Intro

So, 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?

[hr]

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.
 

Clinton wrote:
Troy mentioned on his weblog that one of the problems with P19 stuff on the Forge was that designers weren't asking specific questions.

Clinton wrote: 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?

Clinton wrote: 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?

Clinton wrote: Seriously, did I write something below that makes this more than just a really good idea for an Iron Heroes campaign?

Clinton wrote: 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.

Dude, I'm totally in the mood to play already.  Gotta couple questions for you.

Clinton wrote: 2. What do the characters do?

  Stealthily make their way past traps, enemies, and obstacles to confront the center of their mission.

Clinton wrote: 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?

Clinton wrote: 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 like the idea of this game.  I just have a bunch of questions to add.

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?

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.

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?

They try to think of ways past obstacles that the GM hasn't thought of.

If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.

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. 

Clinton wrote:

• 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?

Jason wrote:
3.  No. 

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. 

Eric wrote:

Clinton wrote: 2. 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.

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.

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.

Clinton wrote: 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'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."

Bryan wrote:
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?

Ben wrote:

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?

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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Jason wrote:
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."

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

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?

Scenario prep should be one hour, character creation 15 minutes, and game play 2 hours.

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.

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.

If health reaches zero, you die. If stealth reaches zero, everyone's alerted, and your mission is in dire danger.

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.

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.

Troy_Costisick wrote:

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.

-What are the main components of Chargen in your game?

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.

-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?

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.

-So is there an advancement mechanic for the setting?

Hi!
  Here's my 2 cents...

    * 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?

Clinton wrote:
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.

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.

Jason wrote:
JADE MANTIS REPRESENT!

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.

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. 

nevermind wrote: No 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.

Clinton wrote: 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.

Ben wrote: Oh, and also what Eric says is very wise.

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 wrote:
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. 

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.

John wrote:
- 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.

Two copies, please.

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.

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

Ben wrote:

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."

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

Ben wrote:
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."

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

Clinton wrote: I like this a whole lot, but I'm asking if anyone sees obvious problems.

Clinton wrote: 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.)

Ben wrote:
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.

Ben wrote:
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.

Eric wrote:
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.

wrote:
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.

Ben wrote: ...but if I could get Blades (1d10/1d10) then I just kill everything  with my cutty bits.

What if...? wrote: 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.

Eric wrote:
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.

What if...? wrote: 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.

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. 

Jack wrote:
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?

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. 

Jason wrote:
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. 

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:

Eric wrote:

Ben wrote: ...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. ...

Sydney wrote:
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).

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 wrote:
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.

Heya,

You realize this means that a GM can make it up on the fly and still be balanced.

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? 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…

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
1. What is your game about?
   Ninjas hired to perform secretive missions without getting caught.

Clinton wrote:
2. What do the characters do?
  Stealthily make their way past traps, enemies, and obstacles to confront the center of their mission.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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

Clinton wrote:
   They do this in a quick amount of time. Scenario prep should be one hour, character creation 15 minutes, and game play 2 hours.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

Clinton wrote:
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.

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(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,

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.

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.