[Myrkwell] Why people play

[Saxon Douglass]

I have made a topic before here about a game (hesitate to use the word RPG now with it's loose definition) i'm working on and while I learned enough I still tyhings of things in what can only be described as a "Dungeons & Dragons" way. I now envisage the game in many forms, some completley opposite each other. It could be done with just a few adjectives on a scrap of paper defining an avatar a player controls to a complex system of skills, talents, assests and pre-written rules for tasks & conflicts all the way to a game like Universalis where there arn't even player avatars!

But allas I feel there is salvation! Although I know in the end the decision is up to me I beleive the enlightened individuals here may be able to point me on the right path. I was told to look at other games last time I came and while I havn't got some of the most important works yet (DitV, Universalis, Burning Wheel) I have researched what I can about them and others. I have unfortunatley come to one conclucion - that I don't know how to proceed. Writing "mechanics" isn't what i'm having trouble with. It's working out what I want to acheive and the basic way to make that happen.

The only thing I know about my game so far is the world. This does tell me something I guess - the setting will drive this game very heavily. The world is a steampunk, victorian, gothic fantasy affair with a mix of the "reworked stale" (eg: elves) and the "one-day-old" (eg: character advancement through self-set goals). I have tonnes of ideas, lots of which don't work with each other very well. Because of the hodgepodge nature of my ideas the best I can do is list them in the order they come to me.

First thing though is a brief history. I started playing D&D3.5 a year or two ago and have played it on and off for abit. I got quite a few "supplements" for it aswell which I now wish I hadn't. But I started Myrkwell as another of those Fantasy Heartbreakers or whatever they're called. Aftering coming here before and have my eye lids ripped open I have changed my concept although visions of character levels and game masters still haunt my thoughts. So I came back here hoping that someone might be able and willing to help me get my concept sorted.

I'd also like to make it clear i'm not making this game to try and sell or really even mass distribute. It's being done for fun and also as an alternative to D&D which most of the people I play with are kind-of hooked on. Because of that i'm not affraid to make it a little cliche or similar to other RPGS because I know it has to have a certain familiarity for them to play it. I tried my other game project on them recently and only one person liked it (the others just kept asking when the next D&D session would be :| ). Overall I want a system that supports the world I am detailing, that is easy to learn and play and i Gamist/Narativist in style. That is to say it is aimed at being free-form and encourage story telling while having intrinsically fun mechanics without much care for realism.

One idea that has stuck in my head is characters with skills/talents/resources or atleast levels. Reading some threads I have come upon I question I need to answer. What do levels actually do for a game? The most common answer is to provide "gamers" with an incentive to keep playing but looking at videogames, especially say platformers, you see people keep playing just to experience new things. Getting a move or attack might be cool but you play to uncover and participate in a story. What levels really seem to do is deal with the simulationist notion of power. If this is right then they are dead weight in a game that promotes storytelling and exciting action. Levels are there so you can say "Person A is stronger than Person B". They also promote the tying of meta-success, ie. "winning" the game to in-game resolution (which is in essence the old conflict vs. task resolution debate). What i'm getting at though is that levels would detract and not enhance from my game i'm imagining.

Since I want characters to have in-game differences though this leaves me wondering how to simulate ingame character strengths and weaknesses without a level based character advancement system. Characters need to acheive something by playing, something more than "I'm now more powerful than this guy but still weaker than that guy". I guess what i'm looking for is a way to reward and encourage players to play the game beyond character ability advancement or just relying on the strength of the story/mechanics. I don't think many people play, say, D&D just because the story is interesting or rolling the dice is intrinsically fun. In D&D it's overcoming the odds, "beating the DM" that seems to provide satisfaction. Unfortunatley that doesn't work for my game because I've decided to ditch the GM (mainlly because I end up being said person and would rather be playing the game like everyone else is. same reason I never like being banker in monopoly). So that leaves players playing against each other - I prefer co-operation but someone has got to be the opposition.

This leaves me with two options that I can see for opposition, the "thing" that you beat. Other players (either free-for-all or in teams) or the rules themselves. To pluck an example out of the air imagine a game where everyone takes it in turns to play. No-one is activley competing against each other but every turn they get to make a "move" (whatever that may be or entail) adds to a tally. When that tally reaches say 10 (meaning they made 10 moves), they're out. Skipping your move would give you an extra move or turn to use in the future. So you have to strategically decide when to go full force and use up turns and when to hold back and recuperate.

I was going to post more but I have to go now.  I havn't got one single question unfortunatley, I suppose what i'm seeking is some advice on how to acheive a game that aims for narrativist and gamist play what is based on the world described above without simulationist things like levels or skill defaults.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Levels are not necesarily Sim, usually Gamist. But only sim, when simulating setting where characters rise in power. For instance, levels would be inappropriate for a Star Trek Sim game. But appropriate for a Star Wars Sim game.
  There are plenty of games that do not have levels that have character advancement, GURPS, WW, etc. The only tricky part to these is challenge setting. But that is difficult even with levels.
  I think having the players pick their own goals and giving them leverage to succeed should be incintive enough to play.

[Matt Machell]

HI,

I think what might be useful for you, is to write out an example of what your optimal game experience would be like. Describing what happens, and what the players do and how the imaginary events relate to what the players are doing.

-Matt