Twenty Four Sessions, Twenty Four Years

This weekend we completed the twenty-fourth session of our Kingmaker game. We've just started the third chapter of the six chapter adventure path, and everything seems to be going strong. It is also the longest D&D+ game I've played since the mid eighties.

Once upon a time, long campaigns were our bread and butter, but over the last couple decades short concise stories or games that just sort of wither on the game-vine have been the rule. Part of this is our ages and stations in life. Our average age is in the mid-thirties (and that's with one of the players being the eighteen year old son of another player), there are jobs, there are two very young children being dependant and whatnot -- the days of playing from dusk until dawn the next day are decades behind us.

Some of the most memorable moments in my gaming past have come from long games, not just from "story" moments but from situations that arose organically. I'd say it's about an even mix, and even though I'm busy exploring things OSR, I can't forget that some of the stories we bring up when we've had a couple refreshments and are discussing gaming in the past occurred because they were narrative bits put in place by the GM, me.

I met the kernel of my modern gaming group at University about twenty-four years ago. If it wasn't for J___ I never would have met C___ and the rest of them. And although C___ hasn't been in all of my games, he's in Kingmaker now.

Twenty-four years ago the game was Rolemaster. Man, I loved RM. Frequently held up for ridicule because of all the charts, it actually played pretty quickly (as long as each player had a copy of the relevant charts). Where Rolemaster breaks down for me is in the character administration. Levelling up? Spending points, recalculating skills. There was a lot about RM that I loved, and a couple things that I wistfully look back at, and a few parts that make me wish I still played it. Character administration brings it all crashing right back down on me.

Lethality and Bonus Points.

Our Kingmaker game should have been pretty deadly.

I'm running a wiki for my game, Heirs of the Stolen Lands (link visible at the right) and when considering what to do about "player buy-in" a number of sources suggested "fate points" -- a mechanism to re-roll or to escape death.

Almost (but not) every player has used one of these points to save their character at the brink of death. Some of the players have used multiple points. However although the goal was to encourage player participation in the blog, it wasn't supposed to become a haves vs have nots mechanic.

We're all busy. We have jobs, and families, and in two of my players' cases, a new child. Two of my players have maintained interest and involvement in the wiki. That's fantastic. C____ has created twenty-two in character "journal entries" -- one every week. J____ has edited the party loot log and done a lot of work with me on the kingdom building process. Other players have made less frequent, but still entertaining and important, contributions. Some players have not. They come out to my game, and they do a great job, but after the game they have other pressures on their time. Contribution to the wiki was never a precondition.

However with almost two dozen sessions under our belts two players have had several opportunities to spend fate points to alter rolls or save their lives. I cap the maximum available at three, but that ends up encouraging "maxed out" players to spend one or two on skill checks. I have no problem with the mechanic, however after several months of play the mechanic has become unbalanced. Two characters can *afford* to throw themselves into mortal danger. It was time for that mechanic to end.

Since we have started the third chapter, the Varnhold Vanishing, I informed the players that fate points were now finit. And I explained why. Sure enough, one of the characters who had a stock-pile of fate points was killed by a Wandering Encounter.

Death, however, is no longer the barrier it was. Although they can't quite cast it, yet, the group is in a situation where they can afford Raise Dead. So with Gentle Repose protecting the corpse of their dear companion, the Cavalier mounted up and raced for the home-castle to grab appropriate treasure, then off to Restov to get the character raised.

I hope the players continue their contributions to the wiki. But the time for bonus points had come to an end. Now the escape from the final curtain will cost the characters as a group, and not even they can sneeze at 5,000 gp, and 2,000 more for Restoration, couched not as the price of a diamonds, but as the massive contributions to the Temple of Abadar required for a spell of this magnitude.

Sweeping Character changes, or "respec".

In older games, where you rolled statistic dice in order (and I'd have to include BRP games like Call of Cthulhu, the chart-filled Rolemaster, and all the early D&D games here), and made a character suitable to what you were given, there wasn't much use in rebuilding things from scratch. And the "game" nature of the game would make something like that seem almost like cheating, anyway.

Thus, in the old days if your only high Stat was Strength, you were probably headed for a Fighter.

(I'm sure out there there is at least one proud player who is fondly regarding their framed thirty year old character sheet with an Int 11 Str 18 Mage).

However in newer games you often build the character you want, either by re-arranging rolls or by purchasing your statistics with a pool of points. One of the strengths I see in these systems is the ability to alter the mechanics of the character while keeping the same character.

In R's excellent Margreve Forest Pathfinder game my character, Sasha, was built as a Verdant Sorcerer. But it became clear that I was playing a Druid. So, somewhere around lvl 3 we "re-skinned" Sasha, and he was a Druid for ever more. This is a good thing, my character met the concept better, blended into the game better, given the chance to do the same all over again I still would have changed to Druid.

But what about that time he cast that arcane spell? Doesn't matter. It's magic, who knows how it works?

In my current Kingmaker game one of the players who is playing an Alchemist may re-skin to a Sorcerer. I'm all for it. Not for the reasons the rest of the players may be -- their characters have been on the end of Alchemical splash damage a time or two too many, and Alchemists are phenomenally "selfish" casters, most of their spells having persona effects only. But neither problem really concerns me.

Rather, I want the player to be happy with what they're playing. If the player would prefer a Paladin or a Dwarven Rogue then the current character could retire. But if we keep the trappings and effects of alchemy, potions, and so forth I'm more than happy to allow the player a chance to re-do the character.

And if after a couple sessions it doesn't work out and he wants to go back? That's okay with me too.

It is in places like this that the divide between games of the older styles and newer styles begin to yawn wide beneath my feet.

Technical Party Kill

Yesterday's big Sunday Game was our 19th session of Pathfinder. An enjoyable session spent exploring the southern reaches of a forest, it was the hex-crawl nature of the Kingmaker adventure path that eventually led me to exploring the OSR.

However there was a moment where everyone failed a Will Save against an enchantment effect. Technically? Technically I could have killed them all right there, bit by bit, as the creature really didn't have a ton of offensive ability. If I had killed them it would have been "as the curtains close on our heroes who are never heard from again" rather than making them sit through the damage.

 I didn't kill them (although in the ensuing fight I came pretty close to an actual TPK, with the Cavalier and Ranger both down), instead arranging opportunities for them to make an additional save. We ended up with a thrilling, tense fight with certain characters out of the fight for a round here or a round there, and everyone throwing all their available offensive might.

Rather than a Save vs Death, this was a situation where character mortality was on the table where the players had a chance to fight against it, win or lose. I don't think I gave them the opportunity for The Story. I think I gave them the opportunity because it made a better Game.

Semantics? I don't know. But I have never much enjoyed the Save vs Death that is a factor in early D&D.

9th Lvl Farmers

Back in the old D&D days Adventurers stood out in the crowd. "Normal" people, content to live their lives without ever worrying about how many torches, 50 foot sections of rope, and iron rations they should include in their equipment, were all happily 0-Lvl. Famous pianists, aging farmers, and mercenaries all fit there.

Of course, things were different in skill-systems. In Traveller, for instance, skills were always a function of age (and number of terms of service). In Rolemaster the common city guard was a 3rd level Fighter -- strange that they'd hire that band of 1st level "kids" to go explore the ruined tower.

With the advent of skill systems in D&D we end up with "NPC Classes." That famous pianist? A 5th lvl Expert. The farmer? A 9th level Commoner. The mercenary? A 3rd level warrior. That pianist has two attacks per round!

I'm not opposed to NPC classes. Far from it. The Adept class is great for making non-adventuring priests or wizards, the Aristocrat class makes socially able nobles who still are no challenge for the PCs in power. And unlike PC classes, the NPC classes get no bells and whistles as they increase levels. In a game like Pathfinder, where almost ever PC level has a tangible benefit, there is a world of difference between an 8th lvl Fighter (PC) and an 8th lvl Warrior (NPC) even if they had matching stats and gear.

The Adventurer, Conqueror, King System uses Proficiencies as a mixture of skill and feat. So there are Proficiencies like "Combat Reflexes" which give a mechanical benefit, however there are also "skill-based" profs like Perform, Labor, or Craft. When taken multiple times these profs increase the chance of success.

0 Lvl characters get four (plus additional profs for high Int) , but they can't stack just yet. The older the NPC is, the more profs they get. Thus our aging farmer may have Proficiencies like this:

Animal Husbandry x2
Carpentry
Farmer x3
Survival

Although bent and grey from decades of hard work, this NPC's Proficiencies reflect a highly skilled farmer.  The requirement for a 9th lvl Farmer with two-dozen hit points and multiple attacks is neatly avoided.

Rangers and Rangers

Goodman Games produced Expanded Spell-less Ranger, for Pathfinder. Aragorn, it cites, didn't cast spells. In the place of spells are more abilities, focused on stealth, movement, and healing, and Ranger talents, which are customisable options very similar to Rogue talents. A couple archetypes are offered, along with feats and talents.

I like the options presented, this looks like a great supplement, and a way to round out the "semi-Spell User" as a pure martial class. Since our group's ranger really isn't connected to the divine in any real way, I think I'll pitch this to her to see if she's like to give it a try. At 5th lvl the changes won't be too dramatic, and if she doesn't like it she can switch back before 6th lvl without irrevocably snapping anyone's suspenders of disbelief.

And now for something very different.

Talking to R. at the cafe, who is working on a Wasteland game using Keys from Lady Blackbird, and possibly Dogs in the Vineyard -- although the overall mechanic wasn't clear in the conversation. Some of his keys for a Vault Dweller really hit the nail on the head between evocative and 

Keys are a fascinating tool for a game. here's an example from John Ryan's Lady Blackbird hack:

 Key of the Loving Father You love your kids, Maddi Sue and Connor, more than anything else. Hit your key whenever you act to find, protect, or help your kids. Buyoff: Let Linda Leigh keep the kids.

Every time you hit your key you get a reward, normally dice in your pool or XP. Get tired of your Key, or want to resolve it? Go for the buy-off.

R. and I approach one problem from two very different directions. But while you'd figure that a "sandbox" game like Wasteland would be perfectly suited for an OSR style game, R. has come up with a "village by village" setting that doesn't require, or even allow, the GM to start trowelling on plot -- the story is coming from the players, the GM has relatively little input into it. And it seems to suit the Wasteland model very well.

Agency and Illusionism

In the previous entry I confessed that I have been prone to Illusionism, Let's describe that briefly.

Illusionism can be defined as the manipulation of in-game probability and description to channel the PCs toward predetermined outcomes.

 The "Quantum Ogre" (and that series of articles says everything I'm trying to say, but better)  -- no matter which patch of forest you explore, the Ogre will be there ... is Illusionism. The minute "the story" is the most important thing in the game, you are well and truly down that path.

Is that a bad thing? I don't know. Consider that game that many of my friends and I regard as our finest endeavour, the Tale of the Tiger Clan, in L5R, was nothing more than an Illusionism-rampant story-telling experience that I ran. Outcomes were, for the most part, completely predetermined. Not really before I ran the campaign, I admit I had no idea where we were going for the first year of play, but certainly session by session. By the time we were into our second year of play the "end game" had pretty much solidified in my head. All I had to do was get them there. And I did.

Despite the Quantum Ogre lurking in either Woods A , B, or C we had fun. Heck, we had a lot of fun.

As I begin to explore Player Agency and how to increase it in my game I look back and wonder how things would have worked out differently. I doubt our epic conclusion would have been as epic, although who knows what other fascinating things might have happened?

In our Kingmaker game we are using a published source. I have added bits, and removed bits, altered things as I saw fit. For the most part the players' characters are free to go where they want in the little sandbox -- but the expectation is still that they'll go everywhere. How much is that sandbox, the thing that got me started on this whole OSR kick in the first place, really just -- an Illusion of Player Agency?

Drinking the OSR Kool-Aid

I started the Kingmaker Adventure Path with our Pathfinder game in January. And it was my re-introduction to a hex-exploration game that has really increased my interest in Old School Renaissance gaming.

 For years I would have described myself as a "story" gamer. Not as hardcore as some, to be sure, I have always preferred games that gave you a framework to do your thing in over games that were about a very narrowly focused (often very well designed) thing. I've read lots of the latter, and played a few, and enjoyed them. 

Illusionism, where the GM takes the players' choices and flows with them, all the while telling his own story? I've done it.

Recently I've spent a lot of time reading about and discussing Player Agency, defined as:

"...the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention...” - Michael Mateas

...and how it impacts RPGs. Although it is a topic that many of the new game authors discuss and incorporate, I was finding that many of the places where I wanted to increase player agency married up nicely with gaming in the late 70's and early 80's.

Now? Now I think that the first decade of gaming has a lot more to offer than we gave it credit for. I spent two and a half decades running away from those days, to find myself back there again. Of course it isn't as simple as just uncrating my old red box and being happy.  There are a lot of thing about those old days that I'm not too fond of.

There are a number of retro-clones and OSR games out there right now, but my current favourite is the Adventurer, Conqueror, King System, or ACKS. Starting with the old Basic edition it adds a lot, most notably trade and domain rules. I'll talk more about ACKS soon.