Archery: Variable Range Increments

Following up from yesterday's post. A reminder on methodology.

I've taken men's longbow classifications from the Braintree Bowmen in the UK, ranging from 3rd class to Grandmaster Bowman; analyzed them with a tool I made to convert archery scores into to-hit rates on a d20; and applied those results to a variety of ranges for a 65cm target, which I reckon to be comparable to shooting at a human torso.

Each line on the chart represents a score in a "720 round" of archery, converted to be hit/miss against a 65cm target at the stated range.

Analyzing this chart, a thought occurred to me: instead of fixed range increments and a rising attack bonus, what if we had fixed attack bonuses/penalties and range increments that vary with level?

What we get is a system that seems (to me) much more verisimilitudinous. At short range, there's little to no difference in skill. At long range, shots that are essentially impossible for an unskilled bowmen will be easy for a skilled shooter.

What we give up is some granularity in progression, as we probably don't want the range increments to change in such small steps between levels that it makes no real difference.

65cm target	0	-5	-10	-15	-20
3rd Class	5m	10m	15m	20m	25m
2nd Class	10m	20m	30m	40m	50m
Bowman	15m	30m	45m	50m	65m
Master Bowman	20m	40m	60m	80m	100m
Grandmaster Bowman	25m	50m	75m	100m	125m
World-Class Bowman	30m	60m	90m	120m	150m

Now, how about changing target size? The following charts show the effects of changing the target size by doubles and halves.

 

What we can notice is that for each doubling of  target size, it's as if the lowest-skilled (31 score) bowman is shooting as if they were a middle-skill bowman (157 score). For the "Bowman", it's like shooting as a "Grandmaster Bowman", and so on.

So, changing target sizes can be fairly easily modeled by shifting the effective skill of the archer - double the target size, increase the effective skill two increments. So a "3rd-class" bowman shooting at a target 1.3m across would use the "Bowman" row on the chart.

This is for considered shots in good conditions. Later we will examine more adverse conditions.

XP for Gold: Clearly Defined Lines

After wrapping up his Watchmen stint, superhero/evil genius Ozymandias was kind enough to leave this comment on my post about XP for Gold: Reputation and Confidence:

How do we delineate when gold acquisition counts for experience?

The argument I've seen often goes to the extreme end right away: If I find a chest of gold on the side of the road (fell off the back of a merchant's caravan), do I get experience for it? Clearly the answer is 'no.' There was no danger. There was no trial. There was no test of the character's skills. But what about the party that avoids the dragon to lift a few choice items from its hoard? What about using diplomacy or trickery to get the orcs to leave their lair unguarded? What about a thief who spends a few days playing the crowd?

The problem with XP for GP is there's no clearly defined line when it comes to assigning the bonus. And I've been all over the 'net looking for justification or explanation; it seems the task is too difficult for people, so most of them just drop it.

If you're looking for no grey areas, play Chess. Or better yet, Go, as Go never ends in a draw (as so many Chess games do)

An RPG is a reflection of the real world, and just like the real world, there are grey areas. And the only way to deal with grey areas, whether in the rules, or in the real world, is to draw on your life experience and good judgement, and make a call.

The problem Ozymandias sees with XP for GP simply isn't a problem - the DM looks at the situation, and makes a call.

Remember that even in the most artificial and restrictive RPG ruleset imaginable, the *bulk* of the game still comes down to simple DM fiat at the end of the day (Why did that chest fall off the caravan? Was there a way to avoid the dragon? How many GP in that horde? Are the orcs willing to talk? How many orcs are there? Is the King a nice guy? Is the Vizier banging the Queen?).

The point is, *everything in the game* lacks a clearly defined line. How many orcs is too many? How many HD for the dragon are too many? How much treasure is too much? Why is the King *this* nice, and not nicer? Why is the Vizier risking everything to be with the Queen?

You can lay down endless guidelines for all of this stuff (and people try, I seem to recall 4e dictating not only how tough the monsters should be but also how many magic items the players should be getting!!!), but you can *never* get away from the fact that the DM is making the world, running the world, and that the DM is a human being, and therefore necessarily fuzzy, fallible, and not really designed for clearly defined lines.

I mean, you can ask that question about anything in an RPG. So you get XP for killing monsters. Do you get XP for killing a beggar? Maybe? What about a child? What about the blacksmith - he could defend himself. What about an orc if you're a level 10 character? The orc is certainly no more threat than a child is to a Level 2 Fighter. Where do you draw the line?

And please, don't suggest that the rulebook covers it. The rulebook can *never* clear up all of the soft edges. It can never leave a clearly defined line. There will always be grey.

And that's why we play RPGs - for the grey. For the fuzziness. For the *realness* that can only come from dealing with another human being and all the vast complexities of their mind.

That lack of a clear line isn't a flaw, it's the *whole reason RPGs exist*.

The 0-Level Man-at-arms

For some reason, D&D has gotten it into its head that men-at-arms would be 0-level. This trope dates back pretty far, and is taken as canon by many.

Let's examine this for a minute, though.

The historical term "man-at-arms" was used to denote a professional cavalryman in full armour. Knights would be an example of a man-at-arms, but many men-at-arms were not knights. In D&D, however, the term tends to be used to refer to any professional soldier, regardless of equipment.

In either case, though, the term refers to a professional.

The idea that a professional solder has the same odds of hitting in combat as an untrained peasant is, frankly, laughable. This professional, in fact, has lower odds of hitting in combat than your fresh-faced 1st-Level Fighter with 0 XP.

In an older edition like BECMI (my old stand-by), a professional soldier with training and experience should probably be around level 3 - greater odds of hitting, and much more survivable than an untrained peasant.

On average, a peasant (AC 9, 1-6 HP, Attack +0) will take around 5 rounds to kill a Level 3 fighter (AC 9, 3-18 HP, Attack +3). The Level 3 fighter will only take around 1 or 2 rounds to kill the peasant. The difference swells, obviously, if you give the man-at-arms armour.

Conclusions? City watchmen, mook guards, anyone with no real training - 0-level or Fighter 1.

Serious men-at-arms, with training and experience? Probably Fighter 3-5.

XP for Gold: Trade

Trade is a little trickier to handle, and I think the notions of personal bodily risk and martial skill will be helpful in determining whether or not to give XP for wealth gained through trade.

Two polarized scenarios present themselves immediately.

Milanese Trader

The first is a wealthy merchant living in Milan. He inherited an estate, a large sum of coin, and five ships from his father. Now, obviously he does not level for his inheritance.

But neither should he level from the profits he reaps from shipping finished suits of armour to England. There is no factor of personal bodily risk, and no application possible for martial skill.

Medinan Caravan Leader

The other is a caravan leader from Medina, carrying spices to Egypt. The caravan leader personally accompanies every caravan, and plays a part in defending the camel train from the numerous bandits on the way.

In this case, the caravan leader has taken on personal bodily risk, and demonstrated martial skill. These are the things which are being represented by the XP for gold mechanic, and therefore the caravan leader should be receiving XP towards his character class not only for the bandits killed and driven off along the way, but for the net profits reaped by the sale of the spices.

Note that only the net profits should be used for the calculation - otherwise you're potentially giving XP out for the same gold twice! Imagine our leader had obtained 1000gp from a dungeon delve (and received XP), sunk that whole 1000 into a caravan laden with spices, and sold the whole lot for 1250 in Egypt. Our dusty caravan leader would only get 250XP for the sale, as he's already received XP for the initial 1000gp investment.

Grey Areas

I think that by applying the tests of personal bodily risk and demonstration of martial skill, the GM should be able to intelligently make rulings on grey areas. Consider on one hand a trade route where a caravan is almost certain to be waylaid by well-armed and organized bandits or dangerous monsters, and another where there is no risk of banditry or creatures, and interpolate between the two.

XP for Gold: 20th-level Kings?

There have been Kings who have been great warriors. Richard I comes to mind. Henry VIII took his martial arts pretty seriously, if I understand correctly.

But they don't have mad levels in Fighter because of their enormous incomes.

That's because gold for XP only really makes sense for plunder. The inherent assumption in the system is that the gold in question was *guarded*, whether by traps, tricks, or monsters. It required some skill - whether in cleverly avoiding the threats, or by battle, etc. etc.

On the other hand, the income coming to a landed knight, baron, earl, count, king, etc. is due to the office, and requires no special skill, ability, or even action on the part of the earner. Similarly, if someone's father dies and leaves the 2.5 million gp, that person doesn't suddenly skyrocket 5 levels (or even one, if you're playing that you can't go up more than one level in a go). That's because they didn't do shit for it.

Windfalls, rent, investment incomes - none of these should generate XP in a gold for XP system.

Because of that, kings should be modestly levelled, if at all. An average man-at-arms or landed knight would likely have more Fighter levels than a king. (That reminds me to rant about the 0-level man-at-arms - the idea that a professional fighter doesn't have a few levels of Fighter is laughable).

King-as-class

At this point, some may be tempted to say, "OK, so kings aren't 20th-level Fighters, but maybe they're 20th-level Kings!". Well, let's examine that.

What class abilities would a King have? What do Kings do? Well, they drink and feast and hunt and whore, but those are well within the reach of anyone who has the wealth. Those don't need to be class abilities.

They conduct diplomacy, and manage the affairs of the kingdom. Or they appoint someone to do that for them. You could maybe argue that levels in King increase reaction rolls and increase kingdom revenues.

When you come right down to it, though, being a King is pretty much just being a normal guy, only richer. I have a pretty hard time accepting there's enough for a whole class there.

Where does that leave us?

Well, kings are just normal guys. They get power not through class levels, but through the dignity of their office and through the vast wealth and incomes that come with the title.

Gold is its own reward. Gold brings its own power.

You don't need to add personal power on top of the economic power wealth provides, unless there's some factor of personal bodily risk.

XP for Gold: Reputation and Confidence?

XP for gold has a venerable history, and is a totally workable mechanic.

What bothers me is some of the justifications I've seen for it.

As I see it, XP for gold is an abstraction specifically suited for adventurers, and the idea is that if you are recovering treasure, you are encountering danger, and therefore learning. More treasure usually means more danger. Fair enough.

The mechanic stops making sense if you try to extend this mechanic to non-adventurers. Some lordly Baron sitting in his keep is in no danger and is learning nothing about being a fighter by sending out tax collectors to collect money from his tenants.

Where things break down is when people start trying to find some kind of further real-world justification for it. Some, for instance, consider XP for gold to represent reputation and confidence. I find this explanation to be indefensible. If this were true, you could level up by bragging, or by drinking whiskey. The fact that you can't become a better wizard by partaking of a little Dutch Courage exposes the internal inconsistency of such an explanation.

Fact is, neither confidence nor reputation correlate with ability. I remember a martial arts class - we'd drilled defending against dagger attacks for a couple hours, and I was getting a good feel for it, and felt really confident in my abilities.

Then we tried some free-play, and in my first match, I went up against one of the most experienced guys at the salle. Well, long story short, my skull would have looked like hamburger if we'd been using real daggers. My new-found confidence helped *exactly zero* against a skilled opponent.

Similarly, even if I have a reputation far and wide as the fastest draw in the West, that won't help me one whit if that whole reputation is built on bravado, and the exaggeration of one sloppy victory. When push comes to shove, my reputation counts for *exactly zero* in a real duel against a skilled opponent.

Long story short: XP for gold good, XP = confidence and reputation bad.

Training vs. Practice

In reading through Alexis' archives over at Tao of D&D, I read an interesting article and ensuing discussion on training, and the difference between training and practice.

Now, I believe a starting character should be a pretty highly-trained individual: someone at the level of a journeyman, a member of a professional association, or a Bachelor of a University. In 99% of cases, the character got there through training: there was a master, and the character was a student. This could have been the Master-at-Arms on their father's estate, a scholar at a University, some weirdo who takes in orphans and teaches them to be pickpockets and sneak-thieves, or what-have-you.

Something I've never been able to reconcile with D&D, though, is stories like Charlie Parker. With a basic education in music under his belt, and some informal instruction from acquaintances and listening to records (let's say he was a 1st level jazz musician at this point), Parker set out to practice. He spent his late teens practicing 15 hours a day, and emerged as a master - one of the best in the world (by old D&D standards, probably level 9 - name level).

So, in 3 years, practicing 15 hours a day, Parker went up 8 levels. That's an average of 1755 hours of individual practice per level, or about 220 8-hour days.

How to handle a player who wants their character to "woodshed" (as in practice non-stop out behind the woodshed) for a year to gain a level or two?

I don't know, but this is something that bothers me. In an ideal world, XP should probably be awarded for practicing a great deal and revoked for failure to practice. This may be too fiddly, and would almost certainly lead to the first act of a campaign being the, "We train for two years, what now?" phase.

Don't have a solution, but it's something that bugs me.

Logarithmic Advancement in Old-School Games

I was originally going to leave this as a comment at Untimately: Hexagram Advancement Draft, but it got kind of unwieldy for a comment.

As Brendan says, most people increase challenges and rewards to keep advancement at about the same real-world rate at every level, but let's imagine for a second a campaign where those bigger challenges and rewards just don't exist... What you'll see is fast advancement at low level, and slow advancement at high level that eventually tapers off to nothing. Every adventure will pull in, say, 8000xp, but if you need 1,000,000xp to get to the next level, that's basically never going to happen.

In something like the real world, you can only get so good at fighting - say about 5th level in D&D. If you want to get more powerful than that in real life, you have to become a warlord, baron, king, etc. - which is pretty much what was sketched out in OD&D, B/X, and BECMI. I think the fact that there's levels in the game beyond a certain point (I don't know what that is, but between 5 and 9, probably) is the real illusion - you shouldn't practically be able to get to those levels. And, if you play in a campaign where there aren't dragons around every corner, you won't.

Now, those systems allowed you to use domain-level play to increase your fighting capability (IIRC), whereas I think only gold found during adventuring should count for XP, but that's another issue. The point is, the old systems could be looked at as attempting to place the higher levels practically out of reach, and thus enforcing a logarithmic progression.

I think this might be one of those things that was less broken (or just differently broken) than people thought it was, and that they house-ruled or campaign-designed into a problem.

In fact, I think the notion that all of the levels of the game should be accessible might be the dawn of the level-appropriate encounter dogma...

Spells and Steel - My Goals

Background 
About a year ago, I got back into playing RPG's. Around the same time, I started studying medieval martial arts. Learning about what it's like to actually swing a sword, parry a thrust, throw a blow, and - more than anything - watching men in plate armour fighting with poleaxes, spears, and longswords opened my eyes to how little Gygax and Arneson knew about the nuts and bolts of fighting in the 14th century.

What I want is a system that reflects the gritty realities of low-magic medieval life and warfare, and I don't feel like D&D is quite doing it for me any more.

My plan for this blog is to lay out my design process. I'm going to start by stating my goals (which will be updated and broken down as I go), showing how the existing systems are flawed, and working on new systems that meet my goals.

Goals

Goals of the Combat System:

• Simple and Fast
• Verisimilitude:
• Weapon Functions
• Realities of Combat and Damage
• Stats and Attributes with Clear Meanings
• Battlemat Optional
• Bonus: Easy to Drop Into B/X D&D as a Replacement System

Goals of the Leveling System:

• Balanced Feats
• Meaningful Choices
• Customizable Characters
• Minimize Min-Maxing, Maximize Flavour
• Believable Power Curve

Goals of the Magic system:

• Simple or Non-existant Resource Management (no memorization, no mana)
• Make it Weird (no fireball or magic missile - more illusions, compulsions, trickery)
• Balanced with Combat-focused Characters
• Bonus: Easy to Drop Into B/X D&D as a Replacement System

Goals Overall:

• Believability / Verisimilitude
• Harsh, Gritty Flavour
• Easy to Learn and Play
• Fun!
• Able to Take Players from Adventurers to Lords
• Historically Reasonable Pricing and Economy