Getting through Customs

30. November 2009 by admin.

The writing of the Equipment section is fully underways now, helped immensely by conversations with playtesters. As old posts show, having equipment be more a way to tailor something precisely for an idea, rather than just a shopping list, is one goal of GEARS. The first steps are now being taken, with tweaks and revamps of a (horribly convoluted) previous system being streamlined into something more snazzy. The part on customizing existing equipemnt, either as a unique (or at least unusual) buy or as an alteration to existing gear, is fairly written now, albeit with room for many more aspects to customize (there is a quick list, which can be used in the fairly simple customization rules). It is even tying into the Ability system quite nicely, to the point where the range of items in a game world can actually be explained by the customization rules. They are not meant to do so, and the shopping lists that will eventually be added will not make any kind of show out of it, but it takes only a slightly observant mind (and the brief remark inserted in the chapter) to notice that everything is suddenly explained quite neatly. That was a bonus we did not plan on

Then there is the whole personalization issue, with items built according to the needs of a particular character. Yes, you can have an item that will work much better for you than its brethren, while being nothing but a bother to everyone who does not have your size of hands, overall build, personal aura, or the like! It’s still a somewhat shaky system, though, and will need some sandbox testing to check its viability.

And it goes beyond that. I just finished writing a section that uses steampunk blade guns as an example of Item Combos that become their own piece of equipment, with quite some interesting options for unique Abilities tied in. It’s better than expected, though a lot of clean-up and testing is still needed to get it juuuuuust right.

What is becoming painfully obvious is that the next round of playtests will have to be very different in order to incorporate the many different options that exist; they may be packed into tight, streamlined rules, but there are so many things that can be done with them that I cannot personally see a way for a few adventures to do the deeper testing. Options are still considered, including reaching out for external playtesters (we have not announced any need for that at all, so far). Time will tell…

Posted in Cash, Character creation, Equipment/Gear, Guns, Machines, Vehicles, Weapons | No Comments »

Making the better hammer…

27. November 2009 by admin.

Suddenly just writing, with no playtesters constantly responding to you and nobody to tell you you’re doing things weird, wrong, great, or too slow (common response, and positive; it means people want more!), it just seems strange. But things are moving along at a fairly impressive pace, and a lot of material on custom Abilities has been put together in record time. True, the main reason is that playtesters and -readers have bombarded me with good ideas, but I am still a bit surprised that things have not crashed around me yet (that one computer crash excepted).

I am pretty satisfied with the rules on constructing Special Powers (superpowers, magic, etc.). With a pretty streamlined system, it is now possible to design pretty much anything. The text includes three examples: A Fireball spell (two variants, and suggested insane expansions), flight, and a superpower that lets a character absorb other people for later release (yes, into his or her own body. Ick-factor not included). A Core Book Companion has already been suggested, which would include examples of this and more (both realistic and exotic Disabilities, like weird phobias or outright insanity, can already be constructed with the written Third Draft rules). Social Relations for characters has had a bit of a rough ride, and needs some consideration (it was deemed too loose, too unfocused by playtests). Gear and pets are still in very early stages, but some things from playtest show hints of a core philosophy. Monster creation is also a bit improvised, but it exists, it just needs to be more concrete and yet flexible.

What is really pushing to take the stage is the heavy-duty detail stuff. The carpet has been rolled out for it, everything is ready to do combat systems, magic, technology (I still love the Stardrive Ability example…) and more. Sketches for the systems are even done, and just waiting for detail to be filled in. Preliminary tests, it’s all there. I can’t wait to get everything in order so the full goals of immersive yet streamlined detail can be pursued full speed!

Also, the first actual considerations for reaching out beyond the immediate testers and contributors are being made. This is a big step; a friend in computer games design once told me that “there is no such thing as a real beta version, because even the test of a game has to be perfect, or people will shun it”. That scares me. Those who are testing now accept that it is an incomplete system, and even enjoy that aspect of it. To throw it to a crowd of skeptics and demanding consumers is like handing in the thesis you worked on for years to someone who looks at you and wrinkles their nose. Why did they wrinkle that nose? That is no doubt a question that will tear at me at some point in the increasingly near future…

Oh, and three settings have been established, beyond the core Alice setting: One twisted fantasy, one post-apocalyptic, one high-power deep space sci-fi. The actual details are still in the wind, but background stories and unique game world traits are looking good on the ‘drawing board’. Things to come, things to come….

Posted in Superpowers, Character creation, Third Draft, Narrator, Magic, Combat, Alice, Playtests | No Comments »

Solutions, solutions, solutions!

25. November 2009 by admin.

The first real round of playtesting has ended. Five different groups, three different countries. My gratitudes to you all, and looking forward to the next round, hopefully soon.

With that one adventure (a CoC/X-files-style monster rump) played by little over twenty fantastic people, under five equally fantastic Narrators (for those new to GEARS, that’s the term for GM or DM or Referee or whathaveyou being used), there is enough feedback to put me to work for the next year or so. Not that I will let it take that long, of course; there are problems needing my immediate attention, and suggestions (a lot!) that need digesting quickly, to include them before the next tests! And since the next tests will be re-blind (in that it will be roughly the same groups (hence re-) but without any influence from me at all (hence blind)), I need to get this stuff down, hard and good!

A lot of the feedback has been on suggested tools for creating content. Many games either provide little but premade content (monsters, especially), while others provide demanding systems for creating even simple content (vehicles and monsters, especially!). GEARS needs to provide a flexible system that is easy to use and can provide any content imaginable. It is a big goal to have, but with a pile of suggested ways to do it that is about knee height, there is not a lack of options

Thought has also been given a lot to the goal of ‘assisted learning’. Not to removing it; the games of today need an easy way in! But a lot of the things that were simplified during Second Draft seem to have been too much so. The rules that were considerd ‘not simple’ are apparently easier to handle than originally thought. So the GEARS Quick line will not be simplified as much as originally intended, but will simply streamline many choices, Specifics will not be included, nor will Automatic Growth, and some of the more advanced options will be toned down or removed, as well. And on the subject, the matter of Automatic Growth and low-life characters still needs attention.

In any case, there are already 6000 added words (circa 8 pages) in the Third Draft rules section. The Alice setting is still unchanged, but what is to be written there is pretty well known, since it has been used before, long before the now finished playtests. Also, Third Draft will be available as both free PDF and low-cost (circa US$6) paperback, probably at around 50 pages.

Things look good. Things look real good.

Posted in Third Draft, Monsters, GEARS Quick, Character creation, Narrator, Second Draft, Alice, Playtests | No Comments »

Looking ahead

23. November 2009 by admin.

Second Draft and the website seem stable, and the first work is already being done on Third Draft. For the moment, the writing part is centered around the Ability List, and the ‘Medical’ category is progressing quite nicely. Talents are still hampered by three different versions of the list existing, with a few variations of even those. There are some aligning choices, but there will have to be a bit more testing to pinpoint the exact list desired for the game. Hopefully, most key Talents will be chosen soon.

The real debate, however, is on two matters that are arguably a bit farther ahead: Non-standard items, and powers. The items refered to are those that are not bought, not even through black markets or special contacts. Experimental gadgets, alien devices, ancient enchantments and the like seem to break the current system, and there are multiple rules versions on the drawing board for them now. The question is acquisition; how does one handle the acquisition of such items during character creation? GEARS is not currently built for, nor fully meant for, a system that uses character points to define items. Systems like GURPS and HERO are famous for their in-depth methods of assigning special abilities (or Abilities; sometimes, they put actual skills and powers into items, in game terms) to gadgets, weapons and the like. Their systems are impressively versatile, but certain concerns have already been aired in Entry 19 (of the old blog) about transfering the same philosophy to GEARS. These items seem caught between character and equipment, and there are early signs that other items may have similar problems: Powerful exosuits (which supply strength, senses and other things thought to be character territory), cybernetics (ditto), enchantments on the body (which can improve anything in the character, theoretically), and so forth. They are all in a strange area between item and character Abilities.

But even more important, they are essential to many genres and styles, and they influence game balance immensely. What worth is a fancy Ability if gadgets outmatch character experience? At some point, items become close to substitutes for actual characters. In worlds that exist on powerful technologies, that makes sense; even today, having a good gun beats years of bodybuilding and martial arts training. But when some such powerful gear is not openly available, character creation becomes the explanation for how a character can have something like it, especially from the start. This gap between the character creation rules and the still forming equipment creation rules needs to be closed before GEARS can be considered fully functional in respect to unique or complex gadgets.

The question about powers is a bit more diffuse. Testing of GEARS with high-power settings has been limited so far, mostly enough to ensure that the dice mechanism scales well (which it fortunately seems to do, in nearly all regards). What is still causing some problems is the definition, in game terms, of highly complex powers and relations between powers. Concepts like physical, mental or other drains with power usage, side-effects, limiting circumstances, etc. are still only roughly defined in (unpublished) GEARS notes. Simple powers can be made, and a surprisingly simple system for constructing them is being drawn up at this very minute, but the highly complex powers of quality comics and well-written high-power fiction are still causing problems with game balance and character point accounting (powers are here assumed to be built into characters during character creation). For example, if a system of magic has powerful spells, the spells can be easily created with the methods being drawn up (in fact, playtesters are creating some rather interesting things on-the-fly). But if using those spells drain a character, is that just a fact in the game world, or is it something to build into the magic system? Or perhaps into each individual spell? The game world will have a lot to do with it, in that some worlds will just accept that spells or the like cause some drain, while others handle each power uniquely. But whatever the in-world circumstances, GEARS needs a system for handling it, one that provides game balance without neglecting the uniqueness of such powers. Ironically, the problem is not that such systems are hard to make; the problem is there are too many already in use! Playtesters have modified the original (now horribly obsolete) concepts heavily, and recombining the results in a way that allows easy power design while maintaining game balance os proving hard. If that game balance is to become game world dependent (i.e. different game worlds provide different game balances, to support genres and styles better), that is merely another mighty hurdle.

Essentially, none of this is anything new in terms of design problems. GEARS is a system, and what has been described are components. Making components work together in a larger system, especially one designed to provide this amount of flexibility, always results in problems connecting Component A to Component B. It is a headache, but it is a good headache, because the problem is too many options, rather than no way forward. It comes down to choice. And with the design philosophy of GEARS, some of that choice will turn into options for campaign versatility, turning the current problem into a future advantage. Right now, it’s simply about getting there from here.

Posted in Wealth, Superpowers, Character creation, Equipment/Gear, Old blog, Second Draft, Magic, Playtests | 1 Comment »

Entry 16: Boosting the Game

1. November 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 16, 2009/10/31 :::.
However basic it might seem, one thing I have found again and again is that players love bonuses. The idea that something, anything, boosts your character’s ability at doing something is very appealing, and often motivates players to venture farther and further than they otherwise would. I have already discussed some ways to promote style in games, back in Entry 4, ways that include awarding points for doing things that match the style. Character growth, as discussed in Entry 5, takes in the classical XP concept, the idea that points used in character improvement come from actions during the game. But the concept of points is very flexible.

The idea of booster points, or simply ‘boosters’, is nothing new in RPGs. Abilities, items, even deeds, allegiances or other less tangible things have provided boosts in various games. ‘Metagame’ boosters, meaning booster points that do not represent anything in the game world at all, have also been seen before. The basic idea is that each player has a portion of points that can be used to boost a character ability or other good thing in a tight spot. At their simplest, a booster works by each spent point giving a +1 on an ability for a single deed or short space of time.

Rationing booster points thus become a big deal in these games, and the way they are handed to the players will determine a lot about how those players play the game. Awarding them for certain deeds will push the game towards those deeds, while awarding them at specific intervals (either in the game world (like one point per day the characters go through) or in the real world (like one point per session that the game is played)) will make them something to watch carefully. Whether they can be hoarded or need to be spent to make room for new points also affects things greatly.

:: Basic Mechanics ::

The standard mechanic of a booster is to let a player spend points to add a bonus to some ability during the game. Thus, spending 8 booster points adds +8 to some ability for an action or a period defined in advance. One variation is when the boost is required to use the ability at all; only when points are spent will it work, and the rest of the time, the character just needs to work with whatever else is available. This works best with very special abilities. The two main versions are ‘1 point, one use’ and ‘1 point, 1 level’. The former means that the character has the ability, at some predefined level, all the time. It just cannot be used without spending one such point. The other version means that the character probably does not have, and cannot have, the ability separately. The amount of points define the level of the ability, for that one use (or period) only!

:: Game Boosters ::

The highest thematic level of boosters are those that are meant to affect the game as a whole. They may be given at the beginning of an adventure or a session, or they may even be fixed at character creation; when spent, they are gone!

A game booster is meant for very special situations, like when the character(s) is in a bind or when something great is at stake, possibly the happy end of the entire adventure. The purpose for them is to be scarce, to be something that has to be considered carefully before use. More often than not, they will tip a/the scale in the adventure.

This sort of booster is rarely explained in terms of the actual game world; it exists because it benefits the game (it’s a so-called ‘metagame trait’). Restrictions may apply to its use, often based either on the type of game run or the type of character the player has. Such restrictions will most likely be on what it can be used for, but it might also be in the form of consequences beyond having spent the point. For example, every point spent might make the gods less likely to heed the character’s call, if that fits the game.

:: Risky Boosters ::

An interesting twist on the above booster points is the idea that the players actually do not know their number of points at the start, probably due to some random element in deciding the number (if there is a system, the average players in an extended campaign will soon figure it out). The risk involved is that the players may suddenly try to spend one or more points… and there are none left! In a dire situation, that could be quite bad. Alternately, spending points when there are none left might even provoke a punishment, like the intended bonus becoming a penalty, or some components of the game world turning against the characters; overspending might attract evil spirits, bad luck, or even such concrete things as the wrath of your boss (in such cases, there should probably be a rational connection between the points and the aforementioned boss, or it will just be, well, silly).

There are several reasons risky boosters can be interesting in a game. Firstly, it will make players wary about spending points, even when they know they have them. The idea that they do not know when they will run out promotes careful use, since every point spent is another push towards an unseen catastrophe. Calculation in boosters thus all but goes straight out the window, making it suspenseful nearly every time. Players will learn to rely on their characters’ abilities, and only draw on points when things are really dark. Or maybe not even there; if spending a point risks disaster, maybe they will only spend them when they feel they can get out of any disaster coming! Every player might have his or her own philosophy on spending points, because it’s suddenly about nerve and evaluation your situation.

:: Earned Boosters ::

Rather than just handing out X amount of booster points at regular intervals, the game can include ways for players to actively earn the points during play. The idea of awarded points has been considered in Entry 5 for the purpose of character growth, but similar methods can be used for earning booster points for later use. Having the method of earning them be doing something that matches the genre or promotes the game allows the GM to encourage certain behaviors or goals for the adventure.

Earned boosters can quickly dominate a game. The more important they are for success, the more players are likely to strive to earn them. How good a thing that is depends on the game and the players. If they are important the game basically becomes about earning them more than anything else, and the fewer things will earn points, the fewer things the players will be doing. Less importance on points will make them a thing worthy of considerations but in the end weighed against so many other things, and a wider variety of ways to earn them will widen the amount of things that characters do to obtain them.

One option is to make the methods of earning points character-centric. This works best if the ways of earning them are tied to the kind of character played. For example, a warrior might earn them for brave fights, while a religious person might earn it for doing good (or evil!) work. This can help define characters, not just by what he can do but what the players will want to be doing. Assuming that the point earning methods are chosen as part of character creation, players can pick the kind of play they wish to support.

I like this method. The idea of promoting the concepts intended in characters matches up with my aims for the game, and adding details to actions by letting them enhance other action sounds good. My one worry is the method of implementation, as every ability can’t be made a booster ability.

One other option is to have the earning of booster points come from less controlled events during the adventures. Successes in certain deeds, or even failures, can trigger the earning of points. This offers some options for the implementation, since the point-earning abilities need not be purchased directly. The technical aspects of it still elude me somewhat, though.

:: Situational Boosters ::

The final option that comes to mind is to let points be earned by circumstances that characters are pulled into. Like earned points, the circumstances can be universal (every character gets points for the same things) or individual (what a character gets points for depends on the character). This can be used to heighten the intensity of certain situations in much the same way that the standard earned points can heighten the value of certain deeds. Situational booster points can thus improve the storytelling value of scenes, which fits my idea of how I would like to see the game. It can be used, for example, to make powerful emotions stand out, offering a boost when characters are angry or frightened or even exhilarated. Booster drugs or potions are a standard concept in sci-fi and fantasy, but situations may act the same.

Using situational booster points brings up the question of not only what they can be used for, but how long they are available. The situations may be the period for use, as well, or the idea of situations might not be as plausible. If the situation is, say, being angry, it only makes sense that the points must be spent while still angry. Adding the option that unused points may slowly decay as the situation evaporates might be worth considering, but even without it, there is the motivation that the player will simply spend the points when he or she sees the situation run out. This allows for some explosive ends to the situations.

Again, the problem becomes implementation. The trouble of adding earned booster points to a character is not diminished by the boosters being based on situations. The big problem is whether or not situational booster points are a good or a bad thing, since some will require the character to get into bad situations to be of use. If they even require something bad to happen directly ot the character, such as injury or broken will, it only makes the positive versus negative issue harder to judge.

In spite of the challenges in implementing these booster points, I feel that they will add enough to the game to define one or more methods to make them a part of the game, though possibly optional.

Posted in Boosters, Character creation, Old blog | 1 Comment »

Entry 12: Social Issues

26. October 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 12, 2009/10/26 :::.
With many of the ‘inner’ characteristics mulled over already, I feel it is time to start thinking about ‘outer’ ones. Social character concepts actually go right from the very central (charm, appearance and people skills) to the very fringe of the character (who the character grew up with, or even works for at this point). Hence, there are many layers of social matters that are worth thinking about. And this seems like the time to do it!:: Me in the World ::

Social abilities need only a brief thought at this point. The ability to talk to someone in their own language, to socialize and even manipulate, can be built around the concepts already defined for abilities. Disabilities also come with a built-in understanding of how to relate to the world (in the case of disabilities, that would be ‘poorly’); hating certain people, fearing others, admiring even others and feeling a compulsion to interact with or even seduce (romantically, ideologically, etc.) even more, it can all be handled by even the basic disability model mentioned in Entry 10. What characters can and cannot do based on mind (and arguably, body) alone has already been looked hard at.

But behavior does not create the character entirely, socially speaking. The real world has an obsession with status of all kinds, from fame (and infamy) through (dis)respect to clear-cut ranking on professional ladders, it all comes down to how people judge you, whatever they might be basing it on. The benefits, of course, will be accordingly; being wanted or even chosen can be both good and bad, and to many degrees. It can even be both, or some even stranger mixed blessing.

The first problem arises in the varied ways that such status works. Rank in most cases is a fixed feature, in that a higher rank directly signifies greater influence. When used to back up an argument, it becomes part of abilities. And how people react to it varies, from those who will greatly respect or fear it to those who will despise the character for it. Fame would typically be something that can back up arguments or aid requests, but almost like a security clearance, it can be a determinator for getting into VIP events, but that is even more subject to personal interpretation; who decides how much fame is how much, and what kind of fame will be in demand?

Other ways exist that social issues can arise from something defined in the character itself, and many of them can function in the ways mentioned. It should be possible to define these social issues according to a compact set of simple rules and describe individual kinds of status according to them.

:: Invested Recognition ::

Where status starts to become complex is when it is not clearly defined by the character itself. Recognition often has to do with actions and who or what you surround yourself with, and especially in games where characters might want to appear to be something they are not, this is important.

A simple example is status earned by being successful. A business man, a politician, an artist and many others can be defined more by what they have than what they have truly earned. Looking successful, by having vast mansions and many servants, can be more important to the status than the truth. This becomes even more true when taking into account that those reacting to the characters will often only have known them briefly, and will judge them by what they see. Status can be only skin deep! Another layer is the status that a character projects when someone looks into them, like checking the actual wealth of the business man or the fanbase of an artist to see what is real and what is false, or even what is real but fickle (perhaps based on something false!). Status is such a man-made concept that it has long ago become as layered as human society itself, and some will play on that. Some will to appear more influential. Some will to appear less significant and more harmless.

:: Organized Positions ::

The above is mainly concerned with how the world reacts to characters on a spontaneous, case by case level. The rules that will end up existing on the matter are meant for characters using their (possibly perceived) status with people they will most likely never see again, like lab researchers they need to trick information out of. The mental reactions of the ‘victims’ will be a defining part of the results, good, bad or something entirely different.

Things may be more organized than that, quite literally! RPGs have a habit of assuming that characters, especially PCs, are some form of free agents. They may be the typical wandering heroes, but they may just as easily be independent professionals such as private eyes or similar troubleshooters. Even when part of an organization, such as government agents, they have an unusual amount of freedom, but are also surprisingly cut off from agency resources. I like the idea that a spy might call in for satellite images or equipment drops or inside information, or that mercenaries can ask their company for assistance in handling some ‘hostile negotiations’. But just as much I like the idea that the characters are active parts of an organization (or several, perhaps not even sharing the same organized background!), which affects the game. But in currently available games, that seems to rely on the GM being good at adjusting described organizations on the fly, to produce plausible reactions.

To me, designing an organization around a character is as interesting as designing magical abilities or complex gear. There is power at a trade-off, most often by submitting to scrutiny and duties. And like adherence to a faith or deity, an organization can instill purpose, values and more in a character. Being a ‘company man’ is not ust a term for being employed, it is a nudge to a way of thinking that defines the character.

Having properly designed and detailed organizations as part of characters makes it routine to have characters draw on larger resources, deal with matters through channels specially open to them. It lets tasks, duties and favors become a part of adventures. It even kicks open the doors to organization intrigue, with departmental conflicts and internal rivalries and feuds over positions and resources. But even more, it lets adventures revolve tightly around infiltrating organizations and/or vying for power and influence. It also opens the notion of taking down large foes by cracking their organizations, hitting them on the resources and their routine connections. This need not be about bringing down the Evil Empire or Corrupt Corporation, it might just as well be to bring someone in bad standards in their organizations, revealing their corruption or even just showing that their actions are counter to the larger goals of an organization. The possibilities are vast.

Also, the idea of creating organizations for a game world (for use with either characters (as player) or adventures (as GM)), on par with creating fully designed vehicles or even characters, appeals to me!

:: Fixed Relations ::

Up till now, the talk has been on things that are rather fluid and dynamical. Status is something that is widely recognized, even if reactions to it vary, and organizations are large beasts with plenty of room for maneuvering. But some of the coolest carriers in fiction have been those not on center stage, but rather connected to those main characters in an important way. Singular characters playing a large role. This goes from the mentor to the close buddy to the expert advisor over to even the close rival or the emotionally (or magically!) bonded enemy. In some cases, mysteries about the bond conceal all but the fact that there is a bond, making the connected character an important enigma, one that the audience is dying to know the truth behind!

Such a relation to another character seems powerful to me. The whole drama and advantage/disadvantage perspective aside, it allows a player to create another character that is not built to be of the traditional adventurer mold. A decrepit, isolated and bitter character could play a vital role in the adventure, without the player having to actually play that character. Someone locked away in a place of great influence or resources, but with no real option of adventure, can be created in detail and be an active part of the adventure through the characters that are actually out adventuring. A relation becomes the opportunity to make the characters we want to see but not play.

Other than the actual character, of course, is the matter of the relation. Most relations to a character that has a role in the game will be stories of interest and, if I can make it happen, meaningful influence on the game. I have mostly seen the background story of a connected character used as inspiration for banter between the player in character mode and the GM as the other character. Having the nature of the relation play as much a role as the connected character seems interesting to me, and I have no doubt adventures could be spun on it, and definitely side-quests.

:: Dealing With Friends ::

At this point I should probably note that I have a habit of watching the habits and routines of characters in movies, books and television almost as much as I watch the story itself. As i have stated before, I enjoy when a character tells a story as much by just being the character as by participating in the plot. And watching characters like that, I have grown fascinated by the way especially characters in suspense and political drama (which, in my opinion, includes many modern stories about agents dealing with agency or ‘office’ politics) manage their social networks.

Back in Entry 9 I mentioned gear maintenance, and there are some similarities between that and how a good (fictional) networker handles social connections. This goes from the mafia snitch to personal friends to work associates. Taking care of a network, keeping in touch and keeping people happy is often a small byline to stories, but it is interesting (to me) and has a lot of adventure potential. Getting unexpected information while checking up on someone while on the road seems a satisfying variation on checking with contacts, and having to take care of valuable sources of anything adds a great deal to the sense of the character actually existing in a world with other people and having ties to them! Like a wizard spending time on practicing magic, a clever socialite or organizer will spend a phone call here and there, or an actual face-to-face meeting keeping friends and associates close. It even gives places to go, when a character invites people along to meet someone who is not essential to a plot but might be interesting nonetheless. It makes other people seem more like a real part of the world, and the characters.

Something similar goes for unpleasant acquaintances. Being on the run means keeping a tab on whoever is hunting you, whatever the methods might be. I have always found it far more chilling when someone hunting a character calls or passes on a message letting the prey know that the noose is closing, more so than just showing up, dueling it out, and the character escaping to continue being the fugitive. Foreshadowing by indirect methods adds suspense, making actual clashes far more climactic.

:: Characters Amongst Characters ::

The ultimate incarnation of social issues in the game would be adventures that are handled almost exclusively in the interaction with social connections. Like a movie or book all set inside a command center, or one that takes place in the relations between an isolated group, it would be about pulling strings, exchanging favors, knowing people and them knowing you. Depending on the details, a character might be attacking multiple targets in as many places simultaneously, while researching a background mystery and putting together resources, all through intermediaries.

Such games are not exactly what I strive for, but I would like the opportunity for them to exist. Having characters in the game whose foremost strength is ties to characters in the world around them is as fascinating to me as a mystic empowered by spirits and deities. It adds a layer to a game which, while not essential for a game to be playable, opens up a lot of doors. A character being the sum of organized and private relations, status and influences, and the totality of a complex social network is a fascinating opportunity for adventures and roleplaying.

:: Cross-Pollination ::

It is not uncommon for fiction to interweave topics across the board, and social matters can have ties to very different things. One example is gear. A classical example is the sword or talisman that causes people around the carrier to react. Like so many other things mentioned, it can be a good or a bad reaction, depending on what the item signifies and how the surroundings view that. Uniforms, certain tools (”you use a SHM-48? Oh, and I like the red stripe!”), actions (a martial arts style, using a magic spell), looks and much more can function as a vessel of the reactions described here. Even reading a particular type of books can cause reactions (Ayn Rand, “Mein Kampf”, Mao’s Red Book, etc.). The effect can even turn on itself, as reactions to a character can be influenced by what people they are seen with!

There are no doubt plenty of things that can cross-pollinate with social matters (or with one another!), and I would like not only for them to be possible, but for things I cannot foresee, as well. This implies that any rules made are not tied undeniably to subjects, instead there should be a core rule or rules that can handle this sort of matters. If the basics are used, status and friendships and the like can simply be locked in an item or an action, possibly even increasing with the amount of them (a full set of certain collectible items, multiple moves from a fighting style, etc.). More complex relations are still left for when further thought is given to the matter.

:: The Mechanics ::

As stated, status of varies kinds have some mechanics available for them, in that a character can ’simply’ be built with ranks and reputations. At first glance, it might not even be much different from an ability, the ‘ability’ would simply be to draw on a connection, or to add a bonus to rolls made for social skills. The way different people react to different reputations and the like requires some additional handling, though, and will most likely be as much a part of how people in general are designed than with just the character with the status.

What will be a lot more challenging is to make it all fit together as coherent social background for a character. This goes double when the greater social picture is to be included. Organizations have relations to one another, and your social relations may not feel about each other as they do about you. In fact, many of your friends might not like each other at all, and the same could easily be the case for social relations; the mechanic who does illegal upgrades to your car and the police officer you secretly swap information with will probably have some disagreements, and personalities alone can result in blood being spilled! This is ironically even worse for many skilled networkers, as the clever socialite will be able to stay on good terms with many very different kinds of people.

At this point, another thing that is starting to concern me is the overall cohesion of rules. Having rules match up one on one is one thing, but for optimum results, rules for abilities, disabilities, gear and social issues all need to mesh together, and line up with various conflicts. While it is too early to expect everything to just fit nicely, it is probably smart to start being on the look-out for concepts central enough that they can be the glue that keeps the rest together and compatible. Add style to the equation, things become interesting.

Posted in Game worlds, Relations, Character creation, Reputations, Old blog | No Comments »