Monday 18 December 2023

A thought on simplifying random encounter generation

Caution: Idea not yet table tested.

If you, like me, are always on the lookout for TTRPG simplicity and conciseness, here's a dice roll you can overload with extra meaning.

In a random encounter table, list the "numbering appearing" dice code with a negative modifier. If the result is zero or fewer creatures, it means the PCs have come across recently-left signs of such creatures, in the form of tracks or spoor which the characters might or might not choose to follow.

If the GM ever does need to find the number appearing of these regionally nearby creatures, roll again without the negative modifier.

For example:

Instead of, say, 1d6 ogres, the random encounter table lists 2d6–4 ogres. The range is slightly greater (0-8 instead of 1-6) and the average is similar (3 instead of 3.5). If the GM rolls snake eyes, no ogres are here; instead, perhaps, large footprints and gnawed cooked bones. The PCs follow the tracks, so the GM rolls again (2d6 this time) to see how many ogres are camped a day or so away.
Now, you can obviously accomplish similar results in other ways. Most systems do. Why do it like this?

Key benefits:

  1. Minimalism via overloading. You no longer need a separate roll for signs/tracks/spoor.
  2. Reminder. The GM won't accidentally neglect to include reminders that fictive content is everywhere (i.e. elsewhere), and not always served up to the PCs on a platter. The world feels populated.
  3. Scaling and choice. This method automatically results in nearby groups of possibly greater numbers, creating something in between an 'easy random encounter' and a planned challenge. This allows you to define the size of creature groups with an upper limit higher than the one you'd randomly inflict on the PCs at an inopportune moment. Look at the example above. Suppose you have four PCs who can each take on one ogre, but two each is a big risk and three each is exceptionally dangerous. Rolling 2d6–4, a random encounter will usually serve up about 3 ogres, but very rarely as many as 8, and the PCs can discover ogre tracks and cautiously scout them to find a group of (on average) 7, but possibly as many as 12. It becomes a PC choice as to whether to push their luck, which is always a good thing: the GM doesn't have to waste extra time on balancing or 'fudge outcomes' (cheat).
  4. Standardisation. If you're adding a negative modifier, you'll often be adding more dice to compensate, resulting in a steeper probability curve. As a result, the GM has a slightly better idea of how many creatures will tend to show up to an encounter. If you specifically don't want that, it's easy enough to use larger dice sizes instead, or add a multiplier (say, [1d6–2]×5 instead of 5d6–10).
  5. Extensibility. You could overload the 'number appearing' roll further, adding ideas like exploding dice. Let's say a maximum roll means the PCs have found a monster lair and that's how many creatures are lounging around the entrance or on guard. Roll again without the negative modifier to see how many creatures are deeper in the lair.

 
Pictured: 1d6 snakes

Main issues to be resolved:

  1. If your system has a separate roll for non-creature encounters that includes things like notable environmental and weather effects as well as tracks/spoor, then you aren't really any better off this way.
  2. The mathematical conversion quickly becomes non-trivial as "number appearing" increases. Many GMs won't be able to do a representative conversion of an existing encounter table entry at a glance or on the fly even with relatively simple dice codes. And even with a good grounding in dice probabilities, it still takes time and effort to convert 8d8 to e.g. [4d10–10]×2 (if you care that the larger likely numbers appearing stay about the same), or else to e.g. [5d8–15]×4 (if you care that the average number appearing is similar but don't mind sometimes getting lots more), or even to e.g. 6d20–50 (if you want lots of tracks and lots of variation).


Thursday 23 November 2023

This month's writing

Here at Periapt Games I've just reached the first milestone on some fantasy monster design work for an upcoming book. The first milestone is "all the content is drafted". The second milestone will be getting through all the playtesting and ensuing revisions; third is finishing the supporting text and copy-editing; fourth is the layout being done; fifth is the art being finalised and proofs approved; etc.

(A major lesson in writing for production is that the actual writing is only a sliver of the process.)

What's my philosophy of fantasy monster design?

A monster should be easy to run. It should be plausible and/or fit a specific setting. It should be fresh. It should touch on classic tropes, but should also be weird. It should be easily tweaked or be presented alongside minor variations.

That means...

Aberrant grazers. Sorcerous byproducts. Creatures that lurk, beguile, and trap. Entities which warp the world around them. Small things made giant. Spells escaped from spellbooks and given form. Swarms which actually work the way they ought to. Monsters that are also transdimensional portals. The world's largest garden pest. Ethereal spirits lurking at the heart of permanently raging storms. And many many more.

And maybe whatever this thing is?

Hopefully I'll be able to share a more substantive update before the end of the year!

Friday 27 October 2023

Put Flourishes, Fairy Tales, and Folk Beliefs in Your Fantasy World

Something fantasy world builders tend to do is

  1. Take some interesting little aesthetic notion, often borrowed from a story, a history book, folklore, or a random generator;
  2. Transform it into a fantasy element with thematically appropriate magical properties.

And that's great. But this is a call to sometimes not transform that little notion into actual 'functional' magic!

Earth's history is absolutely crammed full of little details, curiosities, artistic elements, superstitions, taboos, dead-end inventions, beliefs, art forms, and rumours that don't map onto anything impactful/real/important/true. Why wouldn't a fantasy world be similarly overflowing with these?

We live in the information age and people now still believe all sorts of completely preposterous things, not even as a matter of survival or entrenched cultural memory. In a classic pre-industrial fantasy world where the ground state is ignorance, people are going to deal with the great mysterious unknown around them by (a) trying to work out what works, and (b) just making stuff up. Both types of 'information' will be propagated. That's how people work, and the people in your fantasy world should feel like people.

Here's some suggestions.

Superstitions about dangers

Not every supposed way of keeping the monsters away actually does something. How boring would that be? Our world is full of superstitions meant to keep away monsters which don't even exist. That means you should add popular measures against goblins, vampires, spirits, ghouls, ogres, drakes, basilisks, and so on which simply do not work.

Remember: Nobody has enough information to know what's true and what's not. Even if the idea of confirmation bias has been invented in your world, the average uneducated person isn't going to have heard of it, and won't truck with it if they somehow have. Just like the average undereducated person in our world, and again – we're in an information age.


Superstitions about locales

Some places are sacred or taboo because of personal local history, not because of an innately magical nature.

You can have a big old battlefield without ghosts, and deep dangerous pits that aren't bottomless. The holy grove can just be regular holy rather than regularly dispensing miracles. If nobody goes to the place where the wicked Old Master was stoned to death, it doesn't have to be a portal to the realm of punishment, and the place where his sprawling manor was burned doesn't have to be a nightmarish megadungeon.

It's fine if some places work like this. But a world without unfounded local superstitions rings hollow.

Fairy tales, folk lore, and mythology

Here's a list of the world's fairy tales. There are many thousands of them and the list is incomplete. Like the vast majority of information from history, the most fairy tales never survived to pass into the written record. Note that none of these stories, as far as we can tell, are true.

The good news is that there's so many of them, you can just grab a few at random to fling into your own world and nobody's going to be familiar enough with the corpus to tell.

Folklore is deep and broad.

How about this rule of thumb: for every fairytale and mythological creature you put in your fantasy novel or game, add one that's not actually real in-world, just folklore being perpetuated. Fairies are real in the fantasy world, so people there believe in little fluttering proboscidate flingletons, which aren't. The inscrutable sphinx is real, so people believe in the twelve-metre-tall caustic tintosmaum, which isn't.


Religions, creation myths, and philosophy

Without making a claim in any particular direction, if you assume the world's major religious beliefs are incompatible with each other in terms of truth value, then a logical minimum of 5.4 billion people make a false set of beliefs central to their world view. And a possible maximum equal to the world's current population of 7.9 billion.

Now, I'll grant that (again, avoiding particular claims) our world doesn't have fantasy RPG clerics getting their daily allotted three or dozen or thirty verifiable magical miracles. But truth spreads slowly outside the information age. The existence in a fantasy setting of an extremely interventionist real pantheon (if you use that classic TTRPG trope) doesn't actually preclude local worship of a supposedly interventionist fake pantheon. Doubly so if it takes expertise to distinguish clerical magic from other kinds of magic.

It all depends on the nature of your cosmology, but personally I like when deities are standoffish or nonexistent, and weird new cults and religions pop up like mushrooms, and everybody thinks they're worshipping the real god(s) but there's no way, or no practical way, to be really sure. That rings true to me.

Either way, I suggest including some religious ceremonies that don't do anything (except make people feel good and forge stronger community bonds and so on). Religious rites don't have to have direct supernatural outcomes. You don't have to take the D&D route of turning blessings, ceremonies, funeral rites, holy water, holy symbols, etc, into spells and items with practical gameplay effects.

Pseudosciences and fake magics

Things like astrology and alchemy and the system of medieval humours needn't be in-game systems of magic or science. It's fine if you do want to play things that way, because these pseudosciences are flavourful and people have enough familiarity with them that they know what to expect (widespread modern misunderstandings of what 'alchemy' really meant notwithstanding). But if you do, you should definitely invent new pseudosciences for your fantasy people to get caught up in.

Again: People in our world, where magic doesn't exist, have believed in all sorts of magic, on the back of no evidence whatsoever. People in a world where they can occasionally see magic working should be more likely to have their minds open to such things.

That means that alongside pseudosciences, a fantasy world should have 'pseudomagics'. Piscomancy! Rust prevention magic! Soliferrous auras! Longevity rituals! Charms against moths! Whole new fields of supposed arcana! Is that local warlock a low-level magic-user, an ambitious dabbler with exactly one trick, a deliberate con artist, or completely deluded? It should be very difficult for a non-expert to tell.

Our actual history also has tons of objects that people placed significance in and ascribed powers to. Consider for example the 'Sator square' (an acrostic word square in Latin). It puts out fires. It eases childbirth. It cures toothaches. It's the basis for a love potion. It cures aquaphobia. It finds witches. Inscribe it on bread to cure rabies and insanity. Write it in pigeon blood to make a wish come true. Etch it into your fingernails to cure jaundice.

The Sator square obviously doesn't actually do any of those things. But people really believed it did. A fantasy world should have all sorts of things like this.


Terrain features

Our planet is home to lots of remarkable, awe-inspiring geography. In a low-technology world, real-world terrain can be a big challenge. Mountain passes can be extremely deadly because of the low rate of success of people tackling them, not because they're haunted by spirits or dimensionally scrunched or stalked by a gigapredator.

For every fantasy terrain element, include at least a couple of mundane ones.

Rumours

A healthy proportion of rumours should be completely spurious. But from a TTRPG gameplay perspective, don't go overboard. Make sure some rumours are very obviously false, as well as some more subtly false ones.

A neat effect for verisimilitude is to spin up false rumours based on things the player characters did or witnessed.

Flourishes, artworks, and personal styles

A neat little aesthetic detail doesn't have to be enhanced by fantasy (meta)physics.

A company of mercenaries march with a noose instead of a battle standard; it has no magical powers. The local villages have a specialist crop; it doesn't give you temporary hit points or make you levitate or drool blood, it's just funny-coloured pears. A distant monastery teaches a distinct style of martial arts that isn't supernaturally powerful. And some distant monasteries stick to beekeeping, illuminating manuscripts, and overeating.

We know of lots of little artistic embellishments, hoaxes, and weird experiments from pre-industrial history. The Voynich manuscript is a big one. People made sword blades with guns attached (and vice versa) as early as the 1500s. Sure, things like this can be the basis for unique powerful artefacts, but they don't have to be. Some of them should be prototypes that just don't work, or novel weapons that aren't actually as good as well-established ones, or an artist's cryptic drawings of a dream they had, or deliberate hoaxes. The strange, mysterious, whimsical, and exotic doesn't have to be translated into 'it's magic and has purpose X'. People on Earth have made all sorts of strange, mysterious, whimsical, and exotic things; all of them have been mundane, and they have been no less special for that.

Part of the Voynich Manuscript

Conclusion

To make a fantasy world feel real and lived-in, don't just fill it with fantasy. Remember to add little human-feeling elements from the real world, where pretty often a cigar is just a cigar.

Sunday 15 October 2023

Players not engaging

It's game time and the players are just sitting there spinning their wheels. They plan and what-if and weigh their odds and bicker in and out of character. Yeah, it's one of those sessions.


 What's happened?

  1. The players might have insufficient information to make a decision. They may have forgotten some information. Perhaps one of your hints was inscrutable. The players might not see how some information they have aligns with one of their objectives.
  2. The player characters might have unclear goals or clashing goals, or there might be disagreement in the group about which goal to pursue (due to differences in PC preference or differences in reasoning). They might be unclear about which goals should be prioritised above which others.
  3. The players might have a real-life moral dilemma about acting to achieve in-character goals that don't align well with their own ideals, and are tip-toeing around having to confront that. This is a huge issue and is best served by halting the session to have the conversation.
  4. You might have forgotten to give the player characters time pressure and stakes. There's a particular kind of malaise that can occur when you're using a subjective (or just subjective-feeling) experience/advancement system ('milestone' or 'narrative' or 'chapter' advancement) and you don't have a setting with big obvious time limits or opportunity costs or wandering damage. A feeling that the positive and negative consequences of action and inaction are all vague and distant can transition into a feeling that action and inaction don't really matter.
  5. The players might be dreading that the wrong choice will endanger their PCs. This is a different way there can be a lack of motivation towards action over inaction. In this case, you've done such a good job as a GM getting the players invested in their characters and feeling the world has big dangerous stakes that they've become paralysed with indecision. Good work, bad outcome. I'm quite sad that I've never achieved this one. Probably the best way to coax things towards action is to remind them of how the world is ticking on in the background without them.
  6. The players might be under the misapprehension that the GM should be deciding things for them. Apparently this can happen with novice players and/or due to 'learned helplessness' in the wake of unpleasantly railroady GM-ing. This is another huge issue where your best bet is to call a halt and discuss the problem in an understanding but matter-of-fact way.
  7. The players might be too overloaded with information to make a good decision.

That last one's a joke. It might be possible to give the players 'too much' information but I've never seen it done (or even heard it complained about).

There are orthogonal mistakes, of course: giving the players too much false information from bad sources, giving the players too little likely-immediately-meaningful information, obfuscating information excessively, giving the players information in ways that makes it seem irrelevant, giving the players information that makes them regret their goals and objectives, giving the players information too fast for them to digest or note down, giving the players information after establishing a GM style in which nothing they learn ever really matters, etc.


Manage information to avoid a 'players not engaging' session

I have two tips here.

First

Establish PC goals early. Always summarise PC goals at the start of a session along with information you know they have which is likely to be relevant to those goals (and other key information). Constantly restate PC goals and key information during play, if even a glimmer of an opportunity presents itself. It's hard to overdo this. Remind PCs of their character motivations if those are substantially different from their immediate and long-term goals.

When the player (character)s acquire new information, try to frame it in terms of PC goals and other key information they already have, so that it slots neatly into their mental framework.

Second

When you're handing out any kind of information "X" via narration, you might have a tendency to hedge or use filler words. You absolutely must learn to overcome this. Cut out any qualifying language like this:

  • "I guess it makes sense that X"
  • "it's sort of X"
  • "I suppose X would"
  • "it's kind of... you know, X"
  • "you think that maybe X"
  • "[sigh and grimace] well... X"
  • "Y! ...No, well actually, X"

Phrasing things this way undermines a player's trust in the quality, validity, and importance of the information content! It conveys, consciously or unconsciously, that the GM is uncertain about what's true in the world. It also conveys that the information wasn't important enough to pre-determine. And it conveys that the information wasn't connected enough to other things in the world for there to be an obvious answer.

Brains can only pay attention to so much, and are constantly filtering information into buckets based on its perceived usefulness. Hedging/filling will get information filtered disproportionately into the mental bucket with 'discard immediately' written on it.

The solution is just a matter of practice. Learn to pause and work out exactly what you want to say, then give a precise, confident, unambiguous answer. Even after a long pause you'll be much more likely to get information to stick in the players' heads.

Saturday 30 September 2023

Hyperspecific bugfix notes in transit from the past: Blogger CSS

While trying to increase line spacing to improve accessibility for this blog, I ran into an interesting series of issues. I'm recording the solution here in case I need it again or on the off-chance that it helps someone else.

For things on the Blogger platform (like this blog), you can choose a theme separately for desktop and mobile, or have the desktop page served to mobile. If you have a custom theme like I do, and you want to have a nice responsive mobile version of the site, then Blogger (behind the scenes) apparently takes the custom theme, runs it through some arcane processes, and spits out a mobile version.

So I encounter the following timeline of problems:

1. The theme is partially customisable in Blogger settings but to make real changes (in this case, to the line height) you have to dive into the CSS/HTML. I took a web design course more than a decade ago, so I am rusty. It takes some time just to find out how to get in there.

2. I notice that I can fix the line height in the CSS using (go figure) line-height, but the change doesn't propagate to mobile. It looks like the .mobile tag doesn't do anything. Say I change the line height to an absurd 100×. It looks absurd on desktop. I simulate a mobile device in a desktop browser by popping "?m=1" at the end of the URL, and it looks absurd there. On an actual mobile device, it's unchanged.

3. I deviate from proper CSS and get lost in an endless maze of <b:if cond='data:mobile'> or possibly <b:if cond='data:blog.isMobile'> or <b:if cond='data:blog.isMobileRequest'>, none of which help.

4. I get frustrated and go poke at the custom fonts instead.

5. It turns out the mobile view ignores custom fonts – again, only on an actual mobile device.

6. At first I think it's a caching problem on my phone, but changing font colours and banners and things works fine.

7. A search turns up this helpful article. It's a web safe font problem. My desktop browser recognises the custom title font I chose on a whim in Blogger settings (Molengo), but my phone browser doesn't. But! I just need to make the CSS load the font and add a line wherever it's needed and then it changes for mobile too.

8. ...It turns out that the google font called 'Molengo' looks completely different to the built-in Blogger font called 'Molengo' which I selected, so my nice font choice is broken on both desktop and browser. Not too big a problem; the google font version is okay and now I know how to make it work on mobile, so I leave it as is.

9. Back to trying to increase the line height.

10. It slowly occurs to me that a 'web safe font' problem is explicable but a 'web safe line spacing' problem is not plicable at all. That means there is an unrelated issue.

11. I google for more answers, get none, and start googling ever more tangentially related search keys and scrolling through increasingly unrelated answers. I try "@media only screen and (max-width: 600px)" instead of .mobile, and again certain test changes take effect on my phone and certain others don't. I can change colours and backgrounds and all sorts of things, but not certain font facets.

12. Finally an answer to a question about I don't know pineapples or something reminds me that !important is a thing. I try it, on a whim. The line spaces change.

13. I eventually work out that something, somewhere, is (re?)setting my line spacing (and a few other things, like font size and letter spacing) on mobile. Either those values are being overwritten by the Blogger post-processing step, or possibly I am an idiot and mobile-only elements buried elsewhere in the stylesheet are taking precedence due to CSS specificity values or something like that. The latter would seem more likely prima facie, except that I searched the CSS for a long, long time and could not find any trace of conflicting elements.

14. Whether it's the one reason or the other, I don't have a better solution than using !important. So I copy the formatting I want from throughout the stylesheet, duplicate it, and slap it inside .mobile tags with !important added on each line. Why go out of my way to do it that ugly way? Because !important is slightly scary and if it breaks something in the future (and I forget about this bugfixing session) then the fact that the blog will break on mobile and not on desktop may make tracking down the problem faster.

So, attention future me: If you need to futz around with this again, start by scrolling to line 554 of the CSS.

Scene from Pit And The Pendulum illustrated by Rackham



Friday 29 September 2023

Fantasy pseudo-anachronism part two: Aetheric boogaloo

Following up on yesterday's post, here are some thoughts on pseudo-anachronisms that didn't end up in the main article.


Additions

First, there were a couple of pseudo-anachronisms I had intended to mention. Nice beds with mattresses and pillows are major investments, certainly not something every person owned, even when they're just pallets made from straw sitting on the floor. (If you think a bed is expensive today, consider that it would have been a large fraction of a house's value in many pre-industrial places and times.) Also, inns for travelers to stay in. Inns were only common on major roads, pilgrim and trade routes, and in cities and market towns. The chances of a random village having an inn would be close to zero, even a village in the middle of civilisation. And even in a reputable inn, it would be a luxury to get your own private bed that you didn't have to share with a couple of strangers or traveling companions, let alone getting your own private room!

To have nice beds and pervasive inns in our fantasy world, we need a reason to have a culture of travel, in particular to non-notable destinations. We also need a cheaper way of making sleep furniture – maybe some ancient artefact has been churning beds out at a rate of fifty per day for thousands of years, or maybe there's a widespread plague of puffball pigeons (all feathers and no flesh), or maybe when a domesticated slime dies it dries up into something superficially like a beanbag chair.

Second, reader Lauren suggested the addition of "well-lit rooms after sunset". It's true! If you've tried to light a room with candles before, you've found that candle light is really very weak. Any kind of fire doesn't, uh, hold a candle to electric lighting. Lauren also pointed out that many modern people are used to the ambient light pollution of a big modern city; complete darkness is very disorienting. It's hard to keep your balance standing up in true darkness, let alone move around, but TTRPG rule penalties are often just a slap on the wrist. As with many things, inconvenient truths get handwaved away unless they provide excitement in the game.

I think well-lit rooms at night is particularly common in visual arts and film, where the viewer's ability to see most of the shot is pretty much the most important thing.

So 'convenient modern lighting' is a fantasy pseudo-anachronism. It's one that any number of fantastic technologies could solve (glowing magical crystals, cold-burning lanterns, the ubiquitous luminescent dungeon wall fungi, minor spells and charms, enchanted or holy candles, unusually bright domesticated fireflies, rushlights from the will'o'wisp marshes, whatever). Think carefully before making it a solved problem for the common person, though: clean, cheap, portable, bright light like we have at hand nowadays is a powerful technology. It takes terror away from the night and eclipses and deep dark caves. It drastically changes warfare. It changes sleep patterns and therefore labour patterns and local economies. It removes a constraint that can serve to drive gameplay.




Missing technologies

Rarely, fantasy takes things away from the generic 1300s-to-1600s technological milieu, rather than adding pseudo-anachronistic technologies.

For example, central heating, chewing gum, concrete, contraception, ice skates, and lighthouses were all invented thousands of years ago. I've seen a setting where characters in a snowy town had no way to cross a lake which froze every winter. And there's no excuse for not having a lighthouse guarding the dangerous shoals near a major wealthy port city. Some of the others aren't likely to come up, depending on what kind of ground the fantasy is going to cover.

Complex financial instruments, too, are fairly old (the word "credit" appeared in English in the 1520s, and at the time English-speaking states were economically a bit of a backwater; I don't know much about the history of banking but I would be surprised if continental Europe didn't have entrenched banking and other institutions in centuries prior, and the Islamic world and the East earlier still). I think sometimes TTRPG settings leave out promissory notes, banknotes, loans and interest payments, insurance policies, and so on due to a false perception that these are modern innovations.

The elephant in the room in this regard, of course, is gunpowder. Cannons were widespread in the West from the start of our supposed fantasy technological band, and early man-portable guns were in use well before plate armour reached its apogee. In China and its neighbours, gunpowder had been used for at least five hundred years prior to the period, initially as an incendiary weapon.

There are good reasons for not wanting gunpowder in a setting, reasons which have been discussed to bits. Everyone reaches a different answer to the question (some, possibly, because of misapprehensions imported from modernity about how powerful, fast, cheap, light, or accurate an early gun could be; I personally don't think preindustrial firearms being 'too good' is an adequate reason to exclude them from a fantasy setting). Gygax was notoriously against gunpowder in D&D, going so far as to say that the laws of physics in his fantasy universe were such that chemical reactions were weaker. I don't think that's a great solution, because it's both underspecific and implies weird knock-on effects.

If we want a world where 'black powder' gunpowder was just never invented, is that historically plausible? On the face of it, no. It's three ingredients, of which sulphur is very common in nature, charcoal is an incredibly important part of metalworking technology, and saltpeter can be refined from fairly common mineral deposits or bat guano. Additionally, 'classic' fantasy has early chemist analogues trying things out (I think modern fantasy has sadly transformed the word 'alchemist' to mostly mean 'magic potion-maker', rather than 'a philosopher obsessed with the idea of attaining physical, mental, and spiritual perfection via a mixture of study, experiment, religious ceremony, allegory, chemical means, mystery cults, etc').

But what that argument overlooks is that having access to magic might impede the development of gunpowder weaponry. Early experiments with explosive or incendiary mixtures probably wouldn't have been (a) taken as far, (b) seen as something remarkable, or (c) suggestive of exciting military applications, if two streets over from the workshop was an academy of war wizards suiting up for another day of hurling explosive fireballs, turning city walls to mud, and setting things on fire with their minds. Even assuming magical arts were at the time in their infancy rather than developed, they would have a competitive advantage due to their comparative versatility. So, inverted pseudo-anachronism: Solved.

(Conversely, if you wanted to take it in the other direction, and have gunpowder keep up with or surpass violent forms of magic, a world with fantasy materials might have better ingredients for a propellant. Materials that were more common, cheaper to make, easier to discover, safer to store, produced a more powerful reaction, burned smokelessly, negated the sound of their own explosion, or whatever.)


Pseudo-anachronistic systemic technologies

There were a few technologies I left out of the first article because they are more processes than inventions.

1. Classic fantasy has machines but no factory mass production.

There's an artificer, wright, engineer, or (sigh) 'alchemist' who makes devices. There's steam power, clockwork, waterwheel power, or complex systems of gravity power or compressed springs powering elaborate mechanical traps. There might be non-magical 'automata'. Sometimes it's almost a genre shift into steampunk or clockpunk. Sometimes it's subtle: the dungeon gates open and close with the right series of lever pulls and Detect Magic doesn't turn anything up, but further details about the mechanism aren't forthcoming.

Luckily for our settings, there are major societal factors necessary for factory mass production to flourish. It's not enough to have the idea and the metalworking skill. Labour must be at least moderately expensive (compared to thoroughly pre-industrial eras, not compared to today). There has to be the wealth and systemic control to acquire, move, and stockpile large quantities of raw resources. There must be pretty good ways to transport input and output goods. There must be at least a little hint of standardisation in the cultural zeitgeist. Things must be sufficiently peaceful and stable locally that the wealthy feel confident investing huge amounts of capital starting up a new kind of business whose nature is that it must be continually fed or suffer major costs. And it probably helps if there are enormous costly wars going on in the background to drive both demand and development.

Two thousand years ago, the Ancient Greeks had clockwork, a simple steam engine, and Heron of Alexandria described mechanical automata and a vending machine (a coin-operated mechanical holy water dispenser). But the conditions weren't right for industrialisation: It wasn't Steam Engine Time.

Still, if you want to play it safe, consider adding a rare, non-scaleable magical element to the setting's contraptions (some bit of fantasy metallurgy or alternative physics power source or unique irreplaceable artefact).

2. Classic fantasy implies advanced food production.

My impression of the typical TTRPG fantasy milieu is that even small settlements have great numbers of skilled workers outside the fields of food and textile production. Compare that to almost all preindustrial places and times, where the farmer-to-specialist ratio is somewhere between 90:10 and 99:1. The implication is advanced food production technology, but this is seldom directly shown.

There's two avenues to resolve this. You could say there's an enormous spiderweb of little farming hamlets and fishing villages, mostly ignored by the setting focus, diligently toiling to feed and clothe themselves and send their crop of food or textiles to market to pay their taxes (or send them directly to the tax collector, in less moneyed societies).

Or you could add the milieu-appropriate equivalent of spray pesticides, antibiotics, massive greenhouses, John Deere tractors, chemical fertilisers, advanced irrigation, and GMO crops. Let's say that stirge blood repels all insect larvae, and breaks down into a decent fantasy fertiliser. Water mages harness tiny elementals for drainage and irrigation. Weather witches work the weather. Migrating flocks of giant eagles regularly fix the soil nitrogen. The obsidian bullock pulls a plough slowly, but forever, night and day, without needing to eat or drink. A growthstone is costly, but all plants within two leagues of one grow at twice the rate, so you just have to keep up with the weeding. The peaceful living dead keep birds away for a while before degrading and nourishing the loam. And to cover gaps, the magic temple is happy to dispense endless miracle bread to the sufficiently needy.




3. In classic fantasy, big things don't decay.

Speaking of nourishing the loam... In the real world, everything is subject to entropy. Even stone degrades over time. There are startlingly close to zero stone buildings whose original roofs have stood the test of centuries. Earth settles, tunnels collapse. Most metals corrode. Wood rots or gets eaten, even in the dry. And – you know where I'm going with this – dungeons aren't usually well known for being dry. Ancient megastructures like lost castles and sprawling dungeons are sort of a fantasy anachronism, in that they are basically supernaturally well-preserved archaeological sites. In our world, furnishings and materials in them would be rotten within years, everything mechanical would have completely seized up within decades, the entrances (at a minimum) would get thoroughly sealed by a bunch of debris blowing in, and eventually the structure's integrity would fail.

This is of course no fun. Luckily there are plenty of possibilities. Lingering enchantments. Automata or invisible demons or extensions of the Gygaxian 'cleanup crew' which eat dust and grit and drifts of leaves. Magical materials that don't corrode or rot. Something to bear in mind is that most of these anti-entropy fantasy technologies are going to be valuable to people in the world, so by adding verisimilitude to your dungeons and ancient monuments you are also adding stuff that people are going to want to mine/harvest/tame/imitate and put in their own homes.

4. Classic fantasy makes outdated arms and armours contemporaneous with later ones.

Okay, this is mostly just a pet peeve, but it's close enough to the topic for me to justify cramming it in.

Particularly in the case of armour, your generic fantasy setting offers armours from radically different warfare/civilian contexts (almost always getting the armour itself wrong, but that's another story) as if any of them could be reasonable choices. In practice, people going into battle wore the best armour they could afford, perhaps modulated slightly by considerations of comfort. Let's look at mail vs plate, which is the biggest example (apart perhaps from 'leather armour' which is somehow both protective enough to sometimes be chosen over metal and quiet/fast to move around in; yeesh).

If a setting has the technology, expertise, and capital investment to make plate harness, then a fully protective suit of mail (hauberk including coif + aventail + chausses + gloves etc) is strictly worse than a suit of plate armour: the mail is either heavier or much thinner (because of ring overlap!), and more expensive (it takes more labour to make and rivet the large number of rings than to shape the smaller number of plates, and both are kinds of skilled labour!), and less protective (because mail flexes at points other than the joints!), and no less encumbering (assuming the plate armour is properly made, you can't do yoga in it, but that's about the limit of its limits).

The only advantages you could argue for mail are that it's slightly less hot to wear, due to its breathability (except, it tended to be worn over thicker clothing), and that it's easier to don and doff (definitely true: maybe twenty or thirty times faster, and you don't need assistance from a servant or colleague). Did both mail and plate exist at the same time? Sure; transitional armours increasingly covered the body with plate and retained mail at the tricky gaps (goussets, and then just voiders). Should a setting book place 'full plate' next to 'chain mail' and 'leather clothing armour' as options that just have different tradeoffs? No way.

Can we find a good rationale for having mail hauberks in the same setting as sophisticated high-coverage plate armour? Only, I think, at places and times when expertise in making armour plates is tightly controlled and/or slowly leaking out into the wider world. The only good reason to offer both these armours as reasonable options to player characters is if the massive difference in time to don/doff them is actually going to matter in play, and this must be the way the opportunity cost is framed instead of nonsense like 'plate costs more than mail' or 'plate is heavier than mail'.

This all applies to some extent to weaponry, too: fantasy TTRPGs love big lists of weapons from across many centuries, and some of them ought to be modeled as strict improvements of others. And to weapons platforms, like the chariot, which was thoroughly superseded by horseback riding, but still pops up in fantasy from time to time. Also the galley, which has three core assets (incredible maneuverability, naval ram, and capacity for beach landings) and three core drawbacks (high crew requirement, low cargo capacity, and relative fragility), but I've seen settings which included galley-like ships to evoke an Ancient feel while managing to ignore all of those factors.

Arms and armour are the products of a continuous technological competition – hence the term 'arms race' – and classic fantasy almost never includes what you would actually expect: weapons and armour (and tactics, troop formations, earthworks, etc) that are specifically designed for fighting giant enemies, invisible enemies, winged enemies, hordes of extremely small enemies, enemies that can't be cut or pierced, enemies that are slow but kill with a touch, and so on. Instead, at best, real-world weapons are used against them in novel ways. This is one of the few areas where fantasy actually needs to make more stuff up.





Pseudo-anachronistic societal features

Finally, I'm going to briefly go over a few things that aren't technologies. They're arguably pseudo-anachronistic, but are beyond the main scope of what I've been talking about with and frankly would need a whole series of articles to get into, and touch on topics which deserve a deep and sober treatment. For many of them I also think they could have become widespread features of societies earlier in our history, they just didn't happen to do so.

Actually, in an attempt to rein in my impulse to go on typing for hours, I'll switch to bullet points. These tropes show up in 'classic' fantasy quite often:

  • General stores and grocery shops. Pretty modern idea.
  • Lots of off-the-shelf products rather than things being custom-made, commissioned, or at least assembled on the spot. Historically, if you wanted to buy a knife, you'd likely visit a blade seller (who sells blades bought from a blade maker), and a hilt maker, and possibly even a separate knife maker to join them together if neither of the first two offered that service, and then you would go somewhere else to get a sheath made for it. If you were rich, you would possibly have any or all of those parts made to your preferences, and then might visit yet another craftsperson specialising in decorations (embellishing, engraving, insetting, etc).
  • Civil police forces, or town guards who for some reason serve as constables. Not completely unheard of historically, but you're more likely to run into the local aristocrat's enforcers, or a town militia/guard with strictly military responsibilities, or just three people (a reeve, a coroner, and a magistrate) to be the law system for an entire shire, county, or small fief.
  • Minor professions inexplicably organised into guilds; guilds that lack a religious/charitable structure; guilds operating like labour unions rather than corporations trying to suppress competition; guilds envisioned by people who learned the word from MMOs; guilds for major military technologies that really ought to be state-controlled... I could go on. I usually just shake my head and assume the word 'guild' is a spotty translation from the invented language the characters are speaking, not meant to bear any relation to the real world.
  • The (correct, to be clear) modern perception held by almost all individuals and even by most states that war is bad.
  • The notion that a war is likely to be for some abstract goal of 'power' or to extend a ruler's 'reach' rather than for territory and loot. In a world where land equals wealth, a successful war is a financial investment with a huge payoff (things like holy wars, wars of succession, etc, notwithstanding).
  • People (correctly, to be clear) being viscerally and morally repulsed by what we now call war crimes and torture 'even' against 'the other side'. It's a depressing reflection of how groups of people operate that this is only a modern concept.
  • Modern principles of individual liberty and rights, personal equality, and other individual rights. Anyone with basic knowledge of history knows that these were incredibly hard-earned and we are lucky to mostly now live in societies that have them at least in principle. It's not clear whether fantasy imports these because we're so immersed in them or because it's not fun to play without them.
  • People living without major societal obligations and without a rigid societal, contractual, or familial relationship with the people ruling them. e.g., vassalage. I think fantasy settings tend to just pay lip service here, because it's not fun to have to bend the knee to your 'betters'.
  • Conversely, in some settings, absolute tyranny existing unchallenged. Arguably more historically plausible, but even more plausible would be: the lieutenants and rich vassals think the rulers have far too much power + the rulers think they're giving up too much power and are trying to claw it back + there's a backdrop of masses of poor tenants and peasants desperately trying to get their established rights upheld. See e.g. the Magna Carta.
  • (Pseudo-)democracies where everyone is franchised.
  • Large numbers of empowered women with equal rights and with societal roles overlapping with those of men (or without distinct societal roles). Again, to be clear, a good thing, but rare historically. I have absolutely no expertise here but I usually see an explanation for how the systemic oppression of women came about that goes [average male physical strength advantage + power derives from strength-based violence + societies were more likely to succeed when the powerful set the rules + people tend to support existing rules (or, successful societies encourage supporting existing rules) → men seize and then hold and maintain power almost exclusively]. The good news is that you can excise this from a fantasy world by having magic more powerful than strength, or by reducing biological differences between the sexes, or by having interventionist gods who support equality, etc.
  • More generally, no bigotry, slavery, or systemic prejudice. Sometimes this is because everyday common people are space aliens, by which I mean they aren't under-educated, clannish, selfish, fearful, violent, and ignorant of the wider world. Sometimes people are portrayed plausibly but intolerance magically doesn't happen at a wider scale. There are good and obvious reasons not to want bigotry in your setting or to confront it in your games, but (and now this list is just making me sad) pervasive intolerance has historical verisimilitude. Yeesh. How about we say that the fantasy world's populations are massively cosmopolitan, driven by ancient diasporas of hundreds or preferably thousands of peoples; everyone looks different to each other, even very locally, and innumerable culture are constantly blending. Or maybe we resort to magical divine intervention again to fix things.
  • Speaking of which, there's the trope of 'everyone's religious beliefs are strictly compatible'. In a classic TTRPG fantasy, the gods definitely exist, everyone agrees on what they're like, everyone mostly agrees on their names, most people worship a single god even though there's a pantheon, and nobody is erroneously worshipping a god who doesn't provably (or provably doesn't) exist. This has always been quite funny to me. Maybe I'll write an article about interesting alternatives.
  • Immortality as a desideratum only of evildoers (e.g., liches and sorcerer-kings). Likely imported from major modern religions; I don't think many nonreligious people are keen to grow old and die. The trope is kind of compatible with there provably being a good afterlife, but that's not always the case in a fantasy world, especially when you're not one of the tiny number of people with a divine magic pipeline.


There we go. If you think I missed any notable pseudo-anachronism, leave a comment!


Thursday 28 September 2023

Lockpicking! Windows! Maps! Burning oil! The concept of fantasy pseudo-anachronism!

Let's look at pseudo-anachronistic technologies in fantasy fiction (with a TTRPG lens as usual, but I think this also mostly applies to other media).

When Arneson invented the first fantasy roleplaying game, he incorporated numerous science fiction elements. This could be viewed as weird rough edges of what would bloom into the greater hobby, but it was also a product of the concurrent boom era of pulp fantasy and pulp science fiction. Most people coming to D&D and its burgeoning successors could be assumed to have an interest in those kinds of stories. Science fiction aspects (machines, martians, rayguns, etc) stayed in early D&D and the emerging fantasy TTRPG traditions for a while before dying off and it's easy to imagine an alternative pathway where that was the default today. In reality though, in contrast to these roots, 'classic' fantasy is now regarded as a set of tropes which include a setting's technology conforming to a certain band of real-world history and geography.

Interestingly, those tropes are imperfect: they deviate from that implied band of technology in a few particular ways.


Pseudo-anachronism: Or, how we can "know" that Elrond doesn't own a skateboard

What do I mean by 'pseudo-anachronism'? Well, just 'anachronism' doesn't work; it's a word that only applies to historical real-world settings. It's Ancient Romans wearing wax lips and wristwatches. It's Kamakura shoguns carrying shotguns and sherrif badges.

'Anachronism' doesn't apply to fantasy worlds. But there are 'classic' fantasy tropes: default values, as it were. Many settings are designed as if they mostly conformed to certain real-world historical settings, so that players' brains automatically fill in the gaps of what 'ought' to be there. And to drill down into 'certain real-world historical settings', classic generic fantasy tends towards vaguely Late Middle Ages or Renaissance European pastiche. (There's an argument that this particular imagined pseudo-historical window represents a drift towards a later period from the initially D&D roots which blended pseudo-Arthurian jousting-and-castles with Hyborian Age ancient sword-and-sorcery, but nowadays that 1300s-to-1600s Western European default is quite strong in stodgy 'classic' fantasy.) Game masters and players alike will tend to fill in any blanks with what they understand to be a pre-industrial technology level beginning at clocks and the three-field system and ending at huge ruff collars. Then add to the mix a melange of societal assumptions drawn from modernity and pop history, seemingly divorced from available technologies.

So in a 'classic' fantasy implied setting, there is an expectation of a certain tech level. If it turns out that, say, consumer plastics exist, players won't think "oh, these people happen to have plastics technology". They'll think "huh, I wonder what unique magic is producing plastics". Or more cynically, "huh, that's stupid and immersion-breaking."

Nowhere in Tolkien's corpus does he write that Elrond doesn't own a skateboard. And yet we can confidently state that to be true. That's the essence of pseudo-anachronism.



Nerdbait The curse of knowledge

If you're like me, then when you know a topic well, it's grating to see it portrayed badly in fictive media. It may even feel like the more you know about a subject, the worse and more common this problem is, and the natural/cynical conclusion is that pretty much all media only ever gets things right on accident but you're only equipped to notice it when it happens within your domains of interest.

I've certainly found that some of my interests (historical technologies) have ruined some quite major media works for me. Fortunately in the case of my favourite hobby (fantasy TTRPGs), all you need to do is work out what's bothering you and then tweak the world (in self-consistent, verisimilitudinous ways) so that it actually makes sense within the setting.

It's nice when things are self-consistent. And it helps at the table, because players appreciate it when things hang together, too:

Every time players discover that some part of their fantastical world is more logical and organized than they’d given it credit for, their faith in the quality of the GMing, strength of the worldbuilding, and reach of the GM’s imagination surge forward. They’re more inclined to think themselves about how the game fits together–they’re more inclined to think about what NPCs would do, about how the gameworld will react, than plan in mechanical and metagame terms.
(From a slightly older article but a short one worth checking out if you're into cases of fantasy verisimilitude)


Individual pseudo-anachronistic technologies

So, we're left with a question: what kind of stuff "shouldn't" be in the vaguely Late Middle Ages / Renaissance European default setting of 'classic' Western fantasy? Let's take a look at five common pseudo-anachronisms and, rather than just flagging them for removal, come up with some in-fantasy-world reasons to justify allowing them.



Modern locks and skilled lockpickers

For many people, Skyrim or something like it is the archetypal fantasy 'locks and lockpicking' experience. You (1) pop in a torsion tool to keep pressure on the barrel, (2) apply your skill to fiddle around with a lockpick in the keyway, and (3) the lock opens. This is also implied in the fiction of most fantasy TTRPG/novel settings: the roguish character needs both the necessary skills, and the sophisticated tools, to pick a lock.

Here's the problem: skill-based lockpicking with clever tools is really only necessary to subvert a specific kind of lock, which I will call a 'modern pin tumbler lock'. It's a tumbler with a stack of pins whose variable height at the shear line and rotating barrel mean that pins must be set to the exact height that the key is designed to lift them to. And it's a kind of lock that was only invented, and entered use, in the late 1800s.

Earlier locks were of two main types. First, there were ancient pin-based locks, but their pins couldn't be lifted 'too high'. Even a well-designed one could be defeated easily by putting a bent rod or stick in the keyway and pushing all the pins up. (A poorly-designed one that didn't protect the pins could be defeated in a single motion by putting anything in the keyway.) You could completely master subverting old pin locks in well under an hour, and you don't need special tools for it.

The second type, and the best lock technology for thousands of years, was a warded lock. This has complex 'wards' (metal shapes) meant to prevent the wrong key turning in it. A warded lock can be defeated by a skeleton key (a filed-down regular key). Picking a warded lock therefore amounts to using a big bundle of 'tryout keys' and if they failed, trying various bent rods until one was the right shape to move the latch or bolt. Again, lockpicking before the advent of the modern pin tumbler doesn't require much skill, so we have a pseudo-anachronism.

We'd like huge fiendish fantasy traps and complicated locking mechanisms with poison needles artfully hidden in them and cunning thieves with bundles full of specially-made picks, though. So can we say that a modern pin tumbler lock could have been invented in a much earlier technology level?

The idea for the modern pin tumbler doesn't seem like the tricky part. Ideas can be justified as coming from anywhere at any time. The little springs in the key stack might be tricky, as is the overall complexity of the mechanism. You need (1) good metallurgy (so bits don't break or bend), (2) fine engineering tolerances (so bits don't fail or jam), and (3) good manufacturing processes (so the key actually works and the lock doesn't have other security flaws). You also arguably need to keep the skilled labour cost down, at least to the point where wealthy people with things they want secured might invest in a lock instead of a magical solution. I think all of these are within striking distance of your classic fantasy world, as are the more epic extensions to huge fantastic locks, trapped locks, etc. In particular, the setting likely has supernaturally clever people with small fingers and an affinity for metalwork - gnomes and/or dwarves.

There's also an alternative. Maybe nobody's invented the modern pin tumbler lock, but there's still skill-based lockpicking, because fantasy metallurgy allows for entirely new types of lock. Fantasy loosens the constraints on the laws of physics: we can imagine particular metals that can pass through each other to a certain depth, mechanisms that magically seize up in the presence of common key metals, enchantments that are sensitive to the colour of things that get put in the keyway, and so on. Lockpicking could be a massively skill-based art without the actual locks being very mechanically advanced!


Large glass panes

Many classic fantasy settings 'get this right' but others don't. In general, a window in the form of a sheet of glass large enough to look through, and clear and flat enough to identify what you're seeing on the other side, requires modern technology.

Up until the 1800s, glass panes were distorted rather than properly flat, and not very transparent. They were also more brittle than modern glass, both chemically and because of inclusions and bubbles that weakened it even further. On top of all that, glass was expensive to make! So shutters and curtains were preferred in most buildings, in most places and times (certain cathedrals, palaces, etc notwithstanding).

There were a few methods of making 'flat' glass, mostly based on blowing a globe or tube, flattening it on a metal plate, then cutting it up (crown glass and broad sheet glass). These made for translucent or semi-opaque pieces, not transparent ones, usually riddled with imperfections and distortions. You could grind the best ones down into 'blown plate glass', which would be finer quality and even smaller. To make a window out of the little panes that a glassmaker could produce, you would make 'leadlights', setting a large number of small pieces into a lead (or occasionally ceramic) lattice.

In the late 1600s, 'polished plate glass' was a slight improvement that could make larger and higher quality glass panes by casting glass on a metal surface and then grinding it down, but it was even more costly to produce.

It wasn't until the late 1800s that broad sheet methods were developed into 'cylinder blown sheet' glass which could make larger panes, albeit ones that needed grinding and polishing. From this point, glass could be used as a building material (and became popular after its use in the Crystal Palace of 1851). To get true modern large glass window panes you need the 'float glass' method (molten glass poured onto large baths of molten metal, taking the form of long flat ribbons, gradually cooled and rolled off at the other end). So, nice big windows are a pseudo-anachronism.

The good news: it's possible to make large glass panes using relatively simple metallurgy, hot furnaces, and a truly enormous capital investment. My amateur view is that the fact we didn't get the technology until the 19th Century can be considered an accident of history. In a fantasy world that has glassworkers, metalworkers, and their extremely wealthy patrons, it should be doable, either at incredible decadent kingly expense, or with the help of magic.



Common use of accurate maps

We all know what a map is. A simplified top-down image of a place at a certain scale showing natural and constructed features positioned correctly with regard to their actual positions in space for use as a key tool of navigation and planning. Right? Well, no, that's a modern lens. Many early maps are some combination of (a) allegorical, (b) valuable art pieces for display, (c) neither top-down nor to scale, (d) extremely inaccurate. Despite being ubiquitous in the modern day, reading a top-down map or even understanding what a map means is a learned skill, and not trivially so. Don't expect pre-industrial people to be able to purchase a map, read one, or know what one is.

Cartography generally started out as maps 'of the world', produced by philosophers and scholars to chart what they knew about their universe and/or so their wealthy and powerful patrons could show off. Later, there were maps of territories, and early sea charts. Eventually, local maps of property boundaries were made for gentry, lawyers, and courts.

High-quality terrain maps were only made pretty late in history, driven by demand from military commanders for increased information as the nature of warfare changed. Using maps at all for the purposes of military planning is a recent phenomenon: even though it seems absolutely intrinsic to us now, ancient military commanders and most pre-industrial ones didn't use them at all.

It must be emphasised that people just didn't think in terms of top-down map-like views like we do. Navigation was landmark-based. The central navigational tool for armies was knowledge of the network of known major roads and locally-known minor roads and paths, i.e., institutional knowledge plus scouts and local guides. Not maps. The central navigational tool for civilian travelers was itineraries (codified routes between multiple settlements, usually major cities / ports / pilgrimage destinations), i.e., written or memorised lists of directions, supplemented with asking locals. Not maps. At most you might see sketch images of some terrain features you were navigating by, or a lengthy itinerary might be written on top of a crude map of the continent as illustrative backdrop.

Maps (as local navigation aids) could have been an extremely useful tool for pre-industrial merchants, sailors, military commanders, property owners, and explorers, and yet, they for the most part neither made them nor used them nor understood the idea. (To that list of occupations we might add: dungeon delvers.)

detailed topographical maps of the sort that hikers today might rely on remained rare deep into the modern period, especially maps of large areas [...] Getting lost in unfamiliar territory was thus a very real hazard. Indeed, getting lost in familiar territory was a real hazard

- ACOUP

But there's so much map-heavy fantasy media that it permeates our vision of the past! I think "fantasy=maps" because (a) a map makes a great visual, (b) Tolkien casts a long shadow, and (c) we end up importing all kinds of modern assumptions. Nevertheless, regular people having access to accurate maps and the skills to read them? As remarkable as it seems, probably pseudo-anachronistic. Here's a crude compressed history (drawn from Wikipedia and some AskHistorians threads like this one):

1200s: First maps for ship navigation (portolan charts). Mostly useful for particular known routes, required a good compass, and weren't much use in working out where you were if you ended up far off course. Note that adequately mapping inland regions is much more difficult than coastlines: travel is both slower and more difficult, there are more features to include on the map, and parts of the terrain are inaccessible or obscured by other parts.

Late 1400s: Latitude starts being measured for the purposes of navigating ships. Longitude is vastly more difficult to measure. Explorers like Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1460-1533) make charts and depict parts of coastlines, but as a supplemental part of a highly text-based, descriptive approach to navigation aids.

Early 1500s: Latitude information starts being included on maps, at least for ship navigation.

1500s: First accounts of battles and larger-scale military movements being planned using maps, as reasonable quality land maps start to become available. See e.g. '[Duke] Cosimo studies the taking of Siena' (set in 1553 and painted ten years after), whose subject uses compasses on a map supplemented by a visual depiction of the city.

1600s-1700s: Land maps slowly become more widespread, but far from ubiquitous; the average person definitely cannot read one and the average military commander may or may not be able to. Local usable maps are mostly 'cadastral' maps, i.e., depictions of the legal boundaries, areas and dimensions of particular properties and territories.

Late 1700s: Longitude can finally be reliably measured for the purposes of navigating ships.

Early 1800s: Government-directed surge of high-quality, detailed cartography for military purposes starts in Prussia. This is probably in reaction to a perception that Napoleon's military successes were information-driven. Something like the modern capacity for (and importance of) topographic map-making and map-reading finally starts to be promulgated across Europe (but still only for soldiers). The perceived importance of knowing the terrain is possibly spurred by some other big-picture changes in warfare like army size, logistics and railroads, the role of artillery, speed of battle, etc.

Mid 1800s: Reliable chronometers become common equipment on ocean-going ships; it is finally the era of both making and using good sea maps.


So, 'owning a map and knowing how to read it' is a pseudo-anachronistic fantasy trope unless you're a learned scholar with an interest in philosophy, a lawyer with an interest in property boundaries, or a wealthy lettered ruler with an interest in territorial boundaries - at least until the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, and even then, the list only expands to 'ship navigators' and 'military commanders'.

Whoof! Well, everyone loves maps, so what's the solution? Fortunately, (a) we can give pretty much any fantasy world a history of large armies and sorcerous or monstrous powers mimicking the role of Napoleonic armies as a driver for accurate cartography, and (b) there's probably already magical flight (and/or scrying capable of mimicking a satellite view). Having a mage with a view from high off the ground means having someone who can make accurate maps without the base of sophisticated mathematics and laborious surveying technologies which you'd otherwise need. In a world where flight or distance viewing is 'cheap', we can expect this to be done just out of scholarly interest and/or for the benefit of local rulers and wealthy patrons, so we don't even need maps to be warfare-driven. Pseudo-anachronism solved!


Metal doodads

Metal is a wonder material. It comes in many different kinds with many different properties, and the tools you can make from it are harder/lighter/more durable/sharper edged/etc. Metal is also precious. In our world, at least, most of the useful stuff is tied up in minerals: iron is abundant but a hassle to smelt from ore, and other base metals are either less abundant than iron, much softer, or both.

A couple of historical notes.

First, I discovered while writing this that doorknobs were only invented in 1878. That's top of my personal list of 'new technologies you would have expected Shakespeare to be familiar with'!

Second, threaded screws are fairly old technology, but they had to be hand-made. High-quality threading of the kind you can reliably join a nut to only came about with 'swaging tools' in the 1850s, so nuts and bolts should be considered modern. In general, early woodworking preferred skilled joinery over nails (because iron was expensive and nails had to be individually made), and in turn preferred nails over wood screws (because it's a nail plus a bunch of incredibly meticulous skilled labour cutting a thread into it). Fantasy carpenters, take note.

This is minor stuff, barely even pseudo-anachronistic, and I think is pretty much covered by the discussion of locks and glass above. Nobody's actually going to be thrown out of the flow if you mention doorknobs. You can also change things up by having useful metals be naturally more prevalent in your fantasy world without even getting into 'standing portals to the elemental plane of iron' and so on.


Explosively flammable lamp oil

Here's a classic fantasy trope: you toss the lantern onto the cobbles and it WHUMPHS into a fireball. You douse the monster in lamp oil and one strike of a torch turns it into barbecue. Fantasy oil is not merely combustible but wildly flammable!

The pseudo-anachronism is obvious if you have a basic knowledge of materials science: pre-industrial people weren't using volatile substances with low flash points for everyday lighting, cooking, and heating. They were using plant oils (mostly olive oil) and animal fats (mostly fish oil or whale oil). To make torches and candles, add pitch, resin, beeswax, and tallow to the mix.

None of those things burn by themselves if you touch a flame to them. All of them have to be heated up a lot before they will catch fire and stay burning, except in the case where they're serving as the fuel for a burning wick.

(Read these three articles and the comments on them for a more full treatment of the topic with regards to original D&D)

To have lamp oil catch like petrol it has to actually be, well, petrol (or something like it). Again, there is no overlap between 'things you can make a room-temperature incendiary weapon from' and 'pre-industrial materials used for domestic fires'. Even when you refine petroleum, you produce some fractions with a low enough flash point to ignite and burn even on a cold day (petrol, notably), but you also get a bunch of other fractions whose flash point is too high (diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel don't burn at room temperature and pressure - you'd have to stop and boil your 'lamp oil' over a fire for a while before throwing these ones).

Alternatively, I guess you could burn particular alcohol distillates, like ethanol, in your lamp. If you had more money than Midas and no fear of fire.

Now, technologies to refine rock oil and distill alcohol were discovered a long time ago, well within the classic fantasy setting era, but these low flash point substances are very labour- and resource- intensive to produce by hand. If you want old timey incendiary grenades on your equipment list, they have to be made of something other than 'lamp oil' and multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than it. There's a few more caveats: early incendiary weapons (e.g., 'Greek fire') seem to have been delivered by catapult or huge portable siphon more often than thrown vessels, seem like they were difficult to wield safely and reliably, and were a state secret. All those objections can be overcome by adding a new fantasy material that works as an incendiary, of course. Fire weapons are cool and well-entrenched in the genre, so I say go for it.

I like the idea of combining the two classic fantasy thrown weapons – holy water and flammable oil – as a single plausible substance. My pick for the 'holy fire' weapon is ethanol: it burns with a mysterious smokeless flame that is very faint and blue, it can be poured on wounds to stop them suppurating, and the incautious imbiber is struck with euphoria, visions, and sometimes a debilitating curse. It's an old technology but costly to get your hands on (because it has to be distilled by a learned sage, using up valuable farm produce in the process). And the concept of extremely evil monsters having a specific vulnerability to 'smokeless flame' is just as cool as the well-trod and curiously Christianity-centric concept of them being harmed by blessed water.


And then also

So that's my notes on resolving pseudo-anachronisms for specific individual technologies in classic fantasy settings.

Now available: Part 2, a scattering of addenda on missing technologies, systemic technologies, and societal features!

Friday 22 September 2023

d6 degrees of success with anything


Is the badger's burrow wide enough to squeeze down? Is the giant scorpion's flesh edible? Are the bars set in a stone weak enough to chip away? Will the dead tree's branch stand up to the dwarf's weight? Does the abandoned generator have any gas left in it?

You're a GM and need to determine some aspect of your world. Roll a d6. 1 is the worst plausible outcome for the characters, 6 is the best, and everything else is shades in between.

Why do this?

  • It's quicker than any other rules-based approach
  • It's helpful if you have trouble just snap deciding the answers to questions
  • It's useful when something would affect the PCs, so you would be either 'handing them a win' or 'screwing them over' by fiat
  • The dice can surprise you and challenge you
  • When not everything has the most likely default answer, it can make a world feel more real
  • There might be a rule for this situation (or one that can be adapted), but you don't remember where it is


The "crawling down the badger burrow" example:
1 - Looks barely wide enough to get down, but narrows partway through, so characters can get stuck upside down in the middle of a twisty dirt tube
2 - Isn't wide enough to squeeze through
3 - Is wide enough to squeeze down but requires a little digging around the bends
4,5 - Is wide enough for the smaller characters, but not the largest
6 - Is just large enough for everyone to get through

The "eating the giant scorpion meat" example:
1 - Is poisonous; incautious consumers suffer a minor ongoing poison effect
2 - Is mildly toxic; characters start throwing it up shortly after getting it down
3 - Is edible but tastes really bad
4,5 - Is fine to eat
6 - Is not merely edible, but delicious and keeps well

Etcetera.

The key understanding is that you don't even have to assign numbers and degrees of success before rolling. Just mentally frame - or speak out loud - your question. Then you roll, say, a 2. All you have to do is think, what's the second-worst answer to the question?

Advanced versions:

  • Rarely, you'll have a question where the range of plausible outcomes are neutral with regard to the player characters. Just orient yourself on whatever axis you can find, and roll.
  • Sometimes there will clearly be more possible axes than 'good' or 'bad'. Something could pose a high or low threat but offer a high or low reward, for example. Just use several dice, associating one colour with one axis.
  • With a basic intuitive understanding of dice probabilities, you can determine the answers to questions about populations, off the cuff. Say you've randomly generated a group of 21 soldiers on the road. How many are in poor morale? Could really be any number of them: 1d20. How many are currently battle-ready? Probably most but not all of them: 1d8+10. How many are carrying bows? Let's guess it's likely to be about half: 2d10.



Monday 18 September 2023

The hit point problem


...Or, what do HP actually represent (in traditional RPGs and their descendants)?


Dr Bret Devereaux's recent article on armour and RPGs, in talking about how armour actually works, reminded me about this argument. It's an argument that's older than the internet, an argument that's fundamentally pointless, an argument that's been rehashed thousands if not millions of times... so I thought I might as well get into it briefly.

Let's start here:

Hit points are a combination of actual physical constitution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. [...] a near-miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, [...] more often than not a grazing blow, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home
- Gary Gygax, Dragon #24


It seems widely accepted, as well as being straight from the horse's mouth, that hit points are a mixture of a creature's capacity for and resilience against suffering injury ('meat points') and its chances, for various reasons, of avoiding serious injury in situations in which it might suffer serious injury ('grace points').

There's an implication that grace points are mostly 'used up' before meat points. And the obvious interpretation is that there's some (unspecified) ratio of grace to meat.

Unfortunately it's still impossible to arrive at a really self-consistent understanding of hit points in D&D-likes, whether you think HP is 0.1% meat and 99.9% grace, 99.9% meat and 0.1% grace, or anything in between.

HP must be almost entirely meat points, for the following reasons.

  • 1 damage to a 100-HP creature has to entail actual physical harm because it can come with 'riders' like injecting poison from a poison-tipped dart. If the dart didn't pierce the flesh 'on hit', it wouldn't have been able to convey the poison. At the other end of the spectrum, 100 damage is enough to kill the creature (or nearly so, depending on edition), so that too must be actual physical harm.
  • In trad games, higher Constitution improves HP (i.e., meat points). In comparison, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Intelligence (i.e., grace points) don't improve hit points at all, and neither do weapon/armour use skills and features (when they exist). If grace points made up a non-negligible proportion of hit points, having these attributes would affect HP total.
  • Numerous game effects, spells, items, and so on have descriptors that equate even potentially quite small amounts of HP recovery with descriptions of physical wounds closing. I would guess an outright majority of supernatural healing effects involve physical injury in their description, with most of the others being ambivalent or lacking description, and very few indeed talking about restoring anything that seems like grace points.
  • Plenty of damage in classic RPGs comes from sources that can't easily be mitigated (or can come from them in principle, for no special rules for when that happens). You character is stabbed while unconscious. Your character falls onto a field of spikes. Your character swims across an acid lake. Your character takes intermittent damage from rotting disease. The moisture is leached from your character's body by a horrid spell. In cases like these, half of the justification for 'grace points' can't be in play: the character isn't 'using skill to avoid harm', the damage isn't 'near-misses', and the character isn't just 'getting tired' or 'pushing their luck'. There are whole character archetypes unlikely to be protected by 'divine forces' or 'magical factors'.


Of course, it's also true that

HP has to be almost entirely grace points, for the following reasons.

  • When a 100-HP creature takes 99 damage, this doesn't seem to involve any actual physical harm: in classic games being down to 1 HP has no immediate in-game consequence on the creature (notable exception: D&D 4e's bloodied condition, and even then the effect isn't "a massive reduction in all of the wounded creature's physical capabilities" like you would expect). Per rules, the creature doesn't fall over or involuntarily scream or pass out from pain or anything. (And sure, the game rules are an abstraction, but the same RPGs will have other subsystems that are vastly more fine-grained than the idea that if you put a sword through someone, it has major traumatic effects.) There is never any indication that the GM is expected to improvise these consequences, either.
  • Martial characters get more hit points; they're the ones who are best able to avoid harm, because that is what all of their training is for. That harm avoidance is HP.
  • Characters gain hit points with level, at a rate that is vastly higher than remotely plausible variance in a person's actual ability to survive wounds. You could maybe convince me that some exceptional person could have twice as many 'meat points' as average. Three, four, five times? No way.
  • The same plausibility argument applies in general. A twelve-foot giant should weigh about 1500 lbs or 700 kg. If something like that swings an axe at you and it connects, the best you can hope for is that whatever gets lopped off is non-vital. Plenty of D&D-like games would model this attack hitting as something that can be slept off (depending on a damage roll, possibly). High-level characters might take dozens of such hits, depending on the game.


So we've immediately run into contradiction: some things in the game tell us that HP is almost all meat, and other things tell us that HP is almost all grace.


Side note

There's another reason we're unlikely to square the circle and find a self-consistent explanation in (most) HP-based games: Extreme injury.

Suppose 100 damage is just enough to kill some creature: It has 100 HP, or 90, or 90 and then flubs some rolls, or whatever. For this creature, 100 damage kills, so 99 damage is as close to a mortal wound as you can get. This amount of harm heals naturally, and perfectly, very fast, in almost every trad game I've ever seen. In modern editions, this near-mortal wound just goes away overnight! In contrast, I've personally had garden scratches that took a week to heal. Even in OD&D, the upper limit on healing is one month. That would be an optimistic timeframe for being discharged in a modern hospital after "a wound that very nearly killed you". That kind of wound would usually be the beginning of years of physical therapy, if not permanent disability.

COUNTERARGUMENT 1: We can concoct explanations for this, involving abstraction, and how much more survivable wounds are with modern medicine (or with fantasy magic), and how unfun it is to play out deadly infections or characters with degraded abilities, and how we don't want to require a player to play a character who's only definitely going to die rather than dead... sure. I've never heard one that's really comprehensive within the fiction, which is what I'm mostly concerned with.

COUNTERARGUMENT 2: Some games layer lingering injury frameworks, scar systems, etc, onto HP systems. This is fine, and sometimes works pretty well! I will note that in my experience they usually still don't go far enough to make for good simulation, and in particular these additional systems almost always still use a weird sped-up timeframe. I think they're also pretty rare on the whole, for traditional D&D-likes. I like em, though.

COUNTERARGUMENT 3: Some fantasy game worlds might be assumed to have low-level magical healing on tap everywhere, so a very slow trickle of hit points amounts to recovering your HP overnight (or 2d6/night or with one full day of bed rest or whatever). Sure, this works in principle. But I don't think many games come right out and say in their setting information that this is what's going on; it's hard to import into most worlds; it also precludes some genre features, like the existence of lingering injuries and old scars in the broad populace.




Finally, let's flip it around and consider actual practises at the table, where this matters. It's always been the case that certain rules get ignored or changed by swathes of gamers.

At the table, what GM ever describes a sword swing inflicting 10 damage as 'you nearly get hit' or 'they get a little tired jumping out of the way of the sword's arc' or 'fortunately for the ogre, your blade bounces off his belt buckle'? My impression is that this essentially never happens, in part because it makes a hit sound just like a miss, which is both confusing and a letdown.

What I do see, sometimes, is GMs being cautious and sometimes even vague about what is going on within the world – not really a sign that everything is as it should be in the game. They describe damage to enemies as flesh wounds (up until the moment it kills), and damage to characters as minor abrasions and bruises. They're careful not to imply any level of injury that would have actual game world impact (like impeding a creature's movement or making it leave a trail of blood) or later raise questions like 'you said I shattered his arm with that critical hit, how is he climbing the rope now?' or 'you said I was skewered by three arrows, how come I got better completely overnight?'

And likewise, I sometimes see GMs avoid describing the effects of magical healing as 'knitting together wounds', 'restoring all your blood', etc – and sometimes just not describe it at all – because that implies the character had been seriously wounded, and it somehow never feels like a character is badly wounded at the table, no matter how low their HP goes.

And in other cases, I see tables of players and GMs venture into absurdism, where HP loss is always a grisly wound described with relish; such wounds come and go entirely without any knock-on effects within the world, disappearing overnight.


Reconciliation


Is there a way around this without having to hack some extremely core game rules?

Solution 1: Embrace indeterminacy. Hit points don't really mean anything, and wounds are never described until the moment they are gone. If 50 lost hit points are immediately restored by a powerful healing spell then it may well have been a devastating wound (especially if the sufferer was 'dying' as per e.g. 5e rules), and the GM may feel free to describe it that way. But when a character suffers through an afternoon's adventure with 50 missing hit points and they get restored overnight, those ones were in retrospect obviously just a little fatigue (not enough to cause exhaustion), scratches and bruises (not enough to impede movement), and 'expended' luck or divine grace (whatever that means).

Solution 2: Play it straight. This fantasy world is different from our own because of its fantasy elements, and those fantasy elements officially include people's bodies operating utterly differently to how they do in our world. You can go from 'fifty-fifty chance of death' to 'top physical condition' overnight with no magical intervention because that's how it is in this universe. People of this world have no lingering injuries unless they were inflicted by one of the few extremely specific spells or powers that do that.

Solution 3: Beer and pretzels game. Just don't think about it.

Solution 4: It's meta. The game, in being played, produces a story of action in a heroic genre; all the bits of that story which don't make sense are because of (say) unreliable storytellers or other narrative tricks. At the moment it is happening at the table, nothing means anything; after the game, the resulting story is allowed to be inconsistent and impossible, because it's just a story. Yes, this undermines the very concept of roleplaying, so what?

Solution 5: It's stochastic. The lower a character's hit points – whether from injury or being fragile or low level – the more likely they are to die from the next attack. That's the only thing that 'HP' means. All attacks do little to no physical harm until the one that does: health and injury are a random walk on a line. More damaging attacks are both more likely to kill, and more likely to cause successive attacks to kill. And maimings, debilitating wounds, and true life-or-death situations cannot occur (presumably for one of the other four reasons above).

I don't think any of these solutions are very good. #1 is perhaps the most palatable, especially if it starts out hiding behind #3 as so seems more adequate once revealed.

Final thoughts

There's no good way to conclude because when it comes to 'what hit points mean' there's no conclusion to reach, no advice to give – hence the thousands or possibly millions of times something like this has been written or said before. These days I'm personally drawn to the idea of systems designed with something less abstract than hit points, as a way of making play experience more immersive, but, well, I think most players, most of the time, still like HP.

Straw demon

RPG idea If you ever find yourself making up a guy in your head to get mad at, that's the avatar of a memetic monster protruding into yo...