Man and Machine
Some time ago I started writing this, and I recently finally finished it off. It probably needs a little 'live' playtesting, particularly by someone who hasn't written it.
I'd be interesting in hearing any feedback on it, or answering any questions where I've not made it clear enough.
What is the Game?
Short Answer
A role-playing game where advanced robotic vehicles stand in the ruins of a post-apocalyptic earth.
Long Answer
In some stories, the climactic battles are played not by the characters, but by vehicles they pilot, machines they have built or creatures they control. In these stories the outcome of important battles is determined by the will and dedication of the character as well as the capabilities of whatever it is they control. This role-playing game is intended to be able to create those kinds of stories.
Another Long Answer
In role-playing games, there is usually a definite break in style (and sometimes rules) between scenes that showcase the characters' differing traits and the action-heavy scenes where they show their capabilities. Some games try to minimise this difference- this game tries to make the two modes of play even more distinct, to the point of separating the two almost entirely.
Latest version linked below.
Definite possibilities here
A nice twist, Sheikh. A good referee should be playing towards his characters' traits anyway - particualrly in a storytelling game. This system rewards both the PCs and the referee if they co-operate, but does not overly penalise one side or the other if things do not work out.
Indeed, as we all know, if something can go wrong in a game, it will. Never underestimate the players in their attempt to find a route you never anticipated.
Script Immunity
One of the great things about RPGs is the player's freedom and the presence of a sentient mind that can adapt to the situation, rather than give you bugs and errors. Penalising someone for a bad script doesn't seem quite right - at least not for this kind of setting. A game based on making movies where there are expectations from the audience/producers might be interesting to run in this manner.
I would also be left to wonder if GM points are equal to player's points or not. Is this resource split amongst the potential enemies, multiplied for each opponent, or only granted to the main BBEG? Multiple players splitting off could generate a lot of twist points, but if they stick to the script, than what challenge would part two be?
Just as one other flip on this concept - does it work better to reward those who stick to the outline, or to penalize those who deviate?
There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.
Not so much a penalty, more a way of introducing conflict
I'm not sure that the Sheikh's idea was to penalise players who deviate from the script, more to introduce consequences for them in exchange for allowing them opportunities to develop their pools.
The problem is, if a player attempts to do something but fails, what penalty should be imposed on them? In most games, failing is its own penalty: ou don't get the treasure, the monster kills you, you fall down the bottomless chasm never to be seen again. However,as was pointed out, in this game, the only penalties occur when players climb into their machines and face off against the bad guys. A PC who gets shot in Act One does not have any real penalties in Act Two. I think the answer was intended to be more like what goes on in Rune. In tat game, the referee is trying to make life dificult for the PCs. He has to give them gribblies to kill, but must not make it too easy. also, the referee must not make the gribblies too hard, or the PCs die and he loses points. It is a tricky balancing act, but it seemed to work in any games of Rune I played in.
As for the flip: which way works better? I find the carrot usually works better than the stick. However, there are some players who just seem to like mucking around. While I think rewards are better, there are some referees who will have to be able to penalise PCs, and I think penalties can add to a game. After all, which is more interesting, "How I climbed Everest with a broken ankle" or "How I climbed Everest with a perfectly fine ankle, but everyhting else sprained, broken or dislocated"? (Apologies to Douglas Adams)
I very much like the idea of
I very much like the idea of the GM having a list of plot elements that need to happen to get to phase two. I'm not sure about trading off points for the GM against them, though.
I think the most elegant way of penalising players in phase two is by draining their trait pool- draining Machine abilities before they start doesn't make much sense and other forms of penalty would require more crunchy rules.
At the moment I'm leaning towards ditching twists (together with the rules for replenishing named foes' Machines and mook reinforcements) and instead having a list of 'plot events' that the GM endeavours to work through.
Injury for characters will be modelled through missed scenes, which they can buy off with trait pool (essentially, burning karma in order to avoid injury). If phase two begins with a player 'owing' a scene, the GM spends trait for him (heh heh heh).
Another idea I'm toying with is using the plot events are a form of clock- each time there's an scene that doesn't encompass a plot event the GM notes it down. When a certain number is reached, the GM has permission to start trying to injure the characters. If this number reaches a second threshold, then phase two begins anyway, whether or not the characters are prepared. This might give a nice trade-off as farming for pool risks causing injury- although in this case the pool loss for injury might have to be more than 1.
I'm actually running it on Wednesday (albeit with the currently written rules) and I'll see how that goes before I make the current batch of revisions.
based on a quick read through
I like the idea behind the game, but it almost seems too generic. There are plenty of mecha games, so I'd like to see some more specifics, especially related to the machines, weapons, human-machine interaction, etc. Also, I'm not sure about making nothing important happen during human time (without the machines). So, maybe add some basics for rolls as a human. And I'm not sure the impact of the "traits" as humans, could you explain their importance and use alittle more?
I've had other feedback
I've had other feedback saying the background is a little generic- I kind of didn't want to flesh it out because it would make the document even longer, but I think I'll rework the whole background section to give more details. I'll lose the history and concentrate on the now.
I'd be reluctant to let rolls sneak into the first half, but I might let players buy off 'bad things' by spending a point of trait pool. Maybe even a system of narration rights. This would encourage the players to let the GM take control towards the end of the first half to make sure their pools are full.
I'm not sure whether you meant 'Importance' in the game sense of importance or normal importance. Traits let the players generate pool that they can use to refuel their Machine's abilities during the second phase. To demonstrate a trait and earn the pool, the player must have their character do something appropriate to the trait on-screen, as it were. Does that help?
I think I figured it out
I think I figured out what's bothering everyone about the phase one play.
The examples of phase one play were like your standard role playing game, except a gun was pulled on the player characters and they weren't in any danger.
What's up with that?
I don't think this concept works for phase one to be just like a normal RPG but with no resolution mechanics. The only thing that should happen in phase one is for the PCs (and by extension, the players) to get angry at the villains they will face off against in phase two.
There are still ways to do this.
Mecha and Pilot - Make this more like Evangelion. Characters earn trait pool by demonstrating their humanity by how they interact with each other and NPCs or how they uncover information about an enemy. They are never in danger in this part. Nobody shoots at them, and the PCs should probably not have guns.
Handler and Monster - Characters earn trait pool by using their traits to demonstrate "important" moral lessons for children to learn, or by going through a funny schtick (as in Brock chasing nurses.)
God and Avatar - This is easier than the previous two. Gods only interact with other gods, presumably in a politicy manner, or with followers and heros, presumably in a vision / guidance manner. The Avatar, however, is like a mecha, even if it is the size of a person, only great heros (or demons) or massive armies or other avatars can stand against an avatar.
Pilot and F15 - Again, the pilot of an F15 isn't going to ever look down the barrel of an AK47. The only time he faces the soviets is in the air. He gets his trait pools from interacting with the trainers and pilots and other military personel.
Driver and IndyCar - Same deal. Indie car drivers have to trash talk, and undercover clues that will help capture sabateurs, but Speed Racer's villains tended to save their villainy for the race.
This also suggests the genre of Pro Wrestler. All the scheming and politics and trash talk not only give the PCs chances to demonstrate their traits, earning trait pool, but they also give the NPCs chance to earn player emnity. And that's what we really want. We want players to buy in to the setting, so they have a reason to root for their characters to beat the heck out of opponents in the ring. Actually, this would be so much fun. I need to work on a supplement and find people who would be willing to act out the pro-wrestler trash talk during play-testing.
Journalist and Superhero - This works best if the superheros are fairly immune to mortal dangers. Lamont Cranston and Clark Kent and John Jones make good examples. They demonstrate their traits and earn pools as their secret identities, but when their secret identity is threatened, they find a way to sneak off and start phase two play as The Shadow, Superman, or Martian Manhunter.
Sorcerer and Golem - This one is weak. Is there some example of this in fantasy or literature? If we need a fantasy setting we could go with something like King and Champion, like Agamemnon and Achiles. Or Wizard and Champion, like Merlin and Arthur. The king or wizard does all the talking and scheming and trait demonstrating (sometimes even with the champion at his side) and the champion does all the fighting and conquering. Gandalf is also a good, but not perfect example of this.
Or you could turn it on its head for a more Ars Magica feel, where the Companion and Wizard team has the Companion doing the talking and role playing and trait demonstrationg, and the Wizard does all the climactic battles.
Captain and Starship - I also think this is weak. Usually all the players are crew on one starship, not one starship per player (although this does fit better with Star Wars where Luke had his X-wing and Han, the Falcon). But to keep the climactic conflict all starship vs. starship takes focus away from lightsaber duels and dangerous away team missions.
Also, it occurs to me that I'm just going to have to suck it up and buy more dice. This is yet another game in a series of games that I would love to try because they have very interesting narrative elements, but I simply don't have the dice for. (I only own three 8 sided dice.)
I don't think this concept
I don't think this concept works for phase one to be just like a normal RPG but with no resolution mechanics.
You might be right- the example was cobbled together rather quickly.
I could borrow an idea from My Life With Master and have missing scenes as a potential penalty for injury. If there's a threat of injury, the player can choose to spend a point to trait pool to dodge it, if they wish. If not, they miss a number of following scenes depending on the severity of the injury. This not only gives some form of mechanic to the first phase, but can lead to interesting choices- is it really worth sacrificing that trait pool for a minor injury when you weren't going to be in the next scene, anyway?
The intention was that violence in phase one should be the exception rather than the norm, so you can still edit it out.
The alternative concepts do rather depend on how you see them- I shall flesh them out so they don't seem so out of place. The mental image I had for the original mecha concept was something more akin to Full Metal Panic than Neon Genesis Evangelion, although either would fit.
Also, it occurs to me that I'm just going to have to suck it up and buy more dice.
I started working with d8s as the base dice because I feel they are underused in general. Although some very careful calibration and analysis went on looking at probable dice rolls throughout. You might be able to downgrade all dice sizes by one step without changing too much, but I haven't looked at that in much depth.
getting there
I think the point vs. scene loss sounds like a winner, but I don't think you should allow the missed scene to not matter to the character. Maybe if they missed at least the next scene they were in, even if its 5 scenes later. Or...at the very least, let them have no idea whether missing the next scene will matter or not.
As for dice to dice conversion, find a common denominator. d8 and d6 is 24 so if you need a 7 on a d8 it is a 21 out of 24 back to d6 it is 5.2 or a five more or less. It's not exact but it should work for the most part.
My original thought was 'you
My original thought was 'you miss your next scene', but I thought that would basically turn 'injury' into a straight point loss rather than there being any meaningful decision to make. If you think that you can stand to miss the next scene (because you're not likely to be in it), then you can take a minor injury and return with a bandage. Of course, the worse the injury the more scenes you will miss.
My only reservation with dice conversion is that some of the balancing may get out of whack. I haven't crunched the numbers, but default abilities would be less effective nad defensive abilities more effective.
Finally read it ...
Having had a good read of this whilst waiting in the hospital X-ray department (I'm fine, my wife was in for a lumbar puncture) and having read the above responses, I think there are three ways around the lack of Phase 1 resolution mechanics.
The first option is to treat the first phase of the game as a storytelling exercise that is used to set up for the second phase. In this case, it is up to the referee to impose the circumstances that will aid or hinder the plyaers. For example: one of the PCs is shot by a mook. This results in the PC suffering from negative modifiers while in phase 2 - either due to the pain inflicted, occasional loss of consciousness or whatever means the referee cares to impose. To put this in terms of NGE: we find out that Asuka has had a troubled childhood (natch). When she confronts the Angel, it immobilises her by bringing up her childhood memories. Thus, she has to struggle to overcome the Angel.
The second option is to allow the player to sacrifice some of their pool to avoid the problem. This allows the player script control (I like the way Octane does ths), but they do pay a penalty later as they may not have enough pool to ensure victory.
In both options 1 and 2, the referee could allow the player bonus pool if they agree to the hose job (as per Truth & Justice).
In option 3, the resolution mechanics from phase 2 could be used to resolve the conflict. simple as that. However, this would require making the resolution mechanics general and might break the sprit of the game, which I do not want to do!
On the positive side, I do like the flexibility of the system, particularly as to how conflicts are resolved. Unlike other mecha-oriented games which insist on fising the components of the mecha, this system allows the player to describe what is happening. I like systems that encourage player participation in this way.
I'm kind of leery as to
I'm kind of leery as to applying modifiers to actions in the second phase- I'd have to add some additional rules separate from the existing mechanics or risk breaking the delicate fine-tuning to the existing ones.
I like the idea of spending trait pool in the first phase as it gives both player and GM a means to pace what goes on. It also gives a greater variety of Machine designs- one can have two default abilities and have two traits just for dealing with injury.
The rolling mechanic could be imported, but would characters roll current pool or trait power? I might make that one of the ever more numerous appendices.
Hmm... How about injury giving the GM a 'hose' token to use against that player in the second phase? The player can then choose between getting treatment (buying off the hose and losing a scene) or receiving the hose during combat.
Whatever doesn't break your system
I must admit, my favourite is spending the trait pool in the first phase. That way, it is up to the PC to decide how they have been affected and when it affects them. Much more fun in crafting a story that way.
A "hose token" sounds like a reasonable idea. If it is simpler than keeping track of trait pool, then it is worth doing. Otherwise, I think it is a redundant mechanism as it achieves the same effect as reducing the pool, but with more book-keeping. A hose job should be memorable. Just ask my Paranoia players.
The fourth first impression...
I'm not a bit fan of diceless mechanics, but the game looks pretty good. The mecha are nice, and designed in a proper order. It always annoyed me that mobility was the last part of Mekton, so if you wanted a faster robot, you needed to start over.
One possible means of mechanic integration would be the use of an expanding scale. Say all the human tasks are based on difficulties reachable on one die (ie 1-8.) Then the mecha adds to this so the scale extends farther - but now its either the robot + pilot, or the chance of two scores on one roll. (I just picked up a copy of Iron Claw for 7.00 at a used book store, so that resolution system is in my head at the moment.) Sizing things up like this also means the combat half of the game can have soldiers or starships participating, rather than just one size of mecha. Perhaps superheroic mecha could add together multiple pilots. (3...2..."and I'll form the head!")
Setting wise, I don't mind the relatively generic background, though it might help to give an explanation or in world reason for the attribute linkages. My game uses brain direct links, but I've also seen mecha slaved to the pilots movements (G-Gundam comes to mind) or based on the characters emotions/mental state. (the zero system of Gundam Wing) A magic or techno-organic PSBS (Pseudo Scientific...) could also account for it.
(and I note that we have yet another case of great minds thinking alike - your attribute categories are quite a bit like the ones in Dead EISS. How long did it take for you to par it down to this collection of abilities? DE marks my 4th attempt at minimalist mecha.)
There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.
Hey look, a title!
One possible means of mechanic integration would be the use of an expanding scale.
I suppose this could be done by opening up additional dice sizes- human-scale stuff uses d6 as the base, with d4 for default and d8 for exceptional defence, super-scale uses d8/d10/d12. Although I envisaged a tight focus on one scale during the action.
Setting wise, I don't mind the relatively generic background, though it might help to give an explanation or in world reason for the attribute linkages.
When I rewrite the background bit, I'll put more in.
How long did it take for you to par it down to this collection of abilities?
About ten seconds. Although, to be fair, there's quite a history of failed mecha-themed games strewn by the roadside. I was unconvinced by Agility as a multi-purpose ability at first.
There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.
Don't even ask me how many games I'm technically writing at the moment...
Lines and lines and lines and ...
If you're anything like the rest of us, you probably have a library of hardback notebooks stuffed full of half-realised ideas written in a variety of scrawls.
This may take some time ...
I've downloaded the rules, but at 71 pages I am not going to get through them tonight. I'll probably have some opinion by Thursday, if that's alright.
I did kind of go nuts, but I
I did kind of go nuts, but I was quite proud of getting something done that didn't read like notes rather than a game.
It's 71 A5 pages, mind, so only 35 'real' pages. ;)
And take as much time as you need. You're the one doing me a favour, after all.
How about this.
Taking Decreased and John's suggestions into consideration, I'd like to propose:
The GM doesn't earn Twist Pool, he earns Plot Pool.
The GM writes down all the events that he needs to happen for Phase One to go off without a hitch and without any PC getting into danger. For every one of these events, the GM gets a point of Plot Pool. Whenever the PCs deviate or come at the event in a roundabout or reluctant manner, that represents a failing of the GM to take into account his players and their characters and to write an adventure that logically flows, so the GM then doesn't get the point to add to his Plot Pool.
Before Phase Two the player's get to see the list and the Plot Points the GM feels he deserves and the players can veto a few if they feel it is necessary. (And they will veto plot points if you check off that you deserve it but they got hurt doing it.)
As long as the players are feeding the GM Plot Points, they are safe. When they go off course he is free to beat on them. If the PCs are discovered by guards, they know they're telling the story "wrong". The GM had a safe path for them, but it was too obtuse so they did something else and now someone is going to:
Note that for a clever player, this is not exactly a losing situation. He could have chosen traits for his character like:
and then when his teammates get in trouble he takes the brunt of the bad effects (jumps in front of the bullet, distracts the guards letting everyone else escape, stays behind to face the balrog on Khazad Dum) and gets to remain the focus of the story while he is hurt or captured and rails against his situation.
"You should go back. You're really hurt."
"No, it's only a flesh wound. *trait point* I can't let you face the danger without me. *woohoo trait point*"
In this way he can rack up a lot of trait pool at the end of a scene in which he is injured and he can miss a lot of scenes, go get snacks, take a smoke outside, etc, without worrying about being under-stocked at the beginning of phase two.
In fact, phase one could be more exciting when the players go off track, since they'd be spending trait pool to get out of tight situations and they'd then be extra involved to get back the trait pool they just spent.
Example: The GM wrote that an F15 fighter pilot was going to have a fight with his wife, but the player should know, if he was paying attention, how to end the fight amiably, but the player chooses poorly and the fight blows up and the GM Xs off a plot point he doesn't deserve. He offers the player a choice, spend a trait point and be extra charming and cool and romance your wife into forgetting her anger, or go off to a bar and spend your next few scenes on a bender, unable to earn pool, or be traumatized and distracted by this fight in phase two.
Whatever the player chooses, when he gets back into the story he's going to pay extra attention to try to get his trait pools up with as little danger to his character's fragile male ego as possible.