[AD&D 2e] {Preplay} Preparing a simulationist AD&D game.

[Alex Abate Biral]

Greetings to all! While I am not new here, I might as well be. I simply didn't stick around before. I have, however, finally started to read the many essays on the site, and I am really impressed with them. Thus, I decided to try to become more active here and hopefully better understand some principles behind RPG design.

To this end, I am also going to try to start a few games and hopefully apply some principles of the GNS model and see them in action. I expect these games to be fun to play on their own (and possibly even more so than usual because of the application of the principles), but I hope that by analyzing how play goes and posting about it here, I will be able to better grasp some of the principles.

Right now, I am already planning 4 games, though I believe only one or two of them will start soon. This post is about one of them. I will create different threads for the others (unless it is preferred I keep everything in one thread). I am going to start only with simulationist games, because this is the mode I am most familiar with. I do hope to further along start gamist and narrativist games however. So, without further ado:

The first game I am planning will be a second edition AD&D game. While I have played this AD&D before, I don't think my past experience was really "pure". The DM of our game changed a lot of things around, and though the resulting game was very fun, I think that a less modified experience might be educational. Also, Ron mentions AD&D as an example of incoherent simulationist game design. Seeing how this incoherence is there and understanding how to get around it would also help me get a better grasp of the idea, I think.

So, getting to the game per se, I am thinking of running a game where the most important element of exploration is situation. I will try to create a game where many kinds of situation (not only looting and fighting) present themselves to the characters. These situations can have many different resolutions; depending on the abilities of the PCs. The way they are resolved will create consequences in character and setting. These two elements, in turn, will be focused in providing these consequences. I am thinking of using color to draw attention away from the fact setting and characters are subservient to situation, but I am not very sure how to do it. The main use of color, however, will be to give depth to the player's actions.

Specifically, I am going for a setting alike that of the Conan stories. A violent world with many different nations inside it, where a single walled city can have its own culture and people. However, even though the world is violent, there is much room to political intrigue, to diplomacy and to coercion. Magic is dangerous and distrusted.

As an example: the players may find themselves needing, or maybe wanting, to gather some information on an enemy. They will have many options available. They might try to gather information from the townspeople, they might try to shadow a minion of the enemy and discover what they can, they might try to hit the books and find out what the enemy might be looking for in that region, they might try to summon some otherworld creature and bargain the knowledge, etc. Supposing they try the magic option, I and the player will use color to describe how the summoning occurs and what kind of creature appear. The consequences of the action will depend on color as well as system. For example, if while coloring the scene it is mentioned that the invocation cast eerie green lights around, it might arouse suspicion from the townsfolk, while the information gained (and the price of such) would depend on what the spell can summon (system) and what is actually summoned (which will depend on color, as I am thinking of having innumerable types of otherworldly creatures, rather than usual D&D cosmology).

That said, I hope someone more experienced than me can help with some issues. Already, I have a few doubts, and I am sure there are other issues I can't even see with the idea. Well, first, I understand that AD&D second edition is incoherent gamist/simulationist design. I am striving for a simulationist game. Although I expect to identify any issues during play and work them out, I am interested in knowing if there are some changes that are a "no brainer" to make.

To make things worse, I am interested in exploring consequences t the actions of the PCs, but consequence is also an important part of gamist system. So, I am worried that I may be aggravating the problem. I am thinking of escaping by having consequences that mostly aren't clear cut good or bad, but this might not be enough.

Another issue I am afraid of is that maybe there is a better system to do this. I know nothing of 1st edition AD&D and very little of old D&D. Maybe these systems would be better suited for my purpose? I also played around with Hackmaster a little, but I understand it is even more gamist than AD&D. Is that right?

Finally, I also it is worth noting that another game I am considering/planning would be very like this one. Possibly even a mirror of the setting. However, it would have more developed characters and settings. It also would have a much more developed system for the various kinds of situation. The idea would be to increase the importance of system in things that only color was providing structure.

For example, in the summoning example, rather than being left only at color's mercy, the way a creature is summoned would depend on the system. Another example would be magic itself. Rather than being merely described and colored as something dangerous and maddening, it would be given actual rules to reflect this.

This would probably (but not certainly) use another system as base. I am thinking of using GURPS and adding rules to deal with the situations in more detail. But maybe there is something more suited out there.

Lastly, I want to say that I am sorry if this is not the right forum to discuss pre play. If so, I ask that any moderator move it to a better suited forum. By the way, If I wasn't very clear anywhere in this text, feel free to point it out.

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi Alex,

First recommendation- whatever games you play, I'd worry about the Big Model theory stuff after the fact. 

It sounds like you might be confused about some aspects ("consequences = gamism", etc.), but really it's better to play first, then see how it applies rather than build a construct in your head then try to apply it to play.  Play first, analyze later.

The biggest, biggest, biggest thing that's going to affect your game is whether the group is on the same page or not.  Not just "Conan-like", but literally their understanding of how play works for this game, this time. 

Are some of the players expecting a map and some encounters, and outside of that, no nudging or pushing on your part?  Are some players expecting a pre-written story which you will guide them through?  Something else?

Does playing D&D of any type mean they're expecting you to follow the rules?  Are they expecting you to fiat and fudge at will?  Are PCs supposed to work as a team?  Are they supposed to backstab each other?

Does Conan mean the original stories, the knock-offs, the movies, the comics, or the videogames?  Does it just mean half-naked people kicking ass or running into driven people trying to use you as a tool?

These are just some very outlying questions that the group -has- to get on board with - some groups find it naturally, some do not.  Part of the reason AD&D in general leads towards incoherent play is that many of these questions are unanswered and little or no tools are given to help a group even realize how crucial they are to playing.

AD&D 2E adds an additional feature that also causes problems- the experience system.  Older versions of D&D rewarded experience for gold acquired, which made a simple reward system and you can see why stuff like encumberance, etc. is included. 

AD&D 2E has a neat system where the characters are rewarded for doing actions along their class - Fighters for fighting, Wizards for magic, etc. which is "realistic" (loosely speaking), but also tends to reward not working as a team or even fighting monsters.  This -could- be a fun idea, but it's also layered on top of legacy rules designed specifically with the ideas that the party sticks together and that xp is gained primarily by dungeon delving and not combat.

There's definitely probably better systems to use, but again, the question is whether the group is on the same page, and excited about it.  All of the same questions I listed above will have to be resolved for successful play of any game.

Chris

[Rustin]

Alex,
I'm going through almost the exact thing (d20 3.5 Sim Pirate/Swashbuckling).
Maybe we can help each other.

The terms I've focused in on are Color and Reward, on the assumption that if everyone aims at the same color and reward, things should go ok.

I'm about to send out an email to this group talking about Color and Exploration, specifically detailing my understanding of our shared priority.  Then I talk about how fair fights and literary narrative exploration will take a second seat to exploration, where the test is plausibility in relationship to the color and setting we've agreed upon.

I'm just starting a part where I examine the rules we've agreed upon, and I'm trying to point out where they might trip us up in our Sim priority, and then offer some tweaks and suggestions. What specifically I want to tweak, however, I'm still not sure.

In the forefront, I see that high level characters strain my sense of plausibility given the genre.  So I'm thinking maybe using the Epic 8 or epic 6 rules (where they level up to 6th or 8th level, then after that they can get feats, but only if they have the correct pre-req).

I'm a bit worried about Mechanical reward (e.g., Exp, magic etc...) as the d20 system has reward fueled into more tactical battle ability balance mechanic. 

Also, I'm not sure I want to lock sim-approriate sword fighty  actions up in a feat box.  I look through the Swashbuckling rules and many maneuvers are unavailable until really high levels.   Not sure I like that.

Next I want to address Situation, because often Situation in sim can mimic Nar like priorities.  I don't think many Nar elements are mutually exclusive from Sim, just that the approach and emphasis is different.   There is no discovery of character through moral testing, per se, rather we experience a character archetype in moralistic like situation, and maybe the experience makes the archetype experience more immersive.  I think it is a subtle difference.

I noted in your post:

I will try to create a game where many kinds of situation (not only looting and fighting) present themselves to the characters. These situations can have many different resolutions; depending on the abilities of the PCs. The way they are resolved will create consequences in character and setting. These two elements, in turn, will be focused in providing these consequences. I am thinking of using color to draw attention away from the fact setting and characters are subservient to situation, but I am not very sure how to do it.

Which looks like you're even planning on walking closer to that Sim line than I.
From reading that paragraph, are you sure you won't be happier with Narrativism?

[Alex Abate Biral]

Hi Alex,
First recommendation- whatever games you play, I'd worry about the Big Model theory stuff after the fact. 

It sounds like you might be confused about some aspects ("consequences = gamism", etc.), but really it's better to play first, then see how it applies rather than build a construct in your head then try to apply it to play.  Play first, analyze later.

Thanks for the reply, Chris! Just some clarifications: first, while I am surely still confused about some aspects of the big theory, I understand that things aren't so simply as "consequences = gamism". I am just afraid that if I don't focus the game correctly, the play simply won't go smoothly.

I definitely agree that having some actual play to back up the theory would be useful. However, I would like to steer a bit the way the game will be played, and I find that using this terminology helps thinking about how I want to shape play.
It occurred to me that maybe you thought that I am thinking only on this level, not giving thought to how this would be played out in reality. While I do need to give a lot more thought on this, I am trying to use the theory only as a guide.

The biggest, biggest, biggest thing that's going to affect your game is whether the group is on the same page or not.  Not just "Conan-like", but literally their understanding of how play works for this game, this time. 

Are some of the players expecting a map and some encounters, and outside of that, no nudging or pushing on your part?  Are some players expecting a pre-written story which you will guide them through?  Something else?

Does playing D&D of any type mean they're expecting you to follow the rules?  Are they expecting you to fiat and fudge at will?  Are PCs supposed to work as a team?  Are they supposed to backstab each other?

Does Conan mean the original stories, the knock-offs, the movies, the comics, or the videogames?  Does it just mean half-naked people kicking ass or running into driven people trying to use you as a tool?

These are just some very outlying questions that the group -has- to get on board with - some groups find it naturally, some do not.  Part of the reason AD&D in general leads towards incoherent play is that many of these questions are unanswered and little or no tools are given to help a group even realize how crucial they are to playing.

I agree completely. I haven't yet decided all these questions, though I think it is coming along. Still, I don't know how to best bring everyone to the same page. If everything goes as I expect, the group which will be playing this game will be a really great bunch, so I will b able to count on the players being a patient and understanding.

Either way, I was thinking of explaining to them what the game is about before starting, and then running a few scenes on the character creation to determine a bit how the character's life is shaped and to give an introduction about the world to the players.

By the way, to answer your questions, the way I am envisioning the game now, I will be trying to involve the PCs by presenting a few hooks sometimes, but I want this to be rare, and rather than using plot hooks to fish for characters, I want action to be guided by the player actions and the consequences of the same. In other words, I don't want to have to use much force. I will try to make them aware of this at the start by using more force than I want to make play safer, but gradually remove the safety net.

The PCs should work as a team, because the way I am designing the play, being a lone character may not be able to deal with the situations properly. His actions may become too limited or simply ineffective. For example, a warrior whose only abilities are in combat won't have many options on how to deal with defamation of his good name.

I am thinking of using something like the original Conan stories for setting. I think that a setting like that will allow me a lot of freedom to just drop something where I want when I need it. I think it can help the situations stay fresh, and give me some leeway if I see the need to change something that is not working well. By the way, this would be a setting where driven people use PCs as tools only to further their goals, but the PCs should be able to establish their own goals.

AD&D 2E adds an additional feature that also causes problems- the experience system.  Older versions of D&D rewarded experience for gold acquired, which made a simple reward system and you can see why stuff like encumberance, etc. is included. 

AD&D 2E has a neat system where the characters are rewarded for doing actions along their class - Fighters for fighting, Wizards for magic, etc. which is "realistic" (loosely speaking), but also tends to reward not working as a team or even fighting monsters.  This -could- be a fun idea, but it's also layered on top of legacy rules designed specifically with the ideas that the party sticks together and that xp is gained primarily by dungeon delving and not combat.

Oh, I didn't know about this! When I played we usually got quest XP. Anyway, I agree this is a very important point (reward). Here is what I am thinking: I want to reward characters for acting according to their class. If I design things correctly, there should always be enough situations that all characters will be doing something, even if not together. And each of these situations should have enough possible solutions so that even by keeping with his class, a character still will have a wide array of choices.

So, by keeping with the reward system, I would be encouraging a behavior that will allow players to develop their characters by following their roles, which seems a good thing for simulationist play. The problem would be that working as a group. Maybe I can help this be giving extra experience when characters accomplish something by helping each other. For example, if a wizard gives some kind of magical assistance to a thief when shadowing the henchman in my previous example, both gain XP for both actions. Any thoughts?

I also am thinking of not giving out XP for slaying monsters, at least no directly. I don't want to make combat the most interesting solution for conflicts.

Alex,
I'm going through almost the exact thing (d20 3.5 Sim Pirate/Swashbuckling).
Maybe we can help each other.

Hi there, Rustin! That would be great!

The terms I've focused in on are Color and Reward, on the assumption that if everyone aims at the same color and reward, things should go ok.

I'm about to send out an email to this group talking about Color and Exploration, specifically detailing my understanding of our shared priority.  Then I talk about how fair fights and literary narrative exploration will take a second seat to exploration, where the test is plausibility in relationship to the color and setting we've agreed upon.

I'm just starting a part where I examine the rules we've agreed upon, and I'm trying to point out where they might trip us up in our Sim priority, and then offer some tweaks and suggestions. What specifically I want to tweak, however, I'm still not sure.

This seems a very good idea. From what I understand, color is always important in all kinds of play to keep people in the same page. I will later try to post how I am thinking of setting the color of the game to the players.

By the way, I won't try to mention specific terms like color and simulationist to my players because I don't think they are interested in that. But I will try to explain what I am thinking of doing in this game and try to make a social contract that can bring these objectives to fruition.

In the forefront, I see that high level characters strain my sense of plausibility given the genre.  So I'm thinking maybe using the Epic 8 or epic 6 rules (where they level up to 6th or 8th level, then after that they can get feats, but only if they have the correct pre-req).

I'm a bit worried about Mechanical reward (e.g., Exp, magic etc...) as the d20 system has reward fueled into more tactical battle ability balance mechanic. 

Also, I'm not sure I want to lock sim-approriate sword fighty  actions up in a feat box.  I look through the Swashbuckling rules and many maneuvers are unavailable until really high levels.   Not sure I like that.

I am sorry, but I don't think I can help you much here . I do think you are right about reducing the maximum level helping plausibility. This seems to aggravate the third problem, however. Also, if I am getting you right, binding the sword fighting actions to feats might reduce the ability for players to be creative in your game. Did you think of basing them instead on skills? You might make them mechanically similar to the actions bound to feats (maybe scaled down for lower level play) and allow players to be creative, requiring skill checks to be able to use the ability. Just an idea.

Your second point is a big problem too, but I don't think there are many ways to "quick fix" it. It seems that you either use the system or hope that your game doesn't become broken by using something else.

Next I want to address Situation, because often Situation in sim can mimic Nar like priorities.  I don't think many Nar elements are mutually exclusive from Sim, just that the approach and emphasis is different.   There is no discovery of character through moral testing, per se, rather we experience a character archetype in moralistic like situation, and maybe the experience makes the archetype experience more immersive.  I think it is a subtle difference.

I noted in your post

I will try to create a game where many kinds of situation (not only looting and fighting) present themselves to the characters. These situations can have many different resolutions; depending on the abilities of the PCs. The way they are resolved will create consequences in character and setting. These two elements, in turn, will be focused in providing these consequences. I am thinking of using color to draw attention away from the fact setting and characters are subservient to situation, but I am not very sure how to do it.

Which looks like you're even planning on walking closer to that Sim line than I.
From reading that paragraph, are you sure you won't be happier with Narrativism?

Maybe I would be happier with narrativism (I honestly don't know for sure). But I am planning this game as a way to better understand simulationism and how it works. So, if the idea I have for play ends up being more narrativist than simulationist, I will need another idea.

But more importantly, about situation. What I am planning to do is to make situation more detailed and involved, mainly trough color. Then, I want the players to explore the situations, see what it feels. Then, once it is resolved, explore the situations that result as consequences to the way the original one was dealt.

I think I understand how this can lend itself to narrativist play (though I haven't read this essay yet). I think however that I can see how certain consequences could make the players want to deal with how their characters act instead of simply exploring how the situation develops. I think, however, that by increasing detail of how situation develops, I can keep exploration as the focus. Any thoughts?

Thanks to all who have posted. I will try to post more details here as they become clear.

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi Alex,

I haven't yet decided all these questions, though I think it is coming along. Still, I don't know how to best bring everyone to the same page.

Try sitting down and talking with everyone.  If you want to closely follow the original Conan stories stylistically, make sure everyone has read a couple, recently.

It sounds like this may be a new group for you, in which case, you really want to make sure there is collective buy-in.  A lot of roleplayers are willing to try, even if they're not really enthused by a game, but unless emotional investment happens at some point, the game falls apart, sooner or later..

Some of those questions above?  You might want to list out specifics so the players aren't left in the fuzzy realm of "well, I assumed based on playing D&D with my older brother 10 years ago...".  "I reward XYZ, and here's some examples."  Try not to layer too many on top of each other, otherwise it gets confusing.

And like Rustin said, concrete color stuff works wonders.

Chris

[Alex Abate Biral]

Thanks for the hints, Chris. This is a very delicate issue, specially since one of the possible players is new to rpgs. I didn't focus it on my first post because I was trying to define what play was going to be like before thinking about how I would explain this to the players.

In previous games I played, the game master (I have yet to play an rpg without a GM) assumed everyone was in the same page as himself and just pushed on. Usually, when a players simply seemed to don't know what to do, they tried to drive the story to grab that player, but frequently the player just remained distant.

Personally, I hope that by leaving no room for the player simply assume something, and making some introductory scenarios, I will be able to make things very clear.

[Rustin]

Alex

Consider Situation as its own special aspect of Color.  Which you'll need buy-in from the group up front. To get that buy in, start with a Pitch.  (I hate the notion of "selling" Creative Agenda -- it makes it so antagonistic and places burden on one player to be the seller and gives power to the other members as buyers, that dynamic undermines the whole idea of a shared creative agenda-- so a different word might be an Offer or Idea, and see if it generates enthusiasm).

How you ask the group, I think is key.

For Sim, ask the group:
"Hey, what about experiencing a character betrayed and now in need of vengeance?"

Contrast that with how you would ask, if you were probing for interest in Narrativism:
"Hey, what if we discover a character in situations where events test his restraint vs. his sense of justice?"

I suspect mindmapping or brain storming, where a subtle use of GNS/Big Model terms could help you organize the brain storming session. 

[Alex Abate Biral]

Thank you, Rustin and Chris, for the hints. I just sent everyone in the group an email, and I tried to use a lot of color to make them buy in, trying to describe the situations and way of playing. I will try to have some better introduction with them when they begin creating characters. I will be sending them setting material to read as well as one or two stories for inspiration.

I also want to explain that I agree with you that the most important part of this is getting everyone on the same page. I haven't discussed much about this because I want to see what they themselves think, get a better feel of their expectations.

By the way, I have just finished reading the narrativist essay. I am sorry I didn't see what you were worried about Rustin. I actually think that the narrativist in me was stealthily trying to get out when I was designing some things. I think I understand better what you meant, and I don't know if some polemic content in the game won't fire up the narrativist in the players too. I am thinking of explaining that this should be taken as an opportunity to see how the people inside the setting think, rather than applying our own morals to the situations and questioning what is right or wrong.

In order to better direct the experience, I am will also go over with the players about what I think are good simulationist roleplaying techniques. Putting in mental traits that help define the psyche of the character might help avoid this. Maybe something less formal might do the trick too, like a list showing the views of each player character on a varied list of subjects. I know I could use power to prevent some more serious issues, but I really want to make a game with little power this time around. If the players start wanting to address what they may perceive as morally wrong or any kind of human issues rather than simply play their characters, I am thinking of simply playing along, rather than stop them from having their fun. I want this to be more simulationist, but I won't force it down the player's throat. I have a positive feeling about the game, however, since the people I will be playing with will be all very friendly and experienced with rpgs (I had a few novices, but because of time table conflicts, they will participate in another games). Therefore, I am sure that any problem that arises will be talked over rather than ignored.

By the way, I have decided some more things about the game. The players will begin in a city called Gelbgras. I decided to break up the city into various groups, each with their own prominent figures. For example, there are various noble houses (7 for now) which divide the control of various public services. One of them, for example, is responsible for controlling the justice system, while another is responsible for the watch, etc. Each house is also responsible to provide military power. Other groups in the city include the artisan's guild, which take care of the production of goods, and the farmer's market, which sell the production of the neighboring farms to the city.

The idea here is to make the city work as a kind of political board game. The first scenario I will run will be about a "villain" (he isn't any better or worse than other characters in the setting) trying to take over the city by changing its many variables until he is in the right position to make a coup d'etat. These "moves" he make on the game board will, frequently, end up involving the pcs somehow. For example, if the villain needs a scapegoat for something he did, he will probably take someone dear to a pc. I want to try to run the game using only this amount of force. Aside from that, the pcs will be able to do anything they want, including ignoring the bigger threat of the villain, joining him, or even simply leave the city. Any choice they make will have wildly different results on the hidden gameboard.

Aside from this bigger first scenario (which I call big thread), there will be some minor threads running in parallel, which can also change the state of the city, but aren't related to the actions of the "villain". Once the bigger thread stop being relevant (the pcs resolve it, ignore it, or simply move from the city) I will come up with different bigger threads as necessary. If the players end up as the main engines of action and these threads become unnecessary, so be it.

The first adventure, which I am preparing now, will consist on the results of a plot of the villain to deplete the fire wood  reserves of the city right before the winter. I am writing down how I thing various situations may appear and be resolved, and counting on improvisation to do the rest. If anyone want to comment on this, you will be welcome. Thank you for reading this!

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi Alex,

Two thoughts (in reverse order, but for simplicity):

First, the political struggle idea can work out fine, though, generally, "threatening" the status quo won't mean much to the players until it's been solidly established to them.  That is, they may not know why they -should- care. 

For example, "He's going to have the Karasha Monument taken down!" doesn't mean anything, "He's going to have the Statue of Liberty taken down!" does, because there is context.  Getting the players to get context, to care, will need to happen before any changes can mean anything to them.

Basically- they need to care before it means anything, and, also, is there any guarantee they won't side -with- the villain?  You might be better off with 3-4 different groups making power moves and letting the players pick sides as they will.  (Also D&D as a system really doesn't do much for this kind of game).

Second, and this might just be me -over reading- your words:

I tried to use a lot of color to make them buy in, trying to describe the situations and way of playing.

You can't -make- anyone buy in. 

Usually, these things work best when you get together face to face and talk about it.  Pitching it over email, even with copious notes, can lead to everyone coming to the table with some interesting diverse interpretations- which may or may not mesh well together.

The other thing is, you can't necessarily read via email how much enthusiasm most people have or don't have for something.  "Yeah I'll play" could be "TOTALLY AWESOME" or it could be "Sure, whatever".  Face to face makes it easier to see who's not buying in from the get go.

[Rustin]

Hey Alex,

I would recommend two things:

Make a One-Sheet.
Read over the rules for Storming the Wizard's Tower.

Like Chris says, buy-in is a tricky thing.  I have had the most success with a One-sheet.  A One-sheet is from the Sorcerer game, but it can be applied to any game really. The one sheet should clearly put forward the Color and Reward of the game you want to run.  Make one large page with cool pictures that describe the context and theme of the game. You hand it to someone, then watch their reaction.  That's a good gauge of buy-in.

Check out my first draft One-Sheet-- for this 7th Seas game.

You'll notice we've reached almost the exact same line of thought: a political board game.  I plan on pulling pretty heavy from Burning Empires and the Maneuver/Infection mechanic.  Although, I'm not sure I quite nailed the color and feel of that mechanic on the one sheet. 

I mention Storming, since I just think the Town creation rules are fun and informative-- not sure exactly if it applies to this goal of Sim in Ad&d.  I just sense there is a nugget of what we are looking for in Sim play in that game.

If you do make a one-sheet, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.