 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) gobi | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The combat discussion from the previous post brought up this idea: How do you design a combat mechanic based on the principles of nonviolence? Initially, this idea came out of the deflection/redirection in soft martial arts, but drifted off into one of those "how design reveals the designer's philosophy" things. So, a nonviolent combat system goes something like this: 1) You use your talking skills to whittle down an opponent's rage meter.
2) Meanwhile, the opponent is attacking you and trying to whittle down your hit points. The opponent has hit points, too, but you are not allowed to counter-attack.
3) Your only physical option can be one of the three following skills, in order of difficulty:
a) Take the damage: Meaning whatever damage the opponent rolls is how many hit points you lose. Pretty much anyone can do this.
b) Negate the damage: Meaning that some of the damage the opponent rolls is erased before it is inflicted upon you.
c) Redirect the damage: Meaning that the damage the opponent rolls is not negated, but instead inflicted upon another target, even the opponent himself.
4) The ultimate goal of combat is to reduce the opponent's rage meter by talking, before either of you loses all your hit points. I am curious if opponents need hit points in this system. Perhaps only you have hit points and only the opponent has a rage meter. Therefore, any damage redirected towards the opponent might reduce the rage? Doesn't seem to make sense though. Hulk getting punched doesn't make him any less angry. Fundamentally, I like deadline mechanics. I like having to meet a particular condition for victory, but must rely on partially random and partially tactical decisions to meet that precondition. In this case, the goal is to buy enough time for nonviolence to do its work before violence overwhelms all participants. What would be interesting is if the criticisms of nonviolence were somehow embedded in this system, too. Both views on the subject could have mechanical representation in the same game, really making a player consider her own beliefs. Tags: ideas, nonviolence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gobi | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my mind, pilgrims try to solve problems diplomatically when possible, engaging in defensive actions only when necessary. It's not as concrete an ethos in the mechanics as it is in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or Doctor Who, though.
With Avatar: the Last Airbender being a prime inspiration for the game, it's not surprising if combat might happen in a story. (Barring any agreements made beforehand, naturally.) I didn't want to encourage it, but I also didn't want to discourage it. To coin a phrase, I tried to make the system combat-agnostic.
Combat does not have its own unique sub-system nor are there mechanics that make combat actions less effective than any other. Because play is so structured, there is no need for "initiative" per se. Because there are no hit points, obstacles may be overcome with diplomacy or artistry or cookery as easily as fightery. The game's stats and statuses do not make some actions more effective, they give constraints to player narration to encourage each pilgrim to have unique styles of problem-solving, whatever arts that may entail be they martial or otherwise.
But, even if mechanics are agnostic when it comes to combat, I don't just want to say "Pilgrims don't usually fight" without offering tools or advice. Let's face it, a lot of kids grow up with action heroes who never meet a problem they can't punch, kick or shoot their way out of. Doctor Who, as noted, is a remarkable exception, but even he is more of an action hero in his modern incarnations. For every one MacGyver, there are ten Jet Li's or Pokémon.
With role models like these, it could be tough thinking of a way to handle a problem without violence, even if there are no mechanical incentives to do so.
Right, so to my point, I am looking for any real-world advice on non-violent resistance, dealing with bullies, rules of engagement, and any other similar materials. I'll adapt these into an article that can go in the main rulebook about how to solve problems without violence.
If you know of any such resources that are clear, concise and readable, please pass them along to me in the comments, email, or twitter. Tags: do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gobi | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fred Hicks linked to this review of the new Doctor Who RPG. Specifically calling out the initiative system.
One thing that I had to make especial mention of is the phasing system in rounds of conflict (not necessarily combat.) The bias of the game against violent conflict resolution strongly shows here. Basically, what you are going to do that round determines what order you go in. The order is basically: Talkers, Movers, Doers, and Fighters. As examples: If you're going to talk your way out of a situation, you go first. If you're going to run for cover, you go second. If you're going to use a skill of some sort, or try to do some sort of 'timey-wimey' thing, you go third. If you're going to shoot up the place, you go fourth. This is a very different way of handling conflict rounds than most RPGs do, and it has its appeal. It very closely reflects the mood of the series (even Daleks appear to pause for one of the Doctor's soliloquies) and it is a different take on 'who goes first' in a conflict round.
This, combined with the thoughts from the previous post make me think of the real power of that FATE/Do system.
When you go first, you get first dibs on drawing from the bag, which gives you control of the fate of who ever goes after you. That means if Talkers go first, they get a LOT of influence over the probability.
Let's say you're playing a big diplomat, kind of like the Doctor, but you frequently come up against fighty types, again like the Doctor. A Talker like the Doctor may face some troubles from these fighters, but he is always able to win the day (even if at some cost.) What REALLY gives a Talker problems is another Talker, thus the Doctor's more persistent intellectual rivals like the Master. But let's get back to the mechanics.
Even if you had a poor draw, say øø--, you can still put those -s and øs back into the bag to make sure the fighters don't catch any break. Ah, but if you have a good draw, say ++-ø, you can keep some of those successes to make it that much more likely the fighters will draw poorly.
This becomes even more powerful if you allow draws of one-to-four stones. Let's say we used an utterly simplified version of FATE's skill pyramid. There are four skills: Talking, Moving, Doing and Fighting. You must prioritize these skills for your character so they are ranked 1, 2, 3, or 4.
When you draw to perform either of these actions, you may draw that many stones from the bag. So if you're Talking is 3, you may draw three stones.
The turn order remains as noted above, Talking, Moving, Doing, Fighting act in that order. What's different is how ties are resolved. The player who has the higher skill may go first, which gives her the advantage by letting her draw more AND draw sooner than her opponents. This gives her a step up when the Doctor faces an opponent who is normally a fighter, but tries to talk. Tags: do, doctor who, fate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gobi | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, still writing the big transcript-format examples of play, but I just wanted to toss a quick idea out there for FATE folk. I can't shake the feeling I wrote about this before, years ago, but now I've got a concrete procedure in Do to compare and contrast to FATE.
See, the good people at Evil Hat Productions are producing Do, but their house system is the popular FUDGE-adaptation FATE. Being a FUDGE-based system, FATE uses special dice that have two symbols. Two sides are +, two other sides are -, and the remaining two sides are blank. Four of these dice are rolled, the +s added, the -s subtracted, and then compared to this chart. In general, more +s mean you do better. And when you toss in the Aspects and so on, it's a very different system from Do's.
In Do, you use black and white stones in a bag instead of dice. Each turn, three stones are drawn and you choose whether to keep the black or white, then return the unchosen stones back into the bag. Keeping more stones generally means you do better in the short term, but the colors of stones you keep and the color of stones in the bag have long-term effects in the story.
The cool thing about the stones-in-a-bag system is that each player's action feeds into the probability... the fate, if you will... of each subsequent player's turn. It would be interesting if you could bring that aesthetic into a game system actually called FATE, y'know? So here's a first thought.
BASICS
Instead of dice, the group has a bag with stones that come in three colors. Each color effectively takes the place of the plus +, minus -, and blank ø. The colors should be of equal number, so a typical game might have 15 stones of each color in the bag.
Instead of rolling four dice when you want to perform a daring deed, you pull four stones.
Those four stones are added up just like a roll of the dice in traditional FUDGE, and compared to the chart.
After that resolution is complete, you may keep some of these stones, but with a few restrictions as noted below.
KEEPING STONES
You may keep a +, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of øs from that same draw. You may keep a ø, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of -s from that same draw.
For example, if you rolled + ø ø -, you could keep one - and one ø. You couldn't keep more than the single ø because there are not enough -s to allow you to do so.
If your draw is missing one of those symbols, then prerequisites noted above are a little different.
If your draw has only ø and -: You may keep a ø, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of -s from that same draw. You cannot keep any +s, obviously, because there are none in that draw.
If your draw has only + and ø: You may keep a +, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of øs from that same draw. You can ignore the prerequisite -s.
If your draw has only + and -: You may not keep any +s, but you may keep as many -s as you like.
FATE
Once you've chosen which stones to keep, put them in a cup, where they won't get mixed up with anyone else's supply of stones.
The remaining stones go back into the bag.
Early on, you're drawing a fairly balanced set of stones. But, by choosing to keep the -s, you make it more likely that future players (including yourself) will draw ø or +. In time, by keeping more øs, you will make +s more likely, too.
Over the long term, the stones you keep may reflect a plot arc or a character's growth, depending on your particular story.
PACING
The biggest pacing difference between Do and FATE is the frequency of fortune coming into play.
In Do, one bag lasts the whole session. The procedure of play is very, very structured. More like a board game than what you might expect from an RPG. Each player literally takes turns and on her turn, she makes one draw from the bag. It's easy to figure out the pacing of the story based on this rigorous structure of play. We can set guidelines for how many stones should be in the bag, offer suggestions for lengthening or shortening a session, and even predict how many turns are in the average game session.
Contrast this with FUDGE, where a dice roll would come as frequently as players and GMs deem necessary, often not following any particular turn order (unless initiative rules are invoked). A player could make three rolls in a row, then the player next to her could make one roll, then the first player could make two more, then a third player could jump in suddenly with a string of rolls of his own.
If Do followed FATE's the free-wheeling roll-when-you-want-to attitude, the bag would b e emptied in minutes. Ah, but that is assuming this FATE hack keeps the one-bag-per-story assumption in Do. Perhaps another aesthetic is called for.
Perhaps there are, in fact, three bags per session, following a three-act story structure. That may literally be three separate bags, each with equal sets of stones.
The easier solution is to simply refill the bag once it has fewer than four stones in it. As you feel the bag getting lighter and lighter, the GM and players can build towards a climax.
Each act might follow different prerequisite rules, too, so the first act might encourage you to keep blanks, the second act encourages pluses, etc. Perhaps your game has some flavor that would encourage one or the other, I dunno.
---
Okay, those are my thoughts for now. I leave this to FATE fans to tweak and hack at your leisure.
How do Fate Points work in this system?
Where do Aspects come in?
How about skill checks and experience points? Tags: do, fate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reviewingchris | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  Baroness w/Dark Castle, ?????, Tuesday, December 8, Houston, TX@ Warehouse Live Studio I arrived shortly after 9 on Tuesday night to find a band already playing. It consisted of a drummer and a guitarist/vocalist, which is essentially the same lineup as Dark Castle, who was supposed to open the show. Except that Dark Castle is a guitar/drums duo fronted by a woman, and this band was assuredly not. I didn’t ever catch the first band’s name, but I will update if I figure it out. Because it’s worth knowing the names of bands I want to stay far, far away from. Every song they played was the same- breakneck blastbeats and super-fast guitar playing and not a riff to be found. Look, I like heavy metal, but just playing as fast as possible and doing cookie monster vocals does not make for quality music. Granted, there were brief moments when the drummer changed up the beat and the music slowed down for a bit, but not enough to make this band stand out. At least the group’s two members were able to keep pace with each other, but they seem to have no concept of songwriting. Dark Castle ended up coming on second, while listed second band Iron Age was nowhere to be found with no explanation. At first, I liked the second duo of the night. The polar opposite of the first band, Dark Castle specialized in slow, drawn-out music. Oppressive, lingering guitar chords played over crawling beats and shouted/growled vocals. It sounded cool, and Dark Castle at least understood that slower often sounds heavier. Unfortunately, slow and oppressive turned out to be the band’s only trick. Songs went on for 8-10 minutes, and the only way I could notice a difference was because the band stopped for brief periods in between. Except for one point about 20 minutes into the set where the music suddenly stopped because of some technical malfunction, which ground things to a halt for a good 5 minutes. But even this interruption didn’t do much to help Dark Castle find any variety. Baroness did their own setup (no roadies for them so far) and took the stage of Warehouse Live’s smaller studio room shortly before 11:00. By then the crowd had swelled from maybe 60 people to close to 200, a nice turnout for a relatively small band on a weeknight. The band was in fine form, playing most of their new album Blue Record while also throwing in a handful of songs from their debut, Red Album to huge crowd response. But the audience was receptive to every song the band played- clearly most in attendance were familiar with the new album. The band’s chops were in great shape, as drummer Allen Blickle pounded away while guitarists John Baizley and Peter Adams effortlessly played the band’s signature guitarmonies and chunky riffs. Summer Welch held down the low end on bass, playing actual basslines instead of simply mirroring the guitars. The show opened with Blue Record’s first three songs, “Bullhead’s Psalm”, “The Sweetest Curse”, and “Jake Leg.” It was great to watch Baizley bellow away the vocals, ably assisted by Adams. I came to Baroness backwards, so I’m not as familiar with the Red Album material. That meant my personal highlights of the show were the awesome “A Horse Named Golgotha” and the one-two punch of “Steel That Sleeps the Eye” and “Swollen and Halo.” The former opened with the slow, distortion-drenched intro of “Ogeechee Hymnal” before exploding into the main song with its distinctive triumphant major key guitar riff. The latter two songs also went together, as “Steel” is an acoustic ballad that segues perfectly into the more muscular “Swollen and Halo.” Their performance was dead-perfect, and it was a welcome change to hear actual melodies after two hours and two bands with none of them. I had to bail on the show a bit early as it was a weeknight, but it was an impressive concert nonetheless. Tags: baroness, dark castle, metal, warehouse live
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
calm