LotFP: RPG, another attempt (long)

[JimLotFP]

Previous thread concerning an earlier version of my game: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13824
The previous version of the game are here: http://www.lotfprpg.com/downloads.php

I was resisting a lot of the suggestions being made at the time, but in the end I tossed out the whole thing and started again.

Goal for the Game: Create an RPG that works and stands up to continuous play. Have it be a solid enough that I can be bitter in 10 years that nobody bought it without ignoring how bad it was. :p

Secondary Goal: Sell enough that a followup book would be financially logical to do and not just another vanity project to say "I did it."

Now the problem is, at least when considering the views around the Forge as I understand them, that I don't like settings and character roles and activities to be defined by a game. "What is the game about?" and "What are the character supposed to do?" is a question that I think should be answered by a GM and his group, not game rules. I wouldn't run a game that presumes to answer such questions these days, so I'm not going to make one.

So what to do? Presenting "a mechanic", fleshing it out for different situations, and calling it a game just won't do. Being an obscure alternative to GURPS or Hero won't give me what I want.

So I used about 6 weeks of my recent trip to Finland to sit in a dark room and come up with new ideas. I came up with some ideas that I think are interesting, that would give LotFP a 'hook' even if it didn't have a setting and 'this is what people do in this game' information.

But I have been unable to flesh the entire thing out to be a complete system. I'm stuck. I put it on the back burner for a few months now, and coming back to it, I still think the new ideas are good, and I'm still not able to move on to fill out the details. At this stage, it's not ready for playtesting so I can't get feedback that way. But I need some sort of input to get my brain working in new directions, and hopefully finish this latest version and start PLAYING it.

So here is the core mechanic, and the main ideas I've come up with (Motivation and Lamentation text copied directly off my working text, combat summed up). Rip 'em apart. Again. :p:

Core Mechanic
Characters have stats and skills represented by a number. The average person using an average skill rolls 2 dice, and I intend it to be normal to get 5 or 6 dice to use for a top stat or skill for a PC. That represents the number of dice they roll for actions relating to that stat/skill, and the GM rolls the appropriate number of dice depending on the action and circumstances. If the character rolls higher, he succeeds, if lower, he fails.

MOTIVATION
A Motivation represents a particular trait or destiny of a character, an urge to action which results in added Experience, and thus power, for a character.

The Motivation can be explained in-game as some sort of oath or divine command; it can even be a curse as far as the character is concerned, causing problems with how the character wants to live his life. Maybe it's a simple benign personality trait that just happens to have far more significance to the character than anyone suspects. That the character follows his Motivation is all that is relevant in the context of the rules. Whether the character does it out of duty, fear, habit, or joy is up to the individual gaming group and player.

Defining a Motivation
For game purposes, a Motivation is a two word phrase, an adjective and a noun, which serves as a metaphor and guidepost for a more complex explanation. When creating a Motivation for a character, that character's player defines both the phrase and the deeper meaning.

A Motivation encompasses a situation, maybe a philosophical issue, not a specific person, place, or object. It's a happening, not a thing. Specific examples of what a Motivation can be will not be given here so you can come up with your own criteria for what a valid Motivation would look like for your game. The intentions and motivations (ha ha) of a game designer shouldn't shape or hinder your individual gaming experience, after all. And the more open the interpretations and applications of the rules, the greater the success LotFP: RPG will be creatively.

(While I won't put these in the actual text for the reason given, here are a few possible motivations that could be picked: Flame Princess to represent the bonding of fire and royalty, White Deer representing some mythological creature and whatever moral the player decides the myth represented, Masochist Savior representing a character's need to help others at his own expense, Satanic Terror which represents a character's interest in unholy cults and their practices, and Explosive Drunk representing a character's need to get inebriated and cause a scene.)

It is important to note that while a character is aware of his Motivation, it is not necessarily something he enjoys, or is even beneficial to him to pursue.

Players and GMs are encouraged to bitterly argue and physically fight (I recommend squeezing grape juice cartons at each other, those stains never come out of the well kept, expensive clothing gamers usually wear to the table) when deciding on standards and appropriateness of individual Motivations in their game.

Game Effect
At any point that a player hopes to gain some sort of benefit for his character by following a Motivation, the player must plainly state so for the GM and other players when first declaring the action. A Motivation bonus should not come as a surprise to the GM. The in-game effects for actions based on a character's Motivation vary according to how representative of the Motivation a character's actions are:

A character that pursues a situation that involves just one element of his Motivation gains one Experience if the situation is successfully resolved from the perspective of the character. However, there must be a unanimous agreement at the gaming table (including the other players and the GM) that the course of action really does have something to do with the spirit of the character's Motivation and that the player isn't just scamming to gain free Experience through a ridiculously open-ended wording of the Motivation. If there is not unanimous agreement, there is no extra reward for success and if the situation is not successfully resolved from the perspective of the character, there is a +1 modifier on the roll for his Lamentation to appear next game session. That penalty also applies if the player says 'never mind' after not getting agreement. Choose your Motivation-based activities carefully.

A character who pursues a situation that involves both elements of his Motivation makes all rolls concerning that situation as if he had spent a Cheat, and also gains one Experience whether successful in the situation or not. Remember that this is per situation, not per action.

Whenever a character knowingly ignores an opportunity to pursue his Motivation, there is a +1 modifier on the roll for his Lamentation to appear next game session. This penalty applies for each an every situation (not individual action) that the character ignores his Motivation, and it is cumulative. This should never happen by surprise. The GM should always explicitly warn the player if his decision is going to cause this penalty.

'Pursuing a situation' means any course of action which places the character firmly in the grip of the Motivation until there is an identifiable course of action to take to resolve the situation. Whether the character's actions in that situation are good, bad, or indifferent are unimportant. It is the character's intentions within the situation which determine 'success' for the purposes of these rules.

Frequency of Appearance
GMs should never build in a character's Motivation as a 'gimme' in the adventure. While GMs should reward characters with the opportunity to pursue their Motivations whenever it makes sense, they shouldn't just hand the players opportunities to clean up on Experience. Pre-planned Motivation hooks should force a value choice for a character, where they have to decide to pursue their Motivation over other, possibly vitally important goals. Characters with conflicting Motivations are awesome for this purpose. Requiring characters to make a choice where pursuing their Motivation means scuttling an adventure is usually a bad idea because a player should always put his character's story before the GM's... but making the character's pursuit of a Motivation entirely self-destructive is valid... keeping in mind the character wouldn't consider the behavior self-destructive, even if his player recognizes it.

In short, when players work to create opportunities for their characters to pursue their Motivations, the GM should accommodate them when logical. The GM should only intentionally include Motivations in their plans when it creates a difficult value choice for the character in-game and a difficult strategic player choice out-of-game. And GMs should never count on a player ignoring his character's Motivation, because the players aren't supposed to ignore it.

Lamentation
A Lamentation represents a circumstance or destiny that under most normal circumstances heralds a character's doom. A Lamentation could simply be a benign and simple coincidence that a character becomes such a miserable failure in certain situations. It could be a manifestation of hatred and contempt that the cosmos, God, or whatever has for a character and thus has created a little karma trap for the character to fall into and meet disaster It could also be adapted to some in-game explanation such as a curse, or a grudge from Greater Powers that are explicitly defined in the game.

"Why" a character has a Lamentation is not an important question from a rules standpoint. Maybe it's not even an important question from a campaign standpoint; that's up to you. 'Why' a character has a Lamentation, from a game design standpoint, is summed up simply as 'they need a counterbalance to the advantages of a Motivation.' Far more pressing concerns are the definitions and consequences of a Lamentation as they relate to a character.

Defining a Lamentation
For game purposes, a Lamentation is a two to four word sound byte which serves as a metaphor for a more complex explanation. When creating a Lamentation for a character, that character's player defines both the 'sound byte' and the deeper meaning.

A Lamentation encompasses a situation, maybe a philosophical issue, not a specific person, place, or object. It's a happening, not a thing.

(While I won't put these in the actual text for the reason given, here are a few possible lamentations that could be picked: Shakespearean Tragedy where the character's life will fall apart when they achieve true love, Fearless Undead Machine where the character believes they are being hunted by some sort of vengeful ghost, Procreation of the Wicked where the character cannot deal with children born of violent coupling, Sign of the Hammer where the character performs badly in the presence of some obscure holy symbol, etc)

It is important to note that a character does not necessarily fear his Lamentation, nor does a character have to actually be aware of it. In fact, there should be some sort of in-game explanation if a character is aware and/or afraid of such a meta-game concept.

Players and GMs are encouraged to bitterly argue and physically fight (I recommend throwing four-siders at each other... they're pointy, so they can really hurt, and they aren't useful for anything so it doesn't matter if they got lost, swallowed, or broken) when deciding on standards and appropriateness of individual Lamentations in their game.

Game Effect
When under the influence of his Lamentation, a character may roll no more than one die for any action, whether it be combat, social interactions, physical stunts... doesn't matter what it is, if a Lamentation is in effect, and dice are to be rolled, it doesn't matter what a character's Stat or Skill levels are, it doesn't matter what the circumstances or bonuses are, one die is all they get to roll with. Well, the exception is if a character would normally roll 0d in a situation, they still only roll 0d. Any opposing rolls will have a minimum of two dice in these situations, even in situations that should use less dice.

Cheats aren't allowed to be used by a character when his Lamentation is in effect.

GMs should interpret what 'under the influence' and 'in effect' means in such a way that most penalizes the character, using the spirit and meaning, not necessarily the literal wording, of a Lamentation. In all fairness, the player should be very aware when Lamentation related penalties are going to be in effect. It should never be a surprise the character is made aware of after deciding a course of action and getting ready to make a roll.

The appearance of a Lamentation is not a game obstacle to be overcome... it can very well be, and perhaps should be, the end of a character.

Note that all effects of a Lamentation are applicable to only the one character with the Lamentation. No one else suffers the in-game penalties. One character's failure then causing problems for everyone else is something else altogether...

Frequency of Appearance
Before a game session begins (as in, everyone has sat down to play, you're all ready to go, that's when this is to be rolled... no planning ahead on this), the GM should roll 2d for every participating character. If the result is greater than 11, then that character's Lamentation will appear during the game session and the character will become entangled within it. If the result is not 12, then it will not appear.

Add 1 to the roll for every full previous session played that the Lamentation has not appeared. This modifier follows the player, not the character, so the modifier counts even if they were playing a different character. Only count sessions where they played a character that had a Lamentation. Any modifiers a character gains that increase the chances of a Lamentation appearing do not go away until the Lamentation appears. Once a Lamentation has been encountered, any modifiers reset to zero and begins to build from scratch.

There are other modifiers that increase or reduce the chances of a Lamentation appearing, but no matter what modifiers there are, if the GM rolls a natural 12 on the dice, the Lamentation appears. No amount of modifiers will make the threat go away completely.

The result should be followed even if it makes no sense within the structure of the session or adventure. If a circumstance within an adventure matches up to a character's Lamentation by pure coincidence, and that character's Lamentation is not set to appear that session, there is no series of events that are too contrived or bizarre when making sure the Lamentation does not appear to that specific character. Likewise if a Lamentation is going to appear but there is no way to logically introduce it, then logic loses. All that said, how a Lamentation's presence or absence is handled in-game will be a direct indication of a GM's skill and outlook. Serious games will require GMs to think fast and be really good at making on-the-fly changes to make the game world work around the Lamentations and having actions still make sense. GM's who don't make that effort (and this is a valid choice), or don't know how to do it very well, will end up having a more surreal, perhaps comic-book campaign in feel and tone.

Remember that whether Lamentations are cosmic destiny, signs that the cosmos despises and hates the character for some real or imagined insult or crime, or just big unlucky coincidences, in game terms they are above normal plot, causality, in-game actions, and preparation.

The Lamentation roll should be made in secret because the players should never know if a Lamentation is going to appear or not before it actually does.

Out of Bounds
There is but one rule restricting the GM's use of a Lamentation in screwing over the characters (and players) and being the biggest bastard the world has ever known: The GM may never knowingly construct an adventure that can not be completed without a character's Lamentation coming into play.

That isn't fair to the other players whose characters don't share the Lamentation, because their characters may not be able to complete an adventure because of a die roll forbidding someone else's Lamentation from appearing.

It is also against the spirit of the game because the appearance of a Lamentation should be random, but with a chilling inevitability where the player knows that it will appear sooner or later... but they'll never know when.

If an adventure is already underway and a player brings in a new character that has a Lamentation that unintentionally conflicts with this Out of Bounds rule, then that's just tough luck for the player. The GM is under no obligation to change the conditions of the adventure because of a new Lamentation coming into play mid-stream. Yes, that will cause havoc with the adventure itself, but at this point it would be the player's fault.

On the other hand, it is forbidden for a player to introduce a Lamentation that will intentionally screw with an adventure or campaign already underway.

Yes, these Out of Bounds rules do indicate that it is against the spirit of the game to be coy and for GMs and players to use Lamentations to mess with each other in a premeditated and prepared way. If your individual group does want to use Lamentations that way, then there should be an explicit agreement before playing between everyone concerned, as with any non-official house rule.

...from the character creation section:
A character may choose one Motivation and Lamentation each if they wish. A character can not have a Motivation without also having a Lamentation.

Why Choose Motivations and Lamentations?
On the surface, Motivations and Lamentations give a real ability to advance and improve a character, and there are lots of in-game incentives to want a Motivation. Yet some may see it as a zero-sum game because the clock is ticking on encountering that Lamentation and all the character's power and improvement doesn't mean anything once that hits. A Lamentation is an open invitation for a GM to royally screw with a character in all sorts of mischievous and evil ways, after all.

But that's a little bit of the point. Any role-playing adventure, no matter how much care and attention paid to the players during its crafting, is essentially the GM's story. It's not like the players in a traditional role-playing arrangement have much choice as to what happens within the game to their characters. Their only control is out-of-game trust and agreement that the GM will have the players involved in the type of game they want to play.

By introducing the Motivations and Lamentations, it gives players in-game control over their characters' stories, both the journey and perhaps the unfortunate end. Just as a GM has his story, adventure goals, and dangerous twists that the players can be powerless to avoid, so now do the players have their story elements which the GM is utterly powerless to ignore. The player must pursue his character's Motivation. The player can not ignore the threat of his character's Lamentation. The GM can't just sweep them aside. They must pay attention to the specific things a character wants, and they must present the challenges that the players have chosen for themselves.

In a sense, deciding not to take a Motivation and Lamentation in this game is declaring that your character doesn't have some sort of higher purpose, is not concerned with any meta-game importance for his character, and it says that a player just wants a simple and straightforward gaming experience. That is perfectly OK, and players who are told it is not are hereby given official permission to spit in the dip they serve for the offenders at the next gaming session.

It is very strongly recommended that players who do not want Motivations and Lamentations for their characters are not compelled to have them, and it is very strongly recommended that players who do want to use Motivations and Lamentations not be stopped from doing so.

Combat
Basic idea:

Done in team format. Everybody on each side combines their combat dice... the total roll is applied as damage to the opposing side. The side taking the damage then decides who on their team takes how much damage, and once that's figured out, players make their individual defense rolls versus the damage they've chosen to take.

No combat maps, no tactical decisions. Just decide how many of your combat dice are going into your side's combat pool and how many are being kept for your defense roll.

(The ideas behind this mechanic:
A- The Moria fight scene in FotR... the hobbits would realistically be dead meat trying to engage the orcs on the same level as Boromir or Gimli... but in LotFP Gamespeak, the better fighters were volunteering to take more of the damage because they could.

B- Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires... allows Van Helsing and that Swedish chick to stay out of the way while all the kung fu is going on without coming up with goofy 'well why can't one of the 30 attacking ninjas attack the helpless people?' Yes, I just used Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires as a gaming rule example.

C- Should allow characters to make a character true to their concept, and not making concessions based on "Well if I don't have *this* I'll be dead in the first fight."

Basically simulates the chaos of a battle in ways individual to-hit rolls and declared specific actions never could, and allows players of non-warrior types to not have to consciously 'stay in the back'- they do just as much as combat monsters in terms of game mechanics and play, even if their in-game effectiveness is poor in these situations.)

I'd ask "Am I on a path worth continuing on" but I think the better question for my purposes is "What concerns would you have with a game that featured these elements?" Should I be concerned that my combat mechanic isn't all that related to the mechanic that governs individual non-combat actions?

[daMoose_Neo]

Hope I don't warrent a quick smack or so, but...the design *philosophy* you're utilizing is a little...odd, especially seeing around here for a while.

You don't believe that a game should tell players why they are playing and design around that, yet I see a neat little skeleton that could be used to direct players down one path or another of your choosing. Problem as an indie is that you will almost never supplant an established universal system (likely d20, depending on the player) for a play group, but a tightly focused game that leaves no alternative BUT to use your ruleset will see a little more play.
Also, something that stuck like a popcorn kernal in my teeth, is the assumption that players have zero control of their character and thats role-playing. Thats true of *some* systems, but not all. A number of systems, especially around here, give players a LOT more control of their characters and environment and are still dang good role-playing.
My own Imp Game is GM-less where players have absolute control of their fates, the dice deciding only if they succeed or fail. To tie it in with the above, the way the game is set up it really is only one mechanic with some window dressing, but it is nearly impossible to duplicate the play style with another system. In Imp Game, failure is FUN, nearly more so than success.

Other thing that could prove problematic is that if you, as the designer, have no clear direction, the players will have no direction. That will mean 0 of those sales you're looking at. *System* doesn't look bad, warrents a play test I suppose, but thats simple bare mechanics there with none of that direction or purpose. The tight focus of most indie games and the questions "What is it about? What do I do?" firstly help us as designers understand where you want to go, but also helps us as prospective players see what its all about. If you say "Its a generic system", most of us will go "Oh. Never mind, I have GURPS and 20 supplements already taking up space on my shelf." If you can grab us with something, be it an awesome mechanic, like timfire's Betrayal mechanic from The Mountain Witch or Tony's Click n' Lock character generation from Capes, and possibly wrap it in a cool setting (Samurai assaulting an evil witch and Super Heroics, respectively), that warrents a closer look. Those questions can easily summarize the system, setting, and over all approach to the game, and often be incorperated into one statement or question: "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?" being Tony's from Capes.

Short, simple, sweet of the above: looks like decent mechanics. Now tell me what I do with them else I don't have much other reason to look at them. You've got a start, and I do see those Forge influances, but I also see the indecision and lack of direction. Fix those, then you may have something.

[JimLotFP]

Hope I don't warrent a quick smack or so, but...the design *philosophy* you're utilizing is a little...odd, especially seeing around here for a while.

The Forge has definitely been an influence (I don't think any of the ideas I presented here would exist without it), but the basic drive to create a game and the goals for that game are things that do not, and will not, be taken from what I read here. That's all mine.

Actually, some of the Forge articles make me want to make a joke game. Tactical Intiative Theories, the Fantasy Heartbreaker That Kills You And Takes Your Stuff. :p

You don't believe that a game should tell players why they are playing and design around that, yet I see a neat little skeleton that could be used to direct players down one path or another of your choosing.

I do have ideas of what I would do specificallywith the game (of course I do!)... but I like the GURPS model of having sourcebooks to go on top of the rules a LOT more than I like the idea of getting all of the Palladium rules, AGAIN, whenever you buy a new "game" or setting from that company.

Also, something that stuck like a popcorn kernal in my teeth, is the assumption that players have zero control of their character and thats role-playing. Thats true of *some* systems, but not all. A number of systems, especially around here, give players a LOT more control of their characters and environment and are still dang good role-playing.

Understood. I'm a fan of the traditional gaming setup though, with GM as presenter of the world. There is a TON of abuse possible in that. I wanted an idea to get around that without changing the basic framework for my game.

Other thing that could prove problematic is that if you, as the designer, have no clear direction, the players will have no direction.

But it comes back to the fact that I wouldn't buy a game that restricted itself in that way, so it would feel, I don't want to use the word 'unethical'... maybe 'slimy' is a better word, to create a game I wouldn't be interested in picking up myself just to be able to sell copies of it. I'm more interested in the creation, if I lose the pile of money I'll spend having it printed, that's fine as long as I'm happy with it.

The tight focus of most indie games and the questions "What is it about? What do I do?" firstly help us as designers understand where you want to go, but also helps us as prospective players see what its all about.

My impression of tightly focused games: 'Gimmicks intended for short term use.' I know that's unfair considering I haven't played many of these games, but that's my initial prejudice. While I realize the oldstyle 'we ran a campaign for fifteen years, oh the stories we have to tell...' type of group is not how gamers operate these days, it's still what I hold up as 'perfection' in gaming. I don't think intense specialization allows for even hope of that.

Short, simple, sweet of the above: looks like decent mechanics. Now tell me what I do with them else I don't have much other reason to look at them. You've got a start, and I do see those Forge influances, but I also see the indecision and lack of direction. Fix those, then you may have something.

agghh, marketing. "Um, because roleplayers habitually buy crap they don't need anyway so you might as well try it and I think it'll be all growy on you like a fungus." OK, so I need to work on this...

[daMoose_Neo]

agghh, marketing. "Um, because roleplayers habitually buy crap they don't need anyway so you might as well try it and I think it'll be all growy on you like a fungus." OK, so I need to work on this...

hehe.
Not even marketing really, just cut it to the core. Again, my Imp Game can be summed up: "Comic mischief & hilarity; Whats more fun: success or failure?" This is more important to you as a designer than as a marketer because it helps focus that design to what the game is *really* about as opposed to a collection of mechanics. Incidently, it also makes a great marketing pitch.
I will grant, most of the mechanics are geared toward short term use: I *know* Imp Game *cannot* withstand campaign styled play, it just can't. So rather than force it to, I accept what it is, present the limited mechanics and a wealth of background so it can be enjoyed as what it is and not begrudged for what its not. The title has been praised in review for that fact, understanding where my systems limits are and not trying to exceed them.
Important things those boundaries. Limits yes, but they also spur creativity.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Jim, if you want to see a game that accomplishes exactly what you are after, click on the link below my sig.  In the first game I designed, I set out with goals very similar to yours.  We actually made it to print, ran a GenCon booth, sold copies over the internet, and actually printed and held corporate stock.  It's a solid game that satisfies what you're looking for.  And if I had it to do all over again, I would have done something totally different.

It's not that Ember Twilight is a bad game, just a game that could have been a whole lore more if I had put aside my "prejudices" as you put it.  I felt that way too back in '02.  However, I've learned a great deal since then.  I know more now and have improved as a designer.  Let me give you some advice from someone who has traveled the exact same road you are on right now.

First, make your game extraordinary!  Do not settle for generic anything.  Generic is exactly what it is: generic.  Find what you personally like best about RPGs and make your game about that facet.   You will find tons of people out there who will like it also.  You feel roleplaying is GM-centric where he presents the game?  Fine!  Make a game designed to assist GMs in creating compelling stories that the non-GMs experience as it unfolds.

Create a game where the players enhance the GM's story, are rewarded for it, and have a full set of mechanics backing them up.  Make the mechanics hold the GM responsible for entertaining the players.  Have the mechanics push the players to enhance the story by adding bits of narration on their own.  Focus your game around helping the GM making a great story to tell.  Treat it as a collaberative effort to help one person achieve their dream to produce a story that burns within them.

Do not take the GURPS model, or the D20 model, or the Rolemaster model for your game.  It's been done, redone, refried, T-shirted, and then done all over again.  Make your game different from all those and make it the best GM-story-creating RPG ever.  That's your focus, that's your motivation.

But no matter what, make your game stand out.  Present in a way that makes people sit up and blink when they see it.  Make them go, "Wow, never seen that before.  Might be fun!"  Don't try to do what others have done.  Don't say, "I like Game X and I want to make a better version of it."  You can't.  GURPS is the best GURPS there will ever be.  There may someday be a game that apeals to those same gamers that puts Steve Jackson out of business.  But GURPS will always be GURPS.  You won't be able to remake it.

You want a game that centers on the GM.  Then make a game about that.  There are GMs out there with stories to tell.  Will you help them?

Peace,

-Troy

[greyorm]

My impression of tightly focused games: 'Gimmicks intended for short term use.' I know that's unfair considering I haven't played many of these games, but that's my initial prejudice. While I realize the oldstyle 'we ran a campaign for fifteen years, oh the stories we have to tell...' type of group is not how gamers operate these days, it's still what I hold up as 'perfection' in gaming. I don't think intense specialization allows for even hope of that.

I have a question and a comment: first, could you please list by name some of the games you consider to be too gimmicky to run for 15 years? Second, though I can't give a more focused reaponse than this until I know which games it is specifically you have this beef with, I think your belief about what focused/gimmicky games can or cannot do (and even what gamers do or do not) is in error.

[JimLotFP]

Jim, if you want to see a game that accomplishes exactly what you are after, click on the link below my sig.  In the first game I designed, I set out with goals very similar to yours.

You've got races and classes with established cultural backgrounds and bonuses and penalties to abilities attached. That has nothing to do with what I am trying to accomplish.

First, make your game extraordinary!  Do not settle for generic anything.  Generic is exactly what it is: generic.  Find what you personally like best about RPGs and make your game about that facet.

I find it really, really disturbing that people think I have no clue what I am wanting. If I say I want a generic system, that's... the end of it. I want to make a generic system. Criticizing that decision and telling me why generic is bad does me no good. Now, if I say I want a generic system (not a universal system- there is a difference) and then I'm presenting ideas that limits the application of the rules in a way that a generic system should not, that's criticism I can use. If the mechanics I'm coming up with are pulling in a specific direction that suggests a certain type of game, OK. But you'd think that GMs and players had no ability to come up with their own ideas the way people seem to be against the very idea of a generic system, no matter what it looked like.

Besides, Sorceror is generic... so is Sorceror and Sword.

You feel roleplaying is GM-centric where he presents the game?  Fine!  Make a game designed to assist GMs in creating compelling stories that the non-GMs experience as it unfolds.

I believe this is the default stance of RPGs, so "making a GM-centric game" and "making an RPG" would be the same thing unless specifically trying to "redefine" how RPGs are played.

Do not take the GURPS model, or the D20 model, or the Rolemaster model for your game.  It's been done, redone, refried, T-shirted, and then done all over again.

Liking the GURPS model of presentation does not mean the game would look like, feel like, or play like GURPS. Wanting to make a generic system doesn't mean I want to be GURPS, anymore than wanting to make a fantasy game means you want to be D&D.

I have a question and a comment: first, could you please list by name some of the games you consider to be too gimmicky to run for 15 years? Second, though I can't give a more focused reaponse than this until I know which games it is specifically you have this beef with, I think your belief about what focused/gimmicky games can or cannot do (and even what gamers do or do not) is in error.

I already admitted my feelings may be 'unfair' because I've said I've never played them. Hell, I've never SEEN most of them. Doesn't mean I don't get a first impression off of a review, it doesn't mean I'm going to spend money just to see if I'm correct in thinking it's not what I need, and it doesn't mean I'd like the system even if my initial impression of what the game was about was wrong.

What I'm looking for in a game is SYSTEM. Not ideas. If a game seems more concerned with what the characters are supposed to do instead of what the system does... I won't be interested in the game. Period.

[coffeestain]

Besides, Sorceror is generic... so is Sorceror and Sword.

This is untrue.  Sorcerer is actually extremely specific in intent and in the rules that support the intent.  It does not appear to be the sort of intent you wish to pursue, but do not make the mistake of believing it's not there.

What I'm looking for in a game is SYSTEM. Not ideas. If a game seems more concerned with what the characters are supposed to do instead of what the system does... I won't be interested in the game. Period.

It seems to be common belief here that the system should support what the characters do.  There is no reason these two goals have to be at odds or be mutually exclusive.

I will be the first to admit that I did not read your proposed system, and the reason is the same as has been presented in this thread already, so I don't feel any need to vocalize it again.  I did, however, read what feedback you were looking for and I'd like you to consider the fact that you're receiving it, though it may not feel relevant to you due to the fact that this community tends to hold some non-traditional views on roleplaying and game design.

Good luck with your design.

[greyorm]

I already admitted my feelings may be 'unfair' because I've said I've never played them. Hell, I've never SEEN most of them. Doesn't mean I don't get a first impression off of a review, it doesn't mean I'm going to spend money just to see if I'm correct in thinking it's not what I need, and it doesn't mean I'd like the system even if my initial impression of what the game was about was wrong.

So, you have no real foundation on which to base the criticisms you have of these unnamed games? If you don't have any ground on which to base your arguments, don't make them. Don't say them as opinions, even, because there are good opinions and bad opinions and this is the latter type. You're saying "Well, they don't do this and they don't do that, even though I don't know whether or not they actually do or don't."

This is a problem because I don't even know what sorts of things you're talking about your system not doing, because you're talking about fictional systems doing fictional things. You're saying you don't want your system to do these fictional things, so you won't be like those fictional systems.

That's not exactly informed design, or informed argument for that matter, but more importantly to the point here, there is nothing anyone here can do to help you with your design in this state, because there's no establishable common ground to discuss the issues you're having.

IE: No one can build fences to keep pink unicorns out.

What I'm looking for in a game is SYSTEM. Not ideas. If a game seems more concerned with what the characters are supposed to do instead of what the system does... I won't be interested in the game. Period.

Isn't that the same thing, Jim? Because, for me, it is. What the characters do IS what the system does, and vice versa. I can't look at a system without seeing exactly what the characters do. Because the system is going to indicate to me the best courses of action in any given scenario based on the success/failure rates given by the system's behavior and the support for various actions in play.

You're designing, for example, a system that lets the players/characters do/be anything. So what the characters do is very important to the system's design, because the reverse is also true. You need the system to handle anything.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Zeroing in on what might be your issue with other games:

You've got races and classes with established cultural backgrounds and bonuses and penalties to abilities attached. That has nothing to do with what I am trying to accomplish.

Races, classes, skills, spells, and equipment are the most minute part of what a game is about.  The truth is the final third of the book is about helping a GM tell his story.  I didn't expect you to get that from just reading what was on the website, but I did expect you to make a snap judgement based on very little evidence.  Which you did.  So when Greyorm says you have no real foundation for your criticisms, he's right.  I humbly and honestly recomend reading many more RPGs than you have, taking the theory here seriously, and then forming a coherant plan for what you would like your game to accomplish.  That way the community here can give you constructive assistance.

Peace,

-Troy

[JimLotFP]

This is untrue.  Sorcerer is actually extremely specific in intent and in the rules that support the intent.  It does not appear to be the sort of intent you wish to pursue, but do not make the mistake of believing it's not there.

Then we have different definitions of what 'generic' means. I used Sorceror as an example because I've owned the core book and the Sorceror and Sword supplement, and the fact is that humanity is not a strictly defined campaign element, there is no set definition of who the characters are, what their specific relation to the world around them is, or even what that world is in the first place. The supplements (going by reading Sorcery and Sword and reviews of the others) do not reinforce the core book, but discuss radically different applications of the core rules. At least that's how I interpreted what I read.

So, you have no real foundation on which to base the criticisms you have of these unnamed games? If you don't have any ground on which to base your arguments, don't make them. Don't say them as opinions, even, because there are good opinions and bad opinions and this is the latter type. You're saying "Well, they don't do this and they don't do that, even though I don't know whether or not they actually do or don't."

OK, specific examples from specific games I've played:

Shadowrun (at least first edition) assumes you're going to be outlaw mercenary industrial saboteurs. How do normal people live? How would you play a legit corp troubleshooter or police officer? Firefighter? Scientific researcher? I spent a birthday gift certificate on a good pile of sourcebooks and found the whole thing painfully narrow, even if the atmosphere was awesome and the amount of support material for its one focus was impressive.

Justifiers was godawful this way. You're either a criminal or an owned bioengineered creature with no choice about what you do or why, with the assumption that the players are all supposed to go along with this situation instead of cutting and running or rebelling. How is life between missions? What is there to do on non-frontier worlds?

Twilight 2000 as I recall (played it when it was new) was all about being US soldiers stranded in Eastern Europe... Want to play as other nationals? In a different area? Non-military character? I don't recall that being an option...

And examples I haven't played taken from reputation and reviews:

Vampire: Not really so much dealing with 'being a vampire', but being a specific type of vampire in a specific political setup. Asking people about the system being adaptable to a game having nothing to do with the established setting didn't lead me to believe it would work. I know they now have a core rulebook separate from the setting...

My Life With Master, from reviews, is an incredibly narrow game where players can have one possible role... I haven't even seen it suggested in reviews that the underlings can support and truly help their master.

Riddle of Steel... one gets the impression from reading about it that the game is based around combat, combat, and more combat. Everyone's a fighter. Everyone fights. Anything else to do? Who knows...

There Is No Spoon... it doesn't support role-playing in the world of the Matrix. It's about copying exactly what happens in the movies. Well, the first one anyway. And only when jacked in.

Better?

Because the system is going to indicate to me the best courses of action in any given scenario based on the success/failure rates given by the system's behavior and the support for various actions in play.

That's the whole challenge of game design for me. Creating a system that creates logical results from logical actions, not a system that suggests through mechanics what the logical action should be in the first place.

I didn't expect you to get that from just reading what was on the website, but I did expect you to make a snap judgement based on very little evidence.

You told me your game "accomplishes exactly what you are after", your exact words. My judgement was made from the material available on your website. Statements like "Sylvan elves are considered to be a lesser race compared to their high elf cousins. However, they are the most populous race of elves simply because they are the hardiest." That's setting and cultural material. "Great men receive a +5% bonus to their DEX and STR, a +10%..." are modifiers based on a race in the rules. I may have made a "snap" judgement, but it's not from info I'm pulling out of my butt, I'm pulling it off of your website.

I humbly and honestly recomend reading many more RPGs than you have

Thousands of dollars spent, from 1982 to 2004. We're having communications problems here, but I don't think it's because I haven't seen enough RPGs.

[greyorm]

Excellent. Thank you, Jim. Now we're getting somewhere because we have a foundation of what you're defining "generic" to mean, which actually isn't what the rest of us are taking it to mean.

Frex, the Sorcerer problem. Yes, the setting, what you "are" in the game is generic, that is: adaptable. But regardless of what you are, what Humanity is, what you choose to do, the core system is very focused. No matter what the color surrounding it, the game is always about the Humanity issue: what would you do, how far would you go, for power? How much is getting what you want worth?

To me, that isn't generic, that's very focused. So, can we call this a difference between generic setting/genre and generic theme? (Anyone have any suggestions for a better term or distinction?)

This idea is also apparent from some of your other examples.

My Life With Master, from reviews, is an incredibly narrow game where players can have one possible role... I haven't even seen it suggested in reviews that the underlings can support and truly help their master.

Yes, but supporting the Master isn't the point of the game. It isn't a "do anything" game...it's an "experience this" game. I can't see criticizing it on that count anymore than I would see criticizing someone for making money in their for-profit business: that is, adhering to the point of the thing. Now, ok, you don't like that idea -- of the game defining your character type/mission choices for you -- so you want to stay away from it.

These examples do better clarify what you're trying to avoid and what you're aiming for. Except for TROS, that is. The game is about combat -- or rather, risking violence -- just as Sorcerer in any incarnation is about summoning demons. I'm not sure why you see Sorcerer one way, and TROS the other, given that both are very wide open regarding who/what you are/can be (TROS moreso than Sorcerer), and yet have singular restrictions in terms of what its all about.

That's the whole challenge of game design for me. Creating a system that creates logical results from logical actions, not a system that suggests through mechanics what the logical action should be in the first place.

Can we define "logical"? As in logical how? Logical in-genre? Logical = realistic or really real? There are a couple of places we could go with that term: where are you aiming?

[JimLotFP]

I'm not sure why you see Sorcerer one way, and TROS the other, given that both are very wide open regarding who/what you are/can be (TROS moreso than Sorcerer), and yet have singular restrictions in terms of what its all about.

That's the difference between reading the Sorceror material and only reading reviews about TROS, I guess.

Can we define "logical"? As in logical how? Logical in-genre? Logical = realistic or really real? There are a couple of places we could go with that term: where are you aiming?

Logical in terms of real world outcome. Logical where players can make decisions based on a description of a situation and not feel screwed by the system for doing so. I figure if the 'straight' stuff can work by itself, then some goofier ('illogical' stuff like magic or paranormal abilities of some sort or even the Motivation/Lamentation) things would be more grounded and not able to be the focus of the game.