| | You're in 3e territory now, son!
Hey all, this is my little blog. I'll mostly be using it to collect little thought snippets I don't want to escape or be forgotten. Discussion is welcomed, bickering is not. If I sense responses heading off into the argument land of tired old threads, I can and will cut it off. Ruminations Bits of gaming philosophy, advice and views.  | Posted 23rd July 2008 at 07:40 PM by Psion (Psionic Psanctuary)
To me, character death is an important part of an RPG. I find the all too common stance that a GM should never kill a PC unless the players approves to be rather unsatisfying. To me, a game without the token risk of loss lacks a certain feeling of tension and excitement that exists in games for which these risks are present.
But, there are some pretty fair reasons to be annoyed by character death if you are a player. Beyond attachment to your character and what you might feel as an unsatisfying end, many games (D&D 3.x perhaps chief among them) gives the player a lasting penalty for a PC death.
To this end, some of you may be familiar with my " No Death Penalty" ideas that became part of my XP-less advancement and action point rules. Another variant that I like that helps get buy-in from the players is the "death flag" rule from Ryan Stoughton's Raising the Stakes D20 Hack.
Levi Kornelsen gave me some more arrows for my quiver in this battle to keep death a meaningful part of the game in his Amagi Games column: Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi The Death Gift
WHAT IS IT?
Your character is overwhelmed by a swarm of unimportant thugs. By the rules, they’re about to die, and it’s a total anticlimax. It is, as it sits, a lame way to go out. But instead of finding a way to help you live - which might be cheap and unsatisfying unto itself - the GM looks at you and tells you that this is where you make a death gift, to choose a legacy that will live on beyond their death. Your character is still going to die - and their death itself is going to remain ugly. But something of the character will go on; the end of their life will not be the end of their effect.
WHY WOULD I WANT THAT?
Sometimes, in some settings and genres, life is supposed to be cheap. Yet, at the same time, it’s not a lot of fun to create a character and see them go out like this, totally pointlessly, even if it does fit. The often - created compromise is to shift rules so that the player characters aren’t really part of the genre; they’re much tougher. Sometimes, that isn’t the ideal compromise. Here are a few compromises that may be more ideal.
WHAT IF THEY CAN COME BACK?
In games where resurrection is a viable option, choosing to give a death gift might mean that the character has “made peace” with death, and cannot return. Alternatively, the ‘gift’ might simply fade if the character is returned to life.
OPTION 1: FROM FAILING HANDS
The falling feral-minded warrior throws their sword to the fair and perfect knight as they fall; they are dead before they hit the ground. Upon catching the weapon, the knight vibrates with rage, and explodes into a frenzy of feral wrath. This kind of ‘passing the torch’ might be a one-time transfer, a “have my abilities on top of your own for the encounter”, or it might be lasting in some way, such as causing that weapon to become permanently magical - or a little of each, creating a weak item but a strong ‘for the fight’ effect. One caveat here: If this creates a lasting item, care should be taken that the item won’t become defunct shortly; discarding the ‘last gift’ of a dying ally because the next sword on is better? That cheapens the effect - it’s better to make the ongoing power weaker, and attach it in some other way; maybe the power passes into the ‘lucky charm’ the feral warrior hung from the hilt of the blade, rather than the blade itself.
OPTION 2: I SPIT AT THEE
A dying character, instead of giving a gift, might be allowed to level a terrible curse. If the rules system already includes curses, the GM will likely want to pick a fairly potent effect, and let the player choose the target and specific details, if any. If not, details will need to be invented or handled on the fly.
OPTION 3: THE LEGACY POOL
If this option is used, nothing special happens at the time of death. Instead, their character sheet (or whatever) is set to the side, and a “legacy pool” of points is created in their honor; the starting value of this pool is (2 points, plus 1 per session of play the character appeared in). Legacy points are not recovered naturally; once the pool is empty, that’s typically it. Legacy can be spent by any player whose character was familiar with the dead one, with group permission, in the following ways:
• A trick they knew: By spending a legacy point, a character may make use of a single (generally only non-combat) skill that was possessed by the character that died; if this would generally require a dice roll, the roll should automatically be maximized. When using a legacy point in this way, the character should explain (inventing details as required) how the dead character ‘showed them this trick’.
• A helping hand: If there are ‘helping rules’, a character might spend a legacy point when performing a task or a deed that the dead character would have approved of. If so, they receive ‘help’, as if the dead character was present and assisting, that takes the form of minor happenstance, sudden inspiration, or the like. The character will feel as if their dead ally was ‘lending them a hand’ in this task.
• A story they told me: A character might spend a legacy point to ‘recall’ information that was known by the dead character (or reasonably could have been), in the form of something the dead character once said to them while alive. They should relate or describe the information in this fashion - as ‘something that so-and-so told them once’. If a knowledge roll of some kind would be needed by the dead character for that character to have known the information (but they did have the skill), maximize the roll.
THE GIFT IS ELSEWHERE / REFRESHING THE LEGACY
A dying character might well have ‘things not done’ that the characters might choose to take up as their own cause. In such a case, the ‘death gift’ of the character might be something stored, held, or left behind, which they will be given or can claim as part of ‘wrapping up’ that business. Alternatively, taking care of the business of a dead comrade might add points to the legacy pool.
GOING FURTHER WITH LEGACY
As a plug-in concept, the idea of a legacy pool can be employed in a number of other ways. It would be entirely possible to start a campaign about a group of young students of a single mentor, with the mentor dead before the campaign even begins, and a significant legacy pool to unify the group. In such a case, the character sheet for the mentor might be already filled in, or the players might create it as they use legacy points, giving that mentor the abilities the character wishes to draw upon. It might be a little premature for me to speculate on how I might hammer this into d20, as some ideas I have hinge on an idea I have for putting Spirit of the Century/FATE's Aspects into D20. But a few thoughts: - A dying character can distribute action points to remaining characters
- There might be special action point uses for legacies.
| Power Behind the Throne | | Views 508
Comments 0
 | | Posted 15th July 2008 at 04:30 AM by Psion (Psionic Psanctuary)
As some of you may have noticed, some ram-men escapees have been masquerading as tieflings in the 4e D&D books. Just as a gentle reminder, Tony DiTerlizzi sketched up a new tiefling pic to remind us what they really look like. http://diterlizzi.com/blog/2008/06/0...es-of-my-past/
Thanks to Rip and ROE for the link!
| Power Behind the Throne | | | Views 827
Comments 1
| | Posted 6th July 2008 at 09:33 PM by Psion (Psionic Psanctuary)
Updated 6th July 2008 at 09:38 PM by Psion
In the course of game discussion and criticism, I've seen many valid critiques batted off with a refrain to the tune of "that's a player problem, not a game problem." The problem I see with that is you need players to play, but games are many. Though there are certainly unreasonable players, they do not occur with the regularity that people who bank on the "blame the player" defense seem to think.
As promised, this blog (or this section of it) will be a collection point for bits of gaming philosophy. Here's a discussion I captured about how I came to this conclusion, captured from an ancient thread here: (In response to a poster blaming players for a game problem): ==========================
I'm not insulted (though I must say, if it were my players you were referring to, it might have been) so much as I think it's a totally bogus cop-out when it comes to defending a game.
Let me tell you a story. The title of this story is "Why Psion Doesn't Run Hero".
Psion loves Hero. Psion thinks that Hero is a way cool game. In some ways, he thinks it out-cools D&D. Why? Because it lets him craft anything and have rigorous mechanical support for it that he much prefers to ad hoccing everything.
But back in college, Psion had a group. There were many players in this group, but one of particular interest. We'll call him Rob. Because, well, that's his name.
Psion is running a rip-roaring game of hero, but find that Rob routinely avoids running characters that use magic. I soon discover that Rob does not use magic because he doesn't grok the power system. Well, Rob's a college student, so he should understand the basic math that goes into making a Hero character right?
I thought so, but it occurs to me that whether or not he's capable, that's work to him. It occurs to me that gaming being a leisure activity, it's not my place to make him do things he doesn't like. And by running hero, I was limiting his options.
It was that moment that pushed me away from hero and back towards D&D. Yeah, it's not as flexible as Hero, or many other systems. But IME, most people grok D&D, and can play any character type they care to play if they can play at all.
Later, I got into verbal fencing with GURPS fans, who in answering my charges that IME GURPS players too easily build characters with scads of half point skills it was my "player's fault."
Such arguments firmed up my philosophy that it is not the job of the players to support the game, but vice versa. If your players don't enjoy a game, that is not a slight to the players. You can't obligate the players to fit the game, much less judge them.
I could easily slam rules light players for their lack of mathematical ability, but given my experience with Rob, I tried to avoid going that route because I consider it the "low road". It's not the player's job to fit the game. It's the game's job to support the players.
So, I'll own that if D&D accounting is not too your liking, you should probably play something with less accounting, or (at the very least) make efforts to minimize it. But by the same token, if the lack of robustness is limiting the actions your players consider, I'd say that is on the game, not on the players.
It is easier to change the game you are playing, or to change rules of a game, than it is to change people. Games are dispensable.
| Power Behind the Throne | | | Views 871
Comments 9
| | Posted 5th July 2008 at 06:32 AM by Psion (Psionic Psanctuary)
Updated 12th November 2008 at 01:32 AM by Psion
This is something that came up during recent postings that I've uttered in the past. I figured I'd capture it here in posterity.
A lot of people invoke game balance at the drop of hat as the root point of some assertion or another in a number of the numerous gaming arguments that spring up. But I have noticed that very often, when people invoke the term game balance, the speaker and the listener seem to have different things in mind.
To that end, at some point in my hazy messageboard babbling past, I was given to wonder, what is game balance? How do I know if I have it? What does it give me?
This might have many interpretations, but for my purposes I narrowed it down to 3 major goals: Psion's Three Goals of Game Balance:- Play balance - this sort of balance allows the players to all contribute meaningfully to success of the party's goal. When this sort of balance is realized, the players feel or should feel* empowered in bringing about success in the game.
- Option balance - this sort of balance strives to keep options available to players sufficiently viable that all options that are intended for regular use in the game by a PC remain viable choice for players. This is perhaps the hardest sort of balance to achieve, especially for games with a high degree of distinction between the way options are implemented.
- Challenge balance - this sort of balance ensures that the GM can challenge the players easily without causing undesirable outcomes. If a player must kill one party member to challenge another unless the GM takes very special precautions, then perhaps that sort of balance isn't being served.
Caveats:- Balance is situational: Unless every session is identically patterned after one uniform model, it is impractical to predict whether a given sort of balance will be achieved with a great degree of precision. In one campaign, a rogue may be useless. In others, a rogue will be the star. Though its practical to ask that a GM and game designer present scenarios in a consistent fashion, minor variations will reasonably occur. We, as players, should accept that.
- Balance comes with a cost: Balancing elements of a rules set will have implications on the way that the rules set plays, how scenarios should be presented (notice the inexorable tie to caveat #1?), and even playability of the game. As such, minor balance discrepancies should be well considered before a game designer or GM acts to correct them.
* - I say should feel because it has become exceedingly obvious to me that some players just cannot be pleased. They will perceive any benefit another player has as excessive, and any benefit they have as insufficient. I really didn't understand this mindset until I had children.
| Power Behind the Throne | | | Views 693
Comments 0
| | Posted 4th July 2008 at 09:26 PM by Psion (Psionic Psanctuary)
Updated 4th July 2008 at 11:11 PM by Psion  (Images from Claudio Pozas' Art Gallery, hosted here on ENWorld!)
Okay, let's talk about gnomes, perpetual whipping boys of the D&D core races.
I like gnomes. I consider their omission from the core race set of 4e unfortunate. To me, they are a mystical race without the Tolkien-baggage of elves. Which is cool, I like elves, but it's nice to get away from that.
But in a way, the gnome as it exists in the minds of D&D players is largely a result of its history. It's easy to see how the negative attitudes around it arose, and how the degenerative cycle of perception carried on.
Gnomes would become cemented in my list of defining D&D characteristics in AD&D first edition. Their specialty with illusion built an image of them that was distinct from elves and halflings.
The gnome, however, did not appear as a core race in the Basic/Expert game series; this was where the trouble began for our poor little heroes. It's not that hard to understand this decision. Each race was a class in BX,and the designers were probably looking for a short race list (also excluding the half-races), so just went with the Lord of the Rings races. Which went some ways to cement the parity between LotR races and those perceived as the "real" core D&D races.
Dragonlance showed up during the tenure of 1e. Gnomes featured prominently in Dragonlance. There, they received a new coat of paint as "Tinker Gnomes". This added an image of gnomes as mechanistic masters, one that persisted beyond Krynn. However, in the fiction of Dragonlance, this isn't the only image influx they received. Tinker gnome inventions had a tendency to explode and otherwise cause chaos. This added an image of chaos and incompetence to gnomes, which doubtlessly impacted the way they were played in games.  Half-orcs would disappear from 2e, but gnomes were spared. The expansion of specialists from one school to all 8 made gnome's specialty seem all the more limited in scope by comparison.
Further, 2e was a time of great innovation in D&D settings. Gnomes were not core options in Dark Sun or Planescape (though in the latter case, they weren't alone).
When 3e arrived, gnomes were in a similar condition to the state they started 2e in. However, the old multiclassing rules were supplanted with the concept of a favored class. Now anyone could take or combine any class, but multiclassing was more efficient with your favored class. As gnomes had the dubious distinction of having a single wizard specialty--illusionist--as a favored class, that made their options more limited than other races.
Further, and perhaps more telling, all race-class limits were lifted. Gnomes and elves were no longer the only "demihumans" that could use magic. Halflings and dwarves had that option open to them too. Without mechanical reinforcement, the different races blurred when it came to their perceived roles. If you wanted a diminuative wizard, you could play a halfling just as easy. Though it's unfortunate that many players can't see past the game mechanics aspects of defining racial charateristics, that's the way it is, and soon gnomes were "just another short race" alongside the more familiar LotR refugees that are halflings.
3.5 was probably where the worst niggling injury to the gnome's image as a playable race happened. Someone at WotC probably came to the good observation that it wasn't a good idea to have the gnome have a specialist as a favored class when elves had the wizards class as a favored class. But they chose the bard as an alternate. This is probably for the worse, because the bard is commonly regarded as only being a viable character in a party if you already have your "basic four" filled, and futher, I've always thought the bard was conceptually too limited. Artificer or beguiler would have both been much better choices, but those came later.  Eberron made what was the best boost to the gnome image in a long time. In Eberron, gnomes have an image of savvy knowledge brokers that are not to be trifled with. While conceptually compelling, it came too late and again, those who pay little attention to setting (or Eberron, for that matter) don't see this image boost.
The final straw, as I see it, comes from outside the hobby. Numerous Travelocity commercials showed their trademark garden gnome commercial, cementing the image of the garden gnome statue as the definitive gnome. Of course, online poster created echoes of this little character in avatars and joke threads, cementing the image of gnomes as silly.
When the decision came forth that the first 4e PHB would exclude the gnome, we should really not have been too surprised. But Wizards wen't out of their way to mock gnomes, just to make sure nobody took them seriously.
So, to those that love gnomes, on this 4th of July, let us light one off for our little buddies this evening (well, assuming you are a USA'n, otherwise devise your own dedication to the little fellow.)
As a final dedication, I'll tip my hat to Claudio Pozas, who not only brought us the cool image of a gnome psion in the adventure Of Sound Mind, but also put out some great images of the gnome (which adorn this blog) that showed us how cool the little guy can be.
-Psi | Power Behind the Throne | | | Views 6550
Comments 7
| | Posted 29th June 2008 at 05:20 PM by Psion (Psionic Psanctuary)
Updated 4th July 2008 at 09:29 PM by Psion
What's a blog for, anyways? Isn't it just a messageboard by any other name?
Well, yes and no. People post, people respond, but unlike misused threads, I never lose old blog posts in the morass. They are always here for me to recount and point to.
To that end, one thing I intend to use the blog for is to keep little nuggets of wisdom that I might otherwise lose in the morass.
I just dug up such an old post. It's about alignment. Alignment is one of those things I am pretty settled about, but lots of other folks rue. I don't require alignment in all games, but I consider it a fundamental functional aspect of D&D (and, I might mention, one that I think the 4e designers were wrong to screw around with so much.)
There's lots to say about alignment, but I stumbled upon an old post on TheRPGsite that summizes without getting into too much detail why I think it's an important tool. To wit:
I think if you understand it and trust the GM to apply all related judgement calls, it works just fine. The "understanding" bit is an effort slightly hamstrung by some bad definitions, though at least as of 3e, most of the bad definitions are in the class text, not the alignment text.
I think several arguments levelled against it (some here) are BS: - "There's no room for moral relativism" - Just because someone understands the cosmic realism that exists in the game does not mean that they have access to this knowledge. And what tells to this end exist are rather coarse. Sure, you can detect if a creature is "evil", but does that mean you know the right way out of a moral conundrum? Similarly, people who are not good alignment do not believe they are "wrong" and would not necessarily think that a character who is good alignment is "good" per their viewpoint.
- "There no shades of gray" - /me points to the NEUTRAL alignment axis.
- "Alignment forces you to do X" - wrong. We left that crap behind with 2e. Alignment is evaluative, not compulsory. If your character has CG on their sheet, but consistently behave CN, then change it to CN. There is no XP penalty for changing alignments.
- (Retort to above) "But I can't play class X and be alignment Y". Where this is true and inappropriate, the problem would be class design, not alignment. That said, in many cases, it is appropriate because tangible moral reality is part of the metasetting. Paladins and clerics SHOULD lose power, for example, for deviating from a path of purity in the sight of their deity.
I don't want alignment in all games. But I do believe that for the sort of setting D&D typically represents, where Good and Evil are tangible concepts, and our behaviors are significant to the ebb and flow of the cosmos, IT FREAKIN' FITS.
| Power Behind the Throne | | | Views 330
Comments 6
|  And yet another word from our sponsors | | | | | | | | | | | Visit Our Sponsors | | | | | Community Supporter Subscriptions |
LATEST EXCLUSIVE CONTENT FOR SUBSCRIBERS
| | Visit Our Sponsors... Again | | | | |
Ruminations 
