#rpg analysis

[dungeonsandcartoons]

Can Mekton be turned into a fantasy game?

[ashweather]

Daily RPG Readings

Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy, Part 2

Alright, for day two we'll be going over pages 28-39, ending at the heading "Role of the Narrator." This is less than what I wanted to cover each day, but I think its warranted for this section because the next 11 pages are extremely dense, and I have a lot to say about them.

We start off strong, with "Rolls, Investigation, & the Eureka! System." First there's a quick definition of what separates an investigation roll from a non-investigation roll, which is crucial because only investigation rolls grant investigation points and thus contribute to earning a Eureka! (the player resource, not to be confused with the game system itself). I feel this distinction warrants its own section in my overview, as earning Eureka! Points and gathering information is so crucial to the system functioning properly. This distinction could probably stand to be bolded with the next few paragraphs, in my opinion.

Without having seen it in play, I'm cautiously optimistic having investigation rolls be distinct from non-investigation rolls and linking the core momentum mechanic to only investigation rolls. I can see the logic in it - the game wants to be about mystery solving and gathering information, so it rewards that kind of gameplay more heavily. On the other hand, there is a slight risk of action-heavy sequences starving PCs of resources and throwing off the pacing of a longer game. I think it will work out, but I'm very interested to see how it actually works at the table.

Next, a conveniently bolded section covers the core gameplay loop of Eureka, and is noted to be extremely vital for all players to understand. To summarize: the Narrator (GM) describes a location in detail along with any points of interest, investigators see major details without needing to roll (but may need to poke around to find hidden details), and investigation rolls are made about specific clues or points-of-interest when the PCs interact with them in a meaningful way.

That's a reductive description, but I have more to say about it than I really want to outline here (seriously I could write essays about perception and information management in RPGs). I'll stick to the basics: I really, really like that PCs explicitly don't need to roll to notice obvious information. I'm hooting and hollering that we explicitly don't need rolls to get obvious or basic information about specific points of interest. I'm jumping out of my chair and yelling the name of my favorite sports team about the game pointing out that multiple different skills may be used to learn different things about a given point of interest, depending on interpretation.

Anyway this philosophy of information reminds me of GUMSHOE except more explicit about putting the things I like into rules text. I would perhaps like a note that red herrings should be sparing, because players rarely need help coming to wild conclusions based on spotty evidence, but this is a matter of opinion.

Now we learn about the results of an investigation roll at each degree of success, including how many investigation points (abbreviated IP going forward for brevity) are earned towards a Eureka! Point. A Full Success gets a lot of information and 1 IP. A Partial Success grants less information (or a consequence) and 2 IP. A Failure grants no information, but does give a generous 3 IP. We are also told to write down Failures on the character sheet for future use. Once an investigator gains 15 IP, they gain a Eureka! Point, the Eureka systems main reward for PCs and a potent resource. Eureka! Points can be spent to gain information from a previously failed investigation roll OR they can contribute extra odds of success to a non-investigation roll.

I always think granting resources for roll failure is a good idea, because it encourages players to think of 'bad' rolls as potentially exciting paths for the narrative to take rather than as 'losing the game' Since Eureka! Points are such a potent resource, it gives players something to look forward to no matter what the outcome of a roll is. I also love the incorporation of the mystery trope where a previously mysterious clue turns out to be a key piece of information later, once the characters put it into its appropriate context or think about it more deeply. Also, writing down Failed rolls encourages players to dip their toes into note taking and gets them into the habit of ruminating over previously acquired information, which is great for a mystery game.

I think Character moments granting IP and Eureka! adding odds of success to a non-investigation roll are great utilities too, but this section is getting away from me so I'm going to leave it there for now.

Lastly, we have an Example of Play for investigation, which is always an extremely helpful tool for players to be able to see the rules in action. In the scenario, two 1930s detectives are following the trail of a gang of bank robbers and have found one of the suspect's place of employment. We start off with a failed Charm roll that grants 3 IP, demonstrating that Interpersonal skills can be used for investigation just like any other, as long as its in the service of gaining information. The Narrator describes the immediate area, and one of the PCs notes a lack of points of interest (footprints) without needing to roll. The Narrator does not highlight this until the player asks about it, which encourages players to be smart, ask questions, and poke around.

Without giving a play-by-play, we get more investigation rolls demonstrating the various degrees of success for investigation rolls and how they move the narrative along. A Eureka! Point turns the first failed Charm roll into a success, resulting in a climactic moment where hidden compartment underneath a desk is revealed. The PC pushes the desk aside, and there is a note here that even if someone might have difficulty moving this desk in the real world, it is an inappropriate time to call for a roll because failure does not have stakes and would not be interesting (I'm hooting, hollering). Finally, the scene culminates in the beginning of combat as one of the NPCs attempts to stop the investigators in their tracks!

I think the example of play given serves its utility well and shows off the strengths of the sytems. No notes (yet, I might refer back to this later).

[ashweather]

Daily RPG Readings

Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy, Part 5

If you want to read along with me, you can get the demo copy for free on A.N.I.M.'s official site or head over to their Patreon to get a copy of the latest playtest draft for $5. I'm reading the most recent playtest draft and there are significant differences from the demo copy, just as a heads up.

For part 5, I've stopped lying to myself that I'm ever going to be able to keep up a daily schedule. Today, we'll be going over Pages 94-104, finishing chapter 1. This is a short post, but next time I'll be covering the entirety of character creation, and that's definitely going to be a lot to cover.

Today is all about Traits! Traits, features, powers, perks, whatever you want to call them, they're little mechanical bells and whistles that make a character stand out and really pop off the page. In many TTRPGs they're the most fun part of making a character, and I would argue that holds true for Eureka as well. Investigators get three to six of them initially (but usually three). Traits are sometimes purely beneficial, but especially powerful Traits usually have an attached drawback. These are one of my favorite parts of game design, so let's get granular and cover some highlights!

Bumbling Detective lets characters take after Inspector Clouseau (the book might not be able to mention copyrighted characters, but I sure can!) and be a bumbling fool who completely botches the investigation but then saves the day in the nick of time! Mechanically, the character is more likely to fail Knowledge rolls but more quickly accrues valuable Eureka! Points.

Elementary! is a trait that emulates the famous "biography-at-a-glance" of Sherlock Holmes... or, at least, the character thinks they're that good. An investigator with this this trait can have the Narrator make a hidden Social Cues roll (essentially the skill for reading people), and learn two facts about a person - but the investigator has no idea which of these facts is correct or incorrect.

Final Girl gives a small bonus to Physical Skill rolls when facing off alone against supernatural threats, and also allows the character to spend Eureka! Points to hinder a supernatural threat's rolls rather than just boosting their own. Its a very fun survivor's trait, taking after the time-honored tradition of "final girls" in horror movies. Of course, the character taking the trait need not actually be a girl.

Just One More Thing... is similar to the Bumbling Detective Trait, but for Interpersonal Skills instead of Knowledge. If you somehow didn't pick up from the name, its the Columbo Trait. You know, Columbo? You agree. Reblog.

My Glasses! gives a flat +1 bonus to all investigation rolls, but gives a possibility of the character's glasses getting knocked off in any combat encounter. As long as their glasses are off, they become pretty useless but also blind to the stresses of the situation with a +2 to all Composure rolls. A must have for the Velma Dinkley fans out there.

Not Finished Yet is for a bloodied and beaten investigator dragging their body through the dirt to see a case through. The character has double HP, but if they have less than half of that at any point in the story, they succumb to their injuries and die as soon as the story ends. This one's a personal favorite, as I'm a sucker for stories about the irrepressible human spirit.

Unpredictable is a fun one - add a +1 to all non-investigation rolls. However, all rolls are made with a 1d12 instead of a 2d6, making both Full Successes and total Failures far more likely.

[ashweather]

Daily RPG Readings

Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy, Part 1

So! I'm part of @anim-ttrpgs book club on discord, and right now we're reading through Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy! Right now, as I do a second readthrough of a rule book, I'm posting my thoughts on my daily reading. Hopefully, I can have a log of my thoughts for plenty of rulebooks going forward.

For day one, I dropped down to page 8 (where the main body of text begins), and read up to page 28, stopping at the heading "Rolls, Investigation, & the Eureka! System."

We start off with the usual housekeeping, introducing players to the system, what it's for, and what materials one needs for play. Of particular note to me in this section is the "Quickstart / What Do You Need to Read" heading, which is not a feature I've seen very often in TTRPGs. Its a very useful feature, and I'm always glad to see it, because it means the designers are interested in facilitating all players being knowledgeable about the system before play. As a forever GM, its also really nice to see the book encourage players to help lighten the workload! Its also extremely nice to have little bullet-point summaries available at the end of each section so the reader can quickly review what they've learned.

After the changelog and small "Quick Terms" section (I appreciate it being small by the way, frontloading too much terminology right out the gate can get overwhelming or boring), we move on to a discussion of what types of stories or adventures one can play with the *Eureka* system, as well as an outline of a few different game styles and how compatible they are. Long term campaigns, episodic campaigns, episodic anthologies, and one-shots are discussed as options, with a note that long-term, single story campaigns may be a difficult fit for the system or require a lot of extra work. Notably absent is my favorite structure for mystery games - the miniseries! A miniseries is a small, tightly focused story told over the course of 4-8 sessions, and I find its a structure that gives mysteries and characters room to breathe while requiring that a story maintain its focus and a relatively tight pacing.

The last section begins with the heading "Consequences, Making Rolls, and Modifiers. This is definitely the most crucial section to understand so far, as it outlines the primary dice & roll mechanics in *Eureka* - the lifeblood of most TTRPGs. *Eureka* uses a 2d6 system with three degrees of success: Full Success, Partial Success, and Failure. Anyone who's played a *Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA)* game will recognize this roll structure (although it is one of the *few* things *Eureka* shares with that system), and it remains a very solid baseline for determining the outcome of dramatic scenes in my opinion. Having an additional option other than binary success or failure, and having 'Partial Success' be the most common outcome of a roll is a very smart move, ensuring that the outcome of rolls is more dynamic and minimizing the odds of bringing the game to a shuddering halt with one bad roll. There's also a note that **the consequence of a Partial Success or Failure should be obvious before a roll is made,** and this is an extremely important thing to stress in my opinion, especially to an inexperienced GM.

I'm adding one last section to discuss modifiers specifically. There are two types of modifiers - Base and Contextual. Base modifiers come from the character sheet (as a result of skills, traits, etc), and **is** limited by Composure (we haven't learned about this system yet). Contextual modifiers come from the situation at hand in the narrative, and are **not** limited by Composure. Also, rolling double 1's will be a Failure regardless of modifier, and rolling double 6's will be a Full Success regardless of modifiers. This is mostly pretty standard stuff, but there's also a note that any modifier higher than a +7 is irrelevant to a roll. This will become a trend going forward, of *Eureka* being pretty transparent with players about its math.

[ashweather]

Daily RPG Readings

Eureka: Investigative Urban Fantasy, Part 4

If you want to read along with me, you can get the demo copy for free on A.N.I.M.'s official site or head over to their Patreon to get a copy of the latest playtest draft for $5. I'm reading the most recent playtest draft and there are significant differences from the demo copy, just as a heads up.

Day 4! (Its totally day four! I've never missed a day in my life, you can't prove anything!) This time, we'll be going over Pages 60-94, all the way up through "Traits."

We start off going over Composure, a common 'type' of system in many games with horror elements. Right off the bat, I strongly appreciate that it's not called 'sanity' or something like that. That's a very loaded term, and composure is a much better name in my opinion. Anyone can freak out and lose their cool, especially in a tense situation. Composure is essentially a mechanic that lays out how much pressure an investigator can take before they crack. Composure rolls are called for anytime something frightening or unnerving is encountered by an investigator, with the possibility of losing up to three Composure per roll (but most often 1). Everyone has seven Composure to start, and Base Modifiers on rolls are limited by current Composure (e.g. With a Composure of 2, no roll can have a Base Modifier of higher than +2). One might think having the same starting Composure score would make every player lose it at a similar rate, but this is untrue thanks to legitimately one of the coolest takes on fear mechanics I've seen in a game like this: Tiers of Fear.

Tiers of Fear is a system which outlines common fears on a character sheet, and it varies from person to person. While many horror games will ask what your character's deepest fear or phobias are, Tiers of Fear requires a deeper examination of the things that make a character frightened. There are seven tiers, ranging from -3 (Horrifying, this tier will be deeply traumatic and upsetting to the investigator) to +3 (Ridiculous, a silly thing for the investigator to be frightened of). There will be a more thorough breakdown on Tiers of Fear later, and specifically what fears must be placed on the sheet. I'm not sure if it would make sense for the formatting of the game, but I almost wish that section was placed here so I could discuss it in more depth now. The gist is that one investigator might be used to violence but have a phobia of snakes, whereas another finds snakes cute but would be deeply frightened of violence, and these investigators would see their Composure dropping at different rates even if they encountered all of the same things.

One last note on ToF - If two frightening situations arise at the same time, the Composure roll modifiers are added together (e.g. -2 + -1 = -3). However, if the situations both have a positive modifer, then that calls for two separate Composure rolls. From a mechanical perspective, I'm unclear on why this is - why not just have compounding situations apply a -1 to the worst modifier for each compounding source of stress? That's always going to be the worst case result anyway, since modifiers to this roll can't get worse than -3 (That is, you can't have a -2 and -2 add up to make a -4. Unless that is actually a possible outcome…?).

There are a couple other scenarios that cause Composure damage. Combat always calls for a roll, but only after the situation has resolved (presumably due to adrenaline kicking in). Composure rolls are also made whenever an investigator takes damage. There's also flat composure damage from failing to attend to basic needs, like not eating or not getting enough sleep. Finally, there are a few ways to regain composure - attending to basic needs or being the beneficiary of a Comfort roll from another investigator (more on that when we get to skills). Optionally, investigators may also regain composure from making major headway in an investigation, at the Narrator's discretion. Lastly, there is an optional rule for the erratic behavior caused by Composure falling to zero - a 1d6 roll is called for to determine how the investigator cracks. This is a useful tool and I'm glad its there(particularly for players unaccustomed to this type of game), as an aid in portraying unstable behavior.

There's a very fun optional rule next - the Jumpscare. When the investigator is surprised by something that may or may not be a scary creature or threat, they may Jump or Not Jump. If the investigator jumps, they make a flat +0 composure roll immediately, but get a +2 on their next roll to deal with the threat. If they don't jump, there's no inherent composure roll but there is a -2 penalty to their next roll. Mechanically, this is basically a gamble - jumping tends to be more advantageous if there really is a monster or threat there, whereas not jumping is better if there isn't. Of course, good roleplay and how an investigator actually would react is what should be informing this decision.

Skills are up next. Skill lists are a pretty standard thing in TTRPGs, of course. One thing to note is that just about any skill could conceivably be used for Investigation rolls, which is really cool! There's three categories of skills in Eureka: Interpersonal, Knowledge, and Physical. In very broad terms (skills in Eureka are very flexible), Interpersonal skills are used for interacting with NPCs, Knowledge skills are used for, well, knowing things, and Physical skills are used for interacting with the world. I won't be going through all the skills, but I will go over some highlights.

Comfort is used to calm someone agitated, especially in a tense or dangerous situation, but can also be used to restore Composure to fellow investigators. Paperwork is a pretty neat skill that lets a character read quickly and pick out important information from a text - its more handy than you might think! The Senses skill covers detection, but usually only in edge cases where no other skill makes sense, and an investigator will generally not need to roll Senses to see something - Senses applies mostly to the other four senses. There's also a selection of optional skills with more specific applications, which is always nice to have.

A huge highlight to "The Redacted Skill." This skill is completely blacked out in the Skills section, and is meant to be unknown to the new players. As stated in the book, "The type of player who would put points into an unknown, mysterious skill is just the type of person who would have high marks in this skill." I really love this element of mystery, an intriguing tidbit that puts something tantalizingly secret right on the character sheet. More on this skill waaaaay later, towards the end of the book.

There's a brief section on "when to roll skill checks" and I'm really thrilled that this guidance is here. I find that learning when to call for rolls (i.e. impartial arbitration to the narrative) is a hugely important skill for GMs to have, probably in the top five most important skills a new GM can develop. Having this philosophy of play here to outline exactly when Eureka wants rolls to be made is a very welcome addition.

[ashweather]

Daily RPG Readings

Eureka, Investigative Urban Fantasy, Part 3

If you want to read along with me, you can get the demo copy for free on A.N.I.M.'s official site or head over to their Patreon to get a copy of the latest playtest draft for $5. I'm reading the most recent playtest draft and there are significant differences from the demo copy, just as a heads up.

For day three, I'm reading pages 39-60, up to the "Composure" heading. This section outlines some philosophy of play that the game adopts, and strongly encourages its players to adopt. Eureka as a game is very opinionated about these topics. My understanding is that, to some, this is a controversial section, so lets go over the basics. Once again, I have a lot to say about it.

First, we go over the role of the GM, or Narrator. Essentially, the game wants the Narrator to set up a situation for investigators to interact with, then take a relatively hands off approach. Eureka expects the Narrator to act as an arbiter and referee rather than as a story-teller or the main driver of the narrative. There is also an expectation that Narrators not fudge rolls (yeah this one is going to start a flame war, chief) or bend the logic of the scenario to benefit or hinder investigators, stating the Narrator's role should be closer to simulating how the story logically would go based on the world that was presented at the outset of an adventure.

Personally, I generally agree with this philosophy - its how I try to run most of my games - but I can see where some people might chafe against this. Eureka wants to break certain bad habits that could carried over from other games and play cultures coughD&Dcough. On the other hand, its easy to read this as saying there's "one true way" to play or run Eureka (or any game, if you want to be uncharitable), or that a group who prefers to have lower stakes or a bit of plot armor is "doing it wrong." I could talk about that more in depth, I don't really agree with that interpretation, but ya know what? I'll let someone else open that can of worms.

Oh yeah also there's a note that disruptive or malicious behavior is something to be handled outside the game, on an interpersonal level, and I couldn't agree more.

The role of investigators is to portray everyday people with a strong reason to get involved in the mystery or adventure at hand. It's specifically noted that investigators should usually not be cops, for a few reasons. Having investigators be cops puts them into a position where they would logically have some degree of official support and a whole department to handle evidence, legal consequences, and so on. It also eliminates law enforcement as a source of complications and obstacles for investigators, which can be a potent source of drama. Finally, and most damningly, the players would have to portray cops (shudder).

Next, it is established that investigators should be the primary drivers of the investigation and therefore the story. I think that's great, because having PCs be the ones who have to drive the story forward serves two purposes. First, it gives a sense of agency and accomplishment to anything that does advance the narrative. Secondly, it takes pressure off the Narrator, who is already going to be putting in a ton of work.

It's also noted that investigators can have secrets or secret plans, and establishes that these things should be kept secret and shared with the Narrator privately. This is the first explicit note we've had that Eureka isn't necessarily a cooperative game - more on that later.

Okay, here's a big one. The next section is all about separation between players and investigators. First, we just have a note reminding readers that players and investigators are separate, and then some elaboration on that point. While I would hope that point would be obvious to anyone familiar with TTRPGs, I've been in this hobby long enough to know it can unfortunately be an issue.

Eureka enforces third-person verbiage from the Narrator and players.

I've put that point on its own because it is going to be a massive shift for some people, and likely very controversial. It's a massive shift for ME, in fact. I've been playing characters in first person and GMing in second person for nearly fifteen years. I understand the logic. Third-person verbiage makes it easier to linguistically separate players from their characters, and makes for interesting play that strongly diverges from what the player would themselves do if placed in the game world. I could say more, but once again I'm going to let others talk this one out.

Whew, we're past the biggest stuff. On page 49, we have a discussion of bad faith play and a directive for the Narrator to disallow submitted investigators that are going to become a huge problem in some way. As an extension of the points raised in the previous sections, the players and narrator are encouraged to work together to create a successful game, operating under the assumption of good faith. Malicious behavior isn't something to work out at the table.

Under the heading "Expect to Fail Rolls" we have a discussion that rolling means taking a risk, and risk should always be present in the mechanics where it's present in the narrative. What that means in practice is that careful play and acting within the narrative to mitigate risk means that, well, the investigators are taking less risks. There's also a crunchy breakdown of the probability curves involved in a 2d6 roll versus a 1d20 roll, to encourage players that the Failure result isn't the huge looming threat that it might seem like.

On page 53, we have a section about "bad ends" and not forcing an adventure or mystery to have a happy, clean ending. In Eureka, stories are legitimately risky, which makes achieving a happy ending against the odds feel legitimately triumphant. Furthermore, the game notes that a tragic or bleak ending is, in fact, a good thing and a "win" for the player group if not the characters. The goal of the players should be to create an interesting narrative - and Eureka encourages those narratives to have teeth.

Next, we have a section on PC vs PC interactions, and a further breakdown of the fact that Eureka isn't necessarily cooperative (though it still often is). There is a high potential in Eureka for investigators to have conflicting motives and conflicting goals, and this fact can very easily lead to those characters butting heads or actively attempting to stop or kill one another. I do think this is an exciting element of the game, though I also think keeping PC vs. PC conflict exciting and revealing things at appropriate times requires some amount of skill from both Narrator and players.

Lastly, we have a section on Truth. Truth is essentially a roleplay mechanic - it establishes some fact or characterization that 'is true' about the investigator, and actions in accordance with that truth grants a +1 benefit to up to three rolls once per scene. The mechanical bonus from acting within a character's truth is something that should only apply when relevant. It also gives a way to chart a character arc, as Truth can change in the midst of an adventure, so long as there is a strong justification. Roleplay mechanics (at least ones that grant tangible and immediate benefits) like Truth are somewhat uncommon, but I like to see them, and I think they are a welcome addition to most games.