Entry 14: Pets, Beasts & Monsters

28. October 2009 by admin.

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

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

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

:: The Mind of the Beast ::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: What Nature Gave Them ::

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

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

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

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

:: Proper Usage ::

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

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

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

:: Bonds ::

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

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

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

:: The Other Beasts ::

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

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

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

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

Entry 13: Locations, Locations, Locations

27. October 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 13, 2009/10/27 :::.
Most of the things I have looked at over the last twelve entries have been things that are inherent to RPGs, or at least found in many of them. One subject that is much less touched upon is locations. True, maps are a staple of gaming, from the little overview maps of a tavern or the main street in a western shootout to dungeons larger than medium-sized cities! But maps are a very poor representation of locations for anything except knowing where in them you are.

Taking a location beyond merely a map allows the GM to define in depth how it affects an adventure. Factories are an old favorite of mine, complex and busy places with multitudes of chances to injure yourself or others, send heavy machinery spiraling out of control, things falling, breaking, even the occasional explosion. They are chaotic places, and conveying that chaos to players is a beautiful thing.

But one factory is not the same as the other, even if maps are ignored. Heavy machinery vs. sterile rooms, dirt vs. clean, people vs. automatic, chemicals vs. solid tools vs. lasers, etc. Anyone who has spent time in different factories will know that they give off different atmospheres and present seriously different challenges. Some are no challenge at all. Some are akin to the Minotaur’s Maze.

Ideally, any larger location, and many small ones, should be interesting enough that a full adventure could be run there. Anything larger than an apartment building should have enough opportunities to build a full campaign around!

:: Places & People ::

No, I am not referring to what people exist in a place, though that is a factor, too (discussed later here!). I am referring to how places are fit or unfit for people. And when I say ‘how’ and not ‘whether’, there is a reason for it! One reason I have a special thing for factories is that they blend so much together. In this case, there are the clearly marked and safety inspected paths for people to travel in, areas marked off for technicians and specialists (who know how to act safely there!), special paths for special teams, places not meant for humans in general (vents, shafts and many other places players are no doubt going to see as perfect ways to get in. They may be right. Or wrong), outright hazardous areas (dangerous machines, toxic fumes, etc.) and so on. How ‘fit’ a factory is for humans often depends on exactly where you are in it, and the definition of ‘fit’ changes from carefree to hardhat to full safety gear to just don’t go there.

Of course, factories in other times or just different regions are different, and that alone can make the place stand out. The clear safety markings may not be there, or rules are enforced by someone with a big gun. In some places, everyone is a specialist, not because they have special education but because it takes skill just to get around. Oil rigs in certain parts of the world are death traps, and poorly kept facilities are… interesting. And while factories are prime examples, anything can really go that way, from the servant quarters in a castle in the Dark Ages to hazardous interstates in a future of massive overpopulation and a fetish for fast vehicles!

This all makes for ways that characters can integrate with places: Knowing how to act around them. Knowing what goes and what does not in a starport bazaar gives you an advantage, something thieves and lowlifes constantly thrive on. Tricking someone into an area you can handle but they cannot can be as effective as any armed ambush! Thus, building a character around the idea that the character knows certain kinds of places well opens for opportunities to truly use the landscape to your advantage, or to end up in very dangerous territory, right in the middle of a normal town.

Flipping the subject on its head, people also become a depiction of the places they spend their time. Someone used to dirt and dust will not be scared of filth, whereas someone who has never set foot outside clean homes and hotels will probably be somewhat interested in appearances. Danger, noise, crowds, unsafe grounds and so forth all turn people into something that fits the places, or they perish (which need not mean ‘they die’, but simply ‘they leave’ or the like).

:: Enemy of the Estate ::

Of course, one good reason to be nervous about a location is if it is actually built to keep people out, or in, or to simply kill whoever comes by; fortresses, secure compounds, prisons, minefields, there are a whole host of possibilities in just our basic, real world. Such a place becomes the equivalent of a massive monster, often with mazes and all sorts of problems built right into it. The dungeon runs that are so integral to some game systems work because a large and inhospitable place screams adventure, but dungeons are far from the only options for that effect; intrusions, prison breaks, getting through places, there are endless options for making the location the challenge.

This poses the overall question of how not only people handle places, but how places handle people? Any advanced methods, from clever mechanics and hidden key mechanisms to guardian spells and sentient buildings can be made to interact on their own with those in and around them. While a security system is typically represented as something meant to just keep people out, that is not what it really is: It is meant to keep certain people out, and let certain people in. How it sorts them can wary greatly, and might include a human (or similar sentient) operator somewhere, possibly but not necessarily on the grounds.

And taking that a step further comes the question of how a location will handle people unknown and unexpected, perhaps people it has no way to know how to react to. The Frankenstein monster concept can translate to a location quite easily.

If a location is complex enough, it can require handling in a way not unlike a person; it can have its quirks and preferences, its habits and routines, and when things get out of hands, it might even throw the building equivalent of a tantrum, controlled guns or magical effects trying desperately to handle what they were not set up for by way of overkill!

On the other hand, some places are deliberately made to pamper to people.

:: Home Turf ::

One aspect of location that is as much an aspect of character creation is the idea that a special place or area has special meaning to the character. Someone who has lived a long time somewhere, or is a frequent visitor, might know all the little ins and outs of the place. This goes much farther than simply knowing how to act in a certain place; anyone might know how to act around a suburban neighborhood, but a long-time resident, especially an adventurous one, might know every shortcut and hiding place, and be able to use home court advantage against a much more powerful pursuer. Someone who has used the time living there to set up special little caches or spots, not to mention traps, will be able to do a lot of damage, or a lot of good.

Giving a character home turf is not limited to one per character, either. Some people instinctively begin to make themselves familiar with places they frequent, and anyone who spends some time on the road might have a few such places. With advanced communications and friends in the right spots, someone could even become fairly familiar with turf they have never physically explored!

The exact benefits of home turf will depend on the turf and the character. How to build it into a character is hard to say, but it could easily follow lines not unlike those that will end up governing friends and close acquaintances or ‘perfect fit’ gear, as discussed in Entry 12 and 8, respectively.

:: Property ::

Of course, some players are no doubt going to grow keen on the idea of spending character wealth on property, building their own places. This is quite likely going to involve shopping lists of rooms and contents for those rooms, be they labs, lairs, lobbies or lounges. And such a place can be something that the characters will continue to build on, expanding it for a multitude of purposes! As discussed in Entry 12, it is even possible to use property like this to affect status, from the fear of a man with his own dungeon chambers to the suave cool of a large pool and massive recreation rooms. Characters with multiple such places can move the concept of impressive property (or property that defines them in ways not quite to be called ‘impressive’, like dark drug dens or spartan safehouses).

But even more so, property can be an extension of tools, something that shows the benefit of work gear too big to bring along on adventures. A well-stocked garage is a typical example, building perhaps a bit on the Bat Cave concept. Similar things could work for space vehicles, power suits, even stables for riding wolves, griffons and dragons!

A property that is actually part of some operation adds another layer, be it adventure related (HQ for the rebels, for example) or not (earning an income by running a hotel or store, for example). Property uses locations to move parts of the background story into a greater light, and the fact that it is an actual location means the adventure could easily spread there; when the villain comes for them, it might take place in the very place they own! Unlike the average dungeon or other random shooting gallery, a character’s property will have value to the player(s), but they will also most likely have access to all the functions of it they would usually be the victims of, like traps and hidden doorways. Having an adventure spread to a character’s property turns the tables, making the characters the ones running the maze…

:: The Wild Places ::

All of this leans towards the idea of locations as buildings, or at least highly equipped lairs of some kind. But a lot of adventures, both in games and other media, take place in vast, untamed nature spots. From caves to deserts to canyon rivers, they offer great opportunities for affecting adventures. Any such place could be home turf to a character, and someone who has lived there long will have adapted somewhat to the risks and opportunities inherent to the place. It could even be owned, like a natural park or private resort!

Of course, setting up a natural area makes the standardized ’shopping list’ approach to filling the place a little less logical to use. Whether it would take simply a variant of that concept, or a whole new approach to creating a place, is impossible to say at this point.

:: And Fun ::

The purpose here is to make exploration and travel a more entertaining and perhaps even dramatic part of the game, by making different places truly different. That means different dangers, different options, different encounters and so on. The real challenge actually seems to be to make those differences work as a display of where the characters are; what kind of dangers etc. would make a factory feel like a factory and a swamp feel like a swamp? In the end, a part of this will no doubt rely on a strong gallery of things to put in places, in addition to what is inherent about the places itself. It is even possible that places will have to be assembled from different lesser things that actually provide the differences, like a particular swamp being not made special from scratch, but being a special blend of pre-designed terrains, creatures and features.

What is important is that the location work becomes a boon on the game without being a drain on the GM and players. That balance looks to be the greatest challenge.

Posted in Locations, Cash, Equipment/Gear, Old blog, Machines | No Comments »

Entry 12: Social Issues

26. October 2009 by admin.

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

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

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

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

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

:: Invested Recognition ::

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

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

:: Organized Positions ::

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

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

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

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

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

:: Fixed Relations ::

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

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

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

:: Dealing With Friends ::

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

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

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

:: Characters Amongst Characters ::

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

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

:: Cross-Pollination ::

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

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

:: The Mechanics ::

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

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

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

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

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 »