Since the blog had a request I'll continue the thought on how a Team Based Rogues Gallery works. (After all, I did indicate that there would be a card for it).
Obviously the team's rogues gallery needs to have members who are potent enough to challenge the whole team. It is also highly unlikely to have a single theme, especially if it is an Avengers or JLA style game where some of the team members have their own books and rogues galleries and some don't. The standard elements of a team Rogues gallery are:
Rogues United: this is a villain team made up of members of the A-List or Own Book Heroes rogues galleries. The Masters of Evil, the Injustice Gang, and other similar organizations are good examples of this. Each Villain is as powerful as their counterparts, but sometimes there are fewer of them then there are team mambers and sometimes they wildly outnumber the heroes, depending on the story. They generally act to destroy the hero team out of enmity with their primary foe.
Schemer and recruits: this is another villain team made up of a single smart/clever/plan oriented villain and the people he's hired/made/conned into attacking the heroes. This is superficially similar to a Rogues United situation but other than the schemer the villains may have no connection with the heroes at all prior to their first encounter. The Frightful Four is the best example of this - the Wizard and Paste Pot Pete were Human Torch villains but Sandman and their rotating cast of 4th members? No reason for them to be there. This means the Schemer is likely to have a couple of rotating slots to keep the encounters fresh.
Only you stand to stop me: this is the villain somehow convinced that if the heroes were out of the way (and just this one band of heroes) the world/country/city would fall before his might. Now, depending on the hero group this might well be true, but it means the villain's motivation is pretty clear. Now, they might be obsessed with winning in a straight up fight, or turning the heroes to their side, but the upshot is a single powerful villain (likely backed up with hordes of henchmen) need to defeat the team.
I WILL CRUSH YOU: Very similar to the last one, this is predicated on a particular hate for the team by the villain, who is again likely pretty tough and has an army of minions (or in this case perhaps deathtraps).
B-Lister Villains Unite!: Each of the heroes who only appear in the book have a single personal enemy - likely good for arriving to harass them and through extension the team - who holds the aspects of a rogues gallery of they had one. However sometimes those B-Listers join forces in a team that really only ties back to the Team book. This makes the conflict more personal than a Rogues United. And there's nothing that says these villains have to be weak, so the threat they pose can be real - the A- and B- List division is only about who has their own books - Captain America Villains are not more powerful than Wonder Man foes just because Cap has his own long running book.
That's what I have immediately. More may come to me, but if the team has a real theme (the FF are all explorers) then use the themed rogues galleries from an individual hero. The types of villain that teams face as a whole are pretty static. This is why its important to have the individual rogues galleries to draw from
Plans for 2024: Creation of an NSR setting for super-heroes; My D&D 3E campaign as an example of sandboxing via published adventure, and likely more.
Showing posts with label Sticks Improv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sticks Improv. Show all posts
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Rogues Gallery 2
Continuation of the Rogues Gallery list from yesterday....
6) Found Foes: You have an exploratory nature or something else that leads you to foreign countries or fantastic realms where you inevitably upset someone's evil plans and get them to swear vengeance on you. Their powers could be anything, and are likely quite potent. (Example: the Fantastic Four vs. Namor, Anhillius, Psych-Man, the Skrulls, Mole Man)
7) Neighborhood Watch: The old neighborhood (or country, or planet) hit everyone in different ways. Your foes are those who grew up in the same circumstances you did - perhaps with the same teacher - but turned out different. Their powers are likely similar to yours in the main.
8) Common Element: Your foes all share one common element - all animal based, all have mutated heads, all based on classic elements, all monster-related, all from children's stories, all madness - that makes them visually/stylistically similar but doesn't say anything about their motives or themes.
8.1) Animals: Spider Man vs. Doctor Octopus, Vulture, Scorpion, Lizard, Rhino
8.2) Facial Deformities: Dick Tracy vs. the Blank, Flattop Jones, Pruneface, Rughead and countless others (Plus see Detective Double, earlier in this blog)
8.3) Elements: based on air, water, earth, fire, wood, metal and perhaps storms?
8.4) Madness: Batman vs Joker, Catwoman, Mad Hatter, Poison Ivy, Clayface and lots of others.
8.5) Monsters: thematic versions of Vampires, Werewolves, Mummies, Re-animated men, ghosts, etc.
In any event the intent is for players to get a card that gives them inspiration for who their character is based on who they fight. I'm not sure how well it would work in practice but I'd love to hear ideas.
6) Found Foes: You have an exploratory nature or something else that leads you to foreign countries or fantastic realms where you inevitably upset someone's evil plans and get them to swear vengeance on you. Their powers could be anything, and are likely quite potent. (Example: the Fantastic Four vs. Namor, Anhillius, Psych-Man, the Skrulls, Mole Man)
7) Neighborhood Watch: The old neighborhood (or country, or planet) hit everyone in different ways. Your foes are those who grew up in the same circumstances you did - perhaps with the same teacher - but turned out different. Their powers are likely similar to yours in the main.
8) Common Element: Your foes all share one common element - all animal based, all have mutated heads, all based on classic elements, all monster-related, all from children's stories, all madness - that makes them visually/stylistically similar but doesn't say anything about their motives or themes.
8.1) Animals: Spider Man vs. Doctor Octopus, Vulture, Scorpion, Lizard, Rhino
8.2) Facial Deformities: Dick Tracy vs. the Blank, Flattop Jones, Pruneface, Rughead and countless others (Plus see Detective Double, earlier in this blog)
8.3) Elements: based on air, water, earth, fire, wood, metal and perhaps storms?
8.4) Madness: Batman vs Joker, Catwoman, Mad Hatter, Poison Ivy, Clayface and lots of others.
8.5) Monsters: thematic versions of Vampires, Werewolves, Mummies, Re-animated men, ghosts, etc.
In any event the intent is for players to get a card that gives them inspiration for who their character is based on who they fight. I'm not sure how well it would work in practice but I'd love to hear ideas.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Rogues Galleries
Since I'm working a lot of scattered things at the moment I wanted to codify some ideas on Rogues Galleries. I am thinking of my Sticks Improv system for non-fantasy genres. In order to quick build super-heroes I want one of the stacks to be 'rogues gallery', roughly a third of which will be 'team only rogues gallery'. This both captures the distinction between heroes who work primarily with the team (Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Wonder Man) and those who have their own books (Iron Man, Cap, Thor) and helps define aspects of the heroes who do have their own rogues galleries.
The rogues gallery (if referenced in play) should be 5 villains, at least 4 of which fit the theme. They could be interpreted in many ways - maybe the animal themed villains rely on technology (like Spider-Man's rogues) or they're all wixua masters/sorcerers in various animal styles.
Since the text has to fit on business cards I have to keep these as pithy as possible.
1) Dark Reflections: Your foes are the same as you, only on the other side. For example, if you're a inventor for your country they're inventors for rival countries, or inventors who work for any country; if you're a combat badass wandering the west, so are they. (Example: Iron Man vs. Mandarin, Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man, Justin Hammer, Melter)
2) Ideological Opposites: You represent a particular ideology or national identity and your opponents represent opposing ones, or threats to yours. Their powers could be anything but not more potent than yours, and in at least some cases they're similar. (Example: Captain America vs. Red Skull, Batroc, Tarantula, Flag Smasher, the Secret Empire)
3) Thematic Obsessives: All of your foes are obsessed with mastering something specific to them, and that obsession has led them to crime to fund that obsession. Their crimes aren't (necessarily) themed, just their methods. (Example: the Flash vs. Captain Cold, Captain Boomerang, Heat Wave, Rainbow Raider)
4) Masterminds and Cats Paws: You have one or two mastermind-type foes who have built allies to use against you over the years, many of whom are now free agents. You're likely very physically capable, and the cats paws may resemble your powers. (Example: Thor vs. Loki & Enchantress + Absorbing Man, Wrecker or the Executioner)
5) Invaders and Thieves: You are the protector of a country, planet, pocket dimension, etc. Your foes are those who would plunder its resources or usurp its leaders (who might be you). Their powers could be anything but not more potent than yours, and in at least some cases they're similar. (Example: Aquaman vs. Ocean Master, Scavenger, Black Manta, Stavors Markos, Admiral Strom)
The rogues gallery (if referenced in play) should be 5 villains, at least 4 of which fit the theme. They could be interpreted in many ways - maybe the animal themed villains rely on technology (like Spider-Man's rogues) or they're all wixua masters/sorcerers in various animal styles.
Since the text has to fit on business cards I have to keep these as pithy as possible.
1) Dark Reflections: Your foes are the same as you, only on the other side. For example, if you're a inventor for your country they're inventors for rival countries, or inventors who work for any country; if you're a combat badass wandering the west, so are they. (Example: Iron Man vs. Mandarin, Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man, Justin Hammer, Melter)
2) Ideological Opposites: You represent a particular ideology or national identity and your opponents represent opposing ones, or threats to yours. Their powers could be anything but not more potent than yours, and in at least some cases they're similar. (Example: Captain America vs. Red Skull, Batroc, Tarantula, Flag Smasher, the Secret Empire)
3) Thematic Obsessives: All of your foes are obsessed with mastering something specific to them, and that obsession has led them to crime to fund that obsession. Their crimes aren't (necessarily) themed, just their methods. (Example: the Flash vs. Captain Cold, Captain Boomerang, Heat Wave, Rainbow Raider)
4) Masterminds and Cats Paws: You have one or two mastermind-type foes who have built allies to use against you over the years, many of whom are now free agents. You're likely very physically capable, and the cats paws may resemble your powers. (Example: Thor vs. Loki & Enchantress + Absorbing Man, Wrecker or the Executioner)
5) Invaders and Thieves: You are the protector of a country, planet, pocket dimension, etc. Your foes are those who would plunder its resources or usurp its leaders (who might be you). Their powers could be anything but not more potent than yours, and in at least some cases they're similar. (Example: Aquaman vs. Ocean Master, Scavenger, Black Manta, Stavors Markos, Admiral Strom)
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Card Stack Improv Card Design
The trick to the Sticks-style improv games is giving the cards in the card stacks enough mechanics to make the game playable, introduce one or two new pieces of gaming technology and give them works that spark ideas to hang idea hooks off of. This is easier than it sounds.
First off, by sticking to clearly defined genres (such as d20 Fantasy) no one has to explain much - we all know what elves and dwarves are and there's no having to explain what an Ahoggya is or how the religious chaste system operates.
Second, a decade+ of d20 D&D did a really good job of boiling D&D down to its bare essentials (Six stats, which gives bonuses to rolls; Skills or Proficiencies gives bonuses to rolls; success and failure are d20 + bonuses against target number; sometimes degree of success has a separate die roll; high is always good). Adding new pieces of game tech onto that, such as changes to the magic system, or mook rules, or fan mail, are really simple given how simple and robust that base is.
Third, it takes remarkably little to get people to build off of when designing their characters. There are always 3 types of each class card (so 3 fighters, 3 clerics, 3 rogues and 3 wizards) and what I ope to call those makes a huge difference - the first time we played I called the Clerics Exorcists, Crusaders and Thaumaturges and huge amounts of the session were driven by how the players of cleric PCs took them and spun off the evocative terms. In the second game I had the Clerics decide how much affinity they had with Odin, Thor, Loki, Freya and Baldur - the game didn't become Norse, but the connotations around those gods immediately changed how the politics played out.
Inevitably the players come up with character ideas that I would never have considered when pre-generating characters, and likely that the players wouldn't have come up with if I'd given them a detailed world history. In many cases restrictions breed creativity, but so far with this the open endedness of these one shots, the players ability to draw parts of the map of the world, define how they know one another however they want, and merge together the general concepts of the combined cards make the whole thing so exciting to me as a GM. I literally have no idea what they're going to come up with for the day, and neither do they.
I think this time I'm going to focus on evocative class titles (tomb raider, cartographer, foreign legionnaire and missionary will show up at the very least). Then the concept of effect rolls being more than damage - you still roll a d20+ bonuses to see if you succeed in, say, climbing, but the quality of your tools determines whether you're rolling a d4, d6 or higher for how well you did. This takes an existing, well understood mechanic and apply it to other things (you need 12 points of effect to climb this wall), which as I think of it might let you combine things, so morale attacks would directly reduce opponent's effective Hit Points the same way damage does to see if they stop being a threat. That has legs as a mechanic, but it's rooted in the d20 idiom so there's little new to learn.
There will also be some of the ideas I've been working out for what magic should be used for in a dungeon crawl game (low level magic lets you overcome lack of preparedness or loss of gear - Light spell lets you survive without torches, while Mount lets you recover from your horses being eaten) added to higher level magic being more like versatile powers (you have flame magic - what can it do?) This sort of magic is critical as the characters get more powerful as no one has time to absorb and memorize the spell lists in our 5 hour game slot.
I have about 6 weeks to work out the specifics, but i like where this is going.
First off, by sticking to clearly defined genres (such as d20 Fantasy) no one has to explain much - we all know what elves and dwarves are and there's no having to explain what an Ahoggya is or how the religious chaste system operates.
Second, a decade+ of d20 D&D did a really good job of boiling D&D down to its bare essentials (Six stats, which gives bonuses to rolls; Skills or Proficiencies gives bonuses to rolls; success and failure are d20 + bonuses against target number; sometimes degree of success has a separate die roll; high is always good). Adding new pieces of game tech onto that, such as changes to the magic system, or mook rules, or fan mail, are really simple given how simple and robust that base is.
Third, it takes remarkably little to get people to build off of when designing their characters. There are always 3 types of each class card (so 3 fighters, 3 clerics, 3 rogues and 3 wizards) and what I ope to call those makes a huge difference - the first time we played I called the Clerics Exorcists, Crusaders and Thaumaturges and huge amounts of the session were driven by how the players of cleric PCs took them and spun off the evocative terms. In the second game I had the Clerics decide how much affinity they had with Odin, Thor, Loki, Freya and Baldur - the game didn't become Norse, but the connotations around those gods immediately changed how the politics played out.
Inevitably the players come up with character ideas that I would never have considered when pre-generating characters, and likely that the players wouldn't have come up with if I'd given them a detailed world history. In many cases restrictions breed creativity, but so far with this the open endedness of these one shots, the players ability to draw parts of the map of the world, define how they know one another however they want, and merge together the general concepts of the combined cards make the whole thing so exciting to me as a GM. I literally have no idea what they're going to come up with for the day, and neither do they.
I think this time I'm going to focus on evocative class titles (tomb raider, cartographer, foreign legionnaire and missionary will show up at the very least). Then the concept of effect rolls being more than damage - you still roll a d20+ bonuses to see if you succeed in, say, climbing, but the quality of your tools determines whether you're rolling a d4, d6 or higher for how well you did. This takes an existing, well understood mechanic and apply it to other things (you need 12 points of effect to climb this wall), which as I think of it might let you combine things, so morale attacks would directly reduce opponent's effective Hit Points the same way damage does to see if they stop being a threat. That has legs as a mechanic, but it's rooted in the d20 idiom so there's little new to learn.
There will also be some of the ideas I've been working out for what magic should be used for in a dungeon crawl game (low level magic lets you overcome lack of preparedness or loss of gear - Light spell lets you survive without torches, while Mount lets you recover from your horses being eaten) added to higher level magic being more like versatile powers (you have flame magic - what can it do?) This sort of magic is critical as the characters get more powerful as no one has time to absorb and memorize the spell lists in our 5 hour game slot.
I have about 6 weeks to work out the specifics, but i like where this is going.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Card Stack Improv
After some feedback from the players I'm not going to try to adapt 5E to my card stack system next month. We'll be sticking with the 3E model, which is a natural for the multi-classing in that mechanic.
After the card stack part of things I ask the players to turn to the person next to them and define their characters relationship, then repeat with the other player, so that every PC knows two other PCs but not all eight or nine PCs. This keeps a degree of party coherence but allows for inter-party conflict as well.
In the first session we did 6th level heroes where one group of questers were petitioning a group of established town-based clerics and thieves for help on something and ended up uncovering a centuries old curse. The second session we did a diplomatic meeting 12th level heroes and political players who uncovered evidence of a planned invasion of the lands under their control who had to plan out how to confirm the threat and counter it. Both were clearly D&D at various stages of play, but had very different feels.
This time around I'm repeating the 'everyone gets to draw geographic features on this map' aspect from the second game but modifying it so that pairs of heroes (the first relationship) are responsible for one quarter of the treasure map. This lets everyone have a say in the sort of adventure they want to engage in and the types of threats they have to face. This certainly makes my job more interesting as I have to improv what those challenges actually are based on the details on the map.
I might also say the second relationship discussions are by definition weaker, lacking a shared motivation for getting the treasure. This will all but guarantee some inter-party conflict when they actually get... whatever it is they're after.
I think I'll try to work this out with 9th level PCs, who in my analysis of the classic O and AD&D design are iconic without being political, just starting to move into politics, land clearing and gaining groups of followers. I think I may institute some new damage mechanics to keep Fighters and melee combat impressive without taking tons of dice rolls (abstracting multiple attacks to greater damage and ability to divide damage between targets). I really want the Fighter heroes to feel like John Carter, Conan and Fafherd - more than capable of moving quietly, donning quick disguises and performing impressive physical feats - rather than armored Arthurian knights since that better fits the treasure map through dangerous terrain goal I'm aiming for here.
After the card stack part of things I ask the players to turn to the person next to them and define their characters relationship, then repeat with the other player, so that every PC knows two other PCs but not all eight or nine PCs. This keeps a degree of party coherence but allows for inter-party conflict as well.
In the first session we did 6th level heroes where one group of questers were petitioning a group of established town-based clerics and thieves for help on something and ended up uncovering a centuries old curse. The second session we did a diplomatic meeting 12th level heroes and political players who uncovered evidence of a planned invasion of the lands under their control who had to plan out how to confirm the threat and counter it. Both were clearly D&D at various stages of play, but had very different feels.
This time around I'm repeating the 'everyone gets to draw geographic features on this map' aspect from the second game but modifying it so that pairs of heroes (the first relationship) are responsible for one quarter of the treasure map. This lets everyone have a say in the sort of adventure they want to engage in and the types of threats they have to face. This certainly makes my job more interesting as I have to improv what those challenges actually are based on the details on the map.
I might also say the second relationship discussions are by definition weaker, lacking a shared motivation for getting the treasure. This will all but guarantee some inter-party conflict when they actually get... whatever it is they're after.
I think I'll try to work this out with 9th level PCs, who in my analysis of the classic O and AD&D design are iconic without being political, just starting to move into politics, land clearing and gaining groups of followers. I think I may institute some new damage mechanics to keep Fighters and melee combat impressive without taking tons of dice rolls (abstracting multiple attacks to greater damage and ability to divide damage between targets). I really want the Fighter heroes to feel like John Carter, Conan and Fafherd - more than capable of moving quietly, donning quick disguises and performing impressive physical feats - rather than armored Arthurian knights since that better fits the treasure map through dangerous terrain goal I'm aiming for here.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Pontificating in the absence of evidence
Every 6 months I run a game for my old High School gaming group - so far one shots exploring different play styles and power levels of d20 Fantasy. This January I don't know if I'm going to stick with building a power level focused version of D&D like I have in the past or use it as a springboard for 5th Edition. If I were to do the latter I'd still want to build characters using my card stack system.
To explain, I have several stacks of cards that fall into certain types - levels in the 4 core classes, character race, character gifts, major equipment - and each player starts with one stack. They pick their favorite from the stack and pass the rest to the right. Eventually everyone gets a card from each stack which, taken in total, gives them their stats, class levels, race, special abilities and core equipment. It's a midpoint between pre-made characters and designing the characters at the table.
However it is very much keyed off of 3rd edition multi-classing. 5th edition doesn't mutli-class as cleanly, instead calling for a lot of specific decision points for a design in play character. 5E really wants you to start at 1st level and work your way through to give your character an organic feel, and the classes have internal option trees rather than promoting multi-classing and prestige classes. It keeps things uniform, but it also makes things messy for how I've done this in the past.
This speaks to some of my issues with 5E, not that I've played enough of the game to really form opinions on them. As I said before I think character creation is still too complex: you don't just select a race but a subrace, and rather than a +2/-2 on stats and some bonuses to skills/saves there are differing stat levels and special racial powers that aren't mimicked anywhere else. Classes are easy at first but have internal trees that force decisions at later levels that radically change the character. Feats are optional, but feel optional in the way that 2E non-weapon proficiencies were optional in that all future supplements will assume their use. At least backgrounds are consistent with their 'two skills and a social advantage' structure, which is nice, and you don't have points to distribute between skills the way you did in 3E, which could be a time saver.
It all makes me hesitate to use 5E for the January game. Maybe everyone will think it's brilliant and will start running games for their kids with it (it's probably good for that). But it doesn't feel innovative enough for me to one to showcase rules with it the way I have with, say, fanmail chips, noun+verb magic systems and decentralized power options in previous games - things that weren't in any of the games this group played with before that really show off new gaming tech.
There are a lot of good ideas in 5E, but aside from the Advantage/Disadvantage rules I don't see enough breaking new ground to justify some of the character crunchy bits complexity.
To explain, I have several stacks of cards that fall into certain types - levels in the 4 core classes, character race, character gifts, major equipment - and each player starts with one stack. They pick their favorite from the stack and pass the rest to the right. Eventually everyone gets a card from each stack which, taken in total, gives them their stats, class levels, race, special abilities and core equipment. It's a midpoint between pre-made characters and designing the characters at the table.
However it is very much keyed off of 3rd edition multi-classing. 5th edition doesn't mutli-class as cleanly, instead calling for a lot of specific decision points for a design in play character. 5E really wants you to start at 1st level and work your way through to give your character an organic feel, and the classes have internal option trees rather than promoting multi-classing and prestige classes. It keeps things uniform, but it also makes things messy for how I've done this in the past.
This speaks to some of my issues with 5E, not that I've played enough of the game to really form opinions on them. As I said before I think character creation is still too complex: you don't just select a race but a subrace, and rather than a +2/-2 on stats and some bonuses to skills/saves there are differing stat levels and special racial powers that aren't mimicked anywhere else. Classes are easy at first but have internal trees that force decisions at later levels that radically change the character. Feats are optional, but feel optional in the way that 2E non-weapon proficiencies were optional in that all future supplements will assume their use. At least backgrounds are consistent with their 'two skills and a social advantage' structure, which is nice, and you don't have points to distribute between skills the way you did in 3E, which could be a time saver.
It all makes me hesitate to use 5E for the January game. Maybe everyone will think it's brilliant and will start running games for their kids with it (it's probably good for that). But it doesn't feel innovative enough for me to one to showcase rules with it the way I have with, say, fanmail chips, noun+verb magic systems and decentralized power options in previous games - things that weren't in any of the games this group played with before that really show off new gaming tech.
There are a lot of good ideas in 5E, but aside from the Advantage/Disadvantage rules I don't see enough breaking new ground to justify some of the character crunchy bits complexity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)