Roll a red die and a blue die.
Blue 1-3 = "Yes"
Blue 4-6 = "No"
Red 1-2 = "and"
Red 3-4 = blank
Red 5-6 = "But"

You could do this with a single die, too. Even="Yes", Odd="No"; 1-2="and", 3-4=blank, 5-6="but".

Maybe something for an introductory story game for kids.

It would be nice if there was something other than "yes" and "no" as a binary outcome, too.

Yup, it was a fun Christmas party last week. :D



Megan agrees! See for yourself:

The combat discussion from the previous post brought up this idea: How do you design a combat mechanic based on the principles of nonviolence?

Initially, this idea came out of the deflection/redirection in soft martial arts, but drifted off into one of those "how design reveals the designer's philosophy" things. So, a nonviolent combat system goes something like this:

1) You use your talking skills to whittle down an opponent's rage meter.

2) Meanwhile, the opponent is attacking you and trying to whittle down your hit points. The opponent has hit points, too, but you are not allowed to counter-attack.

3) Your only physical option can be one of the three following skills, in order of difficulty:

a) Take the damage: Meaning whatever damage the opponent rolls is how many hit points you lose. Pretty much anyone can do this.

b) Negate the damage: Meaning that some of the damage the opponent rolls is erased before it is inflicted upon you.

c) Redirect the damage: Meaning that the damage the opponent rolls is not negated, but instead inflicted upon another target, even the opponent himself.

4) The ultimate goal of combat is to reduce the opponent's rage meter by talking, before either of you loses all your hit points.

In my mind, pilgrims try to solve problems diplomatically when possible, engaging in defensive actions only when necessary. It's not as concrete an ethos in the mechanics as it is in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or Doctor Who, though.

With Avatar: the Last Airbender being a prime inspiration for the game, it's not surprising if combat might happen in a story. (Barring any agreements made beforehand, naturally.) I didn't want to encourage it, but I also didn't want to discourage it. To coin a phrase, I tried to make the system combat-agnostic.

Combat does not have its own unique sub-system nor are there mechanics that make combat actions less effective than any other. Because play is so structured, there is no need for "initiative" per se. Because there are no hit points, obstacles may be overcome with diplomacy or artistry or cookery as easily as fightery. The game's stats and statuses do not make some actions more effective, they give constraints to player narration to encourage each pilgrim to have unique styles of problem-solving, whatever arts that may entail be they martial or otherwise.

But, even if mechanics are agnostic when it comes to combat, I don't just want to say "Pilgrims don't usually fight" without offering tools or advice. Let's face it, a lot of kids grow up with action heroes who never meet a problem they can't punch, kick or shoot their way out of. Doctor Who, as noted, is a remarkable exception, but even he is more of an action hero in his modern incarnations. For every one MacGyver, there are ten Jet Li's or Pokémon.

With role models like these, it could be tough thinking of a way to handle a problem without violence, even if there are no mechanical incentives to do so.

Right, so to my point, I am looking for any real-world advice on non-violent resistance, dealing with bullies, rules of engagement, and any other similar materials. I'll adapt these into an article that can go in the main rulebook about how to solve problems without violence.

If you know of any such resources that are clear, concise and readable, please pass them along to me in the comments, email, or twitter.

Hoy he tenido la comida de Navidad con la gente de la empresa. El año llegó a su fin; hablo de presupuestos, contabilidad, balance, etc. Todo lo que se haga a partir del lunes que viene cuenta como si ya estuviésemos en 2010 XDD

Como se sabía que el año iba a ser regulero ya había mucha gente de morros desde hace meses, pero hoy todos parecían felices y cordiales (no me lo creo, no de todos XD). Lo que menos me gusta de estas comidas es que nadie desconecta, todo el mundo habla sin parar de trabajo, trabajo y más trabajo.¡Qué estrés!!! Y el final es de traca, se hartan de cubatas (todo lo paga la empresa) y a que no sabéis de qué hablan cuando están borrachos... ¡Sí, de trabajo!!! ¬¬

Fred Hicks linked to this review of the new Doctor Who RPG. Specifically calling out the initiative system.

One thing that I had to make especial mention of is the phasing system in rounds of conflict (not necessarily combat.) The bias of the game against violent conflict resolution strongly shows here. Basically, what you are going to do that round determines what order you go in. The order is basically: Talkers, Movers, Doers, and Fighters. As examples: If you're going to talk your way out of a situation, you go first. If you're going to run for cover, you go second. If you're going to use a skill of some sort, or try to do some sort of 'timey-wimey' thing, you go third. If you're going to shoot up the place, you go fourth. This is a very different way of handling conflict rounds than most RPGs do, and it has its appeal. It very closely reflects the mood of the series (even Daleks appear to pause for one of the Doctor's soliloquies) and it is a different take on 'who goes first' in a conflict round.

This, combined with the thoughts from the previous post make me think of the real power of that FATE/Do system.

When you go first, you get first dibs on drawing from the bag, which gives you control of the fate of who ever goes after you. That means if Talkers go first, they get a LOT of influence over the probability.

Let's say you're playing a big diplomat, kind of like the Doctor, but you frequently come up against fighty types, again like the Doctor. A Talker like the Doctor may face some troubles from these fighters, but he is always able to win the day (even if at some cost.) What REALLY gives a Talker problems is another Talker, thus the Doctor's more persistent intellectual rivals like the Master. But let's get back to the mechanics.

Even if you had a poor draw, say øø--, you can still put those -s and øs back into the bag to make sure the fighters don't catch any break. Ah, but if you have a good draw, say ++-ø, you can keep some of those successes to make it that much more likely the fighters will draw poorly.

This becomes even more powerful if you allow draws of one-to-four stones. Let's say we used an utterly simplified version of FATE's skill pyramid. There are four skills: Talking, Moving, Doing and Fighting. You must prioritize these skills for your character so they are ranked 1, 2, 3, or 4.

When you draw to perform either of these actions, you may draw that many stones from the bag. So if you're Talking is 3, you may draw three stones.

The turn order remains as noted above, Talking, Moving, Doing, Fighting act in that order. What's different is how ties are resolved. The player who has the higher skill may go first, which gives her the advantage by letting her draw more AND draw sooner than her opponents. This gives her a step up when the Doctor faces an opponent who is normally a fighter, but tries to talk.

Hey, still writing the big transcript-format examples of play, but I just wanted to toss a quick idea out there for FATE folk. I can't shake the feeling I wrote about this before, years ago, but now I've got a concrete procedure in Do to compare and contrast to FATE.

See, the good people at Evil Hat Productions are producing Do, but their house system is the popular FUDGE-adaptation FATE. Being a FUDGE-based system, FATE uses special dice that have two symbols. Two sides are +, two other sides are -, and the remaining two sides are blank. Four of these dice are rolled, the +s added, the -s subtracted, and then compared to this chart. In general, more +s mean you do better. And when you toss in the Aspects and so on, it's a very different system from Do's.

In Do, you use black and white stones in a bag instead of dice. Each turn, three stones are drawn and you choose whether to keep the black or white, then return the unchosen stones back into the bag. Keeping more stones generally means you do better in the short term, but the colors of stones you keep and the color of stones in the bag have long-term effects in the story.

The cool thing about the stones-in-a-bag system is that each player's action feeds into the probability... the fate, if you will... of each subsequent player's turn. It would be interesting if you could bring that aesthetic into a game system actually called FATE, y'know? So here's a first thought.

BASICS

Instead of dice, the group has a bag with stones that come in three colors. Each color effectively takes the place of the plus +, minus -, and blank ø. The colors should be of equal number, so a typical game might have 15 stones of each color in the bag.

Instead of rolling four dice when you want to perform a daring deed, you pull four stones.

Those four stones are added up just like a roll of the dice in traditional FUDGE, and compared to the chart.

After that resolution is complete, you may keep some of these stones, but with a few restrictions as noted below.

KEEPING STONES

You may keep a +, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of øs from that same draw. You may keep a ø, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of -s from that same draw.

For example, if you rolled + ø ø -, you could keep one - and one ø. You couldn't keep more than the single ø because there are not enough -s to allow you to do so.

If your draw is missing one of those symbols, then prerequisites noted above are a little different.

If your draw has only ø and -: You may keep a ø, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of -s from that same draw. You cannot keep any +s, obviously, because there are none in that draw.

If your draw has only + and ø: You may keep a +, but only if you are also keeping an equal or greater number of øs from that same draw. You can ignore the prerequisite -s.

If your draw has only + and -: You may not keep any +s, but you may keep as many -s as you like.

FATE

Once you've chosen which stones to keep, put them in a cup, where they won't get mixed up with anyone else's supply of stones.

The remaining stones go back into the bag.

Early on, you're drawing a fairly balanced set of stones. But, by choosing to keep the -s, you make it more likely that future players (including yourself) will draw ø or +. In time, by keeping more øs, you will make +s more likely, too.

Over the long term, the stones you keep may reflect a plot arc or a character's growth, depending on your particular story.

PACING

The biggest pacing difference between Do and FATE is the frequency of fortune coming into play.

In Do, one bag lasts the whole session. The procedure of play is very, very structured. More like a board game than what you might expect from an RPG. Each player literally takes turns and on her turn, she makes one draw from the bag. It's easy to figure out the pacing of the story based on this rigorous structure of play. We can set guidelines for how many stones should be in the bag, offer suggestions for lengthening or shortening a session, and even predict how many turns are in the average game session.

Contrast this with FUDGE, where a dice roll would come as frequently as players and GMs deem necessary, often not following any particular turn order (unless initiative rules are invoked). A player could make three rolls in a row, then the player next to her could make one roll, then the first player could make two more, then a third player could jump in suddenly with a string of rolls of his own.

If Do followed FATE's the free-wheeling roll-when-you-want-to attitude, the bag would b e emptied in minutes. Ah, but that is assuming this FATE hack keeps the one-bag-per-story assumption in Do. Perhaps another aesthetic is called for.

Perhaps there are, in fact, three bags per session, following a three-act story structure. That may literally be three separate bags, each with equal sets of stones.

The easier solution is to simply refill the bag once it has fewer than four stones in it. As you feel the bag getting lighter and lighter, the GM and players can build towards a climax.

Each act might follow different prerequisite rules, too, so the first act might encourage you to keep blanks, the second act encourages pluses, etc. Perhaps your game has some flavor that would encourage one or the other, I dunno.

---

Okay, those are my thoughts for now. I leave this to FATE fans to tweak and hack at your leisure.

How do Fate Points work in this system?
Where do Aspects come in?
How about skill checks and experience points?

En algún momento significaron algo...

We thought it would be funny to do side-by-side comparisons between my hair and Shepherd Book's. Little did we realize how ogre-like I'd look without glasses.



Such lifeless, beady eyes!

Hoy salí a comprar regalos de Reyes. En mi casa yo los compro todos menos los míos; toda mi familia me va soltando pasta mientras confían en mi buen gusto XD

A la vuelta me encontré con esta escena. El hombre con boina aparca su coche y abre el maletero. Inmediatamente se activan unas luces y comienza a sonar un villancico mientras algunas figuras de este improvisado Belén empiezan a dar vueltas. La gente se agolpó y comenzó a tirarle monedas.

Fue de las escenas más extrañas que he visto en mi vida.





Disculpan la calidad de la foto. Sólo llevaba el móvil en ese momento :/

Doyce Testerman posted ideas for eBook publication lifted from gamers. (Name checked Greg Stolze and I, too. Holla!)

To which, I posted this little idea.

There’s one cool thing you can do for ransom: Include the names of top donors in the text itself. You could have three open spaces for names, which would be filled by the names of the top 3 donors.

For example, your text could be:

“___A___ moves the pawn two spaces forward, which flanks ___B’s___ bishop and captures ____C’s____ knight.”

Wherever ___A___ appears in the document, the top donor’s name would appear. ___B___ would be replaced by the second-place donor. ___C___ would be replaced by the third-place donor. Which would result in the following text:

“Doyce moves the pawn two spaces forward, which flanks Kelly’s bishop and captures Shannon’s knight.”

That works well for game books, but it might also work in fiction, by including donors' names as characters in the story.

Continuing thoughts from here.

Perhaps better as a board game implementation. A board split into several columns.

Shore | City | Mountains | Valley | Jungle | Deep Jungle | Godlands

The city and the mountains are split by a great wall, King Kong style.

Everything from the mountain to the godlands is a potential hunting ground.
The sea, shore and city are controlled by the conquistadors.
Going deeper into the jungle lets you hunt bigger, more profitable monsters.

The longer you spend out there, the more likely you will encounter conquistador patrols.
Conquistador combat can be won by fighting or bribery, depending on which resource (HP/Mana) you're willing to sacrifice.
Perhaps an adaptation of the ZOMBIES!!! combat system?

Potion-creation is a M:tG/Pokemon system of combining mana resources.
Ex: Potion of Fine Butchery requires 2 red, 4 blue, 1 white.

Each monster's organ possesses a certain type of mana.
Ex: An adult dragon's spleen contains 2 red, 1 blue.

The city is where you trade your goods, using the market mechanic.
That's where you can sell potions, surplus mana, etc.

Roll a pool of d6s. For each die resulting in 1-3, one unit of Resource X is available for purchase. Each die resulting in 4-6 is how much one unit of Resource X costs.

For example, if you rolled 5 dice and you got 1, 4, 3, 6, 2. That means there are three bananas available, and each banana will cost you 2 bucks.

At a whopping 100,000+ words, the unedited playable draft of Do is complete and can be found on Google Docs at here and here.

In other words, the setting chapter, character creation chapter, how-to-play chapter, and a healthy chunk of the play advice chapter are complete, with tips, tools, and examples of play throughout. The examples of play account for at least 45,000 words alone, written since the beginning of November in a caffeine bender.

The stuff I'm writing this month, before sending the whole shebang to the editor, isn't essential for play, but it's nice to have. This includes a chapter devoted to a transcript of actual character creation, a chapter for a transcript of a three-session pilgrimage, and finishing the rest of the chapter titled the Subtle Art of Gonzometry.

A lot more time has been spent discussing gonzometry than I anticipated at first, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It inspired a setting detail that actually explains the whole business with pilgrim names being their source of superhuman powers (if any.) See section titled "Naming" for more info.

In short, the elders kinda sorta know they're characters in fiction. This enlightenment allows them a subtle power over that fiction in the form of metaphor and allegory. Thus, by naming a pilgrim "Rushing Spring," that pilgrim's abilities and how they get in trouble reflects that name. Or is it that the elders recognize those attributes first, then bestow a name that fits those attributes? Chicken and the egg.

This was inspired in part by Heinlein's world-as-myth stuff, which half-tempted me to make the Gonzometer an actual in-game artifact that the pilgrims carry with them, but decided against it. :P

EDIT: The commenter in question is one Julie Summerell, whose LJ can be found at http://sheltergirl.blogspot.com/

Rob Donoghue linked to this post telling people not to be writers, because chances are they're no good. We both liked this response and Rob suggested it should be a t-shirt. So I rephrased the quote, removed the profanity and whipped this up this morning.



Available in men's and women's sizes:





In black and kelly green.