The Forge Archives

Okay imagine just making a character in a freeform way.

For example...

I look through the book and decide I want to make a Science Officer for my STARCLADS Sci Fi universe.

Scientific – You are a scientist and have a broad knowledge of all science or you could be a specialist in one or more sciences.
Starting Equipment: Scanner, Translator, Comlink, Mini Tools, and 2000 Credits.

I also add a few sentences about the character...

He wears scanners and prefers to look at the world through electronic eyes. He was educated in a prestigious university and is quite snobby. He is not athletic and is not combat trained. He is quite good looking but really says irritating things around the ladies. He likes to drink a lot and thinks himself very street savvy. Being of upper class he has no idea how the lower class live.

His name is Dr. Will Sayer, Human 35 years old.

There a character is made! No skill points, no Hit Points, yes you have heard it all before from the freeform crowd how great this is.

How are things done in the NOVEL RPG system?

The Universal Chart.

Simply roll a D20.

THE NOVEL RPG UNIVERSAL CHART

20   Perfection
18-19   Extremely Good
16-17   Very Good
13-15   Good
9-12   Neutral
6-8   Bad
4-5   Very Bad
2-3   Extremely Bad
1   Disastrous


For example Dr. Will Sayer decides to create a Force Field system that causes damage as well. A D20 is rolled resulting in a 4 which is a Very Bad result. It then would be deemed by the Novelist (Game Master) that the experiment did not work and many of his colleagues mock him. If Ted the Janitor tried to do the same thing and came up with a Very Bad result then he might have the device blow up in his face. It depends on who you are!

Another example would be a lovely blond haired 16 year old gymnast in pink tights and a 60 year old bum decide to do a triple somersault flip. A 14 is rolled which is a Good Result and the gymnast does a great flip. The old bum scores a Good result which for him would be he only half way flips and does not bust his ass. It depends on who you are and what you are trying to do.

I originally had a bunch of modifiers to the roll and result but this took time and slowed the experiment down.

Now for an example of combat.

Dr Will Sayer is being chased by a couple of alien wolf like plant creatures. A 6 is rolled on the Universal chart which is a Bad result. The Novelist says that Dr. Will is overran by the wolf like plant creatures and is knocked down a hill with the creatures in pursuit. He has suffered a few bites and bruises and is somewhat injured. He picks up a sharp stick and then rolls a 3 which is an Extremely Bad result! The wolf like plant creatures tear into him and he now thinks he is about to die. He then rolls a 20 which is Perfection! He somehow finds a reserve in strength and starts flailing with his sharp stick and kills them both! He is alive and bleeding profusely. He tears off pieces of his clothing and tried to stop the bleeding. He rolls a 1 "gulp" a Disaster and falls over dying. If there are no other character looking for him he is dead...

Well what do you think? A freeform system. Get you a D20 and try this out and post it!

 

QuoteIt depends on who you are!

In that case, are you sure you need the die roll here at all? Does it add to the session anything that wouldn't be there anyway?

Or, if it does, is such a granurality of results needed? I don't think there is a practical difference between three separate steps of good/bad results. So, I'm not sure if using d20 would really bring to the game anything more than a binary success/failure toss of a coin could bring.

If you examine these rules carefully, the end result of character's action, as well as the consequences of it are completely up to the GM.

I agree that basically this is a freeform system of GM fiat and could result in many arguments between players and the novelist over "What the friggin hell do you mean I don't jump across the space worms maw? I'm a soldier and I only rolled bad!" In other words, what difference is the granularity between Bad, Very Bad, Extremely Bad and Disastrous. That being said, as a freeform system it is very simple, quick and easy, but remember that all those numerical values were originally installed so you could say "look I have an Athletics X and the Difficulty was X, I made it across" and noone could tell you otherwise, hence fewer arguments about success (and more about rules).

Look at it another way, with no modifiers for difficulty or skill, you're essentially stating that a highly trained technician with a degree in Astronautics can fix a spaceship just as often as a monkey beating it with a stick, only when the monkey beats it with the stick it wont be as nice or last as long. This is an exaggeration of course, but if someone is a beginner at Car Repair (i.e. can change oil and spark plugs) can they really succeed as often as a mechanic in overhauling an engine, albeit a little less well? Also, does %5 of the things people attempt end in disaster? Of course maybe none of that matters to you, realism is not important in roleplaying games but it helps to have some consistency. I'm not trying to discourage you or disparage the idea, but every idea has to go through the wringer.

Thanks for the critique! All comments negative or positive are wanted for these First Thoughts.

The dice roll is not truly a skill or attribute check but more of a direction of plot check. A negative roll does not always mean a failure it could also mean a negative twist to the plot.

This is completely different than most RPG rule sets.

Like the example below with the gymnast, an expert and a complete novice in basket weaving both try to weave a basket. A 13 is rolled which is a Good result. This result would not be the same for the expert as compared to the novice.

I was going to have modifiers to the result as in going up and down on the scale depending on how much of an advantage you had but decided to leave the plot up to the judgment of the GM.

I am trying to make it where you can think of a character concept and just start playing. A rules lite system that would allow a GM to just create and write without huge set of rules.

A system where one could take any novel, movie, or anime and just start up an adventure with it.

There is another freeform randomizer that one person used. It was to pick a number from 1-100. If your number was close to the GM's number  then you succeeded. This was also modified by how skilled you were at what you were trying to do.

Anyway just try these simple rules out and get back with me in the Playtest section, and thanks for the comments!

EW

The Plot Roll and the skilled character...

Let us just say you have the gymnast I mentioned above and she is going to jump a 6 ft. ditch. This should not be a problem. Let us say she rolls a 2 which is an Extremely Bad result. The GM could say she falls on her face or she makes it across totally well BUT she lands in thorn bushes, she attracts the attention of the giant spiders she was trying to escape, she sprains her ankle, or whatever would turn the plot against the Players. A low roll is not always a failed skill check. It is the plot going against the players.

Is this concept making any sense?

I understand your concept completely, but I must say, I think it is not a good idea. This kind of "free-form system" basically gives all narrating power to the DM; I would hate to play a game like this, since it will basically end however the GM wants it to.

Here's my thoughts: If the GM wants to create a novel, then he should just write one.

I do think if you laid some guidelines and turned it into a more narrative structure (in the favor of the players), it would be a lot better. Give those players some control, and maybe lower the dice size to a d10 or something; i think a d20 would allow for too much variation. Maybe even switch to 3d6 or something to have more consistent results?

I agree with the 3D6 recommendation. I understand better what you mean. I don't think it's a bad idea, I don't mind playing in a story driven game but if this game were run by an inexperienced or unimaginative gamemaster it would be like pulling teeth because as was stated, it's pretty much GM fiat. Would you consider giving some sort of points to the players or some sort of bidding system so that occasionally the players can exert some narrative control in certain situation? It wouldn't complicate things much, all characters could have an equal amount of the points to start, and it would mean that occasionally if it were important to a player to do something, they could do it without the GM fiatting against them. Obviously you're not targetting gamists, so you should give somenarrative influence for the players other than roll and pray.

Quote from: Justin Nichol - BFG on July 15, 2007, 11:45:58 PM
I don't think it's a bad idea, I don't mind playing in a story driven game but if this game were run by an inexperienced or unimaginative gamemaster it would be like pulling teeth because as was stated, it's pretty much GM fiat. Would you consider giving some sort of points to the players or some sort of bidding system so that occasionally the players can exert some narrative control in certain situation? It wouldn't complicate things much, all characters could have an equal amount of the points to start, and it would mean that occasionally if it were important to a player to do something, they could do it without the GM fiatting against them.

Yeah, I think I may have come off a bit harsh; I agree with Justin on this point. What I meant to say was that I wouldn't enjoy playing in a game where the GM has such broad control over what happens after I roll a dice. PC's need to be given some kind of power; remember it is just as much their game as it is the GM's!

so yea, short recap: I think if you changed it to 3D6 instead of a D20 and used some sort of currency to give players narrative control at important points, then this would be a great little freeform one page rules game.

Ok, so randomness has a concrete function here, despite the whole thing being pure GM's Fiat - i.e. it serves as an inspiration for the GM, suggesting him plot developments. Consequently, I could suggest a different approach, as it doesn't seem like various steps of sucess and failure are a good source of inspiration.

Consider this  - depending how the GM interpretes the roll, the character can fall down or wind up in the thorny bushes. Would it add anything to the game, or would it even differ from jumping over in the long run? On the other hand, attracting the attention of spiders is a serious plot twist. The thing is, you have all these things under the same result on the dice - so, it doesn't really tell the GM which eay to push the story. "Bad" can mean anything, so you either stare at the die like it was a blank page, or you already have an idea in mind and don't need the roll.

It's not in the size or the number of the dice, but in the way the results are read. Switching to 1d100 or 3d6 won't change anything.

Now. What if you had different categories of plot development under different die results? Things like "1 - attracts spider", "2 - sprains her ankle", "3 - loses an important item" etc. - only in more general words? "Attracts trouble", "Limiting condition", "Goal gets complicated" and the like.

Or, you could use some kind of olacular system to inspire the GM. Dunno, Tarot, runes, tea divination, random websites, various online random stuff generators or whatever. This would give more concrete - but still open for interpretation - suggestions for plot twists or new elements to add to the story.

Also, I can see equipment listed in your character's writeup, along with money. What's the importance of equipment list in this system, and what's the purpose of knowing exact resources of the character? It's up to the GM to determine if the player can acquire something or not, anyway (i.e. he's the one to set costs).

All in all, I suggest that you check out games like Primetime Adventures, Everway and InSpectres for inspiration. These are good examples of systems that use different methods to achieve results close to your design goals.

Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on July 16, 2007, 09:02:22 AMIt's not in the size or the number of the dice, but in the way the results are read. Switching to 1d100 or 3d6 won't change anything.

That's not entirely true, from how I read the Universal chart. It has a "rasterized" ("digitized") bell curve of results (mostly):

-	-	-	-	12	-	-	-	-
-	-	-	8	11	15	-	-	-
	3	5	7	10	14	17	19
1	2	4	6	9	13	16	18	10
D!	EB	VB	B	N	G	VG	EG	P!

...but it doesn't use a bell curved randomizer; it uses a linear randomizer (1d20). 3d6 results, however, tend towards a "smooth" ("analog") bell curve; so, frankly, its results will better match the chart's distribution of success.

QuoteNow. What if you had different categories of plot development under different die results? Things like "1 - attracts spider", "2 - sprains her ankle", "3 - loses an important item" etc. - only in more general words? "Attracts trouble", "Limiting condition", "Goal gets complicated" and the like.

Now you're getting warmer, I think. Less fiat, more meaty, more inspiring to GMs.

But, that pretty much pushes those character "traits" right out of the window. For example, if any roll of a 4 is "goal gets complicated" then what difference does it make if I am a scientist or a monkey with a stick? Whatever I tried to do made my goal more complicated, never mind HOW I tried to do it. I realize you're sort of helping with the brainstorm, but this direction would have less meat if there are never metrics for the traits.

So, you still have a sticking point, in my opinion, when it comes to gauging the "baseline competence" of a PC without any form of metrics, just a list of "traits." In your original (Good to Bad) roll system, a GM's interpretation of what is "Bad" for a given PC is a two-way fiat: how competent is the PC and what is a "bad" or "good" result for that level of competence. So, at this point, you've only mitigated one of the fiat handles, and made the randomizer, basically, a plot creator rather than a success gauge.

QuoteOr, you could use some kind of oracular system to inspire the GM. Dunno, Tarot, runes, tea divination, random websites, various online random stuff generators or whatever. This would give more concrete - but still open for interpretation - suggestions for plot twists or new elements to add to the story.

Now you're redoing Everway, but with no Elements or Background. Everyway's a great system... but even it has 4 stats on a character sheet.

QuoteWhat's the importance of equipment list in this system, and what's the purpose of knowing exact resources of the character? It's up to the GM to determine if the player can acquire something or not, anyway (i.e. he's the one to set costs).

1) More fiat, if the GM is now setting prices and, presumably, apportioning the money in situations as well (i.e. having total ad hoc control of the entire economic cycle).
2) Still no metrics: "equipment" means exactly as much as "scientist": nothing. Without a metric, it will always be a game of negotiation between the GM and PCs, to decide what possession of equipment (or skills or money or traits or...) really means.

I'm all for rules light, to get at story faster. But "rules null" is, basically, playing the "Uh-Uh Game" (also called "My Guy" or "My Daddy's Gonna...") that we played as kids: mostly arguments, with little story and almost no drama (how dramatic is random success or failure dictated by one person?).

I'd recommend, as Filip did, that Eldrad play Everway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everway), Unistat (http://www.plaguemonkey.com/unistat.pdf), Universalis (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ramshead/), or even TWERPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWERPS).

Then, decide what those games lack (or have overdone) for your tastes, and try to work up a new system from there. In general, if you find yourself writing "the GM will" too often, you're heading away from the ideal, for cooperative story telling (i.e. your GM really ought to be a novelist, not a "Novelist").

HTH;
David

David,

Notice how the description of the character affects only color of the performance here. This is the only thing it can affect without any competence metric and rules that would make the metric matter, indeed. However, it doesn't mean that it actually needs to affect anything else. This meat you see "less of" here might not be necessary in the design (i.e. only because most games out there do something doesn't mean that this must do it as well).

About the probabilities I couldn't care less - not until randomness itself is justified in the design, and its purpose is clearly identified. This purpose seems to be suggesting plot twists for the GM, who has the primary input in the fiction here anyway, unless some apparently fundamental assumptions are changed.

So, I'd work from this point, eliminating everything that doesn't add anything to the game, taking into account these assumptions.

In response to the debates

Posted by: Charlie Gilb 
Insert Quote
I understand your concept completely, but I must say, I think it is not a good idea. This kind of "free-form system" basically gives all narrating power to the DM; I would hate to play a game like this, since it will basically end however the GM wants it to.[/size]

The GM is god anyways in most games. The players still have control over their actions for the most part. No offense taken as I have had this response until someone tried this game.


Posted by: Justin Nichol - BFG 
Insert Quote
I agree with the 3D6 recommendation. I understand better what you mean. I don't think it's a bad idea, I don't mind playing in a story driven game but if this game were run by an inexperienced or unimaginative gamemaster it would be like pulling teeth because as was stated, it's pretty much GM fiat.  

Some GMs suck no matter what though. This would not be a game for an unexperienced or unimaginative DM.

Would you consider giving some sort of points to the players or some sort of bidding system so that occasionally the players can exert some narrative control in certain situation? It wouldn't complicate things much, all characters could have an equal amount of the points to start, and it would mean that occasionally if it were important to a player to do something, they could do it without the GM fiatting against them. Obviously you're not targetting gamists, so you should give somenarrative influence for the players other than roll and pray.  

Nope no points, modifiers, or any additional math or rules. The very first version of this went from a simple chart to five pages in no time. I scrapped it for a "One roll to rule them all". This really does work if you can unwrap you mind from a ruleset for everthing.


On Filip Luszczyk's comments you get it completly!

A "chart" could be made but that would defeat the whole "theory" of what I am trying to test.

Now. What if you had different categories of plot development under different die results? Things like "1 - attracts spider", "2 - sprains her ankle", "3 - loses an important item" etc. - only in more general words? "Attracts trouble", "Limiting condition", "Goal gets complicated" and the like.

THAT would make me have to write alot of charts! The Universal chart can do all this with a bit of imagination.

Also, I can see equipment listed in your character's writeup, along with money. What's the importance of equipment list in this system, and what's the purpose of knowing exact resources of the character? It's up to the GM to determine if the player can acquire something or not, anyway (i.e. he's the one to set costs).

Well equipment, ammo, and money are good things you should track.  There would be a character sheet in a game such as this. Just no numbers to skills and attributes.


The D20 result could be a skill check or plot twist good or bad.This might be a good thing to use in FF Chat Rooms also.

Has anyone tired this concept out as is to see how it works out?  I will try the suggestions above to see how they work and most of all are they fun and quick for the GM and player.

Please more Critiques! positive or negative they give me more ideas!

well I really think not having any player control over narration and using a d20 is a really bad idea, but it is your game. I don't think the other poster meant for you to have charts for each action but rather for you to modify your existing charts to spell out actual narrative occurrences both positive in negative instead of just saying good or bad. Yes, Gms can be bad and yes they do usually assert a lot of power, but you're on an indie designers forum where half the games designed make some sort of mechanic for players to take narrative control at some point, and it doesn't take a bad GM to randomly read a result of bad in a way that alienates and pisses off several of his players. You can be a good storyteller and still completely fuck up a fiat that amkes everyone suddenyl lose interest, and with this game there wont be a lot of meat or other things to hold onto if suddenly the GM takes the story in a direction that some of the players hate. The point is that metrics and rules for narrative control by players exist so that there is some recourse, so that you as a player have some level of control, whether it be through buying high stats in things that are important to you, or bidding points to ensure that the way the game goes is the way the players want it to. You've eliminated all player control other than the chance to roleplay a little and roll a linear die. You say players have control over their actions but this is not entirely true, they are free to act as they please but they are not free in any way to control the direction of the game other than to say something to convince the GM.

QuoteTHAT would make me have to write alot of charts! The Universal chart can do all this with a bit of imagination.

Indeed, you would have to have about ONE chart with 10-20 results that would suggest general direction ;)

QuoteWell equipment, ammo, and money are good things you should track.

OK. Why *exactly* are they good things that the player should track? What *exactly* does tracking these things add to the game?

QuoteHas anyone tired this concept out as is to see how it works out?

No, but I tried things that were similar enough in the past (i.e. GM-driven freeform with no metrics and no "hard" rules, with the dice providing only easy to ignore suggestions for the GM, in practice), and they didn't work out well due to their inherently flawed assumptions and rezulting fuzziness of everything.

I suggest that you head to the connections forum and make a call for playtesters. Chances you find any are slim, though (almost everyone who reads these forums has at least one own game that needs playtesting). But you can just as well try that.

Posting your own playtesting report wouldn't hurt, too.

BOOM! There goes my mind expanding!

Player control of the plot to an extent. Wow a new paradigm for me! My brain hurts!

I could have it where the player could narrate (if he/she wants to) what exactly happens to him or her if he or she so chooses if a very positive and negative result happens.


Whoa this is a completely new concept for me.

With some of my players it could really be the best thing since oatmeal.

You guys may have inadvertently made ma a millionaire! Nope! Damn! rolled a 1!

Thanks I just might go in a few more directions!

Indeed, you would have to have about ONE chart with 10-20 results that would suggest general direction ;)

Filip Luszczyk give me some ideas of different charts so I can see what you mean.

OK so I am going to give the players some narrative control or possibly everyone may have narrative control if they behave right. Got to get some together to playtest real soon.


The Forge rules!

QuoteFilip Luszczyk give me some ideas of different charts so I can see what you mean.

You can see an example of what I mean in the post in which I proposed it ;)

You can have a chart with very general categories of plot development. "Attracts trouble", "limiting condition", "mission gets complicated", "a concrete step in completing the mission" and so on and on, whatever you need. I suppose about 10 categories should be sufficient. With about 10 categories, you can still use d20 to determine the quality of the performance with the same roll. E.g. if odd results are failures and even results are successes, you can have something like:

1 - Failure, and there's a new complication in completing the mission.
2 - Success, but it complicates the mission.
3 - Failure, and you attract trouble.
4 - Success, but you attract trouble.
5 - Failure, and you're under a limiting condition (e.g. wound) as a result.
6 - Success, but at the cost of falling under a limiting condition.
7 - Failure, but regardless something brings you closer to completing your mission.
8 - Success, and it brings you closer to completing your mission.
9 - (...)

And so on. Obviously, you could have completely different categories, and distribute probabilities differently, as needed. I'm just showing you an example of the principle.

Notice how one roll can tell you more about what happens than various steps of success/failure, but at the same time don't tell you what exactly happens or how it happens. The "what" emerges from the situational context, and the "how" is colored by the character's description.

I like Filip's chart more than the Universal chart... but I still wonder why a character even needs to have a trait, if it's never a metric or quantifier. Even with "situational prompts" in the success/failure spectrum, the GM is still fiating how competent a player's character is in EVERY situation, based on a short descriptor.

That's why I suggest playing Universalis, to see what it *really* means to have "no character metrics" (because you don't really play a single character, anyway) or play UniStat to see what a character-driven but player-narration-granting game is like. And, yep, UniStat has metrics ... of a sort... and a trait for your "schtick"... you gotta read it (one-page rules, also, FYI).

Anyhow... I believe in using what's readily available (even freely available) unless it totally misses one's goal; and UniStat, Universalis, or even TWERPS provides the system that the OP is trying to develop, right out of the gate. I can't think of anything further to add to this discussion that isn't better explained in--or more illuminating than--those very rulebooks.

Bon chance!
David

Thank you Fillip I will see how that works out.

I like Filip's chart more than the Universal chart... but I still wonder why a character even needs to have a trait, if it's never a metric or quantifier. Even with "situational prompts" in the success/failure spectrum, the GM is still fiating how competent a player's character is in EVERY situation, based on a short descriptor.


The "traits" help modify the situation. A GM has to do that with actual numbers as well. I would not require a plot roll in every situation. 

David I have checked out the other games suggested except for Universalis. I will take a look.

BTW David your GLASS game looks really cool from a glance. I was with a group trying to create a Universal LARP System but everyone suddenly dropped off. Can't get Shade's LARPlist up to post a link. Take a look there!

Well I guess I will have to post a play test to really explain how this system works.

In initial self test it seems to work perfectly.

I will add in the aspect of letting the character narrate what happens from the result of the dice roll, OR the player has the option to let the GM run the game.

I may also going to try to do a GMless game if possible. 

This site has let me see completely new paradigms in RPGs that I have never ever thought of. 

I will set it in my really old Sci Fi setting called STARCLADS. A gigantic multi genre sci-fi setting. I will explain in first thoughts if any are interested.

Quote from: Eldrad on July 17, 2007, 09:53:13 AMBOOM! There goes my mind expanding! Player control of the plot to an extent. Wow a new paradigm for me! My brain hurts!  I could have it where the player could narrate (if he/she wants to) what exactly happens to him or her if he or she so chooses if a very positive and negative result happens.  Whoa this is a completely new concept for me.

If you're looking for new paradigms of player control over plot, you might want to check out some games that get rid of the "GM" vs. "player" distinction altogether:

Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes's Universalis, which David Artman already recommended, is the pioneer in this field; a revised edition (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/ramshead/) is now out.

Tony Lower-Basch's superhero game Capes, which has a free preview version (http://www.museoffire.com/Games/Downloads/CapesLite.pdf) available online.

Ben Lehman's Polaris, which not only has GM duties rotating scene-by-scene but has a resolution system entirely without numbers, only words.

And you can always try to track down The Pool, which existed free online for a while and allowed players to do a "monologue of victory" (or even, I think, a "monologue of defeat") on very good (or bad) rolls.

There are some good points being raised here, the only issue I have with this discussion is the fact that people are bringing dice into a free-forming environment.

From the dozens of freeforms I've played over the years (hundreds if you include Mind's Eye Theatre rules from White Wolf), I've found that the very idea of finding a flat surface to roll dice on slows the flow of a free-form game.

When it comes to alternate mechanics that I've seen work well in freeforms, we go from random card drawing to the "scissors-rock-paper" found in Mind's Eye Theatre, or simply the call of the GM. Each have their merits and flaws.

Consider this idea.

You write your character up as a short paragraph of text, you underline six key words in the description. These become the "skills" of the character. Any time the character wants to attempt something they play "scissors-rock-paper" [S-R-P] twice against their opponent, or against the GM if there is no specific opponent. Each win counts as a success, each loss counts as a fail. Ties don't affect the result. If the character has a specific "skill" that applies in the situation, they can turn one of their fails into a tie, or one of their ties into a success. A GM may even let a character do this twice if the character has two "skills" that apply. Two well skilled players could end up modifying and countermodifying the results until it ends up being a pretty balanced contest again.

Once the [S-R-P] has been played and "skills" have been applied, the final result can be determined.

Two net successes - Major success by the victor, they may knock out their opponent, leap a chasm easily or succeed beyond expectations on an experiment.
One net success - Minor success by the victor, they may deal a flesh wound, just manage to leap a chasm or perform an experiment with expected results.
All successes and failures cancel out - Neither contestant meets their goals. Nothing much changes. Someone trying to leap a chasm may just manage to hold on to the opposite ledge (requiring a new [S-R-P] test), the experiement may need quite a bit more work before it gives a result.
One net failure - Minor failure, maybe they take a wound from their opponent or their weapon jams, perhaps they realise in time that the chasm is too wide and stop themselves before they leap, maybe the experiment doesn't give any results and it wastes the required materials.
Two net failures - Catastrophe, they fall in combat and their opponent gets a free shot, they miss the leap completely and plummet to the ground, the experiment blows up in their face.

If someone has a strategic advantage in a situation, a GM could give them a "Virtual Skill" for the contest. Giving them a bit of an edge. If the character is trying something particularly hard or something they've never done before, the GM could even allocate a "Negative skill" or two to reflect this added difficulty.

These would be the basic fundamentals of the system, and it would take a bit more work to make a fully fleshed out concept that would work in any game genre and situation. It's just an idea I've been toying with for the last couple of years.   

V

That's a neat idea.

The problem that always, always arises is giving too much power and too few guidelines to the GM. What's a "major success"? What's "minor"? It's not just that the players are likely to complain if things don't go their way; it's that the GM is having to make so much up on the fly.

Capes has a pretty cool mechanic for turning specific levels of victory and defeat into specific levels of advantage to apply to later conflicts; it's worth checking out. Basically, winning a conflict gets you "Inspirations" you can trade in for bonuses to future dice rolls, while losing a conflict gives you "Story Tokens" that you can trade in for extra actions, bringing in an NPC under your control, and all sorts of other neat stuff.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 24, 2007, 09:51:36 AM
The problem that always, always arises is giving too much power and too few guidelines to the GM. What's a "major success"? What's "minor"? It's not just that the players are likely to complain if things don't go their way; it's that the GM is having to make so much up on the fly.

Point taken, maybe I'm just the kind of GM who does too many things on the fly, preferring style-over-substance...that sort of thing. I know that players have come back time and again to my freeform games at conventions. So they seem to enjoy it. I guess it all comes down to the definition of "Freeform", as I see it "Pure freeform" has no rules what-so-ever but requires very mature players and GMs.

If players and GM were given a sample list of comparitive outcomes constituting each outcome level from the beginning of the game, they could consult such a chart and come up with equivalent results if they've been attempting completely different feats. Still, the more rules that are applied to a freeform, the less "Pure" it becomes in my eyes (this applies to rules that bring dice ito the setting, or any other randomising or resolution mechanic). I know we need a balance between playability, story and simulation, so maybe a page with each of the outcome levels applied to the fields of physical, social, mental, mystical and combat.

I like the idea of giving characters a "story token" that has a later outcome if they lose, that always makes players feel less like failures.

V

Quote from: Vulpinoid on July 24, 2007, 05:30:57 PMas I see it "Pure freeform" has no rules what-so-ever but requires very mature players and GMs.

Mature, probably. More to the point, it requires players and GMs who are in sync with each other to work really well, because so much of the "system" is unspoken. Much of a well-written rules set is simply putting into writing explicit procedures and guidelines on how people interact around the table in a group that makes this particular game work. Saying "roleplay well" or "be an experienced GM" or "be mature" is to a great degree a hand-wave: These things can be formalized to a significant degree, and if you're writing rules you expect anyone who doesn't know you personally to try playing, you should be formalizing them.

QuoteI like the idea of giving characters a "story token" that has a later outcome if they lose, that always makes players feel less like failures.

It's more than a compensation, actually. In Capes, the story tokens create a dynamic push-and-pull: Because there are certain things you can only do with story tokens (like introduce a subordinate NPC under your control or take an extra action), and because you can only get story tokens by losing, often you have to lose now to win later. It nicely simulates certain kinds of stories where the hero gets beat down and beat down and then suddenly rises up, full of renewed conviction, to turn the tables on the bad guys.

Thanks for the links Sydney.

I guess I need to use another word other that freeform. Hmm what to call a plot/resolution system used  outside the story itself.

I will call the character creation freeform as you just come up with a concept limited only by the GM.

I like most of the suggestions except what I am trying to do is a one roll resolution/plot direction. Where I need to go with it is a loose explanation of what a result means.

For example a player (a laser toting mercenary) is faced with a group of hired lizard like alien thugs to kill him. The player rolls a D20. The GM could tell what happens.

This is how I would read the results.

20   Perfection - The Player Blast away defeating the entire group in one round of lucky shots! He possibly gets an award for heroics! All good things come his way! The enemy is routed!
18-19   Extremely Good - As above to a lesser degree. Maybe one of them gets away but the player still comes out victorious.
16-17   Very Good - A few are taken out but the battle still will go on for awhile. A few may retreat
13-15   Good - A few are taken out but they don't retreat. If a large and dangerous enough force, they may actually advance.
9-12   Neutral - Lots of shots are fired and allot of collateral damage. No one is pushed back. No one is injured except maybe a few unlucky NPCs!
6-8   Bad - The PC may take a light wound or a few reinforcements show up. A few more NPCs may die.
4-5   Very Bad - The PC may take a serious wound or an NPC may take a Critical wound and be in great need of medical care. The PC's forces are pushed back. The enemy seems to be winning.
2-3   Extremely Bad - The PC takes a Severe wound of some sort and can barely hold on. The enemy is advancing, the defenses are breached. NPCs on the players side die in droves or a very important NPC dies.
1   Disastrous - The PC may die from horrible wounds, the base is destroyed, all his NPC forces are killed and or routed, the PC is captured!

You don't have to accept one roll as the outcome. The players actions can allow for another roll to see how the plot goes. The GM can, depending on what the PCs do make the result go up and down. For instance if a player would call in reinforcements the results may go more positive.

Damage is written down as a condition as there no actual hit points. A Bad wound is something non life threating at the time. A Very Bad wound will slow a Player down unless treated. An Extremely Bad Wound would incapacitate the character in some way. All these conditions could be modified on the spot depending on the characters story and what possible effect any protection or Armor might give. For example a Grizzled Bounty Hunter would be less effected by an injury that a Professor of Pangalatic Languages or a Spoiled Rich Kid.

Quote from: Eldrad on July 24, 2007, 07:03:28 PM
I guess I need to use another word other that freeform. Hmm what to call a plot/resolution system used  outside the story itself.

This is pretty much playing with semantics. I guess that "freeform" has a fairly specific definition here in Australia where it was developed as a concept in the early 80's and has been a staple at conventions for over 20 years now. What we used to call freeforming in the late 80's and early 90's is often referred to now as Live Action Role Playing [LARP], but with even less emphasis on rules and more focus on story and characterisation.

Based on what I've seen in my first few days around here, I guess definitions and semantics are pretty big points of discussion and argument.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 24, 2007, 05:38:01 PM
Mature, probably. More to the point, it requires players and GMs who are in sync with each other to work really well, because so much of the "system" is unspoken. Much of a well-written rules set is simply putting into writing explicit procedures and guidelines on how people interact around the table in a group that makes this particular game work. Saying "roleplay well" or "be an experienced GM" or "be mature" is to a great degree a hand-wave: These things can be formalized to a significant degree, and if you're writing rules you expect anyone who doesn't know you personally to try playing, you should be formalizing them.

Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation on what I was indicating as a "freeform". Which may just be a paradigm clash between the roleplayiong scene in this part of the world and the role-playing scene in other parts of the world. We can argue semantics until we come full circle and start the process again. Unless both our paradigms expand to include the other's model, nothing will get accomplished.

I'm going to spend a few days reading through the various discussion threads on this forum to explore the paradigm set up here, the whole GNS model thing which has got me intrigued (which I've never encountered over here, especially how it seems to tie to certain peoples bitter hatred of White Wolf's "World of Darkness"...)

QuoteIt nicely simulates certain kinds of stories where the hero gets beat down and beat down and then suddenly rises up, full of renewed conviction, to turn the tables on the bad guys.

Before I go, I could easily say the flip side of the argument used in Sydney's first quote mentioned above. A GM who holds the mythic "hero" story cycle in regard while weaving their roleplaying scenarios will not have need of rules mechanics to bring this concept to the experience of their players. Some would even say that deliberately imposing such a concept into the rules is simply a crutch, or even a tool to be exploited by metagamers.

V

Quote from: Eldrad on July 24, 2007, 07:03:28 PMI like most of the suggestions except what I am trying to do is a one roll resolution/plot direction. Where I need to go with it is a loose explanation of what a result means....

Okay, but realize that even the refined version of your table puts a huge responsibility on the GM to interpret how your "loose explanation" applies to this specific situation, with very little guidance. If your players really trust the GM, or if they're just extremely deferential, this will work; if not, it'll bog the game down in endless arguments, which is the exact opposite of what you want.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 25, 2007, 10:01:22 AM

Quote from: Eldrad on July 24, 2007, 07:03:28 PMI like most of the suggestions except what I am trying to do is a one roll resolution/plot direction. Where I need to go with it is a loose explanation of what a result means....

Okay, but realize that even the refined version of your table puts a huge responsibility on the GM to interpret how your "loose explanation" applies to this specific situation, with very little guidance. If your players really trust the GM, or if they're just extremely deferential, this will work; if not, it'll bog the game down in endless arguments, which is the exact opposite of what you want.

Well that can happen with any rule system big or small.

There will be in some cases where the player interprets the result. I am going to try to have the game where a GM can run it, the players can sometimes interpret the result, or all the players make the story and there is no GM at all.

Thanks so much for your critiques.

Quote from: Eldrad on July 25, 2007, 09:40:11 PM...that can happen with any rule system big or small.

True, but "big or small" isn't the issue. The clearer the writing of the rules, and the more thoroughly they have been playtested, the less potential for such arguments.

To beat a dead horse soundly, just in case: Saying "that can happen any with rule system" or "the players need to be mature" is an abdication of your responsibility as a designer. If you intend to offer a game to anyone besides your personal friends, you have an obligation to make the rules as tight as you can, because the problems of bickering and confusion can be lessened, if never entirely removed, by careful design.