[Saint Sever] mechanics for an iron age game

[Bandari]

I think you're copping out on the rules. If System were just "common sense" and "storytelling," we wouldn't need any rules at all, would we?  Granted, I don't have a lot of information about your game to go on, but here's why I think that.

Your game seems to be a spin-off of D&D 3E, which is a pretty coherent Gamist game. That is, it's about giving players a chance to Step On Up and show their stuff to other players, through clever strategic character generation choices and by clever tactical choices during play. You said that you want your game to feel like mid-level D&D.

Your players are going to want to make the same kind of tactical choices as they did in D&D, if you set their expectations the way you seem to be going. That means they'll need some system for determining distance, range, movement, and so on.

When you play D&D 3E, do you use miniatures or maps? If, in 3E, Lord Matheur was 25' away from his enemy, you would determine if the enemy could throw his spear at Matheur by an initiative roll (winner acts first, and Matheur can probably move 30' and attack in the same turn). If the distance was 35', things would be different. Matheur might have to win initiative and charge (double movement plus attack) to avoid getting attacked. If the distance was 10' and Matheur had a longspear, he might get an attack of opportunity when the enemy initiated a ranged attack. See what I mean?

Are you shooting for a different kind of feel?

Yes - I see what you mean. Well, when we play D&D 3E its mostly descriptive - we never use miniatures and maps are used primarily to aid in area description, not for tactical decision-making. As a matter of fact D&D 3E is *too* gamist for my taste - the kind of game we play (and the kind of system I hope to implement) is more... hmm... "heroic-descriptive" might be what I'm looking for. We never play by measuring wondering whether the enemy is 5' or 15' away - he's either close enough to hit, or not close enough, for example. As a GM I don't "compete" against the players - and they don't compete amongst themselves really - it's more a chance to play a game, tell a story, roll dice (because they're pretty, more often than not...)

So, yes - I am shooting for a different kind of feel. The more I've read here on Indie, the more I'm starting to wonder if the approach I've been taking is the right one (especially in light of the very interesting comments on combat systems). The game has spun-off D&D 3E - not least because the only other games generally available and familiar to players here in Slovenia are Werewolf, Warhammer and M:tG (not many rpgs there, huh?).

Let's see - the feel I'm shooting for is a heroic, descriptive, and often tragic (deadly) game of drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery... currently in the iron age.

Hmm. Thanks for your comments - they are quite spot on, and I'm going to have to do some "ironing" I think... maybe just steam-rolling through some of the concepts I had. Although using cards for char-gen seems useful - at least to spur player participation and creativity.

Another idea I've been toying about with is character "life" cards - essentially the player gets dealt some fate - good and bad - and through the game he or she has to use it all up, the final card leading to the character's death.

[Adam Dray]

Let's see - the feel I'm shooting for is a heroic, descriptive, and often tragic (deadly) game of drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery... currently in the iron age.

And then, the question you have to ask yourself is, "What about my game makes all that happen?" Don't expect it to just happen because you want it to. The system has to support it and reward it.

You mention a lot of things up there, but you left out personal combat, unless you meant to roll it into "warfare." When combat occurs in your game, is it usually part of a greater battle? I ask because combat in warfare is very different than one-on-one melee. Certainly there is chance for the latter in the former, but most combat games focus on the latter and ignore the larger issues of war.

I think you need to design carefully to get "heroic" and "often tragic (deadly)" in the same game. It sounds like you're saying that characters die often, but for heroic causes. The system must support that, or it won't happen. How will you reward the player for the honorable or heroic death of his character? In a lot of games, death of the character is the worst thing that can happen to a player. Players do everything they can to avoid it, including ignoring the rules.

And of "drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery," only one of those is combat-oriented. I recommend that you stop worrying about the combat system and start designing rules that will handle politics, intrigue, drama, and slavery. If you can manage that, you'll have a game people will line up to play. If you just have a combat system with some text that tells players to add in all the drama and politics themselves, it'll be a bad D&D clone.

Definitely read the Fantasy Heartbreaker articles in the Articles section linked at the top. These should inspire you rather than crush you, honestly. You have been playing D&D and it isn't satisfying you. Instead of trying to "drift" the 3E rules, you are striking out to create a new game that does what you want. Cool. Now make it do what you want. You're carrying in a lot of baggage from your D&D experience. Try to put that aside. Your game should look almost nothing like D&D because you don't want D&D. You don't want a Gamist game. Drama, intrigue, politics, slavery!  D&D doesn't do those things particularly well, really.  When it does, it's cuz the DM and players were clever, but System Matters.  Design a system that does what you want.

[Bandari]

Let's see - the feel I'm shooting for is a heroic, descriptive, and often tragic (deadly) game of drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery... currently in the iron age.

And then, the question you have to ask yourself is, "What about my game makes all that happen?" Don't expect it to just happen because you want it to. The system has to support it and reward it.

You mention a lot of things up there, but you left out personal combat, unless you meant to roll it into "warfare." When combat occurs in your game, is it usually part of a greater battle? I ask because combat in warfare is very different than one-on-one melee. Certainly there is chance for the latter in the former, but most combat games focus on the latter and ignore the larger issues of war.

I think you need to design carefully to get "heroic" and "often tragic (deadly)" in the same game. It sounds like you're saying that characters die often, but for heroic causes. The system must support that, or it won't happen. How will you reward the player for the honorable or heroic death of his character? In a lot of games, death of the character is the worst thing that can happen to a player. Players do everything they can to avoid it, including ignoring the rules.

And of "drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery," only one of those is combat-oriented. I recommend that you stop worrying about the combat system and start designing rules that will handle politics, intrigue, drama, and slavery. If you can manage that, you'll have a game people will line up to play. If you just have a combat system with some text that tells players to add in all the drama and politics themselves, it'll be a bad D&D clone.

Definitely read the Fantasy Heartbreaker articles in the Articles section linked at the top. These should inspire you rather than crush you, honestly. You have been playing D&D and it isn't satisfying you. Instead of trying to "drift" the 3E rules, you are striking out to create a new game that does what you want. Cool. Now make it do what you want. You're carrying in a lot of baggage from your D&D experience. Try to put that aside. Your game should look almost nothing like D&D because you don't want D&D. You don't want a Gamist game. Drama, intrigue, politics, slavery!  D&D doesn't do those things particularly well, really.  When it does, it's cuz the DM and players were clever, but System Matters.  Design a system that does what you want.

I'm going to say it right out - thanks, you've helped me clear out my ideas [about my game goals] quite a bit.

Now the hard part - how to get to a system, which actually promotes and rewards players' characters for being part of the (fantasy) world, mattering to the (fantasy) world and finally dying for their (fantasy) world.

How to reward a player who kills their character well, in a memorable way? Or rather, how to reward a player who plays his character in such a way that his or her story makes sense... I need a mechanic that brings the character into the game in a spectacular way, tosses tragedy and heroism at the character and ends with their *meaningful* retirement (death or whatever).

In D&D character death is meaningless - it's pretty much game over, roll new character, start from beginning. That's why D&D is full of raise dead and resurrect magic... because the stories that D&D generates are pretty much random, petty and in the big scheme of things often pointless for the player. "So what if I got the magical crystal sword of Askalon? I failed my save and the pit trap killed me. Big whoop." is precisely the reason I avoid player death when running D&D games - death ruins the story!

I'm going to think this through and once I have a decent idea I'll post it in a new topic...