I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.

- William Blake

Thursday, April 28, 2022

Real time (dungeon) exploration

I've learned about the idea of "real time combat" in old school games a long while ago. It goes like this: since in Old School D&D combat turns take longer (usually one minute), the time it takes to resolve combat in real life is about the same time it takes inside the fictional world. If the players take 10 minutes to fight the dragon, 10 minutes have passed for their PCs too.

(This doesn't usually work for modern D&D, since combat turns are only six seconds and combat is more complex; a combat may take an hour to resolve in the table, but only one minute has passed in the fictional world).

Recently, I've been hearing about "real time downtime" or something similar (usually called "1:1 Timescale" or something; Jeffro Johnson has been talking about this recently, as have some YouTube channels). This means that if you spend one week (or one month, etc.) between sessions, one week has passed for the PCs, allowing them to heal, research, rotate characters, etc.

These are both interesting ideas that I have not tried extensively.

This post is about a similar idea, that I haven't heard elsewhere (AFAICT).

Old school D&D has strict rules governing how long exploration takes: one exploration "turn" takes 10 minutes and allow moving 120 feet (for an armored PC) or searching through a 10 x 10 square (or something; I do not remember the exact numbers). 

This is a simplification. It should be obvious that finding a key on the ground of an otherwise empty, featureless room is faster than finding it in a chest full of objects.

Of course, creating (or dealing with) different rules for every situation would be cumbersome. 

So why not try real time?



Take this example (a room with six statues, the only treasure is an emerald eye in one of them): 

GM: "You enter a small room with six painted statues. They depict humans in various poses." 
PC 1: "Do we recognize anyone" 
GM: "No, they look like ordinary people. One statue has sculpted fruits around its feet, another has a couple of dogs, a third one has coins and ...". 
PC 2 (interrupting): "I'll examine this one!" 
GM: "The one with the coins?" 
PC 2: "Yes! Can I take the coins?" 
GM: "No, they are sculpted in the rocks." 
PC 2: "Is there anything else in the statue?" 
GM: "When you look closer, you see one of the eyes is completely green... looks like an emerald (or: "roll perception", etc.).

As you can see, the longer the players and GM converse, the longer the PCs take. If the PCs are uninterested in looking further, they only see the obvious, but it takes less time. Conversely, detailed exploration will take longer both in the real world and in the fictional world.

Our example takes less than 10 minutes, of course, but that's only because the PC chose the right statue right away.

There are lots of caveats and exceptions, of course. 

Six PCs could search the six statues simultaneously; in that case, the DM should briefly describe there is nothing important about any of them except for one. Conversely, if a single PC wanted to examine every single statue, the DM could simply ask "how long will you take" and decide if the time chosen by the PC is enough to find the eye (one minute would not be enough IMO, but 10-20 minutes might).

Every time that the players or GM mention time units ("we will rest for 10 minutes", "it takes half an hour to climb the mountain", etc.) is an exception for the "real time" procedure.

As an aside: it is obvious that the "real time" rule applies to interactions, conversations, etc. Usually, we reproduce in the real world the conversations the PCs and NPCs are having. The same applies to conversations between the PCs - even if the players are talking about metagame issues ("Is anyone hurt? I can heal.", "Let's see, I lost 10 HP..."), we assume the PCs are having a similar discussion ("I have only a small wound....").

For outdoor exploration, applying "real time" is really hard; I wouldn't use it. For urban exploration, it would work when interacting socially, but transportation would require fictional time ("it takes twenty minutes to go to his house"...). Both of these are beside the point; this idea is for dungeon exploration, and you're not usually searching through 10x10 squares in the forest or city streets.

I it far from perfect, but I feel there is something to it...

What is the point?

My main goal here is the following experiment:

Get a timer. Mark 30 minutes (or one hour, etc.). When the bell rings, maybe you roll for random encounters, torches go out (if appropriate), and so on.

This happens no matter what the PCs are doing - exploring, resting, or even fighting. Torches might go out while you're looking at the statues; another encounter may happen in the middle of combat*! Maybe reinforcements? Or potential allies?

(*Combine this with real time combat for great results!)

It feels organic, and it is one less thing for the GM to worry about. You do not need to keep careful track of time... just use a timer!

(Make sure it is a timer you can readjust on the fly. If the PCs rest for 10 minutes and there is more than 10 minutes left, adjust the clock. If there is less than 10 minutes left, they might be interrupted during the rest).

This is not only for the GM - the players will hear the alarm too (being interrupted by surprise is the whole point), although it would probably be better if they don't try to "game" the system (to rest with no chance of encounters, for example).

I'm expecting that this will create a sense of urgency in dungeon exploration, increasing focus, and making conversation between players much more deliberate. Might even increase attention, etc. On the other hand, it might feel too intense for casual games.

Well, I think it is worth a try. Let me know if you ever tried something similar!

Sunday, April 24, 2022

The Random Quantum Ogre

Just a brief aside in a long series of posts about the subject (start here). I keep coming back to this subject. It has been discussed extensively, but it is of pivotal importance to RPGs IMO.
Let's imagine a gaming scenario where the group must search a series of woods looking for the MacGuffin - Woods A, B, and C.  The MacGuffin could be in any of the woods.  Pick a wood, pick any wood!  It could be the classic Shell Game in D&D!

One DM - we'll call him Scripto-DM - scripts the content for all 3 woods in advance, and locks the MacGuffin into Wood B.  The other DM - Improv-DM - makes a detailed encounter with an Ogre, and keeps that game content unassigned.  Regardless of which woods the players choose first, he'd like the party to have the opportunity to encounter the ogre.  The MacGuffin will be somewhere else.

Most folks will say that Scripto-DM has enabled player agency and free choice; Improv-DM is setting up a railroad.  Let's first take a closer look at Improv-DM.

When the party boldly announces they will head out to Wood C first, looking for the MacGuffin, they run into Improv-DM's (supposedly excellent) Ogre encounter.  He reasons that he could have improvised the woods with random encounter tables, but instead developed an encounter in advance.  By deciding at game time that the MacGuffin is not in Wood C, and the Ogre is there instead, has he *actually* violated player agency?  Player will or choice has not been thwarted.  They wanted to go to the woods, and Lo! - they are in the woods.  And yet objectively he has preordained a game result.

Now, think of random encounter tables. They are fun, IMO.

Roll 1d20. If  you get a 17 the result is an... ogre.

If you have a single encounter table for Woods A, B, and C, and roll a 17, this is nearly the same as plotting an encounter in advance. The random ogre is almost a quantum ogre.

Think of it this way: it would be easier to "roll" for weather for say, one week, in advance. Same could be said for random encounters. Nothing wrong with rolling them beforehand. And if you get an ogre, the PCs get an ogre, no matter where they go (except, of course, if they decide to leave the woods).

Now the random ogre is undistinguishable from the quantum ogre.

Can you tell the two apart? I am not sure I can.

And I'm also not sure if this is always bad.


Planning "the party will meet an ogre tomorrow regardless of what they do" feels forced and rail-roady. But it is easy to see how the PCs didn't lose all agency - they can decide to hide, make a fire, go through a bridge, or into an abandoned cabin to rest for the day, and each choice will alter the conditions of the encounter.

It happened in one of my Curse of Strahd games (which has some encounters that happen "when you feel appropriate", which I disliked). For some reason I can't quite remember, a nearby skeleton would reanimate at midnight or something. I thought that would be a cool encounter. But the PCs decided to lock themselves into a tower.

So the skeleton came knocking.

They never opened the door. Nothing happened. They found the bones near the door the next morning.

It was a creepy, it was fun.

Maybe there is something to this.

No conclusions for this one. Maybe I'm a bit tired today. Just a few random thoughts, and I hope we can discuss some of these ideas in the comments.

Recommended reading:

Thursday, April 07, 2022

Public domain art (sources)

When I published Dark Fantasy Basic, I've used only public domain art. It is free and you don't have to study each individual license, or hire a professional. 

However, I prefer to use stock art or hire a professional artist if possible, which I did for other books (and for the amazing cover on DFB!).

Stock art is easier to find, and dealing with a professional is even better (if more expensive). 

However, I sometimes use a piece or two of PD art to fill some gap if I don't find the right image elsewhere. PD often requires "cleaning"  work (I use GIMP) to look nice, which is a bit of a hassle. But sometimes it is really worth it.

Anyway, here are my sources for Dark Fantasy Basic:

* Monster Brains (not all posts are PD).



Here are a few of examples from the book:







Some favorite PD artists: Sidney SimeHenry Justice Ford, Willy Pogany, Gustave Dore, and Albrecht Dürer.

I've recently found this compilation on Reddit. (I also found this, which is awesome, but I probably should write another post about free art that is not PD).

One caveat: I am not an IP lawyer and the laws about PD may vary from country to country.

Do you know other sources? Do you sell or give away stock art? Let people know in the comments!

Monday, March 21, 2022

"What if you don't fudge?" addendum - OSR versus modern D&D

A small addendum to my latest post. I shared in on Reddit, in both OSR and "general D&D" (i.e., all editions) communities.

While the reaction in the OSR circles has been mostly positive (with a few "this is obvious," "you're late to the party", "you're preaching to the choir" comments) the "general D&D" reaction has been mixed.

In the D&D community, I've got positive and negative comments, and even a few vague defenses of fudging die rolls (especially for new players or low-level PCs since the system is "too deadly"), but not really any extensive defenses of fudging. Maybe the most elaborate response I got is that dice are there to help you tell a story, and they should be disregarded if they hinder the story.

(Even if you think RPGs are meant to tell a story, I do think fudging dice WITHOUT players knowing this possibility is tantamount to cheating. Detailed explanation here). 



It might be a particularity of these two communities... but I do not think so. I think this may point to a fundamental difference between OSR and modern D&D. I am certain that many 5e players and GMs find fudging dice abominable, but at least the idea is more or less acceptable in "modern D&D" circles.

I do not think, however, that this is entirely intentional. The lack of an elaborate argument in defense of fudging and even the lack of honest communication (i.e., DMs fudge the dice without telling the players that this is possible) indicates to me that this is an habit that "modern" DMs adopted without reflection.

Let me reiterate that I do not object to whatever play-style you choose. However, I'd encourage you to reflect on that and choose what you find best. 

I'd also love to see a coherent defense of fudging. 

I am thinking of at least one argument myself: I think PC death is a PROBLEM to be solved and not only a preference (something I address by the end of the last post but deserves a post of its own, coming soon).

Further reading:

Monday, March 14, 2022

What if you don't fudge your rolls?

You are the DM. The encounter is harder than you expected and things are going south fast. You ask yourself if you made an error when calculating the "challenge rating" (don't feel bad - CR is not an exact science and if simply doesn't work sometimes). Maybe the PCs were too inexperienced to know that a dragon is too strong for them, or maybe the dragon appeared as a random encounter - not the fault of the players! You don't want a TPK on your hands - especially if it is unfair. So maybe you change the dragon's HP, or maybe you fudge a few rolls so that the players can survive (just barely) until the monster is defeated.

Voilá - crisis averted. Let's hope the next fight is easier!

Fair enough, this is one style of play. It is popular in some circles, and quite unpopular in others (mainly OSR). Let's say it is a matter of taste.

However, there is another style: you don't fudge your rolls. Let the dice fall where they may. What happens?


This will force you out of your comfort zone, into difficult positions and creates lots and lots of questions.

First, the players will soon realize they are not safe anymore. They must pick their battles carefully, and use strategy wisely. Is it a good idea to start a fight that we don't know we can win? Maybe paying one gp for the bridge troll is cheaper than risking death. The next monster we encounter might be the "wrong" CR for us. Maybe we should talk before attacking, or maybe find out if the monster is hungry or defending its offspring.

But - worse! - PCs are subject to being attacked by a strong monster they cannot defeat in a random encounter! So they must learn to retreat, hide, negotiate, or even surrender.  And, even harder, they must find ways to avoid being exposed in the wilderness for too long. Maybe ask around for rumors to see what they might find in their travels, or hire guides and even guards when exploring.

And the DM is also forced to answer some questions.

Will the NPC negotiate or accept surrender? Now, you must ask yourself WHY the NPCs are fighting. And you'll often realize not every fight is to the death. Beasts defending their territory and even automatons defending treasures are likely to stay put if you run away. Humanoids will prefer ransom to bloodshed. Undead become scarier - although outrunning a zombie is not that hard. In older versions of D&D, you could use food or gold to distract enemies - they prefer the prize to the fight. 

What is the NPC looking for? Few creatures are purely killing machines, and fewer will willingly fight to their own deaths. If you don't use morale rules, use common sense - will that goblin still fight on despite seeing his nine allies fall to four strong PCs? The answer is, probably not - and when he does, it will be memorable.

(This post and my Teratogenicon try to answer these questions).

And maybe the players will ask themselves what they are fighting for, and start accept surrendering, leave fleeing enemies be, and so on.

In any case, now every fight is unpredictable, not only for the players, but also for the DM! You no longer have the burden of control - you let the dice do that for you. Relax and enjoy! Use the time you usually spend fudging with math and dice to think about tactics, motives, and NPC reactions. Once you know you do not control the outcome, you can feel free to root for your favorite team (hopefully, the PCs!).

And maybe all these things will not prevent a PC from dying. Sometimes the PC has a cause he or she is willing to die for. It might be an epic ending to the PC's saga... or a tragic accident. In any case, now we will see that the game as a whole is bigger than any single PC. We can create a new PC and get around to destroy the big bad guy, or maybe this is the story about how the kingdom was lost.

As you can see, not fudging rolls is more complex than fudging. But I'd say you should try it. All these questions will spark the creativity of players and DMs alike, and it will change your game forever. You may want to go back to fudging just a few rolls later on (although in my experience this is a slippery slope). See what style you prefer. 

Let me repeat a recent story. I'm currently running a written campaign, using a new RPG system the players had never tried (nor had I). In the very first adventure, they were almost wiped out by two random thugs and a ghoul. They had no fault in the matter - they couldn't have known (again, nor did I, although I had mentioned this system was dark and gritty and that the PCs were level 0). But I ran the encounter as written - and it did set the tone for the whole campaign. 

It was a dark game. My opinion would be very different if I was going for a funny campaign, for example.

Anyway, there is much more to be discussed. Just how hard is to create a new PC? Maybe you don't want to spend a couple of hours every couple of session doing that (I know I don't!). Or maybe you think beginner players shouldn't be subject to PC death (and that may lead them to believe that PCs never die). 

Maybe you like to leave PC death on the table, but also use tools to revert it - there might be a reason in the setting the PCs cannot die. Maybe they are cursed to fight on and on until they win, like Dark Souls or another videogame. Or change the system a bit - change the "death save DC", or rule that creatures reduced to 0 HP are just unconscious until someone willingly kills them. 

I once had a game where a PC would only die if  he chose to enter a battle to the death - the player would explicitly say, "my PC is willing to die for this" (this is what my house rules about sacrifice are about, BTW).. 

Or maybe you like permanent wounds and maiming, and you can offer  the PC a choice between dismembering and death when the time comes (make sure the players are on board with this before you start the game!).

And then there is resurrection, reincarnation, time travel, clones, descents into the Abyss or deals with Death itself...

The possibilities are endless - fudging dice is only one of them, and not particularly interesting in my opinion.

Further reading: 
This post is another take on this subject, and it repeats some ideas. See also:

Sunday, March 13, 2022

Thursday, March 10, 2022

How many encounters per day? (D&D 5e)

The DMG says 6-8 on page 84:
Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.
So that's settled, see you in the next post. ;)

Just kidding.


Regardless of being more or less explicit, this generates endless discussion online: are 6-8 encounters needed? Could you replace them by fewer, tougher encounters as the DMG suggests? Or this is just a matter of taste and it can vary from table to table? Are these COMBAT encounters or ANY encounters?

IMO, the game is build with the expectation of 6-8 combat encounters per day, and it is not easy to break away from this - and it is not the same if you just throw harder encounters at your party.

Take a look at the barbarian. He or she progresses from 2 to 6 rages per day, only getting unlimited rage at level 20. This means that, obviously, he is expected to have more than 2 encounters per day, or the rages would be effectively unlimited form level 1. It ALSO means that you will frequently have more than 6 encounters per day for the same reason (otherwise, we could just say "unlimited" earlier).

The barbarian is the best example but not the only one. Many class features can be used a number of times equal to your main ability modifier (usually ranging from +3 to +5) and, recently, equal to your proficiency bonus (from +2 to +6) per day. Bardic inspiration is another example.

Notice that HP follows a different reasoning, since it is more granular (i.e., you can lose 30 HP in three different combats and just heal it all at once).

Unlike rage, you could say that a harder encounter would force PCs to "spam" their abilities, but that's not always easy to do, since most combats will not last for more than three or four rounds anyway. Some features have a duration that indicates they'll last for the entire combat (e.g., 1 minute), so there is no point in using it again. 

Abilities that can be "spammed" or used more often (e.g., superiority dice) are usually based on short rests.

Spellcasting is somewhat similar, but not exactly; you can cast your "best" spells from 1 to 3 times a day. These spells are often more powerful than most features, however, which is why they are meant to be used less often. If you have only two or three encounters per day, wizards - an already powerful class -  might completely outshine other PCs (e.g., the barbarian). In addition, the wizard recovers some spell slots on short rests.

Non-combat encounters? Well... most class features I've mentioned above are about combat. Sure, maybe a trap or obstacle can use a spell slot or two, but hardly a rage, superiority dice or divine smite. Social encounters? That is even harder; there are few expendable features to use here.

There are also "per encounter" features, but they are relatively rare (they usually have something to do with roiling initiative, which means combat).

Can you use a different number? 

Yes, of course. But it is not easy to balance. Twelve different encounters a day with few short rests would be though for wizards... but that's a lot of encounters, and I can hardly imagine even a professional soldier during war having that many.

Maybe sending wave after wave of weak enemies would be interesting; let combat drag on for a minute or more, let martials (and rogues) shine, etc. This might make sense if you dealing with a disorganized army or even invading a dungeon and making noise, so you can fit 6-8 encounters or even more without sounding absurd. If you send them all at once, a fireball will solve the issue faster.

In short, the game is built for dungeons full of monsters in separate rooms.

Is there an easy solution? Well, there are various solutions, but not necessarily easy. You could use HD to power your features, for example, and introduce a 5-min rest to recover some HD right after a fight. You could make it harder to rest in the wild, which would allow you to have dungeons full of encounters and wilderness with one or two per day at most. Or divide your session in expeditions instead of days.

But, ultimately, it depend on the type of the game you want to run, and using the same rules for hexcrawls and dungeoncrawls is not easy.