Game

You are currently browsing articles tagged Game.

More thoughts about Typography, or the tools used to create it…

August 13, 2010 in Inspiration by Fitz | No comments

Welcome back!

Hittite Cuneiform Tablet
Image by voyageAnatolia.blogspot.com via Flickr

Long title, I know…

But basically I am wondering how we might take the small things, such as the method of writing, and use that in a game. And by “method” in this case, I’m thinking of the tools used to create the work. For example, were the letters painted onto wood or stone? If so, how old are they? What remains?

Let’s think about a few different tools… brush, stylus, chisel, and pen – just for a representative sample.

If you look at the cave paintings in Lascaux, they’re estimated to be around 17,000 years old. That’s a lot of years. That could come into play in numerous different genres of games. The paint used, colors chosen, or even the brush strokes can tell a lot about the artist and how fast a particular piece was finished. The prehistoric artists at Lascaux took their time and it shows. Some gang banger simply marking gang signs on an underpass probably won’t use a brush and will instead opt for a can of spray paint…

Another example would be the good old cuneiform tablet. Clay tablets and a sharpened stylus worked pretty well to document lists of payments or property somewhere around 3500 BC. It may not be the most expressive language in the world, but it works. Consider for a moment some priest documenting the steps for interment of a royal family member and warning anyone not to disturb the dead or face the consequences. Scratches on the wall are probably going to be ignored by most game parties I’ve been in – so who knows what might be behind that cuneiform-labeled door?

Why not use a simple chisel? It beats having to find some wet clay and where you put your stylus down… Some chiseled petroglyphs may be 800,000 years old. More recent ones, for example from Pompeii or Rome, are probably a bit easier to understand if your Latin is up to snuff. (Mine isn’t.) Chiseled stone is kind of like the permanent record for many civilizations we still don’t know much about.

Pen and paper don’t last nearly as long as paint, clay, or stone, but they can be much more expressive and perhaps in a more modern language a PC might understand without too much research. Paper and papyrus have been around for nearly 6000 years. But unless your paper and pen is stored somewhere the paper won’t mold, mildew, or wear away with sun and sand, it’s not going to last very long. Crayons don’t last nearly as long, but can leave a brief reminder on a sanitarium wall that someone did in fact live there for a time.

Cuneiform sign
Image via Wikipedia

So how might you use these different tools?

Take for example a Cthulhu campaign or any other setting that relies on the “previous civilization” model. Can you imagine a scientist from our era stumbling upon the ruins of a temple to the Old Ones and finding 10,000-, 20,000, 100,000-year old markings that get translated (correctly or not) to form the basis of a summoning spell? Or perhaps the previous arrival of aliens or monsters from other worlds or dimensions? Lastly, consider how much you could play with your players heads if it turned out to be graffiti from some punk with a paintbrush in the last 10 years who wanted to spark a hoax…

And then keep in mind the effects of time on a particular piece of art. Has some of the paint disappeared, leaving a message that may be misinterpreted? Or were large portions of a chiseled stone destroyed, leaving only a partial text that may not include the stringent warning about letting whatever was locked deep inside the tomb free?

Endless possibilities.

From fantasy to modern and beyond (computers anyone?), the tools of the trade have a lot to offer as far as inspiration. So don’t forget the little things…

I’ll leave you with some of the sacred text of Monty Python and the Holy Grail…

Chapman as King Arthur in Holy Grail

Image via Wikipedia

  KNIGHT:  There!  Look!
  LAUNCELOT:  What does it say?
  GALAHAD:  What language is that?
  ARTHUR:  Brother Maynard, you're our scholar!
  MAYNARD:  It's Aramaic!
  GALAHAD:  Of course!  Joseph of Aramathea!
  LAUNCELOT:  Course!
  KNIGHT:  What does it say?
  MAYNARD:  It reads, 'Here may be found the last words of Joseph of
      Aramathea.  He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail
      in the Castle of uuggggggh'.
  ARTHUR:  What?
  MAYNARD: '... the Castle of uuggggggh'.
  BEDEMIR:  What is that?
  MAYNARD:  He must have died while carving it.
  LAUNCELOT:  Oh, come on!
  MAYNARD:  Well, that's what it says.
  ARTHUR:  Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to carve 'aaggggh'.
      He'd just say it!
  MAYNARD:  Well, that's what's carved in the rock!
  GALAHAD:  Perhaps he was dictating.
(quoted from Sacred-Texts.com)

(Funny enough, this article was inspired by something programmer-related at Design for Hackers and not Monty Python – but hey. You take inspiration where you can get it!)

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GMing and Playing Styles… What’s yours?

July 23, 2010 in GMing, PCs by Fitz | 10 comments

Hi there…

Recently I watched the new documentary Dungeon Masters that featured a GM who managed to kill his whole party simply because they were dumb enough to charge into a Sphere of Annihilation… And it got me thinking.

Over my nearly 30 years of playing RPGs, I’ve encountered a variety of GMing styles. Everything from being adversarial to strictly hands-off “see what happens”, from lockstep “don’t go off the path” to “wow did we just roleplay a NPC-NPC conversation for the last 45 minutes?” They all have a place, but I have to wonder if it’s a progression through which most GMs work through in their gaming careers.

At the beginning of the cycle is the newbie GM and at the end is the battle-hardened GM…

When I was young and just starting out in RPGs in junior high, the GMs I played with were mostly focused on the critical path. Whether it was a pre-written module we were going through or something they had thrown together, we focused on getting the job done. It was less about roleplaying and more about roll-playing at that point. Combat was everything on both sides of the table.

In high school and college, we started getting more into playing the characters. Combat was still important, but less so. We became enamored with the collaborative effort within the party. But our GMs started to diverge a bit. Some were interested in the all-important story, pushing combat to something that only happened rarely. Some were focused on trying to kill players, which made the players more apt to simply trying to defeat the GM’s nefarious schemes.

After college, wow there have been even more extremes. In one Vampire game we played, I swear the GMs (it was a boyfriend/girlfriend pair where one typically played and the other GMed) simply wanted to hear their own voices. However, we were really able to focus on character development to the max. And in one game I GMed I lost control of a game simply because two players became more dominant than I was.

Now I haven’t GMed for a while – at least nothing more than the occasional playtest or one-off adventure. But my goal would be to offer a focused sandbox that gave enough wiggle room, but could accommodate combat and roleplaying in equal amounts. I’d probably sway more towards the roleplaying than roll-playing these days, but there are plusses and minuses to both approaches.

The odd thing to me is the advent of RPGs on the computer in the last 25 years. Everything from Bard’s Tale and the Gold Box games from SSI/TSR to World of Warcraft and Neverwinter Nights… none of them have managed (beyond Planescape: Torment maybe) to capture the roleplaying/storytelling aspects of the tabletop roleplaying experience. As such, when new folks want to try playing tabletop after playing CRPGs, they tend to focus on the roll-playing combat aspects more than anything else and have to work through all the things the rest of us who started with tabletop years ago went through…

Anyway… Where are your GMs in the continuum? Where are your players on that same continuum?

Where is your GM at on the Continuum?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

DVD Review: The Dungeon Masters

July 19, 2010 in Reviews by Fitz | 1 comment

Hey there…

People who play roleplaying games sometimes get a bad wrap. We get accused of practicing witchcraft or blamed for the suicides of individuals with mental illness, when all we’re doing is getting together to pretend we’re someone else for a while and hang out. “It’s a game, people” seems to be our regular response to this controversy, but that doesn’t stop some folks from trying to stop creativity and free thinking by banning books.

The Dungeon Masters is a new documentary from director Kevin McAllester (You’re Gonna Miss Me) that shines a light on the lives of three gamers – Richard, Scott, and Elizabeth. Though not typical of those people I’ve met in my nearly 30 years gaming, these three present a unique cross section of roleplayers from across the country.

Each of the three subjects of the documentary is involved in roleplaying games such as Dungeons & Dragons. D&D was introduced in 1974 by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Now on its 4th edition, it has spawned two feature films and hundreds of books. Games such as D&D provide a creative outlet for thousands of imaginative and creative people around the world to escape the realm of the mundane and experience the fantastic for a time.

D&D is traditionally a table-top roleplaying game, meaning that a Dungeon Master (DM) or Game Master (GM) leads a group of players, each with their own Player Characters (PCs) on an adventure in a make-believe world. Games like D&D provide a structured, yet open-ended, set of rules so that everyone plays fair and doesn’t just start changing the rules as they go. PCs have characteristics to define their strengths, weaknesses, and abilities. And the players, in a way similar to actors on stage or screen, describe their characters’ actions and speak for them.

Scott is a gamer seeking a way to provide for his wife and son through his hobby as opposed to his job as an apartment complex manager. But as most of us with the same dream have learned one way or another, that’s tough to do. As a result, he spins the imagination he uses for gaming into a fantasy novel and tries to get it published through an agent.

Richard’s life is a little different. A reservist, he spends most of his time thinking about GMing his weekly roleplaying game sessions. GMs basically control everything that the player characters see in the game – from the rest of the population of a town or city to the monsters and even the weather. And Richard seemed to take a very adversarial approach to his games – going so far as to kill all the PCs in the game when they went into a Sphere of Annihilation and obliterated themselves, which put a strain on his group that bled even into the next group Richard GMed.

And Elizabeth is a different case all together. She, even more than the others, likes to inhabit her characters fully to the point where she dresses up as a Drow (Dark) Elf with face paint, a wig, and a costume. Elizabeth also plays World of Warcraft on the computer and enjoys Live Action Role Playing or LARPing with other individuals who like to wear costumes and wield fake weapons to get further into their own characters.

Where all of these people fall down a bit is with personal relationships outside the game. Scott’s wife seems to be the main breadwinner of the family while he chases his dreams of being a famous author and having a successful cable television series. Richard’s dedication to running his game meant less time to spend with his wife and within his church. And Elizabeth went from relationship to relationship seeking someone who would accept her as she is as a person and not just as a character.

Though I understand that overall there’s a positive message to the documentary that shows that change is possible for these people and they can mend fences to gain stronger relationships, I’m concerned that it portrays all gamers as socially dysfunctional, damaged individuals disconnected from the real world.

In my own personal experience as a gamer, I have spent time with many different types of people. And yes, there have been some odd folks like the guy who was occasionally on acid or the self-professed Wiccan. But for the most part, they’re just normal people. Most of the gamers I’ve met since college have had jobs, relationships, and are as ordinary as anyone you’d meet on the street. Some, like myself, even have families and still find time to game.

So the documentary seems skewed to me towards the more extreme ends of “normal” gaming behavior. Are there gamers who behave the way the people in the documentary do? Yes. But I can without hesitation say that I’ve never met anyone who tried to run their own cable television show.

Quality-wise, the documentary is very well shot. Most is in widescreen, with older video clips worked in here and there. In addition to the film itself are many outtakes that didn’t make their way into the final cut. I can honestly say that 99% of them would have made the subjects of the documentary seem even more unusual or crazy than they already do.

If you’re a gamer, I would strongly suggest you check out The Dungeon Masters to see how our hobby is being viewed in this case. The documentary provides an unflinching glimpse into the realities of these three lives and how they try to balance their hobbies and real life.

If you’re not a gamer, but know someone who is – I would encourage you to watch this documentary with them so they may provide a different perspective on gaming in their own lives. Use The Dungeon Masters as a starting point for a conversation about roleplaying – not the end.

But either way, I’d encourage you to check out The Dungeon Masters when it’s released on DVD August 3, 2010. For more details, check out the info page at Antidote Films here.

This article first appeared at BlogCritics.org here.

–Fitz

p.s. If you want to pick up this DVD when it’s released, check it out below:

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Edge of Sanity…

June 7, 2010 in Inspiration by Fitz | 2 comments

Hey all…

In my career as a gamer, at least since college, I’ve had a thing for playing insane characters. I thought I’d share some of those characters and how I dealt with their crazy behaviors.

The first time it happened, my character in a Call of Cthulhu game went crazy with a Tommy Gun and managed to murder all but one member of his team because he thought they were monsters. And it felt good. Not the killing part – just cutting loose of all rational thought for a brief moment. He just snapped and went insane based on the rules of the game (aka “missed his save”) and I went with it.

That moment led to my playing of a Malkavian in a Vampire: The Masquerade campaign who was more than a little loopy. He liked having rules for everything. So if, in the course of an adventure, he encountered a situation that lent itself to a new rule, he’d add it to the list. Suffice it to say that living by those rules was a bit of a challenge at times, but a welcome one. The simplicity of the insanity was the key.

And more recently I played a rogue in a campaign that shifted rules a couple of times (from the freeform Hero to a thief in D&D 3.5e). The game was set in a world much like our own during the time of the Roman Empire. Didius (or “DC” as he came to be known – short for Didius Cato) was an escaped slave. And he had a bit of a thing about slavery.

If DC encountered a situation where a slave was being treated unfairly… For instance, on the auction block in a crowded marketplace… There was a chance he’d go a bit nuts and do what he could to change the situation. I’d roll a die and basically decide if he would (even number) or wouldn’t (odd) flip out based on the result. During one session, he basically slaughtered a number of guards as he worked to free a line of slaves being sold.

Somehow he managed to survive. But again, the simplicity of the insanity is what made it fun. He had a trigger (seeing slavery) and no willpower to speak of (thus rolling to determine his action). Sometimes he managed to contain himself. Then there was the rest of the time…

So if you haven’t played a crazy character, I’d encourage you to try it at least once in a campaign. As a GM, it’s easy to slip in a NPC teetering on the edge of rational thought. As a player, sometimes it’s less easy – but talk to your GM and give it a go.

If you have played crazy characters, I’d love to hear about them. What were they like? How did they come about? What guidelines did you use for bounding their nutty behavior? Leave me a comment below or drop me an e-mail at fitz(at)moebiusadventures(dot)com.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who has the power in a game?

May 31, 2010 in GMing by Fitz | 3 comments

Odd topic, but power is a funny thing. In real life, those who have it typically want more. Those without want some. And it’s not always what you think.

In a roleplaying game, you’d think the GM held most of the power. And to a point, you’re right. But without players, what good is a GM? Players hold the other half of the power in a campaign or one-shot adventure. It’s a give and take between both sides. Don’t kid yourself that there aren’t two sides to the game table though. However, they’re not always in direct opposition.

For me, it’s not (always) a competition between GM and player. Sure, sometimes it’s literally a competition such as a jousting tournament or a game of chance played in the game. But for the most part, the GM is there to keep the world in motion to give the players opportunities for action.

But I digress…

So obviously the GM has some power… but it’s spread thinly between NPCs, monsters, and plots afoot in the realm of his or her control. A fair GM doesn’t let the power of the dice corrupt him or her unfairly. A fudge here or there on behalf of the players is a choice GMs always have, but in the vast majority of cases I have to believe it’s not used against the players or player characters to hasten their demise. So in my view, no GM has absolute power over their domain if they’re playing fairly.

And the players have power to exercise on behalf of their in-game characters… Choices that may benefit the player or the group at large exist in great quantities usually. And it’s easy to see when players step out of bounds through metagaming or by doing something to harm another player, for the GM or other players may rise to the occasion and combat such inequities.

But in the best cases of gaming, it’s a symbiotic relationship between players and their GM. When the relationship becomes one-sided, it ceases to be fun for the other side and bad things may occur. Hard feelings, bad decisions, and things said in anger may result in the downfall of a group and the temporary or permanent harm to friendships between members.

Has anyone seen the demise of a gaming group like this? It’s not pretty.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

How do you make module-driven games seem less railroaded?

May 24, 2010 in Advice, GMing, Seeking Feedback by Fitz | No comments

Hi all…

Yes, it seems that nearly every time I post anything these days, it’s asking a question. But before I ask, let me provide some context…

We have a very small group (currently 2 or 3 players depending on the week and a GM) playing a D&D 3.5e adventure set in one of the Paizo Pathfinder adventures (Second Darkness). The GM (Mike) and I have been discussing the fact that, like every other module-driven adventure either of us has played or run, it seems very linear. And, dare I say it, a bit boring for those of us playing who prefer story and emotional depth over combat.

Sure there are a few mysteries left. We only play once a month or so and sometimes not even that, so getting through significant parts of the adventure is iffy at best. And it probably doesn’t help that the two PCs in our group that are supposed to know and like each other are drifting apart (but that’s a tale for another day), so that’s not helping us move forward much either.

But here’s the issue… if the GM lacks the time to spin off his own ideas to make the setting more lively and engaging for the PCs and the PCs can’t stay together, how do we make the game more enjoyable across the board?

I suspect that if Mike as GM can find some nuggets of creativity in the module to build on, that’s one way to do it. And as a player, I can try and invest myself more in the world as well – perhaps going so far as to define NPC “friends” he may have met during spelunking beneath the city, in the wilds, or while avoiding the less natural parts of town (he’s a druid who’s probably swinging from neutral good to true neutral soon after some experiences he’s had in the campaign).

What do you do, as a player or GM, to make campaigns based around pre-written modules seem more lively? Or what do you do to revive fading campaigns when the enthusiasm starts to die?

Mike and I are both curious what others who have faced similar issues have done to help the situation… And not just what worked, but what didn’t… So we don’t unwittingly step in land mines trying something that probably was a bad idea from the get-go.

Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. I’ll try and sum it up in a separate post so others can benefit from the combined wisdom.

Thanks!
–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RPG Blog Carnival: NPC Show and Tell…

April 28, 2010 in NPCs by Fitz | 1 comment

I’m coming late to the RPG Blog Carnival this month, but better late than never, right?

Superman II
Image via Wikipedia

NPCs are an area where I either go very deep or very shallow. For example, a common theme I have in running a game is putting an Inn/Tavern in every town and there always happens to be an old man or woman at the desk or available when someone rings the bell.

This old person inevitably was a) cranky, b) hard of hearing, and c) difficult to deal with. So whenever the PCs would try and find a room for the night, they’d have to verbally spar with the desk jockey.

Desk clerk (DC): “Eh?”
PC: “We’d like a room for the night.”
DC: “A broom for flight?”
PC: [speaking up] “A ROOM FOR THE NIGHT.”
DC: “You don’t have to yell… I’m not deaf you know… I have a couple of rooms with one bed in them, but all 5 of you might have to draw straws… or there’s the [mumbles] common room…”

Yes, I like to torment my players. It’s part of the fun of being a GM.

On the flip side of the coin are characters like Lady Dagor, the female knight in charge of the Order of St. Greggor – a group of knights seeking the destruction of all demons in the world of Immortals’ Wake.

In her case, I always had a mental image of Sarah Douglas as Ursa (Zod’s second in command) in Superman II, but a bit shorter and wearing a combination of chain and plate mail. She buries her contempt for civilians well, but holds them somewhere above pond scum in the order of things.

Dagor focuses on two things. Firstly, she studies all the battles between the knights of her order and the Changed demons who control raw elemental energies. She feels she has a better understanding of how her enemy operates than they do in many cases and far more knowledge than many of the organizations also studying the demons (including other church members, the House of the Magus (mages), and the Chasers). This feeling of superior knowledge is both a good and a bad thing.

Secondly, she focuses on strategies for capturing, testing, and killing demons. Using her knowledge of how they operate and many of their tactics, she finds weaknesses to exploit and is constantly instructing those under her command to test such weaknesses vigorously in the field.

Lady Dagor is a stern task master and a good soldier, but also knows how to play the political game. As the first woman in charge of the militant order of the Church of the Mother, she knows she is empowered to do just about anything in the name of the Church. But even with this knowledge, she obeys the letter of the law and will rarely break with church doctrine.

It was her laugh that I settled on first. A haughty, full-bodied laugh that has been practiced and perfected over the years to throw off allies and enemies alike. She has few friends, and only “befriends” people if it is politically or strategically necessary.

But at the bottom of this superiority complex and the haughtiness, she devoutly believes in the teachings of the Mother. What she is doing is right on every level and that gives her the strength to do what she must. Is she evil? Not from her perspective.  But from other people’s perspectives? Yeah, probably.

Some NPCs, like Athena from Zeus’s head, come fully formed in my mind when they appear. Others sneak up on me. And others just pop up like that damn innkeeper. “Eh?”

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What do you look for in a game setting? Part 2

April 27, 2010 in Inspiration, Seeking Feedback, World by Fitz | 2 comments

Hopefully you’ve enjoyed the two short samples of life in the world of Immortals’ Wake – part 1 and part 2 – culminating in the demon trial of the merchant Evani Georgia.

This world has a little bit of everything…

  • Coat of arms of {{ #if: Villejust (Essonne, Fr...

    Image via Wikipedia

    Controversial religious-based persecution? Check.

  • Traditional wizards and people with the ability to control raw elemental energy? Check.
  • Hired swords, thieves, knights for various causes, and nobility struggling with court intrigue? Check.
  • A combination of oral and written history viewed through the eyes of the people of the present day? Check.
  • Immortals seeking… peace, revenge, an end to their eternal suffering? Check.
  • A broad world waiting to be explored and filled in by GMs and players alike? Check.

As was discussed in a prior post, I’m seeking input on how to make settings such as those created for Immortals’ Wake accessible to gamers in such a way that it would benefit GMs and players as source material and yet provide enough flexibility that it’s not stifling.

Tourq and Adaen brought up some great things to consider, including:

  • Fear of the Unknown
  • Room for Conflict
  • Ease of Immersion
  • Hooks
  • Open Space

I think all of these are represented in some way or another in this setting.

As far as “Fear of the Unknown” goes… The impending arrival in the city of Belan’si of “The Nameless One” will introduce the players and GM to the raw power of the Immortals of Immortals’ Wake. In every campaign and session I have run where the players encountered these beings, there has been awe, fear, and change left in their wake – followed by the fear of knowing that a character has changed in some fundamental way and is now hunted by the very society they were living in.

For “Room for Conflict,” there’s plenty of that in the world. The mages are at odds with the church. The church is at odds with the “Changed” and even a bit in conflict with itself. The people are caught in the middle, with little safe ground to stand on when the crisis hits. And beyond that, there’s the typical thief vs. guard interplay, the tenuous balance of power among the nobles and their knightly agents… even a rival guild of thieves trying to make headway in the city.

“Ease of Immersion…” This one is tough. The only benefit here would be that many of the groups are loosely based on those in our own history. The history of the Church of the Mother is loosely aligned with that of the Catholic Church, with its militant push towards converting the infidels and seeking to control the hearts and minds of its people through the Inquisition. Nobility and knights are much like those encountered during the middle ages, with different families, power bases and ideals clashing regularly. Magic? Well, magic would be foreign to any setting…

There are many “Hooks” scattered throughout the setting – from strange artifacts left over from ancient wars to rumors of improprieties among noble families, from hidden agents of change within the Church to wizards seeking to control the demons themselves… There are many points that would serve to hook players and GMs into the world.

And “Open Space…” I have a crude map of the world that offers island kingdoms to explore, mysteries to investigate, and huge open spaces yearning to gain histories and inhabitants.

So I think all of these are covered in some way or another.

If you were a player or a GM wanting to know more about the world of Immortals’ Wake what would you look for first?

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Starting Over…

March 17, 2010 in Design, Playtesting, Rules, Seeking Feedback by Fitz | 6 comments

Just like the rest of life, sometimes it’s time for a do-over. Thus begins a new chapter in the life of Moebius Adventures (MARPG) games.

Dice for various games, especially for rolepla...
Image via Wikipedia

Here’s the scoop. We have a streamlined system. It needs to be tested seriously. So who better to take a look at some of the mechanics than… you! That’s right, it’s time YOU got into the act here.

First, I want to welcome you (back) into the fold. The next series of articles will focus on some core mechanics, character creation, and then how to apply those bits to various genres. After all, MARPG is a cross-genre, universal roleplaying game. Tough to tell that when all we’ve seen so far are examples for fantasy settings.

I WANT your feedback. If you think this sucks and is too difficult, let me know. I’m looking for frank opinions with suggestions on how to make things better. The goal here is to create a solid base mechanic for a variety of settings so gaming groups can pick up the system and play just as easily in a cyberpunk setting as they can in a low-magic fantasy setting. Or if they want to do epic space battles such as in Star Wars or Star Trek or make more intimate “cowboys in space” games like with Firefly, it moves quickly with them.

Like in all roleplaying games, your MARPG character is a set of properties – characteristic values (Mind, Body, Soul), derived characteristic values (Hit Points, Luck Points, Reality Check, and so on), and skills with ranks. All these values do is provide a framework for behaviors, abilities, and experience. They’re just numbers on a page. It’s up to the player and GM to bring the player (PC) and non-player characters (NPCs) represented by those numbers to life.

As a player or GM, in addition to a PC or NPC, you’ll need two d10s. We’re not talking huge sets of dice here.

The basic mechanic is the same for all skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat rolls. You have a target number you have to roll below with 2d10 and modifiers.

The target number comes from the character himself for most actions, with modifiers from the GM for things like weather, fatigue, item quality, etc. In the case of opposed actions, it becomes a battle between the quality of success or failure between opponents.

Bird tracks on a frozen lake
Image by Paul Williams (Iron Ammonite) via Flickr

For example, if a tracker is looking for animal signs and tracks in the woods, it’s a simple skill check. The GM may make the attempt more difficult or easier based on conditions such as how recent the tracks were made, if there was fresh snow, if snow or leaves covered the tracks, and so on.

Let’s say the Tracker has a Tracking skill of 3 ranks. Tracking relies on knowing what to look for and how perceptive the character is, so it’s a Mind-based skill. Let’s say the Tracker has a Mind of 7. By default, without any modifiers from the GM, the target number is 10.

To determine success or failure, you roll 2d10, add modifiers, and compare the total to the target.

In the case of the Tracker, let’s say he rolls a 13. He failed the attempt, so he’s unable to find his quarry.

Roll two 1′s and you have a critical success. Roll two 10′s and you have a critical failure. Compare the total to the target number to determine the Quality of Success (QoS) or Failure (QoF). If your total was above or below the target, your QoS (if below) or QoF (if above) is the difference between the target and the total. If your total is equal to the target, the GM can decide whether the act was directly opposed and it was a draw or if the act was unopposed and it was a success.

QoS = Target Number – Total Die Roll
QoF = Total Die Roll – Target Number

For the Tracker, his QoF was 3. He missed the target by 3 (Total Die Roll 12 – Target Number 10 = QoF 3).

Let’s say he rolled a 3 on 2d10. That would mean he succeeded in finding tracks. In that case, his QoS was 7. He made it by 7 (Target Number 10 – Total Die Roll 3 = QoS 7).

Now let’s say the Tracker is looking for someone deliberately trying to obscure signs of their passing. The Tracker’s opponent uses her Tracking skill at rank 4 and her Mind characteristic value of 5 for an unmodified Target Number of 9. The GM rolls 2d10 and gets a 5, for a QoS of 4. This makes the Tracker’s job harder.

The Tracker’s unmodified Target Number is 10. But since it’s opposed, the QoS becomes a modifier on the skill check making it more difficult. Now the Tracker’s Target Number is 6 (Target Number 10 – opponent QoS = 6). The Tracker would have to make a great roll to get a six or less.

* on the left: German Reitschwert, circa 1530,...
Image via Wikipedia

Let’s add another wrinkle. The Tracker finds the woman he’s been searching for in the woods and a battle begins. Each opponent has a sword and some ranks in the Swordsmanship skill.

The Tracker surprised his quarry and gets to attack first. His quarry can only Parry with her sword or Dodge to get out of the way. The Tracker’s Swords is at 4 ranks and his Body is a 5, for an unmodified Target of 9. His quarry has Swords at 6 ranks and a Body of 5 for an unmodified Target of 11. Both opponents roll 2d10.

The Tracker rolls a 5, for a QoS of 4 (Target Number 9 – Total Die Roll 5 = QoS 4). His quarry has a -4 modifier to her Target to make it a 7. The GM rolls a 9 for a QoF of 2 and the woman takes 2 points of damage…

This pattern of comparing QoS and QoF is repeated throughout the system now for skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat. One mechanic simplifies the rules greatly, while still providing the flexibility and uniqueness of character strengths and weaknesses to appear in sometimes unexpected ways.

In the next article, we’ll talk about character creation and the flexibility available for quickly creating PCs and NPCs for any campaign.

What do you think? Leave me comments here on the blog entry or send me e-mail directly at fitz (at) moebiusadventures (dot) com. I’m looking for negative and positive feedback here – so let ‘er rip!

–Fitz

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The CRPG mindset vs. RPGs – how do you defeat the greed?

February 21, 2010 in GMing, Seeking Feedback by Fitz | 6 comments

I suspect that we’ve all had that moment while gaming when our characters finished a battle or encounter and suddenly had a whole lot of loot to determine how to divvy up and carry out. It’s a gaming staple – doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re playing in a fantasy, modern, or futuristic setting. But it seems to happen a whole lot more while playing a fantasy RPG like D&D.

For some time now we’ve lived in a world where computer roleplaying games (CRPGs) have been around. I remember playing Bard’s Tale, Might and Magic, and the Gold Box Forgotten Realms computer games like Curse of the Azure Bonds to name a few. And from then to now, the general pattern is your character or party heads out to find bad guys to fight, you fight the bad guys, and then you collect the loot. You may not be able to haul it all away, so you leave useless items behind and take the good stuff until you can sell it.

Most of those games came out while I was in high school or in college initially. And I have to admit I played the heck out of them and enjoyed myself quite a bit.

But by that point I had already been playing RPGs (especially Dungeons and Dragons, James Bond, and a few other games) for a good 3-5 years. In that few years, I went from being the treasure hoarding munchkin to GMing and trying to achieve some kind of game balance. Though it was fun to kill the monster and take the loot, that wasn’t necessarily the goal any more by the time I left that period of my life.

And yes, we did all the munchkin things you’d expect. It was 1st edition D&D so we were kicking butt and taking names, even going so far as fighting Tiamat in her lair. (And it’s been asked, so I’ll answer here – no, I don’t recall if it was on her home plane or the prime material plane, but we did it nonetheless and got hoards of loot as a result.) We went up against the forces of Orcus. Did we die? Not usually – the GM and the mood at the time typically gave us enough room to survive. Was it Monty Haul? Of course.

That however was a phase. It lasted a while and then we got tired of simply collecting every coin, scroll, potion, sword, wand, etc. just because it was there.

Now if you look at CRPGs you see the same thing happening over and over because there’s no GM there to prevent it. We (yes, I’m just as guilty) stuff our pockets, backpacks, and saddlebags with everything we can get our hands on that is of value and leave the rest. The good thing is that we do run out of room so there has to be a bit of prioritization typically. The bad thing is that typically we have an infinite amount of time to gather, sort, and figure out where to stash everything.

Because I and many other gamers of our generation moved from traditional pen-and-paper RPGs to CRPGs, we’re less apt to take a CRPG approach to our RPGs.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen others that have gone the other way – from computer to game table – that just don’t get that you can’t haul off the kitchen sink and curtains or the other inhabitants of a particular city might take it the wrong way. Maybe you can do that in a dungeon after you’ve cleaned it out – there’s a certain amount of time you have there. But not every situation has the benefit of time.

Have other GMs and groups run into this bizarre trend? If so, have you solved it? And if you solved it, how did you solve it? We’ve tried lots of things, but logic doesn’t seem to work in this case. Or perhaps we just haven’t provided the right object lesson… I don’t know.

Thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

« Older entries