A New Skill System

Prodigy, like GURPS and Runequest, is a fully skill-based system, using the same skill mechanic for almost every mechanical test undertaken by the players.

There are four skill systems that I've seen used - d20, 3d6, %, and dice pools.  The d20 system works by rolling 1d20, adding modifiers, and then checking the modified result against a target number determined by the task itself.  What's nice about this system is that the difficulty of the task is directly incorporated into the check, as is the character's skill.  However, the d20 roll is hugely variable, and the chance of critical failure and success are the same no matter one's level of skill.

The 3d6 system (and OD&D's ability score checks work the same way) require rolling your dice (3d6 or d20) under a number determined by the character's proficiency with the skill: so a GURPS character with an 11 Merchant skill would need to roll an 11 or less with 3d6 to succeed a given check.    The bell curve provided by the 3d6 means that results are generated much more reliably.  However, the mechanic does not provide a transparent way of incorporating the difficulty of the task into the check itself - you can add modifiers to the character's skill, but it is a very ad-hoc way to do this.

The percentile system combines some of both of the previous two approaches: characters' skills are ranked 1 to 100.  To test a skill, percentile dice are rolled, and the check succeeds if the dice roll under the character's skill level.  There are some cool number games that can be done here, like special effects on doubles rolled under or over a character's skill level and so on, but it combines the wide variability of the d20 with the fixed difficulty of the 3d6, and so has the aspect from each previous system I most dislike.

The dice pool system gives the player a number of dice equal to their level in the skill, and assigns a strict possibility of success (say 8, 9, or 10 on a d10 or 6 on a d6), with more beneficial results occurring when more successes are rolled.  Thus, a player rolling three d10s might think they have a fairly good chance of getting at least one success.  The odds of success, though, are deceptive (rolling three d10s with success on an 8, 9, or 10 conveys only a 65% chance of any successes, with 4 dice bringing the chance only to 75%), and the system has the highest degree of variability of all the systems, since dice that don't succeed are either merely useless or actively bad (if they roll a failure).

Now, I feel that as one becomes more accomplished with a skill, not only can they accomplish more difficult tasks, but they can also accomplish all tasks more consistently.  I also want my system to be able to concretely incorporate the difficulty of whatever task a player attempts - I want challenging tasks to be challenging and easy tasks to be easy, and I want both of those things to happen with a minimum of ad-hoc adjustments.  I also want it to be fairly uncomplicated - no involved table lookups or complicated math.

The way I've accomplished this is by combining many of the approaches together.  As I've said before, I rank a character's level of skill in one of 6 tiers: Novice, Apprentice, Journeyman, Specialist, Master, and Grandmaster.

Skill tier	Dice Rolled	Difficulty Value
Novice	1d6	6
Apprentice	1d6+1d4	9
Journeyman	1d6+2d4	12
Specialist	2d6+2d4	15
Master	2d6+3d4	18
Grandmaster	3d6+3d4	22

This approach borrows from the dice pool system in that as more skill is obtained more dice are rolled.  However, unlike the dice pool system, all dice matter - they are summed together and checked against the task's difficulty value.  Because more dice produce a stronger bell curve effect, the expected value of each die roll is 3 less than the difficulty value of a task of equal tier (because of adding in aptitudes, which are scaled from 1 to 6), which means that increasing skill not only increases the overall total, but it also increases consistency when performing tasks.  Lastly, by assigning difficulty values for targets, the task attempted by the character now absolutely factors into the test.

Moreover, when circumstances change, I can alter the difficulty of the test in one of two ways: I can add or subtract 1 to the DV for minor things or I can change the tier of challenge for larger difficulties.  My options for changing the circumstances of the die roll are restricted because of this tiered system.

While I've yet to run a real game with these rules, I've run several oneshots and combat scenarios, and the mechanic has worked exactly as I like it to, but I'd welcome any thoughts folks have on it.

Art Effects in D&D

Here's a list of 50 potential effects for bard-created artworks.  I'd like more (a lot more), but I figured I'd at least post these 50.

I'd recommend capping the number of modifiers allowed for a given work of art based upon its quality - Apprentice could have 1, Grandmaster 5.  I would also recommend assigning modifiers randomly, or perhaps allowing for the artist to choose every other one (so a Journeyman artist could pick one of their two effects, and so on).

The list.

Number	Effect
1	Increases happiness in 1 mi radius when accessible
2	Fires burn hotter in the vicinity
3	Plants flourish, harvest is especially fruitful (yield increased by 25%)
4	Morale bolstered in its presence: +1 to morale rolls
5	Revitalizes: when resting in its view, 1 extra hp/HD recovered
6	Abstract expression fuels magic: spells have an extended duration
7	Abstract expression fuels magic: spells' random effects are maximized
8	Sheltering: nonviolent individuals near the work of art are under the effect of a Sanctuary spell
9	Blessed: art turns undead, demons, devils, etc. as cleric of bard's level
10	Contemplative: after observing object, earn 10% more xp
11	Increases Int by 1 pt for short time
12	Increases Wis by 1 for short time
13	Increases Cha by 1 for short time
14	Shortens magical research time
15	Nullifies magic in the area
16	Pacifies those who see it
17	Enrages those who see it
18	Drives people mad
19	Inspires great lust
20	Conveys luck - +2 to a die roll when it would make a difference
21	Training times shortened
22	Symbol of authority: when near object, commands are more likely to be followed
23	Shortens construction time
24	Increases the quality of metal goods produced nearby
25	Increases the quality of wooden goods produced nearby
26	Increases the quality of stone goods produced nearby
27	Mineral veins more fruitful - mine 25% more resources than usual
28	People get intoxicated more easily near the artwork
29	Lies cannot be spoken near the object
30	The object acts as a universal translator for written languages
31	The object acts as a universal translator for verbal communication
32	The object emits a faint light
33	The weather is always sunny
34	It is always overcast
35	Animals attracted to the object
36	Object provides access to small, extradimensional space
37	Convey fire resistance
38	Convey cold resistance
39	Convey electrical resistance
40	Convey magical resistance
41	Artwork emits persistent, low-grade darkness
42	Artwork glows, emitting bright (white) light as a lantern
43	Holy: attempts to communicate with the Divines are more likely to succeed
44	Sacrosanct: Area within 50' of artwork is sacred ground (as a temple)
45	Unhallow: Area within 50' of artwork is unholy ground, providing benefits to undead creatures
46	Suggestive: A Suggestion spell is placed upon all who see the work of art, with the specifics to be determined by the creator.
47	The artwork prevents violence within 25'
48	Criminals are enraptured by the artwork
49	People are compelled to toss a few coins towards the piece of artwork; those who take the treasure are cursed
50	All attacks deal slightly more damage after witnessing the object

I'd appreciate suggestions - I'd like a 200+ item list, at the end of the day.

Art within D&D

After another wonderful DM master-class with Alexis Smolensk, we started talking about the bard again, and that provided the seed for this post.

What are the effects of artistic works upon the people who view them?

Bards produce art, whether they are musicians, painters, sculptors, or dramatists.  Furthermore, because of their supernal skill, their art induces magical effects in those who witness them.  This begs the question, what kinds of effects could an artist character have on their game world?

In a sense, each thusly-created art object is a magical item.

This execution for this comes from the Korean light novel series, Legendary MoonlightSculptor.  The series' protagonist, Weed, has a 'useless' class within a fictional MMORPG - that of the sculptor.  However, he discovers that his sculptures, because of his class and skill, can provide transformational effects upon the world.  In one instance he has just vanquished a nest of vampires from their frozen castle and carves a massive statue out of ice.  The beauty and grace of the statue fill the valley with warmth, allowing human beings to resettle into the town and keep.  Furthermore, crops grow more bountifully there, and heroes who stop and gaze at the statue find their outlook improved, health fortified, and speed increased for a time.  The existence of this statue brings trade and prosperity to the town, eventually bringing it enough status and power to rival the capitals of the other kingdoms (leading to other conflicts later).

In this vein, we need a way to provide in-game benefits for great works of art.  This can add a whole new dimension to the game, and also provide bards a completely different role to play within the game world.

There has to be a caveat, however.  The second time you see a work of art is often less impactful than the first.  The third even more so.  Even for those works of art we adore and return to over and over again (favorite symphonies, The David, etc.), we don't try to engage them in the same way each time - the way we seek to understand and appreciate them evolves over time.  Novelty is a crucial factor determining an artwork's impact (cue the desire of many dramatists and dramaturges to have been in the first audience of Waiting for Godot!).  For this reason, the effects of any static work of art must change over time, declining in intensity for most.  The rate of decline will depend upon the quality of the work of art - transformative, transcendental works will retain their impact for years and years, while more amateurish pieces will quickly lose their appeal.

In Prodigy, disciplines (skills) have tiers that describe how proficient the character is at them: Novice, Apprentice, Journeyman, Specialist, Master, and Grandmaster.  Novice corresponds to almost no training or experience in the skill, while Grandmaster represents the level of skill just beyond the limits of human achievement in the real world (Hildegard von Bingen, Archimedes, Hawking, Shakespeare, etc. are all Master-level).

Artwork Level	Effect Length	Novice	Apprentice	Journeyman	Specialist	Master	Grandmaster
Novice	Momentary	1 hour	5d4 hours	--	--	--	--
Apprentice	1 day	45 minutes	4d4 hours	2d8 days	--	--	--
Journeyman	1 week	30 minutes	2d6 hours	2d6 days	3d10 months	--	--
Specialist	1 month	20 minutes	2d4 hours	1d8 days	2d12 months	2d4 years	--
Master	1 years	15 minutes	1d6 hours	1d6 days	2d10 months	1d6 years	2d8 years
Grandmaster	10 years	10 minutes	1d4 hours	1d4 days	1d12 months	1d4 years	2d6 years

The table above shows not only how long the artwork will still induce effects in those who see it but also how long it takes an artist of the indicated skill to produce an artwork of each level.  Also, as works become more artful, they require more resources and also take up more space (physical or temporal) - this is due to the fact that the subjects addressed/represented by these more artistic works simply require more space to be fully realized.

Now, I'd probably allow a bard's player to attempt to make a work of art of a given quality in less time - letting it be crafted as though it were one tier less artistic but increasing the difficulty one step.  Furthermore, I'd wait until the end of the time spent making the work of art for the player to make the roll.  So if a Journeyman artisan wanted to make a Journeyman-level painting quickly, they could spend 2d6 hours painting and then roll a Specialist-difficulty check to see if the piece of art was successfully created or an artistic failure.

The next bit, the actual effects of a work of art, will take up more time, so I'll address that next post.

The Bard

I signed up for master DM classes with Alexis Smolensk and had the first of them today.  I learned a great deal, and I am looking forward to the next one.

It came up that I am going to graduate school for musicology, and Alexis mentioned that I might be able to tackle the bard problem - talking about how music actually impacts people and how bard players can bring music to the table.

I have a number of gut-reactions and initial thoughts which need some time to incubate.  But, I am in a position to talk about what music was like in the 1650s, the time period of Alexis' world.  While musicians in the world of Prodigy (being roughly equivalent to the 13th or 14th centuries in Europe), but I think some of my conclusions from this discussion could be useful, later.

Since I don't have access currently to the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, I pulled out a music history survey textbook which will help us provide a general overview of the period.

Before we begin, I want to reiterate that I am talking about musical traditions in Western Europe, the ones for which we have documentation.  Each geographic region would also probably have had its own 'folk' tradition, but the division between modern 'folk' music and other musical traditions did not exist.

The other caveat I want to make here is that much of what I'll talk about is high class music - the music the nobility would be making and hearing.  At this point in history, common people would only hear music in church.  The nobility were the only folks with enough capital to afford having musicians on staff for regular entertainment, and different courts would compete for the most famous musicians.

The idea, then, of an itinerant minstrel in this period is, in many ways, totally baseless.  What did exist were Romani bands, some of which did function as travelling performers, but most bands traveled to find a new place to settle (having been exiled from their previous home), bringing some of their music with them.  In the 19th century, as each of the major European powers struggled to define their 'national character' (and a large part of that was their 'national musical style'), Hungarian music was almost exclusively played by the Roma communities who arrived there at the beginning of the 15th century but claimed by the ethnic Hungarians (the Roma, it was said, had 'borrowed' the music from the Hungarians).  I think it would be fair to say that similar dynamics appeared in the mid-17th century, although at that time the idea of 'owning music' was, for the most part, ludicrous.

Our three models, then, for musicians in the 1650s are the court-supported professional musicians playing consort/chamber music and opera, the Roma or Roma-like musicians playing in what could be considered a 'folk' tradition, and the kapellmeisters (musicians supported by the Catholic or Lutheran Church, depending upon geography).

The Roma-style musicians are the closest to the romanticized ideal of bard expressed in most of the D&D source books that I have read.  Some Romani would work as professional musicians at taverns or inns, playing the popular music of the area and expressing virtuosic skill.  These individuals could read the general mood of a crowd to keep the audience happy.  They typically played either solo or with a partner or two.  At this point in music history, voice and instrument were considered equal (previously, vocal music was regarded as far superior to the artificiality of instrumental music), so these entertaining musicians would probably know how to sing and play a couple instruments (probably choosing between the violin-family, recorder and woodwind family, and some form of percussion (tambourine, bodhran, etc.)).  Their skills, then, would have included learning new music quickly by ear and knowing how to change a preexisting piece to suit the audience listening to it.

This brings me to a good point that is often misunderstood by people thinking about music before the 19th century - until Beethoven, music was a trade, like carpentry or masonry.  The elevation of music as a supreme art form did not occur until the 19th century - until then, music was expressly not art but entertainment (this had to do with the Church's taste-making power).  At the beginning of the 17th century we have performer/composers working to make music reflect emotion (chiefly in the brand-new genre of opera with speech-like rhythms [Monteverdi's Orfeo], but also in non-liturgical polyphonic vocal music which used dissonance and consonance to bring meaning to the words [See Monteverdi's Cruda Amarilli]).  Music was not seen, culturally, as an end in and of itself but as a way to make a living.

The court-supported professional musicians would have received several years of training in an instrument (I believe only one - a violinist would not have been trained to play the cello or harpsichord).  Courts would not have an 'ensemble' - they would have independent musicians contracted to play with the court who would sometimes play music together, and while the singers would exclusively sing opera backed by the instrumentalists, the instrumentalists might play works based upon another composition's' melody(ies), improvisations (only for keyboardists and lute-players, as a solo), fugue-like pieces (works taking a single, new melody and constantly transforming it.  This could be improvised (see J.S. Bach) on harpsichord or written out and played by a larger ensemble), pieces with contrasting sections (i.e. loud and soft, or woodwinds and viols), or dances (which sometimes were to accompany actual dances and other times works written in the same style with irregular rhythms which would make it challenging to dance to).  Improvisation and the ability to compose were expected skills of all musicians, although some were more renowned for this than others.

The last group is that of the church musician, usually an organist (since instruments other than the organ were typically not allowed to be part of the Mass).  These organists were highly skilled improvisers - J.S. Bach being the best of the best (although he appears somewhat after our time frame of 1650).

In short, when playing a bard with a European background, one has three choices - to be Roma, a former court-sponsored musician, or an ex-church musician.  Due to the organ's lack of portability, the last one is probably unsuited for D&D play, but the first two would fit right in.

A Roma-style bard would be used to playing for people on the street.  They would probably be completely ear-trained.  Their music would seek to entice people to stay and listen, and they would need to be able to know what kinds of music would please the audience - they would play the music popular in a city, not what they had learned before.

A court-style bard would be used to playing for the upper classes and could read and write music.  Unlike the Roma-style bard, the court bard would not have been responsible for picking and choosing repertoire, but they would be good at sight-reading and engaging with music on a more intellectual level - taking a single melody and playing it in many different ways.  They would also be familiar with the more common pieces (dances, fantasies, etc.) of whatever geographic region in which they were last employed - each region of Europe was developing specific musical preferences, although Italian music was widely regarded as superior in every way.