IntroSo, hey, I'm posting about a game I'm designing on the Forge. I was talking with a friend recently, who pointed out I hadn't posted in Indie Game Design in two years, and I looked back and saw that no one responded to my last post, and I was really ticked about it. It's a new Forge these days, though, and I'm giving it a second chance.
This game's been on my mind for some time, and I'm really excited to have done some design work on it. I started writing the initial rules last night, and took a break to pound out some Power 19.
Troy mentioned on his weblog that one of the problems with P19 stuff on the Forge was that designers weren't asking specific questions. Here's mine, which won't make sense until you read the below.
- How could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
- This and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
- Seriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?
1. What is your game about? Ninjas hired to perform secretive missions without getting caught.
2. What do the characters do? Stealthily make their way past traps, enemies, and obstacles to confront the center of their mission.
3. What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do? The GM designs interesting and challenging scenarios to play in, and then presents this to the players. The players quickly build ninjas and then play these ninjas doing their stealthy thing. They try to think of ways past obstacles that the GM hasn't thought of.
They do this in a quick amount of time. Scenario prep should be one hour, character creation 15 minutes, and game play 2 hours.
4. How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about? There is absolutely no setting outside the mission. There might be rumors of setting ("The Edo clan has made a great strategem at court, and so the Hirochi clan has hired you to eliminate their master speech-writer"), but you never play in anything outside the mission. This reinforces the tactical elements of the game.
5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about? While one can create a character that will continue play in Iron Shadows, generally one will create a new character every time they play, engineered for that mission. This emphasizes the facelessness and mission-oriented-ness of the ninja.
6. What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)? It rewards solid tactical thought, deftness of ideas (that is, thinking up the unexpected), and luck. It's not a very serious game, in that luck is a major factor.
7. How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game? The game rewards the above with an increased chance of mission success. There is no built-in punishment mechanism besides mission failure.
8. How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game? The GM is responsible for credibility. Narration is controlled generally by the GM. Players will get a chance to narrate their success within a limited structure - the GM has final say, and they are not allowed to expand past their intent.
9. What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?) It puts the mission in danger at all times. While characters are faceless, and therefore we don't care if they die, it is planned that missions will tie together, making the players care about each one, as their ninja clan has a goal.
10. What are the resolution mechanics of your game like? Very basically, you will have a skill and stat for every action you take. These are ranked with dice - 1d3/4/6/8/10/12. So, for every conflict, you have two dice to roll. The GM will also have two dice, determined by the conflict. You roll and compare individual dice. The player only needs one die to win to win the conflict. However, if one die fails, the difference is damage against either the character's health or stealth pools. If health reaches zero, you die. If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.
11. How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about? It's about ninjas! They're stealthy!
Seriously, note that stealth is a resource, not an ability. It is assumed that as a ninja, you are always stealthy. You must hoard this resource, though, keeping your enemies in the dark at all times. If you fail to do this, then you are a failure as a ninja.
12. Do characters in your game advance? If so, how? Yes and no. Characters don't advance, but missions will. The GM builds a mission with a certain number of points, which determines what level characters will be built. So, if you play three times, against 50, 75, and 100 point scenarios, then the characters will be built at higher effectiveness levels each time. You could play the same characters at each effectiveness level, but it is not required in the least.
13. How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about? The lack of character advancement against reinforces the point that the mission is much more important than the character.
14. What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players? I want them to sit on the edge of their seats, tensely worrying whether they will make it through the mission and save young girls from evil merchants.
15. What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why? The characters are built with "trainings," which are like class levels. Each training has five levels, and they are going to get a lot of neat attention. Basic ninja training, poison training, animal training, zen training - all of these are going to get neat color.
These are going to get extra attention because they are the players' first important choices, and therefore will be their first point of engagement with the system.
16. Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why? The scenario creation is totally fun and great. You make a flowchart instead of a normal map. You can even randomly create the flowchart and then go back and add the challenges. This should allow the GM to make neat adventures with a minimum of prep time.
All in all, I'm trying real hard to bridge what I do enjoy about traditional "find the challenge and defeat it" games with a modern-sensibilities approach to it. The scenario creation above, for example, is built on points, ensuring that the GM makes a scenario the characters can make it through, although with great challenge. But, because characters are fluid, the GM's not constrained in what he can make.
17. Where does your game take the players that other games can't, don't, or won't? Exactly what I said above - very competitive scenario creation that is fair and balanced, not by contract, but by rules.
18. What are your publishing goals for your game? A smallish (60-100 pages) book with cool Japanese-looking art that I can publish on Lulu.com.
19. Who is your target audience? People who enjoy D&D and other games that are mechanically focused on competition, but want it to take less time, and also really like ninjas.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
Troy mentioned on his weblog that one of the problems with P19 stuff on the Forge was that designers weren't asking specific questions.
Yeah, that's been bugging me as well.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AMHow could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
I can't see any course other than the cycle you mention. With balance being so important, I think you need practical feedback and unexpected responses.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AMThis and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
Er....I'm sure it's interesting to some people and not to others. It certainly sounds cool to me.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AMSeriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?
It seems that way to me. The lack of focus on the character especially takes it out of the realm of most roleplaying games.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AMIt rewards solid tactical thought, deftness of ideas (that is, thinking up the unexpected), and luck. It's not a very serious game, in that luck is a major factor.
I don't see how a high luck factor takes away from the seriousness of a game. Poker has a high luck factor, but that doesn't make it any less serious. It just means that the bulk of strategy is mitigating the negative outcomes of luck. Which, honestly, can be a lot of fun.
Dude, I'm totally in the mood to play already. Gotta couple questions for you.
Quote from: Clinton2. What do the characters do?
Stealthily make their way past traps, enemies, and obstacles to confront the center of their mission.
You didn't say so, but is it safe to assume that this would include conflicts that don't always resolve with "Whew! Nothing happened!"? You know, like fooling your target into thinking you're someone else? Or stealthfully killing things and taking their stuff? Cuz I hope so.
Quote from: ClintonHow could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
There's another way to playtest? Or are you talking about figuring out some kind of super-math formula in an attempt to make sure that characters are balanced vs. missions, a la d20's Challenge Ratings?
Quote from: ClintonThis and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
I'm not entirely sure I understand how this would focus on the setting more than the characters. The players are going to be responsible for building characters and using the resources of those characters to overcome the missions' challenges, right? That seems like lots of focus on characters for the players to me. Is the other game you're talking about FoA? Because that seemed pretty well centered on the characters to me too. So maybe I'm not understanding what you're meaning by "...taking focus away from the characters and putting it on the setting."
But, since I'm already here, I'll just say that I think one could take considerable focus away from the characters by not putting any character creation or ownership in the game. Give the players ownership and authority over more nebulous things like um... Life, Blood, Shadows, The Moon, Echos, etc. I'm imagining a scenario where there's a conflict about wether a Ninja or a Guard dies. If the GM wins and the Ninja is supposed to die, then the Player could do something like... spend a Life point to keep their ninja alive. Run out of life points? Well that probably means your ninjas are about to fall like dominoes.
But that's really just a shot in the dark.
I've gotta take off for a few hours, but I'll be back with more thoughts later.
-Eric
I like the idea of this game. I just have a bunch of questions to add.
QuoteThis and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
I like the idea that the focus is taken off of the individual characters and more on the mission. Can a character die during the mission, and if so, does the player just roll up a new character? Have you thought about the players creating their clan, and using that clan as a pool of resources to create characters? That way it becomes more of a shared clan against the set of missions instead of characters against the mission? Do the characters work together or are the competing? It seems to me that in order to take the focus and investment off the characters, the players will have to have their investment placed somewhere else, and I wonder if mission is enough?
I really like the idea of the short playing time and low amount of upfront work. I'd like to see even less upfront work.
Bryan
Hey, Clinton. Good to see you in here.
I'm gonna look at your questions first, and then I'm going to post a couple of my own in response to your power 19.
Quote
How could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
In all honestly, it really depends what caliber of mathematician you have access to (we have three excellent probability guys on the Forge -- Eero, Mike, and Walt) and the complexity of your mechanics. A simple game can get a lot of mileage out of simple, old fashioned estimation and computation. A more complex game, particularly if the mechanical decisions that the players are making are complex (i.e. some of d20) is much harder to deal with.
In fact, if your game is as highly luck-based as you say, I'd be reluctant to rely on playtesting, simply because you would need to play the game several thousand times to get a good sense of what the results are. Playtesting really can't substitute for good mathwork.
Quote
This and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
I think that this is a matter of taste, and maybe playtesting. Personally, I would really want to take, like, my one ninja guy through all the missions. Another trick would be to have a really strong storyline structure to the missions (you hint at this below) where the main characters aren't necessarily the ninja. (You're following around and doing missions regarding a princess and her lover. Or whatever.) So we have characters to bond with. Just not ninja.
Quote
Seriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?
Iron Heroes, while an excellent game, is much better at combat than stealth, and requires way more prep and play time than you're hoping to.
Quote
They try to think of ways past obstacles that the GM hasn't thought of.
This line really intrigues me. Can you elaborate more on how player creativity fits into resource management?
Quote
If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.
I really like the idea of stealth as a resource. Is there a way for one or a handful of guys to be alerted, and not everyone? Like "oh my god this guard saw you, and if you don't off him right now, he's going to ring the alarm bell?" 'cause that'd be cool. Like, information about you spreads, but you can actually stop it.
I assume this game is at least partially inspired by the Tenchu and Thief videogames. If you haven't played them, go ask Andy to play some Tenchu right now. It's the bomb.
yrs--
--Ben
Oh, and also what Eric says is very wise.
yrs--
--Ben
BUT WHY IS THERE A GM?Just kidding. Breathe! OK, ten flavors of awesome as you know, and I'm ready to throw down some Kabuki-jutsu all over this right now. Sorry you had a bad experience at the Forge last time, those Forge people are jerks.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
- How could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
- This and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
- Seriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?
1. Since it is all about the math, one playtesting wrinkle that might be fruitful would be to design a reference mission and then farm it out to different playtest groups, with the expectation that each would run it at three different resource levels on the player side. You'd get data about balance in a measurable and useful way. Adjust and repeat. Then do the same thing with reference PCs and allow custom missions. Still test --> repeat --> refine, but you're dividing up the labor and (maybe more importantly) just taking an administrative and analytical role.
2. I love the idea of rigidly focusing on the mission. You are a fucking NINJA, your oath in blood is to your CLAN, who you are is unimportant, now go climb upside-down and kill! It's a breath of fresh air.
3. No.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on February 28, 2006, 01:19:32 PM
3. No.
No, like I didn't write something that makes this more appealing than just running Iron Heroes Ninja?
Or no, like, yeah, this is way better than just runnig Iron Heroes Ninja?
Sorry, I forgot you can't see my face. The latter - this is more interesting than porting ninjas to Iron Heroes/etc.
Another point - the two-hour play range really lowers the barrier to entry for iterative playtests. Part of me wants to see the two hour thing be law - as in, if you have not completed your mission within two hours of starting play, you have failed. Not sure how fun that would be in practice, but it would add some sweaty moments late in the game.
Quote from: Eric Provost on February 28, 2006, 12:31:37 PM
Quote from: Clinton2. What do the characters do?
Stealthily make their way past traps, enemies, and obstacles to confront the center of their mission.
You didn't say so, but is it safe to assume that this would include conflicts that don't always resolve with "Whew! Nothing happened!"? You know, like fooling your target into thinking you're someone else? Or stealthfully killing things and taking their stuff? Cuz I hope so.
Definitely. In fact, many conflicts are an A/B choice of outcomes, like "if you win, you get to be on the rooftop and have an advantage and if you lose, you have to crawl through these ducts." A typical conflict looks like:
Quote
This room contains two guards and an alarm bell. Each guard has 2 hit points. You cannot cross this room without dealing with the guards.
If you attack, the GM rolls 1d6 Damage and 1d10 Alert (the Alert is high because of the bell, which the guards will attempt to set off.)
If you want to sneak through, the GM rolls 1d3 Damage and 1d12 Alert. (Two guards make it hard to sneak.)
If you have a better option, the guards are at 1d4/1d4.
Or, even simpler:
Quote
This room has hammers that fall across it if the floor is touched. The hammers will knock you into a sewer trench if you fail, which means you'll have to get in the castle that way (see room 14).
If you attempt to run across and dodge the hammers, the GM rolls 1d6/1d6.
If you attempt to climb a wall or the ceiling, the GM rolls 1d10/1d4.
If you attempt to disable the trap, the GM rolls 1d4/1d8.
Quote
Quote from: ClintonThis and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
I'm not entirely sure I understand how this would focus on the setting more than the characters. The players are going to be responsible for building characters and using the resources of those characters to overcome the missions' challenges, right? That seems like lots of focus on characters for the players to me. Is the other game you're talking about FoA? Because that seemed pretty well centered on the characters to me too. So maybe I'm not understanding what you're meaning by "...taking focus away from the characters and putting it on the setting."
This and FoA approach the problem differently. In FoA, characters have no real mechanical quantifiers. In here, characters have no identity.
Quote from: Bryan Hansel on February 28, 2006, 12:40:33 PM
I like the idea that the focus is taken off of the individual characters and more on the mission. Can a character die during the mission, and if so, does the player just roll up a new character? Have you thought about the players creating their clan, and using that clan as a pool of resources to create characters? That way it becomes more of a shared clan against the set of missions instead of characters against the mission? Do the characters work together or are the competing? It seems to me that in order to take the focus and investment off the characters, the players will have to have their investment placed somewhere else, and I wonder if mission is enough?
The characters work together. A shared clan is a cool idea to have a continuing character - that is, the clan.
If a character dies during the mission, right now, that character's out. Rolling up a new character is not a terrible idea, although I'd have to balance how that works.
Quote from: Ben Lehman on February 28, 2006, 01:17:24 PM
Quote
They try to think of ways past obstacles that the GM hasn't thought of.
This line really intrigues me. Can you elaborate more on how player creativity fits into resource management?
This is what really appeals to me about, say, D&D. A large part of the game is about figuring out inventive ways to attack a problem. There's a big iron golem guarding the cave door? Well, how about I use my magic pick-axe and dig a pit under the floor in front of him, so when he charges, his weight will collapse the floor and he'll fall in!
That's what I want to see. In this case, there will be a default roll against creative ideas that will be less than the roll against standard ideas.
Quote
Quote
If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.
I really like the idea of stealth as a resource. Is there a way for one or a handful of guys to be alerted, and not everyone? Like "oh my god this guard saw you, and if you don't off him right now, he's going to ring the alarm bell?" 'cause that'd be cool. Like, information about you spreads, but you can actually stop it.
That's just a normal room challenge.
When stealth hits zero, your Bat and Rat attributes (yeah, I know! awesome!) are lowered by -2 die steps, and every room now contains an additional challenge of guards. Your stealth cannot increase back over zero unless you find a stealth-increasing area (which the GM should put throughout the adventure.) So, run, kill your way to a dark corner, and hide.
And of course it's inspired by Tenchu. The stealth pool is straight from there.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 01:41:52 PM
That's what I want to see. In this case, there will be a default roll against creative ideas that will be less than the roll against standard ideas.
Who decides what's creative? Is it consensus, or the GM, or the guy who thinks it up? Or will that be mechanically reinforced somehow, like "if you articulate another option, roll D4 instead of D6."
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on February 28, 2006, 02:22:54 PM
Who decides what's creative? Is it consensus, or the GM, or the guy who thinks it up? Or will that be mechanically reinforced somehow, like "if you articulate another option, roll D4 instead of D6."
It's the last option. See the examples above. A quick example: "There's tigers in the room. If you fight them, the GM rolls 1d10. If you try to sneak past them, the GM rolls 1d8. If you think of something else, roll 1d6." The GM will write down what he can think of, and then anything else is always a lesser roll.
Ok, that's cool. The only way that breaks is ... through dickery, so no problem. So it is in the GM's interest to be pretty methodical about designing his spaces - just like a Japanese castle-master ninja-proofing his lair!
Heya
QuoteHow could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
-Well, one good thing you've done is not make the game about winning each individual combat. With stealth as a resource, that's what's at stake. It's not about killing your foe, it's about remaining stealthy. So as far as combat power balance, it wouldn't seem to matter. Whippin' the piss outta your enemy is a forgone conclusion it seems.
QuoteThis and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
-The focus in this game seems, to me at least, to neither be on the characters or the setting but on the players. As a person who loves this sort of game, this really appeals to me.
QuoteSeriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?
-It's something different. It's very focused and full of color.
QuoteScenario prep should be one hour, character creation 15 minutes, and game play 2 hours.
-This really belongs up in #1, but it's an awesome aspect of your game. Especially for a game where the object is to win.
QuoteWhile one can create a character that will continue play in Iron Shadows, generally one will create a new character every time they play, engineered for that mission. This emphasizes the facelessness and mission-oriented-ness of the ninja.
-What are the main components of Chargen in your game?
QuoteWhile characters are faceless, and therefore we don't care if they die, it is planned that missions will tie together, making the players care about each one, as their ninja clan has a goal.
-So, to make sure I understand, players will have an immediate goal (finish the mission) and a larger Clan Goal that will span multiple missions. Is this correct?
QuoteIf health reaches zero, you die. If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.
-This is the kewlest part of your game. I love how stealth is a resource.
QuoteSo, if you play three times, against 50, 75, and 100 point scenarios, then the characters will be built at higher effectiveness levels each time. You could play the same characters at each effectiveness level, but it is not required in the least.
-So is there an advancement mechanic for the setting?
Quote18. What are your publishing goals for your game?
A smallish (60-100 pages) book with cool Japanese-looking art that I can publish on Lulu.com.
19. Who is your target audience?
People who enjoy D&D and other games that are mechanically focused on competition, but want it to take less time, and also really like ninjas.
-Good answers.
Peace,
-Troy
Quote from: Troy_Costisick on February 28, 2006, 02:53:11 PM
QuoteWhile one can create a character that will continue play in Iron Shadows, generally one will create a new character every time they play, engineered for that mission. This emphasizes the facelessness and mission-oriented-ness of the ninja.
-What are the main components of Chargen in your game?
I can lay them all out for you:
You have two resource pools, Health and Stealth.
You have four stats, two of which live under each pool. Bat and Rat live under Stealth, and Wolf and Dragon live under Health.
You have skills, which live under stats.
You have special abilities, which may include equipment.
All of these live under "trainings," which are like 5-level D&D classes. You might have base ninja training 4 / poison training 2 / zen training 3. This will give you a certain number of pool and stat points, a list of skills you can buy and the points to buy them, and a list of special abilities you have.
I may even make it where you don't just get points, but just adds, so that you have no choices outside of picking training levels. If so, though, I'll want advanced rules where you can pick. Otherwise, you lose a lot of depth in strategizing.
Quote
QuoteWhile characters are faceless, and therefore we don't care if they die, it is planned that missions will tie together, making the players care about each one, as their ninja clan has a goal.
-So, to make sure I understand, players will have an immediate goal (finish the mission) and a larger Clan Goal that will span multiple missions. Is this correct?
It is now! It's a really cool idea that I should work into the game. Most likely, you will have immediate goals, and then if you're playing the game in the "campaign mode," you'll have a Clan Goal.
Quote
QuoteSo, if you play three times, against 50, 75, and 100 point scenarios, then the characters will be built at higher effectiveness levels each time. You could play the same characters at each effectiveness level, but it is not required in the least.
-So is there an advancement mechanic for the setting?
No. Again, the GM can make whatever level mission he wants. However, if I go with an optional "campaign mode," then yes, definitely, and the point level of the next mission will come from how well the characters did at the current mission. So, if you're fighting on a 50 pt mission, and do really well, the next mission will be 75 points. If you just did ok, 60 points. If you failed, 35 points.
Which is awesome.
Hi!
Here's my 2 cents...
Quote* How could I playtest this game without it turning into an endless slogfest of design -> test -> fix -> start over? All games are designed this way, but this particular design really needs finely-tuned balance. Is there a good way to do this?
* This and my last game have really taken focus away from the characters and put it on the setting. Is this something - in this particular case of Steel Shadows - that is interesting? If not, how do I either focus the attention on the mission more (preferable) or engage the players with more character focus?
* Seriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?
1) I think math will reduce the number of refinement cycles. You need to model several variations:
Competence--Low--Medium-High
Low----------------??-------??-----??
Medium-----------??-------??-----??
High----------------??-------??-----??
Sort of look for what happens with good rolls, bad rolls, mediocre rolls. That's what I did with my mechanics and it has gone well for me. The only stuff that has come up during play test is game play issues. Not mechanical flaws.
2) I think the lack of character focus is acceptable. I think the level of anticipation will overcome any lack of character focus.
3) While this could be a setting, I think a new game focused on this setting would capture the feel you were going for better.
I think you have the beginnings of a cool game. Rock on man!
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 03:04:56 PM
All of these live under "trainings," which are like 5-level D&D classes. You might have base ninja training 4 / poison training 2 / zen training 3. This will give you a certain number of pool and stat points, a list of skills you can buy and the points to buy them, and a list of special abilities you have.
Skill names need to be at least as evocative and cool as bat, rat, dragon, etc. "My guy's poisoner-3/jade mantis-4!" or whatever.
JADE MANTIS REPRESENT!QuoteSo, if you play three times, against 50, 75, and 100 point scenarios, then the characters will be built at higher effectiveness levels each time. You could play the same characters at each effectiveness level, but it is not required in the least.
What does the point count matter? If you are being matched up 1:1 against the GM in points, the drubbing you gave him last week impacts clan play how? Your ninja gains some experience, but that's part of the points counted, right?
It's cool how you can handicap in this game - if the GM is an unsteady n00b, throw him some extra points to work with.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on February 28, 2006, 03:45:05 PM
JADE MANTIS REPRESENT!
QuoteSo, if you play three times, against 50, 75, and 100 point scenarios, then the characters will be built at higher effectiveness levels each time. You could play the same characters at each effectiveness level, but it is not required in the least.
What does the point count matter? If you are being matched up 1:1 against the GM in points, the drubbing you gave him last week impacts clan play how? Your ninja gains some experience, but that's part of the points counted, right?
It's cool how you can handicap in this game - if the GM is an unsteady n00b, throw him some extra points to work with.
Seriously, Jade Mantis represent.
You are confused on the point thing. Your ninja never gains experience.
The points spent on the adventure equal the points you get to spend on your ninja, period. I show up and say, "Hey, guys, I have a 100 point Steel Shadows mission all set up." You say, "Heck, yes! I'll make my 100 point ninja right now." Make sense? (Alternately, you can say, "Alright! I'll set Goro Bladehand to 100 points, and play him.")
On the "campaign play" tip, the drubbing or un-drubbing you gave him will count because it shows whether you're ready for the next level or not. So, fail a mission - next one will be less points so that you can prove yourself again.
Also, I'm making this up!
Quote from: nevermindNo identity for the characters at all? Nameless, faceless pawns with no differentiating features? So... how would I, as a ninja-player, be expected to narrate? With "my ninja dude" all the time? As in; "My ninja dude climbs across the ceiling to escape the tiger"? Or; "My ninja dude is more quiet than a falling leaf"? That would suck. I don't think I'd enjoy an RPG where I don't get any identity of any kind to play with. Maybe that's just me.
[Edit] Cross-posted with ya', Clinton. I see you've got a name attached to a theoretical character, so my point's pretty well moot.
Quote from: ClintonIf a character dies during the mission, right now, that character's out. Rolling up a new character is not a terrible idea, although I'd have to balance how that works.
Wait... the
character's out or the
player's out? My only concern with the player being out is if a player can be ousted from the game too early, possibly spending a little too much time with their thumbs up their butts, wondering when they'll get a chance to play again.
Quote from: BenOh, and also what Eric says is very wise.
I blush!
-Eric
Ah, Jade Mantis understands now.
I see the fun of meeting the challenge, but if the game is finely tuned, that's pretty predictable. Will it be possible to say "Guys! I have a 100 point Steel Shadows mission ready to go! How few points do you think you can succeed with?"
I'm wondering about player reward, basically.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on February 28, 2006, 05:49:35 PM
Ah, Jade Mantis understands now.
I see the fun of meeting the challenge, but if the game is finely tuned, that's pretty predictable. Will it be possible to say "Guys! I have a 100 point Steel Shadows mission ready to go! How few points do you think you can succeed with?"
I'm wondering about player reward, basically.
Jason,
Seriously, I kiss you. Holy crap, good idea.
I agree with Jason, great idea. You know that I'm really into Address of Challenge, limited GM budget, kickass Gamist play, so YAY! I love it.
I don't have that much more to say at this point, except that I'll also be glad to do some number crunching and balance checking when we see your actual mechanics.
If you want to make player competition part of it, you can also do that Battletech thing (it's in the novels, dunno if it's in the games) where the person who is willing to achieve the objective with the smallest force gets the most glory. "I can hold the mountains with three stars of mech." "Bah, I can do it with two stars of vehicles and one of infantry."
You could work this in in a variety of ways, I'm sure, if it's something that appeals to you. I'm kinda envisioning a meeting of family heads (or something...I have no idea how ninjas really worked) where they posture and try to get their guy in charge of the mission. "A seasoned assassin? Hah, even a new recruit of our clan could lead them to victory." Or, you know...whatever.
Experts agree: This sounds like twelve kinds of awesome. Clinton! With the rocking!
A couple things:
- Please tell me I can choose for my Kage (mmmm hmmmm) to shift damage to Health instead of Stealth, thereby sacrificing himself in order to keep the mission undetected. Because that would be SO rad.
- The option the GM has not thought of = easier to do. This is a very cool idea. But in play, you will never, ever use the options the GM has written down in advance. If I know that a creative approach is always easier, I will never say "I try to sneak by" or "I attack them." It just won't happen. My ninja will always be coating himself in grease or poisoning the guard's teapot or some other crazy shit. Which is what you want, of course. But you don't want the GM wasting his time writing "normal" stuff down that will never get used.
Maybe the creative approach is tied to a roll or resource? So you can't automatically do the wacky thing every time, or you have to judge when to be wacky and when to do the standard ninja move.
Quote from: John Harper on February 28, 2006, 07:21:02 PM
- Please tell me I can choose for my Kage (mmmm hmmmm) to shift damage to Health instead of Stealth, thereby sacrificing himself in order to keep the mission undetected. Because that would be SO rad.
That is, in fact, true.
Quote
- The option the GM has not thought of = easier to do. This is a very cool idea. But in play, you will never, ever use the options the GM has written down in advance. If I know that a creative approach is always easier, I will never say "I try to sneak by" or "I attack them." It just won't happen. My ninja will always be coating himself in grease or poisoning the guard's teapot or some other crazy shit. Which is what you want, of course. But you don't want the GM wasting his time writing "normal" stuff down that will never get used.
Maybe the creative approach is tied to a roll or resource? So you can't automatically do the wacky thing every time, or you have to judge when to be wacky and when to do the standard ninja move.
This is also how it works. Basically, you'll have the standard ninja skills: things like swords, climb, jump, and creep. Other skills will be harder to get and more specialized, so you'll be tempted to not choose them. However, if you do, you can use them to do the stuff the GM's not thought of.
So, more in order with the game, you might have a room where you roll against 2d10 if you fight, 2d8 if you creep, or 2d6 if you choose something else. The "something else" is governed by plausability. I'm envisioning play, especially in light of Jason's ideas, being about honor. Sure, you can say "I want to poison the guard's teapot" (which would be tied to a resource, but anyway), but if the concept's just totally implausable, that'd be dishonorable
as a player and everyone will hate you.
Two copies, please.
Quote
This room contains two guards and an alarm bell. Each guard has 2 hit points. You cannot cross this room without dealing with the guards.
If you attack, the GM rolls 1d6 Damage and 1d10 Alert (the Alert is high because of the bell, which the guards will attempt to set off.)
If you want to sneak through, the GM rolls 1d3 Damage and 1d12 Alert. (Two guards make it hard to sneak.)
If you have a better option, the guards are at 1d4/1d4.
I'm slightly worried about this. Mainly, what if my better option is something that also carries a high alert risk (like, it might be 1d3 / 1d8) or whatever.
What if, instead, you do a thing like this:
Me: "Okay, so I'm going jump up onto the roof and drip poison into the guard's tea down a wire -- like that scene in James Bond. They totally can't catch me, so that should be 1d3 Damage. But if they notice, they'll ring the bell, so that's 1d8 Alert."
Other players: "Huh, it's cool, but I think it should be 1d10 Alert, because that wire is pretty obvious."
Or whatever.
yrs--
--Ben
This is apparently the thread of me forgetting something and posting a moment later. Sorries.
Oh, yeah, and what if, if your idea gets smacked down, you have to go with the basics. So no wasting time with "okay, so maybe I'll disguise myself as a maid..." after someone says "I think that poison wire thing is lame. You did that to the last 20 guards."
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: Ben Lehman on February 28, 2006, 10:31:30 PM
Quote
This room contains two guards and an alarm bell. Each guard has 2 hit points. You cannot cross this room without dealing with the guards.
If you attack, the GM rolls 1d6 Damage and 1d10 Alert (the Alert is high because of the bell, which the guards will attempt to set off.)
If you want to sneak through, the GM rolls 1d3 Damage and 1d12 Alert. (Two guards make it hard to sneak.)
If you have a better option, the guards are at 1d4/1d4.
I'm slightly worried about this. Mainly, what if my better option is something that also carries a high alert risk (like, it might be 1d3 / 1d8) or whatever.
What if, instead, you do a thing like this:
Me: "Okay, so I'm going jump up onto the roof and drip poison into the guard's tea down a wire -- like that scene in James Bond. They totally can't catch me, so that should be 1d3 Damage. But if they notice, they'll ring the bell, so that's 1d8 Alert."
Other players: "Huh, it's cool, but I think it should be 1d10 Alert, because that wire is pretty obvious."
Ben,
You are a dirty hippie and were raised on the sweet milk of cooperation, my friend. Also, read the P19 for this thing - it specifically states that the GM's goal is to create challenges.
The players thinking up the mechanics of their own resolution! It is a fine jest.
---
In all seriousness, remember that I thought up the basic mechanics of this last night, and have doubled them just in this thread. There's lots of ways I can roll with this, including the fine idea of making the default different for each room, or making it a sliding scale, so that the GM can roll with your narration and turn 1d4/1d4 into 1d3/1d6.
Basically, I just want there to be some way for the content of your creative idea to matter. If every clever idea gets the same dice, then none of them are really different from each other. I want "poisoning the tea" to be mechanically very different from "dressing up as a maid." Or what have you.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: Ben Lehman on February 28, 2006, 10:33:43 PM
Oh, yeah, and what if, if your idea gets smacked down, you have to go with the basics. So no wasting time with "okay, so maybe I'll disguise myself as a maid..." after someone says "I think that poison wire thing is lame. You did that to the last 20 guards."
If the skills are in linear progression, than a smacked-down idea could default to the next-lamest thing, and so on.
"I do the wire thing to his tea again, using Master Poisoner"
"Lame"
"OK, I use Poisoner to poke him with a paralytic dart. Again"
"Lame"
"Uh, that's it for poison skills, I guess I have to beat the crap out of him."
You get that desperation, but a highly skilled dude gets chances to recover and still do something cool.
This is one of those opinion questions I hate, not really believing in the wisdom of crowds, but honestly, I'm stymied:
As written above, you roll a stat + skill when doing something. So, for example, if I want to kill a samurai, I roll Wolf + Blades. If my Wolf is a d6 and my Blades a d8, that's what I'll roll. The threat - in this case, a samurai, rolls its Threat + Alert. If the samurai is a d8 Threat, but d4 Alert, that's what I'll roll against.
This is cool, and works well, and is very intuitive to a role-player. However, in character generation, it sucks. Each skill and stat has 6 levels it can be set at: d3, d4, d6, d8, d10, d12. That means I have to be extra careful to constrain advancement of these. I also have to really constrain GM choice in making challenges, too, so that he doesn't make something that's too hard for the characters with a high die on one side and a low die on the other, trouncing them because they can't be imbalanced.
There's a second idea rolling around in my head. What if I eliminated stats, and every skill had two sides? (Steel and Shadow, of course.) So, I might have a skill like this: Blades d10 / d4. My Steel is high with blades, but my Shadow is low - I'm powerful and loud. If I confront that samurai, I'll roll my Steel (d10) compared to his Threat (d8) and my Shadow (d4) compared to his Alert (d4). If I win at Steel, he dies, but if he wins at Alert, I take Stealth damage. (If he won at Threat, I'd take Health damage.)
The big benefit - more tactical options, and 25 levels for each skill. I like this a whole lot, but I'm asking if anyone sees obvious problems.
I think that the biggest problem with that is that it encourages, even further, having one skill that's really good and using it for everything. I'm not sure how purchasing works yet, so I can't say, but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything with my cutty bits.
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: ClintonI like this a whole lot, but I'm asking if anyone sees obvious problems.
I don't see any. Seems pretty darned cool to me.
Quote from: ClintonI'll roll my Steel (d10) compared to his Threat (d8) and my Shadow (d4) compared to his Alert (d4). If I win at Steel, he dies, but if he wins at Alert, I take Stealth damage. (If he won at Threat, I'd take Health damage.)
This looks really cool. But what if Steel and Shadows aren't automatically mapped to Threat and Alert? Meaning, if the player rolls high on Steel and crap on Shadows he can choose to use his Steel to overcome the Alert. This would reflect back on the idea of the player being able to sacrifice the character for the mission.
-Eric
Quote from: Ben Lehman on March 01, 2006, 10:23:57 AM
I think that the biggest problem with that is that it encourages, even further, having one skill that's really good and using it for everything. I'm not sure how purchasing works yet, so I can't say, but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything with my cutty bits.
Though spattering blood on shoji is certainly a staple of the genre, I don't know if its the safest assumption that everything can be solved with stabbin'.
Quote from: Ben Lehman on March 01, 2006, 10:23:57 AM
I think that the biggest problem with that is that it encourages, even further, having one skill that's really good and using it for everything. I'm not sure how purchasing works yet, so I can't say, but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything with my cutty bits.
But Clinton is controlling the training so could prevent this, I suspect.
Ooo - what if skills are a resource too? So everytime you use them (and win or and lose, perhaps?) they degrade? Then you've got a new tactical level: do I save my big hitters for the endgame, or use them early to ensure my vital resources are intact at the end?
Seriously, Clinton, this is a really cool concept. Plus, you've once again gone and invented something so similar to an idea I've been kicking around in my head for ages that everyone will think I'm ripping you off if I ever get round to doing it properly.
Quote from: Eric Provost on March 01, 2006, 10:24:40 AM
This looks really cool. But what if Steel and Shadows aren't automatically mapped to Threat and Alert? Meaning, if the player rolls high on Steel and crap on Shadows he can choose to use his Steel to overcome the Alert. This would reflect back on the idea of the player being able to sacrifice the character for the mission.
Eric,
That would be a special power/usable resource. Which is really awesome - you can decide to do it, but only a few times.
Quote from: Ben
I think that the biggest problem with that is that it encourages, even further, having one skill that's really good and using it for everything. I'm not sure how purchasing works yet, so I can't say, but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything with my cutty bits.
It's a good point, Ben, but avoidable via controlling trainings and also making sure that there's plenty of non-fighting challenges. I'm envisioning about a 50/50 split between combat and non-combat.
- Clinton
Quote from: Ben...but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything with my cutty bits.
Oh yeah. That would kinda suck. I was just assuming that a High/High combination wouldn't be possible. Like, you'd have to have either Medium/Medium or High/Low.
Ok, in that case, I've got another "What if" for ya'. This was also partly inspired by the problem of being lame by poisoning every single turn.
Quote from: What if...?Each skill has a box (or boxes?) that are checked off when the skill is tested. You roll Poison, you put a check mark next to Poison. If there aren't any un-checked boxes next to a skill, you can't use it in this scene. Once all of your boxes are checked off then you can erase all the check marks and start over again. I guess extra points in the build would provide extra boxes next to skills.
With that in play, using your uber-skills on crappy challenges would be a potential waste of a resource. You'd want to use the lowest possible skill for the job. Meaning that you'd be constantly either challenging yourself in the face of danger, or gambling away your resources early.
-Eric
Quote from: Eric Provost on March 01, 2006, 10:34:50 AM
Ok, in that case, I've got another "What if" for ya'. This was also partly inspired by the problem of being lame by poisoning every single turn.
Quote from: What if...?Each skill has a box (or boxes?) that are checked off when the skill is tested. You roll Poison, you put a check mark next to Poison. If there aren't any un-checked boxes next to a skill, you can't use it in this scene. Once all of your boxes are checked off then you can erase all the check marks and start over again. I guess extra points in the build would provide extra boxes next to skills.
With that in play, using your uber-skills on crappy challenges would be a potential waste of a resource. You'd want to use the lowest possible skill for the job. Meaning that you'd be constantly either challenging yourself in the face of danger, or gambling away your resources early.
Eric (and the rest of ya worried),
Thanks for your input. I don't want to overthink this, which I think might be happening.
Example: I'm playing D&D. I'm awesome at fighting. I resolve most problems by fighting.
Example 2: I'm this guy's DM. I think, let's put a bunch of non-fighty challenges in this week.
Those are the ingredients, and we have cake.
I'll mitigate the "wow, this is boring, I've cut up 99 guys" issue by having non-fighting challenges, lots of challenges that can damage abilities, and a skill generation system that is exponential - it costs more to go from d8 -> d10 than d6 -> d8. You'll want to spread your abilities around.
The one thing I have brought from this, though, is it would be interesting to make it cost a lot more for d10/d10 than d12/d4.
But in Steel Shadows I can't design challenges around the character skill set 'cos I don't know what it is yet. Also, and perhaps more applicably, how is it decided when a way of getting round a problem is valid?
The steel/shadow dichotomy for skillz is really cool and you know you should keep it.
Also, if skills are resources, you eliminate repetitive lameness, because you only get to do the wire-drip-teapot thing once. I think the more boss the skill level, the rarer it is in play. You can pummel a guy all you want, but Silent Mantis Pincer to his cervical vertebrae? One time only, so choose wisely.
Quote from: Jack Aidley on March 01, 2006, 11:09:33 AM
But in Steel Shadows I can't design challenges around the character skill set 'cos I don't know what it is yet. Also, and perhaps more applicably, how is it decided when a way of getting round a problem is valid?
I'm going to go back to my D&D example. People have been doing this for nigh on 20 years with that game. The GM designs an adventure based on not the characters in play, but the players in play. My friend Mike likes to play ass-kickers; my friend Paul enjoys being sneaky. Ok, that's all the knowledge i need.
In addition, this is a player skill, not GM skill - that is, the players are expected to design characters that can meet the challenges the GM drew up. Unlike a lot of games, where the shared content derives from characters, characters should derive from shared content in Steel Shadows.
Seriously, we can overthink this problem, which I see as a grave impediment to many designs on the Forge today. For example, if I make skills resource based - that is, you can only use them X number of times, then how to do stop a GM from making fighty challenge after fighty challenge? You add a new rule, which then has other repercussions, which you then have to make rules to eliminate. I'm trying to reach a balance here, where it is of course well designed, but at some point, you have to offload responsibility for fun to the group involved. Taking on full responsibility for someone else's fun is a back-breaking ordeal that will not succeed.
But, ok, skills as resources? Maybe. It was planned that your awesome stuff would work this way - you'd have 5 grenades, so Grenade could only be used that many times. I think that works, because of the waterfall of opposition - it will
always be harder to use a base ability, like Blades, but you can use Blades all you like. It will be much easier to Poison Rice Ball someone, but you'll only have a few of those.
The idea of all skills as resources is sorely tempting, but it's a giant design box I don't want, where I've got to make sure players have enough resources to get through a mission, so I have to either design a mathematical limit to number of challenges, or invent a new fictional element which refreshes resources, and that just gets insane. I think special abilities being resource-based will be enough.
OK, I get you, but constraints can be really fun too. If I have a really cool gun with only one bullet, where and how I pull the trigger becomes a fun decision to make. From a design standpoint I think it would be easier to commoditize skills - you have grenade skill, moderately useful, and you can use it five times. You have "climb on the fucking ceiling" skill, which is super useful, and you get to do it exactly once per mission, the end. The causality is essentially cinematic - the really cool stuff only happens in limited, show-stopping quantities. Since the GM does not know how you are going to outfit your team, I don't think challenge balance is a huge issue - if it is all fighty all the way down, you're hosed if you outfitted wrong, but that's always true.
If levels max out, the number of uses could be inversely proportional. I'll stop talking about this now!
It'd be interesting if there was a formal briefing component where the GM laid out the general nature of the challenges ahead, like "for every 50 points, you have to describe all the challenges of a single room and sketch out the challenges of two others" or whatever. So the ninjas could outfit accordingly.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on March 01, 2006, 12:31:33 PM
OK, I get you, but constraints can be really fun too. If I have a really cool gun with only one bullet, where and how I pull the trigger becomes a fun decision to make. From a design standpoint I think it would be easier to commoditize skills - you have grenade skill, moderately useful, and you can use it five times. You have "climb on the fucking ceiling" skill, which is super useful, and you get to do it exactly once per mission, the end. The causality is essentially cinematic - the really cool stuff only happens in limited, show-stopping quantities. Since the GM does not know how you are going to outfit your team, I don't think challenge balance is a huge issue - if it is all fighty all the way down, you're hosed if you outfitted wrong, but that's always true.
If levels max out, the number of uses could be inversely proportional. I'll stop talking about this now!
Jason,
I totally agree with you! Maybe I didn't say so well enough above.
A typical setup for a character (abbreviated, since, you know, it's not written yet) might be:
- Ninja Sword d8/d4 (unlimited)
- Grenade d12/d3 (3 times/special - attacks all)
- Healing Poultice d10/- (2 times)
- Spider Spell d12/d12 (1 time/climb on the ceiling)
Quote
It'd be interesting if there was a formal briefing component where the GM laid out the general nature of the challenges ahead, like "for every 50 points, you have to describe all the challenges of a single room and sketch out the challenges of two others" or whatever. So the ninjas could outfit accordingly.
Oh, so in there.
Should intelligence gathering be part of the game? Like, between missions you roll the Clan dice (or whatever) and successes let you peek ahead at certain rooms in the next mission? Something like that could be fun.
I love the Steel/Shadow Health/Stealth dynamics. That's a game right there.
Now, about the potential breaking point:
Quote from: Eric Provost on March 01, 2006, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: Ben...but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything with my cutty bits.
Oh yeah. That would kinda suck. I was just assuming that a High/High combination wouldn't be possible. Like, you'd have to have either Medium/Medium or High/Low. ...
There's another simple solution to this besides "each skill use is a non-renewable resource" (which is cool, but a pain to balance, and you clearly don't wanna go there) or capping the total of both aspects so any increase to one decreases the other (which is the
Trollbabe solution): The cost to buy up each aspect is the current level of the
other aspect. (This is
Ars Magica in reserve, which I stole for
apocalypse girl but may or may not use).
So, in character generation, if I've got my guy's "Drip Poison Down Wire Into Teapot" skill up to Steel 10, Shadow 7, it costs seven points to increase my
Steel to 11, and 10 points to increase my
Shadow. I know you're not doing "character advancement" over time, but you can still do this pretty easily with a point-buy table.
P.S.: Ninjas are cool, sure, but they're only half a game. Nobody's really talked about the point-buy resource game for the
GM. How much do I pay for axe blades that swing down from the ceiling while the floor falls away to reveal a pit of spiders with lasers attached to their heads?
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on March 01, 2006, 02:14:00 PM
I love the Steel/Shadow Health/Stealth dynamics. That's a game right there.
...
There's another simple solution to this besides "each skill use is a non-renewable resource" (which is cool, but a pain to balance, and you clearly don't wanna go there) or capping the total of both aspects so any increase to one decreases the other (which is the Trollbabe solution): The cost to buy up each aspect is the current level of the other aspect. (This is Ars Magica in reserve, which I stole for apocalypse girl but may or may not use).
Sydney,
Thanks!
I was working along the same lines at lunch, thinking that the cost would be the two combined. So it's 1 point for d4/d4, 2 to raise it to d6/d4, 3 to raise it to d8/d4, and 4 more to raise it to d8/d6. I'll have to compare the two options, but I like mine a lot right now.
Note: I compared the two options, and functionally, yours may encourage disparity at a higher level, which is cool, but mine seems easier to manage from a balance standpoint. Hm.
Maybe this is dumb, but I had this appealing image - what if you paired dice up physically? That is, the challenge is measured in maximum pips, and you put the dice in a bucket and then pair them up.
Challenge 100:
3D12 (36)
2D10 (20)
4D8 (32)
2D6 (12)
Which turns into
D12/D6
D12/D8
D12/D8
D10/D10
D8/D6
and 1D6 crazy die, I dunno... you could have recipes for different sorts of challenges.
Quote from: Jason Morningstar on March 01, 2006, 03:14:41 PM
Maybe this is dumb, but I had this appealing image - what if you paired dice up physically? That is, the challenge is measured in maximum pips, and you put the dice in a bucket and then pair them up.
Challenge 100:
3D12 (36)
2D10 (20)
4D8 (32)
2D6 (12)
Which turns into
D12/D6
D12/D8
D12/D8
D10/D10
D8/D6
and 1D6 crazy die, I dunno... you could have recipes for different sorts of challenges.
Jason,
You should totally just write this game for me, man. Your ideas are out of control good. You realize this means that a GM can make it up on the fly
and still be balanced.
I am stunned.
Heya,
QuoteYou realize this means that a GM can make it up on the fly and still be balanced.
-It's about time we started finding ways to give GMs the tools they need to do a good job. Love the way this is looking, guys.
Peace,
-Troy
Add me to the stunned. Damn! The bucket o' dice is so friggin cool.
Using Jason's idea about the bucket of dice, I've come to a cool realization: the whole "other method" dice thing can be whacked. It's now GM fiat, but a limited pool of GM fiat, which isn't so bad. When you come in a room, the GM will have to spend points on the fly for the challenges. The dice bought will totally be influenced by your description - if you describe how awesome your climbing on the wall is, then the GM will be tempted to let this one be easy and have more dice for a later challenge.
This also allows resource-based abilities to screw with the GM, which is a neat angle. Right now, for example, my alpha rules state that when you use shuriken, the GM has to pay twice as much for dice, as you're hitting from a distance and lowering your chance of being spotted or attacked.
Vis-a-vis the Ninja Clan thing: it seems like their out to be some common resource pool or pools that all players can draw from. I'm thinking Inspectres here. Mission successes can build up the Clan resources and of course impending failure tempts you to squander them.
Also, are you thinking of scoring individual performance? Could one player win through with great honor, while the other heaps shame upon the clan?
Clinton, have you read Orx (http://orx.daegmorgan.net/)? It has a system of the GM having a finite number of dice to oppose the players with in each scene which is similar in principle to the one you are describing now.
Another thing that occured to me is that you can maybe have it so the highest dice are only available to finite use "skills", so you could have Zulan's Reign of Silent Fire d12/d10 (single use) but your Ninja Sword skill would be capped at d8/d8.
Clinton, am I right in thinking you plan to have the GM build the flowchart that defines the scenario? Cos you could do interesting stuff with "uncoloured" flowcharts, where the flow between rooms and their levels of conflict are all predefined, but the colour is not. So, 100 points, 5 rooms, final room has main target might be an example, and the GM just has to pencil in "Black Lotus Gang Leader" and he's done with prep.
Also, is the game time-limited by anything other than agreement that play lasts 2 hours? Cos it might be awesome to build in a mechanic clock that ticks down (maybe your stealth decays by one rank each engagement), a bit like Inspectres mission dice in reverse...
-Matt
Thinking about my participation on RPG forums, I have to admit I'm more of a giver than a taker when it comes to feedback, so to try and redress the balance, I've taken some time to put together all the feedback I can on what looks like a really exciting game concept. Please keep in mind that I've never done a critique of an RPG before. All my previous experience critiquing has been in the literary world, where 'brutal' and 'constructive' are often taken as synonymous. So if I seem to focus on the negative, I hope I don't offend. I really like this game idea—I just don't think you'd benefit from me commenting on each piece that I think is great. So...
OK, first the name. I like the two elements, but not the combination. 'Steel' in adjective position modifying noun 'Shadows' sounds like 'shadows composed of steel.' The 'shadows' are probably the ninjas, so the title sounds right for a game about stealthy and/or secretive ninjas who are also inflexible and physically imposing, just like steel. However, this title doesn't sound right to me for speedy, agile ninjas—which I think is what you're after. These guys
use steel but they aren't
made of it (they're flexible and ethereal, not hard and bright). How about something like 'Steel and Shadow' or 'Shadows & Steel?'
Now, onto the game...
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
19. Who is your target audience?
People who enjoy D&D and other games that are mechanically focused on competition, but want it to take less time, and also really like ninjas.
I think this is the place to start. I'm guessing that members of the target audience will tend to have a strong gamist streak, will be heavily influenced by popular Western 'ninja' fiction (particularly films they saw as a kid), will be equally enamoured with the stealth and ass-kicking aspects of popular ninja representations and will be accustomed to the idea of 'work together to beat the game/end-boss/adventure/GM.'
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
1. What is your game about?
Ninjas hired to perform secretive missions without getting caught.
I think the target audience is as interested in martial-arts mayhem as in stealth, so perhaps the game should be about 'Ninjas hired to perform missions, by using stealth and violence, without getting caught.'
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
2. What do the characters do?
Stealthily make their way past traps, enemies, and obstacles to confront the center of their mission.
Sounds good, but again I think 'make their way past or eliminate' might better capture the tastes of the target audience.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
4. How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
There is absolutely no setting outside the mission. There might be rumors of setting ("The Edo clan has made a great strategem at court, and so the Hirochi clan has hired you to eliminate their master speech-writer"), but you never play in anything outside the mission. This reinforces the tactical elements of the game.
14. What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
I want them to sit on the edge of their seats, tensely worrying whether they will make it through the mission and save young girls from evil merchants.
Keeping focussed on the core aspect of the game is a good thing. However, I think the missions would actually benefit from the inclusion of one very important setting element: the player's clan. My reason is that I think the game will be most effective when players are on the edge of their seat, hoping that their stealth doesn't run out before the mission is complete. But in order to be on the edge of their seat, the players need to care about the mission, and it will be easier for them to care about it if it has important consequences for the clan. For non-one-shots, I'd suggest something like the following:
Each Ninja clan has an influence rating of 0-20. Players win the game when their clan reaches 20 (maybe this would represent something like establishing a puppet emperor on the throne). Perhaps the clan gains 1-3 points for each successful mission, and loses 1-6 points for each failure and for each relevant success of a rival faction. The clan is jointly managed by the players and the main resource that they manage in trying to increase the clan's influence rating is, of course, ninjas. At the first chargen, players roll to establish the size of the clan (e.g. 150 people). A set percentage of that will be ninjas (say 15%, or 23 ninjas). At the beginning, these ninjas are anonymous, but each time the players generate a character, one of the anonymous ninjas is 'fleshed out' and given a name. The total number of ninjas is mostly finite, with only a small number of boys coming of age and becoming ninjas each year (say, 1% or 3 ninjas every 2 years). So, every time a PC is killed, the players have essentially 'spent' one of their resources and lost one option for their future missions. This will encourage players to care a lot about whether they succeed or fail at any given mission, and about how many ninjas are lost on the mission.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
While one can create a character that will continue play in Iron Shadows, generally one will create a new character every time they play, engineered for that mission. This emphasizes the facelessness and mission-oriented-ness of the ninja.
9. What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
It puts the mission in danger at all times. While characters are faceless, and therefore we don't care if they die, it is planned that missions will tie together, making the players care about each one, as their ninja clan has a goal.
Being able to create new characters quickly before each mission is good, but I'm not so sure about the facelessness. First, I think your specified target audience will contain many folks who like some sort of character-advancement-based reward structure. More importantly, though, I think players will experience more excitement if they care not just about the mission, but also about whether their characters live or die. It's an extra layer of danger, which means more adrenaline. I think you should encourage players to give their ninjas characteristics that they care about—after all, ninjas are faceless to the enemy, not to clan and family.
Since ninjas will, I assume, tend to be very competent on average, weaknesses will probably help quite a bit to make each unique. Perhaps each ninja could be given a weakness such as 'feels very compassionate toward children (d6).' So, for example, if Yoshi, with the weakness 'can't resist the chance to steel expensive loot (d4),' were sneaking into the target's bedroom, and suddenly spotted a pearl and jade necklace of exceptional workmanship (d8) in the adjoining room, he'd have to roll to resist the temptation.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
3. What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?
The GM designs interesting and challenging scenarios to play in, and then presents this to the players. The players quickly build ninjas and then play these ninjas doing their stealthy thing. They try to think of ways past obstacles that the GM hasn't thought of.
16. Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?
The scenario creation is totally fun and great. You make a flowchart instead of a normal map. You can even randomly create the flowchart and then go back and add the challenges. This should allow the GM to make neat adventures with a minimum of prep time.
All in all, I'm trying real hard to bridge what I do enjoy about traditional "find the challenge and defeat it" games with a modern-sensibilities approach to it. The scenario creation above, for example, is built on points, ensuring that the GM makes a scenario the characters can make it through, although with great challenge. But, because characters are fluid, the GM's not constrained in what he can make.
17. Where does your game take the players that other games can't, don't, or won't?
Exactly what I said above - very competitive scenario creation that is fair and balanced, not by contract, but by rules
I like it, but sense a potential danger area. Some players & GMs might fallaciously perceive this as a Gygaxian GM vs. players game. That sort of game works fine for many people, but it can also ruin games by encouraging the GM to bring out his inner jerk. Your point system is an excellent method of mitigating this, but I think you should also stress, clearly and frequently, that the GM's role is
not to beat the players, but to design a fun mission that he thinks the characters will be able to beat, but just barely. In essence, the GM's challenge is to find the perfect level of challenge for the players.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
They do this in a quick amount of time. Scenario prep should be one hour, character creation 15 minutes, and game play 2 hours.
That would be a great balance. However, since good characters are very useful for developing a good story (which, of course, is what players & GM will be doing in the 2-hour game-play part) and since the target audience will like and be used to the idea of team members each having their own unique strengths and weaknesses, it'll be important to make that 15 minutes of chargen count. I think chargen should ignore those things that all ninjas can do and focus only on the unique traits that will define each PC.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
6. What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
It rewards solid tactical thought, deftness of ideas (that is, thinking up the unexpected), and luck. It's not a very serious game, in that luck is a major factor.
7. How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?
The game rewards the above with an increased chance of mission success. There is no built-in punishment mechanism besides mission failure.
In some ways, I think that a high luck factor discourages tactical thinking by reducing the average value of the reward for engaging in it (good tactical thinking will give you a high chance of success vs. good tactical thinking will give you a slightly higher chance, but mostly it'll come down to good rolling). Is there a good reason why a high luck-factor will add to the players' enjoyment?
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
8. How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
The GM is responsible for credibility. Narration is controlled generally by the GM. Players will get a chance to narrate their success within a limited structure - the GM has final say, and they are not allowed to expand past their intent.
IMO, definitely the right choice for the game.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
10. What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
Very basically, you will have a skill and stat for every action you take. These are ranked with dice - 1d3/4/6/8/10/12. So, for every conflict, you have two dice to roll. The GM will also have two dice, determined by the conflict. You roll and compare individual dice. The player only needs one die to win to win the conflict. However, if one die fails, the difference is damage against either the character's health or stealth pools. If health reaches zero, you die. If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.
I like this, but I think you might be able to pump the adrenaline up slightly if there is a very small chance that when something goes wrong stealth-wise, it can spiral out of control. This way characters will be discouraged from thinking, 'Yeah, yeah, lost two stealth points. Who cares? We've got lots more.' Perhaps making the GM's stealth dice open-ended would do the trick.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
11. How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
It's about ninjas! They're stealthy!
Seriously, note that stealth is a resource, not an ability. It is assumed that as a ninja, you are always stealthy. You must hoard this resource, though, keeping your enemies in the dark at all times. If you fail to do this, then you are a failure as a ninja.
This bit is great. I do think, though, that your target audience is as interested in ass-kicking as they are in stealth, so exciting fight mechanics should be a priority. One great place to build up the fight side would be when mission failure occurs. The mission's lost, but the players need to get out with as few losses as possible (so as not to drain the clan's resources). Good fight mechanics and good chase mechanics could make this part really exciting.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
12. Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?
Yes and no. Characters don't advance, but missions will. The GM builds a mission with a certain number of points, which determines what level characters will be built. So, if you play three times, against 50, 75, and 100 point scenarios, then the characters will be built at higher effectiveness levels each time. You could play the same characters at each effectiveness level, but it is not required in the least.
13. How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
The lack of character advancement against reinforces the point that the mission is much more important than the character.
Go on, you scrooge! Give those D&D players the character advancement reward they so crave! Anyway, it's fun. It's true that faceless characters will put more focus on the mission, but I really think the missions will be more exciting if the players care more about the characters.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on February 28, 2006, 11:57:30 AM
15. What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
The characters are built with "trainings," which are like class levels. Each training has five levels, and they are going to get a lot of neat attention. Basic ninja training, poison training, animal training, zen training - all of these are going to get neat color.
These are going to get extra attention because they are the players' first important choices, and therefore will be their first point of engagement with the system.
This is great! I think it's exactly the sort of thing that will make players care about their characters.
Clinton,
I think there is the start of an exceptional game here. I'm even more impressed by the way it's taken shape here. Good ideas from everyone.
I wanted to comment on things for which I feel strongly about throughout the discussion. Overall, I am excited about where this game is going. Much more so than when I read the first P19 for reasons I will delineate below.
At first, I was afraid that your focus on missions over characters was going to be a detriment for the game. To be blunt, I was wondering why Steel Shadows was going to be a roleplaying game it all. It seemed more like a tactical miniatures (a la Space Hulk) game with its mission-based focus and its elicit rejection of characters (yes, you say a character can be resued, but the character is just a set of numbers that determine what dice to roll.) Once you add clans and clan history, an emotional attachment is formed and it's a character. This is my definition of a character, but I think that many gamers would agree with this idea, at least on the surface.
I should also say that my Warhammer 40K Chaos Champ has a name, a backstory, and I wanted to weep when he was crushed underneath a dreadnought that was knocked over by a lucky shot. So my feelings on characters and adding them is somewhat skewed.
I think that this can be read as a vote for character advancement. It complicates the mechanic, but I think it's worth it. I think everyone wants to see their 50 point teenage ninja grow into the wizened old master ninja who gets to train a whole new generation of grasshoppers.
Among my other thoughts. I don't like the idea of skills as reusable resources. To me that doesn't make sense. I mean I understand that a skill that is used over and over may lose effectiveness, but that almost seems like a metaeffect. For instance, "Jeez last week someone from the Nakamura Clan used their new tea kettle and they all were poisoned, and two days ago the Kurita Clan got new porcelain and they all were poisoned. It seems a little strange we'd get now porcelain, but hey, bad things never come in threes. Drink up!" However, my skill at blades should work whether I hacked the last gaurd up or not. I also think that the idea of creative solutions to problems and skills as a resource may be at odds with one another. If I have one charge of my poison, I'm likely to save it rather than use it in a creative manner and defeat one of the cooler mechanics of the game. I'm also going to save it until I think it will succeed, creative opportunity or not because I don't want it to go to waste.
May I suggest keeping skills as general possible. Instead of gernade d12/d3 and shuriken d6/d8, why not have a throwing skill? I'd keep skills as general possible. To me, gernades and shuriken are just equipment. Now, perhaps a gernade is +2 ranks of damage and -6 ranks of stealth (they do boom rather loudly) and that's fine. I think keeping a list of equipment with finite numbers of gernades, shuriken, etc. which are bought with points (or Clan points or whatever) is perfectly appropriate. And would be a nice touch to the game and easily to do as a mechanic.
My last point is one you can feel free to disregard. The shadow vs. steel thing works well as a game mechanic, but it has no RL equivalent that I can think of, at least in some cases. Blades are a good example. I can't imagine someone with a d12 skill one the Steel half of blades (representing an excellent fighter) who would have a d3 in Shadow. It seems that someone who had perfected their skill with a blade to the point they were d12 with one half of the skill could be difficent in the other half. So at the very least, I think those two halves should be close. I am not sure if I am making sense.
There might be some equivalent to that in Poison. The argument could be made that a higher Steel rating (more damage) would mean less stealth in their application. An amount of poison equal to one point of damage may have only a slight aftertaste. An amount of poison equal to 10 points of damage is going to taste awful.
HOWEVER, this all goes back to equipment, IMNSHO. A dagger has high steel and low shadow. A battleaxe, just the oppositve. Same with different doses of poison.
Good game. And good interviews on the SOK Podcast. Good stuff!
One more thought I had based off of the metaeffect idea I mentioced earlier. Would there be a chance that a character could attempt several mini-missions before the actual mission such as bribe the cook, ambush a caravan with gaurds, prepoison the water, etc?
These mini-missions would alter the threat level in the mission. It might also work as several missions in a campaign.
Doh! My post three posts back should have read 'more of a taker than a giver'. Edit?
P.S. I agree with CommonDialog that equipment should probably have something to do with shadow vs. steel.
I like what I'm hearing, and the more I read it sounds like we're on parrallel tracks (http://lucrepress.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_lucrepress_archive.html")(Second one on the page.)
In addition to those "stealth restore points" should you also include "health restore points?" Or even if you decide to go with multiple characters for each player, that can be the "reinforcement room" where a new character can catch up. If that's used, then maybe players are meant to build each ninja with a portion of their pool and the challenge is getting through the GM's dice without spending all their "lives."
But we already know I like disposable heroes. As for the player buy-in, Tenchu is a video game right? Your ninja will all be dressed in black right? They're already pretty interchangeable if you consider the different dice as different play styles. (This time I'm gonna get to the Metal Gear without ever raising the alarm! This time I'm gonna shiv every soldier on the way! etc.) If people can love old skool game characters like Ryu Hayabusa (Ninja Gaiden! Classic!) they should be able to get into enjoying the simple coolness of the ninja.
I still like the concept of deteriorating stealth based on sword bad-assery. Especially when you consider that a patrol of guards could just as easily be following the ninja. When they find the bodies, or blood-sprays on the walls, they aren't likely to assume all is well.
Maybe covering your trail is another skill?
Heya,
QuoteIn addition to those "stealth restore points" should you also include "health restore points?" Or even if you decide to go with multiple characters for each player, that can be the "reinforcement room" where a new character can catch up.
-I was under the impression that Clinton wanted the characters to be more one shot uses. This way, the players grew attatched to the setting/story rather than the individual characters. The Clan becomes the protagonist rather than each person's individual avatar. I might be totally wrong about this, so I'll let him clarify. But the one shot aspect is something that really drew my attention initially. (not that it's waned any hehe)
Peace,
-Troy
The advantage of returning characters (especially with character advancement) is that it helps players care about them -- which makes it more fun to kill them. What's the dilemma in "I can preserve the life of my Nameless Ninja #13, or sacrifice him for the mission"? Compare to "I can save Bob-San, my 13th level Ninja/8th level Wallaby I have been playing for six months, or let him take it in the neck for the clan"?
People, I'm going to go ahead and close this topic. It's gotten very much off topic - it's become about a different game a few of you are imagining, ignoring the initial design goals. I thank you for being interested, and hope that you'll take this other game off and develop it.