Effects of Infiltration Missions

The recent playtests involving the Infiltration mini-game (used during Espionage and Sabotage missions) have been really fun.  However, an area that still needs more work is the overall campaign effect of Espionage and Sabotage in terms of benefits to the Stronghold.  This is an area that needs work on the whole, but is particularly poorly defined for those two mission types.

I had envisioned Espionage as primarily making it easier to build certain developments (the "tech tree" stuff that builds the kingdom up), essentially by stealing information from the target faction.  This would most likely translate to some sort of build point bonus (build points being units of "work" necessary to create a development).  Coming up with an exact number might require some revisions, but it should be good enough to merit attempting the mission, such as reducing the cost by half or something similar.  It's also possibly to get added build points by using Diplomacy with a faction, and having them directly aid your Stronghold.

It seems like not every development would benefit from Espionage (although, just glancing through them, I can justify some benefit to stealing secrets for all of them).  The specific effect of Espionage might need to be development dependent.  That also opens the door to effects besides simple build points.  For instance, maybe using the Espionage mission on a target castle plants a mole there - a mole who might be able to lower the defenses at a critical point during a future military campaign.  Similarly, it might be possible to learn some sort of forbidden lore through an Espionage mission.  That opens up the idea that one development might have more than one type of Espionage mission attached to it.

For Sabotage, the general idea is to inflict damage on a development, rendering it useless.  This is a little more problematic for the factions - since the GM doesn't keep track of their developments, and many of them really have no function for the faction.  Factions are really only described by two main attributes: stability and population.  Factions also have regions, with resources, although the resources aren't spent on anything - rather they exist only as locations to fight over.  A faction also has leaders.

So, most Sabotage missions function to lower the target's stability or population or both.  It's possible to assign some stability loss to developments (for instance, taking out their Improved Mining doesn't affect any resources, but drops their stability by some amount).  Another option for Sabotage might be a mission to assassinate a target leader, which would also have lasting consequences, to both Warfare and Diplomacy missions.

In order for this method to work, each development would need a list of all results of Espionage and Sabotage (could be none), as well as a general level of difficulty, which is used to add adversaries in the Infiltration mini-game.

Here's a sample development entry using this method:

• Mages Guild
• Build Points: 240
• Mana: 8
• Ore: 9
• Timber: 8
• Luxuries: 2
• Prerequisites: Mana Forge (Advanced), Expert Casting, Expert Channeling
• Effect: Caster may double effect of all mana expenditures (spending 4 mana now as the same effect as spending 8).
• Infiltration:
• Steal Secrets (Security: High) - Gain 120 BP toward building a Mages Guild.
• Destroy Ancient Library (Security: High) - Faction loses 3 stability as well as all effects of Mages Guild.

Most of the complexity in WotA comes from the choices available between missions, and this continues that pattern.  So, while play is fairly straightforward, it will probably be necessary to include some rough strategies to expose players to a few of the options that are available.

Depictions of the Autarch

In working on Wrath of the Autarch, I've been primarily focusing on mechanics to this point.  While there are six important factions in the game (including the Autarch's), my goal is to walk a line where the factions are somewhat fleshed out, but not excessively so.  That is, I would like to "leave space" for creativity and collaborative worldbuilding, but also provide sketches and snapshots to help creativity during play.

However, I vastly underestimated how much concrete detail needs to be understood when creating the art.  The indomitable Doug Kovacs is doing much of the art, functioning as a collaborator and designer.  I have also badgered my friends for help as well, which certainly hasn't been uncommon to this point.

Anyway, one of the first orders of business is to really think about the Empire, and the Autarch in particular.  I had written up a snapshot in the book - they're a plutocracy of sorts, where heads of numerous guilds form a collective senate and rule.  The Autarch is somewhat a figurehead, a historical position that is selected and put in place by the guilds.

This Autarch, though, is somewhat more savvy than those before her, and is less "figurehead" and more "get things done" - to both the delight and displeasure of various guildmasters.  I imagined her to be in her mid-30s, and we were giving her a slight Roman look (much of the Empire is inspired by Rome).

For the cover composition, we thought it would be cool to have her on a palanquin, held up by guards.  Surrounding her would be some sort of depiction of the seasons - hinting that it's a kingdom building game.  One idea was to have these seasons on a stone tablet, maybe showing the construction and destruction of a development (like a keep or a wizard's tower) through the seasons.

We also thought she should look a little elaborate - formal robes, a headband or icons of some sort surrounding her.  She's in "regal" attire on the cover - not in her more functional ass kicking gear.  In her hands are a magical ruyi scepter, cradled in her left, and a sword across her lap.  The ruyi scepter means something akin to "as you wish" and depicts prosperity.  Historically it was also a talking stick of sorts.  I really like that symbolism - as the Autarch is the wish granter and the one whose voice is heard.  The sword represents the enforcement of their will.  It has a nice blend of bizarre and formal.

I also really like the look of Byzantium color schemes and accoutrements.  The Empress Theodora, in particular, had a cool look, and might inspire the look of the Autarch - sort of a combination of Rome and Byzantium.
  

I think having some ornate robes is in order, with various bands symbolizing the importance of her station.  Although, I'm thinking of toning down the headgear a little - emphasizing the Autarch as someone who gets things done, and probably wouldn't be *as* comfortable with some of the formal restrictions, shying away from it perhaps more than her predecessors.

I also need to think of symbols for either her or the Empire.  I like the idea of a raven - symbolizing wisdom.  A bear also sounds cool.  We were thinking of using sun icons for the various depictions of the Stronghold (the protagonists) - since the Stronghold could look so many different ways.  Another option might be a stylized coin or something to that effect, further emphasizing the importance of prosperity and economy in the Empire.

OSR Analysis #12: Gamemastering as Probability Creation

So, I picked up Gygax magazine a few days ago and have been reading through it.  It has been a fun experience, probably a little heavy on the nostalgia department, but then most of the OSR strikes me as having a large component of nostalgia (nothing wrong with that).

The magazine itself certainly brings up fond memories of the heyday of Dragon magazine, when I was introduced to the hobby.

Anyway, I ran across a comment in an article by Lenard Lakofka.  "The DM has the final ability to rule and conduct the game.  If something a player wants to do is outlandish, give it a 3-8% chance of success, but if it's well thought out and doable make it 75-90%.  In those cases, where it is not a sure call in the DM's mind..."  Standard OSR boilerplate "Rulings not Rules" stuff, right?

But it got me thinking.  It strikes me as maybe the dividing line between old school and new school.  In old school, there are a ton of systems - all of which are completely optional (save for usually combat, which holds a hallowed place).  However, the one ur-mechanic which drives old school play is the ability of the GM to create a probability for any situation.  Indeed, that seems to me to be the defining characteristic.

But, what is going on here?  It's the GM's job to judge the worth of an idea, and assign a probability to it?  More than that, such probabilities seem to be neither 0% or 100% as a matter of course.  Is a really, really, really good idea worth 99%?  And a really, really bad one worth 1%?

Now look at a game like Dungeon World.  In that game, all the probabilities are largely fixed - good and bad ideas are going to make it into the mix.  They tend not to be tuned by probabilities, but rather by table consensus and other social factors.  Fiasco also dispenses with such probability assignment, favoring table consensus as well (although it is such a different model of design that there aren't many parallels).

Another new school game, FATE, is on the surface closer to that old school "let the GM judge the probabilities" method.  After all, the GM has a strong stance, and there are skills, with various difficulties assigned for success.  However, the escape hatch comes in the "Create an Advantage" action, which allows a player to put aspects into play.  With enough aspects that may be invoked for free - many actions become not just possible, but true.  In essence, a player is adding to the narration in exchange for success - also a marked difference from that old school philosophy of GM as probability creation engine.

Of course, the difference between old school and new school (to the extent that those nebulous terms even have a center) is much more complex than that, but that quote did strike me as a glaring exemplar of the old school mindset.

Diplomacy Revisited

A big part of Wrath of the Autarch are the threats which harass the heroes on their path to remove the Autarch from power.  In considering the threats which the Autarch may employ, one that considered fun might be targeting a faction in order to lower their disposition.  In essence, swaying a faction to become loyal to the Autarch rather than the Stronghold.

Unfortunately, the current Negotiation mini-game doesn't handle this very well.  Thinking a little more about it, it may be possible to make the mini-game a little more generic, and allow some interaction like this.

Currently, the Negotiation mini-game models a barter - two sides haggling over a final price.  This threat would be two sides trying to sway a third side.  One possibility would be to use the main pieces - tracks for each leader from the faction - and a total support track.  But instead of representing barter, the end total support would map to disposition (either gained or lost).  The leaders could still be placed on tracks, such that moving them to a supportive side aids the Stronghold, while putting them on an unsupportive side aids the Autarch, etc.

It may be possible to make the "raise an issue / address an issue" actions more generic as well.  There are already the "create an advantage / overcome an obstacle" actions present in the narrative scene and the Skirmish.  These would map to issues.  Then it becomes the basic aspect mechanics in play.  The concept of magnitudes would be lost in Negotiation - but Fate core brings that back a little bit by having succeed with style create multiple free invokes (which makes the aspect essentially have a magnitude).

A third type of diplomatic interaction could occur in the game during a Conquest mission, when the heroes are trying to persuade a native population to join the Stronghold.  This fits better the barter model - although maybe not in terms of trading this-for-that.  Instead, it might just be a set of difficulties that the Stronghold must hit, the result being a net population which joins the Stronghold.

Fate Core!

I've finally had a chance to look at the new Fate Core doc in more detail.  It's a solid and clean update to Fate.  Some of the changes were directions I was already headed while working on WotA (like cleaning up the invoke/tag language, and generalizing the creation of aspects).  Other changes I didn't foresee.  On the whole, it's a good addition.

Compared to Fate Core, WotA is intentionally heavily constrained.  There is an action economy in scenes that isn't present in Core.  However, it's still probably worthwhile to make WotA as close to Core as possible unless I can think of a good reason otherwise.

Some of the changes, like number of stress boxes and consequence tracks, should be fairly easy to port over.  That may require lowering the difficulty of missions, however, but that shouldn't be too hard.

The stunts section was illuminating.  Some of the stunts in WotA currently don't fit the desired Fate design pattern, in that they would see use too much.  They're more general bonuses to rolls, which Fate Core suggests be used with the expenditure of fate points.  The demarcation between stunts and developments is an area in WotA that needs to be thought out better in general.

Also, Fate takes a more standard approach to stunts in general, as they don't have costs anymore, but rather all fit the same power level.  That might be tricky in WotA, as magic is modeled as a stunt, and magic is more powerful than one stunt slot at the moment.

Blockades

Was able to playtest the Warfare mini-game this week.  Went pretty well.  Decided that some sort of stacking limit (restriction on the number of units in each zone) was helpful to preserve a dynamic battlefield.

Thought a bit more about blockades.  One solution that sounds pretty good is to have certain zones become "blockade zones".  If the attacker occupies these zones, they may drain the resources of the defender.  It is assumed that these actions take weeks of time, thus zooming out the action as appropriate.

Added some more words to the Warfare and Infiltration chapters this week, meeting my somewhat loose goal of writing at least 1,000 words a week.  Focusing on seasons and threats seems like a good next step, now that something is down for each of the four mini-game types.

With seasons and threats looking good, perhaps a campaign can start in earnest!

Sieges and Blockades

One of the iconic scenes in fantasy literature (and medieval battle) is the siege of a castle.  In history (possibly less so in literature), a siege involved a blockade, with the intention of starving out those within the stronghold.

Representing this in an RPG is tricky.  It seems that most RPGs don't really touch it, even those which feature some measure of large scale battles.  Birthright did have the concept, although it involved tracking where units were on the map, and recording how long they remained in a zone with a fortification.  This method involves a little more book keeping than I was hoping for, as well as not fitting the season based structure of WotA.

It's fine to ignore the concept of blockade, and just focus on battles.  This would presume that any structures attacked must be taken during the same session, or the attack is thwarted.

I see two different scales in terms of warfare, a strategic zoomed out view and a tactical zoomed in view.  In the first, units wouldn't move much, as zones on the map might represent large distances.  When groups of units met, they would do battle according to some sort of rules (missile first, etc, etc).  This is a little like Birthright did it.

The second view is more Diaspora, where the zones on the map are smaller (yards, not miles), and time scales are shorter, representing a battle.

I prefer the second zoomed in view for fighting out battles, but the zoomed out view has the advantage that it provides a better framework for a logistics game - where you spend resources to starve out another faction. So, what would be a good way to allow for that aspect in the zoomed in view?

One possibility: if all the defenders are in a strongpoint of some sort, capable of providing defense, the attackers may use a special "siege" action, which effectively zooms out the time scale, costing both sides resources.  This could be done until one side cracks?

It's a little fiddly, but it may work to capture the idea without having lots of extra information to track.

Coming up with a rule that captures when that situation can occur might be tricky.  For instance, one unit could be on the map, but not really engaging the opponent?  It could be a "all defending units are outside the strongpoing, or unable to affect the attacking units" sort of rule.  That would give the defender some motivation to harry the attackers.  Otherwise, they are effectively giving up.

Then, when the scale zooms out to involve siege, it is assumed that much larger units of time pass by (weeks or months), as the people holed up whether the storm.  Eventually, one side or the other will crack, either the attackers assaulting the strongpoint, or the defenders exiting.