A better alignment system? Or not.

TL:DR version:
Want to improve the alignment system?
 a) Change;
Lawful vs Chaotic
to
Honorable vs Capricious

Settled!

------

If this whole post comes of sounding like a Myerr-Briggs test, that's because of the way the Myerr-Briggs test, and indeed EVERY personality test in existence, is structured. Of course you fit into one of those binary categories, that's all these tests are: identification of specific traits. You could conceivably have a test going "Let's profile you by the color of your hair. Aha! You have black hair. Therefore you fall under the category of "Hair: Black"."

For the purposes of role playing games, personality traits we are really concerned about are those personality traits which people are interested about that character and relevant to medieval fantasy's context. So everything in the Myerr Briggs test is out, for instance. People aren't generally interested if the Drow are introverted or feeling or intuitive or prospective. Folks who play D&D are more interested to know that Drow society is characterized by astounding cruelty. These are terrible people so it's okay to kill them because they are really really baaad.

This topic is all about semantics and theme. What matters to the whole discussion about alignments categories is that the categories sound right and are thematically appropriate for a medieval fantasy.


First Good vs evil,

then Lawful vs Chaotic

-----

Good vs Evil

Oddly enough, the exact qualities of Good and Evil can be unusually subjective. So how about we look at some more specifically defined qualities that are normally associated with good and evil and work from there?

a) Cruel vs Kind
I'm not going to insult you by trying to explain what these mean.

b) Selfish vs Altruistic
Nor this.

You may have noticed that being Kind and Altrustic overlaps a little. They kind of do. When a person is both kind and altrustic, it's difficult to differentiate their acts of kindness from their acts of altruism when they are acting on both at once.

However, selfish but kind people are really really common in reality. By reality, I mean outside of fiction. In fiction, most stereotypical rogue protagonists are selfish but kind. They're looking out for #1, but when they see cruelty they turn in disgust. If it's not too much trouble, they may even help out the person who is suffering. A lot of people in real life would self identify themselves as selfish but kind. Acts of altruism are always hard to perform, but it's easy to sympathise with those in sufferring. The most common thing for selfish but kind people to do is to pray for those who are suffering: no personal cost to self but "My thoughts and prayers are with you".

Altrustic folk who lack kindness are those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of society, but will not blink at eye at sacrificing others for the greater good. Or purging society of unwanted elements. The needs of the many outweigh the needs and rights of the few. Tony Stark in the comics is well known to sacrifice the few for the greater good of the many.

-----------

Law vs chaos
Yuck, must we try to do Lawful vs Chaotic? Really? Fine, let's try.
a) Conforming vs Independent, or Establishment vs Anarchy
b) Measured vs Impulse
c) Civilised vs uncivilised
d) Honorable vs Capricious

a) Conforming vs Independent
When you see the terms lawful vs chaotic, this is probably what you are thinking of: The person with a propensity to obey the set rules and norms of society vs the person who forms own opinions and morals and doesn't give two shits about what everyone else thinks. By the book vs whatever I think works best.
The trouble is, in current popular culture/fiction there are so many bad connotations to being a conformist and so many positive connotations to being an independent thinker that everyone will choose to pick independent over conforming. Even Captain America, the so-called gold standard for the Lawful part of lawful good (compared to Wolverine who is often considered chaotic good), is now best known for this quote:

This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.” 

Sounds pretty non-conformist to me. Rules of society? Law and order? That's not the American way when you believe you are in the right, apparently.

So there two are completely out.

Structure vs Impulse, or Establishment vs Anarchy
Here's the other thing folks think of for D&D's law vs chaos. The person who plans and wants stability, structure and order vs the person who does crazy things on impulse and doesn't think things through. The Joker of course is the poster child for this type of chaos:

Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos, I’m an agent of chaos , and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair.

Alternatively, there's V from V for Vendetta.

Eve: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please? 

V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age or ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.

...I'm not really convinced people reaaaallly care about all that for D&D. Anarchy vs establishment depends largely on context; in settings where questions of rule of society vs independent freedoms are interesting to look at. D&D isn't really about law vs chaos its iterations being of much interest because Law vs Chaos has very little effect on the world of D&D, in spite of the pantheon supposedly following the alignments strictly. 

Heroes in D&D are crushing fantasy monsters and creatures of mysterious origin which do terrible things to ordinary folk. D&D's villains are selfish and power hungry or become liches because they fear death. Villains in medieval fantasy are dangerous because they have awesome magical powers or command evil armies of undead or savage orcs who want to murder the common folk.

Villains in medieval fantasy settings are not villains just because they are part of the 1% who keep the rest of the populace in servitude.  Villains in D&D are not mundane politicians of the established order who must be overthrown by inciting the local populace. Revolutions are a bit past medieval and renaissance, moving into early modern history territory.

Anarchy vs establishment just isn't one of the typical themes in medieval fantasy like D&D.

There's certainly a case for the argument that we don't need an alignment system at all. After all, characters are more interesting when they break alignment. I argue that it's the inconsistencies and the idiosyncrasies of human behavior that make people interesting.

For example, Han Solo. We're reminded time and again that he looks out only for himself. It's the exceptional time when he decides to come back and help at risk to his own self that makes him more interesting. Certainly more interesting than someone who always puts his life on the line every time.

Folks who are almost always kind are more interesting when they take special joy in seeing someone suffer. Perhaps that someone "had it coming" or had committed acts of unspeakable evil. Or perhaps it is a mother who steps-in to protect her daughter from a psychopath with remarkable savagery.

Someone who looks out only for #1 is a lot more interesting if there is someone in his life who he would lay down everything for, and whose death he will avenge at any cost with the untold fury.

---
b) Measured vs Impulse
Only interesting in differentiating disciplined monks from savage barbarians. Being "measured" and careful and controlled vs not thinking things through and being passionate and flying into rages. Other than monks or barbarians though, I'm not convinced these are important enough descriptions for everyone else.

c) Civilised vs uncivilised
Same here. Comparing urban, civilised folk to those who live in the savage wild. Kinda relevant to medieval fantasy themes, but not by much. It doesn't really say enough about the character's actual personality and view on life.

-----------
Then again, maybe I'm overthinking the purpose of good vs evil in D&D.

Functionally, I think what we really want are just categories which help players and DM quickly understand the type of NPCs they are dealing with. We want to use categories because people use categories such as "bad guys" and "good guys" to label others around them. For the purpose of D&D and the power fantasy, players want a quick shorthand of which sentient races are okay to kill because they are evil. It's really that simple.

Drow? Cruel, evil culture of men-hating women. All evil, very few exceptions. Kill on sight... unless they're named Drizzt or worship a good god (see Solaufein). Leave those ones alone.

Kuo-Tuo? Not just evil, they're insaaaaane. Murder 'em double quick.

Sprites? Whoa, they're good guys. Just protecting their homes. Leave em alone or make friends.

And so on. So at least for the purpose of the Monster Manual, I think the "good" and "evil" labels are too useful to let go of, if simplistic. In a word, these labels immediately the the DM what the mythos and established lore say about these creatures or if they are meant to be dangerous enemies or potential allies for the players.  Effective and simple is a good thing, right?

Law vs chaos still seems useless though.

Or is it? I've left one out: d) Honorable vs Capricious

---------

d) Honorable vs Capricious
Probably one of the better ways to tell if an alignment system is working well or not if people CARE about the labels and connotations that the name of the alignments implies. Good vs evil is the primary example: If you ask a person to describe themselves as either good or evil, most will choose good. Most folk don't appreciate being called evil and would like to think of themselves as good people at their very core.

Lawful vs chaos though... if you ask a person if they are chaotic or just plain crazy, they may not be so inclined to disagree. As I mentioned earlier , being willing to bend the rules in the right circumstances is often seen as desirable in current culture.

If you ask a person to describe themselves as either honorable or capricious instead of lawful or chaotic, I figure you're more likely to get more people wanting to identify themselves as honorable. Being described as dishonorable and capricious sounds like people trying to say you are undependable and untrustworthy. Or having no principles.

Really, the terms honorable and capricious actually carry very very similar meaning to lawful vs chaotic as per D&D tradition. My housemate points out the *nuance* is different. Sure. I think that different nuance is just enough to make it relevant.

-----------

On another note, I've kind of hit writer's block on the whole isekai idea. It's a case of too many options and having difficulty pinning down the one which will make the most sense for the setting and the target audience since the concept is so fresh.

D&D no Isekai

Hold the phone! Forget about making a medieval fantasy RPG like D&D awhile. I've an idea of a completely new genre of role-playing.

Ever heard of Isekai? It's a sub-genre of Japanese fiction (anime, manga, light novels, etc.) where a normal person is transported to another world (usually medieval fantasy). Usually the person has some sort of advantage including their understanding of modern medicine and technology or even having overpowered abilities they never had in real life. (Otherwise the hero would die in an unfamiliar fantasy world very quickly)

Examples: Sword Art Online, Overlord, World Customize Creator, The Rising of the Shield Hero, Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash, KonoSuba: God's Blessing on this Wonderful World, and plenty more.

So the idea for this RPG system is that players will play as themselves, but transported to a fantasy world. They probably (but not always) have some advantages which allow them to thrive in this new unfamiliar world and thus able to go on dangerous adventures. Every campaign, the fantasy world will work under different rules and cultures. So expect a lot of discovery and experimentation.

Lots of variation options means that I'll need a very flexible and rules-light system. I'm thinking checking out how Night's Black Agents varies it vampires. Character sheets can be as simple as writing a bit about yourself.

Some variation ideas:
1. Advantages (egs. video game qualities, P&P rpg qualities, specific powers, items from modern world)
2. Player's physical bodies (own body or a local person/monster)
2. World setting (MMORPG, generic fantasy, gothic horror, historic)
3. Magic and world physics rules (realistic, no guns,
4. Monsters


My housemate isn't too excited though. "Why would I want to play as myself? Don't I do that enough already?" Hahaha... gosh, that sounds like a good point.

Hrmmmmm.

Apparently, isekai stories are often a form of wish fulfillment because the protaganist has an overpoweringly huge advantage. I'm not sure how well that would work in a P&P role-playing game: conventional wisdom holds that players need to be challenged in order for the struggles to appear to be meaningful.

Ironically, I find quite a few people are essentially playing as themselves in most P&P role-playing games, personality-wise anyway.

Too much innovation?

Hrm. The less than positive reaction to response to some of the changes I tried in my last session got me thinking. I've tried to change up quite a few things to improve the game. But I think I need to stick to changes which have an important benefit. Too many changes, especially changes which make the game more difficult, will likely not be well accepted by players.

I'm probably going to see a lot of flak for removing constitution, charisma and wisdom for instance. The benefits of the alternate ability scores is a somewhat subtle. So I should seriously consider whether I really need alternate ability scores.

On the other hand, removing the experience budgets has a huge impact on time spent prepping for the game and is a frequent complaint by GMs, so revamping the CR system is a change that should stay. I don't think players will really mind rolling extra damage dice anyway.

I guess the TYPE of change matters. For instance, changes which make the playing the game easier for players may be better appreciated than changes with more subtle benefits. For instance, players are less likely to complain about more flexible spell casting systems which so happens to also solve "linear warriors, quadratic mages".

On the same note as revamping the CR system, I think removing the need for counting squares has a very significant side-benefit: reducing the preparation load of the GM (no need to draw map grid). "Maps" are easy enough to prepare on the fly, complete with props and environmental terrain. Just use a couple of playing cards to denote the combat zones, and have some general props prepared beforehand (tokens for trees and the like). Sensory pleasure-seeking players would love it.

I suspect the endurance/HP system needs to be axed though. Creating tension and improving how the players play the game and thus increase their enjoyment of the game may be a bit to subtle. I'll probably keep the danger associated with hitting zero HP though: roll death save as soon as you are reduced to zero HP.

Hrmpppph. It's really a pity though. The endurance system would have fixed some issues in my spell system as well. (I wanted sorcery-style spell casting slots to refresh every minute. But if I did that, it would make healing spells too powerful. Unless healing spells only recover endurance...)

I'm feeling a little disappointed though. I've already got a lot of interconnected systems which work well together.

Guh. Maybe I'm overthinking things again.

Counting squares suck: Can we do better?

Angry DM has this to say of counting squares of movement in D&D and it's ilk:

One of the biggest slowdowns in D&D and Pathfinder is the act of counting squares. And, the thing is, it’s totally f$&%ing unnecessary. I mean, D&D 5E did away with the worst of it. But it still happens. Here’s what I mean. 

When a character moves, the player (and the DM) often think that the actual path is important. That is to say, you have to show every square through which the PC moves... 

...What really f$&%s things up is when GMs force a player to show the exact path in the hopes they can ‘spring’ something on the player. Like “oops, you went into the WRONG SQUARE and now I get to make opportunity attacks. Hahaha!” At which point, the player will take back the move and try to find a better path. That’s how it ALWAYS plays out. 

So, skip that s$&%. If there is a safe path between the starting space and the destination, assume the character takes it. Let the player declare “I want to move there,” and if you – the GM – can perceive a safe path, it just happens. Simple as that.
Simply put, assume that a character is smart enough to take the most direct safe path available....

Point being, counting squares is less of the player making a decision and more of the player making a calculation. That's not the intention of the combat rules: we want players to be making tactical decisions, not mental arithmetic.

Player: "1, 2, 3, 4... no... 1, 2, 3,4,5! Does that work?"
DM: "No, this square is difficult terrain so it takes double movement."
Player: "Ok, then. Let's try 1, 2,3, 4,5...6! Does that work?"

We shouldn't even want players to be counting at all; just eyeballing it, considering tactical options, and making a call. Is there a way of keeping the tactical decisions without the kindergarten simulation?  Yes, actually. We don't really need squares at all.

Sly Flourish describes how to run D&D combat using narrative combat rules aka "Theatre of the Mind".

13th Age uses a combat positioning system which is a close to narrative combat rules, but with some added structure. 13th Age has this nice quote to rationalise why relative positioning is better than 5-foot squares typically used in D&D/pathfinder:

Whereabouts
Each creature has a general, relative position on the battlefield. Combat is dynamic and fluid, so miniatures can’t really represent where a character ‘really is.’

Which is a better representation of combat. While it's true that combatants who are cannot move around as freely, it's kind of silly to think that their movement is limited to 5-foot squares during the round. What would actually be happening is dynamic shifting and striding, giving ground and pushing aggressively with each stroke of the blade.

Heard that, simulationists? 13th Age's semi- narrative combat simulates combat positioning better than Pathfinder does. Come at me bros. 😉

However, these "Theatre of Mind" systems are not without their own issues.

1) Placement of environmental props
One of the issues with both Sly Flourish's system and 13th Age's system is that it's a little tricky to place props on the battlefield such as cover like trees and rocks or "The altar of Bhaal, upon which sits the sacred artifact you're all fighting for" since relative positions are abstracted out.

"If I go after the artifact instead, am I in reach of this monster? What about that monster?"
"Can this monster move into a position which negates my cover?"

Things like that. If the players need to keep asking questions about relative positions, it gets just as bad as counting squares. We'd prefer if players knew the relative distances immediately with a glance  without needing to count squares or pester the GM.

Environmental props make the battlefield more interesting by allowing different tactical options. I'd rather we don't lose this element of the game for the sake of brevity. In the future I hope to make a big list of environmental props that make the battlefield interesting.

2) Party more vulnerable to superior numbers
The other issue is that the vulnerable back-line party members (egs. wizard) can get more easily overwhelmed by superior numbers because each fighter in the front-lines can only hold back one enemy. This is because the area and positioning of the party's fighter at the front-lines has been abstracted out. That fighter does not threaten "squares" around her because there are no squares. Instead that fighter only threatens the monsters which is currently engaged with her. Once the fighter is engaged by one monster, all other monsters can ALWAYS walk right past and pounce on the back-lines.

Credit to my friend, that simulationist DM, for pointing this out to me. (He ALWAYS plays ranged characters. Never melee.)

---------

I'm going to try to improve on these systems to eliminate these weaknesses, as I often do. In summary, I try to find a middle ground and incorporate "combat zones" using 13th age's system. So the fighters engage a whole combat zone, and there can be interesting props within each combat zone.

----------

Combat zones
Flavour and tactical consideration in combat: When two combatants lock blades in melee combat, they will not usually standing stationary. Often they will be shifting and striding, yielding ground then pushing back, trying to outmaneuver their opponent and expose their weaknesses. However, combatants will not hesitate to capitalize on any openings, such as foolishly turning their back to the opponent threatening to strike them. The threat of danger prevents combatants from moving carelessly.
The areas within which the battle takes place is abstracted out into different “Combat Zones” by the GM. Usually there should be at least 3 Combat Zones in each encounter; the PC’s back-lines, the middle ground, and the enemy back-lines. However, it is far more common for there to be many different combat zones, say 3x3 combat zones with different combatants starting in different zones.

Enemy combatants within the same combat zones are considered “Engaged” with each other, and may suffer Opportunity Attacks if they take careless actions while their enemies are within reach. When making a ranged attack against a target currently engaged with an ally, the target is considered to have partial cover (+2AC).

An opportunity attack is Reaction where a combatant makes a melee attack roll in response to an engaged enemy taking a careless action. In order to make an opportunity attack, the combatant must be ready for combat (not incapacitated, not surprised, movement is not hindered, etc.) and must have a melee weapon (including natural weapons) equipped. The most common three types of careless actions which may induce opportunity attacks are
a) Taking a Move action to move away from the combat zone
b) Casting a spell with a range further than “self”
c) Making a ranged attack
d) Moving to engaging an opponent equipped with a Reach weapon

Disengage If you are currently engaged by an enemy, you may take the Disengage action to avoid taking opportunity attacks from enemies currently engaging you. Be warned that if there are enemies you are disengaging who are not themselves engaged or hindered in some manner, some of those enemies may decide to take the “Pursue” Reaction to follow you immediately.

Pursue If an engaged enemy tries to move away from you outside of your turn, you may use your Reaction to "pursue" by making one free move action to follow that enemy.  You must not be engaged by another enemy in order to pursue an enemy and your movement must not be hindered in any way.

Intercede If another creature in the combat zone you occupy is attacked, you may use your Reaction to "Intercede" and receive that attack on behalf of the creature. Note that it is possible to intercede for Opportunity Attacks.
(Note: Should list the status conditions which do not allow "Intercede" action egs. incapacitated, stuck, prone, surprised)

Peeking fire. While behind cover, a combatant may use both his move and standard action to attack with "peeking fire", raising the defense bonus provided by the cover by one category by +2. Note that this bonus defence is considered a cover bonus so it is is negated if the combatant is engaged by an enemy as per usual rules.
Note that spells and cantrips are illegible for the "peeking fire" action.

Fully Hunker. While behind cover, a combatant can use their action to "fully hunker", so that enemies blocked by the cover have no line of sight to shoot her. An enemy who does not have line of sight of the combatant cannot target her with ranged attacks or spells. Likewise, the combatant does not have line of sight to those enemies and cannot target those enemies. Combatants that are engaged in melee cannot "fully hunker".

Fail Forward, Traps, Investigation Ability Checks Part 2

Part 1 was here.

Just wanted to report on the results of testing the foreshadowing of traps system and investigative ability checks.

The players were not listening carefully enough to catch the "hints of danger" from my descriptions that there were "beads of water hanging in the air" to realise that there was a giant spider web in front of them. I only tried putting "hints of danger" in my description once though; perhaps if I used that repeatedly they would catch on very quickly? More testing needed there.

(As an aside, gosh, the giant spider web was easily defeated by a player having an enemy guide walk ahead of them to show the way! Cunning challenge-seeking players being clever as usual. The fact that they didn't walk into it themselves may have contributed to the lack of crying and moaning. Perhaps the players felt it was fair they didn't notice it too.)


Presenting a trapped dungeon as a puzzle to be solved through ingenuity and "spot the pattern" worked quite well though I think. The players had fun finding solutions to navigating through the maze filled with traps safely, and the cunning challenge-seeking player very quickly realized what the pattern was. If they couldn't figure it out we could have defaulted to dice rolls to undo the traps I suppose.

However, the players reacted extremely hostilely to the investigative ability checks. They hated having the rolling of dice taken away from them! Should have realised sooner that all players have a bit of submission-seeking/hobbyist in them so they hate not getting to roll the dice. I didn't realise it because I'm ambivalent about rolling the dice myself; just because I roll the dice myself doesn't give me the feeling that I'm actually playing anything. I'm not in control of the dice outcome at all! But submission/hobbyist players feel differently.

Core engagement 9: Prankster

GM EYES ONLY:

In the player’s section, I told the players there are 8 core engagements (aka aesthetics of play) that are relevant to medieval fantasy role-playing games. This is not true. Apart from the 8 core engagements I mentioned earlier, it is worthwhile for the GM to recognise one more that is specifically relevant to role-playing games and not listed in the original research article; the Prankster. It was pointless to ask players to try to recognise if they are a prankster because it is not something which players will admit to. As a reminder, the different core engagements are the Prankster, Submission/Hobby, Narrative, Discovery, Expression, Fantasy, Challenge, Fellowship, and Sensory Pleasure.

The Prankster

The prankster specifically enjoys getting an emotional reaction of annoyance out of people. He wants to prank people and play a joke on them, hence the name. There are many ways in which the prankster can do this, such as by recognising what other players want in their games and do something that threatens to ruin that core engagement for the other players. Alternatively, they may recognise what preparations the GM has put in and recognise what campaign the GM wants to run and mess it up. A crafty prankster will walk on a thin line, doing just enough to annoy but not enough to really make people mad and thus get thrown out of the game.

Recognising a prankster is tricky. Sometimes hobbyists just want something interesting to happen because they are bored, especially if their desire to kill monsters and collect loot isn’t being met. The prankster is different in that what he wants is to get a rise out of his players and GM. Recognising that a player’s wants are not being met rather than a prank is being played can be important in managing the game.

If an action has no purpose or benefit to the player except to annoy someone else at the table, it’s a prank. Body language can help in recognising the prankster. There is nothing the prankster likes to see more than the shocked and annoyed expressions on the faces of players and GMs who are being pranked. For that reason, the prankster will be admiring the results of the chaos he has sown and thus be looking with anticipation at the faces of the people he is trying to play a prank on.

Keep in mind that a prank really is just a joke that is made at the expense of someone else. It is up to you if you want to tolerate pranks. Some people even appreciate the occasional prank. That person does not have to be you, but it can be if you so choose. The same advice goes for other players who are being pranked. Once you have identified there is someone who enjoys pranking other people at your table, it may be time to very calmly take a break, then have a sit down with all the players. Ask them if they tolerate pranks and remind them that a prank is just a joke made at the expense of others.

Sometimes players don’t want to be pranked, and as the GM you can override pranking actions by disallowing the action completely. Try not to override actions which provide a legitimate benefit to the PC as that may be an indication that it isn’t just a prank. Sometimes players are okay with pranks and get in on the fun as well.

If you no longer want to carry on with the game because you feel the work you put into being a GM is not being respected or for any other reason, you have that right. Try to be civil about it. Alternatively, some folks find it more useful to lie that there is a clash in schedule. If you do decide to carry on with the game, you may find it more useful to use the Dungeon Crawl campaign format as it is easier to run and the work you put it is less likely to be wasted. You may consider recycling your materials for another group of players.

Interestingly, sometimes pranksters become GMs themselves. As a GM, the prankster will try to trick and fool players into doing things with unwanted consequences or play pranks on the players in other ways. As a matter of fact, many elements in traditional medieval fantasy role-playing games are specifically placed in the game to allow the GM to prank their players: traps, mimics, animated objects, deck of many things, and especially that darn monster that looks like another monster but explodes if attacked. These campaigns can be a lot of fun for the right crowd; every time one player gets pranked, there are 4 other players at the table who are giggling at his expense. Of course, every player gets their turn to be pranked. It makes for an interesting way of running a campaign as some players really do enjoy dealing with unusual and unexpected turn of events as well as a GM who doesn’t take his campaign very seriously.

Spell-balancing math

MATH MATH MATH this post is full of math! Basically showing my thought process of how to balance spell power vs warrior damage.

So how should a spell like Magic Missile be balanced? The 1st-level spell slot is used by both level 1 and level 2 wizards, so we need to balance the 1st-level spell slot against both the level 1 and level 2 fighter.

Hold on, D&D's terminology is confusing. Let's revise the terminology.

Level refers to character level. In D&D, someone may be playing a level 3 Fighter.
Level Circle now refers to the advanced spells. So someone may cast a 1st-Circle spell like CBurning Hands or Magic Missile, using a 1st-Circle spell slot.

Levels refers to the advancement of the player character. Circle refers to more advanced spells or spell slots.  Okay?

So let me repeat my previous statement. The 1st-Circle spell slot is used by both level 1 and level 2 wizards, so we need to balance the 1st-Circle spell slot against both the level 1 and level 2 fighter.

Fighter damage = (weapon+MODIFIER)*Level
A level 1 fighter with a longsword will do (d8+3)*1=7.5 average damage (4 to 11)
A level 2 fighter with a longsword will do (d8+3)*2=15 average damage (8 to 22)

A 1st-Circle spell slot is used for both level 1 and level 2 wizard.
To balance against both a level 1 and 2 fighter, we take the average level of the fighter: level 1.5 Fighter
Damage of a level 1.5 Fighter = (7.5+15)/2 = 11.25 average damage is the number we compare against

So how much damage should a 1st-Circle compared to a level 1.5 fighter with a longsword? About double should be about right since spells are a limited resource. But here is the kicker: the wizard isn't allowed to do double the longsword damage all in one hit. Reason being, PCs sometimes have the same spells levelled at them. One-shotting someone with a spell is much less funny when you're on the receiving end. So the damage potential of spells has to be spread out, either in an AoE or through some common D&D tricks.

The D&D trick I'm thinking of is Magic Missile. Unlike every other damage spell, Magic Missile always hits. By virtue of always hitting, Magic Missile has about doubled its average damage (longsword hit-chance is about 60%). So we can have magic missile do 11.25 average damage, or about 2d10.

What about AoE spells like Burning Hands? Burning Hands has about the same chance as hitting as a long-sword attack, but it's considered more potent by virtue of hitting more targets. We can consider the AoE attacks to hit at least 2 targets. So again, we can just use 11 average damage or 2d10.

--------

Magic Missile
1st-Circle Evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Target: Varies
Range: 4
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: 2d10 Force damage missile, +1 missile per Circle
Creates a magical force missile for each Circle used, each of which does 2d10 force damage. Each missile can be assigned to the same or different targets, before the damage rolls are made.

Burning Hands
1st-Circle Evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Target: Small cone
Range: -
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: 2d10 Fire damage per Circle; Finesse save halves
Objects in the zones that aren’t being worn or carried will also be damaged.
-----

You know what? Rather than making players remember all the different spell damages, why don't we just keep it to 2d10 damage for every spell?

Well, every spell except Cure Wounds, which is a very different kettle of fish.

Incidentally, there's a certain classic D&D spell of the 9th-Circle spell called Power Word Kill;

Power Word Kill
You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly. If the creature you chose has 100 hit points or fewer, it dies. Otherwise, the spell has no effect.

Since we know that spell gain power linearly (2d10 per Circle) in our system, we can balance Power Word Kill in the same way. Spells gain about 2d10 damage per Circle, so a 9th-Circle spell should do about 9*2*5.5= 99 damage. Just 1 short of 100! So Power Word Kill stays the same.

Is it a coincidence, I wonder? Probably not. 2d10, our benchmark for Magic Missile damage, actually does the same average damage as the 5E version of Magic Missile; 3(d4+1).
2*5.5= 11
3*(2.5+1) = 10.5

10.5*9 =94.5, just a little under 100. So although Magic Missile in 5E does scale linearly with spell slots, the average power of the spell slots is sort of designed to do so.

Sort of. Meteor Shower is a big exception. 2*(20d6) = 40x3.5=140 average damage. Yikes.

-------

But waaaaaaaait. Didn't I decide that Strength, Finesse and Cognizance only increases the damage, not the actual hit chance? Shouldn't it be the same for spells as well?

Whoops. Ok. So It looks like I should be introducing modifier damage into the spell damage equations. This goes against D&D traditions once again, mind you, but somehow I don't think D&D purists will really mind.

And so, aim is about 11.25 damage per circle. We're expecting a modifier value of +3. Erm... 2d6+3=10? A little low. 2d8+3=12? Now a little high. 1d12+3=9.5 is far too low.

Can only apply modifier once, otherwise modifier contribution becomes too important.... OR DOES IT?

Warriors apply their modifier once for every level in my game. If spells apply modifier only once per circle, then spells will apply modifier only once every 2 levels since PCs gain a new circle once every 2 levels.

Thematically, it makes more sense that spells are more dependent on modifier than weapon attacks. A weapon is still very dangerous in the hands of someone who is weak. A spell in the hands of someone without the right aptitude for it... much less so. So fine, let's apply ability score modifier twice for spells.

In that case, there's a clear case for 2[d4+Mod] = 11 average damage assuming a modifier of 3.

What about Power Word Kill? Hrm. At level 17, Players would have a modifier of +6. 18*(2.5+6)= 153. So about 150 Power Word Kill threshold is about right? Maybe.

--------

Since the spell-casting ability score doesn't affect hit chance, status affect spells need some other way to depend on the spell-casting ability score. Probably the duration of the status affect.

Core engagements part 8: Sensory Pleasure

Part 1 Submission/hobbyist 

Part 2 Narrative

Part 3 Discovery

Part 4 Expression
Part 5 Fantasy
Part 6 Challenge

Part 7 Fellowship

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.

-------

Sensory Pleasure

Sensory pleasure is an odd engagement in medieval fantasy role-playing games. But some folks really love having little things to touch and hold and place. Figurines, maps, power cards, even the initiative tracker gives these folk joy in their role-playing games. Something like the joy of playing with toys, essentially.

How do I know if I’m a sensory pleasure seeking player?

The most common giveaway of sensory pleasure seeking players is their collection. Figurines, maps, cards, board games with lots of pieces. Sensory pleasure seekers will often collect an array of little bits of bobs used in games that can be held and played with, or even a large variety of different games with their own bits and bobs. If figurines are too expensive, some folks create their own cheaper stand-ins.

Conflicts: No battle

Unfortunately, most of those cool bits and bobs only come into play during combat. So for the folks who enjoy non-combat activities such as talking to NPCs to move the narrative or as an opportunity for expression through acting, or even taking a long time planning the party’s next move efficiently, there is a bit of a conflict of engagements. Fortunately, unlike the submission/hobbyist players, you have bits and bobs to play with while waiting.

Specific advice for sensory pleasure seeking players: If your GM cannot provide, bring your own! Don’t be afraid to offer the GM and even fellow players more things to handle such as figurines, initiative trackers, spell/power cards, environmental props, and so on. Your GM should get the idea pretty quickly.

Core Engagements 7: Fellowship

Part 1 Submission/hobbyist 

Part 2 Narrative

Part 3 Discovery

Part 4 Expression
Part 5 Fantasy
Part 6 Challenge

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.

-------

Fellowship

Fellowship players come in two varieties, generally. Both of them just want to kick back and enjoy hanging out with some buddies. The first is the “wallflower”; he doesn’t seem to be all that involved in the game but comes every session and seems to enjoy himself without much effort from the Gm to cater for him. The second is the “guild-mate”; he wants to enjoy the feeling of camaraderie and cooperation in achieving a goal together with his friends.

How do I recognise if I’m a fellowship-seeking player?

It may surprise you to know that not everyone in the hobby is actively seeking the core engagement of fellowship. Most people who seek out organised play where they play with different strangers every session instead of a dedicated and consistent gaming group are NOT looking for fellowship.

Games which fellowship players enjoy tend to feature multiplayer and be co-operative. MMORPGs are a common, but really any game where players can co-operate as a team to overcome challenges will attract the fellowship-seeking player. Fellowship seeking players will often play characters who support their fellow party members such as clerics and other healers.

One way to recognise a fellowship-seeking player is through their list of friends in various games: their friends list is unlikely to be empty and they would take the effort in inviting friends to join them in games or waiting for times that their friends are available.

Conflicts: Expression, Submission/hobby

Expression-seeking players may enjoy playing as characters which are unique and uncommon or more difficult to role-play well. These include characters which are loners, selfish, or outright evil. Unfortunately, these characters are anathema to the player who seeks cooperation and fellowship because these characters conflict with the spirit of cooperation of the party.

Submission/hobby seeking players only really pose an issue if they get bored. If there’s too much narrative, planning and interaction with NPCs and not enough crushing of monsters and earning loot/experience, submission/hobby players may sometimes try to disrupt what the other players are doing and trying to push the game forward towards the content they do want. Even if they don’t disrupt the game but express boredom all the time, the fellowship player will be uncomfortable that not everybody at the table is on the same page.

Specific advice for fellowship-seeking players: Self-identifying oneself as a fellowship-seeking player as early as possible can have a big impact in communicating your wants to other players. It may be difficult for you to enjoy playing at a table with “lone wolf” or ‘manipulative’ PCs run by other players unless you are quite close to that player with whom you are able to communicate openly and comfortably. 

Core Engagements 6: Challenge

Part 1 Submission/hobbyist 

Part 2 Narrative

Part 3 Discovery

Part 4 Expression
Part 5 Fantasy

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.

-------

Challenge

Challenge seekers generally come in two varieties that are relevant to medieval fantasy role-playing games: the tactical challenge seeker and the cunning challenge seeker. Both seek to influence the outcomes through their own discreet actions, the former by manipulating the combat mechanics available in the game, and the latter by manipulating outcomes based on other context.

In spite of the name, ‘challenge’ seekers are not necessarily looking for difficulty in their fantasy medieval role-playing games. The probability of overcoming an obstacle is less relevant; what is more relevant to the challenge seeker is their ability to affect the outcome. If a challenge seeker succeeds in overcoming an obstacle, they want to know it is because of something they did or chose to do rather than the whims of a dice roll or the intervention of the GM.

The tactical challenge seeker is most interested in the war game aspects of the game. Like the hobbyist, they are more interested in the combat compared to exploration and interaction. The difference is subtle but important: the tactical challenge seeker wants combats which provides a mental exercise or puzzle to figure out the best tactics. The tactical challenge seeker wants to succeed in the combat due to specific choices she made, be it at optimizing character builds or careful placement and choice of action in combat. Cover, positioning, spell choice, preparation and reconnaissance are the some of the tools used by tactical challenge seekers to achieve their goals.

The cunning challenge seeker also seeks to manipulate outcomes through their own actions rather than the luck of the die or GM intervention. However, unlike the tactical challenge seeker the cunning challenge seeker will try to circumvent, trivialise and avoid combat altogether. The cunning challenge seeker examines cues provided by context other than the mechanics of combat in the game system in order to “cheese” through encounters.



How do I know if I am a challenge seeking player?

Most players try to embrace some of the tactical challenge engagement that medieval fantasy role-playing games offer in order to survive the potentially deadly combats. Tactical challenge engagement players can be recognised by the effort they put into becoming well-acquainted with a game system’s unique set of combat rules and find efficient strategies and tactics within the confines of the system.

Actively seeking ways to circumvent or trivialise combat even though they enjoy combat is a curious contradiction that characterises cunning challenge seekers.

Both tactical and cunning challenge seekers may spend a lot of time in discussion and planning, both in and out of combat. Strategizing is a fun activity for challenge-seeking players, after all. To them it is fun to determine the most efficient use of resources and correctly identifying which courses of action leads to the best chance of success.

Hobbyists may mistakenly identify themselves as primarily tactical challenge seekers when all they really want to do is lay back, roll dice and rock some monsters hard without thinking too hard about it. Like the tactical challenge seekers, hobbyists may be interested in optimizing their player characters for combat as they are also interested in victory in combat. As a matter of fact, game designers have made this same mistake in thinking that hobby seeking players of medieval fantasy role-playing games want tactical challenges, and so designed a relatively recent edition of a medieval fantasy role-playing game with a strong focus on tactical challenge much like that of a war game. Unfortunately, that edition of the game did not meet the wants of the hobbyist, and was denigrated for being “too much like a computer game”, “too much like an MMO”, or “too much like a board game”. None of these criticisms hold water for a tactical challenge seeker as tactical challenge seekers enjoy the board games aspects and may even appreciate medieval fantasy role-playing games emulating board games even further. Hobbyists want to roll dice, kill monsters, find treasure and become powerful heroes. Having to carefully consider positioning, cover and other tactics in great detail, not so much. On the other hand, tactical challenge seekers may feel less satisfaction if victory is achieved due to the whims of the dice rolls rather than specific choices they made. Hobbyists have less issue with the dice rolls ‘winning the game’ for them; after all, they’re the ones rolling the dice.

Compare the choice of Wizard spells used by a hobbyist and a tactician. To the hobbyist, Magic Missile, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are considered key spells as these are the primary damage spells in the Wizard’s arsenal that are almost always useful in battle. Tacticians may occasionally cast damage spells, but they are much more interested in spells which give tactical advantages such as creating difficult terrain to slow enemies down with spells such as Black Tentacles, creating Fog Clouds which renders enemy ranged fire ineffective, or dividing up the enemy forces with a well-placed Force Wall. The latter selection of spells need more contextual and tactical awareness as not every battle calls for those spells. Worse yet, battlefield control spells do no damage and assign the glory of tearing the monsters a new one to other players instead.

Expression seekers may want to also be cunning challenge seekers. They may want their character to be cunning and effective because being cunning and effective are admirable qualities which they want their character to have. The difference is that expression seekers will seek actions which are dynamic and full of flair and style rather than being thoroughly effective. Cunning and effective actions may not always be flashy and steal the limelight, and challenge seekers may happily allow someone else to hog the glory as long as the team is as effective as possible. It is the limelight on the stage and the glory of the position of leadership that the expression seeker may seek rather than the mental exercise and satisfaction of sharpening of their own wits as a player. It’s okay to want to become cunning challenge seekers, but correctly self-identifying the core engagement one enjoys helps one enjoy games more and helps the GM engage one better. If the expression seeking player does not enjoy taking the time to strategize and lay out plans carefully with the rest of the party, it may be better to leave the decision making to the players that do.

Some of the games often played by challenge seekers include Into the Breach, Professor Layton, X-Com, Commandos, Civilization, Crusader Kings, Stellaris, Total War, Starcraft, Space Chem, Portal, tower defence games and a large number of board games and war games which emphasize strategy and tactics. Difficult games like Cuphead, Getting Over It and Dark Souls are difficult and reward persistence rather than providing opportunities for genius, and thus don’t quite scratch the same itch.




Conflicts: Many

Some folks have no interest in learning the combat rules. Even the GM may not bother learning all the rules of the game he’s running! Shocking, right? While this may seem like a breach of the social contract of agreeing of playing a game together, keep in mind they are playing the game of the other core engagements. Why are they even playing the game? Well, not for the war game aspect of the game, clearly.

Some folks just don’t want someone coming up with brilliant ways to completely bypass of trivialize the dangers of combat. Hard to imagine, right? But it’s true, submission/hobbyist players want to sit back and enjoy rolling the dice and kicking monster’s behinds.

Some folk don’t want to put time into coming up with good plans and strategies for problems. It’s not that they don’t want to win, it’s that they can’t be bothered to put the effort into it. Not as much as you, anyway.



Specific advice for challenge seeking players: Keep in mind that not everyone is so into the war game aspects of medieval fantasy role-playing games, including the GM. Even players who want to win battles may not seem to want to master and play with the rules of the battle. But that’s okay: if everyone did it better than you, they would be taking away the fun and opportunity for you to do it instead. So take satisfaction in that you are the team’s strategist. But try not to take too long and to take away from other’s enjoyment of the game.  Compromise is another aspect of the game to manage.

Core Engagements 5: Fantasy

Part 1 Submission/hobbyist 

Part 2 Narrative

Part 3 Discovery

Part 4 Expression

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.

-------

Fantasy

The fantasy seeking player wants to feel immersed in the fantasy world described by the GM. They want to feel immersed and almost as if the world could really exist. There are generally two forms of immersions which are often relevant to medieval fantasy role-playing games: Immersion in Detail and Immersion in Simulation. Players who crave immersion in detail feel the world coming alive when there are realistic details in the world that feel right to the player. Players who crave immersion in simulation feel the world coming alive when the world reacts to their actions in ways which are consistent and mirrors the real world, or at least what they would expect to happen if fantasy elements existed in the real world.

How do I know if I’m a fantasy-seeking player?

Fantasy seeking players are dreamers at heart. They dream of doing things that they cannot do yet and living in a life of adventure. Most of us have a bit of a fantasy streak, otherwise we wouldn’t be into role-playing games at all. For those who really want to get into the fantasy though, those would be the players who craves more in-depth descriptions of the world and people in the game, and find themselves enjoying the fact that the world does not in fact revolve around them like a fabricated theatre.

It's worth mentioning which goes DON'T feature fantasy as an attraction: abstract games such as chess, checkers, go and the like.

Certain open world games like the Elder scroll series and Witcher 3: Wild Hunt also deliver fantasy through the little details in the world which make it feel more alive. Certain games have an enormous amount of atmosphere, which unfortunately are difficult for a GM to match in a table top role-playing game. In particular, This War of Mine, Darkest Dungeon, Dark Souls, Bioshock, Alien: Isolation and a huge number of horror games deliver on atmosphere which enforces the fantasy.

There may not be any medium other than role-playing games which cater very well to players who crave immersion in simulation. Not really. Even in role-playing games, the needs of the player who craves immersion in simulation can be challenging to meet because the rules in a role-playing game system need to be detailed enough in order to resolve actions in a realistic manner. There are not many role-playing game systems which successfully cater to players who crave simulation, and it can be daunting to GM to arbitrate rules-heavy systems. Still, if you recognise yourself as a player who craves simulation, it is worthwhile pointing this out to the GM politely so that the GM can anticipate these wants and act accordingly. At the very least, the GM can attempt to keep the world and rules consistent and predictable enough to satisfy the simulationist player.

For whatever reason, players who crave immersion through simulation often appreciate the core of engagement of cunning challenges because it’s easier to find solutions to problems in a predictable world with consistent rules. Interestingly enough, narrative seeking players don’t seem too interested in immersion through simulation, possibly because they have little interest in complex rules for resolving actions.

Conflicts: None

Specific advice for fantasy seeking players: Recognising the form of immersion, detail or simulation or both, can be pretty important to correctly self-identify and highlight to the GM since the needs of both forms needs rather different effort from the GM to cater to.

Unfortunately for simulationists, in order to be more accessible most modern RPG systems have reduced rules complexity and so GM arbitration of how the world reacts to actions can be important. If the GM is having difficulty arbitrating accurately, you may either need to forgo an accurate immersion in simulation or be trustworthy and skilled enough to help in the arbitration of the simulation yourself.

Core Engagements 4: Expression

Part 1 Submission/hobbyist 

Part 2 Narrative

Part 3 Discovery

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.

-------

Expression

In medieval fantasy role-playing games, expression usually takes form in two ways: Expression through Acting and Expression through Creation.

Many folks often refer to Expression through Acting as “role-playing”, which is a bit of a misnomer. Being able to act and voice your character, while helpful, isn’t mandatory to good role-play. Choosing and describing actions which are appropriate in a given context can constitute good role-playing without the player needing to voice or act out what his character says. That being said, a bit of good acting can bring a lot of entertainment to the table and may be appreciated by all present if done well.

Expression through creation taps into the player’s creativity and desire to write stories, create characters, and participate in the creation of the narrative. Character creation can be a lot of fun for creative minds. Some folk enjoy creating characters which are both extremely competent using the game’s mechanics yet unique in concept and full of flavour; form and function in perfect unison. Or just form or just function. It depends on what type of car you like to drive, so to speak; flashy or practical or some combination of both. Some GMs and systems allow the players to have some participation in the creation of the narrative by creating a custom race, faction, nation or culture which their characters hail from.

Also of worthy mention: Self-discovery. Sometimes GMs place their players in issues of moral quandaries where there are different points of view and lots of grey areas. In order to make a decision in these situations, the players may learn a little bit about what they themselves truly value, and this can be enjoyable. It’s almost like taking a personality test. Some consider this “self-discovery” as a form of discovery. However, in the spirit of the original research article which listed the 8 core engagements (called “aesthetics of play” in the article), we’re mentioning self-discovery as a form of expression instead. Which category self-discovery falls into doesn’t really matter though.

How do I know if I’m an expression-seeking player?

If you’ve played role-playing games before and make an effort to emulate the voice and way of speaking of the character you are playing, you’ve got a bit of an actor in you. Or at least you desire to be. Don’t worry, everyone gets better with practice. ;)

If you enjoyed watching voice actors play D&D in Critical Role, you’ve probably gained an appreciation for expression through acting. Just don’t expect your poor GM to be able to match the voice acting skills of a professional voice actor like Matthew Mercer!

The desire for expression through acting is not really met through computer and board games very well. Some games do try to cater for this form of expression such as the varied voiced responses players can choose in modern CRPGs such as Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Deus Ex and even in the Telltale games. Role-playing games which feature a lot of morally-grey choices and consequence for those choices may be popular with expression-seeking players. We think. Maybe.

If you’ve made far more characters than you could ever play, you probably enjoy the process of creation. Players who seek expression through creation often find themselves wanting to be GMs rather than players. The need for expression through creation leads to the creation of original “homebrew” settings rather than rely on established settings, as well as other “homebrew” worlds, rules and even character classes.

Some of the games which players who seek expression through creation include Path of Exile, Fable 2/3, Robocraft, Kerbal Space Program, and of course Minecraft.

Narrative seeking players often engage in the same activities as the player who desires expression through acting. In order to carry the narrative, interaction with NPCs is usually quite important. The difference is that the player who desires expression through acting enjoys the interaction itself as it is an opportunity for acting and flair, whereas for the narrative seeking player the interaction is a means to end. The narrative seeking players are willing to endure some acting (and often end up learning to appreciate some expression through acting) in order to carry the narrative which they crave.

Players who appreciate narrative sometimes play as a character from (or a character which is heavily influenced by) another source such as their favourite novel, movie or TV show. In contrast, players who seek expression through creation want to create something new and different. While some inspiration can be drawn from various sources, they would want their creations to be wholly their own.

Conflicts: Fellowship

Fellowship players enjoy a spirit of camaraderie and co-operation in their games. While they can be normally easy to please, players who enjoy expression through acting can drive fellowship players crazy when they play fiercely independent and stubborn characters. Lone wolves and unique beautiful butterflies are anathema to fellowship players.

Specific advice for expression seeking players: If you create a character that is not always co-operative and sociable, it may be important to identify fellowship seeking players who want a spirit of camaraderie and co-operation. It may be helpful if YOU as the player co-operates with the fellowship players and you work together with these players on how to work around your character’s behaviours. 

For example, give suggestions what they can do to get your character to co-operate. Be supportive and encouraging as a player, even while your character is being snarky and putting everyone down. If your character concept cannot satisfy the fellowship players at the table (for example, a villain who is secretly working for the enemy), you may need roll a different character instead for that table. Sometimes your creations need the right context to thrive in.

Core engagements 3: Discovery

Part 1: Submission/hobbyist is here.

Part 2 : Narrative is here.

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.
------

Discovery

Players who seek the joy of discovery want to explore unfamiliar places or uncover hidden things. Discovery as a core engagement normally comes in two forms in role-playing games, that is Discovery through Exploration and Discovery through Investigation, but medieval fantasy role-playing games mostly caters for Exploration rather than Investigation. Exploration of locations such as dungeons, ancient sites and exotic realms which contain hidden doors, traps, treasure and lore are common staples of the medieval fantasy genre as they are appropriate for the setting. Investigation usually involves searching for clues, uncovering mysteries and secrets and sometimes even puzzling out the solution to mysteries.

(More on Investigation: The concept of the detective is fairly modern and arguably did not really exist until very late in medieval times. While with some investigation activities can be appropriate for a setting the GM creates, investigation needs some additional work from the GM to be fitted into medieval fantasy as it is not well-supported by the medieval fantasy game systems by default. In role-playing game systems where investigative actions form the core activities, the mechanics and resources provided in the game focus on supporting investigative activities. However, most of the role-playing game systems which do focus on investigation are set in the genre of paranormal horror rather than medieval fantasy due to appropriateness of setting.)

How do I know if I’m a discovery-seeking player?

One would think that folks who take joy in discovery through exploration would enjoy travelling and visiting new places around the world. While that may be true, the types of discovery offered in medieval fantasy role-playing games is so much more. It is better compared to the joy of finding a secret location which promises hidden treasure, experiences or lore. For example, the search and discovery of a hidden bird’s nest or finding a valuable antique in a lonely shop in the forgotten section of a town.  This joy would be less like a tourist and more like a documentary photographer, an archaeologist or antique hunter. It’s pretty rare for folks to try to do this in real life because it is very difficult work that one must be dedicated to do. So it can be difficult to recognize folks who really enjoy discovery based on established behavior since it's too difficult a thing to do in real life.

Some examples of games which exploration seeking players may play are the Elder Scrolls series (Skyrim, Oblivion), Fallout 3&4, ARK: Survival Evolved, Rust, Farcry, the Myst & Riven series, Red Dead Redemption, Horizon Zero Dawn, Metal Gear Sold V and the “metroidvania”-style Castlevania games. These games feature a world with freedom of movement and travel, lots of little nooks and crannies to explore, little secrets to discover and rewards for exploration.

Some computer games which feature investigation include the Phoenix Wright series, Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars, Sherlock Holmes: Crimes & Punishments, L.A. Noire, and interestingly, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, which really is a medieval fantasy computer RPG.

(On day, someone should make a medieval fantasy pen & paper RPG where the heroes are monster hunters for hire who investigate the type of monster, prepare based on the knowledge gleaned, and then track down the monster.)

Conflicts: Submission/hobbyist, Narrative

There isn’t that big an issue of conflict with players who enjoy other engagements for folks who enjoy discovery through exploration. While Discovery players enjoy the sandbox/megadungeon format more, each location in the sandbox/megadungeon can be fitted to lead to Dungeon Crawls which Submission/hobbyist players prefer. Fitting an overarching story into the sandbox/megadungeon format can be tricky but is doable.

Specific advice for discovery seeking players: Like submission/hobby and narrative, it’s important to recognize the desire for discovery early since it can have a big impact on the campaign structure. While conflict with players isn’t a big issue, the workload on the GM can be pretty big. Preparing content for players who desire discovery can be pretty challenging for a GM because the GM would need to plan lots of content beforehand which can be missed completely because the players chose a different path or just didn’t check for secret doors. Please be kind to your GM and have reasonable expectations.

Core engagements part 2: Narrative

Part 1 Introduction and Submission/hobby is here.

Note that this is the player version to identify themselves. The GM gets more tips on how to cater to these core engagements.
-------

Narrative

Players who enjoy a good narrative enjoy a good story in their role-playing games. These players enjoy reading, viewing, listening, or taking part in a story.

Having a good narrative in role-playing games is usually something that GMs have to prepare for in advance rather than improvise on the fly, so recognising there are players who enjoy a strong narrative before the game starts is pretty important. It can be important for narrative seeking players that the GM to runs a Story-driven campaign format which features an overarching plot which ties in with or determines the adventures and quests taken by the party. Fortunately for the narrative seeking player, many GMs nowadays have an expressive side which seeks to create stories for the players to partake in, and so Dungeon Crawls are currently rarer than Story-driven campaigns.

Do note that there are many genres of fiction and medieval fantasy role-playing games are not particularly suitable at catering to every genre unless significant effort is put in by the GM. The classical genres of fiction are Comedy, Drama, Horror fiction, Literary realism, Romance, Satire, Tragedy, Tragicomedy, Fantasy, Mythology and Adventure. Of these genres, medieval role-playing games are more suitable for fantasy, mythology and adventure, possibly with a splash of one of the other genres. Some players and GMs in the hobby have come to expect mostly fantasy, mythology and adventure narratives. So if you find yourself enjoying a different genre (say, romance) in your role-playing games, it may be a good idea to highlight which genres you appreciate to the GM as these genres may not be one of the “default” genres the GM prepares for in their narratives. Well, at least the GM can try.

How do I know if I’m a narrative-seeking player?

Narrative-seeking players are fortunate in that they are not limited to the medium of games to satisfy their desire for good narratives. Narrative seeking players will often look to television, movies, books and even audiobooks as well for good stories. If you’ve enjoyed carefully following an ongoing TV drama (news, reality shows and sports don’t count), an anime, a movie series or a series of novels you probably can appreciate a good narrative.

How much you are willing to actively participate in the narrative of a role-playing game may be indicated by how much effort you are willing to put into consuming stories. Folks who carefully read novels from cover to cover are putting in more effort than someone who only watches the cut-scenes from a TV show on the internet and skips to the “good parts”. The former may be more willing to take more effort in carefully listening and participating in the narrative of a role-playing game than the latter.

Some examples of games that narrative seeking players love are the Final Fantasy series and many other JRPGs, Uncharted, Legacy of Kain, games by Telltale Games, Undertale and adventure games such as King’s Quest and Broken Sword.

The Elder Scroll series (Skyrim, Oblivion) offers more than one core engagement, including discovery, expression, narrative and fantasy. Discovery and fantasy is handled particularly well in the Elder Scrolls series and are arguably the main attractions. But if you completed the main questline in Skyrim or Oblivion, narrative may be a core engagement for you. Narrative-seekers may not like to leave stories hanging without an ending.

Take note that enjoying the consumption of good writing is remarkably different from enjoying the act of writing/creating stories and being a part of the writing process. Players who enjoy consuming a good narrative may not necessarily enjoy writing themselves; writing is a form of expression, which a different type of engagement.

Conflicts: Submission/Hobby, Challenge, Expression, Discovery

Submission/hobby seeking players are a really common in most games, and medieval fantasy role-playing games are not excluded. Some players who primarily enjoy submission/hobby but do not appreciate listening to a good narrative may get bored if a lot of time is spent expounding the narrative and interacting with NPCs to carry the narrative. Hobbyists who get REALLY bored are infamous for taking drastic actions which are completely uncalled for in the given context in order to make something interesting happen. They’re goofing off; it’s how they have fun. This kind of fun does not match well with narrative seeking players as it breaks apart cohesive narratives. Also note that the preferred campaign format of the hobbyist is the Dungeon Crawl, which features limited narrative. Communication and compromise is important.

Like the hobbyist, tactical challenge seekers enjoy combat over interaction and exploration. Interaction is usually more important to the narrative seeking player than combat because it is usually through interactions with NPCs that stakes are set and drama is created. Cunning challenge seekers on the other hand may spend a sometime plotting and planning moves outside of combat. Sometimes these plans are relevant to carrying the narrative of the game, sometimes they are not. Narrative seeking players who are ready to put their own minds to the task can participate in discussing plans that affect the outcome of high stakes dramas and find themselves enjoying the experience. Otherwise, they may find the intricate planning processes of their fellow players disinteresting.

On the surface, expression seekers and narrative seekers want the same things. Campaigns which feature a lot of interaction rather than combat satisfy both expression and narrative seeking players. In fact, many narrative seeking players may use some expressive acting in order to interact with NPCs and move the plot forward. However, unpredictable PC behaviour can make it difficult to run a role-playing game with a strong narrative. Players who enjoy creating unique and quirky characters who are full of flair and style sometimes do not want to roleplay as (what they consider to be) boring, reserved and predictable characters. Instead they may roleplay as chaotic, unpredictable characters which may break the narrative planned by the GM and thus ruin the experience for narrative seeking players. 

Some expressive players enjoy creating their own stories and taking part in the creative process, and may even actively finding ways to replace the narrative planned by the GM with a story of their own. This could end up very positively if the GM is able to adapt to the story being told by the expressive player and other players find they enjoy this new story instead. The potential payoffs in fun for everyone involved can be high. However, there is also risk of frustration and disappointment for everyone as well if handled poorly, so some care should be taken.

Discovery seeking players clash slightly with narrative seekers in that they desire the sandbox/megadungeon campaign format rather than the typical story-driven campaign. Sandbox/mega-dungeon campaigns are flexible enough to be structured in such a way that it allows for an overarching narrative to tie in to the adventures in each location, but some GMs may find it easier to plan for a self-contained dungeon crawls in each location instead.

Specific advice for narrative seeking players: A backstory which includes elements which indicate who or what your character cares about can be important. This is a way signalling to the GM how you want to participate in the story crafted by the GM. Otherwise, your character’s participation in the over-arching story will be that of an outside observer who is intervening in the story rather than central character for who the stakes are important. You may need to talk to your GM to make sure the GM can involve your character in the story in some way before the campaign starts.

Core engagements part 1: Submission

Below is content I'm writing on the different core engagements. Players are expected to eventually self-identify which core engagements they enjoy most so that they can help highlight their wants to GMs an thus result in games they enjoy better. So far I've done the Introduction and Submission engagement.
-------

Player version (there’s a different version for GMs which talk about catering for the different core engagements instead)

Core engagements
Core engagements (also known as aesthetics of play) are the elements of games that players find fun or enjoy engaging in. The original list of core engagements defines 8 different core engagements which players usually enjoy in their games. In order of relevance to the running of a medieval fantasy role-playing games, the core engagements are: Submission/Hobby, Narrative, Discovery, Expression, Fantasy, Challenge, Fellowship, and Sensory Pleasure. Submission/Hobby, Discovery and Narrative seeking players are the most important in recognising before the game starts because the shape of the campaign takes is very relevant to meeting these different needs:
a) Submission/Hobby-seeking players enjoy Dungeon Crawl campaigns best
b) Discovery-seeking players enjoy the Sandbox/Mega-dungeon campaigns best
c) Narrative-seeking players enjoy Story-driven campaigns best

It is worthwhile for players and GMs to know which core engagements the players enjoy most. It is worthwhile in knowing what you want in your games so you can highlight your preferences to the GM or seek out games which meet your desires better.  It is also worthwhile trying to understand what your fellow players want so that you can communicate and come to compromises if there are conflicting desires. While players may not always get a campaign format which suits their wants perfectly due to competing needs of their fellow players, at least the GM can anticipate the different player needs and plan and compromise accordingly.

It’s perfectly normal to enjoy more than one type of core engagements. Most people enjoy more than one. And even if you only enjoy one aesthetic now, there’s no reason you cannot learn to enjoy other aesthetics later. It is also okay to be wrong and correct yourself later and not have your wants met perfectly. Given time and compromise, players and GMs will understand themselves and their friends better and learn to have fun with each other better.

Submission (aka Hobby or abnegation or pastime)
This is the primary and most common core engagements players seek, but it is very poorly named. (Let’s call it ‘Hobby’ since the term ‘Submission’ gives the wrong idea) The Hobby-seeking player plays medieval fantasy role-playing games to roll dice, kill monsters, find awesome loot, and level-up their PCs into powerful heroes. If you think that description sounds rather generic and describes all players, you’d be half-right. Most people who stay in the hobby have a bit of the hobbyist in them, otherwise they stop playing medieval fantasy role-playing games.

Hobby-seeking players formed and may still form the core audience of medieval fantasy role-playing games. The hobbyist is the original core engagements role-playing games were designed for. The original format that medieval fantasy roleplaying games used, the Dungeon Crawl, was designed with hobby-seeking players in mind. If you are a hobby seeking player, give yourself the satisfaction of knowing that medieval fantasy role-playing games were made for you more than anyone else.

Medieval fantasy role-playing games are said to have three core engagements: combat, exploration, and interaction. The hobbyist enjoys engaging in combat more than figuring out how to traverse obstacles and talk to NPCs because combat is where the dice really get rolling, the stakes are real and real action happens. It is in combat that vicious monsters are cut down, victories are won and the best rewards (such as loot and experience) are awarded. Player characters are exceptionally powerful in combat compared to the average commoner and the hobbyist wants to experience that strength in combat and earn great rewards from doing so.

The Dungeon Crawl features mainly combat and finding treasure, sometimes with a little exploration but rather limited interaction with NPCs. While hobbyists may tolerate or even enjoy the occasional diversion in the form of overcoming obstacles like traps and talking to an NPC, a campaign which involves a lot of combat relative to interaction and exploration works best for hobbyists.

How do I know if I’m a hobby seeking player?
You probably are. The more relevant question is if you also seek other core engagements.
One of the give-aways is how much effort the hobby seeking player spends rolling their dice. Hobby seeking players may shake the dice furiously in their hands, pre-roll their dice before the session to test their luck, or discard accursed dice which have failed them. If you do any of these behaviours, you’ve at least got a bit of the hobbyist in you. That’s fine! Remember, medieval fantasy role-playing games were made primarily to satisfy the hobby-seeking aesthetic of play.

Most people who stay in the hobby have some of the hobbyist in them, especially if they stay as players rather than GMs. So if you’ve willingly embraced the genre, the answer is you probably are. At least a little. The better question to ask is if you’ve also embraced the other core engagements and desire to experience those other core engagements as well, or desire the other core engagements more than the hobby aspects. In so, the Dungeon Crawl campaign format may not meet your desire for those other core engagements as well.

On the other hand, if you find the other core engagements such as planning, talking to NPCs and puzzle solving boring and find yourself wanting to roll dice and conquering monsters more, it’s likely you’ve embraced the hobby aesthetic more than the other core engagements. There’s no need to apologise for that; the game was made for you. As always, try to communicate politely with your fellow players and find compromise.

There is a long list of games that hobbyists may enjoy, including Call of Duty, Warframe, Destiny, PUBG, World of Tanks, Diablo 3, FIFA, Forza Motorsport 7, Rocket League, Super Smash Bros, Goat Simulator, Clicker Heroes, Realm Grinder, Adventure Capitalist, and many more. Hobbyists form the core population of gamers and the gaming industry is desperate to make games which are attractive to hobby seeking players. Hobbyists are important in this way.

Conflicts: Narrative, Expression, Fantasy, Challenge, Exploration
Considering that medieval fantasy games were built specifically for the hobbyist in mind, you may be surprised that not everyone shares the same passions as the hobbyist and there is a lot of potential for conflict with other players.

Narrative, expression and fantasy seeking players may be more interested in interaction or even exploration rather than combat, and thus may spend a great deal of time role-playing talking to various non-player characters. These players may also appreciate the GM spending time to describe the setting and little details that make the world feel more alive. Hobbyists may also enjoy these activities and diversions, but to the hobbyist these little touches are diversions from the main course of the game: combat, riches, and becoming powerful. Having these players may also mean that the GM will run a Story-driven campaign instead of a Dungeon Crawl campaign.

Some challenge seekers may actively seek to trivialise or even completely avoid combat altogether, therefore robbing the hobbyist of the glory of cutting down or blasting foes himself as well as the chance to prove his valour. The hobbyist may be wondering why anyone would want to play a medieval fantasy roleplaying game if you’re trying to avoid and trivialise all the fights. What are the dice even for if you never roll them? It is especially irritating to the hobbyist if the challenge seekers take a great deal of time planning out precisely how they want to solve a problem, worse still if the solution involves avoiding or trivialising combat.

Exploration seeking players clash with hobbyists less often in comparison. Exploration-seeking players prefer the Sandbox/Mega-dungeon campaign instead of the Dungeon Crawl, which involves a lot of freedom of choosing where to go and what course of action to take. However, sandbox/mega-dungeon campaigns are quite flexible and could also incorporate a lot of Dungeon Crawl elements. Many commercial modules of sandbox campaigns are built as sandboxes which lead to dungeon crawls. Hobbyists may be willing to allow explorers to search every little nook and cranny of a dungeon because their efforts may lead to finding hidden riches which the hobbyist appreciates. Or not. Explorers can overdo it sometimes.

Specific advice for submission/hobbyist players: Learning to enjoy other core engagements of role-playing games is like learning to paint. You don’t have to learn to paint in order to appreciate looking at art, but it can be a rewarding experience if you choose to put in the effort to do so. Learning to participate in other core engagements is not mandatory; it’s your choice if you want to put in that effort or not as you may find it is not worthwhile. If it isn’t worthwhile for you, it helps to highlight what you want from the game and what doesn’t interest you so that other players can anticipate your needs and hurry up when they are engaging in activities that doesn’t interest you.

Alternatively, find someone who runs Dungeon Crawls. You can’t go wrong with Dungeon Crawls.