Health Tracks, Revisited

It is easy to kill a player character, so that decision doesn't really interest me. However, a player saying, "This cause right here, this one is worth me dying for," is damn interesting to me as a GM. I enjoy the way that Fate, per Dresden Files, has a stress tracks to determine when a conflict ends, as well as allowing the player to choose to take long term wounds to stay in the fight as well; similarly, Fate bribes the characters to be willing to lose a conflict by gaining Fate Points by conceding before a roll is made.

I, previously, riffed on an idea by setting stakes overtly in what you were willing to risk. On my Facebook page it received a lot of flak because it broke how people thought it should work - because the principle is that minions should be less likely to risk death. They made a decent point, even with my preference of sacrificing reality for a really good narrative, i.e., modeling fiction, not physics.

So how to deal with health came up again in terms of how to model cinematic damage. And there were a few two ideas there that I wanted to capture:

• The more you get beaten up, the more you demonstrate your determination to fight, the better you fight. Tenra Bansho Zero, an Japanese Fantasy game, flat out has two stats: Vitality, which once lost, you are knocked out, and Wounds, which give you a bonus to fighting instead of losing vitality.
• There is no real death spiral in cinematic fighting, ala Savage Worlds, there's a shaken/stunned, maybe an injured, incapacitated/taken out, and dead. And the last is rare for the hero.

So how do I combine these? To do something vaguely White Wolf inspired (i.e., rating of 1-5) not unusual, I'd envision the track looking something like this (and remember, my young toddler probably has more artistic skills than I do):

The principle is the same, bad stuff happens to you, you mark off Body or Spirit tracks depending on the nature of the bad stuff. If you don't want to mark off the bad stuff, you mark off a point of Grit, get a die bonus - with more and more grit showing how bad you want to risk it.

Then the question is, how you do recovery Grit? The first way that comes to mind is through time, you slowly regain more and more Grit. In the short term, you might take long term penalties, i.e., wounds to regain the Grit.

I'm not entirely sure how to make it work, as I don't really have any other bits to hang off it, but it was an interesting enough concept I wanted to record it, so in six months when I get bored at work and want to play around, I can think about how to incorporate this into a more holistic system.

Things I Need To Work On: Pacing and Scene Control

Despite primarily being a GM for the last decade and change, there are some things still I don't do all that well. For example, I suck at in-character voices/accents that aren't absurdly silly. I can do some wonderfully good insect demon, scary little demon girls, and the similar ilk. And at this point, I never going to be a Nicole and master those particular theatrical arts.

However, something, if I'm going to continue being a GM most of the time - I need to work more on my pacing. It showed up in my Exalted game, it showed up in my Changeling game, and it is showing up in my Dresden Files game (oddly enough my Adventure! game didn't have many of those moment, but some of that may be distant hindsight being rose filtered, or a bunch of really awesome players, this being my blog, I'll go with the latter).

So let's talk about what makes a scene. You can get advice all over the place, and admittedly fiction isn't always a good translation to gaming (because you only get one chance, generally to have the scene, and you don't get an editor to review and revise it to make the dialogue sing), the best summary I've seen is that a scene has three purposes:

1. Establish or reveal facts about a character;
2. Establish or reveal facts about the setting; or 
3. Move the plot forward.

It is the third purpose, moving the plot forward, that's my sticking point, as the first one is more dependent on the players as far as establishing facts goes, though certain situations may be engineered to bring that about; and the setting details, I think come out in play fairly clear. But my players are free to argue with me.

I think my problem comes down to the third one, where I'm stuck on how to encourage my players to move the plot forward. One the best examples of this was in my Exalted game, where there was a Big Bad Deathlord, nigh indestructible, though each had an Achilles Heel, through various hijinks it came out that this Big Bad's weakness was Love.

Now me as a ST figured this wouldn't be too difficult a solution. I was willing to go with just about (note that caveat) any solution that fit within the theme of Love, figure out what the Deathlord loved and lost (ala Rosebud), or social-fu her into loving something and using that to defeat her. A session or two pass, and the players are stumped, and I think had gotten to "Puppies are love, right, so let's just throw puppies at her." Shortly they bumped into a Fae, with a sword named "Love", which WAS the Fae's emotional of Love forged into a blade, and many sessions later, we had a PC fake betraying the party to be his love of a previous life, and then slide Love into her.

A bit hokey? Yes. But it seemed the only solution that worked.

Maybe it is just me being bad at figuring out what motivates my players - my Changeling game became synonymous in my head for doing it's best to negate Chandler's Law, every time I'd throw a direct threat with some loose ends for them to follow-up on, they'd negate the direct threat, but ignore the threads. Even when those threads would burn them in following sessions.

Maybe I'm just not blatant enough. Whatever the reason, this is something I'm going to need to focus on so my players stop getting bogged down in the beginning and middle of arcs - just not sure how to do that without it feeling too forced or like a trail bread crumbs for the players to follow.

40k Only War Bug Bit Me

So, based on the recommendations of my friends, I picked up the new 40k book from Fantasy Flight Games: Only War, and it arrived Friday.

And yeah, the gaming ADD bug has bit me hard. New! Shiny!

But can you blame me? Fantasy Flight put out a beautiful book, in a universe that eminently gameable - 40k. Yes, it is grimdark and bleak, but if you are okay with that, it just works. As a GM, I don't have to figure out why the other "heroes"/"supervisors"/etc. aren't here doing this task, there's just the PCs so if they want it done, they will need to do it themselves! Or get shot by the Commissioner trying and showing insufficient valor and fortitude. 

I'd run as one part grim and dirty combat, of going house to house, with the panic of not knowing what was inside the doorway. One part will be the preposterous of orders and commands, contradictory and impossible, that fills the stereotypical soldier's life. Then finally, the comedic silliness that is part and parcel of the gaming table, as translated into the actions of bored soldiers who are on permanent deployment and will never be going home.

I'd want to run it as a series of Campaigns, from start to finish, as a war/conflict moves forth on various planets. Very much in line with Gaunt's Ghosts. I'd need to come up with some sort of tracking system so as the arcs progress, the players can watch as how the fight moves forwards and backwards.

Mission Based Gaming Fantasies

I'm getting fidgety with my gaming. I keep having thoughts of running something more episodic in nature, versus the saga-esque nature of my Dresden Files game. Basically, run a campaign where there's a more defined beginning, middle, and end, versus the shifting boundaries of how my current game is settling where there's rarely an easily defined path to success.

And I'd like to change that for another game, not that I have the time to run one. A game where there was an assumption of competence and success. Plus, some of this is gamer ADHD where there are all these neat systems out there that I want to try out. For example:

• Cortex+: either Leverage or Marvel Super Heroes. The latter is probably better suited for what's in my head which is more "beer and pretzels" of getting a few friends together and gaming without needing to remember every detail of what happened last session.
• Night's Black Agents: The temptation here is because my games keep being about investigation, investigation, and more investigation, and Gumshoe is supposed to be about the investigation - it is designed around it, and this iteration has a more robust combat system to back it up. Probably wouldn't use the setting precisely as written, but there'd definitely be something of the Weird™ at play.
• Home Brew Mercenaries: Inspired by listening to some actual play podcasts of a Mass Effect game involving a mercenary company, while I don't want to play the same system (modified nWOD), but the idea of playing a game with a group that has a mercenary company to control and build up, as well as playing the individual mercenary, appeals to me

Some of this is in reaction to something I was reading of FATE where it best supports when the players have a stronger vision, and the GM works within that framework, this would be within the notion of reversing that dynamic where the GM has a stronger vision of how the game goes (by controlling the missions with input from the players) so there will hopefully be less of the players "grasping around in the dark" trying to find a workable solution to the challenge.

Stepping Into Character and Tripping

So several weeks ago, I had to change characters due to an intense, intimate, albeit short-lived love affair with dynamite.

Unfortunately, I'm frustrated with Rex O'Malley - I can't find the right voice for him - there's no rhythm for where he fits into the group dynamics. Initially, I thought of him as a loud, boisterous man with a certain joie de vivre - live large, live fast, and probably die in hail of bullets, monster gore and a beautiful woman under one arm and a bottle of whiskey in his mouth.

I realized the problem last night as I talked to my wife, I, semi-inadvertently, created an adrenaline junkie - semi-inadvertently in that while I didn't say "Hmm, I wonder what a Weird West adrenaline junkie would look like?" But instead, I created a man who was seeking fame, fortune, and to keep himself distracted from certain unpleasant truths. Unfortunately, since he joined up with the group, it has been fairly quiet, first a funeral and some travel, then interacting with a Southern *cough* gentleman. Last night, we dealt with an angel and some bandits, the latter would have been the right moment, but apparently dealing with an intimidating bandaged priest (who played his part beautifully) and several more angry and irritated gunslingers was a bit much.

I knew I should have just started shooting.

So, erstwhile reader(s) - how do you find your voice, when there's nothing naturally flowing forth to inspire you? Give it time and be patient? Try to create situations in which it'll come out? Modify other aspects to try and "fit" in better.

I've got some plans for the potentially long train ride west, so we shall see what happens then. It can't be quiet all the time.

Borderlands vs. Deadlands

I should love the Gunzerker in Borderlands 2. Abilities based around surviving and wielding two large rapid fire guns and laughing maniacally? Yeah, I should be all over that shit.

However, in reality? Nope, I'm all about playing the low-risk percentage game of sniping at a distance and ensuring that there's plenty of room between me and the bad guys. PLENTY of room. In the first Borderlands game my primary weapons were a sniper rifle and a rocket launcher - my special ability? Punch things repeatedly. Just a touch of a intended vs. actual play style mismatch there.

However, sit me at the table and I'm FAR more likely to do something reckless. Why? Because it is fun, because it livens up the story, because there's a motivation other than shoot and loot. There's a purpose to the recklessness.

All gets back to Robin D. Laws' player types - Borderlands 2 brings out my tactical side, "What's the lowest risk method to accomplishing my goals" despite the penalty for failure, death, being so minuscule; whereas gaming at a table, I'll do something foolish for a good story despite the penalty for failure, death and/or loss, being so very final.

In short, death/defeat in Borderlands is boring and annoying so I avoid it. The kind of death and defeat I get in gaming, if meaningful, can be dramatic and engaging so I'm willing to risk it. Just something that came up last night as I started on my third character in Borderlands 2 as none of them have really "gripped" me as fun.

Rules, Again.

I'm a rules guy. I love having the process defined, boundaries explained, and expectations explicit.

So yesterday on Twitter there was a brief exchange regarding rules and game balance:

@rdonoghue: Starting to suspect that the foundation of game balance is the assumption that your're kind of a jerk.
@byharryconnolly: Watching my son play his homebrew rpg w/ his buddy, it becomes clear that you only need rules to control ppl you cann't trust. [sic. -Editor.]
@rdonoghue: that'a the nut. [sic. -Editor.]

And I suppose it is correct for an overly broad usage of the term "trust" - I trust that everyone at this table interprets the same way that I do, I trust that everyone is willing to agree to the same expectations, I trust that we're all willing to work together to mediate differences - that sort usage of the word trust versus my initial read, which admittedly was "I trust you are not out to get me."

But here's the problem with all of that - good, well-meaning people can still disagree. Now you can centralize the authority in the GM (rulings), leave it to a table vote, or any other number of ways to determine what the appropriate solution to the conflict is going to be.

However, to make things fair and to save time, it is probably recommended that these rulings get written down so that in six months you can go "So how did we fix this LAST time we bumped into this situation?" And at that point you have a rule and thus a process.

That's all rules are folks, they aren't scary, they aren't the enemy, they are a formalized process for how situations are expected to be resolved. And folks are free to deviate from the process, it isn't like there's an external RPG Audit team that's going to swing by your home and go "And on the night of the 11th, did you follow the correct procedure for resolving Andrew's persuasion check again the king?"

Maybe I'm just a low trust individual. I know I have issues when the rules, and thus my expectations, get changed half way through anything, because that's how I figure out what I'm going to do, "Wait last time you said that this happened, and now it works this other way? Can I have some consistency?" Yeah, guess I AM a low trust individual. I just don't trust anyone to be fair and consistent without a formal structure over the long haul, as long as "fair and consistent" is defined as something beyond a de facto "of course the rulings are fair and consistent as decided."