Monday, February 14, 2011

No Upper Limit

An interesting component of a game I’ve been playing in a system called Savage Worlds is exploding dice. The only DnD equivalent being the critical hit system. The basics of exploding dice is this, If I roll the maximum number on a die, then I get to roll it again and add the result together with the original roll, indefinitely.

This system brings an interesting mechanic into play, the idea of no upper limit. Strictly speaking we may be playing the game somewhat inappropriately as some of the veterans are rusty, but as we’re playing it a huge amount of diversity is added to the game. Potentially an unskilled person could seemingly succeed on an extremely difficult task, and not only that, do it very well.

Thus the title, No Upper Limit. Theoretically the player could roll an infinite number, and while the system does not necessarily have no upper limit to the degrees of success (defeating the target number by 4 in most cases being the limit) it allows a crippled, inexperienced person in extremely unkind environment manage to do something amazingly well.

Most systems place a limit, sometimes a high one, but still a limit to the reach of the player’s success. For instance 3rd edition and 4th edition DnD offer a d20 + X to a roll. 1-20 doesn’t matter for a skill check, so your upper limit is 20+X, some DMs offering explosions, but officially none. In combat, a critical officially has a single explosion limit. GURPS 3rd and 4th editions also offer only rolling 3d6 and comparing to a stat offering only success or failure. Apparently the World of Darkness d10 system recently officially added exploding dice as well allowing a “10 again” system.

An interesting note on both systems that use this explosion method and the systems that don’t. Relatively speaking from my mediocre experience with different systems, and with exception to the recent 4th edition DnD, the more complicated systems with less generalized abilities have upper limits. The systems that generalize things such as shooting skills and athletics don’t. Does this lead to more powerful generally able players? I think definitely, is this desirable? Perhaps not for my system, but I do think it allows for a great deal of tension, allowing everything to hinge on one player’s unskilled attempt at something VERY difficult. Our party was saved last night from imprisonment and torture due to unskilled attempts.

The blind warrior used an unskilled lockpicking attempt on his cell door while I distracted the guard with an unskilled taunt. This followed with an unskilled stealth check as the warrior approached the guard followed by my barely skilled attempt to help subdue the guard with my strangling them with shackles… And so on… Without weapons, companions, and my case even my spells, the night was a long series of unskilled checks we could all have a chance to succeed at, and in many cases did so. Of coarse, when our true power was unleashed, we finally became competent and powerful, the encounters cleverly scaling up. Maybe the GM was just realizing our characters were perhaps too powerful and throwing everything he could at us.

No upper limit, or perhaps, always a chance to succeed. Something to think about.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011


In a recent bit of commenting the definition of teamwork came up. I'd like to explore the topic. This is one of the moments, where having a blog becomes useful. I would like to propose teamwork as an action or behavior that benefits the team and by extension the self rather than the self and by extension the team. Now lets see what the internet dictionary has to say...

cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of a group of persons acting together as a team or in the interests of a common cause.
work done with a team.

The second one isn't very useful, it's like looking up painter and finding "one who paints" but for the interests of completeness there it is. So lets break down the definition given for giggles and understanding.

effort as a group of persons acting as a team.
coordinated effort as a group of persons acting as a team.
cooperative effort in the interests of a common cause.
coordinated effort in the interests of a common cause.

So here we are, we now have an interesting set of four definitions. So lets find out what the difference between coordination and cooperation is...


harmonious combination or interaction, as of functions or parts.

an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.

also interesting

Ecology . mutually beneficial interaction among organisms living in a limited area.

So now breaking it down....

working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit as a group of persons acting as a team.
working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit in the interests of a common cause.
harmonious combination or interaction as a group of persons acting as a team.
harmonious combination or interaction in the interests of a common cause.

Now that my fun is over, lets break it down into what that means for me and us as designers and creators.

There is a goal, in 3 of four cases. (5 of 6 if you break down the purpose or benefit in cooperation)
There is a group, sometimes identified as a team. (2 of 4)
There is always joint action.
Every referenced group unit is working or interacting.

Why is this important? Ideally when we make our game, assuming you are not pitting the players against one another, we want all our characters working and interacting towards a goal.

Why is this interesting? Only half the time it is necessary that they identify themselves as a team. Rarely, this doesn't have to really incorporate a goal.

What am I predicting? That many GMs are screaming "Look! Railroading is good! It's a goal!" and others are screaming, "No! Our games where we set no goals should not be marginalized!" And now I quietly reply in my quiet blog, "Nobody said it had to be the GM's goal."

Arguably a good deal of Pen and Paper role playing games are about teamwork. About people sitting down and working together to achieve something greater than their individual players. It makes me wonder if this is why broken characters are disliked. Because a team makes them no better.

When creating my game, running through my mind is a simple question, "How can this character not only effect the party members, but their army, their cooperative units in such a way it becomes easier to reach a goal or cause."

Just some musings of mine I thought I'd share.