Well, November is packed with (writing/editing) work:
* Freelance editing project, at my day-job rate.
* Starting DFRPG edit work Real Soon Now. [1]
* Working on STotC at odd moments. [2]
* UA PDF project progressing. [3]
* Day-job editing of many, many 2 yr old DOCs.
* Once again, pondering Hyperworld. [4]
I think that this weekend is the last anyone will see me in a social context until December.
NOTES:
[1] That would be the Dresden Files RPG.
[2] That would be the Strange Tales of the Century sourcebook.
[3] That would be the Thin Black Line, the Order of Saint Cecil sourcebook.
[4] That would be the revisiting of my "Hyperworld vs. the Invadroids" CiaB. . . and a backdoor new edition of T&J under the PDQ# rubric.
Crazy Busy
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, gah, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s, work journal, writing Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, ciab, day-job, dresden, evilhat, gah, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s, silly, truth-and-justice, unknown armies, work journal, writing
Hm.
I am pondering constructing a PDQ# hack for Truth & Justice, along the lines of the Space Opera Hack.
There's a lot of lessons learned since T&J came out -- two whole books from me, and whatnot.
Hm. I wonder if I should build this as the "Hyperworld" hack, and test it a couple times as a pick-up game at upcoming cons.
If I could make that work, it would kinda rock.
(more pondering)
There's a lot of lessons learned since T&J came out -- two whole books from me, and whatnot.
Hm. I wonder if I should build this as the "Hyperworld" hack, and test it a couple times as a pick-up game at upcoming cons.
If I could make that work, it would kinda rock.
(more pondering)
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, conventions, EHP Blogs, evilhat, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, comics, conventions, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, spop, truth-and-justice
[s7s] Wiki Play!
People are starting to play with the "facts" and open links on the S7S wiki.
http://s7s.wikidot.com/
Hee!
http://s7s.wikidot.com/
Hee!
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, evilhat, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s
[s7s] All Questions Answered!
(Reposted from the S7S yahoogroup.)
I will answer questions here, on LJ, if necessary -- but I prefer to do so on the yahoogroup.
Remember:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S7S/
Swashers:
As (many of you) know, I usually do not answer direct questions on S7S. Mostly, this is because I believe that once a book hits the wild, I should keep my trap shut except in cases of errata. I am VERY interested in what each and every group brings to the table, in answering questions in the text.
I hope paying attention to these questions makes me a better and clearer writer.
HOWEVER.
Over the past couple weeks, it has seemed that questions have been posed that never received answers.
I find this intolerable.
Thus, if you have posed a question and not received an answer, repost it in this thread, and I will assay a response. Note that I do not claim primacy for my particular answer to said questions; I'm just the guy who wrote the thing, other folks will make it live and breathe for their groups.
But I DO want to address issues that people have raised in some wise.
So, if you asked a question that never got an answer (satisfactory or at all), re-pose it in this thread, and I will give you my take. It may be messy or idiosyncratic, but it will be an answer.
Thank you.
I will answer questions here, on LJ, if necessary -- but I prefer to do so on the yahoogroup.
Remember:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S7S/
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s
Roll Credits!
In the wake of the multi-year "mostly dead" status of Pen & Paper, and the looming demise of Geocities (where my other publications credits are listed), I have begun to try and assemble a decent CV of my work in the gaming industry over the past few days.
It's harder than I thought it would be (especially for an egotist like me!)... apparently I did not keep adequate track of ALL of the work or award nominations I received.
Still, I can say, with some assurance that, since 1998, I have worked on...
20 RPG books
and wrote
50 articles or columns.
. . .
Whoa.
Still assembling data; will let you all know when the credits page on the ASMP site goes live.
It's harder than I thought it would be (especially for an egotist like me!)... apparently I did not keep adequate track of ALL of the work or award nominations I received.
Still, I can say, with some assurance that, since 1998, I have worked on...
20 RPG books
and wrote
50 articles or columns.
. . .
Whoa.
Still assembling data; will let you all know when the credits page on the ASMP site goes live.
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, freelance, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s, work journal, writing Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, books, Chad Underkoffler, ciab, dead inside, dresden, evilhat, freelance, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, mnpr-rpg, pdq, s7s, spirit of the season, truth-and-justice, work journal, writing, zoz
[s7s] Wiki, ho!
Once again, I would like to point out the S7S wiki, here:
http://s7s.wikidot.com/
Please add to the 7 Skies -- whatever thrills you, buckles your swash, makes you happy.
That is what is it there for.
http://s7s.wikidot.com/
Please add to the 7 Skies -- whatever thrills you, buckles your swash, makes you happy.
That is what is it there for.
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, philosophy, s7s Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, philosophy, s7s, sf&f, silly
[pdq#] Mmmm, SpOp, mmm mmm mmm mmm SpOp…
After some discussion in the comments on the previous post on Space Opera Dogfighting, and some discussion on the S7S Yahoogroup, I am in the middle of rethinkery on SpOp Dogfighting.
Your comments desired; genre/media analysis and game design behind the cut...
Space Opera Space Combat
This post is mostly to help me go back to square one on rethinking SpOp combat. It's me thinking out loud, which I choose to do on this LJ rather than junk up the S7S yahoogroup any further.
From my reading and especially viewing (since PDQ# is a cinematic game), space combat in the Space Opera breaks down into common categories across three scales.
The three scales are: Fighter, Corvette, and Capital Ship.
The obvious common categories are:
1. Fighter vs. Fighter: *-wings vs. TIEs (SW), Starfuries vs. Raiders/*-Fighters (B5), Vipers vs. Cylon Raiders (BG). (Capital Ships are mostly background.)
2. Capital Ship vs. Capital Ship: Constellation/Galaxy Class vs. other Ships of the Line (ST), Ships of the Line vs. Shadow Battlecrabs (B5), Battlestar vs. Basestar (BG). (Fighters are mostly background.)
3. Fighters vs. Capital Ship: The snarl around the second Death Star in RotJ (SW), Vipers vs. Basestar and Raiders vs. Battlestar (BG), several examples (B5).
The obvious but more uncommon categories:
A. Corvette vs. Fighters: Millenium Falcon vs. TIEs (SW), possibly War Rocket Ajax vs. Hawkmen (FG).
B. Corvette vs. Capital Ship: Possibly the Defiant from DS9 (BG), White Stars vs. Battlecrabs (B5).
C. Corvette vs. Corvette: I'm lacking an example here. Possibly something from B5?
D. Major Battle (All Scales at Once): B5 is the exemplar here, I think.
I think that surrounds most of the popular match-ups. In general, I think it's safe to say that in the majority of SpOp combat, ships stay within their scale -- it's either Fighter vs. Fighter (FvF; SW model) or Capital Ship vs. Capital Ship (CSvCS; ST model). Some thought, however, will have to be paid to the FvCS option -- but that's down the road. (Ideas below on how to mechanize these two basic interactions under PDQ#.)
Outstanding Questions to Ponder
Again, your thoughts are welcome in the comments -- I'm especially looking for illustrations of resolutions for the below questions in SF&F media, if you can think of any.
* Combat between different scales (especially FvCS).
* Combat involving all 3 scales at once.
* How to integrate Corvettes? (How do they work in interacting with the higher and lower scales? Are they more big Fighters, small Capital Ships, or something else? This question is especially problematic, since Corvettes are mostly likely to be the right size for a bunch of PCs to work together in.)
* Examples of CVvCV combat in the source genre? (All I'm coming up with is White Star vs. Drakh ships from B5.)
PDQ# SpOp Space Combat Rules Thots
Determining the "basic" scale (F, CV, CS) for a PDQ# SpOp game should absolutely be part of Setting the Dials. Once that's done, many of the other tributary concerns should be easy to resolve, since the majority of space combat will happen in that basic scale.
I think that common cases #1 and #2, from above, are pretty clear-cut under PDQ# -- #1 is a slightly modified Duel [1] and #2 is a slightly reskinned-to-fit-the-genre version of Vehicle Combat from S7S. (#3 will require thought on combat across scales before anything can be done on that; once #3 is figured out, the CV question can be broached.)
[1] In the discussions thus far on SpOp Dogfighting, I have been reminded of the importance of position/advantage (p/a). So, I went back and looked at GURPS Lensmen for its Space Opera Combat System (SOCS) simply for inspiration -- because even it (light by GURPS standards) is way too complicated for the abstraction of PDQ#. However, this review did bear fruit.
The slight modification of the Duel rules for Dogfighting is this: before every Turn, the opposing Pilots have a Flashy Challenge, which represents gaining p/a over their foe. Per the FC rules, the loser takes a Failure Rank and the winner gains a Style Die -- but here's the modification: the winner also gains initiative for the Turn. Duels play out as usual (including the Volte-Face).
I think that this helps give the flavor of the value of p/a without making the benefits of winning or the penalties for losing it overwhelming, or making the system overly complex.
Here are two further ideas to beef up the benefits of p/a, but they might be too crippling, and do not look like they can be used together:
* No Volte-Face: The defender does not get any chance to attack during the Turn. This means that a defender will essentially always be All-Out Defending (3d), and has a good chance at evading damage... but even given that, the Failure Ranks accrued from the FCs for p/a at the top of each Turn will grind down on both fighters.
* Limited Combat Options: After position/advantage is determined, attackers can only All-Out Attack or Strongly Attack; defenders can only Strongly Defend or All-Out Defend.
Thoughts, questions, comments, examples?
Your comments desired; genre/media analysis and game design behind the cut...
Space Opera Space Combat
This post is mostly to help me go back to square one on rethinking SpOp combat. It's me thinking out loud, which I choose to do on this LJ rather than junk up the S7S yahoogroup any further.
From my reading and especially viewing (since PDQ# is a cinematic game), space combat in the Space Opera breaks down into common categories across three scales.
The three scales are: Fighter, Corvette, and Capital Ship.
The obvious common categories are:
1. Fighter vs. Fighter: *-wings vs. TIEs (SW), Starfuries vs. Raiders/*-Fighters (B5), Vipers vs. Cylon Raiders (BG). (Capital Ships are mostly background.)
2. Capital Ship vs. Capital Ship: Constellation/Galaxy Class vs. other Ships of the Line (ST), Ships of the Line vs. Shadow Battlecrabs (B5), Battlestar vs. Basestar (BG). (Fighters are mostly background.)
3. Fighters vs. Capital Ship: The snarl around the second Death Star in RotJ (SW), Vipers vs. Basestar and Raiders vs. Battlestar (BG), several examples (B5).
The obvious but more uncommon categories:
A. Corvette vs. Fighters: Millenium Falcon vs. TIEs (SW), possibly War Rocket Ajax vs. Hawkmen (FG).
B. Corvette vs. Capital Ship: Possibly the Defiant from DS9 (BG), White Stars vs. Battlecrabs (B5).
C. Corvette vs. Corvette: I'm lacking an example here. Possibly something from B5?
D. Major Battle (All Scales at Once): B5 is the exemplar here, I think.
I think that surrounds most of the popular match-ups. In general, I think it's safe to say that in the majority of SpOp combat, ships stay within their scale -- it's either Fighter vs. Fighter (FvF; SW model) or Capital Ship vs. Capital Ship (CSvCS; ST model). Some thought, however, will have to be paid to the FvCS option -- but that's down the road. (Ideas below on how to mechanize these two basic interactions under PDQ#.)
Outstanding Questions to Ponder
Again, your thoughts are welcome in the comments -- I'm especially looking for illustrations of resolutions for the below questions in SF&F media, if you can think of any.
* Combat between different scales (especially FvCS).
* Combat involving all 3 scales at once.
* How to integrate Corvettes? (How do they work in interacting with the higher and lower scales? Are they more big Fighters, small Capital Ships, or something else? This question is especially problematic, since Corvettes are mostly likely to be the right size for a bunch of PCs to work together in.)
* Examples of CVvCV combat in the source genre? (All I'm coming up with is White Star vs. Drakh ships from B5.)
PDQ# SpOp Space Combat Rules Thots
Determining the "basic" scale (F, CV, CS) for a PDQ# SpOp game should absolutely be part of Setting the Dials. Once that's done, many of the other tributary concerns should be easy to resolve, since the majority of space combat will happen in that basic scale.
I think that common cases #1 and #2, from above, are pretty clear-cut under PDQ# -- #1 is a slightly modified Duel [1] and #2 is a slightly reskinned-to-fit-the-genre version of Vehicle Combat from S7S. (#3 will require thought on combat across scales before anything can be done on that; once #3 is figured out, the CV question can be broached.)
[1] In the discussions thus far on SpOp Dogfighting, I have been reminded of the importance of position/advantage (p/a). So, I went back and looked at GURPS Lensmen for its Space Opera Combat System (SOCS) simply for inspiration -- because even it (light by GURPS standards) is way too complicated for the abstraction of PDQ#. However, this review did bear fruit.
The slight modification of the Duel rules for Dogfighting is this: before every Turn, the opposing Pilots have a Flashy Challenge, which represents gaining p/a over their foe. Per the FC rules, the loser takes a Failure Rank and the winner gains a Style Die -- but here's the modification: the winner also gains initiative for the Turn. Duels play out as usual (including the Volte-Face).
I think that this helps give the flavor of the value of p/a without making the benefits of winning or the penalties for losing it overwhelming, or making the system overly complex.
Here are two further ideas to beef up the benefits of p/a, but they might be too crippling, and do not look like they can be used together:
* No Volte-Face: The defender does not get any chance to attack during the Turn. This means that a defender will essentially always be All-Out Defending (3d), and has a good chance at evading damage... but even given that, the Failure Ranks accrued from the FCs for p/a at the top of each Turn will grind down on both fighters.
* Limited Combat Options: After position/advantage is determined, attackers can only All-Out Attack or Strongly Attack; defenders can only Strongly Defend or All-Out Defend.
Thoughts, questions, comments, examples?
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s, sf&f, spop
[SpOp] PDQ# Space Opera Dogfighting Thoughts
Some continuing thoughts on tweaks and adjustments for PDQ# Space Opera (which, as noted previously) will probably be my go-to concept for convention and pick-up games)...
While most of Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies can easily be reskinned from swashbuckling to space opera (Nationality to Planet, Mystical Gifts to Psychic Powers, mild adjustments to Setting the Dials, etc.), there is one element that is very different between these related genres: Vehicle Combat.
In a word: Dogfighting.
Here's a first assay -- in outline/bullet point format -- at handling that issue; I'd love your thoughts on the topic.
PDQ# SpOp Dogfighting
Ship Size
* Fighter (Starfury): A single pilot.
* Corvette (Millenium Falcon): A pilot and a couple gunners. [1]
* Capital Ship (the Enterprise): A crew of officers.
PC Ships vs. NPC Ships
(PC vs. NPC is intentionally assymetrical; these options will preferably be laid-out in a matrix/table; the idea is to preserve both the feel of space opera ship combat and value of PC actions in such.)
Page Refs: The Duel (S7S, p. 209*) and Vehicular Duels (S7S, p. 229*).
* PC Fighter vs. NPC Fighter: The Duel (Pilot vs. Pilot).
* PC Fighter vs. NPC Corvette: The Duel; NPC Ship has 5 dice to divvy and keep; PCs get +2 to attack and defense rolls per additional ship in their squadron.
* PC Fighter vs. NPC Capital Ship: The Duel; NPC Ship has 7 dice to divvy and keep; PCs get +4 to attack and defense rolls per additional ship in their squadron.
* PC Corvette vs. NPC Fighter: The Duel (each Gunner vs. NPC Pilot); NPC Fighters = Minions.
* PC Corvette vs. NPC Corvette: The Duel.
* PC Corvette vs. NPC Capital Ship: The Duel; NPC Ship has 5 dice to divvy and keep; PCs get +2 to attack and defense rolls per additional ship in their squadron. [2]
* PC Capital Ship vs. NPC Fighter: S7S Vehicular Duel, with Fighter Squadrons = Minion Squads.
* PC Capital Ship vs. NPC Corvette: S7S Vehicular Duel, with Duel damage (reducing Wound Ranks) rather than Vehicular Duel Damage (targeted Wound Ranks). [3]
* PC Capital Ship vs. NPC Capital Ship: S7S Vehicular Duels as normal.
NOTES
[1] Non-pilot/non-gunner crewmembers use the "PCs Ganging Up" rules (S7S, p. 214) to directly aid the pilot or gunners, or can perform non-combat actions (damage control, scanning, etc.; see S7S, p. 227*, for ideas based on Vehicle Challenges).
[2] Or should this be a Vehicular Duel, with the NPC Ship having some bonuses?
[3] This may be a bit fiddly. Will definitely have to test it in play.
These rules might even be back-portable into S7S. Hmmm.
Thoughts?
(Additional info on the PDQ# SpOp game played at Camp Nerdly 3 in this thread on Story-Games.)
While most of Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies can easily be reskinned from swashbuckling to space opera (Nationality to Planet, Mystical Gifts to Psychic Powers, mild adjustments to Setting the Dials, etc.), there is one element that is very different between these related genres: Vehicle Combat.
In a word: Dogfighting.
Here's a first assay -- in outline/bullet point format -- at handling that issue; I'd love your thoughts on the topic.
PDQ# SpOp Dogfighting
Ship Size
* Fighter (Starfury): A single pilot.
* Corvette (Millenium Falcon): A pilot and a couple gunners. [1]
* Capital Ship (the Enterprise): A crew of officers.
PC Ships vs. NPC Ships
(PC vs. NPC is intentionally assymetrical; these options will preferably be laid-out in a matrix/table; the idea is to preserve both the feel of space opera ship combat and value of PC actions in such.)
Page Refs: The Duel (S7S, p. 209*) and Vehicular Duels (S7S, p. 229*).
* PC Fighter vs. NPC Fighter: The Duel (Pilot vs. Pilot).
* PC Fighter vs. NPC Corvette: The Duel; NPC Ship has 5 dice to divvy and keep; PCs get +2 to attack and defense rolls per additional ship in their squadron.
* PC Fighter vs. NPC Capital Ship: The Duel; NPC Ship has 7 dice to divvy and keep; PCs get +4 to attack and defense rolls per additional ship in their squadron.
* PC Corvette vs. NPC Fighter: The Duel (each Gunner vs. NPC Pilot); NPC Fighters = Minions.
* PC Corvette vs. NPC Corvette: The Duel.
* PC Corvette vs. NPC Capital Ship: The Duel; NPC Ship has 5 dice to divvy and keep; PCs get +2 to attack and defense rolls per additional ship in their squadron. [2]
* PC Capital Ship vs. NPC Fighter: S7S Vehicular Duel, with Fighter Squadrons = Minion Squads.
* PC Capital Ship vs. NPC Corvette: S7S Vehicular Duel, with Duel damage (reducing Wound Ranks) rather than Vehicular Duel Damage (targeted Wound Ranks). [3]
* PC Capital Ship vs. NPC Capital Ship: S7S Vehicular Duels as normal.
NOTES
[1] Non-pilot/non-gunner crewmembers use the "PCs Ganging Up" rules (S7S, p. 214) to directly aid the pilot or gunners, or can perform non-combat actions (damage control, scanning, etc.; see S7S, p. 227*, for ideas based on Vehicle Challenges).
[2] Or should this be a Vehicular Duel, with the NPC Ship having some bonuses?
[3] This may be a bit fiddly. Will definitely have to test it in play.
These rules might even be back-portable into S7S. Hmmm.
Thoughts?
(Additional info on the PDQ# SpOp game played at Camp Nerdly 3 in this thread on Story-Games.)
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, EHP Blogs, evilhat, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s, sf&f, spop
Camp Nerdly 3: The Blogging
This past weekend was Camp Nerdly 3.
Short form: Had great conversations, played fun games, drank regional sodas (Cheerwine and Dr. Enuf FTW!), and made silly faces at well-behaved babies. An all-around win.
Also, for the vid-inclined, Jason Morningstar's One Cool Thing I Saw At Camp Nerdly 3 on YouTube.
Otherwise, the long day-by-day breakdown behind the cut...
(Apologies ahead of time, I'm not going to try and get everyone's LJ username... but feel free to chime in with comments!)
WEDNESDAY
macklinr flew into BWI in the evening; I picked him up; we swung by
drivingblind's place -- it's on the way back -- to chew the fat a bit.
Much talk regarding games, girls, the gaming industry, and keeping your head on straight.
Good times.
THURSDAY
Purchasing final bits of gear, packing, and puttering.
FRIDAY
Drove down in the early afternoon. Freaking hot and humid. Registered, found my cabin, unpacked, said hellos, checked the schedule, explored the campsite.
Played my first game of 1000 Blank White Cards -- I really dug it. Then, later, a game of Misspent Youth, where our Youthful Offenders (YOs) ended up, uh, kinda worse than the Authority. Good times. (See my Overview of MS.)
Oh, and also kept Ryan awake all night with my snoring -- with an able ripsaw-assist from Buddha.
I need a new sleeping bag: my mummy bag only fits up to mid-torso: my chest and shoulders don't fit into the damned thing. Luckily, I had a blanket. And despite the heat of the days, the nights were cold and damp, even in the cabins. Note for next time!
SATURDAY
Chatting in the morning, then playstormed
nikotesla's game Xenon.
After lunch, took a long, solitary walk up to the deserted Camp A. Lots of solo thinkery on issues of current concern, while communing with nature in the Big Blue Room. Went back to my bunk and nap-crashed for an hour or two.
Learned how to play Jungle Speed, which I will be purchasing soon. Played JS until it was time for me to go and be an Oven Master (cook) for dinner.
Ran the stove for dinner: cooking soup, pasta, sauce, and a balsamic glazed chicken for around 55 people with Emily Care Boss, Epidiah Ravachol, and Joshua Riley.
Played MythEnder, and helped End the Migard Serpent! Boo-yeah! Gotta say, some of the other players' characters had some full-octane insanity that I was envious of... like "The Tongueless Last Emperor of Rome" as a Companion Weapon or the Drowned Pirate Captain who wants to "kill the ocean" demanding a terrified farmer tell her a children's story as a was to regain Mortality. Awesome. (See my Overview of ME.)
Late (around midnight), I ran a game of PDQ# Space Opera. We started with two facts:
#1. This is all Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers: swords and rayguns.
#2. All of the planets have the names of elements from the Periodic Table.
As we worked through "setting the dials" and character creation, and then later in play, we added more facts to the setting. In almost exactly two hours, we went from nada to a setting described by 20 or so facts, four fully-statted PCs and 2 NPCs (a villain and an archvillain; the latter, alas, didn't show up in play), and three action-filled, entertaining, hilarious scenes -- complete with immediate adventure resolution and a cliffhanger!
I think PDQ# SpOp ("spop!") is going to be my minimal prep game to run at conventions. I'll type up my notes tonight and try to bash together some simple handouts and forms to fill out to facilitate even speedier play. Then I'll print out a bunch and slap them in a folder to put in my game bag.
SUNDAY
Played a version of the game Fred describes as "the Grateful Dead concert of Indie Gaming" (I'll let him chime in on that when he gets a chance), Ganakagok in the morning, and it was great! Nine of us played the newish "jeepforged" version of the game. The best way I can describe it is that it's a structured, freeform, one-room LARP.
Ryan and I packed up, loaded the car, came back to the Deluxe Apartment in the Sky-y-y to eat something, take showers, and do laundry. Then I drove Ryan back up to Fred's so he could crash there before flying out today. Had a nice long discussion covering much ground, and also got the 411 on the "end of Season 1" D&D4e game I missed on Saturday.
Got home, ordered a pizza for the first time in two weeks, ate, watched Batman: Brave & the Bold (with Bat-Mite! How cool is that?), then did freelance editing into the wee hours. Then I crashed like the Hindenberg.
SUMMARY: Had oodles of fun. Will try to go again next year!
Short form: Had great conversations, played fun games, drank regional sodas (Cheerwine and Dr. Enuf FTW!), and made silly faces at well-behaved babies. An all-around win.
Also, for the vid-inclined, Jason Morningstar's One Cool Thing I Saw At Camp Nerdly 3 on YouTube.
Otherwise, the long day-by-day breakdown behind the cut...
(Apologies ahead of time, I'm not going to try and get everyone's LJ username... but feel free to chime in with comments!)
WEDNESDAY
Much talk regarding games, girls, the gaming industry, and keeping your head on straight.
Good times.
THURSDAY
Purchasing final bits of gear, packing, and puttering.
FRIDAY
Drove down in the early afternoon. Freaking hot and humid. Registered, found my cabin, unpacked, said hellos, checked the schedule, explored the campsite.
Played my first game of 1000 Blank White Cards -- I really dug it. Then, later, a game of Misspent Youth, where our Youthful Offenders (YOs) ended up, uh, kinda worse than the Authority. Good times. (See my Overview of MS.)
Oh, and also kept Ryan awake all night with my snoring -- with an able ripsaw-assist from Buddha.
I need a new sleeping bag: my mummy bag only fits up to mid-torso: my chest and shoulders don't fit into the damned thing. Luckily, I had a blanket. And despite the heat of the days, the nights were cold and damp, even in the cabins. Note for next time!
SATURDAY
Chatting in the morning, then playstormed
After lunch, took a long, solitary walk up to the deserted Camp A. Lots of solo thinkery on issues of current concern, while communing with nature in the Big Blue Room. Went back to my bunk and nap-crashed for an hour or two.
Learned how to play Jungle Speed, which I will be purchasing soon. Played JS until it was time for me to go and be an Oven Master (cook) for dinner.
Ran the stove for dinner: cooking soup, pasta, sauce, and a balsamic glazed chicken for around 55 people with Emily Care Boss, Epidiah Ravachol, and Joshua Riley.
Played MythEnder, and helped End the Migard Serpent! Boo-yeah! Gotta say, some of the other players' characters had some full-octane insanity that I was envious of... like "The Tongueless Last Emperor of Rome" as a Companion Weapon or the Drowned Pirate Captain who wants to "kill the ocean" demanding a terrified farmer tell her a children's story as a was to regain Mortality. Awesome. (See my Overview of ME.)
Late (around midnight), I ran a game of PDQ# Space Opera. We started with two facts:
#1. This is all Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers: swords and rayguns.
#2. All of the planets have the names of elements from the Periodic Table.
As we worked through "setting the dials" and character creation, and then later in play, we added more facts to the setting. In almost exactly two hours, we went from nada to a setting described by 20 or so facts, four fully-statted PCs and 2 NPCs (a villain and an archvillain; the latter, alas, didn't show up in play), and three action-filled, entertaining, hilarious scenes -- complete with immediate adventure resolution and a cliffhanger!
I think PDQ# SpOp ("spop!") is going to be my minimal prep game to run at conventions. I'll type up my notes tonight and try to bash together some simple handouts and forms to fill out to facilitate even speedier play. Then I'll print out a bunch and slap them in a folder to put in my game bag.
SUNDAY
Played a version of the game Fred describes as "the Grateful Dead concert of Indie Gaming" (I'll let him chime in on that when he gets a chance), Ganakagok in the morning, and it was great! Nine of us played the newish "jeepforged" version of the game. The best way I can describe it is that it's a structured, freeform, one-room LARP.
Ryan and I packed up, loaded the car, came back to the Deluxe Apartment in the Sky-y-y to eat something, take showers, and do laundry. Then I drove Ryan back up to Fred's so he could crash there before flying out today. Had a nice long discussion covering much ground, and also got the 411 on the "end of Season 1" D&D4e game I missed on Saturday.
Got home, ordered a pizza for the first time in two weeks, ate, watched Batman: Brave & the Bold (with Bat-Mite! How cool is that?), then did freelance editing into the wee hours. Then I crashed like the Hindenberg.
SUMMARY: Had oodles of fun. Will try to go again next year!
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, conventions, EHP Blogs, evilhat, freelance, game design, gaming, I Have Powers, mad rpg theory, mental health, pdq, s7s, vitamin u, work journal Tagged With: atomic sock monkey, authors, batman, cartoons, Chad Underkoffler, conventions, dc-metro, evilhat, firefly, flash, freelance, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, mental health, pdq, s7s, silly, spop, trip, vitamin u, work journal
[s7s] A Question: Player Narration of Success and Failure (longish)
Occasionally when doing game design, I come up with a mechanic or a take on a mechanic that seems really obvious/intuitive/easy/fun for me, but that some readers just don't get, some readers get (and decide whether or not they like it), and some readers really really groove on.
The primary example here, of course, is the Damage system of the various PDQ games -- when you take damage, you reduce one or more of your choice of Qualities. This permits a player to attempt to keep his or her character's effectiveness optimized for whatever conflict the character is in as long as possible. (As
rob_donoghue has thumbnailed it: "You can punch Spider-Man in the girlfriend!")
Anyway...
In an Unknown Armies campaign long ago,
taschoene was getting frustrated by whiffing many, many rolls, even in stuff his character was good with. (Well, UA is kinda a whiffy system.)
What I eventually suggested to him -- and I believe it helped -- was that he should interpret that failed roll in a way that, while it sucks he flubbed, it was still FUN for him.
Thus, the nugget of this idea for S7S was born.
One of the ideas I'm pushing in S7S is player narration of both their character's successes and failures, with the GM helping out (by embroidering, slightly editing, or taking over if the player is coming up blank) with the narration.
I think this does several things (but I might be mistaken; speak up if you have an opinion!):
1. Eases the sting of failure. When it's the player's right to explain how the character failed, they feel some "control" over the randomness of the events depicted by the dice.
2. The intended action may have failed, not the character. S7S swashbuckling PCs are STYLISH and AWESOME. When something goes wrong, it should be in a STYLISH and AWESOME way. It doesn't even have to be the character's fault.
One of the examples I give in the book is that of climbing a fortress wall. Say the character flubs his Climbing/Athletics/Acrobatics roll to do this. That does not have to mean the character sucks at climbing -- other complications, outside of the character's control, may have arisen (like a defender at the top of the wall cuts the rope free of the grapple or starts dropping pointy rocks on the character, a cannonball smashes into the fortress wall and shakes the character loose, an ally begins to fall and the character stops climbing to swing over to rescue him, etc.).
3. It gives the player's character a chance to earn Style Dice. The more a player talks, the better chances of the GM and/or other players think something that player said was cool or funny... which leads to Style Dice.
4. It eases the GM's burden of moment-by-moment description. By ceding a bit of narrative control in the clinches to players, the GM can spend more time describing the rest of the world and all of the NPCs.
5. It increases the GM's burden of overall material to juggle. I see this as a positive thing -- if the players are constantly inventing new stuff or situations from their narrations ("I failed at my Diplomacy attempt because in this culture, when you bow to the Countessa, having your right arm behind you back is an insult, and that's the way we do it on Colrona!"), the GM is getting more and more tools to build new/further/deeper situations, setting details, and characters.
[It probably does some other things, too, but I can't figure those out at the moment: there's too much blood in my caffiene system. (MOAR CAWFY!)]
Back to the point at hand: Is player narration of both success and failure one of those bits of "mad rpg theory" that you -- personally -- do not get, get and dislike, get and like, or get and groove on?
Inquiring mind (er, me) would like to know!
The primary example here, of course, is the Damage system of the various PDQ games -- when you take damage, you reduce one or more of your choice of Qualities. This permits a player to attempt to keep his or her character's effectiveness optimized for whatever conflict the character is in as long as possible. (As
Anyway...
In an Unknown Armies campaign long ago,
What I eventually suggested to him -- and I believe it helped -- was that he should interpret that failed roll in a way that, while it sucks he flubbed, it was still FUN for him.
Thus, the nugget of this idea for S7S was born.
One of the ideas I'm pushing in S7S is player narration of both their character's successes and failures, with the GM helping out (by embroidering, slightly editing, or taking over if the player is coming up blank) with the narration.
I think this does several things (but I might be mistaken; speak up if you have an opinion!):
1. Eases the sting of failure. When it's the player's right to explain how the character failed, they feel some "control" over the randomness of the events depicted by the dice.
2. The intended action may have failed, not the character. S7S swashbuckling PCs are STYLISH and AWESOME. When something goes wrong, it should be in a STYLISH and AWESOME way. It doesn't even have to be the character's fault.
One of the examples I give in the book is that of climbing a fortress wall. Say the character flubs his Climbing/Athletics/Acrobatics roll to do this. That does not have to mean the character sucks at climbing -- other complications, outside of the character's control, may have arisen (like a defender at the top of the wall cuts the rope free of the grapple or starts dropping pointy rocks on the character, a cannonball smashes into the fortress wall and shakes the character loose, an ally begins to fall and the character stops climbing to swing over to rescue him, etc.).
3. It gives the player's character a chance to earn Style Dice. The more a player talks, the better chances of the GM and/or other players think something that player said was cool or funny... which leads to Style Dice.
4. It eases the GM's burden of moment-by-moment description. By ceding a bit of narrative control in the clinches to players, the GM can spend more time describing the rest of the world and all of the NPCs.
5. It increases the GM's burden of overall material to juggle. I see this as a positive thing -- if the players are constantly inventing new stuff or situations from their narrations ("I failed at my Diplomacy attempt because in this culture, when you bow to the Countessa, having your right arm behind you back is an insult, and that's the way we do it on Colrona!"), the GM is getting more and more tools to build new/further/deeper situations, setting details, and characters.
[It probably does some other things, too, but I can't figure those out at the moment: there's too much blood in my caffiene system. (MOAR CAWFY!)]
Back to the point at hand: Is player narration of both success and failure one of those bits of "mad rpg theory" that you -- personally -- do not get, get and dislike, get and like, or get and groove on?
Inquiring mind (er, me) would like to know!
Filed Under: Atomic Sock Monkey, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s Tagged With: Atomic Sock Monkey, authors, Chad Underkoffler, evilhat, game design, gaming, mad rpg theory, pdq, s7s





If you buy a physical book of ours from a brick & mortar store at full price, we’ll give you the PDF. Period.