 |
You lot, after reading the clickbaity title. You are correct to do so. |
Howdy, Farmhands!
In 2024, I made a post titled "The Realms I Never Knew," in which I had a bit of an epiphany wrt setting design after reading Dwiz's Knight At The Opera blog series about the history and vibes of DnD's primary settings throughout the editions in quick succession to reading Seba "Moss Hut"s trio of Tri-folds efficiently adapting Knave to run adventures in The Forgotten Realms and Barovia. Neither of those two things exist on the internet anymore, so I'm having to start this follow-up/spin off from scratch. God fucking damnit.
To be fair to both authors, I have no right to their work, nor do they have any responsibility to continue offering me access to said work. I greatly miss the works now that I can no longer gesture towards them for others to experience, though I've long since personally archived both for private re-reading. It's simply a shame that the topic that's wormed itself between my ears builds off my previous arm flailing in their direction with the conclusion that I didn't know what to think about them, just the sense that there was something there. You can read it if you like, knowing the things it spoke about are inaccessible for context, or just pretend everything after the cut is a post on it's own.
This will eventually sorta kinda not really be about Deathbringer, by the way. Skim this duology of blogs by Magnolia Keep to get yourself up to speed before I get there.
1. Shields Shall Be Broken
Let's go on a bit of a thought experiment. I promise this won't take terribly long.
Say you have two osr game systems that are identical. And I mean identical. Same stats, same procedures, same gameplay loop, all the way down to how individual ball bearings are priced. The saves are the same, the dice used are the same, the progression of characters through play are 1 to 1 the same. These rulesets, theoretically and ignoring the realities of the chaos of players at a table (work with me here), produce experiences that should also be 1 to 1. Both produce identical elfgaming, dungeon crawling, treasure hunting medieval fantasy.
Now let's add Shield Breaking to one of them.
For those who haven't encountered it, "Shield Breaking" is a fairly popular rule in some circles of elfgaming; enough so that it's frequently house-ruled into games it's not originally present in. The jist of the rule goes as follows - A Shield item does what the system initially says it should, usually adding a bonus to your armor modifier if you have one of those, but overall making you harder to hit or negating some damage when struck. When struck, the player can make the decision to "Break" their shield, destroying the item in exchange for a one time complete negation of incoming damage to their character. Seems straightforward enough.
Zooming back out to our two game systems, I want to really sit and muse over what changes this single additional rule would inspire in their generic and, I must stress, identical elfgames. Well, first of all, having a Shield becomes much more interesting. There are surely other ways to increase one's defense, perhaps by buffing the HP pool, so hits remove a smaller percentage of the available resource. Perhaps there's better armor to be saved for during lower level dungeons that's simply more cost effective than buying a silly old shield and losing access to one of your arms. In an elfgame without Shield Breaking, Shields could be seen as more of a gimme add-on to your one handed sword if you already had the coin. With it though? Suddenly, you have a lifeline. One complete negation of incoming damage for an attack? Carried in your offhand which you weren't using unless you're a pervert who's really into Polearms for some reason, and need both of your grimy little paws to operate one. The price of a Shield becomes important as well, now that they're a valuable commodity. Cheap enough, and with enough hired hands to carry your junk for you, you may be tempted to bring multiple Shields down into the delve with you- though they wouldn't be useful for swapping out in a combat to make use of multiple broken shields against the same opponent. If your GM is particularly keen, the foes you face might have their own shields for the exact same reason as you! Attacking a shielded opponent when you're at low health runs the risk of them completely negating your attack and getting in one last swipe that could spell your doom.
I dare suggest that the inclusion of this one simple rule has the potential to completely change how combat and challenge within the system work, with a brand new list of assumptions players must grapple with before making their choices. And this was a single, minor change! Take that potential and realize with me, the fact that any rule change carries the same ramifications. A game that has HP, even in the same numerical values as another, is drastically altered if a rule is added to allow for regeneration after a fight. Item management becomes a terrifying logistical puzzle if your available slots are tied to a Strength score. Scarier still, in a game where your Strength can be depleted and NOT easily regained, as it is in many Odd-Likes, that the potential for a downward spiral of a shrinking inventory space threatens your beloved blorbo. It is with this potential for ramifications that I presume that any game with an alteration, even one I imagine to be minor, makes it's resultant "game" distinct from it's near-identical peers, and (pause for dramatic effect) worthy of being called it's own "System."
Studied members of my audience will see a parallel between what I've written thus far and an old maxim of the OSR, nay, of Tabletop Gaming itself, dating back to the very beginning of Dungeons and Dragons as a hobby; The much repeated and meaningless argument of "System Matters." For historical context, I'll link you to Ron Edward's most widespread piece related to the topic. In this essay, he also presents his personal framework for categorizing the hobby and every game and person in it. I apologize, in the case Ron ever finds and reads this blogpost, but I think GNS theory is a crock of shit. Regardless, some of his findings in the essay hold water. For my money, the concept that a game can be designed to produce a set of outcomes that benefit different goals rings true. His exhaustion with those who believe that System doesn't matter, and any game can be run in the way they desire it to, if only the GM running it is talented enough, is relatable. The shorthand for these concepts, and the many MANY arguments that spun from the archived post above, has long lost it's original coined meaning, leading to many many MORE arguments where nobody is using the same definition. So at the risk of pinning myself with a comically large post-it note that reads "Kick Me" for saying so, I will come out and say in plain text that I believe that System Matters, in as much as your system and it's rules and procedures matter to producing the experience you want it to.
Please lower the hammers, we've only just finished section 1 of this malarkey. I'll probably say even more egregious shit later.
2. Voids shall be Fruitful
Ok so that was actually a decently long thought experiment. Sorry for that. I'll also say Sorry in advance because there's no way I won't eventually do it again. But here's the point of all that, repeated so that it sticks: A single rule can drastically change the shape and direction of play. This is the idea I arm flailed at those years ago, after seeing Dwiz lay out a well written discussion about the highlights of D&D's lost settings, followed by Seba's short and concise houserules for supporting some of those very things for play in a lighter system. It simply took time to see the bigger picture I was catching a glimpse at, something far greater writers in the hobby probably assume came free with your desire to be called "Game Designer" on social media. Forgive me, brilliant minds, I've only been here a short while.
I could play, say, Barovia with Knave as written, but think what would be lost in that transition. Magic spells aren't separated by level, and generated using a table. Classes simply don't exist, with no defined lines between Divine abilities and just Regular ones. The system focuses on developing your character based on the things found about- In a setting such as Barovia, what magic items outside the dark and dour could there be to make your blorbo unique in the same way a guided leveling system with specific class-based abilities awarded at set points would? Seba's now removed "Knaves in The-" series of pamphlets was one answer, carefully deploying rules changes to bend Knave closer towards where the Setting would entice players to go, supporting the flavor of the world without completely rewriting the system around it.
But then, would that disconnect not be sort of the point? Would not the loss of direct conversion between Dungeons and Dragons and Knave be, itself, a drastic change to the shape and direction of play? Just as a single additional rule can change the experience of an otherwise identical-to-generic-fantasy elfgame, the lack of that specific support can be just as impactful.
An example I think of frequently comes from Chris McDowell and his connected series of rpgs beginning with Into the Odd. The original Into the Odd was released in 2014, with it's "sequel", Electric Bastionland releasing in 2020. In between those two releases, McDowell had time to sit and tinker with his original ruleset, making changes and additions until it became what EB eventually went to print as. One such rule that was birthed during this time went more or less as follows: When multiple members gang up on a single target, all attackers roll their damage dice, and the highest number is the one applied to the target. I find this rule quite elegant. Love using it in my Odd-like games all the time. But interestingly, despite Into the Odd receiving a revised edition in 2021, McDowell chose not to include it. He goes into his thought process for why he did so here, and if you'll forgive me for paraphrasing the post in a less intriguing way than the man himself, adding the rule in from the younger and further developed game would change how Into the Odd was experienced. After consideration, it was decided that alterations for the Revised release should be to further cement the original experience, rather than "improve" upon it, lest it become something else. Interesting how even in their absence, these things still dictate the shape of play.
3. Systems shall Matter
Deathbringer, a new system being crowdfunded on backerkit by Professor DM of Dungeoncraft, is mid-campaign as I type this and has already made a shitton of money. It's success financially cannot be ignored. This will be a windfall for the people who have worked to bring it to print. I'm not here to seriously critique the game. But I do find it's existence interesting with regard to what all I've had rattling around in my head and written about up above. As established, I firmly believe that a single rule, or absence thereof, produces drastically different experiences, and that those differences among otherwise identical rulesets are valid enough to call them different games. A critique I've seen leveled at Deathbringer (and many other kickstarted games of it's type) is that they're "Just 5e with some houserules." I've even found myself agreeing with some of these sentiments! Is it just because 5e is icky and I have personal issues with the game? I sat and pondered this disconnect between my fondly held game design theories and emotional kneejerk reaction and I think I know where it's happening.
First though, I need to speak about Shadowdark a bit.
Shadowdark,written by Kelsey Dionne, was successfully kickstarted to the tune of 1.4 million dollars and published in 2023. It is a familiar system for those who are of the modern 'Trad' family of games, your Fifth Edition, your Pathfinder 2e, whatever Kobold Press ended up calling their thing. But if it were only a reskin, it wouldn't bother mentioning. Shadowdark makes changes, and all of them with intent and purpose. This elfgame has one thing that it wants to do well, and that thing is dungeoncrawling. The core of the combat is mostly the same, with notable changes being a die clock the player rolls for when their character drops below zero hit points, damage output generally compressed to be within arms reach of the simple but noble d6, and morale checks, a staple of OSR play but only existing as an optional rule in the 5e DMG. Class advancement is similarly compressed to a trio of abilities gifted at character creation that may or may not scale with level, and those classes only include 4 of the classic d&d staples. It brings a great deal of the intent and playstyle of OSR dungeon crawlers, bridging the gap over to an audience that commonly shies away from trying out the real mccoy. Like sneaking medicine in a bit of cheese for a dog. Core conceits of the playstyle are written down in both the direct communication with the gm via it's guidelines, or by implementing a rule that cannot be ignored. I'm personally quite fond of Torches going out after 1 hour of real play time, regardless of how much time has passed in the fiction. Paired with the gm guidance to have foes target player torches, it seems perfect for letting an inexperienced play culture feel the terror and stress of delving into devious dungeons.
Shadowdark is, and I will admit this is diminutive while promising I mean it in as goodnatured a way possible, a hack of dungeons and dragons fifth edition. If not in the actual math of it's combat engine, then in the play culture it markets itself to and the manner in which it expects to be played. Wisely, however, what does set it apart and make it worth playing is put first and forefront, never letting you really play a game without bumping into it. The changes made across the ruleset pull you towards those unique mechanics, so even if one attempted to only do the generic medieval fantasy activities, inevitably you'd find yourself interacting with Shadowdark's light management, time tracking, and dangerous death clocks as the author intended. To be clear, I have yet to play in a game of Shadowdark myself, and while I respect it for what it is, I already know it's not something I'd choose to play over my preferred rules for going into holes and having a 75% chance of dying there. I praise Shadowdark for it's intentional deployment of rules changes to guide players to the experience it wants them to have.
Which brings us back to Deathbringer. Well, I suppose not even Deathbringer specifically. I've read my fair share of Heartbreakers (Hello, again, to Mr Edwards), but specifically those in discussion with and reaction to Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition. Either as an improvement upon the official rules or as it's own system, many games receive the same critique as Shadowdark. "It's just 5e with houserules". In my meaner moments, I attribute it to lack of experience of the designer outside of WOTC's catalog, but given my own evolving opinions on games and their design, I think the flaw is something even simpler than that. The assumption that because a rule is changed, the game itself will be distinctly altered, is a flawed one. And one that I have pointedly not described as being flawed during my longwinded defense of it above. I told you to hang on to the hammers, gang.
To return to our thought experiment, with the two elfgames of which one has Shield Breaking- The addition of the rule changes play just enough to call it it's own unique experience. But that's only in theory. Remember, I made sure to establish that this "what if" scenario was one being considered without the chaotic randomness that an actual player at an actual table would bring; the plan before it meets the battlefield, as it were. For any table actually running either of these games, the key difference between them that would actually effect their outcomes in any memorable sense relies heavily on that one rule, and whether or not it's ever called upon. Our Shield-breaker game would be indistinguishable from the one with Shields Unbroken, unless something in the design places that rule near the front of the players' minds. Otherwise, it's all just theoretical potential. So too, does the lack of a rule only become fruitful if that lack somehow produces the friction necessary to notice it's gone. This is where previous mentions of "deployment" come into play. It isn't enough to simply make changes and give a game a name for it to properly be it's own thing- those changes ought to be designed, like I feel Shadowdark does, to curate the intended end result and successfully produce it. These rules don't exist in a vaccuum. They're part of an interlocking system. And this is where far too many games lose their way.
Deathbringer claims to be built off the back of Shadowdark, or at least to be so compatible that you can combine the two together with no hassle. I find this claim to be puzzling for a couple of reasons, key among them being that I've at least read Shadowdark and I know the things it desires to do and don't see those same desires shared by the marketing material we have for Deathbringer. In fact, some of it's key selling points are just that specific optional rules already included in Shadowdark are simply the standard experience for Deathbringer. I have not read Deathbringer, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the project is in troubled waters.
 |
| woof, man |
It's made changes, for sure. Magic has a table for failed spellcasting, death now comes with two upgrades to be gained for kicking it, with the final death being the only one that sticks. It has lineage and legacy options, supposedly, for characters who live long and eventful lives (but I thought this was the game where you die all the time?) What concerns me about it, and the countless heartbreakers before it is that it's changes aren't coherent. How can you have super heroic badassery in a game where dying horribly is very much the punchline? How can you claim compatibility when every monster from another system only ever uses their highest modifier, removing any consideration for the original author's vision in favor of simply throwing larger math at the players to struggle against? What is the intended experience and when you look at all of your rules changes and how they hook into each other, does the system you've written actually do that?
These are the thoughts that run through my head for any 5e homebrew, OSR Compatible pamphlet, or Questionably Gameable Blogpost. Deathbringer, like other 5e derivative systems before it, would be a nothing burger if it weren't for the wild claims or comedically large pile of cash it's made. A System they are, with changes for sure, but in the end, has any of those changes mattered? To quote Chris McDowell's previously linked blog -
" When a rule is born into one of my games it cries out as it draws first breath, and I look down with contempt. I do love the pathetic little thing, and I can't help but think of all the deeds it might accomplish, all the fun we could have together. Then I stop myself, lean to its ear, and whisper.
Tell me why I should let you live."
System Matters. Therefore, one's Systems should Matter.
Until Next Time,
Farmer Gadda
No comments:
Post a Comment