DGRPG Design Diary #6: Favours as Currency

Some thinking-out-loud on the subject of using money as fuel for plot.

One of the things I'd like to highlight is that dungeons run by an Evil Overlord are pretty unpleasant places to work. Management are utterly uninterested in the wellbeing of their employees, and those employees, being nominally Evil, are much more interested in looking out for number one than engaging in acts of kindness, altruism or compassion. Cash is forbidden among minions (all coinage gleaned from dead adventurers is sent to Accounts and reassigned as loot for minions to drop when adventurers kill them), which means some alternative currency is needed.

The answer is favours.

If you want a fellow minion to help you then you either need to barter with them by offering them something tangible that they want, or promise to help them out in return - and you'd better be prepared for them to remember your debt. Maybe a favour will get you extra rations from the canteen, or let you avoid a shift mucking out the slime pits, or let you borrow a few heavies to teach a rival a lesson.

This favour-based economy pervades the entire dungeon, with minions trading their favours from one to another in exchange for, well, pretty much anything. The value of favours increases with the standing of the individual who owes it - so you might have shrewd investors who do favours for newcomers at Level 1 and call in their debt at Level 5 or higher, when the favour is correspondingly more valuable. Of course such speculators don't want to make risky investments, so they'll try to gauge how likely you are to survive before they'll help you out. Which in turn means it's very important to give the impression of having excellent long-term survival prospects, even if that's not actually the case. It's also very important to give the impression that one's word is one's bond - if you prove to be flaky or unreliable or reluctant to repay your debts when asked the value of your favours will drop precipitously.

My general inclination is to treat favours as money, perhaps even including the trade of I.O.U. tokens between minions. In effect each minion issues their own currency, with the value of that currency rising and falling as their fortunes change. Some might band together into groups, issuing and repaying favours collectively - their value is more stable, but not as likely to increase over time. For the most part the favour market is extremely volatile, heavily influenced by rumour, hearsay and speculation, with an emphasis on quick turnover of "portfolios" - the longer you hold onto a specific favour the higher the chances the issuer will get killed by some wandering adventurer, rendering it entirely worthless.

This could also provide plentiful plot hooks for PCs interested in playing the favour market - artificially inflating the reputation of someone who owes you so you can sell their favour to a third party for a juicy profit, or undermining that of someone whose assistance you need so you don't have to owe them as much in return; paying close attention to the grapevine to find out who's up-and-coming and whose fortunes are in decline.

My initial idea is to have the base value of favours be derived from a combination of (a) the difference in standing between two parties (by comparing their relative levels), (b) how much it helps out the recipient and (c) how risky or inconvenient the favour is to grant. This could range from trivial (covering their post for a couple of minutes while they dart to the latrines) to huge (risking severe reprimand for illicitly fiddling duty rosters in order to get someone out of a certain-death assignment).

This could lead to a pretty heavy bookkeeping burden (following who owes how much to whom and how much that's worth), so I'm inclined to save tracking specific favours for story-relevant interactions. Most day-to-day favour trading would be pretty low-level and uninteresting enough to just track as value of generic I.O.U. tokens on their character sheet.

If they need the assistance of a specific individual they might have to do their favour up-front, or make some kind of check to see if their hoard of favour tokens includes one issued by the individual in question, or do something for a bunch of other people to earn enough I.O.U. tokens to buy his services, or agree to let him call upon them for some unspecified task at a later date or sell that favour on to someone totally different - which makes big I.O.U. tokens a good way for the DM to send the PCs off on missions. Maybe it'd only be necessary to track NPCs who owe the PCs favours, as favours owed by the PCs can easily be traded off-screen and end up in unexpected hands.

It also means that at low levels the PCs can raise currency by running around doing favours for others, or even do very well for themselves by giving the impression of being bad dudes whose stars are on the rise - people will willingly do them favours with the expectation that they'll see a return on this investment when the PCs hit their stride - and if they owe an individual enough favours, maybe that individual will take steps to protect their investment. But this does mean that eventually those favours will need to be repaid, with interest.

Conclusion: Using favours as currency leaves a lot more room for story than a traditional copper-silver-gold fantasy economy - each I.O.U. token is a potential plot hook, whether the PCs are giving them out or accepting them as payment.

Who issued this token?
What was the original favour?
How did the token come to be in the PC's hands?
Where is the issuer now?
How can that be turned to the PC's advantage?

DGRPG Design Diary #5: Primary Attributes

Another crunchy Design Diary today, in which I flail around with numbers some more.

Each character has six primary attributes loosely mirroring the STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA characteristics of D&D, slightly tweaked for the sake of symmetry. The names of the attributes are provisional at this point, and may change if I find more appropriate or flavourful synonyms.

The primary attributes are divided between Physical and Mental; in each category, one attribute of each type:

• Action - Doing stuff.
• Evasion - Dodging stuff.
• Resistance - Enduring stuff.

Attribute	Type	Description
BRUTEishness	Action, Physical	Strength, physical power, ability to hit things and break stuff.
DEFTness	Evasion, Physical	Dexterity, physical agility, ability to jump out of the way, juggle, manipulate objects.
GUTSYness	Resistance, Physical	Constitution, physical resilience, ability to absorb damage, endure pain, resist disease or poison, perform acts of extended physical exertion.
CLEVERness	Action, Mental	Intelligence, mental power, ability to outsmart opponents, recall facts, notice details, present persuasive arguments, focus magical energy.
WILYness	Evasion, Mental	Wisdom, mental agility, ability to navigate bureaucracy, think on one's feet, react quickly, bend the rules, shirk responsibility, divert blame.
STUBbornness	Resistance, Mental	Charisma, mental resilience, strength of personality, ability to issue orders to subordinates or resist orders from superiors.

Direct vs. Derived Values

It'd be good to find a way for these values to be directly relevant to gameplay; this could be achieved by using the attribute values themselves in task resolution (as described in the previous Design Diary), but that can lead to cumbersome mental arithmetic in-game. It might be that attribute values are best left as a way of gauging relative ability between characters, with derived values being used in-game for the sake of speed and simplicity.

What kind of derived values could be used?

Assuming primary attributes follow the D&D model (usually between 3 and 18, with some outliers), a number of options are available.

• Flat modifiers - an unchanging numerical modifier depending on how far the attribute value is above or below the mean. Modifiers may be positive or negative, and are applied to the result of the task resolution roll.
• Dice modifiers - additional dice are rolled depending on how far the attribute value is above or below the mean. Results may be added to or subtracted from the result of the task resolution roll.

My current model has the primary attributes determined directly, either randomly by dice-roll (ie: 3d6 or some close variant), or (possibly) through a point-buy mechanic.

So some example attribute-derived modifiers might look something like this:

Attribute	Dist.	Flat 1	Flat 2	Dice (mean)
1	-	-9	-5	-1d10 (-5.5)
2	-	-8	-4	-1d10 (-5.5)
3	0.46%	-7	-4	-1d8 (-4.5)
4	1.39%	-6	-3	-1d8 (-4.5)
5	2.78%	-5	-3	-1d6 (-3.5)
6	4.63%	-4	-2	-1d6 (-3.5)
7	6.94%	-3	-2	-1d4 (-2.5)
8	9.72%	-2	-1	-1d4 (-2.5)
9	11.57%	-1	-1	0
10	12.50%	0	0	0
11	12.50%	0	0	0
12	11.57%	+1	+1	0
13	9.72%	+2	+1	+1d4 (+2.5)
14	6.94%	+3	+2	+1d4 (+2.5)
15	4.63%	+4	+2	+1d6 (+3.5)
16	2.78%	+5	+3	+1d6 (+3.5)
17	1.39%	+6	+3	+1d8 (+4.5)
18	0.46%	+7	+4	+1d8 (+4.5)
19	-	+8	+4	+1d10 (+5.5)
20	-	+9	+5	+1d10 (+5.5)

The modifiers here are pretty arbitrary for now, and presented to illustrate the options available.

The "Dist." column shows the probability distribution for each attribute value assuming they're generated by rolling 3d6 - this gives a normal distribution of results, in which you're much more likely to end up with a value close to the average than near the extremes. For example, the chance of rolling a 10 or 11 is 25% (and the chance of rolling between 9 and 12 is just shy of 50%), whereas the chance of rolling 17-18 (or 3-4) is only a little over 2%. This distribution is skewed if you use an alternative method of generating attributes (for example, roll 4d6 and ignore the lowest die, or roll 10 times and pick the best 6 results) but as a general guideline it's useful enough.

Adjusting the relationship between attributes and modifiers allows the value of each point of modifier to be increased or decreased. For example, an item that gives a +1 bonus is equivalent to a single extra attribute point under Flat 1, but two attribute points under Flat 2, so it makes a bigger difference.

Meanwhile the mean modifiers given by the Dice column are similar to those in Flat 2, except there's a much wider range of possible values - an attribute of 18 gives a reliable +4 bonus under Flat 2, and while +1d8 gives a mean value of +4.5 an individual roll could give a result anywhere between +1 and +8. There's a potential for it to make a really big difference to the outcome - or hardly any difference at all. This could be positive (as it means that even a sub-optimal attribute might still has a chance of success) or negative (as it means that even high attributes have a risk of failure).

Either way the additional randomness could be a desirable feature, as it encourages the player to rely on more than just having large numbers on their character sheet - every roleplayer knows how fickle the dice gods can be.

DGRPG Design Diary #4: Task Resolution

This involves a lot of poking numbers, wrangling probabilities, and dusting off some high-school probability and statistics lessons. I've found AnyDice to be very useful for visualising things.

The basic mechanism by which tasks are resolved; this part is pretty simple, the complexity comes with working out how and when to apply modifiers, and how to interpret the results.

d20 + modifiers vs. Target Number

There are a number of choices to be made here.

Use an attribute, or a modifier derived from that attribute?

The mean (average) value of a d20 roll is 10.5, so a target number of "more than 10" gives a chance of success of 50%. Assume the average attribute to be 10.5 (the mean result of rolling 3d6).

d20+attribute gives a mean result of 21, so a target number of "more than 20" gives a chance of success slightly above 50%.

If rolls are modified based on an attribute (for example, +/-1 point for every point above/below the average of 10-11) then as long as average attributes give a modifier of zero, a target number of "more than 10" gives a chance of success of 50%. For example:

Attribute	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10-11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Modifier	-7	-6	-5	-4	-3	-2	-1	0	+1	+2	+3	+4	+5	+6	+7

Using attributes keeps things simpler on the character sheet; modifiers generally use smaller values that are easier to deal with, but there may be more of them involved. For example:

14 (d20 roll) + 16 (attribute) + 2 (situational modifier), target number >20

vs.

14 (d20 roll) + 5 (attribute-derived modifier) + 2 (situational modifier), target number >10

Conclusion: Undecided at present; on the one hand using modifiers means adding smaller numbers together, which is less taxing from a mental arithmetic point of view; on the other hand I'm advised that players hate negative modifiers, even if the underlying mathematics are the same.

Use a flat modifier, or additional dice?

Even if we use "d20+attribute", there are circumstances in which we might still want to apply modifiers - skill tests, situational advantage, that kind of thing. So is it preferable to just apply a flat modifier, or roll extra dice?

1d20 gives a mean value of 10.5, with results between 1 and 20.

1d20+5 gives a mean value of 15.5, with results between 6 and 25.

1d20+1d10 gives a mean value of 16, with results between 2 and 30.

So while both of those modifiers give a similar mean result, the range of possible results is wider when using dice rather than a flat modifier, though the results are on a bell curve (higher likelihood of rolling values closer to the mean than to the extremes).

Conclusion: I quite like the idea of rolling extra dice, but that may dilute the "roll a d20" core mechanic. Also, rolling multiple dice can be quite "swingy" - +1d10 will on average act as a +5.5 bonus, in practice it can be anything from a +1 to a +10. Meanwhile a +5 bonus is always a +5 bonus. Using flat modifiers most of the time with extra dice in special circumstances might be a decent compromise.

DGRPG Design Diary #3: Setting and Flavour

Setting

The World

The setting is one of generic pseudo-medieval fantasy, in which Benevolent Nobles rule over Muddy Peasants, while on the horizon the Evil Overlord assembles his Legions of Terror and schemes to veil the realm in darkness. Bands of Doughty Adventurers rove the land, venturing into Perilous Dungeons in search of Riches and Glory before retiring to Rustic Taverns to spend their loot on Ale and Whores.

This sort of Standard Fantasy Setting should be moderately familiar to anyone who's played Dungeons & Dragons or read pulp fantasy novels. Dungeon Grind looks at this setting from the other side, that of the minions who toil in service to the Evil Overlords.

The Stronghold

Throughout the land are scattered Fortresses of Arrogance that house Evil Overlords intent on casting their shadow across the world, for whatever reason. Usually situated on menacing crags, these bastions of iniquity are sturdy redoubts against pitchfork-wielding villagers, brave heroes, and besieging armies. On the surface, at least.

For an Evil Overlord the primary purpose of a Stronghold is to concentrate loot in one place. Put a few copper pieces in a hole in the ground and sooner or later would-be adventurers will start beating a path to your door; at first they'll barely be worthy of the name, more like commoners with delusions of competence. So they die, and you add their equipment to your hoard. Over time, as more adventurers assail your fortress and perish, it is possible to amass quite a stockpile of nearly-new adventuring gear and miscellaneous baubles.

Not only that, but your stronghold begins to gain a reputation - and to your typical machismo-fixated adventurers this is like jam to wasps.

An Overlord might pay bards to spread word of his Dungeon, the rousing exploits and glittering riches that await those bold enough to venture in, taking care to pitch things for adventurers experienced enough to be profitable, but not so competent as to be dangerous.

The more enterprising Overlords forge links with storekeepers in nearby towns and pass the more mundane articles back to them to be sold on to the next band of erstwhile heroes. Others with a flair for alchemy set up potion shop franchises in town, or invest in the local tavern to reclaim loot from the few adventurers who return victorious.

Dungeons are a service industry.

The Dungeon

PCs play the role of minions in service to an Evil Overlord running such an operation. Starting at the bottom of the dungeon hierarchy, their job is a gruelling and thankless one: to give the impression of resistance, to make the adventurers feel that each room they loot and corridor they navigate is an achievement.

They set the fiendish deathtraps and clean bits of adventurer out of them afterwards; they stand around in empty rooms waiting for heroes to happen by, or pretend not to see the thief sneaking past; they are there to cause just enough damage to require a Potion of Healing, all the while hoping that someone remembered to pay the blacksmith in town to dull the heroes' weapons; the lucky ones feign death long enough for the heroes pick through their pockets for loot, the unlucky ones don't have to pretend. The Overlord doesn't care, minions are by their nature entirely expendable and readily replaceable.

They are unsung, unmourned, unappreciated and underpaid.

Flavour

How might the setting be reflected in the mechanics?

• Adventurers are meant to win.
  Generally speaking, fantasy RPGs are balanced in favour of the adventurers in order to better allow the construction of narratives that fit the heroic fantasy mould, in which the protagonists grow from humble beginnings to become mighty champions. Facing monsters of an equivalent level will usually be challenging, but the heroes are generally expected to prevail. Which means that in a fair fight the odds are not in favour of the Evil Overlord's minions - which means they should never be fighting fair if it can possibly be avoided.

  Game mechanics should encourage the use of dirty tactics, traps, tricks, deceit, playing dead or just running away.

• Evil is selfish.
  Dungeons employ a lot of monsters who are usually of an evil alignment. Not cackling, hand-rubbing babies-on-spikes evil, however - that's the preserve of Management. Minions are more likely to engage in petty evil which commonly manifests itself as a self-serving disregard for the wellbeing of others. After all, it's hard enough keeping yourself alive in such a hostile environment without having to look out for other people as well. Social interactions will most often involve bribing, deceiving or intimidating a target into doing what you say - altruism is vanishingly rare, everyone's looking out for number one, and if someone does you a favour you can be certain they'll want something in return later on.

  Game mechanics should allow for threatening, lying or enticing other characters, and facilitate tracking favours paid and owed.

• Kiss up, kick down.
  Not only is Dungeon society evil, selfish and unkind, it's also deeply hierarchical - PCs start at the bottom of the heap as minions, but may - through treachery, perseverance and opportunism - manage to claw their way to a more elevated position on the organisational ladder. While minions should in theory obey their superiors without hesitation, unquestioning obedience is not entirely guaranteed - mainly because minions are considered disposable and they know it, so loyalty rarely endures long once Management are out of earshot. Of course there is always that particular breed of fawning lickspittle who believes the fastest route to personal advancement is to ingratiate yourself with Management, even if that means debasing yourself or selling out your peers. Play your cards right, they reason, and they won't be your peers for very long.

  Game mechanics should reflect different attitudes towards authority, with appropriate rewards and/or penalties for acting on those attitudes.

DGRPG Design Diary #2: Mechanics and Actions

Keeping a broad focus for the moment, and building up a list of things to tackle in greater detail later on.

Mechanics

Design Goals:

• The game is easy to learn.
  The core mechanics are simple and consistent. The game is accessible to new players, both to this game and to roleplaying games in general. The game favours rules that are few and general rather than numerous and specific.
• The game is easy to play.
  Rolling up a new character is a quick process that lets players start playing as soon as possible. Characters remain viable even when not mechanically optimised. Players have a clear idea of their options in any given situation. Combat flows quickly and smoothly. The game rewards creative thinking and characterisation as much as number-crunching optimisation.
• The game is easy to run.
  Preparing for a game session doesn't feel like homework for the DM. Guidelines are given for assembling balanced encounters appropriate to the PCs' capabilities. Information on running each antagonist is given in a concise format in a single location. If a rule is not given for a specific situation is it still easy to arbitrate it using a rule-of-thumb approach.
• The game has an old-school feel.
  The game uses mechanics which are evocative of old-school fantasy RPGs, particularly Dungeons & Dragons. The game uses a d20 core mechanic, Classes, Levels and Alignment. The game's mechanics reflect the characters being on the "wrong" side of traditional fantasy genre conventions, in that in a straight fight it is very easy to lose.

Actions

Actions available to characters can usually be assigned to one of the following broad categories:

• Combat - Task resolution involving physical confrontation.
• Skill - Task resolution not involving physical confrontation.
• Social - Task resolution involving social interaction.
• Magic - Task resolution involving magic.

There's room for overlap between these categories - skill actions might be used during combat or social interactions, for instance, and magic actions influence the outcome of combat or social interactions. This crossover encourages players to cooperate in order to maximise their chances for success.

In the descriptions below I've used terms taken from Design Patterns in Successful Role-Playing Games, specifically "attribute" and "gauge".

When performing any action the player should expect to begin by rolling a d20; in some cases that single roll can determine success or failure, in other cases further steps may be required.

Combat

Combat mechanics cover any action involving an attempt to physically harm or overpower another character. Combat is not intended to be the central focus of the game, however, and the combat mechanics should be balanced in such a way that players are reluctant to take excessive risks by getting involved in unnecessary combat situations; when combat is unavoidable they should take reasonable measures to improve their chances.

Characters who focus on combat actions might be granted faster or more damaging attacks, improved ability to evade incoming attacks, or access to additional combat options. They may be more resilient, more physically powerful, or otherwise better suited to winning a physical confrontation.

Proposed mechanic:

• Attacker rolls a d20 with modifiers based on relevant attribute and equipment, aiming to exceed a target number based on the defender's relevant attribute and equipment.
• If attacker succeeds, roll dice based on relevant attribute and equipment and deduct the result from the defender's health gauge.
• Attacker and defender switch roles.
• Repeat until one combatant's health gauge is exhausted.

Skills

Any action in which there is a chance for failure should be covered by the skill mechanics. Skills reflect (a) a character's ability to perform certain types of action, and (b) knowledge relating to that type of action. Example skills might include Stealth, Dungeon Lore, Potion Making, Singing, etc. In selecting to advance their ability in certain skills, players are able to tailor their character to their preferred play style.

Characters who focus on skill actions might be granted access to more skills, faster advancement in those skills, or be allowed to use their skills in ways not available to other characters. They are more likely to succeed at skill actions, and have a wider range of skills at a higher level than other characters.

Proposed mechanic:

• Player states intended action, rolls a d20 with modifiers based on relevant attribute, skill and equipment, aiming to exceed a target number decided by the DM based on the perceived difficulty of the intended task.
• If the target number is exceeded the action is successful, as described by the DM.
• If the target number is not exceeded the action is unsuccessful.

Social

For the most part social interactions should be resolved through roleplay, with dice only being rolled when there is a chance of failure - when attempting to persuade or coerce another character into altering their behaviour or beliefs, for instance. At its most basic this could be handled using a skill mechanic as described above - Persuade, Intimidate or Deceive might be used, based on the approach taken - but such a mechanic should never be allowed to override common sense or character integrity. A high Persuade skill is not equivalent to a mind-control ray.

Given the importance of social interaction between characters in the dungeon environment, however, social mechanics should be more interesting and involved than a flat skill check, reflecting a character's standing with their peers and superiors in the hierarchy. This could be as simple as a social gauge which can be increased or reduced to reflect the character's reputation. An alternative (and more complex) approach might be to model the web of favours, obligation, debt and duty between the dungeon's denizens as they attempt to achieve their particular goals. Any such mechanics should require minimal bookkeeping in order to reduce the burden on the DM and players.

Characters who focus on social actions might be granted an improved ability to influence other characters, the option to gain tangible advantages as a result of their social influence, more generous terms when trading favours, and so on. In interactions with superiors they might be able to improve rewards for success or soften the punishment for failures.

Magic

Magic actions involve performing feats normally considered impossible or extremely improbable. These effects can be divided into two subcategories:

• Mundane actions performed impossibly well - seeing a tiny object a great distance away, scaling a sheer surface without climbing equipment, resisting a blow which would normally cause serious injury, etc. Some highly-trained individuals might be able to achieve similar results without the use of magic.
• Impossible actions performed at all - shooting lightning from one's fingertips, transforming into a bat, turning invisible, etc. No amount of mundane training or aptitude would allow an individual to perform these actions.

Traditionally the ability to perform such actions is packaged up into discrete spells, each of which has a a specific cost and a specific effect - throwing lightning, turning invisible, surviving a fall, etc. D&D has generally used a system based on that found in Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, in which a magician can only remember a limited number of spells at a time, and forgets them upon casting until they are re-memorised. This kind of magic is generally the province of adventurers; monsters often have "spell-like abilities" instead, innate abilities which have similar effects to spells but which can be used repeatedly.

Characters who focus on magic actions gain access to magical abilities, which is an advantage in and of itself. They are able to perform impossible acts, or confer similar abilities upon other characters. They might have a more detailed knowledge of arcane matters than other characters, including how to negate magical actions by hostile parties.

Conclusion

This seems like a sensible way to break down the game's mechanics, and with care it should be possible to ensure that each type of action has its own distinct feel while still using the core mechanic of a d20 roll.

Since it's important for the mechanics (crunch) to support the setting (fluff), I should probably go into more detail on how the setting itself works from a narrative point of view.

DGRPG Design Diary #1: Concept, Mood and Themes

Concept

The elevator pitch:

The characters are minions of a fantasy villain. They must guard the dungeon, fend off bands of adventurers, and curry favour with their superiors.

Synopsis:

The more detailed overview:

The Doom Mountains are home to all kinds of evil Overlords, each of whom maintains a Fortress with a Dungeon beneath. The Overlords spend their time competing for status and power by vying to lure Adventurers into their trap-filled Dungeons. Characters are minions in the employ of these Overlords, tasked with guarding Treasure, snaring Adventurers, and vying for the Favour of their Superiors.

Mood

Generally comedic, being a cynical and satirical take on oppressive working environments, particularly ones rife with drudgery, petty politics, clueless management and resentful staff. If the PCs succeed it is in spite of their situation; if they fail they will need to find someone to take the blame. Smush together Dungeons & Dragons, Office Space, Paranoia, Brazil and Dilbert, and add a sprinkling of Nineteen Eighty-Four and a dash of Blackadder.

It is also clear that the PCs are on the "wrong" side of the narrative conventions that guide most fantasy milieus, in which good prevails, heroes triumph, iniquity is punished and villains are overthrown. Popular fantasy tropes are in full effect, but it is entirely possible (and indeed encouraged) for them to be subverted by the PCs.

Themes

• Servitude. Overlords care little for their minions, seeing them as entirely expendable and replaceable. However, those who exhibit exceptional loyalty may be deemed worthy of promotion. Is that possibility enough for you to pledge yourself to a system that doesn't care if you live or die?
• Defiance. Minions are expected to be unfailingly diligent and obedient, and troublemakers are ruthlessly eliminated. Even in the most oppressive circumstances, though, there are means of quiet rebellion - from surly insolence to shirking responsibility, from malicious compliance to outright sabotage. But what do such acts ultimately achieve?
• Hierarchy. The dungeon is organised along strict hierarchical lines, with the Overlord at the top and Minions at the bottom. Kiss up to those above to gain their favour; kick down at those below to keep them from overtaking you.
• Survival. It's not uncommon for the PCs to be thrown into life-or-death situations - perhaps it's a party of Adventurers slaughtering their way through the dungeon, perhaps it's a Wandering Monster that's made its way up from the depths. Either way it's a struggle to stay alive, and there's always a cost.

Dungeon Grind RPG: Design Diary #0

Dungeon Grind draws a lot of inspiration from RPG culture - especially that of Dungeons & Dragons, in which doughty heroes venture into sinister dungeons filled with peril, monsters, traps and loot.

This being the case, I'm working on putting together a small RPG of my own based on the characters and setting of the Dungeon Grind comic. I'll be posting my progress here rather than on the main Dungeon Grind site in order to avoid distracting from the comic itself. Expect a collection of musing, brainstorming, crunchy game mechanic stuff and plenty of thinking-out-loud rambling. And eventually some kind of workable RPG.

I actively invite comments and advice, as this is new territory for me.