Letter of Resignation from the Central Committee of the Governorate of Luna
TO: Cyril Brook, President of the Executive Council of the External Service
FROM: Artemon Sankaran, President of the Central Committee of the Governorate of Luna
DATE: 17 December 2308
SUBJECT: Letter of Resignation
Cyril,
Please accept this letter as notice of resignation from my post as representative and president of the Central Committee of the Governorate of Luna.
I have spent six years on the Committee, serving as its president for the past two. Even now I still consider it the honor of my life. Throughout my 21-year career in the External Service, I have been nothing but dedicated to the Restitution Project and to our mission of efficient and just administration of the interplanetary settlements. I do not think it an overstatement to say that my record of faithful service is beyond reproach. Never have I imagined that my career would end here, but the events of December 6-8 have left me with no choice.
I want to impress upon you the scale of the disaster which has just occurred. The latest reports suggest that at least 10,147 people died in the span of three days, the vast majority after the depressurization of part of Apollo Station on Dec. 8. For comparison, 6,761 people died in the Okamura Station Fire and 3,919 people died in the bombing of the Aristide Durand. The use of military force so close to Earth is unprecedented, and the damage from which might never be repaired.
Before, during, and after this catastrophe, however, the Committee and I have had our authority utterly disregarded. We were not notified in advance when the Executive Council issued new speech and assembly laws for Luna, nor were we kept informed of events when violence broke out. We learned that the External Marines were coming to restore order after they had already arrived.
In fact, I still don’t know who gave the order to depressurize a densely-populated residential neighborhood in Apollo Station. I understand that the External Tribunal has issued an arrest warrant for Flight Commander Ashanti Vuong-Teague. From my connections with members of the Tribunal, I also understand that this warrant is legally and factually baseless. If Commander Vuong-Teague did not issue the order, who did? Certainly not the lawful governing body of Luna, since we only learned what happened after the fact.
I am furious that the External Service has chosen to circumvent my authority in order to slaughter people for whom I am ultimately responsible. The law is very clear as to our respective duties, and so I can only reason that we were purposely kept ill-informed and thus incapable of carrying out our responsibilities. If the Central Committee is not allowed to govern, then I see no reason to remain at my post, especially not to be party to a massacre. I resign my positions in the Committee effective immediately.
TO: Artemon Sankaran
FROM: Cyril Brook, President of the Executive Council of the External Service
DATE: 23 December 2308
SUBJECT: Re: Letter of Resignation from the Central Committee
Mr. Sankaran,
Your letter of resignation has been received. Please do not refer to me by my first name.
The External Service
Office of Media Relations
For Immediate Release December 8, 2308
Media Briefing by Senior External Service Officials on the Violence on Luna
12:55 A.M. GMT
SEC. KHOURY: Thank you, everyone, for joining us at this late hour. We have some senior officials in the External Service on the line to discuss the operation today regarding events on Luna.
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: Thank you all for joining us tonight. The Executive Council and the President have worked closely with Chancellor-General Kidane to complete the Ten-Year Program. The President understands that now more than ever, the project of climate restitution requires the full commitment of Luna’s industrial capacity. The events of the past three days do not change that.
On September 16, the President received an assessment from the EBI [External Bureau of Intelligence] outlining the threat of a terrorist clique on Luna known as the Iron Star Movement. The assessment estimated that the ISM had as many as 3,000 active members in cells across Luna, and determined that the ISM was most active on Apollo and Yi So-yeon Stations.
The assessment identified the ISM’s motives and ideology as follows: it is a Lunar separatist organization that actively opposes the Restitution Project. Its aims are to stoke anti-Earth violence and attack critical points of Restitutionary infrastructure such as the Ahlberg Shipyards and the Lunar Central Committee’s offices in Apollo. It opposes climate restoration and hopes to end Luna’s participation in that effort.
Additionally, the ISM has been conducting an underground public relations campaign to increase the salience of Lunar independence in the general population. These illicit meetings have been spearheaded by militant organizers and journalists recruited with the express goal of radicalizing members of the public. The EBI identified 83 of these meetings between January and August, spread out across all major Lunar cities. These meetings were correlated with incidents of stochastic violence against people from Earth.
Partnering with the Lunar Central Committee, the Executive Council devised a policy response to these seditious meetings, which included harsher penalties for organizing an unlawful assembly, spreading anti-Restitutionary propaganda, and inciting anti-Earther violence. This policy package was rolled out on December 6, coinciding with the beginning of widespread violence in Apollo Station.
Now, I’ll turn it over to my colleague to go through the details of what happened the past 24 hours. Thank you.
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: As you heard, the Executive Council dispatched three External Marines vessels to restore order on Luna. These ships were the Giuseppe Garibaldi, the John Brown, and the Andrés Bonifacio. The Garibaldi was sent to Apollo, the Brown was sent to Yi So-yeon, and the Bonifacio was kept in reserve in case reinforcement was needed. Fighting lasted for approximately twelve hours, and the External Marines accomplished their objective.
At 12:03 tonight, we received word that the last holdouts of insurrection on Apollo Station turned themselves in to the forces of the Garibaldi. Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our External Marines, peace once again reins on Luna.
Additionally, the marines managed to capture Amrita Michel, Sora Vardanyan, Kamalani McKowen, and Ji-Hu Reyes-Montero — four identified ringleaders of the Iron Star Movement. These four are sworn enemies of the Restitution Project and a danger to all humanity. They are people who call for the murder of anyone born on Earth, anywhere in the Solar System. They are leaders of a violent extremist movement with affiliates across Luna, and they have taken up arms against the happiness and prosperity of all humankind.
We have achieved a remarkable victory tonight — a victory over the forces of extremism, division, and terror. We showed the Solar System that we will not be cowed by threats to the mission we have dedicated our entire species to. Let me be clear: the cornerstone of the Iron Stars’ ideology is to let Earth starve for their gain. They do not represent the majority opinion on Luna or anywhere in the Solar System, and their defeat is proof that all of humanity remains united toward one purpose.
I know you understand that I can’t and won’t get into many details of this mission, but I’ll share what I can. The challenges of fighting in such an environment are numerous. The extremist combatants made their stand in heavily-populated civilian neighborhoods, maximizing the probability of collateral damage. Many of the extremists were dressed as civilians, further making it difficult to distinguish between a combatant and a non-combatant. Our marines faced barricades in the narrow streets, harassment from buildings and narrow shops, and the use of non-combatants as human shields.
The crews of the Garibaldi, the Brown and the Bonifacio are specially trained for conducting operations in narrow and crowded space stations. They accepted the inherent risks, and understood the importance of the operation to the security of the Restitution Project. Their expertise and courage were essential to the operation’s success.
That’s all I have at this time. I’ll turn it back to my colleague over here.
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: Let me emphasize that great care was taken to ensure operational success, minimize the possibility of non-combatant casualties, and to adhere to international law in carrying out the mission. Every step of the way, we cooperated with the Central Committee of the Governorate of Luna to ensure that there was seamless collaboration across the Restitution Project to bring these terrorists to justice.
Without a doubt, the Restitution Project will continue to face terrorist threats. The Restitution Project will continue to fight those threats. Climate restitution is a marathon, not a sprint, and that includes fighting those who aim to tear apart the entire project.
SEC. KHOURY: [inaudible] with that, we’re ready to take some questions.
Q: How long do you estimate has the Iron Star Movement existed on Luna?
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: The EBI estimates that the ISM has been actively recruiting members for at least three years, but the organization itself may have existed for some time before that.
Q: I’m getting word back from Luna that a part of Apollo Station has depressurized. What is the extent of the depressurized area and are there civilian casualties?
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: We can’t go into those details at this time.
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: Those are two questions, not one.
Q: The four ringleaders you identified for the Iron Stars, were they actively involved in defending themselves? Can you give us a chronology of the operation?
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: Again, that’s two questions, but yes, the four identified ringleaders did resist the External Marines.
Q: Was the depressurization at Apollo an accident or was it a deliberate action by the Iron Stars or the External Marines?
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: Again, we cannot go into any details at this time. Next question.
REPORTER: Nothing? I’m getting footage of [inaudible] at Molniya Square— [Interruption]
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: That’s enough, next question!
SEC: KHOURY: We have time for one more question. One question before we turn in for the night.
Q: To what degree are the Iron Stars actually responsible for the violence, and to what degree was it spontaneous?
SENIOR EXTERNAL SERVICE OFFICIAL: We have reason to believe that the ISM was intimately connected with planning and carrying out the uprising.
SEC: KHOURY: Alright, thanks again everyone. We’ll have more to say tomorrow.
END 1:11 A.M. GMT
Running a “Political” Game - Campaign Retrospective
Is your RPG adventure “political?”
As in, are there different factions and stakeholders, with different interests, at odds with each other? Do the players have to make tough choices about who to trust, who to align with, and who to stab in the back?
If not… Do you want it to be?
From February to July, I ran a short campaign set on a remote space station gripped by a labor strike. The PCs were newcomers, caught up in events when their crewmate was murdered in the middle of the night. Through eight sessions spanning five in-game days, the PCs contended with company bosses, union workers, corrupt rent-a-cops, mafia enforcers, militia fighters, hardened terrorists, and people just trying to get by. They got into three firefights, and their actions put the whole station on a course toward all-out-war.
Along the way, I’ve learned quite a bit on how to run this sort of game. I don’t have all the answers, but here’s what comes to mind — with input from my players, because they were kind enough to humor me and fill out a post-campaign feedback form.
Outgun the player characters
The biggest key to establishing tension in a political intrigue game is to take away the PCs’ ability to solve all their problems with violence. That doesn’t mean they have to be left defenseless, but they should quickly run into people who can bring way more firepower to the table than they can.
Most RPG characters are built to get into — and win — fights, so system does matter here (I’ve been using Violence by Luke Gearing). This kind of game probably won’t work very well with, say, 4e or 5e D&D. The PCs need to know that they can easily be killed in a standup fight.
And most NPCs won’t fight fair.
Played right, this high lethality should encourage the PCs to choose their battles wisely, to take care when confronting powerful interests, and to stack the deck in their favor using the extent of their wits and cunning. NPCs, of course, will do the same.
Early in the campaign, two PCs dug up clues pointing to a union-controlled warehouse across town. To get access, they were told to do the union a favor and ransack the space traffic controller’s office. It was supposed to be a bloodless job, but they failed to bluff their way past the night patrol, and things went south from there. Thanks to cover and a heavy dose of luck, they managed to down three cops, giving them enough time to call for help and flee to the maintenance tunnels. They both took injuries, but thanks to quick medical attention from the union doctors, they lived to see another day.
This was a moment that stuck with all of us through the rest of the campaign. It raised the stakes dramatically — the station was put under martial law, with no ships allowed in or out. Furthermore, a detachment of marines was dispatched to the station to restore control. The PCs would have to complete their investigation and find a way to escape Nylund Station before the marines arrived.
It was also my players’ first brush with death, their introduction to this system’s extremely high lethality. Here’s one player’s description of events:
Honestly I’ve done a few DnD campaigns, I’ve had my character killed more than once, but the absolute shitshow that was the terrorist attack on the STC tower was one of the wildest things I’ve seen in DnD. Rarely does post-combat make you feel tense, but because I was actively dying in the tunnels I was like on the edge of my seat praying I’d make it out. I get attached to my characters!!!
Conflicts, not enemies
This all sounds quite punishing, but with danger comes opportunity. Don’t create too many dedicated antagonists — instead, weave a web of tension between different factions, and drop the PCs into the middle. They’ll have to step carefully in order to avoid blowing up the powder keg, but so will everyone else. Give the players room to exploit these conflicts in their favor, negotiating with different factions as it suits them. Depending on the situation, an adversary today can become a partner tomorrow, and former friends can easily turn on each other. Let the players take risks and drip-feed them the consequences.
The players in my game had a complicated relationship with the Outer Planets Liberation Army, the left-wing militia active on Nylund Station. It was OPLA fighters who helped them escape from the space traffic controller’s office, and they relied on the militia’s help to navigate the station and get around the barricades put up by union and police. But the union and OPLA, while aligned against the authorities, were not terribly friendly themselves. The OPLA wanted a free hand to do as they liked, whereas the union wanted the OPLA to answer to them. And as the PCs uncovered more and more clues, they came to realize that the murderer was a member of the OPLA.
They needed to learn more, but they struggled to land on anything they could offer to the major factions in return. The plan they landed on was simple: go to the union boss and offer to independently frame the OPLA for the space traffic controller’s attack. Hopefully, this would marginalize and contain the OPLA, at least a little bit, while keeping the union’s hands clean and keeping the door open for a continued union-OPLA relationship — one where a weakened OPLA was subservient to the union.
At this point, the campaign had become more than a murder mystery. The players were now debating how to avoid the marines, how to exploit the major factions to their advantage, and how to escape Nylund Station. Here’s one of my players on the union boss and the way the campaign developed:
Mehmet also seemed like a very interesting figure, being just ideological enough to defy the solar government but just pragmatic enough to lead a substantive opposition. Finally unraveling the circumstances of Mendoza’s murder, and how it was practically a minor point by the end of the campaign despite it being our initial cause for action, was great.
Know the world
This sort of game necessarily involves a lot of prep. As the game master, you’re responsible for playing the world, seeing how different characters and factions respond to the PCs’ actions. To do this correctly, you’ve got to understand the situation in your game very well.
This is hard. I kept a lot of notes, including lists of major characters, a map of the station, session notes, and a timeline of events. Still, I often found myself having to slow down and flip back through my notes mid-session. Here’s what one player had to say about it:
There were some times where the story would grind to a halt as [GM] tried to find out certain details he couldn’t remember.
I’ve never GM’d, I don’t know what his prep looked like or what kinda notes he had, but maybe there’s a way to streamline notes? Maybe not, again, this is something that [GM] would have to review (though if he sent me his notes I could give some advice!) Not memorizing every detail of your campaign is human, so we obv don’t expect perfection here and this didn’t like sour the campaign or anything.
Let the players outsmart you
One of the reasons I love GMing is because I enjoy seeing my players come up with their own solutions to their problems. Wild ideas, brilliant schemes, doomed plots — it’s the bread and butter of my gaming. If my players come up with a well-reasoned plan, I usually bend toward saying yes. And then I love showing them the consequences.
Toward the end of the campaign, the PCs found themselves in an OPLA safe house. They feigned that they were OPLA sent from leadership to get some answers about the space traffic controller’s office incident. The agents there were skeptical, but eventually relented and gave their alibi (they were at work at their day jobs). The PCs, in a gambit to force their hand too early, impressed upon them the necessity of swift defensive action ahead of the marines’ arrival. One thing led to another, and the militia fighters agreed to disperse the safe haven’s firearms to the station’s OPLA cells, and to carry out some unspecified “operation” — the bombing of Nylund Station General Hospital.
With the clock ticking, the PCs pressed for more information and a way out of the safe house. They learned some final details about the murder — the killer was an OPLA agent whose gambling debts led her to turn coat and become a police informant. When her comrades found out, they kidnapped her and told her to make a high-profile assassination in three days, or else. She aimed for a senior police captain staying at a hotel by passenger arrivals, but broke into the wrong room, killing an innocent person — the PCs’ crewmate. The murder was a complete accident.
It took a firefight to escape the safe house, firmly severing the PCs from the OPLA. One player was injured so badly he had to go to the hospital… the very hospital in danger of being bombed. When they got there, they called their contact at the Bureau of Intelligence, and she had police sweep the hospital for OPLA agents. The bomb plot was foiled, but now the players were defenseless at the hands of the police.
The intelligence officer offered to let the PCs leave Nylund Station… but only if they gave up the location of the union boss and other important union members. It was heavily implied that things would get complicated if the PCs refused. They mulled the offer over, decided that they didn’t have much of a choice, and agreed to turn coat.
The players’ scheme — get some information about the murder out of an OPLA safe house — set off a chain of events that led them to betray the union and the militia to secure a ticket off the station. Not very heroic, but it got them what they wanted.
Say yes to their plans, then drip-feed them the consequences.
…But don’t be afraid to say no sometimes
My tendency to be permissive with the PCs’ schemes led to some great moments, but multiple players mentioned that they felt like the non-player characters were pretty gullible.
Many of the characters were too trusting at times. In the end we brought down the union mostly because they trusted us with a domestic terroristic attack, a couple goobers they’d never met with unclear loyalties.
For the most part the characterization was solid, but I do feel there were times that some reasonable doubts/concerns a character may have had. Particularly surrounding the union and the deals they made with us. It didn’t break my immersion and it wasn’t unbelievable, hell real life people make rash decisions, but there were a couple occasions where I felt like we succeeded more to move the plot along than cause we succeeded.
And… yeah, that’s probably true. That they even got into the OPLA safe house was a product of some extreme gullibility from the NPCs. And the union did trust the PCs with a high-profile operation right from the get-go. Worth thinking about for next time.
In conclusion
The finale of the campaign was the outbreak of all-out war between the police and the combined forces of the union and OPLA. As the PCs attempted to make their way to their ship, a detachment of OPLA agents ambushed them in a warehouse, looking for revenge.
It was a jumbled, chaotic affair, with bullets whizzing around with abandon. By the end of it, one player character and multiple named NPCs were dead. The other militia members had either surrendered or fled. The remaining two PCs had little time to grieve before hauling ass toward passenger arrivals.
This final firefight, as dramatic as it was, did expose some issues my players had with the ruleset we were using. Here’s one player’s opinion:
Characters rolling to die after combat is a little weird. It’s not done in most other DnD systems and generally I think you could tell if someone is at least dead by gunshot.
Only reason I bring this up is I felt it was a little anti-climactic that Brat didn’t die in the fight, but rather in a kinda mundane dice roll after the action had settled. It sorta took away from the action I think; if it had happened in real time we’d be like NOOO, but cause it was so delayed it just kinda happened.
The lack of any kind of system for modeling things that aren’t violence also caused some hangups. Here’s another player’s thoughts:
I think it would be nice if we had a system for our competencies too, as it could have been interesting to have mechanical use for our careers and backstories. This didn’t come up much in a campaign of mostly politics, but it could in future if we have to solve other kinds of problems, and it might bring more focus to our characters’ personalities and interests.
But! I think Violence proved an ideal system for an adventure of high intrigue. With no character stats to speak of, the only thing my players and I could fall back on was our knowledge of the characters and the situation on Nylund Station.
With no charisma stat or social skills, every interaction with an NPC was defined by uncertainty. My players could never tell if their threats and bluffs were landing, or if an NPC had something to hide. They had to make decisions based off their best guesses about an NPC’s personality or a faction’s goals.
Combat, on the other hand, was quick, tense, and bloody. My players knew that the consequneces of misstepping could be fatal, and that if they picked up the dice, they were taking a huge risk. They were incentivized to avoid a fight when possible, and to stack the deck in their favor if not.
Another thing I liked about Violence was that the drama was firmly set on getting hit rather than taking damage. Characters didn’t have hit points — even one bullet could kill, forcing my players to duck for cover, find places to hide, and use the environment to their advantage.
What’s next?
I’d like to continue this story, following the player characters as they explore a Solar System inching closer to revolution. The tone is probably going to change quite a bit, becoming an open-world sandbox with more of a system behind it. I want to refine and flesh out my spaceship combat rules to make them suitable for a real campaign. As much as I enjoyed using Violence for this arc of the campaign, I probably won’t use it for a campaign that isn’t primarily about intrigue. Maybe Mothership?
Miscellaneous
The Three Clue Rule is essential. There really is no better advice for designing a mystery.
I think it’s good to have some player-facing notes. For my players, I kept a timeline of events, a list of unsolved mysteries, and a list of important characters.
I made sure to write down a summary of events after every session, so I wouldn’t forget anything as I prepped the next session.
I found that while there was a lot of work up-front before the campaign started, it wasn’t a huge amount of work to prep sessions once the campaign already started. I had already done the work to create factions and NPCs and establish their motivations — after that, it was easier to come up with their next move.
Links
- Violence, by Luke Gearing
- Boot Hill and the Fear of Dice
- HOW TO GM (A Campaign Post-Mortem)
- Three Clue Rule
- Node-Based Scenario Design — Part 3: Inverting the Three Clue Rule
- Node-Based Scenario Design — Part 9: Types of Nodes
July 24, 2023 Sci-Fi Rockhoppers Space Campaign Retrospective GM Advice
Better Religions in RPG Settings
On some level, I don’t think it’s really possible for most of us (at least in the predominantly secular global North) to build a fictional religion that truly captures the texture, essence, and dizzying complexity of real-life religion. Religion just doesn’t affect our lives nearly as much as it once did, and while its influence is still considerable, it’s mediated through the Scientific Revolution and a specifically Christian (maybe even Protestant) conception of what religion is.
A concept illustration by Michael Kirkbride for The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, depicting the Vivec temple district. Morrowind has one of the better depictions of religion in games, I think.
In tabletop roleplaying games specifically, religion often boils down to what deity’s name is written on the cleric’s character sheet. That works fine for most games, but I’d love for there to be more color and texture to the fictional religions we include in our campaign settings. And it’d be great if we could create more than just Christianity or Greek/Roman polytheism with the serial numbers filed off.
I don’t have a complete answer on how to do religion better in RPGs, but I have some thoughts. I got the idea for this post from watching Religion for Breakfast’s videos about the religion and demonology of The Legend of Zelda. In the first video, host Andrew Mark Henry mentions a book titled God Is Not One by Boston University professor Stephen Prothero. In it, Prothero argues that different religions address different problems, and don’t all take different paths toward the same goal. He also offers a four-point rubric for how to assess each religion’s approach.
To be clear, I haven’t actually read the book all the way through (I might in the future, though!). I just wanted to take the basic framework and apply it to RPGs.
Anyway, according to Prothero, each religion articulates:
- A problem
- A solution to this problem, which also serves as the religious goal
- A technique (or techniques) for moving from this problem to this solution
- An exemplar (or exemplars) who chart this path from problem to solution
He provides two examples immediately afterward. For Christianity:
- The problem is sin
- The solution (or goal) is salvation
- The technique for achieving salvation is some combination of faith and good works
- The exemplars who chart this path are the saints in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and ordinary people of faith in Protestantism
And for Buddhism:
- The problem is suffering
- The solution (or goal) is nirvana
- The technique for achieving nirvana is the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes such classic Buddhist practices as meditation and chanting
- The exemplars who chart this path are arhats (for Theravada Buddhists), bodhisattvas (for Mahayana Buddhists), or lamas (for Vajrayana Buddhists)
(that both Christians and Buddhists might have qualms with the above is a feature, not a bug — it provides a scheme for easily understanding differences between religions, but also provides an axis for understanding at least some differences within religions.)
Now, this is really, really optional. You can get by just fine with a handful of names for deities (or just one, maybe!) for your cleric to worship.
That rubric is good, but I have a few additions I’m borrowing from a post in Religion for Breakfast’s Patreon (you’ll need to be a patron to see it). My version of the rubric, with an emphasis on utility in worldbuilding, is as follows:
- A problem with people and the world
- A solution to this problem, providing a ‘goal’ for the religion
- Techniques for moving from the problem to the solution
- Exemplars who chart this path from problem to solution
- Internal differences (they likely agree on the problem, may or may not agree on the solution, and probably don’t agree on the techniques and exemplars)
- “Lived religion” — that is, contradictions between what ordinary people believe and practice and what’s espoused by the religion’s elites
- Evidence of syncretism, the blending of of different beliefs and practices across cultures, and the influence of different religions on each other
Let’s come up with an example — a religion in which there are many gods, ghosts, and spirits which inhabit this world, who can inflict fortune or suffering depending on how humans behave (toward them and toward each other).
- The problem is chaos — the misfortunes that arise when people live in hate and lawlessness, and forget to attend to spiritual matters.
- The solution is harmony with gods, ghosts, and spirits, the preservation of peace in the material and immaterial world.
- The technique for achieving harmony is to follow the guidance of the Canon, an ever-evolving collection of poems, songs, sacred sayings, legal rulings, and ritual procedures. The Canon spells out how to treat one another, how to organize family and society, and how to negotiate with supernatural beings.
- The exemplars who chart this path are sorcerers — religious figures, usually women, who cast spells and lead ceremonies that treat with the unseen world. Other exemplars include a sorcerer’s husbands, known as attendants, who are charged with assisting the sorcerer and ensuring worldly adherence to the prescriptions of the Canon.
- Most internal differences revolve around the composition of the Canon. Different schools of thought borrow from different teachers and emphasize different practices. Notable points of contention include acceptance or rejection of adorcism (possession by spirits), the presence or absence of monastic orders, and the relative importance of a solar deity.
- Evidence for lived religion includes what is broadly termed witchcraft — spiritual activity conducted without the mediation of sorcerers educated in the Canon. This can range from merely misguided to outright malevolent, but it always carries dangerous consequences for the practitioners and their associates.
- Evidence of syncretism includes the veneration of a supreme sun god, a practice borrowed from foreign sun cults and adopted by some sects of the religion. Some versions of the Canon even directly include portions of holy texts from other religions.
This is just an example, but can you see what I’m going for? I think if you’re worldbuilding a religion, it’s much better to start with its internal logic, the thing that — on a very high level — the religion is about. Once you have that down, you can then come up with gods, rituals, holy sites, stories, and all the rest.
Three Campaign Pitches
I started a new campaign this past February. I had a couple ideas for games I’d have fun running, so in the spirit of Matt Colville’s advice on pitching your campaign, I decided to present those ideas to my players and let them pick which one they liked best.
Below is the document I wrote for them. I think it worked really well! I thought it was a great way to generate investment in the game from the get-go, and it clearly set expectations for what the new campaign would be about. If you’ve never pitched campaign ideas to your players, I think you should give it a try!
Campaigns I’d Like to Run
This is a campaign pitch doc — really high-level, I just want to see what excites y’all. I’d be happy running any of these games!
Self-direction and player ambition are a big part of my games. Not everyone has to want something, but ideally some of you will.
The Ochre Isle
It is an age of chaos.
The island of Mislan was once a wealthy province of the Dolelan Empire. But the imperial ruling line is extinguished, and the Empire is but a memory. Trade has broken down — the roads are no longer safe, and brigands and cursed creatures threaten the people. Ambitious nobles scheme against one another, and rumors abound of ancient and powerful magics hidden in the wilderness.
Medieval Fantasy Sandbox
System: Old-School Essentials (probably)
Politics: Medium
Tactics: Medium
Lethality: Medium
Player buy-in: A classic fantasy sandbox game where you get dropped into a small town with lots of potential adventure hooks, and you have to work your own shit out. You’ll get to delve into ancient tombs, acquire powerful and dangerous magic items, and contend with the politics of feudal lords. You’ll have the classic zero-to-hero progression of a fantasy protagonist, with plenty of opportunity to make your mark on the world.
Picket Line Blues
The Ceravolo Gas & Freight Corporation is sole proprietor of Nylund Station, a Helium-3 refinery station in low Neptune orbit. Nylund is a huge investment — it took some big loans and a handful of government contracts to purchase the station, and if CGF doesn’t make big profits from the investment, the whole company might go under.
But CGF’s authority over Nylund Station is fragile. The workers have gone on strike for higher pay and better working conditions. The shareholders demand action, but the company’s enforcers aren’t sure they can win a fight with the union militia. Everything sits on a knife’s edge.
Amid the impasse, the Dead Friendly sits docked for routine maintenance and repair. But the sudden death of a crew member threatens to entangle the whole crew in a web of intrigue that could decide the fate of Nylund Station.
Sci-Fi Murder Mystery
System: Violence, by Luke Gearing
Politics: High
Tactics: Low
Lethality: High
Player buy-in: The rules here are minimal and super lethal. You’ll have to navigate diverse agendas and powerful factional interests using only your wits. One wrong move could end with you being ambushed and shot in a back alley. Nobody fights fair. If Boot Hill and the Fear of Dice sounds fun to you, you’ll probably like this.
Operation Solstice Rain
Your mechs are prepped and loaded aboard the dropship, ready for deployment. Through your chassis’ camera feeds, strapped securely into the cockpit, you watch as the hatches slide closed around you and the hangar airlocks open for launch. From up here, Cressidium looks peaceful — a shimmering jewel hanging in space.
“Ten seconds to drop.”
You take a breath as the pilot counts down. Inhale. Exhale. Then your stomach lurches as the clamps disengage and the dropship’s thrusters kick into full burn.
Mud and Lasers
System: Lancer
Politics: Low (but not none!)
Tactics: High
Lethality: Medium
Player buy-in: This is straightforward military sci-fi. Challenging, tactical grid combat will take up a majority of play time. Along the way, you’ll get to build, upgrade and personalize your mech. The game will be more structured and less self-directed than the other games in this doc, but there’ll still be opportunities to fulfill your own ambitions.
These are three pretty different sorts of games, each appealing to me in different ways.
I really like the idea of building my own fantasy world, one that would persist across campaigns. I’ve never really done that yet, so Ochre Isle was my chance to do that. Building out a setting during a campaign sounded like a fun project. I’d start small and slowly work up, adding new locations, characters, and details as the players explored.
I got the idea for Picket Line Blues after I read Boot Hill and the Fear of Dice. I immediately wanted to run a game in that mold, and tying it to the world of the Restitution Project seemed like a perfect marriage. I’d drop the PCs into a powder keg of a space station, always ready to blow. The players wouldn’t even have a character sheet — they’d need to solve problems with only their wits, the possibility of super-lethal violence hanging over them like the Sword of Damocles.
Operation Solstice Rain is a published module, geared explicitly toward new players and GMs. I had the chance to play Lancer a few years ago and really liked it, but the prep work was too much for our GM. I thought this adventure would be the perfect way to get into running Lancer without overwhelming myself.
My players ended up choosing Picket Line Blues, with Ochre Isle as a close second. My players were mostly uninterested in a tactical mech combat game. We got the new campaign started shortly after, and I’m trying a lot of new things — it’s my first time running this setting, my first time running a murder mystery, my first time running with such a minimalist ruleset. I might have more to say about it later, but it’s been a ton of fun!
Playtesting the Ship Rules
I finally got the chance to playtest my spaceship combat rules with some friends. I’d say it went… pretty well.
The good news:
Even for our first time playing, the flow of combat felt fast and snappy. We went through eight rounds in just over an hour, including frequent breaks for using the bathroom, getting food, and checking on something for work.
In that time, my players traded missile volleys with the enemy, scrambled to contain their ship’s rising temperature, did first aid on injured crew members, and attempted (in vain) to patch their damaged radiators. There were too many fires to put out, forcing them to make difficult choices about what to prioritize.
Oh, and they decided their ship had a crew of swashbuckling space Cajuns.
Heat was a constant danger. The players’ ship overheated once, and the enemy ship twice. I think, because it was our first time, none of us really got the strategy with heat. In practice, we all found it really easy to let it get out of control. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, necessarily, but it’s worth keeping in mind for next time.
But still, on a basic level, the game worked. Fantastic!
Now for the bad news:
During the battle, each ship took one hit from the enemy’s weapons. That one hit, along with overheating, caused so much damage to their crew stats that by the end of the fight, any given roll had at best a 30% chance of success.
Floundering in desperation, my players decided the best thing to do was ram the other ship (I don’t think ramming is or should be a thing in this system, but I decided, what the hell?).
On one hand, this was certainly entertaining. It reinforced the dangerous, vicious nature of war in space, and it felt right as a consequence for letting heat get out of control. On the other hand, I think I want ships to last a little longer before getting to that point. I’ll just have to play with the numbers.
Although I’m considering decoupling crew casualties from check rolls. I’m not sure how I’d go about that, if I decide to do it.
There was another moment when the players took system damage to their radiators, halving their heat cap, causing them to overheat, causing them to take crew casualties. That’s two d8 for system damage, one d6 for overheating, and three d6 for the crew casualties. That’s… quite the chain reaction of dice rolls.
The Dump Coolant action doesn’t feel decisive enough to me. I like the idea of relief now in exchange for it being easier to overheat later, but I’m starting to think you need to lose a lot of heat for that trade-off to be worth it. And maybe I can come up with another way to reduce heat, too.
I’m not sure if the range bands are meaningful enough. This one is going to take more testing, but if I find that players aren’t really thinking about how far they are from the enemy ship, then I’ll have to make some adjustments.
Really, I just need to play more, see what feedback different people have, see how the game feels. But I feel good about where I’m at so far.
The next step after that is to start thinking about the other half of flying a spaceship: earning money, getting into debt, making repairs, and managing a large crew of people who might not all like the way the captain is running things. But that’s going to take some time.
[EDIT: I wrote about money and the crew in part 2.]
March 19, 2023 Mission Control Model Rules Rockhoppers Sci-Fi Space