Brainstorm in a Jar: Card Initiative

After some brainstorming on the subject, here is a complete initiative system using playing cards and segments. It is intended for D&D, but can probably be used with other systems with some tweaking.

The idea behind it is that every combatant is trying to find a good moment to attack (or act), and faster characters get better opportunities. The goal is making things unpredictable, dynamic, and tactical.

In the begging of each round, each player draws a card. Rounds last for about 10-15 seconds and are divided in 10 segments, each one lasting about a second. Characters with an ace act on segment 1, deuces on segment 2, and so on. Every action has a duration in segments, usually 4.

Immediately after taking your action, draw another card. If the card is equal or higher than your current card plus the duration of your action, you can take an extra action in this round (when the segment corresponding the new card comes up). If it isn't, you can keep the card in your hand for next round. For example, if you played a 4, and took an action with a duration of 5 segments, you can act again if you draw a 9 or 10. No more than three actions can be taken each round, which can be managed by looking on the number of cards in front of each player.

There is no problem in finishing an action on segments greater than 10 (this "extra segments" are somewhat abstract), and it doesn't affect next round, but your last action cannot finish in a segment greater than your first card plus 12. Thus, if the first card you played is a 3, you cannot start an action in segment 10 that takes more than 5 segments.

When a new round begins,the cards on the table are shuffled, everybody gets an extra card, chooses what card to play (if they have more than one), and discards any remaining cards.

Although this looks like a "second-by-second" breakdown of the encounter, it involves quite a bit of abstraction to make things run smoothly. Because of that, you resolve each action on the segment it begins, although it can be interrupted in the middle.

And… that is it, basically. You can use or ignore the optional rules below, depending on the system you're using or the effects you're looking for.

ACTION SPEED

Movement: 2 segments for a 5-feet step, 4 segments for a half move, 8 for a full move, 12 for a double move.

Weapons: 4 segments for a "medium speed" weapon, 2-6 for other weapons (2 if unarmed, or if you have a longer weapon than your opponent and hasn't been hit by him yet). Bows twice the time to draw and shoot, crossbows take half the time to shoot and twice to draw.

Spells: equals to spell level+2.

The GM will decide on the duration of other actions.

You can add a simple, quick action, such as taking a single move or drawing a blade, to other, more complex, actions. Just add the durations. The GM has the final word, but the idea is that if no dice are rolled because of your action you don't need to use an additional card. For example, you can move and attack, although you have a good chance of being interrupted in the process (see below).

DELAYING

To delay an action, put your card on the table and say you'll wait for something to happen - an attack on yourself or an ally, a move by an specific opponent, etc. If that happens, you can act on any given segment after that. If you play a deuce, and act on segment 7, for example, you action ends on segment 12. If you don't want to declare your action right now, you can draw an extra card, as if you had just taken a 1-segment action.

Delayed actions can be changed at any time before the round is finished, but the change takes one segment (so, if you change your mind on segment 6, you can act on segment 7, without using an extra card).

INTERRUPTING

You can interrupt an enemy if you can finish an action before him. You must declare this the moment the opponent declares his action. For example, if he attacks you on segment 4 with a two-handed axe (speed 6), he will hit you on segment 10. If you act on segment 5, you can hit him with a knife before that. Even if he survives the attack, enough damage (let's say, 10% of Max HP or more) can cause an ill effect. Some suggestions: spell interruption, -2 penalty to a roll, movement is halted, etc.

You can use you interruption to defend yourself or an ally. This depends on the system you're using. One example: a parry grants +2 AC.

Interrupting is about disrupting your enemy's action. You cannot simply walk away in the middle of an attack.

Optional rule: if you want to interrupt an opponent but your card doesn't allow it (and its segment is yet to come), you can trade your card, drawing another, but the new card MUST be used to interrupt. If the new card doesn't allow it, you cannot use it.

TIES

If it matters at all, give them to whoever started the action first (in the event of interruptions), or flip a coin.

SURPRISE

Surprised characters get no cards in the first round.

DEX MODS

DEX mods apply only to the first card you play. If you have DEX +2 and your first card is a 5, you can act on segment 3. This may allow you to act on segment 0 but not negative segments.

Another option is to let players draw an extra card for each +1 in the beginning of the round, choosing the best and discarding the rest (because of special cards, this is quite powerful).

MULTIPLE ATTACKS

If a character has multiple attacks, he may take all his attacks in his turn. Depending on the edition you are using, you can use special cards or specific suits to represent additional attacks instead, although exact balance becomes difficult.

SPECIAL CARDS

Since you are using playing cards, add special effects to taste. Make them cool and easy to remember. Here are some ideas.

* FACE CARDS can be used to act in any segment you choose, but cannot be used twice in a row.

* When you attack using THE ACE OF SPADES, any hit is a critical hit. If you want to get fiddly, assign special effects to each suit.

* AND DON'T FORGET THE JOKER! It allows you to act in any segment, and choose a special effect: act on segment 0, take one action 2 segments faster than normal (minimum one segment), get a bonus on your action, etc.

The only card you need.

IN CONCLUSION... WHAT'S THE POINT?

Because the best course of actions depends on the cards, circumstances change from round to round. This forces you to be a bit creative instead of using the same attack round after round. Some of the effects I expect to achieve:

- With the cards on the table, initiative is easy to track.
- Everybody can act every round, and some people will act more than once in some rounds, but not too often.
- No additional rules needed for fighting with two weapons, opportunity attacks, etc.
- Things such as kicking an opponent before striking with your sword, throwing a dagger at a wizard in order to stop his mighty spell (because otherwise you cannot reach him in time), moving cautiously toward an enemy, using low-levels spell at high levels, waiting for your adversary to act first, and trading defense for offense become viable tactics.

ADDENDUM: BUT I DON'T LIKE USING CARDS FOR INITIATIVE!

If that's your case and you've read this far, congratulations! And don't worry, I got you covered.

Someone stop the wizard!

The wizard sees the intruders coming from the front door. With a malicious grim, he raises his hands and utters strange words from a long-forgotten language, summoning the dark spirits of the Abyss, as black clouds appear beside him. There is no time to run, nowhere to hide, so the adventures quickly move forward, with weapons drawn, as they try to avoid the evil minions and reach the sorcerer while they can still stop him. Their fate - and the fate of the whole realm - hinges on the very few seconds that the wizard takes to complete the unholy spell.

After doing some quick brainstorming on initiative, I couldn't stop thinking about the subject. It took me a while to understand why. As I've said before, I don't usually appreciate heavily detailed initiative rules - giving initiative based on the situation or in order of DEX is good enough for me.

Still, there is some ideas I like about “segment” initiative that are hard to find (or not as interesting) in simpler systems. The main one, as you may have guessed, is stopping a wizard in the middle of a terrible spell.

The trope is quite old and justifies a few other things I like. For example, you can have earth-shattering spells that do not make the fight one-sided, and that are very risky for the wizard himself (because he can be stopped mid-spell, and lose  the spell - not to mention his life - in the process). Spells get to be amazing being too "unbalanced".

Most important, this forces characters (PCs or NPCs) to work together. For wizard PCs, spell-casting is no longer a solo game, but a tactical group effort, with the mighty fighters protecting the frail wizard to allow him to finish the spell. For wizard foes, the PCs must find creative ways to stop their spells - maybe throwing weapons (improvised or not) at him, or just getting out of the way.

... and sometimes you just have to play dirty.

The whole concept of interrupting a foe action is interesting to me, not only in fiction and tabletop gaming, but also in video games (from Street Fighter to Dark Souls), real MMA fights and so on. Stopping a charge with a spear, stabbing a strong foe the moment he raises his two-handed axe, tripping someone as he runs towards an ally, shooting an arrow before being smashed by a mace (and vice-versa) and threatening an enemy with a blade to the throat are some of the things that I feel are missing from many of the simpler initiative systems.

This, in a nutshell, is why I want a detailed initiative system for my game, and what I'll try to do next.

On alignment, part I: Origins

Alignment, as everyone who has ever discussed it knows, is a very controversial topic in D&D and RPGs in general. One of the reasons for that is how it has changed from its inception to the present days, to a point where its whole meaning became very different than it originally was.

Alignment is described in Moldvay as a "way of life" or "belief". The d20 SRD describes it as "general moral and personal attitudes", which is very similar to 5e Basic. In the original game, alignment isn't described at all, so one might look to this more recent definitions to understand it. But OD&D tells a different story.

Although OD&D doesn't define alignment, it has a feature that is not repeated in other editions: a table with all creatures divided by alignment. Not even the monster's manuals, as far as I remember, index creatures by alignment. The table is on page 9 of Men & Magic:

Individual monster descriptions didn't necessarily mention alignments, nor did the monster reference table. On the contrary, as the table above shows, different alignments were separated in factions or "teams".

Although the table above doesn't appear in later editions, a similar one did appear in Chainmail. Since Chainmail is a wargame, the purpose seems to be to allow different armies to use some special units and not others.

This means that, in OD&D, choosing alignment was apparently akin to choosing a side in an ongoing struggle between the opposing forces of Law and Chaos. "Taking a stance", as OD&D describes.

There are other bits in OD&D that points to "alignment as faction" concept. For example, the fact that there are alignment languages (people in the same team must have a way to communicate) and that chaotic creatures will apparently recognize lawful language and attack its speakers. If "chaotic" was an evil, selfish or reckless behavior, you would expect chaotic creatures to attack anyone (specially other chaotic creatures), but they seem to be taking sides.

This would quickly change, with subsequent editions as early as Holmes describing alignment as behaviors and adding new options such as Good and Evil in addition to Law and Chaos - while on the earlier editions, Chaos was synonymous to Evil and Law to Good, as you can clearly see in Chainmail (3rd edition, page 39):

It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:
LAW NEUTRAL CHAOS [...]

After OD&D, alignment is described in every monster's description in all editions, making it look more like an individual behavior than a collective trait. There is no explicit reason for this change, nor do I know how voluntary it is. I would guess one of the main causes is a natural change of perspective from wargames focusing on large armies to roleplaying games focusing on individual characters and the interactions between them.

This change, although early, would never be complete. Most editions of D&D would use alignment both as personal morals/attitudes and as cosmic factions/teams. Take 5e basic, for example, that says:

For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos. According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery. 
The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.) 
Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

The confusion between the concepts of "morals" and "teams" is the source of many arguments on alignment. For example, should a good-aligned creature slay an evil-aligned one in cold blood, just because it is evil? If alignment is a moral choice, probably not, but if alignment is a side in a cosmic war, it depends on what is best for your team.

Another example are "lawful" characters. Are they honorable, or defenders of Law? The two will often lead to different actions. Moorcock readers will remember the scene where Elric and his companions face the Sad Giant to get his Chaos Shield in order to help the forces of Law to defeat the Lords of Chaos. Expecting to fight a fearful monster, they find instead a lonely, broken creature that offers to give away the shield without a fight, asking only to be spared. Elric decides to let him go. But his friend Moonglum (a loyal and benevolent character) immediately goes after the Giant. This is how the (awesome) comic book version by P. Craig Russell portrays what happens next:

In my opinion, alignment-as-morals doesn't work too well, because it is too restrictive to express personal attitudes (although there are some good ideas online on how to use it this way). Alignment-as-factions, on the other hand, can work well sometimes, if the literary foundations of the idea are known, and depending on the setting. But using both at the same time is a quick path to argument and confusion, which might be the reason why the latest editions have little mechanic effects related to alignment.

One problem that using alignment both ways causes is that it might make you think that people with the same "morals" are on the same "team", which is strange in real life (where you would expect even good, honest people to bump heads and maybe even go to war from time to time), and only makes sense in very black-and-white settings, where Good and Evil are easier to define and recognize. Another problem is that it doesn't make much sense if we think about D&D's literary inspirations, as David Paul explains in this great post:

The Law vs. Chaos concept first shows up in Poul Anderson's fantasy (Three Hearts and Three Lions and The Broken Sword.) In Anderson, Law is pretty much synonymous with Good and Chaos with Evil. Even the more sympathetic Chaos creatures, like elves, are pretty much always bad news for humanity.

Michael Moorcock adopted the labels of "Law" and "Chaos," but radically changed them by introducing the notion of the Cosmic Balance. In this version, the extremes of Law and Chaos are both equally bad, or at least inimical to life as we know it. Only when the two are in balance is life possible. The metaphysical forces in charge of keeping the Balance are thus, broadly speaking, good; but they can be extremely ruthless and manipulative in pursuit of their duties.

The earliest version of D&D used Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic as the only alignments, and leaned more towards Anderson than Moorcock in how it interpreted them: Lawful characters were usually heroic, Chaotic characters were usually villainous, and Neutral characters were indifferent rather than serving any kind of Cosmic Balance. [...]

AD&D added the Good vs. Evil axis to Law vs. Chaos, creating the nine-point alignment system we all know and... know. The thing is, nine-point alignment has never made a lot of sense in terms of D&D's literary inspiration -- from the Andersonian perspective it's redundant, and from the Moorcockian perspective it tries to add objective morality to a cosmology that was deliberately designed to be morally ambiguous. Making things even more confusing, True Neutral became the alignment of both the morally indifferent and servants of the Balance -- a Balance which now included the totally unprecedented and rather nonsensical idea of parity between Good and Evil. I honestly have no clue what led anyone to think this was a good idea. [...]

So this are some of the reasons why most "modern" versions of alignment don't work for me. Granted, they may work for many people, and there are many ways to change and interpret it as to make the best use of it in any particular game (EDIT: after posting this, I have just realized Matt Finch has written about this exact subject a couple of hours ago. See his insightful post here).

I'll discuss a few of my own solutions in the coming posts. Feel free to tell me yours!

Brainstorming: Initiative

Today I felt like doing some brainstorming on initiative. Just throwing some ideas around to see what works; do not expect much organization or refinement from this post.

My goals for this exercise are:

- Initiative order is random, therefore unpredictable.
- The system should allow for the quickest characters to act more often, because “who acts first” is often unimportant.
- Weapon speed, or action speed, is also important for allowing people to take more actions.
- Everybody gets a least one (or a few) actions every once in a while, since I find “losing your action” to be terrible dull.
- Bookkeeping must be kept at a minimum, or be managed by the initiative system itself (instead of counters, apps, etc).

So here are my random thoughts about initiative for today. Bonuses and penalties are all examples that I have just made up for no particular reason.

1. d20

Everybody rolls a d20, adds DEX, all speed modifiers (weapon speed, etc.). Higher number acts first, as usual. Let's say the best result is 18. After taking his turn, the character rolls initiative again, but this time he gets no DEX or other modifiers; instead, he gets a penalty equal to the difference between his result (18) and 20 (which is -2 in this example; had his result been 26, it would be a +6 bonus instead). If the new result is 1 or greater, he gets to act again in that round. The new initiative should be lower than the current one (18), even if the roll is higher - or maybe the maximum should be something like current initiative -4. Speed modifiers apply to this maximum.

To delay, just adjust the number down as often as you want. If you wait until turn 12 to act, you get a -8 penalty to the next roll, and so on. To change your action, roll initiative again in your turn, using the same rules. In the case of a draw, whoever acted more recently acts last.

Use the d20 to track initiative. Nobody can act more than once at a turn greater than 20.

Example: Gary says his character will move 30 feet (-5) and attack with his knife (+2). His DEX bonus is +1. He rolls 15, so his result is 13 (15-5+2+1). After attacking, he gets to roll initiative again, to attack with his knife once more. Now he gets a -7 penalty (13-20), and, because he wants to attack with his knife again, a +2 bonus, so the total penalty is -5. He rolls a 11, which means he gets to attack again at round 6 (11-5). Had he rolled 17 or more, he would act on round 12, as he cannot act on round 13 again.

2. Dice pools

Roll a bunch of dice (say, 3d6, but probably more dice would work better). Bonuses to DEX can be used to modify dice (a +2 can turn a single 4 into a 6, or two 3s into two 4s, or even lower the result a die, as desired by the player) or break ties, or even add extra dice (a single dice for a +3 bonus, two for +7, three for +10, etc). There is 6 or more separated rounds, starting with round 6 (if nobody wants to use more than one die), then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Whoever rolled a 6 can act on round 6 (or alter it to 5). Dice can be added up (use a 4 and a 2 at the same time to act on round 6, for example). No one can act twice in the same round (or can they?). After every action, round, anyone who has acted loses the dice that were used. Everyone gets to re-roll any dice that is left if they wish to do so, but if the number rolled is greater the current round, the dice cannot be used in it.

Example: Dave says rolls 4, 4 and 2. He has a +3 DEX bonus, so he can roll an extra die. His final result is 5, 4, 4, 2. He gets to act four times, or he can add dice together to act before other characters.

Weapon speed? Movement penalties? Not too sure, but probably they are applied after the dice are already on the table. In turn 5, for example, someone that has rolled a 3 might be able to attack with a +2 speed knife.

D20 dice pools could be used in a similar way,

3. Multiple dice

You could use ascending initiative and multiple dice to create a random, yet still somewhat predictable, combat order. After you act on round 7, for example, you decide what to do next: quick actions use a d6, regular actions a d8, longer actions a d10 and so on. Add the result to the current round to see in which round you can take a new action.

You could use weapon damage for this: 1d4 for knives, 1d10 for big axes, etc. The idea is that you don't need a different system for weapon speed. Using weapon damage by itself would make smaller weapons overpowered, so something like “weapon damage+5” would probably work better.

4. Playing cards

Playing cards can be useful for tracking initiative. We could do four rounds, one for every suit - everybody gets to act at least once every round, and probably no more than twice - first, cards of the respective suit are resolved, then any card can be used with suits being ignored. The number of cards drawn is defined by DEX. Jokers and figures may have all kinds of special effects, probably interrupting another character's actions.

The best part about using playing cards is that they can be kept hidden, which might add a whole new tactical dimension to these combats. For example, an ace of spades can be used to counter any card of the same suit, but if nobody uses such a card in the spades turn, this power is lost.

5. Movement

I would really like movement to be taken on a “step by step” basis, as long as it is important. The way movement usually happens on a grid feels too abstract to me: “I won initiative so I walk 30 feet towards my enemy and attack him twice while he does nothing”. I would say something like -1 on a d6 or -4 on a d20 for taking half movement (no idea on how to do this with playing cards). Same for drawing weapons, preparing spells, etc. It would take the tactical run to stop the magic-user to the next level of complexity.

This would allow characters with a higher DEX to move around more. Seems like a good idea. On the other hand, movement cannot be too random; one can understand the concept of not being able to find an opportunity to attack, but not being able to move because of a bad roll takes more explaining. Well, if we can accept it in Monopoly, there certainly must be a way to do it in D&D. Movement for those who aren't directly involved in combat should be independent of initiative to avoid absurd situations.

6. Defenses

Characters could use their initiative to defend themselves somehow, and still expect to act again… if they are quick or lucky. Again, this adds extra depth to the system. It can also be useful to allow stuff that I really enjoy and can hardly find in published RPGs, such as creating a tactical balance between offense and defense, including the possibility of defending yourself until you see an opportunity to strike back as a viable way to beat a slower, stronger opponent.

7. Verisimilitude? Abstraction?

After writing all this stuff I realize that some kind of verisimilitude is a big motivation. I have a hard time seeing combat as an orderly, predictable thing - specially with the short rounds that are used nowadays. Looking at any combat sport and you'll see that taking turns to beat on each other is too far from what real fighters do. Abstract combat, with 1-minute rounds, worked well on OD&D, but keeping the same rules for shorter, less abstract rounds makes things stranger.

8. Balance?

Obviously, using DEX to act more often can quickly make it better than every other ability, specially if you already use it for finesse and missile weapons, AC and saves - which I don't. There are good reasons to use BAB or other traits for initiative, or using DEX only as a tiebreaker. If you are going to use one of these systems, balance should be a concern, specially "spotlight balance", as a badly implemented system would leave everybody waiting while a single player acts several times.

9. Reality check

All this ideas seem a bit too complex for my own tastes. They seem fun for “combat as minigame” sessions, and I could really use something like that on a grid, but I don't do that often. I would take such random systems over tick-based initiative, because I feel it makes things absurdly predictable for the fighters involved. In practice, I often use narrative-based initiative - whoever decides to attack, attacks first. And I allow players to take multiple actions, but only in their own turns, which makes thing more organized (but not always more fun). Yet, I do like to play around with initiative systems, as you can see form this post, and sooner or later I'll turn this mess, or part of it, into a full-fledged combat system.

If you already know a detailed and unpredictable initiative system, think the whole idea to be faulty, or just want to contribute to the discussion, I would love to hear your opinion.

When not to roll, and why examples are important

Having spent a few posts writing about dice, I feel like adding a quick note on when not to roll dice. You have probably heard a few takes on the subject already. Here's mine.

Many people will tell you that you should only roll dice in very specific circumstances. For example, only when there's risk, uncertainty, unpredictability, opposition, etc. I agree - dice rolling should be reserved for a few situations, while most circumstances should be managed with conversation, automatic successes, and so on.

The thing is, that kind of advice is heard so often it makes you wonder why people are rolling so many dice in the first place.

The reason, I believe, is that although most games will tell you upfront when to avoid rolling the dice, they will also tell you the opposite, over and over again, albeit implicitly.

Let's look at the "take 10" rule, for example. It says:

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

The fact that not rolling when there's no distraction or threat is optional is problematic. Rolling is assumed even for routine, mundane tasks, when it should be the opposite (you might have the option of rolling the dice if taking particular risks, for example). Even if we accept that this option will be taken by the players most of the time, the whole game have tons of examples of rolling dice, and very few examples on using skills or abilities without rolling.

Like many books, the SRD mentions taking 10 a couple of times, but mentions rolling dice hundreds of times.

Take the Craft skill, for example. Since the skill is mostly related to to mundane, harmless tasks, it would make sense to give examples of taking 10 or otherwise ignoring dice when describing it. Instead, we get this:

To determine how much time and money it takes to make an item, follow these steps.

1. Find the item’s price. Put the price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp).
2. Find the DC from the table below.
3. Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.
4. Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week’s work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn’t equal the price, then it represents the progress you’ve made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.

So, in theory, you can take 10 for such mundane tasks. In practice, you get long, complicated examples on how to resolve this task with a d20, with very wonky results, not only because of the "swingyness" of the d20 in this circumstance but also because it leads to a world in which a shoemaker cannot be sure how long it will take them to make a shoe.

Why not just spend 1/3 of the cost of the item in materials, and them just adding 10 plus your skill rank in silver pieces every week?

Appraise gets the same treatment:

You can appraise common or well-known objects with a DC 12 Appraise check. Failure means that you estimate the value at 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%,) of its actual value.

This means that an ordinary person doesn't now the price of a common item much of the time. Commerce must be a very strange activity in this world. And should you be really rolling to know the value of a well-known object?

Another thing that bothers me is that many "mundane" skills have rules on trying again, implying that you would roll the dice the first time you tried. Take knowledge, for example:

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

Try Again

No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.

So, yeah, it sounds like you are supposed to roll the dice and, if you fail, bad luck - you have never learned basic questions within your field of study. If you have a +5 skill, you have never learned 45% of thew basic questions in that field.

I used the SRD, but you can find examples in any game. Just browsing through GURPS 4e, for example, I can find a suggestion of making a Driving/IQ roll "for basic map reading" and "to recall rules of the road" (p. 188), although I'm sure there are generic rules for NOT rolling in routine situations.

Again, you might say that nobody really uses this rules, but my point is that, time after time, these game lose good opportunities to give examples of NOT rolling.

When rolling the dice is just a bad idea...

To give you a glimpse on an alternate way of doing things, consider encumbrance and STR: most games explicit tell you how much your character can carry based on this trait, and rolling to see how much you can lift is seldom mentioned.

There are many possible solutions. Replacing a few examples of "trying again" for a few "ordinarily, you MUST take 10 when using this skill" could solve some problems (including not trying again, since the result would be exactly the same unless circumstances have changed).

But what I would really like to see are more examples of getting results without rolling.

Here is a quick take on knowledge, for no particular system:

Skill + INT
4: You know all the basics within your field of study.
8: You also know little-known information on basic topics, and basic information about little-known topics.
12: You also know little-known information about little-known topics, very obscure information about basic topics, and basic information on very obscure topics.
16: You know all that it currently known by experts within this field.
20: You may have a few theories of your own that would take the field even further. Time to test them!

Synergy, circumstantial and equipment modifiers, a bonus for appropriate backgrounds, and other modifiers still apply. You may still roll when debating other experts, searching for a book in a library provided that the library is currently on fire, and so on.

If every "routine" skill or task had a few examples like that, there would be little need to constantly remind players that you don't need to roll for everything.

Note: for a particularly good take on skills, see Hack & Slash. The author's notes on skills were an important inspirations for this post.

Dungeons & Dice, part IV - Using dice pools

This is the last post (at least for now) in a series about using dice in D&D (you may wish to read parts one, two and three). In this part I'll talk about some house rules for dice pools that I use in my games.

As I said in part two, one thing I really like about dice pools is the tangibility of dice. If you use multiple dice, you can assign a different meaning to each one - one die for skill, another for advantageous circumstances, and so on. You can do the same even after rolling, picking any extra dice left on the table and adding qualities to your success (or failure): more damage, more flair, less time spent, and so on.

You can also move dice around in lots of ways. If you use fate points, hero points or a similar mechanic you can have dice of different color in lieu of chips. Instead of granting a bonus to another player, you can pass a die to him. There are also ways you can move dice from one skill to another or from the attack roll to damage - adding a little risk-reward mini-game in which you can trade dice (before rolling) for a more impressive result in case of success.

The tangibility makes bonuses, skills and circumstances feel more relevant, more "real". When you use lots of dice you can physically see the resources and talents you are putting into a task. A stronger opponent can be recognized not only by an numerical bonus, but by a obviously bigger dice pool.

For me, what is really important about the system I'm using isn't that it makes you think about such things: it's the exact opposite. Moving dice around this way feels easier and more natural than calculating margins, bonuses, skills, modifiers, and so on. It doesn't require much thinking.

To build a dice pool, you can start with the usual die (I use a d20 or 3d6) and add more dice for each skill, proficiency, advantage, background, special equipment or other resource the character has at the moment. I will write more about how my house rules for such things in separated posts - basically, I use a bonus for BAB or ability but extra dice for skills and circumstances - but you can use dice pools with your own, of course.

There are multiple ways of using a dice pool system for D&D. Of the many options, two immediately come to mind: d20s and d6s. A d20 dice pool seems natural because the d20 is the prototypical D&D die, and because the current edition of D&D uses a couple of d20s in some circumstances. A d6 dice pool, on the other hand, has the advantages of availability and price (all the more important when using handfuls of dice), and has been used since Chainmail in some situations. Both are good, so let's see how we can use each. Bear in mind that the examples below are for illustration and inspiration, as I haven't tested them extensively enough to say the math is 100% solid. 

When using multiple d20s, picking just one for the result is usually easier than adding them up, so you don't have to solve things like 17+9+15, which might take more than a couple of seconds. Just find your target number (I'll use "TN" for the number you must roll to succeed), and see if any die is higher than it - if it is, the task was successful. If many dice were higher that the TN, each extra die beyond the first adds new qualities to the roll (more damage, help a friend, less time spent, etc). If the TN is greater than 20, you must roll at least one 20 and you can add a flat bonus to each extra dice that is higher than a given threshold - say, add +5 for each dice that rolled 10 or more.

You can do something similar with d6s. This time, you add them all together, but you must start with the lowest numbers in the pool. Each die that is left after you reach the TN adds a new quality to the roll.

In both cases, it is useful to have "exploding" dice to allow the higher TNs to be reached. For every d20 and for every couple of d6s that come up with the maximum number, I'll add another die to the pool. On the other hand, a "natural 1" only happens if all dice come up as one, which will make catastrophic failures very rare for skilled characters in advantageous circumstances.

If you want a rule for disadvantageous circumstances, just subtract dice from the pool until there is only one d20 or 3d6 left. Further negative circumstances make you add more dice and the using the worst d20 (or the worst 3d6). If you fail, each additional dice you would use to reach the TN now creates a negative effect. For example, if you need to roll 15 and you roll 7, 9 and 16, you must take the 7 (a failure) and the 9 would add negative effect (the character falls prone, drops an item, etc).

In my own games, I use a mixed dice pool in "high action" scenes - start with a d20 then add multiple d6s. After rolling, first use the d20 and them add the d6s, as described for the d6 dice pool, above. A d6 is a nice bonus to add to a d20 - averaging 3.5, d6s are relevant much of the time, similarly to a +1 bonus on a d6 and a +4 bonus on a d20 (and also not far from "roll 2d20, pick highest"), which are both very common rules in some editions of D&D and its clones.

So, there you go. This is my take on the dice we use for D&D, at least for the time being. What is yours?

Dungeons & Dice, part III - Comparing sizes

In parts one and two of this series, we mentioned the pros and cons of using a single d20 for task resolution in D&D. In this post, we will compare the use of a single d20 against 3d6 or other methods in a few problematic situations.

The main problem with using the d20 in D&D comes when you try to roll to compare characters' traits. Mind you, this isn't a problem for all editions, nor is it unsolvable, but it is persistent enough to be worth discussing.

First of all, there is usually little need to use the dice in order to compare characters' traits. Whoever has the biggest STR is the strongest, and so on. You may also force the characters to take 10 and be done with it.

If you decide to use the d20, though, the result might be less than satisfying.

Let's take the d20 SRD as an example:

Opposed Checks

An opposed check is a check whose success or failure is determined by comparing the check result to another character’s check result. In an opposed check, the higher result succeeds, while the lower result fails. In case of a tie, the higher skill modifier wins. If these scores are the same, roll again to break the tie.

Ability Checks

Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

So, as we said before, you wouldn't make a Strength check to see who is stronger. That makes perfect sense. For example, someone with STR 15 can carry twice as much weight as someone with STR 10, so she's obviously stronger (arguably, about twice as strong).

But what if these two characters face the same challenge? What if some luck or risk is involved? Say, both of them must climb a wall that requires a roll of 10 or more to succeed. If they have identical skills, they get to add their STR modifier to the task, so STR 10 adds +0 and STR 15 adds +2. If you compare their odds, you'll see that. about 20% of the time, the weaker character will succeed while the stronger character fails, while the opposite will happen about 30% of the time, and they will have the same result (as far as success/failure is concerned, although margins will vary) about 50% of the time.

And there are a few situations where rolling to see who is stronger might make sense. If a mighty warrior (say, STR 20) is arm-wrestling the king of Demonland (STR 25) in order to negotiate a peace treaty, just saying "the stronger character automatically wins" is very anti-climatic. But if you roll an opposed check, the king of Demonland will win only 61.25% of the time (supposing that draws go to the character with the higher ability).

Strength is the easiest example, but a score of 15 has been considered noteworthy in most editions of D&D - not only for STR, but for any ability. The chance to roll 15 in or more in 3d6 is less than 10%, so it must be a bit unusual. Even in the editions where STR is more linear (STR 15 will represent 1,5x as strong as STR 10, for example), is hard to argue that an ability of 15 shouldn't be much relevant.

Now, if you invested heavily in an ability (or got a lucky roll), would you expect to lose to an ordinary person 40% of the time? How often would you expect to be beaten by someone who is half as strong, half as smart or half as quick as you? Not that often, I would say.

There are multiple ways to solve this.

Rolling a d20 under ability makes things somewhat better, but not much, and it has the disadvantage of having a hard limit (no arm-wrestling against the STR 25 king without needing additional rules, for example).

Using 1d6 for skills and adding modifiers is even better for the mightier character. Rolling 2d6 will also work. As it often happens, there are classic solutions that work better than many of the things that came later. All this methods were used in older editions of D&D.

But all this solutions will add extra mechanics to the mix, where you could be using something more similar to the traditional combat system, like 3d6+modifers. It is close enough to 1d20+modifiers that you can use similar target numbers, and you might even use both interchangeably (rolling 3d6 when the characters' actions are slower and more predictable, and 1d20 when she's taking risks). It is also closer to the way abilities are generated. It is still very "swingy", but a lot better than 1d20.

At this point you might ask why don't just use 3d6 in combat as well. The answer is quite simple: you could, if combat was made of a single roll.

If you roll 1d20 and BAB (or THAC0, or whatever) for both sides, the fighter with +5 BAB will get beaten by the wizard with +2 BAB quite often. But since a fight is made of multiple, repeated rolls (even if we ignore different tactics, weapons, armor, hit points and so on), the chances will soon get stacked against the worse warrior.

When you compare the odds, using a d20 in situations where you must roll multiple times (say, during four exchanges) isn't much different than rolling 3d6 only once, which makes things a bit more consistent.

More important than the particular methods I use, though, are the results I'm trying to get:

- An outstanding ability score matters.
- If a character has an awesome trait, she will seldom be defeated by ordinary folk using the same trait.
- And if a character is fighting extraordinary opponents, much better than himself, he cannot count on luck to save the day; better come up with a clever plan instead.

Which happens to be the way I like to play.

Next: dice pools.