Monsters!

2. December 2009 by admin.

The equipment chapter is coming along nicely, so it was time to branch out a little. Just to toy with childhood fears, I thought putting some resources into the monster section of the Creatures chapter would be a good idea. I thought it would be an easy ride; a few combat thingies, some stuff on realistic ecology. Was I ever wrong!

Games today cannot get away with the same monster-methods use din days of old. Twenty years ago, a monster was something that waited in a room or closet or chest to jump out and do damage. Rookies can get away with that today, but veterans will laugh their heads off. Monsters need unique traits, believability where it is hard to find, natural interactions with their habitats, and even relations to other monsters around! Researching monster design methods is like taking a college class on biological ecosystems, and then adding the whole magic/alien/hypertech ecologies aspect into the mix! What are the natural predators of a semi-sentien, wriggling thing the size of a human foot that feeds on fusion core radiation and breeds by dropping regrowable bodyparts? It most certainly is not a large, steam-breathing, violently defensive herbivore that uses its chameleon-like abilities to hide in shallow caves…

Ironically, this sudden overflow of information is turning out to be a force, not a problem. GEARS goes for detail, and a whole field of detail just dropped into our laps, somewhat unexpectedly. Some work needs doing, but it is worth it, and will hopefully make it not only possible to create some of the most amazing monsters ever with the system, but to create them easily. And spliced with the flexible Ability system used for characters, the tricks that a creature uses can be incorporated into sentient race concepts with laughable ease, and vice versa.

Now if you would excuse me, the fusion-feeder has nested under my sink, and I need to get the alien-repellant…!

Posted in Aliens, Races, Pets, Genre, Monsters, Combat, Third Draft, Playtests | 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 »

Advanced placement

26. November 2009 by admin.

Still sifting through playtest feedback. It’s incredible how much players have to say about a fairly simple run through a game/adventure. Most of it is suggestions and wild ideas, thank God, and quite a lot of it looks pretty good. With yesterday’s crash almost mended (still a few Medical Abilities that are not back to their yesterday sizes), it looks like the advanced phase is ahead.

I really should explain that a bit better: The current GEARS is the core system. It is set up to provide a fully playable game, but it does not, by itself, fulfill many of the goals put forth on the main site. Most of all, it lacks the level of detail truly desired; yes, the use of Specifics makes its Abilities more nuanced than most similar skill systems, but it is a small push. The combat system does not even live up to the main comparison, GURPS, at all. The current book sets the core of the game, butthere is a whole other level of detail that is still waiting in the wing to be constructed and/or implemented.

Some of it has been put together, however. Detached tests (only scenes, not entire adventures) have been run with a vastly more detailed combat system, for one. Hacking is being researched, another of my main-interest conflict types, and magic is being given a lot of thought and several designs already. The problem is two-fold, at the moment: The advanced detail systems are not very systematic yet (you cannot easily apply the ideas of combat to other things), and the ties back to the standard core are fuzzy. The goal is to integrate the advanced detail systems so well into the game that, say, a big fight could contain characters fighting according to one system, and others fighting according to the other. After all, real fighters are the ones who need the detail, not combat rookies! And when a fight has both types in it..

The stuff already in the works deals with a broader view of damage, both in form (did the character get cut and start bleeding, break a rib, get the wind knocked out, or what?) and placement (ever wanted your character to have arms even tougher than his/her legs, or a thick skull?, armor (my favorite remains using rivet-studded armor to provide something light, flexible and cheap that can still keep the edge of a blade from cutting the flesh, even if the blunt impact of a sword still hits its mark), weapons (design and maintenance of blades, the mechanics of tips meant to shred upon removal, etc.), combat techniques (splitting a blow between opponents, aggressive defenses, etc.), monster physiologies as applied to battle, and so on. With the options for advanced Ability structures being written into Third Draft, there should already be a tentative foundation for it!

Anyway, a good system is forming, but the full goal is going to loom ahead for a little while longer. Third Draft will still be focused on the standard rules, and how much of the advanced detail rules are going to actually be put in it, as opposed to in separate books, has yet to be determined. But the core of the advanced detail systems is being constructed already, including guides and rules to producing new content material independently. Hopefully, Fourth Draft will show the first clear signs of this/these system(s) in use.

Posted in Hacking, Shopping, Third Draft, Monsters, Fourth Draft, Armor, Swords, Weapons, Combat, Conflict, Magic, Playtests | 1 Comment »

Calm before the storm…

21. November 2009 by admin.

Things are still slowly falling into place. Five different variants of the core rules remain in playtest, but they are constantly being adjusted in ways that make them more and more similar, so it looks like it won’t be long before the core is fully assembled. The Second Draft looks to be about 40 pages long, including various sections that make up the most important rules. Game philosophy is not included in the draft, and whether this one will have sample characters is not yet sure; the final selection of Talent Abilities is not yet in, and without them, sample characters may become too confusing (because they will change wildly between the second and third draft). Phrasing also needs attentiononce the Second Draft is finished. Currently, the text reads like an academic text trying to speak normal English, i.e. dry and with some odd expressions. It is not really reader friendly yet, nor will it be before Second Draft launches.

Beyond the core that is being carved into Second Draft, there are some interesting things floating about in test. A very advanced expansion on the combat (and by extension, conflict) system is showing good results in playability, even if it is still horribly unbalanced. It allows very unusual choices in combat, from shifting weapons and targets to outwitting opponents by observation or constant feints. It even lends itself to magical and other esoteric combat in a way not originally imagined. Yes, that means magical combat moves! The details are still rough, as magic systems are in mid-test, but there seems to be some power in the system. Adding even more yum is the fact that the advanced weapons and armor rules are turning out rather nicely. They are only barely in early playtest, but the system holds and seems fairly light, despite incredible detail. What kind of detail? Well, let’s just say that if you want cheap armor against sharp blades, metal rivets in leather provide an option. Go for the round ones, though, unless you need very light and cheap armor; the crossed rivets break easy. And remember that jagged-edge swords of the right composition can outmaneuver rivets, as can anything thrusted and pointy. And you do not wantthose jagged blades thrusted into you, either! Full design system for composition armor and custom melee weapons is in the pipeline, too.

And then there is Alice. The center setting is being outlined for a shorter-than-full version, and it is nearly done. The full setting already has a lot of material to it, but the shorter version will be packed with Second Draft, to show off some ideas. Later drafts will have textboxes with addition setting seeds, and ways to connect them to Alice, but that’s a whole different ball game right now.

Things look good. On the more distant horizon, settings are forming, and a core design book for machines(vehicles, heavy tools, doomsday devices, etc.) is on the drawing board. The first pieces of an advanced gun design system are being drawn up. And an old favorite of mine, “Reich X”, is being looked at as a very dark, insane, and possibly silly setting. Also, ideas for merchandise keep popping up, but those are still mostly for fun.

Oh yeah, and Second Draft will have an actual cover illustration. Simple, but a cover illustration nonetheless!

See ya!

Posted in Magic, Vehicles, Guns, Swords, Reich X, Armor, Machines, Alice, Combat, Weapons, Conflict, Sample characters, Second Draft, Playtests | 1 Comment »

Entry 20: Team Spirit!

19. November 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 20, 2009/11/19 :::.
Roleplaying is a team sport. Yes, there are options for one-player-one-GM adventures out there, and there are even experiments with solitary games (in the spirit of the old Fighting Fantasy books, often). But the intent with the game being created here is fun for the whole group.Oddly enough, while this idea of characters working as teams (typically called a ‘party’) is fairly old, the focus is still very much on individual characters. Most parties quickly become plug’n'play, in that new party members are simply snapped into the group and function with no greater change over time. This always felt odd to me, and I have been paying close attention whenever articles or game mechanics have dealt with the idea of the characters as a coherent group. I want that to be a part of my game, and have experimented a lot with it.

:: The Party Sheet ::

An idea that has popped up its head over and over through the decades I have known this hobby is the idea of having a Party Sheet, which serves the same function for the party as a Character Sheet does for each individual character. Various games have tried various angles on it, but the ones that succeed best are (sadly, in my opinion) the ones that are almost entirely focused on combat; it is simply a powerful and game-compelling gimmick to provide tag-team tactics in combat, allowing special weapons bonuses or unique attacks or defenses when acting as a group. Moreover, it’s logical, because history has shown an unbridled creativity in military units for applying the advantages of numbers in a fight.

The combat angle is thus a no-brainer. Advanced combat will have special tricks and maneuvers, and having some of those require multiple participants is only sensible. That will be included. But I want the team aspects to reach far beyond combat, since combat is not central to the game.

What becomes the next question is what a group has going for it that is not immediately derived from individual members. The combat maneuver concept can theoretically be expanded very broadly, from courtroom assistance (why else would someone have a legal team instead of just a good lawyer?) and research teams to the classic ‘wing man’ approach to everything from dating to elaborate cons. The notion of two or more characters being able to rely on each other to such a degree that they are each stronger in the group is very fundamental, and should be taken advantage of.

But even beyond this idea of two heads being better than one, there are several collective advantages a group might have, which does not require everyone to be doing the same thing. Good leaders and planners only require the group to pay attention to gain from them, certain kinds of gear depends on multiple users to be truly efficient (”yeah, the mainframe is ridiculously big for a computer, but when you have two dozen users on, it’s a fraction of the cost and ten times more powerful than the best computers on the market!”), and complex lay-ups between different positions can make for impressive results (one car knocking the target into the scope of the sniper who can slow it down for the second car to powder it, for example).

A party sheet could hold the maneuvers the characters use as a team, putting the complex interactions together in one place rather than on every single character sheet. The base abilities and such used by each character would still be on that character sheet, but the greater whole is hard to see without a central description.

:: Unified Image ::

Other than what is going on in the party itself, the surrounding world might also have something to say on the matter. Many teams are known as teams, not as individual characters. This goes from legendary law enforcement units to rock bands to acrobats. Meeting one member is interesting, but for the full effect to work, all or most members must be present. A company might not hire individual members, wanting the entire team. Or a gang of criminals might not even be recognized one by one in the streets!

To further cement this, there are plenty of official teams that are required to be collectively present to be accepted. Many military, legal or similar teams cannot be admitted to resources or be given orders or even assistance without proper presence. In some cases, it is a matter of individual team members being formal representation for the team; one member is responsible for strategic communications, one is the equipment acquisitions officer, and so on. A full team has all the access they need, an incomplete team does not. If there are special skills involved, this is even more profound; nobody in their right mind issues heavy explosives to anyone but the demolitions expert, for example.

There are a lot of interesting options beyond that. A team might be known in a certain way by some people, in another by others. This need not be a matter of secret identities (rock band by day, crimefighters by night, for example), but being seen as one team in one place and another elsewhere is possible. Inside city limits, a military unit might have the role of search and rescue, and the functions of team members can be turned around greatly. A team of technical experts may likewise changed greatly in roles when negotiating with potential clients. In this fashion, one team can be many different teams, and not all members need to be on every version of the team; the new member might be part of the adventuring team, but he has no actual role in the guild enforcement team that the others have been with for a long time. People in general will recognize him as part of the legendary adventuring team, but the guild will not accept him, not yet at least.

:: Team Resources ::

For whatever reason, a team might only have access to certain resources as a team. Joint accounts, split passwords, and other methods can make it impossible for one member to grab gear without the others. When the gear is out of this restriction, it might work like any other, or passwords etc. may be continually required.

One type of team resource is the kind that actually requires multiple operators. The traditional example is a giant robot or advanced spaceship. The usual idea is that the skills required are fairly unique, and collective timing is of the essence. In other words, this exact team is needed to operate it.

More exotic versions include magical rituals that take multiple participants, psionic mass-mind gestalts, robots joining up, or even complicated weapons (or other gadgets!) capable of being merged. The idea is that multiple team members are needed to tap into these things; with only one or even just too few members, the act is either not living up to its full potential, or it simply won’t work at all.

There are plenty of ways to simulate all these things in a game, depending on what exactly is simulated (someone giving a team access, things being used as a group, etc.). What is important is that the abilities or other things involved explain this, making it not just a ‘random requirement’, but letting players build this team cohesion into their characters from the start or along the road. The point is to make the team possibilities a part of the characters, not just something that happens to show up along the adventure.

:: Teamwork Abilities ::

There are already several game mechanics in the second draft that can be used to build team concepts into characters, perhaps even create the foundation of a ‘party sheet’ (or several, depending on how the concept is used; different situations may mean they form a different team, as already mentioned). The most immediate option is to make other team members a Specific, perhaps so that it depends on which team members; too many is a problem, as are the wrong! Some method of defining the advantageous team structures will be needed, to make it work well.

Also, there is plenty of opportunity to make Abilities team-dependent. Some will be only part of a major job, like the character who is an ace at making the spaceship engines work at maximum capacity, or the one who acts as the energy conduit of a large ritual. These abilities may well function only or mainly (or just most dramatically) when the character is handling a certain position in the team. For advanced topics, position-specific abilities (and disabilities, gear, etc.!) can be commonplace, opening whole new frontiers in that field. Some combat only works in groups, as do certain social situations, business negotiations, technical work, and so on.

:: No I In Team ::

Of course, one of the chief tasks of teamwork is still to make the players work together. Even if the game is built on dramatic scheming and infighting, roleplaying is a team sport, and methods of making the group want to play together are very valuable. Having a ‘team personality’ set from the start can make the game much more enjoyable and preempt some problems. The players may be friends, but how are the characters as a group? How do their mentalities match up? Having this in writing gives a way to play the game and stick together through drama and challenges.

This is what I want. The mechanics may be little more than a few guidelines on that angle, but making sure playing together increases the fun makes the game a better collective experience. Players wanting to play together makes everything better for everybody, after all!

Posted in Robots, Teams, Reputations, 'Party Sheet', Old blog, Magic, Combat, Conflict, Vehicles, Weapons | 1 Comment »

Entry 18: The Conflict System

5. November 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 18, 2009/11/5 :::.
This entry will be aimed at something more tangible than the usual out-loud thinking. The conflict system is an essential part of any mainstream roleplaying game today, and this one is no exception. In most games, ‘conflict’ directly translates into ‘combat’. While the following will take the viewpoint of combat as an example, the system described is also being tested for use in hacking, mind-probing, vehicle and animal racing, and some other, rather unexpected areas.Hopefully, this entry will result in material that can actually be put directly into the second draft. It is the goal that entries from now on will result in more tangible material, for actual use in the game. Not all entries will, but hopefully many.:: The Quick System ::As mentioned in Entry 17, the game will be built with two main veins running through it: The original system (the actual game) and the ‘Quick’ System (for newcomers wanting to test the waters before jumping in). The conflict system is no exception to that.

The Quick Conflict System is pretty simple: Both or all sides pick the appropriate Ability, add any bonuses and subtract any penalties (in the Quick System, tools are likely to be the only modifiers most of the time), and roll that number of dice (or substitute some for ’safe’ dice, as explained in Entry 17). Highest number of good dice wins the conflict. Ties mean dramatic standoffs, if it fits the situation, and rerolls may be allowed if it makes sense and the characters have time for it.

That’s it.

If a bit more detail is wanted, the ‘winner’ deals damage equal to the difference between the number of good dice. So if one rolls 8 good dice and the other rolls 11, the latter deals 3 damage to the former. In combat, that would probably be some form of hit points (that part of the mechanic has yet to be decided).

Combined with safe dice, the Quick Conflict System allows any kind of conflict to happen quickly and easily, with minimum consultation of character sheet and with plenty of room for dramatic interpretation (a slight win is a close call, a great win, like 15 good dice superior, is next to a massacre!).

:: The Full System ::

Using the Full Conflict System puts a lot more options in the hands of the players. The system is still in heavy testing, and most uses have been combat. Hacking is second (somewhat unrealistic, Hollywood-ish hacking, to be honest), racing third and several more experimental uses beyond that. The philosophy seems solid, but any possible snafus are still being looked for.

The conflict is set up in turns. Each turn is a second, but that matters very little at this point. Each player involved has an Ability to use. Modifiers are not added yet, not even for tools (like weapons) used. Instead, the player decides how many dice from this ‘Ability Pool’ are used for attack (and by consequence, how many for defense). Once all players (and the GM) have decided on attack and defense dice, and pointed out their targets, all attacks versus defenses are rolled, one after the other. In these rolls, the modifiers finally come in; anything that is ‘circumstantial’ (like footing, distraction, injuries, etc.) is applied to both attack and defense. Tools useful in an attack are added to attacks, and the same for defense. Note that rough circumstances may reduce the number of dice to be rolled to below zero; in that case, there simply are no good dice rolled in that roll, period.

An attack that rolls a greater result than the defense against it hits. Not only that, but the amount of dice rolled better than the defense are noted, because that number may be added to any kind of damage.

This system is built originally to handle complex tournament fighting, one on one. In multiple-enemy fighting, the defensive dice can be spread out across multiple attackers, at a -2 for each added defense (the first is without the penalty, the second is at -2, the third at -4, etc.). This can make it prudent to hold off on the attacks, allowing better defenses against foes, until something can turn the tide (like assistance, for example).

The beauty of this system is that it is not limited to attack and defense rolls. Dice may be spread over other things, like sizing up your opponent, charging your special weapon feature (whatever that might be; martial arts sci-fi movies have some funny suggestions!), or other things that can benefit you in the fight. Different weapons, maneuvers, tricks and such can also be used. It even allows multiple attacks per turn, like double punches or other fast techniques!

As for Specifics, they are added like the other modifiers: On any single roll that dice are invested in from the Ability Pool gets the Specifics added to it that apply. The one difference is that the sum of dice added from Specifics cannot be greater than the number of dice from the pool spent on the roll! So if an attack has 12 dice invested in it, that character can never get more than a +12 from Specifics for that one attack roll. This both adds some realism (there is a limit to how much familiarity will do for you in a fast fight) and balance (players can’t simply invest one die in an attack and get 15 from Specifics, then dump the remaining dice from the pool into defense).

:: Branching Out ::

The point of this is not just to find a conflict system. There are literally hundreds of ways that two characters may be pitted against each other, and there is nothing to say that the one described is even the best. But it seems the optimum choice for what this is really about: Providing options.

More precisely, it’s about providing options for future expansion and diversification of any conflict that uses this mechanic. As described, moves, tricks and secondary abilities can be fitted in nicely with this system, giving characters with a fair or higher Ability level in the conflict new possibilities. A good fighter can make multiple attacks, do stun-and-strike attacks, and so on. A veteran racer can make several complex, highspeed maneuvers in rapid succession. And so on. There is room for rules branching out to more detailed options in the conflicts, and that detail is what is the actual goal. But instead of producing all of it right off the bat (which is a silly thing to expect from oneself, anyway), the system is simply built for it all to fit neatly into it as it is. Theoretically, a character could even use the extended tricks and maneuvers in a conflict where nobody else knows how to use them; the system allows it!

Of course, as mentioned, there is still extensive testing going on. The Quick Conflict System is solid, but the Full Conflict System has a wide range of lesser nuances to it that can still trip it up. The base mechanic of the Ability Pool works, but the more complicated conflicts, the ones dealing with hard-to-grasp subjects, involving multiple shifting opponents, and/or changing circumstances, still has some questions to them.

For now, the above will be refined and included in the second draft. It is clear, it works, and it follows the spirit of the overall game philosophy, so it is the ultimate solution out there. Unless there is a cataclysmic discovery of flaws, any problem will be a question of proper tweaking, as has already been done to other areas in the shift from first to second draft.

Posted in Hacking, Mind control, Racing, Old blog, Conflict, Combat | No Comments »

Entry 14: Pets, Beasts & Monsters

28. October 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 14, 2009/10/28 :::.
Back when I was writing about gear, my thought was that animals were basically gear. They serve a purpose, helping a character get somewhere or, in more advanced cases, fight by the character’s side or helps do things the character would not be able to or want to do. They were tools to be used by the character.When I started writing about social issues, my thoughts jumped to animals again, every now and then, remembering the close bonds between many notable animals and their masters in stories I know, from the lovable sidekick to the faithful steed. Animals were companions to characters, not tools. They were able to act on their own and in the master’s interests.

And then as locations became the topic, I started to see animals as part of places, as the beasts living in the wild, the guardians of places, the monsters in the dungeon. These were a different type of beasts altogether, the kind that were obstacles and dangers to the characters, not the ones trusted by their sides.

The only conclusion I can draw is that, deep down, I view animals as all of that, and yet neither.

:: The Mind of the Beast ::

What puts animals in such an odd place, adventure- and story-wise, is probably the way they are living beings but not persons in the sense that a character is. At times, the distinction between primitive characters and smart beasts gets blurred for that very reason, and in many fairytales, creatures that we would today interpret as primitive or unintelligent people were actually seen as little more than beasts. Trolls, gremlins, goblins, orcs, all of them seem to be only ‘people’ based on their ability to walk on two legs and handle tools.

The best distinction I can offer up for what is an animal and what is not has to be that: Behavior built around using tools. True, a clever animal can learn to push some clumsy buttons or open doors, but they are not built for it, and it is not their typical way. They do not understand tools as ‘real people’ do. They also do not speak, at least not in a complex language that allows anyone to explain the tools to them. Some will accept basic commands, but conversations are going to be rather one-sided!

And that is where the tool comparison comes into play, the fact that animals cannot be communed with on a peron-to-person level. But they are still independent, and can decide for themselves what they do. That is what is companions in them, the ability to act on their own and, to some extend, understand their surroundings and even place in them. The tie to places comes when they are not tied to a master, but pick a place to dwell. The traditional dungeon inhabitant is a bit far fetched for my taste, but creatures living in caves or alleys are nothing out of the plausible, and supernatural beasts may live in the oddest of places.

For a game that takes animals serious on any level (humor can still take them more seriously than old school dungeon adventures do!), the instincts that guide them must be a fundamental piece in their roles. And if it is so important, I feel it is what should be explored, more than how long their claws or how thick their hides are!

In the most basic sense, animals are survival machines: They do whatever they do as a way to ensure the survival of themselves and, sometimes, their offspring. Animals doing someone’s bidding do it from being used to rewards or punishments, or some combination thereof. The old advice that animals in the wild attack only to defend themselves (most animals attack only smaller prey for food) is not entirely untrue, the problem is only what they see as threats! A single person might not seem threatening, while a group would. Someone walking around an area far from the animal’s den might seem harmless, while some poor fool walking to the wrong cave would be an instant enemy.

But in a RPG, it can be taken even further! A deathhound might not pay much attention to the group of people walking through its woods, until they use magic. Then, it will kill anyone displaying signs of magic, the idea being that its nature is to fear magic! In a similar manner, feral dogs in a ruin city might only growl at strangers, until they try to pick up a dead body (presumably for examination, plunder, or something in that vein). Seeing the intruders as rivals for their food, the dogs attack!

On the other hand, animals do not know the world as intelligent people do, or see it in the same way. A loud noise can scare a dangerous beast away, after all. Different animals have different reactions like that, some running away from rumbling engines or puffing hydraulics, others possessed by a strange interest. Pack rats and certain birds are attracted to shiny things, and cats will sleep on anything warm (like computers. Or engine hoods). Animals may seek out the strangest things, to the annoyance or benefit of those who actually know what it is.

The basics of using animals thus becomes an idea of what they fear, defend, seek and in other instinctive ways react to. That alone can make an animal immensely interesting, a pain, a running gag, or a useful observation. And it goes for monsters and wildlife as much as it goes for companions! The mighty wolf that a character has at his side might be a feared creature, and nobody would approach the character without the animal’s consent. But a place with certain smells, perhaps not even notable to humans, would keep it away, even if its master enters. Meanwhile, the demon bunny that can smell ghosts has a bad habit of darting off whenever it gets a scent of spicy cooking. Not that it fears it. It loves it! Which causes great problems at Cajun cook-offs the characters visit…

:: What Nature Gave Them ::

One result of being without the ability to use tools is that animals are greatly defined by their natural abilities. Most games fixate heavily on fighting abilities, which in their own right can be both impressive and exotic, from spikes and spitting darts or venoms to sending out horrific smells or whipping up small dust clouds. And that’s just what real animals can do!

But animals are so much more. Bloodhounds are a common idea in the real world, and having animals track other things (pigs finding troffels, for example, or insects actually being trained to find and eat drug-producing plants!) can give some interesting results, especially in more esoteric game worlds.

Combining this with animal behavior can make them part of an arms race, either side trying to make the animals of the other useless, no matter what the central conflict is; drug-sniffing dogs are one example of a fearful arms race! But when things are less controlled, it also makes for some interesting adventure opportunities, when animals run off to do what they are basically trained to do, at the most inopportune moment. A fierce steed and companion might suddenly tear through a small town to hunt down some other beast that it is used to protect its master against, or happily scare everybody just because it has caught the scent of something it likes! This lets animals take an interesting part in adventures, becoming the somewhat unpredictable assets that have useful abilities, but are impossible to get a clear fox on the mind of. They can be seen as highly capable characters with (possibly unique) abilities but no ability to simply inform people of what the hell they are doing!

But just as much, animal abilities can creep out, surprise, amuse or confuse people. Certain real-world birds, for example, survive by mimicking the sounds of things in their environment. This lets them attract food or scare predators. It also lets them confuse tourists, when a bird suddenly and perfectly mimics a cell phone or the sounds it caught by a lumber camp! This minor incident might be good for only a short laugh, but if the animal starts following the characters, and suddenly gives off sounds that are of a more sinister nature, it turns into a living and very hard-to-handle clue, or even an omen! Other animals may attract attention by how they react to the characters themselves, to their gear, or any animals traveling with them. Of course, the most disturbing case is when players begin to suspect that what seems like a dumb beast is capable of some level of plotting, and is not playing their game. Some animals survive by luring the inattentive into an ambush, or worse…

:: Proper Usage ::

No, I am not insinuating that animals have one specific way they should be used in games. But animals do require an understanding by the characters, or they will be more trouble than good. Even a horse takes some knowledge to handle properly, or it will kick you and run off. More complex animals may require more complex handling, and being the kind of character capable of handling them can be a great boon!

This might be one of the few places where rules specifically needed for animals come into play. The abilities animals have need not be any different from character abilities, whether they be for fighting, tracking, avoiding or otherwise handling things. But for a character to make use of an animal, or be able to solve whatever problems the animal might cause, that character will need abilities. And animal handling can quickly become complex; a beast that is by your side might need attention, or its loyalty will fade. It could even end up turning against you! In a sense, a beast’s loyalty, calm, restraint or any other factor in its behavior could be measured as closely as its hit points, and when a factor drops low enough, the beast becomes a burden or a danger. Riders know this just as much as lion tamers. The proper skills and resources can keep that from happening, be it feeding, petting, or keeping things around the animal from getting outside its comfort zone. Add to that the idea of training an animal, teaching it to not act on its instincts (not chase smaller animals or run from loud noises, for example) becomes another factor. Animals that are hard to train can become continued projects for characters who want them for the good they can do anyway. And knowing how to trick animals (and how not to!) is always practical.

Having the idea of animal complexity enter a game will not only make it interesting to have a lot of variation in the abilities that characters use to handle the animals, it will also make it more important for players themselves to understand how animals work. A player expecting any animal to either flee or fight a character would be very confused when small animals start trying to eat through the character’s backpack, spit smelly fluids in his face, or bring him strange fruits to eat that make him sick. Knowing how to act around such beings will be a little like handling a strange culture, and the characters may end up trying to actually trade things with playful monkeys or convince wildlife to lead them places. The animals are not intelligent in the way people are, but knowing how to interact with them can give just as interesting results.

:: Bonds ::

The idea that an animal is a living being can be a powerful element, even in a completely fictional game. Again, animals fall somewhere between tools and characters, in that they can feel both practical and friendly at the same time. The big, dumb beast that nonetheless protected you from bandits can become a trusted ally.

This opens the possibility of string ties between animals and their masters, companions or whatever the characters can be seen as. This means a character can be designed to care about the animal, protecting it in return, having an almost personal relationship to it, as much as to any other traveling companion. An animal like that which gets hurt can become a priority for the character, important enough to abandon other tasks or even threaten people for. And someone who threatens the animal, even when it is unhurt, can become a mortal enemy. Perhaps in part because they are not fully sentient and self-aware people, animals can become powerful extensions of a character, a friend that is loyal to the character without needing to have a full life and social circles of its own. A ’simple friend’, so to speak, and perhaps that much more pure for it.

Having animal companions become vulnerable parts of a character is an important thought to consider hen they become greater elements of a game. This is not to mean that animals become the way that a strong character can be humbled, but rather a way in which the character can be tied to the world. If the animal has certain feelings about people and places, the character (and thus, the player) suddenly has to take them serious. This could mean avoiding or sticking to places, doing or not doing certain things, even interacting more or less with certain other people in the world. And animals with a past that the character doe snot know can be mysteries walking right by their side, the signs of which can be many. It might even culminate at some point, as whoever tormented or loved the animal appears, or some event in its past becomes clear.

:: The Other Beasts ::

In all of the above, the idea of an ‘animal’ has been a typical, flesh-and-bone creature, not unlike the animals we know from our own world. But the idea of animals can be extended beyond that, to things we would not typically think of as animals, but which can act and mean just about the same. A simple example is robots, which at some point in the future may become advanced enough to behave almost like a separate breed of animals. In the right setting, a character might rely on intelligent drones with simplistic minds and odd operational protocols of their own. they are not animals, but when they start doing things they are not asked to and both care for their owner and cause trouble, the distinction can become blurred. Artificial intelligences living inside computers and computerized equipment could become the parrot on the pirate’s shoulder or the dog at the wanderer’s side. Faulty intelligences, in particular, could develop some funny mentalities, and some of those may actually be marketed as regular gear!

Some of them might even speak, the limited intelligence making conversations as disturbing as they are practical, or perhaps even more so…

And there are plenty of other possibilities, such as intangible spirits following a character around, dealing with magical events and things in their surroundings, or lesser divinities that are primitive enough to act like animals might. Ghosts may deteriorate, becoming more animalistic over time, or humans may take that path after disastrous diseases are unleashed on the world. Alien or very futuristic gear might actually be organic, with the animal mentality being simply an inescapable or somehow even practical part of the design. Some important elements of society can be naturally animalistic; the first natural portals between the stars (’jumpgates’) may seem oddly alive, and be best handled as if animals. If such effects can function on a personal level, important people may be followed around by little jumpgates or the like with minds of their own! Depending on what is found around the cosmos, how things develop, or how a completely different world is designed, the idea of ‘animal’ could permeate everything that characters deal with, from the smallest gadget to the greatest city.

Posted in Pets, Monsters, Superpowers, Old blog, Combat | 1 Comment »

Entry 11: Basic Thoughts on Conflict

25. October 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 11, 2009/10/25 :::.
As stated before, and this is no great revelation to anyone, I have casually noted that combat seems fairly integral to the roleplaying experience. Or at least, no ruleset can be without a combat system, unless it is actually built around the idea of ‘no combat’. Which remains a pretty experimental idea still.

While I have no particular beef with combat or combat rules in a RPG, I feel the focus it is given is excessive. What probably bothers me most is that combat gets such unique and separate treatment from everything else; massive rule resources get put into it, and it alone!

In my game, I would like combat to be treated as an equal to other methods of direct conflict. The other methods could be racing, dance-offs (has street dancing contents ever been treated in a RPG, I wonder?), psychic attacks (to hurt, dominate, read minds, etc.), hostile negotiations, and so on. A basic underlying system should be possible to create for all such direct conflicts, with each specific conflict adding its own details. So maybe a knife thrust is not the least similar to will penetration or an aggressive in-curve overtake, but the way these actions are used in their respective type of conflict is similar enough that knowing one set of rules will let the player understand them all. The rest is strategy and, as always, details.

:: The Essentials of Conflict ::

To get a broader conflict system, I need some things universal to conflicts. A few off the top of my head:

- It’s about pitting abilities against one another. In combat, it’s weapons skills and basic physical moves, in racing it’s car maneuvers, and in exotic conflicts, it’s something about those exotic abilities. Opposing abilities must be compatible to allow an actual conflict; you cannot solve a gunfight through hacking, nor can you hack a computer by shooting it (hacking is a conflict between hacker and security designer).

- The objective is to either get out of the conflict or win it. The former could mean fleeing or actually convincing the opponent(s) to stop the fight. Winning usually means picking away at the opponent(s) until a decisive defeat is possible. Hit points, in many shapes and sizes, may provide a way to determine victories. They have worked for combat for years!

These two, the opposition of abilities and the indications of defeat, seem at the core of any conflict system. So at the very basic level, I will need the skills used in a fight (like weapon use), and something to cut the opposition down through (like hit points).

:: Extensions of Conflict ::

That only covers the bare necessities, though. Around that core, I would like to see more aspects of a conflict to be implemented. Even in combat, the reduction of the conflict to blow-by-blow attacks is overly simplistic to me, and definitely lacks a lot of drama, a lot of options, and a lot of (I am so sorry about the repetition) details.

Let’s stick with combat for a moment. You only need to watch a few dueling or fighting tournaments (or, if that is your taste, get in a a few fights) to see that opponents do not simply trade blows in an equal and balanced fashion. Most of the time in a fight actually involves opponents scoping each other out, looking for a way in, and then making some initial blows that hardly anyone believes are meant to do serious damage. They try to open up the defenses of their opponents, get the opponent off his or her guard. Feints, pokes, jabs, and other physically weak maneuvers reveal the opponent’s fighting ways and holes in the defense, and gets the opponent to act like the fighter wants it. Of course, the opponent is probably going for the same. The exception is vicious, brutal fights in which fighters just go straight for each other, and even then, the fight is about getting through to a soft spot without letting the opponent get control of the action. The difference is that the fighters are already at each other’s throats, probably quite literally!

This method of fighting is surprisingly universal! Hackers scope out security systems which are monitoring strange activity and relaying to the system administrator. Racers poke and spoof rivals into making bad turns or overlooking good ones while they get an idea of the machine the other is riding. Even court engagements and chess use preliminary moves to get a feel for where the opposition is, mentally. In short, there are plenty of conflict skills to get the upper hand without trading actual blows, literally or figuratively speaking.

Hit point have also been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Not that they are used, but that they seem to be the sole measure of success in combat. Throwing someone off balance, causing pain, causing frustration or even fear, it all erodes the opponent’s ability to fight, and a lot of it is easier to get at than what physical constitution hit points may represent. Even the core functionality of hit points seems a bit shallow; people are not just cut down and then die, they bleed and suffer, the initial damage almost less important than lack of treatment afterwards. Most people who die from fights bleed to death, externally or internally. Ironically, many who die without bleeding to death (i.e. die spontaneously inside the fight) die from incapacitating injuries, often to the spine, and hit points really do not matter much against and elbow planted hard between two vulnerable vertebra. The importance of hit points in all those combat systems seems to almost be a fighter’s agreement: “We fight by cutting each other’s bodies apart until one of us drops from having been sufficiently turned to mulch”.

Again, there are parallels to other conflicts. Provoking a race car driver into a flameout is a death blow that ignores position and vehicle condition. A ’smoking gun’ in a court case does pretty much the same. And the ‘alternate hit points’ (pain, confusion, etc.) have their equals, too. Come to think about it, death blows often have to do with getting the right position for it and then executing it, so position, or equivalents, can perhaps be seen as yet another kind of hit points, even if they disappear the instant the fight is over. Similar concepts should be available in other forms of conflict.

:: Tension, Drama, Action! ::

As I have hopefully made obvious over these last many posts, my obsession with detail is not an attempt at creating some master behemoth, the most complicated game system alive. I find that details add to the sensation of a game, and by making the system itself support and structure details, that load is taken off the GM’s mind quite a bit. After all, few would expect a GM to wing combat in a dungeon crawl, and then expect him to get everything right. Rules make it possible. Likewise, if the tension of watching vital gear slowly fail as you fight to survive, the drama of characters struggling against inner demons, or the action of trying to make your magic mesh with the surroundings for optimum power are of interest, having rules to handle the details will let you keep it up without constantly having to improv your way out of it.

And if there is an area that should be ripe with these things, it most certainly is conflicts. The added rules will need to exist to promote this feeling, and there should always be quick and easy alternatives for games that do not care about a specific kind of conflict and therefore must resolve it quickly. More than in any other area of the game, there has to be a quick option in conflicts, so the game can focus on conflicts that the players enjoy!

Overall, conflicts will hopefully encompass many of the things described in other entries, and many of the concerns discussed there will take on a whole new light when they become part of a conflict situation.

Posted in GEARS Quick, Old blog, Conflict, Combat, Weapons | No Comments »