First of all, I’ve missed two days of writing on MtB.  On one hand, I broke my Seinfeldian chain.  On the other, a couple days away got me thinking more creatively, rather than plodding through rephrasing the shadow of Yesterday (tSoY) rules into MtB vernacular.

This post serves as me typing up a stray thought I had while driving to work listening to the Narrative Control podcast (the suspense episode) so I don’t lose it.

It has to do with the transition from a single conflict roll resolution of a baseball match to drilling down the the pitch-by-pitch situation (in tSoY).  I’ve been pondering how to give the playgroup tools to quickly move from “we roll some dice and then the outcome of the game is determined” to drill down to a specific time, a critical point in the match where one at-bat or one defensive stop could turn the tide of the game.

My idea is this: when the playgroup rolls the conflict roll to resolve the entire match, this has a determining factor in the setup for the pitch-by-pitch scene.  The player who takes the at-bat or defensive highlight opportunity and The Ump use the results of the conflict roll to state facts about the situation.

The facts that are open are as follows:

• inning of the game
• score
• men on base
• number of outs

Still need to flesh this out, but in the idea form currently existing, it would work like so:

(Example with one player only) The Ump and the player roll.  The ump rolls the Team stat, a single stat that represents the opposition.  The player chooses which stat for his minor leaguer to use (this will color the outcome if the conflict stays as one roll).  Both sides roll and calculate totals.

The Ump gets four successes.  The player rolls three successes.  The game is won by the opposition if the player doesn’t ask for a highlight.  In this case, the player demands a highlight, an at bat for his character.  The Ump won the conflict roll, so he gets the option of stating the first fact.

The Ump: “The Home Team (the opposition) has four runs, the Visitors have two.”

The player can then states the next fact.  Since The Ump stated “his team” was in the lead by stating score first, the player opts for men on base.

The Player: “A man on first and third.”

The Ump then gets to declare outs or inning.  He decides to push the stakes of the at-bat.

The Ump: “Two outs.”

The player has the option of setting the stakes even higher for his team by declaring the game is early on in the inning.  If there were other players, he could declare it is only the third or fourth innning to allow other players to “jump in” and call for highlihgts in other innings before the game is over (or they could be one of the men on base, of course).  Since he is playing a solo game, the player goes for the glory and puts the game on the line for his at bat.

The Player: “It is the top of the ninth!”

Now we have the entire situation.  Two outs, two men on, top of the ninth with the player’s team behind a run.  It all comes down to this at bat.

DRAMA!

I’ve been quiet on this blog because I’ve taken Making the Bigs to a private Google document that is over 8,000 words so far.  I’ve hammered out enough details to start thinking about how this game would actually work at the table.

I’m back to the Solar System as my base.  I’ve added in some pieces from the old Star Wars West End Games system and Spirit of the Century as well as possibly something from Primetime Adventures.  But at its core, the game is a drift of the Shadow of Yesterday in its current iteration.

As I envision how a playgroup would play through a single baseball match and a series and a season, I find myself continually thinking of ways to make it seem like a real inning, match, series or season.  I grasp for easy ways for the playgroup to have a realistic feel of having played through nine (or more) innings of baseball.  I wonder how to get the batting averages to generally work out over the course fo several game sessions.

In other words, I find myself trying to simulate a baseball game.  Why?  There are many baseball video games out there that already simulate games effortlessly.  We have stratomatic, a simple baseball simulator with a cult following.  There are leagues upon leagues of fantasy baseball players who use actual games to simulate their teams playing.  This multitude of games fill the niche of simulating baseball games for baseball fans.  Why in the world am I striving to jump in that crowd?

Forget the crowded field, why am I inclined to make a simulator when the stories of baseball are more important to me than the strategies.  Yes, I love the moments when a pitcher sets up a battr to be looking for the heat and instead sneaks in a wicked curveball for a strikeout.  But I love it even more when I know the players and their history, when that strikeout means something to each of them.  THAT is what I want to do with this game.

I have this bad habit of aping the norms of simulationist role-playing games on the market, because that’s how my mind was trained to work over years of D&D and Vampire the Masquerade and the like.  There’s nothing wrong with those games, but they are wrong for what I’m trying to do.  I just have to break my brain to get where I want to be.

Here is one thing I’ve done to break out of that mindset:

The player’s characters have Ability Pools that cannot be refreshed during a baseball match.  They can ONLY be refreshed during scenes between baseball games; the scenes can be about baseball, but they aren’t taking place DURING baseball.

That came as a result of a conversation with Judd Karlman, of Dictionary of Mu and Sons of Kryos fame.  He is also working on a hack of the Shadow of Yesterday which he calls First Quest (a game I’m looking forward to trying someday).

As I ponder what I’m calling “defensive highlights” a mini-game where player’s characters can participate in an important defensive play, I’m pondering if I should incorporate a “pass the stick” mentality of players each getting one defensive highlight per baseball match.  This quickens the pace and gives each player a chance to shine with their glove or arm.  But the connection between the defensive play and the baseball match isn’t there.  I’m still unsure if that would have an impact on the fun at the table.  Would players care if their defensive stop helped win the game?  If they do, how do I apply that play into a play structure that allows it to have a reasonable impact?

The more questions I answer, the more I find myself asking.

As I’ve envisioned how I want to play Making the Bigs, I’ve realized the fun happens on the field. I think about what I as a player or GM (Ump) would be doing, rolling dice, at bat strategies, personal rivalries, late inning rallies, towering home runs, it is all on the field. That’s where my development has been focused, that’s where I am aiming my efforts.

I desperately want scenes off the field, scenes about the player characters as they exist between games. These down scenes will let the PCs become more human, will give them touchstones for why they play the game, why they want to make the bigs.  It is a vital part of the game to make the characters feel real and to give some flavor to the conflicts.  Without off-the-field scenes, the game is nothing more than a pen anad paper version of a video game, and I already have those games.  This should be a new game.

The transition between scenes and plays on the field and what happens between baseball “matches” (it feels odd to refer to baseball games when talking about a role-playing game… so I think of the baseball games within the RPG as “matches”) is lacking.  In the Solar system version of the game, off-the-field scenes occur to give characters depth and so players can refresh scenes.  This gives mechanical weight to off-the-field scenes, it rewards players for having them.  But it doesn’t dictate when they must happen.  One assumes that an off-the-field scene happens between baseball matches, because chronologically that’s when they happened.

Consider this.  What if the entire game takes place within a baseball match or a series of matches (such as a three match set while the team travels)?  The off-the-field scenes occur as flashbacks between plays on the field.  A good RPG term for this is the interstitial.  This keeps things in context and it also allows for a more cinematic flavor to the game.  Think of the movie For the Love of the Game.

Let me give an example.

Player Steve has a  character named Jermoe Hunter, a centerfielder who bats leadoff (that’s first in the lineup).  The GM (Ump) sets the scene for the beginning of the match, top of the 1st inning and Jerome is the first batter up.  He is facing a hard throwing rookie with more speed than control.  After the GM sets up the at bat, Steve asks for an off-the-field scene where he recently spoke with his family about their financial situation.

The GM then sets a scene where Jerome (the PC) gets a phone call to his host family (that’s the family in the town of his team who have agreed to give Jerome room and board during the season) and Jerome speaks with his brother.  His brother tells Jerome that his mother is home sick and hasn’t been to work in a week, that rent is due and they’re ducking the landlord.  His brother begs Jerome to come home and take up a job at the garage to help make ends meet.  Jerome refuses to come home, but promises to send some more money back home to help out.

The scene ends and Steve explains that Jerome has kept focused on Making the Bigs and uses this to fuel his desire to get a hit in the next at bat.  From a mechanical standpoint in the Solar System rules, this could be used to fresh one of the Ability Pools or it could be a fulfillment of a Key… or both.

I want to see this in play.

At my local Target I bought a couple packs of the 2008 season stats for MLB players.  I got to check the new designs of the Heritage cards for this season.  Each year, Topps does a line of Heritage cards (which I’ve discussed previously here) which ape the design of the Topps cards from the 50s.  This year the designs are from 1960.  The off color is tan instead of red and the cartoons are a bit tighter and less animated.

Personally, I prefer the cards from last year.  The cartoons are more amusing and the red color grabs the eye a bit better.  Granted, the text is easier to read on the tan background, but the cartoons are a big part of the draw to the heritage line.

This has an unfortunate impact on my game.  In my current version, I could direct reader to buy packs of Topps Heritage cards and use them for characters.  Now readers would either pick up the current year’s release which isn’t the style that has inspired me for this game, or they would have to buy older cards which can be expensive.  This is a disappointing development.

I’ve been poring over baseball cards lately, studying them for all their details that I could mine for a player character in Making the Bigs.  One of my goals is to create a game that could be played from a baseball card in a pinch or a one shot and that a full-on campaign would allow players to create their own baseball cards for their characters.

There are many different kinds of baseball cards, the vast majority of them are player pictures on the front, stat lines on the back.  My personal favorite and an inspiration for the idea of using a baseball card as a character sheet are the Topps baseball cards from the 50s that on the back have a smaller player stat line, a cool little cartoon action pic and a bio blurb that reveals either something personally cool about the player or a significant fact about his performance.  This baseball card format has been reused by Topps recently with their Heritage line of cards, and they’re still a visually fantastic and personable method of presenting a baseball player snapshot.

Take a look at a 1957 Topps example:

The front of the character card would be the pic of the PC, of course as well as the position played on the field, player name and the team they play for (since the team would be in the minor leagues, I would like for the team to be created by the playgroup).

On the back of the character card would be the physical stats of the PC, a small bio as well as player record (this could start blank and be filled in as the game progresses or have one or two seasons to reflect a more experienced minor league player character).

So what do we have for character stats on the sheet that could then be the engine of the game?

Name: (character name, used for RP purposes, could have mechanical effect with a nickname?)
Position: (will dictate where the PC plays on the field, could also give stats adjustments, like a 1B or 3B has more power, an OF has more speed, or a SS or 2B has better gloves)
Team: (this is a reflection of the playgroup-created team.  A team sheet could exist and give the PCs some stat effect and challenge)
Number: (only used for roleplay color, if at all)
Ht: (used for color)
Wt: (used for color)
Bats: (used for color, or could be used as a possible stat bonus as in righty facing lefty)
Throws: (used for color)
Born: (date and place): (used for color or roleplay purposes)
Bio: (here is the meat, using common phrases here can give the tools, the strengths and the issue, all in the write-up)
Game Stats: (could be used to tell a story of the character’s past, could be something from a table… need to ponder)

So that’s what I’ve broken down about a baseball card… so far.

This post is short and to the point, it exists as a marker and a touch stone as I continue to develop the game.

I was having an IM conversation with Seth Ben Ezra recently about MtB.  He was kind enough to indulge me.  I often feel guilty when I drag people into conversations “about the game I’m writing” because so many gamers I know are making their own games and it just feels rude to me.

Nevertheless, I was originally asking Seth about his current project Waiting Room, which is a second jeep-style game (his first being the acclaimed A Flower for Mara).  Seth had mentioned how he was writing his jeep-style rules in terms of metaphor.  This led to some observations about how metaphor is more comprehensive as a teaching tool than giving exact situationals.  I told Seth I was interested in metaphors because I think it could be helpful in helping people engage with Making the Bigs, especially gamers who may not be baseball fans.

Seth asked me what was my metaphor for Making the Bigs.  I realized that this was something I hadn’t considered, that the game itself was a metaphor for… acting.  Seriously, Making the Bigs is a metaphor for struggling actors trying to make it to Broadway or Hollywood.  It just clicked in my head.  So now I could recommend someone watch Fame or heck, even something like American Idol (which is singing, but it is more similar than dissimilar).

I know this could easily be twisted and warped into something I don’t see about Making the Bigs, but it was a startling realization for me as I noodle over how to communicate this game to others.

I’m currently torn between two builds of Making the Bigs.  I’m going to list them out as they exist in my head right now so I can break down the play experience of each.  I’d like to develop enough of each flavor to playtest it a bit.

The first is a traditional or conventional style of game with task and conflict resolution and orientation towards building up statistics and abilities, “levelling up” as it were.  The overall goal of the trad style is to use off-the-field scenes to restore PC statistics in order to have success on the field that then results in an XP mechanic that can be used to improve statistics and abilities until the PC is ready for promotion.  Promotion happens during September Call-Ups unless there is a special event (such as an injury or trade).  Of course, the call-ups are not a guarantee of Making the Bigs, but they are the surest chance and can lead to a Spring Training invite (Spring Training might be a neat supplement to the story, a completely different kind of game perhaps).

The second is more influenced by The Forge style game of creating social mechanics and shaping the game to the events.  The game would model more of a baseball movie than it would model a simulation of minor league baseball.  So rather than being about a character who bumps up his hitting stat by X points, it is more about resolving character issues in order to free up the character to “ascend” to the next level aka The Bigs.  Players or the GM create off-the-field scenes that give rise to conflict, these conflicts can only be resolved on the baseball field during a match.  Its an abstract way of taking the baseball media idea of a batter working through personal issues by playing a baseball match.  An example of this would be a player who finds out his girlfriend is cheating on him in a scene.  The scene plays to whatever end the player wishes, but the conflict happens on the field.  The player would play through an at bat and the result of that at bat will determine the batter’s reaction to his ex-girlfriend.

One version of this in my head is that all off-the-field scenes begin with a player character actually participating in a baseball match and coming to a point where a play is happening.  Then the GM and player describe a scene and proceed to the point of conflict (as if the off-the-field scene is playing in the head of the player character during the baseball match).  Then the playgroup jumps back into the baseball match and resolves the play on the field – a hit, a steal, a diving catch, or a strike-out, an error or being caught stealing.  The results of the play are then used to proscribe the results of the off-the-field conflict and the GM and player finish the off-the-field scene using the conflict results of the play on the field.  I find this idea quite grabby, but the scene jumping could be a source of consternation for the playgroup.

There is my fork of MtB.  Which do you think would play better?

Things are starting to come together on this project. It is scaring the crap out of me!

1. I now have a layout person who is anxiously awaiting my text.  He is skilled with photoshop and took one of my front cover concept photos and made it look really awesome (I’ll link this in later).  He also has a copy of InDesign and some other layout program he mentioned that I don’t know.  He is already working with me on getting a feel for the setting and communicating it through the book.  Getting a handle on the “yesteryear” will be a critical part of the book for me, its what draws me to this project.
2. I have secured a quote from an artist I know on some of the art I hope to have on the character sheets and I look forward to continuing work on that front.  The quotes will help me define my art budget, which will be incredibly small.
3. I pored over the Library of Congress images recently and pulled out several good photographs of baseball from the 30s and 40s.  I want the majority of the book to contain photographs, but I want to keep them consistent to the theme of yesteryear.  I will also be looking through istockphoto (thanks to Fred Hicks for his excellent work on Don’t Rest Your Head and how he used images from that site).
4. I’ve been digesting quite a bit of baseball media, from a book about baseball in the 1930s titles The Good Old Days as well as a biography by a St. Louis pitcher in 1956 (can’t recall the name off the top of my head) to watching the MLB network and keeping up on spring training info to renting a documentary called Player to be Named Later; this is giving me good inspiration on the game and the talk.  Oh and I go to a Yankees vs. Team USA spring training game next Tuesday.  woot.
5. Game System Updates

• After a failed playtest of the At Bat conflict resolution using Solar System, I’m developing a system using the elements found on a baseball card.  I am keying on numbers that are important in baseball 3s and 9s.  I want to end up with 9 possible stats: 3 from Team, 3 from Position and 3 from Personal.
• An idea someone suggested when I was using Solar System was that stats refresh during off the field scenes.  I’m hooked on this idea and will be implemented in this new system.
• The aforementioned Personal stats must tie to my off the field conflicts and I will be shoring up this aspect of the game soon.  Without the texture of off-the-field life, I’m just making a card game.  This is a role-playing game!  It has to allow players to make living breathing characters and the struggle of the characters to Make the Bigs must be reflected in the game.

Lots of movement on many fronts.  Now I must tackle the daunting tasks ahead

1. Develop enough of the mechanics to alpha playtest it.
2. Develop the resulting text into a beta playtestable draft, one that I can share with the play group so they can read through it and make characters (I’ll still run this version, of course)
3. Take the results of the playtest and revise the mechanics intoa stronger, better, faster system
4. Devise a style guide for art to be used in the book
5. Write the fluff, the setting information into a draft so we can begin working through layout ideas

That’s just phase one!  I need to sit down and set deadlines for myself to keep this momentum going…

I typed this up over the weekend.  It is an incomplete re-evaluation of Making the Bigs as a game to be played with a character sheet of a baseball card as the character sheet.  I’m putting it here for a log of activity and for any feedback.

—————————

Making the Bigs character sheets should look like a baseball card.
A regular baseball card is 3.5″ x 2.5″.

Making the Bigs is a game I want in the hands of non-gamers. To make it easier for them to play, I will use six sided dice (the kind with pips that you’d find in a box of Sorry or Monopoly). What elements of the character sheet do I have? Position, Team and Bio will work in threes – two Advantages and one Hindrance. Name is an extra flash. Name – the character nickname is a colorful phrase that can act like a FATE aspect, giving a bonus to any conflict where the player can apply it as well as giving the GM something to key on for story lines). Position – the position gives one Advantage and one hindrance to the PC. The second bonus is the player’s choice

• C will have NO SPEED, but will have GLOVE
• 1B will have NO ARM, but will have POWER
• 3B will have NO AVERAGE, but will have POWER
• 2B will have NO POWER, but will have CONTACT
• SS will have NO POWER, but will have GLOVE
• LF will have NO GLOVE, but will have POWER
• CF will have NO ARM, but will have SPEED
• RF will have NO AVERAGE, but will have ARM

Team – the team will have two Advantages and one Hindrance for each PC, all the same for each member of the team. These Aspects of the Team can be changed by the playgroup during play, but can only change occasionally.

Bio – The Bio will be two to four sentences about the character. It will define the PCs strongest Tool, their Key Trait and their Issue The strongest Tool can be a Tool from the position and it will have double strength. The Key Trait is a personality aspect that the player wants to role-play. The Issue is the problem that the PC must overcome in order to Make it to the Bigs (what the heck does that statement mean?)

How do conflicts work?

There will be off-the-field conflicts of character choice. These conflicts will be handled quickly and will be driven by the Players in order to recharge a Tool (Tools can only be recharged off the field in scenes with more than one Player Character) or by the GM to spotlight an Issue or as an interstitial to illustrate the PC’s Key Trait. There are also conflicts on the field, which happen during a baseball match. These conflicts are either Plays or At Bats.

Plays are moments where the PCs are not At Bat, meaning they are either On Base or On the Field. Plays can be Defensive Challenges, meaning the opposing team is trying to score a run and the PCs must stop them. Plays can also be Offensive Challenges, which are conflicts where the PC is not At Bat, but the PC’s Team is. So, the PC could be On Base and trying to score or break up a double play or trying to steal third or anything else that would contribute to the PC team scoring a run but isn’t At Bat.

At Bats are conflicts between a Player Character and a Pitcher (and subsequently the opposing team) where the Player Character tries to score a run. The At Bat can be resolved one of two ways, either through one roll to resolve the entire At Bat called Last Pitch, or by resolving every single pitch in the At Bat, which is called simply – Pitch By Pitch.

Last Pitch mode is a simple roll by the Batting Player Character against a roll by The Ump portraying the opposing pitcher. whoever rolls highest wins the conflict and describes the result within the parameters of the difference between the roll results.

Pitch By Pitch mode is a complex series of rolls to simulate each pitch during a conflict between the batter and the pitcher. The At Bat is resolved when either the Batter gets a hit or is out.

I recently interviewed Jason Morningstar about his game in development Fiasco.  During a lull (and off mic), I mentioned my game in development “Making the Bigs” and how I’m using the Shadow of Yesterday by his friend and gaming buddy Clinton R Nixon.  As I described the overall concept to Jason, he mentioned there were aspects of tSoY that did map well to my game idea (the idea of Keys, Bringing Down the Pain and using Transcendance as the trigger for a PC to be promoted), but he also said that the game may not give me what I wanted from MtB.

Weeks before that I was having an IM conversation with Remi Treuer (another friend and gaming buddy of Clinton) about MtB and talking about tSoY and he also expressed concern, but I was too excited to hear what he meant by it.

After two people mentioning this to me, I started to worry.  The part that concerned me is that I’ve read through tSoY several times but I’ve never gotten to play it.  What about tSoY looked fine on paper but didn’t work through play?

Here’s how I’ve tried to answer that question.  I spent a couple weeks creating PCs, mocked up a whole baseball team and a pitcher.  Then I sat down with a made-up batter and a made-up pitcher and rolled an at bat.  This at bat was an application of the task resolution system in tSoY called Bringing Down the Pain.

The idea behind using tSoY, a “story first” type of RPG, is that the at bats could be more interpretive, allowing for the playgroup to take roll results and weave them into interesting stories.  I also didn’t want to dictate too much baseball results and take away the fun.  In my head, I know I’m either writing this game for RPGers who don’t know much baseball and would get confused by a bunch of table results as well as baseball fans who don’t know RPGs but do know baseball stats and could fill in the blanks if I give a good framework.

I got through one at bat in my simulation before I came to realize that mapping the tSoY concept of “Harm” (which is a hit points type of thing for tSoY) to balls and strikes is problematic.  Its too much math around the actual baseball results, the two don’t overlap well.  What is a Bruised Level?  A strike?  What is a Bloodied level?  A strikeout?  The two aren’t integrated, they feel glommed together.

Now I’m wondering if I should create my own at bat mini-game, scrap the idea of using tSoY and go back to formula, or push through and drift tSoY slightly…