As a continuation of my No One True Game, train-wreck-of-thought, consider Mephit James' gaming blog and their recent roundtable post about what game engine would you use when playing in the Civilization: Beyond Earth video game setting.
What I find particularly interesting is that this isn't just the author's take on what they'd do but has the disparate input of several fellow GM's and their take on how they'd run their own games in a common setting.
The discussion exemplifies that there's no such thing as one universal system and that the choice of game engine really depends on what you want to emphasize and embody when telling your stories. The GM's that contributed identified such game systems as Infinity, Uncharted Worlds (an Apocalypse World variant), Coriolis, Mutant Year Zero, and one of my personal favorites: Eclipse Phase. Each of these games has a different focus, different emphasis, and different 'character' and therefore color how your experience playing that setting with those rules would be.
It's rather like asking: "What would a Harry Potter-verse movie be like if directed by Ron Howard? Or Michael_Bay?
Or Uwe Boll?"
(but seriously: don't consider the latter two)
Such discussions expose lesser known game systems to a wider audience (I now need to check out Uncharted Worlds, and its many supplements, for example). This can only be a good thing in the long run, even if it introduces some short-term hits to the wallet and adds to the what-do-i-run-next windmill of thought.
In nearly all cases the GM's also talked about how they'd tweak, modify or otherwise adapt those engines to suit the setting. That's another important takeaway from this discussion: Its okay to hack your core rules to align closer to your setting goals.
Lets shout that out again for the lizard brain: It's okay to hack core rules when a tweak or two will make them even more suitable to a different setting.
The Apocalypse World Engine is a great example of this kind of fan-made alteration. I've seen offshoots focusing on MechWarrior-style mercenary campaigns to crash-landed-aliens-trying-to-adapt-to-modern-human-culture (think an anime version of Alien Nation).
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Frankenstein's game
Now that I've ranted about my misadventures in finding or making One True game engine, I feel compelled to compile game sub-systems I would want in any ideal game systems. And yes, I said 'systems' because I accept there's no such thing as One True way to play.
I'll break these down into categories and detail them, as well as talk about game systems that either inspired or embody the idea.
Now I am doing this not because I'm trying to find/construct One True system again. But to maybe look at what I really like about given games and consider how to make them add-ons to existing systems. Take what works from game B, to enhance what game A lacks when game A is otherwise the ideal system for the story I'm running.
By Scaleable I mean the mechanics work the same from micro to macro scale of action. When everything is Fractal, then things should easily be Scaleable as well, but the reverse doesn't necessarily have to be true.
This is also about crunch in gaming and by crunch I mean: overly complex, layered mechanics or rolls/test/checks that can be encapsulated in a single action. For example: "Roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll damage, roll trauma, roll knockdown, etc..." Burning Wheel has a rule called 'Let it ride' that basically said: neither players or GM's can keep asking for additional tests when the first test answers the question of 'did they/didn't they'. If the intent of the test is "sneak into the castle" you don't demand a test to cross the moat, then another to scale the wall, then another to avoid patrols, and so on.
My favorite example simulationist games affecting 'roleplayability' are settings like BattleTech or WH40k. The rules as written are too lethal, too deterministic, to really justify investing much in any character. In BT, all it takes is a 12 on 2d6 and half the weapons in the game can decapitate your Mech and kill your pilot. Whee.
I'll break these down into categories and detail them, as well as talk about game systems that either inspired or embody the idea.
Now I am doing this not because I'm trying to find/construct One True system again. But to maybe look at what I really like about given games and consider how to make them add-ons to existing systems. Take what works from game B, to enhance what game A lacks when game A is otherwise the ideal system for the story I'm running.
World building is dynamic and open to input
Not all games are open to worldbuilding, but many are to a greater or lesser degree. This is about those later games. Ideally, the GM sets out with a concept and scope and the players help flesh out some details. The majority of this should happen before people start generating characters and playing but there's also often a need mid-game to invent details. I consider this an extension of the "Say Yes" principle of gaming and storytelling.- MICROSCOPE is entirely about world-building and in theory it could be used in conjunction with another game system when the players want to deep dive into a particular Scene to see what transpires.
- FATE supports this to a degree, but not mechanically.
- BURNING WHEEL (and TORCHBEARERS and BURNING EMPIRES) actively endorse this and support this with it's -Wise type skills, as well as it's Circle mechanics for finding allies and assets (often at a cost). I love Circles, because it's actually a hidden vehicle for drama and side-stories and quests (more about this later).
Character creation is tied to their concept and history
Character creation should allow for concept-driven choices that assemble the character at the point play begins. While interesting characters can come out of random character creation systems (I'm looking at you, Little Black Box Traveller), it's more likely to create something you're uninterested or unable to play.- RISK does this with it's Background choices, but you're limited to two. However, they're all fairly balanced with each other, and creating new ones is easy.
- BURNING WHEEL/EMPIRES has wonderfully fleshed out Stock/Lifepath systems, but generating new ones isn't easy. They're complex and intricate, but don't have to be 'balanced' because BW isn't that kind of game.
- STAR TREK ADVENTURES and INFINITY also have their own lifepath systems; STA is more concept- and choice- driven, while INFINITY is mostly random but gives you a fixed number of opportunities to make crucial choices (I'm not a fan of this latter example, really).
Fractal and scaleable mechanics
By Fractal I mean the same methods of describing something (a person, a place, a thing) work the same: by a combination of Stats, Traits, Skills, Levels, etc. Want to play an entire nation or culture? A piloted giant robot? A person? How do you qualify and quantify the items that person has? Fractal mechanics means that at all levels people, places and things fundamentally work and are detailed in the same way. Good Fractal mechanics should allow for representing something by a single value, a full spread of details, and some level in between.By Scaleable I mean the mechanics work the same from micro to macro scale of action. When everything is Fractal, then things should easily be Scaleable as well, but the reverse doesn't necessarily have to be true.
- FATE introduced me to the concept of a fractal-style of stating things.
- The later SHADOWRUN edition let you either describe an electronic device with a flat rating, or a full spectrum of statistics.
- FUSION (Mekton and Cyberpunk) does scaling great; giant robots and starships do battle with the same dice mechanics and options that people do with only minor differences. The MTS scaling mechanics are awesome.
- TURK had the concept of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary inputs to a dice roll: Primary sources determined the base number of dice you got to throw and keep, Secondary sources added unkept dice to the pool and Tertiary sources add a flat bonus to the result. The GM would determine what would count as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary inputs and this created a effect of diminishing returns to limit munchkinism and min-maxing.
Story-driven / Story-driving mechanics
This is the dividing line between simulationist-gaming and storytelling games. I won't waste more words on nitpicking about simulationist games, but I will say game mechanics should allow for elements of random effects but ultimately the decisions of how and what happens should come down to the players and GM.This is also about crunch in gaming and by crunch I mean: overly complex, layered mechanics or rolls/test/checks that can be encapsulated in a single action. For example: "Roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll damage, roll trauma, roll knockdown, etc..." Burning Wheel has a rule called 'Let it ride' that basically said: neither players or GM's can keep asking for additional tests when the first test answers the question of 'did they/didn't they'. If the intent of the test is "sneak into the castle" you don't demand a test to cross the moat, then another to scale the wall, then another to avoid patrols, and so on.
My favorite example simulationist games affecting 'roleplayability' are settings like BattleTech or WH40k. The rules as written are too lethal, too deterministic, to really justify investing much in any character. In BT, all it takes is a 12 on 2d6 and half the weapons in the game can decapitate your Mech and kill your pilot. Whee.
- RISK really changed my perspective on what you actually do with rolling all those funny polyhedral objects and doing maths; I love the concept of 'narrative currency' that lets players choose where and how to affect the story in discreet mechanical ways. I'll probably have to write something separately about Narrative Currency systems.
- FORGED IN THE DARK's mechanics are a framework for outlining dramatic moments while leaving the context and color of those moments entirely open to color.
- I mentioned loving BURNING WHEEL's Circles mechanics and here's why: Rather than forcing characters to buy specific 'contacts' ahead of time (and then never having the opportunity to use them in actual play), Circles allows anyone to say "I think I know a guy..." and then roll to determine how effective that statement is. Circles is one of those mechanics where failure on a Circles -test is more fun than succeeding, especially when you apply the principles of "Yes and..." or "Yes but...". Yes, you know a guy who can help, but he's currently mad as hell at you. Yes you learn that someone knows what you need to know, but they're currently imprisoned. What are you going to do to get what you need, and what are you going to owe them when all is said and done?
Mini game systems
I'm included this is a category because it's not a must-have but should be talked about. By mini-games I mean where there are subsets of game systems or mechanics for specific activities. Video games do this a lot for things like hacking, research, dialog and so on. Ideally the core mechanics should all be the same (how you roll dice, determine success/failure, etc), but build upon that framework with almost puzzle-like structures for solving conflicts or challenge.- BURNING WHEEL is a great example of this with it's 'Duel of Wits,' 'Range and Cover' and 'Fight!' sub-systems. Burning Empires added 'Firefight' and 'Infestation' mini-games.
- Lots of game systems have mini-games for handling research, construction and other long-term activities. Too many to list here. Burning Wheel also consistently deployed a rock-paper-scissors matrix for choices characters made in conflict. Mouse Guard created the simplest version of this with only four Actions to consider: Attack, Defense, Maneuver or Feint, and let that work for arguments, combat, exploration, anything.
- FORGED IN THE DARK has 'clocks' for tracking progress on anything that can't be resolved in a single test/action/scene. Clocks tick up and down, representing progress or time running out, as needed.
- ROLL AND KEEP, original 7thSea specifically, had a structured way of learning new Fencing and Sorcery mastery abilities based on how you mastered the choice Maneuvers of that school/magic. That was a framework I wanted to keep and make part of TURK.
Character Advancement/Growth
...- BURNING WHEEL counted tests against your stats and skills, and when you'd recorded enough marks, that skill or stat would increase automatically. It's an organic and realistic method, but also required book keeping. The Mouse Guard variant had the simplest and most streamlined way of calculating this: you needed a number of successes equal to your current rating, and a number of failures equal to one less than your rating. This encourages characters seeking to improve their abilities to strive to push their limits because you learned from failure and that's a good lesson.
- FUSION (at least in Mekton and CP2020 editions) had both marks against Skills you tested, and general IP (Improvement Points) to spend as you wish. Advancing Stats and gaining new Advantages and the like weren't addressed until FUSION came about, and then it was handled by giving more of the same points you used to create your character with to spend on what you wanted to improve.
- D20 games with Leveling systems makes for a quick and easy way to evaluate character experience and how challenging a given combat might be, but Level games always seem to break down logically when everything a character does gets better just because of a combat experience ("Wait, I killed that Orc... and now I'm better at Cooking?") Some games that have Leveling-type mechanics also separate out combat from non-combat, but really, how is that different from renaming 'classes' as 'skills'?
- FORGED IN THE DARK games track experience both for specific skills you use, and a general pool that you can spend as you wish. Skills get an XP whenever you test them under in 'desperate' tests (regardless of success or failure). General XP rewards are tied directly to character type, background and goals. Whenever a 'track' fills up, something advances.
Minimal GM overhead
Part of the reason an ideal system should be Fractal is so that the GM doesn't have to do the same level of record keeping that players do for their characters but for every other character, monster, place or thing in the game. The GM can abstract what isn't as important, and focus on what does need a high level of detail, and (hopefully) switch between the two as needed.
- CYPHER is the best example of this: The GM sets Levels for things, and players make all the rolls (roll to influence, hit, dodge, resist, etc...).
- In RISK, you can frame any Risk in terms of Consequences and Opportunities, and include things like thresholds and timing limitations. Brutes are dirt-simple, and Villains can have as little or as much detail as you like. I like how RISK lets you setup a challenge to players almost like a puzzle to solve, and it's up to them to generate the Raises and apply them to solve it.
????
Monday, November 26, 2018
No One True Game Engine
No, this isn't a No True Scotsman argument. This is mostly a self-directed rant.
I have this problem where I keep trying to find/invent the 'one true' game engine to play all the games/settings I want to experience or run. Sadly, this is a bad habit that I gotta kick myself off.
I wanted to find that mythical One Game Engine with TURK (True Universal Roll-and-Keep), and I eventually gave up on the project because Roll n Keep can't do everything I wanted. I've tried again and again to cherry-pick my favorite mechanics from various systems and Frankenstein them together into something that does everything I want and nothing I don't. What I left off with at TURK was a complex and incomplete 'framework' that would need interpreting with every setting I wanted to use it in. Not only would you need a 'CORE' book, but a 'WORLD' book to tell you how to apply the Core rules to each setting. It got crunchy, which was one of the things I was trying to avoid.
Oh hubris, your aftertaste is so bitter.
The humbling truth is: Game engines/systems are tailored to produce their desired effects (whelp, at least modern games systems do. There was a time when everything had six stats, XP and levels and you rolled a d20 in combat and usually percentile dice for everything else...)
In no particular order:
RISK, as in the 7th Sea 2nd Edition, and the forthcoming 7th Sea: Khitai game, has a mechanical focus on using Raises generated by dice rolls as your narrative currency. Players and GM's then spend this currency to decide what their focus on the story details will be. I love some of the ideas in this system; it's a streamlined and evolved version of the original Roll and Keep that inspired me to write TURK in the first place.
D&D, especially 5th Edition, is great at high fantasy storytelling with an emphasis on exploration, combat and character power growth from those activities. Yes, out of the box it doesn't support character emotional and relationship growth, but there's nothing stopping a good GM from making pathos an essential driving force of a story. You don't need mechanics to do that.
Mekton and the FUSION engine are great at the grognardy-number-crunching-mecha-design and smashing stories. The Mekton Technical System is still my favorite because it focused on relative design choices, very flexible scaling and adaptability with a focus on anime physics and storytelling. The only thing holding it back is just how crunchy it gets with character design and advancement (nine primary stats and a variable number of derived stats?!?) and actual mecha combat could get really slow as well.
GURPS started as a wonderfully 'universal' system and was heavily focused on character over everything else. It suffered, i think, from trying to point-balance and option everything possible in character creation. Some of the later editions had VOLUMES published about character options. And don't get me started about GURPS Vehicles.
Okay just one gripe and then moving on: do I really, REALLY need to worry about the weight of the fuzzy dice I hang in my tricked out muscle car? Not to mention calculating the square surface area of the radio so I can determine how much damage it can take? (Fire, Fusion and Steel for Traveller TNE had the same problem.)
Burning Wheel is all about character drama in a gritty and hard way. It encourages player buy-in and adding to the game world and supports that mechanically.
FATE is fantastically abstract, generic and diverse in all the settings it's been used in, but that's also it's weakness. It depends on players and GM's having a firm and agile grip on how to use FATE.
2d20, specifically Star Trek Adventures, does a fine job of capturing the feel of principle-driven science-fiction storytelling. the Momentum mechanic makes intra-character cooperation and collaboration easy. The Infinity setting is just bonkers with the crunchy details that STA lacks.
Eclipse Phase, while a percentile system, does a fabulous job of showing how a game engine can reflect the setting; the separation of ego and morph and how they work together is a wonderful metaphoric mirror to the ideas behind a transhuman/posthumanist setting.
Cypher is fascinating for both it's innovation and return to really old-school themes involving bizarre encounters and devices. It DOES do interesting things with putting all rolls on the player's side of the table and making the GM's management of other characters easier and nominally having an open system for any kind of world-building and setting-making. See here for a separate post about other things I've taken away from my reading of the Cypher system.
Blades in the Dark and Scum and Villainy -both Forged In The Dark games- focus on storytelling with imaginative yet open-to-interpretation universes. This system sets up mechanical frameworks that quickly establish qualitative results that imaginative GMs and Players can color however they wish.
I really do need to embrace the wonderful variety of game systems out there.
Hell, I spend enough on collecting new and interesting games, I should bloody well use them!
Except percentile systems. To hell with them. They're too granular and fiddly and imply arbitrary limitations of capacity and ability. That and I just have terrible luck with them. (Ask me about my RoleMaster experience sometime and buy me a beer, and I'll spin you a yarn about the root of my antagonism towards %-dice based engines.)
I have this problem where I keep trying to find/invent the 'one true' game engine to play all the games/settings I want to experience or run. Sadly, this is a bad habit that I gotta kick myself off.
I wanted to find that mythical One Game Engine with TURK (True Universal Roll-and-Keep), and I eventually gave up on the project because Roll n Keep can't do everything I wanted. I've tried again and again to cherry-pick my favorite mechanics from various systems and Frankenstein them together into something that does everything I want and nothing I don't. What I left off with at TURK was a complex and incomplete 'framework' that would need interpreting with every setting I wanted to use it in. Not only would you need a 'CORE' book, but a 'WORLD' book to tell you how to apply the Core rules to each setting. It got crunchy, which was one of the things I was trying to avoid.
Oh hubris, your aftertaste is so bitter.
The humbling truth is: Game engines/systems are tailored to produce their desired effects (whelp, at least modern games systems do. There was a time when everything had six stats, XP and levels and you rolled a d20 in combat and usually percentile dice for everything else...)
In no particular order:
RISK, as in the 7th Sea 2nd Edition, and the forthcoming 7th Sea: Khitai game, has a mechanical focus on using Raises generated by dice rolls as your narrative currency. Players and GM's then spend this currency to decide what their focus on the story details will be. I love some of the ideas in this system; it's a streamlined and evolved version of the original Roll and Keep that inspired me to write TURK in the first place.
D&D, especially 5th Edition, is great at high fantasy storytelling with an emphasis on exploration, combat and character power growth from those activities. Yes, out of the box it doesn't support character emotional and relationship growth, but there's nothing stopping a good GM from making pathos an essential driving force of a story. You don't need mechanics to do that.
Mekton and the FUSION engine are great at the grognardy-number-crunching-mecha-design and smashing stories. The Mekton Technical System is still my favorite because it focused on relative design choices, very flexible scaling and adaptability with a focus on anime physics and storytelling. The only thing holding it back is just how crunchy it gets with character design and advancement (nine primary stats and a variable number of derived stats?!?) and actual mecha combat could get really slow as well.
GURPS started as a wonderfully 'universal' system and was heavily focused on character over everything else. It suffered, i think, from trying to point-balance and option everything possible in character creation. Some of the later editions had VOLUMES published about character options. And don't get me started about GURPS Vehicles.
Okay just one gripe and then moving on: do I really, REALLY need to worry about the weight of the fuzzy dice I hang in my tricked out muscle car? Not to mention calculating the square surface area of the radio so I can determine how much damage it can take? (Fire, Fusion and Steel for Traveller TNE had the same problem.)
Burning Wheel is all about character drama in a gritty and hard way. It encourages player buy-in and adding to the game world and supports that mechanically.
FATE is fantastically abstract, generic and diverse in all the settings it's been used in, but that's also it's weakness. It depends on players and GM's having a firm and agile grip on how to use FATE.
2d20, specifically Star Trek Adventures, does a fine job of capturing the feel of principle-driven science-fiction storytelling. the Momentum mechanic makes intra-character cooperation and collaboration easy. The Infinity setting is just bonkers with the crunchy details that STA lacks.
Eclipse Phase, while a percentile system, does a fabulous job of showing how a game engine can reflect the setting; the separation of ego and morph and how they work together is a wonderful metaphoric mirror to the ideas behind a transhuman/posthumanist setting.
Cypher is fascinating for both it's innovation and return to really old-school themes involving bizarre encounters and devices. It DOES do interesting things with putting all rolls on the player's side of the table and making the GM's management of other characters easier and nominally having an open system for any kind of world-building and setting-making. See here for a separate post about other things I've taken away from my reading of the Cypher system.
Blades in the Dark and Scum and Villainy -both Forged In The Dark games- focus on storytelling with imaginative yet open-to-interpretation universes. This system sets up mechanical frameworks that quickly establish qualitative results that imaginative GMs and Players can color however they wish.
I really do need to embrace the wonderful variety of game systems out there.
Hell, I spend enough on collecting new and interesting games, I should bloody well use them!
Except percentile systems. To hell with them. They're too granular and fiddly and imply arbitrary limitations of capacity and ability. That and I just have terrible luck with them. (Ask me about my RoleMaster experience sometime and buy me a beer, and I'll spin you a yarn about the root of my antagonism towards %-dice based engines.)
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Reverting to type
So this last weekend I played in a one-shot game of Scum and Villainy, and it made we aware of something about myself and the other players in the group. We each had a 'type' of character we tend to play, and I especially will revert to that type if I am just learning a system or settings. Characters of my 'type' are stoic, humble protectors of others. In D&D I'm usually the Paladin. The characters I play are an exaggeration of whom I strive to be.
Roleplaying is a medium that encourages, even demands sometimes, pushing boundaries and being someone other than 'yourself'. And what I observed is that people tend to play what they want to be, what they can't always be in real life. Some players are loud and sarcastic and absurdist, because they can't be that way around most people. Some are impulsive, independent and not very collaborative with their fellow players. Because they can't in real life? (yes, I'm making an assumption here, but its one based on observations)
I'm beginning to feel typecast. I am wondering how do I break out of the comfort zone mold I've made for myself of a hobby that means so much to me?
I've picked up a copy of Improv for Gamers, also from Evil Hat. We'll have to see if it has anything I can put to use. LARPing is a fascinating game form in my mind; one I am not at all certain I could do properly.
More thoughts on this to come...
Roleplaying is a medium that encourages, even demands sometimes, pushing boundaries and being someone other than 'yourself'. And what I observed is that people tend to play what they want to be, what they can't always be in real life. Some players are loud and sarcastic and absurdist, because they can't be that way around most people. Some are impulsive, independent and not very collaborative with their fellow players. Because they can't in real life? (yes, I'm making an assumption here, but its one based on observations)
I'm beginning to feel typecast. I am wondering how do I break out of the comfort zone mold I've made for myself of a hobby that means so much to me?
I've picked up a copy of Improv for Gamers, also from Evil Hat. We'll have to see if it has anything I can put to use. LARPing is a fascinating game form in my mind; one I am not at all certain I could do properly.
More thoughts on this to come...
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Thoughts on GEAR in RISK-engine games
Luth and i recently put out a PDF on DTRPG adding gear and supplies to 7thSea 2e but I'm still thinking about _stuff_ in games, particularly high-tech games were equipment and tools are important. However, rather than having to deal with an infinite variety of _things_ and their myriad details to track, both as a GM and as a player, I'd like to think about how to abstract that but still allow for mechanical benefits.
So I'm thinking about characters having dice pools, which characters can burn dice from during RISKS/Conflicts to add to their rolls. These dice are 'expended' because they represent one-use exploits, recharging items, or expendable goods that can have impact but limited number of uses.
Hacker exploits, for example, generally work once then the target system(s) react and cut off that vector.
Tactical combat assets represent grenades, deployable sensors and/or noisemakers, ablative armors, etc.
Other 'Pools' can exist, much like the Resources as in Larder, Armory and Stash, but they'd be smaller and more portable than as detailed in that document.
Questions that come to mind:
1. What's a resonable 'cap' for characters to have at any one time? I'm thinking Skill rank, with a bonus if you have the right Advantage. ('Ace Hacker' grants +2 dice to Hacking pool)
2. How often do these pools reset? Depends on the pool: could be after the Risk, after the Scene, after an Adventure, or after another Risk is undertaken to acquire/update/re-stock (this would be like in Larder, Armory and Stash.
Thoughts?
Thursday, November 1, 2018
I am a(n) Adjective Noun who Verbs
The Cypher system likes to summarize (or initialize?) character creation with a sentence in the structure of: "I am a(n) Adjective Noun who Verbs" and there's something sublimely cleaver about that. Cypher The choices then goes on to assign stats, powers and situational bonuses (also tied to the experience level of the character) to the character based on the choices you make when you choose your Descriptor (Adjective), Type (Noun) and Focus (Verb). The words themselves don't really indicate anything after that; they're just identifiers for the choices made. On the one hand, you know that every character with the ‘Adroit’ Adjective is capable of; On the other hand, you’re limited to the choices that have been defined with stats, skills and modifiers.
I like the idea of decoupling those defined modifiers for the most part, and return to just relying on the context of your Adjective, Noun and Verb choice. I feel this could work very well in a FATE kind of way where Aspects have mechanical benefits but are totally open to creation and interpreting in context.
We could even take this concept one layer deeper (what FATE refers to as the ‘fractal’) and consider how the same descriptive phrasing could be applied to not only player characters, but NPCs, objects and even places.
Consider:
Nouns define the quintessential function of the person, place or thing. For people, it’s their root career, story purpose, ‘class’, etc. For things it should encapsulate the general use, purpose and effectiveness of that type of thing. All Rifles fundamentally are the same; a firearm that requires two hands to hold and brace properly for use, etc. In a game with generic versions of a class of weapon or tool, all types of the same Noun start with the same base stats/values.
Adjectives are Enhancers which are boons when they are relevant to the situation, and added complications when the are inappropriate to the context of use. (In RISK games, I’d adjudicate this as a free Raise when appropriate, and at least one Raise of Complication if inappropriate.) Against an opponent with the same or opposing Adjective, the bonuses cancel out.
Verbs are Enablers and augment base abilities with additional or unusual functionality. For ‘magic’ items, this is where the special and magical ability is defined (e.g a longsword that drains life force). For modular and modified technology items, this is the added features/functions of the modifications (e.g. an Assault Rifle with an underslung grenade launcher; the grenade launcher is the added functionality.)
Not everything needs Adjectives and Verbs in their descriptions, but everything must have a Noun. +Adjectives should be common, while +Verbs represent rare, unique and especially important or powerful people/places/things.
Another thought: could this system work with skills or other character traits? Let the (Adjective) be the relative level of experience/ability, the (Noun) be the broad skill, and let any (Verb) represent specializations or extra effects the character has associated with that Skill.
Thoughts?
I like the idea of decoupling those defined modifiers for the most part, and return to just relying on the context of your Adjective, Noun and Verb choice. I feel this could work very well in a FATE kind of way where Aspects have mechanical benefits but are totally open to creation and interpreting in context.
We could even take this concept one layer deeper (what FATE refers to as the ‘fractal’) and consider how the same descriptive phrasing could be applied to not only player characters, but NPCs, objects and even places.
Consider:
- A Person who is: a(n) (Adjective) (Noun) who (Verbs)
- An Object that is: a(n) (Adjective) (Noun) with/that (Verbs)
- A Place that is: a(n) (Adjective) (Noun) that (Verbs)
Nouns define the quintessential function of the person, place or thing. For people, it’s their root career, story purpose, ‘class’, etc. For things it should encapsulate the general use, purpose and effectiveness of that type of thing. All Rifles fundamentally are the same; a firearm that requires two hands to hold and brace properly for use, etc. In a game with generic versions of a class of weapon or tool, all types of the same Noun start with the same base stats/values.
E.g. all pistols in 1st edition 7thSea were 4k2 weapons. All heavy melee weapons were 3k3, adding Brawn to the number of dice thrown. All longswords in D&D do d8 damage, and so on.
Adjectives are Enhancers which are boons when they are relevant to the situation, and added complications when the are inappropriate to the context of use. (In RISK games, I’d adjudicate this as a free Raise when appropriate, and at least one Raise of Complication if inappropriate.) Against an opponent with the same or opposing Adjective, the bonuses cancel out.
A sniper who is forced into close-combat with a melee attacker tries to shoot their opponent with their longarm. The GM adjudicates the ‘sniper’ Adjective of their weapon means they have to overcome a 2-Raise Complication to not damage or loose grip on their weapon during the melee.
Verbs are Enablers and augment base abilities with additional or unusual functionality. For ‘magic’ items, this is where the special and magical ability is defined (e.g a longsword that drains life force). For modular and modified technology items, this is the added features/functions of the modifications (e.g. an Assault Rifle with an underslung grenade launcher; the grenade launcher is the added functionality.)
A soldier armed with an Assault Rifle with Grenade Launcher, is attacking a Brute Squad. The GM adjudicates that the Verb on the weapon lets them take out their Weapons skill rank in Brutes for a single Raise. BOOM.
Not everything needs Adjectives and Verbs in their descriptions, but everything must have a Noun. +Adjectives should be common, while +Verbs represent rare, unique and especially important or powerful people/places/things.
Another thought: could this system work with skills or other character traits? Let the (Adjective) be the relative level of experience/ability, the (Noun) be the broad skill, and let any (Verb) represent specializations or extra effects the character has associated with that Skill.
I’m an Expert Hacker.
I’m a Novice Archaeologist who Finds Lost Things.
They’re an Experienced Marksman who Dual Wields.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Fun happens between the rules
Dammit, John.
Thanks for pulling the rug out from under my carefully constructed meta frameworks :)
However he's on point here. Some of the best game sessions I've ever been in or run had little or no dice rolling involved. So why do I still obsess over game mechanics?
The best Shadowrun game session was played in the dark, by candlelight and no dice were thrown. One of the best 7thSea game sessions was where I realized what needed to happen and asked the GM for a sidebar, where I described what I thought should happen and he went for it. We went back to the table and narrated the outcome of a dramatic duel.
Because game mechanics inform me what kind of game I am playing and what I can do in it. It's a twist on the old adage: "when all you have is a hammer, all your problems resemble nails." If your game system spends 50% of its word-count on structuring and adjudicating combat, then guess how I expect to solve problems while playing that game?
As a counter-example: I'm in a FATE game involving dreamers and where the dream world is as real as the mundane one. The concept is fascinating, the characters are interesting. But I have a problem in this game: I don't know what I can do in the game. Now in this case this is part FATE but also due to the setting as presented. Our characters are as new to this world as the players are, and therefore they are learning as we are. But it can happen with other games as well sometimes.
Mechanics inform gameplay, but also inherently define and limit choice in game. But genre also informs choice. In a Lord Of The Rings setting, you have all the novels and movies to draw upon for inspiration. Anime has tons of tropes used to describe what can happen in their worlds.
On the other hand, simulationist games depend on structure. The story evolves from the combination of choices made and results of dice. This is one of the reasons I don't roleplay in the Battletech universe; it's too damn easy for your mecha pilots to get killed outright and there's little to no game mechanics to mitigate that for story purposes. In this sense, a 1st edition Dungeons and Dragons game is the same way: your 1st level character has single-digit hit points, and a housecat stands a decent chance of killing your wizard outright. But lets set aside simulationist games for now and return to storytelling games.
Just what purpose do rules and mechanics serve in a storytelling game?
Rules and mechanics should be inclusive of all players and promote safety.
Rules and mechanics should enable fun.
Rules and mechanics should enable and inform choices, not limit them.
And if rules and mechanics get in the way, throw them out the window.
Thanks for pulling the rug out from under my carefully constructed meta frameworks :)
However he's on point here. Some of the best game sessions I've ever been in or run had little or no dice rolling involved. So why do I still obsess over game mechanics?
The best Shadowrun game session was played in the dark, by candlelight and no dice were thrown. One of the best 7thSea game sessions was where I realized what needed to happen and asked the GM for a sidebar, where I described what I thought should happen and he went for it. We went back to the table and narrated the outcome of a dramatic duel.
Because game mechanics inform me what kind of game I am playing and what I can do in it. It's a twist on the old adage: "when all you have is a hammer, all your problems resemble nails." If your game system spends 50% of its word-count on structuring and adjudicating combat, then guess how I expect to solve problems while playing that game?
As a counter-example: I'm in a FATE game involving dreamers and where the dream world is as real as the mundane one. The concept is fascinating, the characters are interesting. But I have a problem in this game: I don't know what I can do in the game. Now in this case this is part FATE but also due to the setting as presented. Our characters are as new to this world as the players are, and therefore they are learning as we are. But it can happen with other games as well sometimes.
Mechanics inform gameplay, but also inherently define and limit choice in game. But genre also informs choice. In a Lord Of The Rings setting, you have all the novels and movies to draw upon for inspiration. Anime has tons of tropes used to describe what can happen in their worlds.
On the other hand, simulationist games depend on structure. The story evolves from the combination of choices made and results of dice. This is one of the reasons I don't roleplay in the Battletech universe; it's too damn easy for your mecha pilots to get killed outright and there's little to no game mechanics to mitigate that for story purposes. In this sense, a 1st edition Dungeons and Dragons game is the same way: your 1st level character has single-digit hit points, and a housecat stands a decent chance of killing your wizard outright. But lets set aside simulationist games for now and return to storytelling games.
Just what purpose do rules and mechanics serve in a storytelling game?
Rules and mechanics should be inclusive of all players and promote safety.
Rules and mechanics should enable fun.
Rules and mechanics should enable and inform choices, not limit them.
And if rules and mechanics get in the way, throw them out the window.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
A post-game 'in-character' post
This is a follow-up to my previous post about the Star Trek Adventures game we started playing.
I had so much fun playing that game, I felt that a post-game 'in-character' report was appropriate for several reasons: A) it helped improve my understanding of my character, B) helps communicate that character to other players/readers, C) records for posterity the events of that game session, and D) extends the fun of the campaign when away from 'the table.'
I've been a fan of the concept of 'blue booking' as Aaron Alston put it so many years ago, but rarely had a chance to put it to the test. Nowadays, with actual game sessions happening at best once a month, I feel the practice is even more important to maintain connection between players and characters and the campaign world they play in. Hopefully this keeps the momentum going during the long downtimes between actual gatherings.
I should also add that the advent of FaceBook and other widely-accessible social medias, especially those that allow for private and semi-private groups, also can help with maintaining connections and momentum for a game group.
Anyway, all that aside, here's what Captain Joran Kyl, commanding officer of the Stargazer had to report to StarFleet Command after the last game session:
Enjoy!
<<BEGIN Encryption report>>
<<FROM: Joran Kyl, Commander, Commanding Officer: NCC-2893-A Stargazer>>
<<CYPHER codex: SFC.RE.Romeo-Omicron-Foxtrot-Lima-Michael-Alpha-Omicron>>
<<CYPHER key: Wiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-9925>>
<<CONTEXT TAGS ASSIGNED: Unknown contact, sapient rights, Xindi coalition, Conflict report>>
<<BEGIN REPORT>>
Stardate 49124.1
For those just being read into this situation report, here's a summary of my previous mission reports:
Stargazer's first mission post-shakedown was to rendezvous with runabout 'Charon' and take onboard the contractor repair team, and one Lt.Kadar, and then to proceed into the Paulson nebulae to discover why Federation Automated Communication Post 1337 had stopped all communications. We were able to track down the likely location of FCPA-1337. Only the station wasn't there. Only radioactive dust remained. We extended our search, finding small parts of the obliterated station. Analysis by science team concluded the station had been obliterated by critical nuclear decoupling reaction (i.e. a 'nuclear warhead'), delivered by an ion-powered missile. As of last report, Stargazer was setting out to follow the ion trail left by the missile back to its source.
At Stardate 49123.3 Stargazer encountered a previously unknown stellar system at the approximate coordinates <<INSET.ASTRONAVIGATION.COORDINATES>>. We nearly hit the stellar corona; there was no sign of this system on charts or sensors before automatic collision avoidance dropped us out of warp just in time.
Immediate sensor scans identified an M-class world in the system, with signs of pre-Warp civilization craft moving about between the other bodies of the star system: the classic signs of a near-maturity and previously unknown and un-contacted civilization. In accordance with the Prime Directive I ordered Sargazer behind the primary star and deployed sensor drones so that we could observe and evaluate this civilization.
Our initial assumption that this was a pre-warp civilization were incorrect, however, when our sensor drones suddenly went silent and a large modern-technology starship of unknown origin or configuration rounded the corona of the star with shields raised and weapons armed. In retrospection I realize that the unidentified ship must have been on the far side of the M-class planet when we initially entered system and thus we were unaware of it's presence. I ordered shields raised as a defensive measure. We transmitted on universal hailing frequencies our non-hostile intentions only to be met by subspace jamming. Not only did this opponent not want to talk; they didn't want us talking to anyone else either. Lt. Kadar's instincts proved themselves as sharp as ever as she intuited their attack just in time to avoid most of their initial volley, some sort of EMP blast intended to cripple us. Lt. Zynes' limited scans of the ship informed us that she was heavy on automation but light on crew yet she out-massed us a great deal. Roughly equivalent to an Ambassador-class Federation heavy cruiser. Stargazer was not up for a straight-up fight against such an opponent.
{Personal note: In my recovery after WOLF359, I recall spending time with a distant niece and the story from Earth she wanted me to read to her. I don't recall all the details from the tale, but the protagonists use of a 'Briar patch' to their advantage against a larger predator stuck with me.}
I ordered Lt.Tyvass to return fire and Kadar to go to warp back to the Paulson Nebulae. Tyvass scored a hit against the opponents engines, temporarily draining them of power and buying Stargazer an opening to go to warp. With a bloody nose, I doubted they'd give up the chase now and my suspicions were proven correct when we detected the unknown in pursuit.
En route to the Nebulae, i called a quick team meeting and outlined my plan: I intended to lead our attacker into the Nebulae, where Lt.Zynes' previous extensive mapping of the gravitational fields and eddies would be used to our advantage; we were going to fight back with intent to disable our opponent and then offer them an opportunity to surrender. I asked my XO, Cmdr Delix to take command down in engineering for the meantime. Unlike other captains, I like all my section leaders to know the plan, in case the chain of command gets broken for whatever reason.
Again, i have to call attention to the skill Lt.Kadar has with shiphandling. As we dropped out of warp at the nebulae's edge, she dodged a grav-wave that sent our pursuer into a wild skid to retain control. Tyvass was ready with our guns and put phaser strikes into their engines and weapons. The attacker again tried to use their EMP wave against us, but again Kadar nimbly sidestepped the attack. I asked Chief Ray to power up our secondary core for more power, which he provided promptly. This gave us enough to strike again, knocking their shields out entirely and causing secondary explosions across the enemy's weapon systems.
Having given our opponent a thoroughly rough handling, I decided it was time to try some gunboat diplomacy. I recorded a message, offering them the chance to stand down and that we didn't seek their destruction.
While the enemy re-established their shields, Kadar informed me she felt 'panic and disorder' aboard the enemy ship.
I recorded another message: "Surrender or we will end this. Expeditiously." and sent that while ordering Tyvass to load torpedoes.
We received a weak communications signal from someone identifying themselves as "Dr.Okathra," who informed us that he and several others who have been prisoners on the ship have broken free in the chaos, but that the ships self-destruct has been set.
I ordered Tyvass to use our phasers to bring down their shields, then Kadar to bring us close enough for transporters.
Sensors indicated only a couple dozen lifeforms onboard. I ordered security to setup a containment field in the main cargo bay, and the transporter teams to start bringing everyone on the ship over and into the 'cage'. Tyvass headed down to take command of the security situation himself.
I confess: I cut things too close. The enemy ship's core detonated sooner than intended, and the nebulae amplified the explosion. We found ourselves tossed to the floor and main power was lost. Once the bridge was back under order, I left Kadar at con to handle damage control, while Lt.Zynes and I took the long climb down to the cargo bay.
We had to pry ourselves into the cargo bay. We found a standoff: when main power failed, the containment field also failed briefly. Captors, prisoners and my own security people were both inside and outside the containment zone in the aftermath of a wild melee. Tyvass, bloodied but unbowed had just gotten back the upper hand.
When it was apparent that they were truly captured, the captors all committed suicide or attacked each other with intent to kill to be killed. Security stunned all they could but all but one of the captors died. The risk of toxic exposure to the rest of the crew forced me to leave the dead in the containment field for now. Dr. Okathra and most of the prisoners survived and were taken to medical, along with the surviving captor who was unconscious.
I then made my way down to engineering, finding that Delix had already begun damage control assignments. The explosion had knocked out our FTL and internal communications, and both drive cores were down. Chief Ray was already going EVA to stop a plasma leak from one our nacelles. While bad, this wasn't terminal. <<INSET.REF: CPO. Ray's damage reports>>
Seeing things were well in hand, I left for Medical.
I spent some time talking with Dr.Okathra, who turns out is a Xindi Arboreal. A geneticist by training, he told of how he and his team were conducting research into genetic maladies and the eternal challenge of bringing the various Xindi peoples back together. Wildly controversial among the Xindi population as a whole, he chose to relocate to a lesser known space to avoid trouble. And yet trouble is what he got when his FTL communications were cut, then an unknown ship appeared in their skies. Their Captors took them prisoner, forced them to perform genetics testing of various kinds. The timelines between the lost of communication from FCPA-1337 coincides with the timeline from Dr.Okathra. Assuring him we would do our best to right the wrongs he and his people suffered, I left him in Lt.Kadar's care; perhaps with counseling we can learn more about what happened.
Our EMH handled the autopsies of the dead and the captors and the 'Moreau's' (his term, I'll have to go look up the reference later) with the assistance of Lt. Zynes. While I'm no xenobiologist, here are the big takeaway points:
1. The 'captors' (a dozen humans, one Vulcan, one Tellurite) all underwent extensive biometric and genetic modifications to defy identification. Their remains are currently in stasis.
2. The unidentified humanoids are biogenic composites; a patchwork (in the very literal sense) of disparate genomes that somehow managed to work together. About 90% of the genomes can be identified leaving 10% unknown. Primarily these poor beings are drawn from Xindi species (yes, all six of them). Finally: whatever genetic 'glue' that held them together breaks down quickly after death: the bodies started decomposing before autopsy could be finished.
3. I have one of the captors still alive, but in dire state. The EMH doctor has this individual in a medical coma until they can be stabilized.
<<INSET.REF: Lt.Zynes autopsy reports>>
My ship is damaged, but still quite capable.
We've taken out the major enemy space-based asset in the system.
Given the information that Dr.Okathra has given me I feel it imperative to return to the unknown system to rescue any remaining of Dr.Okathra's people. And to hopefully learn more about the people behind these atrocities.
P.S. This has been one hell of a 'milk run' so far.
signed:
~Commander Joran Kyl, C/O NCC-2893-A Stargazer.
<<END REPORT>>
I had so much fun playing that game, I felt that a post-game 'in-character' report was appropriate for several reasons: A) it helped improve my understanding of my character, B) helps communicate that character to other players/readers, C) records for posterity the events of that game session, and D) extends the fun of the campaign when away from 'the table.'
I've been a fan of the concept of 'blue booking' as Aaron Alston put it so many years ago, but rarely had a chance to put it to the test. Nowadays, with actual game sessions happening at best once a month, I feel the practice is even more important to maintain connection between players and characters and the campaign world they play in. Hopefully this keeps the momentum going during the long downtimes between actual gatherings.
I should also add that the advent of FaceBook and other widely-accessible social medias, especially those that allow for private and semi-private groups, also can help with maintaining connections and momentum for a game group.
Anyway, all that aside, here's what Captain Joran Kyl, commanding officer of the Stargazer had to report to StarFleet Command after the last game session:
Enjoy!
<<BEGIN Encryption report>>
<<FROM: Joran Kyl, Commander, Commanding Officer: NCC-2893-A Stargazer>>
<<CYPHER codex: SFC.RE.Romeo-Omicron-Foxtrot-Lima-Michael-Alpha-Omicron>>
<<CYPHER key: Wiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-9925>>
<<CONTEXT TAGS ASSIGNED: Unknown contact, sapient rights, Xindi coalition, Conflict report>>
<<BEGIN REPORT>>
Stardate 49124.1
For those just being read into this situation report, here's a summary of my previous mission reports:
Stargazer's first mission post-shakedown was to rendezvous with runabout 'Charon' and take onboard the contractor repair team, and one Lt.Kadar, and then to proceed into the Paulson nebulae to discover why Federation Automated Communication Post 1337 had stopped all communications. We were able to track down the likely location of FCPA-1337. Only the station wasn't there. Only radioactive dust remained. We extended our search, finding small parts of the obliterated station. Analysis by science team concluded the station had been obliterated by critical nuclear decoupling reaction (i.e. a 'nuclear warhead'), delivered by an ion-powered missile. As of last report, Stargazer was setting out to follow the ion trail left by the missile back to its source.
At Stardate 49123.3 Stargazer encountered a previously unknown stellar system at the approximate coordinates <<INSET.ASTRONAVIGATION.COORDINATES>>. We nearly hit the stellar corona; there was no sign of this system on charts or sensors before automatic collision avoidance dropped us out of warp just in time.
Immediate sensor scans identified an M-class world in the system, with signs of pre-Warp civilization craft moving about between the other bodies of the star system: the classic signs of a near-maturity and previously unknown and un-contacted civilization. In accordance with the Prime Directive I ordered Sargazer behind the primary star and deployed sensor drones so that we could observe and evaluate this civilization.
Our initial assumption that this was a pre-warp civilization were incorrect, however, when our sensor drones suddenly went silent and a large modern-technology starship of unknown origin or configuration rounded the corona of the star with shields raised and weapons armed. In retrospection I realize that the unidentified ship must have been on the far side of the M-class planet when we initially entered system and thus we were unaware of it's presence. I ordered shields raised as a defensive measure. We transmitted on universal hailing frequencies our non-hostile intentions only to be met by subspace jamming. Not only did this opponent not want to talk; they didn't want us talking to anyone else either. Lt. Kadar's instincts proved themselves as sharp as ever as she intuited their attack just in time to avoid most of their initial volley, some sort of EMP blast intended to cripple us. Lt. Zynes' limited scans of the ship informed us that she was heavy on automation but light on crew yet she out-massed us a great deal. Roughly equivalent to an Ambassador-class Federation heavy cruiser. Stargazer was not up for a straight-up fight against such an opponent.
{Personal note: In my recovery after WOLF359, I recall spending time with a distant niece and the story from Earth she wanted me to read to her. I don't recall all the details from the tale, but the protagonists use of a 'Briar patch' to their advantage against a larger predator stuck with me.}
I ordered Lt.Tyvass to return fire and Kadar to go to warp back to the Paulson Nebulae. Tyvass scored a hit against the opponents engines, temporarily draining them of power and buying Stargazer an opening to go to warp. With a bloody nose, I doubted they'd give up the chase now and my suspicions were proven correct when we detected the unknown in pursuit.
En route to the Nebulae, i called a quick team meeting and outlined my plan: I intended to lead our attacker into the Nebulae, where Lt.Zynes' previous extensive mapping of the gravitational fields and eddies would be used to our advantage; we were going to fight back with intent to disable our opponent and then offer them an opportunity to surrender. I asked my XO, Cmdr Delix to take command down in engineering for the meantime. Unlike other captains, I like all my section leaders to know the plan, in case the chain of command gets broken for whatever reason.
Again, i have to call attention to the skill Lt.Kadar has with shiphandling. As we dropped out of warp at the nebulae's edge, she dodged a grav-wave that sent our pursuer into a wild skid to retain control. Tyvass was ready with our guns and put phaser strikes into their engines and weapons. The attacker again tried to use their EMP wave against us, but again Kadar nimbly sidestepped the attack. I asked Chief Ray to power up our secondary core for more power, which he provided promptly. This gave us enough to strike again, knocking their shields out entirely and causing secondary explosions across the enemy's weapon systems.
Having given our opponent a thoroughly rough handling, I decided it was time to try some gunboat diplomacy. I recorded a message, offering them the chance to stand down and that we didn't seek their destruction.
While the enemy re-established their shields, Kadar informed me she felt 'panic and disorder' aboard the enemy ship.
I recorded another message: "Surrender or we will end this. Expeditiously." and sent that while ordering Tyvass to load torpedoes.
We received a weak communications signal from someone identifying themselves as "Dr.Okathra," who informed us that he and several others who have been prisoners on the ship have broken free in the chaos, but that the ships self-destruct has been set.
I ordered Tyvass to use our phasers to bring down their shields, then Kadar to bring us close enough for transporters.
Sensors indicated only a couple dozen lifeforms onboard. I ordered security to setup a containment field in the main cargo bay, and the transporter teams to start bringing everyone on the ship over and into the 'cage'. Tyvass headed down to take command of the security situation himself.
I confess: I cut things too close. The enemy ship's core detonated sooner than intended, and the nebulae amplified the explosion. We found ourselves tossed to the floor and main power was lost. Once the bridge was back under order, I left Kadar at con to handle damage control, while Lt.Zynes and I took the long climb down to the cargo bay.
We had to pry ourselves into the cargo bay. We found a standoff: when main power failed, the containment field also failed briefly. Captors, prisoners and my own security people were both inside and outside the containment zone in the aftermath of a wild melee. Tyvass, bloodied but unbowed had just gotten back the upper hand.
When it was apparent that they were truly captured, the captors all committed suicide or attacked each other with intent to kill to be killed. Security stunned all they could but all but one of the captors died. The risk of toxic exposure to the rest of the crew forced me to leave the dead in the containment field for now. Dr. Okathra and most of the prisoners survived and were taken to medical, along with the surviving captor who was unconscious.
I then made my way down to engineering, finding that Delix had already begun damage control assignments. The explosion had knocked out our FTL and internal communications, and both drive cores were down. Chief Ray was already going EVA to stop a plasma leak from one our nacelles. While bad, this wasn't terminal. <<INSET.REF: CPO. Ray's damage reports>>
Seeing things were well in hand, I left for Medical.
I spent some time talking with Dr.Okathra, who turns out is a Xindi Arboreal. A geneticist by training, he told of how he and his team were conducting research into genetic maladies and the eternal challenge of bringing the various Xindi peoples back together. Wildly controversial among the Xindi population as a whole, he chose to relocate to a lesser known space to avoid trouble. And yet trouble is what he got when his FTL communications were cut, then an unknown ship appeared in their skies. Their Captors took them prisoner, forced them to perform genetics testing of various kinds. The timelines between the lost of communication from FCPA-1337 coincides with the timeline from Dr.Okathra. Assuring him we would do our best to right the wrongs he and his people suffered, I left him in Lt.Kadar's care; perhaps with counseling we can learn more about what happened.
Our EMH handled the autopsies of the dead and the captors and the 'Moreau's' (his term, I'll have to go look up the reference later) with the assistance of Lt. Zynes. While I'm no xenobiologist, here are the big takeaway points:
1. The 'captors' (a dozen humans, one Vulcan, one Tellurite) all underwent extensive biometric and genetic modifications to defy identification. Their remains are currently in stasis.
2. The unidentified humanoids are biogenic composites; a patchwork (in the very literal sense) of disparate genomes that somehow managed to work together. About 90% of the genomes can be identified leaving 10% unknown. Primarily these poor beings are drawn from Xindi species (yes, all six of them). Finally: whatever genetic 'glue' that held them together breaks down quickly after death: the bodies started decomposing before autopsy could be finished.
3. I have one of the captors still alive, but in dire state. The EMH doctor has this individual in a medical coma until they can be stabilized.
<<INSET.REF: Lt.Zynes autopsy reports>>
My ship is damaged, but still quite capable.
We've taken out the major enemy space-based asset in the system.
Given the information that Dr.Okathra has given me I feel it imperative to return to the unknown system to rescue any remaining of Dr.Okathra's people. And to hopefully learn more about the people behind these atrocities.
P.S. This has been one hell of a 'milk run' so far.
signed:
~Commander Joran Kyl, C/O NCC-2893-A Stargazer.
<<END REPORT>>
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Review: Star Trek Adventures by Modiphius games
A long, long time ago I picked up a boxed set game purely for the fandom of it.
The original Star Trek RPG, by FASA,circa 1986.
It wasn’t playable, IMHO, but it was nifty to own anyway and it had a small but devoted following. The tactical ship combat board-games were more successful and still ongoing to this day.
Then came along Modiphius. Along with the publication rights to the Elite:Dangerous, Tales of the Loop, Fallout, Mutant Chronicles, Robert E Howard’s CONAN, and Achtung Cthulhu, they recently put out a new Star Trek licensed roleplaying game.
And boy, howdy, is it better than that 1986 boxed set.
Titled Star Trek Adventures, it’s an ambitious -and in my opinion- successful attempt to mainstream the popular science-fiction franchise as a tabletop experience. Part of that success is due to the fact that out of the core rule book they support all three TV generations of the Star Trek universe: Enterprise, classic Star Trek, and the combined series of ST: The Next Generation, ST:Deep Space 9 and ST:Voyager. And it wouldn’t take much to expand that to the spin off series of Discovery, The Mirror Universe, and the plot-lines of the Star Trek MMO as supplemental material.
The core of Star Trek Adventures is Modiphius’ home-grown ‘2d20’ engine. At first I was a bit unsure about this system. Having been burned out on the deluge of ‘d20’ engine clones from the D&D 3.5 SRD flood, I was apprehensive about how Modiphius was going to treat my beloved childhood settings. And yet, the 2d20 engine has impressed me very much. This is no D&D clone, but a slick and relatively smooth new game experience. The fun I’ve had with Star Trek Adventures so far has made me eye Modiphius’s other 2d20 game settings (Corvus Belli: INFINITY and the reborn Mutant Chronicles) as possibilities worth investing in.
It also doesn’t hurt that Star Trek Adventure player characters are good at their jobs. StarFleet trains them very well, and you start the game with a very capable character in the fields they specialize in. 2d20 has a ‘momentum’ mechanic where extra successes generated by one player are banked for other players to capitulate on immediately. This gives your Federation characters a powerful sense of coordination and teamwork.
Character advancement feels slow however. But that fits within the TV-series feel of the game. Similar to FATE’s ‘Milestones’ for advancement, characters in Star Trek Adventures can shift around their abilities after minor milestones, and only improve them after reaching major milestones (‘Spotlights’ as the book calls them). Again, this is befitting the feel of the TV series, where one could argue that major characters were affected by lesser events, and only transformed by major ones that only occurred once or twice a season. But outside of statistical improvements, Star Trek Adventure characters grow by their reputations and service records, which have different effects. In our campaign we haven’t delved into this much yet, but it gives the GM a way to reward characters in alternate ways.
Another advantage of the Star Trek Adventure engine is that it treats Starships as characters in their own right, and this is very fitting of the feel of the show. Ships have the same array of abilities and disciplines that characters do, so it’s easy to see the synergy between ship and crew. Only a few additional details required by the technical details one is used to in a Star Trek game are added (shields, some power management, etc.), but Star Fleet Battles this is not.
Another compelling aspect of the game is that it allows the spontaneous creation of supporting crew as characters when needed, and in fact encourages their re-appearance in later episodes. This allows for players to still participate in adventures when their primary character isn’t directly involved; roll up a redshirt security officer, or a blue-shirted science team member for that away-mission. Every subsequent time a supporting character returns to play, they get a little more detail and stat boosts. This is how you get your Chief O'Briens and Lt. Barclays to become major characters in their own right after a few seasons.
So far our group has played two long sessions and we’ve covered A LOT over those two gatherings. Equivalent to an ongoing story arc. This has probably as much to do with the skill of the GM (not me), as well as all the players understanding that we’re sticking to a TV-esque format. We frame our scenes, transitions and breaks as one would a TV show. It’s been a refreshing restart to my tabletop gaming experience which has been lacking lately.
Titled: “Star Trek: Legacy” our campaign follows the crew of the re-commissioned Stargazer (yes, Picards' old ship) after she was recovered, refitted, and put back into service. In the big chair is a Trill captain, recently joined with symbiote; a Betazoid as her helmswoman, and an Andorian science officer who was raised on Vulcan.
The books themselves are beautiful and well designed. If you’re a Trekkie, and/or looking for a quick and fun game engine to enjoy, I feel confident in recommending this game. Modiphius is continuing to support the line, with miniatures, maps, published adventures and custom dice.
Then came along Modiphius. Along with the publication rights to the Elite:Dangerous, Tales of the Loop, Fallout, Mutant Chronicles, Robert E Howard’s CONAN, and Achtung Cthulhu, they recently put out a new Star Trek licensed roleplaying game.
And boy, howdy, is it better than that 1986 boxed set.
Titled Star Trek Adventures, it’s an ambitious -and in my opinion- successful attempt to mainstream the popular science-fiction franchise as a tabletop experience. Part of that success is due to the fact that out of the core rule book they support all three TV generations of the Star Trek universe: Enterprise, classic Star Trek, and the combined series of ST: The Next Generation, ST:Deep Space 9 and ST:Voyager. And it wouldn’t take much to expand that to the spin off series of Discovery, The Mirror Universe, and the plot-lines of the Star Trek MMO as supplemental material.
The core of Star Trek Adventures is Modiphius’ home-grown ‘2d20’ engine. At first I was a bit unsure about this system. Having been burned out on the deluge of ‘d20’ engine clones from the D&D 3.5 SRD flood, I was apprehensive about how Modiphius was going to treat my beloved childhood settings. And yet, the 2d20 engine has impressed me very much. This is no D&D clone, but a slick and relatively smooth new game experience. The fun I’ve had with Star Trek Adventures so far has made me eye Modiphius’s other 2d20 game settings (Corvus Belli: INFINITY and the reborn Mutant Chronicles) as possibilities worth investing in.
It also doesn’t hurt that Star Trek Adventure player characters are good at their jobs. StarFleet trains them very well, and you start the game with a very capable character in the fields they specialize in. 2d20 has a ‘momentum’ mechanic where extra successes generated by one player are banked for other players to capitulate on immediately. This gives your Federation characters a powerful sense of coordination and teamwork.
Character advancement feels slow however. But that fits within the TV-series feel of the game. Similar to FATE’s ‘Milestones’ for advancement, characters in Star Trek Adventures can shift around their abilities after minor milestones, and only improve them after reaching major milestones (‘Spotlights’ as the book calls them). Again, this is befitting the feel of the TV series, where one could argue that major characters were affected by lesser events, and only transformed by major ones that only occurred once or twice a season. But outside of statistical improvements, Star Trek Adventure characters grow by their reputations and service records, which have different effects. In our campaign we haven’t delved into this much yet, but it gives the GM a way to reward characters in alternate ways.
Another advantage of the Star Trek Adventure engine is that it treats Starships as characters in their own right, and this is very fitting of the feel of the show. Ships have the same array of abilities and disciplines that characters do, so it’s easy to see the synergy between ship and crew. Only a few additional details required by the technical details one is used to in a Star Trek game are added (shields, some power management, etc.), but Star Fleet Battles this is not.
Another compelling aspect of the game is that it allows the spontaneous creation of supporting crew as characters when needed, and in fact encourages their re-appearance in later episodes. This allows for players to still participate in adventures when their primary character isn’t directly involved; roll up a redshirt security officer, or a blue-shirted science team member for that away-mission. Every subsequent time a supporting character returns to play, they get a little more detail and stat boosts. This is how you get your Chief O'Briens and Lt. Barclays to become major characters in their own right after a few seasons.
So far our group has played two long sessions and we’ve covered A LOT over those two gatherings. Equivalent to an ongoing story arc. This has probably as much to do with the skill of the GM (not me), as well as all the players understanding that we’re sticking to a TV-esque format. We frame our scenes, transitions and breaks as one would a TV show. It’s been a refreshing restart to my tabletop gaming experience which has been lacking lately.
Titled: “Star Trek: Legacy” our campaign follows the crew of the re-commissioned Stargazer (yes, Picards' old ship) after she was recovered, refitted, and put back into service. In the big chair is a Trill captain, recently joined with symbiote; a Betazoid as her helmswoman, and an Andorian science officer who was raised on Vulcan.
The books themselves are beautiful and well designed. If you’re a Trekkie, and/or looking for a quick and fun game engine to enjoy, I feel confident in recommending this game. Modiphius is continuing to support the line, with miniatures, maps, published adventures and custom dice.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
DIALECT: a game about language and how it dies
I finally got to play a game of Dialect: a game about language and how it dies, by Thorny Games. As a group we had a both a lot of fun, as well as some very touching moments as the very human generational drama unfolded. Great plot twists, and very cinematic visions of how the 'conversations' that root new words and phrases' genesis abounded.
We played with the initial digital download that was made available to the Kickstarters backers. The hardcover and professionally-produced cards are in development and I can hardly wait to get the final product.
The game is played in phases that setup your story, create characters in that setting for the players to experience the world through, and over three Acts to describe the lingual drift your group of isolates experience as their world and circumstances change. This culminates in the ending of their isolation (for good or for worse) and defining the legacy they left behind: What impact did this group of isolates have upon the greater culture they were absorbed into?
A good supply note cards. Maybe even a set of dry-erase note cards. Games like FATE and FIASCO and now DIALECT burn thru a lot of 3x5's through play.
An open google doc or other digital resource to track the game as we played. I took furious notes in a journal while we played, which is why this post is as detailed as it is (I'm still leaving details out). An online shared format could be seen by all at a later date.
We often found that a word or phrase coined would quickly spawn lots of derivatives and use-examples ("RED" and "Breath" for example, immediately spawned many related words). We found the need to write these down as they added to the setting, but needed to be outside the normal turn structure or else everyone's turns would get eaten up adding Variants to the same word.
Because of the geography of the setting we ended up making maps and diagrams as we played: these helped immensely in both communicating ideas and inspiring new ones.
Each player created a character to follow/embody during the story, and for the most part they all survived to the end, but afterwards we discussed the possibility of much longer periods of isolation and the possibility of playing generations of characters for each Act in those circumstances. Some Settings could do with more options/discussions on generational affects upon play.
Finally: even with five players we found going around the table once per Act felt limiting in terms of what we added to the tableau. We discussed the idea of smaller groups having two or more turns around the table per Act. Especially when a baseline new word/phrase would spawn lots of Variants (as above).
We played with the initial digital download that was made available to the Kickstarters backers. The hardcover and professionally-produced cards are in development and I can hardly wait to get the final product.
Overview
DIALECT feels a lot of a fusion of FATE and FIASCO in the best possible ways. The game's structure is there to give everyone at the table input. Collaboration is absolutely required and highly rewarding. Best played with a group of creative, collaborative-happy people who like world-building.The game is played in phases that setup your story, create characters in that setting for the players to experience the world through, and over three Acts to describe the lingual drift your group of isolates experience as their world and circumstances change. This culminates in the ending of their isolation (for good or for worse) and defining the legacy they left behind: What impact did this group of isolates have upon the greater culture they were absorbed into?
What we made
Here's some of the words and the meanings we developed during our play, which used "The Outpost" setting about Mars colonists who expected reinforcements only to be cut off from Earth for many years.- "NASA" meant something well done, excellence. Based on a conversation when the air-circulation regeneration systems first came online and a high official said: "NASA couldn't have done it better." Often used the way Firefly fans say "Shiny."
- "Schroom-room" the botanical hydroponics for growing certain types of food.
- "UN-MET" based on the acronym logo on the sides of the original habitats and structures, this became slang for the concern that people had that they were productive enough and especially for youth worried if they'll have a role in society when they grow up.
- "The Drift" and "Drifting" those who slept on the long transit from Earth to Mars experienced odd dreams, and referred used this term for their experiences during the drifting between the planets. The youth co-oped the phrase to mean daydreaming, loosing track of time, or sleeping, which annoys the adults who lived thru the original experience.
- "A Breath" A unit of time, between refreshes of air supplies between the central hub and all the spokes of the colony., typically between 12 days and a fortnight. This spawned related phrases for "Inhale" -the first day of refreshed air supply, and "Exhale" - the latter half of a Breath where air quality slowly and noticeably decays. It also set the tempo for social activities in the colony spokes.
- "Sparking" - the act of cleaning solar arrays, usually by static discharge.
- "Tinkerbelles/Tinks/Teebs" - those who specialize in maintaining solar arrays, often performing 'Sparking.'
- "MET" people who have proven their worth. "Never-MET" outsiders; anyone who hasn't faced the challenges the MET have, and never will. "Well-MET" might be someone who's well known to be competent, skilled, etc.
- "RED" the red sands outside the crater the colony was established in, the same way one might use the term "outback" to refer to wilderness. This also spawned phrases such as "Going-RED" for getting lost outside, and for committing suicide.
- "Inflate" the act of establishing a safe, neutral space for meeting. Born from the act of inflating a temporary structure for both sides to meet in. "Lets inflate and talk this out," or "I'm willing to Inflate with them." It also became a euphemism for sex by teenagers.
- "Same bubble, same air, same spoke, same water. ALL HUB, ALL MET." A 'war song' that made its way into the collective memory, even if the origin of it was lost. The conquering armed forces adopted using "ALL HUB" as a patriotic challenge, to be answered by the chant of "ALL MET", the same way modern day paramilitaries might say "Hoo RAW".
- "NASA" and "Pops." After discovering that the same NASA that was idealized was also the identity of those who were coming to take the colonist's lives, the use of "NASA" meaning excellence fell out of usage. The bravery and sacrifice of "Grandfather" Kennedy to forestall the war led to the adoption of "Pops" to mean what NASA used to.
- "UN-MET" With the impending culturecide coming, the use of 'UN-MET' as a pejorative was heavily discouraged. "We are all MET" became the cultural unifying meme.
- "Glassmine" an jerry-rigged powercell, used as a kind of defensive weapon. The massive discharge would fry electronics, electrocute humans and result in a circular red glass plate of fused Martian sand.
Suggestions for improvement
After our game ended we discussed what we liked, didn't like, and what we'd like to try next time.A good supply note cards. Maybe even a set of dry-erase note cards. Games like FATE and FIASCO and now DIALECT burn thru a lot of 3x5's through play.
An open google doc or other digital resource to track the game as we played. I took furious notes in a journal while we played, which is why this post is as detailed as it is (I'm still leaving details out). An online shared format could be seen by all at a later date.
We often found that a word or phrase coined would quickly spawn lots of derivatives and use-examples ("RED" and "Breath" for example, immediately spawned many related words). We found the need to write these down as they added to the setting, but needed to be outside the normal turn structure or else everyone's turns would get eaten up adding Variants to the same word.
Because of the geography of the setting we ended up making maps and diagrams as we played: these helped immensely in both communicating ideas and inspiring new ones.
Each player created a character to follow/embody during the story, and for the most part they all survived to the end, but afterwards we discussed the possibility of much longer periods of isolation and the possibility of playing generations of characters for each Act in those circumstances. Some Settings could do with more options/discussions on generational affects upon play.
Finally: even with five players we found going around the table once per Act felt limiting in terms of what we added to the tableau. We discussed the idea of smaller groups having two or more turns around the table per Act. Especially when a baseline new word/phrase would spawn lots of Variants (as above).
Conclusion:
Overall I really enjoyed playing DIALECT and look forward to playing it again, both with the crew I we did this session with, and with new players.Postscript:
I promised my fellow players that I'd write up all my notes from the play session, and I will. As comments to this main post. Stay Tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)