|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 6, 2014 20:25:21 GMT -8
I'm starting a thread for this, because this might be a useful place, being an RPG forum and all...
Thank you for posting this. I tried to do something more nerfy with fear than I did with physical damage, but clearly I went too far. I'm thinking I'll have fear dice read pips (rather than successes) and treat the system more like damage.
Sanity recovers pretty quickly in most cases, so it's probably okay if events do more sanity loss. Having reviewed it for the MoT game I started a few months ago, the fear rules strike me as over complicated for very little benefit.
I'm getting ready to take another pass as the rules set, so that'll be on my to-do list. I'm trying to brainstorm something that will act like armor with fear. I'm thinking about making Mental Will a defacto reduction to fear rolls that can be modified with traits up or down (like cowardly, battle-tested, 1000-yard stare, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 6, 2014 20:39:16 GMT -8
The Moment of Truth Mechanic Another problem I've noticed, and I recall D.T. Pints mentioning this as well: People don't tend to spend MoTs. In the game I ran at Orccon in February, I had one player who started the game with 3 MoTs (favored by God) and another player earned two. I don't think either player spent one during the session. I have a couple theories as to why this might happen -- some of them, I can do something about, some I can't. Theory One. Players horde them and won't spend them as they are too powerful.This is certainly a possible reason, as they *are* very powerful as a narrative tool. This could be fixed in a couple of ways. 1. Make them less powerful and require a multiple (maybe 2 or 3) to add a narrative detail. It's kind of counter intuitive, but if they seem to be worth less, maybe they'll get used more? 2. Suggest changing GMing style to put "unwinnable" situations in the game, thereby forcing the players to use them in order to survive or triumph. Theory Two. Because scene changing narrative seems like the GM's purview, perhaps players are reluctant to step into that area of responsibility.Not much I can do mechanically to the game to fix this, though if this theory's correct, it would totally depend on the player types at the table. If you're running a game for 5 people who usually GM, I imagine they'd use the shit out of them. I'm considering (reluctantly) making the MoT mechanic an "optional" rule -- that is, the rules would suggest using the MoT mechanic only in cinematic games or similar style games. Or I could suggest that adding a narrative detail only be used in cinematic style games, but keep the 3d6 dice pool bonus. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jun 6, 2014 21:57:50 GMT -8
Thanks for the reply. This kind of system exploration is why I wanted to run a play test in the first place. What better way to pontificate about RPGs than during their actual creation? 1) Regarding fear: the last session I really ramped up the tension level and still very little San loss occurred. What I really enjoy about your fear mechanic is treating sanity like hit points. Call of Cthulhu, warhammer, dark heresy, trail of Cthulhu seem to treat San loss as a one way street. While I think that adequately represents a dark, horror laden game it feels too linear. I like the idea of someone getting horrified, being paralyzed for a time with fear and then pulling themselves together somewhat. I also think this will enable fear to affect player agency in short bursts but (like L5Rs mechanics of penalties incurred from increasing wounds.) will still allow a player opportunity to regain control. 2) Moment of Truth: Under no circumstances should you remove this mechanic! As otherdoc has said, you've really created something interesting there. For the Lovecraft horror game I let each player earn up to two and those are wiped clean each session. This allows MoTs to serve as my carrot to encourage players to participate in the obsidian portal page between sessions and also to encourage them and I to carefully consider when to call for dice rolls. As far as using them goes...I think once the ice is broken they will be used quite rapidly. I too strived to put my PCs in increasingly deadly situations to encourage their use. They aren't bennies. Bennies are a quick game blip. MoTs are those moments of amazing we all want to have for our PCs but sometimes the dice deny. I just think that it is such an unusual mechanic it takes some getting used to...I am very excited to see how they will next get used. I also like the idea that MoTs actually create a ripple effect that is long lasting in the fiction. The PhD student used one to say she had taken rock climbing classes and could tie useful knots. While it isn't a skill for her now it is part her character and she can try to draw upon it in the future. Like belaying four near drowning poor bastards as they claw their way to the lifeboat. This system is probably the lightest one I have ever used and it has really allowed me to just focus on the story I wan your group to tell. Good job! I wonder if it is TOO rules light for many gamers ? I guess this where a sourcebook...say one called A New Dark Age might be fun. As a sidereal tangent I just picked up Trail of Cthulhu bundle of holding, love that Kenneth Hite writing. Finally has anyone else tried running a MoT game ?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 10, 2014 15:13:02 GMT -8
I've finished the new Fear mechanic. I'll post it in the next week or so.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 11, 2014 10:24:52 GMT -8
|
|
d47
Journeyman Douchebag
RPG of Choice: Metagaming Melee
Posts: 194
|
Post by d47 on Aug 13, 2014 20:44:49 GMT -8
So, having played in DT Pints Jackercon game and listened to the Blood, Blade and Tusk Actual Play, I have a few comments.
1. Having read the rules but not otherwise prepared, in the con game I was able to create a cool character based on a concept in about 20 minutes because of the rules and that DT Pints provided an immersive background.
2. Deadly, fast combat is good. Players will learn to use MoTs for heroic moments.
3. The rules were easy to follow.
About Moments of Truth mechanics.
1. I don't like the upping-the-stakes mechanic. To me, it's too metagamey. That is, it takes everyone's focus of the story and puts it one the act of die-rolling. Taking a fail is quick and obvious and serves the purpose of reducing GM called rolls.
2. Using MoTs for player Deus Ex Machina changes to the game might need some more limits. Stork's "rescue" in the actual play was a brilliant move, but was it a total reversal of fortune? In other words, did it change a lose to a win or a lose to a draw? As GM, I would have called a draw.
3. If a player asks to do something that would normally require a roll, they shouldn't be allowed to "take a fail." Maybe this is already the case, but it could be abused.
4. These rules could be modular and/or given suggested parameters that a GM could explain to his group at the beginning of the game.
By the way, is MoT pronounced, "em-oh-tea" or "em-zero-tee"?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 14, 2014 8:21:57 GMT -8
I'm not sold on the upping the stakes either. It may go away.
I've tried a couple ways to un-deus-ex-mechanize the MoT. In an earlier version, the player was required to come up with a "justtification" based on strengths and weaknesses for what they were going to do. It was a little meta-gamy, and almost limited use of MoTs too much.
In the Blood Blade and Tusk AP, I would consider Stork's use of a MoT to be a textbook example. Had the game continued beyond those two sessions, it would have been weeks before the party was recuperated enough to go back out -- in the meantime, the rescue party would have slaughtered all of the orcs and burned them, confiscated the stolen food. Any clues to the darker mystery would have been lost to the party, so it would have been a draw in the long-term, I think.
I do, however, get your concern. That probably wasn't a typical table. With the wrong kind of munchkin, it could get annoying really fast.
My hope is that the mechanic to gain one (taking a failure) would probably keep MoTs out of the hands of most munchkins anyway, since failure means losing, and they hate to lose.
I haven't yet tested the system with a proper munchkin yet, so who knows if my control mechanism will work.
This already exists in the rules, but I may need to clarify it. A player can only take a failure when the GM calls for a roll, and the GM should only call for a roll when it is relevant to the story. Otherwise the GM should say, "yes, you succeed."
I'm currently working on the actual introduction to the rules, and one of the things I'm going to address in it is just how breakable the game is if players have the wrong mindset and ways to mitigate that. Of course, if it gets too lengthy, it will go in the GMing chapter instead. My hope is it will be more helpful than "get a new gaming group."
One of my underlying design principals for the game is that a player should be able to play the game with just the character sheet and a one-page introduction to the game.
The earliest playtest packet had this one-page intro in it. I'm going to revise it to reflect the current rules -- hopefully by Gateway 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 16, 2014 10:06:53 GMT -8
I have every intention of upping the stakes on the next hacking roll I have to make. I don't think we've explored that part of the rules enough yet.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2014 11:43:38 GMT -8
Okay!
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Aug 16, 2014 12:25:45 GMT -8
Yeah my players haven't utilized that mechanic at all.
|
|
d47
Journeyman Douchebag
RPG of Choice: Metagaming Melee
Posts: 194
|
Post by d47 on Aug 18, 2014 2:18:10 GMT -8
In the Blood Blade and Tusk AP, I would consider Stork's use of a MoT to be a textbook example. Had the game continued beyond those two sessions, it would have been weeks before the party was recuperated enough to go back out -- in the meantime, the rescue party would have slaughtered all of the orcs and burned them, confiscated the stolen food. Any clues to the darker mystery would have been lost to the party, so it would have been a draw in the long-term, I think. I do, however, get your concern. That probably wasn't a typical table. With the wrong kind of munchkin, it could get annoying really fast. My hope is that the mechanic to gain one (taking a failure) would probably keep MoTs out of the hands of most munchkins anyway, since failure means losing, and they hate to lose. I haven't yet tested the system with a proper munchkin yet, so who knows if my control mechanism will work. This already exists in the rules, but I may need to clarify it. A player can only take a failure when the GM calls for a roll, and the GM should only call for a roll when it is relevant to the story. Otherwise the GM should say, "yes, you succeed." I'm currently working on the actual introduction to the rules, and one of the things I'm going to address in it is just how breakable the game is if players have the wrong mindset and ways to mitigate that. Of course, if it gets too lengthy, it will go in the GMing chapter instead. My hope is it will be more helpful than "get a new gaming group." Maybe you just need to put a big "Not approved for munchkins" label on the cover. Players have to be mature enough to not try and break the story or press the "win" button. I agree that Stork's MoT move was reasonable and did not break the story. It's the kind of thing a GM might do to save a party from a TPK. In fact, maybe saving the lives of the characters is a perfect use. On the other hand, it seems like MoTs could be used to make up for poor decisions and rash behavior and thus make players careless or lazy. In BBT, knowing how deadly combat was, attacking all those orcs head on seemed like a very bad idea. I suppose planning would have been to use the MoT to have the militia show up before the combat. Without an MoT, though, what could the players have done? They might have made a plan to conduct hit-and-run attacks or get ahead of the orcs and set up a trap. They would eventually think of something and "win" through effort. At any rate, it seems that the MoT mechanic requires the GM to be a lot more willing to give up control, which is both exciting and frightening. I guess if I decide to GM it, I might put more limits on the power of MoTs at least until I get used to them.
|
|
G.I. Joe
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 147
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, FATE, GURPS
Currently Playing: Isawa Miriko: Split soul made whole again... with memory issues. Homura (Formerly Isawa Kiyoi) - wandering fire Priestess; Girart - a GURPS low-tech combat monkey w/19ST
Currently Running: Fushigina Ronin (L5R 4th ed)
Favorite Species of Monkey: Winston
|
Post by G.I. Joe on May 28, 2015 12:00:18 GMT -8
About Moments of Truth mechanics. 1. I don't like the upping-the-stakes mechanic. To me, it's too metagamey. That is, it takes everyone's focus of the story and puts it one the act of die-rolling. Taking a fail is quick and obvious and serves the purpose of reducing GM called rolls. I completely disagree. I played in a horror MoT game last weekend, and ended up with quite a few MoT (mainly from the amnesia mechanics). I did however raise the stakes once. I was speeding through a small town at like 60mph, and my GM called for a roll so that I would not hit anything. I raised the stakes, knowing full well that my character would probably die if I failed. I rolled 3 sixes on my 5d pool. Of course, we ended up failing in protecting the people we needed to protect, but that was because the thing would not die -- which in a horror game, it's not supposed to be able to be killed. I think that the GM should be able to say, "no, you can't raise the stakes here," so that players only use it for things that could go drastically wrong, and not say, a perception roll. That said, a crit-failed perception roll could be hilarious. If the GM controls the outcome, then what's to stop GM from completely ignoring the MoT? Player - "I use a moment of truth to make a group of mounties ride up to our fight with the drug cartel." GM - "Well, they ride past the fight as both sides stopped shooting as soon as they appeared." Wasted MoT. Now the solution to that is dont play with a dick GM, but sometimes GM's subconsciously block certain things from happening so that they don't have to tear up their notes. I think that the MoT is great as is.
|
|
d47
Journeyman Douchebag
RPG of Choice: Metagaming Melee
Posts: 194
|
Post by d47 on May 31, 2015 11:57:35 GMT -8
G. I. Joe, It's been a while since I wrote that and thought about MoT.
Regarding 1, however, I still think it is metagamey, but that does not mean it couldn't be fun. Considering your example, I might require the player to describe what they are doing to "raise the stakes". In your example, your character was probably blowing through lights and maybe even driving against traffic. A character who is hacking might try to steal NSA data to get what she needs. So, yeah, if the player can explain it, the mechanic serves the story. I might also encourage that the MoT earned this way be tied to the "raise the stakes" event. "Just as the cultists grab me, the cops that chased me through town finally catch up."
Regarding 2, I still feel like MoTs could become too powerful. In your example, I think the mounties temporarily stopping the shooting is quite reasonable. Is it fun if the GM says, "Okay the mounties show up and completely overwhelm the bad guys"? I guess every group will need to decide how it works for them.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 31, 2015 12:55:35 GMT -8
This discussion reminds me that I will run my Jackercon VII game in MoT AAAND in Gumshoe.
|
|
|
Post by zoomfarg on Jun 1, 2015 13:29:17 GMT -8
Edited for conciseness after initial post. Questions bolded.
To be clear, G.I. Joe and I played pre-release v. 2.0.
I had a blast running MoT for the first time. It was easy to learn and play. We played with another friend during a camping trip, so we probably played MoT for 12-14 hours over two sessions. We played a modern horror game with a Big Scary Monster in a small town. I won't divulge too much info in case I can run a trimmed version for Jackercon some day...
Character creation went smoothly. As per the rules, I had players start by developing character concepts before breaking out the book. Then, the character concepts became more detailed as we figured out what skills and traits they should have based on the initial concept. In my experience, this dynamic is common. I also like how combat skills are based on derived statistics.
I read over the rules a number of times before I ran it and had a pretty decent handle on it, but whenever I forgot a rule during play, it was easy to find and understand what I needed within about a minute (guesstimation).
MoTs were my favorite part of playing the game. I felt great reward whenever my players used one to add a detail to the scene; it felt like they were really engaging with the setting.
During character creation and when negotiating MoTs, I was glad I was already an experienced GM. It helped me estimate balance. The examples in the book certainly helped.
I put thought into when I asked players to roll. I wanted to ask them to roll more often than the HJRP MoT APs to a) test the dice mechanics and b) have opportunities to earn MoTs. Therefore, when players used skills to gather information (read individual, crime scene, etc.), I sometimes tried to layer extra-helpful, non-routine information on top of routine information. If players got enough successes, they learned the especially helpful information. Then, as long as the players rolled at least as well as one near miss, I gave them the routine information which would not normally require a roll. In such situations, failure was significant because the players did not obtain particularly helpful information--which was often a boon for the Big Scary Monster--but they still acquired sufficient information to move the story along (this was my goal, at least). Here's an analogy: routine:non-routine::running shoes:bicycle; they'll get you to the same place, but the bicycle is a heck of a lot faster. Appropriate?
Fear pools: I like the fear pool table; clear and concise. Does "familiarity" fit on this table, maybe for -1d6? If you see the same scary thing over and over, it becomes less scary (like in aversion therapy). I do have one question on building fear pools: if the scene becomes more horrific, what do you roll? Only the new factors, or every current factor? For example, Bob sees the Big Scary Monster, clearly supernatural (+3d6). Moments later, it kills someone (witnessing a grizzly, violent murder +4d6). When the murder happens, does Bob roll 7d6, or 4d6 because you already rolled against the Big Scary Monster when you first saw it?
Long-Term Effects: As G.I. Joe mentioned, his character suffered amnesia after some terrible rolls. thus, he was making tons mental will rolls in very short succession because he was surrounded by biographical information-- from home, office, friends, family, town, cop partner, case info, etc. His penalties from psych trauma also made the adventure nearly unplayable (poor planning on my part!), so I suggested a setting appropriate detail that they could add to the scene with a MoT. It was a bit of a stretch, but I felt it was necessary. The following contains spoilers, if I ever choose to run the game at Jackercon (highlight to see): the players and the Big Scary Monster experienced a Groundhog Day effect, repeating the same day over and over for 13 days. Each day, they woke up perfectly healthy, but retained their memories. So that they could continue playing with the same characters, I judged it appropriate that they could spend an MoT to recover from sanity, psych trauma, and long term effects. This seems like a stretch of the rule to me, but they were constrained in-game by the 13-day countdown and we were constrained in the meta by the duration of the camping trip.
|
|