Kubuntu update

Ok, I may have been a bit hasty with my previous assessment of KDE4. I threw together a live CD and booted the lappy into Kubuntu 8.10 with KDE4. December's Linux Format magazine pointed out that the context menu for the K button has an option to revert to the previous menu structure; much better. I would imagine a full install would provide the precious Tango icons that I am so enamoured of, along with Plasma themes I could actually download, or modify as I wished. The live CD only had them displayed as a kind of preview, naturally, but I will double check to see if that is a glitch.

I still don't care for the black task bar, so I am hoping that is a bit more straight forward to change once I have it installed. I may do a clean install on the new system I am setting up, then start transferring data. Most of the software I have on 8.04 is running just fine for now, so after the new system is set up, I will be wiping that drive and setting it up to dual boot with XP, as well as adding another gig of memory. It should be a pretty sweet little system once that is complete, ready for playing around with some virtualization.

Mostly, though, it will be for World of Warcraft. Hopefully, my cable broadband holds out for the winter until I can replace the internal co-ax in the walls. Also, I think my Linksys router is going out, so that will be replaced with a wireless router. Newegg has a pretty sweet deal going on the flashable router Linksys offers, so I will be throwing Tomato or something on that as soon as possible.

Along with the RPG projects I have lined up, 2009 is looking to be a busy year.

------------------Further News------------------

Ok, that was a bust. Trying to upgrade to KDE 4.1 as a means of clearing up a few issues, the dependencies broke, killed my kdm, and the whole system was trashed. Rather than start over with KDE, I decided to give GNOME another try.

I have to say, it is pretty damn sweet. I am not the least bit disappointed, and I might leave KDE for other people. Even before the crash, I was not happy with the windows management. GNOME has been nothing but smooth in rendering windows, keeping track of widgets, and putting my fonts exactly where I expect them. I found I couldn't jump from 1024x768 directly to 1280x1024, but interim steps got me up there. Compiz has a few glitches while doing window tricks, but I am not running top of the line graphics, so that is to be expected.

All in all, I am now a GNOME user, and I am quite happy about it.

Wandering Monsters

Recent forum conversations have led me to commit some thought to the concept of wandering monsters. I like the idea for a number of reasons; reducing prep time, adding a certain degree of verisimilitude, and stretching the players' tactical skills. Not the least of these is the availability of an 'impersonal' challenge for the players, which is the undercurrent to the above reasons.

Setting up a number of wandering monster charts front-loads prep time. It may take some effort to get the various climate or terrain based charts together, or to tweak the ones provided in the back of the DMG. However, once that is done, there are virtually unlimited possibilities. If the players are equipped for tackling the orc and goblin infested subterranean inventory storage facility, and happen upon the three trolls with an ogre mage leader, you can bet there will be some scrambling to meet the challenge. No matter how well executed, a planned encounter will never have the level of spontaneity provided by wandering monsters; nor will the planned encounter emulate a living world that exists outside of the characters as well as the wandering monster.

Wandering monster is a bit of a misnomer, anyway. It is even more useful to consider them wandering encounter charts instead. A set of animal tracks, bellowing in the night, a rusty dagger stuck in a door, a shiny gold piece from an ancient empire; these are all things that will get the players thinking and planning, and don't even require statblocks for combat. One or two entries on the normal table for 'specials', and in no time, you will have the players jumping at shadows, and tracking down every 'clue' you send their way.

This is especially useful for sandbox games. You can spend your time detailing some ruins and the surrounding countryside and villages, trusting that the players will eventually spend too much time in the wilderness and get hit with a wandering encounter. Their actions will practically write the scenarios for you! It does require a bit of flexibility, however, as the throwaway NPC you didn't give a second thought about suddenly becomes the primary villain the players are chasing. Especially after they discover some 'clues' placed by the wandering encounter tables, and like any group of conspiracy theorists, they will connect the dots in surprising ways.

Guidelines have been presented, of course, to use semi-planned or triggered encounters in place of wandering monsters. Those are fine, but they do take a bit away. One thing the mind is not terribly good at is generating randomness. Semi-planned encounters, at some point, will become somewhat predictable as the encounter is at their level, then below, then above, all in an effort to balance things out. Wandering encounters make no pretence of balance; it might be a pack of goblins, it might be a red dragon polymorphed into a goblin, it might be finely crafted stick with Nystul's Magic Aura.

It's the unpredictability that makes the challenge enjoyable, for both the players and the referee. Removing that aspect tends to filter down to the rest of the game, making each encounter a challenge to be managed, throwing ever higher bonuses at the problem without having to consider other responses. Uncertainty lies at the heart of role-playing games, and they are much more enjoyable because of it.

Memory boost

Linux was running marginally well with the previous 256mb, but with X-Chat and Firefox going constantly, things were starting to seriously bog down. The whole system started taking seconds to refresh a window, then minutes. Eventually, I could watch the screen re-paint, and it wasn't fun at all.

So, I broke down this weekend and decided to pick up a gig of Kingston. Ironically, they are using the exact chipset of the memory I took out, one stick of which had gone bad. Inherited Dell system, and the previous owner couldn't get Dell to figure out what was wrong with it. They bought a different computer and I got this one. Damn good machine overall, but I am pretty sure it is dual channel, and I only have the one stick of memory in it now.

Not that it really matters. When I get another gig for it and set it up to dual boot as a Windows machine, the dual-channel might kick in, although I doubt it would be a noticeable difference anyway. I would likely need to get a benchmarking app to see any improvement over 2gig that wasn't dual-channel.

After installing it, life has been a dream. Prior to that, Linux was constantly hitting the swap partition with the couple of programs I had running. I was starting to worry that it would shake itself apart, and I would have to get another drive to replace it. Now that I have the gig in there, I don't hear the drive click at all, unless I am listening carefully when a program launches. I have two Open Office documents and an Open Office spreadsheet open, X-Chat on five channels, Firefox with half a dozen tabs I switch between, Pidgen instant messaging, and a large image for the 5th Edition Herbalist's Guide in full colour, with alpha channels, on five layers (and counting!) that I am editing in the GIMP.

I was getting a little frustrated for a while, but once again, I feel like Linux is the best choice for me. Naturally, I should have remembered the Golden Rule: Memory upgrades are the best ROI available. The frustration is largely my own fault, for not upgrading that sooner. I was hoping Kubuntu 8.04 would be able to do a bit more with the limited memory I was using. Granted, I never actually crashed with memory real estate as low as I had, because I am sure running under Windows would have been a daily re-boot, if not more so.

Now that my system is back up to operating speed, I can concentrate on a couple of other snags; KDE never seems to remember that I told it to show my mounted hard disks on the desktop, and System Settings will fail to repaint the options after I go into root mode from my regular login. Minor annoyances, now that I have a real computer back again. And what is more fun than tracking down a glitch and fixing it?

The lesson here is, don't skimp on memory, even with Linux. Especially if, like me, you like running a beefy GUI like KDE.

Small Magics

Several months ago, James Maliszewski noted a brilliant idea in his LiveJournal to emulate the inherent magical nature of Magic Users.

Here is the list of minor magical effects he listed:

• Charm Person: While memorized, the caster gains a +1 bonus all Charisma-based effects, such as morale, loyalty, and reaction.
  
• Hold Portal: While memorized, the caster gains the ability to close or shut any open door, window, or other aperture within 10 feet by thought alone.
  
• Magic Missile: While memorized, the caster treats any weapon he wields as having a +1 bonus for the purpose of overcoming the special defenses of certain creatures. This bonus increases by +1 for every five levels of the caster. The bonus does not apply to attack or damage rolls made with the weapon the caster wields; it applies only to overcoming special defenses.
  
• Shield: While memorized, non-damaging falling objects and effects (pebbles, leaves, rainfall, etc.) are repelled from the caster's body.
  
• Sleep: While memorized, the caster is immune to non-magical fatigue and similar effects. In addition, he requires only four hours rest to regain his full complement of spells until he casts this spell, after which he must "pay back" four hours at his next rest period (meaning it takes him 12 hours of rest instead of 8 to regain his spells).
  

None of these minor magical effects stack. You can't memorize sleep twice and be able to re-memorize spells without any rest, for example.

Using spell slots for minor boosts like this is a great idea. It not only gives Magic Users a bit more versatility, it discourages the 'single use magic item' attitude. None of these are over-powered in the least, and the effect for Shield is only cosmetic anyway. These are perfect for adding a bit of flair to arcane characters.

KenHR has started a thread on the Citadel of Chaos forums of a similar nature, except with magic items instead.

These two ideas mesh very well for a low level or low magic campaign, and are easy enough to create and implement that they can be discarded in the natural progression of levels. Of course, effects for higher level spells are possible, as well as Mr Maliszewski's own suggestion that the effects themselves gain power as the character levels. Taking his example, the Magic User could get a +1 for each Magic Missile they can discharge, or a flat +1 per four levels regardless. Perhaps having fireball memorized allows the caster to ignite flammable items by touch or remotely, possibly up to melting certain metals based on the caster's level. Perhaps a half strength heat metal, which at higher levels would be an appropriate effect.

Here are a few more to ponder, from low to mid-level spells. Of course, these effects are only when the spell is memorized, but not yet cast:

Magic User:

1st level

• Identify: The Magic-User has an uncanny knack for appraisal. The cost of mundane items will be known to within 5%-10% of the actual value. A sword or a horse, for example. Larger constructed items like siege engines or buildings can also be assessed, but each part will be appraised separately, and a running total must be kept.
  
• Light: The Magic-User's eyes will glow with a pale light only visible at close distances in dark conditions. To a distance of two feet, the caster is able to see as normal daylight; hence studying spellbooks at night or reading runes carved in a dark cave are no difficulty. Further than two feet, normal darkness conditions apply.
  

2nd Level

• Invisibility: The caster will only be seen when looking directly at them, as they cast no shadow, nor does any reflective surface show their image.
  
• Locate Object: The Magic-User carrying this spell will never lose track of any personal items within 30'. They will always know precisely in which drawer they left their keys, and always recall that tome buried at the bottom of a pile of junk. A Wand of Fire left in the tavern across town won't be known until they are within 30' of the device, but if it is upstairs under the bed, they can walk directly to it.
  

3rd Level

• Fireball: The caster is able to heat items by touching them with their hand. The heat produced is enough to eventually boil water after three rounds, but won't generally cause damage to creatures. The heat produced can be intense enough to light kindling or a pipe from the fingertip, or steady enough to heat a pot of stew.
  
• Gust of Wind: Due to the breeze that constantly swirls around the caster, normal flying insects are unable to come within one foot of the Magic-User. Summoned, crawling, or giant insects are unaffected.
  

4th Level

• Plant Growth: Mundane plants within 30' (generally a household) of the wizard will grow normally despite lack of sun or water. Normal trimming will still be necessary for certain plants. Therefore, herbs can be kept in their pots hidden away under a table and still grow normally. If the Magic-User leaves the area, the plants will wilt and die at a normal rate as well.
  

5th Level

• Cone of Cold: Any non-magical, non-living object within 20' of the wizard can be brought to freezing temperatures in just a few seconds. A volume of liquid no more than five gallons, or about 400 coins in weight can be frozen in this manner.
  

Next up: Why do Magic-Users have all the fun? Clerics, Druids and Illusionists have their turn.

These ideas will definitely make it into Alternate Character Sets.

Behaviours

There appears to have been some major changes to the good old alignment system, which appears to have at least quieted down arguments about how to interpret it. Much like some other changes, however, it seems less than well-reasoned.

Naturally, some of the confusion deals with strict interpretations of Law and Chaos. Mostly, those are thought of as law-abiding and anarchistic. While that is a broad interpretation, I think it falls well short of the panoply of nuance available. Additionally, with a modern view of 'good' and 'evil', it can seem contradictory at times. How can one be Lawful, as in law-abiding, and Evil, as in spurning societal norms, at the same time? In the same way, how can one be Good (promoting the common weal) and Chaotic (disruptive of laws)? How can one be Neutral in regards to either?

This is where a more flexible interpretation is helpful. We can start with Law being dedication to the group over the individual. In that case, someone who is aligned with Law would be someone who strives to maintain a community or party, sometimes at the expense of an individual, or smaller group. As long as that group has a voice in the process, they are part of the collective whole, and the whole is stronger for it. Chaos, then, is the exaltation of the individual more than the group. The focus of someone aligned with Chaos would hold the belief that the smaller group or individual should be allowed to decide for themselves what is appropriate, without interference from the larger group. Each voice has its own quality, regardless of the notions of the group, and this adds to the richness of the tapestry of life.

Alternately, Law can be seen as 'organization' or 'hierarchy'. Each has their place in the great machinery, and society works because everyone has their job to perform. Structure informs everyone's day, task, family, or any other aspect of their lives, which keeps society running smoothly. Chaos would be more akin to the disorganized mess of individual effort, leading to unbounded creativity, each reaping the benefits of one another's unrestricted expression.

It's not all wine and roses, of course. In the first example, excessive adherence to the principles of the whole over the smaller group can easily lead to oppression, cold indifference, or even antipathy for the smaller group. Generally, the smaller group would eventually be exiled; either by the leaders or themselves. In extreme cases, the smaller group may be eliminated by the larger, as their refusal to adhere to the mores of the group are considered a disease that threatens the whole. Conversely, too much focus on the smaller groups leads to a mass of bickering factions, each of which struggling for power while people are starving in the streets.

In all these cases, there are beneficial and harmful aspects to a particular ethos. Those are where the morality of 'good' and 'evil' influence the expression of an ethos. Of course, the ethos can also influence the expression of the morality, wherein the good Ranger tends to help out a few people at a time, as they don't seem able to gather enough forces to themselves to ride against the evil necromancer directly. Or, the evil inquisitor brings every legal nuance to bear against the hapless political opponent accused of heresy.

Alignment is a very useful tool in fleshing out a character, and providing a background for their motivations. It can, and has, been subverted into a mechanic to lash PCs, to be sure. It certainly isn't the necessary outcome, however. A bit of flexibility, and alignment can set the stage for epic quests and everyday behaviours alike, without forcing unnatural responses from the players.

Resources

Resources are an important part of Olde School gaming, the most important part, according to some. Many game elements revolve around resource management. Wandering monsters harry the characters, wasting spells, wand charges, and hit points. Traps force them to find a different, usually longer, way to their objective, which can mean more wandering monster checks. Traps and wandering monsters are also typically treasure light, so you don't even get a decent reward for defeating them. Several of these in a row by a party that tarries or consistently finds the wrong rooms can even lead to the death of one or more characters.

Recent iterations of D&D have eschewed 'save or die' effects for a similar reason. No one wants to lose a character to a string of bad rolls, but even less so to one bad roll. But here is the problem: from that same side of the argument, we also hear that raise dead and the like are too cheap, to where it is only a minor speed bump for mid- to higher level characters. Hence, it was hard coded into the new rules that death is a minor speed bump at higher levels. Bringing someone back from death was a minor inconvenience, with a moderately steep price tag. Now, even the price isn't all that steep.

There are many effects under the 'save or die' rubric, naturally, including petrification and the like, where you aren't killed outright, but certainly aren't in the action anymore. Few effects short of a deck of many things or certain artifact level powers will outright permanently kill a character. There is a chance you could fail your resurrection survival roll, and Constitution placed a hard limit on the number of times you could be raised. Death was supposed to be so harrowing, in fact, a point of Constitution was to be deducted permanently for each raising. I recall our group didn't deduct the point, but we did keep the number of previous raises in mind. Naturally, if your group wasn't keeping track of the to hit bonuses for certain weapons versus AC, or the weapon speed of their ranseur, checking for resurrection survival was likely forgotten by the wayside as well.

And why not? Taking the broader view, 'save or die' was just another resource to manage. You weren't earning xp while the others hauled your carcass around, and just try to argue for a full share of treasure when your big contribution for half the adventure was 300lbs less gold to haul away. I don't see it really matters how often someone gets raised, really. In and of itself, that will act as its own penalty on advancement, without having the possibility of permanent retirement. Perhaps keep the hard limit on the number of times they can be raised, just so they don't get careless. Unless your DM was a complete hardcase, there really wasn't a lack of money, so it would be difficult limiting things that way.

I don't find resources like money or land to be very effective limitations anyway. Why would anyone want to be an adventurer if they were getting the equivalent of a 5gp per month stipend? When your income is no better than a common labourer's, the incentive to go out tomb raiding is lacking. Naturally, you want to make sure players don't haul out enough to demolish the economy of any region smaller than a kingdom, but fistfuls of gold are the best reason to kick the dust of the farm off your boots and pick up a sword. Severely limiting gold is worse than limiting magic items.

Raise Dead and Resurrection are both spells, of course, which are another resource. Once the party Cleric can cast those, you no longer have to seek out a town, but you still need a pile of diamonds on hand. So, it isn't really simple matter of just casting a spell to retrieve the character from the last save point. Depending on the adventure at hand, they may not even be the best choice for spells.

As any Magic User or Cleric player will tell you, spell selection can make or break the adventure. This is another resource that must be carefully monitored, as the daily selection of spells is pretty limited until somewhere above mid-level. Naturally, this is what makes playing a spell-caster so attractive for a certain type of player. It is probably one of the longest range strategy elements in Olde School play, and requires careful deliberation. There is no perfect mix of spells that will get the party out of every situation. Non-spellcasters have to monitor their hit points and ammunition, which can be as detailed, but rather more immediate.

With the power creep that seems to invariably follow each new release, these kinds of resource management seem to be progressively stripped away. For myself, the resource management is precisely what keeps me interested in Olde School games. It can get too fiddly at times, but nothing beats hashing out spells, torches and wineskins as a party while preparing for the assault on the well defended subterranean financial opportunity. It largely defines the 'game' part of role-playing game for me. It is also what I find distinctly lacking in most current RPG design.

Kubuntu

I was playing around with several different Kubuntu distros, among them 8.04 with KDE4. Man, was that a pile of turd.

I mean, it's not bad enough they use the same colours as Vista, it uses just about the same layout, too. It's just ugly, all the way down. The K-menu updates look OK, but the cascading menu takes a bit to get used to. I'm not sure it is an improvement, per se, more of a compacting of the regular menu items spawning sub-menus external to the list. A bit less cluttered on the screen, perhaps, but moving between sub-menus is a matter of a few seconds anyway.





Sure, I get it. Familiarity with the interface makes the transition less troublesome. I think it is time to start showing some real innovation, however. For most people, Vista is made of epic fail. Copying the windows manager is not a good move in this case. Great things could have been done to keep the windowing simple, yet add features. I'm not 100% convinced there is really a need for a gadget bar or OSX-like dock. But certainly, they could have been done with more elegance than a ham-handed attempt to clone the features as directly as possible.

Linux is on the ascent. People are aware of it, but a second hand rip-off of Vista is not the way to take advantage of that. Come on, KDE Team, grab some innovation; start with the 3.5 interface and improve on that. Trying to copy what the 'cool kids' are doing isn't going to convince anyone to transition. No one seems to like what the cool kids over at Microsoft are doing anyway. There is a solid kernel under there, you don't have to worry about integration or software compatibilities. You can spend all your time on the interface itself.

Please, fork Plasma to an alternate build, and go back to the 3.5 interface for development.

Structure

Further reflection, and some feedback from theRPGsite, led me to formulate these rough ideas:

Man-at-arms
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Cavalier
&c.
Arcanist
Magic User
Sorcerer
Alienist
Wu Jen
&c.
Hieratic
Cleric
Druid
Exemplar
Shukenja
&c.
Freeboot (rogue?, picaroon?, scoundrel?)
Thief
Assassin
Monk
Bard
&c

I will expand on the list in later posts.

Having a class that fits into more than one category will be tricky, but not impossible. Using kits as a guideline, it may not even be necessary. For example, a Magic User character would take the Soldier kit, claiming to be from a Sparta-like society. They would get use of a short or long sword, perhaps, get the Soldier kit level bonuses, but still use the attack and saves chart for Magic Users.

Kits wouldn't modify class abilities or features that are extant, but would provide a certain bonus to them. To Hit and Damage bonuses, or save bonuses, but the base class would still be used for attacks, hit points, level progression and so on. The listing would note this:

Man-at-arms
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian
Soldier (kit)
Guard (npc)
Slayer (NPC) or (epic)
&c.

Additionally, the (npc) designator would indicate a class that is better suited for use as an NPC, hence, they would have a smaller hit die than the base class, or a worse attack and save matrix. So, a Guard may use the attack matrix and hit die for Clerics, but still save as a Fighter. Also, they could be used for a low powered campaign, so spell kits would have a slower spell progression, or be limited in spell level. Alternately, the class may be too powerful or unbalancing for PCs, hence an epic level villain to challenge the players at any level. Such an NPC would have additional attacks per round, large bonuses to hit and damage, a greater amount of hit points, or high AC bonuses. These could be designated by (NPC) or (epic).

Therefore, if you are looking for that kit, you will generally know the section in which to find it. Also, this would prevent having a separate set of kits for each base class, as there is nothing inherently flawed about having a Fighter with the Soldier kit, or a Magic User with the Hedge Wizard kit, as they will only provide minor bonuses. These would be offset by an xp or other penalty, so they don't become standard for every character.

These kits could also have a variable degree, so Hedge Wizard might grant an additional spell or two per level, which would be the only spells a non-spell casting base class would know, while the Self-Taught Magician kit would allow spell casting at half the base class level. A 16th Thief who has Self-Taught Magician would cast spells as an 8th level Magic User, but no other save benefits, spell specialization or the like. Probably, a quarter the base class level would be more appropriate.

Of course, there is always the odd-ball that crops up, like Psionicist, but that kind of thing may be more appropriate as a kit anyway. I was never terribly keen on the idea that any bundle of abilities or special powers should be shunted off to its own class. There are even a few classes that could have some excess trimmed off for use as kits; Assassin, for example. It is tempting to trim just about everything back to four base classes and use kits to add on the other special abilities for the classes, but that would be straying too far from the original intent to be the standard. Perhaps as a class-building optional ruleset at some point in the future, or in an appendix of Alternate Character Sets with other character options.

The issue with making something like Psionicist into a kit is that an extensive list of psionics would overwhelm the kit idea, and make it into a virtual class anyway. A fairly broad list of categories, such as the original WEG d6 Star Wars had for Jedi powers would likely be more appropriate. Generally, this seems to be the problem with other classes-as-kits as well. A Druid kit would require a large list of appropriate spells, pushing it back into the class category again. A Psionicist kit would therefore have Telekinesis, or Telepathy, or something chosen at first level, which would increase as levels are gained. Attack and defense modes would likewise be gained by level, and their potency would increase.

Paramount in all this is that the methods be as clear as possible. I would prefer to set up a set of well written guidelines that everyone can use to extend their game as they wish, and simply use the system to create a good range of examples in Alternate Character Sets. Above all, I want a supplement that will assist people with creative endeavours, not have the final say on what is permissible. I plan on providing a large number of examples, but of course, any list created by one person won't be anywhere near exhaustive. Putting the tools to create in the hands of the players is my goal.

Illusion(ists)

I was pondering a few things about 1st edition AD&D, among them the sub-class of Illusionist. Sub-classes are not a bad idea, in and of themselves, and could have been expanded on for greater flexibility in 2nd Edition, had Mr. Gygax been around for that. You can see the direction he was going in the Unearthed Arcana. So the pieces were in place in 1st edition and expanded on in 2nd edition. History tells the rest of that sordid tale. I am planning on expanding on this idea in Alternate Character Sets for OSRIC; beforehand, I believe an exploration of the concept is in order.

The four classes have endured the test of time, and are quite sturdy for the task to which they have been employed. Contemporary sword and sorcery literature had protagonists beating the crap out of someone (Conan), exploring the deepest mysteries of the arcane (Ged), and stealing treasure for glory and monetary gain (Grey Mouser). Clerics have few direct counterparts in genre literature, if any, but the germ can be seen in numerous Arthurian rounds and other Medieval depictions of holy knights in the crusades. The Grey Mouser had some magical training, but this was more of a plot device than a reflection of the character.

Four genre appropriate archetypes, then. How do the sub-classes fit into all of this? Looking back through the years, they actually don't seem to fit very well at all. As a container (in programming terms), classes and sub-classes aren't very effective. It would appear they were made to be extensible (again with the programming!), but little was done with that, and even the Unearthed Arcana rules switched Paladins over to the new Cavalier class, adding another grouping of classes with one sub-class, along with Cleric, Magic User and Thief. As a grouping or container system, then, classes and sub-classes were less than efficient. It was perhaps slightly easier to annotate magic items with who could use them, but there were few items that were restricted by class and needed to be indicated in this manner. And even so, using (F, P, R) is hardly more space consuming on the handful of items to which it applies than (F).

2nd Edition AD&D introduced the idea of spell schools and specialization. Which is all Illusionists were to begin with, really; a Magic-User without access to the general spells available to Magic Users. In fact, they only got first level Magic User spells as a seventh level spell selection, indicating that Illusionists are somehow inferior to Magic Users, or a lead up to real magic use. They didn't use a different form of magic, like Sorcerers or Warlocks in later editions. The only thing keeping them seperate is that they couldn't read each other's magic notes. Not a particularly good impetus to make them a sub-class, mechanically or descriptively. That their maximum spell level is seven also demonstrates they were inferior to magic users. Taking all this into account, they were a good mecanical implementation of a sub-class, in that they were sub-ordinate to the Magic-User class. Still, with the introduction in 1st edition of spell types, it seems relegating Illusionists to a sub-class is redundant.

However, the Fighter sub-classes don't seem quite as sub-ordinate. Paladins and Rangers both got spell use at higher levels, and had other abilities as well that put them above their base class. In that regard, they are the opposite of a 'sub-class'. Additionally, the Paladin is a bit of a contradiction under the Fighter class anyway. Where the Ranger has thief-like abilities when in the woods, they aren't quite close enough to say that the Ranger is a Fighter/Thief. The Paladin, on the other hand, is fairly well emulated by a Lawful Good Fighter/Cleric. There are a few abilities they don't get, like laying on hands, immunity to disease, and so forth. Nonetheless, should the Paladin be a Fighter sub-class, or a Cleric sub-class? Certainly, the primary role of the Paladin seems to be fighting, but most Clerics were on the front lines as well. A mace or a flail may not have quite the damage capacity of a longsword, but a few magical plusses and spells to boot meant the Cleric was just as deadly. The Paladin appears to fall just about equally into both camps, which makes it difficult to justify assigning to one or the other.

The whole thing is a bit muddy. No clear cut distinctions in all cases, and the sub-classes don't even really derive much from the parent or base class. Paladins use d10 for hit points, but Rangers use 2d8 at 1st level, and d8 after that. Barbarians use d12. Clerics can only use blunt weapons, but druids are allowed scimitars and sickles. Monks have Thief abilities and a d4, but aren't a sub-class of Thief. Magic Users and Illusionists are the closest to being a true base/child classification, but their spells are different only in the language used to read or write them. Mechanically, Illusionist and Magic User spells are in all ways identical. Of course, the spell listings in general are all standardized, so the same could be said of Clerical and Magic User spells; the underlying source of the magic was different, however, where Illusionist spells were not. Similarly, Druids recieved their spells from a divine source, the same as Clerics, so suffer from a similar blurring of the lines of distinction. In many ways, a Druid is as much a specialized Cleric as an Illusionist is a specialized Magic User. Rangers and Paladins, however, are not quite specialized Fighters in the same manner, while Monks are more of a specialized Thief than a distinct class.

The base classes should have a minimal amount of information which would be inhereted by the sub-classes, and then extended upon. Rarely should the base class information be replaced by the sub-class. Rangers have, on average, four-and-one-half more hit points at first level than a Fighter or Paladin, after which they are a hit point behind on average per level. When they both reach name level, the Ranger is four-and-one-half hit points behind. Overall, a rather trivial amount, considering the Ranger has few other restrictions, and spell casting at the higher levels. The Paladin has the same hit points, on average, as the Fighter, and has additional abilities to boot. The Charisma and alignment requirements are supposed to make them rarer, but in practice, it isn't much of a restriction. In this regard, Clerics and Magic Users fit the description fairly well, but perhaps not by design. Rather, it seems to be that the Illusionist and Druid were simply not radically different enough, being virtual clones of the base class.

Additionally, the base class should see as little use as possible; instead, the sub-classes should be extended to fit the need, and some small-ish number of characteristics inhereted from the base. Therefore, 'Fighter' should be a container for classes that are primarily trained in the use of weaponry. Under that, you would want the basic man-at-arms inheriting most of the Fighter base class characteristics, such as hit die, attack matrix, saving throws and so on. Very little would need to be added; perhaps weapon specialization not available to other Fighter types, or a level based bonus to AC or attacks. Instead of the base class pulling double duty as a playable class as well as a template for the sub-classes (and as we have seen, rather poorly), the base class would simply act as a template for future additions. It could be arranged in a manner such as:

FIGHTER
Hit Die: d10
Attack: Fighter
Saves: Fighter
Armour: Any
Weapon: Any
Race: Any
Spells: No

The basic man-at-arms or warrior would add 'Weapon Specialization: 3rd level' and 'Attack Bonus: +1 / 4 levels' or somesuch, the details to be elaborated in the descriptive text. The Ranger might have a line that superceeds the base class thus: 'Spells: Arcane and Divine (delayed)', while a Barbarian would have 'Hit Die: d12', as examples. Care must be exercised, however. It is far too easy to replace everything for the base class and add on besides.

I believe a method such as this will help in maintaining focus in character creation, as well as providing interesting things for players to do while adventuring. Additionally, it provides more options for tailoring character classes to a specific campaign beyond simple exclusions like 'no Clerics'. You could simply change the Cleric base class to say 'Spells: No' and generally leave the rest of the sub-classes intact. And of course, these restrictions need not apply equally for PCs and NPCs. NPCs may be wholly unrestricted in class and race combinations, for whatever reason. So, 'disabling' spell casting for the Cleric template may only mean that no PCs can cast spells, but temple priests or other NPC Cleric types have no such limitation.

For Alternate Character sets, I will be looking at some of these to provide more options in character generation. For example, Paladins will be a kind of Exemplar, which will end up under Clerics. Additionally, Magic Users will likely end up under a parent class of Arcane Casters or somesuch, with Illusionists and Conjurers as specialization options, with Sorcerers and Alienists casting a different type of magic, hence different classes. I am hoping to present several spell casting options, such as spell points and rune magic. Additionally, I am planning on adding options for the other classes as well; specialty priests, Divine magic domains, Arcane magic spheres, Thieves' organizations and guilds, Fighter techniques and schools, and others as they occur to me. Hopefully as a framework so others can more easily create and add on to OSRIC or 1st Edition AD&D for thier own campaigns, or to share with others.

I am sure I will talk more about this later, so until then!

PGP Public Key

Due to the unchangeable width of the blog area, the whole key isn't visible, but it does show up correctly when copy-and-pasted.

If you want to send me encrypted email, please mark the subject line as:

Encrypted: <subject>

I have a 2048 key and a 4096 key if anyone wants even more security. Let me know and I can mail those to you.

If you don't already have software, you can get GnuPG from their downloads page. Binaries for Linux are listed towards the bottom, as well as Mac OS X versions.

Please don't encrypt comments, I don't have the time to decrypt and re-post those. They will be deleted.

pub 1024D/0C1D9D4E 10 Oct 08 StormBringer (Small Key) 
    Primary key fingerprint:  45A1 20D2 7441 595A 123A 6F27 26C9 EE07 0C1D 9D4E 

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

mQGiBEjv7ToRBADX6tjqzAHZcoqbUX/oBglkXcFxSzFPevfsGsUUy5LQ9SN9kn9L
QGQgQq4+PtUEoKcsKansxvFFKTl88KBnmWvoXtP9UPifeJ+Mts3JOz/Kn+VHfIUf
yUXfQVEmn5grMqyjpZWb8Ke3uJLfdyg6ZXpQvoypyo6T2j1hJE3pMTizNwCgi1Ep
EwQGzwzHI7vZU9WZpD5RYpcEAJe8ydhR+7Lu/TUliQfeRqMKmlt/rw3Y31jUWeWG
iFJj5AYlpCej2X7P2nbeeCdrkTF14eAj1nA2H8DV7GZKdjHSkXSkpVa/RO1osjh5
lb+ia1go2tCDSpCz8C7tI8BtIfKYmsXHvIFWQBX51rTrvAcswpOG6Fg7It4HDiqS
b5IfBADGLo8fn/XDlvNc6s8SrGCcJtRjveBvSSgXE5OctbgWiXTAlQiScYI3irrz
kA5vSETp1e03Ff/R2jbHkURNU/95gXWgCPOpgLUxAP0Ix/rQCRw7kGWxoKCE/ESq
DbV/QZaEJt9uIiAgx8mBVO4UzMR2G18n65Sqgz8FXgnxLhCborQyU3Rvcm1Ccmlu
Z2VyIChTbWFsbCBLZXkpIDxTdG9ybUJyaW5nZXI3NjBAYW9sLmNvbT6IYAQTEQIA
IAUCSO/tOgIbIwYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJECbJ7gcMHZ1ORzoA
oIG0XMYahpVixmDOQ3mxiGaRWK+6AJ9TcW1eFT7lG0c64r8B6iMFVSzp8LkBDQRI
7+0+EAQAk5BvBqVQ7yD54LBMlyq3rduO3hYgM4SFCf/mrQ9ItdMEnxjqmcFG2PbO
CUCs9gvOPAV/uqm7RxYusrvmkYrv8Y+apLI8tKZAu98uGZffBpC2sHhG64oIbvDb
iz+vCZEqzOJuoJW3NuLq2K5QDWDMMFKwxJaDA8miI2Xlp/PqhkcAAwUD/iOKPzb3
o81NUm2IoEjIGfWMQbMwnhYNj3fSU5z7cBr27oniDSFIv31DFO6JQxZ4ciOEf+y8
u/4DAPqeTxaAyE99zWxOcGQDGrQIyT7sFkTYYmYmC2SHFUyFX2OKD5ZgpifSWVh8
9h2ixxVirnpFvJIK6+Jm+XfM84IE6/DYAMg1iEkEGBECAAkFAkjv7T4CGwwACgkQ
JsnuBwwdnU6GSgCeN8GVQdP2eWJwmwxE5zgQctHy/CsAn3Q6LFwNUf44isyZX3rN
zRI2Emdg
=gSg6
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Consistency

This article, Under the Hood of the DMG, has a paragraph in one section that stirred up some strong responses, and in my opinion, is one of the markers that demonstrates part of the schism with Old School style play. Here is the passage:

The shift in philosophy reflected in this table is most evident in the section on terrain in Chapter 4 (pages 67-68). In past editions, we'd describe things like cave slime as if the DC of the Acrobatics check to avoid slipping in it were an objective, scientific measurement of its physical properties. "How slippery is cave slime? It's DC 30 slippery." But setting a fixed number like that limits its usefulness -- cave slime would be too challenging for low-level characters and irrelevant for high-level characters. In 4th Edition, we tell you to set the DC to avoid slipping based on the level of the characters, using the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table. So when 5th-level characters encounter cave slime, they'll be making a check against DC 22, but 25th-level characters have to make a DC 33 check.

Does that mean that high-level characters encounter Epic Cave Slime that's objectively slipperier than the Heroic Cave Slime they encountered in their early careers? Maybe. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the DM has permission to use terrain that's relevant to the characters, regardless of their level -- and has a table supported by solid math to make sure it's relevant.

(A quick comment about the math: it may sound unfair, but with the independant mathematical demonstration that the Skill Challenge system is almost precisely the opposite of what was intended cropping up no more than a week after the books hit the shelves, I take the notion that other mechanics dealing with skills and such have "a table supported by solid math to make sure it's relevant" with a hefty bit of salt. Not that skill use is utterly discredited, but certainly, claims to the validity of the math have to be compared to that.)

The idea is that consistency should take a back seat, or not be in the car at all, really. I am also baffled by the bit where this is intended to give the DM permission, essentially, to challenge the players. If there was an additional explanation that the DM should challenge the players rather than thwart them, that would be different. But the underlying assumption is that the DM would simply sit passively while the players told their own story without intervention.

At any rate, the real implication was that the particular cave slime didn't have a DC for crossing it until the characters encountered it, then it was a DC that was appropriately challenging. In the barest terms, that means it would be DC15 or so at 5th level, but DC 40 at 25th level (just to throw some numbers out there). This is entirely contrary to how a consistent world works. In fact, as evidenced by the statement "...as if the DC of the Acrobatics check to avoid slipping in it were an objective, scientific measurement of its physical properties" shows a rather shocking lack of understanding. Of course you can measure the physical properties of the friction. It's called 'co-efficient of friction'. Naturally, an RPG doesn't require nearly this level of math to simulate walking on slime. But setting a DC for a Dexterity or Acrobatics check approximates it nicely. You don't even really need to get extensive research on microbiological algae papers and cross reference them with a materials science text. Calling it 'DC20' is more than sufficient to demonstrate that it is pretty slippery, and low level characters will have a problem crossing it intact. But, that is exactly as it should be. Likely, low level characters won't even be looking for slippery rocks that an experienced spelunker would see coming three passages away. As the caver gets more experienced in dealing with subterranean hazards (buys ranks in Knowledge:Dungeoneering) or the character gets a better feel for their surroundings and how to interact with them (buys ranks in Balance), then of course they will become better at navigating treacherous passages. Being able to surpass previous challenges, and eventually being able to surpass them easily is the very definition of improvement. Setting all and sundry challenges equivalent to the character's levels undermines the very idea of improvement.

In other words, James Wyatt is suggesting a sliding scale dependent on when the characters encounter a patch of cave slime. By implying that the same cave slime would have a different DC if the characters were to go back at a later level, the cave slime is removed as a part of the physical world the in which the characters adventure; it's a challenge based on the needs of the story at the moment. Now, some may wonder why players would want to go back to an area they have already 'cleared'. One reason is that some new threat has taken up residence. The same area and its secrets that were protected by cave slime earlier is probably still an excellent location for the secret plans, the lich's phylactery, a portal to another dimension, or whatever else. It really wouldn't make sense for the cave slime itself to have leveled up with the characters. But this is exactly what is being suggested. If that area still needs to be challenging to enter, then the previous DC20 cave slime should be DC40, so the higher level characters will be challenged.

Some prefer this, others don't. There is a kernel of good adventure design in there, but taken to the logical extreme implied by the article, you end up with a more or less generic ~50% of success at any level for any 'challenge'. Similarly, it makes the description rather pointless. It can be DC 40 cave slime, troll droppings, loose rock or tangle vines. Additionally, it makes consistency harder to establish. Certainly, there can be varying degrees of cave slime frictionlessness, but for the most part, keeping that to a certain number then adding other penalties makes for a consistent experience for the players. Cave slime covered in troll droppings, for example, should be harder to cross that either of them alone. If you simply put a 'difficult terrain DC40' in some area, the players won't know if it is easy to cross after gaining 10 levels, like DC15 cave slime, or if it was impossible to cross earlier, but may be reasonable to try now, like DC25 troll droppings.

Rather than

P1: "Should we try to cross it? It was a pain in the ass when we were in the Caves of Desolation"
P2: "Yeah, that was a long time/ten levels ago. We can make it, easy-peasy."
DM: "You notice there are also extensive troll droppings on the rocks, making them appear more treacherous."
P2: "Yikes! This might be trickier than I thought, troll droppings will up the DC by quite a bit"

You get:

P1: "Should we try to cross it? It was a pain in the ass when we were in the Caves of Desolation"
P2: "I dunno, what's the DC?"
or
P2: "Yeah, we got about a 50% chance, same as the Caves of Desolation 10 levels ago"

In the first case, a consistent DC doesn't prevent meta-game discussion or planning, and in fact, isn't really intended to. But it can keep it more to the background, as the players would probably know the DC of cave slime at least, if not troll droppings. They wouldn't need to check with the DM for a DC necessarily, and should be able to estimate the odds of making it across safely and base decisions on that.

In the second case, the only way to really navigate the hazard is by meta-game planning. It can be masked, of course, but in the end, they players have a good idea that the DM will be setting level appropriate challeges before them. So, no matter what kind of hazard they face, they will have somewhere in the 45-55% range to overcome it, no matter what level they are. "Always fighting orcs" as someone put it.

To a degree, the first case goes to the heart of Old School gaming. There is a great big world out there, waiting for the character's to interact with it. But it is a great big world, full of people with their own agendas, plans and desires. Some of them have been gone for years or even centuries, but their devious traps and carefully laid plans are still in motion. If the characters are low level, they will be tangling with things they are incapable of overcoming, to their detriment. An example: the 20th level necromancer may have been defeated 200 years ago, destroying the adventurers sent for that purpose. But not before ensorcelling the Book of Doom that will raise wave upon wave of undead to sweep the known world clean of any living beings, using the most cunning traps, calling upon the mightiest of dweomers, insuring that any but the strongest mage will be utterly rendered if they try to wrest the book from its unholy crypt. Not something you would contemplate at 5th level unless the situation is dire, indeed. Insuring this adventure is appropriate to the characters is a matter of campaign design, not sliding the DCs on the traps and such around for a party of 7th-10th level. Consistency is severely damaged, and the idea of adventuring in a 'real' world is similarly compromised.

Sliding DCs have the veneer of making the narrative more important, but even that is undercut by having roughly the same chance of suceeding at any level. An ever increasing list of adjectives may sound good the first couple of times, but it does nothing to emphasize character improvement when the odds don't change. If you have even odds to kick down a simple wooden door at 1st level, and even odds to kick down the adamantium bound soulsteel magical demon-gate at 30th level, what has really been accomplished, aside from increasing the numbers?

So it begins...

A bit of a review, then on to newer thoughts.

From eight years ago, the first of a series that never was completed on Gaming Outpost. I give you "The Die is Cast":



Part I: Welcome to the Beginning!

Posted on 04 September 2000


I am hoping to use this series of articles to help deconstruct our beloved hobby, so we can all come to a better understanding of what it is that takes up so much of our time. I'm not going to do any in-depth analyses of individual gaming systems. There are too many game systems to really have a meaningful discussion, and it is beyond the scope of this article to attempt. We all have our favourites, and we all have our reasons that they are so loved. Inclusion or exclusion of a particular system is not an indication of the relative merits of said system. There are so many pros and cons to any game, and many of them are simply matters of personal taste. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, but rather to look into some of the 'mystique' that is role-playing. This is a far more concrete subject than which system has a better implementation of a given mechanic, which is another reason to avoid that topic. Of course, the best place to start is with the basics.


The most basic aspect of any role-playing game is the persona that we take on to play it, in the form of a character. The most basic aspect of a character is the attributes that comprise that character. They usually take one of three forms: Physical, Mental, or Metaphysical. The Physical attributes are the most obvious, concerned with the actual physiological makeup of the character. These attributes are usually those such as Strength, Dexterity, Appearance, and so on. The Mental attributes are the ones that govern how the character thinks, how smart they are, how resistant their minds are to supernatural occurrences, and so on. Usually, these kinds of attributes take on the form of Intelligence, Wits, or Mental Acuity. The Metaphysical attributes are typically the catchall category, for attributes that don't necessarily fit well in the other two. Usually, this is expressed as Luck, but some others that might be included would be certain Social attributes, Aura, or possibly an attribute like Sense, which would be a combination of the Physical (the actual sensing organs) and the Mental (how well the mind interprets these signals).


Therefore, a character in a role-playing game can be said to comprise the Physical, Mental, and Metaphysical attributes that are generated through the process of character creation or character generation (although the Metaphysical group is not as often used as the first two groups). I will begin with the Physical attributes, since these are the easiest to grasp.


The most basic and oft-used Physical attribute is Strength. From a very early age, we all tested our strength against whoever would stand still long enough for us to talk to. Whether it was wrestling, or lifting things, or push-ups, it was a very basic way for people to begin comparing themselves with others. Typically, the Strength attribute is just a simple measure of raw lifting capability, or muscle mass. While Agility is more often used to determine bonuses or penalties to the ability to strike, the Strength attribute is most often the largest determinant for combat bonuses or penalties in regards to melee combat. The differences between these two mechanics, how those differences are implemented, and how that impacts the game system will be the focus of a future installment. There are virtually no games that use a Strength attribute that don't also use it to modify the amount of damage a successful hit causes. From what little I remember about TWERPS from a decade or so ago, Strength was in fact the only attribute used! For just about all other games, however, more attributes are needed to help define a character. These other attributes will be the focus of future articles, and how they relate to Strength will also be discussed.


Just about every game has an archetype or template that relies on Strength to perform their duties. (Archetype or template are terms some games use to refer to a pre-generated type of role a character may portray, such as Pilot, or Archeologist. It is a rough outline of the minimum skills a given profession would possess, within the structure of the game, without locking the character into an arbitrary set of skills or abilities.) Most games term this type of character a Warrior or Fighter. Even in games that don't have a particular role defined in this way, there is a template for the character that shoulders the burden for most of the toe-to-toe conflict resolution. In Vampire: The Masquerade, this role is usually served by the shape changing Gangrel, whose primary attributes are in the Physical category. In modern or futuristic games, this type of character is usually a soldier or mercenary. In the HERO system, there is a 'type' of character that emphasizes the physical characteristics and strength especially. This 'type' of character is called a 'Brick,' and usually has the single greatest point expenditure in Strength. Where all other attributes are variable in their inclusion, Strength is the one constant to character generation.


This leads us to the uses of Strength. As already mentioned, the most basic use is as a measure of raw physical power. It can also be used to determine a measure of Stamina, when this isn't otherwise included, as stronger people tend to be able to perform physical labour for longer periods of time, theoretically. Often times, it is also used to define the body type of a character, although in a strict sense, this may be a bit inaccurate. Many US soldiers were amazed at the feats of strength displayed by physically smaller hill-dwelling Asian and Pacific Islander peoples many years ago, during the various conflicts there. Often, one man, no more than five feet tall, and about 130 pounds in weight, could be seen carrying objects many times heavier than themselves up the sides of steep hills, usually strapped to their backs. These were objects as large as an icebox, which was about half the size of a modern refrigerator, but made entirely of heavy gauge steel. Strength can be considered to be a measure of how well muscles work together in this instance. Therefore, a high score in Strength doesn't always correlate to the massive frame of a stereotypical barbarian. In the Silhouette system by Dream Pod Nine, Strength is actually a devised attribute, found by adding Build and Fitness together and dividing to get the result. The frame or body type of the person is measured by the Build attribute.
Many early fantasy games, such as AD&D, limited the maximum value of a Strength attribute in female characters. Often this was based on the assumption that females have greater strength in their lower bodies, while males have greater strength in their upper bodies. Evolution of thought seems to have put this notion to rest, as there are few games on the market today that arbitrarily limit the maximum Strength allowed based on gender. Fortunately, this bias didn't seem to show up in the assignment of other attributes, such as Mental or Metaphysical ones. Had that been the case, the number of female gamers today would undoubtedly be a good deal less than it is.


Physical attributes are nearly always in opposition to Mental attributes. In games where values are assigned to attributes, rather than randomly generated, often more points are awarded to one than the other, as in most White Wolf games, where you get 7 points for the Physical attributes, 5 for the Mental, and 3 for the Social (or, in our parlance, Metaphysical) attributes. In other systems, such as Cyberpunk 2020, allocating points to Strength simply leaves fewer points to allocate to the rest of the attributes, as a means of self-regulation in this regard. In games where attributes are randomly generated, such as AD&D, Palladium games, or Call of Cthulhu, it is possible to have a character who is physically powerful, and mentally adept as well. This is more of an exception, however, as most games today use a point allocation system for attributes.


What about the range of values for Strength? Some games use a percentile value method, and some use a different range, such as 1-10, or 3-18. These seem like good values at first blush, but if we look into things a bit more, we can see how some problems can surface. The strongest person on record lifted something in the neighborhood of 465lbs over their head. In AD&D, the highest Strength score possible allows one to lift around 480 pounds in a similar manner. The individual who lifted the 465lbs may not be entirely unique. However, the number of individuals that can match this feat is certainly very limited. As a conservative figure, perhaps less than 100 people would be able to accomplish this. That leaves the bulk of the 6 billion people on this planet somewhat less capable. That makes about one in 60 million capable of lifting that much weight. In AD&D, the odds of rolling a natural 18 are 1 in 1296. In order to get the additional Strength required to reach this maximum, one must be a Warrior, and roll a percentile score for Strength, termed 'Exceptional Strength'. This brings the odds to one in 129,600, several orders of magnitude less than the one in 60 million that would be expected. Games that use a percentile system have even better chances of achieving these lofty feats of strength, as there is relatively certain one in one hundred chance of attaining the highest score possible. Some games focus on characters whose abilities far exceed human potential, such as superheroes from comic books, and these games don't necessarily conform to these standards. Characters in Vampire: The Masquerade are able to lift and possibly throw a bus with a high enough Strength score. In the HERO system, as a Normal character, your Strength would be limited to on par with an Olympic lifter. However, as a superhero in the HERO system, there is no upper limit on the Strength statistic. Most games that focus on more mundane types of characters, such as modern or futuristic settings, tend to keep things on more of a 'realistic' scale. Therefore, while Strength is a universal attribute, the treatment of it within the game isn't. This can be an important consideration when determining the type of game you are designing, or deciding on playing.


What then, is the philosophy of the Strength attribute? In almost all games, with the possible exception of Head: The Floating, there are always going to be physical actions that need to be resolved. Some highly enjoyable gaming sessions have almost nothing but physical action resolutions. Even campaigns that are more involved with intrigue and social conflicts are going to have some form of physical confrontation at some point. It's nearly impossible to entirely avoid it. Some games have a greater focus on Physical contests, and these are usually Heroic or High Fantasy games. Other games have a greater focus on common interactions between people, or on political intrigue. Typically, these are Realistic or Low Fantasy games, in that the characters are not routinely expected to perform 'larger than life' feats of prowess. However, in any game in which characters have a corporeal form, there must be a way to measure the physical power of that form. Thus, Strength is a universal attribute, in one form or another.


That should wrap things up on Strength for now, but I'm sure I will come back to it in future installments. In the next column, I will explore another Physical attribute, in the form of Dexterity. After the basic Attributes are covered, the controversial topic of 'Should attributes be improvable, and if so, how?' will combine these topics and discuss the merits and problems associated with improving a character's basic attributes.


Until then, Game On!!


StormBringer