PDA

View Full Version : How to Teach GMs To Design Layouts For A New RPG System Where Layout is Important?



CharonsHelper
2020-07-31, 05:34 PM
As I finish up my system Space Dogs (a swashbuckling space western), I'm realizing that the layout of locations where the PCs encounter danger/risk is much more important than in most systems I've seen. This is for a few reasons.

1. Cover is king. Being behind cover gives large penalties to ranged attacks, enough that being out in the open is potentially deadly. To that end, a good tactic is to lob grenades, which are easy to avoid by moving, but will then move you out of cover. This means that placement of cover drastically changes how a fight plays out.

2. Range. Range penalties (-x per 5 squares - vary by weapon) are substantial, especially for psychic powers. In addition, movement is slow enough that you can't simply charge across the battlefield in a single turn without being shot into swiss cheese. But if you can close to melee, it can be highly effective against some foes; a high risk/reward tactic. On the other hand, some monstrous foes are melee only, and in tight quarters are far scarier.

3. Skills. Beyond combat, I've designed skills to be highly map dependent. First, stealth is virtually impossible without cover, concealment, or darkness etc. Second, hacking requires getting to the right terminal, as nearly all cameras/turrets are on closed circuits to prevent wireless hacking or EMPs taking them down easily. So where the terminal is relative to the blast door, turret, or camera can substantially change how it's played. Thirdly, and perhaps biggest, demolitions allows the PCs to blow through nearly any door, wall, floor, or ceiling, though in a starship it might not be a good idea. This can lead to some whacky shenanigans, in both good and bad ways.

(Note: I'm somewhat inspired by the original Deus Ex level design where there were always multiple paths. But what constraints there were are largely gone in a TTRPG - which is both awesome and risky.)

Now, at this point I'm creating a lot of starship layouts, and probably one small space station (or at least the major sites within it), which should help GMs get started. And I have pointed out the issues somewhat in the GM section. But I'm still a bit worried that GMs without a decent sense of the level design may have uneven experiences.

Any tips for how to teach a GM new to Space Dogs how to build layouts?

Thanks much!

KineticDiplomat
2020-08-01, 10:49 AM
So...not familiar with space dogs, but having a good bit of experience with more tactical RPGs and table top wargaming:

You aren’t going to design video game levels for every session. Well, not unless you’re a map making savant gentleman of leisure. Those are multi-million dollar projects with design teams.

I would recommend you instead make/steal a reasonably vague general outline of the area, with perhaps knowledge of big checks and key things in your mind (e.g. the door to the bridge is a big issue, so you know roughly what it would take to blast it open, which computer to hack, etc). You don’t need to know every crate and hallway protrusion yet.

The trick is to be able to zoom in quickly and provide the detail where it is needed...it’ll save a lot of time and wasted effort if when the players go for the reactor room rather than the bridge or environmental, you didn’t spend five hours designing each.

Instead, when you’re in “encounter” mode, sketch up the terrain rather quickly, with what you think a reactor room (or whatever) looks like with key things like “the control terminal” and “the central reactor”. Add some extraneous bits. Now for the trick. Let each player place one minor terrain feature that makes sense. Then let the bad guys place a couple. Boom...instant map with player input.

If you want to take it further, the side with the clear jump/initiative gets to place terrain...of course your cunning ambush found cover while the enemies were exposed! No need to design an ambush location and hope the players find it, there just is one if they succeed at setting one up.

As an added bonus, this gives you flex for other things. Is there a maintenance crawl space? I’d imagine so, I’d also imagine you don’t want to bother plotting all of them on every ship ever, so once the players start looking for a maintenance crawl space (with requisite skills) - ta da, you just add one to the map. And if they run into a space spider in there, then you terrain it out.

Chauncymancer
2020-08-01, 03:44 PM
So...not familiar with space dogs, but having a good bit of experience with more tactical RPGs and table top wargaming:

You aren’t going to design video game levels for every session.

I think what CharonsHelper means is that they have just designed a product where things like "Is he 14 feet or 16 feet away from me?" And "Is this barrier chest high or shoulder high?" Have mechanical weight. And they're trying to figure out how to explain in clear language that if you don't run this as a square counting minis and terrain system your not going to have any use for the ruleset.

And the short answer is I don't know if you can.

CharonsHelper
2020-08-01, 07:08 PM
I think what CharonsHelper means is that they have just designed a product where things like "Is he 14 feet or 16 feet away from me?" And "Is this barrier chest high or shoulder high?" Have mechanical weight. And they're trying to figure out how to explain in clear language that if you don't run this as a square counting minis and terrain system your not going to have any use for the ruleset.

And the short answer is I don't know if you can.

Lol - it's not THAT granular. More of in the vein of X-Com in how range and cover work, though with substantially different mechanics.

I'm just wondering how best to teach GMs how to design map layouts aside from examples.


So...not familiar with space dogs,

I wouldn't think so - since I'm still finishing up writing it! Ha. Check my signature if you're interested; it's 100% playable. At this point I'm largely just adding content with more foes, character abilities, and starship layouts.



Instead, when you’re in “encounter” mode, sketch up the terrain rather quickly, with what you think a reactor room (or whatever) looks like with key things like “the control terminal” and “the central reactor”. Add some extraneous bits. Now for the trick. Let each player place one minor terrain feature that makes sense. Then let the bad guys place a couple. Boom...instant map with player input.

If you want to take it further, the side with the clear jump/initiative gets to place terrain...of course your cunning ambush found cover while the enemies were exposed! No need to design an ambush location and hope the players find it, there just is one if they succeed at setting one up.

As an added bonus, this gives you flex for other things. Is there a maintenance crawl space? I’d imagine so, I’d also imagine you don’t want to bother plotting all of them on every ship ever, so once the players start looking for a maintenance crawl space (with requisite skills) - ta da, you just add one to the map. And if they run into a space spider in there, then you terrain it out.

That's an interesting idea. I still like the idea of pre-defined layouts most of the time, as it allows the players to make choices about when/where to fight. Plus, the terrain matters for sneaking and other parts of the session as well.

However, I could definitely see using that as an optional on-the-fly rule in the GM section for when conflict happens where you weren't planning it, or if you just want to GM a bit by the seat of your pants.

Thanks much!

Telok
2020-08-02, 08:25 PM
I have a pdf of Traveller deckplan geomorphs that I use a lot. I've also gotten into the habit of using real life ship deckplans/blueprints, WW2 battle ships and carriers, modern cruise ships, etc.

The geomorphs are inherently multi-path because they are desiged for mix and match. The real life ships are surprisingly good for it too, plus you get things people don't normally include like laundries, bakeries, and dental offices.

As for new GM advice, that's a toughie. Perhaps split out the maps into a map pack that includes your reasoning about how and why each map was chosen and designed. Perhaps write down your process and thoughts as you go through building a map. But I'd say bundle it with the maps, like a map on one page and the write up on another. Actually single pagers are hard. You're pdf formatting, right? Try a sort of pic/screenshot of something that inspired or informed the map along with a half page synopsis. Then put tooltips or notes into the pdf on objects and areas within the map. Then (there will be a key yes? "room #7 is the foo room with neutrino wigglers in it" sort of key?) put your full length process/thoughts on the next page after the map key.

Alternately, perhaps post and try to explain a couole of your maps here. See if we can understand your concepts and descriptions.

noob
2020-08-03, 03:44 AM
So...not familiar with space dogs, but having a good bit of experience with more tactical RPGs and table top wargaming:

You aren’t going to design video game levels for every session. Well, not unless you’re a map making savant gentleman of leisure. Those are multi-million dollar projects with design teams.

I would recommend you instead make/steal a reasonably vague general outline of the area, with perhaps knowledge of big checks and key things in your mind (e.g. the door to the bridge is a big issue, so you know roughly what it would take to blast it open, which computer to hack, etc). You don’t need to know every crate and hallway protrusion yet.

The trick is to be able to zoom in quickly and provide the detail where it is needed...it’ll save a lot of time and wasted effort if when the players go for the reactor room rather than the bridge or environmental, you didn’t spend five hours designing each.

Instead, when you’re in “encounter” mode, sketch up the terrain rather quickly, with what you think a reactor room (or whatever) looks like with key things like “the control terminal” and “the central reactor”. Add some extraneous bits. Now for the trick. Let each player place one minor terrain feature that makes sense. Then let the bad guys place a couple. Boom...instant map with player input.

If you want to take it further, the side with the clear jump/initiative gets to place terrain...of course your cunning ambush found cover while the enemies were exposed! No need to design an ambush location and hope the players find it, there just is one if they succeed at setting one up.

As an added bonus, this gives you flex for other things. Is there a maintenance crawl space? I’d imagine so, I’d also imagine you don’t want to bother plotting all of them on every ship ever, so once the players start looking for a maintenance crawl space (with requisite skills) - ta da, you just add one to the map. And if they run into a space spider in there, then you terrain it out.

It depends on which kind of videogame you model your maps on.
Doom 1993 wad makers can make epic doom levels in just days with a good balance in cover, monster positioning and global area interaction (shorter amounts of times possibly going under a few hours if they just want levels with the amount of details regular doom wads had).
Meanwhile if you want to make levels that have the level of detail of assassin creed's levels then of course you will need a whole team.
using players to position things have the problem of possibly interrupting game flow if the players starts discussing and then there is consistency to start respecting that can make a few elements add a few more elements (ex: one player think there should be a pool of liquid azote in the open air then another thinks there should be a pool of lava so you now have to put both far away from each other then since there is a pool of lava there must be some sort of aeration system so that people do not breath too many toxic fumes or too high temperature air and so on or a player place a terminal then while a single terminal is a very minor feature you know have questions like "to what is the terminal is connected" "is this terminal on" and "was a villain using the terminal when you barged in the room")
if you made the level in advance it costs probably as much time as letting the players participate if you want the same amounts of details but the time is not spent in the middle of the session and thus does not risk to interrupt game flow.
if your players are used to this kind of participation and knows how to avoid elements that adds more elements and avoids talking to each other during setup then it probably works fine but basically you ask all your players to be proficient map makers (which they might be at your table).

Incorrect
2020-08-03, 04:36 AM
Would it make sense to make a guideline

Each piece of cover gives +1 "map point"
Each alternate route gives +2 "map points"

To have a balanced encounter, try to achieve 7 (or X) map points.


Alternatively, could the players be part of the drawing of maps? Each player can add one piece of cover in a believable place.
As a player, I routinely draw the battle map while the GM is busy with other things; I think it works fine.

Martin Greywolf
2020-08-09, 04:51 PM
As I finish up my system Space Dogs (a swashbuckling space western), I'm realizing that the layout of locations where the PCs encounter danger/risk is much more important than in most systems I've seen. This is for a few reasons.

Just putting it out there - this is in direct contradiction to swashbuckling adventures. Swashbuckling is defined by fast-paced action where movement doesn't stop until it's time to plan, if even then, things go routinely wrong and it's not such a big deal because if you think quick enough, you can swashbuckle your way out.

What you have here is XCOM which is anything but quick - you take stock of the tactical situation and make a decision, almost treat combat like a puzzle.

Neither of these approaches is right or wrong, but they don't work together all that well.



1. Cover is king. Being behind cover gives large penalties to ranged attacks, enough that being out in the open is potentially deadly. To that end, a good tactic is to lob grenades, which are easy to avoid by moving, but will then move you out of cover. This means that placement of cover drastically changes how a fight plays out.

Put a sidebar into GM section, there is X amount of pieces of cover per square of room, Y per person present in a firefight. Whichever is higher is your number, distribute it randomly or not so randomly when drawing a map.

Sure, it's not exactly a sublime approach, but we're talking about newbie GMs here, or at least GMs new to designing XCOM maps, rough guidelines to tell them about how much they need are the best starting place.



2. Range. Range penalties (-x per 5 squares - vary by weapon) are substantial, especially for psychic powers. In addition, movement is slow enough that you can't simply charge across the battlefield in a single turn without being shot into swiss cheese. But if you can close to melee, it can be highly effective against some foes; a high risk/reward tactic. On the other hand, some monstrous foes are melee only, and in tight quarters are far scarier.

Again, sidebar. Your encounter has three basic combatant types, melee, short range and long range. You should have at least 1/10 of all of these in any given encounter, exact ratios left to taste.



3. Skills. Beyond combat, I've designed skills to be highly map dependent. First, stealth is virtually impossible without cover, concealment, or darkness etc.

This is the case for stealth pretty much everywhere. I run FATE Core most of the time, and unless you tell me how exactly you sneak past those guards (utilizing one of the above or social stealth), no dice.

Don't go too deep into the rabbit hole, because if you demand your DM makes a full Deus Ex style map, no one will play your game - or at least, no one will play it this way. Saying you need these things for stealth and leaving it for in-game reality is fine. After all, characters can always flip the light switch.


Second, hacking requires getting to the right terminal, as nearly all cameras/turrets are on closed circuits to prevent wireless hacking or EMPs taking them down easily.

This should be an optional rule, because it sounds like a tremendous pain to design.

Even then, sidebar - every turret or piece of tech, every section of the building has at least one, usually more, terminals. Pick places for them.

Also, don't forget that what you're describing sounds more like a high security military base, other places WILL be much, much sloppier, and even bases will have lax areas. US nukes were locked with a bunch of bicycle locks set to password 00000, after all.


Thirdly, and perhaps biggest, demolitions allows the PCs to blow through nearly any door, wall, floor, or ceiling, though in a starship it might not be a good idea. This can lead to some whacky shenanigans, in both good and bad ways.

This is never true. Some walls will be strong enough that exploding them is not fasible, because you will instead turn the room you're standing in into a chamber of temporarily high pressure, and subsequently pink mist. Thermite drills are much slower.

For starting DMs, I'd really recommend to not give players enough explosives to crack a starship hull strong enough to shrug off micrometeors. For more veteran DMs, make a sidebar.



Now, at this point I'm creating a lot of starship layouts, and probably one small space station (or at least the major sites within it), which should help GMs get started. And I have pointed out the issues somewhat in the GM section. But I'm still a bit worried that GMs without a decent sense of the level design may have uneven experiences.


Go further beyond. Make an adventure that will, through NPC action, highlight all of the above issues and problems, and make it your default starting adventure. That way, you can design it from the ground up to be a tutorial. Sure, not everyone will use it, but damn near everyone will at least read it, and that's almost as good.