Okay, kids, I've written a third draft of this game and it's now up on a web page. If you haven't given any feedback yet, now is the time. If you saw the previous versions, please read through the whole thing again. Tedious, I know, but I've added stuff to virtually every section. In response to feedback, I've compressed and modified the timeline a lot, and added a globalization angle to the whole thing. And then there are the system tweaks, lots more optional rules... Check it out:

http://www.io.com/~xiombarg/riseagain.html

Oh, and I forgot the best reason to check it out: A really cool logo by Sidhain. Look closely. It's very, very wrong. I love it.

Things I need to know:
* Does it address all the critiques so far?
* How's the page for reading? I went with the KISS principle because I'm not a designer, but I'd love feedback/suggestions in this area. I don't expect to look as cool as anything Jared does, but anyone who can get me part of the way there wins a cookie.
* Would you play this game? Do the rules fit the Premise?
* Any suggestions as to how one might modify the Confederate Battle Flag to make it less offensive to Afro-Americans without losing its flavor? Since I have in the timeline that an Afro-American senator does just that. I'm thinking the simplest option is to replace all the blue in the flag with black, to represent the "black spot" on the CSA's record. What do people think of that idea?
* Any suggestions for additions, or how to handle what I haven't done yet (see below)?

Thinks I'm Planning On Doing But Haven't Done Yet:
* Reputation system. The PC group, and individual PCs, should pick up a rep, for good or for ill.
* GM's notes. I want to go into my thoughts about the buzzers, particularly with regard to their role as "dark mirrors" to the PCs, being BAs but totally without Responsibility.
* Perhaps an expansion of the Guts rules. I'm not sure I want a full-blown "fear table" tho.

Thanks to everyone for all the help and comments so far!

Random notes:

Very nice. The timeline is long enough that you may want to abbreviate it for the introduction, and include it in full (perhaps with even more data as you invent it later) in another chapter devoted to setting.

A couple more notes. Division of flyers is probably not right, though it could be, I suppose. Depends on what organization is like in the future, and just how much air power you meant to imply. Consider "Air Wings" or squadrons or something.

And the South will have no problem with Naval Facilities. In fact they have all the biggest ones, probably most importantly Norfolk, followed by San Diego/LA, etc. Unless you mean that NH is somehow unblockaded (though that seems unlikely, assuming that the blockade is effective elsewhere). When I say that the South gets no Naval assets, I meant the ships themselves. Modern warships are the most expensive (and, arguably, valuable militarily) assets that nation has. And they have, therefore, the highest security with regards to control. One does not come into command of a ship without his loyaties being very staunch.

And such security is made much easier by the fact that they are, well, ships. As soon as the Feds learn that there is impending trouble, the ships leave and sail north, or out to blockade positions. And there isn't much anyone can do about it. They have their own planes, and this thing called the Aegis Cruiser. As my Navy friend once put it, "I can't tell you what it does, because its classified. But after the decks are cleared and the device is employed, even the birds end up dead." Much less any planes or missiles, I expect.

But the Naval facilities could be captured just like any other Federal facility. Of course it would be the first order of business for the Feds to take them back. And there should be exceptions with the ships. The skipper or two that somehow manage charismatically to convince the crew to change their loyaties to the South (and defeats whatever other security might exist).But again removal of these resources will be first on the North's agenda. Given the lack of satelite capability, I suppose a captain might be able to go Privateer for a while...


For Reputation, I'd just use the character's Responsibility/Instinct. And an average for the group. Thus the "Buzzers" have the worst sort of reputation. Anyhow, roll agianst the groups average Resonsibility to get people to trust them, etc.

As for expanding guts, I'd expand anything that I could reasonably link to the Premise, but nothing else. The rules currently fit the game, but there isn't a lot to them. In Sorcerer, for example, you have a ton of stuff about Sorcery, in addition to Humanity, etc. What you have seems about as complex as humanity (in fact, now that I think about it, this sounds a whole lot like a Mini-Supplement). But what you don't have is many rules for how the characters activities affect the premise. For example, to extend the Sorcerer comparison, you could have more rules about combat and combat skills, and how their use affects responsibility.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and what we're talking about here is a combat intensive Narrativist game. I think that people have been under a false assumption for a while that combat is anti-thetical to Narrativism, or at least focusing on it is. Which is totally not true. It just hasn't been the focus and premise of most Narrativist games presented so far. But in your game, it obviously is.

So, despite my earlier mistaken talk about making combat more a general application of the rules, I am now thinking that the reverse hould be true. I think that you should work up some really intense combat stuff, and have the down-side to its use be potential loss of responsibility. Not all Simulationy, though it can be detailed. The difference being that the rules should be all about how the combat affects the story, not just win/lose or accurate representation.

In fact you could start off with that. Throw out the random possibility of loss, perhaps, by giving the players the option to always succeed by automatically losing a point of Responsibility. That sounds like fun. The player simply explains howhis character drops the ball somehow, in order to expedite winning a particular contest. Totally eliminates the "wiff factor".

Or something like that. You just need something more to drive the premise, IMO. But the concept is good.
Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Very nice. The timeline is long enough that you may want to abbreviate it for the introduction, and include it in full (perhaps with even more data as you invent it later) in another chapter devoted to setting.

A couple more notes. Division of flyers is probably not right, though it could be, I suppose. Depends on what organization is like in the future, and just how much air power you meant to imply. Consider "Air Wings" or squadrons or something.

And the South will have no problem with Naval Facilities. In fact they have all the biggest ones, probably most importantly Norfolk, followed by San Diego/LA, etc. Unless you mean that NH is somehow unblockaded (though that seems unlikely, assuming that the blockade is effective elsewhere). When I say that the South gets no Naval assets, I meant the ships themselves. Modern warships are the most expensive (and, arguably, valuable militarily) assets that nation has. And they have, therefore, the highest security with regards to control. One does not come into command of a ship without his loyaties being very staunch.

And such security is made much easier by the fact that they are, well, ships. As soon as the Feds learn that there is impending trouble, the ships leave and sail north, or out to blockade positions. And there isn't much anyone can do about it. They have their own planes, and this thing called the Aegis Cruiser. As my Navy friend once put it, "I can't tell you what it does, because its classified. But after the decks are cleared and the device is employed, even the birds end up dead." Much less any planes or missiles, I expect.

But the Naval facilities could be captured just like any other Federal facility. Of course it would be the first order of business for the Feds to take them back. And there should be exceptions with the ships. The skipper or two that somehow manage charismatically to convince the crew to change their loyaties to the South (and defeats whatever other security might exist).But again removal of these resources will be first on the North's agenda. Given the lack of satelite capability, I suppose a captain might be able to go Privateer for a while...

For Reputation, I'd just use the character's Responsibility/Instinct. And an average for the group. Thus the "Buzzers" have the worst sort of reputation. Anyhow, roll agianst the groups average Resonsibility to get people to trust them, etc.

As for expanding guts, I'd expand anything that I could reasonably link to the Premise, but nothing else. The rules currently fit the game, but there isn't a lot to them. In Sorcerer, for example, you have a ton of stuff about Sorcery, in addition to Humanity, etc. What you have seems about as complex as humanity (in fact, now that I think about it, this sounds a whole lot like a Mini-Supplement). But what you don't have is many rules for how the characters activities affect the premise. For example, to extend the Sorcerer comparison, you could have more rules about combat and combat skills, and how their use affects responsibility.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and what we're talking about here is a combat intensive Narrativist game. I think that people have been under a false assumption for a while that combat is anti-thetical to Narrativism, or at least focusing on it is. Which is totally not true. It just hasn't been the focus and premise of most Narrativist games presented so far. But in your game, it obviously is.

So, despite my earlier mistaken talk about making combat more a general application of the rules, I am now thinking that the reverse hould be true. I think that you should work up some really intense combat stuff, and have the down-side to its use be potential loss of responsibility. Not all Simulationy, though it can be detailed. The difference being that the rules should be all about how the combat affects the story, not just win/lose or accurate representation.

In fact you could start off with that. Throw out the random possibility of loss, perhaps, by giving the players the option to always succeed by automatically losing a point of Responsibility. That sounds like fun. The player simply explains howhis character drops the ball somehow, in order to expedite winning a particular contest. Totally eliminates the "wiff factor".

The success at cost concept makes sense--you Succeed /but/ isn't necessarily a pyrrhic condition, it just means you made a sacrifice in order to obtain success--It may be self respect, responsibility etc. (and this is somewhat like what I'm using in my Superhero rpg).

I would also suggest Defeat with Reward conditions--that is the heroes may lose, but lose in such a way they are respected or given honor, or accolades--they earn a little bit by their failure. This works if it's played out on an individual scale--a single soldier may have a choice to unleash his inner demons/beast and destroy those around him--thus suceeding, but at the cost of a little part of his humanity. While if he (or she!) reigns in the beast/inhuman urges they will lose this position/mission, and even be captured but by /acting/ human even their foes will respect them.

of course that requires occasional conflict with human enemies but...



Scene: A cell dark and dank, electric lights buzzing with the flicker rate of the field portable fuzion generator. A soldier in camoflauge stalks down the hallway "Why did you stop, Why--I saw it in your eyes--you could have torn out my throat with your teeth, I could see my death in that."

Dawg Soldier "But the price was too high. "

"Price??! You'd have won.."


Dawg Soldier "at the cost of all that makes me who I am.."

Okay, I'm covering a lot in one post here. I'll reply to Sidhain and then move on to other issues.

Sidhain wrote: I would also suggest Defeat with Reward conditions--that is the heroes may lose, but lose in such a way they are respected or given honor, or accolades--they earn a little bit by their failure. This works if it's played out on an individual scale--a single soldier may have a choice to unleash his inner demons/beast and destroy those around him--thus suceeding, but at the cost of a little part of his humanity. While if he (or she!) reigns in the beast/inhuman urges they will lose this position/mission, and even be captured but by /acting/ human even their foes will respect them.

Rewarding things mechanically.....

Hrms...
I'll have to think, I just don't know how I'd handle it.


I mean I have issues with game rewards in general because

A) If I'm playing the PC I want then I don't need to earn/improve the hero just play him or her and be glad they suceed---but

B) If the game posits earning something is necessary (to counter losses, and or for actually furthering the games story) then they should be used.


So let me think and get back to you..

Sidhain wrote: So let me think and get back to you..

I wanted to address narrative combat--I'm not sure but do you want individual actions or simply detailing the "battle". One on one is tough to make narrative with mechanics. But if your willing to abstract the broader canvas of battle a bidding system might work...


My idea would be a listof factors that influence the battle (or all battles) such as Resouces (Ammo/Food), Intelligence (Communication, Planning), Time (length of encounter desired versus actual time taking) and Valor (Individual/Group). Have the Narrator rank them secretly as how iportant to the the battle--and then have the players--via the current combat team leader rank them (voting)

For example: Mission is to infiltrate a local base and sabotage it's generators.


Ruck, Tomas, Killian, and Hugh are all a combat team--respecitively Dawg, Dawg, Kat, and Rilla. Ruck is the de facto leader.

They rank by vote the things they feel will influence the battle.

Resources, Intelligence, Valor and Time


Each rank they match gives them an advantage of +2 to action in the story, while actions one removed in rank give a +1 3 ranks different is -1 and 4 -2

So the Narrator ranked things

Time, Resources, Intelligence, Valor

Having no direct matches they get no +2's

Time rank is -2
Resources is +1
Intelligence is +1
Valor is +1


So here is the narrative structure. The skeletong of how it works..


So Ruck, and Hugh realize that they need to know what's up to get the mission working right. Hugh uses his comm gear to cordinate (Intelligencce/Info based so +1)

Hugh uses plans to plot their routes to the fuzion generators (again Intelligence +1)

They know where to plant their explosions, they also have a good supply of ammo and food so that won't be an issue (+1 on Resource related actions as they have the gear they need to succeede)

however while they are sneaking in they mistime a guards movements and are seen ( the -2 Time means this is where they will fail) they then have to rely on valor (+1) to get through to the generators--they blow them up and escape successfully since their final modifier was positive.

I'm not sure how it balances yet but the idea is their ranking narrates elements of the battle action as a whole. Individual firefights may vary that.


(It might work on a microscale for firefights---using things like Position (Cover), Resources, Movement, Defense, Attack etc...which provide modifiers for their actual die rolls but I'm not sure..)

Hey,

Anyone who's working with Narrativist combat mechanics should really check out Zero, Castle Falkenstein (the duelling rules in Comme Il Faut), Extreme Vengeance, Hero Wars, and he said humbly, Sorcerer with reference to the first supplement.

Best,
Ron

Sidhain's suggested ranking system is biased toward the positive, so you'd have to compensate for that. The wost possible result is not getting the ranking in the exact reverse order (that's a -2), but swapping the first two in order with the last two in order (that's a -4). There are only four possible rankings that give negative results. No rankings give a -1 result. If the target ranking is ABCD, here's how all the possibilities come out:
[code]ABCD +8 2222 scoring column: + = +1, - = -1, 2 = +2, X = -2
ABDC +6 22++
ACBD +6 2++2
ACDB +3 2++-
ADBC +3 2-++
ADCB +2 2-2-
BACD +6 ++22
BADC +4 ++++
BCAD +3 ++-2
BCDA +1 +++X
BDAC 0 +--+
BDCA 0 +-2X
CABD +3 -++2
CADB 0 -++-
CBAD +2 -2-2
CBDA 0 -2+X
CDAB -4 ----
CDBA -3 --+X
DABC +1 X+++
DACB 0 X+2-
DBAC 0 X2-+
DBCA 0 X22X
DCAB -3 X+--
DCBA -2 X++X[/code]

In working out this list I found the scoring to be slightly tricky, hard to hold onto mentally. It may be just a matter of getting used to it but I think I'd have to write the rankings down to have a hope of scoring it correctly during play.

- Walt

[edited to code-tag the list for easier reading]

Hmmm, Sidhain, your idea is interesting. I'm not sure I want to scrap my current combat system entirely and replace it with that, but it might make an interesting optional rule. Also, I'm not clear how character's individual abilities/choices affect the overall situation...

And I want to look at the game Ron suggested, since I own all of them except Extreme Vengence... I'll probably post more later this week.

Well Individual choice creates the factors which win or lose. They chose where they think things should be important, and the results are based on the GM's prior assessment of the situation and how much attention they pay to it. And of course a Gm could always give them a rough "estimate" of how close they are with skill/attribute role (Intinct/Reason).


Individual one on one combat is less important than the overall battle plan. I did that for a reason because many games have that idea of "individuals make a difference heroic bias" which isn't a bad bias, but in order to make it narrative, I was looking at the larger picture of battle than the often expanded emphasis on individual combats.


As for the results plotted out--that presumes only 4 factors. There is no limit on the number of factors a GM may wish to introduce based on the style of play he wants--he may only have 4 (it was the minimum at which this style actually works) or he may have 44...(although that would slow things down considerably).


Anyway, it is just an "idea" I was throwing out...I've no idea how it work in a long term game, or if it even would create the appropriate feel--my own instinct says it could, if players could adapt to the different focus--group actions as opposed to individual ones...

Sidhain wrote: Individual one on one combat is less important than the overall battle plan. I did that for a reason because many games have that idea of "individuals make a difference heroic bias" which isn't a bad bias, but in order to make it narrative, I was looking at the larger picture of battle than the often expanded emphasis on individual combats.

On a seperate note (and therefore a seperate post), what do people think about some sort of meta-rule where the player can add details to make things more ocmplicated for their character (or another character, perhaps) during combat (particularly morally) and have the potential of a Responsibility bonus for doing that?

xiombarg wrote: what do people think about some sort of meta-rule where the player can add details to make things more ocmplicated for their character (or another character, perhaps) during combat (particularly morally) and have the potential of a Responsibility bonus for doing that?

Mike Holmes wrote: Now yer talkin. How would you delineate the power? What constitutes a "complication"?

Something like the player hosed gets a -3 on the current roll because of the complication. The player can define it any way he wants, but should keep the -3 penalty level in mind when doing so.

"Oops, sorry Benny, looks like that 'hostile operative' you just shot was in fact an innocent kid from the neighborhood. That'll be a minus three on your roll to retain your current responsibility rating. While I collect one point."

This is just an example, you can probably do better.

Mike

deleted

That way you could use such a system to skip the boring bits (okay, yes, we sneak around with no problem) and skip straight to the part that makes a difference.

Part of the reason I don't want to chuck the "individual make a difference heroic bias" (or, considering the way the system is broken up, "anti-heroic bias" may be more apporpriate) is the emphasis is on individual decisions and individual morality.