I've heard a few
interesting design philosophies (or more accurately, interpretations
of design philosophies) from certain old school games. Back in the
olden days of OSR, which was much before I was even alive, the game
was smaller in scope. You can see this represented in the rules;
Elves are immune to Ghoul Paralysis because in the game's scope,
Ghouls are the specific threat with paralysis. There's less of an
interest of holistic, setting or in-universe concepts. It's very game
first. The same interpretation could also be said of the original
five saving throw categories; these were almost supernatural luck or
defenses against specific threats, not a full character breakdown or
abstract saves that can be called into question for anything related;
saves vs dragon breath or breath weapon specifically works against
dragon breath. It's not a dodge, it's your defense against dragon
breath.
I think this
concept, which I am hearby naming Boardgamification, is something I
want to explore more. I'm 100% sure this has a different, better name
somewhere else, but until I find it I'm sticking to it. Let's define
the term a little bit. Boardgamification is the reverse-engineering
of a tableop game system or storytelling system which tries to break
the game into core components, make them specific and as simplistic
as possible, and rebuild the game with a similar tonal fidelity as to
the original. You're trying to make your tabletop games play like
board games, and not good board games, but the Ameritrash board games
from your childhood. You know, that Dracula board game where you have
to find the holy water, stake, and garlic to kill Dracula not because
they do anything special or have associated mechanics with them that
would make them a good fit to defeat him, but because that's what is
used to kill Dracula.
HOWEVER, it should
be stated here that this is not trying to make D&D or various
roleplaying systems into board games. That's not the point, this is
very much supposed to be about tabletop games. I like tabletop games;
like many of you I'm sure, I got my start in this hobby by making up
my own rules for board games I owned; opening up the idea space. In
RISK, cannons could shoot from a territory away. It had nothing to do
with the game balance or concept that a cannon was just ten regular
soldiers; it was a cannon. I also know that “artillery” is the
real term for these pieces, but I don't care. They're cannons. They
shoot.
For the optimal,
platonic ideal of a roleplaying game then, we could see the ease of
rules and learning that a board game might have, in combination with
the unlimited idea space and universe-sharing of a tabletop game.
These two ideas are not mutually exclusive, but they don't mesh well
either. The more you codify into rules the less arbitration you
allow, but the more arbitration you allow the less it feels like a
solidified “whole” ala a board game. I don't think it will be
possible, or even necessarily desirable, to actually accomplish
“Boardgamification” of your favorite tabletop game, but I felt
like writing on this topic, and have several elements or suggestions
as to how one could do it.
Make Things Binary (Combat)
I think one
element of Boardgamification is the removal of game elements that
have multiple states or variable values such as hit points,
modifiers, currency values, etc. Monsters are either beaten, or beat
you. There isn't a long battle sequence or blow-by-blow combat. There
can be random chance here, such as with a simple contested roll
adding a stat or character/combat value, but this takes away the
directness of a cardboard token.
I think in the
same way, the flat out denial of characters to do certain things (but
on the flip side, ability to always succeed certain things) is an
important element. If you try to Boardgamify a tabletop fantasy
adventure game; you could take out combat stats entirely. Note: I'm
using D&D classes, races, and archetypes for these examples but
you could take this idea for anything.
Wizards, Hobbits,
Lantern-Boys; these are noncombatants. They will get punked by a
giant rat. It's not something to be ashamed of, that's just their
place in the world.
Thieves, Elves,
Hirelings; these can fight basic enemies. They can defeat skeletons,
slimes, a lone wolf or goblin. Pairs of giant rats or a single
venomous snake.
Then you have your
Clerics, Dwarves, and Fighters. These can fight. They can defeat an
Orc, a pack of wolves, a gang of goblins, a giant spider or wyvern.
Notice we're not
caring about the individuals here. It doesn't matter if the Fighter
has a bit more strength then another fighter, or has better gear or a
bit more experience. It's like a set breakpoint of strength. Imagine
in your mind the amount of strength and fighting skill a human could
accomplish; this becomes your benchmark. But do you know what humans
cannot defeat? Ogres. Dragons. Wizards. Powerful creatures or beings
that go beyond what a normal person is capable of fighting in combat.
It operates on horror movie logic; the monster of that caliber cannot
be harmed by normal means, you have to find a special way to beat it.
The combat system is abstracted to either one on one combat duels, or
is kept at that abstract level. Doesn't matter if your party has
three fighters and a bunch of hirelings or whatever; a band of orcs
will beat you. No normal person can overcome an army that greatly
outnumbers them. If an ogre is chasing you down, you can't beat them.
You might be able to send a warrior in long enough to distract them,
but all of your warriors put together will just get clobbered; you
might injure the ogre or make enough time for others to escape, but
you cannot achieve a meaningful victory. You can't kill it or make it
retreat from you force of arms.
But even here
we can see the gameplay and create interplay. The Wizard is weak and
feeble, but can fry an ogre's brain.with a lightning bolt or blow up
a room full of Orcs. The Thief isn't as powerful in combat, but can
kill anything a normal human could kill with a sneak attack and a
good stab; like a Wizard. This still applies to the fiction in the
genre; a thief could sneak up on a Wizard but not an elf archmage;
their long ears will hear you, or their magic is so advanced they can
sense your presence. Maybe Fighters can equip the magic weapons that
let them beat things beyond the keen of normal men; no human can beat
a dragon, but with the magic lance they can. Clerics fight pretty
well, but are the only force your party can muster to destroy a hoard
of zombies or is the only person who has any defense against evil
ghosts and intangible threats.
Make Things Binary (Saves &
Spells)
Once again; I'm
using combat as an example because it tends to be the most complex
part of a game. But you could apply the above to anything. Only
thieves can climb walls. Only Clerics can heal people. Only Monks can
cross rivers by running over them, or know the tea-ceremony protocol
to avoid upsetting the Emperor.
In the same vein,
traps and saving throw style mechanics can also be removed or stream
lined. Instead of a modifier or roll-under saving throw number, you
could just pass or fail based on your character. Of, you're a Thief?
You disarm the trap before it goes off, allowing for player skill and
interaction or not, without needing to roll anything. This is also an
element where leveling up or progression systems could come in; the
higher level you get, the more you can automatically disable. Maybe
thieves don't automatically disable traps but can bypass all of them
without getting hurt, making them good at exploring but not always
being able to clear the way for their fellows.
I also like the
idea of traps and saves being conditional and direct. They do as they
are written. You have a Dexterity of +1? You don't fall in pit traps.
You have a Dexterity of +2? You can't get hit by blade traps. If you
fall in a pit trap it hurts your feet and makes you move slower/makes
wandering monsters more likely. No hit points or damage, just an
arbitrary effect that lasts for the rest of the dungeon. You could
pretty well match the tone and pacing of a traditional dungeon
crawler with this; characters lose limbs and take wounds even if they
don't have hit points, like a stack of status effect cards you'd
shuffle into your personal deck in a deckbuilder like Slay the Spire.
You just get worse as it goes on. The hole where you stick your arm
in just cuts your arm off, that's it. The magic trap saps your mind,
making your clumsy and stupid. Now you can't read; no spells or
scrolls. It's that simple.
Spells work under
the same effect, but I feel that in a system like this the one
exception could or should be magic. Magical effects could have a
degree of randomness, rolled by the DM in secret, just to keep things
spicy. If you're not a Wizard trying pretty much any spell is a
deathtrap. The DM might give you a 10 to 15 percent chance to
successful cast the spell. Once again, the negative effects of enemy
spells or failing your own spells is a set condition. Your life force
is drained, take a hit or fight as one combat “class” weaker as
per the binary combat rules as above. You get cursed, enemies target
you first or you are subject to bad stuff. The spell goes haywire;
anyone in your party without fire protection is toast.
Magic Users cast
spells the best of course, and spells in this context could be items.
Spells don't have levels or scaling, they just do what they do. That
was always one thing I liked from the boardgame, Talisman, which I'm
sure many of you played as an intro to or even at the same time as
playing tabletop games. Talisman had different random event spaces or
adventure cards where you could get “spells”. Certain characters
in that game just always had spells or a certain number of spells;
but even a troll with 1 craft or a warrior or amazon could still get
a “spell” from a random event and just hold on to it. I also love
how even that game has a Wish spell; the Demigod card is probably one
of my favorites. Wishing with restrictions in a game like context
like that is so much fun. I love the design of it, even if it is
bloated trash. Also, I'd consider Talisman's combat to be about the
absolute limit of complexity for tabletop Boardgamification; but I do
love the disparity between regular and psychic combat.
Progression from
spells could also work in a similar manner as above. Apprentice
Wizard? Fireball can kill anything a Fighter/Cleric/Dwarf can kill.
Master Wizard? Can destroy giants or dragons (who aren't red!), as
the biggest threats in the game. I personally like lightning bolt as
the single target killer in this game's context; I didn't set out to
write another game based on Boardgamification though we're getting
pretty close here.
Less Numbers
This is a similar
but less extreme version of the binary success or fail states.
Instead of hit dice, just have hits. Creatures with 2 HD now can take
two hits before they die. Weapons and armor is adjusted similarly and
player-facing mechanics don't have to be the same as enemies! Enemies
just take two hits to die, but they deal their normal attack damage
and effects to the party members- would make it feel less like the DM
is picking on a single player if a monster keeps trying to kill just
him.
Players can pick
their weapons for boosted effectiveness for killing stuff. Swords and
Axes deal 2 hits worth of damage each hit from the sharpness. Blunt
weaponns like maces only deal 1 hit per turn, but it has an armored
piercing conditional effect. Two handed weapons deal an extra hit
worth of damage and get to go first. Maybe the special powers of
Fighters in this system is they can deal one or more hits worth of
damage, where as everybody else cannot. You could also tie this into
a randomized to-hit roll, same with a d20, but this time fighters
deal one hit on a miss and two hits on a hit, where as everyone else
deals zero to one damage on their rolls.
Instead of having
a ton of stats or attributes for characters, you keep them simple and
direct. You instead fold the stats into the other mechanics of the
game. This is something I am quite proud of from
Dickhead Barbarians,
a game I made that is rife with Boardgamification. Ice Warriors are
just immune to fire and get an extra wound, thus they are extremely
tanky. Cannibal Giants can intimidate enemies and, as such, are even
more combat monsters then they imply. Dickhead Barbarians also
featured random chances to get wounded and specific item counters to
it; helmets don't increase an abstract AC value but instead grant
damage to a specific threat in the form of slingers, who aren't super
common nor have a high chance to wound you in the first place. As
such, you could easily see helmets as a sort of late game bonus or
way to optimize your army once more important items have been
purchased.
Folding in
probability into the mechanics of the game as above I think is
another huge step. There is a lot to be said about designing games
with probabilities in mind, if they be fair or unfair. That's
something I want to explore more in the future.
Specific Use Cases
Typing
up Dickhead Barbarians had me thinking specifically about use cases,
especially for items. On the one hand, this is very tightly woven
with the concept of Boardgamification and, in my opinion, very
thematic and cool. Magic stuff especially- anything that can bend the
rules in a game with very rigid rules becomes unique and interesting.
Rope can only be used for climbing down pits, lets you explore areas
with your limited resources. The map just prevents a “getting lost”
random event or condition, weapons only allow you to hurt specific
enemy types that are otherwise immune to attack. Nobody questions how
your character can carry and use an axe, sword, bow, and magic sword.
That's not really the point.
But
on the OTHER hand, this concept hurts some of the openness of
tabletop games in general. Why can't you use the rope to tie up
prisoners, or the axe to help chop down a tree? It's part of the
tabletop experience to allow that kind of freedom. It creates a
disconnect between tightly woven rules and in-universe suspension of
disbelief. Why can't the
cannons shoot?
One
solution to this issue could just be how rules are presented in
tabletop game rulebooks. Every item in the equipment list is not
listed just as itself, but as though it is an independent game piece
with its own specific use. Rope is not listed as per price by the
foot and that is all. In that context, the player is supposed to
infer what rope does from the game and universe; it's a tighter fit
for roleplaying and saves space in the rulebook, but doesn't fit with
our ideal of Boardgamification. So instead, list rope as “lets you
descend safely from walls and cliffs.” It now has a specific use.
BUT the players can still use it in another capacity. You can tie a
piece of meat around the end and drag it as a lure for a monster, or
use it to tie up prisoners, or to make some hackjob armor that you
wrap around your body with metal plates. It's still open for
roleplaying, but in the context of the game and rules it's still a
game piece.
Another
example of this would be weapons. Touched on earlier; different
weapons aren't presented in this hypothetical rulebook with stats or
weights or anything. The spear isn't a d6 weapon with reach and
versatile weapon. The spear just “Keeps charging enemies from
hurting you.” This gives it a use, a specific advantage to carry it
around, but it doesn't have combat stats or powers to be specifically
considered at all times for a character's “build”. Some games,
like Dungeon World, already sort of have this because of the
abstraction of damage; your damage dice is primarily based on your
character class, not your weapon, stats, or skills. As long as you
have a “weapon” in our game, you fight to whatever degree you
can, but each weapon is like a tool with a specific use.
Rules
Transparency
However-
all of this above hints at a certain concept. The entire idea of
presenting upfront the use of weapons/spells/items/characters and so
forth, the exacting and specific counters that each monster or threat
has, the limited and reduced scope of the game (Elves
are immune to ghoul paralysis)
all hints at a certain concept; rules transparency. There is very
limited room for incomplete information in a game like this. You
wouldn't even want it, as it would be the same as an experience board
game player beating a rookie with no experience and doesn't even know
what all the cards do. The DM has little room to hide information
from the players in terms of how to beat or deal with whatever they
are facing- they can hide WHAT they are going to run into, but not
how to beat it or what it does because by its very nature doing so
would upset the game.
As
such, we could safely say a game like this is very much like a
collaborative experience. It's a bit like a board game; isometric and
viewable from a distance. You can see past the walls on a game board,
they're 2d and just drawn on. You have complete information. You may
not know what's coming next, but you know what it does if you read
every card in the box.
The
concept behind this game then is one where all the players know
what's going on, or have a good idea. But that doesn't necessarily
mean a long tutorial session or having every player DM the game at
least once to get an idea. The game's rules can be inferred and
understood by the general understanding of reality- that I think is
intended in all tabletop games to an extent, without trying to bog
this in a realism debate. The understanding that a piece of armor
protects you from damage is well understood; it doesn't actually
matter how the armor is used to protect you, that can be rewritten to
accommodate the game. But if you used it to enhance damage or combat
value instead, it might be a bit tougher to teach and understand on a
first playthrough.
DMlessness &
Design
Another
aspect of Boardgamification is, with a lack of needing arbitration
and having a more refined scope with known entities in the game
space, you remove the need for a referee. Perhaps not remove,
but reduce.
The game could be run as a collective with multiple players, as long
as all of them were on board with what they wanted out of the game
and had a rulebook to help guide them.
While
I haven't actually played it myself, Kingdom Death has a similar
concept going on with its monsters. You fight specific monsters
multiple times; each monster has a pattern of attacks that change and
evolve during the course of the campaign. The monster's attack deck
is seeded with specific cards that are more or less difficult or
situational hard for the players to deal with. In the same way, we
can use randomness-within a set construct to enhance the game and
stand in for a lack of information. Of course, this game follows a
trend in a lot of other “modern” boardgames where there are
legacy mechanics, hidden booster packs of content within the box that
are opened as the game progresses, and are often explicitly stated to
be used in a game blind so the players have no idea what to except.
The “Dungeon Master” of the game is still there, but an ethereal
designer that leads itself to an air of impartiality and wholeness.
This
also leads into the concept of a game feeling whole and complete,
which is a unique thing that only boardgames and certain tabletop
games really end up “feeling” like. Games without need or even
implied use of modules or homebrew material; they can stand on their
own. This is of course a false messiah, it isn't necessarily better
that the game is “done” in the box in that sense, but it just
feels more whole in a way that is satisfying. This is one of the
reasons why I like writing complete games so much on my blog- WASTED,
Flashbang!, Dickhead Barbarians- I really enjoyed being able to
publish them on here even if they aren't necessarily as good as a
traditional tabletop campaign in terms of quality. These are so fun
to make, I feel, because of the wholeness of design. Every part feels
legitimate and warranted in the game, it isn't just a part of a
boundless or hazy fantasy landscape that you invent in your mind. I'm
not saying I don't like tabletop campaigns or endlessly tweaking my
homebrew, because that's still a great joy- there's just something
special about a complete, full thing being made and presented to
everyone. It's Boardgamification, finished and ready to play.
