[spacerpunk] wake up in the morning feeling like j-kirk
June 22nd, 2010
A mashup of Ke$ha/Tik-Tok and Star Trek TOS? This is spacerpunk.
|
|
No comments
Homepage
[spacerpunk] does your scene suck?
June 22nd, 2010
via ndp and others, an old punk rock PSA: if your scene sucks it’s because you suck.
If the game gets published, I should totally redo this poster to show off the spacerpunk cliques.
|
|
No comments
Seattle + GPNW + Spacerpunk
June 22nd, 2010
I had a fabulous time visiting Seattle and GoPlayNorthWest. GPNW is a con run by a great crew, and basically is a model for getting a good con up and running.
Aside from being run by Epic Heroes, they get kudos for finding a fabulous and comfortable venue. The con took place within a local house that tends to be used for literary and theater events. The space had plenty of open social areas and a variety of other spaces (both larger open rooms and smaller private rooms) for playing games. It was leagues better than having everything in a single open room. (I’m certainly taking notes in case JiffyConBoston gets larger.)
I finally played a game of Spacerpunks with folks I do not know. Many flaws were of course revealed (and tinkering will continue); but I really enjoyed how the game want (and I think I will get this thing finished).
|
|
No comments
D&D 4E: Chronosbane Krackens!!
May 24th, 2010
It began as a silly forum thread (“Some krackens just want to kill time”), but it soon became an awesome set of D&D monsters: the Chronosbane Kracken Lords.
Found in the Astral Seas between planes by unfortunate adventurers. If they come from a work with clockwork. They will first notice the effect of Timeslip Aura before the Kracken reveals itself. They are intelligent, but cannot be reasoned with; they have an innate hatred for all things occupying a one-directional position in the timeline, which would be all creatures.
Chronosbane Kracken Lord
Chronosbane Kracken High Lord Time Eater
Chronosbane Kraken Probabilistic Tentacle
Best of all: a glimpse of the beast itself. (Great artwork by Anna.)
|
|
No comments
Spacerpunk: Which mechanical direction?
May 24th, 2010
I have a cute resolution system for the current iteration of Spacerpunk, but prior to having more playtests for the game, I’m questioning the system I have. In brief, I’m wondering if something more “vanilla” would be appropriate.
What I have right now: you have a single core trait that you use to overcome obstacles, and you roll a single d6 to find your outcome:
Trait: Maverick 5-6: Resolve 3-4: Complicate 1-2: Backfire
You use Resolve to remove an Obstacle, Complicate to add a new Obstacle (or make your current one worse), and Backfire to basically blow up the Obstacle you were working on or make it terminally more problematic. (An Obstacle is basically anything that’s challenging you.) When you’re work within your role (your niche on the crew), you get a +1 to the roll (skewing your results for the better). There are several different Traits, each with different sets of possible outcomes.
So far in play: this kind of mechanic focuses on generating new fictional twists and turns and keeps play going forward, but doesn’t push too hard playing within the fictional events and trying to win through fictional positioning. To some extent: what exactly you’re doing might not matter so much (so long as it’s justifiably something that a Maverick Mechanic would do or whatever).
Maybe treating the character’s outcomes to a sort of Obstacle/Resoution oracle is neat, but maybe it’s only confining. On the flipside, it would be trivially easy to port the Traits and Roles to a more standard story-driven system.
For example, I could hack Shadow of Yesterday / Solar System. Given its Secrets/Keys (powers/XP-triggers), I could turn Traits into a combination Secret + Key, and Roles as a combination Secret + package of standard skills. Then “doing stuff” goes back to fictional positioning and using your skills in a more traditional way, with the powers of Traits/Roles shifting in a more subtle way.
Perhaps different groups have different ideal “centers”. My SGBoston playtesters loved going over-the-edge with the improv from the oracles, but I imagine some of my other friends would prefer something slightly less arbitrary. Too much separation from the fictional consequence might cause a lack of character development / association with character.
Thoughts? Basically, should I make this a hack of a vanilla system? Continue with this kind of resolution system? Keep looking?
(I’d love to have a new version of this ready to go for pickup play at GPNW. Hopefully.)
|
|
No comments
D&D 4E Hack: Gridless Combat and Movement Advantage
March 31st, 2010
The goal is to allow more gridless play (either excluding or in addition to grid-based combats). This could allow different styles of play (like the gridless combat I experienced in my AD&D days), while still keeping position-based powers somewhat relevant.
What play looks like: you verbally trade descriptions and take actions. The DM adjucates the exact positioning of people in combat, but generally goes with what the players propose. When players slightly stretch their movement and position, the DM keeps track of this “Movement Advantage” and later compensates the opponents accordingly. This keeps explicit negotiation of “who can go where” to a minimum.
(This does place some more work on the DM to adjucate on the fly, and requires more trust between the DM and players to simply roll with the adjucations rather than negotiating them during the action. IME, most groups can handle something this just fine.)
...
(1) The DM should have a handle on the space of the encounter, either by sketching a rough map or keeping it in your head. (If you prefer, feel free to convert all mention of squares to increments of 5 feet.)
(2) When range is in question – for movement actions, forced movement or ranged attacks – the player should describe what the movement/range and what they’re to accomplish. The DM can clarify/block the action if it’s unfeasible, but should generally accept the player’s suggestion.
If the movement is acceptable but might require another square or two of movement, the DM should give himself a point of Movement Advantage in his notes. The DM doesn’t need to announce this, but instead should keep the action moving.
If a power or condition is part of a movement/range, the player should mention this. (If a power is used for positioning, the DM should tend towards accepting the player’s suggestion.)
(3) When the DM is controlling creatures, the DM can spend points of Movement Advantage to stretch movement and range by another square or two when the exact range is questionable. The DM should aim to spend these soon after they’re created (so that the number of Movement Advantage points generally stays around zero), and try to spend around the player who created the Advantage.
When in doubt: let the dramatically obvious and reasonable thing for the fight happen, and let the players (and monsters) see their intent happen. Movement sets up the use of the power and attacks that you want to see.
Bonus option: If Movement Advantage is piling up, the DM could spend this in new ways: 3 points for shifting an extra square, or 5 points for taking an extra move action. (Of course, such spending isn’t exactly balanced, but it can keep things moving and open up new possibilites.)
...
Copious examples follow! Dialogue in quotes, with thought bubbles in curly parens.
(a) The standard move: “I move in from the doorway to engage the assassin, pinning him against the bar, and then punch him in the face.”
DM: (The bar is about 30 or 40 feet across?) “What’s your speed again? 6? Ok.” (Yeah, that sounds fine.)
or, DM: (The bar is definitely more like 7 squares away. I’ll accept it and take a Movement Advantage for later.)
(b) The shift: “I shift away from the barbarian, towards the door, use my second wind and draw my weapon.”
DM: (There’s no one on that side of the bar near him; sounds fine.)
(c) A justified maneuver: “I use my Monk Power to shift two and get out of range from the two bodyguards.”
DM: (It seemed like the two body guards were close and even with a shift she’d be near one; but two shifts might do it, and it is a power. I’ll go with it.)
(d) A sketchy shift: “I shift away from the Barbarian and next the Rogue so that I can attack him.”
DM: (That doesn’t seem right; there’s a good twenty feet or so between the two, and a shift wouldn’t cut it.) “If you shift, you’re not quite far enough to reach the rogue. He’s more like 20 feet away. Do you want to simply move rather than shift?”
or, DM: (Does it take 1 or 2 squares to reach the rogue? I think it’s somehwere in the middle, so I’ll take a Movement Advantage for later.)
(e) A cautious move: “I move around to the other side of the two foes so that I can flank the bad guy. I walk around them so I don’t provoke an attack. My speed is 6.”
DM: (Getting there is just 5 squares, except the direct route would provoke an attack; going around them would be 6 or 7 squares. I’ll go with it and take a Movement Advantage for later.)
(f) An awesome push: “I use Awesome Shove to push the boss 1 back into the cauldron, causing whatever fire damage that causes.”
DM: (Okay, that’s awesome, but it’s more like 3 squares. I’ll go with it and take a Movement Advantage point.)
or, DM: “You can push him back but the cauldron is too far away, so he remains unscathed.”
(g) A ranged attack: “I peek through the window and shoot an arrow at the guard accross the street. The range is 10.”
DM: (It’s more like 60 feet accross the street. I’ll allow it and take a Movement Advantage.)
(h) Spending your Movement Advantage:
DM: (Their cleric is in the back, just beyond the Wyrmpriest’s range 10 attack. But I’ll spend two points of Advantage here and make it happen.) “Stinging Blindess strikes the cleric! That teaches you to hide from me!”
|
|
No comments
Playtest: Spacerpunk
February 24th, 2010
Played Spacerpunk (the oracle/cards version) for the second time at StoryGames Boston, and had a great time. The tone was light/gonzo (matching the players). A player suggested it fit into a sort of “Who’s Line Is It Anyway” kind of play and was rather low-key fair. However: I did like the kind of fiction the tables output. I think the GM’s role is a non-trivial part of making the game work (especially with pacing and following the genre tropes of a “punk rock space opera”), and I’d like to try to get more of that stuff into the rules.
Due to quirks of probability, I didn’t get to see much of certain rules mods in action, and I’m really curious to see to what extent the game as written would support a slightly more serious game. (Conversely, I could perhaps convert things to use The Solar System for the mechanics and be done with it, while keeping the oracles for generating stuff.)
I think I’ll tweak the fluff (and maybe some of the tables) and perhaps try it again.
|
|
2 comments
[AP] It’s Complicated: “Hipster Massacre” at Dreamation
February 24th, 2010
Actual Play report: It’s Complicated: “Hipster Massacre” at Dreamation.
|
|
No comments
What I’m Playing Now
January 19th, 2010
I’m running D&D 4e online for some friends, which is a fun experience. I never DM’d before, and so far I like the various DM tools (though the rules are a little bit more dense than I ususally prefer). Still, it’s fun and I’ve really gotten into it. Our various common points of geek experience (D&D itself, CRPGs, World of Warcraft) are providing some useful mutual context. Yes, I’m marking quests as “yellow” or “red”.
A friend is running Mage: the Awakening soon (vanilla rules, no hacks, though I’m bringing my Mage tarot). Excited about that. I really have affection for the setting.
I’m going to over 9000 cons this year, apparently. I’m certainly excited about the games I proposed for this year’s Dreamation.
And that’s more than enough gaming for now, though I’d love to run something non-trad some time in the future.
|
|
No comments
Spacerpunks and Authority
January 19th, 2010
I stumbled across the cards I made for an oracle-driven Spacerpunk setting (and rules), and I took a chance to revise it. I’ve been revisiting some assumptions.
I realized that I wanted to avoid having a powerful Imperium kind of organization in space, simply because I didn’t want a supercompetent/superpowerful entity crowding out the kind of fun the players could have. Once you have an predictable, regulated, enforceable system of interplanetary commerce, the role of petty smugglers and freelancers is possibly reduced.
However, I realized that in most of my favorite source material, you do still need some kind of authority to resist, even if passively or indirectly. The Alliance is sometimes a direct antagonist on Firefly, but is just as often a force of disruptive order that slowly expands. Blake’s 7 features an oppressive and all-powerful Federation that the crew actively evades and resists. In Cowboy Bebop, there’s a lack of central governmental authority, but there is the powerful presence of the mob syndicates – they’re hierarchical nature is in some fashion an Authority presence.
The authority provides pressure and, sometimes, the chase that is central to many of the stories I want to tell. I still keep the worlds pretty wide open:
It turns out that ships much larger than yours can’t handle the FTL jump. Trade between worlds is an ad hoc blend of barter, reputation and skill. Not much point to having a fixed price list. That makes it hard to extend any kind of stellar empire beyond a few worlds. Various powers still try to expand their influence.
However, I made establishing some kind of Authority and important part of creating your universe. This was an interesting evolution, and in many ways a reversal. Perhaps my thoughts of a frontier free of hierarchical authority were a little too fantastical and removed some key tensions.
Other changes: I added some suggestions for customizing your ship and common types of pirates, as well as some resolution rules for actions outsides of the players’ Roles. It’s all rather freeform (dare I say: structured freeform?), and I’d like to try these as is before mixing this into some other system.
|
|
No comments