Revision as of 22:34, 4 April 2011

In my quest for the ultimate game experience I am again on a system seeking odyssey, trying to find some kind of gaming nirvana, in a world of gaming Britney Spears. On this page I will share my thoughts that are going into my choice of system for this upcoming PA game. If you have thoughts about any section of this, please share them. I know not all of you are on board with each piece, but please let me know even if you disagree with something.

The Contenders

I am considering the following systems for this game. Not all are likely, and my position on each of them is as fickle as a teen girl it seems, able to wax and wane almost on a daily basis. I will attempt to discuss what I like about each of them separately.

Hero

Ah Hero, you rear your head again. The ability to attempt anything with your character is nice, but sometimes overwhelming to a lot of players. The combat and character generation have a high learning curve as well. The lack of any reduction in your abilities even when nearly dead also is contrary to a gritty setting. But I know it very well and Dieter is pretty familiar with it. It is a workable system with relatively few major flaws, but somehow it does not seem nearly as sexy as it once did.

--Dieter the Bold 23:04, 3 April 2011 (MST) I'd like to avoid this one if possible. I feel the same way as Jason does. I'd like the chance to try out something new.

Rolemaster

Do you love charts? I mean, do you REALLY love charts? If so, Rolemaster is your wet dream fantasy. The character generation has a million options, and its possible that is not an exaggeration at all. The zillions of custom charts for a wide range of situations could be excellent if we were prepared with what we need and ready to utilize them. Most of the system is pretty simple, say what you are gonna do, find the chart, roll and see what happens. Having all the charts each player needs ready at that players fingertips could make it streamlined. But from what I can tell movement and tactical action might be overwhelmingly convoluted.

One issue is the deadliness. Personally, I think that can be a real positive. Going into combat should be full of risks, yet players don't always see it that way. The critical hit structure in this game can lead to insta-kill from just about any enemy. That is gritty as hell.

--Dieter the Bold 23:16, 3 April 2011 (MST) I do love charts. Like, Really. I also like risky combat. Well, let me amend that to say I like combat with clear & serious stakes.

Phoenix Command

The tactical combat in this is pretty darn good. But, its really crunchy. The character generation is bad. I mean bad. The game is made to be grafted on to other games as the combat system, but I am not sure how to accomplish it easily. It is based on a d100 hit system, which means the charts are fully compatible with Rolemaster, which is one reason I chose to look at that system as closely as I did.

Deadlands: Invasion

The Deadlands hybrid system I was working on for XCom Seattle might work for this. I don't know how to implement the grittier gun elements, and I also dont know how to fix the disparity in hand to hand versus ranged damage, but its a contender. For those of you who played in the HP Lovecraft's American War of Independence game, what do you remember about what worked well and what didn't?

--Dieter the Bold 23:28, 3 April 2011 (MST) I thought this worked decently. Would it work to do an SDC / MDC kinda' thing? Hand-to-hand does nonlethal damage until the person is knocked out, then you can batter them to death of you want to. Guns do their normal damage with the normal effect.

Aftermath

This blast from the past has some fond memories attached, but I dont remember if it was actually any good. I havent looked at it yet, but its on the list.

Riddle of Steel

This game looks absolutely fantastic for fantasy and hand to hand combat, but I dont know how well it will handle ranged combat and guns. I might need to do a lot to the skills system too.

The Burning Wheel

A first look made it seem interesting. I haven't even read the whole thing yet, so its too early to know.

--Dieter the Bold 22:45, 3 April 2011 (MST) Read pretty much all of it. Very interesting character creation, but skills and abilities aren't particularly exciting and combat is a nightmare. I'd say the process this has for conceptualizing your character should be required for all our PC generation. Wouldn't vote on it for anything besides that right now.

Goals

What follows are the things I am attempting to achieve in this choice of systems. Basically, these are things I find important to making this game stand apart from other games. Some are things we have done before, others are new additions.

Differentiation Between Weapon Types

One thing that often bothers me in games is the min-maxing of equipment. I do not have a problem with the idea of finding cool trinkets that fit with a character, but in many games the difference between weapons and equipment make certain pieces just plain better than others, even when in real life they each have uses. Rifles, for instance, do more damage and are more accurate when aimed, but pistols are faster to ready and easier to use. In most games, these details get lost. Given how important equipment is in a starved setting such as this, making this work could add some real flavor to the setting.

--Dieter the Bold 22:43, 3 April 2011 (MST) I've been looking over Battletech stuff recently, and one of the things they tried to emphasize in the original setting was how rare tech & parts were, so battles could be won or lost based on who had the potential to inflict the most damage on the other. So reading the above, I had the crazy idea of what about doing away with "damage" altogether. Don't most gunshot victims die from shock, versus the actual physical damage caused by the bullet? Like guns having an Activation Roll to see if they shoot (failure means they're out of ammo), getting shot doesn't cause damage per se, but does make you roll your Health (call the stat what you will) to see how you respond to it. Critical Success means you're hopped up on adrenaline and it didn't hit any vital areas, so you're basically good to go, although medical attention will be needed once the encounter is over. Critical Failure means you're Stunned and in Shock, which will require immediate medical attention or you're dead. There can be modifiers based on where you're hit (arm might hurt a bunch and limit that arm's use, but less likely to be life threatening, versus the torso which has a lot of the important squishy bits). There can also be minor modifiers for the type of weapon abstractly based on bullet size and impact force. And for tactical combat aspects, there could be serious accuracy mods for distance and aiming along with speed for weapon size and combat stance (you can draw a pistol quicker than you can bring a rifle up to your shoulder if you're carrying it like a bag, but about as quickly if you're holding it like they do in the military). If you look at some of the more recent Westerns, even top gunfighters shoot quite a lot of bullets when not at close range or when on the move.

Interesting Combat

Most of our previous games have had relatively simple options in combat and action resolution, and I would like to try something with a little more in-depth choices. In general this means a little higher learning curve than some games we have played.

--Dieter the Bold 22:56, 3 April 2011 (MST) I'm only interested in "Interesting Combat" in terms of decision-making. I find any decision-making aspects interesting, but rolling dice and take swings at people are only as interesting as the stakes at the end. I feel that a lot of combat takes WAY too much time in most games. Starship combat in Star Trek is fun, because what maneuver you use and your ships placement are pretty much the deciding factor, things being relatively equal. Most other systems it's simply a matter of who's got the better stats/skills/weapons/rolls. That's only as interesting as the results of your victory, which can be pretty dull given how long combat can last. For me, the weapons & armor should be more part of the landscape than part of the actual fighting. It's what you do with the landscape and how you work together that should win or lose the fight. Otherwise, if one side can control/influence the landscape so much, why is a fight happening? Chance, of course, should play its part.

Struggle For Survival

The characters are still clearly heroes of the story, but they are not immune to dangers and perils of the known world. The environment is harsh and unforgiving, but the characters are able to use their wiles to overcome. In Star Trek, the characters are rarely at risk, but they struggle to uphold moral values or to solve difficult logistical quandaries, but PA heroes struggle to live, and hopefully thrive.

--Dieter the Bold 23:39, 3 April 2011 (MST) I want moral choices in PA as well. I mean, that's often the biggest point of the entire thing. It's not enough just to survive, you have to live. And living means you strive for something better, you improve things, you grow. Of course, it being PA, it should be a struggle to make it beyond the point of survival. And the world should be a risky one. Not all the time, but I'd like to see someone do a quick individual encounter with some poisonous animal while trying to sleep or having wandered off looking for food. Not all the time, just enough to jolt us now and again.

Custom Systems

The following systems I will develop of my own volition and graft on to any system chosen. These are things which are integral to the setting, and which shape my idea of how to do this well. My desire to try these things out is what motivates me to develop this game in the first place.

Equipment Unreliability

I have developed a whole set of rules to simulate equipment breakdown. They are in a Word doc, and anyone who wishes to see them please let me know. As of now they are moderately bookkeeping heavy, but I think they are simple to understand and use. If each character has only a moderate to small amount of equipment which is subject to breakdown it should be pretty easy to do.

Simplified Record Keeping

A game can get really bogged down when everyone is worrying about how many rations they have or whether they have enough bullets on their sheet. This also often leads to players conserving vital resources because the danger is not threatening.

My solution for this is to introduce abstract record keeping of supplies which are perishable. Instead of having 5 days worth of rations, or 36 bullets, you will have a supply roll associated with each. When the roll fails, you are out of them. You could still have more, but you realize that it is spoiled or otherwise useless to you. They function like activation rolls with burnout in Hero. You can increase your rolls by purchasing supplies or foraging, but you are still never guaranteed to have enough.

--Dieter the Bold 23:02, 3 April 2011 (MST) I'm torn on this one. I love the idea, but I'm wondering if it will have the same impact when it comes down to moral & survival choices in a PA setting. If we're faced with a choice of risking our survival to help someone else out by parting with our supplies, would we just take a penalty on our Activation Roll or would we give up our next Activation Roll? It just doesn't quite have the same emotional impact as looking at our list and seeing the last ration there and trying to decide whether to cross it off to give some other people a chance or to keep it in case we run into trouble. Would it be worth it to have Activation Rolls normally, but throw out specific numbers in certain situations, that way we're not just bean counting, but we're making tough decisions on what's really important. Making rolls means every single use of that item or ability has the same result, regardless of the circumstances. I really like the mechanic, I'm just a little afraid of how it will play out at the table.