Finally, improved Relations!

7. December 2009 by admin.

Though it is still in very early testing, there seems to be a solution to the problem sorrounding Relations. If it works, characters will be able to have friends and enemies, connections and rivals, pets and stalkers, and all sorts of people, creatures and more exotic beings surrounding them, as part of who the character is at the very first character creation! The goal is not just to make a quick rule for attaching others to the character, but to make a core concept, sleak, streamlined and versatile, that can make characters a part of a vibrant world instead of forcing them into the role of ‘lone stranger’ again and again.

It has not yet been expanded into a platform for the Organizations rules, which are meant to provide complex organizations (duh) in the game world, created as richky as characters and acting as actual, integrated parts of a campaign, should the Narrator want it. Once the new Relations rules grow to that point, players can create corporate representatives with access to their employer’s trillions worth of resources (on company jobs, that is!), or infiltrator agents able to call down orbital strikes on picked targets in the fight for freedom or oppression. They can even take down monolithic enemies facility by facility, and their encounters with that enemy will bear the mark ofevery little victory… or failure!

It should be clear by now that I am very excited about this. The toss of the old Relations rules was probably the best thing to come from playtesting, because the new ones make better sense, offer more options and customization, and are generally just cool. You can have powerful allies who will trust you with advanced technology and sniper support, but who will abandon you the minute they see significant consequences of their involvement. Or you can have die-hard friends, who will fight to the death for you, even if all they have is a gun and a prayer. You can base a Relation on fear, or you can hire your muscle for cash alone. And those nasty people looking for you, well, it’s called Determination, and for a simple game stat, it will mean the world for you when your ancient nemesis stands on the other side of certain destruction and has to decide if you’re worth the risk…

I’m getting all giddy

Posted in Character creation, Pets, Relations, Game worlds, Narrator, Wealth, Weapons, Vehicles, Teams, Cash, Playtests | No Comments »

Getting through Customs

30. November 2009 by admin.

The writing of the Equipment section is fully underways now, helped immensely by conversations with playtesters. As old posts show, having equipment be more a way to tailor something precisely for an idea, rather than just a shopping list, is one goal of GEARS. The first steps are now being taken, with tweaks and revamps of a (horribly convoluted) previous system being streamlined into something more snazzy. The part on customizing existing equipemnt, either as a unique (or at least unusual) buy or as an alteration to existing gear, is fairly written now, albeit with room for many more aspects to customize (there is a quick list, which can be used in the fairly simple customization rules). It is even tying into the Ability system quite nicely, to the point where the range of items in a game world can actually be explained by the customization rules. They are not meant to do so, and the shopping lists that will eventually be added will not make any kind of show out of it, but it takes only a slightly observant mind (and the brief remark inserted in the chapter) to notice that everything is suddenly explained quite neatly. That was a bonus we did not plan on

Then there is the whole personalization issue, with items built according to the needs of a particular character. Yes, you can have an item that will work much better for you than its brethren, while being nothing but a bother to everyone who does not have your size of hands, overall build, personal aura, or the like! It’s still a somewhat shaky system, though, and will need some sandbox testing to check its viability.

And it goes beyond that. I just finished writing a section that uses steampunk blade guns as an example of Item Combos that become their own piece of equipment, with quite some interesting options for unique Abilities tied in. It’s better than expected, though a lot of clean-up and testing is still needed to get it juuuuuust right.

What is becoming painfully obvious is that the next round of playtests will have to be very different in order to incorporate the many different options that exist; they may be packed into tight, streamlined rules, but there are so many things that can be done with them that I cannot personally see a way for a few adventures to do the deeper testing. Options are still considered, including reaching out for external playtesters (we have not announced any need for that at all, so far). Time will tell…

Posted in Cash, Character creation, Equipment/Gear, Guns, Machines, Vehicles, Weapons | No Comments »

Advanced placement

26. November 2009 by admin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calm before the storm…

21. November 2009 by admin.

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

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

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

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

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

See ya!

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

Entry 20: Team Spirit!

19. November 2009 by admin.

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

:: The Party Sheet ::

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

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

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

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

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

:: Unified Image ::

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

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

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

:: Team Resources ::

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

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

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

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

:: Teamwork Abilities ::

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

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

:: No I In Team ::

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

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

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

Entry 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 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 »