[3:16] Way Too Easy Or Just Got the Rules Wrong?
gsoylent:
I am still looking forward to opportunity to run it again, so I don't have any new input just yet. My friends are hungry for more 3:16 in a way I've not seen in a while, so that can't be bad.
A few thoughts.
Shared fiction vs. mechanics balance: We've talked a bit about the game, the interest seems to be more towards the encounter scenes than the story glue in between them. The "in between" scenes I decribed, like the briefing, were pretty terrible. The in between scenes the players came for themsleves worked a lot better.
But as a result, there was some suggestion that maybe this a game we can play without GM, taking turn setting the scenes and drawing Threat Tokens with some random method. But I think we'll play it normally a bit longer before experimenting with variants.
There was one particularly effective in between scene in which one of players came up the idea of checking, Star Trek style, the captain's video log at the abadoned outpost. I rewarded this idea by revleaing in my description the alien ability, which it had not come into play yet. Seemed a good way to make the in between scene have a real impact on the encounter scenes. Would have been even better if I'd actually used the AA, but that is besides the point.
Despicable NPCs: I am going to have to try that. If nothing else it sounds like fun.
Levelling with two players: They way the rules explain this is a little vague but I was very mean about my interpretation. I had both players roll for levelling up. The guy with the most kills was going to level up regardless (and only once), but the other player had to beat him on the roll to level up too. As it were the they both got to level, but I think that added a little tension.
Gregor Hutton:
Oh, sorry for only getting to this now. I had a spookily similar game at IndieCon to Ron's "suicide" one. We had a desert world rather than temperate, but it was similar fictionally. The "enemy" has Mandel suits and Brite Corp rifles, which were earlier versions of their modern MandelBrite equivalents. Beneath the killing there was a vein of morality being mined.
I really think that a GM ought to throw the special ability out in the first encounter (don't think!, just do it!). Holding off waiting for a "good time" to use it means it almost never gets used. I got a couple of PCs rolling 1s in a combat and got to kill them on my roll of 5 then again on a 1 by spending a Threat Token from the two in the encounter (leaving them dicing off over the now one remaining threat token ... ho ho ho). Suicide's gig is that you can kill twice in one round and they can only heal up once between encounters and the kill on a 1 is automatic. I always hold off spending the token in case a PC cancels on a higher number than 1.
Also, place PCs at Far Range if you can and on your turn aggressively boot some out of the encounter (Beyond Far) which radically shifts the ratio of Threat Tokens to PCs for the rest of the encounter. So, if someone rolls well and moves to Near then kick their unlucky fellow Troopers out of combat after causing a kill.
Regarding when Aliens kill, the rule is that the aliens kill anyone who either "failed or rolled equal to or less than" the aliens. If the aliens beat the Troopers' rolls then they can move the Troopers as they like. Pulling some in closer and pushing others further out.
Once someone gets to Major then Lt Colonel (which will happen more commonly in a two-player game) then you'll get more Threat Tokens as the GM. Nuclear Grenades also cause friction between PCs too. I had a half-TPK this weekend because of a TPK bomb getting let off.
I also used Induce Weakness on a mission at the weekend. I used it in the first encounter on the Sergeant (successfully) and it pretty much forced Strengths out of everyone for the next few encounters as everyone tried to end the encounter before my turn.
Ron Edwards:
Oohh! Those are some good suggestions, Gregor. I'm a notoriously bad tactical adversary player, a sorry state for someone who loves villains as much as I do, so I greatly appreciate it. For example, it never occurred to me that one could shove player-characters out of the fight using the movement rules, even though it's patently clear that one can do it in the text.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Hiya,
I wanted to follow up on the primary issues that I'm beginning to figure out, or think I am, with your main question. If I'm correct, then the degree of danger and death in the game is a secondary concern, not the main thing at all. But since it's not trivial, let's talk about some mechanics first. You wrote,
Quote
Levelling with two players: They way the rules explain this is a little vague but I was very mean about my interpretation. I had both players roll for levelling up. The guy with the most kills was going to level up regardless (and only once), but the other player had to beat him on the roll to level up too. As it were the they both got to level, but I think that added a little tension.
I like that very much and may well use it next time we only had two players. As it happens, in this last session, both characters failed their Development rolls, which had not yet occurred.
Quote
... one of players came up the idea of checking, Star Trek style, the captain's video log at the abadoned outpost. I rewarded this idea by revleaing in my description the alien ability, which it had not come into play yet. Seemed a good way to make the in between scene have a real impact on the encounter scenes. Would have been even better if I'd actually used the AA, but that is besides the point.
It still happened during the mission, on the planet, right? Pretty much a tactical "investigation roll" and nothing to do with the concept of a meaningful SIS inside which the whole missions occur. Or to put it differently, when you call this scene "particularly effective," what do you mean? As far as I can, it wasn't effective at all if what we're talking about is that larger-scale imagined-stuff. It seems like an effective NFA roll in the course of a mission based on a player's good idea, which is cool (I agree about that) but not about much more.
Now for the primary issue that I was talking about. This next bit is a guess, because I'm not sure what you mean by "Shared fiction vs. mechanics balance." My guess is that you're talking about playing such that a story-about-stuff emerges right there in play, vs. playing such that strategizing to win (presumably character survival or advancement) becomes a fun competition. Is that right? If not, correct me, but if so, then yes, you're right - that is indeed the question. I would phrase it, what are you playing for?
For instance, I know why we (my group) play it. We love it as a rules-set for making a story with a powerful theme, especially when we don't pre-plan what happens (beyond normal prep, I mean) or what that theme will be. I'll talk about what that means, to illustrate, but please don't get the idea that I'm saying you must do this as well in order to "play right." I'm describing it so you can see what I mean by "playing on purpose," and perhaps how finding your group's purpose can help you decide how to use the rules, or change them if you want.
So, in our second session, Chris couldn't make it but Tim A could, in addition to Tim K. Hence in the story, Deet wasn't there, so I had our new LT Gunther in command of one of the other squads under him; this one includes Trooper Kowalski, cheerfully described by his player, Tim A, as a Lazy Fuck. I also returned the hapless LT Hussein, an NPC, into the story; he begged to go on the mission because he never got the chance and people made fun of him in the shower for it.
I rolled up Monet, AA = 6, Cloud/gas planet, Plants, Ignore Armor (holy shit, it costs no Tokens, even). With two players I had 10 Tokens, which I decided to divide up 2-3-5. (I was determined to get Strengths and Weaknesses into play, dammit).
Rather than narrate the session bit by bit, here are some of the things we did that led to the mission being a decisive piece of that "make theme" purpose in play. First, Gunther had to receive his higher briefing before he briefed the troopers; that's when he got to see the sorority-girls, ping-pong games, and full-screen TV in the had to get higher briefing, then brief the men. He also had it confirmed to him that he was considered a unique security risk (remember the failed MI NFA roll last time). He also learned that the brass wanted him to sacrifice a significant number of the squad to test out a new tactic. Second, the situation in the mission, involving many floating jet-rafts and lots of room for disastrous NFA results, required constant leadership - and more importantly, it became extremely obvious to the soldiers that the LT was trying to get them killed.
So basically, the mission itself is a fun and dangerous vehicle for more general conflicts among the levels of command, especially disregard for the troops (who when all is said and done are fully capable of fragging you). As a GM I left it totally open to Tim K to see whether Gunther would act to protect the men (in defiance of his secret orders) or not. After all, one skill 3:16 players seem to develop quickly is how to mislead the reportage of a mission, both during and afterwards. It was also totally open to Tim A to see whether Kowalski was going to put up with this (did you notice the rule that fragging your commanding officer and covering it up actually gets you his rank? see page 30), especially as he figured out pretty fast that Gunther kept putting the men at risk.
As the mission progresses, you never know when these issues will come to a head, or how. In our case, it turned out to hinge on poor LT Hussein. As they prepared to descend into the next layer of cloud to confront the final-encounter, huge, monster-flower thing, he gave the first and only entirely competent, strategic command of his whole life. His instructions on deploying the rafts would have protected the men very well in the fight, but that wasn't going to get LT Gunther his recognition for fulfilling the mission (i.e. massacring the men). So he pushed the poor guy off the raft, killing him.
Although the fights themselves were lots of fun, and Kowalski was especially hilariously competent in the way that only a totally lazy fuck who just wants to get out of the action can be, this type of moment was really the climax, or the point, of play for us. It was nicely punctuated by the fact that Tim A used a Flashback (Strength) for Kowalski to beat the last encounter, and narrated it as the squad surviving anyway! In other words, "inadvertently," Kowalski totally made Gunther fail his secret mission. So that means Hussein was murdered for absolutely nothing. Such play is what we're all about.
Like I said, my point is not that you must play like that or will be "wrong" if you do. If you want to focus on strategic matters and getting through missions in the spirit of fun competition against danger, sort of like a good challenging video game, you can, although some of the rules mechanics are going to seem irrelevant, and it's not exactly clear whether any of them can be interpreted as "rewards." High rank pretty much targets you for assassination; continued play brings Hatred for Earth into the picture, which is a recipe for mutiny. I guess the GM could custom-make Terra as a special Big Bad opponent for a grand finale. Or something like that. You'll have to decide what rules either get de-emphasized or excised if that's what you and the others want. So for me, the multi-GMing thing is a horrible idea, as given our purpose, it would make the process into a wind-up toy rather than a developing fiction. Whereas it might be OK for you, depending on what you want to play for.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
This thread and [3:16] On the South Coast ... are closely related.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page