Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition

Yeah, I've been a bit lax on posting, my apologies to any reader or readers I might have. The basic thing is that I want to talk a bit about the coming 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons. This isn't a matter of cheering that 4th edition is gone or getting angry that we have yet another edition or that we don't or do need one. What I want to do is a bit more nuanced, ask a question that I think needs to be asked whenever an edition change is occurring, the question is this "What did we learn?" This is a bigger question than a lot of people might think, it's the question of what successes and failures came from not just the previous edition but all those that came before. It's more than how well things sold, it's also what seemed more popular and why, as well as maybe what things turned out to be better ideas than anticipated or worse than assumed.

I'm not a developer at Wizards of the Coast or any gaming company but I could offer a few ideas that at I and people I've talked to discovered in 4th edition and others, and maybe could help in the creation of the new 5th edition. One thing my group learned is that in design you need to make sure that threats scale properly. In 4th edition a tribe of goblins was a greater threat than a dragon of the same encounter level, that's a bit worrisome. The reason was this, the goblins had an ability where if they flanked they did extra damage, and you could get a lot of minions plus some bigger ones and the players could get carved up. A dragon, a single monster, might do a bit more damage than the flanking goblins, but it was only one thing, and it could be focus fired. The dragon was actually less threatening than a goblin tribe and that kind of kills the majesty of the dragon and also makes the scale feel off, since in fantasy dragons are generally big threats, legendary beasts.

The second thing I'd reccomend is that they do keep the HP buffer at low levels. It was actually a big improvement when you won't get knocked over by an errant wind. The HP amounts should probably be lower at high levels, or monsters need to be able to take bigger bites, but in general the larger HP at base was a nice addition, if only because it provided a way for players to survive a mistake and learn from it rather than having to go through a bunch of characters starting off. This was one of the areas that 4th edition got right in my view, and a lot of people I've talked to have agreed that the higher survival rating starting off helps remarkably.

I think the biggest thing though is that the new edition needs to have enough innovation to be willing to experiment during the games run. 3rd edition put out some great material, and in my view a lot of their best stuff was the more experimental. While incarnum was a bit of a failure it was still fascinating, as I mentioned in an earlier post I called it a beautiful failure. Tome of magic as well as the book of nine swords were probably my favorite releases, along with stuff like the warlock which was a full class of spell like abilities. These were things that tried out new mechanical options, variant casting systems and new power options for martial characters. Options that, surprisingly, meshed well with the existing system and were fairly balanced. 4th on the other hand...while there were new power sources by the time my group quit (PH3) things were getting repetitive, and I chanced to pick up one of the last releases and it did not fill me with hope for the game. It looked like the designers had essentially hit a wall, running out of mechanical options due to the constraints of the system itself and were afraid to try engineering outside of it.

Anyone out there that's reading, what do you think is important for 5th edition, and is there anything you think would be cool to add in? Feel free to share.

Character deaths

I got into a rather interesting discussion recently which helped me around some bloggers block. One of the things brought up was the idea of a game where it was hard for PCs to die, or as he put it 'Care Bearing'. I thought about it, now in my games character death can vary wildly depending on systems but I will admit that I tend to be a bit more merciful than some, maybe due to player complaints or because of how I feel about games. Some of it is that I have fairly clever players, and some of it is that I try to avoid doing games that are going to eat the players alive consistently. Another person that was somewhat intermittently involved mentioned that he enjoys the look on players faces when their characters die, usually the shock that it happened, and complained that modern games coddle players too much. The person I was talking more directly to also complained about ideas like game balance and the like.

I disagree on a few fronts, but some of it also has to do with how I view the games. For example, in most editions of gamma world I've played you can whip up a new character quite fast and frequent deaths are part and parcel of the experience. The same can be said for games like All Flesh Must be Eaten or even certain games using the Cthulhu mythos. Some old school fantasy games are similar, in these cases death might be annoying but the relative speed in which you can make a new character means that the death won't mean that either the player is sitting out for most of the night or that everyone else has to put things on hold while a new character is made. In such games character deaths aren't a big deal and can even be a source of amusement.

Take games that have more involved character generation however, say for example something from the folks at Palladium, and a character death could set you back hours in terms of time spent generating a new character. There is also the argument about how a character dies, is it different if they die from a single failed saving throw than if they died in a mass battle? If there are resurrection options in the game that might change things too, but how accessible do you make it for players? (IE at low levels do they have to suck it up and just wait until the cleric gets high enough to resurrect before they can die and keep their character?) Then again there is the question of if character deaths mean anything to the players or game itself. If you have a big story planned is it better to just keep the basic group alive so they don't have to keep reading the new guy or gal into the groups mission and enemy list or is it necessary to make sure that you prune their numbers so they don't get too sure of themselves?

Well, any readers out there are welcome to comment, hope to hear from you.

Magnificent Failures: Magic of Incarnum

One thing that I've been thinking on recently is on a lot of game supplements that were what I would call magnificent failures. These are games or supplements that while they never quite managed to catch or really get a big level of focus or were somehow flawed still had a really good concept, idea or system that was lurking under the problems. One of my favorite examples for this was a D&D game for 3rd edition called Magic of Incarnum, it was a supplement that offered a new kind of magic system to the game.

Thematically Incarnum was the calling and binding of souls, you called on the essence of all who lived and all yet to be born, you channeled this energy into objects that symbolized heroes, villains, warriors, thieves, etc. It was a very interesting system conceptually, you could mix and match powers and features to either gain new abilities or augment existing ones. There were also a few options for someone wanting to dabble in it a bit the real problem with the system however is that...well it was very poorly implemented.

Using the powers to their fullest extent meant giving up item slots, doable and there were options for sharing slots and the like but it was still kind of iffy. Also a lot of it involved juggling a second resource called 'essentia' that you got from being an incarnum using class or by taking incarnum feats that granted you essentia in 1 per feat. You had to track how much essentia you invested in the feats, the soulmelds, etc. and you couldn't change it during the day so you had to make sure you knew what you wanted to do and what was supposed to go where. It was clunky and it added a lot of extra book keeping.

The secondary issue was this, the classes themselves that were meant to be the central incarnum users were for lack of a better term questionably designed. The Totemist was probably the best designed of the three but the problem I have with it is that it depends heavily on the natural weapons that some of its soulmelds offer without bothering to explain how they interact and essentially 'locking' certain slots automatically during game progression, it's overall still pretty good but it was a pet peeve. The Soulborn was the second creation, this one was more a problem of there not really being enough of the actual class feature available. What I mean is this, the class itself didn't get much to actually use the soulmelds and abilities this was particularly bothersome because it made it feel like they, a class BUILT for using the new system, were little more than dabblers.

The third class needs a lot of explanation, the Incarnate was sort of the flagship for the Incarnum classes in my view. It had the most essentia, most access to soulmelds and gained them the fastest. It had full armor proficiency and full weapon proficiency, decent saves as well, in fact there was only one problem, it had the base attack bonus of a primary caster, IE the wizards. The first problem here is simply that looking at it was a little confusing, most of the stuff shown, and the description they gave said that this was a combatant that harnessed Incarnum to augment themselves and their allies, but the wizard BaB said that they were going to have trouble hitting and that their main focus would apparently be elsewhere.

I think that there were two reasons that this happened, and it probably also explains why the Soulborn actually got so few Incarnum soulmelds. The first is that because of how a lot of the soulmelds worked you could actually get a really good bonus to hit, probably edging out the fighter or at least getting close even on the poor base attack bonus. The second one is more that the soulmelds were really versatile, it wasn't just combat bonuses. They offered bonuses for just about every skill, if your group woke up locked in jail cells stripped of gear you could simply summon up the hands of the thief, the rogues vest and a few others and suddenly the jail cells might as well be made of paper.

I think the fear was that due to potential versatility they were afraid of the Incarnate becoming too powerful, the same with the Soulborn. This is one of the areas where the designers might have botched things a bit, it's kind of where theory and practice veer in different directions. The amount of versatility was hypothetically a major power for the Incarnate, but due to elements of design much of the vaunted versatility would sit unused. The reason was simply this, with everything but the base attack bonus proclaiming that it was meant to fight in melee or at least in ranged, most points and abilities were likely to veer in that direction, the other abilities were likely to sit unused unless say the person playing the rogue couldn't make it to that session or something similar.

It's not that the versatility idea was bad, just that given the nature of the class that had it it was unlikely to really be very often used. I view it in ways similar to high level wizard or sorcerer spells that were designed to turn them into melee powerhouses. While the spells themselves may have been impressive they weren't really all that likely to be used, or if they were something had likely gone wrong somewhere or things had changed rather radically.

What made Incarnum such a magnificent failure in my view is that while there were a lot of things that went wrong with Incarnum there was actually a lot of really great stuff here. The concept of essentially harnessing the raw spiritual energy of all the universes souls, shaped my archetypes of heroism or villainy, is a pretty neat idea. The sheer number of options that you could mix and match from was pretty cool too. The other thing is simply that the idea was unique, it was very different and very dynamic, I applaud innovation in game design and while this experiment might have been problematic it was still quite an interesting one.

The Right Way to play pt. 3

In my last few posts I've tried to talk about the concept of a right way to play games and this last post is somewhat of a tricky one, in part because I want to finish it here and this question is the root of a lot of bigger arguments in gaming. The biggest issue with the idea of a right way to play, at least in my mind, is that it's sort of a mask for either a bigger question or idea that the person is trying to state.

It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.

In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.

Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.

The right way to play pt. 2 (sorry this took so long)

Sorry to any readers out there, real life got in the way of things for a while, I guess I'm back and will hopefully be able to put out more posts and make something enjoyable.

When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.

In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.

This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.

The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.

At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.

Right way to play? Pt. 1

I'm going to try to address each question as a blog post and be as concise and coherent as possible, and hopefully interesting. Let's look at the first one, where a person new to a game posts on a forum about the game asking for advice on their character. The responses are varied and each one seems to give an idea of a 'right' way to play, or the reactions to said posts. The concept of a right way to play is varied, to some people there is no real wrong way to play but there are ways that are better and worse.

To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.

To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.

There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.

Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.

Is there a right way to play?

This is something that comes up every now and again in games, and it's in both online and tabletop games, is there a right or wrong way to play? I think this one is going to be somewhat piecemeal because it's kind of a big question or at least one that isn't easy to answer. Part of the idea of there being a right or wrong way to play is the concept that there are better and worse ways of playing a game. The idea on this is somewhat dependent on who is asking and why, and it's part of what causes all kinds of arguments at game tables, forums, and blogs.

One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.

1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.

2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.

3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.

4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.

5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.

Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.

When Roles Go Bad Pt. 2

Here I am for a belated part two. I apologize for taking so long but I hope it will be worth the wait. I mentioned that one issue that comes up in the role system is simply that the roles themselves can get in the way and screw things up trying to keep everything balanced. This area is a bit more subjective but can do a lot to impact fun as well as being common in video games as well as tabletop games. In essence it's a matter of things feeling overly similar, or 'samey'. IE two classes that are supposed to be different and distinct end up feeling identical in results and play.

In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.

One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.

Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.

The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.

Horror in Role Playing Games

I will start this out simply, I have a great deal of respect for people who run horror games that are genuinely scary, the same to those who can make video games and the like that are genuinely creepy. I say this starting out because my topic for today is the difficulty in running a horror based game and especially in terms of trying to create one. Horror games, at least in my view, have several main issues that can often gum up the works in terms of delivering a good scare.

The first is simply whoever is running the game. I have said before and will say again, I SUCK at running horror games, maybe it’s just not my personality but I have a hard time making it work. I have been able to creep my players out occasionally but really these were the exceptions not the rule. While I recognize the truth that any system has to depend heavily on the person running it does mean that horror can be very difficult because some people are going to have a harder time than others. The second part which dovetails is the players and some groups are hard to properly creep. Again, while I admit that I suck at horror I also have a fairly jaded group of players, if they saw cthulhu they’d be more likely to walk up and shake his hand or say hello than to run in panic, but meh.

The third thing is somewhat a consequence of how the system is organized, but I think it was explained best by Ben ‘Yathzee’ Croshaw of Zero Punctuation, heavy ordinance does wonders for keeping fear at bay. This is simply to say that when players are able to reasonably threaten the various horrors of the night said horrors are a bit less scary. Some of it is simply that the danger is somewhat more abstract, while said entity might be able to hurt their characters it can also be hurt. Having a means to make the thing blink is a fairly potent security blanket and can appreciably cut down on the horror.

That being said the other way can also be a problem. Make something totally invincible and it might not elicit horror but instead either frustration or exasperation. Being totally unable to deal with something can end up creating apathy, if the players can’t do anything then they’re more likely throw up their hands if they experience it and say ‘well, that was fun’ or something more colorful and less printable. Horror requires something that might be possibly beatable but it would either be difficult or it has to represent something complex.

I think a part of it comes down to how the systems are designed but also the mindset of those involved. Fear comes from a lack of understanding but also out of a belief that the unknown thing can harm you. Suspense and tension are helpful in this but there is also the helpful element of things not feeling quite right. Horror can sometimes be achieved by having a mechanical tie, sanity checks from games like Call of Cthulhu or the guts checks in Deadlands are all good examples of things that impede a character through terror or minds falling apart. These things are bad and while they might not ‘scare’ the player they are likely to at least make them feel uneasy or nervous.

As to system design, just the way the game is weighted can do a lot to create or impede horror. Heroic systems like d20 are probably going to have to depend more on the person running than say a game like Call of Cthulhu by the nature of the systems and the mindests of the games. Games where things scale more in the players favor and bonuses to saves are easier to acquire things are likely more to lean in their favor. That being said there are other examples too, Dark Heresy is another interesting horror game that managed to sit between a heroic game and a true horror game, I hope to get into that one in the future.

I want to know what others think though, anyone out there that wants to mention their own ideas of what makes horror work in a video game are welcome to chime in. I hope to hear from people.

Weird vs. Wasted

One thing that I have been doing a lot of lately, and here at the keep, is look at the similarities and differences between Weird and Wasted west. One thing that is probably inevitable from all of this is the question of which one I prefer, and I’ll try to answer that but I will also be putting in qualifiers. When I talk about this it should be noted that both are actually very good and enjoyable and that there is a bit of unfairness in the judgement as Wasted West had a bit of time to learn from Weird West and some of the mistakes or hiccups there. In doing my comparisons and comments I will attempt to be as fair as I can, however I will admit that I have a fairly strong preference for Wasted West over Weird and I hope here to explain why.

One of the biggest reasons that I found Wasted West to work better was that by and large they removed the ‘muggle problem’ that existed in weird west. What I mean is that using the powers of an arcane background in a town was likely to get the people to think you were a witch or monster and thus needed to die. The exceptions for this were mostly the blessed and mad scientists though those weren’t always safe bets either depending on the communities temperaments. In Wasted West supernatural abilities are a bit more widely known, trying to assault a town is likely to get you kicked in the teeth by angry townsfolk merely using the powers isn’t going to get you forcefed into a wood chipper merely for using the power in front of the locals. One of the reasons for this is probably that most people have seen undead, many people have seen or heard about the four horsemen of the apocalypse literally RIDING ACROSS THE UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA TO THE EAST. Ahem, yes as you can see the supernatural is a bit more widely understood and accepted, not to mention things like Psykers being a part of the old militaries as well as cyborgs (more on those later). In essence people might have attitudes on various arcane backgrounds or have rumors but merely using them won’t get the townspeople to either faint dead away or turn green.

I understand that part of the reason for this is a bit of the thematics, in Weird West the people weren’t supposed to know that all this stuff was going on, showing that magic existed was likely to cause panics and havoc. But it also created some problematic situations as well as being a source of some of the imbalance between arcane backgrounds. I guess some of it is also that I prefer not having to have a great big book of euphemisms when I run for the players and the few NPCs in the know to use and/or having to figure out what each side is trying to imply when the group is trying to work out how much the town sheriff or local heroes know about the more… bizarre happenings. The other reason I prefer it is on some level I think that in a lot of ways the masquerade seemed almost to just be window dressing. A good enough stealth or bluff check could let you hide what your hands were doing for hucksters, Shootists (a later introduced arcane background) only had the guns spark or look interesting which is easily covered by mad science, and as for the blessed…well they can just take unnoticeable always on abilities and even if their powers are noticed people figure you’re just righteous and a servant of (insert deity/philosophical principles here). Not to mention that if a monster/cultist/whatever decides to be more overt in an attack on a town rather than just nipping at the edges, or goes for it as a climax half the time the only way to hurt it necessitates using arcane powers which might be why later stuff seems to downplay odd appearances.

The Arcane Backgrounds are also an improvement in a lot of ways too, I brought some of this up in my earlier post when I talked about some of the best and worst arcane backgrounds but I want to go into a bit more detail here. One of the biggest changes was the near universal adoption of the Strain mechanic among the various Arcane Backgrounds, essentially getting rid of a lot of appeasement points and the like and instead simply using strain. This change was big for a few reasons, one was that it made a clear limit to how many times you could use your abilities, strain could be recovered through rest or other means depending on the arcane background but now you didn’t have people able to use their abilities nigh continuously back to back as the Blessed and Hucksters were able to do, the latter only having to worry about backlash. The powers were more codified, you could pump in more strain for greater effects in a few cases and the better a power was the more strain it required but the powers were more in line with one another, less wild and prone to surges of luck. The powers and abilities were also more focused.

Doomsayers abilities were mostly blasting and energy based with a few exceptions, and had a strong theme of radiation and mutation. Doomsayers could develop any power in the base book easily enough through spending bounty points, the ones in supplements required a teacher or an area with radiation so severe that it might kill you, and in the latter there was still a chance that you might not learn the power but still lose the bounty points. Psykers were a bit more versatile, but they had to pick a discipline, they could easily learn any power in that discipline but learning others required teaching machines, training manuals or another psyker, all of this besides spending bounty points to learn powers. Toxic shamans learned from their spirit servants, and their powers were based on the various toxic spheres. Junkers, Templars and Witches were the three arcane backgrounds that went without Strain but instead had other limitations. Junkers needed parts to build their wonders and usually needed G-rays to power them which meant having to find ghost rock. Templars had primarily self only powers that were on constantly but their powers took a lot of work to raise and their one healing ability could only be used once per person per day. Witches were fairly underdeveloped but their concept was using materials to cast spells or work magic, love potions for example or finding baseballs and human skulls to be focuses for spell blasts.

By and large while the backgrounds were still pretty darn potent their limitations both in terms of sustained usage and versatility meant that it was easier or at least more workable for a mundane person to keep pace with them in a game. It could still be imperfect but the elements here did help the arcane backgrounds be more balanced against one another as well as helping make sure that the regular mortals still had practical use and a place in the group as a whole. Weird west did have this as well, but as mentioned in the comments a while back higher point levels things would swing more and more heavily to those with arcane backgrounds for varying reasons.

One other thing that I found useful was that the offense/defense ratios can scale a bit more cleanly than they do in Wasted. In Weird west a player that pours enough starting points into resources (5 points into belongin’s) can have body armor strong enough that it ignores small arms fire and can even let the wearer shrug off a shotgun slug with relatively little consequence, not to mention some nice weaponry and other defensive items. This is somewhat countered by the fact that the items are made by mad science, so they have to have their reliability tested each time they’re hit but it is fairly unlikely to kaput. Armor piercing weaponry is comparatively uncommon, and even what’s there is all mad science, subject to reliability rolls and the ammo that can punch through armor is only going to ignore one layer of armor, for regular guns it won’t work to punch through and for shotguns it only makes them a little better. In Wasted purchasable body armor that players could purchase at character creation were set up in such a way that against normal small arms a player could probably walk away fairly safe, however the minute armor piercing ammunition entered the fray much of it was negated. Armor piercing ammunition was also now ‘standard’ meaning that they didn’t need to worry about reliability and the cost for such ammunition was low enough that it was fairly easily attainable, and ubiquity among various enemies is reasonable.

Heavier armor, stuff that approached what was in Weird West, would either have to be temporarily conjured through the power of an arcane background, created by a junker, or would have to be one of the very expensive suits of power armor. The ones created through Arcane Backgrounds required spending energy to maintain, leaving them somewhat questionable for duration as well as meaning that they couldn’t do other things while the defensive field was up, or in the case of the psyker that an armor piercing bullet just tears straight through it. Junker built armor has to deal with stability rolls, it is also ridiculously heavy, even relatively low armor levels were fairly hard to lug around, a Junker that rolled ridiculously well MIGHT have been able to make a fairly potent lightweight suit of armor but there is still the issue of reliability making your suit fall apart, vanish, go flying around, vanish and leave a giant demon next to you…(the junker mishap table is odd). The third option was a suit of power armor, this was pretty damn expensive, either you poured just about all your starting points into a suit or you were a Veteran of the wasted west and had to deal with the table (and even then you had to spend a ton of points to get the suit). The power armor had some issues as well, it had excellent armor, weapons systems and even muscle and speed boosters but it also required a source of energy to recharge, as they tear through power quickly and recharging them is fairly hard. There was also the fact that the suits could get torn up pretty well, wounds meant that the armor was also damaged, so you had to spend a lot of the fate chips that would become XP in keeping yourself from being injured and the armor from getting wrecked, slowing your character advancement.

Related to armor scaling there is also the fact that it’s harder for the players to reach untouchable status. What I mean by untouchable is this, in my weird west game I had actually gotten to a point where non-supernatural opponents were practically pointless to put up against the group. The reasons were that simply put normal armaments couldn’t threaten them due to body armor and the fact that it also felt odd sending people who had dealt with a werewolf cult attacking a town, managed to fend off Stone twice, and do several other things against regular criminals. I could do things like load up bandits in mad science body armor and other gear, but given the expenses it feels a bit ridiculous if it happens more than once or twice. There are ways around it, maybe the group is backed by a mad scientist, that sort of works but mad scientists need labs and work areas as well as parts. The same sort of thing can happen with Arcane Backgrounds, there are times where it can work but there are a lot of situations where it ends up rather iffy. Supernatural opponents offer more consistent threat to established groups while more mundane ones are more likely to simply get overwhelmed and wiped out. I am however willing to admit that some of this might have also just been a mental block on my part so I am willing to concede that more of it might be me than the game.

In Wasted there are a few ways that threats can scale a bit more reasonably with your group. One thing is simply that mundane guns hit harder and mundane armor isn’t quite as heavy but it can be more common so road gangs with infantry battlesuits or kevlar vests aren’t out of the question. Junkers are another handy thing on this front, in my view junkers are a gift to marshals because in addition to being able to produce some fun and potent tech they also don’t need workstations or big labs to do their thing, so junkers backing road gangs or warlords are quite reasonable, they even reference that sort of thing in some of the books. There is also the handy fact that many of the basic military weapons pack quite a wallop, giving them to a group of normal enemies can still make the players keep their heads down. One other thing is a bit more subtle, I actually missed it when I first thought about it. The walkin’ dead in weird west started to lose effectiveness after a certain point in the game, even the veteran walkin’ dead with guns still had trouble making more experienced players worried, especially since the zombies went through chips like water if they didn’t just get their melons popped immediately. In wasted west the veteran undead, the zombies from soldiers, are now wearing body armor and thick helmets, wielding machine guns with grenade launchers. To be blunt they are a fair amount more threatening, not all of them need to have the full battle armor or grenades, but the fact that they can have it, or other military equipment, makes them far harder to kill and suddenly a lot more threatening to a group of people wandering through a battlefield digging for salvage.

Some of the things in the game can be used with less work on the marshals part, the two big evil armies, Silas Rasmussens Mutant Hordes and the mechanized legions of the Combine. With the mutant hordes there are the evil doomsayers with their radiation powers as well as large groups of aggressive mutants with other abilities, and the radiation priests are while not exactly ubiquitous at least common enough to be usable in decent numbers without feeling strange. With the combine, the standard troops have fairly effective guns as well as the automatons and other advanced tech bots and cyborgs, also giving you space to create bizarre technology to give them to wield against the players. These groups fit in the wastes, they represent the mutant apocalypse or machine uprising popular in post apocalyptic fiction and can actually be faced by the players in different ways. They can be occaisional nuisances that might be run into at towns, in ruins, etc. They can be used as a growing nemesis, telling a story of a dark tyrant wanting to remake the shattered world in their own image, they are a well placed tool for a marshal and their abilities and arsenals make them workable and useful with minimal modification at many different junctures in the game.

I should also though point out that a lot of this has to do with the kind of games that I prefer running and playing in. I like more pulpy action games. A game that is more based in mystery would find an easier home in the Weird West, not to mention my view that horror is probably easier to produce in that version as well. Wasted west can also be a lot more goofy in some regards, killer tomatoes, head cases, robotic killer clowns, while these can be interesting and fun opponents they can also be rather silly for a lot of people and there are plenty who would argue that they don’t belong in Deadlands. I should also point out that Wasted West can easily be considered a more high powered game, so if you prefer lower powered games Weird West might be more for you. I should also bring up the mutation table, mutations themselves are really almost a mini arcane background, though they can make you weak just as easily as making you potent. The standard mutations from the books as well as the major ones from a later supplement could alter the person using it heavily, at best augmenting their physical stats or granting them improved healing or a few special abilities, at worst physical weakness, disgusting appearance, fraility etc. Major mutations were even more severe in swings, a bad pull from the deck could turn you into a giant slug where a good one could give you levels of armor, the ability to regenerate limbs, etc. The mutations can offer incredible things, some made strain recovery easy so long as things died around you for example. I could easily see players either crippled by their mutations or greatly augmented, which also means that some players might just throw their characters into radstorms to try to get a mutation to make themselves better at something. I can see some marshals getting uneasy about the mutation feature and wondering about power balance. I also want it to be understood that while I do find a lot of things in Wasted West to be an improvement I definitely enjoy Weird West and would easily recommend either.

One or many?

I was recently in a forum argument that got me thinking about the question of games in terms of DMs and players. There are going to be times where a DM has restrictions in a game that will restrict the ability of one or more players to produce the kind of character that they want. The debate came up in the context of if a DM should have to compromise or if the player had to decide to give up what they wanted or leave the game.

My views on the subject have to do with how my own games go. When I design a game world I make it for my players. I often try to help people find items, feats and offer advice when they want to try to make a character that fits a particular concept with available mechanics. Now, maybe I'm more liberal as a DM. But I can also understand the argument that a DM might need to reign in certain things to ensure that the game doesn't go out of control or so that the kind of world they make can feel workable.

But, I'd like to know what others think if anyone is interested.