Game Pile: Crisis, by Mitch Schiwal
Crisis is a tabletop role-playing game of superheroes and their limitations. The system is designed to run without any kind of gamemaster or storyteller steering the overall plot, and I’ve seen some describe it as a ‘diceless’ role-playing game. Building on Avery Alder’s Belonging Without Belonging tabletop roleplaying game system, Crisis is a game which seeks to take that system’s perspective of the marginalised building communities outside of an existing power structure, and employs it in telling stories of superheroes protecting a city in a time of, well, crisis.
It’s an indie TTRPG available on itch using an established system to present a bunch of tables, and it wants to talk about superhero characters as marginalised identities. Of course I was going to talk about this once I found it.
Mitch Schiwal’s itch.io creator page says they’re actively interested in reviews. Well, Mitch, I hope this is what you wanted!
You might not be overly familiar with the Belonging Without Belonging system. I’m not fantastically familiar with it, despite having talked about Balikbayan and Sleepaway in the past, so if there’s anything I describe in this ‘how the system works’ part that’s wrong, that’s on me, not on the system.
Belonging Without Belonging is a system where players have access to specific ‘moves’ that do things in the story. Moves are divided into two basic categories; there are ‘easy’ moves, which provide you with points, and there are ‘hard’ moves, which cost points. Easy moves often are things that make your life more complicated, and hard moves are often things that let you prevent or protect problems. The simplest version of this system is a sort of improvisational narrative where every cool thing is balanced with a painful thing. However, sometimes there are times when a player can’t do a hard move (no points) and they don’t have any easy moves that would work (because they’re hardly universal) which means players have to turn to the universal easy move, the all-purpose release-valve and story-progressor, ‘invite the Crisis to advance.’
This is one of the places where the game escapes the need for a storyteller. Inviting the Crisis to advance means taking the top card of a deck of playing cards, looking at it, and then incorporating that into the story. This is a whole deck of narrative prompts, broken up by genre into expanding setting information, creating tension and dread, indirect damage, and direct suffering. Basically, you have a one-in-three chance pulling a card from this deck to get a prompt that says ‘and then, things get worse.’
Where Sleepaway used its index cards to create a sort of conspiracy board (that I liked), Crisis has players making index cards that symbolise things that are places, people or things around the city. There’s also a setup for the overall story, which involves rolling some dice and using that with other players to come up with the surrounding material, which in turn, is maintained through the use of those cards that make up the tableau.
That’s the basics; moves-based action, prompts from a deck when you’re out of ideas, and some setup prompts. It is a system that works and, I think, for a particular kind of improvisational group, really strong. The game has a natural pull towards an end-game state, a specific genre it wants to express, and a clear idea of how it wants to do that. It is, as with many such games derived from a functional engine, a very functional unit of game.
There are ideas I like in Crisis. Some ideas I think I’d like better if they were handled differently, mind you, but the idea of it is by no means bad. It seems a good system for a campaign-based playspace, where the city can be built up, over time, and different heroes come to play in the same space the players built over time, to create a kind of universe or continuity that the players can learn to love. That is something I think is really cool, though I, again, have problems with it. When building up locations with cards laid out in front of players, it’s very easy for me to see that as the creation of an actual city, an aesthetically representative relationship of places in a bigger place. It is a city. When people and items are treated the same way, it dissolves that sense of relationship between them, and feel like that dilutes it. Could there be ways around this? Of course. I think I’d just cut any index card that’s meant to represent a person in half, so that it can be moved around, can rest on top of index cards that represent places, similar to objects or landmarks.
The idea of using a system for marginalised spaces in storytelling about a trope commonly discarded as a thoughtless power fantasy is, I think, cooking. I think very highly of the superhero as a character storytelling trope not because of its relationship to the significance of myth but because of its much more important relationship to creativity. Every superhero is expressing an identity, and if they’re not, then they really lose the identity of being a superhero. Just Some Guy In A Jacket is the worst superhero type, but a mask, a cape, a design, an aesthetic choice, that’s the person being creative.
The book has a sidebar on the superhero as a marginalised identity, and I want to argue with this panel for hours. I think it’s genuinely correct in that superheroes are a marginalised identity, and I think it’s completely wrong in how it explains the superhero as a marginalised identity. The idea of them being ‘not like us’ is part of the problem: Superheroes that aren’t ‘like us’ aren’t superheroes, they are the mythic heroes, the uncreative sorts. They all eventually become Homelander or Apollo or The Plutonian because being able to maintain and have a normal life that makes you ‘like us’ is what keeps these powerful characters from just eventually becoming gods.
Look, the superhero is, in its heart, the fantasy of a really powerful person who can do things that obviously need doing in an immediate sense that isn’t limited by the systemic rules of ‘you can’t.’ It’s the leftist fantasy that when given immense power, we wouldn’t abuse it, and we would find ways to confer it on people around us, ‘giving it away.’ When Superman stands in the way of a bullet, he’s not doing that so you think him stopping a bullet is dope, he’s doing it because he wants the person behind the bullet to not be hurt by the bullet.
Batman dresses up like a bat and tries to scare people because he thinks that would work on him if he wasn’t Batman. His idea of ways to change and guide people is through fear, and that fear is exerted by looking like a bat, because Batman responds to fear and is afraid of bats. It’s a simple example of a character whose identity explains ideas about his character. Bruce Wayne, the identity he normally has, is the most privileged person in the world; typically, a white affluent old-money and entrenched beneficiary of the systems of Gotham. Batman is not Bruce Wayne, which means he does not have those systems and is not allowed them – he’s Batman, he’s a guy the police shoot at on sight. To play the created identity, to do what the identity is meant to do, he has to take on an identity divorced from the ‘proper’ way for him to do things and exert power.
And then the only common point superheroes have – by default – is that they’re united in secrecy. They can’t know one another and don’t know one another – or at least have to say that. The identity is put on to engage with the community, which has a lot of parallels to other forms of marginalisation. It’s really interesting!
Now, I’m going to complain about Crisis a bit but any reader should bear in mind that:
This is obviously a project made by maybe, like, three people, and the scope of what they can do is very different to a larger team.
First of all, Crisis is not a searchable pdf. Instead, all the text is embedded in images. I think this also makes it unreadable by screen readers, which is pretty annoying. I know I did a lot of stuff with embedded images turned to pdfs, I know I’m not blameless here, but this isn’t good and there are better ways to format a page.
This book is difficult to read. Not because it’s a challenging text, it’s not full of concepts that present a struggle to answer but rather the book is itself materially, difficult to read. It structures its information in a series of blocks, with a dense, heavy font that makes me feel like it’s the boldface of another, more readable font, and just left on. The result is that paragraphs sort of form spiderwebby blocks, undifferentiated from one another making it easy to lose place on the page, especially since all the pages are structured in very similar ways.
There’s very little use – I would really say ‘basically none’ – of layout, diagrams or art to break up or characterise the flow of the book. There’s almost no in-book visuals beyond some chapter title pages, and art and diagrams serve great purpose for tabletop roleplaying game books. It’s one of the tricks of game art signifying in rulebooks – they help players leafing through to find things they’re looking for.
I feel like this is a game that was predominantly playtested with the creator in the playtest group. The way the book is structured and written makes me feel like it’s got to be the product of someone who knows how to play it and just isn’t good at clearly or usefully conveying that to me, a mere bozo who has never played it. The prompts are so thin, things I know I could work with, but which I feel would leave someone who say, doesn’t have twenty years of tabletop roleplaying game experience under their belt really struggling to know what to work with.
There’s also a tenuousness the system, where the game system present things that seem like they should be specific, reliable rules, with the same structure as things that seem like they should be vague, aesthetic preferences. The rules encourage players to ignore things they don’t want to do, but I feel like doing that a lot runs the risk of depriving the system of any of the feeling of being present at all. When? How much? Should it perhaps be a pre-decided thing, a systemic way to opt out of things, or is the gentleness of this system that also wants to talk about the defender as a fundamentally suicidal urge just something that a player is expected to deal with?
Crisis is available on itch. I think it’s a really cool idea, and I think it’s got good ideas. I don’t know how playable it is to people of varying skills, to people who aren’t already vibing hard on the idea of a superhero narrative space. For me and my friends who are in a superhero narrative space the unfortunate and immediate follow-up is ‘what does this system get me?’ Do I need it? What about this game encourages me to play it?
There’s a really cool conversation the game implies about the philosophy engine of a superhero story. The archetypes are described by this author’s idea of how these archetypes should work and what that means, and what those characters even should look like, and that’s all interestingly encoded, but with a sort of sighing, trailing gasp of ‘well, if you want to, I guess.’
Oh, and let me be clear, this isn’t about the safety tools. Those are great, and the specific, personal way of describing it as never wanting to hurt a player is I think a good value statement and rules parameter. It’s more the way the rest of the rules are suffixed with ‘or you could not, if you want’ that strikes me as a sort of design fumble. Maybe make the deck design more of an explicit, shared experience? Talk about ways it can be done, or what removing cards could do? After all, many of the prompts are detail-light and nearly consequence-free; players might be trying to pull cards to avoid Easy Moves and have that bite them on the bottom when a crisis card comes out they can’ t fluff away.
I find myself less wanting to play this game than I want to encourage its designer about superheroes, to offer them ideas for the next thing, for ways to improve this thing. I hope it plays as well for the fans of the system as I want it to, for the ideas that it’s trying to deploy.
Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!