Valley of the Five Fires Microgame Update

Over the weekend, I finally received my beta print chits/counters for the Valley of the Five Fires microgame. Superior POD is seriously backed up right now, so the chits I'd hoped to have for the NTRPG Con (on June 6th or 7th) just arrived Saturday (June 21st). Even the expected date was more like the 10th or 11th. Knowing the chits would take a while to get here, I delayed finishing up the edits to beta version of the rules, but given the chits are here now, I suppose I can finish this up by end of week. Give me another week or so, and I'll put out the official call for playtesters. (BTW, feel free to express interest here, but please understand I will probably only cull testers from the "official" calls when they happen.)

The Return of Riot Squad Saturdays

"Soldiers of Ukraine's Internal Troops in riot gear and protesters clash at Bankova str, Kiev, Ukraine.
December 1, 2013" by Mstyslav Chernov/Unframe .

Partly due to the recent events in the Ukraine, and partly due to the fact that Welbo and I are in the final stages of the pre-beta release of the Valley of the Five Fires wargame, and partly due to the fact that I'm having to give a serious "re-boot" of my blogging after a period of work-load inundation, I'm re-starting Riot Squad Saturdays.

At this point, I really have nothing new to share or report regarding further development of the game, other than I think I really need to focus on what the basic scenarios are for the game. (This is something I knew but didn't want to admit, and it took Welbo pointing it out for me to say, "Okay.")

Now, some of you who've read these posts in the past may remember this is an idea I've had sitting around since the mid-90s. (Damn! Really? This idea is 20 years old? Wow.) Okay, anyway... back then, I'd only developed the thinnest of skeletons of an outline (e.g., movement was nothing more than a outline item labeled as "Movement"). I did, however, think through how I wanted the dice mechanics to work - simple counter vs. counter resolution, where (based on initiative) the "attacker" rolls and decides the fate of the "target". The charts were originally 4d6-based. Why? I have no freaking idea why I wanted something that cumbersome, or peaked at its center-point (percentile-wise in terms of chance of the result). But in re-looking at those charts, I realized 2d6 was more than adequate, provided more variance in result, and felt more "old school." Below are the adjusted charts (only the numbers under "roll" changed from a 4d6 to a 2d6 spread, otherwise, the content is essentially the same per the original mid-90s charts).



At this point, my thinking is that movement will be scenario-based, and that game resolution will be primarily driven by the resolution charts. By comparison, the Valley of the Five Fires games requires a lot of referencing of the rules based on the specific encounter (e.g., there are 8 different types of place encounters, each of which has its own way of affecting the game). Ultimately, the Valley of the Five Fires game is encounter driven, while I see Riot Squad as very resolution driven.

As a reminder, here are the various scenarios I've imagined so far...

SCENARIO 1A: "Protective" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Protect target zone from "invading" force (e.g., eco-protest vs. corporation).
Police Goal: Break protestor zone of defense to occupy target zone.

SCENARIO 1B: "Aggressive" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Expand zone of control by increasing protestor population.
Police Goal: Reduce protestors' zone of control (minimize population).

SCENARIO 2: Revolution
Revolutionist Goal: Expand zone of control to entire map.
Government Goal: Quash revolution (eliminate all zones of control).

SCENARIO 3:Traditional Riot
Rioter Goal: Looting and vandalism.
Police Goal: Arrest looters and vandals while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

SCENARIO 4: Gang War
Gang Goal (Multiple Gangs): Increase zone of control and grow body count of opposition.
Police Goal (Optional): Arrest as many gang members as possible.

"Black Vulmea" Mike suggested an alternate condition regarding the arrival of media/reporters on the scene. This actually brings up a new discussion point regarding the game. Welbo and I have always tried to rely on the conceit that anything we develop for "old school" products (e.g., this sort of "zip bag" wargame) be seen from the POV of the time period in which we wished we'd developed the game. In 1980, that meant something much different than 2014, where social media outlets put things in the public eye within seconds of its occurrence. But I'm not opposed to offering "1980 Conditions for Victory" vs. "Contemporary Conditions for Victory," with the alternate rules conditions based on "the way things were" vs. "the way things are."

Thoughts? Scenario ideas? Feel free to comment below.

TO BE CONTINUED... next Saturday.

V5F Microgame: Test Session Report

Last night wasn't so much of a "playtest" of the Valley of the Five Fires Microgame, as it was a chance to put the encounter/player stats through the ringer. It consisted mostly of rolling d6s, doing some minor math, and trying a bunch of variants.

After the first playtest, were afraid of some of the encounters being too deadly, and others being too much of a pushover. But after a discussion of potential player strategies, we came to the following conclusions:

1) Math is hard.
Seriously... when you're rolling multiple d6s (e.g., one person is rolling 2d6, and the other is rolling 3d6), and then each side gets bonuses to the roll (e.g., 2d6+3 vs 3d6+2), and then you have to subtract the lower roll from the higher, it slows the hell things down! Not what we want in this kind of game. It's different when all of the penalties/bonuses are to a single target number on an attack roll. But when there are modifiers to two opposing rolls, and then you have find the difference, it was WAY too cumbersome.

2) Encounters should be deadly.
The worst that happens is that you "start over" from your home space with a "new" Player Party. Early on in the game, the risk for the Experience Points earned is worth the chance of losing anything you've got. Late in the game, you've hopefully earned enough XP that the encounters aren't so deadly.

3) The pushover encounters are really there as a nuisance.
They force the end of your turn, and the Experience Points earned are almost insignificant. Early on the game, they provide the chance of "safely" earning Experience Points. Late in the game, they remain a nuisance as you race to complete the quest (and win the game).

Here's the conclusion to which we came...
"It was fine the way it was. It needed some tweaks, but not an overhaul."

I think we Welbo and tested the game on New Year's Day, we played it too safe. We were both trying to avoid encounters and acquire the quest items as quickly as possible, and we paid for it... with our lives! (We were playing the "quick" game option where you didn't "start over" when you died, you were just out of the game. We're thinking about eliminating this play option altogether; hopefully it will change the player strategies, so they're not so concerned with dying that they're always trying to play it safe.)

The next full playtest should be interesting. We're looking at trying it through Roll20. If that goes well, we'll probably start reaching out for other virtual playtesters the last week of this month.

Valley of the Five Fires Microgame Playtest Report

Welbo and I met yesterday to run the first official playtest of the Valley of the Five Fires Microgame, and I am more than pleased by the results. Regardless of the detail, play was moderately quick and easy to pick up. More importantly, play really captures the spirit of the module, which was the intention. There is a lot of rich detail to the setting that really comes through in the monster, place, and special encounters.

Really, at this point, we only see two minor issues which need some refinement:

1) the spaces on the map -
are there enough, and are the placed to be fair to all 4 players?

2) the balance of monster attack dice/wound points -
are they balanced enough to provide a challenge but not be unfairly deadly should the player encounter one?

Honestly, if these are the biggest issues at this point, we're in good shape! (I shouldn't get cocky, though. There are a lot of Special NPC encounters we have yet to play through fully.)

d30 Sandbox Final Stretch + Other Goings On/Updates

So first, an answer to the questions, "Why haven't you been posting much lately?" and "What the hell is up with the d30 Sandbox Companion?" My client workload has been the major culprit in eating/sucking my free time. But I've also been working on a lot of things in the background, without constantly posting about them or pulling snips from them to talk about.

d30 Sandbox Companion
I've finished up the drafts of the final 2 items for the book... the Wilderness Mapping Key (below) and the "How to Use this Book" section (which covers the pages in the book for the Hex Crawl Worksheet, Settlement Worksheet, and NPC Record Sheet.) That just leaves Welbo and I to finish proofing/editing. (BTW, it looks like there may 2 blank pages in the book, so I might have to develop a couple of new items to go here -- possibly other worksheets of some sort.)

Other Goings On
I have not been slacking in my blogging absence:

I have finished the writing on issue #2 of the Dragon Horde Zine. I just need to run a couple of playtest sessions for the adventure. Be on the lookout this week for a more complete update... including the possibility of offering #2 IN PRINT!!! (As well as the possibility of doing print back issues of #1.)

I've created a microgame based on my module Valley of the Five Fires. Again, just need to run a playtest or two of this internally before recruiting a few playtesters and sending them copies (counters/chits and all!) Again, stay tuned for information.

And, finally, I've started work on a "Golem Index," similar to my other Monster Indexes. Hope to have this posted next week.

Now here's a peek at the Wilderness Key from the d30 Sandbox Companion.

Riot Squad Saturdays Sunday:Scale Considerations Revisited

Photo: "Officer Calls Paddy Wagon for Disturber of the Peace" by Yoichi R. (Yoichi Robert) Okamoto
(for the EPA, now in the National Archives.)

Yes, I know this post is officially a day late. But if you think about it... it's actually 8 days late (since I missed last Saturday as well.) Regardless, let's turn our attention to where we left off... scale considerations.

THE COUNTERS (A Short Recap)
Recalling the post from 8/25, the counters were originally intended to represent an individual type. Then, as I thought about what the game was meant to simulate, it made more sense to let each counter represent a "unit" rather than an "individual" (per my 9/8 post). Which brings up my newest consideration...

STACKING
Stacking hinges on 2 factors: 1) the map scale, and 2) finding a way to track unit "volume" should a unit lose individual "members." Let's say you're inside a building and dealing with a lone gunman situation. Scale and unit size for this type of simulation would suggest no stacking. However, on a city landscape, where the units could represent everything from paddy wagons to a dozen protestors/marchers, stacking should be allowable. Which brings me to a related consideration...

TWO SETS OF RULES?
I strongly believe that the game will need to accommodate both of these very different scales of play: 1) the "smaller" man-to-man scale, and 2) the "larger" unit-to-unit scale. The two are obviously related, but it does help me focus on one type of interaction at at time. And since the name Riot Squad suggests the latter, this is where I will concentrate as I continue over the following weeks.

To be continued...

Riot Squad Saturday: Scale Considerations

Photo of "Anti Media Spree demo in Kreuzberg" by Libertinus Yomango.

As I was contemplating next steps for my ongoing Saturday posts regarding the development of the Riot Squad "wargame", I started giving consideration to how large of an area should be represented by the map-board. And, as a related considerations, the scale of each hex and the number of individuals represented by each counter (unit).

Though my original intention was to use the "man-to-man" scale that Welbo and I have been developing for Starmasters & The System:Expanded (see my "Samurai in Space" post), it began to make more sense to me that each counter represent a "unit" of more than one individual; this would allow for direct interaction of those (people) units with "larger" (non-people) units like SWAT vans and paddy wagons. It would also allow Welbo and I to start testing our design thoughts for scaling up the Starmasters/The System:Expanded man-to-man rules for larger scale interactions.

Without getting into too much detail, Starmasters/The System:Expanded use "effect scales" which allow d6s to be rolled providing various result strengths (weak to strong). Bonuses and penalties for damage are not given in absolute numbers; rather, they are given in shifts "up" or "down" to the attack's effect scale (thereby strengthening or weakening, respectively, the result of the roll, without changing the number of dice to be rolled). Weapons and magic spells, for example, are rated with these effect scales; certain types of armor or magical resistances cause effect scale shifts, modifying the resulting damage rolls.

In Riot Squad, my thoughts are to rank "units" (groups of individuals) with an effect scale, rather than a simple "combat number" (see my "Counters" post from 8/25/12). Then, each unit would be tracked on a separate tracking sheet, similar to the manner in which units are tracked in Battlesystem. Where the number of dice rolled = the number of individuals in the unit, and the effect scale would be determined by the unit. This would actually allow a large "individual" unit (like a SWAT van) to interact directly with a "multiple" unit counter (like a group of protestors). For example, a unit representing 5 peaceful protestors might roll 5d6 on effect scale A, and a single police fan unit might roll 1d6 on effect scale M. This would also allow crowds to grow to overwhelming numbers without having to track hundreds of counters on each turn.

TO BE CONTINUED... next Saturday.

Riot Squad Saturday: Scenarios and Conditions of Victory

"Man Alone WTO1999" photo by J.Narrin, 1999; used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

In the ongoing series of Saturday posts built around creating the Riot Squad "wargame," today I'll begin to outline what I see as the various game scenarios with some basic goals (conditions?) for victory. What follows are just my initial thoughts, but I only welcome suggestions for other scenarios or variations/changes on the ones below.

In most cases, the following scenarios would have a "duration" of a specific number of turns, except the revolution scenario; I could see that one like playing out like a game of monopoly.

SCENARIO 1A: "Protective" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Protect target zone from "invading" force (e.g., eco-protest vs. corporation).
Police Goal: Break protestor zone of defense to occupy target zone.

SCENARIO 1B: "Aggressive" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Expand zone of control by increasing protestor population.
Police Goal: Reduce protestors' zone of control (minimize population).

SCENARIO 2: Revolution
Revolutionist Goal: Expand zone of control to entire map.
Government Goal: Quash revolution (eliminate all zones of control).

SCENARIO 3:Traditional Riot
Rioter Goal: Looting and vandalism.
Police Goal: Arrest looters and vandals while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

SCENARIO 4: Gang War
Gang Goal (Multiple Gangs): Increase zone of control and grow body count of opposition.
Police Goal (Optional): Arrest as many gang members as possible.

JOIN ME NEXT WEEK...
I'm not quite sure where it goes from here, but I suppose we'll see!

BTW, how cool is that photo by J. Narrin at the top of this post? And this one...

"WTO protests Seattle WA 1999" photo by J.Narrin, 1999; used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Riot Squad Saturday: Counters & Turn Sequence

So last Saturday's post introduced the Riot Squad game concept and gave the general outline of the rules. Today, we'll take a look at where I see the turn sequencing going, which is directly related to the information on the counters.

Since I have not established the various scenarios yet, I'm going to move forward assuming that there will be a multitude of scenarios (e.g., gang war, political riot gone bad, etc.), each with its own conditions for "victory." In general, I see victory being related to "ground possession"--that is, which factions have which areas under control after the specified number of turns.

OVERVIEW OF COUNTERS

Counter Facing
Something you may have noticed about the counters above is that all of the "civilian" counters face right, and all of the law enforcement counters face left. This is really technically unnecessary, but I thought it would be nice when a riot policeman is giving a protestor a beat down with his billy club, that the two of them are face to face. It seems to enhance the animosity... don't you think? It does have another benefit in the context of Morale Ratings (see below).

Movement Rating
This seems like a given. All counters should be able to move. Otherwise, the game turn would consist of something more akin to a Wild West shoutout, where people just sit and fire at each other from behind the cover of tables, pianos and the bar.

Morale Rating
I don't see how you can have a game about the human spirit without a Morale Rating. In some ways, I see the Morale Rating of a counter as being more important than any other rating. In some scenarios, it will truly be the deciding factor (e.g., at what point does that passive resistor give up and leave?) I also think it's possible that in some scenarios, the Morale Check will act more like a "saving throw" vs. morale, where the citizen counter may find himself face-to-face with a law enforcement counter, and the morale of the citizen is made vs. the "threat" of the law enforcement counter (using the law enforcement counter's Morale Rating as the Threat Rating vs. the citizen's Morale Rating.)

Combat Rating
In some scenarios, I see traditional "combat" being an accepted convention (e.g., lone gunman vs. responding police force). However, in the case of political protests, "combat" may be little more than standing one's ground in the face of an encroaching (police) faction. For that reason, I see each counter needing to be rated for combat (in some form or another). Right now, I see counters armed with ranged weapons as being rated with a number, but unarmed counters being rated with an "H" (for hand-to-hand). This notation/indication may change at the playtesting phase but, regardless, there needs to be an indication there.

TURN SEQUENCE

Right now, I see the turn sequencing going something like this...

I. Movement
I was going back and forth on this for a while, thinking that the Morale Check should have been first. But then I realized when two counters are "engaged" (after a movement sequence), that's when the Morale Check really comes into play (e.g., that beat cop just stepped up to you and is aiming his gun in your face... NOW make that Morale Check.) I'm thinking that "who moves first" will really depend on the scenario (e.g., in a lone gunman scenario, I think the gunman should first, but in a passive resistance protest I think that the law enforcement faction should move first.) And in some scenarios, I could see rolling for initiative. Regardless, 1 pt. of movement equals 1 hex of movement (generally, that is; there may be additional movement types that will require more than 1 pt. of Movement Allowance to complete.)

II. Morale Checks
I don't think that Morale Checks should necessarily be part of every scenario. I could see them being optional in some, required in others, and not required at all in some. When Morale Checks do occur, though, I'm thinking they'll always be after the Movement Phase.

III. Interaction Phase
Please notice I did not say "Combat Phase." In some scenarios, the interaction phase may be bargaining/negotiating. In others, it may well be gunfire. Regardless, it's going to be the outcome of the Interaction Phase that closes things up for the turn, and helps the players decide their actions for the next turn (beginning with the Movement Round.)

JOIN ME NEXT WEEK...
as I move on to outline some scenarios and establish some conditions for "victory."

Riot Squad Saturdays?

If you read my post from Thursday, you know that some years ago I started work on a tabletop wargame called Riot Squad. What I failed to mention in that post was the game was conceived as simply "Riot", in reaction to the Rodney King riots of 1992. Since then, we've seen the WTO Seattle protests (1999), the Italy G8 riots (2008), the recent riots-turned-revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, plus plenty of other protests and uprisings (Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, et al.) It seems that as long as there are people to stand up for what they believe, there will be factions that seek to "put them back in their place."

The last decade has also seen the revolution of print-on-demand solutions, and that means producing low-quantity/high-quality copies of the game are only a click away. So... what I've decided to do (based on a prodding comment from Black Vulmea Mike over at Really Bad Eggs), is use Saturdays (a day where my wife often sleeps in, and I am up early with nothing better than Law & Order re-runs to keep me company) to continue work on Riot Squad. I figure if S&T can crank out 1 a month, a dozen-or-so Saturdays should get me fairly close to complete.

Today's post--the outline of the game rules (the skeleton upon which the game's meat shall be built.) Again, as I mentioned Thursday, wargames don't exactly re-invent the rules of gaming, so here's my thinking (guided by the sample wargame from The Complete Book of Wargames).

I.	COMPONENTS
	A. Mapboard + Explanation
	B. Counters + Explanation
	C. Dice & Combat* Tables + Examples
II.	HOW TO PLAY THE GAME
	A. Setting Up the Game (assumes base scenario)
	B. Sequence of Play
	C. Zones of Control
	D. Movement
	E. Combat
IV.	OPTIONAL RULES
III.	EXAMPLES OF PLAY
III.	ALTERNATE SCENARIOS

*In some cases, I use the term "combat" loosely (e.g., unarmed protestors in fascist countries) and, in some cases, quite literally (e.g., gang wars).

To be continued... next Saturday.

For image attribution information, click here.

A Game I Put Some Work Into But Am 99.9% Sure You'll Never See...

I worked on this baby in the mid-90s. This tabletop wargame would pit "citizen" factions (e.g., protestors, rioters, etc.) against various police forces (riot police, SWAT teams, etc.) I didn't get terribly far, but that's a lot more than you'd think, considering these kind of wargames don't exactly re-invent the wheel:
1) give every body ("each counter") an attack type/rating
2) give every body a defense type/rating
3) create some d6 based combat charts
4) determine conditions for victory

I just felt like as much as I liked the idea at the time, it just wouldn't be too commercially viable. But given the current state of POD resources (like Superior POD), it wouldn't take nearly the financial obligation now as it would have in 1996.

If nothing else, I really dig the Squad Leader inspired cover.

Citadel of Blood: An RPG Disguised as a Wargame?

Among the motherload of Ares and Space Gamer magazines I bought back in December (you know... the ones that belonged to Roger E. Moore), was the magazine pictured on the right of the image at the left. Ares magazine no. 5, with the game Citadel of Blood tucked in the middle of its pages.

Well, I seem to hit another motherload last weekend in the backroom at HPB... 40 cardboard boxes, each containing an average of 10 boxed wargames.

Yes! I searched through about 400 different wargames, most of which were historical in nature (not my cup of grog.) When it comes to these types of games, I'm strictly a fantasy/sci-fi guy. So in addition to picking up the boxed version of Citadel of Blood (on left in picture), I picked up Worldkiller and Rescue from the Hive.

Citadel of Blood is pretty cool, and I'd be hard-pressed to do a better job of describing the game than this overview at gamersalliance.com. The real potential for Citadel of Blood, though, is that on some level it can operate at a skeletal RPG system that supports solitaire play.

Look for an update on this baby once I've had a chance to run it through a few times, including group and solitaire play.