(Over) Simplification

As I write, I am looking to simplify, unify, and clarify whenever possible. One of the places where the existing rules are kind of all over the place is in the ideas of ranges and distances. I’d like ‘one rule to rule the rules’ for this. I’d like to tie these to an existing function in the game; I don’t want to create a new set of numbers to track. There should be some way to use the existing number system to solve this. I start with a ‘normal person’ and build from there. The goal is to minimize the need to consult charts. You should be able to remember the vast majority of rules for the game (because they are consistent and simple), and be able to use just what’s on your character sheet to answer most things.

FYI, I’m not looking to emulate the real world; I’m looking to come up with a system that has internal consistency and verisimilitude; we don’t want to stop the game because ‘that would never happen’. It doesn’t have to BE factually accurate; it just has to FEEL factually accurate. Here are some ideas:

Option One: Tie things to Feats; your move and range are set at your Feat rating x10’. This keeps the scale relatively in check. A normal human has a Feat modifier of +4, so can run 40’ in an action or fire an arrow 40’ without penalty. Seems legit. A level 4 hero (Feat +10) then has a base move of 100’ and can use ranged abilities up to 100’ without penalty. Again, seems pretty good. Gliding allows you to fly at your Feat x10’. Flight allows you to fly at your Feat modifier + your PWR modifier x10’. Speedsters can also add PWR to this; so the level 4 speedster with PWR 20 now has 300’ of travel per action. Since this character is also allowed 10 actions per round, they can travel almost half a mile in six seconds if using all actions to sprint. That works. It’s got some internal consistency.  I like that it naturally scales as you grow in level; you are just faster and can use your abilities at greater range as you go up in level, but it’s nothing crazy.

Option Two: Tie things to DEX. If we go with DEX x10’, we end up with a decent foundation. A normal person has a DEX of 6, meaning that he or she can run 60’ in one action or fire a weapon 60’ without taking a significant penalty. That is a bit far; however, a round is six seconds, and a normal person (level 0) has 1 action per round; if that person wants to run 60’ in 6 seconds, and do nothing else, that seems pretty reasonable. An Olympic sprinter (DEX 12) is capable of running 120’ in six seconds (easy), so it’s not an unreasonable measure. If that sprinter is level 1 (getting two actions per round), he or she now can run 240’ in that time – again, not beyond the bounds of reason. The Olympic archer can fire a bow 120’ without penalty. Again, pretty reasonable. Hyperspeed is where it gets interesting; you get to add your PWR and DEX ratings together. So, our prototypal speedster is rocking DEX 20 and PWR 20, allowing them to travel 400’ per action. Pretending this character is level 4, they are also allowed 10 actions per round; so can travel 4000’ in six seconds; about 2/3 of a mile. All of this feels good, and doesn’t break the game.

Analysis:

To my mind, both work pretty well, and both are agreeable options. I kind of like the Feats one as the default setting, with an option for a talent called “Quickness” that allows you to take the DEX option instead. My only concern with the DEX option is that it further reinforces DEX as the best attribute EVAH, and I’d like to avoid tying even more awesome stuff to DEX. This game is pretty balanced in general, but I do feel like tying range and travel to DEX pushes DEX to be a little overpowered. With the quickness talent, at least you have to spend something to get that perk. Now, your Olympic sprinter is a LOT faster than the regular dude. That works too.

I also like that it gives more options for talents; you can purchase talents that increase your base movement, and that increase your base range. You don’t have to take these things, but they are there if you want them.

By the way, I really like a subtle shift I made to character progression; instead of an automatic +1 bump to one attribute and 1 talent each level, you get 1d4+1 talents each level, and a +1 bump is one of your options. This gives a little more flexibility in character building, but it also makes it possible to get to 20+ ratings in more than one attribute if that is really your focus. However, this also means that the game needs a robust set of talents so that you have meaningful options every level. If it’s a quirky talent that only a few people might want to take, then I don’t want to put it in. I am okay with only 20 talents in the base game rules, as long as those are 20 genuinely good options. They can be pretty flexible: receive +1 to one attribute; receive +1 to AC; receive +5 to hit points; receive +2 to your Feat rating for move; receive +2 to your feat rating for range; receive +2 to your Feat rating to resist mental attacks; receive +1 to attacks; shift up one die for one of your gifts… that list alone gives dozens and dozens of options.

Stunts and Resolve

I am re-working Resolve to be simpler - it is a pool of points you have to use at your discretion, refreshing every turn. I am adding a new layer, Stunts, for the special things you try to do that are extra super heroic.  Here's the first draft of the section on Stunts. I really like this... and it follows a section on sacrificing actions. For every action you give up, you add +2 to the first action you take. I am liking the action rules... I can think of Hawkeye using one action to slide down a pitched rooftop as he fires three arrows, or Spidey leaping between walls as he fires webs at the pistols of four common criminals. 

Stunts

A stunt is an exceptional, fantastic, outside-the-box use of a power or ability. A stunt pushes your attributes and gifts beyond their normal boundaries, in order to achieve something spectacular. You may attempt one stunt per turn. When you attempt a stunt, you must sacrifice at least one action, and commit at least 1 die from your resolve pool (to be spent as needed or desired). Describe what you are trying to do, and the GM sets a CR. For each action you sacrifice, add +2 to your action. If a stunt is successful, you must attempt a Feat, CR 24. If successful, you suffer no ill effects. If you fail this Feat, you suffer a consequence, as the stunt took something out of you.

Stunt Consequences (Roll 1d4)

1.      Suffer half of your current hit points in damage.

2.      Be stunned and unable to act for 1d4 rounds.

3.      Suffer -4 to the attribute or gift you used for the rest of the turn.

4.      Suffer a penalty as if you had a hex (page xx) for the rest of the turn.

In Play: Doc Stalwart has been battling a huge robot for several rounds. He has had trouble damaging it, as its thick armor plating (Invulnerability 8) largely pushes aside his blows. He decides to perform a stunt, attempting to break open the armor plating so that he can damage it. He has 8 actions per round. He uses 1 action to rip the claw from a nearby backhoe, and another action to leap at the robot. He will then try to gouge the armor open with this found weapon. He gives up five actions, so receives +10 to his attack roll. He rolls 13 +11 (his attack modifier) +10 (the bonus from the sacrificed actions). He gets 34. While the AC for the robot is only 22 (meaning he hits easily), the GM determines that the action itself is CR 36. It’s a very powerful robot. He needs to use one of the dice from his resolve pool, rolling 1d10 and getting 3. This is enough to meet the DT, and he’s successful. He rips open the armor, and can dig the claw into the core of the creature’s central processing system. Doc decides to spend the rest of the resolve on this, dealing his normal 1D10+5 damage, but adding his full remaining resolve pool, 4d10, to the damage. He rolls a total of 24 damage, dealing significant internal damage to the robot. Doc must attempt a Feat, rolling a botch – a natural 1; he has no resolve left, and couldn’t use it here anyway because of the botch. He rolls 1d4 and gets 3. He suffers -4 to his MGT for the rest of the turn, having pulled muscles in his back and shoulders in the mighty effort.  The GM decides that the robot now has no invulnerability, and it suffers a penalty of -2 to AC until it can be repaired.  

New Stat Block

This is the new and improved character stat block. It feels a little more traditional and old schoolish to me, and also is easier to read and find information in. I think that this block plus a short paragraph of background, history, and gameplay information would take half a page - so I can get two characters in this format per page. That feels good. I don't see the core rules being packed with dozens of characters; Doc might be the only hero, and then maybe 8 villains ready to play.

A few things to note about this:

I am changing Resolve so that it is a pool of dice you have available each turn; you can use all of your dice one one action and do something CRAZY, or you can hold 'em back. You can spend as needed; that first d6 didn't get the job done? Add another d6 from your pool. It is part of a more freeform approach to resource management I'm trying to take; your character has lots of options. Doc uses D10s for his resolve because he's got the grit talent (x2 - the first bump was to d8, the next was to d10).

8 attacks per round is INSANE. It's a lot. BUT... Doc is among the most powerful characters in the game world. He's a heavy hitter; and even here, he's only averaging 10 points of damage per punch; so he hits a lot, but is not dealing unbelievable damage. Against himself, he's soaking half of that. He has to hit his evil twin 20 times to knock him out. He might be able to do that in three rounds; more likely, he's taking out 24 mooks in that time.

Characters are going to have more talents; most characters begin with 1d4 talents, earning +1 per level after level 1. So there will be variable numbers of talents.

Pro Noun

First of all, this is my fourth blog post in less than 24 hours, which is more blog posts than I did in all of 2017. That was definitely my dark age of gaming year. I was all in my doctoral program then, and was TOTALLY in the zone with that. Good times... kinda.

Okay, so I mentioned in my last blog post (like an hour ago - wait, you didn't read that yet? Sigh) I hinted at pronouns. Pronouns are a problem.

They're a problem because of this. I have hard-wired my brain to use SINGULAR pronouns for SINGULAR subjects, and PLURAL pronouns for PLURAL subjects. It's become one of my big (like BIG BIG) pet peeves in 20 years of teaching English. It's the first thing I go through and hammer on honors papers at the beginning of the year. It's up there with 'very unique' in my list of 'things not to do in my class'. (By the way, you cannot be very unique. Unique is an absolute state of being. It's like being 'a little bit pregnant' or 'mostly dead' - you either are or you're not.)

But times change. People change. Circumstances change.

We've had a reckoning with identity, and that has caused a reckoning with language. I get and respect and appreciate that there are people who don't feel comfortable as either him or her. I have zero problem with someone deciding that their gender identity doesn't fit either of these two pronouns. 

I HATE that we've decided that they/them is the solution. I mean, can't we have gender inclusivity without also breaking the fundamental rules of grammar at the same time?

We cannot. I guess. I mean, if I had a better solution, I'd propose it. But I don't.

I want my games to be inclusive. I want everyone to feel welcomed. I have students who I know and care about deeply who come from every corner of identity, and I would never want them to read what I've written and feel like they didn't belong.

But I still hate that they/them is the solution. I'm going to use it, and I'm going to default to they/them any time the gender is not clearly male or female (my default has been 'his or her' which is not inclusive) but I'm going to do it kicking and screaming that there had to be a better way.

Relatively Speaking

These blog post titles are becoming quite cheeky. Today, I'm discussing setting CR (challenge ratings) and the thought process behind it.

One of the changes is that I'm giving the GM some flexibility in play style in terms of setting Challenge Ratings. Here are three options:

1. Broad Strokes. Default to two basic CRs - 20 ('normal') and 32 (superhuman'). Is this something a normal person might be able to do with luck, skill, or a combination? CR 20. (Note: this could be a 'normal' use of a gift - am I using my fire control to start a campfire? That would a 'normal' application of the gift.) Is this something that requires superhuman ability and superhuman levels of grit, determination, and focus? CR 32. You can throw modifiers on these as applicable, but in general, you default to these two CRs.

2. Benchmarks. You have a sliding scale that sets the 20 and 32 foundations, but you also add the descriptors simple and hard. This is the default setting for the previous edition of the game: 

• Simple normal - CR 16
• Normal - CR 20
• Hard normal - CR 24
• Simple superhuman - CR 28
• superhuman - CR 32
• hard superhuman - CR 36

3. Granular. You consult the super chart of awesome (which I'm still modifying - so that's not a final draft) and assign a CR anywhere from 16 to 36 depending on exactly what you are trying to do. Trying to lift a space shuttle? A space shuttle weighs 78 tons - which is just above CR 32 and just below CR 33. Since the CR implies the upper limit, this would fall under CR 33 (plus it's got the crew and extra gear on board - it's not empty). So, you set the CR as 33 for this and have the player roll.

A Fourth Option: Relativity

How heavy is the space shuttle to you? That really, really depends.

For Spiderman (who can lift 10 tons in FASERIP - STR 18), it is really, really hard. Right now, mathematically, he adds +18 to STR checks, meaning that he needs a 15 or better on the die (and/or some resolve) to do it. Without spending points, he has a 30% chance of being successful.

For the Thing (who can lift about 75 tons in FASERIP - STR 22), it is tough, but something he is likely to be able to do in the comics. He adds +22 to STR checks, meaning that he needs an 11 or better on the die (and/or some resolve) to do it. Without spending points, he has a 50% chance of being successful.

For the Hulk (who is at STR 26 all day every day, and breaks my charts when he rages), it should be a layup. This is one-pinkie kind of work. Hulk juggles space shuttles for a light workout. In game terms, he is rolling at +26, meaning that he needs a 7 or better to be successful, a 70% success rate.

These aren't BAD. In fact, they're very good. These give everyone a shot, and reflect that is you are a LOT stronger, heavy things are quite a bit easier for you. This is strong game-wise, but a little off from the source material. However, we can introduce the concept of relativity:

For Spidey, this is relatively really, really hard. For him, it is CR 36. He needs to roll an 18 or better (10 chance of success). A car (2 tons) now becomes CR 28 to him.

For the Thing, this is a moderate challenge, CR 32. He needs a 10 or better, putting him at a 55% chance of success. A car (2 tons) then becomes CR 20 to him (and maybe no roll required).

For the Hulk, this is a low challenge, CR 28. He needs to roll a 2 or better, putting him at a 95% chance of success. A car (2 tons) then becomes CR 16 to him (and probably no roll required).

These all are much, much closer to the source material. 

Ultimately, I think that the best option is to give the GM all of these tools, and then let him or her (or them - uh oh, that's my next blog post) decide in play how to determine CRs. One of the problems with a supers game is that the temptation to allow things to be resolved by fiat is strong; I want to give GMs enough concrete tools and measures as I can to make consistent decisions, but then also give the freedom to let gonzo happen. 

Down to the Rails

Here's Kindle, another elemental force that can be summoned by the little kid who can summon elementals. I am still working on his concept, but it's that he goes to activate his powers, and then one of the four elementals randomly shows up - there's a chance that he gets a partial Voltron (so two of the elemental forces merged into a meta-mental), and there's an even SMALLER chance he gets the Voltron mega-mental that merges all four. This is the flame elemental.

And speaking of burning things down... (my brother would call that a "Sean Mooney Segway")

In editing, I have realized that there are fragments and pieces and relics of older game editions that have persisted. There are sentences and phrases and entire paragraphs that were in the first superhero game I published in 2006, and which have survived to live again in each subsequent game. I've gone with the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' approach. One good example is my section on adventure hooks; I wrote that for my first supers game, and while I've made edits and clean ups over time, the language and format is largely the same.

This edition is gutting it. I am not cutting and pasting a single phrase from any previous work. Even if I end up writing the same thing, I am literally sitting at the keyboard and re-typing it. I want to think about and make a conscious choice about every word that goes in. This means that some of the things in the most recent games I've published (for example, the half-page box I have distilled for character creation in Tales of the Splintered Realm) are not going to appear here - I'm making a decision about every design and layout choice, and I'm trying to rigorously avoid doing anything because I did it once before and liked how it turned out. This doesn't mean that I'm avoiding doing things that work; it just means that I'm going to make the best decision I can for THIS game right now, not borrow something from another game that works pretty well here too. 

Language Matters

See what I did there? It's both a clever title (we are discussing matters of language) and suggesting that this discussion is of some import (since, you know, language actually MATTERS). Oh, the cleverness of me.

I digress.

I'm cleaning up language throughout... a while back, someone pointed out how often I used the word 'take'. At the time, I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I see it now. I cannot UNSEE it. Ouch. In addition to these sorts of editing clean-ups, there are some bigger issues around language - in fact, there's a pretty significant one I want to solve.

In the development of the game years ago, I shied away from the word 'powers' in describing your character's abilities, because I wanted to include normal skills in there too - sneak can be a skill you've learned or a superhuman power you've developed; it works the same either way. I don't want to label things as skills that are actually superhuman powers, but I don't want to suggest that the local cat burglar who has burglary and sneak somehow has superhuman powers that drive his petty thievery.

I settled on traits. Then, I settled on talents as the special things that you can do that are more narrow in scope, or which directly affect other things. Getting a +1 to ranged attacks from being a trained marksman is a talent; your basic ability to fire a weapon is a trait. The problem is that they are both words that start and end with t, so I'm always confusing the two as I write and think about it. They are both kind of general terms that could, theoretically, be interchanged. Your talents could be your traits, and your traits could be your talents, and nobody would be the wiser. I don't like that they are both such vague terms, and that they are so similar to each other. Thesaurus to the rescue! I can actually keep one - as long as the other one changes. Talent feels more narrow (I don't think of firing blasts of energy from my hands as a talent; talent implies something you learn to do, or a quirky thing you can do that nobody else can - both of those implied meanings align pretty nicely with the things that appear on the talents list). I also like talents because it is a FASERIP word, so I like keeping those whenever I can (which means I still need a place to bring PSYCHE into the game).

That leads us to the need to change talent. Here are some options:

Enhancement. This is a little clunky, but it works. You can have enhanced existing stuff (sneak, running) or enhanced new stuff (energy bolts and flight). The problem is that having an attribute like STR or DEX rated beyond 13 is also technically an enhancement. Other words like enhancement that have the same problem are things like upgrades, boons, endowments. Ugh. All of these are clunky. 

Advantage. I like this better. It implies something special you have that gives you an edge. It's got roots in other games. It still feels a little narrow, but it's better. I like that it has a positive connotation, while trait has a neutral connotation. These are things that help your character. Aptitude has a similar vibe to me - but it's also a little clunky. Edge also feels like it has the same issues. ("my character's edges are... sharp?")

Gifts. I like this even better. It has a positive connotation, it is pretty general, it's easy to remember, and it could be natural, imbued, learned... they are things you receive in some way. Gifted implies somehow special, but it could be in any number of ways.  I also like the sort of mythical/Biblical sensibility to it; the gifts of the spirit are pretty broad and expansive. I am leaning towards this one. Thoughts?