Religion

It was inevitable I was going to write about this. How couldn't I? RPGs lend themselves to a variety of subjects and themes, and religion is by far the most interesting.

Obviously, disclaimer: I'm agnostic, and I'm not trying to offend anyone.

~

I was raised in a Christian family. We went to church every Sunday, and any homeschool co-ops I went to during my early education were also Christian.

I was introduced to D&D when I was young. I was about eleven. It was exciting, it was engaging, and it made for great times. I had barely any idea what was going on, but I loved it.

Time-skip four years. I'm fifteen, just buying the "Big Three" (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual) for D&D 4e. Don't laugh, I didn't know any better. Obviously, I was looking for a group to play with. What's the point of getting all gussied up if you're going to stay inside by yourself?

There was a friend at the time who was interested in it. We both went to the same church, and we had similar tastes in... everything. For a little while, we were even planning to have a podcast called "Ship of Fools." It would've been great.

This is where things get complicated. Like so many other Christian families, hers was concerned about the magic and demons in it. It's understandable to me now, but it made hardly any sense at the time. You can play without demons and devils. There's also a few pages about the gods of the world, but they're ultimately meaningless and don't change anything except lore.

Magic is, by far, the biggest stumbling block in the game. Jack Chick even thinks so.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP

At the time, I was Christian. Not a good Christian, but I agreed with almost all of it. And, I laughed at the idea of people taking objection to the magic in this. For one, this edition wasn't based on any "real" magic, unlike previous editions. It's just words, and the effects. It was no more "realistic" than comic books about someone who's invincible.

The funniest part to me was- what's there to be afraid of? Are these going to work? Am I, accidentally, going to create a fireball in my dining room?

But, ranting aside, rules were rules. Her parents didn't want their daughter going into a world of satanism (there are demons and devils, but you can play without them. In older versions, there are actual references to hell a la' Dante's Inferno, but any GM can write around it), and the group was shot down before we could get anything going. Pity, that.

~

Time-skip four years. I'm nineteen, almost twenty. The Escapade Engine is in shambles, but I'm salvaging what I can from the wreck. And, once again, religion rears its head. This time, I'm coming from a different angle.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe two forms of gameplay are exploration and roleplaying. These happen to be two of my favorites. And, one thing I was always fond of in games was religion. Everything from Unreal to the first Bionicle game had at least whispers of it, and I always enjoyed looking at the various locations designed for religious purposes. Cathedrals, circles of stone, great monuments to long-lost figures- the only visual difference between reality and some of them was a pixel count.

But, things fall through once you go deeper. There are no real-life worshipers of these fictional religions, and even the people who made them don't believe in it.

But, couldn't the same be said for everything else?

The locations aren't real, the characters aren't, and of course the events are over-the-top ridiculous. Yet, we immerse in them anyway, for escapism. Of course, I plan to add religious elements into my games. It would be a waste not to, in most cases. The religion is fake, the belief systems will be flawed and mostly transparent, but who cares? As long as it's immersive, and helps create a compelling world, I say go for it.

The same argument applies to magic, too. It's entirely fake, just numbers and letters on pieces of paper, influenced by the real gods of the realm- plastic dice.

Again with Viscerality

The combat takes up too many of the rules, and too many item slots. The descriptions of guns are 50 words, whereas water is only 5 or 10. What gives, man?

I think a lot of it comes from my experience with D&D 3.5. As I've mentioned before, D&D is a pulp fantasy simulator- meaning a huge focus on combat. 3.5 edition did away with the pulpiness, but still kept the combat focus. Notice how all D&D player's stories are about combat encounters?

So, I've tried to re-think the challenge dynamic in an RPG. I asked myself- what are the solutions to various challenges? Here's my list.

• Combat
• Stealth
• Speech
• Resources
• Devices
• Exploration
• Puzzle
• Roleplay

Combat:
Very obvious. By far the most overused solution to a problem. The gameplay is to drain the opposition's health, without losing your own. This could be an entire game. I've been thinking about future editions of the EE, and this is going to be the most prone to change.

Stealth:
My main inspiration was one of the Splinter Cell games. Using light, sound, and also smell, you could create a very compelling set of stealth rules. Much more focus on tension, rather than intensity. I like stealth because it is just as failure-prone as combat, and much more believable.

Speech:
Again, one thing I wanted to add to the EE. Let reputation and believability be the HP bars, and just run the encounter as people talking. By Sunburn 3, this is definitely going to be a feature. Obviously, it'll take some time, but it's a mechanic which I think is missing from most RPGs, and even video games.

Resources:
Overlooked in most games is the mercantilist answer. In a lot of cases, just having enough money or the right items can solve a problem in itself. Not just buying the meat shield a bigger gun, but having something designed specifically for the problem you're solving. What I try to do is model a system whereby a character can survive just by money management, and lots of bribes.

Devices:
A bit trickier. Having worked in industry, I can attest to the complexity of certain machinery. Some of it is complex enough to warrant more than one check for operation. It would be cool to make an "encounter" out of picking a lock, or disarming a trap. The problem would be, what "attacks" would you be making? Pounding it with a hammer? Manipulating it with lockpicks? Dunking it in acid? If it works, great! Otherwise, this might be a dud.

Exploration:
Not just in the geographical sense. Escape-the-room games are a good example of this mechanic, because you win by looking everywhere. I mostly think of it in a Bethesda Games sense- go here, find this, do this thing. I believe a pure exploration game would be impossible to pull off (though, playing as Lewis and Clark would be rather entertaining). But, as an added feature, I think it's great. There's going to be some content in Spectrum hidden away near the edges of maps, to encourage exploration of the world.

I like exploration as an experience, but it's pretty hard to make challenging or engaging.

Puzzle:
This one, as well as Roleplaying, are very difficult to describe in perfect detail. The purpose of a puzzle is to challenge the players through their characters. I might hand them something in real life, or describe the problem orally. Visual aids help tremendously.

Roleplaying:
By far the hardest to describe on the list. You could make an argument that it's another category in disguise, but I like to think of it like manifest destiny, or self-actualization.

The concept behind it is accumulation of knowledge, usually gained through exploration (or puzzles. All three could be lumped together as "stuff the power player doesn't care about"). Then, the application of that knowledge. It doesn't rely on the character's stats, it instead relies on the player. Immersing yourself in the lore of the world to manipulate presented events is something I really think everyone should do at least once. For some games, this is a viable technique. I can't think of very many, there are many more examples of the opposite. Think of all the games where it doesn't make a difference how much you care about the world.

Being drawn into a fictional world is an amazing experience. It makes everything so real for the players, but only if they're willing to go under the surface. If I ever devise a good example of problem solving by Roleplaying, I will definitely post it here. For now, it's a little voice in the back of my head.

~

See how many alternatives there are to combat-based gameplay? As long as there's a solid mechanic behind all of these (except the last two), almost anything could be compelling. I could make an interesting campaign out of a boring day at the post office.

Fallout and the three-act Story

Guys, eventually I'm also going to get tired of tying Fallout into things. Until then, here's more. This post is going to be pretty lengthy, so I'm breaking out the tildes as a reminder to refill your popcorn.

~

The three-act story is a writing model. The story is divided into three parts, each with definitive transitions.

Act one: Everything is fine. The characters are introduced, and their world is introduced. This is their everyday life. It's not necessarily pleasant, but it's just how they've lived their lives until the events depicted. Act one ends with an incident, putting the events of the story into motion. This is anywhere from mom running out of sugar, to a large-scale nuclear exchange. Or both.

Act two: The protagonist(s) has/have been drawn into the central conflict, from which there can be no return*. Times get tough, etc etc. This is where 90% of character development happens. Either someone is stripped down to their very base character, or they're built up into something better. Or they just get progressively bigger guns, as with any FPS.

Act three: The conflict, introduced at the end of act one, is resolved. Armed with sugar for mom's cookies, and a self-aiming personality-enhanced emplaced weapon (hey, guess what I'm putting in Sunburn 2?), they... do whatever it is they set out to do in the beginning. After a suitably thrilling climax (pull out all the stops, guys), the falling action takes place. The protagonist(s), with his/her/its/their/our character development mostly locked in, ride off into the sunset. Roll credits.

*Some disagreement with Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces. More on this one later.

~

Now, what am I getting at? Think of the last video game you played, or movie you watched. How much time was spent on act one? Five minutes? Five seconds? Was it just thrown at you?

This also comes up in tabletop RPGs, and even in a lot of the RPs I do with friends. Nothing against them, but very few (especially mine, I'm really bad at this) have no act one. There's no time to get in sync with your characters. A remedy appeared to me in the form of- yeah, I know- Fallout 3.

Fallout: New Vegas doesn't have act one. None whatsoever. Spoilers, connect the dots at your own risk.

                                      .

                 Apparently you detonated a nuke in the middle of a city once. 

Just thought you should know.

                                                                                                                          .

Fallout 3, however, gives you one through gameplay. It shows your character through various periods of their life. Escaping the play pen as a baby, your tenth birthday, and dealing with some bullies in underground nuclear shelter high-school. For about five to twenty minutes, you wonder if you got the wrong game. Then, you wake up (expecting a nice day of reading, for example) and find out act two has started. It was a brilliant piece of work, and highly immersive until the pop-up at the very end.

So, where's the application?

For Spectrum, I've been considering implementing something similar. It'll be less personal because it's four people, but I have faith in it as a creation concept. It's a little bit Freudian in a way, but I'm never one to pass up an excuse to foreshadow a LOT of things. Virtually every second of the "childhood" segment is going to be referencing something from an RP, or something they'll see as adults. I was considering not even telling the players they were making characters, and just assigning stat choices to various actions. But that seems out of place, and I want the players to have definitive knowledge of what they're getting into. For now.

It's a really great way to put a character from concept to paper, and it will give the characters a good reason to be very familiar with each other. And, only just now I realize Sunburn has no act one. Bad GM, no dice for you.

How I'd fix Metro 2033

I got Metro 2033, in book form. I liked the game, and it was done by the same guy.

What a mistake.

I tried to read all the way through it, but I couldn't. The main character (Artyom) is nothing like he was in the game.

• He's almost always acted upon, instead of performing his own actions
• His life gets progressively worse, then a sudden (and expected) event gives him a little more time. Then it happens again. And again.
• Virtually no personality to speak of, except for "gifted loner."

The world Dmitry Glukhovsky creates is exquisite. The first two chapters, describing the everyday life of the Metro and a rat attack, are some of the most gripping I've read in a while. After that, it mainly turns into him describing the degradation of the familiar subway stations. While I can't sympathize very much, it's still interesting to look at his technique.

One thing he does masterfully is simulate the politics and conflicts. There's innumerable factions inside the tunnels, and each one has their own history. The station he's in affects Artyom a considerable amount, as well as which tunnels he's in. The problem, I believe, is with the main character.

So, as a GM, how would I fix this and make a nice RPG out of it?

Step one- keep the environments, the tone, and the themes. Expand on the theme of human extinction. Re-use most of the characters.

Artyom gets to figure his own shit out. Random people won't just become his best buddy because they're bored, and if he wants to get the hell out of somewhere, it's up to him to engineer a solution.

More mutants! Trying to reinforce the theme that humans may be replaced as the dominant species. For a little while, I'd try to make the players think the ever-enigmatic Dark Ones can grow from a plant found commonly in the metro.

Let the player(s) pick their political stance. Reds, Hansa, Fringers, etc. Every side comes with its own benefits.

More physical problems. Chasms in the tunnels, collapses, gas leaks, underground bodies of water, etc. Let the player(s) use their creativity and problem-solving skills.

Some day, I'm going to read the book all the way through. Until then, though, I'll probably choose to imagine it however I please.

Powerful Imagery Redux

I think I've finally figured out what I was trying to say last post. Bear with me here.

Powerful imagery is any moment where the players stop, and really appreciate their surroundings. Either in a positive, or negative way.

I cite Halo:CE as my first real experience with this. After finishing the game, and going back to the menu, I watched the ring float silently in space amid a timeless, seemingly omniscient choir. Ever since that moment, I've always appreciated the spectacle involved. Looking at it now, I'm filled with a mix of emotions- fear of what's down there, happiness for my own survival, and awe for the creation of such an advanced structure.
The elements all blend together perfectly.

Of course, the effect is diminished once you actually play the game- it's hard to appreciate the scenery when you've only got 5 minutes to get the hell out of dodge. This is where the developers show another masterful touch: There's one or two "wow" moments in each level.

One thing virtually every medium has is its own "wow" moments. Video games, RPGs, movies, paintings, music, dance, etc. All can express it somehow. In music, it's the best part of the song. In movies, it's usually the climactic turning point (In Independence Day, it was the White House getting lase'd by an alien ship).

RPGs make it a little more difficult, because the only input the players have is what the GM says and does. If there's something truly powerful, he/she/it has to describe it in detail, in such a way that it's powerful.

"You see, like, a mountain range in front of you. The sun is shining on it, and stuff. There's a couple eagles too."

Though difficult, I endeavor to put in a few instances of powerful imagery in the large-scale RPGs I do. Sunburn has two (very beginning and very end), and the planned Spectrum RPG will have at least five. The purpose is to give the players a sense of accomplishment, and to let them relax in a way (only the positive ones).

One that I have planned is a tribal ceremony on top of a local mountain. Having been accepted by the people, the council of elders decide to officially induct the player characters into the tribe. It's a night of torches, dancing, alcohol, and tattoos. During this moment, I'm not going to have any rolls for the players to make. It's a relaxing, festive moment designed to showcase more of the tribals, and make the players feel welcomed in a foreign land.

A consequence comes with the use of powerful imagery- overuse. If too much spectacle and attention is brought to every facet of the game, it just waters down the experience. When everything is special- nothing is. It becomes the new bland. This is why I deliberately limit myself to only a handful of moments- to keep it amazing when it happens.

It's a powerful tool. As with any tool, there are good ways to use it and bad ways to use it. And, as long as I'm a little better each time I use it, I'm okay.

The Ideal GM

A while ago I did a post- the ideal tabletop gamer. Today I wanted to expand on it in a simple way.

The ideal GM should also be a good player.

There's numerous quotes about leadership, but the one that comes to my simplistic mind is; "Those that cannot follow, cannot lead." That sounds very sadistic on paper, but it's true. The player's role is to follow the narrative, and enjoy themselves along the way. The GM's job is to make the narrative and respond to any player feedback. And to enjoy him/her/itself.

One thing I truly appreciate is dedicated players. People who can just follow a story, wherever it goes. There's something magical about it- being able to deliver an experience perfectly, to an eager audience. I'm mostly sure that's one of my basic food groups by now.

The internet (and local chatter) is stuffed with stories of bad GMs. Ninety percent of those shortcomings could have been avoided if the GM would have thought, "How would I like this as a player?"

Some food for thought.

The desert is an oasis of blood.

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:

• 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.

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.

• Physical conflict
• Games of persuasion
• Environmenal survival
• Mechanical and electronic manipulation
• Gathering wealth, and spending it wisely

Obviously, 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.

My design strategy

Something simple this time. I thought about putting it in Bite-sized thoughts 3, but I want this to be a little more visible.

If you take a story (fiction, of course) and break it down to its most basic form, it's ridiculous.

• A midget and his friends must destroy the most evil piece of jewelry in the world
• Four kids enter a wardrobe, trip balls, and see a lion

Some liberties may have been taken in these summaries.

This effect can be reversed. Start with something completely ridiculous, then play it straight-faced. I'm not going to toot my own horn on this one, instead I'm going to let you look at what I've posted and theorized, and let you make up your own opinions.

Things will start to get really weird once I get into the Spectrum RPG. Until then, Sunburn shows this design philosophy slightly.

Talking Heads

Something a little different this time.

One of the hardest parts I have with GMing is keeping characters distinctive. To remedy this, I had the idea to use something like flash cards.

With just a glance, you could look down and get a rough idea of how to act out each character. The pictures are mainly just for quick identification.

The words are there to bring up the most likely tone of response. GUIDE is encouraging by default, but occasionally lapses into history, being very well educated. If the players elicit a further response, GUIDE's vulnerable side bleeds through.

The cards can't tell a complete story. I knew from the get-go that GUIDE is afraid of dying, even though it's artificial. That's mainly just there as a reminder. If possible, the response will be historical/factual, or encouraging in any way. GUIDE's a good guy.

Mister Fixer is a different story. He's a tough guy, who drives muscle cars and lifts weights. His day job is assassination, something he doesn't hide. If he can't think of a "tough" thing to add to a conversation, he'll tell a little story about his line of work. And, at the very core, his dirty secret- he's a proud father. This adds a little bit of character depth, and as the players get to know him more, he'll probably open up about it. Probably. Maybe. Possibly.

The quotes at the bottom are just a little phrase to help identify the speaker. I plan to have it show up at least once in every conversation, to reinforce the character. Obviously, the phrase is kept as open as possible to let it be spliced into any part of speech.

• MF (see what I did there? =D) Blows up a car: Too easy.
• During a set-up: Anyone else think this is a little too easy?
• Talking about cars: ... Makes it too easy. A child could do it.

It's just a GM aid, ultimately. I have no guarantee this will improve anyone's ability, or concentration. In fact, it might be too distracting. I'll have to find out myself. 

But, if it helps, go for it!

Symbolism, tone

I'm going to stop talking about story eventually. It will be glorious, and probably involve bunker maps.

The overarching theme, as well as tone, are essential to any RPG. There's dirty and gritty ones, high-minded ones, perfectionist ones, crazy ones, etc. It's a bit harder to express due to the nature of the GM acting as interpreter for the game, but it's still there. Let's trace the theme of Sunburn backwards:

The EMPIRE are a bunch of potato people, grown in vats, computer-chipped, then given guns to accomplish whatever task their masters wish.

The TLA are the standard human sci-fi affair, with spaceships and power armor and whatnot. There's also a pun in there.

By putting the players between a rock, a hard place, and two opposing, faceless empires, the focus is all on surviving the planet, as well as figuring out just what the hell is going on. I could have just as easily drummed up names for either side, but that defeats the purpose. Sunburn isn't about politics, it's about survival. It's much more earthy and grimy than, say, Star Wars. It doesn't matter whose flag you have on your back- there's people shooting at you, and they have their own flag!

~ Intermission ~

The tone of Sunburn is vaguely inspired by Samurai Jack. And Fallout. Everything here comes back to Fallout, somehow.

Most of the game is spent walking in the desert, taking in the beauty of it. An appreciation for nature is supposed to come of this, and eventually compel the players to make a decision completely opposite of the one they made when they come to the surface. It's about finding beauty, and coming to peace with a harsh situation.

This is punctuated by moments of intense combat, and close-quarters encounters with EMPIRE troopers. Not just for dramatic contrast, but also for plot, item mechanics, and to break up the long travels. Also a good chance to get all your ass-kicking done in one place.

This is one thing that so many games miss the boat on- have a theme, as well as a tone. It's not enough to have something which has an immediate draw- give it some staying power, and a style of its own. Otherwise, you're just making Call of Duty. I'd much rather make Sunburn than CoD.

Narrative through Gameplay: Guns and Water

One thing I wanted for Sunburn was to make the weapons variable in nature. Most will come "stock," but a few are better or worse than others. This adds a reason to keep looking for weapons, and gives players something to look forward to with each looting run.

Every time they pick up a weapon, they roll a D20:

1-2: -3
3-4: -2
5-6: -1
7-17: Stats as listed
18: +1
19: +2
20: +3

There's a 55% chance any weapon (knife, machine gun, grenade) will be average. 30% of the time it will be worse than listed, and the remaining 15% of weapons are better than average. Sunburn is a tough game, for serious people with lots of stubble. Also, the players are going to pick up a LOT of guns during the game, so I'm stacking the odds against them. I have no doubt a determined group could get everything in +3s, but it would take a while. It won't affect gameplay a terrible amount, but it still makes gun-collecting a fun activity.

I wanted to do something similar with dehydration. I'm sticking with rule of 3 on this one:

• Healthy (day 0)
• Parched (day 1, DC 0)
• Heat exhaustion (day 2, DC 4)
• Heat stroke (day 3, DC 8)
• Death (day 4)

Every day, your hydration drops by 1. If you drink while "parched," it goes up automatically. But, the lower it goes, the harder it is to get back up to healthy hydration levels. If you take a drink at anything worse than "parched," the character makes a Chemical Balance check. If they make or beat the DCs listed, they go up one. Players can drink as much water as they want in a day.

This mechanic regulates fluid levels, and is a backup in case water begins to run short. The tougher players can start to skip every other day, and be fine on 1 canteen per every 2 days. If it gets really hardcore, they can skip to one every 3 days, but that gets risky.

In a narrative sense, this is sacrifice. I have no doubt some characters will be more susceptible to thirst than others, and it becomes a choice for the "strong" (in this case): give them water and starve out yourself, or keep your hide in 100% condition for the up-and-coming fight. Of course, I have serious doubts my group are going to hold water from each other. But you never know...

Enjoy, ponder these thoughts, and come up with a great narrative mechanic for your game.

Narrative through Gameplay: Random Encounters

I'm always tooting my horn about narrative joining with gameplay to make RPG experiences: Here's an actual example of it.

Most of Project Sunburn is spent wandering around in the desert, trying to find water. It's a slow-paced intermission between brief periods of intense conflict (bunkers), and a good area for players to absorb atmosphere.

Speaking of atmosphere: Random encounters should have a purpose. A fight (for fighting's sake) is kind of pointless, and just pads for time. Even if the purpose is to reinforce the idea that the world is a dangerous place, random encounters should have a purpose.

In Sunburn, the random encounters have the purpose of showing what a typical day on OHS-817 is like, and letting the players get the complete wandering nomad experience. This might be modified a little bit, but here's the rough draft:

On a D12:
1: EMPIRE patrol (light)
2: EMPIRE patrol (heavy)
3: Drahn eating the remains of an EMPIRE patrol
4: Water-bearing plants (light)
5: Twister!- run through it, or walk around
6: Chasm- spend another day traveling
7-12: Quiet, uneventful day

On a D6:
1-4: Encounter happens during day
5-6: Encounter happens during night

Let's walk through the math and story of this. There's a 1/2 chance nothing happens. Sand, sun, and not a drop of water in sight. This is the "neutral" encounter. The twister and the chasm (1/6 chance) are both "negative" encounters- the players will lose resources, with no gain. This represents the serious hardships in the desert. The first four encounters are positive- the players gain water (the most important resource), sometimes by putting a few bodies below the sand. 1/3 chance of this happening.

So, statistically, there is a 2/3 water gained/lost ratio. Traveling in the desert yields no water, neither do twisters or chasms. But, the encounters yielding water will give a little more than one per player. This will drop player's water supplies gradually, and with enough fluctuation to make it scary.

From a narrative perspective, this is exactly what I wanted- a struggle for survival. Serious enough to warrant a lot of player brain-storming, but not deadly enough to kill the entire party if they get a few bad rolls (there's a reason I only have one chasm and one twister, but two patrols and two non-lethal water sources).

The day and night rolls were purely for aesthetics. I'm not going to apply sleep deprivation to players (yet), and it's mainly so I, as a GM, get to describe it differently. I'll ask who's on watch if it's a night-time encounter, but no major changes to gameplay.

It's a succinct little package designed to characterize the character's lifestyle outside of major encounters, shed some light on the nature of the planet's surface, and put a focus on survivalism. Next post will detail more about the random nature of weapons and water deprivation.

And, for those of you wondering- heavily inspired by Fallout. Wandering around in the wastes, not sure what zany thing you'll find, was one of my favorite parts of the whole experience.

The ideal Tabletop-Gamer

This one's really opinionated. It represents my views as of now, and is not an absolute truth. It's just what I think is best at the moment.

We game for escapism. Everyone does. It's why we watch TV, play video games, and go to art galleries. Escapism isn't necessarily pretending you're an elf in space, but just NOT being who you are every day of the week.

Mark Hermanson is a good guy to be, but sometimes I want to be someone else. Watch the movie "Darkon," they've got some good quotes on this one.

So, my first suggestion for an ideal player is someone who wants to escape from real life for a little bit. Look for the quiet ones who wear dark colors. Someone who doesn't fit in, and really doesn't want to. The outcasts, loners, and social pariahs that our world creates have some of the most amazing things in their heads.

Gaming is storytelling. The best players (doubly so, the best GMs) are the ones who want to make a convincing narrative that everyone can enjoy. The game is secondary, but still a very strong factor. For this reason, people with Roleplaying experience (and not just from team-building exercises at work) are some of the best gamers.

Similarly, players with experience in creative writing, movie and literary appreciation, or even a thoughtful video gamer are also good candidates. Someone who can understand story, and have an awareness of the devices surrounding them, will mesh incredibly smoothly with a good group. Problem-solvers usually aren't good, because Gaming isn't about finishing the game- it's about playing it.

The journey is more important than the destination... but the destination is still pretty awesome.

Creative, enthusiastic minds are the best for creative characters. Even if the character is really boring, the player should be able to make them into a compelling piece of the narrative. This one I'd put as less important, because compelling stories still happen around otherwise bland characters, especially if the players catch on.

These are some loose thoughts, accumulated over the last couple of weeks. I was considering putting this in Bite-sized thoughts 2, but it's a little big for that.

Recap:

• A desire to escape reality for a few hours
•  Previous experience as a role-player
• A basic understanding of narrative mechanics and storytelling
• Patience to be in the game, and enjoy the experience, rather than trying to finish it
• Creativity to lend vibrancy and compelling personalities to characters

These are just my thoughts on the matter, and are not absolute in any way. Think of them as "positive traits." They help, but are not necessary to have an enjoyable experience.

And, in the end, that's really all that matters: having a positive experience.

Water and Sunshine

The water issue is something I've been rethinking. 2 "canteens" a day seems a little pointless- much easier to just call it one canteen, and save the hassle. It'll be less of a hip flask, more of a jug.

Also, I've re-thought the environment a little bit. As much as I want to make a sprawling desert like the Sahara, it would be much more interesting to let it be a little cooler. The belts of stuff in the air would block out a considerable amount of sunlight, cooling the surface temperature. This gives some leniency in terms of water/day, and and allows for things like small shrubbery and humans to survive on the surface.

Somehow, in my mind, I lost the resource panic brought on by Hunter Prey, and a little of Pitch Black. Even the old-school Fallouts. It's supposed to be dangerous. I'll introduce more water scarcity, and I'm thinking of putting some ad-hoc water sources out in the desert. Plants, discarded EMPIRE stuff, etc. I'll figure it out.

I've missed a lot of the point, I think. Most of the inspiration sources are much more exciting than this is, and I need to figure out why, then emulate it.

Simulation vs Narrative

This is something that's been on my mind for a while.

The traditional spirit of wargames was simulation- how would you command Napoleon's forces, etc? It was a scenario, a simulation. You could go back to the same battle and do it over and over again. It would never get boring because your (hopefully) human opponent would also be adapting.

The spirit of Tabletop RPGs, however, was narrative. It's bad taste to do the same dungeon more than once, maybe twice. Because then everyone knows the play of it- it's hardly unexplored territory with unexpected surprises.

So, unlike a wargame, an RPG has basically no replay value. One and done. The GM, and the players, get one chance to go through a mission which may have taken days (or months, in Sunburn's case) to make.

Things get even more complicated with multiple options inside the constructed scenario. Let's say there's only one choice players can make at any time- fight, flight, or socialize.

Highlighting all of the choices let the players tailor it to their needs. This group is good at talking, so they will socialize their way through the problem. That group can kill hundreds and hundreds of enemies- their option of choice is "fight."

Each option has a certain amount of gameplay. Enemy maps for the fight option, terrain challenges for the flight option, and new characters to interact with for the "socialize" option. No matter which choice the PCs take, they miss a certain amount of gameplay. But they have choice.

If I leave it to the players to pick their own course of action, the same thing happens. Either they "find" one of my pre-made options, or they make their own, and it's up to me to improvise. Still a loss of gameplay, even if they don't know about it.

So, a truly "completionist" story has only one option- no missed gameplay. There is one option. You must complete it this way, in a fine tradition of stoicism.

On the flipside, a simulation has no missed gameplay, because it gets replayed up to an infinite amount of times.

But, in order to achieve that, I need to be able to constantly adapt to any player's tactic. That sounds really tedious, after the third time or so. So, for the time being, I'm fine on the narrative side of the fence.

Sunburn's coming, I promise- I just need to make sure it doesn't explode.

On player death

It would be all too easy to just let players be conveniently invincible. But then it's not really a challenge- it's sightseeing. Don't get me wrong, I like sightseeing, but there needs to be an element of challenge and fear involved. If you really mess up, you will die. Your resources, including your HP, will be fatigued and exhausted. But that's not fun!

My policy (both for RPs and RPGs) was that no one will die... permanently. It served its purpose nicely, but there was still no viscerality to it. I could make a convincing firefight, but eventually someone will realize- there never was any real danger. There never will be. We can do what we want, and the GM will have to go with it. I'm invincible!

So, I'm putting up new ground rules. This is still a loose guideline, and heavily ties into the "you're special" intro to every campaign evar.

• Players get a "warning shot." Unless if it very obviously should kill them (detonating a nuke), my dice will conveniently miss them. Hopefully they'll get the idea and scramble for meds.
• Anyone who dies will get to go out in the most spectacular way possible. No boring deaths. If they're going to die, then dammit! I'll give them an exit they'll remember for quite a while.
• Resurrect: The character comes back to life, but at a cost. Either XP, or something nasty comes with them.
• Reincarnate: Make a new character with roughly the same XP. I don't want death to be a character replacement mechanic, but at the same time, I'm not going to punish them too thoroughly for dying. The dice are trying to kill me.

This is roughly how I'm going to do things. Warning shot -> spectacle -> resurrect/reincarnate.

In Sunburn, they'll have defib shockers which bring them up to 1 HP. I'll even make them roll dice for it. Certain negative HPs have harder and harder DCs to beat.

(Medicine) + (Ability Dice, D8 for humans) vs Second Wind DC

• 0-10 : DC 4
• 11-20: DC 6
• 31-50: DC 9
• 51-100: DC 12

It'll work for now. More will happen in testing. For a couple of people slugging it out with machine guns doing +2 over the "light" armor, I think we're good.