Theater of the Savage Mind, Part Two - Templates

In this series, I'm writing deeper rules concerning theater of the mind play in Savage Worlds. Think of these blog posts as drafts. These are not heavily playtested, simply a distillation of things I've been doing on the fly in my home games. Really they're suggestions that I'm hoping will create a conversation that leads to a final document that I, and those interested, will be able to use in their games. 

As I've said before, the Savage Worlds Deluxe "Games Without Miniatures" rules didn't go far enough for my tastes. Specifically, I mentioned that the Template conversion rules were merely a "good start." I'll be tackling those specific rules this week.

I think the rules, as is, are pretty good honestly. Though I'm willing to bet that people who use them forget that adjacent allies get hit automatically unless there's a raise scored and that the cover and diving for cover rules should still apply. I think the main reason has to do with a weakness of theater of the mind, and that's just keeping track of who is adjacent to whom.

To me the obvious answer is to use tokens (or minis) of some sort to track adjacency. In this way, players and GMs with area of effect attacks have an easy reference. Unrelated to AoE attacks, this method will also help in keeping track of Gang-Up. That said, I know full well there are GMs who can keep this sort of thing in their head. I'm simply not one of them, and honestly there's no guarantee everyone at the table have the same gift.

The one actual rules tweak missing from the Template conversion rules is the chance for a character to get hit by their own AoE attack. The solution here is pretty simple—tie it to the dice. If a player rolls Snake Eyes on their attack, they and anyone adjacent get hit. As an option, this can be extrapolated further using the Template sizes as a guide:

• SBT - acting character, plus adjacent allies
• MBT - acting character, another non-adjacent acting character, plus all adjacent
• LBT - acting character, two additional non-adjacent acting characters, plus all adjacent

For a thrown weapon, cover and diving for cover rules apply. For a propelled weapon, there is no diving for anything.

Thoughts?

*     *     *

This game references the Savage Worlds game system, available from Pinnacle Entertainment Group at www.peginc.com. Savage Worlds and all associated logos and trademarks are copyrights of Pinnacle Entertainment Group. Used with permission. Pinnacle makes no representation or warranty as to the quality, viability, or suitability for purpose of this product.

Theater of the Savage Mind, Part One

It's no secret that Savage Worlds is my favorite system. I've always had one gripe with it though—it's written with tactical maps and miniatures in mind. The design is reasonable, especially considering it was derived from a tactical miniatures game.

When Pinnacle released Savage Worlds Deluxe Edition (SWD), I was elated to see there were rules added for games without miniatures, but really this short sidebar section of the book was more of a nod than a solution to my problem. The range section was still too granular for me (just using real measurements), and while the template conversion rules were welcome, they were really just a good start, as far as I'm concerned.

Since Savage Worlds has refused to stop being my favorite game (I think it's just addicted to me), I've decided to take some of my favorite "theater of the mind" gaming experiences from other games and use them to fully convert Savage Worlds into the game I wish it was. In thinking about design goals, I've settled on the following:

1. The rules will cleave as closely as possible to the overall paradigm of what one might expect from Savage Worlds
2. The rules will remain Fast, Furious, and Fun—I've no interest in making the exclusion of tactical maps and minis more complicated than using them
3. The rules will allow for any existing Savage Worlds character to be used with nearly zero modification

 As I've been thinking about how deep a conversion should go, here's where I will concentrate my efforts, at least initially:

1. Expanding on the template rules presented in SWD
2. Replacing the original range rules
3. Modifying affected Hindrances, Edges, and Powers in SWD

It's worth mentioning that theater of the mind rules need not be miniature nor map free. Minis and maps are great way to keep gaming groups on the same page in combat. I'm simply not interested in counting squares or hexes, or using a tape measure to move characters or determine things like range or line of sight—at least not in my roleplaying games.

It's my intention to post updates on this topic on Mondays, until I feel the rules are complete—or until my ideas go down in burning flames of bad design, whichever comes first. Stay tuned!

The Town of Waypoint

In an effort to make time for some friends I haven't been able to see as often as I'd like, I'm starting up a monthly fantasy game. I'm going with Savage Worlds and the Fantasy Companion (and maybe the Horror Companion at some point) for my basis. We've decided to use inside-out design for the setting. Below is the town I've begun designing. I've kept it varied and generic so the players can feel free to design themselves into the population more easily. I give you the town of Waypoint:

Waypoint is a small town—larger than a village, but not much larger. It’s immediate surrounding area consists mostly of farmland. Waypoint is important because it stands atop a crossroads that links the mountain strongholds of the dwarves, the enchanted forest of the elves, and two human cities, one of which is a major port.

Waypoint began its days as a roadhouse, known as the Waypoint Inn. It still exists and has played host to travelers of all stripes. As the inn became more popular, a farming family settled nearby to provide food and other goods. Soon the town had a blacksmith, a mill, and various shops, aimed at the needs of passersby. These days there are more farms, and Waypoint has begun exporting produce and other goods.
 
Recently, a temple was built for worship, and while it belongs to the goddess of nature and the hearth, it has a more generic worship area for those travelers who follow different gods. Occasionally, the temple will play host to guest clergy from different deities.
 
Due to it’s fluid population, the citizens tend to be easy going and tolerant but—with the exception of the merchants and tradesmen who do business with travelers—keep mostly to themselves. Waypoint has had it’s fair share of tensions, especially when naturally adversarial groups are in town together, such as dwarves delivering ore to the smith while an elven delegation passes through.
 
Although Waypoint is part of the human kingdom, the town does its best to act as neutral territory. It has a small accompaniment of soldiers from the kingdom, who try to maintain that peace, ostensibly acting as a local constabulary.

New Friday Game: FR3@k$!

I've been itching to run a homebrew campaign recently. It's been years since I've run something of my own devising. I had a brainstorming session with my wife and Ed Doolittle. I'm at my best when I can bounce ideas off people, and Ed made a great addition to the usual team of Veronica and me. Ed has been requesting more time with Savage Worlds, so we made that decision first. Then we started talking about what I find interesting recently, since I'll be GMing.

Last Black Friday, Vern and I picked up a Blu-Ray of the movie Push for five bucks. I know the movie wasn't a hit, but I'd heard it was a great gamer movie. Turns out we really liked it. Further, it reminded us of the TV show, Alphas. This was a good start, so I decided to revisit it. I also thought Heroes, Mutant X, and the last couple seasons of Smallville would provide more ideas. All these things have one major theme in common: government interference with people who have powers.

I'm also a fan of the action/horror influence from shows like Angel, Grim, and Supernatural--and to a lesser extent, Being Human. They all deal with monsters, but rather than the black and white of good and evil, these monsters live in shades of gray--vampires, werewolves, and other things that go bump in the night, trying to turn over a new leaf. I thought there should be a darker side to the world we'll be playing in, so perhaps the same source that gives power to humans could give it to monsters. Not sure yet where this is going, but I want to keep it in my pocket just in case.

What follows is the setting document I delivered to my players:

FR3@K$!: HUMANITY EVOLVED

You’re human, but you’re more than human. You have power, but you’ve learned not to flaunt it. You’re a freak. You’re not alone, but it’s tough to find others like you. The obvious ones tend to disappear.

This homebrew setting uses the Savage Worlds Deluxe core rules and the Super Powers Companion. The setting takes it’s cues from movies and TV like Alphas, Heroes, Push, and Smallville. While the characters have powers that seem super, no one runs around in a cape and tights.

The premise for this campaign is one of discovery. You and your conspirators have formed a paranormal investigation agency in the hopes of finding others like you and to discover why you are the way you are. Players begin the campaign acquainted with each other and already working together. The how and why of your relationships will be determined during character creation.

Setting Rules 

The following Setting Rules from the Super Powers Companion are in play: Street Heroes (p. 8), Inherent Power (Total Power, 15 PP, p. 9), Knockback (p.10; note the limit from Street Heroes), and Unarmed Defenders (p. 11).

Creation Rules 

All characters are human. In addition to the free Edge available to humans, they begin with Arcane Background (Super Powers) from the Super Powers Companion, with 15 Power Points for selecting powers. There is no mechanical way to increase the number of starting Power Points.

Hindrances: The following Hindrances from the Super Powers Companion are not available to player characters: Alien Form and Distinctive Appearance.

Edges: The following Edges from the core rules are not available to player characters: Adept, Champion, Gadgeteer, Holy/Unholy Warrior, Mentalist, Mr. Fix It, Wizard, and all Power Edges.

Powers: When selecting powers, note the Device modifier is not available—powers must be inherent to the character. All powers in the Super Powers Companion are available except the following: construct, extra limbs, flight, growth, headquarters, invent, minions, shrink, swinging, undead, vehicle.

[Fuse Friday] System and Magic Duels

Fuse is a game setting I plan to publish. I’ll be talking about it most Fridays.

I recently mentioned I haven’t committed to making Fuse a Savage Worlds setting. The reason I haven’t cemented my system choice is twofold: 1) the setting is more important to me than the rules, so I want to make sure I’m not giving anything up when designing the system; and 2) I have concerns regarding the value of having Fuse with rules included, which I can’t do with Savage Worlds. That said, I will be presenting a lot of Fuse stuff with Savage Worlds in mind, since I’ve been heavily entrenched in the system for almost nine years. It’s what I know these days.

And speaking of which...

Kristian Serrano and I were chatting about magic duels the other day. It turned into a brainstorm session. Kristian is a Savage like me, so the rules we discussed were in that context.

I’m of two minds about duels at this point. On one hand, I think a magic duel could happen in the blink of an eye. Two practitioners lock eyes, they match wills, and one of them relents or falls. It would all happen in an instant--a single action in a combat round. On the other hand, it could be a multi-round thing that could be interrupted by the environment or other combatants. Let’s take my ideas in turn...

Instant Duel, Just Add Eye Contact

Both characters agree they’re dueling; neither duelist may move nor take any other action this round. The character with initiative holds his action till the slower practitioner is up, and then they begin the duel. There may be a +1 bonus on the first roll-off for the practitioner with a higher initiative card. This is an opposed Spirit contest. The loser takes a level of Fatigue, two if the winner got a raise. Repeat this roll until one practitioner falls. Incapacitation does not kill the loser, unless the winner calls for a Finishing Move. All this happens and resolves during a single round. No one in the combat sees anything, but the eerie eye contact of the practitioners.

Another possibility is an opposed Dramatic Task, first to five successes wins. Character death would still be a choice for the winner.

Protracted Duels for the Nosy Onlooker

These could work like the above two methods mentioned, but it would occur over multiple rounds. This would allow for more complications in terms of environment and the other combatants.

Edges and Hindrances

In either of the above cases, Edges and Hindrances would be created to allow players and GMs to create expert duelists.

(Not So) Hostile Takeover

We interrupt your regularly scheduled blog post for a word from…me! Hello everyone! This is Veronica, also known as Ron’s lovely wife, The Dread Pirate Vern, and Ron’s better 1/3. Yes, this is still Ron’s blog. However, since I am too lazy to maintain my own blog, and according to the state of Colorado, I already own half of this one, I thought I might borrow it for a moment. I hope nobody minds.

The other day Ron and I took our daughter, CaLeigh, to see the new Green Lantern movie (which I liked, but that’s a topic for another blog post). As we were settling in, they played a trailer for the new Cowboys and Aliens movie. The first thing I thought was not “wow, I want to go see that” (which I do, but that’s beside the point). No. The first thing I thought was “I would TOTALLY play that.” This makes perfect sense, when you think about it, because as a self professed Gamer Geek, I tend to view the world through RPG-colored glasses. Comments like: “Oh! I want to make a character like that!” and “Sorry, I completely failed my notice roll!,” can be heard from me on an almost daily basis. This trailer in particular started an idea rattling around in my head. There are all kinds of movies, books, TV shows, and fun ideas in general which should totally be made into table top roll playing games. As a proud and mentally competent gamer, it seems rather selfish of me to expect someone else to just guess which sort of settings I’d like to see written.

So I thought I’d make a list, just to help people out.

1. Cowboys and Aliens: Maybe as a Deadlands supplement? Are you reading this Matt?
2. Buckaroo Banzai: Here’s your chance to join the Hong Kong Cavaliers. I’m rather surprised this one hasn’t already been done. I mean really? Who wouldn’t want to play rock star/scientists who save the world on a daily basis?
3. Gargoyles: Based on the animated Disney series. A rich world with lots of details that were tossed out there but never explored. What would your clan be like?
4. Avatar: The Last Airbender: We’re talking kids with elemental powers here, not blue folks with tails. Set your game generations into the past, future, or half way across the world.
5. Torchwood: Save the world from aliens as the new staff of Torchwood Four. The 21st century is when everything changes. Are you ready?

There are more, but that should be enough to get you all started. Let me know if you need help play-testing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog.

Rolling Dice and Social Encounters

One of the most common arguments to be had in the roleplaying community is whether or not one should make skill checks for social encounters. This can range from interrogating a subject to the simple collection of information. Recently I've developed a new opinion on this subject--I used to be firmly in the camp of "just roleplay it out"--and it's one I'd like to share. I believe, in the interest of fairness, all encounters in a roleplaying game should be resolved in a similar way. This belief is based on two principles. The first is fairness. The second is anything important to a campaign can be a complex action.

Fairness is something often overlooked by roleplaying groups. It should be covered in a group's social contract (a subject for another time--for now, let Google be your guide), but most groups don't have them, at least not knowingly. In such circumstances, the rules of the group are usually governed by whomever is the Alpha--the leader. For instance, I've always argued in favor of "just roleplay it out." And do you know why? I'm good at it. I've been told I could sell Bill Gates an iMac. Is that really fair? Should I have an advantage over the other players because I'm good at social conflict in real life? I think not. Let's apply a pro "roleplay it out" stance to combat.

Let me introduce my friend Bill. Bill is skilled in at least four martial arts by my count. He's a hiker and a climber. Bill's in pretty good shape. And if you're reading this, it's more likely than not that Bill can kick your ass. So let's say you take "roleplay it out" as your method of resolving combat. Most people doing that at a table with Bill at it would be insane--suicidal or at least masochistic. Roleplaying games already know this, though. So it's not an issue. But is combat really more pivotal than social encounters? It depends of course.

The real question to be asked in a game is, "how pivotal is the action a character is taking?" The only honest answer is, "it depends." But when social encounters are supposed to be important, most game systems fall short. Some games have attacked the problem by having generic conflict mechanics, which can be applied to anything. Some game systems have full-on combat systems and give lip service to other complex actions by having a generic mechanic. One game system I have to applaud for their social-to-combat ratio is the one behind Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying. The combat chapter is longer than the social conflict chapter, but the social conflict mechanics are every bit as deep and basically use the same system.

I believe comfort level is the real issue behind this. Most gamers are media consumers. In media it's easy to learn how to describe a fight. But couldn't the same be applied to the social? Not always, and with good reason. When you describe combat, you're using a tool other than your hands and feet to do it. When you describe a social conflict, that's not the case. The very mouth you use to communicate is the one the experts use when they're arguing. But honestly, some people aren't good at describing a good ass-kicking either. They get to roll the dice. Why shouldn't those taking social actions?

I think the answer is most gaming groups do it backwards. We say what our character will do, then we roll the dice. This is overlooked in combat. We're just used to describing a combat action and having it not pan out because of dice--it's the norm. (I think this is why diceless systems came into being.) But when we give impassioned speeches or make excellent arguments and roll a failure, it just feels wrong. Part of the reasoning is conditioning--for the first several years of roleplaying's existence, combat was king. So many groups have either dispensed with rolling for social actions completely or they roll and don't let the talented people (like myself) take the stage.

I think with a simple twist it's easy to start repairing this damage (as perceived by me) without abandoning our favorite, non-social game engines. Roll then describe. Need to persuade somebody? Make your rolls then act it out. The roll tells you how you need to do. Those who aren't comfortable with acting out social can skip all the details. Those who are comfy with it can go for it. There is a problem with this method. Getting people to act on failure can be tough. At least in combat, the overall outcome is uncertain. Would most gaming groups act out a combat scene knowing they couldn't win? I don't think so. It's still unfair to ask it of players in social situations, but I think its better than the alternative. Another option would be to derive mechanics from combat and apply them to other encounters yourself.

Thinking About Dice

Lately, with my decision to play new RPGs this year, I've been checking out a few new games. What's been interesting me most, for some reason, is innovative dice mechanics. For years I've been narrowing down what I like and don't like in a dice mechanic. Here's what I've come to so far.

I like roll up systems better than roll under. It just seems fundamentally off to me to want a low number. It gets really wonky when a counter-intuitive mechanic is added in, such as when an opposed roll looks for the highest roll, while staying under the target (I've seen so many systems; I wish I could say what it was--probably a BRP derivative of some sort). I get the logic, truly, but this reminds me of some encounters I've had with mentally unstable people over the years: do you want me to roll high, or do you want me to roll low? Make up your mind! Roll up systems make you feel like you're trying to reach a goal, at least, so I'm cool with that.

I'm somewhat lukewarm to dice pool systems, with the exception of the excellent Ubiquity system--I went over this one when I talked about player facing rolls. Most dice pool systems have a couple of problems for me. For one, and this goes to success-based dice pool systems, it seems anti-climactic to roll 10 dice and come up with a result of "three." The feeling is almost akin to roll under systems. Roll up dice pool systems (decried by many) are better, but if I have to add up a ton of numbers, I'd rather it be for damage than to find out if my character "made it up that wall." I think the Cortex system hits a sweet spot for me--attribute die, skill die, trait die, roll up.

I like roll-keep systems. I can't pinpoint why, to be honest, but I can say with all honesty that I've always loved the most popular roll-keep style games, including John Wick's L5R and 7th Sea games and Shane Hensley's classic Deadlands. Of course my recent go-to system, Savage Worlds, is a simplified roll-keep concept as well.

Over the years, I've lost interest in single-die systems. There are three I love, though: Mutants & Masterminds, Unisystem, and Gumshoe. But this is in spite of the single die. (M&M is my all-time favorite supers game because it does everything Champions ever did with relative simplicity. Unisystem is the home of my all-time favorite, if ill-fated, modern urban fantasy setting, Witchcraft. Gumshoe stands, in my opinion, as the best investigative game engine ever conceived.) When I roll a single die, I often get the "you mean that's it?" feeling. I have no other explanation. I could go on about dice curves and probability and such, but honestly, my feeling toward single-die system seems purely emotional to me.

Speaking of innovative dice mechanics, I've been checking out Dragon Age from Green Ronin. Powered by GR's new Adventure Gaming Engine (AGE), it uses three six-sided dice for resolution and d3s and d6s for damage. Like BASH!, the fun stuff is triggered when you roll doubles, but this is particularly in combat and spellcasting. I said you roll 3d6, but one must be a different color. This is the Dragon Die. When you roll doubles on an attack or a spell, and succeed, the Dragon Die result is the number of Stunt Points you receive to modify what you're doing. Combat stunts can range from an extra damage die to knocking the opponent prone to adding to your defense. There's more you can do of course. You can even use multiple effects if you have the points. On its face it seems very exciting, reminding me of those times in fiction when the protagonist sees an opening, perhaps getting lucky, and takes it, to staggering, climactic effect.

There's been a lot of talk over the years about RPGs that penalize players for being innovative (most of them, really). If you want to do this extra thing or that cool thing, there's a penalty to your roll. To me, this Dragon Die/Stunt Points mechanic seems to mimic fiction better. It neither rewards nor punishes innovation, but relies on providence, much like the hero in a story.

I do have one concern about AGE, and this comes more from my board game experience than my roleplaying experience: analysis paralysis (taking too long to make a decision). The stunt system in Dragon Age has the potential to stop a table cold as a player peruses the stunt table, like a restaurant menu, for the perfect stunt. I think if the issue occurs it will most likely be a temporary one, as folks get used to the system.

Tonight I get to find out, as I'll be running the game for family and friends. Two of the players are kids, a pre-teen and an early teen, so I'm excited. I'll report back here about the experience at the table.

Magic in Swords & Sorcery

In the last year or so, I've really rekindled my love for the swords and sorcery (S&S) genre. I'm talking about Lankhmar, the Black Company, and, to a lesser extent, Conan. Specifically, I've been thinking about the role of magic in a S&S game.

For me, the Lankhmar books seem to nail it--protagonists don't use magic; magic uses them. Magic is a sinister force which happens to the characters, much the way nature happens to them. I find the magic systems I'm aware of lacking here. They either simply don't work this way, or attempts to model this approach are just tacked on an existing system.

I'd love to see a system designed around this type of magic.

In a game like this, the magic chapter would be found in the GM's section, right alongside the bestiary and foes chapters. It would be another tool in the GM's arsenal, used in storytelling. Players would encounter magic, and, should they wield it, they would wield it temporarily and at great peril. Those in the world who wield magic would be alien to the PCs, either changed by magic or never human to begin with. Were a PC to make use of magic too often or too long, they would be changed in some way. Indeed, every instance in which a PC encounters magic, they would be in danger of some sort of corruption or mutation, physical or otherwise.

This concept makes for an interesting design goal.