Troupe "Universal" World Building Simulationist Shared Nar

[RobMuadib]

I am in the process of writing up my RPG, tentatively titled The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle, which I hope to "commercially" publish in some form, and wanted to get some feedback from the indie community here at the Forge on what you guys think of it, or rather the concept. (For those interested, you can find more info blogs and bits about it at my website, http://www.wildmuse.com/games/ )


It is interesting to me in that my thrust and focus for the game, designed first and foremost to do the things that I most like about RPG's, is fairly under represented in the industry. Specifically having detailed, rich, imaginative worlds WITH designable and modifiable gearhead cool bits such as powers, weapons, vehicles etc.

As the subject says, my Game is focused on getting the players, as a troupe to build rich detailed worlds with strong simulationist representation, and then spin shared narratives with what they have built, along the lines of Ars Magica type troupe play.

The obvious influence here is of course Aria: Canticle Of The Monomyth. Save that my scope is bigger and my focus shallower, in that I want to facillitate and encourage the creation of rich, detailed, (mostly) believable worlds of all types, not just fantasy. And the game is geared to the creation of the various game-important elements of the world in hard mechanical form.

So consider having the rich culture/heritage type creation of Aria, as well as a Magic & metabilities creation system, something like the generic Hero powers system but done with the rich/detailed mind set of Magic creation in Aria, multi-plexed for all sorts of Meta- abilities, i.e. psionics, wild super-powers, cyber/nano ware, etc. Plus Hero-esque Weapon & Vehicle design done with an eye to culture/world considerations and a nod to more detailed 3G3/CORPS/GURPS vehicles/Fire Fusion & Steel gearhead style elements.

All this is built up from the rock-solid underlying MEGA-GAUGE system of mine. Which is a logarithimic trait scale and action resolution system similar in design to the seamless abstract TORG/Masterbook mechanics, but built with finer human resolution and a detailed realistic talent/skill simulation model.

Oh yeah, it also has built in "Reality Rules" switches and allows for Narrativist/Gamist Input/Fudging through Hero points.

Now to glue all this together I pour on a thick layer of my meta-universe mythos that focuses both the style/feel of the world building and the nature of the game narratives, and creates a "massively multi-player" persistent universe that can exist via web support and such. It also includes the options for world spanning meta-plots by adding mythos elements or even Torg like craziness via conjunctions/destructions/mergings  and such.

The feel of this meta-universe/mythos is inspired by Million Spheres of Moorcock's Eternal Champion Series, but rather than being fueled and driven by a "war of the balance", it is powered by a solipistic "dream force" driving the creation and destruction of new realities, the aforementioned Eternal Cycle.

Anyway, (assuming you have recovered from your narrativist rules-light insulin shock)what do you guys think of my concept/vision for my game. (Needless to say, I doubt there are many other people out there trying to make the same game:) )

Rob Muadib

[Ron Edwards]

Yoicks.

(recovers)

Here are my questions, comments, wonderings ...

1) Why have any metagame at all? And if present, exactly what mechanics would it override? It seems as if your goal is to generate an engine in which the rules may be, for lack of a better word, "trusted." That trust would be the basis for playing in the first place.

(See, simulationist-folks, I'm tryin' to get it, OK?)

So if the engine may be trusted in that exact sense, then why permit over-rides? If you keep this, then you might consider carefully (and maybe already have, in which case tell me more) whether the metagame affects task resolution probabilities, specific dictated outcomes, presence or absence in a scene, or even features of the surroundings.

Oh yeah ... and how would the metagame mechanic be regulated? Points to use up? Fixed instances?

2) I'm a little confused by your claim to uniqueness. TORG would appear to have had exactly the same goal, and certainly Multiverser too. Is the ability to TRAVEL among the multiverse part of the picture? By what means, and for what purposes? If so, then I'm curious about how your vision compares to these two games.

(Side note: I've been reading Aria lately ... slowly, I confess ... and I give it immense credit for its ambition.)

3) You mentioned metaplot, too - this would imply a large-scale conflict, especially if it applies across the multiverse (megaverse? omniverse? or since it's all connected, universe? agh!) How does your current plan compare to similar ones, again, TORG, and the wars in Rifts?

4) The Forge is intended to be a resource for ALL independent role-playing games. If you can't get constructive advice from the Assembled, and yes, fellow Narrativists, I mean you too, then we're not doing our job.

Best,
Ron

[RobMuadib]

On 2001-07-14 23:42, Ron Edwards wrote:

1) Why have any metagame at all? And if present, exactly what mechanics would it override? It seems as if your goal is to generate an engine in which the rules may be, for lack of a better word, "trusted." That trust would be the basis for playing in the first place.

(See, simulationist-folks, I'm tryin' to get it, OK?)

So if the engine may be trusted in that exact sense, then why permit over-rides?  

(Good question, looking at my "hero Points" rules again, I find that they are extremely simulationist in thier scope, style and application, as I explain below.)

Well, as I said in describing my system, they are highly simulationists, everything works by the numbers, and the numbers provide a faithful, reliable, consistent reality model. In essence, the rules are a toy construction kit, that they players can use to build all kinds of really cool toys and play with them in their game worlds. Like a really well accessorized set of "object oriented" action figures that they players can mix and match and put to it, like a great set of user tools for a realistic FPS/Adventure game, as it were.

But hey, I also like the option of good old Storytelling. But the storytelling has to work by our toolset. Thus I envisioned giving players a means to favor their favorite "action figures" in the game, I mean Snake Eyes has to live, because he's cool or something.

This favor is not as far reaching or powerful as Narrative Script immunity, in practice, Authorial Weight is a better term for what the players have, they can favor their favorite characters.

Consider it Simulationist Narrativism, we want things to go the character's way, but the character can only get lucky, he can't cheat. So we let the player, favor the character, but only for a single instance, a "Test" at a time. This is represented through the conscious, explicit, and controlled use of Hero Points.

From my rules,

Idea Five: HERO POINTS
The first four concepts described above, Traits, Comparison Tests, Result Tests, and Outcome Tests, provide the means to determine your characters chance to perform an Act.  However, these only represent his "realistic" odds of success.
Reality, in storytelling, is often much different, allowing the characters to regularly pull off impossible acts, or survive when they odds are against them. To account for this "reality", the RG can allow the use of Hero Points.
Hero Points let the players alter the odds in their favor and even, depending on what other Reality Rules are in effect, alter how the game mechanics affect them.  

On 2001-07-14 23:42, Ron Edwards wrote:
If you keep this, then you might consider carefully (and maybe already have, in which case tell me more) whether the metagame affects task resolution probabilities, specific dictated outcomes, presence or absence in a scene, or even features of the surroundings.

Oh yeah ... and how would the metagame mechanic be regulated? Points to use up? Fixed instances?

I have established a Reality Rules concept in the application of the Use of Hero Points, these are dials that determine at what cost (the Step Cost), and how much the players are able to favor their characters within the rules (the Step Limit). These range from None at all for Realistic reality (you better be good and lucky and smart.), to really cheap (1/2 point Step Cost) and a whole bunch (Limited to Proficiency Score of Acting Proficiency).


The Most basic Use of Hero Points is called "Loading The Dice." The basic outcome Test is made by adding a +/- dice modifier to your Acting Score, which you compare to Opposing Score to determine Success. The +/- Dice Modifier is made by rolling 2 positive D6, and 2 negative D6.

When you load the dice you are able to increase the number of Dice in your positive pool (Determined from a DiceStep where Dicestep/2 equals number of six sided dice, in which Half-dice are that invidual die result halved, rounded up), increasing your chances. This is called a Heroic Use/ Or Aceing A Roll. In general if you are allowed to use Hero Points at all, you can Spend them to ace one of your rolls, according to the Step Cost and Step Limits of the Reality.

Here is the Step Cost/Step Limit table.

Dice Limits Chart
Reality Level   Step Cost   Step Limit
Realistic   -             -
Gritty            4           1/2xProficiency Score
Action            2              1/2x Proficiency Score
Heroic            1           1xProficiency Score
Super Heroic   1/2           1xProficiency Score

The second switchable use of Loading the Dice is increasing the negative dice pool of an opponents roll being made against you, this is called an Ex Machina use/ or Deucing A Roll. This is typically limited to Action or better realities. This represents a second level of favoritism in effect by not only letting your character succeed when he needs to, but he can also use Authorial Weight to make it less likely that villians will be effective in their actions against him. In a Star Wars campaign under these rules, the heroes would have to spend vast amounts of Hero Points on Ex Machina uses to make the Imperial Stormtroopers miss like hell (if you take Obi Wan's Jawa massacre comment about the blaster strikes being to precise).

The next level of favoritism the players can show their characters via Authorial weight, i.e. spending hero points, is the switchable use of the Flesh Wounds Rule (Typically limited to Heroic realities or better). This lets the player spend hero points to buy Steps(according to Step Cost/Step Limit) to reduce the amount of damage done to their character's. (This follows basic table, where 1 step would reduce damage by 20%, 3 would reduce it by 50%, and 10 would reduce it by 90%, before armor is applied and such.)

Finally there is a third basic favoritism option, called the Script Change rule, This is also typically limited to Heroic/Superheroic realities.

Script Change Rule
Players may also be able to spend Hero Points to provide them with a fortuitous coincidence.  Finding a clue they overlooked, for instance, or there being a beer bottle on the bar to smash someone in the head with. This is the "script change" rule.
The costs and restrictions involved if these options are allowed are explained more fully in the Reality Rules chapter.

Spending Hero Points are limited by 3 Rules.

The first rule is that, Hero points are spent and earned.
This means that each character has only a limited number of Hero Points, which, once spent, are gone. More Hero Points may be earned during the course of the game, however.


The second rule is that the use of Hero Points must be declared before the dice are rolled. (the exception is the flesh wounds rule, you choose to lower damage after damage has been determined and before it is applied, once it's been applied it's reality, and no longer subject to fudging.)

Finally, you may not spend more Hero Points on a single Test than the amount corresponding to your Proficiency Score in the Trait (or your Trait Score for Attributes) being used in that Test. (or trait being used to opposed for Ex Machina uses.)

(this is another realistic limit, providing a kind of retroactive continuity reasonining for the level of favoritism via Authorial Weight. He must have the Skills/Ability/Talent etc for us to justify his survival, etc. This means that the more average and incompetent your character is, the less ability you are going to have to favor him in tough situations. He's gotta have the Skills to pay the bills.)

One other option related to this, is the Narrative Success System I have established for the Game System. It is an optional rule whereby the players can eliminate the need for dice rolling, essentially switching resolution to Pure Karma. You compare your Acting Score, minus a modifier based on the reality rules (from 5 for realistic, to 1 for SuperHeroic/Unrealistic realities, which represents a 95%+ chance of basic Success to about 65%, how much fuding your willing to tolerate) to the Opposing Score. If it is equal or higher, you can perform the task, if not, you have to roll.


If the players wish, the Narrative Success System can be used to eliminate dice rolling all together, thus setting the stage for Narrative Game play.
In Narrative Game play, however, the players must follow the Script Rule, which states that the character's can only perform Acts by the Narrative Success System, no dice rolls allowed.
Consequently the character must be good enough to perform the Act as a Narrative Success, or he cannot perform it at all (i.e. it is not in the script).
   The Script Rule does have an exception.  If the players may use Hero Points, these may be spent to perform an Act as a Narrative Success (the cost of which is equal to the Narrative Success number).

Their success is also based on the Proficiency Score divided by the Opposing Score plus the Narrative Success Number (i.e. how much where willing to fudge). higher levels of success can be bought at the cost in Hero Points equal to the Narrative Success Number per bump up the Success Latter. So Paying cost once buys you Marginal Success if you aren't good enough, otherwise bumps you up one level on success ladder (marginal,moderate,Considerable,Exceptional,Incredible)

(So at NSN of 5, least fudge factor it costs at least 15 Hero Points to buy yourself an auto incredible success, assuming the Rules Guide/Players allow the use of Narrative Success System.)

Oh yeah, one other thing on Hero Points. My current idea is to have disadvantages (using point based character construction system) give you extra Hero Points to start with, instead of giving you points to spend on extra abilities.

Was also thinking of allowing the Player to gain an extra Hero Point award related to disadvantages when they are used in play. Idea is that by committing to Disadvantages, i.e. giving up some control of character, you gain more Authorial weight to use in other situations.


Anyway, those are my ideas for use of narrativist/gamist over-rides to the basic simulationist system. I believe limiting it to extra momentary Authorial Weight/Favoritism of characters, limited by the Reality Rules in effect, is an excellent method of Simulationist fudging. These are vastly less powerful than any Narrativist Fudging would be.

So any comments? (I will respond to your other questions in another post.)

Rob Muadib

[RobMuadib]

On 2001-07-14 23:42, Ron Edwards wrote:

Here are my questions, comments, wonderings ...

2) I'm a little confused by your claim to uniqueness. TORG would appear
to have had exactly the same goal, and certainly Multiverser too.
Is the ability to TRAVEL among the multiverse part of the picture?
By what means, and for what purposes? If so, then I'm curious about
how your vision compares to these two games.

(Side note: I've been reading Aria lately ... slowly, I confess ...
and I give it immense credit for its ambition.)

Umm, I don't recall using the word unique:), I did mention
under-represented. Well the only game that is primarily focused on what
I want to focus on,troupe based world design, is Aria, however
it is strictly limited to fantasy/medieval worlds, where I want
to focus on all types of worlds/Universes.
(Though I don't plan to provide as detailed and in-depth world design
as Aria, shooting for a step more than verisimilitude,
I want to evoke the rich detailed feel without as much work if possible.)

One could argue that GURPS/CORPS/HERO/SOL/ETC/ETC/ETC are similar,
but I don't want to create "generic worlds". I want to promote a certain
depth and style of worlds, much as Aria does, but with unlimited scope
and not as much depth. The thing that I do want to take from the Pure
Generics is the more simulationist/hard mechanical vehicle/power/weapon
world design type stuff. That is the Design Architecture is the most
important part of the system in terms of thrust, it is where I want
to focus the efforts of the players. Secondly, my universal Game system,
DOES have a definite universe, with a definite mythos and other
elements that all worlds created under the system will share, another
reason don't consider it a generic system.

Torg/Rifts, etc have no Design Architecture elements as such,
they are simply, Multi-genre Apocalytpic Invasion scenarios.
Torg does have a definite Universe Mythos, and I have employed
some of the ideas in Torg in the construction of my universe.
I like the idea of the Axioms, which I incorporated in my idea of
the Axiomachtae, when a world is created, and in the idea of the
Ontologues. (This is the stuff that still needs the most development
at this time:) )

Multi-Verser, does have a major design architecture element, however
it is not its primary focus, in my opinion. It's all about your
immortal verser character and his adventures. I plan on implementing
Meta-Play/Meta-Design ideas put forth in Aria
in my system as well, perpetual genealogies and other meta-characters.
The idea of Bias from MV was also a major influence on my
(still evolving) concept of the Axiomachtae and Ontologues.

3) You mentioned metaplot, too - this would imply a large-scale conflict,
especially if it applies across the multiverse (megaverse? omniverse? or
since it's all connected, universe? agh!) How does your current plan
compare to similar ones, again, TORG, and the wars in Rifts?

Well, with the Tenets above you should have a feel for the universe
concept. That travel is possible between the spheres, and Aerts can
become active during certain cosmic alignments and such. Indeed you can
even have a situation where the entirety of the Million Worlds are in
alignment and Aerts open among them all. Also you can have torg like
collisions and convergences and stuff. Also, players can declare
the Spheres they create Flat, with no Aerts etc possible etc.


This is high concept stuff that is still up for development. One of
the main concepts for community is that potential players can post the
Spheres they create with information on their Aerts and Barriers
and such assign them to "constellations" and alignments and such,
a, to purloin some terms, creating a "persistent massively multiplayer"
reality. Also, part of the Myrae mythos is that of The Sundering,
whereby means of great magic the Myrae escaped the destruction of their
Sphere by spreading their spirits among all the Spheres. And
these Myraen Spirits can reincarnate with memories of Midian and
a urge to seek out the Ubiqnomen artifact within that sphere, which
allow them to open up the Aerts and travel among the Spheres, following
their geas to seek out Midian among the Million Worlds and
rebuild the temple of Alphain, putting their artifact back among its
place among the Ubiqnomen.

Anyway, I have lots of neat ideas for mythos stuff to inject into the
worlds and such, just haven't firmly developed it all. And plenty of
such ideas to create major Metaplots for The Million Worlds and such.

Anyway, sorry for how long this is, but it's like a million things
to talk about.:smile:

[Qoute]
4) The Forge is intended to be a resource for ALL independent
role-playing games. If you can't get constructive advice from the
Assembled, and yes, fellow Narrativists, I mean you too, then we're
not doing our job.
[/Qoute]

Cool, I appreciate everyones interest and comments.

Rob Muadib.

[ This Message was edited by: RobMuadib on 2001-07-19 11:03 ]