Guest Post - Encounter on the Orange River, 1900

Today I have a Guest Post from fellow Reject, John. He moved home not so long ago but made sure to reserve some wargaming space in his loft. This is a game he played earlier in the year and decided to share via the medium of my blog. The words and pictures are all his, so I can't take any credit for what looked like a thoroughly enjoyable game. 

The Young Padawan Speaks

Like many wargamers of my generation I have a 'normal' life outside my hobby and that includes a wonderful wife and two great kids. Last week I foolishly agreed to let my youngest daughter write a guest post for this Blog about her experiences as a young gamer. I instantly regretted the power I had just handed her and having read what she has written I now know I was right! Very funny though...

---

I am Emily, BigLee's daughter and I am 10½

My dad, being a gamer, is sometimes fun and sometimes annoying. There are times where his games are exciting, like when we played a game set in the desert. But there are other times when he has taken a game FAR too seriously for me to enjoy! Dad does a wacky victory dance each and every time he gets a point even though he looses afterwards. [No I don't! - BL] Whenever my dad looses he says it’s because he let me win! 

He pretends to be funny by imitating fictional characters like Han solo from star wars when we play X-Wing. He also thinks he is funny when he does a silly voice... when will he learn?! 

Some of my dad’s games I think are a bit childish, like the board game BEOWULF which a three year old could play, and he’s 46! (Grow up dad!) There is one game I love which is called Lord of the Rings Risk, but dad says it is too long to play... but he only says that to get out of it because he knows I am going to win! 

I like boardgames and card games. One of my dad’s card games is called Cthulhu FLUXX, it’s a game where the rules change constantly during the game. I like it because usually I win or nobody wins! I also like it because I arrange my cards to the point that my dad lays his last good card and I place a totally different card over it (that’s how I win). My tip is that if it is a card game you have to have a face like you don’t have a trick up your sleeve, then surprise them. You also have to plan you trick carefully and swiftly. If you are new to a game don’t play it safe, you have to be competitive.

When my dad writes and describes me as his 'Padawan' he is mistaken because I am the master and dad is my Padawan. [True - BL]

---

I guess I asked for that! I never knew I'd created such a competitive gamer. The gloves are off for the next game we play!! 

Lost Equipment

My interest was piqued by the recent article I did on the 10’ pole and I got to wondering…are there other items of ‘standard equipment’ from the early days that have gone by the wayside? And if so why have they fallen from use? Is it just a question of not being bothered when we select equipment, or has their value really been superseded by the utility and ease of use of feats and then powers?

Evil GM: I think there were lots of 'goofy' items everyone had... Someone on your blog has already touched on the iron spikes we used to hold open or shut doors. In reality, how useful would they really have been. I'm not sure how deeply you could really hammer an iron spike into the ground, especially a rock floor, certainly I suspect you couldn't really hammer it in far enough in a few seconds to actually jam a door shut. A blow powerful enough to bust open a locked door or one barred with a hunk of wood is not going to be thwarted by a small metal stick hammered half an inch or so into the ground.

BigLee: I always thought of it as wedging a door shut or forcing hinges or locks out of shape thereby making them unworkable. This of course assumes the PC has the time to carry out this act of vandalism. Unfortunately this theory is undermined by the fact that in practice these iron spikes would be 'removed' as soon as the PC's were ready to pass through the door again!

Evil GM: Another item still on the equipment list, but frankly daft is the old 50ft hemp rope. Not saying the rope itself is daft, it's a very useful piece of kit with a variety of uses. It just bothers me as it's so unwieldy. 4e lists it's weight at 10lb - which frankly seems a little light to me. How strong is a ten foot section of rope that only weighs as much as a bag of sugar? Enough to support a hulking 6'6" warrior, built like a brick outhouse and wearing 100lb+ of metal armour and shield, weapons and supplies? Personally I think hemp rope should be significantly heavier and far more awkward to carry than the weight would suggest.

BigLee: I never had a problem (as a player or GM) with the Hemp Rope because it was such a useful item. I always felt its utility both as a tool and as a roleplaying aide outweighed the fact that its description was a little unrealistic. The silk rope however always bothered me. I have no real idea what the comparative load capacity's of hemp or silk rope are but the idea of a fully armed warrior dangling from a flimsy silk rope always made me laugh. Silk ropes are for Ninjas and characters in Chinese martial arts movies!

Evil GM: Then there were the items that were obviously designed to avoid worrying about the detail - climbers kit, thieves tool, disguise kit. Just packages of stuff to make the rules work. The "Climbers Kit" that contains crampons, an ice pick and other unspecified things that help your fighter climb more difficult rock faces. Or the "Disguise Kit" containing makeup, wigs and false teeth so the Bard can disguise himself as the kings bodyguard!

Now I'm not saying the various tools and kits are a bad idea - I personally don't want to have to become an expert on rock climbing to have my Fighter scale the castle walls, but it does show how the game has always been happy to turn a blind eye to realism in the interests of playability.

BigLee: I think the worst example of this sort of simplification is the "Thieves Tools" which brings together a whole range of specialist (and probably illegal) equipment into a convenient and unspecified package. These are the tools of a master criminal not an Airfix kit! I'm all for making rules easier to use but sometimes I think a player needs some detail on his character sheet to stimulate ideas.

Evil GM: Another omission from 4e equipment lists (and one I'm not too concerned about) is the wizards material components. Components could be used to create tension as the wizard started running low on certain materials. It certainly increased tactical thinking - I still recall one first edition DnD wizard taking clippings from everything we met in case it turned out to be a component of a higher level spell - but most of the time I found tracking every component just became a chore. They (WoTC) started getting around this with kits - I recall a material component bag that had all common (ie valueless) components in. I think dropping them altogether is, in playability terms, a sensible step.

BigLee: Ah yes, Material Components, I'd almost forgotten them. Or maybe I blotted them from my mind to protect myself from the memory! The irony is I always thought that including material components was such a good idea, or at least it seemed like that until I had to play a wizard. Keeping track of components was a pain in the proverbial and made playing a Wizard a chore, taking all the fun out of casting a fireball. I think this was a concept that worked better on paper than in a game. It should have added another layer of arcane mysticism to the class but instead it turned magic into something mundane that could be achieved with the right combination of ingredients and words.

Each new edition of the game has evolved the game and brought with it a different focus from that which went before. Some equipment has been 'lost' from the official lists because of this changing focus and the changing rules. But nothing is truly lost unless the players want it to be. Who cares if Material Components are no longer in the rules or reflected in the equipment lists. Add them to your PC's character sheet and build their description into your roleplaying. The same goes for any detail you put on your character sheet, from obscure equipment to elaborate backstories or personality quirks. Ultimately, what you get out of the game depends on you put in.

Healing Surges : Good or bad?

We recently had a typical D&D session involving a large combat, lots of damage being dished out and several players reaching 0 hit points before receiving Healing Surges and getting up as if nothing had happened. Surges were a new concept introduced in 4th Edition and for some old warhorses like me they just don’t sit right. I discussed this with the EvilGM and here’s the essence of that conversation:

---

EvilGM: I must admit, healing surges were one of the things I really didn't like when I first saw 4e. Potentially a first level fighter might have 28 hp and 9 healing surges, each restoring 7 hp. That gives (9 x 7) =63 + 28 = 91 hit points for a first level character - preposterous! And the idea that classes other than clerics could be healing characters really rankled. And as for starting each new day at full hit points and healing surges? Ridiculous! But now I'm used to the new rules, I prefer them.

I guess it was a mind set thing that only clerics healed and it took a long while for higher level PC's to regain their HP’s. But did it really add to the game? I remember as DM having to throw in loads of potions of healing and scrolls, or as a player my PC waking up with only half hit points and deciding to camp where we were for another day or two to recuperate. And of course the cleric PC was regarded as a walking first aid box.

BigLee: As a player I like Healing surges (they have saved my bacon many a time) but I still find it hard to reconcile the idea that any character has a self healing capacity. Of course the concept of healing surges is supposed to reflect vigour and determination (shrugging off wounds in the heat of battle) which I can accept… but what about when the battle ends. Surely when adrenalin levels return to normal the true effect of wounds will be felt and the PC would drop to the floor through shock and blood loss. Without this negative, real world effect, Healing Surges become a magical element rather than a physical one. And if they are magical in nature, doesn't that fundamentally change every campaign setting they have ever been used in and undermine the whole purpose of the Cleric in the party?

Evil GM: Hmm, I'm not sure I totally agree with you though. Would the after effects be that debilitating? If the combat was a particularly brutal one leaving the PC's with broken bones and internal bleeding, absolutely! As soon as the adrenalin levels dropped so should our PC's as shock and blood loss kicks in. But remember the PC's are generally the victors, would they be that badly used? As long as the PC isn't dropped I'd have no problem assuming the hit point loss reflects fatigue more than anything else, and after a short break they are fully recovered. Without 'divine magic' to explain the 'miraculous' recovery it does seem somewhat far fetched.On the other hand, what would we prefer? We could easily apply penalties on a PC to reflect his pain and injuries, but its not much fun to play a less effective character.

BigLee: I've no desire to see the rules made more complex but it still doesn't sit right with me that PC’s can take massive wounds, be dragged to the threshold death, recover and then be fighting like nothing is the matter a few seconds later. I know its a fantasy setting but I’ve always thought of Magic as another layer of Physics superimposed over other real world laws - like Gravity and Relativity - even fantasy creatures can be explained as wierd branches of evolution. Given this ‘real’ world framework it seems to be a bit if a cop-out to not have a better explanation of how healing Surges work in a D&D setting.

I can believe in a cleric calling on his god to summon healing power (using the ‘force’ if you like) to cure someone, but the undefined semi-magical healing bonus that is the Healing surge stretched physics (both real and magical) to the limit. In some ways this goes back to my argument last week that 4E isn't D&D any more… how many conventions of the original game can you break before it ceases to be the same game?

EvilGM: To be honest I think it comes down to playability vs realism. The 4e position makes no excuses for realism and goes straight for playability. With 'healing' now more akin to 're-invigorating' you enter each encounter refreshed in terms of hp and start each new day at full strength - even if there is no divine spell caster to 'miracle' you back to full health. But while I think this is reasonable in realism terms if the PC's don't suffer a bit of a bashing, it does stretch the limits of believability that the PC's might have been at deaths door one encounter, then bounce back with no noticeable after effects in the next combat five minutes later.

BigLee: I think many players are not comfortable with healing surges as a concept but were stuck with them if we want to play 4E. So how do we use them more creatively? I originally thought there were too many healing surges, because we have never reached a point where a PC has run out. But maybe they just need to be used more creatively by the GM as non combat penalties for things like poison, fatigue, environmental conditions etc. or even as a reward mechanism under certain circumstances.

---

The DMG suggests using healing surges as a non combat penalty for failure in some skill challenges. For example moving through the Underdark a failed skill check results in an encounter with noxious gases or a rock slide. Rather than applying hit damage the PC's suffer a healing surge penalty instead. Another suggested use is to represent the progress of a disease or of poison. Some curses and monster powers already exist that effect Healing Surges. Some reduce the HP's regained from healing surges. Others prevent the spending of healing surges or limit the PC's to one surge per encounter.

In almost any any encounter or situation healing surges can be used as a superior penalty to having something deal actual damage. The important point to remember is that this penalty is cumulative and could have a significant effect on any major combat encounter later in the day. The possibilities are quite literally endless, and will undoubtedly add an extra dimension to the game.

Minions in 4E

Today I have a Guest Post by The Evil GM on a subject close to his heart.

---

D&D 4th Edition introduced a new class of monsters, minions, creatures with only a single hit point designed to be slaughtered in droves by the heroes. Now my first impression when I heard about these was “Not in my game!” Foes with one hit point, killed by even the meanest attack seemed utterly pointless to me. My players will confirm I prefer to pitch them into tough battles that force them to think and work as a team, so pitting them against foes designed to have a glass chin just seemed wrong. OK, they are slightly tougher than the one hp would suggest – a missed attack never kills a minion, so if they are in the blast of a fireball they don’t take half damage if it misses them, but still their low AC and defences mean most in a blast will be killed.

However the more I read and thought about them the more interested I became. While of limited use in many situations, they are perfect for those scenes when the PC’s have to cut their way through large numbers of foes to reach their goal – the enemy wizard, the coven opening a portal to hell, the grand vizier etc. ‘Normal’ 4e monsters of an appropriate level would be too powerful in large numbers, and while it is theoretically possible to simply use lots of lower level foes, in practise this doesn’t work so well. Their ‘to hit’ bonuses are so low that they rarely threaten the PC’s, while their AC and defences are poor enough that they get hit almost every round, so it just becomes a boring exercise of hacking away hit points with no real danger. Minions by contrast are designed to actually threaten the PC’s in combat and have the potential to damage them (not much, admittedly, but the cumulative effects add up) and generally have sufficient armour that, while still relatively easy to take down, they will survive poor dice rolling. And of course if they can outflank the party and get to the ‘squishes’ at the back they become a real threat, preventing the wizard from casting, tying the archer down in melee, and even a minion can coup de grace a fallen hero. The clincher for me is that they are so ‘cheap’ - as a rule of thumb between four to six minions replace a ‘normal’ foe, so by replacing a two or three normal ‘grunts’ you can have around ten to twelve more monsters on the battle map – worth it if only for the panic in the players eyes before they drop the first one or two to confirm they are minions!

In practise I’ve had mixed results with minions, initially employing them in a nice tight group thinking there was safety in numbers – until a single area effect spell decimated them all... But over time I’ve begun to use them better, spread out and attacking from two or more different directions, trying to hit softer targets and leaving the parties melee champions to the enemy Brutes and Soldiers, going after non-combatants etc. A different mind-set is also important - at first I’d think they were a waste of time when they dropped like flies, being wiped out in the first couple of rounds, but then in discussion with the players I realised they were taking up the attention of key party members and forcing them to utilise valuable resources to counter them. Now when they get wiped out en mass I’m perfectly happy as that’s exactly what they are supposed to do.

But all of this is irrelevant when compared to the key measure – do they make combat more fun? In my view definitely, fun for me in being able to stage a larger scale battle and fun for the players as their PC’s carve a bloody swathe across the battlefield. Of course the real fun will come when one PC suffers the indignity of being ‘dropped’ by a minion! The ribbing will be brutal...

High or low Magic Settings?

As a writer and GM I am always looking for ways to re-imagine the setting of my games. The D&D world settings are typically very high magic with magical armour, weapons and artefact's as standard fare in all games. Indeed in 4th edition this seems to have been increased and magical items have become an essential part of progression and maintaining balance as the players increase in levels. But is it possible to play D&D in a low magic setting or should you be looking for an alternative game to play?

Evil GM " Hmm, Low Magic=Good, High Magic=Bad? I guess it's just a matter of taste and how familiar you want your fantasy. Personally I don't like magic to overcome all obstacles - ie a magic shelter to protect from the wind, a magical ever-filling cup, a bag that provides an endless supply of provisions. Maybe that's down to the style of fantasy novel I was brought up on - I remember reading the likes of David Eddings where magic wasn't something you used everyday to overcome every slightest issue - the characters still had to find food, got wet and miserable when it rained and got lost from time to time. I guess it made the stories and characters more accessible if, despite their magic powers, awesome weapon skills, ninja-like stealth etc they still faced the same issues we could imagine ourselves facing in similar situations. Hence I've always had a fondness for the 'book-keeping' side of the game - do you have enough rations, who has the torch, does the Wizard have his spell components, is your PC carrying enough to be encumbered yet etc. And for that to work you need a relatively low magic world.

But in the context of a fantasy RPG I can see the argument for removing these fairly mundane tasks with a little magic 'faerie dust' so the PC's can concentrate on the 'fun' parts of the game - storming floating castles, defeating fierce ogres, disabling deadly traps and solving fiendish puzzles without having to slope off home every few games to get more bread and bat guano, and counting every gold piece to see if your PC can still walk under the weight of all that loot. And as soon as magic is commonplace enough to solve all the mundane issues you will normally have a high magic campaign.

As for High vs Low tech - just doesn't do it for me. I've never been a fan of Steam Power or Gunpowder in D&D, and even Techno magic leaves me cold. Never bothers me when we play 'modern' games - Call of Cthulu, Dr Who, Buffy etc, but I like my fantasy medieval so ban anything overly technical. In fact my Anval campaign was originally conceived with a bronze age level of technology, but as soon as the players started creating their PC's and wanted Plate Mail, Repeating Crossbows and the like I dropped that idea to avoid keep saying 'no' to the players."

My personal leaning is that a setting that includes magic cannot stick to medieval 'norms' of technology and therefore its application should be carefully controlled by the game system. Magic in effect becomes a replacement for science in a fantasy setting and I would expect some bizarre and incongruous combinations of inventions to exists in any world where magic was as universal as it is in the current edition of D&D.

Coming of Age

I'm Indoctrinating teaching my children to be gamers like their old man. My eldest, Sarah, is already running her own D&D campaign. She recently had a surreal experience in school and I asked her to write about it for this blog.

---

"You may think that its only the older generation that ever plays d&d, maybe once or twice a fortnight round a friends house with a couple of crates of beer [How much beer does she think we drink?!]. However I know from experience that that's not the case, and I've often convinced my cousins to play - after much nagging - a simplified version of the game.

In fact, the other day I had a rather bizarre experience in school which made both my dad and I laugh. My lunch table had some new editions to it at the far end, when I joined my friends at lunch. We were getting on well with them when one of them pulled out a box of pre-painted models. I lost the thread of conversation then, but soon not only models but character sheets, rulebooks and dice were being put on the table and to my utter astonishment a D&D game [4E] began to be played right there, in school, in the middle of break.

A couple of them looked a little embarrassed when they caught me looking, and began to explain, but I told them I knew what they were doing (to their relief) and I politely declined when I was invited to join in (not that I wasn't tempted). Okay, I realise that this could be a one off, and its likely that there aren't many kids who play D&D in our school, but I like to think that this is a good sign that there is hope for us after all."

---

There are a couple of things about this incident that gave me pause for thought. First, these are 12-13 year old's, yet they have already begun to develop a sense of embarrassment about their hobby. But on the plus side they did start their game in a public space which means they may yet be developing that thick skin we often seem to need. I'm quietly optimistic for this budding gaming group.

The second thing I noted, this time with much more satisfaction, was the fact that Sarah referred to 'us', including herself in the collective gaming community. She clearly already thinks of herself as a gamer. My Padawan Learner has come of age. My work here is done.

In Flanders Fields

On Friday my eldest Daughter went to Ypres in Belgium with her school. Some parents were unhappy about this trip but I was glad the school didn't wimp out and water down the experience. I did WWI History when I was at school but the class next door – which included my future wife – skipped WWI in favour of "the History of medicine"… She managed to go through her whole school career without ever learning about either World War. Needless to say I was determined that this wouldn't happen with my kids.

I asked Sarah to write a few words about her trip and what it meant to her combined with some of her pictures.

---

"My trip to Ypres was one I’ll never forget. Although my stay at hill 62 was brief, it gave me an insight into life in the trenches that you can’t really get anywhere else. The trenches themselves have not been tampered with, and looking about some of the shell craters are so close that I can easily understand how terrifying it was. I definitely wouldn't have liked to live there for long, as most of it was submerged in a foot of water, in the dugouts the lighting is so poor, the footing is treacherous, and it’s so wet it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few broken ankles from the men who lived there.

I also visited Tyne Cot cemetery, were row after row of grave stones stretch back, many of which were nameless. It’s was one of the biggest eye-openers of the day, and it genuinely surprised me that there were so many headstones. I know that I, along with the rest of my classmates, found the entire experience moving, and I agree with my friend when she said that ‘Although it’s sad, this is the most peaceful place I have ever visited.’

We finished the day at Menin Gate Memorial, and although the gate is massive in size, every inch is covered in the names of soldiers whose bodies were never found. Before we left we laid a wreath of poppies by the gate and I was asked to read out a poem; we were not the first to leave a wreath, and I was glad to see the masses of poppies that were laid to remember the men who died here, even after all these years."

Greedy Eyes

D&D Miniatures have become a central part of our game nights. Our current GM has been buying lots through EBay and recently decided to take the plunge and become a seller himself. The aim is to raise a little cash with his spare models to fund further purchases of specific miniatures for future games. Unfortunately he ran into a little 'local trouble'....

---

I was sorting through my "For Sale" models yesterday, and made the mistake of leaving the box where my son could see it.
Son - "Wow, are these the models you're selling, can I have a look?"
Evil GM - "Sure, but be careful with them"
Son - "Oh, I like this one (a Beholder Lich), that's really nice" (looks at me plaintively
Evil GM - “Yes, that is nice, but I'm selling it” - I'll get at least £5 for that.
Son - "Wow, this ones nice, I really like this one" (looks at me with big innocent eyes)
Evil GM - "Yes, that's a pit fiend, very rare" I will probably get between ten and twenty pounds for that
Son - “Ah, this one is fantastic, I'd really love this one”
Evil GM - “Yes, but they are all for sale son”…that's a Salamander Firetail, I'll probably get around £5 for that

At this point my son wanders off and I breath a sigh of relief. Then he comes back having counted £5 out of his money box "Can I buy that one dad..."

So now I feel really really mean! Obviously I refused to take his money, and try to steer his attention to something else. It's not that I don't want him to have nice models, it's just that at his age they are just stuff to play with, and the rarity and perceived value is irrelevant. He'd be just as happy with two 50p Troglodytes or Giant Centipedes.

I know I was being sensible not letting him waste his money, and if I am running this as any kind of a business I can't give my most valuable stock away just because he thinks it's a nice shiny thing... So why do I feel like such a heel?

I can foresee the day coming when he buys his own models and comes home one day to show me the Aspect of Orcus he's just found. And when he refuses to sell or swap I know that flapping sound I hear will be the chickens coming home to roost.

---

If your interested in seeing what the Evil GM is selling on EBay check out this link.

D&D Heroes Miniatures

Way back in April I read a great review of the D&D Heroes Miniatures range by Gnome Stew. Now The Evil GM has reviewed the same products and I decided to post his opinion here as a Guest Post.

"I've been looking at the 'Heroes' miniature sets - I was thinking about buying a few boxes to get a good number of decent quality stock models - and found myself wondering just who they [WoTC] were producing these sets for - because they certainly don't seem to be picked with the average playing group in mind.

Just some examples of stuff that struck me - a full third of the models are female, roughly one in every box of three. I fully support producing female figures both for female players and those guys who fancy playing a female, but 1/3 of all the models being female? I believe the hobby is still 90% male - and I bet at least 90% of those play male characters which means 81% of PC's minimum will be male - so why only 66% of the models? Most people will buy a box of three models and not be able to use one.

(Source: heath_bar Flickr)

The second thing was the profusion of races - by splitting models across Human, Elf, Eladrin, Dwarf, Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half Elf, Halfling, Goliath, Shifters, Gnome, Gensai and Warforged you only end up with one or two for a lot of very common races. Even worse they have 12 models for humans cutting down the options for every other race - but Dwarfs, Dragonborn and Halflings only get two, while Elves and Eladrin and Half elves only get three apiece. OK, Dragonborn and Eladrin are new, but they are core races in PHB 1! At least you'd expect those models to reflect the stereotype - the class/race combinations most often played right? So in Series One the only Dragonborn is a rogue - and a female one at that! In fairness series two has a male Warlord but that's it for Male Dragonborn - one model.

Halfling we know are the consummate rogue so the models for Halflings are Female Cleric and the only male character - a Barbarian. A Halfling Barbarian? What's it going to do, gnaw my bloody knees off?[I'd pay to see that - Biglee]

Dwarves favour Clerics and Fighter classes so series one gives us a Rogue - how many people think "hmm, I'll play a rogue so lets select the slowest race with a reputation for clumsiness." At least there is a Paladin which can double as a fighter or Cleric at a push I guess. This is one race with no female models which is a shame as I like Dwarvern women (not in THAT way!)

Maybe they [WoTC] think the stereotype models are out there, but if I was to design the first set I'd go for Dwarf Cleric and Fighter, Halfling Rogue and Ranger, Dragonborn Fighter and Warlord, Eladrin Wizard and Sorcerer (which in fairness are in series one) etc. Cover the stereotypes first, then start with your weirder Halfling Barbarians and Dwarvern Rogues. The female issue is more difficult - you need to put some in, but I would not make six out of 18 models female - maybe three or four - and do research among female gamers to target them at the race/class combo's they prefer.

Set two goes overboard on the new races introduced in PHBII, races that a lot of worlds (mine included) just don't use - Warforged, Gensai, Gnome and Shifter are examples . More confusingly their is no model for the much anticipated Half-Orc which featured in the PHBII.

To me the balance of the sets are just wrong, too many humans, to many females, trying to hit too many bases race wise etc. I know series three is out soon and will start plugging gaps, but the gaps are in the wrong places - By now WoTC should be giving the less common combo's their attention, not filling in the gaps of the core race/class combo's... And still, most sets will have at least one if not two models people won't want. But I guess that's marketing!"

How many rules do you need for non-combat roleplaying?

Today I'm featuring the first of what I hope will be an series of occasional Guest Posts from members of my gaming group, the Dagenham Dungeon Delvers. Peter has been playing D&D and other games as long as me and has run several successful campaigns. He is our current GM running his own campaign setting, The Sunless Citadels, using the 4th Edition rules.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evolving from Wargaming, the earliest editions of D&D were heavily into combat capabilities first and everything else second. There were rules for picking locks etc, but initially at least they were a totally different mechanic and felt tacked on. Spells were the primary means of giving non-combat powers and abilities, but skills were [subsequently] greatly expanded and better graduated. But it still fell well short of all the other roleplaying systems based around a vast array of skills and capabilities - Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, Dr Who, Traveller, and so on.

But does having a raft of skills and capabilities reduce or enhance roleplaying? In some games, particularly Sci-fi or Modern games, you need these skills. How good your PC is at piloting a spaceship or his skill at hacking government computers is critical to the story, so you will need structured rules for these situations. You also need a way to differentiate [for example] an expert pilot from a merely good one. But in a pseudo medieval world the challenges you are overcoming are [on the whole] physical ones requiring combat.

At its core I guess every game needs challenges to overcome and it's the nature of those challenges that dictate whether you use skills and abilities or combat rules to overcome them. In a game such as Call of Cthulhu where combat is definitely a last resort you need a raft of skills to give your players the ability to overcome obstacles. In the more combat orientated D&D world you utilise detailed combat rules to progress.

A good game is one where you are not [relying solely on] die rolls to determine your success. Similarly in a combat-based RPG you want a game that allows you to select tactics and weapons to enhance your success rather than a never ending series of to-hit and damage rolls.

All of which raises another, possibly more important question. Is it better to resolve social interactions with dice rolls or should they be role-played? Do you allow your players to use their social skills, or limit them according to the stats their characters possess?