Entry tags:
Illustrator for MLC2!
Metropole Luxury Coffin 2.0 is being illustrated by Adrian Iglesias, aka "El Santa"!
https://madunkie.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/hotel-robot-color2-1.png?w=685
I look forwards to working more with him!
Metropole Luxury Coffin 2.0
https://madunkie.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/hotel-robot-color2-1.png?w=685
I look forwards to working more with him!
Metropole Luxury Coffin 2.0
Entry tags:
Mad Unkie Games' Official Website!
The official website of Mad Unkie Games can be found (temporarily) at:
https://madunkie.wordpress.com/
I plan to move it to its own server as soon as I can afford it, but Wordpress provides free hosting if you use "wordpress" in the site address and allow a couple of advertisements.
Mad Unkie Games' blog will still be hosted on DreamWidth.
https://madunkie.wordpress.com/
I plan to move it to its own server as soon as I can afford it, but Wordpress provides free hosting if you use "wordpress" in the site address and allow a couple of advertisements.
Mad Unkie Games' blog will still be hosted on DreamWidth.
Entry tags:
What Have I Gotten Myself Into?
Role-playing games aren't simple, but the human brain is wired for language and telling stories, making them intuitive. Following that logic, all you need to learn are the rules. Ease of play means easy study, right?
You'd be wrong. It does not.
Let's start with studying language, which is used both during play and in the rules. Language can be studied in a multitude of ways, from grammatology (word order), semiotics (signs), rhetoric (arguments), genres (social patterns), and many more.
Add the game parts onto that, for example game theory (math/psychology) and economics, and you start to see just how many fields can go into a single role-playing game.
But even that's not the end of it because all these systems work together, resulting in emergence. Emergence is the bane of my academic career.
Fortunately, Bakhtin convinced me to shift focus onto ideas (rhetoric, genres). Nonetheless, despite ruling out constructing language, I'm still trying to figure out what fields are irrelevant. It doesn't help that rhetorical genre studies is linked to cultural studies.
And that's just a glimpse into why role-playing games are a nightmare to study.
You'd be wrong. It does not.
Let's start with studying language, which is used both during play and in the rules. Language can be studied in a multitude of ways, from grammatology (word order), semiotics (signs), rhetoric (arguments), genres (social patterns), and many more.
Add the game parts onto that, for example game theory (math/psychology) and economics, and you start to see just how many fields can go into a single role-playing game.
But even that's not the end of it because all these systems work together, resulting in emergence. Emergence is the bane of my academic career.
Fortunately, Bakhtin convinced me to shift focus onto ideas (rhetoric, genres). Nonetheless, despite ruling out constructing language, I'm still trying to figure out what fields are irrelevant. It doesn't help that rhetorical genre studies is linked to cultural studies.
And that's just a glimpse into why role-playing games are a nightmare to study.
Entry tags:
Storm Warning Update
I ran a playtest last night, and figured out that I need to take Storm of the Armadas (SotA) another step away from it's original inspiration Legend of the Galactic Heroes (LotGH). You may remember that LotGH features fleets of tens of thousands of ships. Heck the first, and smallest battle has a fleet of 13,000 ships squaring off against 20,000 ships. Battle was all about formations, timing and fleet size.
Those influences will still be a factor, but I'd like to add another twist: fleet composition. Currently the smallest flotilla has 10 escorts and 8 cruisers. A new cruiser flotilla might contain 2-4 cruisers and 4-6 escorts. Focusing on these sorts of flotillas also allows more differentiation. Effectively, I'm bringing the game closer to The Lost Fleet series.
There are several other advantages to this, including the possibility of using miniatures, but that's a long way off. I don't want setup to eclipse play.
Those influences will still be a factor, but I'd like to add another twist: fleet composition. Currently the smallest flotilla has 10 escorts and 8 cruisers. A new cruiser flotilla might contain 2-4 cruisers and 4-6 escorts. Focusing on these sorts of flotillas also allows more differentiation. Effectively, I'm bringing the game closer to The Lost Fleet series.
There are several other advantages to this, including the possibility of using miniatures, but that's a long way off. I don't want setup to eclipse play.
Entry tags:
What do you think “narrativist” means?
The root-word of narrativist is narrative. Because of my training in narratology, I know that one meaning of narrative is that they follow one character. Stories contain one or more narratives. Thus a narrativist game deals with individual plots, rather than a story-based game which focuses upon one main plot. This also fits with the idea of players wanting more drama because conflicting goals creates just that. Or that's what I thought...
Edwards designed the narrativist genre to revolve around a premise. Later versions of narrativism would include thematic rules, morph the premise into an open-ended question, and recognize the beneficial effects of improvisation, but these were only small adjustments to a new way to play.
So, which one’s right? Both of them.
Everyone has their own definition of “narrativist.” Edwards, and a few others, tried to convince people of their own definition’s superiority. Their success helped turn an idea into a genre. I’m going to be studying that process, but that means recognizing other definitions as equally valid.
All of this is why I’m reading about Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics (academic-ese for interpreting language). It requires multiple readings of the threads to determine both the writer’s perspective and the different definitions of each word. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if Edwards and his friends took the same approach. I’ll just have to analyze the threads and see.
Edwards designed the narrativist genre to revolve around a premise. Later versions of narrativism would include thematic rules, morph the premise into an open-ended question, and recognize the beneficial effects of improvisation, but these were only small adjustments to a new way to play.
So, which one’s right? Both of them.
Everyone has their own definition of “narrativist.” Edwards, and a few others, tried to convince people of their own definition’s superiority. Their success helped turn an idea into a genre. I’m going to be studying that process, but that means recognizing other definitions as equally valid.
All of this is why I’m reading about Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics (academic-ese for interpreting language). It requires multiple readings of the threads to determine both the writer’s perspective and the different definitions of each word. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if Edwards and his friends took the same approach. I’ll just have to analyze the threads and see.
Entry tags:
Thinking Categorically
What makes genres useful is that they are recognizable patterns. Let's look at one specific (material) genre: books. If you've never handled a book before, you need only to play around with one for a few minutes to recognize how to use it. Even if you don't read the language, you still know how to flip the pages of a book. You've established that mental pattern.
Prejudice may take any forms, including sexism or racism. Like genres, they're learned categories which are played out in patterns of behaviour. Arbitrarily deciding someone's value based upon, for example, their gender or skin colour can result in oppression. If taken way too far, and it quite often is, can result in injury or death. But if feminism has taught us anything, it's that we work better, and can solve bigger problems, together.
Nonetheless, some generalizations appear to break this trend. For example, Canadians say "sorry" a lot. Most often they use it in the place of "excuse me." This merges both genre and prejudice, and it shows how recognizing patterns can be socially useful as when you hear either statement, you might want to respond by moving out of the way.
Navigating which patterns are useful and which create oppression is not an easy thing. We can all think of extreme situations, but life is filled with subtle, complex and tricky situations, like claiming the superiority of vegetarianism. Yes, vegetarianism has benefits, but, for cultural or monetary reasons, not everyone can do it.
To that end, I encourage everyone to display some forgiveness when mistakes like these occur. And I guarantee they will occur. That doesn't mean staying silent, but try to persuade the person rather than just saying they're wrong.
Prejudice may take any forms, including sexism or racism. Like genres, they're learned categories which are played out in patterns of behaviour. Arbitrarily deciding someone's value based upon, for example, their gender or skin colour can result in oppression. If taken way too far, and it quite often is, can result in injury or death. But if feminism has taught us anything, it's that we work better, and can solve bigger problems, together.
Nonetheless, some generalizations appear to break this trend. For example, Canadians say "sorry" a lot. Most often they use it in the place of "excuse me." This merges both genre and prejudice, and it shows how recognizing patterns can be socially useful as when you hear either statement, you might want to respond by moving out of the way.
Navigating which patterns are useful and which create oppression is not an easy thing. We can all think of extreme situations, but life is filled with subtle, complex and tricky situations, like claiming the superiority of vegetarianism. Yes, vegetarianism has benefits, but, for cultural or monetary reasons, not everyone can do it.
To that end, I encourage everyone to display some forgiveness when mistakes like these occur. And I guarantee they will occur. That doesn't mean staying silent, but try to persuade the person rather than just saying they're wrong.
Entry tags:
Simulationism vs. Trad
I had a realization today that not all simulationist games are trad games.
The term simulationist refers to one of the three genres developed by Ron Edwards, the man behind The Forge. Trad, on the other hand, has become more prevalent on Story Games. Of course it was always obvious if you cared to look, but I only discovered it after I started analyzing those two genres.
In a trad game the gamemaster (GM) makes the adventure and the players react to it. In a story game the players make the adventure and the GM reacts. Yes, there are exceptions, and the genres are quite a bit more involved than just that, but that's the main point. These two diverge in terms of their characters' sources of motivation.
Simulationist games are about exploration. This is contrasted with narrativist games, which focus upon a theme, and gamist games, which are about competition. These three diverge in terms of what sort of activities the characters engage in.
Note that none of these genres say anything about the age of the game, despite trad being short for traditional. If you really want to get into temporal arguments, try parsing whether 1st edition D&D is an example of the Old-School Renaissance genre. But this is just a digression.
Most trad games are also simulationist, but not all simulationist games are trad. Thus, while Dungeons & Dragons and Fiasco are both simulationist, D&D is trad, while Fiasco is a story game. Similarly, Over the Edge would be considered a trad game, but it was, at least initially, called a narrativist game. I'll have to think about whether it would still be considered a narrativist game under the more recent definitions.
Anyways, that realization put a real crimp in my dissertation plans, but it does make comparing much easier as I can describe two different games instead of one. I do, however, have to make sure that what I'm analyzing are actual trad and simulationist games. There's elements of narrativism in Call of Cthulhu (politeness) or Vampire (power), and Vampire, when played in live-action form, consists of mostly player-driven plots.
The term simulationist refers to one of the three genres developed by Ron Edwards, the man behind The Forge. Trad, on the other hand, has become more prevalent on Story Games. Of course it was always obvious if you cared to look, but I only discovered it after I started analyzing those two genres.
In a trad game the gamemaster (GM) makes the adventure and the players react to it. In a story game the players make the adventure and the GM reacts. Yes, there are exceptions, and the genres are quite a bit more involved than just that, but that's the main point. These two diverge in terms of their characters' sources of motivation.
Simulationist games are about exploration. This is contrasted with narrativist games, which focus upon a theme, and gamist games, which are about competition. These three diverge in terms of what sort of activities the characters engage in.
Note that none of these genres say anything about the age of the game, despite trad being short for traditional. If you really want to get into temporal arguments, try parsing whether 1st edition D&D is an example of the Old-School Renaissance genre. But this is just a digression.
Most trad games are also simulationist, but not all simulationist games are trad. Thus, while Dungeons & Dragons and Fiasco are both simulationist, D&D is trad, while Fiasco is a story game. Similarly, Over the Edge would be considered a trad game, but it was, at least initially, called a narrativist game. I'll have to think about whether it would still be considered a narrativist game under the more recent definitions.
Anyways, that realization put a real crimp in my dissertation plans, but it does make comparing much easier as I can describe two different games instead of one. I do, however, have to make sure that what I'm analyzing are actual trad and simulationist games. There's elements of narrativism in Call of Cthulhu (politeness) or Vampire (power), and Vampire, when played in live-action form, consists of mostly player-driven plots.
Entry tags:
The (Mostly Unimportant) Trouble With Genre Hybridity
Hybrid genre games are difficult to create. In GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory Edwards proposes two possibilities:
(1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time
(2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together
Edwards admits to being skeptical of both, but one clue to that skepticism may be found in his preference for narrativist games. I explored this before and it makes heavy use of Edwards’ essay, System Does Matter", but I’m going to rehash the basic points here.
Narrativist games explore a topic and usually present an opinion on that topic through their rules. Any change to the rules results in a change to the opinion, or completely messes it up. To make matters worse, most narrativist games take a rules-light approach, meaning that changes would likely be far more drastic. This is not exchanging a +1 for a +2 in a task resolution system. Instead, narrativist games tend to be shaped by concepts like scenes and conflict resolution systems that ask “why,” instead of “how.” If you're changing anything, it has to be a big change. Furthermore, narrativist games' rules tend to produce meaning by their interactions.
I’m going to explore hybridity through Joshua A. Newman’s Shock: Social Science Fiction. Shock attempts to simulate the genre of social science fiction, but that genre always revolves around a premise. That premise qualifies it as an early narrativist game. I’ve written a lot about Shock before because I admire its originality in terms of its rules, and my hate for how it handles story.
Newman claims that it uses conflict resolution, but I would argue that it’s a hybrid form of task and conflict resolution. Conflict resolution normally has two forces going against one another, and so you always have a story to tell. Shock requires that each characters’ action have a different goal. It is possible for both actions to fail, leaving the storyteller without an obvious story to tell.
Nonetheless, every challenge is shaped by the issue made up at the start of the game, and the character’s approaches to that issue. If the rules are followed to the letter and in their implications, it definitely asks, “why.”
Despite being difficult to play and not having rules to resolve things at the story level, Shock was a big hit with The Forge crowd, including many non-designers. The game doesn’t have to be ideologically perfect in order to be fun. The rules don’t have to be perfect, either. It only matters that they’re good enough, and the players will fill in the rest.
This is where story games have an advantage over other types of games. Because there’s no way to create rules for everything that a player could imagine. Players accept a certain degree of hand-waviness because it's the story that they're interested in, not the rules.
(1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time
(2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together
Edwards admits to being skeptical of both, but one clue to that skepticism may be found in his preference for narrativist games. I explored this before and it makes heavy use of Edwards’ essay, System Does Matter", but I’m going to rehash the basic points here.
Narrativist games explore a topic and usually present an opinion on that topic through their rules. Any change to the rules results in a change to the opinion, or completely messes it up. To make matters worse, most narrativist games take a rules-light approach, meaning that changes would likely be far more drastic. This is not exchanging a +1 for a +2 in a task resolution system. Instead, narrativist games tend to be shaped by concepts like scenes and conflict resolution systems that ask “why,” instead of “how.” If you're changing anything, it has to be a big change. Furthermore, narrativist games' rules tend to produce meaning by their interactions.
I’m going to explore hybridity through Joshua A. Newman’s Shock: Social Science Fiction. Shock attempts to simulate the genre of social science fiction, but that genre always revolves around a premise. That premise qualifies it as an early narrativist game. I’ve written a lot about Shock before because I admire its originality in terms of its rules, and my hate for how it handles story.
Newman claims that it uses conflict resolution, but I would argue that it’s a hybrid form of task and conflict resolution. Conflict resolution normally has two forces going against one another, and so you always have a story to tell. Shock requires that each characters’ action have a different goal. It is possible for both actions to fail, leaving the storyteller without an obvious story to tell.
Nonetheless, every challenge is shaped by the issue made up at the start of the game, and the character’s approaches to that issue. If the rules are followed to the letter and in their implications, it definitely asks, “why.”
Despite being difficult to play and not having rules to resolve things at the story level, Shock was a big hit with The Forge crowd, including many non-designers. The game doesn’t have to be ideologically perfect in order to be fun. The rules don’t have to be perfect, either. It only matters that they’re good enough, and the players will fill in the rest.
This is where story games have an advantage over other types of games. Because there’s no way to create rules for everything that a player could imagine. Players accept a certain degree of hand-waviness because it's the story that they're interested in, not the rules.
Entry tags:
Bringing MLC Closer to Being a Hybrid Genre Game
Ron Edwards warned against hybridizing genres. He's usually right, but in this case, I'm realizing that there are reasons to make exceptions.
Old School Renaissance (OSR) games, like 1st edition Dungeons & Dragons allow the participants to create their own resolution methods for dealing with different situations. This is because a combination of factors, including the use of task resolution and the inability to create rules for every situation.
Eventually that changed so that you had one flexible resolution system that handled almost every task. The most extreme example of this is GURPS. Play changed a little, but it was still mostly combat-focused, and so it worked.
All that changed with smaller presses producing many games about a variety of non-combat focused themes. There were three ways to deal with the problem:
1. Ignore it and hope that everyone else doesn't think too deeply about it
2. Switch the focus to resolving why the action is taken (conflict), rather than how (task)
3. Return to the OSR trend of allowing players to design their own resolution methods
I've decided to take that third road with my own game, Metropole Luxury Coffin (MLC), which I had identified as a member of the gamist genre. Because so many people have been raised on the first and second roads, some retraining is in order. And so, I've designed three very different resolution methods for MLC, and then advised players to modify them or create their own methods:
1. Beat Test: This relies on dice with the character's face being used as a modifier, with the highest roll winning. Beat tests may be escalated by bidding more face.
2. Building/Performance Tests: This relies on cards which are used to make pairs based upon rank. This gets easier as more people join in.
3. Negotiations: Anything can be offered to secure a deal. If the character later renegs, zie loses face.
Of course, the devil's in the details, but I like that MLC isn't tied to using just dice, cards or negotiation.
(EDIT) This doesn't mean I consider MLC to now be a member of the OSR genre. That would require classes, hit points, weapons and armor lists, combat and related modifiers and a host of other details.
Old School Renaissance (OSR) games, like 1st edition Dungeons & Dragons allow the participants to create their own resolution methods for dealing with different situations. This is because a combination of factors, including the use of task resolution and the inability to create rules for every situation.
Eventually that changed so that you had one flexible resolution system that handled almost every task. The most extreme example of this is GURPS. Play changed a little, but it was still mostly combat-focused, and so it worked.
All that changed with smaller presses producing many games about a variety of non-combat focused themes. There were three ways to deal with the problem:
1. Ignore it and hope that everyone else doesn't think too deeply about it
2. Switch the focus to resolving why the action is taken (conflict), rather than how (task)
3. Return to the OSR trend of allowing players to design their own resolution methods
I've decided to take that third road with my own game, Metropole Luxury Coffin (MLC), which I had identified as a member of the gamist genre. Because so many people have been raised on the first and second roads, some retraining is in order. And so, I've designed three very different resolution methods for MLC, and then advised players to modify them or create their own methods:
1. Beat Test: This relies on dice with the character's face being used as a modifier, with the highest roll winning. Beat tests may be escalated by bidding more face.
2. Building/Performance Tests: This relies on cards which are used to make pairs based upon rank. This gets easier as more people join in.
3. Negotiations: Anything can be offered to secure a deal. If the character later renegs, zie loses face.
Of course, the devil's in the details, but I like that MLC isn't tied to using just dice, cards or negotiation.
(EDIT) This doesn't mean I consider MLC to now be a member of the OSR genre. That would require classes, hit points, weapons and armor lists, combat and related modifiers and a host of other details.
Entry tags:
Playing in the Metropole Luxury Coffin
It's been a while since I posted anything. I haven't been able to find work, and until I do, my game design business can't get off the ground.
Nonetheless, I was recently treated to a game of Metropole Luxury Coffin. Instead of running the game, I just sat and played. It was an absolute blast.
What surprised me were the number of changes that I wouldn't have to make to the rules. I planned on replacing brand tribes with being part of a band. One game later, I've decided to add the idea of a band, but keep brand tribes. Creating brands was that fun!
I'll be changing how tasks are resolved, and the money system (cellphone companies haven't taken over the banks), but the game is remarkably playable as it stands
Nonetheless, I was recently treated to a game of Metropole Luxury Coffin. Instead of running the game, I just sat and played. It was an absolute blast.
What surprised me were the number of changes that I wouldn't have to make to the rules. I planned on replacing brand tribes with being part of a band. One game later, I've decided to add the idea of a band, but keep brand tribes. Creating brands was that fun!
I'll be changing how tasks are resolved, and the money system (cellphone companies haven't taken over the banks), but the game is remarkably playable as it stands
Entry tags:
Story Games: Difficult to Sample
I want to write about genres, but I've encountered a problem with writing about the genre of story games. This doesn't refer to story games which include all role-playing games and other games. I'm referring to a style of game that is usually talked about in threads like, "Story game-ifying (insert name of RPG here)."
This definitely points to the existence of a genre. The threads are based on how different The Forge's style of rules are from the traditional ways of building RPGs. What they fail to get is that the experience is different because the players and GM are treated differently. Yes, the rules matter, but it's not just the rules. It appears in the how-to-run and how-to-play advice that accompanies the rules. Sometimes there are rules governing the creation of the setting. Instead of leaving it up to a GM, story games give that power of creation to everyone.
What makes this so difficult to write about is that these threads usually don't mention games in them, only rules from games. Of course, if you're familiar with enough story games, you can probably guess which game they took inspiration from, but those are only guesses.
Of course, there are other threads which call for lists of games that possess a certain rule, such as lists of GM-less games, but counting games from those threads assumes that all story games are gm-less, which is far from true. As I mentioned in my previous post, that sort of turns the concept of genre on its head anyways.
I'll have to think about this to determine what, if any, method could be used to build my research sample.
This definitely points to the existence of a genre. The threads are based on how different The Forge's style of rules are from the traditional ways of building RPGs. What they fail to get is that the experience is different because the players and GM are treated differently. Yes, the rules matter, but it's not just the rules. It appears in the how-to-run and how-to-play advice that accompanies the rules. Sometimes there are rules governing the creation of the setting. Instead of leaving it up to a GM, story games give that power of creation to everyone.
What makes this so difficult to write about is that these threads usually don't mention games in them, only rules from games. Of course, if you're familiar with enough story games, you can probably guess which game they took inspiration from, but those are only guesses.
Of course, there are other threads which call for lists of games that possess a certain rule, such as lists of GM-less games, but counting games from those threads assumes that all story games are gm-less, which is far from true. As I mentioned in my previous post, that sort of turns the concept of genre on its head anyways.
I'll have to think about this to determine what, if any, method could be used to build my research sample.
Entry tags:
Reframing Narrativism
I had already come to the conclusion that role-playing gaming genres like narrativism consist of more than just rules, but what if the rules aren't a part of the genre at all?
That proposal is pretty bold. Of course the rules will be part of the genre, but which type of rule is different for each game. What they all share, however, is that they put the player at the centre of the story.
I'd like to differentiate players from gamemasters (GMs), because narrativist games tend to either disempower the GM or place the responsibilities of GMs in the hands of the players. In contrast, traditional RPGs tend to treat the rules as a weapon for the GM to use.
But what does this mean for a community of designers that supports the idea that the rules matter? The key is to think of the designer's voice being the rules. Choosing a particular narrativist game is similar to proposing the topic of a conversation. The players are then encouraged to give their own viewpoints on that topic. Those viewpoints are then run by the GM, or whoever holds that responsibility at that moment, who interprets it for the rules.
And viola, you get the narrativist genre, where rules matter, but it doesn't rely on any specific rule. That's why it's so hard to explain narrativism to a die hard fan of Dungeons & Dragons. Narrativism is about exploring different viewpoints.
If that's true for narrativism, how do I apply these principles to the other role-playing game genres?
That proposal is pretty bold. Of course the rules will be part of the genre, but which type of rule is different for each game. What they all share, however, is that they put the player at the centre of the story.
I'd like to differentiate players from gamemasters (GMs), because narrativist games tend to either disempower the GM or place the responsibilities of GMs in the hands of the players. In contrast, traditional RPGs tend to treat the rules as a weapon for the GM to use.
But what does this mean for a community of designers that supports the idea that the rules matter? The key is to think of the designer's voice being the rules. Choosing a particular narrativist game is similar to proposing the topic of a conversation. The players are then encouraged to give their own viewpoints on that topic. Those viewpoints are then run by the GM, or whoever holds that responsibility at that moment, who interprets it for the rules.
And viola, you get the narrativist genre, where rules matter, but it doesn't rely on any specific rule. That's why it's so hard to explain narrativism to a die hard fan of Dungeons & Dragons. Narrativism is about exploring different viewpoints.
If that's true for narrativism, how do I apply these principles to the other role-playing game genres?
Entry tags:
Dauntless: The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell
John Geary's knowledge of military tactics and protocols are from before he went into suspended animation 100 years ago during a battle against the corporate Syndicate. In the meantime, he has become a legend, and he has to struggle with the differences between expectations and reality. He's thrust into the command role, taking control of a fleet of 200 ships, and each book covers two related adventures as they try to make their way back home from behind enemy lines.
The Lost Fleet is about commanding hundreds of ships and all of the politics and morale involved in that. It’s a good series, but Jack Campbell starts with the bar set a little too low, emphasizing pure quantity and removing any tactical maneuvers. It’s sort of like the first couple of times people play Storm of the Armadas, where the battles turn into a joust, so I suppose it's natural.
Like Storm of the Armadas, it simplifies things by starting both sides with essentially the same technologies. This series also reminded me that human beings can’t react fast enough to aim and fire weapons over the sorts of distances and speeds that are common in space warfare.
More than any other story I’ve read, The Lost Fleet emphasizes the delays between giving orders and having them executed. Quite often the characters actually take naps between engagements. Jack Campbell is the first sci-fi writer I've read that does this. What he doesn't do is explore the resulting PTSD, although that would make for a very different story.
The Lost Fleet is about commanding hundreds of ships and all of the politics and morale involved in that. It’s a good series, but Jack Campbell starts with the bar set a little too low, emphasizing pure quantity and removing any tactical maneuvers. It’s sort of like the first couple of times people play Storm of the Armadas, where the battles turn into a joust, so I suppose it's natural.
Like Storm of the Armadas, it simplifies things by starting both sides with essentially the same technologies. This series also reminded me that human beings can’t react fast enough to aim and fire weapons over the sorts of distances and speeds that are common in space warfare.
More than any other story I’ve read, The Lost Fleet emphasizes the delays between giving orders and having them executed. Quite often the characters actually take naps between engagements. Jack Campbell is the first sci-fi writer I've read that does this. What he doesn't do is explore the resulting PTSD, although that would make for a very different story.
Entry tags:
Gambling for Face in the MLC
I've figured out the primary resolution system for Metropole Luxury Coffin (MLC), and it has its roots in Texas hold'em poker, except that you only keep track of the number of pairs.
Everyone gets dealt from 0-4 cards, depending upon their skill, situation, and whether or not they're assisting someone else. The GM then starts dealing the community cards into the center of the table, with everyone able to do 1 action per round before the GM deals another community card.
Tasks have a limited number of actions/community cards that may be played. If the player manages to achieve enough pairs, then it is a success.
Conflicts are a little more complex. Everyone gets to bid face points from their character's pool, and must match the highest bid before the end of the round. Alternatively, if the bidding escalates too quickly, a character may withdraw. When someone calls for it to be over, all the cards are shown and the number of pairs totaled.
This is just the basic MLC resolution system. I'll explain the more advanced rules in a future post.
I want to clarify that conflict represents two people opposing one another, not conflict resolution as I'm exploring in my dissertation. This form of conflict only deals with what the characters do, not what they hope to achieve.
Everyone gets dealt from 0-4 cards, depending upon their skill, situation, and whether or not they're assisting someone else. The GM then starts dealing the community cards into the center of the table, with everyone able to do 1 action per round before the GM deals another community card.
Tasks have a limited number of actions/community cards that may be played. If the player manages to achieve enough pairs, then it is a success.
Conflicts are a little more complex. Everyone gets to bid face points from their character's pool, and must match the highest bid before the end of the round. Alternatively, if the bidding escalates too quickly, a character may withdraw. When someone calls for it to be over, all the cards are shown and the number of pairs totaled.
This is just the basic MLC resolution system. I'll explain the more advanced rules in a future post.
I want to clarify that conflict represents two people opposing one another, not conflict resolution as I'm exploring in my dissertation. This form of conflict only deals with what the characters do, not what they hope to achieve.
Entry tags:
How to Design a Better Game
My friend Rob Paterson has analyzed and created a breakdown of good storytelling here. Since games often incorporate stories, I'd like to show how it applies to good game design, and how even better characters can come from it. Let's look at Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard (DitV).
DitV is a very structured tabletop role-playing game about holy justice-bringers in the wild west. It's based loosely upon the Mormon religion, exaggerating the violence.The characters travel from town to town, rooting out and fighting heretics and demons. Effectively, DitV is a story about establishing and maintaining order (#8 on Reiss' list). This is the level that Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) operates at, too, although I suspect that D&D is more accumulating something (called "12. Saving" on Reiss' list) than creating order.
The thing that differentiates DitV from D&D is that,in DitV, the plot isn't the core question around which the story revolves. There's a struggle between ethics, as shown by the code of conduct developed by the players, and morality, as shown by the individual character. Is it okay to root out evil? To what degree will you punish sinners? The story is actually about self-actualization. The difficulty of creating a game around self-actualization is that it needs a certain amount of flexibility.
Premade scenarios, like those created for D&D, assume that characters have had certain encounters and those encounters resulted in certain conclusions (such as victory, or at least survival). DitV seeks to allow characters, and, by extension, their players, to explore those self-actualization questions without assuming any particular answer. In return, the gamemaster's job is to create scenarios that respond to and challenge the previous answers that each player character came up with.
Yes, this is all possible in D&D, but DitV focuses upon this morality/ethical struggle. The twist is that the code of conduct in DitV, the ethics, were designed collectively by the players and rewarded by the rules, while moral codes are handled individually and punished by the rules. Add onto this the usual individual desires and subplots. Because the story is about self-actualization, a good gamemaster can use those to artificially conflate desires with sin. After all, desires are individual, and DitV punishes individuality.
This layered approach to generating a meaningful story is a good one, but I wouldn't want to make it any more complex than this. Additional layers would just make it confusing.
DitV is a very structured tabletop role-playing game about holy justice-bringers in the wild west. It's based loosely upon the Mormon religion, exaggerating the violence.The characters travel from town to town, rooting out and fighting heretics and demons. Effectively, DitV is a story about establishing and maintaining order (#8 on Reiss' list). This is the level that Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) operates at, too, although I suspect that D&D is more accumulating something (called "12. Saving" on Reiss' list) than creating order.
The thing that differentiates DitV from D&D is that,in DitV, the plot isn't the core question around which the story revolves. There's a struggle between ethics, as shown by the code of conduct developed by the players, and morality, as shown by the individual character. Is it okay to root out evil? To what degree will you punish sinners? The story is actually about self-actualization. The difficulty of creating a game around self-actualization is that it needs a certain amount of flexibility.
Premade scenarios, like those created for D&D, assume that characters have had certain encounters and those encounters resulted in certain conclusions (such as victory, or at least survival). DitV seeks to allow characters, and, by extension, their players, to explore those self-actualization questions without assuming any particular answer. In return, the gamemaster's job is to create scenarios that respond to and challenge the previous answers that each player character came up with.
Yes, this is all possible in D&D, but DitV focuses upon this morality/ethical struggle. The twist is that the code of conduct in DitV, the ethics, were designed collectively by the players and rewarded by the rules, while moral codes are handled individually and punished by the rules. Add onto this the usual individual desires and subplots. Because the story is about self-actualization, a good gamemaster can use those to artificially conflate desires with sin. After all, desires are individual, and DitV punishes individuality.
This layered approach to generating a meaningful story is a good one, but I wouldn't want to make it any more complex than this. Additional layers would just make it confusing.
Entry tags:
Stuck Designing a Gambling Game
I haven’t posted much about Metropole Luxury Coffin (MLC) because I’m redesigning the action resolution system. There are several requirements for the system, including:
- it needs to incorporate gambling, because I want to tie reputation into action resolution
- if I’m sticking with cards, the the hand sizes need to stay small (like texas hold’em poker)
- the system needs to give a slight advantage to teams, but not overwhelmingly so
Unfortunately, it’s this last requirement that throws off most gambling games. Most gambling games are either balanced (like poker), or very unbalanced in favor of the house (like roulette). It doesn’t work when there may be multiple sides that get that advantage.
There are a couple of optional bonuses that I’d like to work in, mutual failure and over-success. I’m planning on turning MLC into something of a comedy game, and it’s funnier if everything goes wrong.
So, having exhausted most gambling games, I’m looking for inspiration in other games. I know that RPGs tend to focus upon individuals, but I can adapt systems from both board and card games, too.
- it needs to incorporate gambling, because I want to tie reputation into action resolution
- if I’m sticking with cards, the the hand sizes need to stay small (like texas hold’em poker)
- the system needs to give a slight advantage to teams, but not overwhelmingly so
Unfortunately, it’s this last requirement that throws off most gambling games. Most gambling games are either balanced (like poker), or very unbalanced in favor of the house (like roulette). It doesn’t work when there may be multiple sides that get that advantage.
There are a couple of optional bonuses that I’d like to work in, mutual failure and over-success. I’m planning on turning MLC into something of a comedy game, and it’s funnier if everything goes wrong.
So, having exhausted most gambling games, I’m looking for inspiration in other games. I know that RPGs tend to focus upon individuals, but I can adapt systems from both board and card games, too.
Entry tags:
How to Design a Board Game
The local library where I’m volunteering has hired someone to run a board game design event. No, not me, but a designer that I respect for his ability to teach game design. I signed up for it, only to find out I was the only one to do so. That discovery inspired me to start a one-man crusade to promote the event.
Because the event isn't a competition, I plan on designing a game around what I refer to as the Carnival of Shadows (or Carnival for short). The Carnival will eventually be several small games based around the same fictional community. That community has the power to make their shadows come alive and move independently for a night. I wanted to remove the stigma of shadows and associate them with parties and fun. I plan on designing the first minigame at this event. I don’t know if it’s going to work or not, but we’ll find out!
Because the event isn't a competition, I plan on designing a game around what I refer to as the Carnival of Shadows (or Carnival for short). The Carnival will eventually be several small games based around the same fictional community. That community has the power to make their shadows come alive and move independently for a night. I wanted to remove the stigma of shadows and associate them with parties and fun. I plan on designing the first minigame at this event. I don’t know if it’s going to work or not, but we’ll find out!
Entry tags:
Yet More Revisions
No, the editor hasn't returned the most recent version of Storm of the Armadas (SotA) yet, but I've decided to change it enough that the new version will have to be edited, too. Fortunately, the changes will only affect certain sections of the game, so hopefully my editor won't be facing as much work.
This version includes a few changes to how the flip order is handled, eliminating the need for two-sided velocity counters. That comes at a cost, however, in that the counters have to be two-sided or you need twice as many counters. Not only that, but, while the flotilla counters will still have weapon arcs marked on them, those arcs won't be accompanied by the ship codes. I planned on inserting an image comparing the two, but it seems I first need to upload it somewhere else. Ah, the hazards of not having webspace.
The new version of SotA also cuts down on the number of ships in each flotilla, meaning a reduction in record keeping.
Overall, the game plays the same as before. These are just tweaks to the system.
This version includes a few changes to how the flip order is handled, eliminating the need for two-sided velocity counters. That comes at a cost, however, in that the counters have to be two-sided or you need twice as many counters. Not only that, but, while the flotilla counters will still have weapon arcs marked on them, those arcs won't be accompanied by the ship codes. I planned on inserting an image comparing the two, but it seems I first need to upload it somewhere else. Ah, the hazards of not having webspace.
The new version of SotA also cuts down on the number of ships in each flotilla, meaning a reduction in record keeping.
Overall, the game plays the same as before. These are just tweaks to the system.
Entry tags:
News from the Editor
I just got the most recent version of Storm of the Armadas back from my editor. Besides the usual raft of minor changes, he suggested that I do a major revision of the rules, maintaining that they're poorly organized. I can see his point, too. So...back to work. The game will need at least one more round of revision and editing. I hate that these delays are piling up, but I do believe that the game is getting noticeably better each time.