Returning to Crunchy design systems

 So i said 'hell with it' and pulled out my Mekton Zeta books and starting stating out mecha and ship designs for a theoretical game, because sometimes you just gotta crunch some numbers.

I pulled some pics from Pinterest that looked interesting and started writing some setting-fluff and then designs inspired by the artwork. [We'll ignore for now the issues of piracy and using others artwork for personal benefit; the short of it is as long as I am not making money and can give the artists credit, i feel fine about this.] This spun into more worldbuilding ideas, and then a major side-quest of creating a sub-design workflow that made things simpler. Mekton is a system that can be as simple as you want, or as complex as you want. It recognizes that most supporting and background mecha don't need as much detail as the 'hero' units, and thus can do with less crunchy detail. 

And then I realized I was going in the wrong direction; over twenty-four 'supporting' mecha designs (mostly capital ships and support craft) to two -two- 'hero' units written up so far. The focus had shifted from a setting with an emphasis on a few Hero units to huge capital ships and fleet composition. The original idea was to have lightly detailed units that support the setting, but now I worry I've gone too far down this rabbit hole. So, do I scrap what I have and start over? Take what I got so far and just change focus? The stuff I have written up so far is good within its own framework, I think. But I'm not sure its what I was originally going for. This is partially because of the variety of inspiring artwork, drawing from vastly different genres and settings. Trying to create a cohesive setting from highly disparate sources means a hodgepodge of elements. If I were planning to commercialize this setting, I'd either redo all the artwork myself, or commission some artists for new art.

This reminds me of the importance of 'setting bibles' and vision statements; writing down the vision and goal then referring to it later to check course and progress. Or, acknowledging that your initial idea needed some modification.

All this crunch, however, leads to the next step: actually playing a crunchy game systems. The point of lower-complexity designs for non-Hero units is to make the GM's life easier. Let the players have full-page sheets of details to track for their lone Hero units; the GM needs to track everyone else in the scene. That's what the side-quest was for: create a streamlined system for designing and using these supporting units; as GM I want to track an NPC unit on a 3x5 card, or half a page at most.

So ... Cypher.

So... the Cypher system from Monte Cook. I have a love-hate thing about this game system.

With the explosion of upcoming Cypher games about to drop - the wildly successful Old Gods of Appalachia and Adventures in the Cypher System Kickstarter projects - I figure I better resolve my issues and maybe plan some house rules, because I see great potential in the Cypher system, but I also have some very bitter and jagged issues with the system.

Overall, I immensely appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the level mechanic for monsters and other threats. “It’s a level 4 Orc” tells you what you need to know about hitting it, and avoid being hit by it, and even how many times you need to hit it (if its HP is based on its level, though most monsters detailed in the various Cypher books don’t follow the formula exactly); Anything else the monster can do is a special entry in its writeup, but they’re generally pretty simple to use. (I am using the term ‘monster’ here very broadly: meaning any threat, opponent or entity challenging the PCs) I appreciate that the Players do the majority of rolling in Cypher: roll to succeed, roll to hit, roll to avoid being hit, etc… 

The three Attributes Pools.

Might, Speed and Mind. I appreciate the brevity and archetypes here. Could there be room for additional or alternative approaches? Body, Mind, Soul? HOWEVER: The idea that using your powers makes you weaker and closer to defeat by drawing from the same pools that serve as your ‘hp’ seems counterintuitive. When doing something cool and powerful is equivalent to taking a hit from a monster, one has to do the evaluation if your action is worth it. I have a workaround for this, so see House Rules later for my 'fix' for this issue.

Character Types, a.k.a. Classes

The core character ‘classes’ or Types as they are called in the core book are kinda weak IMHO, especially in their progression. I don't have a quick fix for this. Maybe replacing character Types with a broader application of the Adjective Noun that Verbs structure could work, but I am getting ahead of myself ...

"I am an Adjective Noun who Verbs" rocks

What Cypher has really inspires me with is the phrase “I am an Adjective Noun who Verbs.” In Cypher, you combine a Descriptor (Adjective), a Type (Noun) and a Focus (Verb) to create your character. It’s sorta like the equivalent of your Alignment + Race + Class in D&D. However, Cypher limits your characters to one such combination. Now granted in Cypher these are big defining elements. “I am a Swift Warrior who Dual Wields” embodies everything those words encompass. However it makes for rather one - dimensional characters.

I’m seriously interested in using the ‘Adjective Noun that Verbs’ structure as a Skill-based system instead:

• Let the Adjective be the level of experience/training (Novice, Expert, Master, etc…).
• The Noun is the skill, career or job title.
• And the Verbs is a specialization within that broader Noun.

(For simplicity I’ll refer to ‘Adjective Noun who Verbs’ as ‘ANV’ from here on.)

So for example you could have a Novice Marksman who Snipes, but alternatively be Expert Marksman who Dual Wields. You don’t have to have a Specialization. The trick here is that the Noun has to be simultaneously broad enough to encompass a clear set of actions /activities/ knowledge, but also narrow enough not to be abused as a catch-all for everything the character attempts to do.

The Adjective/level of experience would be the effective 'level' in that skill. In core Cypher rules: 'Novice' would give you a baseline chance to succeed. 'Trained' would give you a one step difficulty in your favor, and 'Specialized' would give you two difficulty steps in your favor. In other game systems your Adj level could determine how many dice to roll, etc ...

The Specialization would give a boon to actions in specific circumstances. These could be detailed written up abilities, or a free difficulty boon, or grant types of actions that wouldn't be possible without the Specialization.

E.g. You gotta be a Brilliant Doctor who's a Brain Surgeon to try to replace Spock's brain.

You could also use the ANV for things like social traits, reputations, titles, etc., where the Adj is the level/rank/notoriety, the Noun is the title, rank or position, and the Verb instead details the organization. A Junior Knight of the Order of the Rose, A Special Agent of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, a Notorious Enforcer of the Mendez Cartel.

A character would realistically be a collection of these ANV combinations, advancing in skill level and gaining specializations as they grow from experience, as well as gaining new ANV traits.

Gaming snob? (Or “Shut up and play”)

I have a problem. I only want to play the ‘perfect’ game engine: one that has the perfect balance of crunchy details when I want it, and offer a totally streamlined experience the rest of the time. One that I can tell anything in. The perfectionist in me seeks a zen-like clarity of the perfect framework.  However, there is no such thing as a one-system to rule them all...

I make the joke that the aging gamer in me is getting tired of learning new game engines, but that’s not really true. I LIKE reading up on new ideas, new frameworks. There are venerable games I feel beholden to because of the nostalgia I feel for them. But when I sit down with those old books I feel the age of the writing; The mechanics holding things back. I’m progressive at heart: keep what works, try what might be better, leave behind what doesn’t work any longer. I’d often try and update or adapt an old setting to a new framework. But that can be tricky… Games are written the way they are to achieve the intended atmosphere and effects. That’s something I have to accept, even embrace. Also: just because there’s a rule for it in a game engine, doesn’t mean I have to use it (as a GM. Players can’t go ignoring the rules the GM sets for them.) That said, there’s always room for improvement.

Within me there are two gamers: the Storyteller and the Simulationist. The Simulationist is the part of me that has been trying to make sense of the world and how it works for as long as I can remember; life makes more sense to me when I have systems that explain things. Models that I can use and apply and evolve with experience: I wanted to know how things were made: I got into Car Wars because you could design vehicles in that game. I loved science fiction, so I got into Traveler for its starships (I own all five official versions and a couple unofficial versions). I fell in love with big robots so I got into BattleTech, Mekton and Silhouette (Heavy Gear and Jovian Chronicles). Everyone played D&D, but I got into GURPS and the HERO games because they were all about character design. And that’s just the first two decades of my gaming experience.

I started gaming as a Simulationist, and it’s still in my bones. But I have grown more in the second two decades as a gamer, leaning far away from simulationism. Or more accurately: looking for systems who’s mechanics were less interested in simulation fidelity than in emphasizing and supporting good storytelling. Games like Burning Wheel, FATE, Cypher, 7thSea, White Wolf (now known better as Storyteller). Games that shifted the mechanical focus from beat-by-beat dice rolling to determine to-hit, damage, saving throws, etc. and more into narrative influence and more into meeting the intent of the character (and player). Twenty years of chasing simulationist games has taught me that while random dice and table rolls can inject drama and make interesting stories, most of the time dice just hate me. Most simulationist games aren’t focused on fun, but that’s another diatribe. I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t trust dice mechanics when it comes to making fun gaming experiences. 

The Storyteller loves good exposition, strong characters, immersive settings, drama. The best games I remember actually playing sometimes never had dice thrown or character sheets or rules referenced. Shadowrun by candlelight when the power was out due to a major storm. Pure character interactions during back-at-camp scenes when not exploring dungeons in tactical mode. Meta gaming discussions outside game time with the GM and other players, expounding upon the world and setting up scenes to come. The Storyteller appreciates detailed mechanics when it suited the storytelling, but not when they get in the way. Mechanics inform the story, not drive it. Leave the detailed simulationist stuff to computer games these days; they’re far better at handling the minutiae.

Yet there are games that go just a bit too far away from my simulationist roots. Powered by the Apocalypse at its core is proving difficult for me to grok. “Wait, I only roll dice when i say the magic trigger words?” I love the dice concept of the Genesys engine and their absolute focus on degrees of success, failure and complication. But in both cases it’s just out of my comfort zone. I need to see them in action more. 

I feel like my time and attention are a limited resource, especially when it comes to gaming. I don’t want to waste time of games that I don’t think will be fun. But this is also holding me back. While I can read how a game is supposed to be played over and over again, it takes actual play experience to see how they actually work.

I need to play more. Try new things. See what works and doesn’t.

SO. To appropriate, or rather, adapt a koan of wisdom for writers: As writers read more than they write, so game designers need to play more than they write game systems. I think I need to start hosting a regular game test day; pick something I haven’t tried at all or very much and see how it works in actual play.

Who’s in for trying new things?