Rules

You are currently browsing articles tagged Rules.

Welcome back!

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.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi all…

{{en|}}
Image via Wikipedia

Chuck and Mike have thrown a few good comments my way that I’ve been pondering a bit since my last Starting Over… article, so I thought I’d address them before moving on…

A couple of things came to light, including:

  • The need for a more static or passive defense number instead of an always active defense.
  • Damage and how armor affects it needs some work

Fair enough on both parts. Since we’re going for light, quick, and playable, we want something straightforward to use and evidently the whole Quality of Success vs. Quality of Failure argument doesn’t hold much water (or holds water, but seems to be full of holes like a sieve)…

So to answer both questions a bit, it comes down to something like the old Armor Class idea for D&D. Not only does the armor have a certain value, but the PC‘s ability to move and dodge out of the way comes into play as well.

Chuck, you mentioned a static defense of something like (Attribute + Skill)/2.

How about if I counter the argument and say that it’s (Body + Armor’s Absorption Rate)/2. For example, a Chain suit has an AR of 6, vs. Leather armor has an AR of 3. Armor in the MARPG system is broken into a couple of broad categories – how much damage can it absorb from a single blow before you go through to hit points (HP) and how many total points of damage the armor can take before it’s useless.

If a character with a Body of 8 is wearing Chain, it would deflect (8 + 6) / 2 = 7 points of damage by default. If the same character is wearing Leather, it would deflect (8 + 3) / 2 = 5.5 = 6 (always round up) points of damage.

That doesn’t seem right, does it?

Though a character with less Body would get hurt more quickly, even in Chain. Let’s take a character with a Body of 4. In Chain, he’d deflect (4 + 6) / 2 = 5 points and in Leather he’d deflect (4 + 3) / 2 = 3.5 = 4 points. Obviously the wimpier character would die more quickly.

The question then becomes a matter of where does the damage go… If the armor, say Chain, can absorb 48 points of damage 6 points at a time, an opponent swinging a mean axe doing 10 points a swing will do 6 points to armor each hit and 4 points to Hit Points. Ouch. It gets worse for the poor slob in Leather (absorption rate of 3) with the lower Body score. It would be 3 points going to armor and the remaining 7 going to HP. He wouldn’t be long for this world.

Should combat be this vicious? I tend to think yes. It makes characters think twice about getting into combat without preparation and backup.

And characters can also actively parry with a weapon or shield to avoid damage all together. For example, if our buff Chain-mail wearing character has a long sword and a shield, he can attack with the long sword and parry with the shield doing an opposed roll.

Ok, this is starting to sound better. Active vs. Passive Defense. Coolio.

Thoughts? Ideas?

–Fitz

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: , , , , , , , ,

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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hey there…

Yes, Moebius Adventures is still alive. No, I haven’t faded into the great beyond with the Maker and the Mother. Well, maybe just a bit. It’s been one of those crazy things. Started a new job in June 2009 and have been running like a madman ever since.

Thankfully, I have a monthly D&D 3.5e game to look forward to this weekend. We’re playing one of the Pathfinder modules and it’s been interesting so far. Plus, a good friend of mine who recently moved here from California is joining us finally so I’m looking forward to gaming with him for the first time in about 20 years.

As for the Moebius Adventures system itself, I’ve still got a massive revamp to write up. Have some notes and will be looking for playtesters soon. If there are any takers, let me know. It’s a universal system, but I’ll be kicking it back off with a low fantasy adventure again.

After that, I just need to get my arse in gear and get writing, revamping, and testing.

So I hope all is well in the land of the living. I hope to join y’all soon. :)

–Fitz

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: , , , , , ,

Sorry I’ve been a bit lacking in the posts arena lately. I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking about how to move forward.

Question MarksWith the great, constructive feedback from the October 2009 playtest session of the Moebius Adventures system, it became painfully clear it was time to rethink things. Each player at that session had constructive criticisms of various aspects of the rules, from character generation and presentation to skill resolution and combat. Though we had a good time despite the rules, I was left wondering about the future of the game.

Moebius Adventures was born in the mid-1990s when a friend (Sean Bindel) and I took a hard look at the games we’d been playing.

Like many gamers, we’d played with a number of systems in college and before. We had a great time with a campaign set based loosely on the Temple of Elemental Evil from TSR, but we used the Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game as our system. Add in some serious time playing the d6 Star Wars RPG, Call of Cthulhu, Mechwarrior, and even a little Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition, and that about summed it up. And after college, we were playing in a Vampire: The Masquerade game and decided we wanted to get back to the fantasy roots we both started with.

The Moebius Adventures system started out as an exercise in discovering what qualities we wanted to see in a RPG rules system. We modeled it a bit after the Palladium FRPG (1st edition) and Dungeons & Dragons and set to work adding our own spin. The result was first published in 1997 and then in revised form in 2007. And it was the edition from 2007 that we playtested in October of this year.

Though painful, I would say it was incredibly valuable to have seen the game through fresh eyes with this recent playtest session. Almost immediately after, I started working on a slimmed down set of rules that would provide (1) quick character creation, (2) quicker skill and combat resolution, and (3) enough freedom to do all that I was looking at for a cross-genre universal system.

I believe I’ve met that goal and hope to do some playtesting in the next few months as I get more details written up and considered.

My problem now is deciding what to do about this predicament. I have a ton of ideas for free-form magic, super-hero abilities, as well as ways to integrate technology for modern and futuristic settings. And I have three entire settings from which to pull potential setting or adventure products from. But without a simple, consistent, and open system to use, I’m at a bit of an impasse. In my mind, I can’t create system-less modules or settings without having some way of modeling a consistent way to describe NPCs, monsters, items, and so on.

Am I simply over-thinking this? Obviously there are many companies and writers coming up with great RPG materials and I’m not the only one who’s run into this.

Can anyone point out some companies that are doing this already and how they’ve overcome this hurdle (that’s most likely entirely in my head)? Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Kind of Magic…

Hi there…

No matter what form the magic takes – arcane, divine, or raw natural magic – it is a combination of concentration, ritual, and belief. Ritual components can be anything from gestures and words to actual physical or even spiritual elements. Physical components may even be tied to beliefs or holy symbols as opposed to simple material components like ash, gems, and so on.

Wizard with Staff (from Clipart.com)But all magic in Moebius Adventures boils down to three key bits – Intent, Components, and Concentration. As such, magic is VERY flexible.

Spell creation and research consists of having a conversation with your GM (or if you’re the GM, you can chat with your players or mutter quietly to yourself) about a few things:

  1. Does the spell come from an existing magical philosophy?
  2. What results are expected or what’s the intent of the spell?
  3. What are the specific components for the spell? Some of these may be dictated by the school of wizardry or magical philosophy chosen.
  4. And what level will the spell be? Not all realms of wizardry require levels, so this may be moot.

Let’s contemplate an example…

Example 1: “Flickum Bickus”

So let’s say that a wizard wants to create a simple spell to light a small fire when flint and tinder aren’t available. Think of Harry Dresden from The Dresden Files using his spell “Flickum Bickus” to light a candle.

This would fall pretty squarely into Lesser Wizardry. Lesser Wizardry deals with small magics and this would qualify as a small utility spell.

Just to verify that, we take a look at the description of Lesser Wizardry. Lesser Wizardry philosophy is as follows:

“The energy exists around us, but never use more than you need. Minimalist magic created to test the waters of magic without annoying any possible powers that be. That was the beginning – and now it’s the major tenet of Lesser Wizardry. Nobody ever dies from or gets hurt by a Lesser Wizardry spell. These are the mundane useful mini-spells created by wizards through the ages to help them get through their day – mark a page, clean a stain, and so on.”

The results are also pretty self explanatory. The wizard wants to light a small combustible material as if it had been lit in a usual physical manner. Simple enough.

And for the spell components, as for all Lesser Wizardry spells, all that’s needed are “mystic words.” In this case, the name of the spell “Flickum Bickus” can actually become the spell’s component as a verbal component.

As far as the spell “level”, this is a pretty simple spell with a very small focus. The GM would most likely slot this as a first level Lesser Wizardry spell.

And voila, the player has created a new handy spell for use in and out of the lab.

Example 2: “Make Me Rich!”

Now let’s do a more complicated spell. For instance, let’s say that a wizard is getting greedy and wants to make himself rich. This is pretty vague, so we clarify a bit to say that he wants to attract wealth like flies to honey. This is still pretty vague and could fall into a number of categories…

If the wizard is very literal minded, they might use Runic Magic to create a runic phrase “Attract Wealth.” Unfortunately “wealth” is a very subjective term. If there were a “money” rune, the wizard would be able to create a runic symbol that would work as a money magnet, attracting coins into the spell’s area of influence.

A better fit might be Superstitious Magic. At a high level, Superstitious Magic preys on people’s beliefs to create magical effects. This might be likened to voodoo or certain forms of witchcraft. If the wizard is superstitious, he or she might believe that the powers that be would grant them wealth if the spell was cast.

This spell would only affect the target. And Superstitious Magic spells require a physical component as a focus that is sometimes consumed by the spell and a mystic ritual, typically involving some verbal element.

In this case, the wizard might bind his own hair around a gold coin, grip it in his hand, stare into a candle and call upon his ancestors to grant himself wealth. “Great ancestors I invoke thee to grant me this, grant my wish and fill my purse, enough to do my deeds, grant my wish and I will remember thee…”

As a GM, I would take this as a vague wish to powers beyond the wizard’s real control, unlike using a bit of will to light a flame. These powers may hear the wizard’s plea, yet choose to fulfill their supposed “obligation” in unusual ways. Perhaps the wizard will suddenly have a group of chickens appear in his yard overnight. The wizard could sell the chickens or keep them and sell the eggs, thus filling his purse. Or perhaps it might be a literal translation and some passer-by might press a coin into his hands while walking city streets. Or perhaps there would be consequences to fulfilling the request – finding a full purse left behind by someone seems fortuitous until you are pointed at as the thief who stole the purse in the first place and abandoned it where someone else might take the fall…

Conclusions

As you can see, there’s a wide range of possibilities here. One of the things I hope to do with the Moebius Adventures magic rules is to allow enough flexibility that players and GMs can roll their own magic systems. You like the “colors” magic in Brandon Sanderson‘s Warbreaker novel? Go with that. You want to do some Robert Jordan Wheel of Time weaving? Go for it. The sky’s the limit.

Ultimately the GM will have the power to veto or control some of the spell effects, as I’ve described a bit in the second example. But the freedom is there for creative gamers to come up with VERY interesting systems of magic.

There are twelve… Yes, twelve… schools of magic I want to cover in a variety of supplements. And then there’s Divine magic and its offshoots for various faiths and belief systems.

I can hardly wait to see what else folks come up with.

What do YOU think? Let me know what types of wizardry you’d like to see and I’ll try and c0me up with some ways that you might define them for your own Moebius Adventures game.

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

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