Possibilty of Classes in Fallen 2e

One of the major changes, or additions rather, I am considering for the second edition of Fallen, is that of classes. I think we’ll call them archetypes though, as that term feels more fluid to my ear. A generic representation of a type, a framework, from which the player may spring, swing, and mold in their own vision. I think this addition to the game has a possible two-fold positive impact.

See, in Fallen first edition (F1e) characters are largely assumed to be of a certain cloth: tricorne-wearing, longcoat adorned, pistol wielding “rogues,” highwaymen, monster hunters with mysterious attitude. And this will remain! I love the simplicity this offers. It’s not about talents, special abilities, and gear really. We pretty much all have the same. It’s meant to encourage a focus on sessions not PC development, world building, not maxing stats, and it creates a certain narrative baseline that I appreciate. In my mind, this no class effect begets a more realistic vibe. Of course, with The Folding, PCs become changed by their adventures, but all have access to the same list.

But since then, I’ve come to think of classes in Fallen not as fighter, cleric, thief, wizard but what about Fighter (default Fallen Rogue/highwayman), Noble, Farmer, Vampire, Court Magician, Spy. This being the first positive prong – a diversity of play style. It can open the game to so many more possibilities. Now in group play, this may present challenges. Having one of each of those in a party becomes quite difficult to create harmony and reasons for being together. But in solo play! Now I see numerous avenues of play, allowing the game to represent very different experiences based on the archetype one chooses. It’s not about having a well-rounded team to tackle the various troubles an adventure may present, but about creating wildly different stories for the player to inhabit.

Tradition is the second positive effect, albeit less significant. The truth is, I believe, people want options. Games like Knave are cool, because we all begin at the same baseline, and it’s about the loot we find, and the adventures we take on, that create our characters. But I think so many games continue using a standard class formats because the precedent that was set by the original game. People WANT to be wizards. They want to play Gandalf. Or they WANT to be Conan. Classes instantly bring us into the play-verse. Classes, like character sheets, are also shorthand for “this is the kind of game you will be playing.”

But in Fallen, when I talk about being a Magician, you are not playing a magic missile flinging staff-wielding Gandalf, you are playing a clever, diligent researching John Dee. You are an acolyte, the cult member. Now, you get to choose if you are evil or not, sure. Maybe you play the duplicitous whisperer to the emperor’s ear. Maybe you seek to open the portal to the “tree of life.”

Let’s say you play a Vampire. Are you protecting humans from your kind? Are you chasing the famous Rogue that has decimated your ranks?

The Challenges of Asymmetric Play

In group play, this approach presents its challenges of course. Inherently, your party motives are opposed. But let us talk from the solo perspective. What exactly makes playing a “Magician” fun? Historically, these hermetic types were looking to magic for answers. A common association is turning lead to gold. They were thinking about hidden knowledge, and nature and God’s word. It was philosophy and science and religion. Is this even something that can be gamified? As a thought experiment, let’s see what this could possibly look like.

 

Bruno Blackshire

Magician - Rank 6

Strength: +0

Focus: +2

Agility: +1

Will: +3

Jeweled dagger (d4)

Black & Red velvet cloak (1AV)

Notebook & ink

Star Charts

Oracle Deck

3 Candles

Stone Crucible

Skills

Diplomacy 1

Incantation 2

Investigation 1

Lore 1

http://www.johndee.org/charlotte/Illustrations.html

 

Ok, we have a standard character here. The main difference is, some of the items they have are not on the standard list. Also, we’ve selected Magician. So now, this is the crux. I truly think the best way to handle something like a class, that isn’t purely based on numbers and special abilities, is using some kind of “life path” system. We see this in games like Forbidden Lands, Beyond the Wall, or Vaesen. Some tables we roll on that give us a unique perspective into Bruno. These need to be applicable to all classes:

Family History:

Childhood:

Formative Event:

Secret:

Motivation:

Goal:

Closest Ally:

Let’s say each category has a d4 table. Though the categories are the same, these would be different for archetype. Additionally, even though I’ve added stats above, in lieu of that, I think the Life Path results would give us our stats. For this example, I just haven’t written them all out yet.

On top of these results, I think each Archetype would have a Talent specific to them.

Talent: Once per day, you may use your dark and burning glare to dissuade someone from challenging you.

Now, so far we have a character that is perfectly reasonable to play. How they are attached to some highwaymen rebels hunting werewolves and vampires could be bandied about in session 0 banter.

But what of the solo player? They need some goals.

Well, I think this ends up being a whole different section of the game. Generating Disturbances, (what adventures in Fallen are called) – They would be tied to your Goals:

For a Magician, it may be thus:

Goals

1. Locate Andrei Geordano Maximillian, famed author of the Treatise on Eternal Life.

2. Discover the location of the ruby encrusted skull of the notorious impaler, Ragton.

3. Your patron prince demands you extinguish the Trezlya of Gormouth Hills.

4. You’ve been charged with capturing the Rogues that have been terrorizing the Halldowns Highway.

Something like this. So you have an automatic jump off point. In theory, this will beget the next. I think the biggest challenge to this edition is creating a structure for Disturbances. Admittedly, this was the hardest part for me. When not playing a “loot the dungeon” game, things become more nuanced. Investigation games require a means of progress and fail. Using something akin to the Threat tracker and Progress tracker in Ironsworn is where I will be looking. These tools can be system agnostic, in that, be you a vampire, werewolf, or Rogue, a system is in place to apply pressure. This drives the game. A need to move, investigate, collect information all becomes more pressing. These trackers coupled with a flowchart of action. (this for another post)

Additionally, I will be looking at Trophy Dark's approach to adventures. I think the truncated Incursion format of that system is neat. Instead of keyed maps, a use of evocative text and choices are presented. This removes the tactical aspect so baked into dungeon delves but opens up conversation and tone. Is this right for the solo player? I believe in a game like Fallen, it could work.

But for now, I think the solo structure becomes a little bit like a check list. I know, this sounds gamey, as it is. But this needn’t be overly rigid and mechanical. You still pursue regular play, search for items, but maybe play becomes more related to something like Myst.

-            We learn of a puzzle [thus a puzzles table]

-            We travel to place of puzzle [thus a locations table]

-            We need to find clues and items [hence clues/words/evidence tables]

-            We track progress each time we find something

-            We either resolve through conflict or accumulation of information

-            Repeat.

Contradictory to an earlier statement, I think Fallen’s simple nature was one of its successes. Players knew who they were and what they were doing because there are so few options. Adding more definitely risks burdening it.

So all this to say, by including archetypes, the game opens up, increases nuance and depth in the types of stories that can be told. But this also requires more rich mechanics to carry over the “merely hunting baddies” line.

The next Fallen post should be related to this aspect of the game. Which ties into the Disturbances, and how the Spinner can successfully create their own. Are all Disturbances created equal when playing with different types in Fallen? Structure. This is the operating term for this game’s development. The first edition is pretty rules light, with lots of random tables support, but it perhaps lacks the Flowchart/ Structure that allows players to run the game smoothly.

Maybe, just maybe, archetypes become the framework?

A Struggle to Make Fallen 2e.

I’ve committed to bringing the second edition of Fallen to life in 2025-2026. I talked off and on of doing it since the initial books were released. I know I want to undertake the project, and I know the game would be better for it. But why has it taken me so long, and when I sit down to wrangle with the text, why do I become flummoxed?

 

It’s complicated, I think. On its surface, it’s a process of taking the original text, breaking it down into its parts, and making them better. Like souping up a car in the garage: strip the engine, grease the parts, replace the stock with aftermarket, tweak the electrical, alter the interior finish and change the paint. It’s still the same machine, but it’s not. So, what’s been my hang up? I already have the chassis, the engine, the wiring; I just need to make it “better.”

Like most things that beget hesitation, I believe it comes down to insecurity. You see, Fallen was my first big project. My first crowdfund. My first project that garnered a following, dare I say a “reputation” as a designer of games? Since its release in 2021, I’ve heard numerous times that Fallen is a favorite game, especially among solo players. There really is no better feeling as a maker of something, than having another person who has never met you, say that your work brings them joy. To put it bluntly, I’m afraid of messing it up, disappointing people, not fulfilling any promise there may be of issuing the enhanced version. I’m convinced this is the biggest hang up.

The second part of this equation is the logistics of design. I’ve not fully solidified the aesthetic layer in which 2e will perform. I’ve not fully decided which parts to import, which brands to integrate.

For example, the Incantations. This part of the game has always been, since first publication, the most troublesome. I get more questions about how it works more than anything else. This is a failure of game design. Yes, I maintain the philosophy that rules are there to guide, and a user may do what they want with them. However, the initial text, which has the potential to be broken and hacked, should be clear in its intention. I did not do this. And this brings up the issue of compatibility. Do I need to make a second edition compatible with the first? Incantations for instance. Part of me is keen to toss the whole bit. No magic in this world. It’s not The Witcher with flintlocks. It’s a 17^th century modern world wrestling with its ancient superstitious legacies come alive. Or they’ve always been alive. It’s about court politics, corruption, power as much as hunting werewolves. I didn’t lay into this part hard enough in the first version. Why? Because it’s harder to write those rules. Killing monsters is the bread and butter of many rpgs. But creating interesting and dynamic and actually workable mechanics of court intrigue – especially for the solo player – well, that’s a trickier proposition.

Speaking of monsters. Did I really handle the Wounds & Harm mechanics well? Is it clunky. Do I chance altering that? But I put out a deck of monster cards. Those folks who bought that might be angry that I changed it up. More questions.

Additionally, I haven’t a clear idea on layout. The original layout is excellent! I would be doing it myself this time. I don’t have those skills to make it look awesome! Again, more insecurity.

And this leads to the art direction. First edition was carried by savvy use of public domain woodcuts and prints. I am not skilled in using these. Also, to save money, I’d need to make my own art….but honestly….with all the fancy hardcovers out there, looking like AAA books, this is a daunting prospect for me.

And again, this leans into more production questions. I have the notion of creating a small hardback, nicely printed. I even know who’s books I want it to look like! I don’t know the first thing about this. Yes, I can learn all this. But it’s daunting. I’m a low-brow, self-taught maker of things. I can’t even make a slick webstore. There’s just a lot of skills I lack that would perhaps justify producing a whole second edition.

Another issue that I often ponder is, how necessary is it? We’re in a period right now in indie ttrpgs where it’s a lot about gloss, production and forever products. 2^nd and 3^rd editions of games all releasing within 2-4 years. Each new costed more than the previous. I struggle with how much I do or don’t appreciate this. I know, it’s capitalism. Make make make, earn earn earn. Also, creator’s vision is important here. Things could be done better, so put out the better product. I don’t know. I’m pretty damn stretched for funds and enthusiasm as it is. Asking folks to pay for a slightly tweaked and better illustrated thing over and over doesn’t sit well with me. But! I need paid too. So it’s a bit of a conundrum. I lack the skills and stomach for much of it.

I’ve committed to making this book. I’ve announced it and produced the first video in the process of development. So, it will get done. I will try my very best to make it worth it to people. I have ideas. I have exciting notions about it. My art skills have improved loads since 2021. My design knowledge is far greater than it was. But I enter the project with a heavy mind. I’m pretty sure I can rally. My goal is to not let people down. It’s not like I’m releasing the highly anticipated, much coveted release of (enter your darling indie game here). And I take heart in this sleeper status! Being small, quiet and tenacious is the lesson of halflings! Big epic things can get done if you’re an unknown quantity.

Capsule Encounters: Solo Gaming Encounters - to structure or not to structure?

I’ve been writing a new project. For lack of a better title at the time of composition, I have been referring to it as the Advanced Solo Sheets. The Solo Sheets were a game supplement I published last year that was designed to provide an “old-school” solo gaming experience through numerous tables, oracles and blank maps all located on two double-sided sheets. As that project grew “sophisticated,” I became more and more interested in attempting to turn it into its own game. Hence the working title.

A pretty large aspect I want to talk about here today is the driving factor of Encounters in the traditional tabletop role-playing game (ttrpg) vs. solo playing said games vs. something altogether more structured.

In the traditional approach, the Referee will introduce the encounter to the players. The players respond, so-on and so-on; the play is mostly dialogue within the confines a mechanical framework. Occasionally dice rolls will be used to reflect the stakes of those choices. With solo play, you may use the same exact encounter but rely on certain Yes / No oracles in place of the Referee’s agency. This is a very effective way to simulate the randomness that comes from hidden information. Solo players still have agency, the “machine” as Referee, though not choosing, is using randomness to prevent stagnation. This machine, can do a lot of lifting for the solo player. Heck, even in co-op play, a non-biased component like this can drive the play, each player taking turns rolling for the Oracles and random tables.

But as I work on the project, I continue to wonder about structure. See, one of the issues with this above-mentioned machine-based play, is it often relies on players to know what questions to ask. Do you need to know if the town is empty? Yes / No. Easy. But what do you do with that information. There are often these little gaps in the play, like the joined parts in kit-bashed models. They need filled first, otherwise the seams are always present, ruining the illusion. This is a skill. This takes time and patience to get used to. I see comments about how exhausting solo play can be, because you’re always on. You are playing and refereeing. It is a very non-passive form of play. And frankly, it’s very rewarding! Like running after being out of practice - the first few blocks are clunky, heaving, unregulated. But then, something happens, the muscles snap just a little better, the steps are less heavy, breaths come slightly smoother.

So why do I want to mess with this format? It’s tried and true, on full display in countless blogs and You Tube videos. Well, because the nature of the Solo Sheets was ease. Two sheets, a few dice, and a pencil, and you’re off to fantasy-gaming bliss! Without a group. And despite the numerous nested tables and connected paths, there was this double feature of GM and Player. But if we look at modern adventure board games, there’s the typical mechanical trope of encounter (usually draw a card), make your check, and do X or Y based on a pass or fail of the test. On its surface, this is the streamlining of the traditional ttrpg. It’s an all-in-one package of referee, narrative, mechanics, player. Instead of rolling on a loot table or adversary reaction table, the encounter card tells you everything. It often refers you to another card deck for the reward. And many players receive joy from this kind of play. Why? It seems so programmed. Passive. You’re just filling in a gap, right? Well maybe it’s not the mechanical aspect that’s important here. Maybe there’s something else that attracts players to these kind of adventure games. Something like narrative.

These board game encounters deliver a story to you, dressed up in genre, character art, bits, bobs, bonuses. But it’s a straight and rigid track some detractors will say. I agree, to a point. However, perhaps, this has more to do with labels. Many adventure games are called RPG. But are they really? Be it Final Fantasy video games or Arkham Horror board games, are you ROLE playing, or are you acting out someone else’s vision of an adventure story. Read a novel, and you paint a picture in your mind with the language and your previous references. But in pre-programmed games, you’re not even allowed to do too much imagining, because, for obvious reasons, video games aside, these board games often are heavily laden with the above-mentioned pieces. But the sweet side of this kind of play is you’re free to just be in the story. You don’t have to martial all your experiences to paint it, you just go with it. It’s a bit like an interactive novel. Yes, there’s choice, there’s randomization, there are expansions, so it’s not a railroad. It’s more like watching the latest super-hero show versus art film. The former is fun, easy, ridiculous; the latter can take time, be alienating, upset expectations, and for many, just be plain boring - in a word: work.

Solo gaming can sometimes feel like work. Of course, not always, and as I said above, it can be very rewarding.

Anyway, digression of comparisons aside, the thread I’m grasping at is one of programmed ease, minus boredom. I want to make the encounters have a form of structure that gives players some mechanical direction, while still allowing them to enjoy the particular tale that’s emerging. How to do this?

Well I believe structuring them like this. The encounters themselves are random, and each has two possibilities, but instead of rolling up NPC reactions and testing with oracles, the consequences are presented. Move on!

 

1. A caravan of nomadic herders crests the windblown hill:
[1-3] dancing and singing a cheerful song in unison.
•    [WIS] to know the song; gain 3 Rations. [F]: they ignore you
[4-6] guarding an elaborate wagon that’s covered in wild flowers.
•    [WIS] to know the ceremony; receive a Blessing. [F]: they ignore you

 

The original of this particular encounter had three possibilities. I cut it down, frankly for size considerations, but the original Sheets had three possible interactions, and I like that round number. Will probably go back to that.

In a perfect world, these kinds of encounters are open-ended enough that players can still follow them up. In this case, you can still choose to follow the caravan, attack, steal, or simply follow the next procedure of play. This isn't ground-breaking stuff to be sure. Indeed likely not even worth this post. Games like Barbarian Prince or The Drifter implement these sort of narrative-driven, test-based encounters, and of course the aforementioned board games. Roque Romero, over at my Patreon, pointed out that even Scythe, a board game, that's not really an adventure game so much, but more of a resource management, area control type game, uses this kind of encounter. Simply choose one of the three options, gain something, and that's it. Again, lore, mechanics, and game narrative condensed into one moment. I think it can be very effective for offering solo players a way to keep going less fatigue. You don't have to always be on. The book is telling you, much like the GM would, what is required and what will happen. Then I ask myself, is this role-playing? Perhaps not. 

I'm thinking of calling them Capsule Encounters. A little pill, easily ingested, loaded with possibilities. Yea, needs some work....

As I continue to develop the "Advanced Solo Sheets" they are taking on a new form. They are become a game unto themselves. A solo adventure game. One where you still get +1 swords and fights with baddies. 

Now, can I write 100 interesting, pre-programmed, but still open encounters? Let's find out.

It's me, Perplexing Ruins

I’m throwing my quill into the arena of blogs. I’ve tried these off and on in the past. It never sticks, so why now, again? Because, simply put, it’s an effective way to organize my thoughts, blurt something into the void, and just maybe, make a contribution to the world of game development and illustration.

When I posted on my Blue Sky account about wanting to give this a go, there was nothing but encouragement! I’m not academic, I’m not particularly clever, I lack deep informative insights. But as with thousands before me, I feel compelled to share, participate, add, make, carve an identity. Maybe somebody out there in the ether will gain something positive from my efforts. That strikes me as a success. Blogs are going through a…wait, have been for as long as I can remember, have been a vital part of internet culture. I don’t think they ever went away. In fact, I’m seeing a trend where they are being collected, edited, and published in physical formats! This is exciting ground. Sure, I’d like to join.

I don’t write here with any great ambition. I think of it as a way to extrapolate and expand on my, by necessity short, gaming and art posts to social media. Meandering little essays where I hope to discover something valuable in the process.

Perhaps you’ll join me on this little journey. I will try to make them informative, entertaining, and collaborative, by way of sharing links, mentioning peers, and citing others.

Here I go, another block in the pyramid of discourse!