Chaotek Thoughts

Last week I ran a game of Dark Heresy by Fantasy Flight Games (formerly by Black Industries) for the first time.  We got through about half of the Edge of Darkness introductory adventure (web published) during the session, including some investigation and combat, to get a good feel for how the game works.  The book itself is a weighty volume of 400 or so pages; technically full color throughout (there is a red border), it is mostly effectively black and white in text and art.  Overall good production value, but not the best that I’ve seen.

Dark Heresy puts the players into the roles of acolytes of an Inquisitor in the universe of Warhammer 40K.  I’ve never been a player of Warhammer miniatures games, so I was pleased to find that the book contained enough information to convey the basic information necessary to play the game without having to know the long history of the Warhammer 40K universe.  Primarily the game functions as a investigation horror game, similar to games like Call of Cthulhu or Supernatural; PCs investigate what mystery is afoot than then try to defeat or at least survive the big-bad at the end of the adventure.  This is a rough approximation, but it gives you a good idea of how the game is intended to be played.

Character creation was relatively easy, players have the option to “trust in the Emperor” and use random tables to determine character creation, or make those choices on their own.  We ended up using a combination of the two approaches, which seemed to work well.  In place of races, PCs can choose from four home-world types, each with its own feel but not too restrictive—there is no perfect combination for a given character type to force players down a single path.  The game uses a character class system, where each class has lightly branching trees of options available to them.  On the downside, there is no way to multiclass like in other systems, but you could theoretically create any character using any class because most of the skills and talents are available to all classes.

The game system uses two d10s as percentile die for almost all rolls in the game, and functionally is a roll-below your attribute system.  Combat is relatively easy, but incorporates enough crunch to appease combat focused players as you can utilize a manageable number of tactics to improve your odds of success on a given attack.  Skill checks function the same way, where you want to roll low but can try to use some techniques or GM difficulty determinations to improve odds of success (this is very similar to the Hackmaster Basic skill system).  However like Hackmaster the odds of success for using an untrained skill are very low (averaging 15-16% chance of success without modifiers).  An additional component of the percentile roll is degrees of success/failure, where for every 10 you succeed or fail represents a greater result (or more potential damage if in combat).

Where I think the game shines the most is in developing atmosphere, especially for those unfamiliar with Warhammer 40K.  The book drips in atmosphere, including great art, a multitude of quotes to set the mood, and a section about the setting itself.  Even small things like skill names imply setting, as a skill which in other settings is called heal, first aid, or medicine is instead called medicae in this game.  This comes into character creation a number of times, but is most highlighted by the Emperor’s Divination, where players are given a prophesy about their future with a minor game mechanic bonus.

During this session, we didn’t get into any of the deep horror mechanics like fear or sanity, but a read-through suggests that they are solid and the mechanics are typical of the genre.  We also didn’t have a psyker (the only form of “magic” in the game).  I’m a little nervous about the playability of a psyker, especially the probability of instant bad-things happening to a player, but it fits within the atmosphere and isn’t terribly different than other games in the genre like Call of Cthulhu where magic is bad—even when used for good.  Given the limited number of classes tested during the session I cannot vouch for player balance entirely, however each character in our game seemed to be well balanced to one another with no character being made of Win while other characters were ineffective.

While the game session was a lot of fun, there are a few downsides to the book which should be pointed out.  First, the game is structured in a very limiting manner.  Characters are supposed be acolytes of the Inquisition only, within a small sector of the overall Imperium of Man.  Everything about the book includes this narrow focus; while this makes the book more cohesive overall, it might turn away some players.  That doesn’t mean you have to play within the limitations, but that also means support for other play styles is not supported as is.

The low success odds for untrained skills is also an issue for me considering that starting characters get very few skills, especially since games in the investigation horror genre tend to focus heavily on social skills and research (i.e. investigation).  This can be remedied by bumping players up to a higher experience level, but as is it implies a force over finesse approach to investigation—not bad necessarily but something to watch out for.

Additionally the weapons are mostly a single template with many different descriptions.  Since the system holds tight to the d10 as the die of choice, virtually everything does—you guessed it—1d10 damage.  Sure, there are real differences between the weapons in the secondary mechanics, but there is functionally very little difference between the entry level equipment and the late game equipment except that you can’t train in that later equipment until higher experience levels.  This can be explained that a bullet, laser, or sword will all kill ya just the same if used right, but I’d like a little more variety.  Maybe something like the Brutal weapon trait in D&D 4E could be used to show varying damage given the d10 die limitation.

The last issue that I have with the book is not enough setting material to get started.  While the book does contain an extensive introductory adventure, I would have been more satisfied with 30 pages of plot hooks than a single 30 page adventure.  Additionally I could have used a few more adversaries out of the box.

From what I’ve read, most of my complaints have been remedied in books which came after this one, including greater variety in equipment, game styles, setting information, etc.  Even without these other books, most of the issues can be resolved with a little savvy-ness by the GM and players but you’re riding off the reservation to do so, and I’d like the book to have supported them out of the box.

Overall, I think the game is great.  It was fun and easy to play, especially considering none of the gamers at the table had any experience with the setting.  It fits with the dark and gritty gaming that I’m looking for right now, and includes enough atmosphere and crunch to satisfy most gamers.  I will definitely be playing this game again and will be looking into the other books in the Warhammer 40K RPG series as well.

Rating:

This weekend I got to play Hackmaster Basic by Kenzer & Co. for the first time.  Starting off, the list price of under $20 is a huge win for the game in a time where the average RPG book is twice that much.  However the cost reduction does mean that the book lacks the production value and vast content offered by one of the more costly games.

The book itself is well organized, but lacks an index making searching for a specific rule a little cumbersome.  This is an interesting choice by the publisher, as there’s over a dozen pages on how to choose and roll dice (which is an amusing read but unnecessary).  Character creation represents the bulk of game rules, as the book contains one of the most interesting character creation systems that I’ve come across.  One of the mantras of the game, leave the dice where they lie, comes into full effect as your entire character is a product of random tables and dice totals.  Character creation covers everything, from character attributes, to fears, and to the number and disposition of siblings.  In some ways this is liberating, especially if you are stuck in a character concept rut.  Just in case things don’t turn out the way you like them, you can spend build points to re-roll a given table to add to a totaled score.  However this also represents a weakness in the game, as there can be a massive imbalance in created characters that a more standardized game might cover.

The actual gameplay is functionally a satire of classic D&D.  Players are rewarded for playing up stereotypes and punished for breaking those archetypes.  The game design lends itself to ignoring role-playing in favor or roll-playing, where the story is just enough there to give a reason for slaying everything you encounter.  Additionally, in classic D&D fashion spellcasters are pathetically weak and melee combat is overly encouraged.  However unlike classic D&D, there is no long term reward for playing a crappy mage or cleric at low levels to get the benefit of the later power curve, instead you are relegated to near uselessness at almost all times as a spellcaster.

Exploding dice is a core mechanic both in character creation and in gameplay.  Exploding dice is where if you roll the maximum value on a given dice, you get to roll again and add it to the original.  Multiple successive high rolls can take a possible roll to exponential success.  This poses a most significant play issue, as in combat you are either doing negligible damage, or outright destroying opponents in a single blow.  There really is nothing in-between.    However spellcasters don’t get the benefit of exploding dice in most cases and are instead subjected to an opposed saving throw roll with no effective modifiers.  So your complete lack of spells is further diminished by the spells often not being successful because of a completely random roll.  Exploding dice also has an effect during a few parts of character creation, particularly skill levels, which makes for wild results which can hurt balance and playability.

One aspect of roleplaying games which appeals to me is that you playing a hero in a story.  However in Hackmaster, at best you are a nobody doing nobody things, at worst you’re dead from a random roll and it doesn’t matter anyways (surprisingly no one died in the first adventure I played, though that had more to do with completely random die rolls than tactics or strategy.

One part of the game which I really liked is the healing system.  Since clerical magic is virtually useless, the game makes up for that with a healing skill which actually heals.  While a bad roll still happens, the system allows a trained healer the ability to restore significant numbers of hit points, especially when multiple attacks dealt the damage (however you still get screwed by exploding dice damage).  Almost every game system I’ve played has had a lousy healing skill mechanic, but I actually really liked that significant healing could occur without the need for magic.

Overall, I have mixed feelings because I think that Hackmaster Basic, like D&D 4^th Edition, meets the design goals of the publisher—it has the intended feel and the system works for what it is supposed to, but I don’t think that it’s the style of game that I’m looking for.  I’ll play the game again, and might even pick it up for a one-shot game here and then, but I expect the book to become a dust collector rather than a go-to system.

Rating:

I was recently invited to play the Alternity roleplaying game with a new group.  I knew the GM of the game, as he has been playing in my regular D&D game for the last year, but I didn’t know any of the players until I showed up to game.  In many ways, this is a little nerve-wracking.  I get introverted when around people I don’t know well, and there would be no save harbor at the game since I wouldn’t know any of the players.  And yet, I was more nervous about the roleplaying style.  There are many different types of gamers, and I would put myself solidly in the middle of the pack.  I hate dungeon crawling, but also would make a terrible LARP gamer.

 So I expected the game to be a little slow at first, as you don’t want to look like a fool.  It’s kind of like showing up for a job interview at McDonalds wearing a tuxedo.  While the tux is appropriate at an opera house, you’d be overdoing it at a fast food joint.  As the first game session started, my expectations were proven incorrect as the players immediately started playing in-character.  Accents and voices were used, which is not something I can do well at all, but it immediately set the bar as to what was expected in this gaming group.

 The second session, with a much larger group (most of the group didn’t make the first game), made me reset to my original plan—sit back and wait.  However even this plan was deflected as I spent the first hour of the game as an active participant while the new players finished their characters and waited to get involved.  Therefore I was forced to put my cards on the table first.

 Overall, the experience went very well.  I think the group fits my general style of gaming, and sets the bar a little above my comfort level—which has its benefits as well.  Its interesting to see how other people game, so I can pull some of those experiences back to my normal gaming group to improve that game as well.

I have cancelled my subscription to Champions Online. I liked the game, but I haven’t been playing it in the last month or two. The problem that I have with the game is that character changing decisions are too permanent. Unlike WoW, where you can relatively easily change your character build (talents), it is much more difficult to do so in Champions Online. Basically, you have to deeply pre-plan your character to be successful. Sure, you could do this in WoW as well, but I don’t think that you would be punished quite as much for a poor decision like Champions does. What broke my motivation to play was that I had leveled up a character quite a ways, and I decided to change the character to try a new build. I’d tried a lower level version of the build, which seemed quite fun to play. In order to rebuild my character, I was forced to sell everything I owned in game in order to afford the massively expensive rebuild. But when I got done, the character was impossible to play, having changed from a combat monster into a glass cannon. I now couldn’t afford to return back to my original build, thereby trashing my main character.

Sure, WoW doesn’t currently offer the ability to change your character so extremely. You can’t change character class, though there are rumors that might be coming. However the option was given to me to be able to do so and it bit my hand. While I wasn’t high enough level to recreate my original character build with a new character, it sure did crush my motivation to play.

Secondly, the graphics in the game are disappointing. While I can understand that they are trying to replicate the feel of a comic book drawing, which I can appreciate, you are setup from the beginning for a massive let-down. What I mean is that you start off in perhaps the most powerful character builder I’ve seen to date, able to customize everything to the smallest detail. The graphics in the character builder are quality 3-D modeling, so you are given the impression that this is what the game looks like. Then the game starts, and the comic graphics replace the 3-D modeled character you just got done building…

My final issue with the game is the lack of an open world feel. The game is setup with regions which are not attached to one another. One thing that I like about WoW is that you feel like you are in a “real” world (vaguely but you do) where you can wander around. However the zones were like maps in a console game, where you move from one box-canyon to the next box-canyon. The idea of using instances for the entire game, where a limited number of people could be in a given zone at a time, seems like a good idea for performance reasons (especially compared to racial cities in WoW). However in practice it doesn’t encourage the feeling of a real world environment. You almost never run into the same people twice, which doesn’t encourage groups to form or even casual friendships because its unlikely you’ll ever see a person again.

It’s not all bad though, as there are aspects of Champions which I feel are superior to other MMOs that I have played (namely WoW). Built into the game is a mission assistance mechanism similar to how the QuestHelper addon in WoW works. It’s easy to use, and helps new users get right into the action without just wandering around not knowing what to do.

I think that if the game is still going strong in a year or so, which is debatable giving the publisher’s spotty history in MMOs, I might pick it up again. Despite my above complaints, I really enjoyed playing the game when I did. Hopefully by then, I will be able to play without feeling penalized or feel like there is a real community of players around me. I’ll stick with X-Box for now, but I already miss playing an MMO…

Rating:

I am currently working on finishing the campaign log for a recently ended Dark Sun game I ran. As I’m writing it, I’m reminded that this campaign included one of my favorite moments as a dungeon master. This moment was a massive plot twist, that had caught the players completely by surprise.

In the game, the heroes learned that there was an artifact called the Chrono Rod, which could allow them to travel in time. The group planned to travel back in time, and kill Rajaat, the man most responsible for the post-apocalyptic setting of Dark Sun. The group was fired up to activate the rod and do this great deed. To activate the rod, the rod had to be placed in the hand of a certain statue. As the rod was activated, the group was ready to charge through the portal to kill Rajaat. Well, it didn’t quite go that way. Time had taken its toll on prophesy, and what the rod really did was awaken a champion of Rajaat who was still very loyal to his master. Instead of stopping Rajaat in the past, they were now looking at the possibility of bringing Rajaat back into the current world so that he could finish the job.

There was a moment as the champion of Rajaat was awakening, where I was looking at the players and you could see the brimming excitement suddenly get crushed by the reality of what was really occurring. This might sound a little sadistic, but the point is that the game completely changed direction in an instant. Sure, the players were pissed, though not at me. They were fired up by the situation.

What makes the story one of my favorites is that the players had become so deeply invested in the story. This wasn’t a plot twist, it was a reality twist. As a game master, the most you can hope for is to develop a plot deep enough that the players immerse themselves in the story–and this game was a great example. It is a rare game where I get that kind of energy from the players, making the experience of this campaign one of my best experiences behind the DM screen.

Now, I don’t expect that every campaign should have such a big plot twist. But I definitely encourage other game masters to develop stories and worlds which draw in players. In other games it’s been a reoccurring villain that the players hate with a passion, or an NPC that the players love to interact with. I’m specifically referencing the difference between an in-character reaction and a player reaction. If the players are not invested in the story, then you’re not much better than a video game. The goal of role playing is to develop stories and characters which allow the gamers to suspend their disbelief and feel like a part of that world.

I’ve noticed that my PCs and party NPCs more often than not tend to be be anti-heroes, rather than heroes.  Some of my favorite characters in games have been patriotic necromancers, vigilantes, addicts, grey Jedi, and a plethora of characters who barely have a handle on their sanity.  For the most part, these characters do not result in intra-party conflicts–despite their evil leanings.  The characters are always loyal to the party, and have an “ends justify the means” mentality.  The characters are always shades of grey (more like a Christmas light in a dark gymnasium).

I don’t think it’s because I’m incapable of playing a truly heroic character, because I have.  However when I do, the games tend to be less enjoyable.  Sure, this might be because I feel constrained by the limitations of being a “good guy.”  However that seems too simple to explain the entire story.

When making a character, I want the character to be interesting.  Interesting might include the shininess of being a little tasteless, but it also includes conflict.  I’m talking about internal conflict and external conflict.  It’s hard to play a conflicted character when you’re toeing the line of goodliness.  To me, a righteous character shouldn’t be conflicted by wanting to do something and not being able to because it’s bad–dark thoughts are just as evil as dark deeds.  The only conflict I come up with for truly good characters is being a lawful stupid paladin, which means your conflict is being a cop for other player characters.

Outside of gaming, some of my favorite characters are anti-heroes, my favorite comics include Punisher, Ghost Rider, Deadpool, Iron Man, Wolverine, etc.  I’m not a fan of true heroes like Superman or Captain America, not that I dislike them but I just don’t enjoy the stories as much because there is far less conflict.

I think the best way for me to play a good character, is to be faced with an enemy who is the dark mirror.  It has been said that heroes are defined by their villains.  Without a truly vile villain to measure up to, I don’t think I have the ability to play a completely heroic character.  Maybe I just have an unfair standard for my heroes…

After many years of gaming, there is one aspect of traditional D&D which I can’t stand more than anything else—dungeons. It may seem odd, as half of the title of the game I play the most is dungeons, but I just can’t stand them.

I understand why dungeons are often the core of published adventures; they are easy to write. It can be difficult, if not impossible, to design an adventure for others to use without a dungeon. With a dungeon there is a limitation on possible player choices and solid rewards for accomplishing the dungeon. This is why video games utilize the concept as well. It is a very simple, easy to document, and easy to understand method of covering adventure material.

However I feel like dungeons, and published adventures in general, are not very much fun. I like using a published adventure for inspiration, but every time I use a published adventure the game becomes very stale and boring. Sure, 5 rooms of cutting down enemies might be fun, but any more than that and I think me and my fellow players stop trying to enjoy the story and just ignore everything to just finish the dungeon. Its where dungeon crawling becomes a chore.

I do think there is a way to apply the benefits of dungeons to published adventures which do not include dungeons at all. For an example of this, check of the 3.5 book Heroes of Battle. This book includes a good example of how to design an adventure like a dungeon without including a dungeon. Heroes of Battle uses the example of an overland adventure, where player choices affect the next phase of a battle in the midst of a war. The example provided is a D-Day style invasion, where the party arrives on a beach. After stopping the initial defenses, the heroes can continue down the breach to support another landing party, or move up the cliff-side to take out an enemy fortification, and so on. There is a very good diagram of how this can be defined using a flowchart. Even better, there is a time-based flowchart which defines what the enemy forces will do, and how it could react if the players interfere.

The point here is that I believe that published adventures can be much more interesting and immersive if dungeons became a thing of the past. For those who are designing their own adventures, using these ideas for adventure design can provide a robust pre-planned adventure, without the need for a boring dungeon crawl.

I’ve had some time to review the Eberron Player’s Guide, and it was a very solid resource book. First off, I’d like to point out that the Eberron setting has been implemented in 4E like Forgotten Realms should have been (a retroactive cannon fix). A common tactic used in television and comic books, you just act like this is how it always was. There’s no wonky time-warping or world changing.

As to the game rules, I found the new player races to be effective and desirable. While the races are not necessarily new, changinglings (as doppelgangers) and warforged were covered in the Monster Manual, I think that they work well and gained a bit by being printed formally as player races. The new class, Artificer, seems to be an effective and unique leader class. I like the alchemy path as an alternative to rituals, and I expect that future books will support this concept. Regarding the Dragonmark feats, I feel up and down. First, I do like that the dragonmarks diverged from the spellscarred system from the Realms, however I was left wanting for more. I don’t like the idea that anyone can get any dragonmark, and I will house-rule this so no problem really. However I hope that future supplements will include the ability to improve the dragonmarks, perhaps with a follow-up feat in the paragon and epic tiers for greater capabilities. Overall, I think the rules match the feel of Eberron and do not up the power curve significantly.

Regarding the setting material, I’m really not a fan of the “Cliff’s Notes” setting material found in the Eberron and Forgotten Realms Player’s Guides. Once the campaign setting book arrives, this material makes me feel like I got ripped off by getting largely reprinted material in two books. I understand that you can argue that players only need to buy the smaller book, but I still feel cheated somehow.

I started my first Eberron game a few weeks back, in anticipation of the 4E books. I’m disappointed that I’ve missed out on Eberron back in 3rd edition, and I really like the flavor of the setting over almost any other officially printed setting of 4E or 3E. I think that this book is a good start to the setting. I’m really hoping that more supplemental material will be printed after the player’s guide and campaign setting are out, however I’m not holding my breath. I am going to hold on to 3rd edition books however as they are a gold mine of valuable material (once again unlike the Realms…).

Rating:

Last night we started a new campaign, using a new system, and a first-time game master. That’s a lot of new, suggesting the session would turn out to be an all-around train wreck. As it turns out, the session was very smooth, with the issues primarily around learning a new system. Afterwards, we discussed some tips for the first time GM. The primary issue I’ve seen with first time game masters is a strong desire to tell a story-at the cost of the players’ fun. We call this railroading, where the players feel like they have to control or input into the story. The players become glorified dice-rollers at best, bored story listeners, or at worst angry ex-players. So here are some thoughts on how a first-time GM can avoid railroading:

Be a minimalist in describing the situation. I’m not saying that description isn’t important; in fact it is very important for story immersion. What I’m recommending is restricting your description to the minimum required to set the scene. Then allow the players to interact with that environment, thereby allowing for more description. If you completely describe the pub that the players walked in to, down to every detail of the inhabitants, then there is very little for the players delve deeper. By being a little vague about the description, you’ve created an air of mystery that the players will want to solve.

Don’t over think the adventure. In a given adventure, simplify your story idea into 2-3 plot points with huge gaping holes between them. Don’t spend a lot of time deciding how the players are going to get from one plot point to the next. If you plan too much, you’ll quickly lose your entire plan as the players go a different direction. Allow the players to decide how to get from one plot to the next. For example, if the players need to find out information about a nasty relic they are looking for, don’t plan on how they will learn that information. Allow the players to decide, such as they might consult a library, ask around town, or seek divine inspiration. All you need to do is plan the end result (in this case you might have the location of the relic), and let the players get there by whatever creative means they think of.

Start off small. For your first game, consider not planning a grand campaign plot at first. A first time GM will kill themselves planning an intricate, multi-month plot only to have the players destroy the possibility of that plot in the first session. Instead, focus on a single adventure at a time, and then incorporate reoccurring themes. It will seem like you planned it all out in the end. Long term campaign ideas lead to railroading more often than anything else in my view, because the game master wants to get to the end-plot and is less concerned with the current plot and the chaotic players. Once you get some experience, use the adventure advice above to develop a campaign story arc.

Don’t do anything on the players’ behalf. I heard a great bit of advice on the Fear The Boot podcast, the GM has control over the entire world, whereas the players only have control of a single character–don’t take that away from them. Try to stay away from changing character backgrounds or personalities. Don’t tell the characters as they walk into the pub that they move up to the bar and order a drink–let them say that they are moving up the bar to order a drink. Even if you can accurately predict the players’ actions, let them do it anyways.

Your plot is not set in stone, and that’s a good thing. If your plot revolves around the players getting ambushed on the way to village X but the players decide to go to village Y, who says that the ambushers are not on the road to village Y instead? If the players decided not to leave town, let the ambushers come to them or save that plot point for when they do–next session. If your plot points are vague enough, as suggested above, they can occur almost anywhere and for any reason. The players have no idea what you planned, and will think that their actions (or inaction) let to the plot progression. If the players kill someone you were going to use as a reoccurring villain, then use someone else to fill that role in future plots (it doesn’t mean the entire plot collapses).

Unless you are making up the entire game as you go along, which I don’t recommend for first-time game masters, and then you have developed some sort of plot for your game. The key is to let the players believe that they are in control. In a way this suggests that it’s just an illusion of control, but a most important illusion. Freewill in the real world can be considered an illusion of control. The players feel like they are in complete control, and yet you are doing an awesome job keeping up with them. When in reality, you always knew that a platoon of bad guys was going to find them–no matter what they did.

Sure, you can and should take the player’s actions into account. The most important part of being a game master is to facilitate the player’s fun, so allow them to have fun. Make them feel like their actions and personalities matter. Oh, and never use a published adventure for your first time in the GM chair, as a published adventure will go against every suggestion here.

I found a blog post awhile back called How to Awesome-Up Your Players. Ever since I read the article, from time to time I think about this as a basic theory of gaming. The entire point of roleplaying games, unlike any other type of gaming such as video games, is that the players get to be the hero. Sure, a video game might let them play a hero, but it doesn’t let them be the hero. The theory is almost like the service industry’s motto of “the customer is always right (even when they’re wrong).” If you are a game master, your players are your customers. If they don’t like what you’re selling them, they’ll get a new GM or decide they don’t want to game at all.

Now this doesn’t mean that the rules system goes out the window. Sure, if they want to kill the BBEG or burn down the inn, they still have to accomplish the task within the confines of the rules system. The point it, you are letting them try. I think that the biggest failing of any game masters is when they tell a player no, the player can’t do something. Saying no is very different from saying that something is really hard, but is possible (however remote). At this point even if the player’s action fails it’s a failure of a bad roll, not a mean GM who doesn’t allow players to play the game. The blog post encourages the use of GM caveat in favor of players as well, suggesting that even if the action should be near impossible rules-wise, that the GM should help the action succeed. This is a good idea as well, within limits.

At the end of the day, try to say yes to your players, and avoid saying no at all costs. It’s not about giving the players anything they want, but allowing them to try.