Reflections on DF training costs

I use the DF3 training cost rules in my regular DF game.



I use the rules on DF3 p. 43 as a guide. Basically, to learn new skills and abilities, you have to pay some cash in game. To learn new skills and abilities off your template, you have to pay double. I don't charge anything to improve what you've got on your sheet already.

There is only one big change I made:

Raise something you have: Free (this is changed from $20 to raise skills, abilities, etc. other than attributes)



How has this gone?

What I thought this would do is:

- drain a little cash, to keep players hungry to earn more for their characters.
- push people, especially early on, to improve what they have before they expand into new skills and abilities.
- provide a brake on acquisition of new powers and lenses.
- allow free training to be a noticeable, albeit small, bit of reward.

What it actually did is:

- drain a little cash, to keep players hungry to earn more for their characters.

Yes, this happened as expected.

- push people, especially early on, to improve what they have before they expand into new skills and abilities.

No, not in the slightest. Even when resources were scarce early on, players chose bankrupting their characters, chose to risk starvation from inadequate resources, chose to risk Survival rolls and forgo benefits from spending money in town in order to train in new powers. Existing traits were generally not improved until the "build" was complete through the addition of planned-for Power-Ups, desired spells, additional perks, and expanding to things on the template left off with the intention of buying them in play. Wizards especially want to learn as many new spells as possible as fast as possible - so much so we had to put special brakes on how many spells you could acquire during downtime to avoid the "let me check my list of 95 spells and see if I have that one" syndrome.

Instead of "I'm nearly broke, so I'll up my existing skills and leave buying a Power-Up until I've got some cash" I got "I'm nearly broke, so everyone lend me money so I can get this Power-Up. Maybe someday I'll raise my existing skills, once I've gotten through this list."

This is probably why a number of long-serving characters have substantial cash reserves - not enough for powerful items, and zero drain from training costs because they went broad early and now go deep with points only.

- provide a brake on acquisition of new powers and lenses.

See above. Didn't even provide a speed bump.

- allow free training to be a noticeable, albeit small, bit of reward.

This turned out to be true. The mage getting new spells via Wild Talent instead of paying for teaching has saved a good chunk. The occasional free learning or free training I've offered hasn't been passed up. No one really seeks it out, which is fine, too, because I didn't want every downtime to devolve into, "I look around and see what free training is available, so make me a list and I'll decide if I want it or not."

Overall

Overall, I am glad I put the rules in place. I'm sad they did not work out as planned, but they did add an element to the game that I like. People do make decisions based on training costs, and training costs drive adventuring goals a little further (it's not just make a profit, it's make a profit with cash for training.)

At the same time it's not as onerous as the AD&D rules could be, where you'd seemingly need to pay almost every coin over to level up (not literally true, but it felt that way.) And they are easy enough that they don't get forgotten in play.

Feel free to use my experience in your own DF games. Did I say feel free? I meant, that'll be $40, silver or gold preferred.

The Manor & OSR Grappling

Just to let you know - Issue #8 of The Manor is out, and it contains an article with a Swords & Wizardry (and mostly OSR in general) compatible grappling system that I co-wrote.

Tim Shorts has the official announcement here and my co-author Douglas Cole blogged about it here.

You can get the PDF from RPG Now, below:

OPM - the problems running Other People's Megadungeons

OPM means Other People's Megadungeons.

There are not a huge amount of megadungeons out there, ready to play.

I think that beyond the logistical challenges of publishing a megadungeon, there is a deeper issue:

It is not easy to run someone else's megadungeon.

One reason Felltower is so easy for me is that I wrote it.

Bits on the map? I put them there. I can't run my dungeon without the maps, but I can picture the maps in my head. That's where they came from in the first place.

Factions? I made them up.

Room descriptions? I know what's supposed to be there.

Everything I have down on paper is a reminder. It's not new information. Even when there is a blank, I know what I was thinking when I wrote it and what would thematically fit. I don't need to roll on the "What does the faction do?" table. I know what they'd do. I might flip a coin to find out which option they choose out of two, but I know which two and why.

Contrast that with a published megadungeon. I've seen it with Erik trying to figure out what the heck something is intended to be during out own B-Team delves. You can see it with Jeffro having to puzzle over room descriptions in Dwimmermount. I've had it with reading Barrowmaze and Castle Zagyg to see what is in it. You need to become intimately familiar with someone else's work. Not only that, but they need to have written in a way that's accessible on a read-through, clearly communicates intent, and which is easy to use in actual play.

You get that with any published adventure or setting. But the scope of a megadungeon can make this so much harder. I've read Stonehell through a couple times, but I don't know it so well that I could run it without notes. I could run my megadungeon with just the maps, if I had to.

That's tough. It's a problem I don't have with my own megadungeon. And it might be yet another reason there aren't a plethora of them out there, why playthroughs of them don't seem to be very common, and why you can see a big of struggle from GMs running them even if they otherwise run games smoothly and easily.

It's the OPM problem. It's not yours, and it take a lot of effort to really own something that big.

Cold Fens pictures added

I added pictures to yesterday's Cold Fens session summary.

Here is a quick taste:

DF Game Session 62, Cold Fens 4 - Altar, Books, Wights

May 3rd, 2015

Weather: Chilly, clear.

Characters (in the dungeon): (approximate net point total)

Adventuring:
Asher Crest-Fallen, human holy warrior (270 points)
     Koric, human guard (~70 points)
     Orrie, human guard (~70 points)
Bjorn Felmanson, human barbarian (256 points)
El Murik, dwarven cleric (264 points)
Gerald Tarrant, human wizard (257 points)
Hannibal the Flammable, human wizard (259 points)
Rahtnar the Vegan, dwarven martial artist (259 points)

In Swampsedge:
Galoob Jah, goblin thief (256 points)

We picked up in Swampsedge. The group gathered some rumors, including a couple more dragon-related ones. They stocked up with what few paut and minor healing potions were available from Old Crone Hazel, and sent off an order for some gear (potion belts and some improved weaponry.)

Nepal aid gaming bundle

In case you missed it, there is a bundle of Asian-related RPG books bundled together as a fundraising effort for Nepal:

Game for Nepal - Charity [BUNDLE]

I have Qelong already, and it's good (it's Ken Hite, which automatically means it's good).

Take a look. It's good books for a good cause at an excellent discount.

My take on Snap Cut: Snap Strike

Over on Michael Eversberg II's blog Chain Link and Concrete, there is a nice idea for a combat option, the Snap Cut.

It's a very nice idea - trade some damage for a tricky, speedy shot. It's a gap that is worth filling in the options on the table. It's one that has come up, but I don't think I every fully ran with the ideas that I've had about how to deal with these kinds of strikes.

However, as written uses a flat tradeoff of damage for penalties to the opponent to defend. That's problematic in a high-powered game as the article notes it might be. Even my beginning DF front line fighters generally have 3d+8 or more damage. Many monsters are doing in the 4d to 10d range with bonuses on top (Mungo was doing 8d+24).

While it's funny to muse about letting Mungo do "Snap Cuts" at -20 damage for -10 to defend and merely roll 8d+4, you can see the problem - strong people can take more off of their blow and reduce defenses. Even a per-die minus is merely more painful, but nearly always worth it (Mungo doing -3 to defend for doing 8d instead of 8d+24, say, or Vryce doing 3d+3 instead of 3d+12.) Especially against fodder and glass cannon monsters, where hitting is the issue (Eye of Death, for example.)

In the comments, I offered my own take on Snap Cut. Naturally, I used the Technique Design System from GURPS Martial Arts.



I came up with two options, both of which I renamed here to Snap Strike so there isn't confusion about thrusting being disallowed:

Combat Option: Snap Strike
You trade off some damage for speed with a quick strike that doesn't get your full body behind the blow. Can be used with any Melee attack. Your attack, if it hits, does -2 damage or -1 per die, whichever is worse. If it hits, you opponent suffers a -1 to defend. This can be combined with All-Out Attack or Committed Attack, but not with the (Strong) option.

(Built as:
+4 for -2 damage or -1 per die.
-4 for -1 to all defenses (-1 to the first is -2 default, the other two are half cost)
Net: -0)

(Note that this effectively makes sport, touch=victory skills always -1 to defend against, because you may as well Snap Strike since damage is a non-issue.)

or you can use a technique, which I've also rolled up into a Power Up.

Snap Cut, Hard
Default: prerequisite skill-4.
Prerequisite: Any unarmed or Melee Weapon skill; cannot exceed prerequisite skill.

You trade off some damage for speed with a quick strike that doesn't get your full body behind the blow. Can be used with any Melee attack. Your attack, if it hits, does -2 damage or -1 per die, whichever is worse. If it hits, you opponent suffers a -2 to defend. This can be combined with All-Out Attack or Committed Attack, but not with the (Strong) option.

(Built as:
+4 for -2 damage or -1 per die.
-8 for -2 to all defenses (-2 to the first is -4 default, the other two are half cost at -2 each)
Net: -0)

As a DF Power-Up, the second one comes out like this:

Snap Strike*
6 points
Prerequisites: Any unarmed or Melee Weapon skill, ST 11+, and either Weapon Master or Trained By A Master.

You trade off some damage for speed with a quick strike that doesn't get your full body behind the blow. Can be used with any Melee attack. Your attack, if it hits, does -2 damage or -1 per die, whichever is worse. If it hits, you opponent suffers a -2 to defend. This can be combined with All-Out Attack or Committed Attack, but not with the (Strong) option.

Perks: Unique Technique (Snap Strike) [1].
Techniques: Snap Strike (H) Skill+0 [5].*

Remember the * means you must specialize by a combat skill. The prereqs are there to keep out the non-fighters. It's a DF Power Up, after all.

Another option on these, if the defense penalty seems too small, is to do one of two things:

1) Make it a +4 to Hit Combat Option. Remove the inherent defense penalty, and just saying taking -2 damage or -1 per die (whichever is worse) is something anyone can do to get a +4 to hit. It's the "don't hit the fly full power" thing. Then you can trade that +4 for a -2 to all defenses via Deceptive Attack. Be warned, though, this means an All-Out Attack (Determined) Telegraphic Attack Snap Strike against a weak target (or a touch-only-needed target) is +12 to hit.

2) Change the balance of defense penalties. Making it only hard to Dodge, say, at -4 to Dodge but normal Block and Parry. Or -2 to Dodge and -2 Parry, and reduce Snap Strike to Prereq-2. Maybe shields help against these because they only have to be in the way, not actively be moved in reaction.

I just want to repeat that although I've basically rewritten the concept in the post I linked to above, I really like the concept. Anything that makes me read it, and drop what I'm doing and write for 15 minutes before I leave for work is a good concept. It's just that I didn't want my comments to lay quietly in the comments section.