Scheduling: The difference between West Marches and an Open Table

Let me preface by saying I've never run a West Marches campaign in the true sense. If you don't know what that is, check out Matt Colville's video here.

But I love the ideas it aims for. Namely, that 

1. The cast of PCs can regularly rotate 
2. The adventures are largely driven by the PCs' interests

I love the clarification added at the end of this recent video where he says

"We're not going to play again until y'all tell me what you want to do, who's around, and when you want to play." - Matt Colville

This is a fantastic way to make sure that you're only running games for individuals who are motivated to go on the adventure.

The Problem

However, I firmly believe one of the biggest indicators if an RPG group will be successful is a regularly scheduled time. No excuses. No confusion. No problems. We play at the same time every 2 weeks so we can all schedule around it and if an unavoidable conflict occurs, so be it. There are things more important than D&D.

Maybe I'm afraid my game isn't that fun and my players won't take the lead in proactively scheduling. Maybe I should pitch my next campaign to a large enough pool of players that only the most motivated emerge. Mostly, I want to be able to plan my own life around D&D and that doesn't work with a full-time job, a wife, and my first child on the way. I have to imagine the proportion of DMs who can prep and play on demand is fairly small, right?

So what do I do? Maybe it's not so much a West Marches campaign I want to run as merely an Open Table?

But with an Open Table, I think the adventure is largely chosen - probably a hex crawl or megadungeon - to avoid problems of plot continuity, though West Marches faces similar problems unless adventuring groups commit to multiple sessions. Is there nuance in the PCs coordinating what they want to do and with who that can be ported from West Marches to an Open Table? I think so. How do I make that work with regular scheduling?

My (Hypothetical) Solution

1. Pitch the campaign (including rules and setting) to a large pool of players
2. Run self-contained sessions (start and end in town?) at regularly scheduled times
3. Anyone can show up to any session and the players present will decide what to do in that session
4. Encourage players to self-organize between sessions and decide who is going to show up and what they want to explore ahead of time

Step 3 is basically an Open Table. Step 4 is the West Marches. I wonder if I eliminate Step 3, but limit Step 4 to the regularly scheduled time? Here's my revision to the quote:

"We're not going to play again until y'all tell me what you want to do, who's around, and which Wednesday at 7PM you want to play." - Gelatinous Rube

XD20: Initiative

Initiative in XD20 is entirely up to the Game Master. They decide who goes in what order, quite often at random. Seems pretty arbitrary and "unfair" right? It is, so I dismissed it out of hand. But after watching Tracy Hickman run both his Killer Breakfast sessions at conventions and live stream sessions from his local game store, I've realized that just because the GM decides who states their action next doesn't mean it's resolved instantly. Whether in combat or not he collects everyone's actions and asks for dice rolls when needed, but narrates the results at the end. It's actually a brilliant execution of simultaneous resolution and has a number of benefits.

1. The PCs actions (success or failure) can interact with and affect each other.
2. There's no awkwardness of initiative mismatching the orderly execution of actions the players are attempting.
3. Failed rolls can be attributed to changing circumstances and the interference of others, not just PC ineptitude.
4. Failed rolls still move the story forward as a narrative scapegoat or by introducting complications.
5. Complications are only introduced after everyone has declared their action. No stopping to change your mind or reconsider based on the previous PC's turn.
6. Actions must be brief. If the GM is going to remember everyone's actions and resolve them simultaneously, they must be succinct.

If two combatants would kill each other as the result of their rolls - who wins? It's entirely up to the GM but any of the following would be acceptable to me:

• Both combatants die
• The combatant with the higher roll wins
• The combatant with the better relevant stat wins
• The player gets the benefit over the monster/NPC

Set a Target Number for Every Roll

 

Hot take: As a Game Master you should be setting a target number for every roll of the dice.

No action should be so generic that your game system can tell you exactly what you need to roll. Be specific, even in individual attacks. Go ahead and reach for the called shot. This is a roleplaying game where you're supposed to be able to try anything. Take a risk!

If your system can tell you exactly what you need to roll - your actions must be pretty boring. If it can be resolved with "d20 + ability bonus + proficiency bonus vs armor class, please roll <insert target number> to succeed with your generic, flavorless attack" - well... you see the problem? I am sick of hearing "I take a swing" or "I shoot my bow" or "I use my action to <generic action> and then my 30 feet of movement to go 6 squares here and then my bonus action to <neat extra action I can do> blah blah yawn...".

Be specific. What weapon are you using? How are you attacking? Who and what are you aiming for? What are you trying to do? Chip away at a big bag of hit points? Barf. How about:

"I feint and bring down my long sword to cleave the hobgoblin's sword-arm from his shoulder!"

"I draw an arrow and step out from the pillar, loosing it at the beholder's eye to disable the anti-magic cone!"

"I telekinetically seize the flagstones beneath the giant's feet, pulling with all my magical strength to topple him backward into the chasm!"

"I rotate the ballista and aim, timing my shot at the weak spot on Smaug's underbelly as he passes over! Thrum goes the bolt!"

If you start playing this way - oh boy do things get exciting. Any player on any turn could change the entire game. Every player will start looking for the big move. They may get competitive - who gets the kill? This is some real Legolas vs Gimli shit.

Sure, the odds of any individual attempt should be poor - to do these great deeds you'll need an excellent die roll. But when you have a whole table of players scrambling to take these shots and be the hero? Someone is bound to succeed. Then they'll get clever. How can I set up my teammate to improve their chances? What can I do to allow her to only need roll a 15 instead of an 18? Now we're playing.

If your system can tell you exactly what to roll - you almost don't need a Game Master. The brilliance of RPGs is the capability of an impartial 3rd party to not just present a unique situation - videogames or choose your own adventure books can do that - but to weigh a unique situation and make a fair ruling on anything you might try within the agreed realm of possibility

You can try anything. You should. Take a risk and roll the die.

Stop Rolling for Failure

 

I'm currently experimenting with removing any kind of modifiers or bonuses from my game. The Game Master considers the situation, the PC's skills and relevant stats, and chooses a specific target number on the d20. If we maintain similar probabilities of success to 5E D&D, what this reveals is an awful lot of "rolling for failure". Since the early editions of D&D the d20 rolls required to hit after all bonuses are accounted for have been trending down.

Players prefer to succeed more often than fail, that's no surprise. But does that take some of the teeth out of the game? What if instead of telling players their foe's AC is 13, we accounted for their +9 to-hit and just told them "roll a 4". That sounds easier from their perspective, and the tension is immediately resolved as soon as the die stops. It's an instinctual reaction - no pausing for math. But is "roll a 4" exciting? That sounds more like "check for failure" than "roll to succeed".

Our modern system of AC vs. inflated bonuses masks this. It's satisfying to add a bonus and regularly succeed at target numbers well into the teens. But surely it gets tedious rolling for failure? Surely there's less tension on each die roll. Now, success is the norm and surprised disappointment is the cost of occasional failure. Is this really fun?

There's an element of gambler's excitement we're missing if the majority of rolls have a high probability of success. We should no longer "roll to not fail". Maybe that means if you attack a goblin you just roll damage. Maybe it simply dies. But damnit I want that rush excitement - if we're rolling dice it's because there's something at stake. You're going for the kill shot. You've stepped on the deadly trap. You're trying something creative and unlikely, something that your GM cannot allow to just happen unless the dice say "against all odds - it is so!"

Let's save the dice for those moments. Let's not roll dice unless there's less than a 50% chance of success. Let's stop rolling for failure.

What do you want to do?

 

The response to this is the PCs' statement of intention, and the scope roughly maps to tiers of goals.

In the next year? Campaign goal

In the next day/week/month? Adventure goal

In the next hour? Adventure strategy

In the next minute? Adventure move

In the next few seconds? Encounter/combat move

We spend most of our time in the last two categories. Perhaps we should spend more time - dedicated turns going around the table - asking what the players do over the next hour or day. This is a good way to conduct a strategic approach to a dungeon or heist location, an investigation or moving between scenes in an urban environment, or travel the wilderness. On the order of weeks or months we can conduct downtime training, researching, or building a stronghold and ensure everyone gets a chance to do something.

Static Target Numbers: For your world or for PCs?

Note: My previous blogpost and the events that inspired it motivated me to put the final touches on this post which has been in the works for months. Enjoy.

The model for the modern core mechanic is

d20 + Bonuses >= Difficulty Class

That DC is static - like a law of physics. If a human wearing plate armor has AC 18, that's an objective truth whether they're being attacked by a level 1 fighter or a level 20 wizard. What differentiates the fighter from the wizard is the bonuses - adjustments calculated from their natural abilities and experience. This is also static and a pretty good model for a character as well as a world. You can calculate the mathematical probability of certain actions consistently. The other benefit is the intuition that higher numbers are better - both in terms of stats and rolling the dice.

So what's left to quibble about? Well, should plate mail actually be AC 18? What's the difference between an average human and a level 1 fighter trying to hit plate mail? According to D&D 5E it's 10% plus 5% for every 2 points of Strength above 10. But who decided that? You can see how it quickly gets tedious for the sake of "realism" in a fantastic world also filled with magic and dragons.

It quickly gets tedious for the sake of "realism" in a fantastic world also filled with magic and dragons.

You'll also notice ability bonuses compress the influence of stats. This was more true in Basic D&D where only the truly remarkable stats got bonuses of up to 15%. The difference between 10 and 11 Strength is negligible when it comes to combat, and wouldn't matter at all in 5E if not for carrying capacity. And yet stats can't improve too quickly or risk inflation.

The core insight of XDM and Dungeoncraft is all d20 rulesets are actually complicated ways to calculate an appropriate target number to roll on a d20. If an orc has AC 13, you need to roll a 13 to strike it with a weapon. But if you have +5 to-hit with your sword, you actually only need to roll an 8. Can we cut out the middle man and get straight to "roll an 8"? I think so.

Can we cut out the middle man and get straight to "roll an 8"?

The d20 produces nice 5% increments of probability and beautifully covers a 3-18 range of stats while maintaining possible, if unlikely outcomes at the extremes. It also suggests a natural system of progressive improvement. While there are myriad systems of progression that offer unique ways to dole out bonuses, I believe this ratio (as well as high-level magic) is why D&D breaks down beyond level 10.

So how could we preserve the differentiation of characters by their stats, reduce the math needed in the game, and get the visceral excitement of instantaneous tension and resolution? One option is fixed target numbers for the PCs, rather than the world. Let's look at 2 systems that do this: The Black Hack and XD20.

The Black Hack

The Black Hack uses the usual 6 stats generated by rolling 3d6 for a range of [3-18]. The core mechanic is to roll a d20 under the relevant stat to succeed. It may take some adjustment to prefer rolling 1s to 20s, but in this way higher stats are still better and there's no math. Simply roll the d20 and compare to your stat.

This roll-under mechanic also has the benefit of finer-grained resolution. Instead of a range of stats all mapping to the same modifier, each point of the stat matters and your stats will have a more pronounced effect over the course of the game. If we didn't want such diverse outcomes then why are we rolling 3d6? Unfortunately this also means an unlucky PC with a 3 will nearly always fail certain actions and will quickly stop attempting them. An extraordinarily fortunate PC with an 18 will almost never fail in that category of actions and is dis-incentivized to try anything else. 

Thankfully these instances should be rare and a PC with an 18 maybe ought to feel near invincible. For the cursed player that rolled 3 there's hope. Stats trend upward over time as rolling above the stat on a d20 improves it by 1 when the PC gains a level. Thus poor stats should improve more quickly than high ones.

My main criticism is there doesn't seem to be any indication that the GM has license to adjust a stat, which is where we can examine the brilliance of XD20.

XD20

XD20 proposes 3 stats that roughly map to a character's physical, mental, and magical capabilities. These stats are generated by subtracting 1d8 from 15, producing a range of [7-14] each. These are your default target numbers and note that lower stats are better. To lift a boulder, break down a door, swing a sword, or wrestle an orc, roll a d20 vs your physical stat. The warrior may need to roll an 8. The fire mage will likely have a higher target - perhaps 14. That's it.

You might think the whole world seems flat if the warrior always has to roll an 8 to do physical things. Is lifting this larger boulder, swinging this magic sword, or wrestling an ogre also an 8? No. 8 is the baseline, the default for the warrior's average physical task. Yes, "average" is arbitrary but no more than any other codified d20 system out there. If the specific task attempted should be easier or more difficult, the GM should simply adjust the target number down or up.

If the specific task attempted should be easier or more difficult, simply adjust the target number down or up.

I'm tempted to recommend a rule of thumb for bonuses here. Due to the [7-14] range of stats/target numbers I'd recommend bonus adjustments of 2-4 and only 6+ in extreme cases or you might end up with target numbers outside of 1-20. But that's not the right way to think about this system. You don't want to go back to adding numbers to die rolls. You definitely don't want to be applying bonuses or penalties to stats as you'll get all sorts of confused (bonuses are subtracted and penalties are added? what???). What you want to do is pick a reasonable target number between 1-20 for this character attempting this task. You can start with the PC's relevant stat as a suggestion and modify up or down from there, but the goal is to pick a reasonable number that reflects the difficulty of the task on a d20.

Skip the math of bonuses and penalties. There are only 20 sides on the die. Pick a reasonable outcome and roll it.

Now for some, myself included, this feels a bit distant from D&D. Only 3 stats leaves little statistical nuance between PCs - and while there's something to be said for relying on the fiction to make them unique, I think we can make traditional fantasy role-players feel a bit more at home while still freeing them from the shackles of optimizing crunchy bonuses.

I'm not proposing a new system so much as a blended mental model. Let's use something closer to the traditional 6 stats in the range [3-18] by rolling 3d6 or 4d6 keep 3 depending how heroic you want to start out. But, we eliminate all the bonuses. The stats merely suggest baseline target numbers - something like the difference between the stat and 20. Strength 15? A typical strength-based task might be an unmodified DC 5 on the D20, adjust to situation and taste. Easy.

Situational Modifiers

Where's my Armor Class? How does cover work? Relax. Again, the above is merely the baseline. If you feel the DM hasn't accounted for something, point it out. Respect their decision, but negotiate a little. Your armor should make you tougher to hit, at least against certain types of attacks. The same is true for cover, shield spells, blessings, or any other fictional nuance that might affect the game. Trust your DM to make a fair call.

How do PCs improve relative to themselves? Relative to the world?

When they level up, perhaps PCs roll a d20 for each stat. If they roll above it, that stat improves by 1. If that's too much, perhaps they only roll 3d20, or maybe only 1 and have to choose which stat(s) they're attempting to improve.

Another option is for the PCs to simply write their level on their sheet, but gain no mechanical benefits. One of the core principles of XDM is that leveling up actually ruins the game. By allowing the player this lever to negotiate with the DM that, due to their level, perhaps the given target number ought to be lower, they feel a sense of progress without breaking the power curve of the game.

Conclusion

This is my new experimental ruleset of choice. Still feels like D&D due to the core 6 stats generated by 3d6. Rely on the DM to set reasonable target numbers based on that stat and what the PC is attempting. No laundry list of skills, crunchy bonuses, or maths. Easy to roll up PCs. Easy to run. Easy to play.

Next Up

Classes? Spells? Equipment? Some players need a list of suggestions to choose from. Even if it's not comprehensive, even if I don't write any rules for them. Being a ranger won't get you any mechanical benefits, but the archetype helps inform the gameplay. We may decide that you're good at hunting with a bow, tracking in the woods, and identifying plants. You'll get easier target numbers for those activities. We may steal spell names from OD&D, B/X, or even 5E. But what they do depends on what you attempt and how the dice say it goes. Also we need standard equipment kits to speed the shopping.

Deathbringer Rule Proposal: Blending XD20 with Trad D&D

Background

Deathbringer is a homebrew hack of 5E and B/X D&D made by Professor Dungeon Master (PDM) over on Dungeon Craft. It's not published or in any way official. He's constantly tinkering with the rules and polling his viewers and patrons for feedback to improve the system for his home game. He is also a big fan of Tracy and Curtis Hickman's book, X-treme Dungeon Mastery (XDM), which I also recommend and have discussed previously.

Professor Dungeon Master's most recent rules proposal is somewhat radical, blending the brilliance of the XD20 system from XDM with the traditional stats and stat-generation method of classic Dungeons & Dragons. I have been discussing an eerily similar concept with a friend and I was delighted to learn someone of PDM's notoriety is thinking along similar lines, validating the idea in my mind.

Up until this point, Deathbringer has used B/X stats and ability modifiers, but replaced the attack matrices with a 5E-style "proficiency" bonus that increases with your level.

Proposal

The proposed rule change for Deathbringer is to instead generate stats by subtracting 3d6 from 20 to obtain a default target number for that stat. No modifiers or proficiency bonuses. Simply roll the relevant stat to succeed. It's similar to the XD20 system from XDM (see PDM's review here), and the inverse of The Black Hack, but by rolling 3d6 for the traditional 6 stats of Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma it feels closer to D&D.

Pros

1. Rolling 3d6 for the traditional 6 stats still feels like D&D.
2. High rolls and nat 20s are still good, unlike roll-under systems such as The Black Hack.
3. No modifiers and no bonuses = no math. Skip searching your list of skills and adding - just roll the number.

Cons

1. Lower stats = better is counter-intuitive, esp. to experienced players.
2. Static target numbers. Hitting a goblin should be easier than a dragon.
3. No Armor Class. What does armor do?
4. Not compatible with 5E or most OSR systems.

Reactions and Response

The reaction on PDM's Patreon has been mixed with most critics citing the Cons listed above. I am excited by this idea partially because it's so similar to the system I'm currently tinkering with, and I think all of the Cons are easily addressed.

Con: "Lower stats are better" is counter-intuitive

I don't disagree. Generally when people talk about stats in RPGs, videogames, etc. - higher is better. A good (higher) stat requires a lower roll to succeed.

D&D variants accomplish this by mapping stats to a modifier or bonus applied to the d20. Higher stats map to a higher bonus. But why roll for stats between 3 and 18 if we only care about a single digit modifier?

Another option is to put a "+" after each stat to indicate it's the minimum needed to succeed. This is cosmetic but may help players make the cognitive leap.

Roll-under systems such as The Black Hack flip the problem. High stats are good, but you roll the d20 under the stat to succeed. Natural 1s are critical successes and natural 20s are critical failures.

I think wanting both high stats and high rolls can be achieved without bonuses via something like the Target20 system. Use traditional stats generated by the sum of 3d6. Then d20 roll + STAT >= 20 means success. In other words, your default "target number" is the difference between your stat and 20. You can write this on your sheet as if it is your stat, or calculate it on the fly. But I recommend letting the DM handle it while they're setting the target number. This will make the most sense in a moment.

Con: Static target numbers. Hitting a goblin should be easier than a dragon.

Completely true. It was not clear from the rule proposal how "fixed" the target number is meant to be. But if you're familiar with PDM's philosophy and the XDM philosophy from which this idea is born, you'll know that the secret to Dungeon Mastery is picking a reasonable target number on a d20. Other rule systems codify this with bonuses, armor class, and difficulty class to make the world feel consistent and fair. This system relies on the DM to weigh the situation, including the default target number suggested by a PC's stat, and set a reasonable final target number to roll on the d20. Of course hitting a dragon should be harder than hitting a goblin. A PC's stat merely suggests a starting point.

But wait... is hitting a goblin easier than a dragon? Goblins are nimble and small where a dragon might be huge. It's easier to significantly damage a goblin than it is a dragon. Isn't that what Hit Points are supposed to model? Maybe static target numbers aren't a problem at all...

Con: No Armor Class

If the target number for a melee attack is the attacker's strength, what does armor do? This is a valid question and probably the biggest deviation from traditional D&D. Two options I see are modify the target number and damage absorbtion.

Modifying the target satisfies the same concern posed for static target numbers. Someone wearing armor should be harder to hit, so adjust the target up. This is exactly what armor class reflects, but instead of being a static value it's a modifier to the roll. Effectively the system is trying to put all the math on one side of the equation (the DM's side) so all the player cares about is what number to roll on the d20.

I'm not a fan of damage reduction because the previous method feels closer to traditional D&D and I'm generally opposed to things that negate something else in the game. Following the old improv theater adage of "yes, and" I would rather see the full effects of an event compounded and added to, rather than negated or cancelled. Armored foes regularly ignoring some portion of damage from every hit is a grind. It's hit point inflation in disguise.

If you're insistent on exploring damage reduction I would point you towards Into the Odd or its children, Electric Bastionland and Cairn. The idea is skip the attack roll entirely and roll a damage die depending on the weapon. Light, medium, and heavy armor absorb 1, 2, and 3 points of damage per hit. End tangent.

Con: Not compatible with 5E or OSR

I don't fully understand this criticism. This system is all about relying on the DM to set reasonable target numbers so any experienced DM familiar with an adventure should be able to wing it without much trouble. You can use most 5E monster stats as-is with the default target number = 20-STAT. For stats that exceed 20 such as Giant or Dragon strength, Lich or Beholder intelligence, Terrasque constitution, etc. give the monster a very low (5 or less) target number in the relevant stat. Magic items and spells would be no more or less compatible than any other rules hack or system. You won't be able to rely on anything system-specific, but you can improvise a target number and approximate the effect.

Praise

The pros of this system are all the benefits of XD20 with more of the familiarity of traditional D&D. It's surprisingly simple and hangs its hat on the fact that in order to succeed you need to roll a specific number on the d20. You can run simulations, calculate probabilities, and use lookup tables to factor in every little detail to your heart's content - but it won't make your game any more fun.

What you need is a good Dungeon Master that can look at a situation, decide the likelihood of success, and give you that final target number. The stats are just suggestions. Negotiation is encouraged. The DM's judgement is final. Trust is key and no set of rules will protect you from a DM you don't trust. Get a better DM. Be a better DM.

Room for Improvement

Less is more. In this case less actually solves the low stats = good criticism. The reason I'm so hyped about this idea is I've been experimenting with almost the exact same thing. The difference is I wouldn't subtract the stat from 20 and put it on the character sheet. Keep your classic stats. Let the DM do the math and implement whatever method they choose to determine a final target number so long as it feels fair. It's never going to be fair. This is a game of pretend.

As a DM I would to start with 20-STAT as the baseline target number, but by not putting that on the character sheet it cements that it is not a static number - it should frequently be modified up or down depending on the situation. But there's no reason an experienced DM can't look at a STR 18 and say "Hey, that's really strong. Like, super strong. You're trying to grab the dragon's tail and hold on for dear life to distract it? Hell yeah - roll a 10." No math needed.

Quiz: How did I come up with 10?
A. Calculate +3 strength +4 athletics proficiency vs DC 17
B. Calculate +4 strength +2 from the d4 proficiency die I rolled vs DC 16
C. Calculate 20 - strength 18 = 2, but this is a dragon so I modified the target by +8
D. Decide this attempt had about a 50-50 chance of success

Answer: If they're all the same result, does it matter?

Nature vs. Nurture: Another Edition Comparison

In researching my previous article regarding the "fun zone" of the D20, I learned much more than I expected about how the various editions of D&D calculated to-hit probability. The two major factors are a PC's natural ability reflected by bonuses from their stats, and a PC's experience reflected by progressively better to-hit charts, THAC0, base attack bonus, or proficiency bonus depending on the edition. What I find fascinating is how much influence each factor (natural ability vs. experience) contributed in each edition. 

Probability of an Ability Score

I've included the probability of a PC attaining a given range of Strength using the most common stat generation method for that edition. For instance, when playing with the Greyhawk supplement, I expect ability scores to be generated by rolling 4d6 for each stat and noting the sum of the best 3 dice. By this method I calculate a 48% probability that a PC would achieve a Strength of at least 7-12, a 43% probability that a PC would attain Strength 13-16, etc. The way the stats are obtained varies by edition and in attempting to replicate the most commonly used method for each I used the following:

 Obviously the option to re-arrange stats significantly improves the probability of obtaining a higher score for a specific ability. In our case I assume the Fighter PC would put their best score in Strength.

Here is the data followed by a brief analysis and my personal preferences.

Natural Ability

In OD&D, natural ability played virtually no role in hit probability - the exception being very low or high Dexterity granting -1 or +1 to ranged attacks. But starting with the OD&D Greyhawk supplement, natural ability bonuses begin to trickle in. The bonus is usually no more than +1 for most PCs, but 5% might attain +2 and less than 1% will achieve the extraordinary bonuses of +3 or +4. AD&D makes adjustments to this already wonky distribution but the probabilities of PCs obtaining the requisite scores to get those bonuses ends up almost exactly the same, even factoring in that AD&D usually allowed PCs to re-arrange their stats. This distribution continues through 2nd Edition AD&D but has a caveat that will disappear in B/X: 

"Strength also aids the fighting man (emphasis mine) in his ability to both score a hit upon an adversary and damage it. This strength must be raw, i.e. not altered by intelligence scores. On the other hand low strength will affect any character’s fighting ability."

B/X normalizes the -3 to +3 range of bonuses, slightly inflating their effect on all abilities, but also applies them equally to the melee attacks of any PC class. Classically, BX generates stats by rolling 3d6 in order so the odds of a bonus or penalty greater than +/-1 is still fairly small (<5%).

3E grants a +1 bonus for every 2 pips an ability score is above 10, thus 16 grants +3 and 18 grants +4, significantly increasing the influence of natural abilities while also making them much more likely to be attained. 93% of PCs will have at least a +2 bonus, 57% a +3, and 9% will obtain a +4 bonus from natural ability alone. Also, 3E allows PCs to put 1 point into an ability score about every 4 levels.

5E is the weird one. The initial stat generation almost exactly mimics 3E, but includes ability score adjustments due to race. Then, 5E allows PCs to put 2 points into ability scores every 4 levels, and Fighters specifically gain this feature two additional times at 6th and 14th level. This means your Strength is only your starting Strength and a Fighter that improves their Strength at every opportunity could gain a +1 bonus to-hit at 4th, 6th, and 8th level until their Strength peaks at 20, just from improving their natural abilities.

Bonuses Due to Level

In OD&D, class level was all that mattered to hit. But as a PC's natural abilities begin to play a larger role, the bonuses from experience must diminish to keep the math reasonable. In a way, what's old becomes new again. The earliest editions make improvements to-hit in a stepped fashion, fighters in steps of 3 levels. Each band or tier of levels grants improvements of 2-3 pips per band, so OD&D and B/X slightly lag behind the linear progression of AD&D and 3E. The 5E designers, perhaps realizing a linear progression is much too fast, return to banded progression with a proficiency bonus improvement of 1 pip every 4 levels while also reducing inflation since PCs are likely to attain natural abilities of 18-20 (+4 to +5).

To me this is a vast overcorrection. I appreciate that 5E maintained the 3E model of ability scores playing a larger role mechanically and differentiating characters statistically. But for a PC's bonuses to stay relatively static I think I disagree with the design decision to make experience play such a small role. Proficiency in 5E starts at +2, or a 10% improvement over non-proficient PCs. But to then only improve by 5% once every four levels is bonkers to me.

Is it reasonable that an untrained (no proficiency, +0) human with super-strength (20,+5) has the same fighting capability in melee that a 5E fighter of average strength (10,+0) will not attain until 6th level (+3 proficiency, +2 from assumed ability score improvements applied to Strength at 4th and 6th level)? Granted, a PC or NPC with Strength 20 is incredibly rare, and a PC with a Strength of 10 is not likely to choose to be a fighter. But the core question remains - at what point should experience and training overtake natural ability?

My Preference

In light of my previous article I firmly believe the most fun at the table is had when target numbers after bonuses are applied generally stay centered on the d20: between 5 and 15. With that in mind I would make a design effort to have very few total bonuses reach, let alone exceed +10 at the top tier of the game. So under that assumption - how much should come from natural ability vs experience? I think experience should overtake natural ability fairly quickly so my preference would be bonuses of up to +2 or +3 from natural ability, and up to +7 to +8 from earned experience.

I also believe a linear progression is much too fast so I would like to see something akin to Greyhawk or B/X ability bonuses, with a stepped progression of bonuses due to experience. Therefore I can get behind 3E or 5E for low level play, but for mid-tier and above I think OD&D+Greyhawk or B/X have the right balance of rewarding progression and maintaining difficulty.

D20: The Fun Zone

What range of probability of success produces the most fun in an RPG? I assume over the course of a single adventure, the difficulty of monsters and encounters should vacillate, but generally trend upward as the climax approaches. Also, as PCs gain experience they generally become more capable. What was once difficult becomes easier and formerly impossible challenges become attainable. But what range of target numbers is ideal and how does that range change as the PCs improve?

To answer this question I analyzed the typical attack bonus of a human fighter and the subsequent d20 rolls needed to strike foes ranging from unarmored to full plate and shield over the various editions of D&D. This is not meant to fuel edition wars. Rather, the product of this analysis should approximate the expected probability of success for common die rolls in that edition - and lend us some insight into how often the designers of that edition thought the PCs should succeed - i.e. what probability of success is the best combination of fun and challenging? Hopefully it will help you determine your own preferences.

Assumptions

I compared levels 1-10 and assumed the fighter has a Strength of 16 at the outset. This may be uncommonly strong in the 3d6-in-order tradition of early editions but pedestrian, if not underpowered, in the 4d6, stack-with-a-racial-bonus, and arrange-to-taste preferences of modern players. But hopefully it's a fair middle point to illuminate trends. For now I also ignored magic weapons and extraordinarily armored foes. I hope to provide a follow-up analysis factoring in the recommended levels at which these are obtained and encountered.

OD&D: The 3 Little Brown Books (LBBs)

In OD&D no character class is granted any bonuses or penalties "to-hit" from Strength. The combat matrix simply specifies what each class must roll to hit each AC at a given band of levels. Fighters improve their "to-hit" by 2 or 3 pips every 3 levels. AC 9 is unarmored while AC 2 is full plate and shield.

Fighter Level	D20 To-Hit AC 9-2
1-3	10-17
4-6	8-15
7-9	5-12
10-12	3-10

OD&D + Greyhawk

With the addition of the Greyhawk supplement we see the first indication of a fighter's Strength improving their likelihood to-hit, with 16 granting a +1 bonus. Thus the d20 rolls required to hit ACs 9-2 are improved by 1.

Fighter Level	D20 To-Hit AC 9-2
1-3	9-16
4-6	7-14
7-9	4-11
10-12	2-9

Basic/Expert D&D

In B/X we see the normalized -3 to +3 distribution of ability bonuses. Here a 16 Strength grants +2 to-hit. Note that at the highest tier this is the first time we see the rule "unmodified attack rolls of 1 always miss". Otherwise the final entry would read [1-8] and a 10th level fighter could never miss when attacking an AC 9 unarmored opponent.

Fighter Level	D20 To-Hit AC 9-2
1-3	8-15
4-6	6-13
7-9	3-10
10-12	2-8

AD&D 1E/2E

Advanced D&D dials back the to-hit bonus from natural abilities. Strength 16 grants +1 damage, but no bonus to-hit short of Strength 17. An unarmored opponent is AC 10 in AD&D while a fully armored foe is still AC 2. However, instead of improving every 3 levels, fighters improve their to-hit (or THAC0 in 2E) linearly by 1 pip per level. Note that a 10th level fighter only need roll a 1 to hit an unarmored foe - effectively they cannot miss.

Fighter Level	D20 To-Hit AC 10-2
1 2 3	10-18 9-17 8-16
4 5 6	7-15 6-14 5-13
7 8	4-12 3-11
9 10	2-10 1-9

3E

3rd Edition has effectively the same progression, granting fighters +1 base attack bonus per fighter level, but also +1 to-hit per 2 points of Strength above 10. Thus Strength 16 grants +3 to-hit and if ability score improvement points at levels 4 and 8 go to Strength, then by 8th level the fighter would have Strength 18 with a bonus of +4. Also note that 3rd edition uses ascending armor class where an unarmored opponent still has a base AC of 10, but a foe in full plate and shield is AC 20. Already at Level 6 we require the same rule as B/X or the fighter becomes unable to miss and at level 10 he will hit AC 20 75% of the time. We quickly see why 3rd Edition and it's descendants are considered plagued by "runaway bonuses" and high level play regularly sees ACs and target numbers well into the 20s to continue challenging the PCs.

Fighter Level	Strength (modifier)	Base attack bonus	D20 To-Hit Ascending AC 10-20
1	16 (+3)	+1	6-16
2	16 (+3)	+2	5-15
3	16 (+3)	+3	4-14
4	17 (+3)	+4	3-13
5	17 (+3)	+5	2-12
6	17 (+3)	+6	2-11
7	17 (+3)	+7	2-10
8	18 (+4)	+8	2-8
9	18 (+4)	+9	2-7
10	18 (+4)	+10	2-6

5E

In 5E, Strength 16 still grants a bonus of +3. But in place of a linear base attack bonus we have a proficiency bonus that starts at +2 and increases by +1 every 4 levels as part of the "bounded accuracy" design. Also, 5E allows for regular ability score improvements as part of normal level progression - even more frequently for fighters - so we raise the fighter's Strength to 18 at 4th and to 20 at 6th level. They would gain even another improvement at 8th level but 20 is the maximum allowed for PCs. 5E seems to do an excellent balancing act, not striking the artificial bottom of the target range until level 9, and yet maintaining the need for double-digit rolls to strike a formidably armored opponent.

Fighter Level	Strength (modifier)	Proficiency bonus	D20 To-Hit Ascending AC 10-20
1-3	16 (+3)	+2	5-15
4	18 (+4)	+2	4-14
5 6-8 9-10	18 (+4) 20 (+5) 20 (+5)	+3 +3 +4	3-13 2-12 2-11

Analysis

There are a few ways we can analyze this data. Averages are difficult given the varying methods of progression but the the shift in target numbers at low levels, the rate of progression from experience, and the overall upper and lower limits tell an interesting tale.

Low Levels (1-3)

Clearly at low levels the game has gotten much easier. Where OD&D and AD&D demanded d20 rolls of 10-18, each subsequent edition chipped away at a fairly consistent rate of about 1 pip each. By 5E a low level fighter need only roll a 5 to hit an unarmored commoner but still needs to roll in the mid-teens to hit a fully-armored opponent. This seems to indicate that it's not particularly fun to fail more frequently than you succeed and that even a low level PC should still be a cut above normal humans. The downside is this leaves less room for improvement before either an automatic hit or automatic miss on a natural 1.

Mid Levels (4-6)

Prior to 3E, mid-level play finds most of its target numbers between 5 and 15, perfectly centered on the D20. 3E and 5E trend slightly easier, only requiring rolls of 2 or 3 to hit unarmored opponents, and again a 6th level fighter in 3E would automatically hit if not for the rule that natural 1 is always an automatic miss.

Upper Levels (7-10)

At the upper end the game appears broken, hence the need for the rule that a natural one is always a miss. Only OD&D (pre-Greyhawk) and 5E still require double digit rolls to hit formidably armored opponents at this tier. Every other edition requires only single digit rolls, with 3E only requiring a 6 to hit a fully-armored, AC 20 foe. It may not be obvious that a 10th level 3E fighter's +14 to-hit is broken, after all 10th level should be formidable, but recall that 3E and 5E are designed to allow for play up to 20th level. Where is there room for improvement?

To be fair, TSR editions also allow for play beyond 10th level - the LBBs suggest a convoluted way to compute requirements and the BX expansion into BECMI adds levels 15-36 and beyond - but PCs beyond "name level" are considered extraordinarily powerful, likely taking many years of play to achieve. Name level - that is Lord for a 9th level Fighter, Wizard for an 11th level Magic User, and Patriarch for an 8th level Cleric - is typically where domain play is introduced. The PC can construct a stronghold, generate income, and attract followers.

All this is to say I think TSR D&D makes some assumptions about a change in the general mode of play around 10th level, where I would argue WotC D&D assumes a PC is still going on adventures, just of a larger magnitude. They're likely saving the world from hellish fiends or the universe from destruction by evil gods - opponents with ACs in the 20s or 30s.

No matter the edition, at this tier PCs succeed far more often than they fail against non-extraordinary opponents which fairly reflects the improvements gained by their experience. The question is, is it still fun? Perhaps - but the game must change in one of two ways to do so: domain-level play or extraordinary threats. Either the game shifts to focus on politics, income, raising armies, and fighting wars, or the ultra-capable, demi-god PCs require other-worldly, mythic, immortal, cosmic-level threats to fight.

Conclusions

The trends seem to show that low level play was too difficult and subsequent editions increased the baseline probabilities of success. Even a low level adventurer is more fun to play if they're a cut above the riffraff. Mid level play generally finds target numbers evenly spread around the midpoint of the D20 and only slightly trends easier against poorly armored opponents. Unarmored commoners have almost no business avoiding the business end of your blade should you set upon them. High level play finds PCs succeeding at nearly every mundane task but doesn't seem to be particularly fun without an extraordinary challenger or world-ending threat.

To me, this seems to support the informal consensus among players and polls done by WotC that mid-tier play is the most fun. If that is true, then our data indicates there could be some encounters that only require very low rolls (2-5), but the majority of target numbers after bonuses are applied should fall in the 5-15 range for a consistently fun challenge. Perhaps this should come as no surprise.

In the end, whatever your d20 game of choice, it will likely be the most fun if you manage to stay within the bounds of the d20. Too high of a probability of success and perhaps you shouldn't even be rolling. Rolling only to avoid a fumble doesn't sound particularly fun. There's little indication of any edition thoroughly exercising the upper bounds of the d20 (perhaps the saving throw charts of TSR editions) but when the target is that high, whether AC or a saving throw, the situation is bound to be interesting. Food for thought...

Other Factors: AC go down. HP go up.

One final note, while we see a trend of the game getting easier in terms of probability of success, the designers clearly recognize the need to maintain the longevity of a fight and give a consistently satisfying encounter experience. How is this addressed? Unfortunately, the answer is Hit Point inflation. Starting with Greyhawk and then B/X, fighters and monsters receive d8 hit points per HD instead of d6. Not a huge deal. But then in 3E and 5E we see even larger HD sizes and when combined with ability bonuses to Constitution, hit point totals start to skyrocket for players and monsters both. A red dragon in B/X has 45 hit points. In 3E and 5E an adult red dragon has over 250... What!?

If hitting the monsters more often is more fun, but we don't want all the monsters to die in a single round, boosting HP is the obvious solution. The unfortunate side effect is dangerous baddies become truckloads of hit points and combat devolves into a slog-fest. Note that typical weapon damage hasn't changed much since Greyhawk. Multiple attacks and bonuses from magic weapons make an effort to keep up, but hardly at the rate HP inflates across editions. Monsters especially don't seem to possess the number of attacks or damage output required to truly threaten a party. I can think of few better ways to deflate the tension in a game than taking turns reliably hitting, but only chipping away at buckets of hit points. To me, the opposite would be far more fun. Only a fool in 3E+ would wade into battle with single digit hit points, even fully armored. In OD&D or B/X though? You'd stand a chance of surviving with a high AC. Huge risk/reward.

Re-rolling Individual Initiative, the Best of Both Worlds?

 This is an idea I can't take credit for, but writing the post on group vs individual initiative has me chewing on it. By traditional methods this appears to only add book keeping - the annoying part about initiative. But perhaps there's a way to keep it simple enough while still introducing the gleefully chaotic tension of re-rolling from round to round. Here's some ideas.

1. Secret countdown.

The situation: The party is sneaking up on a dragon currently asleep on it's hoard of treasure. Rather than steal as much as they can carry (and perhaps due to the righteous paladin and cleric) they've decided to attempt to slay the beast. However, the wizard has just fallen in a pit trap...!

DM: Roll for initiative! Ok counting down: 25, 24, 23...

Rogue: 23! I sneak up on the dragon from my hiding spot and stab him in the ribs!

Resolve mechanics and narrate results.

DM: 22, 21, 20, 19... The dragon wakes from its slumber, bellows in anger, and breathes fire on the intruders!

Resolve and narrate.

DM: 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13...

Paladin: 13! But I'm unconscious from the dragon's breath. Here's my death saving throw...

DM: 12, 11...

Wizard: 11! Who knew I'd be glad to be in a pit trap when the dragon woke? Whew! I cast clairvoyance to see what's going on above me...

DM: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Cleric: 7! I'm still conscious after the dragon breath so I climb through the smoking wreckage to heal the paladin...

Get it? Not only will the durations of spells that last for a round or more start to vary a bit (combat and magic should be more chaotic than orderly, no?) but the initiative roll of a paralyzed or unconscious combatant gains tension due to its influence over how the round plays out!

2. Declare Actions

Yet something else that appears to add overhead to the combat round. However, if you allow the players a bit of time to plan before rolling initiative (just like you might in group initiative), declaring actions means all the players at least have a Plan A when their turn comes around. Plus, the fictional value can't be understated. You know how in a movie the hero sees the bad guy going for his gun? Well if they're quick enough they might be able to do something...

The situation: The party has freed the prince from the dungeons beneath the hobgoblin fortress when the jailer stirs awake and shouts for help. Minutes later the chieftain and his retinue stand between the party and the exit.

DM: The chieftain knocks a feathered arrow the size of a small ballista on a bow that may need giant-strength to draw. His priest chants, gathering black magic in blood-smeared hands preparing to cast a spell, and his bodyguards draw razor-edged iron to charge. Discuss and declare actions. You have one minute.

Party discussion happens.

Cleric: Ok, the paladin will charge into melee with the chieftain and attack, the rogue is going to shoot an arrow from the shadows to interrupt the priest, the wizard will conjure a wall of flame to block off the bodyguards, and I will prepare a blessing for whoever needs protection.

DM: Excellent, roll for initiative! Ok counting down: 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19... The chieftain draws the heavy bow and looses at the wizard!

Party: Noooooo!

Resolve mechanics and narrate.

DM: Counting down. 18...

Cleric: Whoa 18! I bless the wizard with protection from evil!

DM: 17, 16...

Wizard: 16! Casting the wall of fire is interrupted by the chieftain's arrow. I still try to get the spell off with the cleric's help...

DM: Make a concentration check with advantage - the DC is half the damage taken.

Wizard: Success! Barely. Thank you cleric.

DM: Count 15... The priest casts his blight upon the paladin. Make a save to resist the effect...

DM: 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8... The guards roll saves to reduce damage from the wall of fire and check morale to see if they press through or retreat...

DM: Count 7...

Rogue: 7! I fire my arrow at the priest, too late to interrupt his spell.

DM: Paladin, you're left...

Paladin: Dang. I furiously charge the chief and attack with my greatsword!

DM: Great! Next round, discuss. You have one minute...

3. Use a d10

Ok counting from 25 down to 0 is a lot. Also the range of a d20 relative to initiative bonuses might be a bit too random - tough for the casters to know what the state of the battlefield might be when their spell goes off and dexterity should maybe be more reliable of an indicator. How about we roll a d10 instead?

The situation: As above

DM: The chieftain knocks a feathered arrow the size of a small ballista on a bow that may need giant-strength to draw. His priest chants, gathering black magic in blood-smeared hands preparing to cast a spell, and his bodyguards draw razor-edged iron to charge. Discuss and declare actions. You have one minute.

Party discussion happens.

Cleric: Ok, the paladin will charge into melee with the chieftain and attack, the rogue is going to shoot an arrow from the shadows to interrupt the priest, the wizard will conjure a wall of flame to block off the bodyguards, and I will prepare a blessing for whoever needs protection.

DM: Excellent, roll for initiative! Ok counting down: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11...

Rogue: 11! I fire my arrow at the priest... and hit!

DM: The priest rolls to maintain their spell - and fails! The blight spell fizzles!

DM: Count 10... The chieftain draws the heavy bow and... hits the wizard! Roll to maintain your spell...

Wizard: Success! Barely...

DM: Ok, counting down again. 9...

Cleric: 9! I bless the paladin with protection from evil!

DM: 8, 7...

Wizard: 7! Reeling from the chieftain's arrow, I conjure a wall of fire to seal off his guards!

DM: The priest also rolled a 7 and would cast blight simultaneously, but it fizzles due to the rogue's arrow.

DM: 6, 5, 4... The guards roll saves to reduce damage from the wall of fire and check morale to see if they press through or retreat...

DM: Paladin, you're left...

Paladin: Dang. I furiously charge the chief and attack with my greatsword!

DM: Great! Next round, discuss. You have one minute...

4. Held actions

Finally we should recognize the complication of an archer wanting to hold a drawn arrow until an enemy emerges from cover, a healer wanting to hold their spell, or a fighter waiting with axe raised in ambush. I think you could allow players to name a trigger for their action, or allow them to simply hold their turn until they choose to go before the end of the round. I wouldn't attempt to codify it too much. Let the fiction and common sense drive your ruling.

Initiative: Individual or Group? Pick One Already

Many RPGs use individual initiative and yet a common piece of DM advice to speed this up, simplify note taking, and get to the action is to roll a single initiative for groups of monsters. Effectively, the PCs get individual initiative but the monsters act as a group. This is certainly easier to track and large groups of monsters acting simultaneously can be terrifying. But due to the variance of the d20, the side with more chances to roll is more likely to have someone on their side go first. It's like dog-piling a skill check - someone is bound to succeed and the initiative bonus relative to the range of outcomes on a d20 means it's only slightly more likely the dexterous characters win.

So what's my point? Initiative should either be grouped or individual for all combatants.

Group Initiative

If you're going to do group initiative for monsters, do group initiative for the PCs. It's only fair. Unless your game leans strongly heroic, monsters ought to go first as often as PCs do, or at least more often than they do in the games I've witnessed. The PCs are always the aggressors, always the ambushers. They take tedious precautions to make it so and for what? A single surprise round or temporary advantage? If you want your game a little tougher, and your monsters a little scarier, give your monsters the chance to act first or actually execute an effective ambush.

This also keeps the players engaged. Everyone is invested in the group's actions and the opportunity to coordinate suddenly appears. No more clogged hallways or stairs due to initiative randomizing the action order of the stacked up SWAT team. Group initiative also allows the possibility of re-rolling each round (and thus the PCs or monsters acting twice in succession) without introducing excessive overhead - a great way to create additional tension and chaos from round to round.

Individual Initiative

If you go with individual initiative and there are multiple monsters, especially if they outnumber the PCs, roll for them as individuals or at least multiple groups even if all are of one type. Give them a fair number of initiative rolls and the subsequent opportunity to have their side act first. If nothing else, consider giving groups of monsters or "swarm" types advantage on their single initiative roll - their numbers should count for something here. Monsters having individual initiative adds chaotic and tactical implications to the combat and equal opportunity for advantageous outcomes.

The simple solution is group initiative. The complex one is individual for all - let's just make it fair and give the monsters their due.

Coming soon: Re-rolling Individual Initiative, the Best of Both Worlds?

Things You Will Likely Need in a City

My previous post outlines the possibility (probability?) that even in a closed-matrix adventure, players will infer locations and NPCs that you may not have prepped and thus "escape" the matrix. This is more or less likely depending on the locale. The safety and beauty of the dungeon is there will be virtually none. But in the wilderness and especially urban environs the likelihood of players inferring an un-prepped entity becomes a near certainty.

Things players are likely to infer exist include

1. Blacksmiths, armorers, and other skilled tradesmen
2. Mundane and magical shops
3. Libraries and sources of information
4. Criminal, professional, noble/diplomatic, and familial contacts

If not prepared you will need to improvise the likelihood of a good or service being available, prices, and the time to fill orders (which possibly buys you time to resolve details off-screen).

Fortunately, if it isn't too immersion breaking, you can resolve much of this with a few rolls without inventing specific NPCs or places of business. You're welcome to invent them - but if your player asked if something exists, unless you're abundantly prepared or extraordinarily confident (try your best to at least be confident), they will know you're improvising so it's not so important that specific and colorful NPCs and their businesses exist.

Consider your party - Paladins and Clerics will likely seek a temple. Rogues and criminals will seek the underworld - seedy taverns, gambling dens, and illicit businesses. Wizard-types will want apothecaries and libraries for ingredients and information. Fighters are probably the easiest - while you can pleasantly surprise them with training grounds and fighting pits, unless they are part of a wide-spanning organization they won't expect such things tailored to them, even in large metropolises. Prepare one of each of these with an NPC and a small menu of goods or services available at each place.

In the end there's always a chance the players suggest something you haven't prepped. That's supposed to be part of the fun. But perhaps these strategies and items to prep will you avoid those anxious cold sweats when it happens.

Improvising Beyond the Closed Matrix

Players can only go to places you tell them about. This is the closed matrix. But what do you do when they ask if something exists? A library? A magic shop? A wizard or cleric who can cast a certain spell? In general we should reward inferring possibilities about the environment - but unless the session ends soon, saying yes will always mean improvising whatever it was they wondered at.

So what to do? Ask what they hope to achieve. Finding information? Acquiring a specific item? Using a spell to some specific end? Focus on their ends before their means. It may be you can abstract the entire endeavor into a single die roll. If their ends are tied into your adventure you can plant location-agnostic secrets at the end of any clever path of inquiry. If they're attempting to upend some other part of the adventure, buckle up or consider calling it a night.

GM 101: Set the Scene

The basic loop of an RPG is this:

1. The GM describes the situation
2. The PCs act
3. The GM adjudicates the PCs’ actions and describes the new situation.

The GM does literally 2 things while playing a roleplaying game: set the scene and adjudicate. If setting the scene is half of the GM’s job, to be a good Game Master you need to master setting the scene for your players.

The goal of setting the scene is to provide all the necessary information for the PCs to act. It should tell the PCs where they are, what is happening, and invite them to act. A GM should set the scene many times in a gaming session, even between combat turns when appropriate. Remember, players only have the information you give them and are prone to forget details that aren’t conspicuous or repeated. The GM is the conduit through which the PCs perceive all of the game world except the other PCs.

To set the scene you need to answer:

1. Where are the PCs?
2. What is this place like?
3. What invites the PCs to act?
4. What do the players need to remember?

Where are they?

State where the PCs are. If there is a notable passage of time or a change in location, clearly state that transition. The PCs should know where and when they are unless space and time warping is an intentional part of the adventure.

What is it like?

Describe the area. You don’t need paragraphs of prose, just a sentence or two about what they see, hear, and smell to help the players imagine the scene. Don’t detail every mundane piece of furniture, you can simply say the chamber is a barracks or note enough primary features (bunks, lockers, etc.) to convey what the room is. Make sure the PCs know that they can infer or ask what else is available in the environment. Be sure to mention anything that would be obvious to the PCs such as the floor is covered in soot or the walls are scorched. Give the PCs the opportunity to deduce “there was a fire” and wonder what that might imply, but if the fire is a key detail they seem to be missing, point it out.

What can they do?

A scene needs to present opportunities for the PCs to interject and respond. You need a hook. Justin Alexander has a great video on this subject. Make something happen to a PC. Speak to them. Steal from them. Attack them. Threaten someone or something they care about. Present something mysteriously tempting. Put something nasty between them and what they want.

Focus on the primary elements of the scene in ascending order of urgency. For example, “An iron chest sits in the center of this 30-foot square chamber. Two gnolls defending it raise their glaives toward you. Just then, the doors slam shut behind you, and the room begins filling with water.” 

Suggest options to new players in uncertain situations. Tell them “Well, you could say ‘I walk up to the door and open it’ or ‘I tip-toe up to the door, press my ear to it and listen’ or ‘I toss a copper piece at the door and wait to see if anything happens’ or ‘I turn to the rest of the party and suggest we go a different way.’”

This step of setting the scene should draw attention to points of interest and invite the players to act.

What might they have forgotten?

If there’s any details about the situation that would be immediately apparent to the PCs, but the players might have forgotten because this is a game played in the imagination, or because you've played a single adventuring day over several sessions, be sure to remind them. Re-iterate in your recap and opening scene of a session what the goal of the adventure is. Don’t let your players do something stupid because they forgot something their PCs would know. That’s being a bad GM.

Examples of Setting the Scene

Below are examples of setting various types of scenes. Note each of them succinctly describes where the PCs are, what the situation is, and presents something for the PCs to respond to or act upon.

Roleplay

After minutes of knocking on the Regent’s manor door and shouting in the dark, an annoyed butler in wrinkled pajamas and a house coat yanks it open. “Yes? What is so urgent to wake my Lord at this ungodly hour?”

Exploration

Exiting the kitchens, you find yourself in a dusty 10-foot wide hallway that continues for 30 feet before ending in a set of heavy, wooden double doors. A plank of wood is propped against the wall.

Combat Encounter

As George lowers a rope to help Mickey out of the pit trap, footsteps pound towards the double doors and they fly open revealing three gnolls grasping spears.

Combat Round

The gnoll, still held in place by Karina’s spell, takes a nasty slice from George’s axe and howls. The other two fall back to defend the next room. Mickey, what do you do?

My Players are Still Stuck

If you find even after working on setting the scene and creating inviting things for your PCs to interact with, they are still standing around talking about doing things but never actually doing them, it's possible they're politely waiting for a group consensus. One option is to wait it out. Sit there quietly until the conversation meanders back to “Wait, what’s happening? Why are we here?” and that’s when you remind them and tell them they actually need to take action for the story to go anywhere. They control the characters. Their characters need to do something or things will start happening to them.

D&D as a War Game: Accepting 3.5 & 4E for What They Are

 The origins of D&D are in tabletop wargaming. That is miniatures on a table that can move and fire fixed distances, have some armor value, and deal some amount of damage. Then we zoomed in to focus on an individual character and voila! roleplaying was born. Since that time the focus has trended, albeit with variation, from a tactical war game to a character-focused game. Some would use words like "narrative" or "story telling" - but basically a fantasy game where the players control the protagonists.

When the OSR was born some of us realized people were still playing the TSR editions. We recalled the unique qualities and nostalgia they carried. We decided modern editions were too complicated. The crunch of 3rd Edition that we hailed revolutionary became a burden. 4E was too far ahead of its time - balanced and easier to run, but video-gamey and explicit in game mechanics that broke the immersive qualities of the hobby's origins. The OSR offered modern takes, cleaned up complications, and distilled the qualities that made the original editions so captivating.

But what if we went back and started playing 3.5 and 4E for what they are? What if we embraced the tactical miniatures aspect of D&D again? Would we need crunchy rules and distances? Absolutely. Can you interweave set-piece battles, beautiful terrain, and min-maxed combat characters with a plot-rich adventure? Sort of. What you need to understand is the non-combat aspects of the game are a wholly different mode of play, and will need reigned in from the ultimate sandbox that old school often strives for. The plot will necessarily be a bit more "on rails" due to the careful calibration required of the DM for good encounter building. The DM will need the ability to dictate the goals and guide the path of the party in the macro. In consequence - player choice will exist much more in the micro. Once violence is initiated we shift game modes to the tactical, strictly-ruled, miniatures board game that 3.5 and 4E offer.

This is the sort of gaming that can be competitive. The entire session is one long combat or a series of closely connected ones. The DM can define the objective, the terrain, and tactically plan for the enemies. This is D&D that rewards system mastery as much or more than creative improvisation. That's great.

The beauty of 5E is you can play it either way. If you want more of an open, free-flowing game than skip all the crunch in the rules. Speeds, distances, durations, and areas of effect can be somewhat hand-waved. Character abilities and spells can be much more open to interpretation. Basically: house rule the hell out of it and let your DM and your table make the call as to what sounds fair and reasonable. Distill the crunch into the spirit of things. If you enjoy a good tactical miniatures war game - 5E is still a great ruleset. It won't have the depth of 3.5 or 4, but the rules governing all of the numeric aspects are there in relative balance.

Your prep should focus on the type of game your table plays. I'm starting to think there's something compelling about the tactical miniatures game that 3.5 and 4E support, despite loving the principles of the OSR that largely conflict with them. They're just a different game. Love them for what they are.

PCs Without Stats Part II: Euphoria!

 A few months ago I wrote a post about PCs without Stats. Since then, further inspired by both Tracy Hickman's XDM (I desperately wish this book would run another printing) and the FKR movement I've run a couple of games in a stat-less, FKR style to great success. The first was a fixed scenario with pre-generated characters and the second was on a whim choosing an adventure I already knew by heart and having the players quickly make up PCs (no stats = no rolling) before play.

What I've found is nothing new - but surprisingly re-affirming of all the benefits hailed by OSR and FKR proponents. Namely, by having fewer fixed rules and structured systems not only was I free to make situational rulings, but the players experienced a deeper immersion and that sense of wonder only enjoyed by someone rewarded for trying something crazy.

I was not worrying if my rulings agreed or clashed with other established rules in the game. I could focus on the fictional situation and based on my understanding, map the likelihood of success to a target number. If I needed some oracular input to help set a target number I could roll some dice myself.

The players could focus on their character as a person rather than a character sheet and improvise freely with any strategy that sounded fun, interesting, or in tune with their character. They were not bound by specific and narrow class abilities, nor by the worry that trying something different and creative would necessarily be mechanically sub-optimal. It was a breath of fresh air.

You can dabble in called shots. You can inflict and RP wounds. You can ask how a PC reacts to a situation before calling for a "saving throw". You can ask how a PC attempts to defend themselves from an incoming attack. Don't write rules. Negotiate with the players a bit, make a judgement call and go. Let the table come to a common understanding of the game's limits.

I can spell out the specifics of the "rules" I used in each game further but the core idea is this: all you need is a loosely shared understanding of the PC concept - the sort of things that you expect to be good or bad at based on the archetype and genre - and a single die roll. 1d20, 2d6, d100, 1d6, it doesn't matter - when a PC tries to do something uncertain, judge the difficulty based on the PC and the situation and tell them the target number.

Stating the target number has 2 effects:

1. It clarifies everyone's perception of the situation. 
2. There's more tension in rolling the dice.

Perhaps the player thought something would be much easier, but they miscalculated and need to re-asses. Perhaps the GM forgot an element of the situation and needs reminded. The GM's word is law, but there's room for negotiation.

By abstracting all skill and situational bonuses into a single target number, there's no pause for mental math between rolling the dice and knowing the outcome. The tension is immediately released because everyone knows the outcome the instant the die stops. This is especially apparent when the players attempt something desperate with a more difficult target. They lean forward anxiously. When they fail, it's outrage. When they succeed, it's euphoria. Psychologically, they're being rewarded for taking risks with the sort of high regularly experienced by gamblers. This is the antithesis of playing a safe, optimal, crunchy min-maxed character. This is fucking fun, and they're as engaged as they're ever going to be. 

Yes I'm aware that both benefits of stating a target number are not unique to a stat-less or FKR-style gaming. Telling the players the DC of a check or the AC of a monster is a reasonable way of describing the situation. You can do that in any edition of D&D, Pathfinder, or any other game and my experience has told me that you should! That sort of "meta" communication is no more immersion breaking than to-hit rolls and damage. A common understanding of the situation is worth far more than the rare surprise when a PC misses a high AC monster with a decent roll. In fact, those surprises are very often at the expense of the players.

You can also do the math before you roll dice in any system. TSR-era D&D sort of had this with lookup tables and THAC0. In any game you can subtract all the PC's bonuses from the target number, pre-calculating exactly what is needed from the die before the roll is made. But nobody does. In fact we roll, and if it's exceptionally high or low we skip the math anyway. We prefer adding numbers to subtracting so it takes a very important roll to be worth the effort to stop, pre-calculate the roll needed, and watch it happen. I absolutely recommend you try that sometime.

But all this is to say that by handwaving the math and trusting or negotiating with the GM, you instantly get both benefits. I don't yet know if a lack of specific abilities, additional hit points, or other mechanical benefits typically achieved upon "level up" will negatively affect a long-term adventure or campaign. But I aim to find out.

Proactive and Reactive GMs

Proactive GM

A Proactive GM brings the adventure to the players.

Choosing the Adventure

A Proactive GM decides which adventure to run or offers options to the players. The adventure can be a published module or plotted homebrew but should have a framing event, a specific goal, a villain and important NPCs, and a collection of locations and events through which the plot will emerge. The GM brings the chosen adventure to the table, the players make or bring characters, and play begins.

Beginning the Adventure

An adventure can start one of two ways.

The first is the framing event happens and prompts the PCs to act. A wizard approaches the party in the tavern and asks them to find a magic jewel. The PCs discover a murder and are prompted to investigate. The neighboring town is under attack and the PCs are asked to help. The common thread in these examples is the PCs are asked or prompted to intervene, but they don’t have to. This can be problematic if you’re a Proactive GM with typically reactive players.

The second option is to assume the PCs have accepted the quest and start the adventure at the first encounter after the framing event. A wizard has hired you to recover a magic gem, but while traveling to the dungeon you are attacked by orcs! As a favor to the mayor, you are tasked with investigating a murder and find a bottle bearing the label of the local apothecary at the scene of the crime. After hearing the neighboring town is under attack you rush to their aid and find yourself behind a catapult that enemy soldiers are preparing to fire. The common thread is the PCs have already accepted the quest. The goal is clear, the PCs are in the right location, and they’re plunged into the action with the first encounter.

If you want to offer your players multiple quests (see Reactive GM) and your players willingly follow clues, the first option is fine. If you have a strongly defined adventure and PCs that are indecisive or reluctant to take plot hooks, use the second.

Running the Adventure

Running a proactive adventure is similar to beginning one. As the adventure continues, the GM presents more framing events to set each scene. A proactive GM needs proactive framing events that bring the action to the PCs, forcing them to react. A monster attacks. The floor drops. An NPC begs for help. Be careful about presenting too many situations where the PCs must be proactive. Don’t prompt the PCs to investigate without clues. Don’t tax their attention with irrelevant details and trivial side quests. The situation should be urgent and the choices clear so the PCs can rarely say anything but yes to the adventure.

Constrain an “adventure” to a small geographic area such as a dungeon, town, or neighborhood, and narrate over any travel to or from that location. If your group is comfortable with it, consider narrating past the party deciding where to go next and simply put them there. Reserve traveling long distances, even with teleportation or similar, to the scope of the campaign, rather than a single adventure. Then choose whether the journey is an adventure itself (not recommended if your players are itching to get to the destination) or you can narrate to the destination and begin the next adventure. If you narrate over travel, be sure to convey the toll it takes on the PCs. Mark off rations and consider rolling for random events or encounters that halt travel or use resources.

Weaknesses

A Proactive GM must constantly coax the PCs to follow clues and herd them to the “correct” locations. If handled poorly it can break immersion for everyone at the table. If the PCs follow a clue in the wrong direction or decide to be proactive and do something different, the GM must either say no, or improvise and adjust the adventure to accommodate. The PCs are limited in choices and discouraged from becoming proactive.

Benefits

The GM can prepare an entire adventure with a cohesive plot. They may use or reskin a published module or write their own with some degree of confidence about what will happen. The GM can clearly present the goals of the adventure so the PCs should rarely be confused about what they are doing or why. Knowing the general theme and goals of the adventure, players can make characters that will be useful, relevant, fun to play, and invested, particularly if they had a hand in choosing the adventure. All of these benefits are enjoyed by the Proactive GM so long as buy-in is gained prior to play.

Reactive GM

A Reactive GM lets players lead, requiring them to make proactive decisions.

Choosing the Adventure

The crux of reactive play is choice and it starts with the players choosing the adventure both from a meta-game context (who the characters are, how they know each other, and why they’re together), and in play as they decide what they wish to achieve, where to go, and what to do to achieve it. There are many ways to choose an adventure with this style of play, or the adventure simply emerges as the players interact with what interests them.

The GM can provide a map the players can explore in a hex-crawl. The players can start making characters and creating relationships. They could create a faction, be hired for the same job, or decide they’re prisoners trying to escape. They can choose from “prepared” adventures in the game world by hearing rumors, being approached by quest givers, or literally choosing a job from a job board. The GM can create multiple villains or “fronts” in the game world that are working toward their own ends and will succeed if the PCs don’t interfere.

Beginning the Adventure

What adventure is chosen and how will determine how it begins. The PCs may review the job board or wait in a tavern for quest givers to approach. If they’re part of a faction, they may be given their first assignment. If they’re in prison, their first task is to break out. In any case, starting should come naturally from the decisions in the previous section.

Running the Adventure

This is the difficulty. Running a reactive game takes a lot of work. You cannot prepare too far in advance as most of your work will be ignored or wasted. You need a large amount of raw materials and a strong grasp of story structure. Your goal is to take these raw materials and create an inspiring world filled with framing events that invite the PCs to act. By not having a specific, plotted adventure you have the freedom make the world react. Show them how their actions can influence the world in visible, predictable ways. Then show how their actions also have unexpected effects.

Weaknesses

The GM must do a lot of prep that will be wasted, have a lot of experience, or both. The GM cannot prepare more than a few sessions in advance and must alter preparation to incorporate and reinforce things established in previous sessions. The players must be self-motivated and invested with characters that have strong beliefs or desires.

Benefits

Absolute freedom in a world tailored to respond to them is the ultimate RPG experience. However the GM chooses to populate the world with adventure and intrigue, the PCs can decide what interests them or even set their own goals.