[Icar] Scavenger setting II (split)

[brainwipe]

Back after a bit of a break...

Like many RPG groups, we broke up for 4 weeks over Christmas. During this time, there was little contact between the players. When we returned, it was difficult for the players to regain the momentum that they had before Christmas, it was also difficult to keep continuity of the campaign as the little details were lost amongst the Christmas drink. I think this is a typical problem. Here are some things that I felt helped in getting the game going:

1. Gamemaster Recap
In Icar, recording information is structured well. This means that it is easy to recall what happened the previous session. Normally, at the start of the session, a player will try and earn some experience points (called Roleplaying Points in Icar) by recapping the salient points of the last session. In this case, the time gap was too large for any of them to do this satisfactorily. They do keep notes, but they do not tend to be in chronological (time/date) order. As the GM model in Icar suggests that the timelines are kept this way, the GM is will suited for doing this recap. The player will, of course, interject their own feelings ideas and comedy during this monologue.

It is worth noting that it's best for the GM to read through before doing the recap as I found I missed some of the minor details that the players felt were important. It wasn't too much of an issue as they soon chimed in when they remembered something.

2. Email Refresher
Another idea that came to mind (that I did not test) was to email the players with a story giving their last position. They could then read up before the session and then get started as soon as possible. This would have helped but like all good ideas, it occurred after the event!

3. Finish with an ending and start with a beginning
If you know that the team is likely to break for a while - like there is a national holiday when everyone splits up or the GM is going in for surgery - then end the last session with a full stop. By this I mean that the story has come to a natural conclusion. Another good method is to leave a massive cliff-hangar (should be a really big one). When you start again, try and start on something slightly different or new.

If you end a session in the middle of something intricate, it is more difficult to start the session after a long break.

On another note - new rule testing
More recently, I have begun adding the rules that will go into the next version of the Elements (Core rules), Version 3.5. In this new version, I will be expanding on the close combat system. Although they have not been able to test the skills just yet, the response is positive. I am warey of adding rules that add complexity - I would prefer to add rules to allow more flexibility.

[brainwipe]

Last session was particularly good. We spent most of the time laughing. Not a great deal of roleplaying was done but everyone had a great time. I don't think anyone minded that not a lot was achieved as we all had such fun. I like sessions like that - we get to remember that we're all friends!

At the end of the session, two of the more experienced players suggested that we wrap this campaign up. This would be much better than fizzling out toward the end. They have got the point now where they can have a shot at taking out their arch enemy: Tacquent so they might as well have a go.

There was a little resistance to ending the group but they decided that rather than become the most powerful group in the world, they should play the arrogance of the characters and actually make an attempt on the life of the extremely well defended Tacquent. It should be fun!

Oddly, they are finishing the setting (after more than 18 months, 45 sessions of play) just as the Scavenger Setting is published on the Icar website!

Consequences
The upshot of this is that I have to put a new scenario together. It was decided to run a Star Enforcers Setting where they play Imperial Police arresting everything in sight. I think their recent brush with a Star Enforcer Investigator wet their apetite.

This is a fair amount of work, but I have started the design and I am enjoying it very much. By the time the Scav Setting was uploaded in sparkling PDF format, I was quite sick of it all! I shall keep posting here until they finally end.

The Story Continues...
After the war on Tao, they have finally got fed up with the workings of Tacquent. They've stopped him getting Rhot Online, they stopped him taking Kale System and now they have diminished his forces on Tao. They managed to improve themselves to the point that little short of the Imperium can stop them. Much of the grief is caused by Tacquent and his meglomania so by stopping him they can stop the grief.

Of course, the Bionics of some members of the team are powered by Ion. If destroyed, this power supply is likely to explode - with the force of 10 nuclear bombs.

But then, they might survive the onslaught of Tacquent's guard...

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Rob, I hope you don't mind that I split these from Icar: Scavenger setting. Just keepin' a little house, nothing major.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I'm curious as to how you plan to present the final showdown. Knowing that it's obviously going to happen, how can you prevent it from being anti-climactic?

Mike

[brainwipe]

Good question and thanks for raising it, Mike. It's something I have paid considerable attention to.

It's difficult to say without giving too much away as my players read this too! I think the best thing to do is give them a good fight. They spent last session planning! For three hours they discussed different tactics, researched for information, altered tactics and came up with the semblance of a plan (a thoroughly cunning and excellent one, too). Thus, the final showdown will be on their terms.

A good way to approach this is from the opposite: What would an anti-climax feel like? I'll try and answer this and then give the methods for solving it below. Feel free to disagree!

If it was all too easy. If they died too quickly.
This is a case of balance. They need to go up against something of comparable power which requires little adjustment because they are attacking while at comparable strength to the bad guy - Tacquent. I think players like it when they're down to the last character who is missing both legs and his arm and is strangling the bad guy with the only 3 fingers remaining on one hand. All the other characters having died to get him to that point!

There is a slight difficulty here and that is with some of the technology the team have picked up. Being mostly bionic, they have picked out a power source that will explode with the power of a nuke if heavily damaged. This could bring a sudden death to everyone - and quite likely their target too.

If there were no more surprises
If everything went to plan and there were no more shocks, then the colour would drain out of it. I have a few more twists to the tale towards the end that they will find gratifying.

Give them some rope
To make sure the final showdown is more gratifying, I am likely to give the characters more rope. By this I mean that their plan is more likely to work than it would be normally. This leniency will help them feel that they succeeded after the event - even if they all die, they can be happy in the knowledge that the plan was good.

Roleplay and combat
There is a tendancy to mould the final session into a combat spree. In carelessness, the session might turn into "I run here, shoot him". This can be avoided by having henchmen with personalities - they might beg forgiveness or give up one minute to fight again the next.

They all go together
So that no-one is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, all the character should have snuffed it within minutes of each other in game time. Alternatively, I might give an NPC henchman to a player and see how they do. That is something I might have to play by ear.

Unsure ending
Them all dying is pretty much assured but will they actually kill the bad-guy in the process. Given their plan and what I have written in notes, I'd say its 50/50 at the moment.

If anyone has any ideas on how to avoid an anti-climax, then please do proffer your thoughts. They will be gladly accepted!

Thankyou for asking.

[brainwipe]

How it all ended

Most groups I have run in campaign have ended suddenly and without warning. The meta-game has never really entered into it. The character will end up putting themselves into a really nasty position that they cannot get out of and then they all die. It's a sudden shock. Games can also fade out, as the players lose interest in an old setting and old characters. They get a large taste of character mortality and err on the side of safety more often than not. This can lead to a massive anti-climax. It's obviously better to avoid this.

The alternative to this (which I ran last Tuesday) is to have the meta-game get involved with the end of the campaign. For example, 2 weeks ago, my players approached me and said that its fun still but they have a chance at going for the big-bad-guy. They believed that this would be a good end. We all agreed. This is the meta-game influencing the end of the in-game. They then spent a week planning and then the ultimate session was spent causing havoc.

This is a good way to end a campaign. Unlike the old method, I had a little bit prepared for the end of the game - a summing up of what happened to various NPCs after they died. I also had a load of answers for the many unanswered questions they had during the course of play (things they couldn't be bothered to investigate).

Moreover, the gameplay whipped along quite quickly as they knew they had one session to achieve their goals. I added a few little twists in the tale and most of the team lasted right until the end, when the damage they took was insurmountable.

They got the bad-guy and his 9 year old psychopathic daughter who was telepathically controlling him. Unforunately, the bad guy had cyberware powered on something very dangerous (think: nuke) and when they blew him up, the surviving team member died also. They only realised this in the last moment.

In Conclusion
Having tried both sorts of campaign ending, I believe that the meta-game format is much more agreeable and enjoyable. It is easier to avoid anti-climaxes and gives both players and GM a chance to draw a line under an enjoyable campaign and start afresh.

I shall post about the new campaign once I have something to report!

[Mike Holmes]

It's about as near to axiomatic around here that metagame is superior to in-game means in terms of coming to a dramatic conclusion.

Thanks for sharing, Rob. Looking forward to seeing what you cook up for the next game.

Do you do game revisions between campaigns (seems like the logical time). If so, are there any changes that you think you might be implementing given the course of this campaign?

Mike

[brainwipe]

Mr Holmes, you certainly are a question maestro of considerable note! To proffer a semblance of a reply...

Whether I update the rules between campaigns or on a rolling update depends very much on the type of update. Over the past 10 years, I have tried both rolling (in game) updates and major updates (changing the entire game system). I shall present my findings here. I have attempted to categorise different types of revision so that it might be useful to others:

Additions akin to plug-ins
Any rule or game item that does not affect that which is already in play can be brought in at any time. These are plug-ins in the same way that software can have plug-ins. This includes:

[*]New Skills (expansion of the Skill tree)
[*]New Equipment or items
[/list:u]
Most GMs add new items to the system as they move on in-game, so this will not be alien to anyone.

Mid-life updates
These updates are changes to the rules or setting that occur during the game but may have a knock-on effect to the gameplay. They should be applied carefully, or if in doubt, warn the players that some change has been made. By letting the players know of the change, it will go by far smoother than shuffling it under the carpet. These revisions include:

[*]Changes to NPC profiles. This is only a problem if the player group has met or heard of the NPC, if not then it's not a problem.
[*]New character sheet. This should be done with care as many players will resist a new character sheet because of the intricate designs they have applied to them! If the campaign has been running some time, some players will be happy for a fresh sheet and will welcome a new one. Be warned that many revisions to the character sheet may wind the players up.
[*]Changes to Currency worth. If you have realised that some item costs far too much, it is ok to change it during a campaign. You will need to warn tha players of the change of currency worth. For example, you might change the cost of an expensive meal for 50 to 20.
[*]Changes to the setting. If you are running a completed setting, then you should not need to make changes to the setting or should do so beforehand. If you are play testing a setting, then the players should be warned at the start that there might be some changes and then warn as you make them en-route.
[/list:u]

Between Setting Updates
These tend to be large updates that change the manner in which the game is played. Example of this include:

[*]New Combat Systems or resolution mechanics. Particularly if they replace an existing mechanic.
[*]Movement from one style of play (Narrativist) to another (Gamist). In-game changes to this can be quite arbitrary and ruin the campaign as a whole. I would recommend leaving it to another or new campaign.
[/list:u]

In conclusion
If it is a plug-in type change, then feel freet to add it. If the change is going to effect the campaign, warn the players. If the change is going to alter the way the game is played, leave it to the end of the campaign or start afresh. If in doubt, let the players know so that they feel included in the process, rather than you are pulling the wool over their eyes.

Hope this is a sufficient answer!

[Mike Holmes]

That's some good notes on methodology, but I was wondering if you were making any specific changes.

For example, I take it your next game will be in the same setting? In which case, you won't be changing your combat system at all, for instance? But which will likely have some changes to costs, and the like. What will you change this time (if anything)?

The reason I keep the questions up is that I think that more people ought to give your site a looksee, given that it represents a lot of indie game design effort.

Mike

[brainwipe]

You're too kind!

Now I have a firm grip of the right end of the stick... ;-)

I have been rolling on changes for Version 3.5 of the Elements (core rules). These are all plug-in changes so have been playtested during the last campaign. My players have been wonderful at giving the new rules a thorough testing and a great deal of thought. I hope that I thank them enough for that.

The changes include:
New Psychotheatrics
New Skills
New fighting combos
More pictures and explanations

Although I am actually playing with these nwe rules, the 3.5 PDF won't be ready for some time as the Star Enforcer setting must come first.

The Star Enforcer setting is totally new (and thus, the biggest change) and I am tidying up a lot of info about the Star Enforcers (the new setting) as there is a lot of 'half truths' about the Enforcers that people remember from gaming sessions in the past. The new document should dispell these inaccuracies.

The only part of the 3.5 I would love to change is the space combat system, which I feel is woefully inadequate. However, I am still writing down ideas for this. I want an abstract system (no miniatures) that allows tactical play (selecting position). However, the solution has not quite made itself present. Most are content with using the vehicle combat system in space, which is fine and gives enough flexibility but I feel that there should be something different involved when one of the craft in the combat is the size of a small town!

In short, there are no major rule updates. The Elements 3.5 are almost how I want them. I might add some more into the Society (background) PDF but only as I am writing it up anyway!

Thanks for the interest, I do sometimes wonder if anyone else has actually tried to run it!!! ;)