Category: Roleplaying General

Since the dawn of time (also known as my early days in gaming), magic-users couldn’t have swords.

I’m talking OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E. In the later editions, you can take a proficiency to use one but it’s blocked out of the gate.

They are proficient in dagger use though (which is a teeny sword you have to get even closer to use).

Anyway, I digress. I’ve never seen the need to block a wizard from having a sword from the get go (or any melee weapon at all) as there is inherent risk in a wizard going anywhere near melee that you may as well let them use what the hell they like. SQUISHY UNARMOURED MEATSACKS.

Gandalf and Glamdring (bastard sword methinks) is the stereotypical example of why I want wizards to have swords.

I say let them, Magic-users (and later Wizards) are so squishy, letting them use a sword is delegation of risk, and a last resort as a player.

My main point here is: If you want a soft, squishy character to have access to melee weapons that the rules don’t allow, let them. It’ll be more fun when the giant rips off their heads and squashed out the innards like a tube of toothpaste.

I was thinking about this this morning.

When I play in a game, I like it to be part of a pre-defined narrative, or something written down beforehand. It’s probably my childhood of pre-written modules which has conditioned me.

There is a certain ‘suspension of belief’ when you know the GM is freestlying his way through the session. You know that the encounters or things that happen are acts of almost randomness and may or may not form part of a cohesive plot. It seems odd that the things you might say become part of the story or plot hooks for the GM, like;

“I wonder if that silver amulet opens portals to other worlds?”.

If that then becomes the case, it seems somehow false that the player should make suggestions for the narrative. Players should be part of a prepared story, not writing their own. They should interact with that story, and have impact upon it by their actions. Cause and effect.

In a recent session, I was totally freestyling and acting on the whims of the players, and just developing the narrative ‘on the fly’. Whilst this is a GM’ing skill, I felt that if the players had known that, it would have somehow spoilt the session.

I think freestyling is good, but I think players should be oblivious to it.

To be clear, I’m talking about the ability. I’ve been listening to Erik over at the Tenkar’s Tavern blog and his ‘Designers and Makers’ slot got me thinking…

As a player, I hate Save or Die. Nothing says ‘kill my fucking fun’ like Save or Die. I know why too. I like to keep a character and gain experience to build them up over time, to feel attached. That’s how I played as a kid — I had characters that were crazy multi-classed, +6 Hellblade-wielding, Archdevil-slayers. I remember being 14 and losing a character to a pretty angry Mephistopheles and I was fucking miserable for a couple of days.

If you think about it, things like Flesh to Stone or Petrification are the same thing. It’s pretty much death, although with enough high-level magic you can get round it. The same with Save or Die — it’s get roundable. But it contains the word Death. And that sounds bad and final.

Using Save or Die — or any other ‘single dice roll and probably get a new character sheet’ mechanic — should be used with caution. It’s group and player-dependent. It’s campaign-dependent. If you are planning to use it, then players should know in advance of the session where it may crop up. Players get complacent, but killing a character they have played for 20 sessions (with no backup plan to reverse it) is a dick move, and I can bet that player WILL NOT think it’s a good game. Remember, you are playing for fun after all.

In one-shots and convention games I can see how this is appropriate. But leave that mechanic/’save or die’ boss until near the end. It’s shit dying at the start of a session. Of course, if you have a group of players that are fine with getting characters killed off, then feel free.

‘As Gary Intended…’ doesn’t mean kill anyone who’s stoopid. After all, M0rdenkain3n, Ten5er, Bi8by, Le0mund and all those guys survived into adulthood and legend.

For campaign play, ‘single roll and it’s game over’ situations really kill the fun. There still needs to be perceived risk and threat though, as strolling through adventures on easy is no fun either (for some).

The Computer Game Difficulty Model

Computer games have Easy, Normal and Hard modes very often, even Insane modes. It’s worth thinking about writing adventures with these three modes in mind.

So, here’s a thought.

When campaign playing, anything that has an insta-kill outcome would get extra save chances. So let’s say we have a room with a Medusa. The players wander in and all make saving throws.

The saving throws have a number of roll chances equal to the Difficulty Level.

So,

• Easy = 3 chances at Saving Throw (You are your god’s new play thing)
• Normal = 2 chances at Saving Throw (The gods smile upon you)
• Hard = 1 chance at Saving Throw (Hey, God! Where are you?)
• Insane = 1 chance at Saving Throw at -1d6 (Even your god hates you)

This could work for any saving throws, or situations where death is the result. It’s a kind of Advantage mechanic, but it’s fixed for certain situations.

As always, these can be specific to each player too. So if Bob wants to play on Easy, but Roger on Insane then balance that with additional XP at the end of the session.

So,

• Easy = 75% of XP earned.
• Normal = 100% of XP earned.
• Hard = 110% of XP earned.
• Insane = 150% of XP earned.

Had I have had this in my games as a 14 year old, then my wizard would have not been Mephistopheles’ plaything for eternity. May the pit fiends be merciful to his bum-hole and use foam pitchforks (yeh right).

Over and out, Glynn