... after falling off of my horse. Blah blah blah, been busy, couldn't update, lame excuses, blah blah blah.
This week is spring break, for me. I plan to do the maps for Project Sunburn, test it, and then deploy it on the first test groups. I'm so excited! Now that I'm actually going to have free time, I should be able to just sit down and put hours into it.
Or I could just play New Vegas the whole time...
March 31, 2013
March 22, 2013
Germ Warfare
In one of the Bite-Sized Thoughts segments, I posited the idea of gamifying speech. Today, I had an epic-level nosebleed. I started to put two and two together. Just having a roll a day for diseases is kind of boring. So, I said to myself, how could it be made more visceral?
The battleground would be shaped like the player's body, and play like a turn-based strategy game. The player would control their antibodies, white blood cells, antivirus, or whatever it is they defend their body with. The enemies are just foreign bodies, like bacteria, spyware nanobots, and broken limbs.
Once a day, the player gets to move his organisms, then the opposition responds in a very programmed way. I want the GM to be involved as little as possible because, well, then it would literally be player vs GM. No fun.
The "Once a day" part is for realism. No super-virus takes over half the body, then mysteriously disappears in the same day. I also believe it would be much easier to have tension over it that way. I'm imagining a trek through mountains, while contaminated with an experimental bio-weapon.
It'll be a while before this is introduced. Sunburn needs to launch first, dammit!
The battleground would be shaped like the player's body, and play like a turn-based strategy game. The player would control their antibodies, white blood cells, antivirus, or whatever it is they defend their body with. The enemies are just foreign bodies, like bacteria, spyware nanobots, and broken limbs.
Once a day, the player gets to move his organisms, then the opposition responds in a very programmed way. I want the GM to be involved as little as possible because, well, then it would literally be player vs GM. No fun.
The "Once a day" part is for realism. No super-virus takes over half the body, then mysteriously disappears in the same day. I also believe it would be much easier to have tension over it that way. I'm imagining a trek through mountains, while contaminated with an experimental bio-weapon.
It'll be a while before this is introduced. Sunburn needs to launch first, dammit!
March 19, 2013
Drahn Revisited
... Who needs to name a race of bugs, honestly? They're bugs. Hungry, vicious, bugs.
I also think it's better for cohesion to not have a name, aside from "Sand Ants" or something ridiculous. I'll let the players make an education roll to see how much they know, Pokedex style.
The only time they're needed in the plot is to attack EMPIRE infantry and positions. They don't have any dialogue, and the only characterization they have is eating derelict weapons and equipment.
But, this puts me at a bit of an impasse.
The players are supposed to develop a bond with them. This encourages their decision at the end. Without any tactile interplay, there's no relation possible.
I'm thinking they dig anyone out of the digsite who gets trapped in there. It's explainable, plausable, and happens close to the end. We'll see how the first few testers take to it.
~
50 Posts? I'm okay with this.
I also think it's better for cohesion to not have a name, aside from "Sand Ants" or something ridiculous. I'll let the players make an education roll to see how much they know, Pokedex style.
The only time they're needed in the plot is to attack EMPIRE infantry and positions. They don't have any dialogue, and the only characterization they have is eating derelict weapons and equipment.
But, this puts me at a bit of an impasse.
The players are supposed to develop a bond with them. This encourages their decision at the end. Without any tactile interplay, there's no relation possible.
I'm thinking they dig anyone out of the digsite who gets trapped in there. It's explainable, plausable, and happens close to the end. We'll see how the first few testers take to it.
~
50 Posts? I'm okay with this.
March 16, 2013
Character Death, Again.
There was recently a death in my family. A grandmother, under some of the best circumstances possible. Perhaps it's eminently bad style, but I still had a gaming inspiration of sorts. Why isn't character death taken this heavily? Most of the character deaths I've seen have three stages:
- Argue about the circumstances (10 minutes)
- Sigh and throw the character sheet out (1 minute)
- Plot new character (30 minutes or more)
I believe the answer is in legacy. RPG characters are usually only remembered for the dumb memorable moments they were involved with. But, once they're in the grave, nothing happens. No memorial, no flashbacks by other party members, etc.
So, I had an idea. Referencing the last post about character death, what if characters are "recycled," after a fashion? I imagine it would go like this:
~
So, I had an idea. Referencing the last post about character death, what if characters are "recycled," after a fashion? I imagine it would go like this:
- The player chooses two stats from the character (or more, depending on the system. For EE, I'd use 2.)
- Their new character gets those stats automatically, and divides the "new character" XP as well. Vaguely like reincarnation, but I'd be tempted to call it inspiration. This way, the player gets to keep some of the things they liked about the old character. The gift of the Dead.
I leave it up to the GM and the group to decide how the new character is introduced, etc. I, personally, would introduce the new member as follows:
"He's a tough man. A scraggly beard contrasts a meticulously cleaned shotgun, and a cowboy hat casts a shadow over any facial features above his nose. Despite this imposing presence, you can't help but think that he reminds you of someone..."
It's still completely up in the air. It'll be a while before I have to really worry about this, and I really need to talk to my players about how they feel about character death. A good GM has lots of ideas, but a great one has just a few the players like.
~
Rest in peace, Grandma.
March 10, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 5
-Faces in the Mirror
Despite my best efforts, it's still very routine for me to get stuck in traffic. Minutes pass by, and all I can wonder is how much I could beplaying New Vegas working on Sunburn and other important things.
So, I made a game out of it. I'll see who's behind me (or to either side, or even in front, but it's easier behind), and make up a story of their life. It's never anything really deep, but this is purely reflexive. It's practice for if a player asks about someone I haven't really thought out yet. And, if I like an idea enough, that person might just show up in an RPG somewhere. The guy behind me today might be a post-man of the future.
Sorry you had to get stuck behind me, dude.
-TSA Scanners
The ability to rapidly "scan" someone's exact body dimensions is the mother of motion-capture technology. It takes graphic artists dozens of hours to just make a single body for a game, and that's only one body type. Notice how most characters are exactly the same build, even if they've been scaled up and down to simulate height?
So, my thought for the dystopian future: Game developers "buy" people's scans for about $100 each, then use them as models in the games. The technology would have to improve slightly for the image to be turned automatically into something workable on computer, but it's not that far off. As a bonus, it's a naked scanner: You don't have to digitally edit the clothes off of someone.
Taking this a step further, if there was an x-ray function, you could map the bones inside someone's body, then wire them up to the "skin" mesh you got from the regular scanner. Hair would still be a biatch to work, but it's the dystopian future: they'll figure something out.
It's a little creepy, but I'd actually be okay with my likeness being in a video game... for about $50.
-Mythic Cyberpunk
I was talking with an associate, and the subject of Neuromancer came up. He mentioned that after the first book, the magnificient William Gibson started to learn about computers, then felt bad for not making them realistic enough. So, the next few books were more "in tune" with computers and their processes.
It's been a really long time since I last read any Gibson, so I'm not going to comment on the actual book. Instead, it's the idea of a mythic theme in a cyberpunk genre that interests me.
The net, cyber-decks, and black ICE were all very loony and unrealistic at the time- cyberpunk, not Commodore 64 punk. So, Gibson was writing about large, intrinsic events in places that didn't really exist, that we could only fathom through a close representation. The same could also be said about Norse myths about Valhalla.
As a fictional construct, the net was a large mythical location. No one could understand how it works, and it might as well have had the same functionality as Limbo or Purgatory. The only difference was how it was treated- instead of drunk Viking heroes, it was filled with drugged-up net runners.
The book itself even regarded it with reverence- I remember a bit at the very beginning, before Case gets his brain fixed, where he talks about the net for pages and pages. It might as well have been heaven to him.
Despite my best efforts, it's still very routine for me to get stuck in traffic. Minutes pass by, and all I can wonder is how much I could be
So, I made a game out of it. I'll see who's behind me (or to either side, or even in front, but it's easier behind), and make up a story of their life. It's never anything really deep, but this is purely reflexive. It's practice for if a player asks about someone I haven't really thought out yet. And, if I like an idea enough, that person might just show up in an RPG somewhere. The guy behind me today might be a post-man of the future.
Sorry you had to get stuck behind me, dude.
-TSA Scanners
The ability to rapidly "scan" someone's exact body dimensions is the mother of motion-capture technology. It takes graphic artists dozens of hours to just make a single body for a game, and that's only one body type. Notice how most characters are exactly the same build, even if they've been scaled up and down to simulate height?
So, my thought for the dystopian future: Game developers "buy" people's scans for about $100 each, then use them as models in the games. The technology would have to improve slightly for the image to be turned automatically into something workable on computer, but it's not that far off. As a bonus, it's a naked scanner: You don't have to digitally edit the clothes off of someone.
Taking this a step further, if there was an x-ray function, you could map the bones inside someone's body, then wire them up to the "skin" mesh you got from the regular scanner. Hair would still be a biatch to work, but it's the dystopian future: they'll figure something out.
It's a little creepy, but I'd actually be okay with my likeness being in a video game... for about $50.
-Mythic Cyberpunk
I was talking with an associate, and the subject of Neuromancer came up. He mentioned that after the first book, the magnificient William Gibson started to learn about computers, then felt bad for not making them realistic enough. So, the next few books were more "in tune" with computers and their processes.
It's been a really long time since I last read any Gibson, so I'm not going to comment on the actual book. Instead, it's the idea of a mythic theme in a cyberpunk genre that interests me.
The net, cyber-decks, and black ICE were all very loony and unrealistic at the time- cyberpunk, not Commodore 64 punk. So, Gibson was writing about large, intrinsic events in places that didn't really exist, that we could only fathom through a close representation. The same could also be said about Norse myths about Valhalla.
As a fictional construct, the net was a large mythical location. No one could understand how it works, and it might as well have had the same functionality as Limbo or Purgatory. The only difference was how it was treated- instead of drunk Viking heroes, it was filled with drugged-up net runners.
The book itself even regarded it with reverence- I remember a bit at the very beginning, before Case gets his brain fixed, where he talks about the net for pages and pages. It might as well have been heaven to him.
Stuff Happens
For the last couple of days, my computer hasn't been able to start up. It's better now, but I think it may be dying. After 8 years of solid performance, it may be giving up the ghost.
Specifically, just at random, it decided to work this morning. So, I'll muse about it.
One thing I solidly believe in is that life happens. It's good, it's bad, it's sideways, stuff just happens- and the only way to stay alive is to keep up with it.
This is something a good GM throws in on occasion- just random events which slightly alter the dynamic of gameplay. A tunnel collapses, someone survives a bullet by chance, etc. Even "random" good things change up the dynamic, because it all adds uncertainty.
And, ultimately, uncertainty is one of the most powerful gameplay elements in RPGs. It's the entire reason dice were created. Even if it's something calculated, and designed to change the plot (even small things, like a character stubbing their toe on a rock) it still has impact. It makes the world less predictable, and I believe, more dynamic and enjoyable.
It also depends on the campaign. If it's a hard military-science/post-apoc setting, LOTS of things should go wrong (especially if you're a fan of 1980's post-Heinlein military sci-fi). But, if it's a Candy Land RPG-
Has anyone done a Candy Land RPG? Leave a comment.
-Then most random events should be positive, unless if you're trying to create a very stark contrast. Some food for thought, hopefully enough to appetize after an unexpected week-long hiatus. I'm back, or so I hope.
Specifically, just at random, it decided to work this morning. So, I'll muse about it.
One thing I solidly believe in is that life happens. It's good, it's bad, it's sideways, stuff just happens- and the only way to stay alive is to keep up with it.
This is something a good GM throws in on occasion- just random events which slightly alter the dynamic of gameplay. A tunnel collapses, someone survives a bullet by chance, etc. Even "random" good things change up the dynamic, because it all adds uncertainty.
And, ultimately, uncertainty is one of the most powerful gameplay elements in RPGs. It's the entire reason dice were created. Even if it's something calculated, and designed to change the plot (even small things, like a character stubbing their toe on a rock) it still has impact. It makes the world less predictable, and I believe, more dynamic and enjoyable.
It also depends on the campaign. If it's a hard military-science/post-apoc setting, LOTS of things should go wrong (especially if you're a fan of 1980's post-Heinlein military sci-fi). But, if it's a Candy Land RPG-
Has anyone done a Candy Land RPG? Leave a comment.
-Then most random events should be positive, unless if you're trying to create a very stark contrast. Some food for thought, hopefully enough to appetize after an unexpected week-long hiatus. I'm back, or so I hope.
March 4, 2013
Looking for Trouble
D&D involves a lot of killing. Bouts of combat can last for days (IRL, but sometimes in-game too). It is graphic, it is detailed, and it's very fun if you're in the mood for that kind of thing. But what about outside of battle? There, the rules fall thin. The speech check is just a role (like I mentioned in Bite-Sized Thoughts 2), and working a mechanism is just two rolls for detection and disarmament. This seems very unbalanced, and it is- by design.
The spirit of D&D is not high fantasy, like Tolkien's works. Rather, it's a pulp fantasy simulator. Just run a search on the internet, or talk to someone who reads comics- they'll get this. Particularly, D&D started in the '80s- a little bit after the height of mass-produced booklets and magazines of this nature.
It was supposed to be ridiculous. It was pure fantasy, literally! Later editions gradually watered it down, but it still kept the core idea, even if very few people caught on. It was about mighty, powerful heroes doing great deeds of heroic scope, not a few schlubs trying to survive in the world.
So, stepping into the shoes of my own Engine, I have to ask myself: If it's not going to be about slaying dragons (and surviving dungeons), what's the conflict going to be? I've been thinking about this for a little while, and I've come up with a loose list of conflicts the game mechanics will focus on.
some most of these need to be more fleshed out. The rules of the game only explicitly allow for the first to be defined clearly. But, it's still a diverse range of possible challenges. If I wanted, I could simulate a hot-dog eating contest. I probably won't, but you never know.
The combat-centric game has long been under criticism. It's even more visible in games than in RPGs, because it's cheap thrills. Psychologically, we are hardwired to be very alert and aware of violence around us- that's what makes it so easy to make a shooting game. But, obviously, it gets a little tedious after a while.
The Escapade Engine is not D&D, and I want to keep it that way. The openness to have a non-violent campaign is very refreshing, and I intend to exploit it as a possibility at some point.
Now, the obligatory Fallout reference. The first entry in the series- made in 1997- could be finished without firing a single shot. Imagine that.
The spirit of D&D is not high fantasy, like Tolkien's works. Rather, it's a pulp fantasy simulator. Just run a search on the internet, or talk to someone who reads comics- they'll get this. Particularly, D&D started in the '80s- a little bit after the height of mass-produced booklets and magazines of this nature.
It was supposed to be ridiculous. It was pure fantasy, literally! Later editions gradually watered it down, but it still kept the core idea, even if very few people caught on. It was about mighty, powerful heroes doing great deeds of heroic scope, not a few schlubs trying to survive in the world.
So, stepping into the shoes of my own Engine, I have to ask myself: If it's not going to be about slaying dragons (and surviving dungeons), what's the conflict going to be? I've been thinking about this for a little while, and I've come up with a loose list of conflicts the game mechanics will focus on.
- Physical conflict
- Games of persuasion
- Environmenal survival
- Mechanical and electronic manipulation
- Gathering wealth, and spending it wisely
The combat-centric game has long been under criticism. It's even more visible in games than in RPGs, because it's cheap thrills. Psychologically, we are hardwired to be very alert and aware of violence around us- that's what makes it so easy to make a shooting game. But, obviously, it gets a little tedious after a while.
The Escapade Engine is not D&D, and I want to keep it that way. The openness to have a non-violent campaign is very refreshing, and I intend to exploit it as a possibility at some point.
Now, the obligatory Fallout reference. The first entry in the series- made in 1997- could be finished without firing a single shot. Imagine that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)