I write a lot of military/historical games - the In Harm's Way series is up to five games now, with a sixth in development. A central focus of these games for characters is rank. None of the games I write have XPs, character advancement being taken care of by aging, but the IHW games have a mechanic which is tied not to skill increases but to rank increase.
The mechanic is the Notice mechanic. PCs advance in rank by accumulating Notice. Notice is awarded for doing things that get you *noticed*, like shooting down enemy planes, or boarding an enemy Frigate, or taking a heavily defended position. The more spectacular the feat, the higher the award.
Notice is awarded in character by the commanding officer via "I wrote you up in the dispatches", or a medal, or maybe just an "attaboy". Once the PC has accumulated enough Notice, he gets promoted. Of course, if you screw up, you can get negative notice, also given in-character.
In the games set earlier in history, characters start with an initial award of points called Interest. This is to simulate the political pull of the character's family. It is re-awarded at each rank, though it becomes a diminishing relative amount as the point totals needed to advance continuously rise with each rank. Games set more recently dispense with this Influence, as the military becomes more of a meritocracy.
Why award the points in-character? I just like tying it all into the game. Besides, if the CO isn't aware of the feat, no points are awarded - after all, it signifies doing something that your CO notices, that differentiates you from the crowd. It's fitting to award it in character. The CO doesn't have to be there, he just has to be aware of it. Also your CO gets a fraction of your points. Anything you do reflects on him too! If your CO is another PC, way cool!
Speaking of which, in games I have run using this mechanic, the players never seem to resent the success of their fellow players. Many times PCs end up in command of their fellow PCs, and it's all cool. The competition is fair and open, and that seems to make a difference - it isn't like the players bought their command. They won it.
-clash
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
From OHMAS: The Savant
From On Her Majesty's Arcane Service
In honor of Zach of RPG Blog II putting OHMAS on his Zack's Dozen hotlist, I present the Savant, a character type or Path of Power from OHMAS.
The Savant
The Savant is a person of knowledge, who approaches the arcane by means of science.
The Savant is not sceptical, but is both deeply rational and something of a mystic, reading the tracks of magic on the face of nature. The Savant has a deep seated belief in both God and Magic, which allows the Savant to apply the tools of science to the purpose of magic.
Languages
A Savant is first and foremost a highly educated person. In addition to their normal skills, Savants gain a mastery in Linguistics, with a fluency in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. They gain this Mastery over the course of their education, gaining a rank in Linguistics every three years - Latin at the age of 10, Greek at 13, Hebrew at 16, and the other languages at 19 snd 22. The Savant may take other ranks of Linguistics by year, as he would any normal skill.
Pre-requisites
Savants must be first an Apprentice Scholar and then a Proto-Academic, though they do not have to pay for the education if their family Lifestyle is too low, as their intelligence would be noticed and funding made available. Savants must have an INT of at least 11 to qualify.
Warding
Savants can Ward an area from intrusion, both material and spiritual. An area Warded by a Savant cannot be scryed, spied upon, or entered by anyone not inside the wards when the Savant sets them out. The Wards themselves are at least three objects of magical and/or mystical power physically placed by the Savant, defining the periphery of the Warded area - three wards defining a triangle, four defining a quadrilateral, etc. On a successful Warding roll, the Wards are activated, one success indicating three Wards activated, with one more Ward activated per success after that.
Astrology
Once per day, the Savant may read the day’s Astrological chart. On a successful Astrology roll, the player may make one roll per success on the the Astrology Table below. The player determines which column(s) to roll on. The word indicated should be treated as a temporary Traits which is not part of the savant’s personality, but part of the environment, and available to whoever the Savant tells them to. Traits give a bonus to any other action when used, so long as the Trait could believably help. Each Trait point used adds bonus die to the roll. Traits are a resource which are used up in play.
The Astrology Table
Luna rules Emotion
Mercury rules Reason
Venus rules Romance
Mars rules Conflict
Jupiter rules Fortune
Saturn rules Order
Luna Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn
1-2 Fear Deliberation Flirtation Trickery Secrecy Boundaries
3-4 Hesitance Inspiration Subversion Might Timing Laws
5-6 Horror Analysis Sex Indirect Boldness Customs
7-8 Anger Deduction Seduction Flanking Lavishness Families
9-10 Doubt Mystification Titillation Position Prudence Organizations
11-12 Affection Appreciation Fascination Intimidation Investment Channels
13-14 Lust Deceit Ingratiation Brutality Trust Ethics
15-16 Confidence Misdirection Sympathy Glory Miserliness Morals
17-18 Longing Compromise Intrigue Caution Distrust Patterns
19-20 Joy Persuasion Beauty Opportunity Openness Connections
Note: the Savant may roll several times on one column.
Communion
The Savant can commune with spirits. The particular device used could be anything - a mirror in the proper place tilted at the proper angle; the severed head of an innocent set in a silver cage of peculiar and particular design; a complex armature which holds a pen, with which the Savant can write and the spirit write back so long as the Savant holds the pen, etc. The player and GM must agree to the device used, noting restrictions placed on the communication by the device’s nature.
The spirits communing are not under the control of the savant in any way, and may lie or not, or totally ignore the Savant’s questions as they choose. As the Savant gains skill in Communion, however, she is better able to filter out extraneous chatter and malicious lies. on a Communion check, the more successes rolled, the more trustworthy and pertinent the information is.
Arcane Geometry
Arcane Geometry is the science of what would now be called non-Euclidean Geometry and its applications in the real world. Folds and tunnels in space, pocket universes, fairy hills, containers and domiciles with more volume on the inside than on the outside - these can be detected, changed, and created through application of Arcane Geometry. The savant describes what he is attempting before the skill check
Creating a pocket:
The creator may vary space, time, and condition within the pocket, both at the time of creation and afterward. With patience, as pockets may only be changed yearly, a small pocket may be enlarged, time ratios changed, and conditions added. On a successful arcane Geometry skill check, each success may be applied to one of these variables.
Varying Space in the Pocket
Each success applied to space makes the pocket larger. For the first success, a pocket of .1 cubic feet in volume - large enough to tuck in a scroll or book - is created. Each further success extends the space as follows:
10 cu. ft. - big enough for a crouching Human, 1000 cu. ft.- a 10' X 10' X 10' room, 100,000 cu ft.- a 100' X 100' X 100' cube, etc. The actual contours of the pocket may vary according to the whims of the creator.
Varying Time in the Pocket
Time ratios are expressed as a relationship of time in our world to time in the pocket - X:Y (X to Y) - where the first element (X) is time in our world, and the second element (Y) is time in the pocket. A ratio of 2:1, for example, would mean one hour (day, week) spent in the pocket will equal two hours (days, weeks) spent in our world. A ratio of 1:2, for example, would mean two hours (days, weeks) spent in the pocket will equal one hours (day, week) spent in our world.
At the pocket's creation, the direction of the ratio must be stated as being Fast or Slow. Fast pockets have a ratio where the first number is one, and the second number is always greater than one. For example, 1:3. Time in Fast pockets is always faster than time in our world. Slow pockets have a ratio where the first number is always greater than one, and the second number is one. For example, 3:1. Time in Slow pockets is always slower than time in our world.
Increasing Time Ratios
Each success applied to time increases the ratio of time in the pocket as compared to our world. Without applying any successes to time, the ratio of time in the pocket to time in our world is 1:1 (one to one). One success applied to time will increase the ratio to 2:1 or 1:2. Each success applied to time will increase this ratio by one - i.e. two successes applied will increase the ratio by two, a 1:1 ratio becoming 3:1. Increasing a pocket's time ratio can be done once every ten years of our world's time. When increasing time ratios, the number increased in Fast pockets is always the second number, while in Slow pockets, the number increased is always the first.
Varying Conditions in the Pocket
Conditions within the pocket can be varied as well. Without putting successes into conditions, pockets are featureless, filled with fresh, breathable air, lightless, colorless, irregular, and pliable - pliable meaning the walls are soft and can be manipulated to an extend so long as the total volume of the pocket remains the same. Each success put into conditions can be allocated to change a condition of the pocket. These conditions include, but are not limited to light, walls (including floors and ceilings), water, vegetation, animals, structure/shape, and the like.
Each success put into a specific condition will increase the complexity and/or realism of the condition. A single success put into vegetation for example would give a single plant, perhaps a giant pumpkin vine, with the pumpkins carvable into houses. Five successes might give a pocket a vegetative variety and realism equivalent to the same area of our earth. A single success given to light might give a vague, sourceless light, whereas five successes might give a sun in the sky and light like a sunny day at noon, or three moons and innumerable stars giving light enough to read by. Conditions in the pocket can be whatever the creator can imagine, and are not limited by our world's constraints. Anything of the pocket, including items constructed of materials in the pocket - like a box carved from the ivory of a pocket creature - belongs to the pocket, and will dissolve to nothing instantly as soon as it is removed from the pocket.
Pocket Entrances.
Normally, pocket entrances are almost invisible "seams" in reality which can be opened up with the hands, simple tools, and/or devices designed for that puropose. The creator will always see his own entrances plainly, while pocket entrances created by others will need a single success on an Arcane Geometry skill check. It requires a slight effort to hold the entrance open, and the entrance will close again if released. A framework can be constructed of materials from our world to hold an entrance semi-permanently open like a doorway. If the framework is removed, the entrance will close. Actual doors can be hung on this framework, allowing access at any time.
A second entrance to a pocket can be constructed from within the pocket to a place well known to the creator. This creates a tunnel, with the entrances separated by an arbitrary distance in our world not at all related to distance in the pocket. To construct an additional entrance, five successes must be made on an Arcane Geometry skill check from within the pocket. An emergency entrance can be created from within a pocket with a single success on an Arcane Geometry skill check, but this entrance will disappear within five minutes from the time it was last used, and opens to the same general area as the original pocket entrance.
Other Properties of Pocket Creation
Pockets can be created within other pockets. Pockets can be created within items, or creatures. Pockets created within some item or creature carried into another pocket will be accessible from within the other pocket. Use stabilizes pockets. Pockets will disappear if not used by a person within a year as measured within the pocket. Light, food, and water must be brought into a pocket if the pocket itself does not supply it.
Savant Profession
Person using mundane means to control magical effect
Savants Gain:
+3 Int
+1 END
Linguistics +5
Prerequisites: Apprentice Scholar and Proto-Academic, INT 11+
Waiver Roll: N/A
Base Lifestyle: Upper Middle Class
Skills available: Warding, Astrology, Communion, Arcane Geometry, Linguistics, Analysis, Astronomy, Course, Overdo, Operate, Mechanics, Mathematics, Evaluate, Focus, History, Research, Instruct, Meditation
-clash
In honor of Zach of RPG Blog II putting OHMAS on his Zack's Dozen hotlist, I present the Savant, a character type or Path of Power from OHMAS.
The Savant
The Savant is a person of knowledge, who approaches the arcane by means of science.
The Savant is not sceptical, but is both deeply rational and something of a mystic, reading the tracks of magic on the face of nature. The Savant has a deep seated belief in both God and Magic, which allows the Savant to apply the tools of science to the purpose of magic.
Languages
A Savant is first and foremost a highly educated person. In addition to their normal skills, Savants gain a mastery in Linguistics, with a fluency in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. They gain this Mastery over the course of their education, gaining a rank in Linguistics every three years - Latin at the age of 10, Greek at 13, Hebrew at 16, and the other languages at 19 snd 22. The Savant may take other ranks of Linguistics by year, as he would any normal skill.
Pre-requisites
Savants must be first an Apprentice Scholar and then a Proto-Academic, though they do not have to pay for the education if their family Lifestyle is too low, as their intelligence would be noticed and funding made available. Savants must have an INT of at least 11 to qualify.
Warding
Savants can Ward an area from intrusion, both material and spiritual. An area Warded by a Savant cannot be scryed, spied upon, or entered by anyone not inside the wards when the Savant sets them out. The Wards themselves are at least three objects of magical and/or mystical power physically placed by the Savant, defining the periphery of the Warded area - three wards defining a triangle, four defining a quadrilateral, etc. On a successful Warding roll, the Wards are activated, one success indicating three Wards activated, with one more Ward activated per success after that.
Astrology
Once per day, the Savant may read the day’s Astrological chart. On a successful Astrology roll, the player may make one roll per success on the the Astrology Table below. The player determines which column(s) to roll on. The word indicated should be treated as a temporary Traits which is not part of the savant’s personality, but part of the environment, and available to whoever the Savant tells them to. Traits give a bonus to any other action when used, so long as the Trait could believably help. Each Trait point used adds bonus die to the roll. Traits are a resource which are used up in play.
The Astrology Table
Luna rules Emotion
Mercury rules Reason
Venus rules Romance
Mars rules Conflict
Jupiter rules Fortune
Saturn rules Order
Luna Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn
1-2 Fear Deliberation Flirtation Trickery Secrecy Boundaries
3-4 Hesitance Inspiration Subversion Might Timing Laws
5-6 Horror Analysis Sex Indirect Boldness Customs
7-8 Anger Deduction Seduction Flanking Lavishness Families
9-10 Doubt Mystification Titillation Position Prudence Organizations
11-12 Affection Appreciation Fascination Intimidation Investment Channels
13-14 Lust Deceit Ingratiation Brutality Trust Ethics
15-16 Confidence Misdirection Sympathy Glory Miserliness Morals
17-18 Longing Compromise Intrigue Caution Distrust Patterns
19-20 Joy Persuasion Beauty Opportunity Openness Connections
Note: the Savant may roll several times on one column.
Communion
The Savant can commune with spirits. The particular device used could be anything - a mirror in the proper place tilted at the proper angle; the severed head of an innocent set in a silver cage of peculiar and particular design; a complex armature which holds a pen, with which the Savant can write and the spirit write back so long as the Savant holds the pen, etc. The player and GM must agree to the device used, noting restrictions placed on the communication by the device’s nature.
The spirits communing are not under the control of the savant in any way, and may lie or not, or totally ignore the Savant’s questions as they choose. As the Savant gains skill in Communion, however, she is better able to filter out extraneous chatter and malicious lies. on a Communion check, the more successes rolled, the more trustworthy and pertinent the information is.
Arcane Geometry
Arcane Geometry is the science of what would now be called non-Euclidean Geometry and its applications in the real world. Folds and tunnels in space, pocket universes, fairy hills, containers and domiciles with more volume on the inside than on the outside - these can be detected, changed, and created through application of Arcane Geometry. The savant describes what he is attempting before the skill check
Creating a pocket:
The creator may vary space, time, and condition within the pocket, both at the time of creation and afterward. With patience, as pockets may only be changed yearly, a small pocket may be enlarged, time ratios changed, and conditions added. On a successful arcane Geometry skill check, each success may be applied to one of these variables.
Varying Space in the Pocket
Each success applied to space makes the pocket larger. For the first success, a pocket of .1 cubic feet in volume - large enough to tuck in a scroll or book - is created. Each further success extends the space as follows:
10 cu. ft. - big enough for a crouching Human, 1000 cu. ft.- a 10' X 10' X 10' room, 100,000 cu ft.- a 100' X 100' X 100' cube, etc. The actual contours of the pocket may vary according to the whims of the creator.
Varying Time in the Pocket
Time ratios are expressed as a relationship of time in our world to time in the pocket - X:Y (X to Y) - where the first element (X) is time in our world, and the second element (Y) is time in the pocket. A ratio of 2:1, for example, would mean one hour (day, week) spent in the pocket will equal two hours (days, weeks) spent in our world. A ratio of 1:2, for example, would mean two hours (days, weeks) spent in the pocket will equal one hours (day, week) spent in our world.
At the pocket's creation, the direction of the ratio must be stated as being Fast or Slow. Fast pockets have a ratio where the first number is one, and the second number is always greater than one. For example, 1:3. Time in Fast pockets is always faster than time in our world. Slow pockets have a ratio where the first number is always greater than one, and the second number is one. For example, 3:1. Time in Slow pockets is always slower than time in our world.
Increasing Time Ratios
Each success applied to time increases the ratio of time in the pocket as compared to our world. Without applying any successes to time, the ratio of time in the pocket to time in our world is 1:1 (one to one). One success applied to time will increase the ratio to 2:1 or 1:2. Each success applied to time will increase this ratio by one - i.e. two successes applied will increase the ratio by two, a 1:1 ratio becoming 3:1. Increasing a pocket's time ratio can be done once every ten years of our world's time. When increasing time ratios, the number increased in Fast pockets is always the second number, while in Slow pockets, the number increased is always the first.
Varying Conditions in the Pocket
Conditions within the pocket can be varied as well. Without putting successes into conditions, pockets are featureless, filled with fresh, breathable air, lightless, colorless, irregular, and pliable - pliable meaning the walls are soft and can be manipulated to an extend so long as the total volume of the pocket remains the same. Each success put into conditions can be allocated to change a condition of the pocket. These conditions include, but are not limited to light, walls (including floors and ceilings), water, vegetation, animals, structure/shape, and the like.
Each success put into a specific condition will increase the complexity and/or realism of the condition. A single success put into vegetation for example would give a single plant, perhaps a giant pumpkin vine, with the pumpkins carvable into houses. Five successes might give a pocket a vegetative variety and realism equivalent to the same area of our earth. A single success given to light might give a vague, sourceless light, whereas five successes might give a sun in the sky and light like a sunny day at noon, or three moons and innumerable stars giving light enough to read by. Conditions in the pocket can be whatever the creator can imagine, and are not limited by our world's constraints. Anything of the pocket, including items constructed of materials in the pocket - like a box carved from the ivory of a pocket creature - belongs to the pocket, and will dissolve to nothing instantly as soon as it is removed from the pocket.
Pocket Entrances.
Normally, pocket entrances are almost invisible "seams" in reality which can be opened up with the hands, simple tools, and/or devices designed for that puropose. The creator will always see his own entrances plainly, while pocket entrances created by others will need a single success on an Arcane Geometry skill check. It requires a slight effort to hold the entrance open, and the entrance will close again if released. A framework can be constructed of materials from our world to hold an entrance semi-permanently open like a doorway. If the framework is removed, the entrance will close. Actual doors can be hung on this framework, allowing access at any time.
A second entrance to a pocket can be constructed from within the pocket to a place well known to the creator. This creates a tunnel, with the entrances separated by an arbitrary distance in our world not at all related to distance in the pocket. To construct an additional entrance, five successes must be made on an Arcane Geometry skill check from within the pocket. An emergency entrance can be created from within a pocket with a single success on an Arcane Geometry skill check, but this entrance will disappear within five minutes from the time it was last used, and opens to the same general area as the original pocket entrance.
Other Properties of Pocket Creation
Pockets can be created within other pockets. Pockets can be created within items, or creatures. Pockets created within some item or creature carried into another pocket will be accessible from within the other pocket. Use stabilizes pockets. Pockets will disappear if not used by a person within a year as measured within the pocket. Light, food, and water must be brought into a pocket if the pocket itself does not supply it.
Savant Profession
Person using mundane means to control magical effect
Savants Gain:
+3 Int
+1 END
Linguistics +5
Prerequisites: Apprentice Scholar and Proto-Academic, INT 11+
Waiver Roll: N/A
Base Lifestyle: Upper Middle Class
Skills available: Warding, Astrology, Communion, Arcane Geometry, Linguistics, Analysis, Astronomy, Course, Overdo, Operate, Mechanics, Mathematics, Evaluate, Focus, History, Research, Instruct, Meditation
-clash
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Who do you design for?
Well, I mean who dictates your designs? S. John Ross once told me that if you design to limit abuse of your system, you are designing to limit use of your system. It's something which is not as intuitive as it seems. Putting in a rule which could be abused requires trust in your players. If you know your players, this works uniformly well. A GM knows her players. It is another thing entirely to publish a ruleset with rules which could be abused. A published game designer does not know who will be playing games with his rules. The trust must be blind.
Do game groups merit blind trust? I don't know. I don't know if I merit blind trust. Thing is, I want folks to have the best possible experience they can, and when a good GM and good players get together with trust, it's a beautiful thing to see. I decided some time ago to design for the good players - the ones who see how a rule could be exploited and decide not to. I expect them to use the rule to do cool stuff, not screw with it.
Jesus said "The poor will always be with us." I feel the same way about bad players. If I design for bad players, I limit the enjoyment good players get from my games, and I would rather allow the bad players the ability to push things too far. I put my trust in the groups, and hope they don't disappoint me.
-clash
Do game groups merit blind trust? I don't know. I don't know if I merit blind trust. Thing is, I want folks to have the best possible experience they can, and when a good GM and good players get together with trust, it's a beautiful thing to see. I decided some time ago to design for the good players - the ones who see how a rule could be exploited and decide not to. I expect them to use the rule to do cool stuff, not screw with it.
Jesus said "The poor will always be with us." I feel the same way about bad players. If I design for bad players, I limit the enjoyment good players get from my games, and I would rather allow the bad players the ability to push things too far. I put my trust in the groups, and hope they don't disappoint me.
-clash
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Gaming in the RAW
When I came into RPG gaming, the default ideal was that the GM customized the system and created the setting to suit the group. I was 21 in 1978, with a long history of playing wargames. I was used to modding and kitbashing, though those terms may be later than the practice. I bought blank counters and created my own units, re-wrote rulesets, and created my own maps on big sheets of matting bought at art stores. Coming into RPGs, I did the same thing. Before I ever played an RPG game, I was going through the ruleset, discarding, adding, and modding. I played exactly one game before forming my own group as GM, because I knew that was the part I wanted to play.
Somewhere in those long years, things changed drastically. Using commercially produced settings and adventures became the default. I was going along in the old way, and only noticed it when new players joined the group. I bought a few adventures - modules people called 'em for no reason I could see, as they weren't modular at all - and maybe used a bit or two from them. I bought the old Greyhawk campaign, and never used it at all. More and more games were coming out with default settings as opposed to the old idea of implied setting. Meanwhile my own games were moving very far indeed from the games as depicted in the rulebooks. I added rules from this or that game, changed character generation completely, dropped lots of rules that were cumbersome for me in play. The results would not be recognizable to anyone who played those games in any other group.
Currently, there is a fetish about playing games in the RAW - that is, Rules As Written. Changing rules, kitbashing, modding are all verboten. This is, in my opinion, just wrong. It's an abdication of the rights of the group to the rights of the designer, even if the designer intends nothing of the sort. It's passive - insidiously passive. I don't like it, and think it's bad for the hobby. Groups should be pushing their own agendas, and so should individuals. Leaving everything on the designer level, as RAW does, turns groups from participants into consumers.
The only time I can see as justification for RAW is in playtest, and even then the playtesters, when they meet with problems, should be willing and able to get around the problem in play before feeding back the problem and their own solution they used in play.
Anyway, as always, my opinion.
-calsh
Somewhere in those long years, things changed drastically. Using commercially produced settings and adventures became the default. I was going along in the old way, and only noticed it when new players joined the group. I bought a few adventures - modules people called 'em for no reason I could see, as they weren't modular at all - and maybe used a bit or two from them. I bought the old Greyhawk campaign, and never used it at all. More and more games were coming out with default settings as opposed to the old idea of implied setting. Meanwhile my own games were moving very far indeed from the games as depicted in the rulebooks. I added rules from this or that game, changed character generation completely, dropped lots of rules that were cumbersome for me in play. The results would not be recognizable to anyone who played those games in any other group.
Currently, there is a fetish about playing games in the RAW - that is, Rules As Written. Changing rules, kitbashing, modding are all verboten. This is, in my opinion, just wrong. It's an abdication of the rights of the group to the rights of the designer, even if the designer intends nothing of the sort. It's passive - insidiously passive. I don't like it, and think it's bad for the hobby. Groups should be pushing their own agendas, and so should individuals. Leaving everything on the designer level, as RAW does, turns groups from participants into consumers.
The only time I can see as justification for RAW is in playtest, and even then the playtesters, when they meet with problems, should be willing and able to get around the problem in play before feeding back the problem and their own solution they used in play.
Anyway, as always, my opinion.
-calsh
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Troupes for OHMAS
Here is how I am implementing troupe play in On Her Majesty's Arcane Service - as a strongly recommended option, but not required. These ideas are not intrinsic to OHMAS - you can use them in any game.
Troupe play is play with each player having more than one character, serving different roles. Troupe play for OHMAS is highly recommended for long term play. There are several ways to structure Troupe play for OHMAS. Choose from the oprions below to best fit your group:
The Mission Impossible Toupe
The players each have one character in play at any given time, but the group leader selects the particular characters used in this session or story arc from two to three characters offered from each player. The characters should be different types, but roughly equivalent skill level.
The Tri-level Troupe
The players each make three characters - an older character with lots of skills, a mid-level character with moderate skills, and a young character with few skills. Groups can be mixed - with varying levels of competence - or matched - with everyone more or less equivalent.
The Teacher/Trainee Troupe
The players each make one fighter type, one Esotericist, one Warlock, etc. for the number of players in the group. Each player has one older character, the teacher. The rest of the troupe are Trainees.
The Classic Troupe
The players make two characters each - a spell-casting type and a competent warrior type. They also make a group of young trainee warriors. Each competent warrior is paired with a spell-caster played by a different player, The trainee warriors are miscellaneously played by anyone who wants to as an additional character.
The Battle Troupe
Each player makes a group commander, and the other players each make a character to serve under each leader. The follower characters should be lower powered than the commander. This would probably work best with smaller groups.
-clash
Troupe play is play with each player having more than one character, serving different roles. Troupe play for OHMAS is highly recommended for long term play. There are several ways to structure Troupe play for OHMAS. Choose from the oprions below to best fit your group:
The Mission Impossible Toupe
The players each have one character in play at any given time, but the group leader selects the particular characters used in this session or story arc from two to three characters offered from each player. The characters should be different types, but roughly equivalent skill level.
The Tri-level Troupe
The players each make three characters - an older character with lots of skills, a mid-level character with moderate skills, and a young character with few skills. Groups can be mixed - with varying levels of competence - or matched - with everyone more or less equivalent.
The Teacher/Trainee Troupe
The players each make one fighter type, one Esotericist, one Warlock, etc. for the number of players in the group. Each player has one older character, the teacher. The rest of the troupe are Trainees.
The Classic Troupe
The players make two characters each - a spell-casting type and a competent warrior type. They also make a group of young trainee warriors. Each competent warrior is paired with a spell-caster played by a different player, The trainee warriors are miscellaneously played by anyone who wants to as an additional character.
The Battle Troupe
Each player makes a group commander, and the other players each make a character to serve under each leader. The follower characters should be lower powered than the commander. This would probably work best with smaller groups.
-clash
Monday, August 17, 2009
On Death and Dying in Roleplaying Games
A big discussion is always generated whenever anyone discusses PC death in RPGs. It's one of those sharply defined subjects where everyone has an opinion, and anyone who tries to convince them otherwise will have to pry that opinion from their cold, dead minds. I normally avoid writing about such subjects, but i will herewith offer my opinion, with the stated proviso that you are perfectly free to disagree - that's what comments are for - and I won't mind at all if you do, and we can agree to disagree without it being some kind of make or break litmus test. I will pause here to allow anyone who wants to get all angry about it to leave the blog...
OK? We're good? Let's go on!
First of all, this is one of the most simple to change mechanics in most systems. If you don't like what the designer offers, it's easy enough to just change it, so do so if you like the game otherwise, it's not really a valid reason to reject a game on its own, one way or the other. In a few games this sort of thing is inextricably tied into other things, so you can't just delete it. I tend not to like these games anyway, because I think they are over engineered, but your taste may vary, so look before you leap.
I'm generally in favor of the characters running the risk of death, though I generally place that risk low - see Life Spirals elsewhere in this blog. In addition, I like giving the PCs lots of ways to avoid death - sometimes immunity from limited forms of random death, as in PC immunity to random cannon fire In Harm's Way; Luck; limited auto-success or auto-fail; etc. In exchange, though, my rolls are in the open, and if a character *does* die, he dies. No fudging. Generally, these deaths are the result of a PC pushing things too far and failing. So be it. That's a good thing, in my book. They knew what the risk was, and they chose to ignore the warning. If the potential gain wasn't worth the risk, they wouldn't have run it. These deaths seem to come off rather heroic in general, and are remembered fondly by the party.
Some genres shouldn't have PC death as a GM-only option, like 4 color Supers. Gritty street level supers is another matter. Pulp games should be very chary of random, meaningless deaths, but a heroic death? Awesome! It's all about the feel you want for the genre you are emulating.
-clash
OK? We're good? Let's go on!
First of all, this is one of the most simple to change mechanics in most systems. If you don't like what the designer offers, it's easy enough to just change it, so do so if you like the game otherwise, it's not really a valid reason to reject a game on its own, one way or the other. In a few games this sort of thing is inextricably tied into other things, so you can't just delete it. I tend not to like these games anyway, because I think they are over engineered, but your taste may vary, so look before you leap.
I'm generally in favor of the characters running the risk of death, though I generally place that risk low - see Life Spirals elsewhere in this blog. In addition, I like giving the PCs lots of ways to avoid death - sometimes immunity from limited forms of random death, as in PC immunity to random cannon fire In Harm's Way; Luck; limited auto-success or auto-fail; etc. In exchange, though, my rolls are in the open, and if a character *does* die, he dies. No fudging. Generally, these deaths are the result of a PC pushing things too far and failing. So be it. That's a good thing, in my book. They knew what the risk was, and they chose to ignore the warning. If the potential gain wasn't worth the risk, they wouldn't have run it. These deaths seem to come off rather heroic in general, and are remembered fondly by the party.
Some genres shouldn't have PC death as a GM-only option, like 4 color Supers. Gritty street level supers is another matter. Pulp games should be very chary of random, meaningless deaths, but a heroic death? Awesome! It's all about the feel you want for the genre you are emulating.
-clash
Friday, August 14, 2009
Settings Redux
OK, Ok! Stop piling on, guys! I concede!
Yeah - there's things you can do to make better settings. Bill over on Hinterblog posted a few tricks even I use - Hooks, Open Settings, Glosses, and Open Elements. I won't repeat what he said, so link on over and read it from the squirrel's mouth.
There are some other things I use when designing settings. Settings are always - and I mean *always* - a compromise between depth and breadth. Deep settings are like using binoculars, you trade field of vision for sharp clarity. Broad settings are the reverse. Unless you are writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can't have both.
One thing I like to do is create Dynamic settings. This means that things are poised on the brink of change. Player characters love to apply the leverage to tip the balance. Players have a chance to make the difference, no matter which side they choose.
Another trick I like is Balkanizing a setting - instead of making a uniform monoculture, I prefer a patchwork quilt of bickering, multicultural allies. Lots of room for intrigue and double dealing, even within one side, let alone the enemy.
Also, Chiaroscuro - light and shadow. Unrelieved darkness gets as boring as unrelieved white, so the good guys are not all good, and the bad guys are not all bad. It brings things into relief. I don't mean an undifferentiated gray either - rather areas of actinic light blending smoothly into pools of stygian darkness. The depth just pops.
Another cool technique is Spotlighting. Throwing certain small areas into sharp focus, with lots of detail. This show the GM what you are aiming for in the setting without crowding him out. It also gives illusory depth without compromising much on breadth. It implies much without nailing things down.
And there's always Logical Coherence. Logical Coherence can do wonders for implying depth that isn't really there. When using Logical Coherence, nothing is ever there "just because it would be cool" There's a reason for everything, and you can trace that chain of reasoning. This makes it wicked easy for a GM to extend and amplify the information you present. If you are rigorous when you lay it down, it will be strong, interdependent, and a joy to adventure in.
I may be a systems guy, but I do settings too.
-clash
Yeah - there's things you can do to make better settings. Bill over on Hinterblog posted a few tricks even I use - Hooks, Open Settings, Glosses, and Open Elements. I won't repeat what he said, so link on over and read it from the squirrel's mouth.
There are some other things I use when designing settings. Settings are always - and I mean *always* - a compromise between depth and breadth. Deep settings are like using binoculars, you trade field of vision for sharp clarity. Broad settings are the reverse. Unless you are writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can't have both.
One thing I like to do is create Dynamic settings. This means that things are poised on the brink of change. Player characters love to apply the leverage to tip the balance. Players have a chance to make the difference, no matter which side they choose.
Another trick I like is Balkanizing a setting - instead of making a uniform monoculture, I prefer a patchwork quilt of bickering, multicultural allies. Lots of room for intrigue and double dealing, even within one side, let alone the enemy.
Also, Chiaroscuro - light and shadow. Unrelieved darkness gets as boring as unrelieved white, so the good guys are not all good, and the bad guys are not all bad. It brings things into relief. I don't mean an undifferentiated gray either - rather areas of actinic light blending smoothly into pools of stygian darkness. The depth just pops.
Another cool technique is Spotlighting. Throwing certain small areas into sharp focus, with lots of detail. This show the GM what you are aiming for in the setting without crowding him out. It also gives illusory depth without compromising much on breadth. It implies much without nailing things down.
And there's always Logical Coherence. Logical Coherence can do wonders for implying depth that isn't really there. When using Logical Coherence, nothing is ever there "just because it would be cool" There's a reason for everything, and you can trace that chain of reasoning. This makes it wicked easy for a GM to extend and amplify the information you present. If you are rigorous when you lay it down, it will be strong, interdependent, and a joy to adventure in.
I may be a systems guy, but I do settings too.
-clash
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)