Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Bits of your homebrew D&D world that players probably do not care about (rant)
- Your proprietary name of a thing that already has a name. Unless you have a dedicated group, fully bought in to your homebrew world, they won't care that the goblin language is called "Grok'nee" or that their name for the world is "Pan'par". There's a certain sense of racial disconnect that would be bigotry in the real world, but can be safely and even necessarily employed here. To humans, and even to elves and dwarves, goblins speak Goblin.
- The name of rulers that have no bearing to the story. If you're on the border of a nation, delving deep into dungeons, who cares what the king's name is? More broadly, you as the DM have to be prepared for the event that your carefully prepared world, nation, or local history may never be revealed. The players may never come across the need, and they may not even care even if they are in need of knowing.
- Your DM PC. Your PC, tagging along just in case someone else takes over DMing duties, is an NPC. Period. No amount of Mary Sue-ing or comic relief will elevate them, in the PC's mind, to the level of importance in the narrative as a PC. It won't even register in their brains as important as a villain. The PCs (and the villains) are the main characters. Period.
- Descriptions of treasure that are not coins, gems, plot-related, or magical. That golden candelabra is going to be sold anyway. Unless you have PCs who adorn their abodes with loot instead of interior decorating properly, no one will ever care.
- Any gravitas an NPC might bring. Any trope will be lampshaded. Any emotion will be brushed off. Any motive will be ignored. Those that the PC's kill are the enemy.
- Nuance. Way back in the West End Star Wars RPG, they impressed upon the GM and players that the game, like the movies, were black and white. Don't let moral quandaries get in the way of a good romp. I feel like that GMs of all games should take that to heart, unless the game makes a specific point to question the status quo. (V:tM, Paranoia, etc.) Me, personally, I love complex stories that make you think, but D&D may not be the best place for it.
Some of these things are traps the DM should avoid. Some of these things are the fault of lazy players who do not care about the work the DM put into his world. It takes communication and finding the right players to make the perfect fit. Good luck!
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Manpower: the unit of measure of automation
I wrote a Tweet and I wanted to expound upon it a bit:
I'd like to propose a unit of measure: the # of humans a robot would replace. Similar to horsepower for cars, we call it, say, manpower (mp)
You strict mathematical types might be thinking, "So is this a unit of power? Are you going to set an arbitrary amount, much like James Watt had to do with horsepower? What's the point of declaring this?" The answers are 1) sort of, and 2) not really, and 3) to phrase the oncoming automation apocalypse into modes of speaking and thinking that we can grasp.
So, is this a unit of power? Sort of. Power is work over time, for certain definitions of work. We could break work down further into force over distance, and so on from there. Here the similarities between horsepower and "manpower" ends. The purpose of creating the term "horsepower" was to create a comparison between the power it took for a horse to pull something (a cart, a plow, etc) and compare it to that same straight-line motion that a machine could duplicate. In this way, horsepower was a unit of measure on par with any other. We could, in the strictest sense, use manpower the same way - by measuring how many people are required to pull a cart of a plow, and substitute the equal amount of mechanical muscle.
However, this mental exercise is to address automation, so let's say, instead of equating work to moving an object in a straight line, we take the broader meaning of work: whatever a person does in an 8 hour day or 40 hour week. And, since manpower is going to be termed a more general "work" over time, we can use this rate to compare automation to human endeavors, the same way autos were compared to horses by creating a unit of measure that clearly illustrated the transition.
So, you working at your job is 1mp.
If a robot "does the work of ten men", it would have 10mp.
If a robot replaced 1 full-time worker but operated constantly (24/7/365), it would have ~4.2 mp ((24 hr day/8 hr day) * (365 days per year for a robot / ~261 work days per year for a person)).
Hopefully you can see how this would ease the presentation and calculation of automation replacement as we go forward.
If someone has already thought of this concept (and I am quite certain someone probably already has), please point it to me so I can read further on it, and possibly add links to that material as well.
I'd like to propose a unit of measure: the # of humans a robot would replace. Similar to horsepower for cars, we call it, say, manpower (mp)
You strict mathematical types might be thinking, "So is this a unit of power? Are you going to set an arbitrary amount, much like James Watt had to do with horsepower? What's the point of declaring this?" The answers are 1) sort of, and 2) not really, and 3) to phrase the oncoming automation apocalypse into modes of speaking and thinking that we can grasp.
So, is this a unit of power? Sort of. Power is work over time, for certain definitions of work. We could break work down further into force over distance, and so on from there. Here the similarities between horsepower and "manpower" ends. The purpose of creating the term "horsepower" was to create a comparison between the power it took for a horse to pull something (a cart, a plow, etc) and compare it to that same straight-line motion that a machine could duplicate. In this way, horsepower was a unit of measure on par with any other. We could, in the strictest sense, use manpower the same way - by measuring how many people are required to pull a cart of a plow, and substitute the equal amount of mechanical muscle.
However, this mental exercise is to address automation, so let's say, instead of equating work to moving an object in a straight line, we take the broader meaning of work: whatever a person does in an 8 hour day or 40 hour week. And, since manpower is going to be termed a more general "work" over time, we can use this rate to compare automation to human endeavors, the same way autos were compared to horses by creating a unit of measure that clearly illustrated the transition.
So, you working at your job is 1mp.
If a robot "does the work of ten men", it would have 10mp.
If a robot replaced 1 full-time worker but operated constantly (24/7/365), it would have ~4.2 mp ((24 hr day/8 hr day) * (365 days per year for a robot / ~261 work days per year for a person)).
Hopefully you can see how this would ease the presentation and calculation of automation replacement as we go forward.
If someone has already thought of this concept (and I am quite certain someone probably already has), please point it to me so I can read further on it, and possibly add links to that material as well.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Breaking down the previous post and adding more
So let's see if we can state in simple terms what's going on in this half-made card game so far:
- Standard game mechanics, nothing to write home about: players, individual play areas, one draw deck, cards in hand or in play area, used cards go to the discard - so far, standard game mechanics
- Unusual game mechanics: face-down discard pile, win condition not chosen until murder weapon is drawn
- Simple explanation: scandals played face down, including murder. Scandals face up bring consequences. Murder also makes you lose but ends the game. Action cards do action things. Somewhat like a Magic clone: creatures = characters, action cards = sorcery/instant/interrupt, and too much scandal/caught murdering = out of life points.
I haven't played the currently Kickstarted game Exploding Kittens, but I think I might have developed a similar playing conceit: a game of hot potato with effect cards to mitigate being caught. Granted, people who have not played the game have expressed concerns with how boring/simple the mechanics would be. It's certainly a road sign for me, saying that I need to add more.
What mechanics could be added to involve more complexity to the game? I don't mean action card mechanics, I feel that that will come in time, and is actually a sort of a second order complexity. Fluxx does this on purpose; its rules are almost completely read off the cards near the end of the game. It's fun in a confusing way, but I'd like to make the cards no more complex as I have to in order to create the perfect level of complexity.
Another iffy decision that needs to be made is: how heavy do we go on the scandal part? This could be a game merely about scandal without so much emphasis on murder, if need be. But that would change the mood of the game from the players being outstanding citizens solving a murder to players being scoundrels, all trying to embarrass the other characters. It would be very similar to Gloom. I wouldn't want to copy it too closely.
What if we went in G's direction and tried to get into the nittier grittier about solving a mystery, using the cards? The scandal part would be a side mechanic to this main mechanic of solving the murder. This takes me somewhat back to square one. The difficulty of creating the scene in specific details is enormous, since you'd have to have a card for every possible weapon or scenario, like Clue (wrench, lead pipe, axe, and so on and so on...) I could reuse the Capability/Motive/Opportunity mechanic. Perhaps if someone was proven to have all three (placed face up in their playing area), that could be the lose condition for the murderer. The only problem is, that I wouldn't want to create a sort of Schrodinger's murderer condition, whereupon the murderer who is caught (and loses the game) did not get selected until late in the game, and so not given the chance to outwit everyone else. I'd want a mechanic where the murder is determined early on (in secret, drawing the right card), and then that player spends the rest of the game avoiding getting caught.
Some more card ideas:
- Guilt-wracked: You must play this card on any scandals in your play area immediately, or you must play immediately after you play a face-down card thereafter. (Insert bad effect here)
- Mob-justice: Play any time. Players vote to lynch one follower.
- Standard game mechanics, nothing to write home about: players, individual play areas, one draw deck, cards in hand or in play area, used cards go to the discard - so far, standard game mechanics
- Unusual game mechanics: face-down discard pile, win condition not chosen until murder weapon is drawn
- Simple explanation: scandals played face down, including murder. Scandals face up bring consequences. Murder also makes you lose but ends the game. Action cards do action things. Somewhat like a Magic clone: creatures = characters, action cards = sorcery/instant/interrupt, and too much scandal/caught murdering = out of life points.
I haven't played the currently Kickstarted game Exploding Kittens, but I think I might have developed a similar playing conceit: a game of hot potato with effect cards to mitigate being caught. Granted, people who have not played the game have expressed concerns with how boring/simple the mechanics would be. It's certainly a road sign for me, saying that I need to add more.
What mechanics could be added to involve more complexity to the game? I don't mean action card mechanics, I feel that that will come in time, and is actually a sort of a second order complexity. Fluxx does this on purpose; its rules are almost completely read off the cards near the end of the game. It's fun in a confusing way, but I'd like to make the cards no more complex as I have to in order to create the perfect level of complexity.
Another iffy decision that needs to be made is: how heavy do we go on the scandal part? This could be a game merely about scandal without so much emphasis on murder, if need be. But that would change the mood of the game from the players being outstanding citizens solving a murder to players being scoundrels, all trying to embarrass the other characters. It would be very similar to Gloom. I wouldn't want to copy it too closely.
What if we went in G's direction and tried to get into the nittier grittier about solving a mystery, using the cards? The scandal part would be a side mechanic to this main mechanic of solving the murder. This takes me somewhat back to square one. The difficulty of creating the scene in specific details is enormous, since you'd have to have a card for every possible weapon or scenario, like Clue (wrench, lead pipe, axe, and so on and so on...) I could reuse the Capability/Motive/Opportunity mechanic. Perhaps if someone was proven to have all three (placed face up in their playing area), that could be the lose condition for the murderer. The only problem is, that I wouldn't want to create a sort of Schrodinger's murderer condition, whereupon the murderer who is caught (and loses the game) did not get selected until late in the game, and so not given the chance to outwit everyone else. I'd want a mechanic where the murder is determined early on (in secret, drawing the right card), and then that player spends the rest of the game avoiding getting caught.
Some more card ideas:
- Guilt-wracked: You must play this card on any scandals in your play area immediately, or you must play immediately after you play a face-down card thereafter. (Insert bad effect here)
- Mob-justice: Play any time. Players vote to lynch one follower.
Monday, January 12, 2015
A murder mystery card game...or just trying to get a good mechanic for it
Ditching my last concept has brought me full circle again back to the basic premise of what I wanted to do; a murder mystery card game that creates the illusion of solving a different murder every time without a) resorting to simple subtractive deduction like Clue, and b) not becoming a too-involved ersatz roleplaying game that would require too much setup time by a "game master".
Let's face it, these RPG-like board and card games exist in part because running a roleplaying game is a time intensive pursuit. Using the straight-jacketed rules of a board game is what the average gamer likes, because it is such a pleasure to uncover the entirety (or as much of it as you can) of permutations in a rule set. It's fun to be good at something. It's fun to be an expert.
There's nothing wrong with designing a good board game with a few mechanics thrown together in a new way, and off you go. I played, for the first time, Grave Robbers From Outer Space last night. It was a great game that I highly enjoyed. The scene it was trying to set - that we are all movie directors, and each players sends monsters into each other's "movies" - worked beautifully. Yet looking at it, it is a collection of simple mechanics. Your characters in your movies are similar to creature cards in Magic/object cards in Fluxx, etc. You have monsters that are attacks. You have effect cards that you hang on to at the right time. This makes the game very similar to Magic and the dozens of clones out there. (Is there some kind word that describes this sort of card game type? A card game that comprises in part a personal possession area that plays an active part in the game, in addition to your hand? Magic yes, spades no. I'd call it a "personal space" or "territorial" card game, if it was mine to declare.) Add a few extra game mechanics, and boom, off you go.
As an aside, it truly was a boom that Wizards of the Coast couldn't keep a lid on the "personal space", and tapping game mechanics (or at least lease it out...I never heard what the end result of that was). The only downside is that many card games use those mechanics and the process can get stale. Still, the board game renaissance is keeping things fresh.
Everything below this is a scratch pad for designing the game.
- "personal space" game?: I'd like to avoid having it be another Magic clone, but unless there is some major breakthrough, there will have to be elements of personal playing spaces in the game. Maybe if I could make the hand as important as what's on the table; cards played in front of you is public knowledge about you, whereas cards in your hand are private details? And then a third card would be action cards, of course.
- Some of the cards played in your "personal space" could also be played face down, creating intrigue...something secret exists about the player, but what? The play space would have to be less touchable than the player's hand, since the traits played face down would be bad.
- Determination of killer beforehand: a separate deck or some combination of cards beforehand? or during? or even scapegoating? That could work: not determining a killer but proclaiming a killer...making someone lose.
- One of G's main things he wants in his game (though we might still collaborate) is that he wants each player has some sort of damning fact that they try to hide. If it is revealed, that player loses...loses the game, loses points? Dunno, but it adds a twist. Waiting to see what he wants out of it.
- looking at other player's hands: I would think that in a game of figuratively playing your cards close to your chest, you would literally do this as well, until someone force you to show.
- creating a trail of clues: cards that would affect a card in your hand. If you have "murder weapon", then "leaving fingerprints" would mean you discard the weapon immediately but have to hold on to the fingerprints card.
- Catching people in the act: perhaps some cards could force another player to reveal something damning about them, if they have it. Sort of a "Go Fish" mechanic.
- Discard pile face down. This could simulate the ditching of evidence (getting rid of the murder weapon, for example)
So, let's start putting together a card game. Here's a gimmicky change: since solving a mystery means gathering clues, perhaps everyone starts with no cards at all, and draws one at a time? The murder weapon, the motive, the actions you can do, even the character you are, grow as your hand size grows.
Some random thoughts:
- A scandal revealed should penalize them in some way? Lose a turn? If they lose the game then it's too much penalty. Perhaps someone with some scandal face down could be susceptible to blackmail...
GAME PLAY RULES
The last person to have killed something goes first, the continues clockwise. Each person starts with no cards at all!
Each turn consists of drawing a card and playing it. Some cards must be immediately played, some cards can be held for use later. You do not discard from your hand.
There are three types of cards: Character Cards, Scandal Cards, and Action Cards.
- Character Cards: Play these cards in front of you, face up. The first character you play represents you, any further characters you play are your allies.
- Accountant: During your turn, you may draw from the discard pile instead of the draw pile.
- Butler/Maid: During your turn, you may give any card in your hand to any player.
- Hooligan: You must draw a card from the discard pile. If there is no discard pile, draw from the draw deck.
- Inheritor: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to discard one scandal card from any player from play.
- Judge: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to look at another player's hand.
- Socialite:
- Oil Tycoon:
- Private Investigator: During your turn, you may choose to draw two cards, play one, and discard the other.
- Scandal cards: Play these cards in front of you, face down. If a scandal is turned face up while in your play area, you lose your next turn. Scandals remain, face up, in front of you unless another card disposes of them.
- Bankrupt
- Criminal Record
- Divorced
- Fudged the Numbers
- Having an Affair
- Murder Weapon - Place this card in front of you, face down. You are the murderer for the rest of the game ...even if you discard this card.
- Action cards: These cards are normally played during your turn unless noted otherwise. They can be held in your hand until needed.
- Left a Damning Clue: Discard any one scandal or the murder weapon if they are in play in your possession, and place this card face down in your area.
- Blackmail: If someone who has a revealed scandal in play, plays a card that forces you to turn anything in your playing field face up, this card can be played immediately to cancel that effect.
- Planted Evidence: Play in front of another player. Any combination of three Planted Evidence or Left a Damning Clue cards in front of a player (face up) means the player is accused of murder and the game ends.
- Scandal Revealed! Play this card to turn over a card in another player's field of play. (1)
- Alibi: Play in front of you. None of your scandal cards can be turned face-up.
- Red Herring: Play in front of you, face down. Cannot be discarded.
- Gathering the Witnesses: All allies are discarded. - Damn the Consequences! If you have a scandal face down in your area, you may reveal it in order to turn a card in someone else's play area face up. This results in your next turn being lost.
If there are five of any combination of Scandals, Left a Damning Clue, or Planted Evidence in a player's area, that player is out of the game. If that player is the murderer, then the murderer is never found, and everyone loses.
So far, there's a bunch of mechanics for scandals, but not a lot for actually solving the murder. More to come...
Let's face it, these RPG-like board and card games exist in part because running a roleplaying game is a time intensive pursuit. Using the straight-jacketed rules of a board game is what the average gamer likes, because it is such a pleasure to uncover the entirety (or as much of it as you can) of permutations in a rule set. It's fun to be good at something. It's fun to be an expert.
There's nothing wrong with designing a good board game with a few mechanics thrown together in a new way, and off you go. I played, for the first time, Grave Robbers From Outer Space last night. It was a great game that I highly enjoyed. The scene it was trying to set - that we are all movie directors, and each players sends monsters into each other's "movies" - worked beautifully. Yet looking at it, it is a collection of simple mechanics. Your characters in your movies are similar to creature cards in Magic/object cards in Fluxx, etc. You have monsters that are attacks. You have effect cards that you hang on to at the right time. This makes the game very similar to Magic and the dozens of clones out there. (Is there some kind word that describes this sort of card game type? A card game that comprises in part a personal possession area that plays an active part in the game, in addition to your hand? Magic yes, spades no. I'd call it a "personal space" or "territorial" card game, if it was mine to declare.) Add a few extra game mechanics, and boom, off you go.
As an aside, it truly was a boom that Wizards of the Coast couldn't keep a lid on the "personal space", and tapping game mechanics (or at least lease it out...I never heard what the end result of that was). The only downside is that many card games use those mechanics and the process can get stale. Still, the board game renaissance is keeping things fresh.
Everything below this is a scratch pad for designing the game.
- "personal space" game?: I'd like to avoid having it be another Magic clone, but unless there is some major breakthrough, there will have to be elements of personal playing spaces in the game. Maybe if I could make the hand as important as what's on the table; cards played in front of you is public knowledge about you, whereas cards in your hand are private details? And then a third card would be action cards, of course.
- Some of the cards played in your "personal space" could also be played face down, creating intrigue...something secret exists about the player, but what? The play space would have to be less touchable than the player's hand, since the traits played face down would be bad.
- Determination of killer beforehand: a separate deck or some combination of cards beforehand? or during? or even scapegoating? That could work: not determining a killer but proclaiming a killer...making someone lose.
- One of G's main things he wants in his game (though we might still collaborate) is that he wants each player has some sort of damning fact that they try to hide. If it is revealed, that player loses...loses the game, loses points? Dunno, but it adds a twist. Waiting to see what he wants out of it.
- looking at other player's hands: I would think that in a game of figuratively playing your cards close to your chest, you would literally do this as well, until someone force you to show.
- creating a trail of clues: cards that would affect a card in your hand. If you have "murder weapon", then "leaving fingerprints" would mean you discard the weapon immediately but have to hold on to the fingerprints card.
- Catching people in the act: perhaps some cards could force another player to reveal something damning about them, if they have it. Sort of a "Go Fish" mechanic.
- Discard pile face down. This could simulate the ditching of evidence (getting rid of the murder weapon, for example)
So, let's start putting together a card game. Here's a gimmicky change: since solving a mystery means gathering clues, perhaps everyone starts with no cards at all, and draws one at a time? The murder weapon, the motive, the actions you can do, even the character you are, grow as your hand size grows.
Some random thoughts:
- A scandal revealed should penalize them in some way? Lose a turn? If they lose the game then it's too much penalty. Perhaps someone with some scandal face down could be susceptible to blackmail...
GAME PLAY RULES
The last person to have killed something goes first, the continues clockwise. Each person starts with no cards at all!
Each turn consists of drawing a card and playing it. Some cards must be immediately played, some cards can be held for use later. You do not discard from your hand.
There are three types of cards: Character Cards, Scandal Cards, and Action Cards.
- Character Cards: Play these cards in front of you, face up. The first character you play represents you, any further characters you play are your allies.
- Accountant: During your turn, you may draw from the discard pile instead of the draw pile.
- Butler/Maid: During your turn, you may give any card in your hand to any player.
- Hooligan: You must draw a card from the discard pile. If there is no discard pile, draw from the draw deck.
- Inheritor: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to discard one scandal card from any player from play.
- Judge: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to look at another player's hand.
- Socialite:
- Oil Tycoon:
- Private Investigator: During your turn, you may choose to draw two cards, play one, and discard the other.
- Scandal cards: Play these cards in front of you, face down. If a scandal is turned face up while in your play area, you lose your next turn. Scandals remain, face up, in front of you unless another card disposes of them.
- Bankrupt
- Criminal Record
- Divorced
- Fudged the Numbers
- Having an Affair
- Murder Weapon - Place this card in front of you, face down. You are the murderer for the rest of the game ...even if you discard this card.
- Action cards: These cards are normally played during your turn unless noted otherwise. They can be held in your hand until needed.
- Left a Damning Clue: Discard any one scandal or the murder weapon if they are in play in your possession, and place this card face down in your area.
- Blackmail: If someone who has a revealed scandal in play, plays a card that forces you to turn anything in your playing field face up, this card can be played immediately to cancel that effect.
- Planted Evidence: Play in front of another player. Any combination of three Planted Evidence or Left a Damning Clue cards in front of a player (face up) means the player is accused of murder and the game ends.
- Scandal Revealed! Play this card to turn over a card in another player's field of play. (1)
- Alibi: Play in front of you. None of your scandal cards can be turned face-up.
- Red Herring: Play in front of you, face down. Cannot be discarded.
- Gathering the Witnesses: All allies are discarded. - Damn the Consequences! If you have a scandal face down in your area, you may reveal it in order to turn a card in someone else's play area face up. This results in your next turn being lost.
If there are five of any combination of Scandals, Left a Damning Clue, or Planted Evidence in a player's area, that player is out of the game. If that player is the murderer, then the murderer is never found, and everyone loses.
So far, there's a bunch of mechanics for scandals, but not a lot for actually solving the murder. More to come...
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
The problem with the murder mystery card game
Okay, it's a complete wash. After playtesting it with people and weathering enough criticism that would make lesser men cry, I can put into words what the problem is.
The impetus of Are You A Werewolf? is the fear of being eliminated. It is visceral and immediate. The impetus of a murder mystery (in general) is the cerebral accomplishment of solving the mystery. To cast a murder mystery in the guise of an easily playable party game is to be at odds with itself. A reason AYAWW works with large numbers of players is that people CAN leave the game.
So, there are two directions I can go: one is to make a more fully playable party game (in which case, the murder mystery genre would be scrapped in favor of a more exciting setting), or it could go into a fully rendered thinking-man's game, complete with roleplaying and/or deductive reasoning clues that would eventually point to the murderer as a matter of logic, instead of trying to divine guilt through social deduction. The current state of what I was working on was to create rules for a cerebral game based on social game rules, and it didn't work.
I want to buy Clue: the card game, to see how that game is played, and see if there is a mechanic or two that could tweak my delight in deduction without reinventing the wheel.
EDIT: Found the rules to Clue: the card game here: http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/308/ProjectReqs/ClueCardGame/ClueCardGameRules.html
It's similar to the board game: the murderer, the location, and the vehicle are selected and must be deducted by eliminating all other possibilities.
There are some differences I still want in my game: I want the murderer to be a player, chosen in secret. Perhaps this is decided at the beginning or during the game. I'm thinking of a gin rummy type of game: collect the 5 W's (or c/m/o: see last entry) and call gin, or in this case say you are the murderer. Place the cards face down, see if people can guess them? How can this game be something other than just a who/with what/where game like Clue?
The impetus of Are You A Werewolf? is the fear of being eliminated. It is visceral and immediate. The impetus of a murder mystery (in general) is the cerebral accomplishment of solving the mystery. To cast a murder mystery in the guise of an easily playable party game is to be at odds with itself. A reason AYAWW works with large numbers of players is that people CAN leave the game.
So, there are two directions I can go: one is to make a more fully playable party game (in which case, the murder mystery genre would be scrapped in favor of a more exciting setting), or it could go into a fully rendered thinking-man's game, complete with roleplaying and/or deductive reasoning clues that would eventually point to the murderer as a matter of logic, instead of trying to divine guilt through social deduction. The current state of what I was working on was to create rules for a cerebral game based on social game rules, and it didn't work.
I want to buy Clue: the card game, to see how that game is played, and see if there is a mechanic or two that could tweak my delight in deduction without reinventing the wheel.
EDIT: Found the rules to Clue: the card game here: http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/308/ProjectReqs/ClueCardGame/ClueCardGameRules.html
It's similar to the board game: the murderer, the location, and the vehicle are selected and must be deducted by eliminating all other possibilities.
There are some differences I still want in my game: I want the murderer to be a player, chosen in secret. Perhaps this is decided at the beginning or during the game. I'm thinking of a gin rummy type of game: collect the 5 W's (or c/m/o: see last entry) and call gin, or in this case say you are the murderer. Place the cards face down, see if people can guess them? How can this game be something other than just a who/with what/where game like Clue?
Friday, December 19, 2014
card game logistic update
One of the things I wanted to do in the game was to avoid added math/complexity without purpose. Sometimes I look at roleplay-related games that do not depend specifically on minute levels of data and think that the addition of numerical values (such as hit points) to what can be described as a binary condition (alive/dead) is sometimes fluff on the part of game designers. Sure, a game can use a number, an adjective, or any other sort of description to determine the condition of a player or character in a game, but when the action has to be fast, or if the tactical aspect of a game is not as important, things can be pared down to their bare minimum, or even combined to another feature of the game so as to remove as many obfuscating points as possible. Hit points becomes alive/dead. Mana points can be set to a certain number of actions per round. The underlying logic is indeed an exercise in mathematical analysis, but the playing of the game doesn't have to be.
Then there's the other problem of obfuscation: details within a game that add no additional tactical benefit. One could say that the whole roleplaying aspect of Are You A Werewolf, where the facilitator names the town and describes how the victim was killed each night, is a part of this. Yes, it adds depth to the game and I find it highly enjoyable, but it is optional and should not be enforced. I believe that the "professions" of each character I had in the previous post about the card game falls into this category. Except for the special cards (Murderer, Politician, Patsy, etc), the cards handed out to people should be the same. Maybe call it "Partygoer" or "Suspect".
In the end, I feel that the enforcement of professions on these cards, without any gameplay affect, might be too much. Let the players roleplay (or not) as they will.
Then there's the other problem of obfuscation: details within a game that add no additional tactical benefit. One could say that the whole roleplaying aspect of Are You A Werewolf, where the facilitator names the town and describes how the victim was killed each night, is a part of this. Yes, it adds depth to the game and I find it highly enjoyable, but it is optional and should not be enforced. I believe that the "professions" of each character I had in the previous post about the card game falls into this category. Except for the special cards (Murderer, Politician, Patsy, etc), the cards handed out to people should be the same. Maybe call it "Partygoer" or "Suspect".
In the end, I feel that the enforcement of professions on these cards, without any gameplay affect, might be too much. Let the players roleplay (or not) as they will.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Murder Mystery Card Game rules
Just a placeholder for this card game I'm thinking up. It's a party game similar to Mafia or Are You A Werewolf. This entry will be edited as the game takes shape.
I know you can't copyright game mechanics, but like most people, I can't help but put my creations out on the internet vainly for everyone to see. Let's just hope I try to make the game and don't do nothing again, like every time I have a great idea. Lazy me.
BARE BONES BASIC RULES
DELUXE RULES
PROFESSIONS
Come a landsman, a tinsman, a tinker or a tailor
a doctor, a lawyer, a soldier or a sailor
a rich man, a poor man, a fool or a witty
Don't let her die an old maid, but take her out of pity.
(Possible name: Take Her Out Of Pity, from the song)
Any list of professions must have three variations (so as not to memorize the C/M/O list of any one profession). This also prevents the murderer from being easily found due to pretending to be a unique profession that another player already has.
Of course, if you just throw out professions willy nilly, the deck would get huge, and the types of professions would be harder to memorize. I already know there's going to be a profession list on one of the cards for reference.
SPECIAL CARDS
What do these rules imply?
It's different from Mafia. It's not all social deduction, until it is.You might think there's some easy deduction going on. Anyone who answers no to a C/M/O question is automatically not the murderer. Easy, except...you cannot win the game through logical deduction alone unless you are very lucky. The game lures you in with a simple logic puzzle, then hits you with a decision to made on incomplete information. It might take a pen and paper to keep track. Perhaps the facilitator could keep track.
Since most professions have 2 out of 3 C/M/O's most of the time, It is thought that any group, after all the turns have gone, have eliminated ~1/3 of the players as suspects. This, of course, may vary through luck, but it's obvious that there has to be guesswork involved. This is where the "social deduction" comes in. Adding in the ability to ask people unrelated questions (including, "Are you the murderer?") adds in the opportunity to watch people faces; how do they lie? Are they hiding something?
Players should familiarize themselves with the professions on the cards, for if they become the murderer, they will have to pretend to be another profession (which a sharp sleuth would catch if it was made up).
UNDERLYING MATH
The underlying math dictates the gameplay, much like Mafia. It is shown that the Mafia normally keeps ~50% chance of winning any game, but in reality is likely to win due to "social deduction" hence the name of the genre. Due to the fact there is never more than one killer, the mechanics to keep the chances of success balanced in my game are modified. Given that each player has a 1/3 chance of being ruled out (if someone asks them a C/M/O question they can respond 'no' to), the choices for murderer are 2/3 of the people. (Of course, luck might provide more or less help depending on who gets to answer 'no'.) There is a vote that removes a second person, but how often should that happen? By designating it as every three turns, it narrows the suspect list down to ~1/3 of the players. This keeps the possible suspects at roughly 1/3 no matter how many people are playing. This makes the average number of final suspects very small: 2 in a six player game, 3 in a nine player game, and so on. This is why it is suggested that, of the special cards, the Patsy is added first. It artificially adds an additional suspect to give the murderer a better chance of not being chosen. Then, as the number of players rises, the card additions give greater and greater advantages to the innocents to counter the number of final suspects as it goes up.
The number of players dictates the chances of the murderer getting caught in several different ways. First, the greater the number of players, the harder it is to find the murderer (though as I explained above, there are mechanics that help). Also, if there is a number of players not divisible by 3, the players get an extra round of voting. Therefore, a group of players whose number is 3x+1 has the best chance of finding the murderer, as it gives you an extra vote for the fewest number of additional players.
The smaller the number of players, the more luck is involved in finding the murderer. The chances of eliminating greater than 1/3 of the players as suspects is high if there are only 6 players, as compared to 18, due to a lack of precision.
I know you can't copyright game mechanics, but like most people, I can't help but put my creations out on the internet vainly for everyone to see. Let's just hope I try to make the game and don't do nothing again, like every time I have a great idea. Lazy me.
BARE BONES BASIC RULES
- For 6 or more players.
- A facilitator is desired; at a bare minimum, someone has to set up the deck and deal them out.
- The facilitator starts the game by taking out the murderer card from the deck and shuffling the rest. Then he or she counts out enough cards for the party, minus one, then adds the murderer card. The resulting stack should have enough cards for one card for each player. The cards are shuffled and dealt, face down. The cards must remain completely secret from everyone else until the end of the game!
- The facilitator announces the setup. ("There has been a murder tonight! The murderer is someone in this room!")
- Each card has a profession (or is the murderer) and some yes/no combination of capability, motive, and opportunity (C/M/O) - almost always 2 out of 3, but the murderer has 3 out of 3 C/M/O.
- The last player who has lost a pet goes first.
- During a player's turn, the player gets to ask two kinds of questions.
- One yes/no question about C/M/O to a second player of their choosing. ("Did you have the opportunity to commit this murder?") The second player must tell the truth about what is printed on their card, whether the answer is yes or no.
- The first player may ask any number of other questions of any sort to any and all players during the turn, including "Are you the murderer?" or what their profession is. The questioned player may lie about any question not related to C/M/O. These additional questions can be asked before or after (or both) the one C/M/O question. The turn is over when the first player has no further questions.
- Play continues clockwise. The next player can ask questions of a different or the same person, as they choose.
- After 3 of the players take a turn, everyone votes on who is the murderer. This person goes to "jail". If it is the murderer, game is over, everyone but the murderer wins. If not, play continues. The player in jail loses his or her turn for the rest of the game (if they haven't taken it already), but they can vote.
- Play continues with another 3 people taking their turns. After another three people take their turn, voting occurs again.
- Each person only gets one turn in the game, unless they are jailed before they can take it. When the last person's turn is used up, the party has one last vote to try and jail the murderer. (The game cannot end on two votes in a row!)
- If the murderer is still not caught, the game is over and the murderer wins.
DELUXE RULES
- At the beginning of the game, the facilitator uses his or her boundless imagination to create a scenario. Then, he or she explains who was murdered, and how, where and with what the victim was murdered. Each time a player is asked a C/M/O question, they must explain why the answer is no, or why they are not the murderer if the answer is yes, in the vein of the profession on the card. ("As a famous actor, I simply would not have had the opportunity to slip away and murder the victim!")
- Alibis: at any time during the game, two or more people can proclaim they are each other's alibi. This means that both players are exempt from being voted on. People who have already said no to a C/M/O question (and are automatically not the murderer), cannot have alibis. Either player in an alibi can choose to cancel it at any time. If someone holds an alibi with the murderer at the end of the game, that person is a double loser! (Optional Rule: the next game a double loser plays, the loser has to take the "Drunkard/Fool" card face up before the cards are even dealt!)
PROFESSIONS
Come a landsman, a tinsman, a tinker or a tailor
a doctor, a lawyer, a soldier or a sailor
a rich man, a poor man, a fool or a witty
Don't let her die an old maid, but take her out of pity.
(Possible name: Take Her Out Of Pity, from the song)
Any list of professions must have three variations (so as not to memorize the C/M/O list of any one profession). This also prevents the murderer from being easily found due to pretending to be a unique profession that another player already has.
Of course, if you just throw out professions willy nilly, the deck would get huge, and the types of professions would be harder to memorize. I already know there's going to be a profession list on one of the cards for reference.
SPECIAL CARDS
- Special cards are professions that can be added to the deck. It is suggested that they be added in this listed order.
- Patsy: Has all three C/M/O, but is not the murderer. (Suggested for 6+ players)
- Politician: Can take his turn, even if jailed. (Suggested for 9+ players)
- Drunkard/Fool(?): Has none of the C/M/O. (Suggested for 12 + players)
What do these rules imply?
It's different from Mafia. It's not all social deduction, until it is.You might think there's some easy deduction going on. Anyone who answers no to a C/M/O question is automatically not the murderer. Easy, except...you cannot win the game through logical deduction alone unless you are very lucky. The game lures you in with a simple logic puzzle, then hits you with a decision to made on incomplete information. It might take a pen and paper to keep track. Perhaps the facilitator could keep track.
Since most professions have 2 out of 3 C/M/O's most of the time, It is thought that any group, after all the turns have gone, have eliminated ~1/3 of the players as suspects. This, of course, may vary through luck, but it's obvious that there has to be guesswork involved. This is where the "social deduction" comes in. Adding in the ability to ask people unrelated questions (including, "Are you the murderer?") adds in the opportunity to watch people faces; how do they lie? Are they hiding something?
Players should familiarize themselves with the professions on the cards, for if they become the murderer, they will have to pretend to be another profession (which a sharp sleuth would catch if it was made up).
UNDERLYING MATH
The underlying math dictates the gameplay, much like Mafia. It is shown that the Mafia normally keeps ~50% chance of winning any game, but in reality is likely to win due to "social deduction" hence the name of the genre. Due to the fact there is never more than one killer, the mechanics to keep the chances of success balanced in my game are modified. Given that each player has a 1/3 chance of being ruled out (if someone asks them a C/M/O question they can respond 'no' to), the choices for murderer are 2/3 of the people. (Of course, luck might provide more or less help depending on who gets to answer 'no'.) There is a vote that removes a second person, but how often should that happen? By designating it as every three turns, it narrows the suspect list down to ~1/3 of the players. This keeps the possible suspects at roughly 1/3 no matter how many people are playing. This makes the average number of final suspects very small: 2 in a six player game, 3 in a nine player game, and so on. This is why it is suggested that, of the special cards, the Patsy is added first. It artificially adds an additional suspect to give the murderer a better chance of not being chosen. Then, as the number of players rises, the card additions give greater and greater advantages to the innocents to counter the number of final suspects as it goes up.
The number of players dictates the chances of the murderer getting caught in several different ways. First, the greater the number of players, the harder it is to find the murderer (though as I explained above, there are mechanics that help). Also, if there is a number of players not divisible by 3, the players get an extra round of voting. Therefore, a group of players whose number is 3x+1 has the best chance of finding the murderer, as it gives you an extra vote for the fewest number of additional players.
The smaller the number of players, the more luck is involved in finding the murderer. The chances of eliminating greater than 1/3 of the players as suspects is high if there are only 6 players, as compared to 18, due to a lack of precision.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Background information for my D&D 5e game
The following is a starting exposition note for players in my new D&D 5e game. Read this before you make a character!
The Land
You start in
the town of Lessop, on the island of
Torsfit, which is about 50 miles
wide, the size of the main Hawaiian Island. On the island are a number of
towns, wilderness, and small mountains. Torsfit is the westernmost island in a
chain of islands called the Wild Islands,
ostensibly belonging to the Kingdom of Fanlong.
Since Lessop is the port town on the eastern edge of Torsfit, you get lots of
ship traffic from the rest of the kingdom that service the isle and the other
towns on it. The town has a good economy of tradesmen and merchants.
Other port towns
on the island include the sleepy Refport
on the southwestern side, and the demi-human Diamondsilt
to the north. Inland from the shore, mountains rise up fairly steeply, though a
few small villages reside inland, mostly existing for lumber and other
resources.
Most of the
Wild Islands are considered diverse; Torsfit is no exception, though
Diamondsilt to the north seems to be heavily inhabited with elves, dwarves, and halflings. Any race that can speak the
common language can be found here. Strangely, within the past 20 years,
upright, bipedal animal people have been appearing in the area, coming in on
traveling ships from far away. They speak, they wear clothes, and they work
hard, so not much fuss was made about them in Lessop. Even now one of those
horse people is working at the blacksmith shop.
The Maritime Decree
The kingdom
of Fanlong once attempted to cement his rule and expand his reach by imposing a
series of regulatory laws known as the “Kingsland
Law” over the islands. The law stated that any resource acquired from
outside civilized portions of the kingdom, but within its borders, was property
of the king.
This law had
long put a damper on profiteering and free enterprise. If a nearby monster
infestation didn’t actively harm the townsfolk, there was no reason to go clear
it out, seeing as how any treasure – even something as basic as monster hides –
belonged to the king. This was fine back when the kingdom was small and
sparsely populated; the king was a benevolent dictator whose mission was the
well being of his people. As the kingdom’s borders expanded and the population
grew, the law took on a tyrannical bent.
This
obviously created years of economic stagnation while the royal court
flourished. This very month, near revolt, King
Bern passed the Maritime Decree which
abolished Kingsland Law. Tariffs were decreased to nearly zero within the
kingdom. Trade regulations were loosened.
Adventurers
in Lessop turn their eyes to Lessop
Lookout, the tall, sheer mountain standing between Lessop and the rest of
the island, cutting the city off except for two roads that travel near either
shore. Once, before the Wild Islands came under Fanlong rule, the columned
tholos at the top of the mountain was a lookout for ships, and the tunnels
inside the mountain were for siege defense. Now, the citizens of Lessop do not
go near the place, for fear of haunting or worse. Even the wooded path between
the mountain and Lessop is considered haunted. Now that the Maritime Decree has
been passed, perhaps it is time to go see if the place is truly haunted.
The Pantheon and History
The gods that rule over this world and the history of the world are inextricable. One influences the other. Wars are fought above and below. No god is apart from the fate of the world.
The origin myth shared by the dominant intelligent races of the world was that the universe was made by four supreme gods, working together. They took upon themselves the different tasks needed to create life – creation, destruction, thought, purpose – for one goal: to create “children” capable of intelligent thought and eventual ascendance. Original worshipers of these deities thought that this was because of love for the world, a sentiment still shared by the majority of faithful today.
The origin myth shared by the dominant intelligent races of the world was that the universe was made by four supreme gods, working together. They took upon themselves the different tasks needed to create life – creation, destruction, thought, purpose – for one goal: to create “children” capable of intelligent thought and eventual ascendance. Original worshipers of these deities thought that this was because of love for the world, a sentiment still shared by the majority of faithful today.
Aira: elder goddess of creation, earth, life, love,
sex, and nature. The world is named Airath
in reference to her. She is depicted as a blonde woman, vines growing around
her arms and legs, and is considered the most powerful of the gods, but also the most tied to the fate of the world. Sometimes she is depicted in a white robe or naked, and sometimes
pregnant. She is the patron of parents, children, farmers, druids, and rangers. (NG)
Pheargo: elder god of destruction, fire, death, prophecy, and renewal. He is depicted as a pale, thin, bald man with a reddish black robe, hood over his head, a long knife in his hands. Not many people worship only him; he is usually revered as part of the larger whole of elder gods. He is considered deceased. His place in the heavens was taken by Kentaulo (see below). (LN)
Pheargo: elder god of destruction, fire, death, prophecy, and renewal. He is depicted as a pale, thin, bald man with a reddish black robe, hood over his head, a long knife in his hands. Not many people worship only him; he is usually revered as part of the larger whole of elder gods. He is considered deceased. His place in the heavens was taken by Kentaulo (see below). (LN)
Tria: elder goddess of thought, air, war, and
light. She is depicted as a dark haired woman in full plate armor. She is often prayed to at the start of battle. She is a patron of warriors, wizards, and sages. (LG)
Dafisio: elder god of purpose, water, hope, and
inspiration. Dafisio is depicted as a musician and witty storyteller, thin with
a broad, thin mustache. He is considered “The First Bard”. Sometimes trickery
is assigned to him, but he is not necessarily a god of lies. He is a patron of bards and leaders. (CG)
The combination of the goddesses of sex and violence was a neat package that many bawdy men were drawn to. "The Two Sisters" is considered a religion by the barest of margins, more an excuse for pirates to rape and pillage than anything else. However, there is some truth to the perverted nature of the two goddesses, alone with no others to temper them. They bore a son between them, Grapp. He was green and ugly. But he was no less a god.
Grapp: lesser god of fear, anger, and tyranny. He is worshiped by "greenskins": orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, etc. He is depicted as ugly to the fairer races, though a Grapp worshipper sees nothing wrong with him. Each greenskin race depicts him as one of their own, though always with green skin. (NE)
There is also a popular, unorganized, generic faith of worshiping all four elder gods at once. It does not have any clerical power to speak of, only symbols split into four quadrants, with the colors reminiscent of each deity's dominion in each quadrant.
In the first age, a human named Kaijent became powerful and challenged the gods to his place among them. The gods did not kill the man for his arrogance, but did not agree that this challenge was what the purpose of his life was. Kaijent forced his way to the heavens regardless, and took his mantle as the fifth god in the world.
The combination of the goddesses of sex and violence was a neat package that many bawdy men were drawn to. "The Two Sisters" is considered a religion by the barest of margins, more an excuse for pirates to rape and pillage than anything else. However, there is some truth to the perverted nature of the two goddesses, alone with no others to temper them. They bore a son between them, Grapp. He was green and ugly. But he was no less a god.
Grapp: lesser god of fear, anger, and tyranny. He is worshiped by "greenskins": orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, etc. He is depicted as ugly to the fairer races, though a Grapp worshipper sees nothing wrong with him. Each greenskin race depicts him as one of their own, though always with green skin. (NE)
There is also a popular, unorganized, generic faith of worshiping all four elder gods at once. It does not have any clerical power to speak of, only symbols split into four quadrants, with the colors reminiscent of each deity's dominion in each quadrant.
In the first age, a human named Kaijent became powerful and challenged the gods to his place among them. The gods did not kill the man for his arrogance, but did not agree that this challenge was what the purpose of his life was. Kaijent forced his way to the heavens regardless, and took his mantle as the fifth god in the world.
Kaijent: ascended god of will and magic. He is depicted as a monk; head shaved, loose, billowy clothing, wielding a staff. He is a patron of individuals, anarchists, and sorcerers. (TN)
In the
second age, a portal opened in the heavens and a blackness came forth, a
chaotic alien essence that threatened the five gods and the universe they
reigned over. Both gods and mortals fought this blackness and drove it back,
damaging the world in the process; a whole continent was eaten away, while
another was sundered in half by the very forces trying to save the planet. This was known as the Black War. Pheargo died, but before he did, he passed his gifts on to his steward, Kentaulo. The second mortal ascended into the heavens, though he is considered to only be a steward of the heavens, and that he is only a humble intermediary to the forces of nature that he commands. Still, he gives the gift of power to his clerics and paladins like any other. Strangely enough, whether a Cleric or Paladin worships Pheargo, Kentaulo, or both, the powers granted are the same. Even the denouncement of either of the gods (in the case of, for example, Pheargo purists) does not affect their powers.
Kentaulo: ascended god, steward of Pheargo. He holds dominion over the same areas that Pheargo once did. He is depicted how he is remembered in life: a black robed youth, once a cleric of Pheargo, bearing two glowing sickles that represent the twins Burden and Gift, that the god bestowed upon him. (LG)
One individual intelligence from the black universe remained, named Mahkeon, though the gods do not say why, when it should have been eradicated from existence. Mahkeon survives as a being on par with the gods, and has worshipers itself. It is considered to be a god of chaos, darkness, lies, and oblivion, whose followers are slowly, gladly consumed with madness.
Mahkeon: invading god of chaos and madness. He is not depicted the same way twice. It is said he is unable to take a form that makes sense to mortal eyes. (CE)
In the third age, Dafisio slowly grew insane, making the whole of his church insane as well. His madness threw the world into turmoil. Nearly 800 years after the black war, Mahkeon had gathered power and allies, attempting to destroy Dafisio and replace him. A former paladin, once cursed by an insane Dafisio but still loyal to what he represented, took upon the mantle of purpose. She is considered a steward of the elder god's power, much like Kentaulo.
M'Hairi: ascended god, steward of Dafisio. She is depicted as a tall, stout, armored woman with the head of a horse, wielding a war hammer. (LG)
Kentaulo: ascended god, steward of Pheargo. He holds dominion over the same areas that Pheargo once did. He is depicted how he is remembered in life: a black robed youth, once a cleric of Pheargo, bearing two glowing sickles that represent the twins Burden and Gift, that the god bestowed upon him. (LG)
One individual intelligence from the black universe remained, named Mahkeon, though the gods do not say why, when it should have been eradicated from existence. Mahkeon survives as a being on par with the gods, and has worshipers itself. It is considered to be a god of chaos, darkness, lies, and oblivion, whose followers are slowly, gladly consumed with madness.
Mahkeon: invading god of chaos and madness. He is not depicted the same way twice. It is said he is unable to take a form that makes sense to mortal eyes. (CE)
In the third age, Dafisio slowly grew insane, making the whole of his church insane as well. His madness threw the world into turmoil. Nearly 800 years after the black war, Mahkeon had gathered power and allies, attempting to destroy Dafisio and replace him. A former paladin, once cursed by an insane Dafisio but still loyal to what he represented, took upon the mantle of purpose. She is considered a steward of the elder god's power, much like Kentaulo.
M'Hairi: ascended god, steward of Dafisio. She is depicted as a tall, stout, armored woman with the head of a horse, wielding a war hammer. (LG)
**************************
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
D&D 5e Player's Handbook
I picked up the Player's Handbook first thing last Friday. I've been reading it, helping friends make characters for fun, and thinking about running a game some time in the future. Here's my thoughts on it so far:
- They kept the layout designers from 4e. So much art, so much a work of art. It's beautiful.
- They're taking the "flavor" route and writing things out in paragraphs. Sure, there are the normal charts: ability score bonuses, items and their cost and weight...you know, the usual. But there's a lot of plain English. This can be good and bad. The way older editions (1e, 2e, BECMI) read like textbooks or instruction manuals. Bad for creativity, good for reference. Once I get past the beauty of the book, I'm going to tabulate this thing with the little 3M page stickies. I'll be labeling Races, Classes, Combat, Spells, Armor, and so on. Perhaps the DM screen - which I know they're going to sell eventually - will be more efficient.
- Warlocks are an advanced class. I can't even get a character name out of my players, but to set up a backstory detailing how you interact with your infernal patron? That's a lot of pure imagination right off the bat. I'm going to enjoy the ramifications of such a class, though. Someone choose Warlock!
- The index isn't bad. That's way more important than anyone realizes.
- The first chapter is an okay character creation summary section. It doesn't summarize the races when it says pick a race, for example. Unless you know it by heart, you have to read the entire chapter on races to know which race to play. In comparison to, say, Werewolf: the Forsaken (the last game I ran), the creation summary section is less informational. Just as a talking point, though, I have to ask myself: is summarizing the "Bone Shadow" tribe as this kind of werewolf who behaves like this and takes these powers, all on one page, a credit to the game world? It's a credit to speeding up character creation, for sure. It may lend itself to flat, two-dimensional characters. But does the impatient character creator, grumpily ignoring most of the chapter on races, make a ONE dimensional character as soon as he chooses a race? Would he even know what it means to be a dragonborn? At least, the new Werewolf player knows his Bone Shadow stereotype. The new D&D 5e player less so. I don't know whether that's a bad thing. I don't know how much pandering to bad, impatient players I and the book need to do.
- WTF is up with those triangular silver coins? They'd poke you in the pocket, get the edges snapped off, and generally would be strange to carry around. Bleh.
- There needs to be a sentence saying how many skill proficiencies a character has at start, and where they come from. (Class, Background, etc.) My friends would choose their class proficiencies, thinking that was all they were going to get, and then they get more. Well then!
All in all, I'm liking it more than 3e, 3.5e, and 4e. It's on a par with 2e rules-wise, but on par with 4e beauty-wise. I had high expectations, and the book is meeting them fairly well.
- They kept the layout designers from 4e. So much art, so much a work of art. It's beautiful.
- They're taking the "flavor" route and writing things out in paragraphs. Sure, there are the normal charts: ability score bonuses, items and their cost and weight...you know, the usual. But there's a lot of plain English. This can be good and bad. The way older editions (1e, 2e, BECMI) read like textbooks or instruction manuals. Bad for creativity, good for reference. Once I get past the beauty of the book, I'm going to tabulate this thing with the little 3M page stickies. I'll be labeling Races, Classes, Combat, Spells, Armor, and so on. Perhaps the DM screen - which I know they're going to sell eventually - will be more efficient.
- Warlocks are an advanced class. I can't even get a character name out of my players, but to set up a backstory detailing how you interact with your infernal patron? That's a lot of pure imagination right off the bat. I'm going to enjoy the ramifications of such a class, though. Someone choose Warlock!
- The index isn't bad. That's way more important than anyone realizes.
- The first chapter is an okay character creation summary section. It doesn't summarize the races when it says pick a race, for example. Unless you know it by heart, you have to read the entire chapter on races to know which race to play. In comparison to, say, Werewolf: the Forsaken (the last game I ran), the creation summary section is less informational. Just as a talking point, though, I have to ask myself: is summarizing the "Bone Shadow" tribe as this kind of werewolf who behaves like this and takes these powers, all on one page, a credit to the game world? It's a credit to speeding up character creation, for sure. It may lend itself to flat, two-dimensional characters. But does the impatient character creator, grumpily ignoring most of the chapter on races, make a ONE dimensional character as soon as he chooses a race? Would he even know what it means to be a dragonborn? At least, the new Werewolf player knows his Bone Shadow stereotype. The new D&D 5e player less so. I don't know whether that's a bad thing. I don't know how much pandering to bad, impatient players I and the book need to do.
- WTF is up with those triangular silver coins? They'd poke you in the pocket, get the edges snapped off, and generally would be strange to carry around. Bleh.
- There needs to be a sentence saying how many skill proficiencies a character has at start, and where they come from. (Class, Background, etc.) My friends would choose their class proficiencies, thinking that was all they were going to get, and then they get more. Well then!
All in all, I'm liking it more than 3e, 3.5e, and 4e. It's on a par with 2e rules-wise, but on par with 4e beauty-wise. I had high expectations, and the book is meeting them fairly well.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Canon and the zombification of IP
In talking about Disney's decision to not use the existing Extended Universe for further Star Wars media, The Mary Sue blog launched into a rant about the loss of meaning for canon. In short, the article claims that canon used to mean the separation of fanfic from authorized works, but now that even authorized work by the same company isn't necessarily included in the timeline (Star Wars novels as compared to the movies, for example), that the meaning, and even the need, for canon within fictional works is null and void.
Comic book continuities did it first. They hold a broader picture and an understanding of how to manage multiple continuities, if not necessarily elegance in their solution. Both Marvel and DC have many universes, one of which is the main universe which all the comics take place. (Marvel even says that our mundane real-life existence is a numbered universe in their pantheon.) The divisions of realities are different in that there is frequent crossover and knowledge of one another, but the writers make an explicit statement that multiple realities exist. Not so for Star Wars and other properties, but the time should come, in my humble opinion, to assume this is always the case.
The Star Wars universe does have their own system. In the Wikipedia article, G-canon is the films and anything said by George Lucas. T-canon is television canon, C-Canon is a continuity canon that includes the novels, and so on.
So what is the problem, according to The Mary Sue? Quote: "all it does is give copyright holders...a tool with which to exert control over our culture." I can somewhat see their point - that they want control over their own culture - that geeks today are more and more at the whim of companies since fandom is our life. That there is forever a renewed interest in classics that are in the public domain - Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Shakespeare - shows that people want and need to reinterpret. So, in a sense, The Mary Sue and others who may agree with the sentiment are like Martin Luther, nailing a list to the church door, demanding a reformation. Likewise, I see that this division - what the crowd wants, and what the authority is willing to give them, like Protestant and Catholic - will continue indefinitely.
I don't know of a concrete answer. Maybe someone will think of something. Here's the only idea I could come up with - make a metastory IP whose property is already divided, and no one setting is paramount to the others. Purposefully make a movie, then make an equally expensive movie that completely blows canon out of the water. Then do it again and again, keeping the main themes intact. DC sort of does that with constant movie reinventions and universe realignments in the comics, but it fails because they are trying to get one setting that sticks, and then running with it. They don't want to un-canon-ize. But maybe, just maybe, that little trick where the sidekick takes on the superhero's persona when the main superhero dies just might be what everyone is looking for, metaphorically speaking. Keep the major themes, drop the protectiveness of what has to be. Keep the Batman, drop the Bruce Wayne, forever.
The problem with my idea, and with this whole sentiment of destroying the idea of canon, is that details create believability. In the tradition of Tolkien and Lucas, the more rabbit holes you can go down in a world, the more doors you can open in a level of a video game, the more believable and immersive it is. It would be a huge waste of time and money to create this huge playground, lucrative to the company, then dispose of it for no reason. Except that's what copyright law originally did - let the IP linger in the hands of the descendants for awhile to sustain them, and then it becomes property of the people. Does anyone believe that the descendants of Lewis Carroll are being shafted right now? Is George Romero, who accidentally let Night of the Living Dead become public domain by not renewing his copyright, suffering?
George Lucas has retired from Star Wars, for the most part. As bad as the prequels were, they were still his creations. Everyone who said that George Lucas ruined everyone's childhood by destroying Star Wars must realize that Disney only has good favor right now because they are a stand-in for the cypher that existed in everyone's minds called 'George Lucas' replacement'. But underneath, it is still one of those companies that runs IP into the ground. Disney, WB, DC, Marvel, every IP holder in the world whose last name isn't Watterson. Star Wars, Batman, Harry Potter - they will never die. The zombies aren't us - it is the media we consume.
I want to mention my half-assed solution again: Keep the Batman, drop the Bruce Wayne. Or, more generally, keep the superhero concept in movies, but don't keep banking on the popular ones over and over. The theme of (in this instance) superheroes can be even more universal, like the theme of buddy movies, or car chases. But it has to constantly be reinvented. Yes, the trope of buddy movies can be considered zombified if there's nothing new to the trope, ever, and one is just stuck in their summer lineup rotely every year. People will take the buddy movie and purposefully make it different, very different, just to be fresh. So far, it has worked with Disney/Marvel (no more grittification, let's just go down the snark hole and let tech get impossibly magical). And when that runs dry, drop it. Sony's Spiderman and Fox's X-men should already be dropped. If I ever wrote a popular book and sold the movie rights, I'd want to put in a reboot clause. An acquisition of this IP is allowed one iteration. No reboots or retroactive continuity is allowed.
Comic book continuities did it first. They hold a broader picture and an understanding of how to manage multiple continuities, if not necessarily elegance in their solution. Both Marvel and DC have many universes, one of which is the main universe which all the comics take place. (Marvel even says that our mundane real-life existence is a numbered universe in their pantheon.) The divisions of realities are different in that there is frequent crossover and knowledge of one another, but the writers make an explicit statement that multiple realities exist. Not so for Star Wars and other properties, but the time should come, in my humble opinion, to assume this is always the case.
The Star Wars universe does have their own system. In the Wikipedia article, G-canon is the films and anything said by George Lucas. T-canon is television canon, C-Canon is a continuity canon that includes the novels, and so on.
So what is the problem, according to The Mary Sue? Quote: "all it does is give copyright holders...a tool with which to exert control over our culture." I can somewhat see their point - that they want control over their own culture - that geeks today are more and more at the whim of companies since fandom is our life. That there is forever a renewed interest in classics that are in the public domain - Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Shakespeare - shows that people want and need to reinterpret. So, in a sense, The Mary Sue and others who may agree with the sentiment are like Martin Luther, nailing a list to the church door, demanding a reformation. Likewise, I see that this division - what the crowd wants, and what the authority is willing to give them, like Protestant and Catholic - will continue indefinitely.
I don't know of a concrete answer. Maybe someone will think of something. Here's the only idea I could come up with - make a metastory IP whose property is already divided, and no one setting is paramount to the others. Purposefully make a movie, then make an equally expensive movie that completely blows canon out of the water. Then do it again and again, keeping the main themes intact. DC sort of does that with constant movie reinventions and universe realignments in the comics, but it fails because they are trying to get one setting that sticks, and then running with it. They don't want to un-canon-ize. But maybe, just maybe, that little trick where the sidekick takes on the superhero's persona when the main superhero dies just might be what everyone is looking for, metaphorically speaking. Keep the major themes, drop the protectiveness of what has to be. Keep the Batman, drop the Bruce Wayne, forever.
The problem with my idea, and with this whole sentiment of destroying the idea of canon, is that details create believability. In the tradition of Tolkien and Lucas, the more rabbit holes you can go down in a world, the more doors you can open in a level of a video game, the more believable and immersive it is. It would be a huge waste of time and money to create this huge playground, lucrative to the company, then dispose of it for no reason. Except that's what copyright law originally did - let the IP linger in the hands of the descendants for awhile to sustain them, and then it becomes property of the people. Does anyone believe that the descendants of Lewis Carroll are being shafted right now? Is George Romero, who accidentally let Night of the Living Dead become public domain by not renewing his copyright, suffering?
George Lucas has retired from Star Wars, for the most part. As bad as the prequels were, they were still his creations. Everyone who said that George Lucas ruined everyone's childhood by destroying Star Wars must realize that Disney only has good favor right now because they are a stand-in for the cypher that existed in everyone's minds called 'George Lucas' replacement'. But underneath, it is still one of those companies that runs IP into the ground. Disney, WB, DC, Marvel, every IP holder in the world whose last name isn't Watterson. Star Wars, Batman, Harry Potter - they will never die. The zombies aren't us - it is the media we consume.
I want to mention my half-assed solution again: Keep the Batman, drop the Bruce Wayne. Or, more generally, keep the superhero concept in movies, but don't keep banking on the popular ones over and over. The theme of (in this instance) superheroes can be even more universal, like the theme of buddy movies, or car chases. But it has to constantly be reinvented. Yes, the trope of buddy movies can be considered zombified if there's nothing new to the trope, ever, and one is just stuck in their summer lineup rotely every year. People will take the buddy movie and purposefully make it different, very different, just to be fresh. So far, it has worked with Disney/Marvel (no more grittification, let's just go down the snark hole and let tech get impossibly magical). And when that runs dry, drop it. Sony's Spiderman and Fox's X-men should already be dropped. If I ever wrote a popular book and sold the movie rights, I'd want to put in a reboot clause. An acquisition of this IP is allowed one iteration. No reboots or retroactive continuity is allowed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)