The Gamer Dome - Making a Game Out of Game Design

Widely considered to be the most playable edition of Talisman, 2nd edition is the one that brings back fond memories for me (which 4e failed to capture). Yesterday I was hunting thrift stores for gadgets and structures for the Chain Reaction machine my friends and I are building, and at the back of the top shelf of games (I always check the game shelf…who doesn’t?) I saw a Talisman box.

I hadn’t seen one in so long, I thought it was an expansion box I’d never seen, because it seemed so small compared to the 4th Edition box as well as the box I kept my old 2nd Edition + expansions in. I pulled it out, carefully peeled the tape away from the edges, and looked inside. What I found brought a smile to my face.

Every piece intact, and not only intact but in pristine condition. I could find no evidence that the cards had ever been used except to sort them and put them into individual plastic bags. There are a few dings on the box, but not many, and it still shines like the day it hit Fantastic Worlds, my childhood FLGS.

Total Cost: $0.56

People have argued about this since first edition, but the discussion never gets old. At dinner last night, I was chatting with the fembot about the d20 System (she claims it isn’t broken, I think it’s got severe flaws, but not ones that make it unplayable) and one of the things I started talking about was Charisma.

Now, clearly the 3e designers thought there was something wrong with Charisma, because they more firmly defined both conceptually and mechanically. Conceptually, they defined it as “actual personal strength, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.” Mechanically, they tied it into the sorcerer’s spellcasting and made it integral to cleric and paladin abilities.

That’s all well and good, but it’s a shame they didn’t take the other necessary step of making it a secondary stat instead of a primary attribute. Charisma should be defined by not only what your character can do, but how good at it he is.

Let’s take a look at Raistlin, the gold-skinned archmage from the Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends (and more, I know). When the books start out he was a Level 5 mage, I believe, and he was universally mistrusted and/or loathed. Only his brother and the ever-bright Tasslehoff could stand to be around him. That’s clearly a low charisma, but he had a whole lot of credibility and “personal strength” whenever he cast a spell, solved a problem, or as we found out later, took on the test at the Tower of Wayreth. Think about obviously bad leaders of the past and present…even though we may joke about them or look upon them with disdain, their words and actions have great power.

As Raistlin goes up in level (grows more powerful), we know he wasn’t putting his stat bumps into Charisma, and even if he was it wouldn’t have made a significant difference. Yet, he goes on to challenge gods and become leader of the Tower of High Sorcery…but mechanically, how?

If Charisma was a secondary stat, based on a mixture of class abilities, feats, spells, ability scores, titles, fame, accomplishments, and character level, then we’d see a number value that made more sense. Of course, this would mean that someone would have to go through the entire game and come up with Charisma values for every feat, spell, and accomplishment out there. That sounds tedious at best for 3.x, but with 4e right around the corner, maybe it’s time to make that change?

Why yes, I am a bard, and my name is Larry, and this is a leisure suit.

I think the concept of game balance in roleplaying games is often misapplied.

The designers of 3e attempted to introduce systemic balance into the game with the d20 System, insisting that each character class be no more powerful than the others at any given level. There were numerous examples of imbalance built into the previous editions of the game, and they sought to eliminate this. Game balance is a useful concept in many types of games, and in certain subsets of the D&D rules it’s a good idea as well.

I mean, there was absolutely no attempt to balance various kits against one another in 2e. In AD&D, some classes were clearly better at lower levels but faded into obscurity by the higher levels. I never thought a thing about it, in my youthful naivety, I just accepted that it’s how the game was played. Then came 3e, which brought us the lofty goal of not only being playable at every level, but of all classes being balanced against one another. They fell far short of both goals.

That’s not a knock against them (well, it might be a knock against them for *claiming* such things), because D&D will never allow for that kind of balance unless it receives a complete overhaul. As long as wizards can do what they do and fighters are stuck swinging a sword, wizards will always be better at high levels…get over it.

Another complete failure was the homogenization of monsters and PCs, which necessitated horrible subsystems like CR, Treasure by Level, and magic item values. That’s too long to get into here, but I’m excited to hear that 4e has eliminated that problem. There were many other problems created by slavish devotion to systemic balance.

If you can’t tell, I’m not a big fan of the concept of systemic balance in RPGs. I do think certain sub-systems need to achieve some sort of balance, but some game elements need to be imbalanced in order to facilitate the presentation of a roleplaying world. One philosophy that’s been getting my goat recently is the standardization of stats at character creation. Yes, I’m going to defend rolling for stats.

I understand that rolling 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest or 3d6 six times pick the best set can produce some big gaps between characters, but it doesn’t necessarily. It also tends to make all PCs the same…which some people would call balance, but I would call boring. 3e’s standardized bonus structure (+1/-1 per two points from 10) made stat homogenization much more necessary than in editions past, where there was a huge range of +0 and a character had bonuses from only one or two stats usually, three if he was well rolled. But in outlying cases, the bonuses weren’t enough to make other players feel like they couldn’t keep up.

So, here’s my suggestion for a hybrid method.

The Standarandom Array

You start with the elite array–8,10,12,13,14,15–(which is not really frickin’ elite if you ask me) and list out your ability scores in order–Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma–then do the following.

1. Roll 1d6 for the 8: Count down your list of abilities to the number indicated (1 is Strength, 4 is Intelligence, etc.).
2. Roll 1d10 for the 10: 1-2, first available stat; 3-4, second stat; 5-6, third; 7-8, fourth; 9-10, fifth.
3. Roll 1d8 for the 12: 1-2, first available stat, 3-4, second stat; 5-6, third; 7-8, fourth.
4. Roll 1d12 for the 13: 1-4, first available stat; 5-8, second stat; 9-12, third.
5. Roll 1d4 for the 14: 1-2, first available stat; 3-4.
6. Put your 15 in whatever lucky stat is left over.

If you really want to be hardcore, pick your class before you roll.

This system lets the balance junkies have their way with ability scores (as the game all but dictates they should), but adds the flavor of randomness that some gamers prefer.

Rolling ‘em 3d6 in order all the way to the grave.

Anyone who is interested in D&D, the subject of women in gaming or roleplaying games in general can’t help but have run across the storm of controversy surrounding Jonathan Tweet’s recent comments.

Well, I’m all of those things, and I have an opinion about everything, which is why Propagandroid invited me to be a guest blogger here at The Gamer Dome. Before I continue, I’ll say a few brief words about myself. Most importantly for this venue, I’m a gamer. Not a “girl gamer” by the way. A gamer. I love D&D as a player and DM. I love Euro board games. I love computer games. I love Rock Band. I’m also an educated professional woman, a dog owner and the wife of a really wonderful man. And did I mention that I’m opinionated?

Ok so the other day on Purple Pawn I found a link to the article in Cerise Magazine about 4E and gender inclusiveness, which quoted Jonathan Tweet. The quote and comments about it are spreading across the blogsphere, with each post and comment seemingly angrier and more offended than the last.

I must confess that I don’t understand all the fuss. Let’s deconstruct Mr. Tweet’s comment, shall we?

The most extensive form of the quote I found was from this blog.

Roleplaying, as currently construed, appeals disproportionately to guys because it’s mostly about the things that men evolved to enjoy: hunting and warfare. It’s about a group assembling to undertake (imaginary) risks for glory and dominance. It’s the same reason that team sports, such as basketball, are more male, whereas women compete to be judged beautiful and worthy (ice skating, gymnastics). TCGs are even more male-oriented than RPGs as they’re about direct conflict with little to no story or personality. When I was in Finland 5 years ago, the TCG players were typified as guys without girlfriends. LARPing has more female appeal because it’s more about personalities, relationships, clothing, and make-up. Finally, the quality of gamer men is a factor. A Finnish gamer I met said she got into gaming as a way to meet good-looking guys. The US gaming scene has less to offer along those lines.

I’m going to take this sentence by sentence. First, can any of us argue that roleplaying in its current form does, in fact, appeal disproportionately to men? No, I don’t think we can. Is that because it’s focuses on hunting and warfare? And are men predisposed by evolution to enjoy those more than women? Yes, to both. I really don’t see anything controversial there. I mean, we know that in Neolithic cultures men did most of the hunting and women did most of the gathering. Nothing to get up in arms about yet.

Do roleplaying games focus on group risks? Is the object glory and dominance? Well, pretty much. I love to kill things and take their stuff, you know? And I can get behind doing it for (in game) glory, but I will admit that the dominance thing goes over my head. I don’t think that way. Do men play to act out their dominance fantasies? Who knows, and frankly, who cares. Still, it’s not an offensive concept as far as I can see.

Ok now for the team sports vs. ice skating comment. Regardless of the fact that some women do actually enjoy playing basketball, the statistics clearly show that the men’s sport is more popular to play and to watch. And how many men do you know who rearrange their schedule to watch Olympic figure skating? Yeah, I thought so. Bottom line, Mr. Tweet stated something else obvious.

As for TCGs, can anyone deny that they, too, appeal overwhelmingly to guys? I’ve watched Magic tournaments before, and the players were at least 95% male. I played M:tG as a computer game, and enjoyed it (even though it was buggy as hell) but I can’t imagine enjoying the CCG, at least in part because the other players are not my first choice of people to hang out with, demographically speaking. Angst-ridden teenage boys? Are you kidding me?

And let’s talk about LARPing. Please, don’t try to deny that LARPing is about costumes, personalities and drama. I mean, what else is it about? And people who like that sort of experience are far more likely to be women than the people who play tabletop D&D. So again, I’m perplexed about how stating the facts is offensive.

Finally, Mr. Tweet made a comment about the quality of gamer men. I’m sorry, but if you think he’s off base, take a stroll through the dealer hall at GenCon. Every year since GenCon has been in Indy, Peter Adkison has felt the need to suggest in the program guide that people should bathe and put on clean clothes daily. Why do you suppose he keeps harping on that, if gamer men are just like everybody else?

So now we can see that Jonathan Tweet’s comments are not only inoffensive, they’re also grounded in reality. Even if you don’t agree with his statements, why on earth would you get offended by them?

We won’t ever bring women into the hobby if we can’t talk honestly about the things that keep them away.

Over at Kotaku they’ve got a quote from Mark Millar of Civil War, Ultimates, and other big comic series fame. In it he gives a really bizarre reason for not wanting to work in games.

Here’s the money quote:

Like all my pals, the TV and movie people have come calling and even the computer game people (which is weird because games are for pedos and I have no interest).

Geeks have always been a cliquish sort, replacing the stereotypical jock/cheerleader/stoner/nerd hierarchy with one of their own. Recently I think it’s gotten out of hand. I think it’s because geeks have been vogue for a decade or so, and with the success of comic book movies things are getting even worse. I mean, when a guy that writes what George R.R. Martin fondly refers to as “funny books” starts believing he’s working in a media for mature readers, maybe things have gotten a little out of control.

I wonder if Mark Millar has ever heard of Roman Polanski?

If you haven’t seen me on Gleemax Games, that’s probably because you haven’t registered yet, because I’ve been playing the hell out of Guillotine, Vegas Showdown, Robo Rally, and Acquire. So what are you waiting for? Get over there and challenge me to a game. The bots are decent for messing around, but only human contact grants experience points. (They’ve got an experience point system set up so that you get points for winning games, which translate into higher skill designations…so far, I’m still a Novice at all the games, but only because there aren’t many people to play ).

Right now I’m hanging out with Gamer Zer0 and a couple of other folks hoping to get in a 5-player game of Vegas Showdown.

My plan is to write a full review of all the Gleemax Games offerings sometime next week. Until then, why don’t you go buy some physical Avalon Hill games to play with your friends and family.

Site News

Also next week I’ll finally be launching the big project I’ve been hinting at, as well as getting around to giving away some swag I’ve got laying around here. So, if you run across this post over the weekend, make sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed or email newsletter so you’ll be able to get in on the action!

Grognardia is a fairly new blog about the same age as this one that focuses on the memories and perspective of an older gamer. He talks about OD&D the same way many of us talk about 3e, and reading his memories takes me back to a time when I was too young to bother to remember what I thought and felt about the games I was playing. So, check it out, and I’ll be back online tomorrow with a proper update.

Breaking news from the West Coast, Upper Deck Entertainment has laid off about 50 staff today in a cost-cutting measure. A list of names has yet to be posted, but keep checking back for more updates as I get them. This is a sad day for games. Let’s hope this doesn’t affect the awesome World of Warcraft Miniatures game that’s coming out later this year.

Peace to all our fallen brethren, you’ll always have a spot in The Dome.

Update: Confirmed here that Hyrum Savage and Sean K Reynolds were both among the laid off employees. My sympathies to these great creators.

I’ve long suspected that Troll and Toad was a government agency sucking up all the games in the country before the crackdown, but now I think I’ve confirmed it. They’ve just purchased what has to be one of the largest game collections in the country. Now, I used to think that Marcus King was a special agent, but then he surreptitiously started Three Free Games in an effort to redistribute games that would have otherwise gone into a warehouse behind the Ark of the Covenant.

My favorite quote in the article was:

Fonarow figures the collection will fit into one large semitrailer — if it is packed right.

Edit: Thanks to Thavok for pointing out this video of the game collection and its former owner!

Troll and Toad…my own personal Skynet.

You guys know that The Dome has a bit of a post-apocalyptic vibe, and what better soundtrack than some heavy industrial from the man that practically invented the genre? Trent Reznor continues to pump out highly listenable, downloadable albums. His latest, hot off the digital presses, is The Slip. It’s got some killer tracks and almost all of them are highly usable as background noise for modern and post-apocalyptic games.

Here’s the tracklist:

1. 999,999
2. 1,000,000
3. Letting You
4. Discipline
5. Echoplex
6. Head Down
7. Lights in the Sky
8. Corona Radiata
9. The Four of Us Are Dying
10. Demon Seed

As you might have guessed, 999,999 is a lead-in track to 1,000,000. The latter track starts out with a literal headbanging…it sounds like he’s beating his skull against a snare drum over and over and over again. The track then launches into an aural assault that takes a little too long to coalesce in my opinion. Although it gets better by the minute, the end feels like a rejected version of Hand That Feeds.

Letting You makes me feel old. This is the kind of song that a decade ago would have fueled me through all-night design sessions, but now it just gives me a headache. Oh well, time to raise a pint of oil to the good old days and move on.

Discipline and Echoplex are both much more my speed. They’re melodic and less crunchy than the previous two tracks, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Discipline gets the majority of the early radio play (although you’re not likely to find it much along the FM dial).

Head Down reminded me of some of the killer tracks on Eric Serra’s soundtrack for The Fifth Element.

Lights in the Sky and Corona Radiata are linked atmospheric pieces that bring things down a notch before they ramp back up for the big finale.

The Four of Us Are Dying is also an instrumental piece, but it moves the piano back and drives in with some mechanized beats and Blade Runner-esque noise. It ramps up for the final song on the The Slip, a menacing hallucinogenic trip that climaxes with a Motown-Industrial sample. The best thing about the song is that it leaves you wanting more, making it a fitting end to another excellent free download from Nine Inch Nails.