(Space Ranger) Differentiating Equipment

[CSBone]

All right, I need some brains.

As I have been working on Space Ranger I have come to realize that my whole concept of how you build and design the rules for equipment, at least for this game, do not work. Required a radical paradygm shift for me.

In short Equipment in Space Ranger lets you play. Perhaps really good Equipment gives you a small bonus and really poor Equipment gives you a small penalty but over all that is not it's purpose. From a mechanics PoV, Equipment is a yes/no on whether or not you can roll your dice to do something that would require that type of Equipment to perform a given task.

From one PoV this is fantastic because it makes it easy to describe everything from Mecha to microscopes, cyberware to starships. Got it, you can do it (whatever IT is). Don't got it, you can't.

But...

One of the fun things about sci-fi games is all of the cool "Stuff". Since all of the "Stuff", mechanically speaking, is all the same, how do you differentiate it?

C. S. Bone

[AmbroseCollector]

If each peice of equipment had a specific list of functions, then how "cool" something is could be based on its functions.  "Sure, all Mecha walk and have guns, but mine flies and can maneuver underwater!"

I don't know much about the system or your design goals, but if you want to include equipment as a relatively centeral feature, this could also provide the opportinity for players to upgrade their "stuff," either by purchasing it or fashioning it from scraps.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Also, in a lot of science fiction stories (and in real life military operations, though less spectacularly), there is technology whose sole purpose is to neutralize opposing technology, e.g. "electronic counter-measures" giving rise to "electronic counter-counter measures," or radar being countered by stealth -- which you might call the "no, you can't play after all" effect. E.g.

"I have Ultra-Mega-Missiles - I can attack you from interplanetary range!"
"Bah! My Automatic Defense Laser shoots down your missiles in flight! They're useless!"
"Fool! My Missiles' Reflective Anti-Laser Coating scornfully shoves aside your laser beams!"
"Miserable cretin! My Molecular Disruption Field causes your reflective coating to disintegrate!"
"Foul offspring of a dyslexic hamster! My Emphatic Cohesion Treatments keep my coating firm and sleek!"

and so on, and so on, although perhaps less ludicrously.

[MikeSands]

How about this?

Everyone starts with a pool of points to buy equipment with.

Whenever you want to use equipment to do something - such as shoot people from interplanetary range, you spend a point, name the equipment and note what it can do. From then on, you have that gear and it can do that.

You can also add extra functions to existing gear (such as the laser-reflective coating) by spending points.

The limited pool gives a reason not to keep inventing new gadgets until you win. You probably want to have some kind of mapping between level or scope of effects and game-mechanical bonus gained and the number of points spent.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I just want to advise you to watch your Drift here.  I can't remember too much about your game, but equipment lists are very much a Sim priority and somewhat a Gamist priority.  If your game isn't oriented towards the Sim, then be careful or including rhemes of equipment lists.  Gamists only care about equipment if it helps them strategize.  Your old system would have worked in a Gamist philosophy just as nicely as a five page gear chart would without all the needless itemizing and inherant problems that always causes. 

Like I said, I can't remember too much about your game atm so I may be way off base, but I just wanted to toss this in just in case it did have some bearing on what you are doing :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Josh Roby]

For what it's worth, CS, equipment in Full Light, Full Steam works in exactly the same way.

Use of, say, Mechanics requires proper tools in order to be able to make that roll.  If you have poor or few tools, you get a negative modifier.  If you have excellent tools in a convenient setting (ie, a workshop), you get a positive modifier.  There isn't even a section for equipment on the character sheet.

This is a game that has tremendous emphasis on the fantastic steam technology; it just doesn't have an emphasis on the equipment that the characters carry around.  Of course, I've got a military setting, so most 'equipment' is standard issue -- if everybody has the same sidearm, is it really necessary to write that down on the character sheet?  That's like writing down "two arms with five fingers each" in the character sheet.  On the other hand, there is a section on the character sheet for the ship, collaboratively created by all the players, and the ship has got "stats" in the form of thematic batteries -- which can just as easily be "soft" characteristics (stubborn) as hard mechanics (experimental faraday drive).  FLFS ships are "people" in the people/furniture distinction, though, which is more derivative of the Victorian navy side of the setting than the space opera side.  Before I qualify things any further, I'll just summarize that it depends on the goals of your game and how you treat tech and equipment as a part of the game.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  I don't know what your game is about, but I do know that the nifty technobable can be used in two ways:
     1 ) Used to generalize specific technology. e.g., it's a phazer, what it does and how it works is unimportant. All you need to know is that it is a weapon and you don't want someone pointing one at you
     2 ) Used to differentiate. e.g., Type 227 oscilating ion pistol, it's way more accurate than the old type 226's and they are more stylish. I mean, I'd still rather have a Mark 3 pulse gun, but who can afford those? In this way, character customization extends into the physical game world.
  These are both acceptable systems, but they enforce and convey different moods and play styles. For instance if your game is about hard charging space marines saving the universe from grafite-stick pushing bureaucrats, then they are going to get military issue gear. All marines have Phazer Carbines (or whatever you want to call them), except the officers have Phazer pistols, the HW expert has Phazer Cannons and the Snipers have Phaser Rifles. You need to make stats for the gear that some of the baddie's the marines will encounter maybe Draconian Diruptors or whatever, but the list will be short and practical, no? But if the game is about hitmen, assassins and mercenaries, then you need to include old tech, current tech and new tech. Maybe the old tech has less ammo and is more reliable and the new tech does more damage but cuts out randomly, whatever, but that living on the edge, scrounging for gear to get the job done feel comes through when the players are trying to decide, no?
  I hope this helps, it only a vague spark of an idea, but if you like it or decide on a direction, we can flesh it out some more...

[CSBone]

Oh boy...I didn't expect this many responses this quick. COOL!

This is going to get long.

Hi Ambrose!

Actually, I'm trying to stay away from big long lists of anything. One thing is for certain, though, technology and equipment is ubiquitous. Everybody's got it and everybody uses it.

...but if you want to include equipment as a relatively centeral feature, this could also provide the opportinity for players to upgrade their "stuff,"...

The question, I guess, is How?

Hi Sydney!

Also, in a lot of science fiction stories (and in real life military operations, though less spectacularly), there is technology whose sole purpose is to neutralize opposing technology, e.g. "electronic counter-measures" giving rise to "electronic counter-counter measures," or radar being countered by stealth -- which you might call the "no, you can't play after all" effect.

You hit it right on the nose! My system is actually designed such that you add up all of the opposing bonuses and then give the difference to the Character with the higher number of bonuses. Funny example BTW!

Hi Mike!

Everyone starts with a pool of points to buy equipment with.

Whenever you want to use equipment to do something - such as shoot people from interplanetary range, you spend a point, name the equipment and note what it can do. From then on, you have that gear and it can do that.

You can also add extra functions to existing gear (such as the laser-reflective coating) by spending points.

I'm trying to stay away from an arbitrary point system of that nature. I don't believe "balance" is necessarily a good thing. As for trying to limit the escalation, I'm trying to avoid any the GM being arbitrator for anything...part of my design goal is that the GM is just the Player that sets the situation and runs everybody not a Player Character.

Hi Troy!

I just want to advise you to watch your Drift here.

What is Drift? As for the Gamist/Narative/Sim thing, can you restate without the terms...I'm not sure I use them the same way the Forge does...

Hi Joshua!

For what it's worth, CS, equipment in Full Light, Full Steam works in exactly the same way.

Use of, say, Mechanics requires proper tools in order to be able to make that roll.  If you have poor or few tools, you get a negative modifier.  If you have excellent tools in a convenient setting (ie, a workshop), you get a positive modifier.

On the money! Can you expand on Thematic Batteries?

Hi Dave

I don't know what your game is about, but I do know that the nifty technobable can be used in two ways:
     1 ) Used to generalize specific technology. e.g., it's a phazer, what it does and how it works is unimportant. All you need to know is that it is a weapon and you don't want someone pointing one at you
     2 ) Used to differentiate. e.g., Type 227 oscilating ion pistol, it's way more accurate than the old type 226's and they are more stylish. I mean, I'd still rather have a Mark 3 pulse gun, but who can afford those? In this way, character customization extends into the physical game world.

I guess I want to use it both ways.

I'm going to put up a couple of examples and maybe that will help clarify what I'm looking for...of course it may not...but here we go.

She goes screaming in to battle in her Gunship blazing away with the spinal novagun mounts while her partner deftly controls a shoal of autonomous kill vehicles. The Battleship turns with behemoth grace as it opens up with plasma turrets and launches AKVs of its own.

Mechanically speaking the girl in the Gunship (I love alliteration) ain't going to win this one without a miracle and a prayer but it might bloody the Battleship's nose enough to allow her to run and fight again another day.

Before I started working on this game I would have statted it all out and watched the plummeting hit points. Novagun damage is so much, plasma fire is so effective, Battle ship takes so much damage etc. and the story of a one chance in a million longshot that pays off would be lost in the mechanics.

I don't want that. I want the story. They make their choices against seemingly impossible odds, accept the possibility of dying because it give the possibility of winning, roll the dice and tell the story. The question is, HOW?

He dives left as the giant insectoid battle machine slams it's vibro blade centimeters from his head and then spinning to his knees he fires his last hyperkinetic lance.

Mechanically speaking, most systems I've played wouldn't give you a one shot kill even as a possibility, but the story DEMANDS that there is the possibility he can kill it with his last shot...of course if he doesn't...Again, how do I create the IBM, how do I create the HK lance?

I know it is just a shift in my paradigm and I'll be ready to rock...I'm just not seeing it yet.

C. S. Bone

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Maybe you need to take a step back and assign stats to as much stuff as you think is pertinent, but instead of assigning attack, defense, damage, ammo, etc. Assign plot power and/or any other story driven potential. The reality is that sci fi is defined by using tech to do more/better/faster than you can do today. And all anyone can do is imagine how that technology can aid us.
  Just give Plot Power to items, maybe a hyper-spanner has a plot power of one, let the player and/or GM come up with how they manipulate the plot with a hyper-spanner...
Example
  Scot uses his hyper-spanner to attune the deflector screens to the same "wavelength" as the incoming destroyer. It won't make our ship invulnerable, but it will buy us enough time to accomlish the mission
  Then the Evil Commodore uses his Destroyer with 2 plot power to reverse the plot, because what our intrepid crew doesn't know is that this is a Mk II destroyer and it has kinetic weapons as well as disruptors and Kinetic weapons don't have a "wavelenght" Mwa ha ha ha

  Or something like that. If you don't want it to be about the stats, you have to find a way to make it about something else, no?
  Good luck, sounds like you know what you want, so it is just a matter of zeroing in on it!

[Sydney Freedberg]

Like so many other things, Ron Edwards said it best (full context at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14746.msg156084#msg156084 if the link below doesn't work in your browser). Bear with me and Ron here; it gets good:

Think instead of all the circumstances in which your character really needs to get over an 8' fence. No, really, think of them - you'll find there are a lot. Now think about the subset of them which are not boring... in other words, in which something is at stake. And in which "something" means related to character's issue and "at stake" means no matter what, is about to change.

The fence just became a fairly marginal piece of detail, didn't it? And although it might be a really really cool detail, with plenty of resonance (e.g. the first bulwark at Helm's Deep, the Berlin Wall), it still isn't and can never be actually the something-is-at-stake.

So it's not what's being rolled. What's being rolled is whatever has an interest in the "something" going the other way. We can call it "antagonism," I guess, which is a tricky concept for gamers because even if the antagonist wins, it doesn't de-protagonize our character (just fucks him or her up way bad, even kills). Also, this "antagonism" doesn't have to be an actual being, sometimes - in fact, at times, yeah, you could treat the Berlin Wall as a character, in which case it would count, and would roll as such.

Now:

Replace the word "fence" with "Death Star." Or "Insectoid Battle Machine." Or "Giant Space Battleship."

See what happens? The piece of equipment -- even if "piece" means "as big as a planet" -- just became a prop; in rules terms, it's maybe a modifier, or maybe nothing at all, just a piece of colorful narration. The real conflict is between your heroes and some worthy opponent. Luke Skywalker isn't fighting the friggin' Death Star: He's fighting Darth Vader, who just happens to have a Death Star as his weapon in this particular scene* (as well as his personal fighter). In a later scene, Darth Vader might have a light saber, or an entire fleet of Star Destroyers relentlessly searching an asteroid field. Whatever. Light saber, starfighter, battle fleet, giant battle station: All equipment. All stuff that modifies a character (mechanically) and expresses a character (thematically) but does not do a damned thing in the game/story on its own.

Mechanically, then, the heroes' fighter is not rolling against the Giant Space Battleship; the heroes themselves are rolling against whatever interesting bad guy happens to be using the Giant Space Battleship -- maybe its captain, maybe somebody not even on the GSB, like the admiral of the fleet, or maybe somebody not even physically present in the scene, like the Evil Galactic Emperor a thousand light-years away. The tiny fighter and the giant battleship are both just modifiers to the roll, and mechanically might be best depicted as being equivalent to any other ability of the characters that own them -- so while the fighter may only give the heroes a +3, and the battleship may give the villains a whopping +15, the villains get maybe a lousy "Kinda Smart +1" while the heroes have "Smart +2," "Brave +4," and "Too Cool for School +10," which means they win easily.

Because if you really want heroic space drama, personal conviction and courage outweights the weaponry, every time. In fact, the weaponry only matters in so far as it somehow expresses character -- look at Firefly/Serenity for a great example of this, but also Luke's plucky little X-Wing vs. the huge, brutal, lumbering Death Star.

Caveat: Maybe the war machine is so cool, and so important, that it has a personality unto itself; in that case, though, again, it's not the machinery that counts for your game, it's the personality. If you want to treat the Death Star as a character, that's fine, just don't try to figure out its maximum delta-vee and power output, instead think of it as a really, really big NPC with traits like "Relentless +6" and "Arrogant +9."

* I know, I know, it'd be more accurate to say that Grand Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing) is the character with the Death Star Mk. I as his weapon, and the Emperor is the character with the Death Star Mk. II, and they both [SPOILER! Like you didn't already know!] are killed when their weapon is destroyed. In game terms, I'd argue that Tarkin and the Emperor are KO'd, taking their equipment (which just happens to be moon-sized, planetbusting battlestations) with them, rather than the equipment being KO'd and taking anyone who happens to be on board with them.

[Josh Roby]

The reality is that sci fi is defined by using tech to do more/better/faster than you can do today. And all anyone can do is imagine how that technology can aid us.

Dave, I'm going to have to jump up and down screaming, "No no no no!"

The only application of science fiction that is defined by the technology is science fiction-themed games like Doom.  Go back and watch any science fiction teevee show or any science fiction film, read any science fiction short or novel, and you'll find that the characters do not solve problems by using the technology.  More often than not, the technology causes the problem, but even then, the technology often does not so much create the problem as accentuate a problem that already exists, such as racism, slavery, or totalitarianism.  Occasionally the superficial threat will be defeated by technology use, but you'll notice that the character using the technology always overcomes a personal or social crisis before they're able to use said technology.  The crisis is the story.  The tech is color.  "Science fiction" that fetishizes technology is no more science fiction than Emily Bronte fanfic is victorian literature.

At best, science fiction that is also speculative fiction (the two overlap but are not the same) analyzes how technology and social advances will change the human condition -- but the human condition is still the same human condition that you, the reader, experience.  Check out Joshua Newman's Shock: for a stellar example of this.

Ahem.

As for Thematic Batteries, CS, that would wander off-topic and I don't want to hijack your thread.  TBs are described briefly but adequately in the first paragraph of [FLFS] Reward System at Last!.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, OK, I see what you are saying, the tech is the dressing, but without the tech, it's naked, aka it's not sci fi anymore...
  So, you have to find a way present the tech that is compatible with your game design goals.

[CSBone]

Sydney!

Replace the word "fence" with "Death Star." Or "Insectoid Battle Machine." Or "Giant Space Battleship."

See what happens? The piece of equipment -- even if "piece" means "as big as a planet" -- just became a prop; in rules terms, it's maybe a modifier, or maybe nothing at all, just a piece of colorful narration. The real conflict is between your heroes and some worthy opponent.

Light saber, starfighter, battle fleet, giant battle station: All equipment. All stuff that modifies a character (mechanically) and expresses a character (thematically) but does not do a damned thing in the game/story on its own.

The tiny fighter and the giant battleship are both just modifiers to the roll, and mechanically might be best depicted as being equivalent to any other ability of the characters that own them -- so while the fighter may only give the heroes a +3, and the battleship may give the villains a whopping +15, the villains get maybe a lousy "Kinda Smart +1" while the heroes have "Smart +2," "Brave +4," and "Too Cool for School +10," which means they win easily.

Because if you really want heroic space drama, personal conviction and courage outweights the weaponry, every time. In fact, the weaponry only matters in so far as it somehow expresses character...

Maybe the war machine is so cool, and so important, that it has a personality unto itself; in that case, though, again, it's not the machinery that counts for your game, it's the personality. If you want to treat the Death Star as a character, that's fine, just don't try to figure out its maximum delta-vee and power output, instead think of it as a really, really big NPC with traits like "Relentless +6" and "Arrogant +9."

bang...Bang...BOOM! I get it! That is exactly the paradigm I was trying to see in my head! Death Star has a Trait of Only One Vulnerability and Only to a "Snub" fighter +9 an Edge of 3 and +6 Advantage defined as Really Hard to Hit. Luke has Natural Fighter Jock +7 and Spends Relationship points with Ben Kenobi, The Force and Hate the Empire and BOOM, no more Death Star and Moff Tarkin screaming like a little girl as he gets cooked. Brilliant. Perfect. That's what I'm looking for.


Joshua!

I read your article on Roadmap vs Toolbox and that makes it clear to me my design and marketing goals. I'm building a Toolbox that I can attach Roadmaps to.  My marketing then becomes a Gillette (give 'em razors, sell 'em blades) of some variety.

Also read your article on long campaigns and it solidified my Space Ranger Roadmap.  Start with a Boom. Roll out the conflict. Finish with a Boom. 1-3 Sessions per conflict. Keep going or stop at will.

Rocking!

Too  right about Equipment...it creates as much conflict as it solves. If I've got Powered armor you need HK Lances. If you've got a Death Star, I need a snub fighter etc. The conflicts are about the people, the tools are just that...Tools.


Dave!

OK, OK, I see what you are saying, the tech is the dressing, but without the tech, it's naked, aka it's not sci fi anymore...  So, you have to find a way present the tech that is compatible with your game design goals.

You hit the head of the nail that was sticking out of my noggin. I keep falling for the trap that "HI TECH!!!™" means something. In the context I'm looking for it doesn't per say except to define the character of the interaction/conflict in question. Sure technology makes everything "Better, Faster, Cheaper ™" but if everybody is using it it doesn't change anything but the color of the interaction. That was the thinking I kept getting hung up on.

Good luck, sounds like you know what you want, so it is just a matter of zeroing in on it!

Thanks! I think I may actually have something now!

C. S. Bone

[Sydney Freedberg]

Glad that helped. But don't diss the Grand Moff, man! Tarkin was my favorite character from all three movies as a kid. (Sad? Scary? You decide!).

And on that note, and because it keeps begging to be let out of my head, two very different ways to model Star Wars:

SPOILERS for those of you who've been living under a rock for 20 years:

1. Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Darth Vader, Tarkin, and the Emperor are all separate characters. In the climax of the first film, Luke (with modifiers from his equipment, namely "Vehicle: X-Wing" and "Sidekick: R2D2") and Han Solo (with "Vehicle: Millennium Falcon" and "Sidekick: Chewbacca") decisively defeat Tarkin ("Vehicle: Death Star"), eliminating him (and his equipment) from the game, but only deal a minor defeat to Vader ("Vehicle: TIE Fighter"). In movie 2, Vader hunts down Han with "Vehicle: Entire fleet" and then trounces Luke with "Weapon: Light saber," but neither decisively. In movie 3, the Emperor ("Vehicle: Better Death Star") shows up, but Vader ("Light Saber", again) switches sides and hoses him.

2. Luke is a character with "Sidekick: Han Solo," plus the X-Wing, Falcon, et al; Vader is a character with "Sidekick: Tarkin" and "Master: The Emperor." In movie 1, Luke's player brings in the "Han Solo" card at a critical moment, eliminating Vader's "Sidekick: Tarkin" and disabling, but not destroying, his "Vehicle: Death Star." In movie 2, while his "Death Star" card is tapped out, Vader plays "Personal Battlefleet" and captures the "Solo" card, forcing Luke into a daring and risky play that nearly loses him the game. In movie 3, feeling more confident and eager for the kill, Vader's player pulls out all the stops and not also reactivates "Death Star" but introduces "Emperor" as well -- except that Luke's player captures the Emperor card, subverting Vader's relationship with his master and winning the game.

P.S. The 24 hour rpg in my sig, apocalypse girl, tries to capture some of this kind of back-and-forth over story elements.

[CSBone]

 Sydney!

But don't diss the Grand Moff, man! Tarkin was my favorite character from all three movies as a kid. (Sad? Scary? You decide!).

Scary, I think.

Per your examples, it never occurred to me that a Sidekick could be considered Equipment. That is a VERY novel concept to me and gives some interesting possibilities.

To take your Star Wars example, the first movie (#IV) you could have as Characters:

• Luke
• R2 D2: Sidekick C-3PO
• Han Solo: Sidekick Chewbacca
• Leia: Sidekick Ben Kenobi
• Grand Moff Tarkin: Sidekick Darth Vader

With such a system you would have to create a method of transferring primary character status from main Character to sidekick Character but the richness of play possibilities if you could find a good mechanism would be awesome! With this, Vader as the dark and sinister bodyguard for Grand Moff Tarkin (I always though of Tarkin as the big nasty in the first movie, not Vader) survives the Deathstar and becomes the primary character following Tarkin's demise. Likewise the Player of Leia uses her Kenobi sidekick until she could get her primary Character rescued and then using him as a Tool to defeat Tarkin's Player's Tool of Vader.

I think my brain hurts but this seems to be a viable setup and very cool...I'm just not sure how to do it...

Any ideas?

C. S. Bone