d6-y Time

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the release of Star Wars (what the kids today know as Episode 4: A New Hope) in theaters back in 1977. And yes, I'm running another session of my Star Wars d6 game. The players from my May the Fourth game are returning, and two more players are showing up. Richard is our Call of Cthulhu Keeper, and recently joined my TS&R Jade game. Randy is a friend who's been interested in getting into RPGs, but had a new baby late last year so hasn't had much time for gaming until recently. 

The d6 system, in its more generic form, was on my mind recently. I actually woke up from a dream yesterday in which I was modifying the system to create a Mabinogion/Irish Myth based fantasy game. I've never played, or even read, the official d6 Fantasy game that came out 20-some years ago, but in my dream I was coming up with a list of skills for magic: enchantments, transmutations, illusions, etc.

Then I come across Tim Brannan talking about Star Wars d20 and mentioning how he prefers those rules to WEG d6, and also Weregrognard talking about WEG d6 Star Wars and the d6 System in general. So it seems to be a bit of a mini-topic these days. 

About 10 years ago or so, when Jeremy Hart and I were gaming together more actively than we are these days, he often talked about wanting to run something with Mini Six, the slimmed down d6 System game. But then he'd run something else, home brewed or Black Hack, or something interesting he'd found and wanted to try. So we never got that Mini Six game going. But at that time, it did get me to download Open d6 and I did really like what I saw in it. 

In fact, I've considered making a 2nd edition of Flying Swordsmen using Open d6! I had fun playing Dragon Fist for a bit when it came out nearly 25 years ago, and had fun with FS for a while, but honestly, it's not the best fit for a long term wuxia style game. With the bell curve results of a totaled die pool, the flexibility to determine what attributes and skills are in the game, and the lesser focus on tactical placement and more on descriptive engagement with encounters, I honestly think it would be a better fit. OSR style mechanics are great for a game where exploration and acquisition, plus combat, are the key drivers of play. Good wuxia stories are about exploring relationships and social norms as much as they are about the martial arts combat. I think d6 would be a better fit, honestly. 

Finally, yesterday this YouTube video on various die rolling methods was recommended by the Almighty Algorithm. Now, before you click on it -- I am not the intended audience, and you, my reader, are most likely not as well. It seems to be pitched towards teens/tweens who are just getting into RPGs, based on the guy's content and his delivery. Why I mention it is that while he mentions the White Wolf style # of successes die pool system, he doesn't mention the WEG d6 die pool vs target number system. There are lots of other die systems he also neglects...like I said, the target audience seems to be kids just getting into gaming, not us old fogies. 

While I didn't learn anything from that video, it did get me thinking about the way that certain systems seem to promote different aspects of play. I'm currently involved in games using d20 for combat (TS&R, although it's got percentages, x/d6, and 2d6 roll mechanics as well, and Gamma World 4E), exclusively d% (Call of Cthulhu), and dice pool (WEG Star Wars) systems. 

The swingy d20 and d% systems are geared around exploration. TS&R (D&D) and Gamma World are about exploration of the setting. CoC is about exploration of mysteries. 

Dice pool systems like WEG (and what little I've played of WW d10 dice pool games) are more focused on telling an interesting story, or at least entertaining the players and allowing them a structure to immerse themselves in their character. I've used some dungeon crawling and wilderness hex-ploration in my Star Wars game from time to time, but for the most part the challenges I set up are situational, with a lot of if/then triggers, rather than site-based. The d6 Star Wars game was designed with this sort of play in mind, and I think it works really well to encourage that. 

Also, the way that the probabilities work out with a dice pool means that characters are a bit more consistent in performance than those using a flat distribution mechanic like d20/d%, although things like the Wild Die, losing dice for multiple actions, and opposed rolls do keep things interesting. 

I'd been thinking that after I finish revising/editing/formatting the TS&R Game Master Guidebook and editing it down to a Rules & Procedures table reference, I'd try my hand at another setting/genre set of players' book/monster book. Middle Eastern/Arabian Nights style gaming, or retro Sci Fi rockets & rayguns, maybe. Now, though, I'm wondering if maybe that Celtic Myth fantasy game or a revision of Flying Swordsmen, both with the Open d6 system, might catch my interest more.

Emergent Characters vs. Bespoke Characters

When people create an RPG character these days, I'd say it's most common for folks to come up with their character concept first, then roll dice & arrange, or assign a standard array, or do point buy to try and 'build' that character. But back in the day, we mostly rolled ability scores first, then figured out what sort of character this one would be. Both have their place, and this post will discuss the merits of both methods.

Last Friday, when I logged on to Discord for our CoC "session 0" (third round), I had a bit of interesting discussion with Richard (the Keeper). Although he's decided CoC is his game that he wants to stick with for most of his gaming, he was reading up on Original D&D, and was curious about some of the methods and the rationale behind the methods in those rules. We will, schedule permitting, get together and just chat about that hopefully some day soon. 

One of the things we did talk about last Friday was relevant to the task at hand. We were generating characters. Richard prefers rolling dice to see what you get, and then crafting a character based on those rolls. I'm partial to that method myself, so we all did that. In the first adventure Richard ran, he just had us use standard array since that speeds up the process and we players were mostly new to the system. My previous Cthulhu experience was under the 3E d20 rules (which didn't really fit the bill). When that adventure was complete, one of the players, Brady, took a turn as Keeper, so we had to make new PCs. Some of the players used the standard array, but Richard and I rolled the dice. This time, Richard is back as Keeper, and everyone tried die rolling. 

Even though we rolled randomly for our abilities, the other three players all had ideas for their character that they modified slightly to the rolls they received. Mostly, though, since CoC is so heavily skill based, the background chosen was more important to their character concept than what abilities they rolled. 

My case was different. I rolled without any real preconception of what the character would be. I had briefly considered trying to remake my old d20 CoC character, a young seminarian convinced that all the eldritch horror was the work of The Devil, but had changed my mind on that before I started rolling. I looked at my scores (pretty poor ones for the most part), and decided that this would be a desk-jockey type analyst for the FBI-like government agency we would be working for on this adventure. He's the stereotypical nerd. Very poor physical stats and appearance (and luck, and power). Lots of 35s. But Education is very good (75 from the roll, bumped up to 84 by lucky die rolls for being in my early 30s), and Dexterity and Intelligence are both around 50. So a weakling, but full of useful skills. I think he'll be fun to play. 

And so, Richard and I spent part of the session discussing the merits of rolling first then crafting the character's class/role and description/personality around those rolls. I'm calling this an Emergent Character. This works best when rolling in order, of course. Any sort of adjustment, including the OD&D through RC version of trading for Prime Requisite, or the BECMI suggestion to swap the highest die roll for the desired PR, move the process closer to the Bespoke Character, where the player comes up with the concept first, then tries to fit the concept around the game rules. 

Honestly, as a veteran gamer, I understand well the allure of the Bespoke PC. Players with experience know what they like, or know what might be a fun new novel challenge for them, and like to come up with concepts first. I often do that myself. Especially in systems where there are point buy abilities, or even point buy skills, this makes sense. If you have to select all of your skills/abilities from a big old list of possibilities (like in WEG d6, GURPS or Palladium games), it speeds things up immensely to have an idea of what you want to play. Yeah, Palladium is technically a class & level system, but with so many sourcebooks and so many skills on top of the copious number of classes to choose from (some with just very minor differences...looking at you, Ninjas & Superspies), it might as well be a carte blanche skill purchase system. 

Class & Level games obviously lend themselves better to a roll-first Emergent Character creation process. And the funny thing is, this method is both better for beginner players who don't really know much about the system, and for experienced veterans who are in for a challenge. The Emergent PC needs to be created on the spot, to reflect the rolls. This makes it easy for a new player. You have them roll, then you can advise them on the best class options for that set of rolls. Granted, sometimes the rolls might be best for a difficult class to play as a newbie, but often jumping into the fire feet first can be a good initiation to the game. And as I mentioned, for the jaded veteran who's tried it all, being able to roll randomly and THEN figure out who this weirdo adventurer is can be both fun and challenging. 

Quite often, when I try to join a new game on RPOL.net, the GM wants players to submit their character concept in advance. This can be hard for me, as I don't always have a concept...or rather, I probably have many potential concepts that I'd like to play. For example, I've been hoping to join a d6 Star Wars game. But if I'm accepted, I'm not sure if I'd like to play a "wandering space cowboy" or a "Jawa scavenger" or a "Guardian of the Whills" type character. All three sound fun to me. Of course, in d6 Star Wars, you don't roll for stats so I could pick any of these that I like. So it makes sense for the GM to vett players by their concept(s) before they're added to the game. Bespoke is the way to go.

In a D&D game, though, most DMs still require potential players to pitch their character before they're allowed to roll the dice. There are a few DMs I play under who will allow a change if the die rolls don't go the way you wanted, but mostly they want you to stick with your concept, even if the rolls don't really allow for that (of course, many want players to use a standard array, or point buy, so you can get your Bespoke PC). Sometimes, the dice fail to cooperate. I pitched an idea for a human paladin Champion of Kord, a consummate athlete turned adventurer. Then the my highest die roll for ability scores was a 14. My other scores were 12, 11, 9, 9, 9. Since this is 5E, I used variant human, and got the 11 up to a 12 and one of the 9s to a 10 so there wouldn't be a penalty, and snagged a feat. So my "amazing athlete" character had a middling Strength (14), just slightly above average Constitution (12), and an average Dexterity (10, because the other 12 went to Charisma), and below average Int and Wis. Not at all the character I'd pitched. 

So I had to rework the idea into a young up-and-coming teen devoted to Kord, hoping to become that amazing athlete some day, rather than having that as the backstory to his adventuring. Honestly, I can't imagine the character giving up adventuring for sports, but that was what the rolls gave me. 

While there is that down-side to Emergent PC creation, Bespoke PCs of course tend to fall prey to either the cookie-cutter effect, or the twinked-out CharOpBoards effect. System mastery tends to suggest certain builds for certain types of characters, and if you have full control (or nearly so) of the character's mechanics, it's easy to just go for the basic builds, and every PC trying to fill a certain niche will look pretty similar to the others in the same niche. And at the extreme end, you get the players trying to find the exploits in the system, designing the "ultimate" PC for whatever purpose, or the game breaking Pun-Pun the Kobold build. 

Both Emergent and Bespoke PCs have their merits and their drawbacks. I tend to prefer the challenge of rolling the dice first and then fitting a character to the rolls. It's annoying to have to come up with all that first, just to have to rework it like my Champion of Kord. But I do also enjoy the dedicated Bespoke PC options in games from time to time. That is also a sort of challenge, trying to create a certain archetype or idea out of the elements allowed for that game.

What to Roll and Which System to Use

A couple of recent posts by other bloggers got me thinking. Specifically, we're talking today about rolling ability scores, and the modifiers that you get from those scores depending on the system you use. 

It's probably no surprise that the first post that got me thinking about this was one by Alexis over at Tao of D&D: 

As a DM, I see AD&D's combat/survival structure relying on characters possessing at least two stats above 14.  There are no benefits for any stat less than 15 with regards to strength, constitution and dexterity, upon which the combat system depends.  And though spell-use can mitigate the need for these somewhat, a good mage or illusionist really needs a +1 dex bonus at minimum (in my experience), while a cleric whose going to wade in and fight needs at least some bonuses in strength or constitution.  A cleric who won't wade in hasn't a good enough spell arsenal, and is therefore useless; which is part of the reason why clerics who tried to style themselves as "healers" and not "holy fighters" ended up crying for more healing potential, as the original list doesn't allow this specialisation effectively.

Thus, adding that extra die to 3d6 increases the chance of rolling above 14 sufficiently to hit that window of "practical" character.  I know that many, many voices refuse to believe there is such a thing; that the game needs to adjust for the character, and not the reverse.  Of course I could run a softer, more gutted game for those players with mediocre stats, but having experienced the lessened potential and drooling dullness of such a game, I'm not sold on the concept.  If the reader wants me to go into that, I will, drop me an email, but for the present I'll assume most people here are aware that having bonuses makes players happy, and I like happy players.

Too, the 3d6 alternative produces too many "culls," my term for the selective slaughter of players whose stats are too obviously likely to get them killed.  The penalties for stats of 7 and less can be tolerated if they appear with rarity ... but when they're scattered among multiple players in a party, sooner or later the randomness of unfudged die rolls takes its toll.  I see no reason to roll up characters en masse for the purpose of creating an inferior stock.  No, I prefer the alternative.  A nice collection of characters whose stats average around 73 or better makes a party more likely to survive, thus producing a sustainable game.

Up front, yes, I'm one of those DMs that Alexis talks about who thinks that high scores aren't absolutely necessary for an effective character. I like it when my players roll well for their characters. I like for them to have competent characters. But I've also played enough average characters in my life to know that while that extra 5% chance to hit or avoid being hit, or the extra hit point or extra point of damage on each attack can matter, it's perfectly feasible to run a character without them. 

And this is slightly off topic, but I find it funny that a commenter on a previous post thought a 5% or 10% XP boost is really meaningless. Granted, we're talking a vastly different scale between a d20 roll to hit and the thousands of XP needed to gain levels, but a percentage is a percentage. 

Anyway, back to the topic of ability scores and how we roll them. Alexis prefers AD&D's ability modifiers which, at least for combat bonuses, don't start giving bonuses until a 15 or 16. But scores of 15 or higher are really rare on a flat 3d6 roll, so he needs to use 4d6-L to give players a decent shot at getting not just one, but two scores with bonuses, and radically reduce the number of scores that get a penalty. 

I have no problem with this. I use 4d6-L in my game these days, after experimenting with a few other options over the past few years. 

But before I go on, I need to introduce the other blogger that spurred this post, Anders H. of the Mythlands blog, who was writing about not just discrete mechanics for different tasks, but discrete bonuses for different ability scores being a feature not a bug of AD&D design: 

AD&D in general however, revels in lack of homogeneity. There's a ton of derived stats from ability scores and they are all different, with different progressions and determining the math behind the curve of progression is not at all transparent. 

I suspect there is none and that Gygax et al used a more powerful tool than mathematical progression - Deciding on modifiers based on gaming impact. And this one of the great virtues of game design that are lost with streamlined mechanics. 

Modern games, I posit, suffer from a tyranny of number harmonies and easy calculation. Everything must be transparent, easy to calculate and preferably limited to a few basic methods the recur throughout the whole gaming engine.

But does the game actually play better when STR gives the same bonus to hit as it does to damage? Or CON an equivalent bonus to hit points? Does it yield the desired results at the actual game table or simply look pleasing in the rulebook and easy to memorise?  Harmonies do not necessarily equal better game play.

I've gone on record before saying that I'm not a fan of the way AD&D does ability score bonuses. They are inconsistent across the different scores, there is way too big of a doughnut of scores with no adjustment up or down, and then there are things like Fighters getting percentile strength bonus on an 18, or only Fighters getting more than +2 hit points for a high Constitution, or the needlessly fiddly % to Know spells Int modifier for Magic-Users or Chance of Spell Failure for Clerics. 

Exactly the things Anders is praising are the things that annoy me about AD&D ability scores. I do agree with him on most of his other points, though. Clerics and Magic-Users don't need identical spellcasting power. Different rates of advancement for different classes is a good thing. Categorical saving throws are cooler and more interesting than just rolling against your ability scores. And any complex calculation that can be boiled down to a simple hard number on a not overly complex character sheet is a good thing. 

And again, let's get back to ability score adjustments and how to roll those abilities. 

Anders makes the case that the diversity of adjustments in AD&D are due to the different roles that those abilities play in the game. Alexis makes the case that a playable character should have at least two scores with a positive adjustment. 

This made me curious to compare the probabilities of rolling 4d6-L for AD&D adjustment bonuses vs. 3d6 flat for BX/BECMI adjustments. The website AnyDice.com gave me the percentage chances to roll X or higher with each rolling method (yeah, I can do the math myself, but this was faster). And this website has an ability score calculator that can show you the probabilities of getting certain scores or higher on sets of six ability scores, which is handy. 

So to recap: 

In order to get a +1 bonus to any score in Classic D&D, you need a 13 or more in that ability. That's a bonus to hit in either ranged or missile combat, a bonus to damage in melee combat, a bonus to AC, or bonus hit points per level.

In order to get a +1 bonus to any combat relevant score in Advanced D&D, you need a 15 or 16 depending on the score and the variable being adjusted. 

To get a -1 (improvement) to AC, or to get +1 hit point per level, you need a 15 to Dex or Con, respectively.

To get a +1 to damage in melee combat or to hit in ranged combat, you need a 16 in Str or Dex, respectively. 

To get a +1 to hit in melee combat, you need a Str 17. 

According to the die rollers, if you roll flat 3d6, to get a score of X or higher on any particular score, your chances are: 

13+ 25.93% [+1 to any variable in Classic, no adjustment to any variable in Advanced]

15+ 9.26% [+1 to any variable in Classic, +1 to HP or -1 AC in Advanced]

16+ 4.63% [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee damage, +2 HP, +1 ranged attack, -2 AC in Advanced]

17+ 1.85% [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +1 melee damage, +2(3) HP, +2 ranged attack, -3 AC in Advanced]

18 0.46% [+3 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +2 melee damage, +2(4) HP, +3 ranged attack, -4 AC in Advanced]

So about one in four rolls will get you a bonus rolling 3d6, on average you can expect one or two scores to be above average. 

If we roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, to get a score of X or higher on any particular score, your chances are: 

13+ 48.77% [+1 to any variable in Classic, no adjustment to any variable in Advanced]

15+ 23.15% [+1 to any variable in Classic, +1 to HP or -1 AC in Advanced]

16+ 13.04% [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee damage, +2 HP, +1 ranged attack, -2 AC in Advanced]

17+ 5.79%  [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +1 melee damage, +2(3) HP, +2 ranged attack, -3 AC in Advanced]

18 1.62% [+3 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +2 melee damage, +2(4) HP, +3 ranged attack, -4 AC in Advanced]

The 13+ on 3d6 and 15+ on 4d6-L are highlighted because they have more or less equivalent values. You've got about a one in four chance of getting at least that number on any ability score roll in either system. And while AD&D does grant a few bonuses better than 3 IF you're a Fighter and put that 18 in Con instead of Str or any character with 18 Dex, or you're a Fighter type and put that 18 in Str and roll well on the percentile dice, the Classic system is really more generous. 

If it's imperative to have multiple ability scores with bonuses for characters, you're better off going with the Classic D&D style ability score adjustments, even if that takes away from the bespoke nature of what each score represents, or specialized bonuses for certain classes and not others as in AD&D. 

One more thing. Looking at rolling an entire set of ability scores, according to the Ability Score calculator website linked above, rolling 4d6-L six times gives you a 9.34% chance to roll an 18, so about one in 11 characters should have one. If you need at least two scores of 15 or more, you have a 42.16% chance. To get at least one score of 15+ you have a 79.4% chance. So most AD&D characters rolled this way will be minimally viable, with only one in five not meeting Alexis's minimum threshold, but only 2 in 5 meeting his preferred threshold of two scores qualifying for a bonus. 

And remember, that's looking at the score of 15, which in AD&D only affects hit points and AC, not chances to hit or damage inflicted. 

Rolling 3d6, but needing only a 13+ on a single score, we get an 83.48% chance to get at least one of the six rolls to give a bonus, just slightly better than the chance to get a 15+ on 4d6-L. To get two scores with a bonus, we have a 48.79% chance, that's roughly half of all characters generated. It's not a big difference, but the difference does, I think, matter. One in two suitable characters compared to two out of five. Oh, getting at least one 18 has a 2.75% chance, or one in thirty-six characters. 

Obviously, 4d6-L provides much higher chances of rolling the numbers above the threshold for a bonus, but if you're only concerned with getting at least one or two scores above the threshold, you've got roughly even odds either way, but with a slight edge to rolling 3d6 against the lower threshold of 13. 

The biggest advantage to Classic characters, though, is the regular array of bonuses. Because you need at least a 16 or 17 for certain variables in Advanced, you really NEED to roll 4d6-L (or one of those crazy bucket-o'-dice methods from Unearthed Arcana). And for me, rolling 4d6-L but with Classic bonuses to rolls, most characters are going to turn out fine. 

As an example: Last Sunday, Jeff, who plays in my online West Marches and Star Wars games and is visiting Busan for the month, joined my face-to-face game. His highest score, rolling 4d6-L six times, was a 13. He made a Fighter, and did just fine in the session... although it was one without a lot of combat. But he didn't complain, and he put his usual effort into characterization and had a good time.

Christmas Swag

My younger son, Stevie, got me this set of 30-siders for Christmas. It's funny that it took this long for me to finally get some d30s, especially since the heyday of d30 tables was 10 years ago or so. But anyway, next time I come across a blog post with a neat little d30 table, I'll be able to roll on it with a single die, instead of the d10/d6 combo roll.

Other than the dice, I got a nice bottle of rum from my older son (Bacardi, purchased by my wife on his behalf) and a set of two bottles of tequila (Cuervo). 

I also used my birthday money (and a bit of my own) to order the 2023 Tolkien calendar and the official D&D miniatures sets with the old villains and heroes of the 80s D&D toys (Strongheart, Warduke, Elkhorn, Zarak, Kellek, etc.). They will be arriving in the next week or two. 

My older son told me he wanted to order me an RPG book. He'd found one, but it would have taken too long to get here, so he didn't. When I asked about it, it was Pathfinder. Not sure if it was the original or 2E. I'd have been happy if he'd gotten it for me, but honestly, I probably wouldn't play it. But maybe he'd want to try running a game with it? Might be something to think about for his birthday, coming up in March. 

I hope all my readers had/are having/will have a great holiday season, whatever holidays you celebrate!

Uncovering Treasure

Been on vacation. My family spent most of 2019 in the USA while I remained in Korea. I've been in Illinois with the family for the past three weeks, and two more to go before I head back for work. The family's sticking around here for a while longer. It's hard, but it's been great for my wife and our boys.

Back in December, I ordered myself a copy of the AD&D Dragonlance Adventures as a birthday present for myself. Since the seller only did domestic shipping, I had to wait until I visited here to get it. Been reading it in short bursts when I have time.

It's not the best copy, pretty beat up, but it was only $20 or so. I'll have thoughts on Krynn coming soon(ish).

The real story I want to tell tonight is that I met with my second cousin and his wife two weeks ago. They're a generation older than me, and their son was one of my best friends growing up. He died of cancer when he was only 20, during my senior year of college. They mentioned that they still had a lot of his old gaming stuff in their home, and that I was welcome to have any of it that I wanted.

I stopped by a week later and found some long lost treasures. There weren't any of his old character sheets or dungeon notes, and if there had been, I most likely would have gotten really emotional looking through them. A lot of his gaming collection is probably now in the hands of one of his brothers. But I did get some gems. Another copy of the 1E PHB, a Mentzer Basic DM's Guidebook, both books of the Immortals box set (which I had only in PDF form until now), Unearthed Arcana (which I also only had in PDF form and almost ordered instead of DLA back in December!), and his old crayon-fill TSR dice (minus a d6, plus a few other d6s from other games). Also, there are the cards and some tokens from Tom Wham's Mertwig's Maze.

This is some unearthed treasure that I will cherish for a long time. I have so many fond memories from elementary through high school playing D&D, Star Frontiers, and other games with him, not to mention the usual stuff kids did back in the 80's and 90's. People knock nostalgia, but this trip has been full of it, and it's really recharged my gaming batteries. 

I'll have some updates on gaming with my sons soon, too. Some cool developments there as well. 

Beyond the Secret Door - Rolling Protocols

So I've been in a drawn out conversation with Alexis of The Tao about whether or not all DM rolls should be in the open or not. The most recent exchange in the comments of my previous post.

One of the original examples I gave of why sometimes it's better for the game to keep some rolls secret is in the case of secret doors in an old school game.

The way I see it, there's a better choice analysis/trade off in old school D&D. Searching takes time, 1 Turn per 10' searched. And every Turn (or two Turns, depending on the rules used) the DM makes a wandering monster check. So every time players make a choice to search an area for secret doors is them gambling on facing the next low payoff random encounter.

Random encounters provide some monster XP, but rarely have any treasure worth scooping up. And they risk losing hit points, spells, flasks of oil, potions, magic item charges, etc. to deal with.

So that's the situation. Players suspect an area might (or even must) have a secret door. Do they want to spend time searching for it, possibly failing, and risk more wandering monsters? Or do they want to just move on to the next area? If they can see the results of the search roll (d20+ style player Perception skill rolls, or old school style DM rolls made in the open) they have less uncertainty. If they roll well but find nothing, the question is answered. If they roll poorly, they are in the dark. By keeping the roll secret, the players are always in the dark if no door is found, and the choice remains on the table.

Alexis pointed out that the DM rolling in secret was functionally identical to the DM rolling in advance to see if the secret door would even be found. And if so, why wouldn't the DM save themselves some effort and roll in advance, and if negative, not even draw/stock/create the contents beyond the door?

Now, I have been formulating ideas in my head for the greater question - should some rolls be kept secret from the players? But Alexis wanted this specific question addressed. And when he repeated the question in the comments yesterday, he actually gave me the answer I was looking for.

He further specified a situation in which a dungeon would be visited once and then forgotten (like in a lot of modern adventure path gaming). And I have to say, in that specific situation, he's not wrong.

For example, back in October/November of 2007 (or maybe it was 2006, after I got married but before my first son was born and we were still living in Japan, pretty sure it was 2007 though), I intended to run Ravenloft as a one-shot. It turned into a 3 or 4 shot. Before running it, to speed things along, I made a time chart and rolled all the random encounters and their reaction rolls in advance. Partly this was because according to the module, at certain times, Strahd will be aware of the PCs and attack or send minions to attack. But I also wanted to just save a bit of time in the session.

This resulted in a few interesting encounters. For one, I'd rolled spectres, but friendly reactions! And when that encounter came up, the party were resting for the night in the chapel (which they incorrectly thought was still hallowed ground and safe). Thinking on the spot, it's the chapel, the middle of the night, spectres, but not hostile. It was a ghostly Black Mass being celebrated. Creeped the players out, built up the proper Gothic mood, but also allowed them to avoid what could have been an adventure ending encounter if it had devolved into combat.

I mention that to point out that I'm not against the idea of the DM making some rolls in advance. There's a time and place for that.

But back to the secret door thing. In my answer to Alexis, I pointed out to him that in my current West Marches campaign (actually also true for my play-by-post megadungeon game on RPOL), players often decide to return to partially explored dungeons. And as players come and go, and characters die and get replaced, it's not always the same party exploring.

In a game like mine, players knowing there definitely ISN'T a secret door at a certain location becomes a form of metagaming. But if the players themselves aren't sure, then their characters are also unsure. And they remain with the trade-off of searching for the secret door and risking wandering monsters, or not.

Now, it should go without saying that whatever is behind the door shouldn't be vital to the success or failure of the adventure. If the only way to get to the BBEG or rescue the prisoners or escape the fiendish Bond villain deathtrap is to find the secret door, don't roll. If the players search, they find it.

But if the secret door is just a shortcut from A to B, or has some extra loot or nonessential but helpful clues or strangeness that would just make for a cool moment, whether they find the door or not is irrelevant. It's an Easter Egg. In that case, why should the roll be in the open? Perceived fairness of the DM is the only reason why someone would argue that it should.

I'd argue that DM fairness will be known by other things than by whether the results of some rolls are kept secret or not.

Game Theory: Dice Complicate Things

This is a follow up post to this discussion of why some rolls should remain secret from the players, and this brief summary of information states in Game Theory.

Again, I'm far from an expert in Game Theory. If I make some mistakes, forgive me. The following is based on my understanding of the theory.

Game Theory uses mathematical models to explain, and hopefully predict, human decision making. It sets up scenarios and tries to use logic, modeling of all permutations, and probability to create these models, and many of the models show optimal game states called equilibria. A state of game equilibrium is the optimal moves for one or both players in the game.

As mentioned in the post on information in games, sometimes one or both players have imperfect or incomplete information about the game state, and so a Call to Nature (or assigning probabilities of any possible move happening) is made.

Now, Game Theory isn't designed to predict outcomes of things like common games. It's really about creating hypothetical situations to model real world decisions. So from what I've read, the Call to Nature is used as infrequently as possible. It's possible, though, if I keep studying GT, that more advanced models do include constant randomness in the game model. If so, I haven't gotten there yet.

Rolling dice is a Call to Nature. But in a GT model, it's a theoretical position discussing the possible outcomes or permutations of the model based on the probabilities assigned.

In an RPG, the dice are a Call to Nature, but they also are also an unknown. Until the dice are rolled, we can know the probability of a result, but no player or game master knows what the outcome will be until the dice are rolled.

In a pure diceless story-game, there are no Calls to Nature. Players can enjoy a state of perfect information. Every move made by every player is in the open.

In an RPG involving random number generation (by dice, card, or what have you), the game state may be perfect if the game master has no secret information that the players do not. Usually, though, the GM will know some things about the game state that the players don't, resulting in an Asymmetric state of information.

The dice, though, are the great equalizer. Players and GMs alike are in a state of Imperfect information. In a way, the dice could be thought of as a player in the game as well as the GM and players. And no one knows what moves the Call to Nature Player will make. You can't predict their strategy (unless you game with loaded dice). You can know the probability of any particular throw, but the result will always be a surprise.

How this affects things, and why keeping some of these throws secret will have to wait for another post, though. I'm out of time.

Information in Game Theory

This is the first post in a series responding to Alexis's comments on my Secret Roll post. I don't have time to write up a full reply today, so I'll just get this out there as a grounding for my thoughts.

Let me also preface this by saying I'm nowhere near an expert in Game Theory. I've done some light reading on the subject. My notes here come from reviewing Rosenthal's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Game Theory (2011).

There are four basic states of information in Game Theory: perfect, imperfect, incomplete, and asymmetric.

Perfect Information: all players are aware of all moves made by all other players up to that point of the game. For example, in chess, you can see the board, all the pieces, and every move you have made and every move the opponent has made is done openly.

Imperfect Information: One or more players know the possible moves that could be made, but don't know the exact move that has been made until after they make their move. Rock-Paper-Scissors is an example. You know what move you will make. You know possible moves your opponent may make. You won't know the outcome until the moves have been made already.

Incomplete Information: One or more players has imperfect information and also cannot be sure what sort of player they are up against, what strategies they favor, or the value the other player(s) place on outcomes. Poker is a good example of this, as a good poker player will try to hide their preferred strategies to more effectively bluff.

Asymmetric Information: One player has perfect information while the other player(s) has incomplete information. This sounds to me a lot like the typical DM/player distinction.

Rosenthal suggests that imperfect information games are the most interesting theoretically. "[T]he truly interesting games involving human interaction are games of imperfect information" (p. 84). However, game theorists can turn games of incomplete/asymmetric information into games of imperfect information by using a "call to Nature" or assigning a probability to each possible unknown move or unknown strategy choice in these situations.

It seems like Alexis is saying D&D works best when it's an imperfect information game. Players know the moves that they and the DM have made, but don't know the outcome until the dice are rolled. But once they are rolled, we're in a situation of perfect information until the dice need to be rolled again.

What I'm suggesting is that occasionally, incomplete or asymmetric information situations, where the player is forced to make a Call to Nature to determine the best strategy, can be a good thing.

More later.

Rosenthal, E.C. (2011). The complete idiot's guide to game theory: The fascinating math behind decision-making. New York: Alpha Books.

The Secret Roll

I know there are a lot of bloggers and blog readers who favor rolling all the dice in the open. The original West Marches campaign, which I'm not faithful to 100%, also was for open rolls by the DM.

Now, I've come to believe that in combat, yes, the rolls should be open. Fair combat rolls, observed by everyone, lead to fewer complaints when things go pear-shaped.

But sometimes, rolling in secret as a DM for non-combat tasks is a good thing.

Searching for secret doors is a trade-off. There's not guaranteed to be a secret door where you're searching. And even if there is, you're not guaranteed to find it due to the roll. And each search takes a Turn, so the more searching done, the more chances of wandering monster encounters that suck up resources. In this case, if the roll is in the open and a result proves that there is no secret door (1-2 on a d6 for an Elf, 1 on d6 for anyone else, with no door found), the party knows to stop expending resources. But if the result is a mystery, they don't know if there is no door, or if the dice just weren't on their side (and chances are they weren't).

And now, they have to make a choice. Risk a wandering monster check to roll again? Or move on and potentially miss some treasure or a shortcut through the dungeon.

Now, I can understand the rationalization in the above situation that a successful roll where there is no door means the party gets definitive evidence that there is no door. So rolling in the open isn't so bad for that. But the suspense and measuring of odds of keeping that roll secret is more interesting to me.

Similarly, Thief skills are rolls that I, having learned from Mentzer's rules where he advises such, think the DM should roll in secret. Again, it adds to the suspense at the game table. And it's a situation where, as DM, if you were going to fudge the roll anyway, you might as well just tell the player straight up that conditions are such that they succeed automatically.

I mean, no one complains when a DM tells the Thief player, "Sorry, there just aren't any shadows to hide in here." Or if a door is barred rather than locked, so it can't be picked (although a clever Thief can work around a barred door too...). If the situation is such that failure is guaranteed, I don't see many players complaining. So if success is guaranteed, the DM should just tell the player that without bothering to make a roll. 

Just like players, the DM shouldn't have to roll unless the outcome is uncertain. And while certain rolls like monsters' attacks, damage, and saving throws most definitely should be rolled in the open, occasionally there are still times when it is better for the game experience for the DM to keep the roll secret from the players.

IMO, YMMV, all that jazz.

Static Damage - Not a Fan

D&D 4E used static damage for monster attacks as the default, with a rolled range (of which the static amount was the average result) as optional. If I remember right, it was also supposed to be the default for player attacks as well, although none of the DMs I played with used it on the player side.

5E continues to support this idea. Although spells and monster attacks are given a die range to roll, the average result is presented first in the monster stat blocks.

I think it takes a lot of the fun out of the game.

Zak Smith is persona-non-grata in the OSR these days (and we won't rehash why here, that's not the point and any comments defending or dissing Zak will be deleted), but he did have a good post I remember defending the Classic D&D group initiative system. In that system, you roll for each side in the combat each round to see who goes first. His defense of it was that the rolls not only add variety/unpredictability to combats, they also work at building group cohesion and keep attention focused on the events unfolding at the table. And I think he was right.

Set initiative (3E through 5E style) makes things a bit easier for the DM to manage at the table. But as a DM and as a player, I've noticed that after a player takes a turn, they know they've got quite a while to wait before their next turn, especially if they're not in a position to be attacked by the opponents for that round (archers, spellcasters, hiding stealthy characters). And there are enough distractions in this modern world (smart phones, new web browser tabs, etc.) that we can turn to while we wait that it can leave players a bit out of the loop at times. Group initiative focuses the whole group during the initiative roll, and it tends to last longer no matter which side goes first.

Set damage for monster attacks isn't exactly the same, but I believe it was implemented for a similar purpose - to make things easier for the DM. But it has the unintended side effect of making combat less interesting. If the damage for attacks is set, I know exactly how many hits my character can take. If it's random, I am forced to make assessments of the situation, and gamble based on how likely I am to get hit, how much potential damage the monster might deal (maximum and minimum), and how lucky I feel. It makes each round of combat feel more visceral and engaging. As a DM, it sure gets players' attention if you announce a monster has hit a certain character and then grab one or more dice to see how much damage was inflicted. Simply announcing "You were hit for 6 damage" is not so compelling.

Dice rolls add variety and uncertainty. That unpredictability makes the game fun. That's why we use them. Many mechanics that are designed to reduce the number of die rolls may save some time, but I feel the loss of player engagement isn't worth the time that's saved.

(Yes, there was a recent in-game situation involving set damage dice in a game I played in, and no, the details aren't important.)

Mentzer Basic Cover to Cover: Procedures and Rules 2

This post covers the next few sections of this grab-bag of game rules, from Dice to Higher Level Spells.

Dice
First off, we're told that the dice included with the Basic Set are all you need. While technically correct in that you can (and we did) play games with only those six dice, you and I all know that you always need more dice, right? It's like that first set in the box were free, and you just had to have more...and more...and more!

Now, I did spend many years playing with only the sets from the Basic and Expert sets, plus a few old ivory six-siders that belonged to my grandpa. And I've still got all of them, and still use them on occasion (most often when I'm DMing). I've got a nostalgic connection to those dice. But I've got LOTS more, and when I see dice in a shop I've got an urge to buy more. Maybe you do, too.

Anyway, we're next told that when there's a random result range, the DM can either roll or just select the desired amount. That's fine. No reason you must insist on everything being random. And we're told that it's also OK for the DM to roll the dice, reject the result, and decide on something different. Now, this will rub some people the wrong way, because the example given says if a character down to 3 hit points gets hit with a sword (1-8 damage) and could easily die, the DM can ignore the result and just announce 2 points of damage were dealt, giving the player a chance to retreat. I took this to heart as a boy, and would very often fudge results to keep PCs alive. Now, I'm less likely to do so. But I don't completely frown on the practice as some do. There are times when fun should trump the dice. Feel free to disagree, I won't think less of you.

And finally, rather uncontroversially, we are given notations about how to figure out what dice to roll for different spreads of numbers. 1-6 means roll 1d6, obviously, and 2-8 means roll 2d4 because 8 divided by 2 is 4, and 3-13 can't be divided, but if you take 2d6+1, you get that spread. Simple.

Personally, any more I like to just note down the range in die notation rather than the range.

Doors
This is a section that didn't have a big effect on me, and my games play differently than expected because of it. There have been plenty of blog posts in the past by others about these rules or the similar rules in OD&D, BX, AD&D and your favorite retro clones of above systems. Some doors are locked, but most doors are not locked but stuck. Monsters can easily open doors, while players always need to bash open the doors (with a 5 or 6 on 1d6).

I've had stuck doors in dungeons, but they are rare, and early on were usually randomly placed. Now, I put stuck doors in for a purpose. And if it's stuck, it's stuck for everything. In my game PCs can just open most doors. There's something in my that rejects the idea that doors don't stick for monsters but do for PCs (although I like some of the justifications for the rule that have come up on other blogs).

Regarding secret doors, we get told that anyone can look, with a 1 in 6 chance of success (reference the section on elf special abilities in the previous post), taking 1 Turn per 10' square area searched. And that secret doors cannot be opened unless found!

But come on, movies and Saturday morning cartoons have taught me that you can stumble upon them! So, these days I tend to note a secret door, and always the trigger, and let the PCs accidentally open the door if they mess around with the trigger. It's more fun that way.

Finally, we get a note about special doors that are one-way only, and can only be opened from the "wrong" side with a Knock spell.

Equipment Not Listed
The novice DM is strongly warned NOT to allow characters to buy anything not on the equipment lists. Why this section is worded so strongly, I'm not sure. But I heeded the warning as an 11 year old, not allowing anything to be purchased that wasn't on these lists until I got the Expert Set a year later.

I realize a novice DM might not grasp all the potential consequences of certain things being added to the list of stuff PCs can buy, but most of the time I can't really see problems with normal everyday sort of stuff (like a lot of the lists in the AD&D PHB).

Evasion and Pursuit
This is a fairly lengthy section, with a sort of "mini game" for how to resolve chases and escapes in the game. I've always liked these rules, although they rarely see play. If the monsters flee, I've found players usually just let them go. And players rarely decide to run away (sometimes to their detriment).

The rules themselves are not necessarily very elegant, but they are practical and fairly simple. If monsters flee and characters pursue, compare movement rates. If the monsters are faster, they escape. If the party (or faster members of the party who don't stay with the main group) are faster, they can catch the monsters. Likewise, if the PCs run, they can escape if they are faster.

The standard reaction roll is used to determine if monsters pursue or not, with modifiers based on how damaged they are, and their intentions. If a monster has been slain, they get a -2 to the roll. If the PCs failed to land any hits, the modifier is +2, and if the monsters are after the party for some reason, the modifier is +3. A 9 or better means pursuit. Every 5 rounds, make the check again to see if the monsters continue the chase.

Where it gets interesting is the rules for dissuading pursuit. PCs can drop food or treasure (depending on the type of monster) and there's a 50% chance the monsters will stop and take the offering (1-3 on 1d6).

I also like the fact that it's explicitly stated that during pursuit or evasion, no mapping is possible and it's very easy to get lost. In small dungeons, that's not likely to happen, but in a larger lair dungeon, or a megadungeon, it's an important factor to consider for the players.

I also like the rules for Length of Pursuit (mentioned a bit above). The general guideline is that monsters won't pursue for very long, only 1 to 2 hours! That's sort of a long time, actually. But of course, that's really the time the monsters will search for the PCs after they get away. And it's also stated that they could continue searching for up to a day, maybe longer, if the PCs have taken something valuable from the monsters.

Again, I've only rarely gotten to use these rules, but the potential for fun gaming is there. Monsters tracking a party that fled from them, and popping up again and again in the dungeon (or the wilderness, although there are slightly different rules for that in the Expert Set) could be a lot of fun, in the right type of environment.

Higher Level Spells
This section provides three second level Cleric spells and three third level Magic User spells for use with NPC high level casters (or monsters, like dragons, although this isn't stated in this section). They may also be found on scrolls.

We get the Cleric spells Bless, Hold Person, and Silence 15' Radius, and the MU spells Dispel Magic, Fire Ball, and Fly. We also get charts for 4th and 5th level Clerics and 4th through 6th level MUs/Elves spells per day.

I'd need to check to see if the descriptions are exactly the same in the Expert Set or not, and years of playing multiple editions means I don't always get all the details of certain spells right, but there are one or two interesting things to note.

For Silence 15' Radius, it's stated that the spell prevents anyone inside the area from making noise, but does not prevent sounds made outside the area from being heard. This makes it a good tactical spell for a party, as it can be used to shut down enemy spell-casters (the typical use) OR to make the party more stealthy. It lasts 9 Turns in this book (that may be different in Expert), which is pretty long.

The Fly spell also has an interesting note. The spell has a randomized duration, 1d6 Turns, plus 1 Turn per level of the caster. The Expert Set may be the same as this, but maybe it's the RC version or the AD&D (or 3E?) version that is a little different. Here in the Basic Set, it states that only the DM knows the duration, the player only knows the possible minimum and maximum duration. It's implied that you could get in trouble being up in the air when the spell ends, although it doesn't state it explicitly. I'm pretty sure some other edition(s) state that you just slowly drop to the ground when the duration ends. Personally, I like this version better, as it gives the players a bit of a "press your luck" choice when using the spell.

Other than these two spells, though, there's not much of interest in this section.

Next post, I'll cover Hit Points through Morale.

Mentzer Basic Cover to Cover: Dice

There they are, those beautiful polyhedra we all know and love.  Notice that the non-Platonic solid d10 is not pictured.

Anyway, our next section in the Mentzer Basic Players' Book is a half page on dice.  It's written for a complete beginner.  It starts by explaining that dice is the plural of die.  That beginner.

Well, as I've mentioned before, it was written for, in modern parlance, complete noobs. 

Anyway, we get a description of each die, a bit of advice on how to roll and read the d4 in particular, how to get a d% by rolling the d10 twice, and how to get other dice combinations.

Dice notations are also explained.  This section also mentions how to calculate non-die ranges, such as d2, d3, and d5.

With the advent of the OSR, there's been a lot of discussion about this sort of "dice tutorial" appearing in game books.  Do we need it?  Can we leave it out?  What if someone picks up a retro-clone as their first RPG?  Do only experienced gamers tend to collect these modern, typically self-published offerings?  Are we somehow neglecting to grow the base with the next generation if we leave this sort of thing out?

Looking at my own offering, Flying Swordsmen, you can see that I split the difference.  I didn't include this sort of thing in the book itself, but there's a note directing readers to my blog, where I did write up my own little dice tutorial and "what is role playing?" bits for someone who happens to stumble across Flying Swordsmen without having ever played another RPG that uses polyhedral dice, and without someone more experienced to show them the ropes.  In the internet age, that seemed to be the best course for me and my publication.

But back in '83, when this set was being produced with the express purpose of getting it out onto mainstream retail outlets and into the hands of kids and adults who were not already part of the gaming scene, this sort of thing was absolutely necessary.

So I don't knock this section any points.  In fact, I give it full points for not leaving anything to chance - right down to the initial explanation of die/dice. 

My Unexpected Christmas Bonus

Today was the Christmas party for the kids at my kindergarten.  And as usual, after the explanation of Christmas, Quiz Game, cello performance, giving of gifts by "the Santa Brothers" (us five foreign teachers), crafts, games, face painting, and all that sort of stuff -- we had the "Christmas Market."

We'd been awarding fake dollars to the kids all month, and this was their chance to use them.  Amongst the pens, pencils, cheap toys, and Angry Birds and Rilakkuma goods, were these fine educational toys:

Not sure why Blogger put this in portrait when it's landscape on my hard drive

Scooped up six packs.  One's a stocking stuffer for my son, the rest are mine!  Mine!  MINE!!!

And yes, I've got plenty of dollar store d6s to finish out the sets.

There are also more packs at the school, but I didn't want to seem greedy.  I may grab a few more when I return to work in January after the vacation.

And that reminds me - I'm heading back to the States from the 26th to the 30th, so likely won't post anything here.  I will post about the reason for the trip though when I get back (or depending on internet access and time, while I'm there).

Rolluminati?

For Atom Kid at Maximum Rock and Role Playing.

Very superstitious, writing's on the wall

I'm not actually a very superstitious person, but I do have a few.  My one dice superstition is that the old dice I collected from my TSR box sets are now MY dice.  No one else gets to touch them. 

Back in the day, we just didn't have that many dice.  KillingMachine, my cousin Ben, and I each had two sets from our Basic and Expert sets, an extra pair of d10s each from Star Frontiers (which usually stayed in the SF box), and whatever extra d6s we scrounged from old board games.  And if one of us was at another's house and didn't bring our own, of course we shared our dice.

Now, though, I've got more than enough other dice that the old ones stay safely far from others in their own little gray dice bag.  And I mostly use them when rolling up my Megadungeon encounters or monster hit dice or number appearing and all that, not much for actual gaming.

Anyway, last Saturday, for some reason I brought that set of old dice to the 4E game.  And they were rolling quite poorly.

I wonder if my dice were trying to tell me something.

Just in case, I'll be bringing a different dice bag to the next game.

My dice pass the Delta Test

Delta posted about dice balance tests today, linking to an older post he did with a method to test dice here. 

Armed with that method, I decided to test the old 'fill in the groove with crayon' dice I got in my Basic, Expert, and Star Frontiers box sets from TSR from 84 to 86.

And they all passed as balanced dice. 

I'm actually a little surprised that they all passed.  I was sure the rounded edges/vertices or just general wear and tear would have done the deed.  Of course, a second round of testing might be in order, as a few were fairly close to the statistical border Delta mentions.  But they're all in the balanced range, even after 25+ years of use.

Good to know. 

Not that I was planning on buying any Game Science precision cut dice or anything, but just out of curiosity, I wanted to know. 

Now, some of the six-siders I picked up at the 100-yen shops in Japan might bear testing next...

My son's first 3d6

Last night, as I was coming home from work, I stopped in a little 'dollar' shop called Daiso. I wasn't really looking for anything in particular, but in the toy section I saw they had big red foam d6s for sale for 1000won each. So I picked up a trio of them for my son.

When I got home, he was having fun throwing them around and imitating me when I said the numbers that came up (he can count to twenty with a bit of help, to ten on his own except for sometimes skipping 8--he's 2 1/2 years old). Anyway, I made sure to tally up the dice for the first 18 rolls he made. If he'd been rolling a Classic D&D character, here's what he would have gotten:

Str 13
Int 10
Wis 5
Dex 13
Con 10
Cha 13

Not too shabby! You could do anything but a Cleric easily with those numbers. And they're good numbers for a Fighter, Thief or Halfling.

Check this out!

If you're putting together your own games, or need some handy props (pawns, meeples, blank playing cards, chits and chips, bulk d6s, etc.) check out this place.

I found it while doing a Google search for some blank play money to print for my students to play with. It's a site geared for the scrapbooker set, but their game pieces and card section could be of interest to folks like us.

What Die am I?

You are a d20: You are a ruthless warrior. Thinking is for idiots and nerds. Doing things is what gets things done. You are the type who stabs now, and then asks questions later. Much later. And it usually involves a priest. For you, the best defense is a good offense, and the best offense usually involves burning the whole place to the ground -- at least twice. You are a whirlwind of destruction, composed of rash decisions and reckless actions. Put briefly, you are a danger to yourself and others. Good thing nobody ever listens to you.

Take the quiz at dicepool.com