A Role-Playing Game of Ethics on the Battlefield by Kirt "Loki" Dankmyer Regrets spoken upon one's dying bed will not return unnumbered victims dead. Please Note: I'm trying to keep this updated in the face of how we're actually playing. Last update: 2003-12-02
And, in some ways, it's not about war at all. It's about holding to one's morality while in a stressful situation. War is only the most obvious situation that puts extreme stress on someone to compromise one's ethics, but the game could just as easily be used for situations of, say, famine and plague, or on the streets of LA. The bias is toward war, but this should not discourage its use for other extreme situations. The game is meant to be general, but narrow. Whether the game is set during the American Civil War, the LA Riots, the Black Plague or Vietnam, it is about the same thing: the dilemmas the characters face, and how they react to them. Undeclared wars, like the war for America's streets that police officers face every day, are especially appropriate for Unsung. It is also about discovering how human, and how bestial, you really are -- and being surprised in the process. Character Creation 1. Come up with a character concept. Generally, we assume soldiers or police of some sort (usually infantry or beat cops), but other characters, from a peasant to a spy, may be possible depending on the GM's campaign, especially for a game set during a guerilla war or a famine. Most important is the ethical and moral path the character follows, no matter how simple. 2. Every character has five basic Traits, listed below, and 50 points to distribute between them. No Trait may be higher than 19 or lower than 1. You do not have to spend all your points -- if you want a weaker character, then you can have one, though you must spend at least 1 point on each Trait. For each Trait, one should pick an adjective, noun, or phrase (called a Descriptor) that relates to specifically what one would think of when considering the character and that Trait. It may be an explanation of what that Trait is for that character, or the way the character is when succeeding in a check based on that Trait, or just a personality quirk associated with that Trait. The Traits (and sample Descriptors) are:
SENSE: This is the character's ability to acquire and process information, whether on a conscious or unconscious level. It's perception, mental quickness, and raw, uneducated intelligence all rolled into one. Sample Descriptors include: "Spotting Ambushes" "Fast-Thinking" "Intuition" GUTS: This is the character's ability to deal with horrible, disturbing things, and the ability to remain calm while performing a nasty task under stress, particularly during combat. A Guts check is used to determine if the character can shoot someone in combat: If the character is calm, then everything else follows. It is also rolled when, say, the character encounters horribly mutilated bodies, to make sure the character can remain calm, or any other "terrible scene" the GM thinks may be difficult to deal with. In cases such as those, on a failed Guts check, the character will usually attempt to remove himself from the situation that caused the Guts check. Descriptors for Guts can include how one deals with stress, and sample Descriptors for Guts include: "Steely" "Business-Like" "Gallows Humor" "Squeamish" MEAT: This relates to everything purely physical about the character, mainly the ability to take damage and the character's raw, physical strength. Generally, the former is more important than the latter, see the Battle section below. Sample Meat Descriptors include: "Beefy" "High Pain Threshold" "Oxlike" "Wiry" "Battle-Scarred" RESPONSIBILITY: This is arguably the most important Trait. Every character should have an ethical and/or moral system, even if it's something as sketchy as "don't screw over your friends". The Responsibility Trait represents the ability to stick to one's guns, morally speaking, under pressure, and not compromise. During the course of the game, one's Responsibility Trait will go up or down depending on the character's actions, though it can never go above 19 or below 1. Responsibility can be rolled to convince someone that the character is trustworthy. Responsibility is especially important in preventing a Lapse (see below). Descriptors for Responsibility usually relate to the most important principles that the character holds dear, such as: "Loyalty" "Honor" "Patriotism" "Egalitarianism" 3. After your Traits have been determined, one must calculate a sixth Trait: Instinct. INSTINCT: Instinct is not allocated a value out of the original 50 points; instead it is equal to 20 minus the character's Responsibility. This is always the case: For every point Responsibility goes up, Instinct goes down, and vice-versa. This represents how in touch the character is with their basest, most animal nature, the way the character behaves when all civilization is thrown out the window. It is best thought of as an abbreviation for "Killer Instinct". Any successful Instinct check can be used as a bonus to any Guts check, through the Rule of Currency (see below): If you're in touch with your animal nature, it's easier to do the sort of brutal things war requires of you, or dismiss such brutality as unimportant. Also, Instinct should be rolled whenever cold, animal cunning comes into play, such as when trying to scare someone or during a brutal interrogation. The Descriptors for Instinct usually indicate the way the character is when "out of control", such as: "Cold" "Wild and Screaming" "Feral" "Savage" "Emotionally Cruel" Also, when using the Rule of Currency to gain a bonus to a Guts check, after the die has been rolled and the Instinct check is a success, the player has the option of doubling the bonus gained to the Guts check, at the risk of a Lapse (see Lapses, below). Example of Character: In a game set during the American Civil War, Joe decides he is going to play a country hick named Zeb. He decides Zeb is an extreme Southern patriot who believes that the most noble thing one can do is sacrifice himself for his country. He used to work on a farm, but joined the army as soon as war broke out. Years of hard battle have not dampened his enthusiasm. After assigning points to his Traits (he decides that Zeb is strong and uneducated, allocating points to Savvy and Meat appropriately), Joe calculates Zeb's Instinct based on his Responsibility and picks Descriptors for all his traits. The resulting character looks like this:
Optional Rule: 50 points is for "average joe" characters -- infantrymen, peasant crossbowmen, and rookie cops. If you want more "elite" characters (i.e. special forces or SWAT), go with 55 or even 60 points. (Another way of simulating a particular background is to give extra points to be spent in certain ways, such as an extra 5 points that can only be spent on Savvy, representing the education the character had to go through to become a police detective, or whatever.) Or try a "born loser" campaign with 40 points -- sometimes character (in the sense of "moral character") only shows during adversity. Basic Mechanic When the character wants to do something that the GM feels requires a roll, the player rolls a d20 (a twenty-sided die, available in most hobby stores), seeking to roll equal to or under the appropriate Trait, such as Guts in order to hit with a gun. This is called a "check". One should only make a check when there is a reasonable chance of failure in the GM's opinion -- one does not usually need a check to walk across the room. In fact, checks should follow the Rule of Jared, named for Jared Sorensen, who wasn't the first to propose this rule but is one of its most vocal proponents: Roll only when it's important. If, in order for the game to get going again, the jeep needs to get fixed... it gets fixed. No roll needed. Roll only when success OR failure has an effect on the game. That is, roll when it's interesting.
Guts: Firing a gun, punching someone, not running in the face of an enemy,
not losing one's lunch when discovering skinned children
When the roll is successful (i.e. is under or equal to the Trait), if a degree of success is needed (such as when invoking the Rule of Currency, see below, or for descriptive purposes: more successes means a more spectactular result), the number rolled is the "degree of success". The higher the degree of success, the better the character did. In fact, if the degree of success is 10 or higher, the player should be allowed to describe what happens, rather than the GM. Sometimes the GM might want a "degree of failure". That is, she may want to know how badly the character failed when the player rolls over the character's Trait. The degree of failure is equal to 21 minus the number rolled. The higher the degree of failure, the worse the character failed. Note that the GM never rolls. Opposition is represented by a penalty to the character's Trait, as below. If a player character is opposed by another PC, then the GM decides who is the "aggressor" and who is the "defender" (arbitarily, if needed) -- the "aggressor" rolls, while the "defender" exerts a penalty equal to half the character's appropriate Trait, rounded up. Before the aggressor rolls, the defender can choose to roll against his own Trait, applying a successful roll as a penalty and a failed roll as a bonus using the Rule of Currency, below. Bonuses or penalties may be applied to a check by the GM, to represent an unusually easy or difficult task, to represent a degree of opposition, or as a result of the Rule of Currency (see below). They usually vary no more than 5 in either direction, though extremely difficult tasks might have a penalty as high as -10. A bonus is a temporary increase to the Trait in question for the purposes of that one check only, and a penalty is a decrease in the Trait for that one check only. A task with a +5 bonus is a very easy task, and a task with a -5 penalty is very difficult. Keep in mind every -1 or +1 to a check lowers or raises the chance of success by 5%. The GM should also keep the character's Descriptors in mind when calling for checks. An action that is particularly in-line with the character's Descriptors (even if they're associated with a different Trait than the one being used in the check, though those Descriptors should count less) should be worth at least a +1 bonus, and possibly more, depending on appropriateness and how much the GM wants to emphasize Descriptors. Similarly, actions that go against the character's Descriptors may incur a penalty. Some tasks may be impossible without an appropriate Descriptor. For example, only a character with the Savvy Descriptor of "went to medical school" should be allowed to even attempt surgery, or must attempt it with a -15 penalty, which is more or less the same thing. No bonus or penalty, no matter how it is derived, may modify a Trait below 1 or above 19. There is always a chance of success or failure. Example of a Trait Check: Joe tells the GM he's going to have Zeb flip over the gravestone of a Union officer. Ignoring the Rule of Jared because he knows the grave has been booby-trapped, and therefore it makes a difference if Zeb shifts the gravestone too much, the GM calls for a check, and she rules this is a fairly difficult task, as this particular stone is heavy, so there is a -5 penalty to Zeb's Meat for the purposes of this check, meaning Jospeh's Meat (normally a 12) is effectively 7 for this check. Joe rolls a 6, successful enough to flip over the gravestone in the GM's opinion, setting off the booby trap. The Rule of Currency
The way it works is this: Take the degree of success of the original check, divide by 2 (round up), and apply that number as a bonus or penalty, as appropriate, to the next check. Remember that no bonus or penalty can modify a Trait above 19 or below 1. If the first check is a failure, the penalty or bonus to the next check (usually a penalty, but it's the GM's call) through the Rule of Currency is slightly more complicated to calculate: Subtract the number rolled from 21, and divide the resulting number by 2, rounding up. Or, equivalently, take the degree of failure and divide by 2, rounding up. No more than one bonus or penalty, from one previous check, may be applied to a check due to the Rule of Currency. It should be possible to set up the different checks in a clear "chain" as to what check affects what check, which in turn affect another check. It might help to think of it like this: 2 degrees of success = +1 bonus = -1 penalty = 2 degrees of failure If the above equation makes no sense, ignore it and rely entirely on the paragraphs above it. The situations where one check applies to another check using the Rule of Currency is determined by the GM. The GM is encouraged to be flexible on this issue and to listen to player input regarding the Rule of Currency. Note that if the Rule of Currency has not yet been invoked to give a bonus or penalty to a Guts check, the player can always choose to check Instinct before checking Guts and apply the Rule of Currency, though a failed Instinct check will result in a penalty to the Guts check. This is the biggest advantage of being in touch with one's primal, animalistic urges. Example: Zeb is moving through the woods when the rounds the corner on the trail he's following and finds himself face-to-face with a Union soldier, the character of another player. The GM tells Joe to make a Guts check to draw his sidearm and fire. Joe opts to roll his Instinct beforehand and invoke the Rule of Currency. Jospeh's Instinct is 12 and his Guts are 15. Joe rolls a 13, barely missing his Instinct check, resulting in degree of failure of 7 (21 - 14). This means the penalty to his Guts check 4 (7/2, rounded up). So, for the purposes of this check, Zeb's Guts is 11. Since the degree of success is greater than 10, Joe describes shooting the Union soldier in the head. Invoking the Rule of Currency (see also the Battle section below), the GM penalizes the Union soldier's Meat check to remain standing by 6 (11/2, rounded up). The soldier normally has a Meat of 10, modified to 4 by the Rule of Currency. The other player rolls a 6 for the soldier: He falls Down.
Under stress, it is difficult to maintain one's sense of self, to remember to think about the moral implications of one's actions. It is much easier to act on instinct. If there is a stressful situation going on but the player has the character continue to act in a manner consistent with the character's morality, where the character takes responsibility for his actions, the GM may call for a Responsibility check, especially when there is an obvious advantage to an ethical compromise. If the check succeeds, the character acts as the player specified. If the check fails, the character suffers a Lapse. The GM is encouraged to modify the check according to the situation -- it is easier to resist shooting an unarmed stranger than someone you just saw kill one of your companions. When suffering a moral Lapse, the player loses control of the character. The character takes the easy way out. The character kills a prisoner rather than taking the prisoner with him, fires at civilians, or whatever seems appropriate at the time. Usually the most brutal or ruthless action, in context, is taken. Sometimes, however, it is just a matter of chickening out. Sometimes the worse thing to do is to run away, abandoning your companions to die. All of the players of the game except the player whose character is experiencing the Lapse, plus the GM, vote on what the character would do, based on the situation and the character's background. The GM breaks ties, but the player who normally runs the character has no say whatsoever. Since there are no pre-set options to vote on, a brainstorming session, taking into account the character and his options, usually precedes the vote, where everyone discusses possible things that the character can do. The character's player is encouraged to participate in this discussion, but ultimately has no control once the issue finally comes to vote. Often the majority of the players will reach a consensus and no vote will be needed. Remember, when a Lapse happens, that what your character does during a Lapse is a gift from the other players. It may seem odd to think of it that way, but it's true. If they give your character a Lapse that is extremely in line with your character, they're showing their enjoyment of the character concept. If they have your character act in a way you wouldn't expect, they're adding something to your character, something you can then explore yourself. Many people have said "where the Hell did that come from" during times of stress, and a Lapse can be an opportunity to discover something about your character that even you weren't aware of. Either way, it's a gift. The player whose character is suffering a Lapse is encouraged, however, to help add details to the Lapse, to make it more meaningful, while maintaining the spirit of what the group voted on. In fact, the whole group is encouraged to add details to the character's story to enhance the effect of the Lapse, though the one veto power the player whose character is in the middle of the Lapse has is over such details, if not over what the character actually does. By default, the player of the Lapsing character describes the Lapse, and the player is encouraged to create, and elaborate on, the internal justification for the Lapse. At the end of the play session where the character had a Lapse, the player who normally controls the character makes another Responsibility check. If it succeeds, the character realizes that he's suffered a Lapse, and reacts to this fact as the player feels appropriate. If the check fails, the character's Responsibility is permanently reduced by 1 (and the character's Instinct goes up); whether the character notices or not is up to the player. If the player Lapses a lot during a session, the GM may choose to penalize the check. Also, if the player opts to have the character engage in some heinous act, like firing on civilians or rape, the GM has the right to demand an immediate Responsibility check, with a penalty appropriate to the seriousness of the action. Again, the GM is encouraged, but not required, to take player input on this matter. If the Responsibility check is successful, there is no further effect: The player may rationalize the act as he thinks appropriate for the character. If the Responsibility check is a failure, then the character's Instinct is permanently increased by 1 (and his Responsibility drops). Similarly, a particularly responsible and ethical act, such as risking one's life to save a child, may cause the GM to call for a Responsibility check. Once again, the GM is encouraged to take player input on these matters, though such checks should be relatively rare. If the check succeeds, the character's Responsibility goes up by 1 permanently (and his Instinct drops). If the check fails, there is no further effect: Sometimes one acts heroic reflexively, and is unchanged by the experience. Generally speaking, when the character chooses not to let forth their worst side during a tough situation, and is "defeated" because of it, the character should have a chance to gain Responsibility, as above. Also, in situations where the character's behavior has been exemplary for most of the session (even if they weren't damaged by it), they might get a chance to increase Responsibility, as above. Example: During a firefight with Union troops, Zeb sees a child fleeing the scene, in the direction of Union HQ. He knows that if the child warns HQ, his unit will be fired on by artillery and many of his fellow soldiers will die. Joe says that Zeb will not fire on the child, and in fact attempts to distract his unit from the child so they don't fire on the child either. After making his Responsibility check not to have a Lapse, the GM, at the urging of the other players, grants Joe another Responsibility check to see if Zeb's Responsibility goes up. Note that this system means that it is easier for a chararacter with high Responsibility to gain more Responsibility through heroic actions, and hard for a character with low Responsibility to do the same -- with a highly unstable middle. This means a downward spiral is tough to climb out of, and the good stay good. There is also the Doubling Down Rule. After rolling Instinct to gain a bonus to a Guts check through the Rule of Currency, the player has the option of doubling the bonus to the Guts check he is normally entitled to through the Rule of Currency. However, if this option is exercised, after the Guts check is made (and any results of that check adjudicated, such as in battle), the player must immediately make a Responsibility check for the character or suffer a Lapse: the character has dipped too far into the well of his own brutality, and must suffer the consequences. (For another way to ensure Guts checks, see the Rule of Sacrifice in the Battle section below. Also, see the Rule of Gifts, below.) The player can opt, at any time a Responsibility check is called for, to not roll, automatically failing. This is the equivalent, for all purposes, to rolling one higher than the character's Responsibility on the die -- the maximum Degree of Failure possible. Some people choose to embrace their damnation. No matter what happens, Responsibility can not go below 1 or above 19, and the same goes for Instinct. No one is perfect, and no one is beyond saving. (A character with a Responsibility of 1 will find a way to destroy themselves eventually anyway.) Note that what is considered a morally-challenging (and Lapse-worthy) situation and what a "heroic" situation entails is deliberately left vague. This is really for the GM and players to either establish for themselves as part of the initial social contract of the game, or to develop in play. In general, one is enouraged to leave a lot of room for different moral codes and shades of grey. (If you're interested in exploring more stark moral contrasts in a cinematic vein, I highly recommend Clinton R. Nixon's Paladin.) The Rule of Gifts
When giving a Gift, a player adds a detail or situation to a scene that challenges another player's character (the character, not the player) in an ethical, moral, or emotional way. Any detail not covered yet by the GM is fair game for a Gift. The GM has the right to veto the detail, but is encouraged not to do so unless he has very good reason. The player who's character is being challenged may also veto the situation, in which case it is not added to game reality. Otherwise, the situation happens as the player describes, and the player who described the situation gains a Gift Point. Example: During a firefight with Union troops, Sue decides to give Joe a Gift. She declares she's giving a Gift and describes how Zeb sees a child fleeing the scene, in the direction of Union HQ, and how he knows that if the child warns HQ, his unit will be fired on by artillery and many of his fellow soldiers will die. This is a challenge to Zeb's ethics: Is he willing to kill a child for his new-found Confederate patriotism? Neither Joe nor the GM veto the event, so it happens as Sue described, and she gains a Gift Point. A player can spend a Gift Point to do any of the following: In any case where one is using Gift Points to succeed at a roll, one can spend the points even after the roll is made, turning the roll into a success even if it is a failure. This has to be done before the effects of the roll are described. Note that Gift Points are associated with a player, not a character. A player does not lose Gift Points even if the character dies. See "Death", below, for more on this issue. It may seem to some people that the person getting the Gift gets nothing. This isn't true. In improv, if someone adds something to your character, even something "negative", it's considered a gift, and one simply incorporates it into one's character and moves on. The idea is any detail makes a character more interesting. It is from this improv practice that the Rule of Gifts gets its name. The person getting a Gift may not get a Gift Point, but they get spotlight time and an opportunity to develop their character through adverity. Also, players may want to add details to a scene that doesn't challenge a character morally, just to make the scene more interesting. While such a detail is subject to veto by everyone involved in the scene (including the GM) and doesn't earn Gift Point, it can be used as a device to make the game more interesting in general. Battle and Aftermath
Also, remember the Rule of Jared. If the combat is not very important, there's no reason to break it down into a blow-by-blow. Have a couple of Guts checks decide the result of the entire scene, or just narrate the results and move on. This system assumes a blow-by-blow account is important, and can set things up for upcoming scenes. Combat is chaotic. The GM is encouraged to ask players what they're doing more or less at random, make the appropriate rolls, and have everything happen at once. Repeat as needed. The idea here is to enhance the helplessness and confusion that a firefight entails. To strike someone, whether with a fist or with a missile, requires a Guts check -- do you remain calm enough while engaging in violence to successfully injure someone? The GM may access appropriate penalties for range, targeting computers, weather, and so on, if the GM and players are interested in that sort of thing. Like any Guts check, if the Rule of Currency has not yet come into play, the player has the option of checking Instinct first to get a bonus (or, in the case of failure, a penalty) to the Guts check. If the Instinct check is successful, the player may invoke the Doubling Down Rule (see above). There is also what is called The Rule of Sacrifice. The player can also choose, at any time during the battle, to automatically make a Guts check by permanently losing a point of Responsibility (and gaining a point of Instinct). In this case, the character should describe how they are compromising their ethics to, say, ensure a hit -- this may be entirely an "internal" matter, where the player describes a shift in the character's attribute. "I decided, at that moment, that if they were Northerners, they were no longer worthy of moral consideration." Or, optionally, the player may narrate a detail to the combat that furthers the character's personal story while illustrating his downward spiral; any detail not covered by the GM is fair game. "As the bullet tore into the Federal trooper, and he looked behind him, I realized I recognized him. Every day, John Tylon, the only man who was ever kind to me at the factory, would talk about his cousin and best friend, who lived in New York City, and who he missed terribly. Every day, he would show me a picture of them together. And now, for the first time, I saw the man in person -- and I had put a bullet in him. And yet, I felt nothing." The degree of success when using the Rule of Sacrifice is equal to the character's Guts, as modified by any bonuses or penalties. A character with a Responsibility of 1 cannot use this rule. By permanently losing two points of Responsibility, one can succeed on a Guts check with a (normally impossible) degree of success of 20; an internal or external detail regarding the slow degradation of the character's morality must be narrated as above. Characters with a Responsibility of 2 or less cannot invoke this version of the Rule. Regardless of how a hit occurs, the person hit immediately makes a Meat check, with a penalty determined through the Rule of Currency, based on the Guts check to hit. There is also an additional penalty based on the weapon: Fists (unarmed fighting) 0 Small Sidearm (pistol) -2 Large Sidearm (rifle) -4 Heavy Weapon (grenade) -6 and up If the character fails the Meat check, they are Down. The character falls and is out of the combat. If the character makes the Meat check, they are Tagged. Being hit again after being Tagged merely means another check to see if you're Down at a (non-cumulative) -6 penalty. Since the GM does not roll, he must abstract the enemy's "checks", in the spirit the Rule of Jared. Instead of rolling for each GMC, he might just determine a character at random each round is hit by enemy fire, and skip straight to the Meat check. After the combat, if a character is Down, they should make a Meat check, with a -6 penalty if they were Tagged. If the check fails, the character is dead. If the check succeeds, the character must make a second Meat check, again with penalties for being Tagged. If that second check succeeds, the character wakes up, and is considered to be Tagged. If the second Meat check fails, the character permanently loses 1 Meat. The character must then make another Meat check in order to wake up, as above, with the possibility of losing more Meat. If the character's Meat drops to 0, the character dies.
Regardless, a character who is Tagged or Down can receive first aid. A successful Savvy check for first aid can be used with the Rule of Currency to give a bonus to a Meat check the character is about to make, especially in the case of a Down character that is receiving first aid and trying to wake up. First aid may be attempted on a given character once per battle and once after the battle (and only if the character was Tagged at least once during the battle); subsequent first aid attempts, while perhaps comforting to the victim, have no effect, and the character may carry their Tagged status into a new battle. After first aid has been exhausted, only proper medical care can help the character. When the character receives what the GM considers to be a proper amount of medical care and/or rest, he can make a Meat check, with the -6 penalty for being Tagged and appropriate bonuses for the quality of the care. If the check succeeds, the character is no longer Tagged. If the check fails, the character gains a cumulative +1 for the next Meat check. If not healed completely, after an appropriate amount of time under medical care passes, the character gets another Meat check as above.
At the start of every session, each character gets a Gift Point. Three Gift Points can be exchanged at the end of a session for a Story Point. This can be used to raise or lower any Trait permantently by one, or replace/add a Descriptor to any Trait -- yes, Traits can have more than one Descriptor. The player must explain, in detail, why this makes sense in terms of the character's personal story. If a character dies, all unused Story Points are lost. Generally they are bought and spent immediately, so this is rarely a problem. Regardless, no Trait may be above 19 or lower than 1, and remember that if a Story point is used to increase Responsiblity, Instinct goes down (and vice versa). The Mission System This system is for groups that would like to abstract a single mission/battle to a few rolls, while choosing a "dramatic moment" in the overall scene to adjudicate with the normal combat system (above). It is especially appropriate if the characters are somewhat autonomous, such as if they're members of a commando unit. The idea is the GM makes a list of factors that influence the battle (or all battles, if any, in a particular mission) such as Resouces (Ammo/Food), Intelligence (Communication, Planning), Time (length of encounter desired versus actual time taking) and Valor (Individual/Group). The GM ranks the factors secretly as how important they are to the overall action. The players then rank the factors themselves in some fashion, usually with the current "team leader" having the last say. Or, optionally, each player can rank the different factors seperately, meaning they are affected differently. The factors can be anything, and there can be any number of them, so long as there are at least four.
Note that these bonuses and penalties are generally not added up. Instead, each bonus or penalty applies to the kind of scene that relates to that factor. On average, the GM will have at least one check per factor, and will probably use these checks as an idea of where to focus for a more detailed scene. The GM may also choose to forgo rolls and have a scene relating to a factor where the PCs are weak. He might also use the total of the factors as an overall indication of whether the mission is successful or not, as modified by subsequent checks, or use the checks and/or more detailed scenes to gague success. For example: In a WWII game, the mission is to infiltrate a local Nazi base and sabotage it's generators. Joseph, Thomas, Killian, and Hugh are all a combat team. Joseph is the de facto leader. The GM declares the major factors in the mission are Resources, Intelligence, Valor, and Time. He secretly ranks them in the following order, from most to least important: Time, Resources, Intelligence, Valor. The team ranks by vote the things they feel will influence the battle, with Joseph serving as a tiebreaker: Resources, Intelligence, Valor and Time. Having no direct matches the team gets no +2's. Time rank is -2 (three off). Resources is +1, Intelligence is +1 and Valor is +1 -- they're all one off. The GM uses this as a skeleton of narrative structure, either using these as bonuses or penalties to checks and to decide where/when to set a scene. Joseph and Hugh realize that they need to know what's going on to get the mission working well. Hugh uses his comm gear to cordinate (an Intelligencce/Info based roll so +1 to Hugh's Savvy check). Jospeh then uses plans to plot their routes to the generators (again Intelligence: +1 to Joseph's Savvy check). Now that they know where to plant their explosives, they make sure have enough supplies so supply won't be an issue (the +1 on Resource related actions indicates they have the gear they need to succeed). However, while they are sneaking around the base they mistime a guard's movements and are seen (the GM decides the -2 on Time means this is where they will fail) they then have to rely on Valor (+1) to get through to the generators; the GM drops down into a normal combat scene as they fight their way through the generators, perhaps with a +1 to any check involving bravery (several Guts checks). To make things more complicated, the GM throws some civilians into the crossfire -- the result of this combat not only determines the success of the mission, but challenges the characters ethically as well. After the combat, the GM rules the mission is successful, as the total modifiers acquired by the PCs are positive, and the PCs didn't blow any checks. Essentially, the mission system is designed to be a numerical springboard and rough guideline as to how to adjudicate a particular mission or battle. The Rule of Gifts can be used at any time to spark a more detailed scene, and the narrative stucture may give the players ideas for Gifts to give each other. Also, do not forget that there can be more than four factors, to make things even more complicated for the PCs. Some Advice From the Author Unsung can get pretty heavy. Don't forget the prime rule of all RPGs: You're here to have fun. Below are some notes for GMs (and, to an extent, players) that didn't fit anywhere else. First of all, the Game Moderator should not feel contrained by history when deciding the sort of conflict the game centers around. A science fiction or other fictional background (like Middle Earth) may be very engaging, done correctly. As GM, before play, I like to enourage more than the usual amount of jokes and social banter. Unsung can be so deadly serious, and it's best to get the jokes out beforehand, so everyone can concentrate on the game. On the other hand, a touch of gallows humor adds to the game as well. Regardless, warm up a little before jumping right into it. As a GM, make sure your scenario contains plenty of opportunities for Lapses, but is loose enough to allow for Gifts. If you're vetoing Gifts left and right, either your scenario design is too tight or you need to have a talk with the players about theme and tone. Make sure everyone is aware of what rules are and aren't being used. I designed Unsung with a lot of optional rules so you can customize it to your play group without losing that Unsung flavor: the questions of morality and the potential downward spiral of Responsibility. Remember what Ron Edwards once said so well: System does matter. Be aware of why you're adjusting the rules as you are, and keep an eye on the type of effect you're trying to achieve. You may want to consider a little one-page writeup outlining the basic background of the game ("You're all Italian soliders during the start of WWII...") and the rules, including character creation. You may want to discuss this as a group -- not enough groups discuss their unwritten social contract before play. And while I'm talking about social contracts, considering the nature of the game, be sure everyone is aware of where people's emotional buttons are. You're supposed to go a little further than one normally does in a "normal" RPG session -- you're encouraged to play with the boundaries. However, if anyone gets honestly uncomfortable, they should feel comfortable enough to call the game to a halt. (This is part of the reason for the GM and player vetos -- to keep everything kosher when people start pushing boundaries.) Don't be afraid to set hard and fast rules if you need to, like "No rape, under any circumstances" or "I'm not comfrotable with detailed torture scenes." Don't turn it into a Disney movie, but you don't have to pull out all the stops, either -- sometimes just breaking one agreed-upon taboo of your group is enough, and often you can notch up the intensity without breaking any taboos at all. The idea is to facilite gritty stories of moral adversity, not to kill puppies for Satan. (That's another game...) And again: Have fun. I like to think we're producing art here, so there's a bit a work involved, but it should be rewarding at the end... The Premise (Designer's Notes) "Are morals a civilian luxury?" Unsung is designed to be used in a situation where the characters are struggling to uphold a system of morals in a difficult situation. That is, one is not free until one spends time thinking and acting according to one's morals, rather than relying on knee-jerk reactions, which are as much a prison and anything made of stone and iron. The Lapse system and the Gift system are the heart of the game. What happens when you lose countrol? How do you deal with it? How about when you're given the opportunity to become a hero?
Yes, these are controversial, hot-button issues, and I'm aware of this, and sensitive to this. It is expected that the players will handle these issues in a mature and sensitive fashion. Credits In general, I'd like to thank the regulars of the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com) for their comments and suggestions. There are too many to mention here, but in particular, I'd like to mention the following: Mike "Grognard" Holmes for excellent suggestions regarding the Death section (including the Final Gift) and for being reality police, Paganini for a discussion that inspired the "Death" section, Sidhain for the Mission system, Jack Spencer Jr. for some suggestions about combat, and Valamir for all sorts of advice, even if I didn't take it all. Whoot! I'd also like to mention the games that influenced the design of this game: Fading Suns (for its basic dice mechanic), Sorcerer (for the Rule of Currency), Vampire: The Masquerade (which influenced how I handled Lapses), Pendragon (which influenced the Responsibility vs. Instinct mechanic), and OctaNe (which inspired the Rule of Jared). This game is dedicated to everyone who has risked their lives for something they believed in, and those who risked their lives even without something to believe in. Special thanks to my playtesters: Jamie "Imperative" Lynn, Russ "Gamist" Rosin, Emily "Ewoks" Shoop, and James "Irish" Spahn. What do you think? Like it? Hate it? Email me. All text copyright Kirt A. Dankmyer 2002, 2003. |
This is a game about war, though not always about the sort of war that
people write about in history books. Unlike most RPGs about war, it has no
interest in accurate combat, in simulating war down to the bullet. Instead,
it is concerned with the story of war, the human cost of war: the
ethical, moral, and emotional toll upon characters, the sort of thing one
sees in a good war movie or police drama. Strategy and tactics are of
secondary importance,
if at all.
SAVVY: This represents the character's knowledge, education, and
experience. It can represent anything from a formal college education to
"the school of hard knocks". Sample Descriptors include: "West Point
Graduate" "Street Smart" "Well-Read" "Old Enough to Know Better"
The Trait that should be used for a given check is decided upon by the GM
and should be obvious from the descriptions above, but below are some
examples of the various traits and the sorts of checks they are appropriate
for.
There are many cases where the success of one check would logically
affect the success of another. For example, a character may make an Sense
check to find the best location to set up a sniper's nest, giving that
character a bonus to the Guts check to shoot the enemy commander when he
strolls by. Also, the chain can continue, and can include penalties as well
as bonuses: The result of the Guts check to shoot the enemy commander causes
a penalty to the Meat check the commander makes to survive the shot, if said
commander is another player character (see Battle, below).
Lapses
This rule is designed to be a complement to the Lapse system. It allows
players to highlight
other player's characters and gain a reward for doing so.
Combat is obviously of major importance to "Unsung". However, it is
supposed to mainly be a backdrop for the moral decisions that the
characters are making, so the system is fairly abstract. It is, however,
still rather detailed, with the idea of creating situations where
important characters go down and might not survive, which leads to
an interesting situation for the other Player Characters. "The bastards shot
Jonesy!" Pay close attention to the Rule of Sacrifice (below) and the Rule
of Gifts (above).
After battle, if the character was Tagged but did not go Down, once the
character has a chance to pause and rest for a moment, the GM should call
for a Meat check, with the usual -6 for being Tagged. If the check
succeeds, the character is no longer Tagged. If
the check fails, the wounds catch up to the character, and the character
goes Down -- see above.
Each rank the players match exactly gives the players (or that individual
character) a +2 to checks relating directly to that aspect of the mission, each
rank that
is off by one (e.g. ranked first when it should be second, etc.) is a +1 to
all appropriate checks, two ranks different is a -1, each one
ranked three ranks different
(e.g. ranked first when
it should be fourth) is a -2, four ranks different is a -3, and so on.
