Ally Rolls in The One Ring

It's funny what kinds of rules gems you can find buried in unexpected sources.  In the second adventure of Tales from Wilderland (Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit) there is a scene where the PCs are supposed to make a stand in a defensible position (the ringfort) with a handful of allies.  Enemies swarm the ringfort, and the battle description contains a table that describes how the allies fare in battle.  This "Allies In Battle" table (pg. 34) keeps things moving quickly, preserving a narrative focus and making it unnecessary for either the Loremaster or the PCs to take control of extra characters.

In the play-by-post (PbP) game that I'm currently running the PCs ambushed a large orc camp backed up by 2 units of Elven cavalry, a handful of Barding archers led by the Barding PC, and a handful of Bardings disguised as orcs led by an exiled Dwarf PC who escaped a brutal captivity in the hands of orcs.  Obviously that's a LOT of individuals to keep track of, and the need to abstract the mechanics for the battle were even greater considering that Legolas himself led one of the Elven units, and I didn't want to open up a can of worms by statting him out.  Remembering that table from the short campaign that I ran for my regular gaming group (relevant posts under the TOR-C2 tag), I decided to adopt it for this battle.  

While the table from Tales from Wilderland offers specific results for the battle that it applies to, it was immediately apparent that the results could be tweaked on the fly to apply to virtually any combat, with any number of allies and enemies.  Here are the basics, in a nutshell:

The Loremaster rolls a Feat Die (the special d12; for those using regular dice, the 11 counts as an Eye of Sauron and the 12 is a Gandalf rune).  

• If the Eye is rolled something really bad happens.  For a smaller number of allies this will usually mean that one of them is slain.  For larger "units" this could mean that multiple individuals are slain, the leader is slain, etc.  Whatever is dramatically appropriate.
• On a roll of 1, 2, 3, or 4 the enemies are doing better than the allies.  This might be represented by one of the allies suffering a wound (or being slain for larger groups), one or more enemies slipping past them to attack a priority target (probably one of the PCs, even one in Rearward stance), or a change in the tactical landscape.  For example, if there are any modifiers in place due to the Complications table (pg. 48 of the LMB, or the GM screen), these can change to favor the enemy.  Additionally, a 1 should probably have worse effects than a 4 (in TfW bad stuff triggered if you rolled under the number of allies, but obviously this wouldn't work for larger groups).  
• On a roll of 5, 6, or 7 the allies hold their own, but don't necessarily gain any ground.  Nothing particularly interesting happens in this round, or if you'd prefer to narrate changes in the battle they should be net zero.
• A roll of 8, 9, or 10 mirrors 1-4 in that now the allies are doing better.  Depending on how many enemies are present and/or how fast the LM wants the pacing of the battle to be, this could mean that an enemy is Wounded, an enemy is slain, or the allies gain some sort of tactical advantage (there should always be a good narrative description for this, but it can be mechanically represented with that Complications table).
• If a Gandalf rune is rolled, the allies are doing extremely well.  Perhaps an unwounded enemy is instantly slain, multiple enemies are slain or flee, an important enemy (perhaps a leader) is slain, or in some circumstances the LM might allow one or more PCs to regain a point of Hope as the tides are turned (though this should be used very sparingly, and you should have a good reason for doing so!).  

Some Notes

These numbers are consistent with those from the table in TfW, with the results more generalized.  But these can easily be changed based on the details of the battle.  Are the allies severely outnumbered or in a rough spot?  Maybe the numeric results are broken down like this:  1-6 is bad, 7-8 is neutral, 9-10 is good.  In fact, it's worth pointing out that the originally published values are skewed toward the enemies (1-4 being bad vs. 8-10 being good), and I think this is important.  Since the allies are statistically in a position to lose the fight, it drives home the fact that it's ultimately up to the PCs.  They're the heroes, the stars of the show.  

Along those lines, it's a good idea to offer the possibility of adding modifiers to the roll.  These can absolutely be player-driven.  A successful Battle roll might allow a PC to direct his allies to higher ground, providing a +1 bonus to the Ally Roll.  A Great Success on an Inspire roll might give the allies a second wind, with a +2 modifier to the roll.  A Healing roll might allow a PC to bring wounded ally back into the fight.  Conversely, you can add a penalty to the roll to represent a new advantage gained by the enemy.  If a PC is knocked out and their opponent(s) join the fight agains the allies, that might be a -1 penalty.  The same logic obviously applies to reinforcements.  And if you're stuck on how to adjudicate an Eye result by a player taking a risky action, why not make the allies pay for it?

Finally, you can give the battle some tactical "texture" by having multiple groups of allies (as is the case in my PbP game), with each group getting its own Ally Roll.  This can give PCs an interesting choice to make as they need to decide which ally group to aid, if any, and it allows the victors from one group to affect another group, or the PCs and their foes.  It's perfectly reasonable for a good result on an Ally Roll to result in a combatant breaking off from that "unit" and joining the PCs with its own individual stat block (this is especially useful if one of the PCs is knocked out, as it can give that player an ally to control).

The Critical Injury Table (Edge of the Empire)

Last week our group took a bit of a detour, and thanks to an Astrogation mishap ended up at some "hick outpost" in Wild Space.  Now, my character is actually really AWESOME at Astrogation (just to be clear), but I was pulling a really crazy stunt (making a jump while in a planet's atmosphere to avoid Imperials in orbit), with a slightly damaged navcomputer (next check was supposed to be upgraded), and my GM decided that the difficulty for this was Formidable.  Yep, that's the first time our group has had to face FIVE purples, and the upgrade certainly wasn't helping matters, so you can understand the mishap.  Granted I was able to decrease the difficulty thanks to Master Starhopper, but that's just part of how awesome an Astrogator my PC is!

But anyways, I digress.  The navcomputer was REALLY shot after that (oh, Despairs...), so we landed at this station to see if we could scrounge up supplies for a repair.  Some Jawa junk dealer had what we needed, but we had to return to the ship to get the credits for it, and the half of the party that was guarding the ship were attacked by "salvagers" who had proceeded to tear pieces off of our ship.  In a fit of rage after dealing with that (which only followed a whole string of "the party gets screwed" events, and did I mention the BBEG was a few days behind us in hyperspace?), I decided I was just going to walk into the Jawa's shop and take the parts by force, if need be.  I took the assassin droid as backup.  Our previous encounter with the Jawa revealed that he hit some type of security button in response to our weapons, and I suppose our GM thought that this was enough warning for us.  I figured it would summon some guards, or activate an alarm, or at worst some kind of security system with lasers and stuff.  No.  The button had armed a THERMAL DETONATOR, and when the droid shot the Jawa he dropped the dead man's switch, and BOOM!

The GM called for Coordination checks, and while I disagree on how he implemented the results*, he's the GM so it's his call.  Not surprisingly, both of us go down, and both of us roll really high on our d% rolls.  The thing's got Vicious 4, so the Droid ended up Blinded (which seems to be permanent), and my character got Gruesome Injury (Presence).

I was bitter.  I still am, a little bit, even if I've gotten used to the cool factor of my character being so horribly burned that people can't stand to really talk with her.  I've suggested pursuing some kind of experimental regenerative procedure (equivalent in cost, or in my case obligation, to the Cybernetic options that increase Characteristics) so I guess "permanent" isn't quite as dire as it seems.  It was definitely eye opening, though, especially since even without a prior critical injury I was pretty close to rolling "Bleeding Out," which would have effectively meant death since my only ally in the vicinity was also down.

Even now, I'm not really sure how I feel about the Critical Injury table.  On the one hand, I've always been vehemently opposed to ability score damage in D&D, and one of the pros to 4E was that it was one sacred cow that was slain.  So the fact that I took a permanent reduction to Presence (did I mention Cool and Negotiation are important skills for my character?) really hit a sore spot for me.  I'm also not a fan of "save or die" spells in D&D, and a high percentile roll on the table can be exactly that.

On the other hand, the table does have the neat effect of providing a sense of danger without having combat be too lethal with regards to taking too many Wounds.  It also captures the feel of the setting really well, what with lost limbs being a big thing in Star Wars, and certain weapons (like that Thermal Detonator!) being EXTREMELY deadly.  Besides that it offers a plethora of neat "control" effects when used in combat, and provides a gritty realism without being too crunchy and still allowing for brash stunts, since you won't get badly hurt all the time.

It's not the most "fair" of mechanics because there's so much variability inherent in that d% roll, but overall I think that's probably ok.  Characters SHOULD be in bad shape after being caught in the blast of a thermal detonator, or after taking injury after injury.  It changes the stakes in a way that can't be solved by simply loading up on stimpacks, and I think that's important for the game.  I just wish I hadn't rolled so high with my character.


*Basically, what I would have done was subbed Coordination (or Athletics) in place of Ranged Light as a "defense roll," with a success equivalent to a missed attack roll, threat equivalent to an attack roll's advantage, etc.  Essentially make it no harder to avoid than if he'd lobbed the thing at us.  What the GM had ruled was that success reduced damage by 1 each (I'd rolled 4 successes, but that was still higher than my Wound Threshold so I still suffered a Critical Injury).  Neither way is "wrong," but I do find his ruling pretty harsh.  Especially since the difficulty was either Hard or Daunting, and the only reason I did so well was 2 blank faces on the purple dice.

On Repeated Skill Use: An Addendum

Several weeks ago I posted an article on why I dislike repeated skill use in RPGs.  Last night's game of Edge of the Empire caused me to re-examine the issue.  I still think the general argument stands, but it bears clarifying that it's exactly that - a generalization.

Early on in the campaign my character stole a swoop bike.  A really nice swoop bike (the Obligation was totally worth it).  So naturally, when the planet we land on is hosting a big swoop race I'm going to enter it.  Unfortunately, my character is the only PC that actually owns a swoop bike, and the only one who is a decently focused pilot, so this was my time to shine with a minimal amount for everyone else at the table to do.

The GM set it up by sketching out the track, and numbering 4 different points where Piloting checks would be called for.  The race was 2 laps, so that's 8 Piloting checks in a row, which could potentially get tedious.  I was certainly wary going in, when he was describing the set-up.  But it actually ended up working really well, for a few different reasons.  Most importantly, the narrative was at the forefront.  Each number on the track was a distinct obstacle (a slalom, a canyon jump, a corkscrew down-ramp into the canyon, and a narrow, one-lane choke point), and so the results were going to be interpreted differently based on which obstacle was being navigated.  Obviously there was also the jockeying for position by the other racers.  And I must admit that I couldn't have done it if our assassin droid hadn't been running interference on the leaders from a covert sniping position just off the track.  Mechanical reasons why the excitement kept flowing included a torrent of Destiny Point use, and the constant fear of what a Despair, or even a large number of Threat, might mean.  This was a tricky run at high speeds with a lot of competition, so there was a lot that could go wrong!  Fortunately, thanks to the Droid's help and luckier rolls than I'm used to getting, I actually placed 1st (I expected 4th or 5th).

Aside from the details of the task itself, there was also a lot riding on this race.  My sponsor (I certainly couldn't foot the bill for that entry fee!) works directly under the Hutt that we're trying to make nice with.  He's also the same guy that just entrusted us with a smuggling test-run (a few "freebie" crates of Booster Blue, on loan, to make sure we were reliable).  Bungling the race could negatively affect the smuggling job, and there is potentially a LOT of Obligation riding on both tasks.  Oh, and the only reason we're even trying to get into this Hutt's inner circle is because the corrupt sector ranger responsible for my Blackmail Obligation from char-gen smuggles for him, and I'm looking for a way to expose the dirt-bag (or more likely to turn the tables and blackmail HIM) to reduce my Obligation.  To make matters worse, our group was teetering dangerously close to 100 Obligation total.

So, yeah.  Aside from making the descriptions of the task itself creative and interesting, with a lot of variation between the different rolls, it helps when the scene is high stakes from a big-picture point of view.

Ultimately, the big difference I see in the above example compared with the examples from my earlier post is that despite the fact that the same skill was rolled multiple times in a row, each distinct roll represented its own mini-challenge.  The scene was the swoop race, whereas the task was a canyon jump, or a choke point, etc.  I'm glad my GM ran it this way.  When he was setting the stage for this, I was thinking "I wonder if it'd be better to just roll a single Pilot check for the race, or for a lap?" but in hindsight that wouldn't have been NEARLY as exciting.  A scene like this needs the constant jockeying for position, the tension of knowing that the GM still has X Destiny points, which makes a Despair that much more likely, ample opportunities for Advantage and Threat to be interpreted, and enough screen time to do it justice.

So I guess the point I'm driving at is that it's important to know when to "zoom in," and by how much.  Definitely do so if there's a lot riding on the scene, or if you're prepared to offer up a lot of juicy description and meaningful consequences.  The point of the game isn't the rolls you make, but the fictional details that are sometimes adjudicated with rolls.  Don't let rolling dice get in the way of the story, and if rolling the same skill multiple times enhances the story feel free to do it, keeping in mind the potential pitfalls (as outline in the previous article).

Revising the Archaic d20 System

There were two very intriguing articles posted on the Gaming Security Agency recently - Die, d20 die and its follow-up, Extreme Makeover, d20-ish Edition.  When I first read them I thought "huh, that's interesting, and the arguments certainly have merit," but it didn't go much beyond that.  During last week's Pathfinder game I remembered these articles again, and it brought to light how the d20 system is actively impairing my gameplay.

I'm playing a Bard with 10 Wisdom and no ranks in Perception, so I'm rocking a +0, yeah!  For two levels a running joke has been that I might as well not even bother rolling Perception.  Aside from the fact that my d20s all hate me, often I won't even be successful if I take a 20.  For a while I just went with it, accepting that it was one of my character's weaknesses.  But then I got to thinking - isn't a score of 10 explicitly stated to be the human average?  Why am I running around like a blind guy just for having an average ability score?

The answer, of course, is due to a mechanical quirk exemplified by the Druid in our party.  He has a +20something in Perception (23 or 28 come to mind, but I honestly don't know for sure).  Granted he's specifically specialized in Perception, but that's a pretty big gap for level 5.  His static modifier is noticeably larger than the randomizer, and thinking about it THAT way really brings the point home.

Though the Druid is on the extreme end of the spectrum, the other PCs probably have modifiers around +10 for Perception, with no specialization other than putting ranks into it.  And that's already HALF of the randomizer.  Basically, the DCs have to be set pretty high to challenge PCs skilled in that area, but pretty soon every task you go up against is one in which your average guy literally stands no chance of succeeding.  This is an inherent problem in systems that represent increased skill by increasing the maximum result.  It's an archaic piece of game design that many modern games have abandoned.

The fix presented in the GSA article essentially turns a d20 roll into a d10 dice pool mechanic.  Instead of rolling 1d20, you roll 2d10.  Skill training, feats like Skill Focus, etc. all add an additional d10 to the dice pool instead of providing a static modifier, and you keep the best 2 results.  No need to project DCs into the stratosphere, smaller numbers equals quicker math, and you model that fact that skilled characters are still more likely to succeed while still giving unskilled characters a chance.

I like this.  Because it's no fun eliminating an option because my chance of success is slim to none.

My RPG Person Profile

So apparently this is a thing now, a thing that a lot of people are doing.  So I figured I'd join in.  This was started on the Playing D&D with Porn Stars blog.

I'm currently running (at home):  Nothing, although it's probably going to be my turn to GM again around the new year (Edge of the Empire, with the Age of Rebellion beta allowed).

Tabletop RPGs I'm currently playing (at home) include:  Edge of the Empire and a Pathfinder game that has some 13th Age bits included.

I'm currently running (online):  The One Ring.  Superb system for Play By Post.  The game is here, but if you want to view it you'll have to request lurker status.

Tabletop RPGs I'm currently playing (online) include:  Nothing; I've tried playing in a couple of PbP games but they fizzled out pretty quick.

I would especially like to play/run:  13th Age will continue to be a go-to game for me, in addition to Edge of the Empire and The One Ring.  Games I don't run/play regularly but would like to try include Savage Worlds, Night's Black Agents, Dungeon World, and old school D&D (just to see what it's like).  I'd also like to return to D&D 4E, but probably not for long-term games.

...but would also try:  Trail of Cthulu, Buffy/Angel, Firefly, Vampire the Masquerade (which I've actually played a long time ago), Dungeon Crawl Classics, A Song of Ice and Fire, Spellbound Kingdoms, Smallville, Ashen Stars

I live in:  Cleveland, OH, though I've been known to live elsewhere for seasonal work.

2 or 3 well-known RPG products other people made that I like:  In an effort to not just say "duh, the core rulebooks for the systems I play regularly," I'll go with Savage Worlds Deluxe Explorer's Edition (because it's $10), and 4E Enhanced: Combat in Motion.

2 or 3 novels I like:  The ones I re-read regularly are The Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter series.  To throw a less cliche one in there, The Monkey Wrench Gang.

2 or 3 movies I like:  To keep up with the cliche, Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.  Jurassic Park.  And because it's getting close to November, I'll throw in Home Alone as my bonus 4th pick.

Best place to find me on-line:  I post halfway regularly (not as regularly as I'd like) here on this blog.  I'm also on G+ and Facebook pretty often, and a handful of different forums (rpg.net being the most general one).

I will read almost anything on tabletop RPGs if it's:  something with elegant, flexible, transparent mechanics that I can fiddle around with if need be.

I really do not want to hear about:  Cheesy, character optimization arguments that hinge on strict, rules-lawyer-y interpretations of the Rules as Written as if tabletop RPGs weren't a medium with inherent flexibility and GM/Player discretion.  If a rule or rules interaction doesn't make sense, you can IGNORE it!

I think dead orc babies are ( circle one: funny / problematic / ....well, ok, it's complicated because....)  I guess the last one, because it depends on the situation and the tone of the campaign.

I talk about RPGs on _G+_ (social media site and/or RPG forum name) under the name __Brian Slaby__ 

I talk about RPGs on _pretty much any other forum_ (social media site and/or RPG forum name) under the name __alien270__

On Fairness and Rolling for Ability Scores

Ah, the age old question that comes up when first starting a new campaign - "are we rolling for ability scores or using point buy?"  There are good arguments for both camps, with many gamers having a strong preference for one or the other.  Rolling for ability scores is more organic, and it can be quicker and less fiddly.  Unfortunately, it can also lead to some pretty significant power disparities.  It sucks to be the guy who rolled 15, 13, 13, 12, 10, 10 (huh, that looks an awful lot like my Bard's array in the Pathfinder game that I'm currently playing...) when everyone else in the party has at least one 17 or 18 (pre-racial), and much stronger secondary abilities than a mere 13.

Granted, this isn't a problem for everyone.  Indeed, a lot of players really like taking up the challenge of playing whatever array the Fates have granted them, which goes hand in hand with being ok with a weaker character.  The flaws can be what makes the character fun and memorable.  But a lot of players prefer as much balance between PCs as possible.  What gets really awkward is when you have both types of players mixed in the same group.

I usually lean more toward preferring a balanced starting point, as there are other ways of roleplaying flaws than having gimped ability scores.  But I noticed a funny thing while building several characters for 13th Age playtesting: I was building them using point buy, without even looking at the sample arrays in the back of the book, but they all ended up having the EXACT same array.  16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8.  How boring.  Flipping through the sample arrays in general there is a heavy preference for even numbers, which makes sense because it's optimal starting out, but when you hit 4th level that ability boost that's supposed to be so awesome and meaningful ends up doing exactly nothing.  I found myself yearning for more "organic" arrays with a mix of odd and even numbers, and even looking back at those ability-rolling days with fondness.  Until I joined that Pathfinder game.

What I've come up with is a hybrid of the two methods.  Below I've listed 20 arrays, many of which are from the sample arrays in the core book, but I did some tweaking to provide more odd values.  You might also notice that some arrays are repeated, and I left out certain types of arrays that I personally find extremely unappealing (anything that starts with 18 pre-racial, anything with three 8's, or even two 8's).  Anyways, the idea is that when you create your character you roll a d20 to determine which array you get.  It's random and organic, but it's still relatively balanced as every single array uses the standard 28 point buy found in the 13th Age core rulebook.  I think it could potentially be a very nice middle ground between the two camps.

1. 16, 16, 14, 10, 8, 8
2. 16, 15, 14, 10, 10, 8
3. 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
4. 16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10
5. 15, 15, 15, 10, 10, 8
6. 15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
7. 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8
8. 15, 14, 13, 13, 10, 10
9. 15, 14, 13, 13, 9, 11
10. 16, 15, 13, 12, 9, 8
11. 16, 14, 14, 11, 11, 8
12. 16, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9
13. 16, 13, 13, 12, 10, 10
14. 15, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8
15. 15, 15, 13, 13, 10, 8
16. 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
17. 16, 15, 13, 11, 11, 8
18. 15, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8
19. 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10
20. 16, 14, 13, 13, 10, 8

Again, this list of arrays is specifically for 13th Age, though it would seem perfectly at home in D&D 4E or 3.x/PF.  For older editions where ability scores tended to be lower you'd obviously want to tweak the list.  And of course you could make tweaks based on personal aesthetic preferences as well, including running a "low-powered" or "high-powered" game.

13th Age SRD

The 13th Age System Reference Document is live!  All the crunch you need to play the game.  While I'd still wholeheartedly recommend the book, this is great for groups where not everyone has a copy (now nobody has an excuse!).  It's also extremely useful to know what's fair game for public use.  A big step forward!