How Do You Make A Car Invisible?

Officer Law (Hector Busamante)

One of the sub-systems that we're working on right now is Gear (equipment, devices, etc.). The rules for gear are complicated for two reasons:

1. You do not always pay AP for gear. In no game I can imagine would you pay AP for things like normal clothes, a toothbrush, etc. That's (reasonably) common sense--but in a lot of games you won't even pay Archetype Points for things like weapons and armor. For, for example, a modern-day Cops game the PCs would have very few AP (if any) and things they buy would generally represent unusual native abilities (such as an exceptional physique or extreme detective skills). The gear would just be "issued" to them in-game.
2. When you ARE paying points for gear there are still a few ways it can go:
• You can take a Trait like Powered Flight and turn it into gear (a "flight ring"). This is an example where being equipement is usually a (small) disadvantage (or, if you make a very limited flight-rig that's dangerous and difficult to control, a substantially larger disadvantage).
• You can take some gear you did not pay points for (like a normal car which "anyone" can get in most games for no AP) and turn it into a tricked out vehicle. That's another implementation of the Mod-Point rules. In this case, while you do pay character points (MPs) for the modification, you do not pay them for the initial piece of gear (assuming it's something "anyone" in the game could have).

Which Brings Us To The Question

So as I look over the Gear rules, I find that to a certain extent they work "okay." Ability modification rules are always complex (take, for example, a theoretical simple set of rules that simply reduces the cost of an ability by a set % amount per defect added: how do you handle the case where the %-total reaches 100% (free) or above 100% (you get points for having a defective ability)).

Our current rules work as follows for modifying a non-combat power: you pay (for enhancements) or get (for defects) a certain number of Mod Points (MP). So being a "simple hands-free device" is -1 MP (a defect). That "-1 MP" is per 8 AP of the Ability. 

So if I have 1 to 8 AP spent on Flight and I turn it into a "Flight Ring" (magical, thought-controlled, small and convenient) I get 1 MP "back." If I have, say, 16 AP spent on Flight and I turn it into a Flight Ring I get 2 MP back.

I can use those MP to buy other small advantages or I can turn them into Damage Points if I want to.

That, conceptually, isn't so hard.

Okay--but what if I want to make a car invisible (I have a cloaking device for my automobile!). Firstly, the rules, as written right now, don't address this (or do only barely). Secondly, the answer isn't that easy even going by "what I think should be the case."

Let's See

1. We presume the "basic car" is 0 AP in cost. In most games you don't pay Archetype Points for a normal car. In a Mad Max post-apocalypse game where the guy with the car is a big deal? Maybe. But in most games you don't. For purposes of this question, let's assume you don't.
2. There are rules for "Awesome Upgrade" (which invisibility certainly is) but these are generic and  are best applied for stuff that we don't and are not going to have rules for. In the case of Invisibility we do know how it effect combat. We know some things about entering and leaving "cloak" (8 REA Long Action).
3. There should be some basic rules for "modification cost to ability that does not directly effect the character." Let's say that "doesn't effect you is half price for the power: so if I want to put Armor on the car to make it tougher for 4 AP I get 8 AP worth of armor on the device. This would be represented, by the way, as -16 MP cost (for people keeping score). That rule isn't clearly listed--but let's say it was. Okay ...
4. But Invisibility is a TAP-cost power: it's cost is based on a percentage of your Total AP Points. Is that still right for the car (which is 0 AP points) or is it based on your character (which is, let's imagine, 32 AP)?

What are the right answers for these points?

1. We already have some rules for modifying "0 AP gear." Firstly we tend to "Assume" it cost 8 AP for purposes of doing the Mod Point math. That is, if some enhancement is listed as +4 MP (which is 1 AP for the character to spend) that's for 8 AP worth of an ability (so to put that enhancement on a 24 AP Trait would cost 12 MP or 3 AP if you wanted to pay AP for it). For a 0pt piece of gear we assume it's 4 MP. This is a simple rule (a 747 jetliner is the same "AP cost" as a Ford Focus--which probably isn't quite right--but hey).
2. While it isn't 100% exactly how invisibility will impact vehicular combat (even from what we know about it) we can make some good guesses: it is hard to "shoot out the engine" of a vehicle you can't see--called shots become far more risky or impossible. That can be a big deal when shooting at vehicles where a lot of "hits" won't disable anything critical. So, yeah, we should probably try to use as much of the power description as possible.
3. The cost for having a trait only work on a device is probably heavily dependent on the device. For example if you take the Trait "Flight" and declare it "only works on my clothes" (which you then wear and fly around in) that's like having the Flight power yourself. If you take Flight and declare it works on a camera so it can hover around and take pictures ... that's not like you having flight. Big difference. It also matters whether you can be expected to be inside the device or not. That's a big deal. Having an invulnerable clock-radio that will ignore any attack that hits it on your bed-side is cool. Having an indestructible trench coat that does the same thing is much, much better.
4. We could do something like say the TAP cost for the vehicle is based on it's assumed cost (8 AP) but there is a point raised: does it cost fewer AP for a low AP character to have a cloaked car than a high AP character? Maybe it should? Especially if the character can, say, fire out the window while remaining mostly invisible (the reason Invisibility is TAP costed is that it presumes the advantages will be more severe the harder the character hits, etc.). So there is a case that the cost for the car being cloaked should be based on the cost of the owner.

So, you know--that's something we're thinking about.

Proofing The Opening Chapter

Gravity Control: Hector Busamante

I'm having my mother read the opening chapter of JAGS Revised Archetypes. Firstly she is a competent editor and has edited at least one other published book. Secondly she is not a gamer in any sense and, although she has, actually gamed with us (story below) once or twice, does not natively "get it." If she can understand the chapter I figure I'm in good shape.

I ran a game for both parents and an experienced game friend several years ago when Hurricane Wilma knocked out the power for several days. With very little to do and housing a friend from an hour north who was staying by himself, we figured it might be a way to pass the time. It was a success.

The game I ran was one where the characters were "Space Rangers" who were new on assignment and wound up with a disabled ship in "pirate space." They, keeping their identities secret, wound up on a hidden pirate space station (large) trying to beg, borrow, or steal parts necessary to repair their ship. The only visible supply of parts were in the hands of a local crime boss (to an extent, everyone on the station was a crime boss) and the parts could be had for "bounty hunting."

The PCs could've chosen to try to steal the parts (I made it clear that was possible but risky--they were heavily guarded) but decided to run down the bounties. It turned out the targets were two lovers on the run (Romeo and Juliet) and in the end the characters had to decide whether or not to bring them in (to get off the station), let them go and try something else, etc.

They hit on an idea of taking some of the bodies they'd accumulated and having them surgically altered to appear as the targets. It was an idea I hadn't thought of and allowed a win-win where the PCs got their bounty and the lovers got to escape--the (very short, tightly run) was deemed a success--and fun.

Observations
I have observed (and leveraged this) that new players really like price lists. I created the game with a short list of gear that they could choose from (not knowing what would happen--but knowing something would) and let them take a few minutes to make trade offs. This seems to be a way to generate interest and energy early on. I think AD&D really benefited from it's (often obscure) price list. I think a lot of people miss this.

I also wanted to give the players strong parameters (you are on this station, there are these things around) but no strong guidance. Even the core decision to attack the crime boss or try to play the game was explicitly left open (of course bounty hunting was so attractive I doubted they'd gravitate to the riskier solution). The big decision (what to do with the lovers) was left completely open. There was no easy answer (I figured they would not send the two kids back to face death--but I thought they might do it).

For making characters, I think it's clear that the full number of options is overload for new players. I gave them basic character templates and let them pick from a set of equal cost "packages." This is "simplification for new players" but it illustrates a point that should never be forgotten: the more work you do to make everything in play relevant to the game the tighter the experience will be.

I didn't put in cyber-hacking because I knew that there wouldn't be cyber-hacking in the 4-6 hours of play we were going to do in a blacked-out house. Now, this rule can (and has been) taken and run far too far with: if I didn't put cyber-hacking in JAGS because "JAGS isn't about that" it'd be a huge mistake. In a game that is designed to, maybe, be run for 2 years with the same characters and players you are necessarily going to want to do things differently than in a 4 hour game for players who have never played before and may never play again.

For those players they expect--and are reasonable in it--that whatever formative decisions they make, they will be relevant. When making a character for a game that may run hundreds of hours those expectations are often going to be different. A player who understands both role-playing and the dynamic of their specific group well will know how much agency they can expect to have when introducing elements into the game (i.e. a cyber-hacker space ranger will, in a long enough game, find places with a cyber-net and will generate situations where the hacking is likely to be useful even if the first pirate space station they crash on isn't one).

This is also something behind the thinking of costs in JAGS: I find that having an "8 point" slot where you can put "one really good thing" (8pts), "two pretty good things" (4pts each), or "four okay things" (2pt costs) is easily grasped and that the ease of understanding and responding makes for a good dynamic during play.

Immortality ...

Dr. Death (Domain Control: Death) by Hector Busament

Let there be no mistake: we're still churning through JAGS Revised with a vengeance. There are all kinds of powers, combinations of powers, new powers, and expansions on old powers that we need to nail down. I'm very pleased with the product but it's not finished.

Let's talk for a moment about immortality.

Immortality
In JAGS there are a few powers that confer--or come down around--making you immortal. These fall into several categories:

1. The very cheap. Things like Won't Die Of Old Age, Ignore "Death" Results (but you can still be killed by extreme damage, decapitation, etc.), and various kinds of hard-to-kill (but still normal to knock out) are pretty cheap. Taking random "death results" out of play isn't that expensive and most PCs don't die of old age anyway. There is Soul Jar which lets you be immortal so long as your enemies don't find your vulnerable hidden soul--which, of course, they will start looking for as soon as they know you've done this. It's cheap--but it has ramifications.
2. The Medium Cheap. There are forms of Immortality where, for example, you can be "put back together" if someone is there to reassemble the parts. There is a form of for-real immortality where you come back in a season. These are around 4 AP or so. Inexpensive compared to, well, not having to worry about dying ... exactly.
3. Expensive. In the TAP-Cost range is Immortality where you come back in a day or so--or even "nearly instantly." This costs, scientifically speaking, Yo Momma. There is also Invulnerable which is kinda like Immortal--and Very High Defenses (hundreds or even thousands of points of Armor and DP) which can simulate this for most purposes. These are also around 80-95% of your points.

Some Observations

The first observation I want to make is that immortality is, in my experience, usually corresponds to an otherwise expensive character. Greek gods, for example, are a lot of points. Invulnerable attackers tend to have pretty powerful attacks--not always but, like, Juggernaut is no wimp. JAGS addresses this by assuming he's a LOT more AP than the PCs (so he can spend like 90% of his power on being invulnerable and then have his 10% remaining to trash the PCs). 

JAGS does handle this (Scale Number, for example is slightly more elegant than just saying he's 1000 AP or something but the fact is that these abilities fit into a category similar to abilities like "mimic / absorb the whole team's powers" that are hard to model in a point-based game system.

Our Thoughts

So here are a few of our thoughts.

1. The General Mode of Play. Our mode of play is, on observation (although this is not so explicit) that so long as the PCs are generally within "bounds" death is unlikely. That is: there are few unannounced death-traps. There are not "random encounters" that include things likely to create a TPK. There GM usually "plays fair" to an extent around PC death and suicidal actions are generally double checked to make sure the player is taking on the risk / understands the situation*. And so on--in a "level based" model I would say that it's usually fairly clear where you are going from a Level-1 encounter to a Level-5 encounter and the GM just doesn't "spring that on you."
2. Being unable to be taken out of a fight (invulnerable, immortal and back pretty fast) is worth a lot. It means you generally can't lose so the cost has to make sure you usually don't win (if you are "equal points") because 'balance.' Balance is a tricky concept at the best of times but clearly in combat if you can spend AP's to win a battle you can also spend APs to "never lose" and that models pretty expensively.
1. BUT: what if Immortal, back-real-fast was only, say 50% of your points? Or maybe 70%? We generally don't think PCs will spend more than 50-60% of their AP on defensive abilities in the most extreme case and we know from modeling that if you spend 70% of your points on something that does NOT apply to combat mechanics (i.e. you can be killed and you re-form about an hour later) you will lose almost all your "equal-level" fights. In other words: maybe the current costs of around 80-90 AP are too high?
2. ALSO: For Invulnerable we are stating that if you spend X% of your points (90? 95?) on, say, Armor, at some break point (the TAP cost for various kinds of Invulnerable) you get EVERYTHING (you go from, say 90 Armor to 9000 Armor or -infinite- Armor). This is an interesting statement: we DON'T say that for Strength, for example--why not? Because not-losing is palatable but always winning (I hit for -infinite- damage) seems more problematic to us.
3. We do not directly address the game-play ramifications of immortality and we have only limited exposure to them in practice. Being able to take suicidal risks (the immortal guy loads up with explosives and runs into the enemy midst) is something that is outside of the simulator and is more in the realm of game play. Being able to insult the Emperor and get away with it because you can't be executed (and, if you "return to your home realm," can't be captured) may have impacts on play beyond the game mechanics. We think that many of these impacts are negative as they remove drama (or even just the appearance of drama) so they should be carefully considered.

The Big One: When Do You Come Back?

Our biggest question, though, is around when the PC comes back. Firstly, do we go in-game (days, minutes, Rounds, months?) or do we go meta-game (sessions, hours of play, etc.). It is not hard to switch back and forth for a group that has a good routine down but being prescriptive about it could have problems (our play sessions today are 2.5 hours--but in high school a "play session" could last 48 hours). 

Secondly, for games with any sense of pacing (which is, to our experience, most of them) coming back "in a month" or a season is like not coming back at all. An entire campaign could last a season. Our current game has run, real time, around 2 years and I'm not sure we've covered a year of in-game time.

The obvious answer is to have some kind of "intent" mapping. If the power says "You come back in a season" that could be "you come back in two sessions" if the GM agrees that makes sense. That's okay. But do you really want to not play for two sessions? I mean, if you were dead-dead you'd come back as soon as you could make a character and get re-integrated. If play time is the thing, what do we say to someone who says "I'm paying AP for the 'privilege' of less play time." (yeah, but you get to keep your investment in the character--so there is that). 

The Other Big Question: When Is It Appropriate?

When am I allowed to buy Immortality--even the cheap kind? In some games like "Dungeon and Dragon style games" that might not be right for the "feel of it." How do we codify that?

JAGS Continues ...

You are probably going "What the heck is going on with JAGS!? Where's the next update." I realize many of you can't make it through the day without regular updates so I apologize for being sparse. Okay, not really--but it helps me to keep this blog updated once in a while :)

Let's see:

1. We are creating a SLEW of characters using abilities that haven't been used before (of which there are many) and trying higher point builds (128 AP--supers characters). This is informative.
2. We are proofing the book. This is depressing (not so bad--but, man, there are a lot of mistakes in there and I'm not just talking about typos).
3. We are still collating artwork. 

For each single character sketch (of which there are a lot) we are actually doing their AP Traits. So we have a strong guy and he's Built plus some other stuff. We have a super-heroine with gravity control and give her various capabilities -- doing the stats--which should get printed next to the picture in the final book. As far as I know statting out the artwork is pretty unusual for a game book.

Something We Learned

So the simulator tests Resisted Attacks--remember: an RA is like Blind-Target, poison gas, mind attacks, etc. It has an Intensity score that is compared to your DP (plus some other stuff) and then there's a Resistance Roll and several levels of effect. So if I use some kind of Mind Control and my Intensity dominates your DP (you're like a normal guy and I'm like a master villain) I get a Critical or Catastrophic effect and can order you to kill yourself or something. If you're more my peer then maybe I get a Standard or Major effect and it's not so bad.

Well, in the Simulator we were testing VERY simple characters--all attack and defense and DP. Not so much in stuff like Super Hacking or whatever. It wasn't relevant. But what we discovered when making a bunch of characters is that the real, interesting characters had a LOT fewer DP than our test characters. We also discovered that the less powerful Resisted Attacks (compare "Tear Gas" to "Nerve Gas") had way too high Intensity so that even if they required a Catastrophic Effect to take you out, their proportionally higher Intensities would get that.

So we are re-tooling our Resisted Attack charts to both reduce the Intensity for most attacks a bit and to make the "weaker attacks" have even lower Intensities than they used to.

What Else?

Well, we did get some interesting looks into the powers and have revamped several of them "on contact" with a real character. Maybe I'll post some of the characters we're making here ...

Cover for Domain Control chapter by David Chow

Remote Gaming

I want to talk for a moment about remote gaming. I've touched on it here--but I want to do it again in more detail. At this point, right now, the only gaming I do is over Skype--with two kids (one 7 months, one three years old next week) and friends ranging from 25 minutes away to over a thousand miles, the gaming group I have simply can't meet easily and, frankly, I don't have the time I used to.

This isn't all bad--firstly, I expect when the kids are older to have more time--but also: given the difficulty of gaming period, I think a regular weekly session speaks volumes to the commitment I have to have it work. If you follow the link in the last post you'll see some of the artifacts that were created for the game we're doing now--and you can see how rich this is in terms of audio-visual (we had that before, face to face--but not like that).

So here's our method

1. Skype
Skype is a mixed blessing. Nothing else we've tried works so well--but it doesn't work especially well. Skype's user interface is confusing--sometimes confounding. When someone calls me, I sometimes get it on my iPhone and not my desktop. Players have dropped. Voice has been choppy.

You can't do group video (hey, maybe that's a plus?). On the other hand, mostly? It works fine. The sound quality is good. It's pretty easy to set up (I think the UI is so bad because it is designed for grandparents to be able to use it at the expense of, like, having the chat-window easily and clearly accessible).

In any event, it is free and it (mostly) works. I have a group "Gaming Group" which I push the call button for at 6:30 PM Sunday nights.

Recommended: I have a Turtle Beach head-set which is both comfortable and very high quality sound and mike-wise. It cuts out environmental noise and seems to do a good job otherwise.

Recommended: Make a group for the whole gaming group--it saves the pain of having to individually add everyone each time.

2. Google Docs
For mapping we have tried all kinds of things. Nothing--nothing--has come anywhere close to Google Docs for purposes of mapping and tracking. We have:

• A Google Spreadsheet dice roller. This handles rolls and Initiative for the group. We could build it out to do resisted attacks and wound tracking--but have not done that yet. Jeff, a former player, built an incredible online server for JAGS Initiative handling but when I moved I never set up the Linux box it ran on again. It's better--if only somewhat--I don't have to open my firewall or manage Dyndns to keep it going. Google Spreadsheets seem to work well enough.
• A Google PowerPoint for mapping. We create smiley-face icons in different colors for each of us and move around on the blocks that the GM draws. This works outstandingly well. We have had grids for tactical battle-maps, large sketches for outdoors areas, and plenty of interior maps. The only thing Google Presentation lacks is a Union operator to join shapes. As it is we have to layer them to make turns and such--it's a little difficult at first but after a few times the maps even look decent. You also have to keep in mind that your icon needs to be right-clicked and "moved to the front" so it doesn't go under a newly added corridor (or the GM can Order the corridor block to "back"). However, given the vast array of other shared drawing tools and mapping engines ... this is by far the easiest and best.
• A Google Spreadsheet for damage and gear. I have a long-running spreadsheet that shows the gear / treasure, SP totals, healing potions, and so on that we have acquired. We can go back through the list and see things we were doing two years ago.

Recommended: Get everyone on Google Docs and use Google Talk for chatter if you don't want to speak over someone.

Face To Face Gaming

I want to note that we do, rarely, do F2F gaming when the GM is in town for the holidays and we can get everyone together. It's rare but like 1-2x per year. I'm not sure it's better: what would improve my experience most is moving from 2.5 hours to a 4 hour time-block which we have done in the past (when I was running a regular f2f game about 3-4 years ago we did 4 hour time-blocks and that seemed about perfect).

I the future that's my goal--but it'll have to be when the kids are older / more self sufficient.

JAGS Current State

Here's where we are:
1. We have gotten well into the first (and maybe only) "Art Buy" for JAGS. This is a complex process involving me deciding what art I want and then trying to find ways to make it happen. It's expensive and ... difficult. I sometimes have a clear idea of what I want--other times I just have conceptual direction--and to lesser or greater degrees this aligns with the artist.

We try to find artists whose strengths match the piece. That isn't always so easy to do. It's also true that sometimes an artist ignores what I write and does their own thing. Often this is great. Sometimes it isn't.

So it's a process.

When it is finished, we will then integrate the pictures into the book and see what kinds of "blank space" remains. That blank space, usually, will be filled with art. Depending on how much their is ... and so on.

2. We then need to get the book edited and packaged for Lulu, our print-on-demand solution. I might look for another one--but I've been happy with Lulu. The problem is this: with artwork the book may come to 400 pages. That's too big. Lulu will do a hard-cover premium up to 250 pages.

Does that mean Vol 1 and Vol 2? Yes--and that means two covers and a more difficult editing process. This also creates difficulties: how do I distribute the chapters--they do not break down "easily." Also, I think it's clear the "rules chapters" both the opening chapter and the "Back of the Book chapter" need to go into Vol 1. But I'm not sure.

In any event, the cover art and the editing are both expensive and I have a solution for that--but getting the money together will take some time.

What else?

Well, I'm super excited about some of the artwork we've gotten. In some cases I have ordered things and am trying to figure out if it's "what I want or not." That's my problem--but it speaks to how fluid the situation is.

In any event: the book is coming together and the end is most definitely in sight. For a project I have, at times, emotionally given up on, that's incredibly gratifying.

I also want to point you to a thread on our 2+ year Have-Not game. I'm not in it--the GM is posting it.--but I want to re-post it here ... if I can. Although that may take some work: not sure how will copy-paste will work off a message board.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24097

Here's "Animal Adventurers" by David Chow ...

Yeah, as a computer MMO they'd probably get their asses kicked. I'm still super happy with it.

Two Images from our Have Not Game

This is one of the pictures that will be going in the Archetypes Book. It's a (incredibly cool!) group shot of the characters from our running 2-year Have-Not game. I'm the gunslinger.

By Carlos Cara

Here's an image FROM the game we played. It was used as the map for a "psychic battle" where the PCs got to bring in things / concepts they cared about versus a centuries-old malevolent media super-star.

Every word on there has specific meaning in the game