Geek on the Borderlands

It’s almost the end of the year, and I’d like to talk a little about the past, present and future of FAD.

These rules have been around for 7 years now. They began as hastily written comments on a notepad, after playing and having my mind blown by Stargrunt II.

The things I knew I wanted, when I started the project was this:

Suppression should be automatic.

Only 6 sided dice.

Combat should be squad based.

The core mechanics would be roll 2 dice and pick the highest or roll 2-3 dice and see how many score over a certain target number.

With that in mind, the original game came into existence. My friend Paul liked it and gave some feedback, and I proceeded to talk it up a little on theminiaturespage.com and the old GW fan site Portent.net. As time went on, I realized that I had struck something that people actually took an interest in. I saw threads where people asked for advice on a rules set, and people I didn’t even know would suggest FAD. I googled it occasionally and found it mentioned on forums and websites I had never even frequented.

As time went on, I even learnt that people had run games using FAD at a few conventions across the world. That blew my mind.

Yeah, it’s nowhere near the popularity of games like 5150, Stargrunt II, Warhammer 40.000 or any of those. The twohourwargames yahoo group has 3600 members and multiple posts every day. The FAD group is fairly quiet and has just shy of 500 members. But it’s something I had never anticipated or experienced before.

Now it’s November of 2009, and FAD4 has been out for a good while now. So what is lying ahead of us all?

First and foremost are a few projects that have been in various states of development for the past year. We have a lot of little additions to the core rules (night fighting, more traits, some clarifications of points that could be clearer, that sort of thing) which will eventually become FAD 4.3. I don’t think there’s any chance of having this done by December so expect something in the first half of 2010.

We have been working on a campaign setting as well (Cyberia) which will give a “out of the box” option to people who don’t want to fiddle with designing their own units from scratch. There’s also work on a WW2 and possibly modern day options. These are propably more distant projects though.

One thing that have been churning in my head lately is the idea of having money go into, and come out of, FAD. I am not talking about making the game commercial only (I watched my old ww1 rules Trench Storm whither and die from that decision) or making a living off it. Let me explain:

There’s a lot of things I think could be achieved with a bit of cash. A few include:

Commissioning artwork, writing etc: This is by far the biggest one. We’ve been extremely lucky in having some very talented volunteers provide us some great art to use. However, volunteers are subject to the randomness of life, and are motivated mainly by interest and passion.

Being able to have some artwork commissioned for FAD products would give us another, additional source of material. It could also go to additionally reward and motivate people who have volunteered their efforts.

It would also permit some additional incentive to prospective rules writers who may otherwise be disinclined to spend hours developing a rules supplement.

Advertising: I would like to do a bit more work advertising (and thus paying money into supporting) popular tabletop gaming sites like theminiaturespage.com and rpg.net. Having some cash flow would allow for that, as well as give FAD some additional exposure.

Miniatures: This is faraway and expensive idea, but having a range of miniatures developed for FAD would be pretty cool.

Conventions: I’d love to have something setup where we could showcase FAD at conventions, and possibly provide some stuff for that, such as freebie print copies of the rules or whatever might be the case.

Cooperation with a miniatures supplier: This talk has come up before, and at least one supplier showed interest, however the arrival of my son into this world made me unable to follow through on this. I am however very interested in having some cooperation with manufacturers of scifi figures, particularly some of the small-scale operations. This would enable us to provide FAD stats and points values ready to use, and give them more exposure and advertisement, while giving FAD more exposure as well.

There’s other incidental expenses that could occur as well, such as server space if we move to our own server, website maintenance and whatnot.

So where does money for these ideas come from? Well, it can come from my pocket. I generally can’t really afford that, and I’d love for FAD to sustain itself.

I am also not keen on the idea of selling PDF’s. Anyone can develop for the game, and that is how it ought to be. So if I sell a supplement on urban warfare, and another guy does it for free and his is better, nobody will buy mine, and for good reason.

The core FAD products should be free and readily available.

Printed copies: An option that will almost certainly be used is to offer the printed version of FAD through a print-on-demand service such as lulu. Last I checked the cost of a book of this size would be about 10 dollars, so it could sell for a few bucks more. Based on polling on the yahoo group and comparing to existing products, most people are willing to pay 12-15 dollars for a game of this size.

This would not change the fact that it’s available for free, and there’d be no “exclusive” version. It’d simply be a service to people who prefer getting a printed, spiral-bound copy, rather than dealing with pdf’s and printing it themselves.

Ransom model: Those who play RPG’s may be familiar with Greg Stolze’s ransom model. You offer up a game or supplement and set a ransom. People pledge whatever money they feel is fair. When the ransom is met, it’s made available for free to everybody. This avoids PDF piracy, and nobody pays more than what they want to. If the ransom isn’t met, the money either never gets deducted, or is donated to charity.

Donations: Asking for money is basically begging, and in addition to being distasteful, people aren’t inclined to give money just for the sake of doing so. In the past when the topic of commissioning artwork came up, a few people showed an interest in donating towards that, so its conceivable that specific expenses could receive some funding through donation.

These are all ideas I have been mulling over, and I am still trying to lay out the best path to really push FAD forward into the spotlight more, and capture more ground.

Lastly, I’d like to put out a call for support and aid. I am at a spot where I have projects that I think FAD needs, but I do not have the luxury to work on all of them myself. I need people who are competent designers and tinkerers, creative writers or just plain thinkers, who may be willing to pitch in for some specific projects.

I’ll put forth more specifics, but the two main projects are: FAD WW2 and help with the Cyberia setting. I have two people lined up for the latter, but I need more, to really make progress in a reasonable time.

It’s been a strange and amazing 7 years, and I’d like to thank all of you out there for everything you’ve done. Here’s to another 7 years of fast and dirty wargaming

Ivan – authordude

So this kicks off the WW2 rules quest.. what will hopefully become a series of blog posts about ww2 wargaming, as I and my friends go through a ton of wargame rules, analyze and talk about this, and test out the same scenarios with each system.

The series will cover both commercial and “freeware” rules.

The first on the list is Landser, which is free from the yahoogroup located at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Landser/

This is a first glance before putting the rules to the test. The rules are short and compact: Only 4 pages in total and only covers infantry combat (which is all I am interested in, generally). No army lists are included, though the downloaded included separate PDF’s covering US, German and Soviet squads. The game is aimed at about a squad on each side.

Turn sequence is a straight (I go, then you go). When its your turn to go, each figure can perform one action, such as moving, hiding, firing etc. Its possible to fire on the move, but at very low accuracy. There’s a fair number of actions, and I like the inclusion of a hide and sneak option, though I’d prefer an alternating activation sequence

There’s not much in the way of command/control. Figures can move off as they see fit, and there doesn’t seem to be any particular benefit to the squad leader.

Combat looks very quick and dirty. You roll to hit, and then roll for effect. Automatic weapons get a template, and there’s rules for the most common weapons types (various machine guns, grenades and rifle grenades). As an interesting touch, most hits will simply force the target to hide, causing a suppression effect.

If you do get wounded, the wound may be light or heavy, and each has a small chart to roll the actual effect. Very nice touch as it gives a good range of possibilities. As it reads, it looks like long range fire will be relatively safe but can easily disrupt a squad, while an MP40 at point blank range is bad news.

Morale is simple. Once 2 men are dead, you test morale with a D10 against the number of men left. If you fail, you break off the fight. Its unclear if you are supposed to test once, every turn, or every turn you take an additional casualty, though the latter makes the most sense. This “break point” increases for more determined or well trained units.

National traits are briefly discussed in the separate PDF’s. Soviet soldiers cannot fire on the move, while Germans and Americans can only assault if a leader does so.

Fielding most infantry types should be relatively easy, though I did not find rules for the Sturmgewehr and no distinction between self-loading or bolt-action rifles.

Overall, Landser is nothing anyone havent seen before. It is however a nice, quick and effective skirmish game, with some fun touches to it. I definately look forward to playing it, and I could see this little freebie becoming a recurring game at my table.

So 4th edition D&D has been out for a while, there’s a steady stream of books out for it, its received quite a bit of acclaim and popularity, and the inevitable question has risen a few times: Why am I not playing it ?

So to address these in a manner that illuminates my playstyle and preferences, something that any gamer could do well thinking about occasionally, here are the reasons I have chosen not to play D&D 4, after giving it a few tests after it came out.

Unlike a lot of people I am not viewing this in comparison to 3.5 (which I hate like the plague) or AD&D or the classic D&D games. I evaluated it in comparison to other fantasy games on my bookshelf, some old (Runequest), some classics with recent editions (GURPS, Warhammer) and some bleeding edge (Burning Wheel, Heroquest, Reign)

1: Classes.

I realize picking on D&D for having character classes is a bit unfair, but it is the nature of the beast. I dont mind having a template that gives me direction when I create the character, but as the game goes on, I want to be free to develop my character in the direction I choose, rather than a pre-determined set of options.

2: Levels

This is the bigger pet peeve. As a player, I find level based advancement absolutely choking. I despise having to wait another 3 sessions to advance my character, as it prevents me from reacting organically to what happens in the game. Whats worse is that a level structure means there is only a finite amount of chances to make those changes. I can endure character classes if they are done in an open and entertaining fashion, but level based play is a killer for me these days

3: Character focus

I am lately finding myself wanting games that put the character to the forefront, their beliefs, their wants, their goals and desires. And to have mechanics that back that up. Burning Wheel, FATE and Heroquest are all good examples of this. D&D has traditionally never done this and the 4th edition is no exception.

There are two views of mechanics and roleplaying. One view is that the mechanics should stay away from the roleplaying, while the other is that the mechanics should support or encourage the roleplaying. D&D falls in the former school for sure. As does a few other games I enjoy, including my beloved Runequest, so its not inherently a killer in itself, but its a factor.

To me, it is completely uninteresting whether your character can swing a sword, hit 2 enemies in one blow and then leap 3 squares. What is interesting is that he has a burning passion for avenging his father, and that passion compels him in the game.

4: Simulation

Rules should simulate reality or setting to a certain extent. With 4th edition, D&D has really moved to the end of the Game axis of the game-simulation graph. This obviously resonates with a lot of people, but it makes the mechanics appear arbitrary and uninsteresting to me. Simulation does not have to entail realism. A superhero game is highly simulationist for example, as is Bunnies&Burrows.

5: Handling time

I was shocked to discover how long 4th edition combats take. I had chalked this up to our inexperience when testing it, but reports from friends and various actual play reports online confirmed that the game is indeed designed to have all combats last around a 1 to 1.5 hour time frame.

I only get to game face-to-face 2-3 times a month, due to work and family constraints, so I can’t in good conscience devote that much time to every single battle we have, unless its an epic conclusion. Rolemaster and GURPS both move faster than this, at an equivalent number of combatants, and with similar amounts of record keeping, and they are both renowned as “crunchy” systems.

6: Cost

I have a reasonable hobby budget, but I prefer spending that on miniatures. There are very few roleplaying games I invest a lot of money in. D&D has a basic start up cost exceeding 100 dollars, simply for the 3 core books to play. If I want a setting to play in, thats another 35 dollars, and this still only gives me a handful of character classes.

Throw in another 35 dollars when we get tired of what was in the players handbook (and an active group will cycle through the 8 or so character classes pretty quickly). This is more than I’ve spent on most of my wargaming armies, and I can’t justify spending that amount of money on a game that I will only play occasionally, at most.

WOTC has set an extremely high cost of entry for their game, which boggles my mind. For the same cost, I can obtain the core books for 3-4 other games, and have a far wider variety of material to play with.

So those 6 reasons comprise my main reasons for passing on this game. I bought 2 of the books, I tested it, I came to realize that it will not fill any lack in what I am looking for in a roleplaying game, and I passed the books on to a friend who will find far more benefit, value and enjoyment in them, than I ever will.

A long time ago, there was only wargames. Then people starting experimenting with things, and we got results like the Braunstein games, and eventually Dungeons and Dragons.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Through the years games have straddled the lines. Examples of wargames with RPG elements include Inquisitor and many of the offerings from twohourwargames (Nuts, 5150, Chain reaction etc). Examples of RPG’s with wargame elements are most strongly represented by D&D and Warhammer FRP.

For our current roleplaying campaign, I tossed around a lot of ideas, and my initial thought was to use a wargame set to run a roleplaying campaign. We’d have rules for the tabletop combat, and then just roleplay through the “talky talky” scenes. In the end, we settled on GURPS, since it has a very strong tactical combat aspect, but if we run a large battle, we may switch the mechanics to resolve that.

In the upcoming session, the two players are respectively the sergeant and corporal of a French infantry squad near the Franco-German border in 1940. They’ve been sent on a routine patrol to check out a bridge in the area, where they’ll be attacked by a German patrol.

The interesting part will be that this will be run using GURPS rules, but with miniatures and terrain set up (if a bit primitive looking, as I only have so much time to prepare), and conducted as a tactical battle, in the vein of a proper wargame.

The players will have to issue orders to their subordinates (8 squad members in this case), and may have to endure those orders being misunderstood or not carried out, based on morale and leadership tests. All aspects traditional of a wargame. Simultaneously, they will be able to act independently, come up with ideas and implement them, and act “outside the box” in the manner of an RPG.

Nothing about this is truly new, it’s existed for years, but I think the core of it, is something that is too often overlooked in roleplaying games. Plenty of games use miniatures and tactical movement, but they often omit the things that wargames have done for years: Opportunity fire, morale, the uncertainty of whether orders are carried out, the importance of leadership. We have to go back to Megatraveller before we see those things making an appearance and that’s been how long?

I often get asked why I don’t like D&D, since I like tactical combat so much. My response is twofold:

A: Swords and spears don’t interest me, rifles and tanks do.

B: D&D has good tactical combat in the sense that it’s fun and is pretty much a game in itself. But it doesn’t have plausible tactical combat. When I play, I want to think about whether I can place my machine gun in enfilade, whether my men will be able to hold the line, whether my ambush will work, NOT whether I am placed in the right square to get a +2, or how these three powers will interact with each other.

And that is where we can turn to wargames, to find solutions to those problems.

Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting to see how they deal with the situation, and how they react to the fog of war of not knowing where the enemy is, until they are actually observed on the table.

I’ve talked about in the past why I think a realistic game system is superior to an inherently unrealistic one, ESPECIALLY in a fantasy or superhero game.

But that’s not what I am going to talk about now, even though its one of the strengths of GURPS.

Neither is it points based character creation, which I’m not actually a huge fan of.

Its the toolkit.

A lot of games these days are driven by their powers, races, options etc. D&D, as well as White Wolf’s various offerings relies hugely on this. Setting books don’t sell as well as rules books, and people like lots of rules to put in their games (looking at the games that sell well these days. overwhelmingly D&D and White Wolf, but also Shadowrun, GURPS and WFRP, they are all crunchy games with enough text and charts to make your eyes bleed if your not inclined towards that)

What drives me up the wall is that outside of GURPS and HERO, most companies never actually give you the keys to the toolbox. You can get book after book with countless pages worth of predefined powers, abilities, classes, races or whatnot, but you are never actually given the freedom to just use the toolset for yourself.

If D&D 3.5 was supposed to permit you to play any character, why can’t we have a system for constructing character classes? They published hundreds of the damn things, so obviously more classes were wanted.

Of course, if I can make it myself, I won’t want to pay you money to do it for me, but that frees up the developers to make books that actually matter, instead of just repackaging more “powerz” that I should have been able to do myself.

So I’ve played a LOT of different games. I own a lot of different games.

I’ve played year long campaigns, as well as one shot games. And everything inbetween.

But one thing never fails. I always return to Runequest.

The specific version may vary.. 2nd edition, 3rd edition, Mongoose. They all have things I enjoy.
But its always what I return to. The baseline if you will.

And I think I’ve finally put my finger on why:

Modern games (and I use the term modern loosely) have a different focus than many older games. In a way, the best way to sum it up is “style over substance”. That sounds terribly derogatory so let me elaborate.
In many newer games, the focus is on the characters and their powers, abilities and ways they can influence things, the story or even the world at large. Crack open a White Wolf book and you’ll find countless pages of disciplines, gifts or charms. Check the new D&D or its predecessor D20 and you’ll find an ever-increasing number of feats, spells, creature abilities and class powers.

The emphasis is on the character and the powers he posses. The colour if you will.

There’s many reasons for this. It obviously appeal to the wish fulfilment we all do, “wouldnt it be awesome if…”  They define and set apart characters mechanically “My guy can shoot lightning” and they give us cool stuff to be excited about.  Those are all good things.

A lot of new games talk about player empowerment, about being able to influence the story directly, sharing the narrative. They often do this by mechanics that let you change details, take over the storytelling or at its simplest form, succeed at a certain dice roll automatically.  Often these things become rewards for actions taken, or even used as a sort of gamble or metagame mechanic.

The reason that these games ultimately don’t have the deep internal logic that Runequest does to me is that they were built around these steps. Often every single piece of the game is built around the ideas of character powers and player empowerment. Look at D&D4 for example. When you strip away the classes, races and monsters, you’re left with very little information.

Look at Exalted. Its all set up to specifically support a certain style of game, in a certain setting.
Look at Spirit of the Century. The epitome of a given playstyle and mood.

What Runequest did though, and to an extent still does is build a framework that is separated from all that.
If you strip away the monsters and magic, the Runequest mechanics are still rock solid. Nothing seems weird or unusual. The game resonates with an internal logic that matches how we expect the world to work.
Most games look very very strange once you strip away the flavour and the powers.  Some will still work, though they will feel devoid of what made them special. Others will work because they are designed to promote certain narrative ideas (like FATE).

But they don’t inherently “make sense” to me. I ran White Wolf’s Trinity for a year, and I still find the dice pool mechanic completely nonsensical. I understand how it works and I understand the effects on the game, but every single time I sit there and count dice, I am reminded I am playing a game.

Games with meta-mechanics like FATE are even more jarring. Rather than increasing the narrative, for me, they create a divide between the narrative and the mechanical play by producing strange dice quirks or effects.

To me, Runequest has always represented the fundamental way things work. Your ability scores affect skills, you improve by using your abilities or taking time to train them, limbs can get hurt or incapacitated, wounds are serious etc.

Once you add in the monsters, magic and people in funny suits, it feels more “realistic”.. .maybe plausible is the right term here.

Because the foundation is solidly grounded in what we know and expect, the fantastic feels like it makes sense. There’s a sense of scale. I know that an axe can seriously hurt somebody, so something doing 3D6 damage is extremely dangerous. I can equate that to something in my head.

This doesn’t mean I haven’t enjoyed or played other games in the past. I love WFRP, Rolemaster, Traveller, Reign and a bunch of other games. I thought FATE was neat and Heroquest was genius.

But they’ll never be “natural” in the same way.

Runequest can be a pretty harsh and relentless game, if you approach it like you would a game like Dungeons&Dragons or other more high powered games. Injuries can easily dismember and kill, the rules don’t explicitly favour the player characters and magic, while commonplace, tends to be less flashy.

1: Get armour

This might sound like common sense, but it bears repeating. Good armour will do wonders to increase your characters survivability. Even if money is tight, or you are worried about encumbrance, invest in at least some armour. Even Cuirbouilli or soft leather can make the difference between an arm being disabled or dismembered. If you are going for piecemeal armour (again, usually to save cost or lower encumbrance) consider whether you want to protect the arms and legs (which will be hit more frequently in melee) or the torso and head (which will result in more dangerous wounds)

2: Study your weapon options

Runequest isn’t a game where longswords are automatically superior weapons. If your DEX and SIZ are mediocre or low, or you are playing a race with naturally low SIZ (Ducks f.x.) consider a spear. Spears can do impaling damage, and have a better strike rank, which will help even things out against larger opponents. Axes tend to do slightly more damage than swords and are far cheaper. Swords are usefull if you don’t want to use a shield, or you can afford them, due to their high hit points and decent damage.

3: Carry missile weapons

Missile weapons are harder to defend against, and can be used to soften up an enemy before engaging them in melee. In the ancient world, many melee troops would carry ranged missiles that would be hurled prior to a charge, whether the pilum of the Roman legions or various thrown axes and other implements used by various Germanic tribes. Consider having a few throwing axes, knives, javelins or similar. If that broo is 5 HP down and limping on a shattered leg, he’ll be a much easier proposition once its time to get the axe out.

4: Consider your spells

Everyone has magic. Make sure to utilize this. Some spells are used before or at the outbreak of a fight (bladesharp, various protection spells) while others have a purpose during a fight (speedart, demoralize, disruption). Against enemies with average or low POW, a well timed Demoralize or Befuddle spell can easily tip the scales by neutralizing an enemy combatant. At the same time, take enemy magic into account. If the troll suddenly casts True Maul on his warmaul, its propably time to pelt him with arrows. If you know you are fighting Yelm worshippers, be braced for when the Sunspear comes down.

5: Negotiate

If the fight isn’t going your way, or looks like it won’t, don’t be afraid to negotiate. Outside of chaos creatures, most people don’t want to die, and if they can get what they want, or at least an equitable outcome, you can likely avoid violence. Offers terms, be prepared to lose a bit of face, and make sure your in good enough standing with your clan that they will ransom you, if you are captured.

6: Run!

If all else is failing, bail. In any combat situation, there is a “critical mass” required to be able to force a victory. If your side has fallen below this critical mass, or seems like it will do so within the next few rounds, its time to cut your losses and flee. Various spells can assist in this manner, or you may have to do a drawn-out running battle to disengage.

7: Bluff, threaten, bluster

If the enemy thinks you have the strongest tribe in Prax on your side, and they will come baying for blood if you are touched, they may be less likely to interfere with your business. Clan and family feuds can start over very small things, and a fast talking character may be able to verbally transform a band of ragged stragglers to the champions of a fearsome army (in the minds of your opposition anyways)

If all else fails?

Sometimes nothing works out. The enemy is more skilled, lucky or capable, your escape route is cut off, its a blood feud with no quarter given or your fighting for your very lives.

In that case, grab your axe firmly, steel your gaze and prepare to die with your boots on. Orlanth will remember you

This came up in a recent discussion on rpg.net about the status of “mooks” in an RPG. (Basic Role Play specifically)

Most of the games I play do not have mook rules, and I rarely add them in. Likewise, I rarely use them, even if they are present in the system. The reason for that is that I don’t find they fit my vision of how gaming should work.

The idea of the “mook” (I prefer the term Goon myself) is that of a disposable combatant. Someone the PC’s can triumph over, and shove aside with relative impunity. Often their role is there to either make the PC’s look good, or to make them use up limited resources before the big boss fight.

I find that dull and uninspiring, more importantly, I find it unappealing.

A fight against only mooks is, to me, pointless. If the sole purpose is one listed above, I would rather not bother going through the motions of RPG combat simply to dispose of a few zombies. Just give me a roll against your combat skill, and we’ll narrate how awesome you look, while you trash their decayed brains in.

More importantly however, I find the notion of “unworthy opponents”.. creatures that exist in the game mechanics purely to be killed and defeated without breaking a sweat to be strongly unappealing. It’s a throwback to the mid 70′s, when encounters could be divided into “slaughter”, “boss fight” and “buy new weapons”. Each creature encountered should have a rationale for being there, and should be a full fledged being in its own right.

Doesn’t mean you have to create it as a full blown character, I often just make up stats as I go, if I end up needing to know the Fast Talk skill of a Manticore. No need to do work you don’t need to do, after all.

At its core, it comes down to a fundamental view of what the game engine is for. To me, the mechanics are there to simulate a form of reality. Warhammer FRP simulates roughly how things work in the old world, Runequest simulates roughly how things work in Glorantha and so forth.

The idea that certain creatures are not capable of having their own goals, morals, dreams and designs, but are fundamentally resigned to being eviscerated by a bunch of heroes that happened to come by, is simulationally (is that a word) unsound.

When designing an encounter, think about why you are putting this encounter into the game. What purpose does it serve ? What objectives are the opposition trying to achieve ? What do I hope the players take away from this situation ? Could this time be spent better on something more interesting ?

The news even made CNN and BBC. Gary Gygax, father of the roleplaying game, died today.

I dont it can be adequately be explained how much impact D&D and other roleplaying games has had on my life or the person that I am.

There’s only a small list of people I consider heroes in this hobby. Greg Stafford, Steve Perrin, Greg Stolze.. and Gary Gygax.

If we can see the world of our imagination, its because we stood on the shoulder of a giant.

You can grab the file from here

THis is the first playtest version of the new Traveller game. So far, it looks very promising, seeming to work out as a cleaned up and elaborated classic Traveller, but without any of the excessive complexity that made Megatraveller a bit of a chore at times