Tales from the Rocket House
Though I had not read that particular article at the time, I was fully aware of the concepts (in part because of my own experiences, and in part because of ongoing dialogue on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the mid and late 1990's) when I developed my Tarafore system (detailed in Columns 1-5, at least), designed for a gritty genre and to facilitate simulationist and immersivist play styles.
I'll pause for moment to define some terms.
You can skip the next two paragraphs if you have a particular dislike for RPG theory.
By "gritty" genre, I mean one in which combat is handled fairly realistically, where even "heroic" types can be killed with a single hit (though that is, fortunately, rare), all wounds are dangerous, and wounds heal slowly. In practice, this has made the players and characters shy away from combat, fighting only when they have to, with genuine worry about its consequences. This contrasts with more cinematic games, in which heroic types can confidently enter combat and do fairly wild stunts with much less risk, in which healing is relatively quick and easy.
By simulationist, I mean the r.g.f.a "Threefold" version, in which game world events are allowed to unfold "as if they really happened," meaning, that no other considerations (for example, what would make a better game or what would make a better story) play into the decision making process. An immersive play style is one in which players think purely within the framework of their characters' viewpoints. It is not necessary that all players play immersively for some to do so. It is, however, necessary that players NOT have to make decisions from outside their characters' perspectives. In other words, things like "hero points" or "karma" are not compatible with immersive play.
Back to your regularly scheduled article, already in progress.
The Tarafore system I created worked well, and has continued to work, for gritty games. However, I've lately become more interested in the "compressed" system that I detailed in Column Fifteen, "Please Buckle Your Swashes and Return Your Seats to Their Upright, Locked Positions." I originally developed the system to be quick to learn, quick-playing, and supportive of swashbuckling, cinematic, stunt-heavy play.
But I still like gritty games. So I want to see if a few small adaptations will bring the "swashbuckling" system down to the "gritty" earth.
Before I continue, I want to explain why I'm focusing so heavily on the combat system. It's because, in a game with a combat system that gives player characters major buffers against meaningful injury (long term effect or even character death), violence is a generally low-risk path for getting what characters want. This means there will be a lot of fighting, as a matter of course, and it will be taken lightly. Conversely, a combat system that doesn't shelter characters changes the timbre of the game entirely. The feel of the game changes, and violence becomes something to be avoided, is possible, or entered into with planning and overwhelming force, if avoiding it isn't possible.
It is also vitally important, from an immersive point of view, that there be continuity between the way the players view in-game violence and the way the characters view it. Unless the characters are intended to be superheroic near-immortals, they would, from their perspective, fear, or at least respect, violence as something that can easily end or change lives forever. If the game's rules take it lightly, with virtually no chance for unexpected death, this creates a disconnect between the characters' and players' viewpoints. While this is fine for some styles of play, it is NOT compatible with immersion.
It may be useful, at this point, to take another look at the system, as shown in Column Fifteen. Here is a bit of the most relevant information:
I “compressed” the Tarafore System from its current configuration (Average is 10, and every 3 points is a “Rank” or standard deviation) to one in which every 1 point was a “Rank,” and Average equals 3. (Very Bad = 1, Bad = 2, Average = 3, Good = 4, Very Good = 5, etc). The randomizer changed as well, from Trait +1d10 -1d10 to Trait +3d2-3d2 (in tabletop play, we throw 3 positive dice/coins and 3 negative dice/coins. Even/Tails = 0, Odd/Heads = 1. On chat room dicebots, +3d2-3d2 is easier to calculate and produces the same range and likelihood of results).This “compressed” Tarafore System is mathematically very similar to the original system in practice, but much easier to use. Adding +1, +2, or +3 to a number between Bad (2) and Outstanding (6) is quick and easy.
Here are my proposed changes.
If all goes well, I'll have the opportunity to do some playtesting between now and my next column, and I'll be able to tell you how it works out.
The key mechanical change has to be the wound system. Nothing will take the cinematic out of a combat system like a wound system that genuinely puts characters at risk. I want it to work similarly to the way wounding works in the Tarafore system.
Currently, in combat, each round is a single opposed test, with a Basic Success (winning by 1) delivering a wound (a -1 penalty that remains until healed), a Special Success (winning by 2) delivering a Serious Wound (a -2 penalty that remains until healed), and an Exceptional Success (winning by 3 or more) delivering a Serious Wound AND ending the fight, giving the victor free rain to finish or spare the loser. This works quite well for Swashbuckling games, especially if PC's get a bit of script immunity, so that losing doesn't lead to death except in rare, dramatic circumstances.
In the Tarafore system, however, severity of injury (which includes both penalty to actions and rate of bleeding) and incapacitation ("stun") are tracked separately, to simulate the fact that sometimes people collapse from relatively minor wounds, and sometimes people keep fighting even after sustaining severe, life-threatening injuries.
To accomplish the same goal in the compressed/swashbuckling system, I'll need to separate the "defeated" part from the "injury" part. To this end, the number by which the winner beats the loser will be the wound penalty (applies to all actions until it heals), up to 4 over (-4). Beating an opponent by 5 is an instant victory, and, when using lethal weapons, instantly kills the victim. Wounds will heal more slowly in this setting, likely at -1 per month, to indicate just how long it takes to recover from truly horrific injuries. Tied results, as before, mean neither opponent managed to hurt the other.
Wounds cause bleeding. Wounds of -1 are easily staunched, even without any real medical skill, though they make it much easier for someone to track you. Wounds of -2, and -3, are life-threatening, and require First Aid skill tests of Hard and Ridiculous difficulties, respectively, to staunch. Characters will pass out in 5 minutes and 2 minutes, and die in 15 and 5 minutes, respectively. Wounds of -4 are much more serious, and require magical or high-tech healing to fix. Mere First Aid will not work, unless something like Quik-Clot or high-tech trauma equipment is involved. Even then, the character is merely stabilized, and will not make it without advanced long-term care. These wounds bleed to unconsciousness in 1 minute and death in 2. A First Aid attempt takes approximately one minute to complete, so you don't get many. The difficulty is Ridiculous.
Stun is handled as an unopposed Toughness check, a sort of "saving throw." The difficulty is Average: 3, but the wound penalty (including the one from the wound the character just received) applies, so resisting a minor wound (-1 penalty) is much easier than resisting an extreme wound (-4 penalty). If the wounded character's total is 3 (tying the difficulty), that character is stunned, and can take no offensive action (the character may only act defensively, dodging, parrying, etc.) the next turn. If the wounded character's total is 2 or less (a failure), that character is knocked unconscious, and is out of the fight.
It may be worthwhile to include some sort of random chart of permanent or long-term impairments that result from surviving a mortal wound (-4 level).
And the Rest
I honestly think the aforementioned changes to the combat system will change the tone significantly. Once "combat" means "violence" rather than "action," the rest will fall into place, for the most part.
However, a change of terminology, along with an explicit understanding of the nature of the setting, will be necessary where "Stunting" is concerned. First, the word "Stunting," as in "Stunting Trait" or "Stunting With Strength/whatever" must go. It conjures up images of John Woo-esque gun-fu and Matrix-esque martial arts.
The mechanic itself is fine, as it simply allows a player to support the extended conflict's main trait with a secondary, relevant trait. And "Support" will be the new term. You "Support" your Fighting Trait with your Strength Trait when you bind your opponent's blade and try to shove him to the ground. You "Support" your Gunnery Trait with your Athleticism when you shoot, then duck for cover as your opponent returns fire.
The explicit understanding must be that all descriptions of Supporting Trait use must be "down to earth" (I won't get into specific "realism" arguments), in that they are tactical, not flashy, and aimed at effectiveness. Announcing that you're "Supporting" your Fighting Trait with Athleticism by running up a wall, back flipping over your opponent, and stabbing him on the way down is just a little too Wire-Fu for this type of game, and that sort of description just isn't acceptable. "Supporting" Fighting with Athleticism should involve using fast footwork, or flanking the opponent, or even a lightning-fast lunge from an unexpected angle. These break neither immersion nor the laws of physics.
Final Thoughts
So, this is my experiment. I'll try to play with what began as a Swashbuckling system, slightly modified to support the same sim- and immersion-friendly, gritty play style the Tarafore system was written for. Hopefully, we’ll find out just how much “system matters,” or more specifically, whether a few small changes can transform the entire feel of a system.
Next month, I'll tell you how it goes.
