Tuesday, June 9, 2009
I'm still here, really!
I've been swamped with real life lately. There will be a new post soon. Honest!
Monday, May 25, 2009
S&S WoD Mod: Skills
In a recent post, I shared my realization that the best system to run the type of swords and sorcery game I had in mind was the Storytelling System, which powers the current version of the World of Darkness. Read that post, but in general, I came to this conclusion because WoD captures the theme and mood of my intended style of S&S.
I'm confident that there will be little modification to the system necessary for this end, but I acknowledge that the skills need some work. For instance, Computer is likely not necessary. So skills is where I begin my modification. World of Darkness has three categories of skill: Mental, Physical, and Social. It's important from a balance perspective that these three categories have the same number of skills in them because of the way the point buy system works in the Storytelling System. Basically, you choose which of the categories are primary, secondary, and tertiary, and that decision assigns how many points you get to spend in each category.
Beginning with Mental, because it's first on the sheet, this is the current list: Academics, Computer, Crafts, Investigation, Medicine, Occult, Politics, and Science. It became apparent that Mental skills needed the most work. I decided that Academics, Computer, Politics, and Science seemed out of place. The first decision I made was to pull Survival from Physical skills. It seemed odd there, especially given the very "mental" description of the skill in the book. I suspect it was "shoehorned" into Physical skills for the same balance reason I cited above. When thinking about it, this also seemed like the perfect replacement for Science. I replaced Academics with History. From a setting perspective, this just seemed to make sense. It feels more S&S than the current setup. When I trashed Computer, I decided the only thing that would remotely fit would be Geography. This is an important S&S skill because S&S is essentially dark/middle ages, looked at through a fictional lens. And in medieval times, for a person to travel outside their home area required a special knowledge. Finally, there was Politics. I thought Bureaucracy would be a good fit, but that seemed too social and would be covered by Socialize. So I went with Law, again a knowledge.
My Mental skills: Crafts, History, Geography, Investigation, Law, Medicine, Occult, Survival.
Physical skills were easier. The current list is: Athletics, Brawl, Drive, Firearms, Larceny, Stealth, Survival, and Weaponry. Firearms didn't make sense in a S&S context, so I changed it to Shooting. This would allow it to cover bow, crossbow, sling, etc. I almost changed Drive to Ride, but I know there's a huge difference between driving a cart, carriage, or chariot and riding a horse, so those needed to be separate skills. This is when I decided Survival seemed a more appropriate Mental skill, and I plugged Ride in there.
My Physical skills: Athletics, Brawl, Driving, Larceny, Ride, Shooting, Stealth, Weaponry.
The Social skills are already spot on, so they remain: Animal Ken, Empathy, Expression, Intimidation, Persuasion, Socialize, Streetwise, Subterfuge.
And that's it for skills. On my radar are the Merit system, which seems fine, but a finer-toothed comb will be needed before I move past them, and the Magic system, which I think I'll find in White Wolf's Second Sight book. We'll see.
I'm confident that there will be little modification to the system necessary for this end, but I acknowledge that the skills need some work. For instance, Computer is likely not necessary. So skills is where I begin my modification. World of Darkness has three categories of skill: Mental, Physical, and Social. It's important from a balance perspective that these three categories have the same number of skills in them because of the way the point buy system works in the Storytelling System. Basically, you choose which of the categories are primary, secondary, and tertiary, and that decision assigns how many points you get to spend in each category.
Beginning with Mental, because it's first on the sheet, this is the current list: Academics, Computer, Crafts, Investigation, Medicine, Occult, Politics, and Science. It became apparent that Mental skills needed the most work. I decided that Academics, Computer, Politics, and Science seemed out of place. The first decision I made was to pull Survival from Physical skills. It seemed odd there, especially given the very "mental" description of the skill in the book. I suspect it was "shoehorned" into Physical skills for the same balance reason I cited above. When thinking about it, this also seemed like the perfect replacement for Science. I replaced Academics with History. From a setting perspective, this just seemed to make sense. It feels more S&S than the current setup. When I trashed Computer, I decided the only thing that would remotely fit would be Geography. This is an important S&S skill because S&S is essentially dark/middle ages, looked at through a fictional lens. And in medieval times, for a person to travel outside their home area required a special knowledge. Finally, there was Politics. I thought Bureaucracy would be a good fit, but that seemed too social and would be covered by Socialize. So I went with Law, again a knowledge.
My Mental skills: Crafts, History, Geography, Investigation, Law, Medicine, Occult, Survival.
Physical skills were easier. The current list is: Athletics, Brawl, Drive, Firearms, Larceny, Stealth, Survival, and Weaponry. Firearms didn't make sense in a S&S context, so I changed it to Shooting. This would allow it to cover bow, crossbow, sling, etc. I almost changed Drive to Ride, but I know there's a huge difference between driving a cart, carriage, or chariot and riding a horse, so those needed to be separate skills. This is when I decided Survival seemed a more appropriate Mental skill, and I plugged Ride in there.
My Physical skills: Athletics, Brawl, Driving, Larceny, Ride, Shooting, Stealth, Weaponry.
The Social skills are already spot on, so they remain: Animal Ken, Empathy, Expression, Intimidation, Persuasion, Socialize, Streetwise, Subterfuge.
And that's it for skills. On my radar are the Merit system, which seems fine, but a finer-toothed comb will be needed before I move past them, and the Magic system, which I think I'll find in White Wolf's Second Sight book. We'll see.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Infiltration Problem
Spy games, or any game involving breaking and entering, have always been problematic for me. When a game session involves getting the protagonists into a place they're not welcome, it requires a ton of prep if the GM wants to simulate the genre. Also, like all RPGs, it's difficult to guess what the players may do. I've taken to either winging it, which works but can leave this GM woefully unprepared, or to just avoiding B&E all together. The pain, here, is I love the genre. And since I think roleplaying is about simulating genre, it's unpleasant to know I can't simulate one of my favorites.
Then I found Wilderness of Mirrors. And by "found," I mean found. As appropriate to the genre, John Wick didn't make it easy to find his game (though now it can be had here). If you weren't at a con where he was, you could only get it by downloading it from the web, and John didn't make that easy, either. You had to email him, all secret-like, then send money through PayPal. Finally, you'd get a cryptic email with a link. Very fun, once I found his email address, at least!
Wilderness of Mirrors didn't solve all my problems for the genre, but it showed me what I was missing. It's all about the team. Since RPGs are multi-player, it's best to concentrate on the type of spying where there was a team, rather than a lone expert. So keeping the players together, while allowing the team to be in different places in the story, was the trick.
Since then, I've been trying to come up with team rules for spying in the context of existing systems. My first instinct was to find some way to tweak the Mass Combat and/or Chase rules in Savage Worlds to make it all happen. Using the cards from Chases to initiate complications during a break-in seemed interesting. Using tokens from Mass Combat seemed like a great way to simulate the wearing down of the location's "resources" (be they guards, alarms, traps, etc.). But the further I get into this "tweak," the more it feels like the prep could start piling up again, and that's not Fast! Furious! Fun! I still hold out hope for Savage Worlds in this area, though.
Recently, I've been reading Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies in preparation for a campaign, and I just came across the ship combat rules. I may have found what I've been looking for. The captain gives out orders, the other protagonists act them out. The success (or failure) determines how many dice the captain gets in moving the encounter along. Dice are rolled; damage is assessed; repeat to taste.
What's great about this is that it clearly defines roles for the other players and their characters, so no one is left waiting around. This also aids description and overall engagement in the story. It seems to me that little tweaking would make this a great way to do an infiltration. If it works, there's little work between there and computer hacking (another game stopper of a problem for another post).
Then I found Wilderness of Mirrors. And by "found," I mean found. As appropriate to the genre, John Wick didn't make it easy to find his game (though now it can be had here). If you weren't at a con where he was, you could only get it by downloading it from the web, and John didn't make that easy, either. You had to email him, all secret-like, then send money through PayPal. Finally, you'd get a cryptic email with a link. Very fun, once I found his email address, at least!
Wilderness of Mirrors didn't solve all my problems for the genre, but it showed me what I was missing. It's all about the team. Since RPGs are multi-player, it's best to concentrate on the type of spying where there was a team, rather than a lone expert. So keeping the players together, while allowing the team to be in different places in the story, was the trick.
Since then, I've been trying to come up with team rules for spying in the context of existing systems. My first instinct was to find some way to tweak the Mass Combat and/or Chase rules in Savage Worlds to make it all happen. Using the cards from Chases to initiate complications during a break-in seemed interesting. Using tokens from Mass Combat seemed like a great way to simulate the wearing down of the location's "resources" (be they guards, alarms, traps, etc.). But the further I get into this "tweak," the more it feels like the prep could start piling up again, and that's not Fast! Furious! Fun! I still hold out hope for Savage Worlds in this area, though.
Recently, I've been reading Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies in preparation for a campaign, and I just came across the ship combat rules. I may have found what I've been looking for. The captain gives out orders, the other protagonists act them out. The success (or failure) determines how many dice the captain gets in moving the encounter along. Dice are rolled; damage is assessed; repeat to taste.
What's great about this is that it clearly defines roles for the other players and their characters, so no one is left waiting around. This also aids description and overall engagement in the story. It seems to me that little tweaking would make this a great way to do an infiltration. If it works, there's little work between there and computer hacking (another game stopper of a problem for another post).
Friday, May 15, 2009
In-Game Currency
One of the most common mechanics in modern roleplaying is what I call In-Game Currency. I don't mean gold pieces or nuyen. Some examples include Bennies from Savage Worlds or Fan Mail from Primetime Adventures (PTA). Basically, it's something players get to help them achieve their goals in-game.
In-Game Currency is used in different ways, depending on the game. In PTA, players use Fan Mail to give each other props for good play. In Savage Worlds, it's used to re-roll dice or avoid damage. In Spirit of the Century, Fate Points are used as a carrot/stick for the GM to compel players to roleplay their characters, even when it's inconvenient (or especially when it's inconvenient).
Perhaps the worst example of In-Game Currency is the D&D 4e Action Point. An Action Point lets you take another action and makes you tougher to hurt. These are replaced every two encounters. They're not exciting to me, and they don't encourage anything beyond what every other mechanic in 4e seems to encourage: combat.
My favorite version of In-Game Currency to date is Style Dice, found in the new iteration of PDQ, PDQ# (the "#" sign is meant to be pronounced "sharp"). These can be used for re-rolls (which, in-turn, help you avoid damage), to add something to the setting, to fuel powers and abilities, etc. But what I love the most is the economy they create among the players in the game. The GM starts off with a fixed number to hand out when players show "good form." Players are also able to give out their own Style Dice in this way. Why would a player give away their Style Dice? Whenever a player gives a Style Die to another player, the GM has the option of adding a new Style Die to the pool from which he can award them. This allow the players to control their game's economy by deciding how friendly they'll be with their resources. Sharing equals more for everyone. On top of that coolness, Style Dice can be used like Fate Points to compel a player to play his character (but with no penalty for refusal).
Check out the new PDQ# game, Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies. I highly recommend it.
In-Game Currency is used in different ways, depending on the game. In PTA, players use Fan Mail to give each other props for good play. In Savage Worlds, it's used to re-roll dice or avoid damage. In Spirit of the Century, Fate Points are used as a carrot/stick for the GM to compel players to roleplay their characters, even when it's inconvenient (or especially when it's inconvenient).
Perhaps the worst example of In-Game Currency is the D&D 4e Action Point. An Action Point lets you take another action and makes you tougher to hurt. These are replaced every two encounters. They're not exciting to me, and they don't encourage anything beyond what every other mechanic in 4e seems to encourage: combat.
My favorite version of In-Game Currency to date is Style Dice, found in the new iteration of PDQ, PDQ# (the "#" sign is meant to be pronounced "sharp"). These can be used for re-rolls (which, in-turn, help you avoid damage), to add something to the setting, to fuel powers and abilities, etc. But what I love the most is the economy they create among the players in the game. The GM starts off with a fixed number to hand out when players show "good form." Players are also able to give out their own Style Dice in this way. Why would a player give away their Style Dice? Whenever a player gives a Style Die to another player, the GM has the option of adding a new Style Die to the pool from which he can award them. This allow the players to control their game's economy by deciding how friendly they'll be with their resources. Sharing equals more for everyone. On top of that coolness, Style Dice can be used like Fate Points to compel a player to play his character (but with no penalty for refusal).
Check out the new PDQ# game, Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies. I highly recommend it.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Gazetteer Reading for Numbskulls (Like Me)
I'll start off by saying I'm not a big fan of gazetteers. And now I'd like to say gazetteers are one of my favorite GM tools. Contradiction, you say? It's clear Ron's a Gemini, you say? Read on!
Here's my problem with gazetteers. My reading retention sucks. I edit RPG adventures for part of my living, and my friends think its funny that I still have to prep for said adventures before I can run them. What's a more thorough read than editing? For me the answer is that I read much slower for retention than I do for editing. Scary, huh? What's worse is reading things that drop random information on me (like plot hooks in a gazetteer) is often like not reading at all. I can read a 128 page gazetteer and get nearly nothing out of it. I know that gazetteers are meant to be reference materials; I get that. But for me it's even truer because if I want to know what's in there I have to re-read a ton of material. Maybe that's why I'm so bad at prep: it's painful.
Enter my new technique.
I recently reviewed Legends of Steel: Savage Worlds Edition for the podcast, and I stumbled on a great way to get through gazetteers that also improves my retention. On a whim, I decided to start at "A" and, when I hit a reference to another place or feature, I'd make sure to go there in the gazetteer next. When the trail ran cold (no more cross-references I haven't read), I'd go back to the next entry in the alphabet that wasn't read. It did three great things for me: 1) like I said, it improved my retention of the material, 2) I didn't time it, but the read felt faster, and 3) I enjoyed the read much more. Campaigns were springing out at me. It was really crazy.
The end result of my impromptu experiment is I'll never read a gazetteer "A to Z" again. Try this (if you haven't), and let me know what you think.
Here's my problem with gazetteers. My reading retention sucks. I edit RPG adventures for part of my living, and my friends think its funny that I still have to prep for said adventures before I can run them. What's a more thorough read than editing? For me the answer is that I read much slower for retention than I do for editing. Scary, huh? What's worse is reading things that drop random information on me (like plot hooks in a gazetteer) is often like not reading at all. I can read a 128 page gazetteer and get nearly nothing out of it. I know that gazetteers are meant to be reference materials; I get that. But for me it's even truer because if I want to know what's in there I have to re-read a ton of material. Maybe that's why I'm so bad at prep: it's painful.
Enter my new technique.
I recently reviewed Legends of Steel: Savage Worlds Edition for the podcast, and I stumbled on a great way to get through gazetteers that also improves my retention. On a whim, I decided to start at "A" and, when I hit a reference to another place or feature, I'd make sure to go there in the gazetteer next. When the trail ran cold (no more cross-references I haven't read), I'd go back to the next entry in the alphabet that wasn't read. It did three great things for me: 1) like I said, it improved my retention of the material, 2) I didn't time it, but the read felt faster, and 3) I enjoyed the read much more. Campaigns were springing out at me. It was really crazy.
The end result of my impromptu experiment is I'll never read a gazetteer "A to Z" again. Try this (if you haven't), and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Swords and Sorcery Search
For a bit now, I've been on a search for the perfect system in which to run swords and sorcery. I'm talking Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, here, not Conan the Barbarian. I looked into a few things, and nothing seemed right. Even my beloved Savage Worlds was falling short, for me. I toyed with the idea of going with Swords & Wizardry, the retro-clone of the white box years of D&D, but I'm not ready to fight against my 20-year dependency on skill systems. I was starting to give up until I looked at a little game called World of Darkness.
You might be saying to yourself, "What the hell?" But it's true. How did I come to this decision, you ask?
It started with a conversation I took part in with my friends Don Dehm and Jason Corley. We were talking about Jason's nWoD mortals game (among other things), and I asked him how it came to him. It was a great discussion, but my interest peaked when we talked about the Second Sight book. At the time, I didn't know why. I believe I started thinking about an old, modern game I ran in Savage Worlds. Anyway, I was looking at my nWoD books when it hit me: this would be perfect for my swords and sorcery game.
Think about it. The dark, dank, creepy world described in World of Darkness isn't so far off from Nehwon, right down to the alien darkness lurking around the corner you feel in places like nWoD's Chicago, or in Lankhmar. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser met often with such darkness, wittingly or not.
Here's my equation. Take nWoD's Chicago. Remove the super monsters (Vampire's, Werewolves, Mages, etc.), but leave the mood, tone, and lesser things that go bump in the night. Then subtract about 1000 years. What do you get? In my head, that's totally Lankhmar.
The best part is the mortal-centric books in the nWoD series have plenty to pick from. And as far as any conversion goes, I'll be nixing more skills than I have to create. Other than that, there really is no conversion. Just a quarter turn on the setting...
Is this a definite thing I'll be running? Well, no. Nothing's definite. I haven't looked at all my options, but I'm really leaning toward this.
You might be saying to yourself, "What the hell?" But it's true. How did I come to this decision, you ask?
It started with a conversation I took part in with my friends Don Dehm and Jason Corley. We were talking about Jason's nWoD mortals game (among other things), and I asked him how it came to him. It was a great discussion, but my interest peaked when we talked about the Second Sight book. At the time, I didn't know why. I believe I started thinking about an old, modern game I ran in Savage Worlds. Anyway, I was looking at my nWoD books when it hit me: this would be perfect for my swords and sorcery game.
Think about it. The dark, dank, creepy world described in World of Darkness isn't so far off from Nehwon, right down to the alien darkness lurking around the corner you feel in places like nWoD's Chicago, or in Lankhmar. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser met often with such darkness, wittingly or not.
Here's my equation. Take nWoD's Chicago. Remove the super monsters (Vampire's, Werewolves, Mages, etc.), but leave the mood, tone, and lesser things that go bump in the night. Then subtract about 1000 years. What do you get? In my head, that's totally Lankhmar.
The best part is the mortal-centric books in the nWoD series have plenty to pick from. And as far as any conversion goes, I'll be nixing more skills than I have to create. Other than that, there really is no conversion. Just a quarter turn on the setting...
Is this a definite thing I'll be running? Well, no. Nothing's definite. I haven't looked at all my options, but I'm really leaning toward this.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution is the heart of the roleplaying game. No conflict equals no story/adventure/game. I've tried many different systems for this, and each one handles conflict a little differently. But I've noticed that, speaking most broadly, it boils down to two types: Task-Based and Scene-Based.
Task-Based Conflict Resolution
I would guess that for most roleplayers, this is what they're used to. Determine initiative, take an action, roll dice. Lather, rinse, repeat. Time is typically broken down into tiny, measured units. This type of conflict resolution is mostly known for combat of some sort. While many games with this type of resolution have rules for social conflict, I find it feels disjointed to talk and roll dice to decide how effective I just spoke.
Old School (early D&D) games resolved the social issue by making it player facing, essentially your character is as socially ept (the opposite of inept; get used to it) as you, the player. If you come up with good ideas or say the right things, your character benefits. There was a time I thought this wasn't fair. Some people say its wrong to measure social things differently than combat, citing that characters are supposed to be able to do and say things the player can't. It is a power trip after all, right (sounds like another column)? But the more I try so-called "social combat," the more I tend to move back to old thinking with this sort of conflict.
As far as physical combat goes, I find task-based conflict resolution most satisfying. Nothing is better, for me, than getting to describe (or having described to me) the result of amazing attacks and/or damage. I want to know every detail.
Skill use in task-based conflict resolution is a coin flip for me. I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's just fine. Basically, it tends to be skill=action. I'm OK with that, though I don't think it's perfect. I'll have to leave skills for another column.
Scene-Based Conflict Resolution
This could also be called Stakes-Based. I typically associate this type of resolution with the Indie movement. Players (including the GM, they're players, too) discuss the stakes of the confrontation, like getting someone to let you in a club or knocking out a guard, then they roll for it (or play cards, spend chips, etc.). The scene is resolved through a quick narrative, based on the stakes and the typically random result.
Socially, this seems to make more sense than speak and roll, but it still feels a little off. I'm willing to entertain that my discomfort with it is due to lack of practice, though. It's also possible that my experience with physical confrontation in this realm of resolution has colored my experience of the social type.
Physical confrontation really suffers with this type of conflict, at least in my experience. Scene-based discussion of combat feels more off to me than any of the social rules out there.
The one thing that feels wrong about Scene-Based Conflict Resolution is that it reminds me of a "wouldn't it be cool if..." discussions. I save that for the comic shop.
A Compromise
I'd like to try and meld the best of these two styles. Combat could be resolved with the typical lather, rinse, repeat method, and social situations could be resolved using a stakes-based method.
It wouldn't necessarily require a change in a given system's stats. Combat? Resolve as normal. Social? Roll the same skill as before, but resolve it with a discussion, followed by one roll, then a scene with the result in mind.
Task-Based Conflict Resolution
I would guess that for most roleplayers, this is what they're used to. Determine initiative, take an action, roll dice. Lather, rinse, repeat. Time is typically broken down into tiny, measured units. This type of conflict resolution is mostly known for combat of some sort. While many games with this type of resolution have rules for social conflict, I find it feels disjointed to talk and roll dice to decide how effective I just spoke.
Old School (early D&D) games resolved the social issue by making it player facing, essentially your character is as socially ept (the opposite of inept; get used to it) as you, the player. If you come up with good ideas or say the right things, your character benefits. There was a time I thought this wasn't fair. Some people say its wrong to measure social things differently than combat, citing that characters are supposed to be able to do and say things the player can't. It is a power trip after all, right (sounds like another column)? But the more I try so-called "social combat," the more I tend to move back to old thinking with this sort of conflict.
As far as physical combat goes, I find task-based conflict resolution most satisfying. Nothing is better, for me, than getting to describe (or having described to me) the result of amazing attacks and/or damage. I want to know every detail.
Skill use in task-based conflict resolution is a coin flip for me. I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's just fine. Basically, it tends to be skill=action. I'm OK with that, though I don't think it's perfect. I'll have to leave skills for another column.
Scene-Based Conflict Resolution
This could also be called Stakes-Based. I typically associate this type of resolution with the Indie movement. Players (including the GM, they're players, too) discuss the stakes of the confrontation, like getting someone to let you in a club or knocking out a guard, then they roll for it (or play cards, spend chips, etc.). The scene is resolved through a quick narrative, based on the stakes and the typically random result.
Socially, this seems to make more sense than speak and roll, but it still feels a little off. I'm willing to entertain that my discomfort with it is due to lack of practice, though. It's also possible that my experience with physical confrontation in this realm of resolution has colored my experience of the social type.
Physical confrontation really suffers with this type of conflict, at least in my experience. Scene-based discussion of combat feels more off to me than any of the social rules out there.
The one thing that feels wrong about Scene-Based Conflict Resolution is that it reminds me of a "wouldn't it be cool if..." discussions. I save that for the comic shop.
A Compromise
I'd like to try and meld the best of these two styles. Combat could be resolved with the typical lather, rinse, repeat method, and social situations could be resolved using a stakes-based method.
It wouldn't necessarily require a change in a given system's stats. Combat? Resolve as normal. Social? Roll the same skill as before, but resolve it with a discussion, followed by one roll, then a scene with the result in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
