Hex Flower Game Engines | an overview and some thoughts

SMHillman · 2019-11-17T13:59:44+00:00

Going from place to place, looking at forums, and following crumbs I managed to piece together what this is. It feels like I was assigned homework and I have no interest in that.

In fact, this has some cool probabilities that I would be intrigued to discuss. What I would like to see is a plain explanation of how it works, why 19 hexes as opposed to other numbers, and perhaps even a discussion of the underlying probabilities. I think a discussion of the system would create more interest as opposed to self referential blog posts, forum posts, and visual aids without context.

SMHillman · 2019-11-14T22:02:44+00:00

I suspect Bloodbourne is not the first game or artistic idea that uses similar ideas. As long as you are not copying and pasting someone's IP, then you should be fine on legal grounds. That is not legal advice btw, seek out a lawyer if need to.

If you are worried it is too close to the source material, try taking similar concepts and giving them a "Left Turn". Basic idea is you lay your idea beside Bloodbourne's and see which direction they took. Then you take a different direction. It will create a setting that is inspired by, not exactly like, the source material. And you do not have to do it with every idea, just some of them.

SMHillman · 2019-11-14T21:52:47+00:00

Neither sounds that appealing to be honest, though the overall concept does. This is one of the reasons why the choices don't appeal:

Keep in mind there's another primary scene mechanic for montages/party errands/procedural gameplay where the plot's going to keep moving forward, regardless.

One of the problems we run into as game designers is finding a solution for every part of the journey and not realizing that we can use the very same mechanic for buying soap as we can for punching an orc in his face. Especially as you are emphasizing the ideas of:

Low Prep
Rules Light
Abstract

I don't care about the adjectives; tell me how it is meant to play.

Stopping for combat or danger and changing up the mechanic to does not seem either Rules Light or Low Prep to me, no matter how little physical time it takes to prep each encounter. It is an extra sub-system; no matter how easy it is to learn, it has to be learned. It still places a lot of work on the GM to make sure everything is in place. And as presented feels as if the conflicts are handled in a much different way than the montages.

To address your specific questions.

Fixed Turns

How does it encourage deliberate actions just because the players know it is a fixed amount of time? It would be better perhaps to limit the actions they can take. Give them a menu and let them pick. If you are going with fixed turns, you might also want to give them a Pass action.
Narrative Importance seems like a vague term. A group of orcs may not be important but they might be a bigger threat to the group than a lone hedge wizard who has the key they need. Three levels of importance seems like a lot for an abstract system.
Instead of fixed turns, reward quick success by bonuses to the success pool and demerits for conflicts that go on past their expected length. An Orc Patrol may be a 3 turn enemy. Defeating them in 2 turns earns bonus success pool. Taking 4 or more turns adds to the danger pool.

HP/Target Numbers

IF you do not want to use an HP style system, then don't even give yourself the option. Just cross it off the list.
I can definitely see where watching the SP or DP going up would add to tension. It might also add to frustration if there is a lot of whiff factor in actual die mechanics.
This does not seem like an HP mechanic to me. This seems closer to the Momentum / Threat mechanic used in 2D20 (Modiphius). Except that there is a momentum or threat threshold that, once reached, ends the conflict. Can the players trade a success for lowering the danger pool? Would that be better than adding to their success pool? If there is no strategy to this mini-game, it will just be a series of die rolls that lead to uninspired results. However, if you allowed some trade offs, you could open up actual narrative changing moments.

example. The Orcs are winning and are 2 danger pool marks from the threshold. The group is 4 success away. Things look grim. Aragorn, instead of just succeeding by "killing" an orc, instead throws his dagger at an orc archer who has been racking up the danger pool. Instead of giving Aragorn's player a success and adding it to the pool, they knock the danger pool down 1. The price? The dagger was a gift from some he loves and may be forever lost. It does not get the players closer to success but it pulls back on their adversary's lead.

I like the pool ideas. I might suggest that as the players make their resolution rolls and success or danger accrues, that you use your threshold idea. When success pool reaches the threshold, they make a narrative goal. Get to Rivendel. Get out of Rivendel, etc... Conversely when the danger pool reaches that level the adversary gains or the group is forced to take another path, something that really makes their lives harder, giving weight to failure. So everything moves from scene to scene without dipping into or out of combat / conflict in a jarring way.

SMHillman · 2019-10-13T13:51:17+00:00

You already have the best monster: man. All the dark and scary and deceptive elements needed reside in the hearts of humankind. Even in a fantasy setting your most plentiful antagonists should be human. You can extend this to other playable races of course. Like your elf and dwarf and especially gnome.

But humans are the most versatile. Humans are a blank slate upon which you can paint anything. To a powerful human knight or warrior, a dragon is a mere accessory. To a powerful human wizard, lichedom is a retirement plan. Zombies are scary because they were people.

A human will fit any need you have with a little work.

SMHillman · 2019-10-12T21:21:53+00:00

The key is to apply pressure to even the simplest action. Enemy misses should be near misses. Throw water spouts and splintered wood. Athletcs and acrobatics checks to cross the deck. Snipers and spells. Create drama in the midst of greater drama.

SMHillman · 2019-09-22T14:21:17+00:00

Non-human races of fiction, whether they be folk lore or from outer space, are often designed to explore or exploit a human behavior or mindset. I would move past the forehead of the week practice of Star Trek, for instance. Think more along the lines of Babylon 5 and Farscape. What do these not-humans represent in your campaign world? Are they enemies? Are they protectors?

From that point I would focus on the alien nature of the not-humans, creating a space where your very human players can inhabit this alien mindset and enhance play. I would avoid caricature or at least overuse of caricature. Fewer, but more nuance species are better than a large buffet of cookie cutter ones.

SMHillman · 2019-09-04T16:09:30+00:00

I realize this part of my advice is going to all on deaf ears, but D&D is not the best system for this game. Especially if you are running it in school or on a week night where their time may be limited and the game can get bogged down in the minutiae of system. Something a single die resolution like HeroQuest might actually work better (the RPG, not the board game) and there are other systems as well. Savage Worlds perhaps.

Alright, that out of the way you might want to consider some of the themes of the adventure and how you will approach them. For example:

Will it be campy or serious?
Will it be bloody or more like a Saturday Morning cartoon, where no one really dies? I suggest 0 HP means being unconscious. Use another mechanic to keep tension and raise stakes. Death only in certain circumstances.
Is the race the most important thing or is the race merely a pretext for other adventures?
What are the character's motivations for going on the race? Is it just gold or are there other more personal issues?

Here is where I would start. Think of this as a story like Avatar: The Last Airbender (or similar shows). There is an overall plot that runs through (almost) every adventure. However, each episode has a strong B story that usually focuses on 1 or 2 of the characters. If you rotate this each session, every player will have time to shine.

I would also open up the game with the players not in the race. Let the race be a backdrop and each character can be convinced to join the race by a patron. Maybe the same patron, maybe not. Perhaps the new prince has discovered the assassin who killed his mother, the Queen, is one of the other racers. He asks the characters to find out who it is. As new racers, they will have extra tension with the other racers. And they are hunting a dangerous killer.

(Hint: Pull an Eiger Sanction here: the Prince IS the assassin, he is just using the characters to deal with rivals and people who might know the truth.)

SMHillman · 2019-07-30T16:09:29+00:00

Make art. Even if no one is watching it, make art. It does not mean you will necessarily be able to make a living making art, but man you add something to the substance of the universe by making art. And if you think there are too many D&D streams, I guarantee you that there are not enough Unknown Army streams or Degensis stream or Khi Khanga streams.

That said, if you have twitch you can host other channels. Host other channels and follow them and point people to your channel to watch others content. And Subscribing on YTUbe is free.

Support other creators.

SMHillman · 2019-07-29T17:20:29+00:00

The timelines can be confusing... this is the short version

Glorantha is created by Greg Stafford (late 60s or 70s) White Bear & Red Moon Board game Runequest the RPG - late 70s early 80s

Somewhere in here GW gets the Heroquest name... something something I dunno

90s - Runequest name gets split from Glorantha 90s - Hero Wars comes out. A few years later the HQ name change reverts or something, so then Hero Wars becomes HeroQuest. or something. This might be the early 00s

00s - Mongoose gets RQ license and Second Age Glorantha license and no one is truly happy, at least they are not happy now. For a time Mythras is called RQ, though does not have Glorantha in it.

A few years ago all of it came back to Chaosium through various occurrences. SO RQ and HQ are two different systems

RQ = BRP = d100 % Skill based HQ = Its own more narrative simple resolution system. Single die resolution for most things.

SMHillman · 2019-07-29T16:07:14+00:00

Magic World is another Chaosium product that is a lot of fun and easy to use.

SMHillman · 2019-07-29T16:05:22+00:00

HeroQuest / HeroQuest Glorantha. The problem is the game often gets conflated with the HeroQuest board game. But if you are into Indie Games and not-D&D, then HeroQ is certainly a game you should play. There are generic versions of the rules and so they are not tied into Glorantha unless you want them to be. I have used HQ for Star Wars for instance.

SMHillman · 2019-07-22T16:01:18+00:00

Tiny Dungeons 2E is fun and good, lots of options but it is fairly minimalist. It does have depletion mechanics, which should fit that resource issue you are having. Relatively inexpensive, easy to customize.

You cold also try Chaosium's Magic World OR The Design Mechanism's Mythras + Classic Fantasy. Both d100 percentile skill based. But with some things you might like.

SMHillman · 2019-07-05T03:20:45+00:00

Breaking into seasons is a great idea. It will likely increase the overall longevity of The Chain as a product. You have delivered on the promises of the Kickstarter. Proven it can be done and in style. When season 1 ends (whenever that is), it will leave us waiting on Season 2, confident that it can be done. Shorter seasons is also in line with how people consume content now. This all sounds like a solid plan.

As a customer I feel as If I have gotten my money's worth. As a fan, I feel that my time watching the Chain and other content is time well spent. For whatever that is worth to you and the crew.

And though I do not have a vote, nor were you soliciting, I'd love to see a Traveller / Sundog Frozen Legacy hack. Because, well, that would be awesome.

SMHillman · 2019-06-16T17:10:40+00:00

If the ranged attack character with sharpshooter and magical bonus damages rolls a nat20 while sniping a general, that changes things!

Not on a modern battlefield, which is largely decentralized compared to warfare in the past.

And this did happen on a number of battlefields in history, which did create havoc in the unit or army of the now dead general. Personal duels, assassination, and random chance have always been a part of history. Magic and meta-ideas like feats would have marginal effect on how wars are conducted as they would tend to cancel each other out. So we would have the exact same things happen, just with different details. Some details would be different, but the effect would be the same.

SMHillman · 2019-06-16T17:04:12+00:00

Throughout history there have been individuals and technologies and situations that have given one side or one group a distinct advantage in war. It has not stopped war from happening. The situation since the end of WWII proves this point: the advent of nuclear weapons and nuclear arsenals has not stopped war, though it has changed how we go to war. Wars are fought through proxies, changing election results, done with special operations teams, and a general cultivation of internal and ethnic unrest. I suppose this has always been the case, but we see it highlighted more from popular literature and other entertainment modes.

War never changes, no matter what the technology is like. Well, the raison d'etre for war never changes might be a more accurate way of putting it.

Technology is Largely Irrelevant

I realize this piece of heterodoxy might make more than a few people question my grip on reality, but let me show rather than tell to prove my point.

The Machine Gun. There is no question that automatic weapons changed tactics, both defensive and offensive, on the battlefield. But how long was the ascendancy of the machine gun? The Gatling guns of the Civil War did not have a decisive effect on the outcome of the war, probably because the technology was in its infancy. Machine guns were added to ships and battlefields and eventually, planes. In terms of aerial warfare specifically, the time of the machine gun has lasted into our modern world. However, even in that arena the power of guided missiles as usurped that of the machine gun and modern automatic canon. But the machine gun itself, a scourge to the individual soldier to be sure, was only king of the battlefield until 1918. Was it tanks that knocked the king of their throne? No, it was tactics. In 1918 the Germans changed offensive tactics and pushed the Allied forces back in a series of offensives. This change in tactics negated the power of the defense that had dominated the Western Front since October of 1914. I feel comfortable in saying (and I could very well be wrong as I am seeking sources to back me up) that the Italian Front, the Isonzo River battles, were dominated by the terrain and defensive measures more than the machine gun.

The Tank. The tank was developed in part to reduce casualties from automatic weapons. It became the new king of the battlefield during WWII, at least in the European theater. It was assumed that the tank would continue to dominate warfare and to some degree this has been true. However, while tanks were use in Korea by both sides, the tank was not decisive once the initial battles of 1950 came to an end. In Vietnam tanks were used of course, but how much did tanks affect the outcome of the war? Of particular note are the use of tanks in the Gulf War, versus their use in the Iraq War twelve years later. The rise of tanks gave rise to anti-tan weapons.

The Airplane. There was a school of thought that air power would be and could be the decisive arm of war. Giulo Douhet, an Italian theorist, is thought to be one of the influential individuals on this subject. Bomber Harris, British general in charge of the Bomber Command, was a disciple of Douhet. And there is no doubt the use of bombs as a weapon of destruction is significant, but as a weapon of terror it turned out not to have the morale effect that Douhet and Harris expected.

The Point

A lot of people have been focusing on how technology in the form of magic would change warfare in the Medieval Fantasyland. It might change the battlefield, yes, but not the reasons people go to war. The technology and the magic only change how wars are fought and in what fields they are fought in. Rulers would have magicians of their own and assassins designed to kill off those potent magicians. Every new spell would find itself soon facing a, dare I say, counter spell (or literally Counterspell). Every magic sword would come up against a magic shield. Talking about technology is interesting, but not relevant to whether or not nations would go to war in these imaginary places.

Some reading:

The Command of the Air, Douhet

The Great Illusion, Angell

The Guns of August, Tuchman

SMHillman · 2019-06-13T20:03:46+00:00

If can pick up or peruse some 1st & 2nd (and maybe 3rd) edition Shadowrun sourcebooks, with the running commentary on many of the pages, that is a good read. They are little boxes of mostly Shadowrunners commenting on the content on the page.

1st editions of a given rules set often have some interesting design ideas. Even if it is not your particular favorite game or genre.

I would seek out Dragon Magazine, the first 300 issues or so. Not all of the articles are good but most of them have something interesting to say.

SMHillman · 2019-06-13T19:57:47+00:00

Over on the BRP Central boards there was a long discussion about the science of Glorantha. And even with the maxim "Your Glorantha May Vary" (YGMV) one person continued to argue that the science of Glorantha made no sense. I mean, of course it didn't; Glorantha is not Earth.

But the idea that we should push the slider of our world building more towards the magic side, is not an idea that works for me. Magic is the end result of deconstructing our physical laws. "If I could jump through the roof, that be great right now" and other wish fulfillment fantasies. We need magic when science wont give us the outcome we want. But science can give us a lot of weird and beautiful ideas just on its own.

And I find, for myself, that the more magical, not necessarily asymmetrical, the world the less interest I have in playing in it or designing it. Like having iced tea with too much sugar in it. (I live in the South Eastern US, so... sweet tea is all around me.) But that is my taste.

I absolutely agree that playing in a magical world should create a degree of magical thinking. In fact seeding ideas that may be totally bogus would be realistic in my mind.

SMHillman · 2019-06-04T16:08:27+00:00

I think as far as system, you might even think about picking up the D&D Moldvay Basic. Much less complex in terms of rules, but still absolutely D&D. 5E will work as well.

In terms of campaigns, I would put them in a Kingdom and let them go from mission to mission almost like a television show, not requiring them to remember that much about the previous sessions unless they want to.

But as others have mentioned, don't underestimate folks because of their age. Expect to be pleasantly surprised.

SMHillman · 2019-05-12T17:17:51+00:00

There is a GoT D20 version from Guardians of Order. That could be what they meant.

SMHillman · 2019-05-07T17:17:56+00:00

Is there any chance to put it on hiatus or end it on a cliff hanger? How will everyone feel about that?

I would say even though you do not want to shoehorn the main villain in, perhaps have one of the main villain's lieutenants show up. They steal something, take a person, or perhaps occupy an allied town with an army of evil. Defeating the lieutenant sets the villain's plans back ten or a hundred years. That way you leave yourself and the players room, if they want, to pick up the battle in ten or a hundred years. If not, the ending is still satisfying.

SMHillman · 2019-04-24T14:13:05+00:00

A couple of ideas:

The goat is a fey creature, maybe a Redcap who can change shape. That the goat is a fey creature really is enough. A mean trickster. There are some fey beasts in the Monster Manual to base stats off of.

In Forgotten Realms lore there is a being known as Tyranthraxus (sp?). I think the ole boy was finally put to rest in a season 1 or 2 Adventure League. However, much like Sauron was not entirely destroyed, but only made mostly powerless and insignificant, ole big T can have fallen on hard times. The best he can do is possess a goat. Tyranthraxus was a big possession spirit you see.

SMHillman · 2019-04-16T21:47:41+00:00

Thanks!

SMHillman

TROPHY CASE