Fight Infection (original called Left 4:16 Dead) is hack of 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars based on the Valve game Left 4 Dead. It’s worth taking a look at for many reasons. But one thing I like about is that they changed the name of Fighting Ability (FA) and Non-Fighting Ability (NFA) to For Attacking (FA) and Not For Attacking (NFA). In my opinion it doesn’t describe what the number is, but it does describe how it’s used pretty succinctly.
3:16 is a game about murdering (sometimes) innocent space creature en mass. So, in my experience, people tend to weigh a little heavier on the Fighting Ability side. Partially because of the setting and theme of the game, partially because the uses of Non-Fighting Ability are described throughout the book. Good because it talks about the rules roughly in the order in which they’d come up. But bad because NFA can seem a little useless until you delve further into the text.
Because I’ve learned recently that I’ve been playing the game wrong and also because I’m planning on making a cheat sheet for my players, I’ve tunneled my way through the rules (again) and compiled a list of actions or uses of FA/NFA that can be used in combat.
This list deals only with actions taking during combat.
For Attacking/Fighting Ability (FA)
- Attack: Cause kills, if FA roll is higher then the enemy’s AA/FA/NFA roll then you can also then move.
- Use a Special Weapon: TPK Bomb, Paradise Bomb, see rules.
Not For Attacking/Non-Fighting Ability (NFA)
- Move: Can be combined with another NFA action (ie roll NFA to Move and Switch Weapons)
- Switch Weapons: Can be combined with another NFA action (ie roll NFA to Move and Switch Weapons)
- Prep/Support: Give yourself or an ally +1 to yours or their next roll.
- Cause ‘E’ Wound: Can only be used when fighting a human NPC or another PC, see rules.
- Pilot a Vehicle: Drop Ship, APC, move and/or attack.
- Use Special Abilities: Force Weakness, E-Vac, Orbital Bombardment, see rules.
Free Actions
- Switch to Grenades, Hand-to-Hand, or Power Claw
- Use Combat Drugs: Re-roll FA.
- Use Strength/Weakness: May be used even when it’s not your turn.
- Apply Leverage Bonus (Optional Rule)
June 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm
My current fascination with RPGs is pretty easy to justify. They’re social, creative, strategic and fun. I also can understand (mostly) why some people don’t like them or don’t like the idea of them. But that’s another discussion for another day.
An RPG is always composed of two intertwined elements. The story and the game. Some games or styles of play might focus on one more then the other. But I feel pretty confident in stating that both need to be included. Of course, if you define an RPG as a game with a story then you’d also have to include almost every, except for the most abstract, board and video game too.
I was thinking about it today and I kind of realized that the order in which you combine “story” and “game” can produce different results in an RPG. And since we’re talking theory here, let’s use “narrative” in the place of “story” and “mechanics” in the place of “game.” Now we sound smart.
Okay. Here’s what I mean. In this example I’m playing Zargon Morcar, a mighty wizard (of rock ‘n’ roll.) And he is being attacked by a horde of angry goblins who want to drink his blood.
A) Narrative + Mechanics: I state, “Zargon plans to burn the goblin horde with a magic fireball” (narrative.) I roll some dice and determine I am successful and that five goblins are dead (mechanics.)
B) Mechanics + Narrative: I decide that Zargon is going to attack the goblin horde and I roll some dice, determining that he is successful and he kills five goblins (mechanics.) I state, “Zargon shoots a magic fireball, burning five goblins alive” (narrative.)
You: So? Both examples produced exactly the same result. Five fireballed goblins and one smug Zargon. What’s your point?
Me: Eh, well…
In example ‘A’, I want Zargon to shoot the goblins with a fireball, right? Therefor I need a mechanic that would inform me whether or not Zargon was successful and then how successful.
In example ‘B’, the mechanic is predetermined and using it tells me if I am successful and how successful (five goblins die.) Then I decide that Zargon shot fireballs at the little green bastards.
You: Again. What’s your point? In both examples, the narrative is informed by the mechanics.
Me: True. But which one am I manipulating? In example ‘A’ I’m choosing a mechanic to fit the intended narrative. In example ‘B’, it’s the narrative that’s changing to fit the chosen mechanic.
Now let’s take a look at the role of the GM real quick. A GM has many responsibilities. And among those, one is to be arbitrator of the rules.
Now let’s say I decide that Zargon, instead of killing the goblins, is going to strike some totally awesome rock ‘n’ roll poses to impress the savages. And let’s assume that nowhere in the rules does it state how goblins react to rock ‘n’ roll poses. The GM would, to the best of her ability, have to decide how to determine whether or not Zargon was successful and state or negotiate an appropriate outcome.
This is awesome because Zargon might gain some goblin allies. Maybe even start a band. Zargon and the Morcars. I’m stoked.
But from the GM’s perspective, it’s a little different. Suddenly she has to adjust the overarching narrative to accommodate Zargon’s goblin groupies. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if she is up for the challenge (perhaps reveling in it.) But it is more work. Especially if she had planned and prepped some goblin antagonists who were to seek revenge for their fallen comrades later in the story.
If the narrative follows the mechanic, Zargon might not get his goblin groupies (boo!) because no mechanic exists (or no mechanic to create such a mechanic exists.) However, I do still get to be creative with my narrative (perhaps deciding that Zargon lets out a magic yodel, causing an avalanche, crushing five goblins under a giant boulder.) And I don’t need to lean on the GM for assistance or approval.
Now you’re probably wondering which method I prefer.
You: Actually. I stopped reading awhi–
Me: The answer is neither. It’s all about the group and what everyone is in the mood for.
You: Well, that was anticlimactic, what a fuckin’ waste of ti–
June 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Postmortem Studios has two PDF books that I’ve bought recently and, I feel, are pretty damn good resource. 100 Planets and 100 Sci-Fi Adventure Seeds are exactly what the titles imply. Simple, well written, systemless. Roll your percentiles and play.
Here’s a couple of blogs with some awesome sci-fi concept art. Concept Ships and Concept Robots.
Okay, that picture isn’t very sci-fi-y. But shit, it’s cool.
Image Source: Concept Ships
http://conceptships.blogspot.com/
June 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm
