[Pitch] Giants of England & Wales, historical fantasy

edited March 2014 in Game Design Help
Ok, here's a quick pitch for a game project I've been chewing over. The Clay that Woke showed me that maybe it's not as radical as I thought so, if you'll bare with me, I'll share some ideas I've been having:

"Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman.
Be he alive or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread."


Setting
The Year is 1642 and England is at war with itself! Brother fights brother as Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army clash with Royalist forces for control of the nation. These are the last years of the giants whose ancient presence in these isles will be extinguished by the first flourishes of modernity. Players take on the role of the giants, nomadic humanoids 25-50 feet tall who have lived alongside the Britons since the dawn of time, with their own culture being passed from giant to giant through the centuries - tales of great warriors and ancient grudges. Giants are fearsome in battle, ugly as hell and greedy opportunists on top of it all - often seeing themselves literally above the suffering of the little men. Conflict with "Christians" has been regular but it's mostly Giants coming down from the hills to extort small communities with threats of violence or "sell" their "services" for livestock and beer.
The ancient laws of England state that every parish must be responsible for the upkeep of longbowmen in their defence against roving giants. The killing of a giant in this way is rare, although the advent of cannon and musket has radically changed this tenuous balance. Giants, for all their lack of empathy with humans, are very interested in the bloodlines of the little men and will hold grudges against those who do them harm for generations to come. Giantslayers are folk heroes but the threat of retaliation is very real. Giants are territorial and the longest-lived are those who've made pacts of mutual interest with the humans living in their "thrall," though this can lead to destructive combat between Giants fighting for influence.
Giants are keen warriors, effective with tree-trucks and boulders as well as fists and feet. Blades of iron of any size are uncommon but are a sure signs of a Giant's prowess and successful extortion of human metallurgy on a vast scale for giants have no forges of their own. The Kings of the Little Men have sometimes called the Giants to a moot, as is their ancient right, and Giants have gone to fight in human wars for wine, horses, gold and amnesty for their crimes. Charles I fears the giants and Cromwell holds them in high contempt but both Royalists and Parliamentarians would rather buy off the local Big-Men than have them interfere in their battleplans.

Gameplay
Players take on the role of a wandering Giants in 17th Century England. Giants are primarily motivated by hunger and rely greatly on human contact for sustenance, which brings them into a range of conflicts and relationships (hunting and foraging are less dangerous options but the pickings are slim when your stomach can house a large family with room to spare!). PCs will be able to move around a large map with an eye on campaign play and potentially PvP activity: making "Demands" of human villages and considering "offers" from the same, developing relationship with communities (both for good and bad) and with other giants (who are, after all, rivals for resources). Sandbox gameplay with good relationship/grudge maps motivating players to interfere with one another's activities and resource gathering. Giant-fights'll be the star of the show: I've written a nice little damage table that gives them the feel of Shoho moster-movies - lots of collateral damage and fall out for any humans caught in the vicinity. :D As campaign play wears on I'd hope players would call for one side or the other in the Civil War and in doing so seal the fate of the Big Men.

Bonus Round
In addition to writing this up into a little gamebook, I'd also like to write a section converting the Giants of England and Wales into D&D-terms to help GMs include this content in pre-existing campaigns, so more focused on dealing with Giants as a race on the human scale. Really, this game's a dumb conceptual Joke anyway - you're playing the monster from the manual fighting against adventuring parties played by the GM.

Let me know if this pleases you or fires up your imagination. I'm interested in moving away from traditional party-play and into a more greyscale world of inhuman motivations and complex relationships. You know, playing the monster.



tl;dr - you are one of the most powerful land creatures to ever grace the earth but your numbers are fewer every year. Conflict, banditry and the brutal politics of Hunger are your Jam. Help me brainstorm how to represent this through gameplay? :)

Comments

  • Personally, I'm probably more interested in the underlying folklore that in the specific use you're making of it. My issue with your post is that it leans more toward the monstrous than the sympathetic in describing giants.
  • edited March 2014
    Thanks for responding; the pitch is rough I know but I hope we can talk it into something more solid.

    I'd hope that the folklore would be interesting/of use for the system-agnostic. I'm interested in playing the monstrous character (Masquerade without the glam); I don't think relationships necessarily have to be positive to be interesting. Fiasco is a good example of this perhaps?

    Here's some lines of thinking I find interesting:
    - Giant characters are dependent on the activity and reaction of human communities.
    - The PCs are related by default being the last of their kind.
    - The major source of both threat and assistance for the players are the other players, PC-relationships are ambivalent.
    - Thugs, outlaws, bullies and berserkers are great characters! Their motivations are clear and pro-active in play, which I imagine to be like a reverso-world Mouseguard: often solitary PCs causing problems for the communities they visit.
    - It's basically D&D (challenge-to-profit adventuring) but keyed into nature - there's no interior a PC can explore, so it forces play back out into human communities, hopefully pulling the players between the desire to cooperate with their world and the desire to bend it to their will, which should ultimately spiral into their destruction. So not a particularly light game, but perhaps more dark in the way WFRP is dark - with a little humour to pierce the gloom. The PCs are oafish, squabbling giants after all.
    - Scene-based turn structure, GM-fullish.
  • I think it was this image that really got me thinking.
    image
    Credit Keith Thompson.
  • Attack on Titan in 17th century England?
  • It's a solid topic, I would play a well-formed game built on this premise. Both giant PCs and the English Civil War are well worth examining as concepts for play.

    I had the strong feeling that I'd seen this idea of playing giants as player characters somewhere before. The first thing that occurred was TSoY giants, which are sort of like this in theming, but then I remembered that there actually was an ashcan rpg a couple years back that was about giants and involved drawing a map while playing the game. I never saw the ashcan myself, and I'm not seeing the game in the Internet now, but I managed to figure out that its working title was Giants and it was created by "thelostgm" (real name unknown at this writing). As the Ashcan Front website is lost to superficial net-surfing I can't find anything solid on it right now, but I remember that it was a promising project before apparently being waylaid by the dread dooms that threaten all pretty little rpg projects.
  • Great artwork!
    - Thugs, outlaws, bullies and berserkers are great characters! Their motivations are clear and pro-active in play,
    This might be exactly where we differ. I think that simple, straightforward characters like "Thugs, outlaws, bullies and berserkers" are only interesting as long as there's something else going on as well — something not quite as simple. These risk being characters motivated by simple survival in a purely hostile environment, which I personally find a little dull. Either the character is deeper than that, with further motives and complexities, or the point of the game is this simple, vagrant character shedding light on the issues and complexities of the communities they wreak havoc upon (like in a certain sort of Trollbabe play). That's a strictly personal and subjective opinion, of course.
  • thelostgm is Jeff Lower of the Sons of Kryos podcast. I'm sure someone has a copy of the ashcan if you ask around. The dynamics of wandering around a big map and having situations with human populations is very much what Jeff was trying to do with the game. You can read his game design blog about it here.

    Paul
  • I have a copy and played a playtest session with Jeff. The map-drawing was very much the highlight of play! I'm flipping through it real quick, and the core of the game revolves around:

    - Giant's have Hunger, which are basically character goals. But the whole Hunger metaphor is extended through the system, so Giant's need to eat sometimes to satisfy their Hunger, which can have a pernicious effect on their communities; they can go into rages and hurt people accidentally, stuff like that.
    - your Giant's community really matters. Communities have stats, and can be the focus of struggles between Giants or the subject of Giant's attempts to satisfy their Hungers. Actually, Communities have more mechanics surrounding them than the Giants do, and you can kind of see how, over multiple sessions, the arc of the game becomes about the communities and how they deal with all these Giants running around and demanding things of them.

    Anyway, it's a neat bundle of ideas and the mapping part is really helpful to creating that sense of LARGE THINGS in a small world.
  • That's for the feedback, all!

    Lower's Giants seems like a solid game; I've certainly had some of the exact same ideas. Hunger as a quantified motivator, for example - but I think Lower is more nuanced than the approach I was considering. Map-drawing on a Giant's scale was another part of play that I've been beaten to, I'm a huge fan of this kind of artefact-making in play.

    I feel a little awkward about this project now: Do I push on as intended, ignoring similar material - or do I stand on the shoulders of giants (so to speak, ho ho) and embrace a giant-gaming-milieu as foundational to my design?

    Let me just muse about Hunger mechanics for a second:

    A giant's size is determined in character generation. The larger the giant the more "Food" it must consume per day or become Hungry (a larger giant gains bonuses to combat, intimidation etc. Hungry giants are forced to take immediate action to feed themselves). For example: A 50-foot giant must consume... 5, say, Food-points per day. A human counts as 1 Food, Livestock counts as 3. Each town and village has a population of both humans and their animals, villages have fewer resources for PCs in this fashion but are easier to make demands of, towns usually having a militia or other defence against open threats.
    Hopefully you can see how a tentative economy of populations could take place here and forever and always tying Giants to human communities in difficult ways.
  • edited March 2014
    - Thugs, outlaws, bullies and berserkers are great characters! Their motivations are clear and pro-active in play,
    This might be exactly where we differ. I think that simple, straightforward characters like "Thugs, outlaws, bullies and berserkers" are only interesting as long as there's something else going on as well — something not quite as simple. These risk being characters motivated by simple survival in a purely hostile environment, which I personally find a little dull. Either the character is deeper than that, with further motives and complexities, or the point of the game is this simple, vagrant character shedding light on the issues and complexities of the communities they wreak havoc upon (like in a certain sort of Trollbabe play). That's a strictly personal and subjective opinion, of course.
    I think the motivation for survival is a good underpinning for more subtle activities. The negotiations between a PC giant and the town sheriff out on the moors about the exchange of livestock for protection is made tense with the knowledge that either side's survival (as a giant or as a community) is dependent on a working solution. I'm not sure which type of character the giants will be yet, but I'd like to take a holistic approach to looking at giant-human ecologies.
  • Regarding prior games with similar themes, that's an inconsequential concern in comparison to your own motivation: if a prior game does not break your internal desire to create your own game (which make of course happen when you're sufficiently impressed by prior art; happened to me with TSoY in 2004), then nobody outside is going to mind either, even if it seems like a big deal to you. Overlapping designs are constantly being made, and novelty is nothing next to considerate productization of your ideas.
  • It's a tough call. I think creative motivations can be ambiguous; the vanity of perceiving yourself as breaker of new ground is certainly one of the less altruistic - but there nevertheless, at least in my case. Similarly, there's a conflict between pragmatic desire to utilize pre-existing material as a move towards "productization" and a sense of moral shame in having profited from someone else's labours.
  • John Harper's game AGON was based on prior work by Jonathan Walton on a game called Argonauts. Jeff seems to have moved on from Giants. I bet he'd love to see someone take some of his work forward.

    And don't worry about dramatically breaking new ground. Gamers can't really process dramatic, whole-scale mechanical and content innovation in a single RPG. You'll be recognized as an innovator for just the few things that differentiate the play experience of your game from prior work.

    Paul
  • edited March 2014

    And don't worry about dramatically breaking new ground. Gamers can't really process dramatic, whole-scale mechanical and content innovation in a single RPG. You'll be recognized as an innovator for just the few things that differentiate the play experience of your game from prior work.
    Paul
    That's some of the most sound advice about the nature of creativity I've heard, and that's after 5 years of art school.

    If we're being all frank about creative process, I'll expand on where I am in this project: The purpose of this thread was less about trying to ape a watertight pitch for a real product but to try communicate some of the ideas that were starting to coalesce. Bouncing stuff off the excellent brain trust here. So whether I'm put off or not by a lack of originality is an interesting proposition - on one hand I have few "darlings" here, so altering my path and diverting my design away from Giants wouldn't be particularly heart wrenching - in fact the constraint could force me into a much more uncomfortable but much more interesting place. Like, what if I eschew the fantasy tropes and instead shifted genre/tone off into a game about Giant robots stalking the verdant plains of Mars searching for their lost masters amidst the overgrown ruins? Or shifted the technical side of things so that instead of being a stand-alone game it's an OSR module for regular-sized PCs arriving on a Gulliver's island of miniature kingdoms? It's not the vanity of breaking new ground that appeals to me, it's the endless creative paths and turns we can take!
  • Don't know if it'll help or distract, but I've already made it into an embryo of an AW hack :)

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T4Rjlu5ZDec2dFHV6v5I_mSKyloxuv9WpJ3lVz2ElX4/edit?usp=sharing
  • Don't know if it'll help or distract, but I've already made it into an embryo of an AW hack :)

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T4Rjlu5ZDec2dFHV6v5I_mSKyloxuv9WpJ3lVz2ElX4/edit?usp=sharing
    Bleedin' cool, Ironjens! Were you working on this before hand, or did you literally hack this up in a moment (if so, hats off to you and AW's hackability).
    Love some of the ideas lurking in here. Giants sleeping for months if they get too hungry is cool (I'd imagined it'd be PC death, but I think this is much more versatile and... folkloric), Scottish Excise Giants and their nemeses, and the term "Bondgiant" are just gold gold gold! :D

  • Ah, no. I read your pitch sunday evening and it grabbed my imagination and last night I wrote it. Today I just added the name list thanks to the ever helpful Wikipedia.

    The thing is your setup screamed AW to me in that it was setting up players against each other and that that would be OK. I thought playerbooks would be a neat way to excerbate this in that the Bondgiant would be a hardholder-style character trying to protect a settlement while the other Giants unrelenting hunger would drive them steadily towards it, i.e. having built in tragedy. This is something prevalent in your text as the giants are the last of their kind.

    The Provider shows that this doesn't have to be so, but needs more food to feed its offspring, sooner or later leading to territorial clashes. The aim is to have conflict built in from the get go so you can play to find out what is happening.

    Ideas I was toying with is having Hunger as one of the base stats instead and having each Giant roll each morning to see if they fly into a rage, kind of like the Hardholder's Wealth move but that felt like it could end up too disruptive.

    At least one thing missing (in addition to all the detail work and playtesting and bla bla bla) is a "Big-Things-Happening-In-The-Small-People-World" table allowing for things like famine, civil war, Tulip mania etc to further destablish the dangerous world of Bessex :)

    And sleeping giants are cool. Even though they have to hide away so that evil giants don't kill them in their sleep.
  • Good work. I think I have a great aunt who lives in Flitch Green. :)

    I really like the Provider concept as a way of driving a slow-build demand that can break dramatically over the heads of the players. As Game of Thrones teaches us, action for the sake of your children can be the cause of a hundred thousand conflicts.

    I don't think hunger should randomly trigger rages, it has to be steadily growing concern that can be reasonably managed if you're pro-active (the danger here, however, is that players can play a long logistics game to farm/share resources and never worry about hunger. Any system has to be one based on scarcity - there should be just enough food that at least one giant is always in danger of rage/sleep.

    Evil giants, yes. And also the little men from that village you stole all the cattle from last Tuesday. Terrible what angry farmers can do with stakes and hammers to a comatose giant.
  • I also believe scarcity should be the drivning force. And I think I need to playtest this but I have an inkling that I might have hit the balance. If a Giant moves foraging suddenly is not enough to keep the Fatigue/Hunger at bay. And if one giant starts ravaging the others will be nervous.

    I'm also thinking of making a lot of random tables for stuff that can happen that will have impact on the giants.

    I like AWs play to see what happens so I'm deviating from your historical setting and placing it in the 16th century. England has prospered after the plague. With no shortage of room and the workforce in high demand the humans had a good century which had beneficial results for the Giants too.

    But now human population is on the rise with mounting pressures resulting. This means the giants will be encroached and everything turning into a giant pressure cooker just waiting to explode. Add in scheming lords and ladies this can get realy nasty.

    (Sorry for language, am writing this on the phone and it autocorrects in swedish. I'm not technical enough to turn the funktion off)
  • edited March 2014
    Ok, I've gone off and had a really good think.

    If I were doing this again I'd re-pitch this game as Giantslayers of England and Wales, a game that focuses on human PCs following the corridor of destruction and human misery that is the path of a Giant. I found I was much more interested in the human communities effected by Giants and I think the PCs being these "outsiders" hunting the Giant they get to often be the first new faces on the scene after the whole village has been uttery upturned - for better or worse. That story feels much more fertile than just simulating the travel of Giants across Britain, which I think can still happen, but behind the GM screen. I really like the idea of the GM really having an avatar of problem-causing in the world in the form a Giant; really breaks apart challenge/procedure in a useful way.

    Thoughts?
  • That sounds better to me, in almost all respects. However, there is potentially some interesting design space which would allow you to deal with both sides of the story. Consider having the players share some authority over the giants, or somehow participate in the giants' struggle as well. Things like the "fortunes" moves for Apocalypse World could be a source of inspiration: maybe there is an economy which determines just how hungry the giants are, and the players must make decisions about what the giants might be doing to deal with their hunger (One-Eye, the terror of East Wales, is up to 5 Hunger - do you choose for him to terrorize a nearby village, demand human sacrifice, or engage in an act of random destruction?), and then they switch into the heads of the giantslayers and have to deal with the problem.

    You might also consider an asymmetrical design like Rock of Tahamaat for inspiration.
  • Yes yes, this sounds good!

    You might also consider an asymmetrical design like Rock of Tahamaat for inspiration.
    I really like asymmetrical design as a concept! I wrote a game a while ago that was inspired by the Rock of Tahamaat a little (and a little more by Katamari Damacy).
  • The highest compliment there is by my book. Glad you're thinking, man.

    I'm on a OSR binge right now so the idea that the PCs should be able to have a good chance at engaging in successful diplomacy with a Giant feels pretty natural. Say what you like about the "wacky gore porn" nature of 0D&D, it at least gave pacifism and talking-it-through a chance.

    I like the conceit of Giants being the one magical being in this otherwise historic world. They're a natural impossibility, but suddenly a pressing social and economic issue. Maybe this game is me talking about how I feel as a "peasant" watching the huge giants of world events blast through, scattering communities and being the talk on everyone's lips. In another kind of setting the Giantslayers are some Newsteam chasing "the Story."
  • edited March 2014
    Giants have similar psychology to humans but they have a radically different culture of abandonment to social isolation with very limited contacts at a young age with no parental figures. They are brutal survivalists at heart and see only opportunity to exploit where we might see valuable community ties. Giants understand human social conventions in the way we might view an ant colony or a family of Meerkats, with comprehension but not participation. Communication is possible but subtly in bargaining, or really any kind of unexpected movement, is simply not advisable: Giants view themselves above the kingdoms of Christendom and express displeasure at perceived disrespect or conspiracy with sudden and brutal action, even against kings. A genuine security concern for the English government is that a Giant might decide to occupy the Tower of London make demands of Westminister. A common political cartoon is of "the King giant" who resembles Charles I and is so "groffly obefe" that the mountains of Wales ride up his britches.

    This game is about communities devastated by an unstoppable force, the force isn't necessarily personal (after all the soldiers of the occupation are people too) but when they do speak it's a terrifying event with lives are at stake.
  • edited March 2014
    Ok, I think generally Giants are few but largely unstoppable. Historically, I would assume that previous attempts to put down Giants has been seen as trying to fight the tide but perhaps the creation of the New Model Army, thinking about a Nation State as a whole and gunpowder technologies could make interactions with giants akin to a terrible fortress siege or bloody shoot-out. Giants, I predict, are lovers of fights - they are, essentially, the only entertainment available and news of giant-battles summons other giants like flies to a carcass. Literally, in some cases, as the bodies of a giant are a huge source of meat and not easy to dispose of quickly - eyewitness testament of cannibalism at the Council of Trent caused the church to declare Giants outside of God's love.

    The main recourse is to turn to professional Giantslayers, who can amass large sums quite quickly in Giant-torn areas and are usually effective in hunting and either driving off or the outright slaying of Giants. It's dangerous work, and you are often torn by conflicting duties - but you can get rich off people's desperation. So that's what happens.

    Giantslayers of Normandy & France is a spin-off game that involves late 19th Century Giants in the north of France, legionnaires and impressionist painters. I have no idea how Giants deal with the sea. Maybe they build huge "rafts" and sail off to America?

    Giants of course a scaled-up humans and have all the squishy weakspots that a cannon-ball would really fuck up. There's a need in my mind for a Giant Injury Table that involves a great number of horrific knee and leg wounds. I see no need to anticipate a video game spin-off and design for that. Giant slaying is a great theme but Attack on Titan handled it in the most niche and conceited way possible.

    I feel like the PCs are Giant Slayers and the GM is specifically the Giant. The voices of NPCs and the community is discussed on a more GMful level and roles are picked up and dropped. Maybe the more antagonist NPCs are treated as under the control of the DM, but mostly it's going to be a case of prompts from the text and mechanics helping people discuss the terrible event that's just occurred and to what lengths they are willing to go to get revenge. The farmer might feed your men if you ask, but will his family have enough to eat this winter? Can you continue after the giant without these provisions, knowing that the hopes and fears of many rest on you.
  • Perhaps I am, or perhaps I'm simply highlighting the giants as more antagonistic figures.

    I'd been imaging that Giant Slayers are professionals of charisma who are motivated by a genuine desire to slay giants (and earn a living in doing so, as a ratkiller might). I'm thinking it would be easy to exploit local feelings of resentment into coin or men at arms that will certainly be required to run down a giant.
  • Are you imagining magic in this setting? I can imagine several different types of Giantslayers which might even amount to different character classes, especially if magic is involved.
  • edited March 2014
    I'm very keen to avoid magic or classes (which draw a little too much attention to who should be speaking and who should be sneaking or whatever - and that's never a healthy mindset). I want problems to be challengeful and the issues to be human ones; magic smacks of a reliance on technological thinking involving instant and consequence-free solutions to aviate human suffering. Very rarely does the technology of the real world provide this kind of solution, and I don't find it helpful to project it as an escapist power fantasy. This game is very much me saying something about escapist power fantasy D&D and breaking down some of suppositions (about the effectiveness of violence, amongst others) that it has imbued into fantasy-historic gaming. I think the excellent Mouseguard did this to some degree, but I want this to go further and do so by shrinking the players down incredibly in comparison to their obstacles.
  • But this is the thing, those stories can totally happen under the auspices of the players literally being giant slayers. The PCs are these characters positioned to effectively live the power fantasy but they have to move continuously though the middle world, wading through the human suffering continuously being partitioned for help, or not to enrage the giant further, or to disobey orders to parley with a vicious giant from the local lord and simply slay it because it killed this sympathetic guy's infant son (and take the Lord's payment anyway, of course).
    The conflict between the excuse to be these metal 80s SLAYERS and option of being outsiders constantly engaged with communities and motivated by them - I hope the players Slow Down and examine why they're pursuing this creature, in the same way The Mountain Witch isn't just about being Samurai Witchhunters. Perhaps PCs are commanders that lead a band of men and there's a more squad-based game?
  • Well, here are some Ways To Kill Giants...

    - bash or poke them with numerous very big things (boulders, siege cannons)
    - bash or poke them with hundreds or thousands of smaller things (arrows, spears)
    - hit them with explosive things (are there any explosive things?)
    - really big traps (i.e. trick them into a pit/trap/rift/etc)
    - large bodies of water (can they swim?)
    - large amounts of boiling oil or caustic liquids
    - poison them (i.e. fool them into ingesting poison)
    - fool them into fighting each other (probably a partial solution)

    ...all of which would require some good degree of organized cooperation or at least the acquisition of rare resources (which would have to include social interaction and probably draw attention as well).

    But then there's also the possibility of beguiling/bargaining with them or simply persuading them to go somewhere else, which can be done by a single clever and charismatic hero. About right?

  • But then there's also the possibility of beguiling/bargaining with them or simply persuading them to go somewhere else, which can be done by a single clever and charismatic hero. About right?
    Oh yes, right on the nose.

    As to the squad game, I mentioned that a bit upthread: I think the slayers could be leaders of specialized companies. The archery squad, the musket squad, the pike squad, the giant-tripping squad, the medics, etc. So while the players can each control their own individual PC, they can also command/give bonuses/impacts on their squads that wouldn't normally be there.
    Ooh, yes please. I feel like taking a giant down is a strategic rather than tactical consideration. Like, you have to motivate a large body of men (often without pay or food immediately available in the burnt earth wake of an enraged giant) to chase down a giant - perusing it without pause to wear it down until, exhausted it can be tripped, bound or slain with pike and grapple (the giant is literally hacked apart by hooks on long poles and harpoons tied to ancient oaks). Slaying a giant with cannon and powder is possible but involves the logistical concerns of manoeuvring artillery across often rough or roadless country and a giant can flee if it judges facing the smoke of little men to be sufficiently painful an experience. Cannon chasing giants is often a process of trying to "snipe" from a hidden location then pursuing an ailing target as he flees. More cunning slayers can kill with few men sneaking in on the giant while he sleeps and plunging pikes into eyes, throat, between libs, abdomen. Climbing a giant would be foolhardy but a brilliant (if suicidal) distraction.

  • edited March 2014
    Maybe both bases could be covered by using a Point Pool system? Perhaps during chargen and at levelups you can purchase advanced skills like "Hypnotic Voice" or whatever, and/or you can purchase armor/etc, and/or you can purchase a squad/specialist/etc. So one PC can have a "company" that accumulates over time (squad by squad, specialist by specialist), while another PC who chooses to go it alone can rely on skills/stats, spending their points on things like classes in logic & rhetoric, imported warhorses and gilded greaves. And then of course you can still have the classic PC Party of interdependent specialists.
  • Perhaps. I'd be keen to abstract that out into more simple numbers. Like good positioning and recruiting gives you a higher number that makes taking a giant cleanly more possible but there's a usually larger chance that you'll simply injure and enrage the beast or it'll flee leaving a trail of desperate, furious destruction.
Sign In or Register to comment.