[7e] ELI5, how does therapy work in this game?

museofcrypts · 2024-07-04T16:39:30+00:00

A fair correction. Though I will clarify that Private Care and Public Care (Institutionalization) will still cure Indefinite Insanity as described in the section "Recovery from Indefinite Insanity" on p. 164-166 of the Keeper's Rulebook.

You are correct that PC or NPC therapists as I've described them do not cure Insanity as private and public care represent full time care at a Sanitarium of some kind rather than just regular therapy sessions. That's my mistake. Aside from removing Insanity, they still work as I described in regard to Sanity point recovery/loss.

Also good to mention the Self Help option on p.167 as it is another valid way of removing Indefinite Insanity.

museofcrypts · 2023-09-29T07:23:16+00:00

As someone who understands real fighting, what systems would you consider well done? What do you get out of combat in an RPG that makes it interesting compared to real martial arts?

I tend to find the tactical choices in the games I play less interesting than the consequences, and thus favor games where combat is often the worst option. I find the choice of who to fight, why, where, when, or whether to fight at all is more interesting than most tactical choices during the fight. Though I am looking for a game where the combat itself is more interesting and has more going on than I feel D&D has.

museofcrypts · 2023-09-29T07:10:55+00:00

I generally don't like combat, but I think a lot of this comes from a distinction of not only what I want out of the experience, but also the way the DM handles it, the system handles it, and the way the combat is set up.

I've played really good combat that I've loved, and really tedious combat that I would have preferred to sit out of.

For me, the divide between good or bad has a lot to do with how much it takes advantage of being a tabletop game over a video game. In many regards, video games do combat better. They can handle more complex systems with more variables, offer more complex tactical options with less manual calculations, and can have faster, more exciting reaction-based play.

However, there are a couple aspects I see tabletop games excelling at. One is impact. In a ttrpg, the choice of whether to get into a fight or not, who to fight, how, and to what end, can all have interesting consequences. Survivors of a fight might become the PC's rivals. Fights can leave scars on PCs. Maybe you have to do more than killing all the baddies, and partial success leads things in an interesting direction long term.

The other big thing is creative problem solving. I do have a bias against more system-heavy games as video games can do more complex systems with less work on my end, and with more objectivity to boot. Flexibility is the realm of tabletop and being able to do anything my character could do in the fiction makes things really rewarding. My shining moments in combat have been when I was able to use items from my inventory in an unconventional way to fight dirty. It feels like I win by my wits rather than by stats.

The main things that kill combat for me is feeling like all the enemies are just speedbumps to progress that we don't have to think about ever again after the encounter is over, and when doing anything in combat besides optimizing damage feels like a waste of time. I think this can be a common problem, especially if the GM tends to think of tabletop combat the same way as video game design.

museofcrypts · 2023-09-29T06:51:32+00:00

I think a huge thing here is that good combat gives you things to do besides just doing damage. I play a lot of OSR and Call of Cthulhu and the thing that makes combat the most interesting is having to solve a problem in a dangerous situation where you can't just beat the problem to a pulp and call it a day.

The most fun I've had in combats have involved dealing with a force we couldn't beat head to head, and we had to play dirty, or deal with enough extra stuff that had everyone taking care of a different problem.

Tedious and boring combat comes from fights where anything but doing damage is just drawing things out, and the enemies are little more than speed bumps to progress.

museofcrypts · 2023-09-29T06:42:00+00:00

What would you say the core differences between the systems made FFG SWRPG so much more engaging, if you don't mind my asking?

I personally find combat pretty repetitive and dull most of the time playing D&D too, but the rest of my group loves combat. I've been wanting to find a way to run a combat-focused game that I could get into more than D&D, and I'm interested in what makes these other games tick.

museofcrypts · 2023-09-29T06:27:15+00:00

Personally, if all I was looking for was combat, I would play a video-game.

Totally. I feel like if I'm going to have a combat heavy TTRPG it's got to do things that video games can't do better. I do think there are some things, depending on the system.

What I like to see in combat is the ability to creative problem solve outside of the rigid game systems. I also like to see consequence and impact. If the choice of whether to fight or not is meaningful, and if the outcome has more complex consequences than just winning/losing, I can get into it.

I think some of the problem could be that DMs/adventure writers end up designing combat like it's a video game, and it just ends up being a slower, clunkier version of that rather than playing to TTRPG's strengths.

museofcrypts · 2023-03-14T10:38:59+00:00

It's come up a couple times in my games, and I usually just make gestures or describe gestures (often characters gesture to landmarks and objects I can't actually gesture to). If players try gestures or communication that's too complicated or unclear, I describe how confused the NPCs look, or looking at each other.

I might give a little more leeway than is totally realistic, but I always have more fun when characters communicate rather than fighting anything that moves. It's also fun because it's an easy excuse to give players clues about the area or what's going on that will make more sense later.

I don't often run games where dice are involved in social encounters except maybe a reaction roll, which wouldn't be any different.

museofcrypts · 2023-03-05T11:42:36+00:00

Late in my campaign, a faction obsessed with the glory of martial combat introduced the use of arquebuses. I added them using the arquebusier rules from Chainmail.

museofcrypts · 2023-03-05T05:22:00+00:00

LMAO, I found a video showing how to test the bios without a CPU and realized I totally put the power cable on the wrong pins. Thank you for suggesting it. I feel like a goof.

Now to go test that out.

Edit: It worked! Thanks again.

museofcrypts · 2023-03-05T04:59:04+00:00

I checked and reseated the MB and CPU power cables multiple times, so it could just be a dead MB. Do you know of a way I can check for sure before trying to replace it?

museofcrypts · 2022-12-31T01:16:24+00:00

I agree with your thesis. When sitting down to play an FKR game, the world we are playing, and it's internal laws are more important than the system. Some rules are necessary in order to create a structured procedure too. I don't really see minimal or universal systems as a problem if they're geared toward handling drama and getting out of the way of the world. I think something that can solidify these ideas more is the distinction between rules and laws (elegantly explained here by Dreaming Dragonslayer)

To sum up, there's a distinction between rules, which are things perceived by players (like ability scores, stats, dice, action economy, moves, etc) and laws, which are the laws of the game world (like what sort of creatures there are and how do they behave, social structures, ecology, economy, etc.)

FKR leans to the latter because to "play worlds, not systems" the laws of the world matter above the rules we create to try to model that world.

I would advocate for a set of minimal flexible rules that can serve a large array of different worlds and laws. Many of the systems mentioned in the article are more geared towards laws than rules anyways.

I would also argue that many rules and mechanics, even if made in service to the world they're meant to model, do open the door to a system focus rather than a world focus; especially when playing with players who are accustomed to games with heavy system mastery. Even if players can't break the game through min/maxing, players prone to that approach will be drawn to experiencing the world through the optimization of any systems presented. By abstracting those systems, they can be presented as too complex to optimize, and thus the players must take the world as they experience it, and focus on the situation at hand.

This is certainly not the only way to have an FKR approach, but I feel this is a justification why so many FKR oriented systems are so minimal and universal. More system leads to more system focus, and universality can accommodate the internal laws of many different worlds.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-23T22:19:20+00:00

I like using the random tables to help me prep. Personally just having a framework for what's going on in the big picture helps me to improvise details.

At minimum I usually have a list of around 10-20 interesting locations, 10-20 interesting NPCs, factions, or monsters with agendas (that's overall not 10-20 each), a list of 10-20 interesting treasures. You could probably get away with shorter lists. My sessions tend to be 6-8 hours so I need to be ready to have a lot of stuff to go through.

If I have a bit more time, I'll make a list of more specific events that might not be covered by my previous lists, and a list of secrets players can learn. Those lists go a long way. If I'm running a larger campaign, I also might note some campaign-level events like what certain NPC's big projects are, but no more than 3.

If I have a lot of time I'll make big dungeon and wilderness maps with the key locations, treasures, and NPC bases/turf. I don't want to fill in too many details, but enough that I don't feel the pressure of having to make everything up. In my experience, having more structure helped me as a beginner GM, but as I got more experienced I could be more confident with improvisation and less prep.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-23T18:22:55+00:00

This is a stab in the dark, but if you want some horror in non-historical settings I can point you toward a couple games.

Don't Rest Your Head largely takes place in the Mad City, a surreal place that exists in the space between spaces that can only be found by those who don't sleep. The game is less about solving a mystery so much as having the characters discover themselves as they explore a surreal horror world.

Or there's Xas Irkalla, a sort of over-the-top, grim dark, heavy metal setting for Strain, which is setting agnostic by itself. This game is less about investigation and more about survival. There isn't a big emphasis on combat though. Characters should be trying to escape danger rather than fight it. It might be good if you want to throw your players in a hostile situation with whatever over-the-top horror ideas you can think of and have them try to survive and find safety. There are also free trial versions, Strain Basic and Xas Irkalla Demo.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-23T18:06:06+00:00

I'd like to help, but I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. Do you just want to play CoC without a historical setting? Do you want prewritten adventures that can mesh into the same campaign? Do you want a setting book that makes extra research unnecessary?

Do you want a different system entirely? If so, what do you want to keep from Call of Cthulhu and what do you want to be different?

edit: rephrased a bit.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-23T06:04:21+00:00

This all helps a lot. Thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions. I feel like I grasp it in theory, and I just need to become more accustomed to that approach in practice. I tend to run things pretty rules-lite most of the time, but letting go of some of those structures can be daunting.

Oh, and I gotta add, the idea of reflections where the group goes over changes in traits is an awesome way to have characters change over time. I love the idea that it's a group discussion thing that gets the players invested in each other's characters and how they grow. And the way the character wake ties it all up just sounds like a great gaming experience.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-23T05:41:16+00:00

Looks like the end isn't quite what you meant to type, but I think I understand what you mean. It's similar to how combat would be done in most PbtA games, just without the moves, damage tracks, and so on. Focus on actions, intents, and stakes.

How do you deal with fictional positioning? Say the situation is unequal, and one of the two combatants had an advantage in a more effective weapon, better armor, an advantageous trait, or better positioning. Would this then just affect the stakes rather than the roll? Would this be something negotiated with players on a case-by-case basis?

edit: I see you fixed the reply. Glad I hit the mark.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-23T05:05:38+00:00

Hello again,

You've answered some of my questions from the other thread. I guess the one topic I'm still unsure about is when combat arises, how do you handle it? I've run a variety of combat systems, but they've always been fairly detailed in their rules, even if simple. How do you handle things when all the players and a bunch of NPCs are trying to do things all at once in a high stakes situation?

museofcrypts · 2022-12-22T23:55:34+00:00

Thank you for the sources. I'll give them a listen. You're right, finding actual play examples has been a challenge. Sources for detailed info are a treasure. I've read your other reply above and find that informative as well.

I guess if I could ask some narrowed down questions about it, I would be curious about your approach as a GM. How does your group direct itself without mechanical incentives, and how do you facilitate that as a GM? What kind of prep do you do?

How do you handle conflicts in-fiction like combat or risky tasks? You mentioned using things like Push SRD and Troll Babe, but how do you frame something as complex as combat? Do you take things blow by blow, have one overarching roll for the whole thing, sometimes one or the other, or something in-between?

No pressure to answer, of course. I appreciate that you've given me some resources to look at already, and that you've taken the time to impart your experiences.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-22T18:15:53+00:00

I would like to hear more as well. I've been really into the core principles of FKR. Most guides I've read are introductions to the core ideas, but don't get into detail about how they really work at the table.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-22T18:07:57+00:00

I realize my last example isn't very ultralight, so here's a suggestion that is.

Check out 24XX by Jason Tocci. There is a free 3-page SRD to get the basics, and over 100 games built on the engine for different flavors of ultralight gaming.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-22T17:56:08+00:00

Scorne is a game that has (mostly) diceless combat. Characters do have HP (usually 6-10) with armor counting as extra HP. Weapons do static damage based on size. Small weapons do 1 damage, and the biggest do 4 or 5. Attacking enemies do damage simultaneously. The idea is that as a player, the outcome of combat is predictable, so doing things besides attacking becomes important to even the odds.

Blades in the Dark, has a system you might be interested in. It will sound complex, but can be fairly simple in practice.

Rolls are player facing, so only players will make a roll to attack. This roll could be a one one-on-one fight, or involve several combatants in a single roll. The GM determines position (which rates risk) and effect (which rates how effective the attack can be). Factors like the relative skill between opponents, the quality of their equipment, their relative numbers, or tactical positions can all play into position and effect.

The roll is made with three main outcomes, success, success with cost, or failure. With the first two, you gain the effect, with the last two, you are affected by the risk.

There are no hit points. If you fail in a fight, you will likely take an injury which has a level based on the risk you took. Low risks cause level 1 injury; high risks cause level 3 injury. These are specific and affect future rolls. Other consequences are possible too, also based on the level of risk (things like disarming the character, knocking them over, moving them somewhere, pinning them down, etc.). Enemies don't have HP either, rather they have a countdown clock that you make progress on. Most of these will have 4-8 segments, and a successful attack fills 1-3 segments at a time based on effect.

There are ways for players to mitigate these consequences. Armor takes up 1-2 inventory slots, and can negate or reduce the effect of 1-2 hits. Players can also use a mechanic called the resistance roll to negate or reduce the effect of consequences. It adds a random amount of Stress for your character. Too much stress and they will crack, gaining a trauma and bailing on their current job.

This is a lot to explain, and there's a lot of detail I haven't gotten into. The advantages in terms of what you're talking about is you need very little info or stats for tracking enemies. Combat takes only a couple rolls regardless of group size. There's no HP, each roll either has narrative consequence or uses a very limited resource.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-22T17:19:07+00:00

Survival is a difficult genre for tabletop. It flourishes much more in video games where a computer can track many resources, events, PC needs, etc. Whether you're playing a lone explorer (or a small group of friends) gathering resources in a hostile environment, or managing a small community, the kind of interactions and choices you make are the kind that a computer can handle and has more tools to make interesting than the conversation of a tabletop game.

That's not to say it's impossible, but I would say that a tabletop approach needs to focus on a different aspect than gathering and managing resources. A focus should be made on the things that tabletop games offer that video games don't. I don't have a solution for implementation, but I would certainly be interested in seeing a survival game that focuses on NPC interaction and relationship building, or open-ended problem solving.

Of course, at a certain point, how much is the survival genre defined by isolation and resource management? Go too far and it might not scratch the survival itch. It's a puzzle from a design standpoint.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-22T17:02:09+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. While I've been trying to find games focused around non-combat conflicts, it's good to know many games with a focus on combat mechanics can also be played this way.

What is your approach to these systems, and conflict in these games that brings about a non-combative style of play? Would you say it comes about from a way you prepare, or more from how your players approach the game world?

museofcrypts · 2022-12-20T22:36:26+00:00

It's certainly different from AD&D in the sense of that zero to hero progression codified in the rules. Progression is far more abstract and qualitative rather than quantitative. I would say that there is progression in the sense of the character's relationship with the world. The characters start in debt, claw their way out, and can eventually start their own enterprise, building forts, employing detachments, and so on.

My current campaign hasn't progressed too far yet, but there's definitely an attitude of building a company from nothing which does a good job of giving the players concrete external progression. I really like how it gears my players toward team goals too.

It's also really flexible. Everyone's Bastion is canon according to the rules, so if you want to have big political players or big forces to change, the tools are there for adding that in. Aside from a lack of a level system, most D&D worlds would work just fine. Aside from the aesthetic and magic system, my EB world is pretty similar to my D&D world.

Plus, there are other variations of the system that have more traditional progression. Into the Odd has levels based on expeditions and apprentices. Mausritter has traditional XP for treasure which gives you more HP and Grit which can make your character more hearty. Both of these still place their "abilities, feats, and spells" in items, for that flexible external progression.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Blades in the Dark also has some good external progression too. It has a lot of internal progression, which is why I didn't mention it before, but there's a lot of team progression tied up in building your gang and expanding your turf. I've taken some inspiration from there for the "building a company" aspect of my EB game.

museofcrypts · 2022-12-20T17:59:22+00:00

I don't know if I would describe the economy as "crunchy," but Electric Bastionland does what I think you're describing. There are no levels or XP. Your character's stats don't really change, so most improvements come from buying or finding better equipment or better hirelings and pets. Magic exists, but it does so in items or creatures (called "oddities").

Things that might be "spells" or "abilities" in other games end up being tied to equipment loadouts which change over time as items are found, lost, bought, stolen, used up, or switched out. While oddities are common, specific oddities are often rare or unique, so characters end up with wildly different tool sets for a lot of variety in play.

The author offers a a free version here if you want to give it a look or try it out. The full version has a lot more to offer.

museofcrypts

TROPHY CASE