Feedback on conceptual framework <sorry if long>

[Jay]

Hello, before I begin, let me just say that this is my first post, I have been a lurker for a while, and while I am reasonably sure this is the best place to post, I trust you will forgive me if it is not or if I am trampling on etiquette...

For a long time I have been struggling with many "mainstream" and not so mainstream game systems. I "grew up" with D&D... graduated to AD&D... before I finally found the whole system a little to prescribed and stiffling.

I tried various other games from RIFTS to RuneMaster before I finally encountered WW's WoD, at the time only "Vampire" was out, followed shortly by "Werewolf". It is probably at this time that I found myself "evolving" from a "gamist" to a "dramatist/simulationist" hybrid.

But WoD still bugged me, and I found myself constantly building on house-rules, and exceptions. When Mage came out I was overjoyed, it seemed a lot more fluid, while maintaining some amount of resolution control.

But yet again I found myself adding on, and tweaking, and generally anoyed. And not in the least by the WoD "MetaPlot".

Now, I have been playing with campaign worlds for a loooong time... since my childhood days playing elves and gnomes in D&D... but I found that I have developped a "need" to start from the very foundation of gaming.. the system.

I looked, and looked, but I counldn't find anything commercial, non-commercial, mainstream or independent that seemed to satisfy me. So I have resolved to at least try to come up with my own.

Then I came upon the Forge, and my creative need just seemed to take over, and so, here I am.

I was wondering perhaps if someone of you would be willing to critisize my concepts, or even help out in the creation of a new "framework" gaming system (I do not use "universal" on purpose).

I am not interested in making money, and am doing this strickly out of interest and personal statisfaction.

I will post my general concepts in reply.

Cheers!

[Jay]

The "farmework" gaming system I am fleshing out (the working title is "Aspect") is based on two principles:

1) A balance between fluid storytelling and resolution control.

2) A framework that can be built upon with mechanical add-ons (system additions) and thematic add-ons (campaign settings etc).

Some concepts I have been looking at are:

1) Aspects and Experiences:

Characters are defined by Aspects and Experiences

Aspects are: Mind, Body and Soul

Each of these aspects is further defined in terms of Power, Control and Endurance.

Experiences are: acquired skills, knowledge, trades, crafts, abilities

I am trying to work out simplified resolution mechanics that use these two dynamics.

2) Specified Generics

Things such as "magic" will be defined in a generic way, which are then refined by specific thematic mechanics.... ok that was confusing.. but say there is a generic way in which magic "works".. but for different games "how" a character "gets it to work" is different.

Like sorcery, wizardry, herbalism, shamanism, all use the funadmentals of the magical system, but the method used to interact, even the terminologies and understandings used are very different.

---

Anyways, I will stop there and see what the reaction is, all comments are most welcome!

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hi, Jay. Welcome to the Forge! I have a few questions for you.

I get the impression that you're trying to devise one of those "universal" systems. This is a pretty major effort, and I'm wondering - what is it that you want your system to do that the countless other game systems (universal and particular both) fail to capture? If you pin this down explicitly, then I think you will find that you have a much easier time designing toward that goal.

Now, on "specified generics" - I notice that you used magic as an example of one of these. What this says to me is that you view whatever falls under the category of "magic" as special, and deserving its own subset of rules that handle it differently from other types of resolution. Was it your intention to set aside these various categories by specifying different subsystems for them? Is there some reason you would prefer not using a unified resolution system for all kinds of events, à la HeroQuest?

[Jay]

Thanks for your post Shreyas Sampat,

In response to your questions (which are very helpful and focusing my thoughts thank you :))...

As I have been figuring out in my head, I do not believe it is a perticular penchant for or against other systems, it is just that I have a) found a lack in balance between narrative and simulation styles... and b) I am creatively intrigued by the idea of building my own system rather that the constant "ad-hoc" additions I find myself making to existing systems I have used.

I guess I am just experimenting beyond simple (relatively that is ;)) campaign world building.

I guess I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have liked with respect to specific generics... what I am trying to say is that the fundamental mechanics for resolution would apply to what ever "special" area might be used, but those areas would be flavoured through more contextual modules... take the magic idea....

A sorceror might summon demons to cause a magical effect (the mechanics behind effect's success could be Magical action A - Soul Control B + Mind Power C... just an example).

A shaman might want to cause the very same effect, but uses an herbal mixture and administers it (the mixtures success mechanics would be the same).

But how the sorcerer summons the demon, and controls it, and how the shaman finds the mixtures ingredients and convinces the recipiant to drink it are different.

Specific Generics! ;)

I dunno, I am still playing with various mechanical models behind resolution.

Does that make any sense?

Cheers

[Bob Bell]

Your basic thought about "specific generics" seems sound, if I understand you correctly.  All games are rules+color and have a percentage mechanic if they use any randomness factor. So if I understand you; unchanging core rules = specifics and changeable specific world (cyberpunk, fantasy, modern) = generic? However, I need more specific and less generic ideas to be able to opinionate on.

Here are some questions specific to your proposal:
*Will you use a randomness factor such as dice or just compare a character's score in the 3 to an action's difficulty.

*If using dice, what dice will you use and why?   i.e. 3d6 and 1d16 (if it existed)do not generate the same probability of rolling a given number even though they have an identical range of results.

*What components will make up your base probability, this is your core rule base; is it always Physical (experienceA) + Mental (experienceB) + Spirit (experienceC)?

*What will define the results of a success or failure--narration, a second dice roll, the points scored in the first roll, the closeness to the first roll, etc.

*Define what experience under A, B, and C is relevant for actions for each of the 3 Prime stats. i.e. what component of Physical applies to combat, magic, stealth, puzzles, leadership, etc. The same must be done for Mental and Spirit.

*Define what experience is relevant for actions based upon the "color". In other words, does the shamanic salve have exactly the same mechanic as the incantation which is identical to the mechanic for a summoned demon? In my rules I use dice + skill as a modifier to a flexible core difficulty and the salve would work the same as the spell. However, in your system how will you rate a salve--does it take on the rating of the Shaman's 3 traits + their applicable experiences or does it have an independant rating derived from a roll the Shaman made when creating it?

Simple Example 1: You use d% and magic A(15pts)  + soul-control B(10pts)  + mind power C(15pts) gives a 15 +10 +15 =40% chance of success for an average character. The points rolled = the quality of the action. How does this chance relate to the difficulty of the Action--easy, hard, impossible? Is the mental action balanced against a physical contest action of physical A, + soul-control B + mind focus C, and a hacking contest against a super-secure server?

Example 2; lets say your 3-trait system has a d6 assigned to each trait and the result of an action is to roll 3d6 (lower is better) against the total of those three traits. This will link all actions to the character's stats+experiences as well as put all actions on an averaged (bell-curve) distribution. High scores will make success almost assured. Physical (1) Magic (3) + Soul (1) Control (1) + Mind (2) Power(2) = 10. Now the player rolls 10 or less on 3d6 to succeed at an average action, which gives them about a 50% chance of success with most results grouped from 9-12. You decide that successful actions require a second dice-roll to determine their results. The player will roll 3d6 a second time for damage or action points to use in describing the result with 9-12 being an average result.

One issue you may have with writing your own system is that you won't get away from 'ad-hoc' and tweaking, you will find a core mechanic you like and unfortunately, start tweaking right away.  This is what I found in writing my rules. Once the core mechanic was developed, the creative writing factor becomes the beast to control--meaning once you start fervently typing about combat, how to restrict new rules and focus on your core mechanic before having 100 ancillary rules or notes or tweaks that could affect a battle? When do you stop? Do you have too few examples and tweaks to govern a scenario (meaning the players will be forced to invent them on their own and complain about this) or do you have so many the players complain they are too restricting and can't get through any action in a reasonable amount of time?  What is the scale of tweaks required for a typical session and can you define that idea for your rule-set?

I hope this can help focus you a little more. Please post any refinements or claifications to your ideas.
-bob

[Jay]

Great info Bob! Thanks :)

Well here is are the basics of the system I am toying with:

Every player has three basic aspects:

1 Mind (measure of intelligence, application etc)
2 Body (measure of strength, agility etc)
3 Soul (measure of emtional strength, spirituality etc)

These aspects and divided into three primary aspects:

1 Power (raw force which can be used for an effect)
2 Control (degree of precision in using power)
3 Endurance (length of time power can be used before degrading control, how well stress can be managed etc)

And secondary aspects, there will be a list or suggestions, but these are usually developped with the GM, they are "natural" inclinations or aversions, I guess sorta like merits and flaws, like:

- Mathmatically inclined
- Socially inept
- Natural athlete
- Empathy

Then each character has Experiences.. this could be knowledge, skills, trades, crafts, magic, etc. Basically, stuff that has been learned through life or education:

- Economics
- Burglary
- Singing
- Dancing

Etc...

Each aspect (primary and secondary) and experience has a rating between -4 and +4 (where 0 is average, -4 is incompetent and +4 is rare wonder ;))

The point of the game is that everything has more than one "aspect" meaning, more tasks require a check against Mind, Body and Soul ;) or a combination therein.

The GM establishes a difficulty for each of the aspects to be checked... say our base is 2d6... the GM sets the difficulty at 6 for Mind:Control and Body:Power, but no Soul check.

My character has +2 Mind:Control, and -1 Body:Power which makes for a difficulty of 8 Mind:Control and 5 Body:Power.. so I have to roll LOWER than 8 and 5 to make the both checks....

However.. I am playing with "degrees' of success/failure, depending on how far off the roll is.. and it IS possible to fail and suceed.. ie:

I have encountered a locked door... I decided to try and break it down...

The GM sets a difficulty of 6.. because it is an average door. And rolls Mind:Control (+2) and Body:Power (-1)... resulting in 9 and 3...

So I bounce off the door, bruising my shoulder, and falling on my bottom... but as I am looking up at the dang door, I notice the door hinge pins are loose...

I failed my Body check.. but made my mind check.. two aspects of the problem ;)

Well.. I will let you digest..

Cheers!

[Jay]

Hi... I have been thinking about resolution systems.. and after reading a number of posts the idea of Card Based Resolution intrigues me.. what I was thinking was how to you introduce a faced paced dynamic that encourages the "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" fight scenes, or the vivid and surreal magical duels of the "Deryni" trilogy? And I had this idea of players slapping cards down and describing their parry ripost and that slash to the forearm and.. well I am ahead of myself..

I read a post this morning (I appologize I can't seem to find it for a link)... but the poster talked about specialized cards.. I was thinking something similar.. say for example:

A Blade Weapon Deck.. in this would be strikes (jab, slash, etc)... and blocks (parry-savoie, parry-counter, etc)... plus "special move" cards. The special move cards would be awarded by the GM through character development.

Anyways, a characters aspects (Body: Control) plus experiences (Swordsmanship for example) would give the number of cards a player can draw.. they must keep one and discard the remainder. Meaning.. a player with higher stats has more choice of moves they pick up.

A player who cannot defend a stirke would take a hit.. etc.

I can also see Magic Decks built similarly depending on the magic....

I was also thinking about a "success" deck for task resolution, whereby the cards display the degree of success or failure... again, a characters aspect number plus experience would determine how many cards to draw.. and they get to "play" the best card drawn to determine success?

Does this system sound like it would work?

Do you think it would encourage more "involved" combat/magic battles?

Do you think it blends the intriguing strategic aspects of CCGs with RPGs?

Anyways.. I hope to hear some feedback till then I will continue to explore this resolution system..

Thanks!