Glad you got back to this. Was starting to worry when I hadn't seen ya post for a while

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;753119Glad you got back to this. Was starting to worry when I hadn't seen ya post for a while

Thanks. I'd been going at it 24/7 for about four months and I needed a break. So I took some time off to let my creative batteries recharge.

Now I'm back and in the groove. (Or something less '70's that means the same thing. )

Talents [pt. 2]

Talents are strengths that are unique to your character: things you do well, that no one else does quite the same way you do. Troubles are unique problems that beset your character on a regular basis. After choosing a Template, either pre-gen or one of your own making, you next select a Talent and a Trouble that are tied into the Template. (I'll talk about how to do that in a bit.)

Talents: A Talent is a short phrase that describes some unique advantage your character possesses, like "Face of a Saint". A thief with that Talent looks fresh-faced and innocent, no matter the circumstances. Even if they're caught red-handed with stolen goods, people will tend to believe they weren't involved or, at worst, were an unwitting dupe of the real thief.

 Talents can represent innate knacks (Violin Virtuoso, Born With a Gun In His Hand), inherent advantages (Voice Like an Angel, You Gotta Love ‘Im), unusual training (My Uncle Was a Kung Fu Master, The Necronomicon is in My Backpack), or anything else that gives the character an edge. All characters have at least one Talent (that ties into their Template) but can have one or two others, for a total of three.

Talents give a bonus in any situation where they could reasonably apply. Face of a Saint, for example, might help you fast-talk a policeman ("Oh please, officer, can't I stay here for just a second longer? My dad will be right out.") but it probably shouldn't help you do it over the intercom. ("Face" implies seeing the character.) This is something of a judgement call, but the GM has final say.

The first time a Talent is used in a module, it's worth a +3 Skill Bonus to one Combat or Skill Challenge. The second time, +2 to a different Challenge. And the third, and last, it's worth +1. Talents refresh between modules, back up to their full +3.

Talents aren't just "doing better" mechanics. They also help illustrate who your character is. A character who is A Real Class Act is very different from the Who Are You, Again? guy, even if they have the same template.

Yes, Talents do give bonuses but they also personalize a character, making them distinct. Other characters might have the same Attributes and even skills, but none have the same Talents.

A Note On Balance: The most important part of Talents is the flavor, not the game balance. Some players might try to word one so its useful in as many situations as possible, others so it can be used with every single type of weapon. Neither of these are much of a problem, because Talents can only be used three times in one module, and weaken each time they're used. They're self-limiting. As long as the Talent is interesting, flavorful, and apt for the character, it's fine.

The same holds when deciding if a Talent applies to a particular situation. For the most part, if it makes sense, allow it. "My Uncle Was a Kung Fu Master, so I know about Martial Arts styles (Knowledge Challenge)." Maybe you should allow that, maybe not. But don't stress over it.

Talents are self-limiting, and if the player gets a +3 on the Knowledge Challenge, they'll only have a +2 on whatever comes next, so feel free to let them use the bonus. Again, the mechanic is self-limiting, so you don't need to police them all that stringently. Go ahead and disallow clearly ridiculous uses, but err on the side of "okay" rather than "no".

That's Talents, the basics at least. I'll talk Troubles next post.

pt. 3

Since my last post I've been discussing Talents with some of my frequent commenters. They had some questions about why Talents should exist, and when they can be used. So I'm putting off Troubles for a sec, and expanding on the Talent post.

Why Talents?

Talents are, in effect, an Advantage / Edge system, of which there are many possible approaches. There's the GURPS 100 Advantages model, Savage Worlds 50 Advantages model, and 1000's of Feats model of D&D 3e (among many other options). I like all those games, and each has their strengths (and weaknesses). But for this system, I needed to avoid all of those and simplify.

Talents do the same thing as Advantages, in a much more compact and simplified form (it takes less than 500 words to explain the mechanic). They also allow for a near infinite variety of customization and characterization.

Static Advantages, picked off a list, are always the same. Sharp Eyes (+2 to visual challenges) is the same for every character who takes it.

Talents are unique, no two are alike. Because of that, no two characters are alike. Let's take two lists of three possible Talents.

Character A
Henry Smash!
Don't Mess With The Big Guy
If You're Family, You're Forever

Character B
Fists Like Lightning
Deadly Stare
Honor. Duty. Fidelity.

In a general sense, those two lists are basically the same:

Good at fighting.
He's scary.
Loyalty to his friends and family.

Yet each gives entirely different impressions of the character. The first is a big lug, a bruiser, and the second a Bruce Lee-style martial artist. Similar Talents, very different impression. You get a sense of who the character is just from reading that list. (And when you add in the Template and Troubles, it's a very comprehensive description of a character in a very compact form.)

Talents allow a player to not only establish a character's personality or characterization, but get a benefit for doing so. Two Rookie Cops (their Template) might have the same skills. But with different Talents, they are very different people.

Talents are self-balancing. No matter the scope, they provide a specific bonus, a specific number of times. Once used, they're depleted until the next module. (I'll talk more about that later.) They can't be abused because there's no handle to do so. (And people trying to min-max Talents have so fundamentally missed the point of the mechanic, it's not worth trying to force them to conform. It won't work, and player and GM will both be miserable from the attempt.)

Sure, a broadly worded Talent can be used in a number of circumstances… once. After that, it's useless until it refreshes.

Because of this, players decide when to use the bonus (you can even "double up", using the bonus from two or even three Talents all at once). Even if a Talent could affect a situation, the player can save their bonus for later. And, though I omitted this from the last post, to use their Talents bonus, they have to narrate how their Talent affects the situation.

"Henry looms over the crowd, frowning slightly. 'Leave that man alone.' " In this situation, the player is trying to use Don't Mess With The Big Guy, so describes how his size and mien can aid an Intimidation challenge. Every use of a Talent needs a similar description.

This mechanic encourages players to play their characters, to describe how their character's unique facets affect a situation. That's why Talents exist: to help describe who a character is, and how the character acts in the game.

Some people do this innately. (These are typically the players who write up ten pages of background without having to be asked.) Others don't, because they don't find it interesting.

In an action-movie game, it's alright if mooks are faceless and interchangeable. But the stars — the PC's and main NPC's — should be more strongly distinguished in concept and during play, and Talents are a way Actor players can to do so and a way to encourage other types of players to do the same, even if only a little bit.

With A Capital "T" [pt. 4]

Talents are strengths unique to a character. Troubles are their counterpart, unique problems the character frequently faces.

Drinking problem? Trouble. Easily angered? Trouble. Hunted by a clan of assassins from beyond time and space? Trouble.

Addictions, enemies, dependents, anything that might cause complications during a session can be a Trouble. Troubles are named just like Talents, in short, evocative phrases that describe the problem you face:

Ugly As a Bucket of Fish Guts
"Say That One. More. Time."
Watch It, That's My Sister

Troubles complicate characters' lives, and for that the player receives a reward. When notable Trouble crops up during play, the character is rewarded 1 Resolve at the end of that Act. But, no matter how often the same Trouble crops up during an Act, only 1 point per Act is earned.

Troubles must be listed on the character sheet. There's a lot of things players can do to cause themselves problems, these don't necessarily deserve to be rewarded. "I light the building on fire." "We're on the tenth floor!" Unless impatience or obliviousness is one of that character's Troubles, it doesn't count.

Players control their characters, so they decide if personal problems — Hair of The Dog I Bit — come into play. Gamemasters can suggest it, if the situation arises, but players can say no (forfeiting the reward, obviously). External troubles — like the afore-mentioned clan of assassins from beyond time and space — show up when and where and how the GM wishes. The player has no say in it.

Characters can have up to three Troubles, but only the first (linked to their Template) is mandatory. The other two are optional, and can be picked at character creation or later, during play. (Talents and Troubles can also change during play. I'll talk about that in another post.)

Troubles make characters, and the game, more interesting. A character who is occasionally short tempered, and blows up during tense negotiations, is more interesting than a bland, blank faced Terminator programmed to defeat modules with the barest minimum of human interaction or feelings. Troubles reward players for staying in character, or getting the short end, even when it impairs their ability to win a module.

I'll talk about how much Trouble counts next post.

How Much Trouble Is "Trouble"?

pt. 5

Troubles only provide their reward when they are notable: when they cause the affected character a problem he has to work to overcome. Sure, a party member might be an alcoholic, and even overindulge from time to time, but it's only when he misses an important meeting with a contact (and has to get the info another way) that he sees a reward.

Trouble is notable if it does any one of the following:

• Causes a significant open conflict with consequences for failure, or involves the characters in one. This includes not only combat, but an argument or confrontation of some sort, such as persuading the emir his vizier's corrupt or trying to negotiate a truce between Westphalian and Eastphalian nobles. A conflict must be something the character cannot overcome trivially, and which has notable consequences for losing (being expelled from the city, losing his patron, etc.). If the character happens upon a conflict and intervenes, that counts.

• Significantly obstructs progress towards a goal. If one of the Act goals is retrieving the Crown Jewels of Waraka, but the character or party gets thrown in jail because of some Trouble, that makes achieving the goal more difficult. That counts.

• Costs the character appreciable in-game resources. That is, money, ammunition, favors, etc. Animals Are People, Too might mean the character has a problem shooting guard dogs, but tranquilizer darts are acceptable (though possibly less effective). If he has them on hand, as part of his normal gear, that's not Trouble. If he has to spend a lot of money to get ahold of some, that's Trouble. (Or if the darts don't work, and the guard dogs become a problem, that's also Trouble.)

• Causes any other problems of similar or greater magnitude.

This last point is the most important: the above are not an exhaustive list of all possible consequences of Trouble, just some representative examples. As always it's GM's discretion as to what counts. The rule of thumb is: If the character didn't have to work to overcome it, it wasn't enough Trouble to count.

Here's an example:

Suppose a three-member party has been hired to break into a warehouse before dawn. Under normal circumstances, it's a three-man job, but just before they leave for the break-in, one of the characters loses his cool and starts a fight with a couple of bikers ("What Did You Say To Me?"). A combat, even a non-lethal fist fight, is notable Trouble, so he gets a point. (Unless he can win without any significant effort or risk.)

The second character is immensely loyal (Es Mi Familia), so joins the fight. That's Trouble for him, and he also gets a point. The third character is All Business, and decides that, no matter what those yahoos are doing, he's going to finish the job. He attempts to break into the warehouse on his own, which is a lot more difficult. That's Trouble, and he gets a point.

[Note: The Action Deck has Subplot cards, like Romance and Nemesis. Subplots are, in effect, temporary, module-specific Troubles. They follow the same guidelines and offer the same reward.]

Template Tips
pt. 6

I want to talk about the mandatory Talent and Trouble and how both are linked to the character's Template. But first, I want to expand on Templates a little.

All characters have, at their core, an expected role: "I'm making a wizard." "I'm a wheelman." "I want to play a fighter character."

The part of a template is the character's expected role: Wizard. Wheelman. Warrior. And so forth. (Not all roles are available in all campaigns, obviously.)

The role gives us some important information about the character, namely their skill set. Wizards cast spells, wheelmen drive cars, warriors swing swords. It also gives us some notion of the character's past, because they trained for that role.

Maybe the wizard apprenticed under a frightful master, maybe he attended a magical high school, maybe he was self-taught from books of eldritch lore better left unread. The possible choices vary by campaign world, but at some time he learned to be a wizard. And that's a lot of background, filled in very quickly.

(More, the character's role lets the GM know what the player wants from the game. A hacker wants to hack computers. A wizard wants to employ his magic. A gunfighter likes duels. The GM doesn't have to trot out obvious opportunities each and every module, but the wise GM looks at the role of the PC's when designing adventures.)

The half personalizes the character, it gives us a notion of who they are or what situation they're in. A Knight is a warrior and noble on horseback, who follows the code of chivalry. By adding an adjective to the basic noun of Knight, we learn some of who this specific knight is.

A Dishonored Knight (for example) has some black mark of shame in his past, from his actions or the actions of an ancestor. He is likely to be shunned by many nobles and may even be forbidden to (for example) fight in tournaments or bear his family colors openly. If a crime is committed, he may be the first suspected and the last cleared. He will suffer much because of this dishonor. (Which is fine, because the player chose it. They expect this to be a problem.)

Just picking one colorful adjective gives us a lot of information about the character's situation, and how others see him. It implies much about his past and informs his personality.

The + construction is flexible and succinct. Many games with pre-gen characters have used it for decades. Done properly, it encompasses a great deal of information about the character, information that can be use when writing up their background, picking skills and other game values, and selecting Talents and Troubles.

Next post I'll talk about integrating Talents and Troubles into the Template.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;757624Next post I'll talk about integrating Talents and Troubles into the Template.

Everything still going OK with the game design stuff?

Quote from: warp9;772676Everything still going OK with the game design stuff?

Yes, oddly enough. This system is just one part of a very big project, and from time to time I have to go off and do work in other areas.

For the past six or seven weeks I've been writing up and posting some background material for the "Storm Knights" setting (a reboot of Torg), which primarily happens on the Torg email List. When I get done with that, I'll be right back here.

With a project this big, you have to write when you can, about whatever subject is currently most urgent. In this case, I solved a problem that'd been dogging me for 19 years (literally), so I took time off to write it up. It was time well spent.

Thanks for the continuing interest, sorry for the time out. But I will be back!

State of Game

It's been about 10 weeks since my last rules post, and it's past time for an update. (I've been working on other aspects of the project, hence the radio silence.)

1 – Work is continuing despite the lack of posts.

Most recently I've been researching suppressive fire, so I can build a mechanic that isn't completely stupid and unrelated to the real world. As with everything I research, this involves finding and learning a lot of info that won't appear in the game.

I've also been pounding my head against a brick wall on Ranged Defense. No changes yet, just a sullen kind of acceptance of the necessity of the skill, without any real enthusiasm for it.

I've been trying to puzzle out the relative damage of weapons vs. the protective value of armor. This also includes trying to figure out if the damage of pistols and rifles are commensurate and reasonable, and how to fit heroic damage resistance into the mechanics.

I've been working on a mechanic for one-on-one melee duels (for swashbuckling swordsmen and battling kung fu masters) which slows them down a bit, but makes them far more interesting.

I've also been mulling over issues of GM'ing, including what GM'ing advice to include with the game and how to write it up.

So, yes, work is proceeding despite the lack of updates.

2 – I am moving towards another round of playtesting.

My current goal is to incorporate the last round of posts into the playtest document and begin running a semi-regular playtest game. (I say this knowing full well that every single announced goal so far has been superseded about 24 hours after I post it. Que cera cera.)

If I do actually accomplish this, we'll be running Roll20 in a Google+ Hangout, with full video and audio. (Meaning you can see my ugly mug on camera, aieeeee!) The benefit of this is that we can record the playtest sessions to YouTube, for review later.

Technically, we could live-stream it, and have kibitzers asking questions during the game, but... no. Not that anyone would, bit still... no.

In any case, as soon as I finish compiling rules and researching the largest remaining holes, I should be able to start more playtesting. That's the situation.

The introduction to the GM Advice chapter:

GM Advice

What's the purpose of giving a GM advice?

Obviously, it's so I, the genius RPG game designer, can descend from on high, bringing you the tablets of pure gamer knowledge, written by the hands of the gaming gods themselves. These pearls of effulgent wisdom will shine forth in your mind for generations to come, making each combat short yet gripping, each NPC compelling and entertaining, and each game session so enthralling and moving that total strangers will buy you drinks just for the chance of hearing you relate storied tales of your campaigns.

BULLSHIT!

Here's the truth about advice:

Every group is different, every RPG is different, every session is different. What works at one table, on one night, might not work as well (or at all) on another night or at another table. Gaming advice is like Microsoft Word, 95% of people only use 5% of the advice. But it's a different 5% for each.

That said, I'm going to give you the best advice I can, advice that is as broadly applicable as possible. Pick and chose which bits make sense to you, try them out at your table and see which work, and in general try to have fun.

And if that doesn't work: Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies!

What's With This "I" Stuff?

The rest of the game is written in the Editorial We style — "We recommend you" and so forth. The GM Advice chapter is literally me, the writer of the game, giving you, the GM or player, advice. Picture it as the two of us sitting down at a table, having a casual conversation over a couple of drinks. (I'll have water, tap is fine, you can have whatever suits your fancy.)

When it comes to the game rules, I speak with the voice of authority (within limits), but any GMing advice is provisional and personal. So, just for this chapter, it's "I", not "We".

Yes, I'm back. Yes, I'll be posting. I hope to resume / restart tomorrow.