RPG design discussion : Has the wound closed?

As one is apt to do at noticing the same thing twice and deciding a possible trend: Recently a mainstay of the more indie RPG design area has taken to deleting posts on his blog. Bland posts at that. With another, a few months ago, I couldn't seem to be acknowledged as knowing how a particular mechanic worked - it seemed some kind of 'audacity' on my part was what made me not know, rather than a lack of knowledge.

I think roleplay design discussion might just be going back to a good old authority model. Someones the authority, listen to what they say (learn it wrote, in other words) or piss off.

The wound - the point where people would leave their notion of personal authority cut open so things could get past such a callus - the wound is possibly healing. And really, who keeps reopening a wound in their mind?

It's probably not being noted anywhere else as even a possibility, so I thought I'd lodge it here at the cold black of my corner, far flung from the buzzing white of the main conversation.

Further, here are some RPG monsters from a game I'm developing at least for the duration of this post.


The Pryde: A swelling beast, like a puffer fish but with the hairs of a lion, no needles/points and no head. It is actually incapable of doing anything/any harm unless it has a wall on the other side of its foe, in which case it swells as much as it would have anyway, crushing it's foe between its hot air expansion and the wall. This tends to make it expand more, taking the kill for it's own doing, with a balloon like expansion through doorways or through cracks in walls until the extension pressure on these points is so acute the whole thing bursts with the smell of spent breath.

The Lecturn: A vulnerability of this stilt like creature is that it will extend itself to be higher than it's foe. It's position is to take advantage of height - but the extension of it's stilt like legs often means it piles in on itself. Curiously it still makes attacks at this point, but as if its foe were still below it - often shooting its darts into the earth just before it's foes boots. It cannot see itself as anything but above and so often makes itself fall far below for doing so.

The Faux Supernatural: A more hidden beast, it squeaks out from the gap in space and time formed from when one person says one thing, but they actually think another. It looks like a mystery, possibly even to a religious extent - and it works at this as the clockwork squeaking of its parts attest that it rotates to keep its foe in front of it at all times. For behind it is hollow, a set, with cogs and drive belts and spindly copper rods supporting or pupetering the apparatus. It would have you only see the magnificence of the miss informing words non elucidean to the point of supernatural wonder effect. Often accompanied by Inter Portalis, so as to provide the walls it needs to block off such observation, while the Inter Portalis lives in symbiosis by having a use.

That's three for now. I didn't realise they'd take awhile to write up so I'll save some more for tomorrow (which tomorrow's tomorrow, I dunno). For all their fluff text they no doubt come down to having an AC of between 10 to 14 and a half dozen to a dozen HP and that's it. That's about as much as there is to them.

'Making it up' - there's more than one species of it

As is a theme on this blog, forums tend to inspire my writing the most. So here is a post of mine (google, please believe me! Eh, what-ev...) on the matter of two different types of making things up (modified slightly to become it's own post here).

Emerikol, if I understand you right, you do alot of prep beforehand and then in play you reference your extensive prep so as to determine what might be around or what might occur. In play you restrict yourself to only referencing the prep for the determination of what else might exist, not just making things pop into existence out of thin air. And this restriction on relying on the prep only makes the world more palpable and solid, as a result.

If I'm even slightly understanding you right, I'm just saying this because I'm not sure the other posters get the difference - and there is a difference between working from prep to determine what else might exist Vs just making stuff pop into existence because it might engage someone.

I will say though, although I don't know what it was like in the game with the guy 'totally making it up', I've roleplayed for so long I basically have alot of prep about game worlds in my head - it's all written in my head and doesn't need to be written down. I don't think 'totally making it up' is such a problem as you describe it (oh, it'd be better if I wrote it down, I totally grant). I suspect what was happening is that GM was simply trying to guess what would tickle players fancy then say that exists, in what is essentially sucking up to players. I'd find that hollow as well. Though I've been in worse games.

[ Pathfinder ] City of Golden Death defeated us the other night

In retrospect I like the brutality of this module. I only say in retrospect because roleplay products can be so varied in where they go it's hard to know the overall direction until you've finished.

CoGD basically had either monsters with massive bonuses to hit (maybe +15 or higher) and womping damange (about 20) or a few push over monsters we devoured and utterly destroyed in a moment or two. Which actually works quite nicely!

The thing that really defeated us though is the overall supply chain of healing within a time frame - we had three days before the city floods with molten gold (probably not a good idea to be around at that point, eh?). And we had no real cleric. We had one once, but now the best we had is someone who chose their class levels at random! Yeah. So I think we had all the healing of a level 1 bard even though the character was level 5.

In the end, in a session that had two powerful enemies that nearly crush the life out of us, my fighters on 16 hp, the rogues on like 7 hp and never mind the wizard or the multi multiclassed characters hp. The last thing we'd found had said it's master had put it there to kill anyone who follows. It's MASTER! Uh yeah, when it kicked the living crap out of us and we have no heals and no HP, how much are we going to be able to take on it's master?

And yet I think some players wanted to continue!!

I guess I just didn't feel like having this character fight and likely die, so I said no, we just cannot do this - the city of golden death has defeated us!

I'm not sure what the GM will do with the module or whether another players idea of leaving some traps at the entrance and fighting the master there will be what happens next.

I think the GM could always run it again at some point, if they want to get more use out of it.

Rifts Campaign

Working on the Rifts campaign I've been running for...maybe a year now, in roughly fortnighly installments.

Well, 'working on' as in thinking about it!

I want to actually do some detailed map work, working out maybe 10 km squares of a map I drew up awhile ago. I have some gridded paper that can just about do a 20x20 grid. But each square being 500 meters seems a little big (that's about two square blocks). On the other hand making them 200 square meters each (about one block or a bit less), while I like the resolution of that more would make one page only cover 4km.

It's curious - I've played alot of GTA 5 recently BUT I want to make a map which is more like the old days of GTA where there was stuff around just about every corner. GTA games these days (starting with San Andreas) are so spartan with regards to having anything there! So I'm aiming for that.

I'm also aiming to not just have threats the PC's could engage, but also relatively minor threats they could instead engage. The reason is I've come to think the model of 'well, do you take them on' is problematic, because it's actually 'well, do you take them on or...do nothing'. And that's actually just bad gameplay. Sure they could head on to something else - but in that moment, if they don't take it on, then they are doing nothing.

Anyway, that's what I'm up to. Also must remember to put a path through the map - this is a map they travel through a bit, so it'll need a path. Whether it's a smooth sailing path, who knows?

Competative online games as a species of hazing?

Hazing is an 'unauthorised' practice in the military and other areas where various tribes within destroy the dignity of an individual before incorporating them into their tribe, so as to better reform their diginity as the tribe will.

Actually that's probably a contentious enough description by itself! But I'll still go one further.

After playing a certain first person shooter (not one of the main stream ones) for a long time, and having played GTA 5 online for a brief time - with the senseless snuff movie killings, what are these things but a kind of phone book to the ego. So many deaths which follow no particular solveable formula, or even have a solution in terms of mitigation (ie, gaining something even as you lose).

It's not about gameplay and working out a solution or even reflex - it's about being crushed down by someone else and wanting revenge or payback for that - which keeps you at the game. But do you get it near the start? Not if it uses any RPG mechanics, hell no - they'll all have the best stuff.

But even asking that, I'm dipping into the haze/revenge cycle. Even if you can get them back, what is the point of getting them back?

It's like when Bart and Milhouse sit bored, on the kurb, punching each others shoulders.