Hey Man, well this is Babylon

I could use some input on this, folks.

On the homeward commute yesterday, I began considering the idea of using Playing cards, instead of dice, as the core tangible resolution mechanic. This thought process all started as I was trying to work out some ideas for the All-Out Pack Warfare rules. I was initially thinking it could be a system in which two players face off over a row of seven “fields” or spaces on the table. Each member of the pack would play a card in a field of their choice, showing their effort in that field of the battle. Cards would get played, revealed, and matched in an order currently undefined, wht the results of those matches would score the fields and ultimately declare a victor in the battle. A quick game of strategy to determine the tides of an entire battle. Future product tie-ins, as well, but that’s thinking much further down the line.

This got me thinking: why use dice at all, then? How about just do the entire thing in cards?

Re-working the cards ideas a bit, the variables could be modified as follows:

• Pack Rank: Determines # of cards in your set hand
• Alignment Scale Position: Determines maximum # of cards you can play at once during relevant conflicts (scaled from 3 at the lowest to 9 at the highest)
• Ki Pool: Spend tokens to add cards to your hand before playing
• Grabs: Evoke a Grab to play more cards from your existing hand.

Cards are still played in sets of either 3 cards or 7 cards. Ranks are added and used to beat targets, card combos multiply scores or add to them somehow. Possibly even anime-esque levels of power escalation and exponential growth. I can see a well-played seven-card set totally destroying a mountainside, that kind of thing.

This gives me a whole new idea for implementing the Risk Investment theme of the Broad Scenes. To re-cap, what I’m calling “Broad Scenes” function primarily as storytelling and narrative exploration scenes. It is in the Broad Scenes that the stakes are set for future Action Scenes. While exploring Broad Scenes, characters can pursue side goals and missions to attempt to Up the Stakes for action scenes, such as persuading the town guard to fight for your cause, or convincing the mistress to reveal your enemy’s secret weakness.

Previously, I had figured these could give extra dice if established before a conflict, at the risk of higher stakes for loss. Instead, I’m conceptualizing a way for players to find these side goals, work them, and then invest face-down cards into them for future use. Say, work the mistress over, and then place one or more cards face down on the side for her, which can then be re-drawn into your hand as bonus cards later, should you work her into an actual conflict.

Aside from providing roleplaying direction and serving as separate character lifelines, the three Codes’ scales will directly relate to the conflict resolution mechanics. Your positions on the scales will set your base number of dice rolled in these action scenes. My goal is to have each of the three codes empower two modes of conflict resolution.

For example, I’m currently aiming at having the Code “Way of the Sword” empower the resolution of conflicts via both the direct application of violence and the complete avoidance of violence altogether. A character who is at Balance within this Code (aka “Rank 4″ out of seven spots on the scale) will roll a base of five dice in either situation. Each space further outward on this Code (towards the seventh spot) will raise the Violence ability by one die while likewise lowering the Non-Violence ability, with the furthest-outward space giving the character eight dice for violent acts and only two for non-violence. Likewise, moving instead inward does the opposite, and at the innermost space (spot #1) the samurai would have eight dice for non-violent ways, and only two for acts of violence.

I’m hoping to set each of the other two codes into a similar template. What mechanical empowerments, then, would the Codes of the Pack and the Highway respectively provide? The Code of the Pack represents the balance between individualism and Pack Identity – further inward makes the character more self-empowered, further outward makes him stronger as a member of the group. My immediate thought is that it would be the difference between “Acting alone” and “Acting With the Pack,” but that actually seems a bit too situational. Another idea would be to connect this to Honor, using it as a means to an end much in the same way that the Way of the Sword uses violence. Further inward could then empower your use of your own personal Honor as a tool (as well as when you defend it), while the outward could empower your application and defense of your Pack’s honor. I’m not sold on this yet, as I’m not picturing any exciting conflict scenes in which these would be used.

As for the Highway, I’m equally perplexed. The immediate reaction to the question is to apply it to your character’s riding skill, but what would be the relevant dichotomy? What could the Code of the Highway, which represents the balance between human empathy and a zen-like connection to your bike, bring to the table that isn’t already covered by the violence/peace empowerment of the Way of the Sword?

Or is the Way of the Sword too broad as it is?

My goal is to have the Pack Roles inspire out-of-conflict role-playing while also directly tying into the Pack Warfare rules. I’m seeing the latter as an almost Diplomacy-like minigame of strategy and moves, involving the Roles themselves as chesspiece-like tools in the battle.

First, let’s address the roles specifically. These are separate from the pack Ranks, mind you. Ranks cover things like Leader, Core Guard, Masked, and Prospect. Roles, on the other hand, describe your duties and responsibilities within the Pack, both in daily life and in Battle.

I’m wanting there to be at least seven roles available, each with its own narrative guidelines and battle mechanics. So far, here are the few notes I’ve drafted up last night on these Roles:

The Tail Gunner

1. Always rides at the rear of the convoy, usually with a heavy and/or loud bike. Responsible for carrying medical and other important supplies for the Pack.
2. When the pack retreats, the Gunner is responsible for issuing a “parting challenge” to the pursuing enemy, in order to stain their honor somehow. “Bet you can’t hit this target!” or the like.
3. Battle Move: “Parting Challenge”

The Historian

1. Responsible for keeping the Pack’s records, and maintaining their “mon” (badges)
2. During Battle, the Historian chants the lineages of the members and the exploits of the Pack. This should be done aloud and in character. This is to both bolster the Pack’s confidence and intimidate the enemy.
3. Battle Move: “Litany of Glory”

The Road Captain

1. The Road Captain rides at the front of the convoy, and in Battle, he always leads the charge.
2. This is the rider the enemy will see first, thus the Road Captain must be visually representative of his Pack’s spirit.
3. Battle Move: “Rallying Charge”

The Trail Blazer

1. A good ‘Blazer scouts out the battlefield in advance.
2. When traveling, the ‘Blazer rides ahead of the pack, sometimes far, but rarely closer than just visible cresting that far hill.
3. Battle Move: Undecided

The Armsman

1. Responsible for keeping the pack in line, and enforcing Pack Law within the ranks at the behest of the Leader.
2. Is rarely the leader, but more frequently the Leader’s right hand man.
3. Acts primarily as a thug and enforcer.
4. Battle Move: Undecided

The Errand Boy

1. Usually filled by the Prospect
2. Cleans the bikes, gets the coffee, packs the gear, executes all the items on the Honeydew lists.
3. Battle Move: Undecided

The Den Mother

1. Strong samurai packs keep their ranks free of women and avoid the wily affairs of the fairer sex. The strongest Packs dismiss this superstition, and ride with a strong Den Mother in their ranks.
2. The Den Mother is a unifying force on the battlefield, bolstering those who ride with her.
3. Battle Move: Undecided

I’m mulling over ideas on how to both A) further define these roles outside of combat, and B) further define the rules of actual Pack Warfare. I’m also considering having the rules be changeable in-game. Maybe give each role two special moves – one for whoever happens to switch into that role in the fly, and one additional move that only the true holder of that role knows (the guy who chose it during character creation).

I have mostly been using a private journal for the small-scale fielding of initial ideas, before bringing them more into focus and posting here. Lately, a flood of these have been discussed, and here are the most recent revisions of my newest ideas on this game.

On Stages of Play

I’m seeing actual play happening in two major stages, which for now (and lack of better theme-appropriate terms) I’m calling the Broad stage and the Action stage. Play will flow freely between the two stages, often with definite scene breaks to signify their transitions. Musings on these follow.

The Broad Stage:

In the Broad stage, the players guide their characters along, trying to complete a mission given to them by their Patron, whoever that may be in the scenario. This is akin to “exploration” and “open” scenes and play from other more mainstream rpgs. It is through Broad stage play that the players explore the setting and scenario.

The only real mechanic is based in the uncovering and completion of minor scenario objectives. These involve the character putting something important on the line now in order to reap the benefits of it later. The samurai puts his life on the line by swearing to provide protection to the troubled magistrate, in order to secure the magistrate’s backing against the town council. He puts his honor on the line by talking to the prostitute, in order to learn the secrets she knows about the evil Lone Ronin. Read more

In this game setup, one player has been previously tasked with bringing a picture to the session. We all sit around the table, and the player kicks off the game by laying down the picture face-up. The guy sitting to that player’s left then looks to the guy sitting to his left and asks a question about an action that is happening now, such as “What is that girl running from right this very moment?” That guy answers, then looks to his left and asks another question, and so on.

I’ve been having a hard time putting my thoughts down on paper at this point, in a fashion understandable to an outside reader. Last night it hit me: Mass Effect 2. In this video game, everything in the game leads up to a multi-staged final mission through a gateway into the unknown. Leading up to this point in the game, you spend a large amount of time and effort first recruiting a full team of commandos, and then subsequently following up with those teammates in order to secure their ultimate loyalty. This last bit is always secured by the results of a special focus side mission, and these missions vary frequently in their approach and implementation.

For example, one guy’s mission is a pretty standard jaunt through an area killing a lot of bad guys, getting to an important life-changing conversation at the very end. Another is just a simple stalk-and-observe, with little combat at all. Each of them varies pretty widely, although most use the standard combat mechanic at least once. At the end, if you did well, your squad mate will be absolutely loyal to you, and gain more abilities and bonuses.

But more importantly: they will most likely not die at the end of the game. See, during the End Run, depending on the choices you’ve made and the way you’ve played the game, one or more (or all!) of your squad can die off in extremely heart-wrenching cut scenes. Fail to secure the loyalty of Guy #7, and he might waver in the face of the enemy and be mowed down, just outside of your reach. Gil #4 might be sucked out of an airlock into the cold of space.

The End Run of the game is a mostly-linear dungeon run, with a few Big Decisions interspersed between its areas. Regardless of who you take and who survives, the layout of the maps is the same, as are the battle locations and such. However, the presence of different people at different times affects your survivability pretty heavily, as do other non-companion-related decisions you made earlier in the game. So while the Main Objective remains the same (aka Kill the Big Bad), your earlier choices have direct mechanical impact on the attempt to achieve that goal.

So, bringing this back around to Hagakure 66, I see the major conflict mechanics being resolved primarily in pre-set Fields of Play: The Tarmac, the Parlor, the Duel, etc. A standard affair of theme-specific generalized Fields will be offered in the game text. When a new scenario is set forth, the GM states a simple opening scenario goal: “In this scenario, your pack will go to Hornsfirth Hill and secure the loyalty of the Mayor for your Patron’s cause.” He will already have written down one or more Fields which this scenario will feature.Then, each player writes down and submits an additional Field, effectively telling the GM “this is where I want to see action happen.” These can be from the game text, or made up by the player. Once the scenario begins, all major conflicts will be resolved on these fields.Once a conflict reaches a Field, the mechanics will play out as normal (still undefined at this moment). However, depending on the conflict and its relevance to the GM’s scenario plans, there might be unknown background conditionals at play. “If the players don’t tie Story Thread X up before this conflict, then apply Modifiers Y.”

Thus the players will be encouraged to explore the setting and the situation a bit to find these triggers and resolve certain conditionals. Getting the influential madame on your side can affect your conflict to drive the slaver out of town, for example. But pissing her off might actually get you in the Slaver’s good graces.

More on this as it comes to me.

Just as there are three core Codes which the player must balance, there will be three core “extensions” to those characters. These will function similarly to Classes in more mainstream games, and give the players a good variety of mechanical combinations for character assignment.

First we have the Pack Roles. Will you be the Pack Leader, and take on the mantle of command and control? Will you be the Road Captain, who guides the Pack along the Highway, ensuring a safe ride? Will you be the Tail Gunner, and keep up the end of the convoy? Will you be the Trail Blazer, and ride far ahead into the unknown seeking opportunity? How about the Armsman, who’s task it is to keep order within the rank and file?

Next we have the Bikes. The rugged “Thunder” is the beast of the long road and the even longer ride (touring bike). The vicious Wasp can speed forth to and from and danger (sport bike). The unrestrainable Dust Cloud can travel any terrain and surmount any obstacle (dirt bike). The ever-versatile Hawk is adaptable to any street, and any battle (standard/UJM). The roaring Dragon, built from the shells of the mightiest beasts, always makes itself known (chopper). The elusive Dragonfly cannot be captured on its field of choice (cafe racer).

Finally we have the sword styles. Honestly, I haven’t given these much thought yet, but I do plan on givine them greater attention in the coming phases of design.

More on this as the ideas take shape!

I’m still pretty divided on this idea, between two modes of implementation I’m calling The Steed Way and The Universe Way. On the first hand (The Steed Way), I’m envisioning using this third Code to represent the character’s relationship with their Steed, with the scale going from one extreme (“My steed is just a tool and nothing more.”) to the other (“I am the steed.”). Given the intended portability of the game, this could of course be a Bike in the default game setup, or a Horse, Spaceship, or whatever in alternate home-made scenarios.

Doing it this way would keep the three codes thematically similar, each one representing the character’s relationship with something external: The Team, the Sword, the Bike. These three relationships would be important to the situation in the game, and each would have social rules (the Codes) and expectations for maintaining good standing. The rules of the Pack dictate proper behaviour for members, like a motorcycle club charter. The rules of the Sword dictate proper use of the weapon, to the point of becoming the weapon. The rules of the Steed cover care and maintenance of your ride, as well as rules for proper traveling and such etiquette.

On the other hand, following The Universe Way, the Highway could also be a metaphor for the character’s relationship with the Universe at Large. At the low extreme, he again is just a tool-user, with no relationship to the greater world. At the high extreme, he has become the zen master, one step away from true consuming enlightenment, and everything else is just so much unnecessary time-wasting.

These two different ideas, I’m not sure if there’s a way to implement them both without overwhelming the player with too much Thematic conflict. Both implementations have a similar spiritual component, although the Universe Way would have heavier implications in this regard.

Each of the three Codes is intended to clash both within itself and with the other two. The innate conflict of the Pack is about keeping good standing within the ranks, while not getting consumed by the group mentality. Within the Code of the Sword, the character must find a good balance between using the sword to kill, and becoming a creature of pure emotionless murder in the possession of a Master. Likewise, the internal clash within the Code of the Highway could involve the balance between using the steed and becoming one with the steed, shedding your own identity in the process.

The inter-code conflicts, then, are a matter of balancing the extremes on their scales. One who has become consumed by the Pack Mentality will suffer on the other two scales, as loyalty to the team will be more important than skill with the blade or mastery of the steed. One who becomes the perfect weapon will be cold to his companions, and careless with his steed. One who becomes a melding of man and steed will be isolated from friends, and possessed of less reason to kill.

That’s a good question. First, I should re-establish that this isn’t just a “samurai game.” This is a Motorcycle Samurai game. It’s a game about inner turmoil, divided loyalties, wicked sword fights, and sweet bikes. Part pseudo-spiritual character drama, part bitchin’ battle-against-the-Crazy-88 sword fights, part hot motorcycle porn. These are all of equal importance to me.

So keeping that in mind, what’s going on here, Nathanael?

In the anime Kino’s Journey, each episode mostly follows the same format: the titular hero rides into a new town (they call them “countries”), is introduced to the local weirdness, and by the end of the episode he is riding away, having experienced some regional change or learned some important life lesson. He beings the episode with a ride in, ends the episode with a ride out, always moving, always subject to the winds of change.

I’m picturing a bit of Dogs in the Vineyard inspiration here, as far as episodic approach goes. The GM sets up a mission, with the intention of firmly yanking on the cords of a handful of the tenets of each Code – tenets which should solidly clash once all put into play. The pack is given an important mission by their patron, and they ride forth to the destination to complete it. Pretty basic right there.

Each “mission” should involve threats to each of the three codes. The Pack is threatened because Tobei and Hyuu are both trying to romance the same woman. The Prospect member has learned that the Patron is lying to them about his intentions behind the mission, but he is afraid to share this information with the Pack Leader, for fear of jeopardizing his membership in the Pack. That kinda stuff. The pack must deal with each of these threats to their Codes, while attempting to complete the mission at hand. This is how I’m thinking the basic scenario setup is going to look.

So with that basic frame in place, what do we actuall do in the game proper? How do the Codes affect play? What exactly is Play, anyway? What factors come into play when resolving game conflicts? What is the scope of this resolution? What is the balance between fiat and mechanic?

There is a possibility here to set some more rigid scene structure, if necessary. The Ride In, the Mission, the Ride Home, etc. I’ve played games that have more rigid scene framing rules, requiring certain types of scenes in certain sequences in order to tell certain stories. Those can be fun, but my gut right now is telling me to keep it more open. The vote is out on this one.

What do you think? What would be cool, fun, exciting, tense? How would your sessions play out? What would you want to see happen in-game, at the table?

Now, I begin to dip my pinky toes into the waters of actual game mechanics consideration. The three Codes have mostly been set into wet plaster, so now I want to erect some sturdier scaffolding around it, and prepare for some heavier work in the coming days.

Today, I’m mulling over the actual visual implementation of these three Codes. I’m envisioning each separate code as a seven-spot track. While I’m not intending to numerically number them just yet, doing so for the sake of discussion will help with imparting this vision.

In this idea, the “lower” numbers are closer to the Internal, aka the Self, while the “higher” numbers are further away from the self, and represent a greater connection to the External. True middle is perfect balance.

1: Isolation from / Rejection of the Code
2: Neophyte within the Code
3: Acceptance of the Code
4: Understand of / Balance with the Code
5. Empowerment by / Reliance Upon the Code
6. Deeper Connection with the Code
7. Consumption by / Fatalism resulting from Complete Immersion within the Code

I’m picturing one of two visual layouts for this (please excuse the crappy hand drawings):

Figure 1

or

Figure 2

In both setups, the rings go outward, with the Self on the inside and the External on the outside. The circle is set into three wedges, with seven rings. I’m currently leaning more towards Figure 2, being the Circle-within-a-Triangle. In this case, the circle would only have four rings (yes, I realize I drew the circle with only three. that was a mistake), while the extensions beyond the circle would have three more stages.

The player would mark their character’s current place on each of their scales. Using Figure 2, if the outermost ring is filled in, the character is in a state of true balance with his external forces. Continuing deeper into the Code, the outer points would be marked. Rejecting the ways of the Codes would drive the character more inward. In either case, there is imbalance, and imbalance will being the character into constant conflict with the world.

Indeed, a state of true balance would be even more conflicted, as it is just not in the nature of the world to allow such balance to maintain itself easily in the shadow of human emotion and necessity.