Agents of Violent Change (Content, Mechanics)

Getting back to what the PCs do (and building off THIS post),, one of the really good pieces of advice I got from a writing buddy of mine is that I need to keep the setting focused.  Rather than just present a detailed setting, there needs to be a clear "this is what you, the player, is supposed to do."  Obviously, the setting will allow for a whole lot of options for the PCs, but I think my friend is right.  I have been working on a setting element that can facilitate the type of play I think TDE is built for.  I want to highlight cinematic action set against the backdrop of a realistic (and dynamic) Solar System.  I want the PCs to affect change.  I want them to pilot kick-ass mecha in the form of Jammers.

Sorta like this guy.  But with a big ass robot   

To all those ends, I am planning on the default campaign style to be that of futuristic CIA-like operatives.  I recall a few years ago I watched a show on Discovery that was stroies about the Afghan and Iraq wars before hey became full-on wars.  In that series (whose name I cant remember) it followed a number of CIA  and special forces operators as they laid the ground work for the invasions or tracked down terrorists/insurgents.  It was fascinating stuff (and probably sensationalized quite a bit).  Thats what I want out of the PCs - to be the very tip of the spear of whatever is going to go down.  I want them to have all the cool toys of a full-on military, without the restrictive hierarchy.

Enter CAID (aka "Fatewatch")..

CAID is patterned a bit after the crisis analysis organization in Peter Watts brillant SF Rifters Saga.  As always, rough draft, spelling errors, blah, blah, blah... 

Vanguard Social Science -- The Complexity Analysis and Intelligence Directorate (CAID): CAID is an elite and very specialized Martian intelligence organization that works to anticipate the development of chaotic events by calculating and statistically analyzing the likelihood of natural disasters, social upheavals, conflicts, and other major events.  It is also empowered to eliminate those threats.  CAID pulls on the best and brightest of Mars, and aggressively recruits throughout the System.  CAID researchers, scientists, and engineers are provided with generous budgets and support staff to facilitate their projects.  However, the core mission of CAID remains the correct prediction of threats to Mars and its people - and an unsaid aspect of that prediction is to do so far enough in advance of a catastrophe to be able to enact meaningful change.  

CAID is colloquially known as the “Fatewatch” and usually referred to simply as “Core” by CAID’s field agents and paramilitary wing.  For most of CAID;s existence, it was simply referred to in official Martian government documents as “Antevortia” -- a simple placeholder for budgets and bookkeeping.  “Antevortia” is still used by many in the Burt administration, and “Antevortian” is a common pejorative term throughout the System to refer to anything that involves an unbelievable or complex conspiracy.  

The resources at CAID’s disposal are significant.  To aid in forecasting, the Directorate has over 200 supercomputers, most of which are integrated, running statistical analyses and regression techniques to identify threats at various points in the future and apply percentages to the likelihood of the threat’s outcome.  From there, CAID’s researchers and analysts review the data and work up reports that draw on history, social and physical sciences, and good old fashioned logical hunches.  The reports are used throughout the Martian government (and, in rare cases, its allies) to identify the threat, its severity and its possible outcomes.  Its not quite a science, but its damn close.  

CAID’s operations cell is particularly feared - rumored to both enact events that CAID predicted but have not come to pass as well as prematurely end any events CAID fears it cannot control.  This often leads to the Ops Cell eliminating seemingly innocuous politicians or destroying “random” space debris that forecasting identified as particularly problematic for the future foals of Mars.  Fatewatch’s forces are staffed by the best and more experienced that Mars has to offer.  CAID operates a sizable Jammer fleet.  Jammers have proven their utility time and time again for the diverse set of missions Core demands.  CAID also operates a number of interplaetary assets -- including a handful of spec ops cruisers, frigates, an extensive array of detection and comms gear spread throughout the system, and even a full-sized carrier.  

In those times a threat is too large to be dealt with by CAIDs elite, but small forces, it can request aid through the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of External Intelligence, Ministry of Home Affairs, or just about any government organization.  The fact that CAID operates under the Administrator’s office and is funded by a special line-item in the Martian budget means that it has considerable latitude and high-level support when it requests aid.  

The Directorate has had its fair share of notable successes and abysmal failures.  They did not successfully predict the dangers the Huns presented - only realizing the threat to Venus after astrophysicists in the public sector revealed their findings.  This oversight still serves as, a major black mark they are seeking to correct through enactment of the Erinyes Doctrine.  On the other end of the spectrum, CAID successfully anticipated the Jovian L4-L5 War as well as predicted the level of involvement of TORA and OCRI.  Its notable that while it is publically acknowledged that CAID predicted the L4-L5 War, what, if anything, it did clandestinely about the war is unknown.  Another feather in CAID’s cap was its prediction of the 2188 Martian executive election.  CAID’s leadership, at the orders of Administrator Sugiyama, worked up a detailed analysis of the likely outcomes - and noted their belief that Sugyama would narrowly lose the election (with a 65% likelihood).  Sugiyama ignored the analysis, believing that the data confidence was still quite high.  History proved him wrong when the analysis was later revealed in a bit of a scandal after Burt took office.  

+++

Truckin' right along.  We've done game theory  setting design, mechanics... its starting to fall into place.

Tweaking the ORE for TDE. FTW! (Mechanics)

Its time to talk about the baseline mechanics.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I plan to use the One Roll Engine (ORE) for TDE.  Tehere are a lot of things to like about the ORE.  Its a dicepool mechanic, with an upper limit so the dice and thee math never get too crazy.  Its a tried and true system, applied to a number of setting and genres.  Its also tied to a couple games I dearly love -- Monsters and Other Childish Things and Godlike.  Its also the house engine (to some extent) for Arc Dream Publishing -- which is home to some of my favorite people int he gaming industry.  So, all in all, using the ORE just feels right.

I am about to jump into some very weedy stuff on the ORE and its background mechanics.  If you are familiar with the ORE and how it works, check it out HERE

Of course, I can't leave well enough alone.  While I feel that the ORE is a very solid mechanic, there are parts that I don't like.  I don't like that the quality of a success is the most random part of the roll.  The Height of a roll is the part the character has the least control over.  Improved stats and skills lead to things being done quicker, not really done better (thats note entirely true, but its safe to say that the speed of an action is improved faster than the quality as stat+skill improves).  I strongly feel that as a character gets better at something, they should reliably improve the quality of their successes.

This leads me to a fairly drastic rules change (its no longer a tweak) - switching Height and Width and what they mean to success.  What I am exploring is the idea that a longer width means the quality of the success is better, and the Height dictates the speed by which something is accomplished (10 being fastest).  I;ve floated this idea to some people smarter than me, and the switch seems mechanically sound.  It does play with the probabilities slightly, and modified how Hard Dice and Wiggle Dice play with the results, but I can live with that.

So, thats our baseline mechanic.  Stat + Skill dicepool.  No more than 10 dice rolled at a time.  The gal is to get a pair.  Anything beyond a pair gives the roller (GM or PC) the ability add "extras" to the result (stuff like extra damage, a particularly skillful result, making something enduring, gaining back an expended resource -- whatever the roller can come up with that is appropriate to that challenge).

If you get a pair, the task was successful.  If the player gets two pairs (or more) - they can choose which matching set they want to use.

From here , I have a lot of ideas.  Complex challenges will remove dice from the dicepool along something like this:

No Roll = Easy Task
+1 die for an Easy but Dramatic Task
No Modifier for a Difficult task (this is the baseline modifier and assumption of challenge)
-1 die for something hard
-2 die for something really hard
-3 die for something that only an expert can complete, and even then with a good change of failure
-4 die for something extremely difficult, even for a veteran
-5 Hail Mary!

+++

Other ideas I am kicking around is that the players can voluntarily remove dice from their pool before a roll to get other advantages (called "benefits" or just "benes").  Remove (or "sacrifice") a die to add +1 to the final Height (including pushing a result over 10 on the Height).  Remove a die to attempt multiple actions (in this case, you pull out a die for each action you want to attempt and hope you get more than one pair).  Remove 2 dice to get a free Savvy Die (SD) starting at 1.  Add more Savvy dice to add another die at 2... and so on (so, 6 dice spent on a roll can give three SD - one at 1, one at 2, and one at 3).  No more than one SD for each value.  You might also remove a die to improve your defensive stat.

...stuff like that.

Then, when its time for action, all the players and GM pick up their dice, secretly remove their dice they want to spend on "benes"

Oh yeah, the kicker to Benes?  You dont have to declare before hand what you are spending your sacrificed dice on.  You can see the result of the dice and then decide what you spent the sacrifices on.  If you sacrificed 3 dice and the results weren't what you were looking for, you can change your plans and use those three sacrifices any way you want.

So, f'rex:

I have a dicepool of 7.  I initially decide I want to buy my first SD (a value of 1).  I pull out two dice from my dice pool (the sacrifices) and set them aside.  When the GM calls it, I roll the remainder of my pool.  The results come up 2,2,5,8,9.

Okay, so I didn't get a 1 and so that SD I was planning on is useless.  Instead, I decide to use the two sacrifices to improve the Height of my pair - moving the pair's Height to a 4 (rolled a 2 + 1 sacrifice + another sacrifice).  The GM looks around the table, identifies the highest pair - and asks if anyone is going to beat that pair's Height with spent sacrifices... my 4 is no where close to that result  so I wait for my turn.

If I had rolled a 1,1,3,5,6.  Then we are talking!  The SD matches the 1s - not only giving me a pair, but a triple Width match.  Though slow, whatever I tried to do I did quite well.  When it comes to my turn I tell the GM I had two sacrifices and use them for a SD.

Of course, you dont have to use your sacrifices if you don't want.

+++

These changes are pretty significant and range from tweaks to outright punches in the face of the ORE.  There is still a lot to consider mechanically, but so far, the baseline of switching the Height and Width seem to make sense.

Stay tuned, I got some more ideas up my sleeve.

Deciding What the PCs Do. (Mechanics)

What do the PCs do in TDE? 

This is a pretty common quesrion when I end up talking about the setting with some of my friends who have designed games.  Its one of those core questions that good designers build their game around.   Jared Sorensen, who is a bit like the mafia don of the indie rpg movement, has done a lot of thinking on what makes a good rpg.  Some of his conclusions can be found here:  http://memento-mori.livejournal.com/288677.html

Each test, a challenge.  

Of note are his “3 Questions?”  These questions, once answered, help hone a game’s concept to a razor (and playable) edge.  What does the game do?  Why does it do this?  Is it doing what it is supposed to? 

When designing and exploring other games, I have struggled with Sorensen’s three questions – which is reflective of the quality of my ideas rather than the utility of the questions.  To be frank, I haven’t done a lot of thinking about the three questions in regards to TDE.  Instead, I focused on the depth and plot points of the setting.  Now that the setting is taking on a life of its own, its high time to runt to Sorensen’s three questions.  It’s time to really think about the PCs, their role in the game, and how to build the game to support my goals.

The thing about the three questions is that it really focuses on the “game” part of roleplaying games.  RPGs are composed of a number of elements, but the mechanics and setting are the two foundations.  

I am favor setting over mechanics.  Ever since  I got into rpgs back in the late 80s, I defined games not by their mechanics, but by how much I liked the setting.  Good setting could trump crappy mechanics in my book.  My focus on setting makes the three questions a bit of a hurdle for me – the answers they prompt do not come as easily to me as for others.  That said, the best rpgs are the ones where mechanics and setting support one another.  So, just because its hard, or I don’t get the essence of the questions in my first answers, doesn’t mean I can shy away from the questions.

One important caveat (and CYA) before I get into it – answering the three questions is an ongoing process.  It’s a thought exercise that can, and should, continually evolve as the game takes more shape.  So, my expectation is that I will need to revisit the three questions from time to time. 

Q: WHAT IS YOUR GAME ABOUT?
Jared Says:  If you write a D&D clone, your game is not about "adventuring in a medieval fantasy world." Your game is about characters advancing in efficacy in order to meet greater and greater challenges.”  Do not confuse the genre, setting or color details with what's most important: the premise and structure of the game.

A: What TDE Is About:

The game is about characters (Jammer Pilots) using ever more advanced technology – black ops and experimental stuff – while being given tougher and tougher missions in order to affect positive and significant change in the setting. 

Q: HOW DOES IT GO ABOUT THAT?
Jared Says:  If you're designing that D&D clone and you put in a lifepath system as part of character creation, what does that accomplish? In order to fufill the requirements set by the first question, you must "put your money where your mouth is" with the discrete game elements. If that lifepath is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect the character's abilities or the game mechanics, then why is it in there?

A: How TDE Gets There:  

TDE will use the One Roll Engine as the baseline.  Its is mechanically sound, easy to learn, quick to execute, and offers interesting modification options.  Building from the ORE, TDE will create mechanics that allow the players to “requisition” advanced technologies to tailor their equipment loadout to the mission at hand.  TDE will offer the GM and players opportunities to mechanically change setting elements. 

Q: WHAT BEHAVIORS DOES IT REWARD AND/OR ENCOURAGE?
Jared Says:  The obvious game element to focus on as a "reward" is some kind of character advancement system. But this can go the other way as well; what behaviors does the game punish and/or discourage? If the ultimate goal of Call of Cthulhu is to die or go insane, does the game encourage this? Do insane characters get special abilities? Or is running/fighting rewarded and encouraged (as it is in Dungeons & Dragons)?

A: What Behaviors TDE Will Reward:

I want TDE to encourage cinematic moments. I want the system to encourage players to have their PCs take chances – and go for the big win – the type of win that shakes the foundation of the Solar System.  

+++

I need to do some thinking about the mechanics, me thinks.