Action Points in d20 Modern

Part One: Dice ≠ Challenge. Part Two: Decisions = Challenge. Part Three: definition of issues 1-5.

Action Points in d20 Modern give a larger individual bonus and so avoid many of the problems Cyberpunk luck has. However, the default "points gained by level" option does hit issue 5. Since they give a bonus die, Action Points can sometimes have issue # 2, as well, but the multi-die scaling with character level makes this less problematic at levels 7+.

Perhaps ironically, you could increase the challenge to the player by increasing the rate at which Action Points replenished. A budget of Action Points per session would tempt the player, and empower them to have greater control over which rolls fail and which succeed. I'd suggest Action Points equal to 1/2 your character level (rounded up) each session, but with unspent points being wasted.

Full disclosure: I've only GM'd modern briefly, and it was several years ago. As such, I make no promises that the house-rule above works well with all possible Action-Point powered class abilities.

Luck Points in Cyberpunk 2020

Part One: Dice ≠ Challenge. Part Two: Decisions = Challenge. Part Three: definition of issues 1-5.

Luck Points in Cyberpunk fall afoul of issues 1 and (surprisingly) 2. +1 to the roll per Luck point isn't terribly potent, but it is mitigated by the ability to spend multiple points on a roll. However, that advantage is trumped by the fact you expend this limited resource only before rolling. You can be left feeling the point was wasted because of either a particularly good or bad die roll.

The "solution" to this, should the GM wish to increase the challenge to the players, is actually to make Luck Points better by allowing post-roll expenditures. Allowing the players to spend Luck after rolling makes each Luck Point matter. Should I blow three points to succeed now, or save them to potentially make 2 or 3 rolls succeed later in the session?

observations re: Mechanical Decisions

Part One: Dice ≠ Challenge. Part Two: Decisions = Challenge.
Those two posts discuss the need for challenges in RPG scenarios, and what does or doesn't constitute a challenge. This post addresses some observations regarding one sub-set of challenge: the Mechanical Decision.

Here's five inter-related observations/criticisms, in regards to mechanical and resource decisions:

1. Resources that grant only a small bonus rarely generate much fun. +5% or so is weak enough it doesn't feel like your choice really impacted things much. As discussed previously, the bigger the decision, the more fun it tends to generate.
   
2. Resources with randomized effects (especially those with the possibility of granting no advantage) do not add to challenge and rarely add to fun. Spending the resource and getting nothing makes you want to shy away from similar decisions in the future.
3. Resources with multiple affects or options, provided they aren't balanced against each other, face a similar issue. Over time you'll find a "correct" use for them, and rarely divert from it.
4. Resources that replenish too easily offer little challenge. The correct decision is almost always to spend them, as you'll get them back very soon.
5. Resources that replenish too slowly offer heightened challenge, yet do so at the cost of fun. If you're regretting the expenditure for multiple sessions, you'll probably be gun-shy next time.
   

In the next couple posts we'll look at some mechanics from RPGs I've GMed.

Decisions = Challenge

This is part two of a thought. First read Dice ≠ Challenge for the groundwork of why challenging the players is important in RPGs, and why simply making them roll dice doesn't cut the mustard.

What challenges a player is forcing them to make hard decisions. There's multiple ways this can occur and two main categories such decisions fall into.

The first category is flavorful decisions. Do I work towards the group's goals, or strive at cross-purposes? Should I fight to the bitter end, or flee? Do I ask the hard questions, or let him off easy? Frontal assault, or sneak in under cover of night? The Lady, or the Tiger?
These are fun story-driven decisions, and the bigger the impact of the decision, the more fun it tends to generate. Deciding what your character had for lunch is only fun under specific narrow circumstances. Deciding how your character will confront the villain is almost always fun and exciting.

The second category is mechanical decisions. Here I'm mostly talking about Force Points, Luck Points, Drama Dice, Legendary Deeds, etc. These are resources a player can expend to influence die-rolls, or make events occur. Things like spells and powers (that can be used a number of times per day or per session) also fall into this category, though they are sort of a hybrid between the two. As with flavorful decisions, these mechanical ones generate more fun the bigger the impact the decision has on the game.

While almost all roleplaying scenarios allow for flavorful decisions, not all RPG systems incorporate mechanical decisions.

I prefer lighter rules-systems myself, but experience has shown me that most players get great enjoyment from mechanical decisions. The game that first opened my eyes to this was 7th Sea.

Dice ≠ Challenge

A thought regarding RPG theory: Without a challenge, you're not playing a game. Instead you're probably just socializing. Not that there's anything wrong with socializing - I've even been known to cancel entire game sessions so we could all just chew the fat instead.

While people play games for a variety of reasons, one common reason is for the intellectual challenge. Another common reason to play is the sense of accomplishment that comes with triumphing over a challenge (whether intellectual or otherwise).

That said, dice do not equal a challenge. I've always more-or-less believed this, but running the MOC sequel the other night really drove it home. As entertaining as the game session was, the dice had nothing to do with that. Simply setting a high difficulty number does not challenge a player (or even the PC they play). You end up rolling, and luck (or fate) determines your success or failure. There is no challenge to the player unless there's something they could have done to alter that die roll. It's not a challenge - it's barely even an event.

It doesn't matter how high you set the target, if the player can't chose to do something to increase the odds of them succeeding, that roll does not provide a challenge. Some folks get a kick from rolling, but rolls without challenge eventually grow tiring. Rolling and getting the only result that would let you accomplish your goal gives the illusion of a challenge, and thus the fleeting illusion of a victory - but the other 9 or 19 or 99 results where you were robbed of victory (and could do nothing about it) just feel hollow.

Applying big consequences to a die roll may feel like a challenge, but that's an illusion. If the player is powerless to mitigate those consequences, it's not a challenge, it's just a random and arbitrary "act of god". Dice alone are not enough. It's easy to lose sight of that when designing adventures.

Scion House Rules

There's a forum thread asking GMs to share house-rules they've implemented in their campaign. Here's a list of my houserules...

1. When someone channels a virtue, I give them one auto-success and they roll the extra dice. That way it's always at least as good as just spending a willpower.
2. I allow Channels and Legendary Deeds per session, not per story. This allows for some really exciting back-and-forth on contested rolls, as well as empowering the PCs to succeed whenever they set their hearts on it. It also means having one less thing to track between sessions.
3. At character creation, when PCs bought an Ability that required choosing a specialty, I squared the dots and told them to split them between any number specialties. Example: someone took Science 3. I told her "You get 9 dots to split between different fields of science, but no single field can be rated higher than a 3".
4. I allow Abilities and Birthrights to follow the same caps as Attributes: Greater of 5 or Legend rating. The PCs all have a 6-dot relic or creature currently. I let them upgrade old birthrights at Demigod. As a result of all this, all birthrights (even followers) have remained relevant through Legend 6.
5. I have extensive house-rules for Improvised Weapons and Squishing/Pinning. That keeps Relics competitive vs skyscrapers at God-level Strength.
6. Turf war system. Needs some revising.
   
7. We roll damage vs extras, but use the reduced health levels. They go down fast.
8. I award Legend by story events, not by XP.
9. I make the target to hit someone be DV, (not 1+DV). This was actually a mistake, but it went unnoticed for 10 sessions, and resulted in shorter fight scenes, so we kept it.
10. I make Divine Wrath cost 5 Legend instead of 1. In general, I keep Agg damage rare.
11. I don't allow regeneration or health 7 to heal Agg unless your Legend equals or exceeds the Legend of the source of the damage. I don't let it restore lost limbs/parts unless your Legend exceeds the source. That way, Tyr's hand and Osiris's phallus are gone for good.
12. To speed up combat, I have followers act in squads, assisting one-another for bonus dice on a single roll.
13. I've revised the combat wheel a couple times, because I don't like the way everyone piles up on tick 6 if one player has massive Epic Wits. Still not completely happy with the latest version.
14. I've eliminated the "spend a willpower to shrug off any mental/social power" rule, but had to tone one or two powers back a bit to make it work. This was the one change that heard any grousing from my players, as I was hammering it out amongst the chupacabra.
15. I've created several new knacks, and allow most of the knacks on the wiki.
16. Houseruled Untouchable Opponent to boost by Dots, not Successes. In retrospect, I wish I'd gone by Legend Rating instead of Dots, as that'd reduce some of the "need" for high Epic Dex.
17. Houseruled Holy Rampage and Divine Rampage to reduce Soak as well as Hardness. As written, reducing hardness rarely did anything.
    
18. I've tweaked a few boons and knacks to make more sense - some seemed written from the assumption that Epics wouldn't add to rolls, others from assumption they would. I brought them all (at least the ones being used currently by my group) into rough balance by level.
19. I've clarified that Knacks are all 5-tick misc actions unless specified (book just says Boons, it seemed logical it should apply to knacks more)
20. Overland and marathon rates rules governing long-distance travel.
    
21. Instead of "If you don't have the ability you don't get your Epics, and it's +2 difficulty" we use "If you don't have the ability, treat your Epic as one dot lower, and it's +2 difficulty". This way a Demigod loses out on 1-6 successes, not 20. This is a really recent change. It started as a mistake, just missing the "no epics" clause. After 10 sessions or so I noticed that, and decided nothing was gained by using it. However, recently, I've begun to think a bit more of a penalty is in order, hence the "-1 to Epic" idea.

Overall, I've shaken a lot of the kinks out of the convoluted and contradictory Scion system, and our whole group is really pleased with the results. The downside is it means a lot to document, and could prove problematic if we ever add a new (but experienced with Scion) player mid-campaign. Sometimes it makes it hard to converse on the forums, too, because I'll forget something is my houserule, not the default. I always have to "fact check" before I hit submit, and have looked like an idiot the couple times I forgot.

Piercing Rationales

Over on the Scion forums, Sidhe16 posted an elegant house-rule regarding weapons with the Piercing quality, and how they interact with natural armor. I liked the rule (especially how it enhances the concept of Hercules squeezing the Nemean lion to death) and plan to adopt it. The thought crossed my mind that I should double-check the weapon list, however, to make sure I wasn't opening the doors to any weirdness. Here's what I found:

Clinch and Quauhololli both have the Piercing tag. Clinch represents crushing your foe via wrestling moves. The Quauhololli is a big heavy blunt object. This suggests piercing perhaps wasn't the best name for the mechanic/tag, but I can live with that.

All guns are piercing, including everything from little 9 mils up to large-caliber rifles, and shotguns. It's not about power, since high-Legend demigods can throw or stab with more force than a gun.

A kama also has the Piercing tag. However, shortswords, daggers, and other thrusting weapons do not. Likewise, axes (labrys, skeggox, etc) and machetes do not. I don't really understand what makes the Kama so unique. Is it cause it's swung like an axe but has a point like a dagger? I could see that giving it some extra oomph, but again, a point of two of Epic Strength gives everything more oomph than the best mortal martial-artist's kama swings.

Pilums are piercing, but other thrown weapons are not, nor are any other spears.

Crossbows are piercing, but for reasons unclear to me, longbows are not.

All I can conclude is, I have no idea what rationale determines which weapons have the piercing tag.

The Bergstrom Method Of Amber Combat

The truth is ugly: What I'd remembered as a veritable "holy grail" is in fact just a simple stoneware cup, with three different artist's stamps upon the base. I found the so-called "Bergstrom Method" for Amber combat, and it's only so-so. In some ways it's cooler than the chart, and feels more like an Amber methodology than that did. On the other hand, it's a little hard to read. What I did with Endurance was cool, and I like the way I handled the transition from Amber Rank to 1-point of Warfare, but the formatting needs work. Overall, though, I'm not as impressed with my own greatness as I'd hoped to be. Most disappointing is the realization that it's heavily based on someone else's concept - probably the original author of that chart. Here I was thinking I'd been all original and cool, when the truth is I was standing on the shoulders of chaos lords. My ego has taken enough kicks in the past few years. I may have been happier while on the grail quest. It's been a really tough week (I got laid off, and I hurt a friend) so it may be that I'm just depressed or self-critical. I'll look at it with fresh eyes sometime when I'm in a better mood. Oh well, here's the text, plucked from The Way Back Machine. I expect none of the links will work, but I'd rather not take the time to test or neuter them.

Handling Combat in Amber

credit where credit is due

This system (and the Testerman/Trimmer system it is based on) determines the length of a battle by comparing the warfare (or psyche, or strength) of the combatants, factoring in Endurance in longer battles. It is designed with the standard Amber 4 attribute system, but could be easily modified for whatever system you use. It is designed for one-on-one battles, but can also be adapted to armies or group battles.

We need to compare the relevant attribute (psyche for power battles, strength for hand-to-hand, or warfare for weapons) of the two combatants. But we can't compare just the straight points of the attributes, because that would result in a character with a single point of warfare to be infinitely better than someone with Amber Rank(zero points). So, we need to scale the stats just slightly. When we scale, we'll quickly be converting character creation points, and attribute points into something similar, which for lack of a better term we'll call Conflict Points.

Let's consider Human Rank a single "conflict point". Chaos Rank, being twice as good, will be two conflict points Amber Rank will be equal to four conflict points. As far as any "Ranked" attributes are concerned, take the number of points spent on the attribute and add five. This new total is the number of Conflict Points you have in that attribute.

• This is a bit toned down from Wujcick's explanations in the rulebook. He paints Amber as 8+ times as good as Chaos rank. I see it as around double. Otherwise, armies from chaos need to outnumber Amber forces by huge margins in order to really be a threat, and that's just not how Corwin presents it.
• This also means that if you spent one point on warfare when creating your character, he has 6 Conflict points in warfare. This gives him roughly 1 and a half times the swordsmanship of Amber Rank, and makes him three times as deadly as a chaosling, or 6 times as dangerous as a normal human.
• If you have 2 points of warfare you are not twice as good as someone with one point of warfare. Converting the ranked stats into conflict points shows you have 7 to thier 6 conflict points, giving you a Minimal Advantage.

Once you know the conflict points involved in the battle, you may compare them on this chart to determine what Advantage Category the fight falls into:

If the stronger character has:

1. Four times as many (or more!) conflict points as weaker character (4:1 or more extreme), they have a Murderous Advantage!
2. At least three times as many conflict points as weaker character (3:1), they have a Superior Advantage!
3. At least twice as many conflict points as weaker character (2:1), they have a Definite Advantage.
4. At least one and a half times as many conflict points as weaker character (3:2), they have a Modest Advantage.
5. More conflict points than weaker character, but less than one and a half times as many (7:6, or 54:47, or any proportionately similar small difference), they have a Minimal Advantage
6. If both characters have the same number of conflict points, (1:1) they are dead even.

Other factors such as weaponry, tactics, and setting Just how exhausted you are determines how well and how long you can defend yourself

To the index of all my Amber pages.

Other factors such as weaponry, tactics, and setting...

One of the strengths of this system is that it makes for easy improvising of the results of outside factors. If some factor aides a particular combatant (such as them having a sharper blade or better armor, attacking from ambush, being more familiar with the terrain), swing the Advantage Level one step in their favor.

For example, if Random has sword and dagger while Benedict has only a dagger. Benedict normally has a Superior Advantage over Random, but in this case it�s diminished to a Definite Advantage. If Random had a pistol and sword, plus lightweight bodyarmor, and knew where the boobytraps were, he could be Dead Even with Benedict or even have a Minimal Advantage against him.

If the factor just makes the battle more dangerous (such as both sides having rapid-fire weapons) then instead of changing the category just speed up the battle: allow everyone to die a few exertion categories sooner than normal.

By means of example: Corwin has a Minimal Advantage over Random. They could normally fence until Exhausted or Collapsing. But if both have poisoned blades, they could get knicked and die while just Tired or Strained. If using machineguns with explosive bullets in a burning skyscraper in a radiation zone while wearing a full body anticontamination suits might result in kills occuring while both were Fresh.

The system also assumes the use of weapons that allow some dodging, parrying, manuevering and/or use of cover; such as swordplay, sorcery, or karate. This, of course, is not allways the situation. In contests of continuous direct conflict such as prolonged wrestling, fighting in a pit or small contained area, or for trump-based psyche duels, assume the kills happen one or two exertion categories sooner than what the advantage level states.

For example, Fiona has just a Minimal Advantage over Brand in Psyche, but in a continuous battle via trump, as soon as he becomes Tired (instead of the normal Exhausted) she can defeat him (and if she became Strained, he'd be able to defeat her).

The categories also assume an opportunistic battle plan. Going full Offensive speeds up the time to a kill by an exertion level(for both sides), going full defensive shifts the advantage category two steps in your favor.

Examples: Corwin can play pure defensive and tire out Eric, who has both higher psyche and warfare, but rather lower endurance than Corwin. The psyche duel took less time than the sword battle to determine a victor, because it's a more direct and continuous means of combat.

what the Advantage Categories mean in terms of storyline:

---

Definitions of terms such as: Exertion, Fresh, Tired, Strained, Exhausted, and Collapsing If the stronger character has at least four times as many conflict points as the weaker, they have an Deadly Advantage. Anytime there's this much of a difference, the weaker character dies in well under a minute, and little can save them. "One hit = one kill" is often the rule in these cases. It all happens too fast for Endurance to make a difference. If you are this much better than your opponent, it is nearly impossible for them to kill you. Even if you are at Collapsing exertion, they will at best manage a single wound on you simultaneous to their death. If you are less exerted, they will be unable to harm you at all

---

If the stronger character has at least three times, but less than four times, as many conflict points as the weaker, they have an Superior Advantage. The victim should die within a few minutes, regardless of what endurance level they are at. Good stuff, nearby benefactors, or other factors might be able to save them, but they'll take crippling wounds long before endurance becomes a factor. The better warrior won�t perish unless they are at Collapsing level less than five minutes into the duel.

---

If the stronger character has at least twice , but less than thrice the conflict points of the weaker, they have an Definite Advantage. It takes very small slip-ups to recieve fatal wounds against someone this far better than yourself, and so the first signs of fatigue will do in the weaker fighter. The stronger fighter won�t perish till they reach Collapsing level, but the weaker will die if/when they reach Tired.

---

If the stronger character has at least one and a half, but less than twice as many conflict points of the weaker, they have a Modest Advantage. At this point, the battles start to draw out, and Endurance really begins to play a part. The stronger fighter won�t die until they reach Collapsing exertion level. The weaker will make a fatal mistake and die within a few minutes of reaching Strained level.

---

If the stronger character has more conflict points of the weaker, but less than one and a half times as many, they have an Minimal Advantage. These battles draw out really long, possibly taking days to determine a victor. Endurance is the real determination in who wins and how long it takes to do so. The stronger fighter will only perish in this situation if/when they proceed to Collapsing level of exertion. The weaker character if/when they reach Exhausted level.

---

If both Characters have the same number of conflict points, they are Dead Even. In this case, the only deciding factors are endurance and "stuff". The first character to reach Collapsing level dies. The other lives, but with several nasty wounds.

---

Exertion:

there are 5 levels of exertion. They are entitled Fresh, Tired, Strained, Exhausted, and Collapsing.

Fresh is the default starting level. Anyone who is rested and ready begins at Fresh. If you�re at fresh, you can handle (or at least delay) anyone who�s not at least twice the fighter you are.

Tired is the starting level if you�re the least bit sleepy or unrested. Also, a person progresses from Fresh to Tired after a several minutes of exertion. How long this takes depends upon Endurance. Figure approximately 1 minute per Endurance Conflict Point. At tired you begin to slow down, but are still only vulnerable if your opponent is significantly better than you.

As your exert yourself further you pass from Tired to Strained. At Human Rank, this happens after 10 minutes, and Chaos Rank after 20 minutes. At Amber Rank or better, it happens after a time equal to the Endurance Conflict Points times 15 minutes. At Strained, the first real mistakes begin to show up, and a better warrior will take advantage of them to wound or even kill you in short order.

Continuing to be active can move you from strained to exhausted. At Human Rank this happens 15 minutes after you begin to exert yourself, at Chaos Rank 45 minutes after you start. At Amber Rank and above, at 45 minutes times your endurance conflict points. Exhausted level is dangerous. Even if your opponent is just a little bit better or faster than you, s/he will be able to capitalize on your numerous mistakes at this point. Death could soon be in your future.

The final stage is collapsing. Humans suffer this after so minutes of hard exertion, and standard Chaosites after an hour. At Amber Rank and above, it sets in following their endurance conflict points, expressed in hours. At collapsing, you become nearly incapable of defending yourself. Mistakes abound, and your energy level and speed take a nosedive. As such, even those whom you greatly outclass in skill stand a good chance of ending your life.

Corwin was approaching the Exhausted/Collapsing end of things when he arrived in the courts of chaos, that's why he chose to trick Duke Borel instead of waging a duel.

To the index of all my Amber pages.

Credit where credit is due: Recently, I discovered a webpage maintained by Doyce Testerman that includes an excellent Holistic stat system, as well as a way of determining the victor and speed of victory in Amber battles. This system, originated by Randy Trimmer, is an great crib notes for Amber gamemasters, making the refereeing of battles simpler.

However, their system does not however really factor in Endurance, and is somewhat less balanced in the lower point value rankings for attributes. I have attempted to patch these flaws and expand upon the system, my results are above. Their system is less number-intensive than mine, but also less detailed. It's a trade-off (elegance or completeness), and you might like their system more than mine, so check it out!

� 1998-1999 by Rolfe Bergstrom, developed upon the work of Doyce Testerman and Randy Trimmer, and of course the game system by Erick Wujcick and the novels by Roger Zelazny.

At some point, I'll probably revise this with an eye towards making it easier to understand and implement.

2020 last night

Despite the EDIT, 2020 happened anyway. MOC, with two players. Sarah was playing a totally new character. Amy played Face, the character Jenn had made (but never played) for the original MOC campaign.

Two old gang members were portrayed as NPCs: Capt. Chaos (Eddie's Netrunner) and Ruby Cham (Jeremy's MedTechie). I used a die roll to determine which old PCs showed up. Chaos was pretty much just a cameo, whereas Ruby Cham was in every scene.

(Tangent: Ruby had a really distinct and thus replicatable personality. His presence really added a lot to the game in the old days, and thus I was able to act/fake him well enough for this. Please don't take that as saying Jeremy was replaceable, when what I actually mean is that his character was so entertaining and memorable I was able to emulate him a year later. Jeremy would have done it better, but I caught the flavor passably well.)

Morton's List spit out directives for the gang to go give a motivational speech. They chose to go to a factory and try to rally the workers. They brought some picket signs and molotov cocktails. An incredible forgery roll (tens explode, and Amy rolled two of them on one skill check) allowed them to produce a faux corporate memo "from the home office" indicating that the plant was to be closed. A riot ensued. All in all, it was a lot of fun.

The hardest part was dealing with the police response to the riot - I knew rubber bullets would bounce off Ruby's metal-gear, but I wasn't sure of the impact on the PCs. I improvised and, as a result, went way too easy on them.

While I want to keep the improvisational nature of things (especially the plot), and don't relish the notion of having yet another full-production game on my plate, I will definitely do a little prep work between now and the next time we do this.

• If I'm going to use the item decks from the old campaign, I need to make item cards for the things the new PC bought.
• I need a couple of basic NPC sheets/templates. Rival gangers. Typical cop. Average civilian. Maybe even 2 different versions of each of the above.
• A list of 20 (or 50) cool "in a nutshell" character descriptions I can apply to those templates. It's cyberpunk, so those descriptions can be strange/memorable cyberware/techbits in addition to the usual mannerisms, personality traits, etc that I might consider. The reason I need a list is because the 'ware will have rules, and I don't want to go looking cyberstuff up in chrome books mid-session.

My favorite part of the session: The ridiculous picket signs they made.

1. "You deserve better pay!" (As opposed to 'we')
   
2. "Bring down the Man and he will comply"
3. "MOC fo' Prez"
4. "Workers in fact***inkstain***
   need to eat ***inkstain***"

2020 Tonight

I'm running a cyberpunk game tonight. It's actually a bit of a reincarnation of my wife's old MOC campaign. It may prove to become a regular thing, or it may be little more than a one-shot. Either way, it should be fun.

The entire thing will be improvised - I've done no prep work other than helping with character creation, and fishing out the old decks.

We'll be rolling up a task on Morton's List at the start of the session and sending the gang after it. I'll be flying, as they say, "by the seat of my pants". Wish me luck!

EDIT: It'll have to be rescheduled, other issues have come up.