Revisions, updates, and changes

It's 10 June 2000, and I've just hung up the phone. I had been talking with my partner, Matt Klinger, about some aspects of The Chimera RPG guidelines, specifically, whether the current system of dice mechanics really "works." As I hang up, I'm confused, irritated, and intrigued.

We were talking about attribute scores, and Matt had this idea of converting all attribute dice into points, eventually making action rolls based on the point value. Because this might solve some other nasty bits in the game, I'm intrigued.

Matt's system allows the player to use whatever dice combination adds up to the point total. For example, a score of 24 could be represented by 3d8, 4d6, or 6d4. For other point values, Matt suggests other combinations: 3d6, 1d8 + 1d6 + 1d4 for a value of 18; 2d8 or 2d6 + 1d4 for 16, etc. Matt then explains that the lowest die type becomes the critical die. While not overly complicated, the system is "fast and loose;" I'm confused.

In my vision, a critical result is outside the character's influence—in no way can a critical result be dictated (even partially) by the player. But, with Matt's system, this changes. As the mechanic now stands, a critical results when the lowest or highest value of a particular die shows; with a d8, a 1 or 8 is a critical; with a d6, a 1 or 6 is a critical, etc. Problem is, a d8 critical occurs 25% of the time; 33% of the time with a d6, and 50% of the time with a d4. If the player determines which die is critical, as he can with Matt's system, he can influence his chance of a critical result.

I also balk at the notion of using variable sets of die or combinations of dice types to resolve a particular roll. One of the founding principles of Chimæra is simplicity, and variable die types—however easily mastered—do add a potentially unnecessary element of complexity to the game.

We discussed the issue over the course of (literally) hours. Matt believes that this sort of interaction between the player and the dice heightens the game's drama. I can see only scores of players and GMs exploiting the system. I'm irritated.

We leave it, asserting that we'll "play-test" it, then discuss it over the phone again on the 12th. After extensive (and sometimes heated) debate about probability and statistics (which, make no mistake, are significant matters to consider whilst designing an RPG), Matt sees my point, and we achieve a compromise: Attributes will be measured in point scores instead of dice, but the mechanics for achieving a critical result must be altered accordingly.

I'm pleased.

Not because I've "bested" Matt in an argument or "proven" my point. It's not even because I'm "right" (being "right" in the world of game design is too subjective to be ascribed as an empirical trait). Rather, I'm pleased because we've reached an accord that is mutually acceptable, and, more importantly, seems to make the game better.

So why is this relevant?

I'm talking about revisions, changes, and updates, right? It occurs to me that no RPG can survive without a good look at its core mechanics. Witness TSR, and its efforts toward the 3rd Edition. How about house rules for GURPS? Hell, how about the number of times I've restructured the rules for the Jabberwocky/Chimera RPG? (Unfortunately, I don't have a record of these changes online, but rest assured, this game has been totally removed from its inceptive form.)

It's cliché to state that we, as humans, don't deal well with change. But it is accurate to state that we, as humans, don't deal well with changes that we don't control. And so it was with Matt, and the Chimera mechanics, and me. More than problems I had with the use of the critical die, I had problems with wholesale changes to the game's mechanics—in a very real way, Matt and I were tinkering with the delicate balance of an entire system, and, by extension, anything that system could produce. Was it broken? Did it need to be fixed? Were we striding paths that would lead to ruin?

I confess that I thought we were.

But the end result appears to be an improvement: a system that we believe to be accurate and more flexible than before. Imagine that—deliberate and considered change introduced into a system that actually results in benefit. . .What a dare, what a venture. What a stroke of luck.

But it's not luck. It's willingness to take a risk. I'll court ridicule by sounding overly patriotic and zealous—a daring explorer within a realm of my own design, to be sure—but I think that it's important for complex systems like Chimera to undergo change, and constantly. I'm absolutely positive that I've frustrated scores (and angered dozens) of gamers by repeatedly changing the scope and mechanics of the Chimera guidelines. But I can honestly state that every change has been a (perceived) improvement in the game's overall structure and mechanics.

On the surface, such tinkering seems to do nothing more than delay the final product. "Bollocks to deadlines," I say. In other words, if The Welsh Piper can produce and distribute a quality product, why not make that product the highest quality possible? If it means delaying the final version for a few months (or a year) for people who are getting it for free, why not do everything possible to render in its most distilled, most productive form?

But I'm ranting. The point is that revisions, changes, and updates are part and parcel of an evolving and vibrant system—whether we're talking about an RPG, a marriage, or the aquatic ecosystem of a freshwater reservoir. Change is inevitable—accept it, embrace it, and make it an ally.

Because, who knows? We might all get a call from Matt someday, and be forced to turn our system or world around.

For the better.