Tactical Ops - ...of Setting and Usability and Publishing

[Hasimir]

My final aim is to devise a way to allow Players to play their adventures in a SPECIFIC setting (think Shadowrun, think Dark Sun, think SLA Induesties or Degenesis or whatever) in a zero-prep way, without the need for someone to study a ponderous book full of endless info.

Here I'm going to explain how TOps works as a "generic" game, and how Players can produce their own settings, and from there how I am thinking of implementing a way to get the benefits of a specific Setting without all the hassle and work, and its Pros and Cons both in usability and being a publishable product.

After that has been cleared, I would like to receive comments about such idea :)

- - -

As it stands now, TOps is presented as a "generic" game.
Players can just say "Let's play Fantasy" and roll with it.
Communication rules like Veto and Disagreement will then provide a quick and effective way to sync everybody's ideas on the spot, while playing.
Also, the Detail system on which the game is founded allows Players to give mechanical relevance to anything they might inject into the Fiction with no need of pre-defined or balanced game-stats ... this also make it very easy to just sit down and play and work kinks out on the fly.

This already works as it is.
To such stucture I have added to the system a common technique: the Pitch.
As we sit down and start the game, we are presented with a few simple questions to help us get on the same page about the Setting we want to play in, and the nature of our Team of PCs.

At this point you have a game that allows Players to play together with little or no setting materials needed.
Thanks to the way communication and contributions to the Fiction work, this also allows Players to turn such a generic setting into THEIR own setting, as details pile up and stuff gets defined and discovered and explored... places get named and populated, NPCs get named and defined, etc.

This structure is natively conductive to what I call the "PlayerPedia".
It is basically the natural extension of the previous concept where, in addition to shape the game setting "as you like", you also have one (or more) Players that are familiar with the chosen color/genre/setting and are tasked by the table to work as a sort of human-wikipedia.
A Player may ask for "some kind of armor, but cyber-something!" and the PlayerPedia will fill in the colour for him, maybe telling how he can choose between Orthoskin (a chemical treatment to make your skin kevlar-like) and Dermal Plating (surgical implantation of armored plates under the skin) but not get NanoCoating (a coating of nano-machines that react on impact by dispersing the force of the blow) because another Player Veto-ed such an advanced technology to keep the game more hard-tech and gritty... or he may explain how a virtual-reality-attack-program is called ICE in cyberpunk jargon, and your "warrior" PC is actually called "street samurai", and modern drugs are more likely to be chips that offer addictive Better Than Life sensations instead of the old fashioned chemicals... etc.
It's not ao much an authority, as a "service" that one (or more) Player provides because he is a fan/expert of that specific colour/genre/setting.

The PlayerPedia works well for both generic-setting/color/genre and to conjure a specific known Setting.
But while it is usually OK for generic stuff of the kind mentioned above, it gets more tricky if we want to go for a specific Setting with specific places, npcs, stuff AND it still presumes that at least one Player is familiar with the source material.

So we meet the other part of the problem: the Source Material.
Usually you have to sift through endless and mostly tedious books full of colorful but quite useless info... stuff you may never use in actual play, and that will conjure a vivid image of a vibrant and interesting world only into your head because no one else is going to read such a tome.

If you are lucky you end up with a book more akin to "The World Of Near", which is the same as before but with most of the crap cut out.
You get much more playable and play-ready stuff, but you are still going to be the only keeper of the sacred knowledge, and you still have to study the book beforehand.

I don't know of any other delivery-methods for setting material... please illuminate me if any of you do :)

So, what is my idea?
My idea is to follow on the tWoN road and go one step ahead in the usability direction.
My idea is... a deck of cards.

Imagine you get hooked on the idea of playing your next adventure in the SLA Industries setting.
No one at the table knows shit about it, except that it is sooo coool :P
Now imagine the original SLA book, so full of crap.
Cut the crap and make it tWoN-like, with only useful info.
Cut the book into bite sized pieces... you are left with a list of stuff that is typical and characteristic to the SLA setting: places, creatures, organizations, items, etc.
Each one is represented by a few pages of text about it, maybe some stats and numbers, etc.
Cut again, cut deeper, cut until you are left with ONE page, one LITTLE page (maybe A5, maybe less) of useful and evocative info and maybe ONE picture of the setting-element described in the one little page...
Cut away numbers and stats, you don't need them in TOps...
Cut away the most obvious physical descriptions and fluff, the picture you have is enough...

There.
Now you have a set of little decks of cards and one-page descriptions.
You sit at the table.
You read to the other Players the one tiny INTRO card that explains the baseline concepts of the SLA setting.
And then you start playing.
Whenever you need a place, and item, a creature... you just have to choose one card from the appropriate deck, maybe because you like the picture, or its name, or some keyword you spotted... or you can pick at random and be surprised...
So you get this one card, read the linked tiny-one-page info to everybody, and that's it... you are now officially playing in the SLA setting, learning it on the fly as you play the game, and ALL your fellow Players learn with you.

You use only the info you need, when you need it.
No need to study stuff beforehand, or to be the only keeper of the knowledge.
You also obtain a way to randomly pick stuff.
And a full set of "visual aids" to enrich the play experience.

Also, this should change the way people expand the setting... without cards all setting-relevant info created through play are usually noted on a general sheet of paper in a more or less confused way: names, people, places, other annotations.
They sit there as a sort of memento, not something that may consistently be used in play in the future... just names on a sheet.

Having an already established set of cards instead should inspire Players to build on what is already being used, writing down stuff in card-shape... this would make the expansions to the original setting much more consistent and usable, much more "canon", something that will actually return over time.

. . .

That is my idea... any comments?

Also, I'm considering HOW exactly to develop the cards.
I see two options.
In Option A there are only cards.
Each card represents one setting element.
On one side sits an illustration of such element.
On the other side there is the text naming and describing that element.
Special rules tailored for the setting will also be VERY brief and card-shaped.

In Option B there are cards and there is also a little booklet (maybe A5, maybe smaller).
On one side sits an illustration of such element and a page number.
On the other side sits the setting logo, or maybe the card-type logo (places, people, items, etc).
Then the booklet keeps all the one-page descriptions, easily found thanks to the page number on the linked card -- variant rules will also go there, with maybe some extra breathing space.

Now, option A looks sexyer and more toy-like, which for me is a plus; also the cards feel more useful.
But thinking in terms of publishing, it should be best to have language-neutral cards and only have to translate separately the booklet; also option B would allow for a bit more text space.

Comments?

PS: there is also another thing one could do with cards and smartphones... http://www.aurasma.com/
One idea could be to use cards as physical links to on-device game content.
It could be an alternative/backup for the booklet, or an evocative voice reading the text for you, or an animation of the static card-illustration, etc.

[RosenMcStern]

Hello Alessandro,

Your post was rather long and hard to read. If you tried to be more concise, you would probably receive more feedback. I think I have already told you this.

However, I took the time to check everything, and it was worth reading. Let us make a couple of considerations.

First of all, the problem of reading pages after pages of setting fluff is a problem that YOU have. Others are more than happy to read the aforementioned tomes, and consider it part of the fun. See Ron's essay "Setting and emergent stories".

So, the exigence of "not reading tomes" is not a general one. However, this exigence is clearly shared by a number of players, who prefer to "learn about the setting at the table". See Moreno's question to Nathan Paoletta in the thread about the Black Horse Troop, and Nathan's reply. I just wonder whether the majority of gamers prefers "tomes" or "quick instructions". It is a fact that people buy splatbooks. A lot of splatbooks.

That said, we remain with the question "How common is the exigence of avoiding big dissertations about the setting" unanswered, and we proceed to discuss if using cards can help those who do have the exigence. After all, there is surely someone who will find it useful.

I looked at your idea of using cards and a mini-manual. And my first reaction was "Hey! This can work!" In fact, many players would find it appealing. Here are examples of how this has actually worked in practice:

a) First of all, Lady Blackbird. The info about he Great Blue Yonder is sketchy, yet it is among the most evocative I have ever read. Everything is written as to be printable on player handouts. It would not be so difficult to fit everything on cards.

b) The computer game "Armageddon Empires". It is a strategic card-based post-apocalyptic game where you can command human, mutant, cyborg or alien troops and leaders. No fluff is written on the cards, but the name and picture are definitely enough to let you "get the feeling" of the unit or character. In fact, you tend to develop a strong affection to your leaders. It has a free demo, try it to see what I mean.

c) VII Legio, by Jove! It is a competitive Italian RPG from the early 80's that came with a book-sized encounter guide where each single page detailed a piece of equipment for your space centurion or an alien race you might encounter. The descriptions are all brief but very evocative, with minimal game stats such as "Combat 20, Diplomacy 5". And the artwork by Silvio Cadelo is often considered as the "Best RPG artwork seen in the 80s". Each entry could in fact fit on a small card, if you reduce the image size.

So yes, if you can reach that level of  "evocativeness", the card idea can work very well.

I only have one question now: do you think that not having game-related info on the cards is a plus?  I do not think so. In my experience, players need something that focuses their attention on the cards - game/related information that help them insert the "color" aspects in the flow of their game. Of course, this can only work if the game engine is extremely rules-lite and allows those minimal game-related variables that you print on the card to be introduced with equal effectiveness in violent and non-violent conflicts. But I see this as doable.

However, I have not played TOPs enough to see if its rules are the best fit for such game tools. I was in fact wondering why cards in the game were used to inject penalties and not also "story opportunities" but this post answered my question.

As for aurasma, I am unsure about its great added value. It requires that you have a smartphone and a connection to use the extra content. At that point, it would be better to have an app that draws the cards themselves, without any physical items.

[Hasimir]

For some reason I never realized that Rosen=Guccione... now a lot of things make much more sense :\

I'm gonna ignore the first half of your post:

Your post was rather long and hard to read. If you tried to be more concise, you would probably receive more feedback. I think I have already told you this.

However, I took the time to check everything, and it was worth reading. Let us make a couple of considerations.

First of all, the problem of reading pages after pages of setting fluff is a problem that YOU have. Others are more than happy to read the aforementioned tomes, and consider it part of the fun. See Ron's essay "Setting and emergent stories".

So, the exigence of "not reading tomes" is not a general one. However, this exigence is clearly shared by a number of players, who prefer to "learn about the setting at the table". See Moreno's question to Nathan Paoletta in the thread about the Black Horse Troop, and Nathan's reply. I just wonder whether the majority of gamers prefers "tomes" or "quick instructions". It is a fact that people buy splatbooks. A lot of splatbooks.

That said, we remain with the question "How common is the exigence of avoiding big dissertations about the setting" unanswered, and we proceed to discuss if using cards can help those who do have the exigence. After all, there is surely someone who will find it useful.

I'll explain you why in a private message here or on some other forum or something.
I'm only going to say to other readers that what you wrote is OT and I don't wish to discuss it here.

Now, on to the rest of your post...

Thanks for the games you mention, I'll look into them :)
As for your question:
I fear that the space on the back of a magic-sized card may not be enough for the "fluff" Info... or would be too tiny typed to be easily readable :P

Also there is the translation problem.
It is (people tell me) far far better and easyer to print language-netural cards, than having to translate them all into each localized language.
A single booklet is much easyer to translate.

Dunno :P

[RosenMcStern]

What you write may be true. About size and translation, I mean.

But if we are talking about marketing your idea - okay, no, marketing is a word that might be inappropriate here, let us talk about usability and player appreciation - then considerations about whether players would find cards with game info on them enjoyable should have a higher weight than considerations about ease of production. In general, the question that would prove more profitable should be "What will my players love to have on the cards?" rather than "What can I easily fit on the cards?"

In general, I suspect that gamers who love to have cards as play aids for their game would love to have something as detailed as M:tG cards. A good picture, a dozen lines of fluff, and minimal game stats. Try and take the obstacles from Lady Blackbird and imagine them printed on a card. Imagine a picture of the Sky Squid and the text below, printed on a card. It would fit, and that is a whole encounter in Lady Blackbird terms reduced to a card you can randomly draw.

Of course, a smartphone app would grant more space, and thus make the card less dependant on the booklet.

[Ron Edwards]

Let's establish a point about my recent writings about setting and my Hero Wars game.

The point is: large settings (in terms of the imagined material's area and history) and extensively-published setting material are both elements of technique. Since that is the case, techniques are almost never "good" or bad." They are merely what one wants to do, this time.

That means I do not support your use of my writings, Paolo, to push the idea that canonically-published, supplement-heavy setting play is straightforwardly and in principle a good thing. It is good insofar as a person wants to do that, and the person's desires for play are simply and only the real standards for quality. (And here I leave to the side the fact that so much setting-publishing in RPG history is done horribly badly, wretched by any possible understanding of desires for play.)

Therefore, Alessandro, I see your desire just as you've stated it, and as it turns out, I'd be much happier playing what you're describing than - at a fair estimate - trying to use about 75% of the published settings "out of the box." Those remaining 25% are solid gold, or at least real gold, but just because I like them (here I speak of the published material, and in fact, never absolutely all of it per game), doesn't mean that I'm a fan of supplement-heavy publishing. On the whole, it's been toxic to role-playing ... if those 25% weren't so good, I'd be a thorough foe of the whole thing. And even if those percentages were reversed in magnitude and altered to 99-1, I'd still say that if you want to play and design this way, any claim that "published supplements are the awesome, Ron says so" are still false, and you go right ahead and do it.

I wish I'd read your ideas five years ago, when I started working on Shahida. I might have found a better way to incorporate Beirut as a setting into play without merely expecting someone to be inspired by the book and act as "setting guy" during play.

Best, Ron

[Josh W]

If you look at archipelago 3, that starts with the same idea of one person taking ownership of a section of the game, but rather than randomising what parts of the content are brought into play, it randomises how that part of the setting comes into play. Has some of the same effect, but is much more focused on the player encyclopedia idea.

About breaking up a setting into pieces, I think cards could work, although when their effects are broad, revealing any cards that deal with everyone/everything will often lead to retcons or contradictions. Basically discovering that people incinerate the dead minutes after death to avoid zombie plague vectors will make a CSI scene you played earlier a little incongruous.

You can still solve this by putting the reasons on the cards too, so that when you find that you have diverged from the setting, come up with a replacement cultural detail of your own, either local to a specific area or globally, and continue from there.

Not learning a setting in advance inevitably means that you will suggest things incompatible with it, and the card system means that you can't really ask questions, because the answers are shuffled into a pile.

Personally, I'd pay very careful attention to what questions people need to ask about a setting, and bundle them up together in 3 pages of a4 or so, making them as "this kind of thing, now lets get on" as possible. Then leave the more evocative details for the cards, to flesh it out. Basically create a FAQ (or a Frequently Questioned Assumptions) for the setting, that takes away all of the most obvious (and important) clashes of expectations.

Of course, there are a lot of everything/always/everyone statements in certain game setting texts that don't really need this kind of protection, having just been put there as a way of covering a lot of ground with a few words, if "always" can easily be replaced by "usually", you wouldn't need to accommodate those in a FAQ at all.

This would also take a load of certain cards, that would otherwise have to explain quite a lot about social structures etc, and so then you could just take segments of what would normally be a single unit, and spread them out between cards.