Hi,
We have been working on an RPG system for 2 years and we are finally getting ready to publish. I wish I had found this site sooner :(
Can I ask if anyone would look over the base rules and let me know your opinions? We have approached the system is a tiered way. There are simple rules that resolve actions via 2 roll types.
The difference is that players can use either the advanced rules or base rules in the same game and it does not affect gameplay. It means we can keep the old AD&D gamers happy and the more narrative players in the same session.
We have a demo scenario (Ghosts of wreckers cove) that outlines the basic rules, so please download a copy and let me have it **Blocks critisism attack, swish!**.
We also have a character generator that gives you an idea of the basic characteristics each race starts with, including their race skills.
http://www.redravenrpg.com/downloads/demoscenario.zip
Please let me know what you think
FruitBatInShades
The ldownloads don't appear to be working
Worked fine for me.
Will look at it in the morning.
Simon
Works here also
Works now.
My apologies guys, I didn't zip the character sheets up in the file. Sorry I've done it now
**scuttles under rock**
I've had a brief glance through the rules, they seem mostly sane, but one thing jumps out at me:
The Rule Of One - Sorry? You're chance to fumble increases with skill - are you sure? In fact with as few as 4 dice, you have an over 50% chance to fumble. I haven't done the numbers but I suspect the fumble effect is more important than the increase in average, and that higher skills are actually, therefore, detrimental.
Er, I read the rules wrong, sorry - ignore my last post.
I've looked at the rules, not the scenario. The scenario seems not to contain the four player characters it promises - this makes it difficult to assess.
Comments:
The dice system has a potential for a significant number of re-rolls, most of which seem to be uneeded given the example difficulty levels (a 10 would succeed without any re-roll). With a skill of 4: 70% of rolls would involve at least one re-roll, with a skill of 3: 50%.
The combat system offers multiple chances to avoid being hit: defending, dodging and shield block - this could lead to long handling times, and hits being rare events. Combined with a damage reduction system (in which it's not clear where the base damage comes from), I suspect this will lead to long, and rather dull fights.
There is no mention of what damage is done to.
The combat rules imply a round system, but there is no description of how this works, or how often 'initiative' is rolled.
There are spells in the rules, but no spell-casting rules.
Overall there seems little in the rules I would find particularly interesting - although without character creation rules, spell-casting rules and a structure to how skills are going to work it's hard to tell. This is not to say they're bad rules - just that they don't seem to have anything about them that really sets them apart from any other rule set.
My biggest worry for the rules is handling time, particularly in combat.
Here is the percentage chance of rolling on or above the amount:-
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Chance of X or higher | 1d10 | 2d10 | 3d10 | 4d10 | 5d10 |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 2 | 90 | 99 | 99.9 | 99.99| 99.99|
| 3 | 80 | 96 | 99.2 | 99.84| 99.96|
| 4 | 70 | 91 | 97.3 | 99.19| 99.75|
| 5 | 60 | 84 | 93.6 | 97.44| 98.97|
| 6 | 50 | 75 | 87.5 | 93.75| 96.87|
| 7 | 40 | 64 | 78.4 | 87.04| 92.22|
| 8 | 30 | 51 | 65.7 | 75.99| 83.19|
| 9 | 20 | 36 | 48.8 | 59.04| 67.23|
| 10 | 10 | 19 | 27.1 | 34.39| 40.95|
|Chance of Fumble | 10 | 1 | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.001|
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
I didn't do the maths by the way :-) and yes, people do still fumble occaisonaly with 4 dice, seriously unlucky but it's happened twice.
Yeah, your fumble rules are fine - I just read them wrong first time.
Those numbers look right - my % chances for re-rolls above are wrong. Still that's quite a lot of re-rolls with higher skills.
Quote from: Jack AidleyThe dice system has a potential for a significant number of re-rolls, most of which seem to be uneeded given the example difficulty levels (a 10 would succeed without any re-roll). With a skill of 4: 70% of rolls would involve at least one re-roll, with a skill of 3: 50%.
The maths are in a post above, 10's do not happen that often until you get to 3 or 4 dice.
Quote from: Jack AidleyThe combat system offers multiple chances to avoid being hit: defending, dodging and shield block - this could lead to long handling times, and hits being rare events. Combined with a damage reduction system (in which it's not clear where the base damage comes from), I suspect this will lead to long, and rather dull fights.
Only 1 defence can used in a round. You are correct it needs more explaining and we haven't explained the rounds at all **Slaps forehead**
Quote from: Jack AidleyThere is no mention of what damage is done to.
Correct again :( You lose Hit points
Quote from: Jack AidleyThere are spells in the rules, but no spell-casting rules.
There are no rules to magic casting, each spell is explained, most are line of sight. We didn't want to make the rules heavy so all magic is down to the GM's interpretation and the basic description. We are trying to avoid a D&D style addiction to the rules.
The rounds work out pretty quickly in our experience, less time than D&D anyway (not that, thats hard). Again skills are at the GM's Players discretion. It all comes down to the difficulty table, which I will explain further **embaressed**.
The re-rolls add a bit of excitement to the game. When were playing we always get 'Hah, i rolled a 10' and a big grin. Plus when dealing with higher level campaigns, you need those re-rolls. An NPC with a skill of 5 has as good a chance of rolling 26 on a skill as you do.
I always hated gaming systems that you had to deal with physics in. Why get a calculator out and times the mass of the player, by their strength to see if they jump a gap?
The GM decides what the difficulty is, so a character with a prowess of 8 trying to jump a 3ft gap, wouldn't even be rolled. The same character trying to jump a 10ft gap is a different story.
Player: I want to jump the gap.
GM: It's 10ft you know? (difficulty 15, guestimate)
Player: Ok, I'm gong to take a running jump
GM: Ok (Running -2 from the difficulty) you need to roll 13 on your prowess to suceed.
It allows for quick play and doesn't get bogged down with rules. The same idea is used on all actions, spells, physics, skills. Most of our Test GM's came from AD&D and vampire and all of them didn't like the idea to begin with. After playing for a while they all really like it, it was just a culture shock to start with.
Only skills use multiple d10's. Attribute related rolls are always done with 1d10. This means as a player improves they don't need to roll for simple things anymore. A character with a prowess of 13 would only need to roll for that jump if the gm was mean and wanted a chance of a fumble.
Calculating difficulty ratings.
The first thing that should be considered when setting a basic difficulty rating is the plausibility of the action. Should a character wish to open an unlocked door and walk down a flight of stairs then no difficulty rating is really needed, as the action is both simple and common. However should a character wish to break down the door and then jump down the
stairs then that is a little more difficult.
Here are a few sample actions and their possible difficulty ratings.
Breaking down a door – this action should be rolled against the characters strength attribute, with the difficulty set bearing in mind the strength and structure of the door. A rotten door hanging of its hinges would have a rough difficulty rating of (7) where as a solid oak door
reinforced with iron would have a rough difficulty rating of (18).
Jumping a crevice – this action should be rolled against the characters prowess attribute or an athletics skill, with the difficulty set bearing in mind the size of the gap. A small fissure of no more than a couple of feet wide would have a rough difficulty rating of (10) where as a
fifteen foot gap would have a rough difficulty rating of (20).
Cheating during a game of cards – this action should be rolled against the characters wits attribute. A simple single card swap playing against children would have a rough difficulty rating of (7), whereas the same card swap against a group of veteran gamblers would have a
rough difficulty rating of (15).
Fooling a senile old lady into taking out an overpriced insurance policy – this action should be rolled against the characters charisma attribute. A charismatic character with a large amount of false paperwork may have a rough difficulty rating of (10) where as a man dressed in rags
and stinking of cheap ale could have a difficulty rating of (25).
Noticing a pickpocket in a tavern – this action should be rolled against the characters awareness attribute. Again the difficulty rating should be reflected in the skill of the pickpocket, the amount of patrons within the tavern and the characters current state of inebriation.
Have a think about this one and try and work out a difficulty rating for your self.
FBIS (could we have a name, your screen name is just too much),
Welcome to The Forge.
In order that we be able to help you more, it helps us to get a sense of your experience. I mean, from what you've got above, I can tell that you've played D&D of some sort. What other systems are you familiar with?
Just to try to be open about it, I'm also trying to ascertain if you've got a level of knowledge about games that gives you a sense of what's available out there. Not that it's not impossible that you're not a very widely read and played gamer, but statements like what you have about how your resolution system works makes it sound pretty standard in many ways. This is a standard signal to us that you might not yet have the breadth that, I for one, think is requisite to create a really good game.
What I'm tiptoeing around are thoughts less gently expressed in my thread: Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers Know Your Hobby! (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5564)
Do not take offense. Especially if you actually are rather experienced, and I've targeted you accidentally. Even if you aren't that widely experienced there is help that we can give you. But, again, ascertaining your level of knowledge will really help us here to help you.
Mike
You got me mike, I'm not that experienced. Advanced heroquest, Warhammer fantasy, AD&D 2nd, but i didn't write the system, I just donated goodies and developed the website.
The real author (taran) will be along shortly to answer serious questions. It's just after AD&D for 8 years Red Raven is a fantastic break for me.
Quote from: Mike HolmesFBIS (could we have a name, your screen name is just too much),
Lee
Quote from: Mike Holmesbut statements like what you have about how your resolution system works makes it sound pretty standard in many ways.
The whole idea of the system is too make it open and adaptable for GM's. I never used 50% of the rules whilst playing AD&D because they were too much, 3rd is even worse. I always used to 'guesstimate' the relevant actions.
The advanced rules are more detailed, but also pretty standard but then we are not trying to create a new genre we are trying to create a system that can used for any environment and is easy to learn and play. Players only need to learn the skills or spells they use so they incrementally know more as they play.
This also means that using the base rules in a sci-fi, cartoon or comedy genre is just a case of creating the relevant skills. It is not a simulistic rule set. It's for roleplay. No points are awarded for killing monsters, points are awarded for playing the character.
Nice to meet you Lee,
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesIt's just after AD&D for 8 years Red Raven is a fantastic break for me.
I can imagine. I'd say that's too long for any game. That's just me, however.
The thing is that looking at the system in question, it's pretty standard in many ways (as Jack was pointing out). Which isn't terrible, but it begs the question how you intend to get people interested. One question that we usually ask at this point is why someone would play your game instead of, say, using FUDGE. (http://www.fudgerpg.com/fudge/index.html)
At this point, a lot of people say that the setting is really neat, too. I'm not sure about your setting given what you've presented, but many around here are fond of saying "System Does Matter", which actually refers to an essay in the "articles" link at the top of this page. What it says, is that, sure, you might attract some people with a nifty setting. But system is important in delivering good play - without a good one, replay of your game might not happen. And then you lose your most important marketing tool, word of mouth.
Another thing that System Does Matter says is that just getting rid of the parts of a system that don't do what you want, is only half of the battle. From your post above, it seems as though you might be of the opinion that there are no mechanics that can facilitate the style of play that you're outlining. That's probably not true. One thing we can show you is how to actively support the style that you're trying to promote.
So, our first question will be what you want your game to promote as far as play? And you can answer that for us as well or better than your compatriot. It's not at all technical. But, basically, what is it that you want to see from play? Who are the characters? What do they do? What would a typical session look like (sans mechanics - just the narrative of it)?
If you could help give us the vision of what you're looking for, that would help a lot. The image I'm getting so far is action somewhat like D&D, but enabled by less rules getting in the way of players just making decisions? Can you correct/expand on that?
Mike
The initial idea for the system had to meet these points:-
Be easy to play
Be world independant
Keep player reading to a minimum
Allow GM total control
[/list:u]Easy to play is achieved through only having 1 d type and 2 roll types
World independence is achieved through the way we use skills
Players only need to read the skills, spells, items they want to use
GM is not restricted by physics or complicated decision based rules, all decisions are made using GM intelligence and converting said intelligence into a difficulty rating.[/list:u]
I guess from your posts that you are a realist, this is not a realistic system, although the GM can use any formulas he wants (Hence total control). We also aim to listen to our players and implement what they desire and add supplemental rules they can use if desired, hence the tiered design I spoke about earlier.
What makes it unique is the system is adapatable and is designed to be so no 'It says on page 497 that you can't do that GM' The GM can adapt the system as he/she sees fit. It makes no difference to the players who can choose Basic, advanced or customised rules. The only dependacy is on player honesty, which is an issue in all systems.
Quote from: Mike HolmesSo, our first question will be what you want your game to promote as far as play? And you can answer that for us as well or better than your compatriot. It's not at all technical. But, basically, what is it that you want to see from play? Who are the characters? What do they do? What would a typical session look like (sans mechanics - just the narrative of it)?
I can only comment as a player, I don't know what other people do with system. When we play we like to think our way out of situations rather than kill everything. My current GM is constantly peeved when we outwit him. That makes the game better for everyone, the GM and players are challenged.
At the end of each session the GM awards up to 25 points minus bad roleplaying. Each player also votes for who did the best in the game, usually based on the most inventive actions.
This helps with the group dynamic, which is really what RR is all about, no powergaming, just intellect and interaction.
Quote from: Mike HolmesIf you could help give us the vision of what you're looking for, that would help a lot. The image I'm getting so far is action somewhat like D&D, but enabled by less rules getting in the way of players just making decisions? Can you correct/expand on that?Mike
I know you pre-empted this, but, our initial fantasy setting is rich in races, social interaction and history. That is really what the game is about, role playing, having fun and helping each other out and outwitting the GM :)
Hi Lee,
It sounds like Taran's system is oriented toward slimming down the mechanics (so you don't have to throw so much out) and reducing the handling time (just making it easier in general, like the way players can learn pieces of the system, taking on more as they get more familiar with it). And putting decision in the hands of the gm instead of arbitrarily in the game materials prep'd stats. These are fixes aimed, I presume, at making the mechanics stop getting in the way of your having fun. Is that correct? It sounds like RedRaven is successful at doing that. Howver, there are some different ways of looking at mechanics and what they can do that might be of interest to you both.
Go check out The Pool (http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html). Not necessarily as advice on the kinds of mechanics you should use, but more just as a model of a different way of looking at mechanics. What would it be like to run your scenario with a system like that? What would be lost, what would be gained?
Yrs,
Emily Care
Greetings and Salutations one and all.....
Right I shall start this post with a few formalities, just to save time later J
Yes my real name is Taran, it is not a nickname.
No I am not of Asian blood or upbringing.
Neither am I of African descent in any way shape or form.
Right sorry if anyone is offended by those comments, but they are the ones I answer on an almost daily basis lol
Right my gaming experience (Deep breath)
I first started RPG gaming in a serious way at the age of 8, and way the youngest member of a local RPG club. I was running games as a GM at said club by the time I was 12 (mature for my age I guess), started college at 16......increased the amount of RPG I was playing and GM-ing to silly proportions (Much to the dismay of a great many would be lady friends..lol) and now coming up to my 27th birthday have no signs of slowing down J
Right the games that I either own of have played (On more than a dozen occasions, as I have omitted any others) are - in no particular order
D+D / AD+D (up to 3rd ed) / Palladium RPG (revised ed) / Vampire the Masquerade (1st 2nd 3rd kindred of the east and Dark ages) / Werewolf the apocalypse (1st 2nd 3rd and wild west) / Mage the ascension (1st 2nd ed) / Changeling the dreaming (1st ed) / Wraith the oblivion (1st 2nd ed) / Merp / Rolemaster / Gurps / Fighting Fantasy (the RPG not the gaming books...although I have a collection of them also) / The lone wolf RPG (again not the game books) / The legend of the five rings / Shadowrun / Cyberpunk / Warhammer fantasy roleplay / S.L.A industries / Pendragon / Tunnels and trolls and quite a few more that remain tucked away on various bookshelves about my home (and I'm sure my wife would rather me thin out lol)
Oh and as well as all that i have a collection of various miniature war gaming rules systems and figures
And to think at one time I had a life that did not revolve around the RPG hahahahahahaha then again maybe not :)
Again apologies if I portray myself as a little arrogant but that's my relevant gaming history.... I think...yeah that's more or less it J.
What was I talking about again????? lol
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesI guess from your posts that you are a realist, this is not a realistic system, although the GM can use any formulas he wants (Hence total control).
That's a fascinating observation (hey, Richter, I'm a realist!). What makes you say that? I'm guessing that you're responding to some typical criticism of the game.
QuoteWe also aim to listen to our players and implement what they desire and add supplemental rules they can use if desired, hence the tiered design I spoke about earlier.
What makes it unique is the system is adapatable and is designed to be so no 'It says on page 497 that you can't do that GM' The GM can adapt the system as he/she sees fit. It makes no difference to the players who can choose Basic, advanced or customised rules. The only dependacy is on player honesty, which is an issue in all systems.
This is a complex set of statements you've made here. They seem contradictory. That is, if the GM can adapt the system as he sees fit, then how can that make no difference to the players? Or is he not allowed to change those rules? Just what are you trying to say here?
Interestingly, a lof of what you say sounds like you're trying to stop some sort of rules abuse. But then you say something wise - "dependancy is on player honesty, which is an issue in all systems." The common wisdom herabouts is that you shouldn't design to combat abuse, so we agree with you. Still, that leaves me baffled as to some of your design elements.
Again, not to be insulting, but your inexperience is showing with the following statement. "we like to think our way out of situations rather than kill everything" is a reaction to D&D play. Many game systems aren't like D&D, and do not promote killin. Moreover, many do not even pose the think or kill dichotomy that you pose. There are other things to do in RPGs than take on the GM's finely crafted adventure.
It's probably way too early to get into this, but...this is a late stage design, no? You're going to publish soon, in theory? Because you have provided a lot of evidence of a problem that would be called in very technical terms (that you don't really need to understand yet) a case of Gamism-Simulationism incoherence.
Essentially, it seems that the game is about competing with the GM - meaning to overcome the obstacles that he places in your path. But then players aren't supposed to consider their characters pawns, instead they're supposed to play them well. Let's do an example: I have a character who in his background has a sister in his home city of whom he is the sole ward. The GM has an adventure prepared in which the characters have to make an arduous crossing of a desert to get a powerful magic item.
Should I go on the quest, or declare that my character stays home to watch his sister? Which gets me the RP reward? Which counts as successfully taking on the adventure? Which is most fun to play?
This is a loaded situation, and there is no right or wrong answer - it just points out a potential conflict in player motives. Player motives, not character motives.
You're statement about "role-playing, having fun, helping each other out," these things don't really say much about your goals. These are goals that all players have in all RPGs, given certain definitions of these terms. You have to be more specific with this sort of wording, because it could mean anything. Which doesn't help with analyzing the game in question.
Mike
At the risk of following up on my post above, which I made not having seen Taran's first post, welcome Taran.
Didn't seem arrogant at all to me. I asked and you answered. That's not a bad list of games. Seems odd to me, however, as there are very few newer designs in there, and a lot of really old ones (odder because you're not that old). It seems like you stopped playing new stuff with something like L5R?
Anyhow, given your pretty broad background, what is it about your system that you see as superior to, say, Pendragon? Is Pendragon simply too complicated? If so, then check out Emily's post above and the game that it links to. What are your feelings about a game like that?
Once we have an idea of your vision, we can really get down to making more cogent comments about your system.
Mike
Mr Holmes,
I find you posts aggressive and arrogant. This is not constructive critism or helpful advice. This is 'Prove you are worthy' and it is a game I will no longer play.
We are looking for helpful critism not looking for a discorse in how wonderful you and your theories are. If you cannot be constructive in a non-superior fashion then please do not post any more 'advice' for us.
Thankyou
Lee
????
Where did that come from Lee?
I was actually feeling Jealous that Mike was taking so much time to post to your thread.
I asure you, Mike's input is quite valuable. You just need to be patient while he learns more about what you're trying to accomplish with the game.
There's no need to feel offended.
,Matt
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesWe have a demo scenario (Ghosts of wreckers cove) that outlines the basic rules, so please download a copy and let me have it **Blocks critisism attack, swish!**.
We also have a character generator that gives you an idea of the basic characteristics each race starts with, including their race skills.
http://www.redravenrpg.com/downloads/demoscenario.zip
Please let me know what you think
I read the scenario, and I can't tell what kind of criticism you're looking for. Do you want the rules examined? The adventure itself? Ghosts of Wreckers Cove doesn't give me enough details on how to actually run the game. I also must point out that, at 20 pages, I didn't read the entire text of the adventure. I did, however, read through the rules, the sample character sheets, the NPCs, Monsters and Magic Items. I skimmed the actual adventure part. So, with that in mind, here are my questions:
- What are the basic and what are the advanced rules? I can't critique them if I don't know them. This sounds like an important goal (you emphasize it in your introductory post), but I don't see it in the demo scenario download.
- Again, without the full rules available, I'm stuck at guesswork. In the NPC/Monster descriptions, does Reaction or Intelligence have any system effect?
- The magic items at the end have little in-game rules. When the venom blade has a "fast-acting poison," how is that handled in the rules?
- From the text, I'm unsure when to apply the rules. In Encounter One, when the characters chat up Reno, do they have to make Charisma checks to learn anything? Can a PC make an Awareness check to realize the high chance of contracting a disease?
I do want to point out that the Rule of One is a great way to have critical fumbles and avoid the higher score = higher fumbles problem.
Now, on to the general design issues. My big questions for you, design-wise, are the following:
- What does the GM do?
- What do the players do?
- What do the characters do?
This is answered a bit in the demo scenario, but not enough. The follow-up question to these three is: How do the rules support this?
From your posts, I gather that the GM provides challenges (what kind of challenges? Combat only? Social?), the players make choices with limited knowledge (i.e., they know as much as the characters about the situation) to overcome these challenges. I don't want to make guesses though, so I need to know your answers before really examining the rules.
Quote from: Matt Gwinn????
Where did that come from Lee?
Maybe it's the old problem of intention not coming through text well? If I am wrong I apologise!
QuoteWhat are the basic and what are the advanced rules? I can't critique them if I don't know them. This sounds like an important goal (you emphasize it in your introductory post), but I don't see it in the demo scenario download.
From posts so far, I think we need to do serious work on the introductory scenario, It obviously doesn't portray the system very well **blushes**
I find it hard to answer some of these questions, because as Mike pointed out, I'm not an RPG professional and have not studied all the genres. We are not trying to create the worlds best system, we are trying to create a simple system that can be adapted to the group/GMs requirements. I've always adapted systems, but they were never designed to changed. RR is.
Quote- The magic items at the end have little in-game rules. When the venom blade has a "fast-acting poison," how is that handled in the rules?
Yet another good point. Posion is in the basic rules but not in the scenario :( It's hard to read your own work because you know what it's on about so you don't notice things are missing. Magic has no rules as such. The spell descriptions explain what the spell does. Thats it.
QuoteFrom the text, I'm unsure when to apply the rules. In Encounter One, when the characters chat up Reno, do they have to make Charisma checks to learn anything? Can a PC make an Awareness check to realize the high chance of contracting a disease?
This is puely down to the GM. He can make the players roll on whatever they spot or he feels like.
Quote- What does the GM do?
- What do the players do?
- What do the characters do?
Can you give me an example answer? My immediate response is 'Solve the situation and roleplay'. I seem to find these sort of questions hard to answer.
QuoteFrom your posts, I gather that the GM provides challenges (what kind of challenges? Combat only? Social?), the players make choices with limited knowledge (i.e., they know as much as the characters about the situation) to overcome these challenges. I don't want to make guesses though, so I need to know your answers before really examining the rules.
Either we all play differently from everyone else, or I'm missing something. Each campaign usually has an mission/point. It's up to the players to retrieve that item, stop that war, kill that baddie etc. Standard RPG fair.
Whilst heading for that particluar mission, things happen! The environment affects what the players end up doing. The skills in the system lead to all sorts of 'Free' situations (i.e. the GM didn't have to write it).
Brotach is a gargoylean (12ft of rock, 2 ton) and we are heading into an underground city. We come to wooden ladder that leads down to a cave 50' below and tell Brotach to stay where she is.
'We'll just go down and have a look, you stay here and keep watch'
We come to an inscription on a door that is written in a language only Brotach can read (Read/Speak Duragadanian Skill). Now what do we do?This sort of thing happens all the time in RR, GM's can set it up but it happens all the time due to the way we use skills. Characters are put in all sorts of situations because of their race or skills. Brotach cannot come with us into an rotting wooden building for example. Gargoyleans don't sleep either, so she is always on watch. The player wanted to start carving at night. We had no carve skill in the listings, but as RR is designed to be expanded, we just added one, she spent the XP and now is getting quite good at carving and sells little statues in towns.
This is basically what RR is about. It about character development alongside your normal 'Save the princess' stuff. Characters are not restricted to a class as such either. A Warrior can cast spells and a mage can kick ass. It all depends on what skills they learn. This means characters are a lot more rounded and players get attached and actually care about them.
(Lee e-mailed me a copy of the 'player's basic guide' for RedRavenRPG, these comments refer to that text, which expands upon the rules given in the demo scenario.)
Hi Lee (and Taran),
I've had a read through the rules. As I thought more about it I've begun to quite like the basic resolution mechanic, although I'm still dubious about the re-rolls it requires, and it does have a very strange probability curve (for higher numbers of dice, you get a curve increasing up to 9, then nothing at 10, then a curve increasing from 11 to 19, then nothing at 20, etc...). Which means that a change in target number, or attribute value can have very strange effects on the probability.
The biggest thing that strikes me about the design is that it seems to lack the courage of it's convictions. It has a quite neat, fluid, semi-freeform mechanic for most resolution - and then a hugely crunchy combat system. It has the same 'I hit you' - 'you hit me' freeze-frame combat mechanics of D&D (which I will freely admit an increasing dislike for), but can take up to five(!) rolls to resolve each strike. I worry about the handling time for that (especially with your system which I would expect to have a potentially longer handling time for each roll). I wonder whether you would be better re-thinking your combat system to be more in keeping with the freer feel of the rest of the system.
There's also three distinct combat systems: one for melee combat, one for brawling and one for missile combat. Each has it's own special way of working out damage. Is this really needed? It seems horribly inconsistent to me. At least unify the damage mechanics.
I'm really not clear on why you have three defence skills - there seems to be no difference between them (apart from shield block which is strictly inferior to either dodging or defending), so why have them? Why not just have one defend skill that everyone uses?
It's not clear from the rules, as is, what skills are available - do you make up your own, or is there a list not included in the rules.
I haven't done the numbers, but it looks like the xp required to 'finish' a mage is much, much higher than that required to 'finish' a warrior. My experience with WFRP suggests to me that this is not a good thing.
What is a 'level 1' skill? How does it differ from not having the skill? Both would seem to roll one dice.
What is an 'advanced' skill - it is mentioned in the xp chart to advance skills, but I can't see any description of what it is?
Hope this helps,
Jack.
I must apologise to Mike.
His questions are direct and focussed and I took this to be aggressive. I must admit I am out of my depth here and probably reacted to that rather than to mikes advice.
I don't understand the questions mainly, which makes me what Mike hates (according to his article). We have spent a long time working on RR 4 years from the idea, 2 years trying to write it all down, do the website and manuals etc. Which is why we missed all the newer RPG's.
So once again, my humble apologies to Mike
Lee
Quote from: Jack AidleyI've had a read through the rules. As I thought more about it I've begun to quite like the basic resolution mechanic, although I'm still dubious about the re-rolls it requires, and it does have a very strange probability curve (for higher numbers of dice, you get a curve increasing up to 9, then nothing at 10, then a curve increasing from 11 to 19, then nothing at 20, etc...). Which means that a change in target number, or attribute value can have very strange effects on the probability.
Can you illustrate this :)
Quote from: Jack Aidleybut can take up to five(!) rolls to resolve each strike.
5? Never had that!
Swordsmanship=4
roll 4d10 (3,7,10,1)
Reroll 10 (4)
Result is 14 + Swordsmanship = 18[/list:u]
Thats 2 (including the re-rolled 10)
QuoteThere's also three distinct combat systems: one for melee combat, one for brawling and one for missile combat. Each has it's own special way of working out damage. Is this really needed? It seems horribly inconsistent to me. At least unify the damage mechanics.
Strangely enough we only had 1 to start with but players started saying things like 'You roll your endurance because you brace yourself right? Well how can I brace myself against an arrow, I don't know it's coming!'
QuoteI'm really not clear on why you have three defence skills
There are different defence skills because of the types of attack. If you are wimpy mage you will probably never of learnt hand-to-hand combat. The mage may be adept at quarter staff fighting but that doesn't mean he can fight off a ninja. His ability to defend is down to his weapon in 'Block Melee', where as his ability to defend had-to-hand is down to his fists and close fighting experience(Block Brawl).
QuoteIt's not clear from the rules, as is, what skills are available - do you make up your own, or is there a list not included in the rules.
I've emailed them to you :)
QuoteI haven't done the numbers, but it looks like the xp required to 'finish' a mage is much, much higher than that required to 'finish' a warrior. My experience with WFRP suggests to me that this is not a good thing.
We spotted this one one early on, when a mage progresses to the next level he is gifted with 2 spells from that level as he mutates. That balances the XP required (in favour of the mage so he can also improve skills)
QuoteWhat is a 'level 1' skill? How does it differ from not having the skill? Both would seem to roll one dice.
The first level of a skill means you are learning to do it. If you have no experience of 'Carving', you cannot do it, other than to wittle. So level one is like going to a night class. A more obvious problem skill would be law. If you had never looked at it, you would know nothing about it. At level 1 you are starting to read and begin to understand what 'A clause contract' is, at 2 you would understand the documentation, 3 be able to write one, 4 be able to write a water tight one, 5 be able to write one that gets someone to sell their soul.
QuoteWhat is an 'advanced' skill - it is mentioned in the xp chart to advance skills, but I can't see any description of what it is?
In RR you only need 5d10s. If the GM allows you to go a skill of 6 you gain a special ability with that skill. A swordsmanship of 6, may involve being unable to be disarmed, or the GM could give you chain lightening(bad spell, bad spell) whilst using a sword. Again this down to the GMs discretion.
Hi Lee,
QuoteCan you illustrate this :)
Maybe later. The odds follow quite obviously though. You can't get a ten (or any multiple thereof) because you re-roll and add, and each 'step' up will repeat the pattern of the first line (although less pronouncedly).
Quote5? Never had that!
Iniative (combat sense)
To Hit
Them to defend
To Damage
To reduce Damage
That's five seperate rolls for one attack.
QuoteStrangely enough we only had 1 to start with but players started saying things like 'You roll your endurance because you brace yourself right? Well how can I brace myself against an arrow, I don't know it's coming!'
It seems to me to go against your stated aim of reducing unnecessary rules. An equally good rational is that tougher people can take more damage (and in any case, you can see arrows coming in most circumstances).
QuoteThere are different defence skills because of the types of attack. If you are wimpy mage you will probably never of learnt hand-to-hand combat. The mage may be adept at quarter staff fighting but that doesn't mean he can fight off a ninja. His ability to defend is down to his weapon in 'Block Melee', where as his ability to defend hand-to-hand is down to his fists and close fighting experience(Block Brawl).
So there's different block/dodge/shield skills for different situations as well, then? That wasn't what I meant though: why do you have seperate block/dodge/shield skill when they all do the same mechanical thing? Since you can use only one of them at a time, it makes no sense to have more than one? (And it seems never to make sense to use 'shield').
QuoteI've emailed them to you
Cool. I'll have a look over them and get back to you.
QuoteThe first level of a skill means you are learning to do it. If you have no experience of 'Carving', you cannot do it, other than to wittle. So level one is like going to a night class. A more obvious problem skill would be law. If you had never looked at it, you would know nothing about it. At level 1 you are starting to read and begin to understand what 'A clause contract' is, at 2 you would understand the documentation, 3 be able to write one, 4 be able to write a water tight one, 5 be able to write one that gets someone to sell their soul.
Ok. So if you don't have a skill you simply can't do it? Yes? I don't think that's made clear in the rules.
Cheers,
Jack.
Quote from: Jack AidleyIniative (combat sense)
To Hit
Them to defend
To Damage
To reduce Damage
Point taken :)
QuoteAn equally good rational is that tougher people can take more damage
You see whilst playing that HP are not so easy to come by in RR. You never get given them, you have to purchase them, which means theres always a balance between skills, spells, attributes and HP,MP. Characters are built up via the players discretion, but there is always a trade off. Should I improve my block melee or buy 2 new hit points?
QuoteThat wasn't what I meant though: why do you have seperate block/dodge/shield skill when they all do the same mechanical thing?
Thats a good point. It's more for the players actions than the system. I think we will rework the dodge skill so it is not related to the damage. An elephant kicks at you, not much chance of blocking that, i'll dodge instead. Or maybe just take it out!
Yeah, I think it's safe for me to speak on Mike's behalf when I say that he was not being hostile towards you or your game. I also think it's safe to say that his comments were intended to do the best thing any comments can hope to achieve: help you focus your own critical analysis so you can figure out what you really want, and the best ways to achieve that. If you do a bit of reading around the forge (especially the articles section) and then go back and review his posts I think you may find them a bit more enlightening and helpful.
And really, how can learning about what you like be bad??? It can only help you make your games even better than they are. You'll probably even be reading and think "hey, you know, that would really be cool...". In fact, I garauntee it.
Also, I second Jack's motion that if your goal is to make "light" rules, then you should keep them "light" through combat as well, which means re-thinking all the crunchy bits that bog it down. Or change your focus to combat, in which case crunchy 'em up!
-Ben
First, if I come off as arrogant, I apollogize. I admit that my approach could be taken that way. As far as agressive...I would like to help you. I have an "agressive" way of getting to the point where we really can help you. At most sites you go to, you'll find that people will tend to make rather random comments about your game and suggestions about what might work. This isn't totally unhelpful, but I think that we've developed here a rather more substantial method of analysis that can provide a lot better feedback than that.
Now, to get to that point, we really need certain information from you. So before you see anything like advice from me, you'll first be seeing this battery of questions. The point being that what you're going through is very similar to what others go through here when first arriving looking for advice. Ask recent arrivals Ravien for instance. And then ask if he thinks that the analysis is helping him to make a better game.
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesFrom posts so far, I think we need to do serious work on the introductory scenario, It obviously doesn't portray the system very well **blushes**
Well, it's a synopsis, or a fraction of the entire game, so that's not too surprising. This brings up another touchy subject that may make you defensive. Is there some reason that you're not showing people the entire system?
Occasionally people get worried that they might be losing potential sales to people who would download it now, or that the ideas from the game might be "stolen?" If this is the reason for not displaying the entire game, your fears are unfounded.
In any case, realize that having us try to help you while only being able to see part of the game will seriously limit the speed and effectiveness at which we can provide feedback. It would really help us to help you if we could see more of what you want feedback on.
QuoteI find it hard to answer some of these questions, because as Mike pointed out, I'm not an RPG professional and have not studied all the genres.
Note the "indie" term all over this place. I have published exactly one full game to date. In fact, there's a sentiment here that there really are very few, if any, "RPG Professionals." Instead there are people like yourself who want to build a better mousetrap for their hobby. Every "proffessional" started out the same way as you.
Further, many of these questions relate to a general vision of play. They are non-technical and simply require you to answer them to the best of your ability. Not in some specialized manner.
QuoteWe are not trying to create the worlds best system, we are trying to create a simple system that can be adapted to the group/GMs requirements. I've always adapted systems, but they were never designed to changed. RR is.
No system is, or will ever be perfect. Nobody expects that. But there are things that one can look at. Certainly you posted here looking for feedback on improving the game? Because that's what this forum is for. "Can I ask if anyone would look over the base rules and let me know your opinions?" is a tad vague, but if you note the posting conventions listed at the top of the forum, this is a place for getting the sort of feedback that I'm giving.
As it happens, the one game that I designed has a specific rule in it for how to change the rules (the Gimmick Rule). So I think that the idea of malleable rules is pretty interesting. I think we'd like to see what you have there to comment on it. Again, is there any chance we can see the system in total?
QuoteCan you give me an example answer?
Quote- What does the GM do?
In D&D, the GM controls all NPCs, monsters, the world in general, and is responsible for having a "scenario" or adventure ready to play out each session.
Quote- What do the players do?
In D&D, the players control the actions of their characters.
Quote- What do the characters do?
In D&D, the characters usually go on the GM's adventures, which mostly involve killing things, and taking their stuff.
This all may seem obvious as in "what else would these things do?" But they're all assumptions which you may have different ideas on. And many of these assumptions don't apply to many RPGs. So we always check. The last one is particularly malleable. In Champions, the characters are superheroes who fight crime. Sure, one could make up a super, and then have him become a business magnate, but that's not what Champions supports. What is it that you want your game to support?
QuoteMy immediate response is 'Solve the situation and roleplay'. I seem to find these sort of questions hard to answer.
Actually, that's not a bad answer. Just to clarify, however, by "solve the situation" do you mean that the players try to solve the situation through using their characters, or that the characters solve the situation. This is a subtle difference. In the first, the player is the one being challenged. For example, in D&D, deciding which spells to take each morning for the wizard is a player challenge. A character challenge would be rolling to see if he can figure out how to open a puzzle box. See the difference?
And, let's define what you mean by "role-play" once and for all. I'm going to guess that it means to play your character in the first person, to act the part of the character. Is that it? As I said, there are many other viable definitions, so we really need to narrow this down some. If "role-play" simply means to play a RPG, that doesn't help us much at all.
QuoteEither we all play differently from everyone else, or I'm missing something. Each campaign usually has an mission/point. It's up to the players to retrieve that item, stop that war, kill that baddie etc. Standard RPG fair.
Again, you're going to find a lot of your assumptions challenged here. Yes, this is typical of a lot, maybe even most RPG play. But it's far from universal.
But what you're saying is clear.
QuoteWhilst heading for that particluar mission, things happen! The environment affects what the players end up doing. The skills in the system lead to all sorts of 'Free' situations (i.e. the GM didn't have to write it).
This is a good clarification off of the "standard play" assumption above. It's not uncommon, but neither is this "free" play universal. So it's good that you mentioned it.
QuoteThis is basically what RR is about. It about character development alongside your normal 'Save the princess' stuff. Characters are not restricted to a class as such either. A Warrior can cast spells and a mage can kick ass. It all depends on what skills they learn. This means characters are a lot more rounded and players get attached and actually care about them.
Just to be even more clear, when you say "character development" you're speaking to them aquiring new skills, and new sets of skills and the like? To what extent do you mean the "literature" meaning of character development, meaning that their personalities are tested, or change, or their relationships, etc?
I think that we've got nearly what we need to proceed. Again, the biggest problem is that we're not looking at the whole rule set. What often happens in cases like this is that we end up saying, "the game could use X" and you respond, "well, it's already got X." And we say, exasperatedly, "Well, why didn't you say so?"
I'm just hoping to avoid a lot of that.
If the feedback that you're getting here is completely different than what you were hoping to get, then please let us know what you were hoping for. It may be that either this isn't the forum for it at The Forge, or maybe The Forge isn't really the place to get the kind of feedback that you're looking for (and perhaps we can suggest a better place).
Mike
QuoteThe point being that what you're going through is very similar to what others go through here when first arriving looking for advice. Ask recent arrivals Ravien for instance. And then ask if he thinks that the analysis is helping him to make a better game.
Well, seeing how you asked :)
Here is where I was in the same position as you are in now. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9910)
Here is something very cool (I think) that came out of Mike's helpful input. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10431)
Here is a topic about something completely different that ended up being a topic about my game. This is also something you might want to avoid if controversy scares you. Also an example of how Mike's advice can be twisted to the Dark Side, so must be handled with respect. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11095)
So in short, Mike was extremely helpful in helping me make what I feel is a much better game than what I started with. I recommend him to anyone :)
-Ben
And it's not just my advice, thanks Ben. But it's everyone's here. By answering my questions (and those of others), you're empowering potentially thousands of people to help you better. In fact, the people who are likely to respond are probably only about 100 or so, but that's still a huge think tank to be tapping, and the ones who respond include some really great minds. I'm merely the most prolific - there are other's here who likely have much more important things to say about your game than I do.
So this isn't just one wacky poster asking you some wacky questions. This is SOP around here, and you can really benefit if you just play along a little with our unusual program.
That all said, let's turn the tables at this point. Let me ask you - what, if anything, do you see as something in the game that might use some work? Do you see any flaws with it, no matter how small?
BTW, everyone, Lee PMed me (not to mention the apology above -which was unneccessary, but appreciated), and I think it's all cool now. Smooth sailing, I hope.
Mike
Quote from: RavienYeah, I think it's safe for me to speak on Mike's behalf when I say that he was not being hostile towards you or your game.
Following up on the last post. Heh, yeah, Ben's seen me when I'm actually acting aggressively and like an ass. :-)
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesLet me ask you - what, if anything, do you see as something in the game that might use some work? Do you see any flaws with it, no matter how small?
1. We need to move the basic combat rules to advanced, go back to the original combat rules for basic.
Attacker: Roll your weapon skill (still using rule of ten)
Defender: Roll your weapon skill
Damage to defender: Attackers total - Defenders total
2. It's been commented on that we need a magic system, but we don't see the need. The system is, if you know the spell and have the mana, then cast it. We've got way too many spells (about 100 more than in the manuals you've got!)
We do have a really good magic system that is free form, but may unbalance the game. We're still not sure whether to include it. Ther should be no problems if the GM is ok with it, but it will scare newer GM's.
Let's focus on that term "freeform" a little. It has lots of different meanings. I'm guessing that here you mean that mages can work up all sorts of different spells on the fly, make whatever magical effects that they want to? Interesting.
Would the following be a viable spell (acutally a spell right out of Rolemaster's Spell Law)?
Long Door - target dissapears, and reappears 100 feet away anywhere the caster can see.
Would that be a writeup of a spell that would fly in your game? Get the answer set in your head before proceeding.
If the answer is no, why? What's "missing"?
If the answer is yes, then let's say that I have a mage character, and I say, "I'm casting Long Door on that tower to move it over there." What do you, as GM tell me happens? Does the tower move, or no?
If the answer is yes, then can I make the planet my "target"? Can I use my opponent's head as the "target"? Why, or why not?
If the answer is no, I can't move the tower, then what's that based on? How is that determined? I take it that the GM has final authority - what does the game tell him he has to use as criteria when making this decision? Just his own good judgement?
Don't let these questions make you think that there might be a wrong or right answer. On one end of the spectrum we have magic systems as complex as Chivalry & Sorcery 1st ed, and as simple as what is sometimes termed freeform meaning something other than what you're talking about. Freeform in this instance means that the system that the GM uses is to "just do whatever you think is the right thing to do." Entire games are played this way every day. So, you're game is somewhere in between these two extremes. What I'm trying to do is determine what the system is that you guys are using for determining the outcome of magic. Because, at the moment it would seem to be "freeform" using the definition that I've just enumerated above. Some would instead say that you are using "drama" as your form of resolution here (as opposed to fortune or karma). Meaning that it's just up to some player to make an "appropriate" decision of some sort.
Also, your last comments are interesting. If the set spell system relies on the players trusting the GM, then how can the other system you have be, "unbalancing"? What balance is being thrown out? Is it just that the freeform method gives the mage more abilities, or more powerful ones?
"Balance" is another of those topics that has a lot of meanings. We may have to clarify that, too. What you're talking about sounds like "power balance" meaning that each PC is limited so as to be more or less as powerful as the next. Is that what you're talking about?
Mike
Yeah Mike,
Taran has just sat down and explained to me why it's a bad idea, but I am a programmer and we do the impossible all the time. I'm going to spend some time on it (as a side project) and see if I can make it safe. I like a challenge ***Laughs Madly***
Quote from: Mike Holmes"Balance" is another of those topics that has a lot of meanings. We may have to clarify that, too. What you're talking about sounds like "power balance" meaning that each PC is limited so as to be more or less as powerful as the next. Is that what you're talking about?
Balance in the context of what you just said. "Teleport, Target, moon", "Drain, Spirit" are too powerful.
In the rest of the game with character progression, balance is not such an issue. Basically players can have a multi-skilled low level character,or a focused, poweful character that lacks a decent range of skills. A supreme warrior will be stuck when he goes to a different culture to arrange a peace treaty and has a charisma of 3!
Players can be powerful in one region or a more naturally rounded and realistic. It depends on the playing style. This is one of the ways RR allows for lots of different types of play in the same gaming session.
On the issue of balance: Balance is a very broad concept. Do you want balance of characters' in-game effectiveness? I.e., characters of the same level should have an equal chance to succeed at combat? When you generalize this, with something like, "A 3rd level fighter should be comparable to a 3rd level magic-user," you're making certain assumptions with play. In a game focused on combat, hopefully the magic-user is equally capable in combat, or the fighter will earn limelight. If you focus the game to be 2/3rds combat (where the magic-user is half-as capable as a fighter), and 1/3rd non-combat, you've got some limelight balance. Note that I said "limelight balance." If you earn more experience in combat, then there is a loss of reward balance.
So, when you say that "Teleport, Target, Moon" and "Drain, Spirit" are too powerful, what is your basis of comparison? If a fighter can reasonably kill a goblin with one blow, then how is that less powerful than teleporting the goblin to the moon?
In your example of a supreme warrior and a multi-skilled low-level character, how do these balance out? This can be handled by the GM (one way would be to gauge the PC's effectiveness in different areas and provide a chance for all PC's to test their skills), the actual rules (during play or required GM prep), or even the players (say, using a skill means you can't use it later on so that other PCs get a chance to use it), or some combination of the three (and probably more factors I'm missing).
---
Moving to another topic, your concerns of pleasing other gamers with your game. If you're trying to improve D&D, your game is going to be compared to D&D. Inevitably, it won't do favorably (since D&D is going to "out-D&D" anything, by the nature of it being D&D). Don't please the world of gamers; please yourselves with Red Raven.
An NPC walks up to your beloved 2 year old character and casts Teleport, Moon. How happy would you be :)
We do not want to be associated AD&D in any way, thank you very much! I personally preferred warhammer but they got lost in wargaming and never produced any backup for it. Hence I was left with AD&D at the time, b4 vampire, werewolf etc. Have I given my age away, damn!
I think we are nearer to GURPS in our intentions. People keep wanting us to say we are a Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist system. I don't think we fit into any one. The idea was to make the mechanics simple enough to allow for all types of play in the same game.
In my current gaming group we've got 2 power gamers (all skills at max, 3rd circle magic etc) who loved AD&D and we've got 3 who loved pendragon, warhammer and white wolf! I constantly think my way out of situations even though I've got weapons skill at max, another player likes casting crush bone on peoples necks and skulls and yet another likes to amble around being all arty.
It works for us. No-one is forced to play any one elses way, the rules are simple enough to allow most types of play together. I think this is why I had such trouble answering Mikes questions. It also leads us to a 'normal' situation in groups of people. Like having to stop (in character) the powergamers running amok when we need peace, telling me shut up when the answer is obvious and i've missed it cos i'm thinking too much, and stopping the arty one being arty when we need to run away.
That is what the system was designed for. That is why it doesn't neatly fit into any category. By removing the hard core rules it allows the players and GM to play to the situation, not the mechanics.
Phew!
**Waiting nervously for Mikes response**
As a response, an NPC comes up to your beloved 2 year old character and kills him with a sword! There are checks & balances in combat, which is somewhat 'freeform', especially if you allow neat player statements like, "I jump up on the crate and leap from above, swinging my axe into the orc's face!"
Maybe we're not sharing the same definition of freeform. I'll have to check out the spell section. Where is it in the main rules?
Like I said, balance is a tricky design goal, and you'll have to analyze how the game is supposed to be run by the GM, how characters are made effective in the rules, and how players interact with the GM and each other.
Quote from: Zak ArntsonMaybe we're not sharing the same definition of freeform. I'll have to check out the spell section. Where is it in the main rules?
It's not. The free form is too open to abuse till I tame it. It's more of an idea of mine. If I can get it to work well without being too powerful we will include it, but as for now it's not in.
Quote from: Zak ArntsonLike I said, balance is a tricky design goal, and you'll have to analyze how the game is supposed to be run by the GM, how characters are made effective in the rules, and how players interact with the GM and each other.
Surely thats down to the players and GM. A good GM can handle whatever the players throw at him. We can't know how any GM or player plays unless we've personally played with them. If you target a system at one type of GM you have alienated 99% of the rest. Everyone is different.
Our current GM was an AD&D addict, POWER, POWER, POWER!
Up a level, bigger monsters, Yawn!. Whilst playing RR we have seen him think a lot more, use our skills in the stories and generally think a lot more about what he's doing. In my opinion he has become a much better GM because he has more to react too and those of us who don't like powergaming are playing alongside powergamers and it's all working out. They put their Attacks and defense up, learn new spells etc. I buy a few new skills, get items to help me magically, increase my stats etc. My character is quite rounded and handles most situations. They are always looking for more devious ways to kill people or outwit the GM.
If you don't want "powergaming", then don't cater for it. But I'm having trouble determining what you mean by "powergamer". Do you mean "a player who focuses on maximising their effectiveness" or "a player who focuses on maximising their combat effectiveness"? There is a distinct difference. If your game rewards combat, then you will find people who foucs on that area.
How does character advancement work?
How is experience dealt out?
How can it be spent?
The answers to these questions will help me to figure out what your game promotes.
For example, in my game, characters are rewarded for very risky/heroic/benevolent/malevolent/or extraordinary behavior, and they are rewarded with increases to attributes (from which everything derives or depends). So play is focused on these qualitative issues, which are very subjective and adaptable to basically anything cool a character can do. This sort of design encourages player involvement in whichever way they wish to explore (I think anyway).
Another example would be D&D (I know you hate it, most people around here feel the same way, but it's a very useful comparison because everybody knows it). D&D Characters are rewarded for killing things, and they recieve XP which buys levels, and gold, which buys equipment. So play becomes focused on killing things. This sort of design encourages "powergaming".
I hope that helps a bit.
-Ben
Hi, Lee. Welcome to the Forge.
Now before I make any comments here, I want you to know I'm going to ask some hard questions and state some pretty strong opinions of mine. They are, in no way, a personal attack on you, your game, or the validity of your opinions.
Quote from: Lee{on freeform magic system}
The free form is too open to abuse till I tame it. It's more of an idea of mine. If I can get it to work well without being too powerful we will include it, but as for now it's not in.
By freeform, I'm assuming that you're referring to players improvising magical effects on the fly. If that's not the case, please clarify what you mean by freeform in relation to the magic system.
If you're worried about balancing the in-game power level of magic, you might want to set up some guidelines for magic effects. I'm going to use "levels" as an abstract term in this example. A "level" could be a character level, skill level, or something else entirely.
------------------------
Sample Freeform Magic SystemLevel 1: At level 1, you can only cast spells that affect yourself. The spell can have a maximum duration of 10 minutes (outside of combat) or 3 turns in combat. Healing spells are instantaneous and permanent (you do not lose the healing after the previously mentioned duration).
Level 2: At level 2, you can cast spells that affect yourself or one other person you can make direct contact with. The spell can have a maximum duration of 1 hour (outside of combat) or 10 turns in combat. Spells that heal or damage someone are instantaneous and permanent (you do not lose the healing or damage after the previously mentioned duration).
Level 3: At level 3, you can cast spells that affect yourself, one other person you can make direct contact with, or one other person that you can physically see. The spell can have a maximum duration of 8 hours (outside of combat) or the duration of the entire combat. Spells that heal or damage someone are instantaneous and permanent (you do not lose the healing or damage after the previously mention duration).
------------------------------
Of course, you don't have to stop there. You can take magic all the way up to the power level of destroying planets, or use restrictions that apply to all levels equally (like Ars Magica's rule that magic cannot affect heaven or heavenly bodies). The advantage of a system like this is that it still lets the player be creative, but it gives them some easy to understand guidelines to go by. I'd recommend you check out Big Eyes, Small Mouth (by Guardians of Order) which uses a similar system to the one I described. I'd also recommend taking a look at Ars Magica (by Atlas Games) so you can see an example of a different type of magic system.
Quote from: Lee
A good GM can handle whatever the players throw at him. We can't know how any GM or player plays unless we've personally played with them.
I used to think this way myself, but I now realize it's a flawed assumption. Yes, a good GM can improvise on the fly and make something work even with a horrible system. I even watched one GM make up a different system for each player on the fly! But this begs the question: if you expect the GM to go to that extreme, why would he even need or want your system? He can just come up with a good one on his own.
The other flaw in this line of thinking is that most GMs are not, and never will be, what most people call "a good GM". GMs need all the help that they can get. That's where your game design comes in and solves their problem. If you expect too much of the GM, and only target "good GMs" with your product, you're already positioning yourself out of business. "Good GMs" are a niche market in what's already a tiny niche market.
Also, I used "good GM" in quotes above because it's such a loaded term. Your idea of what a good GM is will almost certainly be different from mine.
Quote from: Lee
If you target a system at one type of GM you have alienated 99% of the rest. Everyone is different.
I've heard this argument so many times that it's become something of an urban legend to me. I think this is bunk. Please don't take that personally. It's not aimed at you personally; it's aimed at the myth.
You want to alienate some people. It's called "defining your market". You have to make some decision at some point as to who you're trying to market this game to. It's better to do this consciously in the beginning than to just leave it to chance. (By the way, even if you produce a free product, you're still marketing it to someone ... even if it's just your local gaming group.)
Whether you intend it to or not, you are going to make a game that facilitates some style of play. Again, it's better to consciously make design decisions that facilitates the style of play you want than to leave it to chance.
I'm not going to get into the G/N/S theory here, but consider this: is it better to make a game that supports Simulationist play and sells well to people who enjoy that style of play, or is it better to make a game that tries to be all things to all people and fails to sell well to any of them because it doesn't do what any of them want it to do?
I don't need a public answer to that question, but you do need to answer that question for yourself.
Quote from: LeeThe whole idea of the system is too make it open and adaptable for GM's.
If that's an important goal for your game, then I suggest you use one mechanic to resolve all kinds of conflict: physical, social, mental, magical, etc. Give a lot of examples on how to use that mechanic in different situations. That way you help the GM "calibrate" himself according to the system.
Quote from: LeeI never used 50% of the rules whilst playing AD&D because they were too much, 3rd is even worse. I always used to 'guesstimate' the relevant actions.
D&D is not the only roleplaying game out there. There are a lot of different ways of doing what you want. I suggest you don't try to "fix" the design flaws you see in D&D and really take a hard look at what you're trying to accomplish with your game.
Quote from: Lee
It is not a simulistic rule set.
Why does it have a combat system that includes separate block, dodge, and shield skills? Why does the combat system check to see if you hit? Why does the combat system tell you how much damage you do? It appears that you're trying to simulate "realistic" combat.
I'm not saying you can't, or shouldn't, include rules for these types of things. I do, however, think its important that you know why you're including them and ask yourself if they're really even necessary.
The game I'm working on doesn't have any of these things, but playing out a fight scene is still a lot of fun. My game doesn't need tactical combat rules, so they're not there.
Quote from: LeeI guess from your posts that you are a realist, this is not a realistic system, although the GM can use any formulas he wants (Hence total control).
No game system can model reality perfectly. Not even the world's most powerful super-computer can do that. All games are necessarily abstractions. You can achieve a powerful design when you consciously realize that and use it to your advantage.
Any GM can alter any system he wants. Does that mean you shouldn't write any rules at all just because a GM has "total control"? Is "total control" really what you want the GM to have? If the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?
Quote from: LeeAt the end of each session the GM awards up to 25 points minus bad roleplaying.
What is "bad roleplaying"? That's such a loaded term that it's useless. My idea of "bad roleplaying" is probably going to be very different from yours. I think vague terms like this are part of what cause dysfunctional gaming groups (i.e. nobody is on the same page).
Quote from: Lee
We are not trying to create the worlds best system, we are trying to create a simple system that can be adapted to the group/GMs requirements.
It's good that you realize you'll never reach a state of perfection as it helps you avoid the frustration of trying. But this could also mean that you're not trying hard enough to design a quality product because you realized it'll never be perfect. If you mean the latter, you're going to regret it. Word of mouth advertising is so important in this business.
Quote from: Lee
An NPC walks up to your beloved 2 year old character and casts Teleport, Moon. How happy would you be :)
The old "I can't have fun if bad things happen to my character" myth. I really hate this one.
I played in a D&D game about 6 months ago where that very thing happened and we had a lot of fun with it. A powerful vampire cast a spell that thrust us into another dimension that was our world ... except for the small problem with it being ruled by the undead.
My entire game design is based on destroying this one myth! Roleplayers can have just as much, or more, fun when things go against their character than they can when things always go their way. Look at popular fiction: the hero has to suffer and go through hell, sometimes literally, before we can enjoy his success.
Quote from: Lee
We do not want to be associated AD&D in any way, thank you very much!
To avoid this, get rid of the assumptions you've accumulated from years of playing it. Play tons of new games and challenge everything you believe a roleplaying game has to be or include. You'll gain so much insight from this that you won't believe it.
Also, you might want to go to the Forge's articles section and read Ron Edwards' Fantasy Heartbreaker articles.
Quote from: Lee
I personally preferred warhammer but they got lost in wargaming and never produced any backup for it.
Here's another myth I hate: a game has to have regular supplements released to remain viable. Around the Forge, that method of publishing is called "The Supplement Treadmill".
Not only is that a good way to go bankrupt (as TSR showed us), it creates the flawed assumption that a game is dead if supplements aren't released for it on a regular schedule.
Warhammer is a great example. That game still has a fanbase that's actually playing it as we speak. For example, both playbyweb.com and rpol.net have active Warhammer games going on.
You don't have to buy any supplement to run a game. That's why they're called supplements instead of core rules. The only thing that kills a game is a lack of actual play.
If you're absolutely convinced that you need supplements for your game, take a look at Ron Edwards' Sorcerer (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com) supplement program. I think it's a very good way to approach the subject.
Sorry for such a long post. Good luck with your game. I'm rooting for you and every other independent designer and publisher out there.
Roy
1. Forget free form magic, it is not part of the system, I will start a seperate thread to dicuss the ideas I have for that.
QuoteAlso, I used "good GM" in quotes above because it's such a loaded term. Your idea of what a good GM is will almost certainly be different from mine.
IMHO, a good GM is someone who is constantly challenging the players, giving them interesting things to do and can respond to any situation that occurs in a way that befits the scenario/mission etc. This also includes keeping believability/immersion high.
A GMs difficulty in the actual system is pretty low due to the difficulty table. So in terms of game mechanics a GM has only got to decide what difficulty rating a particular action is. In the rules, that is done by guesstimation, but may equally be done outside the rules with a pyhsics book and a calculator. The point of the system is to make the way it's calculated irrelevant.
Player: 'I want to jump off this building into the straw wagon below'
GM1: thinks 'Thats pretty far, and he might miss it, gotta be Complex(15), if he misses it's gonna hurt, about 20 damage.
GM2: Gets out his calculator ((Mass Of player /gravity) * likelyhood) / target area = 22% chance so thats complex. ((Mass Of player /gravity) * speed at impact) = 48 newtons. About 40 damage.
Because of the resolution system being so simple, you can do the calculations any way you like. But that doesn't mean it has to be simple, the mechanics don't get in the way.
QuoteIf that's an important goal for your game, then I suggest you use one mechanic to resolve all kinds of conflict: physical, social, mental, magical, etc. Give a lot of examples on how to use that mechanic in different situations. That way you help the GM "calibrate" himself according to the system.
Already do!
Quoteyou don't try to "fix" the design flaws you see in D&D
See previous posts
QuoteIf the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?
Get serious! Thats like saying I have a skateboard, why do I need a car?
QuoteThe old "I can't have fun if bad things happen to my character" myth. I really hate this one
Bad things happen all the time, thats RPG. But an NPC walking up to you (incedentally, he's off to buy some tomatoes from the market, doesn't like your sort, and is really annoyed that his wife said he couldn't go dragon hunting this weekend.) and with 1 hand movement, kills your 2 year old character (unless you have a space suit in your backpack). THATS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU!
QuoteQuoteIf the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?
Get serious! Thats like saying I have a skateboard, why do I need a car?
Hi Lee, don't dismiss this point lightly. It can be a game breaker.
Think about it this way: When games say the GM has total control, they're basically saying the players have
none. If that's the case, then is there really much point in the players being there? As a player, you want the ability to influence the game. If the GM has total control, you lose that. Your game gets graumpy players or none at all.
-Matt
PS: Welcome to the Forge. Hope the regulars aren't seeming too snarky. We're just trying to help you think about your game from different angles.
Lee,
Quote from: Lee
IMHO, a good GM is someone who is constantly challenging the players, giving them interesting things to do and can respond to any situation that occurs in a way that befits the scenario/mission etc. This also includes keeping believability/immersion high.
We definitely have different opinions of what a good GM is. If those are the duties a GM performs in your game, you need to make that very clear in the text. You can't assume someone knows what that term means to you.
Quote from: LeeSo in terms of game mechanics a GM has only got to decide what difficulty rating a particular action is. In the rules, that is done by guesstimation, but may equally be done outside the rules with a pyhsics book and a calculator. The point of the system is to make the way it's calculated irrelevant.
But it isn't irrelevant. That's the very core of your system.
The descriptions that go along with the difficulty numbers are a good start, but it's not perfectly clear what the difference between each step is.
What's the difference between Advanced, Inspired, Complex, and Taxing? What's the difference between Heroic and Legendary?
I would recommend you list several examples for each Difficulty Step so the GM can understand the difference better. You could also reduce the number of Difficulty Steps and list a range of Difficulty Numbers for each Difficulty Step (e.g. Heroic and Legendary can become Legendary with a range of 20-25).
QuoteQuote from: RoyIf that's an important goal for your game, then I suggest you use one mechanic to resolve all kinds of conflict: physical, social, mental, magical, etc. Give a lot of examples on how to use that mechanic in different situations. That way you help the GM "calibrate" himself according to the system.
Quote from: LeeAlready do!
Actually, you don't. For example, I want my character to charm the local barmaid and try to get some information out of her. If my character has a Charisma of 6 and the GM decides the Difficulty Rating is Basic, I have to roll a 2 or better to succeed.
Now, let's take that same character in combat. All of sudden, I'm making several rolls and subtracting the adversary's results from mine.
That's a different mechanic. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in your game, I'm saying it seems to go against one of your stated design goals. It's ok to leave it in, but just make sure it's a conscious decision to do so and it's worth any trade-offs.
Quote
Quote from: Royyou don't try to "fix" the design flaws you see in D&D
Quote from: LeeSee previous posts
I wasn't basing that observation on your post content, but on the content of the system itself. It appears to be trying to fix what you find flawed in D&D. That may not have been the intent, but that's what it looks like.
Quote
Quote from: RoyIf the GM has "total control", why does he even have players?
Quote from: LeeGet serious! Thats like saying I have a skateboard, why do I need a car?
I was being deadly serious with that question. I have played in games where I stopped playing halfway through and just watched the game. You know what? Not a single player had to be present at the table. Our only role in those games was to "ooo" and "ahh" over the GM's "brilliant" storyline that he played out with his favorite NPCs.
By its very definition, a roleplaying game cannot give a GM total control. If you don't include guidelines for the group's social interaction, the group will have to. It's really unfair to your game, though, because many disappointed players will assign that disappointment to your game instead of to the GM.
Quote from: Lee... kills your 2 year old character (unless you have a space suit in your backpack). THATS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU!
You're incorrectly assuming that a moon in a fantasy world has to follow the same physics as Earth's moon. If you look at the same exact situation that I gave you an example of, we were not harmed in any way but we were thrust further into a sticky situation. That made the game more enjoyable for all of us.
You're also assuming that a GM has to try to kill that character. A GM can take on the role of a facilitator instead of a competitor.
If a GM did just have an NPC walk up to my character and kill him, he would be breaking the Social Contract with me (you can find that term in the Forge Provisional Glossary (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html)). Consequently, I would never play with that particular GM again.
QuoteFrom the Demo Scenario PDF:
If you roll all ones you fail to do anything. Depending on the situation something bad might happen to you. If you're trying to throw a rock and roll all ones, you will probably drop it on your head!
This is the old "Whiff Factor" at work. Almost every player I know hates this. The reason is that it de-protagonizes their character and makes him look foolish. This usually doesn't fit in with the player's character concept and hurts the experience for him.
An alternative is to complicate the situation when this happens. Using the example above, the character could be throwing the rock at a troll. When he rolls a 1, whoever is narrating the result could say that the troll catches the rock in his bare hand and crushes it into a powder. The result is the same (the action fails), but the character didn't look bad and the players will probably enjoy the colorful detail.
Roy
I cannot account for a GMs use of control, all GM's are in control of how they play the scenario, respond to players input and resolve situations. A bad GM that is 'In total control' will not have anyone to play with. He will no longer be a GM.
QuoteWhat's the difference between Advanced, Inspired, Complex, and Taxing? What's the difference between Heroic and Legendary?
You tell me! Your the GM! Is jumping a 60ft gap just heroic or diefied? We don't want to create huge lists that say you can do a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z at advanced. Thats not the point of the system and is EXACTLY what we are trying to avoid.
QuoteThat's a different mechanic. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in your game, I'm saying it seems to go against one of your stated design goals. It's ok to leave it in, but just make sure it's a conscious decision to do so and it's worth any trade-offs.
Read post above about simple combat. 1 roll each player.
QuoteYou're incorrectly assuming that a moon in a fantasy world has to follow the same physics as Earth's moon. If you look at the same exact situation that I gave you an example of, we were not harmed in any way but we were thrust further into a sticky situation. That made the game more enjoyable for all of us.
Don't be pedantic, and once again we are NOT including that magic system in the game at present.
Quote:
If you roll all ones you fail to do anything. Depending on the situation something bad
might happen to you. If you're trying to throw a rock and roll all ones, you will probably drop it on your head!
Yes, but fumbles only happen at low levels, when your meant to be learning and we've only had 2 in higher level characters in over 80 games, sometimes the fates are cruel. Again, it's up to the GM what a fumble means. If you read further you'll see a lot of tongue-in-cheek references through the manual.
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesQuoteWhat's the difference between Advanced, Inspired, Complex, and Taxing? What's the difference between Heroic and Legendary?
You tell me! Your the GM! Is jumping a 60ft gap just heroic or diefied? We don't want to create huge lists that say you can do a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z at advanced. Thats not the point of the system and is EXACTLY what we are trying to avoid.
Lee, I don't understand what you're saying here. If you're setting various difficulty levels and giving them names, you are doing nothing more than giving names to numbers unless you add meaning to them. And really the only way I can think of gicing meaning to these it to say what actions are at what difficulty in your setting.
If you don't do this, then I suspect your system will end up working like d20 does: the GM can simply decide how likely an action is to be successful, and then he uses the skill level / floating target system to mask this under an absolute difficulty level.
I know that my fellow posters often offer a thought without all the surrounding thoughts that make its meaning obviously apparent. This is a shorthand, admittedly, but it does not make the points less valuable!
If you keep dismissing peoples' points, which is what I feel that you've been doing for several successive posts, rather than thinking critically about them, then it will become very difficult for us to help you. I've found the past few of your points rather offensive because you have repeatedly forced people to defend points that they have made, without providing a counterargument or a reason other than "I think you're being silly!" This makes me thing that you are not putting the same energy into reading and responding to their posts that they are putting into responding to your posts. Please try to be more receptive.
Lee,
Are you getting what you want out of this thread? If not, what specifically can we do to help you?
I get the feeling that you're dismissing our comments without giving them any consideration. If all you want is for someone to say "ooh, that's great", you're barking up the wrong tree.
So you tell us ... what specifically can we do to help you?
Roy
Ooh, boy, this isn't going too well. Folks, give Lee a chance here. His responses aren't really all that odd considering the tenor being thrown at him. Everyone is getting far too emotional about things, IMO.
Lee isn't here to have all of his assumptions tested. I hate when we end up doing this. That's not the point of a thread like this. My questions are meant to honestly get Lee and us to a point where we can intelligently converse with him. But instead I see people sticking his head into the deep end of the pond. Isn't this precisely what we all said we didn't do at The Forge?
Heck, I thought that I was pushing it. Then everyone else comes rolling in...
Lee, to give some perspective, what's going on here is that your responses are, frankly, ones that we've seen a lot in the past, and they all indicate a very standard set of assumptions. And there's nothing wrong with that (he said, trying not to sound like Jerry Sinefeld). The thing is that we do a lot of questioning of assumptions here. So what these guys are doing in their brusque way is trying to get you to where they are in their understanding of things. They really want you to "see the light." So please try to understand that they don't mean any harm. They really believe that by looking at possibly changing some of your assumptions that you might be able to improve your game.
Now, if we can look at it sans all the rancor, I will delve into one sensitive topic as gently as I can in order that you might understand where some of these people are coming from. Many here believe implicitly in the ideas set out in Ron Edwards essay, System Does Matter. It can be found in the articles link at the top if you want to read it. But, in short, what it says is that the system is all about supporting the GM and players in making for good play. Certainly you believe that your system is superior to others, or you'd not be making a game, right? But what it says, further, is that you can't just leave the vision for how to play to the players and GM as you suggest. Because they may not have a compatible vision themselves. This is actually primarily what the system is for.
Now, it's been theorized that systems can be built that have adjustable visions. That is, your idea has been considered here on several occasions. This is where I'm really rather dissapointed with my compatriots - they've jumped to the conclusion that your game is what's refered to as a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" per the essay referenced. While I think that your design may have some of those problems, it seems to me to be potentially innovative in the overlying idea of being adjustable to fit GM styles.
The question becomes whether or not this is actually possible, and whether you've done it. Some of us would be rather overjoyed if you had accomplished this. There are several problems, however, that make it unlikely:
1. You have anecdotal evidence that it works. There are actually several problems with this.
1a. It's just one data point. That makes it far from statistically sound.
1b. It wasn't an independent playtest. When designers test their own games, they tend to get the results they wanted. That is, knowing that you'd have to adjust the game to a particular vision, you were able to do that with aplomb. Did you do other playtests?
1c. The evidence that you provide actually could be interpreted to mean that your group was playing in just one single mode after all (gamism).
2. It seems likely that you haven't actually seen the other modes of play much to be able to ascertain if your game actually does support those modes.
3. From what I've seen of the design, and the comments of others, I can garuntee that there are many sorts of play that the system doesn't cover.
4. Systems that have addressed the issue with what at the moment appears to be more theory and direct assault on it than it would appear you've put into your game, have tried to accomplish this goal and met with - well most people would say failure - but with at the very best small success.
Now, this isn't to say that you've failed in your objective. For example, numbers two and three I think may be largely irrellevant, because I'm guessing that it's not really your intent to support those sorts of play - you might not even recognize them as what you think of as playing a role-playing game.
The problem that does exist here, is what happens if someone used to playing in one of those modes comes to your system and wants to try it out? The worry is that, in saying that your game supports all modes, they may think that it will, play, and be dissapointed. So the question becomes whether or not you care at all about these players.
To be real specific, I'm talking about players who prefer narrativism as their primary mode of play. Which likely comprise the majority of posters here, as it happens. Some of what you're encountering is people here responding to "Our game supports all play," with "well it won't support mine."
And they're right, it won't (if you want a more detailed analysis as to why it will not, let us know). Again, the question is whether or not you care. Narrativism is a small fraction of all play, and you probably could get away with ignoring it and hardly notice. In fact, if you stated that you weren't interested in supporting that mode of play, then those people would immediately get off your back, FWIW.
Now, maybe you guys are geniuses, and have discovered something in the design that we're not seeing. I think we'd have out doubts, but without playing the game ourselves (or, better yet, independent play), we can't say definitely. But there's another thing that you may have accomplished - what you may have is a functional method to support a wide range of a subcategory of play. It's much more likely that what you have is a game that might be able to support a wide variety of play within one of the larger categories.
Again, however, what the problem is that concerns us (or at least me), potentially, in all of this is that what might happen is what's called incoherence. Basically, if the game doesn't tell the players and GM one clear way to play, then different players and the GM may have different views of how to play. Essentially this is your claim, that you have several different types of players all playing under the one umbrella in the test game. The problem is that the theory would say that conflict of these viewpoints is inevitable. And that when these conflicts occur, this is likely to cause friction between players. Which I'm guessing from your comments that you have experienced. That is, Powergamer is a term that, well, non-powergamers assign to a certain set of behaviors that it often found detestable (here we say it's just another valid way to play). So you can see the potential for conflict.
So, just how is it that you see your design being able to overcome these differences? It would seem that the idea is that the GM has so much authority that he can manipulate things so that the players can all play together without problem. Do I have that right, or is there something else to it?
Again, the counterargument that you're likely to see is to ask "what if the GM doesn't know how to do this?" Isn't that a recipe for disaster? That is, what if the GM decides to play so as to cater to only the powergamers? If you were in that game, how would you feel?
The other point that the theory makes is that in providing one clear way to play the game you ensure that everyone is on the same sheet of music. It's actually been noted that the sort of vision really doesn't matter much. Players don't so much as have preferences, as they have learned to avoid certain types of play as distasteful because of bad experiences. Meaninig that as long as the game is well designed, and providing good experiences, that most players will play anything. So, in terms of who will be "turned off" by a design, its our anecdotal experience that far more people are turned off by occurances of incoherent play, than are "turned off" by a vision of play that's not what they might claim to be their preference. Basically, the more you try to make the game "open to interpretation" the less playable it becomes is the notion.
But it's only a theory, and a still debated one, even here. Even if it's true, it doesn't make your goal a bad one, it just makes it difficult to impossible to achieve, meaning that if we're going to help you out with it, it's going to take a lot of effort.
Am I helping you to see what the main issues are, and why all the hullabaloo?
Mike
I'm really not sure if I should post this reply here or in the I.N.I. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11053) thread. I think I'm seeing some common patterns. Basically, it seems to me that people are confusing "a system for any game" with "a system for this type of game in any setting". Since I was logged in already I thought it might be useful to point out that there is a difference.
I think Lee, Taran and Autocrat are all well aware of the fact that their games cannot be used for every possible style of game. In fact, Lee has explicitly pointed out that Red Raven is designed to limit powergaming. You can't be all things to all people and still limit powergaming - powergamers are people too. The things you are designing against are as much a part of your game as the things you are designing for. They're just harder to articulate - especially because there are so many of them. This can lead to important design considerations being left out by accident because they were overlooked.
... and I just realized on previewing that I'm trying to say the exact same thing as Mike Holmes. Oh well, the intended advice stands. Look at your design and try to figure out explicitly what it is you want to include and what it is you want to prevent. Then ask yourself - does this design support my goals?
While the game does seem to be generalist or generic in it's intent, I think that it's also intended to be more than that. In the dialog I'm reading, I'm hearing about a couple of things. One is that the game allows different players to use different rules, if I'm not mistaken. Which is interesting, and has nothing to do with being setting independent, but rather "player independent." So I'm thinking that they do have their eye on making it, if not for "everyone," at the very least very broadly accessible in terms of styles.
But, of course, Lee and Taran will be the ones to clear up their intents.
Mike
Mike, your a star. That is a fantastic posts and clears up a lot of the confusion for me and hopefully others. I will respond in detail shortly when I have digested it **BURP**
Different players can use differenr rules, and it doesn't affect the overall play (other than time to roll more dice). Conflict between the players/party is a natural thing to me. Fred wants to go and batter the dark lord, Sally thinks maybe we should investigate a little first. Isn't that what roleplaying is all about? If you only have 1 type of gamer in a group, doesn't it get boring?
In terms of playtesters, we have had 4 groups (2 in uk, 1 in finland and 1 in the U.S). We had more, but most people didn't give us any useful feedback.
To begin I want to clear a few points.
1. We will NOT be including the free-form magic system in the first release, so no point talking about it yet. I will start a seperate thread for that.
2. Forget the scenario, is is badly written and does not do the system justice:( I tried to edit the post and remove the link but I can't.
If you want the manuals PM me and I will send them.[/list:u]
Quote from: Mike HolmesLee isn't here to have all of his assumptions tested. I hate when we end up doing this. That's not the point of a thread like this. My questions are meant to honestly get Lee and us to a point where we can intelligently converse with him. But instead I see people sticking his head into the deep end of the pond. Isn't this precisely what we all said we didn't do at The Forge?
**Whimper** I've already admitted I am not as ofait with the different styles as everyone else.
QuoteBut what it says, further, is that you can't just leave the vision for how to play to the players and GM as you suggest. Because they may not have a compatible vision themselves.
I understand now you've explained it. We will certaining write a lot more explanation of how the GM can use the system (only as examples, though)
Quote1. You have anecdotal evidence that it works. There are actually several problems with this.
1a. It's just one data point. That makes it far from statistically sound.
1b. It wasn't an independent playtest. When designers test their own games, they tend to get the results they wanted. That is, knowing that you'd have to adjust the game to a particular vision, you were able to do that with aplomb. Did you do other playtests?
1c. The evidence that you provide actually could be interpreted to mean that your group was playing in just one single mode after all (gamism).
1a. 5 groups have tested it, about 40 people.
1b. Only 1 group had the designers in it.
1c. This is question not a rant. My character is engaged and we have things from 2 years ago in game time, still affecting us. Our relationship is complicated due to our social standings and my best friend is treated badly by my lady, because he is lower-caste. Isn't that narrativist?[/list:u]
Quote2. It seems likely that you haven't actually seen the other modes of play much to be able to ascertain if your game actually does support those modes.
For me, this is true!
Quote3. From what I've seen of the design, and the comments of others, I can garuntee that there are many sorts of play that the system doesn't cover.
Agreed, it is a framework (sorry, the programmer in me) that has been designed to be expanded. I'm not saying it, or will ever do, everything. It just is designed to be edited, improved by people then those improvements, supplemental rules etc sent to the users (Hence we sell as subscription, not product)
It must be said I am a programmer. I look at things in that way, maybe the idea of a system that can be edited is a culture shock (or one step too far) for most. If you sit back and think about it, why can't one player be more concerned with how the story is going, while another is already plotting how to trip the GM up and get a 1000g? Hard it may be, but impossible?
Please also remember this is pre-release and we don't want to fit into a particular genre. I know wisdom says that is suicide and maybe it is, but give us some credit for trying.
QuoteTo be real specific, I'm talking about players who prefer narrativism as their primary mode of play. Which likely comprise the majority of posters here, as it happens. Some of what you're encountering is people here responding to "Our game supports all play," with "well it won't support mine."
Completely fair point, but if people could explain to me or give me a transcript of a good narrativist session then I would be able so see if we could ever accomodate it. 'All' was probably a very strong word, little, but strong.
QuoteSo, just how is it that you see your design being able to overcome these differences? It would seem that the idea is that the GM has so much authority that he can manipulate things so that the players can all play together without problem. Do I have that right, or is there something else to it?
The GM in any game is the interface between the game world and the players. He organises adventures, stories, responds to a players question about the story, environment, context. Thats is what I understand a GM to be. If a GM doesn't want a player to jump a particular gap, or break down a particular door for whatever reason. Doesn't he have the right to do so? Maybe that door leads to certain death, maybe it's important later in the story, maybe he has written or considered that bit yet.
That is what I mean by the GM in control. If your GM is only playing for powergamers, you don't want to be playing in that group surely? You would find another GM. We are not saying the system will make a bad GM good, we are saying the system has been designed to free the GM and players from rules that affect the gameplay too much and to be able to support different rules in the same session. If Sally want to use 1 roll rules, and bill wants to use the martial arts rules, the only difference is a another few d rolls for bill and a slight pause for sally.
Surely a gaming group should be that, a group. Not 'If you don't play my way I'm going home'. Maybe it's my age, but I like playing with different styles of players, we all play through our characters and it's our characters that argue not us.
Maybe I have too much faith in people. I expect them to be able to work stuff out when it happens. I believe a GM (I haven't GM'ed for 8 years, but I used to, once a week for 9 years WHFRP, AD&D, Lee's system) should be able to handle all this. If an extra 2 mins on a combat round is too much for sally, maybe she should start drinking chamomile tea during play.
I'm not saying RR will enable any type of player to mix with any other. We have no magic wand. I'm just saying that RR is open to possiblility of multiple styles of play in the same group. It will take a little adult behaviour and respect for others. If you sit down and try to make it not work, it won't. If you sit down and explore the possibility and you can all relax and take other players styles into account and not get annoyed because peter always has to have that extra roll, then it works.[/quote]
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesMike, your a star. That is a fantastic posts and clears up a lot of the confusion for me and hopefully others. I will respond in detail shortly when I have digested it **BURP**
Cool, awaiting whatever you have to say about it.
QuoteConflict between the players/party is a natural thing to me. Fred wants to go and batter the dark lord, Sally thinks maybe we should investigate a little first. Isn't that what roleplaying is all about? If you only have 1 type of gamer in a group, doesn't it get boring?
Depends on what you mean by "type." Again, consider, for instance, that we find powergamering to be a valid method of play. And other sorts of things that are further afield. Where we worry about conflict is at a level that I think you're mostly unaware of. I'm becoming more convinced that the players that you're describing are all inside of one of these categories. Meaning that we wouldn't expect them to conflict on that level. Sure, they might conflict on other levels, and your game might address that.
Let's go back to that example that I gave previously of having to leave the daughter to go on an adventure. For one player, he'll protest leaving the daughter. He'll demand that his character would never leave the daughter, because he's so dedicated. The other players - wanting to get on with the adventure presented pressure him IC to come along. Soon this boils over OOC, as the player with the character in question says that he's being expected to play his character in an inconsistent way. And the other players tell him that they're dissapointed because he's not playing along with the game, and disrupting the adventure.
In the example, who is right, in your opinion?
To us, they're both right. That is, what's going on here is that they've each been told that they can play however they want, and each side is using a different mode of play. This use is annoying the other side.
Character conflicts are very cool - yes, characters can more than funcionally have different goals (I've been trying to explain to somebody recently how it can be that in my HQ game, most of the PCs are actively trying to kill most of the other PCs, in fact). Player conflicts in terms of PVP challenge can even be cool, if it's understood that there is competition going on. What's bad is player conflict where the players don't want to be conflicting.
This sort of problem is astonishingly frequent. Even when it doesn't end up in a blowout or anything, it very often leads to players who aren't enjoying themselves. Have you ever had a player leave a game without really being able to explain what was wrong? Or with just some nebulous complaint that the game wasn't what he wanted (despite him saying that he wanted action, adventure, and such, and was being provided that)? Or do you ever note players who aren't really engaged with the game and don't add much if anything - and when asked say that they're there just for the social aspect?
All classic signs of incoherent play. And there are many, many more. So many that I garuntee that you've seen this phenomenon a lot. Again, the idea of powergamers being offensive is related. What you're saying is that some part of their behavior (likely what we'd call the use of Pawn Stance) is found to be objectionable. So you've adjusted the game for it. Which is fine, this is actually what we'd suggest. You've already started down the road that we advocate going down.
The point is that, in fact, you've probably selected for a rather narrow portion of the overall spectrum of types of play for what to support. That said, it's a well populated part of the spectrum, so that's not problematic. But the point is that what you're seeing as allowing a wide range of player satisfaction, might not be so wide as you suspect in some ways.
Not to be insulting, but I'm reminded of a line from
The Blues Brothers where Jake asks what kind of music they play at Bob's Country Bunker, and the woman behind the counter answers, "We got all kind of music here: country and western." You're game supports all kinds of players, classic hackers, and problem solvers. Now, it may be that your game actually does appeal to a wider crowd than I'm assuming, or more thoroughly. But there is some evidence against it. Not that we think that's a bad thing, rather, it's actually unavoidable.
BTW, the manner that you're describing players is sorta at right angles to the methods that we use in some ways. What you're doing is similar to how players are commonly categorized in game books, and stuff like
Robin's Laws of Gaming. They indicate just a few behaviors of the players in question, and leave out some important considerations. More importantly, they really don't tend to cover all players well. That is, some "powergamers" can also simultaneously be "character plumbers."
QuoteIn terms of playtesters, we have had 4 groups (2 in uk, 1 in finland and 1 in the U.S). We had more, but most people didn't give us any useful feedback.
And what were the comments, if I might ask? Similar to what you've said above?
Mike
I wrote a reply to "types of gamers", but since it's more geared towards the question in general (and not just Red Raven), that I posted it in its own thread. Lee, I hope you read it and consider what I presented. If you'd like to pull those ideas back into this discussion, with specific application to Red Raven, bring 'em here!
The link is here: Is one type of gamer boring? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=119458) (cross-posted with Mike's response in this thread)
In a nutshell, it's "what Mike said" but more focused on the three modes of play, with D&D as a concrete example. My suspicion, to use jargon, is that Red Raven is caught between rewarding simulationism (deciding to act in character) and gamism (overcoming challenges for the sake of the challenge). And with Mike's example, hopefully the inherent problems of supporting both equally are made clear.
Quote from: Extract from GM manualThe characters knowledge and learning is reflected in experience. The more experience a character gains the more they can improve themselves either through new skills and spells or by just improving the already existing ones. Listed below is a table detailing the different things a player may be awarded experience for at the end of a game.
There is a maximum in game award of 25 points.
Category Award amount
-----------------------------
Automatic 1
Role-playing 0 - 2
Humour 0 - 2
Enjoyment 0 - 1
Danger 0 - 5
Heroism 0 - 2
Learning curve 0 - 3
Right place/time 0 - 1
Concept 0 - 1
Surprise 0 - 2
Dramatics 0 - 2
Success 0 - 3
There is a maximum in game penalty of 15 points. Just as players are awarded for good role-playing they are penalised for poor role-playing.
In game penalty Award amount
------------------------------------
Bad role-playing 0 - 5
Cheating 0 - 5
Using out of game info 0 - 5
We also play an optional rule that you may like to include. There are three extra points available for the best player in each session. We have the players write down who they think deserve the bonus XP and why. That player is then awarded the extra XP. This seems to lead to the players being more group oriented whilst playing.
As a general guide, XP of about 16 – 19 is the average award for each session. This means that a character will have to play well for 6-8 sessions to move to the second career etc.
Again, we need to explain these options more clearly, but this should give you an idea of the bias in playing.
Quote from: Mike Holmes
Let's go back to that example that I gave previously of having to leave the daughter to go on an adventure. For one player, he'll protest leaving the daughter. He'll demand that his character would never leave the daughter, because he's so dedicated. The other players - wanting to get on with the adventure presented pressure him IC to come along. Soon this boils over OOC, as the player with the character in question says that he's being expected to play his character in an inconsistent way. And the other players tell him that they're dissapointed because he's not playing along with the game, and disrupting the adventure.
In the example, who is right, in your opinion?
They are both right. The party needs to find a way to help IC look after his daughter. Maybe they could take her along, arrange for protection or arrange for for some form of communication so IC could stay behind but still be part of the party, his insight may be essential.
They may even decide not to go on the adventure and help IC instead.
QuoteAnd what were the comments, if I might ask? Similar to what you've said above?
Quote from: Ian KembleAlthough I wanted to end it last week it became impossible, as the group were interacting so well time just disappeared. I don't know when this will end now. Also, I have to say that I have had a great deal more enthusiasm from my players for this game then I would for a Vampire adventure or something like that. Heck last session they even started taking notes, which hasn't happened since we last played Cthulhu!
Ian.
They also pointed a good few problem areas, or areas that weren't clear
How come I can roll endurance on an arrow? (Changed that rule)
Why is dispell available at 2nd circle? Isn't that a high level thing?
Lots of questions about the races
Poison is too powerful! Someone was killed in one attack (changed that rule)[/list:u]
They said loads more and pointed loads out, which we changed. But i've reformatted and lost all my email since then.
[/quote]
Quote from: fruitbatinshades
Quote from: Mike HolmesLee isn't here to have all of his assumptions tested. I hate when we end up doing this. That's not the point of a thread like this. My questions are meant to honestly get Lee and us to a point where we can intelligently converse with him. But instead I see people sticking his head into the deep end of the pond. Isn't this precisely what we all said we didn't do at The Forge?
**Whimper** I've already admitted I am not as ofait with the different styles as everyone else.
Uh, why the whimper. I hope it wasn't at me - I'mm tyring to villify the others, not you.
If you're appealing to their softer side - they don't have one! Just kidding. :-)
QuoteQuoteBut what it says, further, is that you can't just leave the vision for how to play to the players and GM as you suggest. Because they may not have a compatible vision themselves.
I understand now you've explained it. We will certaining write a lot more explanation of how the GM can use the system (only as examples, though)
Oh, sure. Note that my last post is a cross post making me look like a big meanie.
Examples, are precisely what the doctor ordered. Again, show one good way to play. Note that, in fact, you and I both know that player will mangle the rules all they like when they get them. This is standard RPG behavior. The point is to give them something that they don't have to rip up as much or at all to play, and to give them a more stable platform from which to adjust if they do decide to tinker.
Quote
1a. 5 groups have tested it, about 40 people.
1b. Only 1 group had the designers in it.
That's excellent. You'd only referenced your group, so pardon my assumption. Again, however, what's the feedback been like. This is crucial data. Do you have a forum or something with comments?
Quote1c. This is question not a rant. My character is engaged and we have things from 2 years ago in game time, still affecting us. Our relationship is complicated due to our social standings and my best friend is treated badly by my lady, because he is lower-caste. Isn't that narrativist?
Hard to say, tell the truth. But quite possibly.
Now, what about the system supports this sort of play, in your opinion? Not having looked closer at the system (and at the risk of looking like I did above with the playtesting thing), I'm going to guess that mostly it's a matter of the application of that "role-playing" award. Am I close?
QuoteQuote2. It seems likely that you haven't actually seen the other modes of play much to be able to ascertain if your game actually does support those modes.
For me, this is true!
Actually, I'd like to take that back. What you haven't seen, if anything, are games that more actively support these other modes. I'm actually quite sure that you've seen stuff related to all three modes. Like your example above.
QuoteQuote3. From what I've seen of the design, and the comments of others, I can garuntee that there are many sorts of play that the system doesn't cover.
Agreed, it is a framework (sorry, the programmer in me) that has been designed to be expanded. I'm not saying it, or will ever do, everything. It just is designed to be edited, improved by people then those improvements, supplemental rules etc sent to the users (Hence we sell as subscription, not product)
Aha, interesting. That seems to have all sorts of prima facia advantages. Have you considered any disadvantages? I mean, the basic stuff will be good enough for play, right? If so, what else do you need to add? I mean, supplements, sure, like any other game - but I sense you mean something more object oriented.
QuoteIt must be said I am a programmer. I look at things in that way, maybe the idea of a system that can be edited is a culture shock (or one step too far) for most. If you sit back and think about it, why can't one player be more concerned with how the story is going, while another is already plotting how to trip the GM up and get a 1000g? Hard it may be, but impossible?
I too am a programmer (analyst/dbm, etc). It makes some sense to me, depending on the implementation. To be sure the idea of advanced and basic rules isn't new. But something more like what you're talking about can be found in the Scattershot forum herabouts. You may be really intersted in reading that stuff. It's a tad hard to absorb, but I think it might have some similarities to what you're on about.
QuotePlease also remember this is pre-release and we don't want to fit into a particular genre. I know wisdom says that is suicide and maybe it is, but give us some credit for trying.
I think we're taking it into consideration if that's what you mean. If you want to read up on the debate over the validity of the idea of generic games, say so, and we can get you a ton of links pronto (or just do a search).
QuoteCompletely fair point, but if people could explain to me or give me a transcript of a good narrativist session then I would be able so see if we could ever accomodate it. 'All' was probably a very strong word, little, but strong.
Just to give you an idea, have you ever seen a session that was all just lead up to one character having to make one big decision like whether or not to kill his son who was turning into a source of evil (in the son's sleep)? That would be somewhat extreme, but the example is to make a point. No player challenges at all in terms of overcoming obstacles placed by the GM, just playing the character, and making moral decisions.
This isn't a definition of narrativism, just to be clear. But if you've seen sessions like this, then what about the system you have supports this? And, again, it's not a huge deal if the game doesn't actively support the mode at all. That's what we'd expect.
QuoteThe GM in any game is the interface between the game world and the players. He organises adventures, stories, responds to a players question about the story, environment, context. Thats is what I understand a GM to be. If a GM doesn't want a player to jump a particular gap, or break down a particular door for whatever reason. Doesn't he have the right to do so? Maybe that door leads to certain death, maybe it's important later in the story, maybe he has written or considered that bit yet.
These are all assumptions, and some are not even true for your game. They're certainly not true for all RPGs. This is how most people describe what GMs do in the most commonly played games, yes. But it's both inaccurate, and leaves out a lot of games.
QuoteIf your GM is only playing for powergamers, you don't want to be playing in that group surely? You would find another GM.
And now you see the problem. What is it that your game does to tell the GM not to only cater to powergamers? Note that if I was a powerrgamer, this would be the best GM for me, no? All his attention focused on my needs? That's perfect. This doesn't make the GM a bad GM. Perhaps this is what he thinks good RPGs are all about. Why is he wrong? Because you don't like that sort of play?
QuoteSurely a gaming group should be that, a group. Not 'If you don't play my way I'm going home'. Maybe it's my age, but I like playing with different styles of players, we all play through our characters and it's our characters that argue not us.
Maybe I have too much faith in people. I expect them to be able to work stuff out when it happens. I believe a GM (I haven't GM'ed for 8 years, but I used to, once a week for 9 years WHFRP, AD&D, Lee's system) should be able to handle all this. If an extra 2 mins on a combat round is too much for sally, maybe she should start drinking chamomile tea during play.
What if each of these people honestly think that they're mode of play is correct. Say because they've played other systems which have informed them about the "proper" way to play? Then they just have to keep their preferences to themsleves?
The point is not that your rules get in the way of any cooperation. Just that they rely solely on the players all having an innate understanding of the mode of play in question. Which happens to work. The potential problem comes with players who don't have that agreement worked out between them.
And more than this, to get to the positive aspect of coherence, when everybody is playing in a system that promotes a single vision, play tends to go very well. Instead of essentially playing several parallel games that really don't interact on a fundamental level, you get a much more collaborative effort that really makes play fun.
Now, maybe that's just my biases showing. But you'll find a whole lot of work has been done on this site to examine these ideas. You wouldn't be the first person to question this theory, you'd be about the hundreth to do so in this forum alone. That doesn't make you wrong, but you'll have to understand that we've got a long way to go before you've proven to me that your game is exceptional in this way.
Not that you've anything to prove, either. Just that you may want to consider some of the potential ramifications of the theory. Up to you.
Mike
Quote from: Mike Holmes
You'd only referenced your group, so pardon my assumption. Again, however, what's the feedback been like. This is crucial data. Do you have a forum or something with comments?
Read post above
QuoteNow, what about the system supports this sort of play, in your opinion?
The XP system? See above. It doesn't actively support it, there are no rules for narrativist play, but it doesn't make it hard to do. Having never played a proper Narrativist system I don't know how they work. For us it just means we are not using any dice related rolls at that time. Moral decisions are made by the player/character. Maybe the other system have a wa y of doing it, but we just see it as roleplay/drama time.
Quotebut I sense you mean something more object oriented.
Spot on :)
QuoteJust to give you an idea, have you ever seen a session that was all just lead up to one character having to make one big decision like whether or not to kill his son who was turning into a source of evil
Last few weeks infact. We spent most of the session trying to help Dranmar get ready for his epic battle with the master (right of passage, think Klingons). We found out it was coming up for him, helped him to train, had to deal with protaganists trying to steal his sacred weapon. Spent money on the things he needed. Talked him through some of his worries. The previous 2 weeks we spent trying to get the weapon he needed just for this.
QuoteNow, maybe that's just my biases showing.
Maybe ;)
Quote from: Zak ArntsonI wrote a reply to "types of gamers", but since it's more geared towards the question in general (and not just Red Raven), that I posted it in its own thread. Lee, I hope you read it and consider what I presented. If you'd like to pull those ideas back into this discussion, with specific application to Red Raven, bring 'em here!
Good, clear explanation. The thing is we play all of those game types (less realist). The reason for trying to keep the mechanics simple was that it allows for any type of play. All we cover in the rules are Combat (3 versions), Skills, attributes and poisons. Magic is purely based on what spell you want to cast, whether you know it and if you've got the mana.
Everybody seems to hate this in here. I think maybe you all have a purists view of RPG. We want to enable mixed groups to play together (After all, our numbers are dwindling in the computer age). That takes a little patience, but after a few session people tend to settle down and work out what they can do with each other. So what if it isn't as pure as everyone seems to want. We didn't set out to write a pure system, we set out to write an open, accessable, expandable one.
From the advice here, we need a lot more explanations and we intend to add them.
Please ask me a few questions and i'll answer them. Has anyone got a good link for a simple narativist ruleset?
Quote from: Lee
Please ask me a few questions and i'll answer them. Has anyone got a good link for a simple narativist ruleset?
I don't know of any free narrativist RPGs, but I'd say the following are just about required
Sorcerer (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com) by Ron Edwards.
The Riddle of Steel (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net) - narrativism hiding behind a very simmy combat mechanic.
Universalis (http://universalis.actionroll.com/). More of a collaborative story system than a "traditional" RPG, but it's still worth a good read.
Those are the three off the top of my head. Sorcerer especially is a great example of "System does matter" where the actual game system is deliberately facilitating and encouraging the type of play the game supports (Narrativism).
Now here's a thought - Lee have you given some thought to providing alternate XP systems? Since players can play with different rules, why not let them have totally different XP requirements? Let each player ahead of time spell out what they'll get XP for?
JD
Hi Lee,
QuoteSee above. It doesn't actively support it, there are no rules for narrativist play, but it doesn't make it hard to do. Having never played a proper Narrativist system I don't know how they work. For us it just means we are not using any dice related rolls at that time. Moral decisions are made by the player/character. Maybe the other system have a way of doing it, but we just see it as roleplay/drama time.
This example of yours is a very interesting one. When the sheer force of storytelling seems to warrant it, you're explicitly ignoring Fortune-based mechanics in favor of pure Drama. It sounds like that particular technique is a key ingredient that has lead to some memorable and exciting sessions.
Have you considered enshrining that technique within your rules framework,
as a rule itself, and bolstering it with examples? "When the straight-up roleplaying among the players and the GM is actively creating an exciting story for all concerned, consider setting the dice aside while everyone's going with the flow; if the narration brings the characters to a point where great uncertainties are met or risks are taken, then bring the dice back into play." It's a powerful technique that I've seen used to great effect, but you can't take it for granted that everyone sees it that way! I've been in some frustrating games where the GM insisted on rolls for *every* action that might possibly be covered by the rules text, possibly because it had never occurred to him to do otherwise.
Taking that example into account, and in the context of your statements that you want an "open, accessible, expandable" experience that enables "mixed groups" to play together...
It seems to me like your goal is to produce a game that's designed to be easy to Drift at run-time. That is, at any given time, the GM might apply the rules in a crunchy moment-to-moment fashion, or in a very rules-light fashion**, to support whatever creative agenda is appropriate to the situation at hand.
This doesn't exactly conform to the party line around here (as you clearly already noticed), but it's an interesting goal nonetheless. Assuming, that is, that I interpreted your intentions correctly.
**(This isn't to say that "rules-light implies narrativist" or that "rules-heavy implies simulationist", mind you. That's one little trap I definitely want to stay away from.)
I thought I may try and explain a little more clearly how the system is adaptable, yet easy to learn. I was thinking about this last night. I know before I post that people are going to disagree, but before you go off on one, have a fake play in your head.
The basic system is simple because most of the actual Roleplaying (being in character) is done at a players personal level. We have 3 things that affect what a character can, can't and has to do.
FlawsThese are bad character traits. They are selected when you create your character but are also given by the GM.
1. If you constantly keep behaving in a manner that fits into one of the flaws. The GM can make this a permanent state of affairs by giving you that flaw.
2.When you die in RR, you can be ressurected either medically (in a modern setting) or magically. Each time you are resurected you gain a new flaw. If you were killed by 20ft spider, you will be resurrected with arachnaphobia etc.[/list:u]Flaws affect gameplay because they are added/subtracted from rolls that they affect. So if an arachnaphobe faces a spider, he will have to subtract the flaws rating from every role he makes in relation to spiders.
MeritsMerits are the opposite. They are considered good character attributes. They are rolled on when actions are related to those flaws. Good hearing is added to rolls, when you are listening at a door. The GM can award merits when you consistantly show behavior fitting them.
Both merits and flaws are opposed as well. A character with Good hearing has to subtract the rating from his roll, when hiding in a church tower as the bell starts to ring. A character with cruelty, will add that to his roll when torturing someone for instance.
Finally, we have skillsSkills are things that a character has actively learnt to do. They have spent time learning and improving their knowledge and ability. There are basic skills such as 'Block Melee' and more esoteric ones such as 'intuition'
**This is where I'm expecting abuse**
Note the reason the system is light is because each skill/merit/flaw comes with it's own mechanics. <SHOCK! HORROR!> This is where the easy to learn and easy to adapt come from.
A player/GM only needs to know the items in play. A meaty warrior that has built his character into the greatest/fastest/most aggressive person on the planet, doesn't care how the moralistic merit works! Why should he bother reading the rules about it?
If a character wants the moralistic merit, then they just have to read that description(and the GM) and learn to play it.
AdaptabilityWhen a character keeps behaving a manner that there is no, skill, merit or flaw for. The the player and GM create it (and hopefully pass it on to the rest of us)
This is where 'Bad Roleplaying' comes from in the XP chart. If a player fails to take into account their merits and flaws in a session, then they lose XP because of that.
I'm hoping that provide some level of justification for our claims now, if not it explains where we are coming from.
QuoteThis is where 'Bad Roleplaying' comes from in the XP chart. If a player fails to take into account their merits and flaws in a session, then they lose XP because of that.
I've found that some of the most compelling moments in roleplaying come when a character violates his established type. When the arachnaphobe digs deep to confront the spider that's threatening his friend. If such a scene is pretty dramatic and powerful, I don't think you'd really want to be penalizing it for bad roleplaying because they didn't follow their flaw. I think there's also room for not applying a flaw, because other things are more important. After all, Indie hates snakes, but that didn't slow him down much when going for the Arc.
Perhaps a system where the player can choose to voluntarily be restricted by the flaw when he chooses, and can ignore it when he doesn't.
Off the cuff...maybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point. Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).
Then the player can use those points to activate merits. Instead of automatically applying merits, the player has to spend a point. The more points spent, the more of an advantage they get.
Something like this would have the players voluntarily activating Flaws right and left on their own without the GM needing to police them to make sure they don't "forget" or needing the threat of "bad roleplaying" to make them remember. They would principly activate Flaws in situations that 1) are fairly trivial (where they add color to the narrative) and 2) where they add an interesting complication to the story (never underestimate your players willingness to hose themselves). They would generally avoid activating the flaw during the really super important scene where everything is on the line.
This would accord quite nicely with how such "flaws" are generally in stories and movies. The whole movie will be full of little indicators of the difficulty faced by the blind kid...but in the key scene where the kid must root out the proper bullet and toss it across the street to the hero the blindness is pure color and doesn't hinder him. Unless the player thinks it would be really cool to have him toss the bullet in the wrong direction and make the hero dive for it...
Quote from: ValamirI've found that some of the most compelling moments in roleplaying come when a character violates his established type.
I mean when they deliberatly fail to take that flaw into account when doing any roll based things, cheating.
QuoteOff the cuff...maybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point. Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).
Way too much tracking and maths. Your lists would be huge after a 6 player weekend session. Its a lot more for the players to track too. Although it could have it's merits. Nice idea, just not sure how it would go in play.
QuoteThis would accord quite nicely with how such "flaws" are generally in stories and movies. The whole movie will be full of little indicators of the difficulty faced by the blind kid...but in the key scene where the kid must root out the proper bullet and toss it across the street to the hero the blindness is pure color and doesn't hinder him. Unless the player thinks it would be really cool to have him toss the bullet in the wrong direction and make the hero dive for it...
Again the whole reason we avoided heavy mechanics is to allow the GM to decide when, and when not too, apply these. If the character in the bell tower is just eating a sandwich 'That must of hurt' from the GM is enough. If he's hiding above a square full of soldiers looking for him, then he will have to resist screaming in pain and alerting those below.
QuoteQuoteOff the cuff...maybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point. Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).
Way too much tracking and maths. Your lists would be hige after a 6 player weekend session
Too much tracking? Not really.
I've played games that use mechanics like this, and the bookkeeping is next to nothing. Whenever the player exercises a merit or flaw in a way
that the GM decides is appropriate and interesting, the GM just grins and says "That was cool, add a point!" to the player, who makes a quick tally mark on his sheet.
That's it.
A key insight is that because these "points" are somehow useful to the players, the players themselves are more than happy to do the minimal record keeping involved. It's like hoarding candy. Plus, the GM still has full control over how often these are handed out.
And now, Lee, let me turn around and ask you a question - In games that you've ran or played in, how many times have you seen a GM actually penalize a player experience points? And of those times, how did the player react? I can only speak from my own personal anectodal experience, but I've *never* seen XP penalties go over well with players, expecially when the penalty is imposed by GM fiat in response to an in-character action that the player thought was perfectly reasonable.
Think carefully before you enshrine Negative Reinforcement techniques in your ruleset; they can have nasty social repercussions.
QuoteWay too much tracking and maths. Your lists would be huge after a 6 player weekend session. Its a lot more for the players to track too. Although it could have it's merits. Nice idea, just not sure how it would go in play.
Not sure what you mean by that. What lists?
Player with fear of heights says in play "I peak out the window of the penthouse and shudder"...take 1 point.
[later on]
"I don't go out on the balcony"...take 1 point.
[later on]
"Hold on I'll save you"...spend points to avoid taking a penalty from the flaw...
QuoteAgain the whole reason we avoided heavy mechanics is to allow the GM to decide when, and when not too, apply these. If the character in the bell tower is just eating a sandwich 'That must of hurt' from the GM is enough. If he's hiding above a square full of soldiers looking for him, then he will have to resist screaming in pain and alerting those below.
I'm not sure what you mean by avoiding heavy mechanics. The mechanic I'm talking about would be about as complex as a bowl full of glass stones to draw and spend.
But on a more important note. Its been my experience that you get alot better mileage on incenting players to track their own merits and flaws than requiring the GM to do it.
In a crucial situation, the GM says "hey your flaw applies", often times the players will resent it, especially if the flaw is a real stretch and you can build up an adversarial atmosphere where the players are spending most of their effort trying to come up with some bizarre byzantine explanation to justify why a flaw doesn't apply.
On the other hand, when you put the flaw into the player's hands to decide when and how it takes effect (along with a suitable reward based incentive) you'll find that they'll embrace them rather than try to avoid them. Players will willingly and gleefully completely sabotage their own character's effectiveness by applying their own flaws to themselves in ways that they would never tolerate a GM doing to them.
Its really a pretty powerful thing.
Whoa. Lots to catch up on here.
First, the "role-playing" rewards, as you refered to them, are really enlightening. First, it's interesting that you refer to them as role-playing rewards, when in fact that's one of your subcategories. You're even using that term to mean different things in your own descriptions. You still haven't said what "role-playing" means to you, so I'm going to have to assume that in the list it means something like "First person play of the role of the character in a believable fashion"
I think that the list really gives a very tight definition of what play is all about in your game. Yes, some of them need further definition. For example, "enjoyment." Who's enjoyment is that? The player's, the GM's, everybody's? Based on what? I mean, if the game is good, isn't it enjoyable? It sounds like you're giving points for players giving positive feedback. Which is interesting. Danger - meaning that the player was willing to get his character into danger? Or is this just based on what danger the GM put the characters in for that session? What's the difference between danger and heroism (the latter seems to require the former)? Learning Curve... no idea what that is - the player learning the rules better? The character learning some lesson in game? How does the player persue this one? Right Place/Time? That's the player maneuvering to have his character in the Right Place at the Right Time? How is "right" determined? Does this just mean that the player tries to get his character to the action? Concept... no ideas at all - if it means playing to the character's concept, then isn't that what I'm thinking role-playing is? Success - is this dependent on the outcome of rolls or not? That is, is the success in question relative to player creativity, or is it fully adjusted by luck?
What this is telling me is that if I want to play a coward that I'm not going to get a lot of points from the big danger category, and less from heroism. Reading this, it informs me that I ought to play a heroic character who's likely to swing into danger. That's very cool. This is precisely the sort of limit that we advocate. But realize that it's a limit, that eliminates a ton of character concepts that might be valid in other games. From the list alone, I can tell that this game isn't about playing brooding losers, but about playing action heroes.
More telling, I think, are the penalties. I mean, in separating them out as negatives, you really make them stand out.
First, Cheating. This one is problematic. Cheating is what we'd call a Social Contract level problem. That is, if you have someone in your game who's cheating, then the problem is at a level that's sorta beyond the game to fix. Basically, there's an essential dissagreement amongst the players about what good play is that has to be fixed, and cannot be fixed by penalties. This is sorta hard to explain. Basically, people cheat for two reasons. The first is just to be dishonest in order to gain some percieved advantage. If you have a player like this in your game, then the response to catching him cheating should be to remove him from the game. Basically, everyone is there to have fun, and in voiding the rules that everyone has agreed to play by, he's attacking everyone at the table on a personal level. The game aside, this can ruin friendships, and shouldn't be tolerated at all.
That said, a lot of cheating in RPGs happens for another reason. Namely, the player has a different vision of how the game should play, and is "drifting" (technical term meaning altering the rules) the game to suit his needs. Here's a good example: some players like to have the feeling that their characters can die to add suspense, but others feel that death should only occur at suitably dramatic moments. The latter sort of player might alter the game in order to make it fit his needs. In this case, the player is displaying that he has a different idea of how the game should work - the most direct example of incoherence that you can find. I'd posit that the vast majority of cheating that occurs in RPGs is this happening. The players aren't disregarding the other's playing so much as trying to get the game to be what they need it to be.
Simply put, if your game puts out a focused vision for how to play enjoyably, players can see that, and adhere to it - cheating doesn't occur, because they're getting what they expect from the game. So, do you find that players cheat a lot at your game? If not, then you don't need this rule. If they do, then you've chosen an interesting path to go along. The rule says, essentially, cheat to make the game what you need it to be - just don't get caught.
From a really radical POV, I want to say that's brilliant. But, realistically, I think it's probably quite problematic.
It's very interesting that role-playing (whatever it happens to mean) merits a potential bonus of two points, but a potential penalty of five points. What this is telling me is that you're more concerned with players doing things that are "out of character" in terms of not matching the character concept, than you are with players making a good portrayal. This indicates a percieved problem with players playing away from their character concepts. On a related note, psychology says that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative in most cases. So, why not have Role-Playing offer up to 7 points, instead?
Now, some of these can be contradictory. Is this intentional? For example, let's say that I have a character who is known for being brave. But suddenly the party encounters a huge troll, and the player has the character run away leaving the other characters in a very bad position. Are there circumstances where this character will not be penalized for things like role-playing, and concept? For example, if the player explained that he just thought it would be cool to have the character uncharacteristically freak out in this circumstance, such that he'd have to deal with the shame of what he'd done, would that make it good role-playing? Moreover, would he loose points for danger and heroism? See, this sort of thing seems very dramatic to me, and to some players it's very much good play to do stuff like this. So would it score for dramatics?
What I'm saying is that it seems that a lot of potential actions aren't worth a lot of points. As such, your reward system promotes a very specific set of behaviors. Again, which I think are the behaviors that you want to see, but are very specific, rather than being broad at all.
Most limiting of all however, is your proscription against using OOC knowledge. To some, using OOC knowledge is not only acceptable, but preventing it's use as you're trying to do is considered a really bad design flaw. For my part, I've said that it's a valid choice. But realize that in trying to eliminate this, you eliminate a huge chunk of the playstyles that exist (this has nothing to do with mode, but instead with what we call stance). Including most people's prefered styles at this site. Again, I'll go to the mat for you to say that this is a valid choice - but I will say that you may want to read some of the rebuttals on the idea.
The reason I keep hammering on this point about your game being limited is that I think that you guys understand the power of system in making for good play. I'm just hoping to make you see that you can apply this idea to the whole design, not just to specific parts.
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesThe basic system is simple because most of the actual Roleplaying (being in character) is done at a players personal level. We have 3 things that affect what a character can, can't and has to do.
Ah, there's a definition. I think we're on the same wavelength. Probably.
QuoteWhen you die in RR, you can be ressurected either medically (in a modern setting) or magically. Each time you are resurected you gain a new flaw. If you were killed by 20ft spider, you will be resurrected with arachnaphobia etc.
This is usually telling in some way. Basically, it seems that death is considered not an end to the character (barring unusual circumstances like the "total party kill"), but just gives a flaw to the character. Which is a penalty in some ways, but which other players really enjoy. That's pretty cool (there's a bias here against players losing their characters to undramatic deaths).
In general, your rules for flaws and merits sound a lot like the core rules for Hero Quest. To imagine that game, think of a game where everything was a flaw or merit.
QuoteBoth merits and flaws are opposed as well. A character with Good hearing has to subtract the rating from his roll, when hiding in a church tower as the bell starts to ring. A character with cruelty, will add that to his roll when torturing someone for instance.
I like this, but it begs a question: why not just call them Traits or something? If it's basically the GM's option as to when to use each as either a bonus or malus, then why the need to differentiate? I'd imagine that some are very borderline like "Agressive." Would that be a flaw or a merit? What would it matter? Is there some other rule that pertains to the differentiation?
Quote**This is where I'm expecting abuse**
Please. Melodramatics are not neccessary.
QuoteNote the reason the system is light is because each skill/merit/flaw comes with it's own mechanics. <SHOCK! HORROR!> This is where the easy to learn and easy to adapt come from.
A player/GM only needs to know the items in play. A meaty warrior that has built his character into the greatest/fastest/most aggressive person on the planet, doesn't care how the moralistic merit works! Why should he bother reading the rules about it?
If a character wants the moralistic merit, then they just have to read that description(and the GM) and learn to play it.QuoteThis seems to be a contradiction. That is, "light" usually means one simple system to do everything. I mean, have you seen FUDGE (http://www.fudgerpg.com/fudge/)
for example? Didn't someone link you to [The Pool (http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html), earlier? In games like these all resolution occurs using the same mechanic. Meaning that you only ever have to learn one thing. So, sure you only have to learn the rules that pertain to your character, but if there's a different rule for everything, then that would be what a lot of people would describe as a very rules heavy game.
Which isn't a criticism itself. I'm a big fan of pretty heavy games, myself. The question is whether or not the additional systems add value or not at a rate comensurate with the extra work involved.
See MJ Young's game Multiverser, which may have similarities.
QuoteAdaptability
When a character keeps behaving a manner that there is no, skill, merit or flaw for. The the player and GM create it (and hopefully pass it on to the rest of us)
This is where 'Bad Roleplaying' comes from in the XP chart. If a player fails to take into account their merits and flaws in a session, then they lose XP because of that.
Gotcha.
First, a lot of games out there right now have the "adaptability" concept. Again, Hero Quest (http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf) (you really should take a look at that one), does precisely the same thing that you describe. Story Engine is completly freeform, the players make up all their "skill/ability/flaws/whatever." I have an unpublished system that has categories of abilities, but players make the specifics up (it's called Synthesis (http://www.swcp.com/~tquid/synthesis.html)).
QuoteThey are both right. The party needs to find a way to help IC look after his daughter.[/quoe]This doesn't solve the problem. In the example that I gave, the player's decision is that he feels that he wouldn't leave his daughter. You're assuming that he'll just change that assumption for the good of the group as a whole. But, again, you're failing to see how some people think that their right to play their character as they see fit is sacrosanct. In fact, considering that the GM has an adventure written up would be making a decision based on OOC knowledge - shouldn't that get the player a penalty if he changes his mind?
Just a bunch of stuff to chew on right now. FWIW, I'm liking your game the more I see of it.
Oh, Universalis was mentioned above as a game that supports narrativism. This is somewhat debatable. I've used the term "abashed" to refer to Universalis' approach to narrativism (and as one of the designers, I hope that I have some idea of what I'm talking about there). On the other hand, Universalis will challenge your assumptions if that interests you at all.
Zak, I think your analysis is correct, but I think that the game may end up being at least somewhat coherent as a hybrid. See Ron's comments on Sim supporting Gamism and vice versa in the appropriate essays.
Mike
Quote from: Mike Holmesdanger and heroism (the latter seems to require the former)?
Danger is putting ourself in danger, Heroism is putting yourself in danger for selfless actions. As for your other points, yes it does need more explanation and tweaking. Our playtesting didn't question as deeply as you. Therefore we missed all off this, so thanks for doing so :)
QuoteWhat this is telling me is that if I want to play a coward that I'm not going to get a lot of points from the big danger category, and less from heroism....(Clipped)
Yes, and no! You've raised another good point here. The XP idea needs a lot more work. The idea (unexplained) is that the reward categories relate to the character playing 'In character'. So a cowardly character would be awarded bravery for not screaming when the ghost said boo, whereas the demonologist would only be awarded bravery for fighting 10 ghosts single handed etc.
I'm not sure we want to apply solid restrictions to them. That would break the idea of the system, more explanation yes, but not restriction.
QuoteFirst, Cheating. This one is problematic.
I call cheating, not applying a modifier when it changes the result of the action. So if Bill needed 15 and rolled 17 but had to take 3 off for a flaw and didn't. That would affect the outcome for his own benefit and is cheating.
QuoteSimply put, if your game puts out a focused vision for how to play enjoyably, players can see that, and adhere to it - cheating doesn't occur, because they're getting what they expect from the game. So, do you find that players cheat a lot at your game?
Not in the context I just explained (or at least not getting caught
QuoteIt's very interesting that role-playing (whatever it happens to mean) merits a potential bonus of two points, but a potential penalty of five points.
Again lack of explanation on our behalf. Basically the three penalties cover a lot of the bonuses. It may even be worth taking penalties out, which makes sense.
QuoteNow, some of these can be contradictory. Is this intentional? For example, let's say that I have a character who is known for being brave. But suddenly the party encounters a huge troll, and the player has the character run away leaving the other characters in a very bad position.
If he was taking the mick, then he wouldn't be penalised. That would add to the drama of the game and hopefully be amusing.
QuoteMost limiting of all however, is your proscription against using OOC knowledge. To some, using OOC knowledge is not only acceptable, but preventing it's use as you're trying to do is considered a really bad design flaw.
That depends on the world setting. If you are trying to 'Act out' a character (my definition of roleplay) and your character is in a fantasy world but knows about the dynamic interrelation between atoms and quarks, then that is bad roleplay. Recently I was solving all the riddles and got penalised because I has a low intelligence. I think it comes down the 'roleplay' definition again.
QuoteThis is usually telling in some way. Basically, it seems that death is considered not an end to the character (barring unusual circumstances like the "total party kill"), but just gives a flaw to the character. Which is a penalty in some ways, but which other players really enjoy. That's pretty cool (there's a bias here against players losing their characters to undramatic deaths).
Again it's not something that we want to enforce. It depends on the situation, if your near to an emergency room, it likely you'll be resurrected. In your in our fanatasy world, it takes years off a healer to bring someone back and costs an absolute fortune. A healer can probably only bring about 5 people in his entire life. And you have to get the body before it starts to decompose.
QuoteI like this, but it begs a question: why not just call them Traits or something?
Because when you roll your character you have to have equal merits and flaw points. Otherwise everyone would just pick all the good ones, good hearing, good sight, huge size.
QuoteThis seems to be a contradiction. That is, "light" usually means one simple system to do everything. In games like these all resolution occurs using the same mechanic.
They all use the same mechanics here as well. only 2 roll types, but the individual items have description that explain how to play them. Isn't that what you've been telling me all along, more description!
Bleedin'eck. Fudge is similar to RR isn't it :(
I didn't see a superbig Fudge/RR correlation, but even if there was it's not a bad thing. Seeing your mechanics implemented (properly) elsewhere sort of means it was "playtested" elsewhere for you.
QuoteAgain it's not something that we want to enforce. It depends on the situation, if your near to an emergency room, it likely you'll be resurrected. In your in our fanatasy world, it takes years off a healer to bring someone back and costs an absolute fortune. A healer can probably only bring about 5 people in his entire life. And you have to get the body before it starts to decompose.
Putting up real barrier to resurrection, making there be a real price, is something I find cool. (As a former Designated Healer for a party, I'd dig the whole built-in pathos of a healer draining his very life into resurrecting a fallen comrade...) However, the whole death/take-a-flaw thing is cool, even if it needs to be playtested. Perhaps consider making this necessary if a character gets to really-nearly-dead, rather than 100%-dead.
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesYou've raised another good point here. The XP idea needs a lot more work. The idea (unexplained) is that the reward categories relate to the character playing 'In character'. So a cowardly character would be awarded bravery for not screaming when the ghost said boo, whereas the demonologist would only be awarded bravery for fighting 10 ghosts single handed etc.
Heroism, you mean?
Just to note, I can palpably feel (despite him being about 300 miles away from me right now) Ralph wanting to say something that relates to what he's said before on this thread. Basically, narrativism requires that a player address their issues, which means that the game cannot make decisions for them - else the game is doing the addressing. As such, a potentially nifty narrativist moment would be the cowardly character suddenly doing something brave for something he believed in.
Your game would, I think, punish this. Which, again, is sticking to your guns, and that's cool. Just realize that this is something that players who like narrativism worry about.
QuoteQuoteFirst, Cheating. This one is problematic.
I call cheating, not applying a modifier when it changes the result of the action. So if Bill needed 15 and rolled 17 but had to take 3 off for a flaw and didn't. That would affect the outcome for his own benefit and is cheating.
Uh, I agree. The thing is that you've ignored almost all of what I've written. Could you look at it again? I mean, even if it's just to tell me that I'm wrong?
QuoteSimply put, if your game puts out a focused vision for how to play enjoyably, players can see that, and adhere to it - cheating doesn't occur, because they're getting what they expect from the game. So, do you find that players cheat a lot at your game?
Not in the context I just explained (or at least not getting caught[/quote]So is the rule really neccessary? I mean legal theory says that laws inform, and have a purpose thereby even if they never need to be enforced. But, again, you've ignored what I said about this being a problem with the Social Contract.
QuoteQuoteIt's very interesting that role-playing (whatever it happens to mean) merits a potential bonus of two points, but a potential penalty of five points.
Again lack of explanation on our behalf. Basically the three penalties cover a lot of the bonuses. It may even be worth taking penalties out, which makes sense.
Again, I think the role-playing one is redundant with the bonus.
QuoteQuoteNow, some of these can be contradictory. Is this intentional? For example, let's say that I have a character who is known for being brave. But suddenly the party encounters a huge troll, and the player has the character run away leaving the other characters in a very bad position.
If he was taking the mick, then he wouldn't be penalised. That would add to the drama of the game and hopefully be amusing.
"taking the mick"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the phrase.
In any case, your rules on Merits and Flaws say that a character must play them out. So isn't the example, a violation?
QuoteQuoteMost limiting of all however, is your proscription against using OOC knowledge. To some, using OOC knowledge is not only acceptable, but preventing it's use as you're trying to do is considered a really bad design flaw.
That depends on the world setting. If you are trying to 'Act out' a character (my definition of roleplay) and your character is in a fantasy world but knows about the dynamic interrelation between atoms and quarks, then that is bad roleplay. Recently I was solving all the riddles and got penalised because I has a low intelligence. I think it comes down the 'roleplay' definition again.
So, doing implausible things with OOC knowledge. Cool. As long as the actions are plausible, however? I'll give you the classic example.
I'm watching character A in a scene where he's getting beaten up in the park without any of the other PCs present. The GM puts the scene on hold (little cliffhanger) and comes to me and asks what my character is doing. I tell him that my character is going for a walk down by the park because it's a nice day.
Of course, what I'm really doing is saving character A's bacon, but it's plausible. I mean, the GM said it's a nice day, and my character has a predilection for walks...is the co-incidence that I'm arranging allowable? Or would I be penalized for using OOC knowledge?
QuoteAgain it's not something that we want to enforce. It depends on the situation, if your near to an emergency room, it likely you'll be resurrected. In your in our fanatasy world, it takes years off a healer to bring someone back and costs an absolute fortune. A healer can probably only bring about 5 people in his entire life. And you have to get the body before it starts to decompose.
Right, so there's costs involved, but it's probably not the end. Right?
QuoteQuoteI like this, but it begs a question: why not just call them Traits or something?
Because when you roll your character you have to have equal merits and flaw points. Otherwise everyone would just pick all the good ones, good hearing, good sight, huge size.
OK, but once chargen is over, they're all the same, no? I mean, sure, have two lists, but then why bias their use with naming them flaws and merits?
The "problem" is that when you do this, people often miss those nifty "negative" uses that you mention. They forget to apply penalties for large when crossing that rickety bridge because it's a merit, not a flaw.
QuoteQuoteThis seems to be a contradiction. That is, "light" usually means one simple system to do everything. In games like these all resolution occurs using the same mechanic.
They all use the same mechanics here as well. only 2 roll types, but the individual items have description that explain how to play them. Isn't that what you've been telling me all along, more description!
Sure. I guess I'm going to have to see what it is that's included in these to see what you mean by having to learn them. If it's not rules...
Actually there are about a bejillion games out there with this sort of general resolution mechanic. That said, your game has loads of stuff that FUDGE doesn't have, so it's not really a problem.
But, yes, in general when you've been saying, "Look our resolution system can cover any action!" it's been sounding a lot like, "Look, I've designed a car, with a nifty new feature called seat belts!"
Not a big deal. Just means you're in good company, and the idea is very sound. Again, what'll make your game is not the resolution system, but things like your reward system.
Mike
QuoteJust to note, I can palpably feel (despite him being about 300 miles away from me right now) Ralph wanting to say something that relates to what he's said before on this thread. Basically, narrativism requires that a player address their issues, which means that the game cannot make decisions for them - else the game is doing the addressing. As such, a potentially nifty narrativist moment would be the cowardly character suddenly doing something brave for something he believed in.
I don't think its a narrativism thing. I think its just pointing out that the paradigm that says "the GM's job is to police the players and enforce the bad things because otherwise the players will try to get away with stuff" is a fundamentally unnecessary paradigm. Its a self perpetuating issue.
Players try to get away with stuff when designers design a game that rewards them with greater effectiveness for getting away with stuff. Designers then put in rules (like penalties for "bad roleplaying", or having the GM decide when a flaw does or doesn't apply) as a way of trying to keep them from getting away with stuff...but the only thing this accomplishes is perpetuating the situation where players will try to get away with stuff by actually rewarding the ones who are good enough to still get away with it despite the rules.
Its a vicious cycle and an entirely unnecessary one. In one fell swoop you can do away with all of the "getting away with stuff" issues by putting the decision of when to apply the penalty into the hands of the players instead of the GM.
When the penalty is in the hands of the GM, the players are motivated to cheat. I fully believe Lee, that the reason you feel the need to address cheating as an issue, is because you're used to playing games whose rules encourage cheating. Any time you have a situation where character effectiveness diminishes by GM fiat, you've created a situation that will reward the player for cheating. It is to their advantage to cheat, because cheating will increase their characters effectiveness which: gives them more enjoyable play, allows them to accumulate greater in game rewards from succeeding, and likely leads to faster character advancement.
When you create a situation that pits GM vs. Player against each other like this it is to be expected that players are going to not remind the GM to apply the penalty, and come with elaborate explanations to avoid them. They will come up with any number of ways to try to circumvent being hurt by the penalty. The GM then has to spend more and more effort playing policeman and the cycle continues. Thing is there are more of them then there are of you. They will win.
And its not that they're weasly little bad role playing munchkings either. They're doing it because the game is telling them that they're SUPPOSED to do it. The game is saying "if you're honest you'll be punished. If you're sneaky you'll be rewarded". Of course, many (if not most) players are going to choose sneaky. Its not their fault...its the game's fault for rewarding sneaky behavior.
If instead you let the players choose for themselves when a penalty applies and when it doesn't, you short circuit that whole deal. Give the players a reward for voluntarily taking the penalty and you will find the players never conveniently "forget" the penalty. They'll apply it to themselves with more relish and more frequency then the GM would ever dare to apply it to them. And they'll simply avoid applying it on those particular occassions where the GM would be inclined to "fudge" the roll anyway. It doesn't make sense to cause a roll to fail by forcing a penalty to apply, and then fudging the die roll so the characters don't fail.
Better to just not force the penalty to begin with. Best to allow the players to decide for themselves when to force the penalty and when not to. 9 times in 10 they'll do a better job of it than the GM, if for no other reason then they aren't trying to juggle 50 other things.
I don't find that to be a specifically narrativist point of view. Its pretty universally adaptable. The more you empower the players to do whats right instead of relying on the GM to enforce what's right, the better your play will be.
Quote from: ValamirMaybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point. Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).
Then the player can use those points to activate merits. Instead of automatically applying merits, the player has to spend a point. The more points spent, the more of an advantage they get.
I like the idea, but that would mean you could only use merits when you use flaws. If your character hasn't been near any spiders in the past month, he would be unable to use any merits. How would you suggest handling that situation, any ideas?
Quote from: Explanation of skill levels
Here is the revised description for skill levels. This should hopefully calrify what a skill level is:-
1. You are just learning this particular skill. Just think that you are at school learning math. You know how to add up and subtract.
2. You understand the basics and can do simple things. You can now multiply and divide
3. You are now able to use this skill without thinking about it. You now understand algebra and complex formulas.
4. You have now studied well and can use this skill to a professional level. You can be an accountant, statistician, physicist etc.
5. You are a master of this skill. You have now entered the realm of theoretical math. Math without numbers and the like! Scary.[/list:u]You only ever need 5d10 in RR, but it is still possible to advance skills past 5. When you do so you gain a special ability in the skill. I can't think of one for math (maybe you truly understand infinity?) but for something like swordmanship, maybe you can call your sword to hand, or you gain a low level spell that is activated whenever you successfully hit.
This is down to you and your GM. Decide where you'd like your character to take this skill, think true martial arts master, and arrange something with the GM.Please bear in mind the world you are playing in. In a sci-fi world, maybe shooting in two directions at once would be an option.
Now before anybody says there is a difference is improvement in levels, yes there is. This is because of the XP required to move up each skill rating. It is more exoensive to move from 3-4 than 1-2 for instance.
God this was hard, still seems a bit complicated but I think thats down to the explanation. Any advice appreciated.
The rules concerning shields are slightly different to the other skills, because when you attempt to block with a shield, you are assumed to do so. Bare with me, this may seem a complicated explanation.
If the attack is below your 'Block shield' roll, you take no damage at all.
If the attack is above your roll, you did not manage to block the attack successfully and the weapon glanced off the shield and hit you.
Shields can only take so much damage before they break. To signify this, if a shield is hit for twice it's AR it will break. [/list:u]I think a few examples are in order.
Your 'Block shield' skill is at 2 and the shields AR is 5.
You are attacked for 12.
Roll your shield skill as normal (3,7)
Add this result to the skill and add the AR = 7 + 2 + 5 = 14
You successfully block the attack.
You are attacked for 19.
Roll your shield skill as normal (3,7)
Add this result to the skill and add the AR = 7 + 2 + 5 = 14
You didn't block the attack. The weapon glances off the shield and hits you for the remainder of the attack. 19-14 = 5 damage
You are attacked for 25.
Roll your shield skill as normal (3,7)
Add this result to the skill and add the AR = 7 + 2 + 5 = 14
You didn't block the attack. The weapon glances off the shield and hits you for the remainder of the attack. 25-14 = 11 damage
The difference between the damage is 11. That means the shield was hit with 11 points of damage. This is more than twice its AR so it breaks.
To clarify: Any damage that isnt taken by the shield is soaked by the player and if the damage is twice the shields AR it breaks
This is a revised description of how to award XP, like the skills, flaws etc. We have moved the possible points and reasons into the World Manuals.
Awarding XP
The characters knowledge and learning is reflected in experience. The more experience a character gains the more they can improve themselves either through new skills and spells or by just improving the already existing ones.
It is up to the GM to award XP based on many things. Depending on your playing style, you may dish them out like a pay packet or you may discuss with the players what they think they deserve and why.
Each character will be awarded points for different things. If you have a policeman he will obvious not be rewarded for shooting an innocent man, but a terrorist would. Bear this in mind when thinking about XP.
To keep the game balanced and allow players to progress at a reasonable speed, we suggest rewarding a maximum of 25xp per session. A general guide for XP is about 13 – 19 for each session. This means that a character will have to play well for 6-8 sessions to move to the second career etc. This not set in stone so reward the players according to their performance.
Below are a few possible decisions you may take into account for assigning XP. You will find this changes from World to world and type of play. If a world is written for a particular style of play it will have a guide as to how to reward players. The Fell World for instance is a traditional hero oriented world, where players are special, so check the World Manuals for a more detailed guide.
Making decisions based on the characters personality and skills, not the players.
In game acting,
When a player makes decisions based on what their character would do in game. For example: Bill plays Ragnoff. Ragnoff is a demonologist but Bill is a vegetarian. Ragnoff would not think twice about eating a live rabbit, so Bill should not make his character think twice either.
Playing the characters traits well
Improvement in playing
Using all the characters traits whilst playing. That means not ignoring flaws or conveniently forgetting your characters moral bias when it suits. If a character needs to kill someone but is a friendly character, he will have trouble doing so. This should be represented in game, not just 'I'll kill him so we can move on'
Resolving character weaknesses
If your character is afraid of spiders, but faces one to rescue a friend then he is facing the weaknesses in his character.
Achieving the impossible
Luck, Surprise
If a character achieves the impossible or carries out an astounding feat maybe they should be rewarded?
Heading towards characters' goals.
Skill
When a character makes progress towards his goals. This may be something simple such as going up a magic circle or a sneak thief 'acquiring' that item he has been after for months.
Being resourceful
When a character does something unexpected or does something that is really quite clever. Maybe they used a plant pot to make a water pump!
Playing well with the group
Humour, Enjoyment, Usefulness, Coping well with poor role-playing/cheating
We would all like a game where you can become totally immersed in the game play. Sometimes player disagree about what to do, how to play, how long a player is taking etc. To have a good role-play group you need to find a balance between the players' styles and desires. When players do so, reward them. Our sessions are usually full of humour because that's what we enjoy. If you enjoy a lot more serious, somber play then reward the players for that instead.
Thinking of the story, Drama
You can reward a player when they are thinking of the story and their character. If they get really involved and use the characters history and personality whilst playing, that makes for a more enjoyable game and enhances the experience.
Success
Pretty obvious this one, when players have done well in the story, killed the baddy, found the lost child or made that killer decision they've been pondering for the last 3 weeks. They should be dually rewarded.
Penalising players?
This one is a judgment call. If you want players to know they've done wrong, you can tell them so. 'You got 21 XP but I've taken away 3 points because you failed to think about the moral ramifications of killing the child!' It's up to you and down to GM style if you do this, but make sure that the player accepts the reasoning, otherwise they will just get annoyed.
We also play an optional rule that you may like to include. At the end of a session, each player has an XP point to award to whoever they think did best in that game. We have the players write down who they think deserve the bonus XP and why. That player is then awarded the extra XP. This seems to lead to the players being more group oriented whilst playing.
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesQuote from: ValamirMaybe each time a player voluntarily abides by a Flaw he earns a Point. Maybe the more severe the flaw, or the more detrimental the situation the more Points (say 1-3).
Then the player can use those points to activate merits. Instead of automatically applying merits, the player has to spend a point. The more points spent, the more of an advantage they get.
I like the idea, but that would mean you could only use merits when you use flaws. If your character hasn't been near any spiders in the past month, he would be unable to use any merits. How would you suggest handling that situation, any ideas?
Well, part of the problem is solved right in character creation. If you've played games where players must take flaws you've probably noticed a general tendency to take very narrow "will hardly ever apply" type of flaws to make it that much easier to get away with never having it enforced against them.
If you have a system where players get rewarded for using their flaws, you'll find they start taking flaws that will apply much more commonly, or they'll take multiple flaws, etc. Instead of the mind set of "how can I define this flaw so it never hurts me at a crucial moment" they'll have the mind set of "how can I define this flaw, or combination of flaws, so that I'll have the opportunity to draw on it a couple of times nearly every session".
The second part of the solution is not to rely exclusively on the GM to set the stage for flaws. Let players have some rope to hang themselves with.
For instance if a player had "fear of heights" and they were on their way to interrogate a witness in an apartment building, a player might say something like "of course you know she's going to be on the top floor...they're always on the top floor".
Unless theres some incredibly crucial reason for the apartment to not be on the top floor, you as the GM can take that idea and run with it. Of course its going to be on the top floor...why...because the actor's comment has already foreshadowed that expectation for the audience.
If a character has arachnophobia, you can award points for them hamming it up, even when there is no penalty dice to award. For instance one player says "come on, the mother says he spends a lot of time in the garage, we may find the murder weapon there"...the other player says "you go ahead, I'm not rooting around in any ole garage, garages have spiders"
A simple exchange like that adds color to a scene, develops characterization, gives PCs the chance to banter amongst themselves and really adds depth. Award a point for it.
It really works pretty well. If you wanted to make sure that the a player would never be unable to use a merit because they've run out of points, make using the merit normally cost XPs. If they want to use the merit it will cost them 1XP per use. OR--they could use a point earned from flaws so they don't have to lose an XP. That way, they're still encouraged to activate their flaws but on those occassions where they haven't had the chance, they could still use their Merits.
There's alot of room for jiggling with the finer points of the mechanic its the concept that I wanted to highlight.
Flaws and MeritsTaran has just reminded me of a subtle point that makes a major difference to this argument.
Flaws and merits are OPTIONAL. In character creation it says:
QuoteN.B. You do not have to have any merits or flaws at all if you do not desire any. But the GM may give you some throughout the game if you die or have really good or bad experiences.
They are there for players who really enjoy filling their character out. No-one has to take them or is required to do so. The death flaws is also optional and only applies in worlds/games where you can be ressurected.
Gone a bit quiet round here! You don't actually have lives at the weekend surely? **Tries to leave desk, fails :( **
Is anyone having trouble with the forum or is it just me? It's suddenly stopped remembering me and I have to log in everytime, even though the cookies are there?
1. I don't post on weekends, so that explains my dissapearance.
2. Try clearing your cookies. This is a problem that a lot of people have from time to time.
3. Why doesn't Taran post at all anymore? I was hoping to get more than one viewpoint on these things.
Hmmm. When you say that flaws are optional, you mean as a balance to taking merits. That is, a character has the same number of merits as flaws, right? Such that if I take zero merits I have zero flaws, right? Is that what you mean by optional?
So, basically, to get the bonuses that merits represent, I have to take flaws, and risk the GM penalizing me for playing them in a way that he doesn't like? Put it this way - in your new list, you put in an exception to the flaw penalization rule that says if you face a fear for a good reason that it's not penalized. But this was just one example. If you like, I think we can come up with dozens of ways in which going against type is actually good play. Perhaps your character just decides that today is a good day to Kick his drug habit. Or maybe your untrusting nature would get you a bonus to detect a lie in some case, but you inform the GM that you trust this liar - thus revealing something about the flaw, that it's really about being a bad judge of character.
The point is that you can't codify all the reasons where it might make sense to go against type. In some cases, it's a well thought out player endeavor - in other cases, they just forget. Again, what Ralph says makes sense. If you pay players to watch their own flaws, you end up having them played more often. Basically, in your case, all you have to do is give a reward for playing to flaws in whatever way seems appropriate, instead of penalizing for not playing to them. If the player forgets to play to them, or just decides to ignore it, their "penalty" is missing out on the rewards.
Now, what's the difference between a penalty, and a reward not given? Isn't this just math? Actually there are profound psychological ramifications to just framing it as positive reinforcement. Give players rewards for playing to their flaws, and they'll do it.
Oh, and what I'd suggest, instead of end of session accounting, is giving out these rewards on the spot, as they occur. If you don't, you'll either have to take notes which are faulty, or try to remember everything at the end, which is even more faulty. The most potent rewards you can give are what's refered to as "Random Schedule Positive" rewards. Meaning they are given out only when certain behaviors occur (instead of regularly on a schedule). The player is reinforced right away, and is reminded to carry on the appropriate behavior.
In more number heavy systems, calculating EXP or something takes up too much time in the middle of play. With your method, the GM should just give out 1-3 points whenever a player does something on the list of good things to do. One for something perfunctory (if they have to ask for it, which they should be allowed to do, it's probably worth one), two for something notable, and three for something really remarkable (whole table can't stop laughing).
Try it. You'll find players keeping the list in front of them and sticking to the agenda so tightly that you have to pry them off of the table when the session is finished. As a neat touch, use candies to represent points, and fling them across the table at players who should get them. If they eat them, that's fine, they just don't get to spend them then. They only get to spend the ones that they keep. This makes the reward both tactily pleasing, and pleasing to the sense of taste, in addition to the normal in-game uses.
Mike
I'm taking a slower approach, now, digesting and reading more thoroughly. So, Lee, I'll be slower in responding.
Two questions:
1. Why do you see the need for a shield skill which is handled differently than any other skill?
2. When you're going to reward "thinking of the story", you're going to have to make sure all the participants (GM & players) are in agreement about what the story
is. If one player sees one story,
PCs collect the four orbs of each element from their guardian elemental spirits, and one player sees a different story,
is it worth killing the neutral guardian elemental spirits for their orbs? Well, you have the potential for unhealthy friction between players. How are you going to make sure that players remain happy with play?
--
About the shield skill, you have a pretty neat mechanic that could be applied in general.
- If a skill roll is greater than the opposition, it succeeds.
- If a skill roll is greater than the opposition by twice or more, there is a critical success.
- If the opposition is greater by twice or more, there is a critical failure.
So suddenly, you can provide both a critical success and critical failure for all your skills. For example:
Quote
Block Shield
- Critical Success: No extra effect, aside from an impressive block.
- Critical Failure: Defender's shield is broken.
Combat Sense
- Critical Success: An extra action, after everyone else has gone.
- Critical Failure: No extra effect; going last is punishment enough.
Preaching
- Critical Success: You actually any listening unbelievers to your religion.
- Critical Failure: You accidentally highlight a major flaw in your own religion.
Hi All
Sorry Mike (and anyone else who missed me lol), for my continual absence
My lack of online prescence is down to
1) Family comitments (wife and 2 kids)
2) Continual business meetings (of the file your sh*t in triplicate variety)
3) Im crap with computers
4) Im a neer complete technophobe
5) I forgot my password :(
6) Im always in the RedRaven forurms, then a couple of mates forums then several hours have passed and put it off until tomorow.....only tomorrow never comes does it lol
Bloody useless me :p
I shall however endeavor to get into the forge more often as you guys have been a great help to myself and the reast of the Red Raven Team.
Im happy to e-mail chat (i usually get to read my mail daily lol) if im not in the forums for any reason.
Back soon
Hopes lol
Taz
Quote from: Zak ArntsonI'm taking a slower approach, now, digesting and reading more thoroughly. So, Lee, I'll be slower in responding.
Take you time Zak, your giving some great ideas :)
Quote from: Zak Arntson1. Why do you see the need for a shield skill which is handled differently than any other skill?
Simply because we wanted the shields to break. Then we thought about adding it to armour, still unsure about that.
Quote from: Zak Arntson2. When you're going to reward "thinking of the story", you're going to have to make sure all the participants (GM & players) are in agreement about what the story is. If one player sees one story, PCs collect the four orbs of each element from their guardian elemental spirits, and one player sees a different story, is it worth killing the neutral guardian elemental spirits for their orbs? Well, you have the potential for unhealthy friction between players. How are you going to make sure that players remain happy with play?
We're back to this again. The only way to make sure everyone is playing off the same sheet is to make everything as tight as possible, which is exactly what we don't want to do. I always end up saying this but, it down to th GM. I'm gonna start another thread to hash this point out.
Quote from: Zak ArntsonAbout the shield skill, you have a pretty neat mechanic that could be applied in general.
- If a skill roll is greater than the opposition, it succeeds.
- If a skill roll is greater than the opposition by twice or more, there is a critical success.
- If the opposition is greater by twice or more, there is a critical failure.
We thought about this when we doing the shield skill, but the problem is the difference required. Rolls can be from 5-40 in general averaging at 9-18. This is a big range, we couldn't use the skill rating because if you've got a starter skill (1) then the opponent would only have to roll 2 above or the player 2 above to get a critical, too easy. So what would you base the difference on?
Quote from: fruitbatinshadesWe're back to this again. The only way to make sure everyone is playing off the same sheet is to make everything as tight as possible, which is exactly what we don't want to do. I always end up saying this but, it down to th GM. I'm gonna start another thread to hash this point out.
Leaving the reward system up to the participants is a fine example of design. I suggest including text in your rules devoted to customizing a group's reward system (or providing different settings with different reward systems). You know, point out to players that if they want lots of flashy combat, reward it! If you'd rather have a game of intrigue, reward clever plotting and lessen the combat XP. That way two groups can play Red Raven with different results (but using the same base resolution system).
About the doubling = critical issue, you're right about rolling above a 1. How often do you roll against a one, though? I also wonder why you don't have rules for armor breaking? I'm wondering why shields are considered so different than armor and a helmet. Why not provide universal armor/weapon breaking rules. And if you have Shield Block, you get to add the skill value to your AR for purposes of combat?
Correct me if I'm wrong, here. If you have a Shield Block of 1, a wimpy shield (AR 1). You are hit for 20, so you roll your Shield Block. If you roll anything but a 10, you're screwed (since a roll of 20 is almost always double greater than 1d10+1). This makes sense, right? You're a terrible shield blocker, and you've got a really lousy shield.
Up it to a Shield Block of 2, with a decent shield (AR 5), and suddenly you've got a much better chance of rolling over 10.
And with other skills, a difficulty up to 3 is automatic. So in the easiest case (simple difficulty: 5), you have to roll a 10 or higher for a critical success. Won't most skilled people, performing a simple task, succeed critically? If I'm asked to program a simple bubble sort algorithm (a Simple programming task, especially if I cheat and use the Internet), I'm going to do it, include boundary checking, maximized memory efficiency and the like, a critical success, most of the time.