-Childhood XP
One thing I wanted to do for the Spectrum RP was have a section where the players- as children- go to a carnival. They meet each other there, become friends, yadda yadda.
Of course it would be a series of mini-quests. Dunk the clown. Win at the claw machine. Don't flinch in the haunted house, etc. It would be the makings of a good childhood memory, in gameplay format.
Then I realized something. Our childhood years are very formitive- more than teenage years, and certainly more than adult years. What we do then shapes who we are in our futures... just like in an RPG. This explains why people with more major events in their lives tend to be more mature at a younger age, etc. They have more encounters in their life, and have more XP as a result.
As people "develop-" spend XP on levels- they become more defined (unless if they evenly distribute, to be average at everything). So, the gameplay of RPGs very, very closely resembles that of real life. Hostility encourages growth. This is why someone only gets, say, ten levels in their childhood- and several dozen of the course of their harrowing adventure.
At some point, I will do this in an RPG. I'm a huge fan of Fallout 3's backstory (Sorry New Vegas, but the Lone Wanderer actually has history, and some characterization). It was immersive, informative, and fun. It would be much harder to do with multiple people, so I don't plan on copying the formula exactly... but I will try to get the same effect. Find who's strong, who's smart, who's quick... all the essentials of being a teenager.
-Paladins vs Clerics
I loved DnD. Still do, to an extent. But one thing that always baffled me was the difference between a cleric and a paladin. Where is the line? And is a Druid just a nature cleric?
They both come from the same principle- a person is tasked (by themselves, the church, or the deity itself) to be a deity's presence in the world. For good gods, this means feeding orphans, turning undead, and keeping your prayers strong. For evil gods, it usually means starving the orphans, raising the dead, and spreading the vile sacrament of your god on the quivering minds of those below you.
"Paladin" conjures images of helmeted crusaders, mulching through bodies with holy symbols brazed onto their equipment. It's obviously someone strong, someone driven- almost like a Fighter, but they give praise before and after battle.
"Cleric" seems more laid back. Perhaps a temple priest, or a ritual herbalist. Obviously nothing dangerous here... until that large, iron-bound book comes out, to be greeted with the wails of "Rez Plz" by fallen comrades.
As an interesting dynamic, paladins usually get access to low-level healing and buffs, while clerics can cast high-damage spells occasionally. So, they are united in purpose- representation of gods. The difference is how much testosterone they put into their "worship."
Showing posts with label Bite-sized thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bite-sized thoughts. Show all posts
January 21, 2014
June 20, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 7
-The plot of the EE
As much as I rag on D&D for being narrow-minded in scope, it's comprehensive in what it does. The tone of the engine, and the narrative of the mechanics is very decisive: Kill the monsters, loot the chest, level up, and travel to exotic locations (if you're playing 3.5).
So, what about the Escapade Engine? Its mechanics are simple, usable, fun. There's no direction, per se. So, the obvious answer would be that it has no tone or mood. You just are, and you do, but to no particular destination.
Yes, and no.
The EE itself does not have a direction, in terms of rules. It was designed specifically for that reason. But, that's just the engine. The GM is the one in the driver's seat, and he/she/it makes the calls.
Hey, I just decided this now- all GMs will be referred to as "it" now. Take that, sexism.
The GM can make the tone whatever it wants to, in the openness. Gritty, light-hearted, fast, slow, dramatic, comedic, etc. The list goes on. A good GM will be able to narrow the scope through narrative and characterization, not requiring rules for such a thing. It's much easier to get distracted, but there's a larger selection of possibilities.
-Mundane tasks
A few weeks back, the RP group got tired of pizza. Every week gets a little tiring, so we decided to go for something different.
We ended up in a local grocery outlet, and were thinking either chow mein or fried chicken. Then we took fifteen minutes to decide. It was the funniest thing I've ever seen. This is a group which, when combined, has done all the following in a timely manner:
As much as I rag on D&D for being narrow-minded in scope, it's comprehensive in what it does. The tone of the engine, and the narrative of the mechanics is very decisive: Kill the monsters, loot the chest, level up, and travel to exotic locations (if you're playing 3.5).
So, what about the Escapade Engine? Its mechanics are simple, usable, fun. There's no direction, per se. So, the obvious answer would be that it has no tone or mood. You just are, and you do, but to no particular destination.
Yes, and no.
The EE itself does not have a direction, in terms of rules. It was designed specifically for that reason. But, that's just the engine. The GM is the one in the driver's seat, and he/she/it makes the calls.
Hey, I just decided this now- all GMs will be referred to as "it" now. Take that, sexism.
The GM can make the tone whatever it wants to, in the openness. Gritty, light-hearted, fast, slow, dramatic, comedic, etc. The list goes on. A good GM will be able to narrow the scope through narrative and characterization, not requiring rules for such a thing. It's much easier to get distracted, but there's a larger selection of possibilities.
-Mundane tasks
A few weeks back, the RP group got tired of pizza. Every week gets a little tiring, so we decided to go for something different.
We ended up in a local grocery outlet, and were thinking either chow mein or fried chicken. Then we took fifteen minutes to decide. It was the funniest thing I've ever seen. This is a group which, when combined, has done all the following in a timely manner:
- Performed strategic nuclear combat
- Made an ethical choice regarding the fate of a computer controlling the world stock market
- Made several covert dealings in a black market
- Fought off an army of zombies
- Disabled two comatose assassins, set as traps
- There's a lot more. There's much more.
These people, these titans among men, these avatars of a superior human conduct- couldn't decide what they wanted for dinner. It was hysterical to watch them idly stand around, deciding what their stomachs felt like.
It took less time to disable a bio-weapon aimed at the gulf of Mexico, and in the process lose two team members. The juxtaposition was staggering, and it made me think. What did Odysseus have for dinner last night?
May 10, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 6
-Puzzle-based gameplay
When presenting players with a puzzle, the difficult part is how much to describe. My technique is to give the bare-bones description (the room, anyone inside of it, noticeable objects, etc), then illustrate more as the players look around. It gives a needed amount of life to the environment, without dredging the literary muck-pits for every detail possible.
-Musical ambiance
One thing I've been meaning to do for a while now is play music during RPG sessions. Mostly soundtracks from video games (Unreal and Fallout are some of my favorites), but I'll probably add occasional pieces from the "epic" musical movement.
Video game OSTs are very nice because they're designed to be background music. Almost always non-lyrical, and never too distracting. I've also noticed that, somehow, the game always syncs up with the tune playing, sometimes to hilarious effect.
Of course, the big issue is going to be whose music is playing. I imagine it will be very little time at all until another member of the group wants to put his tunes through- thus creating a small power struggle. In the end, there will be balance. Hopefully with as little kicking and screaming as possible.
-Anything should be engaging
Too many games are combat-focused. There's a myriad of rules for fighting, but only a few for, say, haggling. One thing I'm trying to do with the EE is keep virtually every action under the same mechanic. I considered going as far as having a repertoire of techniques for working devices. Problem is, that's a LOT of paper per character sheet.
So, the answer may be to work backwards. If the combat is too complicated, I may just scale it back for more of a universal experience, instead of combat and everything else.
I'm still thinking about an Elvis Impersonator campaign.
When presenting players with a puzzle, the difficult part is how much to describe. My technique is to give the bare-bones description (the room, anyone inside of it, noticeable objects, etc), then illustrate more as the players look around. It gives a needed amount of life to the environment, without dredging the literary muck-pits for every detail possible.
-Musical ambiance
One thing I've been meaning to do for a while now is play music during RPG sessions. Mostly soundtracks from video games (Unreal and Fallout are some of my favorites), but I'll probably add occasional pieces from the "epic" musical movement.
Video game OSTs are very nice because they're designed to be background music. Almost always non-lyrical, and never too distracting. I've also noticed that, somehow, the game always syncs up with the tune playing, sometimes to hilarious effect.
Of course, the big issue is going to be whose music is playing. I imagine it will be very little time at all until another member of the group wants to put his tunes through- thus creating a small power struggle. In the end, there will be balance. Hopefully with as little kicking and screaming as possible.
-Anything should be engaging
Too many games are combat-focused. There's a myriad of rules for fighting, but only a few for, say, haggling. One thing I'm trying to do with the EE is keep virtually every action under the same mechanic. I considered going as far as having a repertoire of techniques for working devices. Problem is, that's a LOT of paper per character sheet.
So, the answer may be to work backwards. If the combat is too complicated, I may just scale it back for more of a universal experience, instead of combat and everything else.
I'm still thinking about an Elvis Impersonator campaign.
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.
February 28, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 4
-Asshole NPCs
Too many of my characters are nice people. They're all the same intellectual, optimistic, friendly person I try to be in real life. Bullcrap! Without war there can be no peace, without evil there is no good, and without assholes there are no good people!
The group I usually GM for doesn't consist of a lot of people who take kindly to... negative social interaction. So, my plan is, any "asshole" characters are that way to everyone in general, not just the players. After a while, they might even treat the players a little more kindly. Who knows?
In general, my NPCs just need more contrast. Notice how most quest-givers in RPGs are exactly identical? I'm trying to avoid that. So, in the interests of realism, I'm going to be an absolute jerk.
Why do I get the feeling I've missed something?
-Character Creation
Usually, I spring my story ideas on players last-second. Sometimes because that's when I think of them, but usually because that's how our group rolls. I've decided to change this up a little bit.
For Sunburn, I'm going to give the players a little questionaire. It'll have basic questions to help them visualize their character and decide on a personality, as well as a little bit of flair to get used to the atmosphere of the world. I'll hold off on character creation, that's not quite as important.
-Writing like an entire page for a single part of a Bite-sized thoughts segment
It's a bad habit I'm trying to avoid. But dammit, that movie left an impression!
Too many of my characters are nice people. They're all the same intellectual, optimistic, friendly person I try to be in real life. Bullcrap! Without war there can be no peace, without evil there is no good, and without assholes there are no good people!
The group I usually GM for doesn't consist of a lot of people who take kindly to... negative social interaction. So, my plan is, any "asshole" characters are that way to everyone in general, not just the players. After a while, they might even treat the players a little more kindly. Who knows?
In general, my NPCs just need more contrast. Notice how most quest-givers in RPGs are exactly identical? I'm trying to avoid that. So, in the interests of realism, I'm going to be an absolute jerk.
Why do I get the feeling I've missed something?
-Character Creation
Usually, I spring my story ideas on players last-second. Sometimes because that's when I think of them, but usually because that's how our group rolls. I've decided to change this up a little bit.
For Sunburn, I'm going to give the players a little questionaire. It'll have basic questions to help them visualize their character and decide on a personality, as well as a little bit of flair to get used to the atmosphere of the world. I'll hold off on character creation, that's not quite as important.
-Writing like an entire page for a single part of a Bite-sized thoughts segment
It's a bad habit I'm trying to avoid. But dammit, that movie left an impression!
February 21, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 3
-Good and Evil
I still feel like I'm missing part of this dilemma.
"Evil" is anything I don't like. If lots of people agree with me, it's definitely evil. The enemy is evil. Their god is evil. Starvation is evil. But, I'm good. I'm very good. I only kill people if they're evil. They say the same thing, but of course that's just because they don't have my god. He's a good god. He tells me who's evil. And anyone who follows him is good.
I, personally, believe "good" and "evil" are hyper-extensions of selflessness versus selfishness. Humans are very social creatures, despite what we'd like to believe. We need numbers to thrive, just like ants. Anyone who takes from the common collective is evil, because they are putting themselves over other people. Alternatively, "good" people give things. Equality, money, their lives, etc.
Robbery is evil because someone takes money.
Lust is evil because someone takes love.
Murder is evil because someone takes life.
Notice a pattern yet?
-The players can help, too
I was reading an article about Luke Crane (the guy behind Burning Wheel). At one point he split the party for a few rooms, and had the players who weren't present play as some goblins. This strikes me as a really fun approach
-Actions are methods, not motivations
I saw the movie "Goon" (2011) the other day. It was, to me, an antithesis to Man on Wire. Also a completion.
SPOILERS
Doug Glatt is in it for the violence. He's a hockey player, formerly bouncer, whose job is to beat the crap out of anyone who has a remote strategic advantage on the ice. But, he's only violent on the field (and when people piss him off in bars).
Violence was not his motivation- actually, a sense of belonging was. He wanted to be part of the team, and punching people's teeth in is just how he does that. Off the field, he's just a big guy. One of my favorite parts of the whole movie is when he walks into a restaurant, and has a conversation with his biggest rival, who he's itching to fight for the first time. They sit down, Doug learns a few things from a veteran, and shows his enthusiasm for the game. His rival leaves, and that's it. It was such a powerful scene, where two titans turn off their testosterone and act like two normal people. Friends, even.
There's another arc involving his love interest. He walks her home, it looks like they're in love, then she calls him to let him know she has a boyfriend, and she's really sorry about leading him on. Doug isn't sure how to respond to this. Of course we all think he's going to beat the crap out of her girly, yuppie boyfriend, because that's what happens in high school. Instead, we're surprised with a very sane answer. Doug focuses his efforts on being with the team, and drinking beer with his best buddy- just like before. I did a double-take when I saw this, because it was not at all what I was expecting out of someone who has been nicknamed "The Thug" by his fans.
All this shocked me a little bit, but I had an important realization: The means are not the end. Doug's greatness isn't beating people senseless, his greatness is in his team, and how he contributes to them- by beating people senseless. In the same way, Philippe from Man on Wire wasn't great because of his tightrope-walking, it was because of his ambition. The walk was just how he expressed it, and built up to it.
So, now that I've written a full-sized post in a Bite-sized thoughts segment, let me get to the point. The character's (and hopefully player's) motivation isn't the same way as how they get there. If you want to be a good athlete, you're building a legacy and community around yourself- not just running in circles to feel better. Just the same, people who want real change and a voice to be heard take up protesting. Not that I think that is the best course of action, it's just what they thought was best.
As a GM, I realize there has to be a motivation other than skill itself. I couldn't just tell the players to go tight-rope walk between the WTC towers, I'd have to convince them (through their characters) it's about image, and spectacle. The walk itself is just the means to the end.
I still feel like I'm missing part of this dilemma.
"Evil" is anything I don't like. If lots of people agree with me, it's definitely evil. The enemy is evil. Their god is evil. Starvation is evil. But, I'm good. I'm very good. I only kill people if they're evil. They say the same thing, but of course that's just because they don't have my god. He's a good god. He tells me who's evil. And anyone who follows him is good.
I, personally, believe "good" and "evil" are hyper-extensions of selflessness versus selfishness. Humans are very social creatures, despite what we'd like to believe. We need numbers to thrive, just like ants. Anyone who takes from the common collective is evil, because they are putting themselves over other people. Alternatively, "good" people give things. Equality, money, their lives, etc.
Robbery is evil because someone takes money.
Lust is evil because someone takes love.
Murder is evil because someone takes life.
Notice a pattern yet?
-The players can help, too
I was reading an article about Luke Crane (the guy behind Burning Wheel). At one point he split the party for a few rooms, and had the players who weren't present play as some goblins. This strikes me as a really fun approach
-Actions are methods, not motivations
I saw the movie "Goon" (2011) the other day. It was, to me, an antithesis to Man on Wire. Also a completion.
SPOILERS
Doug Glatt is in it for the violence. He's a hockey player, formerly bouncer, whose job is to beat the crap out of anyone who has a remote strategic advantage on the ice. But, he's only violent on the field (and when people piss him off in bars).
Violence was not his motivation- actually, a sense of belonging was. He wanted to be part of the team, and punching people's teeth in is just how he does that. Off the field, he's just a big guy. One of my favorite parts of the whole movie is when he walks into a restaurant, and has a conversation with his biggest rival, who he's itching to fight for the first time. They sit down, Doug learns a few things from a veteran, and shows his enthusiasm for the game. His rival leaves, and that's it. It was such a powerful scene, where two titans turn off their testosterone and act like two normal people. Friends, even.
There's another arc involving his love interest. He walks her home, it looks like they're in love, then she calls him to let him know she has a boyfriend, and she's really sorry about leading him on. Doug isn't sure how to respond to this. Of course we all think he's going to beat the crap out of her girly, yuppie boyfriend, because that's what happens in high school. Instead, we're surprised with a very sane answer. Doug focuses his efforts on being with the team, and drinking beer with his best buddy- just like before. I did a double-take when I saw this, because it was not at all what I was expecting out of someone who has been nicknamed "The Thug" by his fans.
All this shocked me a little bit, but I had an important realization: The means are not the end. Doug's greatness isn't beating people senseless, his greatness is in his team, and how he contributes to them- by beating people senseless. In the same way, Philippe from Man on Wire wasn't great because of his tightrope-walking, it was because of his ambition. The walk was just how he expressed it, and built up to it.
So, now that I've written a full-sized post in a Bite-sized thoughts segment, let me get to the point. The character's (and hopefully player's) motivation isn't the same way as how they get there. If you want to be a good athlete, you're building a legacy and community around yourself- not just running in circles to feel better. Just the same, people who want real change and a voice to be heard take up protesting. Not that I think that is the best course of action, it's just what they thought was best.
As a GM, I realize there has to be a motivation other than skill itself. I couldn't just tell the players to go tight-rope walk between the WTC towers, I'd have to convince them (through their characters) it's about image, and spectacle. The walk itself is just the means to the end.
January 29, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 2
Villains-
There's a few rules for villains I bumped into while reading on RPGs. It's so simple, but I didn't fully realize it until I thought about it.
Rule 1: They have to be bad. If the players have no moral disagreement, there's no conflict, and he's just another buddy of theirs. So many of my villains had perfectly reasonable intentions, but just went about it in a convoluted, evil way. They were compelling enemies, but none of them were truly hateable.
Rule 2: They have to be visible. Keep reminding the players that there's a bad, bad dude out there. He's on billboards, his minions are constantly looting caravans, he's screwing with the stock market, or he's so popular everyone is talking about him. Be creative, and remember that his actions (and the results of) are just as good for face-time.
Rule 3: They have to be a legitimate threat. No good if the players just stomp on him. He learns from his mistakes, switches up his strategies, and is always looking for allies, just like the PCs are. I was watching Logan's Run the other day, and Box (robot who catches and freezes people for food) fails at this. Forty seconds of fisticuffs and being shot at, and he falls over. Complete push-over, in more ways than one.
Apocalypse Proliferation-
We are living in a post-apocalyptic world. A great empire rose above all others, and controlled the world. It was called Rome. Now, it is no more- pictures on a wall, words in history books, and a memory of a simpler, more barbaric time.
I'm forced to believe "apocalypse" has replaced the word "disaster," due to its biblical undertones. Almost every RPG I can think of has ruins. Someone lived in them once, but now they don't. There's a reason. It could just be that they made newer buildings, or they could have been scourged by the sun. Either way, "apocalypse" is hardly a blanket term, and I'm trying to cut back on using it as one.
Dice rolls/surprise rounds-
In any non-threatening situation (no time limit, no one trying to kill you), dice should auto-crit. Maximum possible roll, automatically. For one, it's boring as hell to roll for everything. For another, it gives the surprising party an edge in combat, infiltration, etc.
Speech is Combat-
I love Fallout. To my grave, I love it. But, the speech skill is so gaudy. "I'm one point short of being able to convince you to drop dead for me. That's how I roll." There's no intensity, no interaction- like real talking.
So, my theory is to use an engine similar to combat. Everyone who participates in the conversation is in "the grid." Anyone who chooses to not be a part of it isn't represented, so they cannot give or take flak. Then, the combatants go around using various attacks- joke, boast, coerce, admire, etc. Slowly, the enemy's "distrust" is whittled down, until they'll work with you, or are convinced of X, etc.
Because trust is something I'm leaving to the players (not the characters), anyone important will also have a "patience" bar. If it runs out (by making successful attacks against players) the character thinks they've had enough, and exits combat.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's an improvement. It's versatile, interactive, and has parallels in actual conversation. If you aren't even good at talking, your character should have an option to remain in the conversation, and buff someone by just agreeing with them. Nodding, saying "yeah, truth," etc.
I'm not going to implement this for a while. Sunburn is already too damn large. But, this is definitely going to happen. Press X to convince the man to not kill himself.
There's a few rules for villains I bumped into while reading on RPGs. It's so simple, but I didn't fully realize it until I thought about it.
Rule 1: They have to be bad. If the players have no moral disagreement, there's no conflict, and he's just another buddy of theirs. So many of my villains had perfectly reasonable intentions, but just went about it in a convoluted, evil way. They were compelling enemies, but none of them were truly hateable.
Rule 2: They have to be visible. Keep reminding the players that there's a bad, bad dude out there. He's on billboards, his minions are constantly looting caravans, he's screwing with the stock market, or he's so popular everyone is talking about him. Be creative, and remember that his actions (and the results of) are just as good for face-time.
Rule 3: They have to be a legitimate threat. No good if the players just stomp on him. He learns from his mistakes, switches up his strategies, and is always looking for allies, just like the PCs are. I was watching Logan's Run the other day, and Box (robot who catches and freezes people for food) fails at this. Forty seconds of fisticuffs and being shot at, and he falls over. Complete push-over, in more ways than one.
Apocalypse Proliferation-
We are living in a post-apocalyptic world. A great empire rose above all others, and controlled the world. It was called Rome. Now, it is no more- pictures on a wall, words in history books, and a memory of a simpler, more barbaric time.
I'm forced to believe "apocalypse" has replaced the word "disaster," due to its biblical undertones. Almost every RPG I can think of has ruins. Someone lived in them once, but now they don't. There's a reason. It could just be that they made newer buildings, or they could have been scourged by the sun. Either way, "apocalypse" is hardly a blanket term, and I'm trying to cut back on using it as one.
Dice rolls/surprise rounds-
In any non-threatening situation (no time limit, no one trying to kill you), dice should auto-crit. Maximum possible roll, automatically. For one, it's boring as hell to roll for everything. For another, it gives the surprising party an edge in combat, infiltration, etc.
Speech is Combat-
I love Fallout. To my grave, I love it. But, the speech skill is so gaudy. "I'm one point short of being able to convince you to drop dead for me. That's how I roll." There's no intensity, no interaction- like real talking.
So, my theory is to use an engine similar to combat. Everyone who participates in the conversation is in "the grid." Anyone who chooses to not be a part of it isn't represented, so they cannot give or take flak. Then, the combatants go around using various attacks- joke, boast, coerce, admire, etc. Slowly, the enemy's "distrust" is whittled down, until they'll work with you, or are convinced of X, etc.
Because trust is something I'm leaving to the players (not the characters), anyone important will also have a "patience" bar. If it runs out (by making successful attacks against players) the character thinks they've had enough, and exits combat.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's an improvement. It's versatile, interactive, and has parallels in actual conversation. If you aren't even good at talking, your character should have an option to remain in the conversation, and buff someone by just agreeing with them. Nodding, saying "yeah, truth," etc.
I'm not going to implement this for a while. Sunburn is already too damn large. But, this is definitely going to happen. Press X to convince the man to not kill himself.
January 20, 2013
Bite-sized thoughts 1
I thought about including these in the last post, but it was already too sizely. These are just some thoughts I've had, which aren't quite big enough to warrant their own post.
-Randomization and the over-use of dice rolls:
The dice only get rolled if a random outcome is necessary. When I played Shadowrun, the GM had us role for the most asinine things. And he was rolling against us, too. Perform a hack attack on a system you've already taken over completely? Roll against me. Drive a car you've had for two years? Roll against me. What the hell, man!
Randomness is a narrative element. Maybe this is me having a book up my ass, but the dice are there to make the story more interesting. Let's use a shootout in Project Sunburn as an example and metaphor. Without dice, you either can or cannot kill an EMPIRE grunt. Without dice, there is only one set of loot you'll get from them. It's not a question of tactics and strategy, it's a grinder that you chug through until you're logically at 1 or 2 HP. Then you take the 8 bandages you looted (as expected), and chew through more of them. No fun.
I briefly considered a "waves" mechanic in PS. I'll roll a die, and the dunes will be that high or low in one particular area, either burying cities and mountains, lowering enough to block access, or coming in at a nice median. It adds danger and uncertainty to the "traveling" elements, and won't kill the players accidentally. I'm still keeping it for another campaign (Sunburn 3, probably), and I think it'll add a nice risk factor. If I, the GM, just narrated the rise and fall of the desert, it would be really hard for me to keep it convincing. I'd either be too easy or too harsh, and I don't have the dice as a scapegoat.
-Dreams
Dreams are the subconscious burbling its thoughts to us. Little messages, translated into wonderful and horrifying images to entertain us in our sleep. But, that takes all the fun out of it.
Biblical passages, ancient myths, and even urban legends are chock-full of dream sequences with serious narrative impact.*
In an ancient or highly mythical setting, dreams would be an excellent environment to expand gameplay. It fits with the setting, and really lets the players snap into character. In a modern setting, and most hard sci-fi, a dream sequence would be out of place. Of course, some stories would demand this (Looking at you, Spirits Within)
The ultimate message? I'm not letting the real world get in the way of my stories. There is nothing real here. But it is entertaining...
*I mean this on a purely surface level; taking a religious text, and looking at the story without the context. I don't mean to offend anyone's religion, and I'm not calling any religious books fictional narrative.
-Randomization and the over-use of dice rolls:
The dice only get rolled if a random outcome is necessary. When I played Shadowrun, the GM had us role for the most asinine things. And he was rolling against us, too. Perform a hack attack on a system you've already taken over completely? Roll against me. Drive a car you've had for two years? Roll against me. What the hell, man!
Randomness is a narrative element. Maybe this is me having a book up my ass, but the dice are there to make the story more interesting. Let's use a shootout in Project Sunburn as an example and metaphor. Without dice, you either can or cannot kill an EMPIRE grunt. Without dice, there is only one set of loot you'll get from them. It's not a question of tactics and strategy, it's a grinder that you chug through until you're logically at 1 or 2 HP. Then you take the 8 bandages you looted (as expected), and chew through more of them. No fun.
I briefly considered a "waves" mechanic in PS. I'll roll a die, and the dunes will be that high or low in one particular area, either burying cities and mountains, lowering enough to block access, or coming in at a nice median. It adds danger and uncertainty to the "traveling" elements, and won't kill the players accidentally. I'm still keeping it for another campaign (Sunburn 3, probably), and I think it'll add a nice risk factor. If I, the GM, just narrated the rise and fall of the desert, it would be really hard for me to keep it convincing. I'd either be too easy or too harsh, and I don't have the dice as a scapegoat.
-Dreams
Dreams are the subconscious burbling its thoughts to us. Little messages, translated into wonderful and horrifying images to entertain us in our sleep. But, that takes all the fun out of it.
Biblical passages, ancient myths, and even urban legends are chock-full of dream sequences with serious narrative impact.*
In an ancient or highly mythical setting, dreams would be an excellent environment to expand gameplay. It fits with the setting, and really lets the players snap into character. In a modern setting, and most hard sci-fi, a dream sequence would be out of place. Of course, some stories would demand this (Looking at you, Spirits Within)
The ultimate message? I'm not letting the real world get in the way of my stories. There is nothing real here. But it is entertaining...
*I mean this on a purely surface level; taking a religious text, and looking at the story without the context. I don't mean to offend anyone's religion, and I'm not calling any religious books fictional narrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)