Ruminating On Gaming Projects

Because the best thing to do when stuff needs
to be done is something else.

Sometimes, you have to sit back and take stock. I've been letting myself run wild and take on a number of gaming projects. I'm not sure if I should continue with all of them, what priority I should put on them, and so on, so it is time to think about that. I'm doing it here because it might help someone else see how another person organizes his thoughts, because someone might mention something that casts this all in a whole new light, and because doing things publicly helps force me to discipline my thinking a little.

First, let me just catalog the projects I have active, or at least semi-active, at this time, not counting actually playing games:

1. A Top Secret retroclone.
2. A MegaTraveller retroclone/revision attached to a space operatic setting.
3. Spectacular Science Stories (aka Rockets & Rayguns).
4. A Fantasy Wargaming retroclone/update.
5. A "sixguns & sorcery" setting for GURPS.
6. Flanaess Sector (for AD&D 1E).
7. Updating GURPS Voodoo: The Shadow War for GURPS 4E.
8. Codifying my version of the Trait System.
9. GURPS Greyhawk.
10. A magic system for Flashing Blades.
11. A mashup of Traveller and Flashing Blades.
12. My ideal roleplaying/adventure game system (mostly in the notes stage). It should be "semi-generic" in that it is intended to cover a number of genres, but all with the same "tone", for lack of a better term.

That, you might notice, is a lot. Several of these projects are stalled for various reasons that I will get to in a moment. Note that some of these have been projects I've undertaken for nearly the whole four-year existence of this blog. If you've been reading this blog for a while, you might notice a couple of projects have been dropped from the "active/semi-active" list, such as the WRG Ancients-based RPG or a couple of attempts at an AD&D setting. The setting, actually, is also an ongoing project, but I'm not counting it here since it is purely for my own private use. I do intend to post about the current state of it at some point. The WRG Ancients RPG served its purpose and has been put to bed. Some of the ideas that came up in it have been incorporated into other projects.

Here's the thing, though. All of those projects kind of get in each other's way. For instance, I frequently find myself working feverishly at one of them for a while, then stepping away to another one, and when coming back to the first one finding out that I want to tear down some of what I'd already done and rework it. That's not really helpful if I ever want to finish any of these, and I do want to do that.

So, the first thing to do is to figure out what is most hampering each project at this point.

1. I remain uncertain just what direction to take this: should it be updated to the modern world's War on Terror or should it reflect late-'70s/early-'80s Cold War? Each has its merits, and Merle Rasmussen recently presented an adventure for the original game set in the modern day.
2. Rewriting the rules is a bigger task than I had envisioned at first. Yeah, that's mere whining and I should just get on with it, but the core of the game, the Task System, is turning out to be difficult enough to get the same sense in new language that I wonder if I really understand it. On top of that, I've been considering if I want to continue this way or approach the idea from another direction. That is, is MegaTraveller really what I want, or is there another, less drastic revision of classic Traveller that would be better?
3. Writing a D&D-based SF game is more difficult than some might think, unless you're just re-skinning the D&D rules with SF chrome, which I'm not. Plus, White Star kind of did a number on my head for a while, since it explicitly took Swords & Wizardry: White Box and made it SF, which is sort of the remit of Spectacular Science Stories. Still, I'm plugging away at this one pretty solidly.
4. I keep finding myself torn between the desire to present a more-or-less straight retroclone and the desire to update the game considerably. Reining in the latter tendency is exhausting. On the other hand, there were clearly some mistakes made in the original that need correcting.
5. I'm having a sort of crisis of faith with GURPS. It was my go-to, indeed nearly only, RPG for a decade. As I have been examining what I like about RPGs, though, it turns out that GURPS fails at many of those things. Trying to make a random character generation system for it was sobering. I remain convinced that such a random character system for it is possible and desirable, but it seems like too much work when not being paid to write it. I still have much affection for GURPS, but I have things to work through in regard to it.
6. Many of the same issues present with 3. are also problems here.
7. See 5.
8. While I still love the Trait System, I'm not sure that it fills my own needs anymore. It's kinda being superceded* by 12.
9. See 5.
10. Actually, nothing. I just haven't gotten back to it in a few weeks.
11. It's a crazy idea. It's actually more just a "hack" of Flashing Blades as a space opera, but since Traveller is definitive for that sort of thing in my head that's how I conceived it. Mostly, I haven't yet really convinced myself that it's a good idea, so I haven't done much work on it.
12. Work on this will be slow. I'm sort of thinking of it as "Hârnmaster, GURPS, Flashing Blades, Pendragon, RuneQuest, and classic Traveller have a mutant baby". At this point, I'm just writing down notes when I think of something related to it. I want it to have the detail options of GURPS, the breezy character creation of Flashing Blades, the integrated social systems of that game, the personality approach of Pendragon, and the gritty realism of Hârnmaster, RuneQuest, and Traveller. Or something like that. A lot of it is still very much in flux. This is my very own Heartbreaker. Maybe I should call it MOHb (for "My Own Heartbreaker").

I haven't even touched on the half-baked ideas I've had on which I haven't done any significant work. An adventure game that uses the Car Wars pedestrian combat and character rules (yes, yes, Autoduel Champions, Car Wars Tanks, and the Ob-Racing article) as its basis, probably scaled up 4x, so that 1/4" in Car Wars is a 1" square in the adventure game. An edition of Traveller that hits a spot somewhere between the Classic and Mega- editions (probably as a supplement to the Classic edition, since The Traveller Book is back in print). An entirely new Pulp Solar System setting, with my own versions of ancient Mars and swampy Venus (and the other planets). Returning to the WRG Ancients-based adventure game in a more serious fashion. My own attempt at GURPS Warhammer 40,000.

So, how do I prioritize these? I'm thinking that Spectacular Science Stories is my most important project right now, so that should be what I work on until it is finished, with the only intruding project being MOHb. After that, I'll pick whichever one is the most interesting to me at that moment (probably not Flanaess Sector, though, because that would be just too much SF all in a row) and work on it until I'm finished with that one, and so on. One project at a time might just be the best way to go.

What do you think?

*Some people say that this is an incorrect spelling of "superseded". Those people are wrong.

Did You Miss Me?

Two and a half months since I've posted anything here, and for some reason I think that there will still be people reading it. Maybe I'm crazy. Anyway, I've got a couple of things that I wanted to mention, gaming-wise, and so I'm going to post about them now.

First off, I looked in my mail today, and found a neat little packet from Tim Shorts of Gothridge Manor and GM Games. It was an envelope containing the spiffy adventure (originally a one-page dungeon) called "Where is Margesh Blackblood?". It's available in PDF form at RPGNow for "pay what you want", so you could run right over there right now and get it for free, or for a buck or two, or for a hundred dollars if you wanted to pay that much for it. It's a quick little bounty hunt for a wayward bandit. I love Tim's adventures, even the simple ones like this one. Well, simpler than some. There are some neat twists here that will probably have the players questioning their characters' motivations. Or not.

I am still thinking about how best to really review Traveller5. For a quick one-liner, though, I am sad to say that I am not entirely happy with it. Still, it's got some really good stuff in there.

I was recently nudged back toward working on my Top Secret retroclone. I opened the file, but didn't really get anything done. We'll see how that goes. Most of my other projects, such as the WRG Ancients-based RPG, have pretty much been abandoned. A major exception is the MegaTraveller retroclone idea, which I have modified into a version of that edition adapted to my own SF starfaring setting.

People who have been paying attention to that Goodreads widget down there toward the bottom of the right sidebar will have noticed that I have been reading Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series of books. This is my first time reading them. When I finish the one I am on, I am going to go ahead and read the eighth one (The Wind Through the Keyhole) rather than going on to the fifth one. I am told that this is the intended order, and that King only wrote the fifth-seventh ones first because he wanted to finish the story before he dies (the car accident that almost killed him kinda kicked him in the ass to do it quickly). I'm a little bit surprised that I have never seen a gaming version of Mid-World. I like it, though it is substantially different than my own "sixguns & sorcery" setting.

Speaking of my own settings, Tim Brannan over at The Other Side has given us his own version of Appendix N. I think that's a neat exercise, so I've done up my own, as it would currently be. Like Tim's, mine will also include particularly interesting movies (I'll list them after the books, though). I make no apologies for the fact that I include a couple of westerns, and even an SF title or two. I am, however, going to avoid non-fiction and gaming books for now:

Books:

• Asprin, Robert L.: "Thieves' World" series (editor)
• Burroughs, Edgar Rice: "Barsoom" series
• Cherryh, C.J.: THE DREAMSTONE and THE TREE OF SWORDS AND JEWELS (particularly as published together and slightly revised under the title THE DREAMING TREE; can also be found together, unrevised, as ARAFEL'S SAGA)
• Herbert, Frank: DUNE
• Holdstock, Robert: "Mythago" series
• Howard, Robert E.: "Conan" stories
• L'Amour, Louis: THE HAUNTED MESA, THE WALKING DRUM
• Lee, Tanith: "Flat Earth" series, THE BIRTHGRAVE, et al.
• Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Grey Mouser" series
• Lovecraft, H.P.: "Dreamlands" stories
• Martin, George R.R.: "A Song of Ice and Fire" series
• Powers, Tim: ON STRANGER TIDES, et al.
• Sabatini, Rafael: CAPTAIN BLOOD, THE SEA HAWK, et al.
• Smith, Clark Ashton: "Zothique" stories, "Averoigne" stories, et al.
• Tolkien, J.R.R.: THE HOBBIT, "Lord of the Rings" trilogy
• Tremayne, Peter: "Sister Fidelma" series

Films:

• Cat People (the original, though the remake is not terrible) and Curse of the Cat People
• Conan the Barbarian (it is not Howard, but Milius's magnum opus is still an intriguing fantasy film)
• The Dark Crystal
• Dead Man
• Dragonslayer
• Excalibur
• Eyes of Fire (sometimes called Cry Blue Sky)
• Fire & Ice
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and the other two "Man With No Name" films
• Heavy Metal (the Taarna sequence)
• John Carter (like Conan, above, it is not the original, but it is still a good science-fantasy film)
• Krull
• Labyrinth
• Legend
• Lord of the Rings trilogy
• Pale Rider
• Pirates of the Caribbean series
• The Princess Bride
• Princess Mononoke
• The Secret of Roan Inish
• Spirited Away
• Star Wars (the original, now called "Episode IV", is an excellent fantasy adventure story with coming-of-age themes)
• Unforgiven
• The Warrior and the Sorceress
• The Wicker Man

There you go. I don't know if I'm back in the sense of regular posting, but I hope to at least post a little more often than I have been.

A Little Bit Of A Personal Gaming Update

I have a number of projects ongoing, and some news on my own gaming front. Since I can't seem to sit down and write content that I want to put up on this here blog thing, I guess that a personal update is in order.

In general, I am doing a lot less than I would like to be. In part, this is because I really can't stand the heat, and there's no way to get out of the kitchen. Of course, people in other parts of the country are sneering at me right now, as I am in one of the most temperate parts of the Lower 48, but I am acclimatized to here ("here" being the Pacific Northwest), and it is hot for here (and humid, which is very unusual). Other parts have to do with life issues.

First up, the project on which I want to be spending a lot more time than I am is the Top Secret retroclone. I am working on it, but like this blog, gaming takes second place to things that are happening in real life. I am considering how to get art for it, which leads me to thinking about Kickstarter, which further leads to the idea of doing a real print run rather than, or in addition to, a Lulu.com product. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of that, though. I'll talk to people and see what can be done.

Second, it looks like I'll be trying out this newfangled online gaming by teleconferencing thing. Happily, it looks to be a Traveller game, albeit the Mongoose version. I still have to make a character and whatnot, but that should go pretty quickly.

Next there's the AD&D game I've been working on. I've done a reasonable amount of work on it. I've got some of the main city of the campaign mapped, along with some sketches toward the ground floor of the tower-citadel of the city's masters. I have ideas about the megadungeon, but haven't gotten to putting lines on paper for the map yet. I don't know whether to wait until I have at least the sketches of the city's sewers done first (the dungeon is located underneath the city) or fit the sewers around the dungeon. However, those issues have dropped in priority because…

Thinking about Traveller has made me realize that I really, really love that game. I have a science fiction setting that I had been working on for some short stories, and decided that now would be a fine time to put it in gaming form. Some of the themes I want to explore with the setting include the value of multiple cultural expressions to the long-term viability of intelligent species, the nature of human institutions like honor, empire, and such, and the ability of varying worldviews to coexist or not. There are a dozen human interstellar polities, and a dozen aliens. Players will only be human, and at least at first, I intend to limit them to the central Terran Federation. Things are not always what they seem, of course, but sometimes they are. The setting has a lot of secrets sitting in my head. For now, I'll be using MegaTraveller, with some ideas taken from GURPS Traveller: Far Trader and First In. Eventually, I'll convert it to T5.

Other projects, like the WRG Game, are on hold right now.

What have you been doing in regard to gaming these days?

Demihuman Level Limits?

There's some discussion out there in the OSR blogosphere about demihuman level limits. Some people, as has always been the case, hate them and refuse to use them. Others think that they are a necessary part of the game, and useful to emphasize the humanocentric nature of the sort of swords & sorcery fantasy that is the implied subject of most games with levels. Certainly, the increased numbers of players with demihuman characters in modern D&D games would seem to indicate that there should be some sort of factor to discourage their play. The question is, should that factor be something so seemingly metagame-y as level limits.

It's important, I think, to figure out just what character levels and experience points represent in the game. That is, what are they, besides a game convenience? The normal idea is that levels represent a level of skill and training. This is supported by the idea of training for level increases in the 1E DMG. However, it is countered by looking at what events garner experience points, and by examining some other issues. For instance, a 1st-level Fighting Man is not described as being in training: he is called a "Veteran" in the editions which used level titles. That is, he is someone who has already learned the techniques of his craft and had occasion to apply them in practice. He is a veteran, not a tyro. Similarly, as Talysman points out, the Magic User and the Cleric imply that the starting character has learned what he can from his instructors. And experience points are not given for training, or even for practicing skills. They are given for acquiring treasure and destroying (or defeating, in some formulations) foes.

So, why would a character have experience points in exchange for picking up some coins or for putting a sword through the heart of a goblin? I think that the answer is to be found in another game, Pendragon. In that game, an analogous quantity called Glory is the goal of the players. Glory is acquired for similar (though not identical) reasons as experience points. The amount of Glory gained represents the reputation, temporal power, and spiritual accomplishment of the character. Similarly, experience points (and therefore levels) seem to represent the success and worldly power of the character. That is, it is a concept very similar to the Polynesian, specifically Maori, concept of mana (not to be confused with the appropriation of that term in gaming to mean, merely, "magic points"; as an aside, I'm curious to know where the earliest use of the term in that capacity occurred). That is, it is authority and luck and reputation and power and confidence (both self- and that of others).

Now, given that, it becomes more obvious as to why demihumans, in a humanocentric, sword & sorcery world, have level limits. As Talysman notes, elves and dwarves and halflings are all seen as secondary to human concerns. Not many humans, in such worlds, will subject themselves to even elven kings, much less dwarven or (ha!) hobbit ones. Humans are the measure of all things in such worlds, and it is only they who can reach the highest realms of authority and power, not only in the realm of temporal power and politics, but in the more mystic worlds of arcane and clerical magic. This is further borne out by the later Thief class, which did not limit levels of demihumans, but which is the most mundane class of them all, with little interest in the rarefied realms of political, arcane, or spiritual power.

So, level limits seem important for both metagame reasons (discouraging the use of demihuman characters without artificial "balancing") and for reasons of simulation within the context of the material. It's only those games which didn't share that context that made the limits nonsensical (but, then, there are many other aspects of the rules which wouldn't then fit into those games). This is interesting to consider in context of the WRG Ancients RPG I am working on.

Design Notes: Character Improvement

One of the central aspects of roleplaying games is continuity and improvement of characters. Traditionally, this is accomplished by improving the character's abilities in some manner. The first RPG, Dungeons & Dragons, did this by increasing a single characteristic, the "level", in relation to victory points acquired by the character (called "experience points"). The "level" of the character determined how effective the character was at certain activities related to the character's general stereotypical category, or "class". Everything else was determined by an interaction between the player, describing what the character was attempting, and the Referee, adjudicating and describing the outcome of those actions. In a sense, experience points and level could be considered similar to the Polynesian concept of "mana" (as distinct from the later usage of that term to refer exclusively to magical power in games).

Those victory points, or experience points, were really the central feature of the character. They were originally gained by defeating monsters and other foes and by acquiring money and valuables. There was a long period of adjusting, in various editions, the ratio of experience from defeating foes and gaining treasure. In some editions, treasure outweighs confrontation by 3 to 1 or more, while in others treasure has been nearly completely devalued in favor of defeating foes.

After that, games developed three (or more, but this is what is coming to mind right now) different ways of regulating character improvement. First was the skill check system typified by RuneQuest, in which the use of particular abilities, or "skills", gave a chance of increasing that ability. Of course, there were other methods of improvement in RuneQuest, such as training, but those were artificially limited in order to encourage action. Next, there was the point system, developed by games like Superhero: 2044 and Champions. In this system, experience points were translated directly into character abilities, rather than being used to improve just one ability. In these systems, experience points were generally given in smaller amounts than those in D&D, and more importantly were given for story reasons other than the objective ones defined in early RPGs. This means that, rather than getting victory points for defeating foes or acquiring treasures, characters would gain them for subjective reasons like "achieving goals" or "good roleplaying". The third method was very rarely used, in fact I can only recall one game that used it. This was the method in Traveller, where skills were improved only by long-term training, but other character improvements were acquired by spending money on equipment. In a sense, this is similar to those editions of D&D in which treasure represents the majority of experience points, as money is used to pay for training and also for other improvements.

That last method seems like a good one to me (and to be fair, it is similar to the one in RuneQuest, which also used money to pay for training; the difference is that in Traveller's system, there is no direct improvement for simply acting and RuneQuest limited the benefits of training). It seems like it might be worthwhile, in a game, to expand on it. Consider the various things that we spend money and time on that improve our lives in one way or another. We might go out to a night club and carouse, with the potential of gaining friends and social skills. We might take continuing education courses or go to college. Even shopping for objects or property takes time as well as the money required for the items. And so on.

What a system like this would need is a robust contact system, a time use system taking at least calendar time into account, and a personal trade system that covers availability and time to acquire items or property. Perhaps I will use a system like this in the WRG RPG.

(This post was inspired by a post over on Dreams in the Lich House.)

[WRG]Thoughts on Combat

In keeping with the idea that I will be using the WRG rules as much as possible, here are my current thoughts on combat.

Hand to hand combat: In a period (30 seconds), each figure involved generates a casualty total in the normal manner. Individual figures will not be rated as LI, except for special cases listed later (and mostly dealing with missile combat). Casualty totals are compared, and the higher total does a wound to the opponent. Determine the nature of the wound by rolling a normal six-sided die for each casualty above the opponent's total and compare to a chart (hit locations? possibly as an optional rule). For multiple combatants, first pair off combatants, with any excess on one side divided up according to a method that takes into account nominal base sizes in the WRG rules (that is, larger base sizes can be attacked by more figures of smaller base size). In a fight with more than one combatant on one side, all combatants on that side generate casualty totals, each using a different random factor roll, which are added together and compared to the total on the other side. If the single figure gets a higher total, all of the figures opposing it might be wounded. Use a modification of the "Risk to the general" rules: for each figure, roll a die (regular six-sided die for "Enthusiastic", averaging die for "Disciplined") and multiply by the excess number of casualties. If the result is greater than the total number of figures fighting against the opposing figure, the figure takes a wound based on the amount of excess casualties. (Example: Abel and Beth are fighting against Xavier. Abel generates 1 casualty, Beth generates 2, for a total of 3 on their side. Xavier generates an astounding 4. Abel and Beth roll dice, with a result of 3 or higher, since the die is multiplied by the excess casualties of 1 and, since there are two of them, the total must be 3 or more, indicating that they take a wound of 1 die in value on the wound chart. If Abel or Beth are "Disciplined", they will take a wound on a roll of 3 or higher, escaping injury 1 chance in 6, while if either is "Enthusiastic", they can escape wounding 2 chances in 6.) Edited to add: If a figure that rates as a model (elephant, chariot, or artillery, or anything that is treated as one of those, such as dragons) in the regular game is fighting against a figure that is normal, but has no armor, then count the normal figure as LI instead of LMI/MI.

Missile combat: This will have the biggest changes. When firing a missile weapon, first determine initiative by rolling a die (type based on "Disciplined" or "Enthusiastic"). The firer with initiative fires first, then the next firer, and so on (any ties roll off). The firer will generate a casualty total and so will the target (using regular hand-to-hand random factors, not the special missile ones of the basic WRG rules). The target's total will be based on a base factor of 1, while the firer's will be based on either a target that is LI (LC if mounted), or the actual target type, whichever is better for the target. The firer will cause a wound based on excess casualties.

Wounds: The lightest wounds will actually be a "recoil" result, which means that the "wounded" figure will attempt to disengage from combat. The opponent may choose to press, which will allow the charge bonus in the next turn but risks being flanked by unengaged opponents, or to let the figure disengage.

Combat sequence: The basic combat sequence will be something like 1) Check morale of all non-player figures that need to do so; 2) Referee adjudicates maneuvers of unengaged figures; 3) Determine initiative for missile fire; 4) Missile fire in order of initiative; 5) Hand to hand combat.

Mounted figures: I still need to think about this, but currently I am thinking that, for horse/camel-sized mounts, a wound has a 50/50 chance of going to the mount or the figure.

[WRG]Magic

I will no doubt be coming back to this subject repeatedly, as it is the most difficult aspect of translating WRG Ancients and Medieval to a roleplaying context.

In the basic miniatures game, magic is treated very abstractly. Figures (specialized magicians, generals, or unit commanders) with magical powers are allowed to add or subtract the result of a standard six-sided die to the morale check roll of any unit within a certain distance (150 paces), but also not within a certain distance (100 paces) of opposing religious figures. (I'd house-ruled that magical powers also added 1-6 scouting points, but this was not a part of the rules as printed.)

This is not useful to me for roleplaying. What it does point out, though, is that magical powers should not replicate artillery. The magic of this roleplaying game should be more subtle. Happily for me, there are two magic systems that I can look to for a model, and they happen to be the two magic systems of which I am most fond. These are the system in RuneQuest and the "Path/Book Magic" system in GURPS Thaumatology (originally the "Ritual Magic" system in GURPS Voodoo, GURPS Old West 2nd edition, and GURPS Spirits). My current inclination is to develop a system that incorporates elements of both of these.

This means that a magician in this system will not be the "spike damage" specialist of current roleplaying, but will more resemble the "buff" specialist. Most magic will give targets bonuses or detriments to various abilities, perhaps, though some magical abilities will be more directly applicable. I've been analyzing medieval grimoires, folklore collections, and similar items to determine what people in the past believed they were capable of doing with magical powers. Unsurprisingly, many of these are targeted at mundane activities of limited use to adventurers, such as victory in court and the like, but others are very much of use, such as finding one's way or victory in wrestling. Other described magical operations, like invisibility or finding buried treasure (really!) are especially of interest to adventurers.

I'm still considering whether these should be discrete spells, like RuneQuest, or groups of abilities under a magical path like Path/Book Magic. I do think that some system of magic points will be important, since that gives us a resource management aspect. I may borrow an idea from Fantasy Wargaming, and require magicians to engage in stereotypical activities (studying arcane tomes, chanting, and the like) to regenerate magic points. I might even look to Unknown Armies for ideas on the subject.

[WRG]Attributes

Now I've reached the point in thinking about how to use WRG Ancients and Medieval rules for roleplaying in which I need to consider which rolled attributes of a figure will be appropriate and needed. So far in these articles, I've decided on just one, Physique, which will represent the figure's strength, toughness, and general health.

Looking at the missile rules, and thinking of ways to implement them in a game of single figures, I've thought that an attribute that governs hitting and also avoiding being hit might be useful, which I've decided to call Agility. This will determine if a factor is added to the base in order to determine a number of "casualties" in missile fire (remember that wounds and such are governed by the number of casualties generated). If not making use of missiles, it's probably going to end up that the defender will generate a number of casualties to see if he can avoid being hit. I'll probably also apply Agility as a requirement for certain abilities gained, such as stealth, lockpicking, and the like, as well as certain craft skills such as clockmaking. (As an aside, I am leaning toward "all-or-nothing" skills, in which possession of the skill allows an activity that is not allowed to those who do not possess the skill. However, degrees of "mastery" may also exist to determine the quality of craft skills, so that a Master at lockpicking will not be able to pick a Grand Master's locks. That is still something about which I am considering, though.) Anyway, giving an attribute with such limited combat use some other value seems appropriate.

Next, I think that an attribute governing the figure's ability to command is necessary. I am leaning toward Leadership as the name of this attribute. This will provide a modifier to morale of units and a threshold of command, indicating how large of a unit the figure can potentially control (at a certain point, it will become "unlimited"). This attribute will probably be fairly easy to improve as the figure gains in personal ability.

I haven't really discussed the magic and religion rules yet, but I do know that I will be needing an attribute to cover those areas. I do think that the same attribute should apply for both, and I am currently on the fence about what to call it. On the one hand, Power might be appropriate, and is my main preference at the moment, covering the idea of magical aura and holy might. However, some other terms I'm kicking around include Faith (to determine the figure's magical connection to the cosmos), Talent (so that we can talk about "having the Talent" and such), or Integrity (though this one is currently seeming unlikely, it is an alternative to "Faith"). An odd choice might be Charisma, which has been used to describe such an attribute in some cases (the Greek from which it derives means "gifted with grace"), but it might cause confusion with the real-world D&D's usage of that term. I'm sure that other terms might also occur to me, and I will weigh those when and if I think of them.

I'm turning over the need for some other attributes in my mind, such as an attribute governing fatigue (possibly Endurance), general and special knowledge (perhaps Memory), and the like, but right now I am only fairly certain of these four: Physique, Agility, Leadership, and Power (or whatever I end up choosing).

[WRG]The Results of Fighting

When two figures or models fight in single combat, the WRG rules give the result as "wounded", and therefore captured by the enemy (so, a serious wound), or "killed". We should work out what these results mean to our individual figures at the roleplaying level.

My inclination is a dislike of the sort of abstraction represented by "hit points". I prefer that the result should be a descriptive wound which may turn fatal (or be instantly so), similar to what we see in Hârnmaster, CORPS, and the like. So, what I'll do is have a "damage roll" that will give a descriptive wound result that will be applied to the figure until it heals.

Since combat is adjudicated by comparing a number of "casualties" generated by the combat table, we will keep that system. The difference between the two results is the number of dice to roll to determine the severity of the wound, by comparing that total to a characteristic of the figure, probably the "Physique" we've previously discussed. I'll work out the details of this later, but that's a good basis for adjudicating wounds. The wound should have various factors, such as how much it impairs action by the figure, whether it results in unconsciousness, if it is bleeding, if it is infected, how it is treated and how it heals, and so on.

Anyway, just a brief note for reference.

[WRG]Roles

There are four distinct roles given to figures in the WRG Ancients and Medieval rules, and one more that is implied (and later incorporated explicitly into Hordes Of The Things). Since I may have some use for those in terms of characters, it seems worthwhile to classify them and discuss them briefly.

First is the obvious role, Casualty Infliction. The purpose for inflicting casualties can vary (the two main ones are to weaken opposing units and to encourage rash follow-up movement), but this is the basic function of a figure on the WRG tabletop.

Next we find Morale Adjustment. This is primarily the role of leader figures, but also standard bearers, holy figures, and magicians in the fantasy supplement.

The third role is Scouting. This is a relatively minor role in WRG, mainly used to see who is allowed to outflank whom. Still, we may find use for this role among adventurers.

The final role of those which are given WRG rules is Construction. This is a fairly broad category which includes mining and countermining, building artillery and siege equipment, destroying or repairing buildings and walls, and so forth.

The implied role is that of Infiltrator, which would include figures that are trained to scale walls, sneak through sewage openings, and the like. It could even include disguises and espionage. This isn't dealt with in the WRG Ancients and Medieval rules, but Hordes Of The Things includes the unit type "Sneakers", which is defined as:

"[I]ncluding all bands of infiltrators on foot, such as bearers of magic rings, master thieves, assassins, ninja or wraiths. They do not fight, but can penetrate or deceive enemy troops to capture a stronghold or attack a general unless precautions are taken."

In considering how to differentiate figures from one another, I should keep these roles, and the things that they imply (such as various manufacturing talents implied by the Construction role, or for that matter other non-combative functions such as artistic endeavors), in mind. Perhaps, inspired by the five levels of training defined by the fighting classes (General, A, B, C, D), I will decide on giving each category a rating (perhaps Superior, Elite, Expert, Trained, and Untrained), allowing each character to select such ratings within limits defined by the rules. One possibility is to allow each figure four total increases to spread among the five roles (though perhaps the Construction role will be further split into various particular roles, so that a Master Carpenter is not also a Master Smith and a Master Harpist; certainly, the Morale Adjustment role will be subdivided, at the very least into Leader, Religious, and Magician, and probably further than that), with each increase giving some ability in that role. This will allow players to define their own "character classes", as it were, by giving them the ability to select what particular mix of abilities they want their figure to have. Character advancement (remember the note on "heroic attributes" from the Fantasy Adaptions section) would then improve the figure's facility with those abilities.

[WRG]Tone?

Before I make any more decisions, I need to stop and think about the general tone of the game. What is the design goal? Am I looking at something which simulates Sword & Sorcery fiction? Or perhaps I'm looking to play games of historical fantasy? To that end, let me look at the examples given in the fantasy adaptions section, and the later WRG game Hordes Of The Things.

The army lists they had hoped to do included, "E.R.B. Mars, Middle Earth, Kregen, Novaria, Gor, Dalarna and similar places". Hm. That's a pretty wide range, but it seems to focus mainly on the Sword & Sorcery, pulp side of things. There are specific entries for airboats and radium rifles in the fantasy conversions. In HOTT, we find lists for (or mentions of): Moorcock, Pratchett, Homeric Epic, Arthurian Epic, Carolingian Epic, Irish Epic, Norse Myth, Arabian Myth (including Hollywood Arabesques), Persian Epic, Japanese Epic, Aztec Myth, Hyboria, Barsoom, Spenser's "Faerie Queene", Novaria (L. Sprague de Camp), Fletcher Pratt's Well of the Unicorn (the "Dalarna" mentioned above), Kregen of the Dray Prescott novels, Deryni, Tékumel, Steven Brust's "Vlad Taltos" books, Glen Cook's "Black Company", Egyptian and Chinese semi-historical, the Renaissance (with Da Vinci inventions), and even Napoleonics! Amusingly, I note that WRG had shied away from Gor over the intervening decade, but also dropped Tolkien from the list (probably due to rights issues).

Whew. That's a pretty wide range, indeed. What I get of the sense of it, though, is that the main thrust is toward a sort of heroic, pulp fantasy, but one that treats heroes as only slightly better, in terms of powers and ability, than the common man. So, basically like early D&D. That's a pretty easy choice, then. I'll be keeping that tone in mind as I make design choices.

Happily, at least at first, I don't have to make many huge design choices, though, since I'm still looking at figuring out a way to play WRG Ancients and Medieval, just with single, individual figures instead of units of up to 50 figures with each figure representing 5 or 20 individuals. Many of my design choices are already made for me.

[WRG]Some Notes on Combat

The first thing I'm going to look at, in this effort to make an RPG out of a set of miniatures rules, is the combat resolution method. In WRG, when two generals or champions fight, the method is in two rounds: first, an exchange of missiles (in circumstances where that is appropriate), then, if neither is wounded or killed, an exchange of hand to hand attacks. The result is determined by the number of “casualties” inflicted using the regular unit vs. unit combat table.

The general method by which the combat table is used is to determine a “factor”, which starts at a base determined by the type of weapon used and the type of armor protection of the target. For instance, when shooting bows at targets rated as “HI” (for “Heavy Infantry”, which is defined as “Men in less complete [than EHI, or “Extra Heavy Infantry”] metal armour or in horn armour”, or, basically, what D&D would class as chainmail), the basic factor is 1. This factor is then modified by circumstances, such as “target shieldless” or “shooters disordered”, and a “random factor”. This latter is determined by rolling an averaging die (a six-sided die marked 2,3,3,4,4,5) and counting minus, then another die and counting plus. The other die is determined by whether the shooter is classed as “regular” (uses another averaging die) or “irregular” (uses a regular six-sided die). For missile fire, this random factor is counted as -1 if the minus die scores higher, +1 if the plus die scores higher, and zero if they are equal (this changes for troops without combat training, who are defined as 'D' class troops, but we'll skip that for the moment). For hand to hand combat, though, the minus die is subtracted from the plus die to give a factor ranging from -4 to +4 if irregular, or -3 to +3 if regular (the random factor is limited by the training class of the troops, so that a General, for instance, cannot have a random factor below 0).

This final factor is then compared to the combat table to give a number of casualties. This figure is determined by the number of attackers, counting each figure as 20 men, or counting each “model” (elephants, for instance, or chariots) as 5 of whatever is depicted. Since in single combat there is only one figure or model, we look to the result in the column depicting one figure. This can range from 0 casualties to 13, depending on the final factor total. In single combat, the total generated by each participant is compared to the other, with equal results indicating no effect, the higher result wounding the opposing figure, and twice as many casualties as the opponent indicating a kill. Another aspect of the system we will have to consider is the “risk to the general”, which indicates what happens to a general who is part of a body of troops when they take casualties, but I will leave that aside for now.

That all sounds pretty complex, but in practice it is very simple. We have, however, run into some problems for our purposes. First, if one figure does not fire missiles, but the other does, this method of resolution ensures that the non-firing figure will nearly automatically be killed. Second, while this system works very well for the single combat of two members of opposing armies, it reduces the whole thing to a simple die roll, or at best two. This may be unsatisfying for players in a game where the only figure they have is the one representing their character. We'll come back to this in a bit.

Now, we need to determine what factors exist in the game to differentiate one figure from another. There are several. First is the type, mentioned above, of “regular” or “irregular”. These are defined in the rules as follows: “Regular troops are enlisted into units commanded by officers. They are usually, but not always, paid and uniformed. They are taught drill as well as weapon handling, and can obey orders such as 'Double your ranks!' and 'Left incline!'”; “Irregular troops are combined into units usually consisting of relatives or neighbours and usually commanded by a local chieftain or feudal superior. Their training has been largely confined to weapon handling and keeping roughly in line, and they can only obey orders such as 'You lot go over there and do so-and-so!' They are not necessarily inferior in fighting power to regulars, but are usually less manoeuvrable, and always less consistent in behaviour.” This seems like an excellent starting point for differentiating different characters, so that each player will pick a category for his figure. We might call them “Disciplined” and “Enthusiastic”, in keeping with the individual scale of the game.

Next, we have the class of the figures, which is defined as 'A', 'B', 'C', or 'D'. Basically, 'A' class troops are elites, while 'D' class troops are untrained or barely so (civilians, for instance, are classed as 'D' in those lists where defense of refugees was a notable part of the history of the army described in the list, or where civilian engineers and laborers had a notable part to play in one battle or another). This is related to the idea of character power, but one thing that comes out is that there is little indication of the class changing over time. Instead, it refers to basic fighting ability. We may depict this by reference to something like character class, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

Finally, from the point of view of combat, the last differentiation we can find is in the Fantasy Adaptions section, where we find an entry for “Heroic attributes for general or unit commander” listed. This is where we should count experience and whatever equivalent to character level we end up using. The basic entry indicates that a figure with heroic attributes fights as if it were 3 figures, and adds a bonus to the morale reactions of units it influences as commander or general. We can assume that the number of figures and morale bonus should be related to the experience level of the figure, so that a starting figure fights as one figure with no morale bonus, a “second level” (or whatever) figure will fight as two and gain a +1 bonus to unit morale when leading, and so on.

(We have other ways to differentiate figures from each other, but we'll discuss religious attributes, magical powers, engineering abilities, and so on later. In addition, we need to figure out an equivalent to the alignment system, but I personally am not fond of D&D's alignment system, so perhaps another method will suggest itself. I will probably cheat and look at what others have done since D&D, or have suggested as alterations to the D&D system.)

That's a lot to consider. Right now, it looks like we're going to have a system in which the player will pick type (Disciplined or Enthusiastic), fighting class (perhaps this will influence other choices, or perhaps it will be based on a type of character class, but we'll have to see about that), and then gets an ability to fight based on a character level mechanism or some such thing.

One other matter to consider is the difference between “figures” and “models”. Since a dragon, for instance, counts as five actual dragons to a model, while a warrior counts as twenty to a figure, the fighting ability of a single dragon starts out as four times greater than that of a warrior, further modified by the type of weapon and defensive capability of each. So, if a dragon's attack is counted as “Elephant or chariot horse” attacking an “HI” figure (base factor of 2), then the “HI” figure counts as “Other infantry weapons” attacking an “Elephant” model (base factor of 1), each inflicts one casualty as a base. However, the dragon does so as a unit of five dragons, while the “HI” figure does so as a unit of twenty warriors. That's a 20% vs. 5% ratio. That is not so important in a game of armies, but is critically important to us in our game of individuals. Perhaps we should count models as fighting on the “4” column of the casualty table, so that our dragon attacking with a factor of 2 gets 5 casualties. More specifically, we'll end up treating large creatures as several figures, varying the number based on the creature.

Decisions, decisions.

Another thing to consider is a method to get similar results to the table without using the table. We could call this our "Alternate combat system".

Anyway, the result gained through this is defined as "wounded" or "killed". We'll need to figure out what that means to our individual characters. While a wounded general is shuffled off the battlefield or captured by the enemy, our individual warriors can choose to keep fighting, but with some sort of penalty. We don't need no steenkin' hit points, but we do need to know what a wound does to the character. We might also include a vital statistic that indicates how resilient the character is to being wounded, which we might call "Endurance" or "Size" or "Physique" or some such thing. Similarly, we might have another vital statistic (or the same one) which increases the penalty of a wound inflicted, which we might call "Strength" or "Physique". I like "Physique", and may have to use it. We'll find other vital statistics for other aspects of the game. Maybe the fighting class we discussed above will be a rolled vital statistic instead. Many things to consider.

[WRG]Notes on Weights and Measures

These are some notes that I made regarding weights and measures which may be useful in designing a system for using WRG Ancients and Medieval rules for roleplaying purposes.

Weights:

Silver Pound: 349.91g (the historic Tower Pound)
Metal Pound: 373.24g (Troy Pound)
Pound Weight: 453.59g (Avoirdupois Pound)
Bundle Weight: 1270.05g (1/5 of a Stone Weight)
Stone Weight: 6350.26g (14 Pound Weight)
Coin Weight: 1.46g (1/240 of a Silver Pound)

Value of Gold:Silver:Copper: 1:50:200

Silver Penny: 1.46g (310 per pound weight; 14.73mm diameter; 1.28mm thick)
Copper Farthing: 1.46g (310 per pound weight; 15.51mm diameter; 1.35mm thick) (= ¼ penny)
(Both are 4340 coins per stone weight)
Gold Crown: 7.00g (65 per pound weight; 17.55mm diameter; 1.50mm thick) (= 240 pennies)
(910 per stone weight; 4.77 times as heavy as penny or farthing)
Silver Shilling: 17.52g (26 per pound weight; 30.94mm diameter; 2.22mm thick) (= 12 pennies)
(364 per stone weight; 12 times as heavy as a penny or farthing; shillings may be a coin of account only)

Rounded off: 4500 coins (pennies or farthings) per stone weight, or 900 per Bundle Weight; 900 crowns (each counts as five coin weight) per stone weight, or 180 per Bundle Weight; 375 shillings (each counts as twelve coin weight) per stone weight, or 75 per Bundle Weight

Distance:

Pace: 30” (2 ½ feet)
Rope: 20 Paces (50 feet)
Stade: 250 Paces or 12 ½ Ropes (625 feet)
Mille: 2000 Paces or 8 Stades (5000 feet, about 0.947 miles)
League: 3 Milles (15,000 feet, about 2.841 miles, roughly the distance traveled in an hour on good roads)

Time:

Moment: 3 seconds
Period: 30 seconds
Turn: 5 minutes

Area:

Acre: 43,560 square feet
Oxgang: 15 Acres (the area one ox can plow in a plowing season)
Hex: about 4480 Acres (4473.27 Acres, but round it off); a Hex is one League from face to opposite face (comes to about 298 ⅔ oxgangs; might round these to 4500 acres and 300 oxgangs, as the actual distance difference would be less than 18 paces from hexside to hexside, about a 0.3% difference)

Justifications: weights are centered around trying to simulate traditional English coins as a baseline, and also using a system of encumbrance which will not be particularly intrusive. The decisions there are influenced by recent experiments with "stone encumbrance", but I don't think that those are impossible to have come to be in a game designed from whole cloth. The relative values of metals are based on their historic relationships, and are basically considered as an impression of the average values. Distances and times are derived from values in the WRG rules, which use paces as the base for distance measures (I take the 30" length from Swordbearer, but I think that's a pretty obvious choice) and note that the events of a game turn are roughly what could occur in 30 seconds of real time. The area measures are basically because I'm pretty sure that I'd like to include some sort of Baronial/Dynastic level play, à la Pendragon or some iterations of Chivalry & Sorcery.

[WRG]An RPG Design Exercise

Some time ago, Jeff Rients issued a challenge: "Start with a core set of rules, the older and crappier the better. You can use an RPG but some half-baked wargame works even better. Produce a two or three page document with suggestions for improving the rules/adapting them for RPG play and an outline for a campaign. Expand this to a 50-100 page book."

Well, I love a challenge. I've done this before, in fact, starting with a boardgame from West End Games called Tales of the Arabian Nights, which resulted in a lovely little game that has gotten quite a lot of play in the local area and good feedback from people who were not even aware that I was the principal designer. However, that design was developed by people who are very much fans of the design models of the Forge, or whose design agendas were otherwise different than my own (something I didn't really understand at the time), and took the ideas in some directions that weren't entirely my own intention. So, I thought I'd try again, from a direction more like the Original Roleplaying Game.

That led to my current design attempt, which starts with the WRG Ancients and Medieval rules in their 6th edition, from 1980. Like Chainmail, it includes a fantasy supplement. It also includes rules for adjudicating single combat between generals and champions. However, tonight I read an entry from Trollsmyth, who pointed out that I might be setting the cart before the horse by trying to design it in the way to which I have become accustomed.

So, given that, I'm going to start talking through my design process here. My concept is that this is an alternate world, in which the only previous roleplaying game of any sort has been Braunstein, and I have never actually played in that but have only heard about it (which is the case). I have decided to figure out how to do this with the WRG Ancients and Medieval rules, but I am also interested in giving the players some control over their characters, giving the characters random or semi-random strengths and weaknesses that allow the players to make decisions as to their goals and so forth, rather than being assigned goals.

To be continued.