I demonstrated Space Rat quite a bit at the Forge booth. It was a reasonably strong draw, with a brightly-colored cover, intriguing name, and the quick pull of the femme babe concept. For a while, I enjoyed displaying it with It Was a Mutual Decision, as a "rats & girlfriends" combo. Here, I want to go into how it worked, how I parceled out information during the demo itself, and especially how it apparently delivered for a lot of people. I also want to discuss some aspects of "traits" in the game, as it's relevant to the discussion in Can someone explain the true reason behind "traits" (PtA style) to me?

I brought three characters; Calamity the Cowgirl right from the rules, and I made up two others, Splenda the Dynamo Girl and Minda the Scheming Girl. The latter represents a fairly off-beat application of the rules, with traits like Adaptable and gear like the Ultimate Pocket Organizer. She suited players who enjoyed stuff like "rolling to show up at the right moment." We usually used two of the characters, for two players choosing whoever they wanted, with anyone else at the table being more like a cheering section.

For purposes of the demo, I referred to a scenario as if we were playing it, without really playing it. It involved a pod-ship with tentacles kidnapping the Galactic President from his rodeo-type State of the Galaxy Address, and a later scene when the femme babes were on the ship, which is bigger on the inside than on the outside. If Calamity was involved, she was in the rodeo; if Minda was involved, I often let the player decide (and roll for) how she entered the action, and I also tended to start a character in a shitty little piano lounge where Jack was supposed to be having a date with her, but disappears into the bathroom and is never seen again. Typically these became "catch the kidnapping ship" conflicts, which gave us a chance to look at basic resolution and learn about Attention Stars.

Then I'd quickly explain the Luck rules, and run two final bits separately for each character: a fight with some Gamma Men, and a scene with Tim the Mutant Gamma Man. The joke here is that Gamma Men are really ugly (see the bottom of page 8 in the review PDF and Tim, being a mutant one, looks like Tim Koppang who was readily on hand at the booth to point at during the demo. (He had no idea why I kept doing this.) Anyway, Tim, which is to say, the character, begins the encounter in his fern-bar like ship's bridge by complimenting the femme babe, being amazingly courteous and nice (unlike Jack!) and offering himself basically to become her new Jack, for a "life of true crime and love."

It was tons of fun to watch people's eyes light up right when I described the Luck and interference rules. They already enjoyed the color and the basic concept, they'd seen that resolution was pretty easy, they understood the tacit competition among the babes for Jack's attention, and now they learned that even when their own character isn't in play, they are still totally engaged via the Luck testing. Instance audience and partial authoring mechanics? Yay! The final scenes were always full of Luck testing. and many of the demos ended with people laughing, comparing Attention Stars, and wanting to play more. As with Dread the day before, I had no beef at all with demoing this game all day long. I totally lost count of how many times.

Space Rat offers an excellent example of the issues Markus raised in the thread I linked to, on the positive side of the ledger. Using the Traits and the trait-like feature Gear typically isn't problematic. They are weakly (but interestingly) constrained in that, for any action, you can alter your chances by using two of your Traits, Gear, or both, but only two at any given time. They don't get checked off or diminished through use.

Basic resolution in Space Rat is a little bit like Fudge. You use an attribute (say Body) which is, say, "Good," then the necessary level for the action is announced, say, also Good, and that gives a target number to hit with 2d6 (rolling high). When you use a Trait and/or Gear, it bumps your starting level up by one for each, usually two, so now it would be your Incredible Body vs. Good to determine the target number. You can see the table on the character sheet, finding that that's 5 or higher. (You get an Attention Star if you exceed the target by a whole bunch.)

Why are they fun? Because they're thematic rather than tactical, meaning that the benefit of using them is real but not overwhelmingly important, and also not different from one to the other. It matters more which one you choose, in terms of what you want your character to be "about." This is also built into the reward system - you want to build up lots of Traits and Gear, not necessarily to be able to use them more often, but so you can have a broader thematic range of options.

I want to stress that the key aspect of Traits and Gear in Space Rat isn't that sometimes they're barred to you because "they don't apply." That might happen, but it's anything like what I used to observe in certain kinds of Champions play, if someone likes the idea of a "hole" in their character's effectiveness, then the fun thing to do over time is to build up everything else, both in breadth and depth, so that the "hole" became ever more obvious.

This whole concept of Traits as a kind of thematic package for what the femme babe is like at her awesome-est is also crucial to the comparative aspect of play, among femme babes, both in concept/color and in terms of Attention Stars. Color + Reward: you just cannot beat this game for how well-integrated they are. It's comparable to My Life with Master, carry, 3:16, Grey Ranks, and Dust Devils, but unlike these games, it features utterly positive protagonists and a light-hearted spirit to play in general. That's amazing.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
I want to stress that the key aspect of Traits and Gear in Space Rat isn't that sometimes they're barred to you because "they don't apply." That might happen, but it's anything like what I used to observe in certain kinds of Champions play, if someone likes the idea of a "hole" in their character's effectiveness, then the fun thing to do over time is to build up everything else, both in breadth and depth, so that the "hole" became ever more obvious.

Eero wrote:
That clicked for me. Thanks for the interesting write-up. Reminds me of how I should get in touch with the spaceratcreatorguy and try to get some of that game for Finns, too.

Ron wrote:
Why are they fun? Because they're thematic rather than tactical, meaning that the benefit of using them is real but not overwhelmingly important, and also not different from one to the other. It matters more which one you choose, in terms of what you want your character to be "about." This is also built into the reward system - you want to build up lots of Traits and Gear, not necessarily to be able to use them more often, but so you can have a broader thematic range of options.

Ron wrote:
It was tons of fun to watch people's eyes light up right when I described the Luck and interference rules.

Ron wrote:
Tim, being a mutant one, looks like Tim Koppang who was readily on hand at the booth to point at during the demo. (He had no idea why I kept doing this.)

Ron, thanks a lot for posting this... I was really stuck about how to move on with the traits discussion in the other thread, since it was becoming a tad too abstract. Also, I'm really starting to see a common theme in all the posts above, and it seems to be the answer to one of the questions I posed before. Here comes my usual, abrupt barrage of questions. :-)

Ron wrote:
Why are they fun? Because they're thematic rather than tactical, meaning that the benefit of using them is real but not overwhelmingly important, and also not different from one to the other. It matters more which one you choose, in terms of what you want your character to be "about." This is also built into the reward system - you want to build up lots of Traits and Gear, not necessarily to be able to use them more often, but so you can have a broader thematic range of options.

Peril wrote:
Players had become hung-up on how many damage descriptors their ray gun had, or whether their rocket boots had movement x2 or x3.  I realised "Who cares?" 

Peril wrote:
A lot of players would avoid doing things if they didn't have an ability or piece of equipment that would aid them.  So all that stuff went!  All traits (and gear) do the same thing, it's just up to the players to decide when and how they want to work them into the story.

Hi Markus,

The issue of traits' mechanical effectiveness is real, but I don't think it's central. My current argument in the parent thread is that we're talking about a higher-level issue that's related to Creative Agenda but most importantly, wrapped up in the core character feature called Positioning. I'd like to use that set of ideas as my platform for answering your questions about traits' effectiveness here.

Am I correct in inferring that the key point in the sentences above is (mechanically speaking) that the traits are "not overwhelmingly important, and also not different from one to the other"? And that *this* allows both (1) the traits to be "thematic rather than tactical", and (2) making the choice between them a, well, thematic choice?

Suppose that using traits *was* "overwhelmingly important" when compared to using the bare resolution rules. Again, how would the game change?

And finally, the question I promised (hmm... threatened?) to ask again and again from now on... In this game, how were traits invoked? I'm asking about the actual words spoken at the table (well, close paraphrases would do). And when you say that traits might happen not to be applicable: who would choose between applicability and, well, lack of such? To which specific, real, "at the table" action would he/she respond to? How would he/she communicate to others this non-applicability?

Ron, thanks a lot for this reply. I have so much to say that I'll just do it step by step. One word of caution however: most of the stuff in my reply below is extremely theoretical; perhaps a bit too theoretical, I'm afraid. It's true, I'm kind of exploiting the Actual Play forum as a kind of "plz school me on RPG theory" forum lately. I only hope that these discussions are useful and/or entertaining to other people here as they are for me!

Most of what follows is really what I intended to say from the first moment I decided to delurk here at TheForge, but I didn't have neither the vocabulary nor the concepts to express it clearly. I'm not sure that I really got it yet, but consider this just my first attempt at asking this stuff clearly.

Oh, and there's another caveat: those reported below aren't fully-formed concepts yet, but just a tangled mass (mess?) of different ideas. I don't think I'll ever manage to put them in proper form by myself, so, if anyone is interested, please join in! So, let's start:

(1) The purpose of trait scores

Just for clarity, the very broad issue I'm trying to understand here with your help is what kind of effects are linked to the presence/absence of numerically different scores attached to different traits. I'll try to summarize my current understanding on this specific subject, which was definitely influenced by Ron's reply above.

There is only one thing that I'm reasonably sure of so far, that is, if you have trait scores in a system, then players should also have a rationale for choosing between traits, which must *not* be connected to those scores. So, three different scenarios seem to be possible:

[Just a quick side-note: when I wrote 'if you have trait scores...' above, I must confess I almost deleted the word 'trait', so that it would have been 'if you have scores...'. Right now, I cannot say if 'trait' is needed at all or not in that sentence... But for god's sake, let's try to answer to one question at a time].

(I) Several games provide that rationale directly as part of the system. For example, one relatively common mechanical/thematic scheme seems to be the "kinda-like-Faust" dilemma: different scores are accessible, but they are linked, for example, to specific actions which can be put in a ladder, based on a non-mechanical variable (usually that's some sort of moral value ladder).

(II) Other games do not provide such an 'external' rationale, and this leaves (in my opinion) only two options regarding trait scores in those games. The first one is simply not using trait scores, as seen in SpaceRat. The second one, which I didn't see until Ron's "Used to Be/Is Now" example above, is that the game does employ trait scores, but they also serve a different purpose altoghether *in addition* to the mechanical one.

(III) Then, there are games which do have traits, trait scores, but no additional/external purpose/rationale for either assigning those scores during chargen, or choosing between them during play.

And now comes the difficult part. Although most systems call "traits" the mechanical elements used for achieving (I) and (II) above, I find that in practice, they're different as day and night. In "Type(II)" games, traits are mostly a *descriptive* tool. Using them during play involves the *celebration*, for lack of a better term, of the fictional elements represented by that trait, *as already established* either during chargen, or by the system itself.

In Type(I) games instead, when you choose between traits during play, your choiche is mostly influenced by that non-mechanical, perhaps even non-stated value ladder, which in turn implies the score you'll use mechanically as an almost secondary consequence.

So I feel that in those Type(II) games, traits are mostly "premise reinforcement" tools, whereas in Type(I) games, traits are "premise creation" tools. In Type(I) games, I see traits as useful and functional, and I know what to do with them.

I'm currently struggling with Type(II) games, but I think I'm almost there. The trick seems to lie in understanding them as positioning tools, as Ron suggested in previous threads.

My problem with Type(III) games is that I really don't know what to do with traits, neither at chargen nor during play. The Pool could be an example of a Type(III) game, but I think there are a lot more around, some of which are extremely succesful games. No, I won't name any, simply because I'm not *that* sure I'm right; this is just intended as a platform for costructive discussion, not a "defend this game from unjust accusation" competition.

Oh and when above I say that "I don't know what to do with traits", I don't mean that I suddently forgot how I use them in more structured, Type(I)/(II) games. Rather, I mean that I have too many options open, including deciding which *type* of significance giving to trait scores. In my view, that's not much less work than designing a whole system from scratch.

[And, yes: I hate to always use ThePool as a negative example. More on that in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26918.0 , to which I'll respond asap].

Pheew, that was difficult stuff! I wonder if it makes any sense to someone else.

(2) "At the table" use of traits

Ron, your example was *extremely* helpful. So helpful that I just can't believe that I could never find something like that in any game text. I mean, you described specific, absolutely non-abstract techniques that are almost necessary to make good use of traits. Some of those are indeed extremely intuitive, and I also used them in my games. But others definitely aren't (for instance, your suggestion about how to build a functional dialogue between GM and players about the pertinence of a trait). My impression is however that the specific techniques you described are *not* implicitly linked to the word "trait". I say this because in some games, slighlty different procedures than those you described (or a sub-set of them) are explicitly prescribed.

So this becomes a broad question to all games designers passing by: when you decided to use 'traits' in your game, did you intend to cause "at-the-table" effects such as those described by Ron? Or, did you intended to achieve something different? My point is that in either case, you should describe it all in more detail. One can't just write in a game "oh, and you have traits, which give you bonuses if they're *applicable*" and expect it to produce any foreseeable effects in play. And if that's true, why do we need traits at all?

I have a lot more questions on this subject, but I'd like to have a 'reality check' first, waiting for some replies and comments.

thanks a lot!

M

Hi Markus,

You wrote,

I'm kind of exploiting the Actual Play forum as a kind of "plz school me on RPG theory" forum lately. I only hope that these discussions are useful and/or entertaining to other people here as they are for me!

There is only one thing that I'm reasonably sure of so far, that is, if you have trait scores in a system, then players should also have a rationale for choosing between traits, which must *not* be connected to those scores.

And now comes the difficult part. Although most systems call "traits" the mechanical elements used for achieving (I) and (II) above, I find that in practice, they're different as day and night. In "Type(II)" games, traits are mostly a *descriptive* tool. Using them during play involves the *celebration*, for lack of a better term, of the fictional elements represented by that trait, *as already established* either during chargen, or by the system itself.

In Type(I) games instead, when you choose between traits during play, your choiche is mostly influenced by that non-mechanical, perhaps even non-stated value ladder, which in turn implies the score you'll use mechanically as an almost secondary consequence.

So I feel that in those Type(II) games, traits are mostly "premise reinforcement" tools, whereas in Type(I) games, traits are "premise creation" tools. In Type(I) games, I see traits as useful and functional, and I know what to do with them.

My problem with Type(III) games is that I really don't know what to do with traits, neither at chargen nor during play. The Pool could be an example of a Type(III) game, but I think there are a lot more around, some of which are extremely succesful games. No, I won't name any, simply because I'm not *that* sure I'm right; this is just intended as a platform for costructive discussion, not a "defend this game from unjust accusation" competition.

My impression is however that the specific techniques you described are *not* implicitly linked to the word "trait". I say this because in some games, slighlty different procedures than those you described (or a sub-set of them) are explicitly prescribed.

So this becomes a broad question to all games designers passing by: when you decided to use 'traits' in your game, did you intend to cause "at-the-table" effects such as those described by Ron? Or, did you intended to achieve something different? My point is that in either case, you should describe it all in more detail. One can't just write in a game "oh, and you have traits, which give you bonuses if they're *applicable*" and expect it to produce any foreseeable effects in play. And if that's true, why do we need traits at all?

Hi Ron,

this is just a quick reply to say that your answers were much appreciated, and they prompted me to re-read with more attention some specific passages of your essay on narrativism. And... I'm finding a lot of sections that seem like the transcript of some of the discussions we've had here lately (only clearer, and in better form). I don't have anything significant to reply yet, but I have this good feeling that I'm "beginning to understand". So the bottom line is... thanks a lot!

M