Last night it came up that Evil Hat got mentioned in the New York Times. It was basically a name-check inside a little history lesson about Jim Butcher and AmberMUSH. (If you don’t know what AmberMUSH was, check the article!) Jim’s at the center of the story, but plenty of other writers are covered as well. You might recognize a few of them: Cam Banks, Angela Beegle, and C. E. Murphy.

I knew them then and know them now because of my passionate commitment to farting around online well before that was something everyone was doing. (Does that statement make me a hipster? A netster? An old bearded guy with suspenders? Feh.) But directly or indirectly, it’s that activity — spending so many hours on AmberMUSH, playing all sorts of characters, cooperatively writing stories in semi-real-time, that has shaped and informed my entire adult life, directly or indirectly. It was through MUSHing that I met Lydia Leong, who, back in 1996, was the connection that got me a job at Digex. Digex is where I met my wife. Therefore, AmberMUSH is the tool that sculpted everything that’s true about me today.

I cannot overstate the importance of farting around online — of making friends who deeply and truly share common interests with you no matter who or where they are or what they intend to do with themselves — while in college. The education helps, sure. But it’s those people and the opportunities that come with them that will really carve out the path in your life. (Evie and Xander: if you’re reading this after GoogleFaceing your old man in 2029 looking for ammo, you have my archived-in-perpetuity permission to throw this one back in my face.)

Share
 

Here’s another idea banging around in my head about Fate that I’m not sure is ready for FateRPG.com.

So to generalize, in Apocalypse World, players roll 2d6 for various things, which the results usually reading like:

2-6: Failure (you don’t get what you’re after, and things may well get worse)
7-9: Mixed/minimal success (success with complications)
10+: Solid success (you get what you’re after pretty comprehensively)

I dig this idea of mixed success — of a gradient between success and failure — and I think it’s going to be one of those “hot technologies” in gaming over the next few years. Success with complications is “yes, but” in action. Yes, you crack the safe, but not as fast as you wanted — the guards will be here any second. Yes, you sneak over the wall and make your escape, but you were caught on camera. It’s good stuff.

This idea is translated over into Fate pretty easily. First, frame this idea in your head: the target difficulty for a skill roll is the roll necessary to get a mixed success.  The target is Fair; you roll Good; you succeed, but….

To really blow the target out of the water, to succeed comprehensively, you gotta get spin on your success. Spin is an idea that’s shown up in Spirit of the Century as well as a few other builds of Fate, and it’s simple short-hand for getting 3 or more shifts on your roll — beating the target difficulty by 3 or more.  (Why 3? An aspect bump can get you a +2. Spin is a way to recognize a win that wasn’t built simply by one invocation. It’s a good roll, a multi-invoke, high-rated skill, a combo of all that, that sort of thing.)

So to rate the above using shifts, we’d say:

<0: Failure
0-2: Mixed success
3+: Solid success

Now you’ve got some flavor going in a simple, quick roll — that gradient between failure and success that I was talking about earlier. And because “yes, but” can produce a decent amount of story fun, fitting it in the middle, where the results are usually more likely to fall all things being equal, you’re going to see that a lot.

Now let’s talk GUMSHOE (as seen in Esoterrorists, Trail of Cthulhu, etc).  One of the things in GUMSHOE is the idea that investigative abilities straight up can’t fail, because you never want to see an investigative path that prevents the story from moving forward. Now, that’s a principle that dovetails with a piece of advice we’ve given out in Fate before: if failure isn’t interesting, you shouldn’t roll. In essence, GUMSHOE is putting forward the idea that failure on investigative rolls is uninteresting.

I think investigation isn’t the only place where that concept has some traction, though: traversing terrain obstacles, for example (“climb over that wall, jump over that ravine”) also apply. Regardless, the point is that there are some situations that characters will encounter where they have skills that apply, but which aren’t particularly interesting to roll, because failing on them produces an outcome that’s unattractive for the story (fail to jump the ravine, you die; fail to crack the safe, the secret remains unavailable). So even if the player were to roll the dice on his skill, the result is no failure.

These sorts of no-fail rolls are where mixed success can come into the picture again. So let’s do this: ditch the “failure” tier on the result table, and slide the remaining ones into the gap. That leaves us with a new gap at 3+ that we need to fill, something beyond a solid success: an awesome success.

<0: Mixed success
0-2: Solid success
3+: Awesome success

If mixed success is “yes, but”, and solid success is simply “yes”, then an awesome success is “yes, and”, right? You could simply leave it at that and resolve the “yes, and” in the fiction if you like. “Yes, you leap over the chasm, AND you manage to do it while your sidekick clings screaming to your head.” But we know that Fate likes a good temporary aspect every once in a while, so consider the notion that an awesome success means you get to create a temporary aspect — like the result of a successful maneuver or declaration — to support how awesome you just were. “I leap over the chasm! That means I’ve got a Great Head Start. I’ll be tagging that one later…”

So that’s the core of the idea. Like it? Tweak it? Ditch it? Speak up.

Share
 

So, this is a weird idea for a side-project of mine that might not see the light of day (or it might!). I’d post it over on FateRPG.com if I was more certain about it, but for now, this goes over here on my blog as a “hack”.

So, I’ve been noodling around the notion of wanting to do a Fate damage variant that felt both gritty and dangerous, but also ran pretty fast, and set aside the whole stress thing. Oddly, this left me looking at something that’s usually tied to a more hit-pointy system, the “damage roll” — but without hit points per se, and still taking into account the effect of a well performed (high margin of success) attack roll. I’ve kicked this one back and forth with Rob Donoghue a bit, and we each came down on a different side on the question of “how many dice to roll?” — Rob thinks keeping things limited to 4 dice is grand, while I was thinking, hey, big damage, more dice, awesome!

Which lead me to bring up a question on Twitter and G+ last night — how many Fudge dice are too many at the table? Is a mechanic that asks folks to roll as many as 6, 8, or even 12 Fudge dice onerous?  The answers are mixed, which means I don’t really end up any more resolved on the split with Rob than before. Some folks are low-supply and have players who’d absolutely hate needing more dice. Many others have plenty and would be happy to see a reason to use more of them at the table.

So here’s an exploration of the idea, and a look at both ways (limit-4 and limit-12) to implement it. Apologies if this all comes off as fragmentary. It’s a work in progress.

Fred’s Damage Idea (High Cap)

Anyway: damage. This stuff can work in a psychic/magic sense too, but I’m talking physical for the moment. I like the idea of getting grittier and rougher, and having the concept of a “damage roll” show up on the field.

Weaponry can be rated in terms of the dice of damage that get rolled on a hit (this is a 3 die knife). An additional die gets rolled for each shift the hitter spends (basically margin of success = that many additional dice).

Damage comes in three classes: Bruising, Wounding, Killing. All three can kill or deeply screw up someone, it’s just harder. Various kinds of factors — intent, chosen weapon, magic, yadda — may change what class of damage is rolled. (So we might have a 3 wounding die [3W] knife, or a 1 killing die [1K] gun.)

Here’s where the multiple dF’s come into play within that. Depending on the class of damage that a die is rolling, it will be interpreted differently:

  • Bruising: Count each [-] that comes up as a hit (“count the negatives”)
  • Wounding: Count each [-] or [+] as a hit (“count the marks”)
  • Killing: Count each die thrown as a hit (“count the dice”)

Some protections will slide the class down — a kevlar vest might turn killing dice bullets into wounding or bruising dice. Others may limit the number of dice thrown. Still noodling there, though I lean towards the former (with the proviso that nothing gets shoved below bruising), because I like the idea that armor or whatever might limit the chances of severe damage, but it’s less likely to eliminate it. Folks wearing bulletproof vests can still get bruised when the bullet hits home, and armor always has its weaker areas.

Regardless, you count up the number of “hits” up to a maximum of 4. The number of hits scored determine what sort of disadvantage is inflicted. This might have a consequence-like “manifests as an aspect” thing, or we might be setting that concept aside here (which might have the interesting effect of making aspects placed by maneuvers more unusual and noteworthy, perhaps?).

Here, “disadvantage” might mean you face a -1 to a category of actions (injured leg means physical activities are impaired), but I’m thinking it certainly means that if you get hit again, your opponent gets another die (so there is a death spiral effect here) to add to the damage die rating.

The “hits” table would look something like this:

  • 0 hit – It’s still a hit, but there’s no mechanical disadvantage; narratively, though, you were forced to counter the blow in some way, which may change your options on the field. “He’s backed you away from the exit, so that’s off the table now” Whiff!
  • 1 hit – Momentary disadvantage (dirt in the eye; reeling; whatever; slips away after it affects at least one roll — that -1 as you try to run away, or that +1 to damage dice when the dude hits you again) Unhh!
  • 2 hit – Significant disadvantage (hangs around for the whole fight; you have to take a specific action afterwards to shake it off) Ow!
  • 3 hit – Long-term disadvantage (you need to do X things to recover from this — days of rest, therapy, whatever — over a period of time; X = total number of dice thrown including non-hits; At this level, the target has the option to set aside a long-term disadvantage for a KO-style removed from action, though it likely comes with a Significant disadvantage in the following scene.) Arrrgh!
  • 4 hit – Removed from the action (Bruising: KO; Wounding: Crippled; Killing: Crippled or Dead; includes long term disadvantage with doubled duration) …! *thud*

So getting hit sucks, and fast. There are no guarantees of protection here — PCs could go down fast if they choose the wrong fight and armament — and the class of damage getting rolled determines the scope of how the problems that arise might be described. “Removed from action” via bruising isn’t quite so bad as by wounding or crippling.

At least in the high-cap version, “removed from action” could be pushed up to a higher number, thanks to the ‘X’ factor at 3+. So you could just go 0, 1, 2, 3, 6 on the above, if you like, depending on how comfortable you are with how easily folks might be sent out of the fight.

But lethal weapons and such don’t need a lot of dice of baseline damage to be scary fast; they’re probably 2K or 3K weapons. The K(illing) is where that gets particularly scary, because each die represents a 100% chance of producing a hit. Someone gets 2 shifts on his attack roll with a 2K weapon, and he’s making 4 hits (2 dice from the weapon, 2 from the shifts), and likely deadly ones at that.

Area effect stuff would buy into the notion of “it’s about not being there when it happens”. Will tend to mandate X dice of effect to whoever’s in the zone. BIG effects will step down in damage class for each zone away you get from the zones targeted. When something (an explosive) lands near you, you need to a) notice it, b) take cover. Successfully taking cover will step down the damage class, too (and better to be Bruised by concussive force and falling debris than Killed by it, eh?).

Low Cap

So this is where Rob started talking about the idea of limiting the number of damage dice thrown to 4 dice. I get it! There’s something elegant about the idea being that whenever you throw dice, you’ll throw at most 4 of them.

For me, this would imply that as the damage number on an attack increases (say, you swing with 2 bruising brass knuckles, and you get 4 shifts, for a 6 bruising attack — but if you’re throwing at most 4 dice, what does that mean?) then you have the chance of some or all of your dice transitioning into the next higher damage class. This is pretty easy to work out, in fact. Each bruising die generates 1/3 hit on average, each wounding die generates 2/3 hit on average, and each killing die generates a hit. So you could say that 12 bruising dice equals 6 wounding dice equals 4 killing dice. That said, I’d prefer to fudge that math a little in the interests of making each break-point happen 4 apart. The transition of narrative context from bruising to wounding to killing has some weight beyond the strict dice behaviors, after all.

So with that in mind, I’d make things work like so:

  • 1B
  • 2B
  • 3B
  • 4B
  • 5B = 3B+1W
  • 6B = 2B+2W
  • 7B = 1B+3W
  • 8B = 4W
  • 9B = 5W = 3W+1K
  • 10B = 6W = 2W+2K
  • 11B = 7W = 1W+3K
  • 12B = 8W = 4K

So as we can see, our expert brass knuckle user (knucklist?) is going to roll 2 bruising dice (counting minuses as hits) and 2 wounding dice (counting non-blanks as hits). Since part of his attack has a wounding component, he’s hitting hard and nasty enough that the effects created should be described in the wounding context — not inappropriate for someone swinging hard metal at the end of his fists.

This method would require that folks keep separate which dice are being rolled of which type — but that’s as simple as a little bit of table separation, or two separate colors, and a left hand/right hand throwing method. The only real downside here, I think, is the chance that this table won’t internalize quickly for people (even though it does for me) and they would have to do a little bit of lookup whenever the damage tally added up to more than 4 dice of whatever the starting damage class was.

Share
 

EDIT: We have a production guy! It’s Clyde Rhoer from the Theory From the Closet podcast.

I’d love to get my podcast (shared with Chris Hanrahan), That’s How We Roll, back on the air. But the reality is that neither Chris nor I can handle the production side of things any more.

If you’ve got a track record for doing the podcast production side of things, and are willing to pick up the ball, and can commit to doing so for at least a full year, Chris and I are willing to commit to doing a recording session at least once per month during that time. We’ve got a lot yet to talk about, and will also be taking suggestions if we get back on the road.

Here’s what we’d need a production guy to do:

  • Up front: Find Fred a best-of-breed Skype call recording software that runs on his windows machine
  • Take the audio file from Fred after we’ve done a session (likely via dropbox)
  • Gussy it up (levelator or what have you) so that it sounds more proper on the volume levels, etc
  • Tack on the standard beginner/ender sound files (opening & closing credits)
  • Listen through the recording to see if any skype glitches or “hang on, let’s re-start that” moments crop up. They’ll be few, but sometimes the technology fails us.
  • When appropriate, split a longer recording session into smaller episodes
  • Export as mp3 with appropriate ID tag info
  • Upload to podcast site, scheduling the ‘cast for release
  • Write and post show notes together with the upload

What we won’t be asking you to do a lot of is: edit the audio, beyond the minor splicery stuff that’s discussed above. We’re not the kind of show that wants you to shorten our vowels or address our um’s and uh’s.

If the audio recording efforts go pear-shaped, we might end up asking you to get in on the call and do some recording from your own home rig, but for scheduling purposes, my preference is to establish a one-click, no-fuss skype recording solution on my computer. (It’ll be easier for Chris & I to coordinate our difficult schedules than it’ll be to do it with a third person.) We can cross that bridge when we come to it.

What we can do for you: aside from producing “great” content on the show, not a ton, though I’d be happy to supply you with free PDFs of everything Evil Hat does, and the option to buy yourself some lower-cost physical copies of our games direct. Chris might be able to do something nice for you too from his position as a game-store owner, but don’t hold him to that, that’s just me speculating.

If you think you’ve got the chops to make this happen on a regular and timely basis, holler my way via the “contact” button on this site! We’d like to get rollin’ again.


Share
© 2011 Deadly Fredly Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha