The Forge Archives

Hi! I'm new to the forge and this is my first thread. I've been reading posts for a while now, and I believe people do have interesting things to say about RPG here. I've found some excellent sources of reflexion. That said, I hope I can receive some advice.

But first, a little introduction. I've been playing RPGs for almost two decades, mostly as a GM. I've played many kind of games (vampires, d20 D&D, call of Cthulu, cyberpunk ...). I would declare myself mostly interested in the narrative aspect of the game.
If you find my english kinda strange, it's because I'm a native french speaker.
I'm currently working on a RPG project which as many specificities. I will talk about rules here.

I'm responding concerning a comment I made in "I Hate Dice", about system and games. I'd say, rules for RGP would look like this (I know, it's not exhaustive... anyway, it's not the purpose of my post) : you get a guy who tells a story in front of others who play characters. When you encounter a situation where it isn't obvious if your character can or can't accomplish a certain action, you refer to a mechanic, a set of rules.

So, what I meant by "no rules" means no mechanics defined for the game. I'd let the DM choose themselves whatever mechanics they like.
Eventually, I would be able to offer a pdf format of my story using different mechanics.
As I'm not interested in developing a particular mechanic for what I'm writing, I do have a different relationship to rules. They exist to represent the story I'm creating and not the opposite (I don't create a story base on a set of rules).

In my product, you wouldn't see character sheet, or anything related to any possible mechanics. It would be purely narrative.
But still, it wouldn't be a novel. It would be illustrated, but still, not a

About that, I'd like to make two observations :
1. take a story design for RPG and remove all elements concerning mechanics : I don't think you get a novel
2. add mechanic pages (as a add-on) to a novel : I don't think you get something like a game

Well it seems I'll answer to my own post... by completing some ideas... and by asking some questions...

Ideas :

• I have to admit I used narrative in a wrong way. It would have been wiser to use story (in the sense to be told). This story would offer a backbone, a skeleton, upon which you add your own need as a DM.
  You would be able to play it as narrative (in the sense moral dilemma) or adventurous or with a lot of combats...
• It wouldn't be a novel. Still, it's true that novel, or comics or movies do inspire GMs for their games. But they are not specifically written for the role playing. I think it would be exciting to read a good novel which offers you a possibility of playing after.
• I do have to admit this "new kind of novel" would have to be well written. I don't say I have the talent to do so (as obviously you can see!!). But maybe someone else can...

Questions :

• Would it possible to find a market for this kind of product ? Or, said in other words, are RPG's stories bind so strongly to rules ?
• What would allow this product to be defined as made for RPG ? I would use the to be told criteria. Maybe I'm too vague on this...
• What would you need as a DM in a novel for it to be played ? What would look great books (let's say lord of the ring, game of throne, wheel of time) if they had been written by their authors for the RPG ?

Hey there, Pells... (what's your real name?)

So you're saying you want to write an interactive story, without any mechanics? One that different groups can adapt to their style, so that some may use the story in a tactical way (combat!), while others may want to explore character/moral dilemmas?

It's a bit hard to understand exactly what you mean. Are you picturing something like a standard RPG scenario, just without the stats; or something like a solo gamebook; or something like a background supplement, detailing lots of NPC's and locations, but with no ready-made plot?

Could you give an example of the structure of such a story/novel?

Hey... first name is Sébastien...
I'll try to explain with examples, but I think the general idea can be seen (or pictured) in an other ways.

QuoteAre you picturing something like a standard RPG scenario, just without the stats

Not really and for two reasons.
First, I find standard scenario not really exciting to read. From the beginning, the reader (ie GM) knows exactly where it goes, most of the text using a form that is informative. That said, there's exceptions.
Second. Usually, standard scenarios (at least, not indie ones) are written as linear chain of chapters. Example. Chap 1 : meeting with the guy who needs adventurers. Chap 2 : going somewhere. Chap 3 : finding a mystery. What I'm trying to do is definitly not strutured that way.

Quoteor something like a solo gamebook

Like I said, it's meant to be told. Alone, you can read it, but you won't be playing anything.

Quoteor something like a background supplement, detailing lots of NPC's and locations, but with no ready-made plot?

First half of the novel, only descriptions of what I would call the essence : what elements are going to interact, the setting. That would be a great deal of characters, locations, organisations, even creatures. As I see it, around 500 words for an element. But, remember... not a single mechanical term. You would find their peronal history, motivations, ressources at the beginning of the timeline, the story. Seems to me kinda of intuitive. Take any book, or movie, you can do the exercice. Althougth, it doesn't make much sense for a regular book...

Second half of the novel, the plot itself (what I would call existence). But I wouldn't go into details as how the events occur. After all, I'm not writing a novel... I would present a backbone, ideas, along a timeline of events, presenting many sides to the same story. I'd say, 'In week one, some guy, who I described in part 1, hired adventurers in an inn of a city, I also described in part 1'. Are they your players ? How exactly does he presents the offer ? In which inn ? For how much money ? I wouldn't give those informations. It's up to the DM. That said, I would described the scene in a "novelistic" (is that a word?) way... so that the DM reading it, I hope, will be eager to play that scene as he sees it....

Finally about those two components :
I don't want to separate them when I'm creating the "story". I wouldn't want to offer just a setting. I believe the setting takes sense in a plot and that the plot needs an elaborate setting. A DM, I think, would work between the two elements. Understanding one part from the other and vice versa.

Now, to return to rules. As I wouldn't go into details, I really think DM can manage the kind of play they want based from that kind of story. I believe, players, after a certain time of gaming, knows what kind of rules and games they wanna play. So I don't feel the need to provide the mechanics but instead let the DM go with their preference. The counter part, I think, is that the story is not ready to play.

But narration (not narrative, sorry for my french!) without system may certaintly take another form.

You're interested in the "fluff" aspects of gaming supplements as opposed to the "crunch", correct?  Something which goes through and details whatever the subject is about, without it being attached to a particular game system?  Basically, you want a book filled with non-system specific information concerning, say, a particular cityor location, or about a race of humanoids or a particular culture, and a handful of potential storylines which could/would follow.

If that, indeed, is what you're talking about, then I'd be most heartily interested.  When I go out scouring for new supplements to pick up, I ignore all of the mechanics specific information and instead look at the quality/ability of whatever I'm looking at to inspire game ideas.  As it stands, I have a very ecclectic collection of books from a lot of different genres and companies.  I end up adapting whatever it is that I'm using to whichever game system I'm using.

To me, this sounds like a generic supplement (statless background info), together with a relationship-map like setup (do you know relationship maps, from Sorcerer?) In other words, you're giving setting and situation, and letting the players decide how they want to handle it; they choose their own rules, and their own goals of play.

This can work for some styles of play, but not for all. What kind of players are you aiming at?

Welcome to the Forge, Sebastian!

First off, you are starting with a very good practice: you're calling your project a product, and that's a fantastic foundation from which to build from.

Secondly, you are dragging in a lot of assumptions about what a roleplaying game is, what players want, and what resources and knowledge players bring to the table.  That can create a whole boatload of problems in design.

Luckily, your foundation can be the key to resolving those assumptions.  Try and define the customer that your product will appeal to: what they want to get from the product, what they bring to the table, what they want to do.  Once you do this, you'll find that a lot of your questions are answered.

I'll try to answer most of the questions... If I can.

QuoteYou're interested in the "fluff" aspects of gaming supplements as opposed to the "crunch", correct?  Something which goes through and details whatever the subject is about, without it being attached to a particular game system?

I had to search for those terms. As I understand them :
Fluff : "softcore" description of the game. The story, descriptions.
Crunch : "hardcore" rules of the games. The mechanics.
If that's so, yes, I'm only interested I'm the "fluff" aspect of the game, as a DM, in my game. That said, I do understand some players and/or DMs are interested in the "crunch" aspect. But I think of the latest as a detail, as a add-on (in my opinion). If you find a good "fluff" you want to play with a "crunch" that doesn't meet your needs, you can always adapt it. Not the opposite.
My all reflexion comes mostly from my writing. At the beginning, I was writing for a specific mechanic (I'll admit it, d20). But soon, I realized that the mechanic was restaining me. For example, a group a sorcerer were "fire mage". But what are they in that system ? I came to the point where I decided to abandon all system ; not to so see it as a goal or even a source, but as a tool.

QuoteWhen I go out scouring for new supplements to pick up, I ignore all of the mechanics specific information and instead look at the quality/ability of whatever I'm looking at to inspire game ideas.

I think you can take ideas for your games from supplement, but also from movies, books, mangas, TV series. What I want to create is something written for RPGs, for DM's needs. But, yes, this is the main idea of my product : to offer ideas for games. I have writing for two years, and I find more difficult to give a lot of general ideas, plots than specific details aboout one or two main ideas.

QuoteTo me, this sounds like a generic supplement (statless background info), together with a relationship-map like setup (do you know relationship maps, from Sorcerer?)

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about Sorcerer... That said, be sure I'll be looking for it very soon. But, if you're looking for some kind of map, or table to relate elements together, you won't find that in my product. There are characters, organisations, races. But no charts to relate them. If you read a character, you should have enough informations about his motivations and ressources to play him, even if your players make much changes in the story. That's what important for me. If a character is a an important member of an organisation, it should be mentioned and you would have informations about him in the organisation description. But still, a relationship map sounds like a good idea and might apply to what I'm doing.

QuoteIn other words, you're giving setting and situation, and letting the players decide how they want to handle it; they choose their own rules, and their own goals of play.

Exactly. I believe firmly that details are what makes your world believable, and most important, your own. Ommiting those details allows DMs to put their owns, personals ideas into the story. So, that each time the story is played, it would be played be diffrently.
As of the goal of the players, I believe they should decide, in common with the DM, what it should it be, based on the type of game they prefer. But I could speak for a long time about this aspect which is based on the way I'm writing.

QuoteThis can work for some styles of play, but not for all. What kind of players are you aiming at?

You're correct. Not all kind of players would be interested in that kind of product. I don't think I should aim at newbies : too much freedom for the DM and the players. Obviously, I don't think I will interested players who seeks to try different mechanics as their goals in RPGs (for myself, I prefer boardgames if I want to try rules).
I guess mature DMs who knows exactly what kind of mechanics correspond to their needs and already have it, but would be looking for a good story to tell. That said, my specific product, despite the fact it has no system, is a more complex than that. It would take the form of a campaign, offering more than a 100 hours of continuous play. That restrict even more my market. But that's not the subject of this thread.

QuoteSecondly, you are dragging in a lot of assumptions about what a roleplaying game is, what players want, and what resources and knowledge players bring to the table.  That can create a whole boatload of problems in design.

Maybe I get it all wrong, but I do believe that, to create a good product, I have to do something I like, and not something others would like. Today, as a DM, what I sense I have to bring to the table is a backgroung story, a good one, preferably. Everything else, mechanics, dungeons, even details about the story, I can make them up. The foundation of my "work" as a DM (despite assuring everyone is having a good time!) is telling a story. By telling I don't mean directing, I mean having "something" to offer to whatever my players want to play, whatever direction they want the story to be told. And for that, I do not need a specific mechanic.
But, I know this applies to my kind of my play, to my need of today. It might not fits for others.

Last notes :

• I was talking about typical supplement and rules. Here's another example. Take a story published for d20 system. Is it game ? I would guess so. Remove all mechanics related and replace it by another system, let's say GURPS. Is it still a game ? Remove all mechanics. Would it still be a game ?
• I think today a lot of mechanics are offered to the RPGs players. And I'd say it's hard to define a good working mechanic, but still, I'm surprised I can't find a good, documented campaign. My desire to write emerged from that. I didn't look for a mechanic, I looked for a non directive story, in which I could add my own vision of RPG.
• Not the purpose of this thread, but here's what I'd like to do with my product. Define a new way to write and to play, in the sense of the role of the DM. Maybe I should give an example of play to illustrate this.

Actually, I just wrote up what I think is a pretty decent description of Relationship Maps, as well as a few other non-mechanical techniques, over in this other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17169.msg182305#msg182305); that might help you with Forge terminology and ideas you're unfamiliar with

Hey, Sebastian, I keep running into the hint of an idea in your posts that goes completely counter to my approach to designing scenarios. I design them fairly frequently, as Multiverser chews through entire universes rather quickly sometimes. I've got different approaches that I use, and some critics have said that we should strip the game-specific materials from our world books and sell them as generic supplements, so I think I may be doing something like what you want.

The piece that gets me is that you keep talking about the referee telling the story. Rather than tell you directly why that irks me, let me illustrate it with part of my approach.

As I mentioned, I design worlds a lot of different ways. Some of those worlds are wide open simulationist bonanzas, as it were--places rich with possibilities for exploration and discovery, where nothing happens unless the players make it happen. A lot of players like that; you obviously are not thinking in those terms, but I would guess assuming that such a world already exists as the background for what you're writing.

I also design worlds in which there is some core premise or problem, but no specific plan for what will happen. An example of this is something like a Blake's 7/Star Wars situation, in which the player character becomes part of the crew of a rebel ship fighting against an evil empire. How that fight proceeds and what happens during it is not really detailed, as there is the hope that the player will embrace the conflict and pursue it by whatever means he chooses.

However, I do design what we call "story worlds", worlds in which there is some prepared plot and a set of hooks intended to bring the player into that story. I think this is what you're after, so I'm going to focus on these.

The reason I don't really need much help with these (apart from the fact that I'm pretty good at designing them) is that nearly ever bit of fiction already out there is already fodder for my games. I can use (and have used) The Last Starfighter, Cask of Amontilado, The Dancing Princess, The Most Dangerous Game, Prisoner of Zenda, The Postman--any story that's ever been told can be used as the setup for play.

Obviously, I adapt such stories to game books. What is needed to do this?

• Hooks. Multiverser is not generally a trailblazer game, that is, the players have no commitment to do what it is that I want them to do. If I want the player to help the king keep his throne, I've got to find a way to set up play so that the player will want his character to want to do that. That means I've got to put things together in such a way that he's going to be interested in doing this, and then he'll move in the direction of my story.
• Mechanics.  Any idiot can plagiarize a movie or a book in about five minutes, once he's seen it or read it. The time consuming parts come in adapting characters to game stats, working out distances and times for travel, and otherwise making the story rules-friendly. This of course is exactly what you're excluding. I think that the only way to make that work without those details is to include practical equivalents--to say that this person is very strong, or stronger than anyone in the county, or clearly stronger than the player characters, or in some way give the referee a guideline for setting the character's strength. I mean, I can read the Harry Potter books and decide what I think the stats should be for all the characters, but the thing that would be helpful would be having some guidelines in summary form that provide the basis for those stats.
• Contingent Scenarios:  To my mind, this is the most important and difficult part of design in the story world, but it is the part that you neglect entirely, as if it could not happen. What do you do if the player plays against the plot? In Prisoner of Zenda, what if the player realizes that he could easily eliminate the king and take over the country? In Dancing Princess, what if the player is not interested in the king's reward and would rather continue his valuable work as a schoolteacher than risk his life on some fool's quest? In The Last Starfighter, what if the player character never plays the Starfighter video game and so can't be discovered as the starfighter? You seem to assume that the players aren't interested in creating the story, but only in hearing it told. Around here, even in very gamist and simulationist games, players expect that their choices are going to create the story, to impact the events of the world in decisive ways. They may well choose to help the king, save the princess, or play the video game, but it will be their choice to have done so. The critical problem for a story world is working into the text how to handle events should the player character choose not to fill that role slated for him in the design. It's all well and good to have a great story, but unless you're going to railroad the players or you know that they're going to do everything they can to follow your plot, that story is probably never going to be told.

Now, maybe I misunderstood your image of the referee telling the story, but I hope that these notes on what concerns I have in designing the kind of thing you describe will help you understand what's really involved.

--M. J. Young

One comment on the viability of such a project: I know from reading about past experiments with this sort of thing -- all fluff, no crunch supplements meant to be used in any system -- that such products do not sell well within the RPG market. This is likely because they offer no method by which to incorporate or utlize the material in a game: no method by which to understand the impact and effect of the material on play (which is a if not the function of the mechanics). Such products thus also require a great deal of work by the buyer in order to incorporate it into play, as the buyer has to stat out everything and decide on levels of effectiveness for each piece to be used, etc. But a consumer is not usually looking to do such work, which is why they are purchasing the material in the first place. Those who are willing to do such work...just write it themselves.

I agree, generally, with the Rev here. Actually, people come up with this idea all the time, and what's really interesting is that they never even seem to make it to market with the idea. I actually can't think of a single product that's out there right now that fits the description. Again, that's not because it's a new idea - it's about a 25 year old idea. It's just that by the time people think it over, it doesn't seem like such a good idea.

Now, OTOH, if what you're talking about is to give a situation that's meant to be played sans mechanics, that's a different story. I think we're assuming as the Rev did that the idea is that a D&D GM will pick the material up and use it with D&D. But I think what you might be saying is that the idea is to play it sans mechanics (I read that up there somewhere, didn't I?).

If that's the case, well, it's already been done, and in spades. They're called freeform LARPs and LARP supplements. That is, most people simply take the "next step" with this idea and figure that if you're going to get together for mechanicless play, you might as well dress up the part, and act out your roles. There are even some LARPS that are more "tabletoppy" if you will.

That all said. Few of these products are not free. The one very odd exception are the "Host Your Own Murder" style games. Which are definitively one shot, written badly, and relatively expensive. I believe they get away with this by selling them to the non-gamer public for the most part.

So I think you definitely can sell such a product in theory. But in practice I think there will be few gamers who'll bite for cash. Because, as Raven points out, situation is cheap. You talk about making the product such that the GM will have the ability to have his own creative input. Well, yeah he's going to want to have that, and the best way is for him to come up with the situational material on his own.

In other words, what people are willing to pay for are systems that do better than what they can design themselves. The fun of creating in an RPG is at such a high level that even crap setting and situation works just fine. You simply don't need to have amazing write-ups, they never make it into play anyhow. It's a matter of there not being enough time in the world to transmit all of this detail in a session.

Sure you can have players read the material first and then play. But then why not use something that evreryone is really familiar with? In practice Interactive Fanfic and the like are alive and well all over the internet using backgrounds like Star Wars, Middle Earth, and all manner of stuff that you simply can't compete with. If you're actually as good as these writers, I suggest you write a book, and then have millions use it as source material like they use these other settings.

But, hey, maybe I'm just not seeing what it is that you're offering that any of these other forms are not. Here's the challenge to you. Write one up. Make a really short one, and then post it somewhere for all of us to see. Then we'll be able to have a better idea if it's viable or not. Until then I think it's all very speculative. I'm not optimistic, but prove me wrong.

You're quite right to make products that you like first and foremost. Just make sure that the sort of product you're creating doesn't already exist.

Mike

I second the "write one up" suggestion.  Pells, something that gets done around here a lot is the writing of (what I call) microgames -- little things that are complete in ten or twenty pages.  The Ronnies contest churns these things out.  Think of it like the game analouge of the concept car -- it's your proof of concept.  It lets you get a holistic view of the project without investing (too much) time in it.  You'd be amazed at how much you can learn about your proposal by doing it in miniature.

Here are two examples:
Otherkind (http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/other.html) and Conquer the Horizon (http://kallistipress.com/CtH/Conquer%20the%20Horizon.pdf).  Otherkind is a nice couple of webpages and will be a little more accessible than CtH, which requires you to print and assemble the booklet.  There are also a ton of them at the Thousand Monkeys website, whose url constantly defies my ability to remember it.

Well, well... might be a long post... again !

QuoteBut, hey, maybe I'm just not seeing what it is that you're offering that any of these other forms are not. Here's the challenge to you. Write one up.

I'm not going to write one up, but I'm going to give an example. And then answer some questions. Just a reminder, my project is about a lot of things, one of them the absence of rules. I didn't plan on explaining how I'm writing. But why not... So here it goes !! I suppose I'm adressing to DMs.
First of all, one of the particularities is that no one, I said no one, is waiting for your players.

QuoteSome of those worlds are wide open simulationist bonanzas, as it were--places rich with possibilities for exploration and discovery, where nothing happens unless the players make it happen

I do the exact opposite. If you read a novel, let's say Harry Potter (I hate it, but seems a general exemple), there's no adventures for players. If you want to use this material in RPG you'll use it in three possible ways : players would play the role of Harry and his friends, some others students or ennemies of our heroes. What I mean is that I'm writing a "novel", a game, to which you add the adventure you're running.

QuoteContingent Scenarios:  To my mind, this is the most important and difficult part of design in the story world, but it is the part that you neglect entirely, as if it could not happen. What do you do if the player plays against the plot? In Prisoner of Zenda, what if the player realizes that he could easily eliminate the king and take over the country?

I did not neglect it. I neglect to take about it. Quite different. I don't work that way. It doesn't even make sense in what I'm writing because I don't write my novel as a linear scheme. Let's take

I can't believe it! Hit the wrong keyboard key... can't edit my post... so I'll continue.
Lets take an exemple. Usually RPG scenarios present one story. What I propose is a lot more. So :

• The paysans wish to reverse the king. Assassinate him or go into civil war. (story A) Meanwhile...
• A powerful mage seeks a powerful magic object to become an undead necromancer and take over the king. (story B). Meanwhile...
• Forces of nature are rebelling against humanoids, both orcs and humans. (story C). Meanwhile...
• The daugther of the king has been kidnapped. (story D). Meanwhile...
• Orcs assemble themselves to go against humain kingdom. (story E).

But I wouldn't propose details for each story. I would give a calendar describing the five stories going at the same time.
Here's two important concepts for my project, and how I applied them. I know that I simplified them.

Existenstialism (from Sartre or Heiddeger) : what defines you is what you're doing.
As no one is waiting for your players, they will have to ask themselves, what are they doing ? They are no path predefined for them. They can try to assassinate the king or protect him. They can be tricked into finding a powerful object for a mage or oppose him. They can seek the daugther's king or even kidnap her. They can drink all their gold in an inn, if they want or even play orcs... The story is not about 'a guy who needs adventurers' and if your players say no... well, it would be "see you next week". One way or the other, whathever story your players choose, they'll have to take sides. They will change things. Or maybe not, but the, it would be their choices.

Hermeneutic : there is no truth, only point of views. There is no such things as a god's eye view.
For a given event, let's say the attempt assassination of the king, I would described many points of view : the guards who sucessed in protecting the king, the assassin who fails... When your players plays the game, what they do, is adding their own perspective of the many stories. That would be story F.

Major impacts of these concepts when applied to writing for RPG :
Role of the DM : what you have to offer is a menu of events. Your players will have the choices. Let's say, in the first week, they encounter someone who is offering to seek a powerful obejct. Your players accepted it, but they will get details instructions in a week... meanwhile, they encounter a battle between guards and paysans. What side will they take ? Will they try to assassinate the king or become his guards ? It is your players who directs the game, not the DM.
Alternative plays : let's say your players try and suceed in assassinating the king. That ends story B. As a DM, you still have A, C, D and E to offer.
Improvisation : so, for a given event you play, you won't have details... meaning you'll have to improvise as your players do. It means you'll be playing with them.
Freedom  of play : you can decide to offer only A if you want. Or play B as a narrative game. I hope each story is in a different style...
Multiples plays : if you play this game more than one, you'll play different adventures each time. 80 % A, 10 % B and 10 % C the first time. 50 % D, 50 % E the next. It means, I think, a challenge (and fun) for the DM each time you play it.

I hope I gave enough informations, knowing I didn't not present all the project yet. But feel free to ask more.

Now, some answers...

Quote
The reason I don't really need much help with these (apart from the fact that I'm pretty good at designing them) is that nearly ever bit of fiction already out there is already fodder for my games. I can use (and have used) The Last Starfighter, Cask of Amontilado, The Dancing Princess, The Most Dangerous Game, Prisoner of Zenda, The Postman--any story that's ever been told can be used as the setup for play.

I'd say my own inspiration comes from mangas (hikaru no go, 20th century boy), asiatic movies (seven samurais, ran, human condition), philosophy (Camus), classics books and newspapers (le Monde)... what I don't read is medieval fantstic... anyway, I can't read nor see all... but everything I see or read feeds me for my writings...

QuoteThose who are willing to do such work...just write it themselves.

Honestly, as I see it, I don't know of any DMs who are willing to write a story for which they will only use 20 % of what they're writing. So, writing all this "fulff" may seems a big work compares to writing the crunch you need.

QuoteThe one very odd exception are the "Host Your Own Murder" style games. Which are definitively one shot, written badly, and relatively expensive. I believe they get away with this by selling them to the non-gamer public for the most part.

I agree completly about this kind of product. And, for the record, there is "narration" (i.e. story) without mechanics... and it's still a game. I think.

QuoteIf you're actually as good as these writers, I suggest you write a book, and then have millions use it as source material like they use these other settings

Unfortunately, I would prefer to write for RPGs.

Finally, about rules. I think we can come to separate entirely the mechanics from the story. So, I could see marketing a "novel" for RPG and others selling mechanics for it. So, it the ends, it would have both... except the writer of the book wouldn't care about any given rules.

I just blundered across this thing called "Sanctum" on RPG.net, (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/sanctum03may05.html) which is an experiment in systemless background, situation, and character. Does this resemble what you were thinking of? How's it different?

Sébastien,

I suggest downloading a copy of John Kirk's RPG Design Patterns (mentioned in a couple other threads, such as this one (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16990.0).) you can find his draft version on his website (http://legendaryquest.com/).

look up the "Loose Coupling" design pattern. it's a technique used in third-party expansion suppliments for d20, but was also used in some early "systemless" suppliments. what you want, it seems, is for a game suppliment that uses generic terms for common RPG mechanics, like "Strength test" or "skill check", without referring to the specifics of any game system. in addition, you would like the adventures included in the supplimnt to have minimal rules to determine when certain events in a story line are triggered, or what the exit conditions for a story's completion are. I think this is all a form of Loose Coupling.

it's possible some people may be interested in creating such suppliments, but we have to be realistic here: it's mostly a matter of content creation, not game design, and most game designers are going to have their own ideas for game systems that they want to pursue. you're not going to have much luck getting people here to agree that System Doesn't Matter, but you can get help here designing a simple set of narrative control rules for use in a series of Loose Coupled generic game suppliments, and perhaps may even convince a designer or two to create the basic system for you. you could then ask content creators if they'd like to create specific content using that system.

there's a certain appeal to the approach. but I'm just saying: you're not going to get people to give up making their own focused RPGs.

I checked sanctum. In the idea of systemless content, I'd say we're aiming at the same goal. Other than that, I can't say.

Quotewhat you want, it seems, is for a game suppliment that uses generic terms for common RPG mechanics, like "Strength test" or "skill check", without referring to the specifics of any game system

I don't think I use "Loose Coupling". When I describe an action taken by a character, I don't refer to any particular ability, even less in term of "check" or "test". Take Harry Potter, would be strange to see, in the last confrontation something like "Harry succeeded his magic test and inflict a lot of damage to his opponent ! But the latest, having the trait quick and shadow disapears suddlenly.".

Quoteit's mostly a matter of content creation, not game design,

Maybe you're right. In any case, the term content seems correct to me. But, is content not one of the main element in RPG creation ?

Quoteperhaps may even convince a designer or two to create the basic system for you.

I'd say, I'm not looking for that.

Quoteyou're not going to get people to give up making their own focused RPGs

I hope so !!! Anyway, my main target is not RPG creators.

Quote from: pells on October 15, 2005, 03:58:46 AMI don't think I use "Loose Coupling". When I describe an action taken by a character, I don't refer to any particular ability, even less in term of "check" or "test". Take Harry Potter, would be strange to see, in the last confrontation something like "Harry succeeded his magic test and inflict a lot of damage to his opponent ! But the latest, having the trait quick and shadow disapears suddlenly.".

If I'm reading you right, you don't plan to include the player-characters in your product at all, correct?  I don't even see a provision for leaving a player-character-shaped hole.

Quote from: pells on October 15, 2005, 03:58:46 AMBut, is content not one of the main element in RPG creation ?

Rather emphatically no.  In fact on this board, you'll probably see more of the opposite school, where content is deprioritized in favor of systems that emulate or reinforce a specific style of play.  It's a commonly held assumption that the gamer market is filled with people who create fantasy worlds in their heads, but do not have the tools and techniques for designing a mechanical framework under which that kind of play will be supported.  Perhaps this assumption is incorrect or at least slightly off target, but you're going to have to prove it wrong before we can really start talking about it.

QuoteIf I'm reading you right, you don't plan to include the player-characters in your product at all, correct?  I don't even see a provision for leaving a player-character-shaped hole.

Yes and no. I don't include player-characters, that's true, but I do have provision and plenty of !!! As my many stories unfold on each others, many different threads are being lead by important NPCs who would (and will) hired adventurers (yours or not). So, players-characters would just take their places, fill their holes. If what you're thinking about is someone who is waiting for your PCs, well, I don't provide that. But I think, in a way, it makes sense. Has to do with another comment you made.

QuoteIt's a commonly held assumption that the gamer market is filled with people who create fantasy worlds in their heads,

I supposed you're right, but why is it so ? For some gamers, certaintly for the pure pleasure of creating, but maybe, for others, because there's no such product on the market. But anyway, as most gamers create their worlds, I believe firmly that they do get inspired by other creations (I think that is true for regular authors as well...). Let's say a gamer reads a good book and uses it for his game, I don't see any player-character-shaped hole in the original creation, but the gamer seems able to adapt it to his game. And books, or movies, are not written or edited for gamers to use in their world !!

I'll come back on the above. One of important thing I'd like to create with my project and find missing in typical scenarios is the sensation that the world is alive. Using player-character-shaped hole somehow annoyes me (that said, maybe I misunderstood what you meant). Too often, I see linear stories. Someone is waiting for your players with an important mission. Your players may decline it and come back a couple weeks later, the man will still be there, having the same mission to offer. The world doesn't live outside of your player's eyes. That's what I try to elude. But how ?
Instead of using a linear scheme, what I propose is a calendar of events (very important notion for me. It would be something similar to a newspaper). I would detail what's happening in the world (a part of it, to be exact), weeks after weeks (but could be days or hours, same idea). When a GM would play it, he would need to keep a record of his players activities day after day. As time goes by, stories unfold. It would ressemble a web instead of a line. And, as characters may only be in one place at one given time, it would be quite easy for the DM to know exactly what is happening, what part of the web concerns his game.

QuotePerhaps this assumption is incorrect or at least slightly off target, but you're going to have to prove it wrong before we can really start talking about it.

Well... I'll try to!! From my experience, I believe gamers who write their own adventures, write one session after another. I don't think they plan twenty hours of game ahead. And I don't think they write five stories for their players to choose from, knowing, at the end, they'll only used about 20% of what they've written. I do realise that if I want to sell a content based product, it must something no one is crazy enough to write for himself. I've been working on it for two years, got for more than four hundred pages, so I believe I'll give it a try !!
That said, I should present an excerpt of my work, something like twenty pages should do it... but I need time to translate it, as I write in french (much, much easier for me !!). (note : for the record, I'm getting married this week-end, so time is not so easy to find...)

Finally, what I wish to do in this thread is exchange about how content is written for the RPG. And I don't say the system doesn't matter, it does. And obviously this board is from the opposite school of mine, but still, don't you need to write content ?

Ok, having seen your replies to various folks and comparisons with other system-type things, I have  to say this: you are writing fiction. You are not writing narrative fiction, but you are writing fiction. Call it "content" or call it "fluff" or call it whatever, that's what you are doing.

You're hoping to create some sort of (open-ended) situational scenarios, some descriptive overviews evocatively full of potential for resolution in a myriad of ways, that are interesting enough to be picked up and converted into the buyer's system of choice. You aren't creating adventures, per se, but something more along the lines of mini-setting bibles.

Ok, sure. Lots of people have tried to or want to do this. There are numerous examples on the web of such things (I have a whole bunch of them bookmarked, in fact).

But the problem is you're still pulling a Herbie...you're not saying, "Oh, Herbie can run ANYTHING and make it good" but you are coming at the same problematic viewpoint from a different angle, "Oh, as long as the story is good, any set of mechanics will serve you. Here, convert it."

That's still Herbie. That's still "System isn't important."

Example: let's say you write this bit about love and betrayal at the king's court, detailing all the major players and where they're standing in relation to one another, what they each want, what they're each doing, etc. And then turn the players loose on this situation to do whatever they will...

Well, depending on which system they use to play this scenario out, things might turn out very well, or very badly -- enjoyment-wise. Try and throw D&D characters into this mess. D&D is not a system that supports, rewards or encourages romance, subterfuge, or emotional engagement. It rewards killing stuff and taking its treasure. That's what it is designed to do.

Now, it seems to me you've gone this route for the same reason many freeformers do: because the mechanics got in the way for you a number of times in play. Thus you decided the problem must be with mechanics, that mechanics were too problematic and unsupportive of really playing and doing what you want.

Well, yes, the first bit is right, they were getting in the way...but not in the way you think. They were not problematic because there were mechanics, but because the wrong mechanics were being used to achieve the desired effect. By way of analogy: you've rejected all tools because you tried to hammer in nails with a screwdriver and things (of course) didn't turn out so well.

But the problem is that you've decided the reason for this difficulty was that you were using tools, and thus concluded that tools are inhibitive of achieving your goal(s), and that avoiding tools will allow you to avoid the problem and get right down to building the project you're after.

That's what I'm reading.

Now, if you want to be a content creator, and leave the mechanical/system-level stuff to others...well, great. Go right ahead; but at least do it for the right reasons, from the right perspective, or you've failed before you've even begun.

What Raven said, Pells. Actually I won't outright agree with his assessment that you're writing fiction, per se, but you're not writing material that can be used "as is" for a RPG. Even freeform players will have to find a way to manipulate the information to get it to be playable.

You keep thinking that you have your "school" and we have ours. What's really going on is that you've only played a very few RPGs, with very few people, and haven't studied the phenomenon at all. Rather, our school knows everything your school does, and a whole lot more. I wrote this rant for would be designers in your position: Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby! (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5564.0)

Note that I didn't start off with this assumption, but got to know you first. But you make too many assumptions that are just not true to really know the RPG field. For instance:

QuoteFor some gamers, certaintly for the pure pleasure of creating, but maybe, for others, because there's no such product on the market.

No "campaign" material available? What's not available is campaign materials that don't have stats. Stuff with stats is so ubiquitous that it's it's ridiculous. A player playing D&D could play every day for the rest of his life and not get through all of the pre-prepared adventure materials. Heck, just playing through the "World's Largest Dungeon" probably takes years of play for most groups (http://store.alderac.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?screen=PROD&Product_Code=8523&Category_Code=d20). And that's one product with 840 pages of stuff. Your additional 400 pages are going to be a needle in a haystack of setting material.

Ah, but your stuff is different, because it doesn't have stats, right? Allowing it to concentrate on what you personally feel is really important. Well, if I'm a D&D player, which is a better product, 400 pages that I have to add stats to in order to play, or 840 pages with stats? So, basically you're saying that your product only will appeal to the freeformers. Well, know what? Freeformers don't pay for anything. That's one of the advantages of their version of the hobby. Why buy your thing with no stats, when they can play in using Tolkien's work as their setting material? He's got way more than 400 pages of statless setting material, all set on a calendar. And, well, sorry, but I'm guessing you're not as good as JRR Tolkien at writing up setting. Or any of the hundreds of other published fantasy authors.

QuoteOne of important thing I'd like to create with my project and find missing in typical scenarios is the sensation that the world is alive.

Apparently you're making the mistake of thinking that we're only comparing your ideas to D&D and such. If, in fact, no "alive" stuff had ever been made in RPG texts, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you that this was something needed. But, heck, even in D&D there are whole campaign supplements that match your definition of alive. Planescape for one. But that's just dredging the barrel. I use Rolemaster's stock fantasy setting Shadow World quite a bit. Not because I think it's really great, but for a few personal reasons. That has a constantly evolving calendar of metaplot events, and is presented precisely as you define your work (though with stats). These products have been around since the mid 80s.

And I'm still not getting to the good stuff. How about the Delta Green supplement for Call of Cthulhu. Award winning, and meriting those awards to boot, this is an awesome example of the sort of thing you're talking about. And has actually quite scant stats. To beat this product, you have to beat their awesome web site, about it, too: http://www.delta-green.com/ 

So good it's got a computer game being made about it: http://www.flyinglab.com/deltagreen/

So many of these things exist that people acually give away such content in massive quantities. Here's a whole world: http://www.agyris.net/

The first ever created world for D&D was in 1974, called Tekumel: http://www.tekumel.com/
Yeah it includes stats for D&D, but it also includes some of the most detailed setting information you can come by. How about worlds that have their own systems made just to play in them? Like Jorune (http://www.jorune.org/), or Talislanta (http://www.talislanta.com/), both of which have entire worlds of all new beings with a ton of detail.

Need I mention the grandaddy of setting sprawl, Glorantha? http://www.glorantha.com
There is so much material available about Glorantha, that you'd have to have the equivalent of a PhD to understand all of it. I do not exaggerate even a little. If you want, I can give you links to more Glorantha stuff than you can even read in the next year. More than enough to play until we're all dead. One setting. Detailed to an extent that's hard to fathom. Here's just one fan site: http://www.etyries.com/

Free. I could play till I drop on the free setting information that exists on Glorantha alone. Setting information, note, that has no stats. Just setting detail. People, places, history, organizations, etc, etc, etc.

The only difference between these products and yours is that the people in these cases have, where neccessary, added the statistics neccessary to play the game in one system. What's interesting is that there are several published systems to play Glorantha, and some people play freeform (note the freeform LARP on the etyries site).

So there's absolutely no lack of the sort of material that you're proposing, yours just has the dubious distinction of not being ready to play with anything but a freeform game. Which is true of all setting information. Basically the only way to get a product like this to sell is to make it applicable to some system. Or at least that's what history teaches us.

Quotebut still, don't you need to write content ?

Depends on what you mean by content, but generally, no, you don't need to write "content". Check out several of the systems that are on the list. Sorcerer does not have a setting that comes with it. Inspectres has a half a page of setting that amounts to "it's Ghostbusters in the dot.com era." Dogs in the Vinyard is a very popular game about here of late that really only implies a setting more than setting one up.

I wrote a game called Universalis that requires as part of play that the setting be created (no GM, so the players have to do it for themselves). Prime Time Adventures is a game about making up TV shows - you get to choose what the show is about! For games like Nicotine Girls the setting is "today, somewhere where you can find girls from low income families." My Life With Master is set "somewhere in eastern europe" and you (the players) get to define the master's desmense and the town before play.

Sorry if this post is comming off as talking down to you, but I think you really need to get some perspective on what RPGs are about in totality before you go off making decisions on what to create. Er, what Raven said.

Mike

Mike, while not wishing to contradict the overall thrust of your posts in this thread, I would like to point out that Harn is a commercial setting which is explicitly marketed as "usable with any rule system". With some allowance for hyperbole, this is true--although there is a rule system called Harnmaster, it was published three years (?) after the game world had been introduced on the market, and AFAIK most or all of the modules do not contain explicit references to the system. Actual practice at least based on this Harnforum thread (http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3252) supports the idea that the "Harn culture" is fairly diverse in terms of the systems they use.

But--I think one can tell from the entire business model that it's aimed at a niche. These are expensive products, with an extremely high level of detail reflecting a great deal of research and craft. Also, quite possibly, it's a reflection of an earlier time when communication and technology made the production and communication of this sort of work much harder.

Hmmm. All the Harn stuff I have has stats for Harnmaster all over it.

But, OK. There's your example. Which only proves my point, however. This has even been done verbatim.

I'm not saying that one can't make money with this concept, either. I'm saying that there's no niche that needs filling. It's already full. Packed to the brim. If you want to dive into this market, not having stats is not a feature. It's a flaw that'll have to be overcome.

Heck, if Pells is the next MAR Barker, perhaps he's got something. But even Tekumel doesn't sell all that well. It's still an unfortunate truism that the best way to get your setting material to sell is to make it D20 compliant.

Mike

QuoteSorry if this post is comming off as talking down to you, but I think you really need to get some perspective on what RPGs are about in totality before you go off making decisions on what to create.

A little preliminary note.
I think we misunderstand, in part, each others. And I think it's mostly my fault. The main problem is that, as of today, I have nothing to show you. I do have a "book", but written in french. I don't have a website, yet. It would be much easier just to say 'Ok, click on that link and you'll see exactly what I have to offer, what I'm creating'. But, yep, it's not the case... So I could say "trust me, I'm such a good writer !!", but this is not really an argument. And I don't especially like to preach in the desert...
Maybe my participation on this board was too soon, but, really, I didn't plan on presenting that much my project. That wasn't my main purpose. That said, I'll add some more comments, trying to present and clarify some ideas.

Mechanics :

QuoteOk, having seen your replies to various folks and comparisons with other system-type things, I have  to say this: you are writing fiction. You are not writing narrative fiction, but you are writing fiction. Call it "content" or call it "fluff" or call it whatever, that's what you are doing.

I'm still not convinced. From what I'm reading, the mere fact I don't have a system to put behind my story means I don't write for RPG, that I don't design a game ? Ok, then. I'll extract one story (let's say about 10 % of what I'm writing), put it 'open game licence' and I'll add d20 system behind. Is that all I have to do to put on my product a 'made for RPG seal' ? Then, I'll do it, as it will take me a fraction of the time I've spent on writing and creating.

The important point I wanted to elaborate about "system-less" is that I'm not writing for a specific, a given, system of play. My main trade is selling stories (novel, scenarios, fluff, anything you call it). Anything else, for me, is add-on. If my story is very bad (which might be the case after all), then, I can have the best mechanic, the biggest dungeon, awesome map, cool web design, a lot of drawings, I don't think I can reach my market. Hear me well on this : first I want to write, create a story (and not only a background). This is my main trade. This is the fundation of my project. Maybe, surely, I'll add a system (maybe more than one), some mechanic to represent my description, but this will not be the reason people will be playing my campaign.

QuoteWell, yes, the first bit is right, they were getting in the way...but not in the way you think. They were not problematic because there were mechanics, but because the wrong mechanics were being used to achieve the desired effect. By way of analogy: you've rejected all tools because you tried to hammer in nails with a screwdriver and things (of course) didn't turn out so well.

I do see mechanics as tools, that's true. So let me re-use your example of screwdriver and hammer. The question is not what tool to use. It's not even 'is it for a nail or a screw ?'. The question, for me, is 'what to I want to design ?'. When it's done, then, I'll ask 'how do I want to build it, using a screw or a nail ?', and then, only then, I'll go and take the tools, hopefully choosing the right ones.

QuoteWell, depending on which system they use to play this scenario out, things might turn out very well, or very badly -- enjoyment-wise. Try and throw D&D characters into this mess. D&D is not a system that supports, rewards or encourages romance, subterfuge, or emotional engagement. It rewards killing stuff and taking its treasure. That's what it is designed to do.

I get your point, but I don't see it that way. I think what encourages and promotes a style of play is not the mechanic you're using, but instead gamers preferences. If I use d&d, does it mean I can't play 'intrigue at court' style game ? I don't get it.
I think players (not all of them, I know, but still, some) decide the system they use based on the question 'when do I need to refer to dices, mechanics ?' For myself (but, hey, that's me!!) I don't need to roll dices to encourage and promotes intrigues, or romance for that matter. When I'm playing this kind of part in my games, I don't really feel the need to roll dices. But when my players encouter a monster (and it doesn't occur very often), I'm glad I can refer to some mechanics and roll dices to arbitrate. That said, I know it can be the opposite for your game. And it's a good thing!

As long as games are played, people back each week and having fun together, around a table, using the mechanics they want, well, I'd say the world of RPGs will go for the best.

QuoteYou keep thinking that you have your "school" and we have ours. What's really going on is that you've only played a very few RPGs, with very few people, and haven't studied the phenomenon at all. Rather, our school knows everything your school does, and a whole lot more.

I don't think the question is about 'your' school versus 'mine'. Mechanics and story, I believe, are both needed when you play. So I think the question should be about exchanging on this matter. How designing story is made when mechanics is thougth first, and vice versa.

Market :
Thanks for the many links and the articles. I checked them and I have few comments to make.
First, about your presentation of different games. Well, finally, I played/DMed/read most of them. Your interesting analysis was mostly, if not exclusively, about mechanic, his different form and evolution... not much to say about how a story is written for RPG, his different form and evolution. And, as you know, that's the part that interests me.

QuoteHeck, just playing through the "World's Largest Dungeon" probably takes years of play for most groups

Seriously, gamers who are seeking a story won't even bother about 'the biggest dungeon ever made', and vice versa... If you are willing to buy the largest dungeon ever, you won't even dare to look at my product !!!

That said, I hear you. But what I see, and had already observed, is that there's alot of settings available. Very interesting ones, rich, detailed... but not so many stories.
Still, I'm glad to see that some settings were multi systems...

Finally, I don't think I have a so naive approach about RPG world and his market. And maybe, my product is just aimed at a niche, but maybe, that's all need...

My product :

QuoteThe only difference between these products and yours is that the people in these cases have, where neccessary, added the statistics neccessary to play the game in one system. What's interesting is that there are several published systems to play Glorantha, and some people play freeform (note the freeform LARP on the etyries site).

The precedence (I'll use that instead of absence, if you allow me) of 'story' over mechanics is not the only particularity of my project. I mentionned some earlier and will enumerate them below :

• the construction of setting and story altogether. I would not offer one without the other.
• a non linear structure for writing
• the 'skeleton' aspect of the scenario, allowing the DM to adapt it to his needs, adding details that reflect his style of play
• the use of a calendar, instead of chapters, to describe the story
• the presentation of many stories going at the same time
• the absence of predefined story for the players, giving them a lot of freedom and allowing the DM to really play with his players, in the sense of improvisation.
• the desire to create a campaign, offering many, many hours of gameplay. To create that in a viable way, I need the above...
• a new way to sell RPG... but, hey, I won't be talking about that here... a thread in publishing later.

One last thing (and I know, it's a long post !!).

QuoteAlso, quite possibly, it's a reflection of an earlier time when communication and technology made the production and communication of this sort of work much harder.

QuoteEven freeform players will have to find a way to manipulate the information to get it to be playable.

That is why I'm writing for RPG, that's what you don't find in a novel. And I'd say I can't think of my project without the use of high technologies.

Quote from: pells on October 19, 2005, 06:06:03 PMI'm still not convinced. From what I'm reading, the mere fact I don't have a system to put behind my story means I don't write for RPG, that I don't design a game?

It may be written for use with an RPG...that does not make it an RPG, however. This is an important distinction a number of people have attempted to clarify for you.

QuoteMy main trade is selling stories

Above you claim "It's an RPG!" and then you claim, "I write stories!" You need to make up your mind and stop responding merely to argue the point. I understand what it is you are doing, exactly and specifically, in all respects. Please stop thinking I do not. You have made it clear.

Another problem is that you are using the word "story" as though it means something. The word "story" is meaningless because it can mean so many different things to different people. Please specify what you mean by this word.

QuoteWhen it's done, then, I'll ask 'how do I want to build it, using a screw or a nail ?', and then, only then, I'll go and take the tools, hopefully choosing the right ones.

Excepting that this is not a new or novel approach. This is, in fact, the approach suggested by the Forge in developing a game -- you start with what you want your game to do, what sort of story/play experience you want, and then develop a system that supports that goal -- so you're preaching to the choir, here.

I suggest, perhaps, lurking a little longer and reading more of the materials presented in the Articles section of the site before continuing to participate or your ability to get anything out of the Forge will be hampered, coming as it is from a point where: you are arguing against what "designers" do and presuming that "designers at the Forge" do this as well -- particularly regarding developing mechanics before "story".

QuoteIf I use d&d, does it mean I can't play 'intrigue at court' style game ? I don't get it.

It doesn't mean you can't play that style of game, it means that D&D does not support that style of play.

It means that another system would have been better suited to playing out intrigue, because the mechanics support the play, the theme, the events and goals of intrigues better than D&D does. It means that you would have a better experience of play utilizing a set of mechanics that supported your play goals.

This is a very important point to understand if you want to design RPG material of any sort.

You say that you want people to use your material because it will be a good story. This is where you are failing to hear me: the quality of the story will vary depending on the mechanics used to implement that story. Thus, it does not matter how good your material is, because you will have no control over the tools chosen to bring it to life.

It is like writing a script for a Hollywood movie; you can write the most amazing script in the world, but an incompetent director or awful actors can sink it like a lead brick despite its brilliance. Now, you have no control over the group, that is true, but assuming a competent group of players, the tools (the mechanics) can very much make or break the experience.

QuoteThat said, I hear you. But what I see, and had already observed, is that there's alot of settings available. Very interesting ones, rich, detailed... but not so many stories.

What? How much WhiteWolf have you read/played? In fact, I am stunned you can make that statement, because it indicates a complete lack of familiarity with the hobby. There are many multiple-dozens of games that have plenty of stories. As simply one example, please look up the term "metaplot".

QuoteThe precedence (I'll use that instead of absence, if you allow me) of 'story' over mechanics is not the only particularity of my project. I mentionned some earlier and will enumerate them below :

Pells, nothing you have listed is in any way remotely or vaguely new. Everything on your list is old hat in the gaming industry. Unfortunately, this does showcase your lack of experience regarding diverse and long-term experience with the hobby, what it has to offer, and what it has already offered. That is not meant to be an attack, it is a criticism that will hopefully make you take a look at where you're at as a designer and where you should be at.

Note that some of your goals with the product seem schizophrenic. Take the "A calendar of story events!" and "Freedom to create the story!" claims about the nature of the material. Game companies have been trying that for years. It is one of the main reasons I ended up rejecting most of TSR's game worlds during the 90's: they, too, had on-going stories in the game world that happened regardless of the players; they had "calendars of events" (note the old grey Forgotten Realms boxed set) that one could use or not use in play.

But this sort of set-up creates problems because as new material is released for the same setting, the story is assumed to have happened in one particular way, making new material progressively less useful to any given group, unless they toe the line and make sure none of what they have one alters the world significantly from the given presentation.

There is no way to say, "This will happen at a predetermined time!" and "You create the story yourself! No predetermined story!" at the same time. These ideas are diametrically opposed to one another. Think about it: if your players affect even one calendar event early in the campaign, they eventually end up invalidating dozens, if not hundreds, of later events.

They slew the king? There goes all the stuff about the king in later events, and anything remotely related to court politics. The entire setting may change significantly. It snowballs...I've seen it, time and again, and it is one of the main reasons that over five years ago I began preaching against the evils of metaplots being assumed in setting materials.

That may all seem like a harsh dismissal of your idea, but its frank criticism of an idea I have seen played out time-and-again, and that the main hobby has begun to reject as the problems with such set-ups become apparent.

My main point is this: you aren't proposing anything new here, and you need to realize that. You MUST, in fact, if you wish to have anything resembling success. In order to be successful with your product, you'll need to look at the history of similar attempts, and the pitfalls associated with them from a distance, as an observer: not as a creator looking to defend and protect his idea, even if you think it is the best idea ever.

Pells, you should have started your own Thread dude. I was gone for awhile, and the next thing I know, you hijacked it. What's up with that?

Um, I am so sorry. I didn't realize what I did. Please ignore that last post of mine. I thought I was advancing pages in my own thread, but I was moving into the next thread. Please excuse my error.

SORRY...

I'll try to make it short this time...

QuoteIt may be written for use with an RPG...

I'll take that !! That seems enough for me at the moment...

QuoteIt means that another system would have been better suited to playing out intrigue, because the mechanics support the play, the theme, the events and goals of intrigues better than D&D does. It means that you would have a better experience of play utilizing a set of mechanics that supported your play goals.

But what happens if I don't need mechanics to play intrigue ? Are you saying I am missing something because I don't throw dices during these parts ? Would I be enjoying myself more for that ? I played two weeks ago, five hours game... anyway, not a single dice roll. Does that mean I didn't play a role playing game ? Is that some kind of flaws to not throw dices ?

QuoteIt is like writing a script for a Hollywood movie; you can write the most amazing script in the world, but an incompetent director or awful actors can sink it like a lead brick despite its brilliance

What about competent director and bad script ? Do you really need an example ?

QuotePells, nothing you have listed is in any way remotely or vaguely new. Everything on your list is old hat in the gaming industry

Did I pretended it to be ? I guess not. And I would agree with your last statement. But doesn't mean it can't be good. Take example of Kafka, Kundera, Musil, Cerventes : they didn't invent novels, but wrote good ones.

QuoteThere is no way to say, "This will happen at a predetermined time!" and "You create the story yourself! No predetermined story!" at the same time. These ideas are diametrically opposed to one another.

Do I have to quote myself here to explain it ?

QuoteThink about it: if your players affect even one calendar event early in the campaign, they eventually end up invalidating dozens, if not hundreds, of later events.

That is why using a web is useful. Given the appropriate tools (don't think about mechanics here), a DM could easily see what part of the web has been affected while players could play others parts. But then again, I don't think you would agree...

QuoteThat may all seem like a harsh dismissal of your idea, but its frank criticism of an idea I have seen played out time-and-again, and that the main hobby has begun to reject as the problems with such set-ups become apparent.

Truly I know you mean well. Anyway, must take you some time to write those long posts. I appreciate it, really, and I hear you, thanks for the advice...

That said, to greyorm (and anyother), I still have a question, the purpose of this thread after all. I do read a lot, but a lot, about mechanics on this board. But where do you get ideas for the content of your saturday (or friday, whatever...) game ? Obviously, you don't buy it...
I mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

I get it, he is talking about a multi-line or multi-plot game where you can have concurrent plots resolving at the same time.  But his big thing is you aren't "rolling'  you ARE the character so it isn't a choice of luck of the roll, it is who can outthink the plot basically.

And while the idea is intruiging, I and my friends tried to play test our own system like that and it very quickly can become unplayable because there is no 'crunch' It will wander off.

Quote from: pells on October 20, 2005, 05:43:13 PMI mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

Actually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.  Thing is, gamers don't need content providers.  We're a pretty creative bunch, especially when handed rules and procedures that facilitate creativity.  Look at PTA -- the game starts with the players sitting down and deciding together what they want to play.  This is a recurrent theme in tons of games, some of which restrict the options (MLwM, Dogs) and some which actually broaden it (Universalis).

Quote from: pells on October 20, 2005, 05:43:13 PMBut where do you get ideas for the content of your saturday (or friday, whatever...) game ? Obviously, you don't buy it...
I mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

What Josh said.

I mentioned that I run Multiverser constantly, and it chews through universes fast at times. I've often hit a moment where I have to put a player character in a new universe and haven't given it a thought. Guess what? The game gives me the tools to let the world create itself, entirely in response to the player's choices and desires, if I want to go that way. It also gives me the tools to take anything and make it the foundation for a world--and I mean literally anything. I've built worlds starting from the open fields of local farms, the industry of Northern Delaware, the playground equipment at McDonald's, board games, movies, TV shows, books, conversations people have had, theories about time travel, theories about theology, outdated scientific beliefs, projected futures, alien invasions, witch hunts, moments in history, fairy tales, children's stories. I don't even have to know anything about these things to build a playable world from them in a few minutes; I just need an idea, something that lets me say, "O.K., this is what this world is about, and we'll fill in the details as we go, and see where we wind up.

I certainly don't do all my worlds on the fly; sometimes I put a fair amount of time and effort into them. But the time and effort is usually about the game-related details--stats, maps, equipment, skills, stuff like that. The stuff you want to sell me can be generated at need on the fly. In fact, it's actually more useful to me to know that someone wants to assassinate the king than that the king will be assassinated on a particular date. I can use my tools to determine whether the assassin is successful and when, and if the players get involved in that line I shift to a different set of tools to see whether they become aware of the plot and what they do about it.

Give me a starting place, and I'm good. Yes, sometimes it's nice to know that certain things will happen by a particular time if the players don't do anything about them--but then, as far as I can see the game is supposed to be about the player characters. Anything you write that is outside that with which they can be involved is merely background, of little or no interest to play except how it impacts them later. That is, "the king will be assassinated on this date, after which martial law will be imposed" is not really part of the game--it's background color providing an excuse for the world situation to change at some point, becoming more restrictive. On the other side, anything you write in which they can be involved is automatically derailed, because unless you intend for a heavy dose of illusionist technique to preserve your story (essentially railroading) the players are going to surprise you and derail it. Either they can't save the king, or there's a good chance they will. If the former, their involvement in the story is irrelevant. If the latter, your materials have been compromised when they do.

I'm old; I'm busy. I don't have enough time not only to create a vast Glorantha or Tekumel-like setting, I don't have time to read it, let alone learn it, and I actually don't need it.  I can put everything you need to know to run one of the largest, most complex worlds I create into fifty pages, package it with eight other short but fully playable scenarios in the remaining hundred, and sell it for twenty-some dollars, and you can use all of those in my game at some point.  And you won't have to spend your time adapting it to my game, because the information is already there.

And Multiverser, published in '97, is actually not that innovative compared to the games these guys are producing now. It just happens to do this really well.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: pells on October 20, 2005, 05:43:13 PMI'll take that !! That seems enough for me at the moment...

That's cool, then. Mine is not an attempt to dissuade you from content creation, if that is what jazzes you, merely to make sure you are aware of and can thus hopefully better deal with the pitfalls of the project you have envisioned.

QuoteBut what happens if I don't need mechanics to play intrigue?

Then you don't use mechanics. But your query is besides the point, which was that the greatest content in the world can (and will) fall flat on its face if married to the wrong presentation (mechanics system). Most people have absolutely no idea that mechanics really are that important to the presentation and fulfillment of content.

Note that freeform -- systemless RPing -- is a bit of a seperate issue in this, because the system is the social contract.

QuoteDoes that mean I didn't play a role playing game ? Is that some kind of flaws to not throw dices ?

Well, technically, I could (rather easily) make the argument that while it is RPing, it is not RPGing, because it is missing the vital game component. Such play is much closer to LARP than anything else. But for the moment makign that distinction is about as useful as splitting hairs.

QuoteWhat about competent director and bad script ? Do you really need an example ?

Arg. I feel this response is a bit of a dodge of the issue I put on the table. Either you understood what I was saying or you didn't. I have no clue because all you did was throw an oppositional question up in response in what seems a sort of "Ah-HA! What about that, foo'!" way.

QuoteDid I pretended it to be ? I guess not.

Any number of your statements insinuate it. For example, you have been talking about what you have never seen in gaming before, and how your approach is different from all these, etc. So, yes, it was implied by you, though perhaps unintentionally.

QuoteDo I have to quote myself here to explain it ?

If I didn't understand it the first time, and I have misunderstood what your intention or solution is, yes. Please direct me to the appropriate information.

QuoteTruly I know you mean well. Anyway, must take you some time to write those long posts. I appreciate it, really, and I hear you, thanks for the advice...

That is good, because I was hoping I was not coming off like an insensitive hardass. I'm hoping this thread has been helpful for you and beneficial towards your approach to your product.

QuoteI mean, you still need to have content, don't you ? You don't just come to your friends and tell them 'tonight we'll play that system', let's throw dices !!!

Josh and MJ have already responded to this quite adequately, but I'll add my two cents as well. Some games are set up such that the content is generated by the group during play, others use various ideas from novels, magazines, and a variety of media as a base to generate whatever is needed in play. And some people, yes, use pre-packaged settings and storylines (either together or seperately) in their games. I don't generally say "Let's dice!" and then worry about content later, and instead borrow content from where I can get it. For example, I recently played in a game of Donjon where we borrowed all our content from the DarkSun campaign setting (from TSR).

Interestingly, most people do refer to games by system, not content, because system is inextricably tied to content. Take Sorcerer as an example: when you talk about the game, you are talking about mechanics, not content, because the content IS the mechanics. Or near enough that they are inseperable in that manner.

Humanity, demons, sorcery, bargains with the devil, thematic struggles against our darker sides, it's all right there in the mechanics. The mechanics inform and even create the content.

QuoteI get it, he is talking about a multi-line or multi-plot game where you can have concurrent plots resolving at the same time.  But his big thing is you aren't "rolling'  you ARE the character so it isn't a choice of luck of the roll, it is who can outthink the plot basically.

First part, I'd agree. I guess you can see it that way. Second part represents, more or less, the way I'm playing it. That said, I roll dices... sometimes. Mostly for battles, and as you can guess, I don't put many in my games. About the plot, I wouldn't use the term outthink, seems a little bit competitive. But, yes, I hope my players get most of their pleasure discovering the plot, trying to understand his many components. And interact with it.

QuoteActually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.  Thing is, gamers don't need content providers.  We're a pretty creative bunch, especially when handed rules and procedures that facilitate creativity.

It helps me understand why you say content and mechanics are so tight together. And yes, you are very creative people. So, to do what you're describing, I think (but maybe I'm wrong), you have to be a very good DM, with very good players. It's not 'everybody can do it'.

QuoteI certainly don't do all my worlds on the fly; sometimes I put a fair amount of time and effort into them. But the time and effort is usually about the game-related details--stats, maps, equipment, skills, stuff like that. The stuff you want to sell me can be generated at need on the fly

I agree with you that you don't need to create all the details about the plot, the content. And I think the fun part of DMing is creating on demand, around the table, with his players. But then, for myself, I still need written, script in advance. As of today, I won't be buying details like name of inns and their owner, mayor, the exact two little pieces of information a secondary chacracter has to offer. I won't even give anything for that secondary character. But I would pay for a narrative weave (in a philosophical sense). Anyway, I think the details are part of what railroads a script.

QuoteYes, sometimes it's nice to know that certain things will happen by a particular time if the players don't do anything about them--but then, as far as I can see the game is supposed to be about the player characters

And the end, I hope it comes to that. I've seen my players discussed for an hour, trying to decide which of the three stories I was proposing them. That, I think is about players characters : what they choose to do with their "lives", the choices they make, the differences they can make.

About railroading : as the DM needs to create a lot of details, to add many things, usually players will impact improvised content, not script one. Anyway, using a web of events instead of a railroad, linear story, might prevent "catastrophe". As for a calendar, I'm glad when my players leave a town and come back couple of weeks after, to just have to open my newspaper and see what's happening by reading the headlines... and not having to calculate everything and making mistakes. And thought not having to require some illusionist trick afterward...

Quote from: pells on October 21, 2005, 05:43:34 AM

QuoteActually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.  Thing is, gamers don't need content providers.  We're a pretty creative bunch, especially when handed rules and procedures that facilitate creativity.

It helps me understand why you say content and mechanics are so tight together. And yes, you are very creative people. So, to do what you're describing, I think (but maybe I'm wrong), you have to be a very good DM, with very good players. It's not 'everybody can do it'.

Pells, seriously, for the love of all that is holy, go download Capes Lite (http://www.museoffire.com/Games/Downloads/CapesLite.pdf) (for free) and read it.  Creating content for games is not rocket science.

Well, I'm back from vacations, downloaded Capes, read it, had some other thoughts and I'd like to conclude on some points this thread.

QuotePells, seriously, for the love of all that is holy, go download Capes Lite (for free) and read it.  Creating content for games is not rocket science.

I think it's not that difficult, but that inexperienced players would be less prone at doing it, that improvisation is not seen as a easy thing, especially in a "typical" game with DM/players. As for Cape, it seems to me, it is conceived for improvisation. Seems almost to me like a table game.

QuoteI'm old; I'm busy. I don't have enough time not only to create a vast Glorantha or Tekumel-like setting, I don't have time to read it, let alone learn it, and I actually don't need it.

I know what you mean. That's why I'm trying to write in a "novel" style, "novel" size. I don't have time and patience of reading thousands of pages of setting, but I do have time to read books. And I enjoy it.

QuoteOn the other side, anything you write in which they can be involved is automatically derailed

Last note about railroading. "The king is dead, been murdered, martial law is risen and civil war starts". Let's say your players prevent the death of the king. My main concern, as a DM, is the outcome of the event of the death of the king. Following the failed attempt, will the martial law be risen anyway by the king followed by civil war ? What is the main point in the outcome : the death of the king or the civil war ?
One other thing. I think we are not used at seeing people fail and retry, in books or movies. Let's say that at the end of the first book of the lord of the ring, Frodo is prevented from leaving the group, I'd guess he would try it later. So, after the failed attempt at the life of the king, I guess there would be others. Maybe the event of the death of the king has just been delayed.

QuoteSuch play is much closer to LARP than anything else.

I've written for LARP before and most of my reflexion about, let's called it a multi-plot story, comes from this experience. Because, in LARP, you can't railroad your story, or go into too many details. Also, you have to prepare adventures for everyone, the protagonists (the "good" and the "bad") but also the players (the "slashers" or "intrigue lover"). You have to prepare a challeging intrigue, but also put an object to find. You have to offer the players a vast menu to choose from. Some will surely want to join the evil mage as others will confront them. I'd say there is no predefined story for the players, but still many stories open to them. Finally, when writing for LARP, I tended to create general ideas about the story and the setting, focussing on the outcome and the motivation of the protagonists. I'd say that's what I'm trying to acheive.

I think I'll present later, in another thread, my theory about writing as a web of events, the general concept I have developed to fit my needs. Note that this theory applies to RPing, LARP, but also newspapers, normal novels, TV shows, movies. I'd like to call it a general theory of scenarisation.

Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 20, 2005, 06:40:39 PM
Actually, most of the games produced here work exactly like that.

Indeed.  Thats a major failing, IMO.

QuoteThing is, gamers don't need content providers.

Yes, we do.  I'm willing to pay people to produce content - rather than rules.  Rules are easy, content is hard.  Content also benefits from industrial production va;ues unlikely to be available to the end user.

Quote
Look at PTA -- the game starts with the players sitting down and deciding together what they want to play.  This is a recurrent theme in tons of games, some of which restrict the options (MLwM, Dogs) and some which actually broaden it (Universalis).

And these games are only interesting to some people.

Quote from: contracycle on November 07, 2005, 04:56:47 AMIndeed.  Thats a major failing, IMO...And these games are only interesting to some people.

Gareth makes a good point that not everyone like the same things, which is why there probably is at least a small market for your product out there, Pells. Finding them and selling to them once found is another matter, however, and something else to think about. Unfortunately, the above is otherwise: "Danger, Will Robinson! Unsubstantial commentary! Danger! Danger!"

QuoteRules are easy, content is hard.

This statement is coming from an individual who, in six years of participation at the Forge, has never once produced, discussed, or attempted to produce an RPG, so treat it as you would treat medical advice from your teenage neighbor who works at McDonald's and gets high every weekend.

Certainly, good content can be just as hard as good rules; the problem with content is that there is plenty of good content already available for anyone who cares to raid a library or the internet -- too much, in fact -- merging that with a rules-system that does that content justice is the trick, or designing it such that each system is able to play up its own strengths (thus resulting in different stories from the base content provided, dependent upon system), as was discussed earlier.

Y'know, I like the Forge because of the generally civil nature of conversation here compared to other sites.

QuoteThis statement is coming from an individual who, in six years of participation at the Forge, has never once produced, discussed, or attempted to produce an RPG, so treat it as you would treat medical advice from your teenage neighbor who works at McDonald's and gets high every weekend.

Of course, exceptions do occur.

I like the Forge because it has standards, of which Grey's post was a shining example.  But let's not tangent the thread, bob.

Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on November 07, 2005, 01:56:02 PM
I like the Forge because it has standards, of which Grey's post was a shining example.  But let's not tangent the thread, bob.

QuoteThe Forge is not only a place for role-playing game authors, though. It's here for anyone interested in discovering new games, having better role-playing experiences, or discussing role-playing game theory.

That's from the About the Forge page. And publicly slagging someone is crude at any time. It's especially crude on athread started by a newcomer to the Forge asking advice on developing a game idea.

QuoteThat's from the About the Forge page. And publicly slagging someone is crude at any time. It's especially crude on athread started by a newcomer to the Forge asking advice on developing a game idea.

I just hope I'm not the "village's fool', as in reality televison : putting out the village's fool and laughing at him!!

QuoteCertainly, good content can be just as hard as good rules; the problem with content is that there is plenty of good content already available for anyone who cares to raid a library or the internet -- too much, in fact

There's has been a lot of hyperlink in this thread... but the DM I am looks for "scenario" or "story" first in a website. And I didn't see a lot of it. I mean by that there is a lot of 'context', setting, not much scenarios, stories...

QuoteGareth makes a good point that not everyone like the same things, which is why there probably is at least a small market for your product out there, Pells

Indeed, that might be my bigest problem... Surely my market is out there... reaching it is another problem, maybe the purpose of a thread in 'publishing'. That said, this thread didn't discourage me... and made search alot into the forge. As I see it, narrative purpose isn't 'complete' yet... and I intend to contirbute to it. I once thought I needed to stay in my 'bubble', not to see my idea 'being stolen', but I think I was wrong... If more people would write the way I do, I would benefit from it.

QuoteYes, we do.  I'm willing to pay people to produce content - rather than rules

That's quite encouraging!!!

Quote from: greyorm on November 07, 2005, 01:03:14 PM
This statement is coming from an individual who, in six years of participation at the Forge, has never once produced, discussed, or attempted to produce an RPG, so treat it as you would treat medical advice from your teenage neighbor who works at McDonald's and gets high every weekend.

WTF?  Considering I've been using my own system for years, I owe you no explanation whatsoever.  When you have a game as developed and playtested as mine under your belt, then you get to wear those big boots, kid, and not before.

Quote from: pells on November 07, 2005, 06:27:49 PM
Indeed, that might be my bigest problem... Surely my market is out there... reaching it is another problem, maybe the purpose of a thread in 'publishing'. That said, this thread didn't discourage me... and made search alot into the forge. As I see it, narrative purpose isn't 'complete' yet... and I intend to contirbute to it. I once thought I needed to stay in my 'bubble', not to see my idea 'being stolen', but I think I was wrong... If more people would write the way I do, I would benefit from it.

Agreed.  You might be interested in this post of mine discussing "RPG as set text" over here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5334.0

I very much agree that the overwhelming bulk of RPG setting, "plot" and published situation are mostly, well, crap.  There is very little in the way of purposeful desaign of setting, and providing appropriate materials to the players with which to play in a given setting.  The emphasis is on the system, and the content is hand-waved onto the shoulders of the GM, usually.  As I often remark in this regard, I find it striking that we have so many games set in a sorta feudal europe, and yet so little information on the care and handling of horses, which play a big part in these settings.  The emphasis on the moral aspects of play, ethical dilemmas and similar triteness, has distracted attention from properly realising the setting, filling out the imaginary outlines with imaginary colour.

As a result there are very few actually interesting settings IMO.  Now that is to a degree merely an expression of taste, but that granted I would further argue that most RPG settings are virtual carbon compies of one another.  People say, oh there is a lot of content on the net, and that is true IF you are looking for yet another bastardised Forgotten Realms with the names of the orcs and elves changed to protect the guilty.  There is signal lack of creativity and innovation in terms of setting design IMO, and this extends into system design, in that proper representation of historical contexts will require, IMO, properly representational mechanics.

But the step of systemetising a society is a complex one and in the mean while construction of interesting and engaging setting would be an admirable stopgap.  Certainly, I would in fact be more willing to pay folding green for a well researched setting sans system than for a system sans setting; for one thing, the amount of work that goes into the former is likely to be much greater than that which goes into the latter.

I couldn't agree with you more contracycle. 

The lack of real innovation is definately apparent in the RPG world.  We've been using the same basic mold of "system" to create numerous off shoots from the same "basic set" established by Gygax decades ago.  This pattern has rarely been called into question and redefined by someone else.  The same techniques he prescribed are the same techniques people are employed by a good number of systems (I'm talking main stream).  Real advancement in setting has been completely disregarded as ways to reconstruct how system interfaces in the narrative priciples of roleplaying. 

The funny thing is though, and mind you I am knew so I haven't read all the posts, but it seems the Forge's direction (be it unspoken) is to institutionalize those common system threads into one cohesive texts.  This becomes the standard, the rule, or as this board calls it the Authority.  We give credibility to that authority by adhering these principles.  And the biggest stagnation for progress is institutionalization of ideas into techniques.  Therefore, the forge fails in its own end to break out of common molds of the way "things have always been done."  Instead, they try to work within the established frame of reference. 

This reference mold requires adherence to age old structures and traditions.  Though some may be outdated and redefined, the structure exits...especially in the work design patterns of successful RPG's.  By measuring success and claiming it in the title it suggest a successful RPG is one that follows these guidelines, therefore, misguiding innovators back to traditional molds.  It becomes a quick engine of regergitation of patterns. 

While play testing some of my system elements players asked me the other day, we have a system that works, so why don't we just use it.  That's a darn good question.  But here's why.  It's TOO typical.  You could find it anywhere really, it's just a hodge podge and doesn't push the boundries enough.  Because, as I see it, there are many things wrong with RPG's.  Instituationalizing the principles won't fix it.  Tearing down institutions and building new ones will fix it while creating their own new set of problems.  It's just a different way to go about things. 

For instance, Alignment.  Reading the thread on alignment people began to justify the need for its existence with huge extrapolations and bending of function to put alignment with types that were very dissimular to alignment itself.  In essence, they were trying to make it "fit" or "work" within the context of standard RPG.  It's a flawed concept, yet this board responded rather irrately to the writer's bias against it because they saw it as a useful technology even though a dozen other non traditional advancements have surpassed it's function. 

This leads to why you see hefty morality systems in RPG.  Every writer takes alignment, looks at it, and tries to redefine it.  However, morality is not so black and white to prescribe every human interaction between good and evil, personality archetypes etc.  Personality and moral choices are so complex they cannot be contained by these mechanics.  Yet RPG's continue to beat their head against this wall without abandoning the concept or finding a 100% new way to express it. 

This is just my feelings.  Take it or leave it. 

QuoteReal advancement in setting has been completely disregarded as ways to reconstruct how system interfaces in the narrative priciples of roleplaying.

I've always been interested in the narration issue, wathever the media was, books, TV series, movies. When I watch a movie, I'm mostly interested in the story, the develepoment of the plot (see, for example, the difference between japenese and american movie), but also by the way it is told. In most media, or say art, there has been great differences over time. Author succeeded in finding new ways to tell their stories.

Take for example pulp fiction, l'année dernière à Marienbard, west of the track or even usual suspect... The authors could have chose another way to tell the same story. Same thing for books, Kundera or even in heroic fantasy with a song of ice and fire. As for TV series, 24 or lost (or see X, the japenese anime) brought a new way to reinvente story line, or story telling.

When I play the so called rpg video game, I'm interested in the story here again. I don't really care between the system of, let's say sacred or diablo. But The stories they have to offer are not very good and so linear, meaning each time you play it, you play the exact same plot, in the exact same order.

I don't say I have the solution, but I think there is a whole reflexion to bring to the rpg about the way authors could write their stories.

First, apologies to Sebastien and everyone else for my threadjacking yesterday.

Second:
Sebastien, having heard the warnings from several posters about the possible problems of making money off the type of product you are suggesting, are you still interested in pursuing the project?

Knowing that there may not be any commercial profit, would you still be interested in making this?

If your answer is yes, let us begin to discuss possible approaches.

One thing that strikes me about your project is that it has a lot in common with someone trying to make a game set in a historical setting. This leads me to a few genral questions:

Do you want to allow players to make their own characters, or might your purposes be better served by giving them pre-made characters?

How much of your overall background will be read by any participant?

How much background must be read by any participant prior to playing a scenario?

Is there background that must not be read by certain participants?

Have you considered splitting this product into two parts: A scenario product and a worldbook product, for example? Would it be possible to sell one and give the other away, in your opinion? Which would you prefer to make a for-sale product?

Do you wish to create scenarios that are connected with one another directly, or could your scenarios be seperate and distinct, but tied by the settings/events timeline?

Have you considered making this as a series of mini-games, with each scenario only having the barest necessary rules to achieve the playstyle you want for that individual scenario?

Hello,

Sebastien, this thread covers too many topics at once and has taken four pages just to get started. Fortunately, the solution is simple: let's stop this thread and start new threads with many of the smaller points or issues made more specific. I hope you can see that this is not a criticism of any of your points, nor shutting down the discussion. Many years has taught me that we'll all benefit from this approach.

Best,
Ron