[Rustbelt] A betrayal & shooting at angry mobs twice

[Krippler]

Hello there! This is Wilmer reporting from session three of my Rustbelt campaign. We played draft 2 of the Rustbelt rules plus a new set of psyche dynamics PM'd by Marshall Burns (author of the setting and rules). You can read the other two sessions here and here

[Marshall Burns]

Damn, this makes my day.  Have I mentioned that I love PC vs. PC conflict?  Well, I do

There's a neat thing going on here, with everyone's Sweat and Blood way up.  They're not Pushing as much, so they don't perform at maximum.  I really get the impression that they are bruised, bloodied, and generally fucked up, like a pulp character on a bad day (pulp fantasy, detective, adventure, whatever; they all get beat up at least once per story).  Which is really cool, if you ask me; I love seeing fictional characters at their worst.  Is that the way it felt at the table, or did it seem to be sortof an inconvenience rather than a cool Color/System interplay?

Speaking of pulp and characters getting fucked up, I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark the other day, and I realized that it was a big influence on the Rustbelt.  I wasn't aware of it before, but Indy is a great Rustbelt-style hero.  If you watch, his heroics emphatically do not come from accomplishing awesome feats and looking good doing it; on the contrary, he makes a ton of mistakes and suffers unpleasant consequences of various accidents and circumstances.  And he gets beat the fuck up.  What makes him heroic is the way he responds to all of this, with guts and wits and determination.
Just a random thought.

-Marshall

-Marshall

[Krippler]

Damn, this makes my day.  Have I mentioned that I love PC vs. PC conflict?  Well, I do

There's a neat thing going on here, with everyone's Sweat and Blood way up.  They're not Pushing as much, so they don't perform at maximum.  I really get the impression that they are bruised, bloodied, and generally fucked up, like a pulp character on a bad day (pulp fantasy, detective, adventure, whatever; they all get beat up at least once per story).  Which is really cool, if you ask me; I love seeing fictional characters at their worst.  Is that the way it felt at the table, or did it seem to be sortof an inconvenience rather than a cool Color/System interplay?

Speaking of pulp and characters getting fucked up, I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark the other day, and I realized that it was a big influence on the Rustbelt.  I wasn't aware of it before, but Indy is a great Rustbelt-style hero.  If you watch, his heroics emphatically do not come from accomplishing awesome feats and looking good doing it; on the contrary, he makes a ton of mistakes and suffers unpleasant consequences of various accidents and circumstances.  And he gets beat the fuck up.  What makes him heroic is the way he responds to all of this, with guts and wits and determination.
Just a random thought.

Good because there will be more up ahead, not much dice wise but plot wise. And I think Indy (or perhaps too many ww2 computer games) have influenced my game too since at least in my head most of the clothes, weapons and vehicles are straight out of naziland when they aren't from the spagetti west or Fallout. And they sure got beat up, at least Jane and Benisto. I even managed to introduce them to using Danger as a price. Konrad was too hurt from the start to do much actively besides crying over his more and more shot up, blown up and beat up truck. It might be time for some time skipping letting his wounds heal or perhaps introduce him to some very addictive miracle drug (or just regular pain killers, giving him lots of dice to overcome the Tough check from the arms adding more and more Vice ). But now sleep is calling!

[Marshall Burns]

I think it's wicked awesome to see Jane take decisive action, against someone as scary as Benisto, after being passive for so long.  As audience, I feel like I've just watched a great twist; I'm riveted, and I'm on the edge of my seat.  And then Benisto, limping, battered, and bloodied gets mad and is about to beat her down with a baseball bat!?  No! Yes!  Fucked up!  Awesome!  And Morgan has to tackle him!  Then he dopes him!  Then he treats his wounds anyway because that's the civilized thing to do!

I mean, damn, I wanna know what happens when Benisto wakes up!  I am so happy with this

[Krippler]

[jag]

Sounds like the new revisions to the Psyche rules were good!  So tell us them.

[Krippler]

psyche.<hunger.<vice.<faith.<woe.<limits.<outbursts.<

[jag]

(As you can see, Faith is now quite parallel to Vice, which I find really cool because it raises some interesting questions)
-Marshall

I've been wondering for a bit about how similar Faith and Vice are.  Have you toyed with the next step and seeing if there's a nice way to combine them?  Consider that both:
1. Are mechanisms to cope with the horrors of the 'Belt.
2. Are motivations and driving forces for the character.
3. Can be used to help oneself in dire times, but at a cost of deepening.
4. Can be whittled away, but through effort.
5. Can be overcome, but still lies there latent to be triggered.
6. Can be exchanged for one another.

One could also imagine at high levels they trigger outbursts when frustrated/contradicted (nic fits, righteous indignation...).  I think this fits with the way that Benisto has been using it -- he's growing deeper and deeper into his fanaticism to survive and cope, becoming more and more irrational and contentious.  That could be heroin just as well as it could be religion.

They could both be represented by a more general conflicted gauge called, say, "Need", which as you use it to help you it gets stronger, but the stronger it is the more it becomes an influence on your actions.  One of the things i like about this is it allows you to focus on intense and consuming Needs, instead of having an obligatory Vice/Faith that may or may not be that much of a driving factor (after all, a couple packs a day doesn't seem to be something too dramatic given the nature of the rust-belt).

I'll admit i'm a bit biased in this direction because it's vaguely reminiscent of a mechanic of mine (but sort of opposite in intent).  And i'm internally pondering whether Woe could also be represented in this way, but its purpose seems to be different.

james

[Marshall Burns]

James,

Yeah, the function of the two is pretty much the same.  But I think that the Color is different, and I kinda want to preserve that.  I like it when System creates Color.  I'm not seeing what the benefit of combining them would be.  Which isn't to say that I wouldn't listen if you tried to show me.
(Oh, and they aren't obligatory; you don't have to have both, or even either, when starting out; it's just a sort of conjectural recommendation to start with one of each).

Wilmer,

The players were thrilled actually, already talking about possible ways this scenario could head.

Awesome.  Just awesome.  The whole thing, just awesome.  I love this game.

Also:  I've realized that, here and there throughout all the Rustbelt threads, you've mentioned specific applications of the mechanics with a questioning tone, as though asking if you were doing it right, and I've failed to respond to many of them; sorry about that.  But, for the record, if I didn't say anything about it, then you handled it well.  Allowing Jane to throw in her Cooperation after Benisto's dice had already been rolled is technically against the rules, but forgivable because the players are new to the IIEE; I think you handled it just fine.

-Marshall

[Marshall Burns]

James,
I wanna explain a little more about the granularity and Color issue.

When Wilmer said he was going to split the Slick attribute, I said, "okay."  Functionally, it changes nothing.  You could double the amount of attributes.  Or, you could cram Tough with Slick and call it "Body," cram Cagey, Savvy, and Thorough together and call it "Mind," and cram Personable, Grizzled, and Uncanny together and call it "Spirit," and all the rules would still work.  Or maybe you want to put Personable under "Mind."  You could use the SAN! attributes, Brawn, Brains, Personality, Finesse, and Talent.  Or, hell, call 'em Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom.  Whatever; it doesn't change anything on a functional level, because of the way the resolution mechanic is structured.

The reason the attributes are divided into the 8 they are is purely to provide Colorful detail (this is reinforced by the way that they're named, being words that people in the 'Belt would actually use to describe someone) and give players a bit of inspiration in generating the Color for their PC's actions.  That's it.  The differentiation between Vice and Faith is the same kind of thing.

Mind you, all this is coming from a former Purist-for-System, who "got better" in that he now believes that it is impossible to model a fictional reality (but completely possible and desirable to model a kind of fiction).  I'm kindof desensitized to unnecessary granularity and the baroque--that is, it's gotta be pretty damn baroque for me to think of it as baroque.  Eight attributes plus free-form traits, as an example, looks very simple to me, although someone else might think it's too much.

[Lance D. Allen]

I'm with Marshall on the separation of Vice and Faith.. Functionally they may be identical, but how the players think of them will be different, just because of the different names.. which will have an effect on how they're used.

"I need to have a smoke." is different in color and flavor than "God's will be done."

Killing someone for a cigarette is much different in tone than killing someone because they don't believe that Christ's middle initial was 'H'.

Functionally, both have the same effect. In the former, you calm down and accept something you can't change. In the latter, you've killed someone over something others might think is very minor.

[JoyWriter]

I don't think they are identical, as faith reacts to the world in a very different way, it adds an important distinction by encouraging people always to consider the philosophical implications of events, rather than just what objects are in them, underlining the theme of metaphysical corruption.

Also I like the way that zeal in an idealistic concept can be readily applied as bonus, but causes woe all over the place. Limits don't have any effect as far as I can see so far, but perhaps other people can become aware of them, and so manipulate/trust you. I really like how the psych rules don't have any rolling: Every time I do a psych system I end up building it with drives, where you internally conflict by using ideals and habits as skills against persuasion, other desires and even mind control. This system is totally different: It's all coping strategies with built in consequences, that you choose to use or not. Now are there built in game rewards for laudable hungers or limits? Apart from the wearing results of playing a horrible guy obviously. I'm trying to decide what I think about that, because the way the GM seems encouraged to make hell for people, it seems like it would be nice to pay them back for resisting it. But then you seem to have a total lack of traditional experience in this system, so this may just be a familiarity instinct to bring that back in!

I've never seen this system before, but I love the blood/sweat/tears idea. It's like that phrase was built to be an rpg sub-division for strain, seriously impressed you spotted it! I have a reservation though; dodgily it seems the draft 2 rules may encourage self harm: I mean if a player has a harsh GM who won't give her much tears back for her outbursts, then the only guaranteed mechanic is damage. For this reason it seems important to give clues about quantifying it, so people have a base to work from. How are different values going so far? I can tolerate someone taking it as a vice, but incentives mean something! Also, how do you stop people building up a million injuries without taking any blood, like if failed tests to cope with injuries raised your blood?

Oh and something that seems slightly awesome; love seems to be a vice in this game! The thing about the mother seems like a vice with massive grip, any other relationship could be treated as a weaker one with limits required to maintain it. That's a twist of perspective for you!

[Krippler]

I've never seen this system before, but I love the blood/sweat/tears idea. It's like that phrase was built to be an rpg sub-division for strain, seriously impressed you spotted it! I have a reservation though; dodgily it seems the draft 2 rules may encourage self harm: I mean if a player has a harsh GM who won't give her much tears back for her outbursts, then the only guaranteed mechanic is damage. For this reason it seems important to give clues about quantifying it, so people have a base to work from. How are different values going so far? I can tolerate someone taking it as a vice, but incentives mean something! Also, how do you stop people building up a million injuries without taking any blood, like if failed tests to cope with injuries raised your blood?

Oh and something that seems slightly awesome; love seems to be a vice in this game! The thing about the mother seems like a vice with massive grip, any other relationship could be treated as a weaker one with limits required to maintain it. That's a twist of perspective for you!

Injuries hurt, that's why. Also, the hit locations can make them hell if you want to, like I did with Benisto in his last fight. The only bad injuries he could take to avoid death were either blindness of muteness. He wanted to lose only one eye for like 10 price but I told him no since it really wouldn't hurt him at all since he never snipes with the shotgun anyway. Konrad hurt both his arms bad in the session before as mentioned and that made his screen time very low in practice, and if you see screen time as the candy gained from gaming death is a much much sweeter option than injuries. Since both benisto and Jane have been up to 19 in blood there is no problem.

There is no need for a reward mechanic for being good in my opinion looking at how Doc behaves. Managing to act good and compassionate in this world seems reward enough, spitting the Rust in the face. Benisto has an agenda to fight the Rust and the corruption spawned by it but as you all see he is the most corrupt of them all.

There is a clear enought divide between Faith and Vice. Not following your Vice leads to withdrawal and Sweat while not following your Faith leads to Woe.

[Marshall Burns]

There is no need for a reward mechanic for being good in my opinion looking at how Doc behaves. Managing to act good and compassionate in this world seems reward enough, spitting the Rust in the face. Benisto has an agenda to fight the Rust and the corruption spawned by it but as you all see he is the most corrupt of them all.

Wilmer, I agree entirely.  Those two have some awesome going all over the place.  Seeing the Doc try to stay good in the midst of all this, while Benisto (who probably slid from good a long time ago) slides from ugly to fuckin' crazy, Jane turns from not-much-of-anything to ugly, and Konrad goes from ugly to bad--I mean, that's pretty cool, and exactly the sort of thing I wanted from this game.  Now, the game makes it very difficult to play a good character, but that's just the nature of the setting; the good die first, the bad die not long after that, and the ugly live the longest. 

Now, this game does have a reward system, although it's not in any sort of points.  The reward is not something that is given to you; your reward for playing this game is the thing you have created in the process of playing it.

And, for the record, I'm perfectly fine with people building up a million injuries; the penalties will cripple their performance, so it's not like Injury is the easy-out.  Actually, I consider B/S/T to be the easy out; f'rinstance, Injury doesn't enable you to ignore Blood, Blood enables you to ignore Injury.  I also agree with Wilmer that death is a better option than a million Injuries; for one thing, you get to go out with a bang if you use the Last Push.

However, I do think that I need a clear system for the recovery of Injuries; B/S/T are pretty clear, but there's nothing for Injury.  I think that their healing rate would be slow, like Blood, but that there should be a way to mitigate the Challenge that they add.  F'rinstance, putting on splints or casts to mitigate broken bones.  Wilmer, how did you handle Benisto's crutch?

Oh, and I don't know if anyone's caught it yet, but stuff like Zeal and Depth on the Psyche components has no upward limit.  You could have a Woe with a Depth of 60, in theory.  ...Have I mentioned that 60 Tears will kill you?  [evil laugh]

And, JoyWriter, thanks for the compliments, and for reading!

-Marshall

[Marshall Burns]

Oh, I suppose I ought to mention why there's no experience or other effectiveness-improvement mechanic in the game.  It's because your character won't last long enough to improve significantly.  If I give you experience points, and then your character ends up dead or incredibly maimed or so corrupted that there's probably no redemption in sight within one or two sessions, making him more-or-less unplayable--well, it's just a mixed message.  I want your character to end up dead or incredibly maimed or so corrupted that there's probably no redemption in sight, at least over the timeline of a few sessions. 

Characters are a short-term thing in this game, partially because that's just the nature of the 'Belt itself, but also because of the campaign structure I'm shooting for.  Now, in most games, you'd play the same character and the same story (or a linear sequence of stories) all the way through a campaign; that's not what I'm designing for here, though.  What I'm looking for is a campaign made of interwoven yarns.  Shorter pieces that are intertwined and related, even if characters do not recur, and even if they jump around chronologically.

Now, there's tricks to giving the interwoven yarn structure a sense of continuity, so that it feels like one big narrative or campaign.  Some of the best examples of these tricks can be found in the various works of William S. Burroughs, Voice of the Fire by Alan Moore, and the Sin City comics by Frank Miller.  Repetition is the key.  Well, "repetition" sounds bad; let's call it "tesselation."

This comes on several levels.

Tesselation of characters
Have characters recur from yarn to yarn (sometimes PCs, sometimes NPCs).  This is all over the place in WSB and Sin City.  When you're doing this, you can jump chronology all you want, and explore all sorts of conflicts and situations.  Jumping chronology is neat because it enables you to put little twists on the characters; "What was Benisto like in his youth?" and stuff like that.

Tesselation of situations
Repeat situations from yarn to yarn.  F'rinstance, if you've got people trapped in a blizzard in one, introduce a blizzard in a later yarn.  Then, later on, throw a twist on it by making it a sandstorm or something.  This is also all over the place in WSB.

Tesselation of conflicts
So, maybe there's an abusive relationship conflict in one yarn; introduce one into another yarn.  Or a conflict between friends over a lover, or a conflict between business partners over greed.  Look at Sin City; how many of those conflicts are based on someone doing something for a (usually dangerous) woman and suffering for it?

Tesselation of symbols
This one's a little trickier, because it's subtle.  Voice of the Fire has it in spades; it can explain by example better than I can in words.  But, basically, this is picking out some sort of symbol or trope that was evocative from one yarn, and interpolating it into another.  F'rinstance, in Wilmer's campaign, it might be neat to introduce a blind preacher into a later yarn.  Not Benisto; a different blind preacher.  Or another strange book.  Wilmer, your idea of using the faceless child is exactly this sort of thing, but it's best to repeat something that the players have seen before.

Tesselation of phrases
This one's also subtle, but easy.  It's just what it sounds like:  repeating whole phrases.  WSB does this all the time.  In sessions of the older versions of this game, I used the line "Things that make that kind of sound have exoskeletons" over and over.  Repeat descriptions.  Repeat lines.  Introduce them in different circumstances, put them in the mouths of different characters.  (Wilmer, "I'll put this dog down!" is a great candidate)

This process of tesselation has a really neat effect.  Not only does it lend a sense of continuity when the narrative is not a single, continuous story, but it has another effect that's a bit hard to explain, but I'll try.  See, everytime something is repeated, and someone recognizes it, they'll automatically recall the last time it cropped up.  The third time, they will remember both previous times, and so on.  Each repetition is not only colored by the previous ones, but it colors the previous ones as well, retroactively.  Each time it's repeated, it gains meaning.  You end up with whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I used this technique successfully in older versions of the game; I should find a way to get it into the text.
-Marshall