When Sterotypes hurt your Game

Something I've strived for in a lot of my games is an attention to detail. You always see posts, articles and stories about how the designers added so much background, and the user barely notices, but overall the game/movie does better for it. I never expected it to backfire so badly as my last roleplay session.

When your players stereotypes clash with each other

  I started a 4 week stand alone session about Pirates, Sailors and their dealings with a strange phenomenon called magic.

  The Session started with quicker than normal character creation, we even had to skip formalized equipment and their stats (though proved humourous) so we could get started and into the basic plot quickly enough.

The basics were thus: There are two sides, Arabian Pirates, who come from a land which has outlawed magic in all forms. Consequently the majority of the pirates are actually magic users. And the European Sailors, having had their entire city wiped out by undead magic users because their race managed to invent gunpowder (magic users everywhere have banned the invention) those politics aside, the players know that they consider their 'guns' to be anti-magician guns.

  Throw in a Knights Inquisitor, whose sole reason for infiltrating the pirate ship is to root and rat out the mages to be beheaded at the next port.

  So we have two sides, with conflicting inner struggles. I expected some emotional and political conflict, as did the players.. but we didn't expect what did happen.

Arabian Indians & German Gunners

Some of my players like to put on voices.. the 'Europeans' jumped for German, and for some strange reason, the Arabians decided to be Indian (some jumping from Scottish to Iroquois mid sentence) alot of funny moments for a later blog.

  What happened was a misunderstanding of ranking.

  Some of my players are older gentlemen, they have families, kids, wives who expect their husbands home by 10pm, and the rest, Uni students, not so serious, just having fun with it all.

  The Serious players, want to get to the game, get it happening and enjoy themselves, while the younger players have yet to learn that sense of urgency and self control.. so already different tensions started in, players not respecting the game, monty python quotes, etc etc

  The Pirate 3rd Mate & the Ships cook were instructed to take this group of sailors and pirates of equivalent by slightly lower rank out to inspect the island, look for fresh water and food. The Cook can of course identify plants & poisonous varieties, and the 3rd mate bossed people around, to get stuff done..

  But The Pirate player, had previously played a D&D adventure on the high seas, and the campaign had extremely poor understanding of life aboard a ship, crew, rules, emotions and the like. Far worse than the stereotypes of the movies. The players had been press-ganged into ship slavery, whipped, beaten, half rationed, disease & seasickness, it was a brutal campaign (I never played, I just got this players impression)

Now, does that Officer look like he's going to run him through?

  Also, in games prior to 2000, I used to run many of my campaigns with a strict iron fist. Players who would encounter guards and give them flack, would likely end up in prison for unruly behavior or beaten up and left in the gutter. Players learned that they might be the heroes of the story, but they are certainly not given free reign to do as they please.

The Skirmish

So, this player, felt that his 3rd mate, was in charge, and should/would deserve the respect of his position, to the point of almost bashing the back of the head of the German gunner who was giving him a little flack, at which point, the gunner drew his flintlock pistol and told him to back off.

  This set off the 3rd mate, insisting that the rest of the crew, imprison the two germans in a discovered stone room, til he could summon up someone of higher rank to have them flogged. The germans went in the room, but not so much as punishment, but instead creating a nice walled barrier against the feral mate, so they would obviously only have to guard the one entrance with flintlocks. Strategically, a good move.

  I, at this point, honestly thought the player was playing his pirate like this on purpose.. to create angst, or disrupt the possible inquisitor from discovering that he was actually a mage.

  It turned out, he honestly thought that pirates were blood thirsty bastards who would sooner run in a scurvey prisoner than take lip. While 6 of the 9 players had other ideas.

 The Key point had been pointed out earlier in the hand out text, which I'll quote:

A Ship of European style, A Galleon, 14 Guns (Extremely rare), but a crew of only 50 (The Galleon needed 75 to operate at full ability, but sleeps 150) Lost a Battle to a Pirate known as Twin Blades McCrowly and his crew of 40 pirates. The Pirates has (rightly) never encountered guns, and thought the booms were a storm coming over the bow, while 8 of them were killed on the opening attack, the remaining 32 managed to kill the captain of the galleon and 15 crew so effectively, their scrimshaw blademanship was so deadly, the remaining crew gave in (it was fairly obvious these warriors were so deadly, they would slaughter the crew and burn the ship)

The Master Gunner, knowing that the future of his culture was at stake, pleaded with the pirate captain, to take them on as crew. McCrowly took a look at the 8 dead, holes blown through them, and looked back at the massive hole blown in the side of his own ship and realised. He had now gained some of the most powerful “magic” that existed.. but it was not actually magic, somehow, this would be perceived as “evil” and the Knights Inquisitors might be pissed, but since it was not magic, their anti-magics would not work..

So, the Crew of the Galleon was given a choice, Join the Pirates, Plunder the Seas and if they want to get off at the next safe port, they may do so, AFTER they train the replacement crew member how to operate the guns & cannons.

The Ship has been anchored off the coast of a small, uncharted island, The Captain has ordered you lot, to go investigate, gather water, see if supplies exist and buried treasure (he adds with a laugh).

Beautiful Tropical Island, filled with Deadly Creatures, Crazy Terrain and Wild-men, must be Australia.

  So, you can see The Galleon Crew are on 'probation', to prove their worth, and become pirates, as equal ranking to the rest.
  For myself, I've always thought that the idea of a Pirate Captain, treating his crew like scum, would eventually result in mutiny. The concept that any higher ranking sailor on the sea, trying to act all big and tough, better be chummy with 80% of the crew, and only try that kind of thing with the least well liked persons on the ship.. that said.. close quarters, no where to go, I don't like the odds of anyone being less than amicable on a ship, but idiots will be idiots, and that's why the quartermaster exists.
  
  Returning to the situation, 'the 3rd mate thinks he's top sh*t', not because the player wants the character to be played that way, but thinks that this is how higher ranked pirates are supposed to act. The Pirate Stereotype has 'forced his hand' so to speak.
  No one else agreed with him, and began to belittle the player( in and out of game) because he was playing an a**hole. The Player didn't want to be boxed in, Some of the Pirates were siding with the Germans, which the Player insisted was against the spirit of the game.
  So suddenly we're all raised voices and getting angsty about whats going on.. I blame myself, not providing enough material to the player about how pirates should be played.. because quite frankly when you have a group, it is, sorta, the responsibility of the GM to set a scenario that the group has a reason to bond & team up against the GM.

  We had to pull the session to an end, so I could write up several pages based on historical data to show the more truer version of history and why the stereotypes would destroy the ability on pirates being pirates.. but it really got me thinking..

How many sessions of roleplay are disrupted by this kind of clash, players playing the 'classic trope' which ultimately ruins everyones fun?

Spot Check! how often do you spot check?

I can't remember when I began to notice, that people don't notice things.. a lot of things, Maybe its the "mobile staring walking into things" people that brought it to my attention, but is it possible that slowly each generation is losing its ability to see the creeping tiger? and in roleplay they don't care to point it out?

How often do you make spot checks?

Think to yourself, you walk down the street, you walk past maybe 100 people, each of them has an agenda, unless you're "looking" at every single person with interest, and you're well trained in the art of spotting intent, it'd be highly unlikely that you'd spot someone that's thinking something maliciously toward you.. until they pull out a sword..  

Tracking all 100 people is incredulous, 

How often should they be made?

How often should you be aware of them being made?

In earlier Versions of D&D, the DM would determine what you could or should see, Often the text box provided the right clues, and the players would listen for key phrases that matched what was needed to figure out the puzzle or defeat the creature

"You kick in the door, it bursts open, a wizard, evil looking, puts down something he was holding, in a box as you decide what to do, he starts waving his arm around casting a spell"

SPOT CHECK

Why? Why would a player calls for a spot check here? the GM has already read out the flavour text box, and revealed the information. yet its becoming more apparent that either DMs are not giving the players enough information and the idea of making a spot check would somehow give them more? Or too much, players get bored and wont listen then do a spot check to get just the details?,

There is a movement of players, going to games that throw out the dice, get rid of rules and just wing everything, Getting the story underway is more important than the game being fair. I can understand why, now that I've been researching how DMs are spoiling the hobby I've been playing for over 20 years..

Being a DM is not simple. Running a game, with rules that you are familiar with, in a boxed adventure you have read several times and learnt off by heart, with players you know well. This still means a lot of note taking, being the eyes and ears of the entire group, making sure to word things in such a way that the players perception of events is what is revealed, and not (the virtual) reality.

Throw a green DM, sandboxing a group of strangers.. and you're going to have chaos.. and thats why spot checks exist.. so the players have some agency in a (real life) setting that is far less than ok, let alone ideal.

What do you mean by this?

Lets look at the concept of why the dice roll exists.

If I swing a metal pole at a wall, I have enough strength to do so, there is no need to determine if I am going to hit.. only how well I'm going to hit, to see how much damage I will make. If the variables are all known, I have more than ample time to aim my shot, I have perfect reflexes & dexterity, there is no question. I should hit it, at the maximum allowance of damage based on the weapon, and my strength & accuracy.

But, if any of those factors are not perfect (and when would they ever be) those variances, cause what we perceive as a random chance of failure (if we had a supercomputer, it could study the maths and tell us why we got exactly what we got, but we don't so we use 'chance')

The Dice represent that chance, the variance based on mathmatical certainty vs probability vs possibility.

So it becomes the GMs job, (as often as not) to determine this probability, within the rules of the system given.

In the case of combat, D&D at least, uses the attackers skills + weapon + base to hit (skills again really) vs the enemies skills, speed and armour (yes, but whatever) to determine the chance of hitting the opponent. these variables alone present so many mathmatical models, its obvious we need dice to determine the outcome.

Furthermore, this should and usually results in modifiers for the damage, how hard the blow hit, etc etc

So we have out "chance" to hit.. and variance of damage, and that's a given for roleplay systems.

But when its something a lot more defined? something not so grey? This is where many systems fall down.

Back to spot checks...

I walk into a room. I'm searching, I have my eyes open, there is more than enough light, the object is in the room on a table, right in front of me.. and I should be able to see it.. Yet (I roll the dice and fail, fumbled) it is invisible to me.

WTF?

I walk into a darkened room, I'm not declaring that I'm looking for anything, the object is inside a chest, under a cloth, behind some furniture, I make a spot check.. AHA! I exclaim (as I crit roll) I "spotted" it.

Now, sure, these are extremes, and you could argue that in the first, I have domestic blindness, and the second I have second sight..

Yet, domestic blindness occurs because we are looking for an image in our mind that matches what we're looking for, and our mind dismisses the obvious choice, because it doesn't match the mental image.

There is little to no chance of a player looking for red keys, and seeing red keys, of failing a spot check and not seeing red keys. Just as there should be no chance of spotting keys in a box under a rug.

Stealth vs Perception

I run a system that (apparently) is unlike any other, we have something I took from Dragon Warriors which has worked well and I will always use: Stealth & Perception.

The Description for Stealth and Perception is that 90% of the time, players are concentrating on a specific task or event or opponent, and might likely not notice anything else at the time, So a GM checks the stealth of a creature (like attack vs defence) against the perception of its target, and if passed, goes unnoticed. This is because of the subtle differences, variances in lighting, movement, the creature making the stealth roll, and the player either being aware or not.

Stop what you're doing, don't turn around.. can you describe exactly what is behind you right now? 90% of us would claim to know so many things about what's behind us (if you are in a familiar place when you read this) and would get 90% right.. but if I moved something, just before you sat down.. would you truely notice? maybe part of your mind would see the object out of place, and ask the question. hey... is my blue cup where I left it? did someone do something to it?

Only if you ask the question, is my blue cup in the same place, would your mind try to recall its previous location and the differences.. and that's IF you are thinking about it.

Asking to do a spot check, is like asking to turn around and notice every single change.. impossible. Yet asking if the blue cup seems out place might trigger some memory response, So the player uses their Memory Bonus + Perception to determine if they indeed notice the moved blue cup (the GM would of course add in a modifier, the player has never mentioned that they memorise the location of all objects -6 and that the blue cup is not a regular item to be checking -6.

Without adding in the type of check that is being made, a generic check has no base (Perception) so the player would be rolling against just Memory, with the -12.

Back to your Favoured System

So for the rest of you, GMs should really just reveal the information, if the player specifically points out what they are expecting to "spot" and a roll could only point out to their mind that something not directly related, but somewhat similar is apparent (if the story would come to a stand still otherwise?).

The players ask the GM, what do we see, the players get a basic description, "The Heroes enter a dungeon, they look around, they see the generic background stuff" One player, (probably the Thief) asks, "I look specifically for anything that looks out of place", the GM needs more clarification, "Like?", "Like dust that has been moved or disturbed". The GM has no reason to make a spot check, the player has requested to see if any dust has been moved, "indeed, the table has been moved, and a dust trail has been disturbed".. if the story line needs a roll, possibly more information about that dust could be revealed.. "looks like the dust was moved recently".

I Understand that possibly more than a lot of DMs already do this, but what's being posted in forums & reddit suggests that its not the standard.

What's your take on spot checks?

Worldbuilding your Magic

Magic In Relation to World Building

One thing I think we all forget when worldbuilding, is how things started, how things exist, how they work with each other. Magic is a fairly big upset to anything and everything. If magic existed from the start, can anyone, in all logical conclusion, say that their world would look anything like Medieval Europe?

Now sure, There were charlatans that claimed that magic existed, and used it to profit, or make a living. Soothsayers, Fortune Tellers, Witch Doctors. For the most part, they used perception tricks, fakery and general human power of belief to cause things to happen.

In that, we had witch burnings, and the inquisition. So imagine if those things were actually real?

A lot of recent discussion n the topic caused me to create this thread and jot down notes in it..

yeah, looks like a random search on google images

Here's what I came up with.

The Early Caveman had Shamans. [Why isn't it Shamen?]Usually a herbalist, soothsayer, most likely predicting events based on his age, experience with things.. The Cave Shaman was the Ancient version of Google. Now imagine if said Shaman had actual powers, not just perceived powers based on wisdom.

Soothsayers predicting weather more accurately with fish bones, means decreased deaths in storms, possibly more predictable travel across oceans.. smaller boats with a weather shamans are now hundreds of years in advance of our history. The Vikings would have become more efficient raiders 200+ years earlier.

Tribes were ruled by Brawn (assumed), would now magic become a more dominant trait? just that one path alone.. ignore all else, and nerds become rulers of society pre-iron-age, God-Kings are not just called God-kings, they are most likely bred together with witches to ensure magic in the royal blood.

Though Magic + Brains becomes the eventual power, the Brawn still has the upper hand in the first few years, would bullies become victims in the later years? would the alpha males be eradicated in favour of the Beta-mages. There was an article recently about a group of monkeys who lost their alpha males to poisoning, and within a generation, the tribe was peaceful, had little to no abuse, females were treated as equals. Would society mature and become utopia without the brutal power hungry alpha?

Assume that Brawn remains equally Dominant, or that Alpha Mages (Brawn + Magic) become leaders,. would now early society break far more into the Elite and the Slaves? The Elite breed with Mages Only to maintain the power, quashing all independent magical bloodlines.

The concept of the Advisor in many societies now becomes the mage, far more real than fictional variants, his/her spells are used to determine visitors/diplomats are being truthful, whole militant situations fall apart when the mage can force the diplomat to reveal all secrets.

On the subject of Wars, would you really arm hundreds of men to fight battles when you can send out a couple of sorcerers and their private guards? Imagine a Game of Civ without armies, because your opponent could just cast flame strike, now instead you need to just hire your own mage, and maybe an assassin+mage to take out his mage.

A lot of writers would probably want to 'balance' the magic, costs to cast, to ensure that the 'world' remains closer to their medieval history + magic vision. Things like, magic costs the user, the ability to procreate, or magic users are one in a million..They have their own work-arounds..

So, given that your brother is a mage, you're likely to be a mage, the council, asks you to not be a mage.. but instead marry a woman who is also asked not to be a mage. because genetically, you're both likely to have double-mage children.

If Magic Users are one in a million, then being the king who has a mage, now becomes supremely important, but careful that the mage doesn't want to be king himself.

When I talk of Wars and Advisors and Diplomats and such, I'm thinking Medieval in my head, but I really should be thinking ancient Greek or earlier.. because of my first few posts about magic coming in much earlier with cavemen, wouldn't it be safe to assume that this culture of magical Advisor to the King, or God-King exists far earlier than Knights on Horseback..moreso because there are more than a few thousand articles on the ideas that Technological advances in warfare came about because of warfare. They invented ways to get around what the enemy had invented, and in turn the enemy invented ways to thwart the new inventions.

Speculation that a "spell slinger" would make Armoured Knight obsolete as what Guns did in our History, should be taken back quite a few steps, where spell slinger comes in pre-Mesopotamia. Would anyone bother to make leather armour if a fireball is going to annihilate you anyway?

In my own world, I saw gunpowder being a very big danger to mages, an invention that gives non-mages the ability to take down a mage, as fast, if not faster than the mage can cast a protective spell, and being mages, they decided that it should not be invented. They dedicated a cult of magic users who learn several specific spells, such as Dimension Door, Scry, Mind-wipe and the like, so if (and when) Gunpowder is invented, they turn up, and erase the idea from the inventor, and destroy the laboratory. Of course a secret cult has developed it in secret, and have begun their development of the Gun, which makes a great back-drop for a campaign that I run.

There are so many possible ways that magic would interrupt, cause, hinder, help, change history, it makes little sense to try and make a medieval+magic fantasy trope.. and yet, if you go too far off from the trope, a lot of readers will not grasp what you're doing and you limit your audience..

I'm looking to put together a massive multi-player game of Civilization, which will explore this concept further, I'm not 100% sure of my approach, and how it will come about.. but stay tuned.  

Encounter lists, why are they so drab?

For quite some time, I've been using a computer database for my encounter lists, but recently I ran a few sessions in a different system, and found the encounter charts to be abysmal, so I quickly threw in some ideas that I thought I'd share with the community [note, by this I mean, unedited ramblings]

Why do I need to fudge encounter chart lists?

Back in the day, when I was a green GM, a DM if you will, players would enter a room in the dungeon and I would roll up the next encounter from a chart and they would fight it. I was 13, I had no other idea about anything other than the expensive (read: I couldn't afford so I made my own) pre-written adventures, which in hindsight, seemed to be a writer doing the very same thing, then giving some actual explanation why a beholder is in the room next to 20 orcs, in a Crypt that has been sealed for 50 years.

As I progressed, they of course became the 'random encounters' that characters would 'cut their teeth' on before the adventure, so they could test their 'leadership' and 'tactics' with the opportunity to heal up and even return to town, before they would repeat this process 3-10 times in a sealed environment.

Years Passed, and I found myself rolling, 2-3 times, and picking what seemed far more logical, rather than what the dice said.. but it felt wrong to fudge the dice.. going against fate, as it were..

Which Encounter to Choose.. Hmm, Maybe All? Seems logical!

So what was wrong?

Looking back at those charts, I see monsters too high a level, assigned only 1 value on the d100, while common creatures assigned several values.. but just like the casino, the house always wins. If you have a dragon on your chart, eventually the players will encounter it.

recently, a 12 day trek through semi-dangerous forest resulted in this:

Day 4, Dire tiger, day 5, Treant, day 8, 4 Bugbears, Day 9, 11 goblins & a Barghast, Day 12, 2 assassin Vines. All for a group of 4th levels.

Ahh TPK, how Schadenfreude

The Dire tiger mauled our tank, who couldn't participate in the fight with the Treant, so the whole group got wrecked, we had to camp to rest, but that made us vulnerable to the Bugbears, So while the goblins should have been a walk in the park, they almost slaughtered us and the Vines TPK'd the group.

Now, ignore the group.. lets look at the creatures.. We have a Dire Tiger and a Treant, within a days walk of each other.. The Scent of the Tiger, should have caused the Treant to be wary, which admittedly could have alerted him to come investigate, but in turn the Treant should cause the Dire Tiger to be wary or moving on from this neck of the woods..

Databased System

As I said, I use a Database system, which wouldn't allow such things to occur. creatures have a threat radius, a scent radius, a territorial radius and a position, some creatures ignore these things, others stay well back from such things, so certain creatures wouldn't be found dead, (literally) within the radii of other creatures, and others would (be found dead).

Another feature of databasing is that when players kill the Dire tiger, its gone from that neck of the woods, and the creatures react to the power/territory vacuum, some creatures increase their territory & breed more, others randomly move into worse neighbourhoods, perceiving the threat to be gone, to find a worse threat which annihilates them.

No DataBase.. how can I make a better list?

So after starting this game, in an area with no database, no system, I had to revert to my old knowledge of encounter lists, and thought.. surely there has to be a better way to do this.. hence this blog.. and I came up with a solution.. I'll be sure to put this into my own system for publishing later, but I think its cool enough to share with any reader:

First we start by ordering the danger rating of the encounter list, At the top, 01 - ? is the 1st level creature, keep the '% values, but scale it up to 300%.. i.e. if goblins was 3 numbers before (41-43), its 9 numbers now (41-50), if unicorns were 1 number, they're 3 numbers (actually for unicorns, I'd scale them back to 1 number and bump something else up by 2). Shift these around as you see fit.. creatures who would likely not care about other creatures, scents, territorial etc, give them higher %, while other more territorial, a lower %.

Next, Add in these two charts:

Encounter Modifier & Encounter Style.

Encounter Modifiers I leave 01-75 as "no modifier" and for each 25% I add in an increasing addition, such as " & pets (add d4 dogs of appropriate type)", or "increase numbers (increase the dice of creatures from d4 to d6+1, or d6 to d8+1)" or "aggressive, (+1 to hit, +1 to damage)". These also go up to 300.

Encounter Style I have things like, 01-25: Not here today, 26-50: tracks of _(roll on chart again).. nearby, 51-75: dead body of  _(roll on chart again).. 76-100: Ambush, 101-125: -Bandits, 126-150: Roll again & have fight each other, 151-175:  Boss monster of encounter roll. etc etc up to 300.

So here's where it gets interesting..

When you roll on the "do I get an encounter today %" initial listing, and get "nothing" you roll d3 and add 10% or 20% (normal vs dangerous terrain) to one of my charts (bit of paper behind the screen, add a notch, marker, etc) so I know that todays encounter could be nothing, or this could be the beginning of something worse, maybe the characters have entered the territory of some hideous beast. each day of "no encounter" is just increasing the likely hood that the next encounter is going to be bigger than before. The first 3 styles listed, are of ways that the group will not encounter this larger than normal beast, and if that happens, I'll have the next few days also be no encounter (this land is so dangerous, nothing wants to go here, but luckily the characters managed to 'bypass' its horrible lair) but the players won't know that they bypassed, instead they're thinking they are getting closer and closer to something even worse!!

Encounter a Lair, ensure no encounter rolls for trip home

My own lists include in the styles (at 01-25): Within the Lair: Ignore the modifier, and roll again at -25%, keep the modifier for future rolls, So while travelling trough the hills of the hill giants the players encounter some kobold travellers, easily defeated, but the danger of Hill giants is still close.

With a few test rolls, (and a spreadsheet for extensive testing) I had around 80% success rate, that the larger, deadlier creatures turned up far less often, in close proximity to anything else.. ensuring that if you do encounter something rather large, you'll have enough time to rest up, cause nothing with any brains, is going to be coming to the lair of this (now dead) beasty anytime soon.

and the GM doesn't have to feel like he's cheating, fudging the dice, anymore.

Thought of the day, There are no Magicians in Harry Potter

A common question from my play testers and groups is : Can I do X in your game? how would that work?

I've said it a few times, I developed the system to be compatible with all known books on the subject, and am constantly updating, tweaking the parts that I know I haven't spent a lot of time on.

Train hormonal teenagers with nuclear level powers? I don't think so

I have also vocalized my dislike for the Harry Potter system/world, reducing magic to a school subject that children learn is probably the reason why the world is in such peril to begin with, As I belong more to the group that prefer Gandalf and Merlin style worlds, the rare few that can truly understand magic, while a handful of hedge wizards scramble around with a few rabbits & hats.

But all that changed when someone asked, If all systems can fit in your system..

How does Harry Potter match your system...?

The discussion started with how mages cast spells.

Firstly there is conjuration, the usage of 'mage power' or 'mana', difficult to master, rare to be a master in. We don't see magic glowing from their fingers.. so that's not it.

Then there are incantations, The words of magic learnt by the mage, cause the spells to activate the inner magic or mana.. usually this is a string of variables infused into the magic, causing an algo-rhythm of magic to create the desired effects.. at first this looks like HP magic.. but it isn't, since the kids rarely create the spells, they merely say a final word.. 

But wait, isn't that (not actually vancian) D&D style 'activation' word? do the kids pre-cast their spells and then activate them? no..

 Ok, so Material spell components? I remember some classes being about potions and plants, but the bulk of wizards just wave a wand.. so surely then it must be..

Magical Items! Of course.. the Wands, magical items that store magic, and are used to focus spells or cast spells for the user.. quite often a wand has pre-built spells into them allowing lower level magic users access to a wider range of spells, rather than having them learn said spells over years and year.. Oh wait.. what's going on here... The wands.. they are 'chosen' to ensure the least dangerous effects to the child.. the wands cast spells that the kids say the 'activation word' for, the child never actually casts a spell, it's always the wands.

Not only do the children use wands, adults do too, and have done for years.. the school has been around for centuries, they all have wands, it seems that only the goblins & house elves have anything to do with any real magic, and that appears to be limited (though wandless)

In Conclusion

I can only surmise that the Harry Potter world and its magics were somehow accessed by someone years ago, who had actual magic (Merlin?) and wanted to train the gifted into spell casters, but finding that humans for the most part divided into muggles, who were unable to use even wands, and mages who could, but couldn't be trusted to learn real magic, because it's far too powerful, decided to ensure the survival of the species, by creating a society in which mages are 'shunted' off into the HP world, where the residual magics allow the fantastic creatures to exist, all spells have been 'pre-scribed' into wands, made by the goblins, allowing these mages 'magic' but in a controlled fashion.. and it's been going on so long, no-one knows anymore that real magic can do so much more..

Except Maybe This guy, 

Maybe the guy stirring his coffee with his finger.. reading a book on time by stephen hawking

Simple Systems equals Simple Games?

Remember when Diablo Introduced Prefix & Suffix Magical Effects to us?, changing the ceoncept of a "+1 Magic Weapon" to 30 different kinds of +1? Giants sword of slaying? Spiders Hammer of Light? This is my TL:DR, The More complex your game system is, the more players can do with it, when they understand it, But understanding it should not be the pre-requisite to playing, just to GMing.

 Simple Systems equals Simple Games

I want to preface this, this is more like a warm up topic for the different styles of GMing, Designing and Playing, so I'd appreciate comments to hone the concept further for the next blog.

Remember HeroQuest? 4 stats. Attack Die, defend Die , Mind & Body. Now in my early days of gamesmastering, I could not fathom how to use those other than the 2 types of hero.. the Fighter or the Wizard. Sure the weapons listed range & damage, and there was a movement score in there somewhere because it was a board game.. but that was all.. Fighter or Wizard (The Elf was a fighter with range).

Now.. years later, I'm sure I could run entire adventures with just those Attributes, because I've matured & experiences alot of life.. does your character want to steal something? hmm, lets see, natural attack die (not weapon) vs defend die (exclude armour), pass his 'mind' score to see if the shopkeeper noticed.. why? because a strong minded, alert, wise, character would know to be watching, while a weak minded fool would be lazy & bored..
 
So its very possible to play any system, with a good imagination. yet it leaves you with problems:

What if you don't have a good imagination? I think we've all read about the 2nd level hero who was free-falling with a dragon and used the fall momentum to puncture the dragons skull, insta-killing him, so he levelled up to 7th giving him enough HP to survive the fall, or the 20th level Paladin who fell from a 100m cliff and not only survived, but brushed off the 100 points of damage and waded into battle. GMs who don't have the confidence to say whether its right or wrong, because it might spoil the 'flow' of a game, or lack of knowledge to make a good call on the situation.. 

What if your understanding of reality isn't as good as your players, and their 'proof' spoils your plot and ruins the game session? This one was closer to home for me for many years, I wasn't well read on biology or physics or maths as a child, trying to GM my group resulted in many of my 'traps' failing, or me having to use (cringe) "because its magic!". This is most likely the whole reason DungeonWorld is so in depth, based so much on reality first, before magic has its effects, and why it has so many Attributes & Statistics.  

Hero Quest + house Rules.. 

What about duplicatable? Try to reproduce it? So a different GM might come up with a different approach for dealing with the Shop theft, maybe a house rule would be added for a 'stealth' score. This doesn't matter if you only play your game at your house, and recognise that different GMs will produce different results.

But, Ignoring Rules Lawyers, Most people want coherency and duplicatable results. If I play at your house with the 'pass the natural attack' rule, I'll want to put all level up bonuses into my natural attack.. but at someone elses' house, I'd need to use their 'stealth' score. not only are my characters able to port over from game to game, but I have to learn a whole different set of thinking to play.. the same game. 

I've had it myself, I'm playing at a friends house, and they allow some rule that flanking allows the attack of opportunity, so now I can make more than a few attacks in the same round.. with the right conditions, I could make 16 attacks against 4 opponents, in the same round.. impossibrew!

Knowing the rules match the game, you can 'join' any game, with a fair understanding of what you have as choices, to what to do, what can you do, what is impossible and what the GM will allow

If every house has a completely different set of rules, you'd soon discover you can only play with one set of friends.. and Convention gaming? right out!

"right everyone joining table #17, you need to include rules addendum 12, 13, 18, 21, half of 27b but nothing from 5th edition, we'll run an errata session in an hour, and see you back here in 3 hours to play!"

McDonalds Burgers are created with some pretty complex set of rules, every single burger has to follow the same rules, country to country, to ensure that the consumer gets the exact same burger in any and every store. yet the customer, has no clue about those rules, its just the same burger.

So For me, Complex might be Complex for the GM, but simple for the player. 

A Complex way to represent a set of bonuses a Skill could have...But Simple in its final result

I think the Gamer Industry goes through a pendulum swing, too complex, not complex enough.. D&D has hit the extremes a bit from time to time, taking note from the market, Rolemaster, Tunnels and Trolls, Talisman, there are many variants. Right now the market seems to be in "simplification" mode. Numinera, Fate, Apocolypse World, for a Mature market, with decent, imaginative GMs, who can 'fudge' the system to get what they want, in a way that players respect and trust.. it works.. no denying it.

Yet I worry about the GMs without the back support, brand new to the world of roleplay, making decisions which put off their players, or get put off by the system for its lack of ability. Because at the end of the day, If I can only be a Fighter or a Wizard, I'm going to leave the system soon enough, because I don't know any better.

But.. as my Next Blog is more about.. How many variants are there truly? is it fair to say that no system can be a catch-all system? How many kinds of systems should their be? Real vs Unreal, Simple vs Complex? are there any more parameters? Would it be easier for a DM/GM to begin his session invites with "Hey guys, running a Sandbox Multi-Plot Fantasy of D&D, who wants in?" or would it be better if the games defined themselves as "Sandbox Multi-Plot Fantasy" so the market knows what they're getting into before buying the game?

Topics to Discuss - Pandoras Box

I thought I might get down some Ideas that I'm keen to discuss, both in gaming general and in relation to DungeonWorld(tm). Having worked on a Dungeonworlds game engine for 20+ years, through iterations of complexity, then simplifying, then complexifying again, There are many small nuances to game development that I've studied, read about or even just played with the basic mechanics.

If anyone has some key point they'd like me to address over the next few months, feel free to add it to the List. I know many of these topics are things other gamesmasters and designers have discussed, so sometimes they'll be my own 2 cents, I like to think that pretty much every GM/Designer that decides to blog has to cover these topics to establish themselves first.. but maybe a few will be unique

In No Particular Order, I would like to discuss:

• Encumbrance, backpacks and Lists vs Encumbrance Points.
• Electronic Character Sheets, good or evil?
• What to do in downtime? Why Healing Spells suck!
• NPCs and Levelling the non-Hero
• Hit Points, health and Falling off Cliffs
• City Campaigns, Do Politics?
• Weapons Hit Points.. Will your Sword break
• Ammunition boxes or chips?
• Time Tracking between 7 Gamesmasters & 50+ characters
• Perception, Lighting, Smells and Intuition
• Player Morales & Roleplay Decisions
• Killing Everything, just in case, doesn't make me evil.. Right?
• Mega Games & Rumours
• Should GMs ever let players see the Monsters Manual?
• Is an Orc Always Evil, Should a Paladin Always kill him?
• As the world shuns violence, will roleplay games cease to exist?
• Toilet Time, should GMs inform players, mid dungeon, that its time for no.2?
• Initiative vs Peasant Rail Gun
• Non Magic effect Tower Shields of Invisibility
• Minecraft tree to Stick rules of D&D Crafting
• Rule Zero vs Physics

I May add more to the List, I encourage others to add to the list, things that you've seen or read in other GM blogs. (or just stuff that would be fun to read about)

Why Using XP and Levelling is a Waste of Time

Last Fortnight I wrote about how roleplaying requires Experience Points to be allocated for understanding Levelling, as an absolute Must! While researching the blog, I came across compelling points about why Experience points systems are old hat, old school, outdated and dust.

Experience Points and Levels are Bad Design and Bad Karma.

The Number one complain against XP is the time taken to add up the numbers, since they don't mean anything anyway, why use them.

<rant On>

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to go back on my last post, if this is why you don't want to use XP, then you are a Lazy Lazy GM and you should not be in the industry, normally I would say, get out, stop GMing, and make room for more level headed GMs who know what they are doing. Unfortunately, there is a lack of decent GMs and sometimes if as a player you are stuck in a rut, and just want to get your game on, you will deal with any hack who can mash out a harry potter plot on crack, allow the crazy fumbles and criticals of a broken system to be the entertainment of the day, while munching on chips and guzzling coke.

<rant over>

There are legitimate reasons for going non XP, being lazy is not one of them.

Instance worlds and Instance Games

An instance world, is a slice of a potential reality, usually published games are instances, because someone else, somewhere else is playing a different set of heroes through the same dungeon, and we can't all be doing the same dungeon.

In an Instance game, the parameters are set, the DM & Players have come together and agreed that they are going to be the dwarves and the hobbit from Middle-Earth, or Luke, Ben, Solo and Chewie, and save the Princess. They have a pre-agreed understanding that for the next 1-3 months of their lives, they are going to replay a classic or printed adventure (or something made up for laughs) and enjoy it.

As often as not, when playing a board game or card game, we don't want to deal with all the extra stuff that takes place in reality, we just want to play and have fun. As a GM, maybe I don't want to flesh out the world, or the places that players might go. Maybe the backstory for the barwench in the tavern is not going to be relevant, If players ask, just tell them, its just a game, its not relevant.

As a result, there is no problem with levels. Just like Heroquest, Descent or Talisman, Levels are really some arbitrary number that means nothing. So why use it?

In an Instance Game, its far simpler, and makes more sense, to decide to 'get better' every 3-4 sessions, to represent the growth of the character.

Casual Sessions

Much Like the instance world, you might find yourself in a One-off game, character progression is not part of the game, you're not playing these characters again, there is no need to understand what is going on behind the scenes. 

These kinds of games can be great fun to play, and sometimes very useful to run for the advancement of your main plot. 

Maybe an old man by the fire begins to tell the story of a group of adventurers, entering the dungeons of death.. the GM passes pre-made Heroes over to the players, and they play out these characters when 'years ago' they tried to best the dungeon, and failed.

Rather than the GM Telling the story, which may not be 100% interesting to the players, the players play as the 'heroes of the story' which informs the group to some nuances of the quest their about to undertake. 

First time Trial run

As often as not, the first time players ever roleplay, the GM would create and run some kind of simplified, easy to follow structure, with as much intrigue as possible, but not so much chance of death. This ensures the players feel like they are getting the hang of things without drowning them in rules and errata, and in case some players decide that while it was fun, its not 100% for them, or that they are not so interested in devoting a few hours every week for.

The first thing you could do at the next session is to introduce them to the concept of XP vs non XP, but frankly until these players are really going to be devoted to the craft, they are not going to be interested to learn the nuance, so stick to XP-less.

So Why even have Levels?

The Logical conclusion to running an XP-less system is to get rid of the levels too. They only exist to give the players a straight forward way to assigning bonuses from character progression based on XP gained from adventures. But if you run a game where you level up every 3 sessions.. wouldn't it just be more interesting (and make far more sense) to gain 1 of the bonuses for your class, each session? plus a bonus at the end of certain quests? why 'group' them at all? (like Skyrim)

Why not assign them determined by what your character actually did?

Lets look at D&D Warrior (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Warrior)

between 1st and 2nd level, you gain d10 HP, +1 to Hit, +1 to Good Save & 1 Feat.

If you run your system, as 1 level up per 3 game sessions, wouldn't it be more fun/interesting to gain one of those bonuses per session, and get all remaining on the 3rd week? based on what you did in the last session?

E.g. Last Week, Symon the Warrior, took a heavy blow, was knocked unconscious and took a few blows, so the GM & Symon agree that his weekly bonus will be his d10 Health. This week Symon had to make a reflexes save a few times, so GM & Symon agree that he gains his Good Save [Ref] Next week, Symon gains both the Hit and Feat. 

Conclusion

At the end of the day, The players need to understand that the world is cohesive, that actions have consequences and that their characters are progressing in a fair manner. If you have player trust, you can do all the calculations behind the scenes and tell players when they get their next bonuses.

But honestly, do you really want to do all that yourself? its not a paid job, so why not ask the players to help with the bean counting and share the work load, so you can spend more time making a great adventure. 

to XP or not to XP, are new DMs so Lazy?

A point raised recently suggested that Roleplay games should not have Experience Points, and my response was, If a GM can't be assed to count up what happened that session and award XP, he's Lazy and if Players feel that they need to grind, kill or overly play-act to get levels, then something is wrong with the Game/DM

To XP or Not to XP, are new DMs so Bad/Lazy?

The Argument was, that by awarding XP to players, you create a bunch of problems that breaks the game flow. Some arguments against XP are

• Awarding XP is too much accounting and record keeping.
• XP systems force players to grind, or to 'clear each room' for the XP
• Adventures have to be 'XP balanced' to ensure a good play experience, which ruins the plot
• Organised Play / Society games have to have a fair system, XP breaks this
• It Motivates plays in a bad way, its bad for their psychology

And Some Arguments for Non XP systems are

• The GM can just skip XP requirements to ensure players are matched to each other
• It allows you to choose how to 'level your campaign'
• Players are motivated, not by murder, but by play

Now, Ok, maybe I'm a little OSD&D in my style, but after reading so many articles about how many people are so bad at actually playing and or DMing.. I'm not surprised that people want to trash the XP system.

What is XP?

The reality of Experience Points, is a mathematical representation of the cumulative knowledge and confidence of a player to perform actions to a certain degree of knowledge. a 10th level character is defined by his 10 levels of skills and abilities, based on his experience in using those skills and abilities, but also his confidence in doing so.

So, first up, the Arguments against XP are based on incorrect assumptions of XP in the first place. Awarding XP because the player played well, or from gold gained, or because the GM says its a good idea or is impressed by a cool Simpsons quote, is of course going to put a bad spin on what XP is, so the DM & players are going to be asking themselves.. why am I getting these? and causes motivational issues,

"Quick, Run for your lives, there is a 19th level hero coming, and he only needs 5 more XP!!!"

Against XP

Accounting

Lets Look at the Points above, Firstly, If you can't do the math, don't be a DM. Your players may not like doing numbers, but certainly OSDMs used to be good with math, in their head, why do you think role-master even exists.. because we could think numbers as fast as we spoke. 

Me? I have the players do a "talk around the fire" after every session, they remember all the events that happened in the adventure, I write them up on white board, or a sheet of paper, and jot the XP for each of those things next to it.. they aren't writing down numbers or making calculations, they are remembering what cool stuff they just did, reinforcing in their characters minds, how cool they are, how confident they are in their skills and how they'd feel about doing those things again in the future..

"So guys, we've just cleared the dungeon, we took out that team of skeletons, dowsed the mummy in oil and lit him up, evaded that rock fall trap
- and we didn't all die,
- Haha, yes, that's right, and we got through those zombie snakes and claimed the treasure from the inverted pyramid trap. yeah, I think we did pretty good.. did I miss anything?"

what an EXPERIENCE they just had!

Grinding & Clearing

If your players are OCD like me, they 'need' to clear each room, not for the XP or the Gold, no, for the feeling that its now "rightened". Heck I am used to taking all the bodies outside and burying them, or burning them in pyres, ensuring the dungeon is cleared..

I think this comes down to what kind of play is happening here, are any of your players good? or lawful? why would slaying all the creatures, just because [XP], even come into this? If the Neutral players are saying things like, Hey, I need to get more practice in, and fighting some monsters is gonna make me feel better as a fighter.. sure.. that makes sense, go ahead, but the DM/GMs role is sometimes to remind players how to stick to their players 'character'.

Possibly its about how XP is awarded. If your still awarding XP for kills, gold and GM brown-nosing then of course grinding will result, That's Bad XP, (see below). The Only problem I can see is more about the balance issue, in the next heading.
Me? If players figure out a way to 'bypass' a room, using clever tactics, if they manage to escape across a bridge and cut in in time, leaving 50 Orcs on the other side, if they cast sleep, and lock the door, on 3-4 guards.. they have "defeated" those creatures and get XP accordingly

"remember that time we trapped those 4 Basilisks in the mirrored room? they were trying to find the hidden door with their eyes closed, wow that was awesome, how cool are we that we defeated 4 Basilisks so cleverly" 

Balance Adventures & Balanced Heroes

This has been a hobgoblin for me, almost a bugbear when ever I hear DMs talking about 'scaling an adventure'. I don't for a second think that the real world scales any difficulty for me when I endevour to find my way across a new area of town, or go to a job interview or study for an exam, and I as sure as hell-fire won't do the same for my world, maybe because I have 8 GMs all running their games in a live environment, so 'scaling' would kill off all realism, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I get that most games are being run as 'a couple of friends, getting together to play a different kind of board game. Board games are designed to start everyone equally, and give them a fair chance at some competitive environment to see who is better, or have balanced skills to ensure each person gets a fair turn.

But this is roleplay, not supposed to be a board game. If one of your team hasn't yet got the skills to defeat the creature that's coming up, then the team work together to figure out a way to be a team, how to balance their skills to defeat the creature. The Subliminal point of the game is to figure out how to work better in groups, not force the game to do half your job.

Me? One thing I make clear for new players (either to RP or my system) is that group co-operation is tantamount to winning, information is worth as much as a magical weapon, and negative play will result in dead characters. If the group is not ready for Night on Bald Mountain, then maybe they should travel to The Forest of Doom, Or Hire some NPCs to join the party to boost up their total CR.

"Guys, Guys, come look, this old map points out that there are two Tarrasques in the first temple, and an Allips haunting the second, Maybe we need to hire a Cleric for this one?" 

Bad Motivation from Bad XP

This is mostly what the problem really is. If I play a game where my reward system is purely for killing, then the only thing I should be doing is killing. Most board games [descent] require you to kill the creatures so they don't kill you, so you claim the treasure to win the game. So anything other than attacking and killing the creature is going to end badly.

Roleplay should award XP for all varieties of 'defeating' the monster. In the Original D&D, Arneson pointed out that the XP system was supposed to be class dependent. You gained XP for killing monsters if you were a fighter, for a wizard, you needed to cast spells, for a Cleric most likely healing and rebuking. If your DM doesn't award you XP for talking down an Orc, and getting him to go home and see his mother, as a means to get to the next room, then quit that game and go find a GM, better yet a ProGM.

Me? Well my system already includes this style in the rules, You don't get wizard XP if you don't wizard, A Bard pacifist, doesn't get XP for attacking an Orc with a blade, if anything, he'd be so disgusted with the fact, he'd lose confidence in himself as a pacifist and would lose XP. I do award XP for gold gained, because its not so common a metal to be all over the place, and getting it gives players (a false) sense of confidence, Rogues get double XP for gold, because that's what a Rogue is about.

"Yes, Greedo. I was just going to see your boss. Tell Jabba I've got his money."

Against Non XP systems

Matching the Players to the Game

Well, as I read somewhere quoted below, Why bother with levels then? 

I've played games in D&D where we wrote out a new character sheet for each 'level', so that we could play any published adventure with our 'characters' the matched the level of the campaign, we effectively scratched the whole system of XP and levelling, and treated it all like a big TV series, with flash back sequences to 'previous adventures', I've played level less systems, which gave you bonuses to stats instead [WHFRP+house rules] which worked far better in some ways, but made it nigh on impossible for the GM to figure out how to balance his encounters (which lead to the feeling that it didn't matter, knowledge did)

Besides the points made above about group dynamics and working with what you've got, rather than forcing the game to become, just a game, The problem here is that, if you take away the scaling, and match the game to the players, then your creating the most pointless grind machine ever.

If I have 3 heroes at 2nd level, enter a dungeon with 3x 2nd level goblins, then a room with 2x 2nd level skeletons and the next with 6 x 1st level bats.

How is that any different from

I have 3 heroes at 5th level, enter a Tower with 3x 5th level bugbears, then a room with 2x 5th level Wights and the next with 6 x 2nd level Giant Rats.

Or

I have 3 heroes at 20th level, enter a dungeon with 3x 20th level Demons, then a room with 2x 20th level Liches and the next with 6 x 10th level Vampires.

Then its just a numbers game.

We defeat the first quest, and gain a level, then later we defeat the next quest and gain a level, etc etc etc.. have you been playing WOW too much?

How can you possibly balance anything anyway?

    Lets say I have a character in a game, and we've played for 3 campaigns, gained 3 levels, its a no XP system we've defeated just over 100 approx level equivalent monsters in various ways per campaign, but then our GM moved states, so we had to find a new group. but they live further away and only two of our group can come play at the new location.

    So we meet up, introduce ourselves and our characters, and join their existing game, they have 2 level 4 characters and 1 level 2 character (the previous guy died), so now we have 5 players, this new DM thinks that because there are more heroes he can throw more at us, the first campaign has over 300 level equivalent monsters, doubling our effective understanding of our skills and abilities.. and we gain 1 level!? This DM has his own set of 'rules' on how leveling up works.. 

In an XP based game, this wouldn't happen. creatures have set XP, quests have a fairly robust set of rules on how to set XP for various traps, encounters, figuring out stuff, so the 100 creatures + quest resolution = level would balance enough out, that the 300+quest would surely give the group 2-3 levels.

Home brew rules are all well and good, but when you change certain core rules, you break the ability to continue anything with anyone else.. all new groups would need all new heroes, which for many of you, I think is actually happening, and that's sad. [don't you love your heroes anymore?]

What about Player Differences?

Not everyone is equal, 'equalling play' causes as many de-motivators for players as overly punishing players. If I don't need to worry about full participation to get my level up, why should I pull my weight? Maybe I'll just play as the cleric and hang back for the first 10 levels, healing the party between adventures but not actually endangering my life, until I have enough of the cool things to do some real damage?

What about Absent players? If a player is unable to attend a few sessions, because they're lazy or indifferent, they won't worry about attendance, because they'll get a level every X sessions anyway.. maybe just turning up to the Xth session to just level up

What if I decide that, after the death of my character, I should begin again at 1st, and will watch and learn from my peers, under the guidance and tutelage of these great and mighty heroes, I will surely learn faster to be a great hero like them one day.. Under an XP system, Its pretty obvious that I'll catch up 75% of the groups level after 75% of the time, but other than a (probably poorly designed) house rule, how can a 'every 3 sessions gain a level' system even understand that kind of scenario.

Last Few Points

Absent Players and XP

If a Player is not at the table, but the character is, Its fair to say that the character is not feeling 'like himself' or 'he's out of sorts' and as a result, would not be concentrating on whats going on properly, so he's not 'experiencing' events as much as his friends are and would not/should not get full XP. some GMs might harshly give 0%, while others might give half, my research into the human mind suggests that distracted students learn only 20% of their lessons, so in turn, I give only 20% of events experience to characters, whose players are not in attendance.

Roleplay and XP

If a player is demonstrating some kind of 'experience' as a result of their role-playing, i.e. they point out that their character is obeying their thirst, and must drink from the suspicious fountain, because they have no water in their water-skin, might make sense that they would 'experience' what its like to give in to their needs in times of peril. On the other hand, play-acting their characters voice, movements or other things, might help the roleplay experience, the character has no relevant 'experience' happening.. besides the fun of doing so, players should be rewarded out of game by words of encouragement or other meta elements, giving XP in game from out of game events, is akin to Pay To Win style games, The meta event should not change the game.

References:

While searching for other arguments in this topic I found these threads to be (un)helpful.

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/20007/systems-giving-xp-based-on-roleplay-how-to-avoid-jealousy-party-balance-proble

http://www.geekspeaker.com/?p=537

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?260861-Roleplaying-XP

http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/gaming-news/stunt-dice-role-playing-xp-rewards-and-how-not-to-be-a-jerk-while-game-mastering

http://geek-related.com/2014/02/02/the-time-for-experience-points-has-come-and-gone/

Pictures from:

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/59120123.jpg

http://www.everyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/xpposter.jpg

https://primitivescrewheads.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/experience-points.jpg

http://gamingtonic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/+rpg_think_of_the_experience_points_teddy_bear40672854.jpg

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/3-2-1-ding-you-survived-another-year-happy-level-up-day-to-reach-next-level-you-will-need-additional-365-experience-points-keep-up-the-good-work-f239e.png

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/59120123.jpg