One sentiment I've encountered in regards to tabletop RPGs quite a few times is a variant of the belief that system doesn't really matter: an RPG "can't be all players/can't be all rules".
I'm not exactly sure how to unpack this statement. On the surface, it sort of seems absurd. After all, games are exactly sets of rules. So saying it's not "all rules" doesn't make sense. After all, if you take away the rules, what are you left with?
I think the intent behind this idea is that so-called mechanical solutions aren't appropriate for many instances of play. But I think this is a misunderstanding of what mechanics are. I think, what this really is, is a stance against rules-heavy simulationist style play.
But that's not "rules vs. player", it's players applying a certain set of rules. I don't think the "system" in "system matters" just boils down to dice mechanics. "Describe what your character does, GM decides results" is a universal role-playing system that promotes a certain style of play.
>read leaflet (taken)
>WELCOME TO THE GAME DESIGN BLOG OF PHIL LEWIS!
Monday, August 27, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
More Infiltration
After talking it over with friends, I have a sketch that's starting to become a full fledged mini-game for Infiltration.
Essentially, Infiltration is a series of obstacles, further subdivided into tasks. These obstacles and tasks are created during the acts leading up to the finale. While those scenes are played out, the heroes divide up responsibility for the plan.
During the mini-game, each character attempts to remove an obstacle by addressing the sub-tasks which make it up.
Besides obstacles and tasks, a suspicion tracker is used, which slowly escalates during failed rolls for tasks. If this reaches a threshold, the hero is caught, and must face penalties.
When an obstacle is removed, the suspicion track goes down some, reflecting the new situation that results.
For instance, an obstacle might be "Palace Guards". Tasks to get by them might be "Make a uniform", "Enter hallway", and "Command guards to leave".
Essentially, Infiltration is a series of obstacles, further subdivided into tasks. These obstacles and tasks are created during the acts leading up to the finale. While those scenes are played out, the heroes divide up responsibility for the plan.
During the mini-game, each character attempts to remove an obstacle by addressing the sub-tasks which make it up.
Besides obstacles and tasks, a suspicion tracker is used, which slowly escalates during failed rolls for tasks. If this reaches a threshold, the hero is caught, and must face penalties.
When an obstacle is removed, the suspicion track goes down some, reflecting the new situation that results.
For instance, an obstacle might be "Palace Guards". Tasks to get by them might be "Make a uniform", "Enter hallway", and "Command guards to leave".
Monday, August 6, 2012
Infiltration
I'm interested in coming up with playtest packets which flesh out the different types of missions in Wrath of the Autarch: Exploration, Infiltration, Diplomacy, Quest, Warfare, and Threats.
The biggest question mark at this point is infiltration, the act of either stealing knowledge about a development or sabotaging a development.
My initial thought is to create a mini-game which is populated during the three obstacle scenes. The obstacle scenes could be somewhat standard in terms of tone, such as:
The biggest question mark at this point is infiltration, the act of either stealing knowledge about a development or sabotaging a development.
My initial thought is to create a mini-game which is populated during the three obstacle scenes. The obstacle scenes could be somewhat standard in terms of tone, such as:
- Establishing a base of operations.
- Researching the target.
- Coming up with a plan.
The mini-game might then be a series of steps which can be filled in during the planning scene. Then, success or failure of the mission would occur depending on how well each character succeeds in executing the portion of the plan they're responsible for.
If it's simple skill rolls to advance along the various tracks, then this may be a little abstract for an esponiage themed session.
It seems like the omnipresent concern for espionage is getting caught. So having a meter for the amount of suspicion aroused might be useful as well.
Lessons from the Strategic Model
After playing through the strategic model a few times, it made me question some elements that I took for granted in Wrath of the Autarch.
One of those is attributes for the different factions (military, influence, arcana, and technology). The more I thought about it, the more they seemed unnecessary. These can probably be covered by developments. The sorts of developments a faction has built effectively fills in those areas.
I think population and stability are still necessary, though.
With that in mind, I may need to tweak the model again, and just use the developments, somehow weighting them based on effectiveness in accomplishing certain missions.
I'm sort of alternating between a strategic model and zooming in on the mechanics of the actual missions.
One of those is attributes for the different factions (military, influence, arcana, and technology). The more I thought about it, the more they seemed unnecessary. These can probably be covered by developments. The sorts of developments a faction has built effectively fills in those areas.
I think population and stability are still necessary, though.
With that in mind, I may need to tweak the model again, and just use the developments, somehow weighting them based on effectiveness in accomplishing certain missions.
I'm sort of alternating between a strategic model and zooming in on the mechanics of the actual missions.
FateThulhu
I've been interested for a while in marrying Call of Cthulhu with FATE. Still haven't looked around to see if it's already been done, but it seems like a natural fit.
In particular, I like the way Trail of Cthulhu distinguishes between investigative skills and general skills. It seems like treating investigative skills similar to aspects might be a fun way to make a character.
Similar to Trail, all the investigative skills are divvied up between the players, and then used without rolling dice. If you have the relevant investigative skill, and are involved in the scene, you get the clue. Instead of treating the skills like pools, FATE points could be used when it's possible to get some extra result above and beyond the clue.
General skills would be handled in a more traditional FATE fashion. However, since sanity is such an important part of Cthulhu, it might be good to add some extra mechanical weight to sanity. Consequences might work, particularly if the GM could use free tags to really play up the consequence.
In particular, I like the way Trail of Cthulhu distinguishes between investigative skills and general skills. It seems like treating investigative skills similar to aspects might be a fun way to make a character.
Similar to Trail, all the investigative skills are divvied up between the players, and then used without rolling dice. If you have the relevant investigative skill, and are involved in the scene, you get the clue. Instead of treating the skills like pools, FATE points could be used when it's possible to get some extra result above and beyond the clue.
General skills would be handled in a more traditional FATE fashion. However, since sanity is such an important part of Cthulhu, it might be good to add some extra mechanical weight to sanity. Consequences might work, particularly if the GM could use free tags to really play up the consequence.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Initial Strategic Model Playthrough
Played through the Strategic Model this evening, which went reasonably well. It was a pretty easy victory for the Stronghold, although they rolled well and got a great region on the first turn.
There were a few clarifications, and the sheets could use some reworking. I edited them so that it's possible to use a tracking cube to monitor the attribute values. That should speed up play quite a bit, as there was too much erasing and rewriting.
My initial thought is that it's a little too easy for the Stronghold. Which was the point of making this model to begin with. But I want to play it through a few times in succession before I start the tweaking.
The other issue is that threats might need some work. It's tough coming up with a balanced way for the GM to cause the player's grief, but it's important in such an adversarial style of game. The tricky part is going to be not overwhelming the GM with all the details about how to create threats. I'm thinking in the actual WotA game that I'll maybe just have charts of threats for the GM to choose from, rather than having to build them too much from scratch.
There were a few clarifications, and the sheets could use some reworking. I edited them so that it's possible to use a tracking cube to monitor the attribute values. That should speed up play quite a bit, as there was too much erasing and rewriting.
My initial thought is that it's a little too easy for the Stronghold. Which was the point of making this model to begin with. But I want to play it through a few times in succession before I start the tweaking.
The other issue is that threats might need some work. It's tough coming up with a balanced way for the GM to cause the player's grief, but it's important in such an adversarial style of game. The tricky part is going to be not overwhelming the GM with all the details about how to create threats. I'm thinking in the actual WotA game that I'll maybe just have charts of threats for the GM to choose from, rather than having to build them too much from scratch.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Strategic Model
Well, I've switched the project name to Wrath of the Autarch. Like it better, but could change it again later.
Unsurprisingly, kingdom building games are very difficult to design. There are two different scopes to the game: a mission scope and a seasonal scope. Where the mission scope focuses on the roleplay during the session, the seasonal scope is how the results of all the missions affect the different factions and the Stronghold.
It's not really practical to play out a 25 or 30 session campaign to see if it's well balanced. Instead, I'm interested in creating a strategic model, which abstracts details like characters and developments and aspects out, instead focusing on just the high level faction skills, as well as how all the missions interact with each other.
To that end, I'm going to create a model with the following features for each faction:
Developments also are abstracted away. Instead, developments will just affect the key faction skills: stability, population, influence, military, arcana, and technology.
After creating faction sheets, I'm going to define the missions in terms of these new values.
Hopefully this view of the game will yield useful information. Questions like, how long does the game take to complete? Are all the missions equally useful? How balanced are the factions? Are there any clearly better strategies?
If I can build a decent model for the game, I can try to build the missions to reflect the difficulties in the model, and I should have a better shot at making a balanced game, without having to play through it multiple times.
Unsurprisingly, kingdom building games are very difficult to design. There are two different scopes to the game: a mission scope and a seasonal scope. Where the mission scope focuses on the roleplay during the session, the seasonal scope is how the results of all the missions affect the different factions and the Stronghold.
It's not really practical to play out a 25 or 30 session campaign to see if it's well balanced. Instead, I'm interested in creating a strategic model, which abstracts details like characters and developments and aspects out, instead focusing on just the high level faction skills, as well as how all the missions interact with each other.
To that end, I'm going to create a model with the following features for each faction:
- Stability
- Population
- Influence
- Military
- Arcana
- Technology
- Characters
- Regions
Developments also are abstracted away. Instead, developments will just affect the key faction skills: stability, population, influence, military, arcana, and technology.
After creating faction sheets, I'm going to define the missions in terms of these new values.
Hopefully this view of the game will yield useful information. Questions like, how long does the game take to complete? Are all the missions equally useful? How balanced are the factions? Are there any clearly better strategies?
If I can build a decent model for the game, I can try to build the missions to reflect the difficulties in the model, and I should have a better shot at making a balanced game, without having to play through it multiple times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)