|
EXPLORATION MECHANICS (cont) Knowing Knowledge/Lore related actions are another thing that we lump under Exploration Skill. Although not subject to the same exact problems as searching and noticing, knowing has its own problems. One is balkanization, where a knowledge of different types is relegated to different silos, diluting the effectiveness of the skill relative to others (even FATE Core makes this suggestion). We have already avoided this "lore balkanization" by just lumping all knowledge under Exploration Skill (to go back to our old d20 analogy, Exploration Skill is like "Base Exploration Bonus"). Another problem is, when treated as a pass/fail action, knowing can lead to frequent mechanical inquiry into what a character knows. This mechanical method of "resolving what a character knows" violates several of our design goals: it stops the fiction to use mechanics for a low-drama event, it impedes story flow by blocking useful exposition, it is action pass/fail rather than outcome good/bad, and it does not lend itself towards adding fiction or shared narrative. To resolve these issues, we use our core mechanics, refocus on our characterization of “exploration as discovery”, and then take some inspiration from DW's "Spout Lore" and “Discern Realities”. The first rule is, as always, that whether or not a character knows something is defined as The Expected Thing. If it is something the character would probably know about their fictional world, then they know it and conversely if it is something that they would probably not know then they don't know it. This raises the question of what to do about characters who relate to the world as knowledge experts. Here I think we should make some distinctions about the types of things we call knowledge and what purpose they serve in the game. All characters have knowledge of their world - much of it tied to their backstory. Backstory knowledge is part of all characters’ identities and is an important part of their relationship to the world. Good characterization, and thus backstory knowledge, should not be limited by skill selection. Other knowledge must be divulged as exposition over the course of a game to enrich the world and provide the hooks to further the adventure. Exposition knowledge is vital to keeping the game flowing (one of our major design goals) and thus should not be blocked by mechanics. Also, being a GM mouthpiece for spouting exposition is not a very dramatic, interesting or active reward for choosing to be a “knowledge expert”. Genre knowledge - or “common knowledge in the game setting” - such as “in this world, monster X is known to be vulnerable to material Y” - is made of players’ expectations about the setting. It is not very dramatic for Exploration Skill to give the privilege of being a mouthpiece for common genre knowledge (although the GM should be at liberty to occasionally surprise the players with elements that are unexpected and unfamiliar). Aside from these expected forms of knowledge, there is also learned knowledge, or things that are discovered over the course of the adventure through experiences and “reality testing” and with no need for mechanics. If so much of knowledge is to be handled by default or without mechanics, what is the place of our Take A Risk mechanic and the Exploration Skill in knowledge and lore related actions? These mechanics will not come into play to determine whether or not a character knows a specific thing. Instead, they are used in ways that are additive to the fiction. Take A Risk when used for knowing something will work much like a DW Spout Lore: to take the action indicates that they character does know or notice something about this particular situation, and the roll determines whether that information introduces help or hindrance. For instance, one might try to size up an enemy with TAR - a positive outcome might mean noticing some weakness, a negative outcome might mean noticing some extra threat. This ensures that the TAR around knowing something is a consequential and dramatic moment and it also follows our idea of TAR as “diversion of narrative”. As with other exploration activities, we may want to privilige the expert in such a way that makes it more rewarding to take such action when skilled. Once again we can turn to the idea of “skill challenge” where the target “danger” number relative to the character’s skill sets the default outcome from which TAR deviates (and such actions would be considered always “at risk” - i.e. no default allowed). In this way, the Exploration expert is encouraged to go for the “I know things and notice things” moment as the expectation is to find something helpful, but non-experts with less helpful expectations will not be so eager.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
EXPLORATION MECHANICS (cont) Travelling The final thing I am going to mention as lumped under Exploration Skill mechanics are activities dealing with travel. By travel I mean activities associated with moving that are more about observing and understanding the environment than it is about singular acts of acrobatic skill. Camping, pathfinding, foraging, navigating, and tracking are all examples of this notion of travel and thus fall under Exploration Skill. Once again we don’t break the skill down into such fine-grained sub skills, instead leaving the flavor of sub-specialization to a character’s Exploration Feats (exploration-themed narrative fiats). When needed, the GM may create travel challenges along these lines that have expectations set by our Skill Challenge mechanic. As with Knowledge, it is not too active or exciting for the exploration expert to have the privilege of being cited by the GM as the reason the party doesn’t get lost in the forest or as the person that notices the quicksand, but in those cases where the expectation IS for the party to get lost, the Skill Challenge sets up the mechanical justification for the exploration expert to be the one to Take A Risk. Summary Exploration mechanics are just our core mechanics applied to exploration activities. Exploration activities are things that involve observing and understanding the environment, with some specific examples being “searching”, “noticing”, “knowing”, and “travelling”. The outcomes of exploration activities are non-random and defined by The Expected Thing. In cases where a bit more granularity is needed, the GM may use a non-random Exploration Challenge (character’s Exploration Skill relative to a target) to determine The Expected Thing. When appropriate, a player may voluntarily Take A Risk to randomly shift this outcome for the better or worse, with good fictional justification granting an Ability bonus to the d20 roll. We discussed appropriate times for TAR in various situations and revisited our design that TAR is not pass/fail - i.e. it does not determine whether something is found, noticed, known, etc. TAR with respect to Exploration means there will be something found, noticed, known, etc., even if that means adding an element to the story, but the nature of that thing is determined by the dice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
EXPLORATION MECHANICS Note on Puzzles Puzzles are a classic challenge that might be considered an "exploration" challenge. They are also a point of contention when considering whether what happens in-the-fiction is a result of "player skill" or "character skill". Traditional puzzles are presented at face value: there are clues to a definitive solution and the puzzle is solved in the meta-game reasoning of the player's mind. This is a perfectly valid challenge, but it bypasses the fiction to simply present an in-game puzzle for the characters directly as an out-of-game puzzle to the players. Remember that one of our design goals is to make a game where players are mostly thinking about their character's goals and motivations and taking dramatic actions in-the-moment rather than a game that requires drawn-out, game-slowing, meta-game player effort on optimization math and logic problems in order to overcome in-game character challenges. I propose that a re-imagination of in-game puzzles as a nondeterministic narrative event can return puzzle solving to purely fictional and character-based resolution. The key here is that we deny the concrete presentation of the puzzle to the players - indeed, there need not even be a concrete puzzle to solve. The GM need merely present the players with a rough description of the puzzle and handle the solution process purely through in-game mechanics. For instance, the GM might say: "you come upon a wall with strange symbols and a series of levers". Rather than describing any further, the GM sets some secret Exploration target and invites characters to Take A Risk (+Int) at solving the puzzle. The actual interpretation of the symbols, operation of the levers, and state of the puzzle are made up as the characters interact with the wall, with negative TAR outcomes springing traps and creating dangers and positive TAR outcomes alleviating dangers and moving the puzzle closer to the solution state. Note that such an interaction need not be a heavy-weight Dramatic Scene, but players taking gambles and improvising fiction around interactions with such a puzzle at the same time upholds the player/character cognitive divide, rewards the Exploration Expert with a character moment, alleviates the GM of the onus of making a novel and precisely-difficult brain teaser, and avoids boring "methodical search of puzzle state space". EXPLORATION SCENES Modeling Exploration Scenes Let's quickly review some of what our design is looking to create for Dramatic Scenes: high-stakes scenes with overlapping action and rising dramatic tension that are playable in 30 minutes; Stakes that engage the players through campaign and character goals; a primary mode of action that is consistent with the scene type and puts the specialist in the spotlight (not all goals and actions need be exclusive to this type); choices that present clear trade-offs and require character-based decisions; and opportunities for dramatic action, risk taking and character-defining moments. We also want to avoid elements in the scene that might block the game, deflate tension, or reduce drama. Exploration Scenes are about interacting with and expanding upon the game world. The goal for such a scene will be to discover a way to overcome some environmental or informational obstacle. For stakes in these scenes we are going to use both the risk of bodily harm from environmental hazards as well as the risk of "discovering" (i.e. the outcome of the scene actually reshapes the reality of the game world in helpful or hurtful ways). (TBC)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES (cont) Tension in Exploration Scenes To revisit our ideas about tension: the most vital element of dramatic scene design is the creation of dramatic tension. We assume that the way we create this tension is by putting characters and goals at stake, overlapping these stakes and setting some at odds, and making the outcome around these stakes uncertain. We also desire an elevation of tension over the course of the scene, peaking just before resolution (rather than deflating into a boring mop-up phase). We posit that this tension and uncertainty will lead to a satisfying encounter: the players will think about and prioritize their characters' goals, the player group will decide how to allocate effort, new and developing demands will require adaptation, and mechanical incentives will push players to take risks. Exploration Scenes cover a broad swath of player/environment interaction, so the stakes will be equally broad. In some cases we will be putting the characters well-being at stake - this might be used for a "exploration combat vs the environment" type of scene. In other cases we will be putting the game world itself at stake - namely the introduction of new campaign-level complications via "information discovery". The pacing of such scenes might be tricky. In cases where the characters are in mortal danger, there is a natural urgency set by the rate at which characters are taking stress and damage and a natural escalation as characters reach narrative elimination (remember that our designs for Combat Scenes and Social Scenes called for multiple PC "KOs" as part of peaking tension by end of scene). In cases without immediate threats to the characters we will once again have to turn to artificial means of pacing as we did in Social Scenes - namely stress goals and stress races. We justify the use of such by coming back to the motivating nature of Dramatic Scenes in general: these are not times when characters have time to mull over their options and carefully proke around. Dramatic Scenes are supposed to represent those intermittent episodes of great consequence where the poo poo hits the fan and the world is crashing down around the characters and who must struggle to make it through. To achieve this in a context with a primary goal that is "the nature of a campaign level fact" we will have to set the characters in a race against time, where the speed of their exploration is of great importance (a corollary to this idea is that if speed-of-discovery is not of the essence, then it probably won't make a good dramatic scene - just handle it as narrative). (tbc)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES (cont) Rethinking Iconic Exploration Scenes With the exploration discussion so far, it is time to revisit our iconic exploration scenes and evaluate whether they serve our design criteria: Is there a dramatic impetus? (i.e. is the scene about making a campaign-vital discovery) Is there a source of threat or pressure that will elevate tension over the course of the scene? Are there opportunities for overlapping action? Are there interesting character-based decisions to make and interesting trade-offs to weigh? Forensic Investigation: This scene seems a natural fit as it is DW's Discern Realities writ large. A clear dramatic impetus can be set up from the start: something of great importance to the campaign transpired in this location and the party must piece it together. In order to elevate the tension in this scene we must apply some form of time pressure most likely via a stress race (we will discuss some options for this in a moment). With time pressure we can create a need for clue accumulation beyond what can be achieved by the exploration specialist alone, and we can add some secondary pressures (perhaps of a non-exploration nature) thus we can create overlapping demands. We can also create multiple tracks of clues to pursue, thus giving the party some priority choices to make. Wilderness Survival: On second inspection, Wilderness Survival does not seem like the best fit. The dramatic impetus would most likely be "discover the way through the wilderness" which, although perhaps campaign-vital, does not seem to have much drive and is perhaps better suited for a narrative scene. Environmental threats and pressures that count as 'exploration' would be hazards of a non-movement type - i.e. signs of dangerous terrain, flora and fauna that must be noticed and understood. Overlapping action would seem difficult unless the party was somehow split up, exploring the wilderness as sub-groups - which might work for a tracking task or locating-the-hidden-thing task. Trade-offs seem to be things like choosing which terrain to explore, which does not feel very dramatic or character-based. Overall it does not seem like there is a clear idea for a dramatic exploration scene forming here. Instead it is looking like we ideas for some flavorful narrative challenges. Perhaps an encounter in a more limited geographic region that is all about observing/noticing/recognizing threats in a dangerous wilderness environment could be done, but it wouldn't fit in the stated concept for "wilderness survival". Library Research: If our CSI scene is DW Discern Realities writ large, then this scene is Spout Lore writ large. Thematically, the impetus is appropriate: there is some important truth hidden in those books/databanks and the party must discover it. Pouring over large quantities of information seems antithetical to drama so we must apply the tension of time-pressure. We should not forget that we can also apply the tension of narrative diversion - i.e. the act of exploring creates additions to the fiction based on Take A Risk rolls. Such a scene can act as a sort of lottery where, along the way to discovering the vital information, the party is generating dangers or aides that lie ahead on the campaign path. As with CSI, we can create multiple tracks of research to explore, with discoveries along each track themed in a certain way, with the party choosing to allocate effort based on which "information track" they wish to find the most helpful lore on. Although the threats are not necessarily immediate, putting the future at stake can create drama and interest. Imagine LoTR's Balin's Tomb scene as an "Chamber of Records Library Research Scene" that went horribly wrong as the players' rolls create ... goblins up ahead ... more goblins ... oh and a Balrog ... by the way those goblins just arrived ... time to transition to a Combat Scene!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Actually the description of the Library Research scene sort of reminds me of that "choose the form of The Destructor" bit from the end of Ghostbusters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Absolutely! Also, think about the basement scene from Cabin in the Woods where the characters are snooping around all the different objects. This could be run as the GM asking a player to describe a small object that they find and then roll d20, GM makes up a backstory for the described object and presents options for boon/doom based on the player's roll. Note that This usage of "Take A Risk" is fairly GM-driven (as intended because TAR is always available). Exploration Feats would be more player-driven (remembering that we hope to make progression = increasing shared narrative), i.e. the player gets to declare that they find something and gets to declare why it is helpful (within certain balanced parameters).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:EXPLORATION SCENES (cont) I think this example might be salvageable as a basis for a good dramatic scene but the focus needs to be changed. Finding a path through the wilderness could easily be full of threats and challenges, but it's essentially just random encounters or old-school hex crawling. We can improve this sort of gameplay by tying it into the fiction: Finding a path through the wilderness to a known location would be a narrative scene. Locating the lost temple of Thar in the dense jungle by deciphering clues carved into grisly idols or other dire portents that need to be found first might be grist for a dramatic scene wherein the exploration expert would be responsible for adding to the fiction surrounding the lost temple with their Exploration Risks while other specialists would be responsible for getting the explorer close enough to examine the clues. The same mechanic might work for a Dramatic scene in which the players are tracking a fugitive/Mcguffin holder/source of information through dangerous terrain, trying to pick up a trail before it goes cold. Taken in this general sense, the Scene need not be a wilderness encounter specifically. If your team of investigators must Track Down Professor Moriarty Before He Kills Again, the combat specialist can rough up hooligans, the movement specialist can climb out onto the bridge supports to grab the fragment of a cloak snagged there, etc. The Exploration specialist is then responsible for either having good enough exploration narrative control feats to allow him to piece the clues together or using TAR to add to the professor's fiction, establishing the existence of new threats or weaknesses depending on their roll. Is this along the lines of what you were trying to achieve with the example you used or am I missing your aim?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Null Profusion posted:I think this example might be salvageable as a basis for a good dramatic scene but the focus needs to be changed. quote:Finding a path through the wilderness could easily be full of threats and challenges, but it's essentially just random encounters or old-school hex crawling. We can improve this sort of gameplay by tying it into the fiction: Finding a path through the wilderness to a known location would be a narrative scene. To turn this idea towards Exploration - a wilderness hexcrawl could involve some random encounters that are essentially DW "signs of danger" - or more precisely in this case "signs of drama" - that give the players some choice in which way to head and what to encounter next and also hooks for some shared-narrative fleshing out of the region and its backstory. quote:Locating the lost temple of Thar in the dense jungle by deciphering clues carved into grisly idols or other dire portents that need to be found first might be grist for a dramatic scene wherein the exploration expert would be responsible for adding to the fiction surrounding the lost temple with their Exploration Risks while other specialists would be responsible for getting the explorer close enough to examine the clues. quote:The same mechanic might work for a Dramatic scene in which the players are tracking a fugitive/Mcguffin holder/source of information through dangerous terrain, trying to pick up a trail before it goes cold. Taken in this general sense, the Scene need not be a wilderness encounter specifically. If your team of investigators must Track Down Professor Moriarty Before He Kills Again, the combat specialist can rough up hooligans, the movement specialist can climb out onto the bridge supports to grab the fragment of a cloak snagged there, etc. The Exploration specialist is then responsible for either having good enough exploration narrative control feats to allow him to piece the clues together or using TAR to add to the professor's fiction, establishing the existence of new threats or weaknesses depending on their roll. Remember that the reason that we are looking for promoting exploration activities to full on Dramatic Scenes is that we ultimately want different specialists to have equivalent narrative influence and that our stance on doing this, as opposed to making all characters combat-specialists in a combat-focused game, is to promote non-combat scenes to something as big and exciting as a combat scene such that each specialist has a chance to shine in a spotlight of equal brightness. To that end, I want to move away from thinking of the ways we can do exploration in narrative scenes. We know it can be done because that is pretty much the way it has always been done (modulo shared narrative elements). The interesting design space for the current discussion is in how we construct a different kind of exploration scene. This is not to say that tracking cannot be done as a dramatic scene, just that the construction of such a scene such that it has the amount of crunch, the ramping tension, and risk-taking that we are looking for eludes me. However, there is plenty of room for encounter design beyond the current analysis and others might see a good way to pull it off. quote:Is this along the lines of what you were trying to achieve with the example you used or am I missing your aim?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Proposing a new Iconic Exploration Scene to substitute for Wilderness Survival: Puzzle Room: The party is trapped in a hazardous area and must use their powers of observation to find a way out. Inspirational starting points for this scene are things like the Star Wars trash compactor scene or the FotR Doors of Durin scene (the focus is on noticing threats and opening the door and not on defeating the watcher in combat). The puzzle itself is not a logic puzzle to be solved on the player level, but rather a narrative puzzle that develops based on character-level action. The dramatic impetus for this scene is the entrapment or blockage of the party. Escalating tension is created by an increasing threat of mortal danger as the scene goes on (this should be tempered in some way such that scene failure equates more with campaign-level consequence than with a TPW). The exploration expert's task will be to focus on deciphering the puzzle room (via runes, computer terminals, whatever is genre appropriate). This main task will generate both clues, hazards and secondary tasks for the rest of the party to deal with, thus creating overlapping action. There will be room for choice in who deals with what tasks and hazards and how they are dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
So here's a random question/derail.. Do you have plans for advice on emulating particular genres or tones? Or facilitating role playing and inter-PC banter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
I'd certainly like this system to support genres with varying tones. Although everything in the rules push towards "party of specialists", I feel that what I'm proposing is otherwise a genre-independant framework of mechanics, math and progression that aims for our design goals of getting the game to "dramatic scenes" and doing them well. The room for genre flavor comes firstly in fluff - i.e. what fiction does Ability X or Skill Y represent outside of our use for math in mechanics and balance. Secondly there is the balance between use of stress and damage and the interpretation of "narrative consequence" - these are left open and control how often debilities are handed out and how lethal the genre feels. Third and most important will be the feats, which we have defined as genre-specific. These are our channels for player modification of fiction and a lot of flavor will be encoded in what kinds of modifications the players have liberty to make (are they fantastical or grim dark or space opera or pulp serial in scope and flavor).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
One of the DMs I've played under was all upons White Wolf (specifically Vampire, iirc) for its books doing a great job of teaching players how to act. Or "do acting" to be more accurate. He then went on to read about improv and theatre sports games on the internet and thought was kickin' rad and would help facilitate roleplaying, and decided to incorporate them into his RPGs. Me on the other hand, I actually did theatre sports games (high school drama classes) and knew all about the dumb bullshit it leads to  So I sort of balked at his assertions. My angle was to encourage people to develop the depth of their characters by posing particular questions about them, out of session (I.e. what is your character's favourite song or colour and what is the significance of that?) in hopes that it would manifest in some way during gameplay. The problem is, it turns out people hate "homework" While as a DM I found myself constantly thinking about the psychological, emotional, and other underpinnings to the NPCs actions, players just wanted to show up and play for a few hours and not think about their characters for the rest of the week; I practically had to lead them around by the nose to get them to do much.So, does Some Heartbreaker have any ideas about how best to teach players to roleplay (or, "act")? Or is the focus purely mechanical?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Yeah I've done a lot of improv theater as well and anyone who has actually done it knows that its not just throwing any zany random free-association thing into a scene. It takes discipline and purpose to not drop your choices, negate everyone else, and take the express train to crazy town. The big advantages of RPGs for those without dramatic training are that you don't have to rediscover your character from scene to scene and there is much written on your character sheet that guides you on how to stay in character. I don't think you can force players into deep character study or even to not drop character. Many people just want to play themselves plus some fantastical ability. For these players I think you should let them and for new players I think this type of character is totally appropriate. Some few players love to get in character even if it makes the game harder - these players you don't need to worry about. For everyone else who is more game-focused, the way to coax character-focused play is to mechanically reward it. This is exactly what FATE does with the aspect mechanics. It is also in a way what *World games do with Moves - you don't get the mechanical reward of a move unless you do the character-flavored thing described in the move. Way back in the section 1 of the Some Heartbreaker discussion I described a reimagination of the D&D alignments as subjective traits (Compassionate/Distant/Malicious and Honorable/Calculating/Devious) used to power a lightweight "FATE aspects 101" system (essentially, gain Karma for taking compels, spend Karma to invoke a +4 bonus on an alignment-motivated Take A Risk). We haven't revisited that for some time, but basically I think FATE got it right (both in feel and economy) and basically we'll have a side system of aspects that are constrained to a short list of options (as opposed to FATE's open ended usage). I think this type of system is perfect for encouraging (but not forcing) character-based play. I imagine that expanding this aspect system (since we have a defined list by default) could be another way to add genre flavor. In general, we will use aspects for things that are character-defining in a qualitative way - i.e. about the character's personality, self-image, backstory and relationship to the world - rather than about measurable capabilities and powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Let's drill down into the details of how we might run Iconic Exploration Scene "Forensic Investigation", and how we would set the mechanical balance such that we achieve our design goals for length and difficulty. Goal: The party needs to discover the nature of events that have transpired in some location. This "nature" is variable and the truth discovered will be different depending on the actions of the party. To start the scene off with a good impetus, we need to start with an unknown that the players care to answer. In order for this scene to have dramatic weight, the events being discovered must involve things that the players care about such as important NPCs and campaign goals. As it is a design goal to make our scenes immediately compelling by making the primary scene goal readily apparent, we must establish right away that the unknown events involved a particular important element of the game world. Stakes: At stake is the reality of the past events, and the NPCs, items, etc. involved in those past events. These stakes are indirect, as the players themselves are no in immediate risk. Without connection to the players in some way these stakes will carry no weight. With indirect stakes we must tie past events to the players' future and thus what is really at stake is the future (via the past). The reality of the past events under investigation need to have big implications and consequences for the challenges that the players will face beyond this scene. Tension: We often create tension by juxtaposing some risk of failure or narrative consequence against the benefits of achieving some goal. We shape and increase this tension by setting distances to such states and controlling how close they are. For instance, in combat we associate tension with how low a character's HP or how high a character's Stress have gotten - i.e. how close they are to the failure state of "narrative consequence". For exploration scenes we seek to do something similar, using a mechanical proximity to bad outcomes as a source of tension. To propel a sense of urgency in this scene, we will use our tool for creating a sense of race-against-time that we call the "Stress Race" - namely we create tension by showing the players that they have a limited and dwindling counter within which to dig up beneficial clues. This stress timer will be juxtaposed against investigation sites that the players will have to accumulate stress on via use of Exploration Skill and Take A Risk. Intuitively, this sets up a stress-based "exploration combat" analog, however it is important to note that these quantitative stress mechanics are only used to generate tension and control scene length. Much of the interest in the scene will be the qualitative narrative discoveries and reality shifts that occur as a result of player action while pursuing these quantitative mechanics. Methods: The players will go about exploring the past by moving through the environment and making observations. Observations will uncover details about the past, both good and bad. Players will need to make use of Exploration Skill and Take A Risk when attempting to discern extra details about some clue. Player actions will be generative - that is, they will work in a shared-narrative fashion, either adding good or bad elements to the events under investigation or shifting the events for the better or worse. In some sense, this scene is an exercise in shared reality-building. Mechanically, character's Exploration Skill will be up against some Exploration number that will vary by investigation site. This will set up a skill challenge for players to engage in, and thus sets expectations. The default outcomes of these skill challenges will be interpreted as revealing traces of the past events, with bad outcomes revealing some unwelcome detail and good outcomes earning INT or WIS dice towards making the big discovery at that site. On top of these expectations, players as always have the option to Take A Risk, with similar interpretation of outcomes. (Maybe if cthulu is involved, character will also take stress damage on "bad outcomes"). Overlapping Action: In order to introduce overlapping action, we will create several sites of research within the scene. Each site is relevant to some important story element and has some stress limit of exploration which must be reached on that site in order to discover the amazingly beneficial truth hidden there. There will be too many sites to completely explore within the given time, so the party will have to prioritize and allocate effort accordingly. I'm not yet sure how we will discourage dogpiling sites one-by-one. Special Mechanical Considerations: As with other stress race conditions, we need to make sure that our scene mechanics do not encourage a defer-to-the-expert style of play or an overly cautious style of play. Thus we must avoid making "advance the timer" a negative consequence, as all this does is encourage non-experts to inaction lest they push the timer forward less productively. I'm thinking that we have something to the effect of using strict turn-taking and having the timer advance by one die after every character's turn no matter what, so taking any stab at clue hunting is preferable to inaction. We could also no force strict turn taking, but roughly let everyone take an action then advance the timer by N-players dice after everyone has gone. Length and Balance: The math breakdown will depend on both party size and number of investigation sites. If we are aiming at something like d6 timer advancement per player turn and a goal of 5 rounds, then our timer limit should be 17.5 * number of players, so for our iconic 5 player party we have a timer limit of about 88 stress points. If we assume that the expert has Exploration a few points over the challenges thats 1-effect default expectation, and an INT of +3 (d10, and roughly +1-effects from Take A Risk (negative outcomes do not regress investigation goal)), that is 2d10 per turn so about 55 points contribution from the expert alone. If we assume that the other players have Exploration at or under the target (no positive stress default) and relevant ability of +2, they are closer to 1d8 per turn each, so 4.5*4players*5rounds or about 90 contribution from the rest of the party over the course of the scene. If we want the investigation sites to be more than the party can handle in 5 rounds then that means the combined stress on the site goals should be 150 or more. Let's call it three sites at around 55 stress each. This gives us a rough sense of the quantitative mechanics of the scene. Next, I will discuss more about how we qualitatively tie big stakes to investigation sites and how we make all the little rolls have narrative significance beyond the dice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation (cont) Building the Past: In most scenes we are using stress and HP damage to represent an approach to negative outcomes such as narrative consequences, disabilities, or narrative elimination. In scenes where we are not putting the character at immediate risk, these mechanics won't have the same dramatic weight without some fiction of value to the player behind it. This ties in to the idea that we don't want dramatic action to result in non-outcomes. When a character looks for clues they will find clues - it is just the nature and utility of the clues are determined by the Exploration Skill and Take A Risk roll. The question then becomes: what fiction to put behind the outcome of each action? To revisit the ideas from the "Note on Puzzles", the key here is that these clues are not a logic puzzle for the players to solve. One could think about building these clues up as a kind of "constructing the past by playing out the events". We are taking strong inspiration here from the LoTR example above, where the investigation leads to a narrative rather than a logic-puzzle. The scene begins with only rough details of the past and as the players take action, new events and actions in the past are created by the GM. The scope and magnitude of the added fiction is analogous to the magnitude of the thing being resolved in the present scene. For the final resolution of stress goals at each investigation site, if the stress goal is achieved before end of scene then the revelation is one of great benefit to the party's campaign, if the stress goal is not achieved then the revelation is one of great detriment to the party's campaign. For resolution of individual actions in the present, the additions are evidence of action-size events, both good and bad. Thus each character action is building up the story of the past (think of the blow-by-blow retelling of the battle in the LoTR example). An individual good or bad outcome might not sway the story to an incredible degree, but the accumulation of small clues might shape a larger picture. The key to building this past-narrative is that the clues generated by individual actions at each investigation site need to build upon each-other to form a trail of breadcrumbs. This consequent of these ideas is that each investigation site will have some very important topic that it is focused on. This topic should be revealed or at least hinted at early in the scene (so that the players can make informed allocation choices), and the achievement (or not) of the stress goal weighs heavily on the realization around this topic at end-of-scene. Individual actions at this investigation site will build up a narrative of events at the investigation site, with good and bad outcomes, but leaving the ultimate fate of the important topic in doubt until the goal is achieved. I am also thinking about adding stress accumulation on individual characters and, with reaching the "narrative consequence" level either meaning a negative discovery that is character-focused (rather than campaign-focused), or perhaps some meaning that the character blunders into some hazard or danger in the present that results in HP damage or temporary elimination or the introduction of some distraction. Tension in the Past: One of our design goals for scenes is a tension that ramps right until the end of the scene. In Forensic Investigation, we are creating this mechanically with the stress race against multiple stress goals. However, we must also make sure that we are doing this fictionally as well. One of our core ideas is that tension depends on known stakes with unknown outcomes. Unfortunately, part of the idea of exploration scenes is that things are unknown - i.e. the players are not sure of the stakes at the start of scene. What must be done in parallel with the mechanical aspects of scene tension is that the small clues must work towards ramping tension by creating clues that clarify the stakes and paint a picture of increasingly risky past-events. So the stakes start with a vague topic and move towards a clear topic and the situation around that topic gets increasingly dangerous and out-of-hand until the ultimate triumph or failure around that topic is discovered. We also cannot forget the fiction around our main driver of urgency: the stress timer. There is a reason that this is a dramatic scene and not a narrative montage of plodding, methodical CSI. Perhaps it is a pure race for time, an antagonist is fleeing the scene and the accumulation of the stress timer represents whether the party will be able to follow the trail once they find it. Perhaps the party is in a collapsing temple, and each accumulation on the stress timer is the rumble of the earth, the crack of stone and the fall of dust. Perhaps a hulking beast far beyond the party's capabilities is bearing down on the location and they must flee before it arrives. For whatever reason, the GM should be tying the accumulation on the stress timer back to the fiction with signs of the approaching danger to realize in the game world what the mechanical timer represents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Aside: Improvisational Scene Generation As we are discussing a scene with mechanics that are certainly dissociated (we are using an exploration mechanic to determining the outcome of some past event with is most likely not an exploration action) and work towards building a narrative that does not follow directly from the mechanics (aside from stress accumulation there is no clear definition of the narrative outcome) , I think now is an appropriate time to discuss improvisational scene generation. It is my strong desire, despite our current structured feasibility exercise, that this system makes it easy to create dramatically compelling and mechanically balanced Dramatic Scenes on-the-fly. One part of this is having books of iconic scenes that a GM can use to match to the campaign and quickly set up a balanced "mini game". Another part of this is having simple enough mechanics that new characters and challenges can be constructed on-the-fly, spotting appropriate numbers without stopping to look up stat-blocks or hunt through sourcebooks to find something appropriate. However, these are alone not enough to achieve the goal of fully improvised Dramatic Scenes. Here we are going to take inspiration from improv theater and, applying some structure from our scene design goals, come up with some guidelines that the GM can use to dynamically create encounters. The idea that we are going to take from improv is that we don't need to have a fully formed idea for a scene in order to start. All we need is a single point of inspiration and from there we can begin play. The rest of the scene will be built up incrementally as we go. In improv theater, scenes and their inspirations are arbitrary and limitless. In Some Heartbreaker, we have design goals, notions of how a Dramatic Scene plays out, and mechanical structure to guide us in creating scenes with the style of gameplay we want. We return to the idea that our Dramatic Scenes roughly flow through three stages: early, mid and late, and that each stage serves something of a purpose. For a quick review: early stage is about scene discovery and reality testing (i.e. the players don't walk into a scene knowing exactly what they are up against or individual stat blocks), mid stage is about making tactical choices (dividing and assigning effort towards goals) and adapting to new challenges, late stage is about peaking tension, dramatic action, and coming to a resolution. Step 1 - Starting Point: With our design goal of shifting-spotlight and our structure of skill-based scenes, our inspirational starting point for a scene will always be a mode of action (i.e. Combat, Exploration, Social, Movement, Creative). The mode of action that determines the type of encounter can come from many different places. It can follow immediately from events in the preceding Narrative Scene. It can be arbitrarily chosen by the GM in order to shine the spotlight on a player who has been in the background. It can be chosen by the players when a challenge presents several options for an approach. Part of Narrative Scenes is looking for the next Dramatic Scene, so however an inspirational circumstance for a scene type arises, the GM should seize the opportunity and begin constructing the scene. After scene type, the next thing that needs to be decided is the big stake that drives the scene. For some scenes the stake might be as simple as surviving mortal danger, for other scenes the players enter with a specific purpose (find a thing, persuade someone, get somewhere important, etc), when purpose eludes the narrative the GM might have to just pick something that is important to the players (if the players have no goals or things in the game world that they value, then that is a sign that more Narrative Scene world-building is necessary). If the game is run with a more shared-narrative flavor, the GM might even prompt a player for such a "get" ("You walk into the room and see someone dear to you held at knife point. Who is it?") The important thing here is that a stake is arrived at as close to instantly as possible, and if one is not immediately apparent then it is the GM's job to quickly find something. The exact stake chosen is not important so long as it can carry dramatic weight. Once the GM has an idea for primary mode of action and a primary stake, scene construction can begin. A primary antagonist to the stake should be introduced that puts the stake at risk (note that we are using "antagonist" to mean any challenge or threat - it could as easily be an environmental obstacle as a proper antagonistic character). The scene type, stake and established fiction should give big clues as to this antagonist, so an idea should follow immediately. If no idea follows immediately, the GM needs to come up with something fast - perhaps inventing something on the spot, falling back on genre tropes, or rolling something up on a table. Again the exact nature of the antagonist is not important, what matters is that it provides the proper mode of challenge and is chosen quickly so that the scene can begin (we have plenty of chances to enhance the scene as it goes). We are not worrying about pinpointing the mechanical balance of the antagonist at this point, we are just getting the scene started. TBC Paolomania fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Step 2 - Early Stage: As mentioned previously, our concept for "early stage" is scene discovery and reality testing. That means that if in "step 1" the GM set the stage for dramatic tension in broad strokes, this is where the action starts and we begin filling in the details that round out the scene. To keep things moving, the GM does not create stats for a new character or scene element when it is introduced. One great luxury our scenes have over improv theater scenes is time - our 30-minute Dramatic Scenes do not progress anywhere near real-time, so the GM has more time to think about filling in details than an improv actor typically does. Stats for antagonists can be back-filled at the first interaction, and even then, a full stat block need not be laid down. The GM fills in just enough detail to address the moment at hand, and can fill-in as necessary later. The first round of action will most likely involve some early back and forth between players and antagonist in the primary mode of action. The GM should take time in the first round to give descriptive elaboration on the antagonist and setting along with each player's action. The GM will also spot the primary antagonist's Skill or Skill Challenge somewhere close to the specialist's Skill. The overall difficulty of the scene can be adjusted as we go, but setting the initial challenge for the primary antagonist is how the GM is either cautious or aggressive with this difficulty. A good ballpark would be to set this number just under, equal or just over the specialist's skill, but the GM can try just about any value. There will be plenty of time to fix it later by adding a twist to the scene if the difficulty proves to be way off in either direction. If the scene structure calls for a stress goal or a stress race, the GM should pick numbers for that now (by then end of the larger design analysis we should have some hard guidelines for this). By the second round of action, the GM should be thinking about those details that our design goals require for a scene that engages the whole party: overlapping action and tension between goals. The GM needs to come up with a second (or more) challenge that puts something else at stake and demands the attention of some party members (if the GM was able to add these earlier than round 2 then kudos, good job!). Perhaps the BBEG's minions show up, or the loud-mouth socialite intrudes on the diplomatic discussion. The new antagonists might even be of a different skill type than the primary. As a rule of thumb, the stronger the primary antagonist, the weaker this secondary threat should be. This addition to the scene will be interesting and engaging if it introduces new choices for the players to make. It should be a counter-point to or a distraction from the primary goal that creates interest rather than just piling-on the difficulty. For instance: a secondary threat might be some hazard like falling rocks - if the hazard is just there to beat on the players then that is a bad addition to the scene, however if the hazard is something the players can avoid or utilize (at risk) then that is a good addition to the scene. As with the primary threat, the GM need not stat up the secondary threat in specifics until the players engage with it. So we start early stage with barely an idea of what is going on - just a skill type, something at stake, and something antagonizing - and over the first two rounds the GM is focused on fleshing out the scene and adding a few important stats as necessary. Paolomania fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Step 3 - Mid Stage: By mid stage the party has decided upon a strategy for tackling the scene, is settling into a groove, and now that they know what they are up against are probably using up some big per-scene powers. This is the perfect time to throw in surprises to ramp the tension and force them to adapt. It is in the mid stage that the GM will add twists to the scene to adjust the difficulty. The GM needs to watch through the first round of mid-stage to see how the players are handling the initial situation. Towards the end of mid-stage, when it is clear how things are going, the twists can be thrown in. It is important that the outcome of the scene to be in doubt in order to create that dramatic tension that we are looking for. We want the players to feel like the situation is getting out of hand (but not hopeless). One of our design goals is that scenes have ramping tension rather than an explosive opening followed by a low-drama mop-up. For this purpose it is actually better if the GM has made a cautious approach to difficulty in the early stage. The twists in mid stage will now be additive to the difficulty. The GM has two broad options here for twists: more overlap or more difficulty. The first case would be to layer on more overlapping action by putting something else at stake or introducing more antagonists (more minions show up, another diplomatic emergency arises, etc). The second case would be to reveal a twist about the existing threats that increases their difficulty (an enemy powers-up or reveals a previously unknown special ability, a dignitary reveals a special relationship that puts a persuasion stress target further out of reach). If the initial difficulty was off and the players are hopeless, the twists should adjust the difficulty of the scene downwards to the point of feeling merely uncertain and dangerous. Rather than providing an automatic fix, the GM should introduce elements in the scene that the players can utilize. This can be done gracefully by giving descriptive details that are obvious hooks for player use. Perhaps someone notices a power-source that can be destroyed to power-down the antagonist. Perhaps a whispered conversation is overhead that gives leverage in a negotiation. Anything to give the scene a glimmer of hope. As with everything else, the GM should not immediately stat-up twists. The GM should be thinking fiction-first about getting the sense of tension right. Precise stats or mechanical effects can be retconned in after the players have their "OH SH*T!"/"There is hope!" moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Step 4 - Late Stage: Our design for scenes works under the idea that the party will be riding the line of scene failure in the late stage. Late stage is time for the GM to keep the pressure on yet encourage and support dramatic action. If the balance choices in the early and mid stages were on-target, then late stage should see several players or scene goals reaching "narrative consequence" in the later rounds (remember that our combat model assumed that most of the party would end up stress KOed by end-of-scene). The GM should now be thinking about fine-tuning the remainder of the scene through two knobs: leniency in fictional justification and severity of consequences. By this point it might even be better if the GM slightly overshot the difficulty to keep the outcome uncertain because these knobs can certainly help sway things back towards the players. The GM should be actively supporting dramatic action in the late stage. A big way this can be done is by granting advantage and cross-skill action much more loosely than earlier in the scene. Normally, the GM only grants advantage and cross-skill action when the player presents excellent fictional justification, but this subjective criteria can be loosened when we want to encourage the players to get dramatic. For instance, a cross-skill action with thin justification such as using Social Skill to engage in a Combat Conflict that is described as "a your-mom joke to goad the BBEG into an off-balance attack" might not be granted in another stage but should definitely be granted in our peak-drama stage. Granting such license to the players is especially important if the scene is proving too difficult. The other bit of difficulty modulation the GM has at this point is in choosing narrative consequences. We don't have a hard definition of what happens when a character reaches their "Stress limit", and this is why I moved away from using the term "narrative elimination" in favor of "narrative consequence". If the players are heading for disaster, the GM can ease-up on the consequences, perhaps building up smaller consequences each time they take stress over their limit (e.g. applying debilities, damaging equipment, or injuring pride) rather than immediately eliminating the character from narrative efficacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example We return from our aside to run through how a Forensic Investigation scene might play out. We will procede in an unplanned, improvisational style with no pre-defined mystery to be solved. To simplify analysis, we will be presuming average dice for all rolls. Quick review of our improv scenes: - Setup: Define scene type and big stake. Choose an antagonist or obstacle that matches these. - Early Stage: Players reality-test and GM adds stats and fleshes out fiction. GM adds secondary obstacle. - Mid Stage: Players choose and apply strategy. GM adds extra overlap and twists to adjust difficulty. - Late Stage: The GM supports dramatic action through leniency with fiction-based mechanics. GM makes final difficulty tweaks via consequences as characters reach stress limits. Quick review of Forensic Investigation: - exploration scene focused on "discovering" past events - tension generated via a "stress timer" - past narratives are built up around several exploration sites - each exploration site has an associated exploration skill and stress goal - scene ends when stress timer reaches its limit - exploration sites resolve to good or bad depending on stress accumulation at site To apply our improv outline to Forensic Investigation, we know that a few key things need to be decided upon early: First, we need to motivate the investigation with some big stake - in this case the exact stake need not be too specific, but the players must feel like the events they are uncovering were of great consequence. Second, we need to drive the tension by justifying the stress timer - i.e. the players must know that they are in a race against time and what they are racing against (this probably counts as our scene's "primary antagonist"). In addition, we are going to have several investigation sites, which is a bit more overlap than the outline presumes, so we will want to open with one clear investigation site. So, to start the scene, we need to improvise: a big stake, the timer, and one site. Background We presume our five character party in a generic fantasy setting composed of The Brute, The Face, The Sleuth, The Acrobat and The Tinker. The scene is run by the Genre Moderator (GM). The party has been tromping through the wilderness on their way towards MacGuffin Hill. The GM determines that the player playing The Sleuth has been spending too much time on his smartphone and so decides to run a dramatic Exploration Scene in the style of Forensic Investigation. (tbc)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example: Improvised Investigation Setup The GM decides to make the MacGuffin the big stake, as that is what the players seem to care about at the moment: "The party arrives at MacGuffin Hill to find the gate to the MacGuffin shrine in shambles and the MacGuffin missing." Before the players run out the door in search of a trail, the GM makes it clear that the game has entered a Dramatic Scene: "The fate of the MacGuffin depends on how many clues you find at the MacGuffin shrine!" The GM is having trouble coming up with ideas. Unable to think of a source for the scene timer, the GM temporarily punts on a decision, planning to come up with something by the end of round one at the first timer accumulation. The scene needs at least one exploration site to begin. The GM, still at a loss, punts to the players: "Where do you begin looking?" Early Stage: Round 1 The Sleuth steps forward and investigates the gates to the shrine. Expanding on that action, the GM decides that the first investigation site is the area around the gates. There will eventually be some campaign-level consequence tied to this site but the GM need not decide the topic yet. The GM’s responsibility at this point it to quickly spot stats for the stie and add detail to the fiction. The GM secretly spots the Exploration Challenge of the gate area to one appropriate for the party (just under The Sleuth's Exploration Skill) and defaults to a stress goal of 50 based on Forensic Investigation guidelines. The GM adds more detail to the scene, knowing that this is now a site of consequence he expands the description to something of a larger scale, describing the walls around the gate as sundered as well, with rubble strewn about. To resolve The Sleuth’s action, the GM needs to give a default outcome. The default by our skill challenge rules is a positive outcome, in this particular case The Sleuth uncovers the next bit of narrative at the investigation site and adds one WIS die to the stress on that site. As a positive Needing a hook to start the narrative at the gates, the GM picks a plausible villain from the party's rogues gallery: “You walk over to the bent and broken gates. On closer inspection, a shred of fabric catches your eye. The silky orange shred could only be from the robe of The Summoner. Roll one WIS die." The Sleuth rolls 4.5, which the GM adds to the total towards the stress goal at the gates. Before the party totally defers to The Sleuth, the GM hints that time might be of the essence (still punting on the tension hook) and prompts the other players for action. The other four players have lower Exploration Skills, but at this point they have not “reality tested” the scene to see how their skill stack up. The party does not know it yet, but the challenge that the GM has set on the shrine gates sets them all up for a ‘negative’ expected outcome. Altrenatively, at this point only one exploration site has been discovered, so players might also want to do “scene discovery” and look around for more exploration sites. The Brute decides to try exploring the gates as well. The Brute’s Exploration Skill does not match the Exploration Challenge at the gates, so The Expected Thing is one ‘bad effect’. Our established scene structure interprets that as a starting point of “some ugly clue is discovered, no progress towards the goal and d6 stress to acting character”. Of course, The Brute knows none of this because the scene’s stats are hidden, so The Brute decides to play it safe and take the default outcome. The GM takes the ‘bad effect’ as an opportunity to add some ugliness to the scene: “As you approach the rubble near the gates, you notice the broken bodies of shrine guardians underneath the rubble. Take d6 stress.” The Brute rolls 3.5. Following The Sleuth and The Brute’s actions, the rest of the party has a ballpark idea of the topic (The Summoner) and the challenge (somewhat difficult) at the shrine gates. The party now discusses how much they want to get a helpful campaign-level shift regarding The Summoner versus what might be at other sites. They decide that the MacGuffin is more important, so they begin looking for more exploration sites. The GM, knowing that this scene is far more about building past narratives than present pixel-hunting, obliges by facilitating their search. The Acrobat heads into the shrine where the MacGuffin was kept. Knowing how much importance the party has put on the MacGuffin, the GM makes the inner sanctuary the next exploration site. To amp the feeling of tension he spots the challenge at equal-to The Sleuth’s Exploration Skill but sets the stress goal slightly lower at 40. The Acrobat now has a ‘very bad’ expected thing, and so, continuing the theme, the GM indicates that The Acrobat finds the The MacGuffin gone from its pedestal and the inner sanctum strewn with the bloodied remains of shrine guards. The Acrobat also takes 2d6 stress (The Acrobat rolls 7). The party now knows the topic of the next exploration site (The MacGuffin) and its ballpark challenge (difficult). The party still does not know the stress limits at each site and must weigh the fictional consequences of a bad campaign-level outcome at the gates and any other undiscovered sites if they choose to dogpile the inner sanctuary. The Tinker decides to follow The Acrobat to the inner sanctuary to try to move the MacGuffin investigation forward. Knowing that it is a tough spot, The Tinker elects to Take A Risk. The GM prompts for a fictional description of how The Tinker will try to use an Ability in their exploration. The Tinker declares “I inspect the bodies and try to deduce what killed them.” The GM grants an INT Advantage. The Tinker rolls d20+INT and gets a result of +1 good effect. Let’s say the Tinker’s default outcome is ‘bad’ (ugly clue, no progress, d6 stress to self). The roll defaultd do not cancel - rather they are stacked, and in this case the ‘good effect’ is a helpful clue and INT die towards the goal at that site. The GM, needing to put some heft behind all this carnage that goes along with The Summoner gets the idea of Big Demon, and layers trouble onto the past narrative but offering a breadcrumb to go with that good result: “The guardians all have massive, cauterized claw wounds - certain signs of a massive demon. While inspecting bodies near the pedestal, you notice a large chip in the marble floor behind the pedestal. Only The MacGuffin would be sturdy enough to make such a mark. Roll your INT die towards this investigation site and take d6 stress.” The Tinker rolls 4.5 towards the inner sanctum and takes 3.5 stress. Finally, following the party’s established priorities, The Face decides to chip in at the inner sanctum as well. Not much of an explorer, The Face has a ‘very bad’ default. The Face needs to Take A Risk to contribute, but with a low INT stat, The Face attempts a fictional justification for using something else: “I stand at the door to the inner sanctum and just take the whole scene in, trying to get a sense of how the fight went.” The GM grants a WIS Advantage. The Face rolls d20+WIS and gets a result of +1 good effect. The GM responds with some horrible truth and another breadcrumb: “From the piling of the bodies by the entryway it looks like they tried to physically bar the door. Whatever came through not only splintered the timbers they were using to brace, but also sent ten guardians flying like dolls. You notice a trail of blood leading to a back room. Roll your WIS die towards this site and take 2d6 stress.” The Face rolls 4.5 and takes 7 stress. The entire party having gone, it is now time for the GM to move the stress timer. With a few more details sketched out, he thinks he’s got a good timer hook for the scene. Its time to do the old “show signs of danger” and advance the scene timer: “As you all continue to sift through the carnage, suddenly you hear an unnatural roar from out in the wilderness that sends chills down your spine. Everyone roll d6…” At the end of round 1, the scene timer is at 17.5. The party has discovered two investigation sites: the area around the gates (The Summoner, 4.5/50) and the inner sanctuary (The MacGuffin, 9/40). In addition, The Brute and The Tinker have 3.5 stress each and The Acrobat and The Face have 7 stress each. The driver of the timer has been established as a probably-not-to-be-fought demon in the vicinity and the GM still has the leeway to add at least one more investigation site with a juicy consequence to make the party second guess dog piling on the MacGuffin topic at the inner sanctum. (TBC)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example: Improvised Investigation Early Stage: Round 2 With the scene sketched out, overlapping action established, and the impending threat of a rampaging demon nearby, the GM decides to spend round 2 focusing more on elaborative description and building the past narrative than hunting for more mechanical elements to add to the scene. The party has identified two exploration sites, one of higher priority but also higher “challenge”, and another of more moderate “challenge” but still some relevance. The party discusses their strategy and decides to dogpile the inner sanctuary despite the potential for high stress buildup because the MacGuffin is of extreme importance to their campaign goals. The Sleuth runs from the gate area into the inner sanctum and follows the blood-trail to the back room (Exploration, default: neutral outcome, Take A Risk +INT, rolls +2 good effects). The GM (thinking up with some positive MacGuffin breadcrumbs) indicates that The Sleuth notices scratches aside the blood trail, indicating that the MacGuffin was dragged from where it fell towards the back room, inside the back room is the body of a sanctuary guard but no MacGuffin (Sleuth rolls 2 INT die towards inner sanctum for 9 total). The rest of the party acts, taking on significant default stress while rolling Take A Risk. The Brute uses strength to heave the timbers near the door aside (rolls +STR and gets +1 good) and discovers the body of a mercenary skewered by a guard’s spear (+2d6 default stress - rolls 7, +WIS die towards goal - rolls 3.5). The Face checks on guards, using his force of personality (CHA) to beckon any still living to answer (GM denies advantage “your pleas fall on deaf ears”, Face rolls d20 gets 1 bad effect) and discovers some details of the fight with the guards - reinforcements arriving from both outside and within indicating that the demon made a quick entry (+2d6 default stress, +1d6 risk stress, +10.5 total). The Acrobat climbs atop the pedestal in the center of the room to get a better vantage point (rolls +DEX and gets +1 good) and spots two dead mercenaries against the back wall - a chip in the floor indicating that they had been hauling the MacGuffin out of the back room when the reinforcements killed them (+2d6 default stress, +WIS die towards goal - rolls 4.5). The Tinker moves over to the dead mercenaries and tries to imagine where the action in the room was when they died (rolls +INT and gets +1 good) and deduces that the demon was rampaging through the opposite side of the room while they tried to circle around the action towards the exit (+1d6 default stress - rolls 3.5, +INT die towards goal - rolls 4.5). The GM shows a bit more of the incoming danger “Even from within the inner sanctum you can hear a man scream in the nearby wilderness ... and the celebratory roar of a demon. Everyone roll d6 …” At the end of round 2, the scene timer is at 35. There are two investigation sites: the area around the gates (The Summoner, 4.5/50) and the inner sanctuary (The MacGuffin, 30.5/40). Party stress levels are: The Sleuth: 0, The Tinker: 7, The Brute: 10.5, The Acrobat: 14, and The Face: 17.5. The Face is on the verge of accumulating narrative consequences for taking on more stress (he must be our party’s “fool of a Took”), but the party still desperately needs The Face's contributions if they are going to achieve more than one investigation goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example: Improvised Investigation Mid Stage: Round 3 The Sleuth, continuing to follow the past-narrative in the inner sanctum, inspects the floor near the mercenaries for additional traces of the MacGuffin's movement (TAR +WIS - rolls +2 good). Going with the player's idea, the GM spins it in the "very good" direction, setting up the scene for the goal completion that the party is nearing. The Sleuth finds intermittent scratches in the floor from someone awkwardly lugging the MacGuffin. The scratches lead along the wall past more bodies and then stop below a tapestry hanging on the wall (neutral default, +2 WIS die towards goal - rolls 9). The Face, on the verge of consequences, decides that the inner sanctum is too grim and heads outside to cool off. Rather than let the player check out of the scene, the GM prompts "where do you head to?". The Face indicates heading out of the broken gates. The GM takes this as an opportunity to introduce a third exploration site. The onus on the GM is to introduce more overlap (by creating the third site) and elevate tension (by making the site's topic consequential enough that the players feel the opportunity cost of their choices). The GM chooses the nearest high-stakes topic at hand - "The Demon". With the high difficulty of the scene so far, the GM decides to spot the difficulty of this third site a bit lower so that characters near consequence have a safer choice - and sets it equal to The Face's exploration skill. By scene guidelines (150 pt goal total) the GM secretly sets the stress goal at this site to 60. GM to The Face: "As you stand outside the protective walls to catch your breath and try to put the grisly images from the inner sanctum out of your mind, a large patch of scorched ground off to one side catches your eye. Turning to look, you see a circle of strange symbols burned into the earth." Although The Face has not explicitly taken an action here, the GM has prompted to introduce the third site and reassure the player "hey you noticed a thing and didn't take automatic stress dice". The Tinker, in the next best shape after The Sleuth, explores the inner sanctum, pulling aside the tapestry. Knowing that the players are about to achieve the current goal - but only on a successful Take A Risk, the GM prepares a character moment with an elaboration: "You pull back the tapestry to find a blood-smeared wall. What do you do next?" The Tinker declares a Cross-Skill action of using Creative Skill in an attempt to search for secret doors. The GM, liking the character moment, but not wanting to let the player off easy by granting a skill exception for a mechanics-focused description, asks for more description. The Tinker runs fingers along the gaps in the stones, feeling for a change in the grout. The GM grants the cross-skill action so the outcome is resolved using The Tinker's Creative Skill (presumably equal to The Sleuth's Exploration Skill - thus a neutral default). Cross-Skill actions are always At-Risk, so The Sleuth must roll d20, The GM grants INT advantage as well (Sleuth rolls +1 good effect, rolls INT die for 4.5 towards inner sanctum). Unbeknownst to the players, the stress goal at the inner sanctum has now been achieved (43.5/40). This means that The GM must resolve the topic of the past-narrative in the inner sanctum (The MacGuffin) in a way that is an overall positive for the campaign. There is alot of leeway in how to interpret this, but for now the GM goes with something obvious. Resolving The Tinker's action, The GM expands on the fiction of the cross-skill action: "You search uncovers a stone with no grout connecting it to the surrounding stones. A bloody hand-print covers the stone. You press the stone and a section of wall swings inward to reveal a secret alcove. On the ground just inside the alcove is a bloody guard lying face-down, and beside him is The MacGuffin." High-fives all around, except The Sleuth who calls The Tinker a "scene stealer". The party has now achieved their main goal for the scene (a good campaign outcome for The MacGuffin) but there remain two investigation sites (determining outcomes for The Summoner and The Demon). The party might be tempted to make an early exit from the scene, but this would guarantee campaign-level badness for all unresolved topics. Because it appears to be a pressing matter, The Brute and The Acrobat decide to head out to the patch of scorched ground to dig up more details on The Demon. There is nothing for The Brute to toss around, so The Brute inspects the symbols (TAR +WIS - rolls +1 effect, rolls WIS die towards goal for 3.5) and finds a powdery residue that smells of sulphur. The Acrobat similarly has nothing to jump around on, so The Acrobat looks around the outside of the scorched area for any materials left nearby (TAR +WIS - rolls mixed results, takes 1d6 stress - roll 3.5, rolls WIS die towards goal for 3.5) and discovers a partially burned scroll with strange lettering and a drawing of a hulking horned demon. The GM indicates the advancement of the timer: "Those of you searching the exterior hear the cracking of timbers in the woods. Something is moving up the hillside towards the shrine. Everyone roll d6 ..." At the end of round 3, the scene timer is at 52.5/88. There are three investigation sites: the area around the gates (The Summoner, 4.5/50), the scorched ground (The Demon, 7/60), and the inner sanctuary (The MacGuffin, 43.5/40 - achieved). Party stress levels are: The Sleuth: 0, The Tinker: 7, The Brute: 14, The Acrobat: 17.5, and The Face: 17.5. The Face and The Acrobat are on the verge of consequence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example: Improvised Investigation The party has achieved one investigation goal, securing the safety of the MacGuffin through their investigation. However, this is no mop-up phase because the scene timer is ticking, heralding the return of a massive demon and there are campaign-level consequences hanging over the party's heads for both The Summoner and The Demon. As the scene is moving into the later rounds, the GM will be looking to keep pushing dramatic tension towards a peak. With one big goal and source of overlap down, the GM has the weight of the consequences at the remaining investigation sites to play with, but there is also still room for a final twist to make sure thing feel like they are reaching a dramatic peak rather settling into a mop-up. Mid Stage: Round 4 The party takes a moment to weigh their options. They have secured the MacGuffin, but it is a hefty artifact, usually requiring multiple persons to carry any distance. They might try to make an early scene exit and carry the MacGuffin away before The Demon arrives, but they are wary of leaving themselves open to consequences around The Summoner and The Demon. They consider sending The Brute away with The MacGuffin while The Sleuth and others try to finish investigation. If they stay, they also need to decide which investigation site to focus on. The party asks The GM if The Brute could carry The MacGuffin solo and the GM replies with a fiction-appropriate expectation "The Brute is strong enough to carry it solo, but only at a walking pace." After further discussion, the party decides that, if The Summoner did not find The MacGuffin in the secret alcove then it might be safe to leave it there if they flee. The party decides to dogpile the easier of the investigation sites - the scorched ground outside the shrine. The Sleuth takes a closer look at the scroll fragment that The Acrobat found (TAR +INT - rolls +2 good, default +2 good, rolls 4 INT die towards goal for 18). The Sleuth recognizes the language and, although not proficient, can make out some of it out (GM prompts the player to name the demonic language - player responds with "Low Abyssal"). The GM elaborates that the scroll described a summoning ritual for hulking demon known as a "Wrath Beast". The Tinker inspects the powdery residue found by The Brute (TAR +INT - rolls -1 bad, default +1 good, takes d6 stress - rolls 3.5, rolls INT die towards goal for 4.5) and discovers that the powder appears to be an unspent excess from the summoning ritual - indicating that The Summoner did not want to make any mistakes. The Brute inspects the powder as well (TAR +WIS - rolls +1 good, default neutral, rolls +WIS towards goal - rolls 3.5). The GM, knowing that the scene is more about building up a story of the past rather than piling on CSI minutiae, redirects the The Brute's action into narrative: "Bending over to look at the powder, you notice that the grass just outside the scorched area is trampled. There were mercenaries here guarding The Summoner as he performed this ritual." The Face and The Acrobat are both on the verge of consequence, however the party is determined to achieve the investigation at the scorched ground. The party does not know the exact stress needed for either the timer or the goal, so they urge everyone to take the risk and explore. The Face looks around the site for any additional debris that might provide clues (TAR +WIS, rolls -1 bad, takes d6 stress - rolls 3.5 reaching narrative consequence). The Face has now reached "narrative consequence". This is wide open to interpretation, but the GM has been trying to think up a twist to really amp the tension heading into the final rounds of the scene and this provides a great opportunity to introduce an overlapping distraction that, although not difficult, makes the party feel like they've really got too much on their hands. The GM decides to add some left-over mercenaries (nothing more than mooks - i.e. "sub-dramatic" characters - but the players don't know that). "As you look around the site, you turn to face the woods and see four mercenaries hustling up the hillside. You overhear 'if we hurry we can find it before that thing gets back', then they notice you." The Acrobat draws a bow and fires at the oncoming mercenaries (ranged attack is Combat-vs-Movement, GM spots mercs skills as fairly low, default is +1 good, Acrobat rolls TAR +DEX - rolls +2 good, total of 3 'effects', GM spots the mooks HP at 8,) The Acrobat applies the combat effects one at a time, using the first two to eliminate one merc and the third to injure another. The GM once again advances the scene timer: "Acrobat, as you aim and fire upon the mercenaries, you catch a glimpse of a hulking shape crashing through the trees at some distance behind them. Everyone roll d6 ..." At the end of round 4, the scene timer is at 70/88. There are three investigation sites: the area around the gates (The Summoner, 4.5/50), the scorched ground (The Demon, 33/60), and the inner sanctuary (The MacGuffin, 43.5/40 - achieved). Several mercenaries have arrive to pester the party (3 alive and one dead). Party stress levels are: The Sleuth: 0, The Tinker: 10.5, The Brute: 14, The Acrobat: 17.5, and The Face: 21. The Acrobat is still on the verge of consequence and The Face is now taking narrative consequences for all "bad" outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example: Improvised Investigation Late Stage: Round 5 Mercenaries are charging up the hill, with the Wrath Beast juggernauting through the trees not far behind. We are not doing strict initiative or turn order or precise distance here because our Exploration Scene is not framed as a "tactical scene". The Demon's progress towards the sanctuary is pretty much our scene timer. The Mercenaries were introduced to make sure we hit a peak tension in the final rounds. For that purpose, the GM wants to fast-forward their progress a bit. The party begins discussing what to do, trying to guess if they have one or two rounds left on the scene timer. The GM prods with "The mercenaries are almost on top of you! What do you do?" Despite being a few hits away from narrative consequence (due to accumulated stress), The Brute, as the combat specialist, turns to engage the mercenaries. "I'll hold them off while everyone else works on the site!" With declaration of Take A Risk and a rich description of brandishing a weapon and letting out a battle cry, the GM grants STR advantage. (Combat Conflict against a mercenary of much lower Combat Skill, default +2 good, TAR +STR - rolls +2 good, 4 combat effects to apply to any adjacent enemy of Combat Skill equal to or less than the primary target). The Brute applys his four effect one at a time, the first two damage dice taking out one target and the second two dice take down another. The Sleuth tries to inspect the scroll again. The GM prompts the player to explain what they are looking at or for. The Sleuth examines the singed fringe of the parchment (default +2 good, TAR +INT - rolls +1 good, rolls 3 INT die towards goal - rolls 13.5) and discovers that the burn pattern appears to be highly irregular, indicating an explosion and that something might have been off about the summoning. Knowing that it his job to amp the tension at this stage, the GM says "Your ears are pierced by an otherworldly roar. As the Wrath Beast approaches tree line you can see that it is a 20ft tall mound of muscle covered with a spiney fur and it has hate in its eyes." The Tinker moves to look at the trampled grass where the mercenaries were standing (default +1 good, TAR +INT, having a streak of bad luck rolls -1 bad, takes d6 stress - rolls 3.5, rolls INT die towards scene goal - rolls 4.5) and sees dents in the ground indicating that the mercenaries fell or perhaps were knocked off their feet during the summoning. The Acrobat is about to declare an attack on the final merc, but is interrupted by The Face. The Face says "Wait! I've got an idea!" The Face declares a Cross-Skill Action (in this case using a Social action to get an Exploration outcome) and says to the final merc: "Your friends are dead and you will be too if you don't tell us what happened during this summoning!" The GM, feeling like this is a great use of the present fiction, an appropriate cross-skill action (as it is being used to do world-building of the past rather than achieve a social outcome with the merc), and a great opportunity for a character moment, grants the Cross-Skill Action. The action is framed as The Face's Social Skill versus the Exploration Challenge at the scorched ground site (rather than versus the Social Skill of the merc), giving a default of +2 good, in this case the GM grants a CHA advantage so The Face rolls d20+CHA and gets +1 good. It is still effectively an Exploration, so The Face must still roll WIS or INT dice for the effects. The Face rolls 3 WIS for a total of 10.5 - achieving the stress goal at the scorched ground. The GM now must come up with a good campaign-level outcome on the topic of The Demon, preferably going along well with the established fiction of the scene and the campaign. This also means not invalidating the Wrath Beast as the huge threat that has been driving the scene. The GM decides to negate the threat of The Demon, but pushes that negation into the future of the campaign: "The merc stops, considers his dead friends, then looks back towards the forest. 'The demon was stronger than anything The Summoner had tried before. He tried extra preparation, but could not bind it. It rampaged wild at first, but when the guards noticed the commotion and raised the alarm, its anger fell upon the shrine. We tried to follow behind, but the chaos was too much.' " Thus the GM has established that, although currently an imposing threat, The Summoner will not likely be able to summon or control this demon in the future. The Acrobat is a cold-hearted hobo, so he lets loose some arrows into the final merc. The GM, knowing that the scene has played out, does not bother with mechanical resolution and just gives a default - the merc curses the party and falls. It is time to advance the scene counter: "Everyone roll d6 ..." The party rolls 17.5, and for our purposes the scene timer is up and we have reached end-of-scene. "The Wrath Beast bursts through the trees just down the hill from where you are. You have the feeling that your party would be no match against its rage-fueled strength." Resolution The party decides to run the other way as fast as possible. The GM must also resolve a negative campaign-level consequence around The Summoner due to the unachieved investigation site. This has to be something with real weight against the game world (as Exploration Scenes are about world building). The GM uses the last merc as a mouth piece: "The merc, with his final breath, laughs at you as you run. 'The Summoner may not have The MacGuffin, but his power grows and soon he will be a master of pyromancy as well. You all shall burn!' " Segue It is now time to advance to the next scene and there are basically two options: go Dramatic or go Narrative. If the GM feels that the party has Hit Points to spare and needs more excitement, we could immediately transition into a Dramatic Movement Scene (clearing stress and refreshing per-scene powers) as the party makes its flight from the Wrath Beast. Or the party could just easily outrun the Wrath Beast and we transition into a Narrative Scene as the party decides what to do next and travels to their destination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
EXPLORATION SCENES: Forensic Investigation Example: Improvised Investigation Discussion of Example In this example we have demonstrated how the improvisational construction and play of an exploration scene might work. As with improv theater, we began with merely the seed of an idea - an exploration scene about The MacGuffin - and expanded that into a full dramatic scene. The party investigated a shrine, building from nothing bit by bit to a narrative about The Summoner invoking a demon that he could not control, mayhem and destruction inside the shrine, and a tug-of-war over the MacGuffin, an escape into a secret alcove, and rumors of The Summoner's growing powers. Not only have we shown that one can improvise such a scene, but also we have shown how the Some Heartbreaker draft rules support its construction. Our lightweight framework of actions, effects, and goals, combined with scene-construction guidelines, leads to a scene with compelling gameplay that lasts a reasonable amount of time. Of course, our scene construction could be applied in other mechanical systems, however this system has been created from the ground up specifically for supporting this type of scene. Having taken a close action-by-action look at how this scene played out, let's draw some comparisons between this system and its major inspirations: Dungeon World: "Take A Risk" is a "Defy Danger" analogue; however, rather than triggered, TAR is elected by the player. We perform a simplification of the overall system and eliminate the use of class playbooks by essentially making everything a "Defy Danger" - for whatever a character does, there is a default and we "Defy Danger" on top of that default. The default is determined by the fiction, but we also add a tiny bit of crunch via Skills so that players can distinguish themselves in certain scene types via better defaults. We also incentivise fiction-focused play by making the Ability Bonus to Take A Risk contingent on the player making a good description of the action. Our scenes are meant to play out in a very Dungeon-Worldy fashion, with the caveat that we are trying to balance mechanical focus between a wide variety of scene types besides combat. We also have the crunch of stress goals and our notions about what a Dramatic Scene needs so that our "Parley writ large", "Discern Realities writ large", etc. have the same heft as an exciting combat scene. FATE: FATE is the tough target. Certainly one can look at our system of Skills and Take A Risk as directly analogous to FATE's Skill and shifts. We are lacking aspects and the Fate Point economy with invoke/compel, replacing that with our system of GM-approved fictional justification (for both Advantage and Cross-Skill action). Our base mechanic is finer grained than the FATE mechanic, with several numerical steps between "shifts" on both the Skill and the Take A Risk scale, allowing for finer distinctions between characters. Our skill list is also highly-targeted at our scene types and thus facilitates our shifting-spotlight style of scene rotation. Our Stress system is also more fine-grained and variable, substituting dice-effects for singular stress boxes. This stress mechanic allows further distinction between characters as using Ability Dice for stress effects lets some characters be more effective at certain actions than others. Our scene construction is certainly something that could be done via FATE Fractal, however the specific guidelines about focusing the scene mostly around one mode of action, and creating overlapping goals and tension are a new contribution. D20: We have shown clearly how, in our system, skills like "Exploration Skill" are a Base Attack Bonus analogue - i.e. one number that you use for most things that you do during the scene. In a skill-challenge fashion, rather than trying to break-down the difficulty of skill checks action-by-action, we summarize with just a few target numbers (just as a D20 combat summarizes with combat vs a few monsters each with constant AC). We throw out all fiddly bonuses and action-choice optimization and reduce a check to "Describe an action of a certain type. Get a default outcome determined by your skill, or roll d20, adding your Ability Bonus if your description was good." In order to support our scene constructions, we essentially summarized all skills (including BAB) under our broad categories of Combat, Social, Exploration, Movement, Creative. We have of course thrown out the magic system (to be replaced with a sixth skill which is pretty much "take automatic stress to perform arbitrary Cross-Skill actions"). We have also hacked off great swaths of crunch from what defines a character in order to facilitate improvisational construction (the Mercs were just Combat Skills with HP).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
I feel like this past example is really starting to get the intended gameplay of the design across. To the thread readers: Do you buy the feasibility of each addition that built up the improvisation construction? Does this sound like compelling gameplay to you? Does this sound like a game that would be worth trying?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:I feel like this past example is really starting to get the intended gameplay of the design across. To the thread readers: Do you buy the feasibility of each addition that built up the improvisation construction? Does this sound like compelling gameplay to you? Does this sound like a game that would be worth trying? Your example is a good one. It's the first time I really have a good view of how you are intending the game to play out. I like how narrative elimination and the multi-site stress races work, but a lot of what you are doing seems quite hand-wavey, giving the GM very few guidelines in how to set anything up. You've come up with a good framework for determining what stress goals and challenge difficulties should be, but you've given the GM so much freedom to set the threats, developments, and fictional results of challenge resolution or TAR results that it feels like a great deal of the scene is up to GM fiat. If I were running this game, I think I would be hard pressed to come up with challenges, sites and responses in a timely manner. Having something like a list of AW-style Hard Moves would help to point me in the right direction and keep me from falling into the trap of over-relying on one type of challenge or another. I really like the way you potentially have both positive and negative developments rolling out of every player action, but I can see where this scene might easily have gone off the rails: If the Face and Acrobat had rolled slightly worse than usual on their Stress rolls, it would be easy for both of them to be at Narrative Consequence. If this were the case, if I am understanding the system correctly, new complications and potentially campaign-level complications would be rolling out every time they TAR from now on. It is in the party's best interest at this point to simply tie these characters up and keep them from doing anything, which is no fun for anyone. Is there a way to re-write this so that instead of becoming a liability, characters who hit consequence simply become less effective or inflict a one-time consequence? Or am I mis-understanding how Narrative Consequence works? Finally, the way you have campaign-wide consequence and exploration sites tied together, it would be more advantageous for the Face to have sat on his hands in the midst of the inner sanctum than to go outside and find another exploration site. By finding the summoning circle and introducing an exploration site tied to the Demon, the Face introduced a new threat and made it impossible for the group to solve the exploration scene at the gates in time. Since the players have no way of knowing how difficult the exploration challenge at a given site will be, it is risky business for a character near their Stress limit to take any action at all, as they risk either invoking Narrative Badness on the whole party or discovering a new scene which will inevitably threaten the same. In short, if you want to treat Exploration scenes like combat with dwindling HP totals, players should have some methods of dealing with the combat beyond going toe-to-toe with challenges and seeing who's HP runs out first. Introduce to these sorts of Stress races the same level of tactical depth you would want in a combat encounter. Some examples might include: -Healing: the ability to use a Social or Creative check to lower the Stress of another character -Buffing: the ability to make someone else get more successful checks or better results on their existing checks through the use of a cross-Skill action (such as the Acrobat leaping up to get a better view or the Brute clearing the rubble) -Debuffing: using a narrative feat or other ability such as a divination spell or the like to make finding clues in a given site easier -Movement control: introduce movement challenges or other obstacles that make it difficult for the entire party to collaborate on a single site or move between sites unless it is overcome first, taking up valuable time. In the example used here, if part of the temple were on fire and needed to be navigated or extinguished to get to or from the inner sanctuary that would have added an action that someone nearing their Exploration stress limit could have done to help without risking being a hindrance to the party. I hope this doesn't come out sounding overly critical, as overall, this is looking very compelling so far and has more than a few ideas I intend to shamelessly steal for my own games, to help streamline scene and challenge creation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback! It has certainly highlighted some things that need work either in description or in content.Null Profusion posted:Your example is a good one. It's the first time I really have a good view of how you are intending the game to play out. I like how narrative elimination and the multi-site stress races work, but a lot of what you are doing seems quite hand-wavey, giving the GM very few guidelines in how to set anything up. You've come up with a good framework for determining what stress goals and challenge difficulties should be, but you've given the GM so much freedom to set the threats, developments, and fictional results of challenge resolution or TAR results that it feels like a great deal of the scene is up to GM fiat. If I were running this game, I think I would be hard pressed to come up with challenges, sites and responses in a timely manner. Having something like a list of AW-style Hard Moves would help to point me in the right direction and keep me from falling into the trap of over-relying on one type of challenge or another. quote:I really like the way you potentially have both positive and negative developments rolling out of every player action, but I can see where this scene might easily have gone off the rails: If the Face and Acrobat had rolled slightly worse than usual on their Stress rolls, it would be easy for both of them to be at Narrative Consequence. If this were the case, if I am understanding the system correctly, new complications and potentially campaign-level complications would be rolling out every time they TAR from now on. It is in the party's best interest at this point to simply tie these characters up and keep them from doing anything, which is no fun for anyone. Is there a way to re-write this so that instead of becoming a liability, characters who hit consequence simply become less effective or inflict a one-time consequence? Or am I mis-understanding how Narrative Consequence works? quote:Finally, the way you have campaign-wide consequence and exploration sites tied together, it would be more advantageous for the Face to have sat on his hands in the midst of the inner sanctum than to go outside and find another exploration site. By finding the summoning circle and introducing an exploration site tied to the Demon, the Face introduced a new threat and made it impossible for the group to solve the exploration scene at the gates in time. Since the players have no way of knowing how difficult the exploration challenge at a given site will be, it is risky business for a character near their Stress limit to take any action at all, as they risk either invoking Narrative Badness on the whole party or discovering a new scene which will inevitably threaten the same. quote:In short, if you want to treat Exploration scenes like combat with dwindling HP totals, players should have some methods of dealing with the combat beyond going toe-to-toe with challenges and seeing who's HP runs out first. Introduce to these sorts of Stress races the same level of tactical depth you would want in a combat encounter. Some examples might include: That said, I do agree with you that more options are needed and this example was entirely characters acting in isolation. Way back in Section 2 I briefly mentioned ideas for combined actions, but those ideas remain as sketches in need of definition. The trick is to not make it a degenerate option - i.e. something you always want to do (which directly adding Skills together would become). Buffing/Debuffing might have a place, and may be another way to do assistance. I am a fan of buffs representing "active assistance" rather than "passive modifiers". Since we are avoiding fiddly modifiers, I think the buffing model might be more akin to "use your action to shift target's Ability Die one step for this turn (does not stack)" - but that is still a thing that encourages "sit back and help the expert" rather that "take dramatic action!". This area definitely still needs thought. quote:I hope this doesn't come out sounding overly critical, as overall, this is looking very compelling so far and has more than a few ideas I intend to shamelessly steal for my own games, to help streamline scene and challenge creation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:Thanks for the feedback! It has certainly highlighted some things that need work either in description or in content. Scene moves are an excellent idea. If there were an outline of what the GM could throw at the party in a given scene to give a sense of what a campaign-level failstate and personal-level narrative consequence would be, it would pretty much eliminate every criticism I mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
As a break from analysis for the moment, I've started editing the core mechanics into a Quick Rules doc of just a few pages and an "Accelerated Rules" doc that expresses things more completely, but not as verbose as the full rules will eventually be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
To simplify Health and Stress accounting, I've decided to depart from HP as a thing that has a maximum and goes down. Each character's "Health" will be a static number (effectively their max HP) and they will accumulate Damage (long term consequence) along with Stress (short term consequence). This makes movement of both trauma tracks to be in the same additive direction (rather than one subtractive and one additive) and since we already have the concept of "damage" eliminates a conceptual redundancy in damage/HP and simplifies HP into just one concept (rather than both static max and dynamic current values).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Nobody ever liked subtraction, anyway. Actually when I'm playing 4e these days, I do add up the damage and compare it to my bloodied level or Max HP, pretty much just as you're describing. Then when I get healing, I just subtract from the damage column; luckily there's no healing in Some Heartbreaker
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm not against all healing, and if it is appropriate for someone's genre then I'd like to accommodate for it. But even in these cases I'd limit it to a per-encounter power - aka a "dramatic feat" - rather than a thing the mechanics assume that someone is doing every round. I want all players engaging with the scene, rather than having someone by design sitting back disengaged from the fiction to play the meta-fiction HP management game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I like the idea of healing sharing the same resource pool as [anything else]. It seems like that could lead to some tense moments. I think a healing mechanic works best when it's not an assumption of the underlying system math.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Been spending most SH efforts on the "accelerated" doc, but also trying to better hash out the advancement system. Under the assumption that players will dump-stat at least one Skill, going with a pure point-buy system would leave us commonly with a 20-point differential between a specialist and a dump-stat character. With the feat-per-buy scheme it would also mean that we need to come up with a minimum of 20 feats per skill per genre (more if we want the players to have interesting choices). Therefore, rather than a pure point-buy system, I've decided to calculate Skill Scores as "Level + Base Score". We will presume a Level 0 to 10 progression, with a 10-point cap on each Base Skill Score. This will help us reach that "Max 20 BAB" aesthetic goal while keeping the party skill spread in a more reasonable 10-point range (within three default magnitudes of effect) as well as keeping the minimum feats-per-skill-per-genre to 10. Using our non-linear point-buy system, a maxed out Base Skill Score of 10 (for a total Skill Score at Level 10 of 20) costs a total of 55 skill points. If we award 10 skill points per level, that is 100 points total at max level and we get "end-game skill pyramids" for our 5 main skills such as: 20,19,10,10,10 (level 10 dual specialist: no points wasted, 19 feats total) 20,17,14,13,11 (level 10 pyramid: no points wasted, 25 feats total) 20,15,14,14,14 (level 10 specialist, no big weakness: no points wasted, 27 feats total) 16,16,16,16,15 (level 10 generalist: as even as possible, one point left over, 27 feats total) We also get Level 1 builds that let players specialize early with those first 10 points: 5,1,1,1,1 (level 1 specialist: all points into one +4) 4,3,2,1,1 (level 1 pyramid: all points spent) 3,3,2,2,2 (level 1 generalist: 1 point saved for later) It gets a touch complicated when we add Powers (Magic and etc) into the mix. When a character takes a Power, they will now have an extra, high-utility Skill that could feasibly be used in place of any other Skill (with the right Feats and at Stress Cost) that is advancing with Level at no additional Skill Point investment. The easy, but less desirable, way out of this is to give every character a score in every power. IMO this creates a genre-violation for any genre with a mix of magics and mundanes. The idea I am currently toying with is "Skills computed as Base Score + Level - number of Powers (min 0)". This would make the max Power Score a 19, ensuring that the mundane specialist is always top-dog in their niche, and we would get builds like: power:19 skills:18,9,9,9,9 (level 10 "caster" specialist) power:19 skills:15,15,15,14,14 (level 10 "caster" generalist) Level 1 would look like: power:4 skills:0,0,0,0,0 (level 1 "caster" specialist) power:3 skills:1,1,1,1,0 (level 1 "caster" generalist) And anyone crazy enough to be a dual-source caster (i.e. Magic & Divine): power1:18, power2:17, skills:8,8,8,8,8 (level 10 "dual caster") power1:3 power2:2, skills:0,0,0,0,0 (level 1 "dual caster")
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
More thoughts on the proposed advancement system:pre:Progress of Dual Specialist who puts all points into one primary skill first Level | Primary Skill | Other Skills | Max Spread | Feats ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 5 (1+4,10pts) | all 1 | 4 | 4 in primary 2 | 7 (2+5,15pts) | all 2 | 5 | 5 in primary 3 | 10 (3+7,28pts) | all 3 | 7 | 7 in primary 4 | 12 (4+8,36pts) | all 4 | 8 | 8 in primary 5 | 14 (5+9,45pts) | all 5 | 9 | 9 in primary 6 | 16 (6+10,55pts) | all 6 | 10 | 10 in primary 7 | 17 (7+10,55pts) | 12 (15), 7s | 10 | 10 in primary, 5 in secondary 8 | 18 (8+10,55pts) | 14 (21), 8s | 10 | 10 in primary, 6 in secondary 9 | 19 (9+10,55pts) | 16 (28), 9s | 10 | 10 in primary, 7 in secondary 10 | 20 (10+10,55pt) | 19 (45), 10s | 10 | 10 in primary, 9 in secondary All Skill Score purchased by points (no level contribution). Restriction: Highest Skill can be no more than double Lowest Skill (max score 20). All skills start at 1 ("free" 5 points). 28 skill points per level. 20 levels. 565 total points. Feats: ??? pre:Progress of Dual Specialist who puts all points into one primary skill first Level | Pts | Primary Skill | Other Skills | Max Spread -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 33 | 4 (10pts) | 2 (12pts) | 2 2 | 61 | 6 (21pts) | 3 (24pts) | 3 3 | 89 | 8 (36pts) | 4 (40pts) | 4 4 | 117 | 10 (55pts) | 5 (60pts) | 5 5 | 145 | 10 (55pts) | 6 (84pts) | 4 6 | 173 | 12 (78pts) | 7,6,6,6 (91) | 6 7 | 201 | 12 (78pts) | 7,7,7,7 (112) | 5 8 | 229 | 14 (105pts) | 8,7,7,7 (120) | 7 9 | 257 | 14 (105pts) | 8,8,8,8 (144) | 6 10 | 285 | 16 (136pts) | 8,8,8,8 (144) | 8 11 | 313 | 16 (136pts) | 9,9,9,8 (171) | 8 12 | 341 | 17 (153pts) | 9,9,9,9 (180) | 8 13 | 369 | 18 (171pts) | 10,9,9,9 (190) | 9 14 | 397 | 18 (171pts) | 10,10,10,10 (220)| 8 15 | 425 | 19 (190pts) | 10,10,10,10 (220)| 9 16 | 453 | 20 (210pts) | 12,10,10,10 (243)| 10 17 | 481 | 20 (210pts) | 14,10,10,10 (270)| 10 18 | 509 | 20 (210pts) | 16,10,10,10 (301)| 10 19 | 537 | 20 (210pts) | 17,10,10,10 (318)| 10 20 | 565 | 20 (210pts) | 19,10,10,10 (355)| 10
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Aesthetic choice: renaming aspect/tag system to 'traits' to make it more clone-y, still calling resource Fate Points, still work similar to Fate Aspects. This leaves us with the main game elements being: Abilities: bonuses to random resolution Skills: determine default outcomes Powers: skills that cost stress to use Feats: DW Moves / 4E Powers / Player Fiats Traits: FATE Aspects
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
In the interest of getting to a testable state, I've started working on the first Genre Kit: "Basic Breaker". This kit is meant to emulate a fantasy genre roughly consistent with Rules Compendium. As mentioned previously, a Genre Kit defines the interpretation of Ability and Skill scales, adds Traits, adds Powers, and most importantly defines Feats for Skills and Powers. Feats are the main way that we hope to achieve the "increasing shared-narrative" style of progression. Overall I'm aiming to have them engage with the fiction more often than the mechanics. To give a flavor of what I'm getting at, here are a few feats that I have come up with so far: SOCIAL FEATS First Impressions (Social Feat, Narrative) Strangers always seem to be impressed by you. Once per Narrative Scene, indicate a character that you have just met. That character has a better than expected attitude towards you. Choose whether you have earned more admiration, sympathy, or trust. I Know Just The Person (Social Feat, Narrative) You have a knack for knowing just the right person to help with any problem. Once per long-rest, when in a populated area, name the thing that you need help with and introduce a character who you can ask for help. This character owes you a small favor, but might want something in return if you ask for a large favor. The GM will determine the exact nature of the help. My Reputation Proceeds Me (Social Feat, Dramatic) Someone in the room always seems to have heard of you. Once per Social Scene, indicate a character that you have just met or introduce a new character. This character has heard of your deeds and has your respect. SPIRIT FEATS Animal Empathy, Lesser (Spirit Feat, Fiat) When taking this feat, choose an animal family (such as felines, canines, ursines, etc.) You are attuned to the language of that animal family and may communicate freely with members of any species within that family. Animal Empathy, Greater (Spirit Feat, Fiat) Prerequisites: Lesser Animal Empathy You are attuned to the language of all animals and may communicate freely with any animal. Cure (Spirit Feat, Narrative) You are able to eliminate poisons, toxins and diseases. As a Narrative Action, you may purify spoiled or tainted food and drink. As a Narrative Action you may remove all poisons, toxins and diseases from any one character that you touch, clearing all Debilities from that character that have the Poison, Toxin or Disease traits. Know Alignment (Spirit Feat, Fiat) You are finely attuned to the way things relate to the world. The GM must always tell you whether another character or object in your presence has an Alignment trait and what that Alignment is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:56
|
|