Design Journal 9: The Initiative

Lastly we come to the initiative, another concept from Parsec that I think of as cool.

When combat in a roleplaying game begins, it usually begins with these two words "Roll initiative!" Everyone knows that now, there's going to be a fight. Get out the damage dice and miniatures. Lay down the combat map. Etc.

When I talk about initiative in Parsec, I am using the word's more common meaning - where initiative just means going first, or more generally perhaps, being pro-active. In Parsec combat, one side starts with the initiative. It is usually the side that started the fight, but if not, then it is the side with the best position, or with some other advantage. In situations where no side has clear initiative, then the first round of combat will determine who has it after that point. For that first round, everyone should act in order of their Resilience scores.

The side with initiative has the privilege of declaring what they are doing first. This means that they will control the tempo and the action to a large degree. In Parsec, you basically get either a normal action in a turn or a long action, depending on what else you do. But you don't get multiple actions. That means that the side with the initiative during a combat can force the other side to defend if they remain aggressive.

For the side without the initiative, the challenge is to use tactics to steal the initiative. It is possible to defend in various ways, depending on terrain, the kind of fight you're in, etc. Also, the side without the initiative has the chance to capitalize on any mistakes the initiating side makes. Attacking usually leaves you vulnerable to counter-attack.

No question, though, having the initiative will be a big advantage. It is one of the things that makes ambush more powerful in this system than in many others, as well as other kinds of tactical decisions. Its rare that in an rpg, combat depends on group tactics per se. Usually its more an issue of how the various individuals work together - or not. I wanted some components to the conflict system that were broader than particular characters' decisions, and the initiative is one of them. I like that the 'tide of battle' is something that is tracked rules-wise and has an impact on what is going on and what decisions you can make in a conflict.

Addendum: I forgot to mention this in the original post, but if you're paying attention, you'll realize that whichever side in a conflict has the initiative also sets the stakes. This means that they define the conditions of their own victory over their opponent. So if one side has the initiative, and they are out to kill the other side, then the stakes of the conflict are "life and death". If, however, they only want to capture their opponents, then the stakes of the conflict are "capture".

When/if the initiative is taken away, then the side that now has the initiative can set new stakes. So, for a simplistic example: a security officer is in a conflict with a suspected criminal. The security officer gets the initiative on the suspect and tries to subdue him. The suspect, however, turns the tables on the officer - capitalizing on a mistake or utilizing a clever tactic. Now, the suspect ups the ante - he feels he needs to incapacitate the officer and get away or else the background check will reveal outstanding warrants for arrest. So in this example, a change in the initiative means a change in stakes from "arrest" to "incapacitation".

Design Journal 8: Orientation, Abstract Combat and Ship Attributes

Continuing in my little series where I talk about specific cool things in the Parsec system, I turn to orientation, abstract combat and ship attributes. These three are crammed together because they are all somewhat connected and I think I can talk about each without taking up too much space.

Orientation

I'm sure other space-combat systems have something like this, but orientation is the system for figuring out what part of my ship is facing what part of your ship. This is to make it easier to target specific parts of a ship - say, the engines or the command deck - and also to bring to bear particular weapon systems on your own ship which are only oriented to be able to fire from a certain position.

As far as the rules are concerned, every object in space is a cube, and each of the six sides corresponds to a particular surface of the ship. In game, you can even use a d6 to represent your ships' orientation if you don't want to revert to expensive models and miniatures. For the names of each side, I went with some nautical terms and some physiological ones - the face, dorsal, ventral, starboard, port and rear surfaces are the terms I'm using for now.

In 3D zero-G combat, its almost impossible to represent what's going on on a 2D surface like your gaming table. Instead, you make maneuvering checks and based on the result, you can determine which side of your target is facing which side of your own ship. At the very least, you can move things to a more favorable position. I think that this system is a simple way to avoid having to keep track of 3D maneuvering on a 2D battle map. All the map is needed for (if you're using it at all) is to determine relative distance between objects. The assumption is always that they are moving dramatically through three dimensions throughout the combat.

Abstract Combat

This is in contrast to what is more common, which in Parsec I just call Tactical Combat - that is, combat involving a battle map, moving a particular number of hexes per turn, finding lines of sight and determining cover, and so on.

Abstract combat relies on the gaming group to supply the dramatic details of what exactly is going on, or how maneuvers look in the game-world. For example, if an opponent is behind cover and you can't get a shot at them, you can take what is called a "long maneuver" to move to a new position from which you can fire on your target with less obstruction. Depending on how well your roll for the long maneuver goes, you will find yourself in a better or worse position at the end of the round.

Of course, while you're moving you can also be targeted, and the new position may or may not have good cover for you to hide behind. Rather than letting this be determined by objects on a battle map, these details are just determined abstractly by dice-rolls and narrated out during the resolution phase.

Ship Attributes

In Parsec, ships have the same attributes that characters have - Power, Precision, Mobility, Connection, Appeal and Resilience. I always got frustrated by systems that made you learn an entirely new set of rules and whatnot for vehicle and spaceship combat. To get around this, I came up with attributes that thoroughly described a person and also described a ship. This means that all of the connections between characters and ships are much more logical and really, both function with essentially the same system. Quicker to learn, quicker to use and to adapt in a game.

I also like the idea that in a setting where, depending on what kind of game it is, a lot of time could be spent aboard a ship, I liked the idea that different ships are like different characters, having some of their own personality. This is reinforced by the fact that both characters and ships use a lifepath-type system to build their backgrounds before the game begins. Again, its another take on the idea of ships and people functioning by the same basic set of rules.

Next time, the final installment on (the) Initiative, as well as some of what's next.

Design Journal 7: 100th Post!

Well, this is the 100th post. Not much of a blog at the moment, really. A few sporadic random hits, some hits from Google searches that send people my way, a few friends who check on a pretty regular basis. Not much more than that. I just don't have the time to post as much as I'd like, and I don't have the time to be as active on forums and other blogs as I'd like to be, which would drum up more hits. Ah well.

As I continue to work on this game, I tell myself that there are some things that are cool about it. The things that come to mind are advancement, orientation, abstract combat, ship attributes and (the) initiative. I'll probably break up a brief discussion of each one, or maybe two at a time, over the next few days.


Advancement

This is usually driven by some sort of experience point or character point system or whatever, in which you save up and then purchase new things for your character progressively. A few systems, like Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu and Burning Wheel, have you keep track of how often you use abilities and they raise as they see more use.

Of those two options, I prefer the first one for player control of development and the second one for realism. Often in the first case, in a point system, groups I've played with have developed house rules where you can only spend experience points on things you do in-game. This is almost always added onto the rules, however, and in many circumstances points are spent on things that don't come up in game anyway.

What I've done with Parsec is to take what I like from both methods. Advancement is entirely bound to what happens in-game, but what happens narratively rather than mechanically. The first way to advance is to achieve a Goal, spelled out during character creation and also while developing a group template.

The second way to advance is to face an Obstacle - whether or not you overcome it. Obstacles are also part of character creation and group template building, and I like that you advance whether you succeed or not. These are also separate from Goals. Meaningful Goals aren't just overcoming Obastacles - there is also something positive to be achieved.

The third way to advance is through either learning Secrets or having your Secrets revealed. Essentially, Secrets are a big part of a game that is intended to be at least somewhat driven by intrigue and conspiracy, and in a story secrets are meant to come out. If the Secrets were developed well in the beginning, when they are revealed it'll be a big moment for the game and for the character(s) in question.

The fourth way to advance is to receive Scars. As mentioned a couple of times before, Scars make you tougher - they modify Resilience the way that Skills modify the other Attributes (lower the target number). They also hurt, and count as anti-Traits - in certain situations, you will lose dice because of the Scar. Not every injury or setback or betrayal will leave a Scar, but when it does happen, your character has learned something. This also encourages the kind of actions that will lead to Scars - dangerous and emotionally charged ones, which are exactly the kinds of things that make a game fun in the first place.

Design Journal 6: A Change of Pace

I've realized that I have probably made a mistake in the last three Design Journal posts. They were essentially barrages of information, and in retrospect I've decided that this Journal will do better as just that - a journal. As I move through the process of designing, playtesting, and editing a game for publication in the coming year (I hope!), it will be nice to have some sort of chronicle of the process. Being a first-timer in this sort of endeavor, I'm sure that things will happen which were unforseen.

I've heard that you're not supposed to edit as you write, but I'm not sure that's true of game designs. Yesterday and today I spent a lot of time on airplanes, meaning I had lots of time to kill while sandwhiched in at 30,000 feet. Before I left I printed out the current rought draft of Parsec, now at just over 13,000 words, to look over.

I definitely found a lot of things I'd missed and plenty of weak spots, but what surprised me was that reading through the project, I actually felt like it was pretty good. Normally I don't read things after I finish them because I tend to hate what I write after the fact - but I could really see places where I think the text flowed well. Its a challenge to write rules - its like writing an instruction manual that someone will want to read. As always, its turning out to be harder than I imagined.

As I work on Parsec, I have to find a happy medium between what the publisher seems to want and what I want in the game. We don't want the same things, but I think we want compatible things. Ultimately, he'll be the arbiter of whether the finished product is going to print. I hope so, and he remains interested and engaged with the project. If not, as I said, I'll print the damn thing myself. I can lose the parts of the game that came from his setting ideas, make it more generic probably, add some story game elements, drop some systems I don't need, and go.

So either way, I'll finish the damn game. I know it will be a painful process - it alread is, and it isn't like I've quit my jobs to do this full-time.

But I also find that I consistently enjoy working on it. Its is engaging and challenging and rewarding in its own way. Whether anyone else will think so is another matter.

In Rainbows

This is not related to gaming at all, but its important nonetheless. In case you didn't already know, Radiohead has released a new album. Its available for download from their website. You name your price for the download. Yes, "zero" is an option for the price.

I really want to support this kind of activity by artists. I like cutting out distributors entirely from the creative process, except in situations where they are actually needed. For music, which everyone buys in digitial form anyway, there's no reason to pay $20 for an album so the artist can get $1 from it. That system screws everyone but the distributor.

I'm also excited that a huge band like Radiohead is doing this. You may remember Radiohead from hearing about their album "Ok Computer" which was hailed by Spin magazine as the best album in 20 years.

If you haven't heard of Radiohead, but you like music, you might want to give them a listen. They're one of the biggest rock bands in the world, and have consistently set records in terms of concert attendance.

You can get the album here.

I finally had the chance (and the money) to pick up the Game Mastery Critical Hit Deck put out by Paizo Publishing. I'd heard about it a few months ago, and it was an Ennie Awards nominee in 2006, so clearly I'm late to the game, but regardless I think it was a good buy.

It actually does something similar to what HARP/Rolemaster tries to do with its critical damage tables - to make damage dealt in combat feel unique, and not just another chunk out of an opponent's hit points or whatever measure you're using.

Basically, when a critical hit is "confirmed" (a'la the D20 rules), you draw a card from the deck. One each card are four descriptions of different effects that a critical hit might entail - for Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing and Magical attacks. Each gives you a special effect of some kind that is far more colorful than simply double damage. Examples include dealing double damage and switching places with your target (Magical), battering someone so they have memory loss (Bludgeoning), jamming your weapon in an opponent's mouth (Piercing) and permanently blinding an opponent (Ref negates).

I think this would work well in a cinematic game where only PCs get to use the deck, and also for a grittier game where NPCs and monsters can also use it, upping the threat ante in any encounter. Its also probably adaptible to other systems that have a critical hit function of some kind that you want to spice up. You can easily ignore the little notes about D20 effects of each blow and just translate them into the system you're using.

Overall, I'm not sure how to rate this one, but I'll give it a 4.5 out of 5, because it does exactly what it is supposed to do in a fun and simple way, but it would be perfect if it was a bit more accommodating to use with other systems.

H.A.R.P. High Adventure Role-Playing...

...is overrated.

HARP is the scion of ICE, the publishers of the venerable Rolemaster system, which I primarily experienced through Middle-Earth Role-Playing, or MERP. If you've played Rolemaster, you doubtless have vivid memories of massive critical tables and a great deal of page-turning during combat.

HARP uses a percentile system where d100 is rolled and a character's Attribute (rated from 1-110) and skill modifier is added to the roll. If the roll totals more than 100, you succeed. More difficult tasks have penalties from -10 and worse, and very simple tasks will have a bonus to them.

There are the standard fantasy races (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halvings and Gnomes) with a new race called the Gryx. HARP still has the critical tables we remember from Rolemaster, somewhat modified but still quite recognizeable. In a lot of ways, HARP is an improved version of Rolemaster. It has a lot of problems, though.

HARP won best non-d20 game at GenCon 2004, so there are plenty of people who disagre with me. I'm also sure that a good GM and a good group of players can make any game fun, including HARP. The problem is HARP's complexity. Its a game that involves a lot of rolls and tables and arithmetic. For example, to cast a spell which can be resisted, you make your spellcasting skill roll, then compare the result to your target's resistance attribute, then you look up both of those numbers and cross-reference them on a Resistance Table in order to find the modifier to the defender's roll to resist the spell. Then if the spell strikes home, you roll a damage roll and look up that roll on a critical table. Based on this table, you find out how many Health Points the target has lost, or what the affect is otherwise (if it is a non-damaging spell for example), as well as other effects that might result from the damage.

(If you don't want to handle everything quite this way, there is an optional Life Points system that is even more complicated, because you first have to calculate the normal Health Point damage and then translate it into Life Points.)

I also have to mention the production values of the game. The inerior artwork is all greyscale, which is fine, but it is possible to see pixellation in much of the interior art. This is pretty much unacceptable. Use some vector art, people! If Luke Crane can afford it for the revised edition of Burning Wheel, which is self-published, I think that ICE can as well.

The thing is - most of the time, when reading through a game, I can think of ways I'd improve it. That's where all my house rules come from. There really isn't a game that I play directly out of the book. But reading Harp, I found so much I would have changed. I think there is potential there, even in a d100 system where there is a little more arithmetic than is normal. Even involving the infamous critical tables.

Here's what would have to happen:
1. Get rid of Life Points, Health Points, and so on. They're derivative and not interesting nor fun. Track wounds individually, since you've already listed the effects and description in the critical tables.
2. Get rid of the Gryx. Instead, add rules for designing players' own races, because anyone can come up with an Orc-Klingon looking guy and stat him up.
3. Unify the tables into a couple tables with multiple columns. Too much page flipping makes me not have fun anymore.
4. Get rid of classes. Just have experience lead to Development Points, which are already in use, and give everything a Development Point cost.
4.1 If you're not going to get rid of classes, differentiate them from D&D more clearly. Since D20 is also an additive dice system, and it simpler, you need to stand out to get people to play the game.
5. Look at the art in a self-published indie game. Then put in art that is twice as good, because you have more money at your disposal than some guy in his garage with desktop publishing software. There's no excuse for a publisher's offering having visible pixels in the illustrations and artwork.
6. Simplify combat. I didn't want to get into the rules in this brief review, but there's a lot of rules you could toss out, simplify and unify to make it a more streamlined system - especially if you also expect players to be flipping to critical tables every time they throw down.


Give that, some positives:
1. I like how they handle half-races. Essentially, you take a bloodline trait that gives some bonuses and can be a lesser or a greater bloodline depending on how far removed you are from the second race.
2. I actually like the idea of tables for descriptive wounds and effects. They just need to be much-better-implemented.

The main positive of HARP is a nostalgia factor for Rolemaster players. I've got to give it 2 out of 5 stars - there's just so much they could have done better.

Steal Away Jordan

Steal Away Jordan, as far as I know, first debuted at GenCon 2007 this summer. The impression I've gotten is that if you talked to anyone who is at all interested in Indie games who attended GenCon, they'll have said something about Steal Away Jordan, which is currently available from Indie Press Revolution.

It is a game by Julia Ellingboe. The tagline is "Stories from America's Peculiar Institution" - yes, the game is about American slavery. In the game, you play the part of a slave in the American South. Your main attribute is your worth - your die-pool for use in conflicts in the game is based on your economic worth to your owners. Things like your name and what you do for a living seem to be determined by the GM - which seems like the right mechanic for a game about what happens when you have no freedom.

Right now I'm listening to an actual play presentation being done by The Game Master Show podcast from GenCon, with the writer/creator of the game running a demo of the system for one of the Show's members. The dice-mechanic involves rolling d6's equal to your worth in a conflict, where 1's count as a -1 and where any two dice that total 7 (without 1's that is - 4 and 3 or 5 and 2) count as +1. Whoever has the highest total wins the conflict and gets to describe what happens.

As you can imagine, things just get worse and worse. And worse. Julia is actually pretty gentle about the way the game functions, which is probably important, given how horrible the situations it describes are. The game ends with the only PC jumping off of a wagon on the way to her new home (where she was sold to) and trying to run and being shot in the back. The player got to narrate how she died when the die dictated that it would happen.

Then something really interesting happens. The player's husband comes over to the table and talks about how uncomfortable this makes him, the idea of playing a slave in a game. The game has led to this interesting and candid conversation about racial issues in our country. Julia handles it really well, and has a great chance to talk about overcoming stereotypes. In fact, the discussion of the game and the issues it brings up takes longer than playing the actual game. Fascinating.

Come to think of it, I think this is what the game is really about. Julia says "this is our history". And that's the truth.

Clearly, this is a game that deals directly with very uncomfortable topics. According to the creator, one of the things she intended with the game was for Americans to be able to deal with each other and with the history of slavery. She sees slavery as something that has hurt everyone in this country, that has caused nothing but pain, and one way to deal with this pain is to do so through a game.

I think this is an interesting idea, one I've encountered before and one I've given some thought to myself. It is possible to deal with things in a game that we don't feel able to deal with otherwise. I've even tried this in games - its just the sort of person I am. I think important stories talk about things that we deal with in life in some way. The game has to have teeth now and then. The story has to strike home. Not all the time - this is an Escape after all! - but sometimes you have to dig because it makes the experience better overall, and sometimes you get the chance to deal with things in a new way.

On the other hand, you can design a game like Steal Away Jordan, where the point of the game is this kind of process. It is a teaching game, in a sense. Another example that comes to mind is The Prince's Kingdom. Sale of the game goes to support the American Friends Service Committee and the game is a way to deal with issues of violence and nonviolence and justice with children - while also having fun of course. I'm sure there are others I'm not aware of.

I doubt games like this will take off and replace Dungeons and Dragons as the gaming lingua franca, but I found Steal Away Jordan really fascinating to think about.