Dramatic Magic in Dungeon World

As often, a blog post that came out of a twitter discussion. And as often, started by Quinn Murphy:

[The important thing] for me is in making casting dramatically relevant. Making choices, taking risks, raising stakes.

In order to keep magic feasible in combat or other timed situations where characters take turns, yet still have some sort of drama associated with the casting of the spell rather than just a couple of die rolls, a spellcaster would need to be taking multiple actions to complete their casting. The problem can be managed by splitting the casting into phases, in which different things can go wrong.

1. Summon Energy
2. Shape Energy

Dungeon World already has some drama associated with partial success in casting spells: the player chooses between attracting unwanted attention, losing the spell (Vancian style) or taking an ongoing penalty to cast the spell in the future. But the drama is so compressed in such a system as to not be significant... or at least not as significant as Quinn was intending.

Assuming that each spell (or supernatural effect in general) has some energy cost that must be paid,

Summon Energy (CON/INT/WIS/CHA)

10+ You gain 3 points of energy towards the spell
7-9: You gain 1 point of energy towards the spell, and choose two:

• You don't attract unwanted attention from the energy source
• You don't take -1 forward
• It's not obvious what you're doing

Why the multiple stats?

CON: You're using your own life force to power the spell.
INT: Arcane magic, you're summoning the raw magic stuff of the universe.
WIS: Divine magic, you're channeling the power of the Gods.
CHA: Spirit magic, you're coercing another entity to give you the energy.

Powerful spells might require multiple types of energy to cast.

Shape Energy (INT/WIS)

10+ You shape the energy into the desired magical elements
7-9: You shape the energy into only one of the desired magical elements, and choose two:

• You don't suffer a backlash from the energy you're shaping
• You don't lose any energy (may be recovered with further Summon Energy)
• You can continue to Shape Energy

Magical Elements? Up to the world, but a spell might require multiple schools or shapes for the raw energy to generate the desired effect. For example a Haste style spell would require manipulating both Life and Time. In a more Elemental system, you might need both Air and Fire for a spell. Or in a Verb/Noun system, telepathy or scrying might be Move/Mind. If you don't have all of the magical elements required, then the GM/MC will adjudicate the results of the spell. Once all of the elements have been shaped, the spell goes off! There isn't a further roll for this, it happens after the final Shape Energy.

Dungeon World XP Hack

First, read Ryan and Hamish's posts about the XP hack for Dungeon World, listed in my previous post. Okay ...

... and now on to my take on it.

Ryan drops Aid/Hinder from the initial six. I agree that there's a problem with it, as the Aid or Interfere move is weak by itself and that's the only real way to roll for this type. So do we keep it, or drop it? Before we cast it to the winds, let's see what can be done...

• Move Healing into Aid from Defend. This helps Elven Wizards, Bards, Clerics, Paladins, but Rangers, Thieves and Fighters not at all. Maybe that's okay, as Fighters don't get much from Discover, Wizards not much from Defend, and so forth.
• We can fix the Aid or Interfere move to not be worthless! Given that you're giving up an attack or other useful move, to have a chance at giving +1 and only a small chance of not attracting unwanted attention for that +1, it's hard to see when the move as written is ever a good choice. How about:

  Aid or Interfere (Bond)
  When you help or hinder someone you have a Bond with, roll+Bond with them. On a 10+ they take +(1 plus your modifier for the action you're helping with) or -2, your choice. On a 7-9 you also expose yourself to danger, retribution, or cost.

• Allow indirect assistance to count, so long as it doesn't already count towards marking XP. So a Defy Danger roll to get in someone's face before they make it to the tasty tasty wizard could count as Aiding the wizard (so long as it doesn't count towards Stunt or Defend). But this gets really messy, in an otherwise quite clean set of actions.

You still don't like it? Truth be told, I don't either. Okay let's look at the highlight types in more detail, and I'll highlight (ha!) what I would call them, plus get to why I think Aid/Hinder is janktastic. As in Ryan's first post, it's about saying "I want to see you do X", and originally, "so I highlight Y." So we get rid of the middle man, Y, and just tell it like it is:

• Attack. I want to see you Destroying things (notably monsters).
• Defend. I want to see you Protecting things (notably your fellow adventurers).
• Discover. I want to see you Learning things (notably about the adventure).
• Converse. I want to see you Interacting with things (notably the NPCs).
• Stunt. I want to see you ... I don't know, jumping over things? Defying Dangerous things? The time that I saw Stunt used it was a style of play, rather than a particular action. I would rework Stunt to: I want to see you Risking things (notably yourself).
• Aid. I want to see you Helping [with] things? Lame. And it's lame because it's not about doing awesome things that you can later tell people about. "My character totally destroyed this evil water demon!" YEAH! "My character totally gave a little bit of advice about how to do things to other people!" Uhhh... not so much.

And there we have it. In a roleplaying game I would never want to tell a player: I want to see you stand on the side lines and offer advice, and as a player I would never want to be told that.

Ryan's solution is on the right track, I feel, but not quite there yet:

When you Aid or Hinder another PC, and the move you’re affecting is covered by one of your highlights, mark experience.

If it was covered by one of your highlights, why don't you just do it yourself? Hopefully you're pretty good at it. And on top of this, in a reasonably balanced set of characters and highlights, it's quite possible that no one else is really doing your highlights and instead leaving it to you, especially with Protecting and Interacting.

So along with the above revision for Aid or Interfere, should you choose to do it, instead:

When you Aid or Hinder another PC, and the move you’re affecting is covered by one of their highlights, mark experience.

Then you're actually helping people to do what they should be doing, not what you should be doing.

[Edits below, covering points that Ryan brought up on Twitter, paraphrased]

• If the highlight is one of theirs, it's impossible to use on NPCs as they don't have highlights!
  True enough, but along with the principle that every monster has a name, perhaps just arbitrarily say that the player can mark XP or not as if the monster had a highlight. Or just say that it only works with PCs.
• If you can interfere, then you can interfere with another PC using parley on you to stop them... and get XP if they have Converse/Interacting highlighted. That's fucked up.
  Yes, perhaps just Aid and not Interfere. Very much an edge case.

21sided+INT; Dungeon World Analysis

This is not a post about #DndNext, but I wish it was! As per one comment on Twitter, Wizards should just license Dungeon World for 5th Edition and call it done. Or as my players said, after last night's introductory game:

It has the perfect amount of rules, not too many to get lost or to get in the way, but enough structure to keep everyone roleplaying and creative for the entire session.

Quick summary: Three players, playing a Dwarven Cleric, Human Paladin, Elven Wizard. The Cleric and Paladin were of different deities. They started out having off-camera found out where an evil merchant lived, who is supplying an evil temple with slaves and weapons that they have vowed to destroy. (Which is essentially what we played in #BigGamingWeek). They came in through a tunnel from the river, beat up some guards (just), found and killed the Merchant and looted his secret study, before returning triumphant to the tavern.

What we love:

1. Simple and fast. DW plays super quickly with minimum fuss and mathematics necessary.
2. Bonds. Using bonds has the game start out with players and characters having investment in *each other*, not just the story or advancement/loot. By making bonds part of the system mechanically (via highlighting, XP, Aid), not just fluff sitting on top, there is motivation for everyone to be cohesive and tell interesting stories that engage the other players. This is total genius.
3. GM Moves rather than GM Rolls. This speeds the game up SO MUCH it is just insane.
4. Choice as balancing agent. By this I mean the way DW uses the "Fast, Reliable, Features: Pick 2" strategy to balance actions that are partially successful. I think DW would benefit from further expansion in this area, pulling from its parent Apocalypse World.
5. The LA Crew's XP hack*: The baseline XP system (highlight something, mark XP when you roll it) is great, and encourages and rewards doing things. But it's so broken it's not funny when you highlight a stat instead of a type of activity. The XP hack (read it now!) fixes this in one quick change.

*: Ryan's first post, plus Hamish's extension, and Ryan's Follow up

What we found confusing, after the first game:

1. GM Moves. If the players don't roll anything, then the first appearance is that the GM can't make a move. I didn't find it in the rules, but our assumption is that the GM can make a move in turn, using one of his NPCs.
2. The directionality of Bonds. This could be explained a bit better in the rules, with clear examples of all the uses of Bond. Also the Character sheet should have a slot for bond values per character rather than having to count the individual ones.

What we would have liked to see:

1. Guidance on initiative. IMO, rules are there to determine the outcome of a conflict. The conflict in initiative is who acts first, and it shouldn't be whoever shouts the loudest at the table. Our quick solution was to go around the table, including the GM.
2. Healing. It's freaking dull. Between the paladin just moving the damage around, and the cleric failing to cast spells, extra-combat healing is a total chore. Our solution, after two combats, was to have characters heal to max automatically given a quick rest. Cos, you know, fuck it. Also, it breaks the XP system into lots of little bits, as the Paladin gets XP for moving the damage around, and the cleric gets XP for then healing (or trying to heal) it.
3. Streetwise. Neither Discern Reality or Spout Lore really cover what should be a roll+CHA move to find out the word on the street.
4. Symmetrical Damage. The Paladin with 3 armor sat there defending all night, and sucking up the static damage as he knew exactly what was coming. Yet the players had to roll, doing sometimes fantastic and sometimes terrible damage. The asymmetry isn't great, either all damage should be somehow random, or all should be static.

What we added, but are personal preferences:

1. Reroll tokens: I love throwing tokens at people for outstanding roleplaying. And given that stats don't contribute that much, having those tokens used for rerolls works outstandingly.
2. Character backgrounds: Yeah, conversation and questions, but having a well thought out background actually written down (and extended during the game) helps both the player to keep in character, and the GM to have time to think between sessions about how to include it into the story. The reward for a background is +1 to a modifier that isn't already +2.

10 Thoughts on Deck Building Game Design

What have I been doing for 6 months? Well ... running a Cyberpunk game instead of D&D, and thinking about deck building games (like Dominion, Ascension, Nightfall, Thunderstone, etc.).

Given you probably don't want to hear about my own campaign using my own system, here are my thoughts on DBG Design. I'll use the (probably) three most popular as examples of what's good and what's not in the current generation of game, and compare to the much more established and richer CCG market.

1. Current DBGs lack "factions", which are important for longer term engagement.
   For example, colours in Magic, clans in Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) and Vampire: the Eternal Struggle (VtES), families in Deadlands, Secret societies in Illuminati, etc. Players will associate themselves with one particular faction, which may not be the most mechanically advantageous. The same way that sports fans will support their team which hasn't won in decades.
   
   
2. Setting/Story is important.
   Other than Magic, most CCGs have a very strong setting and/or storyline. In L5R it is key, where player tournaments drive the world's story and which cards come into sets. DBGs to date have had minimal actual setting. Nightfall is a mishmash world reminiscent of the World of Darkness, Ascension has some repeated fantasy-esque names but nothing really coherent or engaging.
   
   
3. Player Interaction is important, but does not have to be "attacks"
   Current DBGs have minimal interaction, compared to CCGs. The attack cards in Dominion aren't a good strategy, the attacking in Nightfall is important but very shallow, and there's essentially none in Ascension. Compared to the rich interaction in VtES with bleeding and votes, the multiple economy interaction in L5R (honor, combat, rings) and the current DBG fare is sorely lacking.
   
   
4. Winning is better than not losing.
   To "win" Nightfall, you have the least number of wounds in your deck. You essentially lost the least, which isn't a substitute for proactive winning by your own actions. Ascension's honor counter is a bit weak, as it's just a timer, compared to Dominion where you actively choose to buy VP cards. Nightfall is chaos Magic, where everyone can attack anyone... except in Nightfall it's required every turn to attack with every minion (creature) you have out.
   
   
5. Economy is more than just card combos.
   Most DBGs tend to be combo construction games rather than interactive economies. In Ascension card draw and deck thinning cards rule the roost, and Nightfall's chaining is unashamedly all about the combo combo combo. Even Dominion revolves around additional actions in a turn (Village!) and avoiding the VP cards to recycle your deck to get back to the start of the combo. Compare to the interplay between Blood Pool and Vampire's life in VTeS or the necessary mix of attributes in Spycraft, and DBGs come up short.
   (Thanks to @gamefiend for this point)
   
   
6. Personal card stocks are good.
   Lest I appear to be dissing Nightfall, I really like the personal sets of cards that only the player can buy. This means that the optimal strategy for each player is different, as opposed to Dominion where you could end up with 4 players each with essentially the same deck, or Ascension where the available cards are (for all practical purposes) random. See also point 1 about factions.
   
   
7. Cards should be personal, not rules substitutes.
   Spycraft's mission deck was a very bad idea, and contributed to the game's demise. The rules should be solid enough to swap in or out any cards without compromising the integrity of the game. Anything where the cards are somehow a substitute for something that could be generalized to a simple rule is poor design.
   
   
8. Starting deck mechanics are crucial.
   The starting deck in Nightfall is set, and the cards remove themselves from the game after use. This is awesome as you don't have the problem in Ascension/Dominion where you can get stuck with a hand full of junk half way through the game because you couldn't get rid of the cards or they're no longer useful.
   
   
9. Start up time should be minimized
   I love playing Ascension on the iPad as it shuffles for me, lays everything out and generally takes out the chores of DBGs. Compared to Nightfall, where the cards are separated only by dividers and you need to fish out 2*number of players plus 10 more ... I get tired just thinking about it. If you can't quickly play a second game, then people won't. And that's bad.
   
   
10. Randomness from cards is a cop out.
    Random Roll in Blood Wars, void score in L5R and similar, show a degree of poor design if used for random rolls rather than a balancing attribute. Illuminati is the worst with actual dice. If you want a board game with dice, make a board game. Admittedly this hasn't come up in a DBG yet, and I hope it never does!
    

Do you agree with my points? What else would you want to see in your perfect DBG?

Combat Speed, Revisited

As always, a twitter "nerdfight" has prompted the thinking and writing of this blog post. And it's the same fight as previously, where people complain that combats take too long, others say that's the heat of the D&D kitchen and to GTFO if you don't like it, and the more reasonable among us try to come up with solutions.

Most of the suggestions to date try to patch the system without really attempting to understand the cause of the slow down. The posited reasons include player choice of actions, extra dice to add and so forth. Compared to previous editions and other games, these are insignificant as they happen everywhere. Vancian magic did not dramatically slow the game, nor does the power choice in White Wolf, Weapons of the Gods, GURPS, or any other game I know make such a difference. Similarly, almost every game has random damage in the same order as 4th ed D&D.

The problem that I see is that the system inherently does not scale properly without total character optimization, and even then it's dubious. Monster and PC HP scale linearly with level due to the math of the system. Monsters start at around 20 + (8*level) and PCs at about 24 + (5*level). To hit and defences also scale relatively linearly, assuming the PC takes the mathematical system fix feats. As damage is entirely random, with a minimum of 0 (on a miss) and the only relation between to hit roll and damage is the 1 in 20 critical (modulo rare powers and items), the difference at low levels is not recognizable but becomes more apparent as experience increases.

On average, the damage per level for monsters using the DMG's "Damage per Level" table increases by 2 per 3 levels. This assumes that the monster hits 50% of the time, and then does average damage per the dice. The damage used is the average of medium and high normal damage expression, as the typical amount an average monster would do per round.

Given this, a single first level monster can take out an equivalent single first level PC in 3.2 rounds. At 6th level, this has gone up to 4.9, by 11th 5.6, after which the rate of increase levels out to a maximum of 7.2 at 28th level. It's clear to see that the monsters will take longer to get rid of the PCs as levels increase. The extra damage from monster encounter or recharge powers with Limited damage expressions may reduce the number of rounds, but the effect is linear so the overall progression remains the same.

The same is even more pronounced for the PCs. As PCs can have at most 4 Encounter powers, which one assumes do more damage than At-Wills, and 4 Dailies at 20th level, the gap between PC damage output and monster HP will increase significantly. As level does not add to damage and an at-will does the same damage at 20th level that it does at 1st, it should be no surprise that combats take longer.

Added to this are the prevalence of conditions, and in particular action depletion conditions. With fewer actions (Dominated, Stunned, Dazed ... even Knocked Prone gets rid of a Move action), there is less opportunity to deal damage over time. This is compounded by the additional time spent tracking the conditions, saving against them and calculating to hit and damage rolls which are out of the ordinary.

And after writing this, I come to the undesirable conclusion that the necessary variation of powers in the level/role matrix makes this practically impossible to track, which in turn makes it practically impossible to properly fix with house rules more complex than reducing monster HP by 3*level and limiting the number of conditions in play at any given time.

Some suggestions include:

• Add 1/2 level to all at-wills and basic attacks. This makes these attacks more desirable, reducing time spent on action choice and increasing the damage done.
• Increase PC damage to follow the monster damage per level charts, if less. Remember that the monsters gain 8HP per level, whereas the PCs gain only 5 on average, so these should be the absolute minimum! Role and power type would determine the table and column to use.
• Make all daily/encounter attacks do half damage on a miss, and all at-wills do 1/2 level on a miss. This pushes the average damage per round back up without overly affecting the low levels.

Post interrupted by earthquake! More later :)

Enjoying Combat: Speed and Awesomeness

@gamefiend, in response to criticisms on twitter about the glacial pace of higher level 4th ed combats, recently posted a great blog entry about possible causes and the use of environmental accelerators as a way to speed things up. I'd like to give some further ideas about the way in which my group has attempted to make combat both more enjoyable and faster.

The group consists of 5 players plus myself and I would say that the most tactically focused player is about 60/40 for tactics/roleplaying, and the least is closer to 20/80. I start with this rough guide so that you understand that combat in our game MUST drive the story, rather than being an end in itself.

As many have noted, it is very tempting in combat to simply announce the name of the power that is being used, roll the dice and cheer. GameFiend might even call this a procedural trick, along with tricks like strictly limiting time per player's turn. Gamefiend also notes that reducing the HP of monsters simply destabilizes the game, with which I agree. The math behind the game design has been well scrutinized, leading to corrections through feats and more feats, better monster design and so forth. Our experience goes very much in line with GameFiend's analysis: procedural tricks and math adjustment do not help in any signficant way, and the most effective route is when the players all know the rules and their character's abilities. I'll add to this that the DM must also know their monsters' abilities -- time spent considering which attack to use must be reduced on both sides of the screen.


This is not always possible even for experienced players. Especially when bringing in a new character at paragon or higher when the interactions of feats, abilities, powers and items make it more and more complex to participate effectively and quickly.

Secondly, the gap between PC damage output and monster defences/hp is a significant factor that has not yet been discussed. Clerics in particular provide a large chunk of healing power that drags out combats, or makes the party feel immune to the monsters until the Cleric is either dropped or has run out of magic. Neither of these are acceptable targets for the DM -- picking on a single PC sucks, and the game is already a chore by the time a 8+ level cleric runs out of healing. Thankfully the player for the cleric was good-natured enough to bring in a new character, and the party's Bard should be able to prevent random PC death. I have previously made this point on twitter that Striker should not be a class. Every character should be a Striker, with a sub-role of Controller, Leader or Defender.

Before going on to the solutions that we have employed, it is also important to consider the philosophy of combat encounters. If you think, as I do, that the heart of any roleplaying game is a social contract between the participants, then what are the social norms for combat?

1. Every participant should be able to show off their strengths: Be that awesome control, mega-damage, tricks and cunning to astound, or any other aspect. And this applies to both DM and player. A frustrated DM that is having their monsters locked down and slowly whittled away is just as bad a situation as a frustrated player, if not worse as the DM controls more than one combatant.

2. Every participant should ensure that the combat is enjoyable for the others. The most obvious aspect of this is being quick with your turn, but also all players that I have ever gamed with appreciate interesting descriptions and innovative play more than effective tactics. Get on with doing your cool shit, even if it's not the best possible choice.

Two solutions work for our group:

1. Awesomeness

Essentially the same as GameFiend's accelerators, if a player has a good idea that fits in with the environment or otherwise shows off the awesomeness of the character, then unless a skill check is failed very badly, they can pull it off with a good description. The DM does not necessarily have to think off possibilities beforehand -- if the idea is cool, then run with it. This fits the points above, as the PC can show off their strengths and it makes the combat more interesting for everyone.

2. Roleplaying Tokens.

I have two (and only two) tokens that can be gained at any point in a session for good roleplaying. These tokens can be spent at any time to reroll any roll. Further, if the token is gained during combat, it can be used in that combat to regain a used Encounter power. The tokens do not persist between sessions, you cannot have two at once, and only two can be held at any point in time. You may wish to compare this set of rules with the recent fortune cards announcement.

The mechanical choice of a reroll is important. It normalizes the probability of awesomeness, both in and out of combat. It can be used on skill checks, damage, to hit rolls, ability checks or anything else. In practice, it is almost always used to reroll a miss, which follows points 1 and 2 above, and speeds up the combat.

The ability to regain an encounter power is also a well-considered one. Remember that the only way to get a token is to roleplay. Refreshing an encounter power is enough of an incentive to remind players that they should be descriptive and interesting in combat as well as out. It's always a roleplaying game, not a tactical boardgame half the time and a roleplaying game the other half. It is not, however, enough to seriously unbalance the game as drastic changes in the mathematics are bound to do.

There is another aspect to tokens that I am going to put into effect, after a quick trial based on ideas from @DMSamuel. If, in combat, you have a token then you may expend a minor action and describe part of the environment that has not yet been described. It cannot provide any permanent effect (eg no treasure etc), nor any direct damage. It can be used by either the DM or players to gain a mechanical advantage. This is GameFiend's accelerators, but put in the hands of the players.
Let the player describe the world as they see it and they will be more immersed, rather than divorced due to mechanical tactical considerations.

If you try these solutions, please let us know how they work for you!

You've been Adventuring in a Dream, Neo...

The following are rules that I used to successfully run a dream world adventure.  In the adventure, one of the characters doesn't wake up after an extended rest, and the party figure out that he has been taken captive in to a Dreamwalker's dream prison.  They find an old Vistani Seeress who can transport them into the dream, in order to enact a rescue.  In the dream world, they find that they cannot escape without either waking the Dreamwalker, or finding an exit built into the dream.

"Do you believe that my being stronger or faster has anything to do with my muscles, in this place?"
In the dream, any character may use Will to replace Fortitude.

"The body cannot live without the mind."
If you are killed in the dream, you are still dead.

"When you go into a dream within a dream, the effect is compounded"
You cannot take an extended rest while in the dream. This dream-within-a-dream would allow the dreamwalker to whisk the character down a level of unreality from which escape would become impossible. Or at least overly complex for the DM to cope with :)

"A glitch ... It happens when they change something."
Both the Dreamwalker and the PCs can attempt to bend the dream world to their will.
As a standard action, a PC can make a Charisma + 1/2 Level check against the Will of the Dreamwalker.  If they succeed, they can change one aspect of the dream (unless it would break the adventure).  If the PC fails, the Dreamwalker may make an attack against the PC.  If the PC rolls a 1, then the attack automatically succeeds as a critical hit.

As a standard action, the Dreamwalker may change one aspect of the dream without a roll.  In this case, any PC may make a Charisma or Intelligence + 1/2 Level check against the Will of the Dreamwalker.  If this succeeds, the PC may either regain 3 expended healing surges or escape from the dream back to reality.


As the originally trapped character is a Monk from an oriental part of the game world, I used the Oni Souleater from Open Grave as the Dreamwalker's aspect in the dream, giving the PCs a target of 26 Will, and healing surge related powers to dissuade them from making things even more complicated.
Following a Rokugan theme, the characters had to recover 5 seals (fire, earth, air, water, void) to open a door to get to the projection of the Dreamwalker.  They could also have demonstrated to guards on an otherwise infinitely long bridge that they followed the tenets of Bushido, and hence should be allowed to leave.  Given the ... unaligned ... nature of the party, the requirements to act with honor, duty and even compassion made them decide against this route.