she needed the extra distraction in order to participate. What would have been a display of contempt from me was an accommodation in order to remain involved from her.

(Similarly, when we’re ordering pizza, I have to either pause or mute the TV, because otherwise I often can’t even read the pizza menu — my ability to multitask is *that* poor. This drove *her* nuts until she understood my nature better.)

I don't have ADHD (or at least, have never been diagnosed with it), but this still resonates with me very strongly.  I cannot multitask well at all.  If I open up a browser window while playing on a MUD, there's a good chance I'll get focused on whatever is in the browser and forget that I'm still logged into a game underneath it.  If there is a television within my field of vision, I have difficulty focusing on anything else in the room, whether it's visual or aural.  Trying to use multiple devices with multiple screens, something becoming iconic in the world of geeks and gaming, is simply beyond me.  I can listen to music while doing something else, but anything visual typically ends up derailing me.

My wife, on the other hand, typically has about twenty browser tabs open and is connected to the MUD while doing her college coursework, with the television on.  It makes me jealous, and also sometimes makes it difficult for me to understand comments that she makes because I wasn't paying attention to whatever source spurred the comment.  But, she cannot deal with having a lot of noise, or multiple sources of aural input, especially if she's trying to talk.  Music playing while the television is on ends up being too chaotic and cacophonous.  Sometimes just music on the radio is too much - she focuses better with silence.

So, I can handle background noise but not background visuals, while she can deal with visuals but not noise. There are exceptions on both sides, but this is the typical situation.

Both my wife and our friend Jonathan use their laptops to store character sheets for my game.  It's a lot harder to lose a laptop than a piece of paper or even a folder, and digital files are much easier to edit (and don't suffer from eraser marks).  Most of my game rules and information is also kept on my computer, though I try to only open it up on an as-needed basis.  So I have come to expect a certain level of distraction during my games, and for the most part I've built up a tolerance and I'm okay with it.  I have my limits as well, but it doesn't come up often because I know that it's mostly just satisfying the need/urge to fidget when the player's character isn't in the spotlight.

When I'm a player, though, rather than a GM, I use paper character sheets, and limit my "distractions" to random dice rolling and fiddling around on the guitar if there's no other music playing.  That's how I was raised, in gaming, so that's how I feel comfortable doing it.

Mad RP Skillz

   One of the people I follow on G+ linked to this livejournal post by Monte Cook, which started me thinking about things, but it wasn't until I read one of the comments on the post by Bryan Schuder that things started clicking for me. He wrote:

In one of my gaming groups, we had an interesting contrast that occurred that exemplifies why more constraint leads to constraint thought.

One GM started out the campaign in DnD 2nd Edtion, took it to 3.5, and then finally Pathfinder. To give him a break during the big changes and reworkings, I'd get to GM and prototype my game system and setting. My system is designed to be loose and admits to have gaps in coverage, but with the understanding that those are taken care of by things outside the core rules (game master or setting specific rulings). It was a blast, my players got to play all kinds of crazy characters (even players with no real combat skills that actually saved the day many, many times), do wild things (nano-tech infested player hijacks a pre-fall robot to distract and wrestle another robot infested with extra-dimensional bacteria.. while all the other players are trying to gun it down), and they felt their creativity would be greatly rewarded. (You know that hijacked pre-fall robot? They took it with them. It has it's own trailer. They used it to loot plasma cannons off of the turrets they disabled.) I'm an on-the-fly GM, so stick with outlines and let the players fill in the rest.

The interesting part came when we switched back to the other GM's campaign. Finally, in a discussion about tactics, the GM spouted, "Why don't you do crazy stuff in my game like you do in his game?" A player responded, "Well, in DnD there's all these rules and we try to do crazy cool stuff and it never works or we just can't do it." While I had a grin on my face, that statement stuck with me.

If your rules prevent anything outside their explicit domain from happening, players are going to naturally trend towards sticking within them. It's simple game theory; if no reward is had for an action, it will occur with decreasing frequency. Another situation came when our group tried out grid combat. While it allowed everything to be laid out well, our groups tendencies towards cool, creative ideas decreased quite rapidly. This bothered the GM and so we got rid of exact dimensions combat. After some testing, he went with the "not-to-scale minimap" setup. Allows the group to understand the layout, but not feel they are constrained to it any arbitrary movement rules. The creativity came back and all was good.

   First off, this helps me to realize that it might be okay to not have everything accounted for in the rules. My focus on playtesting was spurred by concerns about powergamers, rules lawyers, and just generally those people who would try to take advantage of any system, no matter how well designed. But honestly, the chances of me ever publishing whatever system I end up with are slim at best, and I don't see my playerbase growing at any point in the near future, so chances are good I can stop worrying about playtesting and just start playing.

   Secondly, it was nice to see that my decision to try and minimize any rules based on movement and grid-style tactics is not necessarily a terrible one. I still enjoy seeing a layout, and I still enjoy having miniatures as character and monster representations, but trying to lock down how fast or far someone can move tends to only slow combat down, and if combat isn't the primary focus of the game then that seems to be a mistake. 

   Thirdly, while reading through this I was reminded of skill systems in both D&D and Shadowrun, and how the GM's I've played under have handled skill resolution in the past. One thing that really frustrated me (as well as other players) at the Tuesday Game(tm) Shadowrun sessions was that we, the players, were more or less limited to our own experiences and personal strong points in designing characters to play. The GM ran most non-combat skills solely through RP, whether it was a social skill in trying to bluff or negotiate, checking for traps on a closed entryway, even disabling those traps. This depended on the player having knowledge that the character should have had, or been trained for, and it meant you were pretty much incapable if you didn't have player knowledge of how to do these things. If it was combat, or a skill the GM didn't have a personal basis for judgment on, you could just roll the dice.

   Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun at the games, and in Shadowrun, but often I would end up feeling like the points I would put into skills were wasted. Most often I played a Face/Negotiator type character, and the points I put into social skills meant I didn't have some of the machine, vehicle, or combat skills that others did. So when it came time for combat, I'd get one pistol shot and had to hope it would hit, as opposed to two or three initiative passes with machine guns or heavy artillery. Even if I took the cinematic route in combat, it still meant I'd maybe put down one baddie in the entire battle. Yet the sacrifice to my combat abilities felt meaningless, because not once did I ever pick up the dice to roll a social skill, despite having amazing dicepools in them. The only times my character would shine were at the beginning and end of a run, when the team had to meet with the contact to get the job and when we got paid, and maybe an occasional social infiltration.

   Here's an anecdotal example: The proverbial poo has hit the fan, with the party down on the docks outside a warehouse. Enemy targets are everywhere, including a helicopter. Police forces are on the way, but the gates to the dock are shut and locked. Since my character can't do anything meaningful in combat anyway, I pull back and hustle to the gatehouse to find the key and unlock the gate. The GM rules it will take me X rounds to get to the gatehouse, so I'm investing a lot of time and focus into this action while everyone else is making with the fireworks. I get to the gatehouse, grab the key, and start running for the gate. One of the party members with a heavy gun of some kind manages to disable the enemy helicopter. I reach the gate just as the helicopter crash lands into it, taking the gate down entirely. I'm left standing there, key in hand, having wasted all that time doing less than nothing, rather than even the next-to-nothing I'd have done if I'd stayed in combat with my pistol. I was so invested in trying to do the thing that was seen as most helpful to the situation, that I was unable to come up with alternative methods of involving myself in the scenario which might have had more ultimate effect.

   The image of my character standing there with the key in hand, staring dumbfounded at the now destroyed gate, burned itself into the minds of the players there, and everyone else got a big laugh. I grinned and bore it, then, but it has always bothered me. I had accepted the fact my character was more useful in doing this menial task than in trying to fight, and then was essentially told that no matter what I tried to do, my character's actions were entirely meaningless to the scenario. Thinking on that, and looking back now, I have to wonder how much any of the characters' actions in those runs made any difference, whether we actually made a difference to how things went or whether we were all just railroaded through the storyboards in the GM's head.

   This is one of the things that I keep in mind when I think about skill systems, and one of the reasons I lean towards a "tight rules" mentality when working out the mechanics of those skills.  If my players want to roleplay out a situation, that's great.  I would definitely give a bonus to their skill check if I thought they did a good job.  But basing the entire result on their RP, and ignoring whatever bonus they actually have to the skill, means that you never actually end up with people roleplaying their characters.  Instead, they end up just playing themselves, because that's the only way to progress.

Short Update

Having only two people in the party can be a challenge as it is, but when neither one has healing it really makes it difficult to gauge an appropriate challenge.  In the most recent game, and the one before that, at least one character has fallen into negative hit points, and needed to be dragged to a temple for healing.  It seems like the encounters I've been giving are either way too easy, or way too hard, and I'm having some trouble trying to find the middle ground.  Then again, I don't really get a lot of time to find it.

With Great Power Comes A Need For Control

I recently showed my static mana plan to my mother, the woman who raised me in modified AD&D. She liked the concept and implementation, up to a point - she raised concerns over it being too much power for a low-level character. My original thought was that, yeah, a 1st level mage might end up being able to cast 18 magic missiles, but magic is to a wizard what a sword is to a fighter, and the latter aren't restricted to how many swings in a day.

But then I thought about some of the other system changes I'd made from 1st and 3rd, and how weaponry and armor, as well as multiple attacks, have less to do with your class and more with your inherent stats. A mage might have stats optimized for casting, but if they'd taken fighter as a class instead they'd be no better off in physical combat. Any class can wear any armor, and my spell failure for arcane magic is based off of how much metal is in the armor rather than how much it inhibits arm movements for somatic components (something which seemed far too easily remedied with careful manufacture anyway).

So maybe I'm being too nice to casters.

Rather than come up with a system that limits how much mana is available until the maximum is reached, however, I thought about the possibility that spells might, at first, take more mana than would be indicated by their level. Say, for example, that at first level, a 1st level spell costs 5 mana instead of 1. You're just starting out in the world of magic, you haven't had a lot of practical experience, and you're still learning how to properly, and efficiently, wield the power you have. At second level, the cost goes down by 1 point. At third level, it now takes 3 mana for a 1st level spell, and so on until you reach the minimum of 1 point for a 1st level spell at 5th level.

Every time you gain access to a new level of spells, the cost of them is X higher than normal, let's say 4. That would mean that 4 levels after you start getting spells of that level, they would cost the normal minimum of 1 mana per spell level.

This could be a bit confusing for cantrips, since they normally take 1/4th of a mana. I could start them at 4, or I could be nice and start them at 1, dropping by 1/4 each level until the minimum.

Thoughts?

Keep Those Dice a'Rollin'

So my friend Jonathan came out this past week (Huzzah!) and we got to game a little bit. I am still fairly enamored with my new experience system, especially how clean it looks/feels to me at the moment. One potential concern that I noticed is that my system for saving throws and skill checks may be inherently flawed. The concept is that you roll 3d10, and you are aiming for a number lower than the relevant stat with a bonus gained from a secondary stat. With an expected average stat of 15, and a range of 3 to 30, I figured 3d10 would be appropriate. However, it seems that the majority of rolls are landing above 16 even after adjustments. I should have expected this, but I'm not yet sure how to deal with it. I was trying to approximate a d30, but I don't actually have any of those and they're not terribly common anyway. I suppose I could do a d6 and a d10, like how d20 rolls used to be done before d20s became popular. 1-2 on the d6 means the d10 is 1-10, 3-4 means it's 11-20, and 5-6 means 21-30. I'll have to do some blank rolling to find out if that brings the average down.

In pondering further upon the topic of skills, I thought about the idea of a slow method of improving skills based directly on Intelligence, rather than class as 3rd Edition had it. I'm thinking about putting a limiter, though, on how much of a bonus you can give any individual skill, based on the primary stat governing that skill. Maybe half of the stat? One of the things that really bugged me about 3rd Edition skills was that within a few levels the bonus to the skill far outstripped the ability of most challenges to keep up. Difficulty ratings kept getting arbitrarily bumped up just to have any chance of failure. I'm also, personally, a believer in inherent ability being a greater contributor than training.

Minor Update: Death Threshold

After playing around with various ways to implement the concept I wrote about here, including lots of number crunching and contemplation, I realized that messing with the death threshold and altering it from -10 would necessarily mean I would have to alter some of the other Fighting Skills I'd implemented. Certain abilities already altered how far below zero someone could go without dying. This isn't a major concern on its own, since it's easily enough fixed.

But I also came to the conclusion that unless I was going to go ahead and strip the ability to bring back the dead, as the other person had, then all I was doing was increasing an already generous hit point system at high levels, and in some cases (depending on how I chose to implement it) making lower level characters less likely to survive.

So at least for the moment, I'm not going to be using altered death threshold rules. I'm still fond of the idea, and like the increased realism that such a system would bring, but I'm already concerned about the level of complexity in my system anyway. Until I manage to do some serious playtesting to determine current power levels, I should probably just leave the mechanics alone.

Methods of Improvement

I already had a system in place that would allow a character's Faith score to be malleable through the course of normal play, changing the score based on exceptional success or exceptional failure with Turning checks. Just today I wrote down and implemented a similar idea for the Luck stat, where the Luck would alter with exceptional critical hits (consecutive natural 20s), or exceptional critical fumbles (consecutive natural 1s).

I also allow stats to be built up using Combat Proficiencies (my term for Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, or Feats, depending on your chosen version. I don't know what the 4th Ed. equivalent is, but I don't care), but since I have these two stats as potentially variable I was wondering if there were other stats that people thought should be so quickly alterable. I know that physical stats such as Strength should not be so quickly or easily changed, but maybe Charisma might be affected by apparent wealth, or the Charisma scores of the people you're with?

Probably not, since it's a bit trickier than the systems I have in place for Faith and Luck. As it stands, Faith is really only important to one class, or anyone who wants to Turn or Rebuke undead. Luck is a bit more universally useful, since it affects saving throws, but there are two classes in particular that are majorly helped by having Luck as a primary stat. I like having these two stats alterable on-the-fly because I think it reflects the concept behind them well, but I don't know that any of the others really lend themselves to such.

New Exercise Program

I'm by no means a small person, and haven't been for the majority of my life. Part of this is simply skeletal structure passed down by genetics, and part of it is personal willpower limitations. I recognize I should "eat less, move more" to improve my body image and overall health, but quite frankly I find that I'd rather be spending my time on other things, like video games.

My solution? Video games that make you move. Sounds great, except that I don't have a Wii or any other system that really logs movement. I have a PS2, and an Eyetoy, but the only game I have for the Eyetoy isn't really engaging. When I first saw a Dance Dance Revolution arcade game, I thought that would be a great way to lose weight, except for the fact that (a) it costs money every time you want to play and (b) you have to potentially look like a completely uncoordinated goof in front of an arcade full of people. The latter reason became especially true after knowledge of professional DDR players became widespread, with videos like the one where the man starts breakdancing on both dance pads, and ends with a perfect score.

But wait a minute, didn't Dance Dance Revolution get converted to console gaming before they introduced the PS3?

Yes, yes it did.

I am now armed with two DDR titles, as well as a pair of dance mats. They arrived in the mail today, and I'm so far very pleased. Just tonight I have, according to whatever calculations the game uses, done the equivalent of a two mile jog. I'm not sure how accurate that is, since I didn't feel terribly winded afterwards (though I definitely felt like I had a workout!) and I was still sorely tempted to keep going. I'll probably play again for a bit after I'm done here.

I've made a few observations on my initial play-style, however. For one, I have trouble switching legs, with my right leg dominant. It's actually easiest for me, so far, to just stand on my left leg and use my right to do all the steps, even crossing in front or behind of the left leg to hit the left arrow. For some reason, I'm not nearly as adept at playing with my left leg, as when I tried to reverse things and just stand on my right leg, I ended up switching very quickly because of coordination issues. I have to wonder if this comes from the fact that the arrows on the screen are read as a pattern, and therefore under the "left brain's" authority. I also wonder if this is why having two left feet is a negative thing in dancing, since it implies that the left foot is already inferior.

Despite my right leg doing all the steps, though, my left leg may actually get the harder workout as it ends up being my sole balancing post and support for much of the movements. Either way, I'm definitely excited about this prospect.

City of Heroes: Freedom

Surprisingly, the in-game graphics are not far off from the box art.

City of Heroes is a MMOG based on the premise of comic book style superheroes, with adjoining City of Villains filling out the other side of the gallery, and the recent Going Rogue expansion portraying an alternate dimension with a few more shades of grey.

I've played this game off and on for a few years now. Thanks to my alt-itis, I don't tend to get very far with any single character, but this game almost encourages that by having one of the best, most variable character creators I've seen. From mixing and matching power sets to designing the appearance in much more detail than I've seen possible elsewhere, you really get the chance to personalize each character. Heck, there are times I've wanted to resubscribe just to fiddle around with the costume designer!

So I should probably be happy for the upcoming change to the game's business model, following in the footsteps of other games that have switched to the "Free to Play" format. Despite the company's reassurances, though, I still have my doubts.

Part of it, I suppose, stems from the sense of elitism one gets from being part of a game that requires a subscription to play. The $15 per month charge keeps the "riff-raff" out, as it were. But there's a not-so-snobby truth to this as well, because as anyone who's played both a subscription and a F2P (Free to Play) game knows, F2P is notorious for the number of griefers, spammers, goldbots, farmers, and otherwise irritating players not as prevalent in a subscription-based game.

This ties in, somewhat, with the points I made back here, too. The unofficial RP server on CoH is Virtue, and it already has a full load during peak hours. The people who have been playing there for years have already well-established their characters and supergroups (player-run guilds) on the server, but may end up being muscled out because the server is too full for more players once it's open to everyone. The company states that a new server is in the works that will be open only to Premium Subscription members (basically, the people who don't stop paying even once it's F2P), but why should the people who have already established their characters and supergroups be, essentially, required to start over somewhere else? Especially since they'll be competing with similarly-displaced players from the other servers as well, making it likely that this new server will be just as full and lagged as Virtue is now.

But, the costume creator will be free to play around with at last. That's gotta count for something, eh?

Experience Overhaul

Thank you for the comments on my last post. They allowed me to realize that the numbers were hiding a flaw in my entire system of experience.

My original intent with my system, as I explained here, was to reflect easier or greater difficulty in progressing, based on Intelligence and how many classes you took, and eliminate the feeling of "wasting" a high Intelligence by not taking as many classes as it could handle. While it did do this to some degree, it was flawed in the fact that it based experience per level more off of the number of classes than the Intelligence. There was nothing in place to adjust difficulty for relative Intelligence. A low-Int character would simply not have access to the more "valuable" classes, but it could still out-level a higher-Int character that had more classes in short order.

That's been fixed now. A low-Int character taking its recommended maximum number of classes will now progress at the same speed as any other character that is also taking the recommended maximum number of classes for the character's Intelligence score. I may tweak it some from here, as I lost some "downward mobility" in the advantage a person gets by not filling up on classes, but I think this is the form I was going for earlier. The numbers were just getting in the way, so I couldn't see it. So again, thank you.

Experience Over Time

I've always had alt-itis, I guess. I generally don't get any D&D character past 4th level except under extraordinary circumstances. Tonight, though, I thought I'd do a quick comparison check to see how the experience tables I have worked up for my game (based loosely off of 3rd Edition's charts) stacked up against the old 1st Edition AD&D tables I grew up using. What I saw surprised me a bit.

At 11th level, a Paladin from 1st Edition had amassed over a million experience points. By 15th, the Thief class crossed the one million mark, followed only by Bard at 16th level (which doesn't really count since it was the 1st Edition equivalent of a Prestige - you had to be both a Fighter and Thief for 5+ levels before you could become a Bard). To get to 20th, you're talking 3.3 million for the most lenient table, ranging up to nearly six million points for Paladin.

By comparison, the pure 3rd Edition chart is child's play: 2nd level at a mere 1,000 points (The least expensive in 1st Ed., Thief, was 1,251), 10th level at only 45,000 which provides you with a "massive" gap to the 190,000 total needed for 20th level. Add to that the fact that 3rd edition experience is granted, according to the DMG, as an even split to all participants in an encounter (rather than being awarded individually based on damage dealt and treasure found - a bane to all low-level spellcasters) and you have what seems to be a supercharged elevator to the top. No wonder WotC came out with Epic Level handbooks so quickly!

I remember, as a child, sitting in a restaurant with my parents, and overhearing a conversation from a booth behind me: one guy was telling his friends about a campaign that took place in some tower, and his Paladin character made it all the way up to 50th level, only to be defeated or level-drained or some-such, and had to start over again at the bottom, so he did it again and got up to 50th level, and he got booted back down again, etc. Being the naive, inexperienced youth that I was, I got excited because they were talking about D&D, and I suppose I asked my mother why she didn't seem interested in asking them to game with us. That's when she explained to me the concept of "Monty Haul" gaming, and why it was generally considered to be a lesser form or of poorer quality among serious gamers.

I have to wonder if WotC was intentionally reducing the difficulty in such a manner, hoping to snare old and new players alike by promising greater rewards at a much quicker pace. Perhaps they thought that the attention span of modern gamers wouldn't last as long as it used to? Or maybe they simply believe most gamers play infrequently enough that too wide a gap between levels is discouraging, a belief I can't readily refute given that I typically only manage 1d4+1 sessions a year.

Now, however, I'm left with the concern that my own table is likewise too lenient. After all, even my highest chart only requires about 370,000 points for 20th level, and that assumes a character with a maximum class load.

I could make a return to the charts of old, or try to find some balance between the old and the new. After all, with the more generous experience rewards given by 3rd Edition rules, it might somewhat bridge the gap between players of different editions. Or, I could shove it off to the side for now, perhaps ruminating further upon it when I actually have players with characters above 4th level in the current system. At present rate, that might only take five years.