The Forge Archives

To continue with the thread, here's some more bits and pieces:

Jarkko De Badeh

A famous adventurer and explorer, known around the Near. He's constantly either in the middle of some crazy adventure or about to embark on one. He is known for his many great deeds and bravery in combat.
Jarkko De Baade's modus operandi is to surround himself with capable companions, put them in harm's way and recount their deeds as his own.

Abilities:
Deceit (I) Master (3)
Storytell (R) Expert (2)
   
Secrets:
Specialization (Jarkko De Badeh)

Lots of fun will be had if you toss this one together with a character with the key of glory. At least until he's promptly left on a desert island or given to sharks..

One character in the group has a big game hunter theme going on so, we have been using stuff from the Jari's Zoo and extended a bit:

Sharks
Sharks have the Secret of Berserking and Sudden Knife. They follow ships and go berserk when they smell blood. Their behaviors are Herding and Predator

Deep in the jungles of Qek some families form special hunting crewes to hunt the most dangerous game. They believe they gain the powers of their enemies by consuming their flesh. Others quite understandably avoid these like the plague. Especially as the cannibals often learn the knots for their victims homes and follow them back.

Secret of Cannibalism
The character has been initiated into a cannibal crewe and can learn a number of secrets or effects from another character equal to a succesful Pray (R) check by consuming his flesh, organs and brains in a ritual feast. The character spends advances for the sercets as normal.
When engaged in cannibalism the character has to make a Resist (R) check against his Pray (R) check or gain the Secret of Addiction (human flesh, Vigor).
Cost: 1 Instinct per secret learned.

Secret of Cannibal Chief
The character is the anointed chief of a cannibal crewe. When a chief consumes a victim in a cannibalistic rite, he can make an Effect out of his Pray check result and pick Secrets or Keys of the victim equal to result. As long as the chief maintains the Effect, he can use the listed crunch as his own; however, the character may not partake of a cannibal feast as long as he maintains the Effect from his last victim.
Requirement: Secret of Addiction (human flesh, Vigor)

This last one was suggested by Eero.

Many explorers of the jungles return with grim souvenirs and some rumors speak of a peculiar old hermit collector in deep jungle:

Ritual of Head Shrinking
The character knows how to prepare the head of a person and trap his sasha with a successful Deceit (I) check. Preparing the head and tricking the spirit into his head takes days equal to the check result. The resulting head is an equipment with the secrets and suitable effects like knots the head's owner knew in life as imbuements. Use ratings to represent knowledge and abilities. The head has a free Expert Imbuement for a social ability.
Cost: as per secret of creation, except use Instinct instead of Vigor.
Requirement: Secret of Walozi

I don't feel like its very complicated. I bit difficult to explain maybe.
As far as dice rolls. I feel like rather than limit myself to one type of die. Make use of the best one to fit the mechanic.
I have played Games that use on 1 type of die and While I like them I feel like most of them could have benefited from breaking that rule
some things feel forced into place. I want to avoid that in my system.
My goal with skills and my "Skill Categories" is to simplify the governing attribute.. in all of the categories that i use - 1 takes the place of 3

ex: might agility and heartiness = Body. Etc.
Body governs a set of skills.
Mind another
Instinct another
and Trade another.
Rather than
might - some
Prowess some
Etc etc.

I hope this answers your questions. though I doubt its helpful

Thanks.
necromantis

I'm taking volunteers for play-testing my game, Crisis. If anyone is willing to play-test a rules-heavy generic combat driven medieval fantasy RPG.

I'll include with it a "letter to play-testers" which includes what we are looking for. Character sheets, quick information sheets, etc will also be included.

Email me for a copy.  outsider_drovnen@yahoo.com

I'm new to Forge, but I have been active at Story-Games and Praxis for some time.

Hi Ron,

It certainly makes sense and I don't disagree with any of it.  I think the issue is really that I haven't really mastered the discipline of precise speech used here at the Forge (although I am eager to learn!).

Let me clarify that I didn't mean to say: "I had fun playing this unplayable game, so system must not really matter after all," or to draw (or challenge) any theoretical conclusions.  What I meant was that system with this new GM & group is very different to system with my group in high school, even though the textual rules haven't changed at all.  The social contract, approach to gaming, attitudes of the players, and so forth are all entirely different.  So, in the end, I suppose it's not much of a revelation that the "system" as distinct from text, and the play experience, should be quite different as well.  It's just odd to play a game that caused so much frustration all those years ago, and suddenly find it enjoyable again.

Theoretically speaking, that's the part that's so surprising--not that system is different from text, but how very different it can be, and how unspoken so much of it often is, and how the game flows from that.  It's like... I've read the theory, and now I'm seeing it in action, and I've only scratched the surface.  It's taking some time to get my head around.

When I said Rifts isn't so terrible, I was mainly expressing surprise at my enjoyment of it and refuting my own earlier feelings about it out loud--which is perhaps a bad habit.  In the 2nd post, I was mainly responding to Hans where he said he'd heard nothing but bad things about it.  By "properly" and "playable" I didn't mean to suggest that my criteria for playability were the only possible or correct ones; only that the game required more work than others to interpret in any direction, due to the writing style---(i.e. Rifts seems to need more tire-kicking, no matter what you intend to use it for)---but that's only my own opinion.

Anyway, thanks for your kind response, Ron.  I hadn't realized I was coming across the way I did, and it's a good reminder to be more precise in my writing and thinking. 

Warm regards,

-A.

Ran my group through our first game of IAWA and it went pretty well.

One thing I thought of on the way home.

I have a feeling most groups have a pretty good sense of when a chapter is wrapping up as far as thinking "okay, this is probably the last conflict". If I just lost and I'm pretty sure we've hit a good stopping point for the night, what's to stop me from just refusing to negotiate and just take being injured or exhausted.

I guess as a GM I could try and fight that sort of thing by coming up with another scene, but I'd worry I'd just be stretching things out needlessly just to try and punish that kind of behavior.

Maybe I'm over thinking it and it really doesn't become an issue or am I just overlooking something?

-Jeremiah

There. Is this better?

PRIDE
-   Mayor Tommy Palmer has been mayor of Alexandria for 16 years and believes the office belongs to him forever.
-   Mrs. Mary Palmer is jealous of the perks and prestige her husband gets and wants to take his place as mayor. 
-   Pastor Hanford believes he knows what the people need better than anyone, especially Mayor Palmer.

INJUSTICE
-   Mrs. Palmer secretly meets with Hanford to plan her husband's electoral loss. Hanford runs a smear-filled campaign for mayor, filled with lies from Mrs. Palmer.
-   Mayor Palmer, facing his first electoral loss, has the town's sheriff arrest Pastor Hanford on false allegations of sexual abuse. This causes Hanford to lose the election to Mayor Palmer.

SIN
-   Faithlessness: Pastor Hanford loses his faith in God because God allowed his loss and humiliation. His sermons are more about him and less about God.
-   Sex: When Hanford is released a few days later, he and Mrs. Palmer commiserate over Palmer's win and begin an affair.
-   Faithlessness: Nyarlathotep offers his help in turning the town against Mayor Palmer. Hanford and Mrs. Palmer agree.

DEMONIC ATTACKS
-   Hanford and Mrs. Palmer use black magic to cause problems in town attributed to Mayor Palmer's policies. Everything the Mayor does seems to end badly.
-   Hanford sacrifices some of his most trusting and ardent supporters with Nyarlothotep's help. They become undead servants. 

FALSE DOCTRINE
-   God does not exist. Laws do not exist. They only thing that exists is strength. Those who are strong should dominate the weak.

CORRUPT PRACTICES
-   Hanford and Mrs. Palmer worship the Great Old Ones because they can give the two power and strength to defeat Mayor Palmer.

FALSE PRIESTHOOD
-   Hanford and Mrs. Palmer carefully recruit select townsfolk to join the cult. Those that disagree are turned into undead servants.
-   Hanford is the sorcerer, but Mrs. Palmer starts preparing to kill Hanford and take over the cult and has become a sorcerer in her own right.
-   The cult is targeting locals who support Mayor Palmer. There are nighttime attacks by undead servants and mythos creatures summoned by Hanford. These are usually not fatal but are still dangerous.

HATE & MURDER
-   The Sheriff was recently murdered by the cult because of his support for Mayor Palmer.
-   The Mayor is blaming Hanford for the attacks and is whipping the town into an angry, paranoid mob. However, many feel the Mayor is somehow to blame and are preparing their own hateful mob.


What the NPCs want from the Dogs:
-   Mayor Tommy Palmer wants the dogs to determine what's behind the attacks and death of his Sheriff. He does not want the dogs to see how he rigged the mayoral election.
-   Pastor Hanford is having second thoughts about abandoning Christianity and wants the dogs to give him an excuse and the impetus to leave the mythos and return to God.
-   Mrs. Mary Palmer wants the dogs to kill her husband (Mayor Palmer) and her lover (Pastor Hanford) so she can run for mayor.

Well, that is mechanical - as in a mechanical procedure can be extracted from the behaviour
1. The GM has the option of deciding the stated action is 'too big', which means the action is invalid for resolution. The GM instead asks for smaller actions. Repeat this rule until an action the GM deems small enough is found for resolution.

The identification of mechanics like this is what rpg theory needs more of.

Also saying "Ok, how?" would actually be breaking the rule of 'say yes or roll' as it's neither saying yes or rolling.

2 simple questions.

1. Why so many different types of dies rolls?

2. Why do you want things so complex?

If you've got a good solid design methodology for this, GREAT...I'd love to hear it.

If you're just doing it because that's what other game systems do...read a few more game systems.

V

I am working on the skills system within my Fantasy roleplay game titled "a time of steel and staves"

In the game I have created 11 characteristics that define a PC's fundamental make-up.
they are

Might
Prowess
Precision
Agility
Forbearance
Heartiness
Perception
Knowledge
Reasoning
Communication
Appeal

Rather than have skills directly link to an individual Characteristic (ex: heraldry - communication)
since their are so many. and tracing them back could be a hassle.

I have broken them into 4 categories (a nod to chaosium's BRP) to simplify the matter.

BODY        - Uses combo of MIGHT, AGILITY, & HEARTINESS
MIND         - Uses combo of  KNOWLEGDE, REASONING, PERCEPTION
INSTINCTS - Uses combo of PROWESS, PERCEPTION, REASONING
TRADE.      - Uses combo of KNOWLEDGE, FORBEARANCE, COMMUNICATION
_{or something like that. (dont have my sheet with me - but i think thats how i worked it out)}

so you have 4 catagories.
examples might be

body - swimming
mind - reading/ writing
instincts - blindfighting
Trade - blacksmithing


now - the trouble is this.
I am not sure how I want to set this up. Its hard (for me at least) being new at design to figure the best way to utilize the 4 categories.

heres what I have so far.

characterics btw range from 3-16 (2d8+1) (can get higher with magical items)
Average joe being 7-8

although i find the average score is 10-11 (when rolled)
but we are dealing with heroes here so no big deal there

I figured there would be ranks to each skill (honestly I'd like to have a lot of ranks - say at least 10 but I am flexible)
Rank 1 is standard starting rank. it allows for a very slight chance of success.

how to get a skill category is still in the air.
I thought about averaging governing characteristics (might+Agility+Heartiness/3)
or a number based on the characteristic itself added to others.
(Might score according to chart) -
Skill Catagory score (same score for all characteristics by they might or knowledge or anything in between)
3) - 7
4) - 6
5) - 5
6) - 4
7)   5
   5
9)   6
10)  7
11)  8
etc

My thoughts were originally something like this

      rank(catagory)= % chance of success on a d100
Ex: Swimming Rank (4) times BODY (10)   40% chance of success

and the GM would dictate a penalty for difficulty.  ex: 40% chance - but -10% for an undertow -- so 30% chance.

While that works for some numbers. its quite iffy on others.

Thoughts? suggestions?
And in Advance I appreciate your help.

sidenote: for the record. I am not opposed to a DC based system. Couldn't find a way to incorporate one myself - or at least one that wasn't diceless. I do want there to be a roll of some sort.d100 or d20 would be best.

Hi Hans,

You're providing perfectly good actual-play posting, exactly what I (and I think others) need in order to understand your points and questions. Also, it's clear that writing it out allowed you to reflect more thoroughly upon your own practices and needs, and that's always good. And as far as it matters, I agree that you apparently put a lot of pressure onto yourself, and with a game like S/Lay w/Me, you don't need to do that - each person is free to please himself or herself, with equal responsibility to respect what's been established already in play. The net effects are to entertain one another and to co-author a great story, but like a lot of effects, it's counter-productive to self-dictate your immediate choices in order to impose them.

Now for the technical questions.

1. "The tower is his" - the issue is how this information is genuinely established. When Brendan stated that his character entered the scene from the tower, did he also say, exactly, that the tower belonged to the character? Or did you let the unexpected entry point rattle you and jump to that conclusion yourself?

And let's say that he did say that the character owned the tower. That's fine. It doesn't mean he lives there permanently and therefore is a fixture in the area. Nor does it mean that he plans to stay there. All of this information or back-story is totally left up to play, and play is carried out by both participants. It's also worth considering, instead of the "I" player being allied with the rulebook against the "you" player, that both players are looking at the same book with equal status toward it and between them. What I'm trying to say is that you have plenty of room to give initial, briefly-stated information a lot more context.

2. "The tower is his" part II - I think you've already mainly resolved the issue of whether the character's "stay" choice was relevant even if he did have some kind of residence in the area, as well as the distinction between staying with the lover or not in that context. My take is that the choices can almost always be legitimately present, as well as independent, even with certain tweaks like the character's own tower. You demonstrated that independence perfectly with the narration of what happened to the Lover/Monster character in the second story. I love stories like that, with a single character being the Lover and Monster, and interpreting the results of the independent choices upon that character. The system was built explicitly for the possibility of these kinds of creative choices.

3. Gregor's description of making up the Lover and Monster matches the way I do it. However, I think that the time to make up the Lover and Monster are not the issue you're grappling with. I think that the issue is what you do with that prep once play gets going. You are absolutely right to focus on the descriptors and let them be your guide as you go along. I also think that you may be hamstringing yourself by saying "based on the fiction," (I hope I'm not getting too abstract too quickly here) in the sense of trying to play forward toward some story effect. If you instead rely heavily on the fiction as established so far, working to enrich its input, like the beaded leather string, then you'll find that the descriptors mesh very well with it and story effects emerge without forcing them.

All that said, it's not a crime to immediately revise the descriptors once you hit the road of real play. I've done that a couple of times, when just as I introduce the Lover, for instance, I decide that wantonness isn't what I want to do after all, or with the Monster, enjoying playing it civilly after all. The thing to avoid for sure, though, is to switch up the listed concepts about either the Monster or Lover later in play, which has a scattering effect on the story.

Let me know if any of this helps, or if it's at least interesting.

Best, Ron