I've spent a good number of years writing and finally publishing The Outsider Chronicles, and roleplaying game that makes use of SOL: The Omniversal Roleplaying System. After publishing the game, I made the discovery that SOL no longer fits my style of play. So, I have made the decision to make a new roleplaying system for Outsider.
Naturally, I've had compatriots in the gaming scene tell me that I'm nuts for wanting to make another RPG system. I keep having the success of D20 pointed out to me, or other open systems like Action! or Fudge. However, while it would be much easier to simply rely on someone else's system to bring the Outsider Chronicles back to life, it still wouldn't fit what I have in mind for this game.
And that's the reason I've come to the Forge. I've seen new ground in RPGs broken here, and this forum looks like fertile ground to grow my ideas in.
The Outsider Chronicles is a Weird Science Fantasy setting in the modern day. It involves "Project Outsider", a top-secret government organization that explores alternate dimensions and protects the United States against interdimensional threats. Think of it as "The X-files meets Sliders and Stargate SG-1." I have some preview files for free on my web site at http://heraldicgame.com/freebies.shtml.
Naturally, the system I would use for something like this would have to be flexible enough to keep up with the imagination, simple enough to learn quickly, but have enough depth to it to keep it interesting over the long run.
I've already named the new system "Luna" since it is going to be the polar opposite of my old SOL system. The main thrust of Luna is to toss out the Wargaming Model that RPGs have been saddled with since they were invented and replace it with the Dramatic Model.
In the Wargaming Model, the focus is to create a game that recreates "reality" as closely as possible in the interest of simulating combat. Everything is qualified and quantified, and if things don't go your way... too bad. The Dramatic Model, on the other hand, would be more focused on the entire story rather than just the fights. It would be more influenced by the player's storytelling abilities rather than their character's tactical skills.
Anyone interested in Luna can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/outsider_chronicles/files/
Hey Keith. Glad to see you here. Exciting news about Outsiders. Like you my style of play has changed over the years too. I've always been a big fan of genre emulation through mechanics, however, which is the biggest weakness of universal systems. I look forward to seeing Luna.
I can't access Yahoo Groups through the firewall at work, however, so any comments will have to wait.
Having looked at your files on and off since the very late 90's, I'd be interested to see how this develops.
And wow, did you find the right spot to take your ideas down new avenues!
Quote from: ValamirHey Keith. Glad to see you here. Exciting news about Outsiders. Like you my style of play has changed over the years too. I've always been a big fan of genre emulation through mechanics, however, which is the biggest weakness of universal systems. I look forward to seeing Luna.
I can't access Yahoo Groups through the firewall at work, however, so any comments will have to wait.
Thank you for the warm welcome, Ralph. I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say. One of the biggest influences I've had in pushing Outsider in this direction has been Universalis. My own brief exposure to it proved to be more emotionally satisfying than my past two years of playing D20.
I just hope your exposure to my own game isn't disappointing. Right now, Luna 0.2 is little more than my incomplete ideas. I'm really going to need some feedback and encouragement to make this thing fly.
Here's the comments and questions I came up with reading through:
Do all PCs start at the same Power Level?
If a player takes the time to write 100 Life Events, they start with 100 Plot Points? I can see how the power level limits the player somewhat. But wouldn't some limit be a good idea?
Negative traits are very worthwhile to take. Maybe too worthwhile. Have you considered not giving any points back for taking them? And then having it be solely the player's job to point them out for use (which gets him his reward)?
Who decides what Traits count for a particular Challenge? Can you add any amount of Traits? Won't this lead to players trying to describe how being good with plants makes them good in this combat because of all the foliage about (that's rhetorical, they will)?
Isn't possible to fail Easy of Average tasks? At worst you only get part done (hits zero)?
As you get better, it gets less likely to open-end? Probably not a problem, but interesting. Works well for negative dice.
Introduce the idea of negative dice before you introduce the results table. Do the negative dice continue on past the end of the table, or is that an automatic failure at more than -4?
You have the same "problem" that the Pool has with your Plot Points. That is, it will probably make the most sense to always bet the farm. Because that will make success more likley if I read correctly. And make you less likely to ever lose points. In fact, the way you have it, it seems as though one could assure success with enough Plot Points (they work like Godlike Hard Dice, or Story Engine's cognate, right?). In which case, enough Plot Points makes the character essentially unstopable.
What constitutes a "good idea" in terms of Plot Point rewards? Seems mighty vague.
Are "goals" mechanical? If I resolve a goal, can I immediately pick up another? Or can I have as many goals as I want? What if my character's goal is "To cross the street"? Is this supposed to be solved by the GM line-item veto?
Overall, I'd say you've got a system that goes more in the direction that you are talking about. It's very similar to Story Engine and Story Bones (http://www.hubrisgames.com/pdf/bones.pdf). Are you familiar with it? If so, have you considered Scene Resolution instead of Task Resolution?
Mike
Quote from: Spooky FanboyHaving looked at your files on and off since the very late 90's, I'd be interested to see how this develops.
And wow, did you find the right spot to take your ideas down new avenues!
You're more than welcome to participate, Spooky. If we do this right, it's going to be a heck of a ride. What interested you in my files in the first place?
Quote from: Mike HolmesHere's the comments and questions I came up with reading through:
Do all PCs start at the same Power Level?
Currently, yes. I am hoping to come up with an option that will allow players to make characters at different levels, but give the lesser level players something to help balance them out. I have been thinking of something like a pool of Plot points that regenerate each gaming session.
Surprisingly, one of my playtester in my Yahoo group has already been mixing characters with different Levels of Play in the same game. Apparently, his players seem to enjoy it.
QuoteIf a player takes the time to write 100 Life Events, they start with 100 Plot Points? I can see how the power level limits the player somewhat. But wouldn't some limit be a good idea?
The main idea behind Life Events is to Feed the GM and give the player a reward for doing so. Those events are supposed to be able to come back to haunt the character at some point. I've never been a fan of the stereotypical wandering hereoes with no history and no family.
I have to agree with you that they can be abused, though. Does anyone have any ideas on what an effective limit would be?
QuoteNegative traits are very worthwhile to take. Maybe too worthwhile. Have you considered not giving any points back for taking them? And then having it be solely the player's job to point them out for use (which gets him his reward)?
That is an excellent idea! There wouldn't be any immediate reward, but the player could expect a Plot Point bonus for each of the Negative Traits he brings up in a session. This reward would only be once per Trait per session, though. For example, if someone takes the Neg. Trait "Pyromanic," he's not going to get a reward each time he lights up a match.
QuoteWho decides what Traits count for a particular Challenge? Can you add any amount of Traits? Won't this lead to players trying to describe how being good with plants makes them good in this combat because of all the foliage about (that's rhetorical, they will)?
That is one of the sections that needs to be better developed. What I had in mind is that the player should be able to say whatever Traits can be applied to an action, but the GM has veto power. Also, since the Traits are freeform, they are going to require some definition when the character is created. So, somebody that says that their character is "good with plants" and details that Trait involves growing and caring for gardens, it doesn't necessary mean that it's going to make them any better at being stealthy. However, if they define it as training in the wild.. like recognizing edible plants and what foliage gives the best cover, then I would say that is is applicable.
QuoteIsn't possible to fail Easy of Average tasks? At worst you only get part done (hits zero)?
I seems that I forgot to change that table after I played around with an idea that wasn't going to work. The corrected table looks like this:
# of Hits Result0 Hits, All Ones Botch. Not only does the character not succeed,
but also the result adds insult to injury.
0 or Less Failure. The character simply doesn't succeed.
1 Partial Success. The character only gets a piece of
what he intended to do.
2 to 3 A solid success. The action goes off exactly as
stated.
4 or More Critical Success. Not only does the action go off
exactly as stated, but the character gets something
extra out of it as well.
QuoteAs you get better, it gets less likely to open-end? Probably not a problem, but interesting. Works well for negative dice.
Conversely, as they get better, it will also be harder for them to Botch. I will be adding this to Luna 0.3.:
"If the player rolls all ones on his dice, not only has he failed, he has also failed in an embarrassing and disastrous manner. The GM should think of an appropriate penalty for such a botched result.
"
Negative Dice: If the roll is made on negative dice, and any of those dice comes up as a one, then the character has botched."
QuoteIntroduce the idea of negative dice before you introduce the results table. Do the negative dice continue on past the end of the table, or is that an automatic failure at more than -4?
Done. It was in an odd place in the rules because of they way I had written them before. It just seemed to flow better that way. It will probably need more work to smooth it out.
QuoteYou have the same "problem" that the Pool has with your Plot Points. That is, it will probably make the most sense to always bet the farm. Because that will make success more likley if I read correctly. And make you less likely to ever lose points. In fact, the way you have it, it seems as though one could assure success with enough Plot Points (they work like Godlike Hard Dice, or Story Engine's cognate, right?). In which case, enough Plot Points makes the character essentially unstopable.
I'm still trying to define exactly what Plot Points can and cannot do in the game. Generally, they are supposed to allow the players to influence the adventure and add greater dramatic detail.
You are right in your concerns about bidding Plot Points, though. I like the idea of players being able to buy their own modifiers. If anyone has a better idea, let me know.
QuoteWhat constitutes a "good idea" in terms of Plot Point rewards? Seems mighty vague.
A "good idea" does tend to be very subjective. Basically, it would be an idea from the player that impresses the GM.. preferably one that advances the plot.
QuoteAre "goals" mechanical? If I resolve a goal, can I immediately pick up another? Or can I have as many goals as I want? What if my character's goal is "To cross the street"? Is this supposed to be solved by the GM line-item veto?
Goals are a mechanic of sorts. They are there to give the character something to aim for other than have the GM lead him around by the nose to bash monsters. If a goal is resolved, it is possible to pick up another one. Characters can grow and change just like real people do. So far, I haven't put any limits on the number of goals a character can have. The GM has the right to veto any Goal, Event, or Trait that is an obvious Munchin tactic.
The only way I would allow a character with the goal, "To cross the street" is if the character was a chicken and we were playing out old jokes.
QuoteOverall, I'd say you've got a system that goes more in the direction that you are talking about. It's very similar to Story Engine and Story Bones (http://www.hubrisgames.com/pdf/bones.pdf). Are you familiar with it? If so, have you considered Scene Resolution instead of Task Resolution?
I have the Story Engine lying around somewhere. I know the dice mechanic is somewhat similar, but it's actually something that was suggested to me by Jonathon Tweet almost 10 years ago. I have considered possibly having both Task and Scene resolutions in the game, depending on the situation in the adventure. There are going to be some situations where a scene resolution will do fine, and then there will be some tense situations, such as the Big Fight with the Major Villain where the players may insist on a blow-by-blow description. It's something that I still have to work out.
Quote from: Heraldic Game DesignSurprisingly, one of my playtester in my Yahoo group has already been mixing characters with different Levels of Play in the same game. Apparently, his players seem to enjoy it.
The question is one of protagonism. Is there some way for each character to shine in their story. If so, then power level is irrelevant. The playtester probably just ensures that each PC gets equal "screen time". That's usually all that's reqired. That and personal issues which your goal requirement seems to provide. Each character just has to be able to work though issues. Note how superman can appear in Justice League, and despite outclassing everyone, all the characters do fine.
QuoteI have to agree with you that they can be abused, though. Does anyone have any ideas on what an effective limit would be?
Perhaps a set of questions that can be answered. Each answer is one Life Event. Something like that. Or a word limit like Hero Wars does. Lots of possibilities.
QuoteWhat I had in mind is that the player should be able to say whatever Traits can be applied to an action, but the GM has veto power. Also, since the Traits are freeform, they are going to require some definition when the character is created. So, somebody that says that their character is "good with plants" and details that Trait involves growing and caring for gardens, it doesn't necessary mean that it's going to make them any better at being stealthy. However, if they define it as training in the wild.. like recognizing edible plants and what foliage gives the best cover, then I would say that is is applicable.
My personal take with these sorts of things is to allow them to remain vague until they come up in play. Then the ability is defined by it's use. So, in the example, if I use the Plants ability to produce some nice roses, as in having a green thumb, I can't change that to something like a camoflage
skill later. Anyhow, this allows the player a bit of wiggle room early so they can customize to the game. Makes the common GM tactic of allowing early character refactoring unneccessary.
QuoteThe corrected table looks like this:
Very nice. Should work well. The botch rules, all of it, it all looks good to me.
QuoteYou are right in your concerns about bidding Plot Points, though. I like the idea of players being able to buy their own modifiers. If anyone has a better idea, let me know.
The obvious idea is to say that the Points are lost if the player is successful, and retained on failure (what I call the Anti-Pool). This has several effects. First, you have incentive to try and gamble as few points as possible in order to conserve. Second, after success, the character is less able to succeed, and after failure more able to succeed. This back and forth seems to me to simulate narrative balance better.
It would even work with your auto-success rule in that a player could probably make a success sure in certain cases. But it would cost him more to do so than to gamble and leave a small chance of failure. So it makes the level of expenditure a considered choice in all cases.
QuoteA "good idea" does tend to be very subjective. Basically, it would be an idea from the player that impresses the GM.. preferably one that advances the plot.
The more hard guidance in terms of this the better. If it's just meant to say that the GM should give them like candy to reward whatever sort of play he likes, say that. The more open that is, the better.
QuoteGoals are a mechanic of sorts. They are there to give the character something to aim for other than have the GM lead him around by the nose to bash monsters. If a goal is resolved, it is possible to pick up another one. Characters can grow and change just like real people do. So far, I haven't put any limits on the number of goals a character can have.
My question is whether or not they need to be enumerated. See, if there is a formal process, it's my opinion that this causes people to pay more attention to it. For example, if it needs to be written on the character sheet, and something important like power development can only occur after a goal is reached, then players will pay lots of attention to accomplishing their goals. In fact limiting them is actually more effective than leaving it open as the player will see them as specific routs to success. So, maybe they can only have two short range and one long range. To account for changes in the character, they can change these at any time, but only if they erase one of the other goals. This is cool because it mechanically represents the character changing their mind. And they can always pick up old goals when they solve the current ones.
Basically I'mof the opinion that well designed limits are more catalyzing than leaving things completely open (hence why I'm not a freeform roleplayer).
QuoteThe GM has the right to veto any Goal, Event, or Trait that is an obvious Munchin tactic.
Again, any way you can get away from subjectivity makes the GMs job much easier. Put it onthe other players, for example. They have to vote to OK the other player's goals. That also simultaneously fixes any problems with conficting player goals (note that they can prefer conflicting character goals which is not the same thing).
QuoteI have considered possibly having both Task and Scene resolutions in the game, depending on the situation in the adventure. There are going to be some situations where a scene resolution will do fine, and then there will be some tense situations, such as the Big Fight with the Major Villain where the players may insist on a blow-by-blow description. It's something that I still have to work out.
I'd just allow the player to decide. Leaves them as satisfied as possible.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe question is one of protagonism. Is there some way for each character to shine in their story. If so, then power level is irrelevant. The playtester probably just ensures that each PC gets equal "screen time". That's usually all that's reqired. That and personal issues which your goal requirement seems to provide. Each character just has to be able to work though issues. Note how superman can appear in Justice League, and despite outclassing everyone, all the characters do fine.
Very true. However, you can't always count on players getting along with that idea. They'd have to be pretty mature not to get a bad case of "Hero Envy."
QuotePerhaps a set of questions that can be answered. Each answer is one Life Event. Something like that. Or a word limit like Hero Wars does. Lots of possibilities.
Yes, there are tons of ways to do this. I am trying to find the one that feels the least artifical, but still allows a lot of flexibility and allows the player to create his character quickly and easily.
Luna. 0.1 used the Hero Wars method of writing a limited number of words about a character. It's a good idea, but I froze up when I tried to do it myself. The character concept was clear in my mind, but simply wouldn't translate into story form unless I backed up and tried some kind of exercise to bring him out.
My main inspiration for the Dramatic Model has been Syd Field's books on screenwriting. They are simply amazing in that he is able to boil down screenwriting into the essential elements needed to create a strong script. One of his exercises that stuck in my mind is the one called, "Circle of Life." It's helpful in helping to build a strong character with clear motivations. It begins by thinking of an event in the character's past, usually between the ages of 10 and 16, that defined his personality. This "defining event" can then be used to build the character to his present day.
So, I decided to build on the "Circle of Life" and use a freeform lifepath. Unfortunately, in it's present form, it can be severely abused. I have been thinking of restricting the Plot Points generated by Life Events in that the Event must introduce a new Trait to the character and that the Plot Points generated by the Event can only be used to buy that new Trait.
QuoteMy personal take with these sorts of things is to allow them to remain vague until they come up in play. Then the ability is defined by it's use. So, in the example, if I use the Plants ability to produce some nice roses, as in having a green thumb, I can't change that to something like a camoflage skill later. Anyhow, this allows the player a bit of wiggle room early so they can customize to the game. Makes the common GM tactic of allowing early character refactoring unneccessary.
Noted. I'll have to think on that a bit.
QuoteThe obvious idea is to say that the Points are lost if the player is successful, and retained on failure (what I call the Anti-Pool). This has several effects. First, you have incentive to try and gamble as few points as possible in order to conserve. Second, after success, the character is less able to succeed, and after failure more able to succeed. This back and forth seems to me to simulate narrative balance better.
It would even work with your auto-success rule in that a player could probably make a success sure in certain cases. But it would cost him more to do so than to gamble and leave a small chance of failure. So it makes the level of expenditure a considered choice in all cases.
Okay, the message I am getting from you is fairly clear, and I think I like it. However, I want to make sure we are on the same page. You're saying that if Plot Points are bid in a roll and the character fails, he simply retains them. His chances of succeeding would remain the same, and would not actually increase with failure, wouldn't they?
One of the reasons I am bringing this up is that I am thinking of introducing a "diminishing returns" rule to the game. This is for those situations when the player keeps trying at some nearly impossible task, like picking a lock, and hoping to get a lucky roll. What I was thinking of is that 1 die would be subtracted from each subsequent attempt until the player made some kind of change in the way that he was doing the task, like researching the construction of the lock.
QuoteMy question is whether or not they (goals) need to be enumerated. See, if there is a formal process, it's my opinion that this causes people to pay more attention to it. For example, if it needs to be written on the character sheet, and something important like power development can only occur after a goal is reached, then players will pay lots of attention to accomplishing their goals. In fact limiting them is actually more effective than leaving it open as the player will see them as specific routs to success. So, maybe they can only have two short range and one long range. To account for changes in the character, they can change these at any time, but only if they erase one of the other goals. This is cool because it mechanically represents the character changing their mind. And they can always pick up old goals when they solve the current ones.
Basically I'mof the opinion that well designed limits are more catalyzing than leaving things completely open (hence why I'm not a freeform roleplayer).
Actually, I think that opinion is quite valid. I am going to put a space on the character sheet for the Goals. I think 3 short-term and 1 long-term goal would be fine for most characters, and that allowing the players to change them at any time would be a good thing.
QuoteAgain, any way you can get away from subjectivity makes the GMs job much easier. Put it on the other players, for example. They have to vote to OK the other player's goals. That also simultaneously fixes any problems with conficting player goals (note that they can prefer conflicting character goals which is not the same thing).
Have everybody vote on someone's Goals? I can see some trouble brewing over that. Nightmare images from the Knights of the Dinner Table flood my mind at the concept. Bob cries out, "A man's character is sacred! I can have any firking Goals I want!" and Brian states that, "Teflon Billy reveals his mysterious Goals to no one!"
However, I can see putting up to a vote any Goals that the GM finds to be "questionable" though.
Quote"I have considered possibly having both Task and Scene resolutions in the game, depending on the situation in the adventure. There are going to be some situations where a scene resolution will do fine, and then there will be some tense situations, such as the Big Fight with the Major Villain where the players may insist on a blow-by-blow description. It's something that I still have to work out."
I'd just allow the player to decide. Leaves them as satisfied as possible.
And that is the whole point of RPGs... emotional satisfaction.
Mike, if you wouldn't mind, may I put your name down in the credits as providing "Additional Developement?"
Quote from: Heraldic Game DesignVery true. However, you can't always count on players getting along with that idea. They'd have to be pretty mature not to get a bad case of "Hero Envy."
I had a teacher who once said, "When someone says you're acting immature, doesn't that pretty much just mean that they're saying they don't like what you're doing?" Good game design rewards good play. If you don't want Hero Envy, then make it impossible. For example, how did your playtester figure out how to make it work? Mature players? I'll bet he just gave the players the option. Which makes playing the "lesser" charcter a player choice. If a player can't handle the idea then he can chose to be the max level.
But that's just the simple way. As you pointed out earlier, there are ways to maechanically enforce the viability of "lesser" characters. Like someone said recently in a thread about doing Buffy in Donjon. In that game, Zander is important because he's constantly allowing his player to create facts about what's going on that he feeds to the "effective" characters.
So that's another option, allowing a character to have greater metagame control. Say that the "normals" start with 120 Plot Points, Heroes with 100, Supers with 80 and Gods with 60. Then the player spends as many as he likes, and the remeinder form his pool. He's still limited by the caps, so likley the Normal guy will just keep a lot of Plot Points. So basically the higherups win via stats, and the lower powered characters win via metagame.
This is just an example that would mangle a lot of other things. But it is intended to give you an idea of what sort of mechanics can be created to incentiveize playing across the range of available character power levels.
QuoteSo, I decided to build on the "Circle of Life" and use a freeform lifepath. Unfortunately, in it's present form, it can be severely abused. I have been thinking of restricting the Plot Points generated by Life Events in that the Event must introduce a new Trait to the character and that the Plot Points generated by the Event can only be used to buy that new Trait.
Heh, I'd been subconsciously assuming that would be true. Definitely, I'd say. That's how Hero Wars works. How'd you get away from that?
QuoteOkay, the message I am getting from you is fairly clear, and I think I like it. However, I want to make sure we are on the same page. You're saying that if Plot Points are bid in a roll and the character fails, he simply retains them. His chances of succeeding would remain the same, and would not actually increase with failure, wouldn't they?
What I mean is that in the original system, if a player fails they will be left with less ability to get out of their situation as they lose points. My version, as you point out, does not penalize them so they remain just as able of getting out of trouble as they were when they got in it. The theoretical problem with the other way is that it leads to a spiraling effect. If I fail, then I'll probably fail more. If I succeed, I'll keep succeeding. With my version success and failure are given a chance to alternate with more frequency.
QuoteOne of the reasons I am bringing this up is that I am thinking of introducing a "diminishing returns" rule to the game. This is for those situations when the player keeps trying at some nearly impossible task, like picking a lock, and hoping to get a lucky roll. What I was thinking of is that 1 die would be subtracted from each subsequent attempt until the player made some kind of change in the way that he was doing the task, like researching the construction of the lock.
I'm not sure how that pertains, but it's a pretty standard mechanic. I'd go with it.
Quote
Actually, I think that opinion is quite valid. I am going to put a space on the character sheet for the Goals. I think 3 short-term and 1 long-term goal would be fine for most characters, and that allowing the players to change them at any time would be a good thing.
I'll make one more plea. Perhaps make the ability to change goals only happen after a conflict has ended. Thus punctualting the conflict.
The idea is to have some mechanical point where play stops for a moment, and the GM asks "Any goal changes?" So that the players are continually thinking about it. Otherwise you'll get the behaviour where they'll say, "Oh, I forgot to change goals. Can we say that I changed goals before this?"
The cool thing, like I said is that the mechanical change itself punctuates that internal change of state in the character. Things are brought into context. Anyhow, rigor appeals to me.
QuoteHave everybody vote on someone's Goals? I can see some trouble brewing over that. Nightmare images from the Knights of the Dinner Table flood my mind at the concept. Bob cries out, "A man's character is sacred! I can have any firking Goals I want!" and Brian states that, "Teflon Billy reveals his mysterious Goals to no one!"
You play with the KoDT players? Well no wonder... ;-)
I posted not too long ago that KoDT is a manual on how not to role-play. But I also pointed out that the problems from the game stem not so much from the players but the way the Hackmaster promotes their mode of play to venture into the absurd.
Anyhow, I can see some players wanting to keep goals secret. This is a form of performance art that some role-players like to engage in. The problem is that it causes problems when other players dislike the PC for their chosen goals. Is it so bad to dissapoint Billy if the whole group likes the session better? Character soverignty is over-rated. It's fun to share.
Hey, make players consider the value of secrecy. Allow more Goals, but have secret ones cost two slots.
Still, there are other ways. Have a list of types of goals that are suitable, maybe, and make the player mold his to fit (see SAs in TROS). Anything to avoid the situation where the player comes up with what he thinks is an uber-cool goal, and the GM is forced to say, "Sorry, no." That's just rotten for everyone.
QuoteMike, if you wouldn't mind, may I put your name down in the credits as providing "Additional Developement?"
I'd be flattered. FWIW, most of what I've given you is just ideas that have evolved here on these forums. But, sure, I'll take credit for being the one who put the effort in. :-)
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesI had a teacher who once said, "When someone says you're acting immature, doesn't that pretty much just mean that they're saying they don't like what you're doing?" Good game design rewards good play. If you don't want Hero Envy, then make it impossible. For example, how did your playtester figure out how to make it work? Mature players? I'll bet he just gave the players the option. Which makes playing the "lesser" charcter a player choice. If a player can't handle the idea then he can chose to be the max level.
But that's just the simple way. As you pointed out earlier, there are ways to maechanically enforce the viability of "lesser" characters. Like someone said recently in a thread about doing Buffy in Donjon. In that game, Zander is important because he's constantly allowing his player to create facts about what's going on that he feeds to the "effective" characters.
So that's another option, allowing a character to have greater metagame control. Say that the "normals" start with 120 Plot Points, Heroes with 100, Supers with 80 and Gods with 60. Then the player spends as many as he likes, and the remeinder form his pool. He's still limited by the caps, so likley the Normal guy will just keep a lot of Plot Points. So basically the higherups win via stats, and the lower powered characters win via metagame.
This is just an example that would mangle a lot of other things. But it is intended to give you an idea of what sort of mechanics can be created to incentiveize playing across the range of available character power levels.
I haven't worked out the details yet. What I have in mind is that players choosing to play characters that are at a lower Level of Play than what the GM allows would get a pool of Plot Points that renew themselves at the beginning of the next gaming session. The amount of Points he would get would be the difference between the Level the character can be and what Level he chooses to be. So, if campaign Level is set at Super and one of the players wants his character to be only at the Heroic Level, his pool would be 15 Plot Points. So he would pretty much be able to spend like a sailor when it comes to influencing the adventure. The only restriction I would put on that pool is that the Points could not be spent to improve the character's Traits.
QuoteHeh, I'd been subconsciously assuming that would be true. Definitely, I'd say. That's how Hero Wars works. How'd you get away from that?
I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Get away from what?
QuoteQuoteOne of the reasons I am bringing this up is that I am thinking of introducing a "diminishing returns" rule to the game. This is for those situations when the player keeps trying at some nearly impossible task, like picking a lock, and hoping to get a lucky roll. What I was thinking of is that 1 die would be subtracted from each subsequent attempt until the player made some kind of change in the way that he was doing the task, like researching the construction of the lock.
I'm not sure how that pertains, but it's a pretty standard mechanic. I'd go with it.
Well, when you referred to Points regained from failing a roll as the "Anti-Pool" I wasn't sure if you had something more exotic in mind that would make it actually easier for someone to succeed once they had failed at something, and just weren't communicating it well.
QuoteI'll make one more plea. Perhaps make the ability to change goals only happen after a conflict has ended. Thus punctualting the conflict.
The idea is to have some mechanical point where play stops for a moment, and the GM asks "Any goal changes?" So that the players are continually thinking about it. Otherwise you'll get the behaviour where they'll say, "Oh, I forgot to change goals. Can we say that I changed goals before this?"
The cool thing, like I said is that the mechanical change itself punctuates that internal change of state in the character. Things are brought into context. Anyhow, rigor appeals to me.
What I first had in mind for Goals is that they couldn't be changed until the character accomplished one, or it simply became impossible to fulfill that Goal. I really don't want this to simply become some method for players to garner more Points. It's like the example you gave about someone putting down "To Cross the Street" as a short-term goal. There's no drama, no excitement to be derived from such a goal. The character crosses the street and the player expects to be rewarded for it. Allowing players to change their goals too frequently would have a similar effect. The reason I came up with Personal Goals in the first place was to help provide subplots in the adventure.
QuoteYou play with the KoDT players? Well no wonder... ;-)
I posted not too long ago that KoDT is a manual on how not to role-play. But I also pointed out that the problems from the game stem not so much from the players but the way the Hackmaster promotes their mode of play to venture into the absurd.
I think everybody has played with the Knights at one time or another when they temporarily possess your players. And if you're going to insist that Hackmaster is to blame, then you haven't seen the comics when they have Boardgame Night.
QuoteHey, make players consider the value of secrecy. Allow more Goals, but have secret ones cost two slots.
That sounds like a good idea.
QuoteStill, there are other ways. Have a list of types of goals that are suitable, maybe, and make the player mold his to fit (see SAs in TROS). Anything to avoid the situation where the player comes up with what he thinks is an uber-cool goal, and the GM is forced to say, "Sorry, no." That's just rotten for everyone.
I'll have to take a good look at TROS to get an idea of what you're suggesting. I don't like raining on anyone's parade, either. I really prefer to allow everyone to have a good time without me interfering. However, it will probably take some playtesting to come up with the best way to handle bad goals.
Of course, having good examples in the rules will definitely help. And instead of simply saying "No"... the GM could suggest another Goal that would fit the character better and provide some entertainment.
Goals should be a definite hint from the players to the GM as to what they would like to see come up in a campaign. For example, if one of the players has "Take over the Thieves Guild" a goal, he might want start developing the Thieves Guild in more detail and plan some city adventures so that character has some opportunity to accomplish that goal.
[/code]
Quote from: Heraldic Game DesignWhat I have in mind is that players choosing to play characters that are at a lower Level of Play than what the GM allows would get a pool of Plot Points that renew themselves at the beginning of the next gaming session.
Sounds pretty good. There are some threads around here that discussed this recently, BTW. Not sure how to search them up, however. Anyone remember the threads I'm talking about wherein was discussed the idea of differing level of power characters?
QuoteQuoteHeh, I'd been subconsciously assuming that would be true. Definitely, I'd say. That's how Hero Wars works. How'd you get away from that?
I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. Get away from what?
I assumed that Life Events could only be used to purchase traits that would be brought about by them. Just like in Hero Wars where the narrative about the character is directly where the Traits are pulled from. It seems that you had gone away from that idea for a while, but now are back to it.
QuoteWell, when you referred to Points regained from failing a roll as the "Anti-Pool" I wasn't sure if you had something more exotic in mind that would make it actually easier for someone to succeed once they had failed at something, and just weren't communicating it well.
Nope, just bad commo on my part. That said, the obvious answer if one wanted to increase power with failure would be to reward each failure with a Plot Point. Heck, allow players responding to GM calls for rolls to declare auto-failure if they like, just to get the reward. :-)
QuoteWhat I first had in mind for Goals is that they couldn't be changed until the character accomplished one, or it simply became impossible to fulfill that Goal.
That would also work for me. :-)
QuoteI think everybody has played with the Knights at one time or another when they temporarily possess your players. And if you're going to insist that Hackmaster is to blame, then you haven't seen the comics when they have Boardgame Night.
The point is that either the system is to blame or the players are. In the first case, fix the system. In the second, get new players. It's a Forge axiom that one cannot prevent abusive players from messing with a game, and that damaging your game trying to do so is a bad idea.
Make a game that promotes a certain style of play, not one that punishes the rest.
QuoteQuoteHey, make players consider the value of secrecy. Allow more Goals, but have secret ones cost two slots.
That sounds like a good idea.
Of the potential problems, Secrets seems to me to be the only one predicated on a possibly valid style of play.
QuoteI'll have to take a good look at TROS to get an idea of what you're suggesting. I don't like raining on anyone's parade, either. I really prefer to allow everyone to have a good time without me interfering. However, it will probably take some playtesting to come up with the best way to handle bad goals.
Even TROS allows the GM to veto a badly selected Spiritual Attribute. It just makes that less likely to happen by giving a framework of possible SAs. Luck is Luck is Luck, for example, and never needs GM adjudication. There has been a lot of debate on what makes a reasonable drive, however.
Note, too, how changing SAs is linked to character improvement. :-)
QuoteOf course, having good examples in the rules will definitely help. And instead of simply saying "No"... the GM could suggest another Goal that would fit the character better and provide some entertainment.
Which is always the best technique in such cases. But still...
QuoteGoals should be a definite hint from the players to the GM as to what they would like to see come up in a campaign. For example, if one of the players has "Take over the Thieves Guild" a goal, he might want start developing the Thieves Guild in more detail and plan some city adventures so that character has some opportunity to accomplish that goal.
Heh, many here would suggest that goals form the entire course of play. Kickers in Sorcerer are intended to do just that. With good SAs in TROS, making up any other plot is completely unneccessary.
Check up on some of the threads about Kickers to see what we're talking about. Why not allow goals to be the entire subject of play. This is how Hero Wars works, for instance, if you let it.
Mike
I imagine that there are some of you that aren't able to or aren't interested joining Yahoo Groups in order to download Luna 0.2, so I've uploaded it to my own web site for your downloading ease. http://heraldicgame.com/ftp/Luna02.pdf
Quote from: ValamirHey Keith. Glad to see you here. Exciting news about Outsiders. Like you my style of play has changed over the years too. I've always been a big fan of genre emulation through mechanics, however, which is the biggest weakness of universal systems.
I looked over your post again, Ralph. I hate to disappoint you, but Luna is technically going to be a universal system. However, I am hoping by employing the Dramatic Model, it will easily mold itself to the world it is emulating rather than trying to get the world to mold to the system. For example, Universalis is also "universal" but the rules are so instinctive when it comes to story construction that they become almost transparent. That's the type of quality that I want Luna to have.
Luna Alpha version 0.2.5 has been released at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/outsider_chronicles/.
Keith
Hey, wanted to say my welcome to the forge bit too, and say I am a fan of your work. I own Steeltown, and liked SOL, good solid universal system. I guess you got the whole Hardcore sim Purist for System bug out of your system by designing SOL huh? :) I haven't, I still have a king-kong sized system monkey on my back with my design, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle.:) However, it still does alot of new style things in it's focus and play style, being built around collaborative RP/Gamemasterful playing, and with focus on Shared World design ala Aria, and Ensemble/Troupe type and Meta-character play as well, or at least it will when I get it done.
So I looked over Luna 0.2.5 and thought I would offer some thoughts. In terms of your wanting to go with the dramatic model, I guess I would want to ask if your are familiar with the GNS theory and documents. I'd ask how you want to focus the Outsider Chronicles. To me it would seem to be an Sim: Exploration of Setting/Situation kind of focus based on it's premise. It would seem you don't want to go whole hog narrativist in terms of Being purely character driven thematic play, correct?
It seems you want a bit of a faster, looser system, with the players to have the ability to have more authorial weight, correct? Oh, one question is that you are pretty solid on having a traditional GM moderated game, with most of the credibility & authority reserved to the GM, correct?
Your idea of using Plot Points only as limited Authorial weight would seem to support this, making the game heavier on the participationist side. Another question for you is have you considered collaborative plot point spending and such. Say a player wants to pump his action a certain way, but another player has an idea for some cool complication fight scene element. Would you consider allowing that player, or even the GM to offer the PLAYER some Plot Points in exchange for agreeing to this change.
Like, Bills character Mark has been getting the crap kicked out of him by the big bad, he just failed badly and got the hand holding his sword cut off. He has nowhere left to go but out onto the thin maintenance bridge overlooking the airshaft. GM, "Big Bad advances upon you, breathing heavily, it looks like he will probably be able to kill you, unless you want to accept a 10 PP complication instead. Bill, umm allright, beats me getting killed. The GM smiles and continues. Advancing toward you Thulsa, moves his sword from his right to his left hand and extends his hand towards you, as you cower behind the tower at the end of the maintenance bridge. He says, "Join me Mark, together we will rule empire together." Bill... "Never, I'll never be like you and the emperor." Bill grimaces hoping the plot points will help avoid death as the GM will probably have him cut away the maintenance bridge sending him falling. GM as Thulsa, "No Mark, you are like me. I Am your Father." Bill as Mark, "What? NO!". I'll jump off the bridge hoping to save myself somehow below, says Bill."
(Cheesy yeah, but classic!:) )
A couple of other ideas about driving storytelling by Players rather than GM. You have been talking about goals and such. And the idea of TROS' SA's have been mentioned. I think doing that could be interesting, letting them drive action by providing "free dice" towards goal achieval. .
Second, To expand on Mike's idea for Negative Traits. I agree with Mike, definitely, DO NOT provide points at creation for taking Negative Traits, otherwise you get GURPS hunchback albino syndrome as players point scrape for extra effectiveness. I like to think of Negative Traits as "Character Expectations", basically they are an agreement by the player that his character can be expected to act in ways consistent with the expectation. An interesting take on this combined with the collaborative RP aspect is in addition to the player being able to Fullfil the character expectation in a scene during a session, have you considered letting either the GM or other players to propose scenes or actions where they offer the player points to fulffil the character expectation as they imagine it would add to the story. If the player of that character is agreeable, then he gets the Plot points from the GM/Player, and the other player can narrate how the expectation is fulfilled.
This stresses some of the more collaborative aspects of the Play is shared concept. Speaking of which, have you considered allowing players to offer up meta-game elements for introduction to the plot by spending plot points? Going beyond Authorial weight into full on Director stance. I have encapsulated alot of these ideas in the Scripts idea for my game The Million Worlds. I talk about it in my TMW:COTEC - Shared Play concepts - Scripts (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4904) Thread.
As part of that, you might want to seperate the Plot Points/Design Points aspect. I find it is interesting to conceive of attaching Plot Points to the player, which he can invest in Character's or other entities in the game. Of course all this stuff is pretty radical compared to traditional RPG, but it is some stuff you can think off. I think letting all the players come up with interesting wierdness could add to the appeal of Outsider Chronicles due to it's parallel/altnerate world nature. Going to different worlds provides opportunities for the different players to contribute different ideas for entities and such to the game.
But as I said, this is getting off into the land of radical GMful/collaborative/sharedplay gaming. But is something you could consider. It also helps drive player thinking away from the only thing to achieve in the game is character advancement. (Since you'll be playing guys like Navy Seals and shiat, they are already at the top of their game, as it were.)
Anyway, I hope you find some of these ideas interesting or useful. Any other areas or ideas you are looking for more feedback on in particular?
Best
Quote from: RobMuadibKeith
Hey, wanted to say my welcome to the forge bit too, and say I am a fan of your work. I own Steeltown, and liked SOL, good solid universal system. I guess you got the whole Hardcore sim Purist for System bug out of your system by designing SOL huh? :)
Thank you for the welcome and the compliment, Rob. I really appreciate it. I don't know if I've actually got it entirely out of my system. It's just the way I tend to think. Coming up with a "soft" system like Luna is something of a challenge because I'n having to take a lot of mushy ideas I have and shape them into something tangible enough for other people to play with.
QuoteSo I looked over Luna 0.2.5 and thought I would offer some thoughts. In terms of your wanting to go with the dramatic model, I guess I would want to ask if your are familiar with the GNS theory and documents. I'd ask how you want to focus the Outsider Chronicles. To me it would seem to be an Sim: Exploration of Setting/Situation kind of focus based on it's premise. It would seem you don't want to go whole hog narrativist in terms of Being purely character driven thematic play, correct?
I've looked over the GNS articles and I believe I have the gist of them. The original focus of Outside was to simulate the exploration of alternate worlds. However, there is room for other types of adventures, such as X-files types of investigations, or military action versus interdimensional invasion.
I would like to make Luna..and the Outsider Chronicles.. more Narrativist. I'll be adding those elements onto Luna 0.2.7 and later versions. As much as I would personally enjoy a narrativist system, I'm not certain the general gaming public would buy such a system in quantities enough for the game to be a success. I may be wrong, but many of the gamers I've run across tend to have some fairly passive imaginations. I think a system that would allow the GM to be in charge, but allow the players to contribute creatively to the adventure would be best.
QuoteIt seems you want a bit of a faster, looser system, with the players to have the ability to have more authorial weight, correct? Oh, one question is that you are pretty solid on having a traditional GM moderated game, with most of the credibility & authority reserved to the GM, correct?
Correct.
QuoteYour idea of using Plot Points only as limited Authorial weight would seem to support this, making the game heavier on the participationist side. Another question for you is have you considered collaborative plot point spending and such. Say a player wants to pump his action a certain way, but another player has an idea for some cool complication fight scene element. Would you consider allowing that player, or even the GM to offer the PLAYER some Plot Points in exchange for agreeing to this change.
Like, Bills character Mark has been getting the crap kicked out of him by the big bad, he just failed badly and got the hand holding his sword cut off. He has nowhere left to go but out onto the thin maintenance bridge overlooking the airshaft. GM, "Big Bad advances upon you, breathing heavily, it looks like he will probably be able to kill you, unless you want to accept a 10 PP complication instead. Bill, umm allright, beats me getting killed. The GM smiles and continues. Advancing toward you Thulsa, moves his sword from his right to his left hand and extends his hand towards you, as you cower behind the tower at the end of the maintenance bridge. He says, "Join me Mark, together we will rule empire together." Bill... "Never, I'll never be like you and the emperor." Bill grimaces hoping the plot points will help avoid death as the GM will probably have him cut away the maintenance bridge sending him falling. GM as Thulsa, "No Mark, you are like me. I Am your Father." Bill as Mark, "What? NO!". I'll jump off the bridge hoping to save myself somehow below, says Bill."
(Cheesy yeah, but classic!:) )
Cheesy, but I tend to think of that same Star Wars scene myself. Why? There is so much in that scene that you CANNOT simulate in a traditional rpg. You cannot come by that much drama by sheer random rolls. Belive me, if I could make Luna a narrativist, diceless sytem, I would. However, if I even mention the word "diceless" to most gamers, they make a face like they just sucked on a lemon.
I am adding an option for players to "Sweeten the Scene" using Plot Points. They can add new elements to the adventure that either help or hinder them. Spending points to add something to help, or gaining points by introducing a complication. I'm still working on the details for that.
QuoteA couple of other ideas about driving storytelling by Players rather than GM. You have been talking about goals and such. And the idea of TROS' SA's have been mentioned. I think doing that could be interesting, letting them drive action by providing "free dice" towards goal achieval.
Free Dice? Give me an example.
QuoteSecond, To expand on Mike's idea for Negative Traits. I agree with Mike, definitely, DO NOT provide points at creation for taking Negative Traits, otherwise you get GURPS hunchback albino syndrome as players point scrape for extra effectiveness. I like to think of Negative Traits as "Character Expectations", basically they are an agreement by the player that his character can be expected to act in ways consistent with the expectation. An interesting take on this combined with the collaborative RP aspect is in addition to the player being able to Fullfil the character expectation in a scene during a session, have you considered letting either the GM or other players to propose scenes or actions where they offer the player points to fulffil the character expectation as they imagine it would add to the story. If the player of that character is agreeable, then he gets the Plot points from the GM/Player, and the other player can narrate how the expectation is fulfilled.
This has been changed per yours and Mike's suggestions. Negative Traits no longer give the character more Plot Points. However, the player may get Points for actively using a Negative Trait during an adventure.
QuoteThis stresses some of the more collaborative aspects of the Play is shared concept. Speaking of which, have you considered allowing players to offer up meta-game elements for introduction to the plot by spending plot points? Going beyond Authorial weight into full on Director stance. I have encapsulated alot of these ideas in the Scripts idea for my game The Million Worlds. I talk about it in my TMW:COTEC - Shared Play concepts - Scripts (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4904) Thread.
I'll have to take a closer look at that thread.
QuoteAs part of that, you might want to seperate the Plot Points/Design Points aspect. I find it is interesting to conceive of attaching Plot Points to the player, which he can invest in Character's or other entities in the game. Of course all this stuff is pretty radical compared to traditional RPG, but it is some stuff you can think off. I think letting all the players come up with interesting wierdness could add to the appeal of Outsider Chronicles due to it's parallel/altnerate world nature. Going to different worlds provides opportunities for the different players to contribute different ideas for entities and such to the game.
But as I said, this is getting off into the land of radical GMful/collaborative/sharedplay gaming. But is something you could consider. It also helps drive player thinking away from the only thing to achieve in the game is character advancement. (Since you'll be playing guys like Navy Seals and shiat, they are already at the top of their game, as it were.)
Anyway, I hope you find some of these ideas interesting or useful. Any other areas or ideas you are looking for more feedback on in particular?
Well.. you have give me a lot to chew on. I would have replied sooner, but I felt the need to think well on my replies. I think the most help I will need is making Luna more of a narrativist system. It seems to fit the dramatic model better.
Just to be a pedantic terms Nazi, Narrativist does not necessarily mean Director Stance. Which is what you're actually implying. Right now I'm seeing Luna as at best abashedly Narrativist, but more likely plain Simulationist. It does have player power in terms of Director Stance mechanics, but that alone does not mean that it promotes Narrativism (despite many people making that assumption).
I like this combination, however. So keep it up. :-)
See the notes on the game Pace here for an example of a diceless Sim game. People assume that if there are less rules or more player power that the players will automatically stop making Sim decisions. But this is just not true. At the most it means that players will not be informed one way or another, and will merely play by preference. Narrativist games must have some way to promote the making of decisions about speccific sorts of dramatic questions (as opposed to just questions about "what happens next").
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesJust to be a pedantic terms Nazi, Narrativist does not necessarily mean Director Stance. Which is what you're actually implying. Right now I'm seeing Luna as at best abashedly Narrativist, but more likely plain Simulationist. It does have player power in terms of Director Stance mechanics, but that alone does not mean that it promotes Narrativism (despite many people making that assumption).
I don't mind you being a Nazi at all. I was up late when I wrote that reply and my mind tends to be a bit chaotic even when fully rested. The term "Narrativist" kind of trips me up because the term doesn't seem to adequately represent the idea. But that's just me.
My area of expertise has always been Communications, and I tend to think of an rpg in terms of group dynamics, rather than Ron's GNS model. I think his work is brilliant in breaking down RPGs like that, but there seems to be some part of my brain that just doesn't seem to get it like the rest of you do.
It seems to me that whether a game is going G, N, or S depends mostly on what the players personally focus on in the game. Systems can help in this choice, but ultimately it is up to the players whether they are going to concentrate on beating the other players, exploration, or creating a great story.
QuoteI like this combination, however. So keep it up. :-)
Thanks. Praise does the fragile ego good.
QuoteSee the notes on the game Pace here for an example of a diceless Sim game. People assume that if there are less rules or more player power that the players will automatically stop making Sim decisions. But this is just not true. At the most it means that players will not be informed one way or another, and will merely play by preference. Narrativist games must have some way to promote the making of decisions about speccific sorts of dramatic questions (as opposed to just questions about "what happens next").
Well, it seems to me that most roleplayers are going to be in G or S state of mind. Most of the gamers I have come across tend to be concrete thinkers. G and S would both apeal to these people because it gives them something "solid" to hang onto. Moral and emotional quandries as entertainment don't normally appeal to them. However, I'm hoping to make some Narrative concepts more concrete by using various elements such as Personal goals.
QuoteIt seems to me that whether a game is going G, N, or S depends mostly on what the players personally focus on in the game.
That's completely true. GNS is about players making decisions in play. To say that a game is one or the other mode is to say that it tends to promote that sort of decision making. That's all.
QuoteWell, it seems to me that most roleplayers are going to be in G or S state of mind.
There are plenty of players who use N at least a little, and a considerable proportion of the gaming populace who use it a lot. The relative lack of N play (and it's true) is that players haven't had N games to play. They're being coerced to play in a mode that they don't prefer. Same thing with the "passive imaginations". In general this is the result of players are being discouraged by the system from being creative. I've yet to see a player behave uncreatively in Universalis. To do so would be not to play as the only thing you do in that game is create things/events.
As soon as you play a Narrativist game, you see how many players take to it immediately. That is, I personally believe that almost all gamers really like all three modes. But incoherecy in prior play convinces players that certain modes are dysfnctional. So that's where their disike of certain modes comes from. Given a functional game of any mode or combination of modes, most players can enjoy any mode, IME. Playing Dust Devils, for example, at GenCon last year with complete D&D-only gamers led to comments like, "It's a completely different sort of game. But I like it."
This is why I don't advocate that people worry too much about what mode their game ends up. Just that it's Coherent.
I don't see any problems with your design so far in this regard other than those that tend to occur around Abashed games in general (a topic I've wanted to broach for a while) - but it's early yet. :-)
Anyhow, kick some more out, and then we can talk coherence.
Mike
Quote from: Mike Holmes
There are plenty of players who use N at least a little, and a considerable proportion of the gaming populace who use it a lot. The relative lack of N play (and it's true) is that players haven't had N games to play. They're being coerced to play in a mode that they don't prefer. Same thing with the "passive imaginations". In general this is the result of players are being discouraged by the system from being creative. I've yet to see a player behave uncreatively in Universalis. To do so would be not to play as the only thing you do in that game is create things/events.
As soon as you play a Narrativist game, you see how many players take to it immediately. Quote
I must agree with you on that. When I tried out Universalis in a GenCon demo, and you can read about it at http://universalis.actionroll.com/psionic_mines.htm. I had more fun in that half hour than I had in two years of playing D&D 3rd Edition. Why is this?
Because I felt as though I had been freed.
I have been trying to design a roleplaying game that would allow the players to make use of the "soft skills" that go into roleplaying... creativity, storytelling, a bit of acting... and make that what counts in the game. Universalis is the closest thing I have found so far.
I want to be able to make a game that allows others to feel like that session made me feel that day... like a hero in a movie.
Two of the games that have gotten a lot of press and are very weighted toward the more dramatic style of play are Wushu and Nobilis. I have not seen it, but understand that the new Marvel Super Heroes game is resource based as well.
Nobilis is a very weighty tome and while I heartily recommend it, I think its size is prohibitive for this discussion. Wushu is another matter altogether. I do think that Wushu is both the soul of simplicity, and possibly the most elegant game I have ever seen.
I do think Wushu is a 'must see' point of reference for those wanting to keep it simple and reinforce genre tropes and conventions.
As long as we're recommending, I like both The Pool and TQB, for dramatics. Both are basically predicated around exactly one concept:
"The player defines how important to the story his character's traits are."
Thus you could be "Strongest Man in the Universe" but, if you rank it low, that means "eh, this is a part of my character, but I don't want it to often help him get out of jams or otherwise improve the story." On the other hand, you could be "Annoying" and rank it really high, thus effectively saying "Yes, I want this to be a significant part of my character."
Also, as for the Star Wars Scene, I think a properly-written game COULD very well handle that scene. The only problem is, you couldn't script such a thing in advance. However the neat scene goes, it's probably NOT how you, the GM, imagine such a scene. Yes, a scene JUST LIKE THAT could happen, even with random dice rolls (look at Sorcerer). But, given two sets of players and the same initial set-up, the chances of the SAME dramatic scene happening is close to nil.
Which isn't a bad thing - the revelation of "you are my son" is dramatic all by itself, and there are all sorts of different, yet still dramatic and narratively interesting, ways to reveal such a thing.
Quote from: LxndrAlso, as for the Star Wars Scene, I think a properly-written game COULD very well handle that scene.
The operative word was "TRADITIONAL" roleplaying system. My point being that they usually boil down to random results in a dice game. It would be possible to do it with the right system, but the players would probably be more impressed by the great die rolls that were made than the actual scene itself, if it were done traditionally.
Boy... does my last post seem cynical now that I look at it a second time. My apologies if I was offensive.
That scene from Star Wars could be played out with the right system. It would probably have to allow the players to interject their own elements into the story, though. There are several dramatic elements in the confrontation scene between Vader and Skywalker in Cloud City. My version of events assumes that Vader isn't out to kill Skywalker, but to turn him to the Dark Side by filling him with hatred, pain, and confusion. My apologies if I'm inaccurate, it's been a long time since I've seen this film.
1. He hits Skywalker indirectly with bits of equipment. always aimed at his back. This is mostly to frustrate him. (The mechanics for flinging things around telekinetically are easy to find in any rpg, but there's virtually nothing about this type of tactic to wear down a person's resistance to persuasion.)
2. During an actual duel, Vader drives Skywalker back to a precipice and lops off his hand, taking his lightsaber with it. Both hand and saber fall into the depths. (Most rpgs don't normally allow you to manuever your opponent like that. Melee battles tend to be toe-to-toe until someone is dead. Aimed shots, if they exist in the system, tend to be very difficult to do and most players tend to choose attacks with the greatest chance of success. Combat in a dramatic system would have to made so that details like manuevering an opponent and cutting off a limb become more attractive.)
3. Vader, after beating the snot out of Skywalker and showing him how weak and ineffectual his side is, hits him with the "I am your father" schtick. Skywalker is put on the edge, physically and emotionally. (Once again, an emotional tactic not handled in normal rpgs.)
4.) Skywalker chooses to escape Vader by the seemingly suicidal tactic of jumping off the precipice. He is saved from falling to his death by Deus ex Machina. (One could argue that Skywalker recieved guidance from the Force when making this decision, but salvation by lucky intervention seems to be a common occurence in adventure movies like this. In order to simulate this, the player would have to be able to make his own "luck" somehow.)
First, there are plenty of more freeform games out there that can accomplish this all easily (see The Pool), but I understand that this is not what you're looking for.
Quote from: Heraldic Game Design1. He hits Skywalker indirectly with bits of equipment. always aimed at his back. This is mostly to frustrate him. (The mechanics for flinging things around telekinetically are easy to find in any rpg, but there's virtually nothing about this type of tactic to wear down a person's resistance to persuasion.)
Well, is Luke a PC in this instance? Then few, if any RPGs will allow the character to be "convinced" no matter what. That is, most RPGs have no rules that force characters to behave in any way other than what the player wants, with the possible exception of mind control and other powerful forces.
The reason for this is simple. If you take away the player's ability to make decisions for the character, you've gone a long way to eliminating their participation in these cases. There are exceptions, however. Pendragon, for instance, has rolls against pairs of Traits so as to cause a character to act to type. And there are lot's of games with Sanity rules, ranging from CoC which can cause bonkers behavior to Unknown Armies which can cause the character to have all sorts of interesting behaviors based on their mental conditions.
But the one that really sticks out here is a game specifically designed to do this entire scene - Paladin. I'm not sure that it covers this particular part, actually, but it does cover the whole slide to the dark side thing.
Quote2. During an actual duel, Vader drives Skywalker back to a precipice and lops off his hand, taking his lightsaber with it. Both hand and saber fall into the depths. (Most rpgs don't normally allow you to manuever your opponent like that. Melee battles tend to be toe-to-toe until someone is dead. Aimed shots, if they exist in the system, tend to be very difficult to do and most players tend to choose attacks with the greatest chance of success. Combat in a dramatic system would have to made so that details like manuevering an opponent and cutting off a limb become more attractive.)
Actually, I can think of several systems that allow this in different ways. Some are more tactical oriented, and others more based on story concerns. One that I really like is Hero Wars. Basically conflicts become a series of bids trying to reach an outcome. If the outcome you want is for the person to feel like they're trapped by maneuvering them, that's easily accomplished with the system.
Quote3. Vader, after beating the snot out of Skywalker and showing him how weak and ineffectual his side is, hits him with the "I am your father" schtick. Skywalker is put on the edge, physically and emotionally. (Once again, an emotional tactic not handled in normal rpgs.)
Even in good old Hero System there are presence attacks. But again, the question is what areas of the character's protagonist nature do you want inviolate for the player, and what not? I could proffer my Synthesis system as one that focuses only on the internal struggles of the characters. I've had playtesters roll constantly to find out what their characters do despite the fact that they aren't required to do so. I mentioned to one, "Hey, you don't have to roll for that." His response was, "I know, but it's fun."
So you can mess with things like this with the right system.
Quote4.) Skywalker chooses to escape Vader by the seemingly suicidal tactic of jumping off the precipice. He is saved from falling to his death by Deus ex Machina. (One could argue that Skywalker recieved guidance from the Force when making this decision, but salvation by lucky intervention seems to be a common occurence in adventure movies like this. In order to simulate this, the player would have to be able to make his own "luck" somehow.)
Again, it all depends on to what extent you want events to be resolved by internal logic, or external story logic. In The Pool, Universalis, Hero Wars, etc, this is an easy thing to accomplish. Who says that the player has to do this either?
Here's an example of how it could go in one style of play.
Player: I want my character to escape.
GM: Well, he's in a tight spot on this precipice. What stat do you want to use?
Player: Hmm. How about my character's Luck stat?
GM: Fine. Roll it.
Player: Success!
GM: Luke jumps off the precipice having no other place to go. As luck would have it, a chute opens and he falls into it and starts sliding to safety...only to fall outside the city onto an antenna. And he's having problems holding on with only one hand....
Exchange "the Force" stat with "Luck" if you want an in-game solution.
It can all be worked out with the right system. I can totally envision the scene working in Hero Wars, and that's pretty solid mechanically.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesFirst, there are plenty of more freeform games out there that can accomplish this all easily (see The Pool), but I understand that this is not what you're looking for.
Well, I think I had hoped to make Luna more of a Narrative game than it currently is. I've been looking at various Narrative games in order to get some ideas.
One has been Universalis, of course. The Pool is interesting. Another one that I find fascinating is Soap. Pace, though it isn't a Narrative game, is also interesting. It think this has a lot to do with its' diceless nature.
After my brief flirtation with making Luna a card-based roleplaying system, some ideas came to light that will change the system significantly in some areas, and hopefully make it a better system. I had some concerns about the design that I just wasn't able to overcome until now. Let me give you a brief synopsis of the changes:
Character generation is unchanged.
Luna will remain a dice-based system, but will use a dice matching system (like in poker dice) as opposed to the even/odd mechanic previously used.
Players will roll a number of dice indicated by the character's Level of Play.
Mook- 1
Normal - 4
Heroic - 7
Super - 10
Godlike - 13
Positive Traits will not add onto the number of dice rolled, but will allow the player to reroll a number of dice equal to the Trait's score.
We'll be trying out the Stakes mechanic I described in my previous post. I didn't get any feedback on that one, so I either described it well enough that it didn't need comment, confused everyone so that no one could comment, or came up with something so bland that it didn't deserve comment.
We'll also be trying out a new mechanic I'm calling Embellishment. Each descriptive detail that the player adds to his statement of intent will give the character up to +3 bonus dice.
I'm hard at work getting Luna 0.3 written and uploaded. Barring disaster, I should have it uploaded in a week or two.
~Keith W. Sears
Heraldic Game Design
Sorry if I've sent anyone on a fruitless search for a "previous post" about a Stakes mechanic. I cut and pasted that post from my Yahoo group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/outsider_chronicles/.