PDA

View Full Version : Setback dice as a way of keeping time and using wandring monsters



Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 05:02 AM
After having read Low Fantasy Gaming (https://lowfantasygaming.com) I immediately started grafting on my thoughts (inspired by Torchbearer, mainly)on time keeping, conditions, minor setbacks and encumbrance.

I realised one idea I had wasn't at specific for LFG, but might work well with 3.5, Pathfinder and similar games.

I like the idea of wandering monsters as a way to add verisimilitude and adding time pressure without resorting to the social contract (http://dmdavid.com/tag/time-pressure-wandering-monsters-and-dds-social-contract/). I also like light sources burning out or otherwise deprive the PCs of their resources as they delve deeper into the dungeon. But I don't like to count in-game time in 10 minute intervals (or other exact measurements, like torches lasting 4 hours). I think it's sounds dull and artificial. And it's not very realistic anyhow. Searching a room might take 10 (or 1) minute on average, but sometimes you're gonna spend half an hour because you can't figure out if a wall mosaic contains a trap. A torch might last 4 hours on average, but sometimes it's shoddily made or a splash of water drops from the celling or you drop it by accident and it goes out.

So why not just focus on the dramatic aspect of time - that something happens - and ignore the false accuracy of counting in minutes?

Thus, introducing the setback check.

When to roll a setback check
Any time the party is dungeon delving and a PC does something, the player rolls a setback check. What constitutes 'something' can vary but guidelines should be agreed upon by the games participants before hand.

Generally, a setback check is rolled when ...
... a PC makes an active skill or ability check out of combat, such as when picking a chest's lock, breaking down a door or searching a room
... the party takes a short rest to heal (designate a single player to roll the setback check)

Setback checks are not rolled ...
... in combat
... when making passive checks, such as many Perception or Knowledge checks

How a setback check is rolled
Under normal circumstances, a setback check constitutes a single d6.

Additional dice are added if...
... the GM rules that the action that prompts the setback check is particularly time consuming or carries extra risk
... the PC is exhausted, injured or otherwise hindered*
... the dungeon is particularly dangerous or plagued by wandering monsters

*What this constitutes should be made clear before hand. In LFG, it might be that the PC is staggered (down to half HP).

For every d6 that comes up as a '1', there's a setback.

What happens when there's a setback
When there's a setback, the GM can choose to ...
... check for wandering monsters
... deplete a light source carried by the PC by one step*
... end a short duration spell affecting the PC

*a torch could, for example, have 4 steps before it burns out

If a setback check resulted in multiple setbacks (several rolls of '1'), instead (or in addition to) choosing from the options above, the GM can ...
... for 2 setbacks, deplete a light source carried by anyone in the party by one step
... for 2 setbacks, extinguish a light source carried by the PC (regardless of how many steps it had left)
... for 2 setbacks, end a short duration spell affecting anyone in the party
... for 2 setbacks, end a long duration spell affecting the PC
... for 3 setbacks, end any number of spells affecting the party
... for 3 setbacks, extinguish every light source carried by the party

___


So, thoughts ...?

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 05:26 AM
To add some thoughts of my one (I could have added them in my first post, I suppose, but I wanted that one to read more like a somewhat finished rules subsystem rather than a disarray of ideas and doubt).

I think the wandering monster aspect if of most interest. I suspect many players would balk at the idea of the GM ending Heroism or other buffs just out of the blue just at the whim of the dice. Setbacks ending spells is probably not for Pathfinder or D&D3.5, but more for Low Fantasy Gaming. Setbacks ending light sources is also questionably interesting in some games. It wouldn't end an Everburning Torch, Light is a cantrip and can be brought up again, and who bothers with the cumbersome lighting rules of 3.5/Pathfinder anyway? Again, this is more for LFG or other, more OSR-style games.

But Wandering Monsters. I do think that this mechanic could be used for them even in 3.5/Pathfinder. Maybe the players will even like that there's a bit of transparency. Instead of the GM seemingly out of no-where throwing a monster at the party, the players say the setback die coming up as a '1' and know that their actions caused it.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 05:51 AM
As someone who doesn't use dungeons, I'm sceptical.

Generally I find it's useful not to track resources too closely. I don't mind if my player's have '10 torches' or 'cloth and oil' on their character sheets, when it becomes night and they want to continue on they can get out or make and light a torch to have their light source for the night. Bookkeeping beyond 'do you have a torch or the ability to make one' just takes away from the interesting part.

Also, depending on the group you play with, this could break the social contract. With my groups it's essentially agreed we'll stop counting short term buffs once combat's over even if they last 20 minutes, and in exchange wandering monsters will be 'those eight bandits that I totally rolled randomly'. However I also like to run systems where nonmagical healing is slow and magical healing is either rare or nonexistant, so combat is rare as otherwise the party will run out of spells in the first two hours of the adventuring day.

On the other hand, if your group is fine with it, it looks like a decent system to make everything a bit more random.

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 06:11 AM
As someone who doesn't use dungeons, I'm sceptical.

Generally I find it's useful not to track resources too closely. I don't mind if my player's have '10 torches' or 'cloth and oil' on their character sheets, when it becomes night and they want to continue on they can get out or make and light a torch to have their light source for the night. Bookkeeping beyond 'do you have a torch or the ability to make one' just takes away from the interesting part. I was like you. And probably still is. But there's a new part of me, one that finds dungeon exploring and a bit of resource management interesting. Or at least believes resource management could be made interesting.

I don't like tracking trail rations, or ammunition. I don't like keeping track of time in precise units. So for the most part of my gaming career, I haven't done it. But I've realised I've thrown something else - something I want - out with it too. If you don't track these things - and don't replace tracking with another system - you can't find yourself to be without food in the wilderness or without ammunition and you never have to deal with the darkness of a dungeon if you just remembered to write 'torch' on your sheet.

If the GM, out of now where, just says 'you're out of trail rations' or what ever, the players are, rightly, going to be very annoyed. I want a rules system, agreed upon beforehand and decently predictable in its outcome, that allows the GM to take things away from the PCs. That way, I know, resource depravity becomes a challenge and not just GM dickery.


Also, depending on the group you play with, this could break the social contract. With my groups it's essentially agreed we'll stop counting short term buffs once combat's over even if they last 20 minutes, and in exchange wandering monsters will be 'those eight bandits that I totally rolled randomly'. However I also like to run systems where nonmagical healing is slow and magical healing is either rare or nonexistant, so combat is rare as otherwise the party will run out of spells in the first two hours of the adventuring day.

On the other hand, if your group is fine with it, it looks like a decent system to make everything a bit more random. Absolutely. Spells in particular is likely to be a sensitive subject. I'm not advocating that the GM surprises the players with this system. Like any house rule, it should be discussed and agreed on beforehand. That way, there's no breach of contract. And if the participants doesn't like it for spells, just use it for wandering monsters. Or what ever you like.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 07:38 AM
I was like you. And probably still is. But there's a new part of me, one that finds dungeon exploring and a bit of resource management interesting. Or at least believes resource management could be made interesting.

I don't like tracking trail rations, or ammunition. I don't like keeping track of time in precise units. So for the most part of my gaming career, I haven't done it. But I've realised I've thrown something else - something I want - out with it too. If you don't track these things - and don't replace tracking with another system - you can't find yourself to be without food in the wilderness or without ammunition and you never have to deal with the darkness of a dungeon if you just remembered to write 'torch' on your sheet.

If the GM, out of now where, just says 'you're out of trail rations' or what ever, the players are, rightly, going to be very annoyed. I want a rules system, agreed upon beforehand and decently predictable in its outcome, that allows the GM to take things away from the PCs. That way, I know, resource depravity becomes a challenge and not just GM dickery.

Although it runs the risk of stating the obvious, this depends on the system, the campaign, and the group. In Fate being stuck in the wilderness without enough supplies is very much something a GM can just drop on their players, either as a compel or as a consequence of failing a roll. In many games I run if you're out of food or arrows then you're likely no more than a couple of days away from civilisation at most, so even if you can't scavenge you'll probably be picked up by a hunting party or something.

Even worse, your system is just plain bad at it compared to Fate. Yours it just occurs randomly when the PCs do stuff, and you still have to track individual rations and arrows. In Fate if there's an Aspect that makes sense I can just give the PC a compel, gain a Fate Point if you accept it and lose a Fate Point if you reject it.

While for some games tracking arrows, food, and other resources is important (like your standard dungeon delve) using this system to say 'you're out of arrows' in my games would likely lead to a 'I use the local trees, some feathers I likely carry with me, and a Craft (fletcher or bowsmith) roll to make more'. 'You're out of food' would result in scavenging the countryside while heading towards the closest village or town on the map, and if you're adventuring in winter then it's your own fault for going so far away from the keep.


Absolutely. Spells in particular is likely to be a sensitive subject. I'm not advocating that the GM surprises the players with this system. Like any house rule, it should be discussed and agreed on beforehand. That way, there's no breach of contract. And if the participants doesn't like it for spells, just use it for wandering monsters. Or what ever you like.

As I said, it's just plain not useful for me. If the group's activities are likely to attract attention then they'll run into some opponents (say a bunch of thieves, or some soldiers all gung-ho for the campaign starting next week), so wandering monsters are out, short term spells end once combat does and long term spells end once a few hours have passed, and for stuff like light sources it's much more a case of 'do you have the materials to build one. For things like arrows or food I'd just roll 1d10 at the end of every combat or day, a 1 means you're low, and you run a 50% chance of running out each combat or day until you gain more. Sure, it adds more randomness to it, but it's the same end result if their Heroism spell ends when they beat the Chieftan's guards or when they're ransacking his room looking for proof of his alliance with the invading Picts.

The fact is, probably about 70% of the time this is going to result in either a check for Wandering Monsters or a light source dropping a level. Occasionally there will be a spell that hasn't ended yet that you can end, but it's significantly more unlikely.

Quertus
2017-07-29, 08:25 AM
But I've realised I've thrown something else - something I want - out with it too. If you don't track these things - and don't replace tracking with another system - you can't find yourself to be without food in the wilderness or without ammunition and you never have to deal with the darkness of a dungeon if you just remembered to write 'torch' on your sheet.

If the GM, out of now where, just says 'you're out of trail rations' or what ever, the players are, rightly, going to be very annoyed. I want a rules system, agreed upon beforehand and decently predictable in its outcome, that allows the GM to take things away from the PCs. That way, I know, resource depravity becomes a challenge and not just GM dickery.

This is still the DM being a ****, but, now, he's being a **** about being a ****: "I didn't do it, the dice did". No. This is horrible.

Proper accounting, simulation style, is, IMO, best. That way, it's on the players whether or not they run out of things. The GM just arbitrarily making them run out of things, and owning up to it is not to everyone's tastes, but it's better than what you've described.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 09:23 AM
This is still the DM being a ****, but, now, he's being a **** about being a ****: "I didn't do it, the dice did". No. This is horrible.

Proper accounting, simulation style, is, IMO, best. That way, it's on the players whether or not they run out of things. The GM just arbitrarily making them run out of things, and owning up to it is not to everyone's tastes, but it's better than what you've described.

Out of interest, what's your view on 'GM inflicted setbacks give metagame currency as compensation' systems, like Fate or Mutants & Masterminds? Still the GM being a **** but at least he's giving compensation, fair, or still just the GM being a ****?

While tracking individual pieces of equipment is great for a traditional game, there are other styles where it's not necessary or actually harmful. Of course, the correct solution is to use a system that encourages accounting for the games where it's important, and a system with softer equipment rules for when it's not.

Heck, one of my favourite systems is Keltia/Yggdrassil (which yes, is not balanced, but I like it anyway), where only important or big pieces of equipment count against Encumbrance, in a more 'stop carrying an entire armoury' way, an ordinary warrior can carry their sword, spear or bow, armour, and potentially shield before suffering penalties. Therefore whether or not you're carrying a bow is important, but if you are you can just write 'arrows' on your sheet and have an arbitrary amount. When running a game with the system I'll care more about if rations have gone off then if you've run out.

And honestly, although I'm more than willing to track my supplies, I've met many people who don't. You know the ones, they buy 20 arrows at character creation and never update it. I actually got banned from tracking my ammunition at one point as well, but we could buy more whenever we wanted so the GM only cared about 'shots before reload'.

I do agree with the fact the proposed system doesn't stop DM ****ishness though, I just think that if it's going to happen anyway the GM shackling themselves to 'when the dice say so' isn't any worse.

TheYell
2017-07-29, 10:22 AM
I'd reserve these for a botched d20 ability check roll (5% chance) rather than a 1 on a d6 (17% chance)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-29, 12:18 PM
I like the idea of wandering monsters as a way to add verisimilitude and adding time pressure without resorting to the social contract (http://dmdavid.com/tag/time-pressure-wandering-monsters-and-dds-social-contract/). I also like light sources burning out or otherwise deprive the PCs of their resources as they delve deeper into the dungeon. But I don't like to count in-game time in 10 minute intervals (or other exact measurements, like torches lasting 4 hours). I think it's sounds dull and artificial. And it's not very realistic anyhow. Searching a room might take 10 (or 1) minute on average, but sometimes you're gonna spend half an hour because you can't figure out if a wall mosaic contains a trap. A torch might last 4 hours on average, but sometimes it's shoddily made or a splash of water drops from the celling or you drop it by accident and it goes out.

Torchbearer measures time in rolls (with a few exceptions).

Every two rolls your torch goes out.
Every three rolls your lantern goes out.
Every four rolls your candle goes out and you become hungry/thirsty.

A fight counts as one roll. The entire party making a "saving throw" against something counts as one roll.

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 01:25 PM
Torchbearer measures time in rolls (with a few exceptions)..
I know. That's my primary source of inspiration for this little add on mechanic. I think mentioning Torchbearer was included in the draft I had in my head, but something happened when I put it onto figurative paper. Sorry about that =)


I'd reserve these for a botched d20 ability check roll (5% chance) rather than a 1 on a d6 (17% chance)
What's an appropriate likelihood of a setback is obviously a debate and probably something that both needs play testing and will vary between different groups. There's also an advantage on strapping the setback onto the normal way of rolling dice, rather than adding additional dice to roll.

That said, I think your suggestion has two problems. First, I my intention is that a setback represents the inexorable passage of time. Even when things are going good, things happen. Time passes. Therefore, I don't want setbacks just on nat 1 since that implies that the setback is tied to the failure of the PC. A simple solution could be to have the setback occur on a nat 1 and nat 20.

Secondly, a 5% chance of a setback sounds awfully low. With my suggestion, a single setback meant that the GM checks for Wandering monsters or a light source is depleted one (of many) steps. Unless you're in the kind of gaming group that rolls bucket loads of skill checks (one Perception to search for traps on the door handle, one for the door frame etc.) you're unlikely to ever encountering a wandering monster or have a light source burn out.

If I remember correctly, back in Gygax time, every 10 in game minutes (which passed by searching just one room, for example) there was a 1-in-6 chance of a wandering monster. That, to me, sounds like way to many wandering monsters. Your 5% chance sounds like no wandering monsters at all =)

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 01:51 PM
This is still the DM being a ****, but, now, he's being a **** about being a ****: "I didn't do it, the dice did". No. This is horrible.

Proper accounting, simulation style, is, IMO, best. That way, it's on the players whether or not they run out of things. The GM just arbitrarily making them run out of things, and owning up to it is not to everyone's tastes, but it's better than what you've described.

When it comes to time, which this thread was about (Anonymouswizard brought it into ammunition and trail rations), with the standard D&D way of doing things the GM arbitrarily makes players run out (of torches and spells). Or have mindbogglingly complex and still not realistic time keeping (like using grid movement for everything).

'Proper accounting' also fails to account for things going awry. And things not going exactly as planned is, you know, realism. You can't account for everything. In your game, I suppose your trail rations never spoil (despite the fact that a dragon first sprayed you with acid, swallowed you and then spit you into a lake!?). You never drop a torch on the very wet dungeon floor by accident. Every search action takes exactly 6 seconds (or whatever is the rule), because your mind never start wandering causing you to spend an extra minute examining the curious carvings on the sarcophagus.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 02:02 PM
If I remember correctly, back in Gygax time, every 10 in game minutes (which passed by searching just one room, for example) there was a 1-in-6 chance of a wandering monster. That, to me, sounds like way to many wandering monsters.

And so you created a system where the GM might have to check for wandering monsters every five in-game minutes on average?

Let me see, Perception check to look around the room, search check to check the chest for traps, open lock check to open the chest, repeat for the other chests in the room. If a group makes on average 30 skill checks a game (extremely low in my experience) a 5% chance will give on average one and a half setbacks, compared to five. If we have a more normal distribution of the entire party making 60-90 skill checks you'll wind up with up to fifteen setbacks a session on average, which will really slow the game down.

Heck, 90 skill checks a session split between the party is low for some of the games I've been in, where you could have at least 120 skill checks in a four hour session (for the record that's about one check every two minutes, I've seen session high points reach four skill checks a minute so it works as a good average). That's actually in a more roleplay heavy group, skill checks were still once every two to three minutes in conversations because we separated 'character wording' from 'player wording' (state your intent and rough wording, your roll will say how eloquent it was).

Oh, here's the fun one. RAW you can end up in a chain of encounters. So for the setback you decide to check for wandering monsters, and get some. Well, the roll to hear the monsters approaching could cause a setback (and if they're successful the checks to prepare could end up with setbacks). Even without abusing the ability to just have every setback be a wandering monster, it's not overly difficult for a party to end up with no light sources or buffs fighting a group of strong monsters.

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 02:04 PM
Although it runs the risk of stating the obvious, this depends on the system, the campaign, and the group. In Fate being stuck in the wilderness without enough supplies is very much something a GM can just drop on their players, either as a compel or as a consequence of failing a roll. In many games I run if you're out of food or arrows then you're likely no more than a couple of days away from civilisation at most, so even if you can't scavenge you'll probably be picked up by a hunting party or something.

Even worse, your system is just plain bad at it compared to Fate. Yours it just occurs randomly when the PCs do stuff, and you still have to track individual rations and arrows. In Fate if there's an Aspect that makes sense I can just give the PC a compel, gain a Fate Point if you accept it and lose a Fate Point if you reject it. I haven't said 'use this exact system for arrows'. While I do think one could make something similar for arrows, this system was for keeping time (and keeping time mostly in relationship to wandering monsters and light sources). You're extrapolating way too far and criticizing a system I haven't made =)

I should probably read Fate again. I read, was it called Spirit of the Century and I think one other Fate game way back in the days. Wasn't that impressed. I have read Fate Core, which fixed a lot of problems, but still wasn't charmed. There's some good, neo-trad stuff in there. I just think Burning Wheel was more up my alley.

Anyway, yes, it depends on the system (and the campaign and the group). There's absolutely no need for this in Fate or Burning Wheel or lots of other games. But I mentioned D&D 3.5, Pathfinder and Low Fantasy Gaming several times in my opening post. This system was never intended to work with Fate =)


While for some games tracking arrows, food, and other resources is important (like your standard dungeon delve) using this system to say 'you're out of arrows' in my games would likely lead to a 'I use the local trees, some feathers I likely carry with me, and a Craft (fletcher or bowsmith) roll to make more'. 'You're out of food' would result in scavenging the countryside while heading towards the closest village or town on the map, and if you're adventuring in winter then it's your own fault for going so far away from the keep. You do realize that's like saying 'I could put a monster in way of my party, but that would just result in them killing it' or 'I could create a murder investigation, but my party would just follow the clues and find the murderer'.

In my experience, the D&D paradigm (of which I'm mostly accustomed to Pathfinder) sucks at making the wilderness challenging and interesting. Rolling Survival is a bore, because nothing happens either way. Having a system which makes the PCs go out and forage for food and utilize their Craft skills would be great, if you're interested in making the wilderness interesting. Which I am.



For things like arrows or food I'd just roll 1d10 at the end of every combat or day, a 1 means you're low, and you run a 50% chance of running out each combat or day until you gain more. Sure, it adds more randomness to it, but it's the same end result if their Heroism spell ends when they beat the Chieftan's guards or when they're ransacking his room looking for proof of his alliance with the invading Picts. Yeah. Checking after combat is pretty much the same as checking at a short rest (cause those usually happens after combat). And then, I want to check a bit more often because I think things should happen at other times to.

(and yes, I can make things happen just because I'm a GM. But I like games that help me)


The fact is, probably about 70% of the time this is going to result in either a check for Wandering Monsters or a light source dropping a level. Occasionally there will be a spell that hasn't ended yet that you can end, but it's significantly more unlikely. Well, Wandering monsters was the prime intended use of this system. Light sources was a close second. Ending spells was a third, added on at the last minute because I realised it might work for that too. If 70% of setbacks are used to check for Wandering Monsters, it sounds like the system is working as intended =)

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 02:18 PM
And so you created a system where the GM might have to check for wandering monsters every five in-game minutes on average?.

To quote myself:



Setback checks are not rolled ...
... in combat
... when making passive checks, such as many Perception or Knowledge checks


So the spiral out of control when having setbacks on checks to hear approching monsters won't happen.

Also, your gaming style sounds very different from mine. 120 checks in for hours is unheard of. A Mouse Guard session without a conflict goes down with what, 10 checks perhaps. A conflict could add another 10.

I think I'm closer to 30 when playing Pathfinder, possibly even without discounting passive Perception, Sense Motive and Knowledge checks. And if each of those had a setback check, that's 5 setbacks on average. If all of those are used to check a 1-in-6 chance of wandering monsters, some sessions won't have any. And I won't deplete any light source. I might need to increase the likelihood of a setback, the way I play! Or make more skill checks.

Obviously, a good presentation of this system would discuss expected average number of skill checks, so the users could adjust to make it suit their playstyle.

(On a side note, I feel that lots and lots of RPGs suck at writing about when to make skills checks, how often in a session you'd make one and similar things. Which causes these wildly different perspectives its possible to have on a single game.)

Tanarii
2017-07-29, 02:28 PM
You might want to check out Angry DM's Time Pool mechanic:
http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 02:43 PM
I haven't said 'use this exact system for arrows'. While I do think one could make something similar for arrows, this system was for keeping time (and keeping time mostly in relationship to wandering monsters and light sources). You're extrapolating way too far and criticizing a system I haven't made =)

I should probably read Fate again. I read, was it called Spirit of the Century and I think one other Fate game way back in the days. Wasn't that impressed. I have read Fate Core, which fixed a lot of problems, but still wasn't charmed. There's some good, neo-trad stuff in there. I just think Burning Wheel was more up my alley.

Anyway, yes, it depends on the system (and the campaign and the group). There's absolutely no need for this in Fate or Burning Wheel or lots of other games. But I mentioned D&D 3.5, Pathfinder and Low Fantasy Gaming several times in my opening post. This system was never intended to work with Fate =)

You seem to have misread my point, which was other systems have already created better ways too deal with setbacks.


You do realize that's like saying 'I could put a monster in way of my party, but that would just result in them killing it' or 'I could create a murder investigation, but my party would just follow the clues and find the murderer'.

In my experience, the D&D paradigm (of which I'm mostly accustomed to Pathfinder) sucks at making the wilderness challenging and interesting. Rolling Survival is a bore, because nothing happens either way. Having a system which makes the PCs go out and forage for food and utilize their Craft skills would be great, if you're interested in making the wilderness interesting. Which I am.

I was using running out of food in wilderness as an example (which I might use to drive PCs to a town with actual plot in it, but that's beside the point). My point was that, with most systems, the only downside to that setback is maybe having to go a bit out of your way.


Yeah. Checking after combat is pretty much the same as checking at a short rest (cause those usually happens after combat). And then, I want to check a bit more often because I think things should happen at other times to.

What's a short rest? There's not such thing in ANY of the systems I run. The kind of short rest you refer to is actually very specific to a certain edition of a certain game.


(and yes, I can make things happen just because I'm a GM. But I like games that help me)

So what, you don't trust yourself to keep the game fun? The problem with this system is that things can make no actual sense.

'You climbed out of a pit trap, WANDERING MONSTER!'


Well, Wandering monsters was the prime intended use of this system. Light sources was a close second. Ending spells was a third, added on at the last minute because I realised it might work for that too. If 70% of setbacks are used to check for Wandering Monsters, it sounds like the system is working as intended =)

It sounds like wandering monsters are way too common in your games. Heck, this systems seems like it works in exactly one place (a 'dungeon').


To quote myself:



So the spiral out of control when having setbacks on checks to hear approching monsters won't happen.

True, but preparations can still turn one wandering encounter into six. Or do wandering monsters just teleport into the room.


Also, your gaming style sounds very different from mine. 120 checks in for hours is unheard of. A Mouse Guard session without a conflict goes down with what, 10 checks perhaps. A conflict could add another 10.

Cool, but I wasn't playing Mouse Guard.


I think I'm closer to 30 when playing Pathfinder, possibly even without discounting passive Perception, Sense Motive and Knowledge checks. And if each of those had a setback check, that's 5 setbacks on average. If all of those are used to check a 1-in-6 chance of wandering monsters, some sessions won't have any. And I won't deplete any light source. I might need to increase the likelihood of a setback, the way I play! Or make more skill checks.

Wasn't playing Pathfinder either. For the games that got up to that frequency it was mainly GURPS or the GM's homebrew system, with one game being Mutants & Masterminds.


Obviously, a good presentation of this system would discuss expected average number of skill checks, so the users could adjust to make it suit their playstyle.

(On a side note, I feel that lots and lots of RPGs suck at writing about when to make skills checks, how often in a session you'd make one and similar things. Which causes these wildly different perspectives its possible to have on a single game.)

If you spent so much time on the original post why isn't it there? Baator, there's an edit button, you could add a note.

Blymurkla
2017-07-29, 03:19 PM
You might want to check out Angry DM's Time Pool mechanic:
http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/
Superb tip, thank you for that. He's come to, and formulated much better, something very similar to my view of time keeping. The time pool he's proposing is interesting, to say the least.


You seem to have misread my point, which was other systems have already created better ways too deal with setbacks. And my point was 'I wasn't talking about those games'. I know other systems deals with something like this already. One of them inspired me strongly to write this mechanic. It's not better than Fate, I'm not claming that it is. But even though Fate does this bit better, some people (including some people I want to play with) still prefers D&D-derivatives.


What's a short rest? There's not such thing in ANY of the systems I run. The kind of short rest you refer to is actually very specific to a certain edition of a certain game. I defined what a short rest is in my original post. It's when you heal. Sure, you might not


So what, you don't trust yourself to keep the game fun? The problem with this system is that things can make no actual sense.

'You climbed out of a pit trap, WANDERING MONSTER!' Why would I chose to select a wandering monster if it makes no sense in the situation? I could make a light source go one step towards burning out if that's a better fit. 'As you climb out of the pit trap, you accidentally scrape the tip of your torch against the damp wall of the pit. It flickers but doesn't go out'.


Heck, this systems seems like it works in exactly one place (a 'dungeon'). Eeerh, yes. The title contains 'wandering monsters', a term mostly used in conjunction with dungeons. I specificity mention that setback checks are rolled in a dungeon.

Then you mentioned tracking resources in what I perceived as more general sense, and my third post in this thread built upon that general line of discussion. I could probably have made the distinction between the system I first posted and my more generalised thoughts that followed clearer.


If you spent so much time on the original post why isn't it there? Baator, there's an edit button, you could add a note. Ah, thank you. I wrongly assumed that this forum, like the one's I'm more used to frequent, had a very short time window for editing posts. I've updated my original post now.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 03:44 PM
And my point was 'I wasn't talking about those games'. I know other systems deals with something like this already. One of them inspired me strongly to write this mechanic. It's not better than Fate, I'm not claming that it is. But even though Fate does this bit better, some people (including some people I want to play with) still prefers D&D-derivatives.

Again you missed my point. My point was other systems have come up with better versions for D&D derivatives (which are majorly lacking in any sort of metagame resource). Heck, if using Action Point rules the Fate or M&M version of setbacks fit in REALLY well.


] I defined what a short rest is in my original post. It's when you heal. Sure, you might not

You actually don't the quote in question


the party takes a short rest to heal (designate a single player to roll the setback check)

Which, if you actually read it, says that you take a short rest with the purpose being to heal. Nothing defines what a short rest is, and a short rest to play bagpipes, make a sandwich, or **** the elf chick in the party don't call for a setback check.


Why would I chose to select a wandering monster if it makes no sense in the situation? I could make a light source go one step towards burning out if that's a better fit. 'As you climb out of the pit trap, you accidentally scrape the tip of your torch against the damp wall of the pit. It flickers but doesn't go out'.

And what if my torch is already out because it rolled on the floor when I fell into the pit trap, and I don't have any spells active?


Eeerh, yes. The title contains 'wandering monsters', a term mostly used in conjunction with dungeons. I specificity mention that setback checks are rolled in a dungeon.

Okay, I'll give you the setback checks in a dungeon bit, my bad.


Then you mentioned tracking resources in what I perceived as more general sense, and my third post in this thread built upon that general line of discussion. I could probably have made the distinction between the system I first posted and my more generalised thoughts that followed clearer.

From your opening post:


I like the idea of wandering monsters as a way to add verisimilitude and adding time pressure without resorting to the social contract. I also like light sources burning out or otherwise deprive the PCs of their resources as they delve deeper into the dungeon.

The layout of the sentences implies the wandering monster and adding time pressure applies not only to dungeons, only the light sources burning out and depriving of resources being related to dungeons.


Ah, thank you. I wrongly assumed that this forum, like the one's I'm more used to frequent, had a very short time window for editing posts. I've updated my original post now.

Fair's fair, there's really no time limit I think I once edited a post from over a year ago.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-29, 03:45 PM
When it comes to time, which this thread was about (Anonymouswizard brought it into ammunition and trail rations), with the standard D&D way of doing things the GM arbitrarily makes players run out (of torches and spells). Or have mindbogglingly complex and still not realistic time keeping (like using grid movement for everything).

'Proper accounting' also fails to account for things going awry. And things not going exactly as planned is, you know, realism. You can't account for everything. In your game, I suppose your trail rations never spoil (despite the fact that a dragon first sprayed you with acid, swallowed you and then spit you into a lake!?). You never drop a torch on the very wet dungeon floor by accident. Every search action takes exactly 6 seconds (or whatever is the rule), because your mind never start wandering causing you to spend an extra minute examining the curious carvings on the sarcophagus.

Stick to your guns here and don't let them talk you out of it. I keep track of time, food, torches, material components in my game. These other people may hate it but and say you are doing it wrong. They are doing it differently.

You are offering challenge type with this. It is great and it is fun. It wouldn't be fun for those types of players because they like a different style. If a player doesn't like this, they aren't a match for your game. And even if you changed this one thing, giving into complaining is just rewarding them for complaining and the complaining will not stop.

Look, there is more than one type of DM out there. They may claim they are doing it the right way or something like that. Don't listen to them and perhaps just tell them to shut their pieholes. Too many players have been coddled for far too long.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-29, 04:17 PM
Stick to your guns here and don't let them talk you out of it. I keep track of time, food, torches, material components in my game. These other people may hate it but and say you are doing it wrong. They are doing it differently.

There is nothing wrong with accounting gameplay. I've occasionally had to be talked out of it.

What I have a problem with is taking that accounting gameplay and making the time to running out entirely random. You light your torch 12 minutes ago, but because the party has no spells active and wandering monsters 'make no sense' for whatever reason it runs out. As do the next three. And then the next one last for three days because people don't make skill checks (and if you arbitrarily make it run out anyway, why are you even using this system in the first place).

It removes the PLANNING gameplay that goes along with ACCOUNTING gameplay. As unrealistic as standardised torch time limits are, if I can count on each lasting to within a few minutes of four hours then if I run out it's my fault for not bringing enough.

Tanarii
2017-07-29, 04:23 PM
Superb tip, thank you for that. He's come to, and formulated much better, something very similar to my view of time keeping. The time pool he's proposing is interesting, to say the least. Yep. As someone who tracks logicistical resources, uses wandering monster checks, and wants time to be a meaningful resource for the players to consider, I found it very interesting.

Although it's worth noting that Angry is working on a megadungeon project, with both Time, Good/Bad Things Happening, and Random Encounters being integral considerations. So his system is geared with that in mind. He's already got a boat-load of story built in that can be turned into thematic 'events' and 'wandering monster' encounters.

(Also you messed up the quote tags in that post, many of the other things quoted have my name associated, but I didn't post them.)


Stick to your guns here and don't let them talk you out of it. I keep track of time, food, torches, material components in my game. These other people may hate it but and say you are doing it wrong. They are doing it differently.Agreed. There's no point in arguing with someone that doesn't like these things and doesn't want them in their game at all. They're not going to meaningfully contribute to figuring out how to do it well, because they don't want it at all in their games. If someone does want it in their game, then the next step is to help them figure out how to do it, not tell them not to do it.

(Edit: to be clear, arguing about if direct time tracking is superior or inferior to system based on actions (torchbearer) or random rolls, or both, is not the same as saying you shouldn't use logicistical tracking at all.)

Blymurkla
2017-07-30, 04:02 AM
Again you missed my point. My point was other systems have come up with better versions for D&D derivatives (which are majorly lacking in any sort of metagame resource). Heck, if using Action Point rules the Fate or M&M version of setbacks fit in REALLY well. Ah, yes. That, I did not get. I thought you where talking about Fate and others as standalone games, not Fate and other systems grafted onto D&D derivatives. Or am I still not getting it?

Anyway, that sounds really interesting! Could you tell me more? Are using Action Points Fate or M&M style in D&D formalised somewhere so I can read about it?



(Also you messed up the quote tags in that post, many of the other things quoted have my name associated, but I didn't post them.)
Oh, ****. Sorry. Fixed that now.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-30, 04:29 AM
Ah, yes. That, I did not get. I thought you where talking about Fate and others as standalone games, not Fate and other systems grafted onto D&D derivatives. Or am I still not getting it?

Anyway, that sounds really interesting! Could you tell me more? Are using Action Points Fate or M&M style in D&D formalised somewhere so I can read about it?

There are various Action Point rules for 3.X at least, the idea is that when something bad happens to a character, they get a metagame resource to compensate. It works well as an alternative to general tracking (although it's not strictly better).

So if the PCs have spent several days/long rests without resupply you could declare that they are out of X and give them each an action point as compensation. It's useful if you want to not do accounting gameplay.

If you want less accurate time limits just roll a deviation whenever a torch or a spell is used, say +/-10%. Sometimes the party wins and sometimes they lose, while with your system they always loose (there's no way for something to last longer than stated).

Bohandas
2017-07-30, 03:43 PM
What would probably be most useful would be if there was some kind of computer program that could track everything and that had versatility but without the time-consuming fiddlyness of an excel spreadsheet

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-30, 04:28 PM
Ah, yes. That, I did not get. I thought you where talking about Fate and others as standalone games, not Fate and other systems grafted onto D&D derivatives. Or am I still not getting it?

Anyway, that sounds really interesting! Could you tell me more? Are using Action Points Fate or M&M style in D&D formalised somewhere so I can read about it?



Oh, ****. Sorry. Fixed that now.
He says better, I say different. He likes it therefore it is better.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-31, 01:05 AM
He says better, I say different. He likes it therefore it is better.

Guilty as charged. Although I still say not randomly ****ing over your players is better. At least in the Fate/M&M model the players get compensation.

TheYell
2017-07-31, 03:47 AM
What would probably be most useful would be if there was some kind of computer program that could track everything and that had versatility but without the time-consuming fiddlyness of an excel spreadsheet

Get an intern

Blymurkla
2017-07-31, 04:12 AM
What would probably be most useful would be if there was some kind of computer program that could track everything and that had versatility but without the time-consuming fiddlyness of an excel spreadsheet Maybe I'm unimaginative, but I'm having a hard time seeing how such a program would be designed =) Maybe one could be made that's less fiddly than an Excel sheet, but doubt one could be made that's still eases the burden on the GM.



If you want less accurate time limits just roll a deviation whenever a torch or a spell is used, say +/-10%. Sometimes the party wins and sometimes they lose, while with your system they always loose (there's no way for something to last longer than stated). I don't want less accurate time limits. I want less accurate time. With a +/-10% uncertainty, I'd not only have to keep track of when 2 hours (or whatever) have passed to figure if a torch burns out - I'd have to keep of when 108 (or 132) minutes have passed.

As for my system making the party always lose - firstly, that's not true. You yourself noted that a series of successful die rolls could result in a torch lasting days (though would assume the party stays days underground, since the system is only intended to work in dungeons. But it's certainly possibly). If you think my system is ťA torch last 2 hours, but haha, sometimes a die roll makes that only 12 minutesŤ you've grossly misunderstood.

Secondly, not every subsystem in every type of gaming should allow the players to win. Not compensating for a loss like in an Action Point system isn't inherently bad. I will remind you of Torchbearer (or explain it for you, if you haven't read it). Every time there's an ability check and the player fails the roll, the GM can give the PC a condition (or make a twist, but that's another story). However, once 4 checks have been made every PC automatically gains a condition, regardless of whether any of those checks have failed or not. And once a PC has the maximum 6 conditions and another 4 checks passes, that PC automatically dies. There's no upside, there's no silver lining, there's no lollipop after the dentist visit. The players just automatically lose. In fact, the game dubs this 'the grind'. The world (and not an evil DM, because there's lots of transparency on how the world works) grinds the PCs down, whether the players like that or not. And yet, Torchbearer is a game that's played and liked.