"Everyone Has A Gimmick"

This is a bit of a "throwaway post," but I feel like I've got to get something down on Ye Old Blog, and I've just had a hard time writing anything lately. Oh, I've started a couple-three things...I've got a post titled "Time Warp," one called "Down Rabbit Holes," and a third called something like "World Without End." Oh yeah...something-something about encumbrance. But I really don't have the mental brain sweat at the moment to address all these potentially O-So-Profound subjects with the requisite gravitas they so richly deserve. 

So F it.

Instead, I'm going to hearken back to someone else's blog post of yesteryear, specifically this little doozie from Necropraxis called Only Ten from back in 2012. For some reason I've had this old post open on some random tab of my laptop for I-don't-know-how-long and I don't even remember why I was looking at it (let alone what I was thinking saving it). Maybe it came up when I was doing some search for Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play? I don't know...really I don't.

Anyway, for the disinterested, the gist of Necro's subject was the following question: if you could only keep 10 printed RPG books, which would make the cut?  Now I'm not sure about my lovely readers, but I happen to be a middle-aged dude who's been playing (and collecting) RPG material for close to 40 years, and while much of it has been sold, lost, or stolen over the years, I still hang on to a substantial amount of printed material. Enough to fill a bookshelf and a half plus a cupboard, and (perhaps) a large plastic crate or two.  And that's just the printed material. That's a LOT of books to pare down to just 10...and a particularly tall order for a packrat like myself.

Still, while I'm glad I don't actually have to burn the bulk of my library, it's an interesting thought exercise. And it's one I went through in my head earlier today: just what would I keep? Strangely enough, B/X didn't make the cut (due partly to me having memorized most of it, and partly having purchased PDFs from DriveThru...when I absolutely have to look something up these days, B/X is quite searchable on the ol' laptop). Mainly I was thinking of games that would allow me to play (or recreate) multiple genres of fantasy, interesting systems, or thoughtful design. Here's  my list at the moment (in no particular order of priority):

1. AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide
2. AD&D Players Handbook
3. AD&D Monster Manual
4. Heroes Unlimited
5. Maelstrom
6. Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader
7. Sorcerer
8. Vampire the Masquerade (1st edition)
9. Hollow Earth Expedition

I can't really bring myself to choose a 10th book...there are a few that could make the cut. The Fiend Folio, of course (and almost certainly would be). Deities & Demigods (the original) makes a strong case if only for its official ability score tables up to 25 and discussions on clerics, worship, and divine ascension. Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Gamma World, Deadlands could all go in there...even Ars Magica (1e), Orkworld, ElfQuest, or Over the Edge. And I hardly need not be mentioned how much I love both Ken St. Andre's Stormbringer (1e) and Marc Miller's Classic Traveller (I have the core book compilation from GDW)...that last one (Traveller) might even be able to edge out HEX in the #9 spot. 

Ugh...I completely forgot Twilight 2000. But it's box set technically consists of multiple books. If the original system had a single hardcover, it would leapfrog several of the "possibles" for the #10 slot. It just has a wonderful system for near-future post-apocalyptic games. 

The thing is, MANY of the games I own would be simple enough to recreate, and many could stand a rewrite using a different, more convenient system. Such was definitely the case with Shadowrun (my B/X style knockoff Cry Dark Future is a testament to that). Beyond the Supernatural or Gamma World could both be remade quite easily using B/X (see Mutant Future for an example of the latter). I've run great Top Secret games using the Story Engine system (first published with the Maelstrom RPG)...it can easily be used for other genres asking for "rules-light-story-heavy" mechanics. Of course, OD&D is easy enough to make out of AD&D...if one wanted...

Some may find it curious that 40K makes the list when it's not really an RPG. What can I say other than it provides exactly the kind of science fiction I want...one day, far in the future, I'll completely rewrite both it and HEX (Hollow Earth Expedition) using a different system from what they've been given. But I find their books to be incredibly imaginative and inspirational, as is. Nice art, too.

Folks might note there are no "supplements" making my list. I generally can write my own supplemental material (that's kind of what I do). That being said, I love Ron Edwards's Sorcerer supplements, especially Sorcerer & Sword. Unfortunately, Sorcerer makes the list because of its elegant design principles (and diabolic themes) more than because it's a game I play a lot (I don't). It's an inspirational reference, especially for its narrative sensibilities, and I like it better than other story driven games like Fiasco, Polaris, and Capes.

The real odd duck on the list though is (duh) Palladium's Heroes Unlimited, an RPG I've written enough of in the past. You'll note the cop out above where I don't pick any single particular edition of the game...there are a plethora of differences between 1e, "revised," and 2e HU, enough so as to really alter game play for the participants. 1e was the best written, but "revised's" tweaks to certain classes are really welcome (including the addition of the magical power set) and I would probably go with that. 2e is just a tad over-the-top...although if you want to include uber-powerful characters (equivalent to Thor or the Hulk) you really need to check out the "mega-hero" option in 2e. It's rather beastly, though nothing one couldn't work out for their own campaign (my buddies' long-running HU campaign in high school created their own "mega-powers" list using only the revised rules...long before the advent of a 2nd edition).

And, yeah, for those who hadn't already guessed, this is all just a rambling preamble to talk about superhero stuff.

As I wrote in my last post, my in-laws have been in town, and were supposed to fly back to Mexico on...mmm, Tuesday? Yeah, Tuesday last. But after our last road trip with them, the kids discovered that abuelo (their grandpa) hadn't watched any of the Marvel movies (The Avengers, etc.) and so decided to embark on an epic marathon of film watching...basically one movie per night for 2+ weeks (in chronological order), culminating in Avengers Endgame the night before they were supposed to leave town. And since it's summer time, and we still have things going on during the days and evenings (and we don't watch movies during dinner) this has meant starting 2-3 hour films around 10pm every night and not getting to bed till near 1am.  Um...yeah. And I still get up around 6:30 to take care of the one beagle I have left.

Consequently, I've been in something of a fugue state with a mind inundated by cinematic superheroics for much of the last month. Makes it a little hard to focus.

[hmm...wonder if that's had anything to do with my lack of a "will to write" lately. Certainly can't help]

Anyway: I am NOT about to start dipping back into designing superhero RPGs (again) as happened last April (wow! A month long tangent that started with this post!)...I've just got too many D&D irons in the fire at the moment (and little enough time for juggling those). But that Necropraxis article made me consider long and hard which hero game I'd bring with me to a desert island and I was, well, a little surprised at my own answer. Despite having written on or about the subject a thousand times in the past.

But in consideration for having the MCU force-shoved into my brain lately...well, sometimes I have to do something to spew the excess waste material from my cranium. Here are my current (as in, today, this morning) thoughts on the subject of superhero role-playing games (SRPGs):

• an SRPG should be run in real time, as much as possible. Day 1 of the campaign should start on a real world date (even if heroes/villains have been "training" or whatever for years). 
• an SRPG should be grounded in as much "reality" as possible (no picking up buildings by the corner, or flying faster than the speed of light). Super-technology can make impossible things possible, within reason, but shouldn't be readily accessible/understood by Earth humans (so as not to disrupt what passes for "daily life" in the real world)...at least when starting the campaign. Magic falls under the category of a "super-technology" (with the same stipulations).
• the campaign world should be set in the real world. Imaginary cities/countries (Metropolis, Atlantis, Wakanda) should be avoided. Extraterrestrial and extradimensional entities are okay, which can explain mythological-type beings (Thor or whatever).
• the campaign world should be allowed to spin out of control based on the occurrences of the game.
• all heroes/villains should start as "unknowns" to the general public, i.e. they have no reputation for being "super-anythings" before the start of play. Actions taken by characters will determine public perception.
• Day 1 marks the first appearance of super individuals in the campaign world
• an SRPG should be generally "free-wheeling" with logical consequences to follow
• no weapon fetishes: make and model of firearms and caliber of ammunition should have near zero impact on game play.
• experience increases effectiveness of characters. Active superpowers (things that turn on-and-off) either increase in scope/impact, or ability of character to use. Experience is gained through play. Time spent not playing will not result in experience.
• an SRPG is not a comic book. There is no plot immunity for characters.
• an SRPG is not a film. There are no guaranteed happy endings.
• an SRPG is a game about super (i.e. "greater than human") individuals in a human scale world and those individuals impact on the world. The PCs may become champions of the people or conquerors of the world. 
• The referee's job is to establish challenges for the PCs. For villainous PCs, these challenges can take the forms of law enforcement, task forces, and heroic super teams. Challenges should be commensurate with the scale of the PCs' abilities. Scale is determined by sphere of operation as mutually decided by the referee and the players.
• All PCs have a drive that allows them to push beyond the boundaries of ordinary humans.
• All PCs have a flaw that can be exploited by adversaries.
• All PCs have enough humanity to allow players (including the referee) to relate to the character. Thus, no artificial beings or alien creatures lacking human emotions, feelings, etc. The game is not about how well a player can portray a plant thing, inhuman monster, or celestial/infernal being. Likewise all PCs must be sentients of at least minimal intelligence for operating on planet Earth (the campaign setting); the game is not a comedy of errors based on an ignorance of cultural norms.
• There should be at least some randomness in determining a PCs particular "power set;" players are neither allowed, nor expected to come to the table with a fully formed character concept.

*Whew!*  Aaand...that's about it. I've decided that I'm no longer all that interested in forcing players to act cooperatively or assign them to super-powered task forces...I'm not even (particularly) interested in them acting as "heroes." Instead, I'd rather just offer them opportunities...multiple...just as one might with, say, an AD&D campaign setting. Being a planet such as we have, it's not like the PCs couldn't hop a plane and be most anywhere in less than 24 hours, so lot of possibilities for adventures are possible...and "story arcs" have nothing to do with any of it.

It's a little different from how I've thought about SRPGs in the past. 

RPGaDAY 2017 #19

From the #RPGaDAY2017 challenge (info here):

[well, well, well...finally, FINALLY caught up; you can find Day 9 here, and Day 18 here. Sorry for the lack of posts yesterday; I had a looong day of hauling rock. And it appears the rock-hauling will be going on at least two more days (unless by some miracle I finish tomorrow). Hopefully, I'll get some writing in, despite my poor, demolished fingers!]

Which RPG features the best writing?

Huh. Depends on what you mean.

If we're talking the clearest writing, easily communicating how the RPG is to be played, it's objectives of play, etc. then we have several candidates for "winner," including Tom Modvay's edition of Dungeons & Dragons (the "B" in "B/X") which was able to teach this blog author (i.e. "me") how to play an RPG from pretty much start to finish. A lot of indie games (especially those of the "story" variety) have pretty solid instructions (I like Ben Lehman's Polaris quite a bit).

However, if you're talking about "stylistically" or "fun" or even "which has the best fiction" or "humor," I'll have to hem and haw a lot, as there're quite a few to choose from. Fourth edition Ars Magica is pretty darn good...certainly, it's my favorite edition of that particular game. Mike Pondsmith's Castle Falkenstein is pretty darn good. I'm a big fan of Ron Edwards's Sorcerer game (and the three supplements he wrote to accompany the game), though I realize he's not everyone's cup o' tea.

Ken Hites's Wild Talents has some great stuff. So does Over the Edge (by Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws) though a lot of the setting material is fairly derivative. John Wick's Orkworld is a helluva' good read, too. But the best writing, the most interesting may be Maelstrom by Christian Aldridge. The game is clear and concise, the fiction is interesting without being overdone, and the setting is the best parts of fantasy...the kind of Neverending Story shit you loved as a child. With crab men and flying pirate ships and clockwork cities where people engage in duels of honor in dark alleys and amnesiac travelers from other dimensions. I love Maelstrom (and its Story Engine system is the best I've found for PBEM games).

Yeah, there's a lot of good writing out there (a lot of poor and mediocre writing, as well), but I'll give Maelstrom the nod on this one.

A Reason to Kill (Addendum)

Well, I can’t sleep. Which is unusual because I can usually sleep anywhere at the drop of a hat. However, I either drank too much coffee today or (more likely) I’ve just been wound too tight because of the stress this whole trip has caused me. Anyway, I might as well throw some follow-up thoughts to my last post.

When I say, look at the conflict you want to portray as central and build around it, I’m not (necessarily) saying you need to write “Raising Kids: The Role-Playing Game” or something. And I’m not saying you need to give up combat systems, either.  I’m just saying:

1. You need a way to engage the players besides “ooo, this is a neat setting (or story/plot/arc) that I want to explore, “ and
2. Make that “engagement thing” central in your design priority.

And I’m saying it to myself as well.

All that interesting exploration stuff will appear (if you want it to), in the proper amount, IF you can engage the players. At least, that’s my theory.

Look at the movie Star Wars. I’m sure most of the readers of this blog have watched the original trilogy a couple times. In the first movie, what have we got for a driving conflict? We’ve got this small band of misfits/adventurers fighting against a tyrannical impossible force, yeah? One ship, half a dozen characters (a couple of whom are noncombatants) against hundreds of soldiers, fighters, the Death Star, Darth Vader…even when they get “the Rebels” involved, it still boils down to the main characters’ actions (those other X-Wings are just set-dressing pyrotechnics for all they accomplish in the assault).

The challenge here is finding your courage. It’s something most B/X players might relate to.

The second movie (Empire) is different. Now, the characters are certifiable war heroes. They’ve proven their courage. The war (and the fighting of said war) is backdrop for the real story, the real challenge, namely “can you sacrifice what you hold dear for something that will bring you greater satisfaction?”

[Huh?]

Or something like that (it’s after 2am, cut me some slack, folks). Let’s look at the characters:

Han Solo: cherishes his freedom. Is he willing to give it up to begin a relationship with the princess? This is his conflict through the whole film. In the end, he literally loses his freedom in semi-permanent fashion.

Leia: cherishes her role in the Rebellion. Is she willing to give it up to begin a relationship with a scoundrel/rogue like Solo?

Luke: has achieved his childhood dreams of becoming a fighter pilot, joining the rebellion, and becoming a respected hero. Is he willing to give that up (his status as a “great warrior”) to pursue a more mystic journey towards peace and knowledge on the Jedi path? He finds he can only meet the sacrifice halfway, and loses a piece of himself because of it.

Lando: has become a responsible, respected (and apparently wealthy) leader. Is he willing to give it up to “do the right thing,” fighting against the Empire?

[yes, Lando is a main character…he’s like the dude who shows up to the gaming table late and has to bring his PC in halfway through the session]

All these characters in the story face this challenge, and they all meet it with varying degrees of success. It makes for a richer (in terms of character) movie, if not one with the same “wa-hoo” as the first film. It’s still fantasy adventure, it still has fights, but the fights aren’t the focus of the action. That’s not the challenge that’s engaging the protagonists.

Lukas had a lot of disagreement with the director of the 2^nd film, by the way (and was unhappy with the profits compared to the costs of the over-budget opus), and returned to his “original recipe” when doing Return of the Jedi. The result feels a touch slap-dash as it ties up the character development of the 2^nd while sticking with the action formula of the 1^st film: a small band of heroes facing overwhelming odds (Han and Leia against “a whole legion of troops,” Lando against a Death Star and a thousand fighters, Luke against giant monsters, armies of goons, and two Sith Lords).

[*sigh* how many days has it been since my last post mentioning Star Wars? Re-start the tally tracker]

None of this, by the way, is about saying one path/film is better. I’m using these films as examples of potential RPGs due to the way they model inherent parts of RPGs (fantasy adventure + multiple protagonists). If they were RPGs, not films, you could see that film #2 is either “heavily drifted” (to use a Forge term), or else a different game system from films #1 and #3. Film #1 is definitely the most “Old School” of the three: you have a main adventure site, you have encounters with bad guys, you have challenges to overcome, etc. Film #3 is still pretty “Old School,” though with a little extra “role-playing” thrown in (Film #1 doesn’t have much role-playing, only the jocular “in-character” banter).

Film #2 (if transported to the tabletop) has a different set of rules and objectives.  No game role-plays “training”(well, except for Ars Magica). Few RPGs deal with player-to-player romance.  But in the end, it’s neither the Dagobah Boot Camp nor the sweet-sweet-love that is the point of play…the challenge is the characters’ own inner journey/transformation. The shooting of things is pretty much an afterthought.

The first RPG I can recall relegating combat to a (very) subordinate system was the vastly underrated, out-of-print game Maelstrom. Maelstrom (of which I thought I'd blogged before but apparently haven't) is about as fantasy adventure as you can get and is all about the exploration…I’d like to read (or write) books on the game’s setting. Unfortunately, that doesn’t give a GM much direction as to what to do with the thing, and there’s no engagement that comes from that exploration (*sigh*). BUT the Story Engine’s neat game system (and the thing that makes Maelstrom one of the grandfather’s of narrativist RPGs) was it’s imperative that scenes must be about something, and players resolving the conflict inherent in the scene with a single roll, rather than using multiple die rolls to determine the effectiveness of individual actions (i.e. you didn’t roll “to hit;” you rolled to see if you were successful at the scene “objective”). It was all quite brilliant, in a meandering, primordial narrativist ooze kind-o-way.

*ahem* ANYway. Why am I even talking about this shit? Um…besides the fact that the ix-nay on exploration was kind of a (mild) epiphany this evening/morning? Well, I was just thinking about my son. We play a lot of “pretend” games together, including a lot of games with superheroes who “fight” bad guys…but, of course, D has been taught not to actually “fight” other children himself (except when pretending, natch), and often our games involve non-lethal conflict resolution. If someone gets “hurt” there’s usually a pause in play to have the doctor fix them (and to put the injured party in bed and feed ‘em soup, etc.). Sometimes the bad guys get talked into (or spontaneously decide) to become “good guys.” Sometimes everyone just wants to dance. We do a lot of things besides pretending to karate chop someone’s head is the point.

I’ve been working on two games the last month or so, and making good progress on both. One is a post-apocalyptic fantasy based on B/X that has a bunch of new rules designed to encourage more collaboration between players. The other game is A Very Fantasy heartbreaker that is my homage to Holmes Basic (in much the same way as 5AK was my homage to OD&D). The latter is aimed at a “younger” audience, and (I think) has a younger tone. No, not so young as my son (he’s three), but definitely more Susan Cooper than Michael Moorecock.

But I did ask my boy’s input and let him pick most of the monsters that would be included. And yet, as I write the game I keep thinking “neat as this innovative new combat system is (I wouldn’t mind using it in a B/X game)” do I really want to resolve conflicts with the sword all the time? And if the game is not about “battling evil” than what IS it about? Turning evil “from the Dark Side?”

[actually, I know for a fact that’s NOT what the game’s about, since it has a definite objective to play]

Anyhoo…more musings at 3am. Oh, look: they’re serving breakfast! (do they know it’s 3am?)

Yak at ya’ later.

Generic Unfocused Role-Playing Systems

So, yesterday was Veteran’s Day (no comment) and I didn’t post anything as I slept in till one, spent the day mostly doing yard work, and then finished up watching the Firefly series with my wife. Regarding the latter, I have managed to get my lovely spouse addicted to the series over the last couple weeks, and boy was she pissed when we got through the last episode: how dare this show get cancelled! And this is from a woman with immense dislike/disdain for a) westerns, and b) science fiction. Guess it was a good show, huh? Stupid FOX network.

ANYWAY, I did have a chance to wander down to Gary’s and read through the GURPS core books (now in its 4th edition!), but I just didn’t take the time to post my opinion. Please allow me to do so now (if briefly):

First, let me just say that GURPS, in its current incarnation seems very nice, smart, and even a little sexy. The system is of course elegant in its own way, certainly consistent, and GURPS is perhaps the best supported game on the market in terms of both quantity and quality of supplemental texts.

The fact that it’s divided into two core books is a bit off-putting (to me) who would prefer RPGs to return to the days of smaller more concise rule sets, but whatever. The main thing I wanted to look for was anything that would stand out as clear objectives of game play in the book…i.e. does anything in the rule set tell one how to play this damn game in the first place? This is due to the comment thread on my axiom post of the other day; check it out to see what I mean.

See, to me it appears that one thing RPG designers have gotten away from is explaining just what the hell people are expected to do with their gigantic rule books. Game authors simply assume that people buying their games are role-players who have played before or have friends who have, and who are going to simply using the author’s new game to play the same way they always have, just using a new set of rules. I believe this is a problem for a couple/few different reasons:

1 – it completely neglects the idea of growing the hobby, by limiting texts to existing role-players.
2 – it assumes that all role-playing gamers “play the same way” as the game author (which may not be accurate)
3 – it assumes that existing gamers know how to play the damn game (at least in the fashion the designer intends).

Now that being said, GURPS is a game that’s been around for awhile and has a pretty decent following, and since I don’t play it, who am I to knock it?

Well, how about a potential player (with a game this large should I call myself a “potential investor?”)? I buy A LOT of games, and some (like Palladium) that might raise eyebrows from some folks. A game has got to offer me SOMEthing, though, if I am going to make a purchase and I can’t help take a critical eye to any prospective game.

So back to “clear objectives;” does GURPS have ‘em?

Well, not that I could find in the player’s book. This is simply a huge guide to making a character for the GURPS game. Subject to GM approval, of course. Created with an eye towards what’s “fun” to play, of course. With plenty of options for making a “heroic” character, of course.

Interestingly, GURPS points out that their character creation system is NOT as realistic as it could be, as “realism” would require randomness in chargen, rather than a balanced point buy (after all, some people are born smart AND strong, and some people are born neither). However, GURPS points out its system is designed to provide “game balance” (so that some characters don’t upstage others) AND also allows players to create HEROIC characters (rather than Joe Shmoes).

I call this interesting because it is very straight-forward and matter-o-fact about things other games do, but simply assume “need not be present in writing.” I give GURPS a thumbs up for being smart and classy even if, right here, it pretty much loses my interest (because I’m not interested particularly in playing characters that are “balanced” or “heroic” and I am no fan of the drawn-out process of point-buy chargen).

Still, it doesn’t tell non-GM players what exactly they’re supposed to do, except “look to the GM.” Ugh.

Now the GM Book DOES have some information on how to create an adventure and run a game, which is a step up from Rifts, but it’s still pretty abstract about it…and even a bit disingenuous from what I’d see as the GURPS stance. I’ll get to the latter point in a second; basically, the books states it is the GM’s job to CHALLENGE the players (though it doesn’t specify whether this means challenging the players, their characters, or both). GMs are supposed to use their role and understanding of the system to craft adventures that offer “a challenge.”

There is even a sidebar on “dungeons” (!!) and creating site-based adventures. Here we see the origin of the GURPS game…someone wanted to do D&D with an elegant, consistent system (that included rules for skills, advantages, and disadvantages) that could be easily ‘ported to other genres. Ugh…here I thought Steve Jackson had more high-minded motivations…I know a lot of people use GURPS for reasons other than creating site-based adventures.

But that’s just it. GMs are supposed to “challenge” their players? Really? Your telling me GURPS is designed to facilitate a gamist creative agenda?

If such is the case, where’s the meta-game? In the character creation system (min-maxing through the point-buy?)? In simply being smarter than the GM or the other players (where’s the “balance” in that?!)?

And here I thought GURPS was best suited for facilitating the simulationist, with setting books like “The Prisoner” and “Renaissance Italy.” I guess those supplements were simply written to allow players to be challenged by GMs in different settings, rather than allowing exploration of the unique setting material. Wow…I was waaay off! ; )

SO anyway, not exactly what I’m looking for in a game. I am too old, too busy, and (yes) too lazy to spend the time learning a universal system when I don’t personally believe all role-playing games can be distilled to universal game mechanics. I just don’t. Gamma World would not benefit from a GURPS-like system and neither would Hubris Game’s Maelstrom RPG (the former doesn’t require the extra rules to play, the latter is played with a system that resolves scenes not tasks…in many ways Maelstrom is far more elegant than GURPS). And as a stand-alone game? Eh…it’s a little bland (despite being sexier than its predecessors), while still somehow seeming “over-produced.”

On the other hand…for RPGs with cool settings that have totally lame systems (or settings that don’t HAVE RPGs), one could do a lot worse than picking up GURPS and the corresponding supplement (I see GURPS did a Blue Planet supplement in 2002). But you’ll probably need to bring your own clear, specific objectives to the table with you.

: )