At the Intersection of Work, Play, and Learning

Posted on April 16, 2012 by takeonrules

Cluster with Standard Attributes

For the most part, I keep my professional blogging separate from my hobby blogging. During the day, I’m a programmer for the University of Notre Dame, and at night a pen, paper, and cardboard gamer.

I consider myself to be a reasonably competent programmer, but recognize continued room for growth. This manifests in reading and experimenting in code. Lately, I’ve thought of myself more as a software doctor than a software engineer. Doctors practice medicine, and I practice programming.

This past month, I picked up Avdi Grimm‘s “Objects on Rails” [Free legal online version] and Uncle Bob Martin‘s “Clean Code“. I’m interested in exploring better software design, with a focus on code refactoring…I’m the primary maintainer of a 6+ year old Ruby on Rails based CMS (It started somewhere around Rails 1.1.6 for those keeping score). And sometimes it feels like I’ve donned the Black and patrol the Wall. But I digress.

I decided that I wanted to apply some of these principles to a problem space that I understood…RPGs. In particular, I wanted to automate the Diaspora Cluster Creation, not because it is convoluted, but because it is very well defined process. That is to say I already understood the domain.

Cluster with Arbitrary Attributes

Over the past week, I’ve worked on creating the Diaspora Cluster Creator command-line utility by striving to apply these recommended constraints and methodology. The tool I’ve created is an over-engineered solution for what amounts to 5 minutes of dice rolling at a table with a group of friends.

This exercise has proven to be ridiculously rewarding. I was working on a greenfield project and trying to adhere to the teachings of others. In some cases, I stumbled, creating code that I should’ve known would be a problem; Hint, if the tests are complicated to setup, then there are issues. But, through refactoring, I was eventually able to clean things up – I’m still not satisfied with the Node class.

While I typically try to work within these constraints, for this project I was trying extra hard to keep them at the front of my considerations: The Law of Demeter, Single Responsibility Principle, Test-Driven Development, Command/Query Separation, general readability, and fast tests (Corey Haines would be proud).

The result has been a code-base that has been very fun to work with, and has been relatively painless to extend. The Cluster creator can just as easily create Diaspora clusters with attributes different than the assumed Technology, Environment, and Resources.

The command-line solution is not suitable for the general role-playing populous, so I’ll need to take that into consideration.

For those of you interested in installing it yourself, it’s up on Githuband available as a Ruby gem – `gem install diaspora-cluster-creator`. You can take a look at the Cucumber feature that defines the command-line behavior of the tool (Hint: there are several options).

Preparing for Diaspora

Posted on April 6, 2012 by takeonrules

Tomorrow we are going to be starting a new Diaspora campaign as a player. I’m very much interested in getting into a platoon level conflict, as I believe the rules to be some of the best mass combat system for an RPG.

To do this, I will need to create a star system or two in which platoon conflict is likely. The obvious structure would be Rebellion vs Empire. However I could also see a setting up a two or three comparable entities fighting for control of a thurd region.

Given that Diaspora allows the players tremendous control over campaign creation, I’ll have to look at the system I’m creating. If I have a strong system then I can pick on a weaker system with one of my system’s aspects. If I’m “owning” with a weaker system then I’ll setup one of my aspects as a victim of a stronger system. The other system need not “spend an aspect” to reciprocate.

With a system ripe for a military conflict, my character would then need aspects to get him into large military conflicts. I’d imagine something like “Drug smuggling warlord” or “Corrupt Empirial colonel” or “Captain of the 3rd Light Brigade” should do the trick.

What we found in our previous game is that the collaborative character creation can quickly result in directions no one envisioned nor planned for. And I’m excited, because, while I have a plan, others will be directly affecting me.

So while I may wish to fight platoon battles, I can just as easily see my character being a convicted war criminal who’s military capabilities are severely hindered. Either way, I hope that our GM brings situations that challenge and engage us. I want information to flow so we can push to a conclusion – I don’t want a slow plod. I’d prefer a narrow scope campaign that wraps up in 6 or so sessions.

Survey of Methods of Advancement

Posted on January 22, 2012 by takeonrules

The other evening I had an interesting RPG conversation concerning character advancement. His opinion surprise me. However, I’ve since started thinking about the various systems of character advancement that I’ve seen – this is not an exhaustive list, only ones that I’m more familiar with.

Level Only

In this method, when a character levels up, everything about them gets better. They are better at hitting, resisting, enduring and doing things within the narrative. The classic example would be the earliest editions of D&D and Labyrinth Lord.

One of the key points of this method is that all elements of a character improve with level regardless of the actions taken to achieve that level. Namely, if I raised my level solely by treasure and role-playing rewards, I’m still better at fighting. In this method, it is likely easiest to “balance” characters against each other.

Points

In this method, there are no levels, instead, characters advance each statistic independently. Dresden Files, and if memory serves ShadowRun. In ShadowRun you get a certain amount of Karma after each session and when you simply pay to advance a statistic.

When points are part of advancement, there is typically a graduating scale regarding point cost. That is to say Rank 1 costs 1 point, Rank 2 costs 3 points, Rank 3 costs 6 points, etc. It is a non-linear advancement cost for a linear statistic.

From my limited exposure to these systems, use of the skill is not a requirement for advancement.

Points per Level

In this method, character’s still track levels. However, upon achieving a new level, they receive a set number of points to improve their character – but again regardless of the skills used during the sessions. Rolemaster and Alternity are the best examples, although the D&D 3E skill sub-system also applies.

In Rolemaster it is possible to create a 10th level fighter that is no more competent in combat than a 1st level fighter – or a 1st level wizard. This would be done at each level by having the fighter’s character invest their points not in sword and hit points, but in other wilder fancies.

Points & Level Hybrid

In this method, character’s track levels. But it is an amalgam of the above. The potential areas of development – the character statistics if you will – are broken into sub-systems. And each of those sub-systems operate a bit differently, and may overlap (i.e. D&D 3E/4E Feats overlap with the D&D Combat and D&D Skills sub-systems).

By breaking the sub-systems into different advancement methods, the game system can tinker with balance across the sub-systems ensuring that one character classification is stronger in one sub-system than the other. That is to say a fighter is better in combat than a rogue but a rogue has a wider range of skills.

Test-Based

In this method, a character using a skill advances that skill. If you want to get better at something, you had better do it. In this way, characters evolve based on the ongoing narrative. Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, TechNoir and Hârnmaster are some examples.

This method requires a bit more attention to any goals that you as a player have for your character. Do you want your character to defeat some alluded to master swordsman? Then practice your combat skills.

Potpourri

One could argue that Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are point per level. Each time you “level” you get one point to purchase some advancement.

Diaspora fixes your total possible talent, but allows you to rearrange your statistics within those constraints. So if you want to get better at something, you’ll need to get worse at something else.

In Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple your monks don’t get better but instead changes how and why they interact with the ongoing narrative.

Any others? In particular, how would you categorize Dogs in the Vineyard, InSpectres and Lacuna Part I, but the advancement mechanisms aren’t registering.

Personal Preference

I like to see characters that are mechanically different. I like the idea of advancement through use. I also understand that as players we are not necessarily seeing every action of our characters – I know I don’t follow my character into the bathroom – and therefore arbitrary advancement is acceptable.

Keeping Aspects Interesting

Posted on January 8, 2012 by takeonrules

For awhile, we were playing a regular Diaspora campaign, The Precious Few. We have since set that campaign aside and are playing a couple of Burning Wheel campaigns: Bloodstone and the Butcher, Baker, and Candlestick Maker.

While we were playing the Precious Few campaign, there were several aspects that were constantly compelled or tagged:

Cheeky AI
“I’ve Got This Easy”
“I Love Sound of Gunfire”
“I loves my Precious (ship)”
“Hidden Resources”
“The best pilot you’ve never heard of”

If you ask any of the players, they will likely remember the above aspects; Or at a minimum, that these aspects strongly flavored the campaign. And I can guarantee that everyone in the campaign will remember the Cheeky AI.

In this regard, aspects are successful. Everyone from the campaign still bemoans the Precious’ damn cheeky AI.

However, in an aspect’s success was also it’s failing. Namely, the table felt as though we leaned too heavily on those keystone aspects. My character, Billy had the following aspects:

Father knows best
Always looking over my shoulder
In the Navy
I love the sound of gunfire
Former agent of New Florida
I have to clear my name
Poor judge of character
Jaded
I read the manual
Friends are for keeps

I know that I rarely, if ever, used “Father Knows Best” and “Friends are for Keeps.”

I suspect one of the intrinsic problems is that there are too many Aspects to track. Referencing Magic Number 7, Plus or Minus 2, then I would assert that a character should only have 5 Aspects.

By reducing the number of aspects the amount of “aspect querying” a player would need to do during the session would be reduced.

But, that may not be the desired goal. A 10 aspect character is almost certainly more nuanced than a 5 aspect character — given a comparable skill at writing aspects. And not every aspect need show up with the same frequency. If the goal is to instead ensure that you are not leaning to heavily on a given aspect then perhaps a different mechanic would make sense.

Let’s Look at Mouse Guard. Mouse Guard has character traits, much like Aspects, which can be invoked once per session. These traits can be refreshed if the character detrimentally invokes a character trait.

I don’t think Diaspora, or other Fate-based games need necessarily limit the amount of tagging or compelling of a given aspect. For the first tag and compel of an Aspect is at it’s normal rate. From that point forward tagging it costs 2 Fate points and it’s second compel yields 2 Fate points. This proposed tweak might gently nudge players and the GM to cycle through a character’s different aspects.

Acceptable Weight of Conflict Resolution

Posted on January 8, 2012 by takeonrules

Role-playing games inevitably contain some form of conflict resolution mechanism. Even the rules-lite Fiasco has the mechanism of either the player frames the scene or determines how the scene ends.

System Survey

Dungeons and Dragons has hit points as the primary currency for use during conflict resolution. If you run out of them, you are out of the fight or dead, depending on your version.

Diaspora and other Fate-based cousins, have stress tracks (health, composure, and wealth) along with consequences. So long as you only take stress, you are fine; But once you have a consequence, the bad times are just beginning.

Burning Wheel has body of argument dice or injury dice, depending on your flavor of conflict. If you run ouf of body of argument dice, you lose your Duel of Wits; Accumulate too many injury dice and you may be incapacitated or more likely begging for mercy.

Short-Circuiting the Standard Method

In Dungeons and Dragons, there are plenty of methods that short circuit hit points. The dreaded level drain, in which a month or more of hard work is undone via a specters could embrace; The annoying stat drain, in which you get a little weaker and have to recalculate your bonuses. In older editions of D&D this wasn’t so bad, but ability damage in 3E was an actuarial pain in the ass); The save vs. death, throw the dice and pray you live.

In Diaspora, I could hand out consequences, but that goes against the design; I can do stress damage, but the decision of taking a consequence is up to the player.

In Burning Wheel, as part of a failed test, I’ve handed out Light wounds; I haven’t gone so far as giving out a Midi, as I’m a bit skittish about delivery that kind of injury via GM fiat. Maybe, as my understanding of Burning Wheel develops, I’ll hand out the Midi — after all, that -2D can be a boon when you are attempting to advance a skill.

Providing Enough Player Agency

Dungeons and Dragons, at its core, is merciless. If you get hit by save vs. death, you’d better hope you’re a high level cleric and a lucky one at that. Otherwise, bam, you are eaten by a grue. You can’t get help from your team, nor do you have a luck pool to draw on. You are dead, and your companions are already looting your body.

Diaspora and Fate in general, provide ample opportunities for a player to fudge a conflict in their direction; One roll of the dice can be modified by free-tagging aspects, spending fate points to tag aspects, or re-roll a horrific dice roll.

Burning Wheel provides numerous ways of improving your odds; First you can solicit help both from others and by FoRKing in your own skills. Then, you can opt to spend your Artha both before and after the roll.

Resolving a Big Deal with One Roll

For me, both Diaspora and Burning Wheel provide enough touch points in a dice roll for me to say “I’m satisfied with how this conflict was resolved.” I may not like that my character picked up a moderate consequence, but I had the opportunity to spend Fate points to avoid the consequence.

Contrast this with D&D where I have little recourse against Ability Drain; Either the specter hits me or it doesn’t.

This also highlights the fact that I’m okay with Diaspora and Burning Wheel using a single dice roll to adjudicate a much larger deal than Dungeons and Dragons. If I, the player, have ample opportunities to influence the test (even if it’s likely to fail), I am much more willing to accept the outcome.

And in Fiasco, I simply want to see everything go up in flames!

Survey of Conflict Structure in RPGs

Posted on January 2, 2012 by takeonrules

One of the common elements of the role-playing game is breaking complicated sequences into turns. This is particularly evident in physical conflict, where turn order can easily mean life and death. This blog post is a breakdown of different initiative systems that I’ve seen.

Teams 1 then Team 2

Through some mechanism, usually dice, it is decided that one team goes first. At that point, everyone on the first team performs their individual actions. Once those actions are complete, the second team performs their individual actions.

I have never used this system, but the advantages are likely related to group size. The simplified turn order is easier for each player to handle their actions. Think about the old adventures that say for 9 to 12 players, it’s almost a defense mechanism for the poor GM.

Team 1 then Team 2 Stepping Through Phases

Similar to Team 1 then Team 2 initiative, but there are particular phases that might be resolved as demonstrated below.

Team 1 fires arrows, team 2 fires arrows.
Team 1 moves, team 2 moves.
Team 1 throws weapons, team 2 throws weapons.
Team 1 moves, team 2 moves.
Team 1 attacks with sword, team 2 attacks with sword.

Optionally, you could have a step 0 where the team members declare their actions.

Individual – With Phases

Following on the idea of combat phases, except each character selects their actions. Rolemaster made use of this mechanism. Old School Hack is another one.

Individual – Round Reset

Each participant rolls initiative at the beginning of the round and then actions are taken in initiative order. A variant of this is where each player first declares their action, then initiative is rolled, and finally actions are resolved in initiative order (D&D 2E).

Individual – Circular Rounds

Each participant rolls initiative before combat begins, and for the duration of combat actions are performed in initiative order. D&D 3E and D&D 4E come to mind. There are rules for stepping out of the initiative order.

Scripted Simultaneous

Burning Wheel makes use of a scripted action sequence, both for physical combat and for social conflict. In the case of Mouse Guard for military or propaganda campaigns.

This system models the chaos of conflict. Once the first bullet fires, everything is a mix of instinct and reaction.

Burning Wheel’s mechanic breaks conflict scenes down into multiple exchanges. At the beginning of each exchange, the players can survey the current state of the conflict and then privately script their actions. Once the scripts are set, they are revealed and adjudicated.

Which means you may have wanted to swing at that guy with your sword, but he’s now inside your swing and poking you with a knife. You’re still going to swing, but you’ll have quite a few penalties.

Within this mechanism there is the savoring of laying out a plan and the tension of watching the events unfold. Very satisfying, and it does an excellent job of adding tension.

Social Initiative

Diaspora’s space combat takes a very novel approach for space conflict. Each round is broken into phases for positioning, electronic warfare, beams, torpedos and damage control. Unlike other conflict systems, the first person to declare the action is the first to resolve their action.

There are advantages to going first (i.e. striking a deciding blow). There are advantages to going last (i.e. striking where they are already hurt).

To facilitate this system, a caller is required. They are the arbiter of when a particular phase is done.

Point, Counter-Point

Traditionally, most turn based conflict resolutions were focused on modeling physical combat. As role-playing games have evolved, for better or for worse, the idea of structuring social conflict resolution has been explored.

D. Vincent Baker’s Dogs in the Vineyard accepts that conflict can begin almost anywhere ( i.e. a barbed word, forceful push, stabbing knife, or pistol shot), and works to address that.

If you want to start a conflict, do it, and roll some dice. The defender rolls dice as well, and an exchange begins. First the attacker makes a point, followed by the defender, then the attacker. In many ways it is like the Individual – Circular Rounds method.

However, unlike other games I’ve read and played, Dogs in the Vineyard allows conflicts to seamlessly go from banter to pistols. Other systems may completely exclude social combat, and when someone says “I draw my gun”, the conflict resolution mechanism changes.

Characters Only

Another relatively new mechanic for me is the idea of removing the Game Master from the pool of people that participate in the conflict. This is the method of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World.

In both of these games, the action resolution mechanic incorporates the idea of Success, Partial Success, and Failure. Applied to conflict, a Success might mean I hit and damage my opponent and they don’t hit me. A Partial Success might mean that both my opponent and I hit and damage each other. A Failure might mean my opponent hits and damages me and I don’t hit them.

Order of when characters act is far less important, as the characters moves define their outcome.

And More…

Hollowpoint looks to who has the most of any numeral (i.e. 5 sixes were rolled) and they act knocking out other dice, then who has the next most of any numeral.

Reign Enchiridion, which I haven’t completed, looks to be somewhat similar to the Hollowpoint (though I assume Hollowpoint received inspiration from Reign).

What if?

What if the conflict resolution had a determination phase like Race for the Galaxy? In Race for the Galaxy everyone blindly chooses the actions that they will be taking that round. In taking the action, they get a bonus, but everyone else also may perform the action. So imagine sitting at the game table and choosing between: Move, Magic, Missile, Melee, and Defend.

In Conclusion

This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list, but instead highlights some of what I’ve seen. Personally, I’d love to see more mechanics akin to Dogs in the Vineyard where conflict seamlessly moves from one domain to another. I also believe Diaspora and other FATE-based games are onto something when they have a unified stress track.

Diaspora: The Precious Few, Session #5

Posted on July 30, 2011 by takeonrules

I have long promised these notes, and I’m quickly writing them to get them out there.

Having found an implanted chip in Billy’s spinal column, the crew of the Precious needed to find a doctor to remove the it. After a bit of research, it was determined that Dr. Evan Arnold was their man. Serendipitously, he was speaking at a doctors conference on Orlando.

Billy remained on Precious and the rest went dirtside to check in at the Epcot; Timothy insisted on the Emperor Suite. While loading their things Martin was eventually able to convince the concierge, Paul, to setup a meeting with Dr. Evan Arnold.

Mason, Martin, William, and Timothy had dinner and saddled up with Dr. Evan Arnold. While Timothy was getting drunk on wine spritzers, the others convinced Dr. Evan Arnold to perform the surgery that evening, for a rather hefty price.

With an adrenaline shot, stomach pump, and coffee, he flew the crew and the doctor up to the Precious to perform the surgery. Using the lab facilities on the Precious, Dr. Arnold was able to quickly help Billy.

During the surgery, William was helpful, providing procedures and information to assist Dr. Arnold, while simultaneously hacking into Dr. Arnold’s personal information.

Ultimately, William determined that Dr. Arnold knew who they were and what the chip was. While returning to Orlando, William and Martin conspired with the AI to depressurize the ship and rig Dr. Arnold’s suit. A little conflict arose as Mason and Timothy sought to safely land the ship and Martin and William sought to create an lethal accident. Ultimately the ship landed and Dr. Arnold needed hospitalization (he had a moderate consequence).

The crew sent Dr. Arnold to the hospital, and returned to the hotel. At the hotel, they learned that Dr. Arnold worked for Dynamic Solutions. At which point Mason, William, and Martin began to conspire…They got the New Florida “ice cream company” to pick up Dr. Arnold.

As their actions began to catch up with them, they quickly fled the Epcot blasting into space. At this point the compels were happening so fast and furious as players sought to steer the direction of the Precious and it’s crew.

Once in space, they received a broadcast indicating that Timothy was identified and wanted for questioning. The severity of the situation was tempered by William hacking the news network and planting a few fake stories.

With a compel on Timothy to “clear his name” he deliberately botched the navigation roll…which was noted by Mason but not before the Precious was engaged in a space combat with four Bob Hope system defenders.

There was a tense moment, as negotiations were attempted. Eventually hell broke loose, with one of the Bob Hope system defenders being completely shutdown, another destroyed, and the Precious escaping to New Memphis with a Moderate consequence…New Memphis (T-1, E-1, R0), the backwater godless hole of a planet.

Slipping to New Memphis, they were short on fuel and even shorter on friendly systems. They signaled the lone space station in New Memphis, “His Majesties Eyes in Space” and brokered a landing. They needed supplies and a place to perform repairs and the Emperor wished to talk with them.

Good News Everyone…Bulldogs! RPG is Here!

Posted on June 17, 2011 by takeonrules

Good News Everyone! -- Courtesy of http://tengoldpiecegems.blogspot.com/2011/02/grand-legacy-of-professor-hubert-j.html

Full disclaimer: I have not read Bulldogs! in it’s entirety. The book, however, renders gloriously on my Android tablet.

Update: My pre-gameplay review.

Yesterday saw the arrival of the Bulldogs! RPG (in pre-release PDF form), a Kickstarter Project, by Brennan Taylor of Galileo Games. Bulldogs! was originally published as a d20 system game, but has been refreshed and re-imagined as a Fate game.

Take a look at Brennan Taylor’s blog post concerning developing Bulldogs! for Fate. Creating balanced characters in the d20 system can be a tremendous choir, whereas Fate opens you up to defining your alien races via aspects and possibly a handful of stunts. Certainly there are balance concerns with the stunts, but it just isn’t as regimented.

But What of Diaspora?

Don’t worry, I’m not dissatisfied with Diaspora, another Fate-based sci-fi RPG. Quite the contrary, I love it, and eagerly look forward to our next session.

Where Diaspora is billed as hard science fiction, Bulldogs! is…

…sci-fi that kicks ass! Bulldogs! is a high action space adventure. Bulldogs! is about freebooting ruffians flying from planet to planet causing trouble. Bulldogs! is about far future technology—sci-fi movie technology that probably wouldn’t work given what we know about the universe today, but who cares? Bulldogs! is about blasters and faster-than-light travel. Bulldogs! is about hopping from planet to planet and running into a vast variety of weird aliens. Bulldogs! is about being shot at and pissing off powerful locals and fleeing just in time. Bulldogs! is about starship dogfights and ambushes by space pirates in rarely traveled star lanes.

Diaspora is a setting-agnostic toolkit RPG; Whereas Bulldogs! loudly and proudly lays out the setting and tone. The various organizations, races, etc are defined both with a bit of narrative fiction and with Fate Aspects. The Aspects also include suggestions on how to Invoke or Compel them. Unlike Diaspora, Bulldogs! rules closely adheres to Spirit of the Century and The Dresden Files RPG.

Diaspora models varying technology levels. Bulldogs! has an assumed technology level that is available to the player characters. Powerful things are modeled by wealth cost. Personally I like the Diaspora model of civilian weapons vs. military equipment and the required stunt to use military equipment.

But What of Bulldogs?

Bulldogs! setting is also chock-full of aliens, each with a full color illustration. The book includes 10 alien species and strongly encourages making others. Thankfully, Fate makes this tremendously easy. After all who doesn’t want to make a Vrusk?

The artwork is full-color and fantastic, invoking memories of my Star Frontiers: Alpha Dawn days. The world at large may be civilized, but your role as a space explorer/delivery boy is anything but civilized.

One element of Bulldogs! that I like is the better defined aspects for the spaceships. Whereas Diaspora’s ships have 5 general aspects, Bulldogs! has you define 3 aspects: it’s high concept, it’s trouble, and it’s strength. These constraints provide focus for the ship, and I believe provide greater clarity.

And lest I not forget, the stunts of Bulldogs! are exceptional. Diaspora keeps the stunts very limited in scope, but in some ways it feels like a bit too much is left for the reader’s imagination. Bulldogs! provides a healthy dose of example stunts, and they continue to build on the game’s setting.

In the days to come, I will most certainly be mining Bulldogs! for ideas and inspiration, and right now I’m waxing nostalgic. Kudos to Brennan Taylor and crew. I love your work, and am proud to be a supporter of such a finely crafted creation.

Diaspora RPG Cluster Creation

Posted on June 14, 2011 by takeonrules

General Cluster Creation

In a sidebar of Diaspora, the authors identified several different kinds of clusters that could be created. Unfortunately, that sidebar is not in Diaspora’s Standard Reference Document. However, the concepts are fairly straight forward.

First, define the attributes you want to focus on. These attributes should be significant to your campaign as well as the defined entities (i.e. the systems). You may wish to define what each rank (-4 to 4) means for each attribute. I also believe that these attributes should be more concrete in definition: Warfare is more descriptive than Might.

Second, define the entities that you are going to flesh out. These could be people, universities, city states, schools of thought, clans, or even rival railroad companies.

Third, for each entity, generate it’s attributes. Grab your 4dF (4 Fudge Dice) and start rolling.

Fourth, give each entity two or three Aspects. These aspects should be inspired by the entity’s attribute ranks, but certainly not limited by them.

Fifth, using Diaspora’s Linking Systems algorithm, connect the entities. I recommend that the entities be randomly placed in a line, as the linking algorithm will never connect the first and last node of a 4+ cluster system.

The generated graph should highlight some interesting relationships to explore. In the case of Diaspora’s Technology, Resources, and Environment, the authors’ propose the Slipstream Guarantee in which two systems (those with the highest and lowest sum of attributes) be given a Rank 2 in Technology. This is to ensure that the systems can interact. If you identify an attribute that needs to have at least a specific rank, then I would take the Diaspora crews advice and invoke the Guarantee.

Other Cluster Suggestions

Life, Liberty, Happiness – The all-American (Yee-Haw!)
Visibility, Size, Influence – Useful perhaps in the case of a conspiracy game.
Hope, Resources, Strength – After the Apocalypse, how might these various people/gangs interact?
Hate-Mongering, Obfuscation, Corruption – Certainly a horrific game concerning media, propaganda, and an all-around terrible place to be.
Sugar, Spice, Nice – My Little Pony the RPG?
Espionage, Military, Diplomacy – How do each of the nations interact?

Defining the attributes is rather easy. Pushing the scale requires a bit more work. What does a -4 really mean? How does that compare to a -3? Especially when dealing with abstract concepts (i.e. Obfuscation). I believe the best way to define those is to identify the attributes, and as a group work through what each step might represent. But only fill out the attribute ranks that exist in your graph. Make sure to leave room for those in between ranks. No sense doing work for things that may not exist.

Planning Diaspora: The Precious Few, Session #5

Posted on June 5, 2011 by takeonrules

Well this is no good. I’m about an hour and a half away from running The Precious Few campaign. The last session, which we played more than a month ago, found the crew of The Precious in New Florida. My notes from the previous session suggest that I need to hammer on the Wealth stress track. As I see it, looking for a doctor to work on Billy’s implant is a likely course of action.

Given that a Fate game is driven by the aspects, it makes sense to review the character’s aspects when planning. I’m going to create three couplings of character aspects; Two will be in tension and one in cooperation. Quickly scanning the character aspects, I’m going to have:

William Nigh’s sheltered socialite will be in tension Mason Widmore’s reclusive nerd.
Timothy Heizerman’s well connected will be in tension Martin Patel’s feels no guilt.
Timothy Heizerman’s everything must add up will be in cooperation with Mason Widmore’s I can’t work with these morons.

Some ideas I’m rolling around are having the players need to confront a doctor at a social event. The doctor is interested in Mason’s work, but being the recluse, drawing him out is going to be a bit difficult. William, being the sheltered socialite is trying to secure the doctor for surgery. A social combat where Mason is trying to conceal information from the doctor and William is trying to get the doctor to agree to the surgery.

In the case of Timothy Heizerman, bring an NPC into play, perhaps the doctor, and see about forcing Martin’s hand regarding keeping the doctor alive; After all the doctor knows that Billy may very well know is wanted.

I believe the third Fate pairing may very naturally arise from the other two conflicts.

Of course, all of this can easily fall apart if the Precious Few does not agree to seek the help of a doctor. After all, players are a fickle bunch. But I’m not prepping specific scenes, just themes and character interactions that I want to see.

The above is based somewhat loosely on Dresden Files RPG‘s suggestion on making aspect connections, either Tension-based or Cooperation-based connections. This does not account for non-player characters that may be a part of the campaign. But, given the history of the two disparate groups aboard the Precious, I believe that the internal tension has more than enough story to explore. Of course, when all else fails I may just send in the ninjas.