Yes, it's been a good long while since I've posted anything. No, I haven't fallen off the face of the earth. I haven't stopped playing/running tabletop RPGs either. In fact, with 3 weekly games and an online PbP, I'd say I'm still going pretty strong. But this combined with a more time-intensive job and various other hobbies means that the one aspect of gaming I've had to cut down on is writing about it and reading about it. I really should try to at least get some short posts in every now and then, though.
I've been playing Star Wars Edge of the Empire a LOT lately. I'm running a game that will probably start winding down here soon (most of the players have long since maxed out their build concepts), but despite the larger-than-I-prefer party it has a good outer rim feel to it. It seems like every time the PCs make some progress some complications sends them off on a new adventure. But it's getting time that I bring home their personal arcs and let them retire on some moisture farm on Tatooine. They probably won't do that. Tatooine hasn't been kind to them. Kinder than Nar Shaddaa, though.
I've been having an absolute blast as a player in another Edge game playing a Gand findsman. He hasn't acquired enough notoriety to earn the use of his real name, so like any humble Gand he refers to himself as Gand, in the third person. But when two Gands talk to each other they can of course tell the difference between these (proper?) nouns. Playing a subtle, non-Jedi Force Sensitive has been a lot of fun. Gand has Foresee and Enhance, the two force powers that I see findsmen using to augment their bounty hunting ability (I'm staying away from Seek until Force and Destiny is officially released; of course this campaign will have ended by then). This campaign has developed its own brand of slapstick humor as well, and hilarity ensued when two of the regular players couldn't make it to several sessions in a row, and we took a third on temporarily. This turned the party into this: Gand (Bounty Hunter: Survivalist, Force Sensitive Exile), Khan (Sullustan Bounty Hunter: Gadgeteer), and newcomer Mara (Bounty Hunter: Assassin). And those sessions mostly entailed buying pants, bribing police chiefs with nerf steaks, and getting the autograph of Jorje Lu'cas, producer of the Star Wars holiday special (the reel was destroyed by Khan, but fortunately Gand has a pirated copy on his ship....which was stolen by his rival, whose kids were just murdered in the custody of an NPC companion of Gand's....Gand doesn't think he'll ever see his favorite movie again). Go figure.
Finally, I just finished running my Saturday group through Tales from Wilderland, the first adventure compilation for The One Ring. This system didn't click with my other group, but these guys had a great time with it. I started them off with Kinstrife and Dark Tidings (I wasn't sure if it would be a two-shot test of the system or if we'd play longer, and that was my favorite adventure just from reading it). Then we went back to Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit, we skipped Don't Leave the Path (we were already on this side of Mirkwood) and Those Who Tarry No Longer (it's an interesting story but I'm skeptical of how it would play), and played the remaining adventures pretty much in order. And the PCs (just three of them) survived (although poor Peter Lochlan, formerly bland Hobbit, went back to the Shire with four permanent shadow points and flaws).
The One Ring was the first non-D&D system I introduced to my gaming circle, and I suppose I didn't have enough experience with a variety of systems to make it work really well the first time several years ago. The one group still doesn't like it despite being weaned off of Pathfinder by this point, but I'm glad I got this opportunity to actually run it well for a group of fairly new, narrative-focused gamers. I was quite pleased with how the system ran when it was run and played well, and hopefully we'll play it again in the future.
Showing posts with label Edge of the Empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edge of the Empire. Show all posts
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Obligation in 13th Age
I've been intrigued by the idea of porting the Obligation mechanic from EotE into other games ever since our first campaign. Since 13th Age has been the other main game that our group plays it seemed like a good candidate, but I never really pursued the notion since OUT, Backgrounds, and Icon relationships are existing narrative mechanics that can serve the same purpose (though not as well), and I figured adding a fourth would just be too much.
Then I came across this adaptation of the Warlock for 13th Age, from the Mystic Theurge blog. The genius of the Warlock is that it's not a class per-se, but rather an add-on that really gets down to the core concept for what makes it unique - the fact that you've made a pact with a powerful being. The additional class feature very simply gives you a free 1 point Icon relationship (which you can invest more points into) with whatever being you've entered into a pact with. Most likely this will not be an established Icon. Any 5 or 6 is more or less resolved as normally, but with a supernatural flair reflecting the fact that it's a magical pact boon. When you roll a 1, though, your patron has an Agenda for you. As the blog entry states, this was based on Obligation from Star Wars, but obviously re-skinned to fit into the existing paradigm for Icon rolls.
I began to think more about this idea when I was creating my Druid (playtest version) for our current 13th Age game. His OUT is that he was the only survivor of a town swallowed up by a hellhole, but in the process he was infected with the blood of a demon (he's a Tiefling). He has a 2 point negative relationship with the Crusader because they want to hunt him down, as they consider him an abomination. He's always on the run, thus creating the perfect set-up for Obligation! Just interpret any 1's rolled as his Obligation being triggered.
There are a few things to keep in mind when using this mechanic, though. As-is, it's adding a strictly "negative" consequence for your PC with nothing positive to compensate for it, though a certain type of player (myself included) enjoys the narrative complications that crop up even if the character wouldn't. Some players might not necessarily view it as fair though, especially if others in the group don't have this extra burden. There are a few different ways of handling this that I can think of off the top of my head. Like with Obligation, the PC could gain access to additional resources. This is basically how the Warlock works, since you get an extra relationship die with which 5's and 6's can be rolled. This is a good, tangible benefit for a player with "Obligation." Alternatively, you might extend the benefit of the existing dice instead of granting more dice, so that a roll of 4 counts the same way as a 5. In this way the negative results of rolling 1 are countered by the fact that you expand your chances of rolling a benefit by 1/6 as well. In both of these scenarios there is an additional burden placed on the GM, however. For some GMs who have an easy time using Icon rolls already, this might not even be considered a burden. But in our current campaign we're rotating GMs, and it's becoming clear that everyone but myself is having quite a bit of trouble actually using Icon results. The GM tends to groan when a lot of results are rolled for a session, and adding even more results would only exacerbate the problem.
This can be ameliorated by trying to replicate the Obligation mechanic from EotE even more faithfully. First up, in Star Wars a PC can increase Obligation for the chance to get more starting funds or some extra starting XP. Give the 13th Age character with "Obligation" some starting resources, too! A true magic item seems like a good candidate, though it might be a bit more powerful than some groups are comfortable with. A handful of runes and/or potions might work nicely, though. Another hallmark of Obligation as it works in EotE is that you can voluntarily take more on during play in order to gain some immediate benefit. The classic examples are taking on debt to get some gear you can't afford, or agreeing to some future favor that can be called in (probably at an inconvenient time). The Icon mechanic can handle this, too, since one of their suggested uses is an event-based roll for dramatic events. Simply give players with "Obligation" ample opportunity to utilize event-based rolls. Along those same lines, for groups that want to handle it in as simple a way as possible you can simply balance out the "bad things happen on a 1" mechanic by saying those good things that happen on a 5 or 6, those tend to be better than they are for players who don't have "Obligation." Because of your special status as a thorn in that Icon's side, the enemy's of that Icon are apt to look more favorably on you, and are willing to go that extra mile to help you out.
Then I came across this adaptation of the Warlock for 13th Age, from the Mystic Theurge blog. The genius of the Warlock is that it's not a class per-se, but rather an add-on that really gets down to the core concept for what makes it unique - the fact that you've made a pact with a powerful being. The additional class feature very simply gives you a free 1 point Icon relationship (which you can invest more points into) with whatever being you've entered into a pact with. Most likely this will not be an established Icon. Any 5 or 6 is more or less resolved as normally, but with a supernatural flair reflecting the fact that it's a magical pact boon. When you roll a 1, though, your patron has an Agenda for you. As the blog entry states, this was based on Obligation from Star Wars, but obviously re-skinned to fit into the existing paradigm for Icon rolls.
I began to think more about this idea when I was creating my Druid (playtest version) for our current 13th Age game. His OUT is that he was the only survivor of a town swallowed up by a hellhole, but in the process he was infected with the blood of a demon (he's a Tiefling). He has a 2 point negative relationship with the Crusader because they want to hunt him down, as they consider him an abomination. He's always on the run, thus creating the perfect set-up for Obligation! Just interpret any 1's rolled as his Obligation being triggered.
There are a few things to keep in mind when using this mechanic, though. As-is, it's adding a strictly "negative" consequence for your PC with nothing positive to compensate for it, though a certain type of player (myself included) enjoys the narrative complications that crop up even if the character wouldn't. Some players might not necessarily view it as fair though, especially if others in the group don't have this extra burden. There are a few different ways of handling this that I can think of off the top of my head. Like with Obligation, the PC could gain access to additional resources. This is basically how the Warlock works, since you get an extra relationship die with which 5's and 6's can be rolled. This is a good, tangible benefit for a player with "Obligation." Alternatively, you might extend the benefit of the existing dice instead of granting more dice, so that a roll of 4 counts the same way as a 5. In this way the negative results of rolling 1 are countered by the fact that you expand your chances of rolling a benefit by 1/6 as well. In both of these scenarios there is an additional burden placed on the GM, however. For some GMs who have an easy time using Icon rolls already, this might not even be considered a burden. But in our current campaign we're rotating GMs, and it's becoming clear that everyone but myself is having quite a bit of trouble actually using Icon results. The GM tends to groan when a lot of results are rolled for a session, and adding even more results would only exacerbate the problem.
This can be ameliorated by trying to replicate the Obligation mechanic from EotE even more faithfully. First up, in Star Wars a PC can increase Obligation for the chance to get more starting funds or some extra starting XP. Give the 13th Age character with "Obligation" some starting resources, too! A true magic item seems like a good candidate, though it might be a bit more powerful than some groups are comfortable with. A handful of runes and/or potions might work nicely, though. Another hallmark of Obligation as it works in EotE is that you can voluntarily take more on during play in order to gain some immediate benefit. The classic examples are taking on debt to get some gear you can't afford, or agreeing to some future favor that can be called in (probably at an inconvenient time). The Icon mechanic can handle this, too, since one of their suggested uses is an event-based roll for dramatic events. Simply give players with "Obligation" ample opportunity to utilize event-based rolls. Along those same lines, for groups that want to handle it in as simple a way as possible you can simply balance out the "bad things happen on a 1" mechanic by saying those good things that happen on a 5 or 6, those tend to be better than they are for players who don't have "Obligation." Because of your special status as a thorn in that Icon's side, the enemy's of that Icon are apt to look more favorably on you, and are willing to go that extra mile to help you out.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Asteroid Mine Ambush
Introduction
This is the first article with the new "set-pieces" tag. So what does this tag mean? Episode 11 of the Order 66 Podcast (titled "The GM Holocron") promotes the idea of GMs keeping a campaign binder filled with various "set pieces," which are generic scenarios that you can inject into your game for when your players go off the rails, or if you tend towards a more improvisational style of GMing. Each set piece has some enemies statted out that can be re-skinned to fit the current situation, as well as a dynamic environment with plenty of things for the PCs to interact with. In short, it lets you add "planned" encounters to your game when you're winging it, preventing the boring or unbalanced stuff that a GM may come up with on-the-fly if they're put on the spot and can't think of anything interesting.
Because I've already expanded the scope of this blog since its inception (which was to cover D&D 4E), I'm planning on supporting multiple systems with this tag, and hopefully the set pieces will be generic enough that they can be injected into any game of similar genre. But to kick things off, we'll keep in theme with Order 66 and do a Star Wars set piece. Since a common problem that some players have with the system is making space combat exciting, the PCs will be piloting starfighters.
System
FFG's Star Wars: Edge of the Empire (or Age of Rebellion), though it can be pretty easily adapted to any space opera or sci-fi setting.
Scene
The PCs are in a facility that's part of an asteroid mining complex when it's attacked by some capital ships or warships. There's a starfighter hangar attached, and the PCs need to fly fighters to the main hangar to either get to their own ship, or find a ship with hyperdrive capabilities and escape.
Complications
A defense array with many turrets will funnel the fighters below their scaffolding, forcing everyone to fly amongst pipes, support beams, and some geothermal vents. This is where all the dogfighting is taking place. A capital ship is bombarding the main hangar, so there's time pressure to get there before it's destroyed. Optionally depending on the situation, the facility's inhabitants as well as the attackers are both adversaries to the PCs (I used this in game where the PCs were imprisoned in the facility)
Area
The mining complex is sited on a large asteroid at the edge of an asteroid field. There are multiple buildings on its surface, but the two main ones that concern the PCs are the one that they're in (which contains a small fighter hangar), and the main hangar. These buildings are at opposite ends of the defense system; flying above it would be suicide, so the PCs will have to maneuver through the support structures. Going around the defense system will place them in the asteroid field (the turrets cover all of the clear space), which will not only take longer but may arguably be more dangerous.
Optionally, the PCs may have to fight their way through the starting building to get to the starfighter hangar. This may be because the attackers boarded the facility already, or the defending inhabitants are simply adversaries of the PCs. They'll have to make their way through a large warehouse room containing crates upon crates of whatever materials are being mined on the asteroid (the crates stop about 2/3 of the way to the hangar doors, at Medium range from them). A large pipe has fallen from the ceiling due to a heavy hit from one of the capital ships, and is now on the ground across the warehouse venting hot steam (at Long range from the hangar doors). A loader crane sits on one side of the room (near the wall left or right of where the PCs start from) just before the pipe, and at the other end of the room are the hangar doors (at Extreme range from the starting point), which can be opened via computer terminals on the walls to either side.
Once the PCs get into their fighters and exit the hangar, they'll need to make it to the main hangar. While traversing under the defense system, PCs should be faced with at least 3 "checkpoints" where they'll need to make rolls. The first should be Piloting checks (Normal or Hard) to test how well they're able to maneuver through the support structures (failure should result in a minor collision). They should also move through an area of heavy dogfighting and be engaged by enemy fighters (with any maneuver requiring a Piloting check while dogfighting amongst the beams and pipes; add setback dice to this), and the third checkpoint should be moving through the geothermal vents (or broken piping that's venting flaming gas). After making it through, they'll need to either deal with the capital ship, or make it in and out of the hangar before it's completely destroyed. Remember to lead each "checkpoint" with some colorful narrative description to paint a vivid picture of how these fighters are forced to weave around all of these obstacles.
Once the PCs are in a ship and flying out of the main hangar, they should make a Piloting check as the capital ship blasts half of the exit apart.
Threats
In the facility, the PCs should see the silhouettes of a minion group on the other side of the steaming pipe. They can sneak past them by using the crates for most of the way, or they might use the crane or computer terminals to their advantage somehow (reward creativity!). If they stop the steam at one of the terminals, their enemies will know someone's present (but if they don't, they'll need to make Resilience, Coordination, or some other appropriate physical check to resist being scalded when they pass through). If they give away their position a stronger foe joins the fight (this will probably happen once they leave the cover of the crates even if they successfully bypass the minions).
When I ran this, I used B2 super battle droids for the minions, and a droideka for the strong enemy. Other options from the core rule book are Apprentice Bounty Hunters and either a Journeyman or Master hunter, Stormtroopers and a Stormtrooper Sergeant, or Pirate Crew and a Pirate Captain. The Pirates in particular make good generic enemies that can be reskinned as almost anything. Note that unless the group is very combat-capable, they should probably try to get past the strong enemy as quickly as possible as opposed to killing it.
For the starfighters, make sure that the opposing forces have different types (this is really easy if the attackers are Imperial, as they were when I ran this for my group, since you can simply use TIEs). It's important that whatever is in the hangar available for the PCs is not hyperspace-capable (because that would defeat the purpose of getting to the main hangar). CloakShapes and Headhunters are both good options, but I also threw in a double-seater Y-Wing without an astromech to make potentially engaging with a capital ship (I used Nebulon B's) less suicidal. I've found that running starfighters in minion groups of 2 or 3 makes for more exciting starfighter combat. Also remember that if the PCs opt to take the asteroid field, you'll want to spice it up by having a squadron of enemy fighters chase them in there.
Triumph
If attacking or being pursued while in the starfighters, blow up some support beams, a pipe, or an asteroid (or fly close to them if just Piloting) such that debris hits enemy ships, causing a minor collision.
In the warehouse, an action that might reasonably cause one of the crates to topple spills crushed ore somewhere really inconvenient for the enemies (perhaps even on top of one of the minions).
Despair
While Piloting, you suffer a major collision after being struck by debris or clipping a structure or asteroid.
If flying through the geothermal vents, the heat causes your cockpit to fog up, impairing vision.
This is the first article with the new "set-pieces" tag. So what does this tag mean? Episode 11 of the Order 66 Podcast (titled "The GM Holocron") promotes the idea of GMs keeping a campaign binder filled with various "set pieces," which are generic scenarios that you can inject into your game for when your players go off the rails, or if you tend towards a more improvisational style of GMing. Each set piece has some enemies statted out that can be re-skinned to fit the current situation, as well as a dynamic environment with plenty of things for the PCs to interact with. In short, it lets you add "planned" encounters to your game when you're winging it, preventing the boring or unbalanced stuff that a GM may come up with on-the-fly if they're put on the spot and can't think of anything interesting.
Because I've already expanded the scope of this blog since its inception (which was to cover D&D 4E), I'm planning on supporting multiple systems with this tag, and hopefully the set pieces will be generic enough that they can be injected into any game of similar genre. But to kick things off, we'll keep in theme with Order 66 and do a Star Wars set piece. Since a common problem that some players have with the system is making space combat exciting, the PCs will be piloting starfighters.
System
FFG's Star Wars: Edge of the Empire (or Age of Rebellion), though it can be pretty easily adapted to any space opera or sci-fi setting.
Scene
The PCs are in a facility that's part of an asteroid mining complex when it's attacked by some capital ships or warships. There's a starfighter hangar attached, and the PCs need to fly fighters to the main hangar to either get to their own ship, or find a ship with hyperdrive capabilities and escape.
Complications
A defense array with many turrets will funnel the fighters below their scaffolding, forcing everyone to fly amongst pipes, support beams, and some geothermal vents. This is where all the dogfighting is taking place. A capital ship is bombarding the main hangar, so there's time pressure to get there before it's destroyed. Optionally depending on the situation, the facility's inhabitants as well as the attackers are both adversaries to the PCs (I used this in game where the PCs were imprisoned in the facility)
Area
The mining complex is sited on a large asteroid at the edge of an asteroid field. There are multiple buildings on its surface, but the two main ones that concern the PCs are the one that they're in (which contains a small fighter hangar), and the main hangar. These buildings are at opposite ends of the defense system; flying above it would be suicide, so the PCs will have to maneuver through the support structures. Going around the defense system will place them in the asteroid field (the turrets cover all of the clear space), which will not only take longer but may arguably be more dangerous.
Optionally, the PCs may have to fight their way through the starting building to get to the starfighter hangar. This may be because the attackers boarded the facility already, or the defending inhabitants are simply adversaries of the PCs. They'll have to make their way through a large warehouse room containing crates upon crates of whatever materials are being mined on the asteroid (the crates stop about 2/3 of the way to the hangar doors, at Medium range from them). A large pipe has fallen from the ceiling due to a heavy hit from one of the capital ships, and is now on the ground across the warehouse venting hot steam (at Long range from the hangar doors). A loader crane sits on one side of the room (near the wall left or right of where the PCs start from) just before the pipe, and at the other end of the room are the hangar doors (at Extreme range from the starting point), which can be opened via computer terminals on the walls to either side.
Once the PCs get into their fighters and exit the hangar, they'll need to make it to the main hangar. While traversing under the defense system, PCs should be faced with at least 3 "checkpoints" where they'll need to make rolls. The first should be Piloting checks (Normal or Hard) to test how well they're able to maneuver through the support structures (failure should result in a minor collision). They should also move through an area of heavy dogfighting and be engaged by enemy fighters (with any maneuver requiring a Piloting check while dogfighting amongst the beams and pipes; add setback dice to this), and the third checkpoint should be moving through the geothermal vents (or broken piping that's venting flaming gas). After making it through, they'll need to either deal with the capital ship, or make it in and out of the hangar before it's completely destroyed. Remember to lead each "checkpoint" with some colorful narrative description to paint a vivid picture of how these fighters are forced to weave around all of these obstacles.
Once the PCs are in a ship and flying out of the main hangar, they should make a Piloting check as the capital ship blasts half of the exit apart.
Threats
In the facility, the PCs should see the silhouettes of a minion group on the other side of the steaming pipe. They can sneak past them by using the crates for most of the way, or they might use the crane or computer terminals to their advantage somehow (reward creativity!). If they stop the steam at one of the terminals, their enemies will know someone's present (but if they don't, they'll need to make Resilience, Coordination, or some other appropriate physical check to resist being scalded when they pass through). If they give away their position a stronger foe joins the fight (this will probably happen once they leave the cover of the crates even if they successfully bypass the minions).
When I ran this, I used B2 super battle droids for the minions, and a droideka for the strong enemy. Other options from the core rule book are Apprentice Bounty Hunters and either a Journeyman or Master hunter, Stormtroopers and a Stormtrooper Sergeant, or Pirate Crew and a Pirate Captain. The Pirates in particular make good generic enemies that can be reskinned as almost anything. Note that unless the group is very combat-capable, they should probably try to get past the strong enemy as quickly as possible as opposed to killing it.
For the starfighters, make sure that the opposing forces have different types (this is really easy if the attackers are Imperial, as they were when I ran this for my group, since you can simply use TIEs). It's important that whatever is in the hangar available for the PCs is not hyperspace-capable (because that would defeat the purpose of getting to the main hangar). CloakShapes and Headhunters are both good options, but I also threw in a double-seater Y-Wing without an astromech to make potentially engaging with a capital ship (I used Nebulon B's) less suicidal. I've found that running starfighters in minion groups of 2 or 3 makes for more exciting starfighter combat. Also remember that if the PCs opt to take the asteroid field, you'll want to spice it up by having a squadron of enemy fighters chase them in there.
Triumph
If attacking or being pursued while in the starfighters, blow up some support beams, a pipe, or an asteroid (or fly close to them if just Piloting) such that debris hits enemy ships, causing a minor collision.
In the warehouse, an action that might reasonably cause one of the crates to topple spills crushed ore somewhere really inconvenient for the enemies (perhaps even on top of one of the minions).
Despair
While Piloting, you suffer a major collision after being struck by debris or clipping a structure or asteroid.
If flying through the geothermal vents, the heat causes your cockpit to fog up, impairing vision.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Adapting Ally Rolls to Other Systems
I recently posted an article on the Ally Roll table in The One Ring. Interestingly, it was pretty similar to an improvised mass combat system I'd come up with for 13th Age, with inspiration from Dungeon World. The concept itself has a lot of potential for general applicability, with the gist being that a single die roll is used to represent a group of allies fighting a group of enemies, with a scale of outcomes tied to the results. These outcomes need not be written out as a table ahead of time, but they certainly can be. At minimum your spectrum of outcomes should include bad stuff (allies losing ground) on low rolls, neutral results (or success with complications) on middle rolls, and good stuff (allies gain ground) on high rolls. The One Ring makes it easy to include really bad stuff and really good stuff at the far ends of the spectrum due to the Eye of Sauron or Gandalf Rune being rolled, respectively, but this could easily be represented by lowest and highest numerical results as well (fumbles and crits, in d20 terminology).
What Die Type Should Be Used?
This question is, of course, system-dependent. For The One Ring (TOR) the Feat Die (the special d12) was the obvious choice, and the precedent for the mechanic already exists in a published adventure. A d20 might be appropriate in d20 systems, though I chose to instead opt for 2d6 with 13th Age (13A). As it turns out, I have some further ideas for modifying the ally check which become more interesting with 2d6 compared with a d20, which I'll discuss later. But what about a system with non-standard dice, like Edge of the Empire (EotE)?
The similarities between TOR's Feat Die and the Force, Challenge and Proficiency dice of EotE made using the Force Die or the red/yellow d12s pretty tempting. Theoretically the blank face and the Triumph/Despair could stand in for the Eye of Sauron/Gandalf Rune, with Success/Failure and Advantage/Threat standing in for good or bad results (faces with both being neutral). On the Force Die the applications of light/dark side pips should be pretty easy to guess. The ultimate problem with such a system is that the results of the roll aren't easily or intuitively as modifiable as a numerical system. This presents a couple of big problems, the first being that you can't "custom fit" the probabilities to account for the difficulty of the odds your allies are facing, and second being that bonuses or penalties (due to PC intervention, terrain, narrative changes, etc.) are tough to apply. It's easy to just say "use a regular d12, or 2d6 just like the other examples!" but ideally you'd use a die or dice that are already used in the game, since not all players can be expected to have a set of standard RPG dice (ok, ok, so most probably have a couple of d6s from board games or whatever). Thus the obvious choice becomes the d% dice.
You'd basically treat the Ally Roll like you would a roll on the critical injury table (again, you can pre-make a custom table or just wing it). Off the top of my head, I'd probably break the results down into 1-5 very bad (Eye of Sauron), 6-40 bad, 41-70 neutral, 71-95 good, and 96-100 very good (Gandalf Rune). The odds are stacked against the allies with the bad range having a 35% chance of being rolled, neutral a 30% chance, and good 25%. The percentile roll provides a lot of granularity for adjusting based on the difficulty/conditions of the battle, and of course you need to leave PCs the opportunity to be the real heroes by making it an uphill fight.
Oh, and while we're at it I'll note that in the 2d6 system I employed for 13th Age the equivalents to an Eye or Gandalf would be double 1's or double 6's, respectively. While this makes these results less likely to trigger than in the other examples, it also has the advantage of simplicity. GMs can get around the reduced probabilities by interpreting those results with a heavier hand, but the probabilities are also a little more malleable when the roll is modified (see the "Game Specifics" section).
Allowing for Player Interaction
There can potentially be problems associated with running different sections of the battlefield with differing degrees of abstraction. On the one hand, the PCs and their immediate foes will be operating on the scale of individual actions, individual Hit Points/Endurance/Wounds/etc., and individual initiative slots. The allies all get lumped into a single roll which represents how both sides are faring in relation to each other, and the results are more often than not going to be much more narrative with much less bookkeeping. While you can add some bookkeeping (see the unit strength idea that I presented in the original 13th Age post, which was the second link at the top of this article), my personal preference is to reduce that level of tracking and instead focus on the broad needs of the plot. The PCs shouldn't care about too much detail, because in-game they have their own problems, and so they'll be perceiving their allies in broad strokes (besides, this keeps the game moving more quickly, with less time spent on the GM "fighting themselves").
But what happens when a PC wants to interfere? This is best handled by a modification of the Ally Roll. Here are 4 distinct examples.
What Die Type Should Be Used?
This question is, of course, system-dependent. For The One Ring (TOR) the Feat Die (the special d12) was the obvious choice, and the precedent for the mechanic already exists in a published adventure. A d20 might be appropriate in d20 systems, though I chose to instead opt for 2d6 with 13th Age (13A). As it turns out, I have some further ideas for modifying the ally check which become more interesting with 2d6 compared with a d20, which I'll discuss later. But what about a system with non-standard dice, like Edge of the Empire (EotE)?
The similarities between TOR's Feat Die and the Force, Challenge and Proficiency dice of EotE made using the Force Die or the red/yellow d12s pretty tempting. Theoretically the blank face and the Triumph/Despair could stand in for the Eye of Sauron/Gandalf Rune, with Success/Failure and Advantage/Threat standing in for good or bad results (faces with both being neutral). On the Force Die the applications of light/dark side pips should be pretty easy to guess. The ultimate problem with such a system is that the results of the roll aren't easily or intuitively as modifiable as a numerical system. This presents a couple of big problems, the first being that you can't "custom fit" the probabilities to account for the difficulty of the odds your allies are facing, and second being that bonuses or penalties (due to PC intervention, terrain, narrative changes, etc.) are tough to apply. It's easy to just say "use a regular d12, or 2d6 just like the other examples!" but ideally you'd use a die or dice that are already used in the game, since not all players can be expected to have a set of standard RPG dice (ok, ok, so most probably have a couple of d6s from board games or whatever). Thus the obvious choice becomes the d% dice.
You'd basically treat the Ally Roll like you would a roll on the critical injury table (again, you can pre-make a custom table or just wing it). Off the top of my head, I'd probably break the results down into 1-5 very bad (Eye of Sauron), 6-40 bad, 41-70 neutral, 71-95 good, and 96-100 very good (Gandalf Rune). The odds are stacked against the allies with the bad range having a 35% chance of being rolled, neutral a 30% chance, and good 25%. The percentile roll provides a lot of granularity for adjusting based on the difficulty/conditions of the battle, and of course you need to leave PCs the opportunity to be the real heroes by making it an uphill fight.
Oh, and while we're at it I'll note that in the 2d6 system I employed for 13th Age the equivalents to an Eye or Gandalf would be double 1's or double 6's, respectively. While this makes these results less likely to trigger than in the other examples, it also has the advantage of simplicity. GMs can get around the reduced probabilities by interpreting those results with a heavier hand, but the probabilities are also a little more malleable when the roll is modified (see the "Game Specifics" section).
Allowing for Player Interaction
There can potentially be problems associated with running different sections of the battlefield with differing degrees of abstraction. On the one hand, the PCs and their immediate foes will be operating on the scale of individual actions, individual Hit Points/Endurance/Wounds/etc., and individual initiative slots. The allies all get lumped into a single roll which represents how both sides are faring in relation to each other, and the results are more often than not going to be much more narrative with much less bookkeeping. While you can add some bookkeeping (see the unit strength idea that I presented in the original 13th Age post, which was the second link at the top of this article), my personal preference is to reduce that level of tracking and instead focus on the broad needs of the plot. The PCs shouldn't care about too much detail, because in-game they have their own problems, and so they'll be perceiving their allies in broad strokes (besides, this keeps the game moving more quickly, with less time spent on the GM "fighting themselves").
But what happens when a PC wants to interfere? This is best handled by a modification of the Ally Roll. Here are 4 distinct examples.
- A PC kills the foe he was fighting, and wants to effectively "join" the ally group. Simple enough, just pick out a single opponent or two (or a mook/minion group, if the game supports that), pull them out of the ally roll and into a new personal combat with the PC, using PC scale actions, HP, etc. If it makes sense that the enemy would already be a little wounded, go with whatever feels right. To represent the loss of some enemy forces, you could grant a bonus to the Ally Roll (magnitude dependent on the strength of the foes that the PC "drew out").
- A PC blankets the enemy forces with an area effect (grenade, fireball spell, etc.). Depending on the size of the enemy group and their durability, this might result in bonuses to the Ally Roll, or perhaps even an automatic positive result. This is most likely the case if your positive result reads that an enemy/enemies are wounded or slain, and it makes sense that the area attack would have wounded/killed some enemies. If the PC spends his entire turn and what is probably a limited resource (grenade or daily-use spell), yeah the effect on the Ally Roll should probably be pretty huge.
- A PC wants to use a skill to bolster the allied forces. An obvious choice would be Leadership (EotE), Inspire (TOR), or a Cha check with applicable background (13A). Again, if the PC is using their action to do this then the results should be pretty big. For some systems that call is automatic (for example, in EotE using a skill is almost always an action), but for others it'll be up to GM discretion (13A and TOR). GMs might even want to give players a choice of doing things quickly and getting a simple bonus, or spending their action/turn and getting a more significant bonus (a bigger numberical bonus, or perhaps even an automatic "good stuff" result depending on the nature of the action).
- A PC wants to command a specific ally to act upon something outside of their own conflict. For example, commanding an allied archer to shoot the enemy Wizard, or ordering a rebel soldier to fire at the Moff at the computer terminal. A successful check should allow that ally to be "pulled out" of the ally group for a turn or more, letting them act as an individual at the same scale as the PCs (this is basically example 1 in reverse). The price you'll pay for this is that you'll probably add a penalty to the Ally Roll, since without that individual's aid the other allies will have a tougher time of it. Perhaps with a really good roll (Great/Extraordinary success in TOR, Advantage/Triumph in EotE, or a Natural 16+ in 13A) this penalty can be reduced or eliminated.
Game Specifics
Ok, so with the general principle and some examples laid out, let's provide a summary of some baseline mechanics that a GM can draw upon. Keep in mind that this stuff is still mostly theoretical, as I've minimally playtested it with 13th Age and The One Ring. Not only that, but because there is so much variance in specific conditions this is designed to be modifiable and somewhat improvisational by the GM.
The One Ring - You'll be using the Feat Die for the Ally Roll, usually with a spread of Eye (really bad), 1-4 (bad), 5-7 (neutral), 8-10 (good), and Gandalf (really good). Bonuses/Penalties to the Ally Roll should generally be between 1 and 4, with +/-2 and +/-4 being good starting points thanks to the Complications Table (pg. 48 LMB, GM Screen). Keep in mind degrees of success, with a simple success on any PC's skill check to interfere providing a modest bonus, and Great or Extraordinary successes have better results.
13th Age - Use 2d6 for the Ally roll, with 6 or less being a bad roll, 7-9 as neutral, and 10 or more being a good result. Optionally, double 1's can be very bad, and double 6's very good. While simple numerical modifiers certainly work for bonuses or penalties (I'd use the range allowable by Backgrounds: 1-5), I really like the idea of successful skill checks adding a die to the pool to provide a functional "re-roll." In other words, roll 3d6 and keep the highest 2 values. Severe penalties could go the opposite way (roll 3d6 and keep the lowest 2 values). This boosts the low probabilities of the double 1's/6's for very bad/good results, and in my opinion is a more satisfying impact for players than a straight modifier (a modifier can't save a horrific roll, but a re-roll very well could). Optionally, a 16+ on the PC's roll can add the extra d6 in addition to a numerical modifier. The base dice pool of 2d6 works really well here because re-rolling the entire Ally Roll comes across as a bit too powerful to me.
Edge of the Empire - Using a d% for the Ally Roll this system potentially offers the most granularity, but realistically things should probably be kept to intervals of 5%. As I stated before, the baseline breakdown might be as follows: 1-5 (very bad), 6-40 (bad), 41-70 (neutral), 71-95 (good), and 96-100 (very good). A bonus of 10% per success on a PC's skill roll seems about right, though with checks that have a goal other than simply boosting the Ally Roll, allowing Advantage to be spent to also boost the Ally Roll by 5% per Advantage seems reasonable. Additionally, keep in mind that with EotE the minion rules already provide an easy way to adjudicate battles between small groups of allies and enemies, and so GMs should consider carefully when using these Ally Rolls is really appropriate. Probably only with large squads that would result in unwieldy dice pools if treated as minions, or if the GM wants the combat to run especially quickly and doesn't want to deal with actual dice pools and minion tracking.
Miscellaneous Note on Cumulative Bonuses
Sometimes it makes sense for a bonus to an Ally Roll to last more than a single round. For example, if you give the roll a penalty for one of the ally combatant being wounded or killed, then that penalty should probably stick around until the playing field is even with an enemy being wounded or killed. If the Ally Roll gets a bonus because the enemy leader was taken down, that drop in enemy morale should probably last for the entire battle.
Some player actions will result in advantages of variable duration. If a PC rolled to inspire his allies, how long does that bonus to the Ally Roll last? It could be just 1 round, it could be longer for a higher degree of success. Maybe it simply lasts until a low roll comes up (bad or very bad) and the allies are demoralized again. Go with what makes sense. Some "tactical" rolls where a PC tries to direct allies to a better fighting position should obviously last as long as the allies hold that position. You might even alter the outcome of a roll (on the fly, even if you're using a pre-made table) so that a bad result, which would normally wound or kill an ally, instead drives the group off of this position, nullifying the bonus.
Ultimately, one last thing to keep in mind is to go with what makes sense in the moment. This house rule isn't designed to be an in-depth new mechanic tacked onto the game, and doesn't need to strike a perfect balance. Rather, it's designed to provide some structure for handling groups of allied combatants narratively. It's for when "making it up as you go along" feels too arbitrary. It's there as a baseline, to get your creative juices flowing, and to basically provide a status update on how those other guys are doing, especially during rounds where the PCs aren't direction involved with that side of the battle. If you use it in a game, let me know how it goes.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Critical Injury Table (Edge of the Empire)
Last week our group took a bit of a detour, and thanks to an Astrogation mishap ended up at some "hick outpost" in Wild Space. Now, my character is actually really AWESOME at Astrogation (just to be clear), but I was pulling a really crazy stunt (making a jump while in a planet's atmosphere to avoid Imperials in orbit), with a slightly damaged navcomputer (next check was supposed to be upgraded), and my GM decided that the difficulty for this was Formidable. Yep, that's the first time our group has had to face FIVE purples, and the upgrade certainly wasn't helping matters, so you can understand the mishap. Granted I was able to decrease the difficulty thanks to Master Starhopper, but that's just part of how awesome an Astrogator my PC is!
But anyways, I digress. The navcomputer was REALLY shot after that (oh, Despairs...), so we landed at this station to see if we could scrounge up supplies for a repair. Some Jawa junk dealer had what we needed, but we had to return to the ship to get the credits for it, and the half of the party that was guarding the ship were attacked by "salvagers" who had proceeded to tear pieces off of our ship. In a fit of rage after dealing with that (which only followed a whole string of "the party gets screwed" events, and did I mention the BBEG was a few days behind us in hyperspace?), I decided I was just going to walk into the Jawa's shop and take the parts by force, if need be. I took the assassin droid as backup. Our previous encounter with the Jawa revealed that he hit some type of security button in response to our weapons, and I suppose our GM thought that this was enough warning for us. I figured it would summon some guards, or activate an alarm, or at worst some kind of security system with lasers and stuff. No. The button had armed a THERMAL DETONATOR, and when the droid shot the Jawa he dropped the dead man's switch, and BOOM!
The GM called for Coordination checks, and while I disagree on how he implemented the results*, he's the GM so it's his call. Not surprisingly, both of us go down, and both of us roll really high on our d% rolls. The thing's got Vicious 4, so the Droid ended up Blinded (which seems to be permanent), and my character got Gruesome Injury (Presence).
I was bitter. I still am, a little bit, even if I've gotten used to the cool factor of my character being so horribly burned that people can't stand to really talk with her. I've suggested pursuing some kind of experimental regenerative procedure (equivalent in cost, or in my case obligation, to the Cybernetic options that increase Characteristics) so I guess "permanent" isn't quite as dire as it seems. It was definitely eye opening, though, especially since even without a prior critical injury I was pretty close to rolling "Bleeding Out," which would have effectively meant death since my only ally in the vicinity was also down.
Even now, I'm not really sure how I feel about the Critical Injury table. On the one hand, I've always been vehemently opposed to ability score damage in D&D, and one of the pros to 4E was that it was one sacred cow that was slain. So the fact that I took a permanent reduction to Presence (did I mention Cool and Negotiation are important skills for my character?) really hit a sore spot for me. I'm also not a fan of "save or die" spells in D&D, and a high percentile roll on the table can be exactly that.
On the other hand, the table does have the neat effect of providing a sense of danger without having combat be too lethal with regards to taking too many Wounds. It also captures the feel of the setting really well, what with lost limbs being a big thing in Star Wars, and certain weapons (like that Thermal Detonator!) being EXTREMELY deadly. Besides that it offers a plethora of neat "control" effects when used in combat, and provides a gritty realism without being too crunchy and still allowing for brash stunts, since you won't get badly hurt all the time.
It's not the most "fair" of mechanics because there's so much variability inherent in that d% roll, but overall I think that's probably ok. Characters SHOULD be in bad shape after being caught in the blast of a thermal detonator, or after taking injury after injury. It changes the stakes in a way that can't be solved by simply loading up on stimpacks, and I think that's important for the game. I just wish I hadn't rolled so high with my character.
*Basically, what I would have done was subbed Coordination (or Athletics) in place of Ranged Light as a "defense roll," with a success equivalent to a missed attack roll, threat equivalent to an attack roll's advantage, etc. Essentially make it no harder to avoid than if he'd lobbed the thing at us. What the GM had ruled was that success reduced damage by 1 each (I'd rolled 4 successes, but that was still higher than my Wound Threshold so I still suffered a Critical Injury). Neither way is "wrong," but I do find his ruling pretty harsh. Especially since the difficulty was either Hard or Daunting, and the only reason I did so well was 2 blank faces on the purple dice.
But anyways, I digress. The navcomputer was REALLY shot after that (oh, Despairs...), so we landed at this station to see if we could scrounge up supplies for a repair. Some Jawa junk dealer had what we needed, but we had to return to the ship to get the credits for it, and the half of the party that was guarding the ship were attacked by "salvagers" who had proceeded to tear pieces off of our ship. In a fit of rage after dealing with that (which only followed a whole string of "the party gets screwed" events, and did I mention the BBEG was a few days behind us in hyperspace?), I decided I was just going to walk into the Jawa's shop and take the parts by force, if need be. I took the assassin droid as backup. Our previous encounter with the Jawa revealed that he hit some type of security button in response to our weapons, and I suppose our GM thought that this was enough warning for us. I figured it would summon some guards, or activate an alarm, or at worst some kind of security system with lasers and stuff. No. The button had armed a THERMAL DETONATOR, and when the droid shot the Jawa he dropped the dead man's switch, and BOOM!
The GM called for Coordination checks, and while I disagree on how he implemented the results*, he's the GM so it's his call. Not surprisingly, both of us go down, and both of us roll really high on our d% rolls. The thing's got Vicious 4, so the Droid ended up Blinded (which seems to be permanent), and my character got Gruesome Injury (Presence).
I was bitter. I still am, a little bit, even if I've gotten used to the cool factor of my character being so horribly burned that people can't stand to really talk with her. I've suggested pursuing some kind of experimental regenerative procedure (equivalent in cost, or in my case obligation, to the Cybernetic options that increase Characteristics) so I guess "permanent" isn't quite as dire as it seems. It was definitely eye opening, though, especially since even without a prior critical injury I was pretty close to rolling "Bleeding Out," which would have effectively meant death since my only ally in the vicinity was also down.
Even now, I'm not really sure how I feel about the Critical Injury table. On the one hand, I've always been vehemently opposed to ability score damage in D&D, and one of the pros to 4E was that it was one sacred cow that was slain. So the fact that I took a permanent reduction to Presence (did I mention Cool and Negotiation are important skills for my character?) really hit a sore spot for me. I'm also not a fan of "save or die" spells in D&D, and a high percentile roll on the table can be exactly that.
On the other hand, the table does have the neat effect of providing a sense of danger without having combat be too lethal with regards to taking too many Wounds. It also captures the feel of the setting really well, what with lost limbs being a big thing in Star Wars, and certain weapons (like that Thermal Detonator!) being EXTREMELY deadly. Besides that it offers a plethora of neat "control" effects when used in combat, and provides a gritty realism without being too crunchy and still allowing for brash stunts, since you won't get badly hurt all the time.
It's not the most "fair" of mechanics because there's so much variability inherent in that d% roll, but overall I think that's probably ok. Characters SHOULD be in bad shape after being caught in the blast of a thermal detonator, or after taking injury after injury. It changes the stakes in a way that can't be solved by simply loading up on stimpacks, and I think that's important for the game. I just wish I hadn't rolled so high with my character.
*Basically, what I would have done was subbed Coordination (or Athletics) in place of Ranged Light as a "defense roll," with a success equivalent to a missed attack roll, threat equivalent to an attack roll's advantage, etc. Essentially make it no harder to avoid than if he'd lobbed the thing at us. What the GM had ruled was that success reduced damage by 1 each (I'd rolled 4 successes, but that was still higher than my Wound Threshold so I still suffered a Critical Injury). Neither way is "wrong," but I do find his ruling pretty harsh. Especially since the difficulty was either Hard or Daunting, and the only reason I did so well was 2 blank faces on the purple dice.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
On Repeated Skill Use: An Addendum
Several weeks ago I posted an article on why I dislike repeated skill use in RPGs. Last night's game of Edge of the Empire caused me to re-examine the issue. I still think the general argument stands, but it bears clarifying that it's exactly that - a generalization.
Early on in the campaign my character stole a swoop bike. A really nice swoop bike (the Obligation was totally worth it). So naturally, when the planet we land on is hosting a big swoop race I'm going to enter it. Unfortunately, my character is the only PC that actually owns a swoop bike, and the only one who is a decently focused pilot, so this was my time to shine with a minimal amount for everyone else at the table to do.
The GM set it up by sketching out the track, and numbering 4 different points where Piloting checks would be called for. The race was 2 laps, so that's 8 Piloting checks in a row, which could potentially get tedious. I was certainly wary going in, when he was describing the set-up. But it actually ended up working really well, for a few different reasons. Most importantly, the narrative was at the forefront. Each number on the track was a distinct obstacle (a slalom, a canyon jump, a corkscrew down-ramp into the canyon, and a narrow, one-lane choke point), and so the results were going to be interpreted differently based on which obstacle was being navigated. Obviously there was also the jockeying for position by the other racers. And I must admit that I couldn't have done it if our assassin droid hadn't been running interference on the leaders from a covert sniping position just off the track. Mechanical reasons why the excitement kept flowing included a torrent of Destiny Point use, and the constant fear of what a Despair, or even a large number of Threat, might mean. This was a tricky run at high speeds with a lot of competition, so there was a lot that could go wrong! Fortunately, thanks to the Droid's help and luckier rolls than I'm used to getting, I actually placed 1st (I expected 4th or 5th).
Aside from the details of the task itself, there was also a lot riding on this race. My sponsor (I certainly couldn't foot the bill for that entry fee!) works directly under the Hutt that we're trying to make nice with. He's also the same guy that just entrusted us with a smuggling test-run (a few "freebie" crates of Booster Blue, on loan, to make sure we were reliable). Bungling the race could negatively affect the smuggling job, and there is potentially a LOT of Obligation riding on both tasks. Oh, and the only reason we're even trying to get into this Hutt's inner circle is because the corrupt sector ranger responsible for my Blackmail Obligation from char-gen smuggles for him, and I'm looking for a way to expose the dirt-bag (or more likely to turn the tables and blackmail HIM) to reduce my Obligation. To make matters worse, our group was teetering dangerously close to 100 Obligation total.
So, yeah. Aside from making the descriptions of the task itself creative and interesting, with a lot of variation between the different rolls, it helps when the scene is high stakes from a big-picture point of view.
Ultimately, the big difference I see in the above example compared with the examples from my earlier post is that despite the fact that the same skill was rolled multiple times in a row, each distinct roll represented its own mini-challenge. The scene was the swoop race, whereas the task was a canyon jump, or a choke point, etc. I'm glad my GM ran it this way. When he was setting the stage for this, I was thinking "I wonder if it'd be better to just roll a single Pilot check for the race, or for a lap?" but in hindsight that wouldn't have been NEARLY as exciting. A scene like this needs the constant jockeying for position, the tension of knowing that the GM still has X Destiny points, which makes a Despair that much more likely, ample opportunities for Advantage and Threat to be interpreted, and enough screen time to do it justice.
So I guess the point I'm driving at is that it's important to know when to "zoom in," and by how much. Definitely do so if there's a lot riding on the scene, or if you're prepared to offer up a lot of juicy description and meaningful consequences. The point of the game isn't the rolls you make, but the fictional details that are sometimes adjudicated with rolls. Don't let rolling dice get in the way of the story, and if rolling the same skill multiple times enhances the story feel free to do it, keeping in mind the potential pitfalls (as outline in the previous article).
Early on in the campaign my character stole a swoop bike. A really nice swoop bike (the Obligation was totally worth it). So naturally, when the planet we land on is hosting a big swoop race I'm going to enter it. Unfortunately, my character is the only PC that actually owns a swoop bike, and the only one who is a decently focused pilot, so this was my time to shine with a minimal amount for everyone else at the table to do.
The GM set it up by sketching out the track, and numbering 4 different points where Piloting checks would be called for. The race was 2 laps, so that's 8 Piloting checks in a row, which could potentially get tedious. I was certainly wary going in, when he was describing the set-up. But it actually ended up working really well, for a few different reasons. Most importantly, the narrative was at the forefront. Each number on the track was a distinct obstacle (a slalom, a canyon jump, a corkscrew down-ramp into the canyon, and a narrow, one-lane choke point), and so the results were going to be interpreted differently based on which obstacle was being navigated. Obviously there was also the jockeying for position by the other racers. And I must admit that I couldn't have done it if our assassin droid hadn't been running interference on the leaders from a covert sniping position just off the track. Mechanical reasons why the excitement kept flowing included a torrent of Destiny Point use, and the constant fear of what a Despair, or even a large number of Threat, might mean. This was a tricky run at high speeds with a lot of competition, so there was a lot that could go wrong! Fortunately, thanks to the Droid's help and luckier rolls than I'm used to getting, I actually placed 1st (I expected 4th or 5th).
Aside from the details of the task itself, there was also a lot riding on this race. My sponsor (I certainly couldn't foot the bill for that entry fee!) works directly under the Hutt that we're trying to make nice with. He's also the same guy that just entrusted us with a smuggling test-run (a few "freebie" crates of Booster Blue, on loan, to make sure we were reliable). Bungling the race could negatively affect the smuggling job, and there is potentially a LOT of Obligation riding on both tasks. Oh, and the only reason we're even trying to get into this Hutt's inner circle is because the corrupt sector ranger responsible for my Blackmail Obligation from char-gen smuggles for him, and I'm looking for a way to expose the dirt-bag (or more likely to turn the tables and blackmail HIM) to reduce my Obligation. To make matters worse, our group was teetering dangerously close to 100 Obligation total.
So, yeah. Aside from making the descriptions of the task itself creative and interesting, with a lot of variation between the different rolls, it helps when the scene is high stakes from a big-picture point of view.
Ultimately, the big difference I see in the above example compared with the examples from my earlier post is that despite the fact that the same skill was rolled multiple times in a row, each distinct roll represented its own mini-challenge. The scene was the swoop race, whereas the task was a canyon jump, or a choke point, etc. I'm glad my GM ran it this way. When he was setting the stage for this, I was thinking "I wonder if it'd be better to just roll a single Pilot check for the race, or for a lap?" but in hindsight that wouldn't have been NEARLY as exciting. A scene like this needs the constant jockeying for position, the tension of knowing that the GM still has X Destiny points, which makes a Despair that much more likely, ample opportunities for Advantage and Threat to be interpreted, and enough screen time to do it justice.
So I guess the point I'm driving at is that it's important to know when to "zoom in," and by how much. Definitely do so if there's a lot riding on the scene, or if you're prepared to offer up a lot of juicy description and meaningful consequences. The point of the game isn't the rolls you make, but the fictional details that are sometimes adjudicated with rolls. Don't let rolling dice get in the way of the story, and if rolling the same skill multiple times enhances the story feel free to do it, keeping in mind the potential pitfalls (as outline in the previous article).
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
On Skill Lists and Split Perception
Skill lists are a tough mechanic to design in an RPG. Having a longer list of skills increases granularity and can fine-tune character concepts, but it also has a tendency to increase specialization to a point where it's tough to build the kind of character that you have in mind. For example, in D&D 3.x if you want to be stealthy, you need to sink points into both Hide and Move Silently. If you're physically fit, you'll probably want Swim, Climb, and Jump. This might leave few available skills left for other aspects of your character concept. Contrast that with 4E, where Stealth is one skill, and Athletics is the counterpart to the latter skill group. A short skill list has its own problems though, with the reduction in granularity limiting customization and resulting in certain actions being "forced" into a particular skill. A good example of this is the 4E Nature skill, which encapsulates not only the Knowledge skill, but also things like Survival, Handle Animal, and possibly Ride. In 3.x, these used to all be separate skills, using Int, Wis, Cha, and Dex, respectively! So now you need to have a good Wis in order to be good any all of those things.
What does that have to do with Star Wars? Well, it highlights that, by and large, the skill list in Edge of the Empire is a nice middle ground between the two most recent editions of D&D, and is possibly my favorite skill list of the games I've played or read (with the caveat that I still like the freeform Backgrounds of 13th Age better than any skill list).
Social Skills
The strongest element of the EotE skill list is the granularity of its social skills, to the point where it's actually interesting to build and play a "party face." Going back to D&D, you'd usually just bump up Cha as high as it would go, and most of the social skills were conveniently tied to that ability score (with the exception of the Knowledge skills that often help when going into social encounters). In EotE social skills are widely spread amongst the different Characteristics: Intellect for the various Knowledge skills, Presence for Charm, Leadership, Negotiation, and Cool (which opposes certain social skills, and may be called upon as a "defense roll" as opposed to the NPC rolling the skill), Willpower for Coercion and Discipline (which opposes the social skills that Cool doesn't), and Cunning for Deception, Streetwise, and possibly Perception (if you're wrapping Insight/Sense Motive into that skill). Now it's a lot tougher to shortcut that "face" build!
The social split encourages teamwork in social encounters, since no PC is likely to have equally high values in 4 of the 6 characteristics, and that's a lot of individual skills to keep up with. Rather, the system seems to encourage PCs to pick an aspect of social encounters that they can contribute well in, so everyone can feel the need to participate in some way. Of course you can still make a more focused "face" character, but they'll still be better in some areas than others depending on their highest Characteristics (likely Presence), and it will be XP-intensive to keep all of the requisite skills high. More important are the Talents, especially in specializations like Politico, which give the "face" a huge edge while still letting anyone else with a decent dice pool succeed (if, for example, the party is split).
This works because humans are social creatures, and there are a lot of different ways that we interact with each other. Very few people can say they're equally comfortable talking with anyone; a senator, a scientist, a drunk at the bar, and a black market arms dealer are all going to be very different experiences which require very different approaches. By comparison, I'd say that the D&D social skills (or, more accurately, the Charisma attribute) are overly abstracted and thus less capable of modeling these nuances. Of course it helps that EotE is designed as a game where you survive on the fringes of the Galaxy, probably by navigating various social opportunities, whereas D&D can support social adventures but is ultimately built on the premise of killing monsters and taking their stuff.
There is one area where this increase in granularity can cause problems, though. Specifically, some of the skills have a great deal of overlap, with the biggest offenders being Cool/Discipline and Perception/Vigilance.
Cool/Discipline
I think I've made my peace with the Cool/Discipline split. They could certainly be combined into one skill pretty easily, but explanations for the reasoning behind the split on the Order 66 podcast brought me around to the designer's line of thinking as well. Actually, it was encapsulated best by the memorable quote from a listener in the chat: "Han Solo has Cool, stormtroopers have Discipline." In other words, Han Solo projects a certain cocky confidence, and it lets him do some pretty daring stuff like chase a couple of stormtroopers down a hall on the Death Star, but once he sees a room full of reinforcements, he panics, crumbles, and runs the other way. Stormtroopers, on the other hand, probably look pretty awkward in most social situations, and don't project much beyond simple uniformity. But when a firefight breaks out, they've got the military training to not panic, and to just follow their orders. From a general gaming perspective most systems would wrap both into a single concept, but for modeling a particularly iconic scene, I think it works for a Star Wars game.
Cool is ultimately more social; making yourself look like you belong, and also being able to read everyone else in the room well enough to take advantage of opportunities (which is why it's also an initiative skill). Discipline is just having that inner, well, discipline; you stick with what you've got to do despite what's going on around you.
Perception/Vigilance
My group (somewhat erroneously) has been oversimplifying this dichotomy into Perception = active, Vigilance = passive. It's easy to fall into that trap, partially because the case for splitting Perception into two different skills is, in my opinion, the weakest of the "split skills."
I get some of the reasons for the split. It provides more freedom with Characteristics for a character that wants to be perceptive, since you can achieve the concept with a high Cunning OR Willpower. There's also a LOT to be said for splitting it up when you're using one of the skills to determine initiative, especially considering that many gamers already consider Perception to be a "super skill" in most games. But there are also a lot of negatives that go along with the split.
For one thing, Perception already covers a lot of what Vigilance is supposed to represent. Perception is stated to be applied when looking out for a potential ambush. And yet, Vigilance is supposed to be a sort of passive perception with regard to sensing imminent danger (which is why it's used for initiative). But that basically relegates Vigilance to initiative rolls proper, and the little side example of ret-conning that a character brought along some small piece of gear (which Destiny Points can already do).
More importantly (since EotE is a narrative game), it can be tough to explain why a PC that's terrible at noticing things in general (low Cunning, no ranks in Perception) is all of the sudden amazing at noticing certain situational things (i.e. danger), especially if Perception is also useable for detecting danger. For example, I've done a lot of invasive plant control (walking around the woods searching for a specific shade of green, shape, etc., often at a distance) and bird surveys (mostly by sound). These activities require a lot of active concentration, and would fall under the umbrella of Perception. But the thing is, I'm generally more alert to what's going on in my environment (I notice a lot of small details while out hiking) precisely BECAUSE I have prior experience focusing on very active perception. The more you do something, the more it becomes second nature, and you can do it without thinking about it. I just can't imagine anyone being particularly vigilant if they didn't have that kind of awareness that would fall under the Perception skill, and that's a pretty big narrative disconnect to me.
Obviously re-combining the skills is not going to be an effective solution at this point. Vigilance is too tied up into the initiative system to get wrapped up into Perception. Perception + initiative would be too much of a no-brainer pick that no PC would be built without it. Plus whichever Characteristic you didn't use would go down in value, as both Cunning and Willpower are already associated with relatively few skills. So I think the biggest tool for dealing with the issue is probably awareness of the issue. If the skills are so tied together anyways, why not ask the player to "roll a Perception or Vigilance check," embracing the fact that they're often interchangeable? Or you can go the opposite route, and in the case of spotting an ambush you can houserule that it's actually more appropriate to use Vigilance than Perception. Maybe it might help to think about Vigilance as the "Resilience" of Perception; it applies when you're exhausted or distracted, and being good at Vigilance but bad at Perception simply means you have a lot of mental endurance (or you just get really paranoid when you're tired). And, of course, there's no harm in favoring Perception over Vigilance since initiative is such a high stakes roll. Viewing it from the initiative lens, you could even think of Vigilance more like having fast reflexes - you didn't notice the attack before anyone else, but you sure can react to it faster.
What does that have to do with Star Wars? Well, it highlights that, by and large, the skill list in Edge of the Empire is a nice middle ground between the two most recent editions of D&D, and is possibly my favorite skill list of the games I've played or read (with the caveat that I still like the freeform Backgrounds of 13th Age better than any skill list).
Social Skills
The strongest element of the EotE skill list is the granularity of its social skills, to the point where it's actually interesting to build and play a "party face." Going back to D&D, you'd usually just bump up Cha as high as it would go, and most of the social skills were conveniently tied to that ability score (with the exception of the Knowledge skills that often help when going into social encounters). In EotE social skills are widely spread amongst the different Characteristics: Intellect for the various Knowledge skills, Presence for Charm, Leadership, Negotiation, and Cool (which opposes certain social skills, and may be called upon as a "defense roll" as opposed to the NPC rolling the skill), Willpower for Coercion and Discipline (which opposes the social skills that Cool doesn't), and Cunning for Deception, Streetwise, and possibly Perception (if you're wrapping Insight/Sense Motive into that skill). Now it's a lot tougher to shortcut that "face" build!
The social split encourages teamwork in social encounters, since no PC is likely to have equally high values in 4 of the 6 characteristics, and that's a lot of individual skills to keep up with. Rather, the system seems to encourage PCs to pick an aspect of social encounters that they can contribute well in, so everyone can feel the need to participate in some way. Of course you can still make a more focused "face" character, but they'll still be better in some areas than others depending on their highest Characteristics (likely Presence), and it will be XP-intensive to keep all of the requisite skills high. More important are the Talents, especially in specializations like Politico, which give the "face" a huge edge while still letting anyone else with a decent dice pool succeed (if, for example, the party is split).
This works because humans are social creatures, and there are a lot of different ways that we interact with each other. Very few people can say they're equally comfortable talking with anyone; a senator, a scientist, a drunk at the bar, and a black market arms dealer are all going to be very different experiences which require very different approaches. By comparison, I'd say that the D&D social skills (or, more accurately, the Charisma attribute) are overly abstracted and thus less capable of modeling these nuances. Of course it helps that EotE is designed as a game where you survive on the fringes of the Galaxy, probably by navigating various social opportunities, whereas D&D can support social adventures but is ultimately built on the premise of killing monsters and taking their stuff.
"Split" Skills
Cool/Discipline
I think I've made my peace with the Cool/Discipline split. They could certainly be combined into one skill pretty easily, but explanations for the reasoning behind the split on the Order 66 podcast brought me around to the designer's line of thinking as well. Actually, it was encapsulated best by the memorable quote from a listener in the chat: "Han Solo has Cool, stormtroopers have Discipline." In other words, Han Solo projects a certain cocky confidence, and it lets him do some pretty daring stuff like chase a couple of stormtroopers down a hall on the Death Star, but once he sees a room full of reinforcements, he panics, crumbles, and runs the other way. Stormtroopers, on the other hand, probably look pretty awkward in most social situations, and don't project much beyond simple uniformity. But when a firefight breaks out, they've got the military training to not panic, and to just follow their orders. From a general gaming perspective most systems would wrap both into a single concept, but for modeling a particularly iconic scene, I think it works for a Star Wars game.
Cool is ultimately more social; making yourself look like you belong, and also being able to read everyone else in the room well enough to take advantage of opportunities (which is why it's also an initiative skill). Discipline is just having that inner, well, discipline; you stick with what you've got to do despite what's going on around you.
Perception/Vigilance
My group (somewhat erroneously) has been oversimplifying this dichotomy into Perception = active, Vigilance = passive. It's easy to fall into that trap, partially because the case for splitting Perception into two different skills is, in my opinion, the weakest of the "split skills."
I get some of the reasons for the split. It provides more freedom with Characteristics for a character that wants to be perceptive, since you can achieve the concept with a high Cunning OR Willpower. There's also a LOT to be said for splitting it up when you're using one of the skills to determine initiative, especially considering that many gamers already consider Perception to be a "super skill" in most games. But there are also a lot of negatives that go along with the split.
For one thing, Perception already covers a lot of what Vigilance is supposed to represent. Perception is stated to be applied when looking out for a potential ambush. And yet, Vigilance is supposed to be a sort of passive perception with regard to sensing imminent danger (which is why it's used for initiative). But that basically relegates Vigilance to initiative rolls proper, and the little side example of ret-conning that a character brought along some small piece of gear (which Destiny Points can already do).
More importantly (since EotE is a narrative game), it can be tough to explain why a PC that's terrible at noticing things in general (low Cunning, no ranks in Perception) is all of the sudden amazing at noticing certain situational things (i.e. danger), especially if Perception is also useable for detecting danger. For example, I've done a lot of invasive plant control (walking around the woods searching for a specific shade of green, shape, etc., often at a distance) and bird surveys (mostly by sound). These activities require a lot of active concentration, and would fall under the umbrella of Perception. But the thing is, I'm generally more alert to what's going on in my environment (I notice a lot of small details while out hiking) precisely BECAUSE I have prior experience focusing on very active perception. The more you do something, the more it becomes second nature, and you can do it without thinking about it. I just can't imagine anyone being particularly vigilant if they didn't have that kind of awareness that would fall under the Perception skill, and that's a pretty big narrative disconnect to me.
Obviously re-combining the skills is not going to be an effective solution at this point. Vigilance is too tied up into the initiative system to get wrapped up into Perception. Perception + initiative would be too much of a no-brainer pick that no PC would be built without it. Plus whichever Characteristic you didn't use would go down in value, as both Cunning and Willpower are already associated with relatively few skills. So I think the biggest tool for dealing with the issue is probably awareness of the issue. If the skills are so tied together anyways, why not ask the player to "roll a Perception or Vigilance check," embracing the fact that they're often interchangeable? Or you can go the opposite route, and in the case of spotting an ambush you can houserule that it's actually more appropriate to use Vigilance than Perception. Maybe it might help to think about Vigilance as the "Resilience" of Perception; it applies when you're exhausted or distracted, and being good at Vigilance but bad at Perception simply means you have a lot of mental endurance (or you just get really paranoid when you're tired). And, of course, there's no harm in favoring Perception over Vigilance since initiative is such a high stakes roll. Viewing it from the initiative lens, you could even think of Vigilance more like having fast reflexes - you didn't notice the attack before anyone else, but you sure can react to it faster.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
On Prolonged Actions (Or Repeated Skill Checks)
I was playing Edge of the Empire with my group yesterday, and after several sessions of being unable to catch a breather and repair our ship's Hull Trauma, the party finally scrounged together some funds and some downtime. Naturally, our Wookiee Mechanic wanted to assist the repair crew that we hired since his Solid Repairs talent would essentially let us repair a "free" point of HT, which is crucial given that we're strapped for credits.
One of the other players asked "is that +1 per day of repairing the ship, or just +1 to the total?" This player's system-of-choice is Pathfinder so he tends to lean toward system mastery (gaming the system), and I immediately replied that while it's not spelled out exactly in the rules and thus is open to GM interpretation, repairing the ship should be a single "action" regardless of how many days it took (which the GM agreed with). The answer was pretty reflexive to me, but it got me thinking about the deeper issue at hand here: I really dislike the concept of repeated skill use in an RPG.
This includes things like making a skill check for each hour of work on a multi-day repair job. Failing a Lockpicking check (in D&D, usually) and immediately saying "can I try again?" Encountering a room full of half a dozen traps and being tasked with rolling to disarm Each. One. Individually.
The One Ring actually has a rule for this, called Prolonged Actions. It's always been one of my least favorite rules in the game, to the point where I've never even considered bringing it up. Here's the justification in the rules (pg. 22 of the LMB, emphasis mine) - "Prolonged actions are particularly suited to evoke an atmosphere of tension, but may also be employed when the acting characters want to tackle a difficult task with caution, and have the time to do it." Basically, they're rules on how to take a single skill check and break it into multiple skill checks.
I would argue that such a game mechanic is completely and utterly pointless. Why would it benefit cautious players to attempt Prolonged Actions? Because the result is not at the mercy of a single die roll, but rather the more rolls you make, the closer your end result is likely to be to the average. At that point, why not just "take 10" (to use a D&D term) and dispense with the skill check altogether? After all, by allowing multiple rolls you're already establishing that the situation is one in which there is plenty of time for "repeated attempts," so you're going to make it anyways. Why not just cut to the chase?
There's a fundamental rule that's usually called out in most RPG books but is easily forgotten by some players, and that is that a skill check should only be rolled when there is a risk for failure or when there would be some otherwise dramatic consequences. If you can try something as many times as you want, there is implicitly no risk for failure. Let's go back to the examples above.
One of the other players asked "is that +1 per day of repairing the ship, or just +1 to the total?" This player's system-of-choice is Pathfinder so he tends to lean toward system mastery (gaming the system), and I immediately replied that while it's not spelled out exactly in the rules and thus is open to GM interpretation, repairing the ship should be a single "action" regardless of how many days it took (which the GM agreed with). The answer was pretty reflexive to me, but it got me thinking about the deeper issue at hand here: I really dislike the concept of repeated skill use in an RPG.
This includes things like making a skill check for each hour of work on a multi-day repair job. Failing a Lockpicking check (in D&D, usually) and immediately saying "can I try again?" Encountering a room full of half a dozen traps and being tasked with rolling to disarm Each. One. Individually.
The One Ring actually has a rule for this, called Prolonged Actions. It's always been one of my least favorite rules in the game, to the point where I've never even considered bringing it up. Here's the justification in the rules (pg. 22 of the LMB, emphasis mine) - "Prolonged actions are particularly suited to evoke an atmosphere of tension, but may also be employed when the acting characters want to tackle a difficult task with caution, and have the time to do it." Basically, they're rules on how to take a single skill check and break it into multiple skill checks.
I would argue that such a game mechanic is completely and utterly pointless. Why would it benefit cautious players to attempt Prolonged Actions? Because the result is not at the mercy of a single die roll, but rather the more rolls you make, the closer your end result is likely to be to the average. At that point, why not just "take 10" (to use a D&D term) and dispense with the skill check altogether? After all, by allowing multiple rolls you're already establishing that the situation is one in which there is plenty of time for "repeated attempts," so you're going to make it anyways. Why not just cut to the chase?
There's a fundamental rule that's usually called out in most RPG books but is easily forgotten by some players, and that is that a skill check should only be rolled when there is a risk for failure or when there would be some otherwise dramatic consequences. If you can try something as many times as you want, there is implicitly no risk for failure. Let's go back to the examples above.
- So the Wookiee helps repair the ship, along with a retinue of professional mechanics in a proper facilities. Is there any question that the ship will get repaired? No? Well, there's not even a roll required (in our game, the GM wisely did not ask for a Mechanics check for that very reason). It's worth keeping in mind that the talent doesn't give you +1 HT for each Mechanics check made, but rather "whenever he repairs a vehicle or starship." That's whether or not a roll is required.
- If the Rogue (or insert similar archetype based on the game in question) goes up to a lock to pick it, just let him do it if there's a reasonable chance of success. Because he'll just try again anyways. Now, it's another story if there are alert guards standing just on the other side of the door (for example), in which case failure on the first attempt probably means that too much noise was made in the attempt. That's FAILURE, as opposed to "I didn't quite get it...this time."
- There's nothing that annoys me more than a dungeon crawl where the Rogue scouts ahead and there's 20 minutes of the GM saying "make a Perception check. Ok, you see a trap there, roll to Disable it." And the room is full of traps. It's boring, even if it means the Rogue is filling his niche. I'd rather a single Perception check notice all of the traps, with a single roll to disable ALL of them (unless there are different types of traps of varying difficulties, that are described narratively to keep things interesting). Honestly I'd rather go the old school route of describing all of your actions in detail (because skill checks didn't exist yet) and succeeding when your idea made sense. Potentially tedius in a different sort of way (stopping every 10 ft to probe with your wooden pole, anyone?), but at least the game tends toward more immersive detail.
I would be remiss if I didn't make note of a possible exception to my aversion to Prolonged Actions (in whatever form they take depending on the game), and that is the classic Time Limit (though there may be other situational exceptions). For example, you've got 4 rounds to disable this trap and then open that lock and get through the door, while being attacked by zombies, GO! Stressful situation + time limit means that every roll has an implicit drama attached to it. You fail a check, that's another round that you have to deal with complications. Or someone less skilled has to drop what they're doing to make an attempt. The results are interesting. Ultimately, go with the Rule of Cool whenever possible. If something is so routine that the results aren't all that interesting one way or the other, let it happen.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Galactic Coordinates Reference
Time really does fly, doesn't it? Hard to believe I haven't posted anything in a month. Been busy with non-gaming stuff, but I've also been pecking away at a little side project that I finally finished. It's an Excel spreadsheet that lists every system, their coordinates, and any major hyperlanes that pass through them from the galactic map on pages 328-9 of the Edge of the Empire core rulebook. By default it's sorted alphabetically by system so that you can locate any system easily on the map. While you can sort by hyperlane as well, it's probably easier to just look at the map to see what systems are along the route.
GMs and players alike might find it useful. Enjoy!
GMs and players alike might find it useful. Enjoy!
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Updated Reference Sheets for Edge of the Empire
I had some reference sheets floating around from the Beta, but now that my gaming group has started playing again with the core rulebook I decided I'd revise the sheets (since we went through that first session using slightly erroneous rules).
Here they are, for anyone who wants them. There's a general reference sheet with an extremely consolidated table for spending Advantage/Threat, a list of weapon qualities, and some other misc. bits of information that I found myself wanting to have handy in-game. Second is a starship reference sheet, which has benefitted from a more comprehensive overhaul since the beta version. It's got the pilot and crew maneuvers/actions (though I didn't include obvious and intuitive things like making Gunnery checks), the Chase rules, Astrogation details, and notes on Sensors and repairing Hull Trauma.
These sheets may not be absolutely perfect for everyone. Some people might prefer separate tables for Advantage and Threat, for example, but personally I like the concise table since many of the effects are mirror images of each other, and I tend to improvise a lot anyways. I also left out some information that probably wouldn't come up too often (Bacta rules, some of the less commonly-encountered weapon qualities), and certainly didn't clutter the sheets up with basics like dice symbols, which I've got down.
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of gamers out there who think along the same lines as me, so if these look useful use them!
Here they are, for anyone who wants them. There's a general reference sheet with an extremely consolidated table for spending Advantage/Threat, a list of weapon qualities, and some other misc. bits of information that I found myself wanting to have handy in-game. Second is a starship reference sheet, which has benefitted from a more comprehensive overhaul since the beta version. It's got the pilot and crew maneuvers/actions (though I didn't include obvious and intuitive things like making Gunnery checks), the Chase rules, Astrogation details, and notes on Sensors and repairing Hull Trauma.
These sheets may not be absolutely perfect for everyone. Some people might prefer separate tables for Advantage and Threat, for example, but personally I like the concise table since many of the effects are mirror images of each other, and I tend to improvise a lot anyways. I also left out some information that probably wouldn't come up too often (Bacta rules, some of the less commonly-encountered weapon qualities), and certainly didn't clutter the sheets up with basics like dice symbols, which I've got down.
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of gamers out there who think along the same lines as me, so if these look useful use them!
Saturday, July 27, 2013
On Improvisational Stunt Systems
I've been thinking a lot about improvisational actions in tabletop RPG combat lately. I suppose it was initially triggered by arguments during the early D&D Next playtest process, specifically over the issue of simple vs complex mechanics. Some favored a minimalist, "old school" rule set because you're forced to get narratively creative to do things in the game world since you can't fall back on "I use X skill," or "I use my ____ power." Furthermore, complex and tactical rule sets can actively discourage this type of thinking because the existence of a feat/power/whatever that says you can do X means that characters without that thing CAN'T do the action. In other words, it has "No" built into the system, which runs counter to the "Yes, and..." philosophy of many modern RPGs. Kind of ironic, since old school D&D came out on the side of the modern "Yes, and...".
The thing is, though, that I like tactical games too. I'm also not convinced that the two philosophies are mutually exclusive, and playing 13th Age has taught me that. And so I will examine the influence that several game systems have had on my thoughts on the matter, and hopefully will arrive at some generic principles that can be applied to most any system to allow a more improvisational style of play.
Savage Worlds
I'll admit that I've never actually played the system, but I have the Deluxe Explorer's Edition and I've read enough forum threads to have a good idea for how the system plays. Granted I don't like everything about the system, but I can't help but appreciate the elegance of the Combat Survival Guide. There are just so many ways that so many different types of characters (including non-combat types) can contribute toward taking down a foe, and everything's on one very simple reference page.
It should be noted that the system is very streamlined, and small modifiers make a big difference because of how the core dice mechanic works. Turns also go really fast, and there isn't any HP so stunting an enemy to make him easier to hit later will be much more effective than attacking for a non-so-solid hit.
Ultimately, the system works well because it's simple and generic. "Agility Trick" covers everything from throwing sand in someone's face, to a wild flurry of sword strikes that tire the foe or leave him open without any intent of hitting him, to running toward a wall while being pursued and then jumping off of it, flipping over the foe's back at the last minute to leave him off balance and facing the wall. The sky is the limit in terms of the narrative.
Pathfinder/D&D 3.x
Now, for a completely diametrically opposed rules set. This is an important system to cover because of its sheer popularity, and the fact that many gamers cut their teeth on it (myself included). Thanks to the SRD, it's extremely easy to get into it, and there are a lot of other games that use the basic d20 system (all the same arguments apply).
In Pathfinder/3.x, you have a HUGE list of feats (a prolific amount of splatbooks doesn't help here), and so there's effectively a HUGE list of "you can't do that unless you have this feat" restrictions. It's also a very rules-heavy, fiddly system that strives toward simulationism (though it often falls short, especially compared with the "common sense" approach of a more narrative system). There are very specific and complicated rules for grappling, tripping, sundering, etc. In other words, the basis for stunts. The problem is that the baseline options for these stunts are extremely poor choices. You give up your attack to do them, the roll is heavily penalized, and there's often a risk of taking opportunity attacks on top of that. The designers might as well have just saved the page space and just wrote "don't do any of this."
Except, of course, for the feats. There are feat chains that modify these options, but with feats being such a limited resource (and a grab bag of EVERYTHING, from attack/damage bonuses to new options to knowing new languages) it's a pretty big deal to specialize in these "stunts." A melee character can be a grappling master, or a tripping master, sure, but then it becomes a non-choice essentially. Since he's spent so many character resources into that thing he'd damn well better press his "trip" or "grapple" button as much as possible, as opposed to thinking creatively in terms of what's going on in the game world. If he does think creatively and tries something off-the-wall (that he hasn't invested feat support in) he's less likely to succeed.
That is a fundamental failure of any stunt system. The whole point is to make meaningful decisions in the moment, based on the fiction. For example: Oh, this guy's wearing really heavy armor with a big visor on his helm, so that means if I dart around, keep moving, and try to stay out of his field of vision I should gain some kind of advantage. Maybe he'll tire himself trying to chase me, or simply be less able to hit me, or maybe I'll try to maneuver him into a position so that I can take advantage of the environment. This kind of stuff would happen all the time in Savage Worlds, but it just never comes up in a PF/3.x game. Rather, you're reduced to your "auto-choices" of flank to better hit him, and then use whatever toys you've specialized in to wear him down. Creativity is actively discouraged by default, but that's not to say that it has to be that way. The precedent set by other d20 games may provide insight into house rules that can be adapted to the system.
D&D 4E
In some ways the system fails just as much as PF/3.5 in terms of providing an improvisational stunt system. While a unified power structure did wonders for ensuring that all classes were balanced and everyone had interested options, the game still usually devolved into "button mashing" in the same way that PF/3.5 did. Fights mostly involved choosing whichever power would work best in any given round. Now, the good news is that choosing powers wasn't a resource sink that could have been spent on something else; it was its own little resource pool, and everyone got a good number of interesting, tactically meaningful choices.
Furthermore, the flavor of a given power was often extremely mutable. 4E was written in a very clear "technical writing" style that defined the game mechanics that were being used. Those mechanics were intentionally more streamlined than PF/3.x so that the focus would be on the narrative rather than the fiddly rules. Instead of 5 flavors of "sickened," "dazed," or "afraid" 4E would me inclined to lump everything like that under "Dazed." Seriously, whereas PF has 3 pages of extremely tiny (8 point font?) text in "wall" format of conditions, 4E has a single page of larger-font, stat-block-style conditions with bullet points. Having very specific conditions is limiting, whereas having a broad mechanic that can be interpreted multiple ways opens the door for narrative "stunting."
Unfortunately, the devil's in the details. You're still just picking from a list even if you're doing something different in the game world each time you use the power, but worse is the fact that the long combats, the large amount of powers available, and the tactical complexity means that there's often not time to think about combat in terms of the narrative. Most of the time players just say "I use X power" and call it a day (and fights still take forever). Granted there's also a table in the DMG (the infamous "Page 42") that provides a baseline for improvisational actions, but a) the effects are inferior to most powers (though not to the extent that the baseline PF/3.x maneuvers were), and b) at mid to high levels most players can get overwhelmed with the sheer number of options their character has, let alone trying to think "outside the box," as it were.
13th Age
Ah, 13th Age. The beauty of this system (which is technically a d20 system but uses a lot of narrative indie-game mechanics) is that it's streamlined even further than 4E, and less tactically complex. On top of that, it also has extremely transparent math, sidebars discussing the designer's intents and/or disagreements, and encourages improvisation and house-ruling.
But for all that there's no codified stunt system.
Individual classes do have options that grant them improvisational carte-blanche. We'll examine the Rogue's, which is the Swashbuckle talent, because it hints at unwritten general stunt rules. Swashbuckle basically boils down to "do a fun stunt, and you'll probably want to make an attack as part of it." Like 4E (and unlike PF/3.x) you're not given up your attack, but rather adding a "rider" on top of it. Unlike 4E the rider is whatever makes sense given your description. Interestingly, the last paragraph reads "Of course, 13th Age is a game where everyone might attempt stunts like this at some point. But you're the swashbuckler who is prone to automatically succeeding, often, instead of needing a difficult skill check to pull the stunt off."
Unfortunately, the core book has no guidelines on how to implement such a skill-based stunt system in combat.
I eventually settled on houseruling it like this:
Edge of the Empire
I'll end how I started, by discussing a non-d20 system to illustrate how different core mechanics can be more or less improvisational friendly out of the gate.
EotE is a huge divergence from your classic d20 experience because not only does it use a dice pool system, but it employs narrative dice. The faces have no numbers, but rather different combinations of success and failure symbols (which cancel each other out), advantage and threat (which cancel each other out and add additional effects, positive or negative, independent of success), and Triumph and Despair (rare symbols that don't cancel, an indicate something REALLY good or REALLY bad).
Like Savage Worlds, combat rounds tend to move quickly so it's less of a big deal to give up your attack in order to do something else. It's also really easy to represent different effects and circumstances by simply adding, upgrading, or removing dice from the dice pool.
Each roll results in improvisation and interpretation of the results because there are so many possible combinations and variations of outcomes (which can be generally grouped as success, failure, success with complications, success with additional benefits, failure with complications, and failure with benefits). In some ways, an improvisational stunt system is inexorably entwined into the core mechanic.
Conclusions
Obviously something like Edge of the Empire's core mechanics are pretty impossible to introduce into other systems without a massive re-write of the rules. But the effects on gameplay are certainly valuable to keep in mind, as they can probably be achieved in other ways. I'll certainly be keeping this in mind as I play more EotE.
Savage Worlds is a good model to use in 13th Age, as both are narrative-centric (add whatever "trappings" onto the mechanics) games with intentionally streamlined systems designed for ease-of-use. They're very different systems, of course, but they do have those common themes. Even though I've never run or played Savage Worlds, its rules have certainly influenced by own stunt system, and I can see the influence in the Gamble! system as well.
By adopting some principles from Savage Worlds into 13th Age, 13th Age may serve as a "bridge" for incorporating some of these mechanics into a more traditional d20 game like D&D 4E or Pathfinder. I'm going to be playing in a Pathfinder game soon, after having sworn off 3.x and its ilk in favor of less fiddly systems. Mostly because the group still wants to play Pathfinder (I'll never DM it, though), and because the DM is looking to incorporate some 13th Age mechanics into the game (definitely One Unique Thing, and ED and Icons are likely as well). It intrigues me, and I'm curious whether those additions will make Pathfinder more palatable to me. Perhaps once I re-familiarize myself with its rules I can begin to adapt some form of improvised stunts rules to the system.
The thing is, though, that I like tactical games too. I'm also not convinced that the two philosophies are mutually exclusive, and playing 13th Age has taught me that. And so I will examine the influence that several game systems have had on my thoughts on the matter, and hopefully will arrive at some generic principles that can be applied to most any system to allow a more improvisational style of play.
Savage Worlds
I'll admit that I've never actually played the system, but I have the Deluxe Explorer's Edition and I've read enough forum threads to have a good idea for how the system plays. Granted I don't like everything about the system, but I can't help but appreciate the elegance of the Combat Survival Guide. There are just so many ways that so many different types of characters (including non-combat types) can contribute toward taking down a foe, and everything's on one very simple reference page.
It should be noted that the system is very streamlined, and small modifiers make a big difference because of how the core dice mechanic works. Turns also go really fast, and there isn't any HP so stunting an enemy to make him easier to hit later will be much more effective than attacking for a non-so-solid hit.
Ultimately, the system works well because it's simple and generic. "Agility Trick" covers everything from throwing sand in someone's face, to a wild flurry of sword strikes that tire the foe or leave him open without any intent of hitting him, to running toward a wall while being pursued and then jumping off of it, flipping over the foe's back at the last minute to leave him off balance and facing the wall. The sky is the limit in terms of the narrative.
Pathfinder/D&D 3.x
Now, for a completely diametrically opposed rules set. This is an important system to cover because of its sheer popularity, and the fact that many gamers cut their teeth on it (myself included). Thanks to the SRD, it's extremely easy to get into it, and there are a lot of other games that use the basic d20 system (all the same arguments apply).
In Pathfinder/3.x, you have a HUGE list of feats (a prolific amount of splatbooks doesn't help here), and so there's effectively a HUGE list of "you can't do that unless you have this feat" restrictions. It's also a very rules-heavy, fiddly system that strives toward simulationism (though it often falls short, especially compared with the "common sense" approach of a more narrative system). There are very specific and complicated rules for grappling, tripping, sundering, etc. In other words, the basis for stunts. The problem is that the baseline options for these stunts are extremely poor choices. You give up your attack to do them, the roll is heavily penalized, and there's often a risk of taking opportunity attacks on top of that. The designers might as well have just saved the page space and just wrote "don't do any of this."
Except, of course, for the feats. There are feat chains that modify these options, but with feats being such a limited resource (and a grab bag of EVERYTHING, from attack/damage bonuses to new options to knowing new languages) it's a pretty big deal to specialize in these "stunts." A melee character can be a grappling master, or a tripping master, sure, but then it becomes a non-choice essentially. Since he's spent so many character resources into that thing he'd damn well better press his "trip" or "grapple" button as much as possible, as opposed to thinking creatively in terms of what's going on in the game world. If he does think creatively and tries something off-the-wall (that he hasn't invested feat support in) he's less likely to succeed.
That is a fundamental failure of any stunt system. The whole point is to make meaningful decisions in the moment, based on the fiction. For example: Oh, this guy's wearing really heavy armor with a big visor on his helm, so that means if I dart around, keep moving, and try to stay out of his field of vision I should gain some kind of advantage. Maybe he'll tire himself trying to chase me, or simply be less able to hit me, or maybe I'll try to maneuver him into a position so that I can take advantage of the environment. This kind of stuff would happen all the time in Savage Worlds, but it just never comes up in a PF/3.x game. Rather, you're reduced to your "auto-choices" of flank to better hit him, and then use whatever toys you've specialized in to wear him down. Creativity is actively discouraged by default, but that's not to say that it has to be that way. The precedent set by other d20 games may provide insight into house rules that can be adapted to the system.
D&D 4E
In some ways the system fails just as much as PF/3.5 in terms of providing an improvisational stunt system. While a unified power structure did wonders for ensuring that all classes were balanced and everyone had interested options, the game still usually devolved into "button mashing" in the same way that PF/3.5 did. Fights mostly involved choosing whichever power would work best in any given round. Now, the good news is that choosing powers wasn't a resource sink that could have been spent on something else; it was its own little resource pool, and everyone got a good number of interesting, tactically meaningful choices.
Furthermore, the flavor of a given power was often extremely mutable. 4E was written in a very clear "technical writing" style that defined the game mechanics that were being used. Those mechanics were intentionally more streamlined than PF/3.x so that the focus would be on the narrative rather than the fiddly rules. Instead of 5 flavors of "sickened," "dazed," or "afraid" 4E would me inclined to lump everything like that under "Dazed." Seriously, whereas PF has 3 pages of extremely tiny (8 point font?) text in "wall" format of conditions, 4E has a single page of larger-font, stat-block-style conditions with bullet points. Having very specific conditions is limiting, whereas having a broad mechanic that can be interpreted multiple ways opens the door for narrative "stunting."
Unfortunately, the devil's in the details. You're still just picking from a list even if you're doing something different in the game world each time you use the power, but worse is the fact that the long combats, the large amount of powers available, and the tactical complexity means that there's often not time to think about combat in terms of the narrative. Most of the time players just say "I use X power" and call it a day (and fights still take forever). Granted there's also a table in the DMG (the infamous "Page 42") that provides a baseline for improvisational actions, but a) the effects are inferior to most powers (though not to the extent that the baseline PF/3.x maneuvers were), and b) at mid to high levels most players can get overwhelmed with the sheer number of options their character has, let alone trying to think "outside the box," as it were.
13th Age
Ah, 13th Age. The beauty of this system (which is technically a d20 system but uses a lot of narrative indie-game mechanics) is that it's streamlined even further than 4E, and less tactically complex. On top of that, it also has extremely transparent math, sidebars discussing the designer's intents and/or disagreements, and encourages improvisation and house-ruling.
But for all that there's no codified stunt system.
Individual classes do have options that grant them improvisational carte-blanche. We'll examine the Rogue's, which is the Swashbuckle talent, because it hints at unwritten general stunt rules. Swashbuckle basically boils down to "do a fun stunt, and you'll probably want to make an attack as part of it." Like 4E (and unlike PF/3.x) you're not given up your attack, but rather adding a "rider" on top of it. Unlike 4E the rider is whatever makes sense given your description. Interestingly, the last paragraph reads "Of course, 13th Age is a game where everyone might attempt stunts like this at some point. But you're the swashbuckler who is prone to automatically succeeding, often, instead of needing a difficult skill check to pull the stunt off."
Unfortunately, the core book has no guidelines on how to implement such a skill-based stunt system in combat.
I eventually settled on houseruling it like this:
- Make a skill check as a quick action. DC could be for the environment, or the foe's PD/MD.
- If you succeed, you can tack on an improvisational effect on your next attack appropriate to the stunt's narrative description.
- If you fail, the opponent gets an opportunity attack.
- If you're feeling really cautious, you can roll the skill check as a standard action instead of a quick action, giving up your attack but avoiding the risk for an opportunity attack.
Edge of the Empire
I'll end how I started, by discussing a non-d20 system to illustrate how different core mechanics can be more or less improvisational friendly out of the gate.
EotE is a huge divergence from your classic d20 experience because not only does it use a dice pool system, but it employs narrative dice. The faces have no numbers, but rather different combinations of success and failure symbols (which cancel each other out), advantage and threat (which cancel each other out and add additional effects, positive or negative, independent of success), and Triumph and Despair (rare symbols that don't cancel, an indicate something REALLY good or REALLY bad).
Like Savage Worlds, combat rounds tend to move quickly so it's less of a big deal to give up your attack in order to do something else. It's also really easy to represent different effects and circumstances by simply adding, upgrading, or removing dice from the dice pool.
Each roll results in improvisation and interpretation of the results because there are so many possible combinations and variations of outcomes (which can be generally grouped as success, failure, success with complications, success with additional benefits, failure with complications, and failure with benefits). In some ways, an improvisational stunt system is inexorably entwined into the core mechanic.
Conclusions
Obviously something like Edge of the Empire's core mechanics are pretty impossible to introduce into other systems without a massive re-write of the rules. But the effects on gameplay are certainly valuable to keep in mind, as they can probably be achieved in other ways. I'll certainly be keeping this in mind as I play more EotE.
Savage Worlds is a good model to use in 13th Age, as both are narrative-centric (add whatever "trappings" onto the mechanics) games with intentionally streamlined systems designed for ease-of-use. They're very different systems, of course, but they do have those common themes. Even though I've never run or played Savage Worlds, its rules have certainly influenced by own stunt system, and I can see the influence in the Gamble! system as well.
By adopting some principles from Savage Worlds into 13th Age, 13th Age may serve as a "bridge" for incorporating some of these mechanics into a more traditional d20 game like D&D 4E or Pathfinder. I'm going to be playing in a Pathfinder game soon, after having sworn off 3.x and its ilk in favor of less fiddly systems. Mostly because the group still wants to play Pathfinder (I'll never DM it, though), and because the DM is looking to incorporate some 13th Age mechanics into the game (definitely One Unique Thing, and ED and Icons are likely as well). It intrigues me, and I'm curious whether those additions will make Pathfinder more palatable to me. Perhaps once I re-familiarize myself with its rules I can begin to adapt some form of improvised stunts rules to the system.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Jayna Valeri - My First Edge of the Empire Character
In a few weeks I'll be wrapping up my 13th Age campaign, and one of my players has graciously agreed to be the first to GM Edge of the Empire for us (aside from the Beginner Game sessions that I ran). I haven't actually played a character in over a year, so this was an exciting prospect, and being new to the system on top of that I was just awash with different ideas. So I decided to roll a random Obligation and Motivation, and I rolled randomly for my species (between Bothan and Human, because another player already expressed interest in making a Wookie). Fortunately, those elements narrowed down my Career choice as well.
I ended up with Blackmail as my Obligation, and Relationship (Pet) as my Motivation. Yeah, that second one threw me for a loop. Most people consider me an "animal guy," and I've had more pets than most myself, but I had to get creative to make that a driving force behind a Star Wars character. Some concepts I was considering were Nibbler from Futurama (I'd use my pet's droppings as starship fuel) and being an actual nerf herder. But I ended up going a less campy route, and here's the backstory I came up with (inspired by just a few random rolls).
I ended up with Blackmail as my Obligation, and Relationship (Pet) as my Motivation. Yeah, that second one threw me for a loop. Most people consider me an "animal guy," and I've had more pets than most myself, but I had to get creative to make that a driving force behind a Star Wars character. Some concepts I was considering were Nibbler from Futurama (I'd use my pet's droppings as starship fuel) and being an actual nerf herder. But I ended up going a less campy route, and here's the backstory I came up with (inspired by just a few random rolls).
_________________________________________
Some childhood memories are as vivid as if they'd happened yesterday. Back on Dantooine I used to spend the summers with Grandpa and Grandma Valeri. Grandpa and I would just sit, watching the sun slowly set, creating a play of ever-deepening colors on the gently rippling savannah grass. If we were lucky we'd be out on an evening where both moons would rise at the same time. Grandpa was an explorer, too, back in his day. I guess you could say he's the reason I became one. Him, and Brick.
Brick is what Grandpa calls a salamandyr. Found him after crash landing on an unknown planet, but the little guy kept him as warm as a brick oven throughout the cold night. All along the length of his tail spouts candle-like flames, usually only when he's upset but he must have known that Grandpa would be cold that night.
Brick's still around, actually. Grandpa always said he seemed lonely, so far from his home planet. A planet that Grandpa couldn't remember how to get to (he never got the astrogation data after being evacuated offworld). Spent most of his late career trying to find it again, and when he passed I just couldn't let the work remain unfinished. So I'm always on the lookout for Brick's homeworld as I ply the spacelanes. Some might say I spend more time hopping around in Wild Space than doing my actual job. But someday I'm going to find that planet.
That is, if I can ever get Vassen Rell off my back. Vassen's a sector ranger. A corrupt sector ranger, I should add. He had no right to tag my ship, that job was totally legitimate. It's the one after that was the problem. I never should have stolen that secret Imperial hyperspace route, but there was a promising slice of unmapped Wild Space, and that was the only way around the region's nebulae. Needless to say it didn't lead to Brick's homeworld. There was an Imperial space station there, but I didn't see anything, I swear! Vassen jumped out of hyperspace shortly behind me, and I thought I was dead. When he told me he wouldn't report me, I was relieved. I should never have taken that twinkle in his eye for kindness. There is no kindness behind those eyes. And now I get to run regular missions for the bastard, because if I refuse he'll turn me in.
Sometimes I wonder what was at that space station. Sometimes I wonder if there's any dirt on Vassen that I can throw in his face, maybe get out from under his heel. Sometimes I wonder how far I have to go before I can get away from all this crap. I will NOT be Vassen's runner forever, I swear to that!
Saturday, July 20, 2013
First Impressions of the Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook
It's been over a week since I've gotten my copy and I'm just now getting to the end of reading it cover to cover. The first thing you notice is just how MASSIVE it is. A nearly 450 page hardcover, it almost feels more like a textbook than a game book when you're sitting there reading it. The next thing I noticed after flipping open the cover was the end spreads of a Firespray, dwarfed by the planet its departing from (which given the twin suns is probably Tatooine). I LOVE THIS PIECE OF ART! I haven't heard anyone mention it in any other reviews yet, but it's probably my favorite piece in the whole book (which is filled with top-notch art). And of course after that I skimmed through the book, flipping through each page very briefly and being hit by a flood of information.
Production Value
Much like the Beginner Game, the quality is EXTREMELY high here. Nice thick, glossy pages and excellent binding should be pretty resistant to wear and tear. Around the time the Beta came out I'd heard that FFG often has editing issues in their products, but that's generally not the case here. Sure, there were some typos (I've yet to read an RPG book without any), but the most glaring error is the presence of references to the Surveillance skill, which was cut during the Beta. A minor issue, though. Finally, as I hinted at before, the art in this book is gorgeous all around. Some of it is recycled from the Beta book and Beginner Game, but most of these were pieces I already really liked. And there is new stuff aplenty as well. The deeper I've delved into this hobby, the more I've come to appreciate good art in a book. It goes a long way toward increasing immersion in the setting.
Game Mechanics and Character Creation
No big surprises here given that I already had the Beta book and had followed the Beta updates. The additional examples of dice pool creation and interpretation should make the mechanic very easy to understand even for new players (though of course nothing is easier than simply playing the game). My biggest point of contention with the core mechanic is that I still feel some of the skills are redundant. The skill chapter promised to shed light on the differences between similar skills, and while the examples certainly pointed out different mechanics and situations where such skills were used, it didn't quite answer the "why" of splitting them up. The biggest offender here are the "Cool" and "Discipline" skills. Cool is defined as "the ability to stay calm and think as one's life hangs in the balance," which sounds an awful lot like "the ability to maintain their [sic] composure and react in an effective manner" as Discipline is described. So yeah, you can say that Cool is used for initiative and Discipline is used for fear checks, and that both oppose different social skills, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're both basically the same thing. It's almost like having a "Running" and "Sprinting" skill. The other offending pair that comes to mind is Perception and Vigilance. The Order 66 podcast differentiated the two as Vigilance representing noticing things because you're constantly on the lookout, whereas Perception is your ability to notice things you don't expect, but I'm not buying this distinction either. You're still basically just noticing things either way. Sure, they say different things about a character (paying attention vs reacting), but I just don't think that's enough of a distinction to justify more than one skill.
Character Creation is quick, with a lot of room for customization. The presentation of the talent trees (as well as the Force power trees) is much improved from the Beta so that it's much easier to tell how much XP everything costs at a glance. The design is also sleeker and simplified, so that there's less visual clutter. The Obligation and Motivation sections were fleshed out a bit more, and each career also has a sidebar that provides some neat inspiration (the Bounty Hunter's Creed, Unknown Stars for the Explorer, Droid Companions for the Technician, etc.). Finally, a small detail that I really liked was putting the sentence reminding players that starting XP is the easiest way to increase characteristics, and therefore that a good chunk of it should usually be used for that purpose, in bold. It jumps out immediately when you turn to the page, ensuring that new players see the advice (which they're, of course, free to ignore, but at least they can make an informed decision).
Equipment and Starships
I like the approach the game takes toward gear. There's a combination of different approaches to economics, with credits being the D&D "counting gold pieces" approach, whereas Obligation provides an opportunity for a more abstract wealth (or, rather, debt) system (sort of like Treasure Points in The One Ring). Obligation will be very useful for providing PCs access to specific big-ticket items without giving them so much credits that they could save up for said items, but are just as likely to wreak havoc on your plans buy buying a small army or arsenal instead.
Equipment walks a fine line between big lists of different stuff that promotes a "let's go shopping!" style of play and a simple, to-the-point list (instead of Merr-Sonn Model 44 blaster and BlasTech DL-18 being separate items, they're both just a "Light Blaster Pistol" and you can fluff to taste). The baseline equipment list is pretty simplified, but individual items are customizable by using their "Hard Points" to add different "Attachments." Tech-savvy characters can put further time and resources into the process by "Modding" these attachments for additional benefits (though it requires skill, and is risky). Some Talents also provide options for customizing gear. It should cater equally well to the detail-oriented and those who just want to grab a gun and get into the action.
When we played the beginner game, my group was really into Starship Combat. The table of additional actions will make it even more enjoyable (this was also in a Beta update), as well as the fact that the book makes it very clear that these aren't the extent of your options, but rather should act as inspiration for improvisation. I love the side bar on Chase scenes (simple and exciting). I was surprised to see that the GHTROC 720 was removed from the list of starting ship options (and from the book!), and was replaced by the Wayfarer-Class freighter. While I really like the GHTROC, I've made my peace with it not making the cut and I understand why they did it. It was fairly similar to the YT-1300, whereas the Wayfarer provides a more distinctly different option. The thing's a full silhouette bigger, it's unwieldy, and its Encumbrance capacity is more than 4 times that of the YT-1300. Overall, there's a good variety of vehicles of every kind, and should be more than enough for most groups.
Oh yeah, and there's a Starship sheet included, which is awesome (and necessary!).
Adversaries
More were added since the Beta, including such iconic creatures as Gundarks and Rancors. Unfortunately, the stat block presentation is atrocious. This is easily my biggest sticking point with the book. Sure there's a graphic with individual boxes for Soak, Wounds, Strain (for Nemeses), and Defenses, and the Characteristics are laid out in an eye-catching format just like the character sheet. This is an improvement, but they really only got halfway. Nemeses with a lot of talents have a wall of text, and more egregious yet is the fact that equipment (including weapons) have this same wall of text style! Individual weapons don't even get their own line; they just continue as part of a bizarre run on sentence of weapon statistics. None of the weapon names are bolded, and because they're just part of sentences there's no one place in the stat block you can look to get a weapons damage or crit rating, for example. You have to skim this paragraph, which is a presentation style that I've found crippling in actual play.
I vastly prefer stat blocks that are well-organized for ease of reference. D&D 4E is a great example of this. Fortunately, the Triumph and Despair blog produced some 4E style stat blocks for all of the adversaries in the Edge of the Empire Beta, and there are plans to update them for consistency with the core rulebook. First is the name of the adversary, and then sub-blocks (each name highlighted for an obvious visual break point) split up by Social, Defense, Attacks, Special Abilities, and Other Skills (which includes Characteristics). Each weapon is given its own line, with its range listed first in bold (so your eyes are immediately drawn to melee weapons vs the different ranges of ranged weapons without even having to read the weapon's name). I'll certainly be using these stat blocks for my game, but it's a shame that I don't have a useable reference in the actual book.
Background Info
There's a whole chapter devoted to The Galaxy, and another for Law and Society. There's a Galactic Map (complete with hyperlanes), and an overview of each region with specific points of interest, historical facts, etc. My favorite feature is a series of datapad-graphic sidebars called Grinner's Galaxy of Opportunities. Grinner is a former smuggler, current infochant, and these sidebars are his first-person accounts of each galactic region. His reaction gives you an initial overall impression of what the region's like, he cautions you about its perils and opportunities, and then best of all provides you with a list of current jobs in that region. These examples are great inspiration for adventure seeds for GMs, and they give players a good idea of the type of jobs they might seek out (and where to go to find them). At the end of the Galaxy chapter are 8 full-page planetary profiles where major worlds are detailed.
Law and Society gives an overview of the major players (obviously the biggest of which is the Empire). This is full of information on power structures, goals, and most importantly how encounters with such groups are likely to play out for the PCs. Also covered is the Rebel Alliance, Black Sun, the Hutts, and misc. other groups. All good stuff.
Conclusion
Though I have a few gripes with it (I doubt a perfect product is possible), FFG have largely done a phenomenal job here. While some may complain that the core books are being split up between fringers/smugglers, the struggle of the rebellion, and the Jedi, the fact that they were able to deliver the experience with such depth is a huge selling point to me. I don't feel that I really need any supplements to get a complete experience (though I'm sure I'll pick up some of them), and I think that the focus makes for a more cohesive gaming experience (of course that could very well be thrown out the window in 3 years when you have a bounty hunter, a rebel x-wing pilot, and a Jedi all running around in the same party). The biggest advantage of this format in my eyes is that after 2 years of actual experience by thousands of groups, the designers will be in a much better position to ensure that they get Jedi "right" on the balance scale. Personally I don't know what "right" will be for this game, because Jedi are inherently problematic. Either you let them do what Jedi are known for and they overshadow everyone else, or you reign in their power so that they're balanced and risk them not feeling like Jedi anymore. For now I'm happy playing without them.
You can purchase the book here.
Production Value
Much like the Beginner Game, the quality is EXTREMELY high here. Nice thick, glossy pages and excellent binding should be pretty resistant to wear and tear. Around the time the Beta came out I'd heard that FFG often has editing issues in their products, but that's generally not the case here. Sure, there were some typos (I've yet to read an RPG book without any), but the most glaring error is the presence of references to the Surveillance skill, which was cut during the Beta. A minor issue, though. Finally, as I hinted at before, the art in this book is gorgeous all around. Some of it is recycled from the Beta book and Beginner Game, but most of these were pieces I already really liked. And there is new stuff aplenty as well. The deeper I've delved into this hobby, the more I've come to appreciate good art in a book. It goes a long way toward increasing immersion in the setting.
Game Mechanics and Character Creation
No big surprises here given that I already had the Beta book and had followed the Beta updates. The additional examples of dice pool creation and interpretation should make the mechanic very easy to understand even for new players (though of course nothing is easier than simply playing the game). My biggest point of contention with the core mechanic is that I still feel some of the skills are redundant. The skill chapter promised to shed light on the differences between similar skills, and while the examples certainly pointed out different mechanics and situations where such skills were used, it didn't quite answer the "why" of splitting them up. The biggest offender here are the "Cool" and "Discipline" skills. Cool is defined as "the ability to stay calm and think as one's life hangs in the balance," which sounds an awful lot like "the ability to maintain their [sic] composure and react in an effective manner" as Discipline is described. So yeah, you can say that Cool is used for initiative and Discipline is used for fear checks, and that both oppose different social skills, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're both basically the same thing. It's almost like having a "Running" and "Sprinting" skill. The other offending pair that comes to mind is Perception and Vigilance. The Order 66 podcast differentiated the two as Vigilance representing noticing things because you're constantly on the lookout, whereas Perception is your ability to notice things you don't expect, but I'm not buying this distinction either. You're still basically just noticing things either way. Sure, they say different things about a character (paying attention vs reacting), but I just don't think that's enough of a distinction to justify more than one skill.
Character Creation is quick, with a lot of room for customization. The presentation of the talent trees (as well as the Force power trees) is much improved from the Beta so that it's much easier to tell how much XP everything costs at a glance. The design is also sleeker and simplified, so that there's less visual clutter. The Obligation and Motivation sections were fleshed out a bit more, and each career also has a sidebar that provides some neat inspiration (the Bounty Hunter's Creed, Unknown Stars for the Explorer, Droid Companions for the Technician, etc.). Finally, a small detail that I really liked was putting the sentence reminding players that starting XP is the easiest way to increase characteristics, and therefore that a good chunk of it should usually be used for that purpose, in bold. It jumps out immediately when you turn to the page, ensuring that new players see the advice (which they're, of course, free to ignore, but at least they can make an informed decision).
Equipment and Starships
I like the approach the game takes toward gear. There's a combination of different approaches to economics, with credits being the D&D "counting gold pieces" approach, whereas Obligation provides an opportunity for a more abstract wealth (or, rather, debt) system (sort of like Treasure Points in The One Ring). Obligation will be very useful for providing PCs access to specific big-ticket items without giving them so much credits that they could save up for said items, but are just as likely to wreak havoc on your plans buy buying a small army or arsenal instead.
Equipment walks a fine line between big lists of different stuff that promotes a "let's go shopping!" style of play and a simple, to-the-point list (instead of Merr-Sonn Model 44 blaster and BlasTech DL-18 being separate items, they're both just a "Light Blaster Pistol" and you can fluff to taste). The baseline equipment list is pretty simplified, but individual items are customizable by using their "Hard Points" to add different "Attachments." Tech-savvy characters can put further time and resources into the process by "Modding" these attachments for additional benefits (though it requires skill, and is risky). Some Talents also provide options for customizing gear. It should cater equally well to the detail-oriented and those who just want to grab a gun and get into the action.
When we played the beginner game, my group was really into Starship Combat. The table of additional actions will make it even more enjoyable (this was also in a Beta update), as well as the fact that the book makes it very clear that these aren't the extent of your options, but rather should act as inspiration for improvisation. I love the side bar on Chase scenes (simple and exciting). I was surprised to see that the GHTROC 720 was removed from the list of starting ship options (and from the book!), and was replaced by the Wayfarer-Class freighter. While I really like the GHTROC, I've made my peace with it not making the cut and I understand why they did it. It was fairly similar to the YT-1300, whereas the Wayfarer provides a more distinctly different option. The thing's a full silhouette bigger, it's unwieldy, and its Encumbrance capacity is more than 4 times that of the YT-1300. Overall, there's a good variety of vehicles of every kind, and should be more than enough for most groups.
Oh yeah, and there's a Starship sheet included, which is awesome (and necessary!).
Adversaries
More were added since the Beta, including such iconic creatures as Gundarks and Rancors. Unfortunately, the stat block presentation is atrocious. This is easily my biggest sticking point with the book. Sure there's a graphic with individual boxes for Soak, Wounds, Strain (for Nemeses), and Defenses, and the Characteristics are laid out in an eye-catching format just like the character sheet. This is an improvement, but they really only got halfway. Nemeses with a lot of talents have a wall of text, and more egregious yet is the fact that equipment (including weapons) have this same wall of text style! Individual weapons don't even get their own line; they just continue as part of a bizarre run on sentence of weapon statistics. None of the weapon names are bolded, and because they're just part of sentences there's no one place in the stat block you can look to get a weapons damage or crit rating, for example. You have to skim this paragraph, which is a presentation style that I've found crippling in actual play.
I vastly prefer stat blocks that are well-organized for ease of reference. D&D 4E is a great example of this. Fortunately, the Triumph and Despair blog produced some 4E style stat blocks for all of the adversaries in the Edge of the Empire Beta, and there are plans to update them for consistency with the core rulebook. First is the name of the adversary, and then sub-blocks (each name highlighted for an obvious visual break point) split up by Social, Defense, Attacks, Special Abilities, and Other Skills (which includes Characteristics). Each weapon is given its own line, with its range listed first in bold (so your eyes are immediately drawn to melee weapons vs the different ranges of ranged weapons without even having to read the weapon's name). I'll certainly be using these stat blocks for my game, but it's a shame that I don't have a useable reference in the actual book.
Background Info
There's a whole chapter devoted to The Galaxy, and another for Law and Society. There's a Galactic Map (complete with hyperlanes), and an overview of each region with specific points of interest, historical facts, etc. My favorite feature is a series of datapad-graphic sidebars called Grinner's Galaxy of Opportunities. Grinner is a former smuggler, current infochant, and these sidebars are his first-person accounts of each galactic region. His reaction gives you an initial overall impression of what the region's like, he cautions you about its perils and opportunities, and then best of all provides you with a list of current jobs in that region. These examples are great inspiration for adventure seeds for GMs, and they give players a good idea of the type of jobs they might seek out (and where to go to find them). At the end of the Galaxy chapter are 8 full-page planetary profiles where major worlds are detailed.
Law and Society gives an overview of the major players (obviously the biggest of which is the Empire). This is full of information on power structures, goals, and most importantly how encounters with such groups are likely to play out for the PCs. Also covered is the Rebel Alliance, Black Sun, the Hutts, and misc. other groups. All good stuff.
Conclusion
Though I have a few gripes with it (I doubt a perfect product is possible), FFG have largely done a phenomenal job here. While some may complain that the core books are being split up between fringers/smugglers, the struggle of the rebellion, and the Jedi, the fact that they were able to deliver the experience with such depth is a huge selling point to me. I don't feel that I really need any supplements to get a complete experience (though I'm sure I'll pick up some of them), and I think that the focus makes for a more cohesive gaming experience (of course that could very well be thrown out the window in 3 years when you have a bounty hunter, a rebel x-wing pilot, and a Jedi all running around in the same party). The biggest advantage of this format in my eyes is that after 2 years of actual experience by thousands of groups, the designers will be in a much better position to ensure that they get Jedi "right" on the balance scale. Personally I don't know what "right" will be for this game, because Jedi are inherently problematic. Either you let them do what Jedi are known for and they overshadow everyone else, or you reign in their power so that they're balanced and risk them not feeling like Jedi anymore. For now I'm happy playing without them.
You can purchase the book here.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Danger vs Lethality in Roleplaying Games
Several weeks ago the Pelgrane Press website posted a very intriguing article on the versatility of 13th Age Backgrounds. Taking this idea and running with it, someone posted some lasting wound houserules in the 13th Age Google+ group. I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately.
It's no surprise that narrative-centric games tend to be less lethal compared with grittier simulationist-style games. If the story is the most important aspect of the game, a dead PC can really muck things up. Not only does it drastically affect the game's ongoing narrative, but precisely because the game is so focused on story that probably means that the player put a whole lot of creative effort into that character. Of course if you go too far in that "safe" direction, what's the point? If the chance of dying is negligibly small where's the risk?
At this point we need to make a distinction between danger and lethality. Edge of the Empire is a great example of this. True to its narrative roots, it's pretty hard for PCs to actually die in EotE. And yet, I've heard a lot of comments about how "lethal" the system is. That's not exactly true because lethality implies death (but who knows, maybe they had GMs that slit the PCs throats once they're unconscious). Rather, it's extremely easy for PCs to drop in a fight, even if dropping doesn't come close to killing them. Guns don't kill people, critical injury tables kill people! Personally I think this is an extremely elegant solution as combat still feels appropriately dangerous and full of risk. It was pretty clear from the start (well, if we ignore the Gamorrean encounter from the Beginner's Box...) that combat has real consequences. My players became much more cautious than they are in d20 games, pretty much instinctively. They actively tried to avoid combat (you know, like most real people do). So you can have your cake (low risk of character death screwing the story), and eat it too (combat is still dangerous). There's also more incentive to fight smart.
Because 13th Age uses inflating HP whereas Edge doesn't it's impossible to translate mechanics even remotely closely. And yet, both games are narrative-focused systems with an emphasis on cinematic action. Despite the similarities, combat presents few risks in 13th Age. My Cleric player isn't even afraid of dropping because the death save rule is so generous, and besides that they don't drop very often (thanks to the fact that they're a Fighter, Paladin, and Cleric adventuring together). Sure, combat's still fun, but it'd be more fun if there were more risk (despite the relative feeling of safety, my players still describe my encounters as "hard," and I agree completely).
I'm reminded of an episode from season 7 of Buffy, which I watched recently. Buffy gets grievously injured fighting a turok-han (ubervamp), and it was precisely those injuries that made for a compelling story. Buffy doesn't get seriously hurt all that often. Heck, she's probably more likely to die ;) It's pretty routine watching her fight monsters, but it soon becomes clear that she's outgunned. The scene starts out as a typical fight scene, but soon it starts looking bad for our Slayer. Instead of coming through victoriously as usual, the frame rate increases. The turok-han appears to move even faster as he attacks Buffy, and the attacks get more brutal-looking. Finally it crushes her under a big pile of debris, draining morale and hammering in the point that "this is bad." In RPG terms she didn't just lose the fight, but she sustained a critical injury (or lasting wound). The element of danger was very visceral even though the fight wasn't lethal.
Injuries aren't just for "simulationists," they make for compelling narrative, too! They're a challenge to be overcome. Players can be creative describing how the injury hampers them, and then they feel even better when they overcome the odds and emerge victorious. There's a reason why most final fights see the hero facing a superior foe - it's more interesting and people generally like seeing the underdog prevail.
I'll conclude by referring to another example (because I watched Iron Man today). Imagine if Obadiah hadn't built a bigger suit, or better yet if he hadn't stolen Tony Stark's second mini-arc reactor, leaving him with the less powerful prototype. Would you be as emotionally invested in the movie's conclusion if Iron Man went into that final confrontation at full strength? If he was able to win with brute force instead of being forced to use guile? It would be completely anti-climactic. Shouldn't this be exactly the type of thing that an RPG should model (cinematic combat, overcoming challenges, opportunities for player creativity)? In my next post I'll brainstorm some ideas for injecting more danger into 13th Age.
It's no surprise that narrative-centric games tend to be less lethal compared with grittier simulationist-style games. If the story is the most important aspect of the game, a dead PC can really muck things up. Not only does it drastically affect the game's ongoing narrative, but precisely because the game is so focused on story that probably means that the player put a whole lot of creative effort into that character. Of course if you go too far in that "safe" direction, what's the point? If the chance of dying is negligibly small where's the risk?
At this point we need to make a distinction between danger and lethality. Edge of the Empire is a great example of this. True to its narrative roots, it's pretty hard for PCs to actually die in EotE. And yet, I've heard a lot of comments about how "lethal" the system is. That's not exactly true because lethality implies death (but who knows, maybe they had GMs that slit the PCs throats once they're unconscious). Rather, it's extremely easy for PCs to drop in a fight, even if dropping doesn't come close to killing them. Guns don't kill people, critical injury tables kill people! Personally I think this is an extremely elegant solution as combat still feels appropriately dangerous and full of risk. It was pretty clear from the start (well, if we ignore the Gamorrean encounter from the Beginner's Box...) that combat has real consequences. My players became much more cautious than they are in d20 games, pretty much instinctively. They actively tried to avoid combat (you know, like most real people do). So you can have your cake (low risk of character death screwing the story), and eat it too (combat is still dangerous). There's also more incentive to fight smart.
Because 13th Age uses inflating HP whereas Edge doesn't it's impossible to translate mechanics even remotely closely. And yet, both games are narrative-focused systems with an emphasis on cinematic action. Despite the similarities, combat presents few risks in 13th Age. My Cleric player isn't even afraid of dropping because the death save rule is so generous, and besides that they don't drop very often (thanks to the fact that they're a Fighter, Paladin, and Cleric adventuring together). Sure, combat's still fun, but it'd be more fun if there were more risk (despite the relative feeling of safety, my players still describe my encounters as "hard," and I agree completely).
I'm reminded of an episode from season 7 of Buffy, which I watched recently. Buffy gets grievously injured fighting a turok-han (ubervamp), and it was precisely those injuries that made for a compelling story. Buffy doesn't get seriously hurt all that often. Heck, she's probably more likely to die ;) It's pretty routine watching her fight monsters, but it soon becomes clear that she's outgunned. The scene starts out as a typical fight scene, but soon it starts looking bad for our Slayer. Instead of coming through victoriously as usual, the frame rate increases. The turok-han appears to move even faster as he attacks Buffy, and the attacks get more brutal-looking. Finally it crushes her under a big pile of debris, draining morale and hammering in the point that "this is bad." In RPG terms she didn't just lose the fight, but she sustained a critical injury (or lasting wound). The element of danger was very visceral even though the fight wasn't lethal.
Injuries aren't just for "simulationists," they make for compelling narrative, too! They're a challenge to be overcome. Players can be creative describing how the injury hampers them, and then they feel even better when they overcome the odds and emerge victorious. There's a reason why most final fights see the hero facing a superior foe - it's more interesting and people generally like seeing the underdog prevail.
I'll conclude by referring to another example (because I watched Iron Man today). Imagine if Obadiah hadn't built a bigger suit, or better yet if he hadn't stolen Tony Stark's second mini-arc reactor, leaving him with the less powerful prototype. Would you be as emotionally invested in the movie's conclusion if Iron Man went into that final confrontation at full strength? If he was able to win with brute force instead of being forced to use guile? It would be completely anti-climactic. Shouldn't this be exactly the type of thing that an RPG should model (cinematic combat, overcoming challenges, opportunities for player creativity)? In my next post I'll brainstorm some ideas for injecting more danger into 13th Age.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Social Combat
I just got done listening to the latest episode of the Order 66 Podcast - Social Engineering. Jay Little was the guest speaker (I believe he's lead designer on Edge of the Empire) so you know you're getting good info. Four main points were hit upon that I think bears repeating.
The first has to do with how social skills in Adversary stat blocks are handled. A lot of them have ranks in the "influence skill group" (Charm, Coerce, Deceit, Leadership, and Negotiate), but generally speaking most players don't take too kindly to having NPCs roll checks like that since they influence the PC's response to the situation. The solution is so obvious that I can't believe I didn't think of it before (especially since I'd considered Discipline and Cool to be kind of underplayed skills before now). Basically, in most situations if the NPC is trying to Coerce, Deceive, or appeal to authority (Leadership) the GM should call upon the player to make a Discipline check (with difficulty equal to the NPCs ranks in the relevant skill). Likewise the player would roll Cool if an NPC tries to Charm them or Negotiate with them. This way the player is the one rolling the dice (actively participating), so they feel as though they're the one in control of the situation. In other words, it puts the narrative spotlight on the heroes, which is perfect.
Second is something that I had thought of doing anyways, but it was nice to hear Jay Little himself suggest it. That is to say, skill/ability pairings, as well as which skills oppose each other, are more suggestions than hard and fast rules. If the Wookie wants to get in your face and flex those giant hairy arms he's free to make a Coerce check using Brawn instead of Willpower as the associated attribute. Likewise sometimes it might make more sense for Negotiate to be opposed by the opponent's Negotiate instead of Cool.
Third, skill checks in Edge of the Empire generate a different narrative pace than binary skill checks in other systems. That is to say, the scene is set up and actions are described in a D20 system (for example), and then the skill check comes in at the end to resolve how everything played out. In Edge of the Empire, the skill check occupies the middle of a "scene." There's a set-up with actions described, but after the dice are rolled there's more story. What's more, those story elements are dependent not only on the die roll, but the approach taken (what skill is used). Adjudication of success, failure, advantage, threat, triumph, and despair will potentially be very different depending on whether you used Coerce vs Charm, for example. What skill you decide to use has more chances to affect the story going forward, often in multiple ways.
Finally, the most mind-blowing concept was the idea of social combat that works exactly the same as physical combat. Because combat checks work exactly the same way as any other skill checks (unlike D20 systems where attacks, defenses, and skills all scale differently) this is absolutely possible. You'd roll initiative as normal, but instead of working with Ranged Light, Ranged Heavy, Brawl, Melee, and Gunnery you'd use the influence skill group (Charm, Coerce, Deceit, Leadership, and Negotiate), and potentially other relevant skills based on the situation as "weapons." Instead of inflicting wounds, successes (and potentially advantage) would deal strain. The losers would be unlikely to pass out when exceeding their strain threshold, but it would represent the fact that they're pretty much spent. If you want to get really creative you could even use your Willpower (as opposed to Brawn) as a "social Soak value," but without the equivalent of a base weapon damage this could potentially lead to really long, drawn out combats unless you come up with a system for assigning a base strain damage to your skill checks. Personally while I think the Willpower = social Soak is a really cool concept, the added layer of complexity is probably not worth it.
The first has to do with how social skills in Adversary stat blocks are handled. A lot of them have ranks in the "influence skill group" (Charm, Coerce, Deceit, Leadership, and Negotiate), but generally speaking most players don't take too kindly to having NPCs roll checks like that since they influence the PC's response to the situation. The solution is so obvious that I can't believe I didn't think of it before (especially since I'd considered Discipline and Cool to be kind of underplayed skills before now). Basically, in most situations if the NPC is trying to Coerce, Deceive, or appeal to authority (Leadership) the GM should call upon the player to make a Discipline check (with difficulty equal to the NPCs ranks in the relevant skill). Likewise the player would roll Cool if an NPC tries to Charm them or Negotiate with them. This way the player is the one rolling the dice (actively participating), so they feel as though they're the one in control of the situation. In other words, it puts the narrative spotlight on the heroes, which is perfect.
Second is something that I had thought of doing anyways, but it was nice to hear Jay Little himself suggest it. That is to say, skill/ability pairings, as well as which skills oppose each other, are more suggestions than hard and fast rules. If the Wookie wants to get in your face and flex those giant hairy arms he's free to make a Coerce check using Brawn instead of Willpower as the associated attribute. Likewise sometimes it might make more sense for Negotiate to be opposed by the opponent's Negotiate instead of Cool.
Third, skill checks in Edge of the Empire generate a different narrative pace than binary skill checks in other systems. That is to say, the scene is set up and actions are described in a D20 system (for example), and then the skill check comes in at the end to resolve how everything played out. In Edge of the Empire, the skill check occupies the middle of a "scene." There's a set-up with actions described, but after the dice are rolled there's more story. What's more, those story elements are dependent not only on the die roll, but the approach taken (what skill is used). Adjudication of success, failure, advantage, threat, triumph, and despair will potentially be very different depending on whether you used Coerce vs Charm, for example. What skill you decide to use has more chances to affect the story going forward, often in multiple ways.
Finally, the most mind-blowing concept was the idea of social combat that works exactly the same as physical combat. Because combat checks work exactly the same way as any other skill checks (unlike D20 systems where attacks, defenses, and skills all scale differently) this is absolutely possible. You'd roll initiative as normal, but instead of working with Ranged Light, Ranged Heavy, Brawl, Melee, and Gunnery you'd use the influence skill group (Charm, Coerce, Deceit, Leadership, and Negotiate), and potentially other relevant skills based on the situation as "weapons." Instead of inflicting wounds, successes (and potentially advantage) would deal strain. The losers would be unlikely to pass out when exceeding their strain threshold, but it would represent the fact that they're pretty much spent. If you want to get really creative you could even use your Willpower (as opposed to Brawn) as a "social Soak value," but without the equivalent of a base weapon damage this could potentially lead to really long, drawn out combats unless you come up with a system for assigning a base strain damage to your skill checks. Personally while I think the Willpower = social Soak is a really cool concept, the added layer of complexity is probably not worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)