This is my eighth attempt at creating a fantasy heartbreaker. It's taken me that many attempts to figure out that I needed to determine the point of the game long before I started working on mechanisms. A solid 'duh' for most here, but, well... Heh.
So, here's what I have so far. (http://www.geocities.com/technocrat13/FH8Charlie.htm) It's my desire to take a narratiave approach to exploring 'What is Heroism?'.
[Edit] Tried to preview and hit submit accidentally... this post still under construction.
In keeping with true Heartbreaker style, I think I've come up with something worth developing that I really don't know how to develop properly. See, no matter what fantasy game we're playing, we end up creating/re-creating the setting as we play over time, right? So, I was thinking that it would be interesting to create a game that supported the creation of setting with the system.
I'd really like feedback/ideas on that function.
I have lots of other things I'd like to pass by the regular Forgites here, but right now a general review and critisism of what I've got so far (which is really just a re-assembling of different parts of different games), and some ideas on the setting creation support mechanisms.
-Eric
Eric,
That's an interesting start. I like the idea of creating the setting as you go. That said, it seems that most of the creation of setting is in two places right now:
1) Character Creation
2) GM creates Setting pieces for episodes
That's not really a radical proposition. I would like to see the players have a strong ability to create Setting during the game, I think that would be closer to your stated goal. You can do it via their advancement, in a way, but you could also give them the power to make up NPCs (like Burning Wheel Revised's Circles), groups, history, or even places during the game.
You have some creation mechanisms by adopting the Fallout, but that seems to create more Situation for the characters rather than the overall Setting of the game.
The character and resolution systems are not really connected at this point, so it's hard to say how that's going to play out.
The episode creation guidelines make sense and should serve their purpose well.
Hey, thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it.
I've been mostly pondering over the creating setting issue for the past couple days. Truth be told, I was almost ready to ditch the whole idea in the interest of just finally getting a complete game out of my head and onto paper. But then, I realized that, being the most difficult part of what I've been writing, that was probably my sign that it was worth working on. That and the fact that everyone I've talked about the system to latched right onto that bit as interesting. So, I'm attacking it.
I was half asleep a few minutes ago, with an old episode of Law and Order on the TV, when it kinda hit me. Half of it anyway. The back half from my POV. Setting is just another part of the SIS. It needs to be negotiated in just like anything else. Therefore, if player A attempts to incorporate a bit of setting that player B dosen't care for, why not have a conflict resolution system for determining who's version of the setting joins the SIS?
Yup that's it. That's my revelation. Only half the second part really. Now I've gotta consider what that particular system should be for FH8. Yup gotta consider that.
Okies, I actually had one more bit to this. A kind of partial play experience that came through my noggin in my half awake status. And... well, let's see if I can translate that thought onto the thread here...
Player A: It's widely known that the Clan of the Green Ninja seeks vengance against the Clan of the Purple Daisy and will do anything to destroy them.
Player B: Um, yeah, but isn't the Clan of the Green Ninja already well known as a bunch of isolationist pacifists? How did they get this bad attitude, and how are they gonna seek vengance?
Player A: Cuz it's kewl! Draw!
[players draw cards]
Player B: In the seventh dynasty, the head of the Green Ninja Clan broke his sword and swore never to do violence against anyone again. [... and I play a card to back this claim]
Player A: And in the eighth dynasty, the Purple Daisy clan snuck into their compound and poked every member of the Green Ninjas with blunt twigs for months on end, just for the fun of it, and because the Ninjas wouldn't do anything about it. This led to the 100 years of frustration and anger, which is just waiting to be released. [... and I play a card to support this claim]
etc.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Opinions?
Oh, and the first part that I hinted at earlier? Providing incentive and motivation for players to introduce elements of setting.
Oh, and another thought: I can totally see this even happening with locations; There's a lake at the end of this road. Yeah, but it was drunk by giants three generations ago.
Time for more pondering.
-Eric
Okies. I think I may be on to something. Simple but effective. Check out the paragraph titled Creating Setting. It's only a quick overview of the When of creating setting, which I tend to attach to my previous post's How (when conflicted) to create setting.
I've got plenty more thoughts in my head, but that was the one that was necessary to bring them all together.
Now, unfortunately, I've got 10 minutes to get up and out of the house to get to work. I expect to polish up the fine details of what's rattling around in my head shortly.
-Eric
Well, working on Creating Setting led me to a bunch of questions. See, I'd created that bit that's posted there, where players bid back and forth on setting elements, and I thought it was really neat and interesting, but I realized that what I'd created really didn't cover every circumstance and it didn't include any expectations for the players to create elements of setting. So, I opened up my thread on Setting and the SIS (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15661), and discovered what I needed to know.
Here's the simplified version of how I see elements of setting introduced in pretty much every game I've ever played in;
Negotiate Broad Outline -> Broad Outline -> Permissable Assumptions -> Explicit Proposal -> Negotiation -> Validation or Denial -> Potential Re-Negotiation
Negotiating the broad outline usually occurrs when you talk about playing a certain game with friends. When you agree to play Call of Cthulhu circa 1920, you've agreed to a broad outline. When you agree to play GURPS Vampire, you've agreed to a broad outline. Some games intentionally try to avoid any broad outline at all. The so-called 'universal' games. But even these games tend to bring just a touch of the broad outline with them by way of their rules. An outline that is almost always broadened moments after agreeing to it, as a modifier is certain to be attached. I've never played FUDGE, but I'm under the impression that it's about as universal as you can get. When a group decides to play FUDGE, they're almost always going to include the broad outline of the setting they wanna play; FUDGE StarWars, FUDGE Fantasy, etc. If anyone can think of a situation where no real broad outline is created pre-play, either by social contract or by text-system, I'd love to hear about it.
The permissible assumptions are the elements of setting that one can reasonably expect or not expect based upon the broad outline. In 1920's Cthulhu I could reasonably expect zombies, the city of Paris, or Zepplins, but would likely be a little put off by lightsabres and hovercars.
The last four steps, explicit proposal, negotiation, validation or denial, and re-negotiation are commonly handled as the GM proposes, the players may verbally object based upon the broad strokes, but with nothing more than their place in the social structure to really back them up to reach validation or denial, with re-negotiation usually falling back on post-game discussions to determine if certain elements should be reconsidered. (Should zepplins really be that common? etc)
In more modern games, the authority to make an explicit proposal is more often spread around to all the players instead of just to the GM. I'm imagining that there may be a modern system that allows for formalized negotiation between players over introduction of setting elements, but unfortunately for me, I've never played any of these games. So, I'm imagining that these games generally allow for formal negotiation on the stage-setting level, as opposed to the Known World level. Meaning that the formal system for negotiation allows players to determine if there should be a lightsabre in the room, but not to formally negotiate if there should be ligtsabres in the setting at all. I'd very much like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, as I'd like to look closely at any games that do this. Especially if they do it well.
Right now, this is what I'm pondering creating;
- Minimal broad-strokes inclusive in the text.
- Formalized method for collaborative negotiation and creation of the broad strokes of the known world.
- Formalized method for collaborative negotiation in expanding and modifying the broad strokes of the known world.[/list:u]
-Eric
Check out some of the design threads for Universalis, and you'll see that Ralph and I went through precisely what you're going through. Despite the fact that Universalis is now a "generic" sort of game, it started out not like that at all, but instead, pretty precisely how you started out.
What I'm thinking is that were we took a right turn into genericness, you can avoid that and stick with a ruleset that adheres better to the rest of your system.
Mike
Thanks Mike. By coincidence I just now figured out that Uni tackles some of these concerns and was in the process of looking it all up. I didn't realize there were Uni design threads here though. I was somehow under the impression that Uni predated the Forge, or was created before you came to the Forge.
Thanks.
-Eric
I like the idea behind your game. It really lends itself to the Heroic (Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts, etc.) I like it.
Thanks Mark,
Check back to that link in a day or so. I'm typing up a polished version that ties all the traits I've got there together in solid rules. And I'm hoping that what's tumbling around in my head about setting creation will become something useful soon.
-Eric
Hiya all,
I've written and published an updated version of Creating Character for FH8. I've also created a simple little index page here (http://www.geocities.com/technocrat13/index.htm)that will link to all my versions as I write them.
I expect to finish writing up and publishing the Delta version today. I've got stacks and stacks of notes to dig though to make sure I got everything just so.
The bit on Creating Setting still needs some brewing, but I'm hoping to have a rough version of it included in this Delta version today.
As usual, comments are appreciated.
-Eric
QuoteFinally, every player will determine if they think that their character is seeking a Heroic or Villainous goal in this conflict. Remember that the buck stops with you about your character, but everyone's encouraged to comment on everyone else's choice. Once the decision's been made, draw the a number of cards equal to the Hero/Villain rating you've chosen.
Some questions...
When you determine if you have a Heroic/Villainous goal, am I correct in stating that you choose the rating of that goal as well? Or is the rating you use based upon your hero/villian score in some way? And finally, what effects does choosing one or other goal have upon your hero/villian score?
This seems to be at the core of the game; and I like what you have so far.
Thanks Johnathan, I'm glad you're liking it.
Lemmie clarify the Hero/Villain thing.
The rating I was referring to in that paragraph is entirely the Hero/Villain score of your character. If you're Hero 4/Villain 1 and you decide that what your character is doing is Villainous, then you start the conflict off with 1 card in your hand.
Choosing one or the other has only the most indirect effect on your H/V score... but that's where the heart of the game comes out. Lemmie see if I can articulate how I see this happening, but first I'll sum up the ebb and flow of the H/V score:
- You start out with your H/V score leaning in one direction or the other.
- You justify using either H or V at the beginning of a conflict to the other players. The other players comment on their thoughts on your use of H or V in this circumstance.
- As a Consequence of a conflict your H/V score might be slightly altered or radically altered. You are requred to explain this change to the other players and the other players are expected to comment on your change.[/list:u]
So, let's say that you get into a conflict where your character is trying to convince your sister, healer of the Emperor, to NOT heal someone. But you're gonna say that it's a Heroic deed (mostly motivated by your 4pts in H). I'd expect the other players to jump up and ask WTF? Heroic? To convince someone to NOT help? Now you've gotta dance and jive. Tell some story. Explain why your character is being so heroic. Now we might just get a little insight into your views on Heroism. And those views on heroism should have an effect on our views, most directly by how we're going to explain our H/V scores and usage in the future.
Hows that sound? Make sense?
-Eric
Eric,
the Delta is a great leap forward in your design. I can really see something very cool developing.
A couple of questions:
1. Why can't players add to existing Twining ratings in-game?
2. Are played cards used up? If so, do you redraw for your H/V after a trick? What if you run out of cards?
I do like the way that characters who barely win the token take high fallout.
Looking forward to more on your setting creation ideas.
Ooh, interesting questions! I'm so excited!
1) It's only a half-formed thought right now. Something in my brain about how Advancement should take care of that. But just you asking why has done some damage to that shaky ground. If I finish up Advancement and can't answer that question properly, then it's apparent to me that the little bit of rule is unnecessary and unhelpful.
2a) Cards are used up during a conflict, so you only get a total of 52 cards for any conflict.
2b) You never get to redraw your H/V in a conflict. You draw one or the other at the beginning of the conflict. (When you want more cards, you need to bring in an Advantage or a Twining)
2c) Being that a conflict is mathmatically limited to no more than 10 turns with a maximum 'base value' of 4 cards played (a 4 of a kind play) and four cards that can be just added to play (4 aces) that's a max of 44 cards you can play (10 turns of 4 of a kind play plus the 4 aces). Funny that I just now did the math for that, but it means that you can't run out of cards in a single conflict.
As for the setting creation rules. I put a little something up there that's the core of my thoughts right now. Didja see the Delta version with the bullet statements under Creating Setting? Right now all it has is permissions and negotiations for creating setting. I'm dissapointed in my lack of expectations. I still have some ideas in the back of my noggin for all that, but I think what it's going to take is to settle on Just How Much setting I expect everyone to create every session.
I expect to keep the Creating Setting rules tied directly to the Currency rules. What I'm thinking of right now, that ill-formed bit of expectation that I want, is to create a Reward of coins based upon being the first one every setting to fulfull a certain aspect of setting that's expected to be expanded on every session.
But then I run into who get's to say what first, how to introduce the elements of setting that fulfill those aspects, etc.
It's there, it's a seed, and I think it's growing nicely. If slowly.
-Eric
Oh! It just occurred to me that when you said "What if you run out of cards?", you probably meant "What if you can't find any more Advantages or Twinings to let you draw cards?"
Duh. Of course that's what you meant.
Here's the answer (really long version):
You start out with 5 pts in Twining, 15 points in Advantages, up to 4 from your H/V score, and 5 coins which can be converted into 10 temp Advantage points. That's 24 cards on your character sheet, and up to 10 bonus cards. A far cry from the 44 max possible draw. Heh. On purpose.
You only NEED 1 card per round, so the max cards you could NEED in a conflict is 10. Starting with an middling H/V and a smallish Twining should get you 4(3+1) cards to start on average I think. So that means you'll need to narrate in a minimum of 3 more cards from Advantages to stay in. If you wanna be able to play doubles, tripples, and 4 of a kind plays, you'll wanna narrate in even more.
The intent of the thin number of starting cards is to tempt the player to use the Auspices that they set aside as secondary and tertiary. There's three cards sitting in the smallest Auspice, so are you willing to pull them out to get the deed done?
The answer (really short version):
If you run out of cards to play then you've gotta give up. Yer done. You loose.
So, if you really wanna win, yer gonna do some narration to save yer butt.
Oh... that reminds me... there's a few tidbits I left out of the Delta version that need to go in. Like: If you can't think of any narration to bring in something from your sheet, then you can narrate in the use of some found item, the boon of some surrounding geographical feature (etc) to draw a single card.
The intention there being that you're never really out of play due to lack of cards if you don't want to be, and if you're willing to add to the setting a bit (on a small scale) you can glean some small reward.
-Eric
Well, I think I've got something for Creating Setting. It's only half the picture of what I want to make, but I think it's pretty solid. Nothing really earth-shattering here. I'll be satisfied with entertaining and functional.
Quote from: FH8The Big Picture
Every setting needs to start out with a Big Picture. The overall encompassing idea that will provide the assumptions that allow us to introduce more specific elements of setting which are likely to fit into all the players idea of what the world looks like. For example, if you've agreed it's a "medieval oriental setting and someone narrates in jade jewelry, ornate katanas, and endless rice patties, then you might agree that these elements are appropriate based upon your assumptions about what should be in a medieval oriental setting.
FH8 doesn't come with much of a big picture. What it does come with are some formal rules for creating it.
In the first session, when you've gathered your friends to play, before you consider what your character might be like, everyone needs to sit down and hammer out the Big Picture. Now, you could just as easily make open suggestions across the table and come to an organic agreement about where and when you'd like the story to be set, but then it's likely that someone's ideas would be left in the dust just because they didn't speak up at the right time and not because their idea wasn't popular.
Start by taking a few cards out of a nearby deck. Ace through 6 will be good. If you've got six players then just distribute the cards randomly between them. If you have less than six then you'll want to add cards until you've got enough for two for every player. The cards you add should be of some other value than ace through 6 and when drawn are basically blanks. They won't mean anything to those that draw them. Then everyone should get five tokens. Anything will do. The card that you get determines what aspect of the Big Picture it's your responsibility to describe. Those six aspects, in order from ace to six, are Geography, Society, Technology, Theology, History, and Prophesy (the future). Without discussing it with the other players yet, write down as little as a single word and as much as a single sentence about that aspect in relation to the setting you'd like to play in.
In order from lowest to highest, each player reveals what he or she has to say about the setting. When you hear someone else's description you've got a choice. You can either approve the description and agree that you'll enjoy playing with it or you can object to it, propose a better description for that aspect of the setting, and prepare to defend what you think is better. If there's an objection and another proposal everyone should take the time to discuss which one they like better and why. After everyone's had something to say any player can call for Put Up or Shut Up time. At that point anyone who has an opinion on which description is better can throw some or all of their tokens in on their side of the debate. Once everyone has put as much in as they'd like, the side with the most tokens enters their version of the description into the game and we move onto the next player. Tokens used this way are lost. But then, these tokens are only good for this part of the game, so you may as well voice your opinion when it comes to you.
Everyone's character sheet will have a place to record these six setting aspects.
It needs some polishing and some detailing, like WTF do I expect from descriptions of Society, Technology, Geography, Theology, History, and Prophesy and how should they all be handled once the story begins... But I'm hoping you agree that it's a really interesting bit there.
I'm gonna go mow the lawn and contemplate the second part, which will be making specific bits of setting explicit during play, while I'm mowing.
-Eric
That must be a big lawn :)
Interestingly, the first serious design I put forward on the Forge (torn) also uses a card resolution system.
It does seem like there'd be enough cards; maybe you want to spell out that one can draw on more than one trait per turn.
Overall, I agree that the setting creation starting point is good and interesting. Maybe the players could save those tokens, however, for later debates about setting specifics? You know, most players don't like to waste resources. After all, you're starting your players out with currency anyways, and that way, they can decide whether they care more about general setting or specifics.
Now the important part will be tying in in-game setting creation and character advancement, and how those are intertwined.
I totally spaced. Mowed the lawn and crashed. That's two hours of cardio that is.
I wanna adress your concerns first, then I'm gonna tell ya where my mind has been concerning Creating Setting.
QuoteIt does seem like there'd be enough cards; maybe you want to spell out that one can draw on more than one trait per turn.
Do you think it's necessary to spell it out? I mean, I'm not opposed to it, but dosen't "Draw whenever you can narrate." already say that?
If I were to write into the final text "Hey, don't forget you can draw as many Advantages as you can narrate in a single turn!", would that be more help or more words in the way? As I don't expect this game to get more than two degrees of seperation from me I don't think I need to worry about writing for the masses yet.
QuoteOverall, I agree that the setting creation starting point is good and interesting. Maybe the players could save those tokens, however, for later debates about setting specifics? You know, most players don't like to waste resources. After all, you're starting your players out with currency anyways, and that way, they can decide whether they care more about general setting or specifics.
I thought about this. My concern is that players (especially my players) might take to hoarding instead of spending. I want players to exercise consensus control over the Broad Strokes instead of just letting everyone have their piece of the puzzle with no discussion or debate. So, with no other use for them, the players are much more inclined to use their tokens to shape the Broad Strokes.
QuoteNow the important part will be tying in in-game setting creation and character advancement, and how those are intertwined.
A direct connection between creating setting and advancement? I hadn't really considered that. Heck, I hadn't even considered that as an entertaining possiblity.
To be honest, I haven't given Advancement much thought in the past weeks. All I've got in mind is that Advancement should be balanced against Consequences so that the character is really just -changing- all the time. An ebb and flow of Twinings, H/V, and Advantages. I'll probably try to lean the equation a bit in favor of an increase in power for the player, but not by too much. I think that a quick increase in the number of cards that one can draw will probably not have too big of an impact, but too many different Twinings and Advantages at once will probably dilute the impact of the individual traits. I wanna avoid players ever having to pour over their character sheets hunting for information.
Okies. Back to Creating Setting and what I've been pondering.
First, I think that the Broad Strokes rules I posted before the mow are a bit.. heavy for my taste. They just sit there in my stomach not doing anything. What I've been pondering to whip it up a bit is to say that, when you propose a change to someone's Setting Aspect you can neither just throw it out nor ignore it. What you have to do is edit it. It's Polaris that has the word-editing function, right? Well, that's what made me think of an idea-editing function. Like, if you get Geography as your aspect and propose "It's a world of tiny islands dotting a glistening blue sea." I couldn't return with "No, it's a world of mountains and lava!" because I didn't build on your initial idea at all. On the other hand, I could propose the change of "It's a world of tiny islands floating in a sky of silver clouds." Then we could bid on which one was going to be incorporated.
That's tastier I think.
Then the specific bits of setting.
I've been thinking about that a lot. Quite a lot. The question I've been really working on is; When should players be encouraged to introduce new and interesting elements of setting? I considered the idea of having a between-scenes phase where someone could make a proposal and everyone would have to approve it or there would be a bid. But I decided I didn't like that. I think it would disrupt the flow too much and put too much focus of the game on creating the setting. I want the creating setting part to fit into the creating story part, not the other way around.
So, what I'm toying with right now is to incorporate the specifics of creating setting into the scene framing rules. I think all I need are some smooth rules for sharing the authority and responsibility for setting the scene. Then, if a player wants there to be sunglasses in the setting all he needs to do is narrate an NPC who shows up wearing a pair. If someone wants to introduce a castle on a high mountain surrounded by mist, all they have to do is narrate it. Then, if another player objects to the existance of sunglasses or castles or mist they can say so (and prepare to put their currency where their mouth is).
I'm sitting in a hotel with about seven hours to kill before my next flight, so I think maybe I'll work on that scene framing bit a little.
Comments help keep my brain greased. Keep 'em coming.
-Eric
Okies. I'm back. For a few minutes.
The scene framing connection to creating setting was kicking my ass and it took me all day to realize that it was because of those 6 keywords in The Big Picture chapter above. Those 'ologies' were kicking my ass. I realize that I was going to have to explain what I meant by each of them and as I tried to jot down a quick explination for each I realized that I didn't really know what I meant by them. So, I scrapped them. I need to keep 6 cards for the draw there, as I want to make sure that in a 6 player game everyone has a distinct card to draw. This is my replacement list.
[list=1]
- Places
- People
- Things
- Places + People
- Places + Things
- Things + People[/list:o]
If there are 3 or 6 players then all 6 cards are used. If there are 4 or 5 players then the first 4 or 5 cards are used.
A player who draws one of the first three cards will be expected to say something vague and all-encompassing about the Places, People, and Things in the world. A player who draws one of the last three cards is expected to say something specific about two of the elements, and how those two specific things are interconnected.
I've got some more explination for that if anyone's curious, but my time is really short, so I'm gonna move forward for now.
For scene framing, I've decided to have a piece of the GM work be mobile. At the beginning of each scene the players have to decide who's going to be the Setting Director for that scene. I have some vague ideas about guidelines for who's supposed to be the SD when, but I'll save those 'till they're ironed out. While every player is still encouraged to suggest ideas for the setting of the current scene the buck stops with the SD. While acting as SD if a player encorporates a new bit of setting element that is not blocked by other players and does not fit under the assumptions created by the Big Picture then they're eligable to earn bonus currency.
Once I get the specifics of all this ironed out, I'll add it to the next update for FH8.
Before closing, I want to include some notes I took while working last night on how I want to present these bits to my readers as I think they may help you understand where I'm going with this.
Quote from: My notes
Use this opportunity to go crazy. Don't let the other players just sit silently and agree with every bit of setting you present. Make their teeth rattle. Make their eyes water. Don't think Tolkien. Think Heavy Metal.
If all the other players agree that the setting you've presented is boring then you'll just have to try again.
If you're thinking of some pseudo-historical setting and you're not going to be happy with some wild juxtopositions, then I think you suck.
-Eric
I've updated the Creating Setting chapter in Delta.
I expect to write the Scene Framing / Setting Director chapters next.
Time to go shopping. I need a new bag to carry about all my ConSwag.
-Eric