The Seven-Sided Die

The odds & ends of roleplaying

Archive for February 2012

Player agency and random encounters

written by d7, on Feb 28, 2012 1:14:00 PM.

Nobody likes a railroad, least of all proponents of the OSR. Apparently there has been some debate about the evil of the Quantum Ogre—an encounter that gets dropped in front of the players regardless of where they go or what they do.

Alex Schroeder makes the excellent point [1] that the problem with the Quantum Ogre is really two problems:

An adventure involving the quantum ogre is bad because the players’ choices don’t matter: either they don’t have enough info to make a meaningful choice or the information they have is useless since the quantum ogre will show up no matter what they do. They have no agency – they have no capacity “to make choices and to impose those choices on the world.” Either they cannot make a meaningful choice because they lack information, or they cannot impose their choice on the world because the quantum ogre shows up anyway.

This is a formulation of why I really, really dislike plotting adventures. Apart from plotting being too damned much work, it creates what I feel is an inauthentic experience for the players. That lack of agency turns into frustration, that frustration turns (at best) into an attempt to regain agency, which causes a problem for me: I’m not prepared to do anything outside the plot and the improvised part of play comes off much flatter than the plotted part. It’s a dynamic I really don’t enjoy, so I’ve been striving for the last few years to figure out how to avoid plotting, even when I don’t have a lot of time to prep.

Alex also mentions the apparent distinction between the Quantum Ogre and random encounters, the latter being a favourite staple of the Old School even while the former is detested as illusionist play. His response is that random encounters are slightly better, because the GM is forced to improvise how to work in this encounter.

I think it’s a bigger difference than that.

The essential disconnect I see between fans of random encounters and their detractors is that I don’t see the random encounter roll as the beginning of a scene [2] where the PCs face the creature, but the beginning of their awareness that something is out there. There are then two parts to a random encounter: the opportunity to notice information and investigate, and the face-off itself. This opportunity is crucial to making a random encounter not just another quantum encounter. By having a chance to engage with hints and clues about the existence of a threat or opportunity [3], the players can make informed choices about this particular encounter. They may choose to confront it, escape it, stalk it until they have the advantage, or otherwise deal with it more-or-less intelligently.

Choice is the ingredient that gives players agency and keeps a game from being a railroad. Random encounters are no different.

What about surprise?

Of course, sometimes, as the DM, you’re going to turn the screws a bit and ask a different question: instead of “Do you want to deal with this thing? How?” you might ask “You’re already faced with this thing! What are you going to do about it? Run? Fight? Door number three?” That’s totally legitimate, but carries with it the whiff of railroading and opens the door to the same frustrations as the Quantum Ogre.

The old school has an answer for this, and it’s a parallel to the random encounter itself: the DM can disclaim fiat choice and turn to the dice. There’s a random encounter, and the DM doesn’t know whether a direct encounter or a distant, clue-laden approach is best for play and the player’s mood right now. Take it out of the DM’s hands and put the question to the dice: Roll for surprise!

Randomness is another tool to avoid railroads. The DM gets put into the same position as the players when they disclaim choice and trust the dice, in that they are equally as surprised by what happens next as the players are. Rather than DM tyranny and imposed ideas, the twist is left to fate.

If the DM isn’t forcing the encounter but the dice say it happens, it may not be be obvious to the players whether this is an instance of a Quantum Encounter or random chance. However, as the encounters add up over the hours and over the sessions, players can tell the difference. The Quantum Ogre is a problem precisely because players can tell over time that the DM’s hand is laying heavy on the encounters they face. By the same mechanism of social insight, players can also tell when that heavy hand is missing, and the randomness of the dice is one of the best ways of taking the DM’s hand off.

[1]

Alex’s post also links to a whole lot of other posts discussing the problem and solutions to the Quantum Ogre and is well worth your visit.

[2]

“Scene”, only for lack of a better word. I don’t tend to think in terms of scenes when I run old-school games.

[3]

Not all random encounters are monsters intent on the PC’s death! Just as often they’re neutral or positive opportunities. It all turns on what the PCs and DM together decide to do with the encounter. Even a clearly-hostile creature can be turned into an opportunity: try having them approach, but not immediately launch into a to-the-death fight. See what happens when the players are faced with a potential enemy who doesn’t immediately attack them.

Dungeoneer's Handbook draft preview: The Druid

written by d7, on Feb 15, 2012 11:08:00 AM.

The first “class” template I’ve finished a first draft of is the druid. Subject to change, of course, but this will give you an idea of how I’m translating the archetypes of D&D into Dresden Files–style Fate:

Druid

Druids are the guardians of nature and the self-appointed arbiters of the relationship between humanity and the natural world. Where small rural communities exist on the edge of the wilderness, the druid is a welcome—if awed—presence that calms weather, tames beasts, and drives out blight. From their perspective, druids serve the wilderness as much as such communities by keeping people’s incursions away from sensitive areas, teaching them how to co-exist with the beasts who are their neighbours, and educating the benighted to avoid the obvious mistakes when planting a field.

Musts: Druids channel the power latent in the patterns of nature, shaping it with their sentience to further and sustain those self-same natural cycles. Like clerics of gods, druids must take Divine Miracles but can only choose Nature as the sponsoring power (a Refresh Cost of −4.) In order to cast rituals, in addition to the other ritual components the druid must bear a focus item: a sprig of mistletoe harvested during the full moon with a silver or golden sickle consecrated to that purpose. Casting an evocation while not in a natural setting (assuming the lack of a natural environment allows the desired effect at all) also relies on this focus item as a link to the natural world that gives a druid their power.

Options: An experienced druid can call on Nature’s Wisdom [−1] to infallibly identify wild plants and animals, as well as clean water. Many can Pass Without a Trace [−1] through undergrowth without slowing their pace. A sign of an accomplished Druid is the ability to take on the Shape of Wild Creatures [−2] or the form of their Totem Animal [−1].

Important Skills: Conviction, Discipline, Presence, Survival
Bonus Languages: Druidic
Languages Available: Centaur, dryad, elvish, faun, gnomish, draconic, giant, lizard man, manticore, pixie, sprite, treant.
Minimum Refresh Cost: −4

Dresden Files RPG and the OGL

written by d7, on Feb 11, 2012 3:27:00 PM.

After an exchange on Twitter with Fred Hicks of Evil Hat, the publishers of the Dresden Files RPG, about my misgivings about DFRPG’s OGL notice, I’m somewhat reassured and have a clearer idea of what the future might look like for the Dungeoneer’s Handbook as a product.

As I understand it now, the intent of the “everything new in DFRPG is Product Identity” is filtered through the OGL’s definition of Product Identity (PI). For the simple reason that the Dresden Files universe is a property that doesn’t belong to Evil Hat, they are making sure that the RPG translation of the novels don’t “leak” any of Jim Butcher’s copyrighted work into the world for others to use. The language used is unfortunately ambiguous, but the whole point of the Open Game License is to eliminate doubt about the intent of a publisher using the OGL so I’m happy enough with that clarification of Evil Hat’s intentions.

What this means for the Dungeoneer’s Handbook

This means two interlinked things for the Dungeoneer’s Handbook. Wait, three. [1] Three things for the future of the DHB.

First, it means that it’s going to be way simpler for me if I just make this a personal project never intended for release. (Turns out that there’s another reason this would be the simplest route for me, but that’s nothing to do with DFRPG—see below.) However, pretending that I’m eventually going to show this to people who don’t have me there as the DM to explain away the rough spots means I’m taking a more rigorous approach to the writing and design. So, in practice, regardless of whether I eventually aim for a public release, this first point doesn’t change that pretending that I will in my own head improves the project.

Second, and this is interlinked with the third point, it means that I can’t refer to Stunts and Powers that appear in DFRPG. This is mostly not a problem, since I don’t need most of them to make a derivative work in a completely different setting. I can’t use a Power like “Knight of the Cross”, but I don’t want to anyway. Dresdenverse bits like “Knight of the Cross” are exactly the sort of “special ability” that Product Identity was designed to protect, and the sort of thing that Evil Hat doesn’t want to accidentally just hand away on Jim Butcher’s behalf. Since I’m not using the Dresdenverse at all, this sort of thing doesn’t pose a problem.

While I don’t want to Dresdenverse concepts embodied by stunts and powers, there are generic stunts and powers that aren’t unique to the Dresdenverse that I’d like to use. Things like Toughness, the supernatural ability for a creature to ignore a certain amount of stress unless you find its weakness, is a concept that predates DFRPG and appears in most fantasy RPGs. Werewolves who can’t be hurt except by overwhelming damage (say, being hit by a truck), but are deathly susceptible to injuries dealt by silver, is exactly the sort of thing that Toughness and its higher-powered variants are perfect for representing. These are the sorts of things that I look at as useful Fate innovations that would be great to re-use.

Though they’d be great to re-use, the PI declaration in DFRPG does capture the names and descriptions of “special abilities” since those do fall under the definition of Product Identity in the OGL. So, I can’t use the name of Toughness in a derivative like the DHB. I can’t even refer to it in my own writeup for werewolves in the DHB, saying “look it up in your copy of DFRPG:YS,” because the name itself is claimed as PI. This sort of thing is probably not what Evil Hat intended to cover with the blanket PI claim in DFRPG’s OGL, but it would have been prohibitive to separate out such things as Open Game Content without getting into grey territory regarding Dresdenverse copyright. A blanket PI claim is the safe, responsible way to handle this kind of thing, even if it’s inconvenient for me. In order to model werewolves and the like in the DHB, then, I have to write my own version of Toughness with a different name, or some other stunt/power that fills the same generic narrative concept of “unnaturally hard to hurt except with weakness X.” This brings me to the related impact on the DHB:

Third, I have to make the Dungeoneer’s Handbook a stand-alone product (should I hypothetically publish it). It would have been far easier for me to just say, “The DHB requires the use of The Dresden Files: Your Story from Evil Hat LLC” and not bother writing up my own special abilities that are already adequately provided by DFRPG. This would have been nice for me as it would save work, and actually I would have felt a bit happier saying “go buy DFRPG! You can’t use this without it!” On the other hand, I realise that would have been more annoying for the hypothetical players who would end up flipping back and forth between the DHB and DFRPG books in order to make their character creation choices.

In some ways this is a blessing in disguise, though. It means that the (hypothetical) release edition of the Dungeoneer’s Handbook will be a complete game unto itself, with no dependencies on third-party “core” books, and that’s a better experience for the end reader and user. (I’m still going to say “Go buy DFRPG!” in a hypothetical DHB release though, because really yes yes read DFRPG.)

Skills: the silver lining

Fortunately, one thing the definition of Product Identity in the OGL doesn’t cover is skills, so I should be able to use DFRPG’s skill list as my base, including the existing skill trappings. I wasn’t looking forward to abandoning/rewriting all that, since they’re even more integral to the mechanics than even the “generic” non-Dresdenverse Stunts and Powers are.

Of course that’s not all

As I implied above, there’s more in the way of such a hypothetical release. As it turns out, the DFRPG OGL isn’t the stickiest bit of copyright that I’m running into as I write. If you recall, I’m aiming to use this as a handbook for a home Forgotten Realms campaign. As I write, I find that I’m embedding a lot of setting concepts from the Realms that there’s no way could ever see the light of day without being infringing. I’m putting them in anyway because I want this stuff available for my players, but if I eventually turn the handbook into a releasable form it will mean a lot of text will have to be rewritten or outright stripped out.

For example, I have a template called Touched by Mystra. Right there in the name, I can’t put that out in a product. However, something like that is necessary to reflect character options related to the way magic has changed in my Realms after the Avatar Crisis, and since it’s directly tied to Mystra (and fiction matters in Fate) it’s necessary to have that baked right into the template. For a home game that’ll be fine, and in the meantime I’m just not worrying about it. It does mean that I’ll be looking in two directions should I endeavour to sanitise the manuscript for publication: toward DFRPG to identify and remove/rewrite any Product Identity that we relied on for our home campaign, and toward the Forgotten Realms to remove (utterly) any references to Wizards’ copyrighted game setting. [2]

[1]

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[2]

This is one of those ironic bits about living in a digital age. If I’m just blogging about it, I can publish bits and pieces of my home game’s rules that refer to Forgotten Realms copyrighted stuff, because most game companies (Wizards included) consider that to be OK online fan behaviour. However, if I do the very same thing in a PDF for download, it suddenly becomes “publishing” in a sense that the same companies see as a problem. There’s a difference of apparent intent, certainly—publishing a comprehensive PDF carries with it an implication of profiting from Realms details, even if the PDF is free, in a way that publishing piecemeal on a blog doesn’t. As “digital” becomes the norm, though, these sorts of distinctions are going to get even fuzzier. …Huh. That implies that there may be a future clash between hobbyists and game publishers coming, which is kind of unnerving. We’ve been there before, and it was ugly. It could be uglier yet when the difference between hobby publishing and pro publishing collapses.

Fantastic Maps

written by d7, on Feb 8, 2012 2:28:07 PM.

Do you love maps? (Of course you do!)

Do you love to draw maps? (Who doesn’t?!)

Do you love to just look at pretty, pretty maps? (Let us take this as a relatively safe assumption!)

Then get yourself over to Jon Roberts’ Fantastic Maps blog and feast your eyes, read some tips, and satisfy that itch in your fingers to draw some of your own.

That is all.

My D&D Next

written by d7, on Feb 6, 2012 1:50:00 PM.

Wizards is working on the next iteration of Dungeons & Dragons, but I’m not really waiting for them. I climbed on the 4e bandwagon only to be violently thrown off when it hit a bump in the road called dissociated mechanics, and Pathfinder didn’t appeal to me with its tightening of the rules since I didn’t like the tightness of the 3rd edition rules to begin with. D&D Next, or 5e, or “D&D-with-no-edition-number”, is sounding much more like my cup of tea than 4e or even 3e, but these things take time to develop. In the meantime, I’m helping myself and not waiting around until 2013 or 2014 or whenever it’s going to come out.

I picked up the Dresden Files RPG a while ago and I really like it. The Diaspora game I’m running now will be coming to a pause in a few weeks and I’ve been wanting to run an game in an alternate Forgotten Realms for a while. Between Fate as done in Diaspora, the elegance of the magic rules in the Dresden Files RPG, and a hankering to turn away from sci-fi back toward the worn, comfortable embrace of fantasy, it’s perfect timing to work up a conversion of DFRPG’s version of Fate for the Forgotten Realms.

In many ways Diaspora is to DFRPG as D&D 0e is to D&D 3e. DFRPG has a lot more structure than Diaspora, offering mechanics that, while still narrative in effect, are much more concretely grounded in the details of events in the game. Diaspora is much looser, giving you tools to play with a high level of story abstraction or to zoom in and do things blow-by-blow, but it doesn’t give tools that are specific to that nitty-gritty level. DFRPG does, without sliding into a simulationist model like Strands of Fate does [1].

Dresden Files RPG’s realisation of Fate is therefore perfect for a game of D&D that focuses on the grit and grime and heroics of a dungeon crawl while also directly rewarding character development. One of my goals for a game that does fantasy well but isn’t D&D is to “feel like” a D&D game. DFRPG is the closest I’ve felt a game has come to fulfilling that nebulous criterion.

The Dungeoneer’s Handbook

To that end, I’m working on something tentatively called the Dungeoneer’s Handbook, “a guide for Fate players and GMs who love dragons and dungeons”. My first goal is a slim handbook [3] that we can use at the table as a quick reference and character-conversion guide to make using DFRPG for a D&D-style game as easy as possible. Things like skill changes, sample stunts, a combat manœuver guide to help map D&D-combat thinking into Fate mechanics, templates for the class archetypes, and a monster-conversion guide for me are the sorts of things that will go into this.

Ideally, I would like to have a second milestone for fleshing it out into a minimalist but complete Dungeon Delving with Fate book under the OGL, but the OGL notice in DFRPG is one of those super-restrictive ones that claims everything:

Any material found in this book which is not directly taken from the above named works [Fudge 1995, FATE, Spirit of the Century] is deemed to be product identity.

I’m not a lawyer [2], but I find this a concerning OGL notice. As far as the OGL is concerned, not just anything can be claimed as Product Identity. In particular, mechanics can’t be claimed as PI. But since DFRPG does introduce game mechanics (as defined under “Open Game Content”) that are new since Spirit of the Century, that puts the licensing status of DFRPG and anything based on it in considerable doubt. Regardless, PI does legitimately cover the names and descriptions of “special abilities [and] magical or supernatural abilities”, so reusing DFRPG stunts in a derivative work is verboten and making a “clean” derivative is prohibitive.

At some point I may take it up with Fred Hicks at Evil Hat to get some clarification, but the first, personal-use milestone is going to be plenty of work. Time enough to worry about the OGL later. And with that said, I really should get back to it!

[1]

Strands of Fate is another good realisation of Fate, but it’s bent more toward Hero System and GURPS sensibilities than I want to deal with.

[2]

… Though I’ve been a keen amateur student of the issues and laws around copyright since the late 90s, so my grasp is more than trivial but short of “useful enough to save my neck in in a civil copyright dispute.”

[3]

Oh, I have to remember to enthuse about Scrivener as a pure word processor (which is not the same as a text layout engine – I’m looking at you MS Word) at some point. It’s going to make this project so much easier to manage.

"Who needs rules for roleplaying?" = Missing the Point

written by d7, on Feb 4, 2012 2:56:00 PM.

You might have heard this rhetorical question in a thread about competing D&D editions or on a post about some new indie game – I’ve certainly heard it many times on the front lines of the edition wars. With the open playtest for “D&D Next” coming and the verbal wrestling the fanbase will be doing over how to do it “right”, I’m sure we’ll be hearing it even more often.

The question, “who needs rules to tell them how to roleplay?” is intended to shut down the opposition. It says that they other side is being ridiculous for wanting mechanics for every damned thing that you do, at best. At worst, it says that these people clearly can’t roleplay their way out of a paper bag if they need rules for how to do it.

Like most fronts in edition wars, though, it’s really a statement of not understanding the position of the other side.

Rules are tools

Nobody questions what movement grid rules are good for, or why it could be useful for a game to assign different weapons different damage ratings. A movement grid takes the guesswork out of determining where every character is. The point is not to know where everyone is standing, never mind the absurd “to teach players how walking around works.” The point is to make position simple and intuitive so that everyone can save their thinking, strategising, and teamwork on what everyone is going to do about where the characters are standing.

Rules are tools for streamlining a process that is fundamentally a complicated human social and mental process: a bunch of people sitting around trying to simultaneously agree on what happens in their shared imagination while each trying to coordinate their efforts and trying to play their “best”, whatever that means for the part of the game at hand.

Streamlining your roleplay

Rules for roleplaying are just such tools. If you’ve played and enjoyed such games then you can probably see where I’m going with this. For the benefit of those who haven’t and have found themselves asking the question in the title: Games that have rules for roleplaying don’t tell you how to play any more than a movement grid tells you how to walk. What they do is streamline certain sticking points about playing a role so that you can get on with the interesting parts of playing a role.

A movement grid streamlines play by prevent everyone from slowing down the round with questions like, “Wait, where is that orc standing? Does it have cover? What do you mean it sees me?! I said I was crouched behind the rubble. What, the rubble was in the other room? Can we rewind? ‘Cause I would have cast a spell before the fight in that case…”

Similarly, a roleplaying rule streamlines away confusion and argument over certain details[1]_ about how fictional characters interact with each other..

An example

I’ll use an example from Fate, since I’m reading the Dresden Files RPG right now. Compels in Fate prevent a social interaction between characters from devolving into an extended meta-game inter-player argument like: “I totally just insulted your god! Why is your priest just ignoring that? Dammit… C’mon, listen: I’m trying to distract you with an argument so our friends can sneak into the shop! It’ll be a fun bit of trouble and you can go all vengeful cleric on us when you find out?”

In Fate, the Compel mechanics lets you suggest a course of action to the player controlling another character (including the GM) that’s consistent with the nature of the character (as already detailed in sentences called Aspects). The suggestion is backed up with the offer of a Fate point—if the player accepts, that’s what their character does and they get the Fate point for themselves. Fate points can be used for various things, including buying a reroll or backing up your own Compels later, so the suggestion has mechanical appeal for the target player even while they have the option to refuse.

Compels, then, are a tool: they give players of Fate a standard process for talking about different opinions of what a character “would really do” in a given situation.

Instead of the awkward negotiation in the previous above, this happens:

Priest player: (To the GM) What? I think I would notice my companions sneaking into the shop. They can’t be up to any good. Can I roll Alterness to notice and do something about that?

Con artist player: Hold up there! I see you’ve got a character Aspect that says, “Any excuse to lecture on the greatness of Kermil”. My guy casually slights Kermil as maybe not being so great. I’ll back that up with a Fate point and make it a Compel to Inaction. How about you argue with me instead of making that Alertness roll?

Priest player: Hmm. They’re going to get us in trouble again! Then again, I really need the Fate point after spending so many on getting past the gate guards, especially if we’re going to have to leave town in a hurry… Okay, fine, my ranty priest takes the easy bait and totally misses the mischief our friends are starting…

Cutting to the chase

Rules about roleplaying aren’t about how to roleplay, they’re about cutting to the chase. They don’t replace how you play your character with a bunch of mechanical “if this then that” rules, but rather replace the messy conversations players have whenever there’s disagreement about what should happen next. They are just as much a practical tool for eliding the boring parts of Make Believe as to-hit rules are. Even improv theatre – a more free-form kind of pure roleplaying than nearly every roleplaying game in existence – has “rules” that are really tools and communication tricks for getting everyone moving forward together when the performance might otherwise drag to a halt while the audience watches.

So next time someone wonders, honestly or otherwise, how anyone could possibly need rules for how to roleplay, remember that they’re asking the wrong question. Nobody needs rules for how to roleplay. Rules that stimulate the players’ imaginations and take play in unexpected directions, while smoothing over the usual conversational hitches that come up between creative people, can increase the drama of a game no matter how good at roleplaying the group already is.

[1]

Different games streamline different details, naturally.