Bigger, better, faster. We have the technology!

19. December 2009 by admin.

With the release (and subsequent adjustments and rerelease) of GEARS Third Draft, I feel I may have left the blog to drift a little. Third Draft took a greater effort than expected, mostly because of the first attempts to do a serious layout (the part that got the most adjustments, actually!).

So with that work pretty much done, there is only one logical thing for me to ramble about today: Fourth Draft!

And there is a schism here, a change of process from the first three drafts to this next one. It is probably not easy to see from the outside, but there is a massive difference between writing rules and writing games! Rules are about making sure as much of the gorund you want is covered as possible, making sure things fit together, make sense, and has a degree of balance (we are still working on the balance thing). Games are about writing something that otherscan easily understand, use and enjoy. That means that Fourth Draft will need better language,better organization, and better layout. Just saying “we need more/better rules” will not cut it!

So the writing procedure has been turned upside down, for one. The first three drafts were written as rules were needed and became possible; first the dice mechanic, then character creation, then all the other things characters might have, and onwards from there. Fourth Draft is about structure. Therefore, the first thing written for it is a complete and detailed layout of all the contents planned for it, set up in a way that seems logical and user friendly. Not surprisingly, the bulk of what is not only in Third Draft, but also what is mentioned but not finished in Third Draft, will all only be part of one section: The Rules

Originally, the core book being written was meant to have three major sections: The Game Engine and The Rules System, hence the name, GEARS: Game Engine And Rules System, and of course the Alice 2.0 setting. As things look now, a more detailed structure will benefit everyone much better, leading to five majorsections:

• The Game, describing how games can be played, how to organize sessions, what the roles and tools are for Narrators, how players tend to think, etc. Half of it is for beginners learning to handle roleplaying games without too many bad experiences, half of it is for skilled Narrators/GMs from other games wanting to get a better game going with less work. The section is about people, real people, playing roleplaying games; how they think, what they want, what they may need, etc.
• The Engine is a toolbox for the Narrator. It describes how to easily produce things from ideas, and how to get ideas when you run out. Methods, tricks and tools are delivered to quickly turn a general idea of a world, an adventure, or anything else pertaining to the game into something tangible and usable. It even goes into how these things can be set up to be shared between Narrators, to the point of how one might professionally publish them. The idea with this section is A) to ease the task of creating breathtaking campaigns, B) to kickstart a creative GEARS community, and C) to actually sow the seeds for writers who will come to write for the game! Most professional writers will already know the information in the section, and much more, but a lot of it will be news to those without publishing credits.
• The Rules, basically what is already in Third Draft, with many of the blank spots filled in. A serious rewrite is going to be done on many parts, for better phrasing.
•  The System, meanwhile is an extension of what is in The Engine and The Rules, providing a lot of different, creative uses of it all to create concepts for the game that have the complexity of ideas from The Engine, but are fully compliant with The Rules, using what already exists to create things like detailed poisons, hacking rules, character ethics/value systems, magic and divinities, and so on. This is both a collection of premade material that goes beyond the basic rules, and examples for how more can easily be made. Focus is on explaining ideas so that creative concepts can be reused and expanded on by others.
• The Settings contains both Alice 2.0 and multiple short world writeups, to get genre games going. Rules are going to be integrated into this, rather than the ruleless description of the Alice 2.0 setting included in Second Draft and Third Draft. The other, non-Alice settings will be picked to demonstrate genre and style creation and modification, giving the new Narrator a wide scope from the start, and an ample toolbox.

I will refrain from going into details about each section’s structure and subsections; that is what writing Fourth Draft is about, after all. But expect to see something much more like an actual game than a carefully crafted set of house rules next time!

Posted in Genre, Fourth Draft, Style, Design kits, Game worlds, Third Draft, Character creation, Alice, Second Draft, Magic, Narrator, Hacking, Conflict | 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 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 »