30 January 2020

[Review] Terror of the Stratosfiend #1

Terror of the Stratosfiend #1 has both a DCC and Troika! versions, written by Sean Richer of Orbitial Intelligence, LLC.

Once again for whatever it's worth, these were gifted to me by Sean, who is a wonderful person who writes really weird shit.

They are all B&W soft-cover POD for whatever that's worth. Some of the art feels very RIFTS.

#1
The Troika! compatible edition is 30 pages. The DCC edition is 60 pages, because DCC spells take up a lot of real estate.  I'm going to focus on the Troika! edition because I'm unlikely to ever ref DCC.

The backgrounds are tightly written. Four of the six backgrounds are ports of character classes, which is good, as both these backgrounds and the classes are strongly flavored.

It has a worshiper of sentient satellites, human sat-caster, that can ran judgement, but only if outside.

A like half-cthulumonster shadowrunner kind of person, half-stratosfiend street whisperer.

Two different kinds of weird extradimensional cycloptic tentacle aliens, one a wanderer in search of knowledge and the other a living seige weapon. A cool thing common among the stratosfiends is they have a tentacle weapon but it takes up one or more RANDOM inventory slots. I think it's wild and very interesting. Very strongly flavors the alieness of them.

The other two backgrounds are derived from the two Patrons in the DCC edition, a flaming death from above alien intelligence embodied in killsats, Sky-lasher the Everlasting, Trident of the Sun, and a cthonic tentacled hungry mother, Terror-eater, the Earth Mother, so yeah, those are actually god-like entities. It feels and reads kind of weird, but at the same time I like them. Disregarding that they are still well within the mechanical bounds of the core 36 backgrounds, the playing god-things is really pushing the edges flavor-wise, which is good. Personally, I take these two backgrounds as being independent sub-beings of their respective god-thing, rather than the true god-thing.

It has weapons, armor, some nifty gizmos, which all of which I'm cool with because the descriptions are great. But the coolest, most interesting thing in the equipment chapter is the upgrade system, even if I'm not super sold on all these upgrades. It's the IDEA of it. There is a small results table, like a weapon damage table, to determine a number of upgrades, from zero to three, but it uses a d6 table rather than just straight rolling a d3 or d6 so it can weight the results. That is really cool bit to me.

There's armor that gets better as the wearer takes damage until if springs to life in a fury of blood and anger, and there is another armor that has to be taking the piss on bikini armor because its beachwear that makes the wearer take more damage.

It's got spells, I think one of them might be undercosted as far as stamina goes, but it's probabably fine, this is Troika! afterall.

The bestiary is good. Having NPCs and creatures premade is one of the biggest things I look for now in games and supplements. GM facing material is so important in a vacuum. And here these creatures I want to use so badly. The mien tables are great, one of them has Juggling as an entry.

A good mix of whimsy and "horror."
I'm using this, and bit of NEIM, as the basis for a sphere I've labled "para-Earth" that is basically RIFTS Earth but Troika!

I recommend this for Troika! And if you're really ambitious you could drop in the DCC spells from the DCC version into your Troika! game just to see what happens.

I'm not sure how I'll approach #1.5 since it's totally DCC. I may wait until #2 drops, BTW that's coming to Kickstarter for Zinequest soon. But it has an elevator god-thing and elevator magic that does some weird ass shit.

29 January 2020

Mecha stat cards for Basic Roleplaying Mecha

Aside from the two links at the top, which link to two folders of individual cards, I went and put all the straight BRPM cards together in one file. These are 100% fan works rather than serial numbers filed off kind of work, mostly because I originally did these for a straight up Macross campaign I never found the time to do. I'm sharing them because there feels like not a lot of stuff was made for BRPM, not that it matters now since it's been out of print for a few years, but I'm sure folx can find it in the wilds.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15OvZ1uzMyv-MLDXwLPhDNc_d9eu3OWCv/view?usp=sharing

28 January 2020

[Draft] A continuation of the Battletech X Troika bolt-on accessory

Gigantor (1964) - Intro (Opening) - YouTube
He's a space age robot that's bigger than big, taller than tall, quicker than quick, and STRONGER than STRONG.



I just went and added some minor math commentary to the original post. Reposting with some expanded thoughts on that.

For Troika characters it's a normal Roll Under with the Btech modifiers being added to the die roll. That is the Skill+Advance Skill roll under. Compared to the base Gunnery TN from Battletech of 4, which is a roll over TN with a 83.33% base success, the average Troika character has 5 Skill plus 2 Advanced Skill, based off the assumption that a base adv skill of 3 is a master of that skill,  average base chance is 58.35% bumping up to 72.23% with Adv Skill 3. So the average knight has a lower base chance than the base Gunnery Score, putting a Player Knight on par with a Green Mechwarrior.
 A quick-n-dirty on Battletech. Battletech is a 2d6 rollover system. The base Gunnery score is 4, so the base target number to shoot other 'Mechs is 4. All the modifiers to shooting as added to the base TN not the die roll. This bears mention because a lot of modern systems the modifiers are added to the die roll. The base chance for success is 83.33%. Now there is the option of various grades of mechwarriors, Green, Regular, Veteran, Elite, with a range of Gunnery scores of 7 through 0 or 41.67% through 100%.

The reason my rough for Troika is the roll-under test, 2d6 roll-under Skill+Adv Skill, with the modifiers for gunnery being added to the die roll is I'm lazy and math. Really it's to keep modifier math on one side of the die roll, which with roll-over it would 2d6+skill+adv vs TN+modifiers, or I guess you could subtract the Battletech modifiers, or make a new chart with the mods inverted. Also I didn't want to do the math to make sure the base TN for TroikaTech worked with adding Skill+Adv to the die roll.

With Troika roll-under the basest of base chance of success, just Skill 1d3+3 (4-6), is 16.67% to 41.67%, which is honestly irrelevant because a knight/mechwarrior should have some actual training in operating the guns of a mech. For ease of comparison though, a Skill of 4 translates to Gunnery Score of 10 and 6 is Gunnery 8, so less than Green. With Advanced Skill Mech 1 to 3 or w/e our knight goes from 5 to 9, Gunnery score 9 to 5, Less than Green through Regular, or 27.78% to 83.34%. From a matching the maths standpoint Adv Skill 3, giving total 7 through 9, makes our Mechwarrior Troika character a Green or Regular mechwarrior equivalent. From the in the book of Adv Skill 3 is someone who's mastered their trade shrug?

All of this is of course applicable to the Pilot Score, bearing in mind that Piloting is 1-2 points worse than Gunnery in Battletech. So if you want your mechwarrior backgrounds to be on par with the base game, Mecha Piloting 2 and Mecha Gunnery 3 are what you probably want.

Or if you were so inclined to make this ass simple and record a Gunnery score and do everything per Battletech. Gunnery=14-Skill-Adv. Which I guess if you wanted to be as close to Battletech while using Troika characters might be the best. I sort of edge that way for this thought experiment.

To reiterate WHY. For a stompyer feeling in line with using ancient tech that's slowly breaking down, I think Battletech would be suitable for this style. Pretty sure that someone wanted to do faster more anime mecha instead of dueling walking tanks, there is probably something better. Probably treating mecha as characters on a different scale. Although there are both Alpha Strike and Battleforce versions of Battletech that are a bit speedier.


[Review] Upon the Necrotic Edifices of Iron and Moon; the depth of time untold

Upon the Necrotic Edifices of Iron and Moon; the depth of time untold written by Sean Richer of Orbital Intelligence, LLC.



As said elsewhere, I read this about 3 times the day after I received it.

I received it in the mail in the night, so the package was cold. I was still in the deep grasp of a hell cold. The cold slick cover made me ill. The colors made me ill. The illustrations hit me with deep visceral disgust. 

So I put it away, along with both versions of Terror of the Stratsofiend #1 and Terror of the Stratosfiend #1.5

The art is still an assault so powerful upon my vision that I feel it physically.
It has two sets of 6 backgrounds. The first set are weird but still I guess normal? The second set however gets into a space of noncoporeal concepts made into backgrounds? Or maybe further from human type people?

There are 6 creatures. One of them is toast and another is a personification of the concept of time. Aside from the toast, these creatures are concepts made antagonistic. And the toast is itself in also a concept while being toast. 

The last halfish of this is a series of 9 one page dungeons with hand drawn maps/illustrations, so to speak, which can taken as done in a sequence or randomly chosen until 9 have been completed to deal with the adventure. I guess as in all things can be lifted individually and used in other manners.
There is an implied connection I think between the two sets of backgrounds and the advancement of the adventure. I think. 

As you can hopefully gather, NEIM is weird and somewhat hard to actually explain?
Sean does a wonderful job being laconic with his writing and leaning hard into the art and layout. Like, reading NEIM make me think I need to go back and rewrite Potpourri to be terser.

I recommend this with the caveat of CW body horror and that I enjoy materials that require me to do a lot of thinking on HOW I could use this.



Did you know I am terrible at writing about things despite that being a strong facet of what I studied in college? And did you know that Necrotic Edifices of Iron and Moon; the depth of time untold is EXTREMELY hard to write about in a way that doesn't come off as "I like. buy"

ADDENDUM
"Orbital Intelligence LLC. Not only do they bring you mecha anime action for Troika! in The tragdey that begot Ternwillow, but also Necrotic Edifices of Iron and Moon; the depths of time untold, which I can only describe as <50 pounds of crickets into paper shredder that pumps out the beat to never gonna give you up while you get the sensation of nails on the chalk board only instead of hearing it you can taste it>"


25 January 2020

High Fructose Hyperspace Update: Number 4 Gumdrop System



 Due to a month of colds in my family, I've been crunched for time. Rather than wait around to get the 2+ illustrations I want to include for this installment, I'm uploading it. The text should be good.

Number 4 Gumdrop System


17 January 2020

Breaking Troika's Strong Bone, Redux

Or why the premise that because a game is simple, specifically Troika!, it is both tightly crafted and because of that, easier to screw up is incorrect and counter to the spirit of the game is wrong.

Any one, including the author, telling you there is a wrong way to write for their game, should be discounted, baring I guess legal concerns, if writing independently, and stylistic concerns, if writing for the originating author or publisher.

This is a rewrite of another post to cut vitriol which likely buries my points. And for both taking unnecessary offense and being vitriolic towards Mr Otus I apologize.

If you like, take a moment to read the specific post I am responding to, Troika's Strong Bones. I will only be quoting subsection summaries, except for the entirety of the section on dice. If that is taking his words out of context then they are poor summaries.

I am going to meandering and loosely written because this isn't fucking college. And because this isn't college I will state in the clearest terms possible that this is my opinion on his opinion and on the right or wrong ways to write RPG content. Because that's something that would be implicit on these kinds of matters.

He starts with  
TLDR: when writing new material for a system like Troika!, don't be fooled by system simplicity. Simpler systems are often more tightly crafted and therefore easier to screw up.
 Gonna pick this apart.

TLDR means this is the thrust of this post, therefore a summary.

The system is simple, it's one of rolling 2d6 over or under a number, usually one of Skill plus an applicable Advance Skill or Luck. There are only three stats, Skill, Luck, and Stamina. The most convoluted, and contentious, subsystem in it is the token based initiative, which is could do with being explicitly stated to be optional in book as has been said elsewhere. So we both agree on this point.

Whether or not the game is tightly crafted because it is a simple and light game is possibly correct, or not. But I do know that Dan Sell did take care in a lot of things he wrote in it, I can't remember if he used math or not on the damage tables, but he has said a few times that each one tells a different little story, so he himself did take care with those specifically, and presumably else where.

As to whether a simple game is easier to screw up (aka you can do this wrong), this is incorrect. I am taking this to mean mechanically. It has been my decades of experience playing RPGs on both side of the screen that in a vacuum the more complex a game the more tightly crafted it. That is to say, away from a specific play group, these games, like Pathfinder, can collapse like a house of cards if the wrong things are messed with. This is one of the reasons why a lot of houserules are "bad." Another reason why for complex games houserules are "bad" is they deeper games and these houserules fix problems that are only problems from not reading the entirety of the rules. But we're not talking about Pathfinder; we're talking about Troika!

Aside: Note how many words I've already devoted to just addressing the TLDR.

He contends, and I agree that the game is shallow enough that someone should feel comfortable at the least talking about its structure, if only because the individual chunks of the rules short and succinct, or tightly crafted.

He contends the game is "hackable," which is once again the you can write material wrong, or here "with almost no understanding of the system." Once again the tightly crafted in spite of its simplicity stance. He says theses are things that "run counter to the spirit of the system, [are] not intuitive within the context of the system, and ultimately may be destructive to the play environment of the game."

On to what he claims "are the core tenets as I see them, in no particular order, each concluding with a statement about how they should affect your design-brain."

DICE

This section is primarily probability math, if you care about that, go read that section and million other articles and essays on dice probabilities.Elsewhere he talks about the whys you should do such and such because of the spirit of the game. Here, after basic dice probabilities, he says that doesn't matter to his main point, and so I do not actually feel this needs to be addressed because he writes: "That's aside from the main point I want to make, however, which is...Don't create material for Troika! that uses dice other than d6s." That's it. Just don't. The math isn't the main point, but he doesn't say what the main point is.

The rules don't say why, just that the only dice used are d6s. And ignoring the probabilities as a reason, since Mr Otus himself said they are aside from his point. Which to be honest should be an equal point to any other points or just not brought up at all. I will list some reasons, ignoring math and what the book says, you should only write content that uses d6s. Availability and familiarity with non-gamers. Although availability of other polyhedral dice is shaky as where would someone be buying Troika! except someplace they could also purchase the funny dice. But almost every damn boardgame has 2d6 included, so there is that, not needing to buy dice. I will point out that unlike much older games, including Fighting Fantasy and the first Advanced Fighting Fantasy, Troika! uses the xdy notation instead of simply saying die/dice, with the ubiquitous text explaining what that means. The other reason is simply, that's what the games it is based on used. None of which Mr Otus brings up in his post.

The additional reason I have stuck with using d6s is as a design constraint much like choosing a specific poetic form to write in.

To be perfectly honest, this is the biggest thing to which I disagree, and this primarily for the reasons above: that probability is the main reason while not stating what his main reason is as if he were an authority on the subject.

I could quibble on whether Chekov's Gun is an ideal to strive for in any act of creation, but I will bring up his closing statement:
So be mindful when you create and hew closely to the established patterns unless/until you have a deep enough understanding of the game to break those patterns for a purpose.
Reflecting on, "It's not a deep system, or I wouldn't even attempt this kind of statement after only one outing at the table!" from his introduction, his entire post should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Even allowing for this being merely his opinion, you should be skeptical of anyone who claims that something is both so simple that after the first time playing it they can claim a deeper understanding of it than other folx also writing content for it.

I will close with there is one correct way to write content for Troika! That is to do it. Write for yourself first.

Or ignore what I have written because I am kind of an asshole with no big credits writing games. I am hardly an authority.

Once again. I do apologize for taking unnecessary offense and being unnecessarily vitriolic.

I do hope that this was sufficiently intelligent of a post on this subject.

13 January 2020

Breaking Troika's Strong Bones

 Or why the premises that there is a wrong way to make materials for Troika, or any simple robust game, is false.

If you came here without seeing the rewrite, you can read the rewrite. This is back up fo

ADDENDUM: As you can see Mr Otus is upset, understandably so about this blog, as it uses strong and aggressive language.  He also asserts that he wrote it as a response to MeWe discussions in which folx were to him writing entirely different game(s). So sure, if I take him at his word regarding that, his blog post was not a response to me in specific, but rather the zeitgeist surrounding Troika! during that specific period. So me taking offense was inappropriate, and was allowing myself to be as offensive, for which I apologize up here.

I have reread in the entirety of this post, and his, again; I stand by my words and my quoting of the specific passages I was responding to. If linking to his post, as I did to allow for full context, and quoting his summaries are wrong, I don't really know how to respond that beside, yes selectively quoting passages you agree or disagree with to support a claim or illustrate what you are responding to is how writing works. I did that to serve my purpose of saying his broad stance that simple games, like Troika!, are tightly crafted and that there is a wrong way to write for it, is dumb. In fact, I already wrote that.

From about June 2, 2019 to like now, I've been doing a LOT of Troika stuff, possibly too much. Once realized that the system was mostly a skeleton with some vague setting material in the backgrounds, creatures, etc etc and that the core tenet of making shit for it was, "ask yourself would this be fun for you," it set my brain on fire. There was a flurry of activity from me.

RELATED to this is that I love to kitbash to a gross extent. It's why I was initially attracted to the OSR, specifically the DIY chunk. And part of that is just spewing out "bad" ideas into the ether.

The confluence of these things lead to
An idea I've been mulling over for #troika about the weapon damage tables. In some cases, rather than making new tables and for some cross-compatibility, using a different die for a specific type of weapon.

 

A day later 





And another day later



 I see this blog post. Troika's Strong Bones

Troika's Strong Bones

TLDR: when writing new material for a system like Troika!, don't be fooled by system simplicity. Simpler systems are often more tightly crafted and therefore easier to screw up.


 Dated the day after my silly "just use the dice the sci-fi weapons from X d20 game lists" tweet thread.

That's the "what" of this article. The "why" is because Troika! is very "hackable" and I see people out there writing material for it, mainly new backgrounds or creatures, with almost no understanding of the system. By that I mean, they are writing things in such a way that it runs counter to the spirit of the system, is not intuitive within the context of the system, and ultimately may be destructive to the play environment of the game.


Mr Otus states Troika! is a simple system, that is very hackable. But yet for whatever reason, that is why it is easy to do it wrong. Like. Ok whatever. His opinion, that I don't agree with, and at the risk of the fallacy of appealing to authority, like no one involved with it holds either. So for what it's worth, at a basis, making content for Troika! is likely to be always better than not doing that. You want to make content for it, do it.

Now, accepting that folks can disagree right. Aside from his wrong statement that the system is tightly crafted in its simplicity making it a fraught exercise to write for it, he goes on to write this:

Don't create material for Troika! that uses dice other than d6s.
 The full statement being the usual here is how XdY dice are a bell curve and d20/d100 or whatever is a linear curve and how that effects success.

That's aside from the main point I want to make, however, which is...

Don't create material for Troika! that uses dice other than d6s.


He freaking ends that sections with: all that math stuff isn't even relevant to his assertion that Troika! should only use d6's.

WUT???

Where is your bloody support for this assertion?

I don't even agree with this, as said up page, but I have a justification for only using d6's.

@thoobn (all around cool person): I prefer to keep the "d6s only" rule for simplicity's sake, and also to not lug around extra dice for hyperspecific situations.
@axesnorcs (ME):
Same. Also using using d6 makes it more approachable. Ita very likely non-rpgers will have 2d6 laying around from any random boardgame. But I don't think it's a necessity of maintaining the Troikaness of Troika.



For emphasis:  
Using d6 makes it more approachable. 
But I don't think it's a necessity of maintaining the Troikaness of Troika.


He just makes this "don't do this thing because the game is a delicate tightly crafted things." With NO follow up.

As I see it, he continues to make a bunch of assertions as to the CORRECT way for writing for Troika!, which while IMO are best practice, are not the correct way (see also some twittering I myself did about my discomfort over some backgrounds submitted to #troikabackgroundjam and how I wrestled with how I was, to myself, acting like Mr Otus).

Utilize backgrounds to build the world; don't write pages of setting lore.

[Edit: I think adding setting through d66 tables is within bounds as well.]
One: I agree that brevity and encoding setting material within backgrounds is a best practice over pages of descriptive prose, but not that is THE WAY to write material for Troika!
Two: How fucking magnanimous of him to say it might be ok to use d66 tables to add setting. Thank you Mr Otus.
Be mindful when you write skills! Make them sufficiently narrow/situational.
As I read further and come across his points that I actually agree with, it makes me want to "break" his tenets of how to do it right. Do I think a generic FIGHT skill is a good idea? Not really because it's kind of boring and generic and if you want a game with a generic FIGHT skill concept there are games that do that, BUT there is no reason you can't do that. In fact I wrote a background that essentially has a generic PILOTING skill, the Unemployed Drive Elemental in Ætherjack’s Almanac Number 1 that has a Special with the blanket assume a 2 in all piloting skills. He makes a blanket statement without actually explaining why specificity and narrowness are important, and that he includes logic as an example of a skill that would be bad because it is overly broad is laughable as Mathmology is an extremely broad skill in the core rules in that it can be used for something mundanely weird, estimating surface tension of a ball of goo, to a combat or near combat application such as a tripping a giant. Crafting Skills, again in the core rules for whatever that's worth, end with, "Be flexible and reasonable." The examples are extremely broad. Mr Otus has an extremely narrow view that appears to cleave the canon of the rules as written, when in fact flying in the face of both the letter and spirit.

And he ends with the weak caveat of




Summary
Troika! is a different animal. You get that from the minute you pick up the book. While feeling very ornate with it's bizarre art, high-end production values, and exotic "classes," the underlying core is a lean, mean machine. And the two, exotic flavor and simple mechanics, are married like two sides of a coin. You can't write new mechanics without writing new flavor and vice versa. So be mindful when you create and hew closely to the established patterns unless/until you have a deep enough understanding of the game to break those patterns for a purpose.
I guess in his opinion, Troika! is such a complexly simple game that it requires a great depth of understanding to both identify the unbreakable tenets and then carefully crack and break the bones of Troika!

It's fucking laughable. Not only does it fly in the face of the actual introduction of Troika! But also in the face of the fact that Troika! is built off of Fighting Fantasy, Sorcery!, Dungeoneer, Advanced Fighting Fantasy. The primary difference between Troika! and its antecedents are that FF is a bunch of random CYOA books with the same rules but disparate "settings," as much as that can be said of the contents of a CYOA book, and AFF is in many respects a dungeon crawling fantasy rpg, as in, digging through the old material there are conversion guides from other FRPGs such as T&T and D&D, and the bulk of the modules are standard fantasy fare; whereas Troika! is...a bunch of weirdness on top of the same rules.

Any declaration of a correct way to write for this game should be mocked and ignored.

There is one right way to write content for Troika. And that is To write content for Troika.
Ergo. If you write content for Troika, then you are doing it right.


I might not be an AUTHORITY on Troika!, for whatever that even means, but I'm doing the Work. I'm writing for me first, clarity for others second, and palatability for others a distant third. If that means I'm doing it "wrong," then fuck off.

To reiterate, I wouldn't have bothered writing this had the timing and specificity of Mr Otus's post been such as it was.