Here is the barest sketch of an idea. Remember when I was talking about temporal hex crawls? And remember the way I categorized post-apocalyptic settings? Well, one way to encounter post-apocalyptic settings is through time travel... Which leads me to wonder if the post-apoc nomenclature might be usable for time travel as well.
Time travel targets could definitely be sorted into Near, Far, and Remote, with Mid perhaps representing non-standard temporal states, like Hasted, Slowed, or Phasing In and Out. And speed applies to time travel as well: does the traveler experience Instant travel to another time, a fast transition, or a slow one?
The third axis of severity might even be applicable. Semi-Temporal time travel might indicate only a partial shift -- just the traveler's mind, perhaps. Or maybe we should use other modifiers for that and restrict "Semi" to bilocation in time.
Showing posts with label sf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sf. Show all posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Apocalyptic Examples
Panic in Year Zero -- (Semi) Mid Fast Near Apocalypse. The destruction isn't as widespread as the characters believe, and although the explosions happen too fast for anyone to stop, like most nuclear apocalypse situations, it's about the fallout and the lack of a support system.
Forbidden Planet -- The Krell suffered a Total Fast Remote Apocalypse, presumably. The humans are just there to sift through the ruins.
When Worlds Collide -- Total Mid Fast Near Apocalypse. The lucky few start over on another planet.
Melancholia -- Total Mid Fast Near Apocalypse. Sorry, no lucky few this time.
On the Beach -- Fast Near Apocalypse. In a sense, it's Mid Apocalypse; most of civilization is dead, but it is assumed that fallout will inevitably claim the rest.
Planet of the Apes -- Fast Far to Remote Apocalypse, with sapient humans completely replaced by apes or reduced to savagery, depending on whether you are talking about the first movie or the TV series. Charlton Heston's appearance triggers the final Total Fast (Near?) Apocalypse.
Omega Man -- Fast Near Apocalypse. Mostly true of other adaptations of I Am Legend, too, although the novel is, in a sense, mid-apocalypse.
Battlestar Galactica -- Fast Near Apocalypse, originally, but becomes Mid Apocalypse in the reboot.
AI -- There's a Mid Slow Near-to-Far Apocalypse in progress at the beginning of the film, which turns into a Total Slow Remote Apocalypse at the end.
Mad Max -- Mid Slow Near Semi Apocalypse (dwindling resources.) Possibly regional?
Road Warrior/Thunderdome -- Fast Near Apocalypse. Definitely not regional.
The Postman -- Fast Near Apocalypse. Possibly regional (US only?) I don't even remember if an excuse was given.
Waterworld -- Slow Remote Apocalypse. Definitely not Mid Apocalypse, since the waters seem to be subsiding.
Apocalypse Nouns (and Adjectives)
Trey at the Sorcerer's Skull blog posted about post-apocalyptic nomenclature a few days ago. I posted my own thoughts a while back, but thought I would update and think about it a bit more.I think you can effectively sort post-apocalyptic settings along three different axes, perhaps with some extra free-floating modifiers to indicate unusual twists. Axis 1 is speed:
- Did the end come faster than anyone could react (instant apocalypse)?
- Did it happen within one lifetime (fast apocalypse)?
- Was it drawn out over more than one generation (slow apocalypse)?
Axis 2 is recency:
- Can almost everyone remember pre-apocalyptic civilization (near apocalypse)?
- Is almost everyone too young to remember the Beforetime directly (far apocalypse)?
- Has even the fact that there was an apocalypse become forgotten (remote apocalypse)?
Previously, I labeled recency from the view of an apocalyptic historian, calling them "early" and "late apocalypse". But an apocalyptic setting is really about how the loss of civilization affects the characters immersed in it, so maybe "near" and "far" are better terms. Remote Apocalypse needs to be distinguished because, in some cases, a new civilization is in place, so at best, the discovery of information about the pre-apocalyptic civilization sheds light on the new civilization, but does not involve a sense of loss.
Axis 3 is severity:
- Was everything destroyed (total apocalypse)?
- Was it just a standard breakdown?
- Was it just a partial breakdown, forcing severe changes (semi-apocalypse)?
You can further modify the severity by making it regional. Dark Angel, for example, involved an EMP taking out the banking system in the US and causing significant breakdown on the West Coast, but the rest of the world only suffered slight setbacks as an indirect result, which makes that setting a regional instant near semi-apocalypse. I used to completely separate situations like this from an apocalypse, calling them "cataclysms" instead.
A side note: In a total apocalypse, you have to import outsiders to experience the aftermath. These may be off-world archaeologists or a new race that evolved to replace the one that was lost, or time travelers of one sort or another. You really don't have much of a sense of loss except with the time travelers.
Another modifier is "mid", marking an apocalypse as still being in progress. Almost all slow apocalypses are presented mid-apocalypse, but "Panic in Year Zero" is an example of a fast mid-apocalypse situation. Many mid-apocalyptic settings ditch any deep thoughts about loss of civilization and focus purely on survival.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Welcome to the Post-Apocalypse
The essence of the post-apocalyptic genre is that civilization has lost in a big way. It's also a contrast between two pairs of ideas:
- freedom vs. community
- simplicity vs. technology
This means there has to be a pre-apocalyptic civilization, usually our own, that is a well-defined group with a pro-science attitude as a contrast. There must be a sense of exactly what is lost, so that you can wonder whether it was worth it, or if things could have been different. There's two approaches to this:
- early post-apocalyptic: several survivors of the apocalypse, usually including the main character, remember the Before Times.
- late post-apocalyptic: no one remembers the Before Times, but there's plenty of evidence left.
Post-apoc RPGs are usually of the "late" variety. Gamma World is built on the disconnect between character knowledge and player knowledge. Although Gamma World is meant to be taken seriously (as James suggests,) there's a lot of intentional humor derived from the players knowing about the pre-apocalyptic world. Hoops are not inherently funny; they're funny because we know they're really rabbits.
I can't think of many early post-apoc RPGs. If any exist, they'd probably seem grimmer than Gamma World; they'd play more like a horror RPG.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thoughts on Sci-Fi RPGs
Here's my take on JB's discussion points in his post about sci-fi RPGs: I have no problem with using a class-and-level system, with some provisos, and I'd prefer a very broad, mostly binary approach to skills. Most of the changes that need to be made, other than cosmetic changes to lists, have to do with the reward system and how adventures progress.
Proviso on Levels: The range and starting point of levels must fit the setting. You can start higher for more superheroic-level play. You can advance farther, if the basic theme is a grand cosmic battle.
Skills: I've already ranted about skills, so I'll just say here that you could get away with using the AD&D 1e secondary skills re-skinned for the setting. No skill rolls, no huge bonuses, just a "oh, you know how to use mining equipment, because you were an asteroid miner before you joined the star patrol." At best, skills should only add a +1 when a roll is involved; most of the time, however, they only determine whether the character can do something or not. I'd use my backgrounds system from Blanc to handle skills.
Reward System: As I've already said, I'd use the existing XP system with tweaks in a sci-fi game. I feel those tweaks shift the focus from dungeon crawl to planetary defense and rescue. I'd also use experience based on ability scores: risky tasks are 10 x relevant ability score(s), ongoing situations where no rolls are made (like travel) get 1 xp per ability point.
So, as it stands, I technically have enough stuff for the basics of a space RPG: Liber Zero, plus Blanc, plus modified classes and my xp house rules. All that's really needed is some setting-specific lists and rules hacks for spaceships and other sci-fi gimmicks, including any rules for creating appropriate adventures and situations.
Proviso on Levels: The range and starting point of levels must fit the setting. You can start higher for more superheroic-level play. You can advance farther, if the basic theme is a grand cosmic battle.
- Square-jawed '50s star pilots and space cadets? You want levels 1 to 5, but probably no higher.
- Beginning Jedi? Keep the start point at 1 or 2, but the range has to be higher, perhaps 15 to 20.
- Lensmen? Start at 10 to 12, but top range, if any, is in the 20s to 30s.
Skills: I've already ranted about skills, so I'll just say here that you could get away with using the AD&D 1e secondary skills re-skinned for the setting. No skill rolls, no huge bonuses, just a "oh, you know how to use mining equipment, because you were an asteroid miner before you joined the star patrol." At best, skills should only add a +1 when a roll is involved; most of the time, however, they only determine whether the character can do something or not. I'd use my backgrounds system from Blanc to handle skills.
Reward System: As I've already said, I'd use the existing XP system with tweaks in a sci-fi game. I feel those tweaks shift the focus from dungeon crawl to planetary defense and rescue. I'd also use experience based on ability scores: risky tasks are 10 x relevant ability score(s), ongoing situations where no rolls are made (like travel) get 1 xp per ability point.
So, as it stands, I technically have enough stuff for the basics of a space RPG: Liber Zero, plus Blanc, plus modified classes and my xp house rules. All that's really needed is some setting-specific lists and rules hacks for spaceships and other sci-fi gimmicks, including any rules for creating appropriate adventures and situations.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Big-Mission Experience
I've got another topic which, although based on thoughts about a space patrol RPG, is relevant to some fantasy campaigns: experience points for missions. Assuming you want to use a level and experience system for it, a space patrol campaign really shouldn't grant experience for "treasure"; a space trader or space pirate campaign, maybe, but not anything like Tom Corbet, Rocky Jones, or Star Trek. Nor does it work well for a fantasy game that focuses on quests or high ideals instead of mercenary acquisition.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Open Doors ... In Space!
A couple people are designing or have designed old school-style RPGs. I've made noises about planning to do one myself, although I'm not sure if I will concentrate on it before or after the atomic horror game I want to do; in either case, it will definitely be post-Liber Zero. At some point, I should give some detail about what I hope to accomplish and how it will be different. But I wanted to deal with one specific aspect of the rules that actually has some bearing on Liber Zero and old school dungeon crawl fantasy RPGs in general: space travel.
Rules for flying a space ship in a sci-fi RPG basically fall into two categories: space battle rules and long-distance travel. For the latter, I don't want a total hand-wave ("OK, 3 days later, you reach Proxima.") But on the other hand, I don't want it too complicated, and I don't want to make rolls for everything. And surprisingly, I can model how I want space travel to work by comparing it to how several dungeon exploration tasks work in the LBBs and their descendants. In particular, the task of opening doors.
Rules for flying a space ship in a sci-fi RPG basically fall into two categories: space battle rules and long-distance travel. For the latter, I don't want a total hand-wave ("OK, 3 days later, you reach Proxima.") But on the other hand, I don't want it too complicated, and I don't want to make rolls for everything. And surprisingly, I can model how I want space travel to work by comparing it to how several dungeon exploration tasks work in the LBBs and their descendants. In particular, the task of opening doors.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Sketchy Sci-Fi Settings
On the Greyhawk Grognard blog, Joseph has a poll asking which of the Star Trek series people would prefer for an RPG setting. I went with the original series; it's the most like a sandbox. Specifically, it's the most like a sandbox with sketchy details meant to be filled in during play. I don't think tons of setting detail is important to a product, particularly for a setting that's already well-known and well-documented
But I'd go even farther and limit the core mainly to "The Cage" and the first four episodes of first season TOS, with a couple tidbits of information from other episodes. Part of the reason for this imposed limitation is to avoid the more problematic episodes: no transporter errors creating evil twins, no parallel Earths, not as many godlike beings knocking around. But it's mostly about the feel of the Star Trek setting in those early episodes versus later episodes.
Consider this: in the first few episodes, it's established than the Enterprise has a pretty far range. In a couple weeks, they can travel pretty far. But Earth colonies seem to be pretty small and scattered, and there don't seem to be many other fully-developed known worlds. Vulcan is implied, and there may be a couple other space-faring civilizations equal to Earth in development, but we don't hear much about them yet.
You get a little bit more corroboration in some later episodes: the Romulan War seems to have been more like a couples space skirmishes and attacks on each other's colonies before finally settling their differences; neither side got anywhere near the other's homeworlds, nor does there appear to be much information gained from third parties, which you'd expect if there were heavy interstellar trade.
The last TV series, Enterprise, tries for a similar feel as TOS, but fails miserably. Instead of expanding into what seems like a mostly empty frontier, discovering new things, we have humanity as a dewy-eyed newcomer into a somewhat decadent interstellar community. Almost everything's been discovered; Earth is just now finding out about stuff everyone else already knows. The message appears to be "we're younger and better" -- referring both to humanity's place in the galaxy and to the placement of the series in relation to the previous installments of the franchise.
What I'm thinking is: if you want a real exploration-oriented RPG with a sandbox feel, you need to strip back anything that resembles later Trek, with its heavier interplanetary trade and threat of large-scale war held in check by godlike beings.
But I'd go even farther and limit the core mainly to "The Cage" and the first four episodes of first season TOS, with a couple tidbits of information from other episodes. Part of the reason for this imposed limitation is to avoid the more problematic episodes: no transporter errors creating evil twins, no parallel Earths, not as many godlike beings knocking around. But it's mostly about the feel of the Star Trek setting in those early episodes versus later episodes.
Consider this: in the first few episodes, it's established than the Enterprise has a pretty far range. In a couple weeks, they can travel pretty far. But Earth colonies seem to be pretty small and scattered, and there don't seem to be many other fully-developed known worlds. Vulcan is implied, and there may be a couple other space-faring civilizations equal to Earth in development, but we don't hear much about them yet.
You get a little bit more corroboration in some later episodes: the Romulan War seems to have been more like a couples space skirmishes and attacks on each other's colonies before finally settling their differences; neither side got anywhere near the other's homeworlds, nor does there appear to be much information gained from third parties, which you'd expect if there were heavy interstellar trade.
The last TV series, Enterprise, tries for a similar feel as TOS, but fails miserably. Instead of expanding into what seems like a mostly empty frontier, discovering new things, we have humanity as a dewy-eyed newcomer into a somewhat decadent interstellar community. Almost everything's been discovered; Earth is just now finding out about stuff everyone else already knows. The message appears to be "we're younger and better" -- referring both to humanity's place in the galaxy and to the placement of the series in relation to the previous installments of the franchise.
What I'm thinking is: if you want a real exploration-oriented RPG with a sandbox feel, you need to strip back anything that resembles later Trek, with its heavier interplanetary trade and threat of large-scale war held in check by godlike beings.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sci-Fi on the Fly
One thing I meant to mention in the sci-fi post but didn't: not only are the sci-fi subgenres more distinct and their audiences more fragmented than pulp fantasy, but not every sci-fi subgenre has a generic setting available.
Someone said in one of the comments on the Grognardia post that post-apoc sci-fi is the most popular form of sci-fi gaming. That may be the case, and it may also be true, as the commenter went on to suggest, that it's the most popular because it's the most D&D-like. But post-apoc sci-fi is also notable in that it has a generic setting. A lot of post-apoc movies and TV shows look alike, mainly because they copy the Mad Max movies to some extent: desert wasteland, weaponized jury-rigged vehicles, punk or metal fashion. The same is more or less true for cyberpunk (large criminal class, sprawling urban settings, resource shortages, evil corps, computer links everywhere) and early stage space games set on Earth (rockets, small colonies, frontier-like feel, asteroid miners, space pirates.)
You could run a game in one of those settings without too much advance prep, winging new details as needed, much the same as you could do with the generic pulp fantasy setting: just run with it, deciding politics, culture, and even some technology as you go along. You don't even need to worry if players have seen the same movies or read the same books. It's harder to do that with space opera or sprawling interstellar empires, because you have to establish what's available tech-wise, and because so much of the action is based on political maneuvers, so players need to know something about interstellar society.
You could play in an established setting, like Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune, or Battlestar Galactica, possibly filing off the serial numbers and just using the source as a reference point, so that players know what they can do and what to expect. But that depends on all the players knowing the source material and liking it enough that they'd want to play in that setting. I'm pretty well-versed in original Trek and some Battlestar Galactica, but don't really care for Star Wars, know very little about Dune, and less about practically every other sf franchise. Other people are going to be about the same, but with the settings arranged in a different order. This is why it's very hard to form a large base of players for any one particular setting
Someone said in one of the comments on the Grognardia post that post-apoc sci-fi is the most popular form of sci-fi gaming. That may be the case, and it may also be true, as the commenter went on to suggest, that it's the most popular because it's the most D&D-like. But post-apoc sci-fi is also notable in that it has a generic setting. A lot of post-apoc movies and TV shows look alike, mainly because they copy the Mad Max movies to some extent: desert wasteland, weaponized jury-rigged vehicles, punk or metal fashion. The same is more or less true for cyberpunk (large criminal class, sprawling urban settings, resource shortages, evil corps, computer links everywhere) and early stage space games set on Earth (rockets, small colonies, frontier-like feel, asteroid miners, space pirates.)
You could run a game in one of those settings without too much advance prep, winging new details as needed, much the same as you could do with the generic pulp fantasy setting: just run with it, deciding politics, culture, and even some technology as you go along. You don't even need to worry if players have seen the same movies or read the same books. It's harder to do that with space opera or sprawling interstellar empires, because you have to establish what's available tech-wise, and because so much of the action is based on political maneuvers, so players need to know something about interstellar society.
You could play in an established setting, like Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune, or Battlestar Galactica, possibly filing off the serial numbers and just using the source as a reference point, so that players know what they can do and what to expect. But that depends on all the players knowing the source material and liking it enough that they'd want to play in that setting. I'm pretty well-versed in original Trek and some Battlestar Galactica, but don't really care for Star Wars, know very little about Dune, and less about practically every other sf franchise. Other people are going to be about the same, but with the settings arranged in a different order. This is why it's very hard to form a large base of players for any one particular setting
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sci-Fi
In order to break up the monotony of continual clone project posts, I thought I'd muse a little on the subject of science fiction RPGs, riffing off James Maliszewski's post from a couple days ago.
I haven't played many sci-fi RPGs. I played Traveller a little -- not back in the day, but I played in a session using the original rules a few years ago, followed by a session or two of the GURPS version. I played Fates Worse Than Death (a sort of cyberpunk setting) once or twice and ran a GURPS Atomic Horror session. Most of my gaming has been fantasy or supernatural horror; I just prefer those to most forms of sci-fi.
And I think this hits upon a central reason why sci-fi RPGs haven't been as popular as fantasy RPGs: sci-fi isn't a single general setting, but contains many different sub-genres. The original fantasy RPG, on the other hand, presents a general setting, which can be altered if a particular sub-genre is desired. As James mentions, pulp fantasy is naturally very expansive, acquiring elements from practically anywhere, including sci-fi. Sci-fi, on the other hand, is kind of meaningless as a label; you have to pick a subgenre, like space opera, imperial space, cyberpunk, post-apoc, rocket patrol, or atomic horror.
And not everyone likes every type of sci-fi. I tend to not like the space opera and imperial space forms of sci-fi. I do like a narrower rocket patrol-ish approach, or atomic horror... which is why I want to create RPGs for those two subgenres at some point. But I don't expect them to be popular, because they are narrower genres than pulp fantasy.
Think of it this way: instead of comparing Traveller to D&D and wondering why it wasn't as popular, you should be comparing it to Spelljammer or Dark Sun or Planescape: specific settings under the general banner of D&D, in much the same way that Traveller is a specific setting (or setting template) under the general banner of sci-fi. GURPS Cyberpunk is another specific sci-fi setting, as is Gamma World. You can't ask why one of these didn't sell as well as D&D any more than you can ask why Frank Zappa didn't sell as many records as rock'n'roll.
I haven't played many sci-fi RPGs. I played Traveller a little -- not back in the day, but I played in a session using the original rules a few years ago, followed by a session or two of the GURPS version. I played Fates Worse Than Death (a sort of cyberpunk setting) once or twice and ran a GURPS Atomic Horror session. Most of my gaming has been fantasy or supernatural horror; I just prefer those to most forms of sci-fi.
And I think this hits upon a central reason why sci-fi RPGs haven't been as popular as fantasy RPGs: sci-fi isn't a single general setting, but contains many different sub-genres. The original fantasy RPG, on the other hand, presents a general setting, which can be altered if a particular sub-genre is desired. As James mentions, pulp fantasy is naturally very expansive, acquiring elements from practically anywhere, including sci-fi. Sci-fi, on the other hand, is kind of meaningless as a label; you have to pick a subgenre, like space opera, imperial space, cyberpunk, post-apoc, rocket patrol, or atomic horror.
And not everyone likes every type of sci-fi. I tend to not like the space opera and imperial space forms of sci-fi. I do like a narrower rocket patrol-ish approach, or atomic horror... which is why I want to create RPGs for those two subgenres at some point. But I don't expect them to be popular, because they are narrower genres than pulp fantasy.
Think of it this way: instead of comparing Traveller to D&D and wondering why it wasn't as popular, you should be comparing it to Spelljammer or Dark Sun or Planescape: specific settings under the general banner of D&D, in much the same way that Traveller is a specific setting (or setting template) under the general banner of sci-fi. GURPS Cyberpunk is another specific sci-fi setting, as is Gamma World. You can't ask why one of these didn't sell as well as D&D any more than you can ask why Frank Zappa didn't sell as many records as rock'n'roll.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Science Fantasy: Psionics
Over on Critical Hits, there's a post about people's attitudes towards getting science in their fantasy, with the specific example of psionics in D&D. Now, I have nothing against SF; despite my focus so far on medieval fantasy, I've also been working on a '50s-style rocket patrol RPG and a few other SFish game materials. I don't even have a complete aversion to SF, or psionics specifically, in D&D in general. However, I've got a couple complaints about D&D psionics. One is the clunkiness of the mechanics: I'd prefer something quick and simple. But more important, D&D psionics as presented spoils the feel of fantasy.
It's not that sword & sorcery or epic fantasy can't have psionics. Clark Ashton Smith inserted serpent men with psychic hypnotic powers into a couple of his Hyperborean and Atlantean fantasies, for example. Other fantasies have the occasional character with an innate power that, for all intents and purposes, could be psionics. However, different settings have different feels, and how psionics are presented in comparison with magic has a critical effect on the feel of the fantasy. The usual presentation of psionics is as a spell-point alternative to regular magic, but slightly stronger on the low level and slightly weaker on the high level, and with no restrictions like dispel magic. Let's face it, it feels like something made for power-gaming.
Of course, psionics are presented as an optional system. However, they are intertwined with a few monsters and magic items, making it hard to completely disentangle psionics. A much simpler psionic system would be easier to tailor to individual settings and much easier to tone down in power level.
It's not that sword & sorcery or epic fantasy can't have psionics. Clark Ashton Smith inserted serpent men with psychic hypnotic powers into a couple of his Hyperborean and Atlantean fantasies, for example. Other fantasies have the occasional character with an innate power that, for all intents and purposes, could be psionics. However, different settings have different feels, and how psionics are presented in comparison with magic has a critical effect on the feel of the fantasy. The usual presentation of psionics is as a spell-point alternative to regular magic, but slightly stronger on the low level and slightly weaker on the high level, and with no restrictions like dispel magic. Let's face it, it feels like something made for power-gaming.
Of course, psionics are presented as an optional system. However, they are intertwined with a few monsters and magic items, making it hard to completely disentangle psionics. A much simpler psionic system would be easier to tailor to individual settings and much easier to tone down in power level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)