Generic Engine for Any Reality [GEAR]

[Marco]

A beta-version of GEAR is up on the site here: http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/content/GEAR/GEAR.pdf

I would like:
1. Feedback on clarity--is this comprehensible?
2. Feedback on some of the key ideas for scenario design: the Situation Foundation and Character Dramas in particular.
3. Feedback on the Universal Attempt system. What can a PC do that isn't covered? How simple is it to implement?

Very Basic Overview
GEAR is a covers a spread of possible characters and situations with its mechanics and character generation system. Stuff that I'm doing with GEAR that I hadn't had much experience with before are:

1. Stats are calcuated based on Talents (skills) and Characteristics rather than the GURPS/Hero fashion which is the other way around (I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this).

2. Talents (skills) are defined using a construction system which makes two characters with Karate and Kung Fu possibly very different (although the two Talents are not defined anywhere in the game--it's just a matter of how you'd build them).

3. Although there is a way to be (for example) crippled, most of the "traditional disadvantages" in the game come in the form of Character Dramas which are game-mechanics-defined elements of character the GM is required to include in the game (and I'm not claiming this is original, just that its something I don't have a lot of experience with). There are three kinds of Dramas:

External (enemies, people you love or rescue, etc.)

Internal (things that you want to do that get you into trouble)

Motifs (things that you character does in the game to solve problems or that represent continuing themes for the character).

4. GEAR has a specified methdology for setting up play between the GM and players. This is something I have assiduously avoided before.

Here is the mission statement copied from the first pages:
Mission Statement
GEAR, despite its name, which is meant to be catchy, illustrative, and work with a mechanical-gear motif for some of the background graphics is not meant to be the "best choice" for any specific game or any specific play-style. It is a universal system that should only be used by the players where they agree that it is the best available fit for running a given game.

Audience: GEAR is meant for an audience that is familiar with RPG's and has an understanding about terms like "scenario" (called situation here) and 'Game Master' (GM) vs. Players (we use the term 'participants' to refer to "all the people sitting down the play").

What GEAR Does: Gear has a unified mechanic that is designed to distinguish between different niches to a high degree of resolution. What those words mean to us:

·   Unified Mechanic: the same basic mechanics are used to convince a pretty girl to go to the prom with you as to get a 1-shot kill as a sniper. Everything in the game works off the same mechanical baseline.
·   Niches: A 'niche' is essentially something a character does, which is satisfying to the player in terms of the in-game action which no other character does as well. So if you are a warrior then fighting is your "niche."
·   Resolution: But if you're a fighter, then does that mean no one else can be a fighter? No—firstly, you can have other PC's in your niche—some people are fine with that (and if you aren't then we have a mechanism for discussion of that to hopefully work it out). However: if one guy is the armored knight and the other guy is the loin-cloth wearing barbarian then they might actually fulfill different niches at a higher 'magnification.' See, if the barbarian is a crafty, hard hitting, but lightly armored warrior and the knight is the straight-forward mail-wearing type who is expert with all weapons then they may actually perform quite differently in a fight (the knight is better at dealing with weaker masses of foes than the barbarian due to his armor. The Barbarian is better at, say, sneak attacks and is physically stronger). The game system is designed to make these differences actually matter (to some degree) in the game.

Realism: GEAR's mechanics are (somewhat) cause-and-effect based. You do more damage because you are stronger. You get out of the way of an attack more easily because you are faster. Whether GEAR is judged 'realistic' is up to you, as there are rules for magic (etc.).

Tactical: GEAR's system is tactical. There are a number of approaches to conflicts (and conflicts can be physical battles, social contests, or even knowledge-based engagements like debate or working on a difficult engineering problem). It is our intent that GEAR be "balanced" in the sense that there is no one "best approach" to all conflicts.

Narrative Control: GEAR contains mechanisms both on the mechanical layer and the game-setup layer (how you go about organizing your play group) to help direct play in certain narrative directions. Although the GM will still, (usually, in our opinion) do most of the authorial work on a GEAR scenario, the players, having their PC's as the main-characters (we hope) will have a high degree of input in terms of deciding where the game will go and how it will relate to their characters.

Rules Weight: Some games are described as being rules-heavy or rules-light. We think that GEAR is probably 'heavy' in the sense of having a high learning curve and light in the sense of not having any sub-systems (or few, depending on how you count them) that only apply to one thing. The rules, as envisioned, will be used often during play, which, we think, gives it a higher weight. We expect there will be some significant handling time in the beginning since how "attempts" (Player actions involving the mechanics) are handled can be complex.

NOTE: The document is not entirely complete. There should be a section on resolving failures that I don't think is in there (it would be near the front) and a section on Special Abilities that isn't done yet. Additionally, it'll need a good deal of proofing and cleanup.

-Marco

[AZKaban]

How simple is it to implement?

Any ideas on implementation so far ?

[Marco]

What *I* meant by "applying" it was actually using the game-text to figure out what declared actions lined up with the mechanics. If what you mean is "applications for the system" itself that's something else (how would I apply the system itself? I can think of a few world-books I'm pretty familiar with that would be easy to lay-out).

Right now I'm aware that the game itself is not especially clearly written nor laid out well. That's because it came from a number of different files and several re-writes to try to get it into a single document (and I was learning with a new layout program which is why I took time off from my other projects to do it).

-Marco

[xenopulse]

I've only read the first two chapters so far, but let me first point out that the section on Tone is great! It's like a walk-through on different styles of play that most people probably don't realize are out there (with that, I mean most people who don't analyze RPGs like the folks around here do). And it's very comprehensible. I think all games should either have a clearly defined style of play section, or a menu of choice like this one. I love it.

The dice rolling mechanics do take a moment to get used to, but they're not that difficult once you understand the -1 part. That's a clever way of raising the potential successes of a roll by one. However, I think you need much clearer explanations of the points versus dice structure. In fact, you should always primarily talk in points. Telling me to list a trait in dice, but then subtract points from it by first converting it to points, then subtracting them and then converting them back to dice is somewhat confusing. Instead, have traits listed as points to begin with. Players will soon know that 4 points equals 2d. They'd need to learn that in any case. I mean sections like: "A 3d roll with a -2 Difficulty Modifier goes to a roll of 2d," I'd instead make "A 6 point roll (which would grant 3d) with a -2 modifier becomes a 4 point roll (which grants 2d)." You could make a habit of writing traits as "5 (3d-1)" and "8 (4d)."

Obviously the document needs a lot of editing (several sentences seem incomplete, for example), but I think this is a very valuable project.

[edited for quotation mark fix]

[Marco]

I think you are very right about moving away from dice. I'd originally seen the game as a good deal simpler (along the lines of RISUS) and had stuck with the Xd notation.

But I think that's absolutely on target. Very valuable too: I'm pretty darn close to the project to see changes like that which clearly need to be made.

You're also dead on about about it needing editing! Still, if you were able to parse the Tone Section reasonably well that's a big plus.

Thanks for the feedback!
-Marco

[John Burdick]

Marco,

I used search to find the definition of success points. The definition mentioned that they can have a type that needs to match the action, but examples can only be found in another part of the book. That was the only confusion I had reading.

The situation foundation and character dramas implement a style I greatly enjoy. This looks like a game I would enjoy playing.

The procedure you have here looks like it would be good for documenting premade scenario games. When I play in those I want all the same things you deal with made explicit.

John

[Marco]

Marco,

The situation foundation and character dramas implement a style I greatly enjoy. This looks like a game I would enjoy playing.

John

Glad to hear it. I think the drama system might need a little tweaking--but I'm interested to see it in action, myself. :)

I'm a bit concerned about Internal Dramas becoming an attempt to get the rewards while mitigating the consequences--while I think it's "fair to try" to an extent it also might be problematic (if the other players aren't on-board with that focus).

-Marco