Kitten-Induced Delays

I have a couple of posts for this week, but right now I'm facing kitten-induced delays across the board. 

Riddles: Edward Nigma: Consulting Detective

A pitch we (me, Art Lyon, and Gene Ha) did for DC several years ago. We had some interest, but the timetable they asked about was crazy (they wanted it in before the new Batman film a few months away). It doesn't work with the new status quo in the DC Universe, but I think it remains cool concept. I'd love to make it a backstory for a superhero campaign. 

RIDDLES:

Edward Nigma: Consulting Detective

6 issues

IN BRIEF

When old adversaries turn up, detective Edward Nigma, formerly known as The Riddler, flees Gotham City. He sets up shop in Washington, DC and builds a network of connections, assistants…and enemies.

Following the cases of a detective who schemes like Yojimbo and pontificates like Sherlock Holmes, Riddles tours unexpected corners of the DC universe and the many genres of mystery: from noir to technothriller, from conspiracy to locked-room, and everything in between. But, although Nigma excels at solving puzzles, his discoveries may be as dangerous as the crimes themselves.

But is the Riddler just a detective or something more? Stuck solving cases for the underworld he’s so recently escaped, he begins to recruit a team— but to what purpose? Through the course of the series we see the pieces fall into place as Eddie sets up a final showdown…for revenge.

Can a criminal hunt criminals without becoming one again? Will he live to find out? Will he look up from checking stats on his Fantasy Villain draft picks long enough to worry about it?

MAIN CHARACTERS

Edward Nigma: Although he tells himself he's in it for the fame and money, part of him knows that’s a lie. A clean record gives him a chance to go straight, but he needs challenges to keep from going crazy...er. To every case he brings a brilliant analytical mind, a penchant for schemes, a bizarre supporting cast - and a nearly limitless ego. His clients will not always like the answers he uncovers.

Yeager K. Allen: The FBI  liaison to the Washington, DC police who finds himself under Eddie's thumb. Years before, the Riddler supplied him with enough information to make a name for himself at the agency. He’s not corrupt, just inclined towards the easiest path. His debt to Nigma chafes, but he can’t resist access to the kind of evidence only Edward Nigma can turn up – evidence and insights carefully doled out. So, Allen helps him - but he's always on the lookout for ways to take Nigma down a peg.

The Dog: Eddie’s second recruit, a patriotic robot dog claiming to be half-beagle, half-bloodhound - meaning he’s right half the time. Another one of Prof. Ivo’s failures, he made the mistake of turning good to the Power Company and found himself a robo-mascot butler rather than a member. The Dog joins Eddie in the heart of the American capital in the hope he can do some actual good... and perhaps even get to vote.

 “Manny”: A mook’s mook, Manny is the survivor of many super villain henchmen gangs. He brings with him minimal skills and an insatiable drive to be helpful to Eddie, who’s pulled his bacon out of the fire once again.   

Mujinahime: The self-proclaimed Princess of the Mujina—tiny Japanese trickster demons— Mujinahime and her gang of wargrrls control their turf through a mix of skill, superpowers, and cute. While she appears innocent at first, darkness reveals her true colors—making her Eddie’s secret weapon.

The Word: A forgotten dark vigilante who was gritty before gritty was in. Now semi-retired and more smelly than fearsome, Eddie offers the Word one last chance to make a difference—but on the Riddler’s terms.

ISSUE ONE

Edward Nigma’s doing well. He’s managed to build a decent client list, establish an exotic reputation, and gain recognition through a snappy advertising campaign. Besides a few lost competitions against the Dark Knight, he considers his life pretty good. That comes crashing down when he returns to his office to find his staff touched by the grim grinning rictus of Joker Death (tm), from his secretary to his agent to his lawyer. By the time the Major Crimes Unit arrives, Eddie realizes old friends and enemies have made it too hot to stay in Gotham City.  

Landing in Washington, DC Eddie sets up an office and begins his hunt for a capable assistant. The results are unfortunate and in one brief case even disastrous: kids straight out of their origins with no real training, Snapper Carr wannabes, or, worse yet, former sidekicks to villains, including Jewelee and the Body Doubles. After Harley Quinn swears revenge for Nigma's casual use of words like “underqualified,” and “psychotic”, Eddie decides to take a different tack.  

Short-staffed, Nigma's first big case forces him to team up with Oracle in an effort to track down a hacker working the halls of one of the most secure facilities on the planet. She needs him to prevent Accidental Armageddon v 2.0 and he needs her to help solve a domestic dispute between two of DC's strangest villains.

To get in, Eddie twists the arm of his unwilling FBI contact, Yeager K. Allen, whose knack for ducking trouble fails him when Nigma shows up. With Oracle riding virtual shotgun, they discover that a combination of VR “entertainments,” a King Kong fetish, and the unauthorized use of government supercomputing resources may spell doom for Monsieur Mallah and the Brain's relationship, threaten the world, and scar the detectives for life-- physically and mentally.

Later, back at the office, a call from Allen may provide Nigma with the solution to his staffing and safety woes: a potential assistant who's worked with the FBI before— The Dog, an evil robot superdog now turned patriotic crimefighter. With his first recruit, Eddie begins to set in motion a brilliant, intricate revenge plot – one that could very well destroy everything he’s built.

FUTURE ISSUES

Issue 2: A Fistful of Mooks

When former henchmen call on Nigma to solve a mystery before their bosses Mr. Freeze and Scarecrow get back, Eddie has to choose between putting things right and telling the dangerous truth. Of course that's no choice if there's trouble to be caused for former rogues-gallery rivals. Nigma plays the two gangs of henchmen against one another while ferreting out the truth. As the dust settles, Eddie comes away with his next recruit, Manny—a mook among mooks.

Issue 3: City of Sins

A city of sin. A city of lies. A bloody string of unsolved murders. Eddie faces competition in the form of washed-up boy geniuses the Harvey Twins, the less-than-deadly Encyclopedist, and the hyper-professional Nan True. But Eddie’s agenda reaches beyond these mysteries as he recruits another member for his team, Mujinahime whose girl-gang of Otaku-bashers and MySpace-poets rules the streets. Is this seedy burgh of bad men, worse women, and stark lighting ready for the master of double, triple and quintuple crosses?

Issue 4: Twenty-Four in 24

The Penguin, one of Eddie's few remaining friends, calls for help. Now he has twenty-four hours (and twenty-four pages) to reunite a retired supergang to stop a heist before the bird gets caged. Will his plans collapse when they find he's been “flexible” with the truth? How much of Eddie’s plan aims to help his old friend and how much to help himself? A countdown climax answers these questions and brings Eddie another member of his team. Twenty-Four meets The Blues Brothers, minus the Illinois Nazis...maybe.

Issue 5: The Trap Trap!

Washington is caught in the crossfire when Cannon, Saber, Merlyn and other super-assassins come to town. Their target is Nigma! Can he survive when he finds his old death-traps rebuilt and used against him? His team has their hands full guarding Eddie-- but does he have other protectors? And why is he so calm? By the end Eddie reveals his plot to solve a client’s mystery, get his hands on rare super-equipment and incidentally take down a few competitors in his online Fantasy Villain league.

Issue 6: The Red Herring Gambit

The Riddler has carefully accrued debts, equipment and resources through each of his cases—and now the pieces of the puzzle come together as Eddie reveals his scheme. His carefully gathered team of odd-ball assistants must go in Mission: Impossible style. But will they be willing to when they learn Eddie’s objective: Take Down the Joker!

WHY RIDDLES?

*Lacking powers or any shtick beyond being clever, the Riddler is arguably one of Batman's most interesting foes. This series explores that character, what led to his one year coma and why he's decided to “go straight.”

*Plays with and explores popular genres of mystery today—Teen Detectives, Sin-City Noir, Technothrillers ala 24, and so on. Like Planetary, Riddles plays with the look and tropes of these stories.

*Riddles will be done as a six-issue mini-series. Each story will be told “all-in-one.” At the same time, continuity and coherence for the series comes from Eddie’s gathering of his gang and hints at a larger plan. He claims to have gone straight, but can he resist a grand diabolical scheme?

*Jumps off from elements created in Paul Dini's new run on Detective Comics, events of Infinite Crisis, and the continuing themes of 52.

Wyrd Wyrd West: Alternate Western RPGs

ON THE TRAIL

Last week in my "RPG Genres I Wished I Liked" post, I mentioned the Western. A few people came to defend it- but a number of people talked about issues of history that kept them from wanting to run a cowboy game. One solution has been to dress up the genre tropes in other clothing- sci-fi, fantasy, whatever. That has a certain appeal to me- after all I hunted down a copy of Pelgrane’s Owl Hoot Trail at Gen Con, which has been described as a Western with D&D races.

So decided to go through and figure out how many non-standard Western rpgs I could find. I discovered more “Wild West” RPGs and key supplements than I expected. From those I pulled these fifteen games- somewhere between a third and a quarter of the total from the list. I’m sure I have a few games missing here- suggestions are welcome. A notable absence is Far West which still hasn’t actually been published as far as I can tell. I wonder if some good genre-mash ups with the Western remain: a pure detective game? luchador? cyberpunk (like an Etherscope mash-up)? Spies? Faerie tale? Superhero remains open- but only because I left off Arc Dream’s This Favored Land, which really covers just the Civil War. Perhaps a pulp-vigilante game with a Zorro or Lone Ranger twinge?

1. Time Drifters

1990. An early oddball time travelling game. I'm sure most chrono-games have a Wild West component or module. It's easy and evocative. We’ve seen that in plenty of television series (Justice League, Dr. Who). But this one puts it on that front page and actually offers it as the only setting in the book.

2. Deadlands

1996. The great, shambling granddaddy of the Western gone weird. This has gone through multiple editions and remains a classic. Deadlands has a certain brilliance in bringing together horror, steampunk, magic, and crazy simple rules. It doesn’t quite have the same market share as it once, did but remains strong. I don't know if it is true but I always see this game as the logical result of Joe Lansdale's work. His weird Jonah Hex mini-series (with more than a little Cthulhu to them) and his edited anthology Razored Saddles (1989).

3. Six-Guns & Sorcery

1996. The American West supplement for Castle Falkenstein. I suspect you could also include several alt-history settings in this list that have a Western overlap. BRP's Queensguard for example. As I mentioned on my earlier review of this, I like this supplement for its more mixed treatment of the history. It brings the questions arising from the era into the more four color world CF. It also wins for the Wild, Wild West references.

4. Werewolf: The Wild West

1997. An oddball coincidence or enemy planning? This came out the year after Deadlands. I have to wonder what the lead time was? Did WW see the success of DL and make this the next "historical" game they put forward. Or was WtWW already in development and playtesting, making the company sigh that they hadn't beaten Pinnacle to the punch. This game garnered a couple of supplements, but eventually died out. They did produce a number of cross-over adventures for the two games. I wonder if that was the first instance of that?

5. Cold Steel Reign

2004. There's a significant gap between this and the last item, suggesting that the genre of alt-Western had been served well by DL and company. It also suggests that some new media appear that got companies thinking about the Western again. RPG.Net's review describes this as Deadwood the rpg. Why on this list? Because everywhere's a Deadwood arising from an apocalyptic event which happens during the Civil War. That shatters the nation and adds magic and demons to the setting.

6. Fistful o' Zombies

Eden throws its Stetson into the ring, with this Wild West supplement. Notably overseen by Shane Hensley (creator of Deadlands), we get zombie Eastwood on the cover. There's a good chunk of general advice for running AFMBE in a Western mode, and four new settings including a "Singing Cowboy" take on things. I’ve often wondered how many of these Deadworlds actually got run by groups and how many simply served as inspirations for GMs.

7. Dogs in the Vineyard

I've never been sure exactly how to describe Dogs in the Vineyard, except that it feels like it operates in an allegorical Western space. Is there magic? Are the demons real? I suspect that's a decision the group has to come to. But the combination of religious enforcers trying to keep their land pure and the "push your luck" mechanic of conflict make for a striking game. More than many other games, it manages to evoke a feeling about the place and time.

8. Spellslinger

A thin d20-based setting with wizards and wagon-trains. Fantasy Flight's Horizon line reminded me of TSR's Alternity or WEG's Masterbook lines: attempts to make many settings to see which actually stuck. Grimm's the only survivor from this line. Spellslinger combines classic fantasy with the Western, with an emphasis on the fantasy side of things.

9. Serenity

I think we can agree that Firefly's pretty much a Western in space? It has some other trappings, but it plays with and reflects those conventions. That's been a classic trope in sci-fi for years, and its even popped up as a theme in many Traveller supplements (especially on the frontiers). But we hadn't seen a full rpg embrace of that until Serenity arrived. I bet we see more- and I bet I’ve missed some that have come out.

10. Wizards & Gunslingers

I don't know enough about this game from Avalon/Comstar to make an assessment. Apparently there's a Pathfinder release in addition to the original self-contained version. It appears to be more of a fantasy setting with Western bits tacked on.

11. Phaethos

Another fantasy world with Western elements added on. The d10-based game's available for free download online. While the cover and design makes the game look fairly WW, the actually feel of the setting doesn't quite match that. The publisher describes it as a “mix between old western United States, medieval Europe, fantasy, magic, horror and science fiction.” So, you know, pretty much everything.

12. Devil's Gulch

A western location, but one with built in suggestions for how to convert and use it with fantasy, steampunk, and even space-opera. I like that concept- it recognizes that in practice the Western gets transformed more often than not. The cover art certainly sells the non-standard approach, with a gun and spell duel in progress. And, of course a close-up butt shot. I’d like to see more books take this approach- with locations and ideas about how those might get used with slight genre tweaks.

13. Weird West

A tiny, tiny little rpg with highly streamlined rules. Staurt Robertson aims this to cover "weird western worlds of comboys, kung-fu, magic and otherworldy malevolence." All of that in 8 2.75" by 4.75 pages.

14. Woodland Warriors Out West

A supplement for the Woodland Warriors game, offering a chance to run anthropomorphic creatures in a Western game. It offers a new take on the setting, and wins just for the concept of Prairie Dog Cardsharps. Oddly I used to own a copy of Furry Pirates, the fuzzy supplement for another genre I’m not as sold on. I wonder if you could do a version of Mouse Guard with this?

15. Owl Hoot Trail

Six-guns, bounty-hunting Orcs, and gadgeteer Elves. The most recent entry into this genre- offering a slim and pretty cool d20 resolution system. I like the balance of flavor and simplicity here. It feels like a Western setting which has evolved with fantasy races. While some of the other fantasy/Western versions patch together elements, this game comes across as an organic whole. It reminds mea little of later Shadowrun, where the game have finally come to terms with the implications of the races in the setting.  I'll write up a more full read-through in the next couple of weeks, but I'd recommend it right now. It has a fairly extensive campaign in the back, making it a natural for GMs who want to jump in right away.

RPG Genres I Wish I Liked

Do you think publishers have done some games to death? Do you have a kind of game you’d avoid even if you trusted the GM? I’ve done a number of game surveys to pick a next campaign and I’m always surprised at what people avoid. Until I stop and consider some of my hang-ups about games. To be clear, I don’t think any of these are bad games to play- they just don’t appeal to me. Some used to, but these days they don’t work for me. Some of these I wish I liked since smart people I respect have talked about their love for them.

1. Pirates

I like the era and the whole swashbuckling milieu, but for some reason pirates don’t really work for me. I’m a fan of Musketeer bits and the whole Elizabethan pageantry. I even love the idea of sea battles- with wooden ships wheeling for a desperate shot. I loved that from GW’s Man O’ War and many naval miniatures games. But pirates…meh. It makes me more ambivalent than I ought to be towards 7th Sea. There’s a ton of interesting material in that setting, but I hit the pirate stuff and I turn off completely. That sub-genre’s what made me do this list. I watch yet another Pirate-themed board game pop up on The Dice Tower- with Tom Vasal praising the genre. Yet other, more interesting themes get commented on as overdone…

2. Zombie Protagonists

We had a conversation about post-apocalyptic games the other day. I like the idea of them- but usually tied to unusual or more interesting disasters. I’m also fond of building games- where the players have to find a way to build and survive. That can be tough in that kind of game- on the one hand you want to have a threat, but on the other you don’t want the group to feel like they’re on quicksand. Ideally there’s some kind of turning point after which they manage to find some kind of semi-permanent shelter and have to protect it. So I’m not opposed to zombies in that context. I think they might be a little overdone in board games of late.

In rpgs, I’m not really interested in the zombie as PC sub-genre. We see this in a few games which offer a switch up. Even in something like Monsterhearts, I don’t dig it. Some of the various AFMBE Deadworlds also take this approach. Of course, as I write this out I realize that I spent a chunk of time working on a campaign premise that did exactly this: Tokyo Indenture.

3. Wild West 

I’m not exactly sure what I think of Westerns. I mean I love many classic western films, but the wider genre doesn’t do that much for me. So in the plus column we have True Grit, TGTBTU, Unforgiven, Have Gun Will Travel, Wild Wild West (TV), The Cisco Kid/Lone Ranger, and Once Upon a Time in the West; in the minus column we have Deadwood (I know), various John Ford classics, Sliverado, and most other TV Western shows. Yet I pick up Western books from time to time- Deadlands, Owl Hoot Trail, and This Favored Land. I put together the basic list of a History of Western RPGs and their sheer number struck me. But I haven’t gotten the inertia to move beyond that basic outline. I think that best describes my feelings about this. I’m curious about weird takes on the genre- but more straight-forward ones I have a hard time picturing.

4. The 1920’s

This seems weird to me, even as I think about it. I love the concept of Call of Cthulhu- the battle against a corrupting, confusing, and ultimately unknowable foe. A desperate struggle against the dark where we know they ultimately cannot win. But the 1920’s don’t do anything for me- the period doesn’t excite ideas or possibilities, even with the interesting chaos of the Great Depression at the end. I’m much more interested in modern versions of CoC or even Trail of Cthulhu’s 1930’s. Both create more ideas and inspiration for me. The only drawback to a modern game comes from the access to technology, but even that can be controlled.

5. Cyberpunk

Speaking of technology…why doesn’t cyberpunk grab me more than it does? We played multiple campaigns the classic CP 2020 game and I’ve enjoyed some of the early foundational stuff from Gibson and company. Part of the problem may come from the dominant flavors I’ve seen of it. On the one hand, there’s a kind of style fetishistic approach, focused on stuff and guns. I like the social implications of technology- that’s always a fertile source for stories and interesting bits. But cyberpunk often seems focused on the chrome: the weapons, the bikes, the heavy metal modifications. I think that ends up obscuring things which actually interest me. Some of that’s about style and presentation- it doesn’t have to be that way at the table.

But the other strain I’ve seen over the years that hasn’t grabbed me is the nihilism. This differs from the darkness of other games: there’s often a sense that pretty much you’re screwed from the beginning. You’re bits in a machine, waiting to get smashed down. CP as I often saw it played- put you on that quick-sand I mentioned before. Anything you built would always be fair game for the GM: devices, networks, friends. It echoes the darkness of the setting, but ultimately seems just too much. Another irony given that I like CoC which has that as a basis. But there the inevitable loss comes in the end game. We can now fight back against the foe and gain a moment’s peace, save our friends, and restore stability. Cyberpunk makes breakdown a low-level constant feature.

6. Hard Sci-Fi

I picked up Traveller when I was a kid. But except for Snapshot mini battles and sessions spent playing push your luck with character creation, I don’t think we ever really played it. That’s despite being a fan of Clarke, Asimov, and Niven at that age. Something about hard sci-fi felt closed off- I preferred super, fantasy, and spy games instead. I did try to run Ringworld when it came out, but ultimately couldn’t find a hook I liked. Since then I’ve steered away from most games of this genre, with exceptions for those doing interesting or new things I could steal (like Diaspora).

7. Vampires

This probably applies to some of the other stylish monsters as well. Years ago I played in a Vampire game where I played myself and the GM made sure to show me how horrible life would be. My fellow players, also playing themselves, bought into the power fantasy which made it worse. That cured me of the desire to play as one again. I’ve done it, it was eye-opening, and I’d rather try something else. On the flip side, I ran a Vampire game several years ago that…well, I think I hit all my marks. It wasn’t perfect, but I did what I wanted to- with a full redemptive arc that force difficult choices on the players. So I’ve done that story and I don’t think I could match it again. I’d rather just leave it there.

8. Playing as Villains

Been there, done that, watched the players get furious at each other in real life (three times). 

Any genres you have less interest in- from a meh to an "I hate that"?

Icon Kingdoms: 13th Age Warmachine

There’s a lot to love in the new 13th Age game- and a lot to steal for other games. That’s especially true for the concept of Icons it presents: a tool worth borrowing for many different settings.

EVENTUALLY THE GAME BECOMES THE PLAY

I’d skipped on 13th Age originally because I’m not much of a d20 or OSR guy. I’ve played and run both, but these days when I pick products up from these lines I’m looking to adapt them. On the other hand, I’ve enjoyed most Pelgrane products. So when I started to hear more and more buzz about the system I became interested. Then I had the chance to play in one of Aaron R.'s online demos. I saw enough new and cool stuff- presented well by the GM- to make me pull the trigger on a Gen Con purchase. I’ve read through it a couple of times now (and so has Sherri, my wife) and I’m not disappointed. My friend Derek’s moving his existing Legend game over to the system. I’ll write up a full reaction piece in the next few weeks, but you can already find many solid reviews online. What has grabbed me is that 13th Age plays close to the way I run.

I don’t know how true this is for other GMs, but there’s often a gap between the rules as written and the game as played. In play we drop the complicated and chrome bits, we simplify systems, we forget modifiers, and leave out odd corner bits. It isn’t so much a question of house-ruling, but the play style we become accustomed to over time. Our 'at table' versions of GURPS, Storyteller, and Rolemaster grew from years of play. I'd be surprised when I went to reread the rules and realize how much we’d unconsciously filed the serial numbers off. 13th Age feels like someone said "let’s write a game that fits with how we actually play and really care about."

WHAT ARE ICONS?

In the 13th Age setting Icons represent key figures controlling the destiny of the world. In some cases, they’re specific and literal figures (such as the ancient Great Gold Wyrm), but in most cases they represent a role (The Archmage, the Crusader, the Emperor). They’re tied to a set of ideas and ethos, often with particular cultural connotations. The role Icons may differ depending on who or what currently occupies that position. Having the High Druid as a gnome may feel distinct from an dark elf there. The book shows how these figures can be mapped to an alignment chart, if desired.

The Icons help define the setting- something I didn’t pick up on at immediately. They’re the first concepts presented in the book, which looked out of place to me since I came looking more at system than setting. But I soon realized how well those Icons helped to explain the place, offer a sense of history, and set the stage. More importantly characters build relationships with those Icons, right at the start. Each PC begins with three relationship points which they can apply to different Icons. These can be Positive, Negative, or Conflicted.

The key idea here isn’t that your character necessarily knows “The Dwarven King” personally. But instead that you have a connection to the King and his faction. Perhaps you’ve been of service to them. Perhaps you’re known as a staunch foe of them. Positive relationships mean that the Icon and associated agents consider you a good guy. Negative relationships mean you’re an enemy. Conflicted mean that you might be seen as ambiguous. Perhaps some see you as good, and other members regard your actions as suspicious. 13th Age offers a great table discussing these relations and how they might apply to heroic or villainous icons.

(I should mention a couple of other, smarter people than I who have been doing some useful readings of 13th Age. In particular I recommend Rob Donohue’s series. I also suggest looking at Wolfgang Baur’s work. He drafted Icons based on his own setting, Midgard. Keith Baker's done the same with Eberron).

USING ICONS

Each point in a relationship offers a relationship die. Some of the classes (notably the Bard and Sorcerer) have talents which connect to these Iconic relationships. When a relationship die’s called for, the player/GM rolls 1d6 per point. A “6” result indicates a positive or supportive response. A “5” indicates aid or intervention but with an additional complication. It’s worth noting that the GM calls for these rolls- the player might suggest they’re applicable, but the GM decides if it happens 13th Age uses these relationship dice in several places:

• At the beginning or end of a session to serve as a keystone for the present or next session
• When the players encounter representatives of a particular icon. 
• For discovery and surprise, which seems more of a catch-all

As a GM I like this concept. I often fall back to a more sandbox approach- with open-ended session prep sheets and the “Three Things” technique. The first use fits well with that. The second use offers a nice way to remind and connect the players to the world. The second use gives the GM nice way to develop a scene and as importantly acknowledge a player’s background and backstory. For example, if the group runs into a set of demon hunters, and the one player has a positive relationship with The Crusader, the GM might roll. On a six, perhaps one of the hunters knows the character or perhaps there’s a link to the PC’s origin. On a five, the hunters might lay and obligation on them- asking for help. In either case, there’s a nice opportunity to tell the players that their character matters and that the GM remembers it. The relationship dice offer a "story" sub-system. The game has a few of these but overall still feels like a classic game. 

Beyond this, I believe the Icon set up offers a supremely easy way to help players grok a complex setting and immediately connect to it. They buy in and can mechanically show what things sound cool to them. It reminds me a little of the commodifying of the history and setting in Weapons of the Gods. Often the start of a campaign can involve either an info dump or a long period where the GM slowly doles out concepts about the setting. The Icons approach gives a rich, but relatively simple framework to help the players. Just from the one page on each of the Icons, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the 13th Age World.

ON TO ICON KINGDOMS

So I’m wondering how well this could be used to break down and get at other settings. In particular, I’ve been thinking about Iron Kingdoms: a game where I love the concept and feel, but end up overwhelmed when I try to read and parse out what’s going on. Doing this with IK would mean a slightly less mythic approach. Most Icons would stand for a nation or faction- but I think they’d have the same weight. For example, we might have Hierarch Severius as the Icon representing the Protectorate of Menoth. On the other hand the evil dragon Everblight makes for an awesome and fantastic iconic presence. I’m still working through and trying to figure out who the important Icons would be and what roles they would fulfill. I'm going to do more but here's a first thought.

KHADOR

For any particular Icon, I’d try to give a fairly minimal write up: who they are and what values they stand for. So I’d focus less on the history of Khador, than how they’re seen. Who are their enemies and allies, what do they value? More importantly, for each Icon I’d want to give suggestions for the three kinds of relations and what they look like. So for example, the key leader figure for Khador is the Empress Ayn Vanar—so I’d probably identify her as an Icon representing her philosophy, but more broadly the idea of Khador in the setting. Ideally I want to give the players a good sense of what those relationships mean on the ground. Right now my write up feels a little more generic. Ideally I'd want some details more heavily drawn from the setting:

POSITIVE: If Khadoran, perhaps you come from one of the noble or notable families. Or you could have had a great victory or deed of honor drawing the Empress’ attention. Your time in the military built you bonds with significant and influential people who have risen to power. If non-Khadoran, you saved the life of an important person in the Empire. Perhaps you served as a mercenary or adventurer and managed to impress someone. Or you might simply have a fast friend who has risen through the ranks and spread your name.

CONFLICTED: If Khadoran, then perhaps you performed your service, but you have been known to question the decisions of the Empress. Perhaps a portion of your family was purged, and some of that stain has fallen upon you as well. Perhaps you secretly killed a fanatical tyrant officer and fear that secret coming out. Perhaps someone cheated you in the rough justice of trial by combat. If non-Khadoran, perhaps your family engaged in trade or commerce with the Khadorans, building up a network, but you found them more dangerous than reliable. Perhaps a family member has married into a Khadoran house and that makes you wary. Perhaps you have no enmity against them, but in the past you’ve crossed some of their operations and interrupted them.

NEGATIVE: If Khadoran, perhaps you have declared that the Empress needs to be overthrown. You may have allied yourself with the Llaelese Resistance. Perhaps you tried to bring new ideas, philosophies or technologies to your homeland and became outcast. If non-Khadoran, you had your village burned by marauding Khadoran forces and have taken revenge. Or perhaps your family struck a potent military blow against Khadorans- or even simply betrayed them in a trade. Perhaps you’re a heroic Cygnaran, fighting against the rise of the red hordes.

AND BEYOND

I’m going to write up more of these Icon approaches to Iron Kingdoms- more fleshed out than this. It’s a setting I like, and this offers me a good entry point to figure out what’s going on in that world. I first probably have to make a solid list of who would serve these roles. By coming in looking for those figures, I’m hoping it will make the material feel less overwhelming. I’m wondering if an Icon approach to other settings might be fruitful: would it help showcase a complex fantasy world like Glorantha (The Red Emperor, the Arkat, Argrath, The Only Old One, The Pharaoh) or L5R’s Rokugan (the Clan Champions, Fu Leng, The Emperor, The Emerald Champion, Yoritomo, the Masked Ronin, etc).

Perhaps it might be a way to craft an interesting approach to other genres. Could Fading Suns or Dune benefit from this kind of breakdown? Icons seem like a logical fit with Microscope used to create a fantasy (or other setting). Drop the concept of Legacies from Microscope and instead have the player create an Icon. In a typical game, the players might create five and then the GM can figure out the rest. My friend Art pointed out that the concept scales: for a single-city urban campaign, you could use Icons to define the various factions and groups. 

On Rolled Damage

SHAKE, RATTLE, AND WOUND

Last week I touched just on the fringes of the “Does System Matter?” question and this weekend we recorded an episode on the topic for Play on Target. I’ve been trying to figure out if it does matter to me- and if perhaps that’s just a GM position. because I usually run and set the rules, perhaps the system has more of an impact on my experience. Maybe system and mechanics seem crucial because I run the game.

But then I remember how much I love rolling damage.

A lot. There’s something supremely satisfying about hitting and then being able to grab up a completely new set of dice and roll. Everything’s going to pay off now- maybe I’ll crap out and just twing the bad guy or maybe I’ll roll huge and blow a PC out of the water. I love rolling and counting damage, regardless of which side of the screen I’m on.

I'LL DEFAULT TO A 12d6 EB

I ran and played Champions and HERO for many years (twenty, I think). When it arrived, it offered the most controllable super-power system out there: elemental but complex. A few others tried to match it (DC Heroes and GURPS Supers) but none really did. But Champions had a 15 point disad in the length of time even the smallest of combats took. And we’re talking with people who ate, slept, and breathed the system. A fight could drag out for hours before the tide turned. But man, no other game matched damage rolls in Champions. You had a choice. Go the conventional route of standard damage and roll a fistful of dice. Count the pips and the Body to get a total. Smart players worked maneuvers and pushes in to get even more dice to thrown. There’s nothing quite like doing 50 points of Stun on a 12d6 roll. Or you could go for the gamble that was the Killing Attack- first you roll the Body then you let loose with the Stun multiple to see what you got. Pure joy when it went off with max effect.

A few other systems managed to match how that felt for me- high powered D&D for example. But early on, our group shifted away from AD&D and went down the Rolemaster road. Rolemaster seemed like a collapsed system- to hit and damage rolled into one, but in reality the hits you did in the initial roll didn’t matter. Crits ruled and you almost always rolled crits if you played smart. That’s where the gamble hit, the chance for a big pay-off. As a player, if I calculated my attack well and managed to use Ambush, I could take out the biggest foes. As a GM, I could have a group in terror of Tiny Criticals. We had one player get his eye bitten out by Tiny Crits from dogs...twice. Bloody, awful, over-elaborated and silly. I loved that damage.

Probably my favorite combat came from a Werewolf the Apocalypse short campaign. I wasn’t sold on the setting, but others loved it. Once I got to playing, I bought in just because I loved slinging so many dice around. We had a final fight where I threw out massive piles of damage- and took huge amounts. I got knocked out twice, the second time being hit by a flying bus. But I got back up again. Stupid and silly, it stands out for me. I have the same fondness for first edition Exalted, for all of its flaws.

PRYING AWAY THE DAMAGE DICE

I recall the first time I hit a game that didn’t use a standard damage system: James Bond 007. At the time I couldn’t wrap my head around the wound system. It seemed like players could get taken out horrifically easily. I was only fourteen and had always played games with big HP tracks. I ended up reworking the damage wounds system to make it more liberal- with rolled damage and players needing multiple shots to put a foe down. Not realistic, but more appealing to my Middle School sensibilities.

Over the years, I’ve played and run different damage systems- certainly with a move to tighter ranges and compressed mechanics. GURPS, of course, only has the players rolling a few dice for damage. But those dice can be lethal, given how little health anyone actually has. Easy to use criticals and the crush/cut/impale damage distinctions give a little more weight and dynamism to the system. We played GURPS for many years which changed my take on things.

We've started to see more games which brought together attack and damage in a single mechanic. FATE does this- with margin of success as stress done, sometimes modified by a weapon value. The new World of Darkness made successes into damage. ORE and HeroQuest do so as well if I recall correctly. I’m sure there are others. Mutants & Masterminds, my go-to system for supers reverses the damage approach. There’s no damage roll, only a check to resist damage dealt. It works quickly and fits with the genre. The game puts staying up and continuing to fight in the hands of the players. Still I’ve had a few people who didn’t care for it; they wanted to roll and have a shot at a bigger hit. Some systems keep attack/damage distinct, but narrow the damage ranges- like GUMSHOE. You give up something in granularity in favor of speed through easy to recall mechanics or a reduced number of rolls. When I first came up with our card-resolution based homebrew, Action Cards, I had a distinct draws for attack and for damage. Eventually over the years I shifted that to an easier success margin = damage result. Easier, faster, and vaguely unsatisfying.

Our group had a mixed reaction when I decided to bring back dice for damage. I changed nothing else but that- we still do all tests and conflicts with the cards. But when you hit, you get to pick up a pile of d10’s and roll them to see how much damage you do. And the game’s better for it. The players love their character decks, but they also love the sensation of flinging dice and counting wounds. Best of both worlds. I put off that change for a long time because I worried it would break the “concept” of the system- the diceless nature. But eventually I realized I wanted the thing that I loved most back in the game.

Because I love rolling damage.

RPG Hacks: Threat or Menace? aka "Stop Me Before I Port Again..."

I'M NOT EVEN HALFWAY THROUGH THE BOOK

I can’t leave well enough alone. And judging from the posts I see on “The Interwebs” other GMs can’t either. A couple of weeks ago I played 13th Age in an online demo run by Aaron R that sold me on the game. I loved the bits and pieces I saw, especially the Icons. These significant figures anchor the details of the setting and also have practical mechanical effects in the game. So immediately I started thinking about how you could rework them- port the concept to another system, rewrite the Icons to build a different game world, or modify the system for interacting with them. This before I’d even finished reading the rule book. I’ve seen posts up already for Owl Hoot Trail with new races and roles, likely before those GMs have actually sat down and played the game. 

What’s wrong with us?

I’m considering this because our next Play on Target recording will tackle the undying gaming debate: Does System Matter? In the last week I’ve seen posts on both sides of this issue- from "Joe the Lawyer’s" suggestion that game design’s a fraud to "Walking in Shadow’s" assertions that system is crucial. Bouncing around I’ve realized that hacking games necessarily buys into the premise that system, at the very least, does something. Rules revisions, reworkings, and reskinning isn’t a question of Rule Zeroing the game, but rather retooling the system before we even get to the table…often before we’ve even finished reading the book. I recall Ken & Robin podcasting about the odd responses they’d get from draft materials. More often than not, these came from people who’d read but not played. They hadn’t seen the actual dynamics of the game. When Laws asked for best practices articles for the DramaSystem supplement Blood on the Snow, he had to specify he only wanted submissions from those who’d actually played the game.

I’ve been trying to think of another form of entertainment where I start deconstructing and revising right out of the gate. Non-interactive media like novels, movies, and comics don’t and can’t elicit that reaction. I can decide to stop watching/reading it maybe and come up with a lovely idea about how the rest of the story ought to go. I can write fan-fiction about it, but that feels different. Some people do rework/recut these products later- and I think that’s the closest. But usually that comes from a love of the core ideas rather than the knee-jerk “hmmm…I’d do that mechanic differently” I engage in. I don’t do the same thing with board games- reading rules and immediately deciding that won’t work and changing it. In fact, single-play suggestions that something’s broken bug me. My gut says you need to play a board game several times to come to an assessment like that. But I don’t follow that with RPGs. I guess the closest analogy would be Legos. There’s a cool model with instructions, but maybe I really wanted the set to create something else. So I don’t end up building the model or playing the game I’ve bought.

OR WE COULD RUN IT WITH...
For example, consider my weird relationship with Legend of the Five Rings. I’ve always loved samurai stuff. When the CCG came out in ’95 I convinced many in the group to buy into it. I stayed with it for the first several expansions, trying to collect complete sets more for the chance to figure out the world than anything else. I worked on how we might play the setting with GURPs or another generic system. Eventually I developed a set of miniatures rules to play out L5R skirmishes. That became Ge Koku Jo, the first thing I published.

Then the Legend of the Five Rings rpg came out (and later the Clan War miniatures game). I liked having the setting details in one place, and appreciated the splat books, but the system didn’t grab me. So rather than sitting down and trying it out and working with it, I went an entirely different direction. I completely rewrote the material to make a Rolemaster Standard System version of the rules. And I ran a full campaign with it. It wasn’t a great fit, but the game ended up with a nice arc. Some years later I decided I wanted to run L5R again. By this point AEG had moved on to the 2nd edition rules and the d20 Oriental Adventures version. I picked those up and read through them. And then I completely rewrote the system as a Storyteller hack. And I ran a long campaign using that which was pretty fun. But it wasn’t great and some interesting bits about the original setting didn’t work through as well. Last year the group decided they wanted to play L5R again. I’d picked up most of the lovely and striking L5R 4e books. So of course I decided not to run using that. Instead I opted to work with the homebrew we’d been playing for over a decade, Action Cards, combined with some elements from FATE. That’s what I’m running right now.  There's a cost: AEG keeps putting out interesting supplements for L5R, each now requiring translation into the system I’ve settled on.

What sickness is this?

Based on what I’ve seen, I suspect this syndrome has infected many GMs. But at the same time, I read posts on Reddit and other places from DM’s terrified about a scenario they’ve come up with or fearful about changing the least little detail in their world. They’ve made an ancient curse the heart of their story but the cleric’s going to level and get Remove Curse which "will break their story." They see the rules as written, with any slightest deviation as a violation. So we have gamers on both extremes- does one approach dominate? I blame my upbringing for my endless desire to cut, snip, and rewire. We moved away from D&D pretty quickly, with the few instances heavily modified or done with extra 3rd party books. Our fantasy system of choice for many years was Rolemaster. RM might seem like an elaborate and rules-dense system to the outsider, a massive and gothic structure. In truth it offered a ramshackle, sprawling, and leaky construct closer to the Winchester Mansion. Even the core books had tons of optional systems. Each RM Companion added new rules, meant for the GM to pick and choose. By the third volume they had to have checklists printed so playgroups could track with of hundreds of often contradictory mechanics could be used. Outside of fantasy my formative experience came from systems which encouraged hacking at restructuring: HERO and GURPS. The lack of a strong default setting meant we could twiddle and tool endlessly.

I remember doing this with many other games over the years. I spent a couple of months working out a GI Joe comic book adaptation for Danger International. The same trying to figure out a way to get Ninja HERO to simulate the epic martial arts of the Jademan Comics. We crafted a fantasy framework for Champions before Fantasy Hero came out. When I first ran Changeling the Lost, I used our house system instead of World of Darkness. That was a bunch of work, but I wanted to run it with a system I enjoyed and thought could handle the game better. I ran a Scion campaign with the original system, but the next campaign I did a FATE hack.

Is this pretty common? Do most GMs find themselves reading a new game book and immediately think: nope, we’ll need to change that; this’ll never work at my table; or I could steal that concept to use somewhere else? Is that a shitty and arrogant response on my part to the text?

IS IT A PROBLEM?
I mean here’s the thing: clearly these games have some viability. The authors have played and playtested it and gotten something out of it. I take that as a basic assumption for any professionally published game. And yet my first instinct going in is a critical one. Not the classic reviewer critical one, but like someone walking through a house with an eye to refurbishment. Sometimes I’m walking through the rooms describing to someone who’s lived in there for years all the walls I’m going to knock down. I had this experience the other day with 13th Age. I’d only played it once so by rights I shouldn’t have had an attachment. Yet when Derek, reading through the book for the first real time started talking about how he didn’t care for the backgrounds mechanics and might tweak those up…weirdly, my reaction was a defensive one. That’s karma I suppose for the times I’ve ripped the guts out of a game someone likes to get a different effect. Or perhaps they didn’t care…I’m not sure.

Note here that I’m not necessarily talking about the games meant to be eminently hackable- the rules light and modular games available on the market. The most archetypal those today would be FATE. Now FATE Core’s the new default, but consider all the other flavors of FATE (and its predecessor FUDGE): Legends of Anglerre, ICONS, Diaspora, and Strands of FATE. They’re radically disparate reworkings of the basic DNA of a standard system. Apocalypse World’s the other new hack of choice for gamers as well- generating completely new approaches. These aren’t just about coming up with a new setting using the base rules- but really retooling the system or else porting over completely a game from one system to another.

Of course sometimes you need hacks to make the game work for you. My Changeling hack came from loving the concept, but wanting a streamlined game. The way we played GURPS for years- dropping options, cutting the modifiers, discarding reaction rolls, and other sub-systems- came from a desire to speed things up. I’ve mentioned my players’ split reaction to GUMSHOE: love the investigation side, hate the standard resolution one. That means I have to figure out how to split the difference- hopefully while maintaining some elegance to the game itself. My group likes many of FATE’s concepts, but they hate the dice- so I have to figure out something to solve that.

On the flipside, if I’m running with people online, my instinct is to play as straight as possible. I mean I might pay less attention to the crunchy bits of the system, but I’m not going to do a radical rewriting. I’m not going to present a large-scale cobbled together new game. That scares me a little- hence my choice to run Changeling online with pretty straight WoD (for better or worse). When I ran M&M I made modest changes- mostly to accommodate map scales. Because we’re not in the same room, I don’t want to slow the game down with rules explanations. And perhaps I’m a little afraid that hacks open me up to “why would you do that?” arguments at the table. I’m not sure if it’s a question of courtesy to the players or fear of having someone spot the lynch-pin of my cobbled together system and yanking on it. I can get away with these hacks at the f2f table mostly because I have a group of non-purchasers.

I should stop there. I got the new Iron Kingdoms recently and I’ve been looking over it. I like the setting and the options, but the system doesn’t quite work for me. Maybe I could do it with FATE, but with a different set of dice, like 2d10. Or perhaps I could completely rework things and use 13th Age as the basis…national leaders could be Icons...backgrounds could be further developed into a skill list…

Tell me I'm not the only one doing this...