Troubled Relations

3. December 2009 by admin.

Progress has slowed a bit. Both the Creatures and the Equipment chapters are coming along nicely, and now it is a matter of getting the material written in a meaningful form. The big problem, as things stand, is Relations.

A Relation is someone that a character has some kind of connection with, for better or worse: A contact, an old friend, a boss, an enemy, an annoyance, basically any kind of other character that is somehow connected. Incorporating Relations into a character means creating social circumstances, someone who thecharacter has a history with. The idea being that they can help or harass the character in many myriad ways.

During playtests, a fairly clear message was given about the rules surrounding Relations: Bland and unclear. The system used built on that presented briefly in the old TAYDS, which was basically to turn a Relation into another form of Ability, with a Difficulty based on what a friend was called in to do (or, as a Disability, what the character him/herself could be called upon to do, or might experience an enemy doing to him or her). This is clearly not enough, and other venues are now being examined. But the concept is proving hard to emulate without going into a lot of needless detail, or ending up with something highly unbalanced (mighty friends doing everything for almost no point cost to the character).

To make matters worse, the Relations rules (which also include group relations, like having rank or reputation) play a role in the creature chapter, too, in that a variant of them was planned to be used for animal companions. So right now, there is a hole in the rules that needs to be plugged. Hopes are that it will, soon, and that Third Draft will not be delayed notably by it. But failing that, Relations may be put on the backburner until Fourth Draft, even if that was meant to be for structural work only… Time will tell…

Posted in Pets, Relations, TAYDS, Fourth Draft, Third Draft, Reputations, Disabilities, Playtests | 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 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 »