again with the Hit Points

I have more to say about starting Hit Points.  In my recent foray into Labyrinth Lord I rolled up a fighter with 4 HP.  I was mildly disappointed with the roll for a second, but then I realized that I wasn't unhappy about it at all.   I had no expectation that this character would live though his first adventure as even a single dagger blow could kill him.  Instead of feeling like I had bad luck rolling up my character, I felt tense and edgy imagining all the ways this poor bastard could bite it.  I felt good.  It was interesting putting on his shoes and feeling afraid of the world.  Paradoxically he felt alive.

The thrill of playing Beacon!

He did bite it, and in the first round of the first combat actually.  Poor Marlin Densburg - son of accountants, dusty traveler - got bitten by a giant spider and failed his save vs poison.  He did however manage to slay the spider with a mighty blow before he died. Ironically he still had 3 HP left when he expired clutching at his rapidly swelling neck, so this has no bearing on starting Hit Points at all really.  Quickly the other players gathered up his possessions and Marlin's hireling became my new character and joined in trading his morning star for Marlin's grandpa's two handed sword. Life goes on, and pragmatically these adventurers remembered their comrade, gathered everything useful to them, and knew they could be dead next time.  It was fun.  I felt good about it and I want some of that same feeling to built in the Beacon game.

Now Beacon uses STR + 1d6/level for player Hit Points and I really don't want to change the rules so that you don't roll at first level because I don't like unnecessary exceptions, they cause confusion.  I also don't think it's wise to remove the STR component from starting HP because the way magic works.  I'm not looking to make casters pass-out after casting one spell.  I can however do something like start players with half their STR + 1d6.  I could even phrase the rule to make this an option, something like - "for more thrilling games the GM should start players with half STR + 1d6".  I think this will make First Level a bit more dangerous a place and that's a good thing in my mind.

Why do this at all?  I mean this can be left up to the GM anyway so why mess with the rules?  Well I think that it's always easier to boost starting players than it is to nerf them.  Starting the players out at say, level 3 is always a good compromise if you want them to be less likely to die.  Also yes changing the rules and all that is practically expected but this comes back to previous discussions about things like silver vs gold standard and divine rituals - people have the choice of playing many types of games so the Beacon rules should represent some specific game feelings as opposed to catering to the middle ground.  Anyone playing Beacon instead of Pathfinder is going to be capable of tweaking things to their satisfaction in any case.

As for saves vs death, well I'm not as sure about that.  There are no 'death saves' in the rules per/se but certainly you can take enough damage by failing a resist roll to die. I am of two minds on this because I can see a place for deadly things that no amount of HP is going to mitigate but on the other hand, these things tend to either get watered down or abused.  I think I need to think on that some more.

Play test: On Skills

The play test is still going and it's a lot of fun for me (hopefully fun for the players as well - he he) as I'm getting the old kinks worked out and trying to find my GM voice again.  The party is still all first level after three sessions but I don't think that's necessarily bad since it is a gritty game I'm running and I'm getting a good vibe from the experience calculator as written.*  The party has encountered a small gang of bandits, slain a handful of hobgoblins, been attacked by some huge scorpions and smashed up a dozen or so goblins and they are getting close to second level.  Aside from the issues of the first session the rules as written seem to be working out pretty well and I'm also enjoying the simple random encounter tables I whipped up for travel in the forest, swamp, hills and road around Milham.  I do have some thoughts about playing however, or more specifically notes about how skills are being played.

I have here a bunch of guys who have played a lot of games.  These guys have played a lot of d&d of various types and a lot of other systems as well.  They are good at following not just the rules, but the spirit of the rules and aren't trying to 'game' the system over a typo.  Which is why I am having such a dilemma when they are telling me stuff like "I use my survival skill to sneak up on the goblin" and "I'm going to use knowledge to try to find the hidden entrance".  I probably will tell them to use those skills in those situations (as opposed to subterfuge, because of the context they are giving), but I know that if they are doing this then some people will probably be doing it EVEN MORE.  Especially those coming from more modern D&D.

It's a natural tendency for players to want to use the skills they are good at and that's all well and good but I think it does lead down a road where you have people trying to justify using their best skills for everything - and that will probably break the system.  As a GM you can't just say no all the time because that will also break the system.  The Beacon/Microlite skills are purposefully vague so that they can be combined in interesting and entertaining ways and the last thing I want to do is get into the situation where someone says "I can't tie the rope, I don't have that skill".  That is the real enemy right there, that way of thinking.  Meditating on this for a while now and what I think must be done is to crack down on this in the rules by very explicitly stating the following:

Players describe their actions without using any skill or stat references, then the GM assigns the DC and the skills/stats to use.  

I think this is one of those rare play-style rules that can't just be mentioned, it needs to be emphasized and entrenched in the system as a procedure. Sure you can appeal the GM's decision and make your case and all that if you think you are getting the shaft because you wanted to use your 7 knowledge to punch someone**, but that has to be after the fact because otherwise it is just too easy for players to fall into the old way of thinking a skill for an action as opposed to DESCRIBING THEIR ACTIONS and thus metagaming their way out of a lot of fun.  Also if the GM is shafting people or the players are arguing skill checks all the time then you probably need a more structured game than Beacon anyway.  Ya play your game your way and all that, but sometimes rules really set a tone.  It kind of reminds me of the suggestion in the card game Dominion to verbalize your action and buy status as you play your cards - following that style simply makes the game better for everyone.



*basic rate = (HD type * HD number )*10, for example a goblin with 1d6 would be worth 60xp, where a 4d8 monster would be worth 320.  Add some extra for special abilities.

** "But I have studied anatomy tomes and I know where to punch them better!"

Resisting Magic

Microlite says this about resisting spells:

The Difficulty Class (DC) for all spells is 10 + Caster Level + Caster's MIND bonus

Fair enough, this is right out of the 3.5 SRD.  This is a somewhat OK rule for determining if creatures resist magic, but not so good a rule for if players resist magic.  Unless you really want to stat out all your NPC casters or use monster HD for their MIND bonus (which could be perfectly acceptable), then it adds unnecessary complication. Also 10 is a normal difficulty, I think resisting a spell should be somewhat harder than say hearing an approaching guard.  You should be breaking a sweat anyway. Also I can see a player's MIND stat influencing their ability to successfully cast a spell and to resist a spell - however once a spell is cast I figure it's a done deal - the magic horse has left the barn - and so the caster's MIND bonus is not likely to influence that target's ability to resist it's effects.  Let's give the dimwitted spell casters a break on this one.

So this is what I say about resisting spells:

 For spells that can be resisted, the resisting target must match the Difficulty Class (DC) of 15 + Caster Level.

I'd almost be tempted to use the spell level instead of the caster level because otherwise you are going to have to figure out the caster's level for scrolls, wands, magic traps and all matter of things.  If you just said DC was 15+2*spell level you could have everything laid out right on the table.  Of course you would then have capped resistance to low level spells.  A 15th level caster can cast a sleep spell just like a 1st level caster can - should the target be resisting that sleep spell against DC 30 or DC 17?  I guess it depends on how you think magic should work (and in particular point based magic).

Save vs. Saving Throws

I just can't leave this saving thrown idea alone.  Even though it's perfectly normal to have a standard couple of saving throws and to have them increase as a class or level advantage I just don't like having to bolt this onto the otherwise pretty decent skill system.  There should be no need to have a separate mechanic for reactive skill checks (saves) as opposed to active skill checks (your regular skill rolls) It should be possible for a player to buff certain skills and have that translate to a higher chance of dodging a falling rock or greater mental fortitude to resist a charm.  It should also be possible to have the GM make a up a reactive skill check based on the situation   instead of having a predetermined saving throw to determine if someone avoids getting splashed with orge urine. I also am totally into the idea of players being able to customize character development through skill selection and I want to encourage the rogues who are practicing their acrobatic skills (points into Physical) or the fighters who are hitting the books (spending points on Knowledge) in order to better deal with magical attacks.

So I'm going to pull a 180 and I'm not going to create special "saving throws" based on level.  What I will do is try to figure out some notable combinations within the skill system to base reactive checks for special creature or situational effects like drain and petrification.  I think that physical will likely still be the most common skill used for these things but I think that that is OK - it does pay to exercise when you are in the adventuring business.

Some initial thoughts:

• Fortitude and reflex type saves will stay the same - physical + STR or DEX respectively;
• Resisting undead draining effects or other attacks on the "spirit" perhaps Survival + CHA;
• Knowledge is a good stand in for study, focus and mental discipline - thus resisting magic in general would use  Knowledge + MIND;
• Resisting illusions, glamors and other charming or persuading effects might rely on your 'more creative side' so could be Subterfuge + MIND;
• The Communication skill would impart composure and an eye for detail which would be a good basis for reactive 'notice' and surprise checks (Communication + MIND) - not exactly a "save" but useful enough to be desirable.

Saving Throws

Sometimes one thing will lead to another thing, and then another, until you are looking up things on the Internet again and trying to figure out how you are going to get out of this one.  It all started for me with updating monster stat blocks.  Well I guess since monsters play a large part of the mechanics of the game it's only natural that when you are dealing with them you will run into the rules.  In particular in this case I  ran into the rules about saving throws.  Well I thought I had it all figured out - anytime you needed to roll a 'reactive check' (basically a saving throw) such as fortitude or reflex you would simply roll physical skill + STR or DEX bonus against a DC.  Nice and simple.  Well it then made sense that for things like level drain or strength drain that you would roll physical skill + CHA bonus right?  It does make sense to me anyway.  Then I thought well resisting mind control and distractions could be physical skill + MIND bonus.   It even makes a nice table for reference:

Voila!  It all makes sense and the problem is solved.  Well not quite.

The problem now is that you have placed a real premium on the Physical skill.  As fighters are the only class to get bumps to this skill as a class advancement you have given fighter's a big bump as well.  This in itself isn't so bad but I can see this really cutting into the skills that players would otherwise take.  If the only way to increase your saves is to spend points on physical then people won't want to spend them on knowledge or communication as often.  Meanwhile that fighter with her built in class increase is becoming a better public speaker than the cleric and a better tracker than the hunter...  You could use other skills as the base for different checks to mix things up a bit, but it really doesn't solve the problem because some checks are going to be more common than others and it also makes things complicated.  Damn.

The solution I am thinking of for this is to instead use level + STAT bonus to do these saves.  I'd still use the same breakdown but instead of basing the advancement on the skill I'd use level (or half level actually) to model the character's increasing resistance to things.   This is nice cause it's simple and lets players increase their resistance without having to sacrifice skill choice. In someways I hate to do this cause it takes away a little from the skill system, (you can't build up your character to resist poisons or have amazing concentration) but in other ways it does bring experience into the equation and I think can live with that idea.

I think...  And just when I thought everything was all figured out too.

Sanity and saving throws and morale

Yes I am thinking again, and yes I am considering adding more words to the game, and yes I realize that this is how giant fat oaks grow from tiny acorns.  No, I don't want to make Beacon more rules heavy or harder to play, but I have a couple nagging "what if's" that keep creeping into the front of my mind.  What if I was running a game with a really scary monster in it?  What if a vampire tried to seduce a character?  What if the party kills the goblin chief in front of his war band?  What if you read the post title and now you see where I'm going here?

Charisma is traditionally a dump stat, and even though the Microlite style stat and skill system makes dump stats less of a problem, there is still a likelihood that it will be the poor cousin to Mind, Dexterity and Strength.  I know that the Beacon book is all "roll 3d6 and suck it up kids", but I also know that many folks will opt for more control over where those numbers end up in the stat block.  That means dump stats.  But now, what if there was a really compelling reason to have a decent Charisma score?  Something like Sanity checks and Morale?  It doesn't even have to be a new mechanic - One thing you will notice is that the Microlite/Beacon core has no saving throws - anything that seems to require a more traditional saving throw is accomplished with a stat check.  Well by making sure that Charisma gets used for more than flashing winning smiles at a merchants to get 5% discounts on sword sharpening, you solve most of the problem.  Evil wizard is casting a fear spell - Roll CHA checks kids.  There is a horde of ogres on dragon back cresting the hill and you just put on fresh underclothes - Roll CHA check.   There are shoggoths  in the village well and seeing their pulpy masses makes you want to gibber a bit and jump on in - Roll CHA check. 
Charisma - the other mental stat. It's what separates the brave from the run-awayers - distinguishes those with steely resolve from those with vampire boyfriends.  Sure you could use MIND for these things - but that means all your magic using folks would be stalwart with firm grips on reality and you wouldn't have as many mad mages or those brave but stupid warriors, and really - that wouldn't be much fun at all. 

The only flaw in this otherwise perfect plan is that most monsters don't have a CHA score to use for combat morale and I certainly don't want to stat out all the monsters.  I guess some sort of Morale table based on HD will have to do for those cases (but how to distinguish cowardly goblins vs berserk lizardmen?). However, any NPCs with stats better have a decent CHA if they want to stand face to face against a gang of wet gibbering  PCs crawling back out of that well.