So I got particularly inspired by Alpo’s post about the custom Move he made for his Star Wars one-shot.
(https://plus.google.com/+AApolegre/posts/fYujSi1ccxe)
It got me thinking about alternate ways to approach combat against a truly unstoppable villain.
Ended up coming up with a one-page mechanic that I’ll most likely be integrating into Far Beyond Humanity (don’t worry, the “layered” approach will still be there).
Check it out! I’d love feedback, comments, gut feelings, etc.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qr1sc2w4nkj55n/Unstoppable%20Foe.docx?dl=0
Nice! I also love this line, “Data Points can be spent to alter the result. Know thy enemy.” 🙂
I’ve been pondering something similar for a while now and I like where you’re going.
A couple of gut feelings:
– Deciding in advance that something is “unstoppable” is somewhat contradictory to “play to find out.”
– The 10-12 result seems like it might be challenging to portray in the fiction.
This definitely feels like a space worth exploring in PbtA games. I look forward to seeing where it goes!
“Well, t’ings is pretty bad there at the moment, but there does seem some hope of a constitutional settlement.” –MONTY PYTHON’S FLYING CIRCUS
Jared Hunt for the 10-12 result, what if it read “you manage to briefly gain ground before being swatted away”? Basically it’s a “you don’t succeed, but you’re not hurt AND you gave someone else a fighting chance”.
Actually, yeah, now that I reread it, that does come across.
I don’t know if “swatted away” is the best, but something along those lines that would still fit if someone is using Influence.
James Iles, not far off from what i had in mind.
Douglas Santana for behemoth rules, right? I could see that working well. Actually, this whole concept would work for all kinds of overwhelming dangers that players need to work together to overcome!
Douglas Santana, James Iles Behemoth? Tell me more. /steeples fingers
Also the consequence track is going to need revision. I’m thinking roughly 8ish “fails” before the deaths start.
Also “everybody dies” needs to go. Killing other players’ characters is not good design.
Revision coming soon.
Sean Gomes we’re currently updating my game Legacy to a 2nd edition – one of the new core playbooks we’re adding is all about managing, herding and hunting the behemoths that stalk the wasteland, so we’re on the look out for tools to make them stand out as particularly dramatic threats 🙂
Niiiiice. Well feel free to borrow/steal as you see fit.
As you said, it feels like this is the tip of the ice-berg for handling overwhelming dangers that can be overcome through attrition. Certainly feels like there’s more design space, possibly enough to make a base ruleset for a different game. If I wasn’t neck-deep with UW I’d be exploring it a lot further.
As it stands, I’m more than happy to have other designers run with this and see how it evolves.
Still trying to put my thoughts into coherent form here…
I think the ideal way to handle an unstoppable threat is for the GM to portray it vividly in the fiction. See Sage LaTorra’s 16 hp dragon post.
That being said, it is very difficult to consistently portray a threat in that way without it feeling like GM fiat, so a more mechanical solution is well worth seeking. My concern is finding the balance between mechanics and just turning the fight into PC numbers vs. GM numbers. Put another way, how do we avoid turning this epic, campaign-defining clash into primarily random (roll+stat) vs. arbitrary value (13)?latorra.org – A 16 HP Dragon
Just to play the DA, isn’t everything not under player control already GM fiat? What we are looking at is a mechanical way to describe a huge narrative event. It can be a volcano, a battleship, an out of control giant robot, etc. It’s big enough that you can’t punch it in the nose and take it out. Sometimes just surviving the thing is a win. As always, we should be be focusing on the “What do you do?” The numbers and system just help to move the story along when the outcome isn’t known.
Seems to me that this system could be framed as a pair of linked countdown clocks – one for defeating the enemy, and one for your own defeat. Your actions (and rolls) determine if you tick one, the other, or both. Though that might be my current Blades in the Dark obsession showing through…
To clarify a bit more, how do we turn the epic clash into more than just primarily random vs. arbitrary value?
I think a big part of the key is in the GM-facing rules. How do NPC stats and abilities dovetail with PC actions and player decisions? How do the GM agenda, principles and moves support this scale of conflict?
Jared Hunt late to the game here, but the fabled 16hp dragon STILL HAS HP. This move is modelling HP loss as part of the game.
You cannot compare a neat story from a game with variable damage and armor to one with single-roll conflict resoltion in any sort of meaningful manner.
Aaron Griffin yeah, that’s definitely part of the complexity. Dungeon World uses HP and both player and GM rules are built around that. Many PbtA games seem to skip that level of design and wind up with something half way between single roll and a HP analog.