It’s happened to us all at some point: the adventure has sidetracked down an unexpected alleyway and brought the PCs face-to-face with a character that you’ve made up on the spot.

When this happens, you’re generally thinking only in physical terms, at least in the immediate term; that is because the first interaction that the players will have with this new NPC is through their awareness of his or her physical presence, and that requires some sort of physical description.

In fact, and in general, you start with a noun and an adjective, and from that beginning, everything else sprouts. You embellish with details and then try and come up with a personality – and that’s where the cardboard stock-character problem creeps into the games of the most astute GMs.

“The angry Elf”. “The ancient Ogre.” “The harried Grandmother.” “The albino Barkeep.” See what I mean?

In the past, I’ve shared many different methods of creating characters, but they pretty much all rely on having the prep time and anticipation of the need. The whole point of this situation is that you don’t have those luxuries. You need a technique that will produce playable results in seconds, and only a handful of them at that.

Yet, at the same time, you should not be willing to compromise your standards any further than absolutely necessary, and whatever the product is, it should be both immediately playable, and extensible after the fact.

It should be a springboard for ideas that you can capitalize on immediately, and develop and finesse later, when you have the time. And it needs to be even faster than the time it takes to say so.

Now, techniques like that don’t grow on trees. I’ve been looking for a better one for quite some time now, and only marginally satisfied with the ones already at my disposal. But finally, the right combination of thoughts finally clicked into place to satisfy my prescription. Today, I share the results with you, my readers. Today, I offer you the Inversion Substitution.

The Inversion Substitution Technique

This is a four-step technique.

1. Replace the adjective with something ridiculous, in your mind, and look for a context or interpretation which makes sense.
   

   EG: “The Albino Barkeep” – becomes “The Chocolate Barkeep”. That could mean dark, or sweet, or smooth, or bitter.

2. Then replace that substituted word with something that does make sense – but if the current term describes personality or an emotional state, use something social, or political, or physical – and vice-versa.
   

   EG. “Albino” describes a physical condition so use a personality or emotion item – “The lonely barkeep”, “the jealous barkeep”, “The greedy barkeep”, “the love-struck barkeep”.

3. Replace the noun with something personal to the character.
   

   EG. “The albino Lothario”, “The albino musician”, “The albino drunkard”, “the albino ex-soldier”.

4. Finally, put all these thoughts together. At least one of the terms should refer specifically to how the character will relate to at least one other participant in the encounter – usually a PC, but I’m keeping in mind that this might be a scene that they are observing or overhearing and not engaging in. One more should describe the character’s appearance or apparent social standing. Everything else goes to personality traits that can be expressed at once.
   

   So far, we have “The Albino Barkeep”:
   — ‘chocolate’ -> dark, sweet, smooth or bitter;
   — lonely, jealous, greedy, or love-struck;
   — Lothario, musician, drunkard, or ex-soldier.

   That’s 4 x 4 x 4 = 64 possible combinations. In practice, you wouldn’t work through all of them, you would cherry-pick something that seems consistent and interesting.

   CHOICE 1:
   Dark -> brooding, angry, slow-boiling. Jealous. Dresses like a Lothario. = “The albino barkeep is perpetually at a slow-boil because he and ‘his girl’ have had a fight over the way he attracts other girls to his side. To get back at him, she has started going out with other men – hence his anger. This is an imminent Shakespearean tragedy.”

   CHOICE 2:
   Smooth = suave, sophisticated. Love-struck. Musician. = “The albino barkeep is overdressed in an immaculate 3-piece suit and putting on airs to try and impress someone he is sweet on. He is spending every moment not serving a customer trying to write an ode to his beloved.”

   CHOICE 3:
   “Bitter” implies anger, betrayal. Greedy. Ex-soldier. “The albino barkeep is dressed in a faded military uniform with decorations from some long-forgotten border war. He is instantly suspicious of everyone other than a regular, sure that the government has sent them to spy on him. To anyone who will listen, he will complain bitterly about the way ex-servicemen are mistreated by the government, how they are all corrupt, etc. His obvious biases would make this a perfect breeding-ground for sedition, a gathering-point for paranoid hard-heads looking for privacy, no questions asked. Make no waves, and you might eventually fit in; attract attention and you will become everyone’s target.”

   Those are three perfectly-serviceable characters, all of them with much greater depth than what you had a few seconds earlier.

Note that it doesn’t matter what the original adjective was, but some choices add whole new twists. For example, try applying the above three personalities to:

— The Gnomish barkeep, or
— The Undead barkeep, or
— The artificial barkeep.

Why this approach works:

The first substitution is designed to kick-start your imagination by deliberately picking something ‘ridiculous’ and then trying to make it sensible in some way. By relegating one of the terms to description, which can be set aside at will (so long as you’re running through this process before opening your mouth and committing yourself), you are able to cherry-pick the resulting ideas to form the core of a personality profile.

Because it doesn’t try to give you anything more than a starting point, there are very few constraints on you. You can extend the concept in response to direction questioning and interaction with the others in the scene, or in subsequent scenes, if you have to; anything not so extended can be detailed as extensively as desired after the end of the session. Until then, it places demands on the GM that are as small as possible.

Folk wisdom is a funny old thing. Sometimes it’s a pearl, other times it’s what in Australia might be called a Pearler.

Much of the time, it’s sensible, practical advice when applied to situations that are comparable to that which gave rise to the saying; – and incredibly foolhardy when not.

For example, take that old aphorism, “Beware Of Greeks Bearing Gifts”. This, of course, is not meant to insult or even discriminate against our Greek cousins should they approach with bountiful parcels in hand; rather, it speaks to one specific occasion, when a clever ploy (hiding a band of soldiers, presumably a small one) inside a wooden horse which was gifted to the Spartans. You see, the Spartans had an excellent army of their own, and solid city walls, that the Greeks could not overcome – from the outside.

Yet many people think that another saying – “Never look a gift horse in the mouth” – derives from the same incident, which makes absolutely no sense. If you looked in the mouth of the gift horse, you might discover that it was full of Greek soldiers! Shouldn’t the saying therefore be, “Always look a gift horse in the mouth”? – with a meaning that something that seems too good to be true might well not be as honest as it seems. It seems to me that in this internet age of scams and identity theft, such a saying ground into the consciousness of all and sundry might not be such a bad thing.

There’s even “don’t bite the hand that feeds” to pick up the slack – it only takes a little expansion of the meaning of “the hand that feeds” to give this saying 100% applicability to every situation in which the original “Don’t look a gift horse” would apply.

I think that popular “wisdom” is wrong in attributing the original to the Spartan incident, anyway. It is far more likely to refer to some long-forgotten situation in which a horse was gifted to someone (or sold for a really cheap price), who showed ingratitude by making sure that the horse was healthy by checking it’s teeth – implicitly showing that he thought the gift-giver couldn’t be trusted not to have given him a sick horse.

Of course, it could have been a forgotten tale of the time someone gave away a horse with bad teeth and consequent ill-health to someone who deserved better from the gift-giver – and the meaning has simply gotten all twisted around because the original incident was lost.

Nor does folk wisdom make any allowance for changing technology or expertise. Lemon and Crab-grass may well be the way your gr’gr’grandmother did it, but that doesn’t mean that better ways have not been discovered since.

Bollocks or Brilliance? The only way to find out is to put the aphorism to the test by applying it in real life and seeing what happens. As a guide to sensible and courteous behavior, they are shaky at best. As a guide to practical actions, they are positively rickety.

I was all set to write an article asking “What are the aphorisms in your game world that we don’t have in our culture?” and “Are they right or wrong, misapplied, or misunderstood?” When a new thought intruded: “What a cracking idea for a fantasy Campaign!”

You see, I was contemplating how GMs might go about revealing the answers to the players. The dull way would be to give them a list. It would almost certainly be quickly forgotten, just another meaningless handout. But if you built a whole adventure around an aphorism, applicable either literally or metaphorically, what then? And why not extend the concept to all sorts of folk wisdom – everything from survival tips to naturalist advice to healing potions and lotions to, well, you name it!

Characters shouldn’t be able to advance a level until they’ve completed the current adventure – and each of these adventures should earn the party enough XP that they will gain a level.

So, let’s cook ourselves up some folk wisdom!

The process is simple: Take an existing piece of folk wisdom, replace one or more of the key terms with in-game terminology, create an incident that spawned the folk wisdom or some underlying logic that makes perfect sense (even if it doesn’t make such sense in our world), write the results down, decide if the folk wisdom is going to be right or wrong in the case that is about to engulf the PCs, and then build an adventure around that piece of folk wisdom.

There are some practical considerations that you should observe: anything related to healing should be early in the campaign when Cure spells are hard to find, for example.

Adventures should follow some sort of standard template, too: A briefing/assignment to which the party can’t say no, someone offering the players the relevant folk wisdom as advice (sometimes it will be good, sometimes it will make matters worse), and then the adventure itself gets underway. At the end of the adventure, XP is conferred, PCs level up, and the celebrations begin. Roll the credits and start thinking about the next one.

A good piece of folk wisdom will contradict reasonable advice for our world at least half the time – and remember that this advice has to be right, at least half the time. By the time you’ve explored the consequences and ramifications and differences that this fact leads to, your game world might be very strange indeed – so it’s probably necessary to have all your pieces of folk wisdom lined up before character one is generated, and rigorously analyzed.

Furthermore, it would be best to establish a pattern of the folk wisdom being helpful (even if that only becomes obvious in hindsight) before you throw a “bad” one at the party – otherwise, they will simply ignore them after the first time one bites them. It would be especially desirable if it could become obvious to the party that the flaw in the first “bad one” wasn’t with the folk wisdom but in their interpretation or application of it.

That implies that you will need to choose the sequence of “pieces of folk wisdom” very carefully. This is your hand-crafted adventure seed, after all – and the seeds of adventures suitable to a party of 18th-level characters will be very different to those suitable to a party at 5th level.

Chart a course, a through-line for the entire campaign, a (short) statement about the way the campaign will change and evolve as the characters progress through it, and use that as your guide to the selection and sequencing of folk wisdom.

You may well find that you need many more items than you initially think. Besides, if you give the party three pieces of advice more-or-less at once, one that will turn out to have short term relevance, one that will be relevant to the middle of the adventure, and one that will be important to the resolution of the adventure – and don’t tell them to the PCs in order – they are never going to spot the bad ones. Especially if they decide “that can’t be right” (when it is) and get themselves in deeper trouble as a result.

Don’t be afraid to mess with game physics, cosmology, biology, evolution, history, etc, in order to achieve the counter-intuitive validity that at least some items on your list should have. Yes, rose bushes do wander under the full moon, in search of their lost love. It just so happens that their lost love is a legendary Vampire…. but take care to be consistent about it, try not to contradict yourself.

Think of it as just another way to lead the players down the garden path (to the pit trap at the end)….

0. Fundamentals (repeated for all posts:)

— The Sixes System is a minimalist game system suitable for any and all genres.

— It has been used in my Dr Who campaign since September 2014, which has just come to a successful conclusion.

— Characters are constructed using a point-buy methodology with NPCs generatable using die rolls for speed.

— Success or Failure on tasks is determined by adding dice to a pool based on ability and circumstances which are then rolled against a target number determined by the GM.

17. Characterization

There are four principal avenues of characterization in the Sixes System.

First, and perhaps strongest, is the choice of Optional Characteristic. Not necessarily how high a score the character has, though that is a secondary aspect, but the actual choice of characteristic. This choice serves to define what the character is naturally gifted at, and how the character will think and will approach any situation. A scientist, for example, should always be questioning and trying to understand; action may be required as a result of that understanding, but intelligence/data acquisition and analysis should always comes first. An Engineer will think in terms of systems and mechanical responses. A (medical) Doctor will translate the world in terms of health and well-being. You get very different interpretations of the character of Doctor Strange if he is a healer who happens to know magic, or a sorcerer who was once a healer. Personally, if creating the character using the Sixes System, I would define the stat as Sorcerer Supreme, implying that he has a responsibility to Magic itself and to those who use it which he acknowledges.

Second, and stronger than anything bar the Optional Characteristic definition, are the choice of Disadvantages, if any. Most characters will have some, and many will have several. These serve to restrict the otherwise free reign that a player has over his character – either prompting him to be inclined in a certain direction, or forcing him to avoid certain choices of action. Note that the value of any disadvantage should be campaign specific, and based on how frequently the disadvantage will restrict the character as well as how severely. As a general rule, the more abstract a Disadvantage is, the more frequently it will be a factor. GMs should also think carefully about the implications and consequences of choices of Disadvantage. A character who is “Nervous going into battle” may manifest this fear in many ways – shaking of the hands, a quivering voice, indecision and hesitation, a cold sweat, and other signs of stress like snapping at people. If the player doesn’t want the GM to have free reign in this area, he needs to define the Disadvantage more explicitly – and accept that its impact will probably be reduced, and hence its value to the character, as a result.

The third strongest characterization definition is implied and not explicit, unlike the first two items. This is the choice of skills and how they are defined by the player creating the character. To anyone who has read any of the comics (far more than is shown in the movies), Spider-man should have a skill in Wisecracks, or perhaps in Banter. I would permit the character to add “Distracting” to the title, thereby defining what it was that this was used to achieve. That skill, on the other hand, doesn’t belong anywhere near the Terminator – any Terminator!

The weakest, by far, are the actual characteristic values. This is in direct contrast to the experience offered by most RPGs. Once again, the characterization imparted is more by implication or consequence than it is explicit in definition, though the values may alter the relative frequency of occurrence of certain behaviors. A character with a Disadvantage, “Apologetic and Sincere after making a mistake,” yields a very different individual if he has a low Intelligence score or a high one. And note that this means that the character is not Intelligence-Oriented (See section 1.2).

18. NPCs

One benefit of the game mechanics is that it’s really easy to generate NPCs when you’re in a hurry.

1. Stats: roll 2d6 for the values. At least one should be 9+. Generate a value for the optional stat even though you don’t know what it is, yet.
2. Purposes: roll 1d6 for the values. At least one should be 3+.
3. Decide what the character does. Label the primary stat accordingly.
4. Skills: Make a list of possible skills that the character might need to use.. Ignore anything that doesn’t fit that definition, you can always add to the list if necessary. Roll 1d6 for the values, reading the results as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4.
5. List any Disadvantages that will be obvious factors in the character’s in-game manifestation – behavior, appearance, etc. Ignore the rest, but assume that they are there.

That’s it, you’re done.

But, even better, if you have some idea of the characterization and profession already, you can generate a single stat – the optional stat – and move on to step 2 immediately. As I said in step 5, you can always generate the rest if and when you need them.

19. The Scales Of Ordinary

The above technique generates characters of typical PC levels. There are times when a more mundane character is needed.

1. Stats: roll 1d6 for the values. Add 2 to one of the results. Generate a value for the optional stat even though you don’t know what it is, yet.
2. Purposes: roll 1d3 for the values. Add 1 to one of the results.
3. Decide what the character does. Label the primary stat accordingly.
4. Skills: Make a list of possible skills that the character might need to use.. Be more generalized than usual. Ignore anything that doesn’t fit the “might need to use” definition, you can always add to the list on-the-fly if necessary. Roll 1d6 for the values, reading the results as 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2. A result of 0 means that the character either doesn’t have the skill, or has it in an even more generic form, or has it just as a hobby. If that doesn’t seem right, “steal” a skill point from somewhere else.
5. List any Disadvantages that will be obvious factors in the character’s in-game manifestation – behavior, appearance, etc. Ignore the rest, but assume that they are there.

It should be remembered that characters are rarely “all they can be”. They are normally deficient in some areas related to their field of expertise. If a character is supposed to be an expert in their field, you can steal points to take that specific skill up to a very notable three or even four.

Image by naobim from Pixabay, Background by Jorge Guillen both from Pixabay, Color & background modifications by Mike. (I’m quite proud of the job I did on this one, so you can click on the image above to get the full 1285×1466-pixel version).

20. The Scales Of Extraordinary

You may also need to generate the occasional extraordinary character, superior to normal. This is appropriate for arch enemies to oppose a group of PCs, for example.

1. Stats: roll 3d6 for the values and discard the lowest. Generate a value for the optional stat even though you don’t know what it is, yet. Rearrange the scores so that the user-defined characteristic is highest.
2. Purposes: roll 2d6 for the values and discard the lower die for all but one Purpose, where you must discard the higher die. This lower purpose should have a value of three or less.
3. Decide what the character does. Label the primary stat accordingly.
4. Skills: Make a list of possible skills that the character might need to use.. Ignore anything that doesn’t fit that definition, you can always add to the list if necessary. Roll 1d6 for the values, reading the results as 0, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4. Pay special attention to any abilities that you want the character to have, including spells and super-powers.
5. You may raise one skill to a score of 5 by ‘stealing’ two skill points from another one or two skills.
6. List any Disadvantages that will be obvious factors in the character’s in-game manifestation – behavior, appearance, etc. Ignore the rest, but assume that they are there.

These settings are intended to accurately model superiority while still leaving room to grow and space for imperfections, flaws, and shortcomings.

Designer’s Notes & Discussions: Characters

There’s only one innovation of note within this section, and it’s actually more contained elsewhere and only expressed here.

The Innovations

“A character is defined, within the Sixes System, by what he tries to achieve and how he goes about accomplishing the achievement” – that’s how I explained it to the player in the Lovecraft’s Legacies campaign when he was creating his interpretation of the 11th Doctor, informed by the analysis I presented back in 2014 (Dr Who and the secrets of complex characterization). And it’s a fair representation of the way characterization works in the game system.

This does mean that it can take a bit of effort for a player or GM to get their head around when first encountering the system – it’s fine once you get used to it. I often find that the adjustment is more easily made by first converting a character – like Batman or Spider-man, or Buzz Lightyear or whatever – that the player/GM already knows very well. That way you can experiment a bit, you can nuance different elements of the character and get some idea of how that would alter the characterization rendered during play, and so on. For example, if you chose Batman’s “Optional Stat” to be “Crime-fighter”, you get a very different character to choosing “World’s Greatest Detective” – perhaps with an Obsession for fighting crime. Remember, too, that the same character sheet has to apply to both Batman and Bruce Wayne!

It is far often easier to have a character in mind – a profession and a distinct personality and even a history – and then to realize or actualize that character through the game mechanics, than it is to start with a completely blank slate. This points up one final aspect to the game system that needs to be highlighted: The mechanics of this system are very character- and role-play- driven, and not the other way around.

This can be either a benefit or a curse – that’s entirely a function of how you use what has been provided.

The final two parts of the System write-up deal with adapting it to suit different genres of campaign. I’ll post something else next week and resume this series at the start of next month. These aren’t meant to be comprehensive guides to the genres in question – certainly nothing on the order of the series on Pulp that I co-wrote a few years back – more information on how best to integrate the genre with the game system.

Over the years, there have been many attempts to combine RPGs and Board Games, with varying degrees of success. So pervasive is this pattern that it can only be concluded that it’s a far harder bridge to cross than seems initially apparent.

Attempts…

…like Monopoly, for which I developed variant rules within 6 months of exposure to RPGs, as a way of introducing some of the key concepts to my family. This simply gave each playing piece an individual special ability. I don’t remember most of them, these days, but let’s see… The boot could take one of his movement dice and give it to another player (before rolling). The thimble could advance to the next red property anytime they rolled double-sixes, collecting money if they passed go. The iron could add one free house per turn to a dark purple property (Old Kent Road and the other one), even if they didn’t own both of them. The train could advance to any other railway station if they landed on one; if un-owned, they could buy it from the bank, if owned then they had to pay the owner as usual, adding the extra movement to their die roll. The top hat earned $5 every turn for each Dark Blue (Mayfair, Park Lane) property they, or anyone else, owned. The Cannon could prevent any other piece from landing on the space they currently occupied, forcing them to move one space less. The dog could, if they landed on a space one behind another piece, choose to follow that piece instead of rolling next turn, and didn’t have to decide until that player rolled for movement. Hey, what do you know – I think that’s all of them! But there isn’t much roleplay to it.

…like Illuminati, which gave individual (and secret) victory conditions to each player. Like the monopoly variant described, this influenced in-game behavior to at least some extent, but that extent was quite limited – especially if tactical deception and misdirection were employed to disguise the victory condition. Again, there wasn’t a whole lot of roleplaying involved.

…like Gloomhaven, which is a more modern representative of the concept (review at gamecows.com/best-RPG-board-games/) and promise to unite the two, but reading the review, it seems more like an RPG with a tactically-abstract combat engine than a true Board Game. Still, coming at the problem from the other direction and putting the shoe on the other foot is an interesting approach.

…like Mice & Mystics (review, same location), which certainly evokes D&D and a number of other RPGs with its name! But when you dig into the review, it starts to seem more like a Board Game with story elements that are more or less central to the game-play – any roleplay involved is something you bring with you and tack onto the top, and neither inherent in, or central to, the game.

…like Descent, which takes the player-vs-GM ethos (of which Campaign Mastery has been critical in the past as bad GMing) and formalizes it by building a board game around it that takes the form of a dungeon-bash. No matter how well it might play as a board game, it’s so far removed from real RPGs that it rings hollow as a true union of the gaming spheres.

…like Mage Knight, which started as a miniatures game and got rebooted into an RPG that uses a deck-building mechanic to customize characters. But in terms of personalities and the expression of the same? – it’s still a tactical card / board game. There’s no enforcement of personality, nor even definition.

There are others, but the above give a sense of the state of things – there’s still a gap between RPG and Board Game elements, the two don’t seem to quite join up. “Puerto Rico” (now available in a Deluxe expanded edition, link is to the Amazon page) is as much an RPG as some of them, however great they might be as board game or as an RPG.

Into this sphere now comes Euthia: Torment Of Resurrection, which describes itself as “a board game” and an “open-world Fantasy RPG”. Given the existing examples of such hybrids, the question has to be posed: has someone finally nailed the brass ring?

Well, it certainly looks impressive:


…. but to really answer that question, we’ll have to dig a little deeper.

Convergence

Gaming formats have been converging for quite a while, now, so the time might be right for a successful blending of the two forms. Computer RPGs have been around for donkey’s years, and starting looking a LOT like tabletop RPGs from around the time of the SSI games of the 90s, starting with Pool Of Radiance.

More recently, online communications have reached the point of permitting the playing of true RPGs through an online interface, like Roll20 (Wikipedia page).

This convergence is significant, because Euthia isn’t actually trying to bridge the gap between Tabletop RPGs and Board Games; instead, it wants to connect to computer RPGs.

But It’s just possible that the Computer-game definition of an RPG is the perfect middleman for a shotgun wedding between a tabletop RPG and a board-game.

Certainly, when you look at some of the game elements, what springs to mind most readily are the ‘rulebooks’ that accompanied those old SSI computer games, transformed into a board game.

Characters

Some computer-based RPGs offer character generation; others do not. The primary concept of most of them is that the computer assumes the role of the GM and the player is, well, the player. In some cases, the character is pre-ordained, such as was the case with The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy computer game.

Character generation is a key attribute of tabletop RPGs.

Or is it? It’s quite normal for convention gaming to feature pre-generated characters that the participants then have to interpret.

Euthia has fixed characters, one to a player – but the definitions are as much a question of defining those characters as though they were the representatives of an entire character class in a Tabletop game as defining them as individuals.

Beyond that foundation, a character’s personality as an individual is up to the player. Unlike other games, there’s the potential for these personalities to actually impact game-play – so Euthia is actually more like a tabletop RPG than a computer game, at least in this respect. In terms of meeting the brief of a merger between these two forms of gaming, Euthia gets a big tick, then.

Even more significant is that there Euthia can accommodate from 1-4 players – but there are 5 archetypes (and a sixth is likely to soon be unlocked as a stretch goal).

For example, “Ael” is described as “a kind-hearted person who likes to help others” despite “being punished for using magic”. “Dral” is a “master of fighting,” whose “skill in handling weapons is unparalleled”. There’s lots of scope for further refinement in those descriptions – I can’t even tell, from reading them, whether or not the two would get along. What I can see is a situation in which they find common purpose, seeking the same outcome for different reasons..

Cooperation

Which brings me to the subject of cooperation. This is one of the strongest points of distinction about tabletop RPGs – that they are more cooperative and collaborative than traditional board games.

The PCs in Euthia are all rivals, but can nevertheless come to agreements with each other for short-term alliances. Trustworthiness as allies would obviously be informed by the preset character traits, but those pre-definitions are not the final word on the subject. Beyond those, the personality and competitiveness of the player becomes a contributing influence. It doesn’t matter how trustworthy the character description says the character is – if the player is one of those cut-throat ultra-competitive types, how much would you trust them?

Sound familiar? These are the same issues that RPGs have struggled with from the day someone first decided to pick the pocket of another PC.

Packaged Scenarios

Unlike most board games, there are multiple adventures and side-quests in Euthia, like volumes in a multi-novel epic. This makes it more like a tabletop RPG than most board games.

Unlike tabletop RPGs, a GM doesn’t get to design adventures; but you don’t get to design adventures in a computer RPG, either, and I know of several RPG campaigns that rely exclusively on canned adventures. This erodes the distinction between the different forms of game.

And the playing time is significant:

• Main story scenario Farruga: 60 minutes per player.
• Main story scenario Mirrezil: 90 minutes per player.
• Main story scenario Brasath: 120 minutes per player.
• Side-quest scenario The Hunt: 30 minutes per player.
• Side-quest scenario Faer Invocation: 50 minutes per player.
• Side-quest scenario Eminent Threat: 40 minutes per player.
• A main plot with 5 chapters and 12+ individual tiles for each.
• 86 Quest Cards like “Bring Raw Demonium to the Sorceror”.

Add all those up and you get a lot more than 390 minutes per player (6 1/2 hours). You might be able to get through the whole thing with two players in one extended gaming day, but I doubt it. Four? No way.

No, this is more like a campaign than an individual adventure. The more players you add, the more true this is.

And there are so many random elements – like those 86 quest cards, or the 40 different monsters (+4 more added on), plus encounter cards, plus dragons, plus spells and equipment, that the game could be played multiple times with each occasion bearing little-or-no resemblance to any other.

“Every hero has a different starting point, unique abilities, and a different learning curve. You will never see the same map twice.” – More like an RPG than like a typical board game, then.

Game Contents

Make no mistake, Euthia is still a high-end modern board game. Take a good look at the components shown in the photo at the start of this article.

The components (some of which I’ve mentioned already) include:

• 4 Game Boards
• Starting Map Tile
• 12 Chapter I Map Tiles
• 12 Chapter II Map Tiles
• 12 Chapter III Map Tiles
• 14 Chapter IV Map Tiles
• 12 Chapter V Map Tiles
• 40 Monster Cards
• 24 Gold cards
• 24 Silver cards
• 21 Control cards
• 66 Merchant tiles (goods the merchant has to sell, not all available at once)
• 68 Alchemist tiles (magic items the Alchemist has to sell, not all available etc)
• 51 Dragonslayer tiles (rewards for killing dragons)
• 68 gold tokens
• 42 treasure tiles
• 64 gem tokens
• 25 Mountain resource tiles
• 25 Lake resource tiles
• 24 Cave resource tiles
• 4 Elemental Cards
• 86 Quest Cards
• 31 Quest Tiles
• 5 Hero Boards
• 5 Hero Standees
• 22 Hero Tiles for Ael
• 21 Hero Tiles for Dral
• 21 Hero Tiles for Maeldur
• 21 Hero Tiles for Keleia
• 23 Hero Tiles for Taesiri
• 30 Action tokens
• 130 Shield Tokens
• 60 Damage Tokens
• 50 Trade Tokens
• 150 Interaction Tokens
• 10 Hero Dice
• 19 Dragon Cards
• “Die Of Hope”
• 36 Combat Cards for solo play
• Rulebook & Appendix
• 80 Other components!

And that’s without any add-ons, and without the miniatures and stretch-goal inclusions! They even have a tutorial video on how to unbox the game!

From a roleplaying perspective, perhaps the most interesting inclusion is the game setting itself – a bespoke game world with its own lore and legends. You get some of this information through the game elements and rules/appendix, but still more will be unlocked as part of the stretch-goal-after-next.

You can even give yourself a sneak preview by downloading the draft versions of the rule-book and appendix from the Kickstarter page!

Gameplay

“Euthia: Torment of Resurrection is a competitive strategic role-playing board game set in an open fantasy world. Players choose one of five heroes and uncover a modular map full of quests, precious natural resources, and dangerous enemies. The heroes gain experience, learn unique skills, obtain new equipment and treasure, and explore places of elemental power.”

The key elements of the gameplay are:

• Explore and Search
• Mine Resources
• Trade with Merchants
• Gain a reputation by defeating Monsters
• Complete Quests
• Interact With Elementals
• Unveil and Train to Level Up
• Specialize and Enhance your abilities
• Face the ultimate challenge of the Scenario
• Start another scenario
• Other players are rivals and enemies – but cooperation is possible

One form of roleplaying of which Campaign Mastery has been critical has been described using the rather derogatory term, “Roll-playing”. Despite that, there is an element of “roll-playing” in every RPG – players who will roll a die for an interaction with an NPC because they have an interpersonal skill rather than using that skill to guide what the character says and does.

And, to some extent, that’s entirely acceptable; it has to be, because the player is not the character. The game mechanics function as an interface between the player’s capabilities and those of the character that they are portraying.

Good Roleplaying is acting as though you had the interpersonal skill even if you don’t.

When PCs come to town and find a merchant, they will want to look over his wares. If there’s something there that catches their eye, they are just as likely to roll a die for their attempt to buy it as they are to take up valuable table time talking to a “nobody important”.

Now, as a GM, I don’t want the players to know which NPCs are important and which are not, so I’ll want them to talk with all of them. The practical line to walk is somewhere in between. But, setting that aside – in what way is the process of rolling a die in an attempt to buy something to determine the outcome of the negotiations any different to any other resolution mechanic – including the one in Euthia? Rhetorical question.

There are those who will decry the board game aspects of Euthia as not being those of an RPG – and they are missing the above point, or ignoring it out of some sense of “purity”. The problem is that no board game could ever meet such narrow definitions, and neither can a lot of RPGs.

Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part IV

There are an awful lot of good reasons to be enthusiastic about Euthia, then. In addition to those I’ve highlighted already, I’d like to touch on a few more:

• Game Craftsmanship – you don’t have to look at many of the illustrations on the Kickstarter to realize that this is first-class quality. And, while the game’s pieces are not a conclusive indicator, it would be very strange if that level of Craftsmanship did not extend to other areas of the project.
• Game Substance – the mere existence of what I think of as the “supplementary material” – lore and world-building notes and the like – suggests that this will be a game of substance.
• Sense Of Style – the whole Kickstarter page reeks of quality and style. There is nothing amateurish about it. And that, in turn, bodes well for the quality of that substance. A graphic demonstration is provided by the “Gameplay” title above.
• Sense Of Humor – there’s a gentle undercurrent of humor in the content of the fundraising page; never at the expense of the important business, but layered on top of it, a constant reminder that people play games like this to have fun. Well, Campaign Mastery puts a pretty high value on fun, too.

You can see an example of that sense of humor in the breezy attitude taken in the “Why This Might Not Be The Game For You” section, which I have excerpted from the Kickstarter text:

• Storytelling – Can’t live without flavor texts on cards? Then this might not be the game for you. That’s not to say, however, that we don’t have plenty of Lore behind Euthia and its characters to brighten your mood.
• Preference for Cooperation – As stated in our introduction, Euthia is a competitive, not cooperative, game. There are some changes in the Rulebook you can try to cooperate with other players, but note that it could change the game experience.
• Small Kitchen Table – Can you hardly eat lunch with four people present at your kitchen table? You might need to buy a bigger one for your living room!
• Time per Player – If you hate planning your moves, watching your opponents develop their strategies, or want to be playing every minute of the game, you may want to avoid playing a three- or four-player game.
• In-Game Over-thinkers – Do you know anyone who overthinks their strategies? I personally don’t, but others hate me for it. There are many situations which might require thinking through the best move to play, but that’s the fun part, right?
• Can’t Handle Dying – If you’ve read the story behind Euthia, you know that dying is a part of the game. If you can’t stand watching your hero die, be warned. While it is possible to stay alive, it’s going to be a challenge.
• Rivalry Between Players – When others take all [the] trading places and you have to pay them for trading, it sucks. But when they steal your treasures and quests right in front of you and kill you with a monster in combat, always remember, they can be next!
• Dice In-Game – Are you scared of dice? Don’t tell me, same here. But we manage to make it fun & fair. Shii’s blessing will help you on your journey.
• Long Rulebook – It’s long, we know. But let me assure you that you will find everything that you need to know. If you don’t want to read it, just watch [the] How to Play video.
• Tons of Components – When it comes to cleaning up the table after the game, you will hate us. We hate us! If you don’t like tons of components but still want to play the game, head over to Tabletopia and give it a try. One mouse-click and your table is clean and ready to start over again.

The Campaign Mastery verdict

In terms of being a tabletop RPG – board game hybrid, Euthia comes as close as anything else on the market – with caveats. Those caveats are mostly an expression of that not being what the game is even trying to achieve – bringing the flavor of a computer-based RPG into a board game.

That, they seem to have achieved, in spades.

Yes, it’s a lot of money – but look at the quantity of game components that you get for the money.

I have been assured by those behind the game that even if the fundraising campaign has ended, there will still be purchase options available for those who need them. They may not be as cool as the package a supporter gets, but don’t let the price deter you any longer than necessary.

The Public Verdict

The public at large seem to have no doubts. Not only have podcasters been falling over themselves to review the game, it met it’s fundraising target in just four hours and is presently 247.6% funded – it may well be 250% by the time you read this. That means that they have blow through four stretch goals in 6 days and are closing in on a fifth (US$14,789 to go as I type this).

I don’t know that Euthia is successful enough as a design entity to be called a game-changer; that appellation is thrown around all-too-casually for my liking.

This is clearly a significant event in the history of board games. Whether it proves to be one in the history of RPGs is harder to judge – but with success, there will be imitators and encouragement for others to try. And that can only mean that Euthia will deserve some of the credit, should any of them succeed.

Unfortunately, the launch was just a day or so too late for me to cover it last week, though we have been advertising it for the last couple of weeks. So anyone deciding to join the party after this review will be fashionably late.

As a GM and an RPG enthusiast, I can heartily recommend this board game. Take from that what you will!

A Tale Of Australian Cuisine

I have the advantage of living in a country which is remote from just about everywhere, in which much of the culture has been imported from Europe and the US, and parts of Asia. That’s particularly true when it comes to diet.

Our basic recipes have all been imported from elsewhere, modified to suit local needs and local conditions and local produce, and repackaged as Dinky-Di True-Blue Australian. Even when they aren’t, or the claims are a little questionable – did New Zealand really invent the Pavlova? They certainly think so!

A growing trend in the late 20th century and into the 21st has been the use of native ingredients (rather than imported stock). We are the only country in the world that doesn’t blink at the notion of eating our national symbols (the kangaroo and emu, chosen because neither can walk backwards). Offer an American a serving of bald eagle, and they would be horrified (setting aside the fact that they’re an endangered species) – it would be an affront to their patriotism.

These native ingredients have exotic names and unusual flavors. Typically, they will get substituted into existing recipes, many of which are variations on the imported originals.

Australian Burgers often have beetroot and sometimes pineapple on them. Australian Pizza is different from both Italian and American in small and subtle ways. Australian Chinese Food is different from American Chinese Food and from Chinese Chinese Food.

The great foodie explosion here over the last couple of decades has eroded some of those distinctions, as though serving the Australianized Dishes was low-brow and gauche, while serving the traditional versions is exotic and up-market. This ignores the fact that the Australianized versions became popular for a reason. The inroads being made by “native ingredients” can be seen as a cultural counter-movement to this highfalutin’ pretentiousness, a way to Australianize recipes that is culinarily-acceptable in the face of this search for “authenticity.”

A Tale Of Tales

Cooking programs on TV have exploded in popularity right alongside these trends. Masterchef Australia – an Australianized version of a British show that failed – is now shown in more than 40 countries and rates highly in all of them. In part, that’s because we are a natural melting pot which is quite prepared to mix one good idea with another and see what happens.

We have never been so well-served with information about food. The US has a ‘food network’ on Cable TV – we have one cooking channel Free-To-Air, and until recently, had two, and neither of the two best-rating food shows on TV were shown on either. Almost every major network has its own food shows, some more than others. At first, there was a tendency to schedule these in direct competition with each other, but eventually the network executives figured out that a lot of people would watch BOTH if given the chance. Competition between the shows is still strong – but its’ no longer direct.

A Tale Of Names

I’m sure most people will have heard of Top Gear – it used to be the BBC’s #1 export around the world. They did a special in two parts called “The Ultimate Road Trip”, and then a sequel, “The Ultimate Road Trip II” (also in two parts). A major plot thread in the second pair of specials revolved around one of the presenters, Richard Hammond, discovering that the only place Spaghetti Bolognaise is named that is outside of Italy – in Bologna itself, the name refers to a completely different dish.

I’m sure that to many viewers in Britain and the US, this was an astonishing discovery. It certainly wasn’t news to me, or to a great many other Australians, though; we had learned the fact from “Food: Fact or Fiction” or from “Good Eats” or from any one of a dozen celebrity chefs who have mentioned it in the course of various programs – and I think it was even mentioned in a Masterchef Australia Masterclass back in the early days.

Nevertheless, the name has stuck, and been carried world-wide, and the dish itself is responsible for a significant part of the tourism enjoyed by Bologna (or it was, until Covid-19).

Nor is it the only example. Place names have been attached to an extraordinary number of dishes through the years, such as

Boston Cream Pie, Philly Cheese-steak, Buffalo Wings, Boston Baked Beans, Mississippi Mud Pie, Nashville Hot Chicken, Long Island Iced Tea, Chicken Kiev, Singapore Noodles, Swedish Meatballs, Bisque (believed named for the Bay Of Biscay), Cantaloupe (transplanted from Persia to the Papal Gardens in Cantalupo near Rome), Fig Newton (actually invented in Philadelphia), Frankfurter – the list just goes on and on.

Add in the number of dishes named for people, like Peach Melba, Fettuccine Alfredo, Caesar Salad, Carpaccio, Bananas Foster, Frangipane Tarts, Earl Grey Tea, Kung Pao Chicken (named for a late Qing Dynasty official whose title was Gong Bao, or Palace Guardian), Margherita Pizza, Bloody Mary, Mornay Sauce, Nachos, Napoleon Brandy, Oysters Rockefeller, the aforementioned-Pavlova, Praline, Strawberries Romanoff, Salisbury Steak, Beef Stroganoff, Crepes Suzette, and (most famously), Sandwiches – to name just a few of the ones most people will recognize.

Add in the still-greater number of examples of produce named for either of these two things – Moreton Bay Bugs come to mind (a type of seafood), and Barramundi (a fish). And Philadelphia Cream Cheese (which actually comes from New York, it was named thus to give it Cache in an era when Philadelphia was a culinary giant in the US), Vidalia Onions, Brussels Sprouts, John Dory, Boysenberries, Galliano (liqueur), and Bartlett Pears

Names are not always a reliable guide to origins. Aside from the Spaghetti Bolognaise example mentioned earlier, consider: French Toast (actually English), Creme Anglais (French), Welsh Rarebit or Welsh Rabbit (English), English Muffins (American), Scotch Eggs (English), Swiss Cheese (American), Hawaiian Pizza (Canadian), Szechuan Ginger Beef (Canadian), Dom Perignon (Champagne), Mongolian Barbecue (a Taiwanese Stir-fry!), and Mongolian Beef (which doesn’t come from Mongolia).

Then there are Places named after foods – Oyster Bay, for example.

There are two phenomena at work here of which a GM should be cognizant: The human appetite for variety and exotic flavors – i.e. the “Native Ingredients” trend – and the use (and misuse) of people and places in food names.

The “Native Ingredients” Trend

If it looks edible, a human will eventually stick it in their mouth. If it doesn’t or isn’t, another human will cut it open to see if part of it is edible. If the answer is still no go, still more humans will try to find a way of cooking or processing the ingredient to make it palatable.

Combine all that with the multitude of exotic creatures found in a D&D campaign – a multitude that should be matched if not exceeded by the number of exotic plants in any rational bio-system – and you have a cornucopia of new dishes awaiting invention and naming.

And that’s before we even get into the culinary traditions of the other sentient races.

The Famous Names Trend

Famous people of the past, famous places, and obscure places that just happened to invent something, sometime, should all be reflected in the names of the exotic produce and exotic recipes that should fill your culinary landscape.

These name-drops should come without explanation, for the most part – they should simply be there, part of the landscape, a moment of color.

That changes when the PCs travel to or through one of these locations. Locals should revel in the distinction that comes from being the source of a famous dish (if correctly attributed), and PCs should be told of expectations (whether it’s true or not). I understand that tourist requests for Spaghetti Bolognaise are greatly irritating to chefs from Bologna (though the waiters don’t let on, of course). To give in would be to undermine the true individuality and identity of the region – so if you want what you think is a Spag Bol, you should ask for a Beef Ragout (pronounced Rag-ooh).

A geography of Cuisine

In addition, there should be some dishes that are common in one geographic area and rare elsewhere – in Lapland, reindeer meat is easily available, but elsewhere, it is uncommon, while other forms of deer meat are exotic but not unheard of.

Remember, too, that most preservatives were unknown, but that various techniques of preparing food to last were not – and that if it’s on the menu, someone has to go out and get it.

Pate de Flambe Draco sounds exciting – but it would be dreadfully expensive if it really derives from the Livers of Red Dragons, costing hundreds or thousands of gold an ounce. Unless, of course, it’s something rather more common with strong spices and the name is misleading.

Play games with the foods, and the names of foods, in your campaign – both to entertain yourself and your players, and to earn a little extra verisimilitude on the side. That’s a winning dish in my book!

0. Fundamentals (repeated for all posts:)

— The Sixes System is a minimalist game system suitable for any and all genres.

— It has been used in my Dr Who campaign since September 2014, which has just come to a successful conclusion.

— Characters are constructed using a point-buy methodology with NPCs generatable using die rolls for speed.

— Success or Failure on tasks is determined by adding dice to a pool based on ability and circumstances which are then rolled against a target number determined by the GM.

13. Simple Attacks

A simple attack is one-on-one. It may or may not involve the use of a weapon. Success or failure is determined in the same way as any other skill use with one exception: the target value is based on the defender’s stats, not the attacker’s abilities. If the means of defining the target value hasn’t been explained to the attacking player, they will see no overt differences between an attack roll and any other example of skill use.

• Attack Roll: #d6 = Stat used* + Purpose used + Appropriate Skill* + Weapon* ranks
  &nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:* = may be defined by weapon specifics.
• Target Number: (Stat used for defense + Purpose + Relevant Skill, if any) × A + #sixes × (6-A).
  • These values normally derive from the Defending Character, but there can be exceptions. Most artillery doesn’t target a specific individual or location or vehicle, it targets the surface where those things are expected to be. In such cases, it can be more appropriate to treat this as a normal skill use instead of an attack.
  • The defending character can normally specify what defensive technique they are employing, which in turn defines the Stat, Purpose and Skill. However, some weapons may mandate one or more of these specific elements; this is especially true of area effect attacks, where a direct strike is not necessary in order to inflict harm.
  • A is a critical value, the required average, which varies with the manner of attack and is set by the GM accordingly. Some weapons and some defenses may specifically adjust this value. This process is so important that it will be detailed in its own subsection, below.

Range is simply a factor that the GM should use to allocate required sixes and is divided into three categories: close, moderate, and long. Specifics will vary from weapon to weapon, but there are some generic values to use (in the absence of anything more specific) given in subsections 4.5 and 4.6.

13.1 Setting A

The attack mode in combination with the defense mode defines the A that is required. In general, the more such a combination relies on battering through defenses by force, the higher the target but the higher the damage that occurs on a success. The more a combination is all about speed and maneuvering, the lower the target (success comes more easily) but the less damage is done.

Base A is normally 3. This may be increased to 3.5 if the GM wants successful attacks to be more infrequent, effectively de-emphasizing combat, or reduced to 2.75 if the GM wants the campaign to be more of a meat-grinder. It is entirely permissible to establish one general baseline and to vary that for specific combat encounters.

While there are some rules below, this is extremely responsive to genre, and GMs should feel free to establish some variation to better simulate the style of adventuring that he wants.

The following list integrates all the options in sequence of likelihood to damage:

• Force vs Resistance: +1 A, +1/d damage
• Force vs Force: +0.75 A, +2/3d
• Force vs Finesse: +0.75 A, +1/2d
• Force vs Dodge: +0.5 A, +1/3d
• Resistance vs Force: +1 A to disarm, +0.5 to damage without disarming, +1/4d
• Resistance vs Resistance: +0.5 A, +2/3d
• Maneuver vs Resistance: +0.5 A, +1/3d
• Resistance vs Finesse: +0.25 A, +1/3d
• Finesse vs Resistance: +0.25 A, +0d
• Maneuver vs Force: +0.25 A, -1/3d
• Finesse vs Dodge: +0 A, -1/2d
• Resistance vs Dodge: +0 A, +0d
• Finesse vs Force: +0 A, -1/2d
• Maneuver vs Dodge: +0 A, -2/3d
• Finesse vs Finesse: -0.25 A, -1/d
• Maneuver vs Finesse: -0.5 A, -1/d

This is the same list, but in related groups of attack mode:

• Force vs Force: +0.75 A, +2/3d
• Force vs Resistance: +1 A, +1/d damage
• Force vs Dodge: +0.5 A, +1/3d
• Force vs Finesse: +0.75 A, +1/2d
• Resistance vs Force: +1 A to disarm, +0.5 to damage without disarming, +1/4d
• Resistance vs Resistance: +0.5 A, +2/3d
• Resistance vs Dodge: +0 A, +0d
• Resistance vs Finesse: +0.25 A, +1/3d
• Maneuver vs Force: +0.25 A, -1/3d
• Maneuver vs Resistance: +0.5 A, +1/3d
• Maneuver vs Dodge: +0 A, -2/3d
• Maneuver vs Finesse: -0.5 A, -1/d
• Finesse vs Resistance: +0.25 A, +0d
• Finesse vs Dodge: +0 A, -1/2d
• Finesse vs Force: +0 A, -1/2d
• Finesse vs Finesse: -0.25 A, -1/d

Some definitions:

• Force as an attack is confronting defenses head-on and battering your way through them. Think broadswords and axes – and most firearms and crossbows.
• Force as a defense is confronting attacks head-on and attempting to prevent the attack even reaching any defense. Think of it as defending yourself with a broadsword.
• Resistance as an attack is attempting to use a shield to create an opening in the enemy’s defense and then taking advantage of it.
• Resistance as a defense is using some sort of shield to absorb the attack. It includes taking cover.
• Maneuver is attempting to re-position yourself relative to the target through some sort of movement (includes acrobatic & gymnastic moves) in order to attack a vulnerable flank or rear.
• Dodge is the defensive equivalent of Maneuver and represents an attempt to be somewhere where the attack isn’t, or to position your body and limbs to achieve the same end. It includes throwing yourself prone in order to take advantage of low cover.
• Finesse as an attack is employing a weapon that relies on speed and skill, not force. Think rapiers and epees and lightsabers. Finesse also includes any other form of ‘attack’ through skill use, eg Engineering (to drop a ceiling or support timber on an enemy), Persuasion (talking the enemy out of attacking you), Intimidation (convincing the enemy that it’s too dangerous to attack you), etc., and the use of bows.
• Finesse as a defense is employing a weapon that relies on speed and skill to deflect an attack into a place that the defender isn’t or to block it. It also includes tricks like attempting to shoot a weapon out of your enemy’s hand.

Obviously, there may be situations not covered by the above; these should be interpreted by the GM using these as guidelines. In general, the higher the A adjustment, the more ‘bang’ the character should get if he succeeds.

Furthermore, the busy GM can ignore all of this as he sees fit – no tweaks to the chance to inflict damage and no adjustment to the amount of damage any given weapon inflicts – or can substitute his own values that seem appropriate to the situation, using these as a guideline.

13.2 Allowing for Cover

Cover works by adjusting A:

• no cover: -0.5 A
• partial cover: +0 A
• substantial cover: +0.5 A
• total cover: +0.75 A
• active cover: as above +0.25 A, to a maximum of +1 A.
  Active cover is cover behind which the target can maneuver without being observed by the attacker. It includes things like trenches and walls, and may also include vehicles, etc., depending on the circumstances.

The GM needs to adjust the above for circumstances – if a character has cover but the cover is a flimsy material and the attacker can see through it in some way, it might as well not be there, and there is a lot of ground in between these extremes – so considerable judgment is needed.

13.3 Improvised Weapons

Improvised weapons are almost always Finesse attacks. They do 1 Color A dice in addition to any from base stats (see 13.6).

13.4 Voluntary Adjustment

This is a game where intentions matter. Characters are at liberty to examine the circumstances of the fight and voluntarily “pull their punch”. This adds a further +0.5 A adjustment but halves any damage inflicted and adds an extra Color A damage die (see 13.6 below). When this is done with firearms, it represents a deliberate attempt to only wound the target.

13.5 Kill-shots

In some genres, it may be appropriate for characters (especially villains) to occasionally attempt a Kill-shot. This adds an additional +1 A but triples the number of Color B dice, making it far more likely to produce lethal effects (see 13.6 below).

Note that it is entirely possible to attempt a “Kill-shot” with an Improvised Weapon, but this is generally a sign of desperation.

The downside of a Kill-shot attempt is that the attacking character is at -4 to their defense for the next round. So it banks heavily on putting the target down. Snipers attempt to use concealment and camouflage (and sometimes a prone or low position) to protect them despite this vulnerability.

Note that a coup-de-grace qualifies as attempting a Kill-shot.

13.6 Damage

The number of dice of damage inflicted is specified by weapon. If a character is attempting to use a raw skill (punching with Strength, martial arts with DEX or some other appropriate stat), the number of dice is the Stat used + Purpose used divided by five.

Each excess six that is rolled adds 1 additional damage dice to the total unless the character is “pulling his punches”, in which case it takes 2 excess sixes to add an extra die.

Half (round up) of these dice should be color A, the rest color B.

• Color A = temporary stat damage to defensive stat (lasts 1 round)
• Color B = enduring stat damage to defensive stat (heal 1 per hour)
• Difference = persistent damage to defense purpose (heal d6 per day)

Most of the attack forms described in 13.1 come with a damage adjustment. These are “extra damage dice” relative to the number of dice already in a damage pool, and should be included before division into the two colors.

For example, Resistance Vs Resistance attacks do +2/3 dice. If the number of damage dice is 2, that isn’t enough to meet the threshold, and no bonus is awarded for the attack.

If the character rolled one extra (natural) six more than required by the defending character’s target and the GM’s adjudication of circumstances, that becomes a third damage die, which does meet the threshold, adding 2 more dice to the total, which is 3+2=5 dice as a result. If the attacker rolled 2 excess sixes, that becomes 4+2=6 dice; a third excess d6 becomes 5+2=7 dice; and a fourth takes the baseline to six dice, and adds another +2 dice to the total, for 6+4=10 dice of damage.

The dice indicated are rolled and totaled within their colors and any defense provided by armor or shields, is applied to the roll. The remaining dice are totaled and the damage applied to the target.

Armor normally subtracts 0-5 per die (low values are far more common than high); Shields subtract 1 per die from color B and difference. However, weapon bonuses and magic reduce the value of armor and shields.

If you were in Armor 4 plate mail, with a shield 1, you are effectively eliminating all dice that don’t roll a six from the damage roll, and reduce those to doing only one point.

If your weapon had a +1 enhancement, you not only get an extra die with which to attack (and an extra chance to roll a six), you reduce the effectiveness of the defense by 1 – so only 1’s, 2’s, 3;s, and 4’s are eliminated from the damage roll, 5’s are reduced to 5-4=1, and sixes are reduced to 6-4=2.

If your weapon had a +3 enhancement (exceptionally rare), you would not only get three extra attack dice, but would reduce the defense to 5-3=2. Only ones and twos would be ineffective; 3’s would inflict 1 point, 4’s would do 2 points, 5’s would do 3, and 6’s would do 4.

If you had the 10 dice of damage demonstrated above (four extra sixes on the attack roll), that would be 5 dice of each color. Each of those dice could do 0 or 4 or anything in between – the average is 10/6. Multiply that by 5 dice and we get 50/6, which works out to 8 and 2 left over – so 4 times in six, the average will be 8 points and 2 times in six, the average will be nine.

That’s an average of 8 points of temporary damage and 8 points of enduring damage – and it could be worse. Few characters will have stats of 16; the odds are good that the success will make the character unconscious, and if the stat is 8 or less, may even put the character into critical condition.

13.7 Forced Maneuvering

On a successful attack, the attacking character may move the defending character 2m per d6 damage in any direction physically possible. Note that many weapons will require the last die of movement to be “down”, and some weapons may add or subtract “virtual dice” for the purposes of causing movement. If an attack does no damage, the attacked character may choose where this movement leaves him positioned.

13.8 Effects and Natural Healing

A round, for these purposes, is defined as other characters having the opportunity to do something. “Walk up and execute a coup-de-grace” is “something”. “Take the money and run” is “something”. “Tie him up” is many “somethings” – “bind his hands” is “something”.

13.8.1 Unconsciousness

If a character runs out of stat due to temporary stat damage, he is rendered unconscious. He gets a recovery attempt 1 round later per point of stat below zero; if this succeeds, the character comes to, but must spend the next round reorienting himself, which includes attempting to estimate how long he was ‘out’. He will recover the remainder of his temporary stat loss one round later.

If the recovery check doesn’t succeed, the character will heal 1 point of temporary stat damage per minute; each time they do so, they may make another recovery attempt.

Recovery attempts are determined by adding half of the character’s highest remaining stat to the (temporarily reduced) stat affected by the attacks he has endured (the half-stat should play into the GM’s choice of descriptive language for the process). To this, the character may add the value of whichever Purpose best describes how the character would attempt to recover – usually Defend/Repair, but occasionally Attack/(Re-)build or Analyze/Understand.

The result is the number of d6 that the character has to roll. Only dice that come up six are counted; they persist until the next check, when they are assumed to have been rolled and come up sixes. After each check, the character heals 1 point of temporary stat loss per six rolled. If those are sufficient to return the character to positive stats, the character will wake up but remain groggy for the next d6 rounds, at the end of which time, any remaining temporary stat damage will be recovered.

If multiple stats are negative at the same time, the character can only heal one of the affected stats each minute, and all of them have to be positive before he will awaken.

If the character is so badly impacted by temporary damage that the recovery total is zero or less dice, he is in a coma.

13.8.2 Coma

Comatose patients can be healed by medical intervention as though the temporary stat damage was Persistent (see 13.10 below).

Recovery attempts take place once per hour, and the character can now add 1 dice for every stat above zero. However, in order to heal one point of damage, all dice on the roll must come up sixes (Sixes still accumulate from roll to roll).

Only when sufficient recovery has taken place that the character is positive in all stats does he return to a normal “unconscious” state and resume rolling as described above, with a pool total of no sixes.

13.8.3 Critical Condition

If a character has accumulated sufficient Enduring stat damage that a stat is reduced to zero or less from that alone, he is in a critical condition and will lose 1 point from one of his Purposes each minute (player’s choice as to which).

Treatment by a Paramedic or Surgeon (see 13.9 below) may first slow this loss to 1 every 2 hours, 1 every 3 hours,.1 every 4 hours, and so on up to 1 a day, then none – a total of 24 steps. Additional sixes above target count as additional steps along this sequence.

Multiple rolls may be thus required to stabilize the patient, i.e. prevent further losses. Failure reduces the benefits by 1 step and prevents further attempts by a Paramedic; full surgery is required. A critical failure reduces the benefits by 1 step per natural 1 rolled.

A paramedic’s function is purely to stabilize the patient sufficiently that they can survive surgery. What that actually means is a decision to be made by the GM, who can assess wound lethality as grades 1 through 4 – where 4 is the most serious. More on that in section 13.10. As a general rule of thumb, 3 hours without a loss is ample for a grade-1, six hours for a grade-2, 12 hours for a grade 3, and 18 hours for a grade 4. This should be ample time to perform the surgery involved, with a reasonable allowance for setbacks and complications along the way.

Of course, there’s the caveat that the more serious injuries (grades 3 and 4) might need such surgery before this can be achieved – in fact, the more serious the injury, the more likely this is to occur.

13.8.4 Death and Resuscitation

If one of the character’s Purposes is reduced to zero or less, they are facing Immanent Death – or, more precisely, are technically Dead but may be able to be resuscitated. Every 10 seconds that passes reduces all four of the Purposes by 1 and requires a survival check. This is either a Strength or Self-defined Stat roll – no skills, and no purposes. Some character traits may add additional dice, and some disadvantages remove dice, however.

To continue dying, the roll must produce one natural six for each point of Purpose below zero. On a success, the character may restore 1 point to that Purpose. If the character doesn’t produce enough sixes, they may apply the one(s) they have rolled, but their condition will worsen. Eventually, as the Purposes deteriorate, more sixes will be required than the roll permits, and the character will be irretrievably dead.

For example, let’s say that a character takes 7 points of damage to his Defend purpose, which was only 4 to start with. That puts him at -3. His other Purposes are 4, 3, and 2, respectively. His self-defined stat is Pulp Hero at 9; the GM considers that to include heroic survival of injuries, and so can be used for a survival check. Since his Pulp Hero is 9, and his strength only 7, the player accepts that offer.

When the time comes to make a survival check, he loses one point from each of his Purposes: which are now 3, 2, -4, and 1 as a result, which means that he needs 4 sixes on his 10-dice roll. The odds are not good. The character does well, rolling three sixes, but not well enough. He applies the three successes to his defense purpose, raising it to -1.

When the next survival check is due, the character again loses 1 from each of the 4 Purposes, reducing them to 2, 1, -2, and 0, respectively. The good news: the character only requires 2 sixes on his 10 dice. The bad news: he only gets one. He applies that 1 to the defense Purpose, again raising it to -1.

When the third survival check is required, the Purposes again decline, now to 1, 0, -2, -1. The character now needs 3 sixes. He only gets one, which he applies to his defense, again lifting it to -1. His Purposes are now 1, 0, -1, -1.

Forty seconds after being wounded, his Purposes are again reduced, now reaching 0, -1, -2, -2. The character needs five sixes from his 10 dice. He gets two, and applies them all to his defense, finally getting it up to zero. He is clearly fighting for his life and just barely clinging on.

Fifty seconds after his injury, the Purposes are reduced once more, to -1, -2, -1, -3. He needs 7 sixes from 10 dice to stabilize, and knows that is not likely to happen. What’s more, if the slide into oblivion is not checked, at the 3 minute mark, his Purposes will be -2, -3, -2, and -4 – a total of -15. Since there is no way to get 15 sixes from 10 dice, he will be fully dead, having taken a minute to die. To hang on for one more roll, he needs to recover to the point that the loss in Purpose will be only 10; and 10-4=6. So one six will be enough to buy him another chance.

He again does well, again getting 3 sixes. He applies one to his Explain, and two to his Analyze, improving his position to -1, -1, -1, -1.

At the one minute mark, still clinging to life, his Purposes deteriorate again, to -2, -2, -2, -2. That means that he now needs 8 sixes from ten rolls to recover, but two will be enough to buy another ten seconds. He rolls, and gets those two minimum; he applies them both to his attack, just so that he can say that he has recovered ground in all four Purposes. He is now at 0, -2, -2, -2.

At one minute and ten seconds, he enters what he knows will be terminal decline. His purposes drop to -1, -3, -3, -3, and he needs all ten dice to come up sixes – but four will continue his protracted death spiral. He doesn’t need Table 6 to know that there is very little chance of rolling 60 on 10d6 – in fact, there’s less than 0.1% chance, according to that table. But getting 4 dice to come up box cars might just be possible. He rolls, and gets 2 sixes, and dies.

A paramedic can attempt to resuscitate the dying character. This requires a paramedic or surgeon roll. Every six – natural or virtual – over the minimum requirement adds 1 to the character’s wounded Purposes. This requires CPR and mouth-to-mouth as a minimum; if a defibrillator is available, it permits any one results to be re-rolled. If the result is enough to elevate all the character’s Purposes above zero, the patient has been resuscitated. But paramedic rolls for this purpose can only be made every thirty seconds. If the paramedic rolls no sixes over the minimum, he at least prevents the next survival check.

The example therefore shows how critical it is for a dying patient to receive immediate medical intervention.

If a paramedic was at the patient instantly, before the first survival check, the paramedic would have needed three sixes to resuscitate the patient – quite doable. Even a single extra six or two at this point would have been enough, given the patient’s rally at the ten second mark. Let’s assume that there’s no defibrillator, that the paramedic has 8 (stat) +3 (purpose) +3 (skill) +2 (medical bag) = 16d6, and that the GM requires 2 + 2 = 4 sixes. That means 12 dice at an average (set by the GM) of 3.5 – giving a target of 42+24=66. The paramedic rolls 2 × 1’s, 3 × 2’s, 4 × 3’s, no 4’s, 3 × 5’s, and 4 × 6’s. That’s a total of 59 – not enough.

Thus, the patient’s story described above continues unchanged until after the thirty second mark, when the purposes have declined to 0, -1, -2, -2, and the patient needs five sixes from his 10 dice. The paramedic can make a second check before that. This time he rolls 75 – nine more than the target, which is 9/(6-3.5) = 9/2.5 = 18/5 = 3 and three-fifths extra virtual sixes. That adds three to the character’s Purposes, reducing them to 0, -1, -1, 0. The character only needs two sixes from his 10 dice, which is what he achieved – so the patient has been successfully resuscitated.

But what if the Paramedic didn’t reach the character until twenty seconds after the injury – still very quickly? With all else unchanged?

That means that the first (failed) attempt took place at 20-something seconds, and the second can take place at 50-something seconds. The patient’s grim determination to hang on has brought him to the point of having Purposes of -1, -1, -1, -1 at the 50-second mark. The Paramedic roll yields three extra sizes, as explained above, so three of these can be raised to the zero point. The next paramedic check is possible at 80-something seconds.

At the one-minute mark, the patient is able to skip his next survival roll, because the paramedic check succeeded, and he does not deteriorate, either. At 70 seconds, he again begins to slip away, his Purposes deteriorating to -1, -1, -1, -2, and he needs five sixes. He gets two, and applies them to the failing Analyze Purpose.

At 80 seconds, he declines to -2, -2, -2, -1 and gets 2 sixes, which he applies to his Attack Purpose. This is the point at which he died without intervention; with the paramedic’s assistance, he has been able to hang on. His purposes are 0, -2, -2, -1.

The paramedic rolls one of those amazingly lucky rolls that come along every now and then – no 1’s, 2’s, 1 × 3’s, 4 × 4’s, 6 × 5’s, and 4 × 6’s, an even better total of 79. That’s 13 more than the target. 13/(6-3.5) = 13/2.5 = 26/5 = 5 and one-fifth sixes more than needed. He applies the five points of healing and gets the Purposes to 0, 0, 0, 0. Since none of them are below zero, the character is no longer dying.

Thirty seconds later, the paramedic is able to make a normal paramedic healing check. For this check, because the patient is no longer in danger of dying, the referee lowers the average for success to 3, and reduces the number of sixes needed to 2+1=3.. But the Paramedic has to decide how many of his three ranks he is going to allocate to healing and how many to a successful roll. Since the patient is no longer at risk, he decides to set aside all three for healing, and rely on his medical bag to give him the edge needed for success. That means that he now has 8 (stat) +3 (purpose) +2 (medical bag) = 13d6.

That sets a target of 3 × 10 = 30+18 = 48. The paramedic responds with another good roll, mostly fives, for a total of 55, 7 more than the target. But the degree of success is no longer important; once he has succeeded, he does 1d6 healing per rank in his paramedic skill. He rolls 3d6 and gets 13. The patient would like to distribute this healing amongst his Purposes, but he can’t (as explained below); he has to first apply it to stat damage (temporary and then enduring), which will almost certainly consume all 13. The patient will have to recover most of his lost Purposes at the normal rate, though further medical care may assist in that process.

Note that the recovery of Purpose at the full rate shown requires complete bed-rest. If characters are active for part of the day, the recovery is proportionally reduced. A character that rests only for 8 hours and otherwise maintains a normal work schedule is only resting for 1/3 of the day, and so only gets 1/3 of the healing – a d2, in other words. A character who rests for 12 hours a day is only resting for half the day, and only gets d3 recovery. A character who rests for 16 hours a day is resting for 2/3 of the day, and recovers 2/3 of the normal rate, or a d4.

Various medical supports can double this rate or add +# to it. Medication administered under a doctor’s supervision adds +1 to +3 (depending on the effectiveness of the drug and the skill of the doctor). Constant nursing attention (or a bio-bed of some sort) can double it. Regeneration tanks or other such techniques can triple it. A rank-4 regeneration spell could quadruple it. But the character has to be healing naturally in the first place.

13.9 Further general guidelines

Attacks and defensive responses need to be specified in the usual manner. Where the character being attacked has no way of knowing that he IS being attacked, he cannot make any defensive action that is predicated upon such knowledge – you can’t dodge a sniper’s bullet. However, if the normal activity warrants it, an object may fortuitously intervene – this is for the GM to adjudicate. The more distant the shot and the slower the muzzle velocity of the round, the more travel time is involved for the attack, and the more likely it is that the character will have partial or full cover when it does, or have turned aside.

13.10 Healing Interventions

Natural healing rates are specified by the type of damage inflicted. When that’s not enough, or a character is in more serious condition, medical intervention may be required.

Medical intervention: does 1d6 healing per skill rank on success. Ranks allocated cannot be used to improve the chances of success. Damage is healed in order temporary – enduring – persistent. The Interval before a further intervention roll is permitted is the current timetable of healing (next round, next hour, or next day) – so it’s per round while there is temporary stat damage, per hour once all the temporary stat damage is healed (which may take longer than a round if the character is unconscious or comatose) Only once all stat damage has been healed can healing be directed toward Purpose damage – this is why it is called persistent damage, it lasts a long time. A critical failure on an intervention check does 2d6 damage.

The medical skills that are used to treat the different kinds of damage are:

• Temporary Damage: First Aid
• Enduring Damage: Paramedic
• Persistent Damage: Surgeon or Surgery

These are restricted in Skill Ranks:

• Paramedic Ranks cannot be higher than First Aid -1
• Surgeon or Surgery cannot be higher than Paramedic -2

A surgeon’s function is to remove malfunctioning and permanently damaged organs or parts of organs and replace them as necessary. A minor (grade 1) surgery is one in which no organ removals or organ replacements are actually necessary. This includes everything from stitching a bad wound to excising cysts or ingrown toenails. Removing non-essential organs is grade 2 and includes removing tonsils and appendixes, bowel resections, intestinal repairs, and even minor microsurgery to reattach digits. Grade 3 refers to more serious or substantial surgeries like skin grafts, minor coronary bypasses, etc. Grade 4 refers to repairing damage that is immediately life-threatening.

13.11 Healing Magic and Science

Healing spells and hi-tech wizardry should specify which of these skills it is equivalent to, and respect the limitations appropriately.

An example, using D&D/Pathfinder terminology, might be:

• Cure Light Wounds Spell (First Aid), 4 ranks
• Cell Regenerator (Paramedic), 3 ranks
• Cure Serious Wounds Spell (Paramedic), 1 rank
• Programmable Cyberdoc (0 ranks)

This character can heal using his different tools. His paramedic skill, i.e. his skill in using the “Cell Regenerator”, is as high as his “Cure Light Wounds” permits. He is better at using the Regenerator than he is using his other Paramedic-substitute, “Cure Serious Wounds”. He knows the minimum possible to actually Program the Cybernetic Doctor; his skill can be improved by 1 rank (= Paramedic -2). It seems likely that he has only just increased his skill with the Skill Regenerator and did not have enough points left to improve his skill with the Cyberdoc.

14. Complex Attacks

A complex attack is one that is aimed at achieving a strategic goal as well as a tactical one. Tactics amount to one-one-one resolution of attacks; a complex attack is designed to achieve something in addition to the attempted success of the attacks.

A character only gets his full defense against a single attack at a time, even if the attack mode is different. Each subsequent attack in the same round on the same target is at -2 defense. A character being attacked may choose to dodge one attack, deflect a second with his shield, and brush aside a third with his weapon (more becomes problematic) – but doing all this at once is a big ask.

However, it may be even more effective for the attackers to employ Coordinated Team Actions (described in 5.14). These are decisions that must be made in advance.

Furthermore, with the piece-meal approach, the first attack may reduce a stat through damage, reducing the value for subsequent defensive moves. This is especially true of finesse and dodge as defensive techniques, because they may both rely on Dexterity; and force and resistance, because they may both rely on Strength. However, the character will usually be able to use his self-defined stat for at least one attack mode, distributing the impact across three stats instead of two.

As a general rule, if there are goals beyond the simple success or failure of an attack, the GM should assess them on a 1-4 scale (1 = easy, 4 = extremely difficult) and use the degree of success converted to additional sixes to meet the target. This might require one successful attack, two successful attacks, or even more. The referee is free to increase the number of sixes required if the target figures out what the attacker is trying to achieve and resists, or to reduce it (possibly to the point of immediate success) if circumstances change in a way more favorable to success.

I’ve demonstrated how to count virtual sixes in the examples above, but for the record:

• Subtract the required average from six. This determines the amount by which a roll must succeed to total a six more than required.
• Divide the actual margin of success by this (and round down) to determine the number of virtual sixes achieved over target.
  

  For example, the required average is 3-and-2-thirds. The roll is 16 over target.

  • 6 minus 3 2/3 = 2 1/3.
  • 16 divided by 2 1/3 = (3 × 6) divided by 3 × (2 1/3) = 48 divided by (6 + 1) = 48/7 = 6 and 6 sevenths – so, almost 7 sixes but not quite.

  For example, the required average is 3-and-one-quarter. The roll is 7 over target.

  • 6 minus 3 1/4 = 2 3/4.
  • 7 divided by 2 3/4 = (4 × 7) divided by 4 × (2 3/4) = 28 divided by (8 + 3) = 28/11 = 2 and a-fraction-that-can-be-ignored. Two sixes more than the actual number rolled.

15. Operating Machinery

It can be assumed that a machine will do what it is commanded to through whatever control interface it is designed to employ. Therefore, if the outcome of a skill check is unsuccessful, either more time is required (and will change that failure into a success), or the greatest likelihood is that the instructions issued to the machine are wrong – which includes the possibility that the machine simply cannot do what the character operating it has asked it to do.

Translated into game mechanics, that means that a single skill check can and should encompass the entire gamut of possible outcomes – with the bottom line that if the skill check succeeds, the machine does what the character wants it to do.

This includes operating vehicles and computer systems and everything in between. Only the most basic of machinery – muscle amplifiers like axes and saws and hoes and the like – may not do so. And even then, the right skill usually does so – lumberjack or farmer or whatever.

Even mechanical breakdowns can usually be traced to inappropriate instructions. Of course, it takes a truly spectacular failure to damage the machinery so significantly that it stops functioning – but if the machinery is delicate or worn, the degree of failure (and chances of success) start going way up and way down, respectively.

In other words, the normal game mechanics provides all the scope that you need to simulate (and check) the operation of any device; condition plays into the average required, which reduces the number of virtual sixes that are possible.

16. Character Interactions

There are all sorts of character interactions, and they all come down to an interpersonal skill against a resistance to that check. That means that the usual combat mechanics can be used to resolve such interactions; the manner of attack might be different, and the Stat and Purpose used to resist the interaction may be different, but the mechanism still works.

For the record, such ‘attacks’ are considered to be finesse attacks.

Character Interaction Skills – and this is just a partial list – include

• Bargaining or Bartering
• Bribery
• Conversation
• Interrogation
• Oratory
• Persuasion
• Seduction

…But the list could also include all sorts of things that aren’t quite so obvious, like “Savoire-Fair” or “Cool under fire” or “Calming Influence” or “Slippery as an Eel”. If the intent is to change the thoughts, decisions, or emotions of the target in some way, it falls under the general banner of Character Interaction.

Designer’s Notes & Discussions: Doing More

The Innovations

We often speak of a character’s training and/or skill when we speak of their ability in combat, but rarely is the skill system used as a framework for a combat system. In hindsight, it’s hard to see why. It’s even harder to understand why it’s taken this long for someone to have thought of it – and I include myself amongst those I’m criticizing.

It’s only when you reach this point that the universality of the skill mechanism becomes apparent. It works because it has several simple move parts that interact with each other to produce outcomes capable of both simple and complex interpretation.

Okay, so my internet is working but my telephone is not, following the switch to fiber-optic connection. I have three more articles written and uploaded, ready to go, but I’ll delay them if I get another part of the Sixes System finished in time.

I didn’t quite get the next part of the Sixes System written up in time – I’m only a few hours short of target, having written almost 6000 words, but time has run out. So I’ll use one of my standby articles and finish the Sixes System up for publication before next week’s disruption.

Have you ever bought a module and started running it, only to discover that at least some of your players have already read it, and may even have played it or GM’d it for others? It doesn’t happen every time, but very little deflates a campaign more quickly.

I try very hard to assume that this could be the case every time I crack open a commercial module – either it’s no good, or it’s already been read.

The obvious solution is to change the content – and if you’re going to change the content anyway, you may as well integrate the contents more tightly into your campaign while you’re at it.

There are a number of constituent parts that can be altered relatively easily. In increasing order of severity, these are:

1. Narrative
2. Context
3. Characters
4. Locations
5. Encounters
6. Maps
7. Antagonist
8. Pacing
9. Outcomes
10. Plot

Ten components of the module. Change them all and there is very little left of the original; it becomes simply a skeletal outline upon which you have built a very different structure to that which was originally present. But if you’re going to go that far, why not simply write your own adventure in the first place?

Since changing nothing is out of the question unless you are certain that the players don’t know the adventure, and changing everything is going too far, the optimum solution has to be somewhere in between.

As a general rule of thumb, changing 1/3 to 1/2 of these ten items is usually more than enough to make a canned adventure almost unrecognizable.

Which ones you choose is something that can’t be reduced to a hard-and-fast rule. That’s because, the better the original module, the more strongly these ten items will interrelate and interact. Sometimes, changing an item on the list will be easy, and sometimes, hard; sometimes it will have negligible impact (and is hence a waste of time even if it is easy), and other times it will have a profound impact on the adventure within the module.

The only thing you can do is read (or at least skim) the module and then consider each item on the list until you find which items will yield the maximum positive impact for the minimum effort.

Let’s consider the ten options in more detail.

1. Narrative

Changing the narrative is the easiest thing to do, and has the least impact. In effect, you are changing anything and everything that has to be described, without changing the tactical interpretations that translate those narrative elements into game mechanics. That constraint undercuts and minimizes any benefits from this change – if made in isolation.

Nevertheless, this is a great way to put your own stamp on a module with minimal effort, and that alone can be enough. There is an added benefit in that you will become far more familiar with the contents of the module, making it easier to run.

And, once you commit to more substantial changes, it is essential that those changes be reflected in the narrative; once you remove those key words, “in isolation” from this type of change, all bets are off.

2. Context

Context means three different things when discussing third-party modules. First, the background that doesn’t interact directly with the content of the adventure; second, with the background that does interact directly with the content of the adventure; and third, with the motivations for, and restrictions on, actions by both PCs and NPCs within the adventure.

Remote Background

Altering the remote background of an adventure has no direct impact on the adventure, though it may introduce or lessen time pressures, etc, that may have a secondary effect. If there are no Orcs or Goblins in the adventure, the breakout of war between Orcs and Goblins will have minimal impact.

Contact Background

If there are Orcs or Goblins in the adventure, though, that can be a different story – or it might be plausible that the participants haven’t heard about the outbreak of conflict yet, and might even get the news in the middle of the adventure. I love making this sort of change to adventures because they tie the adventure into the campaign, making it less a series of events in isolation and more of a seamless tapestry.

To be clear, I recommend doing this anyway, to whatever extent is necessary, at least in terms of the current situation within the campaign. But this is also an opportunity to evolve that background by advancing plotlines that aren’t even part of the adventure as published, taking advantage of the contact between background and adventure to bring that background to life.

If a war were to break out between Goblins and Orcs (to use the same example), and the PCs are not to be directly involved (yet or at all), what makes the better choice: simply telling the players that it’s happened, or having them be in the middle of an adventure involving Goblins and/or Orcs at the time, so that the events can have a direct impact on the campaign and not simply be wallpaper? My vote is for choice #2 – and, in fact, since I try to pre-plan everything, this might even be the reason for my purchase of the adventure.

Motivations & Restrictions

When you change the context in which decisions are made, you risk changing what the logical decision should be. You may also impose restrictions on what choices are valid ones for a character to make. Even when that’s not the case, it gives the character something that they can and should address in enacting their choices. “This war won’t last forever, and I intend to be ready to capitalize on the peace that follows.”

When the campaign circumstances impact on the choices, motivations, and restrictions within an adventure, you are reshaping the skeleton of the entire adventure. This can result in superficial changes, or it can completely rewrite half the content. The more significant the changes, the more you make a canned adventure part of the campaign, and the deeper the impact. A degree of judiciousness is called for.

An alternative formulation

Everything in the ‘context’ section assumes that you are changing the adventure to integrate the campaign background. It would be remiss of me not to at least mention the converse approach: changing the background to accommodate the adventure as written.

This turns a canned adventure into a driver of background events, and that can be a useful tool to possess. But if the changes are too sudden and widespread, this can also stress plausibility to the breaking point.

Used with care and planning, this can be an entirely valid approach.

Nor do you have to choose one technique and stick with it exclusively; there is absolutely nothing wrong with a hybrid approach, a push-pull integration between background and adventure. The ultimate expression of this technique is choosing a canned adventure because it mandates the changes that you want/intend to take place within the background – to set the stage for one or more future adventures.

3. Characters

I’m talking about changes that are more substantial than merely changing a character’s motivations, here. Species, race, class, and profession, and circumstances – they are all on the chopping block. Instead of a Fire Mage being the main bad guy, maybe now it’s a fallen Paladin.

The important thing is to ensure that any such change has its logical ramifications expressed throughout the adventure – our fallen Paladin shouldn’t do things the same way, or even do the same things, as the original Fire Mage would. And people won’t react to the character the same way, or to his or her actions.

As with background changes, character alterations can be superficial (the character is a supporting cast member who only appears in one scene or encounter) or can reshape the entire adventure, or anything in between.

I talked in the previous section about contextual changes resulting from the campaign background being reflected within an adventure as an ideal way to bring the background into focus and make it seem dynamic and evolving; so I should not neglect to point out that just because the adventure doesn’t have an Orc or a Goblin in it (as published), there is nothing wrong with inserting such a character into it purely to achieve this – but it will integrate all the more seamlessly if you can replace a key piece of adventure infrastructure with such a character.

4. Locations

If you simply transplant an adventure setting from one place to another, whole, it might be a superficial change. To actually alter the location is something rather more substantial.

Ideally, every character has a reason for being where they are found within a plot. Why does this house suit them better than that one? Why do they live in this town, and not the one a few hours down the road? A character’s location should be an outgrowth of their personality and circumstances – and, to whatever extent that is not the case, they should make efforts to reinvent and redecorate their location to suit themselves. The longer they have resided in that location, the more it should become like an old comfortable shoe, an extension of who that character is.

Sadly, few adventure designers think very deeply about these questions. Environments are often superficial, just tacked-on infrastructure, with little more than superficial nods to the residents.

Changes made to the environment within an adventure should therefore also be reflected in the characters who abide there. If an adventure has a priest from a small chapel and you replace that with a decrepit cathedral, you are not only adding to the history of the locality (why was a cathedral built here? Were there enough worshipers to justify it? Or was the builder operating under the ‘field of dreams’ theory? What happened to the worshipers that the place is now in disrepair? What impact does the change have on any encounters in the location?) but you should be materially amending the character of the priest, and arguably, making him a more interesting character.

Consistency, as always, is important.

5. Encounters

Changing the content of encounters, potentially opening or closing outcomes from the encounter, are an obvious change, and something that some seem to do without rhyme or reason. For that matter, a number of commercial modules used to give the same impression of the encounters with which their pages were populated, so this is not exactly a new problem.

One thing that being restricted to once-a-month game-play within any given campaign does is force you to clear out a lot of deadwood. No encounter can stand unless it advances the plot in some respect; there just isn’t enough playing time to waste on it, otherwise. IF an encounter doesn’t advance the plot, then there are only two choices: add a minor strand to the plot, or cut out the encounter in some way.

Note that establishing or sustaining an atmosphere (or verisimilitude) is a perfectly valid justification for a particular encounter. Even if I were to suddenly find myself able to GM a campaign twice a week, I would remain parsimonious in terms of encounters; each would need a clear reason to be part of the adventure. I would sprinkle in more encounters of the atmosphere/plausibility type however.

The better-written an adventure is, the more changing encounters within that adventure will change that adventure in consequence. I always find it helpful, when prepping a canned adventure, to make notes identifying the reason an encounter is to take place, from an authorial meta-game perspective. If no reason is obvious, you need to first question the need for the encounter, and second, to give it a reason to exist if an encounter is desirable for some reason, such as pacing, or because something is logically going to occur at some point. These metagame justifications define the purpose of the encounter and are the only thing that needs to be preserved. If you can change the encounter to do more than simply satisfy that purpose, you will materially change the adventure for the better, and make it more your own in the process. And sometimes, that can be enough.

6. Maps

Changing the map can come with changing the location, or it can be entirely separate as a consideration. This is especially true of D&D-style “dungeons” whose artificiality as a concept bothers me a lot more than it does others.

Altering the flow of encounters, altering the sequence of events, has an obvious level of impact on the adventure. If you don’t do so, then you are altering the micro-environment within which the encounter takes place.

Make sure that your changes are rational and have sensible consequences. Do that, and you can be sure that the adventure you deliver will have significant differences to the published module – but it’s a lot of work, and there is always a sense that the changes have been simply tacked on.

My approach is this: if changes to the context and location demand it, make changes to the map – if not, don’t; there are other choices that can have a much better bang-for-buck ratio.

7. Antagonist

I’ve touched on this already, but it’s worth revisiting. Changing the antagonist of an adventure should be a fundamental change to everything within the adventure, from the context to the setting to the incidental encounters. This is the type of change that impacts almost everything else (and so can be a lot of work) but it also provides a guideline to follow (if interpreted correctly) that can make that work a lot easier.

There is also a middle ground in which the adventure’s antagonist is nothing more than a hired gun for someone else. This can result in minor changes to the adventure on a nuts-and-bolts scale and sweeping alterations in context and the big-picture of which the adventure is but a part – something to contemplate if time is a factor.

8. Pacing

Tedium – tedium – tedium – ACTION! – tedium tedium ACTION!

This would be tolerable at the start of an adventure – you could even lose the first Action sequence if the “tedium” was sufficiently-interesting roleplay, or of sufficient interest to the PCs. But if that’s the shape of the end of an adventure, it will all fall rather flat.

I’ve written a number of articles on pacing here at campaign mastery, because it’s an often-overlooked ingredient in both single adventures and whole campaigns. Aside from closing up plot holes and integration into a campaign, one of my strongest objectives in revising a canned adventure for use in one of my campaigns is always to tighten the pacing.

This can be tricky, simply because you don’t know which path the players will follow to get to the finish, and don’t want to restrict their choices to achieve predictability. The cure, quite frankly, is worse than the disease!

My approach is, as much as possible, to eschew the map-oriented approach of most dungeons as much as humanly possible. Instead, I will structure a plotline and let the players find their own path through it, adjusting each step of that path to wherever the PCs happen to be, or happen to be going, at the time.

Here’s a fun experiment in pacing. Take a canned adventure that you know well – a dungeon crawl works especially well – and have the encounters take place during overland travel, altering the encounters as necessary. Some encounters will thus occur closely to each other, others separated in time quite substantially. There may even be unrelated encounters along the way – fellow travelers, villages, etc – as usual. The experience will be completely different to that of the canned adventure.

9. Outcomes

How an adventure is resolved is a big part of the content, and often one of the things that the players will remember for years after the rest of the adventure is forgotten. Putting additional options on the table, or taking existing options away, can therefore have a significant long-term impact on perceptions of the adventure.

Which outcomes are possible depends on the tools and circumstances and antagonist and encounters that lead up to the climax of the adventure. So this is not a trivial exercise, though it may not be as involved as some of the others that have been discussed.

10. Plot

Finally, we get to the biggest change of them all, the one that can require everything else to change – an alteration to the story that is being told by the adventure. Typically, there will be relatively small (but fundamental) changes necessary to the first half of the adventure and progressively greater divergence as you approach the climax.

When I ran “Danger At Dunwater” – the AD&D adventure – as a plot in my superhero campaign, I changed the antagonists to mermen, refugees who had fled the destruction of Atlantis, changed the location to Loch Ness in Scotland, and made the central plot a story of conflicting politics within the leadership – one group who thought the time right to come into the open and rejoin the nations of the world, and one who thought that this would be the destruction of Atlantean Society and who were prepared to make any sacrifice to prevent it (including their lives or those of their followers) – making them terrorists with altruistic motives.

Of course, I also had to change the locations, and the principle NPCs, and the pacing, and tie all this into the existing campaign background; about half the original canned adventure was jettisoned, and the rest was altered to some extent, either superficially or substantially, to reflect this changed plot.

In part one of the resulting plot, attempts by the ruling first faction to emerge from their isolation (and the Nessy deception they had been perpetrating for decades) were – somewhat clumsily – sabotaged by the second faction, leading the PCs to become involved. The PCs discovered the Atlanteans, so the ‘first contact’ mission ultimately had to be counted a success – and began negotiating with faction #1. Faction #2, led by the priesthood, then accused surface dwellers of killing the ambassadors and presented ‘proof’ to the court.

In part 2, the PCs had to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis or be imprisoned. The prison would not be able to hold them, but escape would trigger a war between New Atlantis and the Surface world at a time when other problems were becoming critical, and would have a disproportionate impact on the world as a result. In the event that they managed a diplomatic solution, acts of terrorism would begin aimed at disrupting the negotiations, culminating in the exposure of the High Priest which would trigger an attempted coup against the Royal Family who headed faction #1. The PCs could either intercede or not – but if they did, it would destroy what was left of the Atlantean culture, and if they didn’t, their nominal ‘allies’ would be killed and the Atlanteans would become a potential enemy of all mankind. Their best answer was to find a third path, which they did, ultimately reunifying the two factions and establishing an alliance with the rest of humanity.

‘Danger At Dunwater’ is a low-level AD&D adventure. The PCs were veteran superheros on a par with the Avengers or Justice League; quite obviously, it would have to change completely to be compatible with, and challenging to, the PCs. If you were to compare the outline above with the module, you would find a scene or two that seemed to fit, and a couple of the characters would seem familiar, but not much more. You would find greater resonances with the back-cover blurb than with the content. And yet, the end result is both undeniably based on the module, and completely integrated into the campaign.

I’m a strong advocate of writing your own adventures, and there are lots of benefits to doing so. But there can be value in incorporating the creativity of others into your tapestry; entire campaigns have been built that way. And this can take a lot less time than writing an entire adventure from scratch of equivalent length.

If you assume that a well-informed player will have at least heard of the adventure, may have read it, and may even have played through it (as player or GM), and amend it accordingly, the benefits can be tremendous – and you are more likely to keep that player entertained while limiting the damage that can be done through ‘spoilers’. You can turn a bad situation into a win all round.

0. Fundamentals (repeated for all posts:)

— The Sixes System is a minimalist game system suitable for any and all genres.

— It has been used in my Dr Who campaign since September 2014, which has just come to a successful conclusion.

— Characters are constructed using a point-buy methodology with NPCs generatable using die rolls for speed.

— Success or Failure on tasks is determined by adding dice to a pool based on ability and circumstances which are then rolled against a target number determined by the GM.

7. Personality Profile

Characters define their personalities as though they were skills. These constitute one third of a character’s “profile”, with Handicaps (things the character is incapable of) being the second, and Disadvantages the third. This provides a game mechanism whereby characters can attempt to do things simply by being themselves, a useful generalization.

Characters are expected to spend 10-20 points on these definitions and may spend more with GM approval. Personality elements are rated as being 1, 2, 3, or 4 point elements.

Profile elements are to be defined in a positive or neutral way, and may be redefined by the GM to meet this requirement, or refused if the player cannot make a case for a positive or neutral impact. (‘Refusal’ means that the GM thinks the element is more of a disadvantage than a positive aspect of the personality).

One-point elements are a minor character trait, preference, or tendency that is easily overcome by any stronger influence. These are often described as “Likes”, eg “Likes Justice”, which would be interpreted as a preference for justice to be seen to be done in some general abstract sense, but not enough to actually try and achieve it in any particular case – a ‘what goes around comes around’ sort of attitude. The character needs to make a “skill” roll to invoke this personality element, with one “six” required for every 2 character elements rated 2 or better. One-point elements cost one construction point each.

Two-point elements are a strong character trait, preference, or tendency that routinely shapes the character’s attitudes, opinions, and behavior. These are sometimes described as “Prefers”, eg “Prefers Just Outcomes” but are most often described as a personality trait without qualifications eg “Fierce Advocate”. GMs may force characters to make a “skill” roll to act against a two-point character element, with one “six” required for every other character element rated 2 or better. Two-point elements cost 2 construction points each.

Three-point elements are driving character traits, preferences, or tendencies that approach but do not reach the levels of monomania or obsession but that routinely drive a character’s behavior and choices. These are sometimes described as “passions”, for example “Passion about Justice”, as a “Drive” eg “Driven to achieve Justice”, or as a personality trait with no qualifiers, eg “Reformer”. These are traits that can get a character into trouble, and can add extra dice to an argument couched in the appropriate terms – for example 3-point “Passionate about Honesty” trait and a demand to help “Expose the lies”. Characters need to make a “skill” roll against a three-point element, with two “sixes” required for every other character element rated 3 or better. Three-point elements cost 3 construction points each. Another example worth noting is “Strong Journalistic Ethics” which could drive a character to uncover, document, and publish a truth regardless of personal risk, or go to prison rather than reveal a source.

Four-point elements are character obsessions. When triggered, these permit (or even require) a character to engage in behavior they otherwise would not tolerate, especially in terms of overcoming a 1- or 2- point trait. While positive in nature, these are potentially self-destructive, areas in which the character knows no restraint. An example might be “Protective of his men” for a military leader, or “Patriotic”, or “Integrity”. To attempt to restrain a 4-point trait with a lesser trait (3 or less points), subtract the trait being so used from 4 to get the number of dice conferred on a “skill check” to break from the obsession, which is also one-half of the number of “sixes” required. EG: using a 2-point trait to overcome a 4-point obsession is a personality roll (choose stat and purpose appropriate to the situation) with the trait adding 2 extra dice to the pool – with a requirement of 4 sixes.

In general, characters should have two 2-point traits for every 3- or 4- point trait, and at least 3 1-point trait for every 2-point trait, but this can be varied from character to character with GM approval.

8. Base Values

Normal characters are built on 80 Construction Points. 30 of these are to be spent on stats, 8 are to be spent on purposes, and 30-50 are to be spent on skills and equipment. With 10-20 points spent on a personality profile, a character may have 2 whole points left at this point, or may be committed to raising as many as 28 points through Disadvantages, part of which may have already been raised through Handicaps.

Superior characters are built on 100-120 Construction Points (depending on the degree of superiority). They are initially constricted as “Normal” characters and THEN the additional points are spent improving the character as per section 12, below. Note that a Superior Character can also gain additional points through the selection of Handicaps, but because these reduce the total spent on Skills, the points so raised can only be spent on improving other skills.

Exceptional characters are built on 150 Construction Points. 50 of these are normally spent on stats, 12 on Purposes, 30-50 on skills and equipment, and 10-20 on personality. That leaves 18-48 points which may spent improving the character as per section 12, below. Note that an Exceptional Character can also gain additional points through the selection of Handicaps, but because these reduce the total spent on Skills, the points so raised can only be spent on improving other skills.

In addition, where a campaign is being designed for a reduced number of PCs, the GM may award a “Competence Baseline Bonus” of 25 or even 50 construction points. These should be issued judiciously; guidelines and discussion are provided in the designer’s notes, below.

9. Disadvantages

Disadvantages are just like Traits, but are negative in nature and value.

Normal characters can have a maximum of -20 points in disadvantages, and these points can only be spent on additional skills and equipment.

Superior characters can have a maximum of -30 points in disadvantages, and a maximum of 6 of these can be spent on anything other than skills and equipment.

Exceptional characters can have a maximum of -40 points in disadvantages, and a maximum of 12 of these can be spent on anything other than skills and equipment.

1-point disadvantages are petty and minor flaws. They influence but do not dictate. Examples might be “Dislikes Pork” or “Distrusts TV News”.

2-point disadvantages are minor character flaws. They can dictate behavior but are more commonly expressed as a stronger bias or prejudice. Some can be couched as positives, but the implications are negative in some way. Examples include “Careful with money”, “Angered by Waste”, and “Intolerant of Deception”.

3-point disadvantages are normally the most extreme permitted. They frequently dictate behavioral choices and embroil the character in difficulty. A character can force his way past them, on occasion, and even accept exceptions to the general rule, but the general rule remains ‘valid until proven otherwise’. Examples include “Once Bitten, Twice Shy”, “Prejudiced against [Race or Nationality or Skin Color or similar characteristic]”, “Acts without listening”, “Hates Criminals”.

4-point disadvantages may only exist with GM permission. They represent extreme addictions or obsessions that have, and continue to, place the character in negative situations. We’re not talking about “addicted to chocolate” here – unless the character goes off their nut without an hourly munch or daily pig-out, and is willing to steal or kill for another bite. There are no exceptions to 4-point disadvantages, only temporary reprieves; a 4-point prejudice interprets even actions contrary to the prejudice as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth expressed by the prejudice. The Punisher probably has a 4-point disadvantage against organized crime. Batman doesn’t have a 4-point disadvantage against crime in general, because he is willing to admit that criminals can reform.

10. Penalties

Violating a characterization or taking extreme actions of any sort in the absence of a 3-point disadvantage should be penalized in two ways simultaneously. Firstly, the experience awarded to the character should be decreased by 1-4 points, and secondly, the GM should ‘award’ the character a disadvantage of matching value – so that the character gets just as much XP as they were going to get, but part of it comes with a price tag attached.

The Disadvantage is intended to ‘stretch’ the character to include the deviation henceforth, or the character punishing himself for his violations of what he considers ‘right’, or other consequences of the action in question.

11. Experience

GMs should award experience at the end of each adventure, even if that falls in the middle of a day’s play. A rough guide is 3 points plus 2 per game session consumed by the adventure. Adventures which take more than 3 game sessions should be subdivided into multiple parts and experience awarded for each part separately.

Against this foundation, the GM should award infraction fines, penalties and bonuses. He need not state what they, or the base award, are; he need only give the total for each PC.

Penalties are described in the previous section. An Infraction Fine is a penalty too minor to attract a forced Disadvantage, and is appropriate for a one-off infraction. They are punished with a 1- or 2- point reduction in experience.

Examples of infractions might be using knowledge that is inappropriate for the character to have, reading the GM’s notes, etc. (Penalties are more for acting out of character).

In addition, not engaging with the adventure may be considered a minor infraction, because it encourages side-chatter and other disruptive behavior.

Bonuses are extra XP awarded for brilliant ideas, advancing the plotline, solving a plot hole that the GM hadn’t noticed, advancing the campaign, etc. I recommend capping bonuses at 3 per adventure, but that’s something each GM should decide for themselves on a case-by-case bonus.

More advice on XP awards can be found in the designer’s notes.

12. Improving Characters

The rules regarding improving characters are fairly straightforward: One stat, one Purpose, Skills Up One, One Trait, One Disadvantage Down One.

One Stat: Only one stat can be increased at a time, and only by one point, without GM permission. At any point, the GM can decree that the character has achieved the maximum permitted in a stat; thereafter, improvement costs double, and in any adventure in which the elevated stat is not used, it will reduce by one toward that maximum, so the character has to keep paying to elevate it.

One Purpose: Only one purpose can be increased, and only by one point, without GM permission. At any point, the GM can decree that a Purpose has achieved the maximum permitted, and no further increase is allowed.

Skills Up One: Skills may only be improved by one rank at a time without GM permission. The GM is free to mandate that specific in-game training is required to further advance a skill; such training will typically only permit an increase of one rank.

One Trait: Characters may only add one trait to their existing personality profile, and may only increase one trait, by one rank, without GM permission.

One Disadvantage Down One: Characters may only reduce one disadvantage at a time, and only by one level, without GM permission. An exception will usually be made for in-game resolution of a disadvantage, but GMs and players should think in terms of “broadening and softening” the disadvantage, not paying it off outright.

In addition, some disadvantages and character traits may be declared “protected” by either GM or player; these can’t be weakened or removed without changing the character concept as a result of major in-game developments. Green Arrow (in the comics, not the “Arrow” TV series) used to be wealthy, and came across as a Batman who used trick arrows instead of Detective skills and Bat-gimmicks. His personality was very cookie-cutter until the character was stripped of his wealth and became a passionate environmentalist and hot-head. In game terminology, a three-point trait (“wealthy”) was paid off and replaced with a two-point trait (“passionate environmentalist”) and two-point disadvantage (“hot-headed”), giving the character +3-2+2=3 additional points to spend – which permitted him to buy the skill “environmental activism” and the additional 2-point trait “outspoken”. The editor – acting as our GM-equivalent – had to sign off on these changes, and actively work to incorporate them into the plots thereafter; sometimes, this was a little clumsy, sometimes it was a little heavy-handed, but it all paved the way for the landmark issue in which Speedy is revealed as a Drug Addict – having started using as a psychological crutch to help him live up to Green Arrow’s example, back when Arrow seemed to have it all.

Designer’s Notes & Discussions: Infrastructure

The Innovations

This is the first time I’ve seen personality traits encoded within a skills system. The Hero system has some Psychological Limitations within its Disadvantages, but often this pays points for restrictions that actually positive benefits, as though the restriction itself was the dominant attribute of the trait.

This is the first game system I’ve seen that explicitly adjusts its mechanics and parameters for a low number of players, though some board games have done this for years.

Character Traits notes:

Although it might seem that these operate to force a character to act or react in a specific way to a situation, and can be used in that way, they should primarily be used as a guide to roleplaying, with rolls only employed when a character attempts to deviate from his normal priorities, goals, and motivations.

A character can struggle repeatedly with an issue (i.e. this can be a case in which the character will eventually succeed with more time), or can have second thoughts (a re-roll) at the player’s discretion.

Note that even if a trait is overcome, the character will seek to re-frame his circumstances in a way that conforms to his trait – for example, a character with a “Love of Justice” may be blackmailed into committing criminal acts but will seek to find a way out of the situation, for example leaving clues that point to “the real criminal” or launching a covert investigation to find and remove the blackmailer or the evidence that he has against the possessor of the trait. He will, in other words, search for a way to “get right” with his trait.

Traits can also be used to restrict or limit Disadvantages – a character who is strongly “self-protective” will not make foolish choices even with an “Impulsive” Disadvantage; he may agree to do dangerous things but will take active measures to protect himself while doing so, and will always take the safest route. Note that without a trait to negate it as an option, the “easiest” choice may be to change his mind or beg off!

“Competence Baseline Bonus” Guidelines

The Doctor Who campaign had one Exceptional PC (the Doctor, obviously) and one recurring Superior NPC allied to that PC. The Doctor was given a 25-point “Competence Baseline Bonus”, but the NPC was not, because in most eras and locations, the Doctor could access a second Superior NPC for further assistance, or a group of Normal NPCs. In fact, the nature and identity of these “Guest Stars” was a feature of the campaign – with the threats faced being adjusted in scope accordingly.

If the campaign had been just the Doctor and Companion, I would have extended the bonus to the companion, and been open to increasing the Doctor’s bonus to the maximum 50 points, probably in increments, until the right balance was achieved – 35 points, 40 points, 50 points.

It should also be noted that the bonus was only bestowed after it became clear that the character as it was in play was not an adequate reflection of the capabilities that the character had demonstrated in his televised exploits (up to the point in his continuity where the campaign was inserted), and would not become so in reasonable time through the expenditure of experience.

The 25 points was only just enough, still forcing the player to make careful choices, and still affording the character room to grow. Minor discrepancies in competence could then be dismissed as the Doctor bluffing or faking his way through a problem, or through the use of the “more time” option.

Experience Awards

XP awards in the Sixes System are almost self-correcting. Not only do you have an ongoing measure of character competence (the targets required), but it’s easy to tell if you’ve given too much experience – it will become too easy for the PCs to do things. The target numbers, if you pay attention, are an ongoing measure of how competent the characters are, and therefore how much XP they have received.

At most, then, it should only be an adventure or two before you realize that you are being too generous, three at the outside. But unlike other game systems, it’s easy to correct the problem – simply reduce the XP award for a game session if it seems too easy to you after the fact.

Next week, my internet connection is going to be disrupted when new equipment is installed – hopefully this disruption will be brief but some others have had substantial problems. Admittedly, some have also had no problems at all, and because most of the country has already been hooked up, I can only hope that they’ve worked out most of the bugs in the process by now. But my physical phone connection is temporary and may complicate matters.

What’s more, because of Covid-19 restrictions, my standard backup solution is not available – articles on a USB stick and a trip to the nearest Internet Cafe.

My plan at this point is to write a number of short ‘filler’ articles this week (I have five ideas, but not all will work out in the time available) and schedule these in advance – then re-schedule publication if the worst fails to materialize. So the next several weeks will be covered, no matter what happens.

In the meantime, Stay safe, stay well, and I’ll see you on the other side of what could be a traumatic experience but which could be painless if all goes well ?

0. Fundamentals (repeated for all posts:)

— The Sixes System has been used in my Dr Who campaign since September 2014, and has just come to a successful conclusion.

— Characters are constructed using a point-buy methodology with NPCs generatable using die rolls for speed.

— Success or Failure on tasks is determined by adding dice to a pool based on ability and circumstances which are then rolled against a target number determined by the GM.

6. Setting Targets

It wasn’t until I started laying out the tables that will be found a little later in this article that I realized just how much this section was the heart of the entire game system. Everything to date feeds into this section, one way or another. All of section 5 (‘Doing Things, Part 1’) can be viewed as an interface between the rest of the game system and this section, which underpins everything. Accordingly, this is the material that it is most important for the GM to master.

The good news for GMs is that even if you never use the Sixes System for one of your games, mastering the content in this section will still be beneficial, because at the end of it, you will understand dice and die rolls more clearly than you did before. Unless you’re some kind of expert already, of course!

Setting a target would be really tricky without a simple process to follow that takes all the complexity and submerges it someplace where it won’t bother anyone. I’ll explain why, and discuss the difficulties involved, a little later. For now, let’s detail that process. There are six simple steps:
 

1. Difficulty Factor
2. Eligible Dice
3. Target Average
4. Base Target
5. Number Of Sixes
6. Amended Target

6.1 Difficulty Factor

Circumstances are generally either for or against the character doing what he has described; it’s very rare for all the factors involved to cancel out, leaving a base roll.

If the circumstances make life easier for the character, they are described by a negative Difficulty Factor; if they make life more difficult, they are described by a positive Difficulty Factor.

Difficulty Factors are either “0” (i.e. nothing noteworthy), “1” (slight), “2” (significantly beneficial/adverse), or “3” (extremely beneficial/adverse).

In the most extreme of circumstances, the GM might contemplate a “4” but this is NOT recommended.

If the character is especially skilled or competent, these numbers (except 0, of course) may be increased by 1 or even 2.

6.2 Eligible Dice

Adding 1/2 the value of Stat that the character is using to the value of the Purpose with which he is using the Stat and subtracting the Difficulty Factor gives the number of Eligible Dice.

Note that this is not the full count of the die pool available to the character when the action is attempted, a fact that will become significant later in the process.

6.3 Target Average

The third step is to select an appropriate target average, based on the difficulty of the task under typical circumstances (remember that the specific circumstances involved in this specific attempt have already been taken into account).

The average for any d6 is 3.5, or 7/2, so that’s the base line. It takes an astonishingly small deviation from that average to significantly alter the likelihood of success. There is perpetually a knife-edge between “too easy” and “too hard”, a fact that has greatly influenced the system design. Quite literally, a range of ±1 normally covers the full gamut from 95% chance of success to 95% chance of failure – or more.

There are tables later in the rules to assist you in selecting an appropriate Target Average. But there’s a simpler way, and it’s this that I use when playing the system.

1. Average 3

Three is the average recommended for easy tasks, so if that description matches the difficulty of the task, then that’s it, you’re done.

2. The ED Range

Subtracting 1/2 the ED from the product of 3 and ED gives a Target Average of 2.5. Adding 1/2 the ED from the product of 3 gives a Target Average of 3.5.
Adding the ED from the product of 3 gives a Target Average of 4.
Adding 1.5 times the ED from the product of 3 gives a Target Average of 4.5.

Those two numbers – ED and 3 – and a determination of the relative ease of the task – is all that you need to know in order to set the Base Target.

3. The Difficulty Modifier

So, decide the relative ease, and rate it on a scale of 0 to 2×ED. Then subtract 1/2 of ED. This is called the Difficulty Modifier (not to be confused with the Difficulty Factor already determined).

6.5 Base Target

Multiply the ED by 3.
Add the Difficulty Modifier.
That’s your Base Target.

6.4 Number Of Sixes

The next question, is how many Sixes are you going to require in the roll? This isn’t quite as simple as it sounds, because the law of averages states that 1/6th of the ED will come up sixes, and that needs to be taken into account.

The most accurate answer is to take the Difficulty Factor and add ED/6. But that’s too complicated to do in your head.

The next most accurate answer is to take the Difficulty Factor and add 1 for every 6 dice after the first three – so +1 (cumulative) at ED 3, 9, 15, 21, and 27. (You’re unlikely to ever see an ED higher than that). But that’s too much work when you’re bust with other things, too.

So, the simplest solution is to further compromise with practicality: Difficulty Factor +1 for every 6 ED. And that’s good enough.

6.6 Amended Target

Multiply the number of 6’s that you determined in the previous step by 6, and add the Base Target. The result is the Amended Target that you announce to the player.

An example:

1) Stat: 10. Purpose: 4.
2) Difficulty Factor -1 (fairly beneficial circumstances).
3) ED = 10/2+4-(-1) = 5+4+1=10.
4) Difficulty Modifier range: 0-20.
5) Difficult task, so a Difficulty Modifier of 17-ED/2 = 17-5 = 12.
6) Base Target = 3 × ED + 12 = 30 + 12 = 42.
7) Number of Sixes = -1 (Difficulty Factor) +1 (for ED 10) = 0.
8) Amended Target = 0 + 42 = 42.

Same example, more adverse conditions:

1) Stat: 10. Purpose: 4.
2) Difficulty Factor +2 (challenging circumstances).
3) ED = 10/2+4-2 = 5+4-2 = 7.
4) Difficulty Modifier range: 0-14.
5) Difficult task, so a Difficulty Modifier of 10-ED/2 = 10-3.5 = 6.5 – round up to 7.
6) Base Target = 3 × ED + 7 = 24 + 7 = 31.
7) Number of Sixes = +2 (Difficulty Factor) +1 (for ED 7) = 3.
8) Amended Target = 3 × 6 + 31 = 18 + 31 = 49.

Example 3: Same Character, Different Stat & Purpose, Very Difficult task, even more adverse conditions:

1) Stat: 12. Purpose: 3.
2) Difficulty Factor +3 (very adverse circumstances).
3) ED = 12/2+3-3 = 6+3-3 = 6.
4) Difficulty Modifier range: 0-12.
5) Very Difficult task, so a Difficulty Modifier of 11-ED/2 = 11-3 = 8.
6) Base Target = 3 × ED + 8 = 18 + 8 = 26.
7) Number of Sixes = +3 (Difficulty Factor) +1 (for ED 6) = 4.
8) Amended Target = 4 × 6 + 26 = 24 + 26 = 50.

Analysis: What’s Actually Happening Here?

• Step 1 notes the characteristic and purpose, and the number of dice resulting from them.
• Step 2 determines the base number of sixes required for a success.
• Steps 3-6 work out what average is required on the rest of the dice, given the difficulty of the task:
  • Step 3 works out how many dice are left after the sixes are excluded.
  • Step 4 works out how big a variation the difficulty can cause in the subtotal.
  • Step 5 determines a number within that range to reflect the difficulty of the task.
  • Step 6 bypasses working out the average by skipping straight to (effectively) calculating # of dice multiplied by that average. This is something that would have to be done anyway, so this simply cuts out a number of intermediate calculations.
• Step 7 adjusts the number of sixes for the size of the die pool.
• Step 8 adjusts the target number to include the value of the required sixes.

6.6 The Scale Of Activity: The Impact of Skill and Equipment

Note that the Character gets more dice in his pool to use to reach the target from Skills and Equipment. So there is room for the GM to err a little on the high side when it comes to setting targets.

The tables given in the System Introduction show just how potent adding just one or two dice can be. Potentially, the character can be adding ten to the die pool as it stands for the above calculation – but 2, 3, or 4 are far more common values.

Even that’s significant. How significant? Two dice is an average of +7 to the total rolled. Three dice is an average of +10.5 to the total rolled. Four dice gives an average +14 to the total!

Equally important, these add significantly to the number of opportunities to roll a 6 – and sixes are worth their weight in gold in this game system.

To demonstrate this, let’s assume that the character from the third example above has a Skill of 2 and Equipment worth +1, for a total dice pool of 6+3+2+1=12 dice. Without the extras, he is faced with rolling 50 or better on 9d6 – an average of Five and Five-Ninths!, an almost impossible target. Which is only fair enough given the difficulty of the task and the adverse circumstances. Now, put those three extra dice back in – the required average drops to 50/12, or four and one-sixth. What was an almost impossible roll is now merely very difficult – the chances have improved from 0.01% to 10.36%, a more than 1000-fold increase!

Every extra die is like gold – if the character can get two additional dice from related skills, his chances rise still further, to 46.91%. Throw in a convincing line of argument about partial successes and a second chance, and you would almost start to feel confident about getting there in the end – which is what justifies trying to do something so difficult even under these adverse conditions. Even throwing in an extra 6 requirement because the character is extremely competent would only raise the target to maybe 52, maybe 53 – which, with 14 dice is 34.92% and 29.37%, respectively. Call it one chance in three. Given the subsystems that can bolster attempts to achieve success, you’d take those odds – if you had to.

Reference Tables: Target Numbers

What follows are six tables, the last of which is presented in three parts. Between them, they tell you everything you need to know to set a target – only simple addition required. But they also reveal patterns that will be both compelling and fascinating to anyone with a mathematical bent. Each will be followed by some notes and the occasional side observation. It’s important to remember that none of these values has been selected at random; they are all an outgrowth of basic probability theory and the fundamental concept of six-sided dice. Which means that those patterns are also not coincidental, but are part of the usually-hidden structure of the universe – and would be shared by any universe in which d6 could exist.

# dice TABLE 1 – TARGET BY ROLL AVERAGE -1 -3/4 -1/2 -1/4 +0 +1/4 -1/2 +3/4 +1 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 6 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 7 18 20 21 23 25 27 28 30 32 8 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 9 23 25 27 30 32 34 36 39 41 10 25 28 30 33 35 38 40 43 45 11 28 31 33 36 39 42 44 47 50 12 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 13 33 36 39 43 46 49 52 56 59 14 35 39 42 46 49 53 56 60 63 15 38 42 45 49 53 57 60 64 68 16 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 17 43 47 51 56 60 64 68 73 77 18 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 77 81 19 48 53 57 62 67 72 76 81 86 20 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 21 53 58 63 69 74 79 84 90 95 22 55 61 66 72 77 83 88 94 99 23 58 64 69 75 81 87 92 98 104 24 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 25 63 69 75 82 88 94 100 107 113

 
The first table lets you take a certain number of dice and a selected average result, and gives you the relevant target. The averages selected range from one less than the normal average result on a d6 to one more, i.e. from 2.5 to 4.5, in 0.25 intervals. These are the smallest intervals at which each table entry for a given number of dice is unique; smaller divisions and rounding would mean that the same target would appear under multiple columns. Since the system mechanics relies, in part, on the concept of a higher average translating to a higher target, that is an unacceptable outcome.

If the die pool (excluding required sixes) is 14 dice, for example, an average roll (ave=3.5) gives a target of 49; a target average of 3 gives a target of 42, of 4 gives 56. Just pick the average that you want and find the entry that matches the die pool to get the target.

I find that this is also useful for analyzing the impact of requiring a certain number of sixes in combination with a given target. Take the average of 3 and the target of 42. One six in addition would result in a total of 48, which on the 15-dice line (14+1) is just short of a 3.25 average; since this is below the normal average on a rolled d6 of 3.5, it’s still a fairly easy roll. Two sixes gives a total of 54 and on the 16-dice line, that’s mid-way between 3.25 and 3.5 – still fairly easy. Three sixes is a total of 60, and the 17-dice line, which is exactly on the 3.5 average target – so there is basically a 50-50 chance of success.

You can also track the impact of additional dice from skills and equipment to get some idea of the effect, but that is better handled as part of the next table.

A number of observations are possible concerning the data in this table. The first is that tiny differences in the average translate into significant differences in target numbers. The second is that there are obvious patterns down the columns, because each entry is the addition of another ‘average’ amount. The columns for 3 and 4 averages show this most clearly.

It’s the progressions at an inclination that are most interesting, even though there are less of these. For example, start with the 10-dice and 4.5 average, a target of 45. Now track the targets shifting one column left and down each time, to get the pattern 45, 47, 48, 49, 49, 49, 48, 47, 45. Fascinating.

You may also note the color coding. The darker-colored values at the extremes are not recommended; they tend to be too easy or too hard. The effective range of usable averages (under normal circumstances) is the inner set of values.

# dice TABLE 2 – % PROBABILITY OF TARGET RESULT -1 -3/4 -1/2 -1/4 +0 +1/4 -1/2 +3/4 +1 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 6 93.92 85.54 79.42 63.69 54.64 36.31 27.94 14.46 9.65 7 93.88 86.28 80.83 66.78 50 33.22 25.72 13.72 6.12 8 96.11 90.93 82.11 69.46 54.05 38.02 23.77 12.98 6.07 9 96.08 91.29 83.28 64.96 50 35.04 22.04 8.71 3.92 10 97.48 91.66 84.35 67.6 53.63 32.4 20.5 8.34 3.9 11 97.46 92.03 85.33 69.96 50 30.04 19.10 7.97 2.54 12 98.34 94.57 86.24 72.08 53.33 33.81 17.83 7.6 2.54 13 98.33 94.77 87.07 68.52 50 31.48 16.67 5.23 1.67 14 98.9 94.98 87.85 70.63 53.09 29.37 15.61 5.02 1.67 15 98.89 95.19 88.57 72.56 50 27.44 14.64 4.81 1.11 16 99.27 96.66 89.24 74.33 52.89 30.57 13.74 4.61 1.11 17 99.26 96.79 89.86 71.35 50 28.65 12.91 3.21 0.74 18 99.51 96.91 90.44 73.13 52.73 26.87 12.13 3.09 0.74 19 99.51 97.03 90.98 74.77 50 25.23 11.42 2.97 0.49 20 99.67 97.92 91.49 76.3 52.59 27.91 10.75 2.85 0.49 21 99.67 97.99 91.97 73.73 50 26.27 10.13 2.01 0.33 22 99.78 98.07 92.41 75.26 52.47 24.74 9.55 1.93 0.33 23 99.78 98.14 92.83 76.69 50 23.31 9.01 1.86 0.22 24 99.85 98.69 93.22 78.03 52.37 25.66 8.5 1.79 0.22 25 99.85 98.73 93.59 75.78 50 24.22 8.03 1.27 0.15

 
Table 2 contains the same data as table one – but translates the target into a percentage chance of success.

Take the target from the example used in describing the previous table – an average of 3 and 14d6. The resulting target works out to an 87.85% chance of success, as you can see by finding the intersection of these two values.

We then looked at adding one mandatory six – equivalent to an average of just under 3.25 on the 15d6 line. That’s a chance just a little better than 72.56%, according to this table.

Two sixes was exactly midway between 3.25 and 3.5 on the 16d6 line – so somewhere in between 52.89% and 74.33%. It’s hard to be more precise because these are non-linear curves. But it’s a fair bet to be 63%-plus-or-minus something.

Three sixes was exactly 3.5 on 17d6 (a target of 60) – and, not surprisingly, that gives a 50% chance of success.

What happens if the actual dice pool gets 4 additional dice from skills and equipment? Well, we need to use table 1, and find the equivalent average on 17+4=21 dice. Sixty, on the 21d6 line, is midway between an average of 2.75 and 3. Looking those up on table two gives a probability of 91.97-to-97.99% – so that’s about 95%, give-or-take, or the equivalent of 1-19 (or 2-20) on a d20.

You can’t really come to grips with what this table is telling you until you relate it back to table one, which provides the context. But you don’t have to track very many of the rows across to realize that a small linear change in target yields a huge difference in the probability of success, and the more dice in the target pool, the sharper that difference. Look at the 23-dice row for example – +1/4 over the basic average of 3.5 more than halves the chance of success. In other words, the more dice in the pool, the more important small changes in the target become – an outcome some people find counter-intuitive.

This also means that the more dice in a pool, the less significant any given number of sixes becomes. You can also observe this trend by considering the averages described in the example above.

# dice TABLE 3 – TARGET BY AVERAGE ROLL -2/3 -1/3 -1/6 +0 +1/6 -1/3 +2/3 2.8333 3.1667 3.3333 3.5 3.6667 3.8333 4.1667 6 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 7 20 23 24 25 26 27 30 8 23 26 27 28 30 31 34 9 26 29 30 32 33 35 38 10 29 32 34 35 37 39 42 11 32 35 37 39 41 43 46 12 34 38 40 42 44 46 50 13 37 42 44 46 48 50 55 14 40 45 47 49 52 54 59 15 43 48 50 53 55 58 63 16 46 51 54 56 59 62 67 17 49 54 57 60 63 66 71 18 51 57 60 63 66 69 75 19 54 61 64 67 70 73 80 20 57 64 67 70 74 77 84 21 60 67 70 74 77 81 88 22 63 70 74 77 81 85 92 23 66 73 77 81 85 89 96 24 68 76 80 84 88 92 100 25 71 80 84 88 92 96 105

 
Table 3 is exactly the same as table 1 – but it uses a tighter and non-linear grouping of results: ±1/6, ±1/3, and ±2/3.

And yet, despite this non-linearity, the targets look surprisingly linear. Take the 9d6 row (and ignore the extreme results) – 29-30-32-33-35. Or the 21d6 row: 67-70-74-77-81. Just another peculiarity of mathematics.

# dice TABLE 4 – % PROBABILITY OF TARGET RESULT -2/3 -1/3 -1/6 +0 +1/6 -1/3 +2/3 2.8333 3.1667 3.3333 3.5 3.6667 3.8333 4.1667 6 85.54 72.06 63.69 54.64 45.36 36.31 20.58 7 86.28 66.78 58.58 50 41.42 33.22 13.72 8 87.02 69.46 61.98 54.05 38.02 30.54 12.98 9 87.72 71.81 64.96 50 42.39 28.19 12.28 10 88.4 73.89 60.79 53.63 39.21 26.11 11.6 11 89.03 75.76 63.63 50 36.37 24.24 10.97 12 92.4 77.44 66.19 53.33 40.11 27.92 10.36 13 92.76 74 62.6 50 37.4 26 7.24 14 93.1 75.75 65.08 53.09 34.92 24.25 6.9 15 93.44 77.34 67.35 50 38.23 22.66 6.56 16 93.76 78.8 64.16 52.89 35.84 21.2 6.24 17 94.07 80.14 66.37 50 33.63 19.86 5.93 18 95.79 77.46 68.42 52.73 31.58 22.54 4.21 19 95.98 78.85 65.55 50 34.45 21.15 4.02 20 96.16 80.14 67.55 52.59 32.45 19.86 3.84 21 96.31 81.33 69.42 50 30.58 18.67 3.66 22 96.51 82.43 66.79 52.47 37.82 17.57 3.49 23 96.67 83.46 68.64 50 31.36 16.54 3.33 24 97.6 81.4 70.37 52.37 29.63 18.6 2.4 25 97.7 82.46 67.94 50 32.06 17.54 2.3

 
Just as table three is the same as table one (but with different divisions), so the above is the same as table two – but with divisions as per table three.

These are harder values to calculate in your head – but that doesn’t matter, because I’ve done all the calculation for you. That’s the whole point of these tables.

But I should probably remind everyone at this point that I don’t personally use these, because there’s such a simple way of doing it all directly. At most, these will be used for confirmation, or to give me a clearer idea of the range of targets within which I should be operating.

# dice TABLE 5 – TARGETS BY % CHANCE, WITH ANALYSIS 95 88 75 60 50 40 25 12 5 Spread Narrow Spread Platau Platau Group #dice 6 14 16 18 20 21 22 24 26 28 14 6 2 2-3 6 7 17 19 21 23 25 26 28 30 32 15 7 3 2-3 7 8 20 22 25 27 28 29 31 34 36 16 6 2 2-3 8 9 23 25 28 30 32 33 35 38 40 17 7 3 2-3 9 10 26 29 31 34 35 36 39 41 44 18 8 2 2-3 10 11 29 32 35 37 39 40 42 45 48 19 7 3 2-3 11 12 32 35 38 40 42 44 46 49 52 20 8 4 3.-4 12 13 35 38 41 44 46 47 50 53 56 21 9 3 3-4 13 14 38 41 45 47 49 51 53 57 60 22 8 4 3-4 14 15 42 45 48 51 53 54 57 60 63 21 9 3 3-4 15 16 45 48 51 54 56 58 61 64 67 22 10 4 3-4 16 17 48 51 55 58 60 61 64 68 71 23 9 3 3-4 17 18 51 54 58 61 63 65 68 72 75 24 10 4 3-4 18 19 54 58 61 65 67 68 72 75 79 25 11 3 3-4 19 20 57 61 65 68 70 72 75 79 83 26 10 4 3-4 20 21 61 64 68 72 74 75 79 83 86 25 11 3 3-4 21 22 64 68 72 75 78 81 83 86 90 26 10 4 4-5 22 23 67 71 75 78 81 83 86 90 94 27 11 5 4-5 23 24 70 74 78 82 84 86 90 94 98 28 12 4 4-5 24 25 73 77 82 85 88 90 93 98 102 29 11 5 4-5 25 26 77 81 85 89 91 93 97 101 105 28 12 4 4-5 26

 

You may or may not have realized that Table 2 started off being part of Table 1, just as Table 4 started out being part of what is now Table 3. They were split because the Theme used by Campaign Mastery permits only about 550 pixels of content on a line, and the tables would have spilled out of the ‘contents’ area into the navigation panel to the right.

Why, then, has this table not received the same treatment? Primarily because the four columns to the right of the “5” column are analysis of the 9 columns to the left (including the “5” column, and the value of this analysis would be almost completely wiped out by breaking the table up. Secondarily, by the time the article reaches this table, I would hope that the RHS Nav would have ended – and I’ll pad the article with illustrations, if necessary, to achieve this. That left only one objection – that it might not render properly on a mobile phone, or when printed. Well, the first is a risk that is always present – Campaign Mastery wasn’t designed to be viewed on such devices – and the second has been solved by providing the tables in separate, downloadable form.

But I thought it important to explain this to readers in order to place the content description below in context.

If you can determine a percentage chance of success (as shown in tables 2 and 4), then you can construct a table in which nominated percentage chances are the headings, and the table content provides the target numbers that yield that %chance of success (or better). It was this thought that led to the creation of table 5.

The columns that read “95”, “88” and so on are the % chance of success. You’ll notice that the extremes are color coded as “not recommended”.

There’s a subtle element of game psychology that explains why this is the case.

Even on very likely actions, there should be a reasonable risk of failure (given that there are so many ways in which the chance of success is improved – additional dice, virtual sixes, more time, and cooperative actions being the major ones). Similarly, even on very unlikely-to-succeed actions, there should be a measurable chance of success, perhaps one far in excess of what is reasonable.

All RPGs are Adventure Games of various flavors. That means that you can’t remove the thrill of uncertainty. But, at the same time, the PCs are the stars of the show, and should succeed in doing the near-impossible on a reasonably-regular basis.

Structurally, then, this can be thought of as combining tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. Except that the whole “averages” concept has been embedded and submerged in favor of selecting a given chance of success – which is then modified by the requirement of sixes, the inclusion of extra dice for skills and equipment, and the litany of chance-enhancing game mechanics features mentioned in the panel above.

What comes across quite starkly in the table, even from the first row, is how small a change in target is needed to have a significant chance in the chance of reaching that target.

The “Spread” column is the first of the analysis features. It subtracts the lowest target number – the one in the “95%” column – from the highest target number – the one in the “5” column. This is the maximum range of results that you have to play with in setting a target. You can actually halve the spread and write the range of useful values as 50%-target plus-or-minus (spread / 2).

Outside of this range, the chances of success or failure are so high that you normally not even have to roll.

The “Narrow Spread” deals only in the more useful range, defined as the lighter-colored entries. Once again, the low-chance value (in the “25%” column) is subtracted from the high-chance value (in the “75%” column).

Finally, the “Plateau” represents the range between a 60% chance of success and a 40% chance. When you look at the shape of a statistical bell curve, which all rolls of Nd6 are if N>1, you find that there is a slow rise, a rapid rise, a leveling off, a rapid decline, and then a slow decline. The plateau is defined, for the purposes of this analysis, as the range described.

You quickly reach the conclusion that the size of the plateau includes a 0.5, which rounds down unless paired with another the same. The plateau for 6d6 is not actually 2, under this theory, it’s 2.5 wide. Rounded, that becomes an alternating pattern of 2’s and 3’s for even numbers of dice and odd, respectively.

You then congratulate yourself on the insight, and are so busy doing so that you never actually absorb the fact that you’re wrong.

If you look more closely at the table, you find that it’s the even numbers of dice that have the twos, the ’round downs’, and the odd numbers that have the “round ups”. At best, you’re half-right – the pattern is the result of a rounding error, but it’s caused by the definition of the target numbers as “the first target number which has the indicated % success rate or better”. This is the same phenomenon that caused every second row in the middle column (the “3.5 average” column) to have values greater than 50% on tables 2 and 4.

Having discerned this pattern, I noticed a pattern within the pattern, and that is described by the “plateau group” column, which is color-coded for easy reference. From 6d6 to 11d6, the plateau is 2-3 target numbers wide; from 12d6 to 21d6, it’s from 3-4; from 22d6, it’s 4-5. Or maybe the ranges are 6-11, 12-22, and 23-?. Or 6-10, 11-21, 22+. It’s hard to decide exactly where the border lies.

Anyway, the point of all this is that it quickly lets you zone in on the range of possible target numbers that are appropriate for the challenge facing the character.

It’s a tool, in other words.

Which brings me to the three-part table six. I wanted to present the basic information in as many formats as possible so that the most useful one could always be employed. Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 exchange the two axes of tables 2 and 4, putting the number of dice across the top, and listing every possible target for any of the dice indicated. There are a number of possible entries – in order, high to low:

• 100 (red background) = 100% certain, guaranteed to succeed.
• ~100 = 99.9% or better chance of success.
• >99 = between about 99.1 and 99.9 % chance of success.
• ~99 = between 89.9 and 99.1 but not 99.0 % chance of success.
• Number between 99 and 1 without a symbol: the number % chance of success.
• ~1 = between 1.1 and 0.9% chance.
• <1 = between 0.1 and 0.899% chance.
• ~0 = between 0.1 and 0 % chance, i.e. 1 in a thousand rolls or worse.
• — = 100% certain failure (unless additional dice are brought in.)

This table isn’t about the patterns across a row, it’s about the specific chances of success for any given target and number of dice. They show just how compressed the information in tables 1-5 actually were. But more than that, because I was able to extend these up to 30d6, larger than any reasonable die pool should ever be expected to get.

Wherever possible, I have ‘collapsed’ rows which had exactly the same results – this can be seen for target numbers 57 and 58 on table 6-1, where two rows had exactly the same content; they have been conflated to make the table a little smaller. That means that there is no difference between the two target numbers within the given range of numbers of dice,

TABLE 6 – % SUCCESS BY TARGET & NUMBER OF DICE -Target 4d6 5d6 6d6 7d6 8d6 9d6 10d6 11d6 12d6 6/- >99 >99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 7 99 >99 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 8 97 >99 >99 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 9 95 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 10 90 98 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 11 84 97 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 12 76 94 ~99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 13 66 90 98 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 14 56 85 96 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 15 44 78 94 99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 16 34 69 90 98 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 17 24 60 86 96 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 18 16 50 79 94 99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 19 10 40 72 91 98 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 20 5 31 64 86 96 >99 >99 >99 ~100 21 3 22 55 81 94 99 >99 >99 ~100 22 1 15 45 74 91 98 >99 >99 ~100 23 <1 6 28 59 87 96 99 >99 >99 24 <1 6 28 59 82 94 98 >99 >99 25 — 3 21 50 76 91 97 >99 >99 26 — 2 14 41 69 88 96 99 >99 27 — <1 10 33 62 83 94 98 >99 28 — <1 6 26 54 78 92 97 >99 29 — <1 4 19 46 72 88 96 99 30 — <1 2 14 38 65 84 94 98 31 — — ~1 9 31 58 80 92 97 32 — — <1 6 24 50 74 89 96 33 — — <1 4 18 42 68 85 95 34 — — <1 2 13 35 61 81 92 29 — — <1 1 9 28 54 76 90 36 — — <1 <1 6 22 46 70 86 37 — — — <1 4 17 39 64 82 38 — — — <1 2 12 32 57 77 39 — — — <1 1 9 26 50 72 29 — — — ~0 <1 6 21 43 66 41 — — — ~0 <1 4 16 36 60 42 — — — ~0 <1 2 12 30 53 43 — — — — <1 1 8 24 47 44 — — — — <1 <1 6 19 40 45 — — — — ~0 <1 4 15 34 46 — — — — ~0 <1 3 11 28 47 — — — — ~0 <1 2 8 23 48 — — — — ~0 <1 ~1 6 18 49 — — — — — <1 <1 4 14 50 — — — — — ~0 <1 2 8 51 — — — — — ~0 <1 2 8 52 — — — — — ~0 <1 1 5 53 — — — — — ~0 <1 <1 4 54 — — — — — ~0 ~0 <1 <1 50 — — — — — — ~0 <1 2 56 — — — — — — ~0 <1 1 57-58 — — — — — — ~0 <1 <1 59 — — — — — — ~0 ~0 <1 60 — — — — — — ~0 ~0 <1 61-62 — — — — — — — ~0 <1 63-65 — — — — — — — ~0 ~0 66 — — — — — — — ~0 ~0 67-72 — — — — — — — — ~0 73 — — — — — — — — —

 

TABLE 6 – % SUCCESS BY TARGET & NUMBER OF DICE (cont) -Target 13d6 14d6 15d6 16d6 17d6 18d6 19d6 20d6 21d6 13/- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 14 ~100 100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 15 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 16 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 17 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 18 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 19 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 20 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 21 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 22-24 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 25-27 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 28-30 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 31 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 32 99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 33 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 34 97 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 35 96 99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 36 95 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 37 93 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 38 90 96 99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 39 87 95 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 40 83 93 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 41 79 91 97 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 42 74 88 95 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 43 69 84 93 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 44 63 80 91 97 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 45 56 76 89 95 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 46 50 71 85 94 98 >99 >99 >99 ~100 47 44 65 82 92 97 99 >99 >99 >99 48 37 59 77 89 96 98 >99 >99 >99 49 31 53 73 86 94 98 >99 >99 >99 50 26 47 67 83 92 97 99 >99 >99 51 21 41 62 79 90 96 98 >99 >99 52 17 35 56 74 87 94 98 >99 >99 53 13 30 50 69 84 93 97 99 >99 54 10 24 44 64 80 90 96 99 >99 55 7 20 38 59 76 88 95 98 >99 56 5 16 33 53 71 85 93 97 99 57 4 12 27 47 66 81 91 96 99 58 3 9 23 41 61 77 89 95 98 59 2 7 18 36 56 73 86 93 97 60 1 5 15 31 50 69 83 91 96 61 <1 4 11 26 44 63 79 89 95 62 <1 2 9 21 39 58 75 87 94 63 <1 2 7 17 34 53 70 84 92 64 <1 1 5 14 29 47 66 80 90 65 <1 <1 3 11 24 42 61 76 87 66 <1 <1 2 8 20 37 55 72 85 67 <1 <1 2 6 16 32 50 68 81 68 ~0 <1 1 5 13 27 45 63 78 69 ~0 <1 <1 3 10 23 39 58 74 70 ~0 <1 <1 2 8 19 34 53 70 71 ~0 <1 <1 2 6 15 30 47 65 72 ~0 ~0 <1 1 4 12 25 42 60 73 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 3 10 21 37 55 74 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 7 17 32 50 75 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 6 14 28 45 76 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 1 4 11 24 40 77 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 3 9 20 35 78 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 7 16 31 79 — ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 5 13 26 80 — ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 4 11 22 81 — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 3 9 19 82 — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 7 15 83 — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 5 13 84 — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 4 10 85 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 3 8 86 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 6 87 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 5 88 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 4 89 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 3 90 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 91-92 — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 93 — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 94-96 — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 97-98 — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 99 — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 100-101 — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 102 — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 103-105 — — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 106-108 — — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 109-111 — — — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 112-114 — — — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 115-117 — — — — — — — ~0 ~0 118-120 — — — — — — — ~0 ~0 121-126 — — — — — — — — ~0 127 — — — — — — — — —

 

TABLE 6 – % SUCCESS BY TARGET & NUMBER OF DICE (cont) -Target 22d6 23d6 24d6 25d6 26d6 27d6 28d6 29d6 30d6 22/- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 23 ~100 100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 24 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 25 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 100 26 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 100 27 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 100 28 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 100 29 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 100 30 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 100 31-40 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 41-49 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 50-51 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 52 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 53-54 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 55 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 56-57 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 58 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 59-60 99 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 61 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 62-63 97 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 ~100 64 95 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 65 94 97 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 66 92 87 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 ~100 67 90 96 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 68 88 94 98 ~99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 69 85 93 97 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 ~100 70 82 91 96 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 71 79 89 95 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 72 75 86 93 97 99 >99 >99 >99 ~100 73 71 83 92 96 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 74 67 80 89 95 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 75 62 77 87 94 97 99 >99 >99 >99 76 57 73 84 92 96 98 >99 >99 >99 77 52 69 81 90 95 98 99 >99 >99 78 48 64 78 88 94 97 99 >99 >99 79 43 60 74 85 92 96 98 >99 >99 80 38 55 70 82 91 95 98 >99 >99 81 33 50 66 79 89 94 97 99 >99 82 29 45 62 76 86 93 97 99 >99 83 25 40 57 72 83 91 96 98 >99 84 21 36 52 68 80 89 95 98 99 85 18 31 48 64 77 87 93 97 99 86 15 27 43 59 74 84 92 96 98 87 12 23 38 55 70 82 90 95 98 88 10 20 34 50 66 78 88 94 97 89 8 17 30 45 61 75 85 92 96 90 6 14 26 41 57 71 83 90 95 91 5 11 22 36 52 67 80 88 94 92 4 9 19 32 48 63 76 86 93 93 3 7 16 28 43 59 73 84 91 94 2 6 13 24 39 54 69 81 89 95 1 4 11 21 34 50 65 78 87 96 1 3 9 18 30 46 61 74 84 97 <1 3 7 15 26 41 57 71 82 98 <1 2 5 12 23 37 52 67 79 99 <1 1 4 10 20 33 48 63 76 100 <1 ~1 3 8 17 29 43 59 72 101 <1 <1 2 6 14 25 39 54 68 102 <1 <1 1 5 11 22 35 50 65 103 <1 <1 1 4 9 18 31 46 60 104 <1 <1 <1 3 8 16 27 41 56 105 <1 <1 <1 2 6 13 24 37 52 106 ~0 <1 <1 2 5 11 20 33 48 107 ~0 <1 <1 <1 4 9 17 29 44 108 ~0 <1 <1 <1 3 7 15 26 40 109 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 6 12 22 35 110 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 2 5 10 19 32 111 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 4 8 16 28 112 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 3 7 14 24 113 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 5 12 21 114 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 4 10 18 115 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 3 8 16 116 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 3 6 13 117 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 5 12 118 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 4 9 119 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 3 7 120 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 6 121 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 5 122 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 1 4 123 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 1 3 124 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 125 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 2 126-127 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 1 128-129 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 130 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 <1 131-132 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 133-134 — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 <1 135 — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 136-138 — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 <1 139-144 — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 145-150 — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 151-156 — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 157-162 — — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 163-168 — — — — — — ~0 ~0 ~0 169-174 — — — — — — — ~0 ~0 175-180 — — — — — — — — ~0 181+ — — — — — — — — —

 
This trio of tables contain the raw data from which all the other tables were derived. There are five ways to use them.

1. The most obvious one – find the right column for the dice pool, track down to the row that contains your target and read off the percentage chance.
2. Almost as obvious – find the right column for the dice pool and track down that column until you find the base chance of success that you think is right, then left to get the target number that will deliver your chosen percentage.
3. You can estimate what the required number of sixes involved does to the chance of success. Remember that each is essentially +6 to the target and +1 to the number of dice.
4. You can quickly determine the impact that skill and equipment has on the chance of success – these add (or in some cases, subtract) from the dice pool without changing the target.
5. Having no skill reduces the size of the dice pool by two without changing the target. So it’s very easy to see what effect that has on the chances of success, and whether a roll is even necessary, or if the nominated task is beyond someone without the appropriate skills – just go left two columns and read off the chance of success. Note that equipment can replace some or all of those lost dice.

Click the button to download a compressed folder containing the above tables (with a small error in one that won’t detract from the usefulness) in both PDF and XLS formats (111kb).

I have to admit that if I had these tables available, I might have used them now and then, even with the quick and easy method given earlier; so I gave some thought as to how to make them accessible. The downloads I am providing are the solution I came up with.

I don’t think they should take the place of the system of calculation that I use, but use for verification, for estimating the impact of a sixes requirement, and for estimating the capabilities conferred by a given number of skill ranks for a particular PC or NPC* cannot be underestimated.

* It has to be for an individual, because no one else is likely to have exactly the same combination of Stats and Purposes, and this is especially true in light of the self-defined stat.

Designer’s Notes & Discussions: Doing Things

I’ve been a little lazy in this article in terms of separating notes and observations from the rules. I thought I should start what remains in this section by explaining why. The purpose of these posts is to communicate how this game system works, and I have set a structure in place that, in general, promises to do that with minimal distraction and side-issues – but I am perfectly willing to set that structure aside if that seems to me to be more effective in achieving that purpose.

That being said, I do still have a few points to discuss, mostly related to the probabilities involved, and hence applicable to any system that uses multiple d6 to determine damage – and indirectly relevant to any system using multiples of some other die size..

Observations of Results Distribution

The more dice there are in a roll, the more room for small drifts from even distribution because that only needs one or two of them to roll higher than averages would dictate.

At the same time, the more dice there are in a roll, the smaller the room for large deviations from the mean outcome, because that requires an increasing number of dice rolling significantly higher or lower than the average.

The entire action resolution system rests on these two effects.

These phenomena mean that characters with high stats & purposes can perform moderately-difficult tasks under normal circumstances with greater reliability, in addition to being able to attempt more challenging actions with some chance of success. The influence of skill ranks and equipment on these probabilities are even over both, as are the circumstantial difficulties that need to be overcome, whereas the stat/purpose effect is more relevant to the reliability question.

In other words, you can have low Stats and Purpose, but if you have enough skill and equipment bonus, you can still attempt difficult tasks and will, every now and then, succeed.

Another way to look at the results distribution is that the probability curves become increasingly narrow with flat trails to either side. I have seen some who describe the difference between a 3d6 roll (which does not display this curve shape) and higher die rolls (which do) as being a “pinch” in the probability curve.

For these higher dice populations, a probability curve consists of four features distributed amongst 7 regions on the curve:

• • A pair of regions of low-probability extreme results which grows rapidly in range with additional dice and is very flat in terms of the probability of a specific die roll. One of these will exist for high rolls and one for low.
  • A pair of regions of rapid increase in probability of results, the probability rising in almost a straight line.
  • A pair of regions of transition between these regions, often quite small, perhaps even only a single result.

A central region in which the probability looks like ballistic motion, rising to a peak and then declining. An increasing share of the total number of possible results will be found within this region.

• In addition, there is a pair of regions at which the high-rising probability joins the “ballistic” motion. Interestingly, if you scale the probability curves of multiple different die rolls and superimpose them, you will find that these points are very closely the same, in relative terms, regardless of the number of dice (Ndn with N greater than 3). Larger numbers of dice show that there is actually a curve formed by these points.

Below are a number of probability curves for your consideration.

The first shows the true results of 9d6, 15d6, 21d6, and 27d6 (increases of 6d6 each time)- values chosen to make the features described above more readily visible. They are a series of steadily-flattening patterns, which is exactly what you would expect with results being distributed over a greater range of results. Note the red line showing the trend in maximum single-result probability.

The second graph aligns the minimum possible result of these die rolls and also scales them so that the maximum possible results are also aligned. This naturally means that the points of maximum probability are also aligned. The curves were all scaled so that the maximum probabilities were the same for each of the die rolls, enabling a more direct comparison of the shapes of the curves. Finally, each result was raised to permit each of the curves to be seen. All of which sounds more complicated than it was. The patterns of probability that I describe are made quite clear by the direct comparison this set of graphs provides.

The third graph is, I admit, an afterthought. Similarly to the second graph, it shows “ridiculous” numbers of dice, scaled to fit: 25d6, 50d6, 100d6, 200d6, and 400d6. Given that the area under each is going to be the same (100%, in total), it clearly shows how the “effective” range of results continues to narrow as the number of dice increases.

Implications: Number Of Sixes

The average number of sixes in any given die roll are equal to the number of d6 divided by six. If you get a remainder, that indicates a chance at one more than the integer result, which you can guesstimate as 100 sixths of the remainder (%), (roughly, multiply by 17). So,

Remainder 1 = 17% of +1;
Remainder 2 = 34% of +1;
Remainder 3 = 51% of +1;
Remainder 4 = 68% of +1;
Remainder 5 = 85% of +1.

The environmental and circumstantial difficulties to be overcome are represented by requiring more dice to come up sixes, or ‘virtual’ sixes, on top of this minimum expectation.

It is only logical that the more dice you are rolling, the more opportunity you have for some of those dice that aren’t expected to roll high to do so. In other words, with increasing dice in the pool, you have more opportunities to get the additional dice imposed by circumstantial difficulties – and those are dice from any source, including skill levels and equipment.

In game terms, then, the system naturally makes characters able to routinely overcome adverse conditions, regardless of whether that’s through native talent (Stats + Purpose) or acquired expertise (Skill + Equipment).

In fact, if Skill+Expertise totals 6, you can reasonably expect one of the them to be a “bonus” six, completely on top of whatever can be achieved through ‘natural ability’. But 1/6th of the time, one rank is all that you need.

All this makes perfect sense, but it’s a reassuring reality check to observe that the game system conforms with the logical reality that it’s trying to simulate. The great news is that it does all this with no additional workload imposed on the GM.

Implications for Game Mechanics

In general, then, small die pools tend to be either spectacular successes or failures and will less often be routine expectations. As die pools grow, the probability of a result at or near the average increases.

These are facts that the GM should take into account when setting targets. The smaller the die pool, the lower the target should be if the character is to have a reasonable chance of success, in relative terms. As die pools increase, it gets harder to achieve even a modest increase in the average result, but easier to achieve that average result.

Whereas with a die pool of only 6-10 dice (on the low end), I might expect an average of 4 or more for an inherently difficult task, with a die pool of 11-14 dice (fairly common) an average of 3.75 might represent the same task, and a die pool of 15-18 dice (quite high) might require an average of three-and-two-thirds.

Why the Virtual Sixes?

Originally, there were no Virtual Sixes in the rules, as I have explained elsewhere, and the demand for additional sixes was far more critical than the target (which represented the inherent difficulty of the task. In favorable conditions, it was too easy to work miracles; in unfavorable conditions, it was too hard to achieve even modest successes. What’s more, the need to stop and actually count the number of sixes rolled was slowing the game system down quite noticeably. Bringing in the ‘Virtual Sixes’ system enabled me to determine a target at the same time as the player was rolling and totaling his dice – as close to 100% efficiency as you’re going to get.

The Limitations Of Virtual Sixes

The problem is that this devalues the rolling of an actual six. That was something that I addressed with the critical success mechanics. It follows that even though they are described as an optional rule, I strongly advise in favor of them.

What’s more, I found that the player organizing his die roll into tens for easy counting made it easier for me to – at a glance – determine whether or not the number of sixes were greater than required, or if there was a significant population of ones (in the event of a failure). It represents virtually no overhead to the GM, in other words. That starts to change with pools of more than 18 dice, when the maximum number you need to count to with that glance becomes (for a very difficult task) 6 or more – even under ideal circumstances.

But, what I discovered was that the length of time it took to sort and total more dice increased faster then the increase in overhead caused by this problem. I still had more than enough time to determine a target AND count the number of sixes or ones – and I could tell with that initial glance which one of those options might be relevant. The Critical-Hits-and-Fumbles rules remained an option with no overhead cost – for me.

I’m not everyone – others might not find it so easy (though they will improve with practice). So I’ve provided the simplification of playing without the criticals – but don’t recommend it unless you are forced into it by a total inability to do simple math, AND don’t have the game tables to hand.

Recommendation: Critical Hits and Fumbles

I strongly recommend playing up the drama of critical hits and fumbles. That often means that the former should be led up to in the narrative by narrowly escaping failure until ‘the stars align’ and the character does something spectacularly well – all of it part of the ONE die roll. PAD if you have to.

Similarly, a fumble shouldn’t be a simple “you drop your sword”, it should be more in the nature of a train-wreck or farce with the character in the starring role. I try to avoid dues-ex-machina when doing this (unless I’ve set the stage for them already) but that’s the only censor. So, unless combat is taking place in a region known to be extremely volcanicly active, I generally won’t have a fissure open beneath the character’s feet – but I’m quite happy for them to lose their grip on their weapon in mid-swing, propelling it into the ceiling or high up a wall, cutting the cords holding a chandelier along the way, which crashes to the ground right next to the character, showering him with shards of glass or crystal.

Part 6 of the Sixes system will deal with doing more things – like combat – but there are a few quick pieces of infrastructure that I should put in place first. So Part 5 will deal with them: Base Values (how many character points a character should be built on), Disadvantages and what they can be used for, Character Penalties, Experience, and What you can do with it (i.e. Improving Characters).