#[[ for Rick the part about knowledge and exploration and stuff is true ]]

[countlessrealities]

{ Which crystal are you? }

amethyst

You have an energetic and passionate nature. You want to taste everything the world has to offer. Sometimes you seem aimless, eager and distracted. But when you apply yourself, you excel. You're known to your friends as someone they can depend on to brighten the mood. You have a way of breaking the tension and helping others deal with stress. However, when have you last let yourself sit with your negative emotions? When was the last time you slowed down and let your thoughts catch up to you? You can't run forever.

black tourmaline

You have a strength to you that has been hard earned. You don't hesitate to cut out the parts of you you despise, you're unafraid to call out others. Your bluntness can off-put people at times, but you're unwilling to compromise your personal code. Once your loyalty has been earned it is not easily shaken. You're a protector and you purge away anything you believe could harm you or those you love. When was the last time you relaxed, though? When was the last time you let down your guard? There is just as much strength in vulnerability.

tagged by: @dynamoprotocol [[ Thank you <3 ]] tagging: @imprvdente @omniishambles [Mobius] @elisethetraveller @misstantabismuses [Silco & Jinx] @modestmuses [Viktor & Singed] @moonspower & whoever wants to steal it !

[rixxy8173571m3w1p3]

DWC prompt: I sat behind the bush, hiding behind silver leaves and violet flowers. The sun fell at the top of the canopy, casting a periwinkle shadow over the terrain. As if on cue, the sky began to fill with small, glowing creatures.

(@ricksanchezdwc and @hoodoo12 sorry it took so long, though I hope you'll enjoy it)

You two were on your way to go get some ice cream, when the ship picked up a distress signal. “Uh oh.” he frowned.

“What's going on?” you asked, finding all the beeps and flashing lights unsettling.

“I-I don't - I'm not sure what it is exactly,” and fiddling with the equipment, he typed stuff into the computer, until he had a better reading. “but it - it looks like w-w-we’re going to have t-to land. I'm so sorry about this, I-I-I know you were really looking forward to trying the Blackhole sundae.”

“Don't worry about it Rick, there's always next time.”

Breathing a sigh of relief, he set the coordinates for the origin of the signal. “Thanks for being understanding. I’ll ugh - I'll make it up to you.”

“Who knows, maybe down there, we'll find something better than ice cream.”

___________________

Crepsis 14 had the perfect environment for the Manketti humanoids, and the ancient Croco masters. Both nations had similar origins, but culture wise, the Croco were more secretive with their forms of worship, and spoke in hisses, while the Manketti were exactly like their earth counterparts; except for their discernable human like features, and their importance to the balance of life and continued prosperity in the wilderness.

At the moment, the response to the distress call resulted in providing medical care to a young Mankett woman, who was suffering from the early stages of tree rot. You held her rough, gnarled hand as Zeta-7 cutaway the infection, and liberally poured the antifungal solution over her left leg. She had no mouth, but you could feel her pain through a temporary shared mental connection; it was the only way she would agree to receive treatment, and form a bond of trust.

You groaned as phantom pains danced over your limbs, and fought the tight ache of fear in your chest when further incisions were made, but in unison you two calmed a little at the gentle smiles and words from your loving boyfriend. “I-I promise, it's - it's almost over.”

You couldn't articulate words, but clawed the ground, trying to draw what you felt. Hands dirtied, you managed to draw a misshapen heart, which was soon destroyed by an involuntary hand movement. At this Zeta-7 paused, the lines about his forehead and mouth deepening, pained about your current state. “M-m-mi corazón, you're doing so well, please hold on a-a little bit longer.”

Supplementing where you lacked in language, the Mankett woman, who you later came to know as Datora, wrote in her language what you meant to say, which had Rick determined to finish his task so as not to prolong your pain.

Additionally, she tried to impart wisdom by heightening your senses, and all at once you felt the ground moving and shifting, the wind singing its ancient songs, and while the air felt dry, every breath which came from Zeta-7 was sweet. You tried to stretch yourself closer, but found you were stuck in place. Then, her memories were now as much your own as yours were hers. You asked about her mate, and images passed through your mind faster than you could possibly comprehend. Though, this was what you understood.

Her mate, Datrix, had been strong, was centuries ahead of Datora in life, but he had been valuable in knowledge, and was one of the elders of her village. He had taken favor upon her after seeing the result of her water conservation efforts, as well as viewed her treatment of her sickly neighbors who needed special care. So, having chosen her, she spread her leaves, and showed obeisance, and in turn he grafted some of his own branches upon her, signifying their bond. However, one day he left to visit a neighboring village, but didn't return. It had been years, but she had not given up on her search, though the conditions had not always been favorable, which had led to her contracting root rot.

Sadness, and illness had prevented her from blooming, and even now her seeds laid dormant, though as sure as the flowers of the plain, and grass along the mountainside needed the rain, she needed her mate. Squeezing her gnarled hand tighter, you hoped to convey everything you felt. You waited for Rick to give the okay to let go, which in turn would let her know it was all over. Yet, even when you let go, she remained linked to you long enough to let you know, that your mate had chosen well.

______________

For a better part of the day, you two explored the terrain, walking over hills, and exploring the dry riverbeds. You were a little tired from the mornings events, and decided to walk more leisurely, watching as Zeta-7 studied the rough stones which laid in organized piles. It was adorable seeing him accidentally mess up the piles by picking up a single stone, sweeter still seeing how he tried to fix it by placing them how he found them. Like a boy playing in the sand, he got all dusty, but he laughed to himself whenever they fell over again. This sight made your heart swell, and you ruffled his hair, which made him blush.

It was at that moment you knew that you'd never love anyone else.

______________

Zeta-7 was surprised to discover that there had been signs of a flood, though there didn't seem to be any ice on the mountains. Perhaps at some point, this land, as dry and dusty as it was could of held its version of paradise, but now it was simply existing, waiting to be awakened. Filled with wonder, he took note of his findings with his computer, and laughed to himself when small creatures that initially seemed dangerous were but simple creatures using camouflage to protect themselves.

After taking a few samples, you two began to make your way back to the ship. While you were thinking over the events of the day, you felt his leathery hand slip into yours, and listened to him explain how much he had enjoyed himself. “Gosh, I-I-I had such a great time? Did you? Oh,” he frowned, remembering what had happened earlier. “but I'm - I'm s-s-so sorry that I put you through that.”

“Don't be. I mean, it was uncomfortable,” you sighed, hoping that wherever Datora was, she was safe. “but I'm glad you were able to help Datora. As far as I know, there's no one more qualified.”

“I ugh - there's something I-” but then he's interrupted by the readings on his computer. Though, this time he's delighted by the information which passes over the screen, and bringing you closer, you two went to go sit behind the dusty, velvet bush, hidden behind silver leaves and violet flowers.

“This wasn't here before was it?”

“I-I don't think so. Fascinating, perhaps there's ugh - there's a-a lot more here than we thought there was.”

Then the sun fell at the top of the canopy of another tree which had been barren only moments before, casting a periwinkle shadow over the terrain. As if on cue, the sky began to fill with small, glowing creatures. “They're…..beautiful.” you gasp.

Pressing a kiss upon your hand, you heard him shyly say. “Y-y-yes, y-you are.”

“Oh Rick.”

You relaxed and shifted closer to him, wanting to bathe in his warmth, curious about the creatures floating in the sky. “What's going on? What are they?”

“I-I think they're similar t-to fireflies, except their bioluminescence has more than one meaning. Like that one right over there, he's - he's searching for his family. That one right there, sitting on - on the flower is letting the others know that he's ready t-to mate. And finally, that small one, away from the rest is - is waiting for their mate t-t-to wake up. I-I believe their language is represented by flashes of light, and depending on - on the brightness and number and length of pauses between the flashes.”

“Do you mean like morse code?”

“Sort of, though I'll - I'll have to do more research later.”

For a while, you two watched their magnificence as they were floating and falling, dancing in the wind, whose song you could no longer hear. Though, Detora’s words seemed to settle in, and you wondered if they were true, and if you were well suited for Rick as much as you thought he was for you.

“On this planet,” he started up again, “there is a-a legend that lovers who - who sit under the Crepusculan light will form a-a bond that can never be broken,” and with a wistful sigh, he smiled down at you. “which can overcome any darkness, and - and withstand any trial. Of course, they are only stories, but it's - it's a very nice thought. Isn't it?”

Yes, it was a lovely thought. Almost like life in a fairy-book. “Even so, aren't we all stories in the end? Perhaps,” gathering up your boldness, you replied in your girlish voice. “perhaps there is some truth to it.”

“Hohoho, maybe - maybe there is.”

[survivingart]

HOW TO MAKE ART THAT TRANSFORMS PEOPLE

Creating art is a two step process; first you obviously have to make it, but then you also have to show it and present it to the public, and hopefully leave an impact on the world (preferably for the better).

But these two steps could not be further apart in both their methodology and all-around nature. The real problem is that making art is a predominantly personal and intimate experience, but showing and presenting it requires an entirely different skillset.

So, in today’s blunder I would like to explore the act of creation and presentation and — with a little help from psychoanalysis, theory of mind and history, all sprinkled with a few down-to-earth examples — show that even though it seems like they are two very disparate things, in order to master either of them, we really “only” need to master one thing: ourselves.

But first; let’s talk about making art.

First we need to figure out the basics and touch upon what we are actually making: Art is an experience, embodied inside an object or subject (like a painting or a performance piece). Its sole purpose is to communicate something, anything, and this purpose always stays the same, whilst the core message and even how it is conveyed changes constantly (think how different styles, motifs, art eras and political ideologies change the purpose of any particular art piece, but the basic idea of any one piece still stays the same — propagation of ideas).

But, at the beginning of our path as artists, art is primarily an exploration of self and not that much about communicating anything. We first have to find our message in order to then concern ourselves with communicating it, and this is where a strong distinction occurs: the distinction between artisan or craftsperson and artist.

The artisan or craftsperson does not posses a message, they do not wish or know how to communicate whatever it is they would like to propagate into the world with their creations. They only create.

Be it out of an urge to make beautiful things, to make functional things or just to play and create for the sake of creation, I’m not really saying that their creations are void of anything — beauty is a message, and so is play — but there exists a strong difference between those that imbue their creations with life, and those that merely bring into life whatever they create as a consequence of creation itself.

To create a table for example, I do not need much in order for me to make my object become a table. I can take a few planks of wood and at least three (but preferably four) sticks and attach them to the planks and call it a day.

Most people would probably agree that I have made a table — albeit a horrible and probably even dangerous one if it were used, but the point is, it could be used as a table and therefore it is one.

So, making a table isn’t that hard and it’s the same with making a chair, a sink and so on. The only difference in making any utilitarian object is the amount of technical expertise one needs to adequately make one (let’s call that part 80% of any particular object).

It is of course harder to make a car or an aeroplane, but as we humans know how to group-up, roll-up our selves, and since Ford demonstrated the incredible efficiency of labour division, even such a feat is doable in the long run and given enough time and resources.

But what about the rest? What about the extra 20% of anything we make, and that basic mathematics so eloquently describes as being quite important for any thing to be a whole “thing”, rather than just a work in progress?

The extra 20% is the semantic value, the meaning of a thing. That part cannot be fully constructed individually or in a group when the object is being built. It can only be made collectively; it needs creators and spectators to come together and ponder over whatever has been made and how it relates to their surroundings and themselves.

And even without the creator present, the object always has a certain semantic value, but it is never present in the object itself. While a bit convoluted, the point is: a chair is not a chair because there exists a heavenly blueprint of “The Chair” somewhere in god’s warehouse of stuff, with IKEA, OBI and MÖMAX fighting epic battles in order to obtain that immaculate rendition for the perfect chair to up their quarterly earnings.

A chair is only a chair because people have collectively decided to call it that and give it its now defined specific purpose — to be sat upon. It is a part of our belief system, and when that system changes, so does the semantic value of the chair (and all other objects, that are part of that system).

If we look at old pottery for example, the first time white long-necked vases were found in Greece, they could’ve been considered to be just that, vases. But as researchers explored them over time (and because they weren’t ignorant people), more detail and context was uncovered pertaining to these peculiar yet ordinary objects. Soon they found that such vases were actually urns, originally filled with the ashes of deceased children and were painted in white, because they symbolised their innocence at death.

And exactly this is the punchline: to symbolise. Only by uncovering context (we could also say the collective amalgamation of beliefs that the researchers uncovered from that time and of those people) could the function of those vases be determined — even if only approximately, because one can never be 100% sure about anything that has happened, especially if it happened in the distant past.

So, in order to find the meaning of anything, we first have to find the context in which it was created. Only by understanding how any object is connected with its surroundings (physical, cultural, etc.) can we really know what that object is.

Without context, you get a Plumbus (the Plumbus is an oddly shaped imaginary object that has no functional application or description of what it is useful for, that appears throughout the popular animated series Rick and Morty on Adult Swim). 

And what is most important for us artists, we can also create context for any one object or subject yourself, either by taking something that has an already established function and purpose in society and reappropriating it for our own means, or creating something new entirely (the best way is usually to combine both worlds, so as to make our art seem novel while still being accessible enough for people to understand the newly created object).

And one of the parts that is incredibly important for us is exactly this process of creating, because it is the process itself that actually stands as a temple to the human condition and capability — without our ability to create, we would have gone extinct as a species a long time ago.

In his book The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell describes this process as an ever-present, ever-revolving wheel that just keeps turning throughout human existence.

From Genesis, the Bhagavad Gita to the stories of Buddha, Jesus Christ and Muhammad, the Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation myths, Egyptian and Greek mythology; all such stories tell us more or less the same thing: How a person can become the hero of their own world, or to say a bit differently; how a person can acquire the mental and physical tools to bend reality to their will and become a true creator.

Starting ones journey because of the call to action, stepping into the unknown and even dying (albeit a metaphorical, spiritual death, rather than the non-amendable physical variety), finding the demons that dwell in ones mind and soul and slaying them, only to rise again into the world forever changed; such is the evolution of The Hero archetype.

I butcher Campbells book by only giving it this much space in today’s piece, so please read or listen to it if you’re interested, because it is an incredibly amazing piece of literature — almost as incredible as the guy who wrote it (just type his name into YouTube and enjoy the ride).

But my point in mentioning all of this is that the process of creating art is nothing else than the reenactment of what Campbell describes in his book: the Monomyth. In order to create any one art piece that can actually have an impact on people, it has to come from a deep place of understanding and a strong foundation of courage for its creator to even be able to get to that place of knowledge (or enlightenment if you will) in the first place.

It’s not a coincidence so many artists go crazy, commit suicide or just sink into the depths of depression, alcoholism and drug abuse. It’s not that artists are incompetent alcoholics and junkies, it’s the process of making art that takes such a toll on many people.

And the irony of this example is in the fact that most “outsiders” view art as a safe heaven from the “real world”, where adult children can play and not be fretted by words like job security, pension fund and mortgage. But we all know (or at least I hope we do) that there is no such place, and what may be even more important, there is absolutely no such place in art.

Art is a mirror to the world, but not a gross mirror that directly shows a copy of what is in front of it, it’s an exposé, a dissection of reality that takes what it is pointed towards and rips it apart, exposing the bare flesh and inner workings underneath. And it does so without prejudice, without presuppositions and without constraints. Even if we’re not prepared to see what really hides inside ourselves and the objects we are studying, the mirror does not care.

This is the part where one ventures into the abyss, into the dark forrest where the ogre lives, that devours people whole. And this is also the place where many loose a part of themselves — the truth is, we never know how courageous we are, until the time comes when we are tested to our limits.

The point here though is not to stop and never even dare to peek inside the dark places of life. The whole idea is only to be self-conscious and humble enough to know that whatever was, is not all that can be — regardless of how horrible or great we think life is, nothing is static and everything can be changed. If, and this is a big one, if we are willing to pay the price (and as so eloquently described in any old myth or story, the heroes never know the real price, the only thing that keeps them going are their courage and their iron will to go on).

And sure it sounds easy and maybe even stupid, but Basquiat, Van Gogh and Modigliani thought so too. Or maybe they didn’t; regardless, the real point is that we all should respect the process of making art and not take creation lightly, at least if we’d like to one day have a steady and comfortable life, paid for by our art.

Because only the courage to stand and fight in the darkest of forests and in the deepest of nights can conquer the demons that inhabit our hearts and souls. And even if one thinks there are none there, I can assure you we all have them; leeching on our hopes and dreams and silently turning childlike awe and wonder into despair, depression and the monotony of the 9-5. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year. But all of us, if left to our own devices, eventually end up there whether we like it or not.

It’s a choice that is undeniably hard, but righteous and well worth it in the end.

And the best part: the same courage that we can use to create art can then also be used to show art — or better put, is absolutely imperative to show art. Because when we create that piercing mirror and put in into the world, we inevitably become reflected inside of it too. And when that happens, when our exhibition has opened and the spectators come, it’s not only our creation that is judged, but all that we are, even all we wish to become.

And to stand pure judgment, to weather the storm of anonymous critique and the potential of being seen as a failure in the eyes of the people we care about, those we strive to impress, we have to be strong. 

To be frank, we have to stop impressing completely and ourselves become the impression. And the only place to find the strength, courage and the tools to even try to do so, is in the darkness that lives inside of us all.  

from Surviving Art https://ift.tt/2lF2BE0 via IFTTT

[deck16]

Alternity Beta Quickstart Guide: Feedback

For the background behind this, see here.

In this post I offer feedback from reading the 2017 Alternity Beta Quickstart Guide rules. In a later post I’ll relay feedback from playing the included scenario.

Let’s begin.

The Core Mechanic

2017 Alternity has gone with the Skill Score method spoken of in this blog post.

For that I am mostly grateful. I like that the goal-to-roll is set and it is the situation die that changes. It’s a brilliant system that makes modifiers easy to use. It also means players have a good idea of their chances of success at roll-time, which isn’t true with the D20 System, where the DC could be anything.

I am also glad success levels remain in-play. They’re an important part of Alternity that adds spice to the narrative and complexity (the good kind) to game mechanics.

Success Level Calculation

I do, however, have a problem with the way Success Levels are calculated.

In “low is good” 1998 Alternity a skill’s Good and Amazing scores were half and half again. An average example: 12/6/3. Roll a d20; 12 or less is Ordinary, 6 or less Good, 3 or less Amazing. An expert might have 20/10/5, a novice 6/3/2.

Notice the gap between the degrees of success become expanded or contracted as per the skill? The proposed 5-and-10 method doesn’t do that. I’m no math whiz but it seems to me that:

A 1998 Alternity hero with poor skill can still jag a lucky Good or Amazing success. In 2017 Alternity this is less likely -- in some cases those successes may actually become impossible.

A 1998 Alternity hero with great skill is still more likely to get an Ordinary success than a Good or Amazing one. In 2017 Alternity it may be the case that Good becomes more probable and even guaranteed.

Personally I prefer the old-school approach. I like the notion that fantastic results don’t become impossible, just improbable. I like the idea that the novice can occasionally pull a fantastic feat, and that the accomplished can’t take outstanding results for granted.

It’d make a perfect rule variant. It should slot in nicely:

Most of the rules care about your Success Level, but not how you determined it. Given that this variant would lead to the exact same Success Levels it’s not a messy swap.

Some tables list penalties and bonuses. This variant (if it requires low-rolling) would require people to remember to “reverse” these -- positives become negatives and vice versa. Simple enough.

An Aside About Low-Rolling

In 1998 Alternity, I used to get confused with low-rolling with regards to penalties and bonuses. I have been conditioned over years of gaming to think that +1 is a bonus, and -1 is a penalty. It’s hard to unlearn that.

Instead, I just started using different words. A -1 step bonus became “an easy one”. A +2 step penalty was “a hard two”. Worked a charm and soon the whole table was using that terminology. (Probably helped I was the GM.)

Success Level Nomenclature

Average, Excellent, Stellar? Not sure I like it. Was Ordinary, Good, Amazing off-limits for legal reasons? Or was something new desired?

Because I really like Ordinary, Good, Amazing. Not only is it immediately obvious what order they go in, but it paints a brilliant picture as to what to expect.

Excellent and Stellar? They seem about the same to me. Interchangeable.

I get it’s really hard to think up alternatives better than Ordinary, Good Amazing. I had a think and the best I could come up with was:

Pass, Credit, Distinction

Average, Good, Exemplary (or Excellent, or Exceptional)

Resistance Modifiers

The Core Mechanic is fantastic for the most part, but it places more emphasis on the “attacker” rather than the “victim”. It is just as easy to punch an scrawny economist as it is to punch a six-foot tall bodybuilder. And it’s just as easy to convince both to buy the Brooklyn Bridge off you. That’s not right.

(Sure, the GM can assign penalties or bonuses, but that seems arbitrary. How can a GM decide consistently between all sorts of characters?)

1998 Alternity solved this problem with Resistance Modifiers. Determined mostly (but not exclusively) from Ability scores, these were a “passive” modifier that would be applied to certain actions against a character.

The Dodge skill seems to be a replacement for the Dexterity Resistance Modifier. The Martial Artist Talent sort-of covers the Strength Resistance Modifier. Willpower and Deduction might do the job of the Will and Intelligence Resistance Modifiers, respectively.

I’ll be interested to see how the final rules handle this.

Skills

The skills listed in the Beta Test seem streamlined for the better. The choices here mix the “best of” Broad and Specific skills from the old game. Example: one skill for Athletics rather than a grab-bag of miscellaneous gym class activities. I also won’t miss those confusing ___ Knowledge skills which served only to give bonuses to other skills.

The way a skill can have two key abilities is a great idea. It gives a nice bit of flexibility in character creation while still keeping skills reliant on abilities in a realistic manner.

Skill Point Gain

One of the biggest problems my group had with 1998 Alternity was that the prices of skills started to get really expensive after a few ranks. Players were encouraged to be generalists: why spend 8 points to improve my Rifle score by 1 when I could get two or three new skills for the same price?

Optional Rule 2C was an attempt to redress this, but it went too far in the opposite direction.

The Quickstart Beta doesn’t mention how this will work. I eagerly await to see how the final rules handle this.

Modules and Skills

The Quickstart Beta doesn’t contain information about skills from different modules, as you discuss in this blog post.

For Alternity, we’re building our rules in discrete modules, and your character is fully effective in every module your game is using. In other words, when you make a character and level up, you gain full benefits in the game’s core (which covers ground combat, basic tech interactions, and simple interpersonal stuff) and in any modules you’re using.

I think that’s a fantastic idea, by the way.

Rolling up a wisecracking space-smuggler? You’ll pick up all the blaster-shooting and fast-talking you need from Alternity’s core. Then you’ll go to the starship module and get the piloting, gunnery, and improvisational repair skills you need to keep that tramp freighter flying.

Again, that’s a great idea. But I’d want an out clause.

What if I’m rolling up a space courtesan? Or the ship’s doctor? It doesn’t really make sense for these characters to get cocky on a laser turret; or to do any other spaceship-specific stuff.

It may be worth allowing such characters to forgo skill points in a module for some other advantage elsewhere. Probably the option to spend those points in another module, though at a very taxed rate. This is an option for advanced players who have a particular character in mind. In that way, it’s not unlike selling Free Broad Skills from 1998 Alternity.

“Non-Heroic” Modules

Modules prevent a character from having nothing to do when the game shifts out of their specialty. But it also does another thing: it makes it logically consistent for players to not spend points on things than aren’t relevant.

Go take a look at Doug Nichols from the Dark*Matter Fast Play guide. He’s spent valuable skill points on Creativity Photography. Good on his creator for wanting to role-play, but he’s hurting his character’s potential by doing this. (Well potentially. It’s very feasible for photography to play a big role in a world of cryptids and conspiracies).

With modules being a thing it’s not to hard to imagine a sort-of “non-heroic” module that is never used. Dr Phillip Akens may have been a chess master in college, but since that’s not going to come up in this campaign he doesn’t have to spend precious points on it.

Skills Without Abilities

Some skills don’t use their key Ability score. Dodge is a good example, where simply having it will improve your Dodge action, regardless of your Agility. Armour Operation is in a similar state, where you can mitigate movement penalties no matter how low your Strength is.

It may be wise to limit these “passive” benefits so they max out at certain Ability score. Or require Skill Checks for them to be useful.

Archetypes

The Quickstart Beta doesn’t tell us much about Archetypes, but there’s a blog post that does.

Right now, we’re developing five basic Archetypes: Battler, Expert, Leader, Striker, and Survivor. The Battler and the Striker (for instance) might have the same amount of weapon skills, but the Battler’s Archetype talents provide a little extra durability and the ability to protect allies by drawing enemy fire and keeping enemies focused on him. The Striker, on the other hand, has talents that help her evade enemy fire and pile on extra damage when she catches enemies off-guard.

Expert, Leader, Survivor. Sound like Tech Op, Diplomat, Free Agent. “Leader” is a better heroic term than “Diplomat”. “Survivor” makes me think of Bear Grylls, though; not so much of James Bond or Rick Deckard.

The Battler and the Striker worry me. Why are there two combat classes? Why do they sound suspiciously inspired by two edges of the holy trinity? I do not want 2017 Alternity to go anywhere near that Damage, Tank, Healer muck.

We think of Archetypes as the “narrative role” of your character. If most Alternity characters look like the heroes in a sci-fi action movie, what are the roles you’d like to explore?

This seems to go against the Battler/Striker divide. I feel those two Archetypes overlap significantly in a narrative sense -- much more than any of the others. For example: John Matrix from Commando. Is he a Battler, because he is tough, has big muscles and his whole motive is to protect his young daughter Jenny? Or is he a Striker because he likes to sneak up and use knives, and can hip-fire an M60? It’s not obvious and that -- I feel -- speaks to a problem.

Talents

Talents are not very detailed in the Beta Quickstart; we simply have a few as samples. There are some that seem a bit rough, a bit broken, but that’s understandable. It is a “known bug”:

The descriptions of your talents are simply concise summaries providing just enough information to use them in play—we’ll describe them more carefully in the Core Rules.

There are, however, some aspects of Talents I think I can safely talk about.

Rank Benefits

I liked Rank Benefits from 1998 Alternity. These were “special powers” that could be unlocked at certain skill levels. For example, skill rank 3 with pistol offered Quick Draw, where you could unholster and shoot in the same Phase without penalty. Armour Operation, Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons also had great Rank Benefits.

I mention Rank Benefits because Talents seem to be doing the same job. The Quickstart seems to suggest that Talents come from Archetypes. That’s fine; but consider a Talent like this:

Martial Artist: Enemies attacking you hand-to-hand or with melee weapon suffer a –2 step penalty to their attack rolls. You gain a +1 step bonus to attack anyone who doesn’t have a hand-to-hand skill.

Such a Talent should be gated behind the Combat: Hand skill. Not tied to an Archetype. And maybe it is: the character with this Talent has 5 ranks in the skill.

There are other talents in the Quickstart that would make great Rank Benefits. Even if we just consider Combat: Firearms -- Dual Pistols, Pistol Expert and Double Tap are perfect.

My hope is that Talents are both Skill and Archetype things.

Archetype Talents should be like 1998 Alternity’s Profession benefits -- broadly useful but not stealing away something that should be related to a Skill. Defensive Stance and Inspiration seems good candidates.

I’d hope that Skill Talents are “cool optional extras” that can be purchased or not purchased as the player desires. Someone might take lots of ranks in Combat: Firearm but eschew all its Talents to make a straight-shooting Clarice Starling with impeccable aim but by-the-book technique. Or they might do the opposite for a tricks-galore dual-wielding gun kata menace.

Combat Talents

I notice that almost every Talent in the Quickstart Beta is combat-related. Even those that are not strictly combat-only would be useful in combat.

I hope the full rules will contain Talents to help with talking, science, repairing and everything else. It’s certainly doable. Here are some examples:

Low-Tech Lock-Picker. When bypassing devices with the Security skill your penalty for lacking proper equipment is reduced by 2 steps provided you have access to some kind of improvised tools.

Vox Populi. Gossip and rumours are your specialty. You gain a bonus to Interview checks when gathering information from a population. The bonus is +1 when talking with smaller groups, such as a crowd of witnesses on a city street. The bonus is +2 when you are able to canvas large populations.

Micromanager. You aren’t afraid to tell someone they’re doing something wrong. When you make a Command check, specify an Skill you are trained in. When your allies benefit from your Command check, they gain extra benefit depending on the Skill they use. If they are using the Skill you selected, they gain an additional +1 step. If they are using the Skill you selected and you have more ranks than them, they instead gain an additional +2 step.

Gamist Talents

I want Alternity to remain simulationist. I’m worried that a lot of these talents have gone too far gamist. Many of them carry the odour of the MMO holy trinity (with Talents seemingly designed for Tanks, Damage and Support). They don’t make sense in a realistic or narrative way. What I want is for them to make sense in the context of a story, not the context of a game.

Let’s start with a good example.

First Strike: Add 1 to the damage you deal with any attack you make against an enemy who hasn’t acted yet in the action scene, or an enemy who is distracted or not aware of you when you attack.

I can tell a story about that. A story of a cold-blooded killer. She’s got just enough knowledge of anatomy to hit her foes where it hurts when they are foolish enough to give her an easy shot.

Now, a bad example:

Deadly Reply: When an enemy hits you with an attack, you gain a +2 step bonus on your next attack against that enemy.

How does make sense in any way? How does being hit translate into a better attack? How would you write that into a Tom Clancy novel, and have a character use it repeatedly, without it sounding daft or contrived?

Suppose we change it from “an enemy hits you” to “an enemy misses you”. Now it’s making sense. I can tell a story of a sniper with a keen eye for muzzle flashes and a good ear for gunshots. Or of a master martial artist who specialises in exploiting openings caused by the enemy.

It makes even more sense if we have various Talents: for melee and ranged. Because I don’t see how a riposte is like a counter-snipe is like a Judo move. These are all “counter-attacks”, but they all are quite different.

Complex Skill Checks

The Quickstart Beta's included adventure has things very much like 1998 Alternity’s Complex Skill Checks. So I think it’s safe to assume they’ll be included in the full rules. I want to profess my love for them anyway.

As a GM, I absolutely love Complex Skill Checks. Basically they are a little “minigame” you play with skills: accrue n successes before you accrue 3 failures. The idea is they build “suspense and tension” -- which is true.

More than that, there’s an ongoing strategy not present with a single roll. For example: if things go badly and it looks like you might fail, you could cut losses and run (e.g. when defusing a bomb), you could call other heroes to help you out (e.g. when putting out a fire), or you might shift to a higher-risk/higher-reward strategy to snag a win (e.g. take off-road shortcuts when delivering cargo to a deadline).

I love that Complex Skill Checks are so flexible:

Their difficulty is very tweak-able: adjust the number of successes, alter the step modifier for skills involved and/or rule whether failure means start again or screwed forever.

They can span over moments to define a scene. But they also work with slower tasks over a whole adventure (e.g. researching a vaccine, fixing a large reactor).

They can involve many skills, and different heroes can contribute in different ways. This goes double with assisting actions -- even a brawler can help a scientist by holding a light or carrying equipment.

They can be tied with limited resources to add a layer of strategy (e.g. time, money, fuel or fatigue damage).

They can be interrupted. If the heroes come under fire while repairing their extraction hovercraft, who fights back and who keeps repairing?

They can tie into other elements of the adventure. If a private eye hero manages to convince the star witness to testify, the lawyer hero might get a significant boost mid-way through his Law Court Procedures complex skill check.

Combat

Durability Track

This blog post says it perfectly:

We like the system because it captures the notion of taking wounds, and lets big hits feel more substantive, especially early in fights — compare it to a traditional hit point system where a character (or foe) is at 100% until the numbers run out. It’s also somewhat lightweight, with no math involved for tracking hit point totals, which helps combats move more quickly.

True!

It scales nicely with NPCs/monsters as well, since we can make stormtroopers or other grunts that might go down with one well-placed hit or a couple small hits, but we can also create giant mechs with more wound boxes that satisfy a climactic encounter. We can even change the conditions for different foes — the 10-12 tier for a walking tank might reduce the tank’s movement or rate of fire, for example, instead of just applying a flat 1-step penalty.

Also true!

I loved 1998 Alternity’s stun/wound/mortal system, but I did find it complex, especially when compared to a generic hit point system. But what you’ve come up here with is about as simple as a hit point system while still keeping what made the old system great.

And what is that? The Quickstart guide sums it up:

A hero can usually shrug off a few small hits, but too many small hits--or one solid shot from an enemy--can seriously affect the hero’s actions.

Moreover it’s a system where it’s easy to become combat ineffective but difficult to outright die. Quite the opposite of traditional hit-point systems. That’s good news for a few reasons:

It reduces that ridiculous metagaming notion of focus firing a single target until it’s dead.

The gritty aspect of injuries actually mattering suits most modern and sci-fi genres.

It’s realisitc enough. Reality is more lethal, but this is getting plausibly close. It strikes a nice balance between being plausible and allowing for heroic action.

Might I make a suggestion? A variant where the 1-step, 2-step, 3-step penalties can be shifted up and down the bands. Such that a “realism” mode might start with 1-step at band 4-6 though to 4-step at 13-15. But a “superheroes” mode might only start with 1-step at band 10-12.

Armour

Armour is still useful, but it doesn’t render you totally immune. You’re still vulnerable to skillful hits, and lesser hits will accumulate to wear you down.

I do worry that this system lacks a bit of nuance, though. In 1998 Alternity, a battle vest gave d6-2 points of high-impact protection. You could roll a 2, and be totally unprotected, or roll a 6 and be well-protected: this reflected the high protection but low coverage of said vest.

I appreciate that one less die being rolled speeds up combat. Potentially by a lot. However I wonder if we could have two values. A die roll and flat-value number. Players can decide which their table uses and under what circumstances (e.g. the players might roll; the DM might use the flat value for the minor bad buys and roll for important ones).

Weapons

Things seem slightly less lethal in this beta. Dirty Harry could kill you in one shot in 1998 Alternity, if he got lucky (punk); now he can only hurt you real bad. But that’s probably a good thing: this system is a little bit more about going down from an accumulation of wounds rather than dropping from one lucky hit. Playtesting will reveal more.

I do miss the instant knock-out feature of Old Alternity; mostly for melee weapons, which are “underpowered” anyway. Knocking a thug out with an Amazing punch felt great. But the Quickstart Beta says more is coming along those lines, so I’ll wait and see.

Range is simplified. All weapons have maximum ranges, but they all share performance at ranges they can hit. It’s a -1 penalty to shoot someone at Medium range (10m to 50m) whether you use a rifle or a pistol. That’s less realistic than 1998 Alternity, but because the range brackets are non-linear and their penalties are steep I feel it’s not a huge problem. I feel far more is gained from the simplicity than lost from realism.

By the way. Thank you for using the metric system! Seriously.

In the blog on swords vs guns, you stated:

We think a rule that says something like “rifles and heavy weapons take a -3 step penalty to attacks if an enemy’s adjacent to you” is pretty reasonable.

I don’t see anything like this in the Quickstart Beta, but I hope such a rule makes it to the final version. Assault rifles should be the “best” weapon -- they are in real life -- but they should have some game-mechanic drawbacks. (Beyond game mechanics, outside of a war campaign, a wise GM should sometimes let the bulk and illegality of such weapons make them poor choices.)

I also am curious about Fire Modes. Firing fully-automatic was fun. The system with the one control die with three situation die was clever. Perhaps Weapon Speed can be leveraged to do this in some way? Hopefully this is just one of those things omitted for the Quickstart Beta, but still existing in some form in the full rules.

Toughness and Firepower

The Beta Quickplay rules don’t mention Toughness (man vs car vs tank) or Firepower (pistol vs bazooka vs ship cannon), but I suspect the full rules will.

There’s also no mention of Secondary Damage, though with the new durability track I’m not certain it’s needed.

Movement

Flat movement speeds? Why not base them on Ability and Skill scores?

Initiative

This is the only case I see where the 2017 Alternity rules are more complex than the 1998 Alternity rules.

We suggest using markers or tokens to keep track of when each character or adversary gets his or her next action in the combat scene.

A visual aid is going to be mandatory, I feel. Especially because order needs to be tracked within Impulses as well as between Impulses.

I am concerned by the complexity and fiddliness of the system. But I do like the way its granularity allows for special actions (Aim, Assault, Dodge) and makes weapon speed tangible.

I will really need to try it out before I praise or condemn it further.

For what it’s worth, I liked the 1998 Alternity Action Check system. I liked that there were two different ways to be fast: acting earlier and acting more often. I liked that the Core Mechanic meant that the advantages for being quick weren’t guaranteed (as it isn’t easy to roll Good or Amazing successes). And I had no problem with the concept of actions in the same Phase all occurring simultaneously.

Optional Rules

It is apparent you are keen on Modular Design for different genres.

I would humbly suggest you adopt a similar approach to the rules.

This would be nothing new. 1998 Alternity had two separate systems for vehicular combat (narrative or with miniatures), for example.

My advice would be to not hold back. Have heaps of variants. The littlest things can turn people away. (My fussy nitpicking in this post should be proof of that!) And that would be a shame if the critics could get what they wanted as a variant.

Concluding Thoughts

I’m excited!

I get the same general feeling from 1998 to 2017 Alternity as I got from D&D moving from 3.5e to 5e. That is: both systems are good but for the most part the new one is streamlined in that good way (not the “dumbed-down” way).

I also get a sense that 2017 Alternity has the same soul as 1998 Alternity. It is a “trad game” that fosters a healthy mix of narrativist, similationist and gamist elements.

I have a small worry that the streamlining erodes some simulationist aspects. But as I did with 5e D&D, I can overlook that if the streamlining is good enough.

I have a bigger worry that gamist elements erode the solid simulationist soul of 1998 Alternity, particularly with Archetypes and Talents. I do not want a game inspired by Tanks, Healers and Damage. I do want a game where everything that happens could make sense in a story.

After all, 1998 Alternity was inspired by fiction. Go re-read the Gamemaster’s Guide introduction. Or just note the terms used: Heroes, Sidekicks, Supporting Cast, Scenes.

I’m excited to see the game pushed by independent masters. Rightly or wrongly, I imagine Alternity was dropped for crass and callous corporate reasons. The same thinking that spawned 4e. (Not to hate on 4e, but it certainly was a radical shift in philosophy.)

I look forward to providing feedback on my playtest, which should appear soon.