A couple of recent threads (on plot and plot) led me to muse a little about the role of choice in an RPG, in particular, for the players of an RPG. Although it was not the original intent, I think this post quickly starts sounding like a DM advice article, so feel free to criticize it from that angle if you want.

The Basic Unit of Player Interaction
I do not know who first articulated the idea, but I wholeheartedly subscribe to the philosophy that every time a character acts in a game, the character's player ought to be making a choice. In a way, choice is the basic unit of player interaction with the game, and is one of the essential features that distinguishes it from a novel. Dwarf or Elf? Fighter or Wizard? Toughness or Weapon Focus? Sleep or flaming sphere? Go right or left? Talk or fight? Slowly shift into position or risk an opportunity attack to flank now? Stop to rest or press on? Rescue the villagers or chase after the fleeing villian? Ultimately, everything that happens in an RPG ought to flow from the choices made by the players (I'll get to chance in a bit). Hence, one of the key roles of the DM is to ensure that the players get to make choices in his game.

Choices and Consequences
Of course, in order for the players' choices to be meaningful, different choices should also result in different outcomes. A scenario in which the same outcome takes place regardless of the choices made by the players is seldom well-received as it means that their choices were largely irrelevant. The consequences of certain choices (in particular, those made in combat or during the straight application of mechanical sub-systems) are enforced by the game rules. As for the rest, it is essentially up to the DM to ensure that the players' choices matter.

Ideally, the consequences should be a reasonable outcome of the choices (barring complications such as incomplete or incorrect information - see next section). Of course, the key problem is that different people can sometimes have very different ideas of what is reasonable. One person's clever solution that should succeed can be another person's abhorrent scheme that ought to fail. When this happens to people on different sides of the DM screen, the DM may find himself either wondering why the players don't take the obvious approach, or aghast that the players are prepared to do something that he never thought they would. The consequences of a choice can sometimes seem overly harsh to the players, and can be a source of player-DM conflict. Because of this ambiguity, a DM should be particularly careful when using game-ending consequences such as character death.

In fact, in more complex scenarios in which the players have to make a series of choices, it is probably a good practice for the DM to envisage more than the two standard potential outcomes of complete failure and complete success. This may consist of having a variety of possible points along the success-failure continuum, or having multiple independent goals so that the players can achieve all of them, some of them, or none of them.

Choice and Information
Player choice can sometime be hampered though a lack of information, either because the DM has inadvertently or deliberately left out important information, the latter because finding the relevant information is supposed to be part of the challenge. In situations where the players may make choices without knowing all the relevant information, a DM who doesn't want the game to end abruptly should avoid using game-ending consequences, or ensure that the players get sufficient feedback before the consequence happens. This is for pretty much the same reason that a game of Hangman doesn't end after just one letter is guessed incorrectly, and why the game of Twenty Questions is not called One Guess.

Choice and Chance
There is a strong element of randomness in many RPGs, and occasionally, this means that even if the players make all the best choices, all they gain is a good chance at success. A DM who wants to reduce or limit (without completely eliminating) the role of chance in determining whether the players succeed or fail may decide to have certain consequences follow automatically from the players' choices, without requiring any dice rolls or other elements of chance. This works well with the "multiple independent goals" model mentioned earlier - the players may be able to achieve some of the goals simply by making the right choices. Other goals require them to make good choices and have luck on their side (or at least, not against them). This way, even though good choices cannot guarantee a complete success, they can prevent a complete failure.

As a DM, how do you ensure that the players get to make meaningful choices in your game, and that the consequences for good or bad choices are reasonable, bearing in mind that good and bad may be subjective? How do you balance the need to give enough information to the players to make informed choices with the need to avoid giving the players so much information that the best choice becomes obvious? What is your ideal balance between choice and chance? Approximately how much of the players' successes would you allow to be entirely due to their choices, and how much do you feel should be left to chance?

Discuss this issue on the boards here.

FireLance

The discussion in the thread on neutered wizards has wandered round to the issue of the "I win" button, why it was (effectively) removed in 4E, and whether or not it is a good thing.

On my part, I can see why the "I win" button is such an attractive concept. Having just the right spell to overcome any problem is one of the key tropes of the wizard, a class that many role-players identify with closely, and it also underscores the limitless possibilities of mind and knowledge.

However, in the context of a group game, the "I win" button has a couple of drawbacks:

1. Overshadowing Other Characters: While the effects of this can be minimized through player co-ordination (the wizard simply does not select spells which duplicate the capabilities of the other characters), the temptation to have a "backup" or a "safety net" (just in case the other character fails) is always present. And when that happens, it's about the closest that a fellow PC can get to being that DMPC who steps in to save the day when the PCs fail.

2. Circumventing the Game's Challenges: Whether it's a fight that ends suddenly because the BBEG rolled a 1 on his saving throw against a death spell, or a utility spell that cuts short what should have been a multi-stage challenge, the "I win" button can sometimes deliver what seems to be a quick and easy victory to the party. It's great for the players (in fact, some types of players live for moments like these) but some DMs find it annoying, especially if they have put a lot of work into preparing the encounter.

Previous editions worked round the above problems mainly by limiting the frequency of the "I win" button through a variety of means: random allocation of spells so that the wizard might not have all the spells he wants; spell preparation, which requires the wizard the guess what spells he will need; additional costs in terms of gold, XP, ability scores, age, etc.; or simple unreliability (e.g. random effects, saving throws, spell resistance, immunity, etc.) so that the spell does not always work, and so on. The problems still occured from time to time, but hopefully not often enough that anyone got too annoyed.

I wonder whether it would be possible to re-introduce the "I win" button, but in a way that would avoid the two problems mentioned earlier. For example:

1. "We Win": The idea here is that a spell might make the wizard good, but it makes another character better. It is not a new idea - even in 3E, there were some suggestions that knock should give a bonus to Open Lock checks, while invisibility should give a bonus to Hide checks. So, even though a wizard could cast these spells to open locks and sneak around if there was no rogue in the party, he would be better off if there was a rogue, and he used them to improve the rogue's ability instead.

2. The Narrative Win: Here, the "I win" button becomes a plot point, not a challenge. The wizard can, with a single spell, kill the BBEG in one round. However, before he can do that, he need to find the BBEG's true name. And he needs to find a rare component to power the spell. And he needs to fight through the BBEG's minions and henchmen before he can get close enough to kill him. And the party doesn't get any XP for killing the BBEG, except maybe XP for completing a quest. The lower the risk, the lower the reward, and in any case, they should have earned enough XP in the process of fulfilling all the conditions for casting the "I win" spell.

What do you think? Would you want the "I win" button in your game? If so, which approach would you favor?

Discuss this issue on the forums here.

FireLance

Every once in a while, something I read on ENWorld sparks off a really cool neat idea. But first, a quote from Terry Pratchett which was also running through my mind at the time:

"Obviously, he reasoned, if sticking screws up your nose was madness, then numbering them and keeping them in careful compartments was sanity, which was the opposite-
Ah. No. It wasn't, was it ... ?"
- Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

I think the re-introduction of modrons could tie in nicely with the implied setting's plotline element of the increasing encroachment of the Far Realm into the material world and the subsequent rise of psionics and the appearance of the wilden (further detailed in PH3).

In a remote corner of the Astral Sea, a strange, metallic ball appears, apparently out of nowhere. It lies motionless for a while, but suddenly, with a soft "snick", a panel slides open, revealing a single, large eye.

For a few moments, the eye stares blankly ahead. Then slowly, it looks around, and sees nothing but emptiness around it. It blinks, once, and with a faint whirring sound, the ball extends arms and legs, feet and hands.

Cautiously at first, but with rapidly growing confidence, the creature moves its limbs, flexes its joints. Then, apparently satisfied, the creature stands still. It holds up its empty left hand and a lump of metallic substance appears on it. It holds up its empty right hand and a strange tool materializes there. With precise, regular movements, it begins building another creature like itself.

Some sages speculate that just as the wilden were the natural world's response to the Far Realm's gradually growing incursion, the modrons were similarly birthed by the Astral Sea.

Although no god has claimed responsibility for their creation, some argue that their apparently mechanical nature suggests that they are creatures of Moradin. Others believe that their highly regimented and ordered society points to Erathis or even Bane. A more chilling line of speculation is that they were birthed not to counter the Far Realm, but because the growing influence of the Far Realm is slowly driving one or more of the gods insane. Those who believe this fear that the single-minded obsession displayed by the modrons in their battles against creatures of chaos and madness is a form of madness in itself...

FireLance

So after some months of work, I've finally released my first product, a pdf of 18 at-will powers with miss effects called Missing in Action.

Here's what the cover looks like:


If you'd like to preview it and maybe buy it (please? ) click here.

FireLance

I'm in a mellow mood today. It's probably a combination of various factors: it's Friday, the weekend is almost here, and I've got a game to look forward to on Sunday. So, I've decided to write a few words in praise of some things that I think don't get appreciated often enough.

1. The Combat Mini-Game
It might not require as much imagination as the role-playing mini-game or as much creativity as the open-ended problem-solving mini-game, but combat is usually a quick way to increase the level of tension and get all the players involved.

The turn by turn structure of combat means that all the players will get involved, unless they consciously choose not to. The fact that their PCs' lives are typically on the line means that everyone has an interest in the outcome. And when a player's turn comes up, he usually has an interesting choice to make, even it is simply whether or not to move (and if so, where to) and which at-will attack to use.

Interesting things happen in combat: random dice rolls mean that success or failure is never certain, critical hits evoke cheers or groans (depending on who scored the hit), and the PCs often find new ways to work together and pull off some devastatingly effective combination of attacks.

Sometimes, I feel that combat has become so engaging that the players don't want to focus on the other aspects of the game.

2. Simplicity
While I have nothing against PCs with extensive back stories, well-fleshed out personalities, complex motivations and relationships with various organizations and NPCs, or intricately crafted campaign worlds with detailed descriptions of their history, geography, cultures and current political landscape, or carefully-crafted campaigns full of mystery, twists and surprises after every adventure, a straightforward adventure in a vanilla campaign setting with PCs who are typical examples of their races and classes can be fun, too.

More importantly, games like these take very little effort to prepare for. A Dungeon Delve style series of three or four linked fights can be put together at short notice and provide several hours of entertainment for a gaming group.

Casual gamers might even prefer such an approach. If each adventure is more or less self-contained, they will not need to remember the details of previous sessions and can approach each new game afresh. This makes it easier to play periodic games in which weeks or months may pass between sessions.

3. DMs who Give Their Players What They Want
Between the extreme caricatures of the doormat DM who gives in to his players all the time, and the demon DM whose only aim is to frustrate his players, there are (I'm fairly sure) the ordinary everyday DMs who are quite happy to give their players what they want, within reason, provided they work for it.

They might use wealth by level tables as a guideline when giving out treasure, but they don't treat them as player entitlements. They see wish lists as feedback, not orders from the players, and have no qualms about giving them something else if their requests are unreasonable. They see treasure parcels as a way of organizing the rewards to be found by the players, but don't feel obliged to give them out if the players do nothing to earn them.

All in all, they act pretty much like how you would expect a reasonably tough but reasonably fair and reasonably nice person to act. They run games that are challenging, but flexible and fun. I'm glad to say that I play with DMs like these.

4. Players who Respect their DM
Among other things, they make requests, not demands. They appreciate the effort that their DM has put into preparing for the game and work with him instead of against him to get their PCs to the adventure. They take challenges and setbacks in their stride, and work to solve problems instead of sulking and accusing the DM of being unfair. When the DM screws up (it happens from time to time - we're all human) they don't hold a grudge.

In short, they are a joy to DM for. I consider myself pretty lucky that my players are like this.

FireLance

I just picked up the Adventurer's Vault from my FLGS and was flipping through it when I came across the entry for Meliorating Armor (pg. 47).

Looks like someone at WotC was thinking along the same lines as I was.

FireLance