tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89242722784977732072024-03-13T10:32:06.428-07:00JAGS BlogDay by day commentary on the JAGS free roleplaying game.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger239125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-65464570348526849792015-12-11T09:46:00.004-08:002015-12-11T09:46:58.943-08:00New site. Books OnlineIf you go to www.jagsrpg.org you'll be redirected to the new site (done with Wix). It's still under construction and will be for some time--but you can now get JAGS Archetypes and the JAGS Core books in beautiful hard-cover (and softcover) editions through Amazon.<br />
<br />
The JAGS Site has its own blog--but I'm kind of inclined to keep blogging here for what it's worth..<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-85656616759673652842014-12-30T14:00:00.002-08:002014-12-30T14:00:33.092-08:00The RPG Play Of: Naissance (Video Game)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgva_Ukl51kCMSg33AuE2TY3t4ljBpTuBgG1vy3lhZPoVvw8NYBtBRyGkxxhsT_rICGq891NZ8SZ5Jtglft-ni-Ju-JI6cEgGvXDWsT-2wE4OnoLQh7gdoKS_R7RLphZ5qZiFti4XYtO8vX/s1600/na1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgva_Ukl51kCMSg33AuE2TY3t4ljBpTuBgG1vy3lhZPoVvw8NYBtBRyGkxxhsT_rICGq891NZ8SZ5Jtglft-ni-Ju-JI6cEgGvXDWsT-2wE4OnoLQh7gdoKS_R7RLphZ5qZiFti4XYtO8vX/s1600/na1.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
I just played through NaissancE, a French video game. The first part of this reviews the game. The second discusses it with regards to RPG-play and has spoilers.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">NaissancE</span></b><br />
I got NaissancE as a STEAM recommendation--maybe because I liked The Stanley Parable? I'm not sure.<br />
<br />
NaissancE is a first-person platformer which casts you as an unnamed female who begins in some kind of installation and then falls through the floor into a <i>vast</i> structure of unknown origin and purpose. The game is mostly done in black and white and the terrain seems to be largely composed of blocks--but it is in places, detailed and intricate. It is beautiful. It's <i>big</i>.<br />
<br />
As a platformer, there are numerous sequences of precision jumping, leaping, and falling to your death. There is nothing to get: no weapons, and more or less, no monsters. You move from one majestic series of chambers to another, exploring, solving puzzles, and ... jumping and falling.<br />
<br />
The game is very spare with character and story--indications of what is happening are few and far between. There are titles to various sections that give you some clues as to what you might do there--but there is nothing to read, no voice-work, and so on. It is you, the vast, vast environment, and ... that's it. Well, except for the sound work which is every bit as evocative and dramatic as the visuals.<br />
<br />
NaissancE does meticulous things with light and shadow: in many ways the game is an exercise in art-direction more than anything else. The puzzles were generally straightforward with only a few that had me scratching my head (I got through it without a walkthrough so I'm not sure whether a walkthrough exists or not). The game creators have made some of it overly frustrating and some some of it downright cruel--but on the whole, with breaks in between, I moved along at a reasonable rate.<br />
<br />
The designers made several specific choices which seem designed to increase the pressure-level. First, and most unusually, there is a breathing mechanic that, when you run, forces you to press the left mouse button at certain intervals (a gasping noise and a circle on the screen tell you when) or else your vision goes dim and you (maybe) pass out? It's questionable: I can see how they said "In NaissancE you'll be doing a LOT of running so let's make running a kind of game/control-point."<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the gasping noise is annoying and creates a heightened sense of anxiety that wasn't welcome and, in many circumstances of just traversing a big-ass landscape, adds interaction where it isn't wanted or needed. It also seems like you have to let up on the run-key in order to use the jump-key: this makes precision running-and-jumping puzzles extra hard for no very good reason.<br />
<br />
Finally, the game utilizes save-points and several are pretty distant. This means you can get through something tough ... fall off a ledge ... and have to do it all over again. Fortunately their save-points are pretty well thought through so it's not horrible--but it means you'll suffer a lot of repetition and, since I couldn't tell when it was saving, I often wasn't sure when I'd reached a "safe zone" for having completed a task.<br />
<br />
NaissancE is hurt by its lack of character and story: it shows you awesome landscapes but, devoid of any but the simplest narrative, it boils down to a puzzle / platformer. If you accept that reduction, then the vast periods of exploration seem a lot less defensible: why run around looking at things if nothing ever comes of it?<br />
<br />
Perhaps the designers would say it's a work of art--meant to be experienced as much as played? I can kind of buy that given the artistic quality of NaissancE--but it's a much tougher sell for me. I'll also note that as a Steam recommendation it was <i>on target</i>. I <i>am</i> the guy they wanted to sell to: I don't want my money back. I wouldn't even give it a <i>bad</i> review. I will say this, if I'd been <i>told</i> that there was never any explanation for anything? I probably wouldn't have bought it save for a 1-2 USD sale-price (I stopped playing Limbo, a similarly beautiful game, when I learned there was no story-exposition at the end).<br />
<br />
One of the things that drove me through NaissancE was wanting to see what was under the hood--and I finished it and I still don't know.<br />
<br />
Let's talk about the RPG Potential ...<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The RPG Play of NaissancE</span></b><br />
NaissancE, as an RPG, would lack the first-person visual impact and (probably) the sound. Of course it's possible the GM could show evocative artwork and play the sound-track (and this is assuming, maybe, the game exists and the players can be treated to the pictures or something)--but mostly, for real-world traditional tabletop RPG, the GM would need to narrate the descriptions of vast halls, sheer drops, and light and dark, and so on.<br />
<br />
And the GM would have to do it efficiently: long descriptions of complicated environments are not the friend of face-to-face gaming. It's also not clear what the mechanical focus would be. NaissancE isn't too far from a traditional dungeon if it were devoid of treasure and monsters: instead of Traps checks, you'd make your acrobatics rolls.<br />
<br />
If the game provided a more interactive mechanic for that (say a success point pool that would dwindle as you failed rolls, increasing the pressure--and maybe some way to recover them?) then it might be entertaining provided the length of play was dramatically shortened and you only had to cover like 3-7 "levels / challenges" instead of the game's approximately 38+.<br />
<br />
For the video experience the designers added the running mechanic and the save-point mechanic to (probably) increase tension and immersion (the running mechanic does the opposite for me--but perhaps they and their playtesters felt otherwise?). For an RPG-version, you wouldn't do the same thing (there is no reason to have a specific running mechanic) but you might want to use the same pool of success-points (or whatever) for <i>perception</i> rolls to see better paths or safer ways to overcome something (or to solve a puzzle). Thus, the player might interact with large tracts of space by declaring they move through carefully (better spot-check) or blaze through rapidly (possibly draining points)--but you'd need some reason for them to want to hurry.<br />
<br />
Reality doesn't need a reason: you get bored. This ain't great--and would be murder for a tabletop game where, if you intentionally bore me, it's kind of an insult (say the GM had a timer and if I said "I go slow" the GM would put 90 seconds on the clock and we'd wait that out--I'd be like "Eh ... the story here better be fuckin' <i>awesome</i>").<br />
<br />
So you'd want to have other touch-points for player-mechanical interaction or just ditch that altogether.<br />
<br />
The problem at the bottom of NaissancE is that there <i>is</i> no story. I saw a YouTube comment that suggested maybe they're making another game and it might explain more? Ehh ... okay. But it better get awesome reviews or I'm not buying it. I stopped playing the similarly beautiful and exquisitely designed LIMBO when I reached a frustrating puzzle and learned online the end of the game held no revelations. I was playing for that content--knowing it wasn't there killed my motivation.<br />
<br />
I'd guess that the NaissancE designers meant their game to be experienced <i>as art</i> and would defend it on that ground--and they can: one of my drivers for finishing NaissancE was to see what the next environment looked like--but it's a poor motivator compared to a great or shocking story. If you told me there was nothing at the end-screen but credits? I might not have bought it.<br />
<br />
In an RPG, this would be easy to fix (and, indeed, the genius of Portal, the best video-game ever, IMO, was that it was a Grade-A puzzle game that, by the time it stunned me with its brilliant character, an end-song I'd put on my play-list and quote at work, and machine gun turrets I felt sorry for, needed letters above A just to grade it with). In a tabletop RPG, extra story doesn't require any extra sound or art-direction--it just needs a few good ideas.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">A Note: Falling Mechanics</span></b><br />
I remember someone on an RPG website (I believe The Forge--but am uncertain if this was the origin, where I picked it up, or somewhere else) discussing the inclusion of 'Drowning and Falling' rules in traditional tabletop RPGs. My memory is that they were having a laugh at games that included those rules for "no reason" (other than, perhaps, unthinking tradition?). After all, how often did that come up? Couldn't the GM just hand-wave it? Did the inclusion of mechanics indicate that, maybe, drowning and falling actually <i>were</i> pretty darn important--regardless of what you might naively assume? Should the GM work a drowning or falling sequence into every game?<br />
<br />
No one was sure.<br />
<br />
I'll break it to you: the reason those rules were included was because if it ever, ever comes up, it's kind of nice to have those rules. Also: bad falling rules can warp the game in ways you might not like--and while it's easy to say if you fall off a cliff, you die, what happens if your tough guy jumps off a 3-story building? That's a much harder call--and it's entirely possible that'll come up in play. If your mechanics don't give you at least <i>some</i> guidance, the game designer isn't doing the players and GM any favors.<br />
<br />
Those rules are there because they are good things to include.<br />
<br />
While there's not (really) water in NaissancE, you do, actually, fall a lot. Some falls hurt you. Some kill you (you have no health bar so if you are hurt, it's temporary). If you were going to run NaissancE as an RPG, you'd really want falling rules.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Finally</span></b><br />
The idea of a character lost in a vast installation that plays with time, space, gravity, and so on, is, in fact, pretty compelling. There are sequences in the game that I would actually <i>steal</i> if I were going to run it--or something like it. The sense of desertion and abandonment could be conjured up--but I'd want more characters of <i>some </i>sort.<br />
<br />
I'm reminded of the Cube movies where groups of people are brought together in an alien and hostile environment. NaissancE lacks the hostility of Cube (which was actively trying to kill you) but adds a grandeur the movies didn't have. The game as delivered wouldn't make a great RPG--but with a few tweaks it certainly could.<br />
<br />
<hr />
* <a href="http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/drowning-and-falling/">You can download Drowning and Falling, the RPG, here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-31903036774820362512014-12-13T09:00:00.000-08:002014-12-13T09:00:02.838-08:00Alien: Isolation (Part 2)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvdkpDHC-G3PgQtFXw0CvGN9nf4J5TPkfkvDq-urjucjEjxyHqME5aV5i9LEMLU_bHyCZUU0YqG8Ch2jOn1K6xyCcPrb1GIsRcYO5656p3j1qx3cbUMaqzcmCknEpM7BVJuC7yQ-ripNyR/s1600/2587792-7_1389089751.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvdkpDHC-G3PgQtFXw0CvGN9nf4J5TPkfkvDq-urjucjEjxyHqME5aV5i9LEMLU_bHyCZUU0YqG8Ch2jOn1K6xyCcPrb1GIsRcYO5656p3j1qx3cbUMaqzcmCknEpM7BVJuC7yQ-ripNyR/s1600/2587792-7_1389089751.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm playing the video game Alien: Isolation. It's very well done and I've been thinking about how it would work as a tabletop RPG. Now, the easy answer is that the exact translation wouldn't be all that great an idea--after all, Alien: Isolation is single-player, it's not necessarily a fun experience if you can't re-start, and depending on the initial information, you'd very likely have the Amanda Ripley character thinking: my job is to get guns or something to <i>kill</i> this thing (instead of the video game's explicit "you can't kill it" information).<br />
<br />
That said, we're talking about a game <i>like</i> Alien: Isolation that has the player(s) creeping around hiding from a super-predator they can't beat.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Stealth Drama</span></b><br />
Observations have been made that if you have to make enough X-checks (Stealth rolls), eventually you're going to miss one. If the penalty is death, a series of 12 Stealth-checks (or whatever) is simply the hail-marry of your character's life-cycle. If that's how you run the hunt, either the Alien better be blind, Ripley better be a ninja, or, if it's even an 80% favorability of Ripley, she's likely a goner.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't expect that kind of thing in a game unless I'd either signed up for it--or screwed up badly (usually meaning taking a known risk: "Sure, you can try to stealth your way past the super-predator--but it's gonna be like 12 Stealth v Perception checks and you're good--but it's got a 16 perception roll so ...").<br />
<br />
Note, for the record, in that case the GM has explained <i>everything</i> material and I can figure out what my odds are. At that point, if I decided to go for it, cool.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">The Use of Dramas</span></b><br />
The core concept behind Dramas in JAGS is that instead of one roll (or one roll-vs-roll) you make a number of rolls and you get to "take actions" between them to improve your chances. In this case, the idea is that I'm going to be making Stealth rolls and I have to take actions to make that work.<br />
<br />
<b>The Basic Drama: 3-Roll vs. The Starbeast's Perception</b><br />
Star Beast was the working title for Alien. Here's my thought for the basic drama architecture. The creature has a prey-sense of, let's say, 16 or less. I make 3 rolls (the "typical" drama is a 3-roll drama) with a Target Number of 16 (meaning if I have a 14- Stealth, I have 3 rolls to get a cumulative success number of 16+ and failures result in 0).<br />
<br />
Let's further assume that these rolls indicate <i>movement</i>. If I hold still and am concealed (like inside something) the Alien will automatically miss me. If I am completely uncovered in its line of sight, it auto-sees me and kills me. But the general situation is that I am moving through a mapped environment and I get one Walk/Run/Sprint move per roll. The movement type adds or subtracts from my roll.<br />
<br />
So:<br />
<ol>
<li>Walk: +0</li>
<li>Run: -2</li>
<li>Sprint: -4 (in the game, sprinting is death if the Alien is on your floor)</li>
</ol>
<br />
If we assume Ripley's Stealth is 14- L2 (meaning she's very stealthy for an average person) she'll walk carefully everywhere, roll three 10's on average, get 12 SP's, and get seen an eaten by the Alien.<br />
<br />
The game adds the option of crawling, though. There are no explicit rules or crawling in JAGS--but let's say that Crawling gives you 2 yards of movement per roll (about half of a normal Walk score) but gives +2 to each Stealth roll. Ripley now has a 16- Stealth score for each roll if she crawls: her average roll will get her 18 SPs and she'll be safe!<br />
<br />
The problem is, of course, that's not reliable and, also, if she makes noise (combat, opening doors, whatever) then the Alien starts <i>looking</i> for her. If the Alien suspects she's there--let's say she gets within 2 of it (so if she only makes it by 17 or 18 or something happens like she has to shoot someone) then it starts looking and it gets a roll to re-set the Target Number for a while. If it rolls a 10, nothing changes--but if it rolls less than a 10, the difficulty goes up by the number less than 10. Let's assume that its hunting doesn't make it's Target Perception worse, though--so she has a 50% chance of no change--but a chance of the roll going up by one or more.<br />
<br />
<b>A Success Point Pool</b><br />
In the game Amanda Ripley cries out for some kind of Trait (probably a Character Point trait--but maybe Archetype Trait that helps her with Stealth). Firstly, she's unlikely to have formal training in Stealth (she's an engineer)--but she's small, quick, can move very quietly. Let's call this "Sneaky," charge 4 CP for it, and give her 4 Success Points that can only be used for Stealth Rolls and recharge every "scene" (level of the station, in this case).<br />
<br />
This means that Ripley can fail by up to 4 one time per level and not get eaten. This gives us some buffer for failure--it also gives us some drama if these get eaten away early on in a level.<br />
<br />
Secondly, let's give her some actions other than crawling.<br />
<br />
<b>HIDE: </b>If the alien is "looking for her" meaning her last drama only beat it by 2 or she made a noise of some sort, she can choose HIDE which is non-moving, requires a hiding spot within [Move], and then doesn't move her for the rest of the drama. It gives +4 SPs to the roll she makes to HIDE. Furthermore she gets to keep her score while hiding--so the Alien will probably give up.<br />
<br />
Example: The Alien is looking for her after she shoots an android. Roll one, she has a 16-, rolls a 12 (+4 SPs). But the GM makes the Alien's Perception roll on the table and it rolls a 6, making her new Target Number: 20. She elects to take her 2nd Roll to Hide.<br />
<br />
The map / GM determines the hide spot is within 4 yards (+0 Walk) so she declares that and gets 14 (Stealth) + 0 Walk + 4 (Hide) = 18-. She rolls a 10, +8 SPs.<br />
<br />
She is now at 12 SPs--but needs 20 or it sees her. Her roll is another 18- for remaining hidden--but not moving. She goes for it, rolls a 12--that's only 6 SPs. (she keeps the roll she ran in with--so running to hide kind of defeats the purpose). She ends the roll with 4+8+6=18 SPs.<br />
<br />
She spends 2 from her pool to avoid being eaten!<br />
<br />
<b>DISTRACT: </b>She can throw expendables (flares, cobbled together noisemakers, cans of food?) to make a noise somewhere distant and send the Alien looking. This requires a successful Stealth roll to throw--if failed the Alien gets an immediate perception roll, minus her SPs generated to see her. If it works, the Alien will (a) Start Looking for her (meaning it gets a roll where every score below a 10 adds to the Target Number) BUT: she can make a Run move at +0 (for a flare or can) or even +2 Stealth for a Noisemaker (it's so loud it covers her running). This is a way to either get to far cover, exit a level, move through a wide open area, etc.<br />
<br />
Also note: The Alien will kill other life-forms in the area so if you distract it in the direction of people it wasn't attacking, it'll see them (exactly how THIS works in the game is ... a mystery: it does find them and kill them--but it seems to be "hunting" Ripley--it certainly doesn't find them and kill them as efficiently as it does Ripley!).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Other Thoughts</span></b><br />
I think there would be room for player-generated ideas such as getting a less-than +4 HIDE for laying flat under cover (something you can do in the game). We'd also want to figure out how the motion-sensor works ... some stuff like that.<br />
<br />
One note: Why does Amanda Ripley have Stealth L2 14-? Probably because it was a small number of points and she's a space-faring PC whose player knows the value of being sneaky. What about the (hypothetical--but kinda pricey Sneaky Trait?). Well, in this case, the player knows that the game may well involve the character hiding from danger rather than shooting it out and has that trait as more expensive than L3 (which will, in a non-Drama situation <i>ignore</i> negative modifiers--but will help more in a straight-up Stealth roll if they make the 14- roll). Secondly, in Dramas, L3 would be more cost effective (2 CP for +3 to the SPs)--but this gives more (+4).<br />
<br />
Obviously you'd want L3 for the Drama-after-Drama-after-Drama situation (where the professionally trained expert Ninja would be actually skilled at bypassing Aliens by stealth) but the trade-off seems worth it.<br />
<br />
The GM might well provide things "along the way" on a level that could re-charge the SPs (for example, finding a video-diary 'cut-scene' or reaching a "com-terminal access" (save) point? This would go well towards making the SPs battery worth more.<br />
<br />
This framework might not be perfect--but it could be cool. It could be a tense, exciting episode for a stealth-based character.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-34146548204917728932014-12-12T16:36:00.001-08:002014-12-12T16:36:16.707-08:00Gaming: Alien Isolation<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhboAuRTQn8FDwJxsSQlgOtGSBm7eYnFDanDcu-FZKW_WcVcbLY1u3MwV1pT1A5s41BJB8kqs2eenIP0LqEcN6pFIX_Gt-GD0paZxl-FcWgC_sFjus3rbBy6IR6iqokfOXMAf5_sjCPZrDh/s1600/ai_survivormode_001_1410945298.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhboAuRTQn8FDwJxsSQlgOtGSBm7eYnFDanDcu-FZKW_WcVcbLY1u3MwV1pT1A5s41BJB8kqs2eenIP0LqEcN6pFIX_Gt-GD0paZxl-FcWgC_sFjus3rbBy6IR6iqokfOXMAf5_sjCPZrDh/s1600/ai_survivormode_001_1410945298.jpg" height="218" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If You See This, You're Screwed</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I am playing Sega's Alien Isolation. Let's talk about what it has to teach us as an RPG. The first part reviews the game. The second discusses it in context of JAGS and tabletop gaming (and has spoilers).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Alien: Isolation</span></b><br />
Video games have not been especially kind to the Alien franchise. There have been some decent Alien vs. Predator titles--but Colonial Marines was a new <i>kind</i> of bad. They've also been hamstrung by the need to make the same game over and over: you have three story lines (Alien, Predator, and Colonial Marine) and multiplayer (which the Alien is a load of fun for) and with all that load the story is kinda 'eh.'<br />
<br />
Of course the Dark Horse Alien comics kinda had the same story over and over too (which was also the same meta-story for Alien, Aliens, and Alien 4): Humanity is fascinated by the Alien, can't contain it--and it ends ... badly. Metaphorically the Alien is a cross between contagion (<i>don't</i> let it on the ship) and demonology (studying it is as dangerous to the scholar as to whatever "target" they intend to use their bio-weapon on).<br />
<br />
That people could kind of get away with telling the same story over and over speaks to the dominance of the Alien as a villain. It's a genius antagonist: the kind of perfect-storm of a once-in-a-lifetime scary script (the alien as a kind of physical incarnation of rape is something that would be ground-breaking today), a master-work by the then-relatively unknown HR Giger (he since made other movie monsters--but none of them attained the prominence of The Alien), Ridley Scott at the top of his game, and a young crew with a handful of known actors that gave a collection of amazing performances.<br />
<br />
So by the time we're more than 30 years from the initial release it's fascinating that someone was finally able to make a game that takes us back to the Nostromo.<br />
<br />
Kind of.<br />
<br />
In DLC (Downloadable Content)--something you pay extra for.<br />
<br />
But the point is that the actual Alien: Isolation story feels very, very appropriate for the Alien franchise. It takes place between Alien and Aliens--Ripley's daughter has grown up (her mother is in cold-sleep in a lost shuttle after the first movie). The Nostromo's flight-recorder has been found and taken to a space-station orbiting a massive gas giant.<br />
<br />
Ripley (the daughter) gets on a space-ship and heads out. She gets separated from her crew due to an explosion and finds that (a) the station had been nearly abandoned by its corporate owners, (b) there are insane androids (Working Joes--primitive looking compared to Ash and Bishop--but ... uhm ... plenty deadly), and armed, murderous, renegade survivors. Oh, also? (C): There's an Alien.<br />
<br />
The game is a stealth-er where you have weapons--but they can't kill the Alien and you need to sneak around completing missions to try to get off the station. When the alien shows up, if it sees you, you're in big trouble. The developers did some lovely The-Alien-Kills-You sequences ... and you'll get to see a lot of them.<br />
<br />
The game is tense, gorgeous to look at (if not all <i>that</i> interactive: there are a lot of objects you can't do anything with) and nails the space-retro look of the first movie. Its art-direction is pitch perfect. I played the game on Easy, knowing it had a reputation for being frustrating: and it is still a challenge on that level. It's not (as far as I've gotten) incredibly deep--but it is brilliantly done. It feels right, looks right, and creates a sense of dread.<br />
<br />
I'll also note that the Alien itself is more the up-right creature from the first movie than the crouching creatures from the second (insofar as we can say there's a real distinction). It's also not "invisible." Between hiding in lockers or under beds and peering out, you get a pretty good look at it--and it holds up well. It moves with menace and intent. It hisses, jerks around--disappears into ceiling vents--and when it sees you and you hear that hiss? You're screwed.<br />
<br />
The game is excellent (I've not finished it).<br />
<br />
One Note: The Nostromo -- In the DLC "Crew Expendable" you see the original cast and you get to choose one to try to get the Alien out the Nostromo's air-lock. The sets are EXCELLENT this looks like the Nostromo, has a couple of decks, and even the voices are decent. The ability to render The Nostromo in something approaching movie-like fidelity has probably existed for a while but this is an excellent job. If you want to "play Alien" this comes pretty damn close.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Gaming Alien: Isolation</span></b><br />
What stats would you give The Alien? Well, if we kind of "split the difference" across the various media (the original script had the Alien biting off Ripley's head and talking in her voice ...) the Alien is:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Bigger, stronger, and faster than an average human. It is not faster than the eye can follow. It is stronger than a strong man--but does not seem strong enough to, say, lift a bus. </li>
<li>It has an exoskeleton that makes it virtually impervious to hand-to-hand combat, probably very resistant to hand guns, but not immune to auto-fire from an assault rifle (I think in Alien: Isolation you can't kill it--and you do get a shot-gun. So maybe the Alien there is tougher?). In the game you can flame-thrower it and it runs away. It doesn't die.</li>
<li>It has claws, teeth, extendable teeth, and a long stabbing tail. It can kill a human in a single hit reliably. This means it likely needs to clear 10 PEN damage with its tail.</li>
<li>The extendable teeth would be additional bite-damage, only usable in a Grapple/Grab (which would fit with how it uses them in the movie).</li>
<li>It has good senses--but not incredible ones (?)</li>
<li>It is very hard to see: it has good stealth.</li>
<li>It can climb almost sheer walls.</li>
<li>It has all the acid-blood you can buy. If you are near it and you wound it, you will get acid on you and, if you can't ditch your armor, die.</li>
</ol>
<div>
The alien, minus the space-ship killing blood, could be less than 24 AP (I'll put a package together when I'm not on a laptop). The blood is an issue since the characters are afraid it'll eat through the hull of the ship and the Nostromo seems to have a really, really thick metal hull. JAGS has the Acid Blood power--but does not go into detail about how it might better dissolve metal or something--if the acid blood does 100's or 1000's of points of damage then, yeah: the Alien costs a fortune (in Aliens, though, they had to ditch armor--they didn't just instantly die--so it might do 8 Damage and ignore another 8 DR each Round for 3 Rounds or something?).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, notably, in Aliens the the xenomorphs bash their way through a metal bulkhead. That speaks to doing a really large amount of damage (assume the thing has 9 DR armor and something like 500 ADP to tear down? It could have more based on weight and construction). If we assume the Alien hits for 30 IMP damage, it could tear through such a door (remember: the door is solid metal--but is <i>not</i> literally armored)--but would do it more slowly than in the movie. I attribute this to dramatic license rather than that the Alien can crumple several inch thick metal in a matter of seconds ...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">The Game Itself</span></b></div>
<div>
The game Alien: Isolation would not be especially fun to play out as they've done it. The reliance on stealth would likely be handled as a Drama where you would be making rolls against the Alien and would have actions like "create distraction" (with the tool used to create the distraction giving various pluses) or hide-in-locker (if there is one nearby), and a plus for crouching (half-rate movement).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'd probably give Ripley a set of Success Points she could use during encounters--thus, the Alien would "eat away" at her defenses (when she is fully stocked she can almost certainly hide from it--but as she spends the points, they run out).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The game would call for specific maps with hide-points pre-determined (you could do it without this--and just roll to see if there's a good hiding spot nearby--but part of the game is being aware of where hiding places are so you can hang out next to them).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How would you handle the Alien running away when it's flame-blasted? That's a good question. In JAGS, when you get flame-blasted you either take damage or not. What the alien would do in the basic game is get hit on the way in and, if not Dazed, just chow-down. That's not how the game plays.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
JAGS has some hooks for this kind of event--but they're not well developed. Firstly, the Alien could take a "run-away" 'defense' maneuver (and, presumably, it gets to do so during a move-action). This means that you <i>can</i> kill it--but every time you go to flame it, it takes the run-away dodge and gets to run. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's weird: short defensive actions usually don't move you that far (although we're talking about that for another power).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another possibility is that the Alien has (a) a lot of regeneration and (b) a special power that makes its response to taking either ADP or being Dazed result in a "run away" action for the 8 REA cost of being Dazed (in JAGS, when you are hurt, you make a CON roll, if you miss it by a little, you lose most of your Action Points--REA--and are 'Dazed.')</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this case, changing the effect from being knocked down or whatever to "it runs" still costs it the REA--but it moves away. This is a pretty good power--especially for something that can run really, really fast. But it might not be super-expensive.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The result of this would be you flame it, the flamethrower reliably Dazes it, and if that happens, it runs. In this case, it would sometimes simulate what we see in the game (that it gets flamed and runs) but you'd also have: flamed and nothing (it eats you), flamed and stunned (it eats you), and flamed and unconscious (you kill it).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It might also have ADP with a clause that "dazes it" (or makes it run off) after it has taken the damage. This might even be "outside its armor" the way a Power Field is. This power doesn't exist--but would represent a way to inflict wound-effects (of whatever sort) on something even if you couldn't really hurt it (it has a lot of armor). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this case it would need enough ADP that there is no way a handgun can hurt it--but a flame-thrower can. Maybe the flame unit does 30 IMP flame damage? That would kind of fit its "rifle-like profile." Notably, this ADP would heal nearly instantly out of combat. It would also put a limit on how much you could hurt it before it gets mad (after being dazed / cornered) and then kills you because it has around 12 armor and your weapons literally can't hurt it much beyond that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a final note, the rules for shooting something with a grappling gun, having the grappling hook get stuck in it, and then having the thing pull itself back on the cable are, again, something we don't generally model. That isn't because we don't think it could happen / be cool--or because we didn't think of it (we thought of a LOT of stuff)--but because the handling time to see if certain weapons "pierce and get stuck" is pretty high compared to the number of times you'd likely care about that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A weapon ... like a grappling hook ... <i>designed</i> to stick to things, though, might be a case where special rules would commonly be in force. In this case, if it penetrates and does a minor wound or better--or gets 1x Damage or better--it's hooked. Ripping it out does as much damage as it did going in and (probably) requires a WIL roll. Anyway, after that, you can make Offensive Grapple rolls to drag people around and so on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Conclusions</span></b></div>
<div>
A really good Stealth Drama with rules for using terrain, expendable items (in the game, Ripley has flares, noise-makers, can bang a wrench on the wall, and so on), and Success Points could, potentially, make for a tense experience. Since unlike the computer game, you'd only get one failure (assuming the PC's death ends the game), you'd want to calibrate the number of missions and dictate how the SP pool regenerates or how you get more--maybe for solving more of the mystery?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Alien itself isn't a huge amount of points--but to get some nuance in its play you'd probably want new rules (we considered putting extendable jaws in JAGS Archetypes--but since here was really only one thing we could think of that had it ... well, we already had Acid Blood ...).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-12055925194416714322014-01-06T08:29:00.000-08:002014-01-06T08:41:01.962-08:00The Stanley Parable<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7AuZKFoqnD6CtxYjmljJu5-rS59wo0z-GNTOY1i9PyJsPOM3QxiwRYwMqVuZhYyeX4muW6tUQMa2HnY5cdyHn6aw21zZlMSIaMGcedTFGHUsqk3jR2M8NBf0FNtkTCsAok-nKLRV_mNSl/s1600/stanley.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7AuZKFoqnD6CtxYjmljJu5-rS59wo0z-GNTOY1i9PyJsPOM3QxiwRYwMqVuZhYyeX4muW6tUQMa2HnY5cdyHn6aw21zZlMSIaMGcedTFGHUsqk3jR2M8NBf0FNtkTCsAok-nKLRV_mNSl/s1600/stanley.PNG" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This weekend I played through ('through') a new computer game called <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/221910/">The Stanley Parable</a>.<br />
<br />
It blew my mind.<br />
<br />
Saying anything about it would risk spoiling it--so I'm going to say this: if you liked, say, Portal because it brought you "outside the box" of puzzle games and turned into a story that was surprisng and psychotic, play The Stanley Parable.<br />
<br />
If you played Antichamber and enjoyed it for its, again, reality confounding architecture combined with attempting to, sort of, convey a deeper meaning, you should play The Stanley Parable.<br />
<br />
If you liked the thousands of varied guns in Borderlands 2 you may not find much to like in The Stanley Parable--there are no guns and virtually no violence of any kind.<br />
<br />
Here come the spoliers ...<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Stanley Parable and the Paper and Pencil RPGs</span></b><br />
You really, really ought to go play it if you even think there's a chance you'll like it. It won all kinds of awards.<br />
<br />
I'll wait.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Stanley Parable and What You Should Know</span></b><br />
Did you? No? Dude. I'm <i>telling</i> you.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Stanley Parable and the Railroady Game Master</span></b><br />
Okay. I tried. Chances are you just read straight down here and thought: if it's all that good, I'll pick it up after reading the commentary.<br />
<br />
Your loss.<br />
<br />
The Stanley Parable is the story of office drone Stanley who works day in and day out in room 427. One day he notices that all the people have vanished. He sets out into his office-complex to try to find out what has happened. This is all voiced-over by a British narrator who explains things--including some of Stanley's presumably inner dialog.<br />
<br />
When the narrator says you go left, though, you can choose to go right. When he says you go up to your boss's office, you can choose to go to the basement. Taking these branching paths (and finding various Easter eggs) leads to a variety of different endings and takes you into more and more surreal territory.<br />
<br />
It's hard to explain: here's a picture.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtvGc4dSYGe-YpIW4luymdSETBgsMEGB_-X4pDYljiyUGZMuiIB2v-SqDg7E4gUpOnBHrr38_7us6AmFEj9PVtLim5RDVaiHwEQzsTGDBcZz9_UhCs0ggV05FlVk8WMH6zYBNe51ZJ8unT/s1600/adventure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtvGc4dSYGe-YpIW4luymdSETBgsMEGB_-X4pDYljiyUGZMuiIB2v-SqDg7E4gUpOnBHrr38_7us6AmFEj9PVtLim5RDVaiHwEQzsTGDBcZz9_UhCs0ggV05FlVk8WMH6zYBNe51ZJ8unT/s1600/adventure.jpg" height="250" width="400" /></a></div>
At some point you have gone so far off script that the narrator provides you with a yellow line to get you "to the adventure." You just need to follow it (note: it doesn't lead to the adventure).<br />
<br />
In another sequence the narrator becomes fed up with your (apparent) greed and guile and wills into existence nuclear bombs and a 2 minute count-down clock. There are all kinds of buttons--but there is no escape (that I know of).<br />
<br />
At one point the narrator provides you with an admittedly very pretty environment--but there's nothing to do so you commit suicide (it takes some doing) to get back to the game.<br />
<br />
The narrator even provides other games (minecraft, portal) when you clearly don't want to play <i>his</i> game.<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
If you have dug around the marsh of "RPG Theory" (or 'RPG theory' depending on how you capitalize it--it turns out that despite having discussions about the capitalization the resulting theory absolutely no better or worse for it--there's a lesson in there somewhere) you know about the outrage that exists around 'railroading.'<br />
<br />
The practice of 'railroading' is, to some degree, taking agency away from a player in a circumstance where they ought to have it.<br />
<br />
An example could be using a literal "plot force" to turn the characters around and take them back to "The story."<br />
<br />
It could be secretly cheating at dice rolls to make sure your master villain escapes when they 'unexpectedly' attack and 'defeat him' in the first scene (in quotes because if you did not expect that you are an idiot).<br />
<br />
It could be all kinds of things in between (having the character's superiors call them and hector them to "Get on the case" when they are doing something the GM feels in non-productive).<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
Most people who think a lot about RPGs--and even RPG Theorists--think railroading sucks.<br />
<br />
To be sure there's some gray area. Maybe having <i>whichever </i>witness your character questions provide the clue isn't railroading. Possibly having the GM get you "back to the story" in the event that you'd <i>wandered</i> off course is a good thing so long as everyone was having fun.<br />
<br />
Maybe it's okay to have a game where before hand everyone kind of agrees on what's going to happen and then, if people deviate from that it's kinda on them and the GM can say "Hey, this was the go-back-in-time-and-kill-Hitler game ... not loot the Nazi-Art game ..." or what have you.<br />
<br />
I'll explain The Truth (TM) about railroading in another post some time--but suffice it to say that while not everyone agrees on specifics all the time, most people agree that getting railroaded does, indeed, kinda suck.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Stanley Parable and Railroading</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>The First Thing You Should Know</b></span><br />
Here's the first thing you should know about The Stanley Parable--and I hope you played it--It was NOT (so far as I can find) based on pencil and paper RPGs. It was a meditation on <i>computer</i> RPGs which are, of course, different. In a computer RPG there is a limited space you can explore and the time and effort to make new spaces and decision trees is ... high.<br />
<br />
This is not entirely untrue in pencil and paper RPGs (Quick: Make the premier Brazilian Super Hero Team--we're challenging them to a duel!)--but it's a lot less true than for computer games. If I have my character unexpectedly go to the drug store the GM should not be at a loss to describe what it is like.<br />
<br />
That said, the way the Narrator interacts as the GM is <i>a lot</i> like railroading.<br />
<br />
He gets miffed.<br />
<br />
He tries to integrate the character's choices into "his" story line ("But first he decided to go to the employee lounge ... for some reason ...").<br />
<br />
He gets pissed off and kills you.<br />
<br />
He walls up directions he doesn't want you to go.<br />
<br />
He provides a handy pointer to "the action."<br />
<br />
He asks you to trust him.<br />
<br />
And so on. These are very human actions. There's even a few sequences where you wind up in "unfinished" areas with basic wall textures that haven't been properly rendered yet. This is very analogous to a GM saying "Well, okay: you ran off my map ... but there's nothing there as I haven't prepped for it yet."<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Second Thing You Should Know</span></b><br />
The second thing you should know is that if you do everything he says--follow his story--you get to the good ending and the "completed the game" accomplishment. He doesn't railroad you into some abysmal dark place--he wants you to be happy--to have a good time ...<br />
<br />
He's telling a story that pretends it's a mystery (never gets solved--what <i>did</i> happen to your co-workers?) but ends with you escaping the corporation's evil clutches. So what? So that's exactly what the rail-roady GM (mostly) wants: you to be happy (and, maybe, you to praise their awesome story--but hey).<br />
<br />
Now, the plot is, you know, a bit boring. It could've used some combat or even problem solving (the code for the door he just gives you when you get there, and so on). That's, maybe, important too--but we'll leave that alone for just now.<br />
<br />
The key here is that the ending is <i>pleasant</i>. The GM isn't trying to <i>screw </i>you.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Third Thing You Should Know</span></b><br />
You power struggled with the Game Master ... and you <i>enjoyed </i>it. That's where the game is--the game is in going off the "beaten track" and seeing what happened. I diverged on the very first choice and wondered about whether I'd have a very unpleasant experience (such as having to restart).<br />
<br />
After that, I played along for a bit--but mostly I just went my own way ... and then determined that <i>every time</i> I was given a choice I could "diverge." For the most part the narrator was <i>fun</i> to argue with (the one where he's happy but you're bored and kill yourself was a little painful)--and I didn't take personal glee in <i>pissing him off</i>--but the fact of the matter is that the fun of the game hinges on you doing the "wrong thing."<br />
<br />
And the underlying truth is that doing the wrong thing--and getting 'wrong thing feedback' is fun.<br />
<br />
If there was no narrator and you could just go left to the meeting room or right to the employee lounge--and going either way brought <i>no</i> voice over--you just had to explore (maybe there'd be a map on the wall you could study?) the choice wouldn't be any fun at all.<br />
<br />
If you made the game as a straight through puzzler (the boss's key-code is written in the executive bathroom? The spilled coffee cup early on provides a clue to something or other ...) it'd be a pretty tame pretty meaningless game.<br />
<br />
Even if it <i>had</i> a bunch of the weird endings--and you just keyed on the actions? It'd be surreal--but it would not be as <i>interesting</i> or engaging.<br />
<br />
The fact is: fighting with the GM provides a lot of the fun.<br />
<br />
I think that fighting with the GM when you are complaining about being railroaded is half the fun too.<br />
<br />
Now, I'll grant--I don't think most people like fighting with a GM as much as they like "good gaming"--but I think most people who have a bad experience with a GM don't go back over and over to re live it as RPG Theory (capital 'T') predicts they (often) will.<br />
<br />
The Stanley Parable proves that breaking the game is fun.<br />
<br />
There's a breaking the map ending too--jumping out a window--that doesn't go anywhere cool but does lead to an encounter with the narrator which lets you know you didn't "win." I don't know if the The Stanley Parable's map is unbreakable--but it's pretty tight.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Fourth Point: Winning and Losing</span></b><br />
There are several points where you 'win.' You get an achievement for completing the game. In another event the "credits roll." The museum ending is one of my favorites where you wander in a white room looking at game collateral and little notes from the designers until you turn the thing off.<br />
<br />
There's even a point where a frustrated narrator shouts out "YOU WIN!"<br />
<br />
All of these take you back to the start condition.<br />
<br />
None of them are 'really' winning, you think--or are they?<br />
<br />
If I were trying to be deep I'd say "That's up for you to decide." But I'm not--I'm trying to be brilliant, so I'll tell you the Truth (TM).<br />
<br />
The Truth: Getting Out Of Power Struggle Feels Like Losing.<br />
<br />
That's why you don't do it--why it's so hard to do--because it feels like losing and you hate to lose.<br />
<br />
Don't you?<br />
<br />
The way you 'win' The Stanley Parable is when you start cheating.<br />
<br />
There will (probably--maybe you're hard core) be a point where you go online and see if there's a way to shut down the nukes. There will be a time where you log off and don't log back on--when you're done. There will be a point where you write the game designer and ask for your $15 bucks back as the game is clearly only worth $5.<br />
<br />
The game designer will give you three vouchers for the game and tell you to vouch for it to your friends for $5 each (as that's what you claim it's worth) and you've made your money back.<br />
<br />
He should've only given you two--but hey--he, like the Narrator, wants you to be happy.<br />
<br />
That's how you win.<br />
<br />
If you read this whole review without playing the game, you already won ... (you also lost--so the other lesson is that those two end-states are not as singular as you might believe).<br />
<br />
The reason you "win" here is because you are no longer really in conflict with the game itself. You are now outside the context of The Stanley Parable and are dealing with a different set of parameters (I bet the guy who wanted his money back is still in power struggle with The Stanley Parable's Facebook page ...).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Take Away</span></b><br />
The takeaway (for me, anyway) is that The Stanley Parable is a meditation on power-struggle between the moderators of virtual worlds and their inhabitants. It covers, brilliantly (there is even a cheat-code 'ending') almost all the existing ground I can think of. It makes the game about <i>that</i> instead of the relatively bloodless "plot line" that it's supposed to be about.<br />
<br />
The fact that it's (for most people, it seems) a very pleasant experience rather than that of generally being in power-struggle is because of its context: once you get that this <i>is</i> the game--rather than dysfunction--you can get into it pretty quickly--but that doesn't mean the <i>fundamentals</i> change.<br />
<br />
For people who are still making a big deal about 'railroading' in their pencil and paper RPGs the lessons are still valid: you're still playing--you're still the one logging in over and over ... looking for the next fork you can take to see the endings you aren't supposed to.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-32006379674910947292013-11-19T10:31:00.001-08:002013-11-19T10:31:41.506-08:00Levels and PacingLast night we played the 3rd session of our super-hero playtest. This is the game where we randomly assigned power-categories to the players (and NPCs) leading to the taking of powers most of us would <i>never</i> have gone for given our general preferences.<br />
<br />
This is an <i>astonishingly good</i> playtest ... considering (a) that I have what should be considered the "final document" (proofed, mostly type-set, etc.) and (b) I've made like 40 major changes to sections as a result of trying this thing out.<br />
<br />
The three episodes thus far were like this:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Play as non-powered normals for a session. At the end we get powers through the Origination Machine (it gives you a super-origin back-in-time). It turns out that power grant can be taken from you if you can be "beat up" and reprocessed before the time-wave settles (or something).</li>
<li>We fought the more junior team (approx. 1/4th our points). We beat them easily--but they were colorful and fairly nasty.</li>
<li>We fought the more-even (but not quite) "adults" who were a much closer match--but one we slated to beat.</li>
</ol>
<div>
We went up "a level" (8 APs) after two sessions of combat!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Huh? Levels?</span></b></div>
<div>
Back when we played mostly Hero and GURPS we were pretty much not just down on the "idea" of levels but, I would say, actively anti-level. Thankfully we were not <i>rabid </i>about it ("Look at those fools playing with levels!? Ha! I'm <i>so much more sophisticated</i> ...") but for my part I saw levels as a wholly artificial part of the meta-game that just served to get between me the "fiction." After all, characters in most good fiction don't exactly Level Up--and while they might, yes, "<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass">Take A Level In Bad Ass</a>" you rarely see a lengthy progression of minor steps. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It happens--but it doesn't <i>drive</i> most fiction--at least not most fiction I think of myself as really liking. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When we started looking at JAGS as an 'infinitely expandable game' where you could play things like skyscraper eating Kaiju we also started looking at "levels." When we played our epic 2-year Have-Not game it focused on levels and used them as part of the in-game story (our characters thought of people as having levels just like we could collect chaotic-attractor probability-manipulating Success Points that looked like video-game spinning coins).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There was one thing we all agreed on though: Leveling up had driven both the action and the story--our characters <i>knew</i> if we cleaned out a dungeon level we'd get somewhat more powerful. We endeavored to do that ... repeatedly ... in order to gain parity and then superiority over our foes who, for the very large part, were not running missions in the massive, world-spanning underground complex.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a game designer I could also see how leveling created a beneficial pacing mechanism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What do I mean by that?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Levels and Pacing</span></b></div>
<div>
Back in the GURPS/Hero day we allocated experience points more or less the way the book said to: 1-4 points per game session (sometimes zero if nothing really concluded) and the GM did kind of try to dish them out at a rate congruent with "the fiction" (so the characters didn't change unrecognizably over the course of a day or two of game-time).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The GM-handling (and as often as not I was the GM) of the XP pacing worked well for two reasons. The first was that in a point-buy game there was no specific required direction on what you bought with the points. In AD&D each level came with specific stuff. In GURPS XP could make you a better fighter or a better scientist ... or some of both.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second was that people <i>expected</i> advancement--but at different paces. We never knew how long games would last (some we played for one session before deciding to do something else). We had <i>all kinds of time</i> so there wasn't the same urgency we have today to get things right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We also didn't have the concept of "best practices" as well articulated as we do today. Today, before a game starts, there's already a good deal of time for prep (we play 1x a week instead of daily). We also have firmed up some ideas about how to structure games so that things tend to go well. As such, when we make characters today we are pretty sure we'll get some mileage out of them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But prior to that--in the more free-form model (which we still use for some games: we did it in the Ghost Game we just played) one player might make a character with a strong intention that s/he go up in effectiveness quickly while another might work on their conception so that the initial character was "more or less finished." In other words, Player A might build a beginning karate guy with the idea that he'll go through an arc and become a seasoned master and Player B might build his Kung Fu fighter as, already, a "master."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This isn't really a problem in theory (guy A would have a lot more raw stats, guy B higher skill rolls)--but if the players are doing that because of the length of the game they're expecting that could be a huge disconnect.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It also made a strong point: there was <u>nothing</u> you 'did' to get XP.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We rejected "good role-playing" awards. We believed in equal advancement for everyone. We didn't see giving XP for a "big battle" as especially interesting (we did tend to give XP for the death of a PC ... for reasons I can only kind of articulate--mostly because it was rare and impressive to us when it happened). In short the game-mechanics itself had no direct influence on the pace or nature of advancement.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Levels and JAGS</span></b></div>
<div>
The major purpose of the re-write of the JAGS rules system was driven by the idea that using the Java Simulator to run millions of test-combats we could "get things <i>right</i>." A big secondary driver, however, was the idea that we could move, almost completely, to an open-ended buy system. That is, instead of there being a Trait 'Built' 8 AP (big, tough, muscular) that you could buy or not buy we could have multiple (infinite) levels of it and so Hercules could have like Built Level 8 (64 APs).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This might sound simple--but it was a hugely complex endeavor--especially as we didn't want to just break things all over the place.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Once we had this though, we wanted to use it. We knew that JAGS Have-Not would be the place to try that out. It lent itself to Level-based gaming.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The GM came up with the idea that every time we "went in a dungeon" (about a month of play usually--4 sessions) we went up a level--nothing else (almost) did it. It was, after all, part of the <i>world</i> (going into the General Continuity Complex <i>changed </i>you).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By the end of the run almost everything about the game was deemed wildly successful. We especially liked the pacing (from 8 AP to 128 AP or so). It seemed to drive the game and work well with our expectations.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When we followed it up with the Ghost Hunters game we didn't use levels at all. We did get a handful of AP at one point--but mostly we just got Character Points using the old method. We also got Success Points as a reward--which was interesting as different play styles (save 'em for the big battle at the end vs. use 'em ruthlessly) were able to be tracked and examined.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We noticed, though, that the number of "Ghost Investigations" was <i>roughly analogous</i> to the number of <i>dungeons</i> in the Have-Not game. The Ghost game was around half the length--but we could see there <i>was </i>a pacing methodology at work there: the blocks of content for a successful game had similarities.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This isn't to say we ought to have used a leveling mechanic for the Ghost Hunters game--it would not have been served by us becoming nearly superheroic--but there were pacing elements at work even if we weren't aware of them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Should Super Heroes Get Levels?</span></b></div>
<div>
A question we did--and still are--batting around is whether or not superheroes ought to get levels at all. After all, Spiderman doesn't change a whole lot (or, well, if he does, he changes back). Superman might unveil a new power once in a while or something ... but not in the better written stuff. Do superheroes change?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think so--at least to a degree. For one thing gaming is a different model of fiction than comic books or movies (and Spiderman is also underwear and lunchboxes as much as a fictional character). We like being able to upgrade characters to a degree.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We are also different levels of "finished." I think that each of us might have different ideas of what an 'end-state' of our characters might look like. Mine? Pretty much done (not that I can't find stuff to spend the points on, though). The guy who is the champion of the gods of cars with their black gloves and chrome teeth--to whom more blood has been sacrificed that to the Aztec nightmare deities? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I bet he can find some places to spend the points (Armor).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there's a third reason: in our game world--this specific one--there's some specific stuff going on. The world we're playing in uses the Supers are Jerks model that some (more recent) comics have adopted. They are like badly behaving celebrities--often untouchable to the local authorities. They are not murderous badguys (for the most part) but in this world, even the more shiny heroes are pretty petty and often flawed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Our characters are not so much upholding the status quo (which is a big part of Marvel and DC as the world still has to be pretty recognizable and, at the end of the day, the title characters still need to sell a lunchbox)--as they may be changing the world--or at least finding their ways in it. The characters may well have arcs that exist outside of the general realm of "traditional super characters."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Having a way of upgrading them is valuable in facilitating that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So how do you do it?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">One Level Per Big Fight Or Something</span></b></div>
<div>
I had discussed with the GM how we might have characters go up in level--and we didn't have a good idea. What, in this game, was a "dungeon" (or a ghost investigation?). What was the general unit of play that the game would be built around? I came back with something that seemed pretty obvious: it's a big fight!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Our characters are various breeds of combat machine--when we fight a number of APs "equal" to us, might we go up a level? We used that for these first three play-sessions--but I think that might be too fast. Maybe 2x our points (and remember: our points go up)? That seems like it might be a bit better.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In any event--two sessions of interesting, involved combat (5 hrs of play or so) to get a level doesn't seem absurd. It appears we might have a really big battle (say 1-3 play sessions) about as often as we went in dungeons or moved between investigations. That pacing-element seems "about right."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Importance of Pacing Elements</span></b></div>
<div>
We were going to do a big space game and we never quite got it off the ground (maybe next?). One of the reasons was that we wanted levels--but weren't sure what the leveling mechanic was (maybe sector-jumps?). We weren't <i>quite</i> thinking about things like this--but now that we are, we might come back to it from another direction: what is the basic element of story in this game?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Is it going from planet to planet? Buying a new ship? Completing a sector's missions? A planet's missions? Could each "mission" have an XP count? Something like that?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's gotta be <i>something</i> like that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think it's interesting to think of the game play--absent of specific mechanics--and ask what the innate demarcation points are for its basic narrative. I think that tells us something about the nature of it beyond what we get from the high-level overview. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-31309275806612941982013-11-04T16:17:00.001-08:002013-11-04T16:17:30.006-08:00What's My Motivation: Unit CohesionWe are about to start our new game--in this game we are members of a family headed by a mad scientist who lives in Holiday City. He has a machine--the Originator--which creates <i>origins</i>. So we wind up being 4 family members who got run through the machine.<br />
<br />
Our guidelines were:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Read the 4pg write up and PDF of family relationships</li>
<li>Make a 50pt family member</li>
<li>They'll get super powers ...</li>
<li>Away we go ...</li>
</ol>
<div>
So, we each went away and made characters. We got:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Gothy spoiled brat artist</li>
<li>Young Republican like Michael J. Fox in Family Ties</li>
<li>Older son who races cars</li>
<li>Older son who has a gambling problem / mad gambling skills</li>
</ul>
Now, we all do have <i>family ties</i>--we have other siblings with super powers and there are things about the "family name" and what-have-you--but in terms of motivation we're all over the map. Only the Young Republican character (who took a Trait 'Obnoxious: Republican') has any direct relationship with one of the other super characters--they don't like each other for some reason.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is all kind of chaotic. I don't doubt we can make it work--but I want to talk a minute about party cohesion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Two Kinds Of Cohesion</span></b></div>
<div>
Party cohesion requires either a shared goal or some kind of narrative structure (even if it's just agreement of the PCs) that organizes the action. There are three kinds of shared goals:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Internal shared goals. In this case it's the Scooby Doo gang. Everyone wants to find ghosts--but <i>why</i> is up to each of them. Still, they're all in one place and what do they all have the burning desire to do? Bust ghosts.</li>
<li>External shared goals. Members of a Special Forces Group. Each might have their own real interests -- or their own reasons for joining up with the service--but when command gives them a mission they all do the same things.</li>
<li>A variety on the External Goal is one where it's enforced on the characters against their wills. This is the "you're all stranded on the jungle island" game. Character's goals may shift over time--but they are <i>heavily</i> influnced by external events the character did not sign up for.</li>
</ol>
<div>
These might sound the same and the end result is very similar but the internal effects are quite distinct. If you ask me to make a Navy SEAL I'll make someone who's, I dunno, a patriot or whatever. Doesn't matter. I might not even nail it down until play starts so better to fit in with whatever the tone of the game is.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Tell me to make a ghost buster character and I might make <i>anything--</i>but you can be sure I'll want to see some ghost--and bust them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the third case, probably the less internal drive I have the better: it'll either dovetail with the scenario if I'm lucky (my character is a frustrated survivalists who lives to <i>prove himself</i>) or suck (my character is in love with a girl he financially can't afford who is back on the mainland).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All of these have good-cases (where everything works) and degenerate cases (where something goes wrong with play).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's the best?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Being A Team? Or Kidnapped By Aliens</span></b></div>
<div>
One of the easiest ways to generate a shared cause is #2 or #3--my problem is it's not my preferred way of playing (and I've done games like this for years). We even had a game structure where we'd have a "major story line" and then 1:1 sessions with each group member to keep track of their individual stories. Sometimes those would overlap. Sometimes not. Back in high school we had time for this--but today we don't.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'd rather have my character's motivation be created so as to <i>align</i> with the action in the game. Doesn't have to be 100%--or perfect--but I'd like some hand-holds to grasp on to. How do you do that?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Tom Petty And The ... <i>Uhhhhhh</i>?</span></b></div>
<div>
Long, long ago--in a two player game--we were going to be a music act that would be thrust into an imaginary world. I was dithering around and the other guy made 'Alan Sky and the Heartbreakers.' His character was Alan Sky. If I were someone else I might have demanded a change to the band-name. After all, can you <i>name </i>a member of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers whose name doesn't start with 'Tom'?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you can, props to you--I can't. But I went with it. I just changed Heartbreakers to Demigods and figured <i>what the hell, that sounds okay</i>. And it was an absolutely rocking campaign. Our characters were built to work together. We could shift our goals at the same time, in the same way, organically. It wasn't "My guy goes out street racing" while "I have to attend a city hall meeting" and "Whaaaa I'm stuck in 5th period Algebra!!"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Clearly having a shared link with the character is often an unambiguous good (our characters went through fantasy land playing various venues).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But here's the learning:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Left to their own devices, almost everyone makes 'the hero.'</b></blockquote>
<div>
I was good enough not to care about the <i>name</i> of our band--but if the racer guy had made his character first in the game we're currently going into? I'd have to think before making "One of Vin Diesel's sidekicks." I mean, it might work out--it might not--but it's not an obvious choice. And if that's what the other two players were <i>also</i> doing? It'd be an even tougher choice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I remember once when playing GURPS we were allowed to buy however levels of Military Rank we wanted. Two players got into a bidding war. We wound up being an X-Files group (small off-the books paranormal investigation) with a four-star general.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So the one thing you can't do is make "the hero."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And think about it, in Scooby Doo, who really is "the leader" or "the hero" anyway? I mean, it's <i>not</i> Shaggy--but he gets most of the lines and Scooby Doo gets title credit. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So you can't reliably just take one player, have them make something, and then build the game around that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Shared Background?</span></b></div>
<div>
In the ghost-hunters game we were diverse--but we had all had an encounter with the paranormal which was why we were recruited by a large insurance company dealing with ghosts. This was fine--we knew from the character-design phase that we would be part of a team chasing ghosts--but none of us, really, had a <i>drive</i> to chase ghosts. We were motivated to be part of the team--but once the agency abandoned us we <i>could</i> have gone home.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We also ran into an <i>actual</i> ghost-hunting group and I realized that we'd left money on the table. If we'd all had a similar origin and had been <i>told</i> to make a ghost hunting team we'd all have actual internal motivations to chase spirits. We might also have had a van and a big dog.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This (the potential dog) would not necessarily have improved things. But the key here is:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Motivations that are organic to the characters don't come from shared backgrounds alone.</b></blockquote>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Clear Campaign Direction</span></b></div>
<div>
The most surefire method is the one that D&D pioneered: you know what you're gonna be doing--going in a dungeon. This is simple, brilliant, and beautiful. It works <i>wonderfully</i>. Our two-year Have-Not game was easy: make <i>adventurers</i>. Sure, we were students in a school--but we knew adventure was in there / down there--and we were ready for it. We knew we were going up in level. We knew there was treasure and we wanted it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This works very well for adventurers. It does, in fact, work okay for military teams--so long as you make someone whose motivation is to go out and kick ass ... for the country. If you know what you're going to be doing, though, play someone who is dedicated to <i>doing that</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Clarity is good. The more you know about direction the better you can prepare for it.</b></blockquote>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">What Now?</span></b><br />
I think the plan we have now--the shared familial background is actually pretty strong. Despite being diverse we have reasons to work together (questioned during the first hour and 15 minutes of gaming no less). We <i>don't</i> have a clear direction for the game--but that's okay. I think our characters are "in motion" enough and the GM has certainly taken some time (even if only a little) to think situation hooks that each of them might be interested in.<br />
<br />
Even better, each of us have enough goals or drives to pretty much indicate that <i>something</i> will get us into motion. Some of us are in motion already.<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-61140485712605179062013-11-01T08:07:00.002-07:002013-11-01T08:07:53.303-07:00Soul of a Player CharacterI just heard from my type-setter. We're doing a last round of revisions trying to figure out why some of the images aren't showing up. I should get the completed files--make known corrections to them ... and then? Publish.<br />
<br />
Maybe.<br />
<br />
We've completed the Ghost Stories game and are now starting a supers game that promises to playtest the rules in a way we just haven't done yet.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Soul of a Player Character</span></b><br />
The way you distinguish (for traditional games) a PC from an NPC is that the PC is an avatar of <i>you</i>. NPCs are one of many characters who, to a degree, fulfill some function in the game world (even if its just verisimilitude).<br />
<br />
The game structure we're setting up has given me some cause for reflection on something that distinguishes an NPC from a PC. I'm going to call it "a soul."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>A Caveat</b></span><br />
This distinction and phenomena I'm discussing isn't going to be universal. A lot of people play differently from me--but a lot of people (to my observation) play similarly--so I think this is meaningful but not, as I said, universal.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Structure of The Game</span></b><br />
The game is "super heroes." There's some back-story--I'll discuss it at some point--but here's the deal:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>We are told who we are <i>in general</i> (members of a large family with a mad scientist patriarch). He gave the children of his first marriage super powers and they turned out badly. We are either biological or adopted children of his 2nd wife. </li>
<li>We will make "normal" characters in this world.</li>
<li>We know we will be given <i>randomized</i> powers. It works as I described before:</li>
<ul>
<li>Every major heading in the 400pg book is put into a spreadsheet</li>
<li>With a few minor modifications we use use the random roller to give us each 4 headings to choose from</li>
<li>You can always choose Levels 1-3 of Fast Company (bullet-dodging action hero) to go along with some powers.</li>
<li>We have 128 APs to spend all/some/none within <i>only</i> those headings.</li>
<li>OR we can be Fast Company Level 4 with extra "normal person" style traits (at the levels we're playing at we won't be "normal humans" even if we do this).</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<div>
So when I try this method to show the guys I roll:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Cybernetic Legs</li>
<li>Probability Control</li>
<li>Hard Wired Cyber-Reflexes</li>
<li>Void Control</li>
</ul>
<div>
I choose Fast Company L2, Cyber-legs (several levels), and some luck-based Probabilistic Control stuff. This guy is a bad-ass martial artist with cyber-legs and luck-based defenses.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He's weird--a <u>stated goal</u> of the set up--but for a world of strange supers he's fully workable. He's tough, agile, fast--kicks for a lot of damage and is pretty bullet resistant. In short, he's a viable guy to play ...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you can stand being "Super Foot Metal-Leg guy."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not sure I'd like to play a year of being that guy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, to be sure, there are other combinations I could pick. I could be Disintegration Guy (Fast and Void Control). I could go heavily into Luck and stuff--but this was the best-fit that I came out with and I was, really, pretty pleased with him. He had a good range of offense and defense. He was pretty unlike characters I'd <i>normally</i> make. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I could even see him as a character in a (weird) comic book.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But he wasn't a guy I was going to play.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Soul of a Player Character</span></b></div>
<div>
So on Monday, when we begin the next game we're going to roll up our powers together (note: I think this sort of activity really "increases the energy of play" and will test that theory Monday night and maybe write about it thereafter). Leading up to this we've done a bunch of test-rolls and the GM has built several NPCs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Everything has gone swimmingly: almost no rolls were entirely useless. The characters were odd in the ways we wanted (we are channeling the Villains and Vigilantes vibe here). We believe the various header-sections we've separated out mostly <i>work</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However: so far we have NOT rolled a set of powers for our Player Characters.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We don't think we can test that until we are <u>actually</u> going to play these guys. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why is that?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, basically because our attempts to test this have <i>always</i> been influenced by the fact that we're <i>not</i> playing these characters. We don't have to role-play being metal-stompy-foot guy week after week. He can have a rich imaginary life as an NPC--but I don't have to do the "I'm going to stick my metal foot up your ass, punk!" dialog.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In short: making a character you <i>know </i>you will play seems to be quantifiably different in terms of evaluating how "suitable" the character is than making a character you <i>know</i> you will <i>not</i> play. We've made many "good" NPCs. So far it's hard to say if we've made good PCs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, there are a few obvious things to look at here:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Personal suitability. If I like playing tough-guy gunslinger types and I roll a bunch of sense sand ESP I'm going to be a bit out of my comfort zone. That's not hard to understand.</li>
<li>Heroic aptitude. You can <i>say</i> that being metal-foot guy is just as good a fit to being the "hero of the story" as anyone else--but I'm not sure I believe it. I'm not totally sure I don't--but it's worth thinking about.</li>
<li>The other PCs. The GM doesn't really need to worry about how NPCs fit in to the rest of the PC's team if they aren't on it. Even if they are regulars in the game the range is broader. If the NPC is slow and always goes last that might be annoying for a Player but (probably) shouldn't be a source of frustration for the GM. If an NPC entirely over-powers / eclipses (makes the PC irrelevant) a PC that likely <i>could be </i>a problem--so it's not like any NPC is fine--but it's a slightly different issue. Note: if one PC eclipses another PC that's <i>also</i> an issue--but the dynamic is different--the GM can easily dump the NPC. The other Player may (rightly) be attached to their character.</li>
</ol>
<div>
However, I think there are still a few more things going on here.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Immersion</span></b></div>
<div>
Immersion has been a tricky and contentious thing for some people writing about RPGs. I won't claim it's "simple" or means "the same thing" to everyone--but I think it is, across some spectrum, (a) getting inside your characters head so you feel an emotional charge similar to what the 'character feels' and (b) to some (mild, usually) extent losing yourself in the fiction of the game--getting caught up the same way you do in a movie or book where you are focused on the game (in this case through the agency of the character) and are less detached.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both of those are possible and desirable to me (some people find the above absurd or undesirable: YMMV)--I think that while it's possible for me to eventually get behind any character, I might have some issues with characters that simply don't "click" with me. This is hard to define--but I think Cyber-Legs guy might be one such bad fit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Out Of Order</b></span></div>
<div>
Our mechanics are <i>weird</i>. Almost no super heroes (none that I am aware of) were envisioned as normal guys <u>before</u> the creator determined what their powers would be. For all I know, maybe the first draft of Spiderman had him as the school jock --but I'm <i>pretty sure</i> he always had "the powers of a spider."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In our case we have to make <i>normal guys</i>. We might even play them as normal for a while--and then we will give them powers (we'll give them powers during the first session--that's our agreement--but we might either (a) play them back-in time before the powers or (b) roll the powers but then play them as normal for a little while or even a few sessions before actually giving them to us in the game. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not sure.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However it asks a question that, to my understanding, is very, very rare for RPGs: how do you create a super hero when you really don't have any idea what their powers will be?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Usually super powers are <i>integrated</i> with the normal-guy personality. Often they play off it (Thor has to learn a lesson about humility so we, the reader, get introduced to Dr. Blake). Often the "real character" is the guy in the mask and the normal-guy persona is really reverse engineered by the author.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this case though, the natural order is broken. I have to make someone with in-flight issues, problems, etc. who will THEN get super powers of a sort I have only limited control over. This means I can't create anyone who will get <i>themed</i> powers--or powers that play off their personality or anything like that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This, for me, is <i>weird.</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
It's <i>interesting</i>--but it's strange.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, to be fair, I can take the Batman option: Fast Co L4 and make my guy a super-human level badass. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I also have control over HOW I buy powers--depending on what I roll I can make numerous different characters.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, I may wind up:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>With options that largely <i>mutate </i>me. Do I make a character who is still playable being non-human? Do I assume that won't happen--or if it does I'll take the Fast-4 option?</li>
<li>Cybernetic. How I approach this will be interesting (we are opening the door to having the character 'crippled' and augmented, wounded at war, etc.)</li>
<li>Limited offensive options (it's rare, but can happen). If I make a character who is fighting with people that could be a let-down.</li>
</ul>
<div>
So I have a lot to consider.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Conclusions</span></b></div>
<div>
Classic V&V actually had an answer to this: you played <i>yourselves</i> (and the game had almost nothing that referenced your normal character guy anyway). I doubt a lot of people religiously did this--and, instead, rolled powers and then fit them to their "mundane character." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't think this stuff is really a problem--it's more (at this stage) like <i>very interesting </i>to us--but there's the chance the game could "fail on launch" and we'll have to go back to the drawing board. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-57025967322298307492013-10-28T14:45:00.002-07:002013-10-28T14:45:43.026-07:00End GameHow would you play if it was your LAST NIGHT!? Would that change things?<br />
<br />
Tonight won't, I dearly hope, be our <i>last night ever</i>--but it's going to be the end of the Ghost Hunters game. Things have come to a head--plot lines have resolved. We're about to (maybe) make some big moves.<br />
<br />
How does knowing you'll (probably) never play a character again change things?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">How Do You Know It's The Last Night?</span></b><br />
The first (valid) question I would think to ask is <i>are you sure it's the last</i>? The answer is, of course, not <i>really</i>. We're tending to play beginning-middle-and-end games these days for a variety of reasons (as we are at least nominally play-testing JAGS Revised Archetypes we want to have things that end so we can do other things, we are starting with fairly controlled 'situations' so there are ways to tell where / when they resolve, and we do, indeed, like having "an end.")<br />
<br />
But could we go on?<br />
<br />
Sure. If the players really wanted to keep going we could do that. I'm sure the GM (also one of the players, in his way, of course) would oblige.<br />
<br />
Also, I have inside knowledge: I know that the GM <i>thought </i>about running his next game in the <i>aftermath</i> of this game. Which would be interesting ... but we're probably gonna do Supers next so that's not likely.<br />
<br />
But yeah: we don't <i>know</i> it's the last. There could be like one-more-session anyway.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Live Every Day Like It's Your Last!</span></b><br />
The truth is that most motivational advice is horrible. Living every day like you were going to die the next day would be filled with a tragedy of lamentation. Living every day like "YOLO, man--let's score some heavy shit and get drunk off our asses and ride stolen shopping carts at full speed down the big hill" is what asshole college students do.<br />
<br />
Making bad there's-no-tomorrow decisions is, actually, stupid, not enlightened.<br />
<br />
Pain is nothing more than weakness leaving the body--that's how you know when your work-out strategy leads to crippling injuries <i>you're doing it right!</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
So what I think is that the knowledge that things are going to end doesn't change <i>my</i> play all that much, nor should it. I know the game is going to end <i>some time</i> (they virtually all do--even if we aren't playing with some end-state in mind)--if it doesn't change my play on day one, why change it on day 52?<br />
<br />
And, I'll note, I <i>envision</i> an imaginary life for my characters beyond the story. It's not that I expect to play it--or even dwell on it later (although: maybe?)--but when playing "my guy" I often do things that are either in the mind-set of <i>the character</i> thinking long term (Jack Revald doesn't know his last day of play is tonight) or imply a long term narrative (will Jack's potential dark future come to fruition? It (probably) won't in our <i>play</i>--but unless I got a <i>perfect </i>chance to make it or miss it in the last 2.5 hrs of game-time I wouldn't <i>force</i> a decision about that).<br />
<br />
In other words, from both an immersion perspective and a narrative perspective, I'm <i>not </i>looking for a major direction change "on the last page."<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">A More Interesting Question</span></b><br />
What if your game had a <i>mechanical</i> end-state. Polaris does--I believe it all <i>has</i> to end in tragedy no matter what. What if your game was <i>like</i> Dungeons and Dragons--but a pacing mechanic led the party towards an <i>inexorable</i> TPK ... eventually. Like, for sure--if you keep adventuring sooner rather than later the Dire Dice will land and you'll start losing guys ... like they had 1 HP or something.<br />
<br />
Would you play <i>that</i> differently than D&D?<br />
<br />
Sure you would--you'd start ... I dunno ... fighting less as the danger level climbed. <i>Maybe</i> the GM would throw less can't-avoid combat encounters ... assuming you liked your characters and the fun was seeing <i>how far you could get</i>.<br />
<br />
Or maybe you'd figure you were going out sooner or later so screw it: NO RETREAT. NO SURRENDER--JUST FIGHT. Actually, to my memory, that's just like D&D.<br />
<br />
Oh--and there's one other way you'd play that game differently: Most of you would only play it <i>once</i>.<br />
<br />
However, the point is that end-states, whether they are built into the mechanics or the situation are different from a vast open-ended no-known-end state game in <i>some ways</i>.<br />
<br />
Tonight maybe I'll get to answer my own question.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-12581923798571783822013-09-20T09:25:00.000-07:002013-09-20T09:49:35.301-07:00RPG Expertise Part 2: GM's For Hire<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi43CvPtyFhSkmuHkwsy0sr_d9NHKbAL0zpEwfS45C4SbEW7EVQMPdfXesp937qA6xVculMnpfFqmaAsOEvVSArDEOknC-2dYoqZiC6ZRmufCagFuoZz80IqYmdsxLMvh3HLVuUMOlCg7hw/s1600/DM4HIre.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi43CvPtyFhSkmuHkwsy0sr_d9NHKbAL0zpEwfS45C4SbEW7EVQMPdfXesp937qA6xVculMnpfFqmaAsOEvVSArDEOknC-2dYoqZiC6ZRmufCagFuoZz80IqYmdsxLMvh3HLVuUMOlCg7hw/s1600/DM4HIre.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I'd Play</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Why Aren't There GM's For Hire?</span></b><br />
Unless I'm gravely missing something there is no 'Dungeons Masters Guild' that an 'expert GM' can join, hang out his electronic sign, and get bids with real money to run games for people. To be sure, there are cases where someone has <a href="http://caramus.hubpages.com/hub/Dungeon-Master-or-Game-Master-for-Hire">or has tried to game mastered for money</a>--and there are individual cases <a href="http://www.quora.com/How-would-I-go-about-hiring-a-dungeon-master-in-the-San-Francisco-Bay-Area-for-an-old-school-Dungeons-Dragons-play-session">where people have offered to pay for the service</a>--but there is no standing "business model" to it.<br />
<br />
Why not?<br />
<br />
If you think about it, the model ought to exist:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Players often have invested real money in gaming materials. Between books, miniatures, maps, and other play aids, the collateral for a single game like Dungeons and Dragons 4th Ed can easily run more than 100.00 (and way more than that if you buy a lot of miniatures). When you look at some of the gaming collections with multiple games, we can see that, even for players who will never GM (which, presumably might run less) the cost can be into the thousands.</li>
<li>That investment is useless unless <i>someone</i> is Game Mastering.</li>
<li>While it is "traditional tunnel vision" to say that the GM is the "most important aspect of the traditional play experience" I think no one would argue that a competent GM is pretty much the low-bar to clear in order to have a decent time. If your Game Master sucks (whatever that means) it's going to be harder to have a great time.</li>
<li>Gaming takes at least 2.5-4 hours per session (as a generality). Even conservatively, with a 4-person group, that would be about 160.00 USD (assuming $10.00 per hour for a 4-person, 4-hour session) that is the opportunity cost for gaming (i.e. if you were all getting paid for your time, which you are not, the sum total would be more than 100.00 to play the game--that's what you're 'giving up.'). This is not insigificant. For professionals who make a lot more than that, the 'cost' for even a short session could be <i>much</i> higher.</li>
<li>If having a <i>good</i> or <i>great</i> GM makes the experience better you would think there would be numerically fewer of these people out there ... and therefore if you wanted the peak-experience for your gaming hour and gaming dollar you would want the best GM possible. Wouldn't you?</li>
</ol>
<div>
In other words: people have spent the buy-in money--why isn't there more market-pressure to spend money to get use out of that collateral? You'd think market pressures would <i>create</i> GM's for hire ... wouldn't you?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Some Possibilities As To Why Not</span></b></div>
<div>
Let's look at some basic possibilities as to why we haven't seen pools of GM's for hire.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Games are Extremely Local?</span></b></div>
<div>
One possibility is that your need for a GM-For-Hire is restricted to, like, a 10-15 mile radius. If there isn't a GM-for-hire down the street that doesn't do your group much good, does it? As the travel-radius is so small the market pressures for a Guild of some sort (some easy way to find a GM-for-hire) simply don't exist.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem with that is (a) there should still be some in dense places like major cities (b) the Internet makes the barrier to just listing yourself as a GM-for-Hire pretty low (c) with electronic / online gaming your GM could be anywhere (even another country) and (d) some people drive a long way to play anyway. Once you get to, like 30min of travel-time you have a potentially very-large-radius.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">People Do It For Free?</span></b></div>
<div>
As parents have been telling their kids (mostly daughters, I guess) for years, no one will buy the cow if she gives the milk away for free. Perhaps the problem is that there are enough free GMs out there right now that there's simply no need to pay?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem with this is that we know it's not true: for a significant number of groups (apocryphally, at least)--there are groups looking for GM's. We can also assume that even if someone in the group is willing to GM, if, indeed, there is a concept of "expertise" and it is important to the quality of the game then there would be a role for 'expert' GMs, even if you had an available free one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Maybe We're Wrong?</span></b></div>
<div>
Perhaps the problem is that there <i>is</i> no such thing as an "expert GM" and the problem is that paying for someone to run a game simply <i>doesn't make it better</i>? Or maybe, if you have a GM and are 'generally happy' there's no one else that will make it better--maybe bringing in a hot-shot is <i>always worse</i>? Maybe the difference in expertise isn't significant and, therefore, not worth paying for? Or maybe, simply, no one knows if the game would be better if you hired Skippy?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While this is all possible--and some people will find it true (there are people who find the traditional model of gaming implicitly dysfunctional)--I think there's no reason to think that's so. After all, one could make the case that best-selling authors are no better than Bob-down-the-street at writing novels--but no one is going to go very far with that. There's no reason to think that the experience of RPG-play is so unique that time and expertise doesn't improve it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Furthermore, most people agree that <a href="http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Dungeon-Master">one of the keys to a good GM is preparation on their part</a>--moreso than for a player. It's also generally agreed that the GM needs confidence, a knowledge of the rules, and, probably some personal charisma. If any of this is even close to true, the greater time-commitment alone should be "worth paying for." Right? I mean, speaking purely in terms of economics.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, okay: there's no killer reason as to why not. So <i>why not</i>?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">What Would It Look Like If There Were Paid DM's?</span></b></div>
<div>
We don't have to guess: we kinda know. Here are some points on a line.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Iron GM</span></b></div>
<div>
You don't exactly "get paid"--but if you are part of an <a href="http://www.irongm.com/">Iron Game Master </a>event you get prizes (players can get prizes too). They give you three secret words, you get 60 minutes to make an adventure around them. Players, randomly assigned to your table, get 60 min to make characters. Then you play--and they give the players a review / scoring sheet to fill out and you get rated. This, frankly, is a good idea and sounds like a whole lot of fun. Problematically, while it's good for a convention, it wouldn't be good for week-by-week play for groups that want on-going characters and the like. No problems, though: they have a scoring system and prizes. This is a glimpse of what such a thing might start out as (also note: the system is SDR 3.5 by default but if your table unanimously agrees to another system, everyone can play that).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also Note: The sicko would-be child cannibal guy in the news recently was wearing an Iron GM shirt and, in fact, was an RPG gamer. Yuck (but nothing on the Iron GM guys).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Niche GMing</span></b></div>
<div>
In what was described as potentially <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/dungeons-dragons-craigslist-ad-topless-female_n_1935551.html">the saddest bachelor party ever</a>, a group of guys was looking for 30 min with an attractive, topless, female game master. They were willing to pay--for nothing but 'an exciting game.' I can only imagine what the miniatures would look like. While it's not exactly "normal," I think most of us can agree that there <i>are</i> conditions that would <u>require</u> money to entice a game-master.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One guy was apparently <a href="http://nerdapproved.com/gaming/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-a-full-time-dungeon-master-dream-jobs/">ready to hire a live-in-GM with his massive inherited wealth</a>. Full time? Bleh. I love gaming and you'd have to pay me to do that. Still, while there's no evidence it went down, at least we know these things <i>could</i> happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Paid LARP Events</span></b></div>
<div>
There are <a href="http://www.livingadventures.net/">paid events where you can go off and adventure for a few days</a>. It costs money. There are "extras." In some cases you get a guide to help you along. Apparently it's a load of fun. In this case you have to pay: they feed you, they have a venue--stuff is set up. There are live-actors playing NPCs, and so on. In this case the GM is the group that sets up the adventure and manages it--this was the idea behind the Dream Park novels and, clearly, it's something people would pay for. It's not normal GMing though.<br />
<br />
But the fact is that we don't see a working model out there where a GM shows up each week for about 4 hours of face-to-face gaming with a group of guys playing a traditional game. It just doesn't happen--at any cost point.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>So Why Not?</b></span></div>
<div>
I knew a guy--a friend of mine--who went to a wealthy private college in the northeast. He told me a story about one of his frat-bros who had been taken under the wing of a bookie. This guy--a friend--facilitated sports betting from the other bros for a year. By the end of the year? They <i>tolerated</i> each other: they weren't <i>friends</i>. The betting bros had 'bought' their bookie-bro a new Mustang or something (some kind of very nice muscle car). It was hard to respect your friends when they were forking over money and you were taking it.</div>
<div>
<br />
I think paid-GMing would be a bit like that: I think it would erode the experience because of the implicit lack of equality between the guy paying and the person forking over the money.<br />
<br />
While not all gaming groups are formed of friends--and, indeed, sometimes in long-running groups gamers <a href="http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0444.html">may not know what each other do for a living</a>--I think there is a give-and-take dynamic that virtually precludes getting paid. You don't have to be <i>friends</i>--but you have to be <i>friendly</i>. I regularly pay a personal trainer I am friends with who helps me work out--but once when I worked out <i>with</i> my personal trainer (he was doing his exercise routine and I was helping) I didn't pay for <i>that</i>.<br />
<br />
With friends, if I feel something in the game wasn't right, I can bitch--but with a paid GM? If there's a Total Party Kill and I feel the encounter was unfair? I might not just want my money for the session back--but what about the whole adventure--my whole <i>investment</i>? And can the paid-GM really keep all the players satisfied? What if what I want and what Bob wants conflict? We're all paying our money ...<br />
<br />
The RPG-dynamic is far more creative and give-and-take than the traditional forms of paid entertainment where you sit passively and let someone else present to you. The GM and the players are all in-it-together in a way an author and readers are not.<br />
<br />
We do see a common form of pay in the GM-doesn't-pay-for-the-pizza standard many groups have. This is a way <i>friends</i> compensate each other for extra work--not raw dollars on a regular schedule.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In short, I think the traditional mode of RPG play works against a paid-GM dynamic by its very nature.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's why we don't see it.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-44712548153079015292013-08-26T13:39:00.002-07:002013-08-26T13:39:26.916-07:00RPG Expertise<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaKFl1Eh9PkkGYNIv3vnskzOGAEjfP722oWSUAtO4iTwxDdvohv37OAmwBJZ9VjZqDsWbXvUrnz4dyNlu4Luuq9ZUNhrcCO0QRHOj3W0A5MCq7uaTWPkVZsfZ44WRSlHl6SCXfDMWlzxyk/s1600/Bancale+2013+Cyburban.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaKFl1Eh9PkkGYNIv3vnskzOGAEjfP722oWSUAtO4iTwxDdvohv37OAmwBJZ9VjZqDsWbXvUrnz4dyNlu4Luuq9ZUNhrcCO0QRHOj3W0A5MCq7uaTWPkVZsfZ44WRSlHl6SCXfDMWlzxyk/s400/Bancale+2013+Cyburban.png" width="308" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">CV of Aristotle Bancale</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Malcolm Gladwell popularized the "10,000 hour rule" in his book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)">Outliers</a>. The book makes the case that an investment of 10,000 hours in an activity can make you reach master level in an activity. While this is disputed in some cases (natural talent, activities requiring very unusual capabilities, and certain innate limits) the basic idea that "practice makes perfect" (or, perhaps that "perfect practice makes perfect"--or even that consistent practice leads to improvement) should not be alien.<br />
<br />
I have been gaming for roughly 35 years. As I have almost unquestionably put in over the 285 requisite hours per year, I am now Gladwell-qualified to be a Master Roleplayer.<br />
<br />
If such a thing were even possible <i>what would that mean</i>?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Expert GMs? Expert Players?</b></span><br />
Someone once noted that, when it comes to "growing the RPG hobby" the problem isn't a lack of players--it's a lack of GMs*. I don't think it's controversial to say that Game Mastering has recognized levels of mastery or excellence. It's my observation that we generally don't for players with the exception of players who evidence a mastery of a game's rules--and often this <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer">isn't a compliment</a></i>.<br />
<br />
When asking if someone's an "expert"--I'm asking myself if <i>I'm</i> an expert--we need to start with our criteria. How would we judge? Let's look at a few axis of potential expertise.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Rules Expert</span></b><br />
The first and most obvious place to look is the game rules. If you spent 10,000 hours playing Game-X and were hard-core using the rules (looking them up, referencing them, memorizing them), by the ten-thousandth hour you would likely evidence "mastery" of them. You would know where that hit-location chart breaks down if you use a pole-arm at close range and then can't hit anything but the groin.<br />
<br />
You would know that if charging the auto-cannon with 21 people the auto-fire rules for it don't allow <i>anyone </i>to be hit.<br />
<br />
You'd know what page to find the Healing Tables For Fire Damage (With Disease) but you wouldn't need to look because you'd have memorized them.<br />
<br />
Certainly, if there is expertise in a given game, the 10,000 hour rule works.<br />
<br />
But that's a boring question. What does it mean to be an expert player or GM for <i>any game</i>? Can such a thing exist? And, let's be real, there are a lot of games out there where the system just isn't that deep or fiddly. I might get my master's-worth out of Rolemaster--but <a href="http://www.mimgames.com/window/rules/">The Window</a>? I think not.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Expert RPG Theorist!</span></b><br />
A great deal of electronic ink and Internet battle has been spilled and waged over the idea that there are several different "types" of play and that these distinct experiences, goals-of-play, and 'agendas' can be used as a sort of set of 'requirements' for your play experience. This is interesting from an engineering standpoint: Quality in the engineering discipline is described as adherence to the requirements.<br />
<br />
Generally these categories are something like:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Game-ist: you are looking for overcoming a challenge and demonstrating mastery with the rules-system. You want a competitive experience (not necessarily with the other players). You want (to a degree) to "win."</li>
<li>Dramatist / Narrativist: You want the game to feel / play like a story. In the Narrativist category you want, as a Player (not a GM) to have the plot turn explicitly on your decisions (No railroading!!). </li>
<li>Simulation of Some Sort: You want the game to feel like "real life"--possibly "real life in a fictional world" or even genre. In other words, things don't happen because they are more exciting or move-the-plot-along--but rather because "that's what would happen in real life."</li>
<li>Experiential: that people play for a variety of specific experiential reasons ("I want to feel like I'm an elf!") and while that may map to one of the above categories, really, there might be a number of different modes that could achieve them. </li>
</ul>
<div>
Needless to say, all of the above are gross simplifications of ideas that some people think are very complex / important. The question I'm posting here, however, is this: if you were given one of these theories--read all the Internet posts on them--did all the research--could you then run a game to those specifications? Would they be "actionable?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think the answer is more-or-less 'yes.' After all, while the above theories all break down (in some cases, immediately) on contact with reality they are <i>passable</i> at the 30-thousand-foot level to dictate how a game might play or look.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem is, despite what people have said, I think that as a manifesto of "how I want to play" any of these will, in practice, be a <i>warning label. </i>If someone comes to you and tells you they're an X-ist, unless you are a member of that tribe and describe yourself as an X-ist, my experience is that you ought to run.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why is that? I think it's because most play that I've seen that's been fun is not designed by trying to adhere to a specific set of conventions of play and most of these categories are, in practice, negatively defined ("Don't do THAT to me!! NO! NO! NO! Bad GM!"). They are also subject to a lot of different approaches and not all of them will work for a given person.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Expert Improv</span></b></div>
<div>
RPG-Play has been compared to Improvisational Theater. The idea that everyone is (a) playing a character and (b) to a degree, at least, making it up as they go along is pretty interesting. There's also an element of having things thrown at you whether you are the GM or a Player. Which ever side of the GM's screen you "sit on" it's generally better to "roll with it" than to be inflexible (in the GM's chair this leads to railroading--for the Players, it's usually power-struggle).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What if being an expert RPGist meant you were really, really good at interaction with others?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">What Do I Think?</span></b></div>
<div>
I've played RPGs with indie groups. I've played Hero Quest online with Mike Holmes. I played <i>Forward to Adventure</i> down in Uruguay with The RPG Pundit. I've played--for well over a year--online with Clash Bowley. I've played at cons. I've run games for church groups. I ran a game for my parents in 2004 when we were trapped in their house after a hurricane knocked out South Florida.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think (blows on fingers), I'm an expert.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think, online, almost <i>everyone</i> thinks they're an expert (and not just at RPGs--at <i>everything--</i>read a message board sometime!). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of the above list, it's that the last--the Improv one--that is the closest to the truth. Gaming is a complex interactive dynamic and having a spirit of openness and a willingness to compromise (at least to a point) is useful at home, at work, and at the gaming table. What I "get out of play" is a multifaceted thing. If I were trying to use RPG Theory to tell someone "What I wanted" I would have a hard time of it--and I've read pretty much <i>all of it</i>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I'm playing with someone it turns out that what I want from them is always the same anyway: <i>the best they've got at that moment</i>. I expect a certain degree of adult team-work. I want to be able to call a time-out and talk about things if it feels like the game is going to fall apart (this happened once in the IRC game Clash was running--to dramatic effect--maybe I'll blog about that some time). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'd like to have feedback from players when something is working--or when it isn't--but mostly? It's my experience that, just like life, if everyone is doing the best they can then your odds of success are the highest. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Next Up: What Would You Pay For A Great GM?</b></div>
<br />
<hr />
* In some formulations the response to this has simply been to do away with the Game Master role altogether--many indie RPGs do this. This is fine so far as it goes--but the resultant game is not a traditional RPG and is outside the scope of this post.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-880277597379961812013-08-22T11:04:00.002-07:002013-08-26T14:33:40.232-07:00What I Learned From 'What I Learned From Getting Shot'Here are some points on a line:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Many Years Ago</span></b><br />
Before JAGS was up and running I was told a story by my mother: a son of a friend of hers was shot by a random man at an intersection. Apparently the shooter, perhaps thinking the son was involved in some kind of drug violence, fires a shotgun at him through the door of his car. The son apparently thought "He threw a rock at the car" and drove off. He later looked down, discovered he was bleeding out--and barely made it to the hospital in time.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">During The Development of JAGS</span></b><br />
I got my hands on a book called <i>Handgun Stopping Power</i>. The authors had tried to definitively address the question of 1-shot-stops with handguns of various types. They had collated records of shootings as well as taking inch-by-inch segments of the human body and asking doctors the question "If a bullet went through here would it instantly stop you?" Part of the conclusion was that 9mm guns resulted in 1-shot-stops more than .357's.<br />
<br />
While (as I recall) the authors gave no explanation for this, the rationale to me seemed that the kinds of people who carried 9MMs (professionals) were more likely to effect a 1-stop-shot than the kinds of people who carried .357's (usually not-professionals).<br />
<br />
In other words the likelihood of a 1-shot-stop was all about placement.<br />
<br />
One of our favorite games, <i>The Morrow Project</i>, had done a great job of simulating this (for humans--how would it work for a Hydra?).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Yesterday: What I Learned From Being Shot</span></b><br />
Brian Beutler writes about the experience ... of being shot:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The kid opposite Matt drew a small, shiny object from wherever he’d been concealing it and passed it to his accomplice, who was standing opposite me. A second or two lapsed — long enough for me to recognize they weren’t joking, but not long enough for me to beg — before it discharged clap clap clap; <b>my body torqued into the air horizontally, like I’d been blindsided by a linebacker, and I fell to the ground.</b></span></blockquote>
But:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>I stood up right away. Strangely I felt fine.</b> Something had knocked the wind out of me, and my shoulder hurt a little bit, but ridiculously in hindsight we concluded it was an extremely effective prank.</span></blockquote>
And then ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Half a block later I didn’t feel so good anymore. </b>I removed my T-shirt (a red one, inconveniently) and realized it had masked <b>a badly bleeding shoulder wound. </b>My adrenaline-fueled defiance gave way to the gory injury staring me in the face, and some important things dawned on me: I’d been shot</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;">.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;"> </span></blockquote>
They <i>run</i>--and call 911--but:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">We turned north onto 17th Street and <b>made it another 30 feet before I couldn’t run anymore. Couldn’t breathe very well either.</b> That was the moment I realized I’d suffered more than just a flesh wound on my shoulder. I slumped down against a fence on the east side of the street, in pain, but mainly just winded and growing sleepy. No good. I noticed intricate metalwork on a fence across the street and forced myself to focus on it.</span></blockquote>
The paramedics get there just in time ...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>They found an exit wound in my back.</b> They ran fluid into a vein in my left arm to revive my sinking blood pressure, but it worked too well. I no longer felt like I was on the verge of unconsciousness, <b>but for the first time I could feel the full extent of the pain wracking my upper body.</b> I’d strongly advise against getting shot. It hurts very badly.</span></blockquote>
He'd collapsed a lung. They had to remove his spleen.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In my case there were three bullets, including the one in my shoulder, and the injuries were pretty severe. <b>Punctured lung, punctured diaphragm, punctured stomach, ruptured spleen, broken ribs, a hematoma on my kidney. One bullet tunneled harmlessly around the bones and muscles in my shoulder and remains lodged in a back rib on the upper-left side of my body. </b>Doctors removed another with my spleen. The third missed both my aorta and my spine by an inch or less, exited my back and landed on Euclid Stre</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;">et. </span></blockquote>
He spends a week in the hospital--he's lucky to be alive (slight misses to lethal or paralyzing vital locations).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Optional Rules For Shock / Adrenaline </span></b><br />
How would we model this in JAGS? One way to do this would be to have each attack have an "immediate impact" based on its base damage and to-hit roll. Often that could be "nothing." But it could also be "knock down" or "degrade" (other possibilities, like losing the use of a limb would make sense).<br />
<br />
Then, after the combat, start rolling for each wound on the long-term damage effect chart. The GM might even keep these rolls secret if the character didn't have certain traits, medical skills, etc. This would create vast uncertainty about the future (you take a sword blow to the torso--how bad is it? Wait until combat is over to find out!). It would, assuming it was modeled on "real life" be far more deadly than most RPGs.<br />
<br />
I suspect a great deal of combat would resolve to <i>ambush</i> where the PCs would refuse to fight unless the odds were heavily in their favor. This is real--but would it be fun?<br />
<br />
A better question that <i>would it be</i> is <i>could it be</i>?<br />
<br />
For that, don't have to wonder. A game called Bushido Blade came out in 1997 and it featured a combat system where most hits were instant death. You <i>could</i> cripple arms and legs and such--but mostly? If you got hit in the torso? That was it. There were no time-limits or health bars for the duels. It was considered a hit and got rave reviews.<br />
<br />
While it didn't have the uncertainty effect, the common instant death result didn't turn it into a market failure.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">What About RPGs?</span></b><br />
RPGs, though, are different.<br />
<br />
For one thing, if you die there's no start-over button. For another, the average UFC fight takes several minutes and has dozens of blows--if you were to simulate that, even with a single die-roll per blow (combine to-hit and damage in some way and have no roll for how well they take it) that's still orders more than the average JAGS battle has.<br />
<br />
There certainly is a place in RPGs for ultra-deadly combat systems. Morrow Project, The Riddle of Steel, and a bare bones military system called Recon had this feature. There are different ways of modeling realism too. Certainly what happened in these cases was more of an anomaly than not. It may not be an extreme-edge case--but according to the stats, most people shot go down and stay down.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-30287959157351074862013-08-16T10:02:00.003-07:002013-08-16T10:42:29.885-07:00JAGS Fantasy Heartbreaker<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-DuTzhkvhmkcSTXVwfxvLT6j8HfHAOZL-TV9MFTSSnvq2o5z9xsuO9SiJ7NcvlVXjQ9yfnZ9uC_jxSm-y3RUBwPfokQzo7MIoYYMwuCVJ4w5AjgX1FYuZSxEFJesNQL42WA2qeffNE_gM/s1600/003-Monster-Adventurers.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-DuTzhkvhmkcSTXVwfxvLT6j8HfHAOZL-TV9MFTSSnvq2o5z9xsuO9SiJ7NcvlVXjQ9yfnZ9uC_jxSm-y3RUBwPfokQzo7MIoYYMwuCVJ4w5AjgX1FYuZSxEFJesNQL42WA2qeffNE_gM/s400/003-Monster-Adventurers.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In 2002 game designer and theorist Ron Edwards published an article titled <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/">Fantasy Heartbreakers</a>. The crux of the article was more or less this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Boy, there sure are a lot of games that "try to do D&D better" and while they may have an innovative element or two (or think they do due to the designer's lack of experience in the field) they (A) are more labor-of-love than a serious game and (B) don't significantly improve on D&D, overall, in a meaningless fashion. This <i>breaks my heart</i>. </blockquote>
He lists a lot of games you (likely) have never heard of (Hahlmabrea, Pelicar, Darkurthe, etc.). To be fair to Ron he does suggest you play one or more of these--if only to check it out and think critically about it--and part of (or maybe all of?) his broken heart he ascribes to pity for the author(s) for producing games that will fail in the marketplace.<br />
<br />
Fair enough, I guess.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, as with all things RPG-theory, a huge amount of bullshit both accrued around the stated idea (i.e. people using the term X-Heart-breaker* to apply to any game they think is derivative and don't like--while claiming their dismissal is sorta 'scientifically based in theory') and, potentially, lurked behind it, unsaid (example: these games support a traditional mode of play Ron doesn't think much of. Ron's advice to play them is in an anthropological go-amongst-the-natives-and-see-their-simple-ways type of engagement. The player is <i>expected</i> to have a jarring time trying to play these gems).<br />
<br />
I'm not too fond of the presentation here--largely because of the anthropological stance the articles and Ron's RPG-theory in general takes (a lot of so-called RPG-theory is used to say "we <i>roleplay</i>--they/you <i>roll-play</i>--but in fancier language).<br />
<br />
<strike>For better or for worse</strike> Fortunately a lot of the RPG-theory dialog died out when The Forge (a site dedicated to independent game design) closed its doors so you don't have to deal with that theory ... all that much.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">On The Other Hand: JAGS Fantasy Heartbreaker!</span></b><br />
I've been reading, and enjoying, Jacob Poss's <a href="http://walkninginshadows.blogspot.com/2013/08/fatesy-heartbreaker-monsters-and_13.html">FATEsy Heartbreaker</a> series of posts. He's taking FATE and doing "everything he hates with it"--making a fiddly, complicated, fantasy game with lots of off-shoot rules and definitely sort of 'referencing' D&D as its 'source material' rather than, say, Tolkien or whatever.<br />
<br />
Would his game qualify as one of <i>Ron's</i> Fantasy Heartbreakers? Ron's <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/">second article</a> lists these requirements:<br />
<br />
<ol style="font-family: verdana, univers, ariel, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<li>the imaginative content is "fantasy" using gaming, specifically D&D, as the inspirational text;</li>
<li>the publishing context is independently produced as a labor of love, essentially competing directly with D&D in the marketplace;</li>
<li>the rules design recapitulates either D&D or innovations made immediately after D&D, i.e. early 1980s.</li>
</ol>
<br />
So, no. It isn't actually <i>published</i>. It doesn't 'reform D&D's <i>rules</i>' (it uses FATE, an entirely different system), and while I'm not sure it <i>claims</i> homage to D&D, the lampshading of the Heartbreaker theme means it's clearly not just ripping it off.<br />
<br />
We've talked about doing a JAGS Fantasy Heartbreaker (and I wonder if we could get away with using that actual name without people thinking we were crazy. Probably not. We'd discussed having iconography of "broken hearts" throughout the illustrations ... )<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What Would It Look Like?</b></span><br />
The point of making a JAGS Fantasy Heartbreak (JFH) would be to mine the gonzo weirdness that was D&D--along with some of specific <i>flavor</i> of playing D&D (classes, levels, etc.), while still keeping some of the JAGS advantages (such as how combat works or having a skill system or whatever). In other words, it would be to try to "do D&D better."<br />
<br />
As we'd, you know, actually publish it we could hit #1 and #2--but hitting #3 would take some work.<br />
<br />
I also wouldn't quite be interested in <i>copying</i> D&D exactly--the point of making the book wouldn't be as a theory exercise--but rather playing something that gave me a similar feel while still keeping a lot of the stuff I otherwise like (this could be its own article, really).<br />
<br />
Here are some things I'd want to try to do:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Classes -- Especially Weird Ones</span></b><br />
I loved The Dragon (magazine's) NPC classes. You'd get an article that was <i>clearly </i>supposed to be a playable class but was listed as NPC only because, hey, Gygax didn't approve of it. I'd like to have something like "starting classes" and have them expand to other classes of stranger natures. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay does this well.<br />
<br />
Maybe there could be rolls to see if certain "prestige classes" were <i>available</i> to a given character (even if, in the end, they were all balanced).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Levels</span></b><br />
Leveling is an interesting pacing mechanic. You have these specific, step-wise, demarcation points where the nature of the game can change a lot or a little. Leveling up can be fun. It can drive play all by itself (your motivation is totally meta). We have played with our leveling mechanic in the 2-year-long Have-Not game and it was a riot.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Non-Human Races</span></b><br />
Having a set of non-human races available would definitely fit the D&D mold. If you combine races and classes you get a pretty good 'pre-fabricated' character concept right out of the starting gate. Of course none of these races would be, actually, <i>alien</i>. After all, very few people I knew played D&D with 1st level Elfs with the same grandeur that the Lord of the Rings movies had (nor, for that matter, the competence).<br />
<br />
Essentially everyone is mostly human with a few stereotypes blow out of proportion.<br />
<br />
I think I'd have a set of races that were "standard" and then things you could do to get some "unusual races" (possibly including random rolls to see if they were available to you).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Random Roll Character Generation</span></b><br />
JAGS is point-based character design--but as you can see in the JAGS Supers, it's possible to combine rolls and point-buy in interesting ways. I think having some random-roll / life-pathy type stuff at the start of the game to give you some "raw material" with which to start your character off and <i>then</i> have you make some character design decisions might be interesting..<br />
<br />
Like rolls for choice of races? Some starting aptitudes?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Equipment Tables!</span></b><br />
We love detailed equipment tables. Random-roll Pole-arm creation chart? We're there. A dozen different kinds of torch and lantern? Might be too much: half-a-dozen is good. Two different kinds of 10' poles? Cool (is one <i>collapsible</i>). Equipment is interesting as part of a challenge: you have limited resources and need to take stuff that will get you through the dungeons--how do you do that?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Dungeons! Wacky Monsters!</span></b><br />
The basic concept of the dungeon is genius. It combines a free-wheeling chaotic and dangerous environment with a sense of mystery and exploration. There's absolutely zero question about what your goal is, what your role is, or how to approach them. Done well it's a "sandbox" environment with a number of possible routes / decisions open at any time.<br />
<br />
Wacky monsters can be absurd, exciting, and dangerous. A Gelatinous Cube makes no sense--but it's scary and cool. Rust Monster suck. Elementals are awesome.<br />
<br />
Guidelines for using existing web-based dungeon generation tools are a must: random dungeons are great (especially "to start with"--and then the GM can customize them and add specific cool stuff).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Treasure Tables!</span></b><br />
Remember that "mini-game" in Gamma World where you rolled to figure out items? I could see something like that for magic items. I'd like to see a mini-game where you actually rolled for treasure itself (possibly where players could spend their character's Success Points to change rolls!).<br />
<br />
When you find a horde you determine its age and you know the bad-ass rank of the monster. So you start rolling: for each 'age' the monster accrues treasure based on its kills. The treasure (especially magical treasure) has a lot of stuff about the world encoded into it.<br />
<br />
So when you find a haul, you break out the tables and flow-chart and dice up some treasure. Maybe there could be a player-based element of gambling as well ...<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Optional Rules</span></b><br />
I'd probably deploy the JAGS Critical Wound rules (where you can mitigate a damage effect or even actual DP-loss by choosing to roll on a "permanent damage table"--so if you took a Dying result you could roll on a table and get "Lose an Eye" and that would take the place of losing your character.<br />
<br />
I think there are other optional rules that we might use as well (lower Initiative for wearing armor?).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Alignments!</span></b><br />
One of the reward systems JAGS has is Success Points. If you could get SPs for "acting within your Alignment" that might drive some interesting play. Especially if we could come up with weird or clever alignments (maybe 'subheadings' under the major ones) that could help drive some fairly strange or funny behavior (Chaotic Annoying: Scold. You get a SP for any scene where-in you scold another PC or Named NPC for 'not doing it right.').<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Who Would Play This?</span></b><br />
Well, us, of course. The point here though isn't that "I want to play D&D--but just use some other system--" but rather that D&D did, in essence, a lot of things right. Taking those things to heart--even if we modify them somewhat in translation or change them more to our taste--is a best practice.<br />
<br />
And one other thing: the (currently hypothetical) JAGS Fantasy Heartbreaker wouldn't be a non-serious game. Our Have-Not game had "Success Points" as floating spinning coins, bizarre nonsensical dungeons, really weird monsters, levels, classes (we could not 'equip and use' the Emperor's Sword-Guns despite being able to pick them up), and so on. There was more than a little meta-gaming going on there. But we had a serious, engaging, satisfying adventure anyway.<br />
<br />
<hr />
* JAGS has been called a GURPS Heartbreaker. It totally is--but it was a Hero Heartbreaker first, eh?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-56840128051394562502013-08-14T18:41:00.002-07:002013-08-14T18:41:27.482-07:00Magic and Super ScienceHow do you handle Magic--or super-science inventor types? Or are those the same things?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Rules Only The Character Knows</span></b><br />
One way to make magic "magical" in fiction is to have rules to it that the reader never really sees. This is the case of, for example, Gandalf (at least to my reading of Lord of the Rings years ago) where I wasn't really sure what he was capable of--but man, did he have some tricks up his sleeve. He was mysterious.<br />
<br />
In something like Harry Potter, there are clearly some hard-core rules* around how magic works--but we never <i>really</i> learn them. As a result, the characters can sometimes pull a surprise on us--a new spell or some new effect or whatever.<br />
<br />
With super-science gadgeteers / mad-scientists, it's much the same: we don't know exactly what Doc Brown is capable of building (besides a time machine) but while we wouldn't believe he could put together and launch an International Space Station using household goods, we'd probably believe he could turn a microwave oven into some kind of ray-gun. Again: there are fictional rules or guidelines that we don't know the limits of--but presumably the characters themselves do.<br />
<br />
But in role-playing we <i>are</i> the characters. So what do you do?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Problem</span></b><br />
The problem with modeling magic or super-science in fiction is two-fold. The first issue is that magical / mad-scientist characters can do a vast variety of things given the "right conditions." The second issue is that they are (generally) fully aware of their limitations and know a great deal more about the domain that we, the players / readers are going to.<br />
<br />
One solution to this is the Noun-Verb method of magic where characters learn "component pieces" of magic (this could work for technology too) and then combine them in ways that are (mostly) sensible. If you know 'Burn' and 'Person' you can probably <i>immolate</i> someone or maybe cast <i>body of fire</i> on yourself. Maybe both?<br />
<br />
Another solution is Hero's Variable Point Power Pool which allows you to "spend points" at will on a large variety of effects. Hero's excellent list of generic effects works for this--although it can result in some fairly bland results depending on exactly how the spending is allocated and works.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Are There Other Solutions?</span></b><br />
There are. In the original JAGS magic book we opted for a huge (300+) list of spells that was, really, pretty darn 'complete.' A mage might not have many of them (compared to the total) but you could have a fair number--and the rules around them made it so that you could be pretty versatile for "not that many points." We were explicitly trying to 'simulate' computer games (and AD&D, to a degree--which is also what those computer games were simulating) so that was okay.<br />
<br />
JAGS Wonderland's magic system is even better: It's a magic <i>setting</i>. The rules about different levels of reality are fixed / explained and then your degree of training allows you to bend them. You can do Truth or Place / Person by channeling your Shadow a few chessboards down (if this makes no sense go download the free PDF for the Book of Knots and look in the back).<br />
<br />
The fact that a few chessboards down places and people display their "essence" is established: allowing you to 'see it' while being in reality is just a matter of training. To someone who doesn't know the rules, a player using those abilities would seem kind of random and plenty mysterious: for someone who has read the book, though, it makes a lot of sense.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Another Possibility</span></b><br />
JAGS does not have a list of mechanical effects--instead we have something like 400+ individual powers. The degree of coverage with Hero is not all that different (although, to be fair, you can build powers with Hero that we don't cover--we do have power modification rules, though so, you know, maybe ...).<br />
<br />
How might a super-science system work in JAGS? Like this: you spend APs on "Super Science gadgets" and, immediately, take both a reduction in effectiveness (having points that can be re-allocated during play to <i>almost anything</i> is an advantage) but you get some back because it takes time and requires a lab (presumably).<br />
<br />
We then have a Super Science Drama: this is where you make your science skill rolls (three rolls) and try to beat a target number (each point you make your roll by counts--so if you have a 13- skill and roll three 10's in a row, that's 9 points). If you meet your number you get a power boost of some sort--so if you are going for a very powerful device you might want a Target Number of 20 (so you'd have three rolls to try to get a sum-total of 20 success points--good luck if your roll is 13 or less).<br />
<br />
But we have a way to have you mitigate that: Between rolls, if things aren't going well you can roll on "drawback tables." These tables lower your Target Number (making you more likely to succeed) but give you some random drawback to the device (such as the Freeze Ray Gun has a 6-second charge-up time).<br />
<br />
This produces some uncertainty about what the final result will be--but allows the player to have a decent amount of control over the process.<br />
<br />
We can also allow for Mad Science effects where a roll can tell you things like "You need a human brain to complete the device."<br />
<br />
For magic, the rules would be similar--but you could roll on the Black Magic table and get things like corruption of the self or 'causes mutation.' The point would be to have magicians who are exceeding their power-limits be able to take risks or simply degrade their spell in some meaningful way (such as, again, charge up time) to accomplish their goal.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Things Man Was Not Meant To Know</span></b><br />
If I had infinite time and patience I would have a book of "drawback charts" that players would only get to read <i>some of </i>(and note, this would just be for <i>some</i> games where everyone was onboard and thought this was cool)**. The chapter the characters would read would be the "in-game rules" for the charts.<br />
<br />
Such as: a chapter on aligning your mage with extra-dimensional entities. A set of chapters could be about these shadowy, untrustworthy entities who you could call on for help. If you do, you get your power-boost--but you get a roll on the hidden 'cost chart.' The GM then describes to you (maybe in private) what the effect was.<br />
<br />
To the other players this is VERY mysterious (they may not have read the chapter at all--and they don't know what the effect was). To you it's still <i>somewhat</i> mysterious (unless you are very experienced with the hidden chapters)--but you do know a lot of the basic terrain.<br />
<br />
We could do the same thing for super-science: have a chapter that describes the break-through and then if the character learns that break-through, they can then <i>experiment</i> with the hidden tables ("I'll use dimensional gateways technology to power my super-car ... oh, crap: Red Spider Invasion!!"). This would be a way for players, during the act of actual play, to explore the system and the world ...<br />
<br />
<hr />
* In Harry Potter, in a wizard battle, it is possible to connect with a punch or push when you flat out can't hit the target with a ranged attack spell. Presumably either protective wards don't stop "attacks that won't really hurt you" or else magical duelists are really missing out not having death-touch spells they can fire up.<br />
<br />
Also, in HP, what exactly can you do without a wand? Clearly powerful wizards can do <i>something</i> without a wand--but it's never really described how that works.<br />
<br />
And how does Quiddich scoring work anyway!?<br />
<br />
** Warhammer Fantasy did this wonderfully with their bestiary: the book (the first part) is wonderful old-style text and illustrations that <i>describe</i> the monster. The back of the book then has the stats. This allows players to go through a bunch of it and learn cool things--but not entirely look behind the curtain when it comes to the monster's performance in game-mechanics terms. When we do a fantasy monster's book, I'd like to (at least partially) mimic that.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-78211411057805234432013-08-12T06:49:00.002-07:002013-08-12T06:49:50.019-07:00JAGS Supers: A Victim of It's Own SuccessAs I said last post, one of the books I was most interested in writing was a "Villains and Vigilantes"-style super-system. We actually took a first-stab at it.<br />
<br />
It was so successful ... we might not actually produce the book itself.<br />
<br />
What the hell does that all mean!?<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Villains and Vigilantes-Style Supers System</span></b><br />
One of the tests we did for JAGS Revised Archetypes was to make a list of characters we'd put in a world-book. These were some of the "greatest hits" from our several decades of gaming that we'd migrate to the JAGS format (some of them were already done in earlier versions of JAGS too). Going through them, I noticed something: almost universally these characters had very similar construction parameters.<br />
<br />
They were 'balanced' meaning in a "mirror match" with themselves it wouldn't be a 1-shot deal. They were built to "normal humans given powers" specifications (where appropriate--where the original character <i>was</i> a normal human)--rather than some of the super-fast-just-because characters we'd seen (and played) in, for example, Champions (where many characters were very, very fast compared to normal people even if there was no specific justification for it).<br />
<br />
Not all of them had an attack, a defense, and a movement form--but many did. Most didn't have more than one attack period.<br />
<br />
In short, these characters were the product of a similar set of mechanical systems over many years that had produced characters within a set of parameters that were designed to meet the "standard play environment" we had adopted over time. In GURPS, for example, it was cripplingly expensive to give a character multiple bio-weapons (tail, teeth, claws ... and <i>horns</i>!? You must be joking!?) so we generally had characters with just one.<br />
<br />
We expected to fight "at or around" our power-scale and there was, for example, in Champions, no powers that would, usually, instantly win a fight--where the concept didn't exist (or wasn't well represented) we didn't usually have characters that met that standard.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if a game did, for example, contain a "magical petrification gaze" that would take out anyone you looked at--unless they had specific magical defenses--which were rare--in a point-buy system you'd see an awful lot of both.<br />
<br />
I want to note that this trend was neither a bad thing--nor was it an entirely unconscious thing. All games promote some sort of thoughtful design even if it's just simply a choice to play that specific game over another. The lack of 'rare' cheap shots, for example, that would take out 'anyone' might be a bit limiting in super-hero <i>fiction</i>--but in an RPG you don't want every battle to come down to 'who fires first.' The GURPS bio-attack thing was kind of a problem for us--but it was simple to just say "extra bio-attacks after you best one are nearly free" and house-rule it.<br />
<br />
That said, we had always liked V&V for its tendency towards quirky unbalanced characters. We also felt that "rolling up a character" (usually done by the group at the start of play-time) was a lot of fun and a good way to generate energy.<br />
<br />
So we wanted a randomized system for powers ... of some sort.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Basic Idea Of The System</span></b><br />
What I'd envisioned for the JAGS V&V game was a set of random-roll tables ... maybe a "cybernetics table?" Or an "Energy Manipulation Table" or whatever. We could enhance that with rolls for "character's job" or a life-path system that would give you super-siblings or nemesis's or whatever. We'd seen examples of these in other games and more or less liked them.<br />
<br />
We were also going to do this: Give you four rolls for powers and, for each roll you elect to drop, you can get 1 level of "Fast Company Action Hero" ability. This would, we felt, lead to Batman at one end of the spectrum (Fast L4) and Superman (no bullet-dodging acrobatics--just raw super-powers) at the other.<br />
<br />
A lot of characters would come in somewhere in the middle--and we liked that.<br />
<br />
Our twist, though, was going to be that instead of just rolling up a <i>power</i> you would roll a "group of powers" and could spend your points on anything within that group. So if you rolled 'Mutant Appendage,' 'Gravity Control,' 'Super Senses,' and ... I don't know--something else--you could decide to drop Something Else and Mutant Appendage and go Fast Level 2 with one or more Gravity Control Powers and maybe a Super Sense. Or you could just buy Anti-Grav flight from Gravity Control and spend ALL your points on some kind of mega Mutant Appendage ... or whatever.<br />
<br />
The same set of rolls could generate very, very different characters.<br />
<br />
We'd tried something like this with an earlier set of JAGS Archetype rules and liked how it came out (it was very primitive--with almost none of the powers "actually written out"--but by now we'd turned those place-holders into actual powers).<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The World Book</span></b><br />
What happened, though, on our test launch, was this: we took every secondary heading from the JAGS Revised Archetype book and put it into a spreadsheet. There were 89 of them. Each L2 Heading is a group of powers like 'Gravity Control' or even 'Tails' -- stuff like that.<br />
<br />
What I'd done in the intervening years between the first playtest and the almost finished product was to intentionally group all these abilities into logical blocks so that the (eventual) supers game would make more sense. We'd also grouped them into chapters based on commonality--which helped a lot too.<br />
<br />
So when we used the spreadsheet's randomize function to give us "four rolls" on the Master List ... we were stunned.<br />
<br />
It worked. I mean, it worked so well that we could find no modification (such as breaking up the list artificially into, say, Energy Manipulation--which, in this, was part of Domain Control) that we felt sure was a value add.<br />
<br />
We did an Iron Chef test where the same set of rolls was used to make wildly different characters. It worked. We considered making some abilities more common than others (to get to 100 slots, no one has an 89-sided die). It didn't seem to add to the experience.<br />
<br />
We sat back: Hmm ... could <i>that</i> be it? Give people a randomization of the <i>Table of Contents--</i>and some general rules (play on 128 AP, if you <i>roll</i> GATS you can spend as much on them as you want--but if you choose Fast Co you only get to choose up to the listed GAT points for that level--unless you go Fast Co L4, in which case ALL GATS and GEAR powers are available to you).<br />
<br />
The set of parameters was so simple this wasn't a source book: it was a blog post.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Why Did This Happen?</span></b><br />
As I noted above, the reason this worked out the way it did was because during the creation of the actual rules I had <i>already</i> organized the powers in a way that was designed to facilitate the system we knew we were going to build. I'd done the work--I just hadn't realized that the work was complete enough.<br />
<br />
Is there anything we could add?<br />
<br />
Yeah: firstly, characters tend to work better in our games when they have either one attack at a moderate level or two attacks at the same level (which, due to the way the rules work is cheaper than 2x the points). If we could find a way to encourage that--with the random roll rules you rarely get two attacks you might want--that might help.<br />
<br />
We could add life-path stuff. Why not? It's easy enough to ditch if you don't want it.<br />
<br />
We could add a Power Modification Table which you could choose to roll on and it would give you some enforced rules for modifying your abilities ...<br />
<br />
Right now Weaknesses is one power-slot. We could make it it's own thing and make it an optional roll ...<br />
<br />
So there's <i>a little</i>. But mostly?<br />
<br />
If you want the randomization spreadsheet, it's in Google Docs. Let me know and I can share it with you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-62809132143867268182013-08-06T07:03:00.000-07:002013-08-06T07:03:03.078-07:00Game Design GoalsWith JAGS Revised Archetypes slowly cruising in for a landing I'd like to take this blog-space to do more gaming theory / best-practices posts. We'll see how that goes.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>A Question For Game Designers</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">How much effort would you put into your mechanics to make sure they could "realistically" model (and <u>distinguish</u> from one-another) the actual human </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">players</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> who will be sitting around the table playing the game?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">How much do you think this kind of detailed mechanical modeling would contribute to the "fun" of the play experience?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Several Points On A Line</span></b><br />
Here's some personal history.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Point 1: Villains and Vigilantes</span></b><br />
Before we were playing Hero and GURPS almost exclusively we were playing a <i>lot</i> of things. One of these--one of our favorite games--was Villains and Vigilantes:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWiw-LeSC84-1Ga5CsH3q-NtYIfoxNVzkJpYWkBXhl3lAHoJWk4EjYKDyzhVmJO8uz_5_PdmZyLsY6vUHKRcBRCdK1YO8TK2WAz4I4EH1pVBDc7hw0F9fF8NoQKhWJ21_HkQf2NiMOHW0W/s1600/VaV.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWiw-LeSC84-1Ga5CsH3q-NtYIfoxNVzkJpYWkBXhl3lAHoJWk4EjYKDyzhVmJO8uz_5_PdmZyLsY6vUHKRcBRCdK1YO8TK2WAz4I4EH1pVBDc7hw0F9fF8NoQKhWJ21_HkQf2NiMOHW0W/s1600/VaV.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nobody Does 'Anatomy' Like Jeff Dee</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Amongst other things, one of the givens in V&V was that you played <i>yourself</i>. That is: the GM was supposed to kind of tell you what your stats were (I saw commentary asking how the game master was supposed to tell the guy with the 18 Strength he had a 3 Intelligence--I doubt that would be a problem in most 80's Roleplaying groups ...).<br />
<br />
We tried doing that about once (mostly we just did what Dungeons and Dragons did and rolled dice for our stats--usually, I think, 4d6 and drop the lowest ...). It wasn't a great success. We weren't sophisticated enough to map our lives as high-school students into something interesting in game terms and the idea of the Game Master running, like, our parents and stuff seemed (to me, anyway) a bit creepy. Also: our stats would've been pretty average (save for INT--I'm sure we'd all have demanded high scores there)--but there just wasn't much <i>guidance </i>for mapping things. The game petered out. We never tried that again.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Point 2: A Hero Experiment</span></b><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaCXP_VNK3DW6LJeRAC1aBtiOdoP-JZ7g1z5M9rktZFdiTgxdLbqa0OuSIH1I184LMNFLIe2y80k1Mfsq0bpGrN9a_ymg3kiSy9zoAw-OUb8hRp_v1k-V7c7vHWp9bw26Gw-F6i-xmhsCs/s1600/DI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaCXP_VNK3DW6LJeRAC1aBtiOdoP-JZ7g1z5M9rktZFdiTgxdLbqa0OuSIH1I184LMNFLIe2y80k1Mfsq0bpGrN9a_ymg3kiSy9zoAw-OUb8hRp_v1k-V7c7vHWp9bw26Gw-F6i-xmhsCs/s1600/DI.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Now THAT Was A Cover!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
By late high school we were playing a lot of Hero-System (Champions, Fantasy Hero, Danger International). We had moved to this, over time, almost exclusively as it seemed to meet more and more of our game-system needs. One night in the summer our group decided to "stat ourselves." This was done in the worst possible way: each person would make out the stats for <i>another person</i> and then we'd share with the group and tweak it. This had the potential for amazing cruelty--however, thankfully, that didn't happen. What we did learn was this:<br />
<ul>
<li>The <i>resolution level</i> of Danger International was pretty low. Was the strong guy in the group an 11 STR? A 12? A 13? What about the smart people? The only numbers that made a difference on skill rolls were divisions by 5 (with rounding). Who was a 13 or a 14? How arrogant did you have to be before you got <i>points </i>for Overconfidence?</li>
<li>I'm not proud of the fact that there was actually a debate as to whether the black guy got extra (intimidating) <i>Presence</i> for being black. I am moderately proud that we had a black guy in the group (two, actually--and we got hassled by the cops driving through their neighborhood to drop them off more than once). I'm also pleased that I came down on the side that while the guy (John), would have a high PRE score, it was <i>not</i> for being <i>black</i>. I'm also glad that despite having the discussion, no one (even the black guy who was there for it) got offended.</li>
<li>Our characters came out fairly sparse: we were RPG-geeks and trying to cleave to the actual rules meant none of us had really spectacular stats or skills (just because you <i>could</i> drive didn't mean you got a good driving roll--and none of us were <i>stunt </i>drivers).</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Point 3: GURPS</span></b></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiog2_7kJfxzUWFRBPCpBj-YzhyUW-49x9GWAcdFjPykM6s_vGLp5DNLYUmhi0GZ3BrC3kmrUejxe6KzAI0ObMmyyFMiDTp7t9abWZhCObqp9qk7W3aEW_KUhZqlpFB5A9AIiXDMKJZ0cVP/s1600/GURPS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiog2_7kJfxzUWFRBPCpBj-YzhyUW-49x9GWAcdFjPykM6s_vGLp5DNLYUmhi0GZ3BrC3kmrUejxe6KzAI0ObMmyyFMiDTp7t9abWZhCObqp9qk7W3aEW_KUhZqlpFB5A9AIiXDMKJZ0cVP/s320/GURPS.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This Is A Terrible (and Boring) Cover. Look At It: A 'Universal' System--But Everyone's In Their Own Bubbles!!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
When we got our hands on GURPS 3rd Edition, while it was in some ways worse than Hero (Hero 5th Ed was not out yet) we moved to it, again, almost exclusively. By the time GURPS came out we were no longer especially interested in playing ourselves--but we were playing a lot of lower-level more "mortal" characters (One could argue that GURPS 3rd wasn't especially elegant for anything else). </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>GURPS' advantage over Hero, for us, was in terms of 'Verisimilitude'--which usually gets described as "realism" in RPG-talk. I prefer verisimilitude as I don't honestly think any RPG systems are "really realistic" in what I would describe as the clinical sense. For us, verisimilitude means "what happens in the game more or less usually meets my expectations of what would happen in either (a) real life (b) in a movie or TV show that didn't break my suspension of disbelief or (c) what would happen in genre fiction of the sort the game falls into. Thus, a blow to the back of the head could (a) cause pain and damage with a knock-out causing lasting harm (b) cause a knock-out to a lesser character but might not take out a bad-ass or (c) could cleanly and otherwise harmlessly take out <i>anyone</i>. These would all be acceptable (so long as they more or less fit the profile) but if, for example, a direct hit with a LAW Rocket won't take out a gorilla (Marvel Super Heroes 1st Edition) I have a problem with that. </li>
<li>For "very low level characters" (such as normal high school students) the system still had a reasonably good "resolution."</li>
<li>There was more variation in "low level" or "basic" hand guns than in Danger International. One of my favorite game books of all time is The Armory--but its 'stats' section was filled with identical guns which, while fine was less than inspiring. GURPS' High Tech, on the other hand, had a lot of weapons with very good distinction.</li>
</ul>
<div>
We never tried playing "ourselves" in GURPS--but we did play people kind of like ourselves from time to time and had a good experience with it.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">JAGS Goals Model</span></b></div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAZeEqLHpU9YeDHUHOw3pC_hSRNT-6U9gERJg6DBtFsiF_gdaUdj8L5TXDFdWOgGATfmohpQIWvJElC3E5sMhz4KdGPm5D1cf6Wrcu4O7Z5ewxVWoyogiHyTVczztmSyxG3OgYRoPIEKAA/s1600/JAGS+Goals.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAZeEqLHpU9YeDHUHOw3pC_hSRNT-6U9gERJg6DBtFsiF_gdaUdj8L5TXDFdWOgGATfmohpQIWvJElC3E5sMhz4KdGPm5D1cf6Wrcu4O7Z5ewxVWoyogiHyTVczztmSyxG3OgYRoPIEKAA/s640/JAGS+Goals.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Partial JAGS "Goals Model"--The Lower Goals 'Support' The Higher Level Ones</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
What's pictured above is a partial "Goals Model" for JAGS. The idea is that the highest-level circle (goal) is supported by the lower level ones. This means that "to make the game fun" we think you need to have reasonable handling time-mechanics that meet player expectations (for outcomes) and provide a "rich experience" (whatever that means).<br />
<br />
In order to have "meet expected outcomes," for example, we think you need to base game mechanics on research (what fall, from what height, is usually fatal? How much weight does it take to crush someone using Gravity Control ... or rocks? How fast can a wasp fly?). We also think that the mechanics need to model "normal people" before they can model "heroes." And so on.<br />
<br />
This is certainly <i>partial</i> (part of Reasonable Handling Time would also be things like limit the math, provide charts and tables where possible, don't proliferate dice rolls or systems that require interaction between players, and so on--anyone who has looked at JAGS will wonder how we could think those things and still produce the mechanics we did ... I encourage you to look at the 20 year old first-drafts!)<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Our Answer</span></b><br />
As the personal history shows, looking for a high degree of mechanical resolution around "normal people" actually <i>drove</i> our choice of games and systems to a powerful degree. Even today, when I look at anything on the market I mentally model it in GURPS, Hero, and JAGS. This isn't to say there isn't room and need for a vast array of rules and systems--but within certain parameters (such as the style of play the above goals-model meets) <i>focused</i> mechanics--game rules that zero in on a specific set of play assumptions and support those to the exclusion of all else--can be a <i>drawback</i> compared to a more universal system with add-ons for specific characters.<br />
<br />
Also: Here is a picture of me just after I qualified for 12 STR.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFXk4_wbEnFxGiQlCdPy_qBOEJNYqIKub8r5Hj-6arz7o71puF4pM3Nuk-l_5zGSUx9FFvSzGQ-HuE_OS1dU_LhcnRPSqf6FFCooeQ0v5QvANw06ptR3PmNwuQi2DFOBBtSB2MyBwVWnSc/s1600/12+STR.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFXk4_wbEnFxGiQlCdPy_qBOEJNYqIKub8r5Hj-6arz7o71puF4pM3Nuk-l_5zGSUx9FFvSzGQ-HuE_OS1dU_LhcnRPSqf6FFCooeQ0v5QvANw06ptR3PmNwuQi2DFOBBtSB2MyBwVWnSc/s320/12+STR.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Huzza!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-84728566159579211932013-08-04T11:40:00.000-07:002013-08-04T11:40:02.417-07:00Where are we NOW!?<b><span style="font-size: large;">Current State</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Complete (proofed, typeset, most artwork added in):</b><br />
.- First Chapter.<br />
.- Generic Archetype Abilities<br />
.- Innate Powers<br />
.- Psionics<br />
.- Cybernetics.<br />
<br />
<b>In Process:</b><br />
.- Domain Control Powers<br />
<br />
<b>To Do</b><br />
.- Gear / Ability Modification<br />
.- Back of Book<br />
<br />
Total Complete Pages: 200<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">On Master TODO List</span></b><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">This will be somewhat cryptic--it's from my files so I'm not amplifying a lot here.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">1. Add vehicle gat</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
2. Warlock/witchcraft (add male name)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
3. Justify followers with domain control</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
4. Color biker pic</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
5. Color super size pic</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
6. Add 3 energy attack pics (Santiago)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
7. Commission 5 - 10 more innate power pics (elance)?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
8. Add 'missile/rocket' <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> gear</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
9. Figure out staff / tonfa gear </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
10. Check RA values for Psionics</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
11. Add table for combat mods <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> power mods</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
12. Add indirect fire <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> power mods (several levels)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
13. Check for sensory link / driver / drone for battle beast (if you must drive it, it's cheaper)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
14. Commission several characters (5-10?) with "action shots"--color foreground, black and white action background for Psionics and domain control</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
15. Add benchmark <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> back of book</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
16. Figure out scale grapple score rules (put them in back of book)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
17. Add resisted attack mods for negative damage mods <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> back of book</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
18. Add parabolic hearing <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> cybernetics </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
17. Several pics for gear (weapons, armor, etc.) elance?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
19. Several (3-5) pics for power mod (elance)?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
20. Two covers (think this is 2 books)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">To</span> consider:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
1. Shotgun squid for cyber?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
2. Oracle gear for cyber?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
3. Total communication compromise (quantum decrypters) for cyber</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
4. Sensory drones for cyber? Will "drone" work?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
5. Cyber Built, etc (plastic surgery bronzed) How does this work?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
6. Time control RA <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> slow people down? How would it work? Would time slowed ppl take less damage?</div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">1. Note that Fast Co bonus adds </span><span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">to</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;"> grapple</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
2. Fix Seduce L4</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
3. Gray out SHARP's 2nd line</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
4. Gray out BRAINIAC 2nd line</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
5. Fix Bullet Time Cost (GAT List)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">Define rolls / results for Mysticism.</span><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
.- Total Knowledge: made roll (skill-5) is like a PER roll made by 10.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
Add banishing <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> Warlock.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
'Lying <span class="il" style="background-color: #ffffcc;">to</span> Telepaths' should be -1 per point of RES-10</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<span style="font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">1. Get Mod Points out of Cyber and Fast Company (Cyber Eye and FC gear)</span><div style="font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
2. Get Mod Points out of "Cool gear" in GATS</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.499999046325684px;">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Takeaway</span></b><br />The book is very, very close to completion. Using Worm characters to "playtest" supers was very effective at finding weak-points in the rules. We could keep doing that indefinitely. I'd like to do "a few more" character builds--but we're in much better shape than I thought we'd be by this point. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This work has been on-going for ... perhaps ... six or more years. In a sense it's been underway since I first tried to "rationalize" the set of JAGS printed rules back in around 2003 or '04 and failed spectacularly. This will be a major personal accomplishment / milestone.<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-33200146886384525982013-06-13T09:47:00.002-07:002013-06-13T09:47:44.498-07:00What's Going On Now?Right now I have (a) an editor working on Fast Company (b) an InDesign person (who is excellent) working on doing the layout for the first 131 pages and (c) I just completed an artwork buy from Jason Moser who is freakin' AWESOME. I'll post some of the pieces here when I get the chance.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So things are progressing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What's Coming Up?</b></div>
<div>
In a couple of weeks I should have the first 13pgs illustrated complete. That'll be:</div>
<div>
1. The opening chapter</div>
<div>
2. Generic Archetype Abilities</div>
<div>
3. Innate Powers</div>
<div>
4. Cybernetics</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Following that will be</div>
<div>
5. Fast Company (mostly illustrated)</div>
<div>
6. Psionics (lightly illustrated)</div>
<div>
7. Domain Control (lightly illustrated)</div>
<div>
8. Gear and Power Modification (lightly illustrated)</div>
<div>
9. Closing Chapter (not illustrated)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At that point we'll have either one or two books (depending on final page count and such) and will "go to press" (Print On Demand).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What Then?</b></div>
<div>
Then we have some decisions to make. On the table are:</div>
<div>
1. Update the website. This dearly needs to happen but ... bleah.</div>
<div>
2. Revise JAGS Wonderland. It's our most popular setting. The powers could stand updating and it needs to be edited (we did our best--honest).</div>
<div>
3. Update JAGS Have-Not: our gonzo post-apocalypse setting. This would be easier and more fun. We'd integrate the level rules, re-do the (large) weapons, monsters, and treasure lists. Do a couple of sections of world-expansion, and so on. A LOT of the book was taken up with mutant rules and so on--as those are now in Revised it's a lot more setting stuff.</div>
<div>
4. Update C-13: The Thirteen Colonies. It gets no love but it's our Steampunk / magic historical setting. We're fairly proud of it--but no one uses it much.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>--OR--</b></div>
<div>
1. The Wonderland Home Companion. New rules, Twists, Monsters, and campaign ideas. More material to "jumpstart" or populate a JAGS Wonderland game. A lot of people want this and we could certainly write it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. JAGS 'Heroes and Hooligans'--We'd call it JAGS Villains and Vigilantes but, you know, copyright. This is a Supers system where you choose from one of many tables and roll dice (d100's!!) to determine what categories of powers you have as an option. THEN you spend APs to buy powers from one or more of those sets ...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So you get 4 rolls: you can roll on tables like Magical Devices, Super Powers, Mutant Abilities, Psionic Powers, Exotic Powers, and so on. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After you roll you have a a choice: you can either ditch that roll for 1 level of Fast Company (if you ditch all those rolls you are FC L4) or you can spend your APs to buy powers from that section. It combines random-roll and point-buy in a way we think will be cool. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It would also come with a bunch of characters which would sort of 'illustrate' the world.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. JAGS Micro-Kiaju: An anime setting where you play Micro-Kiaju trainers--these are sort of pokemon monsters (there are also macro-kiaju in the world--and characters who <i>turn into </i>giant monsters). We have a taxonomy of micro kiaju and rules for battling them and they're cool!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
4. Something else?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The truth is that we'll work on whatever we get the most momentum for (internally) and I'm not sure what that'll be right now. But these are things we have "at top of mind."</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-29662480321611453862013-05-13T12:59:00.000-07:002013-05-13T13:10:38.771-07:00Siberian (Over Unity Characters)I'm back from a posting hiatus to take a look at another Worm-verse character. In the unlikely event you have no idea what I'm talking about, <a href="http://parahumans.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/1-1/">look here</a>. Worm is a supervillain web-serial that, aside from being very well written and engaging, has absolutely fantastic characters. <i>No one</i> has a simple power-set (I'll extend the compliment to the way the characters are realized and portrayed--but that's a little outside the scope of this blog).<br />
<br />
As such they make an <i>excellent</i> lens for us to look at the JAGS Archetypes rules through: they pose questions we have simply been unable to come up with on our own. The goal is to take a character and then try to simulate them to whatever degree the game-system allows (or that we want to--I'm not interested in <i>literally</i> being able to simulate every event in the fiction ... which might be an interesting post in and of itself).<br />
<br />
In this case: one of the most powerful and troubling characters in the series--the savage <b>Siberian</b>.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Siberian</span></b><br />
I thought the name might apply to the Siberian Tiger--as the character is "stripped" in appearance--but the character is black and white--and Siberian tigers are normal tiger color. I'm not sure where the name comes from. Siberian is pure-villain: lethal, mega-powerful, and doesn't talk much at all. She is part of a group of 'monsters' (the Slaughterhouse Nine) who go around the country causing terror and misery as, more or less, performance art.<br />
<br />
Siberian appears as a naked woman with black and white striped skin. She is semi-feral.<br />
<br />
Siberian's powers--at least in non-spoiler mode--are as follows:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Completely indestructible. She can <i>lend</i> her indestructibility to others through touch.</li>
<li>Unbelievable strong--even for super strength types--<i>and </i>her attacks ignore, well, everything. She can hurt other "indestructible" characters.</li>
<li>Super fast--both runs really fast and strikes super quickly.</li>
<li>Doesn't need to breathe, eat, etc.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>NOTE: </b>As the story develops you learn more about her--I'm doing the "basic version" here as there is no need to spoil things (and the game system does handle the spoiler version pretty elegantly).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>First Things First: Siberian is a Bazillion Archetype Points</b></div>
<div>
JAGS Revised allows characters to be built on zero AP's (mundane humans) or 32 APs (talented agents--maybe Jason Borune like?)--or 128 APs (super heroes)--or a million APs or whatever (Optimus Prime?). For one of the "most powerful characters in a superhero verse" Siberian would clearly be a <i>lot</i> of points.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
She's even way more expensive than most of the Slaughterhouse Nine--her teammates--if you want to think of it that way (and you don't have to go too far into game mechanics mode to think of it that way: if you could have any set of their powers for yourself, her's would probably cost the most money of all of them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But ... there is a problem: under the current system, <i>no</i> amount of money will buy you Indestructible <u>and</u> Super Speed: both cost a percentage of your points and that goes over 1--meaning no matter how many APs you got--those two alone ... cost more than you have.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We have been looking at ways to address this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Easy Part: Part 1 (Basic Powers)</b></div>
<div>
Being super strong and having your punches ignore armor--we got. That's Super Strength with the Ignores Armor modifier. No problemo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Secondly, Doesn't Eat, Breathe, Sleep? Easy: 2 AP's for No Biological Weaknesses (okay, maybe she sleeps ... I don't know).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thirdly? Super fast running? She's not like "the flash" where she can go from New York to LA in seconds--but she can outrun most cars, I think. That's still like 3 APs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Easy Part: Part 2 (Scale Number)</b></div>
<div>
Siberian can, say ... I don't know ... chuck a car across a football field? Pick up a rock that weighs a few tons? Whatever--she's really strong. Exactly how strong is less interesting to me specifically than that she is just super-duper-strong.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We have a way to deal with this with some degree of elegance: Scale Number. You pick a number for your game (usually all PCs are the same Scale Number) and you multiply all relevant values by that number. So if she starts life with the normal 10 Damage Points and is Scale Number 10, she now has 100 Damage Points.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Easy enough? Siberian is some high Scale Number character. Exactly how strong depends on what exactly you want her to play like.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Done-and-done.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Hard Part, Part 1: Punches Effect OTHER Indestructible Characters</b></div>
<div>
In the story she doesn't just tear up really tough things--she can tear up just about <i>anything</i>--including other indestructible characters. Now: the system <u>already</u> handles this to a degree. If we assume that <i>most</i> characters who are "immune" to things buy a version of immunity which gives you TONS OF ARMOR (there is one--it's slightly cheaper than 'pure' indestructibility) then she's set: she punches Alexandria who has the TONS-OF-ARMOR version and ignores all of it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what if other people in the game buy Indestructible <i>too--</i>the pure form--can she take an enhancement that will hurt <i>them</i>?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In theory: yes. In practice: How much would it cost?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is interesting. Firstly, pure invulnerability is probably <i>really rare</i>. It costs 94% of your APs--this means:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>To have anything left you better be over 100 APs</li>
<li>You can't have any other TAP (percent of your Total Archetype Point) abilities unless they are .06 or less.</li>
</ol>
<div>
But ... come on--someone's going to have it. In the Worm-verse ... maybe a lot of people (Crawler is said to be "immune" to things after he survives them--is this <i>literal</i> or does he just get a lot of extra defense? If he survives high-heat--can he survive falling into the sun? Probably not).</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So let's say there's an enhancement: Hurts INV characters. We will propose it is either Small, Medium, or Large in cost (don't worry about what that means right now).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Enhancements are evaluated based on (a) how often they come into play and (b) how good they are when they do. I would say that this is relevant 'very rarely' (one time in 10 play sessions) but that it is <u>extremely good</u> (in fact: it wins the battle) when it is in play. Does this cancel? Kinda--which would tend to make the enhancement small.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there's another issue: for characters with Invulnerability (of any sort) this enhancement being out there is a BIG DEAL. If I spend 94% of my points on not being able to be hurt--and you can spend, say 4% of your points to hurt me ... I'm screwed. Even if it's pretty rare that someone does do that--when they do, my whole character is wasted.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So I think that this is actually Medium or Large. I'm going to go with Large on the Game of Risk rule: Tie Goes To The Defender. That's always felt fair to me.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Hard Part Part 2: Loaning INV to Other Characters</b></div>
<div>
If Siberian is touching you she can shield you--from <i>anything</i>. In one battle this giant steel-melting 'sun' passes over her and her allies and she saves them. This thing presumably uses all the oxygen--so it saves you from asphyxiation too? This is a <i>really</i> good power (note: in JAGS we don't track asphyxiation from fire attacks--although at one point some optional rules <i>did</i> and it was considered too fiddly even for me ... which is saying something ... and that something isn't good).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So how much does that cost?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, we assume that groups have about 3-5 people in them on average. If you buy a super-sense that you can just "give to all your allies" we think that's 5x the cost (so if you have 10 people in your group--yay you!).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The requirement that you touch the people, though, limits it. I am estimating to around 2x the cost since it seems a bit unlikely that this will be in play <i>all that often</i> if the battle is at all dynamic. Maybe 3x?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Really Hard Part:</b> <b>Over Unity</b></div>
<div>
So now we get to the hard part--the really hard part--how do we handle Super Speed <i>and</i> invulnerability combined? We looked at one option a few post ago (we called it 'Stack' for bad reasons--but we're ditching that). What's our current thinking?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Our current thinking is something called BaseLine. Remember that these TAP (Total AP Cost) Powers are based on a percentage of your total points. If you are a 100 AP character, invulnerability cost you 94 AP.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We think that there is a way to "exceed" your Total AP cost with higher Scale Number characters: specifically to say "if you are Scale Number 10 and 100 AP, you can buy TAP abilities as though you were 50 AP--but then you're Scale Number 5."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You can do this again (and again, and so on)--if you want to be Scale Number 2.5 your TAP powers are treated as though you were only 25 AP (so Invulnerability now costs 25 AP. Super Speed costs around 13).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This leaves plenty of APs for her Super Strength, Running, No Biological Weaknesses, and so on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Exactly what Scale she starts at (I'd start her at 400 as a test-case) and how much she cuts down (I'd cut her Scale in half twice--so she's SN 100 and buys TAP abilities as though her Total AP cost was 32 AP).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Conclusions</b></div>
<div>
If we decide we like this BaseLine approach--and we already like what we've tested of it--it provides a good mechanism for doing extreme characters like Batman or Captain America who also have more TAP stuff than is generally allowed. Just build them at Scale Number 2 or 4 and they come out "human scale" but can load up on TAP abilities.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This <i>does</i> raise a few harder questions:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>When Do You Do This?</b></div>
<div>
The answer is that most PCs are expected to be the same AP cost and Scale Number. If I am playing in the Super Friends game and wish to play Batman, my buddies may be Scale Number 100--but I can cut down to Scale Number, say 2 or something and buy TAP stuff for next to nothing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course I'll be utterly irrelevant when it comes to dealing damage or, for that matter, unless I buy Invulnerability of some sort, taking it. I'll have to rely on large SP point pools so as not to be hit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Is It Fair?</b></div>
<div>
What we like about using Scale Number reductions to allow more TAP is that our tests seem to indicate that, if you choose the numbers with some care, the results are good. The problem, if there is one, is that you quickly run out of roles for characters who are 1/2 or 1/4th as powerful as the "power houses." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That is kinda how the fiction works--but I'm not sure most gaming I've seen simulates power-imbalance in a fun fashion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That said, this build does Siberian pretty well: she's a holy terror and her Scale Number might be equal to, say, Crawler, when all is said and done (if Siberian and Crawler were the two even-scale PCs ... that'd be one <i>strange</i> game).</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-52663604244604816642013-04-17T10:32:00.001-07:002013-04-17T10:32:17.353-07:00Night and Fog Part 1I'm going to take a look at a duo from the <a href="http://parahumans.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/1-1/">Worm-verse</a> (an excellent super-hero web-serial you should be reading): Night and Fog.<br />
<br />
Night and Fog are a supervillian team who are psychotics who sort of "play" at being husband and wife but are really ... something something (I'm not sure--they seemed personable enough if not exactly functional during their interlude). They compliment each other:<br />
<br />
Let's see:<br />
<br />
<b>Fog</b><br />
Fog is the "simpler" of the two. He can turn his body into a dark gas. If you inhale it, he can re-form and kill you. He can float around as a dark cloud choking or bloodily exploding the life out of you. Apparently his clothes turn too (I don't recall him being naked after transformation).<br />
<br />
<b>Night</b><br />
When she is not being watched--with human sight--she turns into a super fast, super hard, multi-legged spider-like thing which is, uh, super strong--and COVERED WITH BLADES. When she transforms from human to nightmare-form she heals all damage. Her change is <i>automatic</i>: if she is unconscious and you take your eyes off her? Poof--she's fine.<br />
<br />
<b>Questions About The Characters</b><br />
Here are some things we're not sure of. I've put my answers in here--but they can easily be corrected if the Worm author, Wildbow steps in.<br />
<br />
<b>Fog Questions</b><br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>How susceptible is Fog to fire or other energy attacks? Will the fog "burn"? Would plasma bolts or radiation hurt him? <i>My Answer: </i>Somewhat--I would expect him to flee a really hot area--something hot enough to start breaking down other gases. I wouldn't expect "lasers" or something like the X-Men's Cyclops' blast to do much.</li>
<li>How big does Fog's radius get. <i>My Answer:</i><b style="font-style: italic;"> </b>Big enough to fill a livingroom. </li>
<li>Can wind-blasts disrupt him--can he re-form if he is being actively dispersed? <i>My Answer:</i> Yes--but they don't harm him. If he was caught in something that truly scattered him (a nuclear explosion) I would expect him to die, even if in gas form.</li>
<li>What can he do if you <i>don't</i> inhale him? <i>My Answer:</i> Not much.</li>
<li>Can he kill several people at once--or must he pick one to reconstruct inside? <i>My Answer: </i>One at a time--it's him reforming and I wouldn't think he could do that in "several places."</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>Night Questions</b></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>If her night-form was badly hurt and and she was then seen, would she appear unhurt--or bloody. Clearly going the <i>other</i> way regenerates her. <i>My Answer:</i><b style="font-style: italic;"> </b>I ... don't know. I think it is more interesting if her night-form's damage remained. I think the rule would be she <u>always</u> wants to be in night-form rather than going back and forth constantly.</li>
<li>Just how hard is she to hurt? <i>My Answer:</i> Pretty tough--but not indestructible. Enough to stand up to an assault rifle but not a heavy machine gun (this is a pure guess--she might be nearly invincible for all I know).</li>
<li>Would Night transform if she was <i>dead</i>? <i>My Answer:</i> No. If you shot and killed her </li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>Notes</b></div>
</div>
<div>
Fog is straight-forward to a degree--although our examination of the rules found some holes that needed fixing. Night is <i>much</i> harder because of the absolute regeneration on transformation. We're still talking about that. If her night-form maintains damage it's much easier. If she insta-heals several times a fight ... much harder.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These are <u>not</u> characters you would want PCs to generally play--they make a very fearsome team for the right group but they are both incredibly one-sided when their approach works ... and very vulnerable when it does not. This is hardly idea for a PC Group. This doesn't mean their illegitimate -it just means playing them would have some ... challenges.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What is "Only when not being watched worth?" In JAGS terms it is probably either a LARGE (-30% cost) or VERY LARGE (-90% Cost). Right now those are the two big-league defect-levels and there's nothing in between (but you can have more than one LARGE).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Clearly for a ranged attack, VERY LARGE is too much: snipers <i>always</i> attack from parts unseen. But for hand-to-hand combatants it's a lot harder to get close without being seen. We are talking about the "totality of the circumstance" as a factor (i.e. she is teamed up with someone who makes it hard to see!)--but we don't really <i>like that</i> for most 'circumstances.' </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At 90% Cost Break, a "D&D Thief Back-Stab" (which, presumably, has the same defect) would turn 10 APs into 100 APs. That's ... a lot. By any measure it is enough to end a single target of any reasonable point-scale. So we have to think carefully about that. Perhaps VERY LARGE should be more like 60% or 70% instead of 90%.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After some more consideration, I'll post the stats.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-83471827327170017232013-04-02T13:41:00.001-07:002013-04-02T13:41:22.507-07:00The Batman-Like ObjectOne of the things we learned when making Worm characters (which I intend to continue with--we're learning a lot) is that we <i>really</i> want to mix <i>Fast Company</i> packages with a bunch of TAP abilities like extra speed, weapons precision, and Success Point Pools.<br />
<br />
The problem is: You Can't (really). Most meaningful combinations are "over unity."<br />
<br />
Let me explain all that nonsense.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><i>Fast Company</i>: Fast Company packages are one of 4 (level 1 to level 4) groups of powers that you can buy a character which makes them "an action hero." Namely they tend to be quick, acrobatic, and they hit pretty hard (for a normal guy). They also take less damage than most when shot at or hit. They're resilient. So if Jason Bourne is FC Level 1--and Ozymandias from Watchmen is like Level 4 or something (and we could argue all day) you pick the bad-ass level of your character and "pay the points" and go "Now I'm Fast Co Level 3" or whatever.</li>
<li>TAP Abilities: Some abilities just cost 4 points or 8 points or even "8 points per level of the ability you buy" but SOME cost like 41% of your points. Those are TAP (Cost is based on Total Archetype Points). Things like super-speed and being hard to hit are TAP based. Things like doing a lot of damage are normal cost. Fast Company is TAP (with some normal cost as well).</li>
<li>Over Unity Characters. If you add up a lot of TAP powers whose costs are expressed as, like .41 and .18 and so on, if you get a number that is 1 or higher the character costs 100% or more of the points you have to spend. Such a character is <i>illegal</i>.</li>
</ol>
<div>
So what was happening? Take The Jedi.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Jedi</b></div>
<div>
For purposes of this discussion The Jedi is a character with a <u>light saber</u> who expects to fight other characters with light sabers. He is a Fast Company Level 2 bad-ass who has a weapon that, if it hits by 0-3 (a glancing blow) does, well, "pretty darn good" damage. If he hits by 4 or more (a vital hit) he does ... YOUR MOMMA. Basically, if he hits by 4+ he will kill almost anything human unless protected by blast door armor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How do you deal with such a character dueling another such character? The answer is: Success Point Pools. the characters have SPs that they spend during the fight to reduce the level of blows that do hit down to the 0-3 (or even down to a miss). This means the "reasonable" level of damage will come off their Damage Points while a really good hit would eviscerate them--the SP pool ensures that won't happen with just one-lucky-hit (okay, it can--but it has to be <i>really lucky</i>).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is, we think, good for the game: if you make characters this way they can engage in light-saber duels but their training (which is what the pool more or less represents) will protect them from a sudden killing blow unless from a substantially superior opponent (your opponent can spend SPs for a better hit).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem was: either these guys were 100's of Archetype Points or, at the higher levels, "Over Unity." A Jedi might be a lot of points--but he's not 100's of them--he has other Force Powers too. So we weren't happy with this problem.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Aren't.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What could we do?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Batman-Like Object</b></div>
<div>
When looking at the outer-range of human-style characters we choose "the batman" because he (or, you know, Captain America--he could work there too) is defined as being pretty much topped out. There might be someone better in some dimension--but not across all dimensions. Not really.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So the question was "How many points do you need to play Batman?" Not: <i>the Batman</i>, of course--not someone who can do <i>everything</i> the character ever-ever-ever did in every comic--just someone close enough to feel right. That's the BLO--the Batman-Like Object.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Is it 128? 200? 1000? I settled on 320 APs--which is really freakin' high--but still ...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But then--what do you do about him. He's Fast Company Level something high (3 or 4, probably). He likely has SP Pool abilities like Analyze Opponent and Mass Attack (hit multiple people). He may have extra attacks or blocks (which are generally TAP abilities) and so on. He has some leadership and strategic SP pools ... probably.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So he's one of those Over Unity guys. He doesn't work--or he's like 1600 points and still not <i>that</i> good.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Stack</b></div>
<div>
Back when I was doing cyber-senses in an earlier version of the game I wanted there to be a scout-package of sensors that didn't cost a ton of points--but I also wanted to charge a few points here and there for the better senses so that <i>everyone</i> didn't have them. I came up with the idea of "Stack" (a "sensory stack") where you'd invest like 4 APs or 6 APs (a lot for senses) and get like 10 APs or 16 APs--a WHOLE LOT in senses. That is: for a big investment you got a lot back. It took a little tweaking--but the idea was okay.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What if we did that for Fast Company + TAP abilities?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fast Company L2 is .52--52% of your Total APs, whatever they are. What if TAP +STACK was 80% of your total APs but you got to add .73 TAP instead of the normal .28 TAP (.80-.52 = .28).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While we know this is complex (definitely optional rule) it has a few advantages:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>It makes (at first examination) the kinds of characters we're looking for. I've done some preliminary testing and I like the results.</li>
<li>It makes characters like Worm's Jack Slash a LOT fewer points for the same punch. This is a good thing.</li>
<li>The numbers aren't as bad as you'd think. The decimal numbers come from the simulator. When we put in very high TAP characters they tend to always lose to the armored guys (they can't do enough damage) and do very very well against the pure Damage Point guys--guys who are tough but have no armor. In actual gaming we don't see many characters on either extreme--but a lot more in the middle. As TAP powers don't do outright damage they suffer greatly against these "mixed" characters as they have a very hard time with armor. In other words, the high TAP values are probably overpriced for most games.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-77184909106515607712013-03-23T06:52:00.000-07:002013-03-23T07:05:53.006-07:00Regeneration and JAGSI'm taking a short break from the (immensely educational) exercise of trying to test-create characters from the <a href="http://parahumans.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/1-1/">Worm-verse</a> to talk for a moment about regeneration in JAGS. I'll also talk about learnings so far.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">What We Have Learned</span></b><br />
There are a few things the act of trying to create characters from the Web-Serial Worm has taught us. Here are some of the key ones:<br />
<br />
<b>Power Modification:</b> We have always found this a sticking point because (a) it is complex and (b) our methodology deals with a bunch of fiddly decimal points which, frankly, no one likes. We had tried to use a "Mod Points" system which extracted some of this difficulty but, really, it doesn't seem to hold up in practice as well as in theory. So we're looking at just using decimal numbers and saying "fuck it."<br />
<br />
There are <u>two</u> kinds of modifications: the kind we can test with our Java Simulator and the kind we can't. The kind we can test are things like "takes a Round to charge up" or "Armor Piercing." The kind we can't are things like "only in sun-light." For the first the rule is easy: you take whatever the tested modifiers are and you multiply the damage done by them.<br />
<br />
For the latter you assign a modifier of SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE, VERY-LARGE or EXTREME and you <u>add</u> all the modifiers and use the chart:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHUUyf6uAmbj-I7iKEAXc9ptR7pILD_e0hISnjGC_BiKaovSfhtZG4SovyNLPrv4x5IwSke0J0Z90MTyNbGXWK78R_Q-wZ4LvJYXW2PqNKT56L2DjyJ8Yydbvdgz4M8LNEY1QyuaGsWJXy/s1600/ModPoints.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHUUyf6uAmbj-I7iKEAXc9ptR7pILD_e0hISnjGC_BiKaovSfhtZG4SovyNLPrv4x5IwSke0J0Z90MTyNbGXWK78R_Q-wZ4LvJYXW2PqNKT56L2DjyJ8Yydbvdgz4M8LNEY1QyuaGsWJXy/s400/ModPoints.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
So three Mediums make a Large and so on. These are different methodologies and so they will need different explanations. It's messy--but we're getting a much better handle on it than we had in "theory land" where we didn't have a good set of highly problematic characters to test the system against.<br />
<br />
<b>Errors and Typos:</b> Although we are having the book proof-read, the proof-reader is not a roleplayer. This means there are classes of errors that can't be caught by her. Using these characters tested some of the powers we'd <i>considered</i> but had never <i>implemented </i>in play. In most cases the raw material was there for the character but the specifics were not in the book. For example:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Animal Control and Swarm Body. The powers were more or less there but as written they didn't work to my satisfaction.</li>
<li>Vital Strike was in the book but needed the "only if you Penetrate" option to be complete.</li>
<li>The power Bodyguard works well--but additional levels of it are not cost effective.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>Batteries of Attacks: </b>We need to think hard about how we will handle certain types of "grouped" attacks. The current rules say "you pay full cost for your most expensive attack and then 1/3rd cost thereafter." This is fine for Super Strength and Heat Vision--but if you have either a billion different types of super-arrow or a bunch of normal guns and knives this gets kind of silly (do I pay for my Glock AND my six-shooter ... and my knife?). There needs to be some kind of sanity check rule that allows for "batteries" of attacks" when the GM and players rule that they are not really additive in terms of value (the arrow guy does get some benefit from having the Tangler Arrow and the Explosive Arrow and the Armor Piercing Arrow--yes--but if he just dumps all those points into the Cruise Missile Arrow he'll probably win more fights that way assuming most fights come down to dealing straight-up damage ... which we think they will).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Regeneration</span></b></div>
<div>
In the Worm-verse there are a lot of characters with regeneration--far more than we've usually had in our games. Part of the reason is that most game systems we've played haven't paid a lot of attention to regeneration and part of the reason is that our general view of it was as a minor after-the-battle type of thing rather than "your primary defense" sort of thing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here's how it works today in JAGS.</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Round 2/3 FIGHT! One of the powers we have is the Super Street Fighter power where you can, once or twice a combat, heal a significant ("Major") amount of damage and get rid of Damage Effects. Essentially you get your "second wind."</li>
<li>Healing: Healing powers can be used on others or yourself and you get back X-number of DP for some REA. This X-number recovers once per day.</li>
<li>Fast Healing: you heal quickly but not in-combat-quickly. You are probably good to go an hour or two after combat.</li>
<li>Immortality: There is a level of immortality which is basically just "I heal completely--even if killed." As with other kinds of 'combat-immortality' this is pretty much "all your points." (or, well, so many of them you are not likely to be even remotely effective against people of your same scale).</li>
<li>ADP recovery. Ablative Damage Points <i>may</i> be actual flesh-and-blood (and therefore heal slowly) but they can also be a bunch of other things (cybernetics? Generally "cussedness"?). We allow ADP to "Come back after a scene" if the narrative allows for it in some way (i.e. the damage done could be declared superficial, you get bandaged or get painkillers, you stop by the cyber-repair shop--or whatever). </li>
</ol>
<div>
In the Worm-verse there are a few things that are needed to be added:</div>
</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Crawler's Regeneration: I would say this character gets a Major Wound back each Round. This probably does <i>not</i> remove damage effects (if he gets Stunned or Dazed, he still suffers it) but <u>would</u> wake him up pretty quickly. At this level you pretty much have to kill him in one shot or do extreme, grievous damage to have a chance.</li>
<li>Really Fast Regeneration: Healing one or two Minor Wounds per Round would be below Crawler's level but still pretty extreme. It would make any fight where you didn't dominate quickly a losing proposition but not as bad as Crawler's. I'm not exactly sure who I'd give this to--but probably just about any character with better-than-Lung's regeneration.</li>
<li>Lung's Regeneration: This might be "Fast healing" (which we have) but is probably, rather, some (low-ish) number of Damage Points per second so long as he isn't at Injured Condition (badly hurt, out-of-the-fight). It would also explicitly heal limbs. The reason to make this separate from after-the-fight speed regeneration is that fighting Lung is <u>explicitly</u> a bad deal if it goes on for a while. He gets <u>stronger</u> as he fights. This, in JAGS terms, would mean healing damage taken during the fight.</li>
<li>Night's Regeneration: she heals "instantly" and completely when she's not being looked at. It's not clear to me if, in the darkness, her attack-form always insta-heals or if it's just the <i>transition</i> back and forth that heals her. This functions even if she is unconscious (nobody blink!). </li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>The Good News--We Can Simulate:</b> I'd normally be very reluctant to include these abilities in the game as, if we got them wrong, we could "break it." To address this, we built a Java simulator that runs quite complex battles of characters against each other. Usually these characters are pretty basic--the battle is done to isolate a specific ability and see how its presence shifts the odds of victory around at different cost levels.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We don't currently have the hooks in the code for these levels of regeneration but we're putting them in.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This isn't being done "just" so that you could play Worm-verse characters but rather because, after looking at the characters we've decided that regeneration at a level of being a "primary" defense.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-33282544272230716572013-03-20T06:30:00.000-07:002013-03-20T06:30:24.648-07:00Trickster Part 2After completing <a href="http://jags-rpg.blogspot.com/2013/03/trickster-part-1.html">Trickster Part 1</a> in our ongoing series of play-test creating characters from the <a href="http://parahumans.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/1-1/">Worm-verse</a> (an excellent web-serial about super heroes/villains), we had some discussion and did some deeper examination. Here's where Trickster wound up:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcRXuSPJt7QQksorY85V1fN5eXaKiyOiS8v1A0RaQaSOgYU4hRKsCCshJPSsJw32WFDIE9ZoLNhdWjClqBMipOYgkJWKo4TakQ6KkCazIcnCY5d8NJxTuAalZAc4_Rsl7EEsUb-8sZt0-V/s1600/Trickster.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="84" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcRXuSPJt7QQksorY85V1fN5eXaKiyOiS8v1A0RaQaSOgYU4hRKsCCshJPSsJw32WFDIE9ZoLNhdWjClqBMipOYgkJWKo4TakQ6KkCazIcnCY5d8NJxTuAalZAc4_Rsl7EEsUb-8sZt0-V/s640/Trickster.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">He's Bigger In Real Life</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So a few things:<br />
<br />
<b>Area of Effect-Selective</b><br />
The ability to hit an area but only hit specific targets in it ("Smart Bomb") has to be less attractive than the ability to have a few additional attacks every other Round (which is what I gave Worm-verse uber-villain Jack Slash). After doing some math it looks like the "damage divisor" that hits the sweet spot is 3.5.<br />
<br />
What does that mean?<br />
<br />
It means if you have an "attack" (like, say, a gun) and you want the ability to hit multiple targets you have two choices: (a) buy something like Mass Attack which gives you the ability to fire directly on separate targets--but usually something like "every other Round" or "once every three Rounds" or something or (b) hit an area-of-effect but within that area only hit enemies.<br />
<br />
These have to be "roughly even"--one choice should not always be better than the other. The deal is that the attack that gives you more to-hit rolls every other Round should do a bit more damage than the attack that always hits "everyone you want to" within the attack's effective radius.<br />
<br />
It turns out dividing the damage you do by around 3.25 is that sweet spot. The "Area-Attack-Selective" does less damage per attack than the shots-every-other-Round. It's better at taking out larger crowds though.<br />
<br />
Trickster has this--and he pays dearly for it.<br />
<br />
<b>The Swap Other People Attack Further Examined</b><br />
I'd call this attack <i>Castle</i> after the chess move and while it may not make it into the game in print, here's how I'd do it:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Standard Effect: Targets are swapped but this does NOT redirect any attacks they can make (they simply re-target if they were launching an attack)</li>
<li>Major Effect: Targets are swapped and any attack that was being launched will miss harmlessly.</li>
<li>Critical Effect: Targets are swapped and the target (a) will be hit if there was an attack coming at the swapped character and (b) if one of the targets was launching an attack it may be re-directed at someone else.</li>
<li>Catastrophic: Same as Catastrophic effect but targets placed in line of fire are at -4 to Block/Dodge.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I'm rating this a B+ as before.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Bodyguard and Defender</b></div>
<div>
I gave Trickster these powers because they allow him to (a) use his power defensively for 1 REA instead of 3 (so he can do this <i>a lot</i> and often) and (b) he can use it to defend "his team" 2x per Round.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>NOTES:</b> Bodyguard Level 2 isn't especially cost effective. It costs 8 AP for another +7 Damage Points (a bad deal) and the ability to do one more defense per Round. Maybe additional "levels" should cost 4 AP instead of 8?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Trickster Is Over Points</b></div>
<div>
I experimented with a few builds and some ideas (what if he had a "mega swap" usable once per combat for a lot of extra juice?) and decided to just build him on "more points." He is, after all, the leader of a powerful group of supervillains. I selected 192 AP as a large number and put a whopping 160 AP into his attack. We'll discuss the ramifications of that in a bit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Trickster In Combat</b></div>
<div>
Trickster pays a huge 160 AP for his ability giving him 120 Intensity. This is enough to 'swap' Weld or Jack Slash reliably but NOT enough to swap them into immediate danger or reliably re-direct their attacks. In the web serial he swaps Crawler--a massive character--with a garbage truck. He can't do that either.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A 64,000lb garbage truck would have about 4200 Damage Points in JAGS so it's out of scale for any normal character. If Trickster was Scale Number 50 he could do it pretty easily--but then he'd have 50x as many Damage Points too--and be virtually indestructible.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other hand: Trickster on the battlefield will be enormously disruptive for any sane group of characters to deal with. He will be constantly interrupting any action they take and then making rolls to swap characters around. In addition to the spatial/tactical issues (swapping hand-to-hand characters out of combat-range or the like) every attack launched--and especially those launched at him--will have the risk of landing on an ally--a <i>substantial</i> risk.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If he was 128 AP--a legal "starting character" he would clock in at around 76 Intensity--which is still enough to swap most 128 AP characters for spatial movement and can swap Coil's guards around all day long. He could massacre a team of mercs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>So What About The Garbage Truck?</b></div>
<div>
One of the things that JAGS (and, I will submit, simulative RPG's in general) has problem with is characters who are very, very effective outside their ability to "take it." Consider Purity. Her blast, at full power, can "level a building." There doesn't seem to be much by way of limitations on it--she can fire it often and accurately (when she is fully powered up, anyway).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What if she were to "fight herself"? The mirror-match is not the end-all-be-all of good gaming but it's a decent litmus test to see if your characters and system is going to work well. If the test comes down to "who fires first" then you are possibly setting yourself up for some bad gaming if the characters are "intended to fight."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In JAGS firearm combat is fairly deadly for normal people--it isn't as deadly as real life (we looked at real firearms data) but it's pretty bad. We don't even enforce things like blood-loss and realistic you-get-shot-you-aren't-playing-for-the-rest-of-the-scenario healing times. However, when you get to "destroy a building" any hand-waving no longer works.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If Purity can shoot a beam that'll do 4k damage (destroy a garbage truck) then if she does fire on anyone--Jack Slash, Weld, whatever--if she hits, she'll total them. And then some.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So it's not clear what the "right thing" to do is in that situation. Our Scale Number rules allow for extremely powerful characters but they increase your ability to take it too. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>A Thought:</b> We do have some (sketchy) rules around 'over-powered' attacks. These are really not meant for super-hero characters--but if an attack is designated as 'over-powered' then if any "PC or Named NPC" (important character) is targeted by it, they get some very powerful defenses such as "Any defensive action ALWAYS works." You could do Purity this way: if she fires her full power beam at Jack Slash and he has any action points for a defense it'll miss--but if he doesn't, he's in big trouble--but you can't really do Trickster that way since he pretty much "never misses."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Basically, in JAGS, something like Crawler is modeled at such a high power-scale due to his size and durability that even basic super-scale attacks are like trying to beat up a garbage truck: you'd better be really high power-level.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>A NOTE:</b> A lot of superhero fiction doesn't get the variance in power-level right either. I can kick the door of a car and maybe dent it. I can't do that to the size of a garbage truck. A 9mm would probably bounce off the side of a truck--but a 125mm shell goes right through it (they did in Iraq when garbage trucks were used against modern armor). There is a huge difference in the kinetic energy of a handgun to a machine gun shell (which does not equate 1:1 to damage--but it is probably semi-proportional). If a super hero can be hurt by a powerful rifle shell, the plasma cone of a Rocket Propelled Grenade (which will cut anything but main-battle-tank front armor) will leave a fist sized hole in them ... at least.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>One More Note:</b> Crawler isn't really hard to teleport because "he's so big" but rather "because he has so many Damage Points"--which, yeah, he has because he's so big. Remember that we're using DP as a <i>proxy</i> for how-bad-ass someone is. If Trickster in JAGS tries to swap Accord (a pretty big-league super-villain) for someone about to be incinerated in a nuclear reactor it'll probably fail too because Accord probably has a ton of Damage Points (even if Accord is armored his armor will give him DP or ADP in JAGS). Again, this is <i>intentional</i>: the game system wants to maintain a level of 'balance' that prevents someone with a small investment in a "cheap shot" from taking out heavy-hitters.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this case it doesn't really jive with the fiction.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What About Trickster As a Leader?</b></div>
<div>
I considered giving him (a) A success Point Pool for defensive actions. This would help ensure that, during the early stages of a fight at least, he was almost always successful in redirecting attacks and (b) some Commander type stuff--but I didn't.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For one thing the first wasn't really necessary: his investment in the Swap attack will tend to make him very successful against anything he'll reasonably fight and for the second? Well, he's not much of a leader. He's good with the psychological aspects of manipulating teammates to kinda keep them going (although their innate loyalty to Noelle is really central to that) but he doesn't seem to present much of a "leadership" role in their combat effectiveness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
JAGS has ways of handing the more mundane elements of leadership with "normal character stuff" and I think that would work for Trickster without necessarily requiring that he hand out Success Points.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the end, I give Trickster's build a C+. His power "works" but it requires (a) a new Resisted Attack (which, okay, people are expected to be able to create--but even so it required a lot of modification and a little interpretation) (b) he's over points to have the base-line level of effectiveness I think he needs, and (c) he still can't do everything in the stories the way his character did (that's, again, a willful interpretation but still).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the plus side, Trickster as a character--even at 128 AP--would be absolutely AWFUL to fight against which <i>is</i> in keeping with the story.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Exit questions:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>If Purity hits a clone of herself with her beam is it instant death--or does she have some native defense that allows her to absorb that level of damage?</li>
<li>If Trickster tries to swap Accord (or a similar bad-ass) into certain death does a master super-villain have any "working defense" against it? Is there some way to "break out of Trickster's grab effect before it lands?"</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>Post Script:</b> Trickster should have some kind of 'tactile detection sense' which he can use with his power. He can "feel if he has someone" before swapping them--so that's maybe 4 AP and some extra Damage Points. It's also possible he can lock-on to someone and then swap them "shortly after." If that's true then that might be another enhancement.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Final Note:</b> we describe enhancements as Small, Medium, and Large with explicit decimal multipliers for these. This doesn't work for tested effects like Armor Piercing or Area-Effect-Selective where the numbers don't fit neatly into those categories. So we need to think on how to explain that to people.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-83610830799504648742013-03-18T13:00:00.000-07:002013-03-19T05:16:50.185-07:00Trickster Part 1Trickster is a character in the <a href="http://parahumans.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/1-1/">Worm-verse</a> who presents a variety of special challenges and questions for JAGS.<br />
<br />
His basic capability is that given two objects "within his range" (which is considerable) of roughly equal size and mass, he can teleport-swap them with each other. He can do this "instantly" (the closer, the faster) and can, for example:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Swap his team, who is surrounded, with various gun-men surrounding them at the time of fire.</li>
<li>Swap himself with your friend--so as you are about to hit him, you wind up hitting your friend.</li>
<li>Swap a garbage-truck sized monster with an actual garbage truck.</li>
<li>More mundanely, teleport himself or someone else, away from or into danger if there's a mannequin or something available to swap.</li>
</ol>
<div>
There's more--but that's enough to start with.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Teleportation In JAGS</b></div>
<div>
Teleportation in JAGS comes in three or four flavors. There's Tactical Teleport which is just an expensive form of movement and lets you teleport around as a <i>long</i> action (meaning if you teleport away or teleport close to a combatant they can hit you on the way in or out). This is "safe" in terms of the game rules (it doesn't overbalance combat).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is Strategic / Long-Range Teleport (and gates) which let you cover long distances--again, as a long action.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is Flicker which is basically the "blink" power which lets you move in or out of combat before you can be hit (it still costs an action) and lets you 'teleport-dodge.'</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is Snatch which lets you teleport someone or something to you.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is no "swap" power.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>How The Game System Treats Teleporting People</b></div>
<div>
Teleporting other people is usually "pretty bad." Sure, maybe you're teleporting your buddy out of danger--but if you can teleport enemies--and, say, teleport them a pretty good distance--then you could teleport them to prison (an inescapable prison--or, I dunno, the Phantom Zone). If that's extreme, how about "up in the air" (if they can't fly or take the fall easily).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If it has to be from one solid ground to another (which isn't terribly unreasonable) then you, at very least, could have an iron box or something to teleport them into. Put a thick lexan window in it if you have to be able to see the target zone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The way we handle doing unpleasant things to people that doesn't involve outright damage is with a Resisted Attack. This compares your attack's Intensity and their Damage Points and ADP and there's a resisted roll. The more you succeed your roll by (the better you roll) the greater you can screw them over. This is how Mind Control works. This is how Fear powers work. It's how nerve toxins work--and so on (disease, trapping someone in another dimension, and so on).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Resisted Attacks go from A+ (where any success is death or close to it) (Death Ray) to D+ where the best success still leaves someone able to flee, usually (weak tear-gas). There are some pretty good guidelines for making up Resisted Attack levels (there are four) and assigning a letter-grade and figuring out the cost.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Players are expected to be able to do that with some GM assistance--so having a Teleport Other power isn't too hard to figure out.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How bad is the worst case? Well, it's probably distance based in this case. Probably the best roll gives a success when the target is still at an extreme range. It could also be the level of match necessary (a really good roll allows a less-close swap).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>NOTE:</b> This changes two things about the character right away. (1) The power's ability is moderated by how bad-ass the target is (so Trickster probably <i>cannot</i> Swap Crawler--a villain the size of a garbage truck--unless he has a very high power) (2) It does not "always work." It can fail on him--something that doesn't seem possible in the Worm-verse.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These rules are here because (a) it's a game--so things that always work on opponents are generally not a big part of the terrain and (b) the based-on-damage-points construction makes the same "Cause Fear" power that works on mooks ineffective against Darth Vader even if the build the GM went with didn't include some special anti-fear powers. I can discuss this more--but it's part of the theory that we'd prefer simpler characters to complex characters and do not want to have large lists of defenses just to make sure that characters don't fall prey to unusual attacks at every turn.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Teleporting Two People</b></div>
<div>
The above power would work fine for just teleporting someone somewhere (a "Beam Me Up" power). However, that's not how Tricker's power works--it hits two objects at once. We could model this as two to-hit rolls, but that doesn't really do the power the way we'd want to. That's certainly not how it plays (and that would suck up a lot of actions).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The most likely way to do it is to treat it as Area-Target with Selective fire. This is used for "smart bomb" style attacks where you can damage just-your-enemies. In this case it can hit "everyone" and then Trickster can pick and choose sets of two people to swap. This makes it (right now) about 1.5x more expensive.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We need to determine if this is the right call: if it was more cost effective for Jack Slash to buy Area-Target, Selective with his knife than to buy extra attacks every other Round that's probably not the behavior we want to encourage. We like having extra attacks every other Round.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But so far, this is how we're doing it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Teleport As a Defense Or In Response To An Offense</b></div>
<div>
So now we get to the situation where someone says "I shoot Trickster" and he says "I swap your buddy with me and you shoot your friend." This is using the power as (a) a 'Blocking' action. Usually when you block an attack or teleport-dodge out of the way, it just misses (the GM can try to determine where the attack goes--but even if there is another character "roughly in the line of fire" it is in no way guaranteed to hit that target. It is also using it as (b) an attack on <i>someone else</i> when a person shoots at you.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a general violation of the JAGS battle rules. However, there's a way: Damage Fields are things like being electrified, or being on fire, or have acidic blood or whatever. When you are hit, they trigger and, usually, damage the attacker.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is what Trickster has--with the exceptions that: (a) he does have to declare an action unlike a Damage Field--but it's a blocking-style action so he can do it when attacked and (b) it triggers the Area Target so he can, in response to an attack, spend REA on a "block" and then swap groups of two as he wants--if he can make the rolls necessary to do it--which he probably can--all his points are there.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>NOTE:</b> to swap someone into the line of fire you probably need a higher-level success than swapping them just to a location.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The 4 levels of success would probably look like:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Standard Level: Target is Teleported</li>
<li>Major Level: Target will miss with an attack (necessary as a Block)</li>
<li>Critical and Catastrophic Level: Target is hit with incoming attack or targets the wrong person.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
This rates a B+ which is fairly "kind" to him since directing other's attacks at teammates is pretty effective.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>NOTE:</b> this configuration allows him to react to attacks on his person. He can (and would) buy Bodyguard to react to attacks on other members of his 'team.'</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What Does This Cost</b></div>
<div>
Right now, let's assume he puts about 64 AP into it--an astonishing half his points. The Rating for Swap is B+ and it has a delivery system of "6" which is Area of Effect Selective. When we add usable as Block Defense that's probably / 1.3. This means:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>For 8 Archetype Points he gets 14 Intensity.</li>
<li>With 64 AP invested he gets 111 Intensity. That's ... a LOT.</li>
</ol>
<div>
It's not enough to do a garbage truck though (although he can swap any of the characters created).</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-48038805972961857402013-03-15T12:47:00.000-07:002013-03-15T12:47:23.700-07:00Worm Characters: WeldIn the process of (seemingly randomly, I'm sure) picking <a href="http://parahumans.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/1-1/">Worm</a> characters to model I have chosen <a href="http://parahumans.wikia.com/wiki/Weld">Weld</a>. Weld is a young leader of the Wards (the government sanctioned teen-aged in-training super-team franchise). He is a made-of-metal super-strong, super durable guy who manages to be "leadership material" despite being visibly non-human (something that isn't said much about but seems to be almost an actual policy--if a secret one).<br />
<br />
Weld is metallic and can deform his body--somewhat. He can stretch limbs and deform but he does not seem totally plastic or able to slip under doors or anything like that. He is also pretty much non-biological. I believe he does not eat or sleep (I might have that wrong).<br />
<br />
In addition to his non-human biology he 'welds' to metal when he touches it. Sometimes this is unintentional: he can shake your hand and bond to your wedding ring. If someone fires metallic darts at him, they'll stick to him and slowly be absorbed messing his face up for a while.<br />
<br />
Weld was both straightforward and posed some interesting questions:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjey56Vqbi9WysQkkBw4g6EG1YoyamyMmwLAl58FNYSc6_ahKamfwLEBOVAl6TpbMk9rqydeRrP0cPVe-_9AZgjYPYhhaFgwJpnRqqBEEH8vsJVvy5g9h0vWvKbicxlPgytwsVbU-NjbbVj/s1600/Weld.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="86" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjey56Vqbi9WysQkkBw4g6EG1YoyamyMmwLAl58FNYSc6_ahKamfwLEBOVAl6TpbMk9rqydeRrP0cPVe-_9AZgjYPYhhaFgwJpnRqqBEEH8vsJVvy5g9h0vWvKbicxlPgytwsVbU-NjbbVj/s640/Weld.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If You Squint You Can See Him ...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Weld is built using the Automaton rules: he has "No Biological Weaknesses." This means what it says--he doesn't need to eat nor sleep. The rules say he needs some 'down time' (around 4 hours a day) which is pretty non-productive--but he's more machine or golem than flesh. Chemical attacks are meaningless. He can't get sick. He doesn't need to breathe.<br />
<br />
Most importantly: he does not take traumatic Penetrating Damage (he still takes damage--but it doesn't get the huge multipliers biological people take when a "good hit" is scored and their armor doesn't hold up).<br />
<br />
A few points:<br />
<br />
<b>Stretching</b><br />
I gave him Stretching with just the basic power (it also has multiple "levels") and a VERY LARGE defect which is that he can only deform limbs and extend them. He doesn't use stretching to move or slide through small spaces. He can still be grabbed or grappled. He doesn't "bounce" or take negative damage modifiers from attacks that deform him. In short, he can alter himself a bit--but that's it. The cost goes from 15 to 2 AP.<br />
<br />
<b>Automaton, Armor, Strength</b><br />
Weld has Super Strength, the Iron Automaton package, and extra "armored skin." What does this do? It gives him a punch for a whopping 45 points of damage, a weight of around 800 lbs, and 24 points of Armor with a 60 PEN Defense--not that he'll need it much since he doesn't take PEN damage (but wait--there IS a reason).<br />
<br />
In the story he "grows" a club-weapon and I bought that with the defect that it takes a 5 REA action to create. I also allowed him to grow a sharp weapon (although to my knowledge he has not) and use that to stab people. His Basic Damage is built with the cost-modifier to allow the use of a blade.<br />
<br />
<b>Skin Armor:</b> In the story Weld gets stabbed in the eye by a mind-controlled ally. The stabbing is with a dart and it hurts him ... a little. In JAGS Full Armor is <i>generally </i>treated a bit like a 'force field' in that it covers <i>everything</i>. But the reality is that everyone has weak spots. A weak-point is treated as "coverage 8" meaning you need to hit Weld by 8 or more and then, if you do (that's a really good hit) you can choose to bypass the armor. I left Weld with 8pts of armor from Automaton and +16 from "Skin Armor" with the weak-point defect (-1 AP to the cost--a minor difference).<br />
<br />
This means that the attacker got a very lucky hit and was hitting only against 8 Armor. It's unlikely that Shadow Stalker, without using some special powers, could deal 8pts of damage--a strong person stabbing you with a shiv does around maybe 3-4 PEN--but it's at least <i>possible</i> a few points could get through.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, a full-auto assault rifle burst does around 27 PEN and Weld would <i>feel it</i> to the tune of around 3pts of Damage on average but he can take that all day.<br />
<br />
<b>Damage Points and ADP</b><br />
Weld has around 38 Damage Points (a moderate number--lowish for a super hero brick) and 66 ADP (which is a good number for him). If he hits himself he will take about 1/3rd to 1/2 of his damage each hit and will be able to hurt himself reasonably badly in 2-5 Rounds (his Automaton body can actually go longer than normal before it starts feeling the damage). He is very tough.<br />
<br />
<b>Absorbing Metal</b><br />
There is no "weld with metal" power in JAGS but there is Magnetic Control which I bought at Level 4 (which is, frankly, a lot) and gave it a VERY LARGE (-88%) defect that says it's only to stick and then "absorb" metal. This gives it a 26 Grapple pull which is more than a normal man could break. If something gets stuck in him, he can break it off and get it out--but mostly, it's stuck (if you don't have his super-strength, it's really stuck). This would also apply if he was struck with a metal weapon.<br />
<br />
I am thinking on how to handle the "always active" element of this (usually sticking something to you in a fight takes an action). There are rules for "damage fields" (such as being on fire). Those might apply reducing the strength a bit.<br />
<br />
I treated the "absorbing metal" (and his ability to shed it) like <i>eating</i> metal. There is no specific power for a very unusual diet like that--but he's super strong and tough--the game rules would allow him to bite off and chew metal. There is no reason not to allow skin absorption of it.<br />
<br />
<b>Leadership</b><br />
Weld is a pretty strong leader. I had the points and gave him Commander Level 1 so he can lend SPs to his allies (as well as himself).<br />
<br />
<b>Weld vs. Jack Slash</b><br />
What would happen if Weld fought Jack Slash? Well, Weld is exactly (or, well, in the Worm-verse) the 128 AP character Slash doesn't want to be stuck in a small arena with. For one thing, Slash's super-damage will never apply: Weld doesn't have internal organs. For another thing Weld's armor is too high for Jack to really hurt if he can't get the Armor Piercing working.<br />
<br />
However, Jack <i>can</i>. Jack's Armor Piercing attack is 36 PEN Value. Weld's full defense is 60--that's a roll of a 15- Armor Save for Weld if Jack does not hit weak points. That's "almost always" (above 90% of the time).<br />
<br />
However, Jack has about a 17- to hit. He can hit weak points on a 9- (around 45% of the time) and he will. He can attack around 3-4 times a Round and still dodge incoming punches (Weld will attack twice a Round and will not save any action points trying to block Jack as he can't block ranged attacks anyway). Each hit that Jack gets on a weak point will deal around 15 Damage to Weld as the Armor Piercing effect will remove the (light) under-armor.<br />
<br />
The fight goes something like this: Jack goes first and hits 4 times landing two hits for 30 damage through weak points. Weld "Feels nothing" (this is against ADP) and closes with a flying tackle. Jack dodges (Jack's dodge is probably much better than Weld's to-hit roll).<br />
<br />
Jack goes first the second Round and does two attacks saving two defenses. This yields a 15 pt hit. A few more of these and Jack will be hitting Damage Points, which Weld will feel.<br />
<br />
Weld hits on a "good fighter" 14-. Jack dodges on an expert 17-. About 1 in 3 or 4 attacks will hit. When they do, they will hit for about 60%-80% damage: about 38pts. Jack takes off 8 for his armor and suffers 30. Jack can take about three of those before he's likely to drop.<br />
<br />
This gives Jack about 3 or 4 Rounds to finish Weld. He may have to get a little lucky--but I would put him at a bit of a favorite to win (albeit marginal).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0