Why aren't TTRPGS more like Paper Mario + Granular Damage Upgrades

When it comes to TTRPGs and their video game cousins, the obvious D&D inspired games come to mind first. But one thing I find weird is the seeming rarity and lack of "very low number" games. Paper Mario & Thousand Year Door are the most prominent; along with their more modern offspring like Bug Fables. Specifically; games with turn based combat, small scale battles with few characters or units, and very small damage numbers; typically ranging from 1-9 as a soft maximum for "normal" attacks, usually only accessible very late in the game. Instead, much more of the focus is placed on things like timing imputs to increase damage or reduce incoming damage, status effects, resource management in the form of consumable items and FP/TP/abilities, specific attack types and their counters (spike on head = can't jump on them) and target priority. While some of these are video game specific, most of the elements could be translated directly into a tabletop RPG style game with no issue. The strange thing is I really haven't seen it done before. I'm sure there are some smaller games that have similar systems in place; but the closest I can think of is something akin to fantasy wargaming or Warhammer-like games. This fits for them because making the many hundreds of units and models as complex as your average D&D character would be too daunting; so simple wound or instant-death mechanics, armor counted as single numbers which must be met or beat by attacks similar to Paper Mario defense; with dice more deciding individual outcomes over granular damage/health systems is a good fit here. Ironic that the game-mechanics I'm thinking would be the simplest and most immediately useful system for TTRPGs goes right back to the hobby's roots.

The benefits of such a system? Small numbers keep match simple and easily approachable. There is a level of strategy that is present here that isn't in more "swingy" dice-combat games like D&D. Hit Dice are a good approximation of how much health an enemy has, but even a d6 weapon has six possible outcomes, meaning any approximation of your resources in how many more turns it may take to defeat this enemy, or how much ammunition or spell-dice you need to use, or how many bandages you need to use to heal someone; etc. could all be off by about six times your estimate. It's unlikely, but a possibility. With a smaller number system, you can predict these things much more. Secondly, you create more immediate and obvious strategic depth in its basic systems. Defense reducing all incoming damage by +1 is much more obvious then a D&D esque weapon vs Armor-Class penetration rate; even though you know padded armor gives you +2 AC against blunt weapons or whatever, how much damage does it actually prevent? First you have to calculate the chance of the attack and then the average damage on a roll and so on, where as a Paper Mario system doing something similar is just -1 to damage. Very simple. Abilities that penetrate or remove armor (or grant bonus damage) are immediately obvious in how they'll influence the outcome of a battle. You can't grant +1 to a character's Attack per level up or +1 Defense per small gear upgrade for example, it'd be way too overwhelming and quickly break the math of the game- games with larger numbers have a lot more leeway. Plus, the smaller numbers makes moments of bigger impact grander and more memorable. I won't really notice when enemies start doing 1000 damage to me if the last fight they were doing 500+; but you will remember the first time a boss or a mob hits you for 10 damage in a Paper-Mario-Like. That's reserved for the "oh shit" moments. I also find systems like this more fun to mess around with, as there is a certain challenge to designing in such a tight space; But more on this later.

Of course, there are good reasons why we don't use this "small number" system for TTRPGs: Granularity. Highly granular systems allow for smaller advantages or changes that can adapt for more situations; a +1 to hit on a d20 is a fair benefit for a racial bonus or background feature of a character to show a varied and complete person as simulated in the game world. Giving a +1 to your Attack in a Paper Mario esque system could translate to a 50% increase or more; which means it could be many, many sessions or power-ups or require a big in-universe justification for this increase. Second, it also greatly reduces the amount of variety and "fuzz" of the rules, meaning situations play out with less randomness and encounter design has to be stricter. D&D can already kinda be solved in a math-y way but with a system like this it would get way worse. Players could potentially figure out the outcome of any given fight or encounter, leading to a more boring or "pass/fail" style of gameplay that wouldn't be as fun in my opinion. There might be some strategic value in knowing that you can always beat an ogre at your level (it does 3 damage a turn to you, you do 4 damage to it, and it has 20 health, so as long as you have at least 13 health and you can go first you know you can win), I don't think it's the kind of strategy or "character building" most people want to play TTRPGs for.

Also, obviously, it's because rolling dice is fun and tied to the wargaming roots of the hobby. This system necessitates dice rolling as being less important, and therefore, the most fun part of the hobby is less represented. All of this is obvious, and doesn't need to be stated by a pseudointellectual like myself. So instead, we're going to end this rant prematurely and go on to the game theory bit that's actually good.

How to add Damage Upgrades for Small Number Systems
Specifically for a Bug Fables or Paper Mario-like game or a TTRPG with a similar setup.

As stated above adding a +1 Damage modifier is only something you can do very occasionally as it throws the entire game out of whack. So how do we have meaningful character progression? The first way are increases to non-direct stats. So increased chance to hit, ease of minigame success, increased maximum hit points, having stronger or more varied access to moves and status effects, etc. This is already covered above. But how do we actually do more damage? Without relying on these conditionals or random chance mechanics? Instead, we do it based on damage deference and the action economy.

Abilities that pierce Defense could count as a damage increase. For example, you can upgrade your attack so it ignores one point of the opponent's Defense. This effectively means it deals +1 damage against armored opponents. However, I consider this a sidegrade, because it doesn't increase your damage to non-armored targets. While it is still an improvement (obviously if the choice is between an attack with one pierce and an attack with the same damage and zero pierce it's still better) it's still a conditional and will usually have some kind of opportunity cost. As such, this is more of a sidegrade then a direct improvement to our damage.

Another low impact upgrade that's more granular and modular is bonus damage over a long period, which I'm calling long-distance damage. Something like a "deals one bonus damage in ten turns" which upgrades into a "deals one bonus damage in nine turns" count as a form of progression but are so granular that they miss the breakpoint of the system. While technically being identical to an increase of +0.1 damage for our attack it won't factor in to most combats if the enemies we're fighting have reasonable (small) HP pools and our attacks deal at least 2-5 damage a turn with proper setup. You could also use this for a damage improvement mechanic but it's very boring and lame.

Finally, the other is "bonus damage per X turns of combat". Something like a charge or initiative bonus, where you get +1 damage on the first round of combat. Upgrade it, now you get +1 damage on the first two rounds of combat, and so on. While technically a damage increase, it's also a conditional (based on turn number) and once again too strong for what we are going for (small granular improvements to our attack power). So how we increase our damage output for a basic attack that has immediate effect (turn by turn), based directly on turn order/effective for the action economy, not based on a conditional or resource, and not superficial or too granular to be useful?

Stage Zero- Basic Attack
Deals a set amount of damage in one or more hits. This is the vanilla attack, or zero investment.

Stage One- Basic Attack w/ Vulnerability Frame
Deals a set amount of damage and makes the enemy vulnerable to damage (taking +1 damage) if you hit them again in the following turn. The reason why this is a small granular increase of effective damage here is because it's a one turn status effect, which means you have to capitalize on it for next turn or you lose it. This means if you are stunned, need to block or heal, out of magic point for your attack, enemy moves, etc. you cannot capitalize on it. This could also be improved one or more times (by making this vulnerability last one or more extra turns) but this I would not consider an effective increase in our damage output enough to count as a higher "stage" of damage improvement, as it is simply a more convenient method of +1 damage.

Stage Two- Basic Attack w/ Deferred Damage
Deals a set amount of damage and the enemy will take +1 damage after their next turn. The after part is important. If the status effect did damage at the start of the turn, it would be functionally identical to a damage increase when it matters. (ie; enemy has 1 HP remaining after you hit them, at the start of the their turn means they can't act as they are defeated which is the same as if you just did +1 damage to them on your turn.) But by having it happen after their turn, the enemy can take their turn/action (potentially being saved by a heal or dealing damage to you) AND THEN takes the additional damage point, effectively giving your attack +1 damage when it CAN'T hit the breakpoint of stopping an enemy's action.

Stage Three- Basic Attack that deals +1 Damage
Deals a set amount of damage +1. Effective and immediate damage increase.

This three stage system is the most granular method of increasing damage in a way that actually changes the turn economy (ie; defeating an enemy before another turn can pass). Obviously game mechanics can be much deeper then this, but at its core mathematical principles, this one could serve as the basis for a character to advance their attack power in a game like this in a way that's actionable. So instead of getting a +1 Attack badge, you'd have to equip three to get that same effect, and each badge would give you the next stage. If you had four advancements in this system, then the attack would do +1 damage and give a 1 turn vulnerability frame and so on.

[Vagueposting] Wugs are my new favorite

So recently I did something I normally don't do; and that is look at indie RPGs coming out. Lands of Eem was one such game. Personally, I don't really vibe with the overly nice, colorful, or "cute" type of games like this based on art style and approach, but I think the design of some of the creatures and races are cute. Nothing too remarkable; UNTIL I got to the Wug.

I fucking love Wugs. Just the name is perfect for what it is. But there is another reason. Archetypal fantasy races tend to fall into categories. Elder Scrolls Elves and Tolkien Elves are very different from each other but still feel "elvish" due to a similar overlap of commonalities and cultural traits. Same goes for Dwarves, Gnomes, and a few others. But what about "that" creature?

I don't think it's at all the creator's intention; but to me the "Wug" is kinda the perfect, archetypal name for this "kind" of fantasy creature. The intelligent, usually good natured race of kinda dumb, big, kinda animal person that isn't a furry but isn't an enkidu-type hairy beast man creature. It's that final last category you really see on the "Big Five" table of races; the "gentle giant" types who oust the human as the tallest and strongest race, but tend to not be as capable of agility or spellcasting type of things. Sometimes Half-Orcs fill this role too, but it kinda has its own specific baggage.

It's hard to describe, hence why this is a Vaguepost. I'm also going to be excusing myself at crediting the artists, because there are just so many pieces of commissioned artwork and AI shit I have to sift through to find what I'm talking about; sorry.

This archetypal role is often named something else, but the names never fit perfectly. Sometimes they're Bugbears but I hate that name, both for the weirdness of being goblins but big(?) but not being green??? And they aren't part bear or bug at all??? I know fantasy games have tons of folklore names turned into species which don't make sense but for some reason I just do not like this for "bugbears" at all.
Sometimes people call them troll/ogres but that's usually a monster. And if you make them dumb and lovable it takes away a lot of the mystic wilderness that a big scary troll (that's smart and can talk but just lives under a bridge and eats people instead of working a job and paying taxes).
Sometimes they are firbolgs, but firbolgs have their weird different mythological connotation and doesn't really roll off the tongue as well.  Plus you got that one weirdo who is like "firbolgs aren't cow people they're scottish giants!!!" as if a single fucking person EVER had the specific intention to use a "firbolg" in place of a generic giant encounter in their game ever in the history of D&D other then because it had more hit points.
Sometimes they're Goliaths but Goliaths are weird D&D invention and usually more humanoid.

We need a name for them. The issue with making up new weird fantasy names is they have no cultural background. That's why it's easier to make your own elves and orcs and goblins, but if you make yours too weird they cease to be that fantasy archetype and fall into the scrimblo-bimblo worldbuilding discourse. It's not that you're not allowed to do that but nobody else will want to interact with it on face value because they have zero cultural overlap with your vision. But this "kind" of creature I feel is just right for the cultural overlap zone; just iconic enough with enough examples and relevance it could be codified into a "thing", like when kobolds went from little men sprites to yappy doggish things into little dragon-minions and before they became a sex thing; they went from this vague soup of "have your own interpretation" into "everyone draws them like this now". Critical Roll tried with its Firbolgs but I don't think it was super successful.

Now I want to make it clear I'm not delusional enough that my own ideas for Wugs, nor do I think "Eem", have the cultural staying power or memetic potential to overhaul this entire fantasy archetype the same way kobolds did. But I feel like there is something to this archetype that is still in its larval stages; All Elves are Legolas, all Dwarves are Gimli, all Wugs(?) are... Torbek?

The hairy, tusked, big-man who is not an orc and is connected to nature but is not a troll or giant or god forbid a satyr; perfect to fill the spot of "human but stronger" without being an off-shoot orc or stepping on the toes of dragonborn with their dragon and elemental aspects or orcs and their "dark mirror to humanity" aspect or gnolls and their savage beastfolk aspect which is also not a furry but has elf ears and shows up all the time in fanart as some weird thing? 

What is this stupid fucking kind of creature called!??!? It's a WUG! It's PERFECT!

(Rant) The Incredibly Persnickety Dicey Dungeons Nitpick

So running with the theme of talking about video games (and not tabletop games) on this blog- I have yet another indie Roguelike style game that I play from time to time. This one is Dicey Dungeons. I quite like this game; basically it has turn based battles where you get a collection of randomly rolled 6 sided dice (and they are always six sided die) and assign them to your moves/equipment to win fights and move deeper down through the dungeon. Probably the most interesting thing about this game is the unique characters- there's a witch who assigns each face of her dice to spells in her spellbook, a robot which can determine whatever rolls it wants, a fighter who can grow dice or a rogue who can shrink dice- with extra mechanics sprinkled in. Like you use a "+1 to dice value" card on a die that's a 6, you'll get ANOTHER die at the value of 1, since the game can't give you a die of 7 value, and so on. It's got decent mechanics, and has some really cute visuals. I especially love the personality of the enemies, the host, and the music is great. Overall, good game, though it is really hard. Often feeling unfairly so.

Sneezy is the best monster in this game and I will
fight you if you disagree.

One of the best things about the game is how monsters and equipment (your attacks) are designed. Monsters use equipment cards like you- and they are activated in different ways. Some will simply do the amount of damage equal to the die's value placed on the card. Others will have a drawback or limitation, such as only taking Odd or Even dice. Some have "countdowns", which means the value placed on the card counts it down until it reaches zero, which it then activates. Pretty much every mechanical concept you can squeeze out of a six sided die is used here- which is good.

However, I have one little nitpick. One incredible little thing- not even a complaint really, more of a "missed opportunity" that the game developers no doubt knew about and didn't think it would be an issue or annoyance to anyone- anyone except for me that is.

So Dicey Dungeons has some really fun mechanics for status effects. Since dice are your primary means of attack, defense, and healing- status effects primarily influence your dice. An example is your dice can be lit on fire, meaning if you use them they deal some unavoidable damage to you. Another good one is frozen- if your dice are frozen, it means the highest value die you rolled will be set to a one. For some characters and loadouts this is a death sentence, but for others it doesn't matter as much.

On top of this, this game has elemental damage. Certain cards deal elemental damage when used; the usual suspects are here. Fire, Ice, Shock, Poison, and Weaken are all damage types. Some enemies are weak to these damage types, taking more damage, where as other enemies are strong to them, and take less damage. This is very common in games and makes thematic sense; like a Yeti being strong vs ice. Makes sense. The issue for me is that these "elemental" attacks are the primary source of the elemental-themed debuffs, which can very specifically trivialize some encounters in the game. The elemental damage or resistance of an enemy just feels like a tacked on secondary mechanic which belies the usefulness of specific abilities against certain enemies.

What do I mean by this? Let me use the Aurora as the example. The Aurora has one of the most straightforward by interesting designs. From the picture above, you can see her abilities. She has a very specific AI- every turn she rolls four dice and ALWAYS uses them on her storm or weather-themed attacks, which deal elemental damage + apply debuffs. Then, when all the attacks are used up, she'll spend her last dice on the "Mood Change" and switch to a new element, but still having 3 attack cards with a countdown of 5. Mechanically, despite how simple it is, it gives the character a lot of personality- a weather-goddess figure going through wild mood swings and having low but consistent damage while applying many powerful debuffs. Simply put, its one of my favorite fights in this game.

Here's the thing though; the Aurora isn't weak to any elements, nor is she strong to any elements. She takes regular damage from everything. But she gets absolutely destroyed by the Freeze status effect. 

Because of how freeze works, each point of freeze converts your highest rolled die into a roll of 1. This works on enemies too, and since all of Aurora's cards are countdowns, it means that turning her dice into ones means she can barely use her cards. I once had a run as the Witch with a strong debuff deck with multiple elemental attacks; and I found myself using tons of ice to stack multiple Freeze debuffs on the Aurora, making the fight trivial.

The thing that bothers me here is that the elemental-themed status effects, which are fine and thematic, are already assigned to the elemental damage flavored cards. Cards that burn enemy dice or freeze enemy dice are going to do Fire or Ice damage respectively; meaning that the debuff and the elemental damage type are one and the same in practice. My issue is that because of the design of the enemies always being the same; meaning you can plan and predict how dangerous an enemy will be based on your build, it makes these thematic choices and blending of debuffs and attacks along with the enemies less strong. In other words, I don't want elemental damage to exist, but I want the Aurora to be known to be Weak to Ice because of the effect ice-cards have on her because of her abilities and moves.

There are more ideas. Because of how the Burn status effect works, it burns a die and deals damage to you if you want to use it. Enemies in this game will always use burning dice unless if it defeats them (I think) so this status effect is just bonus damage. But I really like the idea of fire-themed enemies who are Strong to Fire simply having more dice then other enemies, but only use a few of them. Such as an enemy who rolls three dice, but can only use 1 or 2 cards maximum. Then, if a die is burnt, they can avoid using the burning dice and use the other die instead, thus, making them Strong to Fire. On the flipside, there are some enemies who have decent or strong attacks but only roll one die- limiting what they can do each round. Under this paradigm, these enemies would be Weak to Fire.

My other annoyance with this disconnect is that there are several enemies in the game who almost fit with this scheme. It's like the developers went halfway to making the game designed this way, having roll mechanics and enemy designs that are themed around these debuffs and status-effects, but gave up halfway. A good example of this is the Snowman and Fireman, two mid-level enemies which both have status effect cards of Ice and Fire respectively. The annoying thing here is, as I was playing the game, I noticed that they were "strong" against the elements of their type because of their design; the Snowman has four cards that are all Odd-only attacks, and throws four dice. Meaning freeze would just let them use more of their cards- turns their die into 1s, an odd number. But Freeze in this case is still useful as it makes the amount of damage less, since each card deals the amount of damage equal to the die put in. If the game was designed to make it more fitting this concept, then the Snowman's cards would deal flat damage as long as the die put in was even, so every freeze you put on them just makes it more likely a big 6 or 4 will turn into another 1 roll for them to use. The Fireman is similar; rolling 4 dice, but only having two cards, meaning two of their dice are superfluous, and only uses even number dice to attack. My issue here is that these enemies have elemental typing; Snowman is "weak to fire" and Fireman is "weak to ice", despite them also being "Strong vs Ice" and "Strong vs Fire" from the status effects. Enemies also only have one typing, so even though I personally think snowman is "Strong vs Ice", he has the "Weak to Fire" element- and its worse yet because, theoretically, he actually isn't that weak to fire since he throws four dice and only uses the Odd ones- any Even dice he gets that are on fire won't do damage to him, since he won't use them.

Shouldn't this guy also be "Weak to Ice"?

I understand that this tiny nitpick isn't an issue; it barely even sounds coherent, plus it opens up another door- why is the developer telling you what an enemy is weak or strong too? Shouldn't you be figuring that out on your own?I think there would be perhaps a greater value in the game if there wasn't elemental damage types; just the themed elemental debuffs, with the enemies of the game matching the element in their design and equipment. So if there is an enemy that benefits greatly from pairs or low dice- then they'd be Strong to Freeze, since it makes ones more often. Therefore, you would design any enemy that has these traits as being winter, ice, or snow-themed. Enemies who would be "Strong to Poison" would be enemies who have some form of healing in their equipment to offset the small but consistent damage that poison does- but wouldn't that type of enemy be good against ALL types of damage too? See, this is where the problems crop up.

Secondly; the game doesn't have quite enough dice mechanics to justify building that many status effects. A good example is the "locked" status effect, which just makes one random dice you or the enemy rolls unable to be used for anything. It's actually a really strong status effect- but throwing multiple dice (especially if the enemy has few cards to actually use and just throws multiple dice to try and get high rolls or pairs), could be a counter to this. However, the same counter would also be good against burning, since once again, that means more dice the enemy doesn't have to use on their turn. Another status effect, Shock, is also countered by many dice. Shock is like a stun; it just locks your equipment for that round, needing a die to be spent to open it up to be used by another die, so enemies with many dice are the counter to this. Are you then going to thematically limit the look and design of every enemy in the game? If every enemy who threw many dice, and was therefore strong against Fire, would also then theoretically be Strong against lightning too, since having many dice counters both. I mean shit, having a lot of dice counters every status effect, since all of them rely on attacking the enemy's dice.

Hopefully, if you read this nonsense, you get what I'm picking at. It's a nitpick.

Vagueposting- The Static Dynamic

In the classic Silent Hill 2, there is a part that happens involving this chap where the player is knocked off a high place. When you hit the ground, you are automatically knocked to critical health from whatever health value you are at from before this encounter. Since it's basically required to have this encounter on a playthrough, since it gives you access to a new area, it's something everyone who plays the game will go through.

Isn't that interesting?

Think about it. This is a survival horror game, with limited resources for things like ammo and healing items, with a moment where the player is forced to take damage. This is especially important in Silent Hill 2 as one of the game's endings can be influenced by having taken a lot of damage. There is someone, somewhere, in the world who got the aforementioned ending because of this event- they just happened to be low on healing items when this event happened. Somebody else probably died to a monster afterwards because of the damage; or others had to expend a healing item that would have come in handy at a later portion. While interacting directly with the gameplay, this moment is a scripted event in a story that cannot be changed. This also is not a quicktime event or test of reflexes or planning, since it's something that will always happen that you have no imput or control over.

I think there is a really interesting overlap between these two different worlds of a game; the "game and the story" being normally separate entities, but instead being put together. It's uncommon for a game to actually waste the players ammo in a cutscene where they shoot their weapon, for example, and rare for damage in a cutscene to carry over either. What does this say about the game if it does happen?

Definitions
The title of this post is a bit of an oxymoron.

When it comes to games, be them tabletop or of the video variety, there is a gradient between static and dynamic. Dynamic games would be games with more interactive, random, or changing gameplay elements that add more factors to any individual play session, where as a game more on the "static" side would be the opposite. More scripted, cinematic, or on-rails for a tabletop descriptor. Something at the absolute end of the "static" side would probably be something like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book, where as the most dynamic possible would be a traditional game of D&D or something similar with a new adventure created on the fly by the dungeon master or players every session.

In the most static game imaginable, you might have multiple encounters with a monster or forced resource "checks" where the player loses some kind of counter or resource in scripted sequences. Some concepts like this already exist in tabletop games; such as needing one ration of food per day when away from civilization. This is a mandatory resource that can't be overcome with good rolls (except for maybe a Survival check, but it's not the same as health- you don't lose health every day and only need to use healing potions if you get a bad roll or make a mistake). 

In a game like this, everything or anything that happens could be set in stone and you are simply following along; like literally playing out a movie or a book, scene by scene, needing to make the various checks and expend resources at the right moments. Now I think most people would find a game like this very boring and somewhat pointless, myself included, but in my opinion, the concept of a game with scripted or set "moments" like this is an interesting idea space.

Consider a campaign where the players psychic or cyberpunk brain-to-computer hackerman by the rules lose a certain amount of health/sanity/magic points whenever they use their abilities. However, it is well established early on in this campaign that you must unlock the three computer terminals or mind-control the three lieutenants; thus creating a sort of anticipation and phase of preparation for that player. Because there is a set, established set of things that the player(s) must preform, this scripted "story" sequence becomes part of the game. In anticipation for this checkpoint, you can't expend too many of your magic points or else you'll have to roll on the psychic backlash table or what have you. And after the event, some of your resources are gone without being totally up to the player to decide how to use them.

Also, it should be noted here that a "scripted" or "set in stone" event may or may not even exist in the perception of the one experiencing it. You wouldn't be able to tell if everything that happens in your game was the result of rolls on a random table or predetermined- save for those things that don't flow logically or are thrust upon the players ala a railroad.

Unique Encounters
What exactly is the place of a scripted event or railroaded event in a game or sequence? Most consider it a result of poor GM/DM/QM decision making. I also agree that these are not as fun or interesting in tabletop games then they would be in a video game.

Another example of a similar concept are unique and specific encounters in a game; such as boss fights or enemies that are only fought once or with a specific gimmick. This to me is an interesting idea space; the idea of an otherwise free flowing "game" state that interacts with a set encounter. Tabletop games are rife with this sort of thing for obvious reasons; an encounter with bandits but the bandit leader has a magic weapon or a sorcerer that casts a specific spell, etc. However I consider this more on the dynamic side of this made up spectrum. In the world of video games however, we see something like this much more often, possibly because most of the gameplay is already relatively "static" in how the player can interact with the game world in such a way.

For example; in most games there may be a few generic enemy types. Zombies, zombie dogs, giant spiders, etc. Typically you'll encounter each of these separately in different arrangements. Zombie dogs fought in a hallway is different then zombie dogs fought out in an open field. You can manage one zombie easily but three or more is a hoard that you might find it hard to escape from, etc. If you were suddenly put into a room with a zombie and a zombie dog, that would be a unique encounter; do you shoot at the comparatively more powerful but slow and easy to hit zombie first? Or take care of the fast moving enemy while the slower one creeps up on you? However, this to me isn't a "unique" encounter, though it may be the only time it happens in the game, it is a shuffling of other "game pieces" in the world. However, if there was a random room where once you enter a giant spider crawls over the door to get out and starts spitting webs at you- with you unable to leave until you shoot the ranged monster, this to me would be a very unique and interesting, memorable sort of encounter. It's difficult to describe, but the concept of a "unique" once only asset in a game like that is very interesting to me. Even if you programmed a new enemy type, and only fight it once in a specific area (like most bosses in a game), it wouldn't feel as "unique" then if you had a special encounter with an enemy that did something specific like that.

One little indie game I quite like is an RPG called BUGGERWORLD. It's a bit of a shitpost game but is actually pretty unique in that regard, as every fight in this game is unique, with new art and mechanics each time. The game's scope is so small there isn't even any leveling up, you gain new abilities and/or increases to your base stats simply based on progression in the story- which is entirely linear. Therefore, each battle will be exactly the same from one player or one playthrough to the next. The only "dynamic" element between them would be which and how many healing/restoring items you found and bought in the game and how well you rationed them. Then, the fight itself involves your own player skill to find the right combination of moves and healing/attacking to prevail in the end. If you want to play it yourself I'd highly recommend it; it's only about two hours long and totally free.

In a similar vein, a long running concept I've always wanted to see explored was a game where every single encounter with enemies was wholly unique. As in, every fight has new enemies, animations, and slightly different rules. This concept is something I'm sure many also have; which is unusual and rare in the world of video games, but is actually in a sense the default in a tabletop game, as the player-driven creativity and different context of a fight or social encounter or dungeon crawl or whatever else lifts it automatically out of a generic "template" or creation of different "assets" ala a video game.

But if we really want to talk about a game that feels like a linear, hand crafted journey with what I'm talking about here; then check out Northern Journey. But more on that later.

Potential Uses & Gameplay Enrichment
The concept of games having these sorts of things is not new; and in fact are already named Set-Pieces, which I embarrassingly only remember now most of the way through writing this. I think a real advantage of set pieces is being memorable and shaking up the status quo of a game.

Tabletop and imaginary elf-games also use setpieces too; while I said above I think they're more common here then in videogames and are thus less memorable and notable when they happen, they are still far and away better in the tabletop genre. Mostly because they interact directly with the freeform and problem-solving nature of gameplay in a tabletop game.

Most DMs/GMs have probably already had a couple of really good setpiece fights. Powerful monster chasing you down hallways too tight for it to turn around. Daring stagecoach or train robberies. Combat on or in burning and collapsing structures; or a slowly flooding room, etc. Dangerous terrain that changes during the course of the fight makes for more interesting fights, even in theater of the mind. Of course, the other advantage of tabletop roleplaying games is that fighting is not the only thing you can be doing; but as a simulation of a fantasy world or "adventure novel" these setpiece events don't stick out from the norm as they are usually the norm. The only time they would be incredibly jarring and, thus, capable of capturing the imagination the way I described above was if the majority of encounters in the game were simple, repetitive, with little fluff or deviation. Just empty rooms with combat encounters that end up being resolved by rolling dice a lot and ticking health down and experience up. In other words, the most boring type of campaign imaginable. Hence, the entire concept of these encounters requires a certain degree of sameness in the rest of the whole; and with the unlimited imagination space of tabletop games it kinda defeats the purpose.

Vagueposting- Static Module & Creature Designs is a Feature not a Bug + Party Size Dynamics

Something I've been thinking about recently is the differences between video games and tabletop games, especially in the design or and mechanics behind how the game works with a plurality of players in a single instance, party, or map.

In most co-op video games where the co-op is optional or drop-in and drop-out, the challenge of the game's enemies tend to scale up in damage and/or health in proportion to the number of players currently playing the game. There are exceptions to this; in games where multiplayer is expected or even required, such as an old school MMO, enemies do not scale on purpose as to make grouping up encouraged. Did this concept come around from tabletop games?

Art @Stephen Andrade

Even now, tabletop games are a very social and "word of mouth" hobby. Despite what some believe may believe even with the explosion of "geek chic" in popular culture, very very few people actually play tabletop games even after things like Critical Role and a wider audience. It is still a microhobby- and of those few, almost everyone who does does so because they had a friend that did first, or began a group to play with their friend circle who was interested. It has been this way since tabletop gaming's inception; I would struggle to think of any hobby more social then tabletop gaming.

Notice that in pretty much every monster manual, adventurer module, blogpost, etc. everything is almost always static. In other words, an orc will always have 2 HD of health; the game is not written to "scale" this enemy up or down with the players level or more importantly the number of players.

Now obviously there are practical reasons why this is- why create such bloated rules or math for something so inconsequential? If the DM has a group with only one or two player characters, they could just artificially lower the number of monsters, or grant magic items for a powerful one-shot kind of experience that patches over this issue. No author or publisher is going to want to waste all that space in books for something so fiddly and situational.

I want to make it clear that I am way too young to have been around for the oldschool D&D days. I am not a classic grog playing with Gygax or Anderson. This is 100% conjuncture; but I get the feeling that classic D&D groups may have, at least subconsciously, allowed for more players leading to more power for the purposes of boosting game recruitment.

Once again, let me stress that I know this isn't some genius level marketing tactic done on purpose by old TSR back in the day; those creators were very focused on a totally different kind of game experience then modern OSR games- group dynamics were different. Tabletop roleplaying today tends to focus on smaller numbers of individually controlled characters, where as in the past characters often controlled small armies or squads of units. I don't want to pretend that I know otherwise. But I have a strong feeling that the intentional or unintentional reluctance to change the fantasy space to accommodate the players, both in terms of "dumbing down" for new players or weakening monsters or challenges for small or unprepared groups acts as a strong motivator for game recruitment.

Think about it- a party with five characters will always be inherently stronger then a party of four; even if that last character is weak, like a first level wizard or a poorly rolled character, they are still providing more damage, more carrying capacity, more resources and/or skills in game terms, and another player to bounce ideas off of. Having the game be a "player vs DM" arena with a harsh and challenging world really encourages people to have a strong party- and in this case, more players directly correlate to more strength. It's the classic throwaway line in D&D adjacent media, or nostalgia bait movies and TV shows- "oh you gotta show up for the game this Friday, we're going to fight a cave troll!" or something to that effect often comes up. I wonder how true it really was; either back in the day and now.

As a bonus; how does party size affect the game? These are just my observations when I run games; and may not at all apply to your experiences.

Big Parties

• More Powerful (obviously)
  
• Individuals are less important / mistakes are punished less as there is a "safety net"
  
• Generally slower and less stealthy
• More "risk averse" (more people to get browbeaten by)
  
• More mechanically oriented / requires Caller moreso
  

Small Parties

• More individually engaging
  
• Characters are more developed
• Higher camaraderie / victories more earned
• Has more "Epic moments" (individual actions are more impactful)
  
• More roleplaying oriented
  

Vagueposting- Digression on Progression mechanics + the "Power" stat in Vermintide

Due to an irrational desire to get the "value" from games I bought years ago, I ended up playing Vermintide 2 recently. It happens to have a progression system in the form of gear- this gear being a very blatant habit-forming treadmill that just gets higher numbers as you go on. There is only one stat, a generic "Power" stat, which is some of the laziest shit for a skinnerbox loot cycle I have ever seen. The melee combat and graphics are lovely, though. 

But moreso interesting to me then the progression mechanic is what it actually does, and what it doesn't do.

The "Power" Stat
As you can see, the "Power" stat is a combination of character level + loot level. It's specific effects-increase damage, how well you cleave through enemies, and the power of staggering enemies. On the surface, these seems pretty basic, but if you think about how games are programmed or tabletop games are designed it's actually a pretty indepth and unique method of improving the "power" of your attacks. Most games would just have a scaling damage modifier, meaning your sword swipe would be the exact same with the same hitbox but just deal a percentage more of damage. While I don't know how the Vermintide damage system is calculated, the idea of player power also increasing how well you hack through enemies, thus meaning you deal with huge swarms better, as well as single target damage for bosses, stunlocking bosses, and the like is really interesting.

However, there is something interesting here in the subtext of the game about player progression. Something the developers did not want the players to be able to gain power in; either for game balance, enforcing the idea of teamwork, and to allow for player skill. Vermintide is not just about whacking a target dummy to do maximum damage, so what things does this power stat not allow you to progress in?

• Does not reduce damage taken or increase maximum health
• Does not grant you more ammo or increase your aiming ability
• Does not make you reload, attack, or switch weapons faster
  
• Does not increase stamina or blocking power (though some gear can)
• Does not grant armor piercing or help you deal with armored enemies beyond more damage
  
• Does not protect you from Special units' ability to down or disable you
• Does not make healing items, potions, or other supplies more common
• Does not make it easier to revive your teammates or stay close to them
• Does not help you navigate the map or find secrets
  

These concepts were just about everything I could think of as to what an RPG "Power" stat could do in the context of a game. While some of the above mechanics do exist in the context of character talents and specific modifiers on some piece of gear; the general "stat" has a very specific application in the game. What we can gather from this is all of the above bullet points are things the developers intentionally or unintentionally did not want the players to be able to automatically scale past at some point. Being at a super high power level doesn't count every hit as a headshot nor does it create a bridge to the end of the level so you can beat it faster- certain things are still respected by the game. This means that the player's skill or teammwork are still important and demanded by the developers or game designers and aren't supposed to be necessarily trivialized by a basic progression mechanic.

D&D and DIY tabletop already have a similar concept- in the form of level. Character levels in RPGs fulfill the same function. Obviously this depends hugely on the game, but if we go with a generic tabletop RPG like D&D we can see a power progression too.

The Character Level
For most retroclones and so forth; your character's level is a jump in power across every major mechanical element of the game. You gain more HD and better saves, letting you survive better. You also advance in To-Hit and sometimes damage or multiple attacks- depending on class. Certain classes also unlock all new abilities, either directly or in the form of higher level spell slots. If your class has a resource, then that resource tends to get more plentiful allowing for more uses per day in the form of spell slots or action surges or what have you.

However we can see from this what your level does not do. It doesn't let you bypass core rules of the game- such as dungeon crawling or exploration. It doesn't let you charm every NPC you come across or bypass any skill check related activity, though modern D&D skills try their best to do so if your "build" is done a certain way.  It doesn't let you bypass the need for random dice rolls- even a high level character can die on a bad save- which is perhaps one of the best things about having save or die mechanics in the first place- a way to get through an overly cautious and high HP character. An element of risk or even skill, for someone who has progressed past the point of caring about individual points of damage. It also doesn't control the magic item or monetary economy of the game. While a high level character could easily buy something expensive, they can only do so on money they've earned. Very rarely do games have a sort of just "I can afford anything under this amount of money" because of a characters level ups.

Of course, there are exceptions to these rules; new spells unlocked as you level up can bypass these things, and certain classes or races, or race-as-classes like classic Elves and Dwarves can detect secret passages or doors and the like, or gain darkvision. However, it isn't a core feature of the game that you get darkvision for free once you turn level 5 or whatever- it's an exception.

The biggest "thing" that isn't overcome by levels are rulings and the in-universe lore. Some games, like story-games or Dungeon World-esque games, allow players to carve out their niche in the world built into mechanics. However, this ability isn't really overcome by leveling up or standard progression. Your plan to chop a tree and bring it down into a dungeon through the narrow tunnels so you can use it as a bridge over a chasm is just as good player-skill to overcome a problem as it would be if the DM just said "you're all almost name level- you can just cross the gap." At least, MOST DMs don't do that. I intentionally try to be more lenient with player actions if they're higher level for a more heroic fantasy feel, but that's one thing that levels don't really fit with influencing.

So let's look at this from a different perspective; what else could character levels or progression do, if not what they do now?

Alternate Power Mechanics
Instead of character level ups, we have EXploration level uPs instead. In this theoretical example, the party may share a single level, or use the highest party members EXP instead. Maybe it's for a solo RPG session, so one universal level makes more sense there, regardless of how many party members are brought along.

In this alternate timeline, we'll say that the DMs of old never figured out or thought of how to improve characters in combat- no extra attacks or to-hit bonuses, nor more HP. Instead, characters at 1st level and max level fight at pretty much the same strength. Perhaps equipment plays a bigger roll, or combat is decided in a more skill based way; something like a game of risk-reward blackjack or a mathematical puzzle. We'll just say for the sake of simplicity that in this example, everyone fights with 1d6 weapons and 1d6 hit points regardless of their "level". What would this mean for the game? Since progression isn't tied to characters combat power, monsters remain as dangerous as ever, minus things like magic items or spells that may give an advantage. Monsters naturally must remain on a roughly human approachable scale of threat- so no giant elder dragons with 100+ HP or eldritch deities.

So then, how DO players advance mechanically? They advance in the more gamified part of this game; which in this alternate universe is in exploration mechanics.

LVL	Effect
1	Exploration as normal.
2	Map is always accurate / DM checks over map and corrects one mistake per session.
3	You always have a basic light source (lantern)
4	Party automatically marks places they have been. Slopes are identified.
5	Always find secret doors. Traps are disarmed after they are triggered once.
6	Always find hidden walls. Immune to pit traps.
7	You always have dark vision / no longer need light source. (Stealth?)
8	Doors no longer automatically close. Party can request map directions to hoard / stairs.
9	Hirelings will now do any action requested. Teleporters have exits marked.
10	No longer roll random encounters. Free exit to/from dungeon (Fast travel?)

Alternate Class Progressions
Slightly less unusual, the concept of class-based gameplay and progression fits more naturally into an OSR/DIY playstyle. But how do the classes actually progress?

Instead of every class getting a generalized power boost- their specific role in the party is what is increased instead. Similar ideas do exist in other games; imagine a game where no class gets any To-Hit bonus or more hit points as they level EXCEPT for the fighter, because that's the fighter's role. Thieves only get better at thief skills and stealth, but probably don't get sneak attack bonuses since they're more focused here. Wizards would probably be the same, except with more specific spells- no more combat or creature-avoiding spells, just spells to influence and travel the dungeon environment. (MUs already don't have a "clear" gameplay role, which is why I sort of cut them out in my homebrew.) Clerics on the other hand are simple enough, just more spells and resource management, but get no combat ability as they level up. Turning undead would probably remain their specialty.

Other Forms of Progression?
Depending on the nature and primary goal of a game, other forms of RPG like progression could be chosen. I really like the idea of highly specific bonuses that scale with level, or are unlocked based on role- a classic example are saving throws or the elf immunity to ghoul paralysis in oldschool D&D- it's specific because the game and world are specific. However, with a more stimulationist or "game world" oriented style, tying progression to generalized stats, skills, or power progression tends to work better and be more immersive for players overall.

So here's a list of 20 types of player progression- based on my list of 20 alternatives for gold to xp list.

20 Alternate Player-Power Progression Systems
[1] You get better at tracking elephants. Strength score increases to better wrangle them with rope.
[2] Combat power increases- though specifically through dueling or single target actions.
[3] Increased ability to pacify natives; savages must make a morale check to stand against you.
[4] This is just Wolf-packs & Winter Snow.
[5] Load up a Harry Potter RPG homebrew- I'm sure there are least a dozen of them.
[6] Progression is based on memories found in the otherspace- you get level ups and class benefits from random classes from other games. So one memory you get a GLOG Acrobat template A, another and you get the saving throw table from an 6th level Dwarf, etc.
[7] You already get XP for murdering stuff and being evil- just reincarnate to level up.
[8] Better gang fighting skills, tagging skills, and avoiding the law. Maybe lets you have more gang members in your posse.
[9] You get stronger against the specific kind of monster your group hunts. Eventually you have acidic blood and the ability to force bats to land if you kill a strong enough Dracula.
[10] Getting better stats = progression. Makes sense to me.
[11] Get better prices from the shops, or get an Appraisal skill that you can use in the dungeon to compare item stats.
[12] Increased knife skills, heat resistance, and ingredients you collect stay fresh longer. Chef powers.
[13] Highly combat focused clan warfare- advance as barbarian. As you level up, you become more and more revered and have mythical feats attributed to you. (If you did them or not- Finn Mccool style)
[14] More powerful angels can call upon more miracles; and keep watch on mortals. You can guide good people on the path to becoming more heavenly-guardians when they die, or perhaps become your replacement after guarding the gate for a thousand years.
[15] It's another Fighter-progression for caravan guards- except your abilities are mostly defensive. When you get to 6th level, you can use your action to corral 6 camels who ran away from the ambush- that kind of thing.
[16] You are farmers defending your crop. You aren't just getting better at fighting goblins, but you also get bonuses to rabbits, foxes, snails, and all other vermin. When you reach name level you get a cat that kills all of your rats for free.
[17] Dark cultists get spell slots. To keep with the theme- you still have to bleed out hit points or sacrifice virgins or whatever as you get stronger- just don't give away too many or else you won't be able to complete the BIG ritual that matters.
[18] Every player advances as thief. You can still pick cool thief knacks though- maybe it's like Payday where you have classes but all the classes are still "thief" classes. Like one guy is the muscle who gets all the health and armor and the other guy is the mastermind who can accurately predict where the next guard patrol is gonna go and so on.
[19] Megadungeon- unlock shortcuts as you level up too. Maybe add the EXploration level uPs system from above; but for your highest level character. If they die- oh well- all those little chalk marks and secret paths they knew are gone now.
[20] Increase your saving throws to magic shard dust addiction.

The Ultimate Game + On "non games"

This is the ultimate game. The rules go like this. Whenever you try to "do" something in the game, roll a d6. The higher your roll, the better you do. Getting a 6 is like a really good or total success, where as getting a 1 is a total failure. If you get something between, then it has varying degrees of success.

If your character is really good at something, maybe add a +1 to your role do a few specific things. There are no stats or health points or anything, just the roll and maybe a +1 if you're good at something. There's no hit points, but if getting hit once and dying isn't fun then you can do a three strikes and your out kind of system. Everything else that happens in the game world happens because it makes sense to happen.

That was the ultimate game. You're welcome.

On "Non-Games"
Games that have no rules or have only fictional "in universe" rules are an interesting quandary. I've wanted to do a more complete dissertation on them for some time, but it's not a very highly explored or talked about thing, at least in any online circles I happen to frequent. I've written a few things that are close, though the Galaxy Far Away ruleset I talked about before is the stronger example.

In the few examples of these I've read, the most common of these follow the concept of the "game as a conversation", which is a nice way to put it and feels very open and approachable. Obviously this will require a consenting, well put-together group. I feel as though if the entire group are very strongly steeped together in the universal tropes and feel of whatever type of game or genre they are playing, this might one of the best if not THE best method of playing tabletop games regardless of context. Though most groups, even good groups, won't be quite as united together in synchronicity to go into this state of absolute "flow"- I certainly haven't, it is more of a theoretical concept.

Imagine, if you will, a group of people deeply invested in Sword & Sorcery and Appendix N material. They end up making a tabletop game with almost no rules- perhaps only a random table or two or a dice roll such as the "ultimate game" written above. Then, they run a tabletop game-as-conversation where the only real goal is to exactly emulate a Sword & Sorcery story as their own characters. In such an example, the exact rules, guidelines, dungeons, or other things that bog down a regular game attempting to emulate a Sword & Sorcery experience would only get in the way of such exact connection- and in this case I would feel the "Non game" of this concept would be superior.

However, these non-games have flaws and weak spots. I don't think they're some end all replacement for "simulationist" or "gamist" games. For starters, many "genres" are too wide spread for this to work. How would you run a non-game with the only genre concerned being a "generic fantasy adventure"? Everyone brings their own idea and baggage to the table when it comes to fantasy. It would be very difficult to get everyone to run and see the game in exactly the same light. Of course, a strong personality in the form of a DM/GM running the game would be best served here- but there will always be that slight disconnect. Oh, you find a trope of elves? Some people's experiences with elves are different then each other; an encounter with elves could be anything from a whimsical moment to a deadly encounter to a banal interaction in a fantasy kitchen-sink world. Though a group can move past this, there is always that slight hesitation that would come from the minds of those playing the game.

There are also a few games that try to emulate the idea of a "non game" by making a non-game a narrative game built around a fantasy milieu which is the real "game". An example might be something like FATE- which is NOT a rules light game, even though people bill it as. It's significantly harder to wrap your head around then an old edition of D&D or something where you control a single, well rounded character- an opinion of mine, sure, but a strong one. As such, FATE is a game based on the narrative beats of a story or experience, where character aspects and elements to scenes move the action forward; but the game's world is assumed to be the glue that holds it together, in the same way a more gamist game like D&D uses its fantasy game world to be its own glue, or perhaps ground floor where the absurdity of the rules is weighed and corrected. Concepts such as the peasant rail gun don't really exist because they are only "real" if the fantasy world beneath them didn't exist. The idea of a non-game game is to make the game about the fantasy milieu that "grounds" the rules without needing rules in the first place. 

(I am now realizing this turned into Vagueposting halfway through writing it.)

So in conclusion, for a "non game" to work successfully, the real challenge is not clever rules design since there are little to no rules, but moreso the ability to communicate the implied setting, theme, or backdrop of the game. If somebody put in a lot of effort to cleverly write or design a setting introduction, write with a strong theme, or use a pre-established base such as the Star Wars example game above; it would at least do the majority of the heavy lifting. I don't know if "non games" are ever going to be widesspread and popular outside of very insular tabletop groups since, obviously, that is where they flourish best. I don't think we'll ever see non-games as published and sold products since there really isn't anything to ship. The closest thing I could think of is a non-game textbook with lots of story ideas, pre-generator characters, or tables and lists to determine what happens whenever there is no agreement on what would happen next. The great thing about these non games though is that technically ANY book is a sourcebook. Just pick up your favorite fantasy novel, emulate the tone and setting, and that's an RPG source book right there- just for a game without any rules.

Vagueposting- Yeah but guns are actually super lame tho (Garden)

So my last blogpost was about Garden. Specifically, guns in Garden. However, the more I think about it, the more I drift away from the concept.

Why?

Well, two reasons. First off, guns are kind of super lame. Like I think guns in real life are plenty cool, not a political statement, but in terms of combat potential? Kind of shit. You either use a gun or you die- there's no "balance" with firearms. Which is fine, not everything needs to be balanced.

Now this sounds like an paradox, but I also think guns are like super cool in terms of being able to customize them, have different parts, all that stuff. But more options isn't necessarily always better. If you make a game where half the rulebook is about modifying your character's hat, even if the rules behind it are important and very cool, it's still going to distract from everything else.

Thirdly- I'm a little ashamed to admit how much I unironically liked 'i kill puppies for satan', but that game has got it right. There are no good gun rules in tabletop games. Bullets fly out of guns and whiz around and hit people's bones and then spin and kill their neighbor but oh you're fine even though you got shot 6 times. It's all random arbitrary physics nonsense. You could argue that physical combat with swords and shit is plenty as random and not-dramatic/heroic/cool enough for you, but they've been so ingrained in the public consciousness that the "not fucking around deadly factor" isn't as strong.

The second reason is because of escalation of combat.

Hot take: Tabletop games escalate conflict to deadly instantaneously, which is bad. Also a hot take: That's not really a bad thing. See, I had to find a way to make that statement controversial somehow, because I'm pretty sure most people actually agree with the first point raised.

Here's the thing; in a lot of media, fighting with fists fulfills all the roles as a gun or sword battle might, but without the dying afterwards. It's highly based on strength and skill, shows a clear winner or loser, and allows for a vector of force. But people walk away from it. Now of course, this is talking about the fake fantasy version of street fights and fisticuffs. In real life you get in a fistfight with someone and their friend hits you in the head from behind and you hit the ground weird and you get brain damage. There's no honor in a fight. But in fantasy media land, it works.

I think that in any more urban, modernized setting, you need to have combat mechanics and escalation of force that isn't 1 to 100 instantly. This is a common sentiment, I feel. Probably because of the way people view the world as being more ordered, structured, less influenced by individual action. You have police officers, everyone is close together, things are more grounded in that sense.

For this reason; I think Garden would actually work better as a game/setting/concept where the majority of the combat was street fights. Hand to hand or kung fu brawling, moreso then guns. Of course, that's just the combat, the actual game is about working, surviving, or thriving in a big magical sci-fi city outside of space and time. But the combat plays a big role, as its the player's most actionable, intricate part of their "toolkit" to explore the fictional world.

Why guns in the first place?
I wrote about this in the Garden potpourri. When I first began to come up with the ideas for Garden, they were cemented around this idea of "immigration", not just of people but of objects. Everything was "imported". However, if you have people from many worlds with a massive, diverse range of firearms (look how many bullshit calibers we have, and that's just one world) there's no way that you'd ever be able to use a firearm besides what you brought with you at the time when you ended up there. So guns became like treasures, more then anything- even at some point being ultra-rare but magical. But at the time, I was getting super into scrap metal guns for some reason; probably a combination of different aesthetic images (Fallout 4?) and image-boards that collected cool pictures for stuff like that. So I switched the idea over to scrap metal guns.

Of course, the idea of guns being rare and special stuck; so they had to all be handmade. It fit well with this idea of the city being a sort of closed system, getting shittier and more run down the longer it goes on, endlessly recycling and reusing everything. I still like that idea a lot, and it's something that I want to keep going with.

However- while I don't have a problem with the realism aspect of guns being prolific or commonly used, I DO have a problem with the setting implications from that. Fights are more deadly, of course, and threats have to scale to it. At least partially, I wanted Garden to be a sort of borough-crawling game, with powerful monsters and psychic entities or rival criminal gangs you had to fight against as the primary antagonism of the setting. So to a degree, things had to scale up to be able to "match" the player's powerful gun game.

But that escalation and "high power level" if you will isn't something I'm after as much any more. I like to think of Garden as being more intimate. You have characters which you can see multiple times. It's got a much smaller "world" then most high fantasy settings. Even though I imagine Garden as being huge, it still ends eventually, there's a limit. It was very heavily inspired by Bastion as well when I was first thinking about it, reading and stealing everything from Into The Odd as I could, so you can imagine a massive urban sprawl- but still, it's not like a fantasy world with continents of space and world to explore.

Is this rambling? Probably. I hope you get what I mean.

What's the replacement?

Now one problem here is, if you create a system and even a setting with such a focus on a certain resolution mechanic, if that be combat (with guns), magic, or whatever else- and then you suddenly throw that out, you need something to replace it. Something to fill that hole.

I already spoiled it above; but why not fist fights? Cool brawling, martial arts, boxers. Instantly, character ideas and cinematic fight scene play out in your head. Using random objects lying around as improvised weapons, beating up (and getting beaten up by) thugs and mobsters and earning respect in the underground world.

Like I said, it's a trope and media-based concept. Not realism. Don't get it confused.

Do I have a good system for this yet? (No.) I'm working on it. Out of everything on this blog, I tended towards Garden being one of the largest and most "complete" things I've wanted to work on, putting forward a cohesive narrative with a cohesive game engine. Much more complete then my fantasy heartbreaker/untested shitbrew that goes through a revision every 6 months.

But I guess I'm breaking that promise with this post, huh? That's alright- I think this is a better change, ultimately. 

How does the setting change?

When it comes to setting and world changes to push forward these changes; how do you change it up? How do you maintain an internal consistency with the newfound rules. It's a multifaceted thing in the case of Garden, since the setting has a lot of shit going on.

Let's get this out of the way- There ARE still guns. This isn't some kung fu world. It's all about the boxer and grapplers and kickboxers, but people still fight with knives and baseball bats and stuff. Guns are still rare. They're deep in the criminal underworld; it requires very specialized skills to make a gun out of scrap metal and old tuna cans and little chain links twisted up into springs. The bullets are even more of a fucking problem. You have to make them yourself, buy them from rare and exclusive gun-smiths, or steal them from somebody else who also has them.

Now what about the "immigrants"? I always imagine Garden as being a city full of people who end up "lost" in their home worlds, and end up in the city, never able to escape. It's a dimensional funnel. You can slip down, but you can't crawl back up. So people end up here with only whatever they were traveling in, or whatever they had on their back. So what about people who had guns? Lost police officers who fell asleep on highway patrol, hunters with a rifle over their shoulder, and so on. Where do their guns go once they get into the city?

Well, I'd like to say the government destroys them. I've always imagined Garden as a setting with either no government, a sort of totally anarchist pipedream world of anarcho-capitalist power struggles OR a city with a very limited, way understaffed and underfunded cardboard government. This fits better, I think. The only problem then comes with how people actually come into the city, physically, from their home dimension. I always went with the idea they arrived from out of the forest surrounding the city, or maybe woke up on a park bench, or turned a corner in a bad part of their home town and then all the sudden it's night time and why does that guy have four eyes and purple skin?

That definitely seems like the most cohesive method of people getting there. But what if everyone came in from a single location?

Maybe it's like a train station. The "immigration office" they call it. Subway train rolls in. Everyone on the train car doesn't know how they got there. They've got missing time. They are all dressed up in whatever they were wearing; you got an alien wearing a military uniform next to a businessman next to a hobo next to an idol pop singer. They get off the train, confused as hell, guided to the immigration desk. They get a passport, certain items are confiscated. The firearms are taken, the people given a handful of shitty city money, and later the weapons are destroyed. Because pretty much everyone comes in through here- it's pretty much impossible to smuggle stuff in. Hence; the crafted guns.

EDIT: After writing this, I am only now realizing how good this concept fits for Heap actually. Maybe it even works better. Less magic, more dystopian. It also makes sense why people would need to genetically modify themselves with disgusting biological weapons; they can't smuggle things in.

How about them fights?

Let me be honest here- this totally wasn't inspired by the many, many hours of Yakuza 0 I played over the Corona-virus lock downs last year. No way. But Garden has a few setting particulars that make this transition slightly more difficulty.

Firstly; the aliens. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different species in Garden. All of them will have a unique biology, size, weight, muscle, etc. At least how I envision Garden, I think of WEIRD aliens. Like not just rubber forehead aliens but like weird, sometimes even esoteric. But I usually stay away from the Barlowe aliens, for the most part. The people here are bounded to an extent. But even with that, fighting in real life is divided into weight classes for a reason. If a race of beings are built like 350+ pound brick shithouses with arms the size of tree trunks then yeah, you're dead. No human is going to be able to beat that up.

But what if they were more grounded? The humans, aliens, they all have a certain, pretty typical range of sizes, weights, and general physicalities they can draw from. Does that bore you? Well maybe. But in a way, I almost like it more. It almost makes the setting feel weirder, and, in a way, makes all the weird disparate species seem to fit together better. Think of it this way; every species in Garden all evolved independently, on all their different planets, all in planets that had a single primary star that was their "Sun". They all believe in Christmas. They can all end up as Psychics. And, they all evolved to maximize their intelligence, like humans. Evolving from the prehistory means that other traits like biological weapons, strength, senses and the like were all dulled a bit. I kind of like this, because it implies you aren't totally out of your league as a human against one of these beings; but there are still differences. They may be ancestral, but humans get their endurance, grasshopper aliens get strong kicks, a few aliens have claws, or poison spit- but their poison is like pepper spray tier- too biologically expensive to keep lethal venom for an intelligence species that cooks its food and relies on spears and shit for thousands of years.

Of course, this naturally leads to good explanations for things like weird or esoteric fighting styles, randomly generated characters, interesting combat encounters, all that fun stuff.

What are the new gun rules?

New rules? These ones work great!

Of course, using a d20ish combat system wouldn't work for this. I'd say it'd be something like the Unknown Armies system- melee attacks deal the result of your successful attack roll (so 54 = 5+4 = 9 damage) where as guns deal the roll result of your successful attack. (54 = 54 points of damage- with characters having between 30-80 HP most of the time). Or it could be like RIFTS where guns deal something like mega-damage which just blows the fuck out of anything that isn't a mega-durability creature or however that works. Maybe it just kills people on a roll of 6 or higher, everything less just puts you into the dying state, perhaps? Maybe it's the number of major limbs broken; so high rolls can "break" your head which means you die?

The jamming rules are still great though. Guns parts are not. Roll d20 + number of shots fired, get over 20 and it jams. ez pz. I'll proudly display that rule-addition I made like my life depended on it.

Vagueposting- Gryphons are hard to beat

 Art @Tomasz Chistowski

When it comes to designing fantasy mounts or animal companions/warriors for fantasy settings, it's REALLY hard to beat the griffon.

I don't necessarily mean beating as in like, they're really strong and powerful in a fight or whatever- though that is certainly the case. It's like a flying horse that can fight, both with a beak AND claws. This makes it pretty powerful in combat, and that's without the high level badass knight no doubt riding its back. Also: I'm using Gryphon as I like that spelling the best, but Griffon in the text, because that's the one that doesn't trigger my spellchecker.

But anyway; specifically I meant the griffon is hard to beat as a conceptual mount. What do I mean by this? Let's examine it.

In fantasy worlds, you tend to think of ways to "power up" medieval warriors or battles- as to add levels of power not available in the real world. Of course, it's difficult to do so. Don't take me as a historical revisionist or history worshiper, but typically speaking the people of the past are going to roughly use the most efficient and effective means available to them to basically anything; including warfare. It's kind of hard to improve on the concept of slashing someone with a sword or polearm, so in order to add some fantasy pizazz on top, you make them out of magical materials and the like. Pretty simple.

Mounts are a bit of a tougher problem. In real life, people never decided to go around riding hippopotami or bears because they're scary and never got around to domesticating them. Which is fucking stupid, because they totally should have. Horses were used as mounts probably because they eat grass, which is something humans can't directly eat, had backs uniquely suitable for carrying a heavy person in a way that a wolf or cat simply can't do even if sized up appropriately, and because they're already social animals that fit well for domestication. This is, of course, all armchair theorizing stuff, but you're reading Vagueposting so I guess that's your fault right? lmao.

Anyway, with that in mind, you want to make up a fantasy animal that knights and warriors can ride into battle. Being on a mount is such a massive advantage in any pre-modern combat; but horses are kind of lame. Note: Obviously, horses are actually extremely dangerous, and the simple momentum of being on a giant animal is more then enough to give this huge advantage! But they don't have claws or a fearsome bite of a predator- they're grounded, and aren't especially armored. They are mostly known for being fast. Of course, realistically, that's all they NEED to be; no animal can fulfill all of these qualities in a way with the same efficiency in a realistic way- but in fantasy you can make animals fit these roles.

Art @Studio 0618(?)

 
BUT But there is more to this! You could take things like giant cats and lions, which is fine, or giant wolves or bears or boars and what not- BUT there's a bit of an issue here. I'll take lions out of this; but for all of these animals there is a bit of a wild or negative connotation connected to them in certain ways. This is why you see orcs riding wargs and not humans. And then you have tigers and elk and stuff, but those are more fitting for one off, special natural characters like elves or druids, not a "knight".

So in order to make a more powerful, sup-ed up version of a horse, it needs to be something that has a bit of nobility to it, has to be able to fight or be more intimidating then a horse. In this, I would say that lions/big cats can be a good substitute. However, lions in my opinion are a bit harder to sell because everybody kind of already has an idea of what a lion is and how big it roughly is, and they aren't quite horse sized. Perhaps specifying that they are giant lions could help, but in the end, lions are still grounded. They can't fly. They are also a "mundane" animal, which lacks some of that fantasy danger/power level increase.

Now you COULD go with magical version of a horse. Typically, a Pegasus (or THE Pegasus) is a cool one, but is a bit weak in terms of combat prowess. It's just a horse with wings; could be incredibly fantastical in a grounded setting, but in a setting where players are going to be jousting against dragons, it's comparatively weak. Another example would be a unicorn, or an alicorn to borrow My Little Pony terminology (which is a winged unicorn.) These are pretty badass on their own, but we're talking specifically about combat mounts.

There are some magical beasts or beings you could use for this too. Flying sharks, wyverns, harpies, sphinxes, gragoyles, manticores could all be potential monsters- but here's the thing. They can't be too innately magical or "out there"- I won't even get into detail about all these creatures being typecast as evil or bestial as you can kinda change that, but the point stands. They need to be grounded somewhat, biologically and in terms of ability. The standard fantasy knight needs to be the "mundane" character, and can't be too crazy or else it breaks some of the fantasy suspension of disbelief.

Art @Deiv Calviz

Now let's discuss the elephant in the room- not an actual elephants. Dragons. Dragons are the big one you could argue are stronger or "better" then a gryphon; but herein lies the issue. Dragons are actually TOO powerful to really serve as a mount in my honest opinion. Now I know dragons have a long history of serving as heroic (and evil) character mounts, but dragons fail for two reasons in my opinion. Firstly, dragons are a bit too powerful and outshine their riders in a way- this is not something you want a mount to do. Breath weapons change up the dyanmic in a way that takes away from the "flying/magical knight dude" idea. If the dragon is significantly small then it could work in this context, but then the other issue is that dragons are too smart. Dragons are usually portrayed with a human level of intelligence or "greater", thus meaning they can usually talk and would be more of a partnership of the rider and the dragon they are riding. 

In my opinion, this messes up the dynamic. For two reasons primarily- first, it takes away focus from the combat power and prowess of the rider once again, but two, it makes them irreplaceable in a way. If you ride a dragon into battle, you ride A dragon, not a dragon. The thing about mounts, in my mind at least, is they need to be at least somewhat replaceable, or at the very least, not of equal value to the rider if one had to be slain in a fight, if that makes sense.

To better explain this; you could imagine a fantasy knight going into a stable getting a new horse if theirs died, or if the horse is exhausted and needing to switch it out for a long journey. You could imagine a fantasy knight doing the same thing with a griffon- but NOT with a dragon. Not with a character. Of course, if you make dragons into the setting closer to animals then it works out- but these are starting to not resemble the stereotypical fantasy version of dragons!

What about other mounts? Well- anything reptilian (including dragons to an extent) is going to be a bit too sinister to work as the generic noble knight mount. Those flying Fell-Beasts that the Nazgul ride around are also great, but once again, very villainous! An artificial mount, like a flying carpet or something would only really fit for a Wizard and is a bit too wacky. Giant bugs would also totally fall flat here- most people don't like bugs except for maybe a big fuzzy moth, but that lacks punching power. Now riding around a giant bird or eagle has a lot of promise here- I think these are plenty good, (and in a way, you could argue they are the in between of a horse and griffon; a "mid level" option, if you would, that or a Hippogriff.), but the griffon is still a bit more powerful in this direct confrontation. Being the "most" powerful isn't necessarily a good trait here, but it's part of the factors for being in the running.

Now, you could always make up your own mount, which is totally fine. I have no problems with that; but it lacks a certain fantasy "realness" that existing creatures have. I'm sure that you as a worldbuilder or dungeon master run into a similar issue; you'll make up a unique race and just feel they can't really stand up to the mass cultural power that things like elves, dwarves, and orcs simply have. I feel the same way about trying to make up my own fantasy mounts or "good" creatures for people to use or live with in a fantasy setting. In a weird way, I actually think that random whacko made up stuff works better for monsters then for knowable, domestic creatures in the setting- though if you're trying to make your own setting, it's equivalent.

Art @Seb Lee

But the Griffon? It has clout. It's a real mythological beast. It's been used as a fantasy flying mount for a long time- I know Warhammer and Warcraft have done it, I'm sure at least one of the official D&D settings have done it; and there are certainly more examples I cannot name here. It's part of the pop culture and social consciousness for fantasy tropes. While that's not really a "fair" reason- it IS a reason nonetheless. You can even switch them up a bit; griffons could be made of different birds or cat bottom halves; it isn't too hard to imagine giving griffons animals stereotypes of birds, or lions, or both in a combination. Their capabilities could be more grounded and animal, like roughly equal to a flying predatory cat/bird creature, or they could be supernaturally strong and "boss like", as they are seen in games like the Witcher, Dragon's Dogma, etc.

And another thing; birds are attractive. Not in a weird sexual bestiality way, but in an purely looks way. They're majestic, especially birds of prey. Larger reptiles we would associate with mounts (like crocodiles, komodo dragons, etc.) are scraggly, not symmetrical and "cute" enough to really cut it as something humans want to ride around on and pet and feed scraps around the campfire- same goes for giant flying bug mounts, massive bats, or like weird giant smoke monsters or whatever.

So to sum up; When it comes to giving a good or generally honorable Knights a souped up version of a knight for epic fantasy battles or powerful tools for adventuring types- griffons are going to be really hard to beat in terms of aesthetics, power, plausibility, thematic grouping, and especially cultural relevance and reiteration.

If you have ANY ideas on mounts that can beat the Gryphon- please share. I'm desperate.