It happens. I dug to greedily, and too deep, and I ran out of ambition. But I'm going to be writing again. I won't say it won't happen again, but I hope it won't.
See you guys soon
~The game mechanic
Thursday, November 17, 2016
I've been... Getting my $hit togeather
So I dropped the ball. I dropped it hard, and dropped it often. I guess you could say I threw it, it cratered into the ground, and I yelled stay.
It happens. I dug to greedily, and too deep, and I ran out of ambition. But I'm going to be writing again. I won't say it won't happen again, but I hope it won't.
See you guys soon
It happens. I dug to greedily, and too deep, and I ran out of ambition. But I'm going to be writing again. I won't say it won't happen again, but I hope it won't.
See you guys soon
Monday, June 13, 2016
better... ensnare... most... of them? Alpha
An interesting request came across my feed earlier. Someone wanted a TTRPG for Pokemon. Now, I wouldn't ever use someone else's intellectual property for personal gain, but Pokemon had a lot of elements that made it popular back in the day. If we take those elements and made a new game, that might be entertaining.
Basically, we will be making a game where the player controls a team of monsters. Each monster should have some stats, a type, possibly a sub-type, and up to four moves. With the right dressing, this should be all we need for a complete game.
The system should have an open game license (OGL). First, this is the most ethical option. An OGL means that the system developers have given you permission to develop. It means you can potentially profit from your work, and it means that others can develop for your system I feel pretty strongly about playing systems with an OGL, but that is a tale for another time.
Given all of this I choose Microlite 20 (found here) to serve as our frame. Thanks, Donjon.
Our base system has three (Strength,Dexterity,Mind) stats. The concept has five (attack, defense, special attack, special defense, speed). I'm not looking to reproduce their work, just create a compelling game with some similar elements. I'll stick with the base games three, but rename them to attack, defense, and speed. This represents the fact that I'm not really interested in these monsters minds, just what they can do, and how fast they are. I'll say that there are 6 points to be spread between all attributes.
Each monster will have up to 4 moves. Moves deal damage, heal damage, improve stats, or decrease stats. We're going to gut the rest of the system and install a type/subtype system. The type will provide a stat bonus, subtype will not. Both type and subtype determine what moves a monster can use, and determine the monster's weaknesses. each monster will have 3 hp plus one per two defense points. Ac is determined by adding twice defense plus ten, attack bonus is twice attack, and all attacks start of dealing 1 point of damage.
What's left is to define the specifics. Generate lists of moves, monsters, weaknesses, and stat blocks. With just a few monsters, we'd be able to run a game. For this example, I'll make three monsters. I'll use the types fire, water, and plant. Plant deals double damage to water, water deals double damage to fire, and fire deals double damage to plant. I'm most familiar with pathfinder, and it has an OGL, so I'll pull monsters from there.
Stats: There are three base stats, attack, defense, and speed. you have 6 points, distribute them how you would like. Attack and defense are pretty self-explanatory, and speed determines who goes first.
Type and Subtype: Type provides a small bonus to a stat, determines a weakness (take double damage from that source) and what moves a monster can use (it can use moves matching that type). Subtype adds another weakness but allows the monster to also use moves of that type. If a monster does not have a subtype it is considered to have a basic subtype, for which there is no weakness.
Attack Bonus: Twice Attack attribute
Armor Class: Twice defense plus ten.
Attacks: unless otherwise noted all attacks deal one damage
Hit Points: Hit points is equal to three plus one for every two points of defense.
Combat: To start combat the player chooses a monster to play first. The monster with the highest speed goes first. On his turn a player may switch monsters, direct his monster to attack, use an item, or try to run away from a monster if there is no player controlling it. To run away roll an opposed speed check (1d20+twice speed) if you succeed you get away. If not your turn is over. When a monster's hp reaches zero it passes out, and the player chooses another monster to battle. When either party has no more monsters to choose from the combat ends.
Experience: One combat gives one experience for the player. Every monster who participated in combat receives one experience point, and a bonus experience point if they were the only one that participated in that combat. A player may only control a monster his level or lower and may spend ten experience to gain one level. A monster may spend five experience to gain one level and increases two different ability scores by one.
Specific Monsters
Leshi(level one)
Type: plant (weakness fire, plus one defense)
Attack:2 Defense:4 Speed:1
AC: 18
Attack: +4
HP: 5
Moves: Lash(plant): deals one damage
at level three leshi learns leech(plant), which heals 2 hp, but can only be used once every three rounds
Fire Spirit(level one)
Type: fire (weakness water, plus one attack)
Attack:4 Defense:1 Speed:2
AC: 12
Attack: +8
HP: 3
Moves:Coal(fire): deals one damage
at level three fire spirit learns burn(fire), which deals no damage, but deals one damage every round after that.
Water Elemental(level one)
Type: water (weakness plant, plus one speed)
Attack:1 Defense:2 Speed:4
AC: 14
Attack: +2
HP: 4
Moves:Undertow(water): deals one damage
at level three water elemental slow(water), which reduces the target's speed by 5 until the end of combat.
This is an alpha release. Largely I'm sharing this to illustrate how to build a system. If it intrigues you I'd like to have you play it and tell me what you think. It still needs work, and needs to be fleshed out, so I appreciate any feedback.
Keep those games rolling
The Game Mechanic
like what you read? follow me on
Twitter
Facebook
Basically, we will be making a game where the player controls a team of monsters. Each monster should have some stats, a type, possibly a sub-type, and up to four moves. With the right dressing, this should be all we need for a complete game.
Base System (The frame)
I'm going to want a fairly simple system to base mine off from. After all, we could be creating hundreds of unique monsters for the game, and it's just a fun project. I'm not going to be too concerned with realism or simulationism. I advocate for keeping things as simple as possible, but I honestly can't think of a single reason to make this crunchy.
not what I'm looking for
The system should have an open game license (OGL). First, this is the most ethical option. An OGL means that the system developers have given you permission to develop. It means you can potentially profit from your work, and it means that others can develop for your system I feel pretty strongly about playing systems with an OGL, but that is a tale for another time.
Given all of this I choose Microlite 20 (found here) to serve as our frame. Thanks, Donjon.
Building it up
Our base system has three (Strength,Dexterity,Mind) stats. The concept has five (attack, defense, special attack, special defense, speed). I'm not looking to reproduce their work, just create a compelling game with some similar elements. I'll stick with the base games three, but rename them to attack, defense, and speed. This represents the fact that I'm not really interested in these monsters minds, just what they can do, and how fast they are. I'll say that there are 6 points to be spread between all attributes.
remember, keep it simple!
Each monster will have up to 4 moves. Moves deal damage, heal damage, improve stats, or decrease stats. We're going to gut the rest of the system and install a type/subtype system. The type will provide a stat bonus, subtype will not. Both type and subtype determine what moves a monster can use, and determine the monster's weaknesses. each monster will have 3 hp plus one per two defense points. Ac is determined by adding twice defense plus ten, attack bonus is twice attack, and all attacks start of dealing 1 point of damage.
Finishing it off
What's left is to define the specifics. Generate lists of moves, monsters, weaknesses, and stat blocks. With just a few monsters, we'd be able to run a game. For this example, I'll make three monsters. I'll use the types fire, water, and plant. Plant deals double damage to water, water deals double damage to fire, and fire deals double damage to plant. I'm most familiar with pathfinder, and it has an OGL, so I'll pull monsters from there.
I decide on you, water snake dragon
TL;DR-Core Rules:
Stats: There are three base stats, attack, defense, and speed. you have 6 points, distribute them how you would like. Attack and defense are pretty self-explanatory, and speed determines who goes first.
Type and Subtype: Type provides a small bonus to a stat, determines a weakness (take double damage from that source) and what moves a monster can use (it can use moves matching that type). Subtype adds another weakness but allows the monster to also use moves of that type. If a monster does not have a subtype it is considered to have a basic subtype, for which there is no weakness.
Attack Bonus: Twice Attack attribute
Armor Class: Twice defense plus ten.
Attacks: unless otherwise noted all attacks deal one damage
Hit Points: Hit points is equal to three plus one for every two points of defense.
Combat: To start combat the player chooses a monster to play first. The monster with the highest speed goes first. On his turn a player may switch monsters, direct his monster to attack, use an item, or try to run away from a monster if there is no player controlling it. To run away roll an opposed speed check (1d20+twice speed) if you succeed you get away. If not your turn is over. When a monster's hp reaches zero it passes out, and the player chooses another monster to battle. When either party has no more monsters to choose from the combat ends.
Experience: One combat gives one experience for the player. Every monster who participated in combat receives one experience point, and a bonus experience point if they were the only one that participated in that combat. A player may only control a monster his level or lower and may spend ten experience to gain one level. A monster may spend five experience to gain one level and increases two different ability scores by one.
Specific Monsters
Leshi(level one)
Type: plant (weakness fire, plus one defense)
Attack:2 Defense:4 Speed:1
AC: 18
Attack: +4
HP: 5
Moves: Lash(plant): deals one damage
at level three leshi learns leech(plant), which heals 2 hp, but can only be used once every three rounds
Fire Spirit(level one)
Type: fire (weakness water, plus one attack)
Attack:4 Defense:1 Speed:2
AC: 12
Attack: +8
HP: 3
Moves:Coal(fire): deals one damage
at level three fire spirit learns burn(fire), which deals no damage, but deals one damage every round after that.
Water Elemental(level one)
Type: water (weakness plant, plus one speed)
Attack:1 Defense:2 Speed:4
AC: 14
Attack: +2
HP: 4
Moves:Undertow(water): deals one damage
at level three water elemental slow(water), which reduces the target's speed by 5 until the end of combat.
This is an alpha release. Largely I'm sharing this to illustrate how to build a system. If it intrigues you I'd like to have you play it and tell me what you think. It still needs work, and needs to be fleshed out, so I appreciate any feedback.
Keep those games rolling
The Game Mechanic
like what you read? follow me on
Friday, June 10, 2016
Rock fall, you die. A case study
Recently I posted a blog titled The rules don't need to make sense, and I got some interesting feedback. One articulate gentleman(Thane Allgood) posted.
What this is not. This is not me picking on Thane Allgood. For the record, he has provided articulate and well thought out feedback. I cannot say that I often agree with what he has to say, but I'd loathe alienating someone who is generating useful feedback.
So without further ado, here's the failures I identified.
A degree of believably and consistency is needed for suspension of disbelief.
This is a good point, but a nonissue for most systems. I think this falls squarely on the game master to narrate his game in a believable way that lines up with the results of the system. An individual may need a game system that emulates reality closely for their suspension of disbelief, but this is a subjective point. I specifically avoid subjective arguments because there is no logical way to approach it, and categorically I can't offer a meaningful argument against or for it.
Another thing I would like to note is that simplicity does not always denote 'fun', complexity, when injected correctly and to the right degree provide for the dynamics of story and for dynamic mechanics within a system.
Again I agree that simplicity doesn't donate fun. I specifically made a point to say that systems should be as simple as possible. What I failed to mention was that game systems must meet the needs of the players/game master. I implied it but never said it. If you need rules that are complex or even prefer them, then the system must match your needs. I do think that there is no reason for making a system more complex than it must be.
And now for physics, imparting damage
It turns out that I'm a math/science nerd. It also turns out that some of the people that helped craft d&d were too. This is evident in a bunch of places. You can specifically see it in the spell polar ray. You see a polar ray is an element of calculus, used in integration if I remember correctly. I digress...
Damage is roughly equivalent to force. All things being equal, a knife stroke deals more damage if it has more force behind it. This is a very useful thing to understand because physics has a pretty good handle on force. As you probably know force equals mass times acceleration.
I could go in more depth here, but suffice to say that the force an object can impart on another object is equal to the mass times the deceleration of the first object. The higher the velocity, the more potential for deceleration, the more potential for force transfer, or as we stated, damage. Isn't physics fun?
It also turns out that terminal velocity is about 53 meters per second. Given that acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 it takes less than 6 seconds for an object to reach terminal velocity. In less than a round the object will go as fast as it can go. It will have achieved the highest potential for damage due to acceleration and thus, the only thing that matters is the mass or size of the object. There are other factors, and yes distance falling would ultimately decide actual velocity and force transferred, but it's a close approximation. I think for most people it's close enough that they don't care, but I can't account for people like Thane Allgood who think it isn't close enough.
Physics redux, receiving damage
For the most part, damage received from a free fall is calculated for a small or medium character, because chiefly it is these characters that will be of note in the game. Objectively you could identify different damage categories for different sized creatures that would more closely mimic real life. To your credit, the size system is concerning, to say the least. Gargantuan creatures can only take a 5-foot step, falling damage, abysmal movement speed, a lot of the rules don't translate well for size. I think that introducing damage categories based on size for free fall needlessly complicates a part of the game that isn't often explored. That's my subjective opinion, so if you want to rock your rules, more power to you.
The one part that sticks out like a sore thumb, however, is taking horizontal movement into account when calculating damage. The reason it doesn't make sense is because of the force thing. Often times being moved horizontally causes no, or negligible damage to a person. They are able to break, and disperse the force into friction (heat energy). While they take more than none, realistically falling 10 feet is not equivalent to being thrown 10 feet because the deceleration of being thrown is much more gradual, meaning that the damage is smaller.
Conclusion
I like some of your concepts, but I can't say I agree with the end result. It does point out some flaws in the pathfinder/d&d system with falling, but ultimately the purposed changes fail to "enhance" my games. Thanks for the feedback.
Keep those games rolling
The game mechanic
Now with extra Twitter
Yes and no. A degree of believably and consistency is needed for suspension of disbelief.This didn't sit right with me, and I had to stew on it. It took me a little bit to deconstruct the arguments and identify where I believe they are wrong.
For instance, falling rules in PF state that you take 1D6 damage per 10' you fall downward, then you compare that to the falling object rules which instead base damage on size, well of you are going to do that, why doesn't the larger object also take that same amount of damage from the fall as opposed to the lesser 1D6 per 10'? Otherwise, why take the size into account at all?
Then there is the fact that falling damage doesn't take into account distance 'thrown', I can have a character flung 50' forward, but only cover 5' in a downward direction in that same distance, and they take no damage at all according to RAW.
None of these things lend to suspension of disbelief which is why we play role playing games to begin with, as we play them to relate to a specific role in someway or to escape completely in an immersive way, if we cant do that, then we are playing a game of glorified math.
Another thing I would like to note is that simplicity does not always denote 'fun', complexity, when injected correctly and to the right degree provide for the dynamics of story and for dynamic mechanics within a system. Oversimplified and uniform systems fail (see D&D 4th ed) because they lack dynamics, where as Simplified and dynamic combination and choice complexity (like savage worlds) leads for successful and fun games. Pathfinder suffers from overt complexity, which could be streamlined very well, and they may ultimately need to do a PF 2.0 at some point to do this, but they still maintain the degree of fun needed to keep people interested.
What this is not. This is not me picking on Thane Allgood. For the record, he has provided articulate and well thought out feedback. I cannot say that I often agree with what he has to say, but I'd loathe alienating someone who is generating useful feedback.
Discourse
So without further ado, here's the failures I identified.
A degree of believably and consistency is needed for suspension of disbelief.
This is a good point, but a nonissue for most systems. I think this falls squarely on the game master to narrate his game in a believable way that lines up with the results of the system. An individual may need a game system that emulates reality closely for their suspension of disbelief, but this is a subjective point. I specifically avoid subjective arguments because there is no logical way to approach it, and categorically I can't offer a meaningful argument against or for it.
Another thing I would like to note is that simplicity does not always denote 'fun', complexity, when injected correctly and to the right degree provide for the dynamics of story and for dynamic mechanics within a system.
Again I agree that simplicity doesn't donate fun. I specifically made a point to say that systems should be as simple as possible. What I failed to mention was that game systems must meet the needs of the players/game master. I implied it but never said it. If you need rules that are complex or even prefer them, then the system must match your needs. I do think that there is no reason for making a system more complex than it must be.
This dude is a rock star
And now for physics, imparting damage
It turns out that I'm a math/science nerd. It also turns out that some of the people that helped craft d&d were too. This is evident in a bunch of places. You can specifically see it in the spell polar ray. You see a polar ray is an element of calculus, used in integration if I remember correctly. I digress...
Damage is roughly equivalent to force. All things being equal, a knife stroke deals more damage if it has more force behind it. This is a very useful thing to understand because physics has a pretty good handle on force. As you probably know force equals mass times acceleration.
I could go in more depth here, but suffice to say that the force an object can impart on another object is equal to the mass times the deceleration of the first object. The higher the velocity, the more potential for deceleration, the more potential for force transfer, or as we stated, damage. Isn't physics fun?
It also turns out that terminal velocity is about 53 meters per second. Given that acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 it takes less than 6 seconds for an object to reach terminal velocity. In less than a round the object will go as fast as it can go. It will have achieved the highest potential for damage due to acceleration and thus, the only thing that matters is the mass or size of the object. There are other factors, and yes distance falling would ultimately decide actual velocity and force transferred, but it's a close approximation. I think for most people it's close enough that they don't care, but I can't account for people like Thane Allgood who think it isn't close enough.
This lady better have boots of the cat
Physics redux, receiving damage
For the most part, damage received from a free fall is calculated for a small or medium character, because chiefly it is these characters that will be of note in the game. Objectively you could identify different damage categories for different sized creatures that would more closely mimic real life. To your credit, the size system is concerning, to say the least. Gargantuan creatures can only take a 5-foot step, falling damage, abysmal movement speed, a lot of the rules don't translate well for size. I think that introducing damage categories based on size for free fall needlessly complicates a part of the game that isn't often explored. That's my subjective opinion, so if you want to rock your rules, more power to you.
The one part that sticks out like a sore thumb, however, is taking horizontal movement into account when calculating damage. The reason it doesn't make sense is because of the force thing. Often times being moved horizontally causes no, or negligible damage to a person. They are able to break, and disperse the force into friction (heat energy). While they take more than none, realistically falling 10 feet is not equivalent to being thrown 10 feet because the deceleration of being thrown is much more gradual, meaning that the damage is smaller.
Conclusion
I like some of your concepts, but I can't say I agree with the end result. It does point out some flaws in the pathfinder/d&d system with falling, but ultimately the purposed changes fail to "enhance" my games. Thanks for the feedback.
Keep those games rolling
The game mechanic
Now with extra Twitter
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
The tear down, alignment, how to use it, if you must.
In tear down articles I talk about some construct in game(s). I point out what's wrong with it, why, and my approximation on how to fix it.
"That's not what your character would do," the game master states. I was half way through stealing bread for starving orphans with my lawful good paladin. It isn't? I thought that my tenants as a protector of the innocent meant that I did what it takes to help them. I'm also stealing from someone who can afford it. I'd pay if I could, but I can't and these children are going to die. You don't think my character, whose brother starved to death, wouldn't do anything to help these children? "He can, but," the game master says with a wicked little grin, "he'll fall."
The player would eventually lose this discussion. Not because he's without points, but because they won't convince the game master. Recently a bunch of you got all up in arms because of a post Ed the Bard made. Now while I can't say I disagree with Ed here, I can say that there is a better way to do alignment, without tossing it all together .
Alignment is a fairly straight forward flavor concept. Generally, where does your character fall, law or chaos, good or evil? because neither is a choice we introduce neutral into each set. this gives us 9 discrete Alignments. It's a pretty simple concept. As you know I'm a fan of simple. It allows for some spells and abilities that punish the wicked and benefit the righteous (or vice versa) which I can't really fault.
This is a flavor idea. A flavor idea that has a mechanic tied to it. Which means it's destined for failure. Are you telling me neutral gods don't have paladins, that monks have to believe in the rule of law, and that barbarians can't. This seems pretty silly to me. What I think you mean to say is in your setting all these things are true. That's something I can't argue with because It represents an opinion for which there isn't an objective counter. Sure, I might think it's problematic for a host of reasons, but I can't really argue that you like it for your setting.
Another troublesome implication is that you're trying to pidgeon hole your players in these roles. Although I note that maybe a good or evil campaign can be fun, undue fettering of a players creativity sucks a little bit of fun out of the campaign for them. When players aren't having fun they are less expressive and the whole game suffers.
So you've determined that you like alignment. It provides your game with some good structures, and you enjoy the flavor. Categorically I can't argue with any of this. This first thing you have to realize is that the alignments aren't discrete. That is to say, there are points that lawful good's actions are exactly the same as neutral good, or lawful neutral. It's not that they just get along, sometimes they have the same exact prerogative as their neighbors. I think this is fairly intuitive, but basically, it's less of a chart of alignments and more of a series of Venn diagrams. Even then they exist as a sort of probability field with ninety percent or so of the alignments behavior falling in the field and the rest of it could be found anywhere else.
Another thing to consider is that acting evil doesn't make you evil. I mean if it becomes a habit then you might start considering that person evil, but we all have that friend that is a good guy but has some deep character flaws. Maybe your paladin became a vampire. Would he automatically become evil because he thirsts for blood? I don't think so. I think he could even feed and he wouldn't be evil per se. What if he feeds on someone his god demands be punished, to death. Waste not, want not, right? Which leads us to my next point.
Alignments are highly subjective. The cat might appear evil to the mouse, but the cat is just seeking a meal. Would this make him evil? Although I could entertain hours of philosophical debate on the topic, the fact is that the alignment system is meant to summarize societies general views. It's generally evil to murder someone, and generally lawful to bring the murder to justice, but there really isn't any hard or fast rules.
To this end, if you must, I suggest tying alignment to an organization and a specific set of tenets that organization has. This allows for a more black and white viewing of alignment. If your holy order says it's evil to wear a fish on your head, then they can believe that, and it isn't up for debate. I still suggest stripping alignment from character classes, but you can leave it for magic items, and possibly feats. What's cooler than a holy sword that smites evil and won't allow an evil person to wield it?
These organizations could be places that the classes generally come from. Ninty-five percent of paladins might come from the holy order of not stealing things, but exceptions should exist. You could also live in a campaign where paladins who didn't belong to the holy order of not stealing things were seen as heretics and as such persecuted on the spot because of a corrupt government. I digress, but the point is that if my paladin from above belonged to the holy order of not stealing things and he chooses to steal he could face some real consequences that the player knew was coming. He chose to steal, he knew the repercussions, and now he's a pariah. I think that's a much better story than your god won't let you, or you immediately fall.
Notice how stealing in this example doesn't change his alignment. I think there is a good argument for a lawful character stealing if another component of his character demands it. It might not affect his alignment at all, especially if he choose to turn himself in. Even if it does affect his alignment it should push him towards chaos, not necessarily change his alignment. If has been acting chaotically for a while, then maybe it's time to talk with the player and bring it up. It might be time to shift that characters alignment.
As always
keep those games rolling
the Game Mechanic
"That's not what your character would do," the game master states. I was half way through stealing bread for starving orphans with my lawful good paladin. It isn't? I thought that my tenants as a protector of the innocent meant that I did what it takes to help them. I'm also stealing from someone who can afford it. I'd pay if I could, but I can't and these children are going to die. You don't think my character, whose brother starved to death, wouldn't do anything to help these children? "He can, but," the game master says with a wicked little grin, "he'll fall."
It fits, right?
The player would eventually lose this discussion. Not because he's without points, but because they won't convince the game master. Recently a bunch of you got all up in arms because of a post Ed the Bard made. Now while I can't say I disagree with Ed here, I can say that there is a better way to do alignment, without tossing it all together .
The Good
Alignment is a fairly straight forward flavor concept. Generally, where does your character fall, law or chaos, good or evil? because neither is a choice we introduce neutral into each set. this gives us 9 discrete Alignments. It's a pretty simple concept. As you know I'm a fan of simple. It allows for some spells and abilities that punish the wicked and benefit the righteous (or vice versa) which I can't really fault.
The Bad
This is a flavor idea. A flavor idea that has a mechanic tied to it. Which means it's destined for failure. Are you telling me neutral gods don't have paladins, that monks have to believe in the rule of law, and that barbarians can't. This seems pretty silly to me. What I think you mean to say is in your setting all these things are true. That's something I can't argue with because It represents an opinion for which there isn't an objective counter. Sure, I might think it's problematic for a host of reasons, but I can't really argue that you like it for your setting.
The Ugly
you better fit in one of these boxes...
Another troublesome implication is that you're trying to pidgeon hole your players in these roles. Although I note that maybe a good or evil campaign can be fun, undue fettering of a players creativity sucks a little bit of fun out of the campaign for them. When players aren't having fun they are less expressive and the whole game suffers.
The Fix
So you've determined that you like alignment. It provides your game with some good structures, and you enjoy the flavor. Categorically I can't argue with any of this. This first thing you have to realize is that the alignments aren't discrete. That is to say, there are points that lawful good's actions are exactly the same as neutral good, or lawful neutral. It's not that they just get along, sometimes they have the same exact prerogative as their neighbors. I think this is fairly intuitive, but basically, it's less of a chart of alignments and more of a series of Venn diagrams. Even then they exist as a sort of probability field with ninety percent or so of the alignments behavior falling in the field and the rest of it could be found anywhere else.
standard alignment distribution
Another thing to consider is that acting evil doesn't make you evil. I mean if it becomes a habit then you might start considering that person evil, but we all have that friend that is a good guy but has some deep character flaws. Maybe your paladin became a vampire. Would he automatically become evil because he thirsts for blood? I don't think so. I think he could even feed and he wouldn't be evil per se. What if he feeds on someone his god demands be punished, to death. Waste not, want not, right? Which leads us to my next point.
evil is as evil does
Alignments are highly subjective. The cat might appear evil to the mouse, but the cat is just seeking a meal. Would this make him evil? Although I could entertain hours of philosophical debate on the topic, the fact is that the alignment system is meant to summarize societies general views. It's generally evil to murder someone, and generally lawful to bring the murder to justice, but there really isn't any hard or fast rules.
To this end, if you must, I suggest tying alignment to an organization and a specific set of tenets that organization has. This allows for a more black and white viewing of alignment. If your holy order says it's evil to wear a fish on your head, then they can believe that, and it isn't up for debate. I still suggest stripping alignment from character classes, but you can leave it for magic items, and possibly feats. What's cooler than a holy sword that smites evil and won't allow an evil person to wield it?
These organizations could be places that the classes generally come from. Ninty-five percent of paladins might come from the holy order of not stealing things, but exceptions should exist. You could also live in a campaign where paladins who didn't belong to the holy order of not stealing things were seen as heretics and as such persecuted on the spot because of a corrupt government. I digress, but the point is that if my paladin from above belonged to the holy order of not stealing things and he chooses to steal he could face some real consequences that the player knew was coming. He chose to steal, he knew the repercussions, and now he's a pariah. I think that's a much better story than your god won't let you, or you immediately fall.
you knew this was going to happen
Notice how stealing in this example doesn't change his alignment. I think there is a good argument for a lawful character stealing if another component of his character demands it. It might not affect his alignment at all, especially if he choose to turn himself in. Even if it does affect his alignment it should push him towards chaos, not necessarily change his alignment. If has been acting chaotically for a while, then maybe it's time to talk with the player and bring it up. It might be time to shift that characters alignment.
As always
keep those games rolling
the Game Mechanic
Monday, June 6, 2016
Rules don't need to make sense
You're playing your weekly session when Larry starts complaining again. "I just don't think the crafting rules make any sense, that's not how it works." You see, Larry recently took up blacksmithing, so he has real world experience with crafting weapons and armor. Larry knows the rules don't mimic the process he's being taught, and he wants to change the rules to mirror reality. As Larry drones on and on about hammers, anvils, and forges you realize something. The heck of it is he's right, but it doesn't matter. At all.
With all the talk I have been doing lately about the rules, I think it's important to outline some of the structures that make good rules. It'd be helpful to point out, in my approximation, past failures of game systems, and how to fix them. Without further ado;
1) Rules should be Intuitive.
This is why THAC0 was such a failure in overall design. I mean feel free to like their system, or even love THAC0 yourself, but if you do love these things I'm going to hand you a battered gamers pamphlet, with all the local shelters listed, in case a "friend" needs it.
For those of you not familiar, THAC0 stood for ToHitArmorClass0 and was the primary mechanic by which 2nd edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. The lower your THAC0 the better you were at combat. Which is counter intuitive. Bigger is better, right? Not for THAC0. So, as a new player, you're probably going to mess this up a lot.
Intuitive rules are easier to memorize. Your brain recognizes the information as making sense. Maybe you have lots of space in your brain to throw away because you never bother to memorize anything else, or have a massive amount of storage, but the rest of us would rather use that space for other things. Which leads me to my next point.
2) Rules should be simple
Simple rules are easy to remember. If you remember the rules you're less likely to make a mistake, and less likely to stop to have to look up rules. You're also less likely, as the GM, to make a ruling that contradicts the rules, disrupting the game. Any time spent fiddling with the rules, while you should be playing, is a waste of valuable game time.
There is a balance between simplicity and player agency. More complex rules can give a player an idea of how to play. Explicit rules help shape gameplay in the same way that ingrained flavor can give a player a place to start with his character concept. A good example of this is when we compare Cortex plus heroic and Pathfinder. Pathfinder has explicit rules for almost anything. You want to build a settlement, they got that. Want rules on friendships and bonds, got that too. With all the material Paizo puts out each month gives players lots of ideas on what to do. Some GM's may rule against certain supplements, but they exist as a reference point for many games.
Cortex Plus Heroic, on the other hand, has only a few rules. Most of the players handbook has to do with how to make your character. You describe your actions, then pick the stats that match and roll it all up, pick out your best dice, and away you go. While I've never had to stop to look up rules to Cortex Plus Heroic the system really isn't set up for anything except combat(social, mental, or physical). There aren't rules for a lot of things, and I've seen new players flounder because they're not sure what to do. The most common question is "what do I do?" and the answer is "whatever makes sense." Which makes us sound like sarcastic ass hats.
The problem here is that the player is often informed by the game system of the actions they may take. These actions often fall into fairly discrete categories. I swing my sword, shoot my bow, or chop with my ax. In this version of cortex heroic, this just isn't so. I leap into the air and fire my eye beams could include a plethora of mechanics that then could do various types of damage. I could use the eye beams to scare my opponent, or I could hit them to damage them. Does my super leaping help in this endeavor? It very well could if you're trying to scare your opponent, but really doesn't help in damaging him. It turns out that a simplicity of rules often translates into a complexity of action.
The rules should, then, be reasonably simple. While I don't advocate going full larp, I would say needlessly complex rules are... needless? How complex or simple will vary from group to group, and is something for you and yours to settle on.
3) Reality is Complex
Reality is far too complex. I mean some things are simple, like the velocity of a free falling object (about 32 feet/second^2). Other than that things get pretty hairy pretty quick. Like those silly butterfly's causing hurricanes(chaos theory). Look at any combat system. If you have any experience in any martial art you know they aren't accurate. They were never meant to be, and don't need to be accurate. It's often best if they abandon that idea altogether.
For example, often enough there is a news story of someone getting stabbed upwards of 100 times. Do you know any good systems that support low-level characters being stabbed hundreds of times? I don't. In fact in Dungeons and Dragons attacks do a minimum of 1 point of nonlethal damage. Once you accrue an amount of nonlethal damage equal to your hit points you start taking lethal damage. This essentially means that that nonlethal damage is about half a point of damage. Even with this adjustment I can't think where a low-level character can absorb that much damage and survive.
It's much easier to assign some hit point value, an ac, and a to hit bonus. We encapsulate and simulate most of the complex combat variables in this system. Sure it doesn't match up one to one, but we don't need it to. It's a game, not a reality simulation.
Conclusion
If we accept that rules need to be simple as possible and intuitive we realize that we can't have them mimic reality accurately. Reality is comfortable, it's what we're used to, so rules should remind us of reality. I can't tell you what system to play, or where the balance should lie. what I can tell you is you shouldn't add needless complexity to your game. This might occur through homebrew rules, third party supplements, or even core sources if they fail to enhance your game.
As always
Keep those games rolling
The game mechanic
roll to heat to exactly 858 degrees...
With all the talk I have been doing lately about the rules, I think it's important to outline some of the structures that make good rules. It'd be helpful to point out, in my approximation, past failures of game systems, and how to fix them. Without further ado;
1) Rules should be Intuitive.
This is why THAC0 was such a failure in overall design. I mean feel free to like their system, or even love THAC0 yourself, but if you do love these things I'm going to hand you a battered gamers pamphlet, with all the local shelters listed, in case a "friend" needs it.
For those of you not familiar, THAC0 stood for ToHitArmorClass0 and was the primary mechanic by which 2nd edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. The lower your THAC0 the better you were at combat. Which is counter intuitive. Bigger is better, right? Not for THAC0. So, as a new player, you're probably going to mess this up a lot.
I'm sure your bonus to hit is "adequate"
Intuitive rules are easier to memorize. Your brain recognizes the information as making sense. Maybe you have lots of space in your brain to throw away because you never bother to memorize anything else, or have a massive amount of storage, but the rest of us would rather use that space for other things. Which leads me to my next point.
2) Rules should be simple
Simple rules are easy to remember. If you remember the rules you're less likely to make a mistake, and less likely to stop to have to look up rules. You're also less likely, as the GM, to make a ruling that contradicts the rules, disrupting the game. Any time spent fiddling with the rules, while you should be playing, is a waste of valuable game time.
There is a balance between simplicity and player agency. More complex rules can give a player an idea of how to play. Explicit rules help shape gameplay in the same way that ingrained flavor can give a player a place to start with his character concept. A good example of this is when we compare Cortex plus heroic and Pathfinder. Pathfinder has explicit rules for almost anything. You want to build a settlement, they got that. Want rules on friendships and bonds, got that too. With all the material Paizo puts out each month gives players lots of ideas on what to do. Some GM's may rule against certain supplements, but they exist as a reference point for many games.
Cortex Plus Heroic, on the other hand, has only a few rules. Most of the players handbook has to do with how to make your character. You describe your actions, then pick the stats that match and roll it all up, pick out your best dice, and away you go. While I've never had to stop to look up rules to Cortex Plus Heroic the system really isn't set up for anything except combat(social, mental, or physical). There aren't rules for a lot of things, and I've seen new players flounder because they're not sure what to do. The most common question is "what do I do?" and the answer is "whatever makes sense." Which makes us sound like sarcastic ass hats.
dammit, no more dad jokes
The problem here is that the player is often informed by the game system of the actions they may take. These actions often fall into fairly discrete categories. I swing my sword, shoot my bow, or chop with my ax. In this version of cortex heroic, this just isn't so. I leap into the air and fire my eye beams could include a plethora of mechanics that then could do various types of damage. I could use the eye beams to scare my opponent, or I could hit them to damage them. Does my super leaping help in this endeavor? It very well could if you're trying to scare your opponent, but really doesn't help in damaging him. It turns out that a simplicity of rules often translates into a complexity of action.
The rules should, then, be reasonably simple. While I don't advocate going full larp, I would say needlessly complex rules are... needless? How complex or simple will vary from group to group, and is something for you and yours to settle on.
3) Reality is Complex
Reality is far too complex. I mean some things are simple, like the velocity of a free falling object (about 32 feet/second^2). Other than that things get pretty hairy pretty quick. Like those silly butterfly's causing hurricanes(chaos theory). Look at any combat system. If you have any experience in any martial art you know they aren't accurate. They were never meant to be, and don't need to be accurate. It's often best if they abandon that idea altogether.
this is simple, right?
For example, often enough there is a news story of someone getting stabbed upwards of 100 times. Do you know any good systems that support low-level characters being stabbed hundreds of times? I don't. In fact in Dungeons and Dragons attacks do a minimum of 1 point of nonlethal damage. Once you accrue an amount of nonlethal damage equal to your hit points you start taking lethal damage. This essentially means that that nonlethal damage is about half a point of damage. Even with this adjustment I can't think where a low-level character can absorb that much damage and survive.
It's much easier to assign some hit point value, an ac, and a to hit bonus. We encapsulate and simulate most of the complex combat variables in this system. Sure it doesn't match up one to one, but we don't need it to. It's a game, not a reality simulation.
Conclusion
I want you to make better games
If we accept that rules need to be simple as possible and intuitive we realize that we can't have them mimic reality accurately. Reality is comfortable, it's what we're used to, so rules should remind us of reality. I can't tell you what system to play, or where the balance should lie. what I can tell you is you shouldn't add needless complexity to your game. This might occur through homebrew rules, third party supplements, or even core sources if they fail to enhance your game.
As always
Keep those games rolling
The game mechanic
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Dastardly Encounters: Ratling, Swarms, and more.
What is a dastardly encounter?
A dastardly encounter is a riddle that presents like normal combat. At first, the players will think we are trying to smite their ruin upon the tactical map. We're actually trying to breed smarter players, but they won't know that until they've hit their third is dastardly encounter. This is where the player goes from "dammit" to "what am I missing, there is always a way."
Becoming the dastardly developer
It's a two-step process. First, build a nearly impossible encounter. It's important not to use homebrew or custom rules that are specific to this encounter. What I'm saying is don't make up an impossible monster for this encounter and throw it at your party. It's important that the players and their characters clearly understand how everything fits together. Otherwise, they won't be able to solve the riddle.
Not evil per se
The second part, to make sure the party has the means to defeat the encounter, is more important than the actual design. I could devote a whole article to this topic, but suffice to say, killing players is easy. From the utterance "Rocks fall, you die" to throwing an Ancient red dragon at them, killing a party is literally the easiest thing in the world. You are the game master and hold nearly all the cards. If you want to be entertaining and your players to have fun you won't murder them just because you can.
Building a dastardly encounter
To design a challenging encounter we must first remove our game mastering hat and put on our power gaming hat. The first step in crafting any challenging encounter is, well, making that encounter metal as all hell.
This encounter is built in Pathfinder, but really, all of the advice is applicable to other game systems, more or less. Sure the specifics change, but the process is almost universal. So with our power gaming hat on we look for abilities in the game which aren't normal. They don't scale normally, or they use different rules.
There's a reason it was a plague
We want a mechanic that breaks the rules. A rule that breaks rules, rules inception if you will. We want to build this around a nasty creature and a swarm comes to mind. What a swarm is, is a seething pile of discontent and hate. These bad boys deal damage automatically at the end of the round, can stop a player from acting, and can be immune to weapon damage. A frigging nightmare for any fresh group. A couple swarms won't do, we should need a Cosco membership to buy this many swarms. These are seasoned adventurers we're designing this encounter for after all. So what we do is have some other NPC cast summon swarm. Now we have all the swarms we want.
If I want to cast a bunch of spells, then sorcerer is the right choice. We can even layer in grade A invisibility so that they're hard to find. As for the race, it'd be swell if they were good at avoiding ranged spells. We don't want the players just side stepping this barrier, do we? It'd also be great if they had alternate forms of movement so they could be in hard to reach spaces.
Not your typical bad guy
The rockstar race for this encounter? Ratlings. Ratlings have dark vision, evasion, climb, burrow, and swim speeds. aww yeah. Don't skimp on stealth, even when visible they are hard to find.
Dungeon and Dragons Tactics
The players have to get from here to there, and they have to pass through these Ratlings home sweet home. A cave system attached to a sewer would be an epic Ratling abode. the Ratlings, for their part, want all the sweet sweet loot carried on the adventurers, and will do anything they can to cut off the group's escape. A scroll of wall of stone or even just natural terrain might just pee in the players cornflakes.
The face they'll be making
They first cast invisibility, then cast summon swarm. If you want to turn it up a notch then just have them cast a new spell every round. The swarms will still stay around for another two, stack swarms. The ratlings could be hiding behind stalactites for a bigger challenge, or hiding behind stalagmites on the floor for an easier one. This places several barriers to harming the main components of this encounter. none of them are impossible to beat, but players have to think, not just use massive damage per round to destroy everything in sight.
Thankfully Ratlings are scardy-cats, so we have a reason to have the rest run away when they start being defeated. Even so, we may want to sprinkle these guys into the encounter. This might be too much for our players. If you remove creatures from an encounter without a good reason players will know and it'll ruin their suspension of disbelief. Even worse, you rob them of a sense of accomplishment. It's hard to celebrate when you know the GM saved your butt from the fire.
Why this could be murder in the first degree
Attempted murder
I'm building an encounter that will kill the party right now. I can stack them the swarms one on top of the other and deal 16d6 per round. If I'm burning through spells(by casting every round instead of concentrating) then I can deal 32d6 per round. No save. That's before I look any of the summoning feats, or extend spell. Extend spell could raise the amount of damage to 64d6 per round. The swarm entry specifically says they can occupy the same square as any creature, and even if we house rule that this doesn't make sense at this extreme, size rules say 100 diminutive creates (spider swarms) can occupy the same space. It's basically a middle finger to the group.
Remember, first we're sour, then we're sweet. Like sour patch kids.
Can the players beat this bum wrap?
The issue here is that the players won't be able to beat the ratlings if the party doesn't have access to spells like dispel magic, glitter dust, and see invisibility. So you have to go over to their character sheets. Do they have access to these spells on the day they are traveling through the cave? If not do they have magic items that will help them? If they can prepare these spells, but don't have them prepared, there should be some story warning. maybe they have to deal with a small pack of these guys, or maybe they've heard rumors of the invisible casters. Better yet have them run into some other unrelated invisible donkey clowns.
If the ratlings drop all these swarms on the caster, he may never get to act or get off his spells. so don't do that. The goal here is to make the characters work smarter and allocate their resources. we have to make it feel real, so there should be a couple swarms over the caster(s) but it isn't necessary to drop them all on top of them.
This is the end goal
you have all the tools you need to run a good dastardly encounter. I suggest you sprinkle these bad boys in for best effect. After a couple, players tend to go from "this is impossible" to "what are we missing?" which is exactly what I'm going for.
As always keep those games rolling
The Game Mechanic
Friday, May 27, 2016
When it hits the fan: Unplanned encounters
When your plan backfires and spirals out of control there's always a way to salvage it. As part of an ongoing series I'm going to be addressing campaign issues and how I'd fix them.
Didn't expect that...
It's been a rough couple of weeks at the gaming table. Mostly because the table has been empty. Lisa broke her leg, John had to work overtime, and Mark couldn't make it because of something he called the “death plague.” When you last left your intrepid adventurers they had just met and were about to fight the avatar of greed who guards the ancient lost city of Deler'aq.
You look up at your eager players and begin combing through your notes. You're mentally preparing for the session, and with a mild heart attack, you find the avatar of greed's character sheet is missing. You remember all the cool things. How he can vomit small semi-precious gems, and the bonus he gets for attacking anyone who has an item made of gold. For the life of you, however, you can't remember any of the hard statistics.
That's ok. You can make a monster on the fly.
No matter how it comes about, sooner or later you're going to find yourself less prepared than you like. How it happens doesn't matter. It could be like the scenario above, or maybe a player attacked a creature that was meant to be just a dressing or any number or scenarios. You could call off the session, but you really like game mastering. Your friends like playing. To call off tonight's session would be a waste.
Once you get the hang of it, it's pretty easy to make a monster on the fly. The only thing you'll need is a piece of paper, something to write with, and a chart that's probably nestled away in a source book.
But wait, you said...
This sounds a lot like you're ignoring the rules.
I guess you could call it that. But I'll ask you, why do we have rules? Again, rules serve as a social contract between players and game masters so that the players understand how the world works. We're not upsetting that concept. The players still can interact with this creature in a meaningful way, and as far as they are concerned he's fully statted out. We are following the spirit of the rules. Maybe if we had the time it'd be better to fully stat him out, but that isn't an option right now. So we do the next best thing. If everyone is entertained, isn't that a win for us?
The concept
You should have an engaging concept for the monster you're creating. This should be easy, after all, we love telling tales. How big is it? How does it move? What's it look like? What special abilities does it have? In this example , we're creating the avatar of greed. When I think about greed, I think gold, corpulence, and bejeweled equipment. He's an avatar, so he should probably tower over the players. They are mere mortals, and he represents an ideal. So maybe the avatar of greed is a twelve-foot tall corpulent behemoth who wields a golden greatsword and wears bejeweled armor.
Should he have a flaming sword, I think he needs a flaming sword.
Special abilities and attacks
what makes him special? What things can he do that separate him from other opponents? In this case, I decide he can vomit semi-precious stones that dissipate after a few rounds. While they are on the ground anyone who walks on top of them or is caught in the area or effect, must make a saving throw or fall down. When he attacks anyone with a decent amount of money or gold items he gets a bonus to hit and damage. He uses a giant gold greatsword and can swing it wildly to hit everyone in melee range.
So we have the concept and special abilities. That only took moments, and we're halfway there. The next step sounds daunting, but it is relatively easy. You have to come up with a stat block for him. The information you need is probably readily available in a chart. It will be found in the section about creating new monsters, and it contains the average important statistics by level. In each system, this will be found in different place, and I highly recommend that you print it off and affix it to your GM screen, have it in your notes, or just generally have it readily available. It's found in the DMG for D&D 5th edition (pg. 274) and the appendices of the bestiaries for pathfinder. I'm not sure where it is for other systems, and it may not even exist, but if it doesn't I suggest you make one up and keep it somewhere handy.
Deciding statistics, determining primary and secondary stats
For the purposes of this article, we're going to divide statistics into two classes, primary (scores players directly interact with) and secondary (scores players indirectly interact with). For the most part you only really need to decide primary scores, and some examples of primary statistics are AC and ability save DC. These are numbers the players can figure out in short order.
You need to set the primaries, and you shouldn't change them once set. The exception to this is if you give a good story clue. For example, maybe halfway through the fight, you realize your monster is too hard to hit. Maybe his armor has been damaged so badly that it falls off exposing him to the parties attacks. Maybe he needs more armor, and loose gold and gems fly towards and sticking to him making his AC go up.
I'm going to walk through the above example as if I was playing Pathfinder, but the general process is applicable to any role playing system. First, we figure out the CR. This really isn't a stat at all, but it informs the rest of the abilities and saves, so you have to decide this first. I know my party is APL 5, and I want the encounter to be challenging so I add two to that number, giving me a CR of 7. Using the chart I set the AC at 20. I figure the gem vomit ability should be a 15-foot cone, and that it should have a reflex save of 19, and should last only a round and be available for use every 1d4+1 rounds.
Primary
You need to set the primaries, and you shouldn't change them once set. The exception to this is if you give a good story clue. For example, maybe halfway through the fight, you realize your monster is too hard to hit. Maybe his armor has been damaged so badly that it falls off exposing him to the parties attacks. Maybe he needs more armor, and loose gold and gems fly towards and sticking to him making his AC go up.
I'm going to walk through the above example as if I was playing Pathfinder, but the general process is applicable to any role playing system. First, we figure out the CR. This really isn't a stat at all, but it informs the rest of the abilities and saves, so you have to decide this first. I know my party is APL 5, and I want the encounter to be challenging so I add two to that number, giving me a CR of 7. Using the chart I set the AC at 20. I figure the gem vomit ability should be a 15-foot cone, and that it should have a reflex save of 19, and should last only a round and be available for use every 1d4+1 rounds.
Secondary
Delicious hp
The secondary stats are more mutable. Things like his saves or hit points. You can change these on the fly and no one should notice. For best effect, sometimes, it better to never set them at all. Hp is a great example of this. You can, instead, watch your players and wait for a good reason for him to die. Maybe the barbarian just landed a massive critical, or maybe it's when the players start to lose their engagement for this encounter. Whatever the reason, the mob dies or tries to escape when he needs to best entertain the group and tell the story.
I decide that I really don't need to flesh out most of the rest of this. I'm going to play the HP by ear, but the bonus for someone having a significant amount of gold for them should be +4, and his attack bonus is +13/+8 dealing 2d8+8 damage. His saves should be fort:10 ref:6 will: 6. Now we can effectively play this creature.
You may wonder where I got some of my numbers, and in this case, it's all informed by the chart and my opinions. If you made up the same exact monster for the same exact group it might very widely.
I decide that I really don't need to flesh out most of the rest of this. I'm going to play the HP by ear, but the bonus for someone having a significant amount of gold for them should be +4, and his attack bonus is +13/+8 dealing 2d8+8 damage. His saves should be fort:10 ref:6 will: 6. Now we can effectively play this creature.
You may wonder where I got some of my numbers, and in this case, it's all informed by the chart and my opinions. If you made up the same exact monster for the same exact group it might very widely.
What if a player attacks an unknown?
A great example of this is what if a player attacks his strength? We didn't set his strength, so this might be concerning at first. Really, there're only two things we care about when his strength is attacked. Is his strength reduced to zero, and how much strength damage has he taken. So we'll decide he has a strength of 26. For every two points of strength damage he takes his attack and damage will go down by 1, and when his strength hits zero he'll die. The important thing to remember is that we only fleshed out this stat because a player attacked it. Had it never been attacked, we would have never defined it.
New abilities and clues
For the sake of fair play, if you create a new situational ability, like say a bonus to hit and damage, there should be some accompanying clue. In this case, we used the gold becoming hot when he hits you. It's not direct, but it's a small clue to make the players realize, maybe I should ditch this gold so he won't murder me so fast.
It's important
Remember to write it down!
It's important throughout this to keep good notes. How much hp did he end up having, what stats did he end up with, what worked and what didn't. You want to be able to reproduce this villain if need be. Maybe you'll never use him again for this campaign or this group, but it never hurts to have extra engaging villains around to use.
For some of you, this won't be useful at all. For some this concept isn't supported by your game system, or it isn't needed. Some magnificent bastards don't ever spend time preparing and can run an engaging story by the seat of their pants. But for the rest of us, this can help fill gaps when the unexpected happens. I hope this helps, and as always:
keep those games rolling
The game mechanic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)