Here's My System That I've Used For Years ...

[Roy]

Hi, Ron!  First, let me say I'm now officially a fan of yours.  I intend to get my hands on Sorceror very soon.  I can't wait to see what you've done with that concept.

I'm interested in what you think, now, about your Heretic system - it's been almost ten years, right?

Pretty close to it.  I first created it 1993, so it's right at 9 years.  God, I feel old. <sighs>  Thanks, Ron.  Appreciate that mortality check. <grins>  (Hmm... Mortality Check?  <shakes his head>  Nah.)

How has it worked out for you?

It's worked very well for me in my games in that it provides enough structure to guide our creativity.  It's quick and keeps the action flowing instead of taking us out of the moment as some systems tend to.  Since I started using the system, I haven't had one rules dispute at the table.  Most importantly, I've had very satisfied players since I started using the system (even at cons with more Gamist oriented players).

What various things did it solve at the time ....

When I created this system, I was a hardcore Narrativist stuck in a Gamist atmosphere.  It was very frustrating to me (if I were in Call of Cthulu, it would have been time for a Sanity check).

I was tired of systems that required me to learn a ton of rules that only shackled my creativity as a player and as a GM.  

I still have the viewpoint that if I purchase a game on Friday night, I should be able to play it by Sunday.  If I can't, it doesn't work for me.  

Heretic solved a lot of the issues I had with other systems.

It provides a good range of results that can be easily described (Horrible Failure, Total Failure, Partial Success, Complete Success, and Outstanding Success).[/list:u]

It allows players to build just about any character they can imagine without worrying about game balance.  As a GM, I viewed maintaining game balance as my job.  (As an interesting sidenote, I had a player that wanted to play a god once.  It worked fine without him being overpowered.  He learned that great power comes with great responsibility.)[/list:u]

It is quick and doesn't stop the flow of the game, letting everyone stay "in the scene".[/list:u]

It is simple and uses the same mechanic universally for all actions, with just a few minor adjustments for combat.[/list:u]

... and what various things cropped up since then?

Very few things have ever cropped up that the system can't handle.  

The main weaknesses with the system are:

The GM is shackled to the Conflict Resolution Table.  You need a copy of this every time you play the game as it is very hard to internalize.  Referencing the table is quick and easy, but I'd still prefer a system without it.[/list:u]

The limited range of ranks (Poor, Average, Good, Excellent, and Incredible) combined with the limited number of Fate Points slows down character advancement a bit.  I would prefer a system that let a player advance his character a little bit after each session.[/list:u]

The system requires a fairly concrete background when you're creating a character. [/list:u]

The freedom of character creation can be daunting to inexperienced roleplayers. [/list:u]

How about how other people, in use, have reacted to aspects of the system ....

Most GMs prefer the speed, ease of use, and descriptive results (Horrible Failure, etc.).  

Most players prefer the descriptive results the GM gives instead of just a numerical result, the ability to create just about any character they can imagine, and the fact that you don't have to look any rules up during gameplay.

... how that's changed elements of your play ....

Very few elements have needed to be changed.  Most of the changes were additions for other GMs that wanted more structure than I had originally used.  That's why I added the Assist and Resist Modifiers and the Armor modifiers for Wounds.

I had previously used a different Wound system.  Basically, a character could take X Light Wounds (Partial Success), X Wounds (Complete Success) and X Heavy Wounds (Outstanding Success).  Once you ran out of X Light Wounds, any Partial Success would instead count against X Wounds (Complete Success), and so on.  It worked, but a lot of GMs didn't like it, so I changed it to the current Wound system.

I also originally began with the GM rolling all of the dice instead of the players.  I found that most players prefer to roll the dice, even when they can't interpret the result.  I think it's that they can accept their character's fate better when they are the ones responsible for the dice roll.  It's a subtle difference, but it does have a huge impact on gameplay.  

Here's an interesting sidenote that I've personally observed over the years.  If you allow the players to roll dice but don't give them a target number to shoot for (i.e. roll 5 or higher), then the players' excitement and tension rise in anticipation of the result.  If you give them a target number, it seems to lessen the impact.  

... thoughts on design for the future?

Before I dive into what I've learned, I want to offer just a little bit of advice to any aspiring game designers out there.  When you start a system, finish it even if you find out your own play style has changed during the time you've been working on it.  The mere fact that you've been through the entire process once will help you immensely on whatever you design in the future.  

Also, I would really suggest you begin your design by imagining what the "perfect" game would be like when it's played.  Write it all down in dialog format (i.e.  GM:  What do you want to do?), but leave out all of the system details.  Then go back in later and fill in the mechanics.  Just a suggestion, but it worked wonders for me.

I've learned so much from this that I don't know where to begin.  Here's a list of the few main things I've learned from designing Heretic:

Character Creation.  Some people love the freedom and some people are stifled by it.  Any future design I have will include both freeform design (probably using a point system) and the choice of appropriate archetypes (which I prefer to call Paths).  I will also strive to create systems that allow players to define extensive backgrounds in the beginning, or to allow them to play their character while they fill in little details during play.[/list:u]

Fortune Resolution.  Most players really do prefer a Fortune based resolution to a Karma based one.  And most players want to roll the dice themselves. [/list:u]

Character Advancement.  Most players would rather improve their character a little bit every single session than go through several sessions before they can advance them.[/list:u]

Sometime next week, I think I'll start a thread where I post all of the little things I've observed about player preference and encourage everyone to expand it with their experiences.  I think everyone could benefit from it.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Roy,

"... I would really suggest you begin your design by imagining what the "perfect" game would be like when it's played. Write it all down in dialog format (i.e. GM: What do you want to do?), but leave out all of the system details. Then go back in later and fill in the mechanics. "

H'm. What questions would you suggest in such list? This strikes me as something that deserves development.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Roy, sorry to take so long getting back (looong weekend),

Anyway, I didn't think you were being defensive at all. Your responses were great. It's just that looking back that I thought that you might just have posted the system for info's sake, and here we were tearing into it. Just wanted to be sure you were getting the sort of feeback you were looking for. Glad you are.

Actually, that's exactly the way I saw it.  Thanks to the excellent feedback here, I now realize I should have made that explicitly clear.  I will be sure to clarify this in the next edit.

When I mentioned system does matter, and statements about how a GM can fix things not having weight, that's all I meant. If you include the good advice that you have for GMs explicitly in your system, then it'll work just fine. Fang Langford refers to these things as techniques (though some could be encoded mechanically as well). So, as long as you tell the GM things like "consider certain common abilities to be average", it's all good.

This was my original problem. Having been posted in brief, the system seemed to be lacking these elements intentionally, which was fine if it was just for information.

My question becomes, are you going to use these mechanics pretty much "as is" for your new game, or are you intending to modify them first? I'm assuming that you will include all the good advice stuff explicitly in this version, but will the posted mechanics be mostly the same or will they be changed significantly? Just curious.

I apologize for any previous misunderstanding due to my bungled posting. I just hope that you can get what you need from the good folks here at The Forge.

Mike

[Roy]

Hi, Ron!

Roy Wrote:  "... I would really suggest you begin your design by imagining what the "perfect" game would be like when it's played. Write it all down in dialog format (i.e. GM: What do you want to do?), but leave out all of the system details. Then go back in later and fill in the mechanics. "

Ron Wrote:  H'm. What questions would you suggest in such list? This strikes me as something that deserves development.

I think I'll start this as a new thread, but it will probably be this evening or tomorrow before I have time to sit down and give good examples of this.  I'd like to get everyone's input and see if we can develop this idea.  A structured approach could be very useful for a lot of people.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

[Roy]

Hey, Mike!  I hope that long weekend was a good one.  Personally, I'm still trying to find a way to make my weekend last 6 months.  I'll let you know if I figure it out. :-)

Anyway, I didn't think you were being defensive at all.

Thanks, Mike.  I'm glad to hear it.  I sure hope I haven't gotten off on the wrong foot with some people here at the Forge.  I think you're all a great bunch of people with some very interesting opinions and ideas.  I'm very opinionated myself (in case you hadn't noticed <smiles>) and I love a good debate.  I just want everyone to know that I take everything they say very seriously and really consider it.

My question becomes, are you going to use these mechanics pretty much "as is" for your new game, or are you intending to modify them first?

There are several elements that I will try to carry over into my next design (such as the results Horrible Failure, Total Failure, Partial Success, Complete Success, and Outstanding Success), but it will not be using these same mechanics.  I'm leaning heavily toward a roll and add method or a dice pool method.  I'm also wanting to include a good mechanic for the player's taking an author's stance during play without losing the excitement.

I'm assuming that you will include all the good advice stuff explicitly in this version

Oh yeah.  I've learned my lesson there.  In fact, I think I'll let you pick it apart in private before I let anyone else see it.  I'm still mopping up the blood from this one. <smiles>  Of course, I'm just kidding you.  You've really helped me realize what was missing and I think I'll become a better writer for it.  Thanks, Mike.

Just curious.

I'm sorry, Mike.  I didn't really tell you much about my new project.  Here's what I'm working on:

I want to design a system that will capture the flavor and excitement of action adventure movies and TV shows.  I want it to feature:


fast structured and freeform character creation (possibly using a point system that will help a GM scale an adventure so that it challenges the players)[/list:u]

steady character advancement each session, a simple yet robust conflict resolution system that keeps the action moving quickly[/list:u]

a system for letting the players take an author's stance[/list:u]

a structured approach to building adventures and campaigns with that action adventure feel[/list:u][/list:u]

Something that is important to me is creating a system that captures the flavor and excitement of action adventures while allowing them to work in whatever setting the group wants.  I can just hear it now: "Oh no!  Not ANOTHER universal system!"  Don't worry, it's not a universal system since the system itself will help maintain the action adventure feel regardless of which setting it's used in.  Or at least that's my goal.

What do you think of the idea?

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

[Roy]

If anyone's new to this thread and wants to download the system we're talking about here, go to the Download section of my website:  http://www.geocities.com/roypenrod123/.

If you've been there before, stop by and tell me if you like the new design.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

[Mike Holmes]

I can just hear it now: "Oh no!  Not ANOTHER universal system!"  Don't worry, it's not a universal system since the system itself will help maintain the action adventure feel regardless of which setting it's used in.  Or at least that's my goal.

Well, being as I have designed a generic game called Universalis (with one Ralph Mazza, AKA Valmir, the writer), I can hardly be critical of such an idea in principle. Yet a lot of people are fairly critical of such systems, and I have to agree with some of their points. Let me try to get my position on this topic across clearly.

I think that if a GM want's to play a game for which he has a general idea, and for which there is no particularly appropriate system, that using a "generic" system that matches his general play goals is good idea. But in all other cases, where there is a specific system available (and all other things are equal) that system will cater more to the needs of the participants.

Thus, I see your system as potentially good right now for Sim RPGers who want a slim system. Unfortunately, there are lots of systems that match this description already. See RISUS and FUDGE, for two. So, you already have what many people consider good games as competition.

What slot does Universalis fill? Universalis is good for players who don't already have any story ready. You just sit down and play, and a story occurs. Actually, this ground has already been covered by Baron Munchausen, and Once Upon a Time, but our game is very distinct from these in the stories produced (i.e. not silly, necessarily).

So, what role do you see your game filling? Are you going to try and beat the other Light-Generic Sims at their own game? Or is there some twist that will make your game substantively different?

Mike

[Roy]

I think that if a GM want's to play a game for which he has a general idea, and for which there is no particularly appropriate system, that using a "generic" system that matches his general play goals is good idea. But in all other cases, where there is a specific system available (and all other things are equal) that system will cater more to the needs of the participants.

You're absolutely right here.  I personally like universal systems since I don't like having to learn different rules for each setting I play in.  In a nutshell, I want "structured freedom".  

I do, however, like it when a system that's tied to a particular setting really brings that setting to life.  For example, using playing cards as a resolution method for a game set in the Old West.  

I did something very similar with runes when I ran a fantasy game based on the Norse culture.  Instead of rolling dice, I made each player a bag of "runestones".  They would draw a number of runes out equal to the number of dice they would have used in a dice pool system, then they would "cast" the runes onto a cloth we had on the table and count their successes.  This resolution method  really helped to immerse the players in the setting and they had a blast "throwing the bones".  

Unfortunately, there are lots of systems that match this description already. See RISUS and FUDGE, for two. So, you already have what many people consider good games as competition.

I've enjoyed both RISUS and FUDGE, but the system I'm aiming for will be different from them because it's specifically tied to the action adventure genre.  

Can you run action adventures using systems like RISUS and FUDGE?  Sure.  But those systems aren't structured inherently to bring out the flavor of that specific genre.  It's up to the GM to create that flavor himself.  I want to give that GM a helping hand while still giving him free reign over the content of his game.

What slot does Universalis fill? ... this ground has already been covered by Baron Munchausen, and Once Upon a Time, but our game is very distinct from these in the stories produced (i.e. not silly, necessarily).

Hmmm, that sounds very interesting.  How do I get my hands on a copy?  My wife and I really enjoy Once Upon A Time.  I guess everyone else does too since I'm on my third set. <smiles>

So, what role do you see your game filling? Are you going to try and beat the other Light-Generic Sims at their own game? Or is there some twist that will make your game substantively different?

No, I'm not going to try to beat the light-rules universal systems at their own game.  

The twist behind the system, as I see it, is the fact that it's customized to one style of play (action adventure) within any setting while helping the GM quickly create adventures that challenge and entertain.    

One of the problems I want to address with this system is a lack of preparation time.  I hope that the successful formulaes used to create hit action adventure movies and TV series can be utilized for creating an enjoyable and memorable adventure and/or campaign while allowing the GM to still spend time with his family.

Whether you want to play in a fantasy setting (such as The Scorpion King), a modern setting (such as Alias), or a science fiction setting (such as Stargate), the system should help you preserve the enjoyable elements of the action adventure genres while helping you create satisfying adventures in that specific setting.  Essentially, structured freedom.  I think I've found my new catch phrase.

How do I intend to accomplish this?  I haven't figured that part out yet.  But that's what makes it fun! <smiles>

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

[xiombarg]

Hi, Ron!  First, let me say I'm now officially a fan of yours.  I intend to get my hands on Sorceror very soon.  I can't wait to see what you've done with that concept.

And so the Cult grows. ;-)

[Mike Holmes]

I did something very similar with runes when I ran a fantasy game based on the Norse culture.  Instead of rolling dice, I made each player a bag of "runestones".

Have you seen Scott Knipe's "Wyrd" yet? Should be a link in the resources.

Can you run action adventures using systems like RISUS and FUDGE?  Sure.  But those systems aren't structured inherently to bring out the flavor of that specific genre.  It's up to the GM to create that flavor himself.  I want to give that GM a helping hand while still giving him free reign over the content of his game.

Cool, I get it. Good goal.

Hmmm, that sounds very interesting.  How do I get my hands on a copy?

Playtesters only, right now. If interested, PM me.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Roy,

A fan, eh? With any luck the following material won't change that. I'm afraid I shall dissect a couple of your paragraphs, and I hope that breaking it down does not destroy the unified point you were making. This is perilously close to the line-by-line response method that I try to discourage on the Forge, so let me know if you think I am missing your big picture.

You wrote,
"No, I'm not going to try to beat the light-rules universal systems at their own game.
...
"The twist behind the system, as I see it, is the fact that it's customized to one style of play (action adventure) within any setting while helping the GM quickly create adventures that challenge and entertain."

Reeeeally. This "twist" is precisely what Fudge, and GURPS before it, advertised as the primary selling point. Therefore I do, in fact, think that you are trying to beat these systems at their own game. (For those youngsters among you, GURPS was originally advertised as a "system-light" "easy" "fast" game).

"One of the problems I want to address with this system is a lack of preparation time. I hope that the successful formulaes used to create hit action adventure movies and TV series can be utilized for creating an enjoyable and memorable adventure and/or campaign while allowing the GM to still spend time with his family."

Two points. (1) Those successful formulae do not exist, or rather, those formulae referred to in the industries you mention do not work. The "hit" shows rely on competent writing and production just as in any other entertainment medium; the shows which rely on formulae (usually a mindless attempt to imitate the details of the hit shows) bite the dust. (2) Various role-playing games have attempted to use a "construction" approach to designing scenarios, usually a matter of rolling a subject, a verb, and an object. I consider this approach flawed and non-functional, as it completely misses the key ingredient of effective narrative - a protagonist engaged in crucial decisions.

"Whether you want to play in a fantasy setting (such as The Scorpion King), a modern setting (such as Alias), or a science fiction setting (such as Stargate), the system should help you preserve the enjoyable elements of the action adventure genres while helping you create satisfying adventures in that specific setting. Essentially, structured freedom. I think I've found my new catch phrase."

You have essentially quoted from the back cover or ad copy of every generalized game design out there, regardless of system complexity, from GURPS to Fudge to JAGS to Risus to Multiverser to what-have-you. It's a worthy goal, and some of these games are design marvels. But it's not a "twist."

"How do I intend to accomplish this? I haven't figured that part out yet. But that's what makes it fun!"

See, I'm stuck on the "this." If it's doing what the games I've described already do (in their individual ways), then fine - you are joining an eminent tradition of RPG design, and should stop talking about unique this-and-that. If its doing something else, then I still don't see what that something else would be.

Best,
Ron

[Roy]

Response to Ron Edward's post:

Hey, Ron!

Ron Wrote:  
A fan, eh? With any luck the following material won't change that.

(This might have been a clue for me to get my nitroglycerin tablets ready ... )

Roy Wrote:
"No, I'm not going to try to beat the light-rules universal systems at their own game.
...
"The twist behind the system, as I see it, is the fact that it's customized to one style of play (action adventure) within any setting while helping the GM quickly create adventures that challenge and entertain."

Ron Wrote:
Reeeeally. This "twist" is precisely what Fudge, and GURPS before it, advertised as the primary selling point. Therefore I do, in fact, think that you are trying to beat these systems at their own game. (For those youngsters among you, GURPS was originally advertised as a "system-light" "easy" "fast" game).

(Hmmm ... why's my left arm tingling ....)

Neither Fudge, nor Gurps, are customized to one style of play.  They are a basic framework that allows for resolution of actions within any style of play or setting (much like my Heretic system did).

What I want to do is have the very mechanics of the system itself contribute to the flavor of the action adventure genre.  A minor distinction?  Yes, but I feel it's an important one.

Roy Wrote:  "One of the problems I want to address with this system is a lack of preparation time. I hope that the successful formulaes used to create hit action adventure movies and TV series can be utilized for creating an enjoyable and memorable adventure and/or campaign while allowing the GM to still spend time with his family."  

Ron Wrote:  Two points. (1) Those successful formulae do not exist, or rather, those formulae referred to in the industries you mention do not work. The "hit" shows rely on competent writing and production just as in any other entertainment medium; the shows which rely on formulae (usually a mindless attempt to imitate the details of the hit shows) bite the dust."

(Ungh ... left arm ... numb ... )

Ok, perhaps formulae was a poor choice of words for the concept I have.  I think "elements" would be a better choice.

What I'm striving for is to take the elements of successful shows, show the various ways they can be assembled together (like building blocks), then let the GM add his own details to this structure.  Theoretically, this should cut down design time since the GM is given the tools to structure his adventure with.  

If you don't think these shows have common elements, ask yourself these questions:
1)  Have you ever known when a plot twist was coming up but still waited on the edge of your seat to see exactly what that twist was?
2)  Have you ever seen a show, but then thought "That was good, but there was just something missing"?
3)  Have you ever leaned over to a friend and said "OH, this should be a good part" although you've never seen the movie and the scene wasn't even fully set up yet?

There are certain elements that screenwriters have found to be present in most successful action adventure films or TV series.  It's the way you assemble the elements and mix it with the individual's own details that makes the show interesting.

Ron Wrote: (2) Various role-playing games have attempted to use a "construction" approach to designing scenarios, usually a matter of rolling a subject, a verb, and an object. I consider this approach flawed and non-functional, as it completely misses the key ingredient of effective narrative - a protagonist engaged in crucial decisions.

I am not talking about taking random subjects, verbs, and objects then turning them into an adventure.  And I agree these have been totally useless in the past.

Imagine a toolbox with various elements and techniques in them.  You've been taught how to use each tool in your toolbox.  Now, you're setting down to build your adventure.  Hmm, there's an interesting plot twist ("friend has dark secret") and what's that?  Oh, and I'll have one of those too.  Now you have a basic structure to your adventure, but you haven't filled in the details yet (such as which friend has the dark secret and what that dark secret is).  

What I want to do is give the GM the structure for a good adventure:  interesting plot twists, good pacing, climax, etc.  If I do this right, the structure should give the GM the inspiration they need to fill in their own details and turn each GMs adventure into something that is uniquely their own.

Ron Wrote:  You have essentially quoted from the back cover or ad copy of every generalized game design out there, regardless of system complexity, from GURPS to Fudge to JAGS to Risus to Multiverser to what-have-you. It's a worthy goal, and some of these games are design marvels. But it's not a "twist."

( Oh God!  The world ... it's black ... mouth dry ... chest is hurting ... )

The only thing I can say is that the "twist" is the way in which the adventure design structure, campaign design structure, character creation and development, and mechanics will all work together to create a unified feel of the action adventure genre.  Maybe it's not a "twist", but I haven't seen this design goal accomplished either.  If there is a way to do it, I'll figure it out.

Roy Wrote:  "How do I intend to accomplish this? I haven't figured that part out yet. But that's what makes it fun!"

I'm perfectly honest when I tell you I don't know how I'm going to accomplish this yet.  Sure, I've got some ideas but I'm not going to let everyone rip them apart before they've had the chance to ripen.  But know this ... I will find a way even if it kills me.   I'm stubborn and a creative problem solver ... a dangerous combination.

Ron Wrote:  See, I'm stuck on the "this." If it's doing what the games I've described already do (in their individual ways), then fine - you are joining an eminent tradition of RPG design, and should stop talking about unique this-and-that. If its doing something else, then I still don't see what that something else would be.

( ... must get pills ... where's ... my ... nitro ... heart stopping ... fade to black)

Ron, what is truly "unique" about Sorceror?  You've taken the elements of a summoner (Palladium's RPG has a summoner class), combined it with a modern setting, and explored a moral question  ("The question is: can you handle it?" quoted from the Sorceror website).  By itself, none of these elements are unique.  But their combination together creates a symmetry that the seperate elements didn't have on their own.  If this is a flawed view of Sorceror, forgive me.  I am relying on what I've seen on your website.  

All I'm wanting to do is the same thing.  I hope you can appreciate that.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Roy,

Good post (and you're a good sport, too, I must say). I'll focus on a couple of the things that matter most.

I see your point about the "elements," and now that we have both stomped on the roll-for-it adventure design notion, I think we agree perfectly. Elements, or components, indeed yes. Your list of questions is very much like those I ask other people, so we're good.

But what are those elements always about? I submit that they are about something, or a very narrow range of somethings, that matter to us. I suggest that you give some thought as to bringing those somethings into existence, verbally, and using them as your yardstick for everything in the game, both down into the system-mechanics and up into the literal components or elements of a scenario. I'm talking about Premise.

For instance, the "back atcha" Sorcerer question might be construed as mildly rude, but it is definitely the key question (which excuses nearly anything). The answer is that Sorcerer works because it focuses on the Premise level, which operates between the actual-setting-scenario material (which is to be customized) and the mechanics (which only exist to make Premise happen).

Now, if you want to focus on the Premise level for the Action-Adventure type of story, and have (a) the system and (b) the elements of play clearly integrated with it, I'm all about that. I think it's the finest goal around.

Now for the necessary research, because few existing role-playing games accomplish this goal, which seems so obvious and easy, with any success at all. I think that Extreme Vengeance came very close (albeit that it used the "roll for it" adventure design that you and I both dislike), and you should give it a serious, careful read and at least three sessions of actual play. I think that Swashbuckler's combat system has lessons for everyone who wants action to be fast yet good, although it's not written very clearly. And evidently the new Pulp Adventures is garnering some praise from players, although I have not yet seen it. So that might be a good start.

To go a little more abstract or general, I suggest checking out Soap, The Pool, and InSpectres, all of which produce stunning action sequences and highly organized plot structure through (rather than before) play. I would recommend Sorcerer, but the combat/action rules in the free Apprentice are obsolete, and I can't ask someone to buy my stuff as part of a rhetorical point.

Best,
Ron

[Roy]

Hi, Ron!

It's always good to hear from you and I must say I wanted to see how you were going to respond.  Talk about a long day at work. :-)

Good post (and you're a good sport, too, I must say).

Thank you.  I really appreciate that.  You're a good sport too, Ron.  You ask some great questions ... they've got the probing quality of an expensive surgical laser. :-)

I submit that they are about something, or a very narrow range of somethings, that matter to us. I suggest that you give some thought as to bringing those somethings into existence, verbally, and using them as your yardstick for everything in the game, both down into the system-mechanics and up into the literal components or elements of a scenario. I'm talking about Premise.

I can't agree with you more.  Those elements always touch us on an emotional level, sometimes very deep within our subconcious.  The trick with this design will be touching those same chords with what matters to the PLAYERS and not just their characters.

For instance, the "back atcha" Sorcerer question might be construed as mildly rude, but it is definitely the key question (which excuses nearly anything). The answer is that Sorcerer works because it focuses on the Premise level, which operates between the actual-setting-scenario material (which is to be customized) and the mechanics (which only exist to make Premise happen).  

I'm sorry if it came off as rude.  I have nothing but respect for you.  I used Sorceror as an example because I knew it was something you could relate to on a personal level.  And that always has power.  Thank you for being a good sport about it, Ron.  

Now, if you want to focus on the Premise level for the Action-Adventure type of story, and have (a) the system and (b) the elements of play clearly integrated with it, I'm all about that. I think it's the finest goal around.

That's exactly what I'm shooting forl.  It's going to be a long bumpy road, but it's going to be a great roadtrip.

Now for the necessary research ....

Thanks for the tips here.  I've already been trying to get my hands on "Extreme Vengenace", but I hadn't heard of either "Swashbucklers" or "Pulp Adventures".  I'm also knee deep in screenwriting books.  Fun, fun, fun!

Thanks for making me really think, Ron.  I always enjoy our discussions.

Roy
roypenrod123@yahoo.com