Trouble a-brewin’?

24. November 2009 by admin.

Had some interesting feedback today. It seems there are some matters in GEARS that need attention. Most pressing is a problem surrounding the Automatic Growth rule; it simply causes low-power characters to grow too fast, because low Abilities grow much, much faster than high-level ones. It’s a math thing, in that the reduced range of rolls makes it far more likely to get even the exact success needed to grow without significant investment in the appropriate Learning Ability (for those who have not read the rule, this is probably complete gibberish). Anyway, it looks like ‘low-level’ Abilities will not mean as numerically low as intended, and the Difficulty guides will need some reshuffling. Hopefully that’s all, because I have come to like the rule in its few weeks of testing.

As for the whole “guides for creating things” ordeal, some progress has been made. The structure for creating Special Powers (creating effects like magic, superpowers, or anything else that is a bit beyond normal Abilities) is progressing, and the general structure for creating gadgets and larger machines (including vehicles) is looking good. The one flaw at the moment is that especially the Powers system is just not rigid enough; it relies a lot on subjective interpretation of a superpower or the like, and is prone to heavy manipulation by devious players. There are no really devious players in the playtest pool, which might be a bad thing now…

Anyway, Third Draft is growing nicely. It’s about 50% added material, and that is written in very short form, meaning more defined rules will be needed. There are Boosters, Disabilities, and a lot of other things in the works. Also, the Talent Abilities list has been set up, all that is needed is the writing of each Talent Ability. This is a big step ahead, since it means the Talents have now been picked.Soon, the rules written can refer directly to the, and oh how many of them need that!

I will stop it here. I have noted, while transfering entries from the old blog, that I write far too long blog entries. I need focus, and I need restraint (Restraint being one of the new Talents, btw!). Otherwise, I babble. I do it for love of the game, and the work, though. So… I’ll just be quiet now.

See ya!

Posted in Boosters, Disabilities, Third Draft, Superpowers, Old blog, Machines, Magic, Playtests | 1 Comment »

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 »

Second Draft!

22. November 2009 by admin.

Caught up with a bad flu that keeps socializing to a minimum, I thought today might be a good day to finally start drawing public attention to the new GEARS website. The main page is looking fairly functional, and several pieces are fitting together nicely. It’s not a full site yet; a lot of information is missing, and some features are still a bit… wonky. But it is working and looking rather good, if I may say so!

Of course, the real reason this looks like the time to open up for the public is that GEARS Second Draft is out! 36 pages long, this draft has most of the fundamental rules included, and it even has the first look at the core/demo setting of the system, Alice 2.0, a twisted version of our own world that revolves heavily around a small girl and the city she built. Not to mention her secret ressurection facilities and the even more secret portals she launches operatives into other worlds with! GEARS Second Draftgives the first collected look under the hood of the system, even though a lot is still missing, like Disabilities, Sample Characters, advanced options, shopping lists and the whole non-rule part of the book for developing and running campaigns.

Also, the term ‘Game Master’ or ‘GM’ has been exchanged with ‘Narrator’. It’s not a new idea, it’s something that has been standard behind the scenes of the system work for years. Game Master, other ‘Masters’, Referee, and the like simply have too much of a “I am in charge, I (can) control everything, and I must control how the game progresses” sound to it. The basic function of Narrator is no different from a GM, but GEARS is meant to restrict the notion of anyone being ‘in charge’ of the game; it’s collaborative storytelling, people! The term ‘Storyteller’ went out for similar reasons, in that the person is not ‘telling a story’, but rather is narrating the world around the characters that are the main characters of a story they help writing. ‘Collaborative’, it’s a big word around here…

That about covers it. The first round of official announcements will be fairly discreet, mainly a matter of forum signatures and posting in appropriate subforums that the site is now running. Anyone wishing to spread the word is welcome to, of course. Making a big deal out of it just seems a bit premature, as a lot of folks would no doubt be disappointed to find the game only in draft stages after any kind of hype. A mor erelaxed approach will (hopefully) attract people who come out of curiousity and possible long+term interest, not people who just want a quick RPG fix. It’s a theory

And now, I will see if I can get some of these many functions of the new site working. Especially getting this blog to show a highlighted or at least very central link back to the main GEARS website… If anyone knows WordPress, I am all ears!

Posted in Narrator, Shopping, Old blog, Alice, Second Draft | 1 Comment »

Locked and loaded!

20. November 2009 by admin.

Things are being set up…

Over the next few days, the original blog will be moved here, post by post (just 20 of them, luckily!). In the meantime, I expect to get more familiar with the whole blogging aspect of the new site, and see what can be done with it

ANYTHING POSTED BELOW THIS IS FROM THE OLD BLOG

Edit: Entries back to Entry 11 transfered.

Posted in Old blog | No Comments »

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 19: Wealth & Possessions

9. November 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 19, 2009/11/9 :::.
The topic of equipment has already been dealt with in earlier entries, to a certain extent. But what has not really been talked about is how such gear is actually acquired. Both in character creation and in later games, there are more ways of, and more views on, acquiring gear than most assume. I want my game to include a better explanation for characters having their gear than just “they buy stuff” or, even worse, “that kind of character just has that stuff”. I do not want purchased gear to be marginalized; buying your things is a logical and meaningful way to get them! But I do not want it to be the universal default, nor do I want to enforce ‘the universal shopping list’ that many games seem to go by. Even if it is a small part of the character, I want the acquisition of gear to make sense for the character, and reflect the kind of world the character lives in, not to mention his or her place in it.It might seem like a lot, but this is not just some insane demand for more detail. While the matter of where a knife was acquired can be painfully uninteresting, a lot of gear can spark up questions, especially when its effects are taken into account. A cybernetic eye enhances eyesight, for example. So does the player pay for it with points during character creation, or with cash? And what if it is surgically installed later on, what then? And what about that ‘priceless’ magical sword, if it is so priceless, how was it acquired?

Even beyond such questions, a thoroughly created game world can toss some frustrating questions into the process. If a character is from a certain region, will gear be acquired at the local prices? What if the character was briefly in a city with cheap gear, did he or she go on a shopping spree and get everything the character now has at low, low prices? And just how much can a character afford?

:: Cash, Card, Credit! ::

One of the most basic questions when creating a character in almost any game is “how much money does my character have?”. Cash allows the characters to get gear either immediately or later on, and it pays for a lot of other things during an adventure, too. I have stuck with a method of character cash for years now, and it works: Buy cash like it is an ability, then multiply the final level with an amount of cash set for the given game world. So if the cash-point value of a game world is 20 doubloons, buying Cash[14] will start a character out at 280 (20 times 14) doubloons. Needless to say, there is no learning or experience for this ability.

But while cash-in-hand will start the average adventurer character off nicely, some like more advanced options, if nothing else then to simulate real-life options. Two come to mind: Borrowing and earning. Whereas the cash option is just what a character has, these two are more about what that character can get later on. The idea of character income has already been thoroughly tested, and can be molded like cash: Buy an ‘ability’, and the character gets a weekly income equal to 1/10 of the aforementioned cash-point value. If the value is 20 doubloons, for example, the character gets 2 doubloons per week times the acquired ability. Easy, efficient. ‘Credit’ has undergone multiple tests, however, and none have shown satisfactory results. Essentially, it would be ‘the skill of borrowing money’, getting bigger sums at lower costs and for longer terms. The details are still out.

:: The Tool Ability ::

Money solves the gear-purchasing problem for shopping-list items. But too many genre conventions involve gear that is not purchased outright, from the magical sword to genius gadgets or inherited books of power and mystery. Without a pricetag, an item cannot be solved by throwing money at it.

Several existing game systems try to solve this by making the items a part of the character, rather than independent gear. A battlesuit thus becomes a set of abilities acquired for the character, just like that character might acquire the ability to read a language or fly a plane. An item might have unique abilities, or problems of its own, things that would make no sense for a person. Or ‘normal’ abilities would be somewhat different for an item. But a lot of fascinating and unusual items can be created by viewing an item as a set of abilities ‘in a box’, especially if ‘ability’ and ‘bonus’ are made fairly interchangeable.

I do have some disagreement with this method, though. There are the strictly practical problems that turn up when a character has his or her abilities ‘in a box’, which can basically be handed to someone else to use, or even stolen. This set of problems can bog a system down in rules to prevent abuse, all on its own! But beyond even that, I dislike the idea for the simple reason that gear suddenly does not feel like gear any longer. In a superhero game, the idea that a hero (or villain, or whatever) can fire bolts of lightning from the hands can definitely be an ability. If this person needs to wear a funny suit for it to work, I can still see it as an ability, with the suit being like what a sword is to a swordsman: Something that allows an ability to be used. But if it is the suit that fires the lightning, the ability that the character has is merely to use the suit! How the suit has this power is a different thing. And if the suit is not uniquely available to that character only, if the suit can actually be taken by others who will try to activate it, the idea that the bolts are the character’s ability goes right out the window for me. I don’t even want to get into what would happen if such ability-gear is acquired long after character creation…

In the grey zone between what is character ability and what is purely a gadget, there are interesting possibilities for whole fields of gear. Abilities can exist to tap into the gear, gear can exist to allow a character to tap into abilities, and so forth, creating amazing bonds between character and gadget (and we haven’t even looked at potions or strange energies yet!). But I would like that fascinating complexity to remain uniquely its own, rather than translate items entirely into character traits. This way, the abilities involved also have the chance of being an expanded part of the game world, something to be understood and handled in different ways. Maybe the suit is not the only way to focus an ability. Or maybe the abilities locked in the suit itself can be dismantled, examined, altered… or simply broken!

:: Point Acquisitions ::

One method that has been tried and tested thoroughly with a fair degree of success since my work with TAYDS is to have a general rating for items in overall power (which includes things like versatility, ease-of-use, durability and so on). A proper rating system for items allows them to be bought like abilities, setting a ‘point cost’ pricetag on the item. It works with basic items that do not fit shopping lists, but mainly because those items have a fairly linear progression of power. Once items become complex, typically through multiple uses, complex requirements and so forth, this ‘point cost’ method begins to break down.

The question is whether a better system can be built to charge points for items that are acquired at character creation (acquisition later would be handled by whatever in the adventures made it happen). Arguably, the basic notions of the aforementioned ‘tool is abilities’ may suddenly apply again, but somehow it seems the system would need to be adjusted, or balance goes right out the window; if a tool doing something costs the same as the ability, the idea of losing it will make the natural ability a better choice, and if it cannot be lost, the realism and idea of it being actual tools is ruined. Other flaws in the ‘tool is abilities’ method follow the same logic, and there remains also the problem of making tools feel less like gear and more like some detached piece of a character.

Of course, just because items are acquired via points does not mean it has to function this exact way. The idea in the above is to have an item wear a pricetag for what it can do, i.e. pay for power more or less directly. Another option is to pay for having access to certain kinds of gear, and then acquire some of that as a (perhaps) permanent possession. For example, having experimental super-toys might require having access to the labs that make them, something acquired as a presumably social part of the character (friends in the right places, so to speak). Inherited things may require an appropriate family history. This deflects some of the problems with point-acquired gear by making it part of something bigger. How a value-of-purchase figures in is still a harder issue; will it now be worth the investment to get the items, at all?

A lot of gear can be handled by making it actually equipment, stuff to be bought. The types that are not shop available will need to be defined by their origins, and how the gear is acquired will probably end up building on that. The consequence of this is that there will not be any fixed way of equipping characters: If it’s store bought, the cash rules provided will deal with it nicely. If it is special-made, it takes the connections and will be ‘priced’ according to how the world handles those things, probably handled by social backgrounds. Family heirlooms, strange acquisitions, alien gifts etc. will need their own reasons for being in the possession of the characters.

Posted in Wealth, Shopping, Cash, Equipment/Gear, Vehicles, Old blog, 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 17: Drafts & Lights

4. November 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 17, 2009/11/4 :::.
The structure of the game core is slowly becoming visible. With the long list of features already described in these last 16 entries,that is a happy thing!Because of realizations, tests and discussions (online especially), I feel a need to move the actual drafting work to the next step. This does not in any way mean that the final game will now unfold; any written work worth reading is rewritten dozens of times before it is tentatively called ‘a finished product’.With certain flaws that have come to light through the writing and testing of the first draft, its continued writing is being stopped. There is no point in creating sample characters, because one of the flaws is in the character creation system. The abilities listed are an incomplete collection, but they will travel easily into the second draft for continuation. This seems like the best way to actually move the writing of the core system forward.

You can find a copy of the first draft, as PDF, in the top bar, or here.

:: Current Game Mechanics ::

The dice pool mechanic has had a great deal of discussion with people both from the gaming and mathematical circles around me. Two results have come from this: My more detailed explanation of why I chose it, and a problem that should now be fixed. The explanation part has apparently not been made clear from the beginning, which is my fault. I chose the dice pool mechanic presented because I want a game that can ’scale’, meaning it doesn’t matter what level a skill is, the level is still important. Many games have a ‘functional range’ for skills and other abilities. If the ability gets greater than that range, any increase will either be virtually useless, or distort the dice mechanic of the game. For example, using three six-sided dice means any ability level above 18 will either be unimportant (if the dice have to be rolled below the ability) or make the dice roll worth much less (if the roll is added to reach a set target). Penalties are all that keep such high skills important. I don’t want that. I want high skill levels to matter as much as low, and the used dice mechanic lets the game perform that way.

The problem fixed was surprisingly physical. The dice mechanic allows endless rise in ability, meaning at some point, the number of dice rolled becomes impractical, because there are simply too many! Apparently, other games have had similar problems, and the solution is inspired by theirs: Since the dice have a 50/50 chance of turning up good or bad, the player is always granted the right to cut away a number of dice before rolling. For each two dice cut, one is an automatic good die (the other theoretically being an automatic bad die). Sacrificing two dice for one automatic good die is called one ’safe’ die. Thus a roll of 47 dice can be reduced to, for example, 20 ’safe’ dice (cutting 40 dice before rolling) and 7 dice rolled normally. Now, players decide how much they want to roll, and the more safe dice, the less the maximum possible roll.

With that in place, the dice mechanic can be slightly edited from the first draft into the second.

The really big problem is in character creation, and to some extent growth. The concept of one CCP put into an Ability giving a Specific in each of that Ability’s categories is highly unbalancing. Not only does it bloat abilities with Specific to the point where the actual Ability becomes a minor component of doing something, it also skews the value of Abilities when one Ability has fewer categories of Specifics than another. While this is a pretty nasty imbalance, the solution seems fairly simple: One CCP equals one raised Specific only, in addition to the Ability itself. The ‘background’ is rejected as a Specific and now simply becomes a feature added (raised by one) any time a CCP is spent. There will be some rulework about hiding your background later, but for now, ‘background’ is simply a separate entity that describes how each CCP of Ability was gained. The same is changed in growth from awarded CCPs.

:: Expanded Core Concerns ::

One of the major realizations that have hit me from the entries here is that giving every feature its own, unique rules would be horrible overkill. Yes, every topic needs full and thorough treatment, but just whipping up a new rule for everything a character might do or have in the game will end up in books the size of certain legendary, back-in-the-day mega-texts, stocked with a million things to remember. And while it might not seem like it at this point in the process, given the amount of features that are being built into the game, playability is a big issue to me. The game has to be easy. Detail must come from options, not complexity.

What I am looking at in parallel with the second draft, in my massive heap of notes and player feedback, is a core structure that will make a clear-cut, understandable and most of all manageable set of core rules guide the extended features of the game. By that I do not in any way mean a copy-paste system, where magic is just gunfighting with different names, which in turn is just the mechanics of haggling given a bunch of weapons stats. No, what I am looking for is a guiding philosophy to the rules themselves, making learning the basics a direct portal to understanding the game in general. I don’t want magic, gunfighting, haggling and other rules to be vaguely disguised copies of each other. But once someone has understood one of those rules, I want the rest to make sense much, much quicker.

The jury is still out on the actual methods of this. Without any truly detailed rules covering the more advanced topics, there is no actual complexity to be avoided yet. I am keeping an eye on it, watching for ways to make rules build upon each other, but for now, I only have the knowledge that streamlining will be needed. The dice pool mechanics used for abilities are already being incorporated into disabilities, and even most abilities themselves function according to understandable lines, all based in the same philosophy. The tested game material is less streamlined, but with more rewriting and more testing, it is getting there.

:: Having It Light ::

In the playability, ease-of-play vein, I have always been a proponent of easy introduction to new games. We might all just as well face it, nobody wants to read a university textbook of rules just to play a game they don’t even know yet. And while this game is not going for the university textbook complexity, having it spelled out in a few pages is a good thing.

Of course, one cannot commonly create a truly deep set of game rules in a few pages. And there is no way the game will compromise its depth and quality to simplify it. Luckily, there is a third way, and that is an introduction-level version of the game. It is already being prepared, and some main features include no Background/Specifics on Abilities, only the simplified Disabilities, and a very simplified conflict system. Transition from ‘game light’ to ‘game original’ is fairly easy, and will be a boost to characters in most, if not all, regards; adding Specifics to the Abilities you already have is only an improvement in what the character can do, after all!

What this is meant for is to get people going on the game, without mashing deep philosophies of detail into their faces. Many games today seem to either call a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality on players, forcing them to accept complex rules as they are and just learn to deal, or deliberately make rules so simple they lack fulfilling detail (in this long-time player’s humble opinion). Having an easy version of the game seems a good middle road, one that a few games have already dared to venture.

Of course, this is not just about having a stripped-down version of the game. The goal is two-fold: Having the stripped-down version available for free for easy access and quick examination, perhaps even for use as-is, and also having actual books that encompass everything needed in one, easy-to-use book. that means a complete game, with the rules, a setting and at least one full adventure. One simple book to get a new group started playing. Short versions may even be available for free (short separate adventures, not unended versions of the longer ones). This is a quick easy and cheap way to get into a new game, and it sets the players up to learn the more complex rules that much easier.

:: Immediate Roadmap ::

Some of all this is far ahead. Some of it is on the horizon. The important thing becomes how to proceed now. The core game is taking place, and tests are giving good results, especially with the changes that will be implemented in the second draft. There are still glaring omissions, but they are known omissions, and the scaffolding is coming into place for them.

This production log will continue to hold personal rants on things intended for the game, from the concrete things already in testing to ideal ones still not quite polished to perfection. But it is my hope that things will begin to focus a little more on practical implementation and second (and later) draft content. Once the core mechanics are in place, the things desired can build upon them, and so forth. This includes both rules, non-rule material (of which there will be plenty!), and the overall identity of the game. It will also soon begin to include more concrete examples of settings, advanced abilities, and what else has been promised.

For now, the second draft is the key, and it will be written ASAP.

Posted in Old blog, Second Draft | 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 15: Genre Review

30. October 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 15, 2009/10/30 :::.With the fairly general topics I have been chewing on these last two weeks, it might be time to take a look at something a little more concrete. While I am still not anywhere near being able to put together functional rules for everything, I am able to consider actual game content examples in light of what I have already thought over in the first 14 entries.Incidentally, the following considerations will probably look a lot like what one might find in genre books for other games. This is, of course, no surprise, since such books ask similar questions. What is important here is to explore similar ideas within the framework of what I have already written in previous entries, and what my further thoughts for the game are. Looking at genres at this early stage allows me to check for obvious holes in my concepts.

:: Styles ::

Style has already been handled in general in Entry 4, with ideas on what rules can do in keeping track of important or dramatic concepts, and the idea of rewards for adhering to the style of the game. But beyond that, style is a matter of what is available in the game world; action and violence is signified by a game world full of weapons and a lot of detail on conflicts like combat, chases and the like. Details on explosions are also a good idea. A style emphasizing conspiracies and intrigue will be heavy on organizations in both number and detail.

But how will a game system reflect that?

The easy answer is ‘detailed rules’, but that is not really enough at this point. I want to put the answer in the perspective of what has already been described as my early thoughts on the game. So ‘detailed conflicts/combat’ would mean multiple ‘extended hit points’ (Entry 11) and Specifics for weapons abilities (Entry 3). Explosions would probably be related to gear (Entry 8 & 9), with descriptions of what explodes and when, and with some of those extended hit points to see the effects on characters. Something on how big explosions affect places (Entry 13) would also be good, to see if other things blow up from them (boom goes the armory, or gas station, or…). Style points of some sort may be involved, or some other Style concept to emulate the wild things that happen in action movie explosions. As for organizations, Entry 12 is all about them, and resources, structures and the like would be in great demand, especially as relates directly to the characters.

But even those are just minor examples. The concept can be expanded, like something based on psionic battles requiring something like what was just described for regular combat, only molded for psionics. As for genres, well…

:: Fantasy ::

The grand old daddy of roleplaying, based loosely on Tolkiensian fantasy fiction. It is impossible to do fantasy without looking closely at magic, of course, and that brings in both abilities (for spells of all sorts) and gear (for enchanted items). The difficult trick concerning magic is that there are no hard and fast rules for how it works, and thus it leaves everything up to the designer (me) to determine. On the positive side, that means I can utilize available rules as I see fit.

What I am aiming for is to reproduce the idea that magic is a complex and demanding craft. Small spell components, as in learning very simple spells before going on to anything more dramatic, is my basic idea, as is the thought of having certain abilities improve on spells rather than be entirely new and separate spells. And as things are now, that is pretty well covered in the abilities entry (Entry 3). The existing ideas surrounding talents can be brought in to simulate deeper knowledge of magic, and ‘alternate hit points’ open up a range of ways mages can fuel their powers if they need to. I do envision magic as not one canonical system, but as a framework of spells and effects (and the aforementioned improving abilities) that can be reassembled, with a few complete systems of spells pre-made for use.

Magical artifacts can basically be handled as any advanced gear. The bonds between character and gear, even if highly magical in nature, is probably part of character creation more than item, though the actual magic used may require explanation as spells or the like. Brands and compatibility is largely the same as for other gear; some creations are made to work together, some are not, and it might depend on who made them. What interests me most amongst the subjects in Entry 8 and 9 and magical items is really the modding. Gadgets have all kinds of modification gear available, but magical items may have some strange things. This is especially true when they have to interact with other fantasy elements, like dragons and ghosts. Maybe your ruby sphere will strike down water elementals, but how can it be made to react with a rain demon?? Such mods may be about additional items, like gadgets so often are, or it might be about new spells enchanted into the item (a little like updating your gadget’s software, I guess).

There are no doubt many other elements of magic worth a look, but I now feel confident that the basics can be covered with ideas already on the table, or ideas that can be made from what exists. Another topic is races. Elves, dwarves, orcs and the like are integral to the fantasy experience, at least the traditional one. How does the game allow races to be considered unique beings?

The easy answer is abilities and disabilities given to a race from start. Arguably, other characters can copy those things and make a member that is very like that particular race. Very unusual, perhaps even unique, abilities and especially disabilities may void that, giving elves access to some unusual phobias or forest abilities, for example. Organizations are even more useful in depicting a gulf between races, as it would take some serious explaining to get a human inside an old Elven circle of enchanters! Gear and animals, especially magical or exotic ones, can also have a special affinity for one race over the other. I would like to find a fairly straight forward way of making races special already at abilities and disabilities, though.

:: Deep Space ::

Arguably a bit of a leap from fantasy, this is the genre of traveling to other planets, of space stations and gigantic starships, whether it is near-hard science fiction or space opera. The funny thing is that many elements of it are conceptually similar to fantasy: Alien races, amazing gadgets (sometimes of ancient, poorly understood origins), even the occasional monster. Robots add to the mix (possibly substituting magically created creatures), as do disembodied artificial intelligences (spirits?).

Life in space is the big difference, and to make it stand out, many ideas of locations can be used. The way gear functions differently in such places, and what gear and actions are even tolerable, can make things very interesting! Also, the line between locations and gear become blurry if life support or technical systems suddenly become important to an adventure, like when a vessel is dead in space and the characters need a way to survive until they can get rescued!

But many stranger things exist in deep space fiction, worth considering. Nanotechnology, force fields, plasma ’swords’, many vehicles (in space and on a planet), and so forth. The thoughts on gear provide some material for these, but some will need special treatment (nanotech might resemble magic more than gadgets!). That treatment seems, from my current point of view, to be in the extent of details, not the type. What has been discussed should cover it, in terms of game mechanics.

:: Cyberpunk ::

The genre of high-tech dystopian futures has quite a few things that deserve special attention. The two most influential ones are cybernetics and hacking. Cybernetics will probably draw some on gear, but they are still part of the character’s body, and a subsystem of simple rules should be available to mimic that. Brands are a hot topic in the genre, and different makes will definitely exist, with different effects! Consequences for the body and mind are also interesting to examine, especially if genetic manipulation is added to the mix.

Hacking, especially in cyberpunk, is a whole field for itself. At its core, it would be another type of conflict, a cyberspace version of combat, complete with moves and weapons based on software. It would probably be different in its various incarnations, the two most typical ones being the hacker sitting with a keyboard or other computer interface, and the full virtual reality version popular with movies. But more than a ‘computer combat conflict system’, hacking in both/all its forms would probably be a world within the world, with things to be encountered and computer systems to be scoped out before approach. Meeting places, public and private information systems and much more would make it more than just the hack itself, and the creation of software to assist the hacker would parallel the creation and modding of gear. Hacking, if taken serious in the game, would be a wide field onto itself. The tools to recreate it, in vivid detail, seem to be already thought of, though.

Needless to say (but I will, anyway), the archetypical corporations of cyberpunk are prime subjects for the organization treatment, complete with internal conflicts and hidden agendas.

:: Mecha ::

A relatively new genre gaining popularity, mecha is the world of insanely powerful gear in the form of robots and exosuits and the like. It is all (usually) still powered by humans or other sentient pilots, but personal abilities are outshone by abilities to use these mecha. Most mecha games are at least partially military, but mecha police or even comical mecha high school dramas are also popular.

The key to the genre is the mecha itself, and it falls squarely in the category of gear. Some of it might be advanced enough to seem like magic (some mecha stories have really strange technologies, or a big psionic component), but it is still gear at its core, technological marvels for people to use against other people. As such, the rules needed to bring mecha to life in a game would be the things in gears, from the functions and problems of various mecha, to the abilities involved in handling them. Both these subjects, and various lesser ones, need extensive detail. With the appearance of prototypes and themes like ‘old tech vs. new tech’ featuring prominently in mecha stories, bonds may also come in.

Anyone wanting to take the mecha genre into more advanced territory (something gaining cyclic interest amongst the fans of the stories) can add social issues to the brew. Organizations will be the ones with the resources and the challenges needed to warrant mecha production and purchases, and anyone wanting to go beyond the field clashes and personal troubles of mecha pilots and their friends will need to look at organizations. Mercenary or rebel units are strong examples of this, but someone just wanting to play the center stage to acquire new and better mecha or influence the spread of technology or the kind of things the machines are used for, would be facing powerful industrial, political, corporate, military and perhaps even popular or religious organizations, all depending on how the world around the mecha concept is put together.

:: Apocalyptic ::

Whether played in The End Days (call it what you will; the disaster, the apocalypse, the plagues, the final war. It is when the world finally burns) or some time after, this genre deals with the world as we know it, or some other world we can imagine, being destroyed. The theme becomes survival and, in the more optimistic cases, rebuilding.

One thing becomes instantly important in this genre: Repairing gear. The world is in pieces, so putting junk together into working gear becomes a prime ability. It would need extensive rules on not just gear but gear components to simulate that properly, as well as the abilities involved in using it. This is a sub-concept of gear that has only been touched upon slightly in Entry 9, about gear condition, maintenance and repair. Significant extension on it would be needed, and perhaps even a few added rules building blocks. In a way, this could be an addition worth using beyond the genre, too, as cyberpunk techheads patch together their own gear from scrounged parts, or experimental enchantments. It could be considered an extreme variant of modding, just to give it something to lean on until it has a full concept of its own!

Another apocalyptic darling is mutation, typically from radiation or disease. While mutations are a very real thing, the genre has a tendency to view them rather unrealistically, making them a twist on superpowers. The typical mutant is deformed but has strange abilities as a kind of compensation. The balance between deformity and power often sets the tone of mutations in the game, from severe skin conditions compensated by near-godly powers, to painful illnesses closely tied to heightened senses or enhanced digestion (the latter being very handy in a world with no supermarkets).

Mutations are going to be a combination of abilities and disabilities, most likely. Disabilities may have to be extended with some examples to handle certain mutation effects, such as unintentionally scaring people, but painful sensitivity to different things and mental problems can already be handled. The abilities aspect will rely on abilities being designed that are not just trained skills but something more genetic. Such abilities already need attention in other genres, to create different races. The big problem is tying these things together, to create mutations where there is a powerful relation between the disabilities and abilities! This has not really been considered yet, and it could easily be of use outside the genre, as well (malfunctioning cybernetics, psychotic characters, complex curses, etc.)

The part about rebuilding, as well as whatever fights are going on for the destroyed world, would fall into organizations if needing great detail.

:: Horror ::

The genre of horror has diversified over the years, and today there seem to be three major veins: Kingsian/Cravenesque, Lovecraftian, and Gothic.

Kingsian/Cranesque horror, named from novel and movie writers Stephen King and Wes Craven, are typically about some monster or monster-like phenomenon that threatens the main characters. They may have gone looking for trouble (perhaps even professionally), or be hapless victims drawn into it. But they end up trying to understand the monster, in order to destroy or deter it. Sometimes, there is a moral tale involved (don’t build on Indian graveyards, for example), but that is more common in fiction than in games.

Lovecraftian horror, named for the writer H.P. Lovecraft, is far less rigidly structured, and an essential part of it is that the main characters will rarely ever get the fullpicture. Monsters exist, but they are vast and incomprehensible, and the maddening effects of their mere existence is typically the story, rather than the monsters themselves. Ancient mysteries and insane cults dominate the immediate scene, and the story is told through their actions.

Gothic horror is fairly new as a sub-genre. It takes the main characters and involve them, often very emotionally, in the life of the ‘monsters’. Quite often, they actually play the monsters, seeing the world from that side! The feeling of isolation and shunning by society at large and the torments that are inherent in the life of their particular kind of monster, typically compounded by harsh societies of their own, make it an exploration of ‘the dark side’ of an already dark genre.

Since horror is where the Sanity mechanic that has inspired several of the advanced rules here came from, it is no surprise that this method will be a big part of making horror come to life. Other than going insane, risks involve pain, general fear, slow injuries and bleeding, and even less concrete topics like dark powers and magical or psionic energies slowly affecting the characters. All of this can build on the idea of ‘alternate hit points’, which drain slowly and painfully.

A second angle is the monsters themselves. In Kingsian/Cravenesque horror, they can be considered advanced (or not even advanced) animals a great deal of the time. Actual characters as monsters are possible, but the immediate confrontations will typically be with the animal-type monsters. The exception is usually slasher-horror, in which one or a few powerful monsters, fully sentient but horribly warped (mentally and/or physically) stalk and torment the characters, to kill them or someone they protect. The entries on animals and, to a lesser extend, abilities are useful, but I still need something on alien mindsets. Mental disabilities are a start, but more is needed to make a full impact.

The monsters in Gothic horror need very special attention, since the whole point of the genre is to experience their torments. Abilities are important for the immediate game, but organizations need some detail to put the monsters into a greater context of monsters. The mindsets described above will need even greater detail, because players will now need to know how to act upon them. Using various ‘alternate hit points’ to indicate what is tormenting them and how badly gives a running guideline for it, but the focus has to be on continual effects, not just what happens when the points run out. Other things are as important as in other genres, perhaps with some emphasis on the mythology (anicent artifacts, secret tomes, etc.) of the monsters.

:: Supers ::

Nothing really prevents the basic elements of the game as they are now to be used to create powerful abilities. Abilities to affect those abilities can be an interesting addition, which has not been considered much yet (for example, being able to fire blazing discs, and then use another ability to make them bounce off walls or fly around corners). Disabilities already exist to emulate the powerful Achilles Heels that are commonplace in comicbooks, and some elements exist on gear that can be used for super-gear, most notably ‘perfect fit’.

What is still lacking is a way to make the actual conflicts in the genre as earthshattering as they are usually supposed to be. Collateral damage, endangered bystanders, and other classics of the genre are still left to the imagination, when perfectly usable guidelines could be made. ‘Mega-damage’, as experienced between gigantic monsters, doomsday tanks and the like would probably be an extension of combat conflict, but the effects of conflicts beyond those involved is still an empty page.

More complicated samples of the genre also put a lot of unusual detail into the backstory of the super abilities, and by extension that often affects the complexity of (some of) the characters that have them. This can easily become a complex combination of either the concepts considered in fantasy for magic and the needs for creating original new races, or a combination of very complex gear and those same races. Because such cases are typically about how origins, abilities, gear and social situation (and perhaps even more!) are intrinsically linked and co-dependent, it operates at a level of complexity that cannot be predicted with the material currently available. When more concrete detail exists, that field of work will have to be revisited.

:: The Missing Pieces ::

There are plenty more genres, from the realistic war drama or detective story to the fantastic steampunk adventure, but the major hitters are the ones above. While this entry has in no way provided a roadmap to recreating them, and definitely not in the detail intended, this way of reviewing what has been considered already is good to see where pieces are missing and work needs to be done (or rather, thoughts need to be thought).

Races are the big, glaring hole. Character creation has all that is needed to make interesting characters, but there is little to make a race stand out, aside from some abilities that can be racially unique. Special options include organizations and gear that is tied specifically to that race. This will handle races that resemble humans, but I have to admit that I am a bit more ambitious than that. That includes not just physiologies, but also the alien mindset.

I will need something to make the process of creating a race a bigger deal than making just a new kind of character.

Furthermore, the genre check has brought my thoughts to something I have left out of the gear entries: Faulty gear! Apart from compatibility issues and general condition, I have not addressed the idea of gear having problems, be it from damage, age and poor maintenance, or just factory flaws. Luckily, it is something I have dealt with already in TAYDS, to some degree, and I should be able to port over the basics.

Posted in Style, Genre, Aliens, Mecha, Races, Superpowers, Hacking, Vehicles, Magic, Old blog, Robots, Machines | 1 Comment »