Genre Points add to your survivability by reducing the damage your Plot Armor takes during an Intermission, they are the only modifier to Initiative in the game, and - of course - fuel Genre Powers during mecha Operations. They are the one mechanic that links the Pilot with the Mecha by design, and in doing so they also ensure that PCs are that much better than the average NPC. So far, so good.
The problem with the benefits that Genre Points provide is that they're contradictory. You want to stack and conserve them to be unbeatable in the ground and to avoid having to use them out in the field as much as possible. As a stopgap measure, Genre Points reset back to three at the end of every Arc to at least encourage people to not worry about this for longer than a few sessions at a time, but the issue is still present: You don't want to use Genre Powers.
Given that they are one of the game's key features, I think that is a bit of a problem. There is also the issue that, for all the wacky things you can do with Genre in your robot, Points cannot be spent to do any cool stuff at all in Intermissions. Not even rerolls. While I don't intend for every power to have a pilot-scale equivalent effect, some way to be able to contribute to Intermissions would be nice - specially if we're diminishing or removing their defensive contribution.
Luckily, there are a ton of relatively simple to implement solutions to these issues, some of which I have already posted - though they were intended as variant systems to replace the Episode Arc structure and as such don't address more than that. Unfortunately they have considerable drawbacks to them, such as removing the Episode Arc structure entirely. The most obvious solution of all, to simply remove the bonuses granted to Defenses, makes it so that NPC enemies have a very easy time murdering the PCs thanks to Tension bonuses. Fixing this by increasing PC Defenses in turn messes up the math with the DNs and starting Modifiers from Attributes and Skills, though perhaps Genre Points can be spent to mitigate some of that.
While I generally like to stick to the simplest and most elegant solution, there isn't a satisfactory one here from what I can see. Redoing some of the Intermission math would be preferrable to avoiding the issue and sticking to half baked resolutions, and I am thinking of combining multiple ideas into one.
This was my first idea:
-Defenses are now a fixed number independent of Genre Points, a 5/8/11 array that cannot be boosted with further PP.
-A Genre Point may be spent to reroll any one Test at an Advantage or to force someone else to reroll one Test with a Disadvantage, you may do this any number of times per Intermission or even per Scene, but only once per Test.
-Genre Points spent during Intermissions turn into Temporary Genre Points at the beginning of the very next Operation, still providing a bonus to Initiative.
This one fixes all issues in a relatively elegant way, unmodifiable Defenses hurt a bit (specially the one at 5) but you can still buff up your Plot Armor and can now force the higher rolls made against you to pretty much fail. Why stop there, though? Another alternative also springs to mind, a slightly more radical one:
-Genre Points are now a fixed number (starting at three) that is reset after each Operation. The number increases with every Arc by one. You can still gain more by roleplaying, but they will be reset back to three if you don't use them the next chance you get.
-Defenses use the fixed numbers from current Plot Armor (the 4/5/6 array) and can be boosted with PP up to 10 times, Plot Armor now runs off your Attribute entirely and may not be upgraded further.
-You can spend a Genre Point to roll an additional d10 on top of a Test you have already rolled, or to add 5 to the DN of any one Test (as in the optional rules for stacking Advantages and Disadvantages), you may do this multiple times per Intermission or Scene but only once per Test.
-Genre Points spent during Intermissions turn into Temporary Genre Points at the beginning of the very next Operation, still providing a bonus to Initiative.
This one changes the flow of gameplay to a much more faster paced one. Sure, Defenses can get much higher and every character with Genre can now outright say "No." to anything by increasing DNs on the spot, but you can also overpower them that much harder. Potentially, anyway. The one issue I have with this is that it might get repetitive since the same Powers might be spammed every single Operation, likely in the same order to boot.
I don't think either of these is going to make the final cut though, but they're a start, and will probably both help shape the final version.
June 3, 2012
June 1, 2012
You are doing WHAT?
Because I just cannot stop making games, my next experiment is a fantasy heartbreaker dnd retroclone. I intend to use it to see how well some of GGG's conceptual strengths fare in a different context, as well as to try out some ideas I've had around for possibly improving the game next.
Anybody who is familiar with both DnD and GGG can tell the results are probably going to be terrible/amazing/hilarious. For now, it is just a short writeup, I will have to add proper rules later.
And no, it is not going to delay further updates, since they'll be on the simpler side of things for a while as previously announced.
Copyrights & Dragons
Mission Statement
To make a game that sticks to traditional D&D tone and feel while also taking the gameplay in a new direction.
Design Principles
-Stick to the legacy things I hate about D&D that I could maybe perhaps like if they were implemented differently, but throw away the things that are just plain annoying to play with.
-Much like how 4E made people care about the battlefield I want to give the game a twist, and I will be making combat revolve around timing your powers and using them at the right time during the ebb and flow of combat.
-Do away with the arms race style of traditional progression and focus on conditional abilities that add versatility instead.
-Streamline a lot, you should be able to remember all the rules after a single read through the book, disregarding individual abilities.
-Make it clear that PCs are heroes capable of taking on armies, with mechanics for them tending towards success, and to make combat fun whether it is versus hordes, bosses, or a duel against a rival foe of similarly mythic proportions.
Flavor
Pretty minimalistic. You are a Hero, you might not be a well known one yet, but there already are bards singing tales of your exploits somewhere and you damn well deserve them. Only a few individuals become the stuff of legends, and it is rarely intentional. Some gained their fame after saving a community from a pack of raiders, others are rumored to be the bastard offspring of a Deity with a mortal, and a certain few are perhaps just lucky enough to be wielding items of untold power. No matter the origin, Heroes are the stuff epics are born from... if they live long enough to see their tales through.
Mechanics
-Characters have the six traditional Ability Scores, which are fixed after character creation. Then there's Hit Points (possibly to be renamed) and Action Points which are both variable. Ability Scores thusly serve as what other editions have as Skills, Defenses, etc.
-Core resolution is rolling a d20 under your ability score. This replaces BAB, Skill Ranks, etc.
-There are no modifiers for easier/harder tasks, but you may spend AP to succeed at any task whose roll you have failed and a 'harder' task makes it so you have to spend more AP. You are heroes, after all, you can damn well do anything you put your mind to if you try hard enough.
-AP are a PC's lifeblood. They can be regained by doing things according to the PC's Alignment (d20 Modern style Alignment) aka not-Aspects.
-Powers are in, nearly all of them require the spending of AP, and depending on their category repeating their use in the same combat will either be impossible, suffer heavy penalties, or be actually free to pull off.
-Combat (whether it is physical, social or otherwise) has a Flow system which keeps track of how many rounds have passed. Flow is a measure of the rising tension in combat as people make mistakes, enemies seize each other's weaknesses, and moves get easier to read. As Flow goes higher some of your Powers grow stronger, others become weaker, and things generally change a lot.
-Central to a PC is their Power Source, it serves as a template which they can use to channel their AP in different ways. Arcane PCs can enhance their Powers metamagic style with extra AP, Divine PCs are at best when taking action in name of their alignment, to give a few examples.
-Races and Classes both provide a PC with a tree of Powers to take after each level up. Controller types are better at high Flow when they can get their doomsday spells just right, Strikers rely on low-Flow hit and run tactics, and so on.
-Feats are out, everything that actually requires rules is a Power and is active. If it is not a Power, you can roll an Ability Check for it.
-As for items, you are assumed to possess most kinds of mundane gear, with magical equipment being equivalent in rarity and usefulness to a Power, and acquired by the same means.
-NPCs come in three forms: Minions, Elites and Mythics. Minions are unnamed and have minimal statblocks, Elites are named characters and just like PCs complete with having names and tales about them and everything, while Mythics are monsters of legend with puzzle-like elements to them.
Anybody who is familiar with both DnD and GGG can tell the results are probably going to be terrible/amazing/hilarious. For now, it is just a short writeup, I will have to add proper rules later.
And no, it is not going to delay further updates, since they'll be on the simpler side of things for a while as previously announced.
Copyrights & Dragons
Mission Statement
To make a game that sticks to traditional D&D tone and feel while also taking the gameplay in a new direction.
Design Principles
-Stick to the legacy things I hate about D&D that I could maybe perhaps like if they were implemented differently, but throw away the things that are just plain annoying to play with.
-Much like how 4E made people care about the battlefield I want to give the game a twist, and I will be making combat revolve around timing your powers and using them at the right time during the ebb and flow of combat.
-Do away with the arms race style of traditional progression and focus on conditional abilities that add versatility instead.
-Streamline a lot, you should be able to remember all the rules after a single read through the book, disregarding individual abilities.
-Make it clear that PCs are heroes capable of taking on armies, with mechanics for them tending towards success, and to make combat fun whether it is versus hordes, bosses, or a duel against a rival foe of similarly mythic proportions.
Flavor
Pretty minimalistic. You are a Hero, you might not be a well known one yet, but there already are bards singing tales of your exploits somewhere and you damn well deserve them. Only a few individuals become the stuff of legends, and it is rarely intentional. Some gained their fame after saving a community from a pack of raiders, others are rumored to be the bastard offspring of a Deity with a mortal, and a certain few are perhaps just lucky enough to be wielding items of untold power. No matter the origin, Heroes are the stuff epics are born from... if they live long enough to see their tales through.
Mechanics
-Characters have the six traditional Ability Scores, which are fixed after character creation. Then there's Hit Points (possibly to be renamed) and Action Points which are both variable. Ability Scores thusly serve as what other editions have as Skills, Defenses, etc.
-Core resolution is rolling a d20 under your ability score. This replaces BAB, Skill Ranks, etc.
-There are no modifiers for easier/harder tasks, but you may spend AP to succeed at any task whose roll you have failed and a 'harder' task makes it so you have to spend more AP. You are heroes, after all, you can damn well do anything you put your mind to if you try hard enough.
-AP are a PC's lifeblood. They can be regained by doing things according to the PC's Alignment (d20 Modern style Alignment) aka not-Aspects.
-Powers are in, nearly all of them require the spending of AP, and depending on their category repeating their use in the same combat will either be impossible, suffer heavy penalties, or be actually free to pull off.
-Combat (whether it is physical, social or otherwise) has a Flow system which keeps track of how many rounds have passed. Flow is a measure of the rising tension in combat as people make mistakes, enemies seize each other's weaknesses, and moves get easier to read. As Flow goes higher some of your Powers grow stronger, others become weaker, and things generally change a lot.
-Central to a PC is their Power Source, it serves as a template which they can use to channel their AP in different ways. Arcane PCs can enhance their Powers metamagic style with extra AP, Divine PCs are at best when taking action in name of their alignment, to give a few examples.
-Races and Classes both provide a PC with a tree of Powers to take after each level up. Controller types are better at high Flow when they can get their doomsday spells just right, Strikers rely on low-Flow hit and run tactics, and so on.
-Feats are out, everything that actually requires rules is a Power and is active. If it is not a Power, you can roll an Ability Check for it.
-As for items, you are assumed to possess most kinds of mundane gear, with magical equipment being equivalent in rarity and usefulness to a Power, and acquired by the same means.
-NPCs come in three forms: Minions, Elites and Mythics. Minions are unnamed and have minimal statblocks, Elites are named characters and just like PCs complete with having names and tales about them and everything, while Mythics are monsters of legend with puzzle-like elements to them.
May 29, 2012
That's My Gun
Originally there was a Weapon Creation system in GGG, though it was at the very back of the GM's section. That would be because it was too crazy for its own good and using the default Weapons was almost never worth it once you figured out how to exploit it best. Given I would rather not include something than include it to the detriment for the game, it was axed. Things have changed since then, and I figure it is worth another shot.
There is a lot to be gained from including such a system after all. Most weapons can be easily reskinned into whatever it is suits your fancy, but there's still holes that make things difficult for certain character concepts. Sure, the freedom and creativity inherent to RPGs means people have been making up their own content since day one, but it never hurts to save them the work of coming up with supposedly balanced options beforehand - if anything it makes the job of creating more stuff later on easier for them!. There is also another bonus in that a lot of people enjoy the minigame of optimizing character performance, and customizable abilities are akin to taking them to the candy store and letting them pick anything but not everything.
But there are also reasons it wasn't the default system for GGG in the first place. For one, generic customizable options have even less flavor to them than effects-based ones, which might not seem like such a big issue but really hurts the game when you're first starting up and have no idea what everything is supposed to represent. This is why Weapons come separated into five types and why oh so many weapons are similar in concept but different in the mechanics, it helps make everything distinctive.
Furthermore by making every Weapon unique and balancing them by giving each of them a specific niche, I could afford to make them stronger without risking to make any one of them the "best" Weapon that can do everything better than others. Without weapon types or fixed weapons, the risk of a single combination of options outperforming all the rest is greatly diminished. Weapon Types and "Prebuilt" niche Weapons should, thusly, not only continue to exist but also need to be supported by (and ideally also support in turn) a generator instead of being counter to each other.
But enough theory, let's see some practice. The easiest method to see this goal is to make a template for each Weapon Type and assign points to the various modifiers and special abilities they can be granted, then let people take away or slap things to it as their UP allows. All I would really limit is to place a maximum of +10 to combined Accuracy or Penetration plus a hard cap of a 5 UP cost on things to prevent 10-point murdermonsters.
I started with the following templates and modifiers, using the game's current pricing system as guidelines, as an aside, I wish blogger allowed tables so this would be less of a hassle to read:
CQC
Areas: Arms or Legs
Base Cost: 1
Range: 1
Accuracy: +1
Penetration: +1
Energy: 0
Special: Melee
Vulcans
Areas: Any Non-Core
Base Cost: 1
Range: 1-3
Accuracy: +0
Penetration: +0
Energy: 0
Special: Ballistic, Mobile
Eye Beams
Areas: Head
Base Cost: 1
Range: 1-3
Accuracy: +2
Penetration: +0
Energy: 1
Special: Beam
Bombardment
Areas: Any Non-Core
Base Cost: 1
Range: 2-7
Accuracy: +0
Penetration: +0
Energy: 0
Special: Missile
Damage
Cost: +1
Effect: The Weapon gains a +1 to Accuracy or Penetration. May be applied up to ten times total.
Mobile
Cost: +1
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Long Sights
Cost: +1
Effect: +1 to the Weapon's Maximum Range if it is Melee. +2 Otherwise. Cannot go higher than 7.
Versatile
Cost: +1
Effect: Enable the Weapon to be allocated in any Non-Core Area.
Blast
Cost: +2
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Remote
Cost: +2
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Chain Reaction
Cost: +2
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
IFF Failure
Cost: +2
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
EMP
Cost: +3
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Power Down
Cost: +3
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Immobilize
Cost: +4
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Expose
Cost: +4
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Reliable
Cost: +4
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Hungry
Cost: -1
Effect: Consumes 1 additional Energy. Melee, Beam and Aberrant types only. May be applied up to five times.
Short Sights
Cost: -1
Effect: -1 to the Weapon's Maximum Range. Cannot go under the minimum Range.
Recharging
Cost: -1
Effect: As the ability of the same name. Ballistic, Missile and Aberrant types only. Cannot be combined with Technique or One-Shot.
Technique
Cost: -2
Effect: As the ability of the same name. Cannot be combined with One-Shot or Recharging.
One-Shot
Cost: -3
Effect: As the ability of the same name. Ballistic, Missile and Aberrant types only. Cannot be combined with Recharging or Technique.
And I took it out for a test ride, with the following results.
Stunlocker
Areas: Arms or Legs
Cost: 5
Range: 1
Accuracy: +2
Penetration: +2
Energy: 1
Special: Melee, Condition (EMP)
The Hit-n-Runner
Areas: Any Non-Core
Cost: 5
Range: 1-7
Accuracy: +1
Penetration: +1
Energy: 0
Special: Ballistic, Mobile
Stacking Funnels
Cost: 5
Areas: None
Range: 1-3
Accuracy: +2
Penetration: +0
Energy: 1
Special: Beam, Remote, Reliable
Missile Massacre
Areas: Any Non-Core
Cost: 5
Range: 2-7
Accuracy: +0
Penetration: +0
Energy: 0
Special: Missile, Blast, Condition (Chain Reaction)
There is no incentive to attach drawbacks to these things when you can just pay up more points instead, furthermore the lower average power encourages you to try and break them in weird ways - usually abusing Conditions. Evidently I still have quite a lot of work to do, but I know where to go from here.
-Weapon Types need more style and personality to them, having unique modifier tables for each would definitely help with that front, but the generic weapons still look same-y and bland. Not sure how that can be fixed though.
-Anything to do with Areas is pointless when it comes to custom-made Weapons, which does not help considering making all generics 'Areas: Any Non-Core' really hinders the personality thing from above.
-Drawbacks could increase the cap to 10 UP and enable the use of Conditions.
-More templates with different Ranges might be necessary.
And that is a wrap for now, the puzzle itself was more complex than I thought it would be (and when isn't it, really?) so it will be solved later. In the meantime, if you feel like using this despite the caveats mentioned, feel free to.
There is a lot to be gained from including such a system after all. Most weapons can be easily reskinned into whatever it is suits your fancy, but there's still holes that make things difficult for certain character concepts. Sure, the freedom and creativity inherent to RPGs means people have been making up their own content since day one, but it never hurts to save them the work of coming up with supposedly balanced options beforehand - if anything it makes the job of creating more stuff later on easier for them!. There is also another bonus in that a lot of people enjoy the minigame of optimizing character performance, and customizable abilities are akin to taking them to the candy store and letting them pick anything but not everything.
But there are also reasons it wasn't the default system for GGG in the first place. For one, generic customizable options have even less flavor to them than effects-based ones, which might not seem like such a big issue but really hurts the game when you're first starting up and have no idea what everything is supposed to represent. This is why Weapons come separated into five types and why oh so many weapons are similar in concept but different in the mechanics, it helps make everything distinctive.
Furthermore by making every Weapon unique and balancing them by giving each of them a specific niche, I could afford to make them stronger without risking to make any one of them the "best" Weapon that can do everything better than others. Without weapon types or fixed weapons, the risk of a single combination of options outperforming all the rest is greatly diminished. Weapon Types and "Prebuilt" niche Weapons should, thusly, not only continue to exist but also need to be supported by (and ideally also support in turn) a generator instead of being counter to each other.
But enough theory, let's see some practice. The easiest method to see this goal is to make a template for each Weapon Type and assign points to the various modifiers and special abilities they can be granted, then let people take away or slap things to it as their UP allows. All I would really limit is to place a maximum of +10 to combined Accuracy or Penetration plus a hard cap of a 5 UP cost on things to prevent 10-point murdermonsters.
I started with the following templates and modifiers, using the game's current pricing system as guidelines, as an aside, I wish blogger allowed tables so this would be less of a hassle to read:
CQC
Areas: Arms or Legs
Base Cost: 1
Range: 1
Accuracy: +1
Penetration: +1
Energy: 0
Special: Melee
Vulcans
Areas: Any Non-Core
Base Cost: 1
Range: 1-3
Accuracy: +0
Penetration: +0
Energy: 0
Special: Ballistic, Mobile
Eye Beams
Areas: Head
Base Cost: 1
Range: 1-3
Accuracy: +2
Penetration: +0
Energy: 1
Special: Beam
Bombardment
Areas: Any Non-Core
Base Cost: 1
Range: 2-7
Accuracy: +0
Penetration: +0
Energy: 0
Special: Missile
Damage
Cost: +1
Effect: The Weapon gains a +1 to Accuracy or Penetration. May be applied up to ten times total.
Mobile
Cost: +1
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Long Sights
Cost: +1
Effect: +1 to the Weapon's Maximum Range if it is Melee. +2 Otherwise. Cannot go higher than 7.
Versatile
Cost: +1
Effect: Enable the Weapon to be allocated in any Non-Core Area.
Blast
Cost: +2
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Remote
Cost: +2
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Chain Reaction
Cost: +2
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
IFF Failure
Cost: +2
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
EMP
Cost: +3
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Power Down
Cost: +3
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Immobilize
Cost: +4
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Expose
Cost: +4
Effect: As the Condition of the same name.
Reliable
Cost: +4
Effect: As the ability of the same name.
Hungry
Cost: -1
Effect: Consumes 1 additional Energy. Melee, Beam and Aberrant types only. May be applied up to five times.
Short Sights
Cost: -1
Effect: -1 to the Weapon's Maximum Range. Cannot go under the minimum Range.
Recharging
Cost: -1
Effect: As the ability of the same name. Ballistic, Missile and Aberrant types only. Cannot be combined with Technique or One-Shot.
Technique
Cost: -2
Effect: As the ability of the same name. Cannot be combined with One-Shot or Recharging.
One-Shot
Cost: -3
Effect: As the ability of the same name. Ballistic, Missile and Aberrant types only. Cannot be combined with Recharging or Technique.
And I took it out for a test ride, with the following results.
Stunlocker
Areas: Arms or Legs
Cost: 5
Range: 1
Accuracy: +2
Penetration: +2
Energy: 1
Special: Melee, Condition (EMP)
The Hit-n-Runner
Areas: Any Non-Core
Cost: 5
Range: 1-7
Accuracy: +1
Penetration: +1
Energy: 0
Special: Ballistic, Mobile
Stacking Funnels
Cost: 5
Areas: None
Range: 1-3
Accuracy: +2
Penetration: +0
Energy: 1
Special: Beam, Remote, Reliable
Missile Massacre
Areas: Any Non-Core
Cost: 5
Range: 2-7
Accuracy: +0
Penetration: +0
Energy: 0
Special: Missile, Blast, Condition (Chain Reaction)
There is no incentive to attach drawbacks to these things when you can just pay up more points instead, furthermore the lower average power encourages you to try and break them in weird ways - usually abusing Conditions. Evidently I still have quite a lot of work to do, but I know where to go from here.
-Weapon Types need more style and personality to them, having unique modifier tables for each would definitely help with that front, but the generic weapons still look same-y and bland. Not sure how that can be fixed though.
-Anything to do with Areas is pointless when it comes to custom-made Weapons, which does not help considering making all generics 'Areas: Any Non-Core' really hinders the personality thing from above.
-Drawbacks could increase the cap to 10 UP and enable the use of Conditions.
-More templates with different Ranges might be necessary.
And that is a wrap for now, the puzzle itself was more complex than I thought it would be (and when isn't it, really?) so it will be solved later. In the meantime, if you feel like using this despite the caveats mentioned, feel free to.
May 20, 2012
May I have an Update please?
I don't really have much to say so I'll let the list of changes speak for itself. Here are the links at the usual hosts:
http://www.mediafire.com/?g30sb0ag42oi4i4
http://www.4shared.com/rar/hdyDe0LR/GGG_v13.html
General Changes:
-Added a comprehensive Index to the back.
-Improved image quality maintaining low file size.
-Fixed yet another batch of generic errors like typoes, wrong fonts, etc.
Character Creation:
-Buffed Data Analyst to let you ask up to three questions while also giving you a +1 to Tension.
-Buffed Show some Mercy to let you use it multiple times at no cost while also giving you a +1 to Tension.
-Buffed Patience of a Saint to give you a Point every time you are targeted.
-Buffed With Extreme Prejudice to last three Rounds.
Mecha Construction:
-Clarified the wording on Gravagne Field, again.
-Nerfed Resupply to give back 1d5 instead of 1d10.
-Nerfed Special Modes so they can now only be activated once per Operation.
-Clarified some of the wording on Transform, again as well.
-Buffed Frames to be enhanced by default, enhancing them now lets you switch to another Frame mid-combat.
Playing the Game:
-Buffed the Disrupt Intermission Action to deal half the rolled damage in addition to its normal effect.
-Clarified that Engage uses the Enemy's position instead of your own to shift both of you in any direction.
-Streamlined Defensive Terrain to always protect from enemies at any distance, and double the number rolled when performing a Maneuver instead of giving an Advantage.
-Added a note to the Terrain sidebar suggesting 3d movement underwater and in space gives the side benefits of Anti-Gravity.
Running the Show:
-Fixed the old wording on Beam Reflector still referencing Derived Mechanics.
Simple one this month, no annoying large changes in red text even! I think we're getting closer to having fixed everything that does not require a major overhaul.
Now there are things that I would like to improve, but they are going to require changes of the "PCs have to be rebuilt" variety, and I loathe to do that to people with any sort of regular frequency, much less a monthly one. Hell, I cannot even guarantee the changes would be strictly better, since GGG is obviously very much a work in progress.
For this reason further updates will come in two parallel versions of the game. One without much fanfare (like this) that continues to polish what already exists and another version marked as Beta, with experimental modifications that require one or more major rules to be modified. Beta updates will be more sporadic, but would also include oft-requested goodies that I don't quite feel comfortable adding to the other version - I do not want to risk a bloat of options. Once things are proven to work in the Beta version, they will eventually be canonized all at once.
But what kind of things would I be changing? Well, here's a short list of priorities on my to-do list:
1) A Weapon Generator. One that is not broken beyond relief and does not make the entire point of weapon types obsolete.
2) Improving the way Genre Points link Intermissions and Operations. I want to encourage spending points to use powers instead of hoarding them up for a rainy day.
3) Reduction of combat math and streamlining mixed acc+pen rolls. Ideally this would not take away from the crunchiness, only do away with some of the inherent slowdowns it causes.
There's more, but that's a good place to start. In the following weeks I will be bringing up said major overhauls and my train of thought as I put work in them, while also discussing the things I do not want to change. You can rest easy knowing the core tenets at the front of the book won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and that the main challenge I will be facing is making things simpler and more elegant without losing depth.
The next few months should be interesting.
http://www.mediafire.com/?g30sb0ag42oi4i4
http://www.4shared.com/rar/hdyDe0LR/GGG_v13.html
General Changes:
-Added a comprehensive Index to the back.
-Improved image quality maintaining low file size.
-Fixed yet another batch of generic errors like typoes, wrong fonts, etc.
Character Creation:
-Buffed Data Analyst to let you ask up to three questions while also giving you a +1 to Tension.
-Buffed Show some Mercy to let you use it multiple times at no cost while also giving you a +1 to Tension.
-Buffed Patience of a Saint to give you a Point every time you are targeted.
-Buffed With Extreme Prejudice to last three Rounds.
Mecha Construction:
-Clarified the wording on Gravagne Field, again.
-Nerfed Resupply to give back 1d5 instead of 1d10.
-Nerfed Special Modes so they can now only be activated once per Operation.
-Clarified some of the wording on Transform, again as well.
-Buffed Frames to be enhanced by default, enhancing them now lets you switch to another Frame mid-combat.
Playing the Game:
-Buffed the Disrupt Intermission Action to deal half the rolled damage in addition to its normal effect.
-Clarified that Engage uses the Enemy's position instead of your own to shift both of you in any direction.
-Streamlined Defensive Terrain to always protect from enemies at any distance, and double the number rolled when performing a Maneuver instead of giving an Advantage.
-Added a note to the Terrain sidebar suggesting 3d movement underwater and in space gives the side benefits of Anti-Gravity.
Running the Show:
-Fixed the old wording on Beam Reflector still referencing Derived Mechanics.
Simple one this month, no annoying large changes in red text even! I think we're getting closer to having fixed everything that does not require a major overhaul.
Now there are things that I would like to improve, but they are going to require changes of the "PCs have to be rebuilt" variety, and I loathe to do that to people with any sort of regular frequency, much less a monthly one. Hell, I cannot even guarantee the changes would be strictly better, since GGG is obviously very much a work in progress.
For this reason further updates will come in two parallel versions of the game. One without much fanfare (like this) that continues to polish what already exists and another version marked as Beta, with experimental modifications that require one or more major rules to be modified. Beta updates will be more sporadic, but would also include oft-requested goodies that I don't quite feel comfortable adding to the other version - I do not want to risk a bloat of options. Once things are proven to work in the Beta version, they will eventually be canonized all at once.
But what kind of things would I be changing? Well, here's a short list of priorities on my to-do list:
1) A Weapon Generator. One that is not broken beyond relief and does not make the entire point of weapon types obsolete.
2) Improving the way Genre Points link Intermissions and Operations. I want to encourage spending points to use powers instead of hoarding them up for a rainy day.
3) Reduction of combat math and streamlining mixed acc+pen rolls. Ideally this would not take away from the crunchiness, only do away with some of the inherent slowdowns it causes.
There's more, but that's a good place to start. In the following weeks I will be bringing up said major overhauls and my train of thought as I put work in them, while also discussing the things I do not want to change. You can rest easy knowing the core tenets at the front of the book won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and that the main challenge I will be facing is making things simpler and more elegant without losing depth.
The next few months should be interesting.
May 6, 2012
Back on Schedule
So I finished that simplistic card-based storygame/partygame/horrible eldritch beast hybrid thing I was doing. I am not sure if I will ever update or even play this (As, you know, a normal Player and not a GM) but it is done and my design muscles got to do some exercising.
Brofessionals v1.
In news someone might actually care about, I think I got enough practice in weirdness to go back to the familiar ground that is GGG. Expect a minor update this month, minor as in "correcting typos" and "making useless things not entirely suck", that kind of deal. Afterwards, we will get experimental with the system once again. I'm not sure how or even what will be undergoing changes yet, so stay posted..
Brofessionals v1.
In news someone might actually care about, I think I got enough practice in weirdness to go back to the familiar ground that is GGG. Expect a minor update this month, minor as in "correcting typos" and "making useless things not entirely suck", that kind of deal. Afterwards, we will get experimental with the system once again. I'm not sure how or even what will be undergoing changes yet, so stay posted..
April 29, 2012
Conventions of Genre (Points)
Genre Points are a social mechanic. Even though their benefits clearly involve the rules of the game, their origin lies in things that are not easy to define in a rules sense. Things such as good roleplaying, contributing to the game beyond the interests of their own character, and even paying up for the pizza that night. Because roleplaying is fundamentally a social activity, the default method of awarding Genre Points serves as a roleplaying aid and encourages people to play together nicely - as opposed to everyone trying to derail the game in a different direction.
From a GM's perspective, they also let you keep the field even between the entire group of PCs. You can be more generous with people who are not as naturally good athogging the spotlight making cool scenes, and you can easily counter a party that is too powerful by getting more strict with the Genre granted to them. At the same time, Themes make it easier for you as GM to railroad get the PCs involved with the plot and each other, with the Arc structure guidelines helping you break down your master plans into manageable chunks.
That said, as a GM sometimes you have a group of experienced players who don't need or want the nudging, or you prefer to reward people according to their effort and skill, or maybe you'd rather not risk Defenses and Initiative going up much higher from normal, or perhaps do not want to actually bother with all this Arc structure crap that makes you think way too much in advance.
Those reasons, as well as many others, are good enough to consider houseruling the way that Genre works. There's as many ways to do this as there's problems that you personally have with the current model. The three houserules below are made with different kinds of games in mind, and would be a good starting point for further modifications.
Fair and Balanced
Award Genre after each Operation depending on how difficult it was, as if it were XP. Points never reset, but no longer give a bonus to Defenses or Initiative. After around 15 XP everyone gains a new Power plus a static +1 to Defenses and Initiative. This method basically erases the need to hand off and track Genre individually and to plan out Arcs in advance, otherwise it does not change much about how both work in rules terms.
Gods of War
Award Genre as normal. Points never reset, but there is a hard cap of 10 non-Temporary Genre and Points earned beyond that limit are temporary and will vanish after the end of the next Operation. For every 10 (non-Temporary) Points spent a PC gains a new Power plus a static +1 to Defenses and Initiative. This method trades the usual benefits of Arc Progression for placing them in the hands of the Players. In addition, the easy stacking of Genre will let PCs regularly resist and overpower most threats on the ground, and making short work of anything they deem threatening while out in their giant robots.
Against all Odds
Award 1 Genre per Operation, and another for remarkable roleplaying - preferably of the variety that sets a considerable setback on the PC. Meant for the harder games out there, since Genre Points only come after a victory or when PCs complicate things for themselves, and only in low amounts, it is recommended these games don't focus too much on combat and have an Operation every few Episodes instead.
Again, those are only the three I had in mind as I made this post, there's other ways that help other kinds of groups and games more out there. Genre is one of the (if not the) softest rules in the game, and you can bend it around without breaking down the game into a terrible mess, so don't be afraid to play around with it if it does not satisfy you.
From a GM's perspective, they also let you keep the field even between the entire group of PCs. You can be more generous with people who are not as naturally good at
That said, as a GM sometimes you have a group of experienced players who don't need or want the nudging, or you prefer to reward people according to their effort and skill, or maybe you'd rather not risk Defenses and Initiative going up much higher from normal, or perhaps do not want to actually bother with all this Arc structure crap that makes you think way too much in advance.
Those reasons, as well as many others, are good enough to consider houseruling the way that Genre works. There's as many ways to do this as there's problems that you personally have with the current model. The three houserules below are made with different kinds of games in mind, and would be a good starting point for further modifications.
Fair and Balanced
Award Genre after each Operation depending on how difficult it was, as if it were XP. Points never reset, but no longer give a bonus to Defenses or Initiative. After around 15 XP everyone gains a new Power plus a static +1 to Defenses and Initiative. This method basically erases the need to hand off and track Genre individually and to plan out Arcs in advance, otherwise it does not change much about how both work in rules terms.
Gods of War
Award Genre as normal. Points never reset, but there is a hard cap of 10 non-Temporary Genre and Points earned beyond that limit are temporary and will vanish after the end of the next Operation. For every 10 (non-Temporary) Points spent a PC gains a new Power plus a static +1 to Defenses and Initiative. This method trades the usual benefits of Arc Progression for placing them in the hands of the Players. In addition, the easy stacking of Genre will let PCs regularly resist and overpower most threats on the ground, and making short work of anything they deem threatening while out in their giant robots.
Against all Odds
Award 1 Genre per Operation, and another for remarkable roleplaying - preferably of the variety that sets a considerable setback on the PC. Meant for the harder games out there, since Genre Points only come after a victory or when PCs complicate things for themselves, and only in low amounts, it is recommended these games don't focus too much on combat and have an Operation every few Episodes instead.
Again, those are only the three I had in mind as I made this post, there's other ways that help other kinds of groups and games more out there. Genre is one of the (if not the) softest rules in the game, and you can bend it around without breaking down the game into a terrible mess, so don't be afraid to play around with it if it does not satisfy you.
April 22, 2012
Live, Monster. You belong to this World.
Since the release of first version of GGG there has been a constant amount of new content for both pilots and mecha in each update, but the majority of it is not even meant for everyday PC use, in fact the grand majority of the time only antagonists will be making use of said new content; I am obviously referring to Aberrant options.
This might not seem like such a great idea at first. I mean, the GM already has lots more toys to play with and free reign to make up more of their own if the need arises, why are you giving them more than they need while I still get to keep the same boring old guns, GGG Guy? There's several good reasons for this, but the one that most concerns Players is that of Complexity Creep.
Let me explain: Everyone likes having options, being able to choose which brand of forcefield or missile launcher you will be using makes your own robot more unique and lets you tailor it to be good at the things you care about. If your robot has a dragon head for a chest weapon then you want to use an Incinerator instead of Scattering Beam because you want more than a reserve weapon to handle crowds - you want one that roasts them all to cinders because dragon breath is too badass for a lousy +0 penetration bonus. A multitude of options lets you represent a multitude of concepts better, so the more options the better, right?
Not exactly.
The more options you have, the more time you are going to spend fidgeting over which one works best. Right now there are 14 Melee Weapons for PCs, and they all amount to more or less the same idea: Punching, stabbing, or kicking another robot. If you only have enough points left for one backup weapon in case an enemy gets too close, it can be a problem to decide which one it is that you really want. Do you go for the one that does not use energy so you can save up for your long range beams? Do you take the general use one that will eat up the space you had remaining on your arms? Do you take a big flashy finisher and change your strategy to be more of a midrange combatant?
Sure, it is easy enough when there's only three or four real options that sound reasonable for your character, but imagine that every new update adds one new Melee option. In a few months you will be staring at half a dozen separate flavors of rocket punches that all do the same thing but with only minuscule differences you have to carefully balance against each other. If you are familiar with big line tabletop Roleplaying Games (the kind that have books numbering in the tens) you should have an idea of what I am talking about.
But there is another problem with having tons of options. Every time a new option gives you an idea for how to better represent something, it is also implicitly telling you that any other way of representing it is wrong, or at least not the optimal one.
Let's say that your character concept is that of a duelist, after a talk with the GM he informs you that this is a Clarke game and it will not feature many chances for duels because throwing half a dozen Cryptids against the group would be grounds for a trial against violations to human rights. You think that is fine, you can still make use of that bit of flavor text out of the battlefield so you keep your concept. But when it comes to weapon selection for your Gear you encounter a problem: One going by the name of Dueling Blade. You originally were going to take a Beam Saber for a melee weapon, but Dueling Blade just fits the flavor of your character so much better that you grit your teeth a little and take the option that makes sense over the option you really want.
While this is not an everyday scenario, it is not at all uncommon. Because GGG is primarily an effects-based game there is already an in-built way to circumvent problems like this, but they still happen. Many will shrug and take the 'good' option anyway, or ask the GM to rebuild later - but for every person for whom this is not an issue, there is another who has no idea which option works best, or one who wasn't savvy enough to ask the GM if their choice will work out in the game, or who completely missed that sidebar about getting mid-season upgrades. These people will screw themselves through no real fault of their own.
A wealth of options is a double edged sword, one that many games written by people with far more experience than yours truly have cut themselves with, and I would rather not take my chances if I can help it. This brings me to Aberrant options once again. Why does the GM get new toys, then? Because they need them.
The GM does not just need to make one character, they need to make dozens, and many of those are entirely different from PCs conceptually to the point they need uniquely tailored mechanics. Sure, the GM could make them up, but how do they know if they got them right? It is a designer's job to make the GM's life easier, not harder - they already have it hard enough running a game for the group, after all.
Incidentally, and as an aside, the more options you provide for the PCs the higher the chances that one of them will stumble into an unbeatable combination of abilities that forces the GM's hand to ban said combo. Usually this is only noticed after it has come into play and made an impact by breaking the game in half, its damage to the fun of the overall group already done. The more options the PCs have, the harder it is for the GM to keep them all in check with fair and balanced methods, as such I do not want to enable powergamers too much.
But wait, GGG Guy, were you not saying a moment ago that more options complicates things for people and that the GM does not need to have a harder time preparing their sessions? Yes, hypothetical critical reader of mine, you would be correct that this argument appears very contradictory. If not for your observant questioning I would not be able to proceed with my already overly-long-aside and would have to resort to a silly display of talking to myself just so I can continue to elaborate. Thank you for your earnest participation.
Obligatory Ahem.
You see, options for antagonists can come in pretty much any shape or form, this gives them a lot more variety than the kind of options that PCs would be allowed to have. By providing a number of abilities that are each very distinct from the other, choosing one of them is not made harder but easier, because they don't have to distinguish between three very similar upgrades but just go for the one that does what they need.With this aside clear, we can move on to the third big reason Aberrant options exist.
I am sure you are familiar with houseruling. Every group has their own set of things they change to the ruleset for their own games, and if yours does not have any yet, then it is only a matter of time until it does. Inevitably you will want to explore some of the weirder kinds of games that can be run with GGG, maybe the game calls for everyone to have psychic powers, or you want one of the Players to play the role of recurring villain and they need some unique abilities to be a match for the rest of the group.
Aberrant abilities are there to give the GM a starting point in regards to that. They are a building foundation for the GM to either make more things like them on their own, or an excuse to take it easy and use what is already there without having to do any homework.
That said, I am not only looking forward to giving PCs a few more trinkets in the future (there are a few holes that need filling as far as concepts go), but I also don't think I will be adding too many more Aberrant Options from now on - just a few more until I'm reasonably sure that all the bases are covered.
This might not seem like such a great idea at first. I mean, the GM already has lots more toys to play with and free reign to make up more of their own if the need arises, why are you giving them more than they need while I still get to keep the same boring old guns, GGG Guy? There's several good reasons for this, but the one that most concerns Players is that of Complexity Creep.
Let me explain: Everyone likes having options, being able to choose which brand of forcefield or missile launcher you will be using makes your own robot more unique and lets you tailor it to be good at the things you care about. If your robot has a dragon head for a chest weapon then you want to use an Incinerator instead of Scattering Beam because you want more than a reserve weapon to handle crowds - you want one that roasts them all to cinders because dragon breath is too badass for a lousy +0 penetration bonus. A multitude of options lets you represent a multitude of concepts better, so the more options the better, right?
Not exactly.
The more options you have, the more time you are going to spend fidgeting over which one works best. Right now there are 14 Melee Weapons for PCs, and they all amount to more or less the same idea: Punching, stabbing, or kicking another robot. If you only have enough points left for one backup weapon in case an enemy gets too close, it can be a problem to decide which one it is that you really want. Do you go for the one that does not use energy so you can save up for your long range beams? Do you take the general use one that will eat up the space you had remaining on your arms? Do you take a big flashy finisher and change your strategy to be more of a midrange combatant?
Sure, it is easy enough when there's only three or four real options that sound reasonable for your character, but imagine that every new update adds one new Melee option. In a few months you will be staring at half a dozen separate flavors of rocket punches that all do the same thing but with only minuscule differences you have to carefully balance against each other. If you are familiar with big line tabletop Roleplaying Games (the kind that have books numbering in the tens) you should have an idea of what I am talking about.
But there is another problem with having tons of options. Every time a new option gives you an idea for how to better represent something, it is also implicitly telling you that any other way of representing it is wrong, or at least not the optimal one.
Let's say that your character concept is that of a duelist, after a talk with the GM he informs you that this is a Clarke game and it will not feature many chances for duels because throwing half a dozen Cryptids against the group would be grounds for a trial against violations to human rights. You think that is fine, you can still make use of that bit of flavor text out of the battlefield so you keep your concept. But when it comes to weapon selection for your Gear you encounter a problem: One going by the name of Dueling Blade. You originally were going to take a Beam Saber for a melee weapon, but Dueling Blade just fits the flavor of your character so much better that you grit your teeth a little and take the option that makes sense over the option you really want.
While this is not an everyday scenario, it is not at all uncommon. Because GGG is primarily an effects-based game there is already an in-built way to circumvent problems like this, but they still happen. Many will shrug and take the 'good' option anyway, or ask the GM to rebuild later - but for every person for whom this is not an issue, there is another who has no idea which option works best, or one who wasn't savvy enough to ask the GM if their choice will work out in the game, or who completely missed that sidebar about getting mid-season upgrades. These people will screw themselves through no real fault of their own.
A wealth of options is a double edged sword, one that many games written by people with far more experience than yours truly have cut themselves with, and I would rather not take my chances if I can help it. This brings me to Aberrant options once again. Why does the GM get new toys, then? Because they need them.
The GM does not just need to make one character, they need to make dozens, and many of those are entirely different from PCs conceptually to the point they need uniquely tailored mechanics. Sure, the GM could make them up, but how do they know if they got them right? It is a designer's job to make the GM's life easier, not harder - they already have it hard enough running a game for the group, after all.
Incidentally, and as an aside, the more options you provide for the PCs the higher the chances that one of them will stumble into an unbeatable combination of abilities that forces the GM's hand to ban said combo. Usually this is only noticed after it has come into play and made an impact by breaking the game in half, its damage to the fun of the overall group already done. The more options the PCs have, the harder it is for the GM to keep them all in check with fair and balanced methods, as such I do not want to enable powergamers too much.
But wait, GGG Guy, were you not saying a moment ago that more options complicates things for people and that the GM does not need to have a harder time preparing their sessions? Yes, hypothetical critical reader of mine, you would be correct that this argument appears very contradictory. If not for your observant questioning I would not be able to proceed with my already overly-long-aside and would have to resort to a silly display of talking to myself just so I can continue to elaborate. Thank you for your earnest participation.
Obligatory Ahem.
You see, options for antagonists can come in pretty much any shape or form, this gives them a lot more variety than the kind of options that PCs would be allowed to have. By providing a number of abilities that are each very distinct from the other, choosing one of them is not made harder but easier, because they don't have to distinguish between three very similar upgrades but just go for the one that does what they need.With this aside clear, we can move on to the third big reason Aberrant options exist.
I am sure you are familiar with houseruling. Every group has their own set of things they change to the ruleset for their own games, and if yours does not have any yet, then it is only a matter of time until it does. Inevitably you will want to explore some of the weirder kinds of games that can be run with GGG, maybe the game calls for everyone to have psychic powers, or you want one of the Players to play the role of recurring villain and they need some unique abilities to be a match for the rest of the group.
Aberrant abilities are there to give the GM a starting point in regards to that. They are a building foundation for the GM to either make more things like them on their own, or an excuse to take it easy and use what is already there without having to do any homework.
That said, I am not only looking forward to giving PCs a few more trinkets in the future (there are a few holes that need filling as far as concepts go), but I also don't think I will be adding too many more Aberrant Options from now on - just a few more until I'm reasonably sure that all the bases are covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)